The subject here, is the issue posed by the repeated folly of the U.S.A., and other nations, in being drawn into “long wars,” such as the post-President Kennedy “long war” in Indo-China, or the folly of the present long war in Afghanistan, the latter being that which I treat as a presently, leading case in this report which I present as bearing on the present quality of mental state of the administration of President Barack Obama.
In the matter of recent U.S.A. Afghanistan war-policy, I have not been an admirer of either General McChrystal’s policies in Afghanistan, or of the probably worse case of the past and current policies of General Petraeus. Nonetheless; in everything I see, or hear of the interview with Rolling Stone magazine, McChrystal’s conduct was neither unlawful, nor his criticisms unjustified.
However, there is a broader and deeper, leading issue posed by the behavior of the Obama Administration in this and coincident other present matters. The combination of several factors, including General McChrystal’s remarks to Rolling Stone, including the news that former President Bill Clinton soars above President Obama in popularity, and including the pressures on President Obama to resort to lying, with evident hysteria, on increasingly crucial matters, especially on diverse leading issues posed by a U.S. economy now plunging into a collapse-phase, have witnessed President Obama as driven into a manifest state of mind which must be compared to a besieged Adolf Hitler’s state of mind during Hitler’s last days within the Berlin bunker, or the last phase of an “Emperor Nero” syndrome.
It was none other than President Barack Obama, not General McChrystal, who must be, most urgently, fired.
In the matter of the almost terminal state of mind of that President, the following relevant facts of the McChrystal case itself, are essential.
1. The recent U.S. continuation of the decades-long war in Afghanistan, is a continuation of a more than century-long series of “Middle East” wars first launched by the British monarchy during the last decade of the Nineteenth Century. This occurred, at that time, in the guise of imperial London’s “Young Turk” operation, an operation which has been continued, to the present date, throughout the entire “Middle East” and adjoining regions, always explicitly, or implicitly, under the provisions of the infamous, Anglo-French imperialist, Sykes-Picot agreement.
2. This was, for example, the origin of Zbigniew Brzezinski’s launching of the presently continuing long warfare in Afghanistan under the auspices of the U.S. Carter Administration, all done in concert with the British monarchy. This pattern was aggravated under President Obama, by his order protecting the British-owned and -controlled opium traffic spreading from a primary source in a British-protected province in Afghanistan, into Europe.
3. For the sake of purifying the atmosphere of certain crucially diversionary historical myths, it must be not only recognized, but emphasized, that this “Young Turk” affair, was part of the same continuing operation which had been launched, up through the present instance, with the initial assistance of that British Fabian Society’s Frederick Engels who had launched the career in the closely related forms of both British secret-intelligence service direction, and British arms-trafficking operations of that British Fabian spy and weapons-trafficker, Alexander Helphand, the Helphand who also was, and is still usually recognized by name as the infamous “Parvus.”
Much of “Parvus’s” operations, prior to his role in the “sealed train” of Lenin’s trip across Swedish territory in 1917, had been centered as in his role as a combined “revolutionary” and British arms supplier to sundry Balkan and related wars and revolutions. This continued in that form, until his crucial role in war-time Scandinavian operations, such as those of the Lenin affair of 1917, and his particular, earlier role in “handling” Helphand’s British one-time “patsy” Leon Trotsky, an operation which must be seen as situated in the aftermath of British Prince Albert Edward’s crafting of the 1894-1940 British alliance with the Mikado, against China, Korea, and Russia. This was the alliance which led into not only the Russo-Japan war of 1905, but lasted until the time the 1940 fall of France impelled Winston Churchill to turn for help from the U.S.A., thus breaking Japan’s commitment to the alliance with Britain. Japan, nominally allied with Nazi Germany, fought the war against its trans-Pacific victims and other opponents, alone.
The crucial, thematic issue of this present report, is the outcome of that British imperial orchestration of the “Young Turk” operations, operations which, in this manner, for this and related reasons, are of the still-living character of all warfare and kindred manipulations by the British empire and its accomplices and dupes within the entirety of Southwest Asia, to the present day.
4. Although “cabinet-warfare generals” such as Petraeus and McChrystal, have their faults, however confused and misguided they have been, otherwise, McChrystal has remained, essentially a professional with an apparently deep commitment to his profession as a loyal citizen and U.S. military professional, however errant on other counts.
However, to compare either Petraeus or McChrystal to Generals Douglas MacArthur, or Dwight Eisenhower, would be worse than stilly, even obscene. Furthermore, within the matter of Generals Petraeus and McChrystal’s part we must consider the stunning incompetence of their inherently ill-fated counter-insurgency and related “cabinet-warfare” schemes for the Southwest Asia matter. McChrystal appears to have followed the guidelines for his conduct with scrupulous attention to the letter of the law for generals operating in the kind of circumstances under which he delivered his remarks to Rolling Stone magazine.
5. The issue thus posed, is, that since the President of the United States, Barack Obama, had sent U.S. forces into Afghanistan with firm instructions not to interfere with the British Empire’s opium production in a British-controlled region of Afghanistan, and since this arrangement created a hopeless situation for the U.S. troops being sacrificed to the cause of what is fairly considered to be the President’s treasonous role as such an agent of British international drug-trafficking interests: McChrystal acted under the moral obligation to do something to alarm the relevant institutions of the U.S. government to the effects of President Obama’s British-dictated, and thus implicitly treasonous Afghanistan policy.
As far as he went in uttering what was reported by Rolling Stone, McChrystal did his duty as a commander in service of the United States. The fault, in this matter, was all on the side of President Obama himself.
6. The President had neither the proper grounds nor the means to carry out a politically successful court-martial of General McChrystal. General McChrystal’s action has been proven to have been successful in its effort to cut down President Obama’s already plunging popularity, all that despite the usual lickspittles from the tradition of our own “yellow press.” Thus, an important blow had been struck for our hope of rescuing our United States from the doom which the continuation of President Obama’s evil reign would ensure. President Obama’s reaction was chiefly the expression of a Hitler-like outburst of pique, perhaps even a sign that Obama’s state of mind was now rapidly degenerating into something akin to a Hitler-in-the -bunker pique.
7. We must situate the distinction of strategic truth from the foolish, Goebbels-like babbling of the Obama Administration. To clarify the relevant features of the present strategic situation, it must be said, in response to what President Obama’s follies have promoted, that we must interpolate a certain prefatory note at this point, a remark respecting the forecasts of Russia’s illustrious strategic intelligence specialist, Professor Igor N. Panarin, for the U.S.A.’s future, into these prefatory remarks:
I have read an English-language, Dost Foundation summary of the reported argument by Professor Panarin. What I have read, thus, and from other relevant sources available to me here, lacks any formal error in Professor Panarin’s particular suggestion that a breakup of the U.S. economy were likely before the close of present year.
Formally, there would be no error, excepting one of omission, in the implied set of facts on which Professor Panarin premised his argument. That crucial error in his particular judgment from early 2009, is his apparent lack of knowledge of relevant principles of Leibnizian-Riemannian dynamics which are specific to trans-Atlantic European civilization, most emphatically; we must emphasize the absolute difference in dynamics operating between the cultures of Europe, today, and the systemically contrary characteristics traced within our U.S.A. from the original New England settlements within the foundations of U.S. history to the present time.
The most significant element of error in Professor Panarin’s 2009 paper, is in his presuming, in that report, that Europe generally, or Russia in particular, could outlive a collapsed U.S.A. The Professor’s error features a component of lack of understanding of the principles of a science of physical economy, principles which are actually based in the Leibniz-Riemann tradition of dynamics.
At present, the center of the onrushing acceleration of a general, planet-wide, physical-economic breakdown-crisis, is within the British empire’s central organization, the so-called “Inter-Alpha” group founded by Britain’s Lord Jacob Rothschild in 1971, a group which has been constituted as a correlative feature of the same operation launched by London circles controlling key figures in the U.S. government in the matter of annulling the Franklin-Roosevelt-launched fixed-exchange-rate system.
The race is now on. For the moment, it were more likely that the collapse of the entire planet into a general breakdown-crisis would occur, initially, within the Trans-Atlantic region as a whole, probably within western Europe, first. Such a collapse would be followed immediately by a “chain-reaction” collapse, similar to that of 1923 Weimar Germany, among all of the Eurasian nation-state economies.
It will be of interest to Professor Panarin, on this account, that he consider the fact that the root of the aspect of this global problem for Russia today, is the same London-centered imperial financier interest represented by the relevant controllers of both N.S. Khrushchov and Mikhail S. Gorbachov, controllers led by the Bertrand Russell school of early Twentieth-century, as later, “Cambridge systems analysis.” That is the school which was the mother, for Britain’s MI6, of such creatures as the Laxenberg Austria International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA). It has been the policies of IIASA which played a crucial, treacherous, leading role in the collapse of the Soviet Union under Mikhail S. Gorbachov, and the same policies conduited into N.S. Khrushchov’s earlier role as General Secretary under the influence of IIASA spokesman Bertrand Russell’s World Parliamentarians for World Government. In examining such influences, we meet the most virulent of the corrupting external influences on Russia’s economic policies presently.
Today, that collapse of the entire world into what, unless reversed, would become immediately a new dark age, takes its root, not in financial matters, but, rather in the specific features of the collapse of physical economies caused by subordinating the physical national-economies to the reign of a presently hyper-inflationary system of speculation of a form comparable to 1923 Weimar Germany.
Unfortunately, if Barack Obama remains President of the U.S.A. past the Summer of 2010, then, the kind of disintegration of the U.S.A. which Professor Panarin projected in 2009, were a plausible estimation, although not a competent one scientifically. Thus, there are certain systemically mistaken presumptions, that of a reductionist error in method, expressed within the Professor’s summary argument there; his conjecture errs in the respect that he does not take the Leibnizian definition of the Leibniz-Riemann principle of “dynamics” into account, and, therefore, he relies too much on inherently misleading, statistical-economic, monetarist considerations, through a lack of attention to the overriding importance of Leibniz -Riemann dynamics.1Although I do not charge Panarin with following in the footsteps of such adversaries of Academician V.I. Vernadsky as the typically British-influenced A.I. Oparin, Professor Panarin’s method employed in his 2009 presentation draws its stated economic conclusions in a reductionist way contrary to the Leibniz-Riemann basis expressed by the principal achievements of the great Vernadsky.
8. There could have been, but for President Obama, a better outcome than that delivered by the decree of the real malefactor in the case, Barack Obama himself. The Senate should have been convened so that the U.S. Congress would hear, as a single body, what General McChrystal had to say. So, most of the panic-ridden members of the U.S. Congress, kissed the butt of our British-owned “American Nero,” Obama, without risking the political-career hazards of their own exposure to the facts which General McChrystal had referenced in his curiously crafted interview with Rolling Stone magazine.
What is a general officer to do in such a situation, one like that fairly compared to a situation of an officer under the reign of the Emperor Nero? Why must we hope that that President will not be impelled to imitate his intellectual forebear, by imitating the Emperor Nero’s action of last resort? Therefore, the crucial issue remains: the very continued existence of our republic, is immediately imperilled by each week which passes without actions to oust this President from that office.
Those facts taken into account, my assessment of the present existential crisis in our republic’s very life, can be summarized as the threat of a case of another great nation, our own, brought to ruin by its own folly in being drawn into a foolishly conceived long war, such as that which our President John F. Kennedy would have prevented, had his role as an opponent of a long land war in Southeast Asia not been terminated by his assassination. President Kennedy had been explicitly opposed to an extended period of U.S. engagement in warfare in Southeast Asia. The presently ongoing long-war in Southwest Asia, was begun as what has been shown to have been a fatal booby-trap for the Soviet Union, a quality of past folly imitated currently by the Soviet Union’s present heirs in the present setting of the same foolish behavior now continued by such as a foolish present U.S. government which has been duped by the drug-pushing British monarchy, all of which must be considered as a case in point against the presently impeachment-worthy Obama Presidency.
If we do not defeat the role of that depraved British puppet, President Barack Obama, in his mimicking of dictator Adolf Hitler, a mimicry which has been already copied as the Hitler-modelled, pro-genocidal health-care and related policies of this President, as also copied from Hitler by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, we have reached such a point, that without the earliest ouster of President Obama, there is no visible future for any part of mankind, inside the U.S.A. itself, or elsewhere, at this critical global moment, now.
My recently published, leading writings, have frequently returned to the subject of the problematic characteristics of long wars. In light of the role of the present long warfare in Southwest Asia under the Anglo-U.S.A. reign of the U.S. Presidency of British puppet-President Barack Obama, the points which I have addressed on the subject of “long wars” earlier, should be recapitulated now for the specific purpose of conveying an understanding of the deadly implications of what may be identified under such titles as “The McChrystal Case,” for our nation at this time. Therefore, I shall begin the body of this report, by reviewing the underlying implications of the historical phenomenon of “long wars,” with the immediate issue of the Peloponnesian War in view.
Think of the present U.S. situation under President Obama as like “a new Peloponnesian War,” as being echoed, similarly, by the “Seven Years War” of Eighteenth-century-ruined continental Europe, and which, also, established the British East India Company as an empire in fact, through the adoption of the February 1763 Peace of Paris.
To approach this subject-matter, we must prepare our examination of the roots of the world’s present crisis with what many might wish to term “the deeply underlying” considerations in the attempted practice of an economic physical science, as I do in the present, opening part of this chapter.
It will not be necessary for me to lay out the full case on the subject of each of the periods of “long wars” here, since I have already done much to that effect in current publications such as my The Secret Economy’s Outlook2See EIR, July 16, 2010 http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2010/3727secret_econ_outlook.html published during the past month. The introduction of a summary of the following character will therefore suffice for use, on this present occasion, in defining the setting of this chapter’s subject, the implications of the Peloponnesian War as a precedent.
I proceed now to a matter of relevant scientific definitions essential for understanding the presently continuing implications of that ancient Peloponnesian War.
If we permit a distinction, here, between human archeology and “ancient history,” we may date the appropriate notion of history as a science, to the study of the precedents represented by such exemplary cases as those of Sumer, or, of Egypt from the time of the great pyramid associated with the close of the reign of Khufu, or, the history of India as viewed from the vantage-point of the Vedic evidence treated by Bal Gangadhar Tilak’s Orion.
