Michael Hoffman, December 2, 2024
Contents:
- Intro
- 5 Things Censored in Panofsky by Deceiver Wasson, Lying by Omission
- Dating My Handwriting
- See Also
Intro
todo: make sure add quote from my Plainc article saying “where the f is the citations, Wasson? Panofsky, hello, DO U HAVE CITATIONS while u lecture us aggressively calling mycologists “ignorant” for failing to “consult” the “competent” art historians on “this matter of art”.
Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings (Brinckmann 1906) https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/12/11/brinckmann-mushroom-trees-asymmetrical-branching/
CITATION NEEDED, WASSON (holding hand over mouth of academic Panofsky trying to urge REAL consulting: an actual citation!! no way! called it, in 2006 (or very nearly nailed it: i was right in both partrs of “or”: either:
A. There are no writings about pilzbaum to cite.
B. The pilzbaum writings are so pathetic, practically nothing, it’s nothing to help pilzbaum Deniers. (better suppress -Wasson)
C. Wasson failed to pass on the highly expected citations to back up Panofsky’s huge, aggressive claim, “yes we know, it’s nothing new, we already call them pilzbaum, so we’re all over it. We’ve figured it out. It’s trees.” Any scholar would instantly say: CITATION NEEDED. Panofsky wouldn’t even think of making such a definite claim without backing it up – I reasoned in 2006,
I bet there is ALMOST NO publications by “competent on this matter of art” art historian Authorities who bark forth the trained correct answer:
I DISAVOW PILZBAUM! QUICKLY!
⏱
Panofsky would HAVE to provide citations – but I doubt there are any texts to cite.
The trick-word stunt, the word “consult” suddenly means typing out a letter, or phoning your local “competent art historian” in person —
“Library research citations, what? Brink-who, never heard of him. 🤷♂️
and, you ignorant mycologist, you failed to consult a competent art historian!
(and stop looking for citations to consult).” -Wasson 🤥🤞 Bluffer
🤷♂️ 🤥🤞
🥱 🥱
OH YEAH PILZBAUM WE KNOW ,TOTALLY BORINGLY FAMILIAR 🥱🥱 , “CONSULT” YOUR LOCAL ART EXPERT WHO WILL BARK AS TRAINED, “NOT MUSHROOM! DISAVOW! DISAVOW!”
Pad out those poor-quality, vague endnote citations with worthless Experts names! all barking in unison, “I DISAVOW PILZBAUM, QUICKLY!”
end note 43: “pers. corr.”
b/c the impressive author “reached out to consult” the Authority, since nothing was published by the Authority to properly CONSULT their ACADEMIC FINDINGS PUBLISHED IN WRITING, available through the library.
“Reach out and consult” means: We got nothin’, just sheer, committed, pilzbaum Denial.
We’ll readily dehumanize painters as broken-down copying machinery with no intentionality or ownership or artist freedom, and passively the art world came to accept this development — in this one case, to prop up our special-case commitment to: Never pilzbaum!
Bust out your stopwatch – can u pls bark forth FASTER the literalist Correct Response: its totally a tree, and that’s that. – those on the outside, impressed by the celerity with which they barked the “competent” reply ie reductionist OSC-based literalist, emphatically 1-dimensional – when it comes to the unique specific case of pilzbaum.
Any absurdity and empty posturing is preferable to pilzbaum!
No special case exception for pilzbaum requiring special handling in this one case.
Otherwise, we take a rich flexible approach, except for special case of pilzbaum – MUST HAVE 1-D FLATTENED MODEL OF ART, TO SHUT OUT The Mushroom [🍄😱] [picture kiddie amanita].
In other topics, Einstein-level sophistication and flexibility of multi-dimensional art interpretation – as long as it’s OSC-based and down to earth like Huggins advocates flatland OSC-exclusive emphatic literalism.
In the special case of pilzbaum, all the rules for art research change, as needed.
“Consult” citations? No, in this special case only, consult via typewriter & telephone.
Requires special handling, this pilzbaum topic.
The rules for art interpretation have changed accordingly, momentarily, for the special case of pilzbaum.
Re: non-pilzbaum topics, look how sophisticated the scholar!
Look at the feigned idiocy when it comes to the special case of pilzbaum – then only, we must have a 1D, dumbed-down, artist-insulting failure to grasp the basics of art interpretation (when pilzbaum is the topic).
Why don’t pilzbaum Deniers care at all about making sound args that can stand up to pushback and critique.
It’s all obvious logical fallacies, when it comes to pilzbaum.
The pilzbaum Deniers try to dwell on text, to constrain the artist in this special case, and the Deniers make the poorest args, based on super-obvious logical fallacies:
The topic of pilzbaum is the mother lode of spawning logical fallacies,
an endless stream of logical fallacies burped forth as if “argument” into the ether, not suited for 2-way pushback, just propagated-out, broadcast 1-way, logical fallacies.
