Cybermonk, Apr. 3, 2022

Contents:

• Intro
• The Monks
  • Complicated, Long-Shot Strategy: If It Looks Like Mushrooms with Non-Branching Eternalism, It Means Mushrooms
• The Salvation Salesmen
  • Business Model
• The Witches
  • Startup Business Plan
• Dr. Secret
  • The Driving Priorities
• The Indigenous Shams
  • A Front for the ABD Academics
  • Scheme to Easily Make a Name for Yourself in this Trendy Topic
• Rules of Academic Debate Roller Derby 🛼🤜💥🤛🛼

Intro

Competing interpretations of mushroom imagery in Christian art

Author: Cybermonk. These characterizations are sketchy and extremely unapproved.

Here are the groups who are submitting one actual interpretation (the Monks) and two bunk cover-up stories (the Salvation Salesmen & the Witches) in support of a crooked business plan, along with one interpretation (Dr. Secret) that shows how the presence of mushrooms all throughout Christendom proves that there’s no mushrooms in Christianity.

The Monks

• Cybermonk
• Max Freakout
• Cyberdisciple
• Dr. Jerry Brown
• Religious artists (Eadwine)
• The mycologists (A Curious Fungus: Ramsbottom, Rolfe, Brightman).

The interpretation they put forth: mushrooms in Christian art mean Psilocybin. Amanita is a pointer to Psilocybin (“honorary”); Amanita is merely a symbol for Psilocybin but is not important in itself.

Complicated, Long-Shot Strategy: If It Looks Like Mushrooms with Non-Branching Eternalism, It Means Mushrooms

The Monks team holds that the Psilocybin referent is proved by anomalous branching and cut-branch features.

The Monks provide an elaborate, yet simple and compactly summarized theory that added 80 more art pieces to the database just during the course of writing their interpretation article submission, including positive identification of a balancing Amanita fountain in a heavily Psilocybe-filled Hellenistic mosaic, as proved by their own specimen photographs of a double Holy Grail fountain configuration (along with two branching-message mandrake trees).

We had to duck out when they wouldn’t stop spinning out their interpretation theory in exhaustive (and exhausting), endless detail, showing isomorphism among an endless stream of Christian and Hellenistic art images that their theory enabled perceiving, collecting, and organizing.

They also hold that mixed wine & the Eucharist are Psilocybin, and that meditation is based in Psilocybin.

Also they hold a view regarding the other teams’ interpretation: this team’s thesis explains why the other teams’ (the Salvation Salesmen & the Witches) interpretation is transparently obviously a bad-faith cover story, not actually a sincere interpretation, but rather, an interpretation designed to hide and obscure the real, true interpretation, so it’s kind of a pseudo-interpretation, used as a smokescreen.

The Salvation Salesmen

• The pope
• His bankster Wasson, head of megacorp Public Relations
• The art historians (Brinckmann, Panofsky)
• The Meditation Hucksters

aka the Presupposers, the Question Beggars.

Business Model

Business plan; business model, mission statement, and conflict of interest strategic product plan:

Hide the fact that mixed wine, the Eucharist, mushroom trees, and meditation are psilocybin, and replace that by our placebo salvation by installment plan.

This team’s submitted interpretation is that all of the mushroom trees in Christian art are intended to mean Italian umbrella pines that grow in Italy and happen to be the trees which we managed to post-hoc scrape together that happened to look down closest like mushrooms that we were able to find to prop up our bullsht cover story in order to hide and obscure the obvious truth that the mushroom trees (only one of which is Amanita shaped) obviously refer to Psilocybin mushrooms, and also they are trying to cover over the awkwardly explicit artists’ term that comes from the artists, the term “mushroom trees”, which has to be somehow twisted to mean not mushrooms.

We never actually meant mushrooms when we said “mushroom trees”; we merely meant that all of these mushroom trees look exactly identical to mushrooms all around all of the regions in which they were drawn.

But of course all of these regional artists intended to draw Italian Mushroom Pines I mean oops I mean to say Italian umbrella pines which look the most like mushrooms that we were able to post-hoc patch together our flimsy cover story and try to foist and frame it as a so-called “interpretation” a.k.a. a criminal’s lie, to speak frankly.

Because most of these regional mushroom tree art shops had zero Italian umbrella pines in their region, that explains why they had to import distorted templates that, on the long journey from Italy, always consistently came to look exactly like the mushrooms, which do grow in every region of every one of these mushroom tree art shops, in fact they’re growing right in the backyard of each of the shops, but that’s not what they were trying to draw.

All of these art shops and all of these widespread regions were specifically trying to draw the kind of tree in Italy which is famous for looking the closest like a mushroom to any kind of tree.

So you see, it all makes sense.

But the mushroom tree artists were not trying to draw their local mushrooms which grow right out behind the Christian artists’ shops, but rather, they were trying to draw the italian trees from 1000 miles away that are widely renowned for looking just like mushrooms; therefore, they did not intend to draw mushrooms.

QED

The Witches

• Letcher Hatsis

Startup Business Plan

Cover over and hide and replace Psilocybin in the Eucharist and in Christian art by the cheap high, mind-scrambling hallucinogen deliriant scopolamine plants, and become famous as the disprover of mushrooms in Christianity, which is easy because all you have to do is show there was no secret Amanita cult propagation, and then you’ve covered the entire theory.

If there are any other minor little aspects which we have not found yet, in our several hours of researching the mushroom theory of Christianity, it’ll be easy to extend our same story to cover any other little details of perspectives in the little pop theory that we’re taking down.

Basically if we can just attack Jan Irvin who has left the field only a couple decades ago, personally attack him hard enough, and there’s really no one else on the horizon in 2016 that you need to appear to disprove.

So we have a very high expectation that this business plan is sound, because we spent several hours researching it.

Our startup company is presently going through a re-branding from Psychedelic Witch to “Psychedelic Historian”, but no one will notice this superficial re-branding – just be sure to aggressively personally attack and taunt everyone (the standard ways of conducting yourself among professional historians and in roller derby) and lecture them and burn up all your word-count lecturing them about our sound, tried-and-true historical criteria exemplary historiographical methodology, rather than actually delivering any great method, or bothering to state specifically what our historical criteria are; just go see somewhere(?) in our online amateur blogger articles that we threw together.

We also worked equally carefully on the timing of our going public; we timed it exactly so that our online amateur blogger articles would come out just before Dr. Brown publishes his book The Psychedelic Gospels which we are unaware of, that’s coming out from the same publisher, Park Street Press, that published our work on deliriant scopolamine plants.

We don’t think there will be a gigantic freight train collision trainwreck; we expect to come out looking great, because we checked for several minutes as soon as we released our articles in 2015.

We checked and saw that there were no books on the horizon such as by a entheogenic cultural anthropologist teaching college course on that subject since 1975 who’s about to release a book called The Psychedelic Gospels, so everything’s looking great and green-light for the new rebranding, to appear to be a historian.

His submitted interpretation is: Anything But Mushrooms.

When pressed for specific referents for various instances of the hundreds of mushroom trees, Letcher Hatsis mumbles something lackadaisical and half-hearted like “parasols of victory, or whatever; stop being anachronistic”.

The top historian of art, Panofsky, wrote that the #1 historiographical consideration for interpreting the Plaincourault fresco is that there is nothing special or unique about this instance of the commonplace “mushroom tree” motif in Christian art.

Therefore, our high-profile attack article that will make our corporate brand famous at the Graham Hancock site is going to restrict itself to exclusively talking about the Plaincourault fresco in complete isolation and avoid mentioning the existence of the hundreds of mushroom trees which the top historian emphasized is the #1 consideration for interpreting this fresco.

The Monks expect this team to steal credit from the Monks’ discoveries that are due to the Monks’ superior interpretation and authentic interpretation: “mushroom trees” are actually branching-message mandrake trees, like with cut branches, shown parallel to the parasol of victory that’s shown twice in the Montecassino manuscript.

Dr. Secret

• John Allegro 1970
• Ruck 1975
• The evil M. Hoffman
• Jan Irvin 2005-2015

The Driving Priorities

1. Motivating purpose: To crybaby about the Big Bad Church that suppressed our precious mythic-realm symbol, magical kiddie Amanita.
2. Strategy: Take up entheogen scholarship to use it toward this ulterior motive. Follow the path set by Allegro.
3. Perpetuate and reify Prohibition, it is inherent and permanent. Shape entheogen scholarship to fit with and not challenge Prohibition.
4. Ruck’s line: “Thank you for yet more evidence of psychedelics within heretical Christianity, giving evidence of heretical groups/ cults/ communities.”

