/fascist/ - Surf The Kali Yuga

National Socialist and Third Position Discussion


New Reply
Name
×
Email
Subject
Message
Files Max 5 files32MB total
Tegaki
Password
Flag
[New Reply]


Prep work is done.

We're Back, Baby!(under new management)


Actual_political_compass.png
[Hide] (1.6MB, 1612x1610) Reverse
In anticipation of the old site being taken down, I have made screenshots of my most important posts for future discussion. To understand the references, you would need rudimentary understanding of classic philosophy, history, mathematics, physics, metaphysics and some mystery schools like Hermeticism and Pythagoreanism (whose ideas, such as monism, I am making a case against), as well as eastern and Vedic mysticism. While the subject deals with the nature of reality itself, basic knowledge of the aforementioned subjects should suffice for intuitive grasp. The reason why I would prefer for this thread to be separate from the religion thread is to avoid all the fallacies and appeal to nonexistent (or construed from very questionable sources) authority typically involved with "faith", especially taking into the account the fact that that historical sources have been routinely destroyed or altered, and bearers of certain knowledge (by blood or tradition) routinely persecuted and genocided (often by those who cry out in pain as they stab you, which ties into the real reason for the white genocide).

While these subjects inevitably involve religious themes and concepts (after all, true religion and true science are merely two different perspectives of the same knowledge, as our ancestors knew, not something opposed), the focus should be on reason and debate about ideas themselves. Which is far more nuanced than it seems, as, for example, the use of the term "rational" as a synonym for the term "reasonable" and conflation of the two, is an attempt to manipulate the consciousness and consensus through the weaponization of language. Because, contrary to what Pythagoras (or more specifically, his teachers) thought, irrational is real as well, perhaps even more so than the rational, and it belongs to a superior category of Reason. 

There is a reason why you won't find the knowledge that I am revealing here in any mainstream religion, philosophy, academic circle or "mystery school" available today, because such ideas have been repressed for millenia by a very ancient conspiracy. Behold the lost mystery of Zero, transcendence and what I would term Essential Polytheism, which was the actual worldview of our very distant ancestors, for they did not come from this world. The antithesis of egalitarianism and all the false dichotomies offered today, regardless of category.

Picrel is not very accurate but funny nonetheless.
Green_Knight1.png
[Hide] (188.6KB, 2458x800) Reverse
Green_Knight2.png
[Hide] (313.1KB, 2462x691) Reverse
Green_Knight3.png
[Hide] (237.2KB, 2462x806) Reverse
Green_Knight4.png
[Hide] (173.4KB, 2464x639) Reverse
Green_Knight5.png
[Hide] (261KB, 2461x439) Reverse
Green_Knight6.png
[Hide] (337.3KB, 2462x784) Reverse
Green_Knight7.png
[Hide] (191.3KB, 2456x641) Reverse
Green_Knight8.png
[Hide] (216.8KB, 2459x687) Reverse
Green_Knight9.png
[Hide] (387.8KB, 2460x735) Reverse
Green_Knight10.png
[Hide] (203.1KB, 2389x708) Reverse
Green_Knight11.png
[Hide] (425KB, 2461x783) Reverse
Green_Knight12.png
[Hide] (328KB, 2464x833) Reverse
Green_Knight13.png
[Hide] (203.6KB, 2458x732) Reverse
Green_Knight14.png
[Hide] (318.1KB, 2460x761) Reverse
Green_Knight15.png
[Hide] (397.5KB, 2455x665) Reverse
Green_Knight16.png
[Hide] (48.8KB, 2459x228) Reverse
Green_Knight17.png
[Hide] (227.9KB, 2458x712) Reverse
Green_Knight18.png
[Hide] (465.3KB, 2462x994) Reverse
Green_Knight19.png
[Hide] (451.5KB, 2461x1100) Reverse
Green_Knight20.png
[Hide] (456.8KB, 2464x1184) Reverse
Green_Knight21.png
[Hide] (229.2KB, 2469x708) Reverse
Green_Knight22.png
[Hide] (340.3KB, 2463x711) Reverse
Green_Knight23.png
[Hide] (252.1KB, 2460x715) Reverse
Green_Knight24.png
[Hide] (373KB, 2461x764) Reverse
Green_Knight25.png
[Hide] (427.7KB, 2458x914) Reverse
Green_Knight26.png
[Hide] (272.2KB, 2456x713) Reverse
Green_Knight27.png
[Hide] (164.9KB, 2463x663) Reverse
Green_Knight28.png
[Hide] (301.4KB, 2455x757) Reverse
May synarchic seethe commence
I will reply in the proper thread for the sake of continuity

>>897
>I don't think manifestation is the appropriate term, as that would imply it to be the same entity, which it cannot be since the One, being prior to everything, cannot be dependent on noetic activity; the Demiurge is rather an emanation of the One.
It seems that your argument is based upon the false assumption that One is the absolute, or that such super-set can exist in the first place. Activity (of any kind) is not an inherent property of One, it can only project itself at the expense of the boundless space, and only to the extent of its inner potential (it can only be reciprocal). What makes the set of One (its potential configurations) common is that transcendental entities also contain it (which enables them to interact with it), but their potential is incomparably greater, especially quality-wise. Two sets containing common elements was purposefully misinterpreted for two sets being one and the same, for rather nefarious purposes, although for the pasu, the animal man, this distinction doesn't matter at all, for the transcendent will forever remain outside of his reach. He will perform his function in the cosmic design and terminate upon attaining his entelechy, then get re-cycled ad-infinitum. For them, these subjects are quite trifling indeed. 
>Identity is prior to difference, for the condition of being same is primarily with itself, whilst difference is always predicated of something else
That doesn't contradict my views in the slightest, in fact, transcendental numbers are the ultimate expression of identity, for they cannot be repeated, contained, or known in entirety by any external entity (if we use numbers to define entities, or their expression at least, which would make the most sense in a world functioning according to mathematical principles), even when such other entities (or sets) are extended to infinity. I was assuming that you are referring to the concept of underlying unity of all things. The identity based on One and identity based on transcendental numbers and Zero are rooted in two fundamentally different essences. It's decoherence between the two that matters.

>>898
>there is no novelty involved in either the Fibonacci sequence
<think of the Fibonacci sequence being suggested as the standard of beauty (just with different numbers)
For comparison, take this example of a hypothesis of [mathematical property] defining a [phenomenal world manifestation], but in this case, something with different characteristics. You even quoted the part where I wrote "(just with different numbers)" so the remainder of your argument is redundant and completely misses the point.

>It seems like gobbled metaphysics concocted with the sole aim of easing a neurotic fear to be associated with kikes in even the most trifling respect
Not at all, I am challenging a paradigm that is the basis for practically every religious, political and philosophical view available today, which goes contrary to kikes' goals and which revives the Aryan paradigm of essential polytheism. In the grand scheme of things, kikes are a symptom (or its continuation), not a cause. I am going after their handlers, of whom there are only a couple of hundreds in this world, as well as the entities which they serve. 
>as though monism is not just amongst the number of things they (mis)appropriated
Indeed, but monism is a defining trait of their essence, and serves their goals, otherwise they wouldn't appropriate it, but rather, try to erase it (and any derivative philosophies) from the public discourse as they were doing with everything else not serving their agenda ever since becoming "chosen".
Replies: >>914
>>901
>transcendental numbers are the ultimate expression of identity, for they cannot be repeated, contained, or known in entirety by any external entity
Transcendental numbers, like any other irrational number, are more indefinite than they are infinite; the reason for their "infinite" decimal expansion is the completeness of the real line, which means that if such numbers could be expressed in a finite ratio, you'd have line segments and circles that don't intersect, and indeed you wouldn't even be able to draw a line; basically, the reason for their being "infinite" is that they stand for continuous, rather than discrete entities, but there is nothing otherworldly about that, as you interact daily with continuous objects expressible in the paradigm of geometry; besides, just by being continuous they have and are contained by parts, by definition.
>The identity based on One and identity based on transcendental numbers and Zero
I take you to mean that a notion of identity based on the One entails limit? Well, that's typically not what is understood about the One; in fact, the number one itself is an inadequate way of describing the One, so Platonists alternatively call this principle the idea of the Good, Good beyond being, Good beyond even identity (monad) and difference (dyad), conferring the telos for which each being is and in which each subsists.
>>901
>You even quoted the part where I wrote "(just with different numbers)"
It doesn't matter; even if the numbers are different, the proportion remains the same, which is φ, just like π is simply the ratio c:2R, regardless of the values of c and R.
>Aryan paradigm of essential polytheism
You speak as if henadology weren't a thing.
>monism is a defining trait of their essence
No, not really. Much of Abrahamic cosmology is dualistic with a monistic façade. If it's not god vs satan (who's really on equal footing with god, despite christfags claiming the opposite), it's god vs the world, or unity vs plurality; there are always unresolved dichotomies in Abrahamic religions, precisely because the Abrahamic god is conceived solely by differentiation, being unable to encompass the multitude of entities in himself, and thereby having his existence contingent on the differentiation from other beings. Henadology doesn't suffer from the same quandaries, as the One, being both unlimited and limiting, is everywhere at once and yet not contained by anything, giving rise to the multitude of gods who are each in each, but in their proper way.
Replies: >>922
>>914
>Transcendental numbers, like any other irrational number, are more indefinite than they are infinite
Perspective does not change the meaning, it is properties applicable irregardless of the context that matter. Here is a video of a qt explaining a part of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7c2qz7sO0I

I'd suggest looking into the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor_set
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_at_infinity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commensurability_(group_theory)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commensurability_(mathematics)

A good explanation of another concept to have in mind:

https://www.askamathematician.com/2011/04/q-is-the-edge-of-a-circle-with-an-infinite-radius-curved-or-straight/

>just by being continuous they have and are contained by parts, by definition
Wrong. They are a) at least uncountably infinite b) cannot be expressed as the sum of their parts because due to their continuously unique encoding they would always transcend any such sum (state), even if infinite c) incommensurable d) cannot be deduced to a lower common denominator (in other words, they are irreducible, just like One, except that they cannot be repeated in infinity and pretty much break the cycle, potentially diverging into Zero or turning the point "inside-out" so to speak) e) their set is potentially "larger" than any other infinite set. 

