OPEN LETTER TO THE
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE

This New
Turning-Point
In World History^[1]

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

The results of some recent U.S. elections, remind us, that that stupidity of a people by which they are led to their own destruction, may be, in large part, the result of what was done to them. This, however, does not mean that the people have a right to claim the fruits of that stupidity as a matter of political principle.
—Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

"...The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But, in ourselves, that we are underlings."
—Cassius, in Shakespeare, Julius Caesar Act I, ii

February 9, 2004

Preface: The End of an Empire

The February 10, 1763 Treaty of Paris, defined the emergence of the British East India Company as a new imperialism, both as a matter of fact, and in the governing intention of that Company's then-emerging leading political figure. This figure was a then still youthful, but already powerful William Petty Fitzmaurice, the later Marquess of Lansdowne also notorious as Lord Shelburne.

We have now come to the end of that empire, the British Empire, which has reigned, whether more richly or more poorly on this planet, for one-quarter of a millennium. Every nook and cranny of the world, each field and hamlet of the United States included, will be shaken by the presently onrushing effects of the currently onrushing, final fall of that colossus.

That Shelburne was the one-time (1782-83) Prime Minister of Britain, the all-time monster, and the sponsor of the careers of those among his personal lackeys, such as Adam Smith, Edward Gibbon, and Jeremy Bentham, who played leading roles in the preparations and other features of Shelburne's organizing of the French Revolution of 1789. The latter feat he set into motion through his diplomacy of 1782-83, during the time he was British Prime Minister and co-creator of the modern British Foreign Office.[2] The revolution itself was orchestrated largely through his appointed Foreign Office "secret committee" chief Bentham, as an operation designed to eliminate the British Empire's most immediate source of danger to its lately won supremacy at that time. That danger to the empire, the danger which was Bentham's assigned target, was the immediate threat of 1789, that a French monarchy might be reformed, as Bailly and Lafayette proposed, to reflect the signal achievement of the economic and related, "Hamiltonian" reforms incorporated in the U.S. Federal Constitution of 1787-89.[3]

This Shelburne initiation and orchestration of the French Revolution of 1789, was conducted largely through the instrumentality of the British-directed Martinist freemasonic lodge of Lyons and Savoy, the freemasonry of Mesmer, Cagliostro, and, the worst monster of them all, that Joseph de Maistre who proclaimed himself the apostle of that forerunner of Adolf Hitler also known as the Spanish Inquisition's most notorious beast-man, the satanic Torquemada.[4] The Martinists were those who later spawned what became known as Synarchy and that Synarchist International which created the sundry fascist regimes and movements of the 1922-45 interval. Agents of Shelburne included the notorious Danton and the Swiss Marat, both of whom were trained in and deployed into France from London, under direction of Bentham's "Secret Committee," where they delivered speeches which had been written for them by the London-based "Secret Committee."[5]

The interval from the coup by Shelburne assets Philippe Egalité and Jacques Necker of July 14, 1789, through the 1815 Congress of Vienna, set into motion mechanisms which have been deployed, still, by the British Empire of 1763-2004, in that empire's repeated efforts, such as World War I, and the so-called "Cold War" of 1946-89, both to prevent continental Eurasia from uniting to defeat the supremacy of London's empire, and also to prevent the replacement of that empire by a global system of community of sovereign states consistent with the principles embodied in the American Revolution of 1776-89.

Although Shelburne et al. conceived that empire as an intended permanent successor to the empire of ancient Rome, the essential power of the British imperial system was not located essentially in the military power of its legions, but, rather in London's role as the successor of Norman-allied medieval Venice's financier oligarchy, as the ruling (ultramontane) financier power of the world.[6] It is that financier oligarchy's system, including its U.S. financier branch, which has now brought its own inescapable doom upon itself.

Like the Venetian financier oligarchy which had created the Anglo-Dutch maritime financier oligarchy as its own bastard offspring, the so-called British Liberal system, known during the Eighteenth Century as "The Venetian Party," relied chiefly on luring other people to fight to bleed one another virtually to near-death, as a way of managing actual or potential rivals, especially Eurasian continental rivals.[7]

Now, either way the world pivots during the remainder of global crisis-year 2004, two and a half centuries of world history,[8] which was dominated by the financier interests associated with the imperial Anglo-Dutch Liberal parliamentary system, is coming to its abrupt end. While pathetic fools such as President George W. Bush, Jr., prattle about an actually non-existent recovery, the greatest financial crash in all history is about to strike the world with a force beyond the imagination of most persons living at this moment. Whatever the outcome of that crash, the Anglo-Dutch Liberal form of parliamentary system will not outlive that financial holocaust.

There are only two alternatives before the U.S.A. for the short time still ahead. Either we shall resume the pathway charted by President Franklin Roosevelt's recovery from the deep depression brought upon us by Presidents Coolidge's and Hoover's administrations, or, the prolonged attempt to maintain the continuity of the presently hopelessly bankrupt floating-exchange-rate monetary-financial system, will plunge the planet as a whole, chain-reaction style, into a prolonged "new dark age," in which the world's population would probably fall to a miserable number less than one billion, from the more than six billions reported today. No hysterics' screaming denial of that consequence would prevent such a calamity from erupting at about this time.

For today's world at large, this inevitable collapse of that empire in that form, poses a challenge we dare not evade. We must choose, whether we will go virtually to a living Hell throughout this planet, in the fall of this imperial world-system, or whether we shall call forth the legacy of the 1776-1789 American Revolution, to bring forth on this planet the kind of community among respectively sovereign nation-states which our John Quincy Adams affirmed, and which the present circumstance urgently requires. That latter task defines the pivotal, crucial historical mission confronting the next President of the U.S.A.

Inevitably, I shall now be reporting, in many published locations, and on many occasions, on various of the categorical implications of this presently onrushing great change in the course of world history. These seismic events now bursting in upon an astonished world, are millennial in scope of their implications, and, therefore, could never be encompassed in even a mere single book.

On this present occasion, I focus our attention on one of the grandest of all issues of the policy-making by and among nations. Look back, from the 1763-2004 rise and fall of the imperial Anglo-Dutch Liberal parliamentary system, to such exemplary, earlier great upheavals in European history as: the religious warfare of 1511-1648; the Fifteenth-Century Renaissance which launched modern European civilization; the New Dark Age of the Fourteenth Century which had been brought on by the Venice-Norman-Cluny cabal; the fall of the Roman Empire; the global impact of the mission of Jesus Christ; and the self-destruction of the Athens of Pericles by the Peloponnesian war. Looking backward through such crucial turning points in this history of Europe, since its birth in the shadows cast by the Great Pyramids of Giza, we must recognize that there is a persisting deep principle, which governs, and also supersedes the rise and fall of the cultures associated with the pulsation of such great, intervening intervals of history.

That principle is the special nature of man, as Genesis 1 defines man as set apart from, and absolutely above all other living creatures. It is only from the vantage-point of that principle, that anything significant about the history of mankind could ever have been understood. It is only from that standpoint, as I define it in the following pages, that the process of the rise and fall of the British Empire, up to the present time, could be competently understood.

The challenge which this collapse of the British Empire presents to the world at large, is the urgency of a new process of collaboration among nations, a collaboration consistent with the need to establish a new world economic order of long-term cooperation among perfectly sovereign nation-states. In such a process, the sovereign states of the British Isles would be among the obvious candidates for participation. As President James Monroe's great Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams, defined the prospect for future relations among the sovereign states of the Americas, the new association among the states of the planet must find its ecumenical basis.

1. The Theory of the Case: Man or Beast?

To summarize the argument made in the preceding introductory remarks:

We have reached the verge of that collapse at which the survival of not only the U.S.A., but, most probably, also civilization in general is immediately threatened. This fact coincides with the IMF policy typified by its current, frantic pro-genocidal policies toward the nation of Argentina. That IMF policy in that case, must be taken as a warning of the prevalent disposition of a cabal of leading financier groupings which includes prominently relevant such interests operating in the effort to orchestrate the present Presidential campaigns inside the U.S.A.

The only alternative to the global fascist outrage which the IMF's Argentina policy implies, would require immediate rejection and reversal of, with few exceptions, every new trend in economic and cultural policy, generally, which had been introduced since about the time of the launching of the official U.S. war in Indo-China.[9] Any attempt to save the presently reigning international financial system, would ensure the early disintegration of civilization as we have known it until now.

In the simplest aspect of this challenge, there is no possibility of the continued existence of the U.S.A., or most of the world outside that, unless it is the leading financial circles, not the indebted nations, not the people of those nations, who must be compelled to "eat" the losses which those financiers' hegemony in national and international monetary-financial policy-making has produced.

Hence, were a new U.S. Administration installed which had been chosen for its compliance with the avowed self-interest of the leading U.S. and other international financier circles of today, the U.S.A. would be quickly doomed to a mass-murderous, worse-than-Hoover-Mellon process of looting leading quickly to the extinction of the U.S.A. itself—and much else besides.

The problem is, that none of my current or recent rivals for nomination as the next U.S. President has shown even a minimal degree of the personal intellectual and emotional competence required to deal with a crisis of this magnitude, and of other, ominous, related implications.

Yet, even those observations do not go far enough, or deep enough.

Under the very special conditions of today's crisis, reorganizing the financial-monetary system, while indispensable and urgent in itself, would not be sufficient remedy. So much damage has been done, globally, to the physical capacity to produce, so much of the productive physical capital and productive labor-force skills has been destroyed during the recent 33 years since U.S. President Nixon's folly of August 15-16, 1971, that it were not sufficient merely to "set the clock" of monetary-financial policy back to something resembling the fixed-exchange-rate monetary system of the time of U.S. Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy. More profound reforms are required.

Implicitly, the actions taken by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in combatting the murderous follies which Presidents Coolidge and Hoover perpetrated in complicity with Andrew Mellon, typify the required effects of the immediate, sweeping changes to be made. However, much more has been destroyed than the ruined Americas' and Europe's physical ability to produce.

