The Compilation of Previous Modern Work:
Since I basically re-invented this whole new movement in human sciences all on my own and came to all the same conclusions, there are numerous doctors of various things who have put together substantial and compelling scientific research that back up my conclusions.
I could list every single source for every idea I’ve ever heard of in a bibliography and list a few hundred or a thousand sources, but what good would that really do anybody? Who’s going to want to read a thousand books just to come up with all the same answers that I’ve come up with?
That’s why I limit my bibliography to the very best, most useful, most insightful books I’ve come across, and I refer to those books frequently and conspicuously. For anyone who wants to reproduce my research, those are the best books to read. If I was just another academic, a short bibliography wouldn’t look good, but I figure if I can come up with all the same conclusions that a bunch of academic people have come up with in a few very good academic books, and none of those books disagree with each other even though they were all written by different people independently of each other, then my conclusions are as good as bullet proof. After all, all those academic people did use very long lists of reference books to reach their conclusions, and they reached the same conclusions I did. That makes it all second-hand research for me to back up all the conclusions I already came to on my own anyway. There are thousands of references to back up what I say here, it’s just that those references are collected in the bibliographies of the few very good books that I refer to frequently and conspicuously.
I still say I invented this field of study all on my own. These scientists have put together a parallel field of science where they search for and discover all the same things, but they go about it differently. I have no problem drawing objective conclusions on things academic scientists wouldn’t dare to touch—or would handle with care, at best. How do you use objective science to measure the significance of art, philosophy, religion, folklore, or metaphysics? How can I use objective science to measure things that, by definition, can’t be measured with objective science? For someone with an academic reputation to maintain it could be dangerous, but for me it turned out to be pretty easy…









