The Rules of Survival

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

May 24, 2007

[PDF version of this article]

As I have repeatedly warned over the past decades, there are no "crystal balls" in any competent form of economics. There is no possible mathematical system, as such, which could predict the date the present world monetary system would crash. In every relevant crisis, there is a certain margin of free will, but only a margin. Therefore, forecasting must rely on a combination of two kinds of forecasting methods, which we must combine as one.

1.) "Mathematically," we should recognize that phase of the world system in which the economy was currently operating. For example, in 1998-2000, we had already entered what I had foreseen, in my 1995-1996 presentation of my "Triple Curve" schematic, as the area in which the detonation was ripe to occur, unless we acted as I had proposed, to stop it by a return to the model, of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's Bretton Woods system. However, that presented us only the broad parameters of both the timing of the crisis, and its remedy.

2.) However, we can observe the relevant current state of voluntary disposition of relevant individuals and social strata, to assess whether or not the relevant institutions are actually on the verge of behavior which probably would, or would not trigger, or delay an already existing potential economic collapse, as now.

In Autumn 1998, action led by the Clinton Administration, postponed a general financial collapse which was already in progress then; but, the bills to be paid for that bail-out, have been piling up, with interest added, ever since, including the added, monstrous costs of Vice-President Dick Cheney's and Tony Blair's lying to us to get us into a seemingly permanent and also hopeless Mideast war.

Now, from the standpoint of the financial system itself, the present world situation is hopeless; from that standpoint, a new dark age were now inevitable unless we change the system itself. How soon? Who knows? What we can know, is the way we have already entered the current end-phase of that inherently failed system, a system which President Richard Nixon created in 1971-1972, a system which is soon to be gone forever, in one way or another. We can know the degree of ripeness for a crash, which is presently awful. We can assess the subjectively determined patterns of voluntary human behavior, which will determine whether or not a crash, already overripe in the tree, will be triggered, or delayed.

So, the conditions are ripe, and the time is "about now." As Wall Street used to say: The Bulls and Bears might survive, but the hogs who go to market now will be slaughtered.

However, from my standpoint, as an economist who adheres to that American System of political-economy which Nixon's crowd violated, there is still a potential escape-hatch which could open the way to recovery, if we seize that option now. That means applying the same principles to the different world situation, today, which were used by President Franklin Roosevelt to get us successfully out of that sudden, deep depression of 1929-1933, the depression which the policies of Presidents Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover had hung around our nation's neck.

It can be done, if you know the principles, and apply them competently. First of all, today, many among you, inside or out of government or party leaderships, must stop making the increasingly popular mistakes in action and judgment which had become prevalent political habits since about 1971. You must get out of the way most of our leading government officials had been thinking up to now; if you don't, there is now no hope for the United States, or the world at large.

It was going to come to this, if you did not act appropriately to change our ways. Now, as in the moment of world war or peace, the time for that decision has come.

—Lyndon

Introduction

The world as a whole is presently caught within the last phases of a general breakdown-crisis, a crisis for which there is no true comparison, until now, within modern European history since the 1618-1648 Thirty Years religious war. In fact, the nearest resemblance to the current threat, is to be found in European history in the so-called "New Dark Age" of Europe's mid-Fourteenth Century. In that mid-Fourteenth-Century collapse, half of the parishes of Europe were erased from the map, while the level of the population was reduced by about one-third.

That does not mean that an event like that is inevitable; it does mean that something probably even far worse than that medieval horror will soon hit the world as a whole, unless we make certain specific, willful changes in our nation's, and the world's economic policy of practice, and that right now. This present financial system itself, is already doomed; but, a change to the right choice of new system, to replace the present, failed one, a change back to the recovery policies of President Franklin Roosevelt, could still get us through the crisis, leaving the emptied hulk of the failed financial system itself behind us.

The central feature of this report is the subject of those necessary changes.

A successful recovery is probably still a presently available option; but, would be possible now only on the condition that we reverse every trend introduced to our nation's general outlook on trans-Atlantic monetary-financial and economic policy, and also that of relevant other nations, since about March 1, 1968. We must return, in fact, to the systemic kind of political-economic policies of the post-war world economic recovery, policies which the U.S.A. would have continued, had President Franklin Roosevelt lived to complete his fourth term in office.

With the exception of the interval from the March 1933 inauguration of President Franklin Roosevelt, through a point some time immediately after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the world at large has been dominated, directly or indirectly, for about three centuries, by the effect of the economic doctrines of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal System of monetarism. This Liberal system, was the influence into which the fraudulently arranged U.S. 1964-1972 Indo-China war led, and trapped us, under President Lyndon Johnson. It was the influence which continued that war through, and even slightly beyond the first term of President Richard Nixon. Near the end of the Indo-China war, Nixon and George Shultz destroyed Franklin Roosevelt's Bretton Woods system. That long Indo-China (official) war of 1964-1972, did much to ruin us, as the lies of Britain's Tony Blair government and the George W. Bush Administration launched the similarly useless wars in Southwest Asia which have nearly completed our nation's ruin today.

That occurred, notably, during the same time-frame which, for related reasons, the Soviet economy was also becoming increasingly unstable. The cultural influences which led to our own and the Soviet system's ruin, were ultimately complementary, and could have been avoided only if the Soviet government had accepted the negotiations offered on March 23, 1983, by U.S. President Ronald Reagan. All escapes from the real-life tragedies of great nations occur only by "kicking against the pricks," by choosing a certain pathway to safety which presently prevailing habits, as now, tended to forbid.

Ironically, the varieties of Marxist economic systems, while differing, in some of their well-known political objectives, from other branches of what had been laid down as the British economic dogma, were, axiomatically, no exception to the deeply underlying principles of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal System of political-economy. Karl Marx and his followers had emphasized this connection repeatedly.[1] Furthermore, despite the hostility between the Soviet and "Western" Anglo-Dutch varieties of monetary systems, the two were closely interrelated, especially so since the Soviet system's bringing within its borders the virtual "Trojan Horse" of the Bertrand Russellite, pro-Malthusian dogmas of Cambridge systems analysis.

Thus, viewing matters broadly, since 1763, there have been only two significant models of modern world economic systems, world-wide: on the one side, two differing varieties of the same "Adam Smith" model, Anglo-Dutch and pro-Marxist, spun out of the British version of Anglo-Dutch Liberalism; and on the other side, the contrary tradition which had been established under our Constitution, as our American System.[2]

The presently continuing, essential difference between those two leading species of world systems, lies in the fact, that the Anglo-Dutch Liberal System (which, incidentally, includes fascist varieties of economies) is a monetary system whose root was derived from the tattered remains of a so-called ultramontane, medieval system of "globalization"; that was the medieval form of empire, which had been established under the curious partnership of Venice's financier oligarchy with the Crusading Norman chivalry.

The implied design of modern Anglo-Dutch Liberal System, expresses a slight, but crucially significant change from the Fourteenth-Century failure of the old, medieval form of the imperialistic Venetian system. It was a change made in the attempt to crush the reforms which had been expressed by the great ecumenical Council of Florence, an attempted defeat of the Florence reforms which evolved into the reactionary form of the late Sixteenth and early Seventeenth centuries' new, Liberal Venetian system, a new system introduced by Paolo Sarpi. Sarpi's so-called philosophical Liberalism, has been the reform at the root of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal dogma of monetarism. That is the Sarpi reform which has remained the keystone of all monetarist dogma and policy, and the present drive toward an imperial form of a new Tower of Babel, which is called "globalization" today.

The British East India Company was established as an imperial power, with the February 1763 Peace of Paris, as followed by the ruin of France in the 1789-1815 rampage of both London-steered Jacobins and Count Joseph de Maistre's Martinist freemasonic redesign of Napoleon Bonaparte. The more or less inevitable fall of Bonaparte, established the British Liberal system of political-economy as hegemonic internationally, almost to the present day, but with the single significant exception of those decades during which the world-system was under the strong influence of the American System of political-economy.

Sea-Power & Economy

In sundry published locations, I have had occasion, as now, to return attention to the subject of the historic advantages, during past history, of maritime development over inland development. I emphasize "historic," since the advantages are not relevant for all times and places, but, have, nonetheless, crucial significance during known long waves of history, and also some of the pre-history of mankind, this until the upsurge of the changes implicit in recent qualities of relevant technological progress. That subject has special relevance in the context of the past role of the British Empire in creating the institutional foundations of the presently onrushing threat of a general collapse of civilization world-wide. (Look in the basement to learn why the house will collapse.)

As I have stressed, repeatedly, in published material over the recent quarter-century: in all known history, and traces of pre-history, the advantage had always lain, until now, with the superiority of maritime culture's potential strategic advantages over those of inland settlements. This is typified by the founding of the known development of Mesopotamia by settlers from a non-Semitic sea-going culture based in the Indian Ocean; and, it is otherwise typified by the wider archeological evidence of the superior economic and general cultural development of maritime cultures represented in coastal locations, over evidence pertaining to development of inland sites. The progress of civilization's initial developments has been chiefly upriver from coastal settlements.

This advantage of maritime powers, such as the British Empire, was first seriously threatened with the appearance of national railway systems, especially with the related emergence of the post-Civil War United States of America as a continental power. Today, with the prospect of a shift into the combination of nuclear-fission as a power-source in general use, and the emergence of magnetic-levitation mass transport systems, the so-called "geopolitical" advantage of sea-power, the relative advantages of maritime over inland cultures, has entered a waning phase.

However, in the better known part of the earlier portion of the history of European civilization, the portion since about 700 B.C., a crucial test of landlocked versus maritime cultures came to a head in the Mesopotamian-based Achaemenid-versus-Greek conflicts. The strategic pattern of all European and related cultural history since that time, up to the present day, has been set by the ambiguous outcome of the victory, led by Athens, against the Persian Empire's attempt at decisive use of what was apparently overwhelming force, against Athens and its allies. Athens' coalition defeated the Achaemenid Empire by outflanking the Persian forces on land with victory at sea; but, then, Athens lost the longer war, to the Persian "fifth column's" infiltration of the leading families of Athens themselves, through the Delphi cult's spread of the influence of Apollonian-Dionysian modes of Sophistry, much like the modern "Baby-Boomer" culture, among the youth of the leading families of Pericles' Athens.

