Download this episode of the Egodeath Mystery Show for 1 week, from:
“Ep99 Psilocybin Wins Everything.mp3” – April 2, 2022 – outline of points w/ timestamps is expected to be there.
Instructions on What You Must Do to Win Everything, or Else Win Nothing, from Eadwine to Entheogen Scholars
If you follow my directions, you’ll win everything.
If you run off being suckered into defending Amanita, we will win nothing, and continue to lose everything.
From the illuminated manuscript shop, a message for you all in entheogen scholarship – recording number three of the day 56 minutes long , mic: CAD M 39 Omnidirectional polar pattern.
If you commit exclusively to psilocybin and firmly disavow Amanita, then you will win everything: mixed wine, mushroom trees, the Eucharist, and meditation.
Amanita is fools gold. If you defend Amanita, you will win nothing; you will not connect Psilocybin to mushroom trees or mixed wine or the Eucharist or meditation. You will entirely fail on all fronts, instead of succeeding on all fronts.
If you commit exclusively to defending Psilocybin and nothing else, you will win everything; on all fronts: a worldwide derby shutout; complete victory in all games, if you absolutely disavow Amanita
The beginning of recording three today begins with the monks team chant which is:
Mixed wine is psilocybin not Amanita
The Eucharist is psilocybin not amanita
Mushroom trees are psilocybin not amanita
Meditation is Psilocybin not Amanita
This is the victory chant:
mixed wine is psilocybin not amanita
the Eucharist is Psilocybin not Amanita
Mushroom Trees are Psilocybin not Amanita
Meditation is Psilocybin not Amanita
Salvation and regeneration is through Psilocybin not Amanita
Amanita is only valuable as an honorary Psilocybe and as a sign that serves to point to the real deal, which is psilocybin.
Amanita is the ersatz Mushroom.
Psilocybin is the genuine authentic Mushroom of Salvation and targeted cognitive efficiency it is the only type of mushroom worth any attention to defend we disavow defusing and watering down arent area that we have to defend.
Amanita is nothing but a liability; we disavow it.
we will win or lose everything, depending on whether we get distracted being suckered into defending Amanita, or keep our eye on the ball and firmly commit exclusively & solely to psilocybin, and stay faithful and true, only defending Psilocybin, and rejecting and disavowing defending Amanita.
Amanita must fend for itself, and we – as a firm principle – reject defending it, As vehemently as we disavow and reject the secrecy Premise, which is the premise that psilocybin does not come from the Eucharist but per Carl rock is an alien intrusion into real Christianity an exception a deviation doesn’t count.
oh my God it’s filled with mushrooms the maximal entheogens the maximal Psilocybin theory of religion not the maximal Mushroom theory not the maximum maximum Psilocybe theory because there are taxonomy confusions that dissipate focus we must commit to defending a single defensible absolutely perfect and certain and guaranteed rocksolid single plant consisting of
A single-plant fallacy which consists of 350 species – that is the single plant fallacy thats worth defending; The name of the plant is Psilocybin. (And is most certainly and definitely, absolutely not amanita and Muscimol.) amanita is in no way worth defending we refuse on principle to defend Amanita.
Conversely, Psilocybin is absolutely rock solid, guaranteed, reliable, focused, targeted in its cognitive effects; it is the true object of desire & devotion.
Amanita is fools’ gold.
we firmly disavow Amanita and we refuse to defend Amanita at all
The only possible value and purpose of Amanita is as a pointer to psilocybin; nothing more.
Images of Amanita do not represent ingesting amanita; Amanita represents ingesting Psilocybin. End of discussion; nonnegotiable.
By this chant, this victory chant, this war chant, we shall win the parasol of victory, which is psilocybin and not amanita.
amanita must be chained down into only a subservient role of decoration and only a sign pointing to psilocybin, which is incomparably superior.
and unlike the pussies and wusses , the conventional moderate weak, effete, usual unimaginative failing losers, the usual entheogens scholar losers bringing their loser week fools’ gold perspective that’s causing us to lose, that is the CAUSE of us losing.
after Brown published his copy of his Hatsis retort article at Academia.edu , I shoved aside all the pussies and wusses and unimaginative entheogen scholars who are losers causing us to lose, and I wrote some thing actually worth saying and worth reading.
