A bag of [random, scattered] quasi-principles for commentaries

Table of Contents

• A bag of [random, scattered] quasi-principles for commentaries
  • [political, economic, financial, legal, market] systems are irrelevant?
  • One in ten thousand criteria for experts
  • They must have said the same thing back in the Neolithic
  • The real issue is often 'turbic thinking', and not the subject at hand
  • non-[rational, logical, scientific] modes of thinking
  • Perceptions are a [dystopian, dysfunctional] reality
  • Moral Hazard - an oft-missing truism
  • Consumed by monsters of our own creation
  • Conclusions-driven science
  • Economically competitive cognitive thresholds, No-work lives
  • Stupidity is the most powerful force in the human universe
  • Fools and cowards must be conquered, it is immoral and unethical NOT to do so
  • The cancer that is modern democracy?
  • Multiple conflicting hypothesis
  • Free [individual, market] versus [centralised, academic]
  • Similar impacts of [fears, terrorism]
  • Dichotomies are almost always 'lazy lies' - most useful for pedagogy and propaganda
  • Scientists and engineers, at some point you must abandon your theories, as they all fail. At that point you must go with the data
  • References beyond the norm
  
  
  

  ---

  [political, economic, financial, legal, market] systems are irrelevant?

  This is a very interesting theme for me. While my natural instinct is to say "hog wash", several things argue in favour for the theme.
  
  Alfredo Pareto, Benoit Mandelebrot - The "wealth gap" is always the same function irrespective of the [[polital, economic] system, time, cuture, religion] :
  This isn't what they actually said (Pareto first, decades later confirmed by Mandelbrot), so I am taking liberties with my statement. However, stated as such, it is a stunning refutation of the basis of one of the key concepts underlying policy for sociology and political science. Author John Tamny (see references below) understood part of the deeper meaning of wealth poverty, but fell short of "the important benefits of poverty" that I have alluded to.
  
  Technical analysis of financial markets - all [concept, theory, technique, analysis]s fail - Technical analysis is most often applied to short term [day, week, month] analysis, but is also applied to long term [decade, century] analysis. Some of the best technical analysts that I follow on TradingView Mar2020-Jan2022, even state that it is a mistake to pay too much attention to the news! I can't do that myself, but they have a point - watch the data! If you are following the news, remember that you are following after the big boys have already taken that into account ("buy on rumor, sell on news"). My own impression from decades ago was that the news used to explain maret moves was simply not credible, and was often contradictory, i.e. the same reason is often used to explain why the markets went up as why they went down, with no conditional to help explain. This is shown, with data and graphs, very well by Robert Prechter's "Socionomics"-related books. In a sense, it is distantly related to David Wolpert's (I think) "no free lunch" theorem for Evolutionary Computation.
  
  David Fischer's "The Great Wave" book - While the two examples above have very [limit, specialize]ed application, it seems to me that David Fischer's analysis of "price [revolution, equilibrium] waves" is very [broad, general]. In the end, in spite of the HUGE diversity of [[polital, economic] system, time, cuture, religion] systems, they all seem to [experience, act] in the same ways right across history in the most profound ways!??
  
  

  One in ten thousand criteria for experts

  Subject: John's Take 3-13-25 Buying the Dip
  From: "HS Dent Publishing"
  Date: Thu, March 13, 2025 8:05 am
  To: "William"
  by John Del Vecchio
  ...
  To be successful, one must have deep knowledge of the global
  economy's three-dimensional chess game. Bessent is among the
  0.01% of the best.
  >> Howell: that's 1 in 10,000!
  
  
  

  They must have said the same thing back in the Neolithic

  Often, when reading a modern-day "new" [thought, concept, theory, belief], I can't believe that they didn't say the same thing in ancient [Tigris-Euphrates, Nile, Indus] civilisations, and possibly in much earlier civilisations, like Gobekli-Tepe of the Turkish Anatolian plateau (?). Note that the latter have long been dis-alowed by incredibly ""turbic thinking" of archaeologists (all of them). It's one thing to say there's no evidence, it's another to say it can't be, it's yet another to lie about the evidence there is. But the icing on the cake is that this often ends the same way : once "sort of proven out", the ideas are stolen by academics who often were the critics, who then magically become the inventors. Rare science fiction writers must sometimes feel that this has happened to them.
  