Pilzbaum Deniers transmit their ill-formed quasi-argument, presented as if argumentation, but is half silent presuppositions, a solid foundation of logical fallacies; a GALLERY OF FOLLY when it comes to pilzbaum, only.
eg Robert Bigbrain Price, Grand Lead Editor of Journal of Critical Theoretical Thinking, became an incompetent idiot when Acharya S affirmed Allegro’s SMC.
Robert M. Price then became a scrawling first-grader, failing basic scholarship, when The Mushroom rears its head.
🍄😱 📚💥🖋
Even though Price agreed w/ Allegro re: ahistoricity of Jesus.
Nov. 1, 2024 – Acharya S’s Christ Conspiracy, Super 2nd Edition
I reconciled Price & Acharya and got Price to Turbo Edit Acharya S’s Christ Conspiracy, Super 2nd Edition:
https://www.amazon.com/Christ-Conspiracy-Greatest-Story-Sold-Revised-dp-1948803224/dp/1948803224/ref=dp_ob_title_bk
Who went against that or me… Brown, who disrespects Allegro – more than one person disresects Ahistoricity?
Who puts down Ahistoricity? Brown, who else?
IS ANYONE OTHER THAN BROWN DISRESPECTING AHISTORICITY OF JESUS AND TREATING IT AS A LIABILITY?
Is Brown alone in treating the ahistoricity of Jesus theory as if it’s a liability? ew, yuck, that’s an ALLEGRO idea, I disavow! Disavow!”
…
from above re: Panofsky:
Brinckmann you recommend twice? (better suppress this lead – Wasson Fake Academic Play-Actor, BOGUS Feigning manipulator Wasson “FATHER OF BUNKNESS IN ACADEMICS“
I updated my annotations in SOMA by Wasson, pics below, now that I know (and no longer have to speculate like in 2006) exactly how this passage about Panofsky is lying propaganda for deception.
There is much-deserved, written cussing in my SOMA book copy below, & here 🤬 – the purpose of not cussing is to cuss better, as needed.
I refuse to re-adjudicate points I already proved way back in 2006. Pilzbaum Deniers, read my 69-page article/book on the Plaincourault fresco.
My article ends with a call to ignore this entire unproductive, debate-avoiding FARCE and move forward productively, with the “secret Amanita cult” theory left in the dust as an irrelevant obstruction and dancing around the topic.
Deniers of Pilzbaum have forfeited ALL CREDIBILITY: they are stooping to lying and fraud.
Pilzbaum Affirmers are marching forward productively, leaving the pilzbaum Deniers to tilt at the Pop “secret Amanita cult” theory; both of those parties are irrelevant throwbacks stuck in 1970, irrelevant for the future of entheogen scholarship.
Ronald Huggins’ 2024 article failed to condemn Wasson for censoring Panofsky’s two letters, & failed to credit Brown.
Huggins’ excuse: Wasson’s denial didn’t stop pop Amanita books later.
Huggins thus condones & participates in lying and censorship, and has NO credibility.
Huggins 2024 shamelessly presents a “false dilemma” Conclusion section: “Literal mushroom, or literal tree? Which is it?”
Huggins: “Why don’t pilzbaum Affirmers care at all about citation accuracy?”
Hoffman: “Why don’t pilzbaum Deniers care at all about good argumentation?”
Because pilzbaum Deniers think they are merely arguing against the junk pop Secret Amanita paradigm.
Huggins failed to cite my 2006 article or Browns’ 2019 article that delivered-over Panofsky’s censored articles.
Huggins cites the Wasson archive drawer folder, to avoid crediting Browns & to excuse the huge problem, that his fellow Deniers are academic frauds and phonies, who have NO written publications about pilzbaum, for all their empty posturing and chastising (while censoring their lone, pathetic, thin publication – in the singular).
The pilzbaum Deniers are unequipped to debate the concept of the Explicit Cubensis paradigm, or any neutral set of Christians simply using entheogens, without dragging in the unhelpful concept of “secret cult”.
Deniers say “Why no texts?”
Good question: Why have “competent” art historians written NO PUBLICATIONS about pilzbaum?
Why did Wasson censor the one, single, outdated, “little”, flimsy publication?
WHERE ARE THE TEXTS ABOUT PILZBAUM BY COMPETENT ART HISTORIANS?
The Deceivers, I mean the Deniers, forfeit the debate; they are bad faith arguers who condone Wasson’s academic fraud & deception.
Wasson was caught red-handed DECEIVING people and insulting mycologists while deceptively, repeatedly stabbing them in the back by withholding the Brinckmann citation that was TWICE urged by Panofsky.
