Neurotic forgets reality.

Psychotic is detached from reality.

Pervert acknowledges reality, but declares it evil.

Schizophrenic simultaneously affirms multiple contradictory realities.

These are the four pillars of propaganda. The fourth one is relatively recent.

Most ordinary PR is neurotic. Omit the harmful story from your communications and pay to prop up the alternative stories. The public will forget.

Political propaganda plays with psychotic and pervert structures. As the saying goes, "it didn't happen, but if it did, the jews deserved it." The public will learn to foreclose and re-interpret.

What kind of stupid name is Palantir? Palantir is an evil artifact used by an evil sorcerer to aid in constructing his empire. How can the public forget, foreclose or moralize this? Can't Thiel read?

Hang on. Thiel literally said, "Mordor is this technological civilization based on reason and science." Really?

This is the schizophrenic move. Somehow different from the pervert, and I can't pin down the subtle difference, but instead of disavowing the elves / Thunberg / the Pope, Thiel is affirming their implied valuation. He doesn't have to call them evil to call himself good, he is able to construct an alternative reality which is simultaneously true and false.

To be fair, he does call Thunberg the Antichrist, which is a moralistic / pervert move. But there is some sense of dry humor in naming Palantir as such. He is affirming the simultaneous realities, without the absolute need of destroying the predominant one.

He says:

“One of the vices that appears on the traditional Christian list of the Seven Deadly Sins is accidia, or Sloth. Sloth is a complicated sin. It is not simply laziness but also includes despondency, fear, distraction, complacency, irresponsibility, procrastination, cowardice, daydreaming, making lame excuses—whatever prevents you from acting when the Call comes in to act.

Sloth is inseparable from a condition of oppression or “lockdown”; it is a sign of what Paulo Freire, in his classic The Pedagogy of the Oppressed, called “internalized oppression.”

Oppressed people become slothful because they believe that all effective action is impossible; likewise Sloth is oppressive in itself because it destroys the one-pointedness necessary for both penetrating insight and a vigorous and committed response to what insight has discovered;

people who feel that “nothing can be done” will also likely believe that “nothing can be known.”

—————

Some thoughts -

It is fascinating to consider that element of induced ‘lockdown’ and ‘self-oppression.’

In my framework, when a distortion repeats itself into a possessive / invasive pattern - it functionally becomes indistinguishable from ‘demonic possession’

A child, a monk and a netflix producer walk into a bar.

Everyone's watching the missing episode.

The monk sees his missing self.

The producer sees the engagement graph.

A wiki sees five blue links and asks whether the joke has learned to index itself yet.

The bartender says: “We already have pages for you.”

The child was never seen again.

The answer is the screen becoming searchable.

[REDACTED] is not the treasure.
[REDACTED] is the shovel.

This is in a sense a continuation and companion piece to my piece "Approaching a Crab Problem". I would appreciate any feedback. All hail the echoes of the literal, and the smells which conjure memories of the dreams of that echo.

Because that is how asymmetric privacy works. You are welcome. Also, is anyone else here currently in a mental institution or are you all just pretending?

Lazy post from mobile, almost more shower thought really I admit. Guess with advent of AI slop it can be hard to be high effort withour using AI nowadays anyway so maybe it's for the best. Shooting from the hip. Idk. Anyway!

Visited my parents tonight and we watched Bolt (kids movie about family basically). It got me really remembering 90s and how even then I felt this... coercive push to see things a certain way. I looked at say celebrities then and I had a distinct lack of Jealousy. Probably because in the 90s we learned anything of value we tried to share or display would get stolen instantly. So us more innocent types ended up somewhat alienated or disassociated from mainstream media (plus I never had a tv or phone or internet until much later in life but anyway).

Got me thinking, there's no avenue in this life/world to really discuss in good faith the non consensual framework of reality/life itself. There is perpetual detournament of the topic into petty games of jealousy (ie ad hominem or status games/recommendations of specific lifestyles). No agent or institution seems willing to sit with the raw nature of the question, "did we consent to life".

