I think it started with Vietnam. It just shook the public how wrong we were for starting that war. The laxing of morals caused by the Free Love movement. And that sowed seeds of distrust in the public officials. It came like birth pangs. Timed more frequently with each wave. Then the Drug War got people used to unwarranted search and seizures. Then Reagan said “Greed is good”, which set the Republican platform. Then Columbine made people leery of guns, and made schools more restricted. Then 9/11 shook the public’s trust and made it too security conscious. Then the Patriot Act made us warm up to giving up our privacy. Then Obamacare passed, and ruined our medical system. And then Benghazi turned people weird, because it turned American politics into a circus. And Jodi Arias, and Jerry Sandusky shook the nation, making people feel constrained around children. And then the Freddie Grey killing, made people suspicious of the police. And then in 2015 the Woke thing began, with the safe spaces, and people started questioning free speech. And then COVID did the most damage, that was Trump’s fault. Then January 6th and George Floyd tore the country into two factions, and all the rioting that year. And then the Alex Jones Lawsuit confused people on the legalities of free speech. And then Western Europe started punishing people for memes. Now we have a whole litany of things Trump’s single handedly responsible for. Deregulating the market, allowing BlackRock to buy everything. Shutting down the country during COVID. Then in his second term, unilaterally demolishing the East Wing of the White House. AI becoming a huge thing. Defunding public welfare programs. Using people with half a trillion dollars to cut said programs. Trump invading Cities with the National Guard. Getting rid of Public Broadcasting. Discontinuing the Penny. And making threats at our allies. The unrestrained nature of ICE and its conduct in overreaching its jurisdictional boundaries. And then Trump threatening Greenland and Iran turned the whole world against us.

I’d say that's the whole of it, right there.

Verses 1 - 2.
Imagery of the college.

Verses 3-4

Henry the VI established Eton college, and here we begin to see the beginning of the metaphor. What College is for, that the college rests in Henry VI's holy shade, and the college is for science.

Verses 5 - 10

Imagery of the college, and the Thames river, showing a peacefulness, separating the college itself, from the academic learning.

Verses 11-12

Here we have the first intonation of a tone, set in the negative. "Belov'd in vain", sets the tone, of a negative experience. The college's education was not as splendid as the college itself, and its beauty.

Verses 13 - 14

The college occupied his childhood, and he was yet a stranger to pain. He was not yet taught the ways of the world, by the college. His innocence wasn't broken yet.

Verses 15 - 20

There is a joy there, of the college, a certain nostalgia. Of the college itself, and not the academic subjects, which get separated in the poem.

Verses 21 - 26

The students play there, and those are his fondest memories. Of the students playing, and frolicking, and being freed from the rigor of the academy. He's free, to marvel at the thames, and the architecture of the college.

Verses 27 - 30

The idle offspring of men and women succeed, to chase the balls, and play catch. I suppose there were balls, then, which the students would play with.

Verses 30 - 34

Here we get the first intonation of the academic side of the college. Not the idle play, and activities, not the beauty of the landscape, but what you're here for. And "Bring constraint/to sweeten liberty" is a negative wording of it, to bring "constraint" and "sweeten liberty" these two are juxtaposed with one another, to make "Liberty" a negative concept.

Verses 35 - 37

Some bold thinkers disdain the limits of their "Little Reigns", the limits of their imagination, what is theirs to grasp. And they venture into unknown subjects, and dare to "Catch sight of them." Their minds aren't proper for it, though.

Verses 38 - 40

They run, though, into these subjects, to "hear the voice in every wind"; they follow the voices of their books, and learning, and their teachers, and "snatch a fearful joy." The things they learn are a fearful joy, because they half understand it, and can only make mischief with it.

Verses 41 - 42

Their "Gay hope" is liberty, and a world of liberty, but it's "Less pleasing when possesst."

