The Struggle For Life - Volume Seven

In this Lecture Dr Wyman further soft-soaps Chinese birth policy.  In all fairness to him, China is just a statistical sub-set, and he is not viewing any of this from a "humanitarian" perspective, but from a "post-human" perspective. The anti-human bias and reality of the post-human is obvious and is plastered over most of the work of Yale's present day "natural sciences." 


Dr Wyman shares the story of HIV/AIDS and other diseases being spread in China via blood donation, which included the strange detail that after particular components of the blood are harvested that the blood is "pooled" literally mixed together, taken back to the villages and towns where it was donated (purchased) and given by needle, back to the people who donated so that they will be able to donate more blood quicker. Wyman states that this disease spreading enterprise is accomplished by "corrupt officials" without the slightest suspicion that it might be a policy of repression of certain districts and populations by China's government, a quiet genocide.  I love the naivete these "skeptical scientists" who suspend skepticism only where a leftist or communist government is concerned.  Remember his paranoia concerning Republicans and the Census, yet, a massive policy of blood transmission sure to spread deadly disease conducted by government entities in a communist country raises no suspicion whatsoever. "Just ignorance, these people have no idea of sterilization."  Amazing, but rather I suspect convenient naivete. 


Dr Wyman: This is from Du who was a local official in a small village.  He said, "One day there were hundreds of people lined up at the entrance of our village, I thought it must be a vegetable market or a movie coming in." It turned out to be blood selling. "I felt so terrified because there was no sterilization equipment at all." The village official had some education, he understood about sterilization and he had seen these blood campaigns before, no sterilization. "Villagers just tell the traffickers their blood type, if they know it, if not they make it up. "The Villagers just tell the traffickers their blood type and then lie down on the ground to offer blood." What is the result of this? A vast AIDS epidemic in these rural villages that were doing this because they use the same needle to repeatedly take blood from person after person, they line up on the ground and they stick one needle, and take the blood. Needles are so expensive, the apparatus for collecting it is expensive and so they reuse the same the same needle. And of course when you use the same needle from person to person the odds are if one person gets it the next ones are going to get it, but actually the transmission rate by blood contact by a needle is something like 1 in 200. It is not terribly efficient.  But, what do they do with the blood? They collect blood from everybody, then instead of keeping it individually, which is expensive, they dump it into a big vat, they pool it, they take it to the city, they extract the components that they want which is the gamma globulin, the clotting factor, and a few other components, and then they have a lot of blood left. What do they do? They go back to the village and re-inject the blood, the remaining blood into the people. So now you don't just have a needle stick, you've got a pint of someone else - - -of a mixed blood of everyone in the village going into your veins, and now for sure if anyone in the village has AIDS you're going to be infected with it. Du continued, "The villagers become crazy about selling blood because they are so poor and life is so hard.  Many had built their houses by selling blood. Some will even bribe traffickers to be able to sell more than once a day."


Wyman states, "The traffickers are interested in returning the blood so the villagers can give more blood again, but the people want to sell more than a pint in each day, so they kind of lie and fake because they are so poor." 


Again total naivete. Has it not crossed his mind that the Chinese health ministry is perfectly capable of lacing the blood they are returning with a mildly euphoric and mild addiction producing drug(s) that would make the villagers literally "crave" to give blood, and that the grinding poverty might not be the single driving motivator.  Or maybe that the reason for the return of the blood is to maximize the transmission of disease?  When you are dealing with "post-human statists" they have proved themselves capable of ANYTHING, with no regard to human life, singular or en mass. 


For me, the idea of the "post human statists" in the U.S. taking complete control of the medical establishment and governing the protocols of treatment, level of distribution and all other "mandates" of "health care" speak of this inhumanity. Truly, State Medical Care in the hands of post-humans is described by Sarah Palin well as "death panels." It is the one tool the government exercises most efficiently, death. Already we see the wholesale destruction of the unborn all around the world paid for by American tax dollars (the part Dr Wyman edited from his lecture I suspect) and the legalization of infanticide, which is the only true and proper name for "partial birth abortion." We also see the use of the "Whole Life System" philosophy of health care, in the Obama Care system, which denies critical care to the very young and the not so old, 60 and older. This is pure Fabian Socialist Eugenics clear as day, with a clear line of "evolution" from Malthus to us, via the likes of "experts" like Dr Wyman.  How many charts has he shown you with the same basic mortality story on it?

As you can see, this course isn't just about "demographics" but it is about socio-demographics. After all this course so far has been a homage to Thomas Robert Malthus and it would be difficult to argue that Dr Wyman isn't a Malthusian. After all everything so far has been pressed into the Malthusian paradigm.  What is the Malthusian Paradigm? In consists of the following propositions which Dr Wyman has "proved" at least to his own satisfaction, though offering the continual caution, "this is just speculation" "the data is scarce" "we don't know the accuracy of the data" "these figures could be all wrong" "here is the picture but with very, very large error bars."  To a great extent as cogent as Dr Wyman's presentation has been, it is weighted heavily into the "conjecture" category and stuffed into the follow Malthusian paradigm:

(1) subsistence severely limits population-level
(2) when the means of subsistence increases, population increases
(3) population-pressures stimulate increases in productivity
(4) increases in productivity stimulate further population-growth
(5) because productivity increases cannot maintain the potential rate of population growth, population requires strong checks to keep parity with the carrying-capacity
(6) individual cost/benefit decisions regarding sex, work, and children determine the expansion or contraction of population and production
(7) checks will come into operation as population exceeds subsistence-level
(8) the nature of these checks will have significant effect on the larger sociocultural system—Malthus points specifically to misery, vice, and poverty.

The only other prime Evolutionary saw, Wyman has been bowing is the picture of humanity as a continual waring between everyone. Family member against family member, family against family, village or tribe against tribe, community against community, country against country etc.  This particular aspect of Darwinism is needed to prove the "post-human" reality of the Great Ape called "man." So he spent hours painting all species as waring for survival, and then a few hours explaining how man's struggles hold no different aspects. What he has proved is a real and serious thing. It is something called "fallen nature" shared by all of nature including man. His answer to that situation is not to "lift-up man" and challenge him to higher behavior, which individuals have proved themselves capable countless times in human history.  Instead it is to create a new mechanism for control of the "beasts" controlled by "experts" to provide a good, "habitat" and "healthy environment" for a limited number of the species. But mark my word, the Eugenicists will not be satisfied with death by natural means, unless that "natural means" is like in Ukraine during the Holodomor where many had to resort to thawing and stewing frozen human corpses for survival. Or the means of "killing rooms" like in the orphanages of China. That's natural means, so is disease, natural means. And I think we are there to that part where artificially induced diseases are being introduced and cures for diseases are being withheld.  Just as Wyman admitted that most deaths in the third world are attributed to malnutrition, where weakened immune systems cannot conquer the diseases to which they are exposed. So too in this country we suffer from massive epidemics hidden just out of view, new brain disorders, dyslexia, autism, Alzheimer's, and a host of others, ridiculous percentages of cancer, and other autoimmune disorders, all because of the lack of proper "micro-nutrients" and synthetic instead of real vitamins and the like. We endured the use of Aluminium for cookware and food storage cans, for years after the tie to dementia was proved. These are all ways to shorten the life of the Baby Boomers, who are presently a huge demographic problem for the U.S. I'm sure Dr Wyman will get to this area soon. 