This Sophist corruption of the leading families of Athens, brought about the long war, the Peloponnesian War, which destroyed Athens' power, as the enemies of the U.S.A. used the assassination of President John F. Kennedy as the opportunity to manipulate the U.S.A. into that process of self-destruction effected through fraudulently induced long wars in Indo-China, as under Presidents Johnson and Nixon; and, more recently, an unwinnable, spreading, long war in Southwest Asia, this time, under Vice-President Dick Cheney's proverbial "Trilby," President George W. Bush, Jr.

The immediate precedent for the political weakening of the U.S.A. by the residual maritime power of Anglo-Dutch Liberalism, was inherited from the precedents of the Mediterranean maritime power which was crushed, momentarily, by Alexander the Great's alliance with the Ionian cities and Cyrenaicans, against Tyre, and, later, by the Romans against Carthage and Syracuse, and by the methods of the maritime power which came to be controlled by Rome and Byzantium, in playing their respective parts in establishing and retaining their imperial power for as long as they did.

For example: Alexander's margin for final victory over the Persian Empire, had been accomplished by the preceding reduction of the Persian Empire's maritime bastion at Tyre, a victory which would have been impossible without the preceding appeal by Alexander to his virtual cousins in the Cyrenaican priesthood, which resulted in the revolt of Egypt against the Persian Empire, and, in turn, in Alexander's victory.

To similar effect, the roots of what became the British Empire, are to be found in the shift of power in the Mediterranean from Byzantium to Venice, a shift which resulted from the use, initially by Byzantium, of Saxon pirates from Jutland and nearby Scandinavian maritime locations, against Anglo-Saxon civilization, and the key role of declining Byzantine power in deploying the same northern sea-raiders, together with the Normans as such, against the remains of Charlemagne's reign. The internal decline of Byzantium's vitality, opened the door for the emergence of a new hegemonic imperial power, the Venetian financiers' imperial maritime power of the Eleventh through the Fourteenth centuries.

This rise of Venetian power was not only typical of the forerunners of what became known as British imperial geopolitics of the late Eighteenth Century and beyond. The Anglo-Dutch Liberal form of maritime power was itself a product of Paolo Sarpi's reform of Venetian-directed maritime power, shifting the base of Venice's financier-oligarchy, from an increasingly weakened strategic position as a maritime power in the upper reaches of the Adriatic, into what was to become the maritime power based in the northern regions of the North Sea, the English Channel, and the Baltic.

The great long-term threat to the Anglo-Dutch Liberal System's maritime supremacy, became visible in the development of the U.S.A. as what John Quincy Adams, when Secretary of State, had designed as a developed continental power, between two oceans, and northern and southern borders, became the future great English-speaking, long-term threat to the global hegemony of Anglo-Dutch Liberal imperialism. The victory of President Abraham Lincoln's U.S.A. over the British puppet, the Confederacy, and the explosion of internal development associated with the launching of the transcontinental rail system, changed the quality of direction of modern world history. Maritime power persisted, but its hegemony was effectively challenged.

Consider our republic's most recently attempted destruction, which was launched by the Atlanticist Liberal faction with the death of President Franklin Roosevelt. That destruction, and the intended assimilation of what might emerge as our subsequent remains, had already been Anglo-Dutch Liberalism's imperial outlook since no later than February 1763, and, most emphatically, since 1865-1879. After the U.S. victory over Lord Palmerston's Confederacy puppet, the U.S. was a powerful state which could no longer be broken up by further attempts at breaking us into pieces by means of externally directed military force. Our U.S.A., which was spreading the influence of the American System of political-economy into Germany, Russia, Japan, and beyond, was then viewed by the British monarchy's system as an intolerable threat, whose power was to be destroyed by one means or another. The British monarchy considered the most immediate threat to Anglo-Dutch Liberal imperialism as expressed by Bismarck's American reforms in Germany; London intended to eliminate this Bismarck reflection of American influences, by pushing for a war between the two nephews of King Edward VII, Germany's Kaiser Wilhelm and Russia's Nicholas II. To this Liberal end, the assassination of U.S. President William McKinley, transformed the U.S. temporarily, from a rival, into a captive dupe and virtual ally, under fanatically Anglophile Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.

Typically, following the first World War, for which Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson had prepared the U.S. to support Britain in its intended geopolitical conflict with the continental powers of Europe, Britain returned this favor by preparing, during the early 1920s, to join with what had become London's royal asset, Japan, for what was intended to be a decisive attack upon U.S. naval power, with Japan then assigned to prepare to take out the U.S. base at Pearl Harbor. Later, when Britain had been turned away from its intended accommodation to Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler, under pressure from the U.S.A.'s President Franklin Roosevelt, a desperate Japan, now allied with Nazi Germany, continued its part in what had been the earlier Anglo-Japanese plan for the attack on Pearl Harbor. Had our carrier task-force not subsequently defeated the Japan carrier task-force, the Nazi operations based in Mexico would have attempted a joint Germany-Japan conduct of a planned attack on California.[3]

President Franklin Roosevelt, was, of course, a far different case than either Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, or Harry Truman. FDR's untimely death was welcomed among the ranks of U.S. and other proponents of some permanent form of global Anglo-Dutch/American Liberal world empire, such as what is lately called "globalization."[4] For such reasons, some relevant influential financier circles, including a person close to top levels of the Democratic Party, have frankly declared, against me personally, as during the course of 2005, that their factional stooges within influential U.S. circles, would never permit a potential resurrection of President Franklin Roosevelt's U.S.A., to come near to power in the U.S.A., ever again. These present-day apostles of "globalization" have acted against me, if with marginal success, within the Democratic Party, the relevant press, and elsewhere, accordingly.[5]

I shall now show why such fellows have often regarded me, explicitly, especially since March 1983, as a serious special kind of danger to what they wish to perceive are their special financial and related interests.

The Crucial Lesson From History

All of this which I have just summarized respecting the roots of today's Anglo-Dutch Imperialism, reflects the span of history of European civilization's emergence and development as an independent phenomenon of world history since approximately 700 B.C.—a relatively brief, but most characteristic slice of the history of human existence as a whole. As brief as that portion of the existence of mankind may be in respect to the larger and longer scheme of things, there are two extremely relevant points to be made respecting the characteristics of civilization as a process since about 700 B.C., as any attempted understanding of human nature requires.

As Plato reports, the Egyptian counselors of Athens' representative said: You Greeks have no old men among you. I refer to Plato's remark, to aid in making a crucial point. It is the crucial point I wish would pervade the reader's comprehension of the entire span of that knowledge which they require for an adequate insight into the exact nature of the present challenge for the perilous moment immediately ahead, perilous for both the continued existence of our nation, and of civilization as a whole. I, after all, am an old man, but one whom those Egyptians might have believed, shaking their heads slowly, that I would be as one who had been born, by their standards, only recently, in their sobering view of the determining features of the historical process of development in the large, as for then, for now.

Looking at the recent millennia of human history, from the standpoint of any thoughtful animal ecologist, the astonishing fact about the human species would be, that power of our species to increase its potential relative population-density, as no animal species, such as the higher apes, can mimic this. The point is, that the greater part of human behavior is not fairly described as "instinctive," but a product of cultural transmission, as if by radiation, from one generation to the next.

A glance at the recent history of European civilization's cultural developments, during the recent 2,800 years alone, should astonish the modern ecologist. What he, or she should find astonishing, is, first of all, the vast discrepancy between the expansion of human potential relative population-density, when compared with what are, apparently, our nearest biological cousins, the higher apes. Secondly, the fact that this increase has been largely voluntary, not biologically determined. Unlike the animals, the study of crucial cases shows, that every type of human cultural strain exhibits the same raw degree of creative intellectual potentiality, such that the upper limits of achievement of the representatives typical of that strain are fixed only by cultural, rather than biological determinations.[6]

A study of competent education in the principles of physical science, shows us that the greater part of this upward potential for cultural development, can not be biological, not something confined to the definitions of the Biosphere; but, represents an accumulation of culturally-transmitted progress in development of the power of our common species, over hundreds, or far more centuries, through intellectual, rather than biological developments in cultures.[7] Furthermore, these developmental processes are not inevitably organized in predetermined stages, but entire so-called "cultural stages" can be leaped over, ostensibly, many apparent "cultural stages" of development within the bounds of several generations. (Normally, the apparent unit of time to be chosen for investigation of such effects, is about three generations, within a family of a standard three generations.)

This accords with the matured Albert Einstein's views on the importance of viewing modern science as an integrated process, expressing an implicit continuity of net intellectual development from Kepler through Riemann. There exists, implicitly, a best ordering of the development of those aspects of knowledge we associate with modern science; but, in practice, as Einstein, generously, did not mention that fact at that moment, there are also many cases of long periods of intellectual degeneration in the quality of the so-called "mainstream" of apparent historical development of scientific knowledge, as we have experienced this in trans-Atlantic culture recently.

It happens that no important principle of scientific or other knowledge could be conceivably transmitted by "programmed learning" methods. People can babble rehearsed formulations as "learning," but they can never know a discoverable principle of nature except by experiencing the actual process of unlearned discoveries, as Nicholas of Cusa, for one, prescribed.

These few observations I have just made here, suffice to point out that it is the creative processes of discovery of universal physical and comparable principle (i.e., as typical of only Classical modes in artistic composition), which is the prompting of those changes in culture among human beings which are comparable to the effects of upward biologically evolutionary development among the lower animal species. Even the remarkable "intellectual development" of some pet animals, is a result of a coupling of animal predispositions to the guidance supplied by actually human powers.

It is those principles, as typified in quality by the discovery of a physical principle, as the cases of Nicholas of Cusa, Leonardo da Vinci, Johannes Kepler, and Leibniz, or Kepler, Leibniz, Gauss, and Riemann, typify such an ordered succession in physical science, which supersede the function of biologically predetermined, instinctive learning capacities of animal species. These are examples of the role of the specifically human powers which underlie the uniqueness of seemingly evolutionary development of the society and its individual member. This typifies what is lurking inside the individual representative of many successive generations of cultural development of the individual within a society. When one examines 2,800 years of history of specifically European civilization, as I have suggested above, we begin to recognize more fully the importance of emphasizing cultural development, rather than mere assessment, through mere observation, of currently apparent cultural traditions.

