Workaround to Voice Transcription Double-Entry Bug
The awkward solution is to do the voice transcription in a note text app and then copy and paste into this wordpress editing app.
Bad News: The Entanglement of Yes Mushrooms and No Jesus
Bad news: the guy who is taking over the lead the guy who has taken the lead in the field of Entheogen scholarship (Cybermonk) unfortunately agrees with allegro that Jesus didn’t exist.
The Allegro Extreme Entanglement of Mushroom Taboo Scholarship and Ahistoricity Taboo Scholarship
Two Interlocked Exoteric Coerced Academic Positions: You Are Not Allowed to Say Yes Mushrooms and/or No Jesus, and ESPly Don’t Even THINK of Saying “Yes Msh and No Jesus” YOU HAVE COMMITTED THE ALLEGRO CRIME AND HE’s BEEN “DISCREDITED AND DISGRACED” ACCORDING TO THE VERY MOUTH/PEN OF DR. BROWN HIMSELF!!
look at this self-defeating strategy this again going to bring the field with age and scholarship to a brick wall screeching halt loudly screeching halt double screeching double tap a violation and here’s Dr. Brown helping to make the problem worse Dr. Brown heaps scorn on allegro Dr. Brown smears John allegro against Young Irvin an Jan Irvin will will defend a John Allegro of the solidity in the solid merit of doc of John allegros work and Jan Irvin wrote a book defending the merit and so did jackhammer jacklook at this self-defeating strategy this again going to bring the field with age and scholarship to a brick wall screeching halt loudly screeching halt double screeching double tap a violation and here’s Dr. Brown helping to make the problem worse Dr. Brown heaps scorn on allegro Dr. Brown smears John allegro against Young Irvin an Jan Irvin will will defend a John Allegro of the solidity in the solid merit of doc of John allegros work and Jan Irvin wrote a book defending the merit and so did jackhammer jackJack Herer researched every citation and John allegro’s book is solid John Allegro’s book stands up to intensive scrutiny so why does Dr. Brown smear Dr. smear John allegro trying to use the terrible words which I would have if I edited Brown’s article I would have said you can’t write this you can’t write d
o not write that John allegro has been disgraced and discredited what do you mean he’s been disgraced what are you saying are you going to kick you’re going to kick in John Allegro do you think this is a good strategy to move the field forward?
“Allegro Has Been Disgraced and Discredited” – Dr. Brown
Brown does have an out here he does not explicitly write allegro was wrong Brown can argue that he was merely describing Allegro’s reputation which in fact in a hazy sub scholarly way it is true that Allegra’s reputation is perceived as Disgraced and Discredited good thing Dr. Brown did not explicitly write allegro was wrong because Jack Herer and Young Irvin and I would all challenge Dr. Brown prove it prove Allegro was wrong
dr. Brown specifically where was the legroom in what way was Allegra wrong what assertion by allegro is false be specific you only wrote that Allegra sucks can you be more specific please Dr. Brown but fortunately fortunately Dr. Brown did not explicitly right John Allegro was wrong Dr. Brown merely described Allegro as being and this is so vague I don’t even I don’t even know what Dr. Brown is asserting what exactly do you mean when you say the allegro was disgraced and discredited what do you mean allegro was discredit
dr. Brown we need clarification where you wrote the allegro was disgraced in Discredited what exactly be specific what specifically are you asserting what exactly do you mean when you say the Allegro with Disgraced I don’t know what you mean by disgraced I don’t know what you mean by discredited what do you mean you make it sound as if the tone of your words make it sound as if allegro was found to be in error Dr. Brown are you saying that John allogroup was found to be in error could you be more specific like 1 million times more specific this is not proper writing to merely smear Allegro as by attaching the words by attaching the smear words disgraceddr. Brown we need clarification where you wrote the allegro was disgraced in Discredited what exactly be specific what specifically are you asserting what exactly do you mean when you say the Allegro with Disgraced I don’t know what you mean by disgraced I don’t know what you mean by discredited what do you mean you make it sound as if the tone of your words make it sound as if allegro was found to be in error Dr. Brown are you saying that John allogroup was found to be in error could you be more specific like 1 million times more specific this is not proper writing to merely smear Allegro as by attaching the words by attaching the smear words disgraced