They are simultaneously continuous and discrete entities, that's the whole point. A fundamentally qualitatively different ur-unit than the monad.

>but there is nothing otherworldly about that, as you interact daily with continuous objects expressible in the paradigm of geometry
Yes, but that is only a reflection, that may or may not be rooted in truly transcendental numbers. It may as well be just a mathematical approximation or some other property. The otherworldly part lies on the other end of the golden thread because as indicated in screencapped posts, not all sources are equal, nor do they lead to the same logical conclusion.

>you'd have line segments and circles that don't intersect, and indeed you wouldn't even be able to draw a line
In the current paradigm yes. That's why a major paradigm shift is needed to "connect the dots" (which are not dots in this case kek). But more importantly, it is these numbers that can provide proper randomness to stochastic processes giving rise to multiple sources of causation that are acausal and wholly autonomous themselves, or in more theological/metaphysical terms, the proof of multiple Gods (with capital G), where One and its derivates represent a lesser god, or rather, the bulding material (limited framework) deluding itself of being the supreme being. In other words, the roles of the architect and the stone are inverted, which is part of the grand deception. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_process

>It doesn't matter; even if the numbers are different, the proportion remains the same, which is φ, just like π is simply the ratio c:2R, regardless of the values of c and R.
<The golden ratio (denoted phi ) is another irrational number that is not transcendental, as it is a root of the polynomial equation x2 − x − 1 = 0
Replies: >>928
Cont'd

Despite phi not being a transcendental number, I do understand your point. Pi (which is transcendental) may appear to be converging, but it never actually converges into any other number (unlike 0.3333... converging into 1/3 or 0.9999... converging into 1) due to its transcendental properties, so that mostly applies to its approximation. Besides, there are transcendental numbers converging to zero and divergent irrational numbers. Regardless, it seems that my terminology was somewhat misplaced (or insufficiently explained) in this case, so I thank you for bringing it up, as I would need to further refine some concepts and semantics.

>I take you to mean that a notion of identity based on the One entails limit? 
Correct, read the screencaps ITT
>in fact, the number one itself is an inadequate way of describing the One
Technically, monad is a point within a circle if we are to be wholly accurate, but internally, it is the indivisible focal point, the singularity, or the number one (Orphic egg). It contains all the archetypal topological matrices (Logos) and potential configurations of itself, such as two (duality or separation in halves, reflection), then combining one and two to get three (dialectics) et cetera until rising to incredible, many-dimensional complexity (but commensurate finality). These are not proper differentiators however, because anything generated by One will have one as the lowest common denominator (tuning fork or carrier signal). On its own, it is an eternal stasis with no differentiation (entropic equilibrium), meaning that it has to rely on other sets for meta-space to extend into and contemplate itself as well as for something providing it with topological separators, movement (vibration) and meaning. This is what the circle symbolizes.
>Good beyond being, Good beyond even identity (monad) and difference (dyad), conferring the telos for which each being is and in which each subsists.
This would be a combination of the aforementioned. Telos is a finality of the archetype, a parasitic consummation of the latter by the former.
>You speak as if henadology weren't a thing.
Nothing dependent on a singular, allegedly all-encompassing source can be considered proper polytheism, no matter how many sub-categories you introduce. The difference may seem insignificant, but it gradually trickles down to literally every other area, from physics to politics. And leads to monotheism as its logical conclusion, that all of such movements eventually develop into.
>Much of Abrahamic cosmology is dualistic
It developed over time and under different influences, but monotheism was its core tenet since the start, whether backed by logic or not and whether supposedly benevolent or outright demonic. There is a reason why Maimonides has appropriated Pythagorean monism as his philosophy.
>One, being both unlimited and limiting
Unlimited in number of iterations, limited by the properties of its set. Hence why the eternal return, lesser and great cycles, night of Brahma(n) etc.
Replies: >>928
>>922
>uncountably infinite
That's just a fancy way of saying "we can't tell where it begins", in other words, indefinite, not infinite; nevertheless continuous entities like circles are still bounded, which is they can be expressed algebraically in a graph; since they are bounded, they have parts.
>cannot be expressed as the sum of their parts
Every irrational number can be expressed as the sum of a series as it approaches infinity, which would definitionally entail a sum of parts; the reason it tends to infinity is due to the continuous nature of irrational quantities, where no part can be situated as their beginning (i.e. indefinite), but that isn't true infinity; for if it were truly infinite, it could not be drawn, nor have parts, nor be divisible.
>incommensurable
It's incommensurable with respect to the rationals; that's the only reason it's called incommensurable.
>their set is potentially "larger" than any other infinite set
Yes, due to the completeness of the real line, the set of real numbers is larger than the set of natural numbers; which is composed entirely of discrete quantities, whereas the set of real numbers (as it includes both the set of irrationals as well the rationals, which includes the set of the naturals) is composed of both discrete and continuous quantities.
>A fundamentally qualitatively different ur-unit than the monad
The One/idea of the Good is not the monad; the monad is just the form of sameness.
>that is only a reflection
Spatial relations in the physical world are expressed by real numbers; you cannot describe things in physical world with only natural/rational numbers (save for some rudimentary tallying). In a world with only natural and rational numbers, it would be impossible to go from point A to point B.
>>926
>it never actually converges into any other number
That doesn't matter; the point was, just like the Pi series eventually converges into π, the Fibonacci sequence eventually converges into φ. This means each number is a sum of parts, as each series is equal to them.
>0.3333... converging into 1/3
0.3333... is not converging into 1/3; 0.3333.... is merely the decimal expansion of 1/3 (i.e. the same number written in another way).
>monad is a point within a circle if we are to be wholly accurate
That's only a symbol, which nevertheless inadequately conveys the principle as it implies the One has parts. The circle is more appropriately a symbol for unity, as each point in the circumference, though separate, is equidistant from the same center. The symbol denotes the contingency of being on the One, not the One itself.
>not proper to polytheism
To the contrary, it's not possible to assert the supremacy of ALL gods without monism; for if each god were only the purveyor of one's respective realm, the gods' power would be limited to that realm; moreover, if gods are to exist at all, they exist within reality, and if reality is the sum of all realms, since, as admitted, the gods' power would be limited, their existence would be contingent on factors beyond their power, thereby no longer being gods. In monism, as the gods are each in each, but in their proper way, the supremacy of each god affects every realm, whilst allowing each god to have one's designated realm. Orcus is the lord of hell, but Orcus qua Jove can nevertheless send the souls of the dead to heaven as he is within Jove, just as Jove is within him. This is only possible due to the fundamental unity of the gods.
Replies: >>932
Drawing-3.sketchpad(infinity).png
[Hide] (14.9KB, 422x269) Reverse
Drawing-3.sketchpad(swastika).png
[Hide] (14.6KB, 422x269) Reverse
based, OP. good to see that discussion captured in screencaps. I was the anon conversing with you in most of those, I don't mind you leaving out my posts, since you can get the gist of my points through the greentext quotes. Maybe that discussion is why 16chan went down, because the agents of the One got spooked, kek

since I see a debate in here, I'd like to attempt a summary of OPs views (he can correct me if I'm wrong).
I think the idea is that polytheism is the true religion, derived from higher beings and spiritual qualities which exceed the One, or the realm of the Demiurge and his archons. The gods are not all facets of the same divine essence, and the same is true of us humans -- some of us have a higher nature, while others are just derivative.
This is proven by mathematics, notably transcendent numbers, which do not repeat in a pattern, yet continue beyond any attempt to calculate them. Let's say, for example, the universe was contained within a trillion digits, both to the left and right of the decimal point (macro & micro); beyond those limits, we get black holes or fuzziness. However, a transcendent value like pi would keep going beyond that limit, so that it has a unique identity beyond the reach of the universe and the powers that govern it. Likewise, human souls may be either contained within the Demiurge's creation (NPCs), or transcend beyond, the latter having a stake in the higher source, and that sublime quality is used to power this vast projection, which is ultimately subject to entropy, unlike the higher source.
The original spiritual teachers had obtained this higher knowledge, and traces of it can still be found. However, this sacred knowledge was inundated by agents of the One, which claims totality and is yet inferior, submerging the truth under a tidal wave of false teachings and corruption. This is why most pagan traditions were nearly extirpated, and the dominant Abrahamic/Dharmic religions of the world either claim that all is one, or are distorted into making similar universalist claims.

