Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • FOR HINDUSTANIS: NO MORE NONSENSE. “YOU WAS’T KANGS.” (uncomfortable Truth Warni

    FOR HINDUSTANIS: NO MORE NONSENSE. “YOU WAS’T KANGS.”

    (uncomfortable Truth Warning)

    HISTORY OF THE IE CIVILIZATIONS:

    The European, Caucasian, Iranic, and Indian Peoples.

    Look. The IE expansion occurred in Ukraine and Russian north of the black sea out of what appears to have been a competition between proto-european and proto-iranic peoples (and not proto-turkic peoples). The southern and caucasian branch has largely been lost but mixed armenians and georgians remain. The anatolians are lost entirely. The iranic branch moved east, some continued farther east into india and disappeared into the local dravidian population, and the rest continued south into persia, and spread west again to the caucuses, leaving the iranic (some arab admixture) peoples, the indian (70/30-30/70) iranic-dravidian admixture peoples, the european peoples, and the mixed balkan peoples. That is the foundation of the european-caucasian-iranic-indian peoples.

    That group of people had bronze, horse, wheel, maneuver, entrepreneurial organization, a religion they’d adapted from anatolia, but inverted from submissive to heroic, and similar but varied religions that rapidly adapted to each environment. The european remained aristocratic egalitarian, most likely because they conquered near relations, completely conquered them, and retained empirical property-law and the aristocratic peerage. the iranics moved into more developed areas of the indus, persian gulf, and finally Mesopotamian, and adopted religiously dominant hierarchical law so that they could govern conquered peoples. The iranics that conquered and entered india used a hierarchical formal class religion to govern the dravidic peoples – we don’t know why but it appears because indus peoples were more advanced and they needed some means of narration.

    All of us were ‘stuck’ with that original decision of ‘how to govern ourselves and the people we conquered’. However, we were also stuck with demographics, with India and Mesopotamia having a terrible governance problem because of the ease of survival of the underclasses, but the benefit of trade routes that could be taxes for profit and the financing of wars. But that original decision of how to ‘think about, talk about, argue about how we organize’ is the primary cause of the difference in our achievements.

    India seems to have developed very rational law and scholarship at one point, but stagnated and like medieval Europe, never evolved a central state strong enough to resist invaders – all of whom were resisted by the pure scale of India not so much as any other factor. The rather obvious answer is that the loss of the Indus river (hrappans) was catastrophic, the demographics unalterable, that a majority middle class could not evolve (and still is struggling).

    Persia is a well understood story and had not the byzantines and Sassanids exhausted each other Persia would have built an Iranic civilization as India has an Indian, and insulated the rest of the world from the curse (cancer) of islam and it’s systemic destruction of every genetic, institutional, cultural, and intellectual form of capital by expansion of its underclasses. Everyone fought over taxation of the trade routes of the middle east until the age of sail circumvented those trade routes making them irrelevant and eliminating the ability fund soldiers, fund technological investment, build technology, because they lacked the demographics to do it (as china is showing India at the moment).

    Europe lacked both the warm climate, the flood river valleys, and the trade routes, so while europeans could consume more calories, it had to endure winters, and it was impossible to centralize enough capital to create institutions – until they moved south to conquer the mediterraneans and develop Mediterranean trade. But they were not conquering vast hordes of established peoples. The bronze age collapse had made the Mediterranean vulnerable to european conquest just as the greco-roman collapse and byzantine-Sassanid war made the great civilizations of the ancient world vulnerable to Arab conquest.

    The difference is that european civilization was not absorbed into locals as were the Indians and the Caucasians, and somewhat the Persians, so they retained the institutions of the peerage, tripartism, customary law of tort, the jury of peers, and an military-empirical rather than supernatural -moral system of rule, that could more rapidly adopt to the development of a middle class. In otter words, no matter how wealthy, the wealthy were largely middle class (commercial).

    It was this legal system that made europeans work with competition, reason, argument, evidence, geometry, and philosophy rather than hierarchy or equality, moralizing, sophism or supernaturalism, and astrology.

    So the better question is ‘what did India and china, in their relative isolation do over thousands of years; vs what did Persia do in thousands of years, vs what did Assyria do in their thousands of years, vs what did europeans do in a few hundred years of conquering Europe, a few hundred years in the mediterranean, and a few hundred years after escaping the semitic (jewish, christian, islamic) dark ages?

