The ‘eonic effect’ is one of the most exciting discoveries in the study of world history and evolutionary science, but unfortunately its study has made little headway in the public domain, for reasons that are not hard to find.
If we even reference the subject we are referring to something that simply does’t register in terms of standard categories. At least to first sight. The basic idea is not that hard in principle but if you had never seen an elephant you might balk at some attempt to describe it. (there is a famous story about that).
The ‘eonic effect’ is a non-random structure in world history…there we go, what does that mean?
Beyond that the subject is almost a private possession of speed readers: to make statements about civilizations requires the communicant also be a speed reader, which is not to be hoped for. Who has time to read hundred of books about different periods/places of world history? Even specialists don’t read enough, at least not in a general field of world history. They specialize! And we can’t really visualize the ‘evolution of a civilization’, it is too vast. But, wait, we do that all the time: we ‘visualize the ‘decline and fall’ of the Roman Empire, so our statement isn’t quite right. But what we must do is far vaster than that. Still we are not so far from ways to deal with the eonic effect.
Next, the fact remains that most people are prisoners of the propagandas promoted by politicians, and the academic myths promoted by academics (witness the strength of the Darwin paradigm). And here the ‘eonic effect’ material gets unlucky, politicians, theologians, darwinists, most academics, and a lot of other dogma upholders are so hostile, yet fearful, they will not even dare refute/challenge what is claimed: they must totally ignore it.
There is more here, but we have made our point. The fact remains that the eonic effect should be the intellectual property of the general public. History is not what conventional thinking leads you to believe. We have already had this fight with Darwinism: evolution, its theory, is not what conventional science has led you to believe. But the critics won the argument, but so far have lost the war. Politicians and academics tend to decree what you are believe, so the fight will result in not much. I am too hard on academics: they are a lot who would love to teach a college course on the eonic effect, but they dare not even mention it in public.
In part the reason is that the rubric ‘speculative’ history is assigned to those who try to generalize about history. Next christian and jewish theologians have to protect their sacred myths, but the eonic effect will demolish all of them.
Darwinists will have to truck with any criticism of darwinism, even though we hardly refer to darwinism at all. We simply consider the critiques of evolutionists themselves.
So we have three bodies of enemies at the start. Not good.
Fortunately the material on the eonic effect doesn’t require a theory and we can state the issues empirically in a way that is beyond falsification because there is not theory to falsify, it is just a way of saying, Look! So it is possible to consider an abbreviated version hypothetically and then begin to study world history to see the data that is there and known.