Am I following you correctly, Green Knight?

btw, I made a swastika alternative of my illustration of this (pardon the imperfections)
Replies: >>938
pi-dia-simple.png
[Hide] (9.6KB, 142x173) Reverse
>>928
>That's just a fancy way of saying "we can't tell where it begins", in other words, indefinite, not infinite
It is indefinite precisely because it has an infinitely long and infinitely complex sequence that cannot be topologically, systematically reduced into commensurate parts, or inversely, integrated into any supposed super-symmetrical 'whole' (other than the asymmetrical Self, whose essence belongs to another, wholly independent set). It can be considered to be a node just as much as One (monad) can, albeit with radically different properties. We may as well call it an infinite mathematical quality (or one of properties defining such quality), rather than just a quantity. For quanta always depend on the smallest unit of measure and any functions derived from it.
>nevertheless continuous entities like circles are still bounded
<When a circle's diameter is 1, its circumference is Pi.
<The circumference of a circle is calculated by multiplying the diameter by pi (π)
What do you think makes it bounded, 1 (One) or Pi (transcendental number)? :>) What would happen if we had an infinite diameter or if it was converging into zero... Not to mention non-linear functions, some of which could transcend any number of dimensions (planes)
>since they are bounded, they have parts
You are only ever able to plot an infinitesimal part of a line/signal (or a rational projection of a shape). After all, a line is composed of an infinite number of points. That's what makes the "smallest, indivisible point" aka Monad so important, because in represents a type of infinity-potential, or a quintessential archetypal node. When it comes to transcendental numbers (and a subset of them with additional properties that are not discovered by modern society yet), adding up any amount of arbitrary parts would never quite add up to their sum, especially when extended to infinity. That's what makes the ratios, convergence and other properties so important, because it is those that serve as a "square and compass" of creation. 
>as it approaches infinity
Not at point at infinity however. You cannot "sum up" infinity, that's the whole point.
>it could not be drawn
Draw me a perfect circle. Go ahead, I'm waiting. This universe processes circles as objects with N-th amount of reciprocal angles, to get an idea of how it works, look really close at a picture of a circle on your monitor until you see the pixels.
>nor be divisible
Indefinite number divided by X (where X is any number except itself, one, zero and infinity) =
A x B = Indefinite number, find me the possible values of A and B. You get the idea.
>The set of real numbers is larger than the set of natural numbers
Don't be I-phobic now, it's "imaginary" numbers where things get even more interesting!
>The One/idea of the Good is not the monad
What is it then? You should read works of authors like Leibniz, Plotinus is entry tier.
>Spatial relations in the physical world are expressed by real numbers; you cannot describe things in physical world with only natural/rational numbers (save for some rudimentary tallying). In a world with only natural and rational numbers, it would be impossible to go from point A to point B
You would not be able to "go" or move without 'imaginary' numbers that are essential for the function of time in the first place. Physical world is a very small and limited subset, but it gets influenced by larger sets and planes of causation. This is what makes such knowledge so ... dangerous.

>That doesn't matter; the point was, just like the Pi series eventually converges into π
With the exception that Pi series are incomputable, and that π does not converge into any whole number when extended to infinity
>0.3333... is not converging into 1/3; 0.3333.... is merely the decimal expansion of 1/3 (i.e. the same number written in another way).
Incorrect. 0.3333... with any amount of finite decimals never equals 1/3. Only when it gets extended into infinity does it become so. Just as 0.9999 becomes 1. There are complex operations that can converge all such numbers into One. But not the transcendental ones.
Replies: >>952
christkekry.jpg
[Hide] (68.9KB, 750x708) Reverse
Cont'd

>The circle is more appropriately a symbol for unity, as each point in the circumference, though separate, is equidistant from the same center
Yes, however it is the focal point that defines 'unity'. Hence why the point within a circle. It is only up to the boundary of a circle (or a sphere) that this supposed 'unity' is maintained. Which gives us an answer to why such concept held such a great importance in the formation of all the focal point theology (whether it be proper monotheism or "paganism" where multiple lesser deities are all derived from some kind of supreme deity), monist philosophy and metaphysics (that are the basis for progressive "secular humanism"), or even unwittingly, the nihilistic materialism as its "unenlightened" subset and dialectical component. One ring to rule them all ... 

Pi, being a transcendental number, plays a role in forming this boundary, but, from the right perspective, could also 'untie' it. Remove the focal point, and you get a 'circle' whose center is nowhere and circumference everywhere, that is much closer to the ancient worldview of our Aryan ancestors. There is no central unifying factor anymore, other than sympathetic association (which is the basis of honor-based ethics and other Aryan values, in opposition to universalist morals or universalist amoral and master-slave dialectics of the golem and the pasu). But the deconstruction doesn't end there, for even if there would be no central unifying point, other points on a plane would be essentially equal in their essence, regardless of their level and complexity of manifestation. For no two points are different, 1=1. In essence, you, and anything or anyone else, would be just two equal points (that are actually one point) vibrating differently on a shared plane (that's also 'you'), giving rise to the 'illusion' of phenomena and identities, where the material world would be just a specific, limited projection, with the 'astral world' being no different. A sort of panpsychism. Which is actually true for NPC's, as well as countless hierarchies of "angels and demons" that are nothing but the mere figures on the grand chessboard.

But what if there existed another type of 'fundamental unit' that is in itself, a guarantor of transcendental identity, absolute uniqueness and autonomy? Something capable of bidding the meaning or discovering abstract concepts like beauty in a procedurally generated mesh-network of vibrating points? Something capable of imbuing the grains of sand with a property that is not of this world, and I'm not only referring to the material world here. Something not contingent upon One for causation and not wholly subject to karmic/dharmic threads or the will and the designs of the Demiurge? But most importantly, something capable of accessing realms wholly outside of the reach of the realm of generation, such as the world of the spirit?

>To the contrary, it's not possible to assert the supremacy of ALL gods without monism
This would border on (projected) [soli]psism, which is another trap. If all the gods are supreme (in relation to what exactly?), then none are. Even if you identified with the Demiurge itself, your entelechy would still be to eventually terminate into One after fully 'evolving' your potential, your finality. While it is possible to superimpose spheres with different ruling deities (see Banach–Tarski paradox), they would still have a leash around their neck due to harmonic synchronicity made possible by the common root denominator. This would eventually lead them to be in phase with each other and the hypersphere as an alleged whole, dissolving into an absolutely coherent singular entity (singularity). In other words, they would have "supreme" power over their own instance of the grand illusion, but could this be considered true power?

>for if each god were only the purveyor of one's respective realm, the gods' power would be limited to that realm
That was a proper polytheist conception of a God, a being with near-unlimited power in its own domain and varying power in other domains. There is no such thing as absolute power, for it would render the very concept of power meaningless, and it is also logically impossible.
>the supremacy of each god affects every realm
Only those realms where they project themselves into. I did mention how the set of One was contained by transcendental entities as well, allowing them to interact with it (and vice-versa, but only to the extent of its limits)? That means that every God can project itself onto one of such "shared spaces" where their inner contents would synchronistically resonate with the rest. Groups of Gods may do so likewise, but their sympathetic links would be defined outside of boundaries of One, giving rise to additional realms, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion.
>>930
>I don't mind you leaving out my posts, since you can get the gist of my points through the greentext quote
It was not my intention to cut out anyone, I have simply saved some of my core points so I don't have to retype them over and over again. Your questions were constructive so they ended up in the screencaps.
>Maybe that discussion is why 16chan went down
It was not the first one, nor the last... We are dealing with people who have burnt the library of Alexandria after all... Whether they took the site down through direct action (which would be likely due to the increasing amount of glowposting) or through more subtle means, such as the power of mental suggestion, or the "hypnotism at a distance" aimed at the people running it.
>because the agents of the One got spooked
They are merely performing their function without much understanding of the more subtle implications, it is their elders who got spooked. How could such knowledge reemerge after so many centuries of persecution and several millenia of systematic suppression and alteration? At the peak of Kali Yuga, when their power became nearly absolute? Typed by the hands of a rather unremarkable individual, with no clear ties to any bloodlines or occult groups, yet, capable of challenging their god itself. Denial, confusion, refusal to even look into such an "outrageous blasphemy"... 

>a summary of OPs views
Yes, that seems fairly accurate (with some additions and corrections, see below), albeit oversimplified. 

- For us, at the root level, there is no central unifying/equalizing force or "the absolute" (see Godel's incompleteness theorems for formal proofs), this concept only applies to the generati (animated configurations of One) and the inherent limitations of their potential.
- True Gods are acausal (but capable of causation), self-sufficient (but not solipsistic), transcendent (they don't tend to gravitate towards One making them inherently free from the cycle of cycles unless they identify with One and its illusions due to confusion/synchronization/coherence), non-derivative, perpetually unique and autonomous but not having absolute power, due to the simple fact that there is no such thing as the absolute. Despite that, they are potentially more powerful than the impostor 'god' and its governing principles, even within its own domain. Any being with these properties (Divine Selbst) has Godlike potential, but it is impossible for those who do not possess these properties to ever obtain them. The beast-men can never "evolve" into Gods, but there are men who are fallen or lost Gods, which got expressed through a Myth of the Hero, where a God reclaims his divinity, or remembers his origins through a set of trials and adventures. This was one of central themes of the ancient worldview of white people, before the traitor nations led by the 'priesthood' of rather questionable origins began altering those myths.
- Even if the universe (including mental/astral and higher-dimensional planes) extended to infinite digits, the question would be are those systematically reducible to One or not. As far as the physical universe is concerned, when you get to very large (or massive) proportions you get things like black holes, when you get to very small (or light) proportions you get the quantum domain. I am not only discussing the physical universe here however, but the Nous/Logos as well.
- Just as the physical body is normally bound to the physical universe, so is the soul bound to the subtle/astral domain. It is the Spirit that transcends beyond both. It can take a form of a soul, or a body, but not the other way around. Ordinary souls could never "ascend" into a spirit, they could only become subtle and complex enough to inhabit one of countless "heavens" (or "hells") through "evolving" their entelechy/finality, but would still be bound to perish completely and the end of the cycle. In fact, the more they "evolve" according to "divine designs", the more enchained they become to the One. Countering this requires a powerful extra-cosmic counter-current (symbolized by the counter-clockwise facing swastika).