this is not a properly this is not a proper scholarly move by Dr. Brown to attach the smear words to Dr. Brown is striving and trying to attach the smear words to defame and distance and disavow this is rhetoric Dr. Brown is providing rhetoric here at sea it’s a public relations move this is not a scholarship by Dr. Brown here this is this is a PR move by Dr. Brown here this is not a scholarly move to to label allegro as disgraced and discredited Dr. Brown is trying and striving to associate those words those words with allegro in order for Dr. Brown to shield and distance himself it is a rhetorical move it is not a scholar scholarly move
dr. Brown what the hell do you mean in what way this is a false statement it is a false statement to see the John Allegro is discredited how has John allegro been discredited
Jan Irvin wants to have a word with you
be specific Dr. Brown what are you asserting when you assert that “John Allegra has been discredited” what the hell do you mean what are you talking about
I dont think Cyberdisciple commits the error and makes a false assertion that John on the grill is wrong or that John allegro is disgraced or that John Allegro is discredited.
arc at this late date of my intensive commentary I still have failed to point out explicitly I’ve been implying it but I have not pointed out explicitly that it is stated Panofsky’s 1952 statement as a flaw we can we can exploit we need to exploit the huge flaw of Panofsky’s 1952 argument it’s the same fallacious argument as a Hatsis who says falsely that who wrote in his book psychedelic mystery traditions Hatsis falsely wrote a false statement that said that the reason people reject his sound tried and true historical criteria is simply only because people were not aware of what they are.
Naturally Hatsis does not help the situation by actually telling you what they are what an idiot but but it’s it’s delivered he deliberately it’s a sleazy strategy of already been doing he’s so sleazy bottom of the barrel that he he says you hold your position because you’re you are ignorant of fact X, – but I refuse to tell you what fact X is.
instead I’m gonna bluff and arm wave and make a vague Citation of my online amateur blogger articles
and this may I remind you this is in a $15 book this is this is what you get when you pay $15 and you get this
this is not off topic this is the opposite of off topic this is this question is exactly the most on-topic question of all
why does he fail to cover it in his book why does he only have a single page or two on this important subject where he makes a massive claim and only backs it up with this unsustainable argument that:
The ONLY reason you don’t agree with me is because you are [up to now] ignorant of fact X; that is, Hatsis’ list of sound, tried-and-true historical criteria that easily explain away mushrooms in Christian Art, criteria arguments which are contained somewhere (unspecified) in his online articles, but is not placed in this book (God only knows why not).
(but by the way I’m not going to tell you what fact X is)
But the single only reason you disagree with him is because of your ignorance of the criteria and he is not going to tell you here in this book on the subject it’s so centrally on topic he is not going to bother telling you what these criteria are but instead it’s going to make an amateur vague hardly a citation he gives you the titles of his online amateur blogger articles where you’re supposed to go dig up and supposed to go try to find what the hell he’s talking about when he claims to have sound tried and true historical criteria which he seems to be in articulate he seems to be evidently in capable of listing with these sound tried and true criteria are they are
they are so sound these criteria or so sound that he is not even capable of listing them in the spot where the most relevant thing in the world the most on topic thing in the world that he could do is to list what the hell these alleged criteria are that are so sound and true yet he’s in capable of stating what they are and he does a lousy job he’s doing more like hiding instead of citing his books where those specific criteria are listed instead of citing his amateur blogger articles properly he does it in the most absurd obfuscating he is trying to obfuscate and hide his own argument!