This distinction between archeology and history, when history is strictly defined as a matter of principle, is demanded by regard for access, or want of access to those defining qualities of the individual human mind which were examined in exemplary fashion by the dialogues and related literary products of Plato. That is to say, that we must rise above the assumptions associated with the primitive outlook represented by the erroneous, but wide-spread, statistical belief in the evidence of mere sense-certainty. Or, let us agree, that that better approach chosen by me here, may be emphasized by examining the distinction between the reality of the archeological fact of the siege of Troy, and that insight into the Classical Greek legacy epitomized by the method employed in the dramas of Aeschylus and the works of Archytas and his associate Plato.
True knowledge of history begins when the ironies of the pair-wise and kindred interactions of the mental processes among individuals are accessible to our knowledge. Otherwise, we are left to infer history from study of the footprints which a society has left behind in its passing.
I have set forth crucial indicators of the basis for proposing, even demanding that distinction, in such notable locations as my already referenced, recently published The Secret Economy’s Outlook. We must escape from the misleading, conventional notions of a mind governed by the mere products of sense-certainties, a feat which which must be accomplished by discovering the reality of the higher domain of Leibniz-Riemann dynamics, a subject which is represented most conveniently for this occasion, by those powers of the Classical imagination typified, for the English-speaking scholar, by the treatment of the specifically ontological principle of metaphor which I associate with my own joyous reading of the freshly minted, 1947 edition of William Empson’s Seven Types of Ambiguity.3Shelley’s A Defence of Poetry, which may very well echo the international influence of Friedrich Schiller intentionally, or in other ways, echoes the metaphysics of modern physical science associated with the tradition of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, but which harks back to the pre-Aristotelean Classical scientific tradition of Plato, in particular. That principle is intrinsic to the actually creative impulse of competent scientific discoveries of principle, as is strongly suggested by Albert Einstein’s loving relationship to his violin.
For the native English-speaker of Classical artistic practice, the most appropriate choice of approach for English speakers, is, thus, that to be met in Percy Bysshe Shelley’s A Defence of Poetry.
It is notable, for our purposes here, that Shelley’s A Defence of Poetry is ironically dedicated to Thomas Love Peacock, not to be confused with the celebrated George Peacock who typifies the legacy of a trio of three young scholars from Cambridge’s Trinity College. The second member of that trio, was the future leading astronomer of England, the figure later to become known as Sir John Herschel; the third, was Charles Babbage (the future inventor of the root-principle of design of operations of a modern digital computer).4It should be said, that Charles Babbage’s final stage of design of his series of Calculating Engines, was the forerunner of what emerged during the post-World War II period as the conceptual root of the design of the Remington-Rand and IBM computer designs. All that remained needed, were the advances in machine-tool design which became available as adequate to realize the intention in Babbage’s own achievement. Any designer of the systems operable over the course of the 1950s and slightly beyond, would recognize much in reading the most advanced stage of Babbage’s designs. Notably, George Peacock had gone on from scientific training, to becoming, among other professions, a notable English clergyman, and an acquaintance of Shelley. The three Cambridge youngsters of that time at Trinity, combined to translate LaCroix’s Differential and Integral Calculus, and more, into English, an act which upset the Newtonian hacks of Cambridge, I would say, “ deliciously,” at the time. The trio typifies the best of England at that time.
Reference to that trio’s work at Cambridge can serve our mission here, as illustrating the true connection between a creative method of physical science, and the non-mathematical notions which are indispensable for an actually scientific approach to the role of creative mental processes, in contrast to an appropriately subordinated department of those mathematical operations in the work of David Hilbert or of the far worse Bertrand Russell traditions.
Contrary to the sundry varieties of the statistical reductionists, really competent science has never been properly separated from Classical artistic composition. The principles of the Classical artistic imagination, as referenced by Shelley in his A Defence of Poetry, are to be approached from that relevant, higher standpoint which I have emphasized within the pages of The Secret Economy’s Outlook, where I treat the essential principle of all true creativity, including that of Classical artistic composition and physical science alike.
That identifies the point of the connection of William Empson’s ontological definition of a principle of metaphor to the examination of those creative mental powers common to Classical artistic composition and true physical science.
I restate that principle itself as I presented it in my The Secret Economy’s Outlook, as follows.
What we regard as the individual human mind, has two distinct, but interrelated aspects. The first, the more familiar, is the aspect of mental life associated within the bounds of a systemically mistaken presumption, that sense-perceptions are simply echoes of the presumed mathematical form of physical reality of the universe. The needed correction of that terribly mistaken view, is demonstrated with extraordinary forcefulness, and in the most notable way, by Johannes Kepler’s uniquely original discovery of the principle of universal gravitation, as contained within the full text of his Harmonies. This is echoed by Albert Einstein’s emphasis on the fact that the universe as defined implicitly by Kepler’s actual discovery of a principle of gravitation, is a universe which, as Albert Einstein emphasized, is always finite, but without boundary.
That means that universe is not a permanently fixed creation, but is a continuing, ontological process of creation, as Philo of Alexandria had denounced the contrary opinion of Aristotle on this account. Aristotle’s own fraudulent argument was later echoed by Friedrich Nietzsche’s modern re-assertion of the corollary of Aristotle’s dictum, “God is dead.”
Thus, in competent principles of physical science, mathematics is a language of mere shadows, such that competent science depends upon the superseding of putatively fixed systems by the application of that same real-life, real-universe principle of creation, a principle which William Empson identified as metaphor.
This distinction shared by competent physical science and Classical artistic composition, is made explicit by any competent form of scientific reading of Kepler’s Harmonies.
Thus, Kepler’s solution proceeds from the recognition that the principle of gravitation can be efficiently adduced only by what Empson identified as the principled concept of metaphor, by emphasizing the contradictory character of what might be mistaken for what are often taken to be the apparently ontological implications of such notions of sense-perception as those of sight and heard harmonies. More to the point, all valid kinds of universal physical principles echo, in the method of their discovery, the method employed by Kepler in his discovery of a universal principle of gravitation. That method is the same thing, ontologically, as Empson’s conception of metaphor.
With discoveries of principle akin to what I have referenced here as that discovery by Kepler, that individual human mind which is aware of this fact of experimental evidence, is impelled to acknowledge that which is called belief in sense-certainty, tends to mislead the victims of such ontological misbeliefs into a false-to-truth notion of physical science itself.
We are, therefore, properly impelled, in this way, to emphasize that sense-certainties are actually knowable phenomena only to the degree that we rise to the ability to cope with the reality that what appear to be sense-certainties are, in reality, only shadows cast, as by an unseen, but efficient reality, upon the universe of our experience of actually creative forms of the physical action of qualitative, rather than merely quantitative changes. Such is the proper definition of true, universal discoveries of universal physical principle.
The success of the individual’s progress in the direction of gaining that critical insight, points our attention to the poisonous effects of that sort of incompetence which is expressed as blind faith in the reductionist’s notion of a purely mathematical notion of physics.5For example, the derivatives of the dogma of Paolo Sarpi, and of such products of Sarpi’s influence as the economic and related doctrine of Adam Smith. On that point, we are confronted with the fact of the existence of the qualitatively higher than mathematical quality of the scientific-creative, and related creative powers of the human mind, a quality of knowledge which is achieved only through ascent, above and beyond mathematical systems as such, to the notion of a universe premised upon a universal, metaphorical principle of physically efficient human creativity, as shown in the language of Nicholas of Cusa’s De Docta Ignorantia. This is what is to be recognized, for convenience, otherwise, as the common principle of the creative imagination, the principle which permeates the work of Leibniz and Bernhard Riemann’s discoveries – as the fact of the existence of what should be intended by reference to the ontological conception of the human soul.
The phenomenon to which Shelley brings the reader in the closing paragraphs of his A Defence of Poetry, is just that. Gottfried Leibniz had defined this, during his work of the 1690s, as that principle of dynamics, which he attributed to the precedent of the Classical Greek conception known as dynamis to such figures as Archytas and Plato.
For example, take the exemplary case of the discovery of the inherently anti-Euclidean principle of the catenary by Filippo Brunelleschi, the principle which Brunelleschi employed for the crafting of the cupola of Florence’s Santa Maria del Fiore, which was the only practical means available to Florence at that time, for that task of construction. This and related, namably “anti-Aristotelean” discoveries in the practice of a physical geometry (rather than childish academic credulities), as extended by the Leibniz-Jean Bernouilli development of the physical principle of least action, has illustrated what became the crucial point of principled difference between the true Riemannian genius of an Einstein and Planck, or Mendeleyev or Pasteur, as opposed to all among that pestilence of what are merely, a-prioristically mathematicians, such as David Hilbert, or, the actually evil variety of so-called “mathematical physicists” associated with the 1920s romp of the obscene Bertrand Russell and his accomplices during the period of the 1920s Solvay Conferences.
The pattern of reductionist ideology which I have just pointed out in the immediately preceding paragraphs, must be recognized as a systemic expression of mental illness. Not only is that the case, but this is both the most significant of all forms of mental illness—the virtual mother of the evil which is virtually all related mental dysfunctions, and is also a principal root of all other leading forms of mental illness in societies known to history up to this present time.
I explain that point summarily, as follows.
As I have both stated and emphasized within a series of published works during the course of 2009 and 2010 to present date, those actually creative functions which distinguish human individuals from beasts, lie outside the realm of sense-perceptual certainties, such as the implicit insanity of belief in a formal mathematical physics, as distinct from, for example, the modern physical chemistry of a Louis Pasteur, Mendeleyev, Max Planck, Albert Einstein, William Draper Harkins, or Academician V.I. Vernadsky. In other words, as Kepler’s uniquely original discovery of gravitation attests, and as Albert Einstein identified that proof of principle as defining a physical universe as being both finite and yet without bounds, sense-certainties are, at their relatively very best, no better than mere shadows cast upon the field of mere opinions, both seen as if cast by the hand of an unseen reality.
That means, among other connotations, that the proper (which is to say, “sane”) personal sense of identity, locates sanity in the developed ability of the individual human mind to locate his, or her personal identity as a substance located “as if from above,” not to be part of the class of “those mere shadows of reality” which are the quality of all notions of sense-perceptual experience as such.
That distinction is the appropriate referent for the notion of an implicitly immortal, rather than merely “material” human “spiritual” being, a notion which is the only truly human sense of a valid, healthy sense of personal identity. That is the only true and sane notion of individual personal identity, and of the healthy forms of social relations among persons who have gained access to that higher conceptual standpoint for regarded experience.
This distinction is, for example, precisely that of the potential represented by that form of personal individual sanity. That is a quality which is expressed in a notable degree by the genius of Albert Einstein and others like him, or the great Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, on this same account. It is within this specific domain of what we know as mental practice, that all true physical science and Classical artistic composition find their true place of residence. It is the domain which the ancient Pythagoreans identified by dynamis, which Gottfried Leibniz defined as dynamics during the 1690s, which is the source of the same social effect which Shelley identified in the concluding paragraphs of his A Defence of Poetry.
There is, in short, a social process which is mediated by the mere shadows of sense-perceptual experience, but which is not contained within it. It is also the medium with which Plato confronts such implicitly reductionist fools as the character of Parmenides and his modern likenesses.
This distinguishes the higher quality of intellectual domain which allows the inhabitant of such qualities to cope, conceptually, with the otherwise ontologically incomprehensible realities of a universe composed according to the notion of cosmic radiation as primary. It is the state of mind of a future culture of humanity which has then developed, among at least some of its members, the qualities of mind needed for mankind’s future adaptation to conditions such as those to be found in future successful return flights from our Moon to Mars, and back.
Once the ancient notion of dynamis is compared to Leibniz’s uniquely original, modern definition of dynamics, we become equipped to reckon competently with the quality of social phenomena met in the expression of systemic social conflicts, as characteristic expressions of both the interior of nation-state and comparable cultures, and among them. Begin our study of this matter with what I have already indicated as this chapter’s particular subject-matter, the case of the infamous Peloponnesian War, as follows.
Consider what should have been taken as a forewarning of both the Peloponnesian War itself, and of the aftermath of the failure of the Greeks to follow Plato’s intention to destroy his target, and, thus, overturn the folly of the Peloponnesian War, which should have been done by crushing the Mediterranean imperial maritime power vested in the intrinsically evil cult of the Delphi cult of Apollo.
It is now time to recall, today, that the naval victory over Persian imperial forces by the combined forces of what we customarily reference as “the ancient Greeks” today, not only rescued Greece from the earlier, prolonged efforts of the so-called Persian Empire to destroy Greek sovereignties, but created what turned out to have been a wasted opportunity: an opportunity largely wasted through the folly of the Peloponnesian War, for cooperation among the forces of those Greeks and Egypt for a cooperative step forward among the nations and peoples of the Mediterranean maritime littoral.
However, the same Apollo cult which had claimed, earlier, that it had been the power which had destroyed the kingdom of the fabulously rich King Croesus, intervened, despite the warnings of such prophetic dramatists as the great Aeschylus, to plunge Greece into an orgy of destruction of a type, like that of the Seven Years War, later. This was a development which we must recognize as virtually the same quality of strategic significance of that so-called “Seven Years War” through which the British East India Company secured its victory as an empire under the leadership of Lord Shelburne, thus launching what has remained as the world’s British Empire from that day in 1763, to the present time of the fag end of the British monarchy’s use of Lord Jacob Rothschild’s imperial Inter-Alpha group of leadership of approximately seventy percent of the world’s eminently bankruptable, reigning international banking power of the world today.
Similarly, it was through the folly of the succession of the French Reign of Terror and Napoleon Bonaparte’s re-enacting the precedents of such follies of both the Peloponnesian War and that of the mid-Eighteenth-century “Seven Years War,” that the British Empire was enabled to reduce those same great European nations who had, earlier, enabled our American victory in 1782, which were now to fall into a nearly ruined condition during a subsequent time, until the global, revolutionary effects of that great victory over the forces of the British Empire which had been led by U.S. President Abraham Lincoln.
It was, similarly, the success in the mid-1870s of the U.S.A.’s influence in such continental European powers as Bismarck’s Germany and Russia’s mightily successful programs of the great Russian statesman Count Witte and the great scientist Dmitri Mendeleyev, which were typical of those developments which drove the British monarchy to the desperation of forcing the dumping of Bismarck by the British royal family’s German Kaiser, and trapping Germany, thus, into a war aided by Britain’s ally Japan, in Japan’s attack on China, Korea, and Russia, wars which prepared the way for setting off the so-called “great war” of 1914.