These imagined out-of-thin-air “communities” or “groups” are pictured as closed and walled off, to protect Prohibition from being challenged.

Can’t let the bad guys get access to myth-realm Amanita gnosis.

Gnosis = being in on the Sacred Mushroom, ie., kiddie Amanita in the myth-realm: the world’s most potent psychedelic.

Gotta use entheogen scholarship in crybaby mode, to build up that wall to separate “the good groups that have the mushroom, ie Gnosis of Amanita” vs. the mainstream, who (it’s a given) is permanently, inherently Prohibitionist, and so we are helpless to ever change that.

Gotta work hard to keep the friend/enemy barrier high and strong – build that wall.

Their submitted interpretation of mushroom shapes in Christian art is that they are actually hidden & secret, designed to prevent communication, and proves that the normal, real Eucharist is separate from & alien to Psilocybin.

The presence of mushrooms all throughout Christendom proves that there’s no mushrooms in Christianity, but that mushrooms are completely alien to real, normal Christianity,

as proved by writing a couple additional books each year, adding to the tower of books proving the presence of evidence for the absence of mushrooms in real Christianity and that mushrooms only appear exclusively in pseudo-Christianity, impinging on real Christianity from a secret, alien, outside source.

This team holds the the secrecy premise, which implies that “normally” the Eucharist is not Psilocybin –

in sharp opposition to the Monks’ interpretation, which is that the normal Eucharist was understood to be Psilocybin and that mushrooms were explicitly, openly depicted and were intended to be recognized as mushrooms,

along with efficiently and elegantly communicating their “non-branching” message, representing mental transformation to the non-branching model of time, possibility, and control.

The Indigenous Shams

A Front for the ABD Academics

• Sharday Mosurinjohn
• Christian Greer
• Richard Ascough
• Ronald Huggins

Anything-but-drugs academics

Sharday Mosurinjohn:

“If you try to find psychedelics in Western religious history, you are religious fundamentalism & colonial violence.”

“To redeem yourself, I require entheogen scholars to switch to making Indig Shams the central focus and boundary limit of their research.

Now excuse me while I write my book asserting psychedelics in Western religious history.”
Entheogenics: Psychedelic Experiences as Revelatory Events in the History of Western Esotericism (Mosurinjohn, 2026)

Scheme to Easily Make a Name for Yourself in this Trendy Topic

Mosurinjohn & Ascough: “Ruck sneakily shifts from possibility to fact, of psychedelics in mystery religions.”

Also Mosurinjohn & Ascough, sneakily shifts from possibility to fact:

“There’s no chemical evidence of LSA in kykeon in the vessels that anything-but-drugs academics carefully washed the dirt out of.”

Magically becomes:

“There were no psychedelics in mystery religions.
Ruck’s BEEN DEBUNKED.”

“Entheogen scholars ought to learn about indig shams.”
Entheogen scholars CREATED that field, so STFU, ignoramus Shardog.

Citations:

Jan Irvin’s 2022 book God’s Flesh: Teonanacátl: The True History of the Sacred Mushroom, August 2, 2022 https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Flesh-Teonanac%C3%A1tl-History-Mushroom/dp/0982556225/ & https://egodeaththeory.org/2023/03/27/gods-flesh-teonanacatl-the-true-history-of-the-sacred-mushroom-irvin-2022/

Thomas Hatsis’ 2025 book Psychedelic Injustice: How Identity Politics Poisons the Psychedelic Renaissance https://www.amazon.com/dp/1634312783 & https://egodeaththeory.org/2025/08/17/psychedelic-injustice-how-identity-politics-poisons-the-psychedelic-renaissance-hatsis-2025/

Rules of Academic Debate Roller Derby

🛼🤜💥🤛🛼

• https://www.bing.com/search?q=rules+of+academic+debate

• https://www.bing.com/search?q=rules+of+roller+derby
• https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=roller+derby

Great content in both part a and b.

Check idea development page 13 to see if I summarize some points about this episode there.

Errata

Part B has many dropped words. As unhappy as I am about Part B’s dropped words, part A is all-around great and almost completely clean; part A only has a few dropped words; it’s not really a problem.

I am able to follow part B, and you are able to follow most of it; you just have to mentally fill in the gaps. That should be easy after hearing part A.

I don’t know about spending time to redo the production on part B to fix dropped words.

Solution to prevent mixing off-topic passages with the on-topic content

Part B at 10 minutes, I accidentally left in about five minutes of discussion of mic & voice technique.

I’ve most recently been developing some better policies where I don’t allow a given recording to contain multiple types of content such as warm up practice; instead, I stop recording and make a separate recording to do that now.

That’s my latest technique to make life so much easier during production, to prevent accidentally shipping off-topic content.

Improving “Criteria of Proof” Article

The episode is couched in terms of writing the paper submitted for Dr. Brown’s class to presenting the paper, and how much of it should be metatheory, and how much of it should be evidence and demonstrating how our interpretation is compelling – but take a contrasting take a binary approach.

Not only show how our interpretation is good, but also show how the other interpretation is bad.

That’s what we don’t do; currently, we don’t show how the other interpretation is a cover-up operation and an insincere lie and fraudulent pseudo-Interpretation in bad faith to cover up their criminal-like motives.

Our team, the Monks.

The episode is couched in terms of writing the paper submitted for Dr. Brown’s class about presenting the paper and how much of it should be metatheory and how much of it should be evidence and demonstrating how our interpretation is compelling AND how the crayon-drawn, transparently obvious cover-up, pseudo-“interpretation” is not compelling.

The team called the Monks, who also have on board the artists and mycologists, we should add a chapter about exposing that the other teams interpretation is clearly not a real interpretation, but it’s clearly And transparently obvious that it’s just just a cover-up operation and a conflict of interest in order to protect their corporate strategy of replacing Psilocybin and eucharist by an inferior product, and try to become famous best-selling writer re-branding himself instead of psychedelic which rebranding his product being himself being his reputation as a supposed historian to sell books and try to make a name for himself becoming famous his ploy his business strategy we are exposing we have exposed his crooked business strategy or at least a deluded delusional business strategy that is bound to fail.

he what he is attempting to do as he’s trying to make a name for himself as the famous historian who debunked Mushrooms in Christianity but a huge problem is he has the most tiny one dimensional notion of what the mushrooms in Christianity thesis is he doesn’t even understand what the thesis is

Hatsis so far has been operating under the delusion due to being woefully uninformed he’s been laboring under the delusion that the theory of mushrooms and Christianity is strictly Allegro and Amanita Secret Culture propagation just like Andy Letcher imagines and fights against in a totally great example tilting at windmills and our paper also adds section on fallacies hell these dirty

We could teach a college course about fallacious arguments drawing are examples from these two teams given that they both have to lie and misrepresent and fabricate cover stories and flimsy Interpretations, naturally they commit every fallacious argument in the book.

We provide compelling evidence of this transparently obvious conflict of interest cover up operation that they try to foist off as “interpretations”.

Explain the evidence that that the other team is insincere and should probably be like kicked out of the class.

Conflict of interest and what their dirty strategy is to try to hide the fact and lie to people and replace Psilocybin Eucharist by a substitute, for their own dishonest profit. both of these businesses our employ the strategy of replacing the flesh of Christ by which we are saved by a phony substitute that is designed not to cause mental transformation either replacing the genuine product by an inert product that does nothing, or by a product that provides inferior effects: actual hallucinations and delirium, instead of effectuating Christian mental and spiritual transformation about our model of the world and ourselves.

One team is trying to set up a business or protect an existing business the salvation Salesmen.

That team is trying to replace well their strategy is to replace Psilocybin eucharist by a placebo eucharist and make a business out of that selling people salvation that can never possibly work so that they can sell people salvation in increments, none of which have any effect, and in fact that entrench deluded egoic thinking, and so do the very opposite of what the actual Eucharist does, to give enlightenment and transformation and salvation.

Those teams have a business strategy that that’s a conflict of interest because both of them are trying variations of the same strategy replace the Psilocybin Eucharist by a false substitute, either by a placebo or scopolamine.

The other dishonest team that has infiltrated the class and it’s turning in an insincere pseudo Interpretation cover story their strategy their business strategy for the Hatsis mega corporation industries witches supply company.

Their dirty dishonest anti-enlightenmemt strategy for giving their false, lying pseudo-interpretation flimsy cover story is, they are trying to replace the Psilocybin Eucharist by a deliriant scopolamine substitute psychoactive, which is very inefficient and is not targeted at loose cognitive association binding, which is required for fast, efficient, complete, coherent, and clear-thinking mental transformation.

