Executive Intelligence Review
This article appears in the December 23, 2011 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
REFLECTIONS ON A WORK BY NICHOLAS OF CUSA:

The Strategic Situation Now

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

November 29, 2011

[PDF version of this article]

Foreword

Let this be said, with the same intention with which I had named that poem of mine from sixty years ago, "My Lyre." It were as a universe which that poetic spirit within me had described as "bending stars like reeds."

Now, during the recent lapse of time since the Spring of this year 2011, I had devoted myself, largely, to working through successive stages of the continuing theme of this present year's series of pieces of mine, of which one major title (the present one) is still currently in progress at this moment. This series, when it will have been taken in its whole, has a single, commonly subsuming theme, with a virtually completed discovery as presented in this published version sent to print.

Yet, this has also been a fairly well-defined mission which had been in the process of continuous resolution into its early expression since the first steps during the post-war 1940s, under the ruinous practices of President Harry S Truman and putative economist Arthur Burns, throughout the 1945-1960 interval, and into the incarnation it has acquired during the recent weeks. During the greater part of the recent eight months, I had been in the process of defining what has now become a uniquely competent method for defining the means for securing general physical-economic growth. My intention during the longer period from 1956-57, and beyond, had been to establish my competence in what had already become the early rudiments of an inherently successful, new method for long-ranging economic forecasting and policy-design, a competence which has since developed into becoming the most effective economic policy-shaping doctrine known publicly today.

What I had accomplished had been a process of ongoing discoveries which had taken shape, and had continued through, and beyond my early 1950s' focus on the theme of Bernhard Riemann's 1854 habilitation dissertation. So, inspirations, like dreams, return to appear as the harvests of successive years.

So, when I had just returned to the United States from military service in Asia, in the Spring of 1946, I settled into experiencing the economic problems of both the post-World War II world, and what came to be known as "The Cold War." As we were to discover when President John F. Kennedy would have been assassinated, the fact was that with the assassination of President Kennedy, this nation was no longer really what our republic has been under such as Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy, but one which had been largely taken over by our enemies, the British Empire and its subaltern known in street-slang as "Wall Street."

Those of our citizens who still do not understand that set of facts, do not really know where their own identity lies. That fact shows itself in nearly every aspect of the lives of our citizenry today. In short, the condition of actually being free, begins with knowing what it is from which one must be freed. There are almost no truly free citizens in our United States, or most of Europe, today; as much as a margin of former freedom still exists, it is presently vanishing at an accelerating rate under the nominal authority of the succession of U.S. President George W. Bush, Jr., and has now almost vanished under the term of a carbon-copy of the Roman Emperor Nero, the British royal puppet, U.S. President Barack Obama.

If we are to become freed again, as Martin Luther King had said, "free at last," freed from the evil practices of virtual British puppets such as President George W. Bush, Jr., and Barack Obama, we must understand the essential facts concerning our republic's present situation, and recognize how this presently wretched, virtual decade came about, and how that horrid result might be cured.

To that end, as I remind you now, the individual composition which I present here, is a particular element in a continued batched series of related utterances by me, since the now past Spring of this year. There is also a deeper aspect, even in essential elements deep in history, which are urgently to be reawakened for consideration, for reflection here, now, while I walk with you, the reader, through that experience, in this report, here.

This process on which I shall report here, is one which reaches back, from that which might often seem to have been scattered recollections, but which, now, must become a more prominently featured, and much-matured subject of discussions, such as those discussions published under the impact of my present attention to such continuing, present-day concerns, as they appear to me today. Therefore, I report here on the subject of the ontological implications of the same Classical perspective which had also been already expressed, relatively long ago, by a succession of such exceptional ancient minds as since Heraclitus and Plato.

That recurring experience of ancient through present-day history has been, for me, truly an ancient concern, a concern which is currently expressed for me more and more forcefully as I become older. These concerns have been expressed in publications, especially those of my own and of a rare few others. I refer to those others who are devoted to the subject of the present terms of my ever-more-revolutionary definition of the appropriate, ontological basis and design for the needed reform in scientific method for economy, as for today. It is not my advancing age, as such, which defines that difference; it is the ever-more-menacing condition which has already been reached now, a condition of general trans-Atlantic economic breakdown on this planet: a condition which has presently reached a critical point as has happened within the recent several days. Your world, and mine, has now entered a qualitatively new stage of history, which should be regarded as the end-stage of an entire period of history, an end-stage which is presently closing in upon us with a deadly grip; but, hopefully, it is also the forewarning of the opportunities for a new, better age very soon to begin.

This is a time, not for reporting events, even merely important events; it is time to launch an entirely new quality in world history. So, in the pages of this report, I must report matters here, with that intention, accordingly.

Percy Shelley & History

When I take into account what I am proud to have accomplished in the course of such a presently continued undertaking as that, up to this time, I must insist, that the original inspiration for this project of mine, is still exemplified in spirit, by the celebrated, concluding paragraph of Percy Bysshe Shelley's A Defence of Poetry. On that account, nothing has been left "worn out."

Sometimes, as in some persons' reading of Shelley's concluding paragraph for his A Defence of Poetry, there had been suspicion expressed by some, that Shelley had left that poem uncompleted. That poem and I have both proven to have been wiser than to permit such a conclusion; in the end, we, of my dedication, have understood that Shelley had ended this work on that publication at the stage when his actual intention in writing that report had been fulfilled by him, and for him, at that point. We must recognize that he had completed his statement made, implicitly to you, on that occasion; it is now your turn—for each of us—to respond to him; have you succeeded in responding with a relevant, decent quality of reaction of your own?

The categorically ontological feature of the course of my own first study of Shelley's composition, a composition which was originally uttered by him about two centuries ago, has left an effect on me which I had experienced repeatedly in the course of both my adolescence, and my adult years to date. Each time I had read Shelley's A Defence of Poetry, especially since the immediate post-World War II period, I had come away with an always refreshed expression and in greater strength of conviction. This experience has become an effect on me which may be located in respect to the beautiful temptation which should have been what had aroused Shelley's admirers then (as it certainly did a few). The actual principle of his work, whose internal reality I had discovered on my own account, has now enabled me to report that fact to you, here, and now, in this refreshed, present expression; it is now also expressed for me as a fact which had existed on its own account, as a principle, such as Shelley's own, even long before I had been actually born. We are each, after all, the victim of our parents' generation, and, also, our own.

What I have done, for my part, in this still-ongoing evolution of that maturing drama, is to have brought you, the reader, to a point of confrontation with my own original, living insights into that principle; so, in this manner, I shall now confront you, as I do in this present report. I confront you, with the challenge of your obligation to share my own, still ever-deepening insight into the subject-matter of the ontological implications of the physical notion of what is to be recognized presently, here. I present that as my notion of the principle of the universality of the truly physical principle of metaphor.

Shelley's Method

As for Shelley's notion itself, classical irony were never a thing unto itself; it were better said, that such ironies as those, are typical of the same relevant points which are to be traced to such as, for example, such English poets as Shakespeare and Shelley. It is the fundamental principle of irony, the rarely recognized, true meaning of the physical principle called metaphor, which remains, still today, as belonging in very significant part, to the specifically ontological implications of the work of both of those great poets.

For the sake of irony, my native language is, admittedly, English. It is, most emphatically, the American English descended from what had once been the proudly literate region of the New England coast since the founding of New England early during the Seventeenth Century. Nonetheless, I have based my argument here, as I must say, "prudently," such that it includes such European influences as have been expressed, chiefly, as fruits of the tradition passed down to me as it had been created by the greatest English and German poets known to me as those who had lived since, whether sooner or later, in the sunlight and shadows cast by the leaders of the Fifteenth-century Renaissance, for whom my own preferred choice of reference is, for me, their relevance as means for illustrating the true discovery of my America. The principle of metaphor, is not merely physically supreme, but it also reflects the spiritual qualities of their intentions as my own, and that with conceptions such as those which I present as a report of that result in this present publication.

To a certain degree, it might seem to me now, as to some others, that, at the least, my subject here almost speaks for itself. However, I must not only admit, but insist from the outset, that it does not, and could not actually speak for itself; "seems" or "almost," is not "actual."

It is therefore necessary, for my purpose here, that we share this present statement among us with the accompanying assumption that we might wish that the matter were able, at the least, to seem to speak for itself. In fact, sadly, it does not do that, and could not. So, with such reservations taken into account, we might be enabled to adduce the higher wisdom presented to us by the stubbornness of a discovery of that which, in this connection, does not actually speak to us directly for itself, but impels me to work to discover what had not been otherwise revealed.

The great error which needs to be removed from our mutual considerations between you, the reader, and me, the writer, is to be blamed largely on the cruelly fraudulent, self-inflicted presumptions of the perennially credulous. Blame the folly of the proverbial "true believer": blame the absurdity of the presumption that "truth" lies within the proverbial bounds of "sense certainty."

Worst of it all, is the credulous victim's all too typical, ontological presumption, which is his, or her belief in the actual existence of what is conventionally described as "empty space." Similarly, there is the belief of some foolish students (or professors) of physical science, like those university students, or graduates who failed to comprehend the unique genius of both Johannes Kepler's uniquely original discovery of the actual principle of universal gravitation, as a student who, therefore, lacked insight into the implications of Kepler's great, unique discovery of the true principle of gravitation, a discovery which is also highly relevant in respect to the physical principle which is our subject here. I also mean the implications bearing on the method expressed by the crucially distinct, specific contributions of such later exemplars of science as Bernhard Riemann, Max Planck, Albert Einstein, and Academician V.I. Vernadsky, as considered in that order.

What Is Metaphor?

I am aware, in a general fashion, of a rather large proportion among those who have acquired a "classroom" sort of apparently literate, but, nonetheless, intellectually failed sort of presumed familiarity with the proper import of the term "metaphor." Of these, a few exceptional persons may even have actually acquired a certain kind of "look-it-up-in-the-back-of-the-book" literacy in the conventional use of the term "metaphor;" but, only a tiny minority among those persons, commands an actually competent insight into the distinctive, strict meaning, and the real significance of what might regarded as the strictly scientific meaning of the Classical "actor" in the Classical drama. I mean one who, himself, fits the standard of metaphor.

A strict meaning of the term "metaphor," does not refer to a particular, explicitly direct object, or set of objects; it refers, to an implied simultaneity among a very special quality of several, indirectly related objects.

