Updated: 11/25/2010 6:13pm est

The Present Fall of the House of Windsor


The Thanksgiving Song

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

November 20, 2010


“The Crime Scene”

The failures of British and British-influenced notions of alleged principles of economy, can not be competently understood in any different way than is implied in the predators’ expression, “We stole it fair and square.” That is the view of British economists and related types who have some actual sense of what they are doing. It is the same principle underlying a professional predator’s notion of an adopted “righteous self-interest” in a thief’s profession, as by Queen Elizabeth II. “We decided, and that’s that” is the essential premise of, among other things, “of what we do.”

Insofar as such “philosophies” go against nature, great empires, such as that commanded from the pillars of the British system now, are destroyed by their own implied philosophies of general practice. Such is key to the ultimate destiny of the lackeys of an imperial alliance when reality overtakes the predator’s follies of a once seemingly invincible empire.

Thus, it is fairly said, that all sins, such as those of the British system and its lackeys, are ultimately paid, as exactly that is what is happening throughout the world, as a great general-breakdown-crisis under way presently. It is, thus, a provable conclusion that the existence of the British empire and its accomplices has been an offense against both a competent practice by mankind, and also against the Creator Himself. This I explain in the course of these pages.


As I emphasized in the course of remarks delivered in the course of my report to the leadership groups at noon-time, today, the global issue confronting the world today, is not “which faction;” neither of the British empire, nor a product of any other currently practiced design, will prevail in the outcome of the present world-wide, economic breakdown-crisis.

Rather, the question on which the fate of the world presently hangs, is: what, and why, are we now presented with a pattern of breakdown-crisis of the physical economy of nations, a pattern which is expressed by the currently prevalent tendency, beyond a merely severe crisis, toward, in fact, an assured doom of nations of the Americas and Europe.

This is the doom which is expressed as the failure, thus far, which is in the process of destroying its authors in the course of the present, global breakdown-crisis: Thus, we have Lord Jacob Rothschild’s virtually Satanic design for the destruction of the “Westphalian system.” That means the presently onrushing consequence of the violation of that excellent Peace of Westphalia which had been established, in 1648, to end, then, a century and a half of religious warfare, a century and a half of warfare begun with the expulsion of Jews from Spain. Westphalia prompted an escape from a period of permanent such warfare which assumed its worst form as result of the crimes of both England’s infamous sex-maniac, Henry VIII, and the later aggravation of that warfare through the founding of modern liberalism by the new Venetian Party of Paolo Sarpi..

Such is the crime of what came to be the British empire, and the consequent kind of threatened doom descending upon humanity now.

So, today, among some notable Asian nations, such as China, South Korea, Japan, India, and others, the local situation there is less unhopeful than in the Trans-Atlantic region; but, even those Asian nations could not escape the globally chain-reaction effects of the presently onrushing trend, the trend toward a general breakdown of the economies of the trans-Atlantic sector. They are all victims as participants in the present, London-centered world system.

Thus, the present threat of doom is global; the collapse of the imperialist system which the present British empire’s Inter-Alpha Group represents, is now inevitable, in one way, or another. The guilt of nations generally, is their own complicity in that system of their presently onrushing doom.

That is the same British Empire which, with the complicity of the Habsburgs’ infamous Prince Metternich, orchestrated the imperial system of Napoleonic wars in Europe, conducted the process of slavery which had led to the great civil war inside the United States, and which had launched, since the 1890 ouster of Germany’s Chancellor Bismarck, the sweep of world-wide, “geopolitical,” “permanent warfare and permanent revolution” heralded, and partly steered by British weapons-trafficking agent Alexander Helphand (“Parvus”), up to the present moment of most recent report.

In this way, Britain’s 1890s alliance with Japan, forged by Britain’s Prince of Wales, became the cause for the subsequent extension of that alliance for warfare to the same alliance’s 1905 war on Russia, the infamous Balkan wars set into motion by the Habsburg Kaiser and directed from London, leading into (1)World War I, and the subsequent rise of fascism including the British direction of the rise of Hitler, and what became (2) World War II; (3) Winston Churchill’s and Bertrand Russell’s launching of a 1946 scheme for “preventive nuclear” war against the Soviet Union; (4) the breakdown of the U.S. economy set into motion by aid of the assassinations of John F. and Robert Kennedy; (5) the catastrophic decline of the economy of the trans-Atlantic world in general, set into motion by the election of U.S. President Richard M. Nixon’s puppet-like role in the collapsing of that Bretton Woods, fixed-exchange system which had been created by President Franklin D. Roosevelt; and, (6) the subsequent roles of J.P. Morgan’s agent Alan Greenspan in Wall Street’s destroying the U.S. economy both from within and without. All these seemingly different things, and more, have been the fruit of the same British imperial origin.

All this was done, as if by the successive harvests of a single family tree, (1) since the launching of the Seven Years War concluded in February 1763; (2) by a new-born British empire brought into being, as it was to be continued through the continuation of what had been launched by the Peace of Paris of 1763, launched, once, (3) in the form of the management of the French Revolution and of (4) the Napoleonic wars conducted chiefly through the British Foreign Office created in 1782, and, then, (5) launched anew in the British partnership with the Habsburgs’ Prince Metternich in managing their co-opted puppet, Napoleon Bonaparte, who had been judiciously married to a Habsburg princess, after his dumping the anti-Habsburg Josephine.

All of this, as in large earlier chunks of known world history, has been brought about by relative handfuls of what came to be leading individuals who played a role provided for them by the great forces which used them, and, to a great degree, put them into power, and, then, frequently, destroyed them.

Some individuals do shape history in a more or less large degree, but that, with rare exceptions, occurs only when the mass of powerful ruling combinations of influence allow themselves to be used, if temporarily, by the individual decision-shapers chosen to lead them, temporarily. The British use of the U.S. puppet-President Barack Obama illustrates such cases. The animal kingdom is a realm of brutalities; but the crimes of man against humanity, are crimes perpetrated by the caprices of the human will.

Now, presently, either way, whether by doom, or, by a launching of a contrary trend of recovery led by the United States, the British imperialist system under Elizabeth II, is presently doomed to an early passing from the political scene, in one way, or another. In such a fashion, all empires are to be ultimately destroyed. The only important doubt respecting the outcome of this conflict, is, whether, or not, our American System of political-economy is to be, or, not to be: whether it will triumph, as it could and should, in replacing the Inter-Alpha System which were soon inevitably doomed in any case. Now, we have the prospective doom brought about by the Inter-Alpha Group; unless it were it defeated, or, otherwise, that System had doomed both itself and the planet to what would probably become the worst dark age in the presently known history of this planet .

The British empire could not act differently; that Dodo has laid its last egg. It is now up to us to act, to change all this, while that change remains in our power to eliminate the evil which that British empire now represents.

In neither way, could the present characteristic of the British system itself avoid the doom presently inherent, as if axiomatically, in its character. Whether we Americans win, or, not, the British imperial system itself is now soon doomed to die, in one fashion or another, whether a bit sooner, or a bit later. The question is, essentially, how much of the damage being caused by the British empire presently will continue to be tolerated by the cowardice of powerful institutions such as the groveling U.S. Congress, presently?

Britain’s Only Safe Option

However, do not make the mistake of imagining that this means that I am suggesting that the United Kingdom itself, as distinct from the British empire, is necessarily doomed by what might become our nation’s victory over the currently onrushing, planet-wide “new dark age.” Provided the United States and western and central Europe survive their presently onrushing downfall, the possibility exists, but only the possibility, for the United Kingdom to survive, too; it is the British empire as such, not the United Kingdom, as the empire is expressed by the Inter-Alpha Group, which must go, in any case, in one way or another.

Under what we might hope would be the U.K.’s reform, into becoming a nation-state with good special relations to some other parts of the world, this might be accomplished, necessarily, by aid of the equivalent of the 1933 Glass-Steagall reform. The useful kinds of historically inherited cultural potentials presently imprisoned in those systems of rule of the present United Kingdom, could be, and probably would be, reactivated to play a useful part in civilization, if there were the commitment to do so under intentionally post-imperial conditions.

Consider the experience of England’s Henry VII’s defeat of a brutish tyranny. Consider the genius which was later inherited from the design of strategy of Niccolo Machiavelli, the blessings inherited from such great thinkers as Shakespeare, and Percy Bysshe Shelley, as from efforts of Gottfried Leibniz’s on England’s behalf under Queen Anne: all are to be considered signs of such a possibility. So, the nation of Italy has survived the end of the Roman Empire (at least the northern parts), if despite even the terrible effects of the lack of the implementation of the intentions of the Casa per il Mezzogiorno.

