Talk:Gematria

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

New Page(?)[edit]

It was recommended I start with the multiple ciphers used. However, I prefer to update the background. The current page applies to "old gematria" and doesn't need a major amount of work. Gematria as practiced in the last (5??) years or so is much different. I'm going to start with the non snark (well, limited snark) version as I would do it.

New gematria is based on old gematria and applied mainly as proof of global conspiracies involving the freemasons, Illuminati and New World Order. Much of the content regards hoaxes, ritual sacrifices, celebrity deaths, terrorist attacks and any sensational news headline that pops up. Numerology on past events is not done much except as a link to tie in to the current event.

Example: The fire at Grenfell Tower Apartments was a solar eclipse ritual. Glen Campbell died. Numerology showing matches of Glen Campbell to solar eclipses is provided while the apartment fire is supporting evidence for the ongoing unfulfilled ritual.

New gematria differs distinctly from old gematria by dragging in multiple sources of data to stack the deck for more matches (hits), and changing a miss into a hit. Akin to a psychic cold reading, all "hits" are emphasized, while all misses are ignored. Broadly categorized the three main methods are:

1). Increasing the database. 2). Directly changing a number into another number. 3). Changing the wording, thereby changing the resulting numerology.

There is no detail or rules regarding what is a valid alteration and what isn't, but is chosen at the discretion of the narrator without regard to the manner others alter the data or even contradicting their own prior usage.

Much of the resulting evidence is of dismissal quality when one considers the far more numerous misses there are than hits. The data can be easily manipulated by increasing the database or altering the undesired result. Based on math and linguistics most numbers reported on are in the range of 20-250. A database of premade New World Order catch phrases is attached to the end result, so anything that happens can be tied to a ready NWO concept.

Example: "xxxxxxxx"= 223. "SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN"=223.

Further details are provided in support of the narrative limited by the actual current event and the imagination of the narrator, tempered by not stretching the manipulation of the raw data too much so as not to be too obvious.

_______________________________ Now, without retyping the whole thing an example of some snark.

New gematria is now allegedly "Sacred Geometry". Sacred so far as religious texts have a large database of words to be converted into numbers (1) and actual numbers, and geometry as far as that like the simple addition involved in converting words to numbers is also math and having overlapping etymology with gematria sounds sciency.

.........now skip ahead... When boiling down everything to a series of two or three digit numbers you can prove just about anything you want, from your choice of breakfast cereal being a solar eclipse ritual to the Girl Scouts killing Peter Falk to corner the avocado market.(2)

FOOTNOTES 1). It should be noted that in simple gematria the words AGNOSTIC and RELIGIOUS have the same value. 2). Yeah, I did that.


I have spent more time on this than probably anybody on the planet. My one year anniversary of my blog just occurred. I want this to be done right, more than be done "my way". If I get the best of both worlds and can be super duper sarcastic and have the end product stand the test of time, so much the better.

In advance, please be aware that my unsupported, outdated browser may not allow me to do things like create hyperlinks or formatting text in a certain way. No, I can't get a new browser short of buying new hardware. That may require help. Antigem (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

What about links and references to the main gematria advocates here or the clogoophere? The shelf life of some of their commentary is short either from violation of YouTube community guidelines or self unmade damage control.
Antigem (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@Antigem I have a few points to address.

First of all, there's no need to write your signature on a new line. It's probably preferable to out it immediately after what you write, that's what we tend to do.

If you are looking to thoroughly rewrite the entire article, it might be best to write a draft. We do that by writing the entire article, without categories, in a subpage of our userspace. Usually the page is "sandbox", so for you it would be User:Antigem/sandbox. I would recommend writing there. Once you're finished you can copy over the entire thing and add the categories.

An outdated browser will have no effect on formatting. If you're able to edit and save a page, you can put anything in it.

And last question, what's the purpose of that ext? Is that what you suggest making the article content? —Kazitor, pending 05:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Ha! I was actually updating a sandbox page when I saw this! I will be writing an entire draft and add the formatting later. I do intend to do a massive rewrite. The gematria page that exists is ok, but has nothing to do with the way the tin hats use it now. I've settled for New Gematria for the draft, but open to suggestions before coining a phrase. Which brings up my next immediate question. I have some terminology that I've grown accustomed to using. I'd like to keep some of that. (Kinda like flipping the bird at my old "friends", so they know it's me.). Example. In choosing what wording to generate numbers from they might have an article about NASA, then choose to say OUTER SPACE=xxxxxx even if the news article never specifically mentions the phrase OUTER SPACE. So it could have simply been SPACE. I call this PhraseShopping, which I adore because it invokes the idea of deliberate doctoring of the wording like PhotoShopping a picture. Is that ok?

Feel free to pop into the sandbox and offer up commentary on my progress. And thanks for saying that the original article was horrible so I got the sense that somebody other than me cares.Antigem (talk) 05:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure thing. Large contributions aren't really my thing, but I can definitely clean up some syntax/grammar. —Kazitor, pending 06:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Glad for the grammar/syntax check. I don't think I've used proved or proven yet, saw that you have an issue with that. I'll use this page for specific questions as I move forward. I have a couple right now. I typed my analogy of computer passwords and now doubt my counter analogy is valid. Maybe scrap the whole thing? I settled using the word "degrees" after not seeing the symbol. If I poke around will I find more characters available? Now, the big one. The two biggest abusers of this baseless claptrap are very annoying. I don't want to poison this article with my personal opinions. Except if that it's ok to get them added to the list of known cranks. Zachary Hubbard in particular uses gematria as an excuse for spouting his personal beliefs using gematria as an excuse. I can keep my opinions on my blog. But he did try and get his loyal minions to create a Wikipedia page for him last week. I thought it would be quite ironic if he shows up here instead. Thanks. JimAntigem (talk) 09:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what this password analogy is, but I think discussion should go on the talk page of the draft. I would use this space for discussion what actually exists on the page right now. Symbol for degrees for your copying and pasting pleasure: ° If you're on Windows, hold alt and type 0176. I might add it to the box below the edit window. Personal opinions, if they are solely yours, are probably bad. But if they do have crank beliefs, mention that by all means. Names are fine, but no personal information that they themselves haven't made readily available. —Kazitor, pending 10:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
I found and tried to insert the degree symbol as well as Pi, when I try to insert them I get redirected and lose my unsaved changes. I'll play with this some more at my next session.Antigem (talk) 18:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
@Kazitor - The article is mostly done in regards to my views as what content is most important. I still need to play with formatting. I did see a discussion on banning troublesome users and I suspect that a nugget I gleaned from there may be part of my problem. Specifically, banning IP addresses from cell phone carriers, because "nobody edits with their phone.". Wellllll I do. I don't have a laptop or tower. I may need to upgrade or at least buy a new smart phone. I simply cannot insert the degree symbol...any symbol, without getting redirected to the internet search screen and getting booted from RW. My work around to solve not letting my personal bias is to use the archive tool then link blog posts to simply show "this is how they actually operate" now let the reader judge for themselves the level of craziness there is. As you say, not sharing anything they haven't already made public. I currently don't have a clue if I'm doing something wrong or if I can't resolve formatting because of my hardware. Before I spend further time (or money) I'd like to know if my article is even on the right track. I stand by that something should be said as the basic gematria article on RW has little to do with the way that it's been abused lately.Antigem (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)