the Pythagorean Order of Death
dedicated to restoring Atlantean Democracy
mid-May musings (2016)
All that is occurring now is at a galactic-scale cyclical peak of events. From 2000-2012 the new calendrical aeon was born from the old, and the old died. Leading up to this, much foresight and preparation was involved, spanning a space of time stretching back more than 2000 years and the turning of the last aeon, when Jesus walked the earth. This moment is marked by celestial alignments, increased space weather leading to increased terrestrial climate changes, and an increased rate of evolution toward self-realization on the part of all, but primarily the dominant, species on earth as well. At such a moment, historically, the dominant species has begun to split apart into variant types: a super-species that continues to evolve through natural adaptability, and a sub-species that relies on artificial assistance for survival. Although very similar, parallel species can coexist and cohabitate for sometime, eventually the recessive traits in the subordinate species will be bred down to a minimum. We can see this differentiation between sibling species having occurred between neanderthals and homo-sapiens, and occurring whenever a domestic pet is released into the wild to contend with feral animals. We can also see this separation of species mentality present between modern city-dwelling, world-traveling "elites" and the ordinary working-class folk, servants and serfs. However, while the fiat-wealthy elitist technocracy see themselves as the new super-species, they remain by population sums the recessive subordinate that depends on the greater group for its own preservation. All these factors make it very dangerous and difficult times for anyone, for we are all being forced to choose sides in a conflict that is not of our own making, but that is occurring regardless as a result of increased environmental changes that are beyond our ability to control.
History will determine the value of my works, my contributions to society. But in the short-term, history often vilifies and rejects truth in commensurate proportion to its significance - its potential impact - how much CHANGE would be needed to attain it.
When someone comes along and says to a world of imperialism and its victims, "love one another," they are called mentally deranged, at best. This idea was so revolutionary 2000 years ago, it still hasn't caught on among many of Christianity's own most ardent adherents. To the Roman conspirators who wrote the New Testament Gospels - whatever the real message of Yeshu Ben Padia then - it was so odious, so confusing, so different and so dangerous to their world that they forged the New Testament Gospels solely to cover it up by replacing his true words with the Asclepian message of "love thy enemy." It was briefly possible, during the window of time from 2000-2012, for this "Angel Scroll" to have come to light, but it didn't; now it maybe that we will NEVER know the true words written down by "Jesus Christ" himself.
Sometimes an idea can be so out-of-place in its contemporary culture that it looks like a threat to those it is trying to help: the healer is seen as an alien demon attacking the victim, an adversary to the victim's fever which has confused the victim's mind against itself.
When this happens, cults form. Cults are easily catalogued in their similarities, compared in their differences, etc. but not easily understood as to their actual cause. "Personality cults" form around "charismatic leaders" - this is about as far as public research into this phenomenon has managed to dig yet; nevertheless cultism is the basis for a large part of how cultures form regionally and compete geo-politically, and the reason why 90% of the human population today claim to believe in some form of "god(s)." Based on any degree of study into the subject of inner-cult relationships between a "charismatic leader" and their closest acolytes, one will immediately discover a vast rift between these individuals manifesting itself as an unhealthy obsession in the acolytes with the cult-leader. The cult-leader generally REJECTS this trait in their acolytes, and - to the extent they cannot overcome this obsession - the cult-leader usually ends up rejecting their closest acolytes outright as well. This is often renounced as simple "paranoia" on the cult-leader's part, but this over-simplifies and shifts blame from the real situation: a charismatic person becomes a cult-leader because they attract acolytes who form an unhealthy obsession with them. This dynamic generates a cult.
Cults are formed from groups of people. People are organisms, and when they congregate in groups as cults they form "super-organisms." Cults become part of culture to the extent they are acculturated into history texts. A cult, active for a period of time, is called a "movement." Thus, a single "charismatic leader," cursed by unbalanced acolytes, can spawn not only a "cult" or group of people congregating as a hypnotized audience, but also a "movement" or a cult that is capable of, over time, recognizing its own nature as a super-organism comprised of smaller organisms each operating independently for the good of the whole just like the organs inside each of the organisms do to sustain their own life.
Cults are groups of people driven by a single ideology, ultimately, whether this ideology proves in keeping with the ideas of the original cult-leadership or not. They may form in one manner, but once they reach a certain stage in their development, they metastasize into something larger - something capable of recognizing itself. What makes a group of people a cult is this unifying ideology - without which a group of people would not be able to be considered a "cult." ANY belief that has ever been imagined in the human mind has formed, by now, a "cult" of people debating its validity and veracity. One of these cliches states "there are no new ideas," but this is false. There are always new ideas, but in times of militant imperialism (during an empire's economically declining phase) they maybe difficult to find, suppressed and their originators even ostracized or worse, simply not given a language with which to express their ideas.
