Dichotomy - The Lucky vs The Unlucky

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
28 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view

Re: Dichotomy - The Lucky vs The Unlucky

This post was updated on .
Autonomy and Clarity 3
So to recap, there's no such thing as rubbish. The consumerist Democracy with it's mass production has created an irrational sense of what is valuable and what is not, and then those standards are being applied to people (as though people were mass produced).

An item whose functionality has deteriorated to the point where it can nolonger be used for the purpose that it was purchased for, or has become less desirable in comparison to other products now available.

I have a cousin and she divorced her American husband because he became bald, despite the fact that she had children with him. So when the girl leaves the guy, she has discarded him as she would trash. The guy is a product that she nolonger wants - or wishes to upgrade.

I have a Russell Hobbs hot plate with two burners. One of the burners the 1500W larger plate had to be used to boil a kettle due to the failure of the regular electric kettle. Naturally enough Russell Hobbs had not expected this hot plate to be used at full on a regular basis and it failed after one month. Now it only has the smaller hot plate so it's functionality has declined by 50%. One of the hot plates was 'Lucky' and indeed it's the least powerful one, and the other hot plate was 'Unlucky', over ambitious, and has died. The entire product has become less functional and less desirable.

Reduced functionality can be a product of age. The 'Can' becomes redundant once the Beans are removed. They had a symbiotic relationship.

The requirement then is to become more functional and more desirable. In the case of symbiosis, if one of the two is removed then the remainder must be used for something else. Upgrades, alternatives, and repairs are not always possible. The problem here is that you buy the product, and if it fails then you lose the value that you invested in it. The product is not expected to fail (and the same is true of people).

In the case of Democracy failure is built in. 50% have to fail so that the other 50% can succeed. The problem for Dichotomy is to ensure that win or lose the people get the bit that they wanted, and so both sides are equally rewarded.

The Russell Hobbs hot plate would have a link that would allow it to be separated into two halves (with extra feet on the bottom, or perhaps that could be manually unscrewed). If one of the hot plates failed, then the two halves could be separated and the mains would plug into the functional half, so that only half of it needed to be thrown away. This would be necessary on the law that two of anything will result in one being better than the other so it would be expected that one of the two hot plates would fail first. A correct design would reduce the problem, and clearly if the parts that are working could be used to make a new half sized unit then it would not be a complete loss, or an inefficient waste. Perhaps the company could then sell a spare half?

So parts of the rubbish are useful and valuable, some functionality will always remain (a neon lamp for example). Just as rejected people will still have some skills and some abilities (despite losing their hair).

Democracy appears to be emphasizing failure. It's looking for faults. It's people are looking for faults, and yet it's a system that's supposed to be based on positive thinking? I guess the negative is emphasized if it will produce the sale of a new replacement product.

What we have here at a very basic level is a standards issue caused by Capitalism. The product has a life cycle and has to either change or be replaced if you want it to continue being purchased. The consumer will only buy a new product, so having seen the same product for some time sales will decline. It's not that everyone has bought it, it's that they have become bored with it. In relationships for example, the advice is to move somewhere else - so that you are new. In some cases the manufacturer has learned from the criticism of the product, and ensures that the newer version answers those criticisms. Unfortunately this scheme has also been applied to people. Now perhaps Capitalism only discovered that this was what the people wanted, so they might argue that it's not their fault, but here we have the difficulty of applying these same standards to people. Do we try to achieve these standards, or do we encourage people to change their ways? But just there, you see the Dichotomy again - we let the people continue applying these standards if they wish but suggest new standards that other people can apply instead so that two groups can follow two different standards (and both be happy).

Another standard here is to buy the best. So if you have a range of software, the best product is purchased every time, while the rest are always rejected. In many cases the purpose is to avoid being criticised by other people. This also occurs with people. If we ask why this particular software is the best, it's often not because of what it does, but is to do with custom and practice and again it's the majority that buy it that make it more appealing to the rest. People are following each other they are not making independent judgements or running tests. It looks like a shortcut - why replicate someone else's testing regime, we can just take their word for it and buy what they buy. It's not so good when this is applied to people. The one guy who is said to be so good, immediately becomes the best most desirable product, and all other guys are then rejected. But understand that this is Democracy at work, and this is how it works. The female is mistaking her boyfriend for a politician. She's picking the guy who gets the most votes.

So let's take Photoshop as an example. How will we convince people not to buy this software? What if infact it is the best software, and these people are correct to choose it? How would we get them to choose lesser software. They would do that if it was a lower price, or had different features that they needed. Other companies try to compete by making their product just as good.

Democracy then, is a kind of natural grouping concept where the tribe are all going the same way because they are following each other. Autonomy needs an answer to this, because all of it's people appear to be heading off in different directions (the dilution concept of antipredation). In the case of software (like Photoshop) it would be a case of divide and conquer. Instead of making a whole piece of competing software, you would produce each aspect as a separate module, and the customer could just buy the features that they needed at that time. The total cost would be the same but each module would be 100 times less, and they could accumulate the whole program over a period of time (DAZ Studio instead of Poser for example). So how could this be applied to people (and should it be)?

I am also leaning towards the belief that when all of the females want the same 'best' guy that this is actually monogamy at work. They are all attempting to achieve a monogamous relationship. Much as Devlin has suggested, that the number of boyfriends that these females expect to have is one (but it's the same one that they are all choosing) - i.e. the best. If we take the modular approach they would have to choose a number of guys - more than one in other words. One guy because he's good at this, another because he's good at that, and another because he's good at the other. So promoting monogamy might have the reverse effect in the psychological context. We can also see this happening when the girl says she just wants the guy to be her friend - that's all she needs from that particular guy. Let's propose this more clearly:


You can see that this answers a number of puzzling questions. Why does she say that she wants to be your friend but has sex with someone else - who says he just wants to sleep with her? She is putting together a modular BEST boyfriend from a number of candidates each having different features that she likes. Here you see the dilution effect. One guy has been diluted into a number of guys with some of them being luckier than the others. What's the solution?

The first interesting point here is that more guys would indeed get more girlfriends, they just wouldn't get much from them. The second interesting point is that the girl is constructing a kind of Frankenstein's Monster from a number of parts. The third point is that this is a way to get the best without getting the individual guy that rolls it all into one. Traditionally there was a scheme where the girl would get to know the guy first and their relationship would deepen over a period of time, but here we see the risk of a modular approach with each guy not getting beyond his specialty?

So how can the girl get the guy:
1) Struggle to get the best guy.
2) Construct him from a number of separate guys.
3) Become a loser and take what ever guy is available.

The third option here is probably the original concept. You can see here that the girl might associate with a Team (or a Platoon) and each guy might take turns to play one of the roles.

"What category does this guy fall into?" a judgement is being made. Naturally the guy is only interested in one thing, because the rest is less important to him. If the guy makes the mistake of focussing on any other aspect then he will be categorised as being only good at that one feature. There is also the problem that indeed the guy may only be good at one thing and it may not be what he wants to be known for. How is that fixed? The guy who drives the car, may only get that role.

So having established the modular, and having taken the role of a specific module, how can that guy get anything else? It's clear that the guy is stuck with the assumption that the girl is following option 3) above. He expects some progress but then discovers that the girl is following option 2) above, and he's now one of her modules (but not the one he was hoping for). Typically the guy walks away in disgust, much to the surprise of the girl. Presumably the 'best' guy is multifunctional.

The obvious conclusion I reached here is to act differently every time you meet the same girl. So you need multiple personalities (not just Jekyll and Hyde). So one day you're her best friend, the next day you're some kind of rapist, the next day you're a liberal and the next you're a Nazi. Each of the modules needs to be defined, so that each personality can be developed. Think of it as acting like a different Photoshop filter depending on what the picture before you needs. If you had 6 of these, you could roll a dice. If you had 7 you could have a different one for each day of the week. The best guy looks like he has multiple personality disorder, which the girl is emulating through the use of multiple persons.

So to succeed you need to be acting like 6 or 7 different guys, and that's not easy. The minimum here is to wear different sets of clothes and at least look different (one minute you're selling Rolexes, the next you're selling Condoms). But is this the Democracy, is it a democratic concept, is it the wrong kind of female?

So for example: http://uk.askmen.com/dating/heidi_100/133_dating_girl.html

1.) The Romantic Guy
2.) The Confident Guy
3.) The Artistic Guy
4.) The Foreign Guy
5.) The Free Spirit Guy (aka the Bad Boy)
6.) The Intelligent/Witty Guy
7.) The Considerate Guy

So that's one for each day of the week (hurray now you've cracked it).

Now what I did here was to take the website out of context. Firstly, of course, I could be wrong. Secondly the clear intent is that you should become one of these types to attract a female. What I'm saying here is that the promiscuous female is effectively having 7 husbands and the value of that is in getting seven times the resources. 7 guys to look after her one child? This is indeed the Democratic problem caused by mixing together standards that apply to two separate systems - into one system claimed to be the only system. You then get product standards being applied to people as though they were mass produced. The female is then simply buying a number of men. This is indeed the wrong female who is a part of a failing culture.

The right kind of female would be associated with the Autonomy and would be an Academic, at this point due to certain external influences she seems to be associated generically with Archeology:

Archeology is:
Digging in the ground.
Underground bunkers of various kinds.
A tendency towards masculine activities and clothing (in a non feminist way).
The study of history and the historical context.
An understanding of traditional values.
Analysis of data.
Cross referencing.
Study of languages.
Collecting things.
Evidence of the past.
Facts not theory.
Family trees.
To record and document (perhaps photographic).

This list mostly excludes all of the types of guy on the previous list. It seems clear that the guy associated with this list is not wearing a collar and tie (or even smart clothes). This type of female is also typical of evolution. The guy has a beard the girl doesn't, so he evolved the beard and she did not. What we see are two environments. The female is in the bunker or cave, underground, protected from the weather, which is so severe that the guy without a beard doesn't survive to have many children and is out evolved by the guy with a beard. It's either very cold outside or the wind is so strong that bouncing rocks can break the hunters jaw - unless he has a beard. The cave man hunts for food while the cave woman survives by staying indoors. She relies on the food that he supplies her with. This situation must be likely throughout the universe on many hostile planets, and our good weather here and now is only a temporary situation. So the Archeological female is adopting an ancient behaviour pattern needed for survival, and if the culture fails she will be in a better position to survive (if she can find a male hunter to back her up). In the modern context a lot of skill in the academic sense has been added to this original role, but it does look like an original or common instinct emerging. The male is the hunter but with a similar modern academic skill added to the basic role.

One key point is location, which will be different than that chosen by the Democratic Capitalist female. This is likely to be partly hidden in some way in the context of being below ground (in a subway - Craig David). She lives and works in this environment.