    We all invent, trade, and spread technology. The question is ‘what do we do with it’, and how rapidly and what was the consequence?

    Europeans dragged humanity – kicking and screaming all the while – out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, starvation, hard labor, disease, suffering, child mortality, and early death by utilizing every bit of information to competitively adapt as fast as humanly possible in the IE expansion, in the Ancient World, and in the Modern World.

    What did the jews, the most literate people in Europe, do? What arts, what architecture, what achievements, what science, or technology, what medicine, what philosophy? None.

    What did islam achieve for having destroyed five great civilizations of the ancient world, and institutionalizing superstition, ignorance, illiteracy, obedience, the art of lying by abrahamic means.

    What did india achieve other than numbering and damascene (carbon) steel? What did india inherit from the first institutional civilization the Sumerians? I mean, trade is what makes the technology of measurement, recording, contracts and accounting necessary. Why did indians take the abacus and convert it to symbols where others simply retained the abacus and summary numbers? Why did the middle east focus on religion, india culture, west on law, and far east on bureaucracy?

    We all tried different things. But indians are desperately trying to blame someone other than the rate of the reproduction of the underclasses for their condition. It is not possible to fix indian demographics, society, or government, without eradication of islam, the conversion from myth to history, and most of all a one child policy for those unable to master the tertiary systems of calculation we call mathematics.

    And there is no other cause.

    And this ridiculous belief that you weren’t conquered by pretty much every group that came by, as if they are evil and you are culturally and institutionally incompetent, is something you need to get over. You’re almost isolated on a continent, and like the european or Chinese should have competed on the world stage, yet you haven’t built a wall like china, or a navy like europa, and haven’t prosecuted hostiles among you systematically conquering your people and reducing them to barbarism. The only person to blame for your culture’s condition is the man in the mirror. Because if you can’t compete, then you simply can’t compete, and nature does not tolerate those who she suffers but who do not evolve.

    The Red Queen Never Rests.

    You’re welcome for the education.

    I don’t make errors – ever.

    Don’t waste the fact that I invested my time in you.

    Learn something.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 12:26:00 UTC

  • I love christian manners: “god bless you” et all. I am equally happy with ‘the g

    I love christian manners: “god bless you” et all. I am equally happy with ‘the gods’ instead of ‘god’, and equally unhappy and hostile to the other semitic gods. I love christian ethics. and I love christian behavior. And I love the church experience. And i love its role in birth, adulthood, marriage, care-taking, suffering, and death. I wish it still retained juris over the matters of the family.

    And My experience with education by the church was far superior to that of the state – by orders of magnitude. Personally I would prefer a military experience more suitable to males. And I know some would value sports, or arts, or commercial experiences. And I know I would prefer to find old gods, heroes, artists, scientists, and saints in my Church with Jesus but one among them. And I would find prayer to them more valuable than to those I find feminine. And yes I would prefer the stoic method of discipline rather than submission to a semitic god. I would prefer we celebrate love our heathen(nature) and pagan(masculine) as well as christian (feminine) holidays.

    But that said, while there are many good social and personal consequences of the religion, christianity failed us politically – it had to – the church could not survive the restoration of aristotelianism and its consequences no matter how hard the theologians tried.

    And worse, the church failed to reform. And the catholic church’s pope has now our declared the church our enemy. Orthodoxy is too weak in the west. Protestantism thankfully has evolved into a folk religion, especially with the advent of American evangelicals. I think I understand where this will lead and it is beautiful.

    But first we must solve real problems that are unavoidable: ending another conquest by hostile alien political systems masquerading as religions. Ending the destruction of our civilization by the second attempt at undermining us using the abrahamic methods of deceit – this time in secular prose, as well as fundamentalist semitic prose. And second we must solve the failure of our religion to merge the aristotelian-legal, moral-rational-political, masculine religion, and feminine religion.

    I can only describe the problem I do not have the skill or talent or mind to provide a solution other than the incentives for others with appropriate skills and talents, to bring a religious system across that spectrum into fruition. Although maybe if I live long enough it will be possible.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 12:23:00 UTC

  • WHICH OF YOUR COGNITIVE MARKETS ARE YOU SERVING? The verb to be circumvents exis

    WHICH OF YOUR COGNITIVE MARKETS ARE YOU SERVING?

