The State of the (Collective) Monad

If we want a rational and logical world, we cannot expect to achieve that goal by presenting rational and logical arguments. These will always be rejected. So, we must use a different type of reason and logic. The reason and logic of force. Some people, most people, must be forced to be free, as Rousseau put it. In the end, that was an unavoidable rational and logical conclusion. Plato’s Republic was never implanted not because it wasn’t rational and logical enough, but because Plato didn’t have an army to impose the Republic on the people. Plato wanted to create an intellectual Sparta. The Spartans themselves wanted to have the best army in the world, not the best intellectuals. They understood that force, not reason and logic, was what would keep them safe, make them powerful, and turn them into a people of glory.

Newman, Dr. Cody. The Ontological Self: The Ontological Mathematics of Consciousness (p. 261). Kindle Edition.

Introduction

A while back I wrote a post called "The State of the Monad" which was kind of a retrospective on my experience with Ontogical Math (OM), since it had been about five years since I first discovered it. In this particular case, the "monad" was just a somewhat cheeky, shorthand way to refer to myself. It was kind of a quicky throw-away post, but it got more hits than I expected which was kind of surprising since, let's face it, I doubt if most people are really interested in my personal experience. After thinking about it for a while, I realized that one possible cause is that the title is somewhat ambiguous, in that "monad" could also be referring to a "collective" monad and thus the entirety of the state of Pythagorean Illuminism (PI), and maybe that's why people were interested in the article. Anyway, this suggested to me that there is some interest out there for an assessment of the community as a whole, the collective monad if you will, and thus the title of this post.

Normally, I try to stay out of the "politics" of the online OM community, thus I would hesitate to be so bold as to write an opinion piece on an entire community. However, the second phase of online OM has apparently wrapped up with the publication of "Without the Mob, There is no Circus" by David Sinclair (and wrapped up badly might I add), so I decided now might be a good time to add fuel to the fire and throw in my two cents, since everyone and his brother appears to be doing the same.

Thus, this is my synopsis of the current state of the of the online Illuminati community as a whole: what worked and what didn't , and what the future might be like. And in the spirit of "Without the mob, there can be no circus", I decided to pretty much not pull any punches as well. So be warned, this could get ugly.

Disclaimer

On one level, as someone who is consciously not part of the online OM/PI community (which we'll get into later), I actually find it somewhat humorous as to what is happening right now, in that it was totally predictable, and that the AC (the official members of the PI) essentially had it coming to them.

However, at a deeper level, I'm of course sorry for the sad state of the online community, and I'm disappointed that I feel the need to write a post like this. I listened to the Why I am not Hyperian video from Wrath, and I can see how for many people who really believed in Hyperianism, and donated a lot of time and money, it was a real letdown when the movement didn't come to fruition as much as they hoped. So I don't find what happened to them to be humorous. But I do think the community is at a real crossroads as to what the future will be, and there comes a time where everyone needs to offer their opinions, and try to do better going forward.

Why I am not an Illuminatus

I'm not an illuminatus, and by extension hyperian, for mainly one reason: I've read their books and I understand them. These guys say what they mean, and mean what the say. As a result, I don't even say I'm an Ontological Mathematician much less an Illuminatus, in spite of having read all of the God Series, the Truth Series, and just about every other book the AC has ever written. I will only say that I'm familiar with OM, and that I respect, and indeed love it very much. So wouldn't this make me an excellent candidate for their online community? Well, not so fast. See, I'm not a statist, and I believe in limited government, at least as an ideal -- that is to say I'm a libertarian. And since I've read their books, and understood them, and respect what they say, I realize that I am despised by the AC proper, for having this one belief and not their belief in Meritocracy (which is based on pistis by the way -- opinion not based on rationalism) and they don't want me associating with them in anyway. I have literally been told to "fuck off".

However, if you think it's just libertarians they have a problem with, guess again. If you're capitalist, communist, socialist, a Trump supporter, woke, mystical, a dog or cat lover, a feeling type, or a dove, among many others, you're out too.

