My Epitaph

If you don't question everything, you will know nothing and believe anything!

Wednesday, November 11, 2015

Internet Fame

In late 2008 or early 2009 I came across a website that was fairly new and, if memory serves, its "counter" of page views may not have been higher than 10,000 the first time I discovered the Armageddon Conspiracy.  In its beginnings, it first appeared to be an ad campaign for a collection of "coded fiction" that they also allowed to be downloaded without charge.  I read the four novels, and would check-in with the website as it was being built, basically from its inception, through its completion.

In the beginning, they seemed to be diligent about a new article published every month.  Having already realized that the "real deal" (actually illuminated) Illuminati should not be something to be feared, and how most of Weishaupt's 25 point plan seemed to be congruent, if not actually equal to what the intellectual founders of the United States were after.  I also had already realized that, since I was never indoctrinated into Roman Catholicism, I would have to side with the Templars against both institutions of kingship and the papacy, as well as thinking "What if all the bad publicity/conspiracy theories perpetuated against/about the Templars were put forth by the Hospitallers (Knights of Malta), or even an underground remnant inheriting the Teutonic knights' wealth and knowledge to point the fingers away from the true actors, most likely the Hospitallers with their connections, especially to Directors, Central Intelligence like October Surprise/Iran Contra player William Casey being a prime example.  Needless to say, I was expecting internet communication from the "real deal Illuminati".  I had already discovered "Eli Rook" and had even been in communication with the person using said pseudonym (Lying Gatekeeper was how I symbolically read the anagram of Eli=Lie and the Rook in chess symbolizing the gate in the castle/city wall under the defensive turret).  Remaining my skeptical self concerning Eli Rook's agenda, I much preferred the four free novels ideas and ideals being conveyed via fiction and found myself trying to check back in often enough I began to realize that they were trying to publish a new article about every month.

However, as any reader of mine, especially anyone that has actually waded through the extremely dry Bushby Fraud should know, I do not take any author's claims for fact without first thinking "What power over me could anyone possible gain if I were to accept ...?," which then requires me to contemplate the agenda's of authors and publishers, as well as the actual time to verify, if I haven't already studied the sources/material being cited.  What else should be expected with an epitaph of "If you don't question everything, you will know nothing and believe anything"?  Even when I was in communication in the spring of 2009 with "Magus" via email and began with said epitaph, the reply was favorable for such an epitaph as a guide for living intelligently.  In either late 2010, or 2011, there was created an official Facebook page for the Ancient Order of the Illuminati (the page was taken down on 1/1/2013, if memory serves), and to the administrators of that page my epitaph was not as welcome. It was interesting to be a part of the conversations at first and I made several Facebook friends via the commentators of this AOI page.  Eventually, however, I was banned from commenting on their page, for proposing too radical an idea to bring about the global change they seek without requiring a bloody revolution.  My ideas were too radical and freely thought for supposed radical free thinkers who were, at the time, calling for a global revolution, with only naming the enemy they were after "the Old World Order/OWO" and I was banned from being able to comment further.

One of my Facebook friends met via that page started a page that first became a place for those of us banned from the AOI page to still discuss the variety of topics discussed on the website.  When I was a teenager, I realized that people either loved me or hated me no matter what I did; there were few in between loving me or hating me when all I was was being my self-actualizing self, so I didn't really care about being banished from the "official Facebook page of the Ancient Order of the Illuminati", let alone the people that didn't care for my input.  I made some friends from Facebook I actually sometimes miss communicating with since I have been good thus far on avoiding Facebook in 2015, but I also sure made some "enemies" among people that supposedly have the same enemy as me (global status quo/resistance to evolving personally and collectively).  It also seemed as though the thing that I just could not tolerate amongst the people discussing these ideas in related Facebook groups, is finally being condemned in the final posting before the Armageddon Conspiracy can only be found at the Internet Archive.  (I use this page for the link because I strongly encourage anyone, if they care to read a website that I would recommend to those few that will never lose their skepticism and critical thinking, especially if they encounter something they know to be false-to-facts, most importantly with any flaws in logic, interpretation or any major offense to the rigorous standards of true scholarship.)  What I could not tolerate were what I called the "cut-and-paste" crowd who could never take anything discussed on the AC website having processed the information into their own words thus truly showing comprehension of the material.  