The Principle of Tragedy

In the case immediately at hand, the appropriate choice of role by those suited to become the leaders of the U.S.A. during the present, critical moment of world history, is the view of past and future history from the informed standpoint which I have just outlined; it is that view which makes the difference, under present world-crisis conditions, between probable success, and virtually inevitable failure. These are conditions under which we must choose a change in the present quality of the apparent agenda, rather than foolishly attempting to respond, as with yet another foolish war arranged by lies, as in the cases of the U.S. Indo-China War and the currently spreading war in Southwest Asia. We must rise above the bounds of the current general estimate of what the current stubborn habits in opinion-making would assume the agenda to be.

To begin to have the competence to foresee where we ought to go next, it is necessary, today, to reflect upon the origins of the palette of alternative and successive progress and failures in the experience of European history over no less than 2,800 years to date, since the rise of the Mediterranean region out of a preceding, relatively dark age. On that account, most among our political and military strategists of today would be considered by Plato's Egyptian old men as children. Consider, thus, the difference between the Classical and Romantic views on tragedy as a source of illustration of that point.

In the Classical tragedy, the subject is the pervasive failure of the entire culture which that case represents. In each case, as the Queen in Schiller's Don Carlos, or the two children of the house in Schiller's Wallenstein, it is the figure which the Classical playwright has placed on stage, but from just outside the scheme of the action, who is used by the playwright to provide the member of the audience a vantage-point to see that the person of Hamlet, for example, is not the specific issue of the tragedy of the play, but that he, too, is a victim of the entire culture which grips all of that intrinsically tragic culture as a whole. So, in Lear, where all are fools; or Macbeth, where all are members of a society of butchers; or, in Julius Caesar, from which the named personality Cicero is being excluded to crucial effect, from a place where he might be seen as a figure on stage, but exists only as an unseen presence.

Nor is President George Bush, Jr. the source of the tragic force within our national drama today. Bush's election as President demonstrates the principle of tragedy; the fact that he was placed on stage, and kept there, shows that his election, especially his re-election, would have not have been conceivable, had there not been something which is both pervasive and rotten in our culture, a rottenness typified, in fact, and that pervasively, by the Sophistry of our Baby-Boomer generation, the type of fatal trait which also visibly pervades the dominant generation of the society of today's western Europe, as in the U.S.A., today.

It often appears, thus, that almost everybody wishes to find a scapegoat on which to fix the blame for what are, in fact, our society's presently conventional disasters. Grow up! Stop being a credulous Romantic! Foolish Romantics blame Hamlet; they blame King Philip, but not Posa or Carlos, nor the Grand Inquisitor: they always find an excuse to blame someone, or something, something which is not the singularly guilty party, rather than blaming the generally adopted culture of, for example, the members of the audience.

It is that culture, as in The Iceman Cometh, which is actually the guilty party on stage, while the supposed tragic figures are merely the instruments of the guilt which is inherent in that shared specific culture of that population as a whole. The Romantic makes a farce of the tragedy he or she witnesses, by expressing the farcical pretension, that all unpleasant ends seen are the fault of the tragic flaw in some individual, or a special group of individuals, rather than the culture of the would-be blamers. Friedrich Schiller's comment on the character of the Posa of Don Carlos is relevant to this effect.

The Romantic's populism says: Imprison the man who pulled the rope at the lynching, and let the fellow-members of his Klan breathe a typically Romantic sign of relief, having paid, with the price of one scapegoat, for the pleasure of participating in the murder of one individual, the victim, by offering the punishment of an accomplice as a kind of human sacrifice. Or, during, or following the war-time 1940s: "What smokestack? I don't recall seeing any smokestack!"

On our national stage, it is the prevailing culture of our nation, especially including our popular culture, which is the root of our nation's already existing and oncoming national tragedies. It is inside yourself, but also your peers, that you discover that trait which must be expelled from your society.

So, it happens, that he, or she who has not learned from Solon, the Pythagoreans, and Plato, knows nothing of crucial importance about the inside of European civilization today. Usually, he does not know, that which he wishes not to know; he also wishes to avoid the discomfort of knowing what needs to be changed in his all too typical self. To find the escape from the tragic force which grips our civilization today, the tragic force which presently grips the willful impulses of most of our leaders in the U.S. Congress, for example, we must step outside the bounds of that, our presently, generally accepted, utterly tragic compulsions, our so-called current traditions of political and related practice.

Abandon your corrupt lusting for the Romantic's pre-assured happy ending. Find what must be changed in your presently adopted culture, and therefore in yourself. Find what must be radically changed in our nation's current behavior, and, above all else, find the will to make precisely that change. If you speak both Latin and Classical Greek, call up the shade of Cicero, and ask him about such things; you might learn something useful.

The American System

By contrast with Anglo-Dutch Liberalism, that American System of political-economy to which our nation must now return, is not a monetary system; it is a credit system rooted in the precedent of what had been developed as the pre-1688 practice of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. The American System is premised on the fundamental principle of law expressed by the 1776 Declaration of Independence's citation of Leibniz's "pursuit of happiness." This is also that same Leibnizian principle echoed as our fundamental principle of law, in the Preamble of the U.S. Federal Constitution.

In brief, the British system is a monetary system, and also a "free-trade" system, whereas, as I have just said above, the U.S. Federal Constitution establishes a protectionist type of credit system, which is also what is sometimes termed a fair-trade system.

From the standpoint of science, the source of the difference between the two systems is that, as Bernard Mandeville, the Physiocrat François Quesnay, and Adam Smith insist, there is no actual physical, or moral principle operating in the top-down direction of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal System. As Mandeville and Adam Smith emphasize, there is the principle of gambling. Their system is based on the substitute for principle called gambling, or chance, a mathematical system of gambling pioneered by the teacher of Thomas Hobbes, Sarpi's lackey Galileo.[8]

Whereas, as Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton's three celebrated reports to the U.S. Congress, summarize the characteristics of the American System of political-economy, the American System is premised on physical-scientific considerations, as I describe that, but from a more advanced standpoint, within the body of this present report.[9]

In other words, the neo-Venetian Liberal system of Sarpi and his followers, denies the existence of any permissible concern for the possible existence of a provably knowable principle of the universe, or of any knowable sort of moral principle of a Creator. Their argument, is that we must leave these matters to nothing other than pure hedonism, and worship the result of that as the blessing of chance, as if by little green men casting dice under the floorboards of a sensible or otherwise knowable reality. These prophets of Liberal political-economy know of no deity in the universe other than some fantastic croupier of a metaphysical Las Vegas resort—with a fixed deck, and with his hand in your pocket.

That much said on that account: as I have already indicated here, the world as a whole has now entered the critical phase. We have arrived at the point at which the world's economy has reached the end of its possible continued existence in the form of that Anglo-American policy-shaping which has hitherto imposed its will, under the present system, on the trends under which the planet as a whole has been operating during the recent thirty-nine years. It is for this reason that, at the present moment of crisis, even the relatively best—or, if you prefer, "least bad"—among statistical forecasters who are steeped in their experience and their faith in that present form of their adopted system, are worse than useless as prospective designers of economic policies today.

Therefore, speak and think of the alternative to such madness as that:

President George Washington's original Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, presented a description of the lawful kernel of the monetary, banking, and economic policies of the U.S. Constitutional system, in three famous reports to the U.S. Congress: on Public Credit, a National Bank, and Manufactures. During any period the guidance provided by those intermeshed policies has been followed, the U.S. has prospered. Of these three, the first two should be treated as one, defining the credit and national-banking system, and the last, the third, defines the physical economy which the credit system is intended to promote and serve.

Three primary elements of the system are built up around agriculture (rural), manufactures (urban), and nation-wide development of the infrastructure that links and binds both urban and rural systems into a single, integrated process of development of the increasing of the productive powers of labor, per capita and per square kilometer. Thus, the treatment of manufactures as Hamilton uses that term in his Report on the Subject of Manufactures, describes the physical purpose of the national economy, and provides the mechanisms of the long-term credit and national banking system needed to foster the realization of the physical purpose of the economy as a whole.

One crucial precedent for this, was an experience underlying the argument made by Hamilton; that was the American experience of the Massachusetts Bay Colony's use of a system of scrip during the pre-1688 period. This experience was emphasized in Cotton Mather's and Benjamin Franklin's arguments for a credit-system based on a paper-money form of public credit, under the sovereign control of the relevant political system of government (sometimes later called "greenbacks").

This approach reflected a legacy of intentions dating back to the regime in France under Louis XI, an experience studied and used by England under Louis' admirer Henry VII. It is, and was a conception of the form of political society known as a commonwealth since the practice of Louis' France and Henry's England, as the term "commonwealth" was adopted in use among some of the colonies in the Americas. The case of the Saugus Iron Works near Lynn, Massachusetts, is a prominent illustration of the effect of this practice in the pre-1688 Massachusetts colony.

The preference for closely held enterprises, such as family farms, modest manufacturing enterprises which emphasized flexibility and ingenuity, and skilled services provided by individuals or small firms with special skills, characterized a healthy design of economic organization of communities, and relations among communities defined the regions of the states and relations among the states. The power of technology must lie with the people, such that that technology can not be taken away from the people by runaway corporate interests. Similarly, the idea of "free trade" was an anathema to the free-spirited American colonist and U.S. citizen of those times. "The laborer is worthy of his hire" was on the tips of the tongues.

Once the French Revolution had set in, the security of the young U.S. republic was placed in jeopardy by the tumultuous developments in Europe, and the values we had thought we had fought to save, were now again in jeopardy, at home, as from abroad.

Nonetheless, I look back toward my own family's connections within earlier North America, to certain developments dating from the first half of the Seventeenth Century, of which I have the kind of informed recollection which has been aided by those who my grandparents knew as their family members from the end of the Eighteenth Century and earliest part of the Nineteenth. A maternal great-great grandfather of mine was virtually a still living person at my grandparents' evening dinner table, especially on weekends, when company from other branches of the family might attend. The characteristics which I can back-trace, thus, by aid of means from inside more than two centuries of the circumstances of my family's existence, can be recognized as rooted in reported characteristics of life here during much of two centuries earlier.

