Seize the Means of Community

Toward a Communal Commentary on the Raw Material of Shared Life
A perspective on the Communitarium Project

“In the absence of God, we found the schmooze.”
— Fragment from the Book of No One

The Communitarium and the Hunger for Shared Meaning

What if the future of political life doesn't begin with a manifesto, a blueprint, or a charismatic leader—but with a comment thread?

What if the deepest antidote to social unraveling isn’t more certainty, or more ideology, but better conversations—and better tools to sustain them?

The Communitarium Project was born from a recognition: that under technofeudal conditions, meaning itself is being enclosed. Public reason collapses into algorithmic bait. Common speech is flattened into signal. Shared language is exhausted by overuse, drained of resonance.

But the problem isn’t just political. It’s ontological. What’s at stake is our ability to interpret the world together, to live inside something like a shared reality. And what the Communitarium sets out to build—provisionally, awkwardly, experimentally—is a space in which that shared interpretation can begin again.

Not a new gospel.
A new Talmud.

What Is a Talmud (and Why Might We Need One)?

The Talmud is not a creed. It does not offer a smooth surface of agreement. It is layered, recursive, polyphonic—a living archive of commentary, dispute, and careful memory. Its power lies not in answers, but in the rigor of the questions, the intensity of attention, the generosity of argument.

It is a space where disagreement lives without rupture.
Where interpretation multiplies instead of narrows.
Where community forms not around belief, but around the shared labor of making meaning.

This is what we need now—not because we share a God, but because we do not.
Because in the absence of fixed authority, shared attention is what we have left.

So What’s the Torah?

If the Communitarium is a space of collective commentary, what are we commenting on?

There is no one text. But here are some candidates:

  • The world itself—understood not as raw data, but as already interpreted, already relational, already meaningful to someone.
  • The language we’ve inherited—thick with history, conflict, poetry, and pain.
  • The structures of everyday life—the schmooze-level negotiations where power, care, justice, and recognition actually play out.
  • The wreckage of past revolutions and the whispers of future ones.
  • The multiplicity of selves—improvising, co-invoking, always half-made.

In truth, the Torah we comment on is whatever insists that it be interpreted together.
Whatever resists solitude.
Whatever demands co-presence.

A Theology Without God

To call this project sacred is not to smuggle in the divine. It is to recognize that some things are treated as sacred because we refuse to reduce them—because we gather around them, argue over them, pass them on.

The Communitarium has no final vocabulary. No infallible authority. No orthodoxy.

What it has—what it protects—is the possibility of shared interpretation.
The infrastructure of collective intelligibility.
The right to dwell inside problems without closure.

This is not a faith.
It is a practice.
A refusal to let meaning be privatized, extracted, or algorithmically compressed.
A conviction that some forms of speech—slow, dialogic, generous—are what hold the world together.

From Commentary to Community

A Talmud for atheists is not a contradiction. It is an aspiration.

It suggests that in the absence of divine commandments, we construct obligations through dialogue.
That without prophecy, we remember carefully.
That where politics fails to deliver liberation, we create the infrastructures of mutual intelligibility—not as a workaround, but as a ground zero for transformation.

To build the Communitarium is to practice sacred world-making without metaphysical guarantees.
It is to hold open the space where difference can become dialogue, where language can become shelter, and where community can become the site of co-created meaning.

Closing Invocation

Let us write together.
Let us disagree well, remember slowly, and speak with an ear for what might be heard.

Let us treat language not as spectacle or signal, but as shared labor.

Let us build tools for commentary, for co-interpretation, for schmooze—not for the gods, but for each other.

Let us seize the means of community.
And let that be holy enough.

#SeizeTheMeansOfCommunity #TheCommunitariumProject

Comments (moderated, scroll down to view):

One of the most quietly radical aspects of the Communitarium Project is its rethinking of personhood. This is not just a matter of identity politics, nor merely a shift in psychological theory. It is a decisive move away from a long-standing civilizational inheritance—what we have elsewhere called Western idiotism.

What Is Idiotism?

The term idiotism, as adapted in the Communitarium context, does not refer to foolishness or lack of intelligence. It refers to a particular model of the individual that has dominated Western philosophy and political thought since at least the Enlightenment:

  • The individual as self-contained, self-interested, and self-justifying
  • The individual as the primary unit of reason, property, rights, and decision-making
  • The individual as a private self, fundamentally prior to society

This figure is what ancient Greek democracy called the idiōtēs: one who declines public, common life and retreats into private affairs. In this deeper sense, idiotism is not an insult but a diagnosis: a condition of ontological enclosure, where the self is imagined as its own foundation.

Even Marxism, despite its collectivist ambitions, retains residues of idiotism. The classed subject may be socially situated, but it is still often conceived as a container of ideology, awaiting correct alignment with historical necessity. The revolutionary agent is still an individual made legible by structure.

The Communitarium Project takes a different path.

The Liminal Self

To understand the liminal self fully, we must begin not with consciousness or identity, but with enrollment. In the Communitarium model, persons are best understood as beings adapted for ad hoc participation in schmooze-level Kantian wholes—ensembles that maintain their own identity by reference to the coordinated activity of their parts.

From this perspective, the self is not a monad, not an atomistic unit, not a stable substrate onto which roles or identities are layered. Rather, it is a relational organ—a dynamic interface shaped for compatibility with emergent forms of coordination.

In the language of the Symbiotic Intelligence Framework (SIF) or General Theory of Interpretive Systems (GTIS), the self is both a locus of interpretation and an agent of interpretation. It is where interpretive frameworks converge, overlap, and sometimes clash—and it is also capable of carrying those frameworks across contexts, transforming them, recomposing them, or making them available for new forms of prehension.

This makes persons less isolable than the Western tradition has imagined. The very idea of an individual as a unit separable from their ensembles is itself an artifact of enclosure: a misreading born of abstraction, not observation.

Philosophy, social science, and even Marxism have all tended to treat individuals as basic units of analysis—either to celebrate their freedom or to diagnose their conditioning. But in doing so, they often miss what the Communitarium seeks to foreground: that persons come into being not before the ensemble, but through it.

This also helps explain why consciousness is so elusive. In the Communitarium view, consciousness is not the possession of a bounded subject but a liminal process—a flickering, recursive function at the interface between selves and their ensembles. It emerges at the thresholds of coordination, where portable sociality must be negotiated, re-voiced, or carried across contexts. Consciousness is not what an individual has, but what arises at the seams of ensemble intelligibility—where it is most vulnerable to unraveling, and where it is most actively reinforced.

