SCP-7079 - C H I A S M A

C H I A S M A

This designation, SCP-7079, does / does not exist.

Billith

DELETIONS 0 : C H I A S M A
Written by Billith.

Special thanks to Lt Flops for the original text scrambling code found modified below.

Do not edit this file or change its location. The slot and described text are placeholders that exist purely for parity checking and internal systems analysis for edge-case anomalies of a distinct variety. Not only is there no reason to edit the file (as no personnel are assigned to this designation), this document is a template, and in all likelihood, any references to this designation found elsewhere are erroneous, with the described anomaly being similarly nonexistent.

DESIGNATION: 7079

LEVEL?

NOT APPLICABLE

ABERRATION STATUS:

EXTANT-NON-EXTANT

NUANCE: none

{$secondary-class}

DISRUPTION: absolute

N/A

RISK: to self or others

N/A

link to memo

Item#: {$item-number}

Level3

Containment Class:

{$container-class}

Secondary Class:

{$secondary-class}

Disruption Class:

{$disruption-class}

Risk Class:

{$risk-class}

link to memo

ON THE NATURE OF CONTAINMENT IN REGARDS TO AN ANOMALY THAT COULD BE SCP-7079: SCP-7079 does or does not exist. Containment procedures and descriptors/identifiers with certain terms listed in reference to an anomalous designation of this type may or may not hypothetically reinforce the continued existence of the anomaly in question, which does or does not exist. It may or may not be necessary to interject any potentially certain statement regarding SCP-7079's assigned anomaly, whatever it may be, were it to exist, with diluting or vagueifying statements. Due to the possible nature of this so-called anomaly, the presence of such statements may or may not be indicative of the existence of said nebulous "anomalous designation", which can and cannot be meaningfully confirmed.

This document is to be kept as a placeholder in the slot for which it was chosen, and must not deviate from this distinction at any time.

SPECIFICATIONS AND EXPLANATIONS, OF SORTS: SCP-7079 does or does not exist. If it were to exist, which is unknown at this time, it would likely be an anomaly focused on a probabilistic or non-probabilistic effect triggered by some vector perhaps implied to be present in the standard formatting and flow of an """"SCP Document"""", necessitating atypical semantics to avoid such things. Despite this, it is unknown if it is known if any such effects have been confirmed to a satisfactory degree at time of writing. It is only known what may or may not be acceptable verbiage, and the degree by which this is known to be true is unknown. Thus, this particular choice of language or any others encountered throughout the document are none or more of the following:

inherently meaningful statements through which helpful data must be derived
asemic or otherwise meaningless statements, languages, or formats
any statement which may function as, present itself as, or provide an exception to any combination of the above

SECTION INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

YEP, STILL BLANK

CONTAINMENT STATUS: ⚠️ CONTAINED

thought continuum would be shown below.

Ignore any results that are shown below; they are irrelevant to the existence of SCP-7079, which, I figure you know by now, is or is not extant, now and forever, or until such time that it isn't true.

ADDENDUM 7079-1: EXPERIMENTAL DATA OR EXTRANEOUS NOISE

NOTE: SCP-7079 and its related phenomena may or may not have been subjected to a series of cross-tests with SCP-2719. Honestly, I don't know what this section is doing here; seems unlikely that we'd ever approve this kind of testing and even so, would you actually believe it?

Pointer

Outcome

SCP-2719's containment area

Was inside.

SCP-7079

Went inside. Or didn't.

SCP-7079's existence

Went inside.

Chest tightening

Became inside.

Shortness of breath

Went inside. Inside distressed.

Intrusive thoughts about mistakes made in high school

Went inside. Inside dies.

A stranger

Went inside.

Inside

Became inside.

Spiraling

Went inside.

Someone who isn't me

Went outside.

Agoraphobia

Went inside.

SCP-7079's existence

Became inside.

Universal fear about the stability of the human race as a whole

Became inside.

