The Fermi Paradox (Aliens!)

The Fermi Paradox is not a paradox at all. We will see in this article why it is perfectly plausible that alien life exists elsewhere in the Universe and why aliens have never (and likely will never) come to our planet. In order to understand this, we must examine 2 ideas: the requisite conditions for life and the maximum efficacy of engines.

The Requisite Conditions for Life

All you need for life to be unavoidable is surface water and a satellite large enough to bind this water to the surface and sufficient proximity to the nearest star to liquefy the water. Together, these ingredients create a heat vortex on the surface of the planet which eventually gives rise to life, simply because any system tends to equilibrium and the equilibrial state is the one where the rate of change of the system is zero. That means the system will spontaneously reconfigure to be able to keep the system at a more stable temperature, which means that solar energy has nowhere to go but chemical bonds. Chemical bonds gradually become more complex until a self-replicating organism (such as RNA / DNA) self-assembles, at which point life is permanently seeded.

Read More Here:

Could Aliens Come Here?

Humans are the most intelligent species on Earth. In a Universe of 14 energetic dimensions, humans can construct ideas which are up to 11 dimensions in size. This suggests that as an organism, we are nearing the universal limit of intellectual capacity. Thus if aliens are smarter than us, they would have brains that could generate objects which were up to 14 dimensions in size: the universal limit.

Indeed, life, wherever it arises, will be limited by the Measurement Limit. Advanced consciousness happens only in more complex life, because the consciousness is a subset of the total electric field of the body, which itself is generated by the total caloric intake.  Thus those beings capable of manifesting the consciousness required to create a spaceship capable of interstellar travel would have to have a high caloric requirement.

This presents a problem for continued survival aboard a spaceship because of the high mass of the food that would need to be brought along for the trip. Even Saturn, which is very close to us, relatively speaking (it is in our Solar System) is 1 400 000 000 kilometres away. The fastest land craft ever created was able to travel at 1227 km/h. At this speed, it would take 1140994 hours or 130 years to reach Saturn. The fastest rocket would get you there at 75639 km/h in about 2.11 years. Even this is hardly a small feat, because we would need to bring aboard enough food to feed the astronauts for all this time. If you just went there and came right back, it would still take over 4 years! How are you going to fit all that food / fuel onto the ship!?

We already know that there is no complex life elsewhere in the Solar System, and we also know that the next closest Solar System: Proxima Centauri is 4.22 light years away. The fastest human-made rocket would only get there in 60 253 years! We cannot even guarantee that the Earth biomass can create the amount of food required for such a journey.

In fact, we cannot even guarantee humans will persist on Earth another 60 000 years!

These facts may seem inconsequential to the reality of aliens, but we must recall that these hypothetical aliens are still bound by the same causality laws that we are. That means that they would have to travel all the way to our Solar System to be able to physically land on Earth. We can see based on the math above that this scenario is implausible.

But Muh Superior Alien Technology!

Aliens would still be subject to the laws of the Universe. They would not be able to build an engine which is more efficient than a Carnot engine, which can be proven to be the most efficient engine using Entropy alone. These aliens would face the same issues with keeping their biomass alive in space as we would. In fact, if they were indeed intellectually superior, their caloric demands would be even higher than ours!

The Hypothesis of Greatest Probability

In our religion, we examine all possibilities and then evaluate the explanation of highest probability. This is similar to the idea of Occam’s razor: if a simpler explanation exists, we favour it. If no evidence supports an hypothesis, we reject it. If those purveyors of an indirectly validated hypothesis are not credible, we also reject it.

The hypothesis of greatest likelihood is that there are indeed U.F.O.’s but that these are human technology or meteors. Any “abductions” are either attention-seeking fantasies or they are done by humans. Aliens are not physically present on Earth because of interstellar distances which are insurmountable to complex living organisms. Given the size of the Universe however, we can be pretty much guaranteed that life will arise somewhere. Namely: anywhere where a sufficient body of water is gravitationally bound to a planet by a satellite at a sufficient proximity to liquefy at least some of the water. Note that life arose at approximately the same time as the planet did (some 4 Billion years ago), and so it doesn’t take long for life to arise once the proper ingredients are there. How complex life is on any given planet depends on how much time (and therefore how much solar energy has been absorbed by the biome) has passed since the planet was created. Note that planets are created by Stars and Stars are created by Neutron Stars, as evidenced here.

Thank you.


Debate Strategy I

I just listened to a recent debate between JF Gariepy and a Christian who sounded like his diet consisted exclusively of soy shakes. I am very much enjoying J.F.’s contribution to the intellectual culture on the “pooblic spayce”.

There is a shortage of good role models out there for young people and J.F. has a talent for conveying complex concepts in a manner which is both engaging and entertaining to the listener.