In this sense, the Communitarium Project runs directly counter to traditions of possessive individualism, which treat consciousness, agency, and identity as properties of discrete, self-owning entities. We propose instead that selves are real but relational, emergent but embodied, meaningful only within the recursive weave of shared interpretation.

The liminal self is defined not by what it is, but by what it carries: – Portable sociality – Contextual attunement – Fragments of shared meaning

This is the self as a kind of carrier wave—capable of sustaining ensemble coherence across contexts, while also allowing for divergence, reflection, and repair.

Hence, the liminal self is not merely in-between identities or collectives. It is structurally pre-adapted for passage, resonance, and co-constitution within dynamic ensembles. This is not fluidity for its own sake, but a kind of semiotic permeability shaped by evolutionary and cultural selection for adaptive participation in shared meaning-making.

Implications for Mutual Aid, Justice, and Governance

This reconfiguration of the self has wide-ranging consequences:

  • Mutual aid is no longer merely resource exchange but an interpretive, prehensive labor of recognition.
  • Justice becomes not adjudication between fixed selves, but the repair of damaged relational fabrics.
  • Governance shifts from law and command to viscous coordination, grounded in the recursive intelligibility of those involved.

This is not individualism. Nor is it collectivism. It is symbiotic subjectivity: a way of being that emerges from and supports the semiotic health of the ensemble.

Why It Matters Now

In a world saturated with spectacle, algorithmic identity, and weaponized individualism, idiotism has become not just a philosophical legacy but an infrastructural default. It underwrites surveillance, monetization, and disembedded politics.

To build communitaria is to challenge this default. Not with a better blueprint for the individual, but with a new mode of inhabiting interdependence.

This is why the Communitarium Project must be rooted in the rehabilitation of personhood: not through self-assertion or self-sacrifice, but through the stepwise weaving of selves into shared meaning. Through the prefigurative acts of schmoozing, co-presence, gesture, and ensemble memory.

It is not enough to change institutions. We must change the conditions under which selves become visible, legible, and capable of sustaining mutual life.

That work begins not in theory, but in every moment of prehensive recognition.

Let’s meet there.

👉 Join the conversation

Comments (moderated, scroll down to view):

When a project starts using words like commons, mutual aid, enclosure, and alienation, someone will eventually ask: Isn’t this just Communism with a new label?

It’s a fair question. And it deserves more than a reflexive denial or a knowing smirk. The Communitarium Project does share some terrain with Communism, particularly in its critique of capitalism. But what it seeks to build—and how it seeks to build it—could not be more different.

This post lays out that difference: clearly, respectfully, and without strategic ambiguity.

Shared Ground

Let’s begin where overlap exists: – Alienation: Both frameworks understand capitalism as a system that separates people from their labor, their communities, their own self-understanding, and the natural world. – Enclosure: Both regard the private seizure of common life—land, care, time, attention, expression—as a central mechanism of control. – Commons: Both imagine a future in which what is shared is protected and generative, not commodified or hoarded. – Mutuality: Both understand that coordination and care must replace competition and coercion.

So yes, both name the problem. But they diverge in how they understand its depth—and how they imagine its transformation.

Coordination and Governance

Communism, particularly in its 20th-century forms, emphasizes mass-scale coordination through: – State planning – Central authority (often party-based) – Rational control over production and distribution

The Communitarium Project, by contrast, emphasizes: – Schmooze-level deliberation – Soft protocols and reflexive governance – Ensemble intelligence at human and ecosystemic scale

Rather than seize power, the Communitarium seeks to redistribute interpretive capacity and reweave decision-making into everyday life.

We do not oppose coordination. We oppose enclosure of coordination—by the state, the algorithm, or any imagined Big Other.

The Structure of the Self

Communism tends to treat individuals as bearers of ideology or class position—shaped by material conditions, but subordinate to historical roles. The revolutionary subject is a class actor first.

The Communitarium Project begins elsewhere: – With liminal selves who navigate multiple overlapping ensembles – With mortal computation, not ideological purity – With the portable sociality individuals carry between collectives

Where Communism seeks solidarity through shared identity and position, the Communitarium seeks mutual recognition through contextual intelligibility and recursive care (reflexive, ensemble-level maintenance of care practices—material, semiotic, and interpretive—that includes but extends beyond mutual aid).

Truth and Epistemology

Communism often holds that there is an eventual clarity to be achieved: class consciousness, the scientific method properly applied, the truth of history once emancipated from ideology.

Communitarium holds that no such finality exists. – All meaning is historically situated – All sense-making is ensemble-bound – All truth is subject to social computation and interpretive repair

There is no Big Other. No final arbiter. Only the mutual weave.

Ecological Implications

Communism tends to be anthropocentric. It aims to manage nature rationally, stewarding the Earth on behalf of humanity’s collective future. Nature is a system to be understood, preserved, and utilized.

The Communitarium Project treats ecology differently: – Not as backdrop or resource, but as co-constitutive interpretive field – Nonhumans are not inputs but participants in prehensive relations – Meaning is not extracted from nature but woven through situated interaction

The goal is not sustainability-as-resource-efficiency, but recommoning the interpretive relation with the living world.

Means and Method

Communism favors rupture: – Seize the means of production – Overthrow the capitalist class – Replace the old with the new

Communitarium favors stepwise weaving: – Build new interpretive infrastructure – Reintroduce social and symbolic protocols of mutuality – Create communitaria that gradually displace capitalist and statist dependencies

This is a recursive, relational revolution—one that proceeds through recomposition, not rupture.

Intellectual Lineages

Communism emerges from: – Marxism and dialectical materialism – Enlightenment rationalism – Hegelian notions of historical becoming

The Communitarium Project draws from: – A longer historical view of power, enclosure, and abstraction, treating capitalism (and now technofeudalism) not as exceptional ruptures but as continuations of broader civilizational patterns—particularly those involving the enclosure of meaning, land, and relationality – Ethnomethodology and micro-sociology – Semiotics and pragmatism – Feminist care ethics – Complexity theory and ensemble cognition – Decolonial and Indigenous philosophies

Where Communism seeks historical mastery, Communitarium seeks semiotic mutuality.

Capitalism-Erosion, State-Erosion

Both frameworks reject capitalism. But Communism often imagines replacing it with a planned economy enforced by a transitional state.

