My previous three of four posts have addressed (directly or indirectly) the subject of Genesis. Specifically, the origin of our ideas and whether we really know where our ideas about ourselves, others, and the world we see around us actually originate from. It’s my contention that most of us don’t know their origin, and that these ideas originate mainly from unconscious ‘cues’ that we’re only dimly aware of, if at all. The unconscious ‘cues’ we unknowingly detect are reflected ‘out there’ in the 3D dream world we call ‘reality’, where they bounce about like sounds in an echo chamber. This will sound familiar to those who’re aware that our ‘reality’ is suspect. For example, when a word or image catches your attention for a split second you can virtually guarantee that this same word or image will be staring right back at you when you turn a corner, open a magazine, switch on the TV, or speak to a friend. Pay attention to it and it’ll follow you around until you focus on something else instead. This, in effect, is the ‘programming’ aspect of The Program.

Language and the phonetic alphabet holds the key to understanding how this works. We often focus on the thinly veiled ‘synchs’ that appear in articles and books and films, but underneath are multiple layers of ‘code’. Its existence becomes apparent only when you appreciate how The Program manipulates the alphabet. In computer programming terms, its use of the alphabet works very much like programming constructs such as loops and recursion.

This will probably make no sense at all unless you understand that our ‘reality’ is very much like a mirror, which flips and ‘inverts’ what we see in it. If we apply this mirror imagery to the alphabet itself then we notice that individual letters are interchangeable. For example, a ‘b’ is a mirror image ‘d’, and when we invert a ‘d’ we get a ‘q’ and a tailless ‘g’, which is also a mirror image ‘p’.

If we look more closely at the letter ‘p’ and its mirrors then we notice that we can separate the ‘head’ and ‘tail’ of the character. The ‘head’ can be an ‘o’ or an ‘a’ or a ‘c’. If we rotate the ‘c’ 90 degrees clockwise or anti-clockwise we get an ‘n’ or a ‘u’ or a ‘v’. As for the tail, it can form an ‘l’ or an ‘r’ or even (if we apply a horizontal stroke) an ‘f’ or a ‘t’, which are also inversions of each other.

If we apply these principles to a sentence then it becomes apparent that words ‘hide’ within and across words. These hidden words repeat themselves endlessly within sentences and paragraphs. It’s a curious sight to behold. Hundreds of words can be ’embedded’ in just two or three adjacent words. However, if we take three adjacent words from one sentence, and compare them with three adjacent words from another sentence, both ‘strings’ contain almost identical ‘code’: the same references to people, events, films, and novels appear in both.

In a long line of text, the repetition reveals itself and becomes obvious, as in the below example.

And from today’s DM headline. I’ve used DM because they have long headlines, but the same applies to any text you care to look at. Multiple repetitions of ‘cancer’ (I’ve highlighted the two most obvious) alongside multiple repetitions of many other words. Names appear as well. Merovee regulars should be able to spot the obvious reference to ‘Frank’ in ‘Strangers’ for example.

I call this the ‘glitch’, because it seems to defeat the whole purpose of reusing code to avoid repetition. As far as I can determine, the point of this repetition is the repetition, i.e. its purpose is to drive certain messages into our skulls (or rather, our unconscious).

We don’t even need to analyse ‘code’ to appreciate that everything happening ‘out there’ is ‘history’ repeating. For example, as I was writing The Crack in the Wall it seemed that every billboard in town was advertising the ‘monster’ film The Great Wall. One of the recurring references in the ‘code’ is Troy and the Trojan Horse built to penetrate the wall. Across the pond, Trump wants to build a Great Wall to keep ‘aliens’ out of the US, a direct reflection of the film Monsters. Everything appears to be a mirror image of a mirror image. Does it actually ‘mean’ anything though?

One film that keeps raising its head is Inception, in which an idea is implanted into the unconscious mind of a dreaming subject. The point was to make the person in question think that the idea was his idea and to act on that idea in a way that served someone else’s interests. The film refers to a ‘Cobol Engineering’ job, which I’ve mentioned before. COBOL is a programming language that was designed to imitate the English language.

