The Era of Transubstantiation

The use of the technical term 'Transubstantiation' in the context beyond Roman Catholicisim is perhaps historically unprecedented. I do not wish to explain such usage in a simplistic manner, for the whole idea of such usage is indeed per se complicated, let alone the technical ramification we need to encounter in the deduction in between. Let us try to decipher one paragraph:

'2. A society of peoples or of an entirely heterogeneous people, given its advanced state in contemporary standard, is bound to go anarchic. By which I mean that the advancement in science and humanity flies so swift that the development of human intelligence lags so far behind that the complexity of the society becomes Greek to most of people domiciling or as parasite in the society. If our children are addicted to the liberal, pluralistic drugs that only allow liberal, pluralistic abuse, then it would lack the perspicuity to express in a clear manner how a society can continue to advance or progress, for the liberalism and pluralism have reached the most high of humanity – for different peoples may be welt together without difficulty and for confrontations are only the result of constructive disagreements. But only the fool believes the fact is so. Only fools believe the world is filled with the just we dream of; and only fools believe such a world, despite its non-existence at this moment, will be existent sometime in future. Only fools believe the world today will progress to that of morrow, from which we point to learn as much as we see from our history, a discreet world of suspicious existence. Why do fools so succumb to the delusions of progress when as a matter of fact they have been in for a dying plight in which they see without obstruction their own death bed near at hand, and touch it without any difficulty? It is so I declare war to ignorance, thence the lack of cognition of their own plight, leading to the phenomena that they continue to live on and sneer at the possible advent of an imminent Death, will subsequently disown such prodigal species or members of such species. Can this be scientifically verifiable? Yes, but what good a scientific verification to the species if the result of it would only mean a probability of their death rather than marking a certainty of death? A probability of eradication of a species means only a probability of survival. Fools undoubtedly with their indolence in their mind can only opt for survival in an easiest manner, and for death should survival mean a slightest form of hassles to them. They are immune to despise and, in Darwinian interpretation, speak of survival of the fittest – such fitness only prevails in undesirability.'