After all, what is our immediate, practical sense of immortality of the human soul, as distinct from the lot of the beasts, except as the obligations of one generation to both past and future generations are to be seen? Thus, the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the adoption of our Federal Constitution, are expressions of pledges of the presently living to preceding and future generations. More than the specific deed done, or specific pledge made and fulfilled, is the idea of discoverable universal principles through which what principle defines as the good intent of the deceased may have a future harvest, as the love toward those who have gone before us, is the promise of the quality of what our future will become.

Those branches of the family which immigrated into the United States during the 1860s and early Twentieth Century, slipped rather quickly into the essentials of an outlook which was more distinctly American, than European. The essential, common distinction, has always been, since such events as the landing of the Pilgrims and founding of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, the relative freedom from the overreaching influence of a European-style oligarchy, a freedom which is still, today, the crucial expression of a large difference between the mentality of an American Presidential system, from the crippling effects of the parliamentary and oligarchical traditions typical of Europe.

The difference is the way in which the typical Americans of my experience sensed their relationship to the political power in our republic: our Presidential system was for many among us, more or less something sensed as an extended-family affair. This was the case until the decadence of the post-1960s turn toward increasingly great "class distinctions," between the "white-collar" upper income-brackets and the increasingly impoverished former "blue-collar" brackets, as this trend was established during the last half of the 1970s—since about the same time as the great swindle known otherwise as Felix Rohatyn's Big MAC rip-off.

'The Curse of Information Theory'

What I have added to that repertoire of the American System which had passed into my hands, has been chiefly a by-product of my 1948 and later reaction against the inherent bestiality of the effects of the central features of the most celebrated work of Bertrand Russell's notable devotees, Professor Norbert Wiener and John von Neumann.

The leading works of the careers of both of that pair ("information theory," "theory of games," and "artificial intelligence"), were premised on the same central fallacy of Russell's Principia Mathematica, whose essential incompetence was demonstrated by the work of Kurt Gödel in 1930-1931.[10] Those doctrines, as presented in either the abused name of "science," or economics, echoed the Liberalism of Paolo Sarpi, in denying the ontological form of existence of actual human creative discovery of universal physical principles. The influence of Sarpi on his account, is seen, still today, in the prevalence of the Cartesian tradition of mechanistic-statistical formulations, as a purported substitute for the dynamical practice, as by Kepler, Fermat, Leibniz, Gauss, Riemann, and Einstein, of the actual scientific method of discovery of principles.[11]

So, there was my earlier concern to refute what I had believed since adolescence, to be the physically absurd tradition of Euclidean method. This was that concern expressed in a new form, as my recognition of the need to discover how best to prove my 1948 recognition of the same incompetence which was expressed in a different form in Wiener's misconception, "information theory." This passion led me, some years later, to find a proper insight into the essential argument by Bernhard Riemann. Since that time in 1953, my notion of a physical principle of potential relative population-density has been premised on the principled features of that work of Riemann which Albert Einstein identified as a specific outgrowth of the pioneering discoveries by Johannes Kepler.

That is the core of my premises, as to method, in the science of physical economy. It is the improvements which I have contributed to a science of physical economy, which should be considered as good news for today's world crisis. The bad news, is to be recognized as included in the presently apparent outcome of the influence of the work of Wiener and von Neumann, in contributing to our ruinous decay into becoming a "post-industrial economy."

Wiener's crew has helped us to communicate faster, and to calculate faster, but at the price of inducing us to give up previously indispensable habits of serious, productive thinking. With the adoption of "the theory of games," we have, so to speak, swapped away competence and quality, for quantities of doubtful values.

That degeneration which "information theory" intersected, began with the "white-collar" decadence which swept in among some of the families of returning war veterans during the 1945-1965 interval; but, the worst effects of this were not visible to public opinion, until the dragon seeds sown by the likes of the morally depraved, radically existentialist European Congress for Cultural Freedom, which were to be recognized later, when relevant portions from among the children born during 1945-1956, were harvested in the form of the so-called "68ers" of the white-collar "Baby-Boomer" generation. Some of us who were adults during the 1950s, might recall the 1950s horror-film, "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"!

Thus, the biggest post-Franklin Roosevelt change downward, began about the time President John F. Kennedy was murdered, as the first wave of the generation, born in 1945-1946, had reached approximately their eighteenth birthday. The sharp change came later, in 1968, when males from the larger wave of the post-war white-collar Baby Boomers had entered universities carrying a prescience of their Vietnam draft-eligibility around their necks. Then, a kind of "class war" broke out between the white-collar and blue-collar generations, a clash which shattered the previously established Democratic Party base, and brought what was to become the Watergate gang into the U.S. Presidency. From the middle of the 1970s onward, the lower eighty percentile of family-income brackets, has undergone a persisting lowering of real income, while the quickly-richest among the upper three percentile has, until now, often preyed richly upon the ranks of the old and new poor alike.

So, we have been transformed from the powerhouse of technology for the world, which we had become under Franklin Roosevelt, to become the U.S.A. which either does not receive what it needs, or does not really earn what it gets, a society which has degenerated into an echo of the Spartan division between the ostensibly ruling social classes, and the wretchedly poor. This is sometimes called, euphemistically, an "information society." For most among our citizens, the really essential message of today's so-called "information," has proved to be, "You are screwed!"

What we have had taken away from our citizens today, is not only the heritage of our American Revolution, but also the best of the tradition of European civilization, which is also being lost in Europe itself. On both sides of the Atlantic, we have largely lost our connection to the actual creativity expressed by productive forms of social life. We have virtually lost contact with Classical forms of artistic composition, and, apart from mathematics as an art-form conceived in the spirit of masturbation, most have virtually lost the capacity for actually thinking scientifically. We have lost the habit of true creativity, as typified by the great surge of modern scientific culture, as Albert Einstein once described the essential continuation of the work of Johannes Kepler in the work of Bernhard Riemann.

What we have lost, is that which has been denied to exist, denied, most emphatically, by the devotees of the doctrines of Norbert Wiener and John von Neumann: through the cult of so-called "information theory." We have lost, thus, the power we once had, to produce humanly relevant, net physical improvements in the conditions of life for the human race at large. Our putatively best-educated products of leading universities are increasingly victims of an intellectually sterile state of loss of knowledge of the principles on which the universe is premised. We are turning educational institutions into something worse than diploma mills, places which seem to be dedicated to mass-production of babblers who are filled up to overflowing with the most illiterate kinds of sophistries, all in the place of lost science and art: babblers who are victims of a culture in the likeness of caricatures out of Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels. Not merely Oxonians, but virtually oxen without corn to grind.

The World's Road to Recovery

This circumstance now presents the statesmen of our time with the two somewhat interrelated, but qualitatively distinct tasks presented in these pages. The first study, must be to show how and why the present world economy is about to crash, and that globally, into something much worse than a legendary so-called "cyclical depression." The second urgently needed study, is to discover why, and how to shuck the presently failed system of the economy, and, also, to specify what changes should guide the world into a general physical recovery of the economy over about a half-century ahead.

The task thus put before those among us who really care, should be seen as comparable, in intention, to the work of Johannes Kepler. All of the leading astronomers of the Roman tradition, the hoaxster Claudius Ptolemy, Copernicus, and Tycho Brahe, had failed, systemically, because they confined their investigation within the bounds of their superstitions, their certain Euclidean, or kindred, aprioristic presumptions. Kepler succeeded because he stepped outside the prison of those assumptions. Instead of seeking to define the subject-matter in the generally accepted terms stated, he stepped outside such assumptions. Since that time, as Albert Einstein praised the continuity of the development of valid modern science in a continuing process of creative discovery of universal principles, from Kepler through Riemann, Kepler had discovered a universal physical principle, from outside that framework of a failed science which had permitted itself to be confined within the shackles of the Sophist and Romantic traditions.

Perhaps curiously, there are persons who are otherwise qualified scientists today, who still stubbornly refuse to accept the crucial evidence which is featured in any possible approach to the actual method of discovery associated with the revolutionary scientific achievements of Kepler, Fermat, Leibniz, Gauss, and Riemann, and also of Nicholas of Cusa, whose work made all of those successive achievements possible. A related problem, in the domain of economy, immediately challenges the entirety of our planet today.

We could outlive the presently onrushing crisis, provided the leading nations of our planet, and also the others, adopt certain changes in policy, changes which will permit us to navigate successfully through the presently onrushing threat of a general, world-wide collapse, and into the unfolding of the greatest improvement in the human condition in all human existence to date. This requires our return to the principles made famous by the earlier great recovery of the U.S. economy under the leadership of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, but also requires some profound changes in technology which are presently on the menu, waiting to be cooked and served.

For special reasons inherent in the present world physical-economic situation, the best way to refresh the needed approach to the task of designing the pathway into the future, is to adopt a set of discoveries made by a great Russian scientist, Academician V.I. Vernadsky, more than a half-century ago. Vernadsky, working in the tradition of his predecessor D.I. Mendeleyev, and also of the circles of Louis Pasteur, made two, successive great discoveries of universal physical principle, discoveries which divided the domain of physical science and culture among three categorical sets of phenomena, each and all occupying and sharing the same universal physical space-time. These three were: the ordinary space of non-living physical chemistries; the phase-space defined by living processes and their products, called the Biosphere; and, the phase-space defined by the products of those processes of the human mind which we should associate with the discovery and use of knowledge of universal physical principles, the Noösphere.

Vernadsky defined both the Biosphere and Noösphere as belonging to the domain of a Riemannian manifold, a conclusion which placed Vernadsky in the same domain of intellectual work as his approximate contemporary, the Albert Einstein who traced all ordinary physical chemistry within the domain defined by the line of development of modern physical science, as rooted in the discoveries of Johannes Kepler, and as leading into the discoveries of Bernhard Riemann.

My own work of the interval 1948-1953, which led into my adoption of the methods of Riemann, employed methods which I recognized as being indispensable for treating the role of the human individual intellect in driving physical-economic processes. This led me from my already established views on economy, beginning about 1953, into my recognition, some years later, of a true convergence of my work with that of Vernadsky. This thus defined, for me, the process of unfolding development of today's modern version of a self-subsisting form of a Leibnizian-Riemannian science of physical economy. This recognition of the fuller implications of Vernadsky's accomplishments on this account, did not eliminate what I had accomplished prior to that point; it added something which was consistent with, and also a necessary filling-out of the partial comprehension which I had gained earlier. That, in turn, defines the approach which I have employed in composing this report.