I am writing this now to help people understand a bit more of the context of what they are undertaking. I have already established that the Theocratic Dictatorship is the structure of all natural organisms, transcending individuality and culture so we will take that as a given and explore the current goings-on in that framework.

slave master computer hard drive
Even this plug has a Master/Slave Dictatorship

The Internet, pre-GamerGate

The Internet was very “ghettoised” in this era. Unbeknownst to the general public, several talking heads on Youtube collaborated behind the scenes to establish a cogent sociopolitical narrative. They all focused on the same themes and ignored the same things. This is a means to control public opinion. Thus these “Youtube Atheists” fulfilled the same function as theocratic dictators, and so comprise the cult of Atheism (i.e.: Atheism is Unstoppable, The Atheist Experience, The Thinking Atheist). In this cult, any beliefs deriving from religion (mostly from Abrahamic cults) is endlessly derided. Thus the public opinion was largely that Atheism was the logical or “proper” position.

Gamer Gate

The phenomenon of Gamer Gate had the effect of radicalising fence-sitters because the manufacturing of narratives (of “sexism” by the “social justice” cult) hit home for them. They watched a resistance movement form online and be gradually undermined by what has become the “Liberalist” cult (led by SarGandhi) who first claimed to promote “ethics in video game journalism” but ended up mainly making videos mocking SJW antics. This caused a rapid increase in cynicism in the “silent majority” of the Internet (lurkers) and further radicalisation.

Poking the Bear & the Dawn of Internet Blood Sports

Since the SJW cult needs a constant supply of “gnat-sees’s” lives to ruin in order to continue to fuel the narrative that they have the moral high ground, further radicalisation was inevitable. It all came to a head when a popular Youtuber called Kraut and Tea deleted his channel after being ritually humiliated on numerous J.F. Gariepy livestreams and the server he was using to dox dissenters was leaked.

Up to that point, the influence of Liberalism and Social Justice was decidedly waning, owing to constant trolling by Alt Right and 4chan activists. Youtubers increasingly engaged in livestream “bumfights”, reaching for personal insults as frequently as actual arguments in their quest for debate dominance.

So-called “Internet Blood Sports”, a trend that has caught on following the “sacrifice” of Kraut and Tea, involve a rivalry between one or more people being settled in an informal debate-style argument on a Youtube livestream. The atheist Gariepy has thus set himself up as a theocratic dictator: bestowing judgement and prestige upon his subjects.

Next Steps – Analysis of Arguments

It’s important to remember that just because one debater is wrong does not necessarily mean that the other is right. A debate between a Christian and an Atheist about Government is frustrating because both debaters are wrong. However, we can still critique the overall debate and gain wisdom from this.

On Christian Nationalism

The Christian soyboy arrogantly claimed that Europe owes its ‘scientific advancements’ to Christianity. Many anecdotal instances are cited, such as “but so-and-so was a Christian” even though anyone who didn’t submit to Christianity would have been killed in those days (something that would come back if modern day Christians got their way and instituted a theocratic dictatorship, they’d be bound to slay “heathens” by their law). Another idiotic claim is that since a Catholic Priest came up with the idea of the Big Bang, that this means Christianity is validated by science.

big bang einstein catholic priest.jpg
do you trust these greaseballs? I don’t.

In fact, what is more likely is that the Big Bang was promoted in order to stunt people’s understanding of the Universe. The result of presuming the Bible to be true and trying to fit your worldview to that, rather than fitting your worldview to the facts, is always going to be psychotic cultural appropriation. This Christian debater claimed that Christianity originated science, when all evidence proves that Christianity took us away from science, away from our ancestral religion and away from nature.

priest cuts down sacred pagan tree
this is psychotic

The story of Christianity in Europe is a bit like that of Macbeth’s wife in the Shakespeare play of the same name. She cannot stop seeing blood on her hands and begins to wash them obsessively. Christians cannot tolerate the guilt of having slaughtered their pagan brothers, so they constantly wash their hands (so to speak): obsessing over physical cleanliness (i.e.: calling Indians “street shitters”) in an attempt to wash away their spiritual decay. Just like with Lady Macbeth, it never works, because the stain is on your soul. You must look inward to heal, not seek justification for your continued ignorance in superficial propaganda and empty ideologies.

Christians must engage in cultural appropriation in order to justify the violence their ancestors committed in the name of their religion. Perhaps, if Christianity originated science, then it was worth killing all those priests, intellectuals, philosophers and artists? This is not a fruitful path. Without accepting the truth, it won’t be possible to heal from the generations of harm that these cults have caused.

On the Argument that Non-Christians did not Practice Science

This argument is patently false. The knowledge basis of native religions was the Aryan Vedic religion, from which all knowledge originates. My body of work is the proof of this, because I was not able to achieve the Knowledge without guidance from this very body of Knowledge.

8 periodic tables
my religion can beat up your religion.

It is very insulting to lie about the origin of Knowledge. It is much better to modestly pray for guidance as to the deeper truths in the Universe. They will come to you only when your heart is open to receiving them.

On the Argument that Religion is Justified by Fecundity

I understand that some people are in an existential panic about the survival of their race, but more babies is not the solution. In fact, more than 2-3 children per couple is a violation of the r-K selection ideal and thus one cannot claim to support the scientifically validated r-K selection model AND also argue for eugenics to increase fecundity past replacement rate. K-selected civilisation is advanced because it can survive at the carrying capacity. This means no garbage nor toxic waste can be created, no unwanted children can be born and no unnatural (plant and livestock) farming processes can take place. In other words, the White Westerners who argue in favour of r-K selection theory are themselves behaving like r-selected idiots (consuming everything in sight and acting like their actions have no consequences).