Another key point is the immediate difference in the standards applied. The Democratic Business like female is applying the standard of mass produced products to the guys that she chooses. Here the Autonomous Academic female is applying Archeological standards instead. Now the difficulty here is the big difference between the standards of the Academic male and the Academic female. While she is avoiding the harsh weather to a degree, she is choosing the guy who can handle the extremes of the weather. While she is not tough, he must be to survive. They are also not working together. Traditionally he is hunting for food in a hostile world that she is avoiding. They are extremely complementary and rely on each others skills. He can do things that she cannot, she can do things that he cannot. They are very different to each other and have little in common besides mutual survival. In contrast the Democratic Business female is looking for a male who is very similar to herself, ideally someone who does exactly the same job that she does, and thinks in exactly the same way.

Another key point then is that the Academic female is not going to be very attracted to any of the 7 guys on the list. Toughness and the application of factual data - the Nazi I guess.

The presence of Democracy creates a mixing of standards as product standards are being applied to people. Having a second system, Autonomy should then separate out these standards so that the standards applied to the products become clearly only applicable to those products, so that when a standard has to be applied to a person the Autonomy standard is applied instead. The people as individuals are on the Autonomy side, they are only on the Democratic side when they are acting as a group. So all individual standards must come from Autonomy while all group standards must come from Democracy.

Democracy = Rules and standards for large groups and collections of products or people.
Autonomy = Rules and standards for single objects or people.

From this definition you can see that a family (or even a couple) would count as being a group to be governed by the Democracy, but where you have a single unique object (an Archeological relic) or a single person it would be governed by the Autonomy. Promiscuity then implies a large group of partners and as a group the promiscuous female is then applying a compounding standard that would be used for the components of a car engine, where each guy becomes a separate part of the engine. But as these are single guys (unless they're a team or Platoon as suggested previously, which would function just like a car engine) they should not be judged using this standard and it's an error that occurs by mixing two separate systems into one. Separate out the two systems and it becomes clear that the single standard should be applied to these single guys. If this were so then either the Democratic female would choose ONE of the seven guys instead of compounding with the faulty standard, or the Academic female would choose the guy who was none of these things but was very tough and practical in a way the provides the capabilites that she is lacking.


You could say that it's the fault of Democracy, but because it's a structure of the Autonomy the failure rests with the Autonomy system in not asserting itself sufficiently to provide a choice. The blame that Democracy would get for screwing up here is the censorship of alternative methods, but it does this because it cannot understand something that is different to itself. On top of that it cannot employ someone capable of understanding because it would deem them to have a lack of qualifications as these would not be recognised.

There is a clear fault, which has not been recognised or understood. Another interesting point is that single people must be treated quite differently to people who are married. The group standard cannot be applied and becomes damaging if it is applied. As no other standards have been defined - 'hard cheese' is the only response that the system can provide for unique individuals. Not only is this embarrasing but it is also tactically weak and could be exploited by an external group to attack Democracy and the state (UFOs for example). Pointing out the states stupidity is of course subversive, especially when it's a flaw that cannot be fixed. It then becomes revolutionary if it inspires individuals to act against the state (which is then groping about in the dark). So there is here a complex and intriguing difficulty, that the Democracies of the Western World cannot resolve from within (and that is the chink in the armour). In turn the Autonomy runs the risk of acting just like a terrorist cell.

Tactically the solution that Democracy will apply is to gather all of these single people together as minority groups. So we see people who are of a particular race, or religion, or disability, the unemployed etc, being brought together so that a group standard can be applied to them. The Democracy makes them into macro people resembling different kinds of Frankenstein's Monster. It then tries to goven all of that type by using a common standard. This is why governments want individuals to belong to groups, so that they can be classified. Again you get MUSH as a result of these combinations, but it's the best they can do.

Communism would have Secret Police acting as a group interface to the unique individual. The interesting thing here is that these unique individuals don't actually want to be unique, they actually want to be part of a group, but there is a tendency towards dilution and this separates them from one another.

The subject here has tended to drift a bit. This is such a huge problem that there are many pieces of flak laying around, to trip over. You can see that it's easy to have a rule that covers many similar things - envelopes have stamps on them to pay for postage - but try sticking a stamp on an Elephant and see how far it goes (the Postman says: "But it's an Elephant… it won't fit through the letter box", the Jobcentre says: "Push it harder!"). You can see that it's not so easy to have a set of rules to cover something that's individual or unique. How do argue for fairness if everyone gets treated differently.

It becomes clearer to me at this point that if the Democratic female is applying the standards of mass production to her collection of guys, that in the case of the Autonomous female - deduced to be an Archeologist (instead of a Capitalist), the standard to be applied would be those applied to artefacts that are discovered and dug up, as those are the products of Archeology.

Excavation changes the environmental conditions artifacts are accustomed to. This can cause severe damage and condition changes.
For most materials, it is often best to keep them stored in similar conditions to how they were buried or slowly acclimatize them to new conditions.
Packing in the field is often considered temporary, but this is not always the case and becomes permanent storage.
Don’t place objects in direct sunlight to prevent condensation.
Pack objects of different materials separately.
Don’t fill bags too full.
Don’t put heavy objects on top of light ones.
Make sure objects are well supported if fragile.
Plan ahead, especially if specialized packing is needed.
If it’s dry: Keep it dry.
If it’s damp: Slow drying often best (but depends on the material).
If it’s wet: Slow drying in some cases good for inorganic materials (like ceramics, glass, stone) but for organic materials (like wood, bone, or composite materials) often best to keep it wet.

from: https://www.academia.edu/1684972/Caring_for_Artifacts_From_the_Field_to_the_Lab_Packing_and_Storage_of_Archaeological_Collections

"If someone in the past dug down, for example to make a grave, a pit for food storage or a drainage ditch, sooner or later the hole will have been filled in. A skilled archaeologist can identify the ancient excavation and the fill it contains, which will often include deliberately buried or discarded artefacts and other remains."

from: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/aug/28/archaeology-beginners-guide

Notice in the above that the 'artefact' is something that has been discarded - as trash. So the point here is that the Academic female has to find the right guy and the rules and standards that she would apply would be the same as for the artefacts that she digs up. Imagine the above list applying to people:

She has to do research and dig for them in the right place (much as MI6 would do).
If she takes the guy somewhere else she tries to keep him in the same environmental conditions that prevailed where she found him.
Packaging and permanent storage would be a marriage concept.
Don't place the guy in direct sunlight - implies keeping him out of sight.
Make sure the guy is well supported if he is fragile?
Plan ahead - especially if specialized packing (made of rubber) is needed!
If he's dry keep him dry, if he's wet then dry him off.

You can see a kind of standard emerging here. Here we see an example of a person being treated well. If it was Democracy it would say - compare all of the artefacts to determine which one is the best, then throw all the others away because they're useless. In the Archeological context they are actually digging up the rubbish, and all items are considered to be valuable.

So the argument here is that Archeology provides the standards that would be used to apply to unique objects and people, and these standards would be embraced by the Autonomy. Archeology itself deals with past human activity, what I'm saying here is that it should also deal with present human activity. It also seems likely that it could be applied by men looking for women. The general view is that the Academic field of Archeology may provide the foundations for an alternative system to pull Democracy back from the brink. Here we have a sound structure set up in a correct way, and it can form a solid analogy without the need to develop structures entirely from first priniciples. Not only that but Democracy as a system could understand it and apply it using existing data, and could validate external applications in much the same way as it does for religions.

If the female thinks that the guy is a Neanderthal, then she should treat him how an Archeologist would, as something rare and valuable. We also have an aging population at this time, it's possible that this type of female would prefer an older guy.

More study is required.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view

Re: Dichotomy - The Lucky vs The Unlucky

In reply to this post by ShaunS
Autonomy and Clarity 4
A small amount of security was required with this post. Some of the key words here have had the star symbol '*' used to misspell words that may be searched for using a search engine. I'm treading on a few toes to bring you this.

It's clear from my previous post that there was the suggestion that the Autonomy may adopt the standards of Archeology, however there are some interesting flaws in that argument. Previously I had suggested persistent but minor subversive behaviour. That the Early Adopter of new technology might be breaking the law on purpose, and there are a wide number of areas where this tends to occur (drones for example). That this could lead to a clamp down but might eventually lead to a change in the law, and is necessary to avoid stagnation. This behaviour is not really associated in any way with Archeology and another interesting point, it is often associated with men not women. So perhaps the Archeology standards relate to the Autonomous Female and there is some other standard that may apply to the Autonomous Male. The importance of that is in relation to the money argument. A guy could become an Archeologist but it's clear that this is how the Autonomous Female makes her money (Archeology or related subjects). Now if the guy is following a different standard then that may indicate the method of making money. It would have to be something that is also Academic I guess.

For example in the Lara Croft movie: 'Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life', we have a female Archeologist teaming up with a male Traitor/Criminal and both act in an Autonomous way. Duality is also referred to in the movie so we seem to have definite pieces of information of an advanced nature being conveyed by this. In the film the guy tells Lara that they are the same but very different, and meant to be together - that's spot on (it probably comes from Rupert Murdoch who seems to have financed the film, there's also a German connection).

Previously the Archeology context for the Academic female was found because there was a need to identify where the Academic female was and what she was doing. Fairly obviously she was somewhere else doing something else. Clearly there was a need to find this female because generally the females that were being found were on the Democratic side of the line and were hated and despised by the Autonomous male and the primary reason for his being single. The theory was that they were somewhere else and this seems to be correct. In studying this not much attention was then paid to the Autonomous male. While the virus like behaviour could be compared to Private Investigation and the gathering of data, this is still too unclear and lacking in Academic value. The significance is the question of what profession should be adopted as a best fit?

The Academic male is not on the same spot as the Academic female. Furthermore we know that they are very different and not similar (unlike their similarity on the Democratic side of the line). They are both moderately covert operators. While it seems clear that the female position can be seen as based on Archeological structures and standards, the male position is likely to be different. Although they may be complementary to each other they will not be diametrically opposite so we can't use that to deduce the opposing type. What is clear are the missing features. One of those is Religion. Another is Technology. We know that Archeology benefits from the use of advanced technology such as the magnetic survey technique - but the Archeologist herself has a knowledge system based on ancient civilisations (arrows and spears) not magnetic resonance and advanced technology, which is to a degree an opposite of Archeology but is yet complementary. So this is an example in which we can say that the Autonomous male must have an interest in gathering data using high-tech methods, and would be paid to use them, and in the case of magnetic surveys would use them in conjunction with the Autonomous female and her Archeological dig. The magic or religion could be something like dowsing which is a pseudoscience considered a form of divination - which is used to find underground water and Artefacts such as metals and gravesites. This would be useful in the Archeological context (if it worked). The current position is that a skilled and successful diviner can do this but most cannot. The ability is personal the devining rod is simply an aid. The pendulum might also be used in this regard. So a religious context should be narrowed. It is not that this or some other religion would make a great culture or an ordered civilisation but rather that it would in some way help with an Archeological or Historical investigation. It now seems that the very act of gathering information of a specific type might confer religious power along the lines of the information gathered. I think that this points to a significant difference in comparison to Nazism as a religion. Here you have a personal skill much like being a Magician, it does not have a nationalistic purpose. I guess the distribution of a religion is what makes it significant in a cultural context. It is not that the religion has attempted to form a culture, but that the large number of adherants to a particular religion has resulted in that specific religious culture becoming a part of the locally adopted customs and practices, and these may go on to acquire political power in a Democratic sense. Here you may have a religion much like the Pick Up Artist, designed to manipulate females or the general population.