What I had done, decades ago, to add to the repertoire of the American System, was a product of my reaction against the bestiality of the work of Bertrand Russell's notable devotees Professor Norbert Wiener and John von Neumann. As I have already emphasized here, the leading work of the careers of both ("information theory," "theory of games," and "artificial intelligence") was premised on the same fallacy of Russell's Principia Mathematica whose essential incompetence was exposed in 1931 by Kurt Gödel, the exact same incompetence shown by those who had failed to accept Kepler's demonstration of the fallacy of the assumed functional existence of the equant.

I add to what I said on this subject above, the specific warning that those doctrines, as presented in the name of science or economics, deny the indispensable, ontological form of existence of actual human creative discovery of universal physical principles. My concern to discover how best to argue my 1948 charge of incompetence against Wiener, led me to a fulsome appreciation of the essential discovery of Bernhard Riemann. My notion of a physical principle of potential relative population-density, has relied upon that work of Riemann, the same which Albert Einstein had identified and praised as a specific outgrowth of the pioneering discoveries of Johannes Kepler.

That is the core of my premises, as to method, in the science of physical economy. I identify this as implicitly the same notion as Pythagoras' notion of the comma, a notion which is the forerunner of Kepler's concept of the "infinitesimal" in the planetary orbit. It is such discoveries of principle by the human individual, which mark the unique difference between man and ape. It is that physical principle of creative mentation, which is the principled distinction, as made by Academician V.I. Vernadsky's statement of the case for the Noösphere, which marks the crucial difference between the human individual and society, on the one side, and both the beasts, and men and women who would choose to ape the beasts, on the other.

1. Man as Neither Ape Nor Slave

First, before focusing attention on what would be, unfortunately, regarded as the limited scope of the subject of economy, we must locate the universal physical principles on which any competent economic policy-shaping must be defined for the purpose of dealing with the critical conditions now immediately before humanity as a whole.

The existence of real economies, as absolutely distinct from troops of monkeys or chimpanzees, is based, without exception, on the essential distinction of the human social individual from the higher apes. No part of the behavior which actually distinguishes an economy from a gathering of chimpanzees, is due to the faculty of sense-perception as ordinarily defined. That crucial difference to be considered is located in the uniquely human conception of what is defined by Kepler and Leibniz as the infinitesimal.

That notion of the infinitesimal, as defined by Gottfried Leibniz, is, as I shall show here, the basis for competent scientific understanding of any competent functional notion of any principled feature of economy. Even where the notion of the infinitesimal is not named as a conscious factor in the mind of the actor, its practical existence is manifest in all of those qualities of activity which distinguish the specific creativity found among the human species, as that function of creativity is absent from the behavior among the beasts.

Creativity rigorously defined, is not the mere "cleverness" which might be shown by a dog. It is the implicitly efficient discovery of a principle which is shown to be universal by the ontological quality of its function in respect to the universe at large. Since its existence is universal, such a principle encloses the universe, and therefore can not be seen as a merely finite object by an observer within that universe. It represents the concept of a principle as this was defined by Albert Einstein, in opposition to the modern positivist ideologues such as the followers of Bertrand Russell.

Although the idea of the infinitesimal, is best known to us as discovered by modern European society, successively, by Nicholas of Cusa, by his follower Johannes Kepler, and by his follower Gottfried Leibniz, it was also a well-known phenomenon, earlier, in the Classical Greek of the Pythagoreans and Plato.[12] The potential for making that discovery is to be seen as being as ancient as the existence of our human species as such. Moreover, even when it had not yet been recognized in this form, all of the ideas on which human progress beyond the capacity of the higher apes has depended, were premised, as I have just argued above, on the potential on which a proper modern understanding of the infinitesimal as an explicitly expressed concept, would depend.

In human practice, this essential, absolute distinction of man from ape, is that the human individual, when free to do so, expresses this quality by the ability to discover, and then to act according to the discovered, experimental, universal physical principles by which, as Albert Einstein emphasized, our Kepler-Riemann universe bounds itself: without requiring any external, a priori or other boundary. When we use the discovery of yet another such validatable, universal principle,[13] mankind's power over the universe is increased implicitly in ways which can be estimated in broad terms of first approximation, as per capita and per square kilometer of the total surface territory of either a nation, or, a related group, or groups of nations. This points to a notion which I have described as a potential relative increase in society's potential relative population-density. That notion is presently essential for a clearly conscious comprehension of the way in which the economic policies of nations must now be willfully ordered, if we are to be assured of a durable recovery from the monstrous, global calamity which presently menaces mankind.

This same kind of notion is expressed in Classical art, as clear indications of knowledge of this conception were presented in the relevant discoveries of principle of composition by Nicholas of Cusa's avowed follower Leonardo da Vinci. This also underlies those notions of the universal physical principle of harmonics, defined by Johannes Kepler, and echoed in musical composition by the impact of the discoveries by Johann Sebastian Bach.

As the foregoing formulations are intended to imply, this principled conception which I have now identified as the idea of the infinitesimal, is not a conception which has been strange to the past of mankind in any categorical way. However, it is a category of universal knowledge which has been often banned in a manner consonant with the charge by the Olympian Zeus against Prometheus, in Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound: when a society is impelled to degrade some category of mankind to a mode of existence like that of cattle, as when the U.S. slaveholders of a time before the defeat of the Confederacy which had decreed transmitting literacy to slaves a mortal offense, that society proceeds as the implicitly Satanic, Olympian Zeus of Prometheus Bound banned mankind's acquisition of knowledge of the principle of the use of fire.

The issue so posed, is otherwise known, down through the ages, as the cry for freedom, as in certain traditions of Fourteenth-Century England: "When Adam delved and Eve span, who, then, was nobleman?" The malefactor, the Olympian Zeus or he who would be in his likeness, such as the modern Malthusians and our present neo-Malthusians, such as former U.S. Vice-President Gore, proceeds by seeking to ban knowledge of universal principles from those, such as slaves or serfs, designated as his human subjects, and even, thus, to degrade them to something like the Yahoos of Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels, or the sodden, Liberally whoring rakes of Walpole's England.

In modern science, the most celebrated case of attempted suppression of knowledge of this principle of the infinitesimal, was the attempt to suppress human knowledge of the principle of Gottfried Leibniz's discovery of the calculus (i.e., the "catenary principle" of the universal physical principle of least action, as discovered and developed by Leibniz and Jean Bernouilli), an attempted suppression conducted by such accomplices as de Moivre, D'Alembert, Voltaire, Maupertuis, Euler, and Lagrange, as these were echoed by such as Laplace, Cauchy, Clausius, Grassmann, and Kelvin, later. The relevant argument, as posed by the science-apostate Leonhard Euler, was that the infinitesimal was merely a phantom of mathematics, an unfortunately unavoidable fiction of mathematical formalities, which had a purely formal appearance in the mere formalities of mathematics, but, as he insisted, corresponded to no ontologically actual, ontologically efficient existence otherwise.[14]

As I shall show in the following pages, these issues which I have just summarized thus, in introducing this chapter, have pervasive importance for any competent grasp of the way in which our U.S. economy has been induced to destroy itself, as through the kinds of policies introduced under the influence of the neo-Malthusian ideologies of the Cambridge systems analysis group, by the U.S. Nixon Administration, and by the doctrine of "controlled disintegration of the U.S. economy" promoted by such circles as the Trilateral Commission.

Those dedications which I defend are congruent with Leibniz's "pursuit of happiness," as cited in the 1776 U.S. Declaration of Independence, and with the intention of thus promoting the general welfare, the intention which underlies the entire notion of our republic's constitutional law. I mean the notion of the commonwealth form of composition of society which is expressed in the Preamble of our Federal Constitution.

Those just stated terms of approximation, imply a dedication to the required increase of a relatively healthy condition of enhanced life-expectancy, and an increase of the capital intensity of both methods of production and average number of years of the useful "life" (e.g., relative physical capital-intensity) of correlated physical capital-investments in means of production and basic economic infrastructure.

These intentions can be, and must be expressed as being fairly estimated as knowledge of the means of fulfilling commitments to the pre-calculable increases of the potential relative population-density of a progressive form of society, and of the welfare of the individual member of mankind as a whole. These estimates are premised, inclusively, on the commitment to the discovery of those physical-scientific and related moral principles which can be shown to govern the changes which must be induced within the functional relationships of which a society is composed.

On this account, there are certain kinds of experiences which point in the direction of related additional matters we have yet to define clearly.

'Intimations of Immortality'

It is visible to us, that there are always new conditions to be discovered on our planet, and in the universe around that planet: things which we have to explore. Our experience of individual life, and of successive generations, presents us with the apparent option of development without limit. The more we examine mankind's experience to this effect, the greater the accumulated evidence presented to us, to the effect that this pattern of discovery is not only without an apparent limit; but, we discover evidence that this is not only a matter of past experience and immediately visible opportunities in reach. We discover principles which show us that this not only appears to be true, but, also, show us evidence to the effect, that not only is the universe organized to produce that effect; but also, that, none but we, as a species of existence, have a limitless scope of willful self-development to similar effect. We are, in that sense, free. Not only that, but that those who come after we have died, are able to continue that upward process. When we recognize this, we rejoice in our freedom, and devote our days to developing our power to express this freedom.

The universal physical principle suggested by this, is a unique form of experimental principle; it is of a form related to Kepler's originality in his discovery of the principle of universal gravitation, first, for the Sun-Earth-Mars case, and then for the Solar system as an integral whole.

That, in brief, expresses, the proper, essential functional distinction of the human being from the beast, as that notion may be stated in physical-scientific and related terms.

In modern science, this set of physical-scientific and Classical cultural distinctions in fact, of man from ape, are typified by Johannes Kepler's successive discovery of, first, how the principle of gravitation, as I have just noted again here, is expressed, in succession, by, first, the orbital relationship of Sun, Earth, and Mars, and, secondly, his discovery and proof of what appears to us as the mathematically calculable role of the harmonic principles ordering the relationships of the planets to their Sun.