The Salvation Salesmen team and the Witches team should definitely given an F for bad faith contribution of a interpretation that they don’t even believe in themselves. they’re both trying the same strategy the one team is trying to the witches are trying to replace Psilocybin in the eucharist by the deliriant scopolamine plants which is different than the Salvation Salesmen team.

and what their their ploy their strategy the covert strategy is to replace the psilocybin eucharist by pure placebo but other than that practically both teams are making the same move and so practically they’re both putting for the same flimsy bluff Insincere lying pseudo Interpretations one of them is half heartedly they’re both very halfhearted

in the interpretations that they put forth or so half hearted because the only purpose of their interpretations is to displace the true interpretation that they’re putting forth hazy inconsistent underspecified crayon drawn waffling such as parasols of victory but no that’s not my then they say no that’s not my position but it is but it isn’tin the interpretations that they put forth or so half hearted because the only purpose of their interpretations is to displace the true interpretation that they’re putting forth hazy inconsistent underspecified crayon drawn waffling such as parasols of victory but no that’s not my then they say no that’s not my position but it is but it isn’t

but if you want to know my reading on each of these mushroom trees of course there’s only a single mushroom tree which is plain curl but if we were to if you were to force me against my will to admit that there exists other mushroom trees I would try to make the excuse and cover story of parasols of victory as much as I could,

but whatever I don’t give a fck what you call them , so long as you adhere to my actual interpretation which is essentially negative what they are in fact is anything but mushrooms so it really doesn’t matter it’s irrelevant whether we waive them away “easily explained away” by employing “sound, tried-and-true historical criteria” (by which I mean, ways of lying and fabricating false history fake History fayke pseudo History).

if you really force me against my will to acknowledge is there exist any other mushroom cheese other than the fresco which uniquely shows Amanita unlike any other then I will try to designate as many as I can in my completely lackadaisical half hearted way too wave them away and deflect the evidence I will try to label as many as possible as parasols Victory which I really couldn’t care less about and then the other ones or you see it let me explain in detail my analysis of each instanceif you really force me against my will to acknowledge is there exist any other mushroom cheese other than the fresco which uniquely shows Amanita unlike any other then I will try to designate as many as I can in my completely lackadaisical half hearted way too wave them away and deflect the evidence I will try to label as many as possible as parasols Victory which I really couldn’t care less about and then the other ones or you see it let me explain in detail my analysis of each instance

my interpretation is that there parasols a victory except for the ones that you won’t believe my bluff on and so I actually to be specific my theory is that they’re not all parasols a victory that’s my explanation please see my please go away and look at my online amateur blogger articles where I lay out somewhere my sound tried and true historical criteria by which I expect easily explain away all of them are parasols a victory

except for the mushroom trees that are not foistable off as parasols of victory, in which case those are something else – whatever, I couldn’t care less what you call them, but I guarantee you this though: I will specify here that they are definitely not mushrooms; they are anything but mushrooms.

my positive specific identification of those other mushroom trees that I can’t pretend are parasols of victory, I specifically interpret them as: Anything But Mushrooms.

but I’m not gonna tell you because you would be convinced if I were to tell you both what my criteria are and what the hell the other trees are mushroom trees the ones that I can’t Bluffview and claim that their parasols a victory rest assured I do have explanation interpretation of those other mushroom trees that I can’t pretend are parasols of victory, but I’m not going to tell you what those interpretations of mine are.

but if I were to tell you what my interpretations are , the only reason you don’t believe me is because you are unaware of my arguments, which I’m not going to tell you, but see my online amateur blogger articles – it’s somewhere in there, but I don’t really care enough to bother citing them.

that they’re trying to lie

their whole interpretation is really a lie, is what it comes down to

a lie and a cover-up operation; they’re trying to prevent the whole assignment

they are trying to disrupt

The other teams in this class or trying to prevent the success of the investigation.

they’re trying to prevent correct interpretation

they’re trying to force the incorrect interpretation.

they’re deliberately trying to misinterpret.

their deliberately trying to do the opposite of what Dr. Brown is asking for.

they’re trying to prevent everything that the instructor is striving to accomplish

related to page: Insincere “Interpretations”, but want to try an additional page/angle/fresh take on this very important perspective and direction for assessment/coverage.

Dr. Jerry Brown asks “write about what kind of thing would constitute compelling evidence & criteria for proof for interpg msh shapes in art”, but, the motivation for the Anything But Mushrooms “interp” is purely cover-up attempt.

They are against Brown asking too many questions: they say “Stop looking into it, heres a cover story now go away and shut down your investigation, Dr. Brown/ mycologists.”

You people need to STOP THINKING ABOUT MUSHROOMS AT THE HEART OF Christianity.

The Salvation Salesmen and the Witches teams are trying to prevent, head off, discourage investigation of mushroom trees and psilocybin eucharist.

Their motivation for pushing an interpretation is negative, to block understanding.

Wasson censors Brinckmann’s book: STOP ASKING QUESTIONS.

They don’t want to investigate compelling evidence & criteria of truth.

They dont want to contribute a paper about how to rightly interp msh trees, they are defending against looking into it.

Stop bringing up topic of hundreds of other mushroom trees; restrict your attention, pay attention only to plaincourault fresco, cordone it off.

Refrain from gathering evidence. Their motive is to prevent looking into it. They are against Dr. Brown’s assignment they are against looking into this whole matter

The less analysis, the better, as far as they’re concerned.

How can we prevent Dr. Brown from asking these questions, looking into these matters?

We need to head off and shut down and deflect his attempt to investigate these things.

Halt at our cover story, do not look into it further.

They try to block the correct interp, it is exactly specifically the superior more compelling evidence that they’re trying to block.

it is precisely proof that they’re trying to impede and resist and steer away from.

They are trying to prevent proof they are trying to prevent getting a good view and treatment of the evidence.

They are trying to cause a bad handling of the evidence.

They are trying to prevent from reaching proof.

they’re trying to stop for reaching the truth

how can we prevent Dr. Brown from reaching the truth

that’s the motive they’re trying

these are like rogue students who are trying to make the professor’s research fail.

Tthey are the enemy within the gates.

They are against everything that Dr. Brown is trying to reveal and expose.

They are against this whole investigation and are trying to derail it and shut it down and prevent it from succeeding.

Their goal is to prevent Dr. Brown’s investigation from succeeding and reaching the truth.

not symmetrical

insincere pseudo interp anti-interp

Only the Monks team pushes ahead to assemble the data to look at it.

The witches & salvation salemen teams are reluctant, balking, trying to avoid, an interp whose purpose is to not understand , to prevent understanding, to mislead.

We have opposite motives for contributing an “interp”, bad faith “interp”.

They are trying to cover up and throw off the investigation attempts.

Their “interpretation” is nothing but a cover-up op.

MIXED WINE IS PSILOCYBIN

THE EUCHARIST IS PSILOCYBIN

MUSHROOM TREES ARE PSILOCYBIN

MEDITATION IS BASED IN PSILOCYBIN

AMANITA IS HONORARY PSILOCYBIN

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

what are the criteria of proof to prove that Brinkman doesn’t believe a word he says that he was assigned to go post hoc find a tree to pretend until a lying make-believe story that he knows his falls in order to run cover for the salvation salesman

the word interpretation equals the word lie and cover story and fabrication for the purpose of covering up a replacement strategy trying to replace the true Psilocybe in Eucharist by their fake salvation salesman product.

these so-called historians are as fake as tom houses

they’re just hired liars; “I am a historian – will fabricate history 4 U to protect your brand”

The Tom Hatsis “Witch who replaced the true, Psilocybin Eucharist by a placebo or scopalamine-deliriant pseudo-Eucharist” brand.

that’s the great product quality that I’m gonna sell with my brand by being a “historian”

NOW let us talk about appropriate Sense of so-called compelling evidence for what and so-called criteria of proof for what proof that the other team is insincere in there pseudo interpretation that they put forth that they don’t even believe in and that they know is a false interpretation it is a deliberate misinterpretation

this is a weaponeyes pseudo-History and weponized pseudo-interpretation; lying cover stories that they fabricate

The appropriate sense of how do we need to – given this reality, how then do we need to apply and talk about and analyze and define so-called

“” compelling evidence for what are we talking about compelling evidence that mushroom tree means mushroom or are we talking about compelling evidence that the other so-called interpretation is in fact a lying cover story by people who know perfectly well that the mushrooms are the real deal Eucharist and the real deal mix wine for that matter mixed wine in the antiquity context

who are the people who are putting forth the so-called interpretation

what is their motive

who prophets

who stands to profit from this bunk interpretation cover story fabrication lie insincere and bluff insincere “compelling evidence” –

for what ???

we need to define compelling evidence for what Dr. Brown for exposing the frauds the salvation salesman and what the real motive is that causes them to put forth this interpretation that they do not believe in and that they know perfectly well is false we need coat compelling evidence both four

Conclusion : we need to define compelling evidence for two things not one thing. we need to find criteria of proof for two things not one thing.