Consider the case of such an apparent characteristic of such a shadow-like object cast as such a pair, or, more. In such cases we are able to conceptualize the specific effect which accounts for the generation of the shadow of such a pair-wise, or comparable shadow; but we do not "see" the relevant sort of linkage among those considerations which pertain to that which has been either a pair of shadows, or some larger set of such an array, as might be defined by named "characters." Functionally, we do not "see" the actual object; the real character is actually performed, not on the stage (even if one were there); it lies in the idea implanted in the minds of the audience viewing the performing actor, or actors; this is to be recognized, not by vision, but as to be seen within the mind of the viewing audience, rather than a projection on a linear screen. It can not be seen with the mere eyes and ears of the audience, but only by means of the superior potentialities of that power of the human mind which creates the images of those personalities called to the mind of the audience by means of a higher power of the human mind, a power of an ontological order higher than any mere brain as such.

For example: imagine two actors on a stage, apparently seeing nothing other than themselves, or one another, each probably terrified by the economic spectacle within the trans-Atlantic region now, or horrified by a mysteriously queer sound emanating from an intellectual darkness by which they are, in effect, overwhelmed.

One of the most useful of such experiences as that, can be presented, with hope of some moderate success, by the proper pedagogical use of the Classical theatrical stage.

There are two principal means for introducing the audience, preferably qualified scientists of the type I might point out to you here, to presentation of an experimental demonstration of the principle of metaphor. There are reasonable alternatives to that approach, but, while defensible approximations, they will fail, nonetheless, in any attempt to come directly to the crucial point of scientific principle. I have presented the nature of the basis in truth for the actually needed solution's crafted attempt at alternatives; but, they can not fail to present difficulties for the person lacking the recommended grounding in method.

I present my preferred argument as follows.

I. The Physical Science of Mind

In what often passes, unfortunately, for customary doctrine on the subject of the human mind today, the primary emphasis is placed, mistakenly, on the topics of "sense perception" and "the (physical) brain." In modern physical science, the needed healthful change, is away from those popular habits, and must be centered, then, on such sources as the concluding, third section of Bernhard Riemann's habilitation dissertation, and such as the successive developments of what have been specifically Lejeune Dirichlet's and Bernhard Riemann's developments within the category of Abelian Functions. The attempted mathematical reductionist's interpretations of so-called Abelian functions, are to be avoided as being in the likeness of suspected highway-hazards. So, Riemann had forewarned his reader in the concluding sentence of his 1854 habilitation dissertation.

The significance of the argument to be made on this account, is that the act of expressing standard human sense-perception, does not show us the actual function of the physical process on which that evidence depends. In effect, the limitations of our sense-perceptual instruments are the source of the errors which the careless mind imposes upon what careless opinion lends the false identity of "natural." That fault is inherent in the nature of belief in "sense perception" as being self-evident (as in the literal meaning of "sense-perception"). Sense-perception does not show us the foot, but only the footprint which the foot has created in its passage. In brief, the "actual foot" is invisible to the sensory apparatus; only the virtual shadow (e.g., "the footprint") is visible.

We must proceed from the vantage-point of recognizing that what is customarily treated as sense-certainties, are, in actual practice, merely shadows cast by what the senses do not present to us directly; there, the existence of true science begins. The habituated belief in a primary value for sense-perception is the most vicious systemic folly of the majority of opinion, even among most scientific opinion, still today.

Continue the study of this matter, by extending "the model" of "the foot" to the case in which the "foot" is now extended to the case of a trail of "footprints." The foot itself, including its movements, continues to be actually invisible to the observing person; only the "footprint" (the shadow of the continuous trail of "footprints"), is visible. What, then, is the ontological "place" in which the "foot" itself ("the actual effect") is "visible" in some sense?

Therefore, the actual "foot" in this case, is invisible to the person observing the trail; it is the "virtual shadow" of the series of the merely apparent "foot-events," which is the "visible" expression of the presence of the actual "foot." The real action is thus expressed, only in the form of that which is not seen literally.

So, far, there is nothing which should seem absurd to a competent scientist about any of this. The irony of the imagery lies in the fact that the presumption of "seeing" is not a direct representation, ontologically, of the actual movement of the foot itself; it is the visual experience of the actual movement of the foot, not the foot itself, which has authored the viewer's sense of the perception of both the object and its motion; it is the duty of the scientist to effect the needed correction in what has been accepted scientific opinion. That now poses the question: "What is 'it' which 'sees' that which is embodied in the actuality of observing the multiply paradoxical characteristic of the array of the attributed motion of the designated object as such?"

Now, consider another aspect of that which bears on such kinds of relations. We have thus, now, entered the domain of Shakespeare's and Shelley's ontological paradoxes. Consider a case of the inherent irony of Shakespeare's "Chorus" from Henry the Fifth.

What the occasion of a successful stage performance pretends to regard as merely the appearance of the actors, is the fact that the actors standing in for the ghost-like roles of what are actually performed as the work of the actors, have been implicitly assigned to substitute for the image of the characters which they are played to represent, characters from the play itself, which dwell among us, otherwise, only as inhabitants of the audience's imagination.

Meanwhile, as to the drama as a whole, treat it as if you were being advised by the thinking of the voice of a Shakespeare caught in the moment of his writing the famous prologue from his Henry the Fifth. On the crucial implications of the subject of that prologue, it is urgent that the following be said here and now.

The characters who appear on the Classical stage of Shakespeare, are made up to appear as virtually ghosts, not the living bodies of the characters being played. The actual ghosts on whose account the actors perform on stage, are to be recognized as actors on stage who are performing the apparent parts of persons which they are actually not; thus, they appear like ghosts attributed to the action of the characters assigned to the drama to perform as ghosts, actual ghosts on stage which the audience chooses to recognize as hypothetically the flesh-and-blood actors, or actor-like objects on stage. However, pay close attention to the fact, that the actors about to appear on the stage are not the real persons (but correspond to a place ostensibly occupied by real persons), while very little of the rest of the impedimenta hauled so onto the stage, is really what it is presumed to represent.

The apparent fault, or, you might say "irony" of the arrangements on stage, is not to be regarded as demanded by the producer's yearning for ready cash, or some other sort of difference expressed as of that category. This feature of the staging of the Classical drama, is an essential part of the meaning of the entirety of the play, a requirement demanded, as a matter of ontological principle, as in the instance of Lady Macbeth's bloody night-prowl, by that principle of metaphor—the principle of the imagination—on which the competence of all dramatic forms of public events depends, as a matter of the principle of true drama. So, Shakespeare's instructions on the crafting of that spectre which is his Birnam Wood, is the necessary touch of gloomy magic without which the grisly irony of an effective conclusion of the drama were not accomplished. All this and its likeness, is the touch of counterfeit magic which brings on the awe on which the perceived passion of the induced irony in the drama depends for its equivalent of "life."

We must induce in the spectators, and also the players, that sense of "magic" on which the competence of the poetry depends. This is not a "trick." At this point, I must introduce one of my specific clarifications:

Hence, we have, there, a proper sort of conventional image of the principle of metaphor as it bursts the bounds of what are merely entertainments, thus to expose itself as the essential principle of a valid physical science, as, unfortunately relatively few presumed scientists have yet actually grasped this notion. The principle of metaphor must be introduced to the action of the drama, at that junction, for such purposes! On this account, the Classical drama, or its like, passes over from entertainment, to the subject of deeply impassioned, seemingly magical principles situated within an enlarged practice of physical science. It proceeds as follows from this point onward.

Make no mistake; this is a matter of real physical science! It is necessary to make the apparent mere play mimic nature, for the sake of the purpose that sense-perception as such can not mimic actual nature; therefore, the poet and dramatist must intimate the magic attributably inherent in history's nature.

Metaphor!

This expression of the principle of metaphor, is the application to a set of functional relationships represented by what are regarded directly as actions in nature for which the action itself is invisible to ordinary sense-perception, but in which for the action itself, even when its nature is physically invisible, we are then potentially enabled to adduce that which remains literally invisible respecting the action recognizable as being of this type of action. This notion tends to be made clear when one assesses the Classical stage from the standpoint of a Platonic physical science in the tradition of such as Heraclitus and Plato, rather than as merely entertainment or the like.

Ordinarily, we "see" what sense-perception presents, not that which the alternate "sensorium" of the domain of physical science proffers as the appropriate alternative.

The most significant expression of this principle of the stage, is located within the actual, but "physically invisible" actions which the successful on-stage performance makes suggestibly "real" for the sake of the audience reactions to what has been passing among the imagination, of the players onstage and the audience alike, or, as a physical interaction which is, in its core, not directly intelligence relevant to the subject of the action itself; here, the effect of the action, rather than a direct vision of the action, serves as the seemingly "magical" substitute for that occasion. The example of the opening of Chorus from Shakespeare's King Henry V, is an excellent illustration of the sense of that which must be the eeriness of the action portrayed to the audience, then and there.

In that part of Shakespeare's drama, pathetic mere toys serve as shadows of that which lacks the mysterious passion of the settings within which the listed characters prance and speak.

On this account, we must recognize a chain of connecting points throughout a real time and conceived place; we must recognize them as points of reference for a universe within which no actual "space" actually exists. It is an experience which should prompt a recollection of the genius of such excellent qualities of ancient anti-reductionists as Heraclitus and Plato, as, also, that of such modern exemplars of the same legacy: exemplars such as the modern European Renaissance's Filippo Brunelleschi, Nicholas of Cusa, and such dependent followers of Cusa as Leonardo da Vinci, Johannes Kepler, Gottfried Leibniz, and soon (speaking historically) after that, such contemporaries and followers of Leibniz as Alexander von Humboldt, Carl F. Gauss, and then Lejeune Dirichlet, Bernhard Riemann, and then such as Max Planck and Albert Einstein. All of these true modern spirits of science, especially since the birth of Europe's Fifteenth Century, had depended chiefly, in their respective lifetimes, on the systemically defined heritage of the crucial, ontological implications of Cusa's De Docta Ignorantia.

Then, there is the matter of that which needs to be postponed for a moment here, postponed for consideration as being probably both an intrinsically elementary point, and also one yet to be presented, until now; I present this, for the purpose of situating what I must present as the relevant, still higher standpoint of argument needed to make clear the crucially important, and presently still little-known Classical principle which I am emphasizing here.

Philo vs. Euclid & Nietzsche

To put that just-stated point here: that which is to be put aside so for the present moment, we have the case of the popular, but typically, systemically absurd notion of the modern reductionist's echo of the fraudulent presumptions of Euclid. On this account, see Philo of Alexandria's denunciation of Euclid, and, (implicitly) of Euclid's modern, fascist follower, Friedrich Nietzsche: all of which is implicitly generic in its implications.

