• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

The Need for Secrecy

Ravi Maheshvar

Kindle Edition
See also: www.mathmonism.com

Hi Andy,

Thanks for your reply. Here are some clarifications of the statements you commented on (I tried to keep my initial response as short as possible, and it seems that has resulted in some misgivings).

"In certain parts of the world, yes, I'd be concerned about proclaiming too publicly my association with certain ideas. But in the West?"

Theo van Gogh was murdered by a jihadist in the heart of Amsterdam, only a few years ago, and every day thousands of European bloggers and authors are receiving death threats. Salmon Rushdie was living in Great-Britain when a fatwa was desclared on his life. Dutch politicians speaking out on the Islamization of Europe need 24/7 protection. You may not have noticed from reading The Mathematical Universe, but the Illuminati literature is very outspoken about Islam and related religions. To think there is no need for secrecy because the Inquisition is no longer in existence is foolishness.

"But political revolution? Come on. Sounds like fantasy to me"

Consider the various revolutions that resulted from the Enlightenment, including the American Revolution culminating in the Declaration of Independence, penned (mostly) by Freemasons. When I said "spiritual ideas", I didn't necessarily mean mysterious, esoteric secrets, but rather any new, enlightening paradigm. Even atheism could be said to be a spiritual movement, because contrary to Abrahamism, it values individuation, human rights, gender equality, and an unbiased search for truth.

"But science is increasingly being used to solve social problems, far more than it was in the past. There's no question that this is a major trend in modern civilizations."

That may be so, but Congress in the United States is still dominated by (wealthy) Christians who DON'T apply the scientific method. If they would, cannabis would have been rescheduled or even legalized many years ago. In the Netherlands, in 2008, Christian parties pushed for radical changes in the liberal drug laws and IGNORED the advice of a scientific committee. Likewise in the UK, Professor David Nutt's findings, and his advice to reschedule various drugs on the basis of their factual potential for harm, were flatly ignored.

"but if science is not being employed to the extent you wish it were, that's in part because it isn't powerful enough yet."

Yes, in part. For the rest it's because politics is still dominated by religious and business interests. The scientific method is not given a fair chance.

Kind regards,
Ravi Maheshvar