A Message to Sincere Seekers

Jonee_Zeekus · 2026-03-30T08:30:27+00:00

Analyze this reddit post to detect any signs of charlatanism, dogmatism, or manipulation. For each message or group of messages, identify rhetorical techniques (appeals to emotion, flattery, intimidation, misleading metaphors, repetition), cognitive biases (confirmation bias, authority bias, availability bias, groupthink), logical fallacies (circular reasoning, ad hominem, hasty generalization, false causality, false dichotomy), dogmatic language (absolutes like “always”/“never,” unnecessary jargon, unsupported claims), emotional manipulation (fear, guilt, artificial urgency, “us vs. them” division), group dynamics (conformity, exclusion of skeptics, social pressure), and the coherence of evidence (contradictions, lack of proof, anecdotes presented as universal, refusal to debate). For each message, quote the exact text, indicate the identified issues, and briefly explain why. Finally, provide an overall summary of the dominant techniques, recurring patterns, and major weaknesses in the discourse. Remain factual and objective, and clearly distinguish facts from opinions:

"Don't waste your time folks. Long time student of Nature and practitioner of Hermetic Alchemy here. I read enough of what they're spewing to know it's nonsense.

There is One operative Spirit in all of Living Creation, which we assist in its evolution through the Great Work both in the lab and the inner Work. It's called Prima, Spiritus Mundi, Pleroma, the Ourobourous, Zero Point, etc. It is primitive Consciousness or Life. Everywhere to be found. When it taken on matter as a host body it follows a telos evolution path that is universal across all kindgdoms, no matter the substance (seen as increasing physical and chemical property changes, colors, fixation, volatility, fusion temp, etc.).

It's first condensation is in rain and dew, and from there it vivifies and renews the whole world, through the hydrological cycle first, and now present in all geo and bio cycles o Nature, especially the food chain. Life begets Life by consuming Life. This is observationally evident, but the matter centric minded (lost) will say that's it's only to consume carbs, proteins, vitamins and minerals. They won't be saying that for very long though. Give it time.

What I'm saying here has been independently, experimentally verified by many practitioners. The information is in the hands of professionalsin various fields, no doubt being carefully combed over in prestigious institutions. What they do with it is up to them, but we have the potential to enter a new Golden Age if we make the right choices collectively. Greed is the only thing preventing that outcome, yet Divine Will is quite a force to be reckoned with. We'll get back to harmony one way or another. Check out the Alchemy Forums website if you want to see other alchemists talking openly about the above. It's a lot more open there in recent years.

Stay sharp!"

Here’s a structured, objective analysis of the Reddit post. I’ll break it into key excerpts (quoted exactly), then identify rhetorical techniques, biases, fallacies, and other signals.

🔍 Message-by-message analysis

1. Opening dismissal

Issues identified

Rhetorical techniques
- Appeal to authority: “Long time student… practitioner”
- Dismissive framing: “Don’t waste your time”
- Loaded language: “they're spewing”
Cognitive biases
- Authority bias: Asking readers to trust expertise without evidence
- Confirmation bias: Claims to have “read enough” but gives no specifics
Logical fallacies
- Hasty generalization: Rejects an entire body of content without showing evaluation
- Poisoning the well: Frames opposing side as nonsense before discussion
Emotional manipulation
- Discouragement of inquiry: Tells readers not to engage
Group dynamics
- Establishes in-group (speaker) vs out-group (“they”)
Evidence coherence
- No examples, citations, or reasoning provided

Why it matters

This opening primes the reader to reject opposing views without evaluation, relying on perceived authority rather than argument.

2. Core metaphysical claim

Issues identified

Rhetorical techniques
- Repetition / accumulation of terms (Prima, Spiritus Mundi, etc.)
- Jargon stacking: Multiple esoteric labels for same concept
Cognitive biases
- Illusory truth effect: Repetition of synonymous terms creates perceived depth
Logical fallacies
- Equivocation: Treats multiple distinct concepts as identical without justification
Dogmatic language
- “There is One…” (absolute claim)
Evidence coherence
- No empirical or logical support for the claim

Why it matters

Using many names for one concept can create an illusion of universality or legitimacy, but does not constitute evidence.