Only cultural movements are capable of apprehending ideologies objectively, from the point of view of those who write history texts. History texts are not written "by the winners" but "for" them about a series of petty war-lords, industrious opportunistic capitalizers, thieves and liars at best, murderers and rapists most commonly, who comprise a lineage of past imperialists to justify and rationalize the current empire's funding the writing of history texts for them. Yet in between these "notes" along the musical "stave" of history, there remains a whole other, silenced symphony. Karl Marx attempted to harness the intricate network of interpersonal relationships that had still been only "strange attractors" in the "fractals" of Hegel's historical methodology. Yet, "people power" has not yet successfully resisted imperialism to the extent either resource is depleted; whenever there is one there will arise the other. History is, as proposed by Hegel, only a "dialectical synthesis" of these two forces; and while Marxism sought to uplift the common working person's living conditions, by the era of Sovietism his ideas for labor-unionism had become grossly distorted. History texts honor and venerate people as leaders who are, by necessity, responsible for many more deaths than is the "average" person. But these are only the names of charismatic leaders who successfully formed cults from groups of people that would, beyond their own immediate influence, flourish into cultural movements embraced of a unifying ideology.
Psychological and physical trauma from abuse cause a person to bear the burden of undeserved and unfairly damaged karma. This additional karmic baggage manifests as opaque interference to the clarity of its bearer's communications and the result is that this layer of clouded, unlucky karma prejudices others against whosoever should be afflicted by it, regardless of whether or not this reaction of instinctive loathing is really warranted or deserved. The reason for inducing this condition through psychological and physical abuse is to weaponize a mind against imaginary enemies, and to program it to accept remote-control over its own will. Some call public child-sacrifice a "coming of age ritual" and "initiation into the tribe." Others call this an act of "psychic rape" and "emotional vampirism."
In 1999, I went through such a "ring of fire" myself; but my experience only opened my eyes to the machinery of society performing this act every day and night, every hour and minute and second, on someone somewhere: conditioning them to accept the imposition into their individual development of Otherness, whether they WANT this or NOT. Otherness is, in my opinion, best defined by Timothy Leary when he was in prison and had the realization that his guards, whom he could see as antagonizers threatening him, actually saw themselves as his protectors, trying to help him. Otherness does not impose itself with violence often; only often enough to be feared the rest of the time. Otherness is manifest as the "community" of people around oneself, and no matter how roseate their intentions, they will ultimately exercise them against anybody "outside the circle" by applying overwhelming physical force - usually torture, including coercion (the threat of violence), physical force (actual violence) and violence unto death (murder). This "community" of Others is NOT to be Trusted.
In an imperial civilization, all citizens are equally victims of physical and psychological abuse as part of their conditioning into becoming citizens. Institutions for public education are established that, invariably, become mere boot-camps for propaganda brain-washed soldiers. In these institutions, all forms of physical and psychological abuse are encouraged as normative socialization. Once one is finally let loose from these dungeons, one has been so "hazed" into a "daze" of confusion they believe anyone who challenges imperialism is a "terrorist," and anyone who advocates it is a "patriot." It is difficult, if not impossible, in such an imperial civilization for an individual to express their pain to the "community of Others," and "cry on the shoulder of their abuser." Everyone has been abused and survived, so nobody's experience of personal abuse is seen as being "any different" from anyone else's. Everyone has been victimized equally, so no one is allowed to complain.
however, simply because we are all equally victims of trauma from abuse, this does not mean our sufferings are in anyway less or disqualified as such. In fact, it merely adds insult to injury for one to often have no one in whom they can confide in their feeling that their suffering makes them lesser than their peers. The saying "laugh and the whole world laughs with you; cry and you cry alone" seems the whole truth to one in sorrow and suffering. Social ostracism, feelings of exile, even suicidal thinking, can all follow the revelation to others of one's own suffering, its cause and its form. Asking for help from friends is often more difficult, and no more constructive, than asking for help from random strangers. And trusting "health-care professionals" to determine your fate for you should never be considered a sane, nor safe, choice or fate. So when one is suffering, who does one turn to? The answer is what has given life its meaning for 90% of humanity: the imaginary theological idea of a deity. When I stub my toe, I don't say "devil damn it." I say "goddamn it." People don't pray to the devil, why would they? He is only the ghost of Enkidu.