That view of British optional prospects for enjoying the benefits of a sinner’s redemption, which I have just summarized, so, is not a prospect which can be measured in mere conjectures; it is a matter of certain, if still rarely considered principles of physical science, principles considered in light of the work of English beneficiaries of the work of the followers of the great Renaissance scientists Filippo Brunelleschi and Nicholas of Cusa, and, also, of Cusa’s followers Leonardo da Vinci, Johannes Kepler. and the efforts to this common purpose specifically intended by Gottfried Leibniz during his efforts to that effect during the reign of Queen Anne. I explain.

The proper view of the subject of Britain, lies in that question: Which system? The British imperial system? Or, a different British system which could be chosen as the way to avoid a plunge into a presently onrushing doom by the present policy of a British system. That would be an avoidance of doom which depends on the condition that our own U.S. constitutional system survives. “Survive” depends upon a decision to be made by the United States, soon, that at some early point during the course of the unfolding, currently ongoing and spreading, global breakdown-crisis. The argument to that effect may be summarized as follows.

The Argument

The American constitutional system of political-economy, is, essentially, in its application, the principled design of a physical-economic system, as distinguished systemically from, and opposed to a monetarist system in the traditions of the reign of the Venetian system and its British imperial consequences. Since the founding of our American System in New England, the relevant design of the American System has been a continuing heritage of the specific developments in the Massachusetts Bay Colony for as long as it operated under its original charter, that until the British suppression of that charter. The British system as we know it and its history, is, on the contrary, essentially a predatory form of monetarist system, rather than the physical-economic system which we brought into being with the adoption of a Federal Constitution crafted under the influence of Alexander Hamilton’s conception of national banking. Ours is a system of national banking without which the Federal republic could not have come into existence, nor could the national constitutional system have survived the post-1782 conditions without that Constitution, without the great ruling principle of its Preamble, and without its essential provisions for the establishment of national banking.

Such is the source of the essential difference of political-economic principle between the two contrasted English-speaking systems of the world since that time.

Hence, we have, thus, the American System of physical economy, versus the intrinsically monetarist (i.e. Sarpian “new-Venetian”) form of a British system, a difference which is comparable to that separating human society, such as our American system so defined, from an essentially predatory system of monetarism, the British imperial system, still today. The principle of the systemic outlook of those victimized by the characteristics of the British system, is, so far, that of nothing more than that intrinsically bestial notion of a reigning, silly principle of pleasure and pain, as this is prescribed by Paolo Sarpi’s de facto disciple Adam Smith, as within Smith’s 1759 Theory of Moral Sentiments.

This systemic difference between the American System of political economy and the system of our continuing, ancient principal adversary, the British empire, is clear, at least for those well-educated Americans who are neither ignorant of our history, nor, otherwise, badly confused in their knowledge of that subject. The illustrative case of the U.S.A.’s stunningly magnificent economic recovery under a great President, such as that of Abraham Lincoln earlier, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt later, had made the point of that distinction clear. However, to contrary effect, it was the installation of a Wall Street’s captive scoundrel, Senator Harry S Truman, as President, after the death of President Roosevelt, which unleashed that infamous “right wing” terror against the U.S. population which was launched under President Truman and continued as a legacy of the Truman folly’s effects up to the present day. It is that, which has continued to be the root of the moral and economic rot among us inside the United States today.

Despite what has been almost a banishing from our citizens’ minds, of knowledge of the actual principles on which our republic was founded and developed, the true meaning of “American” lurks still, however it may appear to be almost hidden among the seemingly ghostly shadows of our true, patriotic traditions, and, yet persists, virtually, within our legacy of our founding constitutional law inherent as if in our very bones.

Therefore, consider the implications of that difference between those two mutually opposing currents in our currently active tradition, the patriotic tradition which defined our Federal Republic’s uniquely original banking system, as discovered by the genius of Alexander Hamilton, and the contrary, corrupting influence of the social disease which is the influence of the spread of British Liberalism. The latter, Liberalism, is an intrinsically immoral influence for evil, one which was brought into our republic through channels such as the infamous Judge Lowell and other agents of the the British East India Company’s British financier interests, interests rooted, then, as now, in both Boston banking and traitor Aaron Burr’s Bank of Manhattan.

The Difference is Systemic: Riemann

For the purpose of making clear the systemic characteristics of the difference between America’s Tory traitors, on the one side, and patriots on the other, it must be recognized that our devotion to the echoes of our continuing tradition is expressed as if paraphrased from the concluding statement of principle in Bernhard Riemann’s 1854 habilitation dissertation. To wit:

We must, now, depart from the mathematical domain of money-systems as such, to focus attention on the difference between the American and British system, as being subsumed by the respectively contrasted expressions of physical-economic and merely monetarist systems.

From a physical standpoint, the physical system of economy associated with the operations of the Massachusetts Bay Colony under its original charter, is to be classified as having been a physically anti-entropic system, as if in the same principles expressed, early on, in the work of such as Gottfried Leibniz and consequent, later discoveries implicit in Bernhard Riemann’s 1854 habilitation dissertation: those being cases in which the increase of the productive powers of labor, were, as for Alexander Hamilton, the principal characteristic of the economic system befitting the founding principles of our Federal Constitution.

As I shall restate with a particular emphasis later in this report: under the British system of world imperialism operating under the guise of the Inter-Alpha Group still today, the mechanical, merely monetarist profit of trade, as measured in terms of perceived pleasure, or pain, rather than production of progress in the human condition, is the primary factor. There are no objectively sane, physical forms of functional value among the values controlling the British imperialist system. The implicit design of the British system, has expressed itself as in the likeness of a vicious form of venereal disease, as a cultural trait which has been carried into American practice as a reflection of the corruption radiated among us from its sources within the British system.

By controlling the public opinion which decides whether a certain, currently ruling practice, such as set of popularized fads, is deemed to be either painful or temporarily pleasant, the Delphic high priesthood of the British system, like the Babylonian priesthood of still earlier times, controls the desires and girth of the poor, confused subjects, those among the victims of what were more fairly identified as that empire’s then currently brutish form of such controlling mechanisms of social control, in matters such as the current fashionable choice of the rise or fall of either nations, or of the hems of ladies’ skirts.

That is the key to recognizing the root-cause of the onrushing, inevitable doom of the present British system. The question is, shall the present nations of the world be carried down to the same doom which now menaces the continued existence of the present-day British empire?

I explain as follows.

The End-Game in The System

The simplest explanation of the inevitability of the doom of the present British system, is to be located in the following considerations.

The only present possibility for preventing a global catastrophe of mankind, lies in the options for what we term the rise of the generally applied relative energy-flux density, as in an associated rise of economic physical-capital increase of the modes of existence of a nation’s choice of the modality of the energy-flux density of its physical economy, that as defined per capita and per square kilometer of national territory. We have presently reached the level of such development, that, presently, only energy-flux densities no less intense than those of nuclear-fission and prospective thermonuclear-fusion technologies, as seen as a direction which the current policies of India and China indicate, could maintain the present population-levels of the present and future of the world into the relatively immediate future. We must abandon all policy-shaping in practice which resists the implications of an urgent emphasis on nuclear fission, thermonuclear fusion, and still higher qualities, the implications on which any civilized form of human life throughout this planet now depends absolutely.

The principle which that present and prospective requirement represents, is already no less ancient than the time of Aeschylus’ implied defense of what should be identified more precisely, today, as the principle of energy-flux density, as he did in his Prometheus Trilogy: the defense of the principle which distinguishes the society of the human being from the pleasure-pain-controlled customs among both the apes and our modern Liberals.

All cultures which would persist in reliance on more primitive energy-flux densities, such as those of windmills and/or solar collectors, are, presently, already self-doomed to an early ruin in the collapse of their potential relative population-density, even to an early end of even their own merely continued existence as cultures, and, thus, to the self-inflicted termination of the very existence of those nationalities which insist on the insanity of inherently foolish, “soft-headed” notions of so-called “soft” technologies.

