And this, key part of that defective education and moral code, began hundreds of years ago. Around that time, two concepts seem to have been discovered and espoused. One of them was the idea of Original Sin. Someone (we don't know who) simply observed that human procreation was a form of aggression, ie. a sin. This observation seems to have occurred, in the West, only after the contributions of mathematical genius of the Muslims; in other words, the recognition of Original Sin seems to have been a consequence of Arab logic, and arrived along with ideas like the existence of the number zero.
And then what seems to have occurred is that the Catholic Church (which is good at these sorts of things) co-opted that idea, obfuscated its source, and perverted it into its opposite meaning. That is clear, because the idea of Original Sin that we seem to have today proclaims that sex is a sin -- that sex is inherently a form of violence, ostensibly against women.
But that's not even remotely accurate. Original Sin is the idea that procreation is a form of violence, not against the woman, but against the child. Its meaning has been altered. And it's easy to see how that could have happened. Catholocism is a largely matriarchal cult. Islam is highly patriarchal. Catholocism thrived in Europe, which has always been relatively resource-rich. Islam came from the deserts of north Africa and the Middle-East. Europe, at the time, needed more hands to till the fields. And women were in charge of providing them. The Middle-East, though, needed fewer mouths to feed. And men were in charge of ensuring it. If someone from the Middle-East showed up in medieval Europe and told everyone that having kids was wrong, all he would have gotten in return was strange looks. And its easy to see how a matriarchal society built on binary logic would end up skewing that concept into its opposite.
I should just say something about that, for a second. Look closely at the logic that underlies these theories. European philosophy was based on binary logic. Arab mathematics was based on ternary logic. Accepting the correct notion of Original Sin requires an ability to simultaneously hold three concepts in ones mind as distinct and separate -- the positive, the negative and the neutral. Not just good and bad -- that's binary logic. It requires three separate concepts. But the revisionist notion only requires an ability to hold two concepts simultaneously. The third, the child, disappears completely. This revisionist notion is a simple logical leap for someone who has been taught only binary logic. Ternary logic, though, for someone who is not accustomed to it, might as well be from Mars.
So obviously sex can be, and can be considered, violent. And sometimes it can even constitute aggression. But Original Sin is more than just sex. Original Sin is the idea that bringing children into the world is an act of aggressive force. And everything that happens after that is an attempt to make amends for this transgression. (In LOST, Jacob called this 'progress'.)
So this concept of Original Sin has been thoroughly worked-over by the Catholic Church. Clearly, if procreation is a sin, and women are responsible for bringing children into the world, then that won't do for a matriarchal society. So the first change, as mentioned, was to make men the culprits. Women were simply inert vessels through which mens' violent acts of copulation are transmitted to the child. And that explanation does have a certain appeal, obviously. Like flat-eartherism or the earth-centric universe, it does make a lot of sense whether or not it has any relationship to reality. But once that was effected, it became obvious that women were still (somehow) capable of having children even without the active, violent participation of men-folk. And on these occasions, predictably, it was simply explained away as an act of God.
Then, eventually, it became fashionable to simply deny the existence of Original Sin altogether. Sex and procreation were not, according to Catholocism, actually sinful. In fact, go ahead and have all the children you want. Have children without consent. And make sure those children end up with nothing at all, at the end of the day, because that just makes them more Jesus-like. You're actually doing them a favor; they should be grateful to you. And things like contraception or casual sex without the likelihood of procreation are the actual sins, because they prevent Catholics from fulfilling their mission of filling the earth with Jesuses.
So, just think about that the next time you see Catholics running a hospital or, God-forbid, a fertility clinic. And choose a different one.
The other concept discovered at around the same time as Original Sin, that goes right along with it, is The Calculus. I'll attempt to explain why, exactly, The Calculus is flawed.
The Calculus is, at its root, an estimation method. And, like all estimation methods, it makes some assumptions that don't always hold. The Calculus assumes that the world operates the same way that simple mathematical functions operate -- that the world and everything in it proceeds along a path that ends up looking like a smooth curve. And, to be sure, many things do -- things like temperature changes in fluids, for instance. The Calculus works well for systems that involve the operation of millions of little identical components, all working in essentially random ways in just a few degrees of freedom.
But the world as a whole is not such a system. It is a complex system. Many of its components are, in fact, identical, and operate in random ways. But many are not. Many are fairly unique. And these unique components have the tendency to ripple through the system and change it in entirely unpredictable ways. A single aberration can cause what amounts to a phase change in the entire system, in the same way that (for instance) a single deliberately-placed impurity in a silicon cell, when struck by a photon, can cause a voltage cascade through all the atoms around it. Or a single impurity in a supercooled fluid can initiate an exothermic reaction and cause the entire mass to end up at a lower energy state. That can't be modelled by The Calculus. It involves components that are not identical, and which interact in complex ways. And those can't just be explained away as acts of God.
So the world cannot be estimated by The Calculus and, therefore, cannot be trained to it. And, yet, the US economy is built on it. The Federal Reserve assumes this smooth curve of The Calculus every three months, when they review and set interest rates. Interest rates determine the rate of money-printing. And money-printing is an act of aggression designed to force economic growth centered around fulfilling the wishes of the money-printers. None of this takes into account the fundamentally complex reality of the world in which we live or, by extension, the fundamental nature of the ideal economic order required to ensure humanity's optimal place in that complex reality. It is simply an exercise in engineering the American (and by extension, world) economy to fit the assumptions of a method of mathematical estimation invented nearly a millennium ago.