the way I, personally, have coped with my pain from trauma induced by abuse has been, traditionally, to make media: that is, to write, to draw, to paint, to build models, to make graphs and designs and so on and so forth. I wrote books, compiled them as pdfs online, I made video lectures about a wide variety of topics, I ran two websites to showcase different aspects of my works, and on the side re-mixed hundreds (literally, hundreds) of songs and made daringly copyright-infringing music videos for some. I did all this, non-stop, from 2002 to 2012. I created for myself a miniature, imaginary realm, a world within a world, over which I was literally its ~GOD~. But none of this felt good to me, complete or right - it didn't ever fill the hole I felt inside. So finally, in 2012, I had a revelation, and since then I have cut my productivity in half. Am I pleased about this? Not particularly. But it is a byproduct of this phase in my life. In 2012, I realized, among many other things, that my life was not going to turn out how I'd wanted it to as a child, that I no longer even wanted it to, that I had been content all along being a psychogenic amnesiac, and that I was over-productive only because I was using creativity as a means of coping with my suffering. Coping with it, by avoidance, that is, rather than curing it by addressing its cause directly.
How does one address the cause of suffering directly? One must look within oneself, because the cause for trauma is one thing, and the cause for suffering another. Traumas occur to us all, and blaming a parent for their treatment of us as children is no more propitious than blaming a tree for our falling out of it. We cannot avoid traumas from having occurred to us, nor can we avoid them ultimately occurring us to again. Traumas include the trauma experienced by an infant being born, as well as the experience of death by a person taken by extreme old age. But you can no more blame the source of trauma for your suffering than you can blame a thread for the pattern of the tapestry, or blame a leaf for blowing in a wind. How can one have revenge against all sickness? How can one hope to outsmart death? Yet we can address the cause of our suffering directly by looking within ourselves. Traumas will occur, they do occur, and then afterward, they have occurred. But they begin, they happen, and then they are ended. Once they have ended, their remains are experienced as suffering. But it is our choice, as individuals, whether to cling to this sensation of suffering or not. There is, obviously, a period of healing necessary to recover from any trauma that is, in turn, commensurate to the amount of damage and injury done by it. But far too often, humans cling to memories of times they should regret as though these were the happiest times in their life, instead of looking ahead to even happier times still; likewise, people often regret the past instead of realizing happiness in the moment. One must discuss with oneself whether they want to remain suffering or not. If one chooses to do so, one may endure as they were, and if one chooses instead to not do so, they may, at such a time, transcend.
in an empire, the average citizen is a pushy bully because they have been forced to survive by conforming to the overriding philosophy that "might makes right." Without even noticing it about themselves, everyone who lives under an imperial governmental system takes their feelings of powerlessness out on everyone else by projecting blame for this alienating symptom on anyone besides its true cause - their government itself. Because they are not allowed personal space in which to self-govern, they mistake "self-government" with subjugation of others, and "self-sufficiency" becomes lost to task delegation without any oversight. In an empire, morality becomes so rare it has sometimes manifested under such conditions in a sole messenger, a "prophet," who is then murdered by the citizens of the empire, for fear of losing their empire. It has been said, "those who do not learn from the mistakes of history are condemned to repeat them." How can one learn any model for government besides an empire when all the history books in an empire are written only to describe the history of past empires, thus making the present one seem justified as an inevitable culmination of them all?
When Ron Paul preaches the "golden rule" be applied to international relations, and the GOP boo him for it, it is because the mob have been conditioned to believe they have no choice but to advocate violence to enforce conformity. If they have been forced to conform, so should everyone else. It is not their "fault," per se, that they have internalized the empire's philosophical rejection of morality. They are no more responsible for themselves and their own choices than the main character at the end of Orwell's novel "1984."
for those who might confuse being a metaphysician with being a practitioner of "pataphysics," allow me to offer forth an example of each to allow one to compare and contrast them:
Pataphysics: "your octopus' tentacle is leaving eel resin all over my rusty trombone."
Metaphysics: "In hyperspace, tachyons carrying the force of sub-light speed gravity coalesce into a kaleidoscopic prismatic refraction of hyper-dimensional shapes."