The minds of an entire generation which came into adulthood during the middle to late 1960s "cultural paradigm-shift," have been so corrupted with the knee-jerk reflexes of a Roman-like, imperial "bread and circuses," "life-style" cult, that virtually all of the presently hegemonic strata of senior ranking officials of government and economic life, have acquired a pre-programmed incompetence in the most elementary features of economic policy-shaping. The Pavlovian-reflex slogan, "You can not turn the clock back to those" former (e.g., pre-1965, pre-1972) "ways," those before the mid-1960s rock-drug-sex counterculture and related species of cultural paradigm-shifts, is a typical symptom of a mind bereft of the most essential qualities of competent judgment in economic and related matters.

We have entered a time of crisis in which, especially in the Americas and Western and Central Europe, the reigning generation in power in government and economy, the so-called "Baby Boomer" generation, most emphatically, has largely mislaid essential parts of that quality fairly described as "the moral fitness to survive." In such a state of affairs, the only hope for mankind in general, is that the shock of the manifest failure of "their system," will prompt a significant part of that generation to reconsider certain profound changes from their presently habituated way of thinking.

Certainly, President John F. Kennedy's principal enemies inside government at the time of his Presidency, were the right-wing, so-called "utopian" faction of war-makers which outgoing President Dwight Eisenhower had described as "a military-industrial complex" committed to Bertrand Russell's 1940s "preventive nuclear warfare" doctrine, and to the modified "mutual and assured thermonuclear" standoff policy which Russell, Khrushchev, et al., crafted and launched over the course of the 1950s. Kennedy had fought against those utopian policies of Secretary of Defense McNamara, Henry A. Kissinger, and others over the too-short-lived course of his administration. The President's consultations with General of the Armies Douglas MacArthur, and his orders to McNamara and McGeorge Bundy on the proposed Indo-China war, typify this. More notably, those specific anti-war policies of the President were promptly reversed by Bundy and McNamara after the President was dead.

However, as I have just stated, we can not simply "turn back the clock" to the days when Kennedy was President. We must not oversimplify history by dating the change to the mid-1960s war, and cultural paradigm-shift, simply to the aftermath of that President's assassination.

We must uproot what had already been both the deep-rooted intellectual and emotional causes of those mistakes which caused our nation, then, at that time, to unleash, even to allow the dionysiac-existentialist cultural paradigm-shift of the 1964-81 interval, and beyond. Yes, our cultures of that time fell prey to a disease, but that disease erupted from where it had been already gestating, within us, during approximately a preceding generation of time. It was gestating within the so-called right-wing turn back to pre-Roosevelt impulses of our financier establishment, which were unleashed within our population and institutions, as we were then, during the middle to late, Truman 1940s. It is that disease, as it already infected our national culture, while Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy were U.S. Presidents, which we must uproot now, if our nations are to outlive the great monetary-financial-economic holocaust descending upon us during the time immediately ahead.

On that account, we must make a "reversed cultural paradigm-shift"; but we must do something more profound than that alone. That "something more" is the principal subject, and intention of this report.

The historical root of the feasible solution for that deeper source of danger, from within us then, and still today, is indicated by the long-standing, historic contrast between the leading American patriots of 1763-89 and our principal enemy of that time, the Anglo-Dutch Liberal system, as the latter was led then by Shelburne's and Bentham's British East India Company.

In our best features during that time, 1776-89, we American patriots were an integral part of a European Classical Greek tradition associated with the legacy of the Fifteenth-Century Renaissance, the role of the circles of Jean-Baptiste Colbert and Gottfried Leibniz in the wake of the Treaty of Westphalia, and the mid-to-late-Eighteenth-Century eruption of the Classical humanist Renaissance associated with names such as Abraham Kästner, his student Gotthold Lessing, and the great Moses Mendelssohn. At that time, the continuation of that Renaissance was expressed by the best of Goethe, Friedrich Schiller, the von Humboldt brothers, and Keats and Shelley in England. Our leading patriots' traditions were predominantly those traced from Thales, Solon, the Pythagoreans, Plato's Socrates, and the New Testament, all combined with the powerful influence of the work of Leibniz on the circles of our principal founder, the scientist Benjamin Franklin.

Across the Atlantic, excepting the initial period, approximately 1780-86, of the reign of Austria's sometime reformer Joseph II, from his mother's death until the Martinist plot of "the Queen's Necklace" against his sister, French Queen Marie-Antoinette, the Habsburgs and the British monarchy were the Americas' principal, and most impassioned adversaries; but, nonetheless, despite those enemies of ours, among the best of the contrary souls of Europe then, the success of our cause was the leading feature of their hope for similar reforms in Europe itself.

During that 1763-89 interval, our impulse, as informed by study of some relevant works of Leibniz, was to establish a nation self-governed by the principles of what Leibniz had defined as the science of physical economy. The influence of Leibniz's work on our first Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, was only typical. When our foremost friend in Europe, France, was turned against us by Shelburne's pack and Bonaparte, our young republic was isolated from, and chiefly imperilled by the hostile world around us; some of our best figures who had been protégés of Franklin, went half-mad under those circumstances, as the cases of the Jefferson and Madison Presidencies attest. We were divided internally between those who considered our enemy France the lesser evil, and others who favored our acknowledged enemy, Britain. It was not until President Lincoln's victory over the synarchist-like British puppet, the Confederacy, that we were able to assert our embedded national character as a republic, to become the world's leading national economic potency.[10]

Nonetheless, despite the recurring aberrations in our national economic practice, Leibniz's legacy is embedded within our constitutional system, as what Secretary Hamilton, among others, identified as the American System of political-economy. This reflection of Leibniz's science of physical economy, is echoed by the German-American protégé of the Cinncinatus Society, Friedrich List, and by the world's greatest economist of the mid-Nineteenth Century, Henry C. Carey. It is what I represent as a proven leading long-range economic forecaster today.

Thus, the relevant new problem facing us today, as a result of the decadence of our culture over the 1964-2004 interval to date, is that even at its best, our republic's earlier economic practice has been a hybrid: partly a physical economy in the sense of Leibniz's influence, and also a mimicry of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal parliamentary system's doctrines and practices. That long-standing weakness in the outlook of even many of our leading citizens, has been profoundly aggravated by the added corruption of the recent decades' cultural paradigm-shift, from being the world's leading producer nation, to a parasitical bread-and-circuses culture.

Therefore, the problem which must be addressed to overcome the presently exploding global crisis, is more than simply a superficial difference between an arbitrarily financial economy, such as that practiced generally, world-wide today, and, the alternative, one based on the science of physical economy. Our nation's survival now depends upon policy changes featuring an included mastery of the concept of a science of physical economy, a concept derived directly from an anti-empiricist conception of the essential difference between human beings and mere beasts.

Some preliminary discussion of this conflict in outlook is required at this immediate point in this report.

What Is Human Nature?

The failure of most professional historians, and others, is the folly inhering in a method which is known as "fallacy of composition" of the evidence. These fellows are, thus, so immersed in the reductionist's way of "connecting the dots" among the merely selected details of the events to which their attention is thrown, that they ignore the actual connections which govern the unfolding of the processes of history, processes subsumed by that nature of man which had been the proper subject of their inquiry.

Most such fellows from modern centuries, are either philosophical reductionists by their own disposition, or behave as if they were, according to the other-directing disposition of the institutions upon which they believe that their careers and reputations depend. Thus they, as the Romantic critics of drama do, see the bestial passions of a biological individual man's relationship to other men, and to society, as if man should be merely a talking animal such as Thomas Huxley and his H.G. Wells, or Bertrand Russell, professed themselves to be. They do not reckon as Plato's Socrates and the Christian Apostles John and Paul did, with the essential, determining feature of both the individual and his or her society, the efficient immortality of what I shall define afresh here, from a physical standpoint, as the individual human soul.

They proceed from the erroneous, implied assumption that what is self-evident, is the individual living person, as represented by a living body caught in the frighteningly brief passage between birth and death. They propose to define the nature, and the essential and other needs of such a misdefined individual, as, for example, Hobbes, Locke, Kant, and Sigmund Freud have done.[11] They then propose to define, and interpret social processes as representable in terms of the assumed relations among such finite objects as that. History for them lies, thus, in a mere fantasy: on either an infinitely extended flat plane, or simply extended space, a space within which these relations are so defined as more or less percussive forms of interactions.

Such commonplace views as those among the social theorists and historians, either entirely exclude consideration of man's essential, physically definable immortality, or degrade that immortality to something which inhabits another, merely a priori, non-existing space-time, the merely fantastic "beyond," lying outside the domain of physical interactions among living persons.

That perverted, reductionist view of man's nature, is consistent with the legacy of societies in which some men ruled, as like predatory beasts, over other men treated as wild and hunted, or herded and culled human cattle. Such were the characteristic feature of societies associated with each and all empires. The chief source of the evils of modern society, is that even the relatively best among our prevalent cultures have failed, so far, to free themselves fully from the ideological legacy of a tradition of man being beastly to men and women who are treated as they were human cattle.

It is for this reason, the prevalent reductionist misconception of the human individual, which is still prevalent in globally extended modern European civilization in general: that, during moments of great crisis, such as the calamity descending upon the world at the present moment, we find so very few men and women in society who have the requisite essential capabilities of leadership for such exceptional occasions. Those who harass or herd other people as human cattle, are often, as history shows, brought down by their own cultivated brutishness, their indifference to those more powerful, long-ranging qualities which are the nature of men and women made equally in the likeness of the Creator of the universe.

Typical of that corruption of modern British culture, and its American and other imitators, is the toleration of the misconception of man according to the empiricist dogmas of Hobbes, Locke, Kant, and so on. Henry A. Kissinger pointed aptly to that corruption in himself in his 1982 London Chatham House address commemorating the second century of the British Foreign Office, where he praised Winston Churchill, and condemned President Franklin Roosevelt on behalf the Hobbesian quality which Kissinger attributed to the tradition of modern British culture, and to himself, on that occasion.[12]

In such a manner, like those Romans so described to Shakespeare's Brutus by Cassius, the root of the failure of most among our so-called leaders is that they are conditioned to act as human-cattle-like "underlings" by adopted nature, seeking their success in their adopted little niche of personal ambitions for their mortal life, and are thus unable to find the passion to reach beyond mortal life, to grasp the great, heroic issues, as the Rev. Martin Luther King did with his "Mountain Top" address, which will actually decide the outcome of perilous events for the advantage of mankind.[13]

So, these historians and today's typical political leaders, alike, are so obsessed with the possession of their preferred stateroom, that they refuse to see that their ship is sinking.