    The verb to be circumvents existence, which is what you are trying to cirumvent testifying for, just as Heiddeger was trying to cirvument and reverse the verb and noun – because both of you are tyint go make speech conform to experience rather than speech test experience – which is it’s only POSSIBLE function unless you’re trying to lie.

    All imagination is produced by association and introspective causes justificationary but all speech like all action is falsificationary – whether or not we wish it to be.

    So you can describe your predictions, imaginations and fantasies (meaning) in an effort to deceive yourself and others, or you can speak your predictions, imaginations and fantasies (meaning) and have others falsify them or not, or you can act on your predications, imaginations, and fantasies (meaning) and physical reality will falsify them or not.

    We are capable of free association, imagination (prediction), and fiction (relations between predictions), just as we capable of our own falsification of our fictions (reason, calculation, computation). But this requires agency, and to prefer the rewards of knowledge (truth) over masturbation( sedation by daydreaming) .

    So we physically demonstrate the series: sense(collection), perception(disambiguation), auto-association (free association), prediction (imagination), fictions (compositions) produce hypotheses, and THEN we falsify (test) them (detect risk and losses) using Reason, Calculation (transformation of inputs into outputs) and computation (using assistants-to-memory to overcome limits – something a we cannot do without external instrumentation, especially symbols that preserve correspondence-name, and other properties of the name-noun expressed as measurements of varying degrees of precision.)

    So the question is which market are you serving when you speak? Purely psychological (psychotic), purely personal interpretation of interpersonal (solipsistic), interpersonal (empathic), practical action (evidentiary), generalization (analytic), generalization without empathy (aspergers), failure to generalize or empathize (autism).

    And this is the underlying question. Are you preventing your learning and continuous adaptation to reality by the incremental development of agency, or are you trying to do the opposite which is the primary function of all religions, and most philosophies, and most pseudoscience, and that is to justify not paying the psychological, emotional, physical, and material costs of adapting to reality such that you develop agency? And always and everywhere with very little effort we can ask any individual a few questions, and discover the economics of his or her system of decidability, given costs and returns. (my favorite being christians, muslims, and hindus, as we do not see this other than ‘nationalism’ in the far east and the non-superstitious right, and the upper classes who have and have demonstrated agency.

    We don’t think of language as a system of measurement (but measurement of what?) but a cursory disambiguation and operationalization of english vocabulary (names of references, whether person, place, thing, action, change etc – reduced to scales that are open to human perception. As an example, Time in english includes always – sometimes – just a bit ago – now – not just a bit ago – sometimes not, and never. Most english vocabulary follows this 3 to 5 to 7 example range, which is about the maximum of human means of disambiguation into scopes of untidily; matches human short term memory; matches the number of points necessary to falsify a line (reduce most errors). I find when I disambiguate a concept that is not well understood because of insufficient operationalization, I end up with twelve or more points. I find that when I serialize existing terms I end up with five or seven.

    And this difference illustrates the function of operationalization – to improve precision in human speech.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 12:20:00 UTC

  • WE HAVE NO CHOICE. EQUALITY IN RECIPROCITY OR IN POVERTY Our only possibilities

    WE HAVE NO CHOICE. EQUALITY IN RECIPROCITY OR IN POVERTY

    Our only possibilities are equality in reciprocity or equality in ignorance, superstition, and absolute poverty. There is no choice. It’s just physics. Humans have memories, predictions from memories, and ability to choose to act on those predictions, so that we can outwit time in ways physical processes lacking memory, prediction, choice, and action cannot. However that only allows us to benefit from physical processes not deny or circumvent them. We are as physically constrained as is the rest of the universe. And our only substantial advantage is that the ability to imitate, empathize, sympathize, predict futures from them, and choose to cooperate on those possible futures, is so much more efficient and provides so many greater returns, that we can do a bit better than the rest of life forms – at least with our limits – to convert more calories, and continuously increase our consumption through continuous expansion of cooperation. But in doing so we form Pareto distributions of influence, in order to obtain Nash equilibriums of rewards. And that is a physical necessity of physical reality. We don’t have any choice. We are not wealthier than cave men, our only asset is time. Through cooperation we have made the purchasing power of time increase over and over again throughout history, although disproportionately so with the invention of aristotielainsim, and even more so with the mastery of heat, steam, electricity, chemistry, and now information.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 12:18:00 UTC

  • IF YOU WANT TO LEARN P Propertarianism is like Aristotelianism – it is a huge pr

    IF YOU WANT TO LEARN P

    Propertarianism is like Aristotelianism – it is a huge project that reforms much human thought especially logic, language, epistemology (knowledge), psychology, sociology, ethics, law, and politics.

