Note: The elevator has stopped on the 13th floor. Your own respective opponent exists within the two hemispheres of your mind and hastens your internalized chess moves in the dance of reality. For one having invested in the opponent’s gatekeeping with shaky mathematical foundations and improvised principles from which randomly inserted and mostly unquestioned variables have fragmented our individual perceptions, these advents have inversely turned them against our shared reality through the detritus of trash propaganda and insistent pseudosciences. We were born into this systemic diabolical formula, and by growing up from within school-prisons and making straight A’s, many of us were intentionally taught some methodically curated salesman bullshit, for the sole purpose that we would learn as close to nothing as possible, while continuing to work and produce for the state, all while being taxed, and thus stolen from. Save for reading, writing, and simple arithmetic, schools have mostly wasted our time and maintained materialist systems of control by dishing out poisons built on the rationalized motives of ideology itself. Dialectical inverse charity unfolds from 401k plans, to career investments, to birth certificates and even licenses that we choose to pick up at the DMV. For the railroading damages caused by the simulacrum of Science™, today’s Zetetic philosophers must question, mirror, parody, analyze, and objectively rearrange evidences in order to present a more truthful foundation by simply recognizing where we are, and allowing the dominoes to fall in accordance to high brow aesthetics and intuitive solutions existing within the framework of natural law.
ζητέω Pt. III: Foundation
If we take the sport of baseball and assume for example that there was ever a cabal of ultra-wealthy individuals who, for any wild reason, wanted to collectively accrue the maximum amount of major league sources of income, and to hoard an arsenal of professional baseball trophies in order to repeatedly claim themselves internationally victorious, in order to immortalize their own commemorations in a treasure cave, so the future drives energy toward them and their simulated efforts. They would first need to sieve out the baseball competition by shifting the rules of the game toward their favor. Several strategies would become necessary in order to dissuade the players from participating in that game altogether, such as gatekeeping the sale of baseball gloves, catcher gear, or baseballs and bats by artificially skyrocketing the price to an unfathomably expensive level, thus weaponizing artificial scarcity. To begin, the controllers could make up lies about how the game is evil, and exclusively harness dogmatic control over the game in order to avoid any random amounts of competition from getting involved with the sport. or fear that the players hitting the baseball might somehow glitch out the matrix or randomly unlock one’s mind toward accessing their philosopher’s stone of alchemy, I suppose there’s one effective method by how controllers could impose totalitarian restrictions that mask themselves as regulation and safety protocol:
A most effective way to pull the baseball player away from the game of baseball could be where the controllers of the game impose a shitload of new rules that would be enforced by indoctrinating the ego of the batter and their teammates, starting from a very young age. Inverse moral justifications for these excessive regulations could further gate-keep the batter from ever even having incentive toward stepping up to home plate by something so completely ridiculous as creating mountains of meandering paperwork as a simulated requirement for reaching a complete mathematically precise understanding of each pitch. This stack of papers that simulates preparedness could effectively operate to disconnect the player from participating in the game altogether, especially by reducing ones interest in ever playing the game. The player would be required to mathematically calculate every statistically probable detail and general case of whatever may occur when the baseball is thrown from the pitcher to the catcher. With incentive that calculating all of this phenomena could help the player land a baseball on the moon, by hitting it just perfectly, the pursuit becomes a toxic rabbit hole of humanly impossible calculations that will never ever happen.
The result would be a batter sitting and solving equations next to the home plate while the pitcher throws three strikes against every player who attempts to tackle the overtly unnecessary rules of filling out these mountains of paperwork between each pitch, for the implied necessity for understanding then substitutes in place of intuition, and effectively stops the player from ever hitting the ball.
<Directly below, click both at the same time.>
Physicist Richard Feynman
Philosopher of Mathematics Ludwig Wittgenstein- Lectures on the Foundations of Mathematics, Cambridge 1939
Here is my beautiful illustration of the Scientific Method
Unlike neutral or philosophical grounds, an ideology tends to skew experiment with utilization of false dependent variables, deliberate exclusion of legitimate independent variables and false elimination of individuality. Often, with ideology as the motivational force in the stage of pre-hypothesis, hyper-conclusion occurs. Without a value system to bind the scientific method to the laws of nature, the insistence built on top of a deliberate privation of evidence results to specifically benefit the ideology itself. f(x)^-1
f(x) = “Function”
Philosophy is a function
Assume philosophy = f(x)
f(x)^-1 = inverted function.
Ideology is inverted philosophy.
Ideology = f(x)^-1
Insistence occurs whenever there is a privation of substance.
Ideology requires insistence in order to simulate the existence of substance, inwhich its empty space becomes apparent, for it is built upon a foundation of non-existence.