* Tactically a breakaway culture such as the Branch Davidians (David Koresh for example) would make an easy target for Democracy to attack, and would be easily defeated. As Democracy only caters for 50% of the population there is no need for a breakaway culture given the current level of infiltration of the other 50%, which occurs without disturbing Democracy in any way. For such a large group to present a 'zero target' is certainly impressive. On top of that a social structure consisting of an Overt System plus a Covert System cannot easily be defeated by an external threat, which would tend to take out the Overt system but then fall under attack from the Covert System (such as the French Resistance in WW2). Given the relative 50:50 ratio the Covert system would be as strong as the Overt system but could act in a completely hidden way. Such a system would be twice as strong as it would appear to be, from the enemies perspective. So the scheme is not only good for the Covert group but they also become a secret weapon of the Overt group should the need arise. Provided the two get along there's no internal threat and given the ratio it's fairly obvious that this would tend to be the case. The combined structure is sound and robust, Democracy + Autonomy would be solid. In addition if the Autonomy was based on standards that were correct, any other pre-existing Autonomous group could be expected to be following the same standards and techniques, therefore no conflict would occur between one Autonomous group and another. In practice though we do tend to see gangs and gang warfare over territory therefore it's not good to allow these systems to evolve naturally, some overall control structure may still be required (some enforcement of standards or pointing out of superiority or effectiveness). The Autonomous standards may well form a religion in some sense, certainly a creed or code.

Finding Stuff:
The Academic male and female are finding stuff. The female is using Archeological methods and techniques, the male is using high-tech or religious/magical techniques. They can therefore work together and help each other but have different methods of hunting. The female is digging in the dirt as you might do in farming or looking for roots. The male has a pig sniffing for truffles. They are paid because what they find is valuable, and what they are looking for is generally missing or concealed. They are rewarded for finding it, and this is the money argument. The religious argument here is that the Autonomous male is almost magically conjuring up the Artefact through his ceremonial approach, his female priestess (the Magicians lovely assistant) then digs it up after it has materialised as a solid form within the Earth.

Deep Analysis
I did a deep analysis on this using some advanced data sources and this returned some very curious information. It was suggested that the Autonomous male and female are slightly different to the average human in a way that may be described as being more evolved? Specifically they appear to have more energy which tends to emerge in a sexual way. The male and female can exchange energies and this has the effect of empowering them. The male acts as a power source for the female, and she acts as a power source for the male. In absorbing each others power a stability occurs. Failure to do so results in significant instability. The energy of female will result in her being rejected by the people around her and she will tend to become poverty stricken and homeless. In the case of the male the energy builds up until it becomes destructive. It will destroy the male, who in turn will try to destroy the world. The possession of this increased power produces a difference that disturbs the people around them and they become rejected by the culture, which they also reject.

* The best example of this would be the Star Trek episode 'Amok Time':
"Dr. McCoy discovers Spock's blood chemistry is extremely active and has the presence of unknown hormones. If the condition persists, Spock will die in eight days. Spock does not wish to discuss what is currently affecting him, but Kirk demands an explanation. Seemingly embarrassed, Spock informs Kirk that his condition is called pon farr, a syndrome that all Vulcan males painfully endure periodically throughout their adult life. During this time, they must mate or die."

and here:
"Every seven years, Vulcan males and females become aroused. They undergo a blood fever, become violent, and finally die unless they mate with someone with whom they are empathically bonded or engage in the ritual battle known as kal-if-fee."

Imagine Elliot Rodger playing the role of Spock.

This appears to be what the Fre*mas*ns are handling. As suggested elsewhere, it appears that the Fr*em*son is expected to view his wife/girlfriend/mistress as the embodiment of Lilith during sexual activity, and this presupposes that he is adopting the role of Samael her husband. The purpose of this appears to be the exchange of these energies. However this supposes that they have these energies in the first place, and clearly the guy joining the Fre*mas*ns does not have this power prior to joining (although the potential is assumed to be informing his choice). This implies that the Fr*em*sons have a way of triggering this evolutionary step, and then have the task of handling the results after doing so. As suggested this may mean that what is needed is an organisation to rival the Fre*mas*ns if only to achieve a wider spread of information amongst the naturally occuring individuals within the population. It may also imply the current existence of such an organisation already rivalling the Fr*em*sons and that the naturally occuring individuals are being deliberately 'turned' whilst not being a member of the organisation doing that. This would be an act of subversion not just towards the Democracy and the state but actually towards the existing Fre*mas*n organisation.

* This begs the question of what the triggering technique is. It must be a fairly easy and rapid process? It must also be rather secret - for practical reasons (the need for control). However every Fr*em*son must be exposed to it and therefore it must be very common. The method of secrecy lies in not explaining. The Fre*mas*n himself is kept in the dark and is simply following laid down procedures (so the devil is in the detail). The implication is that infiltrators may actually be revealing this information without knowing what they have. Stephen Knight / Martin Short: The Brotherhood (1984) for example. Stephen Knight's death was considered suspicious in some circles. One interesting feature is the the Fr*em*son technique often causes Epilepsy (which I know from observing one of their candidates), and that… can be caused by a head injury - and pursuing it I found this:

"239 serial and mass murderers in the study, 28 percent of them were, or are suspected to be the case, of autistic disorder, with seven per cent of the sub-sample at the same time had a head injury. 21 per cent of the total sample had less reliable evidence that they once suffered a head injury; of these, 13 percent at the same time suffer from some form of autism. Finally, more than half of the assassin with autistic disorder and / or head injury had a childhood marked by psychological trauma; Their crimes and the method of execution are severe and cruel compared to those committed by comparable individuals whose childhood passed without any major hitches."

From this I would suggest that a head impact of some kind can act as a trigger, and this could occur by accident (falling Mas*nry perhaps) or from following a ritual designed to cause it. This is very likely because of this:

"The third ruffian is also unable to extract the secrets from Hira* Abif*. He strikes Hir*m on the head with a setting m*ul and kills him."

Hi*am Ab*ff is struck on the head - which could be copied in ritual form. That would take us to studying the bones of the skull and whether these can interact with the brain perhaps (found because in some cases Epilepsy does occur). It seems fairly clear at this point that if you're reading this you might consider whether as a child you had any serious head injuries (in my case I ran into a brick wall). So a group of M*sons long ago, handling heavy stone blocks accidentally drop one of these on a fellow mas*ns head etc etc. Not an uncommon accident for builders, and incidentally this must be why the CSCS card in the UK is so important along with the obligatory Yellow Hat in case someone discovers the secret by accident (not to mention cycle helmets and crash helmets). You can see how such an accidental discovery might produce an intriguing result that might lead to some kind of cult doing the same on purpose.

This goes on and on of course:
"Short then tells the reader that Knight's brain tumor was anything but normal, and then asks whether a natural brain tumor can be induced by unnatural means but not recognized as such."

And on and on:
"When a fre*mas*n is first initiated into the Thir* Degr*e he is struck on the forehead in the dark.  Next, he falls back either into a coffin or onto a coffin shape design. Then his fellow m*sons lift him up When he opens his eyes he is confronted with a human skull and cro*sed bones. This initiation places this man both into the cult and under a curse, both literally and metaphorically; unbeknownst to him."

And continues going on and on:
"What are the potential psychological or emotional problems?
People who interact with victims of a mild brain injury often see a “personality change” in the individual. Other common symptoms are:

- Depression and anxiety
- Changes in sleeping habits
- Increased or decreased sex drive
- Heightened fears
- Changes in temperament
- Increased levels of fatigue

Individuals may experience problems in judgment or do things that were unlikely to do prior to their injury. This may include use of drugs or alcohol in a pattern that is very different from their pre-injury use."

It seems that the Mas*ns may have developed quite a knowledge of what bumps on the head can do to the brain  as a result of their hazardous occupation. Given the nature of this group they would have recorded accidents in a book and the outcome would also have been noted. Any long term effects could be traced back to the original accident, and if everyone who has a similar accident gains the same modification (occult power) - and if it's useful then it may perhaps be cultivated. Probably 300 years or so of data here?

However what I'm looking at is a 50:50 ratio of the population and the Fr*em*sons are not dumb enough to start initiating non-members (and then not look after their needs). Furthermore there is an obvious assumption that only the Fre*mas*ns have the specific information required and given that picking the wrong location on the skull can result in death by brain tumor 18 months later, it doesn't seem likely that this would be discovered by trial and error! Yet I am aware of specific and precise accidents occuring that result in very specific bumps on the head through some form of influence at a distance (affecting a number of people). Clearly what ever group is behind it, it's not the Fr*em*sons. Occam's Razor suggests that Aliens would not have the knowledge of human physiology to be able to get it right. They might perhaps alter someone genetically, or selectively breed someone more easily controllable but again Occam's Razor points to the elaborate nature of such a theory as being unlikely. The Illuminati would not be initiating non-members. So we have an unknown 'player' at work in the background?

Analysis here gave this:
"All the supposed abominations, the skeletons and death’s head, the coffins and the mysteries, are mere bogeys for children. But there is one dangerous element and that is the element I have copied from them. They form a sort of priestly nobility. They have developed and esoteric doctrine more merely formulated, but imparted through the symbols and mysteries in degrees of initiation. The hierarchical organization and the initiation through symbolic rites, that is to say, without bothering the brain by working on the imagination through magic and the symbols of a cult, all this has a dangerous element, and the element I have taken over. Don’t you see that our party must be of this character...? An Order, the hierarchical Order of a secular priesthood."

-Adolf Hitler
praising Fre*mas*nry

The Nazis did not like the Fr*em*sons whom they persecuted (thus no alliance between the two, the Vatican tends to disagree slightly here), however they did confiscate all of their documents as each lodge was closed down. In my view they would have obtained this method of initiating a change in the brains functioning from this source. Given the experiments that the Nazis did using humans as subjects it seems clear that any practical information from the Fre*mas*ns would have been tested and verified. It appears that they were in a position to obtain the information, to test it, and to use and deploy it. In addition they had a very definite need to procreate, so it looks like something the SS would have adopted. In my view these are still the players in the background. Their motive would be to develop a system that would help their co-existence within the current culture, so they could infiltrate and thus integrate more successfully (without being spotted). Thus 'Initiated Nazis' running around in the background.

* I actually wrote that last sentence in stupidity mode. Initiated Nazi = IN = intu & infrared the two Mall operators in Norwich City UK.

