In this week’s episode of The Multipolar Reality on V and I discuss the global developments and then conduct a deep dive into the fraud of mathematical thinking behind all of the corruption facing western civilization. In the second segment of the show (beginning at around minute 20), the question is raised: how was science corrupted throughout the 20th century such that we are have consented to the annihilation of our own industrial base, infrastructure and food production systems over decades? Are we just naturally stupid or has something dark been infused into our thinking from a very early age?
I answer by reviewing the use of statistical modelling and mathematical thinking as a tool of corruption and mental castration of humanity which has undermined fields as wide ranging as biology, economics, military, climate science and quantum mechanics for well over a century.In contrast to this poisonous filter placed over our brains, a more healthy integrated method of scientific thinking (highly connected to the classical arts and moral battle over politics) shaping the last several centuries.
The figures of Dimitry Mendeleyev, Antoine Lavoisier, Ben Franklin, Johannes Kepler and Max Planck will be explored at some length.Click on the links below to watch the show:
Or watch on Bitchute here or Soundcloud here:
If you’d like to review the segment on the corruption of science as a standalone, then use this link:
Andrei Martyanov is a blogger covering military matters
This is a quote from him
US Ivy League humanities programs do not teach any useful “knowledge”. In fact, most of people who teach there are ignorant hacks. E.g. any degree from Ivy League in journalism, political science or economics is not worth the paper it is printed on. Yet, somehow, one of a few movies got it right. It is difficult to explain to a moron who studies “National Security” or “International Relations” in NYC or D.C. dumbing down madras, what CEP is and how it is calculated.
[My comment CEP is used for specifying the accuracy when targeting something]
I dont think too much math is the problem with those who have careers which have a bearing on current policies. Rather the lack of rational analysis.
Math within the realm of economy isnt comparable to what is used in applied physics etc.
Mathew brings up Svensmark. In 2017 he managed to have a paper accepted in Nature comm. Critics pointed out that he didnt mention recent research which was in conflict with Svensmarks thesis.
For example, when one considers the case when the earths magnetic field reversed and remained low, there ought to have been a significant effect on climate and that ought to be visible in the natural records. Critics say this wasnt confirmed.
Research found that during the Laschamps excursion, the magnetic field was about 28 percent of its usual strength and even weaker in the centuries leading up to this time period. From about 41,600 to 42,300 years ago, Earth’s magnetic field was only 6 percent of its full strength.
Again and again I get my expectations confirmed about the immature attitude among those who are very skeptical about climate science.
That they never seek the opposing view!
Like you would if you aim to be unbiased and objective.
Mathew quotes sources with sensationalist titles containing words like ‘swindle’ and he speaks of the priesthood of IPCC.
This is what one would expect from somebody who isnt serious.
But Mathew is a serious student and analyst of important and often covered up historical info.
Mathew repeats the mistaken belief that the time relation between CO2 and temperature has disproved the established thesis.
I didnt listen further but this wasnt because I didnt expect anything interesting in the continuation I just felt compelled to post this.
Seems to me Mathew ought to communicate with climate science insiders.
For example Mathew might consider posting challenging questions at skepticalscience and see how your arguments are met.
I hope there isnt personal prestige involved for Mathew although I think there is for other skeptics.
And
Empirical climate science isnt model dependent.
It finds Temperature in this era (from 1981) increases about 0.18 C /decade. And counted from 1880 it was 0.08C/decade.
But I have never seen this gradual process as reason for any panic.
There is time to find solutions.
What does worry me is that the understanding of science may be decreasing.
The reason may be connected to what Mathew and others discuss concerning the oligarchic mindset: that educated people are seen as a threat.