This article appeared in the July 21, 2000 issue of Executive Intelligence Review. Call Them `The Baby Doomers' by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. June 18, 2000 A recent re-reading of Justice Ferdinand Pecora's 1939 report on the 1933-1934 U.S. Senate Investigation of Wall Street's J.P. Morgan, et al.,[1] is a timely reminder, that there are two points of measurably great difference between the respective characters of crisis-wracked Wall Street, then and now. First, the disaster now onrushing, is, not only quantitatively, but, as I shall explain, also qualitatively, a far greater threat than anything which the U.S. has experienced since the great Civil War of 1861-1865, the greatest financial crisis European civilization has experienced since the 1618-1648 Thirty Years War. Second, the relevant difference between the morals of Wall Street robber barons of the 1920s, and those of Wall Street's peddlers and their admirers of today, is that, the morals of those between thirty-five and fifty-five years of age, who are currently occupying leading executive and professional positions in government and elsewhere, are, in most instances, even far more distant from a sense of reality than their already foolish predecessors, those Flappers of President Coolidge's time, who led the nation into the 1929-1939 Great Depression. This difference is, also, not merely quantitative, but, as I shall explain, also qualitative. All considered, many, even, perhaps, most of those of that so-called "Baby Boomer" generation now in key positions of day-to-day executive power, in finance and in government, were better named "Baby Doomers." Pecora's book, quoting liberally from Wall Street's own testimony then, thus points only toward the common features of the crucial moral issues involved in this comparison, then with now. The gist of Justice Pecora's presentation of the facts, was that the leading Wall Street bankers of that time, had little or no interest in building up the nation's physical economy, or improving the general welfare of the people. Quite the contrary. Then, as now, since the founding of the Bank of Manhattan by the British Foreign Office's agent, Aaron Burr, the barons of Wall Street have been essentially predators.[2] Then, as now, they orchestrated the behavior of those whom they considered their lawful prey, the population in general, in the manner the celebrated cattle barons bred, herded, and culled their cattle. So, then, as now, the investing cattle, Wall Street's customers, have been misled, sheep-like, into the relevant shearing-pens and slaughter-houses of finance and economy more generally. On the level of short-term to medium-term, day to day financial practice, the essential purpose of Wall Street's orchestration of increasingly poppable, vast financial bubbles has been, then, as now, to lure more and more of the investing public, into the pits where that public is swindled out of its present financial resources, while also imposing added debts on those same prey; and, when the victims' cash ran out, the swindlers continued to loot them even of what the victim did not have: milking as much as possible, in those and other ways, by added debts imposed upon even the victims' non-existent, but only conjecturable future incomes. At the time of those 1933-1934 Senate hearings, the nation's conscience was shocked by the Dracula-like images of the Wall Street barons testifying on the hearings' witness-stand.[3] Laws were enacted to outlaw and curb any repetition of the most outrageous among those Wall Street practices. For those laws, Wall Street hated Franklin Roosevelt then, and, as we can readily observe, has hated his memory ever since, to the present day. Indeed, for one who knows the pedigrees of the top Wall Street circles, then and now, behind the restructuring of corporate and partnership organizations, the family-style collation of baronies remain--with some pluses and minuses in the roster--essentially the same collation of root-entities today that they were then. Beginning with the 1977-1981 Carter Administration, most of the regulatory measures and other reforms of the Franklin Roosevelt era, have been repealed; the predators have not only returned to their old anarchic ways, but have added evils which had not yet been invented at the time of the 1933-1934 Senate hearings. Typical of the full-tilt return to the immorality of Wall Street's "roaring Twenties,"is the recent, lunatic repeal of Glass-Steagall, that on the eve of the very kind of crisis which that act was conceived to address. The more obvious difference, today, is that today's swindles of the nation and its credulously investing public, are vastly greater, more savage, than anything examined before that 1933-1934 Senate Committee. However, today, something qualitatively new has been added to the old. Instead of aiming simply to loot the economy, as Wall Street did then, this time, during the recent thirty-odd years, Wall Street has looted the economy with the literal, stated intent, not merely to bleed it, but to destroy it in the most literal sense of those terms. The continuing, characteristic feature of the economic and related policies of the 1977-1981 Carter Administration, and its successors, has been to bring about what Carter-appointed Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker described as a "controlled disintegration of the economy."[4] Since the election of President Jimmy Carter, the continuing policy of the Wall Street-controlled Federal Reserve System, for more than twenty-one years, under Alan Greenspan as under Paul Volcker, has been to be the enforcer of an ever more aggressive effort to bring about the total "controlled disintegration of the economy"--both the U.S. economy, and the world economy as well. The relevant measures of "floating exchange-rates," "free trade," "privatization," "globalization," and "democratization," have been applied to the intended, combined effect of destroying those institutions of modern economy built up during the course of the recent five hundred years. To understand the cause and cure for such periods in our national history, such as that of the "roaring Twenties" and today, it is indispensable to begin with a strictly rigorous, and appropriate, functional definition of mass insanity of that type. I mean the kind of popular mass insanity otherwise typified by the Seventeenth-Century Dutch tulip bubble, and the John-Law-style financial bubbles of the early Eighteenth-Century British monarchy's Liberals and the duped lunatics of Voltaire's and Rameau's France. To grasp the deeper implications of such forms of mass insanity, we must compare what would have happened in the U.S., if a Wall Street military coup against the incoming Franklin Roosevelt Presidency, had succeeded,[5] with what actually did happen, when British and Wall Street financier interests, such as, notably, England's Montagu Norman and New York's Brown Brothers, Harriman, succeeded, in January 1933, in bringing Adolf Hitler to power in Germany.[6] 1. The Fundamental Law of Economy In taking up the issues thus posed, we must take into account the fact that the greatest global financial, monetary, and economic debacle in the several recent centuries of globally extended European civilization, is currently in progress; we are at the brink of the worst financial and monetary crisis in more than two centuries. We are presently on the steepest part of the slope of a boundary-condition [Figure 1], which separates the continued existence of the present world financial system from its doom. We have the chance to come through this crisis quite successfully, provided we abandon the foolish effort to maintain the present financial system and its policies in their present form. We, ourselves, our nations, can survive this crisis very well; but, to bring about that success, we must accept and deploy some very radical, very deep-going changes in the way governments act, and the way most people think at the present moment. Thus, any subject of practical importance touching on those matters, can not be competently addressed in what have been heretofore generally accepted terms of reference. The proverbial rules of the game are about to be radically changed. Only fools will attempt to find ways to make the present system work better; it must be replaced, together with what many people, up to this moment, have come to accept as generally accepted ways of shaping changes in policy. Therefore, any competent discussion of practical matters at hand, must be a more deep-going reexamination of customary, but failed axiomatic assumptions. Such discussion, if it is to produce a happy outcome, requires more prolonged concentration-span, than is customary for most readers. There is no safe way to avoid those issues and survive. The readers must accept the challenge I offer to them here. So, we now proceed. To address these referenced, and closely related issues competently, we must begin with what is best termed a systemic definition of the essential differences between the modes of popular economic sanity of both the 1920s and the 1946-1966 intervals, and the kind of popular economic insanity which has been spread and built up during the recent thirty-odd years, since the events of 1966-1968. By "systemic," I mean a definition which is universally true, in the same, special sense as a uniquely validated universal physical principle in physical science, is to be acknowledged as true.[7] In other words: By "systemic," I mean a universal characteristic, common to all phases and other aspects of the specific physical, or analogous system being considered as a whole. I mean universal characteristic, as Gottfried Leibniz introduced this notion, and as Bernhard Riemann made this notion of characteristic curvature the central feature of the Gauss-Riemann notion of a relativistic physical space-time.[8] In that specific sense of universal principles: All competent study of political-economy, begins with two issues of elementary--which is to say "axiomatic"--principle: 1) What is man's relationship to nature, as this is expressed, in effect, as measurable in physical terms, per capita, and per square kilometer; 2) What is that relation among persons, by means of which individual members of societies cooperate, to defend and enhance in common their physical power in and over nature? All fundamental matters of economic policies, whether of modern or the most ancient forms of human existence, must return, always, to those two sets of questions. These define the framework in which the functional meaning of human culture is located for economics. This is as true for the most ancient, as for whatever will become the most distant-future form of human existence. I now summarily restate those questions, in the degree to which that discussion is necessary for understanding the functions whose effects we are studying here. On that account, we must show, step by step, how these questions lead us, Socratically, to the required definition of a functional form of popular economic sanity. Although the points I summarize again here, are elementary by nature, and although I have presented these notions in numerous lectures, and in rather widely circulated published writings, during the past decades, today's customary textbook and other putatively expert learning has failed, so far, to master these ABCs of any competent economic science. It is indispensable that these ABCs be restated here. Otherwise, no one could truly make sense of the calamity now descending upon humanity, to say nothing of overcoming that calamity. Always bear the following in mind, first and foremost: From the standpoint of an attempt at a mathematical representation of the issues of animal ecology, the rise of the human population, and the changing demographic characteristics of such populations, sets the human species absolutely apart from, and superior to all other living species. The separation of the higher apes from mankind on this account, is demonstrably absolute, not relative. Mankind is the only living species which is able to willfully increase the characteristic potential relative population-density of its species, not only in part, or by biological evolution, but as a species.