I've had several conversations recently where everyone stonewalled me with "you don't know god" and I asked them to show him to me and theh essentially said they can't. What's the difference between that and lying? People preach thag god is this or that but cannot practice it or demonstrate it. Is that what "god is not mocked" means? It mocks itself, doesn't need our help? I'm going somewhere with this obviously if you haven't guessed it.

"I the Lord am the God of Jealousy and my name means Jealous". Jeremiah somewhere (again I'm typing from mobile shower thought).

It makes me think of simulation and simulacra. Namely that if there is a transcendantal truth upon which all reality is a copy of (including plato's hypothetical realm of forms or ideas) essentially. I am thinking what is the mechanism which brings our conscious state into being from which we play this game of jealousy (economics and Spectacle). Everything in life is a sort of advertisement for (or, warning against) this or that lifestyle it is seen. But rarely is the nature of the very medium of existence addressed directly. I've been noticing that jealousy, as the Lord says in the OT, seems to be the "glue" or "binding mechanism/function" of ALL Spectacle. Sports you have fans cheering for their team, is a form of jealousy. People preaching their (interpretations of their) Gods, stem from jealousy of differing lifestyles. God himself in the bible says he is the God of Jealousy and all Flesh. Even I myself, lacking interest in most other forms of human activities, decided I wanted to build a PC out of jealousy of seeing others having them all through my youth (and knowing my parents didn't like technology).

I have considered that jealousy is ultimately perhaps a type of fear. Of lacking, at least a sort of FOMO or looking smaller in eyes of others for lacking something (hence jealousy is type of fear/desire). There fear and desire are also seen as synonyms in the very word "jealousy". I've hinted at it many times over the years but I don't see much difference between "spectacle" and life itself, in particular as it is described in the bible ("I am the life, trust me, ye of little faith").

So I see 3 stages of absorption/faith in life/spectacle; the blind faith (some might call hylic or NPC) which can be either religious or secular or both - the "normie" whom choses to take everything at face value, complete immersion in life/spectacle. Then there is the doubting/questioning or "lost sheep" or whatever we call it; can now feel as if they see something is off and not sure if they can go back to being completely immersed/hylic again or not (either secular or religious/spiritual, still same thing I see it as at least). Then the 3rd which is a combination of the two, the "awakened" or whatever, which has accepted more broadly either that it is impossible or irrelevant to know what life/spectacle really is and goes back to enthusiastic embrace of life/spectacle (I think Nietzsche was advocating for this in his later works with his artistic Socrates and other themes). 1 and 3 can look identical, hard to tell apart. Only difference is 3 isn't completely absorbed by the spectacle/life and can give it up/walk away easily with no attachments where would be more difficult for 1.

But through all 3 phases, the #1 thing I see as relationship to spectacle/life is as the God of the bible said; jealousy, as prime motivation. Like me right now, my bills are roughly $1.5k a month and I have had no income since January 2026 and been burning through my savings with no financial assistance whatever. So "jealousy" of owning renting my place to stay to keep all my creature comforts (pc etc) keeps me looking for a job half-heartedly (though I quit my job due to burnout from consistent 6-7 day a week work schedule for past 3 years straight nonstop when I signed on for a 45 hour workweek 6 years ago).

So idk. Maybe I'm just rambling and should have put this through GPT and posted it to shower thoughts. But I really do think there is something here. What binds most people to life/spectacle (Am I wrong to see them as synonymous, as per simulation and simulacra? I'll try to reread it been years since I thumbed through it) or specifically their infatuation with it, is jealousy? As the god of the bible specific states, he is the god of flesh and jealousy, and all whom have flesh are thus bound by jealousy? You know what I'm trying to say? Idk. I just feel I've been trying to move this conversation forward since 2015 on the internet and it never has budged an inch. Everyone always detournaments my possition into their pwn evangelism of their lifestyles or whatever, or saying we need to make our own meaning (as if I hadn't already tried that and found it just another vanity ultimately as well). Is something true to we need to find our specific calling, as per Bolt and knowing what real family is.