I posted publicly I declared on behalf of all of us I spoke truth I am no slave of small minded “evidence”
what’s more important, truth or “evidence”, couched in a diminishing and dismissive deflect Deflecting Way – which is the only thing that “evidence” is good for, it seems.
evidence thats isolated from interpretive framework is worthless and in fact is like putting out a fire by pouring gasoline on it
it only makes the problem worse; you instead have to couch the evidence in the right framework; the framework is everything.
we have to leverage evidence effectually in an effectual manner to make it go where it needs to go, and not let someone steer it in the wrong direction.
we need to post truth with vigor and not be unimaginative.
we need to state truth and be ready to respond when Dr. Brown asks “citation needed, on what basis did you assert “whenever you see a Amanita an Christian Art it always means psilocybin; it never means amanita ingesting”?
and I had NO problem at all answering his question, which I posted in my idea development 13.
do you have to have vigor and imagination and commitment
which truth are you committed to – The inconsequential truth that amanita has a tiny bit of minuscule value? or the gigantic truth, that psilocybin is actually worth caring about?
you need to boldly assert the truth and then do whatever it takes to defend that truth
don’t be tricked into beginning from a position of weakness, where the enemy defines the framing of the “evidence”; the so-called “Evidence”.
here is the story by which we will win or lose if you say the amanita an Christian Art means amanita you are a traitor you will cause us to lose you will win nothing we will win nothing
conversely if you insist that amanita specifically serves as a pointer to psilocybin and you stick to that committed position we will win everything we will win Mushroom trees we will win mixed wine we will win the Eucharist and we will win meditation we will win worldwide shut out of the salvation Salesmen if we disavow reading Amanita as Amanita
amanita is fools gold it’s only purpose is to serve as a pointer to psilocybin which is 1 million times more desirable incomparably more desirable and worth fighting for and I am in need of which is absolutely not worth fighting for at all we disavow defending Amanita and we refuse to let the witches try to trick us into defending a false target.
in my recording number three today I severely lecture and I this is what you call absolutely this is the come to Jesus moment you have to decide are you going to defend the harlot the fools gold or are you going to put 100% of your energy and focus on defending and asserting Psilocybin make up your damn mind which do you desire do you desire Amanita or do you desire Psilocybin if you go all in on psilocybin you will win everything we will win everything if not not nothing we will win nothing if you let yourself your eyes drift off to the harlot the pretty red and white mushroom and you spend your time defending that we will win nothing we must disavow and let amanita fend for usin my recording number three today I severely lecture and I this is what you call absolutely this is the come to Jesus moment you have to decide are you going to defend the harlot the fools gold or are you going to put 100% of your energy and focus on defending and asserting Psilocybin make up your damn mind which do you desire do you desire Amanita or do you desire Psilocybin if you go all in on psilocybin you will win everything we will win everything if not not nothing we will win nothing if you let yourself your eyes drift off to the harlot the pretty red and white kiddies mushroom and you spend your time defending that, we will win nothing
we must disavow and let amanita fend for itself.
we commit 0% of our resources defending Amanita and in fact the more firmly that you refuse to defend Amanita the more surely we will win all derby matches around the world all of them through the strategy of firmly D committing from and detaching from Amanita and we will employer amanita exclusively and only for soul Simon you must adopt the dogma Eadwine told you I am channeling Eadwine and I am telling you you must adopt this dog man that the only meaning of amanita is a pointer to psilocybin if you adhere to that dogma you will win everything we will win everything otherwise nothing, & continued total loss.
Basically the reason that we’re losing – or haven’t been the reason that we haven’t been winning, is because we haven’t been thinking big enough and aggressively enough
we need to go teach what maximal thinking is all about :
we damn well are absolutely willing to assert that every last one of the mushroom trees certainly is proven to be definitely psilocybin
and ditto for mixed wine
and double ditto for Eucharist especially above all
and the same thing goes for the East too, mofos!!! Meditation Hucksters (eastern division), frauds, lying anti-Christs of the east!