[9] It is this distinguishing characteristic of our species, upon which the notion of economy depends absolutely. All competent definitions of the terms of political-economy, or of the study of economy otherwise, depend absolutely upon the notion of this distinction which is characteristic of our living species. In first approximation, such ecological studies of individual human behavior, are focussed upon man's increase in physical power in and over nature, per capita and per square kilometer of the Earth's functionally defined surface-area. This approximation isolates the role of the discovery of validatable universal physical principles, and the related role of the generation of technologies directly from experimental validation of such discoveries; this is the combined form of human action, through which man's power in and over our universe is increased. For simplification of the discussion, let it be understood that, in the remainder of this report, unless otherwise specified here, increase in such per-capita power, signifies net increase of power both per capita and per square kilometer. This defines an additional paradox. That paradox is sometimes listed under the topical heading of "the role of technological attrition." That is to say, that to maintain an immediate gain in per-capita power, it is essential that new discoveries, and related, axiomatically revolutionary advances in technology, be constantly supplied, that in order to offset the effect of technological attrition. Thus, the nature of the special power of the individual member of the human species, is not defined by the isolated, self-contained act of discovery of any individual universal physical principle; rather, on account of technological attrition, it can mean only a continuing process of generating an endless succession of (axiomatically revolutionary) discoveries of validatable universal physical principles. This means, that man's power in and over the universe, lies not in individual acts considered individually; but, rather, that power lies, elementarily, in the continuing, developing power of individual persons, to generate, as well as to assimilate, a continuing generation of new such discoveries, a succession of discoveries prompted by the emergence of the new conditions produced as a result of application of previous such discoveries. It should be stressed here, that, contrary to Paolo Sarpi,[10] Immanuel Kant, and their followers, this distinction between the isolated act of discovery of a principle, and the action of continuing generation of successive such discoveries, has the same epistemological significance as the famous use of the notion of a universal principle of change by Heracleitus and Plato's Parmenides dialogue. This signifies the use of the word action as in the sense of a continuing, generative principle of action. Lest the reader be misled into suspecting that this distinction between an act and action, might be put aside as an optional idea, the reader should be warned, that all of the most deadly follies associated with the doctrine of "free trade," including the role of "free trade" as a chief cause for the Great Depression of the 1930s and today's global financial and monetary crisis, are among the fruits of overlooking the implications of the elementary point I have just stated. That is to emphasize, that the function of family-household income and related infrastructural settings, is to define and provide the necessary preconditions for fostering the maintenance of a rate of progress in knowledge and application of discovered universal principles, a rate of progress which is, at least, sufficient to resist the entropic effects of technological attrition. If the physical and related cultural standard of family-household existence is lowered, through cut-backs in physical market-basket content of labor's consumption, or, if the infrastructure is not maintained, or, some combination of both, then the rate of progress, as considered relative to technological attrition, will suffer. On this account, the use of foreign cheap labor as a substitute for better-paid domestic productive labor, as through out-sourcing, is the cause for the collapse of the productive powers of labor in the importing society, and for a corresponding depletion of the society whose cheap labor is being exploited. Similarly, if the composition of employment, and of sources of family-household incomes, is shifted to the detriment of emphasizing high ratios of composition of technology-relevant operatives and professionals [Figure 2], then a high income for the other, non-productive, "overhead" and personal services classes of households, as for the case of the upper twenty percent of family-income brackets in U.S.A. today [Figure 3], ensures a functionally decadent economy, one headed in directions akin to the decline and fall of the Latin Roman Empire into its Dark Age [Figure 4]. For similar reasons, as leading U.S. economist Henry Carey emphasized, during the 1850s, the exploitation of slave-labor by a parasitical class of slave-owners, not only contributed nothing to the net income of the pre-1861 U.S.A.; but, as the post-slavery, 1861-1876 U.S. economic miracle illustrates, the product of slave-exploitation actually lowered the net real income of the U.S. economy as a whole.[11] Not only is slave labor a source of net loss to the national economy, but even underpaid labor, tends to become, similarly, a net drain on the economy considered as a whole. The essential national-economic function of expenditure for maintenance of a standard level of high-quality incomes for family households, and for matching rates of growth of capital investment in technological progress, is to generate the continuing, axiomatically anti-entropic, action of technological change, by means of which the technology-driven productive powers of labor are increased. Those apologists for "the peculiar institution" of slavery, and for the related bucolic-utopian moral imbecility of the Nashville Agrarians, such as the admirers of Robert Penn Warren and Henry A. Kissinger's Harvard University professor, William Yandell Elliot, are to be compared, as a common social type, with the wastrel slave-holding class of ancient pagan Rome, whose very continued existence and influence ensured the collapse of that putrid slave-empire into a great Dark Age.[12] It is the symbiosis between such bucolic utopians and the parasites of Wall Street financial houses and law firms, which is, functionally, at the root of the presently ongoing threat of doom descending upon the U.S.A. today. The essential economic role, and necessary form of scientific education, is to be derived from the set of considerations just summarized. Scientific Education To produce an adult population capable of sustaining the action of continuing technological progress, requires not merely a certain quantity of education, but a specific quality of education. Those who would base educational policies on standard testing methods, rather than Classical humanist methods, will tend to foster thus the kind of graduate who is well-rehearsed in babbling induced rituals, but whose ability to perform competent discoveries of principle, were more likely ruined, than helped by such mis-education--even to a terminal degree. The essential principle of competent scientific and pre-scientific education of the young, is that the student must not merely learn a discovered principle and its associated technologies. By Classical humanist methods of education, I signify that the student must relive the reenactment of the discovery of every important earlier, validatable discovery of universal principle by mankind, and must reenact that discovery in a way which corresponds to the original act of discovery by an original, or relatively original historic figure of discovery. This traditionally Classical approach to education of the young, must be accompanied by emphasis upon the appropriate methods of experimental validation of original discoveries of universal physical principle.[13] This approach to pre-science and scientific education, is aimed to foster in the pupil, the development of the mental habit of generating validatable discoveries. In that way, the student's mind becomes attuned to the action of the continuing generation of both new physical principles, and of the technologies which emerge as by-products of successful designs of experimental validations of such discoveries of universal principle. This, in turn, requires a quality of family and other relevant social settings, in which the same kind of relationship in sharing ideas, is fostered as an acquired habit of everyday life. In the child and young adolescent, the relationship to sharing ideas which have been generated as a part of experiencing a continuing action of validatable discovery of principle, occurs in the form and guise of play, a form of play akin to a happy child's teaching new games to a happy pet puppy.[14] It is the education of this natural, human quality of playfulness, through applying the play-principle to the pupil's reenactment of validatable original discoveries of principles, which fosters the future emergence of the creative, rational, emotionally mature adult. Morose and sombre pedants and their classroom acolytes, are not likely to be exemplars of creative impulses, or aptitudes. Let us understand, that creative scientific thinking is never derived from the methods of formal, deductive logic. The methods of Immanuel Kant, for example, typify the personality which is axiomatically uncreative, as Kant was the kind of person who may be clever, even very deviously clever, but never actually truthful in matters of principle.[15] Creative reason is to be found away from the company of empiricists, sophists, and Kantians, in a domain beyond deductive argument, within the domain known, interchangeably, as cognition or reason, as Plato's Socratic dialogues exemplify the non-deductive function named, alternately, cognition or reason.[16] This act of reason has three leading features. 1) An ontological quality of contradiction--what is termed an ontological paradox; 2) the generation, by an individual mind, of a proposed (e.g., "synthetic") solution for that ontological paradox; 3) an appropriate experimental form of validation of such a proposed solution. These three features are typified by the Socratic method of Plato's dialogues. The examination of the way in which such a three-step discovery by one mind may be shared with another mind, should supply the necessary clarification of meaning to be given to the term cognition. There are two points in this three-step process of cognition, at which powers of sense-perception permit two minds to share crucial aspects of each successful discovery as a whole. Those two points are, first, the display of the evidence identifying the ontological quality of the relevant paradox, and, second, the experimental demonstration of the proposed principle. Otherwise, the difficulty is, that the faculties of sense-perception are, axiomatically, incapable of showing us directly the act of cognition occurring in another mind. It is only to the degree that two persons have shared the same action of cognition, relative to the initiating ontological paradox, that the two can recognize the nature and significance of the act of cognition to be a solution for the corresponding ontological paradox, as this is shown through the relevant experimental demonstration. The capacity to infer from those two points of perceptible evidence, that the nature of the connecting, cognitive experience in another's mind, is comparable to the experience in our own, is not obtained from single such experiences. Rather, through a succession of such individual experiences, something similar in effect to the infant's conquest over infantile purblindness occurs. A wide variety of validated cognitive experiences (and, reenactments of original such discoveries), is needed to bring the cognitive powers of insight to the degree of maturity needed to become efficiently conscious of cognitive processes occurring in the mind of others: i.e., recognition.[17] Again, cognition is a form of action, which can be known as an alternative to mere sense-perception, only as an accumulated experience of numerous changes in one's encounter with the phenomena associated with cognitive discovery. The result is one we often associate with the term insight, signifying cognitive insight. One "sees" how the other mind generated the proposed discovery which solved the identified ontological paradox. Nonetheless, once known in that way, it is known, and that with an increasing, validatable certainty, through a faculty of insight, cognitive insight, which is far more reliable than sense-perception as such. This developed quality of insight, is what we rightly recognize as truthfulness, as Plato's dialogues define truth and justice. Such cognitive experiences are the acquired skill of every competent teacher of the young. Those who have not acquired that skill, are not competent to teach. The corresponding devotion to a Socratic quality of truthfulness, as opposed to mere opinion, is the moral quality which distinguishes the qualified teacher and classroom, from the dangerously immoral, all too commonplace, contemporary quack.[18] Those who insist, on principle, as Kant and the existentialists did, following the empiricists before them, that there is no truth, but only opinion or custom, are, by self-definition, pathological liars, whose oath itself were intrinsically an act of fraud, and perhaps of treason, too. Classical Culture The process of cognition, as I have just, once again, summarily described it, has two interdependent aspects. In first approximation, it pertains to mankind's increased power, per capita, in and over the physical universe: ultimately, the entire universe. Yet, at the same time, it pertains to those social processes, by means of which the development of the individual's physical-scientific powers in and over that universe, are generated by individual persons and shared among other persons within society. These latter social processes define human relations within society, as primarily rooted in cognition, rather than in mere sense-perception or fixed, biologically instinctive or other mind-sets. It is those social processes, defined "axiomatically" in terms of acts of cognitive insight into matters of universal principle, which supply us the only meaningfully defensible, functional definition of the term culture. A scientific education of the type I have described summarily above, typifies the cognitive quality of truthful relations upon which the notion of a Classical culture depends.