|This article appears in the March 5, 2010 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
THE SENILE BRITISH LION:
Evil, Wicked & Stupid!
by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
February 11, 2010
The small krait snake is probably among the weakest, most poisonous, and most stupid snakes in the world. However, there is less power to rule in that creature's poison, than in the people's fear of his suspected presence. Poisonous old, and half-brain-dead empires, like today's British empire, are dangerous in that same way.
No probably successful strategic approach to correcting the presently onrushing general, planetary economic-breakdown-crisis, will exist, until we have defined the relevant form of application of a "Glass-Steagall" solution for the present type of world breakdown-crisis. If civilization is to continue to exist for the near future's decades, even during the few months immediately ahead, all monetarists' standards proposed for addressing the presently onrushing near term's general monetary, breakdown-crisis, of the planet as a whole, must now be cancelled.
Perhaps, some readers' standard objection to my own approach, will be words to the effect, that "the world is not ready to consider such a radical approach as that you suggest!" (The fear of the krait again!) I mean the approach of an FDR-style, "Glass-Steagall" standard, which wipes out such pest-holes of usury as Wall and Threadneedle streets, and that quickly, mercifully, and permanently! If that is not done, any real civilization is now almost assuredly gone, for a span of some generations still to come.
I say to the circles of London's Inter-Alpha Group, and also to Ambrose Evans-Pritchard: "You! I mean you! Proceed, instantly, back to proverbial square one! You and the London-centered crew's financial assets have flunked the test again! Meet my preconditions, and do it now, or embrace the doom of your nations for generations yet to come. You do, after all, have a certain freedom of choice, of sorts."
At this moment, the European Union is already doomed to disintegrate early, rapidly, and, perhaps, perpetually, unless that strict "Glass-Steagall" model is quickly and widely applied.
I do not exaggerate in the slightest degree, when I state, that those relevant officials who refuse my stipulated measures, are acting in a way which suggests that they have been driven insane by either their own greed, or their fear of that greed which has been expressed among the presently highest ranking circles such as those which have been lately typical of the majority of the Democrats in the U.S. Congress. Those have been the circles which say to me, with a fierce glint in their eye: "All my friends agree with me, not with you!" Or, perhaps these gentlemen intend, soon, to take the position: "I would rather blow my brains out, than accept your offer to save my life! I stick to my rules!" I can understand that attitude, although I could not condone it.
I call the following illustration to your attention.
At Leuthen in 1757, the commander Frederick the Great did not play by the rules of the game used by his Austrian adversaries, which is why Frederick won that battle. Shrewd Friedrich did not hesitate to break such rules when victory demanded it. The Austrians, nonetheless, advanced in steadily silly fashion, all by well-trained, existing rules, but then left, hastily, in a rout, twice, deliciously, all on the same day.
Similarly, by any truly sane standard, the Inter-Alpha Group's claimed financial assets are, momentarily, the largely fictitious products of the fantasies of wild-eyed usurers, the Bank Santander most notably. That group clings to its implicitly hyper-inflationary, essentially predatory, and implicitly soon doomed "carry trade" assets, like a drowning man clinging to the anchor of his sinking, virtual Titanic. If Inter-Alpha clings to its Brazil "carry trade" assets, it is the weight borne by its essentially imaginary nominal assets, which would tend to send it down in something quite similar to the fashion of Weimar Germany in 1923.
In the last analysis, the case of your financial swindlers has really nothing to do with real economics, but only your own greed of the legendary usurer. "Yes, that fellow over there, has just said it again:" it is not the economy he wishes to save; it is the idea of some imperial power that he fears he would lose if he could not force, not only Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain (the PIGS), but the whole bloody world, to starve and bleed to death, simply to make the poor and hungry of the world die at his imperial command! Swindler! Those are not your assets; they are only the sound and smell of your colossal frauds, the proceeds which Onan . . . holds in his . . . hand: what he, only . . . imagines . . . to hold, in his . . . hand.
Is it for that sordid tribute, that you would destroy your entire kind?
Think of it. Are you not insane? Are you not, perhaps, evil, wicked, and stupid, all at once: a remarkable coincidence! A remarkable, coincidence?
I. Money, Money, Everywhere!
The most essential of the immediate facts concerning the present world monetary-financial crisis, is that, for as long, as the prospective policies of leading nations remain within the present bounds of an attempted continuation of anything resembling the present form of international monetary-financial system, there is no hope of avoiding its global plunge into a new dark age of all humanity. The measures for attempted defense of an inherently bankrupt set of financial swindles, by Wall Street types in the U.S.A., or by the United Kingdom, since, in particular, August-September 2007, have had the effect of transforming a terrible situation of Summer 2007, into what is presently a hopeless situation, under any attempts to extend the life of the existing, already bankrupt monetary-financial schemes.
To understand the present global situation of the economy, think back to the flight which carried George Shultz's protégé Arnold Schwarzenegger, to Britain, to meet with that Lord Rothschild whose name is a typical link of that same Inter-Alpha Group which is, currently, at the center of the onrushing, breakdown-phase of the world's economic crisis of today.
That presently threatened global form of world-wide financial breakdown-crisis, which defines the worsening bankruptcy which immediately menaces the existence of the U.S. economy, actually began, decades before 2007, with the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy.
That Kennedy assassination, whose effects were combined with the ensuing, Schumpeterese, self-wrecking policies of Britain's Prime Minister Harold Wilson, and with the repeated assassination-attempts directed against France's President Charles de Gaulle, cleared the way for the post-1968 effects of that prolonged warfare in Southwest Asia which has led into some now relatively immediate developments which are rooted within some crucial, 1968-1975 developments, developments such as both the U.S. dollar-crisis of January-February 1968, and the sinking of the U.S. dollar under the administration of U.S. President Richard M. Nixon.
The combination, of the early 1960s program of capital-intensive recovery of the U.S. industrial economy which had included a well-designed U.S. science-driver program of President John F. Kennedy, was soon ended by his death. The net level of the U.S. infrastructure zeroed out during the post-Kennedy years 1967-68, and has collapsed continually since that time. The brilliant space-program which had been accelerated on Kennedy's initiative, was being cut back sharply, even before the manned Moon landing was launched.
Once President Kennedy, the stubborn opponent of what had been demanded as a protracted U.S. war in Southeast Asia, had been murdered, near the close of 1963; so, the Anglo-American opponents of Kennedy, and of General of the Armies Douglas MacArthur, had found themselves free to continue to push the war in Southeast Asia, even into the mid-1970s.
So, then, the economy of the U.S.A. had begun to plunge at an accelerating rate under the incumbency of President Kennedy's terrified successor, President Johnson, under the ominously resounding threats embedded in the utterances of the Warren Commission. With the combination of the de-industrialization policy which President Kennedy had opposed, while he was alive, the escalating, useless, unnecessary, prolonged U.S. war in Southeast Asia was under way, that by means of his death; then, the program of science-and-technology-driven, capital-intensive recovery of the U.S. economy, crumbled.
With the combination of British Prime Minister Harold Wilson's "Schumpeter-izing" of the already stagnating British economy, and a kindred U.S. war-economy policy, there was a shift into a net collapse of U.S. basic economic infrastructure, a collapse which has continued in an ever-worsening form, to the present day. By the close of February 1968, the promised physical-economic recovery of the U.S. economy had slipped, in net effect, into negative numbers, in a trend which has not only continued to the present day, but has been accelerated under President Obama.
This post-John F. Kennedy part of U.S. history, especially so since 1968, has been one of an uninterrupted, and generally accelerating moral decline, even more than economic decline in an economy which suffered through the step-by-step uprooting of the already withering remains of the original Bretton Woods agreement.
Since then, the uprooting has continued in seven, successive, giant steps, as if down the memorable steps at Odessa in Sergei Eisenstein's movie Potemkin:
Today's essential remedy for the present stage of that worsening crisis which had been launched in the aftermath of President John F. Kennedy's assassination, now depends, most crucially, upon a single, unavoidable precondition: the clearing away of financial rubbish, by applying the global equivalent of a strict, comprehensive, Franklin Roosevelt style of "Glass-Steagall" rule, inside the United States, and in the world at large.
This change, is a precondition which must be employed to save the equivalent of a new, urgently needed Hamiltonian form of international credit-system of commercial banking. This result must be accomplished by aid of the writing-off of all of those nominal financial assets which are consistent with the present, morally fraudulent systems which were set into motion, ever more widely, globally, since the appointment of Alan Greenspan as Chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve System.
The indispensable turn to the urgently needed, new system must not be based on yet another monetary system, but on the creation of an actually global, fixed-exchange-rate system of public credit, a system to be shared, in the tradition of Alexander Hamilton's design of constitutional public credit, that among the world's perfectly sovereign nation-state republics. The termination, and reversal, of the presently global process of an otherwise terminal collapse of civilization, world wide, could be accomplished only by: 1.) eliminating the concept of the monetary system, by installing, as if suddenly, an implicitly global system of fixed-exchange-rate standards, as 2.) combined with rising actually physical capital-intensity of production-oriented investment and basic economic infrastructure, among respectively sovereign nation-state economies.
Notably, this reform is congruent with the principles of a sovereign national economy's system of public credit associated not only with the specific initiatives of the U.S.A.'s Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton, but with the successive reaffirmations of that same anti-monetarist principle under U.S. Presidents such as Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The strict Glass-Steagall precedent, as employed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, remains the model, indispensable method of reference for accomplishing that most urgently needed, rapid rescue of the world's economy today.
Specifically, what must be eliminated, immediately and thoroughly, is that mass of intrinsically unsalvageable, largely fraudulent indebtedness, which is rooted in the presently decadent form of the ideology of practice under the traditional British imperial system.
The most obvious among the presently fatal weaknesses spread, in the fashion of a pandemic, by that British imperial system, are implicitly coincident with the currently leading roles of the members of the current Inter-Alpha group. It is the margin of implicitly fraudulent, usurious unpayables outstanding among those financiers whose power has been secured chiefly by including, by methods of a "carry trade," the dubious assets of the one, as a debt to the nominal, but unpayable pledges of the others, as in the example of the so-called "PIGS' " Bank Santander. Such is the prevalent trend among the present monetary systems of the world as a whole. Such is the general case throughout those of the world's nominal accumulations existing in the likeness of "financial derivatives." Among the worst of these practices are what has been disguised under the title of highly leveraged "carry-trades," such as that in Brazil today.
In brief, the presumed wealth of the British empire of today, and its Inter-Alpha and comparable associates, is, in short, a bottomless, aggressively sucking quicksand of near to worthless, doomed debt.
The Versailles Syndrome/ Weimar!
Thus, today's financial world at large, has reached a terminal condition, as a system, a condition which resembles, but this time on a global scale, the likeness of that of the national economy of Weimar Germany, then operating, at the close of 1923, under Versailles Treaty rules. Or, compare the wreckage of the trans-Atlantic banking systems since the Autumn of 2007, with the earlier, medieval, Venetian monetarists' plunging of the fraud-ridden mercantile banking systems of northern Italian cities into a Fourteenth-century plunge into a homicidal "new dark age" which rapidly reduced the number of European communities by approximately one-half, and the total population by an estimated one-third.
The fatal similarity between the imprisoned system of 1923's occupied Weimar Germany, and the present international system, lies in the presently continuing subjugation of the world economy under the radiated, increasingly extended effects of the so-called "conditionalities" which had been imposed, initially, since 1991-1992, on the combined territories of continental western and central Europe, as also upon the former Soviet territory. All of these were measures which were superimposed by the common agreement of the then present governments of the United Kingdom, France, and the U.S.A. under President George H.W. Bush. While the present world system is not an exact copy of the Versailles conditions imposed upon Weimar Germany, the intention of the process imposed in both cases, is systemically comparable, in design and by intention, as a crucially significant clinical model, on a more limited scale, for the general breakdown-crisis of trans-Atlantic nations which is onrushing today.
Consider today's similarities to the condition which launched the 1923 Weimar breakdown-crisis, and its ensuing Hitler regime brought into power through the Bank of England's Montagu Norman. A role of that Norman executed with cooperation from such of his confederates as Hjalmar Schacht, Brown Brothers, Harriman, and the Bank of International Settlements (BIS), all of which could have been prevented, by cancelling the inherently fraudulent Versailles "reparations."
These measures, launched from England, were the means which were pushed through by that U.S. Secretary of State Lansing then serving under the Ku Klux Klan fanatic known as President Woodrow Wilson. None of this history is to be considered as surprising for us today, if we had considered the moral character of the Anglo-American-French governments of the Versailles Treaty organization.
The present world monetary crisis could not be understood competently, without examining the roots of the 1923 Weimar hyperinflation embedded within the relevant Versailles Treaty conditions. Without understanding the 1923 Weimar hyperinflation's historical roots, there could be no competent insight into the presently oncoming general, global breakdown-crisis of the present moment in world-wide affairs.
The British Roots of Two "World Wars"
The underlying character of these developments, is located in the British empire's enraged reaction against the victory of the U.S. Government under President Abraham Lincoln, over the forces of that Confederacy which had been created by the successive roles of the British East India Company agents Jeremy Bentham, his agent Aaron Burr, and Bentham's ascended Foreign Office protégé Lord Palmerston.
For any historian who should be considered competent today, the most notable point about the successor of the assassinated U.S. President William McKinley, who had been succeeded by a Vice-President Theodore Roosevelt who had been given his personal loyalties by a leading intelligence figure of his treasonous uncle, a member of the Palmerston-run Confederacy, a British agent, and head of the Confederacy's London office, James D. Bulloch. President Woodrow Wilson himself was not only a spawn of a leading Confederacy family, but of that family's ties to the Ku Klux Klan: Wilson himself, while U.S. President, include the fact that Wilson himself had launched the rebirth of the Klan of the 1920s and beyond from inside the "White House" itself!
So, the assassination of the patriotic President William McKinley in 1901, removed a President who was an opponent of the predatory interests of the British Empire's Edward VII, an assassination which cleared the way for the assumption of the post of U.S. President by a Vice-President Theodore Roosevelt who was a loyal follower of those British imperial interests which had been associated with such excrements of that British puppet, the Confederacy, as the savagely revanchist, post-Civil War Ku Klux Klan.
After all, it had been Britain's Edward VII, already as Prince of Wales and later, the British Emperor, who had been guilty of creating the entire mess which began with the British Royal family's success in bringing about the expulsion of the German Chancellor Bismarck who had been the solid block of opposition to British Prince of Wales Albert Edward's stubborn determination to set not only all of Europe, but much more of the planet afire with the outbreak of a Balkan War which the British monarchy had induced a virtually senile Austrian Habsburg Kaiser to provoke. It had been the friend of the United States, Chancellor Bismarck, who had blocked what he identified as a Balkan war launched for the purpose of triggering the drowning of all continental Europe in a general war pivoted on the intended mutual adversaries Germany, Russia, and France.
So, events proceeded through the succession from the ouster of Bismarck which had been effected through the influence of then Prince of Wales Albert Edward (later Edward VII); the assassination of France's President Sadi Carnot; the Dreyfus case; and Prince Albert Edward's 1894 recruitment of the Mikado to permanent warfare against both China and Russia (up through the surrender, by Japan, of August 1945).
So, came the most crucial development in the preparations for World War II, the assassination of the patriotic U.S. President William McKinley, and the consequent replacement of the anti-British policies of President McKinley, by the pro-British Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Theodore Roosevelt and Wilson had brought about a fundamental strategic shift of U.S. policy, away from patriotic opposition to the British Empire's imperialist schemes for general warfare, to becoming a self-disgraced U.S.A. serving as a creature controlled by post-Wilson interests later associated with Wall-Street-based, British flunkeys such as Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover.
Never forget, that Prince Albert Edward's strategy in organizing what was to become known as "World War I," had been centered on his intention of taking as his first step, the elimination of the principal obstacle to Albert Edward's determination to launch a "new Seven Years War," Germany's Bismarck.
As former Chancellor Bismarck himself had emphasized, the Prince of Wales' intention to bring about what become known as "World War I," had been modeled, as Bismarck warned, upon that "Seven Years War" of 1756-1763 which had led to the establishment of an imperial power gained by Lord Shelburne's British East India Company at the February 1763 Peace of Paris. That had been the same, so-called "Peace" which had set off a permanent break, to the present day, between the American patriots and those British opponents of American freedom, typified by "Wall Street" and its like to the present day.
The same implicitly treasonous sort of British tricks from the inside, is to be witnessed in the Obama administration's and British role in the new Afghan war of today.
The sheer horror of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, and, even more, the "cover-up," has, thus, had a clearly intended effect on trends in U.S. policy, an effect similar to that caused by the ouster of Bismarck. The murder of President Kennedy cleared the way for the 1964-1975 entry of the U.S.A. into the decade-long U.S. war in Indo-China, a long war, through which the British empire brought down the economy of the U.S.A., as Britain's lying Prime Minister Tony Blair, later, wrecked the United States, in a fraudulently concocted long war in Southwest Asia The dirtiest of all the dirty tricks of the British empire's repertoire, is the luring of its intended victims into wars against one another, as the killing of President Kennedy was used to clear the way for a decade of destruction of the greatest power on this planet, the U.S.A., by a long, worse than useless war in Indo-China.
So, in such as fashion as that, the British empire has triumphed over its principal intended victim, the U.S.A., since January-February 1968. But, now, in turn, the British imperial form of political hegemony over the internal political affairs of the U.S.A., and the nations of continental Europe, has come to its own threatened moment of self-inflicted doom, a threatened doom in the form of the great crisis which has taken over the entirety of the trans-Atlantic region at this moment.