The Communitarium Project envisions capitalism-erosion and state-erosion as twin projects: – Not through seizure or collapse, but through displacement and irrelevance – By building commons so dense, reflexive, and durable that extractive systems fade – Through lived coordination that no longer depends on capitalist or statist infrastructure

We don’t overthrow the state. We stop needing it.

In Summary

Axis Communism Communitarium
Coordination Central planning Ensemble intelligence
Governance State, party Soft protocols, schmoozing
Selfhood Classed subject Liminal node in ensembles
Truth Scientific clarity, class consciousness Mortal computation, interpretive repair
Ecology Rational stewardship Co-constructed semiotic entanglement
Strategy Rupture, revolution Stepwise weaving, recomposition
Lineage Marxism, Enlightenment, Hegel Ethnomethodology, care, semiotics, decolonial thought

A Final Word

The Communitarium Project doesn’t dismiss Communism. It honors the clarity of its critique. But it steps off its path.

We don’t want to seize the world. We want to live in it together, differently.

That means restoring what was obscured: the ensemble, the interaction, the fragile rhythms of mutual intelligibility. It means treating meaning itself as commons. And building the infrastructure that lets us maintain it.

If that’s a revolution, it will sound quieter than most.

The conversation has begun: 👉 Join it here

#TheCommunitariumProject

Comments (moderated, scroll down to view):

Let’s get this out of the way: the name Communitarium does sound suspiciously like a boutique rebranding of communitarianism. Maybe something you’d hear at a TEDx talk or see on a flyer at a community co-op. Is it just another attempt to rescue society with warm vibes and nostalgic appeals to “shared values”?

Absolutely not.

The Communitarium Project is something else entirely. While it shares a concern for community, it does not share communitarianism’s assumptions, goals, or ideological anchors. In fact, it begins with a radical departure: what if the very idea of community has been enclosed, emptied out, or falsely idealized? What if building real alternatives requires more than reviving old forms—and instead demands new kinds of spaces, new logics of relation, and new semiotic and informational infrastructures?

What Is Communitarianism, Anyway?

Communitarianism emerged as a critique of liberal individualism. Its central thesis is that individuals don’t exist in a vacuum—they're shaped by communities, traditions, and moral frameworks. That sounds pretty reasonable, and it is. But in practice, communitarianism has often leaned toward:

  • A focus on shared values rooted in tradition or culture,

  • Emphasis on duties over rights,

  • A skeptical stance toward pluralism and radical change, and

  • A preference for social cohesion over social complexity.

Even in its more progressive variants, it tends to romanticize locality, moral consensus, and stable norms.

What’s Different About the Communitarium Project?

The Communitarium Project flips the script. Instead of assuming community as a given—something to return to—it treats it as a hard-won, living, ongoing creation. A communitarium is not a moral order. It’s a living platform: a space where people create shared meanings, solve shared problems, and negotiate shared realities.

Here’s what sets it apart:

1. Invention Over Inheritance

Community is not something we go back to—it’s something we build. Not from scratch, but from the ruins and fragments around us. The -arium suffix (as in laboratorium, aquarium, planetarium) implies an enclosed, generative environment. A communitarium is a vessel for experimentation in how humans can live, think, and act together—without defaulting to inherited hierarchies or fixed identities.

2. From Sociality, Not Ideology

The project doesn’t begin with values or doctrines. It begins with a deeper exploration of how social interaction itself works—how meaning is co-created, how interpretive frameworks emerge and shift, and how attention, trust, and relevance are sustained in everyday life. It draws on a theory called the Symbiotic Intelligence Framework (SIF) that understands communities as dynamic information ensembles, not static moral groups.

3. Reclaiming the Semiotic Commons

Much of what once constituted shared reality—conversation, care, cultural memory—has been enclosed, privatized, and algorithmically managed. The Communitarium Project aims to counter-enclose: not just reclaiming spaces, but re-engineering infrastructures of communication, deliberation, and mutual intelligibility. The goal isn’t just to talk—it’s to make action possible, together.

4. Coherence Without Conformity

Rather than enforcing cohesion through shared values, the communitarium nurtures coherence through dialogue. It’s about making difference livable and meaningful—not erased, not tolerated, but integrated into a shared world through practices of listening, deliberating, and co-designing collective life.

So Why the Name?

Because no existing term quite captured this.

  • “Commons” evokes open resources, but not active communities.

  • “Platform” evokes software, not solidarity.

  • “Collective” suggests action, but not place.

  • “Community” is too often vague, romanticized, or depoliticized.

The word communitarium is meant to reclaim community as a site of invention, not nostalgia—a crucible where new modes of being-together can be designed, tested, and lived.

In Short

The Communitarium Project is not a call to return to community—it’s a call to re-invent it.

It doesn’t begin with values—it begins with environments. It doesn’t enforce consensus—it cultivates coherence. It doesn’t pine for tradition—it engineers new ways to hold each other, understand each other, and act in common.

In a world where meaning is fractured and solidarity is rare, the project isn’t offering another ideology. It’s offering a space.

Let’s build it.

But maybe you're wondering: Where is this project? Who runs it? Is there anywhere to join in?

That hesitation makes sense. It reflects the reflex to seek form—somewhere to enter, someone in charge, some clear beginning. But part of what the Communitarium Project is trying to surface is how our desire for structure has so often been captured by enclosure—by platforms, leaders, final vocabularies, branded visions. So for now, the answer is deliberately light:

The Communitarium is not a product. It’s a threshold.
Not an organization, but a co-emergent infrastructure.
Not something you join, but something you begin to help cohere.

It starts in shared conversations. In collaborative sense-making. In the attempt to metabolize meaning together with care, without defaulting to abstraction or spectacle. It is what begins to emerge when we re-learn how to interpret in common—without appealing to the Big Other, the algorithm, or the market to settle things for us.

So where is it?

Right now, it lives in ideas, in blog posts, in long threads and recursive exchanges. But it’s not staying there. And in fact, it’s beginning to gather shape in the form of an open discussion space—a Matrix chatroom for those interested in the project’s concepts, proposals, and trajectories.

If you’d like to schmooze, question, co-weave, or find anothe way to participate, you're welcome to join here:

👉 Communitarium Matrix Chatroom (if you already have a Matrix client, join #Introduction:communitarium.org)

This space is for: – Discussing the blog posts and glossaries as they emerge, – Extending and challenging the concepts, – Sharing existing related efforts, – Thinking aloud about infrastructure and next steps.