Those preceding remarks situate the proposition to be examined at this point in the report.

1.1 The Nature of Man in Economy

Now, therefore, examine the difference between a society of apes and a nation of people: on three successive levels of discussion.

First, we must define the process of mankind's willful increase of its long-term potential relative population-density in terms of that relevant principle of action, which is present in the human species, but which is lacking in all lower forms of life. In this first approximation, we focus on the role of those sovereign powers of the individual human mind which are expressed as experimentally validated discoveries of universal physical principle. We take that first step in this section.

In the then following, second section of this part of my report, we shall shift attention from those principles which express the relationship of the individual mind to nature directly, to principles which account for society's knowledge of the closely related principles of Classical artistic composition and social organization, which latter are essential for effective cooperation in the realization of the benefits of discovered physical principles.

In the next, third section, following that, we shall consider the preceding two points in the light of the bearing of the discoveries of Vernadsky on the functional relationship between individual entrepreneurship and basic economic infrastructure in co-determining the level of productivity achieved in national and world economy.

That said, we now proceed with our focus on this first section.

The crucial point to which this must lead our attention is, as I shall show here, thus fairly posed as a challenge by the following proposition: Anyone who does not agree with young Carl Gauss' 1799 condemnation of the malicious folly of Euler and Lagrange on the issue of the complex domain, is either simply ignorant of, or stubbornly opposed to the most elementary essentials of modern physical science, or, by that token, has denied the actual existence of the human individual as human, as the empiricist ideologues Euler, Lagrange, Kant, et al. have fanatically denied this nature of man.[14] I shall now qualify that argument, and then elaborate the relevant implications to which it leads. In this first section of the treatment of the theory of the case, I must include certain arguments which I have employed repeatedly in locations published earlier; nonetheless, their repetition here is indispensable, as the reader shall discover.

Were man a higher ape, the living human population of this planet would never have exceeded more than a few millions such, chiefly wretched creatures. Today, more than six billions living persons are reported. There is no evidence of a genetic change to account for this accomplishment. Most of the increase has occurred during the period of, and because of the effects of the recent seven centuries of modern European civilization, and the most spectacular increase in such potential has occurred during the recent two of those centuries, since approximately the birth of my great-great-grandfather. I can therefore attest, from my experience, that these changes are the product of cultural, not genetic evolution.[15]

It should be obvious, as I shall show, once again, in this report: that to account for cultural evolution scientifically, science must trace history, not from some assumed earliest past, to recent times, but, in a directly opposite direction, backwards in time, from approximately the present, toward the past. The phenomenon to be isolated as causal, is the emergence of principles which did not exist within the bounds of prior states of the human social process. Progress is generated by the discovery and application of previously unknown universal physical principles, for which, therefore, virtually no trace exists in the knowledge and practice of the immediately preceding history of that branch of human culture. So, to understand our present time, we must discover our past, peeling the onion of historical development, layer, by layer, by layer. We must thus, clinically (so to speak), adduce the process of forward development by the process of searching backwards.

This method is focussed upon discoveries of principle which are prompted by the appearance of stubborn paradoxes for which there are no Aristotelean or kindred forms of deductive/inductive solutions. Presented with the evidence that a certain discovery of principle had been made, which solved the corresponding paradox, we ourselves must relive the dialectical act of discovering the hypothesis, and then the experimental proof of that hypothesis which masters the anomaly. Without this Platonic dialectical method, all accounts of history, especially deductive-inductive arguments, are predominantly frauds.

Such is the true historical method. We must recreate the historically specific state of mind and circumstances in which the relevant, valid act of discovery being considered were generated. Sophists' explanations, such as the ideological Felix Klein's sophist's attempt to explain away the authenticity of Cusa's, Leibniz's, Gauss', and Riemann's notion of the transcendental from a deductive-inductive standpoint, are not to be tolerated. We must relive that moment of discovery in our own mind.[16] We must, thus, in reversing the process to a forward direction in history, account for each step of progress by reliving the experience of action, discovery, and action, each occurring within its authentically historically specific circumstance, manner, place, and time, as the greatest historian-playwrights, such as Shakespeare and Schiller, have applied precisely that anti-Romantic principle of historical specificity.

For this purpose, the most well-defined set of evidence is the tracing of the cultural evolution of European civilization back to its birth, in the Greece of Thales, Solon, and Pythagoras, in the shadow of those great astronomical instruments, Egypt's Great Pyramids of Giza.

For this first section of this chapter of the present report, I have put the more complex issues of social evolution to one side, and concentrated, for the start, on those changes in culture (e.g., increase of the human potential relative population-density) which are attributable to discoveries of what qualify as universal physical principles of what we might usually call physical science. The justification for this procedure will become clear at a later point in this present report.

Already, in what we know as the ancient Classical Greek tradition, the wiser members of society already recognized the same categorical division of types of events, into phase-spaces, a division which was restated by the Russian biogeochemist Vladimir I. Vernadsky: the non-living, the living, and the human-creative (the noëtic).[17] We must treat each of these three, multiply-connected, qualitative states of nature, in terms of its own quasi-historical specificities. We must trace the evolution of our habitation of this planet backwards in time, from the present, and relive the interacting abiotic, biotic, and noëtic processes of action, so explored, in terms of the principle of forward development which that backward exploration reveals to us.

Thus, rather than looking at human history as unfolding on an abiotic and biotic background which exists essentially independent of our will, we must see ourselves exerting an increasing dominion of development over, and responsibility for that "history," as our view of a continuing process of development, in which man is now crucial, but a process which began before man's interventions either existed, or which might have existed but were initially of relatively marginal significance.

The idea of universal physical principles is traced backwards in that Classical culture, through Thales and the Pythagoreans, to the rigorously defined notions of astronomy associated with such Egyptian sources as the Great Pyramids. Taking those ancient references as a bench-mark for the development of physical science in the specifically European culture born in ancient Greece, we are led repeatedly back to those ancient references by every effort of valid modern scientific inquiries into the most deep-rooted assumptions upon which the successes of modern science rest still today. The case of Carl F. Gauss' 1799 The Fundamental Theorem of Algebra has exemplary pedagogical importance for clarifying the issue of human nature on this account.

We now proceed accordingly.

Human Experience and Knowledge

The specific distinction of Gauss' first major paper, his doctoral dissertation, the first of several of his published papers on the subject of The Fundamental Theorem of Algebra, was an attack on the unscientific quality of the method of the notable mathematical empiricists such as d'Alembert, Euler, and Lagrange. That paper, as Lagrange was to complain rather loudly after considering the argument of that dissertation, harks back to the Pythagorean method of pre-Euclidean Classical geometry.[18] For reason of that specifically geometric feature of the dissertation, it has extraordinary importance for the improved education of university students or gifted secondary pupils today. I have used it, so, as a keystone feature of my entry program for higher education of LaRouche Youth Movement associates (chiefly of the 18-25 age-bracket) today. That reference serves our purpose here, to situate the way in which today's populations must think about what is called physical knowledge.

The paper of Gauss goes implicitly to the core of the evidence showing the most elementary aspect of the distinction between animal forms of human experience and human knowledge.

The core of the relevant argument is to be summarized as follows.

The sense-perceptions of the human individual are not direct observation of the real world around us, but are reflections of the real world's impact upon our biological sense-organs. The significance of emphasizing that point, is that the most important categories of human knowledge pertain to objects,[19] such as universal gravitation, or nuclear microphysical objects, which are never directly "seen" by our sense-organs, but which are known through unique qualities of experimental validation of (Platonic forms of) hypotheses arising from otherwise insoluble anomalies in the domain of sense-perceptual experience. Experimentally validated discoveries of universal physical principles, are typical of this special class of experimentally knowable objects.

Thus, when we compare the anomalies which provoke such validated hypotheses with the proven universal principle derived in that way, we should recognize that the task of mathematical representation of what we have observed, must combine two categorically distinct, but multiply-connected sets of phenomena to a single effect. On the one side, sense-perception, which is merely a shadow of the reality "outside the observer's skin." On the other side, the efficiently determined anomaly imposed upon the observed sense-perception. To combine the two as one, we must take into account an invisible generator of the effect our sense-perception recognizes only as the anomaly. Hence, the complex domain.

In each instant, the two aspects of that reality touch one another at a location which sense-perception and Leibniz identify as an infinitesimal point. Hence, Leibniz's infinitesimal calculus; hence, the transcendental. Gauss' dissertation, taken together with his principal habilitation work, his Disquisitiones Arithmeticae, are clearly the work of a mind which thinks geometrically, in the sense of what Kästner would acknowledge as both an anti-Euclidean and ante-Euclidean way.

Closer inspection of the Great Pyramids at Giza affords us better insight into the origins of the method which the pre-Euclidean Classical Greek science, such as that of Plato and the Platonic Academy (through Eratosthenes) derived from uniquely Egyptian traditions. There was no requirement of a priori definitions, axioms, and postulates, nor any other kind of a priori elements, such as those associated with Aristotle or the modern empiricists. Look inside the mind of those Egyptians, those Classical Greeks.

Those Pyramids present themselves to modern investigation as remarkable for their quality as excellent astronomical instruments, instruments which also have what we might term some physical-economic functions of importance for ancient Egypt at that time. Just so, Eratosthenes, about 200 B.C., measured the great circle of the Earth, with a remarkable degree of accuracy, from celestial observations made from "the ground" inside Egypt.

In general, as with relevant features of the Vedic calendars for Central Asia, the persistent measurement of small margins of anomalies (in the relatively short term), led ancient astronomers, and astro-navigators to accumulate a remarkable number of long-range cycles by methods not alien in principle to the unique discoveries of Johannes Kepler in modern times.

In addition to such astronomical and related discoveries of principles, there are four extremely elementary discoveries produced by pre-Euclidean Classical Greek geometry, which are of crucial importance for all modern science, the first three of which are featured topics of Gauss' 1799 dissertation. These are the paradoxes of doubling the line, doubling the square, doubling the cube, and the construction of the five Platonic solids. The fourth is, most notably, a featured subject of considerable consequence in Plato's Timaeus dialogue. These four primary cases have provided European civilization with the foundations of an Earth-bound physical science since.