The world has lately reached the threshold at which the effects of a British-controlled U.S.A., as a captive force of influence on the nations of the Americas and of western and central Europe, now points to the contrasted rise of the western rim of the Pacific and Indian Oceans as the location of a rising power contrasted to the currently self-ruined trans-Atlantic nations.
Ask: can the tyranny of a pathetically decadent, collapsing British Empire, which has controlled the U.S.A.'s political life, top down, under such Presidents as George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Jr. and Barack Obama, thus far, crush the rising forces of Asia now? Or, will there be sufficient resistance to the imperialist tyranny of imperialist blocs such as the Inter-Alpha group, resistance from the combined power of a virtually spiritually reborn, post-Obama United States, and the presently rising power of a Pacific-oriented Eurasia to free the planet of the present British imperial monetarists' tyranny?
The election of President Franklin Roosevelt had represented a fundamental change in policy, back to the choice of a President in the style of Lincoln, and in opposition to the Woodrow Wilson-echoing, pro-fascist trends in the Presidency under J.P. Morgan-directed Presidents Coolidge and Hoover. With the notable exception of President Taft, the period from the death of the assassinated McKinley to the inauguration of President Franklin Roosevelt, had represented a political "little dark age" in the U.S. history of that time, a dark age which can be fairly described as resumed under Winston Churchill's toady, President Harry S Truman, and with wicked effects continued, much of that time, up to the present moment under the impossible British puppet, the Nero-like President Barack Obama.
The implications, still for history today, of those Versailles conditions imposed upon Weimar Germany, must be examined in that light, rather than continuing to tolerate the childishly simplistic, customary old whore known as the mere "popular opinion" of a popular press.
This qualification which I have just so underscored, is not a mere "explanation" of the relevant span of history. The history of our republic's regrettable periods of folly remains for our patriots today, as a history of folly. Such often reigning influence of folly has often been the living influence which has often shaped the opinions and state of mind of heads of state and large parts of the populations of the sundry other nations of the world, as our own, up to the present instant. Such are the greatest matters of our concern for those committed to the regaining of a competent U.S. global strategy for today.
The 1990 Echo of Weimar 1923
Germany's fate during the crucial strategic development of 1923, was a product of that history to which I have referred, summarily, above.
It was a history whose principal developments date from the 1890 expulsion of Chancellor Bismarck through the influence exerted by the Prince of Wales Albert Edward. This was not a mere matter of personalities; it has been an outgrowth of what has been expressed in the subsumed role of personalities.
The actions taken against Germany, jointly, by Britain's Margaret Thatcher, France's President François Mitterrand, and U.S. President George H.W. Bush, had been virtually copies of that collective decision of the Versailles victors which had been used by, principally, the same British interests, and their Wall Street accomplices, which had brought Adolf Hitler to power in Germany at the close of January 1933.
That is a bitter lesson to be considered from past history, for today. How shall we now escape the presently onrushing repetition of old follies which had gripped our United States, once more, in these, our present, recent times?
II. The Role of Dynamics in History
Men and women shape history, but that usually occurs, chiefly, in their roles as participants within the dynamics of long waves of history, waves often spanning several generations, even centuries. That term, dynamics, has a profound and crucial implication for all those who are likely to come to understand both our nation's great follies, and the remedies.
As I have lately emphasized repeatedly, and that rather strongly, when the matter of seeking competent scientific principles of history is considered strategically, there are two contrasting forces of influence to be considered in study of the controlling features of mass behavior within the known reach of what can be defined as globally extended European history since the time of the Peloponnesian War, and, actually, also, since the alliance against Tyre by the combined forces of Egypt, the Ionians, and Etruscans, several centuries earlier.
The opposition of Archytas and Plato to that legacy of folly which had been the Peloponnesian War, has presented us with a case which typifies the back-and-forth between the opposed, humanist and oligarchical faction's currents of often superior influence in a Europe-centered process of today's world history. This compels our attention to a span, from much earlier than that time, to the moment of this presently threatened, world-wide, breakdown-crisis.
I have, earlier, repeatedly emphasized two points of reference to be considered in any attempt to understand the manner in which this historical form of social process operates. To be clear as to my intention in bringing up this subject-matter again, in this present context, I emphasize, that:
It is to the degree that individuals and small groups are able to bring available currents of history into play, that the individual may become empowered to play a significantly direct part in the shaping of the course of history as such. The answers which such a proposition poses, are matters of science, not opinion.
For example: it is demonstrably a scientific fact, that the hope for a happier outcome in the present world crisis-situation, now depends upon summarily writing off all international debt (and presumed monetarist assets) which does not meet a President Franklin D. Roosevelt choice of Glass-Steagall standard.
The following notes on the nature of those causes for the present crisis, which are rooted in this historical form of social process, therefore, express their needed consideration at this point.
The Human Mind
Therefore, to understand the lawfulness of the processes of history, we must come to grips with the presently little known principle of dynamics introduced to modern Europe by Leibniz, during the 1690s.
The fact of this matter is, that, during the full sweep of the 1690s, Gottfried Leibniz addressed the question I am implicitly employing here, in his adoption of a modern principle which he named dynamics, which he recognized as an echo of that ancient Classical Greek concept of dynamis which is typified by the work of the great strategist and scientist Archytas known to all competent scientists to the present day, as the author of the physical method of duplicating the cube, an accomplishment which, for example, is not feasible within the range of an Aristotelean method, such as that of Euclidean geometry.
In my own work over, now, numerous decades, I have, in fact, equated this notion of dynamis, or Leibniz's dynamics, to the same Classical cultural principle which is the leading consideration of Percy Bysshe Shelley's A Defence of Poetry. I have also come to equate that notion by Leibniz, on the one hand, and Shelley, on the other, both with an eye to the implication of Albert Einstein's use of the expression "finite but unbounded," in his identifying the crucial principle of Johannes Kepler's uniquely original discovery of universal gravitation.
To the point in what is more readily recognized as scientific terms, the principle of gravitation as actually discovered, and that uniquely, by the follower of Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464) and of Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519), Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), which states, in its lesser implications, the original, strict principle of universal gravitation as such. In that respect, Einstein emphasized more than the finite implications of Kepler's discovery. Einstein then adds, that the existence of such a principle of gravitation, reflects the character of the universe in which that principle has occurred, as a self-bounded, and therefore unbounded universe, whose nature is characterized by a universal principle of implicitly anti-entropic, universal creativity.
When we proceed from that appreciation by Einstein, we are recognizing, in fact, the nature of those intrinsically creative human powers, which are unique to the human mind from among all known living creatures, otherwise, unique relative to what Academician V.I. Vernadsky contrasted to the Lithosphere and Biosphere, alike. We must signify, thus, a unique principle through which mankind has obtained a unique species of available access to that conception of "finite, but unbounded" referenced by Albert Einstein. That is to speak of Man in the likeness of the Creator of the universe, in this specific aspect.
This investigation takes us further, as it must take us so in addressing the crucial issue of political policy which I present here. We must address the question: "What is the moral issue so posed by this scientific knowledge," contrary to all empiricist and related forms of dogma?
The crucial question may be expressed in the following terms:
The crucial question so posed, is: is man's intellectual power delimited by the ability to play childishly clever tricks in the universe; or, is that a power, which we may recognize as an ontologically existing, obligatory form of capacity? Is it, also, an obligation requiring human individual action of a certain kind which is necessarily specific to the human species? Is man's nature, therefore, in the nature of an obligation imposed upon us by the great power which rules the universe? Is God, contrary to Aristotle, as Philo of Alexandria insisted on this point theologically, a self-created Being, such that we must draw from evidence supporting characterizations of Genesis 1, the presumption that man and woman have that consequently, obligatory likeness?
In fact, in both physical science and Classical artistic composition, as such followers of Bernhard Riemann as Academician V.I. Vernadsky and Albert Einstein typify relevant cases, there is an consequent agency which is, in itself, a cognizable state of an individual human mind. This state of mind is not imprisoned by that foolish empiricist's notions of "sense-certainty" which are familiar to us from such ungodly creatures as the behaviorist circles of President Barack Obama. Rather, the true powers of the human creative intellect, the powers specific to the actual human soul, prompt us to interpret sense-experiences as merely shadows, but also truthful shadows, as shadows go. These are shadows cast by reality, rather than foolish objects of merely arbitrary worship, as sense-perceptions seen as self-evident experiences might be considered as in the likeness of mechanical objects, or as blind faith in computer programs might suggest.
Contrary to degenerates such as Adam Smith and his like, this specifically human agency, the human intellect, and its effect on the universe, was pronounced as knowable, by our greatest scientific and other individual creative-artistic minds, such as Leibniz, or Percy Bysshe Shelley. For the English language, Shelley, in particular, like Shakespeare earlier, has expressed this efficiently transcendental view of the identity of the human individuality's role within history.
Shelley, in particular, writing, thus, in his A Defence of Poetry, points toward the specific role of an actuality of the quality of the existence of the human mind. It is the crucial implications of Shelley's principal argument in that location, implications which are treated as an included subject of physical science's effects, in the course of this present report.
In that light, in a competent consideration of the history of peoples and cultures, we should recognize, as Shelley did for the case of that great Classical, late Eighteenth-century artistic movement which was born, actually, out of such influences of Leibniz followers as the great Abraham Kästner, we have the following, relevant considerations.
Kästner, who had shaped that intellectual environment of the Classical movement to which he had identified his named devotion to promoting the interchangeable work of genius of both Leibniz and Johann Sebastian Bach, was a crucial figure in the rebirth of not only a real William Shakespeare revived from the virtual potter's fields of Eighteenth-century English Liberal depravity. Such was the included role of the circles of such among Kästner's followers as his friend Gotthold Lessing and, also Lessing's collaborator, Moses Mendelssohn, operating within the environment richly shaped by Kästner's influence, an influence which, as in the case of Kästner, had sparked the promotion of the accomplishments of Leibniz and Bach to such effects as those which were expressed not only by Mozart, Beethoven, and by Germany's Friedrich Schiller, but, an influence, whose influence was, in turn, echoed by Shelley in his own best moments, as he himself points out implicitly in the connections to his A Defence of Poetry.
I emphasize, thus, the closing argument by Percy Shelley, presented in what have been the concluding paragraphs of his A Defence of Poetry.
The argument which I make now, will seem by some, at first, to be theological, more than strategic. Perhaps it may seem to be just so. In fact, as I shall show in the course of completing this present report, that the issue here is of highest strategic importance. It bears, somewhat profoundly, but not less urgently, on those determining features of human behavior, on which the collapse, or survival of human civilization, a subject which is also a physical expression of collapse or survival, presently depends.
I am prepared to recognize that, for the tastes of some, perhaps many, my point may seem to be awesomely proximate to theology; that choice of their reaction is their responsibility. My own conception of strategy in such matters is, the just ability to win. Failure to win this fight against such enemies as the British empire and also the tradition of empire which it expresses, would be immediately tragic for all mankind. Let the argument now speak for itself, on that account, rather than any other, and that in the following manner.
Schiller, Shelley & Einstein
Albert Einstein's praise for the unique originality of Johannes Kepler's discovery of a universal principle of gravitation, may be summed up appropriately, in two points.
First, Einstein emphasized that Kepler's uniquely original discovery of the principle of Solar-systemic gravitation defined an immediately finite universe; but, then, secondly, he added that that universe is unbounded. Without this action to correct the prevalent absurdities of popular, and most academic opinion on the subject of economy today, any attempt to escape from the presently onrushing threat of a planet-wide new dark age of humanity, is not a likely undertaking. I shall explain this crucial fact here.
To win the truly great battles for humanity, we are obliged to win that cause through understanding, and correcting, today's common proclivity for strategic failures. For just that reason, the issue posed by Einstein's assessment of Kepler's discovery of gravitation, has had that specific quality of immediate importance for the relatively immediate future of mankind now.
Said otherwise: as I shall show here, this argument by Einstein has had the most profound, and also crucial quality of significance for both a physical science of economy, and for defining the principles of human society. Therefore, it has been necessary that that matter be, at the least, summarized in this present chapter of this report.
To bring actual understanding to this specific issue from amid the work of Albert Einstein, you must, first, understand two crucial things. First, that he is, like the case of Russia's Academician V.I. Vernadsky, a product of the great revolution in scientific method introduced to modern science in Bernhard Riemann's own stroke of creative genius, a genius which had been aided by the patronage of Carl F. Gauss; and, secondly, he shows the influence radiated by Riemann's teacher Lejeune Dirichlet on the conception of creative mental processes common to physical science and Classical artistic composition.
All competent deliberation on the most crucial challenges to mankind now, depend upon a practical grasp of such considerations.
Notably, on the second of those two points which I have just emphasized, as I and others have repeatedly emphasized this too rarely grasped notion, that the notion of the role of Einstein's violin in the processes of his scientific inspirations, is illustrative in a crucially significant way. Einstein is also most crucial for the purposes of this report, because of the crucial, further conclusions he drew from his relativistic view of the physics of Johannes Kepler's uniquely original discovery of the principle of universal gravitation.
The source of the specific inspiration of the greatest acts of insight in modern European science, has been, as Abraham Kästner emphasized, the relationship of the creative work of Johann Sebastian Bach to the method of dynamics presented by Gottfried Leibniz, as the case of Albert Einstein and his own violin illustrates that connection most beautifully.
So, the secret of scientific discovery lies where Riemann put the point in the single concluding sentence of his 1854 habilitation dissertation, not within the domain of mathematics, but in discovering the relevant, crucial ironies of the role of systemic discontinuities in respect to the matter of defining true physical principles, and the role of Classical-artistic modes of thought in the work of the individual human mind.
The crucial facts to be emphasized on this account, are as follows.
The principal source of the failures of numerous among what have become known to me as, ostensibly, scientifically educated professionals, and others, still today, is the delusion of belief in an ontologically mathematical scheme of representation of systems of sense-certainty, including synthetic instruments as an extended example of the function of the given human senses. All competent scientific practice, on the contrary, treats sense-perceptions and their like as shadows cast by presumed reality, shadows cast upon the human senses and their approximation of that, in broader extension, by synthetic instruments. Call this fact "The Helen Keller principle."
It is not sense-perception which is, itself, the truth; it is the human mind's ability to combine several systemically, ontologically conflicting qualities of sense-perception as such, thus to derive a resolution of conflicts among standard and synthetic modes of sense-perception, systemic conflicts which enable us to discover, as Johannes Kepler had done, a unique intersection of conflicting sense-readings which can be demonstrated, thus, as representing the existence of a probable, or distinct revelation of a principle, as Helen Keller learned to do in her own way.
The common, crucial error made, even among many certified scientists, still today, is the implied assumption that the fact of knowledge lies in the direct interpretation of sense-perception, or the instrumental equivalent of sense-perception per se. According to that common misbelief, both sense perceptions and kindred interpretations of instrumentation are presumed to show that the evidence lies in the fact of direct reference, either to the experience of sense-perception as such, or the reading of instrumentation as if it were sense-perception.
Actual human knowledge, contrary to those naive beliefs respecting sense-certainty, is a product of human cognitive insight into the paradoxes of mutually contradictory sense-perceptions of the same experienced phenomena, as either sensed, or perceived in terms of the use of instrumentation as a surrogate for sense-perception. Kepler's treatment of the ostensibly contradictory indications of the same solar-systemic phenomenon, as both a visual and yet also a harmonic experience, is exemplary. What I have just identified so, is very ancient knowledge, as the case of Archytas' physical generation of the implicitly physical duplication of the cube, illustrates the same point.
Thus, actual human knowledge does not lie within the domain of sense-perceptual or kindred experience. It lies within the human cognitive powers' recognition of the proof that sense-perception is not reality per se. Truth lies only in the cognition of the contradictory nature of sense-perception, as Kepler's actual discovery of universal gravitation has been a uniquely valid treatment of that subject.
These just referenced considerations, are crucial for understanding that genius of Albert Einstein which was shown so aptly by his assessment of Kepler's uniquely original discovery of the ontological principle of universal gravitation. This insight by Einstein is crucial for a correct reading of his use of the terms "finite" and "unbounded" in the celebrated statement by him to which I have made repeated reference here above. Consider a relevant lesson on this point from Brunelleschi, and then return to the matter of Einstein's "finite" and "unbounded," as such.
The method of Brunelleschi, a method more fully elaborated by his contemporary Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, already typifies my point.
For those who come to understand the implications of the immediately preceding paragraphs here, the model standards for the notion of human scientific and comparable knowledge of principle, are best exemplified by the contrast between sense-certainty and Archytas' solution for the physical duplication of the cube, as reflected by Nicholas of Cusa's exposure of the intrinsic incompetence which must be attributed to both the collected writings of Archimedes bearing on this subject, and standard reports of Archimedes' quadrature of the circle, or, by contrast, Filippo Brunelleschi's discovery of the catenary as expressing the anti-Euclidean physical geometry of the anti-Euclidean physical principle of physical space-time, which he employed, of physical necessity, for the successful construction of the dome of Florence's Santa Maria del Fiore.
Such principled notions, characteristic of the discovery of fundamental physical principles, which are expressed by physical forms of experimental geometry, rather than the intrinsically incompetent Euclidean and related geometries, are the common tradition of the best of ancient Greek science and modern work of the followers of such as the exemplary cases of Brunelleschi, Nicholas of Cusa, Leonardo da Vinci, Pierre de Fermat, Johannes Kepler, Gottfried Leibniz, Abraham Kästner, Riemann, Max Planck, Einstein, and Vernadsky.
