BLOWING THE WHISTLE ON THE DANGEROUS CULT OF HYPERIANISM
• FROM THE CITIZEN JOURNALISTS OF THE AC
Wow! Listening to a cretin with no qualifications trying to impersonate a philosopher is one of the strangest things conceivable. In two long essays, we have absolutely demolished all of the idiocy that Morgue Official spouts about the PSR, but he just keeps repeating his lies and fallacies. The reason of course is that he has staked everything on his various foundational fallacies and cannot back down. These are pivotal to his whole Woke spiel.
In a university, no one can make a fallacious argument and expect to get away with it. But, in a cult, who is ever going to challenge the cult leader? The cult leader can say as many mad things as he likes. Cultists, by definition, never object. These people aren’t members of a cult because they swear by reason and logic. They are members of a cult because they don’t! They are members of the cult because they have deeply emotionally bonded with the cult leader, who has groomed them for exactly that purpose. It’s called LOVEBOMBING and it’s the essential tactic used by MALIGNANT NARCISSISTS to recruit narcissistic supply. Narcissists succeed because they make you feel great about yourself … so that you worship them for making you feel that way! Rebhahn has given a total bunch of misfits, losers and failures a belief that they are very important, special people … and oh how they love that feeling. They DETEST us because we are the people telling them that they are seriously mentally ill. Well, you know how it goes: the truth tellers are always loathed and the liars are always greeted with hosannas. Such is the human condition.
Why do people fail to make progress in the real world? It’s because it’s really fucking hard and tough out there, so people just withdraw into mad fantasies where, instead of being strong and powerful and controlling their lives, they simply fantasize about all of that … and no one can take their fantasy away from them. No matter that the real world is constantly mocking them, they can always take refuge in their fantasy.
A key feature of cult leaders is that they can never admit error. They can never back down. They can never say they got anything wrong. They cannot remove the videos that they proclaimed to be their most important. An Ascended Master cannot say he got it all wrong. A Messiah cannot be in error.
The most hilarious Messiah in history was arguably Jesus Christ (a malignant narcissist just like Rebhahn) – a man literally crucified by the Romans and mocked for claiming to be the King of the Jews. Not much of a messiah. He didn’t save the Jews from the Romans. The Romans defeated and executed him. All Hail Tiberius! All Hail Hadrian, you fucking sick Hyperian filth.
In a logical world, that would have been the end of Christianity, but people can convince themselves of anything, so the myth arose of Jesus coming back – the Second Coming – and that’s when he would defeat the Romans. Sheez. Why not do it the first time round? And the Second Coming is forever promised but NEVER happens, but people go on believing anyway. Just like, you know, NEW TERRA.
We see the same insanity that afflicts Christians being played out in the insane non-binary cult of Hyperianism. Hyperians will accept anything their cult god says, never doubt him, never challenge him, and at all time support his fantasy.
There’s nothing new about extreme feeling types falling in love with pathological narcissists – it’s one of the main driving forces of human history. More’s the pity. If we had a world of rational and logical people, these crazy cults and religions would never get off the ground. But, hey ho, the world is full of emotional incontinents and hysterics, who always believe their feelings and always reject reason and logic (although they will of course claim to be all about reason and logic because it makes them FEEL bad to admit they are irrational and illogical!).
Let’s look at what crazy Rebhahn said in his last deadstream:
“We understand reality to be rational reality and everything must have a reason for its existence and we have to understand reality rationally and logically. … This existence is a set of rational laws.”
Rebhahn talks as if this was something universally accepted. In fact, the vast majority of belief systems absolutely reject this. The PSR is held as the defining principle of existence and that which is constitutive of existence only by ILLUMINISM.
Rebhahn said,
“Non-existence is not possible because in the absence of any rational laws there wouldn’t be any non-existence, there would be impossibility.”
Seriously, this is one of the strangest statements ever made. Firstly, non-existence is absolutely possible in prima facie terms. Non-existence requires nothing, so that immediately means that it will definitely be the case UNLESS something can prevent it. Something CAN prevent it, namely EXISTENCE.
Existence, like non-existence, requires nothing. And, unlike non-existence, nothing can prevent it. Why can’t non-existence stop existence? Let’s find out.
Here’s the amazing thing. We can actually mathematically model non-existence. It’s simply the collection of static mathematical points with no properties. It’s pure abstraction. Nothing = nothing at all. These static points are nothing and can do nothing, and that’s non-existence. The question is why, therefore, this isn’t the way things are. Why isn’t there just total non-existence?