Similarly, we have the case of that assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy, which removed the President Kennedy who had been a stubborn obstacle to Britain’s intention for launching a long U.S.A. war in Indo-China, a long war which destroyed the United States to such a degree of British imperial advantage by the 1968-1971 interval, that our U.S.A. was soon transformed, since the Nixon and Carter administrations, into what had been described during the time of Secretary of State John Quincy Adams as the status of “a mere cock boat in the wake of a British man o’ war,” as, again, since from 1971-72, to the present day.
This British system was, essentially, not really a new kind of expression of imperialism during any part of the interval of world history between the Peloponnesian War, and the ever-worse degree of ruin of our republic by its being suckered, again and again. So, in a similar way, our republic was being ruined, following the catastrophe which was the post-Kennedy, 1964-1975 decade of the U.S. Indo-China War, through the time of the presently ongoing, British-orchestrated U.S.A. military follies of a far worse than merely foolish U.S. President Obama in Southwest Asia. This trend is still, presently continuing through the follies of London’s launching of Iraq wars, a virtually continuing, long Afghanistan war, and a series of regional wars, under the influence of the British “Sykes-Picot” control over some very, very foolish Israelis, a certain, presently reigning faction among Israelis whose folly is presently expressed as an immediately threatened nuclear-weapons assault on Iran.
This disaster of repeated follies of “divide and conquer,” has been a copy of the practice of, in principle, the ancient Roman Empire. This was the folly practiced by Byzantium after Rome. This was the chronic state of recurring European periods of religious warfare, from the period 1492-1648, which Venetian maritime and monetarist power set off in the effort to crush the successes of the Great Ecumenical Council of Florence, such as that launching of modern European science by the initiatives of such geniuses as Filippo Brunelleschi and Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa.
Must we not ask ourselves: “What is the root of such a persistently recurring, criminal folly of entering into wars and kindred conflicts which are crafted as means for breaking the power of duped, formerly sovereign governments?” Why are governments and peoples so stupid, even stupidly evil, as to engage in such forms of traps of warfare as are typified by the case of the Peloponnesian War, or in the opium-pit of Afghanistan presently?
To restate the same issue in a slightly different manner: “What has been the motive for the extent of the lying defamation against one of the greatest strategists representing the true republican cause, the great Niccolo Machiavelli?”
Said briefly: Machiavelli was, essentially, a follower of the great Leonardo da Vinci who had been driven out of Italy, into a place of relative safety, Amboise, in France. Machiavelli had been a middle-ranking, but important official of the Republic of Florence, who was virtually imprisoned and crippled in his freedom by those victorious forces which had crushed the Republic of Florence. He remained such a republican throughout the remainder of his life, and earned the respect, as by all the best professional officer cadres of the modern world, until the period of the U.S. Indo-China war, a Machiavelli who has been one of the founders of modern strategy, always emphasizing the republican cause in seeking arts for dealing with the pestilence of oligarchy and oligarchism polluting all of Europe during his own part of the 1492-1648 religious warfare.
Why was Machiavelli defamed in the manner used against him?
To state the point in the simplest terms: simply said, the oligarchical parties of Europe feared the infectious power of competence expressed by Machiavelli’s mind, and hated him on that account (as many in certain leading circles of the world express a similar, deadly fear of me). Chiefly, the oligarchically inclined powers of the modern world, then as now, especially the financial oligarchy typified by Venice, still, to the present day, like their medieval and ancient predecessors, fear nothing as much as the very existence of the leaders in any nation who admire a constitution which converges on the intention of our own republican form of Federal Constitution. The standpoint of our President Franklin Roosevelt, or Abraham Lincoln before him, is what the oligarchs of the world, including our Wall Street brigands and vaulted Bostonians, hate and fear with a brutishly mouth-frothing rage.
Such types as those still today, would also hate Machiavelli to the extent that they actually sensed the specific efficiency of his work.6Incidentally, they also seem to dislike me personally, very much.
That much said to describe the global setting within which our view of known history is staged, consider the essential implications of the Peloponnesian War itself.
As I have emphasized a short space above, the great folly to be studied in trans-Atlantic civilization, still today, has been the continued toleration of a weakness expressed in the ability of powerful empires to induce the intended victim-nations to quarrel among themselves, to such an effect as we witness in the case of the mid-Eighteenth-century “Seven Years War,” in the similarity of the effect of the folly of the Napoleonic wars, and, so, case by case, following that 1763 precedent, as to “World War One,” or, in Winston Churchill’s launching of that “Cold War” which ruined both the U.S.A. and western and central Europe, almost as much as it did the Soviet Union in the end. So, we have enjoyed the infernal epidemic of worse than useless, bleeding wars and kindred diversions, which have continued the pattern of folly set into motion by those later wars which had been made possible by the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, and up through the present instant.
This weakness has been permitted, in large part, because of an often potentially fatal, wrongheaded belief, respecting the nature of imperialism. The Romans were already clear on this distinction within the body of what has been considered as “natural law” for such matters. The power of the emperor was situated, qualitatively, above, and apart from the mere “kings” of the nations subject to the higher authority of actual imperial rule. Today, in modern European and related types of society, it is the dominant financier-monetarist interest which embodies the imperial reign ontologically.
So, disregard for that distinction licenses the practice of a misguided, but widespread belief, the which identifies the notion of “empire” with a simply misguided notion of imperialism as being the simple subordination of one nation, or nations, to another.
On that account, in fact, since the time of the Peloponnesian War, all forms of Europe-centered imperialism, including the case of British imperialism today, have not been the imperialism of a nation, but a monetary imperialism like that expressed in a typical form, today, by the coincidence of the U.S. Nixon Administration’s cancellation of the fixed-exchange-rate system, on the one hand, with Lord Jacob Rothschild’s 1971 launching of his Inter-Alpha Group, on the other. That latter, Inter-Alpha Group, is, in reality, a single, London-centered Group of assorted gangs, composed, like the Persian horde at the battle of Gaugamela, of a functionally unified assortment which dominates the field of its about-to-be-defeated army: a reported 70-percentile of the financial power of the world, either explicitly, or through the relationship of a keystone to an arch.
This is ancient pattern of Mediterranean-centered imperialism, whose medieval and modern expressions are to be traced from the root of the rise of Venice as a monetary power, to supersede the imperial power of Byzantium, since about 1000 A.D., and from the modern wars already launched by the orchestrations of a revived Venice’s efforts to destroy the accomplishments which had been set into motion by the launching of the beginning of modern European civilization by the great ecumenical Council of Florence.
On that subject: the obvious question so posed, is one which should be nothing which differs from: “but, what is the pathogen which spreads the disease?” In fact, imperialism is not an action of a particular nation, but is a disease of more or less pandemic character, as Rosa Luxemburg, and, later, also our State Department’s Herbert Feis understood this, and as the case of the extended present reach of Lord Jacob Rothschild’s Inter-Alpha Group and its auxiliaries since 1971.
I should emphasize, for the edification of doubters here, that it is not the U.S. government which presently reigns over the global policy-shaping of the U.S.A., but rather what is called “Wall Street.” “Wall Street,” which, together with the Boston-based “Vault” were launched, directly, from London, as direct creations of British Lord Shelburne’s imperial East India Company. This creation has persisted as an imperial force throughout the planet, to the present day, since the February 1763 close of both the Seven Years War in Europe and the parallel “French and Indian Wars” in North America.
See Anton Chaitkin’s Treason in America (1985) and historian H. Graham Lowry’s How the Nation Was Won (1988)7How the Nation Was Won is availabe at www.larouchepub.com/, on the following subject-matters:
The 2008-2010 “bail-out” in the U.S.A. expresses the looting of the United States as a nation, that, presently, since August 1971, into the ground, that on orders from British empire agents such as President George W. Bush, Jr. and, later, outright British puppet and virtual traitor, President Barack Obama. The case of the rape of the United States by British Petroleum, now, is merely an illustration of who is giving imperial orders to whom, and, chiefly, on the behalf of the British empire and its British Petroleum, under what many of our patriots may be coming to consider the treasonous character of the currently incumbent U.S. President.
On that spoken note, our attention is now returned, for a time, to the matter of that infectious mental disease of entire peoples and nations which I have classified as “reductionism as a mental illness.”
To simplify the task which I have now set before us in this report, at least somewhat, I refer the reader to my own, recent, March 2010 piece, titled Mapping the Cosmos.8Available in the March 19, 2010 issue of EIR at www.larouchepub.com/lar/2010/3711map_cosmos.html
My reference to this use of that term, “Cosmos,” is as minted by Alexander von Humboldt, of Cosmos fame, the one time leading figure (and collaborator of France’s honored “Author of Victory” Lazare Carnot) within France’s Ecole Polytechnique, and, member and associate of that same Ecole. The case of the great science-master von Humboldt expresses my emphasis on the relevant conceptions introduced since the time of the British monarchy’s 1890 ouster of Germany’s Chancellor Bismarck and to the rising importance of the work of Academician V.I. Vernadsky’s mapping of the presently known universe as composed of a set of the three distinct, but interacting categories of the presently known universe, the lithosphere, biosphere, and noösphere.
That latter set is to be contrasted, absolutely, to toleration of the contrary viewpoints bearing any semblance of that Newtonian school echoed by the nonsense of such among Vernadsky’s adversaries as the British accomplices of Bertrand Russell, and J.B.S. Haldane, such as the Soviet Union’s wretchedly reductionist A.I. Oparin, or similar Russian and other admirers of the tradition of the British empire’s International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA). British Liberalism is the putrid essence of all modern imperialism since, in fact, that February 1763 Peace of Paris which established Lord Shelburne’s British East India Company as the kernel of what became the British Empire of Queen Victoria, her successor, and her monarchy to the present date.
Admittedly, there are important elements of influence in present-day Russia, as elsewhere, which deny any attachment to the presently continued existence of the British Empire as such.9A “little England,” or modest government composed of the territorial components and population of the United Kingdom, were a desirable alternative to that empire of which that territory is essentially only another among many victims of British imperialism. Among Russians today, that regrettable belief is often traced to a certain international strain of professedly Communist or related pedigree associated with the duped devotees of the British Fabian Society’s Frederick Engels, the same Engels who played a signal role in launching the career of British gun-runner and devotee of “permanent warfare, permanent revolution,” and of the British Empire, Alexander Helphand.
To situate those systemic distinctions within the relevant, broader historical context, we must reflect on those three leading currents of systemic thinking found among the combined Mediterranean littoral and the Near East region, as a region known to us from the ancient through contemporary history of European epistemology since approximately the self-inflicted fall of Sumer, and since the great scientific accomplishment of the erection of the great Pyramid of Giza.
The first of those three categories is typified by what came to be known as socalled Greek civilization’s Pythagoreans, and by followers of the Pythagoreans’ method, such as Plato. The second, opposing current, expressed that systemic degeneration of mental behavior associated with Aristotle and Euclid. The third, is that of the modern followers of Paolo Sarpi, that liberal school of European statistical irrationalism expressed as the post-Franklin Roosevelt failed economic policies of both the U.S.A. and European cultural hegemonies of the same period, especially since the wretched changes introduced during the 1968-1981 interval, and, later, since the advent of the malicious Alan Greenspan’s entry into the post of Wall Street and London agent, as Federal Reserve Chairman.
The relatively highest category of human thought, as typified by that of such as the Pythagoreans and Plato, is a system of thought based upon the scientific principle of hypothesis. This category is typified by the process of discovery and realization of universal principles which are proven by means of a certain quality of experiment best known to us under such rubrics as “Socratic thinking,” or as illustrated by the examples provided by both Pythagoreans, such as that friend of Plato’s known as the great Archytas, and by Plato himself. Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa could be, therefore, fairly identified as a modern follower of Plato. The U.S. Declaration of Independence and the Preamble of the U.S. Federal Constitution, are to be read as modern expressions of a renewal of the Platonic principle.
The second category among the three, is typified by the followers of Aristotle, as the domain of substitution of intrinsically corrupted a-priori presumptions for the principle of hypothesis, as the corruption expressed by such as Euclid’s denial of the existence of either God’s or man’s power of genuine creativity within the present universe.
The third, in the order of appearance, is that of the modern European Liberalism of the followers of Paolo Sarpi. That is typified by the present British ideological system of “liberalism,” in which there are, avowedly, as Adam Smith put the point, no principles of the type known as being characteristic of the kind of known physical principles specific to the tradition of the Pythagoreans and Plato, but only what is often termed as statistical methods for a merely pragmatic science which, by definition, excludes consideration of actually fundamental principles, as Adam Smith illustrates this case.10E.g., Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) and The Wealth of Nations (1776). It is for this reason that all economists of the Liberal persuasion have been consistently incompetent in their efforts at economic forecasting.
The last of the three views, is that which is actually responsible for bringing upon us the great, global economic-breakdown crisis of the post-July 2007 period to date.
However, for long periods of the U.S.A.’s existence under its implicitly Platonic Federal Constitution, ever since the Massachusetts Bay colony, for as long as it retained its Royal charter, the long, constitutional trend of U.S. policy has been that of a fixed-exchange-rate system of physical progress per capita and per square kilometer. This latter principle of economy, is specific to the U.S.A., whenever it has been allowed to function under the protection of a fixed-exchange-rate principle, a principle expressed in a return to the philosophical standpoint traced, implicitly, to Plato and what he would recognize as his antecedents.
The principled forerunner of the constitutional American System of political economy, is, thus, to be traced, fairly, to such standards as those of Socrates and Plato, as those are immediately opposed to followers of the Delphi cult of Apollo-Dionysos, such as those associated with its last reigning priest of Delphi in Roman imperial times, Plutarch.
In that sense, the specific quality of that American System of government is, that it truly represents a universal model, since the treaty-agreements natural to that system provide for its extension to serve, potentially, as the virtual keystone of a universal system among what must be, respectively, perfectly sovereign nation-states of varying local constitutional forms of cultures.
For example: the normal treaty-relationship among the present or prospective, sovereign partners of our United States under present and future conditions, is a connection premised upon two general economic principles common to the partners: a.) a shared form of regulation of credit coherent with what President Franklin D. Roosevelt established in 1933, under a Glass-Steagall law governing banking and public credit, and also, b.) with what that same President Roosevelt established, in the global form of a fixed-exchange-rate system, the system set during the July 1-22, 1944, Bretton Woods Conference, to serve as the common instrument among the currencies of the participating nation-state partners.
There is nothing which should be mysterious to qualified scholars and scientists respecting the uniqueness of the American model of a system of political-economy. The knowledge on which the development of that American system was premised, was knowledge assembled in a modern European quality and form, through the influence of such leaders of the Fifteenth-century European Renaissance as the initiative of, chiefly, Filippo Brunelleschi and Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa.