The deeper aspect of that same issue of Philo versus Euclid (and Aristotle) touches the ontologically crucial implications of the notion of continuing, universal creativity, as that which interpenetrates the actual reality necessarily, underlying the principle of the notion of universe itself.

That much said this far, to get to the core of the point to be made in this presentation, we must now proceed as follows into the matter of "The Science of Classical Art."

The notion that sense-perceptions are real, as if in and of themselves, is among the more deadly of the common, and often poisonous, superstitions to be met among the credulously symbol-minded. Indeed, the most tragic follies of most of past and present mankind, can be blamed on this.

Those may not seem to be the worst nightmares of ordinary mankind; but, the belief in a self-evident quality for sense-perception for itself, is the source of what have been the worst, most systematically vicious effects upon the mind of mankind. Those so-duped believers, have swallowed the foolish, and implicitly poisonous notion, that the sense-perceptions are not only reality, but are even to be considered as the foundations in evidence for an experienced truth. In fact, what those images actually represent, are only the twisted, often unreal shadows, which have been cast by unknown objects. These are objects which may exist for some audiences as if they had been sent from another universe, rather than the one which actually exists; these are the mere shadows which most among us in the society, thus far, each tends to mistake for having been their own true being.

The customary notion of sense-perception, is sane only insofar as the believer claims a sense-perception to be no more than merely the evidence of the occurrence of that which has the effect of what is attributed as having been a sense-perception, but not a reality in and of itself. It is to be considered as if it were no more truthful than being merely a footprint left by the passage of an invisible foot.

The principle to which I have pointed in the immediately preceding two paragraphs here, is often already available in a relatively perfected, truthful form, in great Classical artistic compositions. The principle of truth, so expressed, is properly identified as the great, all- revolutionary principle of metaphor, upon which all true knowledge, like all truly Classical artistry, depends.

The distinction of the principle of metaphor, is that the actual relationships among the direct objects of the metaphor are not directly inter active; they are images which might merely glare, or smile at one another, each within the silenced confinement of its own glass cage, but they can not interact willfully. Only the passions within and among those such qualities of certain objects of our imagination, are, as if seen in a glass cage, or, as one playwright has said, "a glass menagerie," what taunts the imageries, as the Christian Apostle Paul wrote of this matter in I Corinthians 13:

"For now, we see through a glass, darkly; but, then, face to face; now, I know in part; but, then, shall I know, even as I am known."

This passage from the Apostle Paul has a precise, scientific meaning in the realities of physical time, as I emphasized in such locations as my relatively brief, September 30, 2011 replies to two questions presented to me in an LPAC National Broadcast on that occasion. I explain this crucial fact of a competent physical science, as follows, at a place somewhat later in this report, below.

So, it is the expression of the true principle of metaphor, that we must, typically, consider two objects, each of which is not a reality in itself, but each of which is, rather, a seen shadow cast by an unseen reality. What, therefore, is the relationship of that which is seen, as if in a mirror, as an imagined relationship between what appear to be two different objects? The objects which we have believed that we have seen, must be treated as related in the way that the mere shadows of real objects must be related to the human actor. They are related in metaphor.

That, for example, was precisely the true nature of the stroke of genius in Johannes Kepler's recognition of his discovered principle of universal gravitation, as in, also, his relevant, earlier discovery of the use of the notion of a "vicarious hypothesis." Such is the actual relationship between the shadows known as sense-perceptions, and the unseen objective-existences which are invisible to human sense-perceptions; such is the quandary of those persons, who differ from, but resemble, curiously, the behavior of those apparently panicked pigs which react to the earthquakes at a discrete interval of time prior to a human perception of such an actually, humanly experienced, subsequent event.

Pierre-Simon Laplace's Demon

So, Pierre-Simon Laplace lacked the honesty of the pigs experiencing the onset of that which we humans have experienced as the pigs' own first, direct perception of the earthquake as being a sensed earthquake. Such is the conclusion to be adduced in noting the intrinsic incompetence of Laplace's fraudulent report on the actuality which is usually mistaken for what was merely an imagined form of space-time.

The recent half-billion years of the related, known physical-scientific history of life under the hosting of our galaxy, demonstrates that what might seem to some, to be the likeness of a "self-evident clock time" does not actually exist as anything more than the effect of the shadows which had been mistaken for the adumbrated notion of the actual event. The real "clock" of this universe, acts through physical-evolutionary time, the time of ontological revolutions among sundry varieties of species, not "pill-like" doses of objects in clock-time. There is no constantly fixed time in an actual physical space-time; time is what you become in this universe while you have lived, and remain living, and, also continue to have been. I shall proffer a clearer view of this particular fact under the heading of the principle of creativity to which I responded in those closing moments of my September 30, 2011 National Broadcast.

Having taken that much into account for later reference here, I now say on that account, in brief, that the notion of a "Second Law of Thermodynamics" which was cooked up by Nineteenth-century hoaxsters such as Rudolf Clausius, is an assertion directly contrary to the most essential scientific facts respecting development and extinctions in the course of the efficiently evolutionary development of the known universe, respecting our present knowledge of the evolution of life-forms during the recent half-billion years. Evolution of life forms, in particular, is to be measured in terms of a required pattern of increase of the rates of energy-flux density of the experienced universe, as in such cases as the continuing existence of life-forms' determining power to increase the required such relative increase of density. The successful existence of living species, moves as if with joyful passion against what must seem to the mechanist as a virtually uphill gradient of our universe. Our universe proceeds successfully, and, I wish to believe it should be happily, in the experience of its successive economic-uphill transformations.[1]

In particular, during the recent half-billion years of the relevant evidence, the clock of the evolution of species on this planet, proceeds uphill. "Clock time" does not exist as an independent factor of physical time; physical time exists as an "uphill" development; it moves "uphill," as from lower to higher, qualitative expressions of existence, such as higher "energy-flux density" of existence. Stagnation, otherwise known as "zero growth," or, as the illusion of belief in "clock time," is a measure of attrition, a measure of degradation and, ultimately, "extinction" of that whose breeding had failed. In the real universe, existence demands the opportunity to move as if "up-hill," and, for many, seemingly against the grain; all of this, seemingly, to the effect of a principle of universal anti-entropy; therefore, a trend of extinction is inherent in the cases of a lack of what seems to be uphill progress toward higher mean states of existence.

The Oligarchical Lie

Those facts present us with a twofold challenge.

First, since the fact of the conclusive weight of experimental evidence, is that the pretended discovery of the notion of a mean rate of "zero-growth," is inherently a lie; therefore, the consequent question is, whence came the fraudulent notion of "zero growth"—the so-called "Second Law of Thermodynamics"?

The answer to that question is relatively simple; the answer, which is to say, the name of the culprit, is the brutish (e.g., "British") fraud called "the oligarchical principle." The second challenge is: "Who is setting that oligarchical clock?" My suggested answer is, as the Apostle Peter's associate, Philo of Alexandria, pointed out: there is an inherent, upward trajectory of continuing development in the "physics" of our universe: hence, the inherent need to combat the evil by the use of such means as those which are typified by the physics-concept of a universal, anti-entropic, anti-Euclidean, anti-Friedrich Nietzschean rejection of Euclid's assertion of the notion of a "dead Creator" in a universe in which there is no inherently continuing creation permitted according to Aristotle and Euclid and their asserted "universal laws."

The belief in a so-called "Second Law of Thermodynamics" is an expression of the moral as much as the physical decadence which inheres in, and is characteristic of the practice of the so-called "oligarchical principle."

That "oligarchical principle" of the current British Royal household and its impedimenta, is what is illustrated by the principle of the first of the four stages (thus far) of the Roman Empire; the second, had been passage of that empire into its reincarnation as Byzantium; thence, third, into the Venetian-directed status of the Crusader pandemic; and, fourthly, the latter's re-emergence as the present British empire under the descendants of the Sarpian, imperial New Venetian Party's William of Orange. It had emerged, then, as the present British empire, that of, now, the Queen Elizabeth II currently seeking its realization in the form of something akin to the notion of a frankly pro-satanic, thermonuclear Armageddon expressed as the intention to effect the rapid, genocidal reduction of the present human species, from seven billions, now, to one billion living persons permitted to exist on Earth, by order of the Queen's own realm. In its earlier incarnations, this same oligarchical tradition had included such atrocities as the trend into decadence of what had been the relatively superior quality of the Indian Ocean-based maritime culture of the Sumerians, as by the moral decline effected through the effects of the disastrous Peloponnesian War.

There are deeper considerations beyond those indicated here this far; the following issues are of crucial significance on that account.

Mankind in the Universe

Consider the inherently anti-entropic direction which the evidence of science to date has shown during the extent of the course of about a half-billion years' pageant of what is presently known as the estimated half-billion years of the succession of known life-forms on Earth. Review that evidence, when such a sequence of developments has been matched with the trends in that galaxy within which our Solar system is contained, and that tallied when the evidence of the noëtic principle of universal creativity has been exhibited in the emergence and continuing development of our Sun's planetary system.

However, there is another, considerably deeper phase of this matter, which is to be considered here now. Although I have presented much of this which I state here, which had already been emphasized in my earlier publications, there are strong reasons for my restating this absolutely crucial case to this present audience, here and now.

The principal, persisting source of incompetence among even many presumably ranking scientists, has been the fruit of the grave error of a continuing insistence on what are regarded as merely sense-perceptions, which are now often misused as a claimed standard of scientific certainties. The essential fact to be considered in this respect, is that sense-perceptions are exactly that: merely sense-perceptions, and, relative to the successes of the Riemann standard in physics, childishly crude instruments. Those sense-perceptions are experiences which have the actual relevance of being merely sense-perceptions, and which are often expressions of some misleading qualities associated with mere shadows of actuality, rather than being, actually, a not-directly-sense-experienced bit of evidence which could be better represented, directly, as the probably actually generated laws of the universe itself.

Consider some timely thoughts.

The principle underlying the point which I have just outlined here, could be conveniently described, in effect, as a matter of a distinction of, most notably, two ontologically different conceptions of the experience of what is perceived as having been "physical time." The simplest view of the kinds of distinctions to be considered along the lines I have outlined in these preceding paragraphs, is the suggestion of the difference between the shadow (human sense-perception and its specific effects, on the one side) and the actual experience of the universality of the real event, on the other.

Let us illustrate the working point here by aid of devices which, on the one side, are the relatively causal factor of the precursor of an earthquake, and on the other, the perceived effect of what was the "originally radiated" effect later experienced as the human experience of the earthquake itself. All human sense-perceptions which duped people attribute to be the virtually self-evident authority of "sense-certainty," are effects of the latter type which I have just outlined here. Such is the difference between the human sensorium's attribution of "felt developments" by human sense-perception, and the more accurate, and also more timely radiation of that which has been responsible for the delayed impact expressed as what should be reported as human sensory or comparable experience.