That which does not exist cannot be proven to not exist, thus is why in Common Law, the burden of proof must shift to the one who makes the claim.
When the claim is presented without substance, it is shown to be an insistent claim, motivated by an ideology, not a philosophy, and not a science.
Matter is comprised of substance.
Philosophical expositions are built upon observations of substance by contrasting against what is insistent.
Mythological metaphor is a utility for efficiently describing that which constitutes substance.
It is possible for one to misuse mythological metaphor for cases of insistence, but a privation of creativity frequently results in unaesthetic disaster which reveals itself when met with psychoanalysis. This is the foundation for masking and rationalizing motives of domination by walling off the avenues for open discourses, due to one’s absence of artistry and finesse.
The closed metatronic systems of ideology tend toward censorship in order to simulate substance.
Antimatter is deemed fantastically mysterious, as it is an attractively insistent and vampiric opposite to matter.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
The privation of substance provides dimension and value to the truth of that matter which holds substance without insistence.
In other words, lies provide value and aesthetic incentive toward universal truth.
Philosophical pursuits of truth through applied sciences are built upon foundations of substance (matter).
The inverse function of ideological uniformity is a collectively unconscious destruction of our shared reality itself, by means of insistence en masse.
In other words, when lies become normalized in a social atmosphere, the society festers accordingly, as ideological insistence becomes unconsciously mirrored in poor art form and apparently unaesthetic low-vibration that does not match aesthetic taste.
Ideology constitutes the building blocks for all forms of totalitarianism.
Ideology inhibits creativity.
Statesmen insist upon shaky foundations of polarizing political ideology, which is built upon a privation of substance.
Statesmen benefit from spell-casting hyper-conclusive problems that are built upon crafted situations, or broadly generalized hypothetical situations.
Statesmen offer reactionary solutions to the installed problems that deliberately function to increase the power of government, and the corporations, military industrial complex representatives, oil companies, and pharmaceutical companies who frequently pay the statesmen out in dividends to allow for undeserved continuances in power. Example: global warming scares.
In order for the state to maintain simulated order within its installed insistence, that which is comprised of substance must be censored, buried, or exterminated in accordance to the will of the state and the corporation.
A reclamation of sovereignty comes from a conscious removal of the cause of the problem. This works to cure the metastasis of totalitarianism by simply starving the beast, thus rendering its illusion obsolete.
The cause of the general problem is “ideology” itself.
A solution of substance can be attained by the conscious abandonment of ideology.
This is the power of the individual.
It is possible for anyone to abandon ideology.
Original photo
“What does it even matter?”
I PROPOSE AN EXPERIMENT
So what’s an example of an experiment, where the mathematics seem to proportionally adjust accordingly in order to agree with hypothesis? Many of the facts listed below are considered facts, but often I must ask, “with what experiment was any of this measured?”
Let’s use everyday observable circumstances to test this out for ourselves.
Here’s one example, and for this I will use the Inverse Square Law, and then our observable sun, which appears in our sky like a shiny coin.
Here’s a picture of the sun I got from someone’s Instagram page.
The idea, according to to the Copernican model, is that our sun is very massive in size, and is around 93 million miles (152 million kilometers) away from the observing point (here on Earth). According to various websites and space agencies, it takes around 8.3 minutes for the light coming from the sun to arrive to where we are standing and observing on earth.
Here are some of the claims.
We are told in schools and by the official narrative that our eyes simply deceive us, however, what experiment was ever conducted to conclude any of what is stated above? Can you name one?
A comment section on a video posted by a scientist named Eric unfolds, so I could find a better answer to this fairly simple question.
Here is a screenshot from his video.
So we are to accept that the Sun is certainly confirmed as 93 million miles away. And we are caught in the wind of applying the Inverse Square Law in order to analyze light as it disappears beyond a vanishing point of perspective. And so if the Sun is 93 million miles away, it must be REALLY big in order for it to remain visible.
If the Sun was not so big, and it was also 93 million miles away, or even just 3 million miles away, it would be rendered completely invisible just like a lamp that is lit, but is too far beyond what one’s own eyes can see; so allow me to unpack that.
According to modern astronomy, the average distance between the Earth and the sun is an astronomical unit. (Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech)
Upon our sun being assumed as 93 million miles away, would require it to be extremely large in size for us to even see it from such a great distance. Let’s take a look at various examples to scale these purported sizes.
Quora provides this image to scale comparisons of size from the planets to the sun.
According to the Heliocentric model, if we were to survive this doomsday event pictured below, where the Sun is directly next to the Earth, we would observe directly above us that we are facing the absolute light of a massive Heliocentric sun. The sun (even at its current size) would be the only thing visible in the sky, as it swallows the totality of everything visible before us.