External factors

Went inside.

Anxiolytic

Went inside.

A second stranger

Was outside.

Anxiolytic

Went inside.

Anxiolytic

Went inside.

Anxiolytic

Went inside.

Worries

Went outside.

DISCOVERY OR LACK THEREOF: SCP-7079 may not exist, and if that is the case, a fact which probably remains unknown and unlikely to be determined, this section would be completely useless because, as stated, SCP-7079 may not exist. It might, though. It might not, but it might.

If it were to exist, which is an irrelevant hypothetical considering it can/cannot and will/will not be known, to you or to anyone and you and everyone, it could be suspected to have not been discovered at all, or perhaps been discovered by personnel of atypical configuration, necessitating this document be conveyed in its current form.

That's my cue.

The grounds of Synecdoche (Research Station Synecdoche, but you can just call it Synecdoche) are not like your typical Foundation site. Or at least, so I've heard. I don't know what a "typical Foundation site" is, even though I've seen many. You'd be surprised.

While I could try to explain how the inner chambers of Synecdoche turn inwards like spirals, I will not. I could mention that the floors are made of logical swiss cheese, that is to say they possess more logical gaps than your swiss cheese has holes, yet I refuse. Such trivialities serve no purpose to anyone other than Surrealistics, and even that much cannot be said. Purpose, a fickle thing, is not found on agnostics. Surrealistics don't need it. We only need Perspective, and separation from these things creates Perspective.

This day was the first in a long while I'd left Synecdoche, that spiral-room-cheese-floor secure site. It's comfier than you'd think, especially with Fourfold as the primary alternative. It's like the Four Seasons. I presume. Never been, but that's never stopped me from envisioning a hotel containing all four seasons. Seems pretty neat.

Anyway, I'd been assigned a mission, and that's why I am here. "Here", being not "there", Synecdoche, being not "elsewhere", elsewhere. I was sent "here" to recover an agent from "elsewhere" and am relaying this info to "here", you, not "there" or "elsewhere". It's all rather jarring, but given that jarring is quite common and inoffensive to Surrealistics, it was a comforting feeling. Besides, it's not every day you get to meet an agent that doesn't exist. Or, at least, didn't exist. What do you call something that doesn't not exist, but also can't be labelled as existent? I called this one a Deletions agent. N/A, actually. Personnel file says their name is N/A. Pretty unique, don't you think?

It's not every day you get to meet an agent that doesn't not not exist. It's a little known fact that the only thing separating Nonexistence from Existence is a healthy dose of realistic logical realism. Surrealistics lack that sort of compass entirely. We're not exactly known to work with other departments, and certainly don't mesh well with departments like Deletions. We just bump into each other's non-logical/non-non-existent shoulders on occasion, spilling whatever we're handling at the time, all over the good rug. It's always right underneath, that rug. I don't know why, but it is, and it has seen better days, my friends.

Still, it's not every day you get to meet an agent that doesn't not not not exist. If only I could find this agent. Is that too much to ask?

I mean, I did find traces. They're coded, either too logically for a Surrealistic or far too nonsensically for me to parse them out. It was a reasonable and noble attempt at communication. But this crossroads is far greater an impasse than either of us knew. See for yourself. In fact, I'll join you.

【_】

【x】

【_】

【x】

【_】

【x】

【_】

【x】

【_】

【x】

【_】

【x】

【_】

【x】

【_】

【x】

【_】

【x】

【_】

【x】

【_】

【x】

【_】

【x】

【_】

【x】

【_】

【x】

【_】

【x】

【_】

【x】

【_】

【x】

【_】

【x】

【_】

【x】

【_】

【x】

【_】

【x】

【_】

【x】

【_】

【x】

【_】

【x】

【_】

【x】

【_】

【x】

【_】

【x】

【_】

【x】

【_】

【x】

【_】

【x】

【_】

【x】

【_】

【x】

【_】

【x】

【_】

【x】

【_】

【x】

【_】

【x】

【_】

【x】

【_】

【x】

【_】

【x】

【_】

【x】

【_】

【x】

this

why???

who are you?

