My Epitaph

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

Thoughts on the Armageddon Conspiracy/"Pythagorean Illuminati"

I know that this essay will likely have no effect nor impact upon the devout sycophants in the developing cult, but if they can obtain an objective position they might just see that I am only attempting to perfect the flaws presented: to act as the alchemical crucible to purify the lead presented into the gold contained therein in potential, an antithesis to a thesis - striving for a perfected synthesis.  However, from my years of interacting with the sycophantic dogmatists, although primarily on Facebook in groups, it seems as though the epitome of issues I have had has begun to become the YouTube profit for the ideas, ideals and idealism presented, originally at the Armageddon Conspiracy website, then through the ebooks published under the same synonym/nom de plume of the original 4 novels: including "The Armageddon Conspiracy", Mike Hockney.

I highly recommend reading the comments to the videos Morgue puts out and pay close attention to those Morgue replies.  There are some who comment asking if Morgue will ever give credit to "Mike Hockney" and the "God Game" series of ebooks for all his ideas presented (never a response by Morgue that I've seen thus far).  There are others whose comments are clearly the sycophantic typings of other "Hockneyites" (Hyperians, I suppose some of them might prefer, but that doesn't include those who have only read Hockney and wouldn't want to be associated with Morgue as the profit to their new religion of faith) who try to deride those making critical comments by the logical fallacy of appealing to the "authority" of "Mike Hockney" {who claims to be a lower degree initiate into the "Pythagorean Illuminati" as his fallacious appeal to the authority [we must also assume that the rituals and initiations haven't been changed in many years, thus making the whole process of getting to the supposed 6th degree (out of 10 according to the original Armageddon Conspiracy authors: they were to have earned the 7th degree, and the final before the three mystery degrees according to the original authors) as an appeal to tradition] of the supposed authority based upon tradition of his Grand Master to reveal the teachings up to the 6th degree: so we have multiple potential logical fallacies tradition and the biases included if we suspend our disbelief as though we were reading a science fiction novel}.

A university lecture entitled "Critical Thinking: Experts and Appeal to Authority"
If you didn't see any problems in Morgue Official's video above upon first watch,
please watch it again after watching this lecture from this university philosophy course.
This professor also has a great series on fallacies worth the watch.

Both those asking/defending "Mike Hockney's" intellectual property rights, as well as those defending the ideas presented (as original nonetheless) by Morgue appear to exemplify the intended target audience that Mike Hockney admits to being the audience to whom he wrote.  He sums this up in one specific statement in "The God Game":
“Our aim is to give an intelligent person, without a mathematical background, enough information to glimpse and grasp the mathematical basis of reality, and to appreciate its astonishing power, beauty and simplicity.”
This was a radical departure from the original Armageddon Conspiracy website, though, because it wanted skeptics, agnostics and atheists to be its audience: the original authors seemed to desire the best and the brightest to find their website: which seemed to align with the concepts of merit they were propagandizing.  However, the intended audience between the website developed beginning around 2008, and the publishing of ebooks that were for sale (including titles that obviously were "plagiarized" from the original website now being repackaged for sale) beginning in 2012 seemed to have radically shifted from seeking sympathizers among the "best and brightest" who were invited to be skeptical and critical of the original author's content to "... an intelligent person, without a mathematical background...".

Now, what exactly defines "an intelligent person"?  If we consider what we know about recorded history and prehistory (assuming that what data we do have has been properly interpreted) the ability to read and write as an apparently universal ability today would make modern man to be able to consider oneself to be intelligent if they can read and write - smarter than the average human in our known history, and in the upper half of intelligence of the world today, although an aboriginal shaman who can't read nor write would likely be more intelligent than most who can read and write with their gnosis of the flora and fauna in their localized reality.  However, if we want to quantify intelligence in any fashion, it would seem that at least the structure of mathematics will be utilized (knowing a quantifiably "more" about something than another), if not actual facets of mathematics tested upon can reveal who can prove they are intelligent enough, not only to actually grasp complex philosophical ideas, but to have the background necessary to call bullshit when it's being covered up by a bouquet of flowers.  Wouldn't even the mathematically illiterate, yet truly intelligent person remain minimally aware of their own flaws and biases as well as the dangers of neglecting skepticism towards all thoughts (especially including one's own thoughts versus biases)?

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

Morgue seems to exemplify this change in targeted audience with Mike Hockney's writings instead of the original audience sought by the authors of the Armageddon Conspiracy website: someone who considers themselves intelligent, but apparently atrocious at demonstrating any mathematical merits!

Not only should one read through all the comments under Morgue's videos, but also watch the videos in disagreement with Morgue (some can be found in the righthand sidebar of suggestions on the linked page above) and pay attention to the defenders of the belief system presented by Morgue/Mike Hockney, but pay close attention to anyone who basically says (or explicitly states it thus succinctly), in a Tom Cruise or Cuba Gooding, Jr scream: "Show me the numbers!!!"  I personally like Martymer81's the best because he seems to most likely be highly competent in mathematics and his Logical Fallacy series should be watched in addition to the above Fayetteville SU lecture above (the more time and varied sources you spend studying logical fallacies the better your logic should become) and its professor's fallacy series, most especially by anyone falling completely for Hyperianism or Mike Hockney.  I was one of the few people in Facebook groups discussing the ideas presented by the AC website who had enough a mathematical background to call bullshit where I saw it, and those most sycophantic to the cause have confessed in private conversation to never have been good in any math class - something I would be dishonest if I were to state.  To me, every time one of the leading sycophants admitted to not having been above average in competence in any math class was like I was getting paid to tutor someone in a math course that wanted to argue that I didn't know what I was saying because they don't want to actually learn the mathematics at hand because it isn't "ontological" enough and spend their time arguing about a topic they can't really seem to grasp in the first place (hence needing my help in tutoring in their math class).  Don't get me wrong, I tend towards a Pythagorean mathematical idealism, but that's because I've read R A Schwaller de Lubicz's "The Temple of Man" and this true adept rediscovered the mathematical cosmology and cosmogony that taught Pythagoras over about a 22 year period (something never admitted to by any AC author for whatever motive they have to misrepresent Pythagoras' life), and I had read this world-view shattering tome before first finding the Armageddon Conspiracy website in its infancy circa 2008/9.

It was originally proclaimed that The God Series, for sale ebooks, would "prove" the r=>0 theory of everything introduced on the AC website.  Needless to say, I somewhat lost interest when it became apparent that "Mike Hockney" had given up the proposed r=>0 to instead hypothesize about one of the several identities given Euler's appellation to posterity, especially after discovering that I was not in the intended demographics (having a minimal mathematical background as evidence of my intelligence).  If Morgue were asked about the differences between an equation, a formula and an identity in mathematics, I doubt he could answer well enough to even get partial credit, let alone if asked to even give a simple Euclidian proof in geometry as an example of what constitutes a mathematical proof.  [My last job with a time-clock was scoring No Child Left Behind standardized tests, usually in the client state's highest grade's math or science sections; not only did one need a 4-year Bachelor's degree to even apply for the job (with proof like a diploma or transcripts), but one also had to complete an intake examination to determine what areas they should never be sent to try to qualify to score.  I was one of the few that could choose what grade and what content area because I aced all sections of the intake exam, and I choose mathematics over English.  My mathematical abilities allowed me to advance by the merits of my work in the highest grades tested by each state to even be Supervisor for that section, or at least a Team Leader job description, including both "Pulling" and Training Team Leader.  And in that respect, finding Morgue helps me realize what types of lives are lived today by the children whom I enjoyed failing in that job scoring standardized tests: much the same I feel towards Flat Earthers, which seem to have much in common with these "Hyperians" and "Hockneyites" including an arrogance in their own intelligence (a la Dunning-Kruger) as well as a seemingly demonstrable gross incompetence in mathematics.]

Recently, I tried to reread as far as I originally read in "The God Game" with the intent of pointing out all the reasons why I couldn't consider "Mike Hockney" to be a credible source/authority (and my refusal to accept him as a source of the highest demonstrable merits usually led to my ostracism in Facebook groups for not being sycophantic enough and for daring to question their newfound dogma and prophets), but quit after I read the above quote because I had enough of a mathematical background that I was actually trying to study up on mathematical proofs (having checked out of a library Whitehead and Russell's treatise "Principia Mathmatica" in preparation for the challenge of their "proof") and knew one was not going to be forthcoming from that source in the first half of the very first book in the series.  (If any Hyperians/Hockneyites want an example of the scrutiny I use towards all sources, examples can be found here and here - one thing the Hockneyites don't seem to mind is a complete lacking of proper citations, whereas I have invested many hours in trying to verify as many citations provided as I can find in world class libraries for multiple books/authors and have tried to take my own notes with as proper of citations as possible so no one can ever be as critical of my citations as anyone can be with, say Tony Bushby's claims.)  The Armageddon Conspiracy website had promised that they were going to "prove" their mathematical universe (r=>0) in the for-sale ebooks under the Mike Hockney nom de plume.  Although I had minor issues as the AC website was originally developed (and if I could recommend it I could link to an archive of the website because they found a way to remove it from the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, but I really can't recommend it without first knowing if someone possesses the requisite skills and knowledge to be able to separate the wheat from he chaff: fact from spin/agenda, bias and fallacy from objective fact): again, I don't disagree with the stated aims and objectives, but only with the sloppy or nonexistent true scholasticism exercised on the part of the author(s).  Having had more than one librarian/archivist call me a scholar after hearing me explain my studies and approaches to scrutinizing sources insures that I don't care what someone says/thinks/believes online about me, especially in Facebook group: people with measurable intelligence and apparent merits in their fields have far more respect for my intelligence than most people on Facebook, especially in groups.  I mockingly call Facebook the place where everyone believes themselves to be a genius.

I will include those criticisms about the beginning of "The God Game" (far) below, but I think that my criticisms against this collective of authors may best be surmised by examining a few critical points in the three articles (apparently three different voices/authors) most recently posted on the Armageddon Conspiracy website (and maybe I should try to screen capture them so if they pull their articles I can still have them for referencing?).  For starters, it appears as though these authors are also continuing in the belief that Wikipedia exemplifies the highest of merit for a source: a thought that causes me to cringe, but that can in large part help rationalize why the authors cannot be considered to be a source of the highest merits: the quality of thoughts influencing our own influences the quality of our own thoughts.  How credible of a source can one be if the primary source they seem to refer has little respect in its merits among those seeking the most meritorious sources?  The original AC authors once claimed that Wikipedia exemplified the highest aspirations of merit in terms of being a credible source and effort of mankind.  I would say the same about the Internet Archive, and there are several philosophy encyclopedias online (here, here and here) that I consider to have demonstrable merits in objectively reporting about different philosophers and philosophies (I rarely use these online philosophy encyclopedias since acquiring a hard copy Encyclopedia of Philosophy - which sometimes I consult more than once a day, and some days not at all, but still consult the online ones for more recent items than the publication date (1967).

For a source that wants to instigate a revolution to create a "meritocratic" state, they seem to think that Wikipedia exemplifies the ideal source.  However, it doesn't take much time exploring just what can be accessed through the Internet Archive to realize that one could easily download the books (primary sources) one would need to pursue, with proper academic scrutiny and standards, advanced degrees in practically every subject of advanced study known to man.  Project Gutenberg would seem to exemplify the striving for excellence in cyberspace as the Internet Archive, as well as the philosophical encyclopedias linked above.  These sources would seem to be acceptable for any doctoral thesis in any accredited doctoral program around the world.  Would any doctoral program around the world accept any thesis that cites Wikipedia as its primary, or most commonly cited source?  Not one seeking the respect amongst its peers as defining "merit" as the original AC defined.  They wanted a world where the best of the best, as chosen among the peers of professionals in each discipline, would govern (in a simplified nutshell) a meritocracy.  However, isn't it slightly ironically hypocritical to then ascribe the highest of merits onto a source that no credible academic institution would accept as being an acceptably credible source listed in any research project?

Maybe I just have higher standards for what I consider to be sources of the highest merits?

And that simple fact was something so heretical to the sycophants of an idealism they could barely grasp because it was of a topic that they barely comprehend, let alone have any demonstrable merits: mathematics, that they would have burned me at the stake for heresy if they could have in real life as they did allegorically online (not that this is in any way an act of revenge against those small minded persons, but as just another critique of another belief system - another critical examination of an author/publication like I scrutinize every source to determine its true credibility, just because none of the Hockneyites have ever taken a book to a library to audit its sources available through that library doesn't mean that I haven't had the time and motivation to do so, again, see here for an idea of how many hours I have invested in attempting to verify sources from just one author and the rigors of proper scholasticism I attempt to apply towards every source - especially my own thoughts for their biases and fallacies hence the whole "If you don't question everything, you will know nothing and believe anything" epitaph atop this page).  Granted most of those seduced into this belief system seemed to have been teens when first finding the Armageddon Conspiracy website, or adults that never learned how to discern between multiple sources to ascertain which one(s) demonstrate greater merits as sources: "intelligent" people "without a mathematical background".  As an intelligent person with at least a rudimentary mathematical background, the few others that I could respect their mathematical abilities seemed far less likely to become as dogmatic and sycophantic - almost like there were a strict inverse relationship with mathematical abilities and knowledge and how devoted a Hockneyite one becomes.

The very beginning of this article on the home/index page suits perfectly to my position.  Everything in quotation marks about "The Torture Garden" has been copied and pasted from the Wikipedia page on the novel.  They have copied and pasted most of what exists on the Wikipedia page about the novel, including all five quotes taken from the novel, although they did alter the order of the quotes.  The thing I found most interesting was that when I attempted to click on the link in the references to an English translation it went to a dead link; it seems that Wikipedia cannot even reference Amazon for a hard copy.  But, the best evidence to defend my statement concerning the superiority of the Internet Archive over Wikipedia can be found here.  Copying and pasting most of what exists on a Wikipedia page about a novel that contains a dead link to the English translation from the reference section doesn't lead me to thinking that this author has actually read the novel in question and lends its title to the article in question.  However, unlike Wikipedia, the Internet Archive has multiple options to download the English translation in one's preferred formatting if I was so inclined to read the novel, and Amazon has copies for sale including a $.99 Kindle version.

