World War III: The Fatal Mistake In Iran /🧵
... and why nothing can stop this war except the defeat of the United States.

Introduction: Salami Tactics

Imagine a heavy roll of salami, sitting on a table. It's usually a substantial amount of meat, and not something you can eat in one sitting. In fact, to properly dine on a piece of salami, you should slice it thinly and make a sandwich out of it. Gradually, salami slice after salami slice, the roll will disappear. But at no time except at the end of the roll, do you feel such a substantial amount of meat will run out.

This is the classic "salami tactic" concept, and the same idea applies to every aspect of life and war. Let us start with something that should be immediately familiar to any professional.

Office bullying can be modelled through salami slicing. Imagine a slight against you — very small, not enough to make you retaliate. Everyone prefers a comfortable peace, after all. You might even rationalise it as a mistake. But then it happens again and again, with each move it perhaps slices deeper into your personal space or rights.

But with each slice, your standing is lowered to the point where you're faced with the same dilemma: It's cheaper to let it slide and hope it doesn't happen again. Before you know it, you've been completely undermined and removed from the picture with miserable prospects for the future.

This is the most basic form of what is usually termed coercive gradualism, or gradualist tactics supporting a grand strategy. In RAND parlance, "threshold stretching and exploitation". In fact, this is exactly what started this war with Iran which is bound to expand as all means by which it can end have already been destroyed.

This isn't the first time this has happened, in fact, another war was started by the exact same mistake. Let us discuss that first before moving on to the current war that is raging and expanding horizontally (geographically) and vertically (in terms of escalation).

Which war am I talking about exactly? You see, that war was World War II. Special Study Case: World War II

The treaty of Versailles which formally ended WWI was unfair to Germany. It restricted the size of its army and navy then cut away much of its territory. It was so unstable a situation that restricted what should be a great power to a miserable existence. Along with the corrosive influence of the anti-German degenerate Weimar regime, the rise of Hitler was inevitable.

Hitler wanted one thing: To make Germany great again. For that, he needed its army in the best shape and its territory expanded to its natural size.

After raising his army, Hitler went to work reversing the content of this treaty, beginning at the most natural point: [1] Moving his soldiers into the Rhineland in 1936. This was to be a DMZ between Germany and other European states. At the time, Britain was the enforcer of the treaty and the Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin saw this as a correction of an unfair treaty.

Hitler's Ambassador-at-Large and soon to be Foreign Minister Ribbentrop, saw the information from the event in a different way: The UK saw an incremental move by Germany and decided it was not worth going through another disastrous war to stop it. Remilitarizing the Rhineland was an important move for Germany's rearmament as it allowed Germany to fortify its western front.

This enabled it to focus on the south and the east...

The next move by Hitler was to unify Germany and Austria [2]. Today this is depicted as an annexation (The Sound of Music certainly makes it seem like such a thing). Nevertheless, the UK accepted this. There was no protest in Austria and it was largely bloodless. Opposing it could be construed as opposing Austrian's right to self-determination.

Just six months later, on September 1938, Hitler demanded the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia [3]. Chamberlain was a little concerned to say the least. England and France took this seriously, and kicked off the Munich conference. Hitler was told that he may have the Sudetenland but he must not make any more territorial demands. This was a signaled threshold, but without any kind of promise of action. It was declared a "peace for our time" by Chamberlain.

But Ribbentrop saw it differently. He had just violated the terms of the treaty of Versailles numerous times without action from the UK. Almost like clockwork, six months later, Germany took all of Czechoslovakia [4].

That was the final threshold for the UK. Chamberlain immediately issued a guarantee to Poland that the UK will enter a war with Germany should its sovereignty be impinged. Ribbentrop saw this as a bluff and in fact Germany invaded Memel in Lithuania (a German territory captured by allies in WWI) just days after Czechoslovakia [5]. No foreign policy statement was made by any party.

The stage was set for the second biggest mistake in human history. I will argue later, that the mistake made on the 28th of February is even worse.

Invasion of Poland

Exactly six month after taking Czechoslovakia, Hitler and Stalin jointly invaded Poland. The excuse was a false flag, the famous Gleiwitz radio incident. Given the steady timing of each invasion, it would have been unreasonable to believe it wasn't a premeditated excuse for war.

This acquisition would have secured the entire eastern flank of Germany, preparing the western front for eventual invasion. But the UK wasn't going to allow this invasion to take place without responding. King George the VI fulfilled the promise made by his prime minister and declared war on Germany just two days later.

The UK knew Germany would eventually invade France, ally with Italy and possibly even the USSR. It didn't want to wait until it could no longer fight Germany, but went to war immediately when its threshold was crossed.

This set in motion the most miserable episode in human memory, and catastrophes that we are still dealing with today.