That said, now return our attention to the specific matters of the two distinct working points under consideration here, points respecting Kepler's uniquely valid discovery of universal gravitation, as in Einstein's treatment of the genius of Kepler: finite but unbounded.
As I have previously written, at various times over what has been the somewhat more than the recent six decades of, chiefly, my adult life, I have enjoyed the specific advantage of having first made the discovery of principle to which I have just referred, a discovery which I made before suffering any direct exposure to formal geometry and related subjects in public secondary education. I first reached this conclusion through the influence of several visits to construction then in progress at the Charlestown, Massachusetts U.S. Navy Yard. My reporting of that experience, one more time, here and now, is made for two reasons of immediate relevance to the subject under review at this point.
First, the case in fact demonstrates the source and nature of the damage done, in schools and kindred places, of teaching Euclidean geometry and kindred mumbo-jumbo to the young minds of many among those who were to be known later as scientific professionals. Second, it illustrates the evidence of the way in which their intellectual powers for competent scientific work, as shown in their later lives, were actually damaged by the conventional courses of instruction in the methods of Euclidean geometry and the like. My own approach, the correct approach to the subject of geometry and related matters, was based on study of steel construction at that U.S. Navy Yard. My argument was as follows.
What caught my attention there, in what I saw in progress at that Charlestown Yard, was the use of structural steel for functions of support in constructions. So, I took account of the implied factor of weight of the objects supported, and also of the weight, and carrying potential, of the ostensibly supporting parts. The question in my mind was "Why the holes? Why the empty spaces within the supporting aspects of those structures?" My conclusion, for which I enjoyed some ridicule by foolish classmates, when I, later, mentioned this matter in my first exposure to that class in Elementary Plane Geometry, was that the shape of the holes in the supporting structures, was intended to lessen the weight of the supporting structure relative to the weight which could be supported for the edifice as an integrated functional whole. Later, the Eiffel Tower came to amuse my recollections greatly, for this specific reason.
I mention this example again here, because that illustration demonstrates, most simply, the intrinsically anti-scientific character of what is called Euclidean geometry. In brief: as Bernhard Riemann emphasized in the deliciously ironical, concluding sentence of his 1854 habilitation dissertation, plane and solid geometry do not actually exist in a competent physical science; only physical geometry, not Euclidean geometry, actually exists.
Here is the obvious point of reference from which to view the subject of physical curves, such as the catenary and tractrix, rather than Euclidean curves, or, the function of the Leibniz-Bernouilli notion of universal least action. Here, similarly, we are able to identify those rudimentary aspects of cognitive processes which prepare the mind for the experience of a notion of relative physical-space-time as a universal principle.
That point was already illustrated by Archytas' construction of the duplication of the cube, according to the contrast provided by comparing Archimedes' argument from my collection of the works of Archimedes, as compared to Nicholas of Cusa's remarks on Archimedes' error in scientific method, the error of presuming the silly method of quadrature on this account.
It was illustrated in a brilliant way, before the relevant discovery by Nicholas of Cusa, by Brunelleschi's discovery of the physical principle of the catenary, a principle which he employed for the otherwise impossible construction of the cupola of Florence's Santa Maria del Fiore.
This same point shown in Brunelleschi's work, was crucial in Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa's exposure of the relevant scientific blunder by Archimedes. It was also the origin of Cusa follower Leonardo da Vinci's generalization of the interrelated notions of the combined function of the catenary and tractrix, a notion of which turned up, afresh, as crucial in Gottfried Leibniz's denunciation of the incompetence of Descartes, and in the actual incompetence of Eighteenth-century Leibniz-hating reductionists such as Abraham de Moivre, D'Alembert, Leonhard Euler's attacks on Leibniz, et al., and, later, the scientific follies of British-backed Laplace's "three-body" folly, and of his noxious flunky, Augustin Cauchy.
The point I have just so outlined, points backward in the history of physical science to such as Archytas and Plato, and forward to Bernhard Riemann and such among Riemann's followers as Einstein and Vernadsky. It is the same point made by Philo "Judaeus" of Alexandria against the reductionist Aristotle, and against the follies of all belief in Euclidean and neo-Euclidean geometry.
Despite the recognition, by many relevant specialists and others, of either the actual work, or merely the influence of such followers of Riemann as Planck, Einstein, and Vernadsky, a strongly reductionist disorientation penetrates even the circles of probably sincere, but nonetheless misguided among their professed admirers.
This means, that we must take into account the specific kinds of blunders in what passes for scientific method, even among the putative advocates of relativity, even among such as some reputed as close followers of Einstein and Vernadsky. My raising that note of dissonance at this point, thus brings our discussion here closer to the heart of the matter of principle at hand.
That stern issue of method which I have just now emphasized in that fashion, is the following.
The pathetic tendency against which I must warn my readers here, is the prevalent failure of such individuals to acknowledge the qualitative gulf of difference between the efforts to make a compromise between popular beliefs and scientific truth, that without any systemic regard for the absolutely qualitative, ontological difference between merely "scientifically informed" views on the shortfalls of sense-certainty, and recognizing that the respective contents of sense-certainty and competent science do not inhabit the same universe.
Sense-perception is merely shadow, and the immortal efficiency of a deceased person's contributions to Classical art and science are what must be considered as the truly efficient issue posed by the characteristic follies of blind faith in sense-certainty.
Thus, one Harvard notable spoke of "Heaven" as possibly a separate universe with absolutely no efficient connection to the domain of living persons.
Others might defend the remarks of that Harvard gentleman with an accompanying shrug: "What practical difference would it make?" For me, it makes a very profound and important, practical difference, if one is actually thinking clearly. The characteristically intended function built into the design of the human mind, is the ability of the trained mind to recognize the real universe which corresponds to what are the mere shadows of sense-perception, and to act on that real universe, rather than lashing out, like a silly Quixotic fool, against mere shadows.
This brings us back to the subject of Albert Einstein's view of the discoveries by Kepler.
III. The Great Economic Principle of Physical Science
It has become customary to prefer to identify many among the most truly creative men and woman of modern science, by insulting them, by calling them "mathematicians." That habit has been, in the main, a bad, if rather common mistake, as Bernhard Riemann pointed out, ironically, in the opening two opening paragraphs, and concluding single sentence of his 1854 habilitation dissertation.
As Albert Einstein's appreciation of Johannes Kepler's uniquely original discovery of the physical principle of gravitation illustrates the point very well, it is the discovery of physical principles, with emphasis on crucial-experimental methods, not mathematical formulas, which have been, in the main, the principal roots of all leaps in the physical-productive powers of mankind. Unfortunately, it is the profession of the followers of the archetypical modern liberal, that he or she not only lacks actual knowledge of principles, but takes pride in insisting on his or her abstinence from them, that in defense of his adopted role as a professed empiricist from among the followers of Paolo Sarpi.
Therefore, to remedy that problem, we should look back to the role of Chicago University's Professor of Physical Chemistry, William Draper Harkins (1873-1951), and to his notable follower, Professor Robert James Moon, eleven years my senior (1911-1989). Professor Harkins' crucial contribution to modern physical science intersected the work of such relevant notables as Russia's Dmitri Mendeleyev, Pierre and Marie Curie, Mendeleyev's former student V.I. Vernadsky, and Britain's Ernest Rutherford; each among these, and some others, brought about a great Twentieth Century breakthrough in the domain of experimental physical science, a development which established what is to be considered as that concept of physical chemistry which supersedes what had been previously regarded conventionally as the field of work of either simply "physics," or "mathematical physics."
The breakthrough which such figures as the latter brought into the domain of physical science, has also had crucial significance for all competent approaches to a science of physical economy since the onset of the Twentieth Century. Nothing good could ever be dull since the impact of those happier developments.
For me, the breaking-point for the fuller, qualitatively more forceful appreciation of these changes at the turn of that century, came with my meeting with Professor Moon, in the setting of my participation in a 1970s founding of a new organization which was soon to become known as the Fusion Energy Foundation (FEF). However, the crucial impact of my meeting with Professor Moon occurred a bit later than that, in a meeting in my assigned place of residence of that moment, during which Professor Moon presented to me his defense of the discovery of the 1846 proof presented by Carl F. Gauss and his associate William Weber, that of the crucial-experimental proof of the Ampere-Weber model of electrodynamics against the Newtonian hoaxes of such reductionists as the positivistsin-fact Rudolf Clausius and James Clerk Maxwell.
Professor Moon's startlingly concise argument, presented to me on that occasion, met resonance with my already established commitment to a science of physical economy which I had come to attribute, since January 1953, to the crucial significance of the principles of Bernhard Riemann for a science of physical economy.
This latter meeting, was soon followed by another meeting with Professor Moon in a Chicago apartment, when we burned out hours of an evening, redesigning the powering of the U.S. economy, that on the basis of the implications of the known realm of thermonuclear fusion.
The crucial element throughout that series of breakthroughs to which I have just referred, was a change of the approach to the concept of science itself, a change impelled on account of that fresh conception of the role of man in the universe, which flowed from both the specific contributions to the method of physical science as such, and to that conception of mankind's specific place in the universe, which followed from my already established, Riemannian approach to a physical-relativistic conception of mankind and of our future in the universe.
Vernadsky's partition of what had become for me a fresh view of the universe, was what Vernadsky had accomplished from the vantage-point of a physical chemistry of living processes, a view which distinguished the Noösphere qualitatively from both the Biosphere and Lithosphere. That standpoint, now since weathered by sundry relevant further developments, is, presently, the only actually competent approach to the design of economic systems for the role of the creative powers uniquely specific to mankind, for now determining the role of man within the neighboring regions of our Solar system.
So, that maturing of my outlook, as steered by what had been already established, in 1953-54, that, chiefly, from the standpoint of Riemann's habilitation dissertation, has since brought my view of science to the point that, for me, there is no competent science in the world today which does not proceed from the standpoint of the continuing enrichment of a conception of physical-space-time defined by the notion of the creative powers of mankind in a Riemannian physical space-time, so defined.
Our proper, practical conception of the distinction of mankind as superior to all other known categories of living species, is, presently, so situated.
My Own Contribution to This
Unfortunately, perhaps, or whatever might be made of this otherwise, my own place in this aspect of the history of modern science, is, often considered, mistakenly, as of a form which has continued to be the result of some serious confusion even in the minds of many among my relevant contemporaries. That is to say, that insofar as my most obviously distinguished achievements since the 1950s, have been those of a physical economist and economic forecaster, it would be a mistaken view of those uniquely successful features of my professional work during the period since 1956 to date, to propose that should I see myself as fitting into the otherwise generally accepted stereotypes of the currently preferred academic categories of "economist" or "physical scientist."
Unfortunately, on the first count, what has been a generally accepted general reading of the title of "economist," until now, does not fit my notion of an actual science of economy, since my professional achievements are in the domain of physical economy, rather than what is usually accepted as the behaviorist's customary, and virtually axiomatic notion of a money-system. On the other side, the scientific background for my repeatedly unique achievements as an economic forecaster and otherwise, including some which were fairly considered as astoundingly successful among relevant professionals, has been based on my rejection of the positivist varieties of those misconceptions of mathematical physical science to which I was subjected, and which I angrily, and quite rightly rejected, in my associations with those philosophically reductionist forms of secondary and university educational science programs to which I had been exposed academically.
I did not fit their categories, but that was, essentially, because I was right, and they have been, rather consistently, wrong, because their adopted presumptions had been wrong, usually adopted at no later time than early days in conditioning of virtually axiomatic habits acquired as an effect of secondary and higher education.
For me, especially since my conclusions reached about February 1953, about the work of Bernhard Riemann, "science" has been for me a Riemannian approach to a science of physical economy, rather than a view of economic processes considered from some different primary vantage-point. Economics has been for me, the treatment of the subject of the advancement of the power of mankind's society, as a whole, to exist, as brought about through the development of the creative powers of the individual human mind.
I am left, thus, to continue to define the process of my professional development as an economist, not as most other claimants to that profession have done, but, rather, according to my insight into how I became what I am professionally, virtually a uniquely qualified forecaster of man's available economic and related choices for our species' future, today.
The appropriate term for defining that process is to be found by a suggested glance at the fable of the blind men and the elephant; unlike many professional economists, I fit none of the definitions suggested by that fable.
I refer, thus, to the definitions which Percy Bysshe Shelley's use of Gottfried Leibniz's notion of dynamics portends; one's profession should be what one should be becoming. What I have been becoming, is expressed by my present view of the place of the human species within the functional context of our Solar system and beyond. To come to the relevant point here, the universe, as we are enabled, or should qualify ourselves to become able to change it, works to such effect, that as we should have devoted ourselves to that end, as being the proper conception of the subject of man. That has turned out to have become my profession, whether I foresaw that, or not, at some particular, earlier point in time.
That is the question which properly defines my view of not only my own profession, but also implicitly that of nearly everyone else's of relevance to the subject-matters which I have been addressing here.
What must we act to accomplish, under the conditions of this crisis of our planet as a whole? What must we work to qualify ourselves to contribute to humanity's fate, on that account?
That is no matter of evasive generalities. The message, as I have received it, is always concrete, and requires a devotion to one's self-development, which must be rigorously self-critical, and, must have the quality of action with regard for results which are unforgiving of error.
Exactly, how should this planet be rescued from the doom presently descending upon it?
`The Woman on Mars'
The importance of adopting that policy, became clear in my crafting of the design for my 1988, nationwide U.S. television broadcast, "The Woman on Mars," as a by-product of the impact of my association with Professor Robert Moon, et al., in the Fusion Energy Foundation, and my role in initiating and designing what the U.S. Ronald Reagan administration named a "Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI)." I have lived within the characteristics of an intention of extending mankind's active mission within this universe to the proximate goal of man's assimilation of the planet Mars into our habitat, changing man's definition of mankind's destiny, from man on Earth, to man in our Galaxy, and beyond.
Such goals as those, are to be recognized as expressions of what had long been our patriots' constitutional devotion to the great principle of the Preamble of our Federal Constitution, mankind's growing relationship to the Creator.
There are few commitments more appropriate to the furtherance of such ends, than those expressed in Albert Einstein's great appreciation of what I have already referred to here, repeatedly, as the implications of Johannes Kepler's uniquely original discovery of the principle of universal gravitation. Here, again, Professor Moon's and my own roles had come, once more, to intersect in certain crucial ways.
I explain, as follows.
The matter I introduce for attention here, involves a special assortment of relevances, in which Professor Moon's actions came to the defense of my own views on one particularly relevant occasion, this time in the context of the discussions within the Fusion Energy Foundation (FEF), on a matter of crucial scientific significance: the subject was that of Albert Einstein's affirmation of the genius of Johannes Kepler's actions in effecting the only known, competent representation of the discovery of a universal principle of gravitation.
During the concluding years of activity of the Fusion Energy Foundation (FEF), a few years before it was closed down by what the Federal Courts later agreed had been a fraud upon the court by agents of the U.S. Department of Justice at the time, a relevant controversy had erupted within the proceedings of the FEF.
This controversy had erupted when I had proposed that the adopted intention of the Foundation's work required attention to the validity of Johannes Kepler's method in the discovery of universal gravitation. For the moment, on that occasion, only Professor Moon and I defended Kepler's work against a rather savage attack on me for defending Kepler, there, against the hoax which most scientists of that particular moment continued to defend as the academically popular, but nonetheless fraudulent defense of British claims that gravitation had been originally discovered by a certain dubious character in modern scientific mythologies, "black magic" specialist Isaac Newton.
It is to be emphasized, that those notable defenders of Newton's hoax, on that occasion, were not to be classed as eccentrics, but were, in fact, fairly representative of typical cases from among leading figures of science in North America and Europe at that time, and still today.
When all relevant facts of that controversy, and its like, have been duly considered, official science inside the U.S.A., as in the United Kingdom, is dominated, still, by a system like that of a pagan Babylonian priesthood. It is chiefly dominated by the practice of such a cult as one of virtually religious devotion to the worship of Newton, that in much the same manner as the later case of a British scandal involving the escape of a baboon, attired with the tatters of woman's dress, from a curiously misused church in Eighteenth-century England. It was abused by an inquisitional method akin to what has just been widely exposed as the utterly fraudulent cult of "global warming," a cultish practice conducted under the rubric of "peer review."
On the particular FEF occasion to which I have referred, Professor Moon defended my proposal against the rather riotous outbursts from some among the vocal majority of the other leading participants in the meeting at that time. My cause of that moment was joined, if only implicitly, by the deceased, therefore absent Albert Einstein.
That particular case illustrates a great moral principle of competent practice of physical science, and, in the course of relevant matters, clarifies the nature of my own role in those matters of science which are specifically the subjects of my own specific, and rather uniquely exceptional expertise in matters bearing upon the science of physical economy. These points are of crucial relevance here, since the very continued existence of a world economy depends, at this moment, on actions premised on exactly that same expertise on which Professor Moon and I relied on this issue of method, then, and on some related occasions.
These issues go beyond confinement to the exemplary issue of the treatment of the principles of gravitation, here. They are, perhaps, some might think, coincidentally, as the principled implications of Albert Einstein's presentation of Kepler's great discovery show to the witting, that the very foundations on which the current presentation of continued human progress on this planet now depends, are principles which are specifically anti-entropic.