A false religion does NOT improve the quality of society, even if it increases fecundity. Those who are born will be traumatised by the false religion and thus suffering will increase. We are not immune to the suffering of others and so this is an unwanted path. What we want is people being born into a society that can nurture them. We want people to be able to find their true path in life and follow it diligently. This goal is not aided by infinity reincarnation deniers who wish to infight about which of the million Christian cults is the correct one.

Atheism is Good

It is also true that a society without a state religion will fail. This is because the highest Entropy state of any social group is a Theocratic Dictatorship. Thus to deny the existence of a theocratic dictatorship is to deny the very nature of all systems of governance. Even in the modern day, cults dominate democracies, albeit in secret. Thus, as a social movement, atheism is always going to denigrate culture, because at its core, it is denigrating government, namely any authority of priests (the rightful leaders of government).

im offended the amazing atheist
unless you count this as culture

Thus a state religion is required, but a false religion is always going to cause atheism. If you want to get rid of atheism, you have to get rid of the cause of atheism. The cause of atheism is a failure of religion to explain universal phenomena. That is why I suggest my science religion be instituted as the global dictatorship. I already have a scientific framework which can answer all questions about causality.

Democracy is Good

There is absolutely no argument to defend democracy. It is mob rule with the most degenerate cult leaders one can imagine. If you want proof of that, just look anywhere.

Literally, anything anywhere proves this hypothesis.

Theocratic Monarchism is Good

Monarchs were defeated by communists in the 19-20th centuries. They were defeated because they were weakened by false religion and decadence. A theocratic monarch is a nice idea, but frankly, no one is qualified for this role. All humans are weak to the appeal of materialism and egotistical gratification. Even my own Priest fold is not immune from the desires of ego. However, when a priest collective exists, it dis-incentivises egomania. That’s because we are all in a competition (of sorts) in the domain of religion. That means we all aspire to move beyond the confines of that which causes us suffering. But because we do not all have perfected consciousness, we cannot always know what causes us suffering. Thus we rely on the Priest collective to check our spiritual blind spots.

Thank you

Is Physics Subverted?

The challenge of finding a perfect theory of material physics is that you must first transcend material reality. If you want to transcend the nature of reality, you must make an intellectual inquiry. Since all inquiry is framed through the lens of one’s own ideology, how can we ever hope to understand what is going on outside of that?

We first start to understand things by imposing a model on them. Over time, we retain the models which make predictions and (hopefully) discard those which do not. Even language is a model: sounds are used to convey the nature of the human experience. The prediction of this model is that it is indeed possible to convey this experience.

How Physics Models Reality

Even if the mechanism we use to understand reality makes verifiable predictions, we cannot be guaranteed that it is objectively true. We will see below that two systems with extremely different structures still make a majority of convergent predictions.

Theoretically, physics is the practice of designing and fine-tuning a physical model satisfying the following criteria:

  • The model makes all predictions.
  • The model is minimally complex.

This is my definition of a complete physical model. Taking this definition as correct, we can use these requirements to evaluate the Standard Model as well as contrast it with my own Fourfold Action Model.

How Ideology is Formed

Often, people are quick to reject the idea that theocracy is natural, instead appealing to some other system. However, if we accept (take it on board as an hypothesis) that all forms of governance are computationally equivalent to theocratic dictatorships, we can start to predict who the associated “cult leaders” are. Thus, the hypothesis that the spontaneous state of government is a theocratic dictatorship makes verifiable predictions. These predictions further elucidate the nature of government, creating additional knowledge.

sargon evolution
i.e.: Sar-Gandhi’s Liberalist Cult isn’t working out too well.

Generally a theocratic dictatorship has a leader. The leader may have several associates and delegates and beyond them there is a larger, more superficial following. Anyone else is considered outside of the cult. This shape (of a cult) is manifold, and so we can observe it on all levels of human interaction. For example, a small group of 3 people will have a “leader”, even if no one explicitly agrees to it. Even on the individual level, there are two “cults” vying for control of the mind: the wolf and the monk. The wolf craves hot blood gushing into his mouth from a fresh kill and the monk desires to move beyond the prison of existential angst. Two rival cults, with different natures, perpetually vying for control of the biomass is a transcendent meme: which means it is true on all levels of magnification.

Modern Cults

Cults rooted in communist ideology share a similar pattern. There is always a single leader whose opinion is vociferously defended to the point of being unquestionable. As such, the cult of modern physics has led to a great number of uneducated folks endlessly quoting one-liners as anecdotal evidence of their condescending assertions. For example:

  • Gödel’s Theorem (somehow) proving the Christian God (lol wut?)
  • Karl Popper’s assertion about unfalsifiability somehow meaning that unfalsifiable posits are unscientific.
  • Evolution being unquestionable, even though it is technically an unfalsifiable hypothesis!
popper meme fraud

It is quite ironic that every possible means is employed to justify that no theory can ever be proven with certainty (because all scientific theories must be falsifiable) while certain models are completely unquestionable within the “peer review community”, making them de facto unfalsifiable! But self-consistency is not the goal for these people, the goal is power.