Again, it would appear as though this author has only read the Wikipedia page for "The Neon Demon" as well, but citing a much smaller proportion of the Wikipedia page.  They couldn't even post the trailer for the movie, instead they post some video of the movie, but with something that is not to my musical tastes making me wonder if they even saw the movie, like I doubt if they've ever read "The Torture Garden".

We aren't even past the "preface/introduction" to the article and it demonstrates such inferior merits that it wouldn't receive a grade of high merits in middle school classes as a book report, but, I hope that it can be seen why I might hold the Internet Archive as a practically infinitely superior source of merit than Wikipedia from this opening passage into a torturous garden.

We see that the first thing the author truly addresses is sensing, feeling, intuitive and thinking types.  Dear reader, if you are unawares of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator personality test, derived from Jungian archetypes, I beg of you to not only take several tests, on different days, and read up on varied sources about the type(s) you score, but most importantly to also read up on the other 15 types (16 total types) and how differently they perceive reality differently from your type.  On some tests I can score as an INTP, but it seems those tests are inferior to the ones I score as an ENTP (like the hard copy I first took circa 1996 by someone certified to give the MBTI and describe the differences appropriately).  The absolutely best ones define terms on a spectrum both visually and with percentiles, and on those I usually am 51% "Extroversion" versus 49% "Introversion".

If you have never encountered the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) before, please read the last link (large font) before proceeding.  The differences between the E and I types are most definitely not the differences of how the terms are normally thought of by most people.  Jung, as well as Myers and her daughter Myers-Briggs had a very specific meaning in their specific definition, with as large a chasm between their intended specialized definitions as that between the common person's definition of a theory and what is required to constitute a theory in a scientific discipline (hence the Flat Earther's saying that their Flat Earth "Theory" to be the same standard as the scientific theory of gravity, or electricity, etc...).

If you want to strive to be a source of respectable merits, you cannot redefine terms already defined with specific meanings for, by and in specific fields.  This is not the time nor place to tangent off to "The God Game", but I must make another citation from "Mike Hockney" before moving on in "The Torture Game" article.
“First of all, to be mathematically skilled you have to be an introvert. Our definition of introvert is someone who enjoys his own company and does not go out of his way to seek the comfort of others. An extrovert, on the other hand, enjoys the company of others and goes out of his way to avoid being on his own.” (My emphasis.)
 “An extravert, continually distracted by the company he cultivates, never has the time and opportunity to be a deep thinker.”
 No source of even a modestly mediocre merit would attempt to redefine E v I of the MBTI into the "plebeian" (common) definitions; as a matter of fact, it would seem anathema to any credible definition of "merit" to redefine specific terms from a specific field into the common language usage of the terms outside of the specific field of expertise.  Would it really be guilt by association to immediately be skeptical of this anonymous author's attempt at the Sensing/ Feeling/ Intuition/ Thinking differences since both are writing to pursue the same agenda [and, again, I am not at complete odds with the overall aim, only with flaws I perceive that come from intending on writing to those most likely to suffer from Dunning-Kruger effects while preaching about a world built where only those deemed meritorious by their peers (i.e. the best surgeon elected by surgeons, the best engineer by engineers, etc...) "govern" those with inferior merits]?

"How would a sensing type recognize the answer to existence if the answer were not sensory?" the AC author enquires.

"Everyone spends some time Sensing and some time using Intuition."

So, the apparent experts in the field of the MBTI (assuming that anyone running The Myers Briggs Foundation to be an expert on the 16 types, at least far greater experts than the authors in question, and the constituent elements making up those 16 permutations) would answer the anonymous author's question with the known facts that those favoring Sensing over iNtuition will still utilize some iNtuition.  Anyone with any recognizable merits in the MBTI, let alone the expert all experts think most expert, should know that the opposing "forces" are not mutually exclusive, but represent the polar extremes of a spectrum (hence on the best designed MBTI tests I have taken over the years place me at 51% Extroversion and 49% Introversion: about as balanced as possible because the test is designed to find out which factor is favored and by how much - on the best tests, that is, which is why on inferior tests I can score as an INTP instead of a 51%E/49%I - NTP).   I am of the opinion that "illumination" would be about the bringing into as close to balance as possible these characteristics: i.e. being 51% of one and 49% of the other should make a far superior personality than someone at 99% to 1%.  I held that opinion before I first encountered these authors claiming to be the Illuminati, and the extreme imbalances demonstrated in their millions of words seem to justify my position that bringing them into balance instead of pushing for the extremes yields a truer path to any form of enlightenment.

"How would a feeling type recognize the answer to existence if it were not emotional?" the AC author asks.

"This third preference pair describes how you like to make decisions. Do you like to put more weight on objective principles and impersonal facts (Thinking) or do you put more weight on personal concerns and the people involved (Feeling)?

"Don't confuse Feeling with emotion. Everyone has emotions about the decisions they make. Also do not confuse Thinking with intelligence."

Say the experts in the MBTI.

"How would a mystical intuitive type recognize the answer to existence if it were non-mystical?" the AC writer posits.

"Intuition (N)
"Paying the most attention to impressions or the meaning and patterns of the information I get. I would rather learn by thinking a problem through than by hands-on experience. I'm interested in new things and what might be possible, so that I think more about the future than the past. I like to work with symbols or abstract theories, even if I don't know how I will use them. I remember events more as an impression of what it was like than as actual facts or details of what happened.
"The following statements generally apply to me:
"I remember events by what I read "between the lines" about their meaning.
"I solve problems by leaping between different ideas and possibilities.
"I am interested in doing things that are new and different.
"I like to see the big picture, then to find out the facts.
"I trust impressions, symbols, and metaphors more than what I actually experienced
"Sometimes I think so much about new possibilities that I never look at how to make them a reality.

There seems nothing about "mysticism" in the accepted terminology of "intuition" according to the experts of the MBTI.

So, we've seen that this group of authors can't understand that the usage of the most "common" meanings of the terms used in the MBTI hinder any real possible comprehension of one studying the MBTI, and by using the wrong definitions, clearly indicate a remedial, at best, understanding of a useful tool in discovering the basic differences in how humans can perceive "reality".  One author clearly violated any true merits of scholasticism by redefining Extroversion and Introversion to the erroneous extravert and introvert in an ebook, while this other seems to only hit the target (but not the bullseye) for Thinking out of the four factors discussed after basically plagiarizing Wikipedia about a book and movie that we have no reason to suspect the writer to have read nor seen.

And this from a source preaching about "merit"!

"This stuff isn't difficult" says the author, but yet the links posted for each quote I used to counter the writer's remedial claims about the MBTI factors clearly indicate that it seems a little too difficult for this writer, as well as "Mike Hockney" who believes he can exchange Jung's specific definitions for the Urban Dictionary's (I assume the Urban Dictionary only uses the plebeian definitions, but I could be wrong if you search it) and apply them to work derived from Jung's definitions.

"Note that the terms used for each dichotomy have specific technical meanings relating to the MBTI which differ from their everyday usage."

This from a source these authors respect as a credible online source, but a source that I take with more than a grain of salt: Wikipedia, in its article on the MBTI under the subheading Dichotomies.  If only either this anonymous author or "Mike Hockney" had bothered to consult their beloved Wikipedia concerning the MBTI, they might not demonstrate objectively and quantifiably inferior merits of true knowledge concerning the MBTI as I had gained the first time I took the MBTI circa 1996 when it was strongly emphasized that the terms used in the MBTI cannot have the general definitions applied to obtain any accuracy in discerning between the types?  How can I respect either author when both make such a blatant and basic flaw in describing why the MBTI can be a useful tool?  Only one who has never really bothered to study the MBTI would seemingly accept the statements of fact as being factual at face value.

Instead of bitching that "science" cannot define a thought, why not be more specific as to which branch of science should be investigating thought?  To this end, maybe they could even have consulted Douglas Hofstadter at Indiana University and enquire as to what the Cognitive Sciences Department tends to think thoughts are?  That would be appealing to one recognized as having great merits in the field (as well as being a young professor when he got the Pulitzer for "Gödel, Escher Bach") about any unpublished/unpublishable thoughts concerning what thoughts are, but it seems far easier to just complain about something "science" hasn't addressed [that anyone not in the field(s) would be privy to know] than to contact experts in the fields most likely to include the nature of thought in their field of expertise.  

The could have presented information about how the fMRI scans are beginning to be able to interpret brain activity to read what the brain is "thinking".  Just because science to date cannot define what a thought is doesn't mean that it won't be forthcoming as more advances are made with more diverse studies utilizing such technologies as the fMRI to examine what physical activity in the brain occurs during specific cognitive abilities in replaceable experiments.  The fabled novel that I never expect from the novelist "Mike Hockney" called "The Soul Camera" may have been based upon actual technology discussed in this 2+ hour documentary, which again indicates that being able to quantify and define a thought may not be that far off with advances in brain scanning technologies and experiments studying "thinking".

Mind Science Kept Hidden: two and a half hour long documentary

Michael Aquino addresses the "thought architecture" in his "Mind War" trilogy, and he would seem to be an expert in, at least the US Army's interests in how the mind works (and maybe the "Pythagorean Illuminati" should study Aquino's "Mind War" for a far more successful strategy than they obviously have taken thus far, if they exist and are serious, that is - as should Black Lives Matter, etc...).  But, how about these two possibilities about what exactly a "thought" "is": it appears as though all combinations and permutations of DNA engage in biophotonic emission, so it would seem plausible that "thoughts" are "our" interpretations of the data contained in the photons being emitted; another plausible consideration, especially when it comes to the old adage of "gut feelings" that maybe our micro-biome's communicating (or even more a radical thought, these ancient forms of life helped create the ideal bio-machine for them to gain even greater influence upon the As Above universe to the As Below universe of the microbes: the colonies living on and in what we perceive to be the "I" we all identify as are our creators)?  

I know when I first read about the Archons circa 1998/9 in the Nag Hammadi texts my thoughts turned to how rabies can take over the functioning and reasoning abilities in humans, as well as other animals infested with rabies.  I, again, had to think of this idea of interpreting the Archons from the Nag Hammadi texts upon learning about toxoplasmosis and its effects upon the central nervous system.  Currently, one of the books I am reading is "I Contain Multitudes: The Microbes Within Us and a Grander View of Life".  In consideration of all the symbiotic microbial life (approximately half of the DNA strands on and inside our skins are microbial lifeforms' DNA), as well as pathological, maybe microbial existence was what the ancient gnostics considered as both the Phosters as well as the Archons?  Especially if my hypothesis about biophotonic emission could be factual, then it would seem plausible that there was an ancient gnosis concerning these microbes that can keep us healthy or take over our ability to use our frontal lobes to control our body's desires and needs, and that possibly these microbial friends and foes were preserved to posterity for a world lacking in the same sciences as the culture originating the myth(s) and were thus called Phosters and Archons?

I suppose one thing that seems to have turned me off to the writing style used has been my being influence by "Science and Sanity" (one of the largest influences upon Robert Anton Wilson, and after reading it I understand why) by Alfred Korzybski (currently rereading a hard copy I own instead of the library copy I read circa 2012).  As a result of this influence, I strive more and more to use "is" in statements of identity (with exceptions such as "The map is not the territory" and "The menu is not the meal") less and less.  Once one recognizes the validity to Korzybski's arguments against using "is" to act as an identifier, and how this "is" remains more a problem than most other items needing addressed (could a radical Muslim suicide themselves without the devout belief that Mohammed IS the Prophet, can one's faith remained undisturbed to rephrase "Jesus IS lord" without the "is"), and tries more and more to use "is" less and less, it would seem likely to be turned off by reading so many ideas contingent upon the semantic reactions associated with the uses of "is" (the best example of "semantic reactions" at least unhealthy ones, would be how today too many people get "triggered" by words causing them to lose emotional stability solely upon the act of hearing).  At least this seems true to me, so I wonder how the tone and assertions as facts would appear if The Torture Garden were to be rewritten in E-Prime (English without the is of identity)?

As we progress through The Torture Garden, we encounter someone that should be considered one of the ideal candidates to present a TRUE mathematical proof to of any "God Equation" claiming to prove Platonic mathematical idealism to be factual: MIT physics professor and author of "Our Mathematical Universe"Max Tegmark, at least according to the idea of meritocracy preached by AC/Mike Hockney.  How ironic that they mock someone that should be their biggest ally and someone who clearly demonstrates greater merits in mathematical competency than the authors in question?  I first didn't recognize the first seven words attributed to Tegmark because they didn't sound familiar from my reading of his book, but did finally hear Max state them during a TED talk.  The vernacular used by the author leads me to think that watching this TED talk to being the most exposure this author has had to Max Tegmark's ideas: the use of "...for what he was saying..." and "Tegmark said..." seem to indicate a watching of the TED talk.  This becomes apparent when the author addresses Tegmark's book.
Wikipedia says, "Tegmark has also formulated the Ultimate Ensemble theory of everything, whose only postulate is that 'all structures that exist mathematically exist also physically'. This simple theory, with no free parameters at all, suggests that in those structures complex enough to contain self-aware substructures (SASs), these SASs will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically 'real' world. This idea is formalized as the mathematical universe hypothesis, described in his book Our Mathematical Universe."
If "Literally all that Tegmark has to do to become an ontological mathematician,..." then why isn't sending Max Tegmark a true mathematical proof not of the utmost importance instead of writing philosophical treatises to those who consider themselves intelligent but lacking in any serious mathematical merits and background?  Methinks it likely be the result of an inability to provide a true mathematical proof worthy of Tegmark's time.  Mike Hockney could have written for Max Tegmark, Douglas Hofstadter and Brian Greene (for instance), with advising those not competent in mathematics to skip the math and read the words, or better yet to continue to push their limits of mathematical knowledge and ability until the reader can actually understand a true mathematical proof.  But, no, they write treatises that someone like Max Tegmark would never waste his time to read because he would demand to be shown the numbers. and should recognize flaws, fallacies and inconsistencies turning him off from reading more from a source inferior to his merits.  It became obvious that the author of The Torture Garden has no demonstrable merits to dismiss Max Tegmark having apparently only watched a TED talk and read the Wikipedia page on someone whose c.v./resume clearly demonstrates competency of high merits in mathematics and who wrote a book about a mathematical universe that doesn't contain the flaws Mike Hockney writes in his books.  And, I don't believe Tegmark uses "Ultimate Ensemble" in his book at all, but does discuss a MUH: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis that Wikipedia states as another way of stating the "Ultimate Ensemble Hypothesis," again providing strong clues that this author hasn't actually read Tegmark's book and that Wikipedia appears to be a grossly inferior source when seeking the sources with greatest objective merits.