  

  The real issue is often "turbic thinking", and not the subject at hand

  The real issue isn't so much the scientific [concept, theory]s under consideration. The real issue is the occasional, but often long-enduring, failure of [rational, logical, scientific] reasoning by essentially ALL [government, academic] scientists. This often occurs with theories that are a main impediment to reserach progress in an area.
  • why is this the rule across all areas of science?
  • why is this often a "good thing", rather than a "bad thing"?
  • why are failures so often accompanied by [thought, behaviour] that can only be described as SCREAMINGLY (and/or) [dishonest, dysfunctional, delinquent, hypocritical, backstabbing, parasitic, lazy, cowardly], with a high degree of correlation between those traits?
    • principle of generality ("turbic thinking") - applies to cases where [thought, research] crosses beyond the boundaries of the [established, overwhelming, mainstream, politically-correct] scientific beliefs (including [experiment, concepts, theories, etc]). These beliefs often arise from the procession from science fashion, to cult, to religion.
    • In the end, the traits are somewhat equivalent, over-lapping.
  • why are successes so often accompanied by [thought, behaviour] that can be described as (and/or) [honest, functional, diligent, straightforward, supportive, productive, hard-working, brave], with a high degree of correlation between those traits? As a gross over-simplification, [thought, behaviour] of scientists has the opposite descriptors from the "principle of generality" Under conditions of "locality", [traditional, official] beliefs about what science is and how scientists think (the messages to the public) align fairly well with observations? (eg scientific deduction, [mathematics, theories, models, suimulations, predictions]))
    • principle of locality ("claric thinking") - applies to cases where [thought, research] lies well within the boundaries of the [established, overwhelming, mainstream, politically-correct] scientific beliefs (including [experiment, concepts, theories, etc]). Incremental extensions beyond the boundaries may also be included.
  • Locality describes most scientific [thought, activity], "generality" describes only a very small portion.
  • quantification of failures
  • dichotomies are usually lies having most use in [pedagogy, propaganda].
  Careful - this is not about a difficult search for the truth, it is only about glaring failures of reasoning, often at the most [simple, introductory] level, that become truths enduring for [year, decade, century, millenium]s. Essentially none of the scientists seem capable of [see, correct]ing these problems, so they continue to build on top of them. Descriptions above are based on over-simplistic dichotomies. there are better ways to describe this...
  

  non-[rational, logical, scientific] modes of thinking

  [rational, logical, scientific] modes of thinking were certainly NOT invented by science, unless one looks at special forms such as Isaac Newton's "Prinicipia". Much of it dates at least as far back as religions, and I wonder if the great ages of mythology (eg 10-12kyBP (kilo-years Before Present) also had this even before formal writing systems. For me, questions about the effectiveness and general applicability of logic have always been an issue. The same applies to statistics, especially Bayes Theorem and other popular approaches.
  • Computational Intelligence (CI), not Artificial Intelligence (AI) - This is the best illustration of the strong difference between [non, yes] cart [rational, logical, scientific] modes of thinking. Since ~2010, CI has crushed AI over-whelmingly. That doesn't mean that [AI, calculus, arithmetic, boolean algebra, etc, etc] aren't useful, quite the opposite. Most are used by CI, just as CI isn't a final answer, and will be an intermediate as newer, more powerful concepts emerge. Cheap intellects always like to define "the all-encompassing concept" to ensure that their [thinking, work] stays relevant, but they can only convince other cheap intellectuals (even if that encompassess essentially ALL intellectuals!).
    • (AlphaGo versus Lee Seedol)........compared to..(IBM Deep Blue versus Kasparov)
      (CI: current generation concepts)..compared to..(AI : older, far more limited concepts)
    • David Fogel's book "Blondie24" illustrates well the huge diffce between AI and CI, and provides the reader with a great understanding of how one very early project progressed, full of detail and commentary. It also shows a haunting property of early (and possibly current) C systems, one that shocked Kasparov into disbelief : a consistently poor performinstem can occsionally pulll ingenious moves, beyond the abilities of even the best human experts.
  • Robert Hecht-Nielson's "Confabulation theory" for mammalian cognition has it as the reverse side of the coin of Bayes Theorem in statistics.
  My priority hobby since 1988 is Neural Networks, which for perhaps 2 decades has been classed as part of the "Computational Intelligence" (CI) area, allong with Evolutionary Computation, Fuzzy Systems, and many related concepts. Stories of the "dark winter" of CI from ~1967-1996 are perhaps exaggerrated (or not). This was a period when the older and more tractable "Artifical Intelligence" (AI) dominated, and was perhaps not so accomodative of CI approaches. While even CI experts now use the AI lable for their work, I still maintain the very important distinction between them. I do not use the misty "machine learning" phrasing, as that is even less illustrious.
  