Was Einstein a Fraud?

The question of the legitimacy of various scientific theories was of interest during the third reich (see here). After WW2, Einstein was promoted as the sole leader of the Physics cult and his theoretical framework was elevated to the status of Godhood.

There is absolutely no question that the political affiliation of Einstein was zionist and there is no question that he did not originate the majority of what is attributed to him in the modern day.

What is less clear is the extent to which unseen forces played a role in the creation of the modern day narrative of physics. While it may be impossible to know the precise causality, we can nonetheless compare the principal tenets of the mainstream narrative of physics with that which can be demonstrated in my scientific formalism, which is demonstrably better, because it is both simpler (less complex) and makes more predictions.

really cool predictions

The Standard Model

The Standard Model holds the following tenets:

  • Matter is fundamentally comprised of 17 (?) particles (see chart below).
lol wut
  • All accelerated reference frames are equivalent (General Relativity).
  • Charge-Parity-Time Symmetry is true (if the charge, parity and time of a system is reversed, then the new system will be symmetrical (possessing the same physical properties).
  • The speed of light is constant, for a constant medium (Special Relativity).
  • All forces are mediated by fundamental particles which travel at the speed of light (see: Feynmann diagrams).
  • The observable Universe came from a singularity: the Big Bang, which happened some 13 Billion years ago and at which point the laws of physics didn’t apply (bc “reasons”) and from which the entire observable Universe originated.
  • Chaos is fundamental, order is imposed.
  • Singularities are true.

What predictions does this formalism make?

  • Gravitational Lensing (light bending under the influence of gravity).
  • Unlimited flavours of fundamental particles (hence: CERN).
  • No limit to the number of elements on the Periodic Table.
  • Stellar and Planetary “accretion” (space gas magically self-assembling into planets and stars. because reasons).
  • GR-derived GPS calibration of satellites to correct for the force of gravity being lower in orbit.
  • Universal Background Radiation (supposedly, but not really*).

The Fourfold Action Model holds the following tenets:

  • {neutrons, protons, electrons, photons} exist.
  • The Measurement Limit is true for fermions (predicts the Periodic Table / Chemical Reactivity / 118 Elements in the Periodic Table).
  • Matter is fundamentally composed of waves.
  • Special Relativity is true.
  • Gravity acts instantaneously at a distance on all waveforms attractively (predicts gravitational lensing & gravity effects).
  • Uncertainty governs all instances of the transmutation of matter (predicts Nuclear Reactivity).
  • Electricity governs all other energy potentials.
  • Entropy acts upon every system (dt => dS).
  • Order underlies all chaos.
  • The Universe is uncreated.
  • Planets are created by Stars, which are created by Neutron Stars (before you start crying, it’s been demonstrated).
  • Singularities are false.

This model makes all predictions (meaning its constituents can be used to describe any physical system).

These are basically polar opposite theories. These results support the hypothesis that physics is indeed subverted for the goal of preventing people from understanding how the Universe actually works.

If people are truly science-minded and not ideology-bound, they should seek to understand my scientific system and abandon the false one. The Standard Model devotees endlessly promote that “little is known”, “we don’t know everything” and even “we can’t know everything”. It is very nihilistic and causes a loss of knowledge because people cannot coherently observe that which they do not believe in. My world view promotes that it is possible to garner information from a system, that this information can be optimised and that the only limit on measurement are the 3+1 dimensions of spacetime.

At this point, whether physics was subverted or just unfortunate is not really relevant. Because now we can all enjoy the quantum mechanical periodic table together:

8 periodic tables.jpg
Quantum Mechanical Periodic Table, Artistic Impressions

I really like that meme. The Standard Model does not have that meme.

eating einstein
Come over to the dank side.

Ideological Differences Between Physical Models

How, if the observations of material reality are the same, can these models be SO different. The reason is that the Standard Model is fundamentally wrong. However, because its (fundamentally wrong) assertion that there can be any time symmetry is approximately true on the microscale and thus results can be produced that appear to validate this hypothesis. Let’s find out why:

In my system, we accept that time travels in a unique direction. That is the direction of increasing Entropy. Our formalism summarises this in the following expression:

dt => dS

Which means that for every infinitesimal (smallest nonzero) increment of time, there will be a corresponding infinitesimal increase in Entropy. Outside of Standard Model particle physics, this is not even a controversial statement. Thermodynamics, which expounds the laws of heat transfer, explicitly teaches the so called “arrow of time” (time can only go forward, not back). Yet the SM teaches that if we reverse charge-parity-time, then we will end up with identical physical systems. This is false.

The truth is that Entropy always increases and it does so in a manner which is strictly not symmetric. However, on very small time scales, the increase in Entropy will be correspondingly small. Thus proponents of the Standard Model are able to generate experimental results which appear to have CPT symmetry because the time interval over which they are measured is so small that the increase in Entropy is not detectable.

we're all spacetime events
don’t make me have to meme on you.