Asking a question of "all scientists" and having the question be about a specific formula in a specific branch of a specific field of THE SCIENCES seems to reveal the author's irrational belief that all scientists in the world have studied any quantum mechanics, let alone Schrödinger's equations about the famous feline hypothesis and interpretations.  I am left tending to think that this author has never even attended any university for any period of time because, maybe English Lit or art majors can get a Bachelor's degree without realizing that there are many different branches of scientific fields, even many different specialities inside the same general field (i.e. biology can have everything from ecologists to microbiologists, the divide between organic chemists and non-organic chemists seems as large as that between cosmologists and quantum physics), but no seriously intelligent person could believe that "all scientists" have even studied the same subjects in pursuing their undergraduate degrees: another Grand Canyon chasm in the author's "logic".  Anyone who can make such a blanket postulate for "all scientists" but then ask about a specific element of a specialized field of one branch of science surely seems to be demonstrating a gross inability to see the world as it really displays itself to being.  I would postulate that the only two courses most, if not all scientists had to take would be at least one semester of calculus and a class of statistics for their field (i.e. my statistics class was through the Economics department, but I know that there are statistics courses designed for each branch on the tree of knowledge that we call "science").

"What's it to be? Mathematical rationalism or scientific irrationalism (empiricism)..."

I find this claim to be most interesting in lieu of what is demanded as the rules for the new "official" Facebook group.  Rule #4 "Use reason and evidence in exchanges."  Evidence?  Isn't that empiricism to present any actual evidence?  If they won't accept empiricism as part and parcel to a philosophical foundation for a world-view from any of the sciences, why would they seem to desire it from people in a Facebook group of sycophants that believe cheering on a message in an echo chamber for said message equates to actual merit in anything, other than ass-kissing?  For that matter, how can anyone demonstrate any merits in anything without utilizing some form of empirical data to determine who actually possesses greater amounts of merit in any topic?  Guideline #7 for moderators again demands to "provide evidence as warrant for their decisions," which again seems to indicate that no matter how much one preaches against any demanding by the sciences for evidence, they cannot completely escape the need for evidence to defend one's claims and actions.  They have submitted themselves to what they claim to have little respect for: the undeniable authority of objective empirical evidence.

"The Great War of the Mind is just beginning ... Mathematical Idealism versus Scientific Materialism. Which side will you take in the Mind War?"

Although not addressed in this article, this group of authors claim that everything must endure the crucible of the dialectic (an antithesis counters a thesis forcing a new synthesis ad infinitum until arriving at "perfection"); however, they all seem adamant about demarcating betwixt a thesis and its antithesis without ever giving consideration of how a synthesis will arise.  They appear to loathe scientific materialism and embrace mathematical idealism, without once seeming to consider that these polar opposites need to be synthesized.  They seem to want one side to "defeat" the other instead of resolving and evolving into something new: so eventually another antithesis can arise to challenge it and force a more refined synthesis.  Whereas, I am always seeking to transmute apparent conflicts into new syntheses.  But, I also tend to think Ken Wilber has the best take on the dialectic I have yet encountered: "transcend and include".  Each new synthesis will transcend certain elements of both thesis and antithesis, while simultaneously including elements from both thesis and antithesis.  Mike Hockney in "The God Game" seems to excel at drawing his line in the sand to demarcate a dichotomy that he never once seems to anticipate how that dichotomy equates to being a thesis and its counter antithesis that must eventually by synthesized.  How many times when I first tried to read it did I quit for the day when I found myself thinking, sometimes stating aloud, that he's stuck in a thesis refusing to be synthesized by the countering antithesis (see way below for examples)?  How many of the devout never once saw the hypocrisy between claiming everything goes through the dialectic while leaving so many major points left as unresolved thesis and its antithesis?  But, for those beginning the book already believing that they had found the source of greatest merit (because of the appeals to authority and tradition the authors make to the Illuminati constitute logical fallacies, as well as the entire series of The God Game being an appeal to those ignorant of mathematics fallacy), how likely were they to remain skeptical of everything they read?

If scientific materialism were to adopt a mathematical idealism as its foundation, the observable Fibonacci numbers would clearly define the observable universe (as well as the cell division in the microscopic that eventually utilizes macroscopic Fibonacci numbers to grow/unfurl), which would leave the transcendental phi those numbers approximate to being the mathematical ideal the material world mimics.  If mathematical idealism were to embrace any materialism to confirm its validity, nonphysical, transcendental phi would embrace its physical approximation represented by the Fibonacci numbers (and the differences between each Fibonacci number and the phi it approximates could then, by usage of the analogy to voltage potential from electricity could "define" the "soul" as existing just like a voltage gap exists as precursor to any electrical circuit).  After having read Ken Wilber's "transcend and include" explanation of the dialectic circa 1999/2000, I cannot recall how many times in my life I have applied those thoughts of creating a synthesis to apparent unresolvable dialectical opposites, why should I yield that thought process to Mike Hockney and these new AC authors when they offer no such insight to how a synthesis arises?

How fitting that the first time "Jews" are addressed (other than discussing the 'god' of the 'Jews') for their pernicious and nefarious activities where they have a disproportionate influence in "The Jew Lovers" paragraph comes in the same article where the author tries to make the reader believe that "cultural marxism" is but a "conspiracy theory" on the right.  Let's see what the Souther Poverty Law Center has to say about "cultural marxism", shall we?  "Right-wing ideologues, racists and other extremists have jazzed up political correctness and repackaged it — in its most virulent form, as an anti-Semitic theory that identifies Jews in general and several Jewish intellectuals in particular as nefarious, communistic destroyers."  Let's examine what The Guardian has to say about the issue: "The theory of cultural Marxism is also blatantly antisemitic, drawing on the idea of Jews as a fifth column bringing down western civilisation from within, a racist trope that has a longer history than Marxism."  

Later in the article (I don't even bother to read the Wikipedia quotes and the limited discussion about these Wikipedia citations: to me citing Wikipedia as a source seems congruent to citing a 4 year old that can barely read and knows little, if anything, about the real world that surrounds their childlike minds: that's how little I personally respect Wikipedia as a source for credibility), we see "The Illegal State" of Israel being addressed.  Both the topics of modern Jewry (like they never once mentioned that Goldman Sachs in any of the original articles on the AC was a predominantly Jewish company, although they had multiple articles concerning Goldman Sachs including one entitled Goldman Sucks) and Israel's legitimacy seemed too taboo for the original authors, too bad it has to come in an article where I had to skip the lack-of-true-merit source Wikipedia for most of the article.  Israel "exists purely because the Jews in America ensured that America did everything in its power to secure that end."  They utilized Zionist propaganda created before WWI to create pity for the "poor, persecuted Jews" that cannot be confirmed by mathematics nor replicable science, but the stance all along of AC has been to believe whole cloth the wartime propaganda instead of actually using math and science to determine what the actual, objective facts of WW2 could possible be.  If only they could question everything, using mathematics and science, then they would know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the "Holocaust" could never have happened the way the world has been indoctrinated to believe.  Hell, just listen to any "survivor" using solely "Speculation!" and "Hearsay!" as the only two courtroom objections to their stories, when applicable, and the "death camp" narrative falls apart as hearsay and speculation by the "eyewitnesses".
"American Jews, as massive donors to both the Democratic and Republican parties in America, exert an astonishing degree of control over American politics.
"America is one of the most corrupt nations in the world since its politicians are so susceptible to bribery. America is more or less a Mafia State, except the Mafia are actually billionaire American Jews. The Jewish bank Goldman Sachs practically runs America and the world. No sane State would ever tolerate Goldman Sachs."
Finally, some real truth from this source that they lacked the ball (as a testicular cancer survivor, I can no longer claim anything takes the plural to do) to ever state something so obvious before, in multiple articles about Goldman Sachs including one the one called Goldman Sucks.  They never really talked about how GS executives have had a revolving door between GS and the FED, the Treasury and the SEC that I have noticed in my lifetime, but then again, they demonstrate an elementary school knowledge about the "Civil War" because they utterly believe it was fought solely because of slavery and are fully seduced into the mythos of Lincoln instead of recognizing that all the problems in the USA today descend from Lincoln's war of aggression on behalf of the New England Blue Bloods who owned the cotton mills and wanted to federally subsidize the building of railroads with tariff revenues on the South.  (If you don't question everything, you will know nothing and believe anything!  This most definitely includes the myths of both Lincoln/"good" and Hitler /"evil" must be scrutinized to discern the winner's propaganda from historical facts.)

"The insane Jews thought they could take on the might of the Roman Empire. Has there ever been a more foolish belief in history? The Romans practically exterminated them."

Except for the fact that "Judeo-Christianity" definitely conquered pagan Rome, so maybe they planned a longterm infiltration strategy that even these authors can't grasp (is the story of Saul of Tarsus an infiltration tactic?)?  These Britons' comprehension of US history cannot be considered as anything above that of about a elementary school level inside the USA.  For this very reason I don't go on about other countries' histories and cultures because no one should take me as a serious source on another country's history unless I can prove my interests and "expertise" (with empirical evidence as proof) in the subject.  These British authors have yet to demonstrate even an 8th Grade understanding of the "Civil War" [in 8th grade was where it was emphasized to my class that the primary issue for secession was about where sovereignty existed: the South were convinced that the individual states held sovereignty over the federal government, and the North seemed to be all about a centralized bureaucracy (maybe because those pushing this opinion knew that the more centralized and large any bureaucracy becomes, the more likely corruption like cronyism and nepotism replace any ideal of advancement by merit alone?).  If they did, they would understand that the Old World Order they hate were the very Blue Bloods that put Lincoln in office and profited from the war (especially the profiting from federal contracts to build railroads and from "Reconstruction" of the South].  But, I say this as someone from the US who has invested some time into unraveling the mythos of Lincoln in my quest to question everything I had been conditioned to believe in my schooling.  If we can say anything about the typical Southerner today it should be something about what happens to your future when the best and brightest are killed off by an invading Army?  Only simpletons (and historically ignorant) believe that that war was fought solely over slavery.  Lincoln didn't desire a USA with freed blacks, he desired a USA freed of blacks!  He wanted them shipped out of the USA so none could undercut the wages of white man.  There are far too many inside the USA, but for someone outside the USA to fail to seriously question the winner's propaganda, how can they be considered as anything but equivalent to about a 10 year-old in terms of what they understand about another nation's history?  This is the type of source that some people find to be beyond scrutiny and of the highest quality.

Under "Conservative Snowflakes" we see that the author has copied and pasted from the same article from The Guardian as I had above; however they sure failed to present the same sentence about "Cultural Marxism" being a 5th column of Jewish infiltrators otherwise they might have to address the disproportionate influence of Jews in the Frankfurt School and their disproportionate influence upon US culture via the advent of Political Correctness.  Of all their quotes from that Guardian article (which they didn't happen to leave a link to, but I found it before I read far enough to see them cite the same article, and I linked to above because I desire to be credible in my statements and have had proper training for what constitutes a proper source and citation to the highest standards of scholastic merit), they fail to share the sentence that helps cut through the propaganda outlets of the Western media: the pro-Jew/Zionist agenda of the Guardian.

This author doesn't know much about the US when he asks whether Las Vegas was built by Marxists or Capitalists without recognizing the history of the city and its birthing from 2 members of the New York City branch of the International Jewish Mafia: Bugsy Seigel and Meyer Lansky.  This might also cause the discussion about why some Jewish Wall Street bankers funded the Bolshevik Revolution, but I wouldn't expect that deep a discussion by these authors.  Why?  Because they believe Wikipedia to be a credible source, they don't exemplify the striving for the highest merits possible to their intellect, and discussing the International Jewish Mafia and Las Vegas would be too much for them to grasp.  As a matter of fact, the whole laundry list of Marxist or Capitalist seems foolish because the "Old World Order" owns controlling stocks in every publicly traded corporation.  Just because these essential owners of all the corporations want to keep the public docile and consumeristic doesn't automatically mean that these plutocrats solely seek capitalism, or if capitalism/consumerism is just the tool giving them the highest amounts of control over the largest numbers of people?  To think that the wealthiest families, that have passed on wealth for generations, seek more money is to be completely ignorant of what they truly seek: more power and influence over more and more people.  Consumerism may just be a means to that end for the plutocrats to exert more control over the masses.

As the heretic's heretic, and yes, I think this page might indicate that no matter how heretical the Armageddon Conspiracy website and the ebooks by chosen nom de plumes are to most people's preferred, or conditioned reality tunnels, I am still a heretic to those accepting the dogma of AC/GS (Armageddon Conspiracy/God Series) without questioning it.  Again, I don't necessarily have a problem with the general stated aims of these authors, but to my level of discernment for what constitutes a source of the highest merits, these authors are obviously not fully initiated into their own belief system/appeal to tradition and authority of those holding the information these authors may never acquire (again based upon the assumption that their actually is a "secret society" behind these publications and not just some well read friends in their retirement utilizing the meme of the Illuminati as the marketing vessel/appeal to authority fallacy chosen to market their ideas and ideals) - just how enlightened can a 6th Degree initiate be when they have 4 more degrees to prove their merit before being initiated into those higher degrees?  They may be smarter than the average bear, but that doesn't mean that they have been made privy to the published works of all their past, and current full initiates, it would be fallacious reasoning to think otherwise; the stated job from the beginning was to make public the teachings up to the 6th Degree, and what the original website claimed was that the assignment of the 1st Degree was to create a new religion, only to have the reveal of the 2nd Degree to be that there is no god by apparently disproving your homework assignment.