The Beatles:
Well naturally I was naively wondering if the Beatles music had been inspired by some kind of initiation. For example they had shown an interest in the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi around 1967/68 which was an interest that George had. So Nazi or Fr*em*son, were there (by any chance) any bumps on the head? Obvious the first item found was Stuart Sutcliffe who died of a brain hemmorage as a result of a head injury, that occurred during a fight in the UK (not Germany) some time earlier. The view here is that the story seems genuine. If he had obtained medical attention he may have lived. Then I moved on to John Lennon and didn't find anything. Then I moved on to Paul McCartney - at which point the shit hit the fan!

PID - Paul is Dead. He died in a car crash in November of 1966 from… a head injury. Occam's Razor protests "But the guys still alive!", thus no body (burried on a hill in Strawberry Fields), no autopsy, thus no evidence and a certainty that the application of Occam's Razor will produce a perfect cover up - as the guy's still alive. RIP Paul "Maybe I'm Amazed" probably means the imposter is waiting for the Queen of England to spill the beans? Facinating world you guys live in, just don't mention you come from 'The Earth' if you land on another planet (they'd shoot you for being a dangerous species).

Nazi or Fre*mas*n, the question stands. Analysis revealed significant Mas*nic connections mostly through the record company. The Nazis would not have liked them for a wide range of reasons. So to speculate in a stupid way: Paul unlike George would have needed a strong interest in Fr*em*sonry and would have already reached the second degree. 24 years old at the time of his death, it is feasible but seems unlikely. Then he would be initiated into the Third Degree of the Fr*em*sons (M*ster Mas*n) but the initiation would fail because of his left-handedness resulting in accidental death. Which would then be covered up as a car crash. The rest of the group become disenchanted with Fre*mas*nry and embrace the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi instead one year later? Given that the guy still appears to be alive, that there is no dead body, that the music does imply a car crash, that a head injury cannot be inferred from the dead body or the autopsy as neither are present, such speculation is worthless and a vivid stretch of the imagination.

However, Paul is indeed dead. The "Paul is dead man" (not "a dead man") was extracted as REVERSED SPEECH from the tail end of 'I'm so tired' from 'The White Album'. Having studied Reverse Speech I can say that this is a fine example of unintentional subconscious speech. It is not a reference to Cranberry Sauce, and the song is about smoking. Having extracted this myself, this one reference alone is sufficiently convincing for me. The tone of the speech conveys a significant degree of sadness. I cannot link his death in any clear way with initiation, and it appears to have been an accident that was covered up as a public safety measure. There was the clear intention to introduce Billy Shears as his replacement, which wasn't finally done.

Reality Check:
The generally 50:50 ratio that defines the failure of Democracy is obviously mathematical. While the disenfrachised group may certainly be of this size, it seems unlikely that they may all have been mysteriously initiated into some form of Nazi Fr*emas*nry when no one was looking and without any of them realising this. However as previously, having a security hole in the system - as big as a barn door - does of course allow any group to come along and identify the disenfranchised 50% and then mess with them to perhaps aggravate the situation or exploit the group as future members of some organisation that might then take over in a sudden united activity (ISIS for example). Never-the-less the expectation is that there may well be a global effect, it may well be of Nazi origin, and you can expect to see sleepers in place. On top of that Democracy is not a system that can understand the problem to an adequate degree, or actually construct a defence, and even tactical manoeuvring looks difficult. I suspect that this is not a local problem but is more widespread. While there is credibility for Nazis there is less for Aliens. Perhaps they did find a few and learnt something from them. In general though the Nazis have all the qualities required. They have a wish to create a master race via selective breeding, a tendency towards human experimentation, and a strong interest in mind control, and an urge to promote a new religion. On top of that they have strong survival instincts - which if you throw in a few initiated psychic abilites borrowed from the M*sonic Lodges they closed down, provide a strong probability that they are still around doing weird stuff in the background to the population.

As an example consider the song Black Velvet, sung by Alannah Myles, written by Christopher Ward and David Tyson (all Canadian). "A new religion that'll bring ya to your nees, Black velvet if you please." Overtly the song is clearly about Elvis Presley. Covertly the song is about Adolf Hitler. Occam's Razor clearly favours the overt version of the song as you might expect, yet the reference to 'slow southern style' is a specific reference to 'southern Adolf Hitler' a style for trimming pubic hair (presumably female, a reference to his moustache), not to mention 'White Lightning' as a specific reference to the SS symbol. The difficulty of writing such a double edged song puts it beyond the capability of the writers who clearly had the intention of it being about Elvis Presley, yet the degree of mind control needed to exert such precise control to get just these word structures points to a formidable and sinister power in the background - of Nazi origin. To skilfully inject Adolf Hitler's name directly into the song, without that being noticed, is utterly brilliant - even Charles Manson would have been proud. Why go to all that trouble. If it's to trigger some kind of Manchurian Candidate it would have to trigger a large number of them, and we haven't really seen that. For the rest of us - WTF.

More study is required (if I live to tell the tale).
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view

Re: Dichotomy - The Lucky vs The Unlucky

In reply to this post by ShaunS
The Nazi Question
Well now slightly off topic, what we seem to have are two groups in the background - Freemasons & Nazis. I doubt any alliance between them, and it's not what I expected to find, for example:

In the film 'Demolition Man' Sylvester Stallone who plays a 20th Century Cop wrongfully imprisoned, is thawed out from Cryo-Suspension to fight a 20th Century criminal who escapes from the Cryo-Prison. Naturally he gets involved in some form of lame revolution, and at one point encounters one of his colleagues who has joined forces with the revolutionaries and says: "Well look at you. You get a bump on the noggin and you think you're Pancho Villa" (at 1:32:21)

What are we to make of such a reference. That a person who gets a small bump on the head may think in a different way (a revolutionary way)? We then have to ask Freemason or Nazi? Pancho Villa was a Mexican revolutionary. In some cases his victories were achieved by German imposters who went so far as to wear a false moustache to pretend to be the guy. The purpose was to encourage America into a war with Mexico instead of WW1. The era predates the Nazis. What we find next is that Adolf Hitler was a fan of Pancho Villa. More specifically Adolf was a film fan with a strong interest in movies.

(that reference is here: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=14O1AwAAQBAJ&pg=PT115&lpg=PT115&dq=%22Pancho+Villa%22+Nazi&source=bl&ots=u0ZevbvXuW&sig=xCoICkWlu5keaysgqrRANkjHvgU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAmoVChMI5r66_4P8yAIVBB8eCh3jVAcJ#v=onepage&q=%22Pancho%20Villa%22%20Nazi&f=false)

The quote from the film is one that occurs in modern times. It seems to support the Nazi concept of accidental initiation? It does not appear to be associated with Freemasons. So a form of subtle education becomes apparent? In the film you have two groups, the state epitomised by the police, and an underworld of disenfranchised people rejecting the state led by Edgar Friendly - played by Denis Leary:

"Leary did the TV voiceover for MLB 2K8 advertisements, where he used his trademark rant style in baseball terms, and ads for the 2009 Ford F-150 pickup truck." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Leary

This guy being the epitomy of the disenfranchised 'ranting' individual. Furthermore Sylvester Stallone's response to his police chief's question of 'what will we do now' - suggests that the two get together and work it out between themselves. A reference to the 'State + Disenfranchised' joining together to form a new scheme. So again this seems like a very apt film except that there are very specific apparently 'Nazi' references to initiation. The film is being used to educate people, into what appears to be a Nazi philosophy?

It's clear from this that my idea for a 'Dichotomy' system of Democracy+Autonomy, may not be an accidental idea that I had, but rather one inspired by the kind of tricks that Darren Brown is famous for. This information could be picked up from background references, and may be deliberately promoted by some specific group with the financial resources to do it, to the world and the entire population? It does not look coincidental. More importantly the above reference specifically suggests that films are used in this way, and it seems that this idea may have come from Hitler himself not to mention the Nazis use of propaganda.

So we have a situation in which the culture may be unsettled by disturbingly violent people 'accidentally initiated' by Nazis using skilful mind control techniques, who at the same time may be promoting carefully crafted pieces of propaganda designed to provide the solution though modification of the culture and the power structures of the state, in a Problem-Reaction-Solution style strategy, while producing a final structure that allows them a 50% stake in the culture produced.

It appears then that the 'new religion' is Nazism (and their messiah is Adolf Hitler the promised deliverer of the German nation), probably a variation of Catharism in the modern context. In the case of the song 'Black Velvet' it may be a product of neo-Nazis in Canada, and it may point to a link between Adolf Hitler and Elvis Presley (who appears to have been a Nazi sympathiser). Remember the Overt + Covert structure, which for political reasons must result in a front organisation as the Overt group potentially with Nazis as the Covert group.

While the basic philosophy of this thread is sound, clearly some thought must be given to the Nazi question and how such an organisation may gain from the implementation of any new structure. They are out there!

Okay… Elliot Rodger - driving a BMW car at the time of his rampage - has an interest in Nazis:

Black Velvet - Again
So here we have a song that somehow skilfully seems to be a reference to Elvis Presley and Adolf Hitler at the same time. It's tempting to say that this is most likely of neoNazi origin as Canda has some problems in this regard. The history of the song is fairly well known so this argument seems unlikely.

Two other aspects were found. First it has whispering at the start and that sounds like a subliminal (probably just a minor aspect). I haven't yet been able to extract that but obviously there is some concern given the origin. Secondly the reference to 'Black Velvet' and 'White Lightning' (LSD, Alcohol, or Cider, I guess) - but the two in combination is a reference to matter and energy. The card appears in a structure that I have representing '12 The Hanged Man' thus the singularity of the Big Bang (the central point of the Tarot). What I see here is a reference to E=MC² in addition to Dark Matter (black velvet) and the Atomic Bomb. These symbolic strutures imply God (as in God Almighty). You have a God mediating between the Western Democracy represented by Elvis Presley on the one hand and Facist Nazism represented by Adolf Hitler on the other hand. If God was a hive mind this would account for the mind control perceived to be necessary for this construction. It could be that there is a God out there acting as a third player.

The analysis of the song could be given in detail, but that would need to be in the religious part of the forum. It's also part of a bigger structure which refers to Catharism (Cathy's Clown and it's sexual?). The level of encryption is very deep so difficult to analyse. There are also clear 'Nazi' references so a slightly tainted source I guess.

Autonomy and Clarity 5
There are still two important concerns here, money and females. The money argument is especially important, as the Autonomous Male needs to earn a living.

If we look at Nazi economics, mostly what they had was a long piece of string with no rekoning at the end of it. They had a virus like mentality and this was the idea of moving into a new territory having consumed the natural resources of the existing territory. Potentially their failure to conquer the world would have made their economics work quite well as they would be constantly moving from one location to the next - much like Gypsies. Continuous war in a mobile sense would result in the actual currency coming from their enemies and their enemies economies - much like the three year crop rotation scheme from primitive farming. One country is left fallow while two thirds are occupied, then at the right moment war is declare on the fallow country which is then invaded, while the troops invading come from a previously conquered country which is then abandoned as the new fallow earth. The concept of farming is then applied to humans - who are then farmed by Nazi farmers? A fairly worthwhile if brutal concept, and clearly one that I don't recommend. It would probably work though - if you were an Aztec King.