Hence, it is presently the case, that the efforts of the British empire to destroy the United States, feature great emphasis on use of assistance from the maddened, even viciously insane portions of the population, such as the so-called “greenies,” in banning the use of nuclear power in such nations as the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany. That is what has been done at the time that nuclear power is the leading feature of development in nations such as China and India and other relevant locations in Asia. The most economical fashion in which to destroy the nation of any people, is to induce that people to willfully destroy itself, as the doomed barbarians of both the present and past have done, by imposing reliance on backward, lower-energy-flux density sources of power, as by a virtually religious-fanatical addiction among certain maddened sections of their own populations, as, most typically, addiction to the inherently failed, destructive, so-called “green technologies.”

That is the case for the systemic sicknesses among modern nations. What, for example, was already that of ancient ones?

The Delphic Curse on Europe

Without disregarding the influences exerted by still earlier ancient cultures, including those of near-Asian imperialisms and their like, the principal expression of what has become the globally extended hegemony of European cultural strains, is that which is to be traced from the ancient role of the monetarist maritime cultures of the Mediterranean regions, and their included associations with the essentially pro-Satanic cult of the organized political-economic maritime power centered, in its apparent origins, in the Delphi Apollo-Dionysus cult.

For example:

The content of the unfortunately fragmentary remains of the Prometheus Trilogy of Aeschylus known to us presently, when combined with the writings of that leading adversary of Delphi, Plato, afford us the best leading indicators of the type of presently continuing menace to humanity which Delphi represented through the time of that cult’s high priest of imperial Roman times, Plutarch. Hence, we have the cases of the role of the influence of modern fascism under the followers of the cult of “creative destruction.” as being the continuing cult of such as Friedrich Nietzsche, of the Nazi period’s Werner Sombart, and of Joseph Schumpeter and his followers, These have been followers typified in a lurid fashion by the roles of such British Prime Ministers as Harold Wilson and Tony Blair, a set of cases which provides us convenient illustration of the nature of a policy of “creative destruction” modeled on such cases as Adolf Hitler’s 1939 and ensuing, so-called “health-care” treatments for the alleged “useless eaters,” and for the similar “health care reforms,” mimicking Tony Blair, under U.S. President Barack Obama and the U. S. House of Representatives’ Nancy Pelosi.

Such are the trends in policy-making, now as then, under Adolf Hitler, or, presently, under Barack Obama and the incoming apparent Republican majority in the U.S. Congress today. Such are the leading expressions of modern fascism, including the notable cases of the leading tendencies associated with President Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Calvin Coolidge, Harry S Truman, Richard Nixon, two Bush Presidents, the sick mental case known as Barack Obama, and as, also, the cases of Adolf Hitler and his like.

That pattern of listed personalities is not to be treated as merely symbolic. Without understanding the way in which that Delphic tradition of modern European fascism and its like echo both the Roman empire, and, more emphatically, modern trends toward the fascism traced from the Caesars, as I have just indicated some notable examples here, there could be no competent design of the type of new policy-change needed to rescue civilization, globally, from the oncoming, planetary, new dark age immediately menacing, in particular, all Europe and the United States today.

The Actual Human Mind

I have just recently sent to print a document titled “The Destruction of ‘The Destruction of the Destruction’,” whose essential purpose was to introduce a systemic form of definition of the needed sort of an historically informed approach to situating the essential distinction between the animal brain and those higher qualities of the potential of the individual human mind’s absolute distinction from mere systems of sense-perception.

That published writing focused the essential subject of its intention on looking beyond Albert Einstein’s wrestling with an extremely provocative, and, as far as it went, the most fruitfully stimulating proposition presented in the famous work of France’s Louis de Broglie (1892-1987). The purpose of adopting that approach to treatment of the unsettled intersections of the relevant views of Einstein and de Broglie, is to create the setting in which to portray the distinction of the developmental processes of the actual human mind, from those customary delusions which mislocate ideas within the domain of the mere sense-perceptual processes as such, as being, therefore, “merely opinions.”

On this account, the conjuncture of Einstein’s outlook on the genius of Johannes Kepler, with the yet-to-be resolved, provocative suggestions implicit in the leading work of de Broglie, has a special place of importance in reviewing the presently lurking potential change in interpreting the notion of the Periodic Table of Chemistry. I refer to my associates’ treatment of the subject of the needed clarification of the reductionist reading of the Periodic Table’s referenced, experimental subject-matter with respect to that universality of cosmic radiation which requires the superseding of the notions of space and time by that of the space-time of a domain of cosmic radiation. The roles of Solar-systemic and our own galaxy’s radiation, such as the anomalous features of our galaxy’s Crab Nebula, on insight into matters bearing on such subjects as the ordering of living processes within the Earth environment, are typical of the pressures which demand fresh approaches to this area of subject-matter. The need to terminate the stubbornly persisting, axiomatic presumptions of an ontological separation of space from time, typifies the broad image of the relevant issues.

My own knowledge in things bearing on that subject of the human mind, is located, essentially, in my developed insights, as in my role as one of the world’s established, in fact, most successful economists in the field of long-range forecasting. The search for the exact principle which underlies my persisting success, is also expressed in the essential function, as in economy, of the human mind, especially as this confronts us in treating the ontological issues posed by the efforts to define the subject-matter of physical economy with improved precision. In short, only by examining the subject of the human mind’s influence in shaping the patterns of behavior of that human mind respecting the practice of economic policy-shaping on a global, or much broader scale, are we confronted, in the most fruitful way, with that aspect of mass behavior of, and among nations, which exposes the most deeply principled aspects of long-ranging human behavior, including the role of the principles of universal physical processes.

What is the characteristic of the human mind which regulates processes in the relatively very small with respect to the effects on a long-range, global scale? What is the role of the potential for expression of strictly Classical artistic composition, in respect to its unique place as the underlying role of Classical-artistic modes of composition, and, therefore, human creativity generally, in the domain of physical science?

Over the recent decades, since the last years of World War II, I became captivated by the study of the roots of the conflict between the worst reductionists, such as a pair of Bertrand Russell devotees, as two “factory rejects,” Professor Norbert Wiener and John von Neumann. Both thrown out of Göttingen University for incompetence, at different times, that for a common cause, so expelled from David Hilbert’s famous, if largely, successfully failed, mathematics project there.1There is no doubt that Wiener’s part in presenting the case for what has been named automation, had important significance at that time. Indeed, despite my systemic rejections of Wiener’s physical dogma, the use of electronically refined control mechanisms in the domain of production, was, and remains economically significant in the most obvious ways. It was the same crudely mechanistic denial of the role of human creativity, as distinct from the merely clever uses of electronic systems of control, which was the issue of my moral and scientific objections to Wiener from the beginning. Hilbert’s project had already successfully demonstrated that Wiener’s principal, proposed thesis, was a systemic failure. That latter proof by Hilbert’s failure, was, itself, a significant scientific achievement.

The following remarks on that subject are of considerable practical importance in this present setting. One may also refer to this as Plato’s and Moses Mendelssohn’s celebrated treatments of the subject of the immortal soul, as in Mendelssohn’s Phaedon.

Since no later than Plato, it is to be recognized in an explicit fashion, that the human mind is not defined by the customary notions of the functions of sense-perception, and that the actual human mind’s powers of willful creativity, lacking in the beasts, are not to be attributed to the functions of sense-perception as such. Thus, Moses Mendelssohn, in his Phaedon, echoed Plato explicitly, in recognizing the immortal significance of the actually creative, potential powers of the human mind, as being a unique expression of the human soul’s potential immortality, an immortality which is not to be found in sense-certainty, and, yet, nonetheless exists in a product, known as the function of science, but, which is an activity originally located within the expression of Classical modes of artistic creativity, and expressed as artistic creativity in the mode of physical-scientific creativity. I have often cited Albert Einstein’s special relationship with his violin, as a suitable illustration of the point.

Hence, a scientist who is not steeped in Classical artistic composition, is lacking some essential human quality required for the competent pursuit of his, or her profession. He or she is, therefore, lacking in relevant potential for scientific creativity respecting, most specifically, notions of universal principles. The adherence to the fraudulent myth of Isaac Newton’s alleged discovery of gravitation, by many otherwise intelligent, even gifted scientific minds whom I have known personally and professionally, typifies the type of spreading corruption met among even some otherwise notable figures of science from the post-World War II as also earlier generations. Hence, the seeds, even within the ranks of science, for the decline of creativity in trans-Atlantic cultures since the death of U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, as typified by the savage assaults against actual Classical-artistic creativity by the pro-existentialist, post-World War II Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF) and the related scientific incompetence expressed in the functions of the Cambridge, Russellite offshoot known as the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA). These are typical of the expressions of that culturally and scientifically ruinous, mental pathology.