By not summarizing it right here, where that would be the most relevant thing in the world to do to support his gigantic claim that needs gigantic substantiation, and he just delivers a bunch of hot air big talk (these would be slam dunk super convincing arguments – if I were to tell them to you) but he doesn’t summarize his “sound tried and true historical criteria ” – and, furthermore, he doesn’t give a proper citation to his online amateur blogger articles That supposedly that contain his unconvincing right ups of his poor arguments which I read back when he publish them so it’s just a complete wall of falsehood and unsustainable arguments poor Scholarship failure to even summarize what his points are right in the most crucial page of the most relevant book on the subject where he makes these gigantic claims
this page (or two) in Psychedelic Mystery Traditions by Thomas Hatsis is nothing but a massive exhibit hall of how exactly not to write a history book.
at this late date of my intensive commentary I still have failed to point out explicitly I’ve been implying it but I have not pointed out explicitly that it is stated Panofsky’s 1952 statement as a flaw we can we can exploit we need to exploit the huge flaw of Panofsky’s 1952 argument it’s the same fallacious argument as a Hatsis who says falsely that who wrote in his book psychedelic mystery traditions Hatsis falsely wrote a false statement that said that the reason people reject his sound tried and true historical criteria is simply only because people were not aware of what
no he hasn’t he has not been discredited
what do you mean by specific be specific be specific what specifically are you saying when you claim the John allegro has been discredited what specifically Dr. Brown are you saying be specific when you say that John allegro has been disgraced what the hell are you asserting do you think the strategy is a good strategydr. Brown what the hell do you mean in what way this is a false statement it is a false statement to see the John Allegro is discredited how has John allegro been discredited John Irvin wants to have a word with you be specific Dr. Brown what are you asserting when you it’s a CERT when you assert that John Allegra has been discredited what the hell do you mean what are you talking about no he hasn’t he has not been discredited what do you mean by specific be specific be specific what specifically are you saying when you claim the John allegro has been discredited what specifically Dr. Brown are you saying be specific when you say that John allegro has been disgraced what the hell are you asserting do you think the strategy is a good strategy
Hatsis Hatsis falsely wrote that the only reason he literally wrote that the only reason people rejected his arguments is because people were not yet aware of his arguments and Pulaski we must exploit the same obvious short shelflife be fatal flaw of making this bunker fall fallacious argument is it has a very very short shelflife because as soon as it’s a false move that you can only make for five minutes it only last for five minutes it’s a bunk moved it only is good for only five minutes
Panofsky says he argues in 1952 literally that the only reason my colleges of 1925 the only reason that they say that the fresco means mushroom is because my colleges are not on where he says are in the present tense in the present tense he says that they are currently not aware of the existence of any other mushroom trees he says that he argues that wolf in 1925 was only aware of one single mushroom tree but the problem with the strategy Panofsky and Strategy and Tom Hatsis Strategy argue
The fatal flaw this is a fallacy called argument from ignorance in the fatal flaw with the argument from ignorance is that at the moment the moment that you communicate this argument it becomes false as soon as you say my college is simply need to learn the trivial fact that there are more mushroom trees well now you have just destroyed that situation because now the mycologist do they know do understand or with Tom Hatsis
in the case of Tom Hatsis this fallacious strategy dirty sleazy slimy argument technique of claiming that your opponent only needs the position simply due to ignorance of some point that you supposedly have somewhere in your articles improperly cited the reason why that sleazy argument strategy doesn’t work is it has a shelf life of zero days the moment you make the argument it becomes false it switches from true to force false as soon as you say it as soon as Tom Hatsis
imagine if Tom had to sit in his awful failure of a page of his book imagine what if he had actually done what a real scholar would do and list exactly what his alleged sound tried and true historical criteria were instead of his arm waving amateur sub amateur field amateur argument hazy arm waving but imagine if I had to add a higher IQ and he had actually listed in his book as he should’ve done obviously listed what his alleged sound and true crime tried and true history criteria are and then imagine if you had tried to say the only reason you’re not convinced by my argument is because you’reimagine if Tom had to sit in his awful failure of a page of his book imagine what if he had actually done what a real scholar would do and list exactly what his alleged sound tried and true historical criteria were instead of his arm waving amateur sub amateur field amateur argument hazy arm waving but imagine if I had to add a higher IQ and he had actually listed in his book as he should’ve done obviously listed what his alleged sound and true crime tried and true history criteria are and then imagine if you had tried to say the only reason you’re not convinced by my argument is because you’re
I’m not sure if it lost my point damn damn is unstable totally unstable app when trying to do voice transcription into this app
imagine if hats us had done what any real Scholar would do and when he said the only reason you disagree with me is because you are ignorant notice the present tense because you are ignorant of these points then on that same page imagine if he had delivered his points which he should have done well then you’ve just ruined your own argument because now because you have communicated these allegedly points of ignorance to your opponent now the opponent knows those points soon now the opponent no longer is ignorant of the points
I will have to do a voice recording of of this to play out to play out what’s wrong why this is a losing strategy of argumentation tactic this is not a popular tactic because it’s such a bad tactic it can’t work
it cannot be a successful argumentation tactic because it has a shelf life of like the moment that you put forth this tactical argument strategy move the moment you make this move it becomes false!