Define compelling evidence for interpreting Mushroom Trees as Psilocybin or Mushrooms

and also define “compelling evidence” for proving that the other team is insincere in there interpretation which they put forth

they don’t believe their own interpretation

they know that their interpretation is false and a lie and a put-on.

The real true I have discovered the true assignment the true assignment is to define criteria of proof for two things prove mushroom trees are mushrooms but you also have to prove and define criteria of proof to prove that the deniers are liars and criminals putting forth and insincere Bluff cover story that they don’t believe in because they are trying to sell a product that is false as hot as a fake history books

the word “History” & “Historian” means telling and fabricating a lie , cover story to cover up the crime of removing Psilocybin from the Eucharist to knowingly and deliberately sell a false fraudulent product that has no effect, as a sales corporate profit Strategy.

the Salvation Salesmen roller derby team = the Historian Hucksters

are we talking about compelling evidence that mushroom tree means mushroom or are we talking about compelling evidence that the other so-called interpretation is in fact a lying cover story by people who know perfectly well that the mushrooms are the real deal Eucharist and the real deal mix wine for that matter mixed wine in the antiquity context who are the people who are putting forth the so-called interpretation what is their motive who prophets who stands to profit from this bunk interpretation cover story fabrication lie insincere and bluff insincere

bluff-interpretations, a put-on, We need compelling evidence that they are con artist trying to bluff and fabricate a cover story that’s with the word interpretation it means what’s your cover story so that you can replace your own fake product like badly written psychedelic history books to replace the real thing: the psilocybin Eucharist. and interpretation here is a lie a criminals cover story fabrication that they try to con other people it’s used as a weapon it’s a weapon eyes cover up scheme it’s an interpretation in that sense in the sense of that the child steals the cookie from the jar and says no mommy I didn’t take the cookie I was in the other room is do we call that an interpretation in fact it’s a lying cover story I interpret the missing cookie in the jar as I didn’t do it because I was in the other room so much

so much for the word interpretation the word interpretation means the lie that I am going to tell to sell you my false product in place of the true Psilocybe in Eucharist.

so much for the word “interpretation”

the word “interpretation” actually means the lie that I am going to tell to sell you my false product in place of the true, Psilocybin Eucharist. NOW , Dr Brown, given that now let’s talk about “compelling evidence” Criteria of Proof now it has shifted rightly to include we are talking about compelling evidence that the pope directed Brinckmann and Panofsky and Bankster Wassen to fabricate a cover-up story that they know very clearly is false and Dr. Brown you published the conflict of interest point Young Irvin found Jan Irving Irving

experimental page to see if I can do some sort of a minimal overhead prep

Voice dictation

No I have not solve the issue of how to provide the .mp3 download link for longer than a week see idea development page at this website idea development page 13 for the link to download one week starting April to 2022

episode came out great

2010 live performance of song Journey to the Center of the Mind https://youtu.be/kEJp2BsaeiE

Errata; points I meant to make

0) per my march 2022 weblog posting where I described my feedback loop, I didn’t complete that thought here describing that the loop of :

voice dictation to write a webpage, then use voice recording to read aloud that webpage and comment on it

and then I’m good to go from there; I can do that indefinitely, with solid content, producing great web pages and producing great voice recordings in a loop strategy workflow.

1) Eric Davis the point I was going to make he did not check the popularity stats of his show he just did whatever he wanted himself and he did not want to be influenced by page views how many people listen to each episode and then steer it based on that he deliberately did not do that just like I DGAF what people think about the Egodeath Mystery show it’s irrelevant.

45:00 I got sidetracked talking about how mixed wine inherently Hass to be for Sabin not amanita Hass to be psilocybin not amanita my point I was trying to get to was kind of the biggest point in the world the entire network of all mixed wind in antiquity covers that era then add to that the network of all mushroom trees in the middle ages.

Extreme ubiquitous mixed wine in antiquity which had to be psilocybin equals plus extreme Ubiquitous and Mushroom Trees in the middle ages which all means Psilocybin was Ubiquitous in that era what we really have then is by applying the ego death Theory Cybermonk maximal entheogens maximal Psilocybin Theory of religion we have the maximal Psilocybin mix wine theory of religion in antiquity Plus the maximal Psilocybin Mushroom Trees Theory of christian Audi the maximal Psilocybe and Theory of Mushroom Trees the Amanita is strictly kept as a second rate honorary but everyone understands that the first rate real deal the benchmark is not an Amanita everybody knows everybody in there ancient world network of

everyone in the ancient network of mixed wine knows that psilocybin is first rate and the amanita is no use is no good for mixed wine wine

everyone in the middle ages network of universal Ubiquitous and Ubiquitous Mushroom Trees everyone knows that psilocybin is the benchmark real deal normal main regular form of mushroom tree ingestion and that amanita is a distant second rate honorary only strictly

Mixed wine was as Ubiquitous a Panofsky Mushroom Trees and it had to have been psilocybin not an Amanita Psilocybin use was exactly 100% identical in spread and scope and ubiquity as mixed wine, in antiquity.

in exact parallel to the extreme possible extent the exact same points come from me come from the ego the theory come from the maximal entheogens theory which Carl Ruck knows that I am the divine I devised it it is devised by me he knows that is mushroom trees in exact parallel with the universal spread of mixed wine which means Psilocybe in everywhere

what Dr. Brown needs is not how to interpret in a rational way because everybody don’t kid yourself let’s stop pretending let’s stop kidding yourself everybody already knows how to interpret evidence the real article should be about exposing a put on exposing a cover-up that’s the work at hand the work at hand is not how to fare fairly way to different interpretations we’re not talking what we have is not two different interpretations so much as we have one forced fake interpretation cover story put on BS story keep a bullshit story is so-called interpretation essay it is purely a con game these are con artist it’s the pope competing against Mushrooms the Mushrooms of the real deal the pope is a con artist fraud and fake that’s the story here not how to do a fair rational interpretation everybody already knows how to do a fair rational interpretation of evidence so there is no point in writing Dr. Brown’s article the real article

The real article needed is more like young Irvins expose of pop psych Agenda the pop psych agenda- explain the motivations it’s all about Paul Thagard’s book conceptual revolutions the chapter section on irrationality: social aspect that’s the article that’s actually required rather than metatheory of what makes one interpretation more compelling than another of course both are needed but chapter 1 of Dr. Brown’s article Hass to be all about bluff put on bullshit cover story fayke pseudo Interpretations put forth in bad faith in order for the pope and his historians because the word historian

Thomas Hatsis brags about being a historian the job of historians is a cover up operation they are assigned to cover over what really happened in history and to fabricate an insincere story that they themselves don’t believe in that’s what it means to be a historian it means that you are assigned a job and it is evident that the pope has assigned a job to Thomas Hatsis to remove mushrooms from Christianity because they compete against the meditation hucksters and the salvation salesman who offer a fraudulent fake product that has zero effect

what we are presented with from Panofsky under lying historians fabricate flimsy obviously transparently flimsy cover-up operation cover stories and they call that a interpretation and then Dr. Brown wants to talk about what makes one interpretation more compelling than another

the first chapter Hass to be “weponized “interpretations””

chapter 1 : weaponeyes and pseudo false cover story “interpretations” that aren’t actually taken seriously by those who put them forth. just as I have re-titled my submission article to give it a strong extreme bias and a firm commitment to my interpretation and not be neutral and toothless subject to abuse by others similarly an interpretation is a weapon and interpretation is a combat weapon and interpretation as a roller derby contact sport tactics strategy to inflict to make the other team lose that’s the purpose of an interpretation

and Dr. Brown’s assignment is kind of phony.

it’s a phony assignment

Brown pretends as if these are sincere interpretations when the actual nature of what Panofsky puts forth and what has this puts forth are not sincere interpretations Hatsis has conflict of interest in the reason for why he puts forth an interpretation he’s not interested in truth he’s interested in selling his corporate brand the only falsely claims that he wishes that there were mushrooms in Christianity

but he’s not interested in the truth; he’s interested in selling and marketing his brand, which is “I am the witch who removed mushrooms from the Eucharist in popular Christianity theory.”