As I have addressed this conception in sundry published locations, the relationship of the actually human mind to knowledge of the universe we inhabit, is, admittedly, one mediated through sundry faculties of sense-perception, as extended beyond the customary catalog of senses, and into the singularities generated and experienced within certain ranges beyond conventionally identified sense-perception and transmissible effects, mediated through the domain of cosmic radiation.2Consider the communications between Max Planck and Wolfgang Koehler on related subjects, and also the closing paragraphs of Percy B. Shelley’s A Defence of Poetry, in this context.

For the purposes of clarity in the use of those terms, consider the following essential facts of that matter.

Perception & Conception: Perception

Now, as the plunge of the world’s economies, especially those of the Trans-Atlantic region, has brought the world to the threshold of a fatal sort of general physical-economic breakdown-crisis, I am equipped to state certain things. These are subjects which I have long known. and have stated with the relatively highest degree of both factual and scientifically factual certainty.

The root of the error which has brought about this state of affairs to which I refer now, is to be recognized in examples such as the case of the silly doctrines by mathematicians, doctrines such as the notion of random numbers claimed by John von Neumann. I refer to the now exposed illusion which had depended upon the presumption that the universe is implicitly delimited to the bounds of the experience of sense-perception. Such fallacies as von Neumann’s, are to be attributed to the peculiar mental life of the victim of belief in essentially linear systems: I mean systems such as that intentional, Aristotelean fraud against science known as Euclidean geometry, to the fraudulent presumption of form without matter, to a fraud which I had recognized as such at the ages of 14-15. It was a fraud which disgusted me not only during my secondary education, but which was known to me as insufferably fraudulent mathematics-related views of a physical science imposed on university physical-science programs as well.

Why did students in second, and higher education believe in such stuff as that? My success as an economist is not to be attributed to the fact that I had been rated as more or less near to, but less than a “genius” among students at that time, never reaching to “genius” scores in the three testings to which I was submitted between 1934 and 1944. The relevant fact lies not in such tests, as such, but in my recognition of the fact, then, as now, that the sickness which is belief in Euclidean systems, could occur only, then, as now, by such means as the superstition that Newton had discovered gravitation. Such beliefs are born out of either stupidity, credulous submission to authority, or, even, in some cases, criminal impulses akin to those of that Aristotle who was the putative inspiration of the concoction attributed to Euclid.

The essential fact of the matter, as emphasized in the opening and concluding sections of Bernhard Riemann’s 1854 habilitation dissertation, is what I discovered at the age of about 14-15, through reflections prompted by a series of visits to the Boston area’s Charlestown Navy Yard.

A purely formal, essentially linear geometry, such as that of the Delphic Aristotle’s follower Euclid, depends upon the presumption that the impressions known as sense-perceptions, are either direct representations of the functions of the powers of the human mind, or, as Adam Smith had copied Paolo Sarpi, in Smith’s own Theory of Moral Sentiments. On this account, Riemann, the celebrated student of both Carl F. Gauss and Lejeune Dirichlet, provides the world a conclusive proof which is absolutely contrary to Aristotelean presumptions. People believe such stuff as Aristotle’s, not, usually, because they are stupid, but because they are opportunists.

So, the crucial sort of deadly flaw in Euclidean geometry and kindred notions of number, is that it is immaterial in not only one, but several converging respects. This was a lesson, as I have often reported, which I had first learned by observing construction in progress at the Charlestown Navy Yard: only a physical economy, not a merely mathematical one, represents a competent attempt at representation of the lawful character of physical processes considered universally. Hence, the strength of supporting steel structures, for example, varies in its physical-geometric organization, not abstract geometry.3E.g., nanotechnology.

Consider my experience in this matter.

That notion of physical geometry underlies what I had adopted, nearly two decades later than that lesson from the Navy Yard, this time from Riemann’s habilitation dissertation, as I had begun to understand it, in 1953. Yet, the adoption of Riemann’s view can be considered as having been actually implicit for me in those few features of the world of Gottfried Leibniz to which I had been exposed, increasingly, as the basis for rejecting Euclid, since back during secondary school years. I came to recognize, over the span of the 1970s and early 1980s, that Riemann’s discovery had brought the hallmarks of the genius in the field of construction shown by Filippo Brunelleschi’s discovery that the physical curvature of the catenary, was the key to the possibility of crafting the cupola of Florence’s Santa Maria del Fiore. This had had a crucial effect expressed for me then within Nicholas of Cusa’s De Docta Ignorantia, and had been carried forward from there to Leonardo da Vinci’s treatment of the common principle of the catenary and tractrix. This approach was expressed in the work of a follower of both Cusa and Leonardo, Johannes Kepler, and carried still further by Gottfried Leibniz in collaboration with Jean Bernouilli. The forthright expression of the relevant views was provided, as a continuing task-orientation, as conveyed from the work of Abel and Lejeune Dirichlet, into the content and outgrowths of Bernhard Riemann’s 1854 habilitation dissertation.

Thus, for all competent notions of science, Aristotle’s (and, thus, Euclid’s) a-priorist dogma should have been recognized as implicitly dead at its birth. It was not until I accepted Riemann’s habilitation dissertation, and the included implications of Abel’s work (once the hoaxster Cauchy were dead and the evidence of Cauchy’s plagiarism uncovered thus) as understood by Dirichlet and his Berlin pupil Riemann, that that view of Riemann’s work became my own .4Abandon any presumption that Gauss was ever actually opposed, in his own mind, to what was the direction implicit in Riemann’s own work. Gauss presented the effects of his discoveries, but, often, judiciously withheld explicit account of the origin of his proofs in the discoveries, as this is demonstrated clearly in Gauss’s reluctance to identify his own views on the exact form of systemic error in the so-called “non-Euclidean” geometries of Lobatchevsky and Jonas Bolyai. At the bottom, despite some contrary specialist opinion, Gauss was a beneficiary of the Gottfried Leibniz tradition of the great Eighteenth-century mathematician and scholar Abraham Kaestner, under whom, together with Zimmerman, the youthful Gauss had studied during the years immediately preceding the 1800 death of Kaestner. The relevant hoax appears as a commentary in the preface to a three-volume work on Kaestner. These reductionist forms of apparent peculiarites of the ironies of scientific work at the beginning of the Nineteenth century, were largely the effects of the spread of the direct and indirect cultural effects of the British Foreign Office’s orchestration of the French Revolution and the British and Metternich’s orchestration of Napoleonic Wars according to the model of Britain’s orchestration of the Seven Years War, and by the continuing corruption orchestrated by the spy-system of Metternich’s spy G.W.F. Hegel, until the fall of Metternich’s power. With the death of Friedrich Schiller, the von Humboldt brothers served as the central point of reference for the progress of science and education in Europe. David Shavin has traced out the central role which Dirichlet, together with his wife, the granddaughter of the great Moses Mendelssohn, and which the Dirichlet tradition continued to play in both science and music over the course of the Nineteenth century, into the time of the death of Johannes Brahms.

Therefore, back to Plato!

Since my initial, 1953 commitment to the standpoint for a science of economy represented by Riemann’s 1854 habilitation dissertation, my continued contempt for the a-priori presumptions of Euclidean geometry, blossomed into the form of a distancing of myself, increasingly, not only from Euclid as I had done during my adolescence, but distanced me still further away from the naive presumptions of sense-certainty, to the standpoint of viewing the nature of man in terms which had been specified by Riemann’s habilitation dissertation, in terms which are beyond the measures of sense-perception, that as the proper ground-basis for scientific thinking.

The most significant result of this view, had been rooted in the standpoint of study of the problems posed from the standpoint of my adopted profession in management consulting. This would be reflected, over the course of subsequent time, in my regrettably slow-paced, gradual adoption of the viewpoint implicit in the work of Academician V.I. Vernadsky whose own method I had come to recognize as being rooted in the principles of Riemann. The crucial feature throughout that process of my developing intellectual outlook, was represented for me since the closing years of the 1950s, as the notion of the central, top-down role of man in the universe, to which other aspects of nature in the large are subordinate as a matter of the identity of true universal principles. This viewpoint greatly improved not only my powers for defining the proper standpoint for economic forecasting, but my confidence to act on that knowledge. This had had the effect of fostering my development of an expanding basis for that form of successful economic forecasting which has become unique and increasingly successful, up to the present time.