WARNING: if you have read my work and cannot tell the difference between the two above statements, you have almost certainly gone online to criticize me.
a typical comment from a "serious scholar" peer reviewing my work:
""Never seen the SDA as being told to be used rotated. Where is the source you gather this use from based on the system of 7 and Dee? The cipher disk of Alberti has nothing to do with Dee's system as far as I know.""
Which basically means "if no one else said this before you it is false. Because I have never heard of this before, it is false."
I wake up, I log on, I see this, I get disappointed in humanity. Welcome to the first day of the week.
My response would be: "both are methods of decipherment and encryption."
But I am so drained from the stupidity and arrogance of the question, I cannot even muster the strength to post. What would be the point? Communication is futile in an empire that devalues unique individualism and its creative discoveries. Fuck humanity, fuck the world, and fuck all of you. Peace.
History will determine the value of my works, my contributions to society. But in the short-term, history often vilifies and rejects truth in commensurate proportion to its significance - its potential impact - how much CHANGE would be needed to attain it.
When someone comes along and says to a world of imperialism and its victims, "love one another," they are called mentally deranged, at best. This idea was so revolutionary 2000 years ago, it still hasn't caught on among many of Christianity's own most ardent adherents. To the Roman conspirators who wrote the New Testament Gospels - whatever the real message of Yeshu Ben Padia then - it was so odious, so confusing, so different and so dangerous to their world that they forged the New Testament Gospels solely to cover it up by replacing his true words with the Asclepian message of "love thy enemy." It was briefly possible, during the window of time from 2000-2012, for this "Angel Scroll" to have come to light, but it didn't; now it maybe that we will NEVER know the true words written down by "Jesus Christ" himself.
Sometimes an idea can be so out-of-place in its contemporary culture that it looks like a threat to those it is trying to help: the healer is seen as an alien demon attacking the victim, an adversary to the victim's fever which has confused the victim's mind against itself.
When this happens, cults form. Cults are easily catalogued in their similarities, compared in their differences, etc. but not easily understood as to their actual cause. "Personality cults" form around "charismatic leaders" - this is about as far as public research into this phenomenon has managed to dig yet; nevertheless cultism is the basis for a large part of how cultures form regionally and compete geo-politically, and the reason why 90% of the human population today claim to believe in some form of "god(s)." Based on any degree of study into the subject of inner-cult relationships between a "charismatic leader" and their closest acolytes, one will immediately discover a vast rift between these individuals manifesting itself as an unhealthy obsession in the acolytes with the cult-leader. The cult-leader generally REJECTS this trait in their acolytes, and - to the extent they cannot overcome this obsession - the cult-leader usually ends up rejecting their closest acolytes outright as well. This is often renounced as simple "paranoia" on the cult-leader's part, but this over-simplifies and shifts blame from the real situation: a charismatic person becomes a cult-leader because they attract acolytes who form an unhealthy obsession with them. This dynamic generates a cult.
Cults are formed from groups of people. People are organisms, and when they congregate in groups as cults they form "super-organisms." Cults become part of culture to the extent they are acculturated into history texts. A cult, active for a period of time, is called a "movement." Thus, a single "charismatic leader," cursed by unbalanced acolytes, can spawn not only a "cult" or group of people congregating as a hypnotized audience, but also a "movement" or a cult that is capable of, over time, recognizing its own nature as a super-organism comprised of smaller organisms each operating independently for the good of the whole just like the organs inside each of the organisms do to sustain their own life.
Cults are groups of people driven by a single ideology, ultimately, whether this ideology proves in keeping with the ideas of the original cult-leadership or not. They may form in one manner, but once they reach a certain stage in their development, they metastasize into something larger - something capable of recognizing itself. What makes a group of people a cult is this unifying ideology - without which a group of people would not be able to be considered a "cult." ANY belief that has ever been imagined in the human mind has formed, by now, a "cult" of people debating its validity and veracity. One of these cliches states "there are no new ideas," but this is false. There are always new ideas, but in times of militant imperialism (during an empire's economically declining phase) they maybe difficult to find, suppressed and their originators even ostracized or worse, simply not given a language with which to express their ideas.