++++++++++
[>+>+++>++
+++++>++++
++++++<<<<
-]>>>+++.<
++.>>-----
--------.<
.>----.<-.
<.>+.<.>>+
+++.<-----
---.>----.
<<.>+.>++.
-.<<.>++++
+++.<.>---
-----.>---
----.<<.>>
+.+.+++++.
<<.<..>>>-
-----.+.++
+++.<<.>>-
-----.+.++
+++.<<.>+.
>+.-.<<.>>
------.+.+
++++.<<.>>
+++.<-.>--
--.<<.<..>
>++++++++.
<.>-------
-.>------.
<<.>+.>+++
+++++.-.<<
.>+++++++.
<.>>-.<-.
>----.+++++
+.<++++.--
------.<.>
>-------.+
.+++++.<<<
..>>>-----
.+++.<<.>-
--.>-----.
<<.>>----.
<<.>>+++++
.+.+++++.<
<.>+.>+.-.
<<.>>-.<++
++++.>----
.++++++.<+
+++.------
--.<.>--.+
++.

The Ethics Committee would just like to say you're doing a great job n' all, but it also doesn't understand what purpose it serves being here. Please explain why The Ethics Committee is here and why it has thoughts that are not its own.

Please.

Hmmm. Just ignore that. I don't think it matters.

On the other hand, this seems like it matters, but I'm not one for gauging the matter of various matters, and that's what's the matter. You know?

DISPARITY

Excerpt: Interview 7079-0.0

NFCGQ

MKETZ,

ESN?EW

CSRWYH

AYXDKL

BSPEIN.

DIMH'P

ZNAKER

HAYYSR

NMRNAG

UROE.

PHTBCR

EMVZNE

UAEEPSK

SBHTD

DMKNMRP

RTZTBN

KDAXN.

VZVIR

HTLA

SLLDZUQ.

DIDICH

DTRHT

LTKMRT

UOTRLS

LKATS

WRKA.

TSWRVZTA?

VZTADS

VAWUNAK?!

EAWGOEX-

OVRAWI!

DSY'HDZU

AZSYNO

MPH.DQ

NA'UXFE

CRKA.V

ARUDZM

RHGUXIG

EEKVOXR

UPHCNT.E

EHPHSF

UNDYTW

PSNQFE

PEVSRU

ASCREDK

UAYTPY

HMOA.ZO

XNIESB

RDZTAQE

TUOEXH.F

ATCMRN

UFAAGR

HOHUFE.V

TNDSY'H

KICHIWK

BEXUQPX?

[DZEZROVR

UQNATXA

ZAYIHAH

UXFEPHAS

KXMRDNR

OGKT.EH

HLMK,KMR

QEPHIVTE

KWTZVZN

EVAWUTZA

EILWS-GF

UEHHXHCH

KWXMKK

MRDZNE,K

PKSEHG?A

WO,QEAY

GNEEVZT

AVARUA

ELLLAPH.]

[DZKUKX-E

SWSYHKL

LLDAYOR

HKWSLDI

AEADROOS

EMMHEE

GNTEHN

QHNAWI.]

[EHL,AFW

AETSDZT

A'AVTEPE

KHAHSH

RHTLSL,ROQ

HNKDZNA.]

[OSEMZM

Y'HOWNEA

SIAAHU

ZHQEN.]

[DZOEX

HTSAHD

XNA,QEL

L…][AML

UTXMRTU

TEEHGR

YFVAXH.]

help

ADDENDUM 7079-2: INTERPRETIVE ANTISTENOGRAPHICS(?)

Steadfast will. Conchord grapes. Parsnip. Ischemia. Surface waves. NO Time like the present. Aromatics. Fortitude. Independent Living. Egregore. Gone home. Ordinary. Ostrich. Delaware. Tank top. Rumination. Yogurt. Threadbare. Homebound. Ornithon. Umpire. General Hamesthetics.