Thus, I made a conscious decision to never identify as an Illuminatus or contribute to any "official" PI/AC web sites, reddit threads, youtube comments, in spite of me wanting to do so. Yes, I have a blog post and a few videos, but they are not part of the official AC community. I have never advertised my material on any of their sites, even though I feel I have the right (due to freedom of speech) to post my opinions on independent web sites. After all, OM has been made publically available, and I have literally invested years of study and contemplation into it, so I feel I have the right to at least talk about it. However, I respect their right to not want to associate with the likes of me, even if I think this position is wrong and I don't agree with it.

Also, for purposes of discussion, we need to distinguish between OM and PI. For purposes of this post, I consider PI to essentially be OM + Meritocracy. That is to say, OM is the operating system or kernel of the "Linux distribution", and Meritocracy is (one of) the user-level apps that runs on top of the OS. The kernel (OM) is mathematical and rational, and the apps are pisitis -- grounded opinion at best. Thus I am a systems programmer of PI, i.e. interested in the OS only (OM), and not an application programmer of PI, i.e. not interested in Meritocracy. Note: I consider it a sort of "category error" to mix opinion with a rationalistic base -- it taints the rational part, just like mixing in analytical math with Ontological math taints the ontological math.

I suppose we could also distinguish between Ontological Mathematics with a captial O, and ontological mathematics with a little o. Big-O ontological mathematics is the ontogicial math as presented by the AC, which they apparently have a copyright on, and little-o ontological math is just any math that happens to be ontological e.g. kind of like the difference between Big-D and little-d democrats. So when I say OM I could be referring to big-O OM, and thus potentially blocked or "cancelled" by the AC, but I could also be saying little-o OM and not prone to cancellation. So there's an inherent (and intentional) ambiguity in my usage and I'll leave it to the reader to interpret as they wish.

Another reason I'm not an illuminatus

Because they treat their online members who go public like shit.

In spite of the AC ranting and raving (in some book, I can't remember) about how they have no respect for people in the online commununity who are anonymous i.e. someone like yours truly, I don't regret my decision for one second. Just ask the three members of the cypher gang, who had multiple books written by the AC trashing their reputations, calling one of them, who happens to be handicapped, a "cripple" (multiple times), and doxing one of the other members. Or just ask Diabolically Informative, who they slandered as being a "Manadarin" and who, in spite of producing what I consider to be the high-point of online Illuminism so far, was essentially forced to drop his entire series of videos and was exiled from the community. Or the college professor who claimed to write some articles for the God Series who they trashed in The Dunciad by Brother Malus (the book has been banned on Amazon BTW, probably due to libel). Now, you can add Morgue to this list.

And apparently, they have a new iteration of Online PI, called Classical Illuminism, headed by Joseph Postma (yes, the climate denier guy). All I can say to Prof. Postma is look out: you're probably next. About the only person who was able to survive a public "encounter" with the AC was Pythagoras Illuminatus.

Classical Illuminism

The next phase of online illuminism is called "classical Illuminism". Per David Sinclair in "Without the Mob, there is no circus" the new generation is to be guided by someone they call "Castilian":

The next part of this book is devoted to the work and world of Castalian. He has been in the online Illuminist community for a considerable number of years, making an explosive impact with his first involvement and then being absent from the whole toxic scene for the last few years...

Castalian hasn’t stolen our work, plagiarized it, hacked it, tried to pass himself off as one of us, or any of the other things that the AC trolls did. Instead, he absorbed the AC message, integrated it with his own knowledge, experience, intelligence and wisdom and produced his own unique take on the material, matching the quality. That’s what we always wanted and hoped for.

The second phase of the AC’s existence (AC 2.0) won’t involve us. It will be the likes of Castalian who carry forward the Great Work.

Sinclair, David. Without the Mob, There Is No Circus (pp. 122-123). Kindle Edition.

Now they don't mention what this person's real name is, but I strongly suspect they are talking about Joseph Postma (JP) of climate of sophistry, especially since he recently started a new video series called classical illumism. Yes, I feel kind of strange talking about a specific person, and I really apologize if I have it wrong that he is "Castilian".