[19] In the history of globally extended European civilization, since ancient Classical Greece, the specific significance of Classical Greek culture, is typified by the celebrated examples of a new mode of plastic-arts composition provided by surviving items of the work of the sculptors Scopas and Praxiteles. The transition, from the necrologic quality of the Archaic, to the capture of transformation in mid-motion, presents us clearly today the notion of true ideas, as distinct from sense-perception and mere symbolism. Later examples, include Leonardo da Vinci works such as his The Last Supper, Raphael Sanzio's The School of Athens and Transfiguration, and Rembrandt's celebrated portrait of the blind bust of Homer peering insightfully into the blind, deductive stare of Aristotle. These kinds of artistic ideas, typify, in the domain of art, the same notion of idea associated with the validated discovery of a universal physical principle. In the Classical Greek legacy, from Homer through Plato, most notably, we are able to trace successive transformations in the ancient Greek way of seeing the relationship of mankind to the mythical gods of Olympus, and also to the snake-god known variously as Python, Dionysus, and Satan, and to Python's Delphic mother, Gaea. Mankind rises from the status of virtual human cattle of the gods, to Aeschylean Promethean man casting off the shackles of the tragically evil and doomed Zeus, to Platonic man seeking reconciliation with the "unknown God" of Plato's Timaeus and the Apostle Paul's epistles. These transformations in human knowledge are congruent within that principled use of that term idea, which we must associate with a validated discovery of a universal physical principle. Take, as an example, the development of the method of Classical polyphonic composition developed by Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, et al., built upon the foundations lain by such J.S. Bach discoveries as Bach's A Musical Offering and The Art of the Fugue. In Classical four-part composition, for example, the music is not degraded to mere voice and accompaniment, nor mere instrumental-like chordal textures. Like the very conception of the well-tempered system itself, in Classical, as opposed to Romantic composition, the musical idea lies beyond the reach of mere sense-perception; it lies "between the notes," in the idea generated by the polyphonic interaction among the registrally distinguished, participating human singing-voice species. So, in great Classical tragedy, from that of Aeschylus and Sophocles, through Shakespeare and Schiller, the tragic principle lies in the failure of the relevant dramatic personality, the failure to discover the idea which defines a means for averting an otherwise inevitable tragedy, or, similarly, in Schiller's Joan of Arc, walking in the imitation of Christ, willfully sacrificing one's mortal life to death, even in torment, for the sake of bringing forth a nation. All such Classical ideas, such as those of the ancient Classical Greek artists, François Rabelais, Miguel Cervantes, John Keats, Percy Shelley, et al., lie "between the notes" of mere sense-perception, in the domain of cognition otherwise termed metaphor. Universal principles are not properties of sense-perceptual objects; they are the qualities which exist, often, among deductively apparent objects, but not within them. These qualities underlie, and determine both the existence of those objects, and of the functional ordering of the relations among them. These underlying realities, are qualities which the human mind is able to access, but solely by those special forms of social relations known variously as cognition or reason. The subsuming view of all forms of Classical artistic composition, both plastic and non-plastic, imparts the quality of Classical also to the development and use of language itself, as Panini's celebrated argument points to this for Sanskrit. Dante Alighieri's program for superseding Latin with a Classically-literate, metaphor-rich development of an otherwise crude, popular language, capable of imparting Classical ideas, that from the so-called crude forms of popular speech, points to the principle upon which the existence of the modern sovereign form of nation-state republic depends, upon which the very continued existence of modern economy depends absolutely.[20] The essential, underlying principle of any literate form of spoken and written language, is the principle of Classical metaphor. Reason enters when dictionary-nominalist and other deductive-literal and symbolic meanings, are expelled to the anteroom, so that the discussion among thinking people may proceed without the disconcerting noise of pompous fools' babbling. Dante Alighieri's work is of special relevance at this juncture. With that work borne in the back of the minds of each among us, consider a few examples most pertinent to the matter of systemic definitions of economic principles. The first principle of any literate language, is the principle of Classical strophic, sung poetry. That is to emphasize, that all literate forms of language-usage, are dominated by prosodic coloration, for which neither flat, or nearly flat "greys," nor post-modernist or other forms of merely arbitrary, stylized affectations, are tolerable substitutes. These musical qualities, which are the naturally provided potential, physiologically, of each individual human speaking-singing voice, are an integral and essential part of the ability to employ language to convey ideas, not only to convey meaning to hearing, but, even more crucial, to the cognitive-digestive processes of memory. Hence, the continuing development of all literate languages, presents us a process of making the use of that language as precise as science requires, and as the influence of Classical forms of biologically predetermined prosody among registral voice-species, shape the evolutionary development of the language, thus, into a medium suited to the emergence of the cognitive precision which scientific education and work requires. Thus, often, what may thus be defined, strictly and properly, as defects in the manner of speaking of a person, will faithfully indicate corresponding flaws in the way in which they think about matters of science, or other matters, such as political-economy.[21] The pivotal issue, in defining the relative literacy of a practiced form of language-culture, is the issue of Classical qualities of metaphor. It is the recognition of the way in which the natural potentials for development of languages adapt themselves to the requirements for expressing recognizable Classical metaphor, which enables us to define those qualities of used language which render that language capable of meeting the requirements of conveying ideas comparable to those of Classical physical science and Classical artistic composition. In the history of modern Europe since the Fifteenth-Century Renaissance, the best general example of this is the evolution of German Classical poetry and song, from the influence of Gottfried Leibniz and J.S. Bach, through the collaboration among Abraham Kästner, Gotthold Lessing, and Moses Mendelssohn, the pre-1806 Johann Goethe, and by Friedrich Schiller and Heinrich Heine, through the Classical song as first introduced by Wolfgang Mozart,[22] and continued by Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, and Brahms after him.[23] This point is best illustrated for the topic, economics, immediately at hand, by reference to the case of a validated discovery of a universal physical principle. I refer the reader to the three-phase act of such discovery, as summarized above: ontological paradox, discovery, validation. All Classical metaphor, whether in plastic or non-plastic art, and in the general, literate usages of a language, expresses that same tripartite form. The appearance of such metaphor is most simply defined by reference to the notion of an ordered set of multiply-connected physical-space-time manifolds, as defined by Riemann's 1854 habilitation dissertation.[24] Although it is not customary, to refer to the role of cognition in scientific discovery of universal principle as an expression of the same principle of Classical metaphor associated with artistic composition, the fact is, that the two sets of events, are epistemologically of the same nature. I have often addressed this in my writings; I summarize the relevant points here. The essential form of any valid discovery of a universal physical principle, begins, as I have said, as an ontological paradox. This occurs as a manifest error of principle in preexisting scientific opinion. The most typical example of this, is the case in which reality demonstrates not only that preexisting scientific opinion is false to reality, but that this error reflects the lack of recognition of some universal physical principle. In the case in which the error is only of this form, we may say that, although we already know a certain number of assumed universal physical principles to be valid experimentally, there is an additional such principle which we have heretofore overlooked. This poses the challenge: What is that missing principle. If the relevant known principles are n in number, what is the missing principle, n+1? This describes a true, Classical form of ontological paradox, which is of the same, Socratic, characteristics as the function of metaphor in Classical artistic composition. At that point in the study of an ontological paradox of physical science, the entirely sovereign powers of an individual person's cognition, must now generate the proposed new principle which would correct the error. If experiment shows not only that the proposed new principle solves the paradox, but also shows that the universe as a whole, not merely the particular, paradoxical experience prompting the inquiry, requires the addition of that principle, then we have shown that discovered principle to be truly, uniquely, a universal physical principle. That notion of a unique-experimental characteristic of any true universal physical principle, is the central feature of what are rightly defined as Gauss-Riemann multiply-connected manifolds. It is the same in Classical poetry. The self-same experience confronts us with a paradox. The name we are accustomed to give to seemingly similar experiences has now been permeated with a double meaning, a contradiction in meaning. Two meanings for that experience now appear, meanings which are in mutual contradiction. What is the resolution of this ironical paradox? Hamlet poses this to himself: "To be, or not to be . . ." Shall Hamlet continue his customary ways, which pre-assure his self-destruction, or shall he adopt new ways, of which he is fearful. He prefers to destroy himself, rather than risk any new ways, which might threaten his established, habituated sense of actions consistent with his sense of personal identity. The underlying principle of the flank, in military science, has this same quality: to outflank the adversary, is to outflank his mind. So, presently, clinging to the "Sixty-Eighters' " acquired infatuation with the myth of "post-industrial" utopias, threatens most governments led by "Baby Doomers" with self-destruction, that by virtue of their Hamlet-like, tragic refusal to consider any course of action "but our own." Hamlet's decision to that effect, assures him that doom lurks for both him and the kingdom. So, he delivers the warning of forthcoming doom to Ophelia--whether she is intended to actually hear this, or not: "Get thee to a nunnery." It is the same in economics. Faced with a crisis, technological progress affords a safe escape. Reject that progress and we are doomed to suffer a great catastrophe. The existing financial-monetary system is doomed? Bring that failed system to an end. Existing policies for globalization and the reign of free trade, doom us; end those policies and choose saner ones instead. In general, empires have customarily fallen into dust, because those who dominate those cultures have so desperately associated their personal identities with the practices bringing them to the verge of self-doom, that they would, like Zeus' mythical Olympus, in Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound, rather destroy themselves and the universe, too, than abandon their habituated, fatal mind-set, their habituated sense of social, cultural identity. In precisely that same sense, the institutions which have imposed the policy-changes adopted during the recent thirty-odd years, the anti-Franklin Roosevelt policies imposed during the course of the decades following the 1963 assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy, would rather destroy the world, and themselves with it, as U.S. Treasury Secretary Larry Summers seems wont to do, rather than abandon the erroneous habits and mind-set which have now brought them to the brink of doom. Such propensities for tragedy, infect not only the wills of the ruling oligarchies. The legendary pagan-Roman cult of the predators, vox populi, has seized and possesses, tragically, the sense of personal identity of most of today's human cattle, the subject population--both voting and non-voting--in general.