Einstein & Kepler
For Albert Einstein's own part in this specific matter of science, the case for the universal importance of Kepler's actual discovery of gravitation flows from Einstein's two crucial, stated, cardinal judgments on the essentials of Kepler's discovery: that, first, that Kepler's presentation of the evidence shows that Kepler's evidence identifies the universe, when considered at any instant, as finite, and, yet, nonetheless, not bounded. In other words, the universe is intrinsically and systemically anti-entropic. In other words, that science is, as Philo ("Judaeus") of Alexandria emphasized, contrary to the irrational Aristoteleans such as Euclid, contrary to what the followers of Paolo Sarpi, such as Adam Smith, have insisted.
To restate the point just made appropriately.
In the light of what I have written here thus far, we now have to consider, three, mutually contradictory estimates of the systemic organization of the universe:
Those who attacked me at the referenced meeting of the Fusion Energy Foundation, believed in the desirability of causing progress, most of the time, but were acting as if they were seeking such goals under constraints specific to the presumptions of devotees of the second, "Liberal" (empiricist) position ("man proposes, but the cult of the Olympian Zeus disposes").
The devotees of the second category, such as the devotees of Paolo Sarpi, Galileo, Francis Bacon, and the Abbé Antonio S. Conti who created Sir Isaac Newton and Voltaire as pranks against nature, and such as Adam Smith, et al., all of whom were the so-called "Liberals," are, otherwise, known, variously, as statisticians, empiricists, or as behaviorists, among which each and all deny the existence of actually knowable principles of the universe. Indeed the very reliance by such people on merely mathematical statistics demonstrates that defect. The anti-Leibniz mathematicians of the Eighteenth-century Liberals typify such creatures.
The modern positivists presume, that behavior by man, beast, or what-have-you otherwise, therefore lacks any actually knowable forms of governing principles outside the bounds of the same kind of presumptions expressed as the compulsive gambler's statistical methods of deduction, or deduction improved by vigorous cheating of the credulous, such as the practices of the British imperial circles of an Inter-Alpha Group of such as Lord Rothschild, et al. This adopted moral incompetence of the empiricists, has become systemized over the course of more than a recent two centuries, under such names as positivism, or as in its more emphatically extreme expression as the "logical positivism" of such extremely depraved creatures as the devotees of the late Bertrand Russell, or the obscenely reigning behaviorists of the administration of the Nero-like U.S. President Barack Obama.
The tragic element displayed in the indicated fault of some among the FEF's empiricists on the subject of Kepler, is that they had been trained, as by their education and induction to higher priestly orders, to lodge themselves among the ranks of putative scientific authority, and that so emphatically, that they themselves often did not recognize that that conditioning process on which the official acceptance of their professional status largely depended, is a kind of "Dutch Treat" sort of "self-brainwashing." Indeed, any otherwise talented scientist who were exposed publicly as violating the empiricists' rules of such conditioning, would, indeed, fear to be cast out of any influential academic position in the relevant field of science on charges of "excessive" concern for those truths which offend the sentiments of the presently incumbent replica of a Babylonian priestcraft.
Now, that I have just stated that very relevant point, let us, rather than continuing along that particular line of attack on this subject-matter, instead, now turn to focus our attention on the relevant implications of the argument supplied by the truly creative minds of such as Albert Einstein, as, implicitly, also Russia's Academician V.I. Vernadsky.
Relive Athena's Role
The mainstream of the European civilization which is to be traced from the evidence tending to affirm the legendary account of the Classical Homer, pits the principle of evil which was associated by Aeschylus with the Olympian Zeus (of the Iliad) against the contrary figure of Athena as she appears as a more forcefully active figure at the center of the Odyssey.
This Homeric legend viewed by Aeschylus, which is also traced to the transoceanic, maritime-cultural roots of Egypt typified by the great pyramids, is met in the scientific tradition of those Pythagoreans such as the friend of Plato, the Archytas, who duplicated the cube by construction. Archytas and his friend Plato, typify the opposition to the pro-satanic forces associated with the legendary image of the Delphic figure of the Olympian Zeus and of the lying pagan priest Plutarch, as this view of them which I share is depicted, as the matter of a simultaneity of eternity, in the Renaissance sculptor Raphael Sanzio's "The School of Athens," or the scientific world-outlook expressed implicitly by the mind of the great modern Classical artist Albert Einstein.
Such images are typical reflections of the mind of the intrinsically, ocean-going maritime characteristics of the European cultural "mainstream," predominantly "Atlantic" maritime cultural characteristics, as the chronicler Diodorus Siculus expressed that tradition traced, notably, as did that great Cyrenaican scientist of the Platonic school, that Eratosthenes, that enemy of the Euclid cult, who was the first known to have measured the fairly estimated size of the Earth, by means of observations conducted within Egypt, and who emphasized the crucial importance for all competent physical science, of Archytas' constructive duplication of the cube.
The significance of the work of Plato and his associates for the understanding of the human mind, today, is that it has been, chiefly, from that source, that modern European science drew upon the ancient Greek principle of dynamis to which Gottfried Leibniz gave new life under the rubric of modern dynamics. This is a notion of dynamics which extends, but not merely, to Classical artistic composition, but provides us keys to the distinction between dwindling ranks of true historians, on the one side, and proliferation of mere chroniclers, or much worse, like mere journalists and the like, on the other.
The very poor capability among most Americans today, for example, for understanding the aspects of cultural history to which I am referring at this point of the account, is to be recognized as, specifically, the corrosive impact of the influence of the school of Paolo Sarpi in establishing the neo-Venetian, Anglo-Dutch cultural hegemony within Europe, since the strange death of Christopher Marlowe, up to the present day.
If we consider seriously the evidence bearing on the contrasted traits among Platonics, Aristoteleans, and the followers of modern (Sarpian) liberalism, since the time of the accession of England's James I, we are impelled to recognize the impact of the denial of the existence of truth by those Anglo-Dutch Liberal influentials who conform to the tradition of Sarpi and Galileo, such as Lord Shelburne's lackey, Adam Smith.
As a matter of fact, the followers of Sarpi, and of Adam Smith, have actually no moral principles, and they are most emphatic in defending that profession. They are statisticians, or, what the better informed among them among them call "Liberals" in the likeness of John Locke, Adam Smith, and Jeremy Bentham, or, much worse, Bertrand Russell, for which latter there are no actual principles in a decent sense of the meaning of that term.
Amid those factors in history on both sides of the Atlantic, the Europeans have tended toward a pro-oligarchical outlook in doctrines of law, whereas, apart from our worst types of American Liberals, the American is distinguished morally from the more radically pro-oligarchical, eastern side of the Atlantic, an anti-American traditional view which appears to be the usual case among informed European observers; I am, disliked by them as representing an anti-oligarchical, more or less egalitarian view respecting the subjects of moral and scientific traditions. The pro-oligarchical trait is that often expressed by protests against American customs, such as: "What you say may be true; but in our country, under our anti-American, oligarchical law of libel, you are not permitted to say that publicly!"
Once you have taken into account, the argument supplied in the immediately preceding set of paragraphs, you are better equipped to understand the lack of any consistent sense of actually universal principle to be found, usually, in a philosophically Liberal sense of modern physical science. You must be prepared to understand the absolute lack of any actually principled notions of scientific morality in the teaching and practice of physical science among trans-Atlantic figures of the Liberal persuasion. For the followers of Paolo Sarpi, there are, as Adam Smith insisted in his Theory of the Moral Sentiments, no actually efficient principles in physical science, or, anywhere else. This is most clearly and simply demonstrated by considering the contrasting view of Kepler's uniquely original discovery of the principle of universal gravitation, that which has been provided by Albert Einstein.
Scientific principle may be located only in experimentally provable principles which are nonetheless not derivable from processes related to mathematical deduction. That same case, as provable for physical science, as by the genre of work of Albert Einstein, applies to culture generally. The experimental proofs of that principle, without resort to deductive means, are the essential foundations. That case is of relatively outstanding relevance within the context of the present report considered as a whole.
That said thus far. Now, conclude this present chapter with a series of steps providing a crucially significant conspectus for Albert Einstein's contributions to the study of the two most crucial implications of the uniquely original discovery of a general principle of gravitation by Johannes Kepler.
Einstein on Kepler
Focus, once more, upon Albert Einstein's notion of Kepler's discovery of a principle of universal gravitation, as its effect is shared among the Sun and several planets of the Solar system. Examine that subject-matter, once more, from the vantage-point of Einstein's view expressed by the phrase, finite but unbounded. Consider those implications of that reference by Einstein which pertain to the nature of what the human individual regards, rightly or wrongly, as the nature of the knowledge which the person believes, rightly or wrongly, to be the practical implication of the human individual's sensory experience. I refer, thus, to the same special subject-matter, on the actual nature of the relationship of human sense-experience to a contrasting principle of knowledge, a matter which I addressed at length in material which I published during the preceding year.
This time, in this present report, I take up that same matter from the vantage-point of defining the principles of a science of physical economy as necessarily superseding what have been adopted, until now, as the determinations of the systemically incompetent, but generally accepted notions of price-value relationships.
I do this in the context of the utter failure of all widely accepted doctrines of price-value relations in the currently prevailing practice of national and international economic relationships, up to the present date. The examination of those relationships, once providing the needed grounds for exploring that question, here, is then elaborated by me for application in the following, concluding chapter of this present report.
That much now said on the foregoing matters, turn, next, to a deeper examination of Albert Einstein's relevant insight into the depths of Johannes Kepler's uniquely original discovery of the function of gravitation within the Solar system.
An Anti-Entropic Universe
To repeat myself, Albert Einstein's crucial qualification of the uniquely original discovery of the principle of gravitation, by Johannes Kepler, was that the discovered principle defined a universe which is finite, but not (externally) bounded.
As I have emphasized in several published locations, the universe as we have come to know it, is rooted, essentially, in what must become recognized as a universal principle of change, a universal principle of creativity. On this account, since the work of Academician V.I. Vernadsky, we have come to recognize, from the vantage-point of our present knowledge, that the universe, as we have knowledgeable experience of it thus far, is composed of three types of phase-spaces: the abiotic (Vernadsky's experimental domain of a Lithosphere); living processes and their products, commonly classed as the Biosphere; and, a third category, that expressed by the noëtic powers specific to the human mind, the Noösphere defined by Vernadsky. All three of these categories of experience, compose a universe defined by a subsuming, universal anti-entropic principle.
Implicitly, this view of the universe is known to us, on record, as expressing a noëtic process. The best evidence bearing on this known to us, today, from ancient European culture, is the so-called Classical Greek from Thales and the Pythagoreans; it is "best known," not only because it is the most reliably traceable, from that time, through European cultural history, from that time to the present; but it is also the most relevant from the standpoint of the relatively most advanced practice of what is called "physical science" from that time through to the most advanced practice presently.
Of these three phases, only the third, Vernadsky's Noösphere, expresses a willful choice of transformation of that domain, and, therefore, the combined of all three domains. The Lithosphere and Biosphere are inherently anti-entropic domains, but not according to the direction associated with the notion of the creativity exerted specifically by the human will.
There lies the foundation of my unique contribution, taken directly, chiefly, from my realization of the implications of Bernhard Riemann's habilitation dissertation, to a science of physical economy, and thus to the uniqueness of my successes as a forecaster since the aftermath of February 1953.
The adoption of those implications which I came to attribute to Riemann's habilitation dissertation in that time-frame, prompted my adoption of a reversal of the more or less popular notion of the relationship among the universe, the individual person, and creativity; I was persuaded, more and more, to adopt the view that it is the action of human creativity on the universe, which is the domain of relationships within which the meaning of the individual human life is situated. This view: rather than the idea of considering the individual person's personal actions on the environment which he or she inhabits, as the source of relevant changes in the universal context in which society exists. That is to say, that we act, through personal creativity on the idea of the organization of the universe, to define the changes we work to bring about in the space and time of the environment which we inhabit. In that sense, I mean, here, that it is in only that sense, that man changes the environment he or she inhabits.
For some, this notion as I have just described it, does not really register; nonetheless, experience has shown me, and that sometimes richly, that that is actually the individual's proper relationship to both his, or her own life and the universal environment, in which the meaning of his or her life is ultimately registered.
This is what should be a natural impulse of persons who have found themselves, as a scientist or Classical artist, in the process of generating a coherently composed scientific discovery, or a work of Classical modes in artistic composition. One creates the idea of a universe, first, and then populates, and develops that universe accordingly, moving forward thus according to the remorseless standards of crucial-experimental methods of testing. Then, from that vantage-point, the conception is tested.
This is precisely the viewpoint which must be adopted by any individual person who wishes to understand how real economies really work: they are either designed, as if from the top down, or they certainly do not work well, and perhaps, like poor, failed President Barack Obama's, or foolish and mean Queen Elizabeth II's empire presently, worse than not at all.
This must be the viewpoint of any would-be economist, like Benjamin Franklin, or U.S. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, who thinks as an individual agent of a national, or world interest, as from the "top down." All among our own great Presidents were like that, or, as performances have shown, they were never great at all.
The Essential Point
The model of a great scientist, a great Classical artist, or a great statesman, lies in the devotion to provable principles of action which lie in a kind of spiritual mid-point, between the conception of the relevant process as coherent whole and the elaboration of the result as a coherent whole. We can take as an example of this, the manner in which a single-celled individual foetus, unfolds, often foreseeably, as a healthy and sane form of matured adult. It is the intention, expressed as the potential of the relevant single-celled foetus, which must be generated by the human mind for the shaping of the matured outcome of the root-conception. The root lies, prior to the single-celled idea, it lies within that which is the conception of a viable universality. That success may occur as if spontaneously; usually, it requires a bit of helpful interventions.
Nature seeks to accomplish this for the inanimate and the merely living species. For society, it is those willful creative powers of the human individual who think, creatively, as, for example, Johannes Kepler and Albert Einstein have done, or the greatest Classical artists, who are the great poets as Friedrich Schiller and, for his own part, Percy Shelley, have done.
Our bodies pass, as those of animals do; but it is the universal identity we express through the creativity, which is fairly describable as I have done here, which lives, and continues to act, on, and on, and on. It is on the discovered authority of that noëtic principle in ourselves, and in others, that we are properly obliged to act to change the universal, as it is our duty to do so. Progress is morality.
When we have come to view and govern ourselves, accordingly, we have become truly human.
IV. Value Versus Money
The systemic incompetence in the matter of forecasting, by most among today's economists, in particular, lies in the foolish presumption, that there is a basis in statistical method for competently defining a set of functionally determined relative monetary values among the components of an economy. Such intrinsic incompetence shown by most putatively leading economists of today, lies in the Liberal tradition of such followers of the school of Paolo Sarpi as Adam Smith and the other behaviorists.
Such are those wrong-headed notions of the followers of Smith et al., which are to be seen in the specific follies still practiced widely throughout the European economy, and also in the thinking among current ranks of among professional economists generally. I recognize that incompetence as it can be seen in the heritage of a specifically maritime form of imperialist economics, called monetarism, a mathematical scheme which has prevailed in the known history of European civilization from about the times of the Peloponnesian War and Aristotle, to the present day.
Notably, monetarism, has been distinct from, and opposite to that system set into motion within the founding of our United States of North America, as in the original Massachusetts Bay Colony under the leadership of the Winthrops and Mathers, and as "the American System of political-economy," that of the United States under Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and by the celebrated Mathew and Henry C. Carey, as by President Franklin Roosevelt.
However, were the world, including our United States, to continue to proceed now without a general abandoning of what have been the currently prevalent, European approaches to defining economy, without a general turn to what is the only actually available, competent alternative, the American System of political economy, the entire planet were now already sliding, at an accelerating rate, over the brink, into a general dark age, one far worse than that of Europe's Fourteenth Century. It would be a dark age, whose effects would, almost certainly, continue for several generations to come, plunging the level of the planet's population from more than six-and-a-half billions persons, to a deeply impoverished less than two, when our presently living generations would be remembered, vaguely, as a seemingly mythical, long-lost tribe.
It is my included aim here, to show the deep roots of the systemic nature of the difference between the British behaviorists' approach, and a modern economy under the U.S. constitutional American System of political economy; I mean that we must distinguish between a credit system, on the one side, and the American System's rivals found among typical economies in Europe today, on the other. To make a return of the U.S.A. to what was its constitutional credit system, it will be necessary to introduce the outlines of what is to be found in the underlying, essentially imperialist trend in the history of presently globally extended economies in Europe since the Peloponnesian War.
The discussion of that matter, to which this present chapter is devoted, makes it necessary to take the reader's attention through a summary of the several successive phases of, so to speak, peeling away the onion, peeling away more than three thousand years of the history of the civilization of certain regions of the combined history of both the Mediterranean littoral and the trans-Atlantic regions.
Economy & History
The essential incompetence, to date, of, in particular, most among today's economists working in the field of current European history, lies in their credulous presumption that there is either a rigidly neo-Euclidean geometry of an economic system, or else, a simply, algebraic-statistical, monetarist basis for defining a functionally determined set of relationships in their selected choices among the nominal values of the financial components of an economy. The sort of intrinsic incompetence in forecasting of nearly all among today's economists prevalent in modern history, is to be seen most clearly, through an understanding of the influence of the modern Liberal, Anglo-Dutch tradition of the followers of Paolo Sarpi.