The overlay of such astronomy and the exemplary role of those four items of Classical Greek pre-Euclidean geometry, have provided the conceptual foundations for competent modern physical science. They also provide us a rigorous insight into the essential difference which sets mankind absolutely above all lower forms of life, as distinct from all lower forms of life.

The Concept of Power

The idea of "power" associated historically with the Pythagoreans and Plato, is elementary. I discovered it, as many others have done, similarly, quite independently, and said so, by no later than the age of 14, in my virtual knee-jerk reflex against the grounding presumptions of a secondary course in plane geometry.

Simply, studying the way in which steel beams seen at the neighboring Charlestown, Massachusetts Navy Yard were crafted to strike a balance between weight and net supporting strength, I rejected the taught assumption that a functional geometry could be defined axiomatically in a way which did not feature the integrated function of mass and work. My observation was rendered indelible by the ridicule to which I was subjected by some classmates for suggesting the existence of such a paradox.[20]

Implicitly, this hostile view of Euclidean geometry, a view which I adopted in such a fashion, then, typifies the opening of the simplest pathway toward discovering the physical proof of man's essential distinction from the mere beasts. Hence, my adolescent's primitive adherence to a simple defense of the concept of physical geometry, led me, by way of Leibniz, to my specific original contributions to the notion of physical economy, in opposition to Wiener and von Neumann, somewhat more than a decade later.

Gauss' 1799 dissertation goes directly to making that connection from the modern secondary and university geometry classroom, back to the sanity of the time of Plato. Gauss makes that connection simply and directly there, that in a way not found in his later published work, not found so clearly stated again until the work of his follower Riemann.

The simplest propositions of pre-Euclidean geometry were posed by the Pythagoreans, as paradoxes, as the challenge of doubling the line, the square, and the cube by no means other than construction. To execute the solution, in each of these cases, we must go outside the bounds of the immediate form being considered, to invoke a form of mental action external to the apparent domain of the object which is to be doubled. These defiantly paradoxical challenges to the merely literal mind, present us with the simplest conceivable choice of occasion for acknowledging the essential difference between man and beast. The doubling of the square, which is used by Plato as a pedagogical exercise of the Socratic method, prepares the mind of the young for the next step, the doubling of the cube. That, in turn, prepares the ground for adducing the implications of the five Platonic solids as Plato, and, later, Kepler, did.

The solution for each and all among those three problems of doubling by means of nothing but construction, requires a mental act uniquely specific to the human individual's will. This act is, in its first expression, the forming of an hypothesis. The experimental validation of the result of that action provides an experimental proof of a universal physical principle. Such an act, when successful, is termed the discovery of a power.[21]

For example, Kepler's discovery of a measured anomaly in the orbit of Mars, described such an experimentally lawful behavior of the Solar system, as expressing an intention of the Creator, an event contrary to the entire teaching of Aristotle, for example, and also such misguided followers of Aristotle as Claudius Ptolemy, Copernicus, and Tycho Brahe.[22]

This notion of power is to be contrasted with the reductionists' notion of "energy," as the latter was proposed by Clausius, Grassmann, Kelvin, et al. "Energy" is an effect, one of whose causes is power as defined by Plato, Kepler, et al. The origin of the modern use of the term "energy" by the empiricists, such as Kelvin, was the same avowed enemy of Plato, Aristotle, on which doctrine the erroneous astrophysics of Claudius Ptolemy, Copernicus, and Brahe had been wishfully premised. So, Leibniz, in defining his discovery of the fundamental principle of a science of physical economy, employed the German term Kraft (power) as a translation of Plato's dynamis.

These notions expressed by such usage of the terms intention and power, are to be traced, not merely as terms, but as conceptions, to mankind's development of astronomy. This origin is specific, for example, to pre-Euclidean geometry, as known for the Pythagoreans, from whom Plato derived his dialogues' overview, as "spherics." This is an overview which the Pythagoreans derived from the astronomy of Egypt (e.g., the Great Pyramids of Giza). The following summary of the case were required at this point in the report.

Man looking up to the nighttime desert sky, for example, sees in that, chiefly, nothing but an enormous, fathomless void, a void whose perfection is marred chiefly by observed points of light. Man reflecting carefully on his own thoughts in this matter, assumes that his vision of that void corresponds, in his mind, to a vast spheroid of enormous, but unknown diameter. So, a child today, having such an experience, is certain that he does not know the distances among the points of light observed, but only the spherical angles of the observed relations and motions among observed points. Such is the foundation of his notion corresponding to the use of such terms as the modern "universe" and "universal."

The interesting features of this observation, taken in its generality, are chiefly two. First, what is apparently no-change. Second, change. The Zodiac, as apparent to experienced oceanic voyagers, typifies an effort to approximate the idea of "no-change." Aristotle's method, as typified by the frauds perpetrated by Claudius Ptolemy, includes that same characteristic defect. The motion of the "wanderers," the planets and the like, typifies "change." Such are the origins of the Pythagorean notion of "spherics," the basis for the physical geometry which Plato adopted from, chiefly, them.[23]

This, however, must reckon with the evidence that there are phenomena which violate the celestial notion of a presumed universal principle of no-change. Kepler's uniquely original discovery of the principle of universal gravitation, at the prompting of apparent eccentricities in the orbits of Mars, typifies the meaning of physical science for as far back in history as we know. The question posed is: Is this a discovered principle which violates the regular ordering of the universe? Or, rather, must we correct our notion of regularity within the universe, to include unseen principles which are universally lawful?

The notion of the existence of a Creator of the universe demands that such discovered principles which are universally lawful, but contrary to Aristotelean and kindred ways of thinking, must express an efficiently willful intention of the Creator, as Kepler insisted on this. To any experimentally validated such intention we may attach the notion of universal. Such discoveries compel us to recognize the existence of efficient agencies whose effects are undeniable, but which are not themselves directly objects of sense-perception. Such is the notion of spherics, as practiced by the Pythagoreans and by Plato. Such is the notion expressed by Plato's use of the allegory of the Cave.

Those discoveries of universal physical principles, which express the function of power in comparable ways, are the actions by means of which the human species is able to accomplish what no other living species can do: increase its specific potential relative population-density.

When these discoveries of principle are expressed by us as our intention, as gravitation expressed, for Kepler, an intention of the Creator, the function of the use of that principle in that intended way, expresses the effect of power, the power of change.[24]

These discovered principles, are objects of the mind as much, or, actually, more, than the direct objects of sense-perception. They lie outside the reach of direct observation by the senses, but they function as objects[25] in human thought and practice.

The Allegory of the Cave

As is illustrated by the case of the formal-mathematical representation of the knight's move in chess, Leonhard Euler was not ignorant of the fact of the fraud he had perpetrated respecting the fundamental theorem of algebra. He was fully aware of the formal mathematical implications of Cardano's treatment of the subject of roots of cubic equations.[26] He was also familiar with the combined efforts of Leibniz and Jean Bernouilli in defining an infinitesimal calculus expressing a universal physical principle of least action; indeed, Euler's own construction of "natural logarithms" was derived from Leibniz's earlier derivation of the principle of logarithms within the context of the universal principle of least action. The argument for which he, d'Alembert, and Lagrange were attacked by Gauss, was not one which Euler, for example, had derived from actual scientific considerations, but was a product of purely ideological motives, his adherence to the empiricist network of salons associated with Antonio Conti, Voltaire, et al.

In short, Euler was taking the side of Zeus against Prometheus: Keep the human cattle stupid! For Euler, this commitment was, manifestly, truth be damned, an impassioned intention.

Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa had become a central figure of both the Fifteenth-Century European Renaissance, and of the reconstruction of the previously shattered Papacy. He was a founder of the conception of a system of respectively sovereign nation-states (Concordantia Catholica), and the founder of modern experimental physical science (e.g., De Docta Ignorantia), and the principal inspiration for Luca Pacioli, Leonardo da Vinci, and Johannes Kepler. He was, as noted earlier, the prompter of the plan for transoceanic voyages, across the Atlantic and around Africa into the Indian Ocean, to outflank the expansion of the Ottoman Empire. He exemplifies the influence radiating from Italy of that time, which produced the first modern nation-states, those of Louis XI's France and Henry VII's England.

It was this influence, as typified by his contributing influences, which Venice's financier oligarchy was determined to eradicate by means including the Spanish Inquisition, and the pattern of religious and kindred fratricidal wars of the 1511-1648 interval.

The Zeus-like suppression of the creative powers of the individual, is a fair representation of Venice's determination to crush the threat which the emerging modern sovereign nation-state represented for the post-Renaissance residue of the Venice-dominated, medieval ultramontane system. With the emergence of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal parliamentary system during the Seventeenth Century, especially following the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, the neo-Ockhamite, empiricist sophistry which had been launched by Venice's de facto tyrant, the new party's Paolo Sarpi, emerged as the hegemonic force against reason. Euler was, like Voltaire and his crew, an instrument of that politically repressive policy, against the modern scientific tradition best typified by Cusa, Kepler, and Leibniz.

The issue of that combat was, as I have already emphasized again in this report thus far, the issue of the nature of man. Is man an overdeveloped beast, as Kissinger insisted in his noted 1982 Chatham House address; or is man implicitly set apart from the beasts, as immortal? The function of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal model of empiricism, and its echoes elsewhere today, is to cause virtually the entire population to regard itself as, in practice, nothing but a beast, for whom immortality belongs to another universe, "from which no traveller has returned." Religion, for the devoted empiricist, is a gnostic's debate over the seating arrangements in a different universe, rather than as for the practicing Christian such as the martyred Rev. Martin Luther King, a domain which his immortal self already occupies, and experiences.[27]

The moral failure of Leonhard Euler is attributable to a "very clever human monkey" phenomenon which some psychoanalysts have labelled "cathexis." The emotional sense of the location of self-interest, is focussed upon the animal-like aspect of personal existence, rather than upon the immortal intention which the acts of the living individual are intended to promote. In the extremely debased forms of that pathological sense of mortal self-interest, we have the hedonists and the existentialists. It is, more generally: "I know you are right, but I have to go by my feelings. I have to act according to my immediate interests in my neighborhood, in the here and now. I may have cheated and stolen to get this stateroom, but it's mine and I am not giving it up, even if this ship sinks around me." Formally, Euler knows that Leibniz is right; but, since Euler's loyalties are to an empiricist's universe, he is a true sophist, who will lie as ferociously and often as necessary, to defend his universe against the real one. Such is typical behavior among today's academic authorities, but also many varieties of others, too.