To this point in the lecture series Dr Wyman threw this Malthusian blanket over the sparse anthropological data of Chimpanzee "culture" conducted from the mid-twentieth century to the present.  Had to, to touch a cornerstone of Scientism.  Then he used that sparse data as "proof" to throw the same blanket over primitive human culture which he claims existed as late as the 1840s in Europe and America. Then taking the fifth theme, he painted it upon the population explosion of the last 250 years and places China's post-human policy as a benevolent and positive 'cultural evolutionary step.'

What is the post-human age?  It is the age where the human as accepted "the mark of the beast." And this is the literal and non-metaphoric meaning. The LITERAL Mark of the Beast. It is where the elite have decided that humanity is just another species with nothing exceptional except his "evolved status" which includes language, and rational thought. Still he is reduced simply to his DNA, only capable of partly understanding what his five senses report, and incapable of any higher function, like true intuition, or abstracting meaning and underlying power of material things, and certainly NOT communion with a God who is the Creator. Being a creature of matter, he exists in a sea of matter, and cannot perceive anything outside of matter. He shares all these things with the other "great apes," and by accident of "evolution" has a greater self-awareness. That's it. He may be a highly sophisticated ape, but he's an ape. He's NOT human, he is an Ape of the species "human."  A beast. 


In every previous era of man's history man perceived of himself as a spiritual being, considered his cognition was not identical to the biological function of his brain. He saw himself as 'ensouled'. He sought accomplishments that were temporal and spiritual and assumed his temporal behavior had spiritual consequences. The Human was according to Hinduism and Judaism and Buddhism and Taoism and Islamism and Christianity some combination of mind, body and spirit, or body, soul and Holy Spirit as the Orthodox Christian perceives. The servomechanism that is the brain was seen as a mere tool, used by the mind, to make connection with the temporal world.  Remove these factors from "human" and he has become beast only, that is post-human. A biological entity without purpose, without hope, without meaning. Any pretense to create a dialectic upon the beast, and pretend his higher functions have any meaning is the exercise of foolish apes, with delusions of something more.  There can be no purpose. Meaning can't surpass the struggle of any other animal species to procreate and survive as a species. The post-human-beast can have no more meaning than the worker bee, or the male praying-mantis, born to eat, copulate, procreate and die.  In case you think I exaggerate, here is Thomas Malthus' own words.

Thomas Malthus was born and lived with a cleft lip and palate which effected his speech. In his time of course there was no surgical remedy and history teaches this was a great personal shame to him. Who knows how much that abnormality colored his life. He came from a family which suffered several physical abnormalities. So it was likely that his family line was too inbred. He was trained in Latin and Greek and studied and excelled in mathematics. I don't know if his master's degree was in theology or mathematics, but following graduate school he took orders and became a Anglican country "curate." Which, at the time I think meant an assistant parish pastor.  Paul & Phillip Collins state in their book "The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship" that, "Malthus' genocidal policies specifically targeted the poor.  For instance, one of his proposals suggested the implementation of the following measures:

Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits.  In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country, we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlement in all marshy and unwholesome situations.  But above all, we should reprobate specific remedies for ravaging diseases;  and those benevolent, but much mistaken men, who have thought they were doing a service to mankind by projecting schemes for the total extirpation of particular disorders. (Ian T. Taylor - "In the Minds of Men: Darwin and the New World Order. TFE Publishing, 1999 Toronto.  pg 62-63"  In other words, we should villainize cures for diseases that kill undesirable populations, and make outlaws of bleeding hearts who try to cure the diseases of the underclasses. This coming from an inbred Anglican priest, with an apparent very thin gene pool!

Being such a fan of Malthus, do you think that Dr Wyman does not know this quote? Now, think about his knowledge Malthus, would it not stretch credulity to believe Wyman does not know this quote?  Do you think that he does not know that Malthus proposed the purposeful spread  of disease to kill undesirable populations. And here Dr Wyman is relating what appears to be the purposeful spread of AIDS in China, as if it were merely the sad and even humorous product of ignorant and primitive people!  We need to open our eyes to the so-called science of Socio-Demographics which in truth is nothing more than Eugenics by another name. Are not these two stories nearly identical? 

Again Taylor quotes Malthus: 

We are bound in justice and honour formally to disclaim the right of the poor to support.  To this end, I should propose a regulation be made declaring that no child born should ever be entitled to parish assistance. the {illegitimate} infant is comparatively speaking, of little value to society, as others will immediately supply its place' All children beyond what would be required to keep up the population to this [desired] level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the deaths of grown person. (Taylor 63.)   - Can you see those Chinese orphanages? The massive HIV/AIDS epidemics in Africa and China?

Father Thomas Hopko, Dean Emeritus of Saint Vladimir's Seminary, in his series about Darwin and Christianity, made a point of painting a picture of the benign apostasy of Anglicanism and Anglican clergy in particular of Darwin's time. He painted it in rather colorful and romantic terms. He neglected to say that it contained genocidal planners, and heartless authors of Eugenics.  What is so sick is that Malthus' title, what paid his way in this world, was his job as "curate" at Okewood near Albury in Surrey. The technical definition of "curate" is a clergy  who cares for "souls."  Imagine having your Christian faith, guided by such a sick and heartless man.  

It is important to grasp about the entire Darwin mythology and Darwin himself, that he did not get his dogma of "survival of the fittest" from his fossil evidence and his naturalist studies, he got it from the demonic ramblings of an Apostate Anglican cleric, who suggest genocide as a "good thing."  Little wonder that Dr Wyman could approach the subject of AIDs genocide in China, so casually. 