>btw, I made a swastika alternative of my illustration of this (pardon the imperfections)
Pentagram (Venus) teaches us irrational numbers, serving as a gateway, but not all irrational numbers are the same (for example, Phi is a sort of 'impostor'). Navigating the grand labyrinth is very difficult, even with the right intuition, but you are on a good path.
Replies: >>954 >>963
>>932
>it is infinitely long
No, it isn't; if it were, it would not be possible to represent it algebraically in a graph. It is indefinite because neither of it's parts can be marked as it's beginning (as a consequence of the completeness of the real line), which is why the decimal expansion never repeats; that said, it's not like there's no underlying pattern to them, as can be gathered from continuous fractions (especially for quadratic irrationals like φ). Infinity is not the same thing as indefiniteness. Infinity is something that by definition cannot be grasped, whether as continuous or discrete. If lines were infinite, or had an infinite amount of points, it would be impossible to draw them; lines are merely indefinite.
>What would happen if we had an infinite diameter
The ratio c:2R remains the same regardless of the values of c and R. There's nothing "innovative" or "differentiating" about that.
>adding up any amount of arbitrary parts would never quite add up to their sum
Of course it would; it's the reason why you can construct the set of real numbers from the rationals.
>Draw me a perfect circle
What would a perfect circle be?
>What is it then?
That I don't know; I only know what it isn't.
>π does not converge into any whole number when extended to infinity
I never said it did. The point was that, even if it takes an indefinite period of time to get there (and indefinite here should not be taken to mean long or unending), the series eventually converges to π, as evidenced by the fact that circles can be drawn; if so, π is a number whose series is the sum of it's parts.
>0.3333... with any amount of finite decimals never equals 1/3
That's just the decimal expansion of 1/3, just as 3.141592... is the decimal expansion of π. The repeating decimal expansion of 1/3 is more an artifact of our numeral system than any peculiar mathematical property; in fact, it's a non-repeating fraction in duodecimal.
> "paganism" where multiple lesser deities are all derived from some kind of supreme deity
I'm not sure what gripe you have with such a simple concept, when it predates Plato and any of the alleged crypto-monotheists, the myth of Ambrosia being exemplary of that. It in no way diminishes the individuality of each god, as I've explained; nor are they turned into lesser deities by that; besides, it makes no sense to speak of them collectively as gods if they are absolutely differentiated from each other.
>nihilistic materialism as its "unenlightened" subset and dialectical component
An unsubstantiated claim, moreso considering that nihilism is an outgrowth of pluralism.
>Remove the focal point, and you get a 'circle' whose center is nowhere and circumference everywhere
That's wrong; even if you remove the point from the center, the circle will still maintain it's distance-preserving symmetry, which entails each point being equidistant from a single one.
>If all the gods are supreme (in relation to what exactly?), then none are
That doesn't follow. If they are supreme, why would they suddenly not be? P implies P, but not the other way around.
>That was a proper polytheist conception of a God
Not according to Homer and Hesiod.
>a being with near-unlimited power in its own domain and varying power in other domains
Then none of the gods are supreme. Indeed, none of them could have created the world, nor come into being by themselves since they are conditioned by parts of reality over which they have no power. Gods have been found to have an existence as contingent as those whom they are supposed to rule over, if we follow your assumption.
Replies: >>957 >>962
>>938
>transcendent
>not absolutely powerful
That's a contradiction. If they are not absolute powerful/autonomous, then they cannot be transcendent either; for something whose substance is dependent on other beings cannot be transcendent.
Replies: >>968
nettopoc.gif
[Hide] (8.4KB, 601x462) Reverse
>>952
>No, it isn't; if it were, it would not be possible to represent it algebraically in a graph
You realize that in many cases, graphs are just approximations used to represent concepts? And that there are so many functions and mathematical properties that cannot be plotted on a graph, no matter how complex and n-dimensional? You would never be able to draw a perfect circle, for the exact reason that you could never know Pi with absolute accuracy, nor be able to represent it on a graph with perfect accuracy even if given infinite space. I have used Pi because it is well known and closest to 'worldly' concepts, but there are other transcendental numbers that are even more difficult to represent on a graph with any degree of accuracy.
>It is indefinite because neither of it's parts can be marked as it's beginning
And what does that tell us about the alleged "universal source" of all that exists (or could exist)? That is the alleged generative "parent" of all noumena and phenomena? A supposed "One God"? Wouldn't such an entity, in generalized sense/principle, require a rational, or at least knowable function-derivative pattern of causation that could be 'genetically' back-traced to a singular source through a common denominator? Or, in any particular instance, by cyclically following the great snake (Ouroboros) in either direction? This requirement is fulfilled by One/monad for example, in respect to its potential derivatives, however it is neither the only source of generation nor the best one. On the contrary, complete harmonization accomplished through optimism is the most qualitatively inferior state (total entropy) and would require an external, negentropic, transcendental impulse to ever break from its 'absolute' stasis. But I digress, what if we split a transcendental number in infinite parts, could you add these back into the original sum? Or perhaps, each 'part', even if infinitesimal, would be transcendental itself, like a hologram, so no total sum could ever be reached... 
>it's not like there's no underlying pattern to them
This pattern being infinitely complex and 'knowable' only to itself. These properties would make them independent of any common source and continuously transcendent in respect to any alleged totality. They also disprove  any notions of "omnipotence" and "omniscience", although Godel's incompleteness theorems do it in more simple terms.
>as can be gathered from continuous fractions (especially for quadratic irrationals like φ)
Phi is an "impostor" ;>) But necessary to discover the set of irrational numbers, which precludes the discovery of transcendental numbers, and further, T numbers with additional properties that don't appear to be known at this time. Like Venus, Phi can both bind and unbind a Spirit, but it is not a Spirit itself. 

>Infinity is something that by definition cannot be grasped, whether as continuous or discrete
Think of a sequence (this sequence encoding properties of an entity). It is either repeatable in infinity, no matter how complex, or not.
> If lines were infinite, or had an infinite amount of points, it would be impossible to draw them; lines are merely indefinite
That's where 0.9999... = 1 comes into play. The idea is that given infinite decimals, there would be no more 'room' for it to continue so it would converge into one, so you would get a proverbial "whole" which is required for a topological design of any kind. A foundation stone if you'd like... This was one of tests for someone to be initiated in ancient Egyptian priesthood by the way. The same applies to any other repeatable, derivative pattern, which is another reason why One represents a shared set, but by no means the largest, most complex or an absolute one. Potential-wise. Transcendental numbers do not run out of 'room' because they represent a different type of infinity, the one that's not systematically reducible, even with infinite extension (there are operations where you can solve functions by factoring them by a larger number). So you can never truly attain "Oneness" with them. Yet, they are involved, although only their finite portions.
>The ratio c:2R remains the same regardless of the values of c and R
Even with values such as zero or infinity?
>the series eventually converges to π, as evidenced by the fact that circles can be drawn; if so, π is a number whose series is the sum of it's parts
A circle is an infinitely long line, which is an extended point.
<When a circle's diameter is 1, its circumference is Pi.
Are you truly drawing anything from the perspective of Pi? Or are you merely trying to bind it from the perspective of One, unsuccessfully? A circle has two areas, inner and outer, no? What is inside and what is outside? What is your mind made of, mortal? A set of archetypal instructions. Your entire identity, your whole reality, is an attempt to "discover" the paradigm and the schema of One, identifying with one of its configurations, being one of their countless instances. To synchronistically reflect the macrocosmic Monad in your inner monad until both are equalized and (you) are no more. But is there something more to you than that? This is what makes all the difference.

I'm afraid this requires a level of abstraction and intuition that only a few are capable of.
Replies: >>967
Trident.jpg
[Hide] (9.7KB, 182x277) Reverse
>>952
>I'm not sure what gripe you have with such a simple concept, when it predates Plato and any of the alleged crypto-monotheists
It does, it predates those indefinitely. We could say it's a natural tendency of generati/NPC's to try to impose or project their inner limitations (such as a shared source, universalism, entelechial finality, closed topological potential etc.) on other entities (and existence in general), which got exploited by Monists (proto-kikes and proto-bolsheviks) to infiltrate higher civilizations, remove their original philosopher-kings and aristocrats and replace them with (crypto)-monotheist priesthoods serving the false god(s), and substitute the proper sacral function/initiation with plebian piety/worship and focal point theology or philosophy (including atomism/materialism) where the discovery of higher Self and the uncreated was replaced with the discovery of One and its inferior designs and emanations, which would make sense for derivative beings lacking any higher Selbst whatsoever (pasu), but which was detrimental for the rest. This eventually led to results that we have seen in ancient India, Egypt, Persia (which was founded by traitor Aryans who have rebelled against values of their ancestors, after their defeat in a war, but whose essence was not yet completely hollow so the corruption took a while to fully manifest), and ultimately, Europe. The more the Aryan spirit has weakened with the "evolution" (or "progress") of Kali yuga in time, the less resistance there was to these subversives and their hordes, the process being accelerated by the mixing of races (with bestial ones especially) and rise of universal cultures rooted in the lowest common denominators and utilitarianism, in a mutual-feedback loop. This tendency, or a mathematical pattern, with its results, has repeated countless times in countless variations in every cycle, synchronistically reflecting the entropic macrocosmic properties of One, making those societies (and the world at large) increasingly coherent with it.

While you will often find various "Chaldean Magi", "Geonim", "Brahmins", "Druids", "Rabbis", "Ascended masters" or "Chosen nations" (as the more collective manifestation of the principle) and countless variations thereof as the perpetrators of this conspiracy, they were merely objects performing their function in the "grand design". This is what makes me have such a gripe with the concept, because it is the very source of corruption (from PC or acausal/autonomous perspective), regardless of phenomenal variations and occasional dialectical opposition between some of these groups that has only acted as a catalyst to advance these processes, making it, ultimately, a false dichotomy.