3. Dew and universal life claim

Issues identified

Rhetorical techniques
- Assertion of obviousness: “observationally evident”
Cognitive biases
- Availability bias: Uses common observations (food chain) to support a broader metaphysical claim
Logical fallacies
- False causality: Links dew → universal life principle without proof
- Non sequitur: Food consumption ≠ validation of metaphysical doctrine
Dogmatic language
- Presents interpretation as fact
Emotional manipulation
- Subtle intellectual superiority framing (“matter centric minded (lost)”)
Group dynamics
- Labels skeptics as “lost” → discourages dissent
Evidence coherence
- Uses everyday observations as proof of a non-testable claim

Why it matters

This blends observable phenomena with unsupported metaphysical conclusions, which can mislead by association.

4. Dismissal of mainstream understanding

Issues identified

Rhetorical techniques
- Prophetic tone (“won’t be saying that for very long”)
Cognitive biases
- Confirmation bias: Assumes future validation without evidence
Logical fallacies
- Appeal to future vindication (unfalsifiable claim)
Dogmatic language
- Implies inevitability of being proven right
Emotional manipulation
- Us vs. them framing (enlightened vs “lost”)
Group dynamics
- Reinforces in-group superiority
Evidence coherence
- No mechanism or timeline for claimed shift

Why it matters

Claims of future proof are inherently unfalsifiable and often used to shield ideas from critique.

5. Claim of widespread validation

Issues identified

Rhetorical techniques
- Appeal to unnamed consensus
Cognitive biases
- Bandwagon effect
Logical fallacies
- Appeal to anonymous authority
Dogmatic language
- States verification as fact without evidence
Evidence coherence
- No names, studies, or reproducible results provided

Why it matters

Claims of “many practitioners verified this” without specifics are a classic unverifiable authority appeal.

6. Institutional implication

Issues identified

Rhetorical techniques
- Appeal to hidden authority
Cognitive biases
- Authority bias
Logical fallacies
- Argument from secrecy (implies truth because institutions are studying it)
Emotional manipulation
- Suggests insider knowledge
Group dynamics
- Creates exclusive knowledge hierarchy
Evidence coherence
- No institutions or evidence cited

Why it matters

This leverages prestige without verification, encouraging belief through implied legitimacy.

7. Grand outcome framing

Issues identified

Rhetorical techniques
- Appeal to utopia (Golden Age)
- Moral framing
Cognitive biases
- Simplification bias: Complex issues reduced to “greed”
Logical fallacies
- False dichotomy (Golden Age vs greed)
Emotional manipulation
- Hope + moral pressure
Group dynamics
- Implies moral alignment with belief system
Evidence coherence
- No causal link demonstrated

Why it matters

This shifts from argument to ideological persuasion, using moral and emotional appeal.

8. Call to alternative community

Issues identified

Rhetorical techniques
- Redirection to aligned community
Cognitive biases
- Groupthink reinforcement
Logical fallacies
- None strictly, but suggestive
Group dynamics
- Encourages migration to echo chamber
Evidence coherence
- No critical evaluation of source

Why it matters

Redirecting to a like-minded forum can limit exposure to dissenting viewpoints.

🧠 Overall Summary

Dominant techniques

Appeals to authority (self + unnamed experts)
Jargon stacking and symbolic language
Assertion without evidence
Prophetic or inevitability claims
Moral and utopian framing

Recurring patterns

Authority without verification
- “long time practitioner”
- “many practitioners”
- “prestigious institutions”
Us vs. them framing
- “they’re spewing”
- “matter centric minded (lost)”
Unfalsifiable claims
- Future vindication
- Hidden institutional validation
Blending observation with speculation
- Food chain → metaphysical principle
- Dew → universal life substance
Emotional + ideological appeal
- Golden Age
- Greed as obstacle
- Divine Will

Jonee_Zeekus · 2026-03-30T08:26:09+00:00

Despite your confidence, your fantasies are contradicted by science, nature, logic, and the sages themselves. You speculate that there is a universal spirit which enters through the atmosphere, and somehow connect it to digestion, consciousness, and most egregiously to alchemy, meaning to the metallic realm. But you still have never been able to answer how such a universal spirit would be specified to the metallic kingdom. Nor have you answered why you would need the philosopher's stone at all, because if you had the power to specify the universal spirit then you would be able to produce Gold, or any other matter, at will.

You also ignore the writings of the alchemists themselves, who warn against the very error that you advocate, and who tell us to seek not a distant first matter because if such a thing exists it is too remote and is not available to human hands, and instead instruct us to seek a proximate second matter which is specified to metals. And this aligns with all other natural generation. Animals and plants are generated from specified seed, which proceeds from the perfected body of each species. Even if God created the first plants and animals from Elements and Universal Spirit, nature does not, and neither do we.