For example, the main branch of the development of modern European physical science, was an expression of the heritage delivered by Brunelleschi and Cusa to such explicit followers of Cusa as Luca Pacioli, and of that Leonardo da Vinci whose most notable, avowed follower in science, was, later, the Johannes Kepler who was the only unique discoverer of the principle of universal gravitation.
Kepler was a key source of the knowledge which prompted the principal physical-scientific achievements of the Gottfried Leibniz who was the one and only original discoverer of the calculus, a calculus based on a specification which Leibniz had adopted from an instruction presented to “future mathematicians” by Kepler, as was the development of the notions of elliptical functions as physical, rather than formal mathematical functions, by the collaborators of Carl F. Gauss.
The essential realization of these cardinal advances from about the time of the great ecumenical Council of Florence, onwards, through the work of Gauss, was launched through the instrument of the justly celebrated 1854 habilitation dissertation of Bernhard Riemann. Noting the crucial role contributed in this fashion, all the main currents of competent modern scientific principle, which exclude reductionists such as the so-called “mathematical physicists,” are associated with the emergence of what was to become known as the science of physical chemistry, from the time of such as Louis Pasteur.
Under the terms of the renewal of such treaty-partnerships which had been launched under the leadership of President Franklin Roosevelt, but betrayed through the collusion of President Harry S Truman with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill:
What I have proposed as the immediate action to set such a most urgently needed, new agreement among nations into motion, would be appropriately launched as an agreement on those specifically proposed points of universal agreement which I have projected as being launched by a group of sovereign nation-states inclusive of a core grouping of the United States of America, Russia, China, and India. This would also include those other nations which were prepared to join those four to create an initiating body for the needed reform in affairs among nations generally.
That said so far, there is an underlying principle of action which must be included as an intention, in order to bring the goal of such cooperation into the form of a successful remedy for the presently desperate state of world affairs.
That principle is typified as a Promethean quality of commitment to a relatively capital-intensive progress in the science-driven progress of the productive powers of labor, per capita, and per square kilometer, globally, and perpetually.
Notably, the relatively long term perspective of realizing a reasonably successful round-trip of mankind to and from Mars, after allowing for three successive generations of recovery of mankind from the ruinous effects which the planet considered as a whole has suffered since the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy, which have ruined the productive powers of labor in the trans-Atlantic region of the world to such a degree that the reversal of that ruinous decay over the course of time, means that the development of the mission-oriented schooling of at least two entire generations of the populations of the trans-Atlantic region are probably required to launch the realization of the Promethean goals associated with the initial success of the intention to reach beyond the Moon in a successful manned transit to, and return from Mars.
Not unlike many subjects of serious consideration respecting categories of human behavior, the subject of “imperialism” can be approached in two ways: once, by identifying its footprint, a point of view which often does more to confuse, than clarify the issues; second, the ontological content corresponding to the process of generation of that subject-matter. The latter is something which no faithful dupe of the evil Paolo Sarpi’s Liberalism would wish to understand.
On this subject, we must distinguish what has been merely a form of policy—the virtual footprint, from the actual principle which defines the functional content. In short: what, in real-life history, is the difference between the mind of the master, and that of the slave of the mere appearances? What merely appear to be the issues of their time, issues such as the causes for ruinous long wars?
I have spoken and written, on that subject, on a number of earlier occasions over recent years; I restate the point afresh, but from a slightly higher standpoint.
First, now, we must identify the specific, chronic state of the world’s warfare orchestrated, essentially, by the British Empire, throughout the entire sweep of world history since 1890, and up through the present efforts of that Empire to bring about the final destruction of the United States of America through included assistance from the British puppet-President of our U.S.A., Barack Obama.
What was then a new quality in modern warfare has dominated the world since the British monarchy effected the 1890 ouster of Germany’s Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. The condition has been chronic through the present time. This is to be traced, in simple fact, as a set of consequences which first appeared in rapid-fire succession with the 1894 assassination of France’s President Marie François Sadi Carnot, the Dreyfus Case, and the British Prince of Wales’ prompting Japan’s Mikado in launching a virtually permanent state of war against China, Korea, and Russia, all with the continuing, institutional effects11With lasting effects on the U.S.A.’s Presidency itself until the 1933 inauguration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, of the assassination of U.S. President William McKinley in 1901. through the time of the surrender of Japan to General Douglas MacArthur in August 1945, effects still reverberating throughout the world at large today.
With the death of President Roosevelt on April 12, 1945, and the surrender of the Mikado on September 2, 1945, the 1939-1945 “World War II” itself had more or less come to an end. However; what began, even back then, as the continuing effort for the intended destruction of our U.S.A., by the British Empire, has been continued since the death of President Franklin Roosevelt in a new guise, through to the present day of the reign of the British monarchy’s puppet, President Barack Obama.
The post-1890 process of open British imperial intent for warfare against our U.S. republic, has been a reaction which has been associated with the British Prince of Wales Albert Edward’s rise in status to what a famous portrait depicted as the fatuous figure of a “Lord of the Isles.” So, in this way, the failure of the effort of Jeremy Bentham’s trained successor at the British Foreign Office, Lord Palmerston, to employ its puppet, the London-created Confederacy, to crush the United States out of existence, was combined, in effect, with the consolidation of the continental United States and the great agro-industrial revolution launched under President Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln’s leadership to this effect, during his lifetime, had resulted in the echoes of that American triumph of statecraft which was echoed within continental Eurasia by the response of the revolutionary industrial revolution launched by both Germany’s Bismarck and Russia’s Dmitri Mendeleyev, all in response to the evidence of grand, world-wide achievements radiating from the 1876 Philadelphia Centennial Exposition.
Imperial Britain’s enraged reaction to these American developments and their echoes in continental Europe, was expressed by a series of crucial, triggering events leading into the so-called First World War, events beginning the ouster of Bismarck; but, the most crucial of all was the use of a European terrorist imported into Manhattan with the intent of assassinating U.S. President William McKinley.
The virtually dynastic change from President McKinley to Confederacy fellow-travellers Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Ku Klux Klan fanatic Woodrow Wilson, was the passing of the Presidency from a patriot to a child of the British-created Confederacy which set the stage for the British Empire’s preparations for and launching of what became known as “World War II.” The immediate consequence of that assassination of President McKinley was the moving the United States from an opponent of Britain’s launching of what became known as “World War I,” which it had been under McKinley, to an ally of the British imperial cause. That arrangement continued until a clear-headed patriot, Franklin D. Roosevelt, assumed the Presidency and brought a Britain almost crushed by its own folly in creating and launching the Adolf Hitler tyranny, begging for rescue at the knees of Franklin Roosevelt.
Then, with the death of President Franklin Roosevelt, the British gang aligned with Wall Street asset Harry S Truman, returned to refresh what had been the dubious intentions of British puppets Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and U.S. President Calvin Coolidge.
Examining this aspect of U.S. history in a finer detailing of the causes of such ironical turns in the history of those times, the Boston State Street and New York Wall Street financier consort and their British East India Company-spawned political minions, were then, as under President Obama today, the extension of the British empire’s financial grip on the economy and those many bought-and-paid-for, leading U.S. politicians who have acted as the minions, as inside the U.S. Congress and other relevant places of political and educational expresses of the British empire of today, politicians who have betrayed their oath of office and the safety of the republic which they had been consigned to serve.
Thus, it came to be the case, that at the present moment, the United States itself is already in the grip of what has been essentially the British empire’s orchestration of what that empire intends should be the early economic collapse, and an early end of the United States as a nation. Of late, the British imperialists have been wont to brag brazenly of this intention within the U.S. itself, as through the mouth of an official minion of visiting British Prime Minister David Cameron. Should President Obama be permitted to hold the office of President over the course of the Summer until a point proximate to this coming October, it were probable that the United States would have been successfully virtually destroyed, as the British government has hoped, by aid of its accomplice, the Obama Presidency.
This does not signify that that collapse were inevitable. At any instant the 1933 Glass-Steagall law were re-enacted, a sudden turn to a vigorous recovery of the U.S.A.’s economy would be under way. This could not happen without putting President Obama into a condition of virtual retirement from office during the course of these present Summer months. Allowing him to continue to rule through a time as early as the November 2010 Federal election, would virtually guarantee the extinction of the U.S.A. as a republic. Obama’s very continuation in office is now fairly estimated as virtually treasonous by the measure of the existing and clearly foreseeable, relevant effects.
Therefore, that Obama must be ousted before the Summer has ended, perhaps even earlier. There is, incidentally, no lack of the available evidence of suitable cause required to lawfully effect his ouster. It is to be emphasized that Obama is another case of what is termed in relevant technical terms, as “a failed personality,” that in the clinical likeness of the Emperor Nero and Adolf Hitler, the likeness of a pair of failed personalities which had ended their incumbency in power with suicide. Obama must not be permitted to carry out the potential commitment to suicide embedded within his defective personality, but he must be tossed out of the Presidency by proper means, Richard M. Nixon-style.
U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower, with whom I exchanged very brief, but relevant correspondence in 1947, explicitly encouraged my outlook for his prospective Presidential candidacy against “that little man,” Harry S Truman, then, but deferred his candidacy to what might be a more appropriate time. By the time that General Eisenhower sought and gained the nomination for President, the leading political situation inside the U.S.A. had been changed for the worse.
Eisenhower had become the legend of what was sometimes seen as “Eisenhowever” in his time as President. His former Columbia University colleague, and den-mother of what came to be widely known as Milton Friedman, Arthur Burns, proved to be an economic catastrophe in his own right. Nonetheless; on crucial strategic issues, President Eisenhower sometimes played a very necessary, crucial, and commanding role in the history of that decade, and still later as a former President. As it turned out, Eisenhower’s successor, President John F. Kennedy acted as a patriot with genuine accomplishments, until a set of imported assassins cleared the way for that foolish Indo-China war which was intended, by the then living heirs of Lord Shelburne’s 1782 creation of the British Foreign Office, all chiefly to the intent to ruin the political and economic institutions of our United States.
So, the subsequent Presidencies of those virtual puppet-Presidents Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Jr., and, presently, Barack Obama, have virtually transported the United States to the yawning gates of Hell under Obama today.
The long wars, beginning with the so-called “Cold War,” and the chronic warfare in Africa and Asia, and the new Balkan wars, have been cast in the image of the satanic influence of Friedrich Nietzsche, an influence which assumed the inherited name of the Schumpeter dogma, that Fabian disease known as what is to be described clinically as the “Nietzschean” doctrine of “creative destruction,” a doctrine, associated with the name of Schumpeter, which remains notorious for such among the effects of its application by British Prime Minister Harold Wilson which, by ruining the economy of the United Kingdom, curiously paved the way for the systemic ruin of Europe and the United States during and since Wilson’s time in office: syphilis is also said to be contagious.
Nations have often engaged in even long, ruinous wars, because of the influence of crippling features of popular habits which affect many persons, through the influence of erroneous habits of “blind faith in sense-certainty.” So, wars such as a silly U.S.A.’s plunge into ruinous wars, still today, such as the U.S.A. Indo-China War, the repeated wars against Iraq, and the presently continuing, monstrously foolish long war in defense of British drug-trafficking, in Afghanistan, may be located in the failure to recognize that what are taken for the senses innate to our biological organization, are, contrary to popular belief, what were appropriately identified, symbolically, as merely “meter readings.” Consequently, in and of themselves, these readings may be accurate in some fashion, (if only as meter-readings, of course), but they do not represent the matter of the actual “real universe” which those readings might have seem to have reflected.
Wars of the type which have become more or less chronic, especially worse than useless long wars, since the U.S. Truman Administration, must be recognized as being a leading part of a repertoire of the rampant plague of Schumpeteran destruction spread throughout most of the planet now.
There is a deeper, truly Satanic, Nietzschean, existentialist, motive behind it all. To understand how Satan works to such effect, we must probe deeply into the human soul, its native virtues and its often corrupted incarnations.
As our already referenced William Empson had emphasized for the case of Classical artistic composition, in his Seven Types of Ambiguity, the reality “behind the meter-readings,” is locatable by us, but only through the agency of that principle of metaphor which is the essential component of all actually Classical artistic composition, such as that of J.S. Bach, Wolfgang Mozart, and Ludwig Beethoven for music, as for William Shakespeare, Gotthold Lessing, Friedrich Schiller, and Percy Bysshe Shelley for poetry and drama, and, similarly, as for all of the true principles of true discovery of universal principles, such as the discovery of gravitation by Johannes Kepler, which have been the true accomplishments of the work of physical science.
So, this notion of metaphor, as emphasized by Empson, is the subject-matter which is encountered in the foundations of modern physical science, as in the case of such expressions as the great scientist Johannes Kepler’s uniquely original discovery of the principle of universal gravitation, as being recognized as the physically lawful expression of the ironical (or, metaphorical) juxtaposition of sight and harmonics. As in Kepler’s uniquely original discovery of the principle of gravitation, neither sight, nor harmonics, when either were taken by itself, is “the truth” of our experience of the universe; the truth lies in that kind of unique, ironical conjunction of the two, which is expressed by the noëtic principle of Classical artistic composition, as for the case treated by Empson.
As I have emphasized, repeatedly, in major writings during the recent two years, we have the following subject to consider on this account.
In an accurate estimate of our experience from inside the experience of the individual human life of any truly great scientist since the Pythagoreans and Plato, we travel in time through the physical space-time of experience, as in the manner of a pilot operating from within a capsule which affords him no direct sensory experience of the physical space-time through which he is traveling, In such a case, each among us must rely on an insightful reading of what must seem to be a special kind of mutually contradictory meter-readings, such as what are called “sense impressions.” Such experience of sense-impressions typifies the predicament posed to the awareness of any competent scientist, such as the cases of the modern Max Planck and Albert Einstein, or, earlier, such wonderful discoveries of universal truth as in the known work of the ancient Archytas,12E.g., Archytas’ uniquely original duplication of the cube. Plato, or Eratosthenes.13Eratosthenes’ discovery of the size of the Earth through instrument readings crafted within a north-south positioning, in Syene and Alexandria, of observations of the Sun within a region of ancient Egypt.