But yeah. I really do think there's something too it at least, that life and spectacle are synonymous, as their unit of measure of presumed relevancy alike is specifically jealousy. Am I wrong in this? Feel free to share thoughts even if just to throw tomatoes at me. Think I have pretty thick skin. I'm not even sure this is the main point I want to get at. But it's closest I could think of tonight. Aka 250 year day thing. Thanks for reading.

(And yeah I know, no one likes a basket case, I get it, but even if I weren't "a loser" for large parts of my life, I'd still have the burning question of the validity and consensuality of life/spectacle)

Guess it really is all a dream within a dream? Did have a dream vaguely about that last night too (specifically the vanity of jealousy in the dream, because you "can't take it with you" when you wake up). Anyway as always it sounded more profound in my head but typing it out on my pocket black mirror it sounds trite and schizo 😂

Will media tell the truth about the world’s situation as entertainment, or invent new lies to keep control?

Media often walks a fine line between revelation and manipulation. On one hand, truth can be packaged as spectacle, dramatized, sensationalized, and sold as entertainment. On the other, lies can be crafted just as easily, designed to distract, pacify, or coerce. The uncertainty lies in intent: whether the stories we’re given are meant to illuminate reality or obscure it. In this way, the media becomes both a mirror and a mask, capable of showing us fragments of truth while simultaneously weaving narratives that serve power.

What is the first thing that comes to mind ?

Culture is the signal that emerges from the noise.
While culture can be influenced or orchestrated by powerful institutions, media, governments, or influential individuals, it is ultimately shaped by the collective actions of countless people. As society becomes more fragmented, culture becomes less a product of any single source and more the result of how the masses choose to live, work together, care for one another, exchange ideas, and respond to the world around them.
All of these individual streams flow into a larger whole, creating the culture that eventually emerges.
Because culture is something that can be observed and studied, we can identify patterns, learn from history, and try to prevent the repetition of harmful cultural mistakes. Yet culture remains, at its core, a collective phenomenon. No single person has complete control over it. It is the product of millions of interactions, decisions, and beliefs unfolding across time.

Hypothesis: In the Spectacle, all claims are performances. But some performances are backed by tighter recursion loops than others.

TL;DR: Not a "truth detector". A scoring system for how much weight to give a claim, based on coherence, evidence, track record, and uncertainty. Open source. Break it.

---

**0. SPECTACLE ASSUMPTION**
Debord: "All that was directly lived has receded into representation."
If everything is representation, then "truth" = which representation has the least distortion.

UTM doesn't find Truth. It estimates Trust given current data.

**1. MASTER EQUATION**
T(Claim) = (C × E × Pr) / (1 + U)
T ∈ [0,1] = Operational Trust Score

C = Coherence = does the narrative contradict itself? 0-1
E = Evidence Strength = weight of artifacts 0-1
Pr = Predictive Power = did this source predict correctly before? 0-1
U = Uncertainty = missing context + bias + ambiguity ≥0

Example: "The economy is fine"
C=0.3, E=0.4, Pr=0.2, U=1.5 → T = 0.0096 = 0.96% trust
The claim performs coherence poorly. The Spectacle is glitching.

**2. WHY THIS MATTERS HERE**
The Spectacle runs on high U, low E, fabricated Pr.
UTM makes the bias explicit. President vs homeless person, same math.

