YOU ARE CURRENTLY SEEING BLOG POSTS IN PROPER CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER. While in this mode, the links at the bottom and top of each page are not correctly labeled. However, the left pointing arrow always advances forward in time, and the right pointing arrow retreats.
Just kidding. Jeeze, what the heck is a Hafeem?
Here’s my final weirdness contribution: I got one good look at the old man in the wheelchair, and I felt sure I recognized him, though I didn’t know from where.
Then it dawned on me. I was thinking of the man in the photo below. I couldn’t swear to it, but it looked an awful lot like this guy. — Flyss
For those of you who are like some of my friends and don’t know any history, this is the only known photo of FDR in a wheelchair.
[postscript: in a later post, I realize that I'd imagined the FDR similarity.]
(continued in this post)
At that news, my mind whirls. FDR? You might not have known this, Flyss, but he’s famously one of the Illuminati.
I can hardly tear my mind away from speculation on that theme to to finish my own thread. But I shall force myself.
Here’s what I think a Hafeem is: The words “a a age ages but does hafeem is person slowly very very who” are an alphabetization of “A Hafeem is a person who does age, but ages very, very slowly.”
Stephen, in a previous post you mentioned the hypothesis of the “aging clock.” We’ve all been focusing on one the possibilities you mentioned, that it could be turned off. But you also note that it could simply be slowed down. Wouldn’t that lead to a person who does age, just very, very slowly? – Glenn
I’ve been researching the house where the kidnapping took place, and made some thought-provoking discoveries.
Before I get to that, I want to state emphatically that the idea of a Hafeem, a person who ages very slowly but does age, makes perfect sense to me. It should have been obvious before, but I will admit that if I thought of it earlier, it slipped my mind entirely, and all credit goes to Glenn for identifying both the term and the concept in the material we’ve been analyzing.
Keeping that in mind, the following facts about the house where Flyss saw the BH kidnap, or at least transport, an old man bear consideration.
(1) The house has been in possession of a single family for over 140 years.
(2) The current owner of the house has never been photographed for a driver’s license, passport or any other public document.
(3) There are no records of him having ever attended school in the US. This takes on greater significance considering point 2, specifically in regards to the passport.
(4) Nor are there any publicly documented name changes.
(5) The house was occupied for some time by a family with children (hence the children’s slide visible in the photo), but that family moved out in 1987 and left the country. I can find no evidence of where they moved to, and they have not been back. They left behind no relatives in the United States.
(6) Since 1987, a succession of caretakers has been employed on the property. They are paid directly from the offices of a bank in Switzerland and hired by those Swiss bankers. Needless to say, I can get no information from that direction.
(7) Perhaps most interesting of all, ten years ago an entire shipping container arrived by truck at the house, and was unloaded by hired men who have also disappeared from sight. According to one neighbor, the container appeared to contain canned food. — Stephen
(thread continued in this post)
Not over decades merely / but dragging on
Into centuries of helplessness. / An almost-immortal body
Edging by inches over the miles to death.
And he is friendless /Having spent a life in hiding.
Though, had he friends /He must needs trust unto generations.
How to plan? To prepare? To make safe?
If he knew of another like himself / but he does not.
Therefore, he employs banking houses.
He buys food / He digs tunnels
He crawls underground like a dog crawling into the bushes to die.
And hides there for a hundred years. – Kate
I’ve been trying to work out how a recent historical figure such as FDR could survive into the present as a Hafeem. It’s especially difficult to imagine for one who’s childhood is so well attested to.
However, it bears considering what one would have to do to survive as either a Hafeem or a (for lack of a better word) an absolute immortal living in recent society. Unless one were to live out one’s life forever underground, one would have no choice but to play complicated identity games. And since person in hiding needs to obtain supplies, etc., an Immortal attempting it would always stand in danger of being found out. It might actually be safer to hide in plain sight by passing oneself off as an ordinary person.
Still, to live in public would require a mind boggling set of tricks. Would one, perhaps, register a social security number for a person who doesn’t really exist, create a trail of attendance at schools (though without photos), and then step into that person’s shoes when their age of record matched up with one’s apparent age? One would have to create whole batches of such people, so that one could switch from one to the other when one was no longer believably the right age for the person one was supposed to be, as well as to have spare identities for use when something went wrong.