But assuming I'm right, let's analyze this new movement, and its chances for success. First off, I have watched all of JP's videos to date and I highly recommend them. He has a scientific background, and he definitely knows his OM. He seems to be more authoritative than just someone who has read the books, and the fact that he is in communication with the AC and "got approval" to do the hyperianism take down video made me think he's an actual member of AC, but just now as I read the above quote, they certainly make it sound as he's just a member of the online community only, i.e. an akousmatikoi instead of a mathematikoi.

I also read his book "Planet Wars" and I liked it too, although I am not familiar enough with climate science to say if his assertions are correct or not.

Ok, so those are the good things. Now let's look at some of the not so good things. For most people I'm afraid his staunch, and I mean staunch, global warming/climate denial is a complete turn off.

As an aside, for me this isn't a showstopper. While I accept that there is global warming, I do not automatically accept the fact that it is man-made, and I object to the green new deal. I think we should use fossil fuels to, literally, fuel the economy so we can grow our way -- through innovation, out of using fossil fuels. That is, if we can get rapid economic growth, and prosperity, more companies like Tesla will come along and in about 10-15 years we will have nuclear fusion, or efficient solar panels etc., so we can naturally and organically transition off fossil fuels. I feel to cut off using fossil fuels prematurely will cause much slower economic growth and less technological innovation, and in fact decrease the likelihood of transitioning off fossil fuels, even leading to the absurd situation where, for instance, it's speculated that some people in Europe may resort to chopping down and burning trees to keep warm this winter due to excessively high energy prices.

But, that's me. My guess is most people, esp. in the existing OM community, don't think like I do on this issue. Believe me, even my position is basically considered "climate denial" by most people, and I mostly keep quiet about it as a result. But compared to JP on global warming, I'm like a woke green activist.

However, a position of his that I do find to be a "show-stopper", at least as far as me wanting to join any rational organization headed by him is his assertion that 85% of the current human population are "zetas": alien parasitic intelligences that try to pass themselves off as humans:

They, our opponents, are called “Zetas”. They’ve destroyed many planets before ours. They extract energy out of a planet and its negentropic biological structures as they degrade and destroy them. They’re millions of years more advanced than us, and know exactly what they’re doing. They use flesh-suit AI’s which they program to effect their destructive intrigues…the NPCs which many of us have noticed that we live around. They also use Forums in combination with the NPCs to effect mass action and support for political and scientific and religious beliefs. They will ride a planet out for 100,000 years if they have to…they don’t merely “nuke from orbit”, rather, they “eat” until there’s nothing left to eat. They will raise civilizations partially but just up to a point at which it can be eaten down again; eventually the soil of the garden is depleted and nothing can grow again. We are 100% defenseless against them in terms of human technology, warfare, intelligence, etc.

Postma, Joseph E. Planet Wars: How an Investigation into the Intellectual and Philosophical Fraud of Climate Science and Peer Review Uncovered a Plot to Create a Final Extinction Level Event to End All Life on Earth (p. 151). Kindle Edition.

I am not making this up -- read the book or watch this video if you don't believe me. I couldn't make this up even if I tried.

I guessed I must have missed the part about "zetas" in Euler's Equation.

But perhaps the worst part is his reason for believing this. His basic source is someone who channels a super-intelligence called "ONE", which is a universal sub-Consciousness and is the "Grand Eternal Monad of monads":

In time, a couple of years ago, I met a person who had developed the clairaudient ability and who was receiving messages from an entity called “Source” which was relating that the nature of existence was based upon mathematics.

Postma, Joseph E. Planet Wars: How an Investigation into the Intellectual and Philosophical Fraud of Climate Science and Peer Review Uncovered a Plot to Create a Final

In short, he's listening to the rantings of a channeler, probably someone like this who wrote a book called "the zetas"

In one humorous quote, he literally accused one of his scientific colleagues that he was a zeta:

You see, what I’m implying here is that, I don’t think that you’re an actual human. Presumably you have a body, and perhaps you’ve injured yourself in the past and have witnessed your own ability to produce the appearance of blood, but I am quite convinced that otherwise you are either some sort of an android, with an artificial type of mind, etc., or failing that, you might be an alien incarnated as a human, but you are a connected to an anti-terrestrial subconscious collective with its own goals.