So we see a massive difference here, which puts things to scale, and allows the sun to be scaled up in size, if it is indeed 93 million miles away. But an object so massive as the heliocentric model of the sun, appears to be about the exact same size of how we observe the moon in the sky. Is this somehow not what we see when we simply use our eyes?
“The science is settled. We know that the sun is definitely 400 times larger than the moon, and the sun is definitely 400 times further away from us than the moon is. Your eyes deceive you.”
In philanthropist-funded public schools, many of us learned that the moon is a lot smaller than the sun, even though that from our observable point of view, it appears from the naked eye to be around the exact same size as the sun. So to scale and measure the size of the moon as rotating around earth, as both moon and earth revolve around the sun, we calculate that the moon *must be* around 238,000 miles away from Earth. And how exactly do we know that?
A brief review of what’s established so far: given that the Sun is so massive, as it is our star, we can clearly see the difference between us seeing the sun directly up close as it would envelop the totality of the sky, in contrast to it being 93 million miles away. As the sun is farther away, it appears to be smaller in size, but is insistently argued to be an extremely massive sphere of burning gases, pulsing at the center of our solar system with a baneful ticking clock that would one day explode and evaporate us all into useless stardust.
A practical example, of zooming in and out of these theoretical astrophysics would require the simple use of an imagination, of course. Observing motions of light sources and calculating their respective distances away from the eyeball of any given subject would work just like the headlights or taillights of a moving car coming from or heading toward the in’s and outs of the vanishing point of perspective. As the headlights get closer, the light that illumines per “candela”, or “lumen” increases, and the visibility of that light gets brighter, as the source of the light gets closer and closer to the source of visibility. As the taillights get further away, the light that illumines per “candela” or “lumen” decreases and eventually vanishes from sight.
Notice how the lights that are far away, appear smaller and less noticeable than the lights that approach from a distance much closer to the observing point. Very simple.
Now, we are forced to contend with the Inverse Square Law, which upon observable instances, we see lumens of things like flashlights, car headlights, and various objects, show much less light, as we get further and further away from them.
The simplest and most conclusive explanation of the inverse square law of light:
Every time you double the distance of a luminary, it becomes a fourth of the brightness.
This physical law of light directly counters the claims made by reductionist modern astronomy about stars, luminaries, our sun, our moon, and etc. being of such great sizes and extraordinarily excessive distances away from the perspective of any viewer on earth. Simple questioning can corner any pathological claims for the highly insisted upon and ideologically purported sizes for the never-before-measured diameters of planets, or alleged incoming asteroid dangers, which have at best been simulated as proven with cartoons and firework shows.
Just ask the ones making the claim; “how do you know that?”, and to get to the core of the issue, ask this: “what experiment was ever conducted in order to prove these claims?”
After receiving non-answers, or something about radars, math, and graphs, just ask if the experiment even exists, and if you can see the for yourself. From there, your intuition should channel that if the one making the claim had ever looked at any direct evidence to support it, that it should easily shared and talked about without too much confusion. On the other hand, it’s possible that someone was just reading some space.com articles and spewing out received opinions at a bar in order to simulate the containment of knowledge for what it is that they are even talking about.
Here is what the sun appears to be like from Mars, according to Brian Cox and NASA.
If we apply the inverse square law, we can clearly see that the appearance of the sun gets smaller as we go further and further out, which reduces the amount of light hitting the surface of the observing point of view.
The point is, the sun becomes microscopic to our eyes, as we would suppose to leave the solar system and move outward towards another. It’s fair for us to safely assume that the sun would eventually appear to just be a star in the sky, however would likely be subject to such a distant vanishing point to a degree that would render it nearly invisible, if the Heliocentric model be true. The sun would eventually be so small that it wouldn’t be recognizable from a distance of “lightyears”, all in accordance to their claims, as compared to a repeatably testable physical law of perspective: the inverse square law.
Whenever we look at other stars, and we presuppose their distance based on the light that is taking a long time to travel to us from very very far away, the brightness of the visible stars we see at night, forces us to contend with the inverse square law in assuming massive sizes that would completely dwarf our own. The claim in the heliocentric model offers that we can visibly see some stars that are many many “lightyears” away, as if they are somehow not near us, being cast from a source onto a firmament by some sort of projection of sonoluminescent electromagnetic phenomena. Further investigation becomes necessary through practical experimentation in order to move this hypothesis somewhere closer to conclusion.
This is just one disproof of many against their wild claims about distant stars being other suns, deducing that stars are not suns at all, but are electromagnetic luminaries overhead, drawing the phenomena of geocentric astrology closer towards our understanding of universal truths.
(Play, mute, continue)
A fixed hypothesis without testable experiment often needs its phenomena for observable visibility to be explained away somehow. Best to just leave this one to NASA, just like it’s best for us not to touch those radioactive dinosaur bones.