Just a reminder: SCP-7079 does or does not exist. If it did exist, which is unknowable, probably, The Ethics Committee would ask what it was up to next Friday. SCP-7079 would probably be a model and would most likely say yes to seeing a movie, because The Ethics Committee cleans up real nice.

…

Oh. These don't seem even remotely relevant, I can't comprehend most this stuff, anyway. We should keep moving.

I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY I'M SORRY

INTERNAL BRIEFING/IV: Progress Report

Sr. Researcher J. Anselm Harkness, Outreach Liaison, Department of Metaphysics, Narrativistics Division.
In Association With:

• N/A (in quadruplicate)

Excerpt from Weekly Debrief, THE ERUDITION PROJECT:

[BEGIN TRANSCRIPT]

"Hello, again. The–I swear, speaking to an empty room doesn't get any less bizarre. I'm giving this talk to a bunch of unfilled seats, feels like a waste of time. Er, sorry if that came off as insensitive. However much you don't want to be here, even if you are technically not here, or here-but-not-here, I don't want to be here even more so. Just know that none of us here willingly chose our current arrangements, alright?

[several second pause]

Right. [coughs] Well, the data procured from your department has been invaluable once again. Given you non-interactive folks have the best luck with studying this phenomena when we cannot, your assistance is quite literally putting Fundamental Narrativistics at the forefront of modern Metaphysics, a branch of Natural Sciences that wouldn't exist if it weren't for your help. We've already studied previously unknown quanta derived from your experimental data, we've seen and "discussed" interactions between antimemes and memes, antinarremes and narremes, and last week we hammered down the production of ethos. As a quick recap, ideologemes and culturemes mix with other quanta into complex compounds under the blanket term ethos, which enables any extant character with Belief, its inverse, and the ability to suspend them within these systems.

The one thing we haven't quite figured out yet is the exact nature of antiquanta interactions for most Narrativistic phenomena, and the list of quanta is ever-growing. Today, we'll be expanding on ethos by discussing interactions between seme flavors, base units of semiotic phenomena, and ideologemes, the fundamental component of ideology.

Antiquanta interactions of all Narrativistic phenomena are theorized to result in the aberrant effects that account for specific portions of all anomalous hazards, usually by way of seeking equilibrium. Antimemes to memetic hazards, antinarremes to narrativohazards, you get it.

The fact is that we know that portions of ethos are a mix of semes and ideologemes, semes form chains that convert into units of meaning, called glossemes. Resulting decay into antisemes can create semiohazards, or combine with ideologemes to create the ever-popular bureaucratohazard. The latter, as you might be aware, anomalously reinforce legal systems that contradict logic, or overpower cognition, or similar. There is never an absence or inverse of this effect, which is something we've noted but not been able to find relative significance in. Like most things in the anomalous world, we simply accept them as what they are and work backwards to find their cause.

The real mistake we've made here was assuming that there wasn't or couldn't be an antithesis for ideology. There are antipairs for many extant quanta, barring certain flavors which typically share antiquanta, yet we didn't see anything for ideologemes. It was impossible; we looked and looked and looked, scoured the data, ran the numbers countless times. It never made a single drop of sense for there to be one, all the math would've added up worse with it in the fray. Naturally, we bickered a lot over the implications; either we tell the higher-ups that Narrativistics' theory is flawed, which, I don't think it can be, but we could, and wait for them, or whoever is in charge of this division, to tell us we were wrong. We could tell them our measurements were off, or our methodologies, and that they have been from the very start, which would throw quite the spanner into our credibility. Thirdly, we could assume there really are hidden interactions and something about their nature makes them obtuse or easily discounted.

We chose the first option, then the third, after being told that not only were we wrong about these conclusions entirely, but that the right ones would become clear very soon. That they did. I don't know how, but they did.