In “The Principles of Nature and Grace, Based on Reason” (1714), Leibniz said,
“…now we…make use of the great…principle that nothing takes place without a sufficient reason; in other words, that nothing occurs for which it would be impossible for someone who has enough knowledge of things to give a reason adequate to determine why the thing is as it is and not otherwise. This principle having been stated, the first question which we have a right to ask will be, ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’…. Further, assuming that things must exist, it must be possible to give a reason why they should exist as they do and not otherwise.“Now this sufficient reason for the existence of the universe cannot be found in the series of contingent things… Although the present motion…arises from preceding motion, and that in turn from motion which preceded it, we do not get further however far we may go, for the same question always remains. The sufficient reason, therefore, which needs not further reason, must be outside of this series of contingent things and is found in a substance which…is a necessary being bearing the reason for its existence within itself; otherwise we should not yet have a sufficient reason with which to stop. This final reason for things is called God.”
Thus there is an eternal and necessary order of existence, which can’t not exist. Leibniz simply referred to it as “God”, but ontological mathematics has now defined what God is made of, what God actually is.
Whereas non-existence is about STATIC points, existence is about MOVING points. Static points require nothing, and nor do moving points, provided that moving points have a perfect analytic net result of zero.
Nothing requires nothing and nothing can stop nothing.
Non-existence is where nothing = nothing at all = 0.
Existence is where something = net nothing = 0.
And that right there is the explanation of why there is something rather than nothing. It’s not in fact something rather than nothing, it’s something being able to “impersonate” nothing, and it does so by being equal to net zero, and that happens because of the precise properties of ontological mathematics, which is all about points moving, by virtue of the PSR, in perfect analytic Euler circles, where positive and negative numbers and real and imaginary numbers are in absolutely perfect analytic balance, and zero is the guaranteed net outcome. From Euler circles, we get sine and cosine basis waves = basis thoughts. A full set of basis thoughts = one basis mind = one monad. And the collection of all such monads (each monad requires nothing and nothing can prevent it!) is the HIVE MIND =”God”.
Note that at no stage do we invoke deranged arguments about “impossibility”.
Abstraction is about static points. This is non-ontology. Concreteness (ontology) is about moving points – moving BECAUSE of the PSR, which requires all points to be treated with absolute equality (none can be privileged over another), and that’s why we end up with perfect analytic circles … this is the ultimate meritocratic Round Table … every point gets the exact same treatment as every other point.
What could be more beautiful, simple and elegant? This is the perfect, definitive, exclusive explanation of why there is existence rather than non-existence. And we have of course featured much lengthier explanations of all of this in our books – which is where the criminal plagiarist Corey Rebhahn came across these ideas. ALL OF HIS SUBSTANTIVE IDEAS ARE PLUNDERED FROM ILLUMINISM. NOT A SINGLE THING THIS PERSON SAYS ORIGINATED FROM HIM. Just read our books and find out for yourselves … it’s all there, in print.
Rebhahn did not understand any of the arguments presented by Mike Hockney, Dr. Thomas Stark, and others. Also, his malignant narcissism made him want to see if he could produce his own “answer”, and thus he came up with his demented “impossibility argument”.
Rebhahn said, “
Non-existence is not possible because in the absence of any rational laws there wouldn’t be any non-existence, there would be impossibility.”
This is a mind-bogglingly dumb assertion. Impossibility is of course that which is not possible (how we decide what is impossible is a different story, but the basic idea is crystal clear … there is zero possibility of impossible things happening or being true).
So, if you are constructing an explanation of why there is existence rather than non-existence, the very first thing you can omit is anything that is impossible. By definition, it cannot happen or be, so can be ignored 100%. It is by definition 100% irrelevant to why there is existence.
Existence does not exist because it is possible and in supposed competition with impossibility, which is not possible, and thus existence exists. That’s literally the dumbest argument ever. Existence is self-evidently not in competition with things that can’t happen or be. Impossible things have no relevance at all to why there is existence.
You can’t say that existence exists because the alternative is impossible. That’s not explaining what existence is. It’s just making a vacuous statement, of exactly the type that would be expected from a person without any education.
Clearly, existence is not impossible, or we wouldn’t be here! It’s merely stating what is self-evident. No explanation is being offered for why existence, you know, EXISTS. We have given the complete explanation for why existence exists … it is via the PSR and the Euler circles which ontologically express it via moving points, operating according to the laws of ontological mathematics, which permit “something” (the moving points) to have a net result of exactly zero. When a point has completed its journey round the circle (by the way, it doesn’t have to actually MOVE; the PSR just has to CALCULATE what result would be produced by motion, and that calculation is, funnily enough, the SAME as motion), it has returned to exactly where it started, and the net result of its journey round the circle was precise, analytic zero. It’s so staggeringly beautiful and profound.