So, on the one side, we have the crude instruments known as living, biological sense-perceptions; on the other side we have the crafted precision of physical instruments which reach toward both the infinitely large and infinitesimally small, as Bernhard Riemann warned us of this fact.

Our sense perceptions are a crude attempt at simulation of what is experienced more closely to the actual event felt, perhaps, a bit later and in a differing modality.

Thus, in this same fashion, the most useful of the early known cases of actually physical-scientific evidence, rather than merely sense-perceptual beliefs, are to be met in such cases as the duplication of the cube by the associate of Plato known as the Pythagorean Archytas, as the latter's celebrated, systemically crucial discovery of the duplication of the cube, complements the statement in the celebrated fragment of Heraclitus, and kindred accomplishments from ancient times.

This discrepancy in "time" of occurrence, to which I have referred immediately above, that as in respect to human sense-perception as such, is thus to be appreciated as a systemic defect in any human reliance on a presumed "natural" quality of what we recognize in the use of the technical term "sense-perception." A similar conclusion is needed when the sense-perception of the pigs experiencing an earthquake-related type of event, is contrasted with the same real event's later report of a human response to the same setting of the in-processness experienced by the pigs of the categorically "same" event.

The essential challenge which my cited treatment of the difference between the pigs and the people during the same extended world event, illustrates more broadly, is what is rooted in the inherent imperfections of what can be reduced, by aid of man-made scientific instruments, to a common universal event. The mistaken notion of an alleged human experience of "space-time," is an illustration of such inherent errors in the various species of notions of lapsed time associated within a generality of notions equivalent to those of sense-perception.

It could, and should be proposed that no man sees the universe as the Creator does. The warning which this represents, is that sense-perception does not produce what is fairly and truly regarded as an actually scientific certainty. We must train the modern human mind to rely on a vast, and broadly extended proliferation of conflicting perceptors, so that we might, in this way, provide ourselves with a vast array of instruments employed to supersede the crude mechanisms of what we are customarily duped into regarding as "direct evidence." As we are now forewarned, more and more, of the deadly menace of being drawn into a misguided faith in ordinary "sense-perception," we are being presently warned, that we require a vast, and vastly expanding array of instruments, out of which, following the noble and unique achievement of Kepler's discovery of gravitation, we must build up a vastly enriched kind of sensorium, by means of which we are enabled to free our human species from the folly of faith in merely ordinary human sense-perceptions.

This brings us to the matter of the foolishness of Pierre-Simon Laplace.

Among what should be regarded as the most notable failures of persons such as that Laplace, is the use of the notion of "clock-time," or an equivalent, as the adopted primary means for measuring the behavior of the universe as if "from the outside." A few crucial remarks on this will be sufficient at this immediate juncture.

"What is the clock which measures the time of the clock?" To translate that into the complementary argument: "How much of the total time of action is absorbed by variations in the rate of variation in what is merely presumed to be a constant rate of clock-time?" There is nothing idle, as a matter of principle, in that question. The clock-time of the lapsed terms of about a half-billion years of life which has been "clocked" in our galaxy, is one neat little hoax of the accomplices of the fraud of the "Second Law of Thermodynamics."

Rudolf Clausius' hoax of "A Second Law," runs "smack" against two notable obstacles. First, the idea of a fixed galactic time, is defined by his argument as external to the action within the universe; second, that the expression of an overall actual rate expressed in the system of clock-time, is the somewhat embarrassing effect of the expression of relative gain in the higher forms of life within the system during the course of the recent half-billion years.

That, and related considerations show Clausius to be some sort of outright hoaxster.[2] The error becomes more interesting when we take into account that living processes are increasing the relative anti-entropy of their category, and that the relative anti-entropy expressed by a science-driven human culture, is a higher rate of anti-entropy than merely living creatures. Then, there is the matter of the relative rates of anti-entropy among the categories of merely animal life. "Who measured, or actually crafted, your fraudulently crafted, oligarchical yardstick, Herr Clausius?"

The ability of the human species to maintain and increase the energy-flux-density factor of society, that in inverse proportion to the oligarchical factor, attests to the fact that there is nothing natural about the pack of lies called "environmentalism." The issue is the degenerative effect of oligarchist social systems, such as the British monarchy, a mass-murderous effect which is inherent in the current British oligarchical "agenda."[3]

If I seem to speak meanly of the alleged co-thinkers of Herr Clausius, Queen Elizabeth II, and her lackey John Schellnhuber, their claims are not a product of science, but of the psychological needs of an oligarchical system associated with the myth of the Olympian Zeus, and, probably, sometimes, some cult of cannibalism.

To deal further with the phenomenon of oligarchism, we must turn our attention to the intertwined principles of progress and the practice of advances in physical science. The case of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa and his hereditary influence on the shaping of scientific and social progress of mankind, provides us with the cornerstone of the matters which we must take up next.

Cusa's Modern European Epoch

Whereas, in modern European science, there are potent and true contributions by Filippo Brunelleschi; the first available body of systemically crucial evidence bearing on the required principles of modern physical science, was actually presented by Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, in his De Docta Ignorantia. All modern notions of scientific principle contrary to Cusa on this account, have been the product of regressions to the debased notions of the oligarchical principle.

All of the leading competent human personalities of modern science, through the production of Johannes Kepler's works, were explicitly followers of Cusa; the leading scientist to emerge as a follower of Cusa student Kepler, was the Gottfried Leibniz who created the modern calculus premised on a discovery of a physical principle by the same Gottfried Leibniz. All of the keystone progress of modern physical science and Classical artistic cultures, is premised on the same consideration, as the case of Johann Sebastian Bach demonstrates. Leibniz, in turn, was, thus, a cardinal figure echoed in the Nineteenth-century founding of the physical science of the school of such followers of Abraham Kästner and Carl F. Gauss as Alexander v. Humboldt's Lejeune Dirichlet, Bernhard Riemann, and of the continuing achievements of followers from among such leading figures of Twentieth-century science as Max Planck and Albert Einstein.

Such is the outline of the hopes and also the contrary, wildly reductionist, even systemically criminal abominations perpetrated within the bounds of modern physical science since the founding of that science, of Nicholas of Cusa, which had broken European civilization free of the Fourteenth-century "New Dark Age." This has been a breakthrough centered in that initiating role for all modern science which had been launched by such as Brunelleschi and Nicholas of Cusa. Excepting extraordinary cases such as the economic and related reforms under Charlemagne, virtually all European civilization, to the present day, expresses an imperialist (i.e., monetarist) system of society, as typified in effects by the four principal manifestations of the Roman Empire, from the original Roman Empire of Caesar Augustus through the British Empire of Queen Elizabeth II today. The notion of the role of money per se as the monetarist principle of four successive expressions of what had been the original Roman Empire, outlines the relationship between monetarism and imperialism in the world today. The present breakdown-crisis of the trans-Atlantic monetarist system, is a typical expression of the causes of the onrushing doom within the presently crashing, British-dominated, trans-Atlantic monetarist-imperialist pestilence.

These bare outlines of what is customarily presented as the outline of the ancient through modern history of European-centered accounts of culture, could not be competently presented today, without great emphasis on the wicked role in which the effect of a moral disease called "the oligarchical tradition" is taken into account for its role as a customary, damning feature of that span of European-centered history.

This has been experienced as oligarchical self-damnations such as the ancient Peloponnesian War, or of the Satanic hues of ancient Babylon, or of the wicked effects of the poisoning of Alexander the Great at the prompting of Aristotle, and, also, the successive waves of a recurring Roman Empire of, first, Rome, then Byzantium, and then the Venetian rule over the pestilence of the so-called "crusaders," and, presently, the New Venetian Party of William of Orange, which paved the way for the British version of the Roman imperial system of today. All these have tended to prevent any ostensibly competent modern historian from bringing forth even a single principle of the culture of ancient through modern European civilization.

Such attempts at civilization as those, have each been not as much a culture, as much as it has been a reflection of a recurring, see-saw battle for the reign of an evil which is contrary to the intended true nature of our human species. All this has been contrary to a continuing battle for the good, a battle which has resisted, but not always successfully, the tyrannies typified by the specific oligarchical evil of the model of the British imperial monarchy of today.

So, the genius of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, who inspired the trans-oceanic emergence of what would be included as the becoming of our United States in North America, typifies the unique achievement of the creation of our own United States of America, but, on the other side of history, there has been the recurring evil which has often ruined our wonderful republic through the continuing existence of the Romantic evil known as the British empire. Cusa's De Docta Ignorantia remains today the model for trans-Atlantic designs of anti-imperialist, anti-monetarist systems spread throughout the world at large.

There should be nothing considered as an inevitably evil outcome in the record of evil marked out by the recurring moral failures of the Mediterranean region in particular. It has been a moral sickness, a pestilence rightly identified as "oligarchism," which has been chiefly responsible for the evil effects in European cultures so far. What has cursed the nations of Europe during most of their periods of existence thus far, has been a single principle of corruption, the corruption best identified as "the oligarchical principle" which has been typified by such manifestations as the Peloponnesian War, as the great dramatic historian Aeschylus has exhibited the relevant evidence on that tragedy and its outcome.

Is "Oligarchism" "Satan Worship?"

Whatever a person's choice of a religious prejudice might be, the singular fact of the span of history of the Mediterranean region, from the earliest known political history, to the present time, has been what is sometimes regarded as the revolt of Christianity against the frankly Satanic quality of the four stages of the Roman empires, including today's British empire, and their legacies. That cumulative legacy of the four phases of what had been the original Roman Empire, has been the authentically Satanic tradition presently embedded as a certain system of law embedded in the British branch of that presently four-fold Empire, still today.

The British empire emerged to life from its original kernel, as the traditions of England's Henry VIII and, a bit later, of William of Orange's Sarpian "New Venetian" party. William's nominally Dutch,"New Venetian Party" of the followers of Paolo Sarpi, persists, to this present day, as the immediate origin of the evil which is presently, deeply embedded in the British Empire of Queen Elizabeth II, as in that of her horrid spouse, and in the images of the sucking vampire bats which the royal pair appears to love so tenderly: as it has been said, each night.

This statement, just made by me here, is not a fancied spawn of any mere prejudice. As I shall emphasize, without toleration of compromise here, that which I have reported here thus far, is a physical-scientific fact, one which must be considered as such in defining that intention, an opinion contrary to the inherently evil spirit of the British empire, an opinion which is affirmed in the true nobility of the natural inclination of our human species.