Verses 43 - 46

Their movement is short, and forgotten as soon as they shed a tear, and their vitality is healthy, and their witty inventions are new. (Though this isn't true: this is being written around 1742, so the movements of the enlightenment were just beginning, and he's critiquing them a bit. The philosophies are half baked, and not full yet, and won't have their fruition until 1776, and the Colonies are getting rambunctious over this new doctrine. Also, intonating the French Revolution. Just a foreshadow of the events to come about 30 to 70 years later that will change the world.)

Verses 47 - 50

They truly aren't thinking about the concepts, and are lolled to sleep, and have thoughtless days, and easy nights. Their spirits are poor, and they don't truly understand what they're being taught.

Verses 51 - 52

They do not know that these philosophies will spoil them. They play, and are victims to its ideology.

Verses 53 - 56

They have no care beyond the ills of the day, or ills to come, nothing beyond today. Around them, cultured by this ideology, are "The ministers of human fate" "Fate" is a strong word. The tone of the text implies something fiercely negative.

Verses 57 - 60

And misfortune is "Black" and "Baleful". The consequences of their beliefs. And they stand in ambush, to seize their prey, and are a "Murth'rous band!" Why are they murth'rous? They're being radicalized by the university, ready to fight because of half baked ideas. They are innocent, at the one end, not knowing what they are being used for, but also getting radical, and ready to murder for the things they have been taught.

Verses 61 - 64

The fury of their learning, shall be a passion, that tears, and it is a vulture of the mind. It brings disdainful anger, pallid fear, and shame that skulks behind.

Verses 65 - 70

Or they will be occupied with finding love, and not swept up in the movement, and made wan, and their cares will fade, and this pining and jealousy shall make them sorrowful and despaired.

Verses 71 - 74

The ambition of this learning shall tempt them to rise above their station, and whirl the "wretch" from high, and it will be bitter scorn, and like a sacrifice. The victim of their rage: the current status quo.

Verses 75 - 77

Falsehoods shall be tried, and hard unkindness of the learned behaviors an altered eye. It mocks the tear that's forced to flow. As in, their falsehoods shall be purified by academia, and this will make a hard unkindness in their eye, and it will mock the tears that are forced to flow from their ideology, and their learning. As in, they will be sharpened to think differently, and will lose the joy and innocence they once shared, shown in the beginning of the poem.

Verses 78 - 80

And when remorseful for the blood that they defiled, the moody madness shall laugh wild amidst their woes. By acting on their ideas, and the blood they will shed, it will make them mad, and woeful, though confident in their position, because it's what was taught.

Verses 81 - 84

So, the family of "Death" is more hideous than their queen--the ideas of Democracy are more hideous than their "Queen", than the royal order. 

Verses 85 - 87

So this rage created by the enlightenment racks the joints, and puts fire in the veins. It makes every sinew strain, and it sends rage deep into the vitals.

Verses 88 - 90

And because poverty fills the band, and it numbs the soul with icy hands--that is hand quick to shed blood--and also slow consuming age causes this jadedness to occur, too.

Verses 91 - 93 

Here, it's just saying all men suffer, and what we try to do to fix it, only makes things worse. So, be tender for another's pain.

Verses 94 - 96

Why should they know their fate? Why should they know their own poverty? Why should they be made aware of their lack of liberty?

Verses 97 - 100

Because happiness swiftly disappears when you're made aware of the world's engines, and thought destroys your paradise. Too much thought destroys the innocence of the previous stanzas. So, ignorance is bliss, and it is "a folly to be wise." Why? Because it ruins your bliss.

Thoughts:

I think this is the way of a mass movement, and how it starts. It starts in the intellectual spheres, and begins to move and matriculate. And Thomas is saying, "Why are they doing this? Why are they losing their innocence for this thing? Better to play on the fields, and study the beauty of the architecture of the buildings, and swim in the Thames, than get involved in the world's woes."