This wouldn’t be possible at all post-Internet, I don’t think, but up until recently, it might very well have been.
Then too, one might use disguises, not only to stretch the period of plausible matchup with a normally aging person, but also what about disguising oneself to look plausibly like the relative of someone? Or, like that person themselves?
One might use body doubles. One might set up situations in which one would have a plausible reason for never quite showing oneself in public.
For example, suppose one were a crippled President who didn’t want to be seen as physically weak, and who had no lovers nor intimate friends, nor ever appeared naked even to servants or (perhaps) doctors?
This would work even better if a small group of Hafeems or absolute immortals were to help each other out, do-se-do-ing through history, serving as each other’s alibi.
What about that contemporary of FDR, so famously hypothesized to be an Illuminatus: Winston Churchill? — Glenn
(Thread continued in this post.)
Teases the Rottweiler next door / at risk of death
The pleasure of it making all worthwhile.
A cat lives twenty years / Young men at twenty
famously love nothing more than to go to war.
Humans live a hundred years / Hafeems, a thousand?
Twenty — one hundred — a thousand years.
All the same / But infinity is incommensurate
We risk our finite lives / because they are finite.
Those two seen in public, in the tunnel.
Are they truly True Immortals?
So what you’re saying, Kate, is that you think an actual or full immortal is unlikely to make an appearance in public at all, because there could be some risk of capture / discovery / injury. However, people who simply age slowly — the so-called Hafeems – would be more like ordinary people, in that they’re willing to take risks.
Which makes sense, and is enlightening. I’ve always wondered why people are ever willing to “roll the dice” and risk their lives in dangerous activities. Up until now, I thought of this is irrational behavior, emotion trumping reason. After all, death ends everything; it’s the ultimate sacrifice, one that cannot be balanced by any personal gain. (Here I am ignoring belief in life after death, since I don’t share it.)
But now I realize that I have been thinking about it incorrectly. Let us suppose that the value of a full life is infinite. (Here I am discounting the notion of life after death, as I don’t share it.) Let us also suppose that the lifespan of a person is 100 years. Therefore, a 20 year old male who indulges in motorcycling while drunk has already lived 20% of a life and puts at risk 80% of a life. Each of these finite fractions of infinity is infinite. Infinity can be balanced against infinity, and it might be worth a person’s while to abandon the second in order to fully enjoy the first. The same is true, though with enlarged difference in percentages, for a 20 year old Hafeem with a lifespan of 1000 years: 2% vs. 98%. However, if one could potentially live forever, the situation changes. A twenty year old with an infinite life span has lived 0% of his life and risks 100% of it. There’s no way to balance that.
To put it another way, if one can live forever, the weight of “future life” is infinite, and no incentive in the present can balance against it. However, if one knows one will die eventually, then the weighting of “future life” is finite, and benefits in the present may outweigh the risk of future life lost. Or, in economics terms, infinity can’t be discounted. Ergo, it may sometimes be rational for a mortal to undertake deadly risk, but it is never rational for a “full” immortal to do so. — Stephen
To continue from my last post … several thoughts.
For one, is the person we call “The Aussie“ a “full” immortal, eg. with aging clock shut down, or is he a Hafeem, with aging clock slowed? After all, he lives in public, even if others are perhaps living in hiding somewhere.
For that matter, how would he know which group he belongs to? If one were to have a lifespan of 1000 years after maturity, it might take 100 or more years before one noticed any evidence of aging in oneself.
On the other hand, maybe for a “new” immortal (eg., someone who has just discovered he or she isn’t aging) it takes time to sink in, and only become supremely cautious over time.
In any case, we don’t that we’ve identified any “fully immortal” immortals, in the sense of those who don’t age at all. The material Glenn and I have been decoding refers to them, and I am willing to believe they exist. But we would have to have evidence of someone failing to age over centuries before we’d know. More than centuries, perhaps, if the Hafeem’s life span is, say, 5000 years, rather than infinite. — Stephen
P.S. Based on the above, I think we need to make two separate categories and subcategories for “From Their Perspective,” as the cases of “full immortal” and Hafeem are different. I’ll work on that.