similarly the pope who assigned Brinckmann to do a post hawk filtering through coming through the list of all shapes of trees to find the tree that looks the most like mushrooms to fabricate a post hawk cover story to try to protect the salvation salesman from having to compete against the product that delivers the goods and that actually has an effect to transform and give you salvation and regeneration the real Eucharist there is a war of the salvation salesmen are at war against Psilocybe and Mushrooms which are thesimilarly the pope who assigned Brinckmann to do a post hawk filtering through coming through the list of all shapes of trees to find the tree that looks the most like mushrooms to fabricate a post hawk cover story to try to protect the salvation salesman from having to compete against the product that delivers the goods and that actually has an effect to transform and give you salvation and regeneration the real Eucharist there is a war of the salvation salesmen are at war against Psilocybe and Mushrooms which are the eucharist

The next, below, I did voice transcription for too long: the block became too big and it overloaded and malfunctioned, so it produced double text, ahead:

these satanic salvation salesman try to sell you a false product that has no effect and they try to suppress the real Eucharist they are against the Eucharist they try to substitute their fake Eucharist instead of their actual true Eucharist which was historically true and historically normal and historically popular and then they come along afterwards and try to fabricate a weponized pseudo interpretation that they don’t believe in and that they know perfectly well as falls Dr. Brown’s homework assignment does not factor that number one most important fact into account into account

these satanic salvation salesman try to sell you a false product that has no effect and they try to suppress the real Eucharist they are against the Eucharist they try to substitute their fake Eucharist instead of their actual true Eucharist which was historically true and historically normal and historically popular and then they come along afterwards and try to fabricate a weponized pseudo interpretation that they don’t believe in and that they know perfectly well as falls

Dr. Brown’s homework assignment does not factor that number one most important fact into account.

dammit the damn voice transcription lost my sentence for no reason no reason really just randomly hiccup and Thruway as I was trying to fcking say:

we are evaluating an insincere non-interpretation cover story versus a clear thinking well articulated sensible reading when we are given the assignment of interpreting Mushroom Trees as Mushrooms the problem that we actually face is not that we need to define Criteria define compelling evidence and criteria of proof;

we do need those things but the context is entirely different the night naïve kind of Pollyanna make believe as if the playing field is level it is filled with con artist and frauds and ConMan who know perfectly well that mushroom trees mean mushrooms but they’re pretending to believe something else and they’re trying to get us everybody else to buy their fake product the salvation salesman they know that their product is fake that’s the problem that’s the real context that we need to write an analysis of evidence regarding

This is the subject of the purpose what is the purpose of their stated at interpretation their stated interpretation is for the purpose of telling a lie

they are trying to foist a false interpretation that they know is false in order to

like hatsis sells his company brand “I am the famous witch who removed mushrooms from the Eucharist” – that’s the purpose of why they are putting forth their fake interpretation that they know is a lie it’s a bad faith pseudo interpretation it’s not actually an interpretation or to the word interpretation as a synonym or one of its meanings one of the most important meanings of the word interpretation is that I’m going to fabricate a fake cover story so suppose I rob a bank and then I make up a lie about where I was is that an interpretation interpretation can be used as a form of trying to tell a lie to cover up got a crime that’s the kind of so-called interpretation that we need to refute in this critical quart room someone is lyingof why they are putting forth their fake interpretation that they know is a lie it’s a bad faith pseudo interpretation it’s not actually an interpretation or to the word interpretation as a synonym or one of its meanings one of the most important meanings of the word interpretation is that I’m going to fabricate a fake cover story so suppose I rob a bank and then I make up a lie about where I was is that an interpretation interpretation can be used as a form of trying to tell a lie to cover up got a crime that’s the kind of so-called interpretation that we need to refute in this critical quart room someone is lyingof why they are putting forth their fake interpretation that they know is a lie it’s a bad faith pseudo interpretation it’s not actually an interpretation or to the word interpretation as a synonym or one of its meanings one of the most important meanings of the word interpretation is that I’m going to fabricate a fake cover story so suppose I rob a bank and then I make up a lie about where I was is that an interpretation interpretation can be used as a form of trying to tell a lie to cover up got a crime that’s the kind of so-called interpretation that we need to refute in this critical quart room: someone is lying. who?

dr. Brown’s article needs to be given two interpretations and one party is lying and putting forth an interpretation that’s a cover story to cover up a crime

how do we detect “compelling evidence” in the courtroom to detect and judge which party is telling a fabricated interpretation that they know is false and a lie to cover up their heinous anti-Christ tale; and:

what is “criteria of proof” that one interpretation is an evil vicious malicious lie in bad faith – that’s what the article has to cover.

so we have to talk about chapter 1 what is the purpose of putting forth false interpretations that you don’t even believe in but you’re trying to swindle people with

it’s more like con artistry 101 , not entheogens scholarship 101 – RULES OF DIRTY ROLLER DERBY CONTACT SPORT

2) The way in which I am planning to traumatize Wouter Hanegraaff that I meant to say I’ve mentioned it before I’ve researched it before I found my first posting that mentions entheogenic esotericism and it is 100% perfect and ideal and could not possibly be better and that was many years before he wrote the chapter for the book contemporary esotericists in which he wrote that he tried to see if anyone had used the word before him and he finds as far as he can tell he’s the first person to use the phrase entheogenic esotericism but he’s wrong and I have proof although I could not find the exact archive archive.org URL

but I do have my own evidence of the Yahoo group posting dates which is eight in fact perfectE tho it could be fake but max and wrmspirit egodeath community can vouch it it a good-Faith archive and

they can confirm that it is extremely valuable to me my dates my posting dates with my proof of my priority of discovery

it is in my interest to keep that accurate

so the question for Hanegraaff is not whether I really honestly did post it on that date many years before him the phrase entheogenic Esotericists

actually the question for Hanegraaff is well the content of my post in which I chastise severely BS re e e.

i’m like hanegr, you should not be worrying about the fact that I wrote the phrase many years before you your bigger problem is the content of my posting in which I severely called out baloney.

did I finish my thought about the sleazy art historian cover up operators and the sleazy the witches team the historian historian Tom Hatsis that he too calls himself a historian and he too is involved in a cover-up cover-up operation to remove mushrooms from the Eucharist –

I got diverted by that other important subject :

hey everybody aren’t you forgetting something; do you even realize that allegro says no historical Jesus?

why are you not discussing that?

and why are you always getting it wrong why do you time and again write that allegro is notorious and infamous because he said that Mr. Jesus used amnesia Mushrooms

3) leopard dionysus fountain as amanita was a mere hypoth in back of mind until suddenly when writing browns article on evidence, late in that process i remebered my hypoth and ONLY THEN brought together my 10/10/10 10:10am photo of double holy grail fountains in the rain to crop and exactly match and positively jackpot identify the fountain as amanita in mosaic w 5 psilocybin mshs & 4 msh-shaped grape baskets & vines growing from krater psilocybin mixed wine, wine mixing bowl where you add water to the mushroom grape wine non-branching vine concentrate.

4) im pitting hatsis against ruck by putting them on different roller derby teams. hatsis is anti secrecy premise, but team Dr. Secret with Ruck is the one who is asserting the secrecy premise.

you can’t simply claim that you are in agreement with Carl rock as hats is asserted defensively on the live stream September 2021 and then at the same time demonize and vow to take down the secrecy Premise, Given that Carl Ruck is the very person who is pushing the secrecy Premise.

