At the brink of confusion:

WHEN GOVERNMENTS CRUMBLE

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

May 8, 2011


Unless the original Glass-Steagall Law of 1933 were re-enacted almost immediately, the general collapse of the U.S. financial system were imminent for some time during the remainder of this year, or even earlier. It would be a general collapse within the present trans-Atlantic system, with consequent effects which would, almost certainly, engulf the remainder of the planet’s surface.

This presently calamitous trend under the Barack Obama Presidency, is expressed in accelerated rates of downward physical-economic effects, effects now moving toward collapse of the Federal states of the U.S.A., as, similarly, throughout the trans-Atlantic region generally. This emphasizes the presently aggravated quality of that continuing calamity, which was created in the form of its currently aggravated expression by the impact of the November 2, 2010 U.S. national election. This is the expression of what has been a trend, a trend which has brought those states of the republic, themselves, into a point of fragility, a point at which this nation now hovers at the brink of a chain-reaction-like state of a presently rapid worsening, and now chronically crumbling, physical form of economic breakdown, a breakdown with characteristics which waver in moment to moment emphasis, wavering between what are essentially matters of the internal U.S.A. crisis, and global kinds of disorientation.1The original phase of this trend was set into motion during July-August 2007. It has been continuously aggravated since the initial phase of the presently continued succession of “bail-out”schemes in 2008.

Such is the presently spreading state of affairs throughout the trans-Atlantic region of this planet. For the present moments, such a pattern of effects already prevails as the current status, with the result that, most notably, both the United States and throughout the zone called the crisis-stricken “Euro,” were regions of the world which were doomed, a doom more and more that which would become closer to the point of the irreparable, were we to proceed without the virtually immediate passage of the original, 1933 intent of the Glass-Steagall act (H.R. 1489) by the United States. The point has already been reached, that members of Congress who act to prevent an early victory for the original Glass-Steagall’s restoration would be contributing to the likelihood of their participating in a crime against humanity. The importance of Glass-Steagall is a matter of such urgency as exists now.

This would have been the present direction of trends and their consequences even if the pro-genocidal proposals of Hans Joachim Schellnhuber’s avowedly pro-genocidal WBGU had not been launched. The British empire’s launching of its puppet Schellnhuber’s mass-murder, a mass-murder presently far worse than Adolf Hitler’s population-reduction hoax, is being carried to a monstrous extreme, an extreme which had already been the British intention for sending the planet as a whole into sheer Hell. There is, speaking practically, no actually efficient, present barrier to global disaster, without the chances for passage of U.S.A.’s H.R. 1489 legislation as the pathway for halting the presently accelerating breakdown-crisis of the entirety of the trans-Atlantic region—and, therefore, beyond.

My own part in this, as reflected in what is written here, has been to reflect a process of discoveries and related kinds of developments which has included the greater part of my own achievements as a professional in economic forecasting over the greater portion (1956-2011) of my 88 years of life to date; but, this has been work also designed to take into account the roles in scientific and related matters of my present associates, including their discoveries and related product, all to the effect of treating the interrelationship among these sources as, then and now, the expression of a single, coherent effort.

Thus, I am enabled to present my own overview of a combination of such facts, as I do here, We must assess the present world-wide situation accordingly, in all relevant respects.


Foreword:

HUMAN LIFE: MAN AND HIS CREATOR...

For today’s most profoundly bestirred, but often bewildered scientist, the first Chapter of Genesis becomes, more and more, an astonishingly precise statement of a prophetic quality of that chapter’s seemingly unique accuracy, that in its resemblance to a crucial work of physical science. Since our Solar system is a younger part of our galaxy, we might wonder: who might have been living “out there,” or, who, perhaps, still today, is a species whose design is akin to that of our own?


At the present date of writing this report, the science program of the LPAC team known as “the basement,” has been in the process of completion of a special video report for early publication, a report which summarizes the record of life on our home-planet, Earth.2http://larouchepac.com/galactic-question That study, by my associate Cody Jones et al., will subsume an area of recaptured experience since a time approximately a half-billion years ago. That report will present, in that so-indicated other publication of my associates, the deeply underlying issues, and implications of the history of life within the context of what is presently known to the combined product of both this author and those associates, respecting the relevant galactic principles themselves.

The standpoint of reference employed for that referenced LPAC “basement” report, will be dedicated to the subject of our progress in seeking a better understanding of the subject of the history of life as such. It will be a report which locates life on our planet under the authority of our Solar system’s existence, but does this within those more broadly defined conditions which our own galaxy itself has defined for the effects of the successive phases of ascent and descent of Solar system within this galaxy, effects on the existence of forms of life on Earth.