So, by mid-1956, because of this specific influence of Riemann’s work, I had been confident in my forecasting a major recession in the U.S. economy to come suddenly to the surface of the economy as a whole by approximately February-March 1957.

My choice of hierarchy for that organization of the conception of a science of physical economy, takes the form of a view of the implied universe in descending order, from the Creator, to the powers implicit in the human mind, thence to living processes generally, and then to the non-living. This, opposite to the notion of synthesis as being the bottom-up of a process of reductionism.

That shift of one’s outlook on the process of development in the universe, as from “the bottom, up,” to “the top down,” is indispensable in defining the moral change in outlook, from the submissive posture of the underling, to a competent adoption of the moral responsibilities of leadership as a matter of universal principles, in seeking to realize the goals of mankind in society. The shift is one from the underling waiting for direction from above, to what may be fairly identified as the “Promethean” outlook associated with a well-defined knowledge of the notion of top-down organization of the universe within which one must find and recognize one’s place, as experience of discovery changes the position from which one decides how, when, and why to act.

The practical effect of that outlook, as translated into such expressions as in the hierarchy of business-management practice, is the certainty that the faults of organized human economic behavior lie in the lack of a competently developed, top-down view of man’s needed, top-down role in the willful crafting of needed improvements in those axiomatic presumptions underlying the characteristic traits of a currently adopted outlook, traits which must be understood among those who are shaping the premises selected for an implicitly top-down view of the characteristic principles expressed by assumptions respecting the applicable physical principles of economy.

Economics so conceived as I have come to know it, more and more, and better and better, is to be approached, as science must order the management of economic affairs, toward becoming the highest expression of scientific thinking, a fact demonstrated by the role of human creativity as the authority in the universe which is proven to have been superior, as in Academician V.I. Vernadsky’s work, to the domains of both the Biosphere and Lithosphere.

The failure of the economists generally so far, has been, most notably, not merely the result of a poor application of mathematics, but, rather, a blind, almost religious faith in what is, in fact, the underdog mentality implicitly inherent in what are termed statistical methods. The relevant fault of the notions of mathematical economics which must be considered on this account, is the incompetence of mere mathematics by itself for such uses. The worst of these fatal faults, is the belief that forecasting can be premised on the statistical trending employed by the rather typical financial accountant’s pathetic, often implicitly economically fatal notions of the monetarist’s notion of an economic function of a “a passively statistical market,” rather than of an economy undergoing progressive changes in principle, as from outside, and, hopefully, also above, the bounds of present experience, to a creative power of discovery of progressively higher principles, as applied from above. The most stubborn of all follies on this account, is the presumption that monetary statistical valuations are real within the physical-functional domain. The behavior predicated on that presumption can be, often, more or less fatal to the industries, or even the nations so affected.

It is what influential circles of persons generally still believe, especially what are regarded as well-educated, practicing authorities, which has been the customary source of all of the systemic economic calamities which nations, or humanity generally, have now brought upon themselves. The same principle of pathetic credulousness which prompts people to accept the a-priorist presumptions an Aristotelean (e.g., reductionist) set of notions of sense-certainty, is the essential error underlying the more or less catastrophic failures of nations’ economies. In such a situation, being a contrarian may be frequently desirable, but, also, when used by careless hands, may turn out to have been a disastrous choice, event throughout most of the planet presently. The essential fault is inherent in a-priorist forms of presumptions respecting the functions of human sense-perception. The remedy begins as: “Question nearly everything generally believed about this domain.”

The most essential first step in addressing, more effectively, the nature of the errors embedded in generally accepted mis-beliefs, is to be located within V.I. Vernadsky’s discovery of the functional difference between human behavior and that of the lower forms of life, as in his distinction of the Noösphere from the Biosphere. The beasts respond to a principle of universal anti-entropy, without knowledge of what their species is doing as a species on this account; man, through the creativity expressed as a correctable notion of science, apprehends the universal principle, where the beast reacts unwittingly, as the devotees of Adam Smith do, to the sensed pleasures and pains of effects. The cause, and indispensable foundation for the existence and progress of the human species is intentional, rather than the blindly reactive presumptions controlling the behavior of the bare statistician.

Perception & Conception: Conception

That much said on the immediately foregoing set of topics, now focus on the specifically human function of conception. Here we confront the currently prevalent opinion which must be understood as erroneous. I return your attention, thus, to what I had written on the subject of “The Destruction of the ‘Destruction of the Destruction’.”

In elementary forms of higher mathematics, as applied to physical science, we are responding to real or imagined notions of sense-perceptions. Up to the present day, what we know of civilized life generally, operates customarily on dependency on popularized assumptions pertaining to the notions of sense-perceptions as such, as in customary ordinary and higher mathematics alike.

However, as I had emphasized in that just-published location, Bernhard Riemann, in the third section of his 1854 habilitation dissertation, emphasizes the intrinsic incompetence of mathematics for the higher functions of physical science. He had returned to the theme of the pair of opening paragraphs of that dissertation, on the subject of the failures inherent in modern mathematics taught up to that time. This time, in the concluding section of that dissertation, he attacked the source of that class of failures, by reference to the domains of evidence which lie beyond the competence of such mathematics, in the domains of the very large and very small of experimental physical science.

Now, once that were said by Riemann, we know, that in dealing with his work we must see a great, systemic defect in mathematics as such, in the respect that it does not account for the universe, since it fails to reach into what Riemann pointed out as the relevant very large and very small. So, even the editor of the Riemann Werke, Heinrich Weber, could be deceived into adopting the blunder of Rudolf Clausius respecting Riemann’s “Ein Betrag zur Electrodynamik.”5Riemann Werke, pp. 288-289. Riemann had been a participant in the crucial experimental work of Gauss and Wilhelm Weber. It was this which was under attack by Heinrich Weber (no relative) in consort with the mathematicians Clausius and Hermann Grassmann. The experiment which discredits Clausius and Grassmann completely on this matter is well known and involves a known principle which is readily demonstrated since the experiment was produced by Wilhelm Weber’s role as the leader in that discovery. The fictitious “Second law of thermodynamics” has been an outgrowth the argument put forward by the mathematicians Clausius and Grassmann. That is to emphasize two crucial points of leading relevance here. First, that whatever encompasses the larger domain referenced by Riemann in the concluding section of his habilitation dissertation, must be treated as included evidence in defining any true physical principle. Second, as the Aristotelean fallacy of Euclid’s geometry illustrates the point ontologically, there can be no true principle underlying a Euclidean approach.

This has been the source of the error in the presumed non-Euclidean geometries of Nikolai Lobatchevsky and Jonas Bolyai, on which Gauss refrained from explicit treatment, but rather merely warned his correspondents off the subject.6Gauss’s actual knowledge of the principle of non-Euclidean geometry was a reflection of the influence of the first of his professors, the great Abraham Kaestner who had been the leading mathematician (and a notable polymath) of the Eighteenth Century circles of such as those of Gotthold Lessing and Moses Mendelssohn. Notably, Kaestner had been a leading German advocate of Benjamin Franklin’s role in the founding of the United States, for which Kaestner was not much liked among the post-French Revolution period of the 1790s. Hence, Gauss who had come to understand this conception, by Kaestner, of “non-Euclidean geometry” while a student under Kaestner, had excellent considerations in the realm of personal security to avoid bringing that matter up explicitly at the time of the discussion of Jonas Bolyai’s proposal. It was not until the role of Lejeune Dirichlet and Bernhard Riemann, that what Gauss had actually discovered was echoed by Dirichlet and Riemann, et al., in the context of the subject of Abelian functions. It should be noted that the relevant three-volume work of Abraham Kaestner features a contemporary publisher-assigned preface reciting an intellectual midget’s presently standard frauds against Kaestner. Formally, the access to discovering the solution has been attributed as lying within the work of Lejeune Dirichlet and Riemann referencing Abelian functions. Otherwise, for the layman, the opening paragraphs of Riemann’s habilitation dissertation identify the problem being addressed.

My own personal authority in these and related matters lies within the domain of the science of physical economy. The authority to be found in that approach can be fairly identified as a reflection of the effect of those willfully creative powers of the human mind which permeate the role of human discovery of universal physical principles within the domain of physical-economic practice, and, therefore, also any competent approach to defining the principles of physical economy.