it’s it’s not only a fallacious argument it is a strategic missed stop this is bad tactic this is bad argumentation strategy tactic in addition to being a fallacious argument
and no coincidence but both Panofsky and Thomas Hatsis regarding same exact topic use the same exact fallacious bad tactic strategy that cannot work it has a shelf life of the moment that you deliver the argument it becomes self-defeating and this kind of explains why Thomas Hatsis the amateur history blogger sub amateur failed to even do what any real historian would have obviously done is he should’ve listed of course needless to say he should have listed what his sound tried-and-true criteria are this
this is how we recognize Tom Hatsis making a Felicia’s argument is because I mean that it’s pure rhetoric this is how you can tell this is empty rhetoric and is bluff and bluster and empty rhetoric it’s because he claims to have sound tried and true historical criteria but he deliberately refrains he deliberately intentionally refrain from saying what they are because he knows that as soon as he states what they are you can see that they are not in fact convincing it is only by refraining from listing his arguments only by refraining from making his argument can he claim that he allegedly has an argument that would be convincing if only you knew what it was but he’sthis is how we recognize Tom Hatsis making a Felicia’s argument is because I mean that it’s pure rhetoric this is how you can tell this is empty rhetoric and is bluff and bluster and empty rhetoric it’s because he claims to have sound tried and true historical criteria but he deliberately refrains he deliberately intentionally refrain from saying what they are because he knows that as soon as he states what they are you can see that they are not in fact convincing it is only by refraining from listing his arguments only by refraining from making his argument can he claim that he allegedly has an argument that would be convincing if only you knew what it was but he’s
But he’s not going to tell you what it is because he knows it would not in fact deliver the goods he knows that his argument would not in fact convince you if he were to provide present it that is exactly why that is the reason why he does not prove present his argument but he only present a claim that he *has* an argument that *would* be convincing if he were to tell you the argument!
we can call this unworkable argument tactic strategy which is used by Panofsky in 1952 on the exact same topic that Tom Hatsis tries to use the same unfeasible infeasible non-viable argument tactic we can call this tactic be it’s kind of a misstep it’s like an argumentation messed up it’s sort of desperate pseudo- argument that cannot work in practice it’s the argument from claiming that your opponent is merely ignorant of a certain fact this is the argument fallacy cold
arguing on the basis that your opponent only disagrees with you because your opponent is ignorant of a certain fact but the problem is as soon as you deliver the argument the opponent is no longer ignorant of that fact so your argument tactic is self-defeating it cannot be sustained it is an unsustainable argument my colleges maybe in 1925 certain specific Mushroom experts rules maybe it’s it is true that wolf was not aware of the whole motive of hundreds of mushroom trees but regardless of Rolfe’s knowledge in 1925, The moment that Panofsky publishers publishes his argument the moment that he communicates it to the mycologist in 1952 or whenever I think maybe earlier as soon as he tells a soon as he tells them I colleges that there are other mushroom trees then his argument can no longer be sustained and what is what is it going to do when mycologist react to this new information that there are hundreds of mushroom trees forming a standard universal motif all throughout Christian art everywhere what is Panofsky going to do then when is my college essay
Now that you have informed us that there are hundreds of mushroom trees we still persist we still we mycologist still persist in believing that plane curl FriscoNow that you have informed us that there are hundreds of mushroom trees we still persist we still we mycologist still persist in believing that plane curl Frisco is msh?