The emphasis in my own report before you here, is placed on showing a correlation between the progressive evolution of life on Earth in respect to the changes which the evolution of life-forms has induced as changes in the ordering of living processes. Here, I am considering that process of change in a direction from qualitatively lower to higher forms of systems of life on our planet, with strong emphasis on the relevant features of my profession as a physical economist in my accomplishments as having become recognized as a remarkably successful, if usually politically embattled economic forecaster during the course of the recent forty years.

I view the ongoing changes since the death of President Franklin Roosevelt, and, most emphatically, the persisting downshifts in the U.S. economy since the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy, as decades of shifts which occur under those physical conditions of the near-the-surface region of the planet’s setting, as those ensuing shifts are each situated, more immediately for our present understanding today, in terms of the effects to be recognized within the bounds of the domain of our Sun. The consideration of the factor of those externally induced changes on Earth, is to be combined with the effect of those internal changes in our planet’s conditions which have been, in their turn, changes which have shaped the potentials for, and characteristics of the long-standing pattern within the existence of newly emerging, as also vanishing life-forms on our planet.

That process, when considered within the domain of our Sun, is situated within the adducibly lawful changes in those conditions for life on our planet which coincide with characteristic cycles of the Solar system’s movements with respect to our galaxy.

Such are the bare boundaries of our subject-matter here. The deeper implications of those facts themselves, may begin to be explained in the following terms.

The Terms of Reference

The need for that amount of attention to the specific set of interlocking considerations shown here, is to be located in the need to eliminate certain viciously ruinous errors which have been widely tolerated by mankind thus far. These have been errors of backwardness which have tended, heretofore, to be carried over into much of both the attempted practice of science, and of mankind’s frequent fits of resistance to that progress.

On that account, I emphasize, as Bernhard Riemann had done in the closing section of his 1854 habilitation dissertation, that this element of reluctance to conduct the pursuit of progress, has been a factor to be included as an intended effect of the corruption imposed by arbitrary reliance on the intrinsically and viciously misguided applications of merely reductionist, and also failed applications of mathematics to economy, failures which are the unfortunate realities of our universe during the span of several recent generations.3Cf. Bernhard Riemann, Habilitation Dissertation, concluding section. These failures of often mutually contrary sets of applied scientific and related presumptions, have been marked by results which are typified as being results of the continuing influence of the systemically fraudulent character of the Aristotelean system of geometry associated traditionally with the discredited name of Euclid earlier, and the heritage of the Liberalism of Paolo Sarpi more recently.

Damn Euclid!

For the purposes of the subject at hand, we must place special emphasis on the subjects of the respectively systemic distinctions of both the already intrinsically noëtic principle of life itself, from that of the still higher quality of noëtic causation manifest by the activity of human cognition: as the combined contributions by Bernhard Riemann and Russian and Ukrainian Academician V.I. Vernadsky have shown.

Today, the relatively more frequent source of problems on this account, has been those regrettably pervasive errors of presumption which are rooted in a reductionist’s form of deductive method. This fault is to be recognized as often being located in a combination of the form of some a-priori presumptions of reductionism which are to be traced either to such origins as Aristotelean method, or, to the crucial features of alteration of the Aristotelean methods by the introduction of the present role of that inherently failed, statistical method of economists and like professionals, a method whose origin is traced from the influence of Paolo Sarpi, to that of such Sarpi followers as Antonio Conti, and by Conti’s Eighteenth-century followers in this practice. The present followers of that school of philosophical reductionism are typified by both the emergence of, and victims of the still presently dominant role of the British empire’s culture on this planet at large.

For reason of the relevance of what is, unfortunately, the popularity of the intrinsic follies of modern empiricism, it is necessary to stress the fact, again, here, that the implicitly criminal features of the evolution of Sarpian empiricism, are features which are to be traced, in principle, from the influence of Paolo Sarpi in pre-shaping the corruption of what was to become known as Eighteenth-century British empiricism generally, a corruption by the so-called “pleasure-pain” principle which is intrinsic to the philosophical standpoint of contemporary reductionism.

At a point since the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, this process became the evolution into a philosophical standpoint known to us as the notoriously fraudulent concoctions of “Darwinism,” and, notably, still later, by the form of the extremely radical incompetence inhering in the methods traceable largely to Bertrand Russell himself, as also to the radical positivism of both his school of Cambridge systems analysis and the folly of the latter school’s expression in the form of the ideology of the Laxenberg International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA).