I suspect that many of these new authors were recruited from Facebook among the most sycophantic, and that's why the quality of the writing has declined (drastically?) since 2012ish.  However, I suspect from the beginning of this article that I may find this page to be the best of the three for both content and quality of argument, as opposed to the other two pages discussed above.  Again, I do not oppose the general aims, but if I were the Grand Master of the secret society they claim to belong, I would be the final editor, or delegate it to another complete initiate whom I had complete trust in only allowing the highest quality of thoughts, logic and reasoning to be published.  However, their intended reader appears to be of the type that won't have the requisite gnosis to recognize when they are not presented with the highest quality of meritorious thinking [like how the ebooks changed from the hypothesized r=>0 Theory of Everything to one of Euler's identities and Fourier Transforms, instead of "proving" what they claimed they would prove, they changed what they set out to "prove" about mathematics using practically (may be literally but for reasons you will see below when I address The God Game's
beginning (and why I still can't read them because of my self-imposed dedication to only reading the highest of merit sources) and maybe later in the 31 book series actual mathematics are used for a proof that a mathematician would accept as proof, not thousands of pages of philosophy as a mathematical proof).  Knowing where the current article is heading, I think that you, my dear reader, should read my thoughts about what kinds of love can change the world for the best here (I have largely quit the Facebook habit, but still haven't gotten better at writing posts, hoping to start talking to myself in front of a camera and upload videos instead of typing, but I still have to get over talking to myself in front of a camera and just start doing it, and then get back to typing books instead of blogs... but I am also incredible lazy and don't really like typing, even though I have already typed out one book: "My First 100 Days"), first.  Another fact about me that might be relevant at this junction is that I have only had one business card in my life, and I made it myself for when I was working aboard the small ship cruise line 20 years ago.  I had a stated objective of "To obtain the type of wisdom that comes only from traveling."  Most of my reading time during those two years were of philosophy books because I was chasing my sacred cause: wisdom while and from traveling (and those two years at sea are why I KNOW that the world isn't flat, but the only other place I have heard/read "scientism" as a religion/cult other than Flat Earthers are these Hockneyites/Hyperians: I was taking daily observations of sun and Polaris's angles as part of my questioning everything - including the shape of the Earth - which is why I don't mind people questioning the shape of the Earth, I just don't think reading books and blogs and watching videos are superior to determining the shape of the Earth to mathematics and traveling to obtain more reference/data points of observation around the world instead).

I come from a dysfunctional home, so long as we define a "functional" marriage as one that ends, like the statistical majority appears to end: in divorce.  My parents just celebrated 51 years of marriage, having met at university on a blind date and still happily together, so I grew up witnessing a positive definition of several of the types of love that the ancient Greeks had multiple words to define instead of just "love" as we have in English.  My entire comprehension of the 3 types of love I claim can change the world are directly inspired by a discussion on love on the original Facebook page that was supposedly another Illuminati "cell" operating that page like another 3 person cell were writing the original AC website, and I was removed from their page partly by asking them if they were believers in philosophy because to the ancient Greeks, you couldn't spell philo-sopher without including one of their meanings for love.  They never admitted that one of the roots was a term for love, but did claim to support philosophy without acknowledging that you can't be in favor of philosophy without being a proponent for one specific type of love, a loving of wisdom, in this case.  Although I came from a home filled with healthy love, I was more adventurous than wanting to "settle down".  The only real goal I set for myself in my adulthood was to have been in 100 countries and all 7 continents by the time I was 40: freedom and adventure were what I sought.  I think I even have a lyric/poem somewhere that contains the thought that freedom and love are an inverse relationship/mutually exclusive, or, in other words, that the cost of real freedom to be love.  I have never minded being alone (which also seems to be evidence disproving these author's statements about the MBTI types because I am an "E" that has never minded having solitude time, and that's something, according to their inferior merits of knowing what the letters actually stand for that I should never enjoy), but that loneliness can be all-encompassing a few days every year where the lack of human touch can be unbearable.
"Of course, mathematics - the actual truth - has no such human aspects. It is beyond human. It simply is. It is faceless. It is so far removed from the human condition that people are effectively made sick when they even hear the word, let alone when they are told it is the ultimate truth of reality. To them, it is unacceptable that mathematics (and not love) is the Arche of existence."
First, it would seem apparent that one of the reasons that their intended target audience to be lacking in a mathematical background would be in keeping a readership that thinks "mathematics" to be one system, instead of having multiple branches of knowledge.  Mathematics today has about 6 different major fields.  So, which of these distinct fields, or are all of them - "the actual truth"?  Or, are we supposed to believe it to be another, yet unrecognized branch of mathematics: "ontological mathematics"?  These last two questions would seem highly unlikely to be asked by one lacking a mathematical background.  Then, the author makes a blanket statement about, one can only assume to be an implied "all" people being "effectively made sick when they hear the word": mathematics.  Although it might be factual that over 50% of "people" might show physical signs of stress upon just hearing the word "mathematics", only those lacking in mathematical background and/or mathematical merits would think that an implied "all" people would have such a negative semantic reaction to the verbal stimulus "mathematics".  I have struggled to understand how something so easy for me to learn remains next to impossible for many to learn.  I also have had enough experiences working with the mathematically challenged that I have been able to find ways to relate mathematics in such a way that the student in need of tutoring can actually "get it".  This would be impossible in a classroom full of students to give the individual attention needed to make the student finally grasp the concept, but I have done it in one-on-one situations over the years.
"In their customary brilliance, the ancient Greeks realised that there was more than one type of love and that it was impossible to pin down the various concepts with just one word."
Methinks what we are going to be reading will be very similar to what I was removed from the original Facebook group moderated by a different cell than the cell writing the AC website when they tried to rail against love.  I was posting links to how the ancient Greeks were superior in demarcating distinctions in the various types of love that English lacks the ability to demarcate between the differences because we have multiple meanings for "love" instead of multiple words for each meaning.  This was part and parcel to my posting about the how philology, philosophy and philanthropy are the very types of love that could change the world for the better.  Instead of railing against love, I was suggesting to take over all postings of "Love can change the world!" with exacting the specific forms of love that would make the world a better place.  I doubt this author was even privy to those postings from about 5 years ago, and if so, it would seem that I have helped shape their thinking more than they would ever admit, which should be how they should infer this critique to being, instead of an attack lacking merit: just trying to pull them up to the standards of high merit they preach, or expose them for hypocrisy if they aren't sincerely striving to be a source of respectable merits.
"This is hugely important to know; not only because these distinctions can help us in our personal relationships, but also because when someone says "all we need is more love," they can be challenged by asking them which type of love are they referring to. They are wildly different in most cases, and they are geared towards different ends. Love is one of the most complex themes of the human experience, and being ignorant of its many faces means to be ignorant of what it is to be human."
This was precisely what I proposed about 5 years ago to supposed members of this supposed secret society about how to control the conversation of all those preaching a definitionless "love" on social media.  This was one of the final posts I was allowed to make on this original Facebook group supposedly linked to the same authors composing the Armageddon Conspiracy website before I the admins removed me for challenging the obvious inferior intellect of the admins.  Either someone paid very close attention to my position taken, or someone of greater intellectual merits that wasn't privy to my comments years ago has discovered the same truth about the notion(s) of "love" as I long ago discovered: the ancient Greeks were superior in this regard because they had multiple words for the various facets of "love" instead of one word with as wide a definition as the modern English use of "love" to define such a wide array of facets.  I even posted an essay (linked again here) about this very subject almost 4 years ago, so even if I didn't inspire this attitude at the time, its replication here seems to act as justification of my position taken since at least 12/1/13 when I made my first post (instead of page on this blog).
"The base levels of love are Aphroditean, while the highest levels of love are Athenian. To distinguish between the two, a useful question can be asked: "Does this form of love raise the spirit of humanity as a whole?" If it does, it is Athenian. If it doesn't, it is Aphroditean."
 If you still haven't read the linked essay "Can love really transform the world?" please do so and it should be obvious that the three distinct loves I mention would "raise the spirit of humanity as a whole" - well, maybe not in those that choose extinction over evolution, but their's is the spirit in humanity we must overcome to evolve ourselves.  My message of/about/concerning "love" seems to exemplify their current message, but it was heretical to the same supposed organization a few years ago in a Facebook group supposedly run by members of the same supposed secret society.
"It is easy to spot the difference between Aphroditean Philautia and Athenian Philautia - just spot the cocky, loudmouthed individual who has achieved absolutely nothing but feels entitled to have their opinion heard and respected nonetheless! Our Revolution has been plagued by Aphroditean Philautians, while the Athenians are nowhere to be seen."
As one of these "Athenians" I was removed from being a part of their "Revolution" by them because I directly challenged a moderator/admin in a group with my statement that philology, philosophy and philanthropy are three specific forms of love that can change the world for the better and that all who were in said group should use these three types of love to make precise any vague sentiments about love in social media.  I was ostracized by supposed insiders for saying the same sentiments years ago!!!  Maybe that is a major reason why the Athenians aren't around their movement, but their targeted audience of those who consider themselves intelligent but lacking in a mathematical background are the very plague that has made their revolution ineffective?  Most sycophants to this "Illuminati" are the very cocky, loudmouthed individuals whose greatest accomplishment in life has been finding the Armageddon Conspiracy or God Series!!!  The last I really interacted in Facebook groups concerning this Pythagorean Illuminati, it still seems as though their biggest "revolutionaries" were teens when they first encountered the AC/GS and/or their intended audience of mathematically challenged, yet literate people.  People who believe they are "meritocrats" because they happened to discover a website and/or read some ebooks, but have done nothing worth mentioning in their young lives thus far.
"Too many people who have achieved nothing are proud of themselves (with no reason to be), while the achievers are expected to be humble and never acknowledge their own achievements (but have every reason to be proud of themselves)."
Of all the young ones that found this source, I know only of one that might have been so inspired by their position on mathematics to have gotten an engineering degree.  Another one, who happens to truly exemplify a cocky loudmouth who hasn't apparently accomplished anything in his life appears to have studied psychology for a Bachelor's Degree, but I can't tell if he actually graduated with a Bachelor's in psychology (and he seems to talk like a psycho/sociopath).  The one competent in mathematics (as any engineer must be, except I suppose for those that still drive trains and work on ships) sure doesn't exemplify a cocky loudmouth.  The adults who have found the website seem to have an inverse relationship between education/knowledge base beforehand and just how cocky and loudmouthed they become because they read a source - like reading a source they've found equates to any definable merit in anything.  The more a blank slate a mind is when encountering AC/GS, the more likely they will act as though they have demonstrable merit in anything for having read a website or series of ebooks: usually very cocky and loudmouthed and arrogant about their own merits, especially just how intelligent they actually are (especially for those lacking in mathematical merits)!
"To love something is to put a preference on the loved thing, which immediately generates hate for things outside the loved thing."
Can it be "bad" to "hate" the things not contained within philology, philosophy and philanthropy (not in their limited academic definitions, but in their truest, broadest etymological definitions as I discuss in my essay "Can love really transform the world?"- in case you haven't linked to it, yet)?  And if these loves create a reciprocal hatred, would the things outside the etymological definitions of philology, philosophy and philanthropy be bad things to hate?
"Our Revolution has been plagued by trolls, parasites, Last Men, and hangers-on. They have never approached the Great Work with true love or true devotion because they are incapable of it. They have no sense of the sacred. They have no sense of the divine. They have no sense of wonder. They have no sense of anything beautiful because they themselves are hideous. Trolls cannot imagine higher qualities existing in others because they cannot see any such qualities in themselves (as they have none)."
I haven't paid much attention to the hordes constituting their "Revolution" for several years, now (especially trying not to spend much time on Facebook for a few years now), but as someone with a marketing degree from a well respected Corporate America indoctrination program, I see a fairly perfect corollary between the audience Mike Hockney admitted as his intended audience and the "trolls, parasites, Last Men, and hangers-on" that have been a plague to their movement.  Had they somehow created a battery of tests before being allowed to comment on their Facebook group page (like a few IQ tests, logic games tests, MBTI tests, mathematical knowledge/ability etc...), they might have had a remarkably different caliber of person.  My marketing degree could have predicted that they would succeed in reaching their targeted audience, according to Mike Hockney, and that the caliber of person in their intended audience would likely lead to the problems with their "Revolution" as they bitch about.  If they really had mathematical proof, they should have sent said mathematical proof to people such as Max Tegmark, instead of to anyone with $4.99 and a Kindle, and maybe they would have found a radically different caliber of the typical person attracted to their ideas?  It's the things like this that makes me seriously question if it's really an "ancient secret society" instead of using the Illuminati as the gimmick to market your ideas.
"Modern art is a total joke. Modern artists are not artists at all, they are talentless nobodies who have tainted the name of art."
I got 13,200,000 returns for my query "Is modern art cultural marxism".
"I often remark that "Bauhaus" architecture is communist to the surprise of listeners, but the facts are, "modern art" is almost wholly a communist and Soviet invention of weaponized culture. To understand this, one must look at the Frankfurt School of Marxism, tasked primarily with social engineering and destroying culture. Weaponized culture was a key tool for destroying the West's social values and social structure. This is also true of the modern transformations of "art" into its own internal nihilist critique of meaning itself, with hipsterism." 
As I pointed about above when discussing whether or not cultural marxism actually existed, it seems as though "cultural marxism" has become the politically-correct (subversive) code of complaining about the disproportionate influence of Jews who dominate the arts (and push for the the Lowest Common Denominator culture that has large influence in the people seeking the love appropriately derided in this article), at least of the arts that debase any decency in any culture.  Hollywood is full of "cultural marxists" who debase any culture worthy of striving to achieve.  Are they all Jewish?  I don't know, but I bet there's far more than the approximate 2% of the general US population Jews constitute that actively put out garbage for the LCD mentality to consume from Hollywood.
"Industrialisation made men into work mules, slaving away for most of their day for a pittance."
Again, if these authors actually knew anything of real merit about US history they might know that Lincoln invaded a sovereign nation on behalf of the forces seeking industrialization and urbanization (Lincoln was a lawyer working on behalf on railroad industrialists seeking federal funds to build tracks across the land: the beginning of the marriage of wealthy business interests and the centralized bureaucracy that exemplify the Old World Order's methods operandi) to enslave everyone born below their caste, and reward those whose talents can best serve the plutocrats' interests with upward mobility (essentially fat house slaves instead of skinny field slaves, but with the office versus factory instead of house versus field).
"Then World War I and World War II (along with the Great Depression which came between them), further sunk humanity into uninspired thoughts and unfulfilled lives. Communism emerged and made everything bland, grey, and artificially equal."
The link above about my searching "Is modern art cultural marxism" stated immediately before the quote above:
"In fact, ugly, degenerate art arose from Soviet and communist circles as a means to attack aesthetic beauty."
"Compare and contrast these men" (Pythagoras, Plato, Descartes, Leibniz, and Hegel) "to what we have today. The motto of our era is "dare to express whatever bullshit opinion you want and claim it is true." 
To those not inclined towards Platonic idealism, let alone mathematical idealism as preached by Mike Hockney, et al, they might happen to think that the AC/GS were only daring to express the bullshit they want to start a new religion and claim it to be true - to a reader intended to not being intelligent enough in mathematics to know when they are being misled about math they never learned.  At least I don't automatically reject the possibility of a mathematical idealism that underlies the physical structure(s) of the observable universe.  I have always enjoyed the ancient debate about mathematics and whether it's a discovery or an invention.  I tend, as much with most things, to accept some branches of mathematics to have been completely invented, while others to be discoveries about the universe encompassing us; therefore, I don't mind idealism towards some mathematics, but not to every branch on the tree or to every formula, equation or identity postulated by man in our known history of mathematical thinking.  Although scientific materialism may have its limitations, no matter what may evolve from that philosophical foundation of modern sciences, I cannot foresee how anyone can completely dismiss empirical evidence (and as I pointed out about the rules and regulations for the new official Facebook group, even those who seem to loathe empiricism have no choice but to demand evidence to defend or prove anything) as inferior to what a mind can dream.
"Literature too, has succumbed to this plague. No longer are authors obsessed with utopian viewpoints, so it is little wonder that the greatest authors over the last century tied themselves to dystopian ideas (such as Brave New World, 1984, and Animal Farm). There is nothing uplifting in any of these works - they paint a picture of bleak world which very much reflects our own."
I was inspired by the great utopian novels of the past and used the same concept as the main current for the plot that ties together all the tangents you can read for free in "My First 100 Days" - sorry, but I think I should be rewarded for the creativity in the plot devices I used to tie together all the diverging threads posted for free, but have no qualms about being free with the autobiographical, research summations and original thinking (except for the original thinking for the loose plot tying it all together by the end, of course).  Also, were Huxley and Orwell really the two "greatest authors over the last century"?  Personally, although I read both Huxley and Orwell, I think Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death" to be vastly superior in discussing both author's primary works ("Brave New World" and "1984" and which dystopian view to be more accurate to the world in which we inhabit.  That utopian idealism was a large part of the light at the end of a very dark tunnel for me; I typed my utopian ideal on many a day after already counting pills to see if I had enough to end my suffering forever.  Although I may have had many a dark day during the period I was typing that multi-year project, it was like at least one photon of light was escaping from a black hole: the optimism of dreaming of an ideal world I wouldn't mind being reincarnated back into helped me endure some of the worst times I have endured in a world in which I hope to never incarnate back into for another "life sentence".