The point I’m getting at here is best demonstrated by a comment on Merovee that caught my eye recently.

“*A relative of his, Clicky. I remember because his birthday was ten days before mine. He played the drums…*

The last two words ‘the drums’ immediately caught my attention, because the letter ‘h’ also contains a mirror image ‘r’. When we put this together we have a word from a film that keeps recurring, one that has been written about on numerous occasions on Merovee and elsewhere. One which includes conscious and deliberate mirror imagery.

This caught my attention for another reason: there’s a very strong ‘anal sex’ theme in the Merovee post referred to above, which is amply demonstrated by the Elon Musk ‘tunnel boring’ story. In my own novel, Cultish, the word ‘redrums’ appears as a drunken mispronunciation of the word ‘rectums’ and was a deliberate reference to The Shining on my part.

I don’t doubt that few people reading the words “the drums” would consciously associate them with The Shining. What about on an unconscious level though? Themes and ideas and film plots and songs pop into our mind all the time without us knowing why, and this is usually the result of a ‘trigger’ that has escaped our conscious attention but registered in the unconscious.

And my point is? Well, if our ‘reality’ is a mirror then the more often these cues appear (and register on an unconscious level) then the more likely it is that they’ll be reflected ‘out there’ in 3D. When we become conscious that these themes are repeating we assume that they must be ‘significant’ and ‘meaningful’. Our conscious attention amplifies the process, which becomes self-reinforcing – the echo chamber I referred to in my opening paragraph.

There may be no meaning to these themes whatsoever, beyond our own belief that their appearance and reappearance ‘must’ mean something. Ultimately, their recurrence may be nothing more than a product of the amount of attention and significance we afford them.

In all this, I’m reminded of McLuhan’s warning about the danger of focusing on content rather than the medium used to transmit content.

For the ‘content’ of a medium is like the juicy piece of meat carried by the burglar to distract the watchdog of the mind.

McLuhan’s point is that there’s nothing particularly ‘novel’ about content. The content of one medium is always the content of another medium, i.e. the content of television is the screenplay. But by focusing exclusively on content we become like Narcissus transfixed by his own reflection. We become numb to the effects that the ‘medium’ itself exerts upon us. McLuhan’s conclusion? That the fundamental structure and social organisation of our world is a reflection of its dominant technologies or ‘media’. Also, that our addiction to the ‘Narcissus Narcosis’ blinds us to the very existence of this ‘hidden environment’ of structure and relationships.

That in itself is rather interesting, because although we’re accustomed to seeing reflections of ourselves in the ‘impermanent’ and transitory (billboards, adverts, Tweets, etc.) we’ve yet to adequately explain the apparent existence of the ‘permanent’: the universe itself, the ‘environment’, the illusory ‘consensus reality’, the water the goldfish swim in but seem oblivious to.

Of course, the issue with ‘consensus reality’ is this: I’ve just googled ‘space message’ and the below story about the ‘Pioneer Probe’ and ‘aliens’ appeared. It’s dated 17th May, my last day of being 45 given that I turned 46 the next day. I should probably point out that I’m tracking an old Pioneer ghetto blaster on Ebay, and that this reflects my interest in…ahem…the old ‘analogue’ ways…

And let’s not forget the Alien megastructure…

I suppose another way of saying this is that everything we see ‘out there’ is ‘content’. The universe itself is ‘content’ in the same way that what lies between the cover of a magazine is ‘content’. In both cases, the point is to determine what the ‘medium’ itself actually is, along with its effects.

Therein lies ‘The Problem’: it’s not real. The only conclusion we can draw is the obvious one: in an unreal reality the ‘non-fictional’ becomes ‘fiction’ by default. In this ‘reality’, a scholarly paper on the ‘mysteries’ of the universe has the factual basis of…ahem…a children’s fairy story.

Feel free to insert your own coughing fit at this point.