{One thing I have learned in life is that the overwhelming majority of, at least people in the USA, have grossly inferior "reading comprehension" skills than I possess.  This was most evident in training people with a four-year degree (at least) for No Child Left Behind standardized testing evaluation.  I found myself more than once, especially in trying to train college educated adults to score 10th grade standardized math tests scoring criteria, wondering just whether their university was accredited and just what their degree of study was.  I barely graduated, but I also did not put forth more effort than I needed to basically pass my classes from a top 5 undergraduate business school I should never have entered, but that story would take far longer than this essay which will already be too long and I believe I have already covered it, if not in posts, then in the autobiographical stories in "My First 100 Days".  However, my university transcript can also prove that during the prerequisites, with probably 3 out of 4 having some foundation/facet of advanced mathematical application, that I earned my way into said top ranked undergraduate business school, as well as at first declaring Finance to be my major because the time value of money formulas used in F301 were not only the easiest equations/formulas I had ever learned, but I actually enjoyed the calculations.  Before I burned out on school [and a week later experienced LSD for the first time while taking A-core (Finance, Marketing and Operations/Production 301) which caused me to question which value was greater, paper for stocks and bonds, or living trees breathing out O2] I set the curve with the first Finance 301 exam with a perfect score (that Grad Student teacher saw the most promising student he had ever seen in any F301 class burn out and end up with a C largely because of the perfect exam was my life jacket that kept me from below C level, and even took me aside and asked if I had burned out during that summer semester having witnessed my obvious cessation of homework, and caring.}

However, it seems my epitaph has caused me to be immortalized to any of the readers of the Armageddon Conspiracy website, at least to those that knew me.  Having not checked in on the AC website in a while, I followed my intuition to do so a few days ago and, needless to say, was more than surprised to see that, not only were they closing down the website in the near future, but that, although they did not claim that I was their "Cypher", they quoted him in a comment to me from Facebook from at least sometime in 2014, but maybe even sometime as early as mid-2011.  I do find it somewhat fitting that I do have my initials in this final posting, since I was the one who incessantly refuted the proposed mathematical equation revealed and promoted on the AC website as their Theory of Everything in every Facebook chance I could.  Although I found myself in accord with damn near all they put forth in the wording of their proposed TOE, there was one huge logical error the person who dreamed up the equation promoted as the ultimate reality to the universe failed to see, and this Achilles heel prohibits anyone competent in mathematics, let alone professional mathematicians could ever accept.  So, with the claim that they could "prove" their mathematical TOE, I was expecting what would be considered a mathematical proof, which would be impossible because of the logical flaws inherent in the equation, and their description of it.

Luckily, the archiving of the Armageddon Conspiracy did not eliminate the search engine for the AC website, sure you need to scroll a ways down until it will appear on the left hand column under the final page in the index, but the search engine still works.  If any interested reader would care to use the search engine, they can enter "r = 0," "r > 0," and "r = > 0" to read more on this attempted Theory of Everything because they invest probably tens of thousands of words in trying to convince the reader that these symbols are the very cause and purpose of the observable universe.  I did not have much a problem with the cosmology promulgated as the website was built, but I also was familiar with about 90% of the topics discussed, at least from secondary "pop" sources if not books from what would be considered primary sources like scientists writing about their research and fields of study.  So, it was far easier for me, being about 38 when I discovered a small website giving away free PDF files of 4 novels and being extremely well read for my age, to see when the authors use a source I have studied, but in a way that forced me to return to that source and scrutinize their usage just as I did with all the citations I checked when revealing Tony Bushby's agenda in his books, than it would be for anyone of lesser raw intellect (IQ) and far closer to puberty to have discovered the website when it had over a million words who hasn't studied such a variety of topics to such a depth as myself.  The AC authors were far more scholarly than Bushby, yet I still found points that I found their comprehension or interpretation as inferior and flawed from what I have studied and deduced myself.  This would prove heretical to the authors, instead of the dialectic at work of refining their flaws like a jeweler taking a rough gemstone and cutting facets on it to perfect it, or the process of peer review causing revisions to chip away at perceived flaws amongst peers; but, to the "cut-and-paste crowd" it was like criticizing Jesus to Christian fundamentalists, or any other fundamentalist facing reasonable and rational scrutiny of their orthodoxy.

By utilizing some power play in conspiracy culture, eventually all new writings were to be published for sale as ebooks from Amazon when the website reached a state of fullness under the same nom de plume as the four novels, Mike Hockney.  The new writings were to be part of "The God Series" in which they were going to set out to "prove" their TOE, r => 0.  However, from those that I have asked who do not demonstrate the same standards for primary sources as true scholarship demands, including some names we will be discussing shortly (next post on this topic), the r >= 0 TOE put forth via the AC website fails to make any appearance in the books trying to prove that this website claiming to be the true descendants of the Bavarian Illuminati, who descended from Pythagoras put forth.  No, instead of proving their r >= 0 claim, Mike Hockney seems to obsess with Euler's e^i ∏ + 1= 0 as the ultimate explanation of life, the universe and everything.  Although to my knowledge I have never been referenced as the man who destroyed their TOE with my mathematical competency on the website or in the God Game/God Series of books, since I have been told that Mike Hockney never mentions the r >= 0 hypothesis as put forth on the website he supposedly helped compose and I know I was the only one challenging their claims explaining why no mathematician anywhere in the world would never accept their proposition.  Although I do not believe I have been given the proper credit and respect for slaying that dragon, I have some pride in seeing my initials taken from a Facebook conversation a few years ago in relation to why the website will be removed from cyberspace (excepting of course the archive linked above).