Let’s just pick one star. The brightest star the sky. Sirius, right? Sure, why not?!
Fun fact! The month of July is named after Julius Caesar. The month of August is named after Augustus Caesar.
We are instructed to believe that there are 12 months in a year, and that the Gregorian Calendar is a perfectly normal and fine calendar for us to follow. Many have a difficult time figuring out if the current month lived in has 30 or 31 days, or when the leap year will give us an extra day in February. Found in many modern courtrooms and government halls, is the above item sourced from the Roman Empire called “the fasces”.
Given that it states that Sirius is 25.4 times brighter than the sun, although we don’t have public access to view anything from the Hubble Space Telescope, I suppose it’s safe to let the science here settle out so that we can safely assume that the calculated numbers here are to be correct, and then accept that this video below can suffice as experiment.
There are what seem to be incredible levels of technology out there being used by experts in specialty fields, some of which look like evil totalitarian weapons out of a James Bond movie. However, much like some employees of NASA, many expert scientists within the halls of CERN cannot figure out which bathroom to use for sake of defending ambiguous social constructs; much less, can any of these hard-hats speak up about anything going on in there. After all, there is a need for balancing ones time between chopping at all that science, and learning ritualistic dance moves and chants from their ultra scientific ceremonies in “turning the machine back on”. This should all be giving at least a clue that this confusing hardware presented by CERN may just be something similar to the Apollo moon rovers or the materialist walkways aboard the International Space Station.
They claim that much science is conducted there, but for cringe-inducing top secret reasons, it’s rendered simulated into some other tabloid science magazine and delivered with an air of hubris and ideological subversion via another interview with some other employee who is merely protecting their investment; receiving endless money from the public via taxation.
At a scientific best, CERN is much like HAARP, where it’s being used for weather manipulation; a thing that NASA is also capable of doing with use of chemtrails, geoengineering, and remote manipulation of frequency.
None of these capabilities should be in the hands of government ideologues.
Enough talk, is there really any need to get a cheap Canon Powershot SX50 HS and zoom into to see Sirius for ourselves? Is there any reason whatsoever to do that? Shouldn’t you get a college degree before whipping out one of those bad boys and trying to film the star Sirius for yourself?
Because what happens with the Inverse Square Law, is given the purported sizes in the model of our solar system, and the vast distances in between everything, we begin to see a pattern that would render even stars like this almost completely invisible. Somehow, these very massive stars and planets from light-years or just a few million miles away look like this.
Let’s take another look at Sirius.
Ezekiel 1:16-19 (KJV Bible):
16 The appearance of the wheels and their work was like unto the colour of a beryl: and they four had one likeness: and their appearance and their work was as it were a wheel in the middle of a wheel.
17 When they went, they went upon their four sides: and they turned not when they went.
18 As for their rings, they were so high that they were dreadful; and their rings were full of eyes round about them four.
19 And when the living creatures went, the wheels went by them: and when the living creatures were lifted up from the earth, the wheels were lifted up.
I would argue that there is a massive expositional difference between the presumed mathematical measurements and some of the on-the-ground experiments that we can try out for ourselves.
During a lecture about the scientific method at Caltech in 1964, physicist Richard Feynman stated the following:
“…now I'm going to discuss how we would look for a new law.
In general, we look for a new law by the following process.
First, we guess it.
Then, we compute the consequences of the guess to see if this is right / if this law that we guessed is right, we see what it would imply… And then we compare those computation results to nature. Or, we say compared to experiment, or experience…
Compare it directly with observation to see if it works…
If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. And that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn't make a difference how beautiful your guess is it doesn't matter how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is…
If it disagrees with experiment…
It’s wrong.”
Wake up, Mr. Green
In his “Geometry and Experience” speech, Albert Einstein stated the following…
”…as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain. And as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality…
…It seems to me that complete clearness as to the state of things first became common property through the new departure in mathematics, which is known by the name of mathematical logic or axiomatics. The progress achieved by axiomatics consists in its having having neatly separated the logical formal from its objective, or intuitive content. According to axiomatics, the logical formal alone forms the subject matter of mathematics, which is not concerned with intuitive or other content associated with logical formal.”
Saturn devouring his son: Francisco Goya (1819–1823)
ζητέω Pt. IV: Maligned Hubris Schema
Let me provide an example of an experiment in density and buoyancy. This experiment doesn’t even require a description, in that this image is simple, elegant and testable. True science is supposed to be simple and in agreement with the laws of nature, such as exactly what is seen below.
This simple image makes a claim based on exactly what is being seen. It boldly pops out with aesthetic finesse in order to help any observer of this experiment see clearly how density and buoyancy work. This scale can be considered a microcosm, and expanded hypotheses can be tested by using things like balloons, anchors, projectiles, and simple measuring tools such as calendars, maps, and sundials.