We have provided the complete explanation of why there is existence. Rebhahn has supplied no explanation at all. He has simply asserted that non-existence is impossible. It’s obviously empirically impossible – because we exist. But, theoretically, it’s not at all impossible and would in fact definitely be the case if ontological mathematics and Euler circles were impossible. It is simply astounding that ontological mathematics has the properties it does have, and, if it didn’t, there wouldn’t be anything.
Ont math is eternal and necessary. It can’t not exist. And all because ont math has the absolutely exact properties it has. Any other type of math – any incomplete and inconsistent math would fail! So, given that an infinite number of incomplete and inconsistent versions of math are POSSIBLE, and each of them would fail to create existence, than it’s bordering on the miraculous that we have ontological mathematics! What are the odds?!
Remember that Rebhahn said,
“Non-existence is not possible because in the absence of any rational laws there wouldn’t be any non-existence, there would be impossibility.”
Have you spotted the glaring error foundational in this ridiculous “argument”? Rebhahn says that the alternative to rational laws is IMPOSSIBILITY. But, of course, impossibility is not the alternative to anything – because it’s impossible (!), which means it cannot be considered at all in relation to why there is existence. Existence is in no way in competition with things that can’t happen, things that can’t exist. Only a total moron says that existence exists because the alternative is impossible. It’s not even an argument, just a bizarre statement.
The question is why isn’t existence itself impossible, as it would be if there was only non-existence. The question of why existence isn’t impossible has to be answered, and we have already answered it, in the arguments presented above. They explain why existence exists. They make no reference at all to things that don’t exist, which can’t possibly explain what DOES exist.
Remember, we have shown in previous articles that ANYONE can say, “What we say is true because the alternatives is impossible”. That’s what cult leaders say. It’s an argument by AUTHORITY. It’s not a rational and logical explanation.
The whole of science is based on the supposed impossibility of immaterial existence (the non-existence of mind). What would a scientific materialist say: “Immaterial existence is not possible because in the absence of scientific laws regarding matter, there wouldn’t be anything at all.” A scientific materialist would never claim that impossibility COULD exist. How could it … it’s er, impossible. It’s a “state” that can be 100% excluded, like excluding 2 + 2 = 5 from arithmetic. No mathematician is concerned with a world where 2 + 2 = 5. No such world does or could exist, so it literally has no bearing on ANYTHING. They would simply say that non-material existence is impossible (it could never exist under any circumstances … 100% of scientific materialists and 100% of panpsychists deny the independent existence of mind, and there is zero that Corey Rebhahn said in his supposed “proof” that would convince them that reality is immaterial. They say that immaterial existence is impossible; he says that materialism is impossible. That’s just people asserting their belief systems. Neither side has proved a single thing.
Rebhahn said,
“Because rational laws are the only things that keep reality stable.”
This is yet again pure assertion in relation to convincing others. Scientists don’t believe in the PSR and they accept randomness, chance, acausation, indeterminism, uncertainty, emergentism and so on (in contradiction of the PSR), and don’t for a moment believe that the universe is unstable.
Rebhahn said,
“If there was absolutely nothing at all that would be a stable state”.
So, non-existence is a stable state! Who knew? And er, what criteria would be applied to ascertain the “stability” of this state? What test would you perform? What would you contrast this state with? What would unstable states be? This is just HILARIOUS!
Non-existence is not a state at all. It is the absence of any states! Nothing at all exists to be in any state. But this is EXACTLY the kind of garbage that Rebhahn comes up with to defend his idiocy. Rather than admit his egregious errors, he just multiplies his errors – because he can’t afford to back down.
Rebhahn said,
“..so you would require some sense of rationality in some sense for that stable state…”
Remember, the term “stable state” definitionally has no ontological relevance to non-existence (the absence of any states whatsoever). It’s just another of Rebhahn’s invented, absurd claims. And the reason Rebhahn has to attempt this comedy argument is that he has to exclude pure non-existence from consideration since his bonkers “proof” requires existence to be contrasted with IMPOSSIBLE existence, not completely possible pure non-existence.