It is, therefore, indispensable, that we recognize the wrong-headed quality inhering in the axiomatic follies currently practiced, as presumedly traditional statistical models, throughout the globally extended form of European economies currently. We must, at the same time, recognize the same kind of essential incompetence as that, as also reigning among the ranks of most professional economists in the United States itself; in that way, we must see what has become, since the Peloponnesian War, the heritage of a specifically maritime form of imperialism, otherwise called monetarism, as being that which has prevailed in the history of Europe from about the time of that Peloponnesian War, to the present day.
In considering the content of this present chapter of the report, we must recognize, that the interests which are expressed with reasonable clarity respecting the relationships among the principal, historical aspects of the subject-matter of what had become a European form of global economy, require that we approach the subject of modern world economy in a specific sort of clinical approach appropriate to its characteristics, an approach which is contrary to those notions usually encountered in the world's markets, textbooks, and customary legends on that subject.
The foremost source of the usual confusion, and of related difficulties in approaching the subject of political-economy, is what are usually wildly erroneous, both popular and prevalent professional misconceptions of the processes of human behavior in general, those self-righteous habits which have become the roots of our own, and Europe's willful self-destruction.
Briefly stated, this means that the needed remedy for the prevailing blunders made on this account, reflects what must come to be recognized as the systems of social relations within which societies are presumed to be organized. Those fallacious presumptions respecting social processes, are best examined as, essentially, a reflection of presently continuing, prevalent ignorance among professionals, reflecting their ignorance of that principle of dynamics which was introduced to modern science by Gottfried Leibniz during the 1690s, a science which echoes both the Classical Greek notion of dynamis and its modern revival, by Leibniz, launched under the rubric of dynamics.
For example, putting aside the collateral issues of the celebrated subject of the earlier Trojan War, the background of that later history of the Mediterranean region prior to what the ancient Greeks knew as "The Persian Wars," is filled with millennia of conflicts through which Europeans have passed since no later than the founding of the great Pyramids of Giza, spanning the times which included the quarrels among ancient Hittites, Babylonians and Egyptians, and others. Or, similarly, to be recognized in the maritime conflicts in evidence from the Mediterranean back to approximately the Seventh Century B.C.'s, alliance among the group of Etruscan, Ionian, and Egyptian maritime powers, which had been mustered against the alliance of the maritime power of both Tyre and the inland powers of near Asia.
In similar fashion, the better known references to the so-called Persian Wars, bring us up to the verge of the rise of European civilization of that Hellenic period's history as such. Then, the forces of Asia allied with the Apollo-Dionysos cult of Delphi, organized the self-destruction of Greek maritime power through a Delphic attempt to establish a relatively dominant role of an alliance of Philip's Macedon and the Persian empire, over self-ruined Greece and also Egypt-Cyrenaica, all done in the course of an attempt, associated with the rise of the influence of Aristotle since the death of Plato, to establish a combined oligarchical power represented by the combined resources of both Mesopotamia and the Macedonians. In turn, in some time after Alexander had triumphed in India, he was soon dead, after one attempted poisoning by the circles of his enemy Aristotle, and an actual poisoning suspected to have been arranged by Aristotle.
The essential consideration in that part of the ancient history of the known world, is the persisting, principled conflict between republican interests, which came to be typified by Plato on the one side, and oligarchical interests typified by the cult of Delphi and Aristotle on the other: in brief, the conflict of principle between Prometheus and Apollo-Dionysos.
Before Aristotle, the so-called Classical Greeks, as represented by the voices of Aeschylus, Socrates, Archytas, Plato, et al., had represented a cultural dynamic which was specifically contrary to that which emerged rapidly from the economic and cultural ruin brought about in the Peloponnesian War. Modern strategists should take note, that there is a remarkable similarity of those cases to be studied, in comparing the ruin of Greece by the Peloponnesian War, and the London-steered wrecking of the United States through the U.S. Indo-China war which was set into motion through the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
Percy Shelley, Again
To summarize the point about history just being made here, I refer again to Percy Bysshe Shelley's crucial point respecting a principle of cultural history illustrated in the concluding paragraph of his A Defence of Poetry. As I emphasize, in clarifying the true nature of a science of economy within the following pages of this present chapter, that, whereas, the individual intellect is crucial in the shaping of history of societies, the ordering of that process among individual intellects, is not located primarily in simply kinetic-like interactions among either individuals or relatively small and usually factitious groupings.
History, and competent forecasting, alike, are products of a long arm of dynamics, as Gottfried Leibniz defined it for specifically physical science, and for a more broadly defined "cultural dynamics," which spans not only generations, but even centuries of a culture, and of interacting cultures. The individual acts upon the cultural dynamic within which each among us is situated, and, then, in turn, it is the effect embodied in the developments, as by individuals, within the bounds of that dynamic as Gottfried Leibniz contrasted the modern concept of dynamics to the silliness of Cartesian beliefs, during the 1690s, which is the action of society upon itself.
In that long-ranging process which is dynamics, the individual intellect does play a decisive role, but not in a simply kinematic-like way. Rather, the individual's voluntary powers, which are otherwise to be studied as expressions of individual intellectual creativity, act on the mass-processes of cultural dynamics, rather than by the historically much weaker means of "kinematical" expressions of individual and small-group interactions. That is the proper choice of meaning for the term "social dynamics."
The distinctive quality of the heritage of our U.S. republic, for example, has been in its character as a dynamical system set into motion within the origins and development of our modern United States of North America, a system which became known as the principle underlying the dynamics internal to "the American System of political-economy." Such have been the dynamics of the direction of development of the United States, contrary to the cultural trends reigning in and over Europe thus far, an American dynamics expressed under Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and by the celebrated Mathew and Henry C. Carey, as by President Franklin Roosevelt.
Without a general abandonment of the recently current European approaches to economy, without a turn to the only actually available, competent alternative, that which was once recognized among our own greatest patriots as the American system, and its European co-thinkers, the entire planet were now already sliding, chiefly by its own apparent instincts, and that at an accelerating rate, into the crumbling rim of what now threatens to continue, immediately, as an already accelerating slide, since no later than the Summer of 2007, into a general dark age worse than that of Europe's Fourteenth Century. The effects of such a continued trend's effects, would be fairly estimated to continue for several generations, plunging the level of the planet's population from more than six-and-a-half billions persons, to a fairly estimated, deeply impoverished population of less than two billions.
To understand the nature of the systemic difference between a modern economy under the U.S. constitutional American System of political economy, which is a credit system, rather than a monetary system, on the one side, and the American System's rivals among typical European economies, on the other, the European monetarist systems, I present some indispensable remarks which serve to introduce the outlines of a representation of the actual, essentially imperialist history of presently globally extended European economy since the Peloponnesian War.
The discussion of that matter, to which this present chapter is devoted, will take the readers' attention through several successive phases of, so to speak, peeling the economic onion.
The Roots of the Present Crisis
To bring elements of competence into any discussion of U.S. history here, the discussion of its economic history, most notably, we must proceed by considering a certain set of carefully selected, historical circumstances, being as presented by the relevant clinical evidence on which the study must be essentially based. Therefore, we must abandon the diseased popular faith in "chronicalism," for the comprehension of history as a lawfully dynamic process, rather than a ricocheting among the pin-balls of particular events.
The idea of principle which underlies the origins of the specifically republican form of organization of a society, means that what is to be recognized as the intention of the American System of political-economy, would take our attention to a time which, for the modern reader, would be considered as relatively far back in known history, to roots found chiefly in the generally known history of the conflicts prior to the establishment of the Roman Empire, a division among Europe and Egypt on the one side, and near Asia on the other. The design which has brought the world the relatively closest, so far, to resolving that conflict for today's practical purposes, to satisfying that intention is relatively recent historically, in modern Europe, dating from about the time of the proceedings leading into and out of the A.D. 1439 great ecumenical Council of Florence. The work of this Council takes us into the domain of modern nation-state-economy, as by the great reforms of France's King Louis XI, who was followed in such a persuasion by his admirer, England's Henry VII.
The aims of that late Fifteenth-century, European reform, had then been nearly obliterated by the long A.D. 1492-1648 period of the interrelated, Habsburg reigns and recurring religious warfare throughout Europe. Nonetheless, even prior to the A.D. 1648 European Treaty of Westphalia, which concluded a century and a half of religious warfare throughout Europe, the aims of the Treaty of Westphalia were already being realized, in essentials, in the succession of the A.D. 1620 founding of the Plymouth colony, in the settlement of what was to become known as Massachusetts, and in early, A.D. 1628 development of the Massachusetts Bay Colony under the leadership of the Winthrops and Mathers.
Although the Massachusetts Bay Colony itself was crushed by the repressions launched under, first, England's James II and, then, William of Orange, the subsequent actions led by Gottfried Leibniz, both in England and radiated more widely, since the reign of England's Queen Anne, set into motion that process of reform, led by Leibniz, which came to be expressed by Massachusetts-born Benjamin Franklin, which, in turn, led to the secured establishment of the republic of the United States of America in A.D. 1776, and the consolidation of that victory since the Battle of Yorktown.
The deep roots of the American System itself, can be traced, essentially, from within, by aid of due regard for those European roots traceable, largely, to the influence of Nicholas of Cusa, developments which were, thus, in the direction of what became the U.S.A.'s own approach. Nonetheless, a similar effort had been made under a medieval forerunner of modern European economy, under the protectionist system of development which is to be recognized as having been pioneered under the regime of Charlemagne.
Yet, despite the persisting influence of what had been the work of Charlemagne, and, similar effects, and despite the fact that had been shown frankly if only for brief times in later, Fifteenth-century, and as still later in modern Europe, there were great advances under such as France's Louis XI and his follower, England's Henry VII. Under the conditions in medieval Europe during the earlier period, including that period which had followed Charlemagne's death, the conditions under the rule of the enemies of Charlemagne's legacy had been terribly destructive, and decadent. Such had been the decadent conditions characteristic under, most notably, the Norman rule, the Byzantine empire, the spin-off from a failing Byzantine power, and, in general, the political-economic systems of modern and medieval Europe itself.
"Current events" and actual history lie in two opposing universes of the imagination.
In fact, since the Peloponnesian War, Europe has been dominated by the pro-imperialist monetarist model, still today, with the very brief exceptions here and there, to the present date. More recently, Europe has been dominated by the British empire, since, actually, the then newly formed British Foreign Office in 1782, since the separation, in that same year, of Britain's peace-treaty negotiations with the U.S.A., France, and Spain, each separately.
Here, in such and related features of the distinction of the American system from the European oligarchical legacy, lies the key to the essential understanding required for defeating the presently onrushing plunge of the planet as a whole, a plunge into the direction of a rather immediately threatening collapse of the entire planet into a prolonged new dark age.
So, in modern times, as since modern Europe's leadership under such exceptional, progressive leaders such as France's Louis XI and England's Henry VII, leaders who provide us today with a memorable contrast to the inherently defective, post-Henry VII conditions, true success in sustaining real progress has been relatively rare. The religious warfare whose recurring expressions dominated the European history of 1492-1648, as, also, the recurring state of warfare in Europe itself since the wars into which France's foolish Louis XIV was enticed by the Sarpian, Anglo-Dutch Liberals of that time, has been an outstanding, persisting factor. It is that implicitly imperialist, Sarpian form of European model, which has dominated Anglo-Dutch Liberal and wider Europe during most of the time since the accession of King George I, especially since the British orchestration of the so-called Seven Years War, a latter development which typifies that British legacy which has continued to dominate most of the history of Europe and of much of the rest of the world, as well, since that time.
So, we must see things, in the broader sweep of the history of a specifically European, maritime-power-based imperialist system. That has been a system which has been dominated under the rule by a maritime form of international monetarism, from the Peloponnesian War up to the present day. We should recognize the true origin of that chronic disease of the habit of recurrent periods of moral decadence which is, once again, being presently expressed as the presently onrushing, global economic breakdown-crisis which is reigning at the moment this report is written.
A modern European form of imperialism added some unique features, but the root-stock of the relevant, chronic disease of Europe's culture, dates from no later than the span from the Peloponnesian War to the present day.
The Myths and Truths About Karl Marx
Karl Marx was not an important figure in history, except in his peculiar role as a walking myth created by the British Foreign Office under the reign of Lord Palmerston. As a myth, first created as an agent of Mazzini by Palmerston's Foreign Office, his influence was, for a time, notable, as in the public meeting in London where Giuseppe Mazzini, personally, appointed Marx to head the International Workingmen's Association on Lord Palmerston's behalf. It was as a ghost, fabricated from Marx's literary grave, by the British intelligence service's Frederick Engels, as this role was continued by the British intelligence asset Alexander Helphand, a.k.a. "Parvus," that the name of Karl Marx the myth dominated, almost exactly, a single century, from Helphand's meeting with Frederick Engels, on the Fabians' behalf in the 1890s, to the ruin of the Soviet Union at the hands of such as British asset Mikhail Gorbachov.
In that specific way, the name and spoor of Karl Marx has a place in the architecture of the way in which that period of history was shaped.
The motives which sent the Pilgrim fathers and the founders of the Massachusetts Bay Colony from Europe into the settlements in New England, were excellent. Still to this day, the principal source of evil on this planet considered in the large, has been the influence of the British empire, including the imperialist system into which Lord Palmerston's certainly unwitting but busy lackey, Karl Marx, was indoctrinated, a system which has exerted overall domination of Europe, increasingly, with some brief intermittent exceptions, since the 1782 launching of the imperialist British Foreign Office.
Consider the outcome of what has been identified here, in this present chapter thus far:
European imperialism, when properly defined more broadly, is, paradigmatically, a product of a maritime form of the imperialism which rose to power, excepting the interval of great progress under systems buttressed by the Charlemagne program of inland waterways enhanced by canals. Otherwise, that period of history prior to the rise of the modern European nation-state under the impact of the Fifteenth Century's great ecumenical Council of Florence, lived under the relatively meager inland conditions of development of territories and their associated conditions, conditions which rendered Europe unable to meet the implied demands for inland development during those times prior to the development of intercontinental railways within the United States.
Such has been the evolution of economic "arrangements" since about the time of the triumph of the maritime interests which had been typified by the control in the hands of the monetarist power of the Cult of Delphi, with its disgusting myth of the Apollo-Dionysus cult, a cult which has been the paradigm for the principal forms of moral and intellectual corruption of Europe, since the outbreak and outcome of the Peloponnesian War, even to the present day of trans-Atlantic economic systems. The essential characteristic of this European imperialism, still to the present day, when these lines are being written, is monetarism, the practice of that ritual of sodomic worship of some attributed notion of an intrinsic value of mere money.
Poor Karl Marx knew no better than to believe as he did.
Notably, the European maritime-based model of imperialism, echoes some similar features found, historically, in Asian imperialisms, that in the respect that the empire is composed of a collection of subject entities, some of whom have been nominally nation-states, but all of which are under the subjugation of an overriding form of concerted, superior agency of combined military and monetary power. The role of Venetian interest since the beginning of the decline of Byzantium, approximately 1000 A.D., to the British re-costuming of that same monetarist power, that as a re-costuming of the Venetian model which has dominated England, for example, since Henry VIII, and is presently continued and typified by the wildly inflated financial claims of the Inter-Alpha Group of Lord Rothschild et al. still today. That is the most typical model of the presently, globally extended (e.g., British) imperialism in the world at large, today.
It is the specifically monetarist character of the presently dominant, international economic system, which defines that system as intrinsically imperialist. It is that imperialist trait, as typified by the fascist-leaning doctrines of that highly eccentric British foe of U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, John Maynard Keynes, which serves as a point of comparative reference for understanding the monetarist characteristics of the international imperialist system of today.
It is that monetarist form of imperialism, now centered on the presently ruined financial condition of the presently most inglorious British monetarist empire, which is the key for understanding the characteristics, including the onrushing doom of what the British Queen Elizabeth II bragged as being her empire, as on the occasion of the eve of the recent Copenhagen "summit" of the reigning British world empire-in-fact of today. Lord Rothschild and his associates, of the Inter-Alpha Group, are merely typical of that empire. Today, British imperialism is associated with the absolutely shameless lying expressed by its discredited "global warming" fraud, and by the rubric of a new name for world-wide Roman empire, called "globalization." It is presently typified, for example, by such implicitly pro-genocidalist practices as the patenting of genetics of essential foodstuffs of the world by corporate entities operating under post-1970, nakedly imperialist practices of not-unintended methods of "population control," e.g., literally a "business of genocide," as patented and thus practiced by Monsanto, et al.
So, to understand what might seem to foolish people, to be merely some sort of a consensus among modern European economies today, we must recognize that that rejection of the constitutional form of the American System of political-economy, by the traditional monetarism of today's European nations and their imitators, is a cancerously ruinous rejection of the constitutional principles on which the very existence of the U.S. republic was premised, from its beginnings. This latter point, identifies precisely the view which supplies us the starting-point, as I proceed here, which any competent discussion of the urgently needed reforms of economic policies must reference today.
Without identifying the historically determined, systemic differences between the American System of political-economy, and what are recognized as the traditionally pro-oligarchical tendencies in European systems, still today, there could be no rational examination of the causes and remedies for the onrushing general breakdown-crisis coming down on the world at large, at the present moment.
Europe's Roots as Seen by Our American System
Putting aside special cases from the period preceding Europe's infamous Fourteenth-century "New Dark Age," such as the astonishingly progressive, much earlier period of the medieval system of France's Charlemagne, a specifically modern form of European society and its economy, was launched, through such instruments as the A.D. 1439 great ecumenical Council of Florence, under the auspices of what were efforts to re-establish a greatly damaged Papacy from the remains of that which had been ruined in the course of what were largely Venetian schemes and developments preceding and accompanying that great "Dark Age."