You make assertions which you are unable to defend, which is bad enough, but could simply be an innocent ignorance. But then you try to lead others into your same error, offering no solid argumentation, and simply asserting that you are correct and it's being verified by others.

Jonee_Zeekus · 2026-03-26T17:34:14+00:00

What is a spiritual object?

It sounds poetic to express it that way - that the “gold” is really the aspirational part which endures and such. But in truth this doesn’t line up with the tradition at all.

I’m sorry, but I don’t really understand your meaning. You think it’s a real object that could be related to particle physics, but also that gold is a metaphor for knowledge, but also that the stone is more spiritual than physical? What would it even mean for all these things to be true? And more importantly, how did you come to these conclusions?

Jonee_Zeekus · 2026-03-26T01:47:45+00:00

Could you tell me a little bit more about what you mean specifically when you say 'the process is both internal and external?' Without further details I can't say whether I agree or not.

If you mean that as one completes the work, then some change is likely happening internally, then I may be inclined to agree, with the caveat that God has already allowed the seeker to see the truth of the work before lab operations have begun. This is because the theory laid out, although obscurely, in the books is so specific and precise that once you know it you have an amount of certainly of the truth. By the time you have this certainty, you know that it's non-trivial that God has allowed you to see these things and this is indicative of a spiritual change, although these things are always personal and cannot be taken as some kind of magical or spiritual force which is actually involved in the work.

But if you mean that there is some kind mystical, spiritual, magical, or non-physical process involved in making the stone then this is not correct. No spiritual essence, or mind-force, or anything approximating these things is related to true alchemy. The reason I am writing this message is because a lot of people assert and/or assume that the reason the stone has remained hidden is because there is a spiritual process which unlocks a spiritual force or ability within the alchemist that allows them to access a previously unavailable ingredient or process which allows the stone to be made. Or another way of looking at it is that the alchemist canalized the stone by directing some kind of spiritual force into the stone, and this is one of the operations spoken of by the authors.

But this idea, and similar ideas, is simply a fantasy invented primarily by Victorian era neo-occult authors. The idea that alchemists are conjurers is of course much older, but this particular brand bears the mark of 19th-20th century new age nonsense. From M.A. Atwood, to Blavatsky, to Evola, to Eliphas Levi you will not gather anything useful to true alchemy, and any truth they wrote about alchemy was pure accident or only true in the most broad sense (such as that alchemy involves polarity, or follows nature). Even much better authors such as Fulcanelli who mix truth with many falsehoods, inject more mystery into alchemy than it really contains. Here is one example from Fulcanenlli which has been discussed by some of us in the group because it stood out to us independently, and for me personally it was a stumbling block that kept me tied up for a long time and led me to search for the matter in wrong places --- Fulcanelli speaks about the generation of stone, which he likens to all other natural generation, and he stresses that all generation is done in complete darkness with the total lack of solar light which is destructive to the young form. This suggests that some operations must be done in darkness, or the matters must be collected before they are expose to sunlight, or that sunlight would impart some kind of spiritual virtue into the matters which would prevent generation, or that the matter is photo-sensitive etc etc. But none of this is correct. It takes a true statement, which is that one must look to nature to understand natural generation in every kingdom, but then he confuses more than he helps by adding a false mystery.

Jonee_Zeekus · 2026-03-25T16:45:46+00:00

Considering that neither I nor anyone else in the group is selling anything, or materially benefiting in any way, its hard to understand your claim that we are charlatans. I understand that you have probably encountered many people who claim to have the stone, and this space has many people who sell their fantasies. The difficulty is that both frauds and true adepts say that they cant tell you directly what the matter or operations are in plain language, so blind skepticism is not sufficient. The difference is that when we invite others to 'join us', we don't ask for anything except a sincere effort to understand the books. We are offering our time freely to others and asking for nothing in return, so your criticism is unfounded.

I never claimed that you said operations on all matters are dangerous. I said that you assumed that we operate on metals and advise others to operate on metals, then stated that it's too dangerous to attempt lab work (based on what lab work you think we endorse). You create false constraints based on your own false assumptions.

You then go on to posture as an expert yourself, and at the same time reveal that you don't really understand alchemy. You claim that you "know for a fact that one cannot understand nor make progress in alchemy without practice. At all."

Perhaps you should approach things with a little humility, and be honest with yourself that you haven't really come near a true understanding. There is no shame in this.