PPS. The encoded material calls people in the former category “True Immortals,” which is a little inconvenient considering that it’s the name of this website (and we’re interested in Hafeems too) but I suppose we should utilize it anyway.
We haven’t talked about the subject on this site, because so many other things have been going on, but we’ve been discussing the issue by email, and I’ve decided I was wrong when I thought the old man the BH kidnapped might be FDR. I know Glenn put out a theory on how that might work, but it’s just not plausible.
Also, he hypnotized me, and I managed to “sharpen” my memory of the man in the wheelchair, like you can do with Photoshop. (Only, Photoshop needs a photo instead of a memory, and I didn’t manage to get one, due to being chased.) And when I look closely he’s definitely not FDR. So scratch that whole thread. – Flyss
In a previous post, I discussed the “weighting” of infinity,” and argued that it was never rational for a True Immortal to put his or her life at risk, while for a Hafeem or ordinary mortal circumstances could arise in which it could make rational sense to do so. Now, however, I find that I disagree with myself.
In my argument, I considered the percentage of one’s life already lived, and noted that, at any given age, a True Immortal has lived zero percent of his or her potential lifespan; in comparison, a Hafeem or ordinary mortal has already lived a finite percentage. I therefore argued that sufficient value in the moment can multiply that finite value to a weight equal to the amount at risk, thus making risk taking rational. However, no weighting of zero percent can balance the remainder put at risk, and therefore a True Immortal could never rationally take risk.
What I failed to consider, however, is that all actions (or inaction) involves risk. Thus, for a True Immortal, even the safest behavior creates risk. If, for example, simply doing nothing incurs a .0001% risk of dying in an earthquake, a True Immortal incurs a .0001% risk of infinite loss doing nothing. Since any percent of infinity is still infinity, such a person is always risking too much. Therefore, it is not clear that increased riskiness of behavior changes anything. (My argument still holds for mortals or Hafeems, for whom .0001% of remaining life is quite small.) — Stephen
To look in a mirror / and see a woman who
grows old so slowly / it will be centuries before the signs appear.
Who has her own young beauty / hers to keep
Freed from the dread other women consummate.
Heads still turn as she passes by.
Her bloom of pride retained /Her hair silken, skin satin smooth.
Would centuries give time enough / to heal the sense of not enough?
Or would /a mirror always safe to look at
Withhold from her the other peace? –Kate
(about this thread)
I grieved when I imagined / the suffering
Of an elder grown sick and senile /and because Hafeem
Made to wait for centuries / for death’s relief.
But later it occurred to me / in a different context
That there is little difference /between a lifespan of 100 or a 1000 years
Putting these thoughts together / I now see
That we are alike another way.
To be old and alone / is cruelty at any age.
True Immortals do not suffer it / but an isolated, weakening Hafeem
suffers like any isolated, weakening mortal / pained past physical pain
By the loneliness.
And how can Hafeems find one other? / This is not fantasy.
There is no mark on the face / no spiritual glow.
Besides, they are practiced at hiding / and it traps them in the end.
Unless someone finds them out / overwhelms their defences
And kidnaps them into the comfort of their kind. — Kate
Kate’s intuition is again borne out.
There are websites that detail the reputed talents and preferences of bounty hunters and other such professional agents available for hire. Listed among the assignments our Bounty Hunter is reputed to perform with a high degree of skill is this: “Abductions, specializing in minimizing risk to abductee.” There is this additional comment, “Adamantly refuses tasks involve intentional or high risk collateral harm to any but those convicted by proper judicial process of capital crimes.”
Such a professional criminal with morals might very well be a perfect choice if a younger Hafeem wished to undertake the involuntary rescue of others of his kind. And involuntary rescue might be the only option. We have already noted a defining characteristic that non-mortals fear discovery by anyone. Would not they tend to take it as a ruse if someone who found them out claimed similar non-mortal status By habit, they might fight or flee before proofs could be offered. Storming the castle might be the best option, if done by one skilled at minimizing risk to the stormed. – Stephen
Just how long have you lived, exactly?