So it is, in all cases of a scientifically competent reading of the meaning expressed to kindred effects by crucial juxtapositions giving arise to true, intrinsically anti-entropic notions of universal principle in our experience of the universe. Here we meet the principle of metaphor, as expressed by William Empson in the argument which Empson adopts from such arguments as those of Percy Bysshe Shelley’s A Defence of Poetry, and which also, in fact, echoes Johannes Kepler’s earlier, uniquely original discovery of the inherently anti-entropic principle of universal gravitation.
Now, from the case of our pilot traveling in physical space-time, proceed as follows:
There is a certain story, told in certain circles, which, while not exactly the true story, is a myth which leads us to the source of that shadow cast by a less understood, actual substance of the matter. So, Aeschylus’ Prometheus Bound performs such a service. Such are matters consistent with both the hypothetical case of the space-pilot, above, and the role of the notion of metaphor presented in the argument of (in particular) William Empson’s Seven Types of Ambiguity. Such are the subject-matters featured within this present chapter.
Thus, to begin this present chapter, I have referred, again, to my original encounter with that work by Empson. I have since learned, since that fresh encounter, that the emphasis required in reading Empson’s work is that which I have placed on the equivalence of his notion of metaphor, to that of Johannes Kepler’s uniquely original discovery of the principle of gravitation, as in his Harmonies of the World. Thus, Empson, in particular, had returned to the Classical notions of such as William Shakespeare, rather than the Sarpian, Liberal romanticism of Shakespeare-hater Sir Francis Bacon.14To understand Empson’s argument, it were useful to look to the treatment of Shakespeare by the circles of Abraham Kästner, including such followers of Kästner as Gotthold Lessing, Moses Mendelssohn, and the circles of Friedrich Schiller. My ontological definition of human creativity is the key to understanding the underlying issues of such matters. It is the cult of so-called “mathematical physics,” as established to wide effect, since 1716, through the influence of Abbé Antonio S. Conti’s direction, which excluded the creative powers of the mind, which lie within the domain of Classical modes of artistic creation, and do not exist as actually universal principles under the reign of a so-called “mathematical physics” of such as, for example, a personally decent David Hilbert or a consummately despicable Bertrand Russell.
The understanding of those functional distinctions which separate British empiricist ideology, and its likenesses, from both science and sanity, is to be attained through rising above those misleading notions of so-called “sense-certainty” which exert a virtual dictatorship over virtually all so-called “sovereign” peoples today.15It is important, at this point in the present chapter, to place emphasis on the strict use of the English term “empiricism.” It signifies that doctrine of Paolo Sarpi which is presented as the dogma of British Liberalism (“empiricism”) which is the central principle of economy for Adam Smith, as in Smith’s 1759 Theory of Moral Sentiments:
“Nature has directed us to the greater part of these by original and immediate instincts. Hunger, thirst, the passion which unites the two sexes, the love of pleasure, and the dread of pain, prompt us to apply these means for their own sakes, and without any consideration of their tendency to those beneficent ends which the great Director of nature intended to produce by them.” Hence, in empiricism, the statistical apprehension of pleasure and pain define the entire method of a notion of the principles of an economy. Thus, all my notable opponents among economic forecasters have consistently failed throughout the entire 1956-2010 interval during which I have made forecasts (rather than those manifestly silly opinions called “statistical predictions”).
This fact is, what is typified as the basis for my own long-standing campaign against that delusion which I have known, with increasing precision as to principle, to be the sheer, Sarpian fraud of the pathetic belief in any teaching of physics which is subsumed by mere mathematics. I have frequently referred to such cases as, on the one hand, that of David Hilbert, or, on the other, the sheer evil represented by the devotees of Bertrand Russell and the cult of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA). This is a matter more readily understood from the vantage-point presented in the course of this present chapter. It is crucial-experimental qualities of physical principles which must determine the mathematical procedures in scientific practice, principles which are contrary to the same cult of Sarpi’s Liberalism which IIASA reflects, rather than the other way around.
Such are the terms in which the causes for the follies of ruinous long wars may be sought.
I will resume the development of that argument, after the following intermediate historical references.
Therefore, it is most notable, that what have been most widely accepted as standards of popular culture among European cultures, in particular, are, first, the fraudulent epistemological legacy of the ancient Aristotle, and, second, that modern cult of Paolo Sarpi which was launched to become what is to be recognized as the modern European, Venetian-designed, monetarist cult of British Liberalism. In both of those cases, the existence of a principle of human creativity is not only denied, but fiercely hated, hated in what must be recognized as being an actually Satanic passion typified by opinions such as those of Paolo Sarpi himself, his “Leporello,” Galileo, Rene Descartes, and the Abbé Antonio S. Conti who crafted the notorious French disease known as “Voltaire” out of a certain substance.
Therefore, we have the slight, but nonetheless systemic contrast, between an Aristotle who presumes a-priori “zero growth” presumptions, whereas Paolo Sarpi denies that any actual knowledge of the organization of experience is accessible to the knowledge of human individuals, as Adam Smith echoed Sarpi in Smith’s own 1759 Theory of Moral Sentiments.
Thus, it is with Abbé Antonio S. Conti’s launching of what became the widespread hoax of the Anglo-Dutch Liberals’ cult which produced Sir Isaac Newton, a hoax launched on a broad scale by Abbé Conti, that globally extended European civilization has been dominated, although not entirely, by a conflict among three mutually contradictory systems of thinking concerning scientific and political matters:16Notably, since Conti had received the news confirming Gottfried Leibniz’s death. first, the sanity typified by Plato, second, the fraud by Aristotle, and, third, the filthy insanity spread Liberally by Sarpi and his dupes.
The most obvious indication of the earliest of those three contending systems, is typified by the contrast of the case of the Pythagoreans and Plato, when contrasted with the cases of the Aristotelean and Sarpian systems of opinion. The case for the Pythagoreans and Plato, is known to us presently as some ancient mariners’ culture’s discovery of some knowable physical principle of astronomy, as used, for example, for transoceanic navigation, the first true notion of an implicitly finite, ordered array, the true universal principle which replaced the mere, naive admiration, as with a gaping mouth, of the stellar array.
The case presented by the work of such as the Pythagoreans and Plato, was a discovery which must have begun to be understood no later than during the last great period of glaciation in the world’s northern maritime regions. It was defined among the great ancient navigators long before the use of the name of geodesy, that the idea of an actual notion of the existence of universal scientific principles was expressed in adducible cases of actual practice, such as the practice of Sphaerics and the work of the maritime culture of the Pythagoreans such as the celebrated Archytas. Only a trans-oceanic maritime culture could have developed what Plato came to know, through recognizing the stellar universe as expressing a single physical principle of a “finite but unbounded” universe, as one of the three principal periods within the Earth orbit itself.
The wretched devotee of the Delphi cult, Aristotle, copying the doctrine of the Olympian Zeus which had been condemned in Aeschylus’ Prometheus Trilogy, had forbidden both God and man, alike, from participating in any act of actual creativity, once the universe had reached the point of development in time that it had been established, in Aristotle’s view, as a kind of mindless clockwork. In contrast to Aristotle’s system, Sarpi’s Liberalism, simply denied human beings any knowledge of the actual principles of either man or nature. The mathematical systems of Aristotle (e.g., Euclid) and the utterly depraved Sarpi, were represented in their worst outcome by such wretched creatures as Bertrand Russell and his devotees of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA). The Russell schemes represent the extremes of the depravity which must be regarded as appropriate causes for the entire planet’s presently onrushing general economic breakdown-crisis.
Against that background, now consider the view which I share with Plato, among others.
The only presently conceivable basis for a known history of civilization, for better or worse, has been the discovery of the role of the stellar night-time array as a navigational map of a Keplerian, finite, but boundless universe of reliable oceanic navigation, that over persisting long intervals of the history of what have been essentially maritime cultures.
As I have emphasized this same point, directly, or implicitly, in various locations, the advancement of mankind’s condition proceeded from such relatively restricted bounds as Mediterranean- and Indian Ocean-based maritime cultures, to the improvement brought about by riparian cultures internal to systems of combined rivers and canals, to the still higher order of trans-oceanic cultures spread from the Mediterranean, to the superseding of internal water-borne systems by the dominant functions of trans-continental rails in non-decadent European and other cultures presently. This much so far, presages an intra-Solar system, manned exploration, and human settlement.
Presently, the progress of civilization into the domain of interplanetary human activity, has been hampered by what are such relatively morally obvious deficiencies as the problem of failing to solve the challenge of problems of gravitation and related issues of cosmic radiation which confront us most obviously when we send human beings, rather than mere robotic equipment into interplanetary space. Yet, already, human interplanetary space-travel, and the prospect of related habitation, tend more to haunt us, than to afford us a satisfactory feeling for this reality. That lack of a satisfactory “feeling” in respect to such matters, is among my concerns in this report: to understand war, we must acquire a confident insight into the higher realities of the relevant kinds of follies in history.17This is a very crucial point to be emphasized here in the concluding portion of this present report.
Thus, as I have emphasized in an earlier publication, the prospect of human exploration of nearby Solar space, already haunts us with the need for a fresh definition of the term “basic economic infrastructure.” The challenge is relatively new in the annals of contemporary awareness, but the challenge has already been there since the earliest successes in trans-oceanic navigation.
“Infrastructure” does not merely signify a supplementing of the development of production and communication; it represents the developing foundation on which the progress of the power of production depends: the development of the powers of production are dependent upon the advances in technology in infrastructure. I mean this in the specific sense that I have pointed to the role of the discovery of the starry universe as the representation of a conceptually finite universe, as being the universe of a society whose existence is based on transoceanic navigation—a true maritime system. Or since the addition of a riparian system of rivers and canals, or the development of a transcontinental railway system as transcending an existing riparian system, and, since, still later, the case of successively more advanced systems of powering the forces of a continent, and, then, presently, a system dependent upon the development of the global application of nuclear-fission and thermonuclear power.
I mean to emphasize, by that statement, that the continued existence of civilized society demands the persistent increase of the relative energy-flux-density in the modes of power employed, and also in the capital-intensity of the organization of not only production, but the very means of continued existence of a society’s culture.
So, the possibility of the advances in productive technology and productive powers of labor premised on the use of coal and petroleum for the increase of industrial power per capita and per square kilometer, illustrates the point most simply and clearly. Today, the ability to sustain the general human population depends absolutely on accelerated development of nuclear-fission and nuclear-fusion power, as superseding what are presently policies of foolish reliance on such moronic, low energy-flux densities as the modalities of “solar” and “wind” power.
The most crucial of the determining considerations bearing upon physical productivity of a society, per capita and per square kilometer of territory, is what I have already referenced here as the principle of Leibnizian dynamics expressed, typically, in the physical concept of “applied energy-flux density.” This is measurable, in one aspect, as applicable power expressed per square-centimeter of cross -section of the flow of power. This means power usable by mankind at the lowest level of the incidence of sunlight at the Earth’s surface, or wind-power, up through the use of increasingly “hot” forms of fuels, up through generated electrical power at high densities, and into nuclear and thermonuclear processes as fuels.
Thus, it is urgent that we not use solar-radiation sources or wind directly, not only because such primitive fuels are inefficient, but because the only decent general use of sunlight as a fuel is its role expressed through such natural means as the chlorophyll principle. Every dollar wasted on solar cells used for a substitute fuel, is an area which is condemned to be a waste-land by stealing from the magnificent benefits of chlorophyll in effecting a great improvement in the entire cycle from sunlight, through chlorophyll, as fruitful supplies of the biological processes which make land habitable.
The modern adoption of the ancient Delphic cult of Dionysus, which is what the entirety of the so-called “green movement” of today represents, is a specifically anti-human cult, typified by the implicitly satanic cult of Friedrich Nietzsche and the devotees of Schumpeter’s folly.
At its pinnacle, the development of higher forms of sources of power, as typified by nuclear-fission and thermonuclear-fusion sources, defines the possibility of advancement of the power of mankind to exist, not only on Earth, but within the future developments within the Solar system and galaxy beyond. The same principle is expressed as the general level of applied energy-flux density to the productivity of agriculture, manufacturing and general infrastructure of society’s population. In fact, every relevant advance in technology reflects this, as in the expression of physical capital-intensity and the level of advancement of the culture of the population.
These considerations define what can be properly assessed as the level of productivity achieved by the advancement, in terms of capital-intensity and energy-flux density, of the social process as a whole. All competent assessments of relative productivity and of rates of advancement or decline of a national economy must be traced to the underlying factors of increasing physical (as distinguished from merely monetary) capital-intensity and relative increases in energy-flux density expressed in the form of applicable power or scientific and related advances in energy-flux density in both production and the basic economic infrastructure on which any form of economy implicitly depends.
Any contrary opinion on the subject of economics is counterproductive mumbo-jumbo of the type currently peddled from London, Wall Street, and the Obama White House.
On precisely that account, we have now reached the initial, exploratory stages of man’s prospect for the stellar objectives represented by the development of the still higher quality of infrastructure needed for mankind’s growing role in interplanetary space.
This set of considerations, which requires us to look forward, also obliges us to look backward, to the often overlooked implications which we had failed to understand adequately during the course of our travels toward progress. That said, now consider the true implications of the conception of physical space-time, rather than the fallacious notion of physical-space in time.
As I have just summarized this point, the ability of the world’s societies to supply the impetus for the needed raising of the standard of living of the present level of population, even without considering the unavoidable increase of the population associated with such progress, depends upon an increase of power, per capita and per square kilometer, a power measured in terms of qualitative increases in effective energy-flux density of the sources of power applied.
That requirement points toward the inherent challenge of a present transition from an apparently, present, upper limit for sources of required power, from a nuclear-fission mode, to a thermonuclear-fusion mode. The mere existence of that present challenge in progress, respecting the requirements of the planet as a whole, implies the transition from man bounded by the conditions of the relative surface of the Earth, into the domain of mankind’s exertion of a functionally relevant control over nearby Solar space. Mankind’s true destiny would bring our species into the realm of the stars.
The mere contemplation of the realization of a response to this challenge of progress, signifies, that as mankind begins to move into prospective habitats beyond the protected environment of our planet’s surface, that a radically new notion of “infrastructure” has overtaken us.
We must think in terms of “synthetic environments” of a type which provide the “protection” of something equivalent to today’s habitual notion of habitable “environment,” within Solar and other domains which are “naturally” unsuited to human habitation.