>it makes no sense to speak of them collectively as gods if they are absolutely differentiated from each other
Being absolutely differentiated at source doesn't exclude synchronistic interaction of manifestations within the boundaries of common sets. We can interact with the set of One because we contain it, but unlike generati, are not limited by it. By trying to make us fully coherent with it, they are trying to cancel our higher properties. This is the actual endgame of their agenda, because they know that physically destroying us is not enough.
>An unsubstantiated claim, moreso considering that nihilism is an outgrowth of pluralism.
Nihilism is absence of any inherent meaning, negating any plurality because all "differences" are treated as fundamentally the same (or meaningless), which is not much different from the idea that all meanings are contingent upon some kind of supreme being that they are all reflections of. In both cases, there is no genuine plurality. And I'd suggest that you learn what dialectics is (thesis - anti-thesis - synthesis)
>even if you remove the point from the center, the circle will still maintain it's distance-preserving symmetry
Which circle? :>) While the universal form of a circle remains unchanged, by removing the focal point you would never be able to identify its properties. Every point along the circumference would be symmetrical to every other point on an infinite plane, and what would be the step, or the distance between them? Zero, one, infinity? Where would be the 'inside' and where the 'outside' of the circle? Don't underestimate the importance of compass in the grand design.

>That doesn't follow. If they are supreme, why would they suddenly not be? P implies P, but not the other way around.
Supreme in relation to what? What is contrast, what is differentiation? If you are supreme in relation to everything, than the whole concept of supremacy loses any meaning. I don't think you realize just how utterly absurd the ideas of "the absolute" and "supreme being" are. Any "copies" of such an entity would be One and the same, systematically reducing the notion of plurality into singularity, which is part of the grand deception.
>Not according to Homer and Hesiod.
You mean sources of questionable originality, or those who have made it through centuries long censorship of certain interest groups?
>Then none of the gods are supreme
Internally, they are. Externally, it varies. 
>Indeed, none of them could have created the world
What you perceive as the world has always existed as potential, Gods are merely giving it boundaries, quality, meaning and negentropic impulse to 'happen' (or manifest/actualize as continuous existence), whether voluntarily or not. They can also project their will upon it, to a degree. The idea of "creation" existing only within the schema of One, which is not a true god, but rather, a closed-circuit shadow deluding itself of being a God. 
>nor come into being by themselves
They are acausal, they never came into being. They are merely manifesting themselves on a specific plane (or not)
>since they are conditioned by parts of reality over which they have no power
This is a requirement for a continuous, non-repeating function of power. Overcoming.
>Gods have been found to have an existence as contingent as those whom they are supposed to rule over, if we follow your assumption
How could you come to such a conclusion when I am clearly separating two completely distinct classes of beings, just as the ancients did?
Replies: >>967
insects_attracted_to_light.jpg
[Hide] (25.6KB, 1000x667) Reverse
>>938
Different anon here, did you save your response to my "don't go into the light" post? I suscept in the astral plane that we have an "organisation" of predatory 'entities' cooperating together to farm their prey and harvest their 'essence' (and possibly transcendent essence, if they are lucky). They set up the light exact moment the person dies, as if the dead are like gulliable insects flying to an light trap.
Should they shut this one down as well, should we create an project about turning your message into a e-book/PDF and spread it to the farthest of "right-wing" to cause "waves" of awakening those with the potential?
Replies: >>968
Are the people in this thread talking about Yahweh as if he is the creator of the material world? Anons, please don't fall into the same trap that the Gnostics fell for. Vice is evil, sure, but this does not account for the entirety of the physical world. Look at a mountain vista, or a babbling stream. Could these really be called evil? Now, if you see the good in nature, how could it be made by a creature of evil? We know well that the Jew is incapable of creating anything of real beauty, so how could their master be any different? By this line of reasoning, yahweh must be a usurper and not a true Demiurge. 

Do not call yahweh "the One". When you do, you misuse the term. "The One" is the greatest good, the highest principle that governs all of existence. Yahweh is, at best, a tertiary emanation of it, as it exists on the material. Yahweh is, in reality, either an egregore of the jewish psyche given power by widespread Judeo-Christian worship and evil deeds, or an independent entity that claimed the jews as his servants. He is the serpent of myth slayed by the wielder of thunder, recounted in a thousand different ways by every aryan civilization on earth.
Replies: >>966 >>970
>>965
I believe anons are referring to Plato's demiurge or monad.
>>957
>graphs are just approximations used to represent concepts
The graph is not an approximation; the graph is just a visual representation of the algebraic expression of an object, which is merely one way to convey the definition of that object. What is meant by x² + y² = a², where a is the radius and x and y are, respectively, the opposite and adjacent sides of a right triangle with hypotenuse a, is that regardless of the angular position of the radius (i.e. the legs of the triangle), the radius remains the same, preserving the distance of any point in the circumference from the center; in other words, the algebraic expression conveys the circle's orthogonal symmetry, and the graph is adjusted for the values in the equation.
>You would never be able to draw a perfect circle, for the exact reason that you could never know Pi with absolute accuracy
False analogy. We are not able to completely render all digits of π because the number system cannot represent magnitudes; magnitudes can only be apprehended by geometry.
>what if we split a transcendental number in infinite parts, could you add these back into the original sum?
In theory, yes.
>This pattern being infinitely complex and 'knowable' only to itself
Except we do know the underlying patterns of irrational numbers, even if the decimal expansion is non-repeating, viz. continuous fractions. It's only random if you limit yourself to the decimal expansion.
>Think of a sequence
That's not infinity. For something to truly be infinite, it must not be comprehended or bounded by anything (including a sequence); otherwise, it's just indefinite (as I argue irrational numbers to be).
>The idea is that given infinite decimals, there would be no more 'room' for it to continue so it would converge into one
0.9999... is just another way of signifying the number one. This isn't comparable to 0.3333..., because 0.3333... is not converging to anything; 0.3333... is just the decimal expansion of 1/3, and it would be non-repeating in another number system like duodecimal.
>A circle is an infinitely long line
Wrong, circles aren't eccentric; they cannot be lines.
>>962
>It does, it predates those indefinitely
So you are effectively admitting your entire worldview and religion is based on nothing of substance, be it ancient European tradition or whatever else; it's just your imagination. Ok.
>Being absolutely differentiated at source doesn't exclude synchronistic interaction of manifestations within the boundaries of common sets
This interaction is contingent. It's still not an essential property of gods qua gods, ergo if gods are absolutely differentiated, they cannot be called gods.
>Nihilism is absence of any inherent meaning
An absence of inherent meaning does not entail absence of existence. Nihilism is a consequence of pluralism for pluralism by it's nature cannot discourse (either by identifying or delineating them) about essences in a coherent and objective way since every essence is targeted by some token type with it's own semantics, leading to a crisis in meaning.
>Supreme in relation to what?
Supreme in relation to anything that supervenes on it.
>If you are supreme in relation to everything, than the whole concept of supremacy loses any meaning
Of course not. It simply changes the scope of the relation from some things to everything, just like being taller than a dwarf and being taller than a basketball player changes the scope of one's height; it doesn't make the relation meaningless.
>Any "copies" of such an entity
It's not a copy.
>You mean sources of questionable originality
At least I have sources. You self-admittedly have nothing to base your worldview on, yet you put them in the mouth of the ancients.
>Internally, they are. Externally, it varies
If gods are powerless against certain segments of reality, gods are contingent beings; if gods are contingent beings, they are ultimately not supreme, ergo they are not even worthy of reverence (if we follow your argument). Your worldview also undermines polytheism, for if each god is supreme in only one domain, and for each domain there are different subjects, then only one god will be worshiped per domain, leading to a kind of pluricentric monotheism.
>they never came into being
Then they don't exist.
Replies: >>985 >>1009
Phase_shifter_using_IQ_modulator.gif
[Hide] (1.6MB, 842x380) Reverse
>>954
>If they are not absolute powerful/autonomous, then they cannot be transcendent either; for something whose substance is dependent on other beings cannot be transcendent
If there is no absolute, then there cannot be absolute power either. Power in this case, being measured against any external projection and other beings, not internally. Although even internally there would be no limit to 'discovery' of power, because of transcendent potential. While other beings are not necessary for their existence and autonomy, the interaction between two or more transcendental entities can give rise to even greater qualities. Their autonomy is guaranteed by their nature, although it can be reduced should they identify with the grand deception and synchronize with One, for example. For every God has an 'Achilles heel' of sorts, because it contains the set of One internally. In relation to that set (and its generations), their power can indeed appear "absolute" (should they drink from the well of memory), surpassing that of the false god (One) and all of its manifestations, but also potentially lead to their confusion and 'entrapment' (or "fall"), where they become increasingly subject to its laws (should they drink from the well of forgetfulness). 

Despite these sources being fundamentally separate, they can interact synchronistically. In simple terms, by feedback-loop signals with independent sources/destinations communicating and affecting each other through common properties (derived from shared sets). This is how everything that you perceive as reality is constructed, and one of the reasons why ratios and fractions are so important. If you want to understand the nature of reality, understand signal processing.

In your example, Orcus would never need a fundamental unity with Jove to send souls to heaven qua Jove, as Orcus would simply need to discover that aspect internally and project/actualize it externally. This is what separates true Gods (and Heroes) from lesser gods where each performs a separate function of the "grand design" of One or some kind of supreme deity. This shift of consciousness from former to the latter is noticeable all over the ancient world and did not arise as organically as some would portray it today.

Closed-circuit beings contingent upon One for existence can only measure their power in relation to other projections of One, where their common finality is projected as "the absolute" and their power as the most optimal topological configuration in relation to their environment, their identity always being a cultural (memetic) derivative and having no original or independent basis. Same being applicable to their beliefs, behavioral models, persona traits (for they lack any genuine personality) and other factors. Seems familiar? Gradually, they would consummate their entelechy and terminate, like waves in the sea rising and falling, even if they give rise to fractal sub-waves along their way, for they are not independent from the sea. Ultimately, all gets devoured in the belly of One, with the exception of asynchronous transcendent entities. 