Such, is the setting of the oligarchical principle. Such is the crafting of the oligarchical tradition which the legacy of the Roman empire expresses so aptly. Such is the evil from which we must free mankind now, if the presently looming risk of a global thermonuclear holocaust, is to be avoided during the immediate period ahead. We must, of course, resist that danger; but, we must do better than merely resist; we must dig out the source of this presently immediate menace, and uproot it. Therefore, I must now describe and define what we must uproot and destroy.

The Human Mind: Again, in Principle

An important thought in transition.

The customary view of the function of the human mind is, unfortunately, still rooted in the errant, naive presumptions of sense-perception. The fault embedded in notions of "sense certainty," is what should be recognized as the obvious fact that sense-perceptions, whether considered in part, or as a collection of the sensory functions of our bodily incarnation, are not the lawful expression of that universe which credulously mistaken persons presume to be their experience of truth.

For this case, truth is to be extended to include all of the direct and indirect experiences of both mind and body combined. All of the factors of that experience which affect the human species, directly or indirectly, in the individual, or in the experience of mankind on Earth as a whole, are experiences which must be taken into account for the purpose of forming a judgment on the actual totality of what the human mind should be taking into account for any specific, systematic kind of decision.

What "I experience," or what I might have picked up from neighborly or other "outside" sources, has the predominant tendency to distract our processes of judgment away from truth, toward the lies of dream-lands' fantasies. As the case of the best practice of modern physical science illustrates the point, actual truth in shaping opinions depends, properly, on judging that which simple sense-perception, whether sensed, or borrowed, inherently misjudges.

Science? What Is Truth?

Now, when I have said as much as I think necessary to be said on the subjects of what I have presented, or prominently referenced otherwise, thus far, I bring what has been the lurking core-subject of this report, to the fore.

As the exemplary physicist Bernhard Riemann emphasized in the concluding sentence of his 1854 habilitation dissertation: What, we must ask ourselves, is that which is pathologically wrong about the manner of the teaching of mathematics as such, in schools still today? What are the implications of that systematic error of the mathematicians for the crisis of economy today? Why did Riemann emphasize the urgency of departing from the department of mathematics, for the sake of an actually physical science, thus displacing a depraved practice in the tradition of a Euclid?

Return our attention, again, to the illustrative, tragic case of the pathetic Pierre-Simon Laplace.

Refer, again, to the case of that utter fraud known as Euclidean geometry, as a leading case in point. Or, take the fact that, despite every so-called principle of science claimed for Sir Isaac Newton, the Newtonian doctrine, like that of Euclid, has been shown, sweepingly, to have been a systemic fraud; the same is to be said of the doctrine of Aristotle and, as Philo of Alexandria denounced both Aristotle, and also, implicitly, Aristotle's Euclid-like mimic, Friedrich "God is dead!" Nietzsche.

As with the case of Euclid's a-prioristic presumptions, all so-called "scientific" dogma presented as if a-priori, is implicitly a hoax, whether or not the hoaxster is aware of such implicitly intentional implications. However, for this present occasion, rather than focussing our attention on the relatively trivial quality of the fraud permeating Euclid's fundamental, a-priori assumptions, I deal here with the far deeper implications of another, truly vicious fraud: the belief in the implied "self-evidence" of what is identified as the a-priorist's belief in that "a-priori" notion of "time" adopted by the hoaxster Pierre-Simon Laplace. Laplace's fraud, is of crucial importance as a symptom of crucial issues to be brought to a mercilessly competent scientific understanding in these matters presented here.[4]

That means, or should be understood to mean, for example, that true science requires that, absolutely contrary to the fraud known as Euclidean geometry, no "external presumptions of so-called principle" should be required, or permitted, to define the subject-matter of the system of human existence itself. This will continue to require special attention from me personally, as from certain others; almost none of our people, excepting some in the "Basement" operations, have an adequate sense of competent insight into the actual implications of what I have just written here. Fortunately, some discussions along those lines have been presented to the "Basement" crew at this time. The problem here, on this account, is that only some among our "Basement" science-crew have presently shown any competent insight into what this matter implies.

The problem even within the leadership and ranks of our own association, is the utter lack of willingness, among not only some, but many professed scientists, to accept the very notion of the possible existence of a grounding in the crucial principles which this matter of physical science involves. Here, the very notion of a standard mathematics predicated on a mathematical form of presumptions, breaks down.

I explain that crucial point, as follows. This is the most deserving choice of "whipping boy" which deserves to be punished for an excellent moral purpose: no expression of that sickly notion of a mathematical form of proof of principle should be practiced; no such notion as that could be regarded as "competent." Only the notion of the existence of the creative powers of the human mind as such, can be used legitimately; no deductive form of argument could be competent for addressing the fundamental issues invoked. Only a type of formulation associated with Max Planck collaborator Wolfgang Köhler's "Gestalt" psychology, and its correlative in the notions of "mental health" associated with certain minority strains of psychoanalysis, provide a describably typical clue to the practical meaning of the argument which I have just invoked.

To provide a decent approximate image of what those remarks of mine actually signify, imagine a being whose entire world-outlook is that of a creature committed to a self-induced state of its inherent mental health. Think of "a healthy mind" which has no criteria other than an actual coherence based solely on a mentally healthful promotion of the qualitative self-development of itself. The principle to be considered on this account, is that creation of a universe can not be premised on anything external to that universality.

If we attempt to represent such a scheme of things in a deductive mode, nothing works as might be literally prescribed in any conventional sort of way. The effort goes better if we rely on the argument which I introduced in reply to questions, respecting the core-principle of human creativity, which were posed during the concluding moments of my National Broadcast of this past September 30th.

To restate that argument in a necessary way, let it be restated as follows.

The Great Lie of Pierre Laplace[5]

The most crucial of the issues raised during the Nineteenth Century concerning the alleged principles of physical science, has probably been the great lie of Pierre-Simon Laplace: Laplace's insistence on degrading the universe to the arbitrary presumption of "clock time" is of particular notability. The most adequate treatment of Laplace's hoax, so far, has been provided, albeit in a somewhat sketch-like fashion, until now, in my replies to questions respecting time, during the National Broadcast of September 30, 2011. I shall now pick up the issue of Laplace from where I had referenced it earlier in this report. I shall deal with deeper implications of this in a pre-envisaged piece to be written and published at a coming time.

There are, to begin, actually two intimately related errors in Laplace's celebrated swindle. One is the bald nonsense of Laplace's treatment of the subject of "time" as such; however, that nonsense is implicitly inseparable from a second consideration, the reductionist's presentation of the topic of "energy." In my replies to two of the three questions presented to me in the concluding portion of the National Broadcast of Sept. 30th, I introduced the "factor" of the application of applied power over intervals of what we call "time." At first blush, my objection might appear to be merely a blush; on closer inspection, it is a torrent which overturns everything for which Laplace's principal utterances have stood. It is the consequent scientific principle which I have relegated to an early production.

Three immediate considerations are the most significant on these accounts this far:

  1. That, explicitly contrary to taught popular dogma, is the actually required standard for life in presently known aspects of the galaxy which we inhabit. The fraud to be located at this point is the utterly fraudulent doctrine of a so-called "Second Law of Thermodynamics." The required level of energy-flux density for maintaining life-forms on our planet, has continued to rise in a fashion which threatens to deliver a timely doom for all species which can not muster the means to overcome the effects of a required increase of the mean energy-flux density in the system as a whole.
  2. Consequently, the actual "cost" of even the simple maintenance of the system, requires an increase of energy-flux density operating within the system, a fact which proves the fraudulent character, as much as the sheer absurdity of the so-called "Second Law of Thermodynamics."
  3. In addition to that set of considerations, a general increase of the "energy-flux density" of the system is required merely to maintain the system at an effective level of "status quo ante." We are currently entering a part of our galaxy for which the indicated existential rule is "grow or die."

There are several prime types of considerations to be brought into play on account of these stated and related considerations. However, the truly crucial problem which is to be recognized in this set of connections, is to be located, essentially, in the effects of the fact that our planet's human system in the large, is still structured, currently, according to the adopted standards which are rooted ("habituated," "conditioned") in that so-called oligarchical system, a system which has unnecessarily dominated society generally during the period of an oligarchical history of known, reigning, organized societies.

The implication is, that even to "stand still" in effect, insofar as known organized society is relevant, an effective increase of the "energy-flux density" of the relevant social systems of organized mankind, requires a rising flow of "energy-flux density" through that society.

The root of the problem which the described case presents to us, is a fact which is expressed otherwise by the simple fact that a required increase of energy-flux density, is needed even to, in effect, "stand still."

That problem, so described, is inherent in the prevalence of the oligarchical model, rather than our habitation of a planetary system as such. The following discussion is more or less indispensable on that account.

If we eliminate oligarchical controls such as those typical of the four successive Roman empires, the inherent evil of the current British empire included, we can show, as a study of the fluctuations in the economic history of the span from the founding and stable existence of the Plymouth settlement and the pre-William of Orange Massachusetts Bay settlement shows, and as the case of the United States and its patterns of rise and decline illustrates the point most dramatically, that, as the normal state of a settled condition of organized society illustrates this, that there is a natural trend toward increase of the effective equivalent of required and actual, relative energy-flux density per capita, in any society which is not suffering effects of an imposed oligarchical system. In other words: eliminate the British empire and its oligarchical likeness throughout the known history of this planet, and there were, then, an available, dominant tendency for an increase of the realized energy-flux density, as may be expressed per capita and per square kilometer of land-area.

Who Is Your Choice of God?

Creativity, as physical science might competently define a notion of a self-subsisting principle of creativity, and science can not be competently distinguished from an expression of perfect self-development. Nothing external to that notion of self-development can be permitted to be taken into consideration as a scientific practice. Everything which exists within those systemic bounds, does not have a freely willfully functional existence "outside" such bounds. What unfolds, hopefully, as a result, is a systemic quality of self-development.

It were not necessary for us to know, beforehand, the pathway of self-development which defines the "rules of behavior" of that self-creative process of self-extension. This self-development assumes the attributable form of an unfolding self-creation. It is neither necessary, nor proper for us to prejudge the rules which govern such a process of self-development of that universe. Rather, we must discover the rules of self-development from a critical examination of the process's own behavior, as the actual Socratic methods demonstrate such effects.

Indeed, once we have required the "explanation" of an "outside factor," we have violated the principle of a process of creation.