  

  Perceptions are a [dystopian, dysfunctional] reality

  Of course perceptions influence [plan, action]s, and their effect in the real world this must be taken into account. However, it is rarely emphasized [how, why] these perceptions are so often [dysfunctional, divorced from reality], ergo so are the actions and their negative impacts on society. Science is a perefect area to study this! A most interesttea is how perception manage to affect the actions of others. [War, espionage, consumer behaviou are great examples, as is the awesome effectiness of [French, German, Russian, Chinese] socialism in "capitalist" countries over the last 200+ years from French revolution onward. In financial markets, dysfunctional perceptions are instay of "contrarian" investors, who wrealize that if everybody believes something, it's likely that they are wrong!
  
  

  Moral Hazard - an oft-missing truism

  Perhaps best-known in the insurance, and best-avoided on government policy, at some point policies promote the very behaviours that we seek to suppress, including self-destructive behaviour. It seems that only the rare intellectual has a deep understanding of the implications of [belief, policy]s. Typically with most intellectuals, and as with the "precautionary principle", it tends to be one-way only, not a high-dimensional tensor.
  
  Perhaps this will end up as a tombstone comment for modern sociology?
  
  

  Consumed by monsters of our own creation

  The theme arose from my reading of general history, and the oft-commented long persecution and tribulations of the Jews : from their escape from Egypt (was this the Amelikites, possibly the [famous, brutal] Hyksos regime, as noted by Immanuel Velikovsky?), to the diaspora aftermath of the 167–160 BC Maccabean_Revolt, to their [torture, slaughter] for "causing" the black death, to the [Soviet, Nazi] death camps. (Apparently, Stalin was well under prepar goulags for a jewish purge, but died before initiating it? His NKVD apparently returned Jews who had escaped from Germany to East to a Gestapo, whom the Soviets had trained in the [construction, operation] of goulags?) But this though struck me first with respect to the oft-[mistaken, exaggerated] belief of a core role of Jews in the [development, progress, success] of [Soviet, Nazi] socialism d the [terror, destruction, death] that ensued. I suspect that every culture goes through challenges such as these.
  
  But there are different aspects to persecution, and I suspect that [jeolosy, hatred] harboured by [invading, host] populations for a successful sub-culture may be a big part of the story, as it has been with socialism since the French revolution.
  
  Perhaps a key, more severe form of this might arise from a combination of :
  • "Fools and cowards must be conquered, it is immoral and unethical NOT to do so" (see below) - sub-cultures might find ways to prosper by exploiting [dysfunctional, inadequate, nonsensical] cart [belief, practice, mis-understanding]s of another culture, a culture that cannot effectively deal with reality (who really can?). Of course, this will benefit, but also distort, the host society to some extent. But when the mob goes looking for a scape-goat for serious problems that [they themselves, nature] have created, the successful sub-culture would be an obvious target.
  • [Resentment, jealosy, hatred] over the increasing [wealth, prominance, control] of the successful sub-culture, for example [Jew, merchant, capitalist, financier, politician]s. Again, this is like Aold J. Toynbee's "resting on one's oars", and failing to make necessary, obvious] changes in the host society, held back by [anachronistic, dysfunctional] beliefs?
  • Science-based policy leads to a perversion of science, and conclusions-driven science, as noted in another section of this webPage.
  In any case, With time, it became apparent that the theme "Consumed by monsters of our own creation" is perhaps very generally applicable to [individual, organisation, culture, nation, civilisation]s. Sometimes, we can be our own worst enemy, even when we are doing the "right" things?
  