Only cultural movements are capable of apprehending ideologies objectively, from the point of view of those who write history texts. History texts are not written "by the winners" but "for" them about a series of petty war-lords, industrious opportunistic capitalizers, thieves and liars at best, murderers and rapists most commonly, who comprise a lineage of past imperialists to justify and rationalize the current empire's funding the writing of history texts for them. Yet in between these "notes" along the musical "stave" of history, there remains a whole other, silenced symphony. Karl Marx attempted to harness the intricate network of interpersonal relationships that had still been only "strange attractors" in the "fractals" of Hegel's historical methodology. Yet, "people power" has not yet successfully resisted imperialism to the extent either resource is depleted; whenever there is one there will arise the other. History is, as proposed by Hegel, only a "dialectical synthesis" of these two forces; and while Marxism sought to uplift the common working person's living conditions, by the era of Sovietism his ideas for labor-unionism had become grossly distorted. History texts honor and venerate people as leaders who are, by necessity, responsible for many more deaths than is the "average" person. But these are only the names of charismatic leaders who successfully formed cults from groups of people that would, beyond their own immediate influence, flourish into cultural movements embraced of a unifying ideology.
Psychological and physical trauma from abuse cause a person to bear the burden of undeserved and unfairly damaged karma. This additional karmic baggage manifests as opaque interference to the clarity of its bearer's communications and the result is that this layer of clouded, unlucky karma prejudices others against whosoever should be afflicted by it, regardless of whether or not this reaction of instinctive loathing is really warranted or deserved. The reason for inducing this condition through psychological and physical abuse is to weaponize a mind against imaginary enemies, and to program it to accept remote-control over its own will. Some call public child-sacrifice a "coming of age ritual" and "initiation into the tribe." Others call this an act of "psychic rape" and "emotional vampirism."
In 1999, I went through such a "ring of fire" myself; but my experience only opened my eyes to the machinery of society performing this act every day and night, every hour and minute and second, on someone somewhere: conditioning them to accept the imposition into their individual development of Otherness, whether they WANT this or NOT. Otherness is, in my opinion, best defined by Timothy Leary when he was in prison and had the realization that his guards, whom he could see as antagonizers threatening him, actually saw themselves as his protectors, trying to help him. Otherness does not impose itself with violence often; only often enough to be feared the rest of the time. Otherness is manifest as the "community" of people around oneself, and no matter how roseate their intentions, they will ultimately exercise them against anybody "outside the circle" by applying overwhelming physical force - usually torture, including coercion (the threat of violence), physical force (actual violence) and violence unto death (murder). This "community" of Others is NOT to be Trusted.
In an imperial civilization, all citizens are equally victims of physical and psychological abuse as part of their conditioning into becoming citizens. Institutions for public education are established that, invariably, become mere boot-camps for propaganda brain-washed soldiers. In these institutions, all forms of physical and psychological abuse are encouraged as normative socialization. Once one is finally let loose from these dungeons, one has been so "hazed" into a "daze" of confusion they believe anyone who challenges imperialism is a "terrorist," and anyone who advocates it is a "patriot." It is difficult, if not impossible, in such an imperial civilization for an individual to express their pain to the "community of Others," and "cry on the shoulder of their abuser." Everyone has been abused and survived, so nobody's experience of personal abuse is seen as being "any different" from anyone else's. Everyone has been victimized equally, so no one is allowed to complain.
however, simply because we are all equally victims of trauma from abuse, this does not mean our sufferings are in anyway less or disqualified as such. In fact, it merely adds insult to injury for one to often have no one in whom they can confide in their feeling that their suffering makes them lesser than their peers. The saying "laugh and the whole world laughs with you; cry and you cry alone" seems the whole truth to one in sorrow and suffering. Social ostracism, feelings of exile, even suicidal thinking, can all follow the revelation to others of one's own suffering, its cause and its form. Asking for help from friends is often more difficult, and no more constructive, than asking for help from random strangers. And trusting "health-care professionals" to determine your fate for you should never be considered a sane, nor safe, choice or fate. So when one is suffering, who does one turn to? The answer is what has given life its meaning for 90% of humanity: the imaginary theological idea of a deity. When I stub my toe, I don't say "devil damn it." I say "goddamn it." People don't pray to the devil, why would they? He is only the ghost of Enkidu.
the way I, personally, have coped with my pain from trauma induced by abuse has been, traditionally, to make media: that is, to write, to draw, to paint, to build models, to make graphs and designs and so on and so forth. I wrote books, compiled them as pdfs online, I made video lectures about a wide variety of topics, I ran two websites to showcase different aspects of my works, and on the side re-mixed hundreds (literally, hundreds) of songs and made daringly copyright-infringing music videos for some. I did all this, non-stop, from 2002 to 2012. I created for myself a miniature, imaginary realm, a world within a world, over which I was literally its ~GOD~. But none of this felt good to me, complete or right - it didn't ever fill the hole I felt inside. So finally, in 2012, I had a revelation, and since then I have cut my productivity in half. Am I pleased about this? Not particularly. But it is a byproduct of this phase in my life. In 2012, I realized, among many other things, that my life was not going to turn out how I'd wanted it to as a child, that I no longer even wanted it to, that I had been content all along being a psychogenic amnesiac, and that I was over-productive only because I was using creativity as a means of coping with my suffering. Coping with it, by avoidance, that is, rather than curing it by addressing its cause directly.