Some other structure is required to avoid this virus like approach (although the virus like approach itself is very credible). The Archeology concept points to the idea of finding things that are hard to find. Using new techniques. Like Fracking. What our Autonomous Male needs to specialise in are ways of finding or extracting valuable items - after everyone else has given up. For example take the permanent magnet, a powerful source of energy that is obviously radiated but is somehow locked outside of time (being radiated into the past). We can only access the power of a magnet by rotating it as a means to increase it's presence in our time frame, and doing so consumes the energy to the same degree that it's generated. Thus the power of the magnet is being lost. If you could find a way to extract that power - it would be a very valuable source of atomic power. The requirement then is to be able to solve such problems. Consider then that the method of solving such problems is what is required - the solutions themselves are less valuable. The Greeks for example discovered static electricity through the use of Amber. This was not developed into electricity, but it could have been if they had worked on it in a smarter way.

Problem solving and methods of finding answers are the key to making money. It doesn't seem to rely on intellect, and there are definitely some religious factors involved. The Jehovah's Witness would of course pray for the solution (that won't work of course). It may be related to the religious effect of studying text. It's as though the brain is reorganised around the subject of the problem as though it was the centre of the universe. Everything is recomputed from that point. Perhaps a kind of divination with the problem as the proposed question. Our key difficulty is that we don't care enough about the problems that we suffer from to actually work on them to find a solution. This lack of focus prevents the solutions from being found and that in turn prevents answers from being applied.

The dangers of religion:
I should point out an important factor here. Democracy is based on luck and 'Lucky' people. These are people who 'automatically' succeed. This automatic factor may well be lacking in the case of the 'Unlucky' people. The result is like having paint that doesn't dry, or like glue that doesn't stick. The 'Lucky' will tell the 'Unlucky' that these things will just happen for them and work out, but of course they don't. The 'Lucky' people don't understand the 'Unlucky' people and assume that they are the same, when in fact they are different. The problem here is that the 'Unlucky' people are apt to believe such statements and become upset when these things don't just happen. Likewise the 'Lucky' people are equally surprised when the 'Unlucky' fail in an area where they would have expected success (especially if it's one of their children).

There is a tendency for the 'Unlucky' to have strong interests in the Occult and various forms of Magic and thus also religion. The idea from Magic of simply uttering a spell to get what you want in an… 'automatic' way is very appealing to those that don't have these automatically successful responses. In reality these people are simply trying to perform as well as the 'Lucky' people appear to. The 'automatically' successful 'Lucky' people appear to get results by what appear to be magical means. Many of these people (Business Men) can often become religious as a result of their success making them believe that God is on their side - when they are simply lucky.

So the idea that there is a need for a 'new religion' may simple be the need to fix the failure of these 'automatic' responses that the 'lucky' have but which the 'unlucky' seem to have lost. Now when the 'Unlucky' fail and the 'Lucky' tell them that they obviously need to try harder - the 'Unlucky' become Nazis and beat the 'Lucky' people on the head with big sticks. Perhaps they are standing too close to each other? If there are two parties and only one luck - it becomes an understandable response. Cain and Abel I guess.

The problem with religion then, is that if offers a quick fix - but that is just a promise which never materialises. Faith becomes an issue when it causes a failure to respond. God is unreliable (or he's working for someone else). The power of God is the capability of using the group to support the individual, something that Democracy hasn't learnt to do. The 'Unlucky' have a problem, their independence eliminates automatic functionality. Conventional religion doesn't have the answer (it groups people together as a solution). The regular practices and techniques won't work as they are based on groups thus Democracy.

A 'new religion' would need to be quite strange to resolve this. Instead of meeting other people in a group setting such as a church, it is their products that are gathered together (such as music or television). What you have is a kind of DIY religion. It must handle the lack of gestalt (a German word).

One aspect of God being a hive mind has been: "Where's the archive?". If the hive is in a state of flux then any God formed from this would also be in a state of flux. The hive mind of God must be held in an archive or some form of backup storage. I have been looking for this for some time. In my view the information and media of the human race must be providing the archive - a storage of the mind of God. So God and God's ideas are being backed up within the products produced by the human race, and when God wishes to access part of the archive he simple gets someone to watch the movie or listen to the music. A structure is imposed on the method of storage - the order of the songs in a compilation for example. There is data compression within the lyrics of the music. Data is encrypted and stored. The view then, is that this data can be extracted and understood by the people, but then again - Charles Manson found it first?

You can see that if the structure of a new religion could be extracted directly from an archive of God's brain, that you have an easter egg of a message left by God - "Black Velvet, if you please". If God is a hive mind and if this is the archive of data, then the new religion is presented within the hard copy (of the mind of God), specifically for the people that cannot be reached through typical churchianity. That of course, still leaves the perilous task of interpreting the data, and the dubious question of which God it is. Perhaps religion should be avoided, but can it be?

The money supply:
This brings us back to the primary issue. It must be the lack of automatic functioning that produces an 'unlucky' result and thus a shortage of money (and the rest of the culture). Incompatibility - teflon, the glue doesn't stick. The person is fundamentally different, the culture doesn't apply. The culture provides structure, but the structure doesn't work in the case of the 'unlucky'. Clearly some other structure is required, and it needs to be custom made for the job.

* I would point out here that this is no need to create a similar analysis of Democracy, because Democracy has no problems conveying it's own structures, which it does all the time.

The 'lucky' structure is based on people, and that doesn't work for the 'unlucky'. So as above the structure needs to be based on the products of the people not the people themselves. The temptation here is to point to Pornography - a product of the people, but not the people themselves (designed for the single guy who presumably is 'unlucky'). Archeology fits into this as well. The left over remains of the people, but not the people themselves. If the Autonomy has to generate it's own wealth presumably it would be producing these kinds of products to sell to it's own people (pornography consists of images of areas that are normally hidden). There are some signs of this and the technology itself is leaning in this direction.

So here we would have a culture based on the products of the people as a substitute for the people themselves. There is a very interesting argument here for a proxy culture. It even has a proxy God as an archive instead of the God in person, much like the crucifix in a church. The money is made by making and selling proxies. CDs are proxies of the singer, a robot who sings on behalf of the singer who can't be there in person. The person plays the CD instead of going to the live concert (or they watch it on TV - a simulated window). Virtual Reality for example. In a computer game you're selling the guy a fake Tank, because even if he could afford a real one the local council wouldn't let him fire the gun. It sells him the fake version, making money from that. A proxy is a fake version, thus fake goods (Levis Jeans - made by someone else, with a fake logo). A prostitute would be a wife by proxy.

So, for example: A small boy is given a water pistol instead of a real gun. We cannot say that this is wrong because we cannot give the child a real gun, so he is given a fake gun instead. As it has some functionality - he can hit people with the water - he may perhaps realise from this that a real gun is dangerous. Perhaps in learning to use the fake gun as a proxy he may learn to handle a real gun more safely. Certainly many accidents have happened when a child gets hold of a real gun. Likewise the military will use blanks in training exercises. Thus fake bullets to act as proxies. In the culture of Democracy this doesn't seem to work as well as it should. The Job Centre's 'work experience' for example is a proxy that doesn't work. The employer is asked to employ a 'dummy' as a proxy - which is known as an Apprenticeship, to teach the employer how to employ people. It works a little better I guess.

The expectation here is of creating the proxy and selling it as a way of earning a living but it might also be using a proxy instead of being there in person. So perhaps this is what the Democracy is doing - it is making proxies to sell to the disenfranchised group. Now although this is a way for the Democracy as a system to make money (from the Autonomy), the true supplier of proxies should be the Autonomy itself, which should sell these to it's own kind.

Consider again the Archeological female who is relying on the Autonomous Male who does a 'magnetic survey' to determine the location of underground objects to dig up. Yes he has a technological way of finding things - but look again, he is using the 'magnetic survey' as a proxy for his own eyes. He is projecting himself into the ground by way of a magnetic body that is acting as a proxy of himself. The dowser is probably doing the same thing with religion instead of technology. His 'magnetic body' is sent into places that his physical body cannot go to, and returns to tell him what was seen there. A drone, or a probe sent into Space would do the same thing. In a sense it is a form of Astral Projection. Imagine concealed Nazis able to project Dark Matter bodies that have mass and can interact safely with their environment (without revealing their true location). Yet again in magic this might be considered to be a Familiar, and in Private Investigation, a bugging device. The Bug is a proxy.

The proxy is a way of being somewhere that you cannot be, or it is a fake version obtained because the real person is not available. It works both ways. You could create a proxy of yourself (in some form) to sell to others (much as I am doing in writing these words), or you could purchase or obtain a proxy of someone else (much as you are doing by reading this text). The purpose is to obtain valuable information or to interact at a distance, and the skill is in being able to use or make a proxy to do it. And we are already doing that.

The problem here is that the word 'Proxy' is not quite correct. It's a little too general a term for the concept described. After all, an employee is a proxy often delegating from a manager, who in turn is delegating from the business owner. Such an employee is generally on the Democracy side of the line. What we have here is action at a distant, a transmitted delegate, a ghost of the worker acting by remote control. That is an important factor because it is a duality and in a Nazi sense the projection may be invisible yet still able to interact with it's surroundings (an infrared remote control for example). So the interactive projection that achieves remote control is often invisible, a drone would be an Avatar and the signal would be the invisible component. Mind Control would be one example of this, Remote Viewing would be another. It's tempting to point to the Orsen Welles radio transmissions of War of The Worlds, transmitted as a fake news cast - as though viewing actual evens. An X-Ray that allows the doctor to view the inside of the patient before going there in person after cutting the person up with a scalpel. The use of ultrasonics to smash kidney stones for example.

This is the PROJECTION OF AN EXTENSION of the person.

The 'extension' is obviously designed for the purpose:
A) To be projectable by the user.
B) To handle the environment that it is projected into.
C) To gather information or interact at a distance.

A metal detector is probably the best example of this. You might argue for a toothbrush here. So why is this clever? What you have here is the extended action of Autonomy, or indeed the Autonomist could be an extension of Democracy itself (Democracy is a blob, Autonomy a piece of the blob).  The visible world is Overt, but there is much that is invisible such as radio waves, and these are Covert. Evolution has decided that the things that you can see are important for your survival, it has also decided that the things you cannot see are NOT important for your survival, thus you cannot see radio waves, yet they still exist. Democracy is generally Overt, Autonomy may  be Covert. Democracy can only be concerned with those things that are visible and easily handled, and that's exactly what it does in a way that I would call 'Lucky'. For those people who cannot easily fit into this scheme it must be presumed that they would have more - luck - handling those things that Democracy cannot see or interact with very easily, and those would be all of the things that are Covert. Obviously Democracy would pay for information about things that it cannot see or easily interact with, especially if this information could be provided by a person that it could interact with such as a spy. The spy in this case is viewing and interacting with some kind of world that is either invisible or out of reach. If such a world could have an impact on the visible environment despite not doing so in the past, then evolution is still playing catch-up to evolve newer creatures with better vision, and those would be the people who would survive if such an invisible threat became hostile.