GO BIG OR GO HOME
WORLD-WIDE SHUT-OUT, by the Monks, of the Salvation Salesmen and their demonic brothers in the East, the Meditation Hucksters.
Panofsky, you don’t get to sit there and one-way transmit to us covertly implicitly, presumptuously declare and dictate what our position is that we mycologist are willing to hold / defend/ assert; you don’t get to dictate our position, that’s called strawmanning; that’s called Hatsis’ only move.
in this recording I make a breakthrough successful argument leveraging Panofsky’s argument from consistency against him big time and it completely blows up in his face on a global scale across every era.
The reason why you know there cannot be mushrooms anywhere in religion anywhere in the world in any era is because from the Panofsky argument from consistency, you either have to consistently say that mushroom Trees and eucharist and mixed wine are all mushrooms, and also Eastern religion is mushrooms
The reason why you know there cannot be mushrooms anywhere in religion anywhere in the world in any era is because,
from the Panofsky valid argument from consistency, combined with the invalid covert fallacious strawman presuming your opponent’s position, without explicitly asking their position, without explicitly stating that you are presuming their position, you simply implicitly declare (quickly & silently) what their position is – but do so in a sneaky, covert way, and then argue on that basis that they therefore have to choose the alternative.
Combined with the invalid covert fallacious strawman presuming & implicitly declaring your opponent’s position & Arguing on that silently covertly assumed position that your opponent allegedly holds
silently covertly assumed position that your opponent allegedly holds
you either have to consistently say that mushroom Trees and eucharist and mixed wine or all mushrooms and also Eastern religion as mushrooms,
OR
you must assert that mushroom trees are not mushrooms and mixed wine is not mushrooms and Eucharist is not mushrooms and eastern religion is not mushrooms
AND given my covert premise which I am
not going to mention out loud but I am going to silently attribute to you what your position is,
[be sure to rush over the next step as quickly as possible and as quietly as possible ; do not read out loud the next step ; it’s very hush-hush – do not look behind the curtain in the next step]
I implicitly and covertly dictate to you that you are not willing to hold the position that all of those things are mushrooms and therefore now I am going to say out loud the next step
THEREFORE
you must pick the other alternative that none of these things are mushrooms because you’re not willing to assert that all of them are mushrooms
QED
I have successfully reasoned out your position for you and have dictated what positions you are willing to assert and therefore you are forced to pick the choice that I command you (covertly and silently and dictate implicitly) what position you hold.
therefore because you are not willing to assert [Because I covertly assume and dictate what your position is]
that all of these things are mushrooms, the [actually] valid argument from consistency dictates therefore you must give a thumbs down to all of these positions.
I just finished the second recording of the day which is one hour 10 minutes awesome material solid progress several new substantial points
Strategy: get the Witches & Dr. Secret to defect from the Salvation Salesmen team, [I think this point is continued after the below diversion announcing we’ve taken over victory in the east]
Strategy: get the witches to defect from the Salvation Salesmen (& Meditation Huckters team [Very important implication tucked in here , don’t miss it right here we are not only taking over mixed wine and Eucharist and mushroom trees we are also dictating victory declaring victory worldwide just as we defeated
just as we defeated the salvation salesman and we got the witches to defect to the monks side and we got Dr. secret to defect to the monks side similarly in the east we have also made it game over for the meditation Hucksters because if you agree if you hold the plane crawl is mushrooms that means that you hold that all mushroom trees are mushrooms and similarly if you hold that
mixed wine is mushrooms and that mushroom trees are mushrooms and that the Eucharist is mushrooms then by the force of consistency you are also obliged to uphold the position and I am dictating to you that you are not holding this position and therefore there are no mushrooms in religion anywhere in the world and the reason you know
that there are no mushrooms and religion anywhere in the world is because if you assert that the Eucharist and mixed wine and mushroom trees are mushrooms then for consistency you must also assert that eastern religion comes from mushrooms which I am dictating to you what position you hold and I am commanding you to hold the position that you are not willing to assert those so therefore I am telling you that you are forced to agree that there are no mushrooms in religion anywhere in the world west or east. 😑
… and join the monks roller derby team and similarly with Dr. Secret, get them to abandon the idea that psilocybin is divorced from Eucharist
Surprising observation that plane crawl is unique: it is the only branching Message Mushroom tree that is amanita . I have dust proved that normally all mushroom trees are psilocybin not an Amanita
Meditation Hucksters (eastern division derby team, allies w the Salvation Salesmen team)
please prove me wrong, show me an Amanita Mushroom tree Branching Message Mushroom tree other than planecorral fresco.