what is the nick the big question here is what is a Panofsky’s next chess move this fallacious bad strategy argument arguing from the ignorance of your opponent it set you up with no possible next Jasmine what’s your next chess move going to be when your opponent rejects your argument and continues to persist interview when they are now plainly no longer simply ignorant the argument from you are simply ignorant of fact ask the argument from “you are simply ignorant of fact ask which I am now informing you of fact X well now your opponent is no longer in current affect X so what is your next chesswhat is the nick the big question here is what is a Panofsky’s next chess move this fallacious bad strategy argument arguing from the ignorance of your opponent it set you up with no possible next Jasmine what’s your next chess move going to be when your opponent rejects your argument and continues to persist interview when they are now plainly no longer simply ignorant the argument from you are simply ignorant of fact ask the argument from “you are simply ignorant of fact ask which I am now informing you of fact X well now your opponent is no longer in current affect X so what is your next chess
so what is your next chest move that you have left open for yourself now that your opponent is no longer ignorant thanks to you because you have informed your opponent so they are no longer ignorant so now when they persist in their same view and reject your interpretation of the new fact what are you going to do next what’s your next step going to be because now your opponent is no longer ignorant things to you Panofsky everyone in the world now is over every mycologist now all of those my colleges who persist in saying that the fresco means mushrooms they are now aware of things to you because you have informed them they are now aware of hundreds of mushroom trees and they still persist insaneso what is your next chest move that you have left open for yourself now that your opponent is no longer ignorant thanks to you because you have informed your opponent so they are no longer ignorant so now when they persist in their same view and reject your interpretation of the new fact what are you going to do next what’s your next step going to be because now your opponent is no longer ignorant things to you Panofsky everyone in the world now is over every mycologist now all of those my colleges who persist in saying that the fresco means mushrooms they are now aware of things to you because you have informed them they are now aware of hundreds of mushroom trees and they still persist insaneso what is your next chest move that you have left open for yourself now that your opponent is no longer ignorant thanks to you because you have informed your opponent so they are no longer ignorant so now when they persist in their same view and reject your interpretation of the new fact what are you going to do next what’s your next step going to be because now your opponent is no longer ignorant things to you Panofsky everyone in the world now is over every mycologist now all of those my colleges who persist in saying that the fresco means mushrooms they are now aware of things to you because you have informed them they are now aware of hundreds of mushroom trees and they still persist insane
in saying that the fresco is mushrooms so no you’re previous argue your previous argument is worthless you can you can no longer say you can no longer make your argument anymore that the reason the only reason in this is literally what Pulaski said this is literally Word for Word literally what Tom had said in his argument when you make this Felicia’s messed up unsustainable argument they literally say that the only reason let me emphasize that the only reason the single only reason so they’re not just claiming that you’re ignorant they are claiming specifically that the one and only loan single reasonin saying that the fresco is mushrooms so no you’re previous argue your previous argument is worthless you can you can no longer say you can no longer make your argument anymore that the reason the only reason in this is literally what Pulaski said this is literally Word for Word literally what Tom had said in his argument when you make this Felicia’s messed up unsustainable argument they literally say that the only reason let me emphasize that the only reason the single only reason so they’re not just claiming that you’re ignorant they are claiming specifically that the one and only loan single reason
Panofsky and Hatsis make the very very specific argument that the ONLY reason – let me emphasize, that the ONLY reason that you hold your position is because you were ignorant of fact X.
but this is clearly an unsustainable position, if the opponent continues to maintain their position after they become informed (by you, thx to u ) of Fact X.