For persons who are seriously qualified to discuss such matters, this notion is accessible as a matter of principle today, even at a time when we have not gained an intellectual mastery of particular such cases. For such thinkers, it is not beyond intellectual reach, to estimate the rates of productivity and increase of “energy-flux density” even to begin to consider a pilot habitation on Mars. It also requires a rapid succession of scientific revolutions in the turn to a “periodic table” of the singularities of cosmic radiation, rather than one still stuck in the tradition of particles. What this means, otherwise, is a shift in man’s self-image which lifts the human mind out of the muck of naive sense-certainty, as this is implied by both the discovery of universal gravitation by Kepler and William Empson’s concept of the efficiency of that physical principle of metaphor which was already clearly presented by the discoveries of such as Kepler, Leibniz, Riemann, and V.I. Vernadsky.
As I have emphasized this point in locations published earlier, the function of “infrastructure” is not that of a supplement to production. It is the building up, to qualitatively higher levels of the equivalent of “energy-flux density,” of the creation of the physical and related foundations on which the establishment and maintenance of a certain quality of range of direct productivity, as per capita, and as per square kilometer, is dependent.
For example, it were impossible to continue to maintain the present level of development of the world’s current population upon “solar” and “wind” power. As the challenge of maintaining the current population of Asia and Africa demands, without a “platform” of nuclear and higher energy-flux density embedded in the infrastructure of a society (and, also, the world at large), even the present levels of world population are in jeopardy. Thus, the proper emphasis on accelerated development of nuclear-fission and related high-energy-flux-density sources of generally available power, per square kilometer and per-capita, without which the existing levels of population in the principal nations of Asia were not feasible.
Earlier, the steps of progress were represented by maritime culure, then riparian systems which brought the productive powers of labor to a higher level than mere maritime systems, then the complementing of riparian “platforms” of general productivity which depended absolutely on transcontinental railways, and, now, maglev development of transit systems for people and freight (rather than the highly inefficient long-range trucking as a substitute for rail). The development of generally upgraded water systems, as typified by the case of the well-defined NAWAPA design, would mean a qualitative leap in the productive powers of labor and the quality of the environment for human work and habitation.
In a similar vein, the exploration of nearby planetary space, or inter-spatial locations, requires reaching the higher levels of energy-flux density needed by the specific kinds of artificial environment which are indispensable for the successful adaptation of Earth-like habitation by both human and plant life in such new, exceptional regions for exploration and later habitation. The problems of “low” gravitation on the Moon, or Mars, or in orbiting stations above Earth, are only an advanced sampling of the needed future systems which would require sources of power, as measured in energy-flux density, far beyond anything yet considered as presently practicable. Man within the Solar System, or inhabiting our galaxy, is the challenge which we must muster the capability of achieving over the course of both the present century and, much more, beyond.
My presently relevant estimate begins with recognition of the systemic destruction, over the interval in the U.S.A. and Europe since the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and the great cultural attrition of the remainder of the 1960s, and the three subsequent decades of decadence, of the productive powers of labor per capita and per square kilometer, within North America and western and central Europe. The intellectual powers of the adolescent generations and young-adult generations, have fallen much lower than that of the U.S. and European labor-force of the 1960s and 1970s.
We will require two generations of vigorous investment in a properly defined meaning of the term “basic economic, social infrastructure,” to make up for the lost intellectual and related powers which the current adolescent and early-twenties’ young-adult population has suffered. We will require the aggressive reversal of the cultural decline of locations such as North America and Europe under the “green” cultural pandemic’s collapse of the development of the young human mind of the post-1968 generations. It would be a quarter-century before the social and intellectual effects of this decadence of the recent thirty years have been suitably repaired, that we might be enabled to effect a net reversal of the vast and deep cultural damage to the post-1968 populations since the “Vietnam War” years sufficiently to presume that we have a general population which could be broadly capable of the qualities and rates of progress which were still possible until the culturally depressive effects of the “Nixon” and “Carter” eras had sunk in.
Nonetheless, despite such difficulties, a minority of our broadly defined employment-age population will be available to prepare the way for the explosion of great scientific and related cultural leaps which we must commit ourselves to bring about during the coming fifty to seventy years immediately before us now.
The social aspects of such a prospective program for the remainder of the present century, will be defined by an emphasis on the kinds of great infrastructure projects which where typified by the Tennessee Valley and Manhattan projects of the Franklin Roosevelt era. We were obliged to “build down,” rather than the contrary emphasis on agricultural and industrial progress in production up through the late 1960s. Our industry and infrastructure have been destroyed as if by a Golem gone amok, especially since about 1968. We will be obliged, if we are sane, to emphasize massive U.S. Federal programs of revolutionary emphasis on basic economic infrastructure, such as the urgently needed, and readily awaiting NAWAPA project, a project already designed for the purpose of getting to work on a large scale. The role of the automobile will be curtailed to relatively short range daily, or occasional use, while a new system of high-speed modern rail and magnetic levitation takes over. The great infrastructure programs, such as those, will create the “demand” which drives the market for agricultural and industrial production. The sudden and strict enforcement of a Glass-Steagall law, will, doubtless, wipe out most of the high-binder Wall Street and State Street categories, while regional mercantile banks acting on the basis of wiping out both the U.S. government’s and related obligations for support of the financial swinders, will enable the flood of Federal credit needed to fund both the development of the great infrastructure programs and the farming and agriculture which benefit from the credit-driven market for their stimulus of net production of goods and essential services.
With such a sudden and sweeping change in policy, back to the policies which enabled our United States to astonish the world, as at the 1876 Centennial fair, we will depart the present pit of despair. We shall not be suddenly rich, but we shall live productively and with a sense of freedom and restored sense of security, away from the graveyard of lost hopes which the overwhelming majority of our citizenry suffers presently.
It is on the basis of the reform based on both Glass-Steagall and a return to a fixed-exchange-rate system of credit among willing nations, that we shall move toward the great achievements which we shall prepare to realize during the latter half of this present century.
Under such a program, we shall be enabled to free ourselves from the periods of long wars introduced on a global scale by the British Prince of Wales Albert Edward.
There are no actually “good wars,” but there have been some “necessary wars,” of which the U.S.A.’s role in so-called “World War II,” is an example, or our American Revolution against an Imperial British tyranny. There are also “bad wars.” The “baddest” of bad wars, as since the model of the Peloponnesian War, are those, like the U.S. long war in Indo-China, or the wars fought under the Bush family’s U.S. Presidencies, or under the worst fool of them all, Barack Obama, in which monetarist power uses wars fomented among the credulous, as the customary way for both creating, and building up a certain kind of imperial power.
Such latter cases are typified by a war set within the ruin of what have been, usually, those long wars, by which a foolishly credulous, and negligent people had brought the tyranny of a monetarist imperial power upon themselves. Such a latter fate was the folly of the duped continental European victims of the newly founded British Foreign Office, those, now duped, former European allies of the American Revolution, whose earlier support for a just war had made possible our victory over the British tyrant, at Yorktown.
With the ouster of Germany’s Prince Otto von Bismarck, in 1890, that “bad war” on a global scale, which was identified as the first “world war,” was unleashed through a series of the combination of wars, such as the Anglo-Japan warfare launched jointly against China, Korea, and Russia, beginning 1894-1907, and the assassinations of prominent figures, such as, most notably, U.S. President William McKinley, in 1901. This epidemic of folly erupted as in the exemplary assassination of France’s President Sadi Carnot, and could not have developed into the outbreak of August 1914, but for that 1901assasination of U.S. President McKinley which had brought to power a virtual traitor in the Confederacy’s tradition, President Theodore Roosevelt.
So, earlier, the French revolution of 1789 and beyond, had turned out to be a bad war which had been orchestrated, beginning the 1782 founding of the British Foreign Office under the Lord Shelburne whose Jeremy Bentham had led the Special Committee of assassinations, wars, and insurrections, which culminated in the destruction of continental Europe, including France itself, by the hand of an unwitting British puppet and fully witting, thieving predator, Napoleon Bonaparte.
That much said on this matter so far, look back, stepwise, to the Peloponnesian War.
Begin this study with an examination, from this point onwards, of the most crucial among the functional developments leading into, and beyond what was to become known as “World War I.”
Consider one of the more notable symptoms of the folly which permitted the slide into what became not only so-called “World War I,” but, also, “World War II,” and, then, the long “Cold War.” Such was the root of the new phase of global mass-insanity run amok throughout the world since the time that Britain’s Margaret Thatcher, flanked by France’s culpable President François Mitterrand, and by the failed personality, U.S. President George H.W. Bush had joined forces for the destruction of continental Europe. This trio’s culpable actions, had already foredoomed that continent of Europe to the creation of the presently, catastrophically failed, “Euro” system.
Out of a reality which has always remained as contrary to the silly notion of “imperialism” adopted by V.I. Lenin, sundry German Social-Democrats, and others, during the run-up to so-called “World War I,” and also “World War II,” the developments of those two wars, and their aftermath, still today, have proceeded as an expression of the delusion, that imperialism was a phenomenon defined by the role of the individual will and interest of the respective sovereign nation-state. After the sundry, allegedly “world wars” and their like, to date thus far, there arose the even more lunatic misconception, to the effect of proposing some form of “world government” as an imagined remedy for the alleged rapacity, which were alleged to be the fatal flaw embedded in the conception of the sovereign nation-state.
It is important, for the sake of insight into certain crucial realities of the history of modern imperialism and the wars which that imperialist lust has engendered, to recognize that the imperialist orgy of the recent centuries’ British monarchy, was not inherent in the United Kingdom’s population itself, but, rather, that Kingdom’s role as the chief among the puppets of modern Venice, to the present day.
Anyone who has some degree of familiarity with the actual population of the subjects of the United Kingdom itself, must have noticed that many prominent and other figures from that nation, have impulses which our better-informed American patriots would consider as perhaps a bit quaint, but which are, despite that fact, within the bounds of sometimes very useful views of humanity, views we might regard as relatively satisfactory morally. It is not the body of subjects of the United Kingdom, which is the source of the problem of a virtually world-wide British imperialism today. The empire itself is not that kingdom as such, but a vulturous empire per se, a creature of the Venetian tradition.
To understand this distinction between nation and sovereign nation-state, which Lenin, for example, with his notions of principles of economy, never actually understood, we must recognize the curious legacy which must be traced explicitly to the exemplary case of that bloody lunatic known as England’s Henry VIII.
With the defeat of Richard III, the constitution of England under Henry VII, had been established as an echo of the great political revolution in France accomplished by King Louis XI, and, implicitly, the radiated impact of the A.D. 1439 Council of Florence. The accomplishment of Louis XI being a revolution premised on the inspiration of Jeanne d’Arc, and upon the same principles as those of the great ecumenical Council of Florence.
The principles expressed by that Council, were reflections of a wide agreement shared with the influence of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa. Cusa’s greatest influence as theologian, statesman, and leading scientist, followed such notable precedents in the development of what became a modern physical science which are typified by the crafting of the cupola of the cathedral of Florence’s Santa Maria del Fiore, and the Pazzi Chapel, by the discoverer of the practical catenary principle, Filippo Brunelleschi.
On the subject of the exemplary British Empire which has now dominated the planet through most of the period since the February 1763 Peace of Paris, until the present time, the following matter of great relevance to the present world crisis, must be said, as preparation, here and now, on the subject of the British empire as such.
What happened, under the regime of what may be defined clinically as the expression of a typical “failed personality,” Henry VIII, has been, from that time, until today, the recent British empire’s adoption of a kind of reigning, failed personality who often shares a type of mental sickness which that pathetic creature known as today’s U.S. President Obama shares, in turn, with famous cases of failed personalities such as that of the Emperor Nero and Adolf Hitler.
President Obama’s moral sickness, in particular, expresses the same species of moral-intellectual defect specific to Henry VIII, if, perhaps, not in the matter of wives. The President’s mental disorder is an echo of that which was exploited by Venetian interests including King Henry VIII’s sexual counselor, and also the Venetian intelligence services’ chief Francesco Zorzi (aka “Giorgi”), including, also, Venetian agent and Plantagenet Pretender Cardinal Pole, and other Venetian-owned conspirators, such as the monstrous Thomas Cromwell. That Venetian cabal was used to control the puppet-like king, Henry VIII, by using the king’s certain homicidal bent in sexual perversions.
So much said for the roots of much of the British Royal breeding as such since that time!
This set of developments flowing from the role of the psycho-pathologically impaired Henry VIII, was employed by a cabal of Venetian agents, led by Venice’s Francesco Zorzi, to drive a wedge between Henry VIII and the Catholic Church. This occurred at a time, after the stresses of the 1492, Habsburg expulsion of the Jews from Spain, in which the conditions of peace among the leading powers of Europe were already strained to near the breaking-point, by the effects of the case of Martin Luther on the European state of affairs generally. The brainwashing of Henry VIII by his Venetian manipulators, thus became the detonator which plunged all of Europe into an epidemic, a spread of a continuing series of outbreaks of religious warfare over the entire span from the preceding, A.D. 1492 expulsion of the Jews from Spain, until the 1648 Peace of Westphalia.
The effects of this legacy of a clinically “failed personality,” this time, were represented, not by President Obama, but by Henry VIII’s Venice-evoked state of public insanity. These developments represented not only a general breakdown of systems corresponding to the ecumenical goals of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa himself, and of the great ecumenical Council of Florence as well; these types of pathetic developments which are merely typified by the case of Henry VIII, remain the root-cause of all of the greatest of all the crises of European civilization to the present time.18A recent dinner-table discussion with a relevant academic figure, on the subject of failed political leaders, requires a proverbial two words of caution in approaching that subject. The cases of the category of the failed personalities the Emperor Nero, Adolf Hitler, and President Barack Obama, should be clear as to fact in a way which is beyond competent question. Such cases as those also typify a certain general category of more or less identical types of cases from many walks of life. However, it would be in error to fall into the fraudulent practice of that notorious priest of the Delphi cult, Plutarch, in his dubious, facetiously motivated The Lives of Famous Men.
So, just as Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa had assessed the situation within Europe, as having been degenerated into a general state of the European system at the relevant time; so, slightly more than a century after, Cusa follower Christopher Columbus had acted on Cusa’s proposal to reach across the oceans to continents from which the intended mission of the great Council of Florence could be relaunched into a corrupted Europe, Columbus attempted his famous, great mission.
Columbus tried, but the Habsburgs’ influence over the Spanish monarchy, largely ruined the purpose of his mission. So, the effort had been launched again, later, this time as a nominally Protestant venture (!), with the Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay settlements in New England, shortly before the organization of the 1648 Peace of Westphalia by a special ecumenical mission, assigned by a Pope (!), to a person made famous as Jules Cardinal Mazarin.