I find it rather ironic that they endorse BDSM considering that every dominatrix I have ever heard discussing her work states that most of a dominatrix's customers are CEO types: men of great wealth, influence and power who rarely have anyone say "no" to them pay to be humiliated:
"Many men who turn to submissive fantasies do so for precisely the sort of vacation from responsibility that Roiphe suggests women are seeking. Olivia Severine, a transsexual dominatrix living in San Francisco, says most of her clients were 'very high-powered' men weighed down by responsibility. 'They came to see me as a brief escape when no one was looking at them for direction or leadership,' she says. 'The time with me is when they were told what to do, what to feel and how to act … and all the weight of their careers, families, lives, is lifted from them for a cherished few hours.'
"Mistress Shae Flanigan, a Los Angeles dominatrix, says her clients are 'CEOs, high-ranking managers, lawyers and wonderfully brilliant men from all over the business spectrum.'" 
Search "dominatrix and CEOs" to read multiple sources on the subject, but every dominatrix I have ever read or heard in my 46 years state the same thing about their clientele: basically their clients are those whose skills have proven meritorious to the "Old World Order".  If these authors really wanted a revolution that would radically change the world, maybe they should recruit professional dominatrixes to be the instruments that eradicate the Old World Order and their minions by taking out these cronies to the plutocracy, since these are the people that actually have physical power over the CEOs and the like using their services.  I don't see how BDSM can be anything other than about the same master/slave dialectic that these authors try to rail against, but I sure can see how the powerful would pay big money to a dominatrix to take away their power and influence for an hour or so and humiliate them like they know they deserve for their service to the plutocracy/OWO.  "People can act out their deepest desires in a safe place with a loving partner (or partners)."  How ironic after deriding the concept of love, especially as in a loving relationship, to now promote having a loving partner?  Maybe this is the difference they perceive between their ideal of BDSM and the motivations for why a CEO/OWO lackey seek out the temporary loss of power with a professional dominatrix, but all I perceive is an irony that may or may not be grand enough to constitute a hypocrisy.
"The God Series (and associated works) are a revolutionary set of books. They are the Great Test for humanity, the barrier which separates old humanity from the coming race of hyperhumans. There will come a time when you will be considered a freak if you haven't read these works. They are the only books to come out in the modern era that do have a greater vision for humanity. They not only reveal the secrets to existence, they also paint a wondrous picture of what our world could be like without right wingers, Abrahamists, predatory capitalists, and the hyper wealthy. Such a picture is beautiful. Such a picture can inspire individuals to get active and strive for a wonderful future. Tragically, too few people have understood this message. Their eyes are constantly cast downwards and they are incapable of looking up. Each person who has come into contact with these works and done nothing about it is guilty of crimes against humanity. If you hold something infinitely precious in your hands but do not wish to share it with others, you are right wing trash and should go nowhere near the works of the Illuminati."
We are getting close to my addressing observed flaws and fallacies in the very first of the God Series, "The God Game", but first we must finish this article before we finish with what would be the red ink if this work were subjected to being graded like it were an academic thesis.  If they want to proclaim those books to be a test for humanity, are they prepared to have their test graded for how well designed the test was from the outset?  If anyone would be willing to rewrite the entire series and include proper citations and edit out all the "is of identities" and submit the text to E-Prime, as well as actually including the mathematical proof, even if as an Appendix so those competent in mathematics can apply their competency to this "proof" to find it either perfected in logic - or lacking, I would be willing to read such an edited and revised edition to the series, but with the above, and what will follow below, it should be obvious that I exercise higher standards for what constitutes a source of great merit than the intended reader of Mike Hockney.  Without having a serious scholar revise and edit the writings of all these associated authors, these ideas will never reach the audience that these authors should intend on being their audience pretty much the very opposite/antithesis of whom Mike Hockney claimed to being his intended audience.  The lack of true scholarship in these writings seems like a crime against humanity when, if they did strive for being a source of impeccable merits of true scholasticism, they might reach a reading audience that they should have sought from the onset and not the part of the human intelligence bell curve they intended as audience.
"Here is wisdom: You will never make a positive impact on the world unless you possess knowledge, and you cannot possess knowledge without time and effort. There is no 'quick fix.'"
I agree with this statement completely.  However, to the intended reader Mike Hockney seeks, these readers have found a supposed "quick fix" and they call it The God Series!!!  Before they even published the original four "coded" novels, I had invested many hours in some of the best libraries in the USA reading materials impossible to check out.  That's one of the reasons why I exercise such strict caution towards these authors because their avoidance of proper citations makes verification impossible, which might be intentional if the intent is to deceive.
"Of course, knowledge today is much easier to come by than it was in ages past. There are no excuses for ignorance. What took people entire lifetimes to learn can now be learned in the space of a few months."
Although the 10,000 hours to reach "expert status" has been refuted by the author who started the fad, it still remains a foundational belief of these authors as previously stated elsewhere by these authors.  However, now they seem to think that those 10,000 hours can be replaced in the space of a few months.  I assume they are stating this as an advertisement for their ebooks, but when one spends decades learning something one studies a variety of sources, both pro and con.  To acquire a lifetime of learning in the span of a few months would seem to require eradicating the various sources and to subject oneself to a single source, as well as eliminating the sources taking a counter position to the position being studied.  In this regard, they are just publishing a new Bible that demands faith and belief and sneers at any criticism of the new "holy texts".  Additionally, if what used to take lifetimes to learn can now take a few months, then how does that fare with their supposition that Leibniz was the "Last Man to Know Everything"?  What he took years to learn can be taught to intelligent high schoolers today (calculus), who can supposedly replace a lifetime of learning within a few months of study.  I have no doubt Leibniz could excel at the mathematics of electrical theory and practice, but he didn't even know about Franklin's experiments with the key tied to the kite because that was after his lifetime.  He also died before Champollion was successful at translating the Rosetta Stone, so his knowledge on ancient Egypt would likely have come from the Old Testament, or any source other than those composed in either hieratic or hieroglyphic, so what did he really know about human history on Earth?

Thankfully, a source was cited for the descriptions of the Jungian archetypes, and when inspected, all but the final paragraph were copied and pasted.  Then we find the author discussing "fire, shadow, and light" as aspects of the archetypes and their "attitudes".  Entering several attempts to query a search engine to find if this assertion of each archetype having one of three "attitudes" to see if this idea has any merits among Jungian scholars only gives returns for Jung specifics concerning what he called "the shadow".  Seeing as how other authors (possibly this author, too) from this same supposed secret society consistently and atrociously bastardize the accepted definitions by all sources of minimal merit for the terms utilized in the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator personality test, providing clearly and empirically a lack of respectable merit for true scholasticism in their bastardizing technical jargon describing the specific definitions specialists utilize that vary from the commoner's simple definition, it wouldn't appear prudential for the true intellectual to just assume that this anonymous author to have a respectable opinion amongst the professions of demonstrable merits of all things (or anything for that matter) Jungian.  Yes, I might be somewhat guilty of "guilt by association", but I am of the opinion that there has been enough evidence repeated by different authors (an assumption nonetheless) showing demonstrably inferior merits concerning the MBTI, that anytime anything Jungian is brought up by this supposed same "source", it should NOT be considered as being of the highest merits of scholasticism into Jungian ideas.  Especially since it seems impossible to find any credible source online that contains these same ideas of a trinity of attitudes taken by archetypes, methinks more than a few grains of salt should be taken with these ideas.  Again, with their preaching of a meritocracy, one might think if they had a new, credible/meritorious view of Jungian archetypes one might think it would be first published in a source of demonstrable merits to known Jungian experts (i.e. a Jungian peer-reviewed professional journal), but since they don't take the tactic of appealing to respected authorities amongst mathematicians, physicists and philosophers with their ideas, instead of writing to basically anyone capable of reading but lacking demonstrable merits in even algebra or geometry (truly appealing to the ignorant in hopes of developing a large enough populace of believers to make it an argumentum ad populum - currently it isn't a clear majority, but amongst the few converted sycophants, they do appear to be appealing to popular ideas amongst the converts they've already made, so amongst their devotees, multiple logical fallacies appear to be at work, hence maybe why they've found their "revolution" to be plagued with cocky loudmouths) - I contend that had they done any true marketing research they might have been able to predict with great accuracy that these results would be predictable with targeting the demographic they targeted.

They got the audience Mike Hockney was after, and wonder why too few of them were able to have understood their message.

I skimmed over their interpretations of Jungian archetypes because they have proven to me to be rather incompetent in discussing Jung and the MBTI with any respectable merits and I already tried to find if these ideas can be backed up by credible Jungian sources and failed to find any similar scholarly presentation like presented.  Maybe they've properly interpreted Jung's ideas on the archetypes, but if their history is any indication, it would seem unlikely that any Jungian of any respectable merit would concur with their presentation.

My "sacred cause" in large part is the title of this blog, but phrased as a kind command: Please Use the Evolving Door!

or, not so kind

Evolve or Die!!!