As I have often stated, and restated, since the time of my adolescent years’ rejection of the fraudulent, a-priori presumptions of a so-called Euclidean geometry, no single faculty of human perception could define, by itself, the actually efficient substance of any reality. The simplest demonstration of that fact was, for me, my first realization, early during my adolescence, that we must take what had been cases like my own exemplary experience in study of the physical work done in supporting a steel structure at the Boston area’s Charlestown Navy Yard, as a typification of the mission to which the design of the form of such a structure must be dedicated.4It was my recognition of this experimental proof of the falseness inherent in a Euclidean geometry, which had won me to the study of the work of Leibniz at the beginning of my adolescent years. It was made apparent to me, even then, from study of the role of steel in the erection of high-rise structures, that no single physical dimension of sense-perception can define the meaning of experience. Today, I would prefer to have traced the principle so expressed to such ancient and modern precedents as Archytas’ duplication of the cube, Eratosthenes’ measurement of the size of the Earth, the discovery of the physical principle of the catenary by such as Filippo Brunelleschi, and by such others among his followers as Nicholas of Cusa and as by Leonardo da Vinci, and the development of the physical principle of least action by Gottfried Leibniz, as he had done, in following Johannes Kepler’s uniquely original proof of the discovery of a universal physical principle expressed as the principle of gravitation.

For example:

In addition to the need to exclude what I have just indicated as being the typical, inherent, practical incompetencies in the outgrowths of the method of modern empiricism from its earlier roots: we must place special emphasis on the specificity of what have been both the chronic and typically vicious follies of modern statistical methods themselves. It is indispensable, on this account, that we must adopt the benefits of the work of Bernhard Riemann and of his immediate collaborators of those same circles of such followers of the Leibniz heritage of France’s original Ecole Polytechnique as Alexander von Humboldt and the circles associated with Carl F. Gauss. We must then emphasize such followers of the influence of Riemann as Max Planck and Albert Einstein, as the latter pair have been leading cases of the urgency of the continuing development of that Riemann tradition, and what was to be seen later, as being the indispensable Riemannian basis for the fuller development of the method of Academician V.I. Vernadsky, a Riemannian basis whose adoption was emphasized by Vernadsky himself, beginning no later than during the middle of the 1930s.

Instead of the error of presuming, as a matter of a rough illustration of this point, that “State A” generates the existence of “State B,” which generates “State C;” we must “map” the existence of “State B” as, now, also, modifying, anti-entropically, predecessor “State A,” as if retrospectively, into becoming a new “State A1,” and also as a new “State B1;” these are changes which interact, in effect, to generate, also, “State A [B1,C],” and, also, “State [B2C2], etc. If that might be considered awkward to some, at first glance, the fact of the matter is, as Albert Einstein emphasized in stating his judgement on Kepler’s uniquely original and largely developed discovery of the principle of gravitation as such, that the existing universe in which we exist, is always, causally, a finite universe, but, speaking ontologically, existing without any efficient form of containment of the form of an external bounding of its current, “self-expanding” existence of a universal domain of “cosmic radiation.” The latter domain is one which contains no actuality of “empty space” within what may appear to some as the implied, momentary self-bounding of its actually unbounded universality.

Einstein’s argument for this type of case, has provided the precedent which, thereby, establishes, as a kind of an intellectual springboard, a standard of competence for all subsequent expressions of a competent approach to modern science, despite those credulous opportunists who, even still today, defend the silly notion that Newton had discovered anything, excepting only the solitary case of his one, famous and only, single-sentence address to the meeting of a British Parliament, “Will someone please open a window?” By the early Nineteenth Century, the conclusive experimental evidence was, that Newton had not actually produced even some most obscure and minute, principled feature of a competent scientific practice.

This criticism of Isaac Newton and his like, is not to be considered unfair, by any means. The oligarchical system, as typified in ancient through modern manifestations, depends upon what have been “flat out,” false assertions whose motivation has been the intent of stupefying of the credulous, a trick done for the sake of driving the so-called “lower classes” into a state of relative impotence respecting matters of scientific and related principles. Newton spoke fraud; whether he himself knew the truth, is a matter of relative indifference. The purpose assigned to that foolish fellow, was a lynch-mob-like form of bombast which had been intended to induce the mass of credulous scholars and their likenesses, to believe what the oligarchical interest wished to induce them to wish to believe, not by methods of science, but those more brutish methods of intimidation aided by the arts of administering a sense of pleasure or pain. The case of the mass credulity induced by the reductionist methods of geometry known as “Euclidean,” had already illustrated that point.

The relevant correction needed for treating this case of Newton and his like, is a statement which regards any action within a universe of action which proceeds in a manner according to attributed principle, as a potential change (or, “change of potential”) in the totality of an otherwise finite, but never externally bounded, total domain of action. There is a proof of principle to this effect, to which we should arrive at a suitable later point. However, this much can be said, that confidently, here, presently, when we will have come to the chapter on the subject of a science of physical economy.

To amplify the crucial point which I have just made here: any such change in the principled state of a finite, but unbounded system, such as that of our actually experienced universe, is an expression of an existence whose generation lies as if, ostensibly “outside” what might be presumed, at first hand, to have existed, ontologically, up to that point, but is actually not such.

This is in despite of the lack of an external bounding, as if “instantaneously,” by some relatively pre-fixed system. The action of change to which I point, is an intrinsically anti-entropic action in progress. That universe is a self-defined process of creation, rather than an externally created one.