[25] Today's typical U.S. citizen locates his or her sense of personal identity, not in who and what she or he actually is, but in what each imagines the currently resident Satan of the local neighborhood, whose voice is "popular opinion" (vox populi), might tell them they must appear to be. Thus, since the typical individual in today's sick society finds his or her sense of personal identity in the virtual-reality mirror of (largely popular-entertainments-orchestrated) mass popular opinion, rather than in the reality of society's relationship to both itself and the physical universe, the typical citizen of today is, in this degree, more often a pathology-afflicted, rage-brimming mental case, than a truly rationally human being. This extremely popular form of today's mental illness, is not composed merely of isolable individual points of popular opinion. The presently prevailing mental illness, is predominantly pervasive, axiomatic, systemic in character. The mind of the typical individual, in the corridors of power, or in the cattle-pens where the television-addicts are gathered for spectator-sports and other entertainment, is a person whose body dwells, and dies, in the real, physical world, but whose mind dwells in the escapist fantasy-world of virtual reality, chiefly the fantasy-world known as popular opinion. They would rather be popular in Hell, than happy in Heaven, if living in Heaven means being libelled or snickered at, today, by passing spectators on the streets of Hell. Thus, the mass of today's population presents us a spectacle akin to that of a mass of sleepers, each and all dwelling in a nightmarish fantasy, their dream world, that dream-world the virtual-reality nightmare world, of current popular opinion. To save the victims of such a state of affairs, it were necessary, first of all, that they be reawakened. The shock needed to awaken them, is in the process of being delivered: a general crash, of one currently probable form or another, of the existing global financial and monetary system. That needed blessing, that shock, they are about to receive. In such an awakening, the hope is, that the human individual's inherent, inborn capacity for cognition will enable most of the people to readjust quickly to reality, abandoning that popular opinion which has so viciously misled and betrayed them. That happy change happened to the victims of the Coolidge era, when Franklin Roosevelt became President. The added problem is, that, unfortunately, there is no guarantee that the needed quality of leadership will be presented to the people. It did not happen in Germany, because the leading bankers of London and Wall Street--including Governor George W. Bush's grandfather, Prescott, decided to put Hitler into power in Germany, instead of allowing Kurt von Schleicher to continue as Chancellor. The combination of the leadership provided by Franklin Roosevelt and that exposure of Wall Street by the Senate Committee which was represented by Pecora, typify the way in which the U.S. population not only escaped the fascist coup which Wall Street had planned, but also was led into the New Deal decade of not only economic recovery, but also a large degree of recovery from the insanity of the Coolidge 1920s. We must hope that that happy turn would be the result of that presently onrushing global financial-monetary collapse now in progress. To sum up what has been said here so far: In most of known history, potentially doomed cultures are rescued only when two preconditions are satisfied. First, there must be a terrible, sudden shock, which terrifies the majority of the population into fleeing from those mind-sets which had been the mainstream of popular opinion, up to that shattering moment of onrushing, pent-up reality. Second, there must be constructive leadership, which leads the population, or at least much of it, into abandoning the corrupt habits of popular opinion-making which had led them, step by step, up to the moment of threatened self-destruction. Thus, the crucial need, during those moments of deepest crisis such as that, is, first, to define both the currently popular insanity which must be rejected, and, second, to appeal to the cognitive powers of a leading layer among the population in general: to appeal to them to adopt a suitable new mind-set, replacing, quickly, previously popular beliefs, with sane ones. Such is the crucial strategic importance of the points, respecting cognition and Classical culture, which I have summarized here, up to this point. What remains to be done in this report, is as follows. It is essential that we clarify the nature of the popular insanity, including wild-eyed lunacy in the matter of economics, which has, excepting a few notables, gripped both our government, and most of our popular opinion, during the recent thirty-odd years. 2. Price Fantasies Versus Physical Reality Every competent discussion of what is termed "economics" today, must begin with agreement as to the nature of the specific aspect of that subject-matter being discussed. Unfortunately, most university courses and popular discussion of this matter, proceed from a most remarkable ignorance of precisely this elementary prerequisite. The incompetence predominating in those circles, is not merely a matter of technical shortcomings, or even, as in the case of Professor Milton Friedman's circles, outright frauds; the majority of today's stoutly held beliefs in economics and related matters, are insane in the strictest, functional sense of that term. To define the nature of the prevalent insanities, one must first define, at least summarily, what is both technically competent and personally sane. Here, we are confronted by two overlapping issues. First, that presently generally accepted, entirely incompetent beliefs concerning economics, dominate both the government and the majority of the academically trained members of the economic profession. This occurs at a time when the existing global economic system is in the process of disintegrating of its own accord. Second, that the immorality associated with those beliefs, is an error which must be overcome, even removed, as a precondition for any possible economic recovery. Thus, what might otherwise be seen as currently popular morality, is actually currently prevailing popular immorality concerning economic issues. This is especially the case with that immorality presently prevailing in government and, also, most emphatically, among the upper twenty percentile of family-income brackets. This immorality must be radically changed, or, better, removed. The presently prevailing, academically preferred, actually insane beliefs respecting economy, must be replaced quickly by the authority of sane ones. To that end, I proceed now, first to some fundamentals concerning the required definitions of economics in general. Any functionally relevant use of the term "economics," must begin with respect for the historical specificity of the concrete topical area to which this term is being applied. For example, the use of the term "economics" in a universal way, referencing inclusively so-called prehistoric expressions of human activity, as well as the species observable during so-called historical times, requires resort to the branch of physical science founded, and initially developed (1671-1716) by the great universal genius Gottfried Leibniz, the science of physical economy. In no way, can any other version of economic science be treated as universally applicable. Otherwise, apart from the universal values addressed, uniquely, by the science of physical economy, in each other case, we are speaking of an inferior topic. In such cases, we are addressing what is, relatively, merely a subsumed family of types, each and all such types bearing the name of either social systems, or political economy. Each such use of the term "economics," must refer implicitly to a specific historical setting, such as, for example, the form of modern European national economy begun in the France of Louis XI. Within such a specific historic setting, and, within that category, such as European national economy, for example, we must address the specific class of social system associated with the type of national economy under immediate scrutiny. Thus, for example, every effort to build up a theory of economy in general from the "ivory tower" starting-point of "a Robinson Crusoe model," suffices to prove that the author of such an undertaking, like "systems analysis" founder John von Neumann, either bears the mark of an outrightly malicious faker, as von Neumann was, or, if innocent of malicious intent, is simply a hopelessly illiterate slob in the subject-matter of economics, and also in the matter of scientific method in general. To situate the development of the extended European forms of modern economy into the period of the past 145 years or so (since the global impact of the U.S. victory in the 1865-1876 aftermath of its 1861-1865 Civil War), the following general observations on the matter of historical specificity introduce this discussion of the globally hegemonic forms of contemporary political-economy as such. Begin that discussion of historical specificity, by situating the proper meaning of the term "modern history." Currently prevalent convention has divided the periods of the existence of mankind, between what is called history, and what is usually termed pre-history. Currently popular-academic (and ideologically long over-ripe) English-speaking convention, dates the beginning of history to approximately the time, about 6,000 years ago, that a highly developed maritime culture of people, speaking, and writing in a language of the Dravidian group, established colonies in lower Mesopotamia, Yemen, Ethiopia, and Canaanite Palestine-Lebanon.[26] With the decline and fall of the culture established, as Sumer, by the Dravidian-speaking maritime culture, the local, relatively primitive Semites of that region, who had been previously colonized and assimilated by that maritime culture, began the long reign of successive ebbs and rises of that culture in Mesopotamia.[27] Thus, since before what bigotted modern convention persists in misidentifying as the beginning of history, there emerged an intersection and collision between the Middle East successors to the relevant Dravidian maritime culture and the culture of Egypt. Out of that intersection and culture, what came to be known as today's globally extended European civilization, emerged in what has come to be known as ancient Greece. The ancient Greeks, as we term them today, were also chiefly the products of a maritime culture, one whose roots are traced to origins including an Atlantic oceanic maritime culture flowing into the ancient Mediterranean, perhaps since as early as during the most recent post-glaciation melt, to a time more than 10,000 years ago. Ancient Greek culture, as it is designated today, would not have amounted to a proverbial "hill of beans" in the long run, but for the development of what has come to be known as a Classical Greek culture, as represented by Athens, the Ionian city-state republics, the Greek colonies in lower Italy, and ancient Cyrenaica. These ancient Greeks, whose principal cultural debt was, otherwise, to a culture they adopted from the legacy of the Golden Age of Egypt,[28] went a qualitative step beyond their Egyptian patrons, to establish the kernel of what became today's globally extended European civilization.[29] Out of those developments in ancient Greece we associate the Classical tradition of Pythagoras, Thales, Solon, the Golden Age of Athens, and Plato's Academy. The most significant feature of that Classical Greek legacy, is the developed conception of the idea, a conception best defined by the Socratic dialogues of Plato. It was from the further development of that Platonic legacy by the Christian Apostles, as it is most clearly articulated in the Gospel of St. John and the Epistles of St. Paul, that the best features of the past 2,000 years of now globally extended European civilization were spread. From that point of historical reference, now so placed behind us, we focus here on three leading points which have axiomatic authority in any competent discussion of the principles, practice, and issues of modern economy today. We begin as all competent political-economy must, from the archetypical standpoint of the universal science of physical economy. In the following pages, I focus upon the dominant economy of the world today, that internally conflicted form of world economy which developed within today's globally extended modern European civilization, that conflict which emerged since the revolution which erupted during the Fifteenth-Century Italy-centered Renaissance. That latter is the Christian Renaissance of the Classical Greek tradition, the Renaissance which marks the beginning of modern, globally extended European civilization, and, thus, provided the watershed for the formation of all forms of globally significant, mutually conflicting varieties of modern economy. Three Crucial Points: Leibniz Revisited I emphasize the several crucial points which I stated earlier in this report. These points denote the domain of universal economy, otherwise known as physical economy. In the course of outlining that case, I reformulate several among the crucial points introduced at the outset of the preceding section. First, from the standpoint of any effort to construct a mathematical model of human ecology, the existence of the human species represents a fundamental ontological paradox within the schemes of currently, academically popularized notion of ecology itself. This is the paradox which sets our human species, universally, apart from and above all other living species. Mankind is the only species which is able to increase the potential relative population-density of its entire species willfully. This demographic result is measurable, in purely physical, non-monetary terms, per capita and per square kilometer. In other words, just as the existence of living processes defines, paradoxically, the need to recognize the existence of an axiomatic quality of universal physical principle, one not found within the domain of functions inhering in non-living species, so human existence defines the existence of an efficiently universal physical principle, one not to be found otherwise among living processes.