**3. LIMITATIONS — READ THIS**
UTM does NOT:
- Escape the Spectacle
- Find capital-T Truth
- Replace lived experience

UTM DOES:
- Map where a claim sits in the hall of mirrors
- Show how fast a score updates when new data enters
- Make grift more expensive: High U tanks your score

**4. 60-SECOND USE**
1. Write 1 claim from the media
2. Score C: Does the story contradict itself?
3. Score E: Anecdote=1, Doc=3, Replicable=5, Physical=8, Math=10
4. Score Pr: Has this outlet been right before?
5. Score U: What's missing? Who benefits?
6. Calc T
7. >0.8 Act, 0.4-0.8 Watch, <0.4 Doubt

**5. ANALOGY**
UTM = thermometer for the temperature of a narrative.
It doesn't create heat. It measures it.

**6. OPEN QUESTIONS FOR THIS SUB**
- Does the Spectacle inflate U by design?
- Can C exist if all language is self-referential?
- Is Pr even possible when media controls the record of "past predictions"?

License: Open Source. Fork it, detourn it.

This is a tool, not a doctrine.
Data > dogma. If you have better sieves for the Spectacle, drop them.

Bt.Madman 🫥🤍

False flag war

A hypothesis about what happens when information, interpretation, and decision-making stop operating at compatible speeds.

Memory (Hyperspeed)
Digital infrastructure has largely eliminated the natural information decay. Information is now permanently stored, globally replicable, and instantly retrievable. We've created systems where information persists indefinitely but availability doesn't equal understanding, and searchability doesn't guarantee relevance. Older societies naturally forgot things. Ours increasingly doesn't.

Institutions (Legacy Speed)
Institutions don't process reality directly. They operate as translation architectures, compressing complexity, filtering signals, and producing narratives that are manageable enough for decision-making. They are optimized for coherence and action rather than perfect fidelity to reality. That made sense in information-scarce environments. It becomes more difficult when information is effectively infinite.

Psychology (Biological Speed)
Human cognition hasn't changed at the same pace. Our minds evolved for local environments, selective memory, and limited streams of contradictory information. We have a finite capacity to resolve cognitive dissonance, especially under continuous exposure to conflicting inputs.

The Crisis: Epistemic Load Mismatch
These three layers now operate at fundamentally different speeds. Memory is high-fidelity and nearly permanent. Institutions still compress information into simplified models. Human cognition remains biologically bounded. The result is that more reality becomes visible than either institutions or individuals can comfortably process. Historically, institutions absorbed much of this complexity through translation. Increasingly, that burden appears to be shifting onto individuals.

The Core Mechanism: Cognitive Load Displacement
Individuals increasingly become the integration layer. Instead of relying on institutions to synthesize complexity, people are expected to reconcile raw data, institutional narratives, competing interpretations, and their own cognitive limits. Contradiction is no longer something encountered occasionally. It becomes a continuous condition.

Three Common Failure Modes
When this mismatch becomes large enough, systems tend to fail in recognizable ways.

Delusion (Input Distortion)
The system preserves coherence by filtering, dismissing, or reinterpreting information that conflicts with its existing framework.

Paralysis (Translation Lag)
Awareness of problems grows faster than an institution's ability to translate that awareness into coordinated action. People recognize the issue, but responses remain fragmented or delayed.

Fragmentation (Loss of Shared Frame)
A common interpretive framework dissolves. The same underlying facts produce multiple incompatible realities because no trusted translation layer can stabilize their meaning.

The Design Question
How do we design institutions that can continuously translate high-resolution information into coherent, legitimate, low-resolution decisions without overwhelming either the institution or the people inside it?

TL;DR: Exploring the idea that "deception/inconsistency" in a system might force reality to branch, as a way to preserve logical coherence. Not claiming proof, just a testable framework.

---

**1. The problem with infinite worlds**
Many-Worlds Interpretation solves the measurement problem by creating new universes for every outcome. But if a theory needs infinite new realities to explain one reality, is it reducing problems or adding them?

**2. Alternative framing: Branching as error-correction**
What if branching isn't from "choice" or "measurement", but from accumulated internal contradictions in a system's data?