  

  Conclusions-driven science

  It seems to me that the massive [policy, science, health] profit-complex is much [larger, more dangerous] than Eisenhower's military-industry complex. Most people will object to my use of the word "profit" when discussin what are all essentially government systems (including private practicioners in nations with wide health care coverage - and the USA is much of the way there as well even with private health insurance) funded by taxes. However, this is a giant [secret, lie] of socialism - "profit" may be inferred from wages (~100%), the allocation of excess resources to captial that is needed to build the systems.
  
  In any case, the un-neccesary drive to over-achieve [uniform, centralized, the-one-true-answer, optimal plan] policy, is destined to produce the same diseases and blindness in science, as it does everywhere else. It is amplified by the inability of essentially_all scientists to think outside of their externally-programmed belief, and beliefs last [year, decade, century, millenium]s.
  
  This is a disease afflictig all areas of science, sometimes policy-driven, sometimes the progression of science [fashion -> cult -> religion].
  
  

  Economically competitive cognitive thresholds, No-work lives

  With respect to cognition, machines will likely drive the threshold up quickly, and in some cases are well beyond human already. So how doe the human hybridize with them?
  
  Already social welfare programs have given rise to multi-generational no-work families. Will this become some kind of norm for a substantial part of the population, with perhaps make-work programs to build pyramids or something? How far have we already come - has science been a ajor area for this?
  
  

  Stupidity is the most powerful force in the human universe

  Stupidity is the most powerful force in the human universe, and we all do it. Obviously, this is kind of a ridiculous theme, but it is far less extreme and damaging than the usual posturing to claim truth, and the destruction of the [careers, personal lives] of those who think differently.
  • it's not the [public, politicians, scientists, humanitarians] - it's ALL homo sapiens, including experts in their own field of expertise, with decades of experience.
  • Conspiracies do exist, but I find that most popular conspiracies are just bad thinking, perhaps with a solid reason for suspicion. Rarely are the [prominent, mainstream] conspiracy theories much good. They typically target [innocent, politically-preferable] people for blame, shitting over good men and making heros of the real shits.
  • Flawed science can endure [decade, century, millenium]s, probably at all epochs of human civilisation. Examples :
    • diameter of Earth : Erastothemes of ?? derived a precise diameter of the Earth, Ptolomy screwed it up, Christopher Columbus may have used Ptolomy's to get funding to [India, China] from Isabelle & Ferdinand
    • Sun at center of solar system : Aristarchus of Samos was recognized as the originator up to the next-to-last version of Copernicus's work. Did someone other than Copernicus remove that reference?
  • There is a certain (better?) optimism to the assumption that we are all stupid. From that perspective, its astounding to see what we do accomplish in spite of our stupidity. This is very different from the [dark, depressing] conclusions one must draw from the starting assumption that anyone is actually smart. For it is only very rare individuals who come up with something significant beyond our pre-existing beliefs perhaps once in their lives, and fail otherwise. (This applies to both [strong, revolutionary] thinking, but of course at very different rates. It does not apply to )
  • The film "The Big Short" about the 2007-2008 housing crash has the best insight to this that I am aware of. I makes sense to me that a Wall Street centered film is better than all intellectuals - Wall Street has always had the best insights into humans. At one point, the character Vinney of Deutsch Bank states : "... You think you are cynical, but you still believe in the system. You don't seem to realize just how stupid they all are. Do you want to know what you are up against? We have to go to the Las Vegas bond convention. ..."
  • High-profile issues for the public - it's NOT the politicians!! Politicians are often singled out as the culprits when things go strange. However, critics don't often take into account the democratic system, and its the [rules, constraints], that they operate under. Their job is many things, with a hard requirement to be successful ion a democratic system. When they do attempt to take it into account, the usual accusation is that "leaders must lead", which to me sounds like a simplistic utopian war cry, symptomatic of naive losers. (That's a bit harsh, will have to fix this paragraph up).
  • flawed sciece endures [decade, century, millenium]s - possibly across all human intellectual history and presumably long into the future, unless the machines can save us
  • Experts are, overwhelmingly, the [priest, disciple]s of the [overwhelming, mainstream, politically-correct] theories of science, which have progressed from fashion to cult to religion. They [attack, destroy] the [professional, personal] lives of those who dare to challenge their great scientific religion. It's not [evil, conspiracy] - they simply are not Cognitively capable of doing better than that.
  • Robot memorization is [mostly, necessarily] how most scientists think -
  • [Adjusment, extension]s within their scientific religions - is a secondary mode of thinking of [priest, disciple]s of scientific religions. Warning : it is well belyond the normal ["in the sand-box, "silo thinking"] descriptions commonly used, which are red herrings.
  • "strong thinker" (< 1:10k portion of scientists)
  • "[creative revolutionary, breakthrough] thinkers" (< 1:1M scientists)
  • Amateur "strong thinkers" (< 1:10k), not the experts, often spot the failures of thinking - and come up with "[creative, revolutionary, breakthrough] thinking" (< 1:1M). This statement is not correct, as it fails to include the (1:10k) "strong thinkers", and (< 1:1M) 'revolutionary thinkers" in [government, academic] research. They are important to note, but they are also miniscule in numbers compared to the amateurs. Amateurs, not the experts, are often the ones that spot problems in the great religions of science, come up with better [concept, theory]s, and bring these issues up to the public (albeit not so much within the [closed, self-serving] scientific community). While there is an endless stream of examples of plagiarism within the scientific community, it's almost guaranteed that successful amateur ideas are stolen by scientists for their own [profit, career]. Some interesting mixed cases include [Heaviside, ???]
  • STUPIDITY is the answer that makes all the questions disappear?, for ALL of us, all through history. (to distort a line from singer Rodriguez, 1970s?)
  