There's no agenda. No form to fill out. No fixed tone, beyond civility (and, hopefully, good humor).
Just an open weave for people who sense something here—something worth tending together.

So yes: it’s beginning, if you participate.

#TheCommunitariumProject

Comments (moderated, scroll down to view):

Trumpism isn't old fascism reborn—it's fascism recomposed for the digital age: grievance as policy, spectacle as governance, and symbolic violence scaled without constraint. April 2, “Liberation Day,” marked a shift from trade to retribution, rhetoric to ritual. The enclosures are gone—what comes next?

Donald Trump is not a Nazi.
But Trumpism cannot be understood outside the semiotic architecture that has always underpinned fascist formations—grievance turned into identity, enemies turned into policy, spectacle turned into governance.

What’s different now isn’t just the content of this politics. It’s the infrastructure that allows it to form, spread, and sustain itself—not through ideology or institution, but through affective fidelity and semiotic warfare.

Trumpism is not fascism reborn. It is fascism recomposed, in an age where meaning itself has become a battleground.

I. “Liberation Day” and the Politics of Punishment

In the weeks leading up to April 2, 2025, Donald Trump began referring to that date as “Liberation Day.” Commentators braced for impact. The markets wobbled. Foreign leaders issued warnings. The message was clear: this would not be a policy announcement—it would be a symbolic rupture, a dramatic reversal of course for the American economy and its place in the world.

On that day, the Trump administration unveiled a sweeping set of so-called “reciprocal tariffs.” But these were not reciprocal in any meaningful economic sense. They were calculated using a retributive formula: halving the U.S. trade deficit with each country and dividing it by that country’s exports to the U.S., guaranteeing a minimum tariff of 10%. The actual outcome was economically unpredictable but symbolically precise: it declared that the U.S. would no longer play by the rules of interdependence—it would punish those who had, in Trump’s telling, taken advantage of its generosity.

This was not economic strategy. It was ritualized grievance. “Liberation Day” was framed as the moment when America threw off its chains—chains of globalism, of diplomacy, of negotiation—and asserted its dominance through calculated injury.

This logic extends well beyond tariffs. Trump has repeatedly suggested that Canada should become the 51st U.S. state, and has revived the fantasy that the U.S. might simply “take Greenland.” These are not idle provocations. They are semiotic incursions: they naturalize the idea that American greatness means surrounding countries are provisional, absorbable, and properly subject to U.S. will.

This is Lebensraum by suggestion—not through military conquest, but through perceptual annexation and symbolic absorption.

II. The Personification of Systemic Grievance

Trumpism does not explain economic decline or cultural disorientation in systemic terms. It translates vague, collective unease into targeted, personified threats.

  • Economic insecurity becomes “the immigrant invasion.”
  • Cultural discomfort becomes “transgender ideology.”
  • Public protest becomes “terrorism.”
  • Journalism becomes “treason.”
  • Education becomes “indoctrination.”

This dynamic is ancient. Across cultures, people have long responded to uncertainty and disorder by attaching blame to recognizable figures: neighbors, outcasts, strangers, “the corrupt,” “the impure,” “the possessed.” In many small-scale societies—documented in anthropological fieldwork—witchcraft accusations arise within face-to-face communities where everyone knows everyone else. In these contexts, symbolic violence operates without anonymity, and its consequences, however unjust, are entangled in ongoing social life.

But even this intimacy never guaranteed justice—only proximity. As societies scale up and stratify, the social distance between accuser and accused increases. Blood libel, emerging in medieval Europe, marks a turning point: here, accusers and targets no longer share daily life or mutual visibility. Jews, confined to ghettos and marked as “other,” could be accused en masse of ritual crimes. The accusation required no familiarity, no interpersonal knowledge—only stereotype and systematized fear.

Trumpism operates at the far end of this arc. In today’s digitally fragmented, media-amplified society, symbolic violence no longer requires any direct contact, shared space, or even basic knowledge of the accused. A trans teenager in a different state becomes the target of a national panic. A school librarian is turned into a symbol of indoctrination by people she will never meet. The tools of accusation have become portable, anonymous, and instantly scalable.

What once took a whisper in the village square now takes a keystroke.

Trumpism didn’t invent this transformation. But it is the most effective political formation yet to emerge from the convergence of social alienation, media saturation, and symbolic dispossession.

III. The Erosion of Tacit Consensus

It’s often said that Trumpism wages war on truth. But this is not quite right. The more telling damage occurs at the level of tacit consensus—the unspoken agreements that allow people to treat certain things as stable enough to act upon together.

These include:

  • That elections are counted and results accepted.
  • That journalists, however flawed, generally report rather than conspire.
  • That institutions may be biased but operate according to rules.
  • That shared words—“fact,” “law,” “citizen”—still mean something.

These forms of consensus are not epistemological commitments. They are social affordances—the minimal conditions of collective coordination.

Trumpism corrodes this not by replacing it with a new framework, but by eroding confidence in every framework at once. It floods the field with counter-claims, mockery, conspiracy, and dismissal. What’s left is fidelity to tribe rather than belief in the world.

IV. The Internet as an Engine of Symbolic Dispossession

The internet did not invent symbolic violence. But it unleashed it—decontextualized it, accelerated it, and freed it from reciprocity.

Historically, symbolic power—especially the power to define, accuse, exclude—was enclosed within institutions. Law, religion, media, and bureaucracy created hierarchies of interpretation and enforcement. This enclosure was exclusionary, but it also created friction and procedure.

Now, that enclosure has collapsed. Everyone has access to the tools, but no one bears the burden of stewardship.

  • Accusation is instantaneous.
  • Amplification is algorithmic.
  • Interpretation is fragmented.
  • Retraction is irrelevant.

What was once gossip or ritual is now broadcast globally and memetically weaponized. What was once a muttered accusation in the village square is now a trending hashtag.

Trumpism thrives in this environment—not as a cause, but as a synchronizing field. It does not need coherence. It needs only affective alignment: fear, resentment, scorn, and pride.

V. Absurdity as Tactical Ambiguity

When Trump says something inflammatory or incoherent, he rarely clarifies. He leaves meaning hovering.

  • “He’s just joking.”
  • “He’s just saying what we’re all thinking.”
  • “He doesn’t really mean it.”
  • “It’s a distraction.”