One of McLuhan’s lesser known works is a tome entitled From Cliché to Archetype in which he advocates the use of ‘cliché probes’ (how odd…) to ‘penetrate’ this hidden environment of structure and relationships. It’s an elaboration of his earlier framework called the ‘tetrad‘, in which he focuses on what a specific medium amplifies, retrieves from the past, makes obsolete, and ‘flips’ into when pushed to extremes. In this later work, the focus is on the ‘scrapyard of history’. For McLuhan, the ‘unconscious’ is a scrapyard made up of all the themes and concepts and ideas that escape our conscious attention due to the Narcissus Narcosis.

It goes without saying that as I’ve been thinking about these themes, Frank on Merovee has published a blog post in which he refers to junk DNA. Last night, for example, I watched a series of videos about Chernobyl, which contained more references to ‘junk’ than you can shake a stick at, together with this interesting phrase.

Amongst this random junk you all of a sudden find a box saying ‘radioactive material’…

The link between DNA and nuclear material isn’t obvious until you consider that the only other field in which ‘nuclear material’ is commonly referred to is biology, i.e. in relation to cells.

In other words, the ‘nuclear material’ of a cell is DNA, which is interesting because DNA is codified by letters of the alphabet. Million and millions of ‘characters’ repeating and spiralling and coiling.

DNA is an acid. We literally have ‘acid for blood’.

And of course, the discovery of DNA has allowed us to become ‘engineers’.

Oddly, ‘junk’ has some slang meanings: one relates to heroin (addiction, narcosis), the other to genitalia. As much as 97% of our DNA has been assumed to be ‘junk’ with no obvious function – but now we’re not so sure whether it means something or not.

Now, in a series of papers published in September in Nature and elsewhere, the ENCODE group has produced a stunning inventory of previously hidden switches, signals and sign posts embedded like runes throughout the entire length of human DNA. In the process, the ENCODE project is reinventing the vocabulary with which biologists study, discuss and understand human inheritance and disease.

So exactly how much of our ‘reality’ is ‘junk’ retrieved from the scrapyard of ‘his story’? How much is, so to speak, the equivalent of a radioactive golden nugget amidst all the scrap metal? Does it matter? When you think about it in biological terms, is there a difference between splitting hairs and splitting the ‘atom’?

Or is it all just a game of semen-antics?

Ben Rhodes, who ran foreign policy errands for President Barack Obama as Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications & Speechwriting, created an infamous “echo chamber” of fake news to sell the Iran deal.

Tommy Vietor? Hhmmm…

Rhodes first took aim at Gorka in response to a tweet by Tommy Vietor, a former National Security Council spokesman under President Obama who infamously attempted to dismiss the Benghazi scandal by telling Fox News’ Bret Baier: “Dude, this was like two years ago.” Vietor was, in turn, quoting a Newsweek article criticizing Gorka for criticizing a critic for criticizing his credentials. Rhodes piled on, mocking the “Breitbart credentialed Gorka” for his sensitivity.

Are you getting ‘it’ or are you too busy admiring your reflection in the mirror?

You can get ‘it’ below…

It’s a bit ‘heretical’, a bit ‘blasphemous’, chock full of ‘semen-antics’, and keeps spinning round and round for some reason…


8 thoughts on “The Junkyard of History

  1. Cos Clicky was thinking of including this as an additional last Song in yesterday’s LoL post… it’s his favourite Bony Em 😉

    Great post, Hugo. Thanks for that. I hope you had a lovely birthday.


  2. >>>>“The point was to make the person in question think that the idea was his idea and to act on that idea in a way that served someone else’s interests.”

    I’ve thought about this concept quite a bit as of late. But there are so many problems with it via both simplicity and complexity that it makes me think of the concept as mostly “a roll of the dice” in practice. Assuming that the dice rolled were rolled on a Roulette wheel and that the ball AND the dice required exact placement/exact results via the chance of all motion(s) in order for it to work. The reason being…the outcome has already been decided. Now all that is needed, is “to actually do” whatever this predetermined outcome is.

    Thinking in terms of complexity, you only need one. Thinking in terms of simplicity, this “one” will probably spring from many. So were right back to “MK Ultra” types of thinking viia “power in numbers” or “strength in numbers” via…hedging.

    I rewatched the movie “Contact” yesterday, and in it, the character “Hadden” makes the comment to “Ellie”…
    “First rule, in government spending…why build one when you can have two at twice the price.”