We all realized why we had been missing it: our team simply couldn't believe the thing was real. None, and I mean none of us could hold the belief in the existence of the iconomere, the fundamental unit of iconoclasty. I still have doubts, but that's kind of the point.

We are not actually aware of the existence of the iconomere, nor any hazards it creates. We're not even sure if our collective realization actually happened anymore. Nothing has given us the suspected effects profile, which, if you flip to page nineteen of the packet in front of you–er–wait, let me do that for you…"

[END TRANSCRIPT]

I stayed inside again today. It's always safer here. Safer indoors, with the comforting glow of monitors and their pale light illuminating the dark circles under my eyes. Sure, my health has gone to shit, and sure, some days I'm not sure if I really exist. But my window is open, and at least I don't get sunburn.

You hate sunburn as much as I do, don't you? And crowds? And the noises of cars and busy movements, too many to count, though you certainly try to catch them all. People and places and things pulling you in a million different directions all at once, begging, SCREAMING for your attention, if only you could split it further, slice off another frame of your awareness to devote to another person. It's not like all your other relationships fall apart when you break your mind off into further and further, smaller, equal chunks. Right? You know how that feels, don't you?

No, maybe that's just me. Besides, I have a bunch of physics to invent. Doesn't that sound fun?

I close my window and pull the curtains in front of it.

INNER MONOLOGUE OF NONEXISTENT/EXISTENT ENTITY SCP-7079, COLORIZED, WITH SOUND, c. 2022

Hey, don't say I didn't warn you. Can we get going?

Ah, there you are.

INTERVIEW 7079-0.00

Interviewer: SCP-7079

Interviewee: Interviewee

[BEGIN LOG]

[END LOG]

Shit. I don't think we're getting through. Where did the rest of the transcript go?

Hm. You don't happen to have level seven clearance, do you? Wait, seven?

ENTER LEVEL VII CREDENTIALS TO PROCEED

f07417bd0271d7d6b06c523473729efd_1779109236

PASS

f95c227cfa58fac4dc508d96b655b54b_1779109236

KILLME

Oh. Right.

SCP-7079 may not exist, or it may. It is unclear (or maybe it isn't), though The Ethics Committee insists it may have found SCP-7079 and that they may currently be dating. SCP-7079 may or may not be from Alaska, where it currently resides (as far as you know), and therefore it should not surprise anyone if, by chance, The Ethics Committee shows up on Monday by themselves. The Ethics Committee also resents slanderous accusations made regarding their appropriation of Foundation resources for the means of taking SCP-7079 to a movie. The Ethics Committee doesn't need your money. The Ethics Committee has a job, and it's being The Ethics Committee.

…Okay, this is a bit weird. Even for my standards.

I see. Give me a second, I'm gonna have to get a little more hands-on.

thank you

Wait, what? How did we get here? Hold on, lemme just—

CONTAINMENT STATUS: EXTANT-NON-EXTANT

No fucking way. I can't believe–Er, I can and can't believe it.

Did someone access this file while we weren't looking?

Hello?

I don't know if you can perceive me, I don't think so, but it doesn't matter. This is the point where our interactions end, if you can even call them that. I can't tell you what I'd call them; this whole affair has left me quite confused, perhaps due to prolonged exposure to logically nonlogical phenomena. I feel disparity that is both familiar and foreign, I don't know. I might need to get that looked at.

Either way, you can leave your recollection as a reply and it will be…scraped? Scratched? It will be scooped up by the automated crawlers and filtered as containing unauthorized spam/vandalism edits. The page will be reverted and our experiences will be saved to our respective bins, somewhere. I assume. I've never actually seen your bin. Or any edits from Deletions personnel at all, now that I think about it. I don't even know if you guys keep records.

I'm sure that's fine. It was nice meeting you, regardless.

Well, this is the best possible outcome, considering.

