Voice dictation
I haven’t analyzed all the ramifications, the branching ramifications yet:
My main question here to analyze is in Jerry Brown’s article where he disparages and distances himself from the Ardent Advocates.
How does Brown describe Carl Rut’s position?
Brown identifies several derby teams; I mean, interpretation groups of people, including conservative Christians.
Model and summarize interpreting the Browns’ article as defining several derby teams, or interpretation positions, or schools regarding interpreting mushrooms in art and then easily explaining them away using sound, tried-and-true historical methods.
And then from that schematization or classification of interpretations, figure out where does Carl Rut sit.
Is Dr. Rut considered an Ardent Advocate?
Also today’s voice recording, Egodeath Mystery show… Here I didn’t get straight to the point, so I forgot what my point is
Who cares about the show, just make my point.
Be assured, it was a very good point.
Anyway, it’s captured in the voice recording today.
unless my backstabbing equipment trashcans my work
So here is the proposal purchase of the player from the other team, Dr. Secret Amanita.
Implicitly, Jerry Brown was trying to join the Moderates; aka the self-constrainers.
Brown was joined with Dr. Rut, and Brown speaks favorably about him.
I have tried to persuade Professor Brown to leave the Moderate paradigm and convert to the Ardent Advocates; the extremist, dogmatic, Maximal, hard-core winning side, not the losers, those losers, the Moderate, self-defeating position, who says that even at the beginning, even back in 500 BC Greece – against Cyberdisciple – Carl Rut’s Moderate position says that mushroom use was suppressed, deviant, rare; abnormal; doesn’t count.
Also I talked today a lot, in Egodeath Mystery Show, about how Brown’s committee is a failure.
I think this was my point I was going to say:
Brown’s committee was a failure.
Nobody wants to join his losing team, because his committee is fair and unbiased.
But the problem is that the way that they approach trying to define an unbiased methodology, they are going to, by default, present their neutral, fair, toothless, wimpy, non-prejudiced, no fervent mission or commitment – an unbiased approach will suffer instant defeat.
That prophecy is obvious, and every time that I read my article title where Jerry Brown asked me to write to define neutral, unbiased, unprejudiced and fair criteria for judgment, and every time I read my article title, the prophecy loomed:
This will suffer instant defeat.
This is a losing proposition, guaranteed to fail.
The mathematical reality is, given the infinite negative prejudice against mushrooms in Christian art, the only team worth joining, the only team that will win is a dogmatic, vicious, mean, hard-core prejudiced, intensively weponized team, with a mission: to win; to ardently advocate and forcefully push and compel.
So nobody wanted to join Jerry Brown’s loser neutral team of wusses.
That everyone can see has failure written all over it.
Just like I read aloud the title of my article for him, and every time I read it aloud, every time I tried to read aloud my article for him, I couldn’t get past the loser title, guaranteed to fail precisely because it is framed as neutral and reasonable and unbiased and fair, which all translates to:
You are guaranteed to suffer instant death, defeat, out there on the roller derby rink.
We have to do the very opposite of this, and be weaponized and vicious and armored with artillery and spikes.
we are here to destroy you
we are here to intensively advocate a particular, specific interpretation: EXPLICIT PSILOCYBIN; the Maximal, non-suppression premise is our COMMITMENT.
you could argue against me, that this is precisely what Jerry Brown is calling for.
Brown says that to join his committee, you must already agree to assert Mushrooms in Christianity.
but Brown doesn’t drive & push that point, like an ardent advocate needs to drive that point to, if Jerry Brown’s committee were worth joining which it is not, the committee would say:
To be accepted as a member of this committee, you have to be an Ardent Advocate; hang out at Egodeath.com and be a disciple of Jan Irvin and John Rush, the leaders of the ardent advocates, according to Jerry Brown’s article.
which you could argue against me that this is precisely what Jerry Brown is calling for;
he says that to join his committee, you must already agree to assert Mushrooms in Christianity
but he doesn’t drive that point like an Ardent Advocate needs to drive that point to ,
if Jerry Brown’s committee were worth joining, which it is not, the committee would say: to be accepted as a member of this committee, you have to be an ardent advocate; a disciple of Jan Irvin and John Rush, the leaders of the Ardent Advocates, according to Jerry Brown’s article which has an Ardent Advocates section distancing himself, and where he declares his opposition to the Ardent and Advocates
Brown’s Ardent Advocates Section of his article fortunately lists egodeath.com as an Ardent Advocate.