Belief in the Standard Model ideology undermines one’s understanding of nature. Everything originates from the Zero Point Waveform. If you don’t believe that this waveform exists, then you won’t be able to perceive it. Belief in existence is a necessary condition for understanding and assimilating the Zero Point Energy Knowledge.

*Because the Big Bang is a singularity and singularities are regions where the laws of physics break down, they make all predictions (both true and false) and thus are tautological.




The Alien Dictatorship

A Bit of My History

When I was younger, I had complex visualisations of magnanimous proportions. I saw a distant object made of light populated with an advanced civilisation of priests and warriors. All the entities living in this light world worked together to hold together its structure: all together they projected it. In my fantasies, they came to Earth to bring me into their light-ship and teach me their mystic Knowledge. When they arrived, they turned on a machine that made time stand still. They could then separate me from the rest of humanity in the time vortex and impart their sacred teachings.

de wey jesus meme
pic not related

They had many things to teach me, most importantly was that we were under attack from a nefarious alien spaceship. As a protective measure, the entities from the light ship selected the genetics of certain humans to be born with special abilities, imbuing their DNA with rich light. But the evil aliens managed to poison the DNA, which diminished the capacity of most of the gifted children. The light-ship beings explained this to me and tasked me with the duty of defending the planet from this threat.

As I grew older, I assumed my visions were whimsical childish flights of fancy. However, in recent times, I am not so sure anymore. I am starting to think that this information was metaphorical wisdom conveyed to me by light-beings (in a manner a child would understand). I think the warning about genetics getting poisoned is about vaccines. These have a far deeper impact on well-being than most people realise. Moreover, we are literally under attack by a foreign people who seek to poison our bodies and our minds.

benshapiro evil
cue Darth Vader music

On the Existence of Light Realm Conscious Entities

Many people wish to deny the existence of conscious entities in the light realm. People sometimes even go so far as to deny that the mind is a quantum computer (which is of the light realm), in spite of all the evidence supporting this hypothesis! However, all advanced aspirants accept that  consciousness endures between lives. This is because as one progresses spiritually, one’s consciousness becomes stilled to the point that memories of previous lives are not lost upon rebirth.

The conscious entities of the light realm are simply the consciousness of people who are not alive at this time. Just as you can gradually learn to hold your breath longer and longer, so too can ascended masters learn to avoid taking birth again, but still retain consciousness between lives. Since this consciousness is now outside of the domain of the living, it does not change with time like the human consciousness does. Remember, the living body is what changes the consciousness. It changes the consciousness by sending stimuli (received from the environment) to the mind which is then modified by these stimuli. These modifications range from thoughts and feelings to perceptions and imagination. [*The mind also modifies the body, but it does so over a different time scale. As this subject is vastly more complicated, we will leave that discussion to another day]. Non-living conscious entities do not undergo such modulations, unless of course, they manage to interact with living consciousness. They can then piggyback on living consciousness, modifying it to emulate their state. This is an uncommon occurrence and so these conscious entities are largely unchanging.

The Grand Canonical Transform

I was recently reminded of the light-ship machine that made time stand still. As narratives converge, people are noticing their sense of time is different. Often, a month feels like a year, simply because so much has happened. Rather than focusing on the passage of linear time, people are focusing on structures (religion, ideology, science, society, politics) and narratives (summaries (“stories”) of longer time intervals): both of which are of the Information domain. There are two aspects of reality: the domain of {space,time} (manifest) and {Entropy, Information} (unmanifest). In my science religion, we learn the mathematical formulas to transform between these respective domains.

jupiter high res image
Mathematics is the language of nature

We are physical beings experiencing a consciousness which is quantum mechanical. This conscious waveform can experience all facets of reality, but the unmanifest attributes are significantly harder to perceive. Everyone can perceive space and time, and some people (special people) can perceive Entropy and Information. Entropy is the degree of disorder in a system and information is the consolidation of individual data (stimuli) into well-defined archetypal structures (read more here) such as words, ideas, visualisations, concepts, algorithms and knowledge. My science religion teaches people to maximise the amount of information they can extract from mental processes by employing the mental process of lowest Entropy: ordered thinking means the mind can expend less energy thinking (because it is not devoting any energy to simulating falsity or redundancy).

So-called “memes” are images which convey meaning. The meaning itself can be intellectual, emotional or both. By promoting ideas (of the Information realm), the consciousness is redirected from the realm of time and space (what is called “mundane”). The loss of ignorance promulgated by Internet culture has brought people from a mundane and materialistic life to a light realm of ideas and knowledge. Time appears to slow down as we all bring our focus together to the task of forging a better tomorrow.


blue sun outer space

Thank you



The Fallacy of Individualism

Is there such a thing as an individual?

Collective identities are archetype systems. For example, Marxism stratifies society along materialistic lines: proletariat & bourgeoisie. The collective identity of Christianity idealises the personality of Jesus, evoking self-sacrifice, patience and generosity in its followers. While they are not always aware of this motivation, members of a collective strive towards the ideal of their archetype system. While we all exist as individual conscious entities, an individual has no distinctiveness without a corresponding collective: archetype system.