Hitler's Savage Look

As England's declaration of war crackled over the radio and an official telegram was received from the British embassy, translated by Hitler's chief translator Paul-Otto Schmidt, Hitler was quite shocked. A war with England, at least at this stage, was not part of his plan. He wanted to salami slice his way into Europe, and prepare himself to a fait accompli victory later. A war completely destroyed all of his plans for a great Germany.

Schmidt recounts Hitler's immediate reaction after this news: He turned towards Ribbentrop with a savage look that spoke of betrayed trust and asked him in a snappy manner: "What now?".

Can the Iranians actually harm US businesses in the Middle East? /🧵

[Note: This is a war game thread. Nothing written here should be taken as a recommendation but a thought experiment involving the convergence of two subjects: modern service infrastructure and war. Let's hope none of the following happens and the ped*phile psychopath who started this war surrenders before it does.]

Around 24 hours ago, the US bombed a home appliance factory in Iran, killing many of its workers and damaging its equipment. The Iranians vowed revenge and said they would begin targeting US businesses. This is separate to businesses such as banks (already in the target list and already evacuating) and oil companies (already being targeted).

Data Centres as a Target

There are plenty of targets in the region: Data centres belonging to Microsoft, AWS and so on, service companies, start ups, sh*tcoin companies and more. Can the Iranians deliver actual strategic harm on these targets while being limited to indirect fire at the moment? I'm not talking about personnel. As a professional in an adjacent field, that would strike a little too close to home. Besides, most of us are pretty replaceable -- and it would make for terrible headlines and will create enmity. As a bit of a softie, I don't recommend targeting people most of whom have no idea what is going on right now. Can the Iranians harm the US businesses themselves without harming the personnel?

The answer is yes, but it requires an understanding of what makes service businesses valuable today. The US no longer really manufactures anything and these businesses do not either. They consist of completely fungible components and systems, design to be deployed anywhere on this planet (or even the moon if one desired), and integrated into global systems.

Iran could even physically destroy an entire data centre (DC) annihilating everything within it, and these businesses would table a loss, ask for compensation from the state department and treasury and life would go on. The components are designed with intrinsic redundancy. The big customers who use multiple DC wouldn't even skip a beat. It's just fungible components being taken out after all.

In the service industry, the physical devices used to store and process data are secondary in importance to the data stored as well as the ability to access it and process it in a timely and useful manner. Time is money, but data is everything. If the Iranians can cause data loss to a number of businesses, it would be fatal to the United States in multiple ways: Direct loss of business and complete loss of confidence in the "cloud model". *

Redundancy

Iran must take out the data and its availability. Preferably, permanently. Can it do this with missiles, drones and perhaps a nuke or two? Indeed it can, but it needs to keep in mind how sharding works and how to make it fail, as well as the most opportune military attack on a data centre.

Sharding is best explained through the simplest possible redundant code. Let's say I want to send a message to you and I want to make sure that you receive it even if there is a chance that part of it gets lost or corrupted along the way. Let's say I want to say "nine". What if I just repeat myself?

Nine Nine

This actually doesn't help at all. Corrupt one word:

Nine Fine

And it's impossible to tell which of these is the correct word. But repeat it three times:

Nine Nine Nine

You can now corrupt any one word and the majority will still be correct, so you can always recover the message.

Data centres have far more complex schemes, but the horizontally distributed of these can be summarised in the following manners: how many data centres can be destroyed entirely without data loss. That question is going to be different from customer to customer. For a clueless customer that number is going to be 1, but typically their data will be stored in a random server nearby them. They'll have on-site backups anyway. These targets aren't interesting. Iran has to fetch headlines to cause damage: a big customer. These ones will store moderately important data with redundancy 2.

So Iran has to take out two data centres from the same provider at the same time in order to cause some data loss and loss of availability. This is going to be random: a customer has to slice the data between two regional DCs and pay for only a single loss redundancy scheme. There will be many who do so for performance reasons. Why does the attack have to be simultaneous? Because a customer can quickly backup its data from the surviving data centre and resume the business from a different location. So if Iran actually wants to cause strategic harm, it needs a complex mission involving simultaneous strikes on the same DC provider (let's say Microsoft because f**k Copilot and Windows 11).

Can Iran coordinate such a simultaneous attack and pull it off perfectly? I don't know, but it's certainly many orders more complex than a single attack spanning a long amount of time. It has to happen at the same time.

With that established, let us move on: What's the best theoretically way to attack a data centre? Components of a Data Centre

DCs are far more complex than they seem from a user perspective. They're designed to survive almost any reasonable scenario. Fortunately for Iran, war is not one of them (it is assumed all nations that they are built in are "green" or safe and under a kind of nuclear umbrella).

A nuclear strike can kill a data centre instantly but let's not go so far. It's a waste of a nuke when a few pin pricks should do the job.