5) I didn’t completely mean that I had just now made up the term “anything but mushrooms” position.

probably if you search I probably posted that term before, the “anything but mushrooms” position/ bluff-“interpretation”

here right now is a new phrase the “anything but Amanita” ABA interpretation –

or pseudo-quasi-BS cover story “non-interpretation interpretation”; pseudo fake ersatz make-believe pretend interpretation the bluff cover story ersatz pseudo-interpretation.

of course remember hats does not use the words that we in the correct way like we do he absolutely could inflates the word Mushroom with the word Amanita so in his mind to see anything but mushrooms is an exact synonym of saying anything but amanita because the only mushroom tree that exists and the only mushroom tree that matters and the only mushroom tree that we ever should be talking about explain curled and never talk about anything else other than plaincourault and reject Dr. Brown Dr. Brown’s assignment which is to discuss the interpretation of the hundreds and hundreds of mushroom Trees and Hatsis says no I refuse

of course remember hatsis does not use the words that we in the correct way like we do

he absolutely conflates the word Mushroom with the word Amanita.

so in his mind to say “anything but mushrooms” is an exact synonym of saying “anything but amanita”, because the only mushroom tree that exists and the only mushroom tree that matters and the only mushroom tree that we ever should be talking about explain curled is plaincourault and never talk about anything else other than plaincourault and reject Dr. Brown Dr. Brown’s assignment which is to discuss the interpretation of the hundreds and hundreds of mushroom Trees and Hatsis says no, I refuse:

dr. Brown you’re wrong; the category of the art historians the historians category that the historians call mushroom trees doesn’t exist and Panofsky is wrong;

the top historian is wrong; the top art historian is wrong; plaincruel in fact is unique and is special so that we should treat it as a proxy

it is unique because it is the one mushroom tree which is the proxy for all mushroom trees and it is “not mushrooms” (by which I mean it is not amanita, because those are exact synonyms)

I tell you, Thomas Hatsis’ thinking is so muddled, so garbled and so muddled; he doesn’t know what his position is, He only knows that his corporate brand that will make him famous is that he’s the guy who removed mushrooms from popular theory of Christianity.

he doesn’t know what his interpretation is

his thinking doesn’t make any sense we can’t even really have a lyses thinking it’s like trying to analyze a bowl of oatmeal it’s shifting his interpretation shifting how he thinks about Plaincourault shifting his concept of the alleged existence of the hundreds of mushroom trees does he agree with Panofsky or not the top historian does the historian Hatsis agree with the top historian Panofsky

but there is absolutely nothing special about plane crawled that it is exactly a member of a type then why doesn’t Hatsis mentally capable of interpreting the entire motif of all mushroom trees but why does he insist on brushing it under the rug sweeping that under the rug all of the mushroom trees and try to force everyone and I mean very very concretely the proof of what I’m saying look at his outline of his article at the Hancock site he tries to say that there’s really only exists one mushroom tree which is plain crawled and that’s why it serves as a rock proxy for the nonexistent art category “msh trees” so a huge problem with the witches team interpretation is that they don’t address the don’t scope they’re thinking to the whole set of all of the mushroom trees they try to only scoop their interpretation to plane crawl uniquely and they don’t really specify they do not specify what their interpretation is at the broad scope of all of hundreds of mushroom trees

they refuse to tell us what their interpretation is at that scope , and they only specify that their interpretation for playing role plaincourault is that it is not amanita

TechGnosis

interview again with Erik Davis have him on my show since since Erik Davis is not doing podcast he been on a long one year hiatus I could have him on my podcast I would just be telling him about my canterbury he could help me well I need to read his books I would be embarrassed to tell him no I haven’t read your past three books or all your writing is in vain because nobody buys books anymore ha ha Ha but putting aside the fact that I refuse to read his books like Spiritual California imagine if I he brings his

knowledge and his knowledge is a lot lot better he does not rub me the wrong Way, Christopher partridge off and usually rubs me the wrong way he tries to lay it on heavy-handed his radical anti-civilization cultural deconstruction tear everything down the esotericism is the same thing as being counterculture like God Erik Erik Davis never pulled anything like that

i’ve only had mild relatively mild objections to to somethings Davis is Erik Davis it said but Christopher partridge his work seems to be permeated by wrong messed up thinking like this saying that the very nature of esotericism is to be against culture.

Erik Davis has a lot more positive reading I think. so I don’t know maybe they just be like a casual thing Erik Davis is kind of taking a break from podcast and I know I am taking a break from reading stupid books like hers and we could just have just plain enjoyable conversation I’d let him open the show episode and he would do is a 55 minute monologue leaving in five minutes for the guest to talk let me introduce discussed this guest is the greatest guy and I’m glad to have them on the show and I’m gonna talk to you all about this how wonderful this guest is and I’m gonna talk on and on for 55 minutes about how great discussed as well it looks like we’re out of time OK everyone by this is Erik Davis on the Erik Davis show where we talk about Erik Davis and we have all kinds of guest on the show where I talk about Erik Davis and then hang up

it’s funny because only at the very end like in his in his final show where he talks about retrospective and how terrible his mic was I was so mad when I prepared to give Erik Davis a good clear excellent very excellent clear very clear feed and he put me on his usual very low phi show and he recently talked about his malformed philosophy of his wrong think he’s messed up thinking about why he should not give any white why he should feel treated with disdain to be technically to technically set up the show so he ended up with like really awful terrible Fidelity on a show and I was so mad I was so mad after I was on his show and I had done everything possible to give

him a clear audio feed which I did and then as always it was a super low Fidelity result his whole show his whole episode and then my friend who like many is an audio expert lectured me about tips to get better Fidelity as if I was responsible for production of Erik Davis’s lousy crummy audio of his lousy crummy show yeah well I got to get back to that friend anyway I need it badly need to get back to him and I will tell him finally that I was a bit mad at him of course he couldn’t know he couldn’t know the situation but I never

or set him straight I never set him straight on what happened but right on his most recent final show Erik Davis explained how he listen to back and in retrospect it was a really cool episode he said two things he talked about how wretched and terrible his audio was and that he made a big mistake there and he talked about what the hell was wrong with me that I have he said he would he only at the very end of his whole episodes at the very end of his show in his last episode he or his last few episodes he finally for such a high consciousness guyor set him straight I never set him straight on what happened but right on his most recent final show Erik Davis explained how he listen to back and in retrospect it was a really cool episode he said two things he talked about how wretched and terrible his audio was and that he made a big mistake there and he talked about what the hell was wrong with me that I have he said he would he only at the very end of his whole episodes at the very end of his show in his last episode he or his last few episodes he finally for such a high consciousness guy

I better role tape if I’m gonna talk about the stuff he talked and talked and talked and talked and would never let the guy speak it’s like gift of gab gone completely jump the shark

why are you going to have guests on your podcast if you never let them if you just open your show was like 40 minute monologue

nobody wants to hear a stupid 40 minute monologue when they’re there for her to hear the guest

I mean you’re contradicting yourself nobody wants that contradiction

like if this is episode 123 to have Joe Bob Fred on the show then let Joe Bob Fred talk

don’t sit there and announce Joe Bob Fred for 45 minutes and then say we only have five minutes left

you’re contradicting yourself

it’s aggravating

That was exactly what he said he said how could I have been so low consciousness??

I don’t know how he put it but he said “what the hell is wrong with me “

“shut up, me!! wtf”

maybe a place to list out some content ideas like reading aloud finally the criteria for evidence article and maybe talking more about the motivations shouldn’t the evidence article the theory of evidence the theory of interpretation of mushroom trees the theory of interpretation of mushroom trees shouldn’t that article talk about the

lying meditation hucksters but here especially the salvation salesman the pope and that interpretation theory which the pope invented the flimsy obvious puerile insultingly childish and flimsy cover story which is so much the style of the church fathers and the the anti-heresy riders are so is it your service so infantile unbelievable a crayon scribbling maybe Edwin Johnson says that they were the forgery factories in 1525 fabricating the children

fabricating children’s tales that read like the written by eighth graders these do not read like credible serious reality-based writings they sound childish they did some childish and puerile their manner of writing like hatsis

on the one hand I shouldn’t be beating up on hatsis , but on the other hand he’s so aggressive and so he is so eager to to come across as taunting

certainly no one can can argue against this point that he’s he’s got it coming to him I just don’t really care so I don’t know if I’m just being likeopportunistic

I don’t want to be apologetic to him but I am I going to make him always the go to punching bag

he’s asking for it he pretty much Positions himself to be my go to punching bag to make fun of him like he like he does 1 million times more to everyone else

why why is it supposed

why is he allowed to do that but I’m not

like fair is fair

if he can write articles that are so infantile as to have personal insults and taunting in the title of his articles where he actually has roasting you on Irving you just can’t get any more unprofessional and immature than that

so , what, now you’re going to criticize me for that I’m excessively to me what I’m supposed

you’re asking me or telling me that I have to be the greater man and carry myself with dignity and not beat up someone with low IQ every day