This ambiguity is not sloppy communication. It is a method of dispersing interpretive responsibility. The audience does the work of decoding—or refusing to. This allows the effects to accumulate—incitement, resentment, polarization—without any one statement being clearly actionable.

This is semiotic saturation: creating a haze in which speech circulates without anchoring, but always in the direction of domination and fidelity.

Conclusion: A New Semiotic Architecture of Power

Trumpism is not merely a political movement. It is a semiotic regime—an emergent structure of meaning-making, loyalty-building, and system-undermining, made possible by the breakdown of older enclosures and the rise of digital symbolic force.

It redeploys ancient tactics—scapegoating, grievance, purification—but under conditions that maximize their reach and remove their limits.

This is not Nazism, redux. It is something adapted to the present: fascism without uniforms, authoritarianism by meme, expansionism through suggestion, repression through ambiguity.

To respond, we must do more than refute it. We must reclaim the capacity for shared interpretation, rebuild spaces of mutual accountability, and grasp what it means to live in a time when symbolic power has escaped its old containers.

April 2 was called “Liberation Day.”

The real question is: liberation from what—and into what kind of world?

#TrumpAndMAGA

Comments (moderated, scroll down to view):

Cults create deep commitment and social cohesion, but they also rely on coercion, ideological rigidity, and hierarchical control. The Communitarium Project seeks to harness the strengths of cult-like communities—meaningful engagement, shared purpose, and counter-hegemonic vision—while avoiding their pitfalls. building solidarity without becoming insular, authoritarian, or dogmatic.

The Communitarium Project is an effort to foster deep, engaged, and meaning-generating communities without replicating the manipulative and authoritarian structures that often define cultic formations. To build something that truly resists social fragmentation, we need a strong sense of collective purpose—but we also need to ensure that commitment does not slide into coercion, and that shared meaning does not ossify into dogma.

This challenge is particularly pronounced in the digital sphere, where online communities struggle to strike a balance between meaningful engagement and ideological rigidity. Given that communitaria will initially exist as digital spaces, before evolving into real-world infrastructures, we must carefully consider how online dynamics shape commitment, identity, and power.

The Appeal of Cult-Like Structures

Cults are remarkably effective at fostering deep social cohesion and intense collective purpose—qualities that communitaria also aim to cultivate, but in a way that remains open-ended and non-coercive. Some of the elements that cults get right include:

  • A strong sense of belonging – Cults make individuals feel uniquely valued, embedded in something larger than themselves. Communitaria must achieve this without requiring submission to authority or ideological purity.
  • Symbolic and ritual engagement – While cults often use ritual as a mechanism of control, symbolic practices—storytelling, shared commitments, participatory deliberation—can reinforce communal bonds without dogma.
  • A counter-narrative to the dominant culture – Cults thrive by positioning themselves as revolutionary alternatives to a corrupt system. Communitaria, too, must challenge hegemonic individualism, but in a way that remains self-critical rather than sliding into insularity.

These factors explain why cult-like energy can be compelling, particularly in fragmented, alienating societies where people are desperate for real connection and collective power. But if communitaria are to endure as ethical and participatory communities, they must avoid the authoritarian tendencies that often arise when groups seek to preserve their internal coherence at all costs.

Where Cults Go Wrong—and How to Avoid It

The dangers of cultic structures are well-known: hierarchical control, coercive belonging, epistemic closure, and the demonization of outsiders. These tendencies can manifest in online communities just as easily as in physical ones. Some specific risks to be aware of:

  1. Leaderships and Power Accumulation – Most cults revolve around an unquestioned leader or hierarchical elite who centralizes interpretive power. In contrast, communitaria must be radically decentralized, ensuring that leadership roles are temporary, accountable, and distributed. Digital spaces must avoid the gravitational pull of personality cults—even charismatic figures should be subject to community critique.
  2. Epistemic Closure and Ideological Rigidity – Cults maintain control by sealing off members from dissenting viewpoints and punishing those who question the narrative. Online communities often fall into a similar trap, where engagement is filtered through algorithmic reinforcement loops that create ideological purity spirals. Communitaria must resist these enclosures by institutionalizing debate, dissent, and interpretive flexibility.
    • Instead of having sacred texts or dogmas, meaning must remain an open, living process.
    • Disagreement should be a feature, not a failure—structured into communal deliberation rather than seen as a threat to coherence.

  3. Us vs. Them Thinking – Cultic formations rely on demonizing the outside world to keep members bound together. While communitaria must necessarily critique the dominant order, they must not become self-isolated enclaves that see all outsiders as adversaries. This is especially important online, where polarization is actively encouraged by platform dynamics. Communitaria must:

    • Build bridges with other communities rather than fortifying ideological barriers.
    • Engage outwardly rather than defensively, recognizing that cosmopolitanism strengthens rather than weakens solidarity.

  4. Psychological Manipulation & Dependency – Cults manufacture dependency, making members feel that they cannot exist outside of the group. Online communities often replicate this dynamic by making platform participation central to members’ identities. Communitaria must provide real agency, not manufactured dependency:

    • Membership must be active but voluntary—engagement should be meaningful, not performative or compulsory.
    • Members should feel free to step away, shift their level of participation, and engage without fear of exclusion or retaliation.
    • Privacy must be respected, ensuring that participation does not turn into surveillance or social control.

Starting Online: Unique Challenges & Safeguards

The fact that communitaria will initially exist in digital spaces brings specific risks:

  • Hyper-visible online personas can lead to performative rather than genuine participation.
  • Echo-chamber effects can make internal discourse brittle and resistant to critique.
  • The rapid spread of information can turn minor disputes into public crises.

To counter these risks, communitaria must establish early safeguards:

  1. Radical Transparency – No hidden power structures, no secretive decision-making.
  2. Deliberative Ethics – A culture of slow thinking and collective inquiry rather than knee-jerk reactions.
  3. Soft Boundaries – Membership should be fluid, not rigidly enclosed—a network rather than a sect.

Final Thought: Cult Energy Without Cult Control

The Communitarium Project aims to build strong, participatory, and deeply engaged communities without replicating the rigid, coercive, and dogmatic structures of cultic formations.

A guiding question: Are we creating a space where people feel empowered and free, or one where they feel controlled and obligated?

If the answer ever tilts toward the latter, we must have the courage to dismantle and rethink our structures—always prioritizing openness, flexibility, and the continuous negotiation of meaning.