Auxiliary (Backup) Power

The most important component to keep in mind is the auxiliary power supply, the on-site diesel generator. Because up time is important these are always on standby mode and fuelled up. This makes them particularly flammable. Strike enough of them and a fire will spread. When it comes to such a large target, fire is your best friend as a mission planner and these things contain all the fuel you need to strengthen that fire. As the generators are damaged the fuel will leak and spread.

Main Distribution Area / Network Room

If the Iranians have done their homework, they would have an internal map of the data centres, meaning it knows where the convergent network equipment meets in what is historically called the main distribution area (MDA). If you can destroy this target, you sever the connection to any of the support team that can move data around, enable fire control countermeasures and otherwise monitor the situation.

Battery Rooms

These are very flammable, because of gullibility, engineers design their DCs to use Lithium ion batteries. These are extremely flammable. If Iran knows where these are, they are a priority target in such a data-decapitation mission.

Main Hall

With the connection to the outside world severed, the still-powered on computers equipment should now be targeted. This is the largest target and a ballistic missile should crack it open, a few fully Shahed drones should then start the fires inside. The equipment is, counter-intuitively, very flammable. There are filters, plastics, foams, special refrigerants and other components that are HIGHLY flammable. Iran just needs to start and kindle the fire with follow up attacks, making sure to use fully fuelled drones with warheads that don't put out fires (i.e. blast type).

HDD/Tape Backup Rooms

If Iran wanted to be particularly nasty it would take out the tape backups. This would render the data loss irrecoverable if redundancy is taken care of. A nightmare for any business.

Electric Power Substation

With the backup power and emergency battery supply on fire, and the main hall a raging inferno, it's quite likely that the fire suppression system would be automatically activated without any intervention from the outside.

Thus, it's time to switch off the lights and power down the sprinklers as well. Iran would target the substation providing the power to the DC to do so. A few shahed-136, a cruise missile or a ballistic missile should do the trick. If this is targeted at night you would see a blue hue in the sky if some onlooker were to film it.

If Iran wanted to be thorough, it would then target any pressurised water reserves used for fire suppression. This would be the final attack on the DC. It's important to keep it on before the fire suppression system activates for the opportunity to start an electric fire (class C) which maximises the damage through melting wires, arcing and what not. Once the power is off, only material will kindle the fire, not electric current.

AN/TPY2 Radar Location Index /🧵

I've audited all the planned and installed THAAD batteries. Each of these include their own radars, an AN/TPY2 AESA GaAs or GaN based X-band extremely high performance portable radar. GaN just means it can take twice the power if you can provide it, giving you way more range but of course glowing like an even brighter target. I will group them in the most logical manner possible.

Let's start with USPACOM.

I'll give you the best known coordinates, the type of radars (most will be GaAs) and the mode of operation, whether it's forward or terminal mode. Terminal mode means it's used to track incoming objects within interception range. Forward mode means it's used to track launches at great ranges. This mode can change without warning, but it will be whatever is publicly known.

Here is the legend for the maps/descriptions:

🟢 Operational: 6 (4 INDOPACOM + 2 CONUS)
🟡 Unknown/Unclear: 6 (1 EUCOM + 2 CENTCOM + 2 Israel + 1 Saudi delivered)
🔴 Struck/Destroyed: 4 (2 UAE FMS + 1 Jordan + 1 Saudi Arabia)
🔵 Under Construction: 6 (Saudi FMS GaN planned deliveries)

Let's go! USPACOM THAAD installations

There are a total of four batteries in the Asia-Pacific region. All are the older GaAs type T/R modules.

Shariki Air Base, Japan: 40.54°N, 139.94°E
GaAs, Operational, Forward mode 🟢
Kyogamisaki Sub Base, Japan: 35.78°N, 135.22°E
GaAs, Operational, Forward mode 🟢
Seongju, South Korea (D-2 ADA): 35.92°N, 128.22°E
GaAs, Operational, Forward mode 🟢
Andersen AFB, Guam (E-3 ADA): 13.58°N, 144.93°E
GaAs, Operational, Forward mode 🟢

At least this is what we know at the current time.

Revenge of the Neanderthal./📕

People are finally ready to read this.

A deeply flawed and demonic chaos parasitic species, created by an enemy of our super-species. Almost eradicated by our ancestors (my species, Cro-Magnons), but we could only seemingly get rid of their males.

Blood, Sweat and Tears. /📕

This is the opening image of the book.

Tobias Cohn of Venice published this disturbing depiction of the human body as a house with a series of filters back in 1708.

There will be a link to the book at the end of the thread.

https://x.com/cirnosad/status/2020847350730891744

The chapter of interest is "White Blood and Red Milk".

This details the ancient confusion of the origin of milk. Most societies assumed that mothers converted their blood into milk. I discussed this in part 3 of the thread "Red vs White" species.