The issue which the remarks in these preceding paragraphs pose, should impel us to turn our attention to the practical implications of Aeschylus’ Prometheus Trilogy. Since there can be no doubt that the successive, qualitative advances in mankind’s knowledge and use of fire, are the foundation of sustainable human progress in economy and otherwise, that we who are informed in these matters today, have a relatively unique competence for exposing the fraud of the contemporary, implicitly mass-murderous delusions of so-called “environmentalism.”

As I have already summarized the relevant point in the concluding portion of my “The Destruction of ‘The Destruction of the Destruction’,” the key to a competent approach to modern science, is to be located in a notion of “the human mind” which is not congruent with sense-perceptions as such. Notably, taught mathematics as such, has no provision for the actual function of human creativity, although the physical effects of such creativity are the most significant phenomena of physical science! Statistics belong to the domain of the economic pathologist, not the domain of human creative progress.

This should not be regarded as a matter of mysticism. Creativity in physical science pertains, essentially, to the bringing forth of that which will be physically efficient, but, customarily, did not yet exist by any prior means available. Therefore, it were no accident, that the essential root of efficient creativity in physical science is rooted, like the use of Albert Einstein’s violin, in the powers of the human mind’s capacity for Classical-artistic modes of composition in the domain of the specifically human imagination.

Thus, for example, the relatively most significant cause for the recent generations’ intellectual debasement of the minds of even the so-called “best educated” strata of physical science, has been the effect of malicious influences such as existentialism, in particular, and, specifically, programs such as the post-World War II, European Congress for Cultural Freedom. The rabidly positivist literature of recent and contemporary “science affliction” novelties, typifies the brain-damage manifest in such popular entertainments, and the like, such as those from the post-World War II period to date. No actual principles are permitted in such environments as that. “Science affliction” products which are those which are, at the same time, propaganda designed for kiddies based on “environmentalist” goals, are the clearest in their expression of contemporary trends in a positivist’s depravity.

All that is to be known as Classical artistic composition, is expressed as the products of the same emphasis on discoverable truth of principle which has a corresponding effect on minds to the creative scientific discovery and proof of a universal principle, as Albert’s Einstein’s violin properly implies this to be the case.

Naturally enough, this domain of creativity shared by valid discovery of physical-scientific and Classical artistic creativity, lies outside the bounds of the powers of human sense-perception as such. Thus, such conceptions as the reductionist’s mathematics as such, do not really exist in the domain of the underlying creative powers of the human mind.

The consequently problematic features of reductionist mathematics as such, such as that specific form of the incompetence of the devotees of Aristotle and Euclid, or all of the modern empiricists and positivists, including such as the essentially fascist ideologies of the existentialists of the school of “creative destruction” of society, of Nietzsche, Sombart, and Schumpeter, are expressed most clearly in their hatred of Classical artistic composition and hatred of the basing of human cultures on the creative principle of contempt for forms of reductionism such as empiricism.

Rather, those powers of creativity typical of successful Classical artistic creativity, are the source of inspiration upon which competent physical science and its mathematics depends.

The Human Mind: A Summary

During the recent several years there has been a terrible, escalating rate of destruction of the American and European economies, especially so since the corrupt opposition, as by Barney Frank, et al., in his ruinous sabotage of a program of mine which could have prevented the present U.S. economic crisis: my 2007 Homeowners and Bank Protection Act. That act, although prevented, was, nonetheless, efficiently designed to have prompted a series of pieces by me and my collaborators, which set forth the needed, lawful mechanisms for rescuing not only our United States, but the world at large, from the presently onrushing, rapidly accelerating break-down crisis of the economy of the world at large reaching a breakdown-point now.

Under the circumstances thus presented to me in my current function as the opponent of the world’s presently most ominous mispractice of economics, I was determined to present a series of treatments of the subject which must come to be understood as the possibility of preventing the world’s immediately threatened slide into the deepest of the dark ages, a plunge now being experienced by trans-Atlantic civilizations so far, a plunge which, if continued, would carry the entire world down with it. This remedy requires a step-wise process of successive approximations, a choice which has required certain steps toward a relevant preparation of the mind of leading and other circles in sundry parts of the world.

The principal need was, to build up an understanding, among some likely circles among nations, of a higher set of those principles which actually underlie mankind’s accumulated power for insight into the true physical principles of economic progress by mankind. The needed principles to be presented for this purpose, pertain to those actually creative powers of the human mind which lie outside and above those doctrines rooted in the delimited realm of sense-perception. That meant the need to define more clearly the distinction between sense-perception and those creative powers of the mind which are most comfortably seated within the domain of the Classical artistic mode unique to mankind among living creatures—thus, excluding, one might say, persons of the Liberal species.

Such a venture as that requires showing that the creative powers which distinguish the human species from the beasts, are not defined by the processes of sense-perception as such, but, rather represent a viewpoint which regards sense-perception as being the useful, but intrinsically misleading mechanisms, mechanisms which must be subjected to a willful, conscious employment of those actually creative powers which must exert efficient command over the otherwise misleading conceptions associated with mere sense-perception as such. These are powers of the imagination which are most intimately expressed in the guise of Classical-artistic composition.

The Actual Human Mind

It is implicit in careless popular opinion today, such as that of a simple mathematics, that there is a much-neglected correspondence between universal principles and that which one might assume to be the results caused, but not foreseen by mathematics. The error in such fallacious, but nonetheless still popular presumptions as that, depends upon the belief in a seemingly instinctive, relatively simple, but wrongly presumed to be lawful correspondence between sense-perception regarded as “sense-certainty,” and the lawfully ordered reality of the universe we inhabit.

The corrected reading of experience were that what we regard as sense-perceptions are not reality in and of themselves, but are merely apparent shadows cast by an unseen, but knowable reality. The reality of human knowledge does not lie with those shadows, but, rather, in an actually sane, human mind, which, by its nature, reads sense-perceptions as merely shadows cast by an unseen reality.

To illustrate that point, consider Johannes Kepler’s actual discovery of a principle of universal gravitation, as the relevant experimental proofs are presented within his The Harmonies of the Worlds. Reduced to bare essentials, Kepler’s proof locates a principle of universal gravitation, not in a sense-perception, but the paradoxical contrast of coincident, but mutually contradictory qualities of sense-perception, as in the contrasted notion of quasi-visual and harmonic domains. Thus, the reality does not lie within sense-perception, but in the human mind’s experimental insight into the contrasting coincidence of two or more, mutually exclusive, but juxtaposed notions of sense-perception.

Thus, the incompetence of a popular modern misreading of a notion of a principle of gravitation, such as that espoused by the devotees of the Isaac Newton cult.

To restate that point, we should consider sense-perceptions as like scientific instruments employed in arrays read by the actual human mind. Who, and where, is the entity which reads those respectively inconsistent instruments, and by what method? Imagine the function of the senses to be like the instruments associated with a space-capsule. The pilot of that capsule has no direct perception of the physical space-time through which his craft is moving; he must regard the reading of the craft’s navigational and related instruments, as shadows cast by that of which that pilot lacks any direct perception.

Such is the relationship of every competent scientist, and the like person, to the universe which he, or she inhabits. The truth of experience lies not in the sense-perceptions as such, but in the possibility of resolving the irreconcilable contradictions among them. That is exactly as Kepler originally, and uniquely, defined the discovery of a principle of universal gravitation.

Similarly, in principle, Albert Einstein examined Kepler’s own discovery of gravitation, to the effect of adducing from Kepler’s own discovery the additional qualifications known as the thesis that the universe within which we exist, is finite, but not bounded by any fixed limits. Implicitly, that is the same notion of completeness of the stellar array as being implicitly finite, on which great navigators of trans-oceanic pathways depended. We must map the universe, in all respects, not as a matter of sense-perception, but by means of the creative powers of the human mind.

The difficulty which such facts present to the person who depends upon an arrangement so defined from the standpoint of the reductionist, is the inescapable reality of ontological conflict between the definition of the domain implied by sense-perception as such, as contrasted to the ontological reality of the human mind which reads those perceptions. It is as if we inhabited two different universes at the same time. Which, then, is real? The proper response is: We are real.

This reality, the reality expressed by the creative powers of the individual human mind, is made known to us through the agency of what we may properly define as the specifically creative powers of the human mind. Said otherwise: we know the universe to the degree that we can demonstrate an act of willful discovery of newly recognized principle of action efficiently.