Darwin took survival of the fittest from Malthus, and took the idea of "natural selection" from his grand father, Erasmus Darwin, and as we will soon see, he didn't invent the "primordial ooze" of Darwin/Evolution fame, either. Weighing a very heavy influence over Darwin was his very good friend the atheist, political radical, and con man, Thomas Henry Huxley.  Huxley managed to place his hoax, the Bathybius haeckelii, (the pretended missing link between non-living matter and living organism) in the standard Biology Text book, which was used by secondary and higher educators for 80 years. The Bathybius haeckelii, was discovered by Huxley at a most opportune moment, and he claimed for it the status of the "missing link" between living and inorganic matter. Here is what I mean by a very convenient time: Darwin and Wallace presented a joint paper at the Linnean Society on 1 July of 1858.  On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection.  The paper was met with derision by reputable naturalists and others. Darwin published his book, "The Origin of Species, by Natural Selection" the next years 1859 and in 1860. Huxley, who supposedly had been previously against evolutionism, was suddenly a great cheerleader, seeing the political implication of the theory. He passionately debated an Anglican clergyman, who was also a naturalist a year after "Origin . . " was published, and clearly lost the debate.(Although it is spun differently).  Darwinism needed immediate scientific confirmation, because, well,  there was none.  Darwin himself might have become a footnote in history except for the fraudulent aid of Huxley. Seven years later Huxley announced his "discovery."  Within a decade Huxley's hoax was discovered but never "exposed." It was proved that the Bathybius was nothing but a microscopic rock. Yet this hoax was taught as fact for four generations, and was pivotal to making reasonably skeptical people accept the premise of the magic, "inorganic matter to living matter" mythology of evolutionism.  Huxley named his discovery in honor of German philosopher Ernst Haeckel who had theorized about Urschleim (primordial slime), a protoplasm from which all life had originated. Huxley publicly speculated that his discovery was trace evidence of that very primordial slime, the missing link between inorganic and organic matter. 

For the record: 

To this day, not only has such a "missing link" never been discovered, several disciplines of science have affirmatively proved the impossibility of such happening. All life, every life form we see, and know, came from LIFE and not from inorganic/non-living matter.  This is the fact, regardless what the priests of "scientism" say and say and say and say. THIS is the real science, THIS is the real Natural Science.  

Huxley's con game took place in 1868. It was positively refuted by chemist John Young Buchanan and this was reported in the "Quarterly Journal of the Microscopical Science" in 1875.  A few years later, Huxley wrote a letter to the Royal Science Academy admitting his "error." However, the hoax was never publicized and the ignorant public continues to buy the myth of "primordial ooze" to this day.  Ernst Haeckel and Huxley gave us the mythology of the "primordial ooze" not Darwin.  That fake protozoan continued part of Evolutionary mythology for more than a century.  I read an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine by a fellow named Lewis Thomas, if memory serves, about the little cell that wasn't really a cell, but pre-cell protoplasm, which exhibited evidence of life by being able to expel a foreign substance. He was describing Huxley's fake as real, a full one hundred years after it was proved a fake, and in a prestigious medical journal!  This Bathybius Haeckelii is but a "verse" in the Koran of Scientism, the new humanist religion. 

Unless you think that these men in the 1800s do not have a direct impact upon us today and have not created the confines in which we may think and speak of "what is real" understand that it is not a matter of science, but a mind boggling 200 year march to a world "technocracy" where the wealthy are the kings and the scientists serve as the modern day "medicine men" and high priests. These high priest of Scientism speak to us about matters outside our cognitive range, giving us news of the infinite and the infinitesimal, just like the priestesses of Delphi, or the Wizard of OZ. Our one duty is to "on faith" accept the mythology without question. 

Consider the U.N.'s role in China's population control and how thoroughly the U.N. is struggling to create a one-world medical dictatorship, through the World Health Organization. They would have succeeded in 2009, with the fake Bird Flew pandemic had not a courageous New York State Judge halted the mandatory vaccinations of all the New York State health workers, as was mandated by the WHO under its fraudulent new "pandemic" treaty rules. With that in mind read about the U.N.'s "scientific beginnings."

Huxley Eugenics and the founding of the U.N:
Sir Julian Sorell Huxley, Fellow of the Royal Academy of London (22 June 1887 – 14 February 1975) was an English evolutionary biologist, humanist and internationalist. He was a proponent of natural selection, and a leading figure in the mid-twentieth century evolutionary synthesis. He was Secretary of the Zoological Society of London (1935–1942), the first Director of UNESCO, and a founding member of the World Wildlife Fund. Huxley came from the distinguished Huxley family. His brother was the writer Aldous Huxley, and his half-brother a fellow biologist and Nobel laureate, Andrew Huxley; his father was writer and editor Leonard Huxley; and his paternal grandfather was Thomas Henry Huxley, (the aforementioned con man) a friend and supporter of Charles Darwin and proponent of evolution. His maternal grandfather was the academic Tom Arnold, great-uncle poet Matthew Arnold and great-grandfather Thomas Arnold of Rugby School. Huxley was well known for his presentation of science in books and articles, and on radio and television. He directed an Oscar-winning wildlife film. He was awarded UNESCO's Kalinga Prize for the popularisation of science in 1953, the Darwin Medal of the Royal Society in 1956, and the Darwin–Wallace Medal of the Linnaean Society in 1958. He was also knighted in that same year, 1958, a hundred years after Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace announced the theory of evolution by natural selection. In 1959 he received a Special Award of the Lasker Foundation in the category Planned Parenthood – World Population. Huxley was a prominent member of the British Eugenics Society and its president from 1959–1962.

Eugenics is the "science" upon which the largest genocides of the Twentieth Century were based, Stalin's Holodomor (30 million) and other purges (70 million) and Hitler's Holocaust (8 million - and another 10 million of his own people and enemies in war). Many have estimated murders of citizens by their own government since Darwinism became fashionable number somewhere just less than one hundred and fifty million people. China has "prevented the birth" of three-hundred million people, to hear them tell it, over the six years prior to Dr Wyman's lectures which happened I believe in 2009. Clearly millions of those 300 million were via abortion, more tens of millions more by infanticide, many more by neglect and abandonment. The degree of the carnage will one day be told because blood cries from the ground and such atrocities will not disappear into history, unless through the Church of Scientism, we enter a truly dark period of human history.  


I was not sure in the beginning, but Dr Wyman's sharing a story of quasi-official spread of AIDS in China - as if it were the actions of ignorant men, and him not stating the fact that it was probably a means of Eugenics, following the pattern suggested by his hero Malthus', has convinced me that Dr Wyman is not a neutral "demographer" but a proponent of Eugenics.  All for humane purposes I'm sure - at least he has worked this inhumanity out in his mind and made accommodation for it in his soul. Of course as a Darwinist, he knows he does not have a soul, his cognition is just a matter of neurons firing in the beast's brain. So the whole hellish thing is just a matter of the his best beastly comfort, the comfort of his family and friends and the survival of his progeny if he has any.  What greater meaning could it have to an Evolutionist. 

Indeed these people are "post human" not "humanist" or "humanitarians" but people who accept upon their person, upon the definition of who they are as individuals and who we are as a species, only the Mark of the Beast.  Those people unwilling to recognize God, who consider themselves "biological form only" capable of knowing only what their five senses report, and rejecting any of man's higher and spiritual qualities. How can you rightly describe them excepted noting that they have accepted The Mark of The Beast. They refuse the appellation of "the sons of God" or "the creatures of God" or even "creature of a creator" because for them nothing can exist higher than 'the beast.' 

