The ‘Murder of Reality’ was written by an unknown French portrait painter around 2012. A fire-hose of dirty facts, the book claims that a secret race of seven-foot-tall reptiles MUST be controlling the world because elements of the ancient words for snake were deeply ensconced within our languages.

Words like ‘scholar’, ‘office’ and ‘school’ were shown to embody elements of the word ‘scolex’ which was an ancient word for snake or ‘head-of-the-snake’. It makes a broad and compelling argument, but the reptilian component of the book was merely the part that piqued my interest. I believe its most valuable contribution was a reminder of ‘the forgotten recitation’.

“The Forgotten Recitation” is how the English word ‘pun’ would be translated in Aramaic. Bear in mind we’re talking about spoken language. The effect is lost in writing, after a spell has been cast. Here’s what I mean:

The words ‘prints’ and ‘prince’ are pronounced exactly the same way. Prints are something you leave behind after walking on Earth, and so is a prince. Our heirs emanate from our physical bodies, just like our hairs do. And what am I actually doing? Am I merely writing about something important, or am I trying with all my heart to RIGHT it?

There is something desperately wrong with the world, but we never talk about it because we literally can’t talk about it. We all know it. We can feel it. But we never talk about it. We can probably fix it, too - but we need to talk about it first. The situation is so serious, our most ancient spiritual practices involve 'removing one's self from the cycle of reincarnation' here on Earth. Reincarnation doesn't seem like the kind of thing we're supposed to mess with, let alone stop altogether. It will probably happen somewhere else. We need to ask ourselves why.

Why should we try to to incarnate 'somewhere else'? Is it really that serious? The ancient texts don't really make a distinction related to what kind of life we've lived. Rich or poor, we are all encouraged to boogie. I want to know WHY.

Why? Because I'm a man goddammit. It's my nature to fix things that are broken. It's the nature of all men to restore order, and its for this reason masculine expressions are discouraged by the PTB. True restoration of order equates to the return of paradise on Earth, which means there will be no need for power, which means those who have it aren't going to like what I have to say. After all, one cannot reign in hell if there's no chaos to reign over.

Since we can’t talk about our problem, we can’t even think about it. I’m not going to argue the merits of the Sapir-Whorf theory because imo it’s not even up for debate. The structure of language greatly influences our thoughts and behaviors, but I believe we can hack the system by remembering ‘the forgotten recitation’.

Back to the snakes or, more specifically the worms. Apparently, the words for snake and worm were very similar at one time, which isn’t surprising since those creatures look pretty much the same. The main difference though, is that snakes never invade the human body, only worms do that.

They’re not even worms per se when the invasion occurs, they’re microscopic. They come in through the mouth usually, with water or food. When this happens, we call them parasites. Parasites are something we fear naturally – for good reason.

A predator will eat us in one meal, while a parasite will eat us slowly over time. It might even grow generations of offspring inside us - living, feeding, excreting and multiplying - if we’re not careful. Parasitic relationships between species outnumber predatory relationships four-to-one, but how much do we actually know about parasites in general?

Well, for starters we can see that the word ‘parasite’ doesn’t include any of the elements referring to snakes or worms. Throughout human history we’ve had to evade and avoid all kinds of parasites, but those taking the form of worms were surely the most common. We’ve had intestinal worms, lung worms, ring worms, tapeworms…and we’ve actually seen many of them after they leave the body.

Guinea worms plagued Europe for hundreds of years. They’re ingested with water, then they form a cyst to protect their microscopic form from the body’s defenses. There they grow into worms and when they’re ready to breed, they travel from the abdomen to the legs where they cause boils that hurt so much it caused us to seek out a pool of water for relief. This is exactly what the parasite wants. There in the water a two-foot long worm burst the boil and slowly worms its way out of the leg. If you don’t want to wait for the worm to come out by itself, you could try winding it around a stick, but if the worm breaks - you’ll turn septic and die a slow, agonizing death. Nice.

Parasites are fucking scary. Most of the ones we need worry about are worms, so why doesn’t the word parasite include any of the ancient references to worm or snake? They’re in the words that describe our educational system – why aren’t they in the word that describes the worms themselves?

We’re told that the word parasite literally means ‘with-food’, and that it was Latin. I’ve asked several academics and they all say the same thing – with food. But they’re not talking about the way we ingest parasitic microorganisms along with our food – they’re using the word in a strictly social context. We’re supposed to believe the Latin word parasite was created to describe unwelcome free-loaders at private Roman parties – and only applied through metaphor to describe an age-old biological threat to humanity. I’m calling bullshit.

For our ancestors who lacked microscopes and six-inch-thick books, parasites were worms. Worms were parasites. You know, in relation to human life, health, food, etc. Worms-that-are-not-found-upon-the-ground are always considered to be a threat of some sort, aren’t they?

Toxoplasma gondii remains a microorganism all its life, yet it can alter the behavior of the animals it infects to suit its own needs. When mice are infected, they lose their natural inhibitions and fear of cats, which causes them to be eaten by cats, which is the parasite’s preferred host. It has also been shown to affect human behavior by reducing our natural inhibitions. There are many parasites which totally take over the life support systems of their hosts, turning the host into nothing more than a flesh puppet for the parasite. These are studied intensively at major institutions, for obvious reasons.

So, we have this phenomenon of our existence which we call ‘parasites’, and we might define a parasite as any organism that thrives exclusively at the direct expense of another. That’s a pretty big deal. Parasites – deer ticks are a good contemporary example – must be considered evil, or bad, or the opposite of good, if the words ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are going to have any effective meaning at all. Deer ticks are actual vampires. They drink blood for a living, and there’s no other animals that depend on them for their own.

Since WE ARE THE FOOD sought by these parasites, they must be considered evil, bad, enemy - whatever. It’s really hard to describe because we don’t have an effective understanding of good and evil, but ticks could be eradicated from the environment without any ill effects. Earth is not really a delicately balanced ecosystem driven by predators. It's a carefully managed farm or prison or zoo, only in this case 'management' means handling a problem that no other farm, prison or zoo in the world has to deal with - an ever-increasing population. Forget the predators. Earth is a parasite's playground.

A fundamental understanding of good and evil is our birthright. Without it, how are we to manage self-preservation? And yet, isn’t that why God spanked Adam and Eve and kicked them out of paradise? It was because they acquired the knowledge of (the difference between) good and evil.

That’s exactly what we’re doing now.

Here’s a spoiler that a lot of you might not appreciate: Humanity embodies the definition of ‘what is good’. Any 'thing' we encounter in the world that will definitely hurt us must be considered ‘not good’. If we encounter something that’s useful towards our well-being, that thing may be considered ‘good’ for us, at that particular time, in that particular application. A thing can only be ‘good’ for something, it can’t just be considered ‘good’, but it can be considered ‘bad’ like the ticks. Where am I going with this?

We’re going all the way - to the fucking moon.

I try to read all comments and respond where I think I can contribute, but my time is better spent getting this out.