Venetian monetarist Imperialism took over in Europe. There followed the decline of Venice’s earlier chosen favorite for the political system of this financial-imperialist corruption in modern Europe, which was first assigned to the Habsburgs. With the accession of James I of England, a dupe of the Venetian schemes of Paolo Sarpi and the scoundrels Francis Bacon, and the latter pair’s Thomas Hobbes, Anglo-Dutch-ruled Sarpian England, emerged, over the course of the Seventeenth Century, as, also, with the accession of the later Hannover monarchy, the base for the dominant role of an Anglo-Dutch world empire of the seas, which assumed the role of the Eighteenth-century, and later, British East India Company.
From the onset and aftermath of the Peloponnesian War, to the present day, European imperialism was never actually a practice of a sovereign nation-state, but, rather, of international monetarist, and related financier interests. Go back about 28,000 years, to the time that the most recent, great glaciation of the northern hemisphere began its long, slow retreat, until the level of the world’s oceans rose by about 400 feet, to the present approximated levels, about 5,000 years, or somewhat more, ago.
The Roman Empire period’s famous chronicler, Diodorus Siculus, is not entirely trusted among all relevant scholars, but the combination of his own interviews with Berbers and his re-warming of the work of Egyptian historians from earlier times, yields a picture from amid the myths of past times which does, in fact, correspond to some useful physical and other evidence bearing on the roots of modern outgrowths of the civilization of the Mediterranean maritime littoral of relevant ancient European times.
What is clearly appearing from out of the mists of those past times, is that the scientific evidence is, presently, that the Great Pyramid of Giza is the artefact of the colonization of our post-glacial European past. It is clear that all leading Mediterranean cultures of the pre-Homeric period were dominated by maritime cultures, which established a predominantly oligarchical form of rule over the relatively illiterate populations within the Mediterranean periphery.
There is a related kind of history of Mesopotamia and the once-powerful, iron-working, Hittite “Kingdom” reaching inland, from the Black Sea coast, to the north of Mesopotamia; but, to put the point briefly, the dominant cultures of the ancient Mediterranean which entered from the Atlantic region, were what is classed as predominantly oligarchical cultures which may be usefully regarded as skilled navigators preying upon the already established, relatively ignorant inland populations within a maritime culture’s reach of the Mediterranean itself.
Today, the Iliad and Odyssey, re-examined today, provoke us to notice some fairly chosen insights into the minds, rather than the mere sense-impressions taken from the myths and fancies presented to us by that oligarchical maritime culture.
So, for Homer, and for the accounts presented by Aeschylus, of the earlier role of those who had entered the Mediterranean as a maritime oligarchy, and who were regarded by the credulous as gods, such as that fratricidal son of Olympia himself. What we know from the period of the ancient, so-called Classical Greece and associated maritime cultures, then supplies the advantage of deep insight of the witting, into the minds of the reigning maritime cultures of the so-called Classical Greek and later times. This is especially to be noted by choosing Aeschylus’ Prometheus Bound as a focal point of reference. Here we find the proof of what we know presently as the innermost secrets of the souls of the copy-cats of the ancient maritime gods and goddesses in the virtual deification of the dubious aristocrats of the British imperialist cabal.
That much said here on that point, I now return your attention to a crucial point of insight which I had freshly emphasized in an earlier chapter of this present report.
During the preceding chapter, I referred your attention to the image of the commander of a sealed cabin traveling in the space filled with cosmic radiation, but with no contact with the space around him, excepting sensors whose function were equivalent to human sense-organs. That commander would depend upon the same mental processes required by Johannes Kepler’s uniquely original discovery of the principle of gravitation: the resolution of two kinds of biological sensing equivalent to human sense-perception. Such was the notion of sight, and the hearing of harmonics, which were employed in ironical conjunction, for Kepler’s great discovery of what Albert Einstein would later term “a finite, but not bounded universe.”
Pause to refer again, briefly, to the concept of metaphor in William Empson’s Seven Types of Ambiguity.
The problem which continues to cripple the sense of personal identity of most persons, still today, is that they presume that they have no existence in the universe, but their presumption of an actually non-existent, but presumably self-evident truth, the presumption that those biological instruments which are being used for navigation through what are only the shadows cast by an unseen reality of the actual universe.
Our senses, and those scientific instruments which mankind has crafted to “see” beyond the limitations of our original sense-perceptual powers, are, indeed, necessary; but, neither those senses nor those supplementary instruments supply us the uniquely integral identity of the human observer, such as that pilot. The point I had made in the earlier chapter, and on occasions published earlier, has a deeper implication, to the effect of a point stressed by Gottfried Leibniz, in presenting his modern conception of dynamics, and by Percy Bysshe Shelley in the concluding paragraphs of his A Defence of Poetry.
Shelley’s argument there, refers to a crucial feature of a discovery reported by Gottfried Leibniz during the course of his discoveries of physical principle, in denouncing the fraud of Rene Descartes, as he did during the concluding decade of the Seventeenth Century: Leibniz thus presented the essential physical conception of dynamics, or, the equivalent notion of the ancient Classical Greek dynamis of such as the Pythagoreans and Plato.
The same conception as that of Leibniz and Shelley (among others) on this account, provided the basis for an ostensibly spontaneous inspiration, leading to a remarkable report by Rosa Luxemburg, on the subject of what she named as “the mass strike.”
Call this quality of subtle perception an expression of “prescience.” It is also expressed by the prescient quality of the act of discovery of a valid universal physical principle of physical science, as Leibniz points to the implication of the “infinitesimal” of his calculus, in the course of his presentation of dynamics. It is otherwise known as the quality of human individual genius, and sometimes known, or merely believed to be, rightly, or wrongly, an act of “intuition.”
Whether or not this is actually “prescience,” is a distinction known to us in a secure way, only through the methods of scientific proof of principle, methods typified by the accomplishments of Brunelleschi, Cusa, Leonardo da Vinci, Johannes Kepler, et al., as these are to be judged today by the standard set, for these purposes, by Bernhard Riemann’s 1854 habilitation dissertation. Yet, the same principle underlies all true conceptions of Classical artistic insight, as the case of Albert Einstein and his violin implies, and as the history of Lejeune Dirichlet’s role, as a leading world scientist, among the greatest artistic personalities of the Nineteenth Century.
There are even indications of such seemingly mysterious powers of ostensibly “extra-sensory” perception in the sometimes panicked, or other herd-like behavior among beasts, under special occasions. These are not matters of “mystical powers,” but are, essentially, a demonstration that the implicitly communicable powers of the healthily developed human mind are not confined to the subject-matters specific to sense-perceptions as such, as the case of Max Planck’s friend Wolfgang Köhler helps to illustrate this point.
Among the best demonstrations of the principle of “prescience” we have the work of a diminishing ration of Classical musicians who are capable of recognizing the difference between performing the notes of a composition according to the principle of J.S. Bach, and those who are actually capable of fulfilling the intention of the music. The great conductor Wilhelm Furtwängler identified this by his use of the term “performing between the notes.” Or, performing the appropriate choice of transitions within the performance of the music, rather than the ostensibly literal notes.
This is not arbitrary. The case of the requirements for a successful performance, according to Mozart’s intention, of Mozart’s Ave Verum Corpus, is a case in point on that account.
Mozart’s composition treats the motet as equivalent to a dramatic message of inspiration. The question posed to the performer is: “Have you delivered that message?” The intent should be clear to you; therefore, read the singing of the notes accordingly, to the effect of the completion of the message projected. Have you motivated the audience to hear Mozart’s message to them, through you?
Then, consider the degree to which all Classical art was corrupted, virtually beyond recognition of its composed intent, as was done by the influence of the utterly depraved, post-World War II European Congress for Cultural Freedom, or, the earlier, post-World War I German “expressionists” such as the author of the “Fur-lined Cup and Saucer” which the Dadaists presented to those privileged to pass through the 1919 pissoir of the great railway station of Cologne into the hall of the assembled depraved. The virtually decreed “popular entertainment” culture of the post-World War II trans-Atlantic community, shows the effect of such depravity, even when the composition presented was of a Classical form and intent. There has been a consequent loss of access to the creative powers of the individual mind which has been conditioned to such modes of “entertainment,” like that of an intimate moment with a diseased prostitute, and to the depravity which the client delivers to his putative customer of that saddening moment.
The effect of such depravity, is a marked loss of those powers of creative insight upon which the voluntary progress of a society depends more or less absolutely. It is the agency of prescience which dwells, like all true discoveries of universal principle in physical science, essentially, outside the perceptions of our limited range of sense-certainty as such, which defines the cultural environment on which the creative powers of the mind depend for their appropriate intuition.
Reference to the large category of work on the principles of composition presented by Friedrich Schiller, as on the role of the principle of insight essential to the Classical drama, is relevant here.
Essentially, in the great dramas of Shakespeare and Schiller, or as in Eugene O’Neill’s The Iceman Cometh, there are no actual heroes in the drama on stage. The hero, as Schiller emphasizes, is the citizen in the audience who is inspired to supply the needed hero of his or her society in oneself, by becoming a true citizen. The same could be said of the tragedies of Aeschylus. For Schiller, an immortal Jeanne d’Arc did not fail, as the history of France in that same century attests, as in the role of Louis XI. Such is the true principle of any really valid Renaissance.
To sum up the relevant aspects of this point, the ability to locate one’s own identity in the influence one contributes to the benefit of future mankind, defines a special relationship which persists outside the confines of the sense-certainty of a mortal life. This bears on the true meaning of that immortality which belongs to the human individual, as no other. The body dies, but that which was, and remains immortal, such as the original discovery of a great principle of nature, or of valid Classical art, lives on.
It is a lack of grasp of that aspect of the creative powers developed in the human individual, which is the source of the temptations of immorality, and of the sordid temptations of the failed personality. This immortality is specific to the expression of a true discovery of the quality of universal principle which Aristotle claimed to present, but did not; whereas, the depraved dupes of the British empiricist mathematicians’ school of Paolo Sarpi and Bertrand Russell deny the existence of any and all actual universal principles in the physical universe, but claim, like the depraved, poor dead souls of that special Hell known as the Laxenberg, Austria International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), to recognize only “mathematical” physics, not the real kind.
The relevance of Classical art to science as defined for modern life by Bernhard Riemann’s 1854 habilitation dissertation, lies in this distinction. This is a matter which I am prepared to take up at this point.
What blinds even most seriously qualified economists to the essential reality of the present global economic-breakdown-crisis currently under way, is the notion that economic forecasting and related subject-matters must be conducted with primarily mathematical emphasis on a money-system as such.
The essential correction to be made, as of urgent relevance at this time of great crisis in world history, is to insist that the study of actual economic processes can not be based competently on ontologically mathematical systems, such as money schemes comparable to the current Wall Street board-game of an absolutely lunatic, run-amok form of real-life pursuit of a merely virtual game of “Monopoly.”
My own adopted profession, since early 1953, has been that of a physical economist in the Bernhard Riemann school of physical scientific methods, and a specialist in treating economic processes, not as in terms of so-called quantities of “energy,” but as located in the increase, or decline of potential energy-flux-density as our work of the 1970s and 1980s, rooted then in the Fusion Energy Foundation (FEF) emphasized, in respect to what would have succeeded as the initiative through which I brought into being what President Ronald Reagan named the proposed U.S.A.-Soviet Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI).19The SDI, which I personally initiated in fact during the late 1970s, was adopted as a project by relevant leading, highly qualified circles of both military and scientific figures of nations such as Germany, France, Italy, and others, and spread quickly once I had entered into cooperation on this project with relevant officials of both the U.S.A. and Soviet governments during the early years of the U.S. Presidency of Ronald Reagan. The relevant definitions required must be located, as I would presume, with re-enforced confidence, in recent times, in a notion consistent with a universal system of cosmic radiation defined in terms of singularities, rather than discrete particles, as a proper, corrective treatment of the famous Louis de Broglie paradox implies, as Albert Einstein’s relevant work implies.
This means, on one level, a general notion of chemical potential as defined in respect to the conventional view of the Periodic Table of chemistry. On a higher level the role of nuclear fission enters. On a still-higher level, the role of thermonuclear fusion enters. Beyond that, the question posed pertains to the name of “matter/anti-matter reactions.”
This view requires the included discipline of casting aside the popularized fraud known as “The Second Law of Thermodynamics” as introduced by Rudolf Clausius, et al. From the standpoint of any competent physical economist, the entire universe must be considered as a whole as essentially anti-entropic, as Albert Einstein’s characterization of Kepler’s discovery implies: the universe is implicitly finite, but, because this involves a general principle of universal anti-entropy, is never bounded.
Throw all that rubbish associated with the cult of Bertrand Russell out, including the intellectual waste-matter produced by the creatively inert, Russellite devotees of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA).
As to economics itself, the following summary is required here.
Take my often-repeated, pedagogical case, that of the illustrative case of iron ore. We seek the richest lodes, which were usually assembled within the bodies of deceased living plants or creatures which gather iron into their bodies. When we mine what are the economically acceptable concentrations of that that ore, we reduce the richness of the concentration of that ore in a way which converges on a critical form of physical-economic problem. However, generally speaking, the iron remains within the possession of our planet; it has been only relatively dispersed in a way which converges on economic limits of the economy at that level of development. Costs and correlated problems increase accordingly. Therefore, compensating progress, as in the mode of increase of applicable energy-flux density, is required to offset that rise in cost of extraction and concentration. This requires an offsetting increase of the applied energy-flux density, without which a present civilization toying foolishly with such silly practices as “solar” and “wind” power, such as a “cap and trade” lunacy, would be threatened with foreseeably deep genocidal degrees of collapse of potential relative population-density planet-wide.
Such has been the experience of the advances of society.
Although the action of probably polarized fusion in the vicinity of the Sun, had produced most of the higher parts of the periodic table among the planets, the idea of limiting the rise of potential energy-flux density to the relatively non-nuclear fission regions among the planets, compels us to seek to reach the increases in energy-flux density which are needed to free mankind from the limits attributable to a simple notion of the formerly traditional periodic table. Hence, nuclear-fission, and thermonuclear fusion are absolutely required for man’s continued progress at this stage in human existence on Earth. The latter requirements are, presently, variously relative, or absolute.
Next, after considering the primary aspects of the required role of increases of the energy-flux-density of society considered as a whole, we must consider that level as being the general driver on which the level of energy-flux density applied to infrastructure and production depends, however, at a lower level than the primary sources for the economic system as a whole.