Dr Wyman can prance around his lecture hall, search for his laser pointer, flirt with the co-eds and teach the post-human science of Eugenics, and not have the slightest idea what he and his "cohorts" are unleashing upon the world.  Disguised under the facade of antiseptic mathematics, mere statistics, are many holocausts in the planning.  


This morning I awoke early and turned on the T.V.  (not something I do often any more). The local Chicago station had a horror story out of Miami, Florida. 
One naked man chewing off the face of another man, in the middle of afternoon.  Here is the report from a local Miami station. 







Welcome to the world of post-humans. I've got to get the full news story and see if possibly these fellows were competing for female attention, battling about territory, showing off their maleness and just got carried away, or if possibly one or both were possessed of evil, like Mr Wu in Nanking, China just before the Japanese invaded.  What does that ancient paleo-hebrew pictograph of the word Satan mean?  Literally, "He who chews up (and by extension, destroys) LIFE." 

The Struggle For Life - Volume Six

Much of this is boilerplate information of his craft. Self-evident requiring little comment. 












Since he referenced it we know what the content was that was left out. Sex and Abortion. Wonder what was in that content that wasn't fit for the tape?




Listen closely to this dialog. It is a case of Darwinian Scientism meeting up with fact. Dr Wyman says, "At the end, I don't think we'll have time, but if we do I'll show you some of the evidence that this low rate of reproduction  was not a conscious effort to control fertility but was a result of the culture."  


To the Darwinian, "Culture" is like a "biological form" it is merely the means of evolution until "scientism" is discovered and men come to their senses.  


Dr Wyman - "I discussed - - I gave you that conclusion last time but I didn't give you any data, there's plenty of data for that. So, we are back to what the difference is between China and Europe, why are they so different?" 


Then a student interrupts saying, "I'd like to ask you a question. I'm wondering to what extent do you believe the cultural was designed at some early stage?"
  
Dr Wyman reacts to the word "designed." 
"When you say designed do you mean designed consciously?" Without allowing the student to respond he responds for him saying, "No, that I think the people had no idea. People obey various cultural rules, cultural rules happen randomly. You can watch - - anthropologist watch cultures and culture is a very flexible thing and it changes fairly frequently.  If that change works people retain it and the whole culture works. If that culture doesn't work, either people change it again or the culture disappears. Most cultures over time have disappeared. Cultural evolution seems to follow pretty much the same rules as biological evolution. Almost random change - - in biology you have random changes in the genome, the cosmic ray hits you or you smoke a cigarette, or something like that, and base pair changes or a piece of chromosome jumps out and goes back in, inserts itself, a lot of different things. These are mostly bad changes but very rarely there's a good change.  If it's a good change presumably that individual will have more children and so there's more copies of that genome in the next generation and so on.  You know the basic story of evolution. Cultural evolution can be  the same people change culture on the basis of fads and who knows what.  We've had a lot of evidence that even the great reduction in fertility that we've seen all over the world, has a lot of aspects of a fad. That once a small group adopts it everybody looks around and likes the idea and fertility drops like a stone, way before and rather independently of economic changes and educational changes, and urbanization changes and a lot of the lectures have shown that.  That something is adopted, for maybe unclear reasons, by a small group, people like it, it's like the kind of clothes that you wear or something, there's no rationality to it, but if it works it gets  embedded in the culture. So, no, I don't think there's any evidence that any of these practices were put into place for the purpose that we now impute to them, but they're practices that worked for that culture within the rest of their ecological and cultural context, and so it persisted."


First of all examine the premise that the "change" can't be designed rationally with purpose, - humans were not capable of that  - but the acceptance of change is a rational decision. Anything wrong with that logic? Anything wrong with the idea that a specific change can be seen to be good for the "culture" without the ability to rationally project the design of the change upon the fabric of the future? 


What is rather humorous is that Dr Wyman then launches into a fifteen minute explanation of why the "culture" in China produced such a stable population for such a very long time. In the process he outlines the culture in terms of "Confucianism" with its strict mandates as to the hierarchical structure of government and of the family, and how child bearing was controlled by this hierarchical structure that was a "planned structure" accepted through the teaching of Confucius.  Even today much of the structure of Confucianism remains the mind-set of Chinese culture, even after the assault of the Japanese, the communist revolution, "Cultural Revolution" and the assault on anything but Humanist/Statism. 


Now to the "biological evolution" - cultural evolution analogy:
As to the idea of the accidental mutation of genome causing an evolutionary step forward . . . . well, guess what. This is total mythology, totally contrived in the inner sanctums of the cult of Scientism.  To Wit: Here is Richard Dawkins admitting as much.


The Questioner: 
"Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?"
Dawkins is lost and without an answer. After asking that the camera be cut off, he regroups and gives a paragraph of typical mythological scientism, devoid of fact and never answers the question. 







So not only is Dr Wyman's theory of Chinese cultural evolution (without design) a crock, the supposed science he compared it to is a crock.  The reason that Dr Wyman can't accept the idea of the Chinese stable culture being "designed" is that the second he admits that, the questions arrive, "where did Confucius gain the wisdom to design the civil structure and the proper conduct of families and within families?" The same could be asked of the Ancient Semite Law givers.  Confucius and Lao Tae Tsu were contemporaries one a metaphysical philosopher, that is, one capable of what scientism claims is impossible, one capable of abstracting from what is seen and known the nature of the force behind it. The other, Confucius was an ontological philosopher, who understood how to function in the paradigm of things as they are. In other words, Tsu spoke of what makes BEING Be, and the proper order of governance, because of that.  Confucius spoke in light of that, of the proper order of governance, personal and family life.  Few could read Lao Tse Tsu's work and not realize it "inspired," and very related to Saint John the Theologian's Gospel.  IF Scientism were not hoping to supplant itself as the new 'religion' and its experts as the new "High Priests" of knowledge, these obvious connections to order, design, and inspiration would not be threatening to them. 


If you listened closely to this lecture of Dr Wyman, you discover him making the case for "two designed cultures".  One the Chinese which existed to itself for much longer, and the European, which battled for survival against multiple invaders, and multiple plagues. He has spoken of the decimations of European population and its resilient "bounce back" without reference to the religious mindset that allowed the people to bounce back and not just be scattered, to bounce back and not return to primitive savagery and ape like subsistence.




Next:
I can't let this paragraph slide, Dr Wyman speaking of the imposition of the "one child policy in China." It sound suspiciously like "Ivory"  . . . that is whitewashed soft soap.  "When political stability was finally restored after the disruption of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural ah . . . the Great Leap Forward and then the cultural Revolution the government really introduced a serious vigorous family planning program. Starting in 1971 they introduced the Wan, Xhi Shao; later, longer, fewer. What they proposed was later marriage, longer birth intervals, leading to fewer children overall. And uh   . . This was propagandized very heavily but this is debatable, but there was generally considered to be not an awful lot of coercion involved. It was more or less a voluntary campaign."  This is true, if you believe the Federal Income Tax was ever truly a "voluntary tax" as it was reported to be for fifty years.  Yes, it was that sort of "voluntary campaign."  And look what quickly followed the Wan, Xhi, Shao. It was the one child policy. "which at least in the beginning was not very voluntary." Here we get to the modern horrors of scientism, the destruction of the human as human, the ghost of the human left in the post-human age, where the biological form of unwanted humanity has no meaning. If you think I exaggerate keep reading.