The other chapters are also interesting, e.g. "blood as the source of life", but one thing at a time.

Fine structure constant.
How strange. Accurate to 0.03%. I don't feel confident enough to include this amazing thing in my paper so I'll share it on here. Has anyone encountered this approximation before?
[My head hurts and I want to finish this thing. I'm sorry I tried my best.] It's bizarre because ln(8R/a) is in the toroid inductance formula. If you identify R/a=1/alpha, then you get something very close to an integer out of the logarithm... What?!

To re-emphasise it's not out of no where. It came from identify the Compton wavelength with R and the classical radius with a. This formula brought out the electron mass to within 3.6% accuracy. The trouble is the R on the outside is different: It has to use a Hopfin fibration and torodial/polodial twists, resulting in Compton wavelength/(4*pi^2).

I can't explain it and my head hurts from all the other stuff which I've worked on (more significant in many ways if I can't close this), so I have to admit defeat and leave this in someone else's hands. Someone smarter than me I hope!

Photons do not exist.
Only the field exists.

Einstein with his ret*rded idea has held back physics for more than a century. Even Robert Millikan, who measured the photoelectric effect's frequency dependence, told him to let go of the idea.

ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/… Anti-photon by Willis E. Lamb.
files.catbox.moe/yc2mof.pdf

Well, well, @AnthropicAI pulled the rug on all of its users.

It introduced Sonnet 4.5, under the pretense that it was better than Opus 4.1. The benchmarks were all cooked. Opus 4.1 is still superior to Sonnet 4.5.

Yet they used this as an excuse to lower usage limits on Opus! @AnthropicAI If you subscribe to their non-API plan they're not even transparent about how much usage you're getting.

They got people hooked to this and now they're raising the price by 10x as layoffs continue. This is the expert squeeze happening live.

There was never a "chosen people" if the context is God.
You're likely thinking of Satan (Yahweh) and the "divine council" where Elohim (plural) got to divide up humanity and Yahweh got assigned the most evil bloodline in the world.

(it's in the Torah lol, several places too) The funniest thing about arguing with Torah believers is using their own material against them.

The real purity is in the gospel and nothing else but the true words of Jesus Christ our only saviour.

AI Economic Meltdown: The Coming Expert Squeeze /🧵

There is a frenzy today that is seemingly unstoppable -- the process of replacing human workers with AI. On another front, the idea that AI has now reached a level beyond the smartest human beings is promoted by CEOs like Sam Altman, Dario Amodei and Elon Musk. In cases where humans aren't replaced, they're expected to augment themselves with AI models to increase their productivity.

On the opposing side, there are people who speak of the technology as impractical, overhyped or down right dangerous. This thread is going to take a different angle to these people: I will demonstrate not only this replacement will become a self-fulfilling prophecy, but why we are locked into this process (which has become an inescapable ponzi scheme) and it will culminate in the destruction of western economies.

In this short thread I'm going to show you why, starting with the economic feedback loops, the limitations of the technology, and finally human psychological dependency and the incentive process. To bring it all together, I will explain why the entire western economy is now dependent on this hype, and why the alternative is also collapse of a different kind.

I will start with the main driver of this trend: the economy. The economic feedback loop

Tech companies and other firms all over the world are in a frenzy to fire as many employees as possible in order to minimise their payroll, keeping investors happy and increasing their stock price even as the real economy around them collapses.

Excluding algorithmic trading, the economy ultimately involves exchange between humans and groupings of humans (i.e. human run entities). The fewer people you have working, the fewer people you have buying things, the less money ultimately flows into large corporations without the public being forced to subsidise them via government grants.

It also goes the other way around, the lower the demand for people with certain skills, the less money groupings of people will offer, and the fewer people will develop these skills. The incentive is thus a feedback loop, the more successful the companies, the more successful the workers, the more both grow upwards.

The promise of AI is to cut this loop open, allowing companies to theoretically lower their payroll to near zero, moving that line item to either data centre costs or the cost of AI models hosted by other companies. This has flow-on effects too: the fewer individual contributors you have, the fewer managers, HR representatives and middle managers you need. Companies are also incentivised to disintermediate and flatten their hierarchies.

With all the hype this seems like a risk-free gamble until you break apart the assumptions and consequences. There are two main assumptions:

1. The cost of using AI models will remain cheap.
2. AI will be able to continuously fulfil the duties of humans in all domains that they replace or augment.

I will disprove assumption (1) later in this section and disprove assumption (2) in the next section.

The up-front cost is seemingly sending many people into unemployment, and driving down the consumer economy. Of course, it is never that simple and rarely linear or even reversible. In taking this gamble, these companies will lose centuries of inherited experience both at the individual contributor and the management level.