The new European civilization of the Fifteenth-century "Golden Renaissance," was launched by the great ecumenical Council of Florence, as a science-driver form of culture. Modern science, thus, superseded Romantic superstition.
That Fifteenth-century Renaissance, which had inaugurated modern European civilization with the great ecumenical Council of Florence, was centered around such secular leaders of a revival of physical science by the Filippo Brunelleschi who used the physical principle expressed by a non-Euclidean function, the catenary, to craft an otherwise impossible cupola of Florence's Santa Maria del Fiore, and by the scientific and religious brilliance expressed in Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa's launching of what became the principled foundations of all competent expressions of a comprehensive form of modern European science. From A.D. 1439-1440, onwards, as continued through the reigns of France's Louis XI and of England's Henry VII who was an admirer of Louis XI's achievements in peace and economic development, a new conception of society and of its economy emerged within a Fifteenth-century challenge to European civilization to reform.
So it was, that the conception which inspired Christopher Columbus to follow the map provided to Columbus by the followers of Nicholas of Cusa, had been inspired by the intent of a since-deceased Nicholas of Cusa, and by the work of Cusa's surviving associates. Columbus accomplished the initial goal of Cusa in his trans-Atlantic voyages; but, that great navigator's efforts suffered the unintended misfortune of his inability to prevent what were to become the failures of the American colonies of the Iberian peninsula, which led to the fall into the imperial hands of the wretched Habsburg tyrannies. So, the great intention behind the voyages of Columbus, the "jelling," so to speak, of the intention of Cusa and his circles, was relegated to the time of the founding of the Plymouth settlement, and that of Massachusetts under the gifted, mid-Seventeenth-century leadership of the Winthrops and Mathers.
The issue of the moral failure of Europe, as such a problem whose urgent correction had been pointed out in one form, by Cusa himself, was that "Old Europe," was, despite the good intentions of many European leaders of various sorts in modern times, that that leadership never managed to escape the grip of the old Roman imperial and medieval Europe's oligarchical quality of cultural legacies, that not fully even to the present day.
In summary of that aspect of the relevant history: the birth of a true modern republic in North America, was delayed until those settlements in early Sixteenth-century Massachusetts which were established under the leadership of such as the Winthrops and Mathers. This was an inspiring development, which was revived, and thus continued, with aid of the influence of Gottfried Leibniz's influence among the circles of England's Queen Anne, and was revived through the support provided by such Europeans as the circles of the great protagonist of Leibniz and Johann Sebastian Bach, the leading mathematician of the Eighteenth Century, Göttingen university's leading scientific figure of that time, and leader among the ranks of the Eighteenth Century Renaissance, Abraham Kästner.
So, with help from Kästner and his circles, the increasing influence of the circles which emerged as leaders in North America's development, following the catastrophes greeting the attempts of the 1688-1709 interval, continued their commitment to revival of the intention which had been associated with the Winthrops and Mathers, as their role in the birth of what became known as the American System of political-economy under the leadership of Benjamin Franklin and his circles of associates. Alexander Hamilton emerged among the leaders of this great achievement, in his role as both a collaborator and follower of Franklin, and as the leading architect of what became known as the American System of political-economy.
The crucial difference between the constitutional form of the American System of political-economy, as the name has became famously associated with U.S. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, in contrast to the systems of Europe, lay in two closely interrelated sets of facts.
The first of these was the set of unfortunate facts about Europe, the lamentable preservation of the oligarchical tradition of Europe, as this was affirmed from 1812-15 onward, that by an impetus supplied by the Congress of Vienna, within the constitutional traditions and social conventions of the nations of Europe.
The second was, as warned by the father of Henry C. Carey, Mathew Carey, the recurring tendency for ruin of the still vulnerable United States' mission by the corrupt, and often evil British imperialism's influence expressed in such special forms as the existence of London's treasonous U.S. subsidiary inside the U.S.A., "Wall Street," still to the present moments under the succession of those national disasters known, respectively, as George W. Bush, Jr. and Barack Obama.
Worse, over the span from Lord Shelburne's 1782 manipulations of France and Spain into separate peace-negotiations, also respectively separate from the United States, Shelburne's new, 1782, creation of a new British institution, the Foreign Office, managed to pit virtually every nation of continental Europe against one another's throat, all done as a re-enactment of the process by which the British East India Company had secured imperial powers, through playing the continental powers of Europe against one anothers' throats, during the so-called "Seven Years War." The Napoleonic wars featured Napoleon himself as the ultimately doomed, soon used-up British dupe, whose warfare and sheer banditry consolidated the British Empire's control over continental Europe, for most of the time, to this very present moment. Napoleon, once used up, was tossed away to die on a remote island to which he was abandoned by his habitually ungrateful British masters.
So, with the death of U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and the inauguration of the disgusting President Harry S Truman, the affirmation of the American System of political-economy, which had occurred under the leadership of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, was overturned, step by step, from the day after President Roosevelt had died, onward, to the present time. The assassination of President John F. Kennedy, an event which was organized to end President Kennedy's resistance to entering what turned out to be a ruinously wasting, ten-year war in Indo-China, was the most essential step in the British undoing of the United States since the death of that President Kennedy, up to the present moment this is written.
My personal intention in writing of such matters as those, here, is to correct the widespread, false views of what that history actually represents for my own republic, and for the benefit of the nations of our planet generally.
That much said in opening this present chapter, thus far, turn now, step-wise, to the physical theory which underlies a competent, historical approach to the science of economy, as follows:
4.1 The Individual's Identity in Society
That much said, turn back to the subject of science of physical economy as such. I present that case for economics, as situated in history, as follows.
For us today, as most notable among what may be classed as a crucial flaw or two in the strategic thinking of our republic on such matters as these, there is the fact that we have lately lost the salutary influence of the earlier generations of actually competent historians in such strategically crucial locations of influence as our universities. Today, those who would tend to be classified, nominally, as historians or economists, are, most often, merely of a much lower intellectual virtue than even that of mere chroniclers; they are, mostly, poorly advised fellows such as the mere gossips whose influence appears to dominate the editorial opinion of our public (or, is it "pubic"?) news media. That puts the proverbial finger-tip on the most crucial moral, and also strategic problem suffered by our republic at this time.
Turn back to a point of reference which has arisen repeatedly in earlier portions of this present report, turn to a point on the subject-matter of defining strategic perspectives for both our U.S.A., and for the world at large. That issue is to be traced to the considerations developed in the preceding chapters in this report, as follows.
There is a presently pervasive failure among nations generally, a failure both to achieve, and to maintain their presumed intention to provide the sundry peoples of the world a decent sense of what a human being actually represents. This is to be classed as a specifically economic failure, a fault which may be safely identified, in turn, as the greatest of the causes of ruinous performances by the majorities of the peoples, and of most among the current leaders of the world's nations and their cultures since the turn represented by the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and the later, Springtime uproar of the so-called "68ers."
On the other hand, in contrast to the eruption of the "68ers," what might be imagined to have been the invention, in effect, of the design of the human individual personality, is a development to be considered as having been, as the wisest theologians may have perceived this, among the greatest achievements of the known universe. Unfortunately, whereas each he and she are wonderful as creations, it most often appears that someone has mislain the set of instructions which were supposed to have been supplied as if "in the box," with the delivery of that "manufacturer's" new-born instrument. Hence, the presently urgent need for the services of some actually competent historians, could one or two such be found still in working condition, rather than being, at best, mere chroniclers instead. We have persons who claim to make history, but, it seems, that what they produce are essentially little better than gossip and confusion about the subject of history; they are persons who seem to enjoy the rank of putative authorities on history, but seem content to remain in ignorance of that subject itself.
This brings us, now, to a matter which is proximate to, but does not yet reach the crucial point of this entire report. Therefore, we must take time to deal with this present, intervening subject-matter here and now.
The conventional, and rather foolish presumption of most among our citizens, presently, is the notion of oneself as a form of what should be regarded as a special kind of what might be described as "self-owned property." This fault is expressed as the idea that what is presumed to be going on inside a certain kind of "personal territory," represents an imagined "territory" which is considered to be one's personal sovereignty, as if it might be considered as comparable to the legal ownership of a piece of territory. Such defective aspects in that which is presently customary belief, have sown confusion into the idea of personal human identity, by counterposing what is actually a quite different idea, and a wrong one at that: the idea of the individual person himself, or herself, as "property," or, said more frankly, "self-slavery," a slave hoping for a responsible master.
Here lies an underlying source of the general incompetence of those called economists today. Those economists should be asked: "I am my brother's keeper, but who is yours?"
What, actually, is that within us, as persons, which we might imagine is an existing "ours" within us?
The mistaken direction of most popular opinion expressed by individuals on account of this customary misunderstanding, lies in such examples of conditioned presumption as, that "we," as individuals, are each essentially concentrated in the guises of existing persons suffering from their the notion of a certain kind of sense of self. It is an imagined self which is presumed, implicitly, to be embodied within the "territory" demarked for us by the passions associated with the implied borders of our presumed experience with our own, private sense-certainties.
The worst of the trends of belief in that direction, is typified by the essentially feral sort of notion of "my sovereign self," which is the characteristic moral depravity of that modern European existentialist standpoint which has been definitely thrown, as Martin Heidegger proposed, but to an unknown "where?"
It should have been obvious, that the root of that sort of pathological, but, unfortunately, prevalently popular disposition, is to be found, in the role of those passions associated with notions of "sense-certainty," such as the notions of "me and my property." The tendency of what are the self-important, but relatively culturally illiterate persons, is to equate our existence with naive sense-experience as such, a view which is a crucial moral fault. Pleasure and pain serve for them as the implicitly titled property-lines of personal individuality. Yet, the thoughtful scientist should have recognized that none of those egotistical fantasies are true.
Consider what might be termed "the anatomy" of personal experience, as follows.
As I have emphasized earlier in this present report, and on relevant earlier occasions, the first crucial error of the presumptions commonly encountered in our typical citizen today, is the presumption that the images of sense-perception are the self-evident expression of the reality we inhabit. As Johannes Kepler showed, in both his discovery of the physical principle expressed as the elliptical planetary orbit, and, later, the more crucial principle of universal gravitation:
The consequent conclusion to be drawn, runs as follows.
In that sense, those "shadows" are not fantastic in themselves, but may appear so under the influence of the folly of those who read those mere shadows as being reality in and of themselves.
Therefore, our task, as that is defined by living within the poor quality of the information supplied by our mere faculties of sense-perception, is to clear away the prevalent, popular and other confusion on this account. We may succeed in accomplishing that, by turning to a higher authority than mere sense-perceptions, to the power of human reason, the power to locate and address that specific reality which has cast those shadows with which we are familiar as what we may tend to believe are the authority of mere sense-perceptions.
Kepler's discovery of the universal principle of gravitation which unites our Solar system, is an example of this problem encountered in addressing this problem which arises in our search for an access to reality.
Thus, true science begins at the point that we acknowledge the efficient presence of an agency, which we might choose to identify, not as "brain," but as "mind," rather than as mere sense-perceptions, an agency which, in fact, is, in turn, only a mediator of a higher order of agency. "Brain" is a physical organ; "mind" is the state of the process which, contrary to the credulities of the reductionists, is of great importance as a source of support for that function which we should recognize as the ontological actuality of "mind." "Mind" inhabits, among those organs, such as the "brain." The house and the inhabitant, are not the same, either in identity, or ontology.
The challenge expressed as the well publicized case of Helen Keller, is relevant on this point.
Get out on a clear night, when the Moon is at its weakest power to distract our attention, and ask yourself: "What do I see up there?" "Do I see, perhaps, a vast expanse speckled with shining little objects, hither and yon? Or, do I see the field of such objects as a single, perfectly unified, active form of organization-in-motion of what appears to be a unified sky itself?"
The answer to such questions, comes more readily, using the term "readily" somewhat loosely, when some very much smarter among our ancient human ancestors employed the starry night-time sky as a guide to trans-oceanic navigation, or one might use a pair of very deep wells as a scientific astronomical instrument, as Eratosthenes might have done. Or, take the case of Bal Gangadhar Tilak's study presented in his book Orion.
As Einstein argued, referring to the work of genius by Johannes Kepler, the universe, when considered functionally, is, in the first approximation, finite, defined as an object, not by visual objects, but by its experimentally definite, lawfully unifying, dynamic organization of the action considered. Hence, the manner in which Johannes Kepler made his uniquely original discovery of a physical principle of gravitation, through consideration of the fact that, at a minimum, two contrary qualities of sense-perception, vision and the harmonics of hearing, were needed to define an experimentally valid identity of a physical principle of gravitation for the Solar-systemic array.
The principle of gravitation lies in the coherence which expresses the functional unity of the array; hence, implicitly defining a concept of "finiteness," as Einstein attributes that to Kepler's discovery of the Solar system as being a universal system within its own domain.
`The Power of Reason'
At this point in the report we have entered fully into a domain of reality which lies outside the customary, mistaken notions of the meaning of "fact." Instead of a notion of fact as being a simple statement of a-priori authority of an act of sense-perception, we are in a domain in which the definition of "sense perception" can no longer be presumed to correspond to a simple sort of layman's notion of the experience of "fact." We have entered, thus, into a domain in which the use of perception as an authority is, in and of itself, a lie, since it is the fallacies inherent in reliance on simple perception, which, in their relatively best performance, are the mere shadow of reality, and are often, actually, functionally speaking, not reality, but are even lies as such; therefore, sense-perceptions here are often, inherently, a false representation of experience, as the victims of Weimar Germany's 1923 hyperinflation could attest.
In the case of Kepler's uniquely original discovery of a universal physical principle of gravitation, true universal physical principles, as were first defined, gravitation is the expression of a unifying principle which transformed a mere scattering of stars and planets, into not only a unified process of a single, functional system as the knowable object of conception, but as the principled identity which defined that system as, functionally, a single, object expressing a power far superior to perception, a conception of a power contrary to the systemic irrationalism of such modern followers of Paolo Sarpi as the so-called "Newtonians," or the mere behaviorist Adam Smith argued in his Theory of the Moral Sentiments.
Thus, the universe is not a fixed entity, but the unified single process of a developing organization, an endless, noëtic unfolding of higher states of organization of a finite, yet unboundedly unfolding process expressed by ongoing, higher development of universality. These two qualities, finiteness but also limitless qualitative development of principleanti-entropy!define what we actually know about that universe which we inhabit. We are thus confronted by the concept of Creation in its purest known expression available to mankind.
Yet, is that a key to what might be properly regarded as ultimate knowledge? Not at all.
This, now stated, has much deeper implications bearing on the great existential question: who are we, and why? What about Bernhard Riemann, and about Einstein and Vernadsky after him? What about the true nature of the human individual, and of his or her mind?
The Great Irony of History
I have written above, briefly, on the often outrightly lying quality of what is mistaken for the self-evident authority of "literal" sense-perception. Consider the following rough sketch of the array of the successively ordered degrees of perfection of the states of mind respecting what might be presumed to be perceived on the map of the human mind's experience which I have identified here thus far.
Man acts on the universal, by situating the particular within the universalities of the dynamic, as Leibniz did for physical science, and as Shelley did for the social process in his A Defence of Poetry, and then applying the standpoint of the dynamic to the particular object, such as a phenomenon.
Thus, to summarize, once more, that set of relations: the individual perception and a related action are situated, separately and combined, within a dynamic akin to what is described by Percy Bysshe Shelley, for example, as in the concluding paragraph of Shelley's A Defence of Poetry, or in terms of a dynamical domain as defined by Gottfried Leibniz. It is not the direct "kinetic" transactions, as if represented by images of kinetic bumping among objects in a Cartesian or like space. The crucial "connections" are the influence of the individual on the dynamic, and the particular reaction of the individual to the dynamic, as by the individuals in the affected domain. The cases of arguments by Max Planck and Wolfgang Köhler toward such an estimation, are relevant illustrations of the problems to be considered in seeking to define the general concept of the whole process for which the objects in motion are symptomatic of what the mind must recognize.
No more simple sorts of sociological kinematics! The really effective actions by the individual human mind, are actions upon the relatively universal, a relevant form of effect which is, then, in turn, experienced by the individuals within that dynamic domain. The case of the phenomenon of the so-called "mass strike," famously presented by Rosa Luxemburg, is a relevant illustration of precisely this point respecting the role of mind over matter.
There is, perhaps, no better, relatively simple illustration of that conception than a competent consideration of the way in which real economies can be made to perform competently:
Such is the universe of Johannes Kepler, as viewed by the mind of Albert Einstein.
In a competent understanding of economic processes, the same conception of dynamics which I have outlined in terms of the seven indicated steps outlined above, applies.
4.2 `Economy & The Book of Changes!'
The doctrines of Adam Smith are as poisonous as the bite of a little krait snake, but like that snake, those doctrines themselves, may be successfully employed, clinically, to illustrate a concept of a principle, as I do here in beginning this section of the present chapter.
That role of a concept of "changes" to be expressed in European culture, pertains to the notion of what was known as dynamis in ancient Classical European culture, and as dynamics in the modern version of that same principle by Gottfried Leibniz. In both cases, the term refers to a specific faculty of human creativity which does not exist within the domain of a mathematics of counting numbers; it exists in physical science only among those special principles which reign over, and bound what might appear to be countable magnitudes. For example, in physical science, it pertains to the domain of universal physical principles as such, not to mathematics otherwise. For an example of this distinction, consider how Albert Einstein's identification of the discovery of a universal physical principle of gravitation, as pertaining to a finite but unbounded universe illustrates this category. Or the principled distinction among the Lithosphere, Biosphere, and Noösphere for Russia's Academician V.I. Vernadsky.