#TheCommunitariumProject

Comments (moderated, scroll down to view):

a reflection toward the ethos of communitaria

Winning should not be the purpose of organizing. It should be a by-product.

But this is not a call for quietism, nor a dismissal of what many now face as existential threats. In the present moment—when hard-won rights are being rolled back, when institutions are captured by oligarchy, when the ruling order criminalizes dissent and encroaches on every form of collective life—winning is often a necessity. Sometimes survival depends on it.

There are times when winning means stopping a pipeline, freeing someone from prison, securing a ceasefire, defending a clinic, preventing a ban, resisting a coup. In such moments, organizing must win—or people suffer irreparably.

But that is precisely why we must be careful.

When organizing is consumed by winning, its soul begins to shrink. It adopts the tempo of campaigns rather than lifeways. It treats people as assets or voters rather than as participants in the shaping of shared meaning. It focuses on resisting power, not building power. And worst of all, it may forget to ask what kind of world we want to live in beyond the struggle.

So yes, we fight to win. But we must also refuse to let “winning” become the only thing we know how to do.

Capitalism encourages us to think in terms of winning—as market share, as domination, as victory over others. Even the most well-meaning left movements often internalize this competitive frame, speaking of “winning power” as though the goal were to inherit the throne rather than dismantle the castle. We fall into cycles of mobilization driven by urgency, moral crisis, and the desire to defeat an enemy—but without building durable alternatives in how we live, work, care, and relate. We become crisis-chasers. The campaign never ends. The election never ends. The fundraising never ends.

The Communitarium Project begins elsewhere. It starts from the intuition that we cannot outcompete capitalism on its own terrain. We must change the terrain. Not with slogans, not with purity tests, not with aesthetic defiance—but by building environments of shared life that allow for collective agency, mutual care, and meaningful deliberation to flourish. These are the conditions under which real freedom grows—not as individual autonomy floating in space, but as the lived experience of shaping the world together.

This means organizing not toward a win, but toward a way of life. A socialist lifestyle, if we must use that word, is not primarily about consumption choices or moral consistency—it’s about how we make meaning together. It’s about restoring the infrastructures of reciprocity and repair that capitalism has eroded. It’s about cultivating an “us” robust enough to withstand fragmentation, capture, and despair. And that “us” cannot be built by tactical maneuvers alone.

In this sense, the fixation on “winning” is not just a strategic error. It is a symptom of idiotism—in the classical sense, where the idiot is one who retreats into the private sphere and disengages from collective life. Modern idiotism doesn’t always look like retreat; it often takes the form of constant activity, performative outrage, or solitary moral heroism. But it remains private in effect. It does not bind us together in common purpose. It does not help us stay with each other when things get hard.

The Communitarium Project resists this idiotism by reclaiming the local, the dialogic, the schmooze-level reality of human life. It proposes that we need not just movements, but places—communitaria—where people live, argue, experiment, and grow together. Where political action is not separated from the daily processes of storytelling, caregiving, and collective sense-making. Where success is measured not by how decisively we win the next battle, but by how deeply we embed shared agency into the structure of our days.

This is also a challenge to the language of the left. So much of it is borrowed from war, from management, from academic critique. We talk about “mobilizing” people, “deploying” strategies, “leveraging” movements, “seizing” opportunities. These metaphors betray us. They frame the world in terms of resources and threats, not relationships and possibility. They obscure the slow, patient, dialogic work of reweaving a frayed social fabric.

The Communitarium vision calls for different metaphors—of gardening, tending, fermenting, assembling, repairing. These are not metaphors of passivity. They are metaphors of durability. They suggest a politics not of conquest, but of cultivation.

And if we do this well—if we build spaces where people come alive to each other again—then yes, victories may come. But they will come as by-products of coherence, not as prizes wrested from our enemies. They will come because we have remembered how to live together, and because no system—however powerful—can stand against a people who have done that.

#TheCommunitariumProject

Comments (moderated, scroll down to view):

The Democratic Socialists of America, especially in major urban chapters like NYC-DSA, has become a formidable presence. It has helped elect socialist-aligned candidates, mobilized around labor and tenant struggles, and consistently shown up at pivotal demonstrations. Its members are often among the most principled, capable, and hardworking organizers in left-wing spaces today. And yet, despite all this activity, DSA remains more formative than transformative.

To put it provocatively: DSA functions less like a revolutionary political organization and more like an adult, socialist scouting movement. It fosters solidarity, builds competencies, and cultivates a kind of ethical-political citizenship. But its structure and strategic habits suggest that it prepares its members for a world that never arrives. It produces scouts without a campaign, comrades without a horizon.

This isn't a dismissal. The scouting analogy is not meant as a slight. Scouting organizations are, in many ways, admirable: they emphasize practical skills, moral development, mutual support, and local leadership. But they do so within a largely unchallenged framework. They teach people to navigate a world, not to remake it. And DSA, at its best, has excelled at helping people navigate a hostile, alienating, and unjust society—building moral stamina and organizing competence. But the question remains: toward what end?

The organization’s activities—electoral campaigns, tenant organizing, strike support, protest mobilization—are laudable in themselves. DSA also pursues concrete policy goals that, at first glance, seem to edge closer to the kind of envisioning we claim is lacking—for example, the BPRA proposal for public renewable energy. But these efforts, too, are often carried out in parallel rather than in integration. Mutual aid efforts do not necessarily feed into electoral education. Campaign infrastructure is rarely redeployed for building durable communal life. Even DSA’s most successful chapters seem to lack a unifying strategic theory beyond the moral imperative to act. The result is a vast, talented body of organizers whose efforts rarely cohere into cumulative, systemic counter-power.

This fragmentation is not simply a matter of strategy. It is also a matter of political psychology. DSA, like many left movements, has grown rapidly by gathering together people disillusioned with capitalism but not necessarily aligned around a shared vision of what comes next. In this way, DSA is structurally incentivized to keep its future blurry. Too much specificity could prompt rupture. A detailed vision might cause as many members to leave as it inspires to stay. So the organization remains safely capacious, organized around shared grievances and ethical sensibilities more than strategic clarity.

But vagueness comes at a cost. Without a shared horizon, it's nearly impossible to accumulate power across time and scale. The competencies DSA cultivates do not feed into a post-capitalist infrastructure—they circulate within the organization, forming a kind of ethical holding pattern. The result is a paradox: a movement that builds capacity but not trajectory. It gathers strength but doesn't translate that strength into a transformative counter-system.