Anyone promoting any further divide or schism between "left" and "right" in terms of the politics of (barely) domesticated primates seem to be but monkeys shitting in their hands and throwing it at you for entering their territory.  The fossil record seems clear that every major leap in evolution appears to follow the heels of an extinction-level event.  Continuing the petty schisms of political left versus right seems to be a conscious decision to pursue the extinction of our species of domesticated primates (and quite possibly a majority of current lifeforms on our host planet).  I would doubt that any of the Mystery Degree initiates (no author on the AC website or in the ebooks has been claimed to be above the 6th Degree out of 10: 8, 9 and 10 being the "Mystery Degrees" where true illumination supposedly becomes revealed) would be so caught up in petty left/right politics, but I am not always of the opinion that this supposed secret society actually exists instead of just being a marketing vehicle to disseminate ideas to the gullible - I mean those believing themselves to be intelligent, yet incompetent in mathematics.
"To the left-wing mind, isolation is anathema."
When we return to "The God Game", we will see that these supposed same sources seem to be saying different things.  But, for now recall what I shared above from Mike Hockney where he claimed that Introverts thrive on being alone/in isolation and that only Extroverts would find isolation anathema.  This was his reasoning for why no one utilizing Jung's Extraversion could ever be competent in mathematics: because they can't tolerate being in isolation/alone.  This seems to exemplify problems with internal consistency among the authors supposedly representing the same source because it seems as though the "left-wing mind" they seek to inspire belongs to those preferring Jungian Extraversion over Introversion which Mike Hockney misrepresents as Extrovert versus Introvert.  Please note that I am not saying "Mike Hockney" deserves any respect for his ideas about the MBTI factors, but when MH claims to seek the INTP and INTJ, primarily, because they are "introverts" who would rather be alone than spend any time in conversation with other humans, how can this be consistent with seeking this "left-wing mind" which loathes being alone ("isolation is anathema").  Maybe this helps explain the inconsistencies in targeted audiences: they want introverts to isolate themselves to be able to think, yet they want those who would find isolation to be anathema to be their political revolutionaries.  If they really want a Final Solution to the right-wing problem, wouldn't that mean, by their own definitions that they will be eliminating all the people who thrive and energize themselves by being in isolation away from other humans: the very people Mike Hockney seems to seek.
"Anyone who thinks that "love" is the answer to everything needs to get a serious clue about existence and what it is."
After finally proving some merits in discussing "love" by addressing the various words the ancient Greeks used to define the various attributes that modern English users ascribe to "love", let alone the promotion of BDSM with "loving" partner(s), now this anonymous author returns to plebeian mindset and vernacular.  From finally achieving merit in discussing love, to promoting a "loving" partner to turn sex into a game of power (bet the women who have been raped get really wet thinking about having another man dominate them into unwanted sexual submission, don't you?).  It would seem that only those thrown way out of psychological balance find the power games of BDSM appealing: like the CEO or Senator who lives exercising power needing to balance this out with relinquishing all freedom and power to someone they trust with a safe word to stop giving them a humiliation they apparently so desperately need - hence why they pay the big bucks to dominatrixes.  There might be specific roleplaying activities wherein relinquishing power while retaining trust can make a sexual relationship better, but if the only sex you engage in entails someone completely submitting while the other(s) dominate, then I would think it to be a sign of serious psychological issues that need addressing instead of sublimating the issue further by fetishizing it.  And I have felt this way since first having a dominatrix come on campus to address the Human Sexuality course at the very university where the Kinsey Institute calls home in Morrison Hall when I was about 21 as she explained the types of people that use her services, especially since I was in the business school and could see so many of my classmates being the types to need to relinquish power sexually as the only outlet to bring balance back into their lives from their (ab)use of power and influence in every aspect of life but sexually because so many of those business school classmates seemed disposed to being already psychologically imbalanced.

If we could make CEOs/executives psychologically balanced outside/without the use of BDSM to bring any balance to their psyche, maybe the decisions made about the corporations presided over would become less toxic to both our host planet and our species?
"Imagine you are starving, but trapped in a cage. Imagine that mere centimetres from your reach was a table full of the most delicious food you could ever hope to eat. You cannot escape the cage, no matter how hard you try. Eventually, you would go mad from the hunger (and the fact that what you desired most - that which would sate your hunger - was so close, yet forever beyond your reach)."
Luckily for me, the most delicious things ever to touch my tongue that I long to taste as consistently as before having my health stolen from me almost 11 years ago I had to squeeze out from between the bony and soft palates in the roof of my mouth.  In the past decade I have mastered the art of convincing myself that I was fasting for spiritual purposes instead of dwelling on the extreme poverty making eating that day unlikely.  Some of those days, I was able to secrete these tasty morsels, but nowhere near like I was before my health was stolen from me by an automobile.  If these authors ever get initiated into the Mystery Degrees, they should taste this delicacy, too, if those Mystery Degrees even exist at all.  Again, I have no qualms with the general aim of these authors, but I just can't take everything they proclaim as factual because my own quest to try and learn everything in this lifetime since graduating from an undergraduate business school I refused to sell my soul out to achieve the definition of success according to that Corporate America indoctrination center: it was far easier a school to be get into for proving above average merits in largely mathematical based course work than it was to get out of because my soul wasn't for sale to the highest bidder when I was 21, has given me a depth and breadth to my knowledge base that it appears as though I definitely know more about certain topics than these authors.

Therefore, I cannot completely submit to the appeal to authority of these authors as being authorities of recognizable merit of the highest standards.  Although I might agree with the general aims, the specifics have proven inferior enough to be challenged from sources of greater merits on the topics in question.  Does that make me a troll for trying to force their own words into the crucible of the dialectic by presenting syntheses when they demarcate between theses and antitheses without leaving any room for a syntheses to arise or occur?  They preach the merits of merit, and I have invested decades into trying to only read sources of the most respectable merits, hence why I refuse to succumb to inferior interpretations than the ones with the objectively highest merits.  I just feel that the quality of the source has declined since the ebooks for sale became the primary communication tool.  There were far less flaws and fallacies in the original "cell" than since "Mike Hockney" starting writing ebooks and the website was sold off as an ebook for each old article that had once been given away freely.  I paid less and less attention as I witnessed more and more people of lesser intellectual merits become sycophantic and gang up on anyone trying to help them find sources of greater demonstrable merit on each topic: those least capable of learning calculus seemed to gang-bully the ones they would have paid to tutor them in any math class they have taken.  So, I can agree that they were plagued by trolls.  Maybe they would consider me one, too?  However, having taken a marketing research class (one of the mathematical based marketing classes that were easier to pass without losing my soul than the finance classes that first had the easiest and most enjoyable formulas I had ever solved), I cannot help but think of how the trolls they are complain about should have been anticipated by the intended audience to whom Mike Hockney admits writing: it's not like Mike Hockney sought out the statistical outliers of intelligence that don't fall within the three standard deviations above from the mean in a bell curve, as a matter of fact "intelligent but lacking a mathematical background" seems to describe the three standard deviations below the mean intelligence if we were to try and visualize where Mike Hockney's intended reader would fall in the bell curve of human intelligence because intelligent with a minimal mathematical background would probably be recognized after one standard deviation above the mean giving the majority (1 s.d. above plus 3 s.d. below for a clear majority) the ability to be intimidated by anything mathematical.
"The rich are responsible for every ill on Earth. They must be held accountable for their crimes. They must be annihilated. At this point it is no longer enough to simply take away their wealth. They must be hunted down and killed. They must be subjected to the same treatment witches of old were."
I wonder if this author was privy to my final posts on the original Facebook group and it just took years for the radical ideas I presented that led to my removal from the ability to comment in the group.  Not only was I directly countering the admins with my idea of usurping everyone posting things about "love" being the answer with the three types of love that could change the world that they didn't like at the time (although this article did follow my reasoning with its citing of the varied terminology the ancient Greeks used that all fall under the umbrella term "love" in modern English), but I was also directly countering the call to revolution at the time (it was at the time of the rioting and looting in London that really wasn't doing anything against the supposed 6000 members of the "Old World Order") with instead calling for strategic strikes, by recruiting retired military of the likes that listen to Alex Jones daily, on strategic places where these Old World Order types gather: like the annual weekend retreat of Bonesmen to their private island in the St Lawrence, and to have an invasion into Bohemia Grove with this Illuminati prepared to take the credit, especially if the corporate media outlets remain mute on these Old World Order types being executed for crimes against humanity.  They were trying to preach a revolution in the streets, whereas I was preaching that after taking credit for these strategic strikes against the wealthiest as they meet in private, then it would be time to cut off all the gated communities in a siege to starve them to death: like all of the gated mansions along Long Island Sound and in places such as Newport, Rhode Island.  I had admitted in my comment about planning strategic incursions to take no prisoners where the members of these Old World Order gather annually that I knew I was too radical for most, and one of their preferred pets Pavlovianly reacted with drooling a "WTF???".  I replied that maybe this person happened to fail to read my admitting that I admit to being too radical for most, and his reaction proved my point at leasts about him.  I was cordial, but was only proving who could actually have the more radical thoughts: he seemed all for looting and pillaging like was going on in London at the time going global as a revolution against an approximate 6000 old, extremely wealthy men, and I still fail to comprehend how a mass burning and looting around the world would actually do anything about the 6000 people that definitely have "panic rooms" if not "panic islands" or at least "panic compounds" where the masses rioting in the streets won't impact negatively.  Why not surgically strike specific places where members of these 6000 Old World Order plutocrats annually gather, instead?  Which would instill a fear into these 6000 old men?

In essence, my final two comments on the original Facebook group claiming association with the Armageddon Conspiracy website that ended in my removal are being addressed in this article: the English term "love" remains inferior to the terms used by the ancient Greeks, and by knowing the differences the Greeks recognized, we can actually see that there are types of love that, especially if strived for by all humanity, could only catalyze our species towards an eventual evolutionary perfection: in particular possessing a true philology, philosophy and philanthropy as the loves that complete each of us.  The other comment was to be strategic thinkers and planners to eliminate as much collateral damage as possible and asking what good would a mass global rioting in the streets do to eliminate the wealthiest 6000 men on the planet?  Why not strike where the plutocrats, or their systems of cronyism gather in secret?  Also, the tone seems to have radically changed from the approximate 6000 members of the Old World Order into now just hunting down all the rich, just like how the ebooks changed from supposed to being a "proof" of the postulated Theory of Everything published on the AC website (r=>0) into using an identity named after Euler and Fourier transforms being what they seem to be trying to "prove" to those without enough a mathematical background to have their postulations countered with accepted mathematical standards and facts.

They don't seem to be trying to demarcate between those who earned their wealth on their own merits and these 6000 super-rich who inherited fortunes larger than most country's Gross National Product with their statement of desiring to hunt down the rich like witches used to be hunted.  Also, before I finish, I will address why eradicating the rich won't completely eliminate the world's ills.

If only Andrew Carnegie's philosophy they quote about wealth were the status quo for the wealthy?  

How many libraries, among other ways of trying to die poor by distributing his wealth into knowledge via the libraries and colleges he created from his wealth were created?  I wouldn't want to hunt down the rich if they all lived with the status quo of trying to give humanity the tools needed to succeed like the Carnegie clan, and if there are only 6000 old men who inherited fortunes that the original AC authors claimed were the Old World Order who where at the root of all the world's problems then where should the lines be to where we don't consider someone successful to be a traitor to their species and host planet who hasn't acted in conscious, or sub/unconscious collusion with these 6000 of the world's wealthiest?  Is there a difference between "rich" and "wealthy" enough to use said difference(s) as the demarcation: should we just go after those who inherited power and influence (and maybe an outline to follow the goals established by their ancestors?): the OWO?  Let's read further to see if any of these concerns are addressed.
"The rich are self-serving assholes, but they lead great and fulfilled lives. Their position is understandable (though not acceptable). Even worse than the rich are the right wingers who support them. They lead shitty lives (like everyone else), yet prop up the rich elite (because they secretly want to be like them). These fucking retarded cunts support those who do them harm! WTF! You literally couldn't be more retarded than a right winger. They are the Omega Point of mental stagnation. A foetus is more intelligent than they are."
In my years of working as a fine-dining waiter, I encountered many people that would be considered "rich" although few if any of those had extreme wealth.  Like any other segment of the population, some are happy, friendly, helpful, kind people, whereas others are mean, black-hearted and feel themselves superior.  The former group seems less afraid of losing all they have earned, while the latter live miserable, pathetic lives because of the paranoia of possibly losing everything.  When working at sea on small ship cruise ships in my mid-20s, I saw some old rich people who had lived such miserable lives chasing material wealth that the fear of losing it all guaranteed that they couldn't even really be happy on a cruise!  I am glad my diploma is from the Indiana University School of Business instead of the Kelley School of Business because I had the misfortune to meet Mr Kelley before he died when I was working at The Columbia Club on the Circle in downtown Indianapolis.  I was told who he was by the Captain, who had been given his tickets behind the bench for IU basketball games on multiple occasions throughout the years.  After approaching the table the second time and having been barked at by a miserable old man a second time, I told the Captain that I can never address him again because I will tell him why I am glad my diploma doesn't have his name on it because for all his millions he was the absolute most miserable asshole I had ever met and tell him that if anyone in the Kelley School of Business knew just how miserable that bastard was, maybe they wouldn't aspire to the same wealth/success!

I needed that job more than I needed to serve Mr Kelley because it had the best insurance policies for me to have my left shoulder rebuilt in 2000 so it wouldn't keep dislocating every time I went surfing, and I absolutely knew myself well enough to know that he would demand my termination if I ever approached his table again, but I definitely paid attention to the few times I saw him have his entire family dine with him.  I have never witnessed anything more pathetic because it was obvious that his children pretty much hated him, because he never gave them any affection in his pursuit of riches and wealth, but they all had to kiss his ass because they feared being written out of his will if they were to be honest in their feelings towards him.  People like that should be hunted down because they exemplify how money can't buy you happiness or love, even love from your own children!

But, even more importantly, the inter-generational wealth of those born into the plutocracy have, especially through every IPO (initial public offering) of a corporation issuing stock, created an all encompassing matrix where most of the entire world's population support the systems created to serve the interests of the plutocracy.  It isn't just the "right-wingers" as this author proclaims, but everyone engaged in supporting the current educational, economic and social structures existing before we were born!!!  The corporate boardroom is where the competing agendas of each family of dynastic wealth synthesize the competing agendas into a corporate strategy to further the interests of these families of dynastic wealth (i.e. the Rothschilds being an exemplary), and it is through each of these corporate holdings where they can at least get one crony, if not family member on the board of directors, where they find those who display the greatest merits to their agendas and groom them to be their cronies - maybe even someday being the board member representing that family's interests in holding enough shares to insure they can have a crony on the board.  I had made these deductions in my undergraduate days in said business school, and my questions in class insured many a dirty look from instructors and classmates alike.  I barely escaped my undergraduate days alive because my soul was not for sale, and that seemed to be how to succeed in the business school, as opposed to just being well above average in mathematical skills to get accepted into a Top 5 undergraduate (at the time) business school.