Let us put a human face on China's oh so Ivory, population control "success." I want Doctor Wyman's words to ring in your ears -  "which at least in the beginning was not very voluntary" as if anything is voluntary about it now. 

The Struggle For Life - Volume Five.

I have to respect this lecture where the decline of the birth rates in Industrialized countries is treated statistically and not politically. The political implications would seem obvious to me absent the displacement and destructive power possible via technology. I have to agree with the lecturer's logic when he state again and again, we don't know what is going to happen vis a vis population trends and the future.



This lecture is an absolute must see for Christians of all stripes. The population explosion since the 1700s, cannot be seen as strictly tied to development, since it happened also and most dramatically in undeveloped countries. And it can't be attributed to "support from" developed countries, though part of it surely was just that.  Still it has been a huge explosion of population and the "subsistence living" situation of billions of people is something about which every Christian ought to have a clear understanding.


Relatively speaking, the poorest in our country are wealthy, by ten times the subsistence workers of the world, who are the vast majority of workers, by measure of hundreds billions. For people to look at the problems of population and try to devise plans for first the stabilizing "from" the explosion of population, and second to devise plans for a better standard of living, something better than the massive "non-cities" of people that exist in places on the earth, where millions live without any of the basic humane services, and worse than the conditions of primitive man, since he had natural resources. We speak of dynamics of Biblical proportions, here we are dealing with something beyond the epochs of the Bible, in numbers and suffering unlike anything the Bible contains. We can only assume unlike anything in human history. 


We know that this suffering is like all suffering of all people from the beginning, part of the fallen nature of man, but how does (1) A Christian view this and approach it. (2) how does Christianity view it and approach it. The world population is growing at 80 million people a year, roughly one billion every thirteen years. That means an increase in space, housing, food, education, employment, resources for nearly a quarter of a million people across the earth everyday. Most at present are funneled into some functioning economic system, but millions are not.


Some political people speak of immigration into the U.S. and Western Europe as an escape valve for world population and those people just do not grasp the enormity and magnitude of the problem. The world produces a population the size of America every 3.75 years! And the number is increasing exponentially. 


Dr. Wyman's picture of world poverty was nothing new to me, though I bet a great many people do not have the slightest idea how thoroughly through internationalism the American worker is left to compete with what can only be called "subsistence slave labor." By "subsistence slave labor" I mean, those whose only choice is to work, to take whatever work is available, at whatever pay is available, and not to do so is to starve and die. The fact that they don't have an "over lord" in the person of a human, they have an over lord in the person of the grim reaper. It is slavery, in that the situation allows for little or no chance for something better. This subsistence labor is the situation with the vast majority of the world's workers and in the third world neither crony capitalism nor communism has much better record in improving their plight. 


The division of approaches to this problem he describes well. On the one hand there are those who look at it from the "limitations of the environment" and others who look at it from a need to limit births. Personally, I think that both of these views are political and archaic. The only answer to this is cultural and technological, both in terms of stabilizing population and raising the standard of living for vast numbers of humans. We are on the cusp of yet another explosion in agriculture and means of manufacture. In the last few years in reality, though it is held in secret the real cost of energy has plummeted. The capacity of humankind to sustain humankind has increase exponentially. 


The false science of the progressivist "ecologist" in conjunction with the progressivist "climatologist" of the last generation I believe fail to see the real picture of the state of the earth and what man might do to make it more productive. With all the talk of taxing Co2, having looked at the fossil record and countless archaeological records, I believe that the earth is Co2 starved and the effort to reduce Co2 gas is suicidal - or would be suicidal if the effort were real and made a real difference. It is not real and it will make no difference. If we made all humanity suffer by drastically reducing human Co2 output, it would only have a very tiny effective change in Co2 levels. This is the science, regardless of the mythology the priests of Scientism spin. 


Co2 is Carbon dioxide, which is what plant life depends upon. Plants are the first step of the food chain. Plants are the major producers of both the oxygen we breath and the nutrients we eat.  The fossil record is clear, types of plants found in various places, and the content of core drilling in the polar ice caps, Co2 once was much higher in the atmosphere than now, as much as one hundred times higher. We have all watched the climate pressure on the forests in the U.S. and presently every forest is littered with fallen trees. Young people don't have a clue how different the forests appeared fifty years ago. I remember well, walking in the forrest and a downed tree, a log was not odd, but there were few. Now, in every forrest I've observed in seventeen states, the forest floor is littered with fallen trees. What Co2 levels do we need to stabilize plant life.  A few years ago the climatologists were waxing eloquent and drumming up panic over "desertification."  The battle against Co2, which plants use in the process of photosynthesis, without which they could not produce oxygen seems more than strange to me.  When I see charts supposedly explaining the process of desertification, I remain at a loss.  I believe that desertification can be cause by abuse of the ecology, however I also know that desert wasteland can be reclaimed. If one views the old pictures of Palestine under the British, which was simply desert wasteland and the rich farm land Israel is today, the technology is available. 


Fish Farming in the Dessert, using water from deep well water technology not available until recent times. 



Fish Farming in the City, via similar methods as in the dessert. 





Growing Food in the snow. 



We started using Acacia Gum as an natural alternative to sugar. It is really quite good. And the Acacia Tree is helping to reclaim desert land in Africa. 




The important lesson to learn from this video is the total failure of the U.N.s (United Nations) anti-desertification program. The scientist says, "The U.N.s anti-desertification program is twenty years old and if you look at the record desertification has actually increased under the U.N. program."  The point being that the U.N. is not an honest actor, in any case where it is supposed to be helping mankind. For instance, it is only under U.N. auspices where you get "permanent refugee camps" - not the planting of cities for the displaced, with planning and infrastructure, but "permanent shanty towns" with no utilities, no sewer system, no fresh water systems, etc. Where people claw to gain the sustenance handed out to survive for each day, where disease is high, where there is no hope of things getting better, where to leave the camp risk getting shot and to remain means ultimate death by necessity. These are not true humanitarian efforts but internationally sanctioned death camps. 




Desertification can be reversed and an increase in Co2 would aid that effort and not harm it, as is the scientistic mythology.