I am in agreement with Jan Irvin of Gnostic Media, Jan Irvin of Logos Media, and John Rush.
The Dr. Secret Amanita losing team of moderate compromisers
so I am proposing to purchase player Jan Irvin to join the Monks derby team, but kind of rename/ alt name the team as the ardent advocates, and then get Jerry Brown to abandon the Dr. Secret Amanita losing team of Moderate compromisers, self-defeaters, obedient secret suppression pushers, those losers.
in his article he is essentially declaring Carl rock to be the correct approach, of moderate reasonable and fair
but then how come the Carl rock gang refused to join Jerry Brown’s loser committee of failure?
Dr. Secret Amanita refused to join Jerry Brown’s team, because Carl Rut realizes that Jerry Brown is not one of the moderates
Jerry Brown is actually in fact a closeted Ardent Advocate.
Jerry Brown’s committee actually goes against Carl Ruck.
the reason people don’t want to join Jerry Brown’s committee is because the committee is defined and designed to be intensely prejudiced in favor of mushrooms in Christian Art and the pussies on Carl Rut’s team want to tell the exact opposite story.
The Carl Ruck gang looked at Jerry Brown’s definition of the committee, and said “you’re not a member of our team; you’re on the opposite team – you’re on the Ardent Advocates team , unlike the moderate position that’s held by Dr. Secret Amanita”
See cyberdisciple.wordpress.com webpage article about against suppression hypothesis against the hypothesis of suppression:
Previously I had put Jan Irvin on the Secret Amanita Team, but it is striking how many agreements that I have with Irvin
I don’t really think that Jan Irvin of Gnostic Media or I have the same view as Allegro, because Allegro was a actually a full on minimal position; Allegro said that even at the beginning of Christianity, barely anybody used or knew about mushrooms in Christianity; almost nobody at the start –
that makes Allegro like Terence McKenna; a Minimal position advocate.
Jan Irvin does not agree with the Minimal entheogen theory of religion.
Jan Irvin agrees with the Plaincourault fresco version of John Allegro, which is not a minimal, but rather a moderate position, at least – and this raises the question: can Jan Irvin of gnostic media era be considered as Maximal entheogen theorist?
I think so; eg:
Thomas Hatsis quoted Jan Irvin saying that “anybody who claims to achieve Mushroom altered state without mushrooms needs to be investigated”, and Hatsis retorted by quoting the authority Carlo Ginsberg, historian of witches, who belongs on the witches roller derby team, who I say is full of sht and liars.
I agree with Jan irvin of gnostic media: Carlo Ginsberg’s fertility cult practices do not in fact induce the psilocybin loose cognitive association state; that doesn’t happen.
That’s not how the mind works.
that’s a firm position, because I am a an extreme dogmatist, and I am extremely-
I am far more prejudiced and I am far more biased than even Panofsky and Wasson and Hatsis.
if you think Thomas Hatsis is biased and prejudiced against Mushrooms, I am extremely much more biased and prejudice in favor of them
This is the Ardent Advocates derby team; we are out for blood on the rink: don spikes & hit first.
Welcome to the mud wrestling club, Dr. Brown.
No one wants to join your losing, neutral Committee, which sits on the fence and doesn’t have the guts to take a firm, vigorous, committed stance.
Theory adoption is about commitment, and this is not expressed clearly enough in the book and article by Brown which calls for the committee that nobody is willing to join, because they know the prophecy of instant total defeat, given the intensely negative prejudice & bias that’s the given context of reality that we live in.
The only viable committee is precisely the committee which is run and driven by the Ardent Advocates, which Dr. Brown used to counter-signal.
Is the crucifixion nail in the picture the mushroom 🍄 object?? 🤔
Yes.
The only question is, in what specific way is the crucifixion nail = the mushroom object?
Only the Egodeath theory, including the Maximal entheogen theory of religion, explains the intelligent, precise way in which the crucifixion nail equals the mushroom object 🍄.
The Egodeath theory 