One could easily look at this image and openly decry it as a false image, until one is challenged to try it out. The drive-by-hit-and-run-debunker of this image wields irrational caution signs about how “this image may be faked.” The debunker has a n>0 chance of being a controlled asset with an ideological/monetized motivation (example: corporate fact-checkers), or is someone simply speaking a received opinion from ego. If the materialistic fact-checker is challenged with an experiment that is testable, it’s often an erratic impulse of one’s ego to either forfeit the argument altogether, completely ignore the existence of the stated experiment, or retreat into ad hominem attacks to then be projected against the perceived enemy.
Alternatively, they could try the experiment for themselves in order to find that this image represents something that is in harmony with nature, and then reckon with the terrifying idea of shaking hands with the one who made the claim. Each party may reach a perception synthesis that even more clearly shows this experiment can work without any magic tricks, psychobabble, or illusions whatsoever. What is presented in the image of buoyancy constitutes something that represents reality as closely as possible. Use your perceived enemy to defeat the real enemy.
Soren Kierkegaard wrote:
“Only one deception is possible in the infinite sense, self-deception.”
Regarding videos and imagery, we often hear the lexicon of “you can’t trust anything nowadays”, and often people are quick to throw their hands in the air and give up on the matter before taking a closer look. Cognitive bias becomes reinforced by the polarizing illusion of video manipulation when one seeks to defeat their perceived enemy in order to protect their true opponent. The more sophisticated the game, the more sophisticated the opponent.
“Pt. IV”
You can only get smarter by playing a snake.
For a moment, imagine we are carefully examining the same apple, and we can touch, see, taste, hear, and smell the apple. With respect to what nature is, we can all agree that this holds its form as a 5-seeded fruit grown from a tree with an often crisp and refreshingly sweet and sour flavor. It does not require a complete surrender of the self toward the “general consensus of the scientific community” in order for a few friends to get together around a table and look at this apple, and reach genuine agreement that the apple is indeed an apple. Further examination may occur as these friends cut open the apple, in order to smell, taste, and even hear the apple as it’s dropped onto a surface, or smashed with a baseball bat. Nearby microphones may be used to play back the sound, and a motion camera can be used to replay the visual. At this point, for someone to manipulate this definition of an apple, or disguise it with excess sophistry, likely would result in a “2+2=5 move of insistence” straight out of George Orwell’s “1984”.
Let it be stated that questioning what there is should always be welcome, and freely invited into discourse, but to conclude without experiment or discourse that the apple is no longer just an apple from a tree, would imply something that insists without substance (privation). Exceptions only apply to situations where committee members are speaking a different language or dialect altogether, but the meaning of the words and the formula remains the same. A translation is not impossible or even improbable. What’s often appropriate is to solidify language in accordance to pure definitions, and to subconsciously share the definitions of the transferred words in question. To sharpen the blade, requires practice and discipline.
In order for us to zoom in to the microcosm of what is unconsciously confusing the public at large, someone out there is wearing a lab coat and moving shit around in freezers for a living. Helplessly enslaved by ego, they may be driven to shift one’s own lexicon to contrarily call an apple a malus domestica.
This rolls off the tongue quite nicely, and it keeps the collective hubris of automated followers invested in the more evolutionist terminology as a knee-jerk reaction against the idea of ever contending with the hypothesis of intelligent design by a prime creator. Frequently, dogma and religion function to reduce these understandings of intelligent design to an unreachable faith, efficiently gate-kept by the experts we often call bishops.
Pharaohs, evangelist archons, cult leaders, cult followers, political ideologues, and various inverted totalitarian psychopaths exist on this frequency as a means to turn people away from the binding aesthetic dimensions and philosophical value behind the substance of what there is, and the penumbra of surrounding texts. Like all big organizations, churchianity generates the increasing incentive for people to eventually avoid the aesthetics of any philosophical dimension or spiritual sense of higher self altogether. To obscure, confuse, and mask over intuitive aesthetics, is a tactic used by totalitarian archons to enslave others upon their own blade, thus preventing them from becoming truly sovereign. It’s this marionetting balance between slave and master, where the master in this situation tends toward investing in the grander occlusion on whether or not the master even exists at all; if successful for a brief amount of time, the function thus dis-empowers people by teaching them to enjoy the various aspects offered and served by this dynamic of enslavement.
“Sensitive souls have reacted with shock to the elemental drama of life on this planet, and one of the reasons Darwin so shocked his time — and still bothers ours is that he showed this bone-crushing, blood-drinking drama in all its elementality and necessity: Life cannot go on without the mutual devouring of organisms… each organism raises its head over a field of corpses, smiles into the sun, and declares life good.”