One of the main themes of the movie 'Prometheus' involved this Christian woman who is launched into space in order to seek out "the engineer" (from the 'Alien' series) and to discover, from him, the purpose of her existence -- why he (ostensibly) created people. The Calculus is the main tool of engineers. Engineering is, at its root, not concerned with precise science. It's about estimation and building. Asking an engineer why he created something, or why he miscalculated something and fucked it up in the process, is like asking a fish why it swims. So, of course, she didn't end up getting an answer to her question.
The Federal Reserve, and their scheme of constant money-printing and forced economic growth, on a set schedule, is simply financial engineering. And financial engineering on this scale is ultimately just social engineering. And engineering is not about discovery or progress or freedom or innovation. It's about building something that you know is designed to fail, but hopefully to fail on schedule. One can then see why, when a little cog in this machine of social engineering shows up and starts asking annoying questions about her place in it, the engineer doesn't really have an answer.
Hopefully I don't have to explain why telling a person that her lot in life is as it is simply because she is a cog in an enormous machine of social engineering, set hundreds of years ago on a path to fill the Earth with as many people as possible, is wrong.
This week, Alan Greenspan came out of his hole to worry publicly that the economy under Obama had not grown at a sufficient rate. Why would a bunch of Jews sit around and worry that the economy isn't growing at a constant 2% rate, or whatever? What horrible things happen when the economy is not constantly proceeding along this predetermined curve? Well, for one, it might mean that the economy is not growing at all. And that's not great, obviously. But, even worse, it might mean that something else is going on. The economy might still be growing. It might just be growing in a way that they can't measure and control. It might be growing in a way that is not predicted by The Calculus.
And that is truly terrifying, to them. That means that The Calculus is flawed. That means that the assumptions of The Calculus are fundamentally wrong. It means that all of those millions of people out there, working in the economy, might not be identical little cogs after all. It means that their ideas about how the economy works, how progress is made, might be fundamentally flawed as well. (And, believe me, they are.) And, most importantly, it means that this progress, this unmeasured economic growth, could appear out of nowhere at an inconvenient time and cause a chain-reaction that ends up putting the economy in a fundamentally new state, one that they have not spent centuries studying and understanding, and one which they perhaps cannot directly control.
Okay, here's the crux of the matter, and the reason that The Calculus is important to this entire conspiracy. The economy and, by extension, technological development, are expected to proceed along this curve set out hundreds of years ago (based on population growth and nothing else). If it doesn't, if technological improvements are made at a more rapid pace than that set out by central bankers, then those technologies and the users and inventors of them will be attacked by government or its agents (bankers, insurance, educators, etc...) until the economy shrinks back to fit into the arbitrarily pre-determined curve. That is, until the technology itself disappears from overt use. Think about that for a second. Where do these technologies go? They don't actually disappear. It's as though we're all forced to play a video game in which we have to discover a littany of obsolete technologies in some arbitrary tree, in precise order, before finally attaining whatever useful technology we actually want to use. The real world doesn't have to work that way. It is being forced to do so.
Regardless, this is the reason that you see big-government "liberals" constantly promoting all sorts of illiberal regulations and controls on economic activity. This curve is based on maintaining centralized control of the economy. It is based on the insane notion that individuals should spend and consume all resources available to them within their lifetimes. But if the means of economic production improve in that time (God forbid), all of the calculations of big-government control-freaks turn out wrong, and some people might get to consume more than others. And that would mean inequality. So it stands to reason, according to them, that useful, economic innovation must be prevented or, at least, heavily controlled. That is the modern notion of liberalism. And, keep in mind, Democrats and Republicans -- they all operate in the same economic system. And 99% of them would never even consider changing it.
So, this, The Calculus, is the reason that people like Bill Gates show up at Trump Tower to peddle their ideas about "innovation". I've been over this, many times, with Bill and his minions. They believe that UNIX (a 40-year-old technology) is dangerous "innovation". They believe that innovation that automates away menial jobs is a bad thing. My opinion of Bill has changed quite a bit, over the years. I used to see Bill as a sort-of competitor -- someone who sells shitty software for his own short-term gain, and nothing else. Now I have to recognize the full extent of his lunacy. These are not rational individuals. These are amoral sociopaths who believe that, once innovation is unconstrained by the curve set out by government-backed central banks, they will be free not only to consume their own resources in a more efficient way, which no one should care about, but completely free of all constraints whatsoever. Bill Gates would then be free to release swarms of genetically-modified mosquitos on unsuspecting crowds, for instance, to inject them with viruses and alter their DNA at his hearts content. Because, keep in mind, that's what he actually wants to do. Nothing in his moral code prevents it. DNA is just property. And property can be stolen. That's what these people really believe. Ultimately, only the cost/benefit ratio curve arbitrarily set hundreds of years ago by The Calculus, and maintained by government force, restrains them. Please believe me when I say that these aren't just performance artists. They believe their own crap. And they think they are justified, because it is for your benefit.
Are you beginning to see just how fucked-up this entire subject is? How it is all interconnected? How it is not a conspiracy of individuals, but a coalition of fundamentally deranged moral values, held by those at the highest levels of business and government? These values permeate our entire society, despite the fact that most people do not agree with them when they are explained clearly.
Last Updated on 12/27/16