New World Order University Forum

Review of Ubiquity: The Science of History, Mark Buchanan, Crown Publishers, New York, 2000.

If you were excited by our summary of critical state theory in Part 1, today’s post should sober you up. Everything in critical state theory is a load of bullshit.

The scientific approach to the study of history is entirely false, and historians have recognized this since scientific positivism took its form in the late nineteenth century. In the 1930s anti-scientific history coalesced around Michael Oakeshotte, John Lukacs, and Charles Collingwood. The study of history as the history of ideas remains far superior to scientific history and to any theory of history described as stages of development. Dialectical thinking about history has similarly been exposed as a fraud, as a scheme imposed on history from the outside.

The fundamental error of scientific history articulated in critical state theory is the belief that history constitutes a system, hence is open to theorizing about causes in terms of laws and statistics.

Science has never been able to prove that cause is operating in the material realm of nature. If this surprises you, it is only because you have not read Chapter 28, Science and History, and you were indoctrinated with science worship in public school.

A scientific law, which is an observation of regularity, cannot cause the actions of nature or man. There is no such thing as the law of cause and effect. Cause remains an assumption of nature’s regularity, but no scientist has ever proven that cause is operating in nature.

Science is not a process of discovery, it is an invention. Its building blocks are observation, mathematical formulas, theories, and laws. All of these building blocks are subject to revision. Science creates theories, it does not discover “truth.” Which theories are accepted is a matter of social dynamics among scientists, the so-called “scientific community.” This ill-defined community really means, in practice, “every scientist who agrees with us at this moment and wants to get funding.”

The error of scientific determinism has forced scientists to adopt probability calculations as a substitute for cause and effect.

In social studies, the error of scientific determinism was adopted by Marx, Haeckel, and Engels. Marx said, “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.” Marx had it exactly backwards. If one’s consciousness is determined by one’s social class, then men should be permanently condemned to a primitive level. No one should ever be able to escape their class consciousness. How could any new idea appear if everyone’s consciousness were determined? Marxism crumbles from its false belief in deterministic laws of history. There are no laws of history.

Today the Marxists have largely abandoned appeals to laws of history and have adopted the term “evolution” applied to history, as if history occurs by random chance. You can always spot a liberal. They consistently adopt Haeckel’s false application of evolution to human history, even though it was disproved long ago.

Dialectical materialism suffers from the same fallacy as stage theories of history. The theory is projected upon history from outside history. These fallacious ways of thinking require two streams of history, the cause stream and the effect stream. Marx characterized these streams as economy and culture. The idea that cultures are the result of laws of economics is so absurd that you probably can’t even find a Marxist to defend this equation. If you do, ask him to give you the law in a sentence and prove the causal relationship.

Scientists cannot deal with human values or unique events in history. Science has purged all human values from its enterprise, that is why it is anti-human. Science is devoted to collective “laws,” and Marxism is devoted to analysis of history in terms of collectives. This similarity, plus an unfounded belief in the superiority of materialism, often pulls scientists into the orbit of Marxist pseudo-science.

And why not? Scientists are surfing on their own elite rafts and believe common people are unsophisticated. Marxists think the same way. Both Marxists and scientists believe they should be given free reign to rule over you.

Because science is inadequate to study history, scientists devalue history. Every single evolutionary theorist of the late nineteenth century operated under the belief in progress, with science as the driver of progress. Today the formula is, science and socialism as the driver of progress. Actually, science and socialism are driving the progress toward a global police state. Neither science nor socialism is interested in ancient history, and both reject the myths of all cultures as imaginary stories. The effect is not only to separate their followers from the great heritage of the human past, science also enlists its followers into believing that material causes and communities are immune from conscious individual decision making and action.

Men make history through their decisions. Science simply cannot deal with the conscious actions of conscious men. Scientists must always reduce such actions to nonexistent materialist laws, even though science can never prove the existence of any particular material cause. That is why you hear liberals today drone on about “root causes.” There are no root causes, but that doesn’t prevent liberals from propagating an endless stream of false causes.

Science seeks to compact its laws into principles, which are higher-level aggregations of laws. The search for grand principles led science to search for causation in the realm of observation, measurement, laws, and principles, but science could not locate causality in any of these realms. Scientists then sought to locate cause in energetics, in thermodynamics, in entropy, in relativity, and in quantum mechanics. The project has entirely failed, and science now presents its theories in terms of probability rather than causation.