It is to be recognized, that all competent senses of direction in modern science, and also principles of statecraft, are rooted in the conceptions advanced by Nicholas of Cusa in his Concordantia Catholica (the sovereign nation-state) and that launched by De Docta Ignorantia (universal physical science). Taking those two statements of principle together, reflects the proper definition of the essential, principled nature of the individual human mind, and, also, of the individual's relationships within a necessary organization of society. Kepler's work was the first general definition of this practical expression of man's role in relation to the universe, the definition on which, as Albert Einstein emphasized, all subsequent, crucial achievements in physical science, including, therefore, a science of political-economy, are properly premised.

The creation of what might be defined as a "third sense," as the real sense of something for which sight and hearing as such, are merely shadows, has crucial implications for the elimination of the notion of a simple kind of sensory continuum, by the recognition of the boundaries, within the universe as a process, which are defined as the division between, respectively, living and non-living processes existing in a common domain, and, similarly, the division between the human creative cognitive and the animal processes sharing the domain of living creatures and their products.

In that sense, all morally competent physical science, artistic principles, and statecraft, as since the work of Kepler, for example, are presented to us, thus, as expressions of a single, humanistic principle, that of Nicholas of Cusa, the principle implicitly expressed as the human individual's personal likeness, and relationship to the Creator.

The same principle expressed by the healthy development of the mental processes of the sovereign human individual, is the foundation of Classical artistic composition, as also of physical science. It is this quality of creativity, whose existence is denied systemically by the modern empiricists; it is this quality on which, not only the progress, but also even the prospect of the mere maintenance of the quality of society's existence, depends.

The root of the mistaken notion of an unbridgeable division of Classical forms of art from science, arises, chiefly, from those naïvely reductionist, mere opinions which seek to treat the senses of vision and hearing, and, therefore, mathematics and music, as corresponding to separate domains. In reality, knowledge of the real universe beyond the range of our respective, competing powers of sense-perception, depends upon the faculty of the human mind for adducing insight into a real universe which exists beyond the notion of a naïvely self-evident estimate, such as that estimate is premised upon assuming a principle of sense-certainty in respect to each, independently defined kind of sense-perception. It is those apparent contradictions in the way the different kinds of sense-perception conflict with one another, which prompt the alert thinker, to pass the judgment on experience from the individual sense-perception as such, to the power of the mind to produce a more or less valid conception of the real universe outside our skins, by synthesizing a higher authority of the mind, which depends upon the contradiction of one of our senses of the same real-time experience by others. This approach is defined, chiefly, by the way in which vision and hearing present contrasting views of the same experience. The accomplishments of Helen Keller should prompt us to think about this in relevant, broader terms of reference.

The difference between man and beast, lies essentially in the human mind, which possesses a higher quality of appreciation of the fact, that living creatures depend upon being able to adduce the truth of experience, not from an individual sense-perception, but from those of the often mutually contradictory patterns among experiences of contradictory claims to authority among the mere senses. In the human mind, this power is of a qualitatively higher order than in the beasts, Lack of comprehension of the fact of this distinction, is sometimes expressed in the behavior of scientists whose defective classroom experience in their education and in fraternization with their peers, has prompted them to revolt against the proof of the manner in which harmonics provided Kepler empirical access to the needed unique solution for defining a general formulation for universal gravitation within our Solar system.

The foregoing considerations, just so summarized here and now, are typical of crucial principles, and related moral considerations, of a science of physical economy. Thereafter, all of the competent design of the study of monetary and related systems of administration of society, is to be judged by the standard of a required subordination of financial and related accounting practice, to the physical-economic criteria which I have just summarized above.

Any attempt to reverse that order, such as the attempt to derive the effectively physical organization of national and world economies, from the assumed basis of a monetary theory, would be, in effect for today, implicitly, an act of insanity, when the issue posed by such pessimistic assumptions is viewed in physical-scientific and related terms. Essentially, changes in the forms of organization of the economic processes during the recent decades of the societies of North America and Europe, in particular, have been functionally insane, on this specific account.[15]

There lies the crux of the problem which has permitted us to be led into the presently oncoming, early threat of a general physical breakdown of the world's economy.

Therefore, look at the present-day economy from that standpoint in physical science, while judging present dogmas of physical science from the standard of their conformity with the requirements of physical economy.

The Idea of the Infinitesimal

The general observations made in this chapter, up to this point, have important peculiarly specific implications.

I have emphasized, repeatedly, that from the start of the set of fundamental discoveries by Kepler, what became the idea of the "infinitesimal" was not a concept of smallness of a dot, but recognition of the fact that, as Nicholas of Cusa had already demonstrated the systemic fallacy in Archimedes' attempted quadrature of the circle, there is no limit of smallness to the rate of change of curvature in the planet's orbiting of the Sun. This conception, as by Kepler, was embedded in Leibniz's uniquely original discovery of the calculus, and his later perfection of that discovery, to conform to Pierre de Fermat's discovery of a principle of physical least action. The result of that second phase of Leibniz's continuing development of the calculus, the phase which was conducted in collaboration with Jean Bernouilli, defined a universal principle of physical least action, as reflecting the catenary, rather than the cycloid, as the underlying characteristic feature. The conception of the complex domain, is rooted in that latter discovery, as it was crafted into appropriate form by that collaboration of Leibniz and Jean Bernouilli.

This specific way in which the concept of the infinitesimal was introduced, implicitly by Nicholas of Cusa, but explicitly by the connecting interaction among the works of (chiefly) Kepler, Fermat, Leibniz, and Jean Bernouilli, defines the environment in which the conception of a modern, science-driven form of sovereign national economy is to be situated. The conflict which arose in Europe and North America, in the setting of the aftermath of the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, until approximately the death of England's Queen Anne, was a matter of a struggle between the post-1648 renewal of the optimism of the Fifteenth-Century Renaissance, an optimism typified by the work and influence of Leibniz, but also prompting the opposing effort of Sarpi's faction, the Anglo-Dutch Liberal faction, to destroy the historical basis for that optimism.[16] We in the Americas, as in Europe, suffered a setback with the death of Queen Anne, as my associate, the late historian H. Graham Lowry showed; but, we went on to change the world for the better, again, with the American Revolution. We won, once again, against Lord Palmerston and his Confederacy puppets, in 1865, and shook the world with the power of a renewed American Revolution in economy, during the concluding decades of that century. So, we were restored to a sane form of economic life under Franklin Roosevelt's leadership, and we have the potential among us to do the like again.

To situate the relevant Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century cultural and related political developments in modern European thought, it is essential that we recognize that anti-linear notion of the "infinitesimal" of the complex domain of universal physical least action, as Leibniz derived this, in large part, from the preceding work of Kepler and Fermat. We must see this as being an echo, in modern European times, of the Pythagoreans' and Plato's refusal to accept a priori presumptions akin to those of the Sophist Euclid. We should see that notion of the true infinitesimal of Kepler and Leibniz as the concept already associated with the Pythagorean "comma," and with the effect of Archytas' successful demonstration of the necessary method of construction of the doubling of the cube.

A fool, such as a follower, Galileo, of Sarpi, would say, "It moves!" A competent scientist, like the follower of Johannes Kepler, Carl F. Gauss, would reply, "I now begin to recognize what moves it."

So, the Liberal dogma of both Cartesians and their so-called Newtonian derivatives, is to be seen in terms of the ebb and flow of modern Europe's wrestling with the leading intellectual issues of its own time. This must be seen from the standpoint of broader reflections, upon the rise and fall of the culture of Athens from the greatness of Solon, through the fatal sickness of Sophistry which gripped the followers of Pericles. The advocates of Kepler, Leibniz, and of what was to become the American Revolution, represented the continued cause of Solon and Plato, and the opponents of Kepler, Leibniz, and the cause of the American Revolution, represented a kind of reincarnation of the quarrels within ancient Greece, within a modern European setting.

Accordingly, I identify the unique roles of Kepler and Leibniz in defining, successively, the principle of the modern calculus, as being, implicitly, the echo of Pythagoras' notion of the comma, a notion of the comma which is the forerunner of Kepler's concept of the "infinitesimal" in the planetary orbit, and thus of the challenge leading to Leibniz's uniquely original discovery of the calculus.[17] The crucial significance of this for today's statecraft, is that it is such species of discoveries of principle by the human individual, which mark the uniquely absolute difference between man as a representative of both the Noösphere and Biosphere, and the ape as merely a representative of the lower order of existence, the Biosphere. It is that physical principle of creative mentation, which is the principled distinction, made by Academician V.I. Vernadsky, between the human individual and society, on the one side, and the beasts on the other.

The concept of the "infinitesimal," as associated with the work of Kepler and Leibniz, and Riemann later, is the most crucial of all notions of modern science, and therefore the most essential scientific conception for modern statecraft. It is the form of the reflection of that general principle of human individual creativity, which distinguishes human beings absolutely from the apes.

This report has now reached a critical point: As I have just stated, it is that same power, which distinguishes the human species from all the beasts, including the higher apes, which is the only competent foundation for the study and practice of economics.[18] It is practices based upon stubborn ignorance of that matter of principle, which repeatedly lead governments and professionals alike, into the malpractice which bring upon us disasters of the more or less existential qualities in modern, now globally extended, European history. There could be no possible depth of comprehension of economic progress, until this specific fact were taken efficiently into account.

What I have just stated now, is also the key for the particular enterprise of attempting to locate the core of the shared incompetence of the British empiricist school in economics, from which Frederick Engels' notorious hoax, "the opposable thumb" theory of all history, from remotest to latest date, was derived. Engels' was a hoax obviously congruent with, if not otherwise identical with the dogma of Britain's T.H. Huxley. It was intended, no doubt, to be passed off as British, but turned out to be nothing but brutish, instead.

Proceeding from this standpoint of reference, the worst kind of corruption of modern science, has occurred in such pertinent forms of its most extremely aberrant expression, as the underlying, fraudulent presumption of Bertrand Russell's Principia Mathematica; we also have the frankly pro-Satanic hoax referenced by the term "The Second Law of Thermodynamics," as this was perpetrated into present times by the influence of the Nineteenth-Century Clausius, Grassmann, Kelvin, et al.

Group Dynamics in Opinion-Shaping

This reflection on the reductionist hoaxes sponsored by the emergent political power of such expressions of neo-Cartesians in the name of science, impels us to focus upon the more deeply underlying historical issue, the issue which underlies today's widespread toleration of that sickly, Liberal form of reductionism traced from the opponents of Cusa, through Galileo, Hooke, and Conti, into the Eighteenth-Century, post-Leibniz Liberal reductionists, as from D'Alembert, Euler, and Lagrange, through Laplace, Cauchy, and from Clausius, Grassmann, Kelvin, and beyond.