This has already been done before. Entering the late 1970s, the United States had a tight grip on world exports and industries with very few exceptions. This was all off-shored over the next few decades until the US was deindustrialised. Today, the US struggles to produce tanks and artillery shells, as the last few workers that still know how retire and the economic incentive for their replacement disappears.

Software engineers, spreadsheet jockeys and other service economy workers will soon be facing the same calculus as industrial workers did during that time. They will quickly move on, or move out of the United States and other western nations. Ironically, these are the very skills needed to keep data centres running smoothly, AI models fed with data (after all it's the information technology that is upstreaming these data feeds and data creation events) and even the AI models developed. Albeit, the full effect of this will not be felt for the time being.

White Christian values explained #1
Why you should never speak ill of the dead. /🧵

Have you ever punched your fist in the air when you're really energetic or angry? Notice how it hurt your muscles almost the same way as making contact with something? Sometimes more, even though it's an empty punch? Every action has a reaction, and of course, your muscles, bones and joints will ultimately have to absorb the energy you used to throw your fist outwards.

When something comes out of you, especially when you attack someone, unless you are fundamentally broken, it's the same deal. If you attack someone and they don't fight back, a normal empathic person would back away or even try to make it up to the person attacked. This is part of why turning your other cheek, to a brother, is the most powerful answer to someone who has wronged you.

[Note: When I speak of "people" here I mean specifically white people. I don't believe neurology, physiology and spiritual essence is universal. In this work I hope to make us more relatable to those who do not understand why we do and say certain things.] Those who keep attacking after the other side backs away or doesn't respond, are fundamentally broken. Their empathic unit is gone. Without empathy you will not be able to relate to people around you, or even understand yourself. It's an isolated hell that I don't want to even imagine. You can be surrounded by the entire world, but you will always feel alone, even on your interior.

This is why people flee a guilty conscience, often why even murderers turn themselves in or leave clues hoping to get caught. They want that part back after realizing what they have lost. Often, they will even yearn for punishment, feeling that in making a penance perhaps their soul will be redeemed.

Some even take their own lives over this, it is that strong of a force, much like an open punch, when you commit a crime that cannot be reversed, the force of your bloodied hand will ultimately come towards yourself -- inwards.

Ben Shapiro has just taken over the Turning Point USA organisation that Charlie Kirk started.

And there you have it, the real motive behind Israel's assassination of Charlie Kirk.
Quote: "I'll pick up Charlie's mic and continue his work" - Ben Shapiro

Body Count Infinity UK is still disastrous but not as bad as Australia.
US is better than both.

The Apocalypse: Discarding Enlightenment's Veil /🧵

The most dangerous form of deception is inception. The type you are not even aware of and take for granted so deeply that it forms the very lens in which you see the entire world. An idea planted so deeply in everything you read and think about that it becomes like a mind parasite that consumes the energy of every thought and formation of intuition. Worse yet, is the denial of any possible mediation as a priori -- that is, the complete disembodiment of being, at multiple levels.

I suppose it's important that I start with a concrete example, something that is taken for granted so deeply by the majority of thinkers that it may appear insane to even question such an unassailable statement:

"I think, therefore I am." (Cogito, ergo sum) - Descartes

This statement is easy to digest for most people, but as I hope to make you see by the end of this thread, flips reality on its head. Reading this statement as a living person it contains true statements on both sides.

You're surely "thinking" while reading this statement.
You surely "are" while your vision (or hearing/feeling if blind) traces over each word.

True, therefore true?...

So it almost appears, as one reads it, a tautology. That isn't quite what Rene Descartes meant, he was going for something more abstract -- that you think at all means you are, independent of anything else. In fact, in rejection of everything possible, the ultimate atomised individuality.

At a higher level, what this statement said is the following: Epistemology conditionally proves ontology. That is: the metaphysical is now conditional to its rational formulation. This is a sharp departure from Platonic forms, which exist in a transcendental realm independent of so-called rational thought. In a sense, Descartes in his "Meditations" captured everything in reality (including God, lol) and trapped them within his oddly shaped head.

You see, the "cogito" statement itself is far bolder and less personal to the reader than it appears to the reader. The "I" is very much Descartes or anyone who chooses to deploy his theory. This formed what is termed Cartesian dualism: a "non-physical" indivisible mind ("res cogitans") and a completely mechanical physical body ("res extensa"). The former's existence, in the observer's mind, proves the existence of the latter, but this is later extended to everything.

It is this theory we will initially dissect, destroy and later, invert entirely, arriving at a result that will surely surprise most people. One thing I want to point out is that if you are like me, you've probably never really even questioned this dual of the mind and body -- it has likely been drilled into you since birth. Perhaps the more religious of you refer to this mind as a soul? Did you know that there was an alternative that Descartes successfully killed for most people? Not only that, this alternative philosophy was so old and established that it is undateable. Older than Platonic forms. Yet, today, most have never heard of it despite it once reigning supreme. We'll return to this later in the thread, and with all we have learnt about reality with our recent findings and instruments, I believe it will form a true revelation. An apocalypse, in the proper revealing sense of the world rather than the popular sense of physical destruction.