In the case of Percy Bysshe Shelley's A Defence of Poetry, dynamics is the relevant concept of that notion of efficient principles whose influence bounds a systemic category of mass behavior among a population in a certain time and condition, as distinguished from the patterns of behavior of the same population under a different, but comparable such higher order of principle, a distinction to which Shelley refers there in the following terms in the conclusion of his A Defence of Poetry:
The implications of that celebrated passage from Shelley's A Defence of Poetry, are to be recognized as paralleling the argument by Gottfried Leibniz in Leibniz's exposure of the incompetence of Rene Descartes' farcical claims of being a scientist. The distinction appears in a related matter, in the fact that the attacks on Leibniz by those circles orchestrated jointly by the promoter of Isaac Newton as a "synthetic Descartes," by Abbé Antonio S. Conti and by Conti's accomplice Voltaire, a pair which launched their fraudulent attack on the Leibniz calculus, after Leibniz's death. Or, contrast the published debates between Albert Einstein and a Max Born who just plain did not, and probably could not get Einstein's point, without abandoning the inherently reductionist mysticism of the axiomatically positivist standpoint of David Hilbert's program.
Perhaps the best way to state the issue here in the plainest possible choice of words, is that the opponents of Kepler, Leibniz, Einstein, et al., "just, simply did not get the point," a stubbornly wrong-headed Born most conspicuously. Such opponents simply did not get the point, because the real universe did not exist for them; their arguments were mathematical, essentially, but it was a mathematics which did not exist in the real world.
The Einstein-Born dispute is a most apt choice of case in point. Einstein was a physical scientist whose greatest achievements in his fields were a reflection of the influence of Bernhard Riemann; whereas, Born was assimilated into an early Twentieth-century, elite circle of positivists including the celebrated David Hilbert, and fell in with the same following of Bertrand Russell known as the reductionist "Copenhagen School."
The Einstein-Born controversy has a special quality of clinical interest for reason of the way it demonstrates the systemic quality of difference between the true physicist and mathematical physicist, as Hilbert's famous failure in his attempt to become a modern Aristotle of physics, by defeating the physics of Bernhard Riemann in defining the possibility of reducing physics to an axiomatic mathematics shows. It is universal principles of physics which define competent mathematics for physics, as Johannes Kepler's uniquely original discovery of universal gravitation shows. Thus, the mind of the human individual dwells within what may be termed euphemistically as a cultural architecture, as typified by Einstein's application of "finite, but not bounded," to describe Kepler's great discovery of gravitation.
Similarly, most of the sweeping changes in political world-outlook which often overtook entire strata of a population, or even an entire nation's current choice of cultural matrices.
The particular irony of that sort, on this particular occasion, is that a large portion of the U.S. population, among that of other nations, is stubbornly gripped by a cultural paradigm from which they would soon virtually cease to survive, if they did not soon change their paradigm.
Such is the current nature of the crisis menacing the trans-Atlantic world at this moment. Change your choice of paradigm, or prepare for your present national culture's self-inflicted extinction.
In the intrinsically incompetent notions of a body of practice which is often called "economics," the notions of pricing of commodities, are usually to be traced by popular opinion, chiefly, as from those more or less arbitrary presumptions of a so-called "market,"as "market" is defined according to the presumed monetarist characteristics of imperialist models of social systems. However, as the worthlessness of markets in attempts to induce "an upswing" in U.S. markets since the mid-1960s warns us, there is no inherent truthfulness, nor even any relevance, in the system of pricing attributable to the successful behavior of a monetarist system of national economy, or international trade.
In fact, as so-called "market performance" in the U.S.A. and western and central Europe has shown, since about 1968, it is within the inherent fallacies of such monetarist presumptions, that all failures of leading economists are generated. The decline of the U.S. physical economy, from about 1966-1967 to the present, illustrates the intrinsic incompetence of most putatively leading economists, and their methods, on both sides of the Atlantic, from the mid-1960s to the present day; but, they still call themselves economists!?
The most celebrated among such modern monetarist systems, has been that radically irrationalist teaching attributed to that well-known Adam Smith as in his 1759 book, the Theory of the Moral Sentiments, a teaching which Adam Smith and his accomplices have proffered as a substitute for any decent sort of the practice of "science":
That much said and done: it is, of course, a practical matter, as I shall emphasize here below, that some method of setting of prices be assigned to trafficking of commodities within a national economy, and also among nations. Nonetheless, a modern actual science of pricing for today, would be one properly adapted to the implications of the work of Russia's celebrated Academician V.I. Vernadsky's notions of the relative values which are, always, what the changing rations among the interrelated thermodynamics of the Lithosphere, Biosphere, and Noösphere define as a required rate of advancement of the conditions of life of mankind through the effects associated with scientific progress in the uniquely creative mental-productive powers of the human labor which produces those advances.
For example: contrary to what Adam Smith and his depraved followers have proudly claimed as having been the principle of utter irrationalism of a so-called "free trade" system, the fact of the matter is, that, in the American System of political-economy represented by Alexander Hamilton's notions of a system of national banking, and of the thermodynamic interrelations among basic economic infrastructure, agriculture, and manufacturing, it is the effective net increase of the physical-reproductive powers of labor, per capita and per square kilometer, which is the primary consideration on which notions of design for the advancements in economic progress, are defined. The only competent practice of national economy (and, also, world economy) is, at bottom, broadly a matter of "thermodynamics," as measured in implied terms of increase of the rates and levels of anti-entropy in the system as a whole.
Whereas, all the behaviorist schemes like those of that Adam Smith and its likeness, are intrinsically entropic systems, which tend to drive economies toward decay, as can be shown readily for the case of the post-Franklin Roosevelt U.S.A. of the span April 1945-2010 to date.
Whereas, as the case of the net economic performance of NASA showed, until the decline of support for NASA has prevailed since NASA's Moon landings, it is those net gains in realized advances in capital-intensive modes of generation and use of the effects of capital-intensive advances in realized technology, as combined with rises in both energy-density and qualities of sources of power and of modes of public transportation, per capita and per square kilometer of area, which are the indispensable primary prompters of those advances in productivity, per capita and per square kilometer on which actual net physically measurable advances in productivity and net physical incomes depend.
This has been the truth of the matter for Europe ever since the period of flourishing of the culture of ancient Greece, up to the point of the ruinous Peloponnesian War.
The relevant lesson in principles of physical economy was shown implicitly in the surviving portion of Aeschylus' Prometheus Trilogy.
Why Aristotle Failed Badly
The period preceding the Peloponnesian War included intervals of impressive progress for Egypt, and certain parts of what is called "ancient Greece," during the time from such exemplary persons and ventures such as Thales, the Pythagoreans, and the "School of Athens" through the lives of Archytas and Plato. The spirit of that age of science was Promethean, not everywhere, but in certain key places and among certain key figures.
The leading spirit of those times and relevant places, was specifically promethean, that in the same specific sense of Bernhard Riemann's devotion of the concluding sentence of his 1854 habilitation dissertation to chuckling about the mathematicians. So Eratosthenes praised Archytas greatly on this account later, praised Archytas for doubling the cube physically, rather than mathematically. So, the physicists Albert Einstein and V.I. Vernadsky are to be praised today, for not being mathematical positivists, especially not the utter degenerates typified by such followers of the purely evil Bertrand Russell and the modern monetarists.
The Evil of Delphi
The center of the spread of the evil which largely took over following the succession of the judicial murder of Socrates and the death of Plato, was pointed out plainly by Aeschylus in such notable locations as the surviving portion of his Prometheus trilogy. The same point was made by Philo "Judaeus" of Alexandria's denunciation of Aristotle. The tragically defective culture of an ancient Greece was that of forbidding man access to the use of the "fire" of human scientific and related expressions of human creativity, as the followers of Aristotle insisted that God himself went virtually "dead" once the initial creation of an eternally fixed universe had been completed. Imagine people worshipping a God whom they believed to be utterly impotent, as dead, in fact, as the model modern existentialist Friedrich Nietzsche was pleased!
There was nothing accidental in the role which Aristotle played in promoting the pro-Satanic, anti-growth oligarchical principle shared between the Macedon of King Philip and the Achaemenid emperor, and with the British monarchy today. The notion of the denial of access to the practiced use of the power of fire, is typical of the Aristotelean oligarchical principle which was imposed in suppression of the advancement of the conditions of humanity through progress, as by the British monarchy and its lackeys of today.
Take my own case. I was fortunate in my entry into adolescence, to have discovered a fundamental principle of physical geometry before I was to be exposed to Euclidean geometry. Therefore, I entered my first secondary class in Euclidean geometry already knowing the universal principle of the contrary science of physical geometry, through my own discovery. Compare that with the misfortunates who believe the hoax which asserts that Isaac Newton discovered both the calculus and the principle of gravitation. It is the same with the contemporary practice of what is usually taught in schools and universities as "economics."
The oligarchical enemies of civilization have always been "zero growthers" as far back as we have obtained the evidence necessary to point out the distinction in sundry cases for consideration. That principle of evil, called "zero growth," is the same principle of evil represented by the faction of the Olympian Zeus in Aeschylus' Prometheus Trilogy. That Zeus is the spirit of evil which has been bred into the British imperial opposition to the founding principle of the U.S. economy.
Such is the issue of the essentially pro-Satanic evil represented by the British monarchy's Prince Philip and Philip's World Wildlife Fund, and by Philip's lackey, former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore. Such is the fanatical, pro-Satanic expression of that same evil motive in President Barack Obama. Such is the essence of the leadership of the U.S. Federal Reserve System under Chairmen Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke. Such is the effectively pro-Satanic policy of the notorious 2007-2010 "bail out" and President Obama's persistent efforts to impose Adolf Hitler's own war-time "health care" policy on the United States' population today.
The issue of economy is the fact of the threat to humanity represented by the "green" policies represented, inclusively, by the narcissist, President Barack Obama and his "behaviorist" retinue.
The issue of the world's economic crisis of today, is the issue of the same economic policy, the same oligarchical principle of "zero growth" depicted in both Aeschylus' Trilogy and anti-nuclear-power,"green" policies throughout the world today.
Aristotelean culture, a.k.a. the present world's monetarist culture, expresses the current state of mind of a currently doomed former civilization. That rotten culture is the heir of the form of oligarchical tradition represented by the legacy of Aristotle.
Do not defend a cultural habit whose victory would mean your nation's extinction.
4.3 Price in Physical Economy
Presently, the world considered as a whole is not only perilously bankrupt, but, under the present policies of governments generally, hopelessly so. For the United States, the decline began at the close of World War II, under President Harry S Truman; it began as a decline in the production potential of the U.S.A.'s economy, when, large masses of production potential which had been created for war-related production were chopped off, instead of being redirected to employing physical capital production resources for the useful output of peace-time production.
Much of that peace-time production which would have occurred had President Franklin Roosevelt's policies been continued, would have been for the vast post-war market of goods needed for not only rebuilding a war-torn world, but for the build-up of independent economies which had been intended to be freed from European colonial exploitation for development as modern agro-industrial powers. The change in U.S. policy, from one of decolonizing the world, to the Churchill-Truman practice of recolonizing pre-war imperial territories such as Indo-China, Indonesia, Africa generally, and so on, had a complementary expression in shutting down productive output inside the U.S.A. itself, using capacity which should have been redirected from war-production to raising the physical-productive power of the U.S.A. and its population per capita and per square kilometer.
There should be no doubt that the rate of physical growth of the U.S. economy, per capita and per square kilometer, would have been expanded far more than happened during the 1950s, had Churchill and Truman not chucked a vast mass of U.S. post-peace productive potential which could have, and should have been devoted to peace-time increase of both the standard of living and of the productive powers of U.S. labor, not only as a whole, but per capita.
One of the parameters which must be taken into account in looking at that picture, is the standard of achievement shown by the post-World War II space program. The highest rate of gain in the post-war U.S. economy, until the space-program investment began to be cut back in Fiscal Year 1967-68, was net gains in productivity of the economy contributed to the U.S. economy as a whole by the U.S. government support for the Space program. The suggestion that cut-backs in the Space program were ever required to save money was, when it came from the mouths of the Federal Government, an outright lie, and still is.
If we must discount contributions to an actual Gross National Product which have been supplied for military defense provisions, and include only the net of the equivalent of that part of the output, the gains in physical productivity per capita, per square kilometer, from increase of the capital-intensity and rate of advancement of technology, and of basic economic infrastructure, including improvements in education for both science-related and Classical-cultural related programs, there is a net gain in the rate of growth of national income per capita and per square kilometer of total national territory.
In fact, the most effective way of forecasting the rate of gain in national physical product per capita and per square kilometer is to base projections on the rate of net capital-intensive gains in these categories of increasing capital-intensity of investment and employment in infrastructure, agriculture, and manufacturing for the nation as a whole.
So, to summarize what I have said in the preceding, opening paragraphs of this section of the chapter, the net physical gains in these general categories, per capita and per square kilometer, provide our republic the most reliable indicator available for gross and net national-income forecasting, that before a single financial factor, other than those just indicated, as such, need be taken into account. The best results could be achieved without consulting Wall Street or its like; in fact, far better national performance would be achieved, if Wall Street virtually did not exist at allespecially since July 2007. Private companies run by competent industrial-scientific managements, plus government managed national security institutions, are far better sources of economic management of our nation and of the world, that anything on Wall or Threadneedle Streets or kindred places.
So, at the point of U.S.-led victory over Cornwallis, under the leadership of Alexander Hamilton in launching what became our U.S. Constitutional system of U.S. national banking, as echoed by President Franklin Roosevelt's part in launching the Glass-Steagall system which made possible the defeat of our foreign enemies in World War II, it remains the most effective design for a system of cooperating sovereign nation-state republics throughout this planet, and for the Moon and Mars beyond.
Even after the death of President Franklin Roosevelt, even under the awful President Truman, through the time of the Presidency under President John F. Kennedy, the existence of the fixed-exchange-rate system, and its limited domestic realization as a "fair trade" system of competitive practice, provided both government and relevant private interests with an available (if not always heeded) margin of good guessing of the system for formulas of pricing required for shaping an effective form of protectionist approaches to both pricing and long-term capital forecasting for the purposes of U.S. national-economic policy. We could have done much better if the lunatic policies of the dupes of Bertrand Russell's ultra-radically positivist clones, such as John von Neumann, had been kept out of the equation of national economic-policy shaping, and matters left to the sturdy competence of the likes of Wassily W. Leontief's improvements of the design of a national economic system of reporting and estimates, as I had argued in 1957-58.
It was not until the assassination of President John F. Kennedy eliminated the high-ranking political obstacles to sending the U.S. into an insane, long war in Indo-China, that sanity, like the legendary Ichabod, had departed from among us.
Do not dignify lunacy by calling it "free trade;" call it "flea trade," instead.
Leontief Re-Visited Now
During 1994, I began to receive plaudits and visitors from the territory of what had been formerly the Soviet Union, from which a widely disliked former personal enemy of mine, Mikhail Gorbachov, had departed leading positions in power. But for the tragic error of the Soviet Union's Yuri Andropov, but, more notably, the worse than madness of an Andropov successor, Gorbachov, the worst which Russia and Ukraine, among others, came to suffer during the wild looting binges of the 1990s, would simply not have occurred.
Since the better part of Leonid Brezhnev's years, the Soviet Union had recognized the need for open economic cooperation with the tradition of continental European leaders of the type which had been typified, earlier, by President Charles de Gaulle and Germany's Chancellor Konrad Adenauer. Nonetheless, during Brezhnev's last years, a promising search for new remedies existed. I recognized this, as did a growing roster among the senior military professionals of Germany, France, Italy, and others. Since the problematic aspects of Soviet relations with western Europe and the U.S.A., especially, had been "Cold War" matters, any satisfactory sort of new arrangement between the proverbial "East and West" must be defined in terms of reference to bringing the military systems into conformity with the goals of economic progress to an end of the so-called "Cold War."
So, I had crafted the proposal for what was to become named, a bit later, as "The Strategic Defense Initiative." Those among us who were in relevant political positions, and who often enjoyed military service during World War II, supplied a kernel of leadership which launched what was to become named as "The SDI." This included not only persons whose backgrounds were in military, intelligence services, or something of both, who were brought together by me, largely through assistance provided by a scientific institution known as the Fusion Energy Foundation (FEF). The combination of these circles, intersecting the then newly installed Presidency of Ronald Reagan, entered into relevant discussions with appropriate Soviet institutions, as I had obtained personal clearance for such a probing action through relevant channels of my nation's government.
Fortunately, President Ronald Reagan adopted the course which I had proposed through such an assortment of channels, and he named it " A Strategic Defense Initiative." Had the newly installed Soviet chief Yuri Andropov not slammed the door, more than just once, the history of the world would have taken a different course that it has, already during that same year. Nonetheless, President Reagan, in his own fashion, continued to support that proffer to the Soviet Union. Unfortunately, the installation of Mikhail Gorbachov had an effect which has continued to be a disaster, in one fashion or another, for all humanity, up to the present last check of the world situation.