There was never an honest excuse for propagating such nonsense as theirs as science, in the manner and intensity which the modern reductionists have purveyed it. For example: Kepler's treatment of the supposition of the "equant" for both the Earth-Mars orbital relationship to the Sun, and the harmonic composition of the then known Solar system, are typical of the evidence already existing against such later developments as the hoax of Clausius, Kelvin, et al. That hoax is the same as the fraud of D'Alembert, Euler, Lagrange, et al. Indeed this was the same fraud, which was exposed, famously, as fraudulent in fact, by Carl F. Gauss's 1799 doctoral dissertation, and is the same fraud which was perpetuated by Laplace and his accomplice, the hoaxster and plagiarist Augustin Cauchy.[19] We know from Euler's own earlier work, that he had known that he was not merely wrong, as in 1761, in his argument against the Leibniz calculus, but lying; but, he had also known that such lying was politically required at that time, for his continued, relatively untroubled acquisition of the relevant patronage of his career. The issues were not essentially scientific, but expressions of a theological fanaticism, the theology of the continuation of Paolo Sarpi's pro-Ockhamite sophistry in the guise of social policy shaped under the tyranny of modern Liberalism.

The argument for the hoax known as "The Second Law," was always, and remains a reflection of the same point of view which Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound presents as the denial of human access to knowledge of the human use of any universal physical principle. In modern European times, this was already the argument of Giovanni Botero on the State (1589), as it was of the Venetian ideologue Giammaria Ortes, from whose 1790 English translation of his Reflections on Population, Thomas Malthus plagiarized his 1798 On Population, as in the case of the inconvenient Global Warming swindle of hoaxster and former Vice-President Al Gore today.

Behavior such as the Liberal apostasy from serious science shown by former scientist Leonhard Euler, is an expression of what some would prefer to call by the disingenuous name of "brainwashing." In that sense, Euler's behavior at the Berlin Academy was the fruit of a kind of brainwashing; but calling it "brainwashing," turns out to be a way of promoting the toleration of an evil, by giving it a silly sort of bad name, like letting a murderer off with a judicial reprimand for his committing "a childish act." Saying that Euler had been "brainwashed," for example, would be a way of distracting attention from the deeper, and thoroughly evil implications of the way in which a virtually "brainwashed" Euler had been changed.

Study of this kind of problem is key to acquiring insight into some of the most strategically crucial problems of mass opinion rampant in our world at home, and at large today.[20]

The root of such recurrences of the "malthusian" fraud of Al Gore today, the Silent Spring and Club of Rome frauds of the 1960s, the hoax banning DDT, and so on, is in no aspect or degree different than the euthanasia craze which spread from oligarchical circles inside the U.S. to Adolf Hitler's movement in Germany. Throughout known history, the suppression of the practice of scientific and kindred knowledge by the general population, has been the hallmark of cultures which seek to degrade the great majority of populations to the brain-damaged-like condition of human cattle, as the Physiocratic dogma of Dr. François Quesnay attributed the wealth of the landlord to the magical powers of the title to landed aristocracy, leaving the peasantry to be credited with no more than the feed needed to maintain them as a form of cattle. In modern European civilization, so-called "environmentalist" schemes of this sort, since Botero, Ortes, Malthus, and the eugenicists such as Julian Huxley, have been frequently the hallmark of fascist movements.

The Roots of Decadence

There should be no mystery as to the how and why of the prevalence of something akin to "environmentalism" as a form of moral decadence recurring in history.

In the study of apparent national ideologies, which my associates and I undertook during the 1970s, we are well advised to dump all apriorist systems akin to that of the cult of Euclid. We are best aided to understand the phenomena to which I am referring here and now, by working backwards, so to speak: by looking at the example of the way scientific matters of principled significance look from the standpoint of modern science, as they differ systemically from relevant beliefs of an earlier time. Or, take the difference between the opinion of a young layman, and the same person's way of thinking after mastering some important principled features of scientific inquiry. In one case, the individual who has not mastered some aspects of relevant science, is operating on the basis of assumptions which exclude consideration of some principle which is more or less well-known among relevant professionals. The one less well-informed, lives, mentally, in a different universe than the qualified professional. He is a prisoner of the false beliefs which follow from a combination of absurd, axiomatic-like assumptions, and a simple lack of knowledge of the principles underlying the kind of phenomena to which he is reacting.

There is no crime in ignorance of what must be learned; but, there is no honesty in a preference for ignorance of relevant universal principles. The oligarchical classes, as typified by the Delphic image of the Olympian Zeus, who fear the threat to their hegemony which the intellectual development of the general population represents, take advantage of a certain weakness in the underdeveloped mind of the child and youth. So, we have the case of the typical victim of an acquired, axiomatic belief, in Euclidean geometry, such as the desire to be seen as an admirer of pathetic old Isaac Newton; such inclinations, as I have been disgusted by seeing this at close hand since childhood, tend to assume the role of axiomatic kinds of ideological factors which function as fences erected around the allowed functions of the believing victim's mind.

The phenomenon can be seen in the following way.

Generally, the individual, including typical accredited scientists with whom I have worked, seeks to adapt successfully to what he or she believes is the functional environment in which he, or she lives. The idea of that environment, willful or virtually accidental, as in the case of adopting an expressed opinion of loyalty to the perceived way of thinking at a certain church, or place of employment, or simply a new neighborhood into which he or she has moved, is a more or less powerful factor in creating premises of belief which, like fences, herd the victim's mind into implicitly approved directions and destinies.

To sum up that kind of illustration of my point, the typical state of mind of the typical individual, or grouping within contemporary societies, is shaped by an adopted kind of reflex reaction against the assumed existence of any condition which points to a real universe existing outside the set of social assumptions which that person has adopted as adaptations to the social-ideological climate he or she currently inhabits.

The problem which I have just outlined in this manner, is associated with a dysfunction of the individual's potential for mental creativity. I have repeatedly praised some of the most crucial contributions by psychiatrist Dr. Lawrence Kubie over about the past forty-five years, for his attention to what he dubbed, back in the late 1950s, and still in the early 1970s, as "the neurotic distortion of the creative process." Of most notable significance was a report he composed for Daedalus magazine, on the subject of the fostering of scientific creativity.

My concern in this matter was chiefly twofold. Since my early 1948 encounter with a pre-publication review copy of Professor Norbert Wiener's Cybernetics, I have remained in a state of alarm over the way in which the kind of thinking shown by Wiener in that and other writings, and by John von Neumann and his devotees, has contributed to the willful, systematic destruction of the creative power of the minds of some among our otherwise most promising young-adult intellects.

I have been advantaged, by my circumstances in life, to have studied over decades, a succession of the all-too-frequent cases of a breakdown in the mental-creative powers of persons stunned by the anticipation of testings intended to lead to a Master's or Doctoral degree, or an academic posting. The age of approximately 27 has become for me a clinician's kind of recurring nightmare of professional practice in study of such cases. Their minds seem to go dead at about those critical points in their careers. I have often had the image of such a once-promising young-adult mind, which had been promising up to some point, such as an hypothetical age of 27, who was later renowned as the Professor so-and-so, whose mass lectures were replays of tattered and soiled index cards accreted over a tiresome lifetime of lecturing, repeating, mostly, the proverbial "same old stuff" he had once learned before the creative powers of his mind had had their current shut off.

For me, of course, the kind of mental creativity associated with discovery of universal physical and Classical-artistic principles, is that essence of being truly human to which all persons must have the right of efficient access. This has helped me to develop a compassionate view of a case such as that of Leonhard Euler, a case of a brain whose suffered damage turned ugly, apparently during the course of approximately the 1750s and beyond. It was as if a once fine and lively mind had been destroyed by the kinds of brainwashing methods employed to induce an aversely engineered change in personality among targeted former associates of mine turned virtual "zombies" since. I say of such victims as Euler, "Trilby will not sing prettily tonight."

The Crucial Issue in Forecasting

I have presented these specific kinds of mental disorders to which I have just referred, because they are key to understanding the consistently expressed incompetence of those among today's usual economists engaged in long-range and related forecasting. I speak of the problem merely typified by the calamity produced by aid of the work of Myron Scholes et al. at LTCM.

The typically incompetent professional economic forecast of today, is premised upon intrinsically incompetent methods of the sort associated with the legacy of the mechanistic-statistical dogmas of René Descartes. The more interesting functional aspect of such cases for us today, is the way in which those intrinsically arcane and incompetent methods of statistical forecasting are used as a substitute for what any sane contemporary mind would have long since recognized as the absurdity of neo-Cartesian statistical or related methods. Scholes and his cronies may know something, perhaps computer games, but it surely is not the economics of real-life economies.

The most efficiently appropriate way of looking at the matter, in a fresh way, is provided by the recognition of the systemic relevance of the contributions to the furtherance of the application of Riemannian physics by Academician V.I. Vernadsky's crucial methods employed in the defining of both the Biosphere and Noösphere. As the sweep of the history of the rise and fall of known ancient through modern economies attests, the crucial limiting factor in the history of such economies, is expressible in terms of the success or failure of a society in employing, or avoiding the qualitative change in the employed repertoire of discoverable universal physical principles.

In general, any new discovery of a universal or related physical principle, supplies the available foundation for either some potential leaps forward in potential productive powers of labor, per capita and per square kilometer, or averting an attritional form of collapse in such levels of potential productivity. The accessible supply of those resources being used is inherently constrained in various ways. As the demand may increase, or the physically defined marginal costs of extracting poorer quality of such resources may rise in relative terms, the productivity of that society, as measured per capita and per square kilometer, may be attenuated, or even become negative in terms of effect on productivity of the economy as a whole. Changes in technology must then be introduced, and these may not be merely quantitative changes in physical productivity, but may require more radical forms of improvements. These considerations must be defined as shifts in relative potential physical productivity per capita and per square kilometer, not merely monetary or related financial accounting valuations.