This is the scouting trap. DSA builds up the best of us, but does not yet build beyond us. It creates refuge, not rupture. Formation, not transition. Without a different kind of vision—a riskier, more integrative one—it may keep developing socialist scouts long after the campfire of capitalism has burned through the forest.

#SeizeTheMeansOfCommunity #CommunitariumProject #DSA

Comments (moderated, scroll down to view):

For centuries, academia—especially its most prestigious institutions—has positioned itself as the gatekeeper of intelligence, merit, and social value. It has operated as an enclosure, defining who counts as “intelligent,” who deserves access to status and opportunity, and who holds the authority to shape public knowledge. Degrees and credentials have been treated as markers of moral and intellectual worth, justifying access to influence, power, and higher social standing.

But this system is facing a profound crisis, one born not from a single cause but from a series of betrayals, contradictions, and systemic failures. AI is just one factor accelerating a collapse that has been long in the making.

Academia as Enclosure

For generations, academic institutions have served as enclosures that control access to social power. By determining who earns credentials, who produces knowledge, and who gains entry to the “inner circle” of expertise, they have shaped the very meaning of merit and intelligence. But this enclosure has always been artificial. Intelligence, as academia has defined it, has been deeply shaped by cultural biases, class structures, and historical exclusions.

This is not just about who is accepted into prestigious programs, but about which forms of knowledge are legitimized, who gets to be heard, and what counts as “real” scholarship. It’s about who gets to produce narratives that shape society and who is excluded from the conversation.

The Betrayal of Ideals

The crisis facing academia is not merely about external technological pressures but about its betrayal of its own proclaimed ideals. Recent examples lay bare the extent of this failure:

  • Suppression of Free Speech and Democratic Values: Columbia University's suspension, expulsion, and revocation of degrees for 22 students who protested in support of Palestinian peoples is a stark example of how academic institutions have betrayed their professed commitment to democratic discourse and free expression. Rather than fostering critical engagement, academia is actively silencing dissent to maintain institutional alignment with dominant power structures.

  • The Replication Crisis: The “publish or perish” culture has fueled a replication crisis across numerous academic disciplines. Under pressure to meet narrow, reductive criteria of “merit” and “success,” researchers have produced work that is increasingly unreliable, driven by the need for quantifiable outputs rather than meaningful insight. The system values quantity over quality, compliance over criticality.

  • Exploitation of Academic Labor: Academia has also proven to be an exploitative employer. The adjunct professor system, where highly educated individuals are paid poverty wages without benefits or job security, exemplifies how the institution values profit and efficiency over fairness and intellectual integrity. This is not an aberration but a structural feature of the modern university.

  • AI as a Disruptive Force: AI further challenges the legitimacy of academic systems. If AI can replicate many forms of academic output—from research summaries to essays—then the value of credentialed labor as a marker of merit erodes. AI is not the cause of academia's crisis but a harsh light exposing its long-standing weaknesses.

Academia's Defensive Response

Rather than confronting these crises, academia often responds by reinforcing its enclosures:

  • Gatekeeping Discourse: Institutions suppress controversial discourse and punish dissent under the guise of maintaining “order” or “academic standards,” betraying their proclaimed commitment to open inquiry.

  • Valorizing Process Over Insight: Institutions elevate methodologies and procedural rigor as shields against critique, even as these processes produce unreliable, redundant, and exclusionary work.

  • Defending Institutional Prestige: The prestige of traditional academic institutions is presented as self-evident proof of their value, despite the ways that prestige reflects historical exclusion, economic privilege, and complicity with power.

These defenses are not about protecting intellectual rigor but about preserving authority and the structures of power that depend on academic enclosure.

Reclaiming the Purpose of Knowledge

The crisis facing academia is an opportunity to rethink how we value knowledge and how we structure learning communities. The intelligence-merit link is already broken, and academia must now confront hard questions:

  • What is the Purpose of Higher Education? If education is no longer about credentialing intelligence, what should it be about? Should it be about cultivating mutual learning, collective problem-solving, and social engagement?

  • What Counts as Valuable Knowledge? If academic knowledge is no longer privileged by virtue of its institutional enclosure, how can we elevate more diverse, emergent, and community-grounded ways of knowing?

  • Who Gets to Create and Share Knowledge? Should academic institutions continue to gatekeep knowledge production, or should we prioritize more open, participatory, and collective models of inquiry?

  • What Becomes of Expertise? If expertise is less about individual credentials and more about collective interpretive capacity, how should authority and knowledge be shared and cultivated in community?

The Communitarium as Counter-Enclosure

The Communitarium can be an experimental alternative to traditional academia—a site that rejects the intelligence-merit narrative and the sacralization of academic prestige. It offers a model for mutual, emergent, and relational knowledge-making that is free from the hierarchies of traditional institutions.

  • Mutual Learning Spaces: The Communitarium is not about certifying intelligence. It’s about cultivating spaces where people learn from each other, hold complexity together, and deliberate in mutual, open-ended ways.

  • Resisting Knowledge Gatekeeping: It resists the tendency to define legitimate knowledge through rigid methodologies or institutional conventions. Instead, it values diverse insights, practical experiences, and emergent collective reasoning.

  • Valuing Process Over Prestige: The Communitarium doesn't measure value by outcomes, credentials, or institutional status. It values the process of inquiry, mutual care, and shared meaning-making.

  • Democratizing Expertise: It treats expertise as a communal capacity, developed through deliberation and mutual understanding, rather than as a scarce resource controlled by credentialed authorities.

Conclusion: The Collapse as Opportunity

AI didn’t break academia. Neither did any single scandal or betrayal. Academia’s collapse is the result of a long history of complicity, exploitation, and enclosure—a system that has betrayed its own ideals and reduced intelligence and merit to narrow, exclusionary categories.

The collapse of this fiction is an opportunity to rethink how we value knowledge, how we share it, and how we create spaces for collective learning and understanding.

The choice is clear. We can double down on the illusions that have protected exclusion, hierarchy, and prestige, or we can begin constructing new, mutual counter-enclosures that prioritize openness, deliberation, and collective emergence.

The Communitarium is an experiment in the latter. It is an invitation to imagine learning and knowledge differently—not as markers of merit, but as practices of mutual engagement and shared becoming.

