Having established that all of a sudden and totally out of the blue that single digit numbers are suddenly important again, it was time to look back at a historical precedent. Not much of a precedent as this comes amidst completely unfounded and uncited claims like Pythagoras being the father of Freemasonry.
This blog post is the rough draft of the first two chapters of Hubbard’s book from 2015.
https://web.archive.org/web/20180421044359/http://freetofindtruth.blogspot.com/2016/04/chapter-1-2-drafts-introduction-to.html?m=0
There’s a lot of material to digest there and more may be said about it in the future. For time and space reasons I’m only concerned now with Chapter 2 and the introductory run down of all the single digit numbers. And the timing of the actual pseudo release date of the book with the not terribly well thought out idea of lowering the standards to include single digit numbers.
Somebody with a degree in accounting should know about math enough to know that if you’re examining a set of single digit numbers it’s far more likely to find direct matches than a set of two digit or larger numbers. There are 9 single digit numbers since zero doesn’t count and there are 90 two digit numbers. Having forgotten entirely about his schooling at ASU in accounting about the need for some accuracy in record keeping and high school learning on even the most basic mathematical concepts like the size of numbers, there’s a pretty lengthy description of each digit’s deep philosophical gematria meaning.
Where pretty much immediately numbers get changed into other numbers or entire years are significant because, for example 2014=2+1+4=7. Try and find something that happened in 2014 that has a seven in it. Because with the new low standards it sure looks like anything with a three in it can now be declared a hoax. Now I suppose, if EE in THREE looks like 33, that 77 could be arranged to look like a square or hourglass, or who knows what other vacuous, insipid, moronic assertions will come, but a seven does look like an L. So any word with an L in it now has by default the meanings listed in that blog post.
Or not since even though there’s a friendly relationship between the claimant of 3 being a “soft hoax code” and the list maker we’re treated to another use of the operating standard of, “You agree with me today? Cool!” In the meantime big numbers get changed into small numbers, small numbers get changed into big numbers. It’s that simple and brutally obvious.
There’s no mention of 3 being any way involved in hoaxes. The single digit list is pretty friendly sounding ideals. In theory somebody could have, or more accurately SHOULD have challenged the very idea that all of a sudden now 3 by itself is a hoax. Or before the claim was made should have been researched on what somebody else thought about the idea.
And I can already hear the actually used defense of the “duality” of numbers. It doesn’t mean that it’s either this or that, in actual use it means “This number means what I told you it means without any actual evidence because it’s what I want it to mean today and I told you so”. Let’s hold off on three meaning the Holy Trinity until I have a use for it later when I find out that I don’t want to insult the spiritual folks, for now it’s a lot more fun and cool to make it petty and mean spirited.
Accounting doesn’t work this way. Try declaring whatever number you want on your tax return and see what happens. At least the IRS will follow one gematria rule correctly; declaring zero income doesn’t count.
So let’s do a current and up to date tax calculation.
Patreon currently at $1571 per month, billed once a month starting March 9th. (This will change up or down over time, but the number of patrons has been steady at just below 160 for some time). Let’s call it 9 months x $1,500 per month = $13,500. Etsy book sales 282 x $5=$1,410. $13,500+$1,400=$14,900. Guessing that Uber driving income puts this all in the 15% tax bracket $14,900 x 15%=$2,235
Try writing down TWO THOUSAND TWOHUNDRED THIRTY-FIVE=XXX on your tax return. I dare you.
No comments:
Post a Comment