How does one address the cause of suffering directly? One must look within oneself, because the cause for trauma is one thing, and the cause for suffering another. Traumas occur to us all, and blaming a parent for their treatment of us as children is no more propitious than blaming a tree for our falling out of it. We cannot avoid traumas from having occurred to us, nor can we avoid them ultimately occurring us to again. Traumas include the trauma experienced by an infant being born, as well as the experience of death by a person taken by extreme old age. But you can no more blame the source of trauma for your suffering than you can blame a thread for the pattern of the tapestry, or blame a leaf for blowing in a wind. How can one have revenge against all sickness? How can one hope to outsmart death? Yet we can address the cause of our suffering directly by looking within ourselves. Traumas will occur, they do occur, and then afterward, they have occurred. But they begin, they happen, and then they are ended. Once they have ended, their remains are experienced as suffering. But it is our choice, as individuals, whether to cling to this sensation of suffering or not. There is, obviously, a period of healing necessary to recover from any trauma that is, in turn, commensurate to the amount of damage and injury done by it. But far too often, humans cling to memories of times they should regret as though these were the happiest times in their life, instead of looking ahead to even happier times still; likewise, people often regret the past instead of realizing happiness in the moment. One must discuss with oneself whether they want to remain suffering or not. If one chooses to do so, one may endure as they were, and if one chooses instead to not do so, they may, at such a time, transcend.
in an empire, the average citizen is a pushy bully because they have been forced to survive by conforming to the overriding philosophy that "might makes right." Without even noticing it about themselves, everyone who lives under an imperial governmental system takes their feelings of powerlessness out on everyone else by projecting blame for this alienating symptom on anyone besides its true cause - their government itself. Because they are not allowed personal space in which to self-govern, they mistake "self-government" with subjugation of others, and "self-sufficiency" becomes lost to task delegation without any oversight. In an empire, morality becomes so rare it has sometimes manifested under such conditions in a sole messenger, a "prophet," who is then murdered by the citizens of the empire, for fear of losing their empire. It has been said, "those who do not learn from the mistakes of history are condemned to repeat them." How can one learn any model for government besides an empire when all the history books in an empire are written only to describe the history of past empires, thus making the present one seem justified as an inevitable culmination of them all?
When Ron Paul preaches the "golden rule" be applied to international relations, and the GOP boo him for it, it is because the mob have been conditioned to believe they have no choice but to advocate violence to enforce conformity. If they have been forced to conform, so should everyone else. It is not their "fault," per se, that they have internalized the empire's philosophical rejection of morality. They are no more responsible for themselves and their own choices than the main character at the end of Orwell's novel "1984."
for those who might confuse being a metaphysician with being a practitioner of "pataphysics," allow me to offer forth an example of each to allow one to compare and contrast them:
Pataphysics: "your octopus' tentacle is leaving eel resin all over my rusty trombone."
Metaphysics: "In hyperspace, tachyons carrying the force of sub-light speed gravity coalesce into a kaleidoscopic prismatic refraction of hyper-dimensional shapes."
WARNING: if you have read my work and cannot tell the difference between the two above statements, you have almost certainly gone online to criticize me.
a typical comment from a "serious scholar" peer reviewing my work:
""Never seen the SDA as being told to be used rotated. Where is the source you gather this use from based on the system of 7 and Dee? The cipher disk of Alberti has nothing to do with Dee's system as far as I know.""
Which basically means "if no one else said this before you it is false. Because I have never heard of this before, it is false."
I wake up, I log on, I see this, I get disappointed in humanity. Welcome to the first day of the week.
My response would be: "both are methods of decipherment and encryption."
But I am so drained from the stupidity and arrogance of the question, I cannot even muster the strength to post. What would be the point? Communication is futile in an empire that devalues unique individualism and its creative discoveries. Fuck humanity, fuck the world, and fuck all of you. Peace.
Comment
About
© 2024 Created by Jonathan Barlow Gee.
Powered by
You need to be a member of the Pythagorean Order of Death to add comments!
Join the Pythagorean Order of Death