    (The line in question is at 2:42 in the video)

    That “pause” that John Hurt/Hadden gives between “First rule” and “in government spending”…you could prolly write a doctoral thesis on that pause in accentuation that the world would marvel at for decades when you consider the context in which it is delivered in conjunction with what is delivered and how by whom. Never mind the “First Rule” aspect that “synchronauts” can and will slice and dice six ways from Sunday.

    Wanna take a ride?

    ^Front 242 – Circling Overland^

    I don’t presume to know what any of this shit means. Meaning tends to come “after the fact”…irrespective of the accumulation of the fact or facts and the amount/amounts of time in which it takes to accumulate them. However, I will say this…nothing is expendable. Nothing. Were something expendable, it would not exist. If something becomes expandable, everything become expendable. If you re-read the previous sentences, and get clever with them, you’ll prolly see the potential for all kinds of punnery and innuendo and hidden meanings where there are none, as that was not my intent. Hence, “question everything” can and will fail us when improperly applied. Intent and intentions. In this case, and in these cases that are being discussed using the methods and methodologies being discussed…yeah…lotta room for deception there. However, I get the feeling that some events get “locked in” as to intents and intentions, irrespective outcome. And that is assuming your “program” works as advertised, as there is much that is not discussed or even addressed…primarily, truth, in the plural that is implied through its singularity.

    To me this says that you are looking for guilt. To look for guilt without also looking for innocence seems…erm…dark. I guess this is the problem with “duality” as most tend to look at it. “They”…whoever they are…are right. Now all “they” need to do is find someone that is wrong.

    I also rewatched the movie “Chocolat” yesterday, and it also has a handy theme for my purposes here.
    The “Comte de Reynaud” played by Alfred Molina, is at one point in the film faced with a dilemma of basically having none. He has no “evil to rid the villiage of” at a time when he feels surrounded by it. Hence, he must seek one. As I interpret this, he simply does not have the answers that he needs, because all of these “issues” involve living breathing humans, there is indecision within him as to how to proceed for a man with his title in the role that it dictates, and he is a good man trying to do good. To me, that says…”just be yourself.” Do what you do. And yes, I realize it’s nowhere near that simple, because the dynamics of cause and effect are always rolling. There is an “and” in “Cause and Effect” that has the effect of making “haywire” and “nuts” go completely fucking bonkers. lolz

    I dunno. I operate under the assumption that “duality” IS “a singularity”…or at least, it can be. That everything is one, until it isn’t, and whatever you did to chop that “one” up, or whatever you did to augment that “one”…is simply going to create a new “one” and/or new “ones.” When we get topical, under the auspices of say…”psychology”…this branching is not so hard to understand. CFrank Davis has an article today that I think addresses something along these lines, when discussing Veganism and its relationship to “The Central Nervous System.” I would argue that “Plants” have their own “CNS”…it just differs from ours. This is based on my observations of spending inordinate amounts of time actually in trees. Seeing them weep. Seeing them seep. Seeing them grow. Seeing how they grow. Watching them change. Watching them live. Watching them die. Helping a tree or two along in that regard by cutting them down or pruning them. Watching Cicadas and Cottonwood Beetles and Ants and and Stink Bugs and Tree Lice and Termites and Bees and Wasps and Birds and Squirrels and all sorts of life living in, around, on, and off of these trees and other plants is quite the show.

    If you can’t do it yourself, it prolly shouldn’t be done.
    That’s the best I can come up with currently, but maybe its a starting point.
    I mean, even “Stephen Maturin” operated on himself in “Master and Commander.”

    And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country. – Luke 4:23

    I get the feeling that there is something to be said about the concept of “time over times over time” there. Like my thought that Jesus prolly had a pretty fucking good bead on the concept of time, and the concept of time in practice. e.g. – times over time. Especially when you can see all of them simultaneously from a particular perspective AND your own. Lotta forethought and thinking goes into some of the things that we do and when and with whom.