Regardless of the problems humanity faces, this population numbers in uncharted territory as Dr Wyman states. We as Christians have to constantly remind ourselves that everything that Wyman has stated so far is in the paradigm of "Scientism." If you doubt it, always listen closely to the idea that 'tradition' has to be supplanted by "scientific knowledge", and that neither religionists, or politicians really care about the problem. And although he has freely admitted that "science" does not understand what it is seeing, and no one can make an accurate prediction of outcome of the present situation, still, it is only "science" that has an answer. Do you find logic in that?  This is typical scientism, though so far Wyman strikes those cords with less "cult" than most scientists. We can never let the "sounds of knowledge" supplant the greater understanding of the true human who is capable of abstraction based upon what IS. The temptation is to accept hypothesis as "answers" and "feel good about it." That is the means, methods and goals of most modern education; if the elite are promoting something it is to make you think you know and to feel good about it, if the elite is trying to suppress something it is to make you think you know and to feel bad about it, distain it, hate it, fear it, distrust it, etc.  Education is not longer about knowledge, but about conditioning and emotions.  







Amazing, I caution to remember that "propaganda" according to "scientism" is alway the underlying theme, and forty minutes of this next lecture was removed by Dr Wyman's request, where the subject in natural progression would have been about "religious"  and "conservative" opposition to contraception.  The skeptic that I am, assumes that those forty minutes would expose nothing but scientistic radicalism. 

The Struggle For Life - Volume Four

I couldn't help but notice this biological/demographer's bow to the Church (without admitting it). He acknowledges that in the pre-modern period that "we have pretty good data from Europe, unlike the rest of the world."  How could that be?  Since THE CHURCH dominated Europe? Oops, of course that is right. The data he is referencing, better than anywhere else on earth, is FROM the Church records. Birth, Marriage and Death records were recorded in the Cathedral Church records. The Cathedral Church is where the Bishop kept his "office."  When we use the word "Cathedral" instead of church building or merely church, it means the "seat of the Bishop's Authority."  In theory and in fact, the Bishop's "Cathedral" could be a lowly setting and not a monument of grand architecture at all. My Bishop's "Cathedral" is a humble church in a poor neighborhood of Detroit. In the south a humble small "Church of God" would be as impressive.  

In Europe, the Cathedral functioned like the "county courthouse records" in the U.S.  Everything was "recorded" in the Cathedral offices. The shadow of this remains in the U.S. where some officers of county government are called, "recorders." In Sweden still all records are kept by the State Church which is Lutheran. It may be that way still in other Northern European countries.  So this massive data to which the professor make mention, in Europe, is CHURCH records. Sad that he cannot clearly state it. We know any positive mention of the Church is taboo. We clearly stated it in Volume 3. 

The more I read and hear the Evolutionist of various disciplines the more the "mythological, anti-metaphysical" comes clearly through as their underlying theme. Not satisfied with reporting data, they constantly appeal to "causality" without recourse to a "causer."  They can describe phenomena of biology, chemistry, anthropology, astrophysics and the rest and their observations are devoid of "cause," yet they mix causality with the data creating a new paganism where the naturalist god is willing this and willing that.  There is little wonder that they resort to speaking of the church, religion . . . the Judeo-Christian Tradition in general only in a mocking way and leave out its the massive contribution to history, to science and the betterment of mankind. They don't want to admit anything positive in the "pre-science" era as they put it, where the historic sacred writings, even in terms of "natural science" seem to have it more times right than wrong. 


Reducing perceptions to "cause and effect", which in reality is only the measure of "processes" by the five senses, and denying the possibility of perceptions outside of the five senses, they make of man a hopeless automaton, a slave to biology, whose cognition is merely electro/chemical and whose spiritual perceptions are mere illusion, whose religious beliefs are mere superstition.  All religions are then placed under the simple heading superstition, with no qualitative differentiation made between them, ignoring the Truth, and various truths those religions contained. For them, all religions are just a means of explaining biological imperatives, by minds incapable of "science."  


So claiming that they are explaining biological imperative via science they have merely succeeded in creating a new religion called "scientism."  As a cult, scientism has grown so pervasive as to make her true critical observers appear solipsistic. Yet, we Christian observers, if we truly grasp the Biblical and Traditional Christian ontology, understand that we speak in the tradition of knowledge of the nature of BEING, but more importantly the nature and true makeup of the human being, who is more than biology. While those of scientism merely build a new pantheism, immanentism and/or naturalism.  These "secular humanist", actually post-humanist, having destroyed the meaning of human and humanity by relegating it to the category of biological beast only. They think they are creating a new thing and doing so by new means. They are not, they are merely plastering a scientistic religion over advances in mere physical observations, and newly apparent (to us) physical processes. 


"The making of the world and the creation of all things have been taken differently by many, and each has propounded as each has wished. Some say that all things have come into being spontaneously and as by chance, such as the Epicurians who, according to themselves, fantasize that there is no providence over the universe, speaking in the face of the clear and apparent facts.  For if all things came into being spontaneously without providence, as they claim, all things would necessarily have simply come into being and be identical, and without difference."  - Saint Athanasius the Great.  All creation, from the individual motion of any independent energy sphere, even inside an atom, randomly stepping in and out of this dimension, to the species, to the diversity of galaxies, testify to immense, maybe even infinite diversity. No purely material model or spontaneous appearance, explains them.  And "spontaneous generation" is all the Church of Scientism has to offer in the final analysis.

Having heard the demographers all my life grouse about the quality of the census in this U.S., and slinging out "statistics" about the numbers of homeless who are missed, the children who are missed, the poor who are missed, the immigrants who are missed in the census, I've never heard one give a credible source for such knowledge. To my knowledge the only hard evidence we have on population is the census, everything else is an extrapolation upon limited data and is only as accurate as a political poll. Where is the other hard data these fellows always claim to have, what is its source?  Listen to the insane reasoning - he claims his source as "it is well known" the fact that minorities and the poor are undercounted (which has never been proved) is a fact "because it is well known."  And the well known reason that the census is so bad in this regard is because "these people don't vote Republican and when this story that I'm telling you takes place, the Republicans controlled the House of Representatives, which controls the budget. So the census has been missing this eight, ten million for the 1990 Census, eight million for before, roughly eight to ten million people, and again, it's these minority groups, minorities, renters, urban dwellers, and so Democrats - - and they generally vote Democrat - - and the Democrats have been pushing to get them counted, to make an accurate account. But a Republican redistricting expert wrote a memorandum in 1997 predicting that adjustment could cost the Republican Party 24 house seats, which is a huge amount. (Source please) So since then the Republicans have blocked any modernization of the census."  


He tells a false story about Clinton's "head of the census" Martha Riche trying to create a new way of taking the census, which would have allowed for manipulation via statistical sampling - an extremely easy way to skew results. "What she had proposed was a statistical way of dealing with this. You know the groups that you've missed,  you know where they live, so after you've counted everyone as well as you can in the whole country, you go back to the inner city neighborhoods, the various places where you know that you're going to miss and you really blanket that and do  - - those areas very carefully a sample across the country.  Then you find out what your errors are in that large sample, and then you can adjust the whole population, assuming you made the same mistakes everywhere."  - One hell of an assumption!  He tells it as if Newt Gingrich's insistence on actually "counting heads" was regressive and aimed at an inaccurate count, and that Riche's motives for heavy focus on minority and inner city neighborhoods were white as the driven snow with no political motives whatsoever.  I'm always amazed at this accusation of under-reported minorities and the tie to politics.  It is always spoken as if the census in tied to voter registration and the ability to cast a vote. What advantage is there to include minorities who are uncounted into a district that without the counted minorities looks like a Republican district. The reasoning seems counterintuitive to me. 