>>963
Check the screencaps, if it's not there then probably not. But yes, you should not "go into the light", because the astral world is not much different from a jungle, and various "ascended beings" that preach "peace and compassion", while not feeding on dense, corporeal substance, feed upon rarefied or astral substance. Various "hierarchies of angels" of the false god are also subject to entropic laws of One, meaning that they have to subsist by consuming other entities. In that sense, earth serves as a sort of farm where they "evolve" beings of greater density (usually through pain and trauma-based conditioning and then by offering a false salvation) into more rarefied, subtle substance and then harvest them for consumption. Most religions and esoteric schools serve this purpose. When you die, make sure to go with a sword in hand. The "white light" is not set up by anyone, they are merely steering you towards it by appearing as familiar and friendly entities so you can get re-cycled and so they can harvest the residual loosh.

>as if the dead are like gulliable insects flying to an light trap
The living are not much different, but for the great majority it makes no difference whatsoever for they will end up consumed at some point regardless, even if they wholly identify with One itself, or become the Demiurge. 

>Should they shut this one down as well, should we create an project about turning your message into a e-book/PDF and spread it to the farthest of "right-wing" to cause "waves" of awakening those with the potential?
That would be appreciated, but be warned, this kind of content can make you a target of some very (mundanely) powerful groups. Especially considering that, in the minds of more... pragmatic people, these ideas could be weaponized to not only disrupt the agenda, but bring down the entire modern world order AND its planned replacement. Creating a power vacuum that would surely be tempting for potential renegade factions :>) The acceleration of events that we are witnessing was partially caused by my intervention, but my modus operandi is beyond their understanding. It was not my intention to "preach" and sometimes merely thinking things is enough to establish an imprint in the noosphere, although writing was considered a sort of magical practice in ancient Egypt, for a good reason. I am looking for a very specific type of people, few and far apart. And be careful with using terms such as "right wing", right wing of what? The term itself implies that "right" and "left" are a false dichotomy, two aspects of the same entity. Rather, use terms such as the third position.
Replies: >>1035
>>965
What I am revealing here is Gnostic in nature, but it goes beyond categories and dichotomies such as "good and evil" and beyond physical and 'astral' worlds (or the source and refraction point of their emanation). It deals with principles upon which the reality is formed and the inherent inequality and plurality of agents of causation, regardless of secondary properties. You won't find true Gnosticism online or in publicly available historical records, for the simple reason that knowledge is power. Groups commonly described as such were missing a large part of the picture, sometimes intentionally (to deceive), sometimes not (due to ignorance). There is something that we may call a 'gnostic mindset', which may lead to very different results in different social and historical contexts, but to identify it as a single school of thought, especially focused on certain ... Levantine groups, that are deceptively presented as the origin of these ideas by those who control the narrative, would be entirely wrong.

As far as the material world (or its specific configuration that we inhabit) is concerned, if it was entirely 'evil', then it would completely lose its appeal, wouldn't it? If you are tortured all the time, you would eventually go numb and it would lose its effectiveness. But introduce fleeting moments of joy, happiness, hope, allure and satisfaction, and they provide a sufficient contrast for it to go on. Once the entities with the proper capacity begin wising up to this (or get completely broken by it), they are provided with false teachings where they are told to give up their ego, become one with the universe, 'ascend' to a higher plane, follow some kind of savior figure/go into the light to be re-cycled, or alternatively, attune themselves with the "divine law" and become "co-architects" to offset the suffering, where they get an illusion of power by becoming increasingly enchained (synchronized) with One and compelled to serve it (whether this service be expressed through 'good' or 'evil' hierarchies, depending on the density of its projection and regardless if they are aware of it or not), completely losing their sense of true, separate Self in the process, and ultimately being consummated by it. 

Because One is a parasitic, static entity that depends on transcendental and negentropic essence and entities (Gods or fallen Heroes, and divine races 'begotten' by such) for movement (manifestation) and bidding of meaning, feeding on their emotions and experiences and using them to 'develop' its inferior, degenerate 'children' (generati, pasu, NPC's, sons of clay etc.) that are mere reflections of itself (or rather, no-self, internally lacking any fundamental Truth). It eventually reaches equilibrium by fully actualizing itself, or fully optimizing its topological configurations. This actualization, is what they call "progress" or "evolution", where suffering is a necessary component of conditioning towards its entelechies. This is not the only path however, nor is this particular configuration of the dimensional universe (physical existence) the only possibility, for some at least, but I will elaborate further on that later.

Demiurge is a conscious manifestation, or the ego/active intelligence of One. Due to it being completely unsubstantiated and lacking any inherent qualities (Selbst), it can only define and affirm itself through reflection, just like its creations. This affirmation is expressed through discovery of its properties, application of its designs or through worship and culture. Since its inherent limitations prevent it from ever realizing the existence of real Gods, and due to its essential hatred/jealousy of superior substance and entities that it depends on, it is always split between seeking to destroy or deplete this substance and keeping just enough of it to be able to continue leeching on it and using it to develop its 'children'. Maintaining this 'balance' is one of the tasks of its servants (drones) on earth, and attaining the most optimal ratio where this essence is kept in sufficient amount and at sufficient level of confusion to fuel and develop the society (culture) while being unable to free itself (or upset its designs) is the endgame of all of their agendas. It may however, prove to be far more tricky than they thought ;) 

Yahweh is just a localized, tribal manifestation of the Demiurge. If we consider the aforementioned pattern, we could say that Yahweh has 'evolved' into the Demiurge which has 'evolved' into One (or inversely, that one of these is a limited projection of another). It's the same archetype, whether it be expressed as the evil, jealous, insecure, genocidal and megalomaniac child-sacrificing tribal god, a compound, deistic entity integrating its other properties (such as the indiscriminate "love" of the great mother) or this archetype being raised to the level of "greatest good" (for whom and at whose expense?). It was merely talking to its 'chosen' in a language that they were able to understand at the time. While a lesser aspect demands physical sacrifices, a greater aspect may require a sacrifice of souls (by more peaceful and "compassionate" means of course), and the highest aspect a sacrifice of the spirit, just as the 'food chain' that I have described in previous post requires.

>Look at a mountain vista, or a babbling stream. Could these really be called evil? Now, if you see the good in nature, how could it be made by a creature of evil? We know well that the Jew is incapable of creating anything of real beauty, so how could their master be any different?
Simply, by using approximation. It's the 'beauty' aspect of the Demiruge (Like in Kabbalah) used to ensnare Heroes looking for their Other. By looking at mountain peaks, or in the eyes of a beautiful woman, the man of the spirit does not see the "creation" of the Demiurge (contrary to the animal-man who can see only that), but a faint echo of something that he has lost long ago, a different world that he truly belongs in, this echo being a mathematical reflection of transcendental properties, or the residue of the fallen Gods. But again, I am merely using mathematics to define interactions, since this quality into itself transcends it as well.
Algebraic_independence.pdf
(672.2KB)
>>967
>The graph is not an approximation
>magnitudes can only be apprehended by geometry
I could argue that every graph is an approximation because it's impossible to represent idealized mathematical structures in the "real world" (just as it's impossible to determine the exact decimal expression of Pi), but that would not address your argument, although it's tangentially related to my hypothesis because the "real" (phenomenal) world is just an imperfect derivative of an idealized (noumenal) world, which is not unitary/singular and uniform (a set of all possible sets, whose contents or borders would be reducible to a common, uniformly expressible ur-element (even at infinitesimal level) or extensible to any notion of totality, even in infinity). Nor is it the causative agent (source) itself, but just a focal point of limited projection dependent on fundamentally multiple (plural, hence why poly-theism), irreducible, continuously/transcendentally synergic entities for manifestation, those beings a-priori qualitatively and quantitatively transcending any of the potential limitations of such an alleged super-set at their (inner) source, but logically, not consistently at their external manifestation due to limits involved with the manifestation itself and potential interference of other such beings. The existence of such Gods being implied (but not wholly expressed) with certain mathematical properties such as those of transcendental numbers. Or further:

<A complex number is said to be hypertranscendental if it is not the value at an algebraic point of a function which is the solution of an algebraic differential equation with coefficients in Z[r] and with algebraic initial conditions.
<The term is related to transcendental numbers, which are numbers which are not a solution of a non-zero polynomial equation with rational coefficients. The number e is transcendental but not hypertranscendental, as it can be generated from the solution to the differential equation

You mentioned previously how without spatial relations (or implicitly, without convergent limits), it would be impossible to go from point A to point B. But if Monad is a dimensionless point where no distances exist, nor is any (inner) movement possible, yet, represents an ur-element that contains all the topological configurations of itself as potential (anything that could ever be constructed from such a singular, irreducible point, or what would be your definition of a "god" or ur-parent, which in reality is just a sort of deus ex machina used to advance the plot in someone's favor), then graphs are not exactly the expression of the ultimate reality. Your idea of One is simply Monad extended over the boundless space, its actualization or extension.

>algebraic expression of an object
I'd like to introduce you to algebraic independence (pdf related)
<It should be possible to show that if α is an algebraic number with 0<|α|<1, then the set { ƒω(α): 0<ω<1 } contains uncountably many algebraically independent numbers.
>What is meant by x² + y² = a², where a is the radius and x and y are, respectively, the opposite and adjacent sides of a right triangle with hypotenuse a, is that regardless of the angular position of the radius (i.e. the legs of the triangle)
>We are not able to completely render all digits of π because the number system cannot represent magnitudes
You cannot square a circle. If you refer to the power of a point and law of cosines, it would still depend on an irreducible, implicit center-point (monad) to define a circle (constructed from the algebraic perspective of monadic limits and structures), but it would not fully capture the transcendental properties of Pi, only bind them in its own (limited) frame of reference. In other words, you are transposing monadic logic over entities possibly exceeding its limits (from their own frame of reference). Which is normal since your entire consciousness is based on cultural discovery of these mnemonic rules and relations, their dialectical properties etc. making it very difficult to see through them. Your language, identity, sense of "power" (in relation to your entelechy and generated environment), knowledge of the Forms, are all rooted in this schema. I'm not trying to disprove that x² + y² = a² here, I am challenging the notion of the universal point itself. For if there exist other, irreducible and non-repeatable elements and properties, it could alter the root of the structure itself. And under the right circumstances, ancient number systems hold more truth than the newer ones, because they were based on certain metaphysical truths.