#TheCommunitariumProject

Comments (moderated, scroll down to view):

For centuries, societies have relied on the presumption that “intelligence” is a natural marker of “merit”—a justification for status, wealth, authority, and influence. Intelligence has been coded as a scarce resource, a sacred trait that legitimizes power and hierarchy. The smarter you are, the more you deserve. The greater your intelligence, the greater your right to influence and reward.

This logic has been particularly influential in justifying the special status of the managerial and executive class. These roles have been elevated on the assumption that they require rare and exceptional intelligence—the capacity to “see the big picture,” to “strategize,” and to “lead.” Managerial power is portrayed as an inevitable outcome of superior cognitive ability, strategic insight, and the ability to manage complexity. This framing is central to how hierarchy justifies itself.

But this foundational myth is collapsing, and AI is accelerating its demise.

The rise of advanced AI systems threatens to expose a long-standing cultural illusion: that intelligence, as traditionally defined, is inherently tied to moral worth, social merit, or deservingness. As AI grows capable of performing tasks historically reserved for the “intelligent”—writing, coding, composing, analyzing, and even strategic planning—it becomes harder to maintain the fiction that these abilities are signs of virtue or deep human value.

The uncomfortable truth is that much of what society has valorized as “intelligence” is reducible to processes of pattern recognition, task execution, and repetition—things AI can now do at scale, without consciousness, morality, or merit. The emergence of AI forces a reckoning: if machines can perform these tasks without deserving status or reward, why have humans—especially the managerial class—been so richly rewarded for doing the same?

Intelligence as Narrative Enclosure

The presumed connection between intelligence and merit has been one of the dominant narrative enclosures of modernity. It is a crypto-theological belief—one that sacralizes intelligence as a marker of human worth, progress, and inevitability. It underwrites the mythology of meritocracy: the belief that those who succeed in society do so because they “deserve” it, because they are smarter, better, more capable.

The executive and managerial class has been the ultimate beneficiary of this mythology. The ability to “lead,” “decide,” and “envision” has been framed as the highest form of intelligence, deserving of the highest rewards. But AI disrupts this story. It reveals that intelligence, at least as measured by performance in certain tasks, is not a marker of moral virtue or social contribution. Intelligence is mechanical, procedural, replicable. Strategic analysis, predictive modeling, and decision optimization—all traits that have been used to justify managerial supremacy—are tasks AI can perform without merit, meaning, or consciousness.

The System’s Defensive Response

Rather than accepting this collapse, we can expect systems of power to respond with narrative defense mechanisms. They will attempt to salvage the illusion of merit by doubling down on new forms of enclosure:

  • Redefining Merit: Human intelligence will be reframed as more “authentic,” “moral,” or “creative” than machine intelligence. Managerial roles will be mythologized as uniquely dependent on “vision,” “judgment,” or “character” even as these traits become indistinguishable from algorithmic processing.

  • Moralizing AI: The narrative will shift to portray AI as dangerous, lacking in humanity, and morally suspect. The system will suggest that humans, by virtue of their inherent moral character, deserve continued power and reward, even as AI performs the labor they once did.

  • Elevating Control Over Merit: As the illusion of intelligence collapses, systems will seek legitimacy not by claiming moral merit but by emphasizing control. The right to wield AI will become the new ground of social privilege. Those who “control the risk” will claim the right to control the rewards.

  • Gatekeeping Creativity and Leadership: There will be a renewed effort to protect traditional markers of human leadership and vision, not by expanding access but by reinforcing institutional control. Only certain decisions, strategies, or insights will be deemed “authentic,” while AI-generated plans will be dismissed as imitation—even though much of managerial decision-making is already patterned, procedural, and derivative.

The Deeper Threat: Revealing Merit as Fiction

But the real threat is not that AI will outcompete humans in the labor market. The deeper threat is that AI will reveal how hollow the merit system has been all along.

If AI can write, code, strategize, or analyze without consciousness or moral character, then why have these capacities been treated as indicators of worth in human societies? Why have they justified higher pay, greater status, or disproportionate power? Why has the managerial class been positioned as inherently deserving of control and reward, when their role has often been to aggregate, process, and replicate information?

The answer is uncomfortable: because intelligence, as it's been socially constructed, has always served as an enclosure. It has been a way to justify and reproduce inequality. It has been a tool to gatekeep who has access to value, reward, and recognition. And AI exposes this mechanism by replicating “intelligent” outputs without any claim to deservingness.

Toward a Post-Merit Framework

This moment demands a radical reframing of how we think about value and worth. If AI shows us that intelligence does not equate to merit, then we must rethink what truly matters in human systems.

  • Mutuality Over Merit: Value must be rooted in mutual contribution, care, and collective engagement—not in isolated outputs or competitive status. Mutual aid, not performance metrics, becomes the basis for collective thriving.

  • Plasticity Over Intelligence: The capacity for mutual interpretation, deliberation, and collective problem-solving becomes more important than cognitive speed or technical proficiency. Value emerges from how we hold complexity together, not from how quickly we produce answers.

  • Collective Emergence Over Individual Genius: Rather than valorizing individual achievement, we can focus on how value emerges through collective processes—how knowledge, care, and meaning are co-constructed in community.

  • Decentralizing Control: Systems must resist the tendency to reinforce elite control over AI and knowledge production. Instead, they should prioritize shared access, transparency, and collective governance over technological capacities.

The Role of the Communitarium

The Communitarium can be a space where these new frameworks are cultivated. It can be a site where value is defined by mutuality, deliberation, and emergent collective intelligence—not by hierarchical measures of performance or output. It can resist the urge to sacralize “intelligence” as a measure of merit and instead foster spaces where relationality, care, and shared sense-making are the highest forms of contribution.

In the Communitarium, AI is not a threat but an exposer—a force that helps dismantle the myths we have relied on to justify exclusion, inequality, and hierarchy. The challenge is not to preserve the illusion of human merit but to build systems where value is rooted in collective reciprocity and mutual recognition.

Conclusion: The Collapse as Opportunity

The collapse of the intelligence-merit link is an opportunity. It allows us to break with old enclosures and ask deeper questions about what we value, why we value it, and how we might build new systems that reflect mutual care, collective deliberation, and shared flourishing.

AI didn’t break the merit system. It just exposed the fractures that were already there. Now, we face a choice: to double down on the illusions that have sustained inequality, or to begin constructing new, collective counter-enclosures that make space for a genuinely mutual, post-merit future.

#TheCommunitariumProject

Comments (moderated, scroll down to view):