In the case of the Bird/Swine Flu epidemic, the Governments of the World knew a full year in advance that this was about to happen. They were able to predict and calculate the event and prepare for it in advance - before it happened. During that year it was not visible to the general population. Various activities were going on in the background and the people who saw these activities presumed that these events were simply novel ideas. As a Union Steward at the time my research gave the same indications that the Government were responding to (and I was told to keep quiet about it). For a time the Head Master thought that I had bugged his office. The average person was unable to put the pieces together until after the event (and they were not happy afterwards). I myself vacated the area. This was a school - they were preparing to install an incinerator unit to cremate the dead bodies of the children! They even sabotaged a boiler so it could be removed to a create space next to the chimney. We got lucky on that occasion it was H1N1 not H5N1. The Government was prepared because of it's access to invisible data - deemed not to be important by evolution (as evolution thrives on death). It's very clear to me that the people who could see this coming were taking evasive action, those who could not - did not, and they were cannon fodder. I did tell a few people but not many believed me.

At this point the male and female roles become a little clearer. The above 'projection of an extension' is what the Autonomous Male is doing, to find something that is hidden. It's a feature of being a hunter. The Autonomous Female is then handling what he finds. She is perhaps studying it, perhaps retrieving it. In the case of food she would be cooking it. He says "Look what I've found", she says "How can we use that". His ability to find it or catch it does not automatically confer an ability to clean it or cook it. He might catch a rabbit hiding down a hole, using a ferret with a ferret-detector on it's collar. He has a receiver to pick up the signal and has to dig for the warren to get his ferret back before it eats the rabbits. He can do that, but then his wife will be skinning, gutting and cooking the rabbit (making rabbit slippers etc). That's still legal (rabbits are classified as vermin). There you have both money and food and it's portable. So this is a fine example of Autonomy and how it would work in practise. In Democratic terms of course, you would buy your girlfriend/wife a nice video to watch called 'Watership Down' and hum to the tune 'Bright Eyes' I guess?

If the female doesn't handle the rabbit and make it into food our brave and fearless hunter may starve? Their roles are complementary. While the guy may catch and kill the rabbit, he may equally throw up when his wife guts the carcass, likewise she may throw up if she watches him killing the rabbit. Democracy > Supermarket > shrink-wrapped rabbit pie (see Watership Down... on another shelf).

The female is not in the same place as the male, and their tendencies are quite different and that's how it is for Autonomy. Contrast that to Democracy which is an easier system perhaps. You can see that in Democracy the male and the female are similar, not complementary. One points to survival while the other points to decadence.

The question of females requires more study…
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view

Re: Dichotomy - The Lucky vs The Unlucky

This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by ShaunS
Autonomy and Clarity 6
There have been huge problems determining the answer to the question of females. The Polygamy system suggested in an early post here would work if developed into a large scheme, but it has a number of problems. Firstly it would take too long to implement (an open franchise would still take 5-6 years). Secondly it would tend to bring in the Democratic female as it would be a more functional system even on the Democracy side of the line, but these females are not ideal in cultural terms. Thirdly the system would presuppose that the Autonomous female is mixed into the Democratic population but the lack of visibility implies that this is not the case? The schematic diagrams show the female as not being within range, the question is how to determine exactly what that means. It implies that the location of this female is not persistent. She is in transit, passing through, or on her way to somewhere else. You can't talk to her because she's working, or can't stop, or has a shortage of time. The basic civilisation occurs as a result of the nomadic lifestyle being abandoned - people stop and remain in the same place, where they can become known, where they can be found. These females look like nomads. They constantly move around so they are hard to find. With a proper system and structure the Autonomy and the Democracy would be separated out in a clearly defined way, which would be physical. They may not necessarily be in separate locations but may instead be clearly displaying some form of insignia to indicate whether they support the Democracy or the Autonomy (and in practice given the current system would be indicating the Autonomy as an opt out). It's clear here that the structure might be similar to the French Resistance WW2, thus fairly covert. Given that the overall system of Dichotomy is not in place - currently they are not doing this, and cannot therefore be found.

*It's tempting to cast the Autonomous male into the role of being a spider, with the female being the fly. The spider builds a web to capture the fly. It only works because the fly is rapidly moving from place to place. The first requirement of the spider is to create a huge capture zone, which is invisible to the fly but can still capture and hold the fly at one location. The entire web is then monitored in the knowledge that a fly will eventually get caught. The web built by the spider is much bigger than the spider - the projection of an extension of itself, but is still invisible despite it's size. The spider itself is also hidden and only appears to check any detection.

It could be that the visual acuity of the female in generally being only able to see in 2 dimensions instead of 3, may require movement to be added in order to calculate the 3rd dimension? Thus television may provide this additional moving element. The female may need to move more, if the visual acuity was less functional. Whether this is also true of animals is unclear, but it would account for males displaying. The mating ritual of the male obviously produces a significant amount of movement. The eyes themselves respond directly to movement to avoid predators. Movement produces visibility, but in the case of the female if the object being observed is not moving, it may not be possible to determine the three dimensional shape and form. Now if this is a fixed object then the female would need to move in order to view it from different angles. A picture of a guy if life sized, would look the same as a guy standing next to the picture. The real guy can move, the cardboard guy cannot. She would not be attracted to the cardboard guy! If the guy emulates the cardboard then she will not see him - unless she herself were moving.

It's possible then that the Autonomous female has a brain (or poor eyesight) that is less able to view and understand three dimensional forms. Such a female would immediately require more movement in her field of view, and if she herself moved more then she will be in one place for a shorter period of time than the Democratic female. She could be viewing a moving object, but would be attracted to moving objects much more than stationary objects. The Democratic female would then be more attracted to stationary objects. The female can therefore stop moving or be stopped from moving if a moving image is presented instead (a juggler perhaps).

In the case of the male then, the Autonomous male is specializing in the projection of an extension. If that extension were to move it could move more than he could (a juggler perhaps), because it would be bigger than himself. So for example the peacocks feathers present an image that is bigger than the actual body of the bird and can allow a bigger movement - like waving a flag. The feathers are the projection of an extension, that can also be moved in a visual sense. So the general view is a requirement for greater visual input in the case of the Autonomous female (who is then moving more to achieve it).

It's tempting to suggest that the Autonomous male is perhaps more primitive or perhaps more instinctive. In the case of the female we also see an association with the more primitive thus Archeology. I could also point to the Amish and say that their culture is more primitive, and clearly that's the case. So despite a Degree from University - it was in Archeology and the study of primitive things, the female has twisted the modern concept and is using it to embrace the primitive. A sort of retro cult? In an Acheological sense the uncovering of a skeleton is done by gradually removing the earth which slowly reveals the three dimensional form.

Autonomy = Academic Primitivism

An oxymoron no doubt? The noble savage. The bow and arrow would be the projection of an extension. Religion also fits neatly into this description because one aspect of Primitivism is 'unsophisticated behaviour that is unaffected by objective reasoning'. The primitive is being moderated by the academic, but runs the risk of the individual becoming more skilfully primitive. The Autonomy does generally appear to be more pimitive than the Democracy and if this is so then more primitive methods may be required, and those may include mating rituals of some kind - of the kind not required by Democratic females? The Democracy uses grouping techniques. One group then associates with another group before the members of each group associate with each other (T-Birds & Pink Ladies, from Grease).

So the theory presented here is one that suggests lack of visual acuity perhaps on the part of both Autonomous males and females. One aspect is the Academic factor, which involves reading books. Reading books destroys eyesight. So it is logical to point to lack of visual capability. The Democratic culture suggests that people look smart when they are dressed in black. It seems unlikely that this is designed to increase contrast as these people meet at night clubs which are also dark and gloomy. If the Democracy suggests Black, then the Autonomy must suggest White or Silver (perhaps reflective clothing).

What emerges then is immediately structural. The fashion sense of the Democracy must be the opposite of the Autonomy if there is a direct difference in visual acuity. The people to avoid are wearing black. The people to associate with are wearing white. A direct indication of what you are doing wrong! Where you are tricked into a belief in the Democratic state, suddenly you are also following their fashion sense - which works for them but not for you. At the same time, as soon as you realise this and start wearing the correct coloured clothing, you can instantly be seen as being a member of a different group. That becomes the insignia (and the method of identification).

Do you have white shoes? Then you are not a member.

I'm not suggesting spats here (for the 'Upper Echelon' maybe), but easily more covert plimsolls perhaps. Now as a practice it would eventually become easier to identify the Autonomous female from the white colours being worn, but prior to this it would increase visibility. In hot countries white is often worn so it's a common theme in Westerns. I don't think this colour can be argued as being feminine. T-Shirts are cheap and usually white, so it's not expensive. This scheme also works well for black people as they can get good contrast with their skin colour.

Elliot Rodger mostly wore dark or black clothing. His car was a black BMW. These colours are associated with Democracy's fashion sense. He would have been taught that this was the correct colour (Darth Vader here I guess). A white BMW and white clothes would have increased his visibility. After all he himself was interested in blondes - white females with white hair.

This would be a simple error on the part of Democracy. It would not be detected. It would not be fixed. The significance would not be understood. The impact on one group to disadvantage them, would be a mystery. Yet this theory could actually be correct. Do blondes have more fun? Why is that then? White responders VS black responders perhaps. The solution is simple and cheap, and you don't have to do much to apply it. It does however go against the notion that the Autonomous male is actually trying to be undetectable, so I think perhaps he has to choose to be visible or not depending on the circumstances. Perhaps if he is single he will wear white but if he is married he will wear black, but then if he is married then he's probably 'Lucky' (and becomes a part of Democracy). In the case of the Amish if the Amish male is single he shaves, but if he is married then he grows a beard (similar perhaps, white face or dark face).

Of course another interesting point here is the new religion "Black Velvet, if you please" - heck no… it's white. That song was associated with Elvis Presley and Adolf Hitler (but the two combined might imply God). The black is associated with the Nazi, but also Democracy and Satanism. We still have the "White lightning, bound to drive you wild" I guess. So the religious aspects are a little curious? Revelation 7,14: "These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." (One wonders humerously here if the blood of the Lamb is some kind of bleach - in the 'bleach' of the Lamb?) There also seems to be quite a strong Jewish belief (http://koshertorah.com/PDF/whitegarments.pdf). Jewish terminology is somewhat complex here. That document has phrases like "This requires a change of one’s clothing." which seems very clear, although even this document make it clear that there are conflicting groups some of whom wear black while others wear white. In general then the concept is very fitting for many religious people throughout a range of beliefs. It seems like a fairly apt cultural concept. Lets repeat that humerous quote one more time:

'These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes in bleach, and have made them as white as a Lamb.' spooky is it not? That's not twisting it either. There is the definite religious notion that wearing white clothes will have a deeper spiritual effect, producing a similar whiteness of the spirit. The 'blood of the Lamb' does not signify Jesus (http://biblehub.com/sermons/auth/spurgeon/the_blood_of_the_lamb_the_conquering_weapon.htm) it's something else. A sacrificing of the colours? "Here is the hope of men." from that web address (likewise: "the blood is a universal solvent").