Consider Plato's allegory of the Cave in light of the referenced pathologies associated with cathexis.

Plato's Cave is, in first approximation, the same picture of man's functional relationship to the universe which is broadly defined as to principle by Gauss' 1799 dissertation.

Our senses show us the shadows on the irregular wall-surfaces of a dimly-lit cave. Reality is not those shadows; reality is the unseen objects which have cast those shadows. We must, therefore, correct the images we have seen, to allow, experimentally, for the discrepancy between the shadow and the image which has cast it. Such is the simplest ontological-mathematical implication of Gauss' complex domain.

That is the relatively superficial aspect of the paradox.

The development of the concept of least action, from Fermat's initial posing of the evidence that it is the pathway of quickest time, not shortest Euclidean distance, which is universally lawful, forces us to depart from the Cartesian-like neo-Euclidean assumptions of Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century neo-Aristotelean (e.g., empiricist) formalism, to think of the primacy of something called "physical space-time," as Leibniz's notion of an infinitesimal calculus of universal physical least-action compels us to shift our viewpoint in this direction.

At that latter point, we are properly impelled to examine our emotional attachment to the notion that the shadows on the cave's walls are essentially a picture of the real universe, but one which merely requires some adjustment of our focus, adjustment of the sort the complex domain implies. But, then, the accumulated discoveries of Kepler, Fermat, Huyghens, Leibniz, Gauss, Abel, Dirichlet, Wilhelm Weber, Riemann, et al., force us to look at the fruits of sense-perception in a more radical way, as, for example, Einstein came around to recognizing that the universe was both Keplerian and Riemannian. I do not intend to explore that physical side of the matter much more here; my point here is to call attention to the highly significant matter of the way belief, even about matters of physical science, tends to be determined more by emotional cathexis than stern reasoning.

Not only must we recognize that the universe apparently portrayed to our senses is not a true image of the real universe; we must recognize that every aspect of that portrayed image is more in the nature of a set of dials and gauges, than a representation of the real universe with which we are interacting. It is not merely a set of dials and gauges; it is a highly reliable arrangement, provided we take into account the fact that there are certain dials, gauges, and levers we have yet to discover and master.

For our purposes in this report, the important fact to which such investigations should lead us, is the fact that our identity as persons (as a representative of a distinct human species), is located primarily in those creative powers through which we generate and employ discovered universal physical principles, rather than in that domain of naive sense-certainty which drags us down into animal-like, rather than human behavior.

On this account, we must look at terms such as intention, lawfulness, motivation, and happiness in a way entirely contrary to the standpoint of ordinary sense-certainty. It is the discovery of experimentally validated universal physical principles, which must be recognized, emotionally, as the form of individual behavior which is specifically human, rather than a human attempt to simulate the mating and food-gathering behavior of a chimpanzee or baboon.

From all that I know, thus far, the normal, healthy state of mind of the adult person, is a primary sense of being a participant in the process of generating and employing those steps of progress in knowledge which make the future better than the past. This is in contrast to the viewpoint of the person whose defective view of himself or herself, is as a person who might take advantage of certain benefits of scientific progress, but only on the assumption that he, or she will be able to consume those attributed benefits within the bounds of one's own mortal life. To be an immortal person, one must have a sense of having an immortal self-interest in the progress of the human condition, as Jeanne d'Arc did, for example. I am not recommending applications to be burned alive at the stake; Jeanne's martyrdom, like Jesus Christ's, attests to the lack of limits to the degree one might put oneself at risk, rather than abandon one's immortal self-interest in being truly human, truly a being made in the likeness of the Creator.

Indeed, it is leaders who are leaders by virtue of having summoned the sources of power which a sense of immortal interest enables, on which the survival of systemically imperilled nations and cultures depends. Those who lack that sense of personal identity will, as leaders, fail humanity in a time of systemic crisis, fail because a fault in their emotional makeup, a faulty cathexis, prompts them to play Hamlet in a time of national peril.

This quality of leadership is not a style in acting. It is the expression of a commitment to a sense of identity as something more than a merely mortal being. It is, in the highest-ranking instances. a sense that one's identity lies entirely, in the last analysis, in the qualitative changes in the behavior of an entire society, which that society requires to overcome the failure which is threatening to overwhelm it.

Immortality As Such

The obvious difference between the human species and lower forms of life, is shown in two interdependent ways. First, the power of the individual mind to discover an invisible, but efficient universal physical principle. Second, the way in which such discoveries are accumulated, developed, and transmitted over successive generations. My immediate collaborators have chosen, wisely, to adopt the case of the Pythagorean of Syracuse, Archytas' construction of the doubling of the cube, as a crucial example of the way in which the principle of powers was mastered, as a concept of practice, in Sicily, about 2,400 years ago. Or, to the same effect, Plato's treatment of the doubling of the square, in his Theaetetus.

The effective transmission of ideas corresponding to discovered universal physical principles, is not done by textbook-like methods of indoctrination. It is accomplished by evoking in the students, for example, a reenactment of the original discovery in a way consistent with the original such act referenced. Whether in physical science, Classical artistic composition, or formal statecraft, it is the transmission of the sovereign individual mental act of discovery of an experimentally validatable hypothesis, which is the process of transmission of such ideas across generations, even across thousands of years.

It is ideas of that specific character we should associate with discovery of universal physical principles, which express the quality of immortality which is unique to the human individual, but which may be shared by successive generations of entire cultures, both the culture in which the discovery was first introduced, and also in other cultures in which that benefit has been replicated appropriately.

For example, in reenacting such a discovery, as, for example, in physical science, each of us must replicate the experience which passed in the mind of the referenced original discoverer. That moment of their thought—their sovereign personal thought—is replicated in our mind to such an effect that they, as they lived that thought, are living again in the habitable tissues of our mental processes; they are thus alive in us. It is only in that way, by that means, that such an immediate sense of the immortality of someone from the past, can be evoked.

In Christian theology, for example, such connections of past to present are filed under the heading of "simultaneity of eternity." The universe is not linear, not a piece of Hamburg curry sausage, with the past sliced away, and the future yet to come. For those who have thought such matters through, the very notion of time has a certain eerie quality. Sometimes, we might attempt to put this sense of eeriness aside, to make it seem emotionally harmless, by invoking the term "physical space-time." We are left with a certainty that there is an order in our experience of the universe, a before and after; but, the idea of independently linear extension of matter, space, and time, respectively, slips into the receptacle to which the memory of bad fairy-tales were better consigned. A linearized notion of an integrated notion of physical-space-time passes, too.

This universe is ours, all of it. It is the universe in which our identity swims, in the past, present, and future, wherever these may be found, which is our universe; we were wise to enjoy the swim. Know what we know, largely from those before us; realize that we have much new to discover; and take both those deceased and yet-to-be born into our loving arms, for we are all embarked on what should be the same mission, the realization of man made in the image of the Creator.

1.2 Classical Artistic Composition

Since I have thus written at some length on the principles of physical science, the duty of presenting the relevant essentials respecting Classical artistic culture, is simplified in the following way.

The term "Classical," as I employ it for art, is typified, for the case of Classical Greek sculpture, by that quality of apparent "imbalance" which conveys a sense of a body in living motion to the mind of the viewer. In this case, and in the case of all art-forms deserving of the same description, "Classical," the purpose of artistic composition (and performance, as that is a relevant feature of the matter) is not only to speak truthfully, but to say something which is truthfully of importance to be said. In the case of painting, the revolutionary change in the principles of perspective by Leonardo da Vinci is to be stressed. Once those qualifications have been met, one additional requirement is crucial. Classical artistic composition must express a valid idea which is not explicitly stated in the composition itself, which is transmitted to the audience, not as an explicit statement, but, rather, as a prescience of a well-defined quality and significance.

In all these respects combined, true Classical artistic composition satisfies all of the moral qualifications we demand otherwise of physical scientific discovery. In such art, the relevant term is "irony," as exemplified by metaphor, and also by the cleansing absence of the resort to argument by means of either textual literalness or symbolism.

The function of irony in Classical artistic composition (and its performance) is the imparting of ideas by means of the same use of ambiguity we associate with the role of a crucial paradox in the process leading to the discovery of a universal physical principle. To make this notion clear, we contrast the essential role of irony (ambiguity) in Classical use of poetry and prose alike, to virtually schizophrenic forms of speech which aim at a "purifying" elimination of all which does not correspond to anything but a notorious sort of literal reading of text by U.S. Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. Speech, or song, which meets the minimal requirements of Classical modes of communication echoes Percy Shelley's celebrated observation made near the close of his "In Defence of Poetry": "the power of imparting and receiving profound and impassioned conceptions respecting man and nature."

I explain.

Just as sense-perception provides only a distorted reflection of physical reality, so language, defined in the broadest terms, communicates only a distorted reflection of the intention of speech. The meaning of any such communication lies chiefly in its ambiguities, which are chiefly of two broad classes: context and content. The existence of such ambiguities is not a weakness of the communication, but, directly the contrary, essential sources of precision in communication of intent. A few examples give the gist of the matter.

When Shakespeare presents one of his English history dramas, or Roman, for example, the historical specificity of that setting is an essential part of the communication. To present his Julius Caesar in a Twentieth-Century costuming, for example, is an outright fraud. The typical staging of Classical dramas on the stage of the recent two decades, is an intentionally fraudulent representation of not only the author's intention, but the subject to which the author actually referred.

The essential quality of human experience is its actual history. What man is at any point in time and place is an embodiment of the actual historical antecedents embodied in what that man represents at that place, at that time, and in that subject-area of the communication. For example, all European musical composition after J.S. Bach is either traced through Bach, as its most important antecedent, or its meaning is located in its contrast with the Bach tradition. Any statement by a modern European about physical science after the Fifteenth-Century Renaissance, is to be judged in light of the changes in knowledge of physical science introduced by Brunelleschi, Cusa, Leonardo da Vinci, et al.

Just as human sense-perception offers the viewer only a distorted shadow of reality, so all communication referring to ideas belonging to the domain of sense-perception is ambiguous. It is through the deliberate use of irony which implies the falseness of a literal meaning of an uttered text, that any communication is made relatively truthful.