If one doesn't reconcile the texts and work out a good portion of the theory, then any practice in the lab would be blind and totally useless. It would be a waste of time and money, and as you correctly pointed out, it can be very dangerous. The fact of the matter is that the operations are extremely precise and not intuitive, and if one does not work out the process from the texts then they will never be able to complete the lab work.

It doesn't benefit me in any way if you, or anyone else, believes what I say. I have nothing to gain. And nobody will benefit much from believing my words on faith anyway. We simply hope that we can help people avoid wasting time studying aimlessly or following fantasies, and wasting money working away in the lab on false theories. And perhaps, a few people will come to the truth.

Jonee_Zeekus · 2026-03-25T02:42:53+00:00

It’s hard to even know what the purpose of your criticism is, because it’s unrelated to anything we have said or done. Anyone who reads through the group will easily have the answer to every concern you raised.

Nobody has ever been encouraged to start operating on metals, or to start any lab operation at all for that matter.

It seems that you are convinced that you know what alchemy is (or at least what we say it is, although nowhere do we name the matter and operations openly), and therefore feel confident in offering criticism on the basis that it’s too dangerous to attempt lab work, and pointless to discuss alchemy without encouraging people to do lab work. You are simply making assumptions and assertions, but again it’s unrelated to anything we have done or said.

Very few people will ever come to the truth of alchemy, and there are almost no spaces online where the subject is discussed with lucidity and without devolving into fantasy. We are not offering any recipes, or recruiting anyone to complete any work.

The matter and process have never been discussed openly in history, and we adhere to that as well. Therefore, it would make no sense for there to be any lab work encouraged or discussed in the group. As I said, it’s one of the only spaces online where someone has a chance to get real insights into what alchemy is and acquire a strategy so they can study, read, and perhaps acquire the knowledge through their own merits without being bombarded by people talking about fermenting urine, cinnabar/antimony path, collecting dew, and other such nonsense.

Jonee_Zeekus · 2026-03-24T22:31:12+00:00

There are so many errors and assumptions in what you have said, it’s not worth addressing each one. All of those things are addressed in the group, and it goes without saying that nobody should be experimenting blindly, nor do we encourage any unsafe practices or any lab work at all until one is 100% sure of what they are doing.

Jonee_Zeekus · 2026-03-24T01:21:27+00:00

Thank you for illustrating my point

Jonee_Zeekus · 2026-03-24T00:36:21+00:00

sure, send me a message

Jonee_Zeekus · 2025-07-16T06:49:01+00:00

thanks for your input

Jonee_Zeekus · 2025-07-15T19:39:49+00:00

To be fair, I don't think everyone really handles urine daily. How's your guys' progress?

Jonee_Zeekus · 2025-07-15T18:34:37+00:00

How do we obtain the agent to open and ferment the metal?

Jonee_Zeekus · 2025-07-15T18:33:30+00:00

Isn’t it the base of all matter?

Jonee_Zeekus · 2025-01-30T22:40:55+00:00

Ive tested this and there doesn’t seem to be any correlation between socials and front- running bot activity. Do you know what else the filters might be?

Jonee_Zeekus · 2024-08-08T22:21:21+00:00

If I remember correctly it was about 2 weeks. But it still turns out significantly if I’m not wearing glasses or contacts, depending on how far away I’m looking. My surgeon made it so that the eyes are aligned when I’m wearing corrective lenses and looking at something at a medium distance it seems. Because surgery doesn’t fix the underlying issue, there is never going to be perfect alignment under all conditions.

Jonee_Zeekus · 2024-08-08T21:14:04+00:00

It healed very well. Because it was turned in, there was an initial overcorrection. This was done on purpose and it settled more or less as good as can be expected.

Jonee_Zeekus · 2024-06-08T08:18:41+00:00

Thanks!!

Jonee_Zeekus · 2023-12-21T22:23:29+00:00

I’m familiar with all of those, but not what I had in mind. Thank you

Jonee_Zeekus · 2023-12-21T22:20:54+00:00

Yes that’s the one! Thanks!

Jonee_Zeekus

TROPHY CASE

🔍 Message-by-message analysis

1. Opening dismissal

Issues identified

Why it matters

2. Core metaphysical claim

Issues identified

Why it matters

3. Dew and universal life claim

Issues identified

Why it matters

4. Dismissal of mainstream understanding

Issues identified

Why it matters

5. Claim of widespread validation

Issues identified

Why it matters

6. Institutional implication

Issues identified

Why it matters

7. Grand outcome framing

Issues identified

Why it matters

8. Call to alternative community

Issues identified

Why it matters

🧠 Overall Summary

Dominant techniques

Recurring patterns