The coherence which we might properly recognize in such a process of self-creation, is the equivalent of the morality of the process in "its self-entirety." It is the unfolding coherence of the process which rules over the process, allowing, even demanding what must be done, and what not. It is such coherence within the continually unified process, which defines the system, as within that process of the continuing self-development of the system.

There is one comment to be added to all this. Let us consider the ostensibly "self-correcting" feature of the system as a whole, from the standpoint of what we might prudently term the "sanity" of the system itself. That notion, respecting the notion of a self-perfecting system of the prescribed features, points to an implicit principle of self-conception within the system, an implication which were to be considered as a creative conscience's expression of a state of its "sanity."

However, in all that I have said under those terms, the factor of what is ostensibly a supreme feature of "conscience" must be dominant. This factor can not be "instantaneous," but must be "active," as the sanity of the system considered as a whole must be.

Now, since we have just considered some obvious principles of any notion of a self-universal creation as "the required self-conscience of the system," we must now proceed accordingly. This time, our concern must be to define the practical meaning of that principle of "conscience" which is the active principle of the system: the internal "sanity" of the system as a process.

From Vernadsky's View

That much said here on that account thus far, consider some fairly well-defined, "as necessarily internal," characteristics of that system. The interrelationships among such known "factors" as Academician V.I. Vernadsky's "hierarchical" distinctions of "lithosphere," "biosphere," and "noösphere," are to be considered as useful mooring-points for such a discussion.

From the standpoint of the principally known works of Academician V.I. Vernadsky, as from the mid-1930s onward, Vernadsky's notable principles have depended increasingly upon the standpoint of the Bernhard Riemann who represents the most crucial principles of a physical science incorporating such among his great successors as Max Planck, Albert Einstein, and V.I. Vernadsky himself. No compartmentalization among them can be justly tolerated; the functional interdependence among them, although yet to become fully understood, is monumental.

However, looking backwards to the middle of the Fifteenth Century, the intimations of the work of Filippo Brunelleschi as subsequently overwhelmed by the genius of Nicholas of Cusa expressed in Cusa's De Docta Ignorantia, have no equal in their defining an entirely fresh, ontological notion of physical science for the entire sweep from the century of Cusa. This has been a notion which dominates the foundations of science from that time to the present date. That work, and its companions from the work of that same author, has had the practical effect of bringing to the fore an entirely fresh conception of the role of mankind and science, that from nearly the onset of that century and, hence the A.D. 1401 birth of Cusa himself.

Indeed the very existence of the United States has been a consequence of an injunction of a policy by Cusa: a directive to cross the great oceans, to create new nations to escape the degeneration which the resurgence of the Venetian system of usury had brought down destructively upon the momentary achievements of the Great Ecumenical Council of Florence, the Council in which all of the timely greatness of European culture was then expressed.

The process of social evolution for the good, as expressed by the role of Cusa and his associates in that great Council and its scientific expressions, was at the root of what was to become those developments in the Massachusetts of the Winthrops and Mathers, the developments which supplied the essential, distinguishing foundations of the United States of America, and which have provoked its greatest achievements to the advantage of all mankind since that time.

This brings our report thus far, to a crucial point. At this moment preceding, and still coinciding with the great, recurring world warfare of the A.D. 1890-1917 interval and beyond, the human civilization of this planet has presently come to what threatens to become immediately the extinction of human society in a recognizable form of existence.[6]

Despite that presently horrible threat now radiating across a vast span of history, since the spawn of the likes of the degenerate Roman Emperor Nero and his natural consequence, President Barack Obama's present master, the British monarchy, there are certain most notable features of the progress in physical science and Classical culture which have now reached a degree of cumulative development, a development which deserves to be regarded as the greatest accomplishments of the human species so far. Against that backdrop, what was embodied in European culture, despite the evil represented by that "Fourth" Roman Empire known as the British empire, has been the greatest achievement of mankind thus far. That specific accomplishment of resistance against the tyranny of today's British Empire, when appropriately considered, is the greatest hope of our planet and our species known to the entire existence of mankind up to this moment. We are, in that respect, the assigned true, and, hopefully, faithful, instruments of the Creator.

The most convenient point of reference to this fact, is a fact which is either not known as being such, or known, but snuffed into impotence by the evil stench of the mass- murderously anti-human pestilence known as the so-called "environmentalists."

Against that historical backdrop, the question posed to us by the world's current events, is whether mankind as we have known mankind has, or has had the character to outlive what is to be frankly considered as the virtually Satanic pestilence which is the old Roman Empire in its present British imperial incarnation. Will the British empire be permitted to bring the planet to the point of that virtual thermonuclear extinction and related methods of extinction which a presently accelerating intention for mass-extermination of peoples by the British empire now threatens to bring down upon our species, that in its virtual entirety.

This fact places mankind, presently, under the judgment of being tested in practice to be either fit to survive, or not. If the British imperial plotters were to be permitted to prevail, the judgment brought down upon the heads of our otherwise wonderful species would be an awful one. What you, as a citizen, might do, or fail to do, could help to decide the outcome for all mankind.

Consider the attached, practical issues which are addressed in the following pages, on that account. There lies the choice of action which threatens to bring all to account during the present moments immediately before us.

From the practice of economy:

II. On the Subject of Economy

From where I sit in today's process of world events, what I find astonishing, is the fact, that the western and central European governments, and their attached nations, are still, so far, clinging to the delusion, that their nations depend on increasing their supply of what is, intrinsically, hyper-inflationary money, that which is now, implicitly worthless. Hence, also, there is more and more of that intrinsically worthless money of the United States under Presidents George W. Bush, Jr., on the one side, and on the other the morally lowest form of life to appear so far, Barack Obama, who is the most criminal yet to appear within our shores.

The debt of the trans-Atlantic territories today, is a hopeless cancer of inherently worthless, merely nominal, monetarist value, which does nothing so much as increase its own, intrinsic worthlessness at currently hyper-inflationary rates, all that out of a mass of worthless debt which never would, or ever could, be redeemed.

The stubbornly crucial fact of the matter, is, that money, when considered in and of itself, is, intrinsically, absolutely irredeemable. The potential value lies not in the money itself (i.e., "monetarism"), but in the creative powers expressed in the human species' increased capacity for persistently increased net physical productivity, a productivity secured through combined advances in scientific knowledge and practice, and through enhanced cultural and related living standards for the populations in the large.

No actually sane political leader, or even only a moderately clear-headed and thoughtful citizen of our own republic, or of continental Europe, could have actually lost anything worth-while on this national account at this time, had his or her government simply employed the precedent of President Franklin Roosevelt's 1933 Glass-Steagall legislation, using that as the urgently needed step, for our terminating the implicitly feared existence of, in particular, those presently terrible, monetarist systems which had been built up within the U.S.A. and elsewhere, since approximately the Summer breaking-point of 1971.

What has been done for that which is now ever worse and far less than worthless, as inside the U.S.A. now, especially since the beginning of September 2007, and, most emphatically, since the mass-lunacy of the hyper-inflationary bail-out process begun in 2008, has been absolutely insanity. In western and central Europe, for example, the insanity is even much wilder, and more hopeless, than inside the U.S.A. itself; this has become, now, the sheer insanity of what has been termed "Quantitative Easing"—which is a malignant cancer of economy now plunging the trans-Atlantic world downward, into the pits of virtual economic Hell!

The remedy for that should have been recognized at the outset, as follows.

My 2007 Attempt To Save the U.S. Economy

Installing a copy of the 1933 U.S. Glass-Steagall Law, or my August 2007 Homeowners and Bank Protection Act, or its proposed equivalent, had been an immediately urgent, first-step measure, which should have been already taken since no later than September 2007; but, that measure has been, at the same time, only a part of the larger measures of a solution for our present crisis. Glass-Steagall is necessary, but, alone, it could not do what is needed; it is urgently needed, right now, not as a self-contained solution, but is indispensable as a first step toward the now more urgently needed, more fundamental approaches to a genuine and durable recovery.

In brief, the practical problem has been the following.

Glass-Steagall separates the worthless spending on gambling backed by worthless pledges, from the commercial banking sector; the urgency of the immediate necessity for a change is such that the continued existence of the United States depends on the immediate ouster of President Barack Obama as the required, initially crucial measure for the launching of a Glass-Steagall reform. The amount of credit which could be assembled by Glass-Steagall alone, would not be sufficient to reverse the presently plunging collapse of the trans-Atlantic region as a whole, or even the U.S. economy by itself. A much broader action, which I shall specify here, now, is needed. There is not a moment to waste.

I explain.

Credit vs. Monetarist Systems

When the patriots of the North American English colonies had broken with the British empire, in the aftermath of the British Lord Shelburne's victory taken from the February 1763 Peace of Paris, the English-speaking colonies in North America had been divided between the American patriots and their deadly adversaries the so-called "American Tory" or British imperialist financier interests. The British East India Company's specific imperialist interest, as merely typified prominently by Judge Lowell at that time, represented the British imperialist interest opposed to the American interest (e.g., that of our United States), then, as in the form of the British imperialist interest now associated, traditionally, with the "House of Morgan," then, as now.

However, the proper understanding of the role of the British imperialist interests, requires insight into some deeper considerations. The British interest of today, is that of a nearly global empire which controls the Wall Street and related financier interests inside the U.S.A. still today, and has managed, usually, to control the Presidency of the United States, through the British imperial financier interests under such Presidents as Wall Street swindler Martin van Buren, and the patsy of van Buren, Andrew Jackson, who combined their efforts to wreck the finances of the United States through the combined actions of Jackson's, first, shutting down the Bank of the United States, and, then, van Buren's unleashing of the infamous (Bernanke-Geithner-style) swindle known as the Panic of 1837. Over the subsequent decades of the U.S. Presidency, most of the time, the President of United States has been an agent of the British empire working against the interest of the United States and its Federal Constitution. Witness the recent cases of George H.W. Bush (the son of former Adolf Hitler backer Prescott Bush), of George W. Bush, Jr., and of the British monarchy's treasonous and murderous agent-in-fact, Barack Obama.

Such treasonous elements within the financier interests of the U.S. political system, are not simply bad people; they are intrinsically evil, currently witting agents of the present British empire under Queen Elizabeth II. More to the point, they have been agents of what is properly identified as the fourth categorical generation of the Roman empire, the actually dominant world empire in the world as a whole today. The kind of evil which that present British empire signifies today is not merely a matter of the virtual piracy and virtual slave-trading of the British system today. The essential characteristic of that British empire, like all Europe-centered empires of all ancient through modern history, is a characteristic which is common to not only the successive incarnations of the Roman Empire, including today's present British incarnation of that empire; but to the powerful empires which had played a dominant role prior to the foundation of the original Roman empire.