  

  Fools and cowards must be conquered, it is immoral and unethical NOT to do so

  Hah! This is NOT a quote from [Genghis Khan, Tammerlane, Joseph Stalin, etc], as they couldn't speak English . However, I wonder if they sometimes thought about this. In any case, it may apply somewhat generally to competitive situations, including modern businesses and organisational politics within civil serives, etc.
  16Jan2022 I don't time to elaborate this dark theme...
  
  

  The cancer that is modern democracy?

  • "Government of the parasites, by the parasites, for the parasites"
  • "Mentality of Entitlement"
  • Shit all over the good men who [create, build, manage], make heros out of the "turbic" who [corrupt, backstab, destroy]
  • Politicians in democracies are often unfairly blamed, even when "they should have known better". Voters (polls) force issues and solutions, and when they blow up in our faces, we scapegoat the politicians. Politicians, after all, are supposed to respond to the voters (us).
  • Ibn Khaludun is far more general (see "References beyond to norm"")
  • Almost alll of the [failure, limitation]s of democracy of democracy were well [known, stated] during the period that it established foothold in [Netherlands, Britain, elsewhere]. Perhaps that has been the case in the ancient times, but I have not checked. I am familiar with a few tid-bits about the declines of democracy.
  • Paracitism as an outcome of democracy- is this new? - I don't remember historical analysis prior to 1776 or even before, of warnings of paractism to be expected of democracy. Is free bread in ancient Rome an example, for which historical documents would show this reaction?
  • ANTI-DEMOCRATIC [institution, processe]s underly democracy - without which it is un-viable? [honest, commitment, competent] :
    • system of justice
    • "fair" civil service
    • [free, transparent, multiple conflicting] information sources
    • [individual, group] "freedoms"
    • [individual, group] "responsibilities" - much more important than freedoms
    Without these, democracy is a farce. Democracy seems to last Ibn Khaldun's 4 generations from a "successful response" (Toynbee) to a major challenge. Toynbee was much more optimistic on the long-term, but only assuming that "successful reponses" included a rejection of past [belief, reason]s for success of a civilisation, to allow it to respond successfully to new responses of a different kind.
  • Individual [responsibility, honesty, commitment, sacrifice] - Without these, ANY system of governance (not just democracy) might become a farce, perhaps within Ibn Khaldun's 3-4 generations. Arnold J. Toynbee was much more optimistic, but that is bases on re[ject, place]ing past core [beliefs, values] in order to successfully respond to new civilisation-threatening challenges.
  • Responsibilities BEFORE rights - I am not comfortable with the inverted-prioritization of [modern, politically-correct] thinking.