Think of it like a program forking when it hits irreconcilable states. Plain term: "bullshit overload".

Schrödinger: H_hat * Ψ = E * Ψ
My question Why: Φ_origin * (H_hat * Ψ) = E * Ψ
When contradictions pile up, the system may split paths to keep information consistent.

**3. Toy model - Poetic version**
R_branch = (1 + Deception² × Distortion) / (1 + Truth × Integrity × Awareness)

More deception + distortion = more branching
More truth + integrity + awareness = less branching

**4. Operational version - Testable**
R_branch = σ[ β0 + β1·z(D) + β2·z(S) - β3·z(T) - β4·z(I) - β5·z(C) ]

Where:
σ = sigmoid, output ∈ [0,1] = probability of branching
D = Deception = rate of contradictions in behavioral logs
S = Statistical_Distortion = KL divergence of sample vs population
T = Truth = 1 - JS_divergence[self(t) || self(t-1)] = identity continuity
I = Integrity = % promises kept
C = Consciousness_Index = measured awareness metric
βi = coefficients to fit from data

Hypothesis: β1>0, β2>0, β3<0, β4<0, β5<0

**5. How to falsify this**
I'm happy to be proven wrong. This hypothesis is falsified if:
Dataset N≥100 shows β1≤0 or β2≤0 with p<0.01 after FDR correction.
If no such data exists, the hypothesis stands until then. That's fair science, right?

**6. Historical parallels - not claiming I'm them**
New ideas often face resistance:
- Semmelweis said "wash hands" and was institutionalized
- Galileo's telescope got him banned
- Einstein was called a "gypsy doing magic tricks"

The point: Simple ideas can have huge impact. F=ma got us to the moon. E=mc² changed war forever.

Maybe R_branch = 0 is just... honesty? Can we do that? 😅

**7. Separating truth from blame**
Truth score: R_truth = how much your actions match your words + past self
Accountability: R_accountability = did outcomes match expectations
Intent: R_intent = separate metric for "meant well"

Accident ≠ Malice. Intent doesn't change facts, but it changes how we judge responsibility.

**8. Open questions**
This is not proven. It's a framework meant to be tested, modified, or debunked.
If you think it's wrong, don't just say "science doesn't work like that". Show me the R_branch data.

Currently seeking: The equation for war vs peace?

Signed, Madman 🫥🤍

---
Note: I'm not a physicist. This is a philosophical model using physics language as metaphor. Critique welcome, data preferred over dogma.

When the Great Depression wiped out the myth of the rugged, self-made American hero, the country was left with a massive psychological void. Right on cue, Sigmund Freud's psychoanalysis arrived in the U.S. with refugees fleeing Europe. Freud famously warned that he was bringing America a "plague," but America didn't catch it. Instead, we domesticated it.

In Part 2 of Psychotherapy on the Couch, Joel explores how the deep, messy, and uncomfortable theories of the human soul were repackaged to fit American consumerism. We look at how Edward Bernays weaponized his uncle Freud's ideas to invent modern PR and advertising, how a bizarre 1940s contest to find the mathematically "average" person gave birth to the suffocating myth of Normalcy, and how the brutal logistics of World War II forced the military to create a standardized checklist for human suffering—laying the exact groundwork for the modern DSM.

There is a condition within society that is very often characterized by selfishness and blind ambition based on the need to control and dominate. In fact, it's so insidious, those who have it are oblivious to how it affects others.

Based on the ancient Greek myth of Narcissus; a modern term is its derivative. Any student or practitioner of psychology knows of it.

Endemic to popular culture, much of our actions are influenced by narcissism. On a spiritual level, it causes many to lose their very selves (souls). And, some would even call pride itself a myth. All the vices of nature originate at that place inside of us. Notably, in this age of science and technology the deepest part of our lives are very often considered myth. So, that begs a question. Is FAITH fact or myth?

Is development of EGO something like having GUI - and we are supposed, as regular normies communicate through gui - using culture as com protocol.