The only structures in this world that appear to not be built to satisfy some desire of the Old World Order's wealth and power matrixes would seem to be entrepreneurial structures that have yet to get successful enough to enter the corporate matrix and issuing an IPO allowing others to influence your business via their representatives on the board of directors.  It's not just "right-wingers" who support the wealth and control matrixes created to further the interests of the wealthiest families, anyone who strives for any measure of success other than in entrepreneurial fashions (including all artists creating their art in the entrepreneurial category) has chosen to play the games created by the plutocracy to fulfill their goals and objectives: including seeing who can be most ruthless and unethical in "climbing the corporate ladder" to become a crony to a plutocratic family.  I include the entire structure of western education as being a control matrix created to serve the plutocracy: specialization instead of polymaths as the end result of the most "education".
"You've never heard of an Amish suicide bomber, but they seclude themselves and are the least progressive people you can imagine. In a billion years from now, left to their own devices, they will still be going around in horse and cart. Is this acceptable?"
Again, this author should try to refrain from speaking about things obviously unknown to the author.  Teenage Amish get a chance to explore the modern world before making a choice as to whether or not to be baptized as an Amish, or whether to leave the community and join the modern world.   The Amish get a chance to witness the modern world before they make their choice about the rest of their lives.  Additionally, I know that scientific evidence remains anathema to these thinkers, but they seem completely oblivious to the likelihood of a major solar storm acting as a complete EMP weapon eliminating all electrical devices sometime in the next billion years.  They also seem oblivious to the fossil record that seems adamant that pretty much single-celled organisms appear the only forms of life that have lived for billions of years on this planet.  Sorry, but to think life on earth would be recognizable in a billion years in comparison to what exists today surely shows an inferior thinking process long divorced from the acquisition of objective data.

The article finishes again with demarcating a clear thesis versus antithesis lacking any possibility for a synthesis with "Our manifesto is clear. Join us, or oppose us. There is no middle way."  If I am going to be forced to join you, these authors with inferior specifics pointing towards a general goal will need to either step up their game to truly strive for perfection in everything they attempt (including striving for the highest standards of scholarship not evidenced in these articles)!!!

As if this weren't already long enough, now I shall turn my attentions to a few quotations from "The God Game" by the pen name of Mike Hockney.

The God Game
"“All of life’s processes are dialectical, concerned with opposites and the resolution of contradictions. They all involve thesis, antithesis and synthesis, over and over again. Each dialectic cycle reaches its omega point - its absolute, perfect condition, its climatic endpoint - and that is a trigger for the dialectic to be reset and for everything to start again in a new dialectical cycle.

“We do no expect you to ‘believe’ us. We reject faith and belief and we are only interested in reason and knowledge.”

I will provide examples of where I see this author not allowing room for the dialectic to find its synthesis because none of these would seem likely to have reached their Omega Point, unless a thesis' Omega Point and its antithesis' Omega Point can remain in dialectic opposition instead of eventually having a synthesis arise, as well as evidence that the intended audience must have an extraordinary amount of faith to believe that Mike Hockney should be considered a credible source solely by things found in the first book of 31.  How many flaws and fallacies should be forgiven in the first book, the very foundation of what's to come before the actual intelligent person no longer finds the source credible?  I suppose that answer will be highly subjective, and probably will reflect the intellect and knowledge base of the individual making the decision whether to read further or return to sources of demonstrable merits.
"The supreme dialectic barrier to becoming God is in fact faith. You can never realize your divine potential if you are a person of faith. Faith is the abandonment of reason and knowledge in favor of some greatly cherished idea that offers you ultimate solace."
Can there be any grander notion exemplifying a “greatly cherished idea that offers you ultimate solace” than the notion of “becoming God”? 

But, to be even more critical, it would appear that one would need “faith” in the “greatly cherished idea” of “becoming God” - at least their own faith that they truly possess divine potential in them that can be converted into its kinetic form, which would be applying the dialectic to the theses of “faith” and “belief” and the antitheses of “knowledge” and “reason” to forge a new synthesis instead of leaving them as perpetual opposites unable to find any syntheses as the author was inclined to do while giving lip service to the dialectical process. And, for a grammatical critique, it seems that Hockney should have typed “The supreme dialectical barrier…” because he was using it as an adjective describing the barrier instead of as a noun.

The above will prove to be a recurrent theme that indicates the true “merits” of the targeted audience to create a cult of the mathematically ignorant promoting, as should become evident to all who finish this, as well as being a solid indication of the internal inconsistencies of the author’s argument that inhibit me from stooping to inferior intellectual merits than the standards I established for myself years before AC even gave away the first novel ebook on the AC website.
"The medieval thinker Roger Bacon wrote in Open Majus (Greater Work) that the triumph of ignorance had four primary sources:
"Appeals to an unsuited authority.
"The undue influence of custom.
"The opinions of the unlearned crowd.
"Displays of wisdom that simply cover up ignorance."
It demands “faith” to “believe” that “Mike Hockney” to be a completely “suited” authority! 
(This is radically different from, say, reading Max Tegmark's "Our Mathematical Universe" because his credentials objectively reveal the merits he brings to the discussion. The same with Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe" and "The Fabric of the Cosmos": both are highly respected physicists who clearly have great demonstrable merits in mathematics.) We know nothing of “Mike Hockney's” formal education nor career: his true merits on all the topics discussed, and the only evidence we have to discern his “merits” are the words attributed to him. For those who know very little, they would likely consider Hockney to be of great merits, and this seems to explain to perfection those most vocal in promoting their new religion, like Morgue: one likely incapable of demonstrating minimal mathematical merits.

If we accept at face value the proclamation that “Mike Hockney” belongs to an initiatory sect descended from Pythagoras (although admitted early on the AC website that the authors were completely ignorant of the teachings of the “Mystery Degrees” so they should never have been taken as someone privy to all the “secrets” of Illumination), for all those outside the ritual/custom of initiation how can we rationally, let alone logically assume that the “undue influence of custom” does not define and dominate the initiatory experiences supposedly descended from Pythagoras of this secret society? For that matter, wouldn’t all initiatory sects epitomize this “undue influence of custom” unless the initiation rituals were altered every 50-100 years: how can even modern Masonry claim to not specifically appeal to “the undue influence of custom”?  How can a ritual not be a custom as intended in Roger Bacon’s ideas?

When I  cite again the intended audience for “The God Game” I will clearly indicate that the creation of an “opinion” among the “unlearned crowd” was the intent of the author, as clearly admitted in a quote above (and it will be below, too, to meet the Hermetic axiom) and how this writing for the unlearned crowd to sway their opinion exemplifies most of the Facebook groups dedicated as effective “echo chambers” for the devout to congregate for fellowship, as well as how Morgue seemingly exemplifies the intended audience of The God Game series.
“The Illuminati, as advocates of dialectical progress, look to the past for inspiration, but not for higher truths. The knowledge of now should always be superior” (my emphasis) “to the knowledge of then if humanity has not succumbed to some terrible setback such as the Judaeo-Christian Dark Ages or the rise of Islam.”

The best evidence to date seems to indicate that during the Younger Dryas period there were possibly two cometary collisions with the ice sheets dominating the Northern Hemisphere causing global cataclysm.  The timing of these cosmological impacts coincide with the date Plato attributes to the sinking of Atlantis; however, the gnosis of the Ancient Mysteries of Egypt, as rediscovered by the most likely Grand Master of the past century: R A Schwaller de Lubicz, clearly indicates that their ancient gnosis of “All is Number” that they taught Pythagoras over his 22 years in the temples of Egypt (an easy to find, well-known fact about Pythagoras that I never once saw addressed on the AC website, which was always a huge red flag to me that they had a motive to obfuscate and misreport known historical facts) to be of a practically infinitely greater understanding of the cosmos than the “knowledge of now” presented by both AC and in this first book of the God Game series.

  (I had completed Schwaller de Lubicz's "The Temple of Man" before the Armageddon Conspiracy had much more than four free novels to download, and had already studied the life and known teachings of Pythagoras long before the Armageddon Conspiracy tried claiming a direct lineage from Pythagoras, nor has anything typed about Pythagoras by these AC related authors provided me with anything new concerning the ancient genius educated for 22 years in the Temples of Egypt.)

Additionally, since this Illuminati advocates a dialectical process, wouldn’t it be a far wiser use of their mental efforts to search for a synthesis between the ancient high wisdom of Egypt (the primary source Pythagoras drank to acquire his wisdom) which originated the “influence of custom” - due or undue - and their occulted “knowledge of now”?  This appears to be the second instance this author, Mike Hockney, cannot seem to recall how dedicated to the dialectical process he proclaimed earlier because he can only see this aspect of reality in its unresolved dialectic: knowledge of “now” versus “then” - it seems to me that the only true path to wisdom would be to try and synthesize these seemingly unresolvable contradictions.  How else can any degree of certainty be achieved that the dialectical process drives “reality” than to never settle for clear thesis versus antithesis as Mike Hockney habitually does throughout the beginning pages of his Great Work?  If he can’t retain an internal consistency in the first book in the series, why should anyone intelligent (that actually possesses a mathematical background) even finish this first book in the series?
“People will always be seduced by nonsense if it seems life enhancing or comfortable in some way.”
Knowing what we know about the intended audience: the intended reader would likely be seduced by the nonsensical aspects of the philosophy for the very reason that it appears to enhance their life and provides the greatest of comforts (becoming God).
“So, our task is the most radically ambitious ever undertaken - to reveal to you the mathematical nature of everything without boring you to tears with lots of incomprehensible mathematical formulae (though, one day, no mathematical formula will ever bore you).”
This is our first admission that the intended audience as being one that not only seemingly finds mathematical formulas boring, but also incomprehensible (and assuming unsolvable for the intended reader).  Not fitting this description, no wonder why I couldn’t even finish a book that was not including me, and those like me: the mathematically competent, in its target audience.  I was excited when the AC website proclaimed that they were going to “prove” their r=>0 hypothesis.  I was already going deep in my memory (and research, like starting to read Whitehead and Russell’s Principia Mathematica) on how to adequately complete a mathematical proof, because I was expecting to find something that would approximate a “mathematical proof” instead of what was actually contained inside The God Game attempting to “prove” anything mathematical.
“Two radically different substances such as mind and matter cannot interact unless there is a hidden unity between them.”
Using a Venn Diagram, I can visually demonstrate that this unity should not appear “hidden” between them.  As a matter of fact, I could draw the Venn Diagram with mind being larger and completely containing matter.  I could draw matter completely containing mind.  I could draw them as perfectly overlapping and identical.  Or, I could draw them without any overlapping.  Each of these Venn Diagrams would be a visual metaphor for a separate philosophical application to the mind and matter duality.  Therefore, I can use quite acceptable modern mathematics to “unveil” this “hidden unity between them”.  As a matter of fact, unveiling these types of hidden unities seems to be the very nature of the Venn Diagram, but, since they obviously aren’t appealing to anyone who seems to know anything about any mathematics above high school algebra, I shouldn’t be surprised if few reading these books have even heard of a Venn Diagram.  Additionally, I think Korzybski to be correct in thinking of the human as a whole: this eliminates any brain/mind duality by accepting that mind to be a part of the "organism-as-a-whole" - a language derived to mimic observable structures to eliminate confusions arising from a language not reflecting observable structures.

Also, we have here our third instance of an unresolved dialectic the author appears to have little desire to admit as a dialectic, let alone seeking its synthesizing into a new thesis: the duality of mind and matter.  How dedicated to the dialectical process can this author be if we have already discovered three unresolved dialectical oppositions that the author indicates no efforts as attempting to resolve thus far (and how much should we further read until we must consider the author as being “an unsuited authority” - especially for those who have a background heavy in mathematics)?
“Moreover, if mathematics has nothing to do with reality and is not embedded in reality, how did the mind manage to construct something as staggeringly complex as mathematics?”

To directly answer the author’s inquiry: the Demiurge would possess the supreme intellect needed “to construct something as staggeringly complex as mathematics” to deceive mankind into believing another false-to-facts belief system that feeds the Archons and their chief, the Demiurge.  Maybe Hockney refuses to address the concept of the Archons and the Demiurge, but it seemed canon for the AC website, and the concept of the Archons from the Nag Hammadi seems to be the only “religious” concept of antiquity that I cannot logically dismiss as implausible because if they did indeed exist, and you believed they couldn’t exist, that belief system would act as food for the Archons according to my grasp of the concept from the Nag Hammadi.

I don’t feel like addressing this point here, so here is a link to where anyone so interested can read my logic in how “zero” could only have come from the Demiurge to pervert and corrupt the Hindus by giving them a “sound logic” for accepting the caste system.
“The mind does not ‘age’ directly but only via the physical deterioration of the brain to which it is harnessed, and until the brain has reached a very unhealthy state, the mind effectively remains the same one you had when you first became an adult, no matter how long ago that was.”
Neuroplasticity not only “rewires” the neural pathways in the physical brain, but are absolutely instrumental in “changing one’s mind”. To quote Dr Leary: “You are only as young as the last time you changed your mind.”  Sure, most adults fear neuroplasticity almost as much as death, but then again changing one’s mind brings about a “little death” of the old mind - which seemingly terrifies the common person.  But, seriously, what the fuck would be the point of initiation into this “Pythagoream Illuminati” if the act of going through initiation didn’t “change one’s mind” in the slightest?  I don't doubt that the physical structures of my brain haven't changed since reaching physical maturity (so long as neural pathways aren't the physical structures like the frontal lobe or the thalamus are physical structures), but my mind has greatly expanded and radically changed since reaching physical maturity (neuroplastic rewiring of synaptic routes).
“Is it not truly extraordinary how, year after year, our minds stay the same while our bodies do not?”
This should only be applicable to those unwilling and refusing to grow or evolve themselves.  If you have already invested a few decades intentionally trying to engage in as much neuroplasticity as possible in one life as part and parcel of the evolutionary path your life has taken you, your mind cannot ever be proclaimed to be the same it was when you reached physical maturity.  Maybe for the majority of the intended audience of Mike Hockney this maxim about an unchanging mind rings true, but not only does it indicate a complete ignorance of neuroplasticity, but seems insulting to those who definitely do not possess a perfectly “identical” mind to when they reached physical maturity as they have today.  For that matter, anyone attending a credible university should leave university with a radically different “mind” than the one they had upon physical maturity - usually around the age of 16-18.  I know my mind was definitely not the same in how I perceived the world upon my successful completion of a statistics course, and that was when I was 19 and that class radically changed my worldview as much as my first trip overseas.  Now, for the degreed person that enters the workplace striving for a career in their field of expertise whose concerned with the slavery of career, mortgage, family, children, etc…, they may very well have in large part the same “mind” they had upon graduation from university.  So, once more, I find that I am not the intended audience of Mike Hockney because I am not 17 and do not fit into any typical stereotypes the author assumes of his audience (and didn't at 17 when I was first taking calculus).