    Wisdom is where you find it via where you use it.
    Or something like that.
    /me shrugs

    Sorry for the rant Hugo.
    But thanks for the damn interesting article. 🙂


    ^deadmau5 "Soma"^

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Cade, look at what you wrote.

      “To me this says that you are looking for guilt.” and “If you re-read the previous sentences, and get clever with them, you’ll prolly see the potential for all kinds of punnery and innuendo and hidden meanings where there are none, as that was not my intent.”

      I’m confused. On the one hand, you read between the lines and find something in my post that I did not consciously intend to include, and which from my perspective is simply not there. On the other hand, you suggest that everything you write is intentional, and that it is pointless to look for meaning in your comment beyond what you consciously intended to include.

      This seems to presuppose that we are, so to speak, 100% conscious and always aware of our intentions. Does the unconscious switch off when wake up and switch on when we fall asleep? Do we always understand our motivations and know exactly why we think and say and write what we do?

      Let me put it this way: was it your conscious intent to contradict yourself? If you believe that the content of your comment consists only of what you consciously intended to include, I can only conclude that you intended to contradict yourself. But that doesn’t make any sense, does it?


      1. Not much does make sense. And I did not mean to imply that everything that I write is devoid of innuendo or other potential meanings…much to the contrary, I am all about contrary. I was pointing out, that the thought in question, was written with a specific intent or thought in mind upon writing it. But when re-reading that thought in the text as I expressed my intent, I could see ways that others might interpret /misinterpret what I was attempting to express. Much like here. And quite to the contrary, I contradict myself all the time. Sometimes intentionally, sometimes not, but I look for contradiction and bias as I am a conflicted person and do not understand the concepts of “right and wrong” as they seem to apply when they are expressed, and how they are expressed, and I especially don’t understand these concepts in the more typical realms.

        Such as…
        “You talk too much.”
        “You have no moral compass.”
        “Don’t do that.”
        “Why aren’t you doing something else?”
        “You’ve wasted your life.”
        “You could have done better.”
        “Couldn’t you have done better?”
        “How could you have been so stupid?”
        “Why are you so dumb?”

        A movie that I rewatched recently, Bottle Shock, and it has a scene where a migrant farm-worker makes the following comment to a winery owner’s son…
        “If I had been born with your privilege, I wouldn’t have squandered it.”
        Lots to think about there.
        You must take it at face value. And there are many faces and many values in that sentence.
        The judge, and the judged.
        The watcher, and the watched.
        Two opinions about the same experience, and yet two separate experiences experiencing eachother separately and together at different times and at the same time at certain times…all at the same time and at different times.
        Lotta times to and within the concept time.
        This is prolly why God/the gods are so cagey.
        “We will sell no wine…before its time” – Orson Wells/Gallo Wine commercial

        Looking for conclusiveness has its place and places. But its something that I personally do not actively seek because it seems to be found everywhere. This is prolly where designers of “AI” are going to get it wrong, even though you are all over this concept with respect to “the conscious/sub-conscious” in your response. A biggie will prolly be the concept of change and how it relates to changes. I find this ironic since the precept is learning and thinking via a modality that defines it. Meaning: There’s no blank space. No exploration, no room to wander and no room to wonder. It’s all about tests and testing via rules and rule sets that are already predefined and conditional according to a predetermined result and results of the “acceptable” and “unacceptable” varieties. Sounds…vaguely familiar….from a historical context.

        To me this is “creepy” because of A) “the intelligence” that is created itself and the lack of empathy for it, and B) the undertones of the application within humans and other lifeforms. Omitting yourself from this creative process is…erm…stupid. Prolly the reason I hate the “Artificial” portion of the “AI Nomenclature.” The definition and usage of the word “artificial” can, and does, and has, changed. It will prolly continue to change as time progresses. Skipping the learning on all sides of the equation for whatever reason says to me that suffering is going to be both unnecessary and requisite.

        When we seek to remove a thorn from our own side and fail, we seek outside assistance. Walking countless miles carrying our child because there is a rumor that a doctor is in a neighboring village, and our child has an abscess on her leg. Leaving no room to grow of our own volition via mistakes and successes of our own accord, according to our own judgments sans outside opinion seems cruel. This opens the door for us to seek both inner and outer wisdom.