Science founders on three main contradictions: The contradiction between its previous belief in deterministic physical laws and the dual wave/particle description of quantum theory, which forced science to abandon determinism. The contradiction between quantification (number) as truth and the existence of lengths for which no number could be found, forcing the development of new fields of mathematics. The contradiction between the assumption of a continuum of reality and the unobservable quantum realm for which discrete numbers are believed to be the superior description. These contradictions have forced science to abandon its original method, the analysis of parts constituting wholes, and embrace the analysis of whole systems by the probability calculus. This embrace of “wholism” applied to system analysis underlies critical state theory and various social sciences, which spin off into huge libraries of fallacious theory.

To attempt to make a philosophy or public policy from this barrenness is absurd. The whole point of the exercise is to figure out how to control you.

Every scientist knows there is no such thing as the “law of cause and effect,” yet none will come forward in public to denounce critical state theory as pseudo-science. Why is this? Because scientists are dishonest. They are playing a game of knowledge and power. They don’t give a damn about people.

In the mid nineteenth century, Adolphe Quetelet attempted to apply statistics to the study of man, believing that society operated under laws similar to the laws of physics. This false belief is today called the fallacy of scientism. It is the fallacious reduction of the spiritual and ethical categories into the material. Quetelet suffered from the fallacious belief that laws could compel behavior. He confused scientific law as a form of mathematics with scientific law as a form of energy. Scientific laws do not belong to the realm of reality; they are idealized forms and cannot compel or cause anything.

Quetelet worshipped the probability curve and announced that “nature prefers the mean.” But this observation conflicts with nature’s production of the new and the unique. Mathematical distributions have nothing to do with nature’s intent or nature’s ideal. All such statements on the part of scientists are matters of individual opinion, projections of value onto nature. There is no such thing as a scientific method of interpretation of scientific data. All interpretations are subjective and rely on individual bias.

Quetelet’s fallacy in believing in the operation of social laws led him to believe that all sorts of social phenomena depended on materialist laws operating in society. He viewed variations in crime statistics as analogous to tides. This phony project of imagining social laws continues today, even though Quetelet was discredited well over 150 years ago.

Jeffrey Sachs is the Adolphe Quetelet Professor at Columbia University. Jeffrey Sachs is one of the chief globalist manipulators around global Green socialism. Sachs wants you to believe in global warming and the relationship between CO2 and warming. Jeffrey Sachs gets frustrated when he can’t dig more money out of your government to solve imaginary problems. This is what science and socialism have become, the fraudulent manipulation of data under the presumed authority and prestige of science, as if science were anything more than a parade of passing theories subsidized by socialism. Jeffrey Sachs does not want you to believe that you even have a voice in determining your own future.

Science only constructs the theories that the elites want constructed. Out-group theories are ridiculed and their proponents are persecuted. Scientists are lemmings who flock to acceptance and funding. The correct name for this is careerist science.

The National Academies of Science have been involved in frauds up to their elbows since their creation. But no museum exists that houses the evidence and exposes the frauds. Big Science is fundamentally dishonest with the public about the shortcomings of science.

Abstract thinking is always dehumanizing. That is why scientists are cold, aloof personalities capable of crimes against humanity.

Recent studies indicate that one-third of all scientific papers contain fraudulent, manipulated data. The real number is probably higher. Science is a corrupt enterprise because corruption is not punished and crime pays.

Science is way overdue for a purging of its bad elements. But no scientist has the courage to go up against the corrupt scientific establishment because he knows it would be the end of his career. Scientists generally stay mum on politics for the same reason.

History is unfolding in a particular way, and the eccentricity of that way occurs because of the ideas and actions of men. Probability theories and “power laws” attempt to get you to think that some other force besides human action is responsible for man’s history. Scientific laws do not determine your future. You do, unless you hand over your power to the scientific controllers. You know, those people who operate without ethics yet imply that more funding for science will result in “progress.” How could there possibly be human progress that is not linked to moral behavior?