  Multiple conflicting hypothesis

  This is my own self-imposed practice, to avoid becoming a tool of theories, instead of the other way around. It is explained elsewhere on my webSite (somewhere...).
  
  

  Free [individual, market] versus [centralised, academic]

  John Tamny's "When politicians panicked" makes may [great, insightful] comments that contrast the usual [failure, limitation]s of [academic, policy] cart [analysis, plan]s to the richness of a huge diversity of individual [decisions, action]s. The latter are brilliant options that are perhaps the "normal" way for people to think, more so in the current era than during some other periods. He adds the tremendous insight that free decisions provide a huge range of actual data that [unified [analysis, action]s cannot, belying their very justification unless it is a [standard, well-known challenge]with a great deal of experience from the past.
  
  
  

  Similar impacts of [fears, terrorism]

  Common saying, perverted by I : "... It is NOT the acts of terrorism itself that cause the greatest damage. It is the reactions of cowards, and whether they get away with their cowardice. ..." (eg 11Sep2001 and the reactions of colleagues at work, Tamny's book on civid-19).
  
  Has modern society made this much worse? Has an ongoing "natural cull of the brave" been somehow addressed in the past, not primarily by [child-raise, teach, train]ing, but by a combination "spoils to the brave" and a "cull of cowards"? Has "bullying" always been necessary, and usually far more deadly than today? Are the pariahs of today the heros of the past? ...the [coward, traitor]s now the heros?
  
  In WWII, the huge Red Army was no joke, but behind the lines was the far better equipped and staffed NKVD army, whose main purpose was to put [loyalty, courage] into the hearts of the front line,or to use them as examples for others when that didn't work.
  
  NKVD [resistance, sabateurs] throughout German occupied areas are now referenced as [poor, abused] peasants by Western historians. But as with modern [terrorist, guerilla fighter]s, agents organised resistance, hid within the populations. Given established Soviet practices, its possible that they murdered non-compliant traitors, and occasionally patriots, all of which was useful propaganda against the Germans. Naturally, Germans had to respond somehow, but had been well prepared for this by pre-war training from :
  • battles in the streets of Germany with socialists
  • pre-war training from bottom-to-top for the Gestapo provided by a supposed Gestapo-NKVD agreeement. On that basis, the Soviets could in all confidence return Jews who had escaped to the East, and who were rounded up and returned to the Gestapo

  Dichotomies are almost always "lazy lies" - most useful for pedagogy and propaganda

  I have a deep mistrust for dichotomies, even though I [lazy, frequent]ly use them. In even modestly complex systems, it is unusual to be effective with only a zero-dimensional perspective (one or the other). However, biological systems often have [linear, radial, fractal] symmetry, which is an important counter-example.
  
  
  

  Scientists and engineers, at some point you must abandon your theories, as they all fail. At that point you must go with the data

  This was a war cry of Vladimir Vapnik, during his Plenary talk at IJCNN ?2003 Portland Oregon. Vapnik is kown as the "father of statistical learning theory", of which Support Vector Machines are perhaps best known. Colleague Hava Sieglemann is well known as the first to provid a theoretical prrof that recurrent neural networks can be "Super Turing machines".
  
