Not sure if you'd see my edit so I thought I'd reply directly. >Considering you tossed around "illumati-esque", I doubt you are interested. I am interested.

Not sure if you'd see my edit so I thought I'd reply directly. >Considering you tossed around "illumati-esque", I doubt you are interested. I am interested. >Did you bother watching what he had to say? I have. >Just because I said it is a pseudoscience doesn't mean that I think it is useless or bad necessarily. No more than I think literature, ethics, philosophy or even religion is bad. I never said that you think it's useless, or bad. >I just think social "science" is a "religion" trying to latch onto the good name of real science. Just like creationism "science" or all the other fake "science" trying to gain credibility by associating itself with science. I actually agree here, to be honest. >the elites needed a new form of religion to control society. This is literally the only thing I took issue with. I was, and am, genuinely curious on all the other stuff. I was hoping you would expand on it. I, however, thought it prudent to mention that I'd not be interested in reading it from the "elites controlling society" position.