The essential function of Classical artistic composition and its authentic performance, is, as Shelley's argument in his "In Defence of Poetry" emphasizes, to increase the power of truthful communication in the author and audiences alike. Classical artistic composition is never essentially fiction, or merely entertainment; it is a means by which the power of communicating important ideas truthfully is increased in a qualitative way among sharers of that cultural experience.

For example, although we have today only a fragment of Aeschylus' Prometheus trilogy, the Prometheus concept expresses an aspect of the most important truth about the actual ancient history of mankind. Thus, the fact that we are able to show that the Prometheus Bound is a truthful account of the dynamic of European history, and more, up to, and including the time the play was composed, is the standard by which we read the related account by the celebrated Sicilian chronicler of Roman times, Diodorus Siculus. Similarly, the legend of the cult of the Delphian Apollo, corresponds in a functional sense to the role of that cult in shaping the history of peoples of that region of the planet, especially the role of sophistry and its antecedents and emulators in the history of European civilization to date. The proven accuracy, by archeology, of critical features of the Homeric epics, places those epics in a functionally notable, essential place in all the history of European culture to date.

Every statement is situated functionally, ironically, within the body of the culture of the speakers and hearers up to the moment the statement is uttered. Every statement is thus presenting a claim to ironical truth, a claim which, like an hypothesis, is to be interpreted for its truthfulness as the equivalent of experimental evidence tests the validity of the ironically situated contention.

I have often used the specificity of the famous Third Act soliloquy of Shakespeare's Hamlet to precisely that effect.[28] Is that soliloquy truthful? In what respect, what context? Is the fear of immortality, the pivotal feature of that utterance, and of the drama as a whole, a true conception of the indicated systemic problem of history? Absolutely! It is the most important concept of the way in which tragedy is often generated in real history, as that entire play depends upon the pivotal part which the ironically interwoven concept of ghost and immortality performs in that drama as a whole. The threatened doom of the U.S.A. at this historically specific moment, is a demonstration of the tragic force of the lack of valid sense of immortality when that deficiency erupts as a determining force in the behavior of leaders and populations generally, alike, as the doom of the U.S.A., for example, is immediately threatened for precisely that reason today. Was Hamlet truthful in the specific historical place and time it was first presented? Precisely so!

Was Schiller's Don Carlos truthful, in respect to its historical specificity? Absolutely! His Maid of Orleans? Absolutely! His Wallenstein trilogy's portrayal of the self-doomed Europe of the Habsburgs and others as taken at the approximate mid-point of the Thirty Years' War? Absolutely. Is Shakespeare's Julius Caesar a historically truthful representation of the corruption leading into the Roman Empire which Octavian forged, in a pact with the cult of Mithra negotiated from Capri? Absolutely. Did the putative son-in-law of the Emperor Tiberius then seated by the great cliff at the Isle of Capri, Pontius Pilate, order the judicial murder of Jesus Christ by the incarnate evil which was the Roman Empire? That is the truth, absolutely, from then, up to the present moment.

The European Classical artistic culture traced from under the shadow of the Pyramids, is no mass of fiction; it is the accumulated crafting of an instrument by means of which the force of irony is employed to wring a truthful appreciation from the experience under review at any relevant juncture. It is like the validated accumulations from the work of physical science over a comparable period, an instrument by which the power of historically truthful communication of ideas bearing on real situations is made possible. A determination of truth is not guaranteed in a world in which most leading courts are usually crooked, but the means for salvaging the truth even from crooked official findings, is made possible, as in the case of those decisions of recent generations which have produced the great threat to the continued existence of civilization today.

Art As Science

That much said on background, now focus on that act of insight which serves the observer of social relations as noëtic insight also leads the observer to discovery of experimentally validated universal physical principles.

The subject of what is customarily considered as physical science, is the individual human mind's view of the relations among processes contained within the Biosphere. In Classical artistic practice, the subject of the view has shifted to the social relations among the minds engaged in practice upon the Biosphere. The subject is the human mind's study of the determination of the social processes by the human mind itself. Those processes among minds, are examined for the way in which they affect man's mastery of, or failure to master, the world around him.

For example, what I have written above on the conflict between Euler and Leibniz, Gauss and Euler, and so on, represents the focus of my attention on the subject-matter of Classical artistic composition: not just the relationship of the individual mind to the Biosphere, but the relationship among persons as a determinant of man's behavior toward, and knowledge of the Biosphere. So-called Physical Science and Classical artistic composition, so integrated as one, then becomes both art and science.

For example, J.S. Bach addressed the implications of that Florentine bel canto training of the singing voice referenced, for example, by the surviving fragment of Leonardo da Vinci's De Musica. He attacked the problem of conceptualizing an integrated process combining both several species of such trained human singing voices and also instruments which are performed in mimicry of such human voices.

The basis for music is song, as derived from the principles of musicality inherent in successful forms of ancient Classical poetry, as is reported by specialists for the continuation of Vedic poetry into the Sanskrit. The mnemonic power demonstrated by the transmission of remarkably powerful astronomical knowledge, through such oral traditions, over six to eight millennia, or more, for example, attests to a capability in poetry lacking in today's customarily spoken U.S. form of English prose.[29] The relationship of Classical poetry to the characteristics of what are adduced as the equivalent of the Florentine bel canto, provides a mnemonic device by which the qualified singer of a poem is prompted to remember the sound of his next note, as we may demonstrate the same principle by multi-voice solfège training, of relevant (contrapuntal) cross-voice relations, among young singers.[30]

Leonardo's Madonna of the Rocks and The Last Supper typify the development of new dimensions in the physical science of plastic art which express those discoveries of physical scientific principles which reference powers of communication developed by the human mind, which are also found to represent physical scientific principles.

The study of Christian theology from a Platonic standpoint, and the closely related development of the principles of natural law underlying the most crucial features of the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, and the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Federal Constitution's Preamble, reflect the role of Classical art as a science of society's mastery of nature and of man himself.[31]

Classical tragedy, as its customary flaws were corrected by Plato's and Schiller's notions of the Sublime, is the most direct expression of the principles of statecraft most directly bearing on a science of government itself. If we include Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound, the dialogues of Plato, and the dramas of Shakespeare, Lessing, and Schiller, the Classical stage is the greatest educator of all in the art of how to govern, or to misgovern.

Classical art is the foundation of all great and truthful practice of statecraft. It is, in that respect, a science, not a mere trade craft.

1.3 Infrastructure, Again

The Sun produced the Solar system with its planets and moons. The Solar system produced the development of the planets, their abiotic evolution, and the development of the abiotic Earth by the cumulative effect of action of living processes over billions of years. When man appeared on this planet, he was met by the then-developed planet's considerable advantages for human life, but also its terrible imperfections.

On the subject of these matters, the most important general view of man's relationship, today, to the continued evolutionary development of our planet, is provided by emphasis on the work of the Russian scientist V.I. Vernadsky's definitions of the implications of the notions of a Biosphere and a still higher state of the planet's existence, the Noösphere. Biogeochemist Vernadsky wrote his footnote to the Egyptian Moses' Genesis 1.[32] If man were to prosper on our planet, man must make some significant changes, one after the other. Better, they were useful changes for both the planet, and for man himself.

From early on, human cultures which actually fit the description of "hunters and gatherers" were passed over in the course of the calamities to which such cultures are natural heirs. The noëtic principle is the Promethean essence of the nature of the human being. So it was for as far back as we actually know; so it is today. The noëtic principle develops the universe to adapt that universe to man's existence and continued development, as the preconditions for human existence and development were determined according to a similar principle (the intention of the Creator of the universe). In modern scientific thinking, this view of the universe is specifically Riemannian. So, we, to meet continuing human requirements, must transform the Biosphere. We must progress in our productivity (potential relative population-density); we must also transform the universe we inhabit in ways which allow that increase in productivity.

Some of the needed benefits we produce by rearranging the so-called natural conditions of the Biosphere as we find it. Simple water management, as to cause the deserts to bloom, to promote thus the increase of plant-life which converts a larger ration of the Solar radiation throughput into an increase of useful Biosphere, and to make the climates more moderate. Some are utterly artificial changes in the "environment," such as introducing production of power in large-scale generation of power at higher levels of effects, as measured in "energy-flux density" of sources of power, at the point of its generation for human employment. We have reached the point at which we must prepare to deal with the challenge of large-scale transmutation of elements and their isotopes, as part of the process of managing resources of the Biosphere in accord with changing and increasing human needs.

All of those needed, generalized changes in the relationship to the Biosphere fall into the category of "basic economic infrastructure," a matter which, by its nature, is the primary responsibility of government, not private entrepreneurs.

Efficient high-speed mass transit must replace, as much as feasible, that presently excessive use of the private automobile forced upon us by current anti-industrial, anti-public-infrastructure policies. We must do this to reduce the time and social cost of typical forms of necessary movements of people from place to place. We must reform the urban-suburban-rural relationship respecting habitations and typical functions, to reduce the lost time incurred by crude or "happenstance" ways in which we are compelled to conduct typical daily functions of movement respecting matters of both personal life and economy in general.

Take the case of the ill effects of "globalization," for example. Globalization in animal-livestock management and plant-life, for the food chain, has created conditions such as increased susceptibility to cultivation of pandemic forms of disease, and to reduction of species and their varieties, all to the effect of threatening the security of the human species itself. More varieties of species, and more species, are healthier for mankind, than reducing the number of a relatively few, inherently more vulnerable types. "Profit" may occur, through cost-reduction, within certain limits; but cost-reduction used as a substitute for scientific and technological progress in infrastructure and at the point of production, has demonstrated itself to have been not merely foolish policy of practice, but even insane.

The effect of all needed measures is to increase the required (physical) capital-intensity of all aspects of life and economy otherwise.

Progress requires an increase in the development of the knowledge of the individual, especially the young individual. This requires an increase of the knowledge-intensity, as distinct from, and often opposite to learning-intensity, of public and higher education. It requires an extension of the years spent in educational development of the young, to such effect, that today a quarter-century is the proper normal period of education of the young for present levels of what should be both standard technology and its standard rate of advancements. That is an increase of the ratio of physical capital, including an increase in the span of capital-investment cycles.

Progress signifies an up-shift in the rate of science-technology intensity in production and employment. Which means a corresponding tendency toward increase of both the ratio and maturity of capital investment in production facilities. This includes a growing ration of operating and capital expenditure in improving the Biosphere.