“Are mind and matter simply the two sides of a mathematical transform, and fully interconvertible?”
Not if you really are dedicated to the syntheses of all these theses and antitheses!!!  Mind and matter would be a thesis and antithesis that need to be synthesized according to the “law of the dialectic”.  Would the “transform” somehow be the “synthesis”?  Logically this would seem a flawed reasoning for the definition of the synthesis between the apparent unresolvable duality between mind and matter because converting one into another doesn’t appear to meet the criteria of a synthesis between a polar dialectic - only a method for converting one into the other, but not finding a synthesis.
“At a stroke, mind-matter dualism is resolved.”
If all dualities require a synthesis according to the dialectic, the Fourier Transform would not qualify as a synthesis between mind and matter, it would be like a “bridge” to cross from one side of a chasm to the other, not a unifying principle forging mind and matter into a new synthesis of, say, “mental matter” or “materialistic mind” (or a synthesis of idealism and realism as either “idealistic realism” or “realistic idealism” - which is yet another clear example of the author ignoring his own stated slavish devotion to the dialectical process) because it could never “contain” elements of both, it just transforms one into the other, which I cannot perceive how this “transforming” equates to the concept of a synthesis of a dialectic.  If we consider an alphabet to be the thesis, and numbers to be the antithesis, all a Fourier Transform would do would be to convert letters to numbers, or numbers to letters, but there would still remain the unresolved differences of mutual exclusivity requiring the transform to translate numbers and letters to being identical in a new synthesis of, say, Alpha-Numeric script instead of either being a number or a letter.  (Trying to use a simple, but effective example of what a synthesis should strive to achieve versus just transforming one data set into the terms of a another data set - that seems to just be the definition of a mathematical function.)  Or, maybe an even better example would be found in Google Translate acting as the Fourier Transform between languages.  It remains possible that the same letters would be used, but only the relations and positioning change from one language to another.  However, no translation program acts to synthesize both languages into a new language, which may be a superior example than the Alpha-Numeric “transform” above.
“First of all, to be mathematically skilled you have to be an introvert.  Our definition of introvert is someone who enjoys his own company and does not go out of his way to seek the comfort of others.  An extrovert, on the other hand, enjoys the company of others and goes out of his way to avoid being on his own.” (My emphasis.)
I already discussed above, in the critique of The Torture Garden that neither Mike Hockney nor the current AC author(s?) seem capable of demonstrating even a minimal merit in accurately describing the factors for the MBTI personality test.
“Jung, however, originally intended the words to have an entirely different meaning. He used the words to describe the preferred focus of one's energy on either the outer or the inner world. Extraverts orient their energy to the outer world, while Introverts orient their energy to the inner world.” 
(Please note that anytime I quote something with a link to its source that it is not coming from the AC or Mike Hockney, but are links to credible sources of minimal merits accepted among professionals where the citation can be found: all quotes from the AC website and this ebook contain no links as to the quotes to sources of merit.)
“Our aim is to give an intelligent person, without a mathematical background, enough information to glimpse and grasp the mathematical basis of reality, and to appreciate its astonishing power, beauty and simplicity.” Mike Hockney The God Game
I repost this quote because it seems of the upmost importance when encountering the people seduced into these ideas like Morgue's videos on Facebook: they don't possess the requisite skills to exercise discernment, so maybe repetition may work?

This quote also seems to strive for the 4th warning of Roger Bacon: “displays of wisdom to cover up ignorance”, as well as striving to create new opinions in the unlearned because those who remain unlearned, especially in any mathematics harder than simple high school algebra and/or geometry seem most susceptible to become “converts” to “ontological mathematics” - as if only they had been taught “ontological mathematics” they would have been able to have been in the advanced math classes and scored higher than three standard deviations higher from the mean in those classes proving their mathematical merits by being the outliers on the "intelligent" side!

So, with only covering about the first “10%” of “The God Game” I discovered that it was a source of seriously questionable merits whose intended audience are the masses that consider themselves intelligent, but, most likely, never even took a calculus course in a high school, and don't seem to truly grasp the dialectic because they don't seem to mind when these authors in question demarcate clear lines between opposing forces never once seeking a synthesis between these opposing forces.  [Even viewing a thesis as an egg and the myriad of antithesis that could counter it being sperm where the synthesis being offspring would be a superior way of seeing how the dialectic drives evolution  because that thought process should force one to always recognize where an offspring can be created via a synthesizing of two opposing ideals/forces such as mathematical idealism and scientific realism into a wide variety of "children" seeking their own antithesis (sperm or egg) to continue the evolutionary process.  Or at least the transcend and include posited by Ken Wilber that still underlies how I perceive the dialectic because I have yet to find a superior interpretation than his - including these authors claiming Hegel as a Grand Master.]  Hockney's intended audience appears to be the ones most likely to have hired (or should have had) a tutor to help them grasp any level of mathematics, and not to anyone that has ever been a tutor in any mathematical class!  So, after how many countless words on the AC website about “merit” and how those judged to be best in their field by their peers should be the ones “at the top” the author of the for sale series of books stoops to the least meritocratic crowd in mathematics to “convert” them to a new religion that requires as much faith and belief in the true “merits” of the author(s).
“Numbers written on paper have no energy content.”

This will be my last direct quote from Mike Hockney because it seems perfect to exemplify the depths of ignorance he is trying got cover up with “wisdom”. I don’t care if it is a pencil, a pen, or a computer printer: the ink from the printer and the pen would leave a measurable mass if one had sensitive enough equipment that can accurately state the difference in mass of the blank piece of paper, as would the graphite from a pencil.  Even placing a “period” or the smallest dot on a piece of paper with a writing utensil will transfer an extremely minute portion of the writing medium to the medium being written upon.  It remains impossible to “write” any number on paper without transferring a minute portion of the mass of the writing instrument to the instrument being written upon.  Although this transfer of mass from the writing instrument to the instrument being written upon may be impossible to measure for most equipment available to the public, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t "scales" capable of weighing how much mass was added to a piece of paper by pressing pen or pencil to it (hell, even crayon, but that might make it completely obvious to those of you that are the intended audience).  Then, when taking the few molecules of the minute mass transferred from writing instrument to instrument written upon, and applying that mass into Einstein’s e=mc^2 formula, you can calculate exactly how much energy remains as potential in the transferred mass of ink, graphite, crayon, etc...

So, yes, anything written on paper has an energy content unless, and until, someone can invent a way to write on paper that transfers absolutely zero mass from writing instrument to paper.  Just because it may take a PhD in physics to have access to a sensitive enough scale in their laboratory to measure the mass transferred from pen or pencil to paper, doesn’t mean that the physics of writing have changed since the inkwell and pen (or even signed in blood).  Even in laser printers an extremely minute mass of ink gets on the page.  If this weren’t the case, you would never need to insert a new toner cartridge into a laser printer because those toner cartridges come full of ink and use a little for every character they print on a page (just like you can see the ink level lower in transparent pens).  And this is only addressing the mass of the ink or graphite added to paper (or parchment, vellum, etc..) and not the energy applied by a person to the writing instrument.  For instance if the writer were pushing with all their force upon the paper, the energy applied to the system may well negatively impact the paper: holes may get punched through, tears/scratches may occur, etc…

In conclusion, although I didn’t get far enough to quote the multitude of times the author discusses idealism versus realism without, yet again, placing these polar opposites into the dialectical process to derive a new synthesis, it should be apparent to any objective reader of this that Mike Hockney only gives lip service to the dialectic because of how many unresolved dialectical oppositions he fails to attempt any synthesis to rectify as per his belief system - or am I supposed to pay for and read all 31 books before the author proves scholarship of the highest merits and quit being so critical of the flaws and fallacies I perceive?

Being intelligent with a mathematical background, I choose to wait until a peer-reviewable proof is published in a mathematical journal.

100% Inheritance Tax

I do concur that the passage of true wealth from one generation to its children to exemplify a crime against humanity; however, I am not so naive as to believe that if the world started a 100% inheritance tax that the world would turn utopian.  I will not discuss this at much length, instead I will provide ample links to sources demonstrating why I would think it naive to believe that all we need to save the world is to begin taxing inheritance at 100%.  I will state a few things, though.  The idea of implementing a 100% inheritance tax only addresses "overt" wealth.  It fails to address the very notion of "covert" wealth.  Most who have been indoctrinated into the propaganda of the winners of World War 2 have been conditioned to belief that the National Socialists "stole" untold amounts of gold and precious artifacts (i.e. a painting masterpiece being a precious artifact).  This appears to be completely intentional propaganda by the winners to keep us from every learning about the decades of looting the Japanese had been doing throughout Asia.  "Gold Warriors" is a book on the subject of the ceased wealth of the Japanese and how they buried it in the Philippines during the naval blockade of Japan that is in my library.  And, this website seems to have a bit of a spat with the authors of "Gold Warriors" for using his research they had originally promised not to publish, but is following the same "covert" wealth used to fund "covert" activities and wars.  The website should be more than ample to inform you of this data of how the world truly works today: even if we confiscated all the wealth of the plutocratic elite, the covert wealth exposed via these two sources is controlled by the cronies to the plutocracy.  Therefore, it really won't serve the success for mankind if we only address the plutocracy and their wealth and not the wealth allowing their crony system to wage covert actions against mankind in the interests of the plutocracy.  Maybe we will have eliminated the overt problem, but the covert problem will only become public as the new plutocracy.

Without ceasing these practically unknown funds used by the cronies of the plutocracy to fulfill actions the plutocracy needs to have no observable connection, would the world actually improve with the eradication of the plutocracy without eradicating the cronies to the plutocrats that have access to the unacknowledged gold stolen from the Japanese at the end of WW2 instead of it being returned to the nations from whom the Japanese looted it?

One thing the original AC authors were adamant about was that 9/11 happened the way the media and government sold it over time via repetition.  Of course these authors know so little about the US that they couldn't recognize that G W Bush was just the new "captain" of the Republican Iran-Contra team returning to be "at bat" in the White House while the Democratic Iran-Contra team "took the field".  These authors wail on an on about the "evil OWO" yet never addressed the most likely global scandal that best exemplifies the machinations of the OWO: Iran Contra.  They went on and on about the 2008 economic crisis, but never once addressed the Savings and Loan crisis from the 1980s that led to bailing out the wealthy with what I believe to be more money in terms of the same year's dollars.  They never once tried to unravel the BCCI, BCI and Vatican bank scandals that exemplify the machinations (and money launderings of this OWO) to help their reader recognize operations of the OWO.  Although I believe I could convince 19 quasi-literate cave dwellers seduced by an insane ancient religion to take their own lives for my cause from what little I know about human psychology, I knew way too much about US history (especially the history of unpunished white collar scandals) that I was expecting the worst scandal in my life when two of W's first appointments were Elliot Abrams and John Negroponte: I was expecting it because that many people deeply involved in Iran Contra couldn't help but get back to the same tricks and tactics they used the last time they had a "captain" in the White House: G H W Bush.

So, I will sign off this page with two more links, to papers linking these covert funds recovered from Japanese loot buried in the Philippines to the atrocities of that terrible Tuesday almost 16 years ago.  Basically, the view of the AC authors concerning 9/11 has been one of ignorance concerning the names of US scandals since at least Raygun's first term in office (really Poppy Bush's first of 7 terms as President: 2 with the actor Raygun, his own, 2 with the "captain" of the Democrat Iran Contra team, Bill Clinton, then 2 more with his boy returning his father's Iran Contra players to another time "at bat".  I knew when I heard the offices located in WTC 7 that it was brought down to eradicate all the unlinked (via stopped investigations from above) white collar crimes since the 1980s (at least).  When you consider that the billions in bonds for Operation Hammer were cleared via emergency powers on 9/12, and the trillions Rumsfeld (another Iran Contra varsity player/all star) declared missing on 9/10, to be left thinking those two are coincidental to those 19 Muslims actions seem to exemplify a complete ignorance for even what the ancient Romans knew about crime: cui bono?


These two reports concerning 9/11 seem infinitely superior to both investigative skills and rational thinking than all the times an AC author tried to define 9/11 as the litmus test of intellect.  Had these authors fully deconstructed the observable machinations of OWO operations (like Iran Contra exemplifies, along with the BCCI, BCI, Vatican Bank and Savings and Loan scandals exemplify a method to transfer wealth upwards to the greedy plutocrats).

I have stated multiple times in this page that I support the general aims of these authors.  Had I been 18 instead of 38 when I first encountered the original website, I would likely have a radically different opinion than just agreeing, in general, with the stated aims.  Maybe it was the alteration of intended reader from seeking out atheists, agnostics and skeptics as the original authors of the website stated in practically every article to selling ebooks intended for one who considered themselves intelligence, but basically incompetent in mathematics?  I have never concurred with what any of these related authors have claimed about US history, but then again, I also don't go trying to pretend I know much about any other nation's history unless I can provide any evidence verifying my thoughts like these authors seem to love to do about a nation that they don't seem to have even taken a week to visit from England.

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

If I didn't question Mike Hockney and these other authors, I wouldn't be living my truth.  Asserting an air of authority doesn't make one an authority.  When scrutinized, it seems these authors aren't as meritorious of a source as they pretend themselves to being.  It seems many of their devout don't have respect for foot/endnotes and proper scholarly citations.  But, as one who has dissected an author's agenda by the process of trying to verify as many citations as possible, I find I have more respect for the improper usage of citations of the likes of Drunvalo Melchizedek (citing a book, but no page number - each citation seemed more a link to a bibliography than to an endnote).
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...