Such is the proper physical meaning of “creation.” That is to say such things as that we must presume, from our relatively humble standpoint presently, that “the Creator inhabits His creation, thoroughly.”

This is properly illustrated by introducing another conception, to restate the implications of the immediately preceding paragraph in a statement of the following form on the subject of sense-perception.

Consider the case of an hypothetical person’s assessment of a set of footprints which are reasonably presumed to be the effect of the movement of a person or beast who is not seen “in the picture” at this time. What might we presume from a scanning of that succession of those footprints, which is the spoor of the action?

Who, or what, can we propose to say, is the authorship of that pattern of footprints? It is not the mere part which is changed; it is the system containing those parts which is self-changed by the apparent generation of a relative, successor state of the presumed universe. There could be no competent modern science, except for pedagogical speculation, which takes at least this much of the matter into account; statistical methods, when used as a substitute for science, or for economic forecasting, are the trash which the performances of the majority of economic forecasters have most efficiently demonstrated such methods to be.

The foregoing, descriptive corrections do have, in the simpler aspects of the matter, an existing place in contemporary physical science, as being descriptive; but, that duly noted, there remain some much deeper implications to be considered.

It is necessary to pause to wrestle, pedagogically, with some speculations.

At first apprehension, the currently prevalent type of conclusion would be premised upon the functions of human sense-perception of evidence which might be classed as in the nature of “clues.”

However, since the human sense-perception presumes a quality of agency which is competent to generate a concept of that action of the attributed mind, we must ask: what is the type of object which constitutes the prompting of a manifestation of an actual function of that mind, as distinct from mere sense-perception? Where does the principle of creation of higher states lie? The typical problem posed to many, still today, is posed as the following question.

“What is the cognizable object” which constitutes the efficient existence of the characteristic function of that mind? Although the exertion of the mind appears to be the author of the experience of the function of that mind, this is not actually a possibility; what is it that is built into sense-perception which is real, but which is not sense-perception as such, but which is, rather, an object of “cognition” (i.e., “which is a creative principle of ‘mind’”)?

In other words, what is the ontological distinction of a universal principle from a mere fact, or mere method? The problem posed by such questioning of our own mental processes, is equivalent to the matter of a universal physical or comparable principle, as a principle of our universe, or a virtual approximation of such a case.

Or, put the point as follows.

Just as, Kepler, for example, defined a universal principle of gravitation, in terms of the contrast of visual and harmonic orderings of sense-perceptual experience, so all notions validly classed as “universal principles,” or their fair approximation, are, functionally of that same ontological class.

Consider the following alternative as illustrating a case to be treated more thoroughly at a later point.

Let us proceed to restate the formal expressions of that case, therefore, from the fact that there is no proof to the effect that the act of sense-perception is an act which is independent of the subjective opinion which is mere sense-perception. Sense-perception is as Johannes Kepler’s discovery of the principle of gravitation demonstrated, as illustrated by the fact that an image-like conception of a practically sensed experience is, in ontological terms, a qualified fiction which must be treated, from inception, as an experiment to be tested.

That is to argue, that since everything known by mankind is presumed be governed by a law of the universe: wherein lies the authority of such a “universe,” if such an authority is presumed to depend upon the role of the so-called “practical man’s” mere sense-perception?

To grasp the essential features of that general point of argument, take the exemplary case of Kepler’s uniquely original discovery of gravitation, in which the principle of gravitation is not deduced directly from sense-perception, but, rather, indirectly, from a proof of the systemic fallacy, or the like, of mere sense-perception. The value for gravitation is located in the contradiction between the two relatively ontological sets of sense-perceptual phenomena considered: sight and harmonics. What Kepler demonstrated as such an ontological experience, is the fruit of an experience which occurs “outside” the domain of sense-perceptual forms of experience; this is the characteristic which defines any valid principle attributable to the use of the effects of sensory experience.

The proper role of sense-perception is to capture the image of certain among the shadows which the unseen reality casts as the shadows known to the senses.

The existence of that class of existences known as that which has cast “the shadows,” is to be recognized by the substance whose name is not “sense perception,” but “mind.” “Mind,” so portrayed, is, therefore, not an expression of sense-perception, in itself; mind seeks a truly universal principle of crucial-experimental search for a truth which subsumes, but is not subsumed by sense-perception. This is to treated, as in the manner which Kepler employed for the first authentic concept of a principle of gravitation.

So, on precisely this account, Albert Einstein recognized this in his treatment of the case of Kepler’s discovery of a great universal principle: that the universe of experience, is systemically finite, but not bounded: not bounded by perceived quantity, but in the nature of a self-containing universal principle which is actually known only to the mind. Or, should we not say, as a matter of illustration, the principle of the composition of the fugue as self-defined as a self-contained domain of experience, as defined by the practice of Johann Sebastian Bach.