    1. You can learn about our proposed constitution and it’s policies (it’s a lot, and you might have to learn a bit bout economics and the justice system but you can do it.)

    2. You can learn the Big History of the competition between civilizations and in particular between European and Semitic.(easy)

    3. You can learn why Europeans evolved faster than the rest, and developed the only truth telling, high trust, wealthy, advanced, technological, civilization in so short a span in the bronze, ancient, and modern worlds – except for our period of failure during the Abrahamic dark age. (relatively easy)

    4. You can learn a whole suite of the propertarian arguments (Takes some work)

    5. You can learn how to conduct propertarian arguments

    You can learn how to use the p-methodology (Not easy)

    6. And you can if you want to get into the foundations of the P-methodology, the completed scientific method, and logic and epistemology. (Hard)

    SO IF YOU WANT TO LEARN ANY OF THAT

    1) you can use the site and read it.

    2) you can follow along.

    3) you can use my (Curt) friends list to contact and catch the attention of a mentor by asking for help:

    Alain, Martin, Bill, Luke, Brandon, Erik, Steve, Eli, …(there are a lot more)

    4) you can take our course (if you are patient enough for me to slowly release content – and I mean slowly).

    The other folks are better teachers than I am. Really. By far.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 12:17:00 UTC

  • TRIPARTISM TO QUADRIPARTISM —“Those who Fight, Those who Pray, Those who Work

    TRIPARTISM TO QUADRIPARTISM

    —“Those who Fight, Those who Pray, Those who Work What’s the fourth class?”— Richard Hall

    ^Burghers (the middle class). “Those who Trade”

    The middle class emerged only once production was able to scale. And production could only scale once productivity was high enough to produce sufficient surpluses to scale.

    We can modernize Tripartism and simply call them The Defensive, Military, Judicial classes, The Administrative, Clerical, Educational classes, and Productive Financial Entrepreneurial, Professional, Managerial, Craftsman and Labor classes. None of us mention the underclasses, because until recently that meant ‘slave’ because they lacked agency, family, resources, and knowledge to be allowed to ‘roam free’ without an ‘owner’ to take responsibility for them – meaning defend the population from them.

    But since we develop elites in each of the Military, Administrative, and Productive classes, leaving the majority of the population managing only personal capital, especially the family, and making use of whatever elites that most serve their needs, we tend to separate the economic (Financial, Entrepreneurial,) from the Professional, Managerial, craftsmanly, and laboring classes.

    The middle east and far east, because of flood river valleys, and irrigation in them, combined the organization of production into the priesthood, and into the state, and the merchant class, even wealthy, traded specialty goods more than organized commodity capital goods in production. Preserving the trading, craftsman, and workman classes, and maintaining what we consider the capitalist class into the state. The problem is of course, state inefficiency and parasitism.

    The big economic shift occurred when the middle class Germanic Europe, was able to accumulate enough capital to develop the Hanseatic league on the continent – thanks to the lack of a strong central state – and create its own rule of law, own defense, own outposts, and trade networks. It ruled for three hundred years dragging northern Europe into post medieval wealth.

    The British people able to do the same in the colonies by the same reason: a military state, but an entrepreneurial middle class, capable of funding it’s own adventure. The colonies ended up being a better long term investment, which is why germany, after fighting off napoleon, needed to unify to prevent another despotic french catastrophe, sought to expand her influences (rightly so in my understanding) into territories it had economically domesticated, putting her into competition with Russia and England by unbalancing the world distribution of powers england found (like the usa wrongly does today) the optimum for commercial gains.

    The British Americans took this to the ultimate test, and created a purely middle class civilization – escaping both church and state – preserving the germanic rule of law, and individual sovereignty.

    And while england created empire, germany created science, we created opportunity and productivity, and the rest is history.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 12:04:00 UTC

  • I DON”T DO MGTOW, I FIX THE PROBLEM While I understand the sentiment, and unders

    I DON”T DO MGTOW, I FIX THE PROBLEM

    While I understand the sentiment, and understand the need to restore masculinity, I don’t MGTOW – I only do truth, reciprocity, compatibilism, markets, and anti-feminism, anti-marxism, anti-postmodernism, and re-masculinization through restoration of bonding through competition and achievement, and re-militarization to preserve hierarchy in role, equality in value, self sacrifice for the common good.