The most immediate problem, which such notions as this present to the uncultured human mind, is that the universe attributed to sense-perceptual experience contains no regard for the principle creativity in and of itself. Thus, for the creative powers of the human mind, as for Heraclitus, nothing is constant but change, as this is echoed by Plato’s Parmenides paradox. For the sane states of the human mind, the creativity expressed as the physical-scientific, or comparable discovery of principle by the human mind, is the mind’s mode of access to a well-defined reality of the creative universe which we actually inhabit. This state of the actual human mind is expressed primarily by the experience of Classical modes of actual creativity in the domain of the forms of Classical-artistic composition, as the concluding paragraphs of Percy Bysshe Shelley’s A Defence of Poetry, or John Keats’ Ode on a Grecian Urn, imply. So, Aeschylus, Shakespeare, Lessing, and Friedrich Schiller capture the image of creative immortal souls, those for Heaven, or for Hell. All else is madness!

The implication is, that if you are not creative, in the sense of the ironies of which Classical artistic composition is composed, you are not yet real to yourself, an affliction common among most persons I have encountered up to the present moment. Hence, the widespread, existential despair among the afflicted! Hence, to be sane, is to be immortal in a certain, very real way, in one’s existence in the creation of progress into the future. The body dies, but the true fruits of the creative human mind, such as the discovery of a true universal physical principle, or of a Classical artistic composition, are immortal influences expressed as the future which the soul of the truly creative intellect inhabits.

The relevant failure of reductionist mathematics comes to the fore, thus. The origin of that existential crisis lies in attaching the notion of reality to the mere shadows to be recognized as sense perceptions, an affliction of the human mind and its sense of identity, an affliction which is typical of the victim’s apprehension of ontological (e.g., “existential”) despair.

The Function of Classical Composition

If you are a lover of well-performed Classical musical composition, you have recalled, with pain, even, perhaps, a bit of rage, what passes for a standard presentation of Johann Sebastian Bach’s two pedagogical sets of preludes and fugues. Classical artistic minds live in, and for the future, not as neatly arranged dead things.

Take the illustrative case in point, Filippo Brunelleschi’s use of the non-Euclidean catenary as an indispensable method of physical principle underlying the successful design and construction of the cupola of Florence’s Santa Maria del Fiore. Look at the conjuncture of this and related aspects of the discoveries by Brunelleschi and the signal work of the great founder of a competent basis for modern physical science (and more) expressed as Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa’s De Docta Ignorantia.

Such was the birth of what has been, not non-Euclidean geometry, but of the only competent alternative, the anti-Euclidean principle which had been expressed for physical science by Archytas’ construction of the true duplication of the cube,7Cf. Eratosthenes on Archytas’ duplication of the cube. and his friend’s, Plato’s great dialogues bearing on the universal principles of science as such. The same notion must be applied to Bach’s compositions, and his scientific insight into the principles of the human singing voice, with reference to a system of well-tempering premised on an approximately pre.cise C=256 expression of an anti-Aristotelean, and anti-reductionist, principle.8During the 1980s and early 1990s, the majority among the leading Classical singing voices of trans-Atlantic world, and also numerous instrumentalists, understood that Bach well-tempering hinged on C-256, was the only decent standard for the training and use of the human singing voice. The same was true, in fact, for musical instruments worth considering. Today’s widespread destruction of what had become recognized as European Classical musical culture occurred as an existentialist rape of the human mind and artistic beauty centered on the launching of the rabidly existentialist noise-making engendered by the spirit of the 1950 founding of the post-World War II Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF). While the Dulles faction’s elements associated with the U.S.A.’s CIA attempted to cover its dirty rear-end in this matter by pretending that the replacement of music and beauty by cacophony was “innocently anti-Communist,” the existentialist noise and ugly splatter promoted by the CCF has turned out to have been the systemic destruction of both beauty and sanity of trans-Atlantic cultures today. The dogma of “elevated pitch,” was only one of the massive aggregation of obscenity mustered under the sometime leadership of my notable, avowed adversary of the time, as in a famous debate in December 1971, Professor Sidney Hook.

William Empson’s Seven Types of Ambiguity, although, essentially a modern work composed in the context of a modern setting, implies for many of its advocates, including my unwavering admiration, from first reading of a copy which I purchased from a shop down the street from my frequent haunt, the Boston Public Library; the principle which he supports, was not only unique in its time, but must be properly appreciated for its greater relevance as expressing a principle of irony which is familiar to Classical English-language usages in the trans-Atlantic region. The principle of irony, as centered on metaphor, is the essence of the shadows cast by the creative powers of the human mind, an excellence of expression rather distant from the precincts of the style-book of the New York Times, and dead grammarians more widely. However, do not forget the indispensable role of that comma, as a pregnant moment of a breath taken, as being indispensably unspoken in that passing instant, all for the sake of the expression of an actual idea.

Then, where are the actual eyes in Rembrandt’s Aristotle contemplating the bust of Homer? Homer appears, quite clearly, nonetheless, contemplating, with vacant eyes, that with apparent contempt, or, perhaps, a disgust in which I fully participate, his target, as the empty mind of a properly fatuous likeness of the spirit of the Emperor Nero, Aristotle. Of what concoction might the infamous poisoner, Aristotle, have been thinking?

Like the preludes and fugues of Bach, the unfinished moments in between the notes are realized only in the anticipation of the moment of future development. There is a tension so presented which will not let the ironies pass. With what was the mind of the artist, and audience, seized, as if in between the notes? Like the anticipation expressed in Rembrandt’s presentation of Homer and Aristotle? Classical artistic composition, and the future find their peculiar congruence in steering the passionate moment of intention for things yet to become. Such is the essential, one sight say, the ontological actuality, of a perceived intimation of the future. Such the part played, by means of the violin in Albert Einstein’s violin.

The Creative Function In Economy

The most essential consideration in the development of a science of physical economy, is the successful effort at combining time and space as one, as in the dimension of cosmic radiation which replaces the superstitious mind’s obsession with that fantasy known as space-by-itself.

Among the relatively simpler illustrations of that thesis, is to be recognized in the indispensable need for increasing both the relative physical-capital intensity and energy-flux density as indispensable for preventing an attritional process in any continuation of a steady-state level of energy-flux density of action, per capita and per square kilometer, in any economy.

The quixotic preference for windmills, and, also, as for the vastly wasteful folly of reliance on solar panels, is plainly both insane in terms of physical economy, and implicitly in its assured effects on a targeted mankind, as being as mass-murderous as any would-be revival of an Adolf Hitler might desire.

Return attention to Aeschylus’ Prometheus Bound.

The roots of the imperialist systems centered in the ancient and medieval Mediterranean, as, in the cult of Delphi, Rome, and the Habsburg tyranny, and later, the shift to the British empire’s assumption of what had been the ancient evil of the cult of Delphi, or the Venetian monetarist system, and the Roman Empire and Byzantine empire, are to be recognized in a careful reflection on such sources as the Homeric epics and the dramas of Aeschylus. In the beginning of a Mediterranean maritime culture and the rise of the later British oceanic Empire, up to the present day,

The key is to be read in Homer and Aeschylus, in the curious distinction made there between “gods” and mere “mortals.” The essential, functional intention embedded in those distinctions is the mark of the practice of imperialism, as expressed by the extension of the title of “gods” to the descent of the sea-rovers traced to the sons of the concubine Olympia, and the poor subjects over which the tyranny of such over which the legendary Poseidon reigned.

As Aeschylus made clear enough for those who were enabled to pause to think, the central feature of that oligarchical system of alleged “gods” reigning over “despised mortals,” lies in the essential distinction of man from beasts, such as the imperial bats of Queen Elizabeth II’s virtual belfry, and also the vegetables: the human use of “fire,” or, as we write in more modern terms, an indispensable increase in the energy-flux-density mustered and applied for the purpose not only of the progress of the human condition, but even the prevention of a fall into depravity. Thus, we have the central principle of Aeschylus’ Prometheus Trilogy.

During relevant recent times, since the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, that theme of the progress in the human condition, which had been associated with echoes of such names from the Renaissance as the figures of science Niccolo Brunelleschi and Nicholas of Cusa, had been an awesome challenge to the momentarily weakened force of evil known otherwise as the maritime, monetarist usury of Venice. The Florentine-led renaissance, had been the expression of that faction which gave birth, since the horrible dark ages of Europe’s late Fourteenth Century, to a general renaissance in the conditions of life and potential relative population-density of European civilized culture. It was the principle of a general renaissance, which had arisen under the leading role of Florence in its Renaissance, and which was revived again with the 1648 Peace of Westphalia.