This conclusion is not exotic; it is the contrary opinion, that based in sense-certainty, which is at fault. Sense-certainty typifies the foolishly fanciful notions associated with a lack of cognitive development, as with the case of deductions made as a statistical form of readings of footprints per se.

Such is the expression of the true principle of mind as such. Does that living through such an experience by a relative ingenue as that, seem to “break a Newton’s head” to the perceived effect of the likeness of a shattered coconut? The actually cognitive powers of the human mind exist in a domain beyond the reach of the notions of mere sense-perception, notions to be found in a more rigorous conception of the “tuned circuit” of mind per se. It is in the fragmentation of the experience of reality, to such an effect, that the unifying wholeness of reality is not the dominant consideration, that the worst effects often tend to find their way in.

Let our dialogue be continued now accordingly.

The Great Principle of Our Universe

The modern study, to the present date, of the known history of life on our planet Earth, as the presented evidence has been examined by the “basement team,” has not only revealed the existence of a galactic character of those patterns of life generally, but the fruitful estimate to the effect, that that which has existed since approximately a half-billions years, more or less, is a condition known to us through evidence presently available to the practice of physical science. The evidence has also revealed human life on this planet, as a condition existing within the recent several millions of years.

In our study of such matters, the crucial evidence to be considered is located in the expressions of chiefly two patterns of scientific knowledge. Firstly, that the ordering of the successive changes in dominant living species on Earth during this term, has been from increasingly powerful expressions of the self-development of living species in bringing life on our planet to higher forms, that, ultimately, to the appearance of mankind on this planet during the recent several millions of years. Second, that the process leading into the leading role of the human species on this planet, has demonstrated both that which is the historically defined, superior influence on this planet, the influence of an increasing power of living processes over non-living, and the superior creative powers of the human mind over all other forms of life in shaping this progress. Thirdly: the manifest ability, specific to mankind, to bring about the willfully crafted progress of mankind to accomplish works of transformation which are ultimately more powerful forces than those of any other known living species.

We must conclude, that the universe itself is ontologically creative (“anti-entropically”) in the large. Life itself is intrinsically creative. Mankind has a higher quality of potential for creativity than that of any other known living species.

Therefore, must we not name the power of this cognitive function specific to the human species—the “noösphere,” the human imagination?

Then, consider it to be the case, that with these foregoing words, we have set upon our stage the following content of the following first chapter of this report.


1. THE PRINCIPLE OF METAPHOR


The following statement presented in this present chapter, makes reference to a state of mind which is not a sensory image in itself, but, rather, belongs to a higher order of efficient idea than within the domain of presumed, elementary sense-certainty.

The relatively unwitting person points, by one means or another, to an object of one or another, specific organ of sense-perception. Or, that person might register, similarly, an array of comparably simple, single acts of sense-perception occurring more or less simultaneously. Nonetheless, despite such a latter, simpler quality of multiplicity, the most important of the experiences of human behavior, are those not of sense-perceptual objects, or the like, but is what we have shown, otherwise, to be that which can be shown to be an efficiently real state of being, as that of what is a well-definable state of mind, but which is not a matter of the apparently discrete, particular images of sense-perception as such.

Rather, what the latter person does, is something akin to what Johannes Kepler did in discovering the principle of gravitation: use the paradoxical conjunction of different qualities of sense-perception as the method of experiment, as by contrasting the notions of vision and of harmonics, by which a principle of nature is adduced experimentally, as in Kepler’s discovery of gravitation.

These are higher orders of forms of efficiently expressed objects of principles of action, which we may regard as subjects of thought-objects, but which are not sense-perceptions as such, and which are of that type which can be demonstrated to be efficiently real objects when expressed in the form of the principle of action, rather than as fixed objects of sense-perception, as I had done, as, in effect, rejecting the notion of Euclidean geometry in the course of recurring visits to the Charlestown Navy Yard which occurred during my adolescence. Such anomalous thought-experiments, when used as methods of discovery of the existence of physical principles, and of related later proofs, as Kepler did, are typical of the higher order of forms of those communicable states of mind, which are to be classed, ontologically, under the name of metaphor.

Such are the implications of the mind’s conception of a universal physical principle, or the like notions of principles of Classical artistic composition and performance, as J.S. Bach’s Preludes and Fugues illustrate this, and as my late friend, Norbert Brainin, conducted his experimental proof of a precious, antique violin as tuned to the equivalent of C=256. All notions which are valid as states of principle, rather than a particular thing, are in this higher class which is occupied typically by notions of principle, rather than the inherent brutishness of raw, unreasoned, sense-perception.