    You do not see me in MGTOW circles. MGTOW is an expression of withdrawal, in the christian and buddhist models, not an expression of achievement or restoration. The movement exists because men feel they can only achieve individually improvement, instead collective improvement of in civic groups. This again was the product of feminism in eduction, both undermining male boding by competition, and male bonding by military conflict, and male bonding in commercial endeavors, and male bonding in civic improvement.

    MGTOW is the incorrect strategy. Instead it is restoration of male social orders that create male tribal spaces, leaving women to their nesting spaces. We must restore the destruction of male civc organizations by the feminists using the court system, to deprive men of the equivalent of the female brood and her gossip circle of friends.

    We must eliminate the dysgenia of the state incentives to redistribute disproportionate male contribution to state revenues, to disproportionate female consumption of state services, without reciprocal exchange. End common property, alimony, child support, and women must fund ‘women’s issues’ with their revenues. Just as men musts fund ‘mens issues’ with their revenues. Unless they exchange in trades.

    We must restore reciprocity and compatibility. And to do that we must threaten retribution and restitution, by equal and opposite means. Which is how I argue the return to compromise: “We can easily reverse asymmetric female benefit from asymmetric male contribution, so that male asymmetric contribution remains male asymmetric benefit. Or we can compromise and return to exchanges that is the very reason why western women had standing to abuse any asymmetric benefit.

    1. MGTOW to restore male self-care – reconstructive education and therapy.

    2. Teach Stoic Method, Masculine Aryan Virtues-Feminine Christian Values, Epicurean Means

    3. Restore voluntary association and disassociation in law.

    4. Restore men’s sport, military, trade, commercial, and civilc organizations.

    5. De-Financialize the economy, and end consumer interest, to restore working and middle class reproduction, and restore rates of reproduction.

    6. Restore the “church” under secular, traditional, christian-feminine, and pagan-masculine options instead of the academy-state as the central organ of education, family, and family finance, creating the most advanced system of family support ever existing in human history.

    7. Reform academy by limiting it to the teaching of courses in calculative and operationally constructible methods; cause all colleges and universities to warranty their services; cause all colleges and universities to carry any and all student debt – payable within six years; restore the division of grades 8+ to trades, clerical, managerial, professional, entrepreneurial, financial, and scientific specialization. And have children in education overlap ages in this classroom to compensate for different rates of development, or separate into classrooms again by degree of development that masks the fact that the principle difference between us is the tradeoff between rate of physical maturity and rate of leaning increasingly complex content.(and ending stigmas that wrongly stick thru life). Yes we are all in the end different in cognitive complexity we are not different in achievement within our degree of cognitive complexity. This is the issue. We can learn conscientiousness to some degree even if we cannot learn to learn complexity faster.

    8. Restore all production of commons to the sphere of influence and responsibility over the commons, but limiting the federal to it’s functions, state and city-state to its functions, county to its functions, locality to its functions, neighborhood to its functions, and family to its functions and individual to his functions.

    This will restore mutual consideration and care, the civic society only europeans developed, and the high trust civilization upon which all of our privileges both western and across all mankind derived.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 11:58:00 UTC

  • WOMEN EVOLVED to make use of the market for sovereignty, particularly sovereignt

    WOMEN EVOLVED to make use of the market for sovereignty, particularly sovereignty from males seeking to limit their choice of reproduction and limits to their consumption.

    Conversely, men in collections of brothers, evolved to kill off rival collections of brothers, in order to obtain their property and their females. And men evolved cooperation using tools to constrain alphas in order to redistribute access to females for sex, and care. (reproduction is not in male minds until property evolves)

    —“Women initiate more divorces because we’re more easily persuaded by the modern-day mantra of “Whatever makes you happy”. It is entirely due to our capacity to prioritise feelings over truth.’—Lisa Outhwaite

    Lisa is insightful. But i’ll clarify a bit that that women have always and everywhere been hypergamic, and men willing to kill more so over women than any other reason by orders of magnitude, which is the origin of our ‘pairing off’ prior to our institution of marriage. When we evolved a division of labor, specialized tools, equipment, and constructions, animal property, and territorial property, we evolved marriage, but the property division was a women and her children and a man and his assets – which is a necessary division of the means of survival.