Although there had been serious British interest in cooperation with what I had proposed on my account since the period of my sturdy opposition to what I considered as a policy tantamount to treason of Trilateral aspects of the hard faction in the administration of the Trilateral Commission's Carter administration, up to Andropov's abrupt rejection of a sane policy, what I proposed had no favor within the post-1988 circuits of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Britain's preference, President François Mitterrand. A savage policy contrary, in historical and immediate fact, to the interest of virtually every part of continental Europe, launched a policy, then supported by not only President François Mitterrand, Margaret Thatcher, and U.S. President George H.W. Bush, a policy which has now led to the brink of a general, planet-wide physical-economic breakdown-crisis of the entire planet.
There was a crucial missed opportunity during 1996, when a high-ranking collation of Russia's leading economic circles of that time, circles in contact with Wassily W. Leontief in the United States, held a meeting in Moscow at which my role as a presenter was featured. A tentative agreement in principle was reached among the parties. Unfortunately, for reasons which I readily understood, reasons which included the traditionally Armand Hammer-related, U.S. Vice-President Al Gore's fantasy-life, President Clinton was in the cross-fires of Gore's stunt at that time, since Clinton was running for election to his second term as U.S. President. The antics of Gore at that point in 1996 are fairly well known among insiders, as Gore's obnoxious characteristics are much clearer presently, under the icy storms of "global warming," than then. The effect was, nonetheless, disastrous, both respecting what happened to both Russia and the Clinton Administration in the Summer-Autumn of 1998, and what Russia suffered as a result of this sabotage of the effort to bring about a new form of cooperation between the U.S.A. and the relevant circles in Russia.
The reverberation of that moment of frustration in U.S.-Russia economic relations in mid-1996, has had potentially very dangerous consequences for the world as a whole today.
Wall Street and the City of London
All this which I have just stated, respecting decades of U.S.A.-Russia relations, as I have emphasized, repeatedly, in earlier sections of this present strategic report, the essential feature of global strategic affairs presently, is the continuation of a now-traditional role of the heirs of the British East India Company's Lord Palmerston, and the Foreign Office in whose creation he had his customary soiled hand. The British imperial policy of practice, is to get two or more other guys whipped up into sexually fevered heat about killing one another, that in yet another case of what former Chancellor Bismarck identified as a British habit of organizing newly staged performances of yet another round of "Seven Years Wars."
Thus, most recently, in Dubai, a gentleman was the victim of a now greatly celebrated assassination, which had been organized by about, all told thus far, forty ladies and gentlemen utilizing the stolen passport identities. The startling thing about the killing is, that so many were so deployed where a handful could have performed the reported succession of electro-shock and suffocation. Why so many? Why such a prominent scandal? Ah, but that is the way to ensure the provocation of a counter-assassination, and that will put the sizzling fat of some dirty intelligence warfare on the global griddle, all aimed in the direction of a military assault on Iran being assigned to an included roster of candidates for blameworthiness which included some prominences of Israeli political pedigree. I am reminded of the case of the sturdily British intelligence services' Dr. David Kelly who had had a misfortune heaped upon him as implicitly the penalty for his having joined me in exposing publicly yet another gigantic lie by the then British Prime Minister Tony Blair who claimed virtually to have created President Barack Obama out of Chicago's mud.
The empire associated with circles such as the monstrously over-indebted Inter-Alpha Group of Bank Santander of Brazil carry-trade notoriety, is like that. Greek debt?! Get serious! Ask the City of London about the situation with Spain and Santander.
Beyond Main Street's Pragmatism
If we wish to rescue a global civilization which is presently hovering over the depths of both financial and physical-economic Hell, it is sufficient to apply, and that very quickly, a certain very specific set of a well-known type of remedial measures. The term which should come promptly to the lips of professional competent banking and related circles is Glass-Steagall. To the point as simply as possible: either we wipe out the vast majority of financial claims on government and commercial banking which do not conform to a strict, President Franklin Roosevelt version of a Glass-Steagall-like purge of claims against systems and governments which do not conform to a strict Glass-Steagall standard, or there will be soon no nation left standing on this planet.
Yes, this does mean actions whose precalculable effects will include a virtual wipe-out of everything resembling Wall Street and the City of London today. That is the price which must be paid; that is the penalty which Wall Street swindlers and their like so richly, so promptly, and so mercilessly deserve. The Federal Government of the United States, including the associated functions of national banking ordered according to a Glass-Steagall standard for commercial banking, has both the constitutional authority and the inescapable obligation to force through a purge of the world system which will almost instantly eliminate most of the waste-matter of the present international financial systems.
In the instant that that purgative remedy is applied, the United States' government, in particular, will have secured for itself, the immediate ability to launch a mass of new long-term Federal credit for the purpose of a rapidly accelerating increase of the productive employment of labor and for the security of the nation and its essential social and other institutions of government. If we do not wipe the filth of financial derivatives and related offal from the accounts of the nations, the survival of civilization is at a now very near end.
The rights of man do not lie within the limit of what some consider financial assets. The legitimacy of the claims for proposed assets is the standard to be met. The Glass-Steagall standard for commercial banking, extended globally to willing nations, is a standard which must be imposed now, or the result of failing to do so will be the virtually immediate disintegration of the political systems throughout the planet, and the greatest "dark age" for all humanity known to recorded historical processes.
4.4 The American Credit System
The actions which survival of civilization demand, immediately, are centered on abandoning any notion of intrinsic value of any currency but that established by the authority of a kind of credit-system which should operate as a fixed-exchange-rate credit-system, which can not be generated by any facility other than a sovereign nation-state.
This is not, in any sense, a matter of accounting systems, except as accounting systems are, like public toilets, essential for the completed functions of the digestive tracts of physical-economic cycles. The time has come, and virtually past, at which the idea of money as an arbitrary form of a standard of value, must go. The essential expression of economic value lies in the functions of human productivity, including the nourishment, productive potential, and good health of all of the citizenry. It is the development and promotion of those productive powers of mankind, which are the reference point for any truly competent notion of economic value. This notion does not differ essentially from that notion of credit during the happiest interval of the Seventeenth-century Massachusetts Bay colony under the leadership of the Winthrops and the Mathers, or Franklin and Alexander Hamilton later.
In other words, the notion of economic value is a notion of the value of man, and, therefore, of the increase, through development of the physical productive powers of labor, per capita and per square kilometer of territory.
That much said, the notion of economic value lies, at first blush, with the notion of the relative productive powers of labor per capita and per square kilometer of territory. This power of labor is to be distinguished, and that qualitatively, from what might be imputed as the characteristic of the individual animal as an individual. It lies within the bounds of the creative powers of the human individual.
The problem of definitions which that summary statement incurs, is that the existence of human creativity is, as I have emphasized in early parts of this present report: creativity, while its relatively perfected expressions occur among exceptional human individuals, it is a creativity which is realized in expression for society, as a social process, within the ranks of which some individuals supply the exceptional expression of human creativity of the great Classical artist or the discoverer of a fundamental physical principle. It is the catalytic role of those exceptionally creative personalities within the social process in the larger expression of this, on which the functioning of the creative process within the entire society's development depends.
Against that fact on background, we are properly impelled to recognize that the act of creation of a valid idea of principle occurs, in the form of an act of an individual person. Hence we of the United States are a republic, not a democracy. It is a republic in which all are invited to share in the realization of ideas which meet the standard of science and Classical artistic composition, but these are ideas whose effectiveness in society depends on chiefly three considerations: the unique case of the original discovery of a conception which meets the standard of a discovery of a universalizing quality of a notion of principle, and the related cases of those who participate in the social process which leads to a discovery which has the specific quality of truth, rather than mere individual opinion.
There is one particular, notable illustration of that point to be presented as a case, here. The case of the leading living economist of the United States in his role during, especially the 1850s through 1870s, the Henry C. Carey whose critical contributions to humanity globally include his influence on Germany's Chancellor Bismarck in the launching of the great German reforms, and also that of Russia's great Mendeleyev, in launching within Eurasia the transcontinental-railway-based industrial-agricultural-transportation systems which the British Empire considered as the principle of development of economy which it was determined to destroy, as by aid of wars and bestialization of culture, through aid of that perpetual state of actual, or oncoming imperial warfare on a global scale which has taken over and ruined increasingly, the state of civilization in the world at large from the ouster of Bismarck and the assassinations of France's President Sadi Carnot and the U.S.A.'s President William McKinley, all such evil done out of hatred of what had been accomplished through the influence of such exemplars as Henry C. Carey and Abraham Lincoln during the middle of that century.
There is much, much more to be said here, but this will be sufficient for the present day.
 However, in the intention of a still higher authority, Frederick was playing his game on a European playing-field on which the game was rigged by British intentions: the creation of the British Empire by the circles of the British East India Company's Lord Shelburne.
 Approximately the 7th Century B.C.
 On this account, I have always, since about 1946-47, emphasized this writing by Shelley as key to what may be considered the manifestation of the essential difference of the human individual from merely humanoid-appearing beasts, such as those of the behaviorist circles gathered around a President Barack Obama today. That is to emphasize, that, as marked by the withdrawal of outgoing Senator Bayh, the signs for the services of the political dog-catcher are now being hung out for President Barack Obama and his behaviorist crew of brutish louts. The political institutions of our United States are wiping their hands of the Obama administration, hoping for someone who will graciously induce Obama simply to go, or, otherwise, be hauled away.
 I was amused, if but wryly, to note that Google provides no relevant direct reference to the most crucial, scientifically relevant content of Dirichlet's contributions to modern civilization, a feature which is crucial for both Bernhard Riemann's own great discovery, and for the artistic creativity which comes to the fore in such expressions as Dirichlet's relationship as a scientist in his relationship to the discoveries of Riemann, and his personal relationship, as a scientist, to his brother-in-law Felix Mendelssohn. Here is the direct connection, in particular, for the scientific-functional relationship between Riemann's great discovery and Albert Einstein's work with his own violin. Cf. the references supplied by Google for the highly relevant reporting by Jürgen Elstrodt. This touches on an area of investigations being continued by a collaborator of mine, to whom I leave the relevant reporting.
 The role of Classical art is taken up, afresh, at a later point in this report.
 The dispute on which I am touching here is located in the difference between the view of such physical curves from the vantage-point I emphasize here, as opposed to an approach based on Euclidean and related geometries as a starting-point of reference. E.g., Galileo never could understand the concept of a catenary.
 Carl F. Gauss treated Janos Bolyai and, implicitly, N. Lobatschevsky, gently, in this matter. Gauss, as he intimated in his letters to Farkas Bolyai and others at that time, had already discovered a true anti-Euclidean geometry during his studies under Abraham Kästner, during the 1790s. However, Gauss also knew the risk he faced should he put forward the proverbial "full story" of his experience during his adult and later years. It was only through the backing from the politically powerful Alexander von Humboldt, and the support of Lejeune Dirichlet, that Riemann's crucial discovery could have been aired publicly in a leading scientific institution in Germany, on the occasion of Riemann's habilitation dissertation. The destructive influence of the positivist tendency of such as Weierstrass and his followers, was already afoot, with the worst, such as the influence of the essentially evil hoaxster Bertrand Russell and his devotees soon to follow.
 It is sufficient to merely acknowledge here, the continued existence of the vicious frauds perpetrated against the work of Academician V.I. Vernadsky by the Marxists, such as A.I. Oparin, et al., especially those hoaxes concocted by the British positivist school among Soviet Marxists and sundry degraded Newton-worshippers, especially that which flourished after the death of Joseph Stalin, and including those under the Bertrand Russell school under the influence of institutions such as the Cambridge school of systems analysis and its offshoots at the Soviet-backed Laxenberg Austria school and the related, Moscow-centered cult of systems analysis. Bertrand Russell had proceeded from his originally published demand, in 1946, for a "preventive" nuclear attack on the Soviet Union, to the collaboration with the circles of N. Khrushchov who embraced Bertrand Russell's World Parliamentarians for World Government. Such "friendly embraces" of Bertrand Russell's British operations probably did much more, on balance, to destroy the Soviet Union, through moral and related corruption from within, than obviously malicious attacks in the name of what became identified as "the Cold War." Some cynics might argue that the time to start shooting the British is when they seem to become friendly. My own dealings with the British are nearly always shrewdly circumspect and rather hostile.
 Bernhard Riemann had been a participant in the laboratory experiments employed, at Göttingen, in preparing the experimental proof of Weber's report.
 The most depraved among the English-speaking varieties of Liberals are associated with images from Hogarth, and from the literary effluvia of John Locke, Adam Smith, and Jeremy Bentham. On the contrary, to all such as those, Albert Einstein said, famously, in 1926: "God does not play dice with the universe," as a rebuttal to those irrationalists in the specific, Liberal tradition of radical positivists such as Bertrand Russell, who could, and would licence the practice of virtually any imaginable atrocity against man or nature if it suited their perverse notion of permitted pleasures.
 For example, as I have noted from the known chronology of the settlement of the English- and French-speaking regions of North America by representatives of settlers arriving there during the time of the original Plymouth and Massachusetts settlements of the early through middle Sixteenth Century, there is a well defined continuity of cultural evolution traced from the distinction of those settlers from the cultural legacies of those who were, so to speak, "left behind," a cultural legacy which is distinctly American, as distinct from the stubbornly pro-oligarchical relics of the culture of relevant populations which, so to speak, remained in Europe. The principle underlying such long-wave sorts of cultural trends is that referenced by, for example, Percy Bysshe Shelley, in the concluding paragraphs of his celebrated A Defence of Poetry.
 The relevance of that dating was that this discovery coincided with a protracted, bedroom-based, convalescence of many months, from a severe attack of hepatitis. Little was left to me but to find an occupation of my mind while letting the convalescence do its work. I settled a number of intellectual accounts during that period, among which the most significant was with Riemann's habilitation dissertation. The crucial epistemological feature of this experience was that, instead of treating creativity as an embellishment of human existence, I recognized that human existence is a product of the relevant principle of human individual creativity as being, ontologically, the existentially primary expression of action.
 This is, at first blush, perhaps more readily grasped as a theological view of the matter, than otherwise.
 As was virtually inevitable under the customs of the times, the infection of Essex County's sea-faring town of Salem with a local virus of right-wing "fundamentalism," was a typical Anglo-Dutch Liberal effect to break the power of the Winthrops and Mathers in favor of the schemes of Britain's James II and William of Orange. Cf. H. Graham Lowry, How The Nation Was Won (Executive Intelligence Review, Washington, D.C., 1988).
 The Karl Marx whose father had been a party to the Lesergesellschaft of supporters of the U.S. struggle for independence, and a follower of the influence of Nicholas of Cusa, took a quite opposite direction than his father, after his departure from Johann Hugo Wyttenbach's Trier Gymnasium. Marx fell into sundry cultural swamps and cesspools of the time of his post-adolescence, despite a personal warning against those tribes of the British Foreign Office creation known as the 48ers, a warning delivered personally by the Rothschild family intimate Heinrich Heine. This led Marx into the grave indiscretion of becoming a patsy of British intelligence services, through Marx's sometime controller Frederick Engels, and through the supervisor of the British Museum, David Urquhart, the latter a British Foreign Office veteran who, together with Lord Palmerston's agent and leader of Young Europe internationally, Giuseppe Mazzini, served as Marx's personal British Foreign Office controller inside London itself. Urquhart was functioning at the time from his post at the British Museum where he coordinated the world-wide correspondence of Lord Palmerston's organizing of trans-Atlantic revolutionary conspiracies associated with the Giuseppe Mazzini who created Karl Marx's London-based operations on the continent of Europe. With the passing of both Palmerston and the Paris Commune, Engels essentially dumped Marx, but picked up the legend of Marx on behalf of the British Foreign Office after Marx's own mouth had been shut by death. Engels ended his own life among the controllers of the British Fabian Society's asset and British arms trafficker Alexander Helphand, aka "Parvus," of "permanent war, permanent revolution" notoriety and of close connections to London's "Young Turk" operations. It was under Urquhart's supervision that Marx published a paper denouncing his actual backer of that time, Lord Palmerston, as a Russian spy! Avoid Google as much as possible on this subject-matter; "They just did not 'get it.' "
 As I have noted above, Karl Marx, in his role as an historic figure, was more a phenomenon which he himself did not understand, but which Rosa Luxemburg could have understood and probably did. He was a chip floating on a raging sea of troubles, not the cause of a development in history, but an effect produced by the tumultuous array of interests and processes which were, in the main, all far beyond his own comprehension.
 John Maynard Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money: first published in a German edition in Berlin, 1936.
 Cf. H. Graham Lowry, op. cit.
 Spannaus, Nancy and White, Christopher, ed., The Political Economy of the American Revolution, (Executive Intelligence Review, Washington, D.C., Second edition 1996).
 In the case of a devotee of Newton, or the like, the appropriate name of the category is "its mind."
 This portion of Shelley's work which I have, once more cited here, represents the most remembered portion of this work of Shelley which gripped me first at my own age of fourteen.
 David Hilbert's famous positivist program is pseudo-physics in the tradition of Aristotle and Euclid. Hilbert was among those famous figures listed among the ranks of those modern physicists who were actually mathematical positivists.
 Such is the entirety of what is claimed to be the "morality" of President Barack Obama's administration and of Arthur Burns' apprentice, the late Milton Friedman.
 Credit for a significant part of the historical references to U.S.A.'s past, goes to the past work of my associates Nancy Spannaus, Allen Salisbury, Anton Chaitkin, and, above all, the H. Graham Lowry who was a true historian in the tradition of the American System.