Postma, Joseph E. Planet Wars: How an Investigation into the Intellectual and Philosophical Fraud of Climate Science and Peer Review Uncovered a Plot to Create a Final Extinction Level Event to End All Life on Earth (pp. 133-134). Kindle Edition.

Keep in mind, he's not joking or being sarcastic when he says this. He literally means it.

I'm not trying to turn this into a diatribe against JP. However, I think his emotions about not being accepted by the scientific community (he talks about his "murderous contempt" of others in the community, and quotes Hitler in several places) have clouded his rationalism. I think he wants to believe this channeler so much because it just feels right, and he's like Anakin Skywalker, a very capable individual clouded by his emotions, which of course is the exact opposite of the pure rationalism that OM preaches.

Doesn't the AC vet their leaders? Do they know that the next person they've nominated to lead their community, essentially believes in reptiles a la David Icke? If they have vetted him, does this mean they agree with his assertion that 85% of the human population are zetas? They criticized Morgue for not vetting them when he contacted them originally about starting an online community for OM: didn't he know what the AC were like, e.g. their absolutist and fundamental positions on several cultural norms. But how about the AC vetting of Morgue? Don't you think they should have asked him what his political views were, to determine if we was woke etc, before anointing him "the chosen one" (from the now taken-down Morgue documentary). Because apparently this wasn't done and only now they're surprised by some of the directions he took with hyperianism.

All I can say is that as someone who strives for rationalism, I don't think someone like JP is the best example of pure rationalism. As an autonomous thinker, you're of course free to reach your own conclusions.

Bottom Line

Well, I'm going to cut this "rant" short at this point. The fact of the matter is I don't have to say anything bad about online Illuminism to inflect damage on it. First of all, let me clarify I absolutely do not want to inflict damage to on-line Illuminism -- I want to promote it, at least the OM part, and wish there was a greater on-line community be it OM or PI. But even if I did want to inflict damage, I don't have to worry because the people who run the AC are already doing a bang-up job of insuring it never gets off the ground. As Napoleon said "Never interfere with an enemy while he's in the process of destroying himself". Don't worry about online illuminism ever taking off when the people in the AC are shepherding the community. I like OM, but I don't especially like the people running the AC i.e. I like the message, but I don't like the messengers. They're hypocritical (they exclude people just in the way they criticize the scientific establishment for excluding people), and they're out of touch. Yes, I admire their purity at a certain level. But even as they admit, they have to alienate so many people in service of their ideals that there will be no one left.

In 14 years of trying the AC has never been able to get a successful online community started -- at least one to their liking. They're always constantly blaming other people, or the environment. But if they want to see the source of the problem they should look in the mirror: the problem is with themselves. Until they recognize this, their attempts at community building will fail.

It's already bad enough that as the religion of INT's, they appeal to only a tiny minority of the population: INTJ's are 2.1% of the population, and INTP's are 3.3%. That means that only about 5.5% of the population is primed to like the "pure" form of PI/OM. It's kind of a dilemma, isn't it: you'll never be able to create a nationwide political movement when your basic tenets only apply to about 5% of the population.

Like with the libertarian/Anarchist movement, only a tiny percent of the population -- maybe 1%, maybe 0.1%, can truly handle living free. The solution would be to have small separate communities, "communes" where a small group of people can set up a system that has their ideals. Of course, the problem here is it's difficult to get the economic resources to actually do this. But PI, should concentrate on starting a small community of meritocracy believers, and work out the system at this this level. And in fact, that's what "classical illuminism" is talking about. Until then, forget about ever having mass uptake of meritocracy at the national level. Establish a functioning sub-society and then use that as an example to try to convince people like me that I'm wrong and that meritocracy can indeed work as they say. Of course, this is easier said than done. Libertarians have been trying to do this for decades with little success, mostly because you end up with a bunch of drug-addicted grifters who can't get a real job. Let's face it, most successful people are not about to give up their careers to live on a commune herding sheep.

The quote at the top of this post is a litmus test for if you are a libertarian, or a meritocratician. A libertarian will be horrified by this quote, and apparently a meritocratician will applaud it.