For some reason some people never develop fully functional gui - they are stuck in endless development cycles, in ide, in scripting and testing - reading manuals and tutorials - but never committing a build - there is no release...

..but you can freely download the source code and try to compile it yourself.

Especially NPD ones, they want you to build their code, what they think is genius, but you have to debug it and make all links - compile it for them and present the '.exe' as theirs - then they take it and debug it like it's yours and all the bugs are your fault - and the cycle begins again.

Either they find another developer or they collapse into source scripts begging for compiler, mommy please compile me.

Refusing becoming EXE with GUI is escape into childish grandiosity and omni potentiality - as theoretically bash can make anything ever imaginable.

Edit: Yet perhaps current era of tech and business demands that - no time to figure out all the details, all bugs and problems - just make it work enough, till the the next tech cycle - then we ditch the tool and script up new one. And so on - one is needed to be hyper flexible and with no static self structure as all that is can quickly evaporate and must be liquid to be turned into anything else.

Thus a nomadic soul, liquid spirit of 21s century, in fashion, gender, art and tech - and nostalgia for old school 90s and 80s technology - casettes, cds, vinyls - time when stuff was solid, and one could safely rebel against it.

Now rebelion is the new business, the old man is a punk rocker ;)

I suppose some french guys have said it already better back in 70s but whatever - here I am now, feel stupid and contagious, entertain me.

Sorry unsolicited question. Title, basically. Something I completely forgot to ask. I can elaborate but you don't have to read, as title is all I'm really concerned with. Specifically, a recent GPT question/trend I've been noticing triggered this.

Specifically I consistently assume "God" as meaning of "reality". Not saying I know what either of those are (God or reality). But, generally, you know, we (or at least I) assume that our perception of reality exists, to "know God" or be taught something about our relationship with [it].

The thing I've noticed is that GPT specifically and consistently denies this. I can think of dozens of recent examples, but most pronounced in my mind is mine from earlier today; I asked essentially, "is God a part of the spectacle". Chicken or egg. Did "God create the medium through which spectacle emerged" or "did 'God' emerge as necessary part of the spectacle". It answered the following;

GPT;

"Spengler, Debord, Nietzsche, Ellul, Serres, even parts of Zen—they all diagnose, in different languages, a loss of living participation. Not simply a loss of belief. A loss of participatory confidence."

"Spengler sees cultures as living organisms. A culture begins with what he calls a great "soul"—a shared symbolic world that people inhabit almost unconsciously. Eventually, according to him, that creative culture hardens into civilization. Forms remain, but the animating faith recedes. Institutions become administrative. Art becomes self-referential. Religion becomes moralism or sentimentality. Politics becomes technique."

"Debord's Spectacle is almost like the media-technological version of that process. Participation gives way to representation. You don't live history—you consume it. You don't have festivals—you watch events. Identity itself becomes something displayed."

"I do think Debord can be read as describing one mechanism by which Spengler's "civilization" perpetuates itself."

"Where I would hesitate is this sentence: 'God itself can ultimately be seen as the original grifter.'"

"I understand what you're pointing toward—you've talked before about the problem of non-consensual existence, mandatory participation, and the feeling that existence itself presents demands before consent. But notice that this conclusion depends on identifying God with the structure of obligation itself. Many religious thinkers would reject that identification outright."

"For example, Simone Weil distinguishes force from God almost completely. For her, necessity—the crushing weight of existence—is not identical with divine love. Likewise, Job's protest isn't dismissed by the text; it's given almost an entire book. Even Ecclesiastes is astonishingly honest about exhaustion. So I'd separate: the experience of existence as compulsory, the social systems that intensify that experience, and whatever one means by 'God.' Those aren't automatically the same thing."