The essence of all such empires as those has been what is called "the oligarchical system," the system which is characteristic of the monetarist financial/banking systems of the trans-Atlantic system and its broader correlatives. The rape of what had once been the economies and nations of western and central Europe under the pretext of the so-called "Euro system" is nothing but the suppression of the former sovereign nations of those parts of Europe, to replace them by transforming them into the powerless colonies of the nominally British form of the modern Roman Empire.

The principal characteristics of the Roman empire, its predecessors and sequels, is what is aptly typified by both Homer's account of the Trojan War, and by the continuing cult of Apollo (The Oracle of Delphi), and by the accounts of the aftermath of the Trojan War which had been presented, later, by the chronicler and dramatist Aeschylus. These particular cases, together with the legacy of the Roman Empire, are typical of what is known technically by relevant experts as "the oligarchical system."

The "oligarchical system" divides the human populations between what were designated, explicitly, as being "the gods," and, on the other side, the slaves or serfs. That same system, with certain relatively superficial changes, has been the social system reigning over Europe to the present time of the ongoing breakdown-crisis throughout virtually all of the present trans-Atlantic region.

Thus, there should be no mystery in the fact, that U.S. President Barack Obama is, psychopathologically, a carbon copy of the Roman Emperor Nero. Read the facts about Obama; you are reading a carbon copy of the mental and moral degeneracies which are characteristic of the Emperor Nero. If you support Obama in the Presidency today, you are supporting a living carbon copy of the mass-murderous butcher known to history as the Emperor Nero, or as the similarly pathological personality of the dictator Adolf Hitler. It was not the war which made Hitler a copy of Nero; it was the outbreak of war which unleashed what had been the potential inside Hitler all along, as the case of Nero presents similar features to the case of Hitler. Obama is, within himself, actually worse than Hitler, unless you remove him from office, under Section "4" of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, right now!

However, with certain notable exceptions, such as the domain of Charlemagne and his friend Caliph Haroun al-Raschid, the characteristic of what is known as the culture of Europe and its neighboring regions, has been the same oligarchical principle known to us from such precedents as the Peloponnesian War, all the way up to the eruption of Europe's Fifteenth-century Renaissance. Most notable on this account had been the Renaissance's role as centered in the Great Ecumenical Council of Florence, and the emergence of a modern European civilizing thrust radiated chiefly from the effects of the Great Council, as typified by the career and outcomes associated with Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, including the principal foundations of all competent strains of modern European science and art.

Amid this, since the brutish English monarchy of King Henry VIII, there had been a literally Hellish raging of religious warfare throughout European civilization as such. The principled issue has been the combat of a humanist culture traced from the high points of the Great Ecumenical Council of Florence, against the recrudesence of the ancient evil of the oligarchical pestilence. Since the emergence of the Sarpian New Venetian party of William of Orange built up around the Netherlands Wars against the France of a foolish Louis XIV, and the subsequent Seven Years War which established an actual British Empire, Europe's wars have been a monstrous evil crafted in the tradition of the ancient Roman Empire and of that Empire's likenesses as Byzantium, the Venetian-controlled Crusader adventures, and the emergence of the British Empire of today.

The most often recognized characteristic of the evil which is the present British Empire, lies in the central significance of its monetarist system. The facts, if considered, were readily clear; but, for most people today ( even today), true facts concerning money and money-systems are not interesting in much of any fashion but a gambler's foolish lust.

Money, as money or its likeness, has no actual economic value. The problem here is that with the creation of a monopoly over money, either by a nation-state, or some potency which exerts a private monopoly over a public currency, the fact that money becomes a monopoly of the ruling political power, under such as our rotted-out Federal Reserve System (by the House of Morgan's legacy) and its Wall Street and London attachments, or the International Monetary Fund, which uses a strangle-hold over the public use of money in such a way, including creation of hyperinflationary bubbles of London and Wall Street, using dearth of money, or an hyperinflationary surfeit, to control money in such a fashion as to exert life-death controls over the very existence of the general population.

I have been forecasting with what has been consistent success (on principle) since my Summer 1956 forecast of a severe U.S. recession to break out some time between the close of February 1957, or no later than early March. All among the forecasts I have actually published since that 1957 event, have been uniquely successful; whereas, all those of all my known putative rivals have failed in their performance, up to the present time. The failures of my putative rivals in forecasting have been also consistent. The fact of the matter is, that my rivals' policies respecting the nature of such developments, have been consistently based on wrong, monetarist presumptions. They have been dupes of that which they have been induced to believe, right up to the present moment.

What has been wrong about them, has been their refusal to understand the meaning of money as being no better than the quality of physical-economic value intrinsic to the purpose for which the credit is extended; money as such as no intrinsic value. Virtually all of their principal assumptions have been failures; this is because they have failed to understand the nature of the oligarchical system which they have been induced to accept.

This history is not merely a matter of personal tyrannical destinies. The root of the evil is located in a cancer-like disease known formally as the same oligarchical principle chronicled by Homer on the subject of the Trojan War. It has been the oligarchical form of control of the creation and use of money, which is the essential cause of all catastrophic failures of money systems as under the influence of a Morgan tradition's London-based asset, Alan Greenspan, which ruined the U.S. economy since the early 1980s. The issue to be treated, lies in the fact of that oligarchical principle whose principal representation for today is the British Empire of Queen Elizabeth II. Defeat that empire, or, by negligence of your duty, you will imagine that you are rotting in Hell—if you live long enough to understand that.

I will say more on this matter of money in the following chapter of this present report.

III. Fool's Gold, et al.

As this just-stated fact is demonstrated by the effects of the wild-eyed speculation which money represents throughout and around so much of the world today: money itself never actually expressed either an intrinsic quality, or a quantity of "economic value" within any economy from around the world; that is especially the matter to come under our attention under the present conditions in the trans-Atlantic regions. "Quantitative Easing" is, intrinsically, the most insane, most stupid, but also the most larcenous swindle which any modern, simply madman-government might have committed, placing its foolish trust in intrinsically ever-worthless fictitious debt conceived in emulation of the 1923 debt of Weimar Germany.

That is the judgment to be made on, for example, the far worse than Weimar worthlessness, of the implicitly hyperinflationary succession of both the George W Bush, Jr. and Obama governments—not to speak here of the present situation in western and central Europe. Whether the attributed wealth is denominated in dollars, pound sterling, or anything of the like: those governments, like their British imperial accomplices, would be, and have been viciously insane by virtue of that fact alone. Actual wealth exists only as a rising rate of what is expressed as net gains in physical benefits generated as increased physical productivity to mankind per capita and per square kilometer, as that might be measured as a rising rate of physical gain per day and per person, to meet the current needs of mankind, and for progress, per person, and with the passage of time.

This sometimes seemingly miraculous power, the power to increase the production of physical wealth, per capita and per square kilometer of territory, is obtained, if at all, chiefly through the uniqueness of the willful, conscious powers to effect the increase of the uniquely human powers of the equivalent of physical-scientific creativity per capita and per square kilometer of territory; or this may be expressed in terms of the increase of mankind's power to rise from the surface of our home planet, to higher altitudes above the immediate surface of the Earth, as in a successful round-trip, to and from the Moon, or Mars.

Thus, it was only during the early 1950s, that, through the effect of bringing on the development of space-exploration and comparable kinds of development, that our society had come to recognize an actual, practical insight into what is to be considered comparable to reaching the highest altitudes enveloping our planet's surface regions. More recently, those persons who have been competently informed in matters of science, have come to recognize that even the weather experienced by the inhabitants of our planet, is not independent of effects controlled by such relatively nearby "weather" as the arms of our galaxy.

Not only must we be responsive to changes in such reaches of galactic "weather;" but, unless human life on our planet suffers massive destruction, such as by thermonuclear warfare, or comparable effects, we shall certainly be called upon to deal with what will include highly unfriendly patterns of actual weather within our galaxy, a threat from such "weather" which we must become enabled to conquer in a timely fashion, over the course of unfolding times to come during later generations of this young century.

So, in the estimated, approximately half-billion years of the presently known historical evidence of the history of life on Earth, the existence of life on Earth, has required an increase of the available "energy-flux density" of the density of power[7] required to maintain human life on and near the surface of our planet, even during the recent several millions of years of the fairly assessed increase of human life on Earth. To the best of our present knowledge, the human species is the only species which commands the willful powers to approach its needed rates of increase specific to the human population, that done through willfully creative powers. We have much to happen which will become new for us over times to come, but those categorical characteristics of the human species's destiny are presently known to us, as a sense of the role of a principle of change on which the existence of human life continues to depend.

What we might consider as the possible increases in man's power to exist and grow over the coming generations of this presently young century, as we have had such experiences from the model, past two centuries of our history, is the expression of what we also know as the suggested possible increase of the productive powers of labor, down here, on Earth. This should be a reasonable expectation in light of the fact of that deep, willfully self-inflicted depression in the physical economy which has hit the trans-Atlantic sector of the world, a depression associated with the correlatives of the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert, and, also, the effects of the related, long U.S. war in Indo-China. The combination of the failure of the U.S. to take competent action against those assassinations, and the insanity of entering into such disturbances as a prolonged war in Southeast Asia, were the essential causes which set off what has been, since, the long, accelerating decline within the trans-Atlantic economy.

A Mental Disorder Called "Money"

Throughout what had been the extensive prefatory feature of this report as a combined whole, one common irony pervades all truthfully defined effects. The extent of all truly human systems is self-defined as within the extensible regions of mankind's willful influence within the galaxy, man-made functioning gadgets included, rather than by a measure arbitrarily super-imposed from without.

That is the extent of the true human economy, in the past, as now. The same is true for any competent notion of "value" in the practice of physical economy. The internal measure of our universe, as is implicit in the physical-economic standard of the equivalent of "energy-flux density" per capita, reflects the notion of a general conceptual basis for the proper notion of the internal discipline of a self-contained universe, and of mankind's presently, and irrevocably, extra-terrestrially extended "world" economy.

Now, consider some other critical features of mankind's economy. Forget Barack Obama's views on such matters; after all, there is no reasonable doubt that he is insane, and that is to be considered as criminal insanity under any reasonable estimate of Section 4 of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to our U.S. Constitution: much more "criminal"in terms of the rate of increase of presently embedded effects of his reign to date, than Adolf Hitler and his crew.