* So this wearing white is a neat trick. It has some kind of hidden depth. Certainly it seems that people will assume that you are religious if you are wearing white clothes.

There are no doubt some people who will say that wearing white clothes is effeminate, to those people I would point to Alexs' Droogs in 'A Clockwork Orange' (as well as those in the conditioning films during his treatment) and say that wearing white is obviously a sign of being ultra-violent (at least as far as Stanley Kubrick is concerned)? I would also caution that the Governments of our world would like nothing better than to have all terrorists wearing a fluorescent red armband, with the letter 'T' printed on it, so you can be more easily spotted by their snipers at night. If you are such a terrorists - wear what ever you like, but don't choose white!

This is an attempt to improve visibility, but it does not pander to the Democracy system because what is suggested here is the exact opposite of the prevailing fashion (which is wearing black). Wearing black is said to be common in Cities because it is more practical but I think that there is more to it than that, the colour seems to support the Democratic ideology (in a number of forms). Wearing white is therefore a minor protest much like being a conscientious objector. It says that you reject the existing culture, but do so peacefully.

Update 8th May 2016:
After much study the correct answer here appears to be what was known as Dazzle camouflage:

"Unlike other forms of camouflage, the intention of dazzle is not to conceal but to make it difficult to estimate a target's range, speed, and heading."

Like a Zebra the clothing could consist of confusing black and white stripes. The result would be increased visibility while creating a degree of confusion with regard to movement. It would achieve a similar effect to the peacock's feathers and at the same time would actually confuse the aiming of any Government sniper thus lending a degree of security for people concerned about being targeted. It would confuse and attract the visual attention of the female as a kind of mating display, using her movement to create apparent movement of even a stationary individual.

The guy would end up looking like a sort of high-tech Goth. It would be a very distinctive appearance but I'm not sure how you would obtain clothing that looks like this. It would work well I think.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view

Re: Dichotomy - The Lucky vs The Unlucky

In reply to this post by ShaunS
Religion & Apostasy
And finally what we have here is a rather disturbing issue, the true nature of God Almighty a correct understanding of which… will cause such dismay that it will result in Apostasy - the abandonment of the Catholic religion along with many others. It's relevance here is that the solution is to view God Almightly as a 'Dichotomy'  - the overarching power brought to bear via the Good and Evil prinicples of the Cathar Heresy (obviously after considerable adaptation and correction).

God Almighty = Good+Evil

It should be clear that the three aspects above refer to the Holy Trinity which is not to be interpreted a Father, Son, & Holy Ghost, but rather God Almighty as the Father, Good as the Son, and Evil as the Holy Ghost (if such a reference is accurate). You are reminded that the function of Evil is to Kill for Food (a function of the brain stem). The 'temperate' result of Good vs Evil might be though of as an emulation of God (thus peace), however the notion of God Almighty being mild (or cool) is a very poor analogy, because God is hotter than the Sun. This is presented here because of the association with Dichotomy and because it is relevant to the Autonomous Male as an aspect of his way of functioning. It's not my intention to present an entirely new religion here as it belongs in the Religion section (but you do have a beginning here). I have said that you can only have a DUALITY and this is a core feature of Dichotomy, however in general there is a SINGULAR God Almighty and therefore this requires some explanation.

The Autonomous Male is the individual required to handle religion, magic & technology, and only he has the primitivism necessary for this task. The nature of God makes it very clear that the religion is masculine. This is a necessary sexist position and God created Adam as the first human, Eve was merely a derivative. As a compensation I would suggest that any females who feel left out should embrace Witchcraft instead as it seems entirely suitable for them. Witchcraft is female in nature and the intended mate for Adam was originally Lilith a Demoness, so it is not out of character, and should not be considered unsuitable. Further more in the sense of the Academic Female being complementary to the Academic Male it seems to me that if the male were to be a priest, it's only fitting that the female should be a witch.

I am not saying that the male should embrace religion. God does exist. This fact leads to practical considerations. The aspect of prayer is a method of interacting with the human brain. The construction of the brain is also anatomically similar to the TRINITY of God. It seems clear that the Good principle lies with the Cortex, that the Evil principle lies with the Brain Stem, and that the emulation of God Almighty as a temperate region lies with the Limbic System - which sadly the Freemasons have labelled as Baal in the Jah-bu-lon construction. My view is that, that is either inaccurate or my understanding of their scheme is flawed (as I am not a member or a cowen). The nature and power of God is substantial and must be handled in a practical way.

So in presenting the true nature of God I will be smashing the faith and belief of the Catholic Church and it's followers. To compensate I propose that the Catholic Church embrace an adaptation of the Cathar beliefs correcting their errors (in what ever way deemed suitable) to produce and present the Holy Trinity as the complete expression of God Almighty.


The Catholic Church discovered the Holy Trinity within the text of the Bible where it was hidden. This was a true innovation of the Church and is a feature of what happens within the Universe, where the God in question is to a very large degree external to that Universe - being the substance of it, or the sum total of it. God cannot directly suggest it, as it is a feature of his omnipresence, or perhaps there is a variation leading to an inconsistent omnipresence. An uneven presence of God results in a slightly different character emerging at different locations, and at different times. Good and Evil are not therefore mixed together thoroughly enough to produce only God Almighty, but tend instead to produce more or less... of one or the other.

It might be symbolised in this way:

G     D

The use of the cross symbol is to be avoided for reasons that will become clear below.

The True Nature of God
It is clear from the Jewish Kabbalah that there is a clear belief that God Almighty created the Universe, not just the Earth. It is also clear from Science that the Universe was formed from the Big Bang which was the result of a Singularity exploding. It seems possible that the description of the creation of the World in the Bible may indeed have been the description of the creation of 'a world', or of the creation of worlds in general. The Bible may not be accurate and it may not be a description of the creation of the Universe. Indeed Science may well be a more accurate religion with a more accurate description, and certainly many people assume that this is the case.

The Cathars take the view that the physical world was created by the Evil God - this is clearly incorrect. They divided the Bible into the Old and New Testaments and declared the God of the Old Testament to be Satan. For this reason the Catholic Church had a crusade against them killing about a million of them, and having the usual book burning contest afterwards.

The nature of God Almighty is one of perfect balance and perfect neutrality, to the point of non existence and non activity - thus the singularity. It seems unlikely that the Universe was created on purpose. It seems unlikely that the creation of the Universe was inevitable. An imbalance would have occurred resulting in an explosion and an expansion. It is not merely an exploded view (as seen in a Haynes Manual), that might be resolved by stepping outside of spacetime. God himself… exploded and is NOT. But a God doesn't die, he simply becomes diluted over a larger area, thus the Universe. Variations in distribution or deliberate concentration result in the Good and Evil principles that appear throughout the Universe. If however you were to obtain significant quantities of the Good and the Evil and arrange for them to co-exist in the same area of space at the same time you would indeed create the original singularity - the original God Almightly, to the extent of the quantity and arrangement of the materials brought together. This is God Almighty:

Note the similarity to the Celtic Processional cross here where the circle represents the radiance of the initial burst of the fireball. These images are only showing a part of the explosion. There is also a marked similarity to the Tau cross:

Which is also the 12th Tarot card The Hanged Man:

Which is actually inverted in it's natural form but as a Tarot card be turned the other way up:

and then merged with a bit of scaling and transparency applied:

"RWS Tarot 12 Hanged Man" by Pamela Coleman Smith - a 1909 card scanned by Holly Voley (http://home.comcast.net/~vilex/) for the public domain, and retrieved from http://www.sacred-texts.com/tarot (see note on that page regarding source of images).. Licensed under PD-US via Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RWS_Tarot_12_Hanged_Man.jpg#/media/File:RWS_Tarot_12_Hanged_Man.jpg

Pretty disturbing right? You can see it's accurate to the point of the 'grapes' of the tree/vine actually arranged to show the smoke at the base of the explosion. Celestial 'Water' would be Terrestrial 'Fire', and the arrangement/location (12) within the Tarot equates it with the Big Bang origin of the Universe. Here we see the equivalent of placing the crucified Jesus on the cross to signify that he also has the power of God.

So in 1909 the nature of the Atomic Bomb was known. The mushroom shaped cloud was witnessed in some way. An image existed and was adaptated to give this form. The adaptation was religious thus an understanding that the brutal power displayed has some form of intelligence associated with it. The placing of a man onto the form of the mushroom cloud shows an understanding that the Crucifix represents the same idea (which is why the cross used is not the type he was crucified on). That idea is not just that there is some form of power within the brain, but also the concept of being made in the image of God is suggested and implied through the adaptation.

It's a very clear match here. We can even drag the Freemasons into this argument:

"Square compasses" by MesserWoland - own work This vector image was created with Inkscape.. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Commons - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Square_compasses.svg#/media/File:Square_compasses.svg - but modified by me to change the font of the 'G' (which is American Typewriter).

Now this is a correct 'G' of the type that has a 'T' for the crossbar. The Freemasons have this sideways because their reference is probably Phallic. This cannot be just a coincidence. The square and compass is generally a reference to male and female, but obviously two opposite principles, the combination of which produces the generative result. In the rotated version the 3 o'clock position is East on the compass, thus the rising Sun and the construction implies an Eye looking at the Sun. Light is probably implied but probably Sun worship?

Finally the Phallic image, a result of the God being around in more primitive times:

Thus 'man' is made in the image of God, and the religion has to viewed as masculine not feminine. This clearly gives rise to some very important questions, for example:

Our Father who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.

Well in heaven it's done as a Star or Sun, so this prayer is asking for this to happen on earth - just like in heaven, thus a star upon the earth (which is a hydrogen fusion explosion). Now first of all it's an evocation to visible appearance and physical existence. Secondly the prayer was successful as it was produced by Science. Thirdly it's a prayer that says, "Please nuke us"! and there's a proof:

"14.  The four Jesuit Priests had been sent to Hiroshima in the 1920’s and had been living in this Rectory, performing their Priestly Missionary duties and had also been "living" the Fatima Message - which is God's Peace Plan.  The Priests claimed this is the only reason why they, and the Rectory, miraculously survived a detonation the equivalent of 20,000 tons of TNT because all other wooden buildings were leveled to the ground, possibly at three times the distance from the hypocenter.  Yet this wooden house withstood the blast, but with some damage, although apparently some of the windows had even remained intact!"

Fatima - The Miracle of the Sun. Fire doesn't burn fire, water doesn't drown water, to become a thing is to become resistant to that thing.

"We believe that we survived because we were living the Message of Fatima. We lived and prayed the Rosary daily in that Rectory."