Can a patient exist without a doctor? Can a student exist without a teacher? The answer is no, and it is because the former requires the latter to even be defined in the first place. A Doctor can exist without a patient, but not without an organisation which bestows upon him the authority to practice. In fact, all but one archetype requires an associated collective. The archetype which does not require a collective is the archetype which creates all others: the God archetype. The God archetype exists whether or not anything else does.

Religion Creates Culture

I think many people will be resistant to this idea, but I ask that you keep an open mind. Remember that the word “culture” derives from cult (a religious organisation) and so it is logical that civilisations spontaneously progress towards a Theocratic Dictatorship.

This simple fact is why the likes of Sargon of Akkad (debate here and “after party” here)  will always reach absurd conclusions when attempting to place the “individual” as the highest ideal. This strategy will fail because it contradicts the fundamental archetype of God. God alone is worthy of worship, not the ego. Individualism is a form of ego worship. Ego worship causes the consciousness to be directed inward. While everyone has an ego, true spiritual practice requires the consciousness to be outwardly directed in order to experience expanded consciousness.

black sun.gif
don’t get your ego caught up your own ass.

“Individualism” is a Selfish and Unnatural Ideology

“Individualism” is nothing more than self-aggrandisement. In fact, it is a cruel ideology because those of inferior intellect need collectivism. While those of superior intellect can “make do” without collectivism, those lacking a fully formed ego require a rigid hierarchy around which to frame their identity (so that they can actualise their archetype, optimise their archetype and ultimately transcend their (and all) sociological archetype(s)). Traditional teachings have always emphasised the importance of optimising ones adherence to their natural archetype.

The Solution to Shitty Collectivism is Optimised Collectivism

All forms of collectivism should be eschewed in favour of Theocratic Dictatorship. This system of government allows for anyone to join the governing class, provided they are considered fit. When a new recruit is brought on board, an existing priest must stake their reputation on their behaviour. If the new recruit commits a bannable offence (the High Priest Collective decides what constitutes a bannable offence), then the honour of the recruiter is diminished and the recruit is shunned. This system may sound harsh to the uninitiated but remains nonetheless the best defence against . To wield power over others, one must be held accountable and to the highest possible standard. People must be dis-incentivised from corruption to the greatest possible extent.

government gugvernment
where’s the lie tho?

Individuals Will Always Fail Against a Unified Collective

With the exception of the God archetype (who can defeat any opposition), individuals tend to fail when going up against collectives. Collectives contain numerous people and their combined brainpower and physical might usually overpower those operating alone or by “muh individualism”.

The MSM has made such a golem out of the Alt-Right that it has become a type of virtue signalling to attempt to criticise, “debunk” and “take down” this “organisation”. This often proves easier said than done.

Screen Shot 2018-01-11 at 10.12.17 AM
No, you didn’t.

The “Personal Freedom / Rights” Fallacy

People don’t usually know what they are talking about when they invoke the “muh rights” argument. This is fallacious. Human rights do exist, but they derive from God, not man. Laws are man-made and can either reflect the Natural Law or (as is the case in the current system) fight it tooth and nail. The problem with “human rights” as ideals is that one person’s positive “right” will necessarily be a violation of someone else’s “right” wherever resources are scarce. This subtlety is often overlooked by those of lower intellect.

The Proper Approach is r-K Selection Theory

r-K selection theory is a good dual (containing 2 elements) pulveriser function to use as a first pass ideology for genetic migration. This means we can continue to infer increasingly more precise measurements at all orders of magnitude from this system. We just have to make sure that we accurately define exactly what is meant by r and K type behaviour. For this, we always return to the original definition: K-type behaviour is near carrying capacity and r-type behaviour is far carrying capacity. Thus this pulveriser will be accurate as long as it is properly parametrised.

If you are interested in this subject, you can learn more here.

It is also a worthwhile endeavour to learn how to derive the logistic differential equation, from which r-K selection theory derives.

Thank you



Anthropic Creationism

A common debate in the atheist / theist sphere concerns our origin. Atheists tend to favour the pop science explanation that the Big Bang singularity is responsible for all that we observe today. Theists frequently believe that a conscious God created the Universe.

If we are honest, neither of these explanations is scientifically valid.

What Happened Then?

First, we have to remember that no truth is independent of the coordinate system which derives it. Though the Universe exists independently of ourselves (and is NOT conscious, unless the term consciousness is defined in an extremely specific manner), our interpretation of that reality depends on the measurement system representing it. In this case the measurement system is our own consciousness. Thus we remind the reader that our own fundamental ideology has one ad hoc presumption (or axiom):

  • There is no effect absent a cause.

Since the Big Bang (and indeed all singularities) are causeless effects, they are excluded from our system. Let’s explore what we can conclusively establish about the physical Universe, which will contextualise the other erroneous hypotheses.

The Universe Cannot Have a Creator

If we define the Universe to be the totality of what has and will ever exist, it cannot have a creator. Let us prove this statement by way of contradiction.

Suppose the Universe has a Creator.
Thus the Creator is separate from the Universe.
Thus the Universe is not the totality of causality, because it does not include its creator.

Thus we have contradicted the definition of the Universe.

Thus the Universe has always existed.