I leveraged a good and valid step of Panofsky’s argument the argument from consistency of interpretation I leverage that against him that by the same token if you agree mixed wine is psilocybin you must also agree that mushroom trees are psilocybin and you must also agree that the Eucharist a Psilocybin
Also I made a pretty huge realization breakthrough:
I managed to identify a massive strawman implicit step in Panofsky’s argument!
just like hats is dictates that we follow allegro and the secret Premise and hatsis refuses to argue against our actual held Position; similarly,
Panofsky implicitly dictates to the mycologists that they are not willing to hold the position that all mushroom trees are mushrooms.
Panofsky never asks the mycologists if, given the existence of hundreds of mushroom trees are you my colleges going to assert that all mushroom trees mean mushrooms he never asks them he implicitly in dishonest ConMan fashion he tells them implicitly what their position is that they are willing to hold now that they know that there are hundreds of mushroom trees
it’s always a one-way transmission, Panofsky presumes to sit on God’s throne: and he simply declares and presumes and dictates and covertly attributes to the mycologists what position the mycologists are willing to assert and defend and hold!
I finished the first hour and 15 minutes card and 39 Omni directional Mike CAD Emma 39M 39M 39M 39 I am 39 very solid content advanced the ideas of the breakout I have discovered that a binary
system Break out is not opposed to a three-way division because regarding the specific subject of Eucharist Carl rocks position on Eucharist as distinct from his position on mixed wine and on mushroom trees well maybe the supplies to mushroom trees his position on that although there is a distinction on the one hand there really is a difference between the moderate versus the minimal position however regarding the most important point there is not a distinction between those and therefore
it actually there is not necessarily opposition between a two-way break out versus a three-way break out
Moderate Entheogen Theory Is a Version of Minimal Position; so the Apparently 3-fold Breakout Is Actually Binary
- the Maximal entheogen theory – psilocybin = mixed wine = Eucharist = mushroom trees = meditation.
- Minimal entheogen theories/variants
- Minimal entheogen theory #1: Ruck, the moderate entheogen theory: entheogens are widespread yet rare in Christendom, and are alien to the real, normal Eucharist & Christianity.
- the Minimal entheogen theory: entheogens are rare in Christendom and extremely deviant and heretical and alien.
I have managed to accommodate a three-way break out within the Max Freakout 2-way to wait binary break out
because I do I’m trying to reduce the number of roller derby teams we have officially incorporated artists and my colleges into the monks who are the maximal Mushroom theory I have also tripled the scope to discuss Ubiquitous Psilocybin mixed wine equals Ubiquitous Psilocybin eucharist equals Ubiquitous Psilocybin Mushroom Trees the artists are on board with our maximal view of all three of these
And the mycologist as stated by rolfe and Rolfe, in harmony with Brown and Brown , have stated in a romance in The Romance of the Fungus World, in section A Curious Myth, the mycologists Rolfe, Rolfe, and Ramsbottom have stated the position
on behalf of all mycollegeists : Plaincourault = Mushroom trees = mushrooms, whether the primary type Witch and Psilocybin , or the honorary type which is Amanita, like Robin to Batman. The other roller derby team the art historians Brinckmann and Panofsky have described the mycologist as a group and have explained that the mycologist as a group have consistently identified and wanted and tried to identify plaincrawled as mushrooms therefore we have very solid footing on a stable base we are standing on a stable base touching a firm basis on which to declare that in general as a strong inclusive generalization statement that mycologists agree with Roth and Ramsbottom
the art historians describe as a single thing and they describe as a single group that the mycologist or a single roller derby team they are they work together they hold the same view and so we rest on a solid basis when we declare I am declaring that role is position to declare with Ramsbottom on behalf of mycologist in general they declare that we mycologist interpret plaincrawled as Mushrooms again
The fathers of my college he Ramsbottom and Roth declare on behalf of my colleges and so does their journal before the 1925 book declares that mycologist believe as is stated by Panofsky who talks about mycologist as a group as a uniform group who holds a uniform interpretation the uniformly mycologist uniformly hold that plane crawl is mushrooms and I extend that despite Pulaski’s assertion