In a nutshell, they claimed that r = 0 to be the realm of pure mind, if you will, or Plato's Ideals, or "god/heaven" for those unfamiliar with Platonic Idealism.  Everything else would be defined as being > 0.  In the descriptions defining each category, the authors explicitly stated that all the real numbers (positive numbers >1), as well as the integers (negative numbers) fell into the category representing Platonic Forms, or the observable universe.  I refused to relent on the simple fact that their cosmology defined negative numbers as being greater than zero, which they could never prove mathematically to anyone, let alone a peer reviewed academic mathematics journal.  Additionally, on the website, they would also make other mathematical claims that only those that have never taken Calculus might believe, like claiming that 1/∞ = 0, and that 1/0 = ∞.  Only if the person who already passed Calculus has completely forgotten what they had to learn before accepting anything similar to these ratios could the calculus competent accept these statements.  Nowhere on the AC website was the concept of LIMITS discussed before making such claims such as division by zero yields infinity, or that the inverse of infinity can be anything other than the finite, or infinitesimals of the Calculus.  A true mathematician would say that, as the limit of x approaches infinity, 1/x approaches 0.  Only by starting with notation for the limit would a true adept in mathematics ever use an equal sign in the above ratios, and then only to solve for x, whether the limit approached was ∞ as I stated, or 0 (in the limit as x approaches 0 for 1/x, then the x will solve to be ∞).  I offered an option to rectify the mathematics by using r = 0, and r ≠ 0 to replace the r > 0 so that it would be factually correct to include the negative numbers, which are technically not "numbers" but are "integers", or r =≠ 0, but since they, rightly, argued against the Aristotelian "either/or" philosophy, then the usage of symbols that mathematicians would accept as valid to convey their TOE would seem to nullify their cosmology.

And then there was the philosophical opposition in that they incessantly claim that the dialectic to be the mechanism, or driving force of evolution, yet in their proposed TOE equation, they were quite fine with having it only expressing a thesis countered by an antithesis, leaving nowhere for any possible synthesis to resolve this dialectical dichotomy.  Well, the only way they seemed to try and find a synthesis was that they also claimed that ∞ would only exist in the r = 0 realm/dimension, which would be accepted by PhDs in mathematics as openly as the statement that negative numbers could somehow exist only in the realm where r > 0 (I shared this with a friend with a Master's in profit geology and he said he had a real problem with any claim that negative numbers being greater than zero, hence my unrelenting criticism of this proposed TOE).  So, not only were there flaws in the logic defining the two realms they define reality to entail (simply mind versus matter) in terms of the mathematical symbols chosen, the only reasonable symbol to use would be in replacing the > with ≠ which would allow the claims for negative numbers to remain in the realm opposite to the r = 0, the proper use of mathematical symbols reveals this cosmology to be exposed as a direct countering to the process of the dialectic whereby an antithesis arises to counter a thesis eventually leading towards a synthesis.  In the proposed r >= 0 TOE, there remains absolutely no room, mathematically, for there to be any type of synthesis found or created because we cannot attribute synthesis to the = and ≠.  Needless to say my ideas for perfecting this mathematical statement were not accepted.

I hope you, dear reader, can begin to see why I may not have been too popular with the person who created this TOE of r >= 0.  Had they truly been open to having their ideas reviewed and critiqued to refine them towards perfection (i.e. like what the process of peer review attempts to accomplish and the very process driving evolution they promote as their interpretation of the dialectic attributed to Hegel), they would have shown far more respect towards me than for the brigades of cut-and-paste "Illuminati warriors" sycophants that they seemed to have created.  It seemed to me that the younger the reader was, and/or the less they knew about anything, let alone knowing next to nothing about everything, the more likely they would become sycophantic, usually with cutting and pasting direct quotations from the AC website to their own websites solely dedicated to completely plagiarizing the AC content in an effort to "spread the idea", or even making videos with only text copied from the original source.  There were multiple calls on the AC website for the ideas to be carried over into the creative projects of the readers to make the ideas become viral memes, and it seems as though these sincere simpletons were only trying to do as instructed, failing to see that they would have preferred readers to start writing about the ideas in their own words, or part of their plots, or paintings, screen/stage plays.  Instead of finding the reincarnation of, say Mozart, who would be so inspired to create a modern "The Magic Flute," they seemed to have awoken armies of Rainmen and Forrest Gumps who couldn't really state anything as though they have internally processed it, and keep "repeating" the same cut-and-pasted lines ("I am a good driver!," "Hockney always said '...'").  