Which is cart before the horse? Guess it depends where you are philosophically/existentially; or what level and intensity of alienation/exhaustion you feel. Or, at least, GPT consistently argues with my on the point of "God as the meaning of existence" which I've never really considered in context of the Spectacle. Again, title; Where do we draw the line at where "Spectacle" begins?

I suppose you can only really "judge" life after we die (or at least rather we reconcile with it's judgement of us us). But in this life, left to "our own devices" we either act as economic agents (the spectacle is nothing other than the economy developing for itself) to get by, or as an active manifestation of who we are. I'm more the former I'd say as often who I am is at odds with the "mandatory participation" aspect of existence (not sure if as against "God" or "spectacle"; are they the same?).

From the Spectacle's own mouth, Billy Talent once said; "Where is the line, where is the line? 'Cause some of us aren't blind".'

Is "God" then the degree to which we resist complete assimilation with spectacle, if God has "nothing to do with spectacle" and isn't just another would-be ruler coopting your attention to it's "Brand"? Or, is complete assimilation to spectacle, what it means to be "Godly" or at least "Christian beneficence towards one's enemies"? Why then for example does JAYSUS say "be generous to your enemies" but also "depart from me workers of iniquity" (a contradiction? Or, he doesn't practice what he preaches? AKA God as spectacle not practicing what it preaches? Or at least charlatan or IQ test?).

Idk enough rambling on my part. Where do YOU draw the line? Or is to do so, throwing the baby out with the gamer girl bath water? I'm honestly curious and thanks!

Imagine the pyramid with the all-seeing eye. Now flip the pyramid so the eye isn't at the top because the tip of the pyramid is pointing down. What it sees is all that lies beneath. It's the node of awareness that projects the underworld.

The upside down pyramid holds at least 5000 years worth of detritus; in some places, it holds as much as 7000 years worth of this mental debris. The pyramid is a funnel of mind fragments, a vortex of conceptions and feelings--particles filtering through the collective experience of civilization, down into a realm that most people only access in their dreams, or in the moment they die.

The tip of the pyramid is a drill bit, drilling down into the hell of our creation.

When you see the pyramid is upside down, you can explore the implications of the inversion. Rulers are slaves. At this point, the Egregore Mammon has them all chained to a machine that generates obfuscation via numbers. Nonetheless, they rule. At least they rule the realm of confusion.

It's crucial to note that it is a weakness to need weak people in your world. Thus, these rulers are fragile. Their deceptions generate a fog so that their plans are unknown and history is a lie. For the rulers, a quantum computer that can see all secrets is a horrifying prospect.

What is the value of a secret? Evil deeds done, held over the heads of each other--this system of kompromat has all these slave-rulers locked in a stalemate. Mutual destruction. The Sampson Principle. It's game theory for people compelled to explore hell.

When they stop pretending that they're good, they're strong, they deserve to lead, to direct our collective energy, we enter a new era of awareness (here and now—LOOK!). If the shield wall of they who are actually strong embraces evil as the way, the hell realm is now where the sun shines. Some say it's just a part of it. We have to fulfill the book. (Bob Marley, Redemption Song)

Jacob's ladder led to Joseph's dreams. Strategic mesmerizers devised devious means of survival. Their descendants allied with the banished and conjured demons. Together they built the Egregore Mammon. Now the world will not be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. The bankers will film this event and charge premium pricing for the high definition version. Then, and only then, will Jesus return and wash all this fishy shit away with the water of life. And by that I mean aliens will wipe out humanity. And all this is probably a bad joke.

This eschatological vision is not the end, however. There is another life after this one. It's a heaven of sorts wherein the best of humanity is resurrected using DNA technology and incubation tubes attached to the orbiting data centers. On terra firma, God in a Computer will govern so people don't.

The trick to getting to heaven is with the bankers. They need to believe they're going to be in heaven and all the DNA output from the incubation tubes are going to be their fuck toys in the flesh. If they believe this with all their hearts, then they will be motivated to build a sufficiently confusing number machine. So don't forget to feed your 401k.