in the case of Panofsky the fact X which you previously were ignorant of is that there are hundreds of mushroom trees in the case of Tom Hanses the fact X which you were previously ignorant of and things to his terrible atrocious writing you are still remain ignorant of because he won’t tell you fact ask he refuses to tell you fact ask he just tells you that if he were to tell you fact ask and then you would agree with him
in the case of Tom Hatsis the supposed fact ask that that you are simply ignorant of is some arm wavy alleged list and I have with some great trouble north with no help from Tom Hatsis despite his deliberate withholding of what those alleged sound tried and true historical criteria are for “easily explain away mushrooms in Christian Art those are the fact ask the hats is argues if you knew fact X, you would not disagree with him
in the case of Tom Hatsis the supposed fact X that that you are simply ignorant of is some arm wavy alleged list and I have with some great trouble – with no help from Tom Hatsis ; despite his deliberate withholding of what those alleged “sound tried and true historical criteria” are , that “easily explain away” mushrooms in Christian Art , those are the Fact X the hats is argues if you knew Fact X you would not disagree with him.
well it’s a terrible argument strategy for multiple reasons for one thing Tom has a statement in his book is false for multiple reasons for one thing I am in fact was aware of his arguments for a long time since like 2015 when you first wrote his articles and I read them then I never suffered from ignorance ever of his alleged sound tried and true historical criteria bullshit arguments and for another thing his page in his book is also additionally wrong and falls when he says if you knew what these criteria are venue
So the worst written history page of any book ever is Tom Hatsis in his book psychedelic mystery traditions where he claims that he has easily explain away sound tried and true historical criteria but he with holds those alleged criteria from you and provides a sloppy vague citation pointing to his online articles at his weblog his blogger is online blogger articles amateur his amateur blogger articles which he fails to cite properly to point us exactly to wear these alleged criteria are
he makes two specific full statements in his lousy page of this book wonderful statement is that you are ignorant of his criteria and the other full statement is that if you were not ignorant of his criteria then you would agree with him both statements are false I was aware of his alleged Supposed Criteria as soon as he wrote his articles long before his book was published his other claim is forced to because I know his alleged criteria and I do not agree with him he falsely states that if I knew
He falsely states that if I knew what his secret criteria were then I would agree with him but in fact I know what is Secret Criteria are and I continue to disagree with him so that’s two manifestly false statements on his worst page ever written in any history book , which is specifically on the subject of mushrooms in?right here on this specific topic of mushrooms in art we have great glaring examples of the very worst kind of argumentation showing it to to try to hold up to try to maintain the position that Christianity doesn’t half mushroom you have to make the worlds worst unsustainable arguments poorly delivered fallacious arguments left and right this is the absolute bottom of the barrel argumentation that is required specifically meant to maintain the position of denial that mushrooms are in Christian history these two things go together what a great pair that they make these two things they go together so well the denial
These two things go together like peanut butter and jelly is the denial of mushrooms in Christianity and the worlds worst most fallacious arguments and terrible unsustainable argument tactics
I thought I stupidly thought that I was just being random and quirky when I work or that I was being opportunistic of I simply found it convenient to compare the pattern of the coerced positions of academics I acted stupidly as if it was just a mere coincidence that I saw the same patterns when discussing how academics are coerced to lie and say that they
believe that we have compelling evidence for historicity of Mr. historical Jesus to some extent maybe you could say that it was arbitrary that I arbitrarily compared the pattern of coercion academic coercion in the field of Jesus studies is so very similar to academic portion in the field of does plaincrawled Me Mushrooms which is a question that straddles mycology and cultural anthropology entheogens Scholarship
List of Involved Fields