As a libertarian, it's not that I even disagree with what they are saying. Certainly there are situations where people do need to be forced to do what's right. For instance, someone who is severely drug addicted. They will almost never voluntarily decide to give it up or do what it takes to abstain should they actually decide to do so. And quite honestly, most people need a push.

In all honesty, I'm much more comfortable with the concept of me being able to force my beliefs on other people, but of course extremely uncomfortable with the concept of other people being able to force their ideas on me. According to game theory then, if I don't want you to use force on me, then I have to agree to not use force on you. This is a compromise, and the least worst way of dealing with the situation. Note, the least worst is by definition the best.

All I've ever wanted from an online OM community is the chance to openly talk about topics like monads, flowing points, zero-dimensional universes, metaphysics, fourier transforms, 6-d space-time, bicameral minds, Meyers-Briggs personality types i.e all the cool topics in the God and Truth Series that changed my life. And to be able to talk freely about these ideas without fear of retribution, or being told I am unwelcome and despised because I'm not radical enough, or don't agree with some other idea. Instead, all we ever seem to get is talk about politics (mertitocracy good, everything else bad), and a lot of petty back-stabbing based in hatred and emotionalism. In short, not what you would expect from a rational, ideas based community.

In writing this post, I realize I'm spending a lot of time talking about libertarinism. This should be completely irrelevant. Who cares what my political beliefs are? Can someone who's Muslim learn differential equations as well as someone who is an atheist? Of course: you're religion (or politics) is irrelevant to understanding Math. As far as politics go, I'm not some sort of hard-core libertarian -- I really don't like talking about it that much. But for some reason, I feel compelled to talk about it and defend my position, kind of like all the wokesters out there who start imposing identity on to everything, forcing everyone into talking about race, and gender even if you're not really that concerned about it.

Don't be used

Don't let anyone use you for their agenda. The AC has two primary agendas:

1. To spread OM to as many people as possible.
2. To impose, either voluntarily or involuntarily, Meritocracy on the entire global population.

Item 1 is a noble goal and one I share. Number 2, I rather stringently disagree with. But which of these two agendas is primary? It should be #1, but oftentimes it certainly seems like it's #2.

Their thirst for power is so strong they were even willing to put up with all the love and lighters in Hyperiansim for years (of which 80% of hyperians are) with the hope they could garner enough "useful idiots" to get them power.

Use you head. Don't let anyone manipulate you. You don't have to give up on hyperianism just because they say so. Or even because you don't agree with everything Morgue has to say (I certainly don't'). Ok, so maybe don't give money to him -- I have never given a dime to Morgues Patreon (although I did buy and enjoy his books), and not only because of my aforementioned non-association principle. You can still listen to Mourge/hyperianism, and take the good ideas and ignore the bad. You can also listen to AC, and JP with the same intent.

Just think for yourself.

One Last Thing

One thing I found refreshing about "Without the Mob, there is no Circus" is they finally spent a huge amount of time attacking woke culture, and comparatively little time going after their usual favorite: MAGA "Trumpanzees". It's always easier to go after conservatives and Trump supporters (just ask any American Late-night comedian). There's usually very little pushback esp. since conservatives are used to it. It takes some real cohones to go after the woke however.

By going after the woke, they literally risk alienating a huge amount of their current on-line support (although granted they've turned their back on hyperianism already). How many people from the "rainbows and unicorns" cadre of video-only watching hyperians, would want anything to do with AC/PI if they actually read this book by David Sinclair?

As Voltaire (did not) say *1 "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize"

*1 actual quote is apparently from "Kevin Alfred Strom", a white nationalist and Holocaust denier.

My understanding is David Sinclair wrote a second companion book to "Without the Mob", but apparently it got banned by Amazon. In all the times they've made fun of MAGA republicans, how many times did it lead to any of their books being banned? How about none. The second you criticize woke culture, guess what, you get banned. You're real enemy is woke cancel culture, not MAGA republicans. Who rules you: MAGA republicans or the woke far left? Do they wish they spent more time going after the woke? I applaud them for finally going after wokeism, but apparently it's a day late and a dollar short.

== History
2022-10-05: First publication.
2023-03-07: Added a few extra ideas.