Nigeria - 88.5, 120 million - try to make that the 50% uncertainty he claims. At the outer edges, claiming the official census is the base, which is the lowest and the U.N. figure is real, which is the highest, that an error of 31.5 million or a 35.5 percent error. This and the other exaggeration he tells is to make the following point, "The point of this initial part, point one, is that even the simplest numbers like head counts, we're not doing anything fancy, we're just trying to count how many people there are, 1,2,3,4,5, there are systematic errors and very often those errors are intentional." If it is a point in "fact" why the exaggerations to make the point? 

The Struggle For Life - Volume Three

Now the lectures turn to effects of biology on sociology, religion, and demographics. Demographics and thus social-Darwinism has been tied to Darwinism from the very beginning.

The Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus  Fellow of the Royal Science Academy (13 or 14 February 1766 – 23 or 29 December 1834 was an English scholar, influential in political economy and demography. Malthus popularized the economic theory of rent.


Malthus has become widely known for his theories about population and its increase or decrease in response to various factors. The six editions of his An Essay on the Principle of Population, published from 1798 to 1826, observed that sooner or later population gets checked by famine and disease. He wrote in opposition to the popular view in 18th-century Europe that saw society as improving and in principle as perfectible. William Godwin and the Marquis de Condorcet, for example, believed in the possibility of almost limitless improvement of society. In a more complex way, so did Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whose notions centered on the goodness of man and the liberty of citizens bound only by the social contract—a form of popular sovereignty.


Malthus thought that the dangers of population growth would preclude endless progress towards a utopian society: "The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man". As an Anglican clergyman, Malthus saw this situation as divinely imposed to teach virtuous behaviour. Believing that one could not change human nature, Malthus wrote:


Must it not then be acknowledged by an attentive examiner of the histories of mankind, that in every age and in every State in which man has existed, or does now exist


That the increase of population is necessarily limited by the means of subsistence,


That population does invariably increase when the means of subsistence increase, and, That the superior power of population is repressed, and the actual population kept equal to the means of subsistence, by misery and vice.


Malthus placed the longer-term stability of the economy above short-term expediency. He criticised the Poor Laws, and (alone among important contemporary economists) supported the Corn Laws, which introduced a system of taxes on British imports of wheat. He thought these measures would encourage domestic production, and so promote long-term benefits.


Malthus became hugely influential, and controversial, in economic, political, social and scientific thought. Many of those whom subsequent centuries term evolutionary biologists read him, notably Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, for each of whom Malthusianism became an intellectual stepping-stone to the idea of natural selection. Malthus remains a writer of great significance and controversy. - Wikipedia UK.













Dr Wyman tells a fair story of the Roman Catholic Church being co-opted by the Franco-Latin War Lords, the ultimate result of Charlemagne's conquest, which took a few centuries post Charlemagne to complete. Actually, he tells none of the history of "why" or "how" the Roman Church became a massive land owner. It happened via the Franco-Latin takeover of the Church. 
Franks, Romans, Feudalism, and Doctrine - An Interplay Between Theology and Society - by John S Romanides  This is something that the Roman Church faced with militant heretical groups in it own ranks, is beginning to realize. Something I think Pope Benedict fully appreciates. This "late latinizing" of the Church which then made a hero of Augustin of Hippo, accounts for the "seed" of the errors of both Roman Catholicism and its children the Protestant denominations. I'm sure Wyman will take full advantage of the words of Augustine, which were in error. 




What Dr Wyman describes as "Church ownership" and the "ownership of civil authorities" is a false category. Since in truth the Church had become a civil authority, where many Bishops were simply conquering war-lords. They corrupted the hierarchy by buying offices, or gaining office by intimidation and if those things would not work they became bishops by killing bishops. So what he describes in reality is a great period of Apostasy of the Roman Church, not all the Roman Church but the greater part of its European hierarchal structure Any honest theologian will tell you that around one thousand and around the 15th and 16th centuries were the lowest point for the Roman Church:


"In later Europe, Europe underwent huge vicissitudes of population. In the Classic ages up through Rome, through the whole Roman Empire the population of the Mediterranean world was clearly increasing; whatever data we have always points to that. Then starting with the Dark Ages, maybe as early as 300 or 400 Europe gets invaded by all kinds of "barbarians hordes," as they are perceived by the Romans.  First, it's the Germanic tribes, then it's the Huns, then it's the Saracens, then it's the Vikings. By the year 1000, European population is extremely cut down; European civilization is cut down, and we don't really have good ideas of why all these invasions stopped. One history that I particularly like says the reason they stopped, there was nothing left worth taking in Europe. About 1000 the invasions stopped and then civilization started recovering and it only took about 200 years for Europe to basically repopulate itself. When you have land, when you have space, people then have a lot of children, and keep them alive. In these good years, it was good climate at that time also, life expectancies in the 1200s were between 35 and 40 years old, which is very good for this very early era. Then around 1250 the population stopped increasing, and for another 100 years or so, it was more or less level.  When you find a level population that means there's something limiting, some block, and they can't grow beyond this block. Historians attribute it to the whole sort of a state of culture there, so the land was not owned by peasants. So the peasants -- if you own your own land you'll have a lot of interest in farming it maximally and improving it, and doing stuff and when someone else owns the land, you don't have much interest in that and the worse the conditions you're under, the less interest you have in improving the land for the landowner because he's going to take as much as he can away from you and leave you just the bare amount that you can live on. At this time the Catholic Church was by far the biggest landowner in Europe, and they owned 30% to 50% of all the productive lands in Europe. The peasants on the land were serfs and lived in this extreme poverty, and they were not allowed to leave the estate; they were stuck there living in that kind of condition. The ones that - - well the church itself got very rich. This is a period of the tremendous dominance of the church. The income from church lands, going to church nobility and to Rome, was ten times larger and all the church lands -- you had all the crown lands of all the crowns in Europe.  The church got ten times as much income from their lands as as did the so-called civil authorities. The civil authorities controlled what was left of the land, the kings and so forth, and it turns out that the serfs on the civil land had somewhat better conditions, somewhat more rights than on church lands. (I need a citing for this?) On church lands they were really the lowest of the low, but on civil lands they had somewhat better situations, but they were still deep in poverty. Because of this serfs just continued, they were totally uneducated and totally illiterate, and so they continued to farm the small plots just as they had done for centuries and so the productivity of the land did not increase and the population could not increase. Europe was full so there was no place that a serf could just run away and start his own farm with someone else because that land was owned already by someone else. In the cities that were beginning a little bit the Guilds were trying to keep members away, they were closed, they only took children of the members of the Guild, there was no way for someone to rise up and become a craftsman."