-Ernest Becker, Escape From Evil
A spiritual blunder occurs by remaining in the mist of unreleased shadow, which creates a false sense of security by means of materialistic perception, and tricks people into subjecting oneself into unconscious dualism by means of consenting and going along with cultish masking for sake of surveillant acceptance, monitored by the panopticon of ego. Spiritual distractions are set up like traps, in order to prevent individuals from integrating into their higher selves. Churchianity frustrates and generates an opposite reaction to the initial problem. That leaves the defectors of churchianity to then bind themselves into a false sense of agency alongside the advent of nihilism (the worship of nothing).
A good chess player or musician could see this unfold quite clearly, as those specific realms require a subconscious intuition that specifically involves the aesthetic dimension. Evolution becomes ones own stagnation against the ability for one to individually evolve, as the ideological force driving the pre-hypothesis stage of evolutionary presupposition tends toward self-enslavement and a maligned schema of hubris. The hyper-conclusion banks on a sacrosanct hypothesis that continues forward without any experiment to provide substance. The messaging laced in this stealthy ideology functions to disempower the individual, by suggesting that they are currently lesser than what they could actually become within their own lifetime. This psychological complexity then inverts the individual and forces the hand of ones own evolution. They’re transformed into something else, then to be further consumed by shadow. By manifesting the body into alignment with the inversion, it awards them with a perverse amount of power and the empty space of insatiable ideological domination.
Insistence dominates the aesthetics of this argument, and the impulse becomes temporarily satiated. A sensation of power becomes addictive, as various hypotheses supporting the theory of evolution has shifted into an ideology fueled by ego, and thus functions to benefit the ideology itself. Ideologies can include things like, scientism, solipsism, nihilism, darwinism, and moral relativism which unconsciously serve as major pieces on a chess board, all with the intent of having the victim surrender their sovereignty to the archon. All forms of ideology function in this manner to benefit totalitarian archons, strategically enslaving the perceptions of others, for sake of achieving dominance over the sovereign power of individuals. This unconscious form of ideological servitude pays respect to an empty space, and thus results in societal enslavement en masse. This occurs whenever large numbers of people give away their consent to this type of stealthy enslavement, often by becoming indoctrinated to a degree, and subjected to the ritualistic abuses of a materialist system that functions to benefit from this unconscious slavery by perceived value and simulated virtue. The splitting apart of the psyche into unconscious dualism then becomes embraced by the victim, as the real world simulates to become of lesser value than the false sense of agency provided by a “Second Life”.
To fail to call an apple an apple in this case reeks of scientismic hubris, and the ego that dons the lab coat costume fortifies its protective walls, and even worse, pays them in a fiat currency to do this with insistence. These walls built up are often fortified by a college degree, or Ph.D namesake, and thus constricts the intellectual into a type of self-imprisonment. This paradox of materialism results in the overwhelm of a pseudo-realistic collective intellectual ego that festers the entire perception of the object from the subject. The insistence about an apple no longer just being an apple becomes simulated as sacrosanct and simulated as prematurely victorious through the acts of bullying, coercion, blackmail, propaganda or a synthesis in between, all producing rife consequences. It first throws out the whole committee of the ones who simply observed an apple. Upon surrendering one’s ability to articulate the raison d'être of no longer calling the apple an apple, provides opportunity for inversion, and thus throws the perception of the cultural penumbra completely out of frequency against the laws of nature, and festers into a collective state of moral relativism. The purpose behind generating such a massive deception is to have the victim become enslaved by their real opponent.
This is no longer just an apple! Behold! The malus domestica!
Alchemy, metaphysics, and discourses must return, for the statism that constricts and imprisons our shared reality into a scientific dictatorship must be abandoned with tact by questioning the illusions of authority. With sales techniques and appeals to authority, the increasing technologies of the telescope and the microscope have been used as silent weapons in order to confuse the masses, and lure them into accepting the mere existence of government at what simulates itself toward a reasonable cost.
Speaking with objective truth supersedes all wizardry in the realm of aesthetics.
“…(it) uses a dialectic so that all opposition is obliterated, it's seen to be the same (context) as from a higher view:
It's the… “oh you think that this thing, and that thing's different, but if we go up on a hill and look down at it you see the two pieces of the same thing; you think that the river and the land are different, but when you get up on the hill you see they're part of the landscape…”
or some word game.
We talked about Hegel doing this with apples…
…this apple and that apple are both apples and we can only understand that by going to the Divine concept of appleness which you can only understand by going to the Divine concept of fruit which we can only go to the understand by going to the Divine concept of food or whatever we just keep going up the category, until we get rid of all categories.