The power of the Saints comes from their understanding of the religion. They can only really get that from reading the bible, and the bible is describing God in a million words. They may not entirely get the images above, but their subconscious minds would certainly work it out. If God or at least the Good Principle is within the Cortex of the brain, then understanding the true nature of God to a degree would tend to convey some of that power via their own brains as a product of the hive mind of God - the fact that God is fragmented in the expansion of the Universe would tend to result in a hive mind which may be accessible to a degree from a single brain. Such ability especially in connection with the Fatima miracle in which the Sun appeared to provide an aerial performance, may well offer some protection in a religious/magical sense. This is probably as close as God would want to get in identifying himself with the Atomic Bomb having seen the outcome on thousands of other worlds throughout the Universe.

If you think of an Atomic Bomb big enough to destroy a planet, and then a bigger one that could destroy a solar system - and then an even bigger one that could destroy a galaxy, even at that point it would be very very tiny in comparison to God Almightly himself. This explanation accounts for quite a few concepts such as the power of the Ark of the Covenant, and the destruction of Cities etc. The fear of God becomes an understandable concept. The Jesuit Priests survived because they were (accidentally) worshiping the Atomic Bomb in effect (or certainly atomic power in it's raw form). They became Atomic Bomb proof, and had the misfortune of putting that to the test in a practical instance. We must ask if they summoned God (and thus the Atomic Bomb) through their prayers? It will eventually seem so, and the result will be Apostasy. The Christian solution will be to focus on the Holy Trinity and the practicality of the Good and Evil principles within the Universe overseen by the threat of God should they find themselves in conflict. Thus God is the Dichotomy, but the Good and the Evil forces are the sustained acting out of Gods wishes on a daily basis and both are required and neither can be favoured over the other, yet a distance between them must be allowed.

I can imagine that the reader is asking WHY at this point. What emerges here is a deeper significance, which is this:

"Anno Domini" means 'In the year of the Lord' or 'In the year of our Lord'. In full this would include the name of Jesus Christ, however in this case our Lord is in fact God Almighty (because Jesus is NOT referred to as a delegate). In this case our Lord is the Atomic Bomb - a different delegate, and the phrase could therefore use a substitute: 'In the year of our Destruction'. This is specifically a threat from God himself which could be understood as meaning 'Or else I will stomp on YOU'. Specifically it emerges that Anno Domini refers to:

Autonomy + Democracy

Thus 'Dichotomy' or two different lifestyles. 'Adonai' is not the correct name, it is "Anno Domini" - 'OR ELSE', which refers to the image of the mushroom shaped cloud (see below). Furthermore, the smart reader may have noticed the 'T' of the Tau cross in the image of The Hanged Man. It means "TOGETHER". Thus the concept of Dichotomy being the combination of Autonomy & Democracy is even able to convey a religious significance, and then back it with the power of God Almighty (while defining that power as Atomic hence A-men). Here's the merged image:

So what you have is a new religion or religious understanding, whose structure is directly promoting a new culture, which is then aligning itself with the existing culture and the existing understanding of God, but then if you look at the two arms of the 'A' (Herculanum font here) we even have an expression of the Holy Trinity in which the fireball represented as the 'D' is projecting the two legs of the 'A' as the Good and Evil principles of the Cathar Heresy which are descended from it. The Muslims would probably replace the 'D' with a 'C' and have a star on the crossbar.

Here is you new religion: "Anno Domini", and the culture that it is promoting: "Autonomy + Democracy".
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view

Re: Dichotomy - The Lucky vs The Unlucky

In reply to this post by ShaunS
Black Velvet, If you please
At this point I will pass you on to the Religion section where the 'New Religion' will be written, and the link for that will appear below.

There have been some interesting developments. As the religion is called 'Anno Domini' the actual pronounciation of this has become quite important: AN-noh DOH-mee-nee. So this ends with an 'E' and not an 'I' as some people pronounce it. It becomes an important aspect because the practitioner of this religion will be called a 'Dominist', as I may have said previously on another thread. Obviously the 'Dominist' term comes from the religion's 'Domini' name, but this can be shown to relate to the Christian term Dominionism. This is not a masculine term but seems to refer to dominion over the earth. The link for this is here:

The logic of calling the practitioner a 'Dominist' is quite sound and has a clear religious basis. The reference is to a kind of Christian Nationalism, which seems quite ambitious as no one seems to know how to achieve it. However here we have the interesting feature that the plural of Dominist would tend to be 'Dominis'. The tail end of that is pronounced 'nees' thus the line from the song:

"A new religion that'll bring ya to your nees, Black velvet if you please."

could be interpreted as:

"A new religion that'll bring ya to your Dominis, Black velvet if you please."

This is argued because the prevailing feature of a new religion should not be it's ability to bring people to their nees. It's true that Elvis did bring some females to their nees and this was jealously observed by some religious types. The reference appears too simple. Then we have that 'Black velvet'. The preferred colour for the religion is White. The term here is not Black, it is 'Black velvet', and I take the velvet to mean the shiny variety that reflects light - White light. Thus the velvet is both Black and White in it's visual appearance (matching space and it's stars). But it is also Velvet, so we have three terms here: Black, White, & Velvet. This is a Trinity that refers to Evil, Good, and God, but all three are combined in the one singular 'Black Velvet' and that expression is therefore representative of 'God Almighty'. The line can then be reinterpreted (decrypted) as:

"A new religion that'll bring ya to your Dominis, God Almighty if you please."

So what we have here is an interesting arrangement, which if valid demonstrates deep encryption within the lyrics of this song. The song is from 1989 and it is now 2015 and if this cypher is really present, then it has taken me 26 years to decode it. I guess I'm doing badly here, but it's probably one of God's simpler codes?

The song has given an abbreviated 'nees' as 'DOH-mee-nees' which is slick. It has then combined the Holy Trinity in all three aspects and rendered it 'Black velvet'. What I see here is data compression, and the off line archive of the hive mind of God. The thought occurs that if you are a person who doesn't believe in God, who hates religion in all it's forms - that you might just listen to the music instead. That alone would introduce religious influences into your life.

The song has deeper significance and comes close to directly naming the new religion that it refers to. The reference is not to being on your nees, but of being brought to your Dominis. It then becomes significant that the song is sung by a female, as females may only access the religion through the patronage of a 'Dominist' with the obligation of some association with him as a consequence. It is the singer who being female is the one that is brought to her Dominis. The song has correctly identified that the female requires the authorisation of the male practitioner and has rolled the concept into the song.

We might then consider these lines:

Black velvet and that little boy's smile
Black velvet with that slow southern style
A new religion that'll bring ya to your knees
Black velvet if you please

Every word of every song that he sang was for you
In a flash he was gone, it happened so soon, what could
You do?

Which could be interpreted in this way:
God Almighty and that little boy's smile: He created Elvis Presley.
God Almighty and that slow southern style: He created Adolf Hitler.

Every word of every song that he sang was for you: That God sang, and the suggestion is of messages.

In a flash he was gone, it happened so soon: A reference to God Almighty as the Atomic Bomb whose initial flash of light lasts for less than 1 millisecond. The Atom Bomb explodes twice thus a duality within the Universe.

Now a cynical person would point to Occam's Razor and say that the song is really very simple (an argument for data quality), but we have Occam's Razor being used here to encrypt the data in the first place. The true meaning is being covered by Occam's Razor as an aspect of the compression of the data. For example the line "Every word of every song that he sang was for you" is not encrypted and in this sense you have to ask if Elvis Presley sung his songs just for you? Elvis Presley's motive would have been the money, and in that sense every word of every song that he sang wasn't for you but for the money he could get from you. In contrast it could be taken in a more general interpretation that it refers to 'Every song' but notice that it's every 'word' of every song which defines the encryption level as a word level, and what that says is 'each word is significant' and this implies that each word may have alternative meanings. The line not only refers to the nature of the cypher, but also the recipient of the cypher, as well as the depth of the cypher. That line is the KEY of the cypher. 'he' is then a reference to 'Black Velvet', 'his' code name - which is referred to rather frequently as the allegiance of the new religion - the God being prayed to.

*Unless, of course you prefer the Mirriam-Webster interpretation of Black Velvet: "an aboriginal girl or woman especially when regarded as a sex object". It's hard to believe that this is the intended interpretation.

Even if my interpretation is wrong here you can see that I am getting far more from this song than the casual listener. It is at least three time more entertaining to me than it is to someone else. It continues to entertain me even after 26 years of listening. I seem to be getting far more value for money out of it? Thus a very cheap form of entertainment. These codes also run into the musical construction and arrangement which is discernable in other songs, but I lack the skill to extract the numerical coding or it's meaning. There is a God in the background - and it isn't me!

'Black Velvet' appears in my system for defining Tarot cards as a definition for '12 The Hanged Man' which is really the Singularity, the origin of the Big Bang. This point represents God Almighty and as such the song gains some value because it can be seen as a direct message from God. While other songs are less clear this one specifically states that a new religion should be developed. 'A new religion that will…', "that'll" is future tense and in that context it becomes an instruction to do so, but only to those who can hear the message. A least the intent is not encrypted.

So this continues in the Religion area: http://www.coalpha.org/ANNO-DOMINI-A-new-religion-td7576696.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view

Re: Dichotomy - The Lucky vs The Unlucky

ShaunS, are you doing okay? Your philosophical treatise (or whatever you want to call it) started off as somewhat interesting, but it has definitely devolved into pseudoscience and conspiracy theories since then. Is there any reason why you are posting all of this to the CoAlpha forum in particular, especially since no one is responding to your posts?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view

Re: Dichotomy - The Lucky vs The Unlucky

Hi qwerty, and welcome to our forum.

Many people here think that I am a troll that's one reason for not responding. Another is the sense of giving a man enough rope to watch him hang himself - for which I am grateful (and it hasn't happened yet). The third reason is that the subject matter is well beyond the ability of most people to give reasonable comment.

Most forums consist of the blind leading the blind down a dark alleyway that leads to nowhere. People who don't need the answers are not present, so the people who are present don't have answers to give. I am generally an answer provider being a technician by trade - so unlike everyone else here, I'm looking for problems not solutions, and I need those to exercise my brain.

Currently I'm working on my new religion Anno Domini, which is at a complex stage requiring complex analysis. That's in the Religion area. Obviously it is a challenging task to write a new religion from scratch but my initial attempt to avoid religion has generally resulted in the discovery that religion is required to understand these problems, and in that regard I am in agreement with many people here but for different reasons.

This is the public forum and most activity occurs in the private forum. The public forum has the value of being accessible to the general public, and it is searchable from Google. In writing here people are able to criticise what I write and there is some value in this. I don't live in the USA and am oblivious to many of the problems that are occuring there.

In many respects I am just thinking out aloud, but in posting I improve the quality of what I write and may eventually produce books that can be sold. I do not require the support of others, but can often help others solve their problems. So I have my own reasons for posting. The primary objective is to solve the problems raised by Elliot Rodger - and I am still working on that as no one on this Earth has yet provided a solution.