[30] The result is, that "animal ecology" were valid only as an approximation (a subsumed phase-space) of the corrected, higher form of a truly universal ecology, the universal ecology which includes the specific qualities of human ecology, the latter as distinct from the relatively impoverished, inferior axiomatic assumptions of merely animal ecology. Second, this willful power unique to the human species, is expressed, in first approximation, by the action of adding, successively, validated discoveries (or, rediscoveries) of an axiomatic quality of universal physical principles. The expression of those validations in the form of derived new technologies, enables the qualitative, as well as simply quantitative increase of the power of the human species in and over the universe as a whole. This is expressed as the increase of the human species' per-capita power (Leibniz: Kraft, not Leistung) over nature. Hence, also mankind's increase in per-capita power over the universe, as measured per square kilometer of the Earth's surface. The continuation of Leibniz's principles of physical science, by his anti-empiricist, anti-Kantian followers, such as Carl Gauss and Bernhard Riemann, led to the elaboration of the Gauss-Riemann notion of an ordered series of multiply-connected physical manifolds (i.e., Riemannian relativistic physics), in which the ivory-tower notion of a so-called a priori Euclidean manifold, is replaced by the principle, that there exist no valid universal physical principles in the universe, except those which are generated by aid of physical-experimental validation of a new discovery of an added (axiomatic) quality of universal physical principle.[31] This, thus expandable, multiply-connected array of such principles, situates the universal principle of change governing mankind's willful increase of his per-capita power in and over the universe.[32] These axiomatic relations can be represented only in terms of Riemann's specification for an orderable series of multiply-connected manifolds. However, the realization of this potential increase in per-capita power, depends upon cooperation within society. This brings us to the third point, as summarized earlier here. Third, the primary expression of forms of cooperation relevant to realization of the benefits of scientific and technological progress, is located in the domain of cognition, as I have defined cognition here earlier: not in the realm of merely deductive forms of communication. In other words, to communicate the discovery of a valid universal physical principle, from one person to another, the relevant act of cognitive insight must occur within the cognitive processes of the recipient. Communication of real ideas by deductive means, is impossible on principle. Hereinafter, this use of the term cognition, supplies the definition of the term reason, as distinct from mere logic. This third point signifies, that a society efficiently realizing the social benefits of scientific and technological progress, can only be a society in which there is widespread and increasing emphasis on the cognitive element in social relations, as contrasted to a culturally inferior society, which, for example, teaches science according to the deductive-reductionist terms akin to the methods of a merely formalist mathematical physics. This means that equal emphasis must be placed on Classical forms of art and education, in the sense of the Classical Greek (Platonic) tradition. This must include the emphasis on such Classics in scientific education, in artistic composition, and also in preferred forms of publicly practiced entertainments. Otherwise, a society may have significant scientific cadres, even of high quality; but, if the prevailing cultural standard within the society as a whole, is predominantly an expression of the hegemony of a reductionist-deductive popular ideology, such as empiricism or existentialism, the society's development will be technologically abortive, respecting the general net rate of its increase of the average productive powers of labor. As I have stressed above, since the forms of communication required for execution of such insight, require mastery of what I have defined as Platonic forms of ontological paradox, otherwise called metaphor, the possibility of communicating the discovery of universal physical principles efficiently, depends upon a correlated form of development of the social relations among individuals, specifically their cognitive processes as such. This education requires the individual person's discovery of cognitive insight into these specific processes. In other words, insight into the act of cognition conscious of itself. Self-conscious cognition, "cognition acting with consciousness of itself," does not differ from a Platonic notion of principles of Classical artistic composition. This means not only the principles of Classical plastic and non-plastic artistic composition. It means the shaping of the use of language into the only form which is a truly literate one, contrary to the corrupting, virtually decorticating influence of empiricism. This must be a development and use of language, contrary to empiricism and other reductionists' schemes. It thus reflects the users' shared experience in the development and use of Classical artistic principles of metaphor, as much as universal physical principles. It also means the application of those same principles to the domain of statecraft as such. As the Socratic dialogues of Plato are exercises in the successful development of individual scientific principles, through cognition, so the principles of Classical artistic composition are developed in the same cognitive mode. Look at the relevant physical-economic application of a new discovery of a valid universal physical principle, as providing an example of what is to be recognized as the meaning of "cognition acting out of consciousness of itself." The following discussion is directed to that point. The paradoxes which lead to widespread qualitative improvements in knowledge and practice, are principally of two types. In the first instance, there are paradoxes which reveal a plain error in some conscious or implied choice of axiom. In the second case, we have the type of ontological paradox repeatedly referenced above: the case in which the error is attributable, not to a falsely adopted axiom, but to the absence of knowledge of some axiomatic quality of valid universal principle. In all cases, the relevant paradoxes, of either type, are defined as such in an experimental way. By experiment, one means human physical action upon the universe. All verification of these paradoxes, and of the principles which overcome them, relies upon the relevant physical form of experimental action. Thus, for example, as Gauss and Riemann have demonstrated, in succession, it is not sufficient to demonstrate an apparent choice of principle; it is necessary to design and conduct an experiment which seeks to determine whether or not the proposed principle is universally necessary, necessary to all competent forms of physical science, for example.[33] We are not ignoring the issue of purely formal consistency, such as that which might be displayed on the classroom blackboard. If the error of inconsistency demonstrated, is not a correctable error of a deductive-inductive form as such, then it must tend to suggest the relevant involvement of some erroneous assumption of universal principle, or, of a related lack of some axiomatic principle which we need to discover. All latter such errors are resolved, not at the ivory-tower pedant's blackboard, but by relevant methods of physical experiment. Test of consistency may be an invaluable, but, otherwise, merely auxiliary part of this process. Thus, all issues of principle, whether in physical science, or otherwise, arise from, and are resolved by, those types of physical action through which the human species increases its potential relative population-density. In other words, in which an individual mind has contributed a valid, axiomatic principle, which, if socialized effectively, has the effect of increasing the potential relative population-density of our species as a whole. Thus, all such action, and the principles whose discovery relies upon such action, represents a quality of mental practice lying outside the domain of any merely deductive system of thought. Such actions are, by their nature, intrinsically non-linear: not as "non-linear" is misdefined by such acolytes of Bertrand Russell as John von Neumann and Norbert Wiener, for example, but, rather, in the larger, higher sense of transfinite, as implicitly defined by the notion of a Gauss-Riemann series of multiply-connected manifolds. I.e., as associated with the changes in approximately measurable curvature, reflecting the ever-ongoing transition from one such physical-space-time manifold to a successor.[34] Since the true value of this measurable magnitude, depends upon a further extension of the still-ongoing process of change within which it appears, it is not a number as such, even though its value may be approximated by a number--it may adumbrate a number usable for some practical purposes of estimation; but, that is an aspect of the matter which need not be explored further in this present location. For reasons previously stated here, the only form of human action which is universal, is that which expresses mankind's increase of its species' power in and over the universe as a whole. Only in such ways, can we define truthfulness. That is to say, that truth means, essentially, that set of axiomatic principles, defined as universal, which represent mankind's physical-experimental determination of the discovery of universal physical (and other) principles of an axiomatic quality. Granting that our knowledge of universal such principles is always incomplete (e.g., imperfect), statements which are in accord with all presently known universal (axiomatic) principles are rightly deemed truthful in practice. We are untruthful, only when, either, we violate arbitrarily, available, previously known, valid principles, or when we, in clinging to already adopted principles, attempt to conceal, or simply ignore evidence at hand which shows that we are obliged to seek out an additional universal principle.