Progress thus signifies an elevated ratio of total product invested in capital formation in basic economic infrastructure.

It signifies a society being transformed, by continuing up-shifts, from a labor-intensity to an idea-intensity mode in economy.

This does not mean that we despise the obviously useful gains from information-intensity; however, it does mean that we despise and shun the recent tendency to confuse mere information-density with actual knowledge-density. The emphasis should not be on simple quantity, but on quality, as by limiting class-sizes in secondary schools and universities to between 15 and 25 persons per class, and virtually eliminating all standardized "competitive" multiple-choice-questionnaire testing of students. Monkeys and pigeons may learn, but human beings, even in George W. Bush, Jr.'s and Tom DeLay's Texas, must generate (and regenerate) the specifically human qualities of making discoveries of universal physical principles.[33]

We must rid the nation of the silly notion to the effect, that "free enterprise" generates profits, whereas many people are duped into believing that government development of infrastructure allegedly does not. Contrary to induced delusions of that sort, it is often the case, that the increase of the efficiency produced by investment in development and maintenance of basic economic infrastructure, may generate more actual profit in the society, per capita, than the sum-total of private enterprise, simply by increasing the efficiency and productivity of the economy in general. For example, some decades ago, a study of the New York City mass transit system, showed that the collection of fare at toll booths and turnstiles, increased the cost of operating the system above the cost of a toll-free system. New York Mayor Bloomberg's current obsessions, which have not quite reached the point of taxing individuals, per breath, for breathing, typify the incipient madness of the litany against public maintenance of basic economic infrastructure.

Today, U.S. investment in the combination of public and regulated private-utility investment in basic economic infrastructure should be normalized as more than half the total economic throughput of the economy as a whole. Any lower rate signifies a fall of per-capita physical productivity.

The Coming of the Cannibals

President Abraham Lincoln's "greenback" policy, not only saved the republic, but was essential to the transformation of the U.S. into the world's leading nation-state economy, which became obvious over the interval from 1861 through the Philadelphia Centennial celebration of 1876. The introduction of the Specie Resumption Act, putting the U.S. and its economy at the mercy of the British imperial gold standard, produced the recurrent ruin and riot of the interval 1877-1907. It is against that set of circumstances, that we must understand the myth of President Theodore Roosevelt's role as the "trust-buster." Once that myth is recognized for what it was, and what it remains, an intelligent and intelligible discussion of the role of the entrepreneur becomes possible.

It is against that background, that we may enjoy a competent discussion of the respective and combined roles of the state and private entrepreneurship, in providing, respectively, basic economic infrastructure and the benefits of certain qualities of private initiative.

It is indicative that President Theodore Roosevelt was not merely the nephew and early political protégé of his uncle, James D. Bulloch, the notorious filibusterer of the Caribbean, and then the Civil War-time, London-based head of the Confederacy's intelligence service. "Teddy" was a true son of the Confederacy's radically Anglophile mob, a protégé of imperial London's predatory, Anglo-Dutch Liberal financial tradition, and a true believer in the Locke, "shareholder value" cult of the Confederacy's Preamble. He had "Confederate instincts" bred into him from birth.

Notably, two U.S. Presidents of the six holding office following the 1901 assassination of President William McKinley, Roosevelt and Ku Klux Klan fanatic Woodrow Wilson, were hard-core pro-Confederacy ideologues, and the Coolidge infected with the legacy of the Essex Junto, shared many of the leading defects of that pair. Taking into account the brutal methods of "fiscal austerity" used by the sixth, President Hoover, the interval from the New York Henry Street Settlement House's role in the assassination of McKinley, to the inauguration of President Franklin Roosevelt, was, morally, a bad time in the life of the patriots of our republic.

It is in that context that the truth about "the trust-busters" is to be found, and our citizens instructed to adopt a more rational view of the role of the entrepreneur.

The Civil War, and its complement, the British, French, and Spanish imposition of the brutish Habsburg tyrant Maximilian on Mexico, had been intended by Lord Palmerston's and Lord Russell's London as the decisive, crushing blow which would both destroy the United States and transform North America into a Balkanized collection of bloodily warring petty tyrannies. The role of the Democratic Party boss, London's New York-based banker August Belmont, in staging the Copper-headed policy of Presidential candidate McClellan's 1864 campaign, was but one expression of this London-directed strategic thrust.

However, between the crucial turn at Gettysburg and the decision at Appomattox Court House, the U.S. republic was saved under Lincoln, and went on, and upward, to emerge as the leading nation-state economy of the world over the 1861-76 interval. Queen Victoria had turned dotty, but her heir, the Prince of Wales, was emerging as the fabled "Lord of the Isles," and, around him, what became the Fabian crew, had a plan. Except for the one fantasy of the continental Synarchist International grouped around Adolf Hitler and the Japan war party, in 1940-41, the enemies of the U.S.A. had abandoned the intent of destroying the U.S.A. by direct action. Under the Prince of Wales, soon to be Edward VII, a Fabian-led scheme for what became World War I, was unleashed by a curious 1898 development at Fashoda in the Sudan. The result was the defeat of the Hanotaux-led faction in France, and the ensuing Entente Cordiale among Edward VII, France, and a leading faction in Russia, which became the ensuing World War.

It was during this same crucial period, 1894-98, that the U.S. invasion of Cuba was orchestrated, that Japan launched the first Sino-Japan war, the occupation of Korea, and the London-orchestrated Japan-Russia war of 1905. In the midst of this, McKinley was assassinated, and the U.S. went on to rescue both Britain and France from impending military defeat, in both Russia and France, by Germany. Meanwhile, Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson connived to impose the Federal Reserve System introduced through the New York channel of Jacob Schiff, British King Edward's asset in New York City. At that juncture of the Teddy-Woody reign, in the environment of the Versailles Treaty, a cabal of trans-Atlantic financier interests grouped around the Synarchist International, planned to destroy the power of the U.S.A. itself, through a series of fascist coups and related takeovers in Britain as in continental Eurasia.

It was in this context of the pre-President Franklin Roosevelt interval 1894-1933, including the Hitler Reichstag Fire coup of February 1933, that the crucial pre-President Franklin Roosevelt role of President Teddy Roosevelt and his political confederates is situated. This 1894-1933 interval in our political life echoed the earlier time of the alien influences represented by the Presidencies of Polk, Pierce, and Buchanan, from Polk's U.S. war against Mexico until the Confederate Secession for which Polk, Pierce, and Buchanan had prepared the way.

There was no easy alliance between Britain and the U.S.A. during the interval 1918-33. This was the period of the naval parity negotiations, during which Britain and Japan had conspired to moot that attack on U.S. naval forces at Hawaii's Pearl Harbor which Japan was later to carry out, on December 7, 1941. The decision had already been made by Defence Minister Winston Churchill, in the setting of June 1940, to reject the views of those in Britain itself who wished to make a pact with the fascist regimes of continental Europe, and with Japan, against the United States. Churchill et al. intended to save the remains of the British Empire, but, also, to see the post-war outcome of the alliance with the U.S.A. as something which was not exactly a pro-U.S.A. posture.

Churchill et al. held to a long-range perspective of taking over the U.S.A., through the roles of certain anglophile U.S. networks of bankers and others in the Essex Junto and Confederacy tradition. The intent was, to form, thus, an English-speaking union to establish a renewal of the British Empire. Once the breakthrough of Allied forces in Normandy had virtually sealed the imminent defeat of Germany, the right-wing tendencies of those Anglo-American financier circles who had backed Mussolini and Hitler during the 1920s and much of the 1930s, emerged, and that very rapidly. The intent from July-August 1944, was to bury Roosevelt and his work, in more ways than one.

However, a quick and simple uprooting of Roosevelt's reforms by our American Tories was not yet possible at that time. The veterans of World War II were not ready to accept that; technically, it was not feasible. Nonetheless, what did occur was the "Cold War" and the associated right-wing political witch-hunt which was launched under Truman. From that point, the corruption spread rapidly, while the Anglo-American policy was then the prospect of preventive nuclear warfare against the Soviet Union, as the first step toward Bertrand Russell's goal of "world government" through the terror of brandishing and using airborne nuclear arsenals. The right-wing financier cabal wielding President Truman as its tool, could not destroy the structure of the post-war Bretton Woods system immediately. However, the corrosive force of a trend toward "free trade" and related monetarist policies was introduced under the cover of anti-Soviet propaganda and moods. In that qualified sense, the trend was already toward getting back to Coolidge and Hoover as soon as was technically and politically feasible.

Hence, the economic history of the U.S.A. since approximately 1876, has been, overall, during most among those decades, an increasingly corrosive influence of that Anglo-Dutch Liberal system of political-economy traced from the post-1763 system of the British East India Company. Except for the Franklin Roosevelt interval, that has been the prevalent trend in U.S. policy of practice during the entirety of the post-1901 Twentieth Century, and the present century to date.

The correlative of that approximately century-long shift, has been the shift of economic power from the work of the independent farmer, artisan, and independent manufacturer, and similar plebeian strata of the economy, toward the economically cannibalistic takeover of production and related functions by Anglo-American financier interests, the so-called "Wall Street" and "London" interests. The cannibalistic orgy of Wal-Mart, is a notable expression of the fact that the Wall Street influences have brought the domestic U.S. economy to the fag-end of its existence. The mythological hoax of Teddy Roosevelt's heroic struggle against the trusts, has been used since as a bludgeon to crush private entrepreneurs in favor of the financier-run oligopolies. We are now experiencing the result of that myth-making, as typified by the Wal-Mart phenomenon and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's monstrous financial-derivatives bubbles of today.

The largely mythical reputation of Teddy Roosevelt as a "trust-buster" must be examined in this light. What "Teddy" did, essentially, was to break the power of consortia of large production enterprises in favor of a cannibalistic takeover of U.S. production by Wall Street financiers. The attempt of Wall Street's and London's financiers to gobble up the physical productive power of the U.S.A., a trend which had been more or less rampant since the mid-1870s, had provoked a protectionist response, known as the "trusts," from actual entrepreneurial interests. It was a brutal fight, fought, from both sides, largely by brutish, often unscrupulous methods, but the significance of what Teddy did was to enthrone the Anglo-American financier power, at the expense of the U.S. people and a true entrepreneurial interest in "protectionist" methods of resistance to financier predators.[34]

Today's widespread lack of comprehension of the actual role which must be performed by the true entrepreneur, is largely the outcome of a popularized rationalization, which has duped many into overlooking the rape of U.S. producer interests by an alliance of New York financier speculators and the neo-physiocratic slave-holder tradition of the Confederacy.