In all cases, it is the relatively anti-entropic level of action which is the primary determinant of progress or entropy of the economic system as a whole.
Under the “Hamiltonian” kind of physical-economy system which I specify as the absolutely indispensable, immediate reform in the world’s current economic system, money does not suddenly disappear. Rather, it assumes the quality of credit uttered by sovereign nation-state institutions. In a healthy form and practice of a modern sovereign nation-state, the authority for creating credit is restricted to sovereign nation-state governments. In the market at large, the principal channel of circulation of nation-state-uttered credit is the merchant banking-system according to the original Glass-Steagall Act as if it had never been repealed! This feature of an international body of cooperating, sovereign nation-states, requires a fixed-exchange-rate system of world credit among the array of sovereign nation-states.
It may look like money, but when you try to spend it, it behaves according to its true nature, as state-uttered credit circulating within a world system of sovereign nation-states operating under fixed-exchange-rate rules.
Such a new system could be started now “as if on a dime.” It is probably the only action sufficient to halt the presently accelerating plunge of the entire planet into a prolonged “new dark age.”
Under such a system, the most relevant physical principle, is that the level of potential represented by the operating energy-flux density “at the level of production,” reflects the higher order of physical-chemical potential represented by the primary source of physical power used to drive the potential of the lower order of components of the economy as a whole.
As for the speculative banks excluded from participating in the credit supplied by government through aid of the credit entrusted to a merchant-banking system, the speculative institutions are “on their own resources,” to sink or swim, as nature might provide.
So much now said on background, I resume my earlier emphasis on the implicit originality of the subject of the Peloponnesian War, a war properly classified as “a chronic war of a maritime culture,” an ancient such war akin to the modern European 1756-63 “Seven Years War,” a war which was exploited at that time, to establish the British East India Company as a virtually world empire on its own account.
For the purposes of presenting this chapter’s summary of the subject-matter of the report as a whole, the specific set of “chronic wars” considered now, is limited to the relevant set of those wars which were organized, since the sequence of Thermopylae and Salamis, from both within Europe and the adjoining littoral of the Mediterranean. This includes an emphasis on such cases as the chronic, modern European warfare of A.D. 1492-1648 and the British authorship of so-called “World Wars” #1 and #2, wars which had been concocted by the British Empire for the purpose of either establishing, or maintaining imperial power over the relevant set of what should have been, by their nature, sovereign nation-states.
On the subject of the contrast between “necessary” and “bad” wars in modern, globally extended European history, which is to say since approximately A.D. 1401, we must say have the following here.
As the then contemporary evidence known to Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa had emphasized, the religious warfare of 1492-1648, had been launched under Venetian impetus, for the purpose of Venice’s determination to ruin the great reform which had been established within Europe, as established by the A.D. 1438-39 Council of Florence. There arose a Habsburg-led form of what would become known later, properly, as “fascism,” then in the form of the Inquisition led by Spain’s evil, Grand Inquisitor. This development was expressed then, in the conflict between the contrary developments of, on the one side, Christopher Columbus’s successful trans-Atlantic voyage, in Columbus’ role as an explicit follower of the strategic policy of Cusa, and, on the opposing side, what turned out to have been the Habsburg Inquisition’s expulsion of the Jews from Spain. The Venetian control of England’s Henry VIII, in breaking the peace among those principal powers which were Spain, France, and England, turned the already murderous conflict which dominated the remainder of the period of 1492-1648 into general religious warfare throughout Europe.
The chief precedent for the pattern of ancient through modern chronic states of warfare centered within the region of the Mediterranean, has been, variously, to establish, or to maintain, an imperial reign over those nations or comparable regions.
Thus, out of that development, came the accession of the Anglo-Dutch William of Orange. All specifically chronic wars since that time, have been orchestrated by London-centered, financial-imperialist interests, according to the intended benefit of building, maintaining, taking over, or imitating the British Empire, all that as an echo of the practices of chronic warfare by the ancient Roman Empire, or Byzantine empire earlier. The British imperial ideology is the most essential expression of imperialism throughout all parts of the planet presently. That is what is presently continued as the British monarchy’s imperial intent to destroy the sovereignty of the respective nations of modern Europe, and, most emphatically, the power which the British empire fears the most, the U.S.A.’s potentially infectious system of constitutional republicanism.
In that larger historical context, of the rise and persistence of what became today’s British imperialism, the Israeli-Arab wars and related homicide, combined with the wars against Iraq and among the British drug pushers of the opium fields of Afghanistan, are typical, as evil, as we should recognize in U.S. President Barack Obama’s promoting the needless deaths of U.S. soldiers in protecting the British opium traffic out of the poppy-fields of Afghanistan. With the wasting of the lives and ruined living bodies of U.S. military personnel in this operation, there is featured a practice which is reminiscent of the British monarchy’s deploying the evil Nineteenth-century Spanish monarchy for the trafficking of African slaves into the Americas, and for the creation of the British monarchy’s puppet, the Confederate States of America, both as part of the (fortunately failed) intention of the British monarchy to destroy our United States forever.
The chronic warfare continued in the general area of the British-controlled Near-East, Sykes-Picot region, including the British, opium-centered aspect of the chronic warfare conducted, in British interest, in its assigning the U.S. role in the war conducted by U.S. puppet-President Barack Obama in Afghanistan and adjoining locations, is, like the pattern of the behavior of Britain’s Israeli puppet, typical of that phenomenon in the British imperialism’s Sykes-Picot region.
The root of this specifically imperialist pattern in chronic warfare, may be located in the origins of the Delphi-based Olympian Apollo-Dionysus cult’s role in the orchestration of the Peloponnesian War, and in that evil, Delphic role, which an evil Aristotle played up through the time of the death of the Alexander the Great. So, the great tragedian Aeschylus had warned of such Olympian evil of Delphi in his own Prometheus Trilogy.
To repeat the point which I have made on this account earlier within this report, it was the maritime class which was the real-life expression of the maritime tyranny of the legendary gods of Olympus. The power exerted by that class was one of a social formation whose real-life center of maritime monetary power, was that cult of Delphi whose last leading priest, and prototype of the later monetarist power of Venice, was imperial Rome’s ever-lying high priest of the cult of Delphi, Plutarch.
To summarize those pertinent highlights of the immediately preceding summary, what I have presented at this outset of this present chapter, the characteristic feature of the historical process which led into, and out of the Peloponnesian War, had produced a monetarist form of international maritime power, centered in the relevant Mediterranean maritime ports. That is continued, as the British empire of the present time.
But, we must call attention to a certain qualitative change.
Under the evolution of that maritime-imperialist intention, the effect of the development of a strategic quality of trans-Atlantic maritime interest, the “center of gravity” of European maritime imperialism shifted, from emphasis on the Mediterranean, to emphasis on the Atlantic. With that shift, within the Venetian monetary oligarchy, from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic, the so-called “geopolitical” orientations among the nations of the European continent shifted. The shift from a strategic center-of-gravity in the Mediterranean, to the Atlantic, led to a new Venetian imperial strategy, that of shifting the strategic command post for operations against continental Europe and the Mediterranean littoral, to the North Atlantic maritime bases in the British Isles and watery maritime site of the Netherlands. Hence the late Nineteenth-century arrays of geopolitical conflict.
From the outset, already in A.D. 1620 New England, especially since the launching of the Massachusetts Bay colony under the leadership of the Winthrops and Mathers, that for as long as the original Royal charter reigned, the Venetian policy for its Anglo-Dutch maritime puppet, was expressed in, first, the manipulations of France’s Louis XIV, and, with the successful ruin of France through the manipulations of the Bourbon monarchies of Louis XIV-Louis XVI, and of de-facto British puppet Napoleon Bonaparte, a specifically British, but Venice-controlled, imperial power, was established through the agency of the so-called “Seven Years War.” This “Seven Years War” became, thus, the font from which have flowed all the principal horrors of the planet’s imperialist “long wars” ever since.
The “Seven Years War,” which established the relatively independent, Venetian-style power of the notorious British East India Company, from February 1763 onward, established the principled, recurring role of long wars radiating throughout the world, since that time, to the present date. This became the currently operating pattern of “chronic long wars” within the international community, since that time, since the death of England’s Queen Anne, to the present day.
As under the role of the ancient Roman Empire within the Mediterranean, chronic warfare modeled upon the precedent of the Babylonian, Persian, and Roman empires, has been the essential, characteristic feature of imperialist practice, from the Peloponnesian War, to the present role of British imperialism in world affairs today. The significant change of character within imperialism considered in the large, a change from a Mediterranean, to an Atlantic maritime culture, has been the principal distinction of the Asian, from the Mediterranean modes of imperialism.
The difference between the Asian and European models of imperialism, is that with the exception of a certain part of the history of what became known as India, maritime culture since the lifetime of Egypt’s great Eratosthenes, until the successive development of inland canal systems unleashed by Charlemagne, and the canal-like supranational railway systems, European-based maritime imperialism since the rise of Greek-centered maritime culture in the Mediterranean, has been the only known long-term form of society capable of superceding the Asian imperialist models.
Thus, the root of that practice of imperialism, has remained monetarism, from the fall of the Asian-based empires, to the present day.
From the beginning of European imperialism, the idea of a value intrinsic to money, has been the companion and implicit origin of European maritime modes of imperialism. It signifies the reign of a form of political power, money, which is independent of the authority of any nation-state.
The usual source of confusion on this point, as among Europeans and nearly all of the citizens of the United States, too, is a lack of a sense of the distinction between two apparently similar, but, actually, mutually exclusive notions of the ontological import of a nation’s uttered currency.
For example, since Roman imperial times, it was understood that the authority to define law, was not granted to a king, but only to an emperor, such as Caesar. A king had the power to make decisions, but not law. This arrangement under Roman imperial rule, was an echo of the supra-national power expressed as the will of those virtual maritime pirates, the collective image of an imperial Olympian Zeus, who exerted a supranational power over the unfortunate landlubbers of the coasts and mainland interior.
To get to the essence of this distinction, consider the role of scrip (“The Pinetree Shilling”) uttered as a form of credit for as long as Massachusetts enjoyed the sovereignty which had been conceded by Royal Charter to the Massachusetts colony for as long as that Charter remained in force.
In fact, for all of the sophistry taught by pompous academic fools, and their popular, or otherwise pompous likenesses, as taught to their gaping-mouthed credulous, assembled dupes in the classroom, the only real economic value is a certain kind of physical value which is rooted in the physical effects of the human creation of physical wealth through production by human beings. However, this notion of a physical principle of wealth, has nothing to do with the notorious Physiocratic concoctions of the followers of François Quesnay, or to the all too trusting A.R.J. Turgot from whose papers Adam Smith plagiarized much of Smith’s own The Wealth of Nations.
All competent notions of economic wealth are premised on forms of social practice of economy which are unique to that aspect of the nature of the human species, a nature which has no replications among the animals or plants.
Contrary to fools and scoundrels such as the professional poisoner Aristotle, the universe is essentially anti-entropic, and so is the voluntary capacity uniquely specific to the human individual will. Nature itself is ruthlessly anti-entropic on this account, but only the human individual has been shown to exert that capability by personal individual will, as this is done in the act of discovery of a true universal physical principle which is then employed to inform relevant human behavior.
I repeat a point I have frequently delivered on this account.
Take the case of the relatively rich iron-ore deposits by the shores of some parts of the Great Lakes. How did the rich deposit of iron ore get there, in the first place?
It was deposited by the dead bodies of living creatures, creatures which had inhabited that region, and had left that deposit of collected iron-ore behind. Such have been the case for most of the useful concentrations of elements of the Periodic Table on which certain important degrees of productivity have depended.
Thus, when we had relatively exhausted those deposits, it cost us more effort to secure the iron (for example) which society required. Thus, it is only through scientific and technological progress that mankind is enabled to more than offset the attrition incurred by “using up” a relatively rich lode.
This progress is accomplished, chiefly, through the effects of willful scientific progress, a progress which depends upon a combined effect of both an increase in the relative energy-flux density in the sources of power employed, and also a correlated increase of the relative capital-intensity, and increase of the physical standard of living of the population.
Aeschylus’ Prometheus Trilogy is to be read as a case of true-to-life-life fiction. The pagan gods, such as those associated with the name of an Olympian Zeus, reigned as imperial gods, or, as half-breed demi-gods, over a mass of virtual slaves. The slaves were not permitted to know, or to practice technologies other than those of their slavish grandfathers, and the grandfathers’ grandfathers, before them. Prometheus pled for the right of those oppressed human beings to enjoy the rights which had been usurped by the tyrannical Olympian gods and demi-gods.
So, the people, such as our ancestors who are typified by the founding of the Chartered Massachusetts Bay Colony, took the power to progress, through science and Classical culture, to gain, thus, those estates which the tyrants had considered reserved to those tyrants and other wastrels who considered themselves virtually as gods. So, despite the crushing, by the British tyrant, of the Massachusetts Bay Colony’s original human rights, they provoked those of us inspired by that colony’s example, to create a higher form of government on these shores.
So, also, the lackeys of tyrants propose to reverse the tide of scientific progress in technologies of production, and to condemn the resort to higher forms of that fire we call energy-flux-density. Such are the slaves, who would kill neighbors who refuse to assume the shackles of brutishness which the so-called “environmentalists” have demanded they wear.
In the meanwhile, the ogre of a British Empire lurks and prowls with vast homicide in mind, to make the people stupid, through the kinds of technologies and public education and public health programs as which President Obama prescribes.
This is done by so-called Malthusian measures, which the British monarchy baldly asserts must be done to lower the human population of the planet, and that quickly, from about 6.7 billions persons, to a monstrously ignorant and brutish, greatly stupefied, far, far less than two. Such are the health-care and related policies which the British Blair ministry has passed on to the British lackey known as the Obama Presidency.
“Nature has directed us to the greater part of these by original and immediate instincts. Hunger, thirst, the passion which unites the two sexes, the love of pleasure, and the dread of pain, prompt us to apply these means for their own sakes, and without any consideration of their tendency to those beneficent ends which the great Director of nature intended to produce by them.” Hence, in empiricism, the statistical apprehension of pleasure and pain define the entire method of a notion of the principles of an economy. Thus, all my notable opponents among economic forecasters have consistently failed throughout the entire 1956-2010 interval during which I have made forecasts (rather than those manifestly silly opinions called “statistical predictions”).