I hope

poor poor Hatsis I’m bullying him but I do feel like it’s kind of too easy

it’s like the time I was I was embarrassed in the weight room

I support everyone of course like like any bodybuilder or any weight lifter of course I support everybody, that’s that’s inherent

and I believe in lower weight

but this guy was doing like 100 pounds on the barbell on the bench press and I was kind of horrified to realize so I came in and alternated within and I felt bad because it became clear to me I could go on indefinitely doing like 100 or 200 push-ups of bench presses like that with

the weight was just way below anything I could make use of , and I am a big advocate of low weight

maybe these days I would see it a little differently , maybe I could meet I could make it work today, I’ve gotten really good at low weights

but yeah

I feel like I am Godzilla and Thomas Hatsis is like Bambi

except he’s a very like Chihuahua – very rude and aggressive like because he’s a week and a small one little yappy dog

he tries to compensate by talking big talk to try to cover his scholarly inadequacy

and I feel like it is mean or low of me to say that

I don’t know

I have a bit of a moral conundrum

but it is it is useful I am just I was about to criticize it or

I was about to maybe you could say take advantage of Tom Hatsis by using him as a convenient example I guess I guess that’s what I wanna say is

although it looks like I am I was going to make him

I was going to use him as a negative example and

I’m saying that it wasn’t for the purpose of making fun of him , that was not my motivation

my motivation just in for that I almost went to make a negative example out of housetsis ,

my motivation was not to make fun of him,

my motivation was that he was a convenient example of badness of some sort , for whatever point I was going to make. I was going to somehow use him as an example of puerile childish crayon like writing like it may be eighth grade level at best kind of character just writing and you get that same character and it kind of answers why are the why is the team the witches allied with the team the popes they have the same comic comically childish crayon like completely unbelievable their third character of their arguments is for insultingly infantile like I feel like they’re insulting me by telling me this bedtime just saw stories as if I’m

going to buy their 8th grader or 2nd grader obviously transparently flimsy cover story so it’s so obvious that it’s a cover story the interpretation the theories or models or interpretation that my team is refusing or competing against what it’s like we go out on the roller rink and there’s some in third graders were like wait a minute this is where the college division but this other team is third graders we can’t we can’t go out there on the roller rink with them but they’re all like taunting us in the witches and it turns out that the third graders and it’s the pope and it’s to the heart for hire for hire our establishment art historians who will who will academic for pay waving their credentials entering their sell themselves on lists of

Thumbs down well I guess I need to roll tape since I’m on a monologue

things to voice dictation I can immediately see the thought that I started above it was about trying to characterize and describe the kind of childish puerile I spy especially maybe you should look up the definition of puerile this cover story from the pope and from the establishment art historian Panofsky I mean Brinkman and then after that the establishment art historian Panofsky flunkies of the pope total conflict of interest or will my main point more importantly shouldn’t the theory of interpretation

shouldn’t this theory of interpretation discuss not merely conflict of interest but stronger than that bad faith Interpretations we need to discuss bad faith interpretations does Paul Thagard cover that in his book conceptual revolutions does he cover bad faith cover story interpretations where the person has motives to lie about what their interpretation is worth it which would be like saying does staggered discuss models that get challenged by better models were the old model is not held seriously but was rather a weponized

pretense that’s the situation we have here does he cover dishonest theories theories that are put forth by one party to try to deceive and miss lead the other party because that’s what the the popes the team the derby team called the pups who are submitting their paper to Dr. Brown which will stay there interpretation and I feel like my teams paper

I guess I might be ready to roll tape because I am spinning a monologue here



I advocate total repeal, rolling back the laws, getting rid of them entirely like back in 1913.

I don’t know whether the prisoners for victimless crimes are being released.

I don’t know how much of a racket it still is.

I don’t know how the new laws compare to what there should be.

I would need to compare the new laws against the 1913 nonexistence of laws.

Alcohol Prohibition didn’t really end; the sham agency just rebranded to switch from the alcohol Prohibition racket to the cannabis Prohibition racket.

Jan Irvin exposed: Timothy Leary worked to get the chemical illegalized.

Timothy Leary worked to persuade Congress to make the chemical illegal, per Jan Irvin’s article series “The secret history of magic mushrooms”.

Voice transcription quick idea

for one thing there are different inclination assumptions of what when we say the word interpreting Hatsis always thinks we mean interpreting plaincrawled and he wants to force the argument to only be an argument only about interpreting Plaincourault he wants to stop and prevent interpretations of other mushroom trees him the more he feels he thinks that the more that we limit our interpretation of what we are trying to interpret the more that we neroli limited to plane corral the better so he’s trying hard he’s trying very hard to narrow and reduce the scope of what we are interpreting

in contrast Dr. Brown is completely inclined to set the scope and range as being all mushroom trees all of them not with hand and Dr. Brown does not want to put any special focus on plane corral Dr. Brown wants to follow the historical criteria number one the top most historical criteria according to the top historian who is a historian of Art Irwin Panofsky who tells who’s trying to yell at Tom how to saying the number one historical Criteria for Plaincourault is it is not unique it is not unique did you hear me it is not unique Plaincourault is in no way special that’s principal number one the top most Estás

top most topmost number one historical criteria for interpreting Plaincourault is that first of all above all other historical Criteria Thomas Hatsis is that plane crawl is in no way unique in no way special and you are totally unjustified and ignoring the number one historical criteria from the number one top art historian who is a historian a real historian

pan up Panofsky told you Tom hatters stop pretending that plane crawled is unique the number one historical criteria according to the number one top historian is trying to tell Hatteras you are directly in error contradicting the top historical criteria which is above all plain cruel is utterly not unique or special in anyway it is exactly typical it is not a typical it is typical that is historical criteria number one according to the historian number one the top criterion from the top historian is that there is nothing at all special adult Plaincourault it is not a typical it is typical

therefore you are profoundly without any excuse or basis for striving to frame plaincrawled as unique when it is the exact opposite of being unique so there is absolutely no justification and you have no excuse at all for trying to force the field to be restricted to only interpreting Plaincourault Panofsky says we have to do not single out playing crawled like you’re trying to do but rather that we must do what Dr. Brown does Panofsky says that Dr. Brown is correct in interpreting the entire set of all mushroom trees and that has it is extremely incorrect in trying to isolate Plaincourault as if it is a tip A typical when in fact the historical criteria number one above all other criteria is the principle that plane crawled is typical rather than unique therefore I shall firmly state here

in full agreement with Dr. Brown’s when we talk about interpreting when we say just the isolated word interpret, we follow the top art historian in discussing interpreting the scope of interpretation is by definition the correct scope of interpretation is all mushroom trees, not singling out Plaincourault.

The original motivation for this webpage was a quick note originally I didn’t have any funny names for the roller derby team that puts forth the interpretation of art historian Panofsky I called them the art historians but there are three names now

the presupposes Presupposers and the question beggars and now also I am adding the popes

the name of their team is the poops the popes sorry apologies for voice transcription errors

the Popes interp = Brinckmann Panofsky wasson

dr. Brown has published a question:

why does the the team called the witches ally with the team called the popes

what a strange alliance between the team called the witches and the team called the popes.

why does the witch Hatsis act like he is a flunky a henchmen for the pope

why is Thomas how to say henchmen for the pope who is competing against Mushrooms and trying to do a cover-up story to cover up the mushrooms are the real deal and that the pope is an imposter

why is the witches in collusion with the pups??

Voice dictation

regarding more deep thought combined with high thought it is really striking how well the behavior of a compass and electrical contact for power flow but especially compass fits this image that helps you to grasp the main expression/expressed message of the red hanging initiate

April 1, 2022 5:50 PM: It is remarkable how effectively the compass analogy works:

The hanging right foot is coming from and based in god’s cloud, he’s been flipped upside down like a electromagnet-power compass.

consider it from so-called north and south poles polarity where:

his left hand and left foot are normally south pole, when he’s in the ordinary state. tight cog binding

his right hand and right foot are the north pole of a compass of a compass

then look at him as a motor, an electromagnetic motor that will spin depending on the electromagnetic field or current.

Like a motor spinning on an axle on an axis, picture his right hand as one end of a axle for a motor, and his right foot as the other end of the axle.