Gray, Thomas. Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College. Poetry Foundation. Web. 1.23.26 https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/44301/ode-on-a-distant-prospect-of-eton-college

That’s a good question, and is the very foundation of math.

So, I’ll give it to you by relating it to Sine and Cosine. On a right triangle, if the hypotenuse is 1, the other two legs will equal something. And if you make a circle—hang on I’m going somewhere—with the hypotenuse, the legs will be equal to sine and cosine, based on the angle made by the hypotenuse and the cosine leg. So every single degree has a measurement for those numbers—which there’s no algebraic way to deduce, except through maybe pythagorean theorem or analytic geometry, but you also just have to measure it; which may also be what they mean by you can’t do a proof through algebra, except by trial and error

So, that number, which for sine of 60 degrees, the number is √3/2. So, in Roman Numerals or Binary, there will be a way to represent that. But the thing itself, is what the number actually represents.

So, in all things, a number represents a physical object. If Gravity, it’s Gravitational Force; if Mass or Weight; if Quanta; if atomic force or charge in a Chemistry Equation. So, those will represent the same value, based on the context of the equation.

Now a formula, is the next thing to learn. A formula is a shape, that relates to the numbers we measure, and it derives measurements for unknowns through logic, by figuring from what is known, to the unknown. As that’s what a formula is meant to do. A formula is the logic of a shape, so in Trig Functions, the formula is the shape itself, and the sine or cosine or tangent are the numbers we use, to derive information about unknowns. Such as to find area, or other side lengths. Which is highly useful. Because that’s what math is doing, is using known information, and logic, to come to conclusions about unknowns, because the logic of the shapes agree. And through ratios of the object’s similarity, we can augment this, or decrease it, to find new numbers.

1/17/26

That is like a pythagorean theorem, but I don't think a+b=c is the same as a^n+b^n=c^n. Basic algebra shows that you can't transpose exponents through addition. You can through multiplication, but they need to retain the same coefficient. You did create something like a pythagorean theorem, but in things like Heron's Formula, you see how when you multiply the numbers, it becomes different, and stops working. So, I think it's basic algebra to say that those two equations are different, and can't have the same number theory applied to them. Just because of how exponents work.

I also think to derive formulas, you have to do them through observing structures. A math formula is like a sentence. It describes a shape of some kind--which is why we use them in science--so I think the logic of a^n+b^n=c^n where n equals 2 is describing a specific pattern, where we discovered it through looking at a square. What a^3+b^3=c^3 would be, we don't know, but the logic is still valid, but it describes a specific shape. That's all our formulas are doing.

1/18/26

{}

I mean, if it's just saying arithmetic works, we just know it does. It's actually slightly different than a^n+b^n=c^n, if you want to get into the nitty gritty. But, if it's just validating the logic of algebra, we already knew this. It's just something we already knew. It's actually counterproductive to say we don't. You'd invalidate all of math doing that. And I think math works well enough, that we know it's valid.

But generally, exponentiation is a bit different than addition. Is what I'm saying. When you exponentiate, you do something a little bit different. Just like all four operations are different from one another. But, we know they work with absolute certainty, because they produce testable results. It's just something like division, where we see math work in all places, we know it doesn't need to be changed and take the leap into trusting it.

1/20/26

a + b = c has something to do with prime numbers. It's not about validating addition or arithmetic. I have no idea what it means. And I'm okay with that.