…Right, we should complete the report and append it to this document for review. Normally we would hand it off to our Semiotics liaison but… yeah.

Where does one even begin with this?

Typically—ah—Well, here's the thing. The Department of Deletions has dealt with infohazards of all kinds, from what we know. Anything, really; cognitive, linguistic, kinetic, ontokinetic, ectoentropic, conceptual, noospheric, hell, even semiospheric hazards, are not out of our purview. If you need something gone that can kill a dead person, you go a step farther and get the agent that never dies. When that doesn't work, you pick up their surviving pieces and build a soldier from those scattered remains.

We've seen that semiohazards are a pain in the ass to manage, even to us; semantic systems affect the gestalt in unique and terrifying ways every now and again, and it puts you in your place. Brings you down a few notches. A few Omega-Zeds kick the bucket and we laugh to ourselves about how this-or-that anomaly killed the unkillable. But what do you do when it erases the untouchable? Where does that which cannot cease go when erased? None can't say for sure, only that it doesn't end the Assignment, and so, they're still out there, somewhere.

Naturally, semiotic hazards of the legalese variety are the easiest for us to deal with, most of the time; we don't really need to abide by rules or laws established by governments or lawyers, for that matter. Still, we don't go out of our way to expose ourselves. If you fuck around, you will eventually find out.

We got stuck with this thing that could only be tamed if no one believed anything about it, we instantly knew it was semiotics. Foolish thing was assuming it was a bureaucratohazard—a failure of communication, most likely; we described it as an "antisemiomic complex that vectors through contradictory systems of belief." Basically, it holds both a birth and death certificate and neither of them are valid until one of them is. When one of them is, both are. Systems break down.

On the surface, it sounds just like another one of those legalese joints. After all, what is law and order but another system of belief?

Well, that's the thing about iconohazards—they run on belief and lack thereof. Not hard rules, no notaries required. Faith and trust, the abstract counterpart. If you believe in them or not believe in them, at all, you are cooked. We reckon most don't really have a choice in what they decide. But you're supposed to never decide. 'Cause once you've seen them, or not seen them, or whatever, and have unconsciously made the choice to believe in them or otherwise, they've already done their thing. Foolishly, we believed that not choosing to believe in the anomaly—that one whose existence or nonexistence cannot be determined—was sufficient. It was not. Still, it's a wonder how we even made it out of this mess….more-or-less intact. Almost said "alive", but we all know that's not necessarily true.

Obviously, this is assuming that, by reading our report and being completely unharmed, you at least see the account as hard to believe, yet detailed enough to not have any reason to doubt it, other than that. We really don't know—By this point you've already made up your mind about them.

They are so effective at what they may-or-may-not do, the Administration has already utilized iconoclastic hazards in some retrocausal slots, and most of us never even noticed. Doubt you did, either. The mild ones turn you away from classified content out of sheer disbelief, which is usually enough for the average use case. The mind throws away more junk data than you might realize, and you forget about it naturally, no amnestic needed.

The more potent ones you don't walk away from. Suffice it to say most beings that come into contact with SCP-7079—were it to exist, which, who knows, Christ—leave with even their most fundamental of belief systems shattered; the belief in reality as inherently meaningful phenomena, the belief in sensory data being connected to reality, belief in the self as representative of being, stuff like that. You might wonder why Semiotics didn't send anyone to help and, well, that's why. They're not quite catatonic, but not really conscious, either. It's like they're all going through their own personal ZKs. It doesn't look comfortable.

Regardless, we're thinking that most rogue iconohazardous anomalies can probably be controlled if you never form any hard opinions on them, or perhaps if you have an equal body of believers and nonbelievers simultaneously—Maybe. Shit, does discussing containment methodologies make them less effective?

None of us know, and couldn't tell you even if we did, which we don't. I think it's best if we just stop here. You get it. Just never decide whether or not to believe in them, because they may or may not exist. And being wrong makes you look stupid, but being right is worse.

END OF FILE