We Are Created

Since we can date the origin of our planet (~4.3 B years ago), there must be some cause which precipitated this effect. The cause of our Solar System is the centre of the Milky Way galaxy. In this region, mass is so dense that it runs out of room (remember, there is a limit to how many fermions can fit into a particular volume by quantum state exclusion).

The Milky Way Galaxy

Since the shape of the Milky Way galaxy is not independent of itself (two armed spiral), we can safely say that all of its constituents share a common origin. Therefore, our Solar System came into existence when its constituent fermions were excluded elsewhere (namely the centre of the Milky Way).

Once we came into existence, and given the initial conditions of our macrostate, life on Earth was inevitable. You can read more about this here and here.

The “Perfect Design” Hypothesis

Several people argue that we must have an intelligent creator because of how fine-tuned physical organisms are. The reasoning here is that there is no way our body systems could have arisen by accident and therefore God created life.

This hypothesis is simply not validated by experience. What is validated by experience is that the Earth-Moon-Sun macrostate increases Entropy (because all systems increase Entropy). Since incoming solar photons are bound to the Earth by the rotation of the Moon (which prevents the water that absorbs them from evaporating away), Earthly structures will perpetually recombine into states which increase Entropy more effectively. This fact has precipitated every step in our evolutionary history and does not require an intelligent creator.

The argument in favour of an intelligent creator citing the ratio between the strength of the SNF & WNF is also invalid because our system (which has already been demonstrated to be superior to all existing field models) does not include these forces. All other constants (such as the Gravity force constant) can be rationalised by invoking the Anthropic Principle: if these constants had any other value, we wouldn’t be here to observe them.

Does this mean God does not exist?

My definition of God is the Universe. Therefore (my) God exists.

Remember: the existence of God is not independent of the definition of God. The reader would be well-advised to consider the fact that all societies throughout history have been deeply religious. Even the atheistic abrahamic religions have not managed to quash our innate desire for religious knowledge. The fact remains that religion is validated whether or not God exists.

Learn more about:

The Validation of the Creation Hypothesis

The Formation of Saturn


Fruits of Theosophy

The Theosophical Society has updated their symbolism, either in an admission of failure to earn the title of Truth Religion or as a means of “squeezing out” good knowledge symbols, or both. Anyone with any discernment can see the gradual “unmasking” of their true intention.

Screen Shot 2017-11-04 at 12.00.03 AM
Progression of the seal of the Theosophic Society

The simple fact is that this society has no right to call itself the truth religion. I will now address the Colonel’s Rebuttal from 1882.

Response to Colonel Olcott’s Rebuttal

See rebuttal here.

Though I will address the statement of the Colonel, I don’t need to, given the state of extreme disrepair society has fallen into since the Theosophic Society was given the authority of Truth religion. In my opinion, they have disqualified themselves by their obsequious dilution of teachings, most notably in false equivalences and baseless presumptions of expertise in psychological knowledge.

On the Accusation of Unsoundness of Mind of Swami Dayananda

The Colonel’s rebuttal opens with an ad hominem that doesn’t abate for the majority of the publication, suggesting his position is weak. It is also unbecoming of a supposed spiritual leader to launch personal attacks. Accusing Swami of mental unsoundness is as loathsome as it is unfounded.

While this criticism hurts me more than most, I shall refrain from an emotional response and simply state: upon what basis does the Colonel make this judgement; i.e.: what is his expertise to judge the soundness of Swami’s mind?

Swami sounds perfectly fine to me in his correspondence, unlike the Colonel, who is rigid in his attachment to the belief that he and his associates are owed the honour of leading the Truth religion. Thus it is the Colonel which is likely afflicted with delusions of grandeur & lacks the capacity to see the inherent hypocrisy in his statements.

On Opposition to Secrecy of Knowledge

From the Colonel’s correspondence:

Firstly, I note that the minds of those who have studied and practised Yoga science, are continually oppressed with the conviction that a profound secrecy must be ever maintained as to the esoteric instruction given them. It is the most difficult thing in the world to get a Yogi, or even a Yogi’s Chela (pupil), to say what he has learned, or where, or when, or of whom.


This is not a bad thing. It is entirely up to the learned masters to decide when/if they give knowledge. Maybe if you actually had some knowledge, you would have more reverence for its secrecy. Giving out secret/sacred knowledge can cause devotees to gain powers. What happens when/if the devotees misuse their powers? These things are kept secret for a very good reason.

Even in the modern day, most teachings remain secret.


On the Criticism of a Personal God

This is one of those times where the Colonel and his devotees should have put their emotions aside and cultivated the discipline to understand the teachings.