[35] Persons--and social institutions--which govern the making and application of their policies according to this rule, are to be deemed truthful, at their worst. Those who do not heed that rule, are to be despised, or to be considered as insane, as the present policies of the Scalia-led majority of the U.S. Supreme Court are to be regarded as axiomatically untruthful, and the current economic and related policies of the U.S. government in general, as not merely negligent, and also untruthful, but also even clinically insane. We must therefore say, also, that truthfulness is never static, passive, but always active. It is not only mission-oriented; it exists only as truthfulness is impelled and governed by the impulsion of an adopted, relevant mission. The general form of that mission, is what we rightly term progress, as, specifically, progress in the general welfare of all of the people and their posterity. To summarize the crucial points listed thus far, we have the following. The discovery of valid new universal physical principles expresses, if but in first approximation, the specific quality of the human species' individual member, the which sets us apart from, and above all other living species. This activity, which thus incorporates scientific and technological progress, defines a healthy human nature as an efficient commitment to scientific and technological progress for the advancement of the potential relative population-density of the human species as a whole. Any person or society which rejects or resists that form of mission-orientation toward constant fostering of scientific and technological progress, is therefore a person, or a society, which is acting in defiance of human nature, in defiance of the nature and vital interest of the human species. Such as the disciples of empiricists Thomas Hobbes, Bernard Mandeville, John Locke, François Quesnay,[36] David Hume, Adam Smith, and the Utilitarians, are, by definition, not only functionally insane, but also axiomatically immoral. However, as already emphasized, that expresses the relevant principle only in first approximation. Since the realization of the indicated imperative, requires what I have indicated as the premising of social relations upon cognition, rather than sense-perception as such, the possibility of realizing scientific and technological progress, depends upon coordinate progress in the discovery and general use of principles expressed as principles of Classical artistic composition. (This signifies, once more, the included extension of those latter principles to the development of language and statecraft.) In other words, to adduce a principle generated by the sovereign cognitive processes of the mind of another person, one must not only re-experience that generation in one's own sovereign cognitive processes. One must be conscious of the quality of ideas one is re-experiencing, as ideas in the sense of Plato, rather than simple reflections of sense-perception. To be conscious of such ideas, is to be conscious of the fact that the nature of the human individual, and human species, is defined by both cognition, and the mission which inheres in the nature of cognition. Thus, the essence of the matter, is a mission to act in accord with cognition self-conscious of itself. This is the essence of human nature. That sense of mission is reflected in individuals' practice, as living according to a choice of vocation so selected. Yet, once again, none of this involves the "ivory tower" philosophizing which is inherent to the sundry reductionists, such as the primitive materialists, deductive formalists, empiricists, Kantians, existentialists, et al. The echoes of simple sense-perception, which define the meaning of objects of thought for all varieties of the reductionists, the notion of static objects floating in otherwise "empty" linearized space and time, are to be rejected. The objects of ideas are not the reductionists' objects; ideas correspond only to transformations in the state of man's actions upon the universe. There are no static ideas; all ideas are of the ontological form of "becoming," of "change," in the sense that "change" (in the sense of "becoming") is the elementary form of existence for Plato.[37] Such ideas can not exist apart from their natural habitat; that habitat is the ongoing mission of constant, effective change in mankind's power in and over nature. Just so in competent and sane economics. So-called "traditional societies" are, by their intrinsic nature, a state of bestialized mankind; such cultures are not merely immoral, but cruelly so, that by definition. Indeed, the famous Code of the Roman Emperor Diocletian, which became a standard for the worst among the European feudal oligarchies, prescribes the enforcement of such a bestialized tradition, from one generation of a family to the next. The notion of a "traditional" form of economy, is specifically characteristic only of societies in which a ruling oligarchy and its associated lackeys degrade the majority of society to the status of virtual human cattle, that in precisely the spirit of the Code of Diocletian. Every competent form of modern economics teaching, even those which are but approximately competent, recognize the significance of the phenomenon of what I have referenced earlier here, as "technological attrition." If we impose the notion of "traditional economy" upon those treated as virtual human cattle, that society is self-doomed on that account alone, on account of technological attrition. When we rise to a higher level of technology of practice, technological attrition requires us to proceed to rise to a still higher-level; we are, again, and again, required to do that, by the factor of technological attrition. Thus, we have two ways of looking at the same conception. First, human nature requires that we think in cognitive terms about man's place within the universe, as the succession of discoveries of universal physical principle, defines individual man's natural place in the universe. Second, we must recognize that man's relationship to nature, is not ordered through the mechanisms of mere sense-perception (e.g., pleasure and pain); individual man's relationship to the universe is through social processes which are elementarily cognitive, rather than merely sensory. Thus, it is the adducible principles which govern our consciousness of our cognitive relationship to the ideas existing only within the perfectly sovereign cognitive processes of another person, which are the means by which we are able to cooperate in effecting those expressions of endless fundamental scientific and technological progress, the which are the characteristic of a moral human nature. In other words, the ability to muster the development of one's cognitive powers in ways which lead to individual contributions to generalized scientific and technological progress, is necessarily subsumed by a still higher principle, the principle of self-consciously cognitive relations among the individually sovereign cognitive powers of the individual members of society. Thus, the cognitively discoverable, universal principles of Classical artistic composition, not merely parallel, but directly subsume valid scientific discovery. The Classical English poets, Percy Shelley, of A Defence of Poetry, and John Keats, of Ode To A Grecian Urn, would nod in agreement to what I have just said. So would Friedrich Schiller. Truth is beauty, and beauty is truth. Beauty is true metaphor realized. Beauty and truth are mankind's acting truly in accord with our special nature. Poets--true Classical poets in the Classical Greek tradition--are, indeed, the true legislators of mankind's progress. 3. What Drove Al Gore Mad? On performance, Al Gore has been the worst U.S. Vice-President since Aaron Burr, the latter the treasonous asset of the British Foreign Office's Jeremy Bentham.[38] Almost certainly, unless something very unexpected intervenes, the intrinsically unelectable Al Gore will become neither the next U.S. President, nor, hopefully, even at this late date, the Democratic Party's nominee as Presidential candidate. It must be said, however, that an electorate which would reduce its apparent choices of leading candidates for President to a man as aberrant as Gore, or as Nero-like as the notoriously mean-spirited Governor George W. Bush,[39] is a people which, by and large, has presently misplaced its moral fitness to outlive the global financial, monetary, and economic collapse now descending upon mankind as a whole. As the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has stressed, in presenting The Message of Fatima,[40] the fate of cultures is not predetermined by prophecies, but by critical choices, choice of the ways in which decisions of a systemic, existential quality are made. In threatening to reduce their own choices for the next U.S. President to either electing, or tolerating an Al Gore or a Governor Bush, it is the current majority of the people of the U.S.A. themselves, who have, so far, threatened to bring the most awesome kind of catastrophe upon themselves. That is to say, that the way in which prevailing popular opinion presently tends to guide U.S. behavior, is the mark of a people which, in general, appears to have, for the moment, lost the moral fitness to survive. Were either Bush or, the less likely Gore to become the next President, it is virtually assured that the U.S., as a functioning nation, would not survive the relatively short-term time of peril immediately ahead.[41] Indeed, already, more and more nations from around the world, have been recently distancing themselves from the U.S.A., that in the manner of passengers paddling away, with increasing displays of energy in doing this, from this new, sinking, doomed Titanic. For this reaction from most of the rest of the world outside the U.S.A., the spectacles produced by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, and the far-right Republican cabal in the Congress, are much to blame; but, it is the disgusting prospect of a future U.S.A. under a President Bush or Gore, or a United Kingdom under the continued ministry of British Commonwealth leaders such as Gore's crony, the Benito Mussolini-like Tony Blair, which the world at large finds, increasingly, most fearfully appalling.[42] It must be said, therefore, that there could be no more suitable measure of the difference between sanity and insanity, than the difference between the culture of a people capable of choosing to survive, and the alternative. Clearly, if Bush or Gore is chosen, the popular majority of the people of the U.S. will have shown themselves lacking the moral fitness to survive, will have avowed themselves as, collectively, functionally insane--at least for the present time. They can, and might survive; but that depends on whether or not enough among you, the readers, will help me lead our people back to sanity in their thinking about economic matters. With individuals, as with entire cultures, it is often the case, that the moral defects of the person have been acquired by choice. Observation of Vice-President Gore, in that office, and other activities, does not suggest that his obvious, many, and disgusting, personal mental and moral defects, are either biologically predetermined, or chemically induced. Whether by induced parental and other influences, or otherwise, his manifestly stubborn stupidity, his boundless cupidity, his sheer meanness of spirit, and the beastly quality of his feral propensities, are qualities of a type one acquires by choice. Something similar must be said of the observable moral and intellectual deterioration which is to be readily observed as in progress among those citizens who have chosen to hitch themselves to the cause of such a candidate as either Gore or Governor Bush. To what degree, and in what ways, do the U.S. people, in general, find in themselves the desire to be represented by such tyrannically inclined, murderous thugs, such manifestly racist, half-witted degenerates, as a Bush or Gore? Among those who support, or who even merely tolerate the candidacies of such wretched public figures, there are obvious, but also obviously differing motives for, and expressions of their common folly. Look first, at the patterns which tend to explain how such a depraved state of public morality came into its present influence upon our nation's political life. Then, that said, focus upon the internal mechanisms of the new kind of general insanity about economics which has taken hold in the U.S. during the course of the recent thirty-odd years, especially during the recent quarter-century, since the unfortunate election of President Jimmy Carter. Public Morals: Then and Now If only in first approximation, the reason for such depravity among the public, parallels the documentation supplied by Justice Pecora. The notable financial houses and law firms of Wall Street, then and now, display a peculiar sort of professed perception of morality, a perception which were fairly compared to a search for good taste conducted among a tribe of fratricidal cannibals. If anything, the present specimens are generally more depraved than even their predecessors of the Coolidge era. More remarkable is the depravity pervading most of the upper twenty percentile of U.S. family-income brackets. One might speak of them most gently, as of persons with a certain impediment which might prevent them from getting, like a camel, through "the eye of a needle." In that stratum, which presently dominates both the leading circles of political parties, and the recent elections, we find frequently, especially among those under fifty-five years of age, a quality of general depravity which is truly comparable to that of ancient Sodom and Gomorrah. Among the lower eighty percentile of family-income brackets, there is, admittedly, a shocking incidence of those about as immoral as has become commonplace among the upper twenty percentile; but, the general problem of the increasingly poor is of a somewhat different political character, reflecting somewhat different economic circumstances [Figure 3]. Moreover, morally and otherwise, the composition of the lower eighty percentile is variously stratified. Overall, especially since Wall Street's mid-1960s launching of the U.S. Republican Party's opportunistic "Southern Strategy," we might be rightly reminded, more and more, of the conditions of life under what die-hard Confederates used to praise as their "peculiar institution." The Republican alliance between Wall Street and the Confederate legacy, abetted by the electoral strategy of Vice-President Gore's Democratic Party allies, has corrupted the nation, its courts, and its law-making, with an ominous, virtually treasonous regression toward the view of the majority as virtually human cattle, the view which was characteristic of feudalism, and is characteristic still of our republic's ancient enemy, the British monarchy. Thus, as a result of the recent decades' shift from commitment to civil rights, toward a view of the majority as human cattle, we have the following. At the top of today's social heap, there are those who consider themselves members of a privileged oligarchy. Under that financier oligarchy and its attached law firms, there is a hierarchy of various ranks of oligarchical lackeys.