The Left understands this dilemma, that it has no moral basis, and so it tries to construct a moral front by appealing to “human rights,” to “empowerment,” to a “right of free choice,” and to a “right of privacy.” These slogans serve to keep dumb liberals unaware of the history of socialism and its true project. Whenever the need of the moment requires a reversal of ethical relativism, the controllers appeal to a “sense of responsibility” or some other nebulous value as a tactic of mobilization. Liberals are so dumb they never recognize that the slogan of the moment conflicts with yesterday’s slogan. This is a measure of the success of their program of forced retardation.

Now let’s review some of the errors in critical state theory, as we summarized in Part 1. The main error lies in applying “power laws” (scientific principles) to human behavior. There is no good reason for characterizing societies as organized just below some hypothetical critical state.

The power law hypothesizes that no large event is required for mass extinctions, and yet most evolutionary scientists are devoted to the theory that the dinosaurs went extinct due to the impact of a large meteor. What really is there to gain in terms of understanding when the power law ignores such specific events? Instead of heightening our understanding, the power law dismisses specifics in favor of generalities about “laws” operating in many different fields of study.

Critical state theory has nothing to say about chains of destabilizing causes that further disrupt systems that have restabilized after disruptive events. Are these chains of causes supposed to be of the same nature? How do they arise? How are they related to each other? What does the destabilization of a society from epidemic have to do with destabilization from war? Why would critical state theory want to ignore economic and geographical causes of migration and assume that “individual decision making” is the only important factor at work?

We want to suggest that critical state theory and chaos theory are actually designed to deflect attention from studying cause toward comparing pattern to hide the real factors at work in various fields of study.

How could there be any benefit to ignore the various scientific approaches to various fields of study? The various sciences have won their credibility from hundreds of years of trial and error. Enfolding all these studies under one term, “science,” as if science were one method, tells us nothing of real value.

“No city knows when it starts out how large it is going to be” is not a scientific sentence. Cities don’t know anything.

“Organized just on the equilibrium side of the critical state” is not a scientific sentence.

“Power law” is a marketing phrase, not a scientific concept.

“Power laws vary from 4 to 1 to 2.4 to 1” is a meaningless statement.

Human societies are not “self-organizing systems.” They are not systems.

Do you really want to believe that there is some common law describing the cause of events that appear over time and distributions of other, different events over space?

Science recognizes forces, but not forces of order and forces of chaos.

Science has not claimed that “laws fix determinisms” for over a hundred years. However, it is true that scientists are not always up-front about the failure of science to establish cause. Many of them speak as if science had proved something.

Computer simulation is not science.

Historians are able to do much more than “fall back on the telling of stories.” Critical state theory is really anti-historical. Critical state theory is nothing more than an extension of Quetelet’s fallacy designed to create a smooth description of effects without mentioning causes.

Now let us explain the true agenda of critical state theory. Systems analysis has become an approved scientific discipline in the computer age. Critical state theory is intended to support systems analysis. That is why critical state theory insists on defining history as a system, even though it is not, and societies as systems, even though they are not. They must define everything that they want to bring under their control as a system and ignore the history of the various sciences.

The New World Order is devoted to building global systems to control everything. Systems analysis is interested in supporting these systems.

Science has purged all human values from its method, so of course systems theory would be defined as a science.

The fact that the Left thinks “scientifically” is a measure of its corruption and anti-human orientation.

The fact that alternative ways of thinking about history and society are not widely recognized as superior to science is a measure of the corruption of intellectual life in the West in the age of Marxism and scientism.

For humanity to have a good future, control systems must be broken and systems thinking must be discredited. The controllers describe this positive human program as terrorism. Whatever term you use, decentralization can only be achieved by resistance.

Once the systems are in place and well supported, humanity will live in a slave camp. Remember, the Marxists are experts in genocide.

We hope you are able to understand how critical state meta-theory becomes pseudo-science serving the controllers who are shaping the New World Order. If they can make you think that “forces” are at work apart from their evil agenda, they can hope to escape the righteous wrath of humanity.

Don’t get taken in. You are a human being, not a node in their system.

Tags: Adolphe Quetelet, critical state theory, Jeffrey Sachs, Mark Buchanan, scientific determinism, scientific history, ubiquity

This entry was posted by Director on Wednesday, August 4th, 2010 at 1:42 pm and is filed under Book Reviews. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.