Amazing that Dr Wyman would use a heavily stylized art film as a depiction of the age he is describing, and waxing on about the practices of penance, as if flagellation was a common practice of the peasantry and not just the practice of certain sects of monks in the Roman Catholic Church. So amazingly he turns the spread of the plague into the responsibility of some sects of Roman monks! He even called it a "major mechanism for the spread of the plague."  (Please find me some evidence in history where this is recorded.) This is intellectual laziness or bigotry and part of the mandate of "Scientism" to paint all things concerning its greatest "competitor" the religion it has to supplant to survive, since it cannot survive upon its "pure and real science."  


He did admit in passing that contrary to the common mythology that syphilis was introduced to indigenous populations from Europe, that in fact syphilis came from the New World. That surely pokes a hole in the decades long story that syphilis was a weapon of "white man's domination" and a tool to decimate indigenous American populations.  I heard that myth as fact from historians and forensic anthropologists for all my life.  After he spins his tale about Roman Catholic monks spreading the plague and people purposely infecting themselves with syphilis as a protection against the plague he says, "whether it's true or not, I don't know." It is amazing the mythologies that the Scientistic establishment will create and promote, all under the banner of supposed empirical investigation. But did you notice that anachronistic slight of hand, where he introduced the insanity of syphilitic infection as a prophylactic against the Plague 150 years displaced in time?  He says it, admits it in his speech, and young people listening don't get it. He needed it to paint the ruling class as ignorant and insane, and the Typhoid-Mary-Monks were not enough, he needed something else to paint the picture, so he pulled a foolishness that developed more than one hundred and fifty years later in to support and color of the tale he was telling. Silliness and laziness. 


I'm an expert at reading people, what I offer here is opinion, though I know it in my gut.  Reading what was first "micro-expressions" of disbelief turned to amused incredulity (humorous total disbelief) by one hour on the video. In my gut, from decades of reading faces I don't believe this fellow believes a thing he is saying, from about minute one-hour through 104:00.  As an evolutionary/biologist/demographer he is suggesting that the "space" create by the black death, create the field for the Renaissance.  This idea of mass death causing 'evolutionary steps' is the subliminal message of his thesis and has been part of the evolutionary paradigm from the beginning. Without Malthus, Darwinism would have no "teeth" no platform for "social darwinism."  Actually it is nothing but "Scientism" as the new Pagan Mythology, taking the place of the ancient gods. 


"I described medieval Europe as having this sort of Malthusian kind of land lock, that things were unchanging and couldn't change because no one was allowed to change, and then all of the sudden you get the Black Death, and immediately after the Black Death you get the Renaissance.  What happens is a lot of fluidity, people can leave the church estates, can leave their lord's estates there's plenty of empty land, they go out there, they can farm themselves, the Guilds don't have members, they can join Guilds, they can do technology, they can move around, all kinds of things turn up. The first and most virulent wave of the plague lasted from 1340s to 1400, and the next generation was the core of the renaissance."


I want you to read that bold paragraph again and consider the following paragraph in that light, as a core deception of modern Scientism. 


"Contemporary science is predicated upon empiricism, the epistemological stance that all knowledge is derived exclusively through the senses. Yet, an exclusively empirical approach relegates cause to the realm of metaphysical fantasy.  This holds enormous ramifications for science.  What is perceived as A causing B could be merely a consequence of circumstantial juxtaposition.  Although temporal succession and spatial proximity are axiomatic, cause connection is not.  Affirmation of causal relationship is impossible. Given the absence of causality, all of a scientist's findings must be taken on faith. Ironically, science relies on the affirmation of such cause and effect relationship." (- Collins 19) 


Regardless of what you think of the book, "The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship," the paragraph in bold proves the premise. And this is so of almost every causal conclusion Dr Wyman has suggested. He has describes events, and in some cases processes, but not once has he empirically proved causation. And all the time Dr Wyman is reading from his notes, minutes one hour to 104:00- look closely at his expression. It appears as if he doesn't believe a word of what he is saying. Having watched him for hours, and seeing that he only used this expressing for seconds at a time, when speaking of gross sexual things, here as he is positing his main theory, FOR MINUTES he is embarrassed by everything he is saying.  Why? If you have studied the expressions of chimps, that study fits. Notice that the embarrassment leaves his face at about 1:04, and the demeanor of the serious scholar arrives. His embarrassment leaves his face as he describes that what he is offering is tenuous, "simplistic." 


"Now that's - not everybody had to agree that that was the seminal event that caused the renaissance in some - nothing is that simple, but it clearly was one of the major things that one has to consider in describing why did Renaissance happen." 


Here is why the Renaissance happened. It is a matter of Church History.  Documents, books, tablets, and scrolls of the classical Greek period were held in isolated monasteries of the Celtic Orthodox Church, which had been absorbed by the Roman Catholic Church. When it was deemed relatively safe, these resources of the former empire were shared.  As the cosmology of Aristotle was renewed, so the Renaissance appeared. Read How The Irish Saved Civilization. 

"How The Irish Saved Civilization" is the untold story of Ireland's heroic role from the Fall of Rome to the Rise of Medieval Europe, a non-fiction historical book written by Thomas Cahill.  Cahill argues a case for the Irish people's critical role in preserving Western Civilization from utter destruction by the Huns and the Germanic tribes (Visigoths, Franks, Angles, Saxons, Ostrogoths, etc.). The book retells the story from the collapse of the Roman Empire and the pivotal role played by members of the clergy at the time. A particular focus is placed upon Saint Patrick and retells his early struggles through slavery; basically retelling portions of The Confession of Saint Patrick. Early parts of the book examine Ireland before Patrick and the role of Saint Augustine of Hippo. Particular focus is placed upon Saint Columba and the monks he trained and the monasteries he set up in the Hiberno-Scottish mission. In a sense, these holy men salvaged everything possible from the destruction of the Roman Empire.


Even though this is factual, a "concrete" reality provable via the science of Forensic Textual Archeology, and has everything to do with the "mindset" of the Renaissance, what priest of Scientism ever mentions it?   


This isn't the first time that Dr Wyman has called upon "faith in mythology" as the underlying strength of his argument.  Remember hour one and "Evolution likes . . " and "Evolution does not like . . " "Evolutions wants . . . " "Evolution abhors . . " that is the anthropomorphizing of "evolution," giving it personhood and a will. This is clearly religious language and maybe only a theologian gets it, but it is there. This is the common dialectic tactic of the evolutionist; to ascribe "will" to causation, without hypothesizing upon the nature and cause of the "will." It is a method of pretending a grasp of metaphysics, while only holding an incomplete material model of ontology. 


Next he tackles the Reformation Period - I can't wait.