  
  

  ---

  References beyond the norm

  • David Fischer 1996 "The Great Wave, Price revolutions and the rhythm of history" New York, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-505377-X
  • Ibn Khaldun 1410Ad "The Muqquadimah" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqaddimah - possibly one of the best descriptions of the modern USA?
  • Arnold J. Toynbee ?1965? "A study of history" (10-13 volume series, NOT the 2-volume abridgement)
  • Lawrence W. Reed 1981 "Great Myths of the Great Depression" MacKinac Center for Public Policy, 2008 edition (available online www.macinac.org)
  • Robert Prechter's "Socionomics" - the first quantitative theory of sociology? (Prechter is a famous modern proponent of Elliot Wave Theory for stock market analsis).
    • Robert R. Prechter 1999 "The wave principle of human social behaviour and the new science of socionomics" New Classics Library www.elliotwave.com 463pp ISBN 0-932750-49-4
    • Robert B. Prechter, editor 2017 "The socionomic theory of finance" Socionomic Institute Press 813pp www.socionomics.net ISBN 978-0-9776112-5-6
  • Ray Dalio 2021 "Changing world order" book - Ray Dalio is head of Bridgewater hedge fund - the largest in the world.
  • Richard J. Herrnstein, Charles Murray 1994 “The Bell Curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life” The Free Press, New York, ISBN 0-02-914673-9 845pp - one of the moist hatred books in sociology. Great [data, analysis, insight]. While their statistical methods were almost universally criticized, in my view statistics is often a mud-wrestling-pit of [political belief, conclusions driven research]. Perhaps one day I will go through the stats myself (fat chance), and see how badly the critics fail here as I've often seen elsewhere (eg CO2 in climate, especially David Thompson's "10 standard deviations" proving that CO2 drives climate. his was really funny - spectral analysis blinded Thompson to temporal inveresion as a disproof. And yet, I remain a huge fan of his, and had several conversations and email exchanges with him in the early-mid 2000s. As for essentially_all other [mainstream, politically-correct] climate scientists - Bull Shit thinkers.
  • John Tamny 2021 "When politicians panicked: The new corona virus, expert opinion, and a tragic lapse of reason" PostHillPress.com, New York & Nashville, 286pp, ISBN: 978-1-64293-837-1
  • Bill Howell, Neil Howell 2015? "Icebreaker unchained : we should have lost WWII" ?link? (unfinished) - comments about Franklin D. Roosevelt as an unwitting "puppet" of Joseph Stalin are in some of the unfinished script.
  • Sean McMeekin 2021 "Stalin's War: a new history of World War II" Basic Books, New York, ISBN 978-1541-67279-6 - this book falls short of the theme of my father & in the previous reference, but provides great data and support a point).
  • Stephen Puetz "Universal Cycle Theory" - [stunning, deep, exogenous] basis even for John Tamny's book
    • "Puetz, Stephen J., Prokoph, Andreas, Borchardt, Glenn, Mason 2014, Evidence of Synchronous, Decadal to Billion Year Cycles in Geological, Genetic, and Astronomical Events: Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, v. 62–63, p. 55-75 [ http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2014.04.001].
    • Stephen J. Puetz, Glenn Borchardt 2011 "Universal Cycle Theory : Neomechanics of the hierarchically infinite universe" http://www.OutskirtsPress.com ISBN: 978-1-4327-8133-0 http://www.amazon.com/dp/1432781332
    • Stephen J. Puetz 2009 "The Unified Cycle Theory: How cycles dominate the structure of the universe and influence life on Earth" http://www.OutskirtsPress.com Denver Colorado USA, ISBN: 978-1-4327-1216-7 http://www.amazon.com/dp/1432712160, http://www.uct-news.com/
  • Sacha Dobler "Solar [history, behaviour]" - Dobler pushes themes hard, stimes too hard?, but still the insight goes beyond what essentially_all scientists could attain.
    • Sacha Dobler 2020 "Solar Behavior, how solar and geomagnetic conditions shape human history, the self-destruction attempt of the West and the new Golden Age" personal publication, ISBN 978-3-033-08224-3
    • Sacha Dobler 2018 "Solar history : The connection of solar activity, war, peace and the human mind in the 2nd millenium" self published, 336pp, ISBN 1730722873
  • Wall Street has the best [sayings, insights] BY FAR - and there are reasons for this.