What is the opposite of existence? It’s logically non-existence, but Rebhahn’s whole game depends on something else, something that is logically NOT the opposite of existence, namely “impossible existence”. Rebhhan is so dumb that he doesn’t understand that non-existence, not impossible existence, is the opposite of existence. There is no such thing as impossible existence, but non-existence can be exactly modeled … via static points with no properties, so is eminently possible. Rebhahn has to seek to cut off this possibility so has to claim that non-existence is somehow “stable”, and thus rational and thus is NOT non-existence. Because Rebhahn has no use at all for non-existence. His whole scam requires existence to be up against impossible existence not non-existence. But he thus generates a new error. Have you spotted it?
Let’s imagine existence that comprised nothing but a rational order of static points with no properties and doing nothing. Now, functionally, that IS non-existence. So, imagine a reality defined by the PSR that could not generate moving points, only static points which have absolutely no effects. We thus have a PSR universe – a totally rational, “stable” universe that does nothing at all! But that’s no good for Rebhahn. He needs to get to THIS universe. His “impossibility argument” is useless since a completely rational reality that does absolutely nothing (and is NOT this reality) is entirely compatible with his argument. Remember, all he is actually asserting is that an irrational reality is impossible. He cannot say that a rational reality – a reality of static points with no properties, doing nothing – is impossible … because his whole “argument” is that rational reality must be true. So, he has no means to distinguish between a rational reality of static points (functional non-existence) and a rational reality of moving points (the reality defined by Euler’s Formula). His completely bogus argument gets him nowhere near Euler’s Formula. There is nothing at all in his argument that leads to the God Equation – Euler’s Formula, defined by the PSR. So he has provably absolutely failed, even in the terms of his own silly argument, to establish why existence is THIS existence, this one directed by the God Equation. There is NO ROUTE from Rebhahn’s idiotic argument to the God Equation.
He has proved fuck all! Except what an unqualified clown he is!
Rebhahn said,
“..but we are saying that if there is no rational law then there would be absolute impossibility occurring…”
No philosophical statement should EVER rely on the supposed occurrence or possibility of the impossible.
Remember, Rebhahn’s foundational claim is that there are two possible worlds: the rational one and the impossible one … but you cannot refer to a possible world that is impossible! You can’t say: on the one hand is such and such a world and on the other hand is an impossibility … because of course the latter is not a possible world at all. IT’S IMPOSSIBLE.
Rebhahn’s insane maneuver is to say that the such and such world is PROVED because the alternative is impossible. But the impossible can’t be referenced at all because it simply cannot happen. Moreover, any such-and-such world: the scientific materialist world, the theism of Christianity, the nondualism of Buddhism, and so on, could be just as easily proved by this argument. No scientist believes that science is irrational, no theist believes that theism is irrational, and no nondualist believes that nondualism is irrational. So, they could all lay claim to Rebhahn’s laughable argument. At no stage does he prove the PSR or why rationalism MUST be ontological mathematics and nothing else. All of that is totally ignored. He doesn’t care. He’s just a clown – a cerebral narcissist posing as someone saying important things to get narcissistic supply and money!
Rebhahn said,
“Now impossibility is literally impossible. It can’t occur.”
This is the core of Rebhahn’s argument, and it is foundationally absurd. He entertains the possibility of the impossible in order to set up a contrast with what he wants to “prove”, and then says “But the impossible is impossible, ergo the alternative is proved. Ta da!” Seriously, this is off the scale of dumbness. You cannot entertain the impossible. You cannot refer to things that cannot occur to “prove” what you claim does occur. Rebhahn believes he is using proof by contradiction. He’s just proving that he has no understanding of such proofs. A proof by contradiction assumes that the statement to be proved is not true, and then proves that this can’t be the case, thus proving the statement. For example, suppose you want to prove that there is no largest even number. You start off by saying that there IS a largest even number – let’s call it 2n. Then you consider 2 (n+1) which is also even and obviously larger than 2n. So you have proved that there is no largest even number. Rebhahn’s totally deranged “idea” was to guarantee a contradiction by putting whatever he wanted to prove up against impossibility. So, he said, “If we assume rationalism is not true then irrationalism is true but irrationalism cannot be true because it generates impossibility.” Seriously that’s his entire argument!
You can see how rationalism can be replaced by anything in this argument, hence it’s a totally meaningless argument. A theist could say: “If we assume theism is not true then atheism is true but atheism cannot be true because it generates impossibility.” [Theists have a well-rehearsed list of everything they believe is impossible about atheism. Consider this well-known meme:
“ATHEISM: The belief that there was nothing, and then nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything, and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself — for no reason whatsoever — into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs. … Makes perfect sense.”
That is itself better than Rebhahn’s proof (and much more entertaining!). And it is a proof of theism, not of rationalism! The theist is showing that you are forced into impossible claims if you accept atheism.