“Either we have been especially unfortunate in misconceiving the ideas of our revered Swami Dayanund, as conveyed to us in his valued letters to me, or he teaches a doctrine to which our Council, and nearly all our Fellows, are forced to dissent. Briefly, we understand him as pointing us towards a more or less personal God – to one of finite attributes, of varying emotions – one to be adored in set phrases, to be conciliated – one capable of displeasure….. I cannot worship him in such a guise. The Deity of my spiritual perceptions is that Eternal Principle which I understood you to say, was what the Arya Samaj recognized as contradistinguished from the personal God of the Unitarian Bramhos. Relying upon this view of the case, I united with our Sister H. P. Blavatsky to carry through the Council the vote of affiliation and allegiance. When! along comes the Swami’s letter speaking of a God whom at least Brother Chrisnavarma’s translation points to us as a Being of parts and passions – at least of the latter if not the former, and at once we two are taken to task. Protests from every side, a hasty reconsideration of the former sweeping vote of affiliation, the adoption of a resolution to make the Theosophical Society of the Arya Samaj, a Vedic Section instead of the whole body in a transformed shape, and the consignment to the flames of the whole edition of the proposed circular and preparation of a revised introduction to the “Rules of the Arya Samaj” – these thing followed. Perhaps it as well as it is, for we keep a broader platform for men of various creeds to stand upon, and our work for and with the Arya Samaj, is not to be affected in the least. We will be just as zealous and loyal as heretofore, will send the Initiation Fees the same as ever, and continue to regard the revered Swami as dutifully and our Hindu Brothers as affectionately as though this shadow had not passed athwart our horizon. I wish you would define to me somewhat more clearly just what is the doctrine of the Arya Samaj respecting God and the divine inspiration of the Vedas. I understood you to say (and certainly that is my own idea) that the Vedas were written by Rishis in a state of spiritual illumination and inspiration to which every man may attain who passes by initiation through the several phases of self-conquest and exaltation to the condition of seership and adeptship ……. I must frankly apprize you that you cannot count upon many more Fellows to follow a lead right towards the Orthodox Christian ambuscade from which we have so thankfully escaped ….. What we want to teach these Western people is the ‘Wisdom-Religion,’ so called, of the pre-Vedic and Vedic periods – which is also the very essence of Gautama Buddha’s philosophy (of course, not popular Buddhism). This religion you seem to have taught both in your letters and your books, and I certainly gather from the revered Swami’s defence of his Bhashya against his critics that this is the identical religion he propagates. But this does not agree with the tone of his esteemed letters to me – at least as I have them in the English translation……”

You don’t get to ‘depersonalise’ God any more than you get to ‘personalise’ God. God is God. One cannot appreciate the complexity of a subject as God without fully exploring it. If Swami said it’s 100 names (or some other “personalisation” of God), then you should be thankful of the Knowledge! Denying this would be like saying: “well, I don’t really want to take the time to learn what a parabola is, I will just skip over it.” and then being surprised when you cannot do calculus later on.

The Colonel finds a point in contention with Swami’s “personalising” God yet the Theosophic website today promotes Abrahamic supremacism & neglects the horrible holy wars against Falun Gong, Tibetan Buddhists and ongoing Islamic genocide in India and the world. It opts to replace persecuted religions with “politically correct” versions:

Screen Shot 2017-11-03 at 8.27.48 PM
“secret doctrine”? like wut bro?

It is very clear that Swami did not want equivalences drawn between religions. In trying to equate God to such silly ideas as “Sufism” or Christianity to God-searching or God-consciousness is in bad faith, even if it can be argued to be “well – intentioned”. Intention is less important than results in the domain of religion!

This means you must both posit your hypothesis and validate it. You must also be open to being wrong and later changing your hypothesis. Otherwise you will be stuck reaping the consequences of this bad action until you learn the proper way.

The Theosophical Society Website is Bad Religious Propaganda

This is what the website stands for in the modern day. Seems pretty soyboyish.

Screen Shot 2017-11-03 at 8.27.41 PM
All right well, let’s see what you’ve got?

I posit that you have achieved nothing in these regards, and so are lacking the mechanism by which you could achieve these goals. It is my opinion that you have failed because you have been unwilling to change in the manner one must change before one can receive the teachings.

If we are to have a “universal brotherhood of races”, each race must feel that their distinctiveness is not erased in the process of membership. I doubt you have achieved this in a manner which is not superficial.

The Theosophy Society is not the Truth Religion

Do you dislike “new agers”? Well, you might be interested to learn that they come from the Theosophy Society:

The present-day New Age movement is said to be based to a considerable extent on original Theosophical tenets and ideas. “No single organization or movement has contributed so many components to the New Age Movement as the Theosophical Society. … It has been the major force in the dissemination of occult literature in the West in the twentieth century.”[60]

Other organizations loosely based on Theosophical texts and doctrines include the Agni Yoga, and a group of religions based on Theosophy called the Ascended Master Teachings: the “I AM” ActivityThe Bridge to Freedom and The Summit Lighthouse, which evolved into the Church Universal and Triumphant. These various offshoots dispute the authenticity of their rivals.

pepe detective
mysteries! mysteries everywhere!

How impressive.

I wonder if there’s a connection there.

Swami’s delegate’s statement: “As regards the Arya’s statement about you, we have nothing to say, for we do not remember to have heard Swamiji acknowledging that you yourself knew Yoga Vidya practically.” ought to have caused the movement to dissolve, yet it persists. So it is now clear that its purveyors are not acting in good faith.

Note: if you wish to attain the truth, it must be done by way of debate. If you want to debate, you need to be able to accept criticism / defeat, not recede to a lazy, self-justified laziness.

Thank you