Then some sort of God electromagnetic mushroid loosecog current and power force then flips him so that his left foot, in conjunction with his left hand, flips upside down, pressing his left hand gently to the blade of the sword of God, exerting a force which repels his left foot up, away from the ground.

this is the article number 1 out of a series of eight 70-page articles for academic journal publishing on exhaustive systematic inventory of all possible aspects of a thorough analysis of a study of the left hand of the red initiate in the Canterbury tree number 71 including trans-rational postmodern hyper meta-interpretation of the theory of exhaustive and exhausting analysis for nobody to read, to pad out the CV.

place here a zoomed cropped image of left hand of balancing initiate

short paragraph about that hand compare and contrast with other hands and feet in the image in the tree of the two initiates

zoomed cropped image of right hand of balancing initiate

short paragraph about that

left foot of balancing initiate cropped zoomed image

right foot

then sections similar on Hanging initiate left hand

right hand

left foot

right foot

compare and contrast all 8 feet or hands in complete detail and section on

Medaexplanation about define what it means to do a complete understanding to have complete understanding define the criteria for win how do you know when you have completed analyzing Mushroom tree number 71 entire comic panel or when you complete just only the tree portion of analysis such as a good scope would be

The John lash crop analyze only the aspects that are included in microfiche yellow blurry cropped image uploaded by presumably possibly probably uploaded by John Lash

that’s worth talking about is defined the zoom level I have already done this at the top of my Canterbury article because I am in the section called the image I have subsections that are different zoom levels instead of looking at John lash crop look at my own crop but maybe adjust that crop a little bit maybe so to describe it here the crop levels are for analysis and for discussion of please define what it means to have a complete analysis at each zoom or crop at each crop level

in fact my entire Canterbury article can be seen as zooming in and out on different crop areas of the whole comic panel

but let us consider zooming and in and out around the mushroom tree so as far as the mushroom tree is considered when we talk about zooming in and out and defining what it means to do a so-called complete analysis please define what a complete analysis requires how do we know when we have finished a complete analysis at different zoom scope at different scope centered around the mushroom tree number 71

The short answer is see my section called the image in my Canterbury article already defines these it already establishes what the good well chosen zoom scope is

however here is a new good idea provide one more zoom level at at the very top zoom in more do a even tighter crop of the tree number 71 which is cropped to include the four hands and the 4 feet for example that crop would have to include the cut major branch of the mushroom tree so that you can see what he is touching his hand would not be the edge of the crop but rather the cut branch would be the edge of that crop it would probably exclude the pink key tree

it would include the right foot in the cloud of God it would include the right hand showing the cut major branch it would show the left hand touching the sword of God it would show the left foot elevated or distanced from the ground more than any other part of his body it would show the balancing initiate’s:

show the area surrounding the left hand of the balancing initiate show the areas surrounding the right hand etc. sufficient to describe what he is touching but probably crop it tightly to exclude the pink key tree therefore it would be a tighter crop then John lash uploaded

very very briefly here listen to last nights recording of March 31 is excellent

excellent recording 10 out of 10 in all ways.

it’s great voicing, great microphone technique, great production technique; it’s not too fast, and it corrects all the errors of the previous night.

with the CAD E-100 medium diaphragm condenser mic.

this was my second night of using that mic and doing post-production, and I made a bunch of mistakes on the first night, and I avoided all of those mistakes the second night, and it came out really great last night.

I go at the end of that episode last night March 31, 2022

episode 97b of Egodeath Mystery Show – the end of the episode, the last third of part b of the episode, I discuss & define the idea of criteria for achieving a “complete” analysis of the hands and feet.

to do a complete analysis of mushroom tree 71 requires that you compare and contrast the hands and feet of the two initiates: where are they, what are they holding onto, what are they in contact with?

very very briefly as a bare skeleton outline, I summarize below, to be expanded upon:

balancing left hand holding onto nothing giving no power or stability and somewhat gesturing at the left foot of the hanging the hanging initiate

balancing initiates right hand holding onto the cut branch giving power and stability of control in the psilocybin altered intense mystic altered state of the Eucharist

balancing initiates left foot this is I’m speaking from memory I’m not looking at the picture right now – left foot is raised higher than the right foot left foot is lifted in the air and displayed and lifted

he is in full control, he is steadily holding his

oh I have to say

his left hand is lifted higher than his right hand

the one anomaly of that pattern is that the Hanging red initiate, his left hand is not held higher than his right hand

but in contrast all of the left limbs are held higher than the right limbs, meaning further from the ground, meaning that they are not depending on the possibility Branching model of time and control

insert hear the usual formulaic explanation that satori revelation enlightenment mental model transformation is in the loose cognitive association from psilocybin or equivalently efficient not amanita not musk them all but efficient targeted for Ace for HODIPT or masculine or psilocybin which are targeted to loosen the cognitive association binding in that state of mental construct processing enables testing and probing and observing how control system works in the model of time and model of possibility Branching and model of personal control steering allegedly through that branching or in contrast

A narrow way of Jesus the narrow path rather than the broad Branching path the Nero nonbranching pathway of Jesus that his followers were disappointed to hear that there is no free will and the third future control thoughts already exist that the future is closed with pre-existing control thoughts which are controlled and created by the God the higher level uncontrollable Controller X that the local control agencies does not have the power to create or give gestation to so cover the branching genitals like Eve with the mushroom cap or by holding a branch per Cranitch the elder

Standard formula: in the altered state loosecog, you are made to change from:

literalist ordinary state possibility branching with autonomous control as the presumed premise and the experienced premise of the world and the control agent moving through the world,

to:

1) analogical analogy metaphor (thats 1st word term); 2) psychedelic psycholytic – the latter is the second word of the formula; 3) then the third word of the formula is eternalism, which is a technical jargon word, see the Stanford philosophy encyclopedia of philosophy online the article on models of time. 4) The fourth word/term is the phrase with dependent control.

in between the original and transformed mental models is the king drinks wine Jesus drinks the cup of wine father let this cup pass me but your will rather than my will which is the Eucharist which is understood by all real Christians all normal real the kind of Christianity that counts the Eucharist is understood to be Psilocybe and mushrooms which caused the loose cognitive association binding in order to observe and probe the mental model of time and personal control and subjected to test that’s why I feel like that’s an important analogy is the quart room Jesus goes to court and tests the name

Jesus drinks the cup and then goes to court to judge and test can you pass the test or to do a scientific testing and probing and observing to run tests on where is the vulnerability in your side and then you test it you insert the spirit into the side to disapprove and cause the transformation of mental model and experience being frozen in rock the rock tomb and be reborn from that into a New World model and a new personal control model

now back to our real subject of focus, now that I’ve incorporated my engine of explanatory theory summary as I routinely do, down to a routine.

The balancing initiate’s right foot is based on the cut branch, and it’s lower and closer to the foundation ground than the lifted left foot.

The balancing initiate no rather the hanging initiate left hand is deliberately touching the sword of God cutting possibility Branching thinking or is he’s not literally cut himself at all he’s touching the blade without cutting his hand because he’s in full control

I mean he has been given full stable control continuing on the right hand of the hanging initiate is touching like an electrical contact he is touching the cut major branch of the mushroom tree and no if that hand happens to be higher than his left hand

hanging initiate left foot is raised in a relaxed way raise and a relaxed and controlled way is raised higher than or further away from the ground than any other part of his body and is higher than his specifically his right foot and it is floating in air is is not based on anything or touching anything it is touching nothing

his right foot is based in inside the cloud of God which is really pretty mind blowing very significant very intense he’s kind of coming his control is coming from God the higher uncontrollable controller which is not controllable by the local control agent

The above I declare is sufficient for an essentially complete analysis and then we can build on detail from there but that is a demonstration of how you’re required to you

when someone asks you what the image comic panel means, you know that they understand the image, that they comprehend the image –

the test of whether you comprehend the image especially important in that test is did you did it occur to you to compare and contrast the 4 feet and four hands of the balancing man and hanging man in tree number 71 of the great Canterbury Psalter from the Eadwine artist group.

QED

theres huge potential I do have to solve the bug work around about double entry of voice transcription but there is some sort of a great potential

when I make a voice recording, by far the best way is to have something to read.

it hardly matters what, just something reasonably relevant to read aloud, and then I can go impromptu voice/ microphone monologue recording productively from there.

on the one hand, I’m afraid if you just start rolling tape and told me to talk, that would sometimes be a disaster; I wouldn’t have anything to say.

but then in this framework that I have set up, if I have the latest postings or voice dictation web blog post that I can read aloud, then I am all set to impromptu monologue productively.

I guess so what I’m thinking as far as a round-trip loop is to:

1. voice dictation to create a webpage that’s rough and then :

2. start recording and read aloud that rough webpage and then

3. listen to that recording Playback and then

4. make another voice dictation web blog page update.

that’s that seems to be the loop, and it avoids kind of avoids keyboard typing work, which I’m trying to avoid.

typing has advantages – it can be pretty fast with the ergonomic keyboard, but it’s really not as fast as voice and if the transcription kind of sort of works, that’s really faster for idea development; it’s really faster than the keyboard.

this has always been the slow down constraint on me I like what is the ideas come to fast I need to capture them in a visible way faster if only I could capture my thoughts faster and easier with lower overhead if I can I wish I could just talk and then see my words as I talk and I would be so fast.

and that is actually happening here with my drunk secretary who I think is back on Thomas Hatsis’ witching plants again; delirious.