        When we stop talking/stop interacting, do we stop learning?
        Yep…”we” do.
        But not really.
        When did contradiction get so unpopular?
        I am learning. I am trying to learn. If that is unacceptable, I’ll shutup.

        That’s just my thinking tho.
        Enjoying the convo.


  3. Thanks for the link.

    About language and alphabet, Ellis C Taylor wrote a book a few years along the lines you’re talking about. If you Google Ellis C Taylor and the Esoteric Alphabet, you can find it.

    The boring tunnel co reference in the article was not about sex as far as I’m concerned.

    What I was attempting to describe was a subconscious ‘tunnel’ which was described to me as The Underground.

    Here is a description :

    ‘I see the Underground as scabs/scars of human consciousness.

    Sometimes the scabs are removed and we see the suffering left

    behind…moments in Time that refuse to heal…perhaps because

    there’s something we need to go back and fix or tend to.

    Honestly, I don’t know how they get revealed – they just do because

    it wants us to Remember.’

    For example I wrote about the A22 from Eastbourne to Westminster. At one level it is just a road but runs through the Prime Meridian. But for me and you and AN Other Eastbourne has significance.In my case to do with childhood and it seems to be about Time. But then you have the Seven Sisters which are mirrored in the stars with the Pleaides – not sure of the spelling.

    Maybe we may find an old photo album from years ago. This can be a portal into the subconscious. And ditto for movies, TV shows, and books.

    Hope this makes sense.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. There are always multiple levels of meaning, as per the whole thing with the alphabet. One ‘layer’ reveals one thing, another ‘layer’ reveals something else. Ultimately, pretty much everything is about sex, so that’s always evident in the ‘top layer’, i.e. in the Musk story it’s the ‘phallus’ digging through ‘the dirt’. But if we ‘dig deeper’ then other themes emerge.

      Last night I came across (ahem) this video about ‘radioactive pisces’, which contains another reference to ‘digging in the dirt’. The ‘nuclear engineer’ playing around in the ‘giant sandbox’.

      So what is a ‘sandbox’?

      The ‘nuclear’ has followed me for as long as I can remember. Even my trip to The Seven Sisters involved a stop-off at Dungeness B nuclear plant. If we think of the ‘nuclear material’ as DNA then the recurring theme of ‘nuclear catastrophe’ as a consequence of ‘splitting the atom’ makes a certain kind of sense. And from that original division into two all the other bogus divisions or dichotomies (right v wrong, good v evil, etc.) seem to flow.

      For example, when Roob has a dig at Anon on Merovee over her interest in race/colour, what happens is that characters like Dylann Roof walk into churches and open fire on black people. Anon returns the favour with a dig at Roob about smoking and all of a sudden we have stories about ISIS cutting off smoker’s heads.

      Similarly, at the moment you’re Pope Francis, head of the Holy Roman Empire. When I was growing up in a fanatically religous family, the Pope was John Paul II (my first names are Jonathan Paul) and he and I share the same birthday.

      The Program sees us all as fanatics. Look at this for example, then take a peek at my reply to Cade above re: ‘guilt’. Here we have Salman the Obedient Jedi fighting ‘The Evil Empire’ a.k.a. the USSR.

      The question is why we’re portrayed in this way, and the interesting thing about this question is that it’s a road to nowhere. It’s virtually impossible to arrive at a conclusion with imposing a false dichotomy and ‘condemning’ ourselves. I think we both agree that in this ‘reality’ we’re innocent by default.

      When we recognise that the ‘us’ that it’s all about is a very small group, and that everything that happens out there is both a reflection of the ‘us’ and a gross over-exaggeration of our thoughts and deeds, all the ’empire building’ also makes a certain kind of sense. I mean that in relation to how we construct our own rigid points of view and metaphorically ‘fight to the death’ in order to defend them. In so doing, we ‘legitimise’ these false constructs and paint a picture of a world, a world in which our concepts of right/wrong and black/white manifest ‘out there’ in 3D.

      That’s what I think anyway.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s