despite against against Panofsky’s manner of arguing I also proclaim in in line with those mycologist regarding the mushroom I proclaim that role against Panofsky also asserts that all mushroom trees are mushrooms because the same logic that Ramsbottom and Rolf used to declare Panofsky is plaincourault is Mushrooms there same logic dictates as Panofsky warned that all mushrooms or any mushroom tree is mushrooms I am going to presume and assume on the premisedespite against against Panofsky’s manner of arguing I also proclaim in in line with those mycologist regarding the mushroom I proclaim that role against Panofsky also asserts that all mushroom trees are mushrooms because the same logic that Ramsbottom and Rolf used to declare Panofsky is plaincourault is Mushrooms there same logic dictates as Panofsky warned that all mushrooms or any mushroom tree is mushrooms I am going to presume and assume on the premise
I have no idea if this piece of sht voice recorder is catching my words or not it’s like I can’t even tell how bad it’s feeling like it’s failing and screwing up but I can’t tell how bad
Panofsky told us that we face a fork in the road we have a choice if we realize and learn from Panofsky that plane crawled is the same type as many hundreds of mushroom trees then we arrive at the forking choice we have to either choose his argument goes he points out
we mycologist are faced with a choice Panofsky declares that one choice is unthinkable and therefore we are forced to take the other fork a number in the road
Panofsky plays his card which is good for one time only he can only play at once he says you chose to interpret it because you didn’t know fact X I am now telling you fact ask so you are no longer ignorant of fact ask now that I tell you
now that I tell you that plain curl is not unique but matches and that you must identify you must interpret plaincourault the same way that you interpret all mushrooms Trees
Panofsky in effect gives my colleges let’s say gives us mycologist a choice and he gives us the conclusion he tells us that we are forced to choose branch be rather than branch air he first tells us that we have a choice but then he dictates what our choice is forced to be
good question here as soon as mycollegesists learned thTf mushroom Trees in the plaincourault is not unique here is a good question for you did they continue to maintain plaincourault is Mushrooms??
if so they have in effect implicitly asserted that all mushroom trees are mushrooms
let us consider brightman close to 1950 he let himself be bullied by Pulaski and he tentatively mentioned the theory the interpretation of plain girl being mushrooms he is a mycologist would you say that Brightman was absolutely convinced by Panofsky’s argument I would say no I gauge that Brightman did not find did not agree with Panofsky that we are forced to take the path in the forking Choice that Panofsky claimed we are forced
are forced to take either Brightman does not agree the plane crawl is the same as other mushroom trees or he did not agree with Panofsky that we are forced to conclude that none of them are mushrooms rather than the other conclusion they are all mushrooms
so I hereby announce that my colleges were not convinced by Panofsky claim that we are forced to turn towards the darkness instead of towards the light mycologist were not persuaded when Pulaski played his card that was only good for one time only his ignorance card you are ignorant of fact X which I’m going to now tell you
when he played that card it failed he failed to persuade people mycologist either that plain crawl was the same as all other mushroom trees or he failed to convince my colleges that they are forced to take the direction that he claimed that they are forced to take
in such on such a argumentation basis I hereby pronounce that mycologist rejected Panofsky’s bank logic his false claim that we are forced to say Mushroom trees are not mushrooms
The way I see it Panofsky played his low value card the argument from ignorance and it failed; we didn’t buy it ; mycologist failed to take the bait
in such a manner I hereby proclaim that artists are on the side of the monks and that mycologist are on the side of the monks regarding all three for consistency that mixed wine is exactly Psilocybin wine and that the Eucharist is exactly Psilocybin and Mushroom Trees are exactly Psilocybin we have a massive blowout win 3 to 03 versus zero blow out game over for the liars The con artist these salvation salesman and their fellow travelers regardless of whether Dr. secret moderate entheogen theory or on the same side of the major split the historian fabricators the engineers of pseudo History called the historians professional fabricators working in there forgery factories, to quote Edwin Johnson.