The trend of U.S. economic policies during the recent four decades, especially since 1971-72, has been literally economic cannibalism. Profit, where it has not been claimed through the fictions fabricated by fraudulent corporate accounting and related methods, has been accumulated by a shrinking number of the few at the expense of the devouring of the many. Corporate takeovers, for example. Virtually consuming the mortal bodies of cheap labor in the U.S.A. and foreign populations alike. Relegating what had been major producer centers of the U.S.A., such as the Detroit area, or the former Midwest agro-industrial complex, to partially depopulated wastelands. The pattern echoes the history of the slave-system in the Southern U.S. states during the approximately four decades preceding the Civil War, and in the economic patterns during the post-Reconstruction period following the Tilden-Hayes affair. The bottom of the physical-economic barrel is now being scraped, while remaining corporate profits and the salaries of their top managements, are chiefly an illusion of "John Law"-style leveraged speculation.

The ideological character of this swindle is shown by focussing attention on the myth of the market. The world's financial market in what are facetiously termed "securities," has become little better than a pyramid of gambler's side-bets on other gamblers' side-bets on financial instruments whose valuation is premised not on productivity of the entity whose obligations are traded, but the highly leveraged valuation of the perceived current price-earnings ratio: a global John Law Bubble, a super-Ponzi-scheme, gone absolutely mad. The introduction of so-called "financial derivatives" has transformed the world's financial markets into the greatest, most inflated fraud in human existence so far. Consider the recent case of U.S.-based speculators' putting the entire system at risk, including the U.S. financial system itself, with their duping of Italy's Parmalat entity into becoming the carcass of that which had been shipped for slaughter on the world financial-derivatives market; that is only a typical symptom of the over-ripeness of the current world financial bubble to burst.

Therefore, to speak of the "entrepreneurs" associated with such corporate and associated conditions is not an opinion; it is an insult to the dictionary. "Cannibals" were a better choice of term. During more than three decades, since 1971-72, we have used up, or even willfully destroyed trillions of dollars' worth of U.S. basic economic infrastructure. We have wiped out fertile and productive farms. We have slaughtered industries en masse. We have destroyed productive skills we once commanded as a nation. We have consumed all this, and, since Spring-Summer 1982, destroyed, similarly, the economies of Mexico, Argentina, and many other nations, as we, Moloch-like, have called the proceeds of this orgy "the present prospect of continued growth"! Such are the ways of the supposedly successful modern cannibals of the proudly post-industrial '68er generation.

What happens then, when the cannibals at home begin to run short of neighbors to eat, and are left with little choice but to eat one another?

Who Produces Profit?

Those relatively few among us who still know how a healthy modern economy functions, would never be so silly as to suggest that the profit of a nation (excepting looting of foreign countries) is the sum-total of the individual profits reported by the accountants for individual business enterprises. The true profit generated from within a nation can be nothing but, chiefly, the fruit of the combined actions of the nation as a whole. How, and in what way, a ration of the profit earned by the nation as a whole should be assigned as the portion of a particular enterprise, is a matter to be defined chiefly as a matter of public policy.

Money, by its nature, is an idiot, possessed of neither conscience nor a brain. "Free trade" never promoted net growth of that section of the world as a whole over which it prevailed. In the zeal to reduce prices to the lowest level through unbridled competition, the price of goods soon falls below the unavoidable physical costs of production. In that process, the physical capital of the area defined as the market for "free trade" policies, is destroyed, as it is scrapped through attrition, or even willful destruction. The income of labor and firms falls, and, with that, the nation's domestic tax-revenue base, as we see in the result of "free trade" and related policies in the U.S.A. today. The net physical output, collapses, first by destruction of essential factors of physical capital, and then by cannibalization of the participants in the "free trade" cannibals' feasts, themselves.

That is precisely the process of attrition which has been in progress over the course of the recent 40 years. The attrition of the middle toward late 1960s, was accelerated into a growing margin of net-loss national-product during the 1970-72 period of the Nixon Administration. The rate of the net loss within the portions of the world system represented by Western Europe and the Americas grew through the period of the 1975 Rambouillet monetary conference. It became a runaway collapse under the direction of National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski's Project for the 1980s, especially the actions of Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker heaped upon the catastrophe of wildfire deregulation measures. Today, in infrastructure alone, the cumulative loss of capital far exceeds the relative loss which was dumped into President Franklin Roosevelt's lap by the ruinous policies of Coolidge, Mellon, and Hoover. The loss of capital in the private sector, through U.S. industries put out of business, or in actual or virtual bankruptcy, has transformed the U.S. economy to such a degree that, under present trends in policy-shaping, not only is the U.S. physical economy bankrupt, but the bankruptcy is systemic, approaching the rank of "basket case."

There are few frauds so popular as the delusion that "free trade" is a connotation of political freedom, that the hedonism of Jeremy Bentham's utilitarianism is the honest arbiter of public morality. "Free trade" was never anything different than a tenet of a lunatic pagan religion, a religion sold as beads, traps, scalping-knives, sometimes muskets, and whiskey, for furs, to the targetted Indians.[35] Money itself must be managed, in the last analysis, by government, to ensure that the costs of maintaining production and its growth are met, and the frivolities of idiot greed restrained. It is necessary to put the money-system into relevant diapers, and to change those diapers frequently enough to keep down the stench of the inevitable end-products of "free trade."

The method by which this were properly done comes under such headings of "protectionism," and "parity" in agricultural prices.

This should be obvious to anyone familiar with the task of assembling bills of materials and process-sheets, who extends his or her knowledge of that sort into an overview of the interconnections within the national economy as a whole, including accounting for its basic economic infrastructure. In traditional practice in the U.S., much of the decision-making on price structures is the fruit of conventions which had become so habitual in saner times, that most forget the history of the origins of those conventions. Tax policies, interstate commerce policies, flow of Federal and other credit into assorted areas of investment, and so on, are part of the arrangement. Sometimes government intervention is more strenuous; sometimes less; but the implicit impact is always there.

There are, speaking broadly, three leading factors in the contribution of private entrepreneurship to that portion of the national net product which might be considered as profit, as a gain in output over the expenditure of effort required to produce the total output. One is discovery of universal principles, a second is personal ingenuity, and a decisive third is the effect of presence, or lack of mission-orientation, that in the sense of the German military tradition of Scharnhorst and "old" Moltke. The leading interest of a prudent nation in private entrepreneurship, is to capture the benefit of a margin of gain in productivity generated by the voluntary mission-orientation of a person with the leadership qualities of an entrepreneur. The likelihood of the desired outcome is somewhat intangible, but the result of practicing that policy over a broad base of active and candidate entrepreneurs, combined, can be estimated. It can also be estimated as a quality fatally wanting in the non-military sector of the former Soviet economy.

In this connection, the much-touted "profit motive" is greatly overrated. The best entrepreneurs do not produce because they have an overriding "profit motive." An "avoidance of loss" motive, would be a more compelling explanation. The best entrepreneurs do it because they enjoy doing it, as the independent, technologically progressive family farmer used to typify this in times when the U.S. Congress allowed successful family farming to happen. They wish to cause real economic growth, and wish the satisfaction of knowing they are contributing to the general welfare. However, in all this, the principle of the matter is this: People do good things because they have an intention to do such good things: if they are able, and if they are permitted to do so. This is especially the case with the practice of scientific and technological progress. It is sometimes describable as "pride in one's profession," or pride in the quality of "the job I am doing." The essential driver for any activity generating scientific or technological progress is personal sense of identity, much, much more than financial incentives.

This correlation should be recognized as inevitable. Look at the classroom for a comparison. Some drudges work for grades or the like; others work because their sense of identity is involved in discovering a solution to the problem posed, in overcoming the apparent mysteries of the subject-matter before them, or, similarly, the sense of excitement in considering a related goal among intended effects in view, as some people climb mountains because the mountains are there. All of these desirable motives come under the same appropriate heading of mission-orientation which is much to be desired in the development of military cadres.

The intent of public and related policy favoring entrepreneurs, is to tap the active or potential impulses of mission-orientation of leaders of present or prospective small to medium-sized enterprises, as they might be responsible leaders of a battalion, company, or platoon under "old" Moltke's leadership. One does not tell them exactly what to do; one assigns them a well-defined mission, and makes certain that their work is supported, and properly appreciated. It is this human factor of creativity, lodged within the potential creativity and related mission orientation of the individual, which we tap by promoting and honoring mission-orientation among the private entrepreneurs. One recognizes the tools, materials, and circumstances they require to make their contribution, and wishes those who can be successful in their mission will be afforded the margin of means to grow and reproduce more of their economic kind.

The core of a modern industrial economy is provided by the private entrepreneurs on which larger corporate entities depended when the U.S., for example, was still a producer society by orientation. These are usually enterprises of from several to a hundred or two hundred employees. They tend to function in the system as essential types of vendors to larger corporate enterprises. Some may grow to considerable size as, still, private entrepreneurs, but most are of the smaller variety. They tend to be concentrated in specialized areas of production of intermediate products. By the nature of their role, the span of supervision by the leaders of the firm is usually limited to the scale of several to perhaps two hundred operatives.

Their size and role in the economy as a whole, suits them well to being distributed in smaller cities and the towns of the nation. The presence of a number of such local enterprises in a small or medium-sized city or town, or in an area largely dominated by family farms, provides the needed economic backbone of multiple places of employment for the small municipality.

Bearing on the same area, look back to the World War II cost-plus military contracts. Despite all the alleged scandal around that war-time practice, "it got the job done" when getting it done was at a premium. There were abuses, but the net benefit was enormous, not only for the war-time needs, but in making the post-war U.S.A. virtually the world's only economic power of the post-war period.

The principle is, to ensure a proverbial "fair shake" for the performer, in the course of getting the needed job done. If he or she performs better than expected, they will probably make good use for society of the gain which falls their way.

In looking at this matter of the private entrepreneur, compare the q