    So in contemporary economic productivity, there is no cost to women’s exercise of disassociation, and there are, as she says above, many incentives from the feminist movement, the postmodernist movement, and the anti-white male, anti-western civilization movement, and women always conform to whatever higher status women conform to, no matter what those women conform to.

    I’ll state “Whatever Makes You Happy” scientifically: the organization of the female brain, it’s developmental differences in connectivity and size, and it’s bias in hormones to cause that differences (brains are grown), creates a far more numerous, for more intense, far more urgent, stimulation of independent networks creating far more demand for her attention, and attention that causes her to bear costs (effort) to maintain in stable state (control). This is a purely physical process she has ver little control over and evolution prohibited her from having control over. Men by contrast ‘use less of our brains’ which is better said as men’s brains evolved for the opposite function, and they are organized to “compartmentalize information” so that it is limited to the physical world and physical body, so that we will bear physical costs on behalf of one another, of women, and of children they raise.

    Between work on the constitution, work on completing religion, work on migrating to the mainstream, work on the institute, work on Michael’s collection of my essays, and not working on the main book I need to publish, I am trying to make time to finish the Foundations course, and the explanation of the brain and behavior in operational terms, so that we are no longer attribute to petty psychologizing that which is a physical difference instructions of our brains, that evolution discovered was necessary for us to rise to the top of the planetary food chain. Once that is done, we will see the relationship between the structure of the brain, operational language, testimonial speech, psychological acquisitionism, ethical and moral propertarianism, and social compatibilism, that is only optimized by extending the structure of the brain into our institutions: markets in everything.

    The brain evolved to function as a market for attention, with differences in the cost of attention, by region, module, and sub-organ, determining differences in costs of providing attention to that region, module, and sub-organ.

    Even this description describes compatibilism.

    I only do compatibilism, for the purpose of maximum quality of life while in pursuit of maximum eugenic evolution, with maximum speed, for the maximum achievement of mankind, in the shortest possible time, given the hostility of the planet and the universe to the development of intelligent life forms, that require long periods of stability and short periods of stress to incrementally evolve.

    In other words, I always and everywhere take a question to its last criteria of decidability using what we call in computer science ‘exhaustive search’.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 11:57:00 UTC

  • THERE IS NO FERMI PARADOX As in all things there is no paradox, just an open que

    THERE IS NO FERMI PARADOX

    As in all things there is no paradox, just an open question, no paradoxes exist.

    One can falsify the fermi question. It is falsifiable.We have failed to falsify it.

    One cannot disprove, only fail to provide a proof of possibility in an axiomatic system like mathematics, and reality is a theoretic system, not axiomatic.

    At present it is falsifiable, un-falsified, and undecidable, and therefore all we can say is that “we don’t know yet”.

    The most obvious reasons are:

    1 – Technological (EMR is a primitive technology)

    2 – Differences are such that we would be of no trading (cooperative) value; interfering would only create a competitor; and it is too early for a colonization effort to have reached us given the recent development of EMR broadcasting.

    3 – Time and distance window of opportunity

    4 – We are in a calm location between arms, in a calm (dying) galaxy, and have had long enough period of growth to ‘bake’ in necessary conditions

    5 – I am concerned that the spinning liquid iron core of our planet that creates its defensive field is rarer than we imagine, and as such it is much harder for life to have time to bake. taken to the extreme, the question may be, now many planets can survive four to five billion years, in a safe rural area of a galaxy, in the habitable (water) zone, while maintaining a spinning liquid iron core?

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 11:57:00 UTC

  • WE TRADED SUPERNATURALISM FOR NUMEROLOGY Good science is rarely publicized outsi

    WE TRADED SUPERNATURALISM FOR NUMEROLOGY

    Good science is rarely publicized outside of the field,because it requires specialized knowledge to comprehend. Conversely, much of what passes for science that is publicized consists largely of numerology. In other words, we have simply moved from sophisms in scriptural and textual interpretation, to sophisms in numerological form. outside of the hard sciences, almost all of it’s outright fiction or lying – including most economics. There is nothing in this universe that is not expressible in geometric and operational terms. if that explanation isn’t included it’s a lie.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 11:32:00 UTC