We heard it with the idea more practically, with my kind of joking “Critical Car Theory” which is identical to “Critical Race Theory”:
That anything bad that happens in traffic is the fault, not of the driver who made a mistake, or whatever… But specifically of the entire system that validates using cars at all… so every one of us is complicit in upholding the use of cars… so we're all complicit in every traffic death, in some sense… that makes us all murderers.
You can see how their languages just start running this way.”
Simply engage in a measurement of aesthetics and think for yourself!
When faith in science becomes insisted upon for maximizing efficiency, I merely suggest questioning any greatly perceived notion into oblivion, until one can deduce a remainder for what n>0 chance remains as “possibly true”. Discovering what is a zero in this equation implies the necessity for searching for what is false in a claim and comparing it to the laws of nature. Nature does not lie, people do. The burden of proof must shift to those who make the claim, especially those who like to find clever ways to yell “fire” in a theatre.
What’s important here, is that a scientifically literate audience can prove to be psychically immune, whenever pressed against the advents of pseudoscience and unaesthetic false consciousness. The invented illusion of intellectual presupposition completely dissolves, when equipped with these stated methods that accurately describe reality. Pseudoscience is often used to inadvertently assist the worship of the state; i.e. totalitarianism (here’s a small example). The inverse of scientific literacy banks on the worship of nothing (nihilism) in order to provide building blocks for the worship of the state by manipulating dialectics.
This great inversion insists that a societal audience collectively maintain a low value for scientific literacy, and thus surrender perception over to computer models and neatly stacked papers that expands upon establishment hypothesis. Propagandized insistence is pressured onto civilians to “just trust the science”, and not to bother even questioning it.
Any experiment is most effective when it is easily testable and observed with any given audience.
In all claims comes the burden of proof which, in common law, shifts toward the one who makes the claim. One cannot prove a negative claim such as saying something like, “three headed unicorns do not exist”. %or sake that this three headed horned horse likely doesn’t exist, it is because one will likely never ever find one, thus nullifying what is testable, repeatable, and observable. It is impossible to prove there is not one, thus the onus for proving the claim must shift to the one who made the claim.
Otherwise, we would abandon the order of common law, and allow our theaters to become nullified and checkmated by the anti-economics of the ones who perform predatory spirituality by screaming “fire” in a theatre when it just doesn’t even exist.
παρρησία
“Concerning the word parrēsia, there is a famous text by Polybius in which he speaks about the Achaens and says that three things characterize their regime, and these are dēmokratia, isēgoria, and parrēsia: democracy, that is to say, the participation of everyone at any rate all those who make up the demos, in the exercise of power; isēgoria that is to say, a certain equality in the distribution of offices; and parrēsia, that is to say, the possibility, for all, it seems, to have access to speech, the right of everyone to speak, speech being understood as speech that decides on the political field, speech inasmuch as it is the act of asserting oneself and one’s opinion in the political field. This text associating parrēsia, dēmokratia, and isēgoria is clearly important. But I think we can go back even beyond Polybius and identify a number of other interesting uses in the classical period, in Euripedes and Plato altogether.”
-Michel Foucault, Lecture at the University of Grenoble: May 18, 1982
With any given authoritarian rejection of questioning and free speech, collective organizations, and the entirety of civilizations will inevitably succumb into forms of self-enslavement by collective ego. Here, the victim becomes imprisoned by the walls built up inside the mind, which are simulated to protect, but function to serve the inverse. This ego inversion is produced by the advent of moral relativism, which regresses societies into apprehensions against the fluidity of open discourse by blurring the lines of meaning and definition. Where’s the best place for an opponent to hide?
Raffiki has something to show you inside the cave.
Sun, Sand, Sea and Sausages
Where I was once an approval junkie, I continued time and time again to fall upon my own blade. I was unconsciously enslaved in this chaotic loss of self, and could not see what was right in front of me. I was shielded by protective walls, constructed at the advice of my opponent. That safety and protection was inverted for sake of my own blunder and self-imprisonment.
I was a raggy kite, torn up and flapping in the winds of a materialist system, to be conquered by its polarizing gusts; sporadic twists and turns of duality. The advice in my mind suggested to remain small and unnoticed, alone in a vast galaxy, all to eventually become stardust by an atom smashing supernova, or to be vacuumed into anti-material by an intersecting black hole. One day, we’ll be saying, “we coulda built a proxy earth to sustain what we see.”
“Beware of the solar flares, just one of them could kiss the Earth at the right spot and send us straight back to the stone age!”
“Nuclear war is just around the corner. America has 15,000 nukes sitting perfectly shelf stable inside of silos.”
“The Cold War NEVER ended. Didn’t you see the nuclear missiles that North Korea wheeled out in the streets? That’s solid proof that they exist.”
“We’re all going to hell anyways, let’s relax and enjoy our time here while we can.”