However, since I had already began the several year project that was "My First 100 Days" shortly before I was among the first 10,000 or so to discover the AC website, I think I applied the intent of their desires for the ideas to be become content in other books, songs, and any other artistic projects (they would have loved for a video game to have been created where you had to defeat the Old World Order, but they never directly called for its creation, but that was what they were hoping to inspire).  They promoted multiple artists that will likely never attain any major audience that had sent in submissions of their songs inspired by the ideas expressed on the AC website, and were hoping to inspire a thousand authors to use the ideas expressed as part of the plots of novels, or as inspiration for others to begin a starting place for research into topics where they will publish their own research on the topic originally encountered via AC/Mike Hockney.  I can admit to several themes/ideas conveyed via my own "Autobiographical Manifesto of Futuristic Novelty" ("My First 100 Days") because some of the ideas expressed I strongly concur, others have been translated into my own ideas which the AC authors may vehemently oppose since it evolved from their original thesis into my own.


One person can take the primary "credit" for our decision to delete the AC site. We shall not name this person. He's the sort of egotist who would love his name appearing on the AC site. We shall instead refer to him as "Cypher" because he's a nought, a nothing, a nobody, a nonentity, and he's rather like the creepy traitor in The Matrix who preferred living in a fantasy world to the Truth.
We wouldn't normally bother in the slightest about the bleatings of this pathetic clown were it not for the fact that he happens to be the organizer of a proposed conference about "Illuminism" in America.
The fact that this person wasn't laughed off the stage means that the online Illuminist community is rotten to the core, totally fucked, and absolutely worthless. And that means that the AC project, in its public aspect, has been a grotesque and monumental failure. It has, after all these years, become inverted. It has turned into a platform for a person whose "philosophy" (if one can dignify it with that word) is the opposite of ours. We have simply wasted our time. We have been pissing into the wind. So it's time to bring down the curtain on this tragi-comedy.
We shall call this person's "philosophy" Cypherism. It's the usual mixture of empiricism, relativism, solipsism, nihilism, New Ageism, and total anti-rationalism. This person's strategy is as follows. His task is to redefine our work as "Hockneyism", as he calls it, while he declares his Cypherism to be the real "Illuminism". His proposed conference is where this plan is to reach its culmination.
Here's a flavour of Cypher's hatred of our movement: "If you ever find that you have the stomach to actually read through all the Hockney books and write a criticism, WDL, I'll be happy to assist in what ways I can."
Having already shattered any hopes to convince the mathematically challenged into the r >= 0 "theory of everything," I was unable to complete the first of the "God Series" books because its level of scholarship was below that of the AC website.  In terms of seeking primary sources of the highest merits, I could not even finish the first book in the series because it possessed too many errors and flaws contradicting knowledge already gained from sources of greater merits.  I was involved in several Facebook groups related to this material a stated above.  I even found a few intellectual peers that I enjoyed conversing.  I was asking one of these friends, who was able to read the God Series even though they recognized many of the same things I did, they were just able to suspend their disbelief to continue reading, if Mike Hockney was trying to "prove" the r >= 0 thesis.  So, when I said that someday I would get around to reading the series, but with taking notes addressing every internal inconsistency in reasoning to separate the wheat from the chaff of the books, it was to someone already aware of the rigors of scholarship of which I apply myself, see The Bushby Fraud for the exactitude for which I will use.  To this, one who I had interacted for a while, that while having respect for their mind, had never received a friend request (I rarely sent any) replied the above quote concerning my stomach for what I can read, and my inability to not be critical in my thinking towards all sources - INCLUDING my own thinking.

I will continue this line of thought, later, including the problems I had with "The God Game" as well as my take on this North American Illuminist Conference, its attempted organizers and proposed speakers that, since giving up on Facebook this year, and all the "Illuminated" Facebook groups maybe in 2013, I only discovered as being criticized in this AC "Day of the Dead" posting that immortalized my initials with the demise of both the AC website as well as any further publications in the God Series of Mike Hockney.  I cannot believe it took the authors of the AC material this long to finally be critical of the cut-and-past crowd of sycophants that I gave up on years ago as being completely incapable of truly internalizing anything well enough to explain it in their own words.  This next essay will include my revealing of how the proposed keynote speaker for the conference that won't happen next year admitted, nor was he the only one in private correspondence to admit such, that he "was never any good at math" as he quickly became the most sycophantic admirer the AC/Hockney would seem to ever inspire in believing the universe was mathematical - as I said above, the younger the reader, or the less they knew about anything/everything, the more likely they would become sycophantically fanatical.  It seemed as though there were a literal inverse relationship between competency in mathematics and how dedicated one became to the AC r >= 0 thesis.  Only those who would, at least in private conversation, admit to never being above average in mathematical competency seemed most likely to litter their Facebook feed with memes dedicated to this r >= 0 fallacy.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...