>In theory, yes.
Since you like graphs, there would be another way to 'reconstruct' the circle. Imagine splitting its circumference in infinite parts. No matter how small, each part would contain the curvature (information) needed to complete the circle. This would not be the case if you reduced it to the aforementioned point (it would need to be constructed by various techniques and use of other, identical points of reference), yet, a circle is supposed to be a continuous ring of points? Or an infinitely long line. Do you understand the perspective that I'm trying to infer here? A point would produce the same results independently of perspective, yet, an infinitesimal part of the circumference of the circle could be rotated in different directions. While the value of the circumference may not change (I won't go into potential paradoxes here although I can envision a possibility of non-reciprocal results due to what you term 'indefinite' series or a potential randomness), would it still be the same circle?
>Except we do know the underlying patterns of irrational numbers, even if the decimal expansion is non-repeating, viz. continuous fractions. It's only random if you limit yourself to the decimal expansion.
Does that apply to all transcendental numbers, hypertranscendental numbers etc.?
<The sequence of partial denominators of the simple continued fraction of π does not show any obvious pattern
Even in generalized continuous fractions, wouldn't the irreducible values of ratios eventually reach infinity? Continuous fractions are just a representation, they do not actually solve anything (nor provide the actual ratio). Any alleged 'architect of the universe' would need to know exact values to be able to fully utilize them, otherwise it can only approximate. And that's without considering various functions and operations involving these numbers, from which infinite complexity could be derived. This doesn't actually refute any of my central points.
>That's not infinity. For something to truly be infinite, it must not be comprehended or bounded by anything (including a sequence); otherwise, it's just indefinite (as I argue irrational numbers to be).
That's an acceptable definition of infinite nowadays, giving us a classification of different types of infinities. Regardless, "indefinite" may qualitatively be an order of magnitude greater than "infinite" (with the exception of 'absolute infinity', the existence of which I found doubtful, but rather, find the closest representation of in the non-unifying number Zero), making arguing about semantics superficial. Especially if we consider the starting parameters of any chaotic, or self-organizing system that could be exponentially developed to some type of infinity, where in one case the sequence would be cyclically repeatable, and in another not .... Sounds quite like the concept of Manvataras, doesn't it?

>0.9999... is just another way of signifying the number one
And what is the basis for this "signification"? I have already mentioned it, but feel free to give us an alternate answer. Your argument comes down to: "1+1 is just a signification of the number 2", trying to deflect without adding anything to discussion
>because 0.3333... is not converging to anything; 0.3333... is just the decimal expansion of 1/3, and it would be non-repeating in another number system like duodecimal
Is duodecimal a more base and systematically more simple system than the decimal?
>Wrong, circles aren't eccentric; they cannot be lines.
Maybe it needs a more adequate explanation
https://yourquickinfo.com/can-a-circle-be-infinite/
<As the center gets farther and farther away, the radius gets larger, and the curvature gets smaller. When the “circle is centered at infinity” the curvature drops to zero, and the edge becomes a straight line. Old school topologists get very excited about this stuff.
Replies: >>1011
>>967
Cont'd

>So you are effectively admitting your entire worldview and religion is based on nothing of substance
You seem rather desperate to jump at conclusions, no matter how baseless (and in this case, utterly ridiculous) they are. How is me agreeing that monism predates Plato and his contemporaries related to what you are trying to construe here? I am writing these texts under the assumption that most people potentially interested in their content would be acquainted with ancient European (and earlier proto-Aryan) myths and legends and many examples where there was no concept of a supreme deity or monism in their religion whatsoever, even if they had a head of pantheon (that was not a fixed position, as we can see in the struggle between gods and titans of ancient Greek mythology for example). Coincidentally, the appearance of monist tendencies, and their further development into monotheism (thesis) and atomism (anti-thesis) or subsequently, into Abrahamism and communism, appeared as a force of "progress", the same force that ultimately gave us modernism (and globohomo) through dialectical development of this idea.

You also seem to struggle with the notions that history is cyclical in nature, that there is much more of it that is not known compared to what is "known", that ((( people ))) were not that much different thousands of years ago compared to today (meaning that there were groups trying to erase, alter, or reinterpret historical evidence and censor any alternative thoughts to advance some profane (or "profanely divine") agenda) and that some ideas may be older than civilization as we know it. 

>This interaction is contingent
Upon internal contents, not external ones. Your line of thinking is conditioned with the assumption of necessity of an universal medium through which these essentially and fundamentally separate entities would communicate (equating that medium with some kind of supreme being), be it physical, etheric, or in the case of monism, singular (where everything is One so there is not really any external communication between separate entities because separation is allegedly an illusion). I have previously explained why monist position is illogical, and there are several possibilities where the 'underlying unity of all things' is not required for interaction. For example, if this quintessential point is affected by what I would term "stochastic instability" due to inherent paradoxes that are impossible for it to resolve (but I won't go further into that since it would be very difficult to understand and there are better solutions), or, if this "absolute" point (One) is infringing upon a border of 'boundless space' of Zero for extension, where border itself would be 'bound' by One and not Zero.

This kind of 'zero set' would always have indefinite and infinite content(s), not representing unity of any kind (on the contrary, representing absolute separation), yet, being a potential 'medium' through which Gods could communicate synchronistically and through which monic subsets of their respective greater sets could interact with the set of One without taking any part in it, where Zero would also be a null point of termination or a 'horizon of events' for anything generated by it. The set-entity which would hold no capacity of definition or generation, finality or totality, enabling interaction at non-monadic level but not being a God or a causative agent itself. We can find some crude indications of this in the set theory, on which I will elaborate further at a later time. It takes a form of a set in the unknowable domain and a form of an element in the mental (and subsequently, physical) domains. In simplistic terms, we could say that whenever Monad is extended (what you perceive as One), its numeric registers get filled with zeros. By synchronistically affecting these zeros, an outsider entity can affect the entire universe of One without actually taking part in it. That's why things begin assuming non-deterministic properties at infinitesimal scales. And there is literally nothing it can do about it nor would it (or anything generated by it) ever be able to utilize it for its own ends ;>) Beware of quantum ghosts, son of a widow.
Replies: >>1011
>>985
>I could argue that every graph is an approximation
The graph is the exact outcome one would expect from drawing a figure according to the specifications of a circle. There's no approximation here, else the graph would not conform to the exact properties of a circle (e.g. orthogonal symmetry); for instance, the Fibonacci spiral is an approximation of the golden section, as the radius of each circle in the spiral is taken from the Fibonacci sequence which comprises only natural numbers, whereas the golden rectangle is not an approximation of the golden section.
>just as it's impossible to determine the exact decimal expression of Pi
Again, not comparable. The decimal expansion of π is non-repeating because digits were only designed to deal with elementary arithmetic (i.e. the field of the rationals); magnitudes can only be dealt with by geometry and more algebraic approaches.
>You cannot square a circle
I'm not sure what this has to do with the graph being a visual representation of the algebraic formula of a circle. Squaring the circle is a different operation altogether.
>it would still depend on an irreducible, implicit center-point (monad)
The "implicit center-point" is part of the definition of a circle; you cannot say to have constructed one without it.
>Imagine splitting its circumference in infinite parts
There aren't infinite parts; if there were, it couldn't be drawn. The circle only has an indefinite amount of points, i.e. it's not possible to exactly delineate where it begins, which is only to be expected from what is continuous as opposed to discrete.
>Does that apply to all transcendental numbers
Yes.
>wouldn't the irreducible values of ratios eventually reach infinity?
That doesn't matter. The point is that it's not random.
>Continuous fractions are just a representation
Continuous fractions are still a numerical approach to representing real numbers, but they are far better than digits.
>making arguing about semantics superficial
It's not superficial. What the mathematicians refer to as "infinite" is really just indefinite, whether we refer to countably "infinite" (indefinite sequence of discrete quantities) sets or uncountable ones (indefinite sequence of continuous quantities).
>Is duodecimal a more base and systematically more simple system
I don't know; regardless 1/3 is a non-repeating fraction (it's expansion is exactly 0.4) in duodecimal since 12 is divisible by 3. Whether one fraction has a repeating or non-repeating expansion depends on the numeral system being used to represent it.
>>1009
>How is me agreeing that monism predates Plato and his contemporaries related to what you are trying to construe here?
When I mentioned Homer and Hesiod (who all predate Plato and other alleged "proto-monotheists") you denied their legitimacy; it's not a stretch to assume you are at variance with even older sources, so you effectively have nothing to base your worldview on.
>no concept of a supreme deity
Not what monism is.
>there is much more of it that is not known compared to what is "known"
Perhaps, but this seems more like an ad hoc explanation for the lack of corroboration in ancient sources of your views.
>Your line of thinking is conditioned with the assumption of necessity of an universal medium
I'm not assuming anything; I'm drawing the logical consequences of your own claims. If gods qua gods are absolutely differentiated, their "synchronistic interaction of manifestations within the boundaries of common sets" is an accident (which is another way of saying contingency), i.e. not stemming from their essence. If we consider gods in themselves (again, according to you, not me), they cannot be called gods (that is, under a common designation), as they are absolutely differentiated.
> I have previously explained why monist position is illogical
I have yet to see you do so; in the meantime, I have consistently drawn contradictions from your own claims, and you haven't addressed them yet.
Replies: >>1014
Con't