The popularized idea of "money" is of crucial importance as a destructive influence on the economy and its population. Neither gold bullion nor any other standard external to the process of the correlative notion of an increase of energy-flux density, need be sought outside what we might define, in practical terms, as the limitless self-development of a finite but unbounded universe, like that intended by Albert Einstein.

It is the process of what is, in effect, the increase of the energy-flux density of human activity within our universe, which measures mankind actually. Neither gold, nor any other object, but what is represented as mankind, or as a comparable form of agency internal to the universal system, really means much of anything in the proverbial "final analysis."

The Frauds of Laplace

The crucial issue posed by the remarks which I had just presented, immediately above, is what is typified, symptomatically, by the need to exclude the absurd doctrine of what is called "time" by those sharing the foolish beliefs of a Pierre-Simon Laplace. Here lie the most crucial aspects of the lunacy of Laplace's dubious assertions respecting the physical authority of widely taught contemporary mathematics as such. I summarize my argument in this present chapter by restating the direction of the argument which I have made at earlier points of time in this present report, up to this present point. The intrinsic absurdity of Laplace's cardinal assertions is manifold; I shall tear apart Laplace's hoax, as if "piece by piece," in the extent necessary, accordingly, here and now.

First of all, I shall return to the implications of some of Laplace's design which point blatantly to what is the intrinsic nature of the fraud he has perpetrated by the blatantly fraudulent approach to the definition of "time" as such. He locates the existence of what he identifies as "time" outside the universe, thus echoing, in that way, the clear absurdity of a similarly fraudulent notion of "space by itself." These related notions, of "time by itself" and "space by itself," are part of the most essential of the outright frauds against the very essence of science, which are associated with the attributably systemic intentions of Laplace. The worst of all of his frauds is his errant reliance on a notion of "time by itself," as being also, implicitly, the absurdity of "time and space for itself."

All that could be reasonably considered as competent physical science, and not that of perverted creatures such as Bertrand Russell, is premised on clear evidence of the necessarily, actively consistent interdependence of any general form of ontological claims respecting the definition of the characteristics of actions within that universe which contains and defines even the very hypothesis of "time per se." What is left to be believed, is the notion of a remaining, systemically persistent notion of "physical time," a notion which was already implicit in Johannes Kepler's uniquely original concept of universal gravitation which is situated within Albert Einstein's notion of a Kepler universe which is "finite, but not bounded."

Within the bounds of those immediately aforesaid specifications, the progress of science thus far, has been afforded two principal options, the contrast among which, enables civilized mankind at the level of a presently assignable standard for approaching a precondition of approximate certainty in those matters, a sense of certainty which should be currently attributable to the principled matters of what is to be regarded currently as competent science. The one is human "sense perception;" the alternative is what may be usefully classified as the general electrodynamics of physical time (rather than "clock time") within the universe, that insofar as we are enabled, increasingly, practically, to broaden our efficient reach within that domain.

The currently most useful manner for stating that case, is implicitly stated in the view of the work of Bernhard Riemann from the standpoint of such as what is underlain by the contributions of such among Riemann's excellent followers as Max Planck, Albert Einstein, and V.I. Vernadsky. It is through that inter-play among the exemplary contributions of those three, that science has been presently enabled to present a decent effort at creating solutions which threaten to overcome the enormous debt of irrationality which we incur by seeking to derive a science from the currently relatively "popular" presumptions respecting human sense-perception in and of itself.

That, however, which I have stated thus far, is not yet more than the beginning of the extent of what is presently of crucial importance that society come to know presently. Shift our emphasis, slightly, to take into account a crucial statement of scientific fact which I presented summarily, in replies to two questions presented to me during the concluding part of my report delivered to a September 20, 2011 national webcast. That was the public event during which I broadcast a report of the scientific meaning of a general scientific principle of human economic productivity. The evidence presented on that occasion, sinks Laplace's a-priorist assertions respecting time permanently: it simply shows that Laplace presented no credible evidence for his notion of time as a phenomenon in the universe as such.[8]

Laplace's Time Spent in Empty Space

How could Laplace have counted time while observing from the interior of empty space? Against what phenomenon could one have counted time in empty space? If there were no suitable clock used for that purpose, how, when, or where was "time" countable as elapsed time? How could a duration of lapsed "time" be measured in terms of that allegedly, actually empty "space" which Laplace has claimed as his own intellectual residence?

There are several choices for response to such a hoax as Laplace's.

The likely attempted answer to the challenge which I have just delivered (in a timely fashion) here, is that if we exclude space, action, and matter from the hypothetical universe, what is the meaning of "time by itself?"

That just stated consideration, stands by itself, as Laplace, implicitly, said as much, himself. How long could a Laplace have been justly assigned to serve in an actual prison on a charge of fraud against, among notable others, clock-makers? In an actually empty space, there are no minutes which could have been countable.

Unfortunately for Laplace's tattered claims to scientific fame, empty space does not exist, either. At bottom, there is no ontological basis for the universe other than creativity per se. Laplace sits in empty space, knitting without yarn, or, needles, either. See! What a spectacle he would have made, had he been visible, somewhere. Today, somewhere in Hell, there sits Laplace knitting, whispering furiously under his breath, but to no one: "Gottfried Leibniz is dead!" So claimed the pack of scoundrels led by the Abbé Antonio Schinella Conti (1677-1749), who virtually created his protégé Isaac Newton out of some curious substance, as that same Conti found such accomplices in fraud as another fabricator of crude hoaxes, Leonhard Euler (also against Gottfried Leibniz), and also other errand-boys for the legacy of Paolo Sarpi, who had tried to bury Leibniz (once they had been assured that Leibniz had just recently died). Laplace's place in the history of frauds perpetrated in the alleged service of science, is also to be found in the continuation of that same anti-Leibniz cabal as among one of Laplace's own errand-boys. It is therefore not surprising that every one of Newton's claims for scientific fame was exposed in due course as an utter hoax, and all depending inclusively on the hoaxes of Conti and his accomplices.

IV. A System of Physical Economy

A competent system for today's modern science of physical economy, is a practice chiefly based on a systemic method of contrast between two, contrasted methods of calculations. The first, the subjective method, had been premised, chiefly, on an acceptance of human sense-perception; the second, the objective method, was premised, chiefly, on what is most easily recognized in the use of modern electronics as a substitute for sense-perception. The optimal net result is a contrast defined by both the interaction and opposition between those two categories of perceptions.

Since human knowledge, as such, depends upon that link of the physical to the mental life of the human individual, a mental life which is moored in the use of the human brain for the management of the traffic in products of sense-perception, the most significant of the qualitative advances in human behavior must originate outside sense-perception as the celebrated case of Helen Keller points our attention.

However, a competent insight into the physical domain depends, centrally, upon the recognition of the evidence of the system of the phenomena of what might be fairly identified as the "electro-chemical" domain. The reciprocal aspects of the two so-indicated domains, are functionally inter-dependent. That interaction is the experimental basis in knowledge for the gaining of human progress. It is the promotion of the human individual's socialized processes of development of such a systemic approach, which must be the center of our concerns.

From the attributable "beginnings," it has been the contrast among mankind's specific types of sense-perceptions which generated the paradoxes on which the derivation of the notion of principles, rather than merely contrasted sensations, has depended. Out of this comes the notion of sense-perception as "subjective," and the rest as "objective." The human mind in society tends to seek the human side as "subjective" and the electronic, et al., as the "objective." The two sides, then, "teach" one another.[9]

The most crucial of the related facts to be considered, is the ostensibly, ontologically paradoxical challenge represented by the notion of "human individual creativity." Suddenly, with the intervention of the notion of "human individual creativity," all preceding presumptions crumble in a way which it becomes frighteningly difficult to resist; a threat of an imminent sense of "falling," becomes the sense which it is often terrifyingly difficult to resist.

The person frightened by the prospect of such an experience, not-infrequently reacts to that by falling into a relatively brutish reaction (e.g., the scream of wild-eyed denial: "that's nuts!") against any intimations of actual human creativity. "You are attempting to invade me!" The latter phenomenon was demonstrated against truly great scientists, largely through the criminality of Bertrand Russell, or of the apparent "idiot-savant," John von Neumann, against Albert Einstein, et al., in the course of major scientific assemblies of the 1920s and later.

The crucial point to be emphasized in conclusion here, is that a real economy is a physical economy, an economy whose efficient intent includes the urgent need for high-energy-flux-density, capital-intensive, science-driver programs of development and investments, of the types which shall continue to be the emphasis of my efforts during the foreseeable times to come.


[1] This is the subject featured in the question and answer portion of my National Webcast Address of September 30, 2011.

[2] Cf. Turn to page 293 of the Heinrich Weber edition of Bernhard Riemann's Gesammelte Mathematische Werke. B.G. Teubner, Stuttgart, 1892/1902, p. 293, footnote by editor: Heinrich Weber's hoax published on behalf of a fraud concocted by the mathematician Rupert Clausius.

[3] As the point is referenced elsewhere within this report, the origin of Rupert Clausius' hoax is traced to the a-priorist tradition of the reductionism of such hoaxsters as the poisoner Aristotle and of Euclid. That reductionist school is rooted in the oligarchist system associated with the morally corrupt, mathematics tradition of such as the Olympian Zeus, for which money is a God of the principle of imperialism, such as the successive incarnations of the Roman imperial tradition. Money, like an a-priorist system of number-worship, is defined as a god above gods, as "outside," as a-priori above all actual knowledge of the system of physical existence of the human species and its scientific practice (e.g., ancient and contemporary monetarism). This monetarist dogma is the continuing foundation of all imperialist and related practices. Indeed, all true Marxists are intrinsically imperialists (monetarists: "money worshippers") in the Roman imperial and related traditions.

[4] See the opening two paragraphs of Bernhard Riemann's habilitation dissertation, where the relevant, pathological history of mathematics is summarized, as also, of course, in the closing sentence of that dissertation.

[5] At this point, refer extensively to my Chapter II. "The Human Credit System" in Dumb Democrats!: Principle or Party (EIR, Nov. 11, 2011 or LaRouche PAC ).

[6] The "World War" which was actually set into motion by the British Royal Family's 1890 ouster of Chancellor Bismarck, the subsequent 1894 assassination of France's President Sadi Carnot, and the British Crown Prince's pact with the Mikado for launching war against China, Korea, and Russia over the period leading through 1905.

[7] E.g., "energy-flux density."

[8] I had, in fact, already stated the relevant principle in several published locations.

[9] Again, on this subject, reference the concluding section #3 of Bernhard Riemann's habilitation dissertation, and, implicitly, his Theory of Abelian Functions.

Subscribe to EIW