For example: All true physical principles belong properly to the class of metaphors, but, not all metaphors are truthfully representative of principles. Metaphor is, otherwise, the essential name for the domain of that which is ontologically actual, but which is not a “thingness” suggested as a fixed object of sense-perception; it is, instead, an expression of specifically human creativity, as creativity is expressed as nothing as much as it represents the principle of ontological quality of expression of change itself. We have become, once we concur with this devotion to experimental and related fact, thus, rightly joined to Bernhard Riemann in avowing the great principle which is compacted into its expression as the concluding sentence of his celebrated 1854 habilitation dissertation. We have joined Riemann in departing the imperialist domain of the department of mathematics, for the actuality of the discovery of those universal principles of physical science whose subject is the study of the generation of the quality of change as such.

On that note, the fun now begins.

Any true principle may be, often, thus expressed for the human mind, by a principle which is not a sense-perception, but which can be demonstrated as being efficient, in the sense of some efficient mode of meaningfully distinct state of mind. This can be demonstrated by what is equivalent to an experimentally provable principle of nature.

Let me be a bit more precise about science. For example:

Johannes Kepler’s then uniquely original, and uniquely competent discovery of the universal principle of gravitation, is exemplary. This discovery defines, in turn, what deserves to be considered as among the categories of both physical principles and Classical artistic modes of insight into the principled features of social processes.

It is most useful, to place emphasis on the poetic name for the ontological principle among the body of all competent physical science. That principle is, therefore, “change as such,” so expressed as being congruent with Heraclitus’ “nothing but change,” as in Plato’s Parmenides dialogue.

For example, apparently exceptional instances of mass behavior, so far, as by birds in migratory flights, or, by the deliberate movements of fish and of other native creatures of the sea, as of animal migrations, especially as precursors of major, or nearly major earthquakes, and so forth, reflect the influence of a principle of electrodynamic functions of some living organism, as by means of a notion of cosmic radiation, a notion which liberates man from the folly of belief in the notion of “empty space.” We, as human individuals, have been of relatively poor quality heretofore, for “tuning in” directly on such animal functions; but, then, for what we might appear to have lost in such an arrangement, in this way, it should become evident to us, that we have gained, in this way, in the freedom to choose the manner in which we regard our access to the liberty of a choice of direction. We are, when in this mode, demonstrating to ourselves and others that we are not animals; we have shown ourselves to be truly human beings.

Everything in the universe is implicitly creative in the proper meaning of ontology; since the universe itself were ontologically creative inherently; but, to the best of our present knowledge, only the human mind, among all presently known living creatures in this universe, among all living species known to us, is intrinsically creative in a truly voluntary way, as we express this by applying the principle of metaphor, as the valid work of all truly creative artists is done. Only man is presently known to us as being a living creature designed to be in the functional likeness of a Creator on this account.

In both the cases of the indicated range of types of animal behavior, or human behavior, the sense-functions may share outward similarities, as in terms of apparent, functional effects; but, the qualities of the two classes of effects are systemically different, and, therefore, and even when truthful as statements, are not a sharing of a common truth with respect to the idea-content of the function performed. In all cases, as I emphasize here, the truthfulness of our witting experience of sense-perception as such, lies, ontologically, essentially, in the domain of Classical-artistic notions of metaphor.

The name for the specific nature of this quality of specifically human freedom, is the Platonic function known as “the principle of hypothesizing an higher hypothesis.” Here, the thesis which I shall present, is my own; but, nonetheless, it is inherently, implicitly knowable to mankind generally, as I shall state the case for that, here, as that might be adduced from the standpoint of my own accomplishments in the domain of a science of physical economy. I name that thesis which I have introduced in this present chapter of this report thus far, “On the subject of the actual human mind,” stating the case as I have summarily outlined it, most recently, as the principal thesis of a report to my associates.

I summarize that case as follows.

The Specific Nature of Man

It is a truly intelligent person, who can recognize both the true source and imprint of his, or her own actual “footprints” on history.

The conclusion which is to be drawn from what passes for reported cases of varieties of popular opinions throughout much of this planet thus far, is that most among mankind generally still remains ignorant of the state of mind which defines the expression of its own true nature and plausible destiny. That widespread factor of ignorance is expressed as a naive belief in the notion of “sense-certainty.”

There once were those times during which some cultures existed which need not be forgiven for their indifference to the creative powers of the human mind, an indifference which is often premised, notably among academics, on assertions of blind faith in the experience of “sense-perception,” as by the followers of the notorious idiot-savant, John von Neumann; times had long since passed, as, for example, during the birth-pangs of those Classical cultural traditions once paramount among the elite of ancient Egypt and what is known, retrospectively, today, as typical of ancient Classical civilizations. The relevant needed conception of the implications of this fact, was supplied, implicitly, in a large degree, by the work of Bernhard Riemann’s 1854 habilitation dissertation, most emphatically its concluding, third section.