A scientific materialist says, “If we assume scientific materialism is not true then immaterialism is true but immaterialism cannot be true because it generates impossibility.” They would then cite something like “causal closure”. Wikipedia says,
“Physical causal closure is a metaphysical theory about the nature of causation in the physical realm with significant ramifications in the study of metaphysics and the mind. In a strongly stated version, physical causal closure says that ‘all physical states have pure physical causes’ — Jaegwon Kim, or that ‘physical effects have only physical causes’ — Agustin Vincente. Those who accept the theory tend, in general although not exclusively, to the physicalist view that all entities that exist are physical entities. As Karl Popper says, ‘The physicalist principle of closedness of the physical … is of decisive importance and I take it as the characteristic principle of physicalism or materialism.'”
So, every belief system plays the game of saying the alternative is impossible. It doesn’t prove anything at all.
In this regard, a proof has to be positive and not negative. You must prove what you are asserting, not invoke the alleged impossibility of whatever you are arguing against. As you can see, everyone can play that game. Yet theism cannot prove God, and scientific materialism cannot prove materialism. Talking about the impossibility of the alternative doesn’t prove the primary assertion.
But Rebhahn is a clown with no qualifications who has no understanding of any of these things. But we can be 100% sure that this plagiarist lunatic will keep referring to his video where he allegedly solved the greatest philosophical problem of all time. It’s so funny! How delusional can you get?!
Rebhahn said,
“So we have rational law that can exist and must exist. There’s nothing preventing it from existing.”
What would a theist say?
“So we have a God that can exist and must exist. There’s nothing preventing it from existing.”
And a scientific materialist:
“So we have scientific law that can exist and must exist. There’s nothing preventing it from existing.”
Scientists say things like: “If it’s not forbidden, it’s compulsory. … if it can happen it will happen.” And scientist don’t believe they are thereby opening the door to non-science when they say such things.
What is Rebhahn saying that adds anything to such statements? What’s for sure is that he hasn’t proved anything at all. And his “proof ” is laugh-out-loud nonsense.
But remember, Rebhahn is a sinister predator and cult leader, who will keep on spouting his fallacious garbage and claiming to be the greatest philosopher ever … BECAUSE THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT GRANDIOSE MALIGNANT NARCISSISTS DO. That’s the nature of their pathology. Corey Rebhahn is totally delusional – an absolute mental case – and incapable of facing the truth. Instead of seeking the help he so badly needs, he is being supported in his dangerous delusions by totally sick individuals like Dyslexic Fairy. They are so dumb they could never follow any of the arguments we have advanced here. They are people of absolute faith who will accept and believe WHATEVER their cult leader Coret Rebhahn tells them to believe. Hyperianism is what serious mental illness looks like. And this is the future of the West.
Hyperians are sick people lying to the world and themselves. They are absolute enemies of the truth. Not one of them has any critical faculties. They are all utterly credulous suckers. They ignore our arguments, or lack the intellect to follow them, so dismiss them. They don’t even understand what Rebhahn is saying (well, he never makes any sense)!
So, more on this tomorrow, as well as an analysis of Rebhahn’s high-comedy “flower of life” shtick. Man, he is so keen to get those New Age nuts interested in “sacred geometry” on his side, giving him loads of money.
Rebhahn’s Patreon stat has shot up to 51% of $5000. That means that either he has a new Patron who has pledged him $400 per creation, or one of his existing patrons has upped their contribution to help out Rebhahn because he is beginning to struggle financially!
So, $400 per creation equates to $1600 per month and nearly $20,000 year. Isn’t it astounding that Rebhahn keeps finding people willing to give him so much money – for being a Woke moron!
When the fictional FILANTHROWPISSED appeared on the scene, Rebhahn’s Patreon stat went up to 97% of $5000 per creation. The plagiarist and conman Rebhahn wants to be earning $5000 per creation, meaning $20,000 a month, meaning $240,000 a year, from Patreon alone. And lunatic slaves such as Dyslexic Fairy, Kassidy, Angela Dukat and Maria Seedling are determined to get this sick charlatan to that level. These people are truly EVIL. They are doing everything in their power to help a shameless plagiarist wreck the truth in order to spread insane Woke lies.
Tags: Corey Rebhahn, Morgue Official, Morgen Night, Hyperianism, Hyperionism, Hyperian, Hyperion, AMC Freakshow, Inner Star Actualization, Cult of Hyperianism, Hyperian Founder, Morgue Official Real Name, What is Hyperianism, Hyperianism Beliefs