15 - The Cat in the Hat Dr. Seuss

50 - Aesop's Fables

100 - Island of the Blue Dolphins Scott O'dell

     130 - Encyclopedia Encarta 

150 - Maximum Ride James Patterson 

    167 - A Brief Space Opera

     160 - 700 - My Collected Writings B. K. Neifert

    162 - Hans Christian Andersen Fairy Tales

     170 - Bitter Medicine, B. K. Neifert

    170 - The Love of Another, B. K. Neifert

     170 - Amelia Chronicles, B. K. Neifert

    176 - The Riddle in the Sea, B. K. Neifert

    178 - War and Peace, Leo Tolstoy

    182 - Grimm's Fairy Tales

     180 - Wisdom of B. K. Neifert, B. K. Neifert

     189 - Brothers' Karamazov, Fyodor Dostoevsky

200 - The Prince and the Pauper Mark Twain

     140 - 290 - Storyhouse, B. K. Neifert

     230 - Dear Author, B. K. Neifert

250 - The Wizard of Oz Frank Baum

300 - John Carter of Mars Edgar Rice Burroughs

     310 - Horace's Odes and Epodes

     340 - Hail Britannica, B. K. Neifert

350 - Consolations of Philosophy Boethius

      200 - 370 - Bread of Harvest, B. K. Neifert

400 - William Wordsworth's Ecclesiastical Sonnets

     50 - 400 - Flirtations with A'te B. K. Neifert

     420 - Oxford Guide to Philosophy

    431  -   Silas Marner, by George Eliot

     440 - Princeton Encyclopedia of Literary Terms

450 - Baron Byron's Childe Harold

500 - Don Quixote  by Cervantes

    200 - 790 - Fruitful Years B. K. Neifert

550 - William Blake's Jerusalem

600 - The King James Bible

650 - William Shakespeare's Sonnets

700 - T. S. Eliot's The Wasteland

     730 - Fairyland, B. K. Neifert

750 - Comedian as the Letter C by Wallace Stevens

     760 - Young Shadows, B. K. Neifert

     777 - The American Mythology, B. K. Neifert

800 - Edmund Spenser's The Faerie Queene

850 - Ulysses by James Joyce

900 - Cantos by Ezra Pound

950 - Finnegan's Wake by James Joyce

Godel has a good argument. I think the premise is proven. If God must exist, then God exists. It seems that God must exist, otherwise there's no substantial way for reason to operate. As we've seen a lot of regression over the years on even the barest and simplest facts. Science is doubting addition these days. That's not a good look for it. There has to be a concrete at which reality is real, and a place to stop reducing things to further logical operators. There must be a point where we have faith. As without reality, there is nothing real. God substantiates what is real, by holding it together. Without belief in God, reality begins to break apart for lack of faith--and that is hell, in a nutshell.

Well, for me, it’s someone writing college level essays at 3, and doing multivariable calculus at 3 also.
Let’s put it this way. I have a very high IQ. But, not at that Mega Level IQ.

I can figure something difficult out after a long time thinking about it. I have good metacognition—which is looking over my reasoning for any faults—I have very accurate recall of events, even from when I was a baby.
I have issues doing algebra. Or issues with syntax. Because I have a condition called “Dysgraphia” which is a writing disability that forms when you hit your head, so it causes your coordination to be bad, which leads to bad handwriting, and in my case it also led to a problem with what I call “Froms and Minuses.” I get “Froms and Minuses” backward, so sometimes my syntax is a little sloppy, and you need to read my writing through contextual clues, and not through syntax. And also, when doing mathematics, I slip up, and get negatives backward, as my mind misses sharp details.

So, what I can do, is solve problems that need very high metaphorical cognition. So, instead of doing math, I understand why it works. Which is why I’m a poet… is because I can properly communicate an idea—and that’s part of the Dysgraphia diagnosis, again, is that I have sloppy handwriting, and sometimes get my letters backward, but can write the concepts the right way—and I can understand any concept, if given enough time.
So, if doing physics problems, I’d mess them up. I’m kind of specifically built to write books, and poetry, and things of that nature.

Because my mind has certain gears to it. I relate it to Saiyan Transformations in DB.

At my base, I’m just a 100IQ person.

Then I turn Super Saiyan when I sit down to concentrate. About 110.