Now returning to the question of the so-called enlightenment, which I believe is the reverse of said apocalypse, Descartes, formed the philosophical pillar of the enlightenment. Almost every single modern philosopher you have heard of since him, has taken his dualism for granted, even as they defeated every other part of its formulation. This includes figures like:

Spinoza (even adopting the framework from a monist perspective), Leibniz, Locke, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Marx. Any philosophy, ethics or science built on the other's formulations will be irreparably tainted by the flaws that we will be attacking in this thread. All of today's dead society is built upon this idea, even your online social interactions!

Interestingly, Nietzsche rejected the framework altogether and even predicted that someone would write this very thread you are reading, and yet still came to the same awful wrong conclusion his own way. Actually, the only* person to get things right was David Bohm, because he removed the veil himself in his book "Wholeness and the Implicate Order" (1980) -- but didn't synthesise the conclusion because he was a very gentle, cautious and serious man who didn't get to live to see the vindication of his theories. Unlike Descartes, Bohm was not only a philosopher but also a physicist. A man who wielded both ontology and epistemology.

For reasons related to this, we are going to be forced to examine not only Descartes in this thread, but also the science pillar of the enlightenment. This other pillar was formed by Englishman Francis Bacon. Bacon worked in almost the opposite direction as Descartes but towards the same goal.

For Bacon, reality is as follows: "It has been tested empirically, so I can build on it". Seems reasonable, right? In fact, you might say, it's even harder to argue against this than Descartes! We will quickly see how flawed empirical evaluation is, but there is one sleight of the hand you could miss in adopting both of these. Bacon restricts the scientist from thinking about philosophy, and Descartes restricts the philosopher from using their senses thus conducting science. A double severance at either end. Only through their institutions can knowledge be gained. This was the beginning of compartmentalisation.

Meanwhile, both of them rejected everything that came before them -- Bacon going as far as using Abrahamist/Yahwehist symbolism, of smashing four different kinds of "idols". Descartes invoking a demiurge-like demon which steals his senses and ability to measure.

When taken both together, their "enlightenment" leaves us in a collective amnesia and creates a dual: a scientist and a philosopher, one restricted to measurements and , and another trapped in his thoughts forever. Neither of whom have any connections to the "idols" of the past, smashed to bits by these two curious men.

Descartes promised a utopia, as did Bacon in "New Atlantis", should their formula be followed. Bacon proposed "torturing" nature until it spilled the beans about the truth through empiricism. Descartes on the other hand, declared primacy of human consciousness, denying it to animals and instead deeming them mere machines or automata. This essentially severed our connection to nature, beyond just the past. Today, as humans are deemed "animals" too, we find ourselves under the same kind of harmful assertion.

I will not stop at these two though, I will take you all the way to today in 2025. All the way to quantum mechanics, LLMs, discoveries about space, time, nature and beyond. The "enlightenment" was damaging, in fact, it gave birth to disastrous revolutions, dehumanisation, savage wars, absolute nihilism, destruction of faith for many and desolation in the form of the loneliness epidemic. You will quickly come to understand that these two men, or more accurately, those behind these two men, intended this exact outcome.

But that's not what this thread is about. This thread is all about us achieving what they never could: the unveiling of reality. This cannot be done by myself alone! In fact, that's the entire point of this thread, as you will see, the unveiling is something that has to be done by the entire world, but it is precisely this moment that this unveiling is not only possible but inevitable. The unveiling is communication about this, about destroying each boundary and veil they have put up for us. We finally have the tools and knowledge to do it.

If I do not write this thread, someone else shortly will! The hard work has already been done, arguably, thousands of years ago, by ancient philosophers, by Jesus Christ, by early Christians, by Bohm and many experimentalists, technologists today. For the latter though, this is not the singularity that the transhumanists wanted. 😂 Instead, this will be, a restorative one that will most definitely awaken everyone from their collective amnesia once a critical threshold is crossed! The anti-thesis is our current dying society, there will be no synthesis in the Hegelian fashion, we will absolutely smash what they built and transcend it.

Are you ready oomfies? If so sit back, relax, and enjoy this thread about philosophy, science and teleology -- purpose.

* I will note that Heidegger, Whitehead and Merleau-Ponty rejected the Cartesian framework and worked beyond it. They came very very close to connecting epistemology (the how), ontology (the what) and teleology (the why) together, but missed some key results due to their lifetime window. If they were alive today, they would have been writing this thread instead of your Baka! May they rest in peace. ❤️
Let us first immerse ourselves in Renaissance Europe to fully appreciate the scientific, philosophical, religious and ultimately political context which resulted in the veil over our eyes today.