This acquisition of this often disregarded quality of intellectual skill, is not essentially a matter of notions created by mere accumulation of learning, or other mere experience. Creativity, on the contrary, is inherent in the development of the specifically noëtic capabilities and potentialities of the individual human mind, as cases such as Archytas and Plato, or the great Eratosthenes, exhibited this.

In all studies of the principles of creative behavior to which I have been referred, the access to a native power of human creativity in the discovery, or mere recognition of the quality of principle, are established in early years of life, and, once manifest in the work of educational institutions, may not be retrievable after a wrestling with the agonies of advanced academic training for the higher degrees, where and when the graduate student is trained more to conform—or, to employ the alternative term, “to behave,” rather than to think in a serious way.

Thus as in the often more or less disastrous cases of the effects of what I have witnessed among some post-1945 “multiversities,” as Dr. Lawrence S. Kubie reported on such relative disasters in his well-known studies of such problems in his 1958 The Neurotic Distortion of the Creative Process, and his later, 1962 Daedalus piece, “On the Fostering of Scientific Creative Productivity.

Perhaps the most relevant case of academic forms of systemic destruction of the inherent creative potential of once-gifted students, is that typified by the case of von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern in the 1953 edition of their The Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Von Neumann’s standing as a putative “idiot-savant,” is correlated with his expulsion from Göttingen by David Hilbert (on charges comparable to an earlier expulsion from Göttingen of Norbert Wiener on somewhat similar grounds).


II. PHYSICAL SCIENCE LOOKS AT POLITICAL ECONOMY


The subject of an actually willful form of promotion of both the physically efficient maintenance and the improvement of human life among the nations of our planet, begs for clarification of the role of money, or its equivalent, in a national economy, or in a set of national economies. Before turning attention in this chapter to those deeper matters of physical-economic values, a certain amount of forgivable, but necessary discussion of this subject as a problem for physical science, must precede that treatment of the latter topic.

First: All scientifically real, competent notions of economics can, and must be expressed in the form of a science of physical economy, rather than a money-economy. All of the worst of the great, systemic errors in the attempted practice of national economies, for example, are to be classed as the results of an emphasis on accounting practices consistent with past or contemporary standards of political economy, rather than physical economy.

Folly, especially that of popular forms of past and present society, presumes, incompetently, that national economy is the summation of an aggregation of pieces of local economy, rather than the truth, which is the reverse: that local expressions of economy are the effect of a unified process of national economy. It is for that reason that the citizens of the United States, and most of those nominally economics processionals, in particular, have been too easily, and popularly, duped and swindled, as, often popularly, on numerous, even leading accounts, today.

The particular folly inherent in money-economy, on this account, is exhibited in the frequent indifference of nations, and many among their population, to the kind of ultimate hopelessness they will tolerate, through their utterly misplaced confidence in their monetarist, or comparable economic system, up to the point of the more or less catastrophic eruption of some catastrophe from the relevant economy. This occurs as among the official institutions of a U.S.A., or a Europe, which is presently nearing a general, hyperinflationary trend toward a rather immediate breakdown-crisis of their current economic system, even as near as a few months, or even weeks away. This may be the result of a breakdown in either the monetary aspect of an ongoing economy, or, as presently, a hyperinflationary form of physical breakdown of the physical-economic process, as in 1923 Weimar Germany, or in the general case of the trans-Atlantic economies presently.

Therefore, frequently, when the citizen usually refers to “economics,” he, or she, is speaking as the virtually certified victim of the more or less fluent advocate of a familiar language, but, respecting the actual content of their speech, that person usually does not actually comprehend, or, often, refuses to acknowledge the looming catastrophe rooted in the nature of the discord between the money economy and the physical economy. He, or she, prefers to think of what can be bought, rather than what is either being produced, where the employment needed to gain adequate purchasing-power is to be located, or how near a clearly defined general collapse might be.

Therefore, while all of the ordinarily obvious beliefs concerning economics are expressions of a commonly shared misunderstanding of the suggested subject of discussion, the worst of the commonplace expressions of those chronic diseases are of the quality of what is classed as “political economy,” which are those related to the form of fantasy-life known as “monetarism.”

Sarpi & the Roots of Monetarism

I find it necessary, that before coming to the affirmative form of the issues of a science of physical economy, that we must act, here and now, to clarify, and then put to one side, that moral disease of the human mind which is inherent in the methodological legacy of Paolo Sarpi, and in that legacy’s influence on both what are, currently, those widely taught, enormously destructive, and systemically incompetent principles of economy, which are based on the modern empiricism otherwise known as philosophical liberalism.

Since I have covered much of the immediately following points in numerous earlier published locations, I now need only indicate summarily the implications of Sarpi for British and related forms of deformed ideology and their effects on modern morals and principles of practiced Liberal economy and its ideology.