I turn Super Saiyan 2 when I’m walking around, or listening to music. As my mind is connected to my vestibular system, and when I’m in motion, my mind thinks at a higher level. So about 120. I can also access near hyperphantasia level imagination when I’m moving, as opposed to when I’m just sitting.

I’m Super Saiyan Blue, when I’m reading, or listening to a lecture. I can have accurate recall of a large portion of information I hear in a lecture, or what I read, by breaking it down to its core components and themes. And I can subconsciously recall it later on, when the situation arrives. Kind of like a memory palace, but through word association. Which would be about 130IQ.

I go Ultra Instinct when I’m writing, or doing some kind of composition. Like, demonstrating why geometry works in pictures, or writing a poem or essay, as in this I have the best metacognition, and can look over my work, and see if there’s any faults, without having to use too much memory. So about 157IQ. Because here, both sides of my brain work together, as writing activates the left brain, and creatively composing activates the right brain hemispheres.

And what I normally will do when writing, is go take walks, to compose an imaginative scope of a piece of writing I’m about to do, get the bare bones of it in my memory, and then come home and write it, through the memory of what I had just witnessed or thought about.

Let’s take it back a bit.

What is Genius?

Is Genius latent ability? Or is it a providential gift, that allows a thing to flourish?

The Greeks thought of Genius as the providential force that allowed a vineyard to produce sweet fruit. Or to make the play at the theater brilliant. Or in my case, it’s the thing that lets me open a page to exactly the place I need, to get a point of context. It’s the guiding hand of Providence over your work, to guide you and let you begin to fully develop.

So, in our world today, Genius is being rejected. All forms of it, is considered wrong. In fact, our world is antagonistic against Genius in all forms. That’s kind of why things are getting worse and not better. That’s what Wokeness is, is an antagonism against Genius. Or the modern art movements. Or the movements regarding science and literature.

So, who’s to judge? There is no judge. It’s simply the providence of the moment, moving someone to the point where they produce something. Be it a carpentered drawer with no screws, or a painting that’s photorealistic, or a jewel smith who makes a beautiful gem, or a cook who makes a beautiful meal, or a lumberjack who knows the physics of a falling tree, and how to bring it down with precision.

So, there are no “Geniuses” any more, because they quite simply are not allowed to exist. And whenever someone comes up with a solution—and there’s many—it gets blocked. And people make discoveries, and they get buried. A good example, is we know where the Exodus took place, but the entire beach was renamed, and then that name was used on the opposite isthmus, and confused a lot of people… and we also know the Jewish Religion is old, due to a discovery they made where they found the Curse Tablet at Ebal, which has both sacred names on it, showing the religion is authentic—and the sacrificial ashes are all clean animals.

So… that discovery was blocked. What is genius? Well, genius looks like madness now, because a lot of it is just blatantly rejected, and replaced by things falsely called science. 

One can get to Degrees by Radian, but there is no direct relation from Radians to Sine and Cosine. As in, there is no way to get to Sine and Cosine algebraically, therefore, Cosine and Sine must be memorized. The reason for this, is Cosine and Sine work off of 90 Degrees, or 1/2π, and Radians are in base Pi, Degrees in base 360, and Sine and Cosine are in Base 1. Meaning, you can only know the ratios of Sine and Cosine by already having the exact measurements, and not by working through it algebraically. For transitioning from Base π to base 360 to Base 1, I must stop you there, because Base 1 must be described by the axiom of the shape itself, and only its axiom. What is in Base 1 only can be described in Base 1, because anything beyond it skews it by exponentiations.

Errata: You can use calculus to find Cosine and Sine, through Euler's Formula, by working through a Unit Circle, and making e^i*Radian = Cosine (Radian) + i Sine (Radian). In fact, that was Euler's work. Which coincidentally, makes e^iπ=-1 if you set the equation to equal it will be equal to (-1 + 0i). Now, equations work like this, where you set the equation to equal, it molds the shape into and equality, and can be worked through that, which is why when doing geometric constructions, you must have an equality, for it to produce correct results. As the equality molds the shape into a useful tool.