The expansion of population, provided that the solution for the problems so incurred, is developed through education, through forms of employment offered, and by improved conditions of life generally, is a source of increase of potential productivity. However, this improvement, in and of itself, hastens the convergence of the society's expansion and development on some relevant boundary condition, such as marginal attrition of best resources, or the need for raising the effective physical standard of living, as may be needed to absorb the requirement for accelerated improvement in technology. The standard remedy for convergence on the latter types of boundary conditions, is scientific and technological progress of sufficiently effective significance in up-shifting the earlier implied boundary conditions.

The unfortunate Cartesian ideologue, for example, such as Laplace later, would presume that we are living on a Euclidean "flat Earth," in which statistical projections of a mathematically defined matrix of trends predict statistical-mathematical convergence on some point of significant action at a certain estimated distance down the line. The methods employed by most mathematical-economic forecasters today are, thus, reflections of absurd dogmas, virtually silly pseudo-science, and that conclusively, as fraudulent, as seen by Leibniz, in his warnings against the silliness of Descartes' methods, during the 1690s!

We live inside a dynamical form of physical, not a mathematical-statistical universe. In this universe, it is physical principle which reigns over any competent mathematical practice, not the reverse. The stink of far overripe statistical apriorism in Descartes, belongs to the beliefs shared among ivory-tower lunatics in some nightmare which might have been ridiculed by Jonathan Swift.

In the contrary, required methods of Riemannian, anti-apriorist physical science, forecasting is based on the notion of physical boundary-conditions. In first, pedagogical forms of approximation, we simply insist that the rates of realized gains in science and technology must outrun the tendency for depletion of those existing resources on which the present physical standard of net per capita output depends.

On this account, we turn to science, so to define a set of targeted future boundary conditions. Accordingly, we must assign ourselves the scheduled task of more than meeting the limits required to maintain improved net productive powers of labor, per capita and per square kilometer, as these come up to and pass each such future boundary-condition. So, for example, today, any economy which does not put extended investment in nuclear-fission and thermonuclear-fusion technologies foremost on the economic long-term agenda, is to be classed, and treated therapeutically as if mentally ill. Otherwise, economic crises are usually forecastable by evidence of proximity of an approaching boundary condition. The notion of the function of such boundary-conditions is the essential basis for competent approaches to economic forecasting.

Beyond the considerably simplified sketch just presented, the actuality which that sketch reflects faithfully enough, is a matter of the application of the relevant methods of Riemannian physical hypergeometries.

Today, unfortunately, all too much of the discussion of U.S. economic policies treats the President and members of Congress as if they were technologically cretins, to whom proposals on scientific and technological projects might be peddled as vacuum cleaners were once hawked to housewives, door to door. Sometimes, those specimens are virtual cretins, at least in terms of their official performance. It were sufficient, first of all, not to elect mentally incompetent figures as President, and to exert kindred forms of care with respect to selection of members of the legislatures; in that case, we must educate failed representatives and their staffs, and deliver programs on the basis of their impact on the requirements of our nation's and our planet's destiny.

2. The Delusion Called Money

On the surface, from the vantage point of Cotton Mather, Benjamin Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton, for example, the essential difference between the American System of political-economy and the Anglo-Dutch Liberal System, is that the American System can be described fairly as, constitutionally, a credit-system existing within a state monopoly over the nation's money; whereas, the Anglo-Dutch Liberals of today practice a monetarist system which is rooted, essentially, in feudal and even earlier traditions.

The competent modern statesman, and economist, practices progressive changes in the physically-principled organization of the economic processes; the incompetent worships, by aid of statistical forms of religious-like rituals, the imaginary gods who are blamed for having done this to us. Observe the worst, and hope and pray for rain!

However, like the hypothetical case of the man who went to court seeking license to marry a post-modernist style in wife, a pet duck, some things in life are not what they are quacked up to be. On the other hand, certain merely apparent differences between the two English-speaking monetary systems, are, up to a certain point of approximation, real.

Under the U.S. Constitutional system, the nation-state holds a Constitutional monopoly on the uttering of lawful money. The uttering of money by the state may occur chiefly in one of two ways. The U.S. government may utter money to pay directly for current purchases of goods and services, or the government may pledge the uttering of currency as a form of short-term, medium-term, or long-term loans, or monopolies. When the U.S. system follows the intention underlying the Preamble of its Constitution, its behavior is inherently that of what is called a "protectionist" adversary of so-called "free-trade" practices, an adversary which employs the crafting of Federal taxation, protective tariffs, and related policies and practices, to assist in ways intended to promote and defend preferred public and selected private categories of production and improvements.

In other words, competent economic practices change the boundary conditions of the totality of the process as needed. For this purpose, a Riemannian, rather than a Cartesian view of the process is required. The process to be managed, is primarily physical, rather than monetary. The monetary process itself, is to be managed to conform to the requirements assigned to the physical process. It is the boundary conditions which are managed; in which case, the management of the details of the process is left, in large part, to private initiatives.

For example, in the matter of boundary conditions:

What ought to be, nearly always, the principal function of the capital budget of the U.S. Federal government, is its specific kind of function in capital budgeting, in which, when the government's behavior is sane, a relatively large portion is to be invested as capital formation in public works in building and maintenance of basic economic infrastructure, and assistance to the governments of Federal states and local counties and municipalities in their public functions of a kindred nature. These functions, as informed by the general welfare principle, serve as the principal customary means of promoting the level of total national output currently, at levels which may be considered consonant with a progressive form of full employment. The chief weapon of government to this end, is the role of Federal investment, taxation, and tariffs, all bearing upon the combined functions of sustaining governmental functions, and, otherwise, chiefly, of capital budgeting.

Under the U.S. system, as in any expression of reality, no commodity has a natural monetary value. This is a matter of principle, which is directly contrary to the presumptions of such Liberal monetary doctrines as those of Bernard Mandeville, François Quesnay, and Adam Smith. Prices are regulated, chiefly implicitly, rather than directly, as being in excess of the incurred fair cost of production and distribution, and estimated, otherwise, according to the adducible interest of the nation in protecting the nation's useful and otherwise essential physical capital, as this may be determined by a fair assessment of long- to medium-term national interest. Tariffs and trade regulation are among the principal means for protecting both fair-price levels and other expressions of national interest.

Under what could pass for a currently sane U.S. government, government, especially the Federal government, guards its special interest in the role of public infrastructure with vigilance. For obvious reasons, since they can not utter money, the well-managed U.S. Federal states, or municipalities, must guard their particular interest in good infrastructure with zeal.

The Anglo-Dutch Disease

Otherwise, the key to understanding the critical form of the apparent differences between the two opposing systems, is the essential fact, that the Anglo-Dutch Liberal System, which has dominated Europe since the death of Queen Anne in the Eighteenth Century, and which has poisoned the interior of our own national economy, is an expression of the coming-into-being of an established Anglo-Dutch Liberal System as the product of, chiefly, the reforms which Paolo Sarpi imposed upon the relics of the medieval Venetian financier-oligarchical system. The Anglo-Dutch Liberal System, which is a product of Sarpi's Liberalism, is to be recognized, clinically, as, thus, a descendant of the feudalist form of medieval ultramontane system of the Eleventh through Fourteenth centuries, a special kind of imperial system, once associated with the Crusaders, within which power was then, predominantly, shared between Venice's financier oligarchy and, principally, the Norman Chivalry.

Implicitly, therefore, it is truthful and useful to say, that the modern Anglo-Dutch Liberal System is, "genetically," the descendant of the European medieval feudal system, and that it, therefore, exhibits, still today, many of the characteristic traits of that ancestry. Whereas, the American System is, whenever we define it as such, the principal, leading, surviving expression of the modern effort to free Europe and the Americas from the specific relics of the combined medieval and modern expressions of feudalist aristocracy and financier oligarchism.

However, even those distinctions do not reach quite to the heart of the differences between the two systems as systems.

The American System uses its money in a way which might seem to be similar to the role of money as defined by the principles of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal System, but the American System, when functioning according to the historically determined intent of its Declaration of Independence and Federal Constitution, only seems to be a kind of a money-system in the sense of the seemingly similar use of money in a British free-trade system. The essential differences are as great as between apparently similar forms of placental mammals and egg-laying reptiles (I leave it to your imagination, and the monotremes', to choose which is which).

The essential difference is located in the deep-rooted motives for the respective parties' intentions; the difference with our system lies in what I have stipulated, immediately above, in the underlying relics of imperial feudalism in what is commonly identified, since Lord Shelburne's Gibbon, as the modern British system. The difference is expressed in the innate tendency toward empire which is inherent in what I have just indicated, above, to be a genetic kind of residue embedded proximately in the British system's feudal and still earlier origins.

It is that difference which accounts for the persisting impulse of Anglo-Dutch Liberalism toward becoming a world empire, one echoing something like the medieval empire of Venetian financier oligarchs and Norman chivalry. For example; the current impulse to eliminate the sovereign nation-state, such as the U.S.A., in favor of a "Tower of Babel"-like, imperial system called "globalization," is an expression, as brought to the surface, of the ultimately very ancient, and, therefore, the deep oligarchical roots and impulses, which underlie the present Anglo-Dutch Liberal System. I explain.

The Matter of National Interest

The system of so-called "globalization" or kindred forms of imperialist practices, is directly hostile to the interest of the population of any adopted common cultural characteristics considered to be sovereign. The populist form of argument in support of converting the planet into a common "Tower of Babel," is simply a form of the same imperialism which Europe had experienced earlier in such expressions as the oligarchical model of Asia, the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the medieval ultramontane partnership of Venetian financier-oligarchy with Norman chivalry, the Habsburg tyranny, and the modern Anglo-Dutch Liberal form of imperialism. All such imperialisms, or their surrogates, are based on the suppression of the creative-mental potentialities of the great majorities of the subject populations.

This effect is to be viewed, conveniently, as coinciding with the argument attributed, imposing ignorance of universal physical principles, by the Olympian Zeus of Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound. A society which is committed to defense of the specifically human, which is to say "creative powers" which distinguish the human personality from the ranks of just another beast, must promote that effect by emphasis on development of scientific and Classical artistic-cultural modes of expression within the population generally. This requires such included features as a development of the use of language of music, poetry, and science in ways in which the characteristic employment of Classical modes of irony is made to be prevalent.

This can only be accomplished with the fostering of subject-matters within the social practice of the population which are consistent with those functions of Classical irony which bring into play the equivalent of the occurrence of the infinitesimal of Kepler's discovery of gravitation within the common practice of the population. This has a crucial moral,