Where does Wasson mention TWO letters and the 1st had two pilzbaum pics attached?
This is a great example of LYING by omission.
5 Things Censored in Panofsky by Deceiver Wasson, Lying by Omission
- Brinckmann citation 1.
- A 990 miniature showing the start of development from pine to mushroom
- A 1200s glass painting showing an emphatic mushroom crown/ cap
- Letter 2.
- Brinckmann citation 2.
Every word Wasson writes about “consult” is an evil manipulative lie & deception, otherwise Wasson would have provided LIBRARY PUBLICATION CITATIONS.
Wasson’s lying, deceptive bluff & talk of “consult” is deep chicanery and dissimulation.
Totally improper anti-academic practice.
Totally non-standard academic practice, specially for pilzbaum only.
For no other topic are we directed, stopwatch in hand, to measure the impressive celerity with which they QUICKLY bark the trained correct response, “I DISAVOW pilzbaum!”
What bad direction (misdirection) from Wasson, to “consult” personally the top authorites. Wildly inappropriate and nonstandard.
Where is the damn citation, Wasson, liar, deceiver?!
Shut up about “consult” and HAND OVER THE FLIMSY CITATION – busted Wasson, FRAUD.
Art historians are allegedly “competent”, yet they have written NOTHING on the topic?
Then they are incompetent!
Cough up the damn citation & two pilzbaum, JERK!
Instead of lecturing “you failed to consult”.
Why in the hell would I bother & phone & write & harass & interrogate art historians, when they are so manifestly ignorant & incompetent, they write NOTHING on this topic?
Or we discover how PATHETIC the writings of the competent art historians: a single “little” book, way outdated 1906, not even in English.
THIS is the foundation for “consulting” the “competent” authorities?
Brinckmann shows development from pine to mushroom, which PROVES the purposelessness of the mushroom imagery.
Development proves pilzbaum can’t mean mushroom.
n o n
s e q u i t u r
Also, branching proves that our ‘pilzbaum’ (art historians’ descriptor) don’t look at all like mushrooms.
– unless art purposes psychedelic eternalism as non-branching, per branching-message mushroom trees; {mushrooms}, {branching}, {handedness}, and {stability} motifs together integrated.
What bull shit! 🐮💩🍄🟫 GTFO fraud Wasson,
the Father of Deception About European Ethnomycology
As I wrote in 2006, in my Plaincourault article; Find “citation” there.
Wasson’s reputation has been cast into the Lake of Fire 🔥
CITATION FKKING NEEDED, JERK WASSON FRAUD
SOMA 1968, by Liar Deceiver Wasson, Anti-Academic
mind those ellipses … <–
Compare:
- Line 3 of the Panofsky excerpt, “unknown of course to mycologists. . . .“
- Line 3 of the next paragraph, “refrained from consulting the art world”:
Panofsky’s actual letter:
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2025/01/07/panofskys-letters-to-wasson-transcribed/#Sentence-1-5 —
“It comes about by the gradual schematization of the impressionistically rendered Italian pine tree in Roman and Early Christian painting, and there are hundreds of instances exemplifying this development – unknown, of course, to mycologists. [replaced by …:] If you are interested, I recommend a little book by A. E. Brinckmann, Die Baumdarstellung im Mittelalter (or something like it), where the process is described in detail. Just to show what I mean, I enclose two specimens: a miniature of ca. 990 which shows the inception of the process, viz., the gradual hardening of the pine into a mushroom-like shape, and a glass painting of the thirteenth century, that is to say about a century later than your fresco, which shows an even more emphatic schematization of the mushroom-like crown. What the mycologists have overlooked is that the medieval artists hardly ever worked from nature but from classical prototypes which in the course of repeated copying became quite unrecognizable.”
Wasson replaced the highlighted content by ellipses while at the very same time berating mycologists as ignorant and needing to “consult” art historians, as a pretense; a bluff; a put-on; an affectation, to deceive and obstruct investigation.
Dating My Handwriting
mixed-case handwriting = 1991-2007; shown is 2006.
Allcaps = 2024 (1977-1990; 2008+)
See Also
Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings (Brinckmann 1906) https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/12/11/brinckmann-mushroom-trees-asymmetrical-branching/
Samorini 1997 Plainc:
Hoffman 2006 Plainc:
http://egodeath.com/WassonEdenTree.htm
Brown 2019 Entheogens in Christian art:
Huggins 2024:
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2024/11/23/huggins-foraging-psychedelic-mushrooms-wrong-forest/
Logical fallacies:
Cyberdisciple has best writing, better than Huggins treats in his 2024 Wrong Forest article:
The Egodeath theory 