why am I threefold system is actually a binary Max Freakout system because the major split is between the maximal Theory versus the moderate and minimal theories so it is twofold binary contrast even though within the benighted interpreters there is a minor only a minor split which is Dr. Secret
The secrecy premise agrees with the anything but mushroom view held by the poops team the Salvation Salesmen Ruck’s agrees with a Salvation Salesmen that the Eucharist was not psilocybin he says instead that psilocybin was alien and impinged on and made inroads towards the Eucharist because it does not come from the normal Eucharist Ruck’s says that psilocybin is abnormal for the Eucharist Ruck’s says the normal eucharist is not psilocybin
ruck’s and the sale Salvation Salesmen Dr Secret andro Salvation Salesmen both agree that the Eucharist is not psilocybin the normal Eucharist they say they are in agreement in asserting the view the claim the assumption or the story Panofsky and rock agree but the normal eucharist is not psilocybin
I have expanded the scope of what Dr. Brown is telling us to interpret we are to interpret three things because the only way we can give a sound and adequate interpretation of mushroom trees is if we simultaneously interlock our interpretation of the Eucharist and the word Eucharist in texts and mixed wine like Pulaski I declare that these three things are isomorphic
The only reason you don’t agree with me is that being an ignorant mycologist you are not aware of the fact I’m about to tell you that fact is which I am now going to tell you:
mushroom trees are the exact same type of which there are hundreds of other instances three instances of the same thing are mixed wine Mushroom Trees and eucharist and so I am telling you that you face a fork a choice and I’m going to dictate to you of which direction you have to turn on that fork
you cannot assert that mixed wine it’s all Simon because if you did you would also be forced to assert that mushroom trees are psilocybin and you would also be forced to assert that the Eucharist a Psilocybin this is a Panofsky argument which comes packaged together with I am going to make your decision for you I am offering you a choice and I am removing that choice from you you have no choice but to make the choice that I command you to make which is a thumbs down in a downward direction choice that you have you are forced to make the choice that I tell you that you’re forced to make
now that you have become aware that mushroom trees are not unique but are merely one member of a type which we art historians actually refer to as Psilocybin shaped mythemes but we in no way mean to imply that they’re actually psilocybin , these three type of logically isomorphic instances which are: mushroom trees eucharist and mix wine mixed wine
using Panofsky’s bank reasoning I am commanding you to turn the direction that I command you in this choice which I give you no choice but I’m telling you you have to the reason why you have to interpret mushroom trees as anything but mushrooms it’s because mushroom trees are isomorphic with the Eucharist and with mixed wine and it would logically be implied
that if you give thumbs up on mushroom trees you would also be forced to give a thumbs up on Eucharist and mixed wine also as being Psilocybin
but we know that definitely not to be the case because of begging the question circular reasoning circular argument assuming that which is to be approved or a key part of that which is to be approved and therefore mushroom trees cannot mean mushrooms because if they did then also the Eucharist and also mixed wine would have to be mushrooms and that cannot be that is not permissible and therefore you have to choose the way that I dictate that you choose because we are the question beggars and you have to
turn the way that we command and dictate that you choose to turn when you confront this choice in the fork in the road
either you have to assert (along with the mycologists and the artists) and the Monks that mushroom trees are psilocybin AND the Eucharist is psilocybin AND mixed wine is psilocybin
OR
Mushroom trees are not psilocybin, AND Eucharist is not psilocybin, AND mixed wine is not psilocybin
QED , which is to say , you are forced to decide the way that I command you to decide , which is three thumbs down, because circular reasoning, circular argument, begging the question, assuming a key part of that which is to be proved ; therefore, I have proved why I have forced you to declare that none of these three isomorphic things can possibly be mushrooms. 😑
QED
Signed,
– the Salvation Salesmen, including the Witches, and Dr. Secret regarding the subject of the Eucharist
The Egodeath theory 