Sosen > Recent Status Updates

Ah yes, I love circuitous references to actions that took place some other time instead of actual action in a story.

The book also consists of essays by notable Pythagoreans. Archytus' treatise is the highlight of the whole book, not just the essays. By the way Taylor defends Iamblichus' style in the intro, I suspect Taylor is responsible for some improvements. His, or the original author's, style is impeccable. But the content is repetitive.

"We still haven't learned to separate facts from beliefs." Now that right there is a fact I believe strongly in.

I had this same argument with my ex.

"Anyone with access to even one more dimension than we have access to could evade our most carefully planned investigations indefinitely. The only way we could catch up would be to become more multi-dimensional ourselves."

"She had to include it was neither a cut nor a laser burn. The incision was made between the cells, cell by cell. Not one cell was even damaged."

This is peak IT'S ALL CONNECTED conspiracy writing. Almost unreadable in doses of more than 1 or 2 pages, but there are a lot of facts that are interesting, if not unverifiable. Shakespeare was illiterate, as we all know now.

Now this book has NAZIS? You gotta be kidding me. Yes, actual Nazis, not right-leaning comedians.

This is such an incredible addition to the conspiracy theory genre, because it's so CREDIBLE. 20 years before this book was published, O'Neill planned to write a book that would reach the most skeptical of readers, at the expense of boring most.

Why settle for magical realism when you can have Magical Idealism?

This started off very intriguing, scandalous even, but it's taking a sharp turn into something more sentimental. Target audience: jaded agnostic psychologists. That misses me completely, but at least it's well-written.

Icke's treatment of the Rothschilds is unfair, mostly grounded in rumor and guilt by association. If he's right, it's by accident. It's possible the R's are scapegoats for the Anglo-American Establishment, which is who the majority of this book is about, anyway. The truth about Bush and Clinton is far more important than an error in judgment over a prominent banking family.

Not exactly breezing through this, but pushing myself, since I want to know what it says but also want to move on and forget all the horror. I mean, I thought the TV show "House of Cards" was fiction. I suppose the title of this book is true, but it's painful and confusing at first.

Goddddddd I'm not gonna remember any of this or convey it to others so why am I reading it?! Monumental effort by Icke, though. Hopefully I'm about to get over the hump.

Witty. Decadent. New York City. And not a trace of unearned intellectual superiority. This is my jam right here.

I'm having a hard time fitting this book into my theory of "Humanity will eventually go back in time and repopulate the Earth". But the way Sitchin interprets ancient myths is better than the way I make shit up because it sounds cool. Well, at least I now have an idea for a novel where the Nefilim return to Earth, where they find the Annunaki enslaved by mankind, and the gold all hidden away.

WHAT THE FUCK, THIS BOOK PROVIDES ACTUAL PROOF THAT A PLANET IS ABOUT TO SWOOP INTO OUR SOLAR SYSTEM, SAVING HUMANITY FROM ITSELF... HOW IS THIS NOT MORE WELL-KNOWN?!?!?

David Icke: "Jews? Jews are just people. I like Jews."
Mainstream media: "Far-right conspiracy theorist Icke makes multiple references to Jews in anti-Semitic rant"

Why pander to skeptics? This is one of the most important books of the 20th century. Skeptics use a handful of "mistakes" (aka Sitchin's occasional speculation about minor details) to fuel their confirmation bias.

Why pander to skeptics? This is one of the most important books of the 20th century. Skeptics use a handful of "mistakes" (aka speculating about minor details) to fuel their confirmation bias.

A plethora of poetry, visual art, and linguistic examples are more than enough to support Sitchin's claims so far: that the main Western religions (as well as Hinduism) stem from a single Sumerian religion, which was inspired by "gods" in spaceships. I'm still trying to process all of this. I'm fully ready for this book to go off the deep end at any moment and completely lose me!

This is vastly more interesting than I thought it would be.

"Truth knows how to break through gates of iron and how to enter where she pleases despite all resistance of falsehood. What have you to oppose to her? Would you say that God has not the power to create, in the Elements, real beings such as have been described?"

"He was no longer interested in my life, although he knew a hundred times more about this life than I."

Ok, back at it.

The expression "Big, if true" was born for this.

Another expression that's important here is "Suspension of disbelief."

The quote from Revelation on p. 44 is when it really clicked for me: true or not, this book is brilliant. One of the most epic things ever.

I could post an awesome quote from every page of this book...

"Since intellectual nourishment has a much lower market value than physical pabulum, the reader's demands upon the author include the following: several day and night hours of intensive suspense; entertainment of a refined sort of which one needs not be ashamed later on; genuine emotions; soft smiles and belly laughs, occasionally spiced by tears..."

Still slowly digesting this.

"The description of a sight is like the shadow of a shadow, the epitome of a footnote, that you can read or omit without missing anything."

Yeah I'm done lol

Here's a good example of where I hate this book:

"Yet, although to most socialists only one species of collectivism will represent true
socialism, it must always be remembered that socialism is a species of collectivism...."

He seems to concede that MOST socialists only like a certain form of collectivism, but then he seems to say that only one form of collectivism exists. So whack.

I'm getting sidetracked right now, but holy cow, what a book. At no point does Werfel "play it safe". There's hardly a single unoriginal thought. His grasp of religion and philosophy is unparalleled. I think it's right to call him a theosophist (with a lower-case t), perhaps even the greatest theosophist.

So far, not good. Full of empty rhetoric, contradictions, and so on. Hayek was so sure he was on the right side of history, and this is mostly just about that: how sure he is, and how foolish everyone else is. It's ironic that he later influenced people whom he despised, since this introduction is largely about all the people of that era who didn't understand how potentially evil their ideas were.