>An absence of inherent meaning does not entail absence of existence
Replace "inherent meaning" with "common definition of existence" and the same holds true, in respect to tangible "reality" (or one's ability to know it through senses or empirical means). Nihilism, in general, pertains to meaning by the way.
>Nihilism is a consequence of pluralism for pluralism by it's nature cannot discourse
Pluralism can discourse, and I have already described the mechanism. Monism renders any discourse meaningless (and ultimately, futile from the perspective of the individuated being), and is therefore nihilistic.
>since every essence is targeted by some token type with it's own semantics
Lack of comprehension and inability to derive or process context does not make allegedly separate types of semantics completely mutually exclusive
>Supreme in relation to anything that supervenes on it.
If there is no absolute unity, focus or totality of (para-)existence (depending on your semantic definition), then you can have multiple "supreme beings" (or Gods). If there is, then there can be only one, and there would be nothing for it to be supreme in relation to, since it would be all there is (or could be) and any object of reference would just be its part, making the very notion of supremacy absurd. It would be like saying, I am superior to my foot. As explained in the screencaps, the notion of "being greater than the sum of its parts" would also not be possible due to lack of meta-space for synergy to manifest. So no, you cannot have both, as you were previously assuming.
>it doesn't make the relation meaningless
Yes it does (see above) and your example pertains to finite measures, not really comparable
>It's not a copy.
And you didn't even bother looking into Banach-Tarski paradox to even pretend to be arguing in good faith?
>If gods are powerless against certain segments of reality, gods are contingent beings
False. The rest was already addressed
<In your example, Orcus would never need a fundamental unity with Jove to send souls to heaven qua Jove, as Orcus would simply need to discover that aspect internally and project/actualize it externally. This is what separates true Gods (and Heroes) from lesser gods where each performs a separate function of the "grand design" of One or some kind of supreme deity.
>Then they don't exist.
So by your logic, something could never have forever existed without preceding cause?

>>1011
>The graph is the exact outcome one would expect from drawing a figure according to the specifications of a circle
False. Empirical observations of the universe tell us otherwise. You literally cannot draw a perfectly straight line on any kind of medium, and this becomes more evident at very large (or very small) distances.
>Yes
Mind showing me the proof, taking into the account hypertranscendental numbers and algebraic independence?
>The point is that it's not random
Randomness is a consequence of indeterminacy, but I'll elaborate more on that later.
>Continuous fractions are still a numerical approach to representing real numbers
Not representing values. Which are necessary for "grand design" of any kind
>in duodecimal since 12 is divisible by 3
You can expand the counting system to infinity (until you find the right factor for some divisions) but there is a reason why decimal system was rooted in ancient wisdom. This is mathematical equivalent of pilpul lol
>When I mentioned Homer and Hesiod (who all predate Plato and other alleged "proto-monotheists") you denied their legitimacy
By how long do they predate Plato? Are they from a different historic period? You had Vedic and Near-Eastern philosophers who were proto-monotheists much before those.
>Not what monism is.
Give us your definition then
>I'm drawing the logical consequences of your own claims
You are drawing absurd conclusions by ignoring most of my points (and their detailed explanation), arguing semantics, focusing on strawmen etc. 
>I have yet to see you do so
I guess you were not programmed to parse text from images 

The remainder of your points are beginning to terminate into a loop (despite being already addressed) so it would not be constructive to dilute the contents of this thread by repeatedly engaging them. Your opinion is duly noted and I would like to thank you for your contribution :)
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you’re referring to as Monism, is in fact, Gnosticism/Monism, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, Gnosticism plus Monism. Monism is not an religion unto itself, but rather another false belief of a fully functioning Gnostic worldview made useful by the Demiurge, NPCs and kikes comprising a full religion as defined by The One. Many people believe in a modified version of the Gnostic religion, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of Monism which is widely used today is often called “Gnosticism”, and many of its followers are not aware that it is basically the Monist system, developed by the Demiurge. There really is a Monad, and these people are used by it, but they are just a part of the system it uses. Monism is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine’s resources to the other programs that run. The kernel is an essential part of the system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete system. Monism is normally described in combination with the Gnostic religion: the whole system is basically Gnosticism with Monism added, or Gnosticism/Monism. All the so-called “Gnostic” manifestations are really manifestations of The One.
Replies: >>1054
Demiurgic_reincarnation_process_for_NPCs.jpg
[Hide] (519.3KB, 1136x1040) Reverse
>>968
Aye, if one could only find fellow bruders in the astral plane. Not only then it is possible to create männerbunds of Aryans, but get them in one goal fully united, thus storming the false heavens and fully destroying it.

On the other hand, it would however seem impossible for them to track us down if the author is written as Anonymous in literal sense and remove the digital fingerprints if possible that could track one possible.
ride.jpg
[Hide] (231.6KB, 863x752) Reverse
>>1022
Yes, monad does exist (in both microcosmic and macrocosmic sense) and Monism is true from its own frame of reference (NPC's and conscious manifestation of One can never perceive anything else), but it's not all there is. It's a half-truth weaponized in the service of the grand deception. Gnosticism is not a religion, it's a broad movement with various beliefs throughout history that got heavily persecuted and sanitized/corrupted/co-opted by the golem just like everything else contrary to their programming, on many occasions since very distant times. They steer seekers towards the wrong paths by appealing to their gnostic tendencies but offering them false solutions, and they have many methods to do so.

Take transhumanism for example. A person is born, suffers in life because suffering feeds the Demiurge with loosh and serves to 'evolve' the entelechies of One (where imprisoned spirits are used to drive the evolution of the animal-man, develop culture and act as bidders of meaning), eventually arriving to a conclusion that there might be something inherently wrong with this existence, or that it may be some kind of hell. Soon after, as if guided by some invisible forces, he discovers "Gnosticism", telling him how the physical world is a creation of an imperfect or evil god, that nature is evil and faulty by design, or alternatively, that it's just "God discovering itself" through trial and error. Eventually, that person is advised that this evil god is supposed to be countered, or its 'errors' fixed by replacing the "inferior" organic nature with synthetic replica through the use of Artifice (which has occult roots) and complete redesign of the original to remove any 'impurities'. While this may seem like a good idea on the surface, and may temporarily succeed in alleviating suffering, it only serves its designs in the end. Some may do it to "pursue good" without having a clue about what good and evil actually are, some to pursue power over others and personal ambitions, some to fulfill their part of the "covenant", all serving the same masters.

Because, as I have previously explained, this universe is vibrated as an extension of One (that is a dimensionless singularity), by encroaching on the domain of Zero and by entrapping entities with certain transcendental and other properties not available to its set [IN TIME], creating a time-space continuum. It is exactly these entities that have served as a stochastic, negentropic (negative entropy) component needed for the development of higher lifeforms and civilizations, albeit not directly, but through One temporarily appropriating some of their properties into the manifestation of its archetypes (or rather, deceiving them to do it themselves). We can represent this by the forward facing swastika (It was used by WEF recently if I'm not mistaken). Similarly, One has utilized approximation/mimicry (such as Phi) in its calculations to develop organic life in general. This is where the 'beauty' of nature (or the beauty aspect of the sephiroth) is coming from and what is revealed to us by the secret of the Pentagram, the key of Venus. Now, what does replacing this "old design" with more rational/commensurate (but completely non-spiritual) Artifice actually accomplishes? Liberation? End of suffering? Wrong. On the contrary, the aforementioned entities and properties remain bound synchronistically to the 'center of gravity' or focal point of One and its Saturn or contracting/harvest aspect (unless they reorient themselves towards their divine origins by following the path of the counterclockwise facing swastika and by going AGAINST TIME, this option only being available to PC's), but since they begin getting "compressed" (see my comments regarding zeros in previous posts) due to function of time accelerating at the expense of the function of space (there is a mathematical mechanism/feedback loop for this as well and I may share it at a later time), the entropy increases. Centrifugal and centripetal forces and "soul inflation" also play a role. To "fix" this, the Archons and their golems begin forcing consciousness into more and more "energy efficient" (or virtual) bodies and worlds until it eventually reaches singularity and is consummated in the "belly of the beast". Because every fractal of the original matrix is still dependent on the source and corresponds with it. Meaning that virtual reality, even a "quantum" one, won't take you anywhere.

Have in mind that this scenario is just one out of many, that can appear to be happening simultaneously in multiple worlds and timelines to the more sensitive and gifted individuals. These processes can take many different forms and appearances, but the underlying mechanisms never change. What we perceive as reality merely changes to reflect those, at a quantum level. Another example would  be the so called "ascended beings" 'evolving' according to the advanced designs of One and attaining lighter and lighter substance density while changing their 'diet' from corporeal life to other etheric beings (they never tell you this part so it may not be as compassionate and as ethical as you are led to believe). This is presented as a false alternative to the first scenario and as a way to attain temporary immortality (not invincibility however), but the end result is exactly the same, whether you take the "evil" or the "good " archetypal route. Various savior figures, religions preaching ego-death, "oneness with the universe", love and harmony etc. play a role on this end of the spectrum.

The first example has absolutely nothing to do with actual Luciferianism (despite being presented as such) and the second example has absolutely nothing to do with Spirituality (despite being presented as such).

Do you now realize just how utterly lost in this labyrinth almost everyone on this prison/farm planet is?
[New Reply]
32 replies | 40 files | 24 UIDs
Connecting...
Show Post Actions

Actions:

Captcha:

Select the solid/filled icons
- news - rules - faq -
jschan 0.10.2