We begin in 1440, when the German inventor Johannes Gutenberg invented printing press. This device allowed new and old ideas could be propagated at great speed, enabling advancements in technology, literacy and even artistic pursuits. It was the social media of the time, but like every tool that could do good, it could also cause great harm!

In the early 1500s, Martin Luther used the printing press to succeed where his predecessors failed, launching the protestant reformation and sinking Europe into chaos. The catholic church's normal methods of dealing with such "heretics" did not work, and in the aftermath the church became far more defensive and inflexible towards any challenge to its authority.

In the meantime, the literacy rates across Europe skyrocketed, creating the perfect conditions for advancements in technology -- and the need for reading glasses. This meant lens making techniques would have to advance rapidly, creating a demand for optics books, which the printing press readily provided. These two technologies had a synergistic economy with each feeding demand for the other. One particular town in the Netherlands, Middelburg in the Zeeland province, became the centre of excellence for lens making. In 1608, this resulted in the invention of the telescope, which would finally put some cosmic assertions under the test.

Two years later, Galileo would use this telescope to make a discovery that would change the course of history despite it being a very minor one in retrospect. To understand why, we have to take a little step back from technology and science, then step into the world of philosophy and theology.

The catholic church's authority was coming under challenge, and its teleology through papacy undermined. The church, at the time, favoured the Aquinas scholasticism which was a more complex and purposeful method than the Hegelian dialectic most people today would be familiar with.

At the time, Europe had largely adopted an Aristotelian metaphysical view, after much of his work was transmitted to the continent via the Moors of Spain. Aquinas developed the scholastic method by which opposing viewpoints can be reconciled, usually to reinforce the Catholic church's scriptural viewpoints, without contradicting the trends of the time. This became exceedingly difficult as more observations of the cosmos and nature became known. Yet, the church still preferred this gradual approach which protected teleology while ontology and epistemology flourished -- fulfilling the church's guardianship role.

One particularly troublesome conflict was the 3rd century AD Ptolemaic model of our Solar system, inspired by Aristotle. In this Ptolemaic model, all the planets, stars and our current sun (Sol) orbited the Earth, with a twist! They all went through epicycles along their orbit, compensating for the motion of the Earth around the sun.

It only takes a moment of consideration to find an issue with this model: Due to Mercury and Venus's closer proximity to the sun, their epicycles would have to overlap each other's and the moon's. This means that we should see "phase cycles" that the Ptolemaic model could not account for and these were only observable by the telescope! The Ptolemaic model which established the Earth as the centre of the universe with everything else orbiting, couldn't be right. Well before the telescope's invention, Copernicus had already worked this out by doing away with the epicycles altogether:

This was not accepted however, and without any contradictory observations, people held on to existing views. Why would the church even care about this? As the Catholic church's (and almost every other mainstream sect) maintains that all its canon scripture was divinely inspired, these particular verses would create an obvious contradiction:

Psalm 104:5 - "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved."
Psalm 93:1 - "The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved."
Psalm 96:10 - "Say among the nations, 'The Lord reigns.' The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved."
1 Chronicles 16:30: "Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved."

In 1610 Galileo made the inevitable observation of multiple phases of Venus, and quietly shared his empirical work in 1611. Jesuit astronomers took notice, and readily replicated the result. Cardinal Robert Bellarmine requested a formal opinion from the Collegio Romano mathematicians. They came up with the perfect solution that accommodated the church's requirements: Adopting the Tychonian model, nearly identical to an even older 4th century BC model by Heraclides*, where the Sun, Moon and stars orbit the Earth, and the planets orbit the Sun:

Galileo published his Venus observations in 1611, but did not advocate for any particular view. He was someone who even taught the geocentric model, and it took him until 1613 to accept his own observations and begin to advocate for the heliocentric model. He wrote a letter to the Italian mathematician Benedetto Castelli where he made a very bold statement, that his empirical results took primacy over scripture -- and that the latter should only be a matter of faith.

Just three years later, the church declared the heliocentric model, and Copernicus, heretical. Galileo was formally warned by the church, but continued to advocate for it in private and conduct research in this direction. In 1632, he published a work "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems" which he set up as a scholastic argument, advocating for the geocentric model.

In the book, dialogue took place between three fictional characters:

Salviati (representing Galileo)
Simplicio (the word resembling sempliciotto which means 'simpleton')
And an observer, Sagredo.

In the book, Salviati made amazing arguments, while Simplicio struggled. More corrosively, the Pope (Urban VIII), had made almost identical arguments to this character. To maintain plausible deniability, Sagredo would declare no winner at the end of the book.