- Entheogens scholarship (ambiguity: which era; people are wrong and it is that it is a significant problem and flaw in the field that either you or you assume we’re talking about the broad ancient pre-modern history or you silently assume that when you say history the word is understood to mean 20th-century history starting with mescaline in late 19th century, A.k.a. late modern history of win entheogens or rather shall we say “psychedelics” “started” to – in fact this warrants a note this warrants a note of the great huge massive fallacy and strategic misstep that for 50 years people stupidly thought that psychedelics were a brand new invention and this was a big reason that we need to acknowledge we need to acknowledge Carl rock provided a much needed clarification but no you guys are wrong psychedelics is not a brand new thing who is history is limited strictly strictly to the 20th century you guys are very very wrong and the word was greatly needed we really did very much need the word in the engine to break the huge fallacy the huge fallacious assumption that’s baked into the word psychedelics and that might ruin and a fatal flaw that the word psychedelics cannot possibly be used the worst thing with the word psychedelics is that baked into it deeply is the connotation and assumption that the history of psychedelics begins with masculine in 1890 and that there’s no connection to ancient history than the word entheogens was necessarywas greatly needed we really did very much need the word in the engine to break the huge fallacy the huge fallacious assumption that’s baked into the word psychedelics and that might ruin and a fatal flaw that the word psychedelics cannot possibly be used the worst thing with the word psychedelics is that baked into it deeply is the connotation and assumption that the history of psychedelics begins with masculine in 1890 and that there’s no connection to ancient history than the word entheogens was necessary
- Mythology (Ruck)
- Mycology (Rolfe, Ramsbottom 1925)
- Art History (Brinckmann 1906, Panofsky 1952)
- How early did Panofsky write against Rolfe & Ramsbottom? Check Jan Irvin’s research in my Plainc article at egodeath.com
Art History Brightmann 1906 you have to start slapfight historyof “does Christianity have entheogens ?”
start here in 1906, its all tangled together in a knot preventing any progress. the Allegro double taboo “YOURE SAYING JESUS DIDNT EXIST SCREECH ALLEGRO!! YOU COMMITTED THE ALLEGRO DOUBLE TABOO!!” the moment you say “I think Christianity had entheogens.”
You will inevitably be pulled into a seizure we can reliably prophecy that you will be sucked into the vortex of asserting that Jesus didn’t exist even if you try to disavow and repudiate and demonize Allegro just like Dr. Brown demonizes Allegro by labeling Allegro as “discredited & disgraced”.
List of Associated Esotericists Position on Topics
The problem is it it is in fact it is a cluster of positions according to Elaine Pagles first three books I have used I have done detailed reviews at Amazon of her first three books proving with page number citations that the views break out into two separate groups of views on separate allegedly unrelated topics the supposedly unrelated topic of did Jesus exist he’s always clustered together inherently it is a cluster of views you cannot pretend that they did the views don’t cluster this way anyone who believes know Jesus also believes Christianity comes from mushrooms if you believe
inherently interconnected views if you believe Christianity came from mushrooms then you believe Jesus didn’t exist that is the strong tendency and good luck trying to break apart that strong tendency which Elaine Pagles her books substantiate that my scholarly contribution to Elaine Pagles books is that I explicitly amplify what is in her books and I point out the allegro connection in Elaine Pagles books she describes that the esoteric Christians did not believe in Mr. Historical Jesus they are not very interested in a man a little Christology they are interested in they hi Crystal GE hi Christology and we must remember the true pun that it is no coincidence the pun of get high get high on mushrooms and high Christology hi the two are really it appears to be a frivolous pun in yet the word high retains two clusters of separate connotations but the fact is that high on Jesus really does mean high on mushroom Jesus to be high on mushroom is to be high on high Christology
Art History – Panofsky 1952 or when did he first write against Rolfe 1925 book’s ideitificn of Plainc as msh?
Mycology – Rolfe 1925, Foreward by Ramsbottom 1924
in the field of art history Carl Ruck is it is interesting position he straddles the field he straddles the academic scholarly field of mythology errands mycology or not mycology but sort of like Dr. Brown the academic field of infusion scholarship and then there’s the field of art history so we have a bananaPanofsky broke out the fields and spoke in terms of two fields that my colleges in the field of mycology versus art history the art historians but when Bernosky Road there did not exist the third field cold entheogens and Scholarship the third field that we called infusions Scholarship entheogens and entheogens Scholarship
and then you can naming field maybe cultural anthropology these fields these taboo fields cannot even be identified and I’m thinking of some scholars Peter first I think I’m thinking of Peter first what field what do you call the field the academic scholarly research field in which Peter FURST , or scholars (i think) like him.