[43] So, the pecking-order goes, stratum by stratum, down to the general rank and file of all of those considered virtually as human cattle, all the way down to the employed "field slaves," and, below them, the virtual outcasts. The latter are typified by convicts, who might have committed no relevant crime, but are nonetheless condemned, by aid of racial discrimination, to slave-labor in prison systems, or to similarly menial forms of existence out of prison. There is, also, presently among us, a general stratum of persons, totalling about 10% of the U.S. population, condemned to those Third World-like conditions in which the general life-expectancy has been depressed to Third World levels of fifty-odd years. Thus, today's division of the population between those in the upper twenty percentile and the lower eighty, is a result of a quarter-century of economic, social, cultural, moral, and political degeneration of the U.S. society as a whole, a degeneration which has been accelerating since the aftermath of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, and, more emphatically since the 1977 inauguration of David Rockefeller's lackey, President Jimmy Carter [Figure 3]. The most rapid rate of general economic and moral decline, since Carter, has been experienced under policies introduced during the 1987-1991 period, the first years under Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's term in office.[44] Over the course of the recent thirty-odd years, especially since the ruinous effects of the 1977-1981 Carter Administration, the population in general has settled into a habit of learning to adjust, with increasing submissiveness, with increasing political passivity, we might say even lethargy, to the perceived reality of ongoing economic, social, and political policy-shaping trends in government, Wall Street, and the Wall Street crowd's BAC-controlled major mass media. The pervasive immorality among family households occupying the lower ranks of the economy, is the immorality of "I must go along to get along," the perennial policy of those who prefer to live lives as tolerated serfs, rather than free men and women. This tendency to salute and submit, like dutiful serfs, to whatever might be perceived as ongoing, established trends beyond one's power to change, converges upon the quality of a traditional society, as that might be inferred from the Code of the Emperor Diocletian. The result, is a manifest tendency for each distinguishable branch and stratum of the population, to attempt not only to learn to fit into its destined place, but, to attempt to survive while doing so. This is reflected in the lowered level of participation in elections, among the lower eighty percentile of family-income brackets. It is shown, even more clearly, in the willingness of even those who do vote, to be left flatly unrepresented in the internal affairs of the Democratic Party. Wall Street and its lackeys from among the upper twenty percentile of family-income brackets (the "middle," or "Third Way," of pandering to the caprices of the "suburban" voters' blocs), dominate both leading party's machines, and the elections. Franklin Roosevelt's Democratic Party base, and the FDR legacy, have been virtually squeezed out of the controlling interests in what had once been his Democratic Party. Thus, it is typical of today's increasingly racist Democratic Party leadership, that it was the Gore core of the Democratic Party machine which acted to bring about, and enforce, a 1999 nullification of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, a Democratic Party leadership which customarily condones and even participates in blatantly racist discrimination against what are usually classed as African-Americans, and the explicitly racist role of Jack Keeney's Criminal Division of the Justice Department, in false and malicious prosecution of elected African-American officials. Naturally, the Gore faction of the Democratic Party machine resorted to the son of that same Jack Keeney, to initiate the recently effected virtual obliteration of all of the gains of the Civil Rights cause dating from the 1960s. What I have just described as the moral degeneration of what is wryly, and widely called "democracy" today, is relatively new, a phenomenon of the recent quarter-century. However, the susceptibility, among our people, for such acclimation to imposed depravity, was already evident to me from studying the behavior of the U.S. population, at close quarters, during my childhood and adolescence, during the late 1920s and the 1930s. It was a phenomenon which was embedded, conspicuously, in "popular culture" during the period from the 1901 assassination of President McKinley, through the pre-crash 1920s, a trend which was carried over from the parental households to the children into the 1930s, and into the 1940s. The rise of philosophical pragmatism, as typified by the influences of Harvard's William James and John Dewey, and the popularization of the childish "frontier" mythologies of Frederick Jackson Turner,[45] is a notable correlative of the kind of corrosive moral degeneracy which took over more and more of the formation of so-called popular opinion, during the course of the 1901-1929 interval. Then, such moral decay was usually referred to simply as "popular opinion." It was merely consistent with the fostering of Walter Lippmann's apology for the pagan Roman cult of popular opinion (vox populi),[46] that "popular" had already become, increasingly, a substitute for morality during the 1920s. Being a "popular" person, cautiously conditioning oneself to prefer "popular" fads, such as "popular music," and so on, became typical of the trend toward moral degeneracy, then, and during the so-called "McCarthyism" period, later. Typical was the role assigned to the high school or college cheer-leaders, sports figures, and public entertainers, whose function was to aid in determining which current fads and persons were to be generally acknowledged as being currently "popular" ones: which or who was to be admired, and which or who were to be deplored. There really was very little rationality in the matter of currently preferred tastes; it simply was whatever currently operating caprices decided. Those abominably serf-like characteristics of the population under the "Teddy" Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Coolidge Presidencies, were pushed somewhat into the background, by the combined effects of the 1929-1934 period of the Great Depression, and the Franklin Roosevelt Presidency. Two features of this healthful shift in direction must be considered most urgently. First, was the sudden discrediting of pro-Wall Street outlooks, caused by the successive shocks of the 1929-1933 financial crises. Second, was the contrasting introduction of an element of renewed, typically American cultural optimism, engendered by Franklin Roosevelt and his incumbency. Thus, for as long as Roosevelt remained President, there was a prevailing net upturn in public optimism and morality. The reaction to the shock of the Pearl Harbor bombing, is a notable point of inflection to be studied in this pattern of rise of cultural optimism. Then, beginning with the death of Franklin Roosevelt, a long, recently accelerating, slide down, set in, back toward the cultural pessimism which had preceded Franklin Roosevelt's 1932 election-campaign. For me, as for most others I knew in overseas war-time service, the depressing effect of the Truman succession, was more or less immediate, and it accelerated. I remained, personally, among the few who continued to be culturally optimistic; it is fair to say, that about ninety-odd percent of those with whom I had shared that kind of cultural optimism, prior to Roosevelt's death, soon lost it, at least in a large degree. The eruption of "McCarthyism," under President Truman, from mid-1945 on, especially with the Congressional election of 1946, was not a product of Senator Joe McCarthy; it was a product of the Harry S Truman Administration. Truman's reversal of Roosevelt's intention, to end the war by ridding the world immediately of Portuguese, Dutch, British, and French colonialism, and Truman's unleashing of the militarily unnecessary, contraindicated nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were crucial initial elements in fostering the post-war resurgence of cultural pessimism. Among my generation, and some of their children, some of the optimism of the Franklin Roosevelt war years, was revived under President John F. Kennedy. Then, the shock effect of the 1962 missiles crisis, and, more profoundly, the assassination of President Kennedy, brought out the worst among a large ration of my generation's offspring, the "Baby Boomers." The prolonged war in Indo-China, and the assassination of the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., accelerated the moral decay, especially among that stratum of relatively more privileged suburbanite "Baby Boomers" in universities during the mid- to late-1960s, and beyond. The sudden, deep cuts in the Kennedy space-program, already introduced under President Johnson, and the ruinous economic and related social policies of the "Southern Strategy"-oriented Nixon Administration, unleashed a revival of the old cultural pessimism--and racism--lurking in the legacy of the 1920s; but, this time, beginning 1977-1981, the pessimism--and insurgent revival of official racism--soon became, in general, far worse than anything seen during those 1920s. So, it happened, that the name of the game today is, "be on the inside." It is shocking, and disgusting to consider the number of persons, then and now, whose "own mind" on almost any matter is borrowed from what is perceived to be current fads. Then, and more so now, the ultimate squelch of any unwanted statement of true fact, is, "You should know that none of the people whose opinion I respect would agree with you." There is little difference, on principle, between the mechanisms of so-called popular opinion and entertainment-choices today, than what was represented by watching vox populi marching, thumbs up, into Nero's arena, to cheer for lions eating Christians. Never forget that the Latin word populari as used then, would be translated as "the predators" today. "Popular opinion" is the popular form of general immorality; it is Hobbesian tradition of the slaves killing those among their fellow-slaves who threaten to deviate from the opinions which the slave-masters dictate. "Popular opinion," and the willingness to sell one's opinion to whoever appears to offer them a chance "to be on the inside," are, today, pretty much the same thing. Then and now, it has been the shackles which the slaves put upon one another, the shackles which lead free persons to transform themselves, too, into willing slaves. It is not always so. As I have already emphasized, even during the early to middle 1960s. There have been better times. The popular support for the Civil Rights movement then, typifies the persistence of some of the best qualities to be found among our citizens and youth during this century. For example: Thirty years ago, especially before the Carter Administration, the times, and the people, and our government and its laws and courts, were either much better, or, much less bad, morally and intellectually, than they have been since. Then, the likelihood that the person seated next to you could actually think, was much greater than it has been during the recent twenty-odd years, until hopeful signs of improvement during the most recent months. Such changes do not "just happen;" there have been reasons, some very important reasons. The fact that there were reasons for the change, does not make unfortunate conditions more tolerable; it only helps us to understand the problem involved, and once understanding it, perhaps recognize how to overcome it. For me, the hopeful sign of the times, is that there is a significant trend of increase, again today, in the incidence of people who are willing to think, rather than regurgitate, knee-jerk fashion, what passes for popular opinion. Some observers measure political progress in the population by counting the number of persons who have come to agreement with their own opinion. I do not. For me, the important thing is signs of actual thinking, whether or not that change is associated with disposition to support my explicit proposals. If people will but think, I will risk assuming that we may hope to come to important, cognitive qualities of agreement sooner or later. My own views to this effect, are colored significantly by my experiences during the 1930s and during World War II. Review what I have stated, above, on this matter. During moments of crisis, while Franklin