Errata Secundo: The formula for Euler's assumes Sine and Cosine already, therefore, it must still be measured. The formula, it simply places the values of Sine and Cosine on the perimeter of the unit circle, on a Cartesian plane.

My process.

First thing I do, is I wake up. I drink a cup of coffee or two. I put on Bob Ross and watch him paint a picture. Then, I get up off the couch, and go on quora and write about a dozen answers. I watch a few videos on YouTube (always educational). And then I take a walk. Sometimes at the State Park, sometimes through my neighborhood, sometimes instead of a walk, I drive. I get a Coca-Cola, or I quaff a couple of cups of Green Tea.

During this whole time period, I do intense amounts of thinking. Delusions? They become fodder for my poetry. Delusions which turned out to be true? Also fodder for my poetry. Lol. I just imagine things, and let my mind wander through the entire corpus of what I’m trying to figure out. A lot of intense thinking.

Normally, there’s a subject for the day. I do the same thing I did as a youth, when I ran around in the basement, and played war with a stick. Only now, I take walks and drives, and think. Really think. Like, I’m talking intense thinking. Everything I do think about, turns into fodder for a poem.

And at that point, after writing dozens of Quora Answers, after arguing with people in comments sections, after watching a few educational videos—every now and then I read a chapter or two of a book, or I read an essay or a poem suggested to me through coincidence—I get an intense thought. And that intense thought is what all the previous wandering and working was done.

Now, granted, I might write about 10,000 words a day. So, remember that. So, when I finally do set down to write my poem, all that subconscious energy gets focused into one point. One solitary point. And that focus becomes a poem. Could be a good poem. Could be a bad poem. Could be a villainous masterpiece, it could be a saintly excursion. Maybe a Character comes to mind, a metaphor, a moral, a synthesis. Sometimes material is working through me for years before I set down and write it.

But, when I do, the poem usually gets written pretty quick. It just comes from the tip of my thoughts. It comes from spontaneous exertion. It just writes itself, it seems. That after lots of practice. And, once that is done, I put the poem into a selection, which then gets boiled into another selection for my books. As composing the poems into comprehensible larger works is part of the joy. Arranging my poetry is half the fun of writing it. I love arranging poems, and fitting themes together.

But then, there is this moment while writing it, where the idea comes. It just comes. It’s this strong, lucid idea, and it just spontaneously arrives, usually after a lot of walking. As I walk, I compose the themes—because I’m very imaginative when I walk… My body has to be moving for it to do its deepest thinking—and I start to compose verses, which usually don’t get remembered fully, except in a subconscious block. I’ll compose poems while I walk, sort of like Wordsworth used to do. I go over the themes, and I compose it mentally, building a framework—-or sometimes if it’s a longer piece, I’ll write a plot map, and usually follow it loosely—and then, suddenly, I begin to write. And then the finished poem arrives. And I edit it, and I read it, and I wait while writing it, until it gives me that moment of perfect peace. When the poem feels peace, I finish. Sometimes I choose a poetic form—like just recently I did a blitz, which was probably the hardest poetic form I ever wrote in, coincidently, due to the lack of grammar it was hard to keep focus on using no punctuation while also keeping the strict poetic form, which I broke in true fashion as that type of form is meant to be broken; it’s in the spirit of the poets who made it—and I move onto the next piece. After about a hundred or so poems are finished, I compose them into books of poetry, arranging them by their quality. I don’t say any of my poems are poor quality, but put them next to some of my other poems, it doesn’t flow right, so it has to go with poems that are like other poems. Arranging them is fun, actually. I get a lot of joy out of arranging the pieces as much as writing them, because I can flesh out stories better and mould themes more concretely, whereas when the poem first comes out, it sort of fits randomly. But, I have the poems in their original compositions and order on my blog.

But, that’s how.