I have been acting as if it is purely arbitrary coincidental just a very convenient as if it was merely a convenient parallel pattern that the reason why I’m talking about Storico Jesus when I am mainly talking about identifying Mushrooms in the Frosk the plane crawl fresco but it is not entirely arbitrary at all because don’t be does stop being stupid and dense I need to stop forgetting
obviously it seems so obvious now I I guess I’m so involved in the field I can forget the obvious of course they’re connected the reason why you cannot say the reason why you are not permitted and you are not allowed as an academic to say that the planec fresco means mushrooms because if you do you will be thrown into the specifically John allegro people specifically yell and scream and screech they will screech at you “allegro violation!! you have committed the allegro taboo!!”
and don’tobviously it seems so obvious now I I guess I’m so involved in the field I can forget the obvious of course they’re connected the reason why you cannot say the reason why you are not permitted and you are not allowed as an academic to say that the plane c fresco means mushrooms
because if you do you will be thrown into the specifically John allegro people specifically young and scream and screech they will screech at you allegro you have committed the allegro double taboo!!
don’t forget that when they screech the word allegro at you violating the taboo specifically absolutely specific to this particular Mushroom we’re not talking about just general abstract theoretical belief about what mushroom trees mean if you assert that mushroom trees in general and his particular Mushroom Tree is associated with mushrooms the herd bird will screech you and kill you and chat and yell at you you have committed the Allegra violation but what is don’t forget don’t forget what is the Allegra violation is not
don’t forget don’t be stupid and forget that the allegro violation win the screech the word you have violated the allegro 10 is to fold it is too full don’t forget that it is twofold violation remember it’s straddles the two fields for two different taboos it is a double taboo
you will get entangled in what is specifically a double taboo you are not allowed to say any mushroom treat means psychoactive mushrooms because there is a very specific the allegro to is the double
don’t forget that the allegro taboo is a double taboo very very specifically about Mushrooms and therefore
check this out
it might not seem it does not seem instantly obvious that
we forget we need to stop forgetting
don’t forget the subject of identifying Mushrooms in Christianity is directly connected to the taboo of admitting that we don’t have rational sufficient basis for believing in the big bang theory that Jesus was the end
The big bang theory that Mr. historical Jesus at a point in time as an identifiable single person and identifiable single historical individual as if we could time travel to the year 30 or 25 and single out a single identifiable person that who invented who was the inventor at a point in time of Christianity without Home there would be no Christianity that is the historical Jesus hypothesis or historical model as bad as opposed to in sure
In sharp contrast with the gradual coalescence modeled the no historical Jesus model that Christianity came together over time and that the figure of Jesus came together gradually overtime the gradual call lessons historical model of Critical and Historical inquiry Tom Hatsis
HEY TOM HATSIS BIG TALKER WHATCHA GOT ON CRITICAL HISTORIOGRAPHY OF MR. HISTORICAL JESUS
that Jesus was the inventor of Christianity at one point in time you cannot discuss Dr. Brown naïvely thinks Dr. Brown thinks that he can discuss Mushrooms identification in Christian ours without getting instantly embroiled in the question of whether Jesus existed
Dr. Brown thinks that he can simply wave aside the question of whether Jesus existed that very very fatally taboo question
and then I’m making it worse for Dr. Brown because I happen to agree with all the growth that we don’t have reasonable evidence I agree with Richard carrier and so now Dr. Brown thanks to me thanks to me Dr. Brown can be accused of holding the allegro position which is a double taboo and here’s a weird thing explain to me where is a weird thing about Tom Hatsis
The Supposed “Historian” Tom Hatsis Has Failed to Acknowledge the Huge Directly Related Entangled Historical Question of Whether Jesus Existed
here is a weird thing that nobody is pointing out about Tom Hatsis: he has never mentioned the topic of whether Jesus existed
The Egodeath theory 