Throughout the entire sweep of the interval of European-centered developments in civilization since the beginning of the Fourteenth-century resurgence into modern society and its periods of great advances in the general human condition, Europe had, in the main, defeated the insolence of the Habsburg tyrannies. However, the U.S. defeat of British imperialism’s puppet, under the leadership of President Abraham Lincoln, not only weakened the power of Anglo-Dutch and related practices of African slavery (which had been greatly aided by the British puppet known as the Nineteenth-century Spanish monarchy), but, through the consequence of both the defeat of the British puppet known as the Confederacy and the completion of the essential link of the transcontinental railway system, had created what the British empire considered a mortal threat to the very continued existence of that British empire.

Hence, since that time (1876), the British Empire had considered the so-called “geopolitical” threat represented by the spread of transcontinental railway systems, systems which were in the process which generated a conclusive threat to the continued existence of the British maritime imperialism as the murderous tyrant of the planet. We, among others, have been continuously the victim, in one fashion or another, of the bestialities which the British empire has prompted, since the ouster of Germany’s Bismarck, in 1890: through the recurring, and actually persisting launching and other provocations of a permanent state of warfare and revolutions, since 1890 to the present date.

The attempts of the British and such of their agents as the U.S. Wall Street types, to suppress the U.S. development of nuclear power sources, is a crucial key for understanding the steps which must be taken to maintain even the continued existence of our United States, and the defense of other regions in the Americas and Asia, from the extinction of that modern state, revived by the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, which now holds the civilization of Eurasia and the Americas by a slender tattered threat above the abyss which is already the legacy of Anglo-Dutch-Spanish, and Wall Street-related practices against Africa.

Known British agent Alexander Parvus’s slogan of “permanent warfare, permanent revolution” is the essence of the evil which threatens the civilization of the entirety of this planet, now.

If this trend is not changed, Bach will not be heard, even where the score itself is read, even by those who are reading the score. It might as well be the role assigned to chimpanzees!

Since the imperialisms of today are essentially trans-Atlantic institutions, and since the means of warfare and kindred evils are the instruments which have been employed to bring the general ruin of mankind about, it is essential to remind all among us, that it were the very essence of evil to continue to promote, or, encourage in any fashion the predatory practices of that set of would be “gods” who are fiercely determined to exterminate anything fit to be called “civilization,” which is intended to reduce the human population of the world to the pre-civilized conditions of the 14th -century European period of the “Black Death.”

At this moment, the removal of an increasingly crazed British imperial asset, President Barack Obama stands, if only momentarily, in the doorway of world history, blocking the way of escape from a now onrushing force of what, unless stopped, as if in the streets of London, itself, means the doom of civilization throughout the world. The remedy begins with sending the poor sick idiot, Obama, to the kindly mental-patient’s care he sorely needs, and let us push forcefully ahead, in service of that cause which is true humanity, which means ending the long rule of those who would declare themselves “gods,” for the mastery over a fiery ascent of mankind to reaching our coming destiny in the stars, where we shall continue in service to the Creator of the stars.

Footnotes

1There is no doubt that Wiener’s part in presenting the case for what has been named automation, had important significance at that time. Indeed, despite my systemic rejections of Wiener’s physical dogma, the use of electronically refined control mechanisms in the domain of production, was, and remains economically significant in the most obvious ways. It was the same crudely mechanistic denial of the role of human creativity, as distinct from the merely clever uses of electronic systems of control, which was the issue of my moral and scientific objections to Wiener from the beginning. Hilbert’s project had already successfully demonstrated that Wiener’s principal, proposed thesis, was a systemic failure. That latter proof by Hilbert’s failure, was, itself, a significant scientific achievement.
2Consider the communications between Max Planck and Wolfgang Koehler on related subjects, and also the closing paragraphs of Percy B. Shelley’s A Defence of Poetry, in this context.
3E.g., nanotechnology.
4Abandon any presumption that Gauss was ever actually opposed, in his own mind, to what was the direction implicit in Riemann’s own work. Gauss presented the effects of his discoveries, but, often, judiciously withheld explicit account of the origin of his proofs in the discoveries, as this is demonstrated clearly in Gauss’s reluctance to identify his own views on the exact form of systemic error in the so-called “non-Euclidean” geometries of Lobatchevsky and Jonas Bolyai. At the bottom, despite some contrary specialist opinion, Gauss was a beneficiary of the Gottfried Leibniz tradition of the great Eighteenth-century mathematician and scholar Abraham Kaestner, under whom, together with Zimmerman, the youthful Gauss had studied during the years immediately preceding the 1800 death of Kaestner. The relevant hoax appears as a commentary in the preface to a three-volume work on Kaestner. These reductionist forms of apparent peculiarites of the ironies of scientific work at the beginning of the Nineteenth century, were largely the effects of the spread of the direct and indirect cultural effects of the British Foreign Office’s orchestration of the French Revolution and the British and Metternich’s orchestration of Napoleonic Wars according to the model of Britain’s orchestration of the Seven Years War, and by the continuing corruption orchestrated by the spy-system of Metternich’s spy G.W.F. Hegel, until the fall of Metternich’s power. With the death of Friedrich Schiller, the von Humboldt brothers served as the central point of reference for the progress of science and education in Europe. David Shavin has traced out the central role which Dirichlet, together with his wife, the granddaughter of the great Moses Mendelssohn, and which the Dirichlet tradition continued to play in both science and music over the course of the Nineteenth century, into the time of the death of Johannes Brahms.
5Riemann Werke, pp. 288-289. Riemann had been a participant in the crucial experimental work of Gauss and Wilhelm Weber. It was this which was under attack by Heinrich Weber (no relative) in consort with the mathematicians Clausius and Hermann Grassmann. The experiment which discredits Clausius and Grassmann completely on this matter is well known and involves a known principle which is readily demonstrated since the experiment was produced by Wilhelm Weber’s role as the leader in that discovery. The fictitious “Second law of thermodynamics” has been an outgrowth the argument put forward by the mathematicians Clausius and Grassmann.
6Gauss’s actual knowledge of the principle of non-Euclidean geometry was a reflection of the influence of the first of his professors, the great Abraham Kaestner who had been the leading mathematician (and a notable polymath) of the Eighteenth Century circles of such as those of Gotthold Lessing and Moses Mendelssohn. Notably, Kaestner had been a leading German advocate of Benjamin Franklin’s role in the founding of the United States, for which Kaestner was not much liked among the post-French Revolution period of the 1790s. Hence, Gauss who had come to understand this conception, by Kaestner, of “non-Euclidean geometry” while a student under Kaestner, had excellent considerations in the realm of personal security to avoid bringing that matter up explicitly at the time of the discussion of Jonas Bolyai’s proposal. It was not until the role of Lejeune Dirichlet and Bernhard Riemann, that what Gauss had actually discovered was echoed by Dirichlet and Riemann, et al., in the context of the subject of Abelian functions. It should be noted that the relevant three-volume work of Abraham Kaestner features a contemporary publisher-assigned preface reciting an intellectual midget’s presently standard frauds against Kaestner.
7Cf. Eratosthenes on Archytas’ duplication of the cube.
8During the 1980s and early 1990s, the majority among the leading Classical singing voices of trans-Atlantic world, and also numerous instrumentalists, understood that Bach well-tempering hinged on C-256, was the only decent standard for the training and use of the human singing voice. The same was true, in fact, for musical instruments worth considering. Today’s widespread destruction of what had become recognized as European Classical musical culture occurred as an existentialist rape of the human mind and artistic beauty centered on the launching of the rabidly existentialist noise-making engendered by the spirit of the 1950 founding of the post-World War II Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF). While the Dulles faction’s elements associated with the U.S.A.’s CIA attempted to cover its dirty rear-end in this matter by pretending that the replacement of music and beauty by cacophony was “innocently anti-Communist,” the existentialist noise and ugly splatter promoted by the CCF has turned out to have been the systemic destruction of both beauty and sanity of trans-Atlantic cultures today. The dogma of “elevated pitch,” was only one of the massive aggregation of obscenity mustered under the sometime leadership of my notable, avowed adversary of the time, as in a famous debate in December 1971, Professor Sidney Hook.