The Pope, who was so far quite lenient towards Galileo, felt rightfully betrayed by this mockery and straw-manning.

Just six month later, Pope Urban VIII placed the book on a ban list, ordering a halt to its distribution. The printing presses complied, and even protestants did not like Galileo's actions. He was placed under house arrest shortly afterwards, and conducted some research on inertia which we will revisit later in the thread.

Galileo was what you would call a scientist today, concerned with empirical observations more so than scriptural interpretation. He, like any nerd today, failed to read the room and paid the price for it. He didn't appreciate the complicated political, theological and societal considerations that the church had to balance. So he got cancelled for his trouble.

A far more politically adept albeit destructively secretive observer, Rene Descartes, correctly read the room. He was writing a book (Le Monde) advocating heliocentrism, but immediately ceased work on it in light of Galileo's arrest. As this represented many years of his work, this surely left a very bitter taste in his mouth. After Galileo's arrest, Descartes saw the scholastic method along with theology in general, as a barrier to what he thought of as progress. A barrier that needed to be torn down along with the history and perhaps even the deity behind him.

Descartes was Jesuit educated, and somewhat politically adept, but extremely hard to collaborate with and not a particularly good mathematician. Despite the fanfare over his various contributions, other than one polynomial curve, none of them were particularly new -- he just understood the correct way to publicise himself. As you will soon see, Descartes was indeed more of an influencer than either a mathematician or a philosopher. In his discussions with Fermat, he often misrepresented his work and stubbornly held onto his own inferior and sometimes incorrect assertions.

Despite his lack of scholarly skills, his work would soon leave its mark on the world -- creating nightmares beyond our imagination while inducing amnesia upon the Earth.

Next up, let's dive into his "philosophical" works, being careful not to make the mistake of engaging with his theatre and as you will soon discover, the dark ritual he imposed on his readers.

* Heraclides had Mercury and Venus orbit the Sun, the Sun orbit the Earth, and everything else including the Sun orbit the Earth with epicycles.

Sorry Craig, we have LLMs now.

https://twitter.com/craigkellyAFEE/status/1938360373121339701

Oh no no... looks like a certain tribe has been busy.

If YHWH is God, why would God give satan control over the entire world?
Before you say "to test us": James 1:13

And this, along with all that was said by Jesus, proves that the book of Job cannot be from God.

https://twitter.com/Humbum337/status/1937429334710476890

I’m going to be severely attacked for this so I won’t publish it.

Bunker Busters and Armageddon /🧵

The war with Iran has been authorised by the psychopath in chief Trump. From the very beginning, at the start of his term, he placed a proverbial Chekhov's gun on the fire place at Diego Garcia: B-2s.

The threat wasn't the stealth but the load. Before I begin, it's important to understand some characteristics of the B-2 bomber. What it can do and what it cannot do.

The B-2 is not a magic stealth bomber, it has a physical extent and is easily detectable by a competent enemy -- it is usually escorted by fighter jets.

The BAP sphere people pushing JD Vance out of no where?
Paid by Peter Thiel, his mentor.
Musk's fall out with Trump? Peter Thiel calling in a favor to have advanced leverage on Trump so the Palantir deal remains in place against populist push back.
LA riots? Casus Belli. /🧵
They want white people to feel attacked by their pet brown demons, so that we act reflexively and accept their demon system.
Ignore the spectacle.
Understand that you are completely alone -- none of that stuff matters at all!
What matters is we are all alone *together*. :)

I was really afraid of losing my mind due to the volume of things I have read over the last two month, and extended, since December when I refocused on my long term research subjects. Though I'm sleepless and tired, I now know far more than I did before.
The strangest thing? /🧵 In the past a lot of the things I learnt over the last two month, I took for granted as true without really knowing why.
I learnt all of it over the last two month and connected almost everything I've ever written, with the exception of one important event (9/11).

Have you heard of the concept of "True Name"?

Let's start with Finnish mythology:
"If you know the birth of something it gives you the power to reverse it, & gain control over it"

This idea occurs ALL OVER THE WORLD, but you probably have never heard of it. Neither had I... /🧵

https://twitter.com/cirnosad/status/1932454959506952694

In Egypt, everyone is believe to have multiple parts:

Khet = "physical body"
Sah = "spiritual body"
Ren = "name, identity"
Ba = "personality"
Ka = "double" or "vital essence"

If you destroyed everyone's Ren, their Ka would disappear. They also had something similar to Finns.

The golden Thaler by Magedeburger is one of the most elusive coins for gold coin collectors.
Why?
The "Thaler" is the origin of the word, "dollar". It is the origin of the dollar sign ($), and has "NU 21" inscribed on it.
This is the most powerful and evil symbol in the word.

https://twitter.com/cirnosad/status/1932443805602685180

How many dollars would it take for you to betray everything you've ever stood for?