“Aliens probably built the pyramids, but they’ll be back.”
“What will YOU do when a deadly contagion breaks out? Science says we are DUE for another pandemic.”
“The world is so overpopulated. Stop having kids.”
“Who gives a shit about doppler radars? The weather is told to us because of satellites. Duh.”
“I saw a TED talk about the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs. Experts say that the bones are still radioactive after 65 million years.”
“Trust science. Do not do your own research. Get a life.”
“Be grateful that the government helps pave your roads.”
“No one really dies of poisoning these days. Those are old tales of old times. A time long forgotten.”
“You only have a high school diploma, you dipshit. You are not going to survive in this world without a college degree. Better get used to asking if they would like fries with that, you nothing.”
“Global warming is real. The experts confirm this.”
“The weather changed today. It must be caused by some aspect of global warming.”
“Chemtrails are normal.”
“The science is settled.”
“Did you know that you could have a virus, and not even know it?!”
“When you have that virus, you might not seem sick, but you could easily pass this onto someone else. They could get it and die.”
“Oh, what are you? Another anti-science fundamentalist nutjob?”
“The reason they chew with their mouths open is because they fucking hate you.”
“Fear me, revere me for I do not even exist.”
“Living in fear is the safest way to live.”
“Have another beer. Relax. You deserve it.”
My mind had only lyrical avenues to write-out about how we were deliberately assaulted by the subconscious symbolism that I had read about in Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars, long ago. We were kept busy with rash bursts of coaxing, empty promises, and simulated security. This protection was a false sense of agency all along, in order to render the victim to be content with all of this unaesthetic architecture that’s laced with stagnant museums, happy hour specials, and efficiently constrictive algorithm-based radio channels that weaponize chance cubes of wavelength nostalgia and stagnant normalizations. The culture was built around the image of the object, and art became secondary to the anti-aesthetic denominatorship shitting out some products of products, while we bickered about it, and tied our own ropes.
All of this was designed to build up the shell of a simulated system, in which the simulacrum itself was designed to fail on purpose, from the start. A mousetrap for soul and spirit, for victims to surrender to their respective opponents. Partial awakenings, and synapses of memory would occur, only to corner me back into the Ordo Ab Chao window of excess reason and centrist ambivalence. Amidst a deep psychological education through books, and some experience from behind a chess board, I held a dormant sense for my own advantages in life, by casually understanding the penumbra text about the opponent. The opponent had tricked me into believing that it didn’t even exist, and that I was somehow immune to it’s sophistry. My hand felt forced as my set of values sifted through my hands like the sand I could drown in. A projection towards the external enemy; “them”. I was an approval junkie, and I was being watched.
“These fucking people, man. They’re all fucking crazy. They’re watching you, waiting to drain you. Nothing is true anymore. Check social media. Have a beer. Care about these things. What’s on your mind? Air it out. You could become forgotten if you’re not a comedian. You trickster, you’ll be forgotten if you are unseen. Satellites are orbiting the earth right now, and they are watching you like Santa Claus. Your friends abroad are watching you. The International Space Station is a piece of art. A mathematical masterpiece. The drums are playing you. You are just a speck of dust, trying to become a fucking blip on the radar. Have another beer. Relax. You’re chasing nothing but pipe dreams and artsy women. Feel pain.”
I willfully limited my perception and handed my energy over on a silver platter to the presupposed external enemy, in order to protect what I felt was my very best friend. That trustworthy voice in my head that told me what to think, and told me that someone else would come around and take action in place of us. But the greatest con he ever pulled, was an elusive magic trick; a subconscious ideology disguised as ourselves to make us think that it is us.
The great inversion was happening all around us as we dedicated time to our arts, seeking for the random number to pop up in our culture so our stocks of approval could one day skyrocket with nostalgia. But all around us, we are imprisoned by unaesthetic architecture and cringe inducing propaganda; instead of swastikas everywhere, we now have Adobe Illustrator cartoons with bullshiting smiles on them, laced with some chevron symbol as a disempowering dog whistle. Weapons against the subconscious were all over, and I had no idea who to tell about them, and who wants to sound completely insane? I had failed to see the trade-offs in regard to my very own acceleration into dialectical materialism, as we see the work of our own hands in a mirror at having crafted this monstrosity of materialism by petty compromises and neo-normalizations. How could I conquer what I perceived didn’t exist? Rare back into more of my own lyrical content, what my unconscious was screaming did not agree with the walls built up by the ego. The psyche was split, the circle was closed. I had failed for so long to ask one simple question about where exactly we live:
Welcome to proxy earth substack. Paid subsciptions optional.
Become a free or paid subscriber so you can be invited to local events and keep up with getting a physical copy of this book when published. Thanks for reading.
Vanishing Point: Section III (eBook)