Or approximately, for that matter. — Stephen
That answer wasn’t at all helpful, at least not directly. The only consistent mathematical interpretation of his reply would involve non-constant, non-linear time units.
However, I would imagine that’s not the point. Rather, I receive it as a commentary on the inconstancy of psychological time. One could only imagine that time takes on rather different characteristics for people who live decades as compared to those who live centuries, or for millennia. — Stephen
Ah, well, life is cruel.
So you want me to prove I’ve reached the drinking age in Shangri-La (which, when I last checked, was 180 years.)
Like I mentioned, it isn’t easy.
It’s easier for Hafeems to prove this to each other than for us to prove it to youse guys. Hafeems can reminisce together over unknown details of a city we both lived in a century ago, or use turns of phrase popular in the summer of 1794, or tell of scandals or of people forgotten by history (or never remembered in the first place.)
But even then it’s tricky because of people I call “hangers-on,” mortals who’ve discovered the existence of a non-mortal and want to get close to them to steal their secret (even though there’s no secret to steal.) They’re often implacable, ferocious folk, who’ll do anything. So, someone who says he’s a Hafeem might actually have learned what they know from some other poor Hafeem they’ve caught. They might be unsure that you’re a Hafeem, and try to pass themselves off as one in order to get you to admit it to them. It’s stressful. Poor me. (continued in the next post)
Yeah, that part’s interesting, I guess, especially for a scientific dude like you. But I was talking about what came next. I’ll paste the text in here, like you did, because, yes it’s hard to point to a forum post.
This is Oxadrenals writing on the forums at hiddenimmortals.info. First he says something, then he quotes someone, then he speaks as himself again. I use italics for the guy he’s quoting.
“On the other hand, I know a Hafeem who’s so compassionate and noble it makes me want to cry … Part of what made him that way is that he’s so often known himself to be wrong. I’m going to quote him here. (If he sounds like a sourpuss, please read my comment at the end.)
‘I have never possessed the gift of easy pleasure, a quality I recognize as unfortunate in a man destined to live several thousand years. My character is such that it requires a focus, a goal, a sense that my effort further some worthwhile purpose. Alas, I have by now outlived too many purposes to believe in any.
In the second century AD, I studied medicine with Galen, believing it a noble profession. However, during a later interval of apprenticeship with physicians in China, I learned to view the accumulated medical wisdom of my previous period as no more than miserable superstition. I suffered still another revolution of this kind when, in the 18th century, medicine became (as was supposed) scientific, and I learned to discard worthless herbal remedies in favor of mercury and arsenic. Yet, as I now know, this last phase was worst of all, for with my mercury and arsenic I killed many, many people, and helped not one.
All my other efforts to pursue good works turned out to be equally mistaken. In the 17th century, I risked my life among “savages” in an idealistic quest to provide them the benefits of Christianity. History now characterizes my efforts as the arrogant, colonialist oppression of primal peoples, and I agree.
I think with even greater disgust of my fourth century moralistic phase, when I whipped women for adultery, stoned men for homosexuality, and slaughtered Mithraists and Manicheans for their heresy. At the time, I’d seen my actions as just, even merciful; I’d meant only to serve God. But as subsequent centuries passed and my moral compass grew, I came to view that epoch of my life with profound loathing.
I now knew beyond a doubt that I lack sufficient wisdom to properly construe a higher purpose, much less serve one. Only, lacking higher purpose, what is there to live for?
I know he sounds like a depressing downer guy, but he’s not, at all: All his disappointments have turned him into the loveliest soul you could ever want to meet.”
This has my thoughts all churned up. I can imagine trying to do good and having it backfire. And that’s what the guy’s saying in the first part, about medicine. There’s nothing so special there. But the rest of what he says is horrifying: that something he thought was good at the time now looks like evil. And that this has happened to him a lot!
What a petrifying thought. How can you even try to be a good person if you suspect that pretty soon (like in a century or so) you’ll hate yourself for what you even wanted to do? — Flyss
[NOTE: Oxadrenals is now posting a full version of this story here.]