Roosevelt remained President, the tendency toward increased optimism, and matching increase in willingness to think, was a trend. With Roosevelt's untimely death, and President Truman's follies, pessimism crept in, and more or less took over. The degree of optimism which I had come to know during the war-time years, as long as Roosevelt lived, waned quickly and sharply under Truman, and, despite the brief upturn under President Kennedy, never really re-embedded in the members of my generation. It was the spread of pessimism under President Truman, and the "however" quality of the subsequent Eisenhower years, which caused most members of my generation, especially those who fled into white-collar suburbia, to plant the seeds of potential self-destruction in their children, creating thus the potential for the explosion of cultural pessimism--e.g., the existentialism of the "rock, drug, sex counterculture"--known as the "Sixty-Eighters" of the middle to late 1960s. The effect of this among the college-graduate layer of the so-called "Baby Boomers," is key to understanding the scale and depths of the moral and general cultural decay which has gripped our nation, increasingly, during the recent quarter-century; it is this which set the stage for the immorality pervasive among the upper twenty percentile of family households today. This is key to understanding the way in which election-results have been shaped, increasingly, during the recent quarter-century. As the culturally decadent majority among the upper twenty percentile, has dominated the political parties and elections, increasingly, since the 1984 elections, so the political parties' top-ranking machinery has degenerated to the present point, at which wretches such as Governor Bush and Vice-President Gore are seriously considered by many, as almost assured Presidential nominees of their respective parties. Notably, there are certain differences in details, even important differences, but no significant difference in personal moral quality, between that pair today, and the Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler of the 1920s and 1930s. The choice between the members of such a pair, is like an old-time Utah death-sentence: Would you rather be hanged, or shot by a firing-squad? People who debate such choices, rather than rejecting them altogether, seriously need their heads examined, as I am examining the sick heads of our political parties here. So, today, among the upper twenty percentile, pathological trends in behavior run to: "We are running things to protect our privileges," against the eighty percentile which is viewed as desiring to eat what the upper twenty percentile intends to steal from health-care, social security, and other general-welfare accounts of the lower eighty. Among the lower eighty percentile, the prevailing trend is either simply not to vote at all, staging a more or less hopeless rear-guard defense of what is being taken from them, while bidding for a few crumbs from the table of government and political-party machines controlled by a chiefly ultra-corrupt upper twenty percentile. Not accidentally, during the past quarter-century, the United States government has become increasingly, outrightly racist. For a quarter-century, this racist onslaught against what the Civil Rights movement won during the 1960s has been led from the U.S. Department of Justice. The hard core of the Republican Party's far right, leads a virtual revival of the Ku Klux Klan, and also in the Democratic Party, we have the Nashville Agrarian variety of Al Gore-like southern gentility. Recently, I emphasize, once again, the fact, that since 1996, under Vice-President Gore's increasing domination of the Democratic Party's national leadership, the racism of the Justice Department and Taney-like Supreme Court majority, has been revived by the Democratic Party's collaboration with Jack Keeney, Jr., the son of the Justice Department's leading racist, to nullify the 1965 Voting Rights Act, all done with active encouragement, and vigorous support of this action from Vice-President Al Gore. However, the recent decades of cultural and moral decay in our national life, are not merely repetition of cycles of alternating optimism and despair from our national past. Something new, more evil than we have experienced here earlier during this century, has been injected in the depressing course of the recent thirty-five years. The principal immediate victims of that evil, were those commonly called "The Baby Boomers," those born either during World War II or not long afterwards. The social stratum on which to focus most intently, are those presently under fifty-five years of age, in key governmental, corporate, professional, and related positions of leading executive authority today. It has been through the retirement and other attrition of more competent leadership, that our nation has lost much of its competence, gaining, in return, what threatens to become a most awful tragedy in our nation's economic and social policies. The simplest way to identify the new kind of insanity which that "Baby Boomer" stratum has brought into the national policy-shaping process, is to point to the fad which began to take over the most politically pro-active student layers in the middle to late 1960s university campuses, the fad most conveniently identified as "post-industrial utopianism," that is to say the lunatic cult-belief in what is called today, "information society" or "The New Economy." Consider the way in which that fanatical, irrational cult-belief has been enabled to take over the leading currents in economic-social and related policy-shaping, and the special quality of doom now threatening us, were readily understood. Post-Industrial Utopia When the Democratic Party meets in Los Angeles, this mid-August, fifty-five years will have passed since U.S. President Harry Truman, at British instigation, dropped two fission-bombs, without any just cause for doing so, upon the helpless civilian populations of Japan's Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As I have reported the most relevant essential facts in numerous published locations, the motive for that bombing was supplied by a circle within the British intelligence establishment centered around H.G. Wells and Bertrand Russell. The purpose for this development of nuclear-weapons arsenals, was first specified by Wells, back in 1913, and the actual initiation of the development of these weapons, was by Bertrand Russell himself, personally. It was sometimes self-styled pacifist Russell, whose policy caused the 1945 nuclear bombing of Japan, a Japan which had already been defeated by forces commanded, with his celebrated regard for economy of time and losses on both sides, by General Douglas MacArthur.[47] The Russell nuclear-weapons policy, under which Truman ordered the bombing, was later published in the September 1946 edition of the Russell-controlled Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. The purpose of that 1945 bombing was, as Russell stated in that and other locations, then and later, was for the included purpose of setting the stage for launching a "preemptive" nuclear war against the Soviet Union. The deeper, longer-term purpose of that proposed threat of launching of "preemptive" nuclear war, was, as Russell stated repeatedly, to use nuclear weapons as a terrorist device for inducing all existing governments, including that of the Soviet Union, to give up national sovereignty and submit to one-world government, as Russell follower Henry A. Kissinger's SALT I and the 1972 ABM treaty, were intended to push the world to the verge of such a result. That has been the continuing nuclear-weapons and related policies of the United Kingdom's monarchy and its U.S. dupes, such as the late John J. McCoy and McCloy-trained Henry A. Kissinger, ever since. Today, "world government," otherwise better described as a new "Tower of Babel," is also known by such names as "free trade," "globalization," and the world "rule of law." It is, purely and simply, an intended revival of the old pagan Roman Empire, this time as actually a world-wide one-world dictatorship, exerted by a London-centered international financier oligarchy itself under the dynastic rule of "Caesar" Elizabeth II and her heirs. The intended dictator of this new world government, is presently functioning as a group of five English-speaking former nations, four of which are governed by the presently incumbent British monarchy of Queen Elizabeth II: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The fifth nation is that led by U.S. components of the British-American-Canadian (BAC) set, as typified by those who have been knighted by Her Majesty, such as Sir George Bush, Sir Henry Kissinger, Sir Caspar Weinberger, and so on. In short, the assimilation of the ruling, Wall Street financier oligarchy of the U.S.A. into an English-speaking union of this Filthy Financier-Oligarchical Five, is intended to rule the entire world forever more. That latter act might not be called treason technically, but what else, in fact, could any honest U.S. patriot call those U.S. oligarchs who have connived to force such a rule by "globalization" upon us? Thus, when, during 1989-1991, the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union were being dismembered, the British monarchy, together with President, later Sir George Bush, connived with France's President François Mitterrand, to use the combined authority of the Four Power agreement governing post-war Germany's Berlin, as the pivot for establishing what was intended to become an irreversible march to world government. The orchestration of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's 1990-1991 war against Iraq, and, following that, the ensuing orchestration of an endemic 1992-1999, still bubbling Balkan war, chiefly at British direction, set into motion the effort to convert "an expanded NATO" into a weapon commanded by the "English-speaking powers," to establish and enforce world government at Anglo-American imperial pleasure in perpetuity. This use of terror by threat of nuclear weapons, to attempt to bring about the surrender of the U.S.A. (and others) to world government, was already in motion on other fronts of U.S. cultural life, at the time Truman dropped the bombs. Witness, for example, a 1940s project, featuring such literally pro-satanic figures of the so-called "Frankfurt School" of Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and Hannah Arendt, in a propaganda campaign intended explicitly to eradicate the patriotic "American intellectual tradition" within the U.S.A. itself.[48] This overlapped the activities of other Bertrand Russell and H.G. Wells confederates, such as the Josiah Macy, Jr. Foundation of Bertrand Russell lackeys Gregory Bateson and Margaret Mead, et al., in concocting and promoting pseudo-sciences such as "information theory," "linguistics," and "systems analysis," in working to outlaw competent science and even the practice of truthfulness itself, from U.S. public and leading private institutions.[49] The firing of General Douglas MacArthur, by President Truman, was a key part of the effort to destroy the patriotic tradition of the U.S. military itself, making way for the emergence of what became notorious as the "utopian," "anti-traditionalist" faction within both the military and strategic establishment more generally. These "Dr. Strangelove"[50] and other utopians, were the legacy of the Wells-Russell world-government-through-nuclear-weapons policy. The widespread destruction of the honor and quality of the U.S. military institutions through a prolonged dirty, useless war in Indo-China, put the utopians into the dominant position. The wave of pessimism unleashed by the combined impact of the 1962 missiles crisis, the assassination of President Kennedy, the launching of the worse than useless Indo-China war, and the assassinations of both the Reverend Martin Luther King and President Kennedy's brother Robert, turned a virtual majority among the most politically pro-active strata of university graduates, into a breeding-culture for what became the most savage converts to a new variety of the same Conservative Revolution which produced both the Nazi Party and the Horkheimer-Adorno-Arendt Frankfurt School in Germany. This social phenomenon was but another version of the same extreme cultural pessimism which had produced both those German predecessors, and such followers of Nazi philosopher Martin Heidegger as France's Jean-Paul Sartre and Sartre's Nazi-like Frantz Fanon. These utopian "New Leftists," typified by the Weatherman cult, became the most rabid devotees of irrationalism in general, and the peer-group bellwethers of the politics of post-industrial, anti-progress utopianism. The way in which Wall Street's cabal of British-American-Canadian (BAC) oligarchy, variously coddled and culled the flock of these young utopians, who were marching, like Fourteenth-Century Flagellants, "through the institutions," produced, as a net result, a selection of a new kind of upwardly mobile political, corporate, and professional elite, rising to the top positions which they have dominated increasingly, during the course of the last decade. These are, with relatively rare individual