Modern liberalism, the British Liberalism, was brought into today’s United Kingdom and the British empire itself, as under the flag carried into those isles by that William of Orange who was the spokesman for the flag of the New Venetian Party. This development was the outcome of a product of Paolo Sarpi’s recognition of the utter incompetence, for a modern Europe, of the continuation of the previously established ideological hegemony of Aristotelean doctrine. Sarpi represented what was to become known as the New Venetian Party, as distinguished from that then politically bankrupt Aristotelean party which found itself floundering in the intellectual morass which was the Council of Trent.

What Sarpi recognized, at least implicitly so, was that the pre-Fifteenth-century Europe’s collapse into its “New Dark Age,” had ruined the possibility of returning to the previous, medieval form of a new Roman Empire.5In published earlier locations I have referred to the way in which the Venetians of the Fourteenth Century had played their clients, the Italian merchant bankers of the virtual “Wall Street” of their time, for fools, thus setting off the hyperinflationary process which detonated the accumulated follies of that century. The revolutionary changes, reflecting the heritage of the combination of both Dante Alighieri and his Fourteenth Century following, as a change which had been introduced through the Catholic Church’s Councils, especially the great ecumenical Council of Florence, had introduced profoundly revolutionary changes in civilization. Under this new state of affairs, no attempted revival of previous, pro-Aristotelean, Roman imperial systems could succeed politically in any durable fashion. Aristoteleanism was a doomed dinosaur, still floundering, but nonetheless as a dying species.

Sarpi, the nominal beneficiary of this failure of the Sixteenth-century, Aristotelean party-line, had recognized this vulnerability, and, had consequently built a new movement around himself as its relevant leading intellectual figure. This was a role in which he found himself confronted by what would be the essential threat to the attempts of the Sarpians represented by what had become Niccolo Machiavelli’s influence on the military-political-economic processes operating within Sixteenth-century Europe. For the Aristoteleans, Nicholas of Cusa and Christopher Columbus had typified the fact of the already ruined chances of a return to the old pre-dark-age order in Europe.

It is important to be said on relevant occasions, that while Sarpi had assaulted the sally-ports of the Aristoteleans, he, like the later Bertrand Russell, had not abandoned the cause of Aristotle himself. He had, instead, produced “a new Aristotle,” now functioning in the capacities of a virtual political eunuch. A “new prime minister” had seized the control over the throne of “the old emperor.” Aristotle reigned to become an imperial symbol, like a paper-mache “god” created for the edification of the credulous, but the actual practice of governing society, was, now, increasingly, Sarpi’s concoction: “philosophical liberalism.”

Those stated conditions, as reached at that point in history, are the key for any competent effort at understanding the inherent doom embedded in the recent centuries’ past and present condition of the Anglophile varieties of modern philosophical liberalism.

Thus, the prevalent form of the modern European philosophical outlook, as typified by the concept of the new Roman Empire proclaimed by Britain’s Lord Shelburne, permitted the introduction of post-feudalist forms of modern agriculture and manufactures, and a certain, restricted notion of political freedom within the ranks of the general labor force; however, it was in a militant posture against any competent form of a science of political-economy. There, on balance, most of the population of the trans-Atlantic region remains stuck, like overripe garbage, at the point of today’s Liberalism. Hence, the curses which are still raining upon, and reigning over humanity, particularly the trans-Atlantic region, today.

The imperialist form of British Liberalism, thus dominates most of the international system of this planet, still today. Any competent approach to the subject of the practice of economy, continues to depend upon both recognizing that fact, and acting upon it accordingly. The following highlights of Liberalism are to be considered as summarized by me here and now.

Liberalism: Foul & Squishy

Inasmuch as Aristoteleanism had become a surrogate for what it pretended to be a principle, that notion of principle has been typified by Euclidean method which had substituted a-priori presumptions for actual principles, Sarpi’s doctrine for practice permitted no actual principles to be taught. The substitute for principle in Sarpi’s method, was that which was to be echoed by the notorious Adam Smith, as with Smith’s astonishingly precise and succinct assertion of the fact that no actual principle, but only cheap and slimy counterfeits, was to be allowed to exist in what was to become known as Anglo-Dutch philosophical liberalism.

Those merely alleged principles of the Sarpi tradition, were stated succinctly, and consistently, in Smith’s own, 1759 Theory of Moral Sentiments. Insofar as Anglo-Dutch Liberalism permits what it proposes to pass as a principle, Liberalism remains what Sarpi and his Anglo-Dutch followers made it, at least in essential features, to the present time. A triumphant Lord Shelburne, relishing the British empire’s triumph at the 1763 Peace of Paris, adopted Smith as his agent against targets France and the rebellious English-speaking colonies in North America. Smith’s 1759 doctrine thus became British imperial law.

As Smith prescribed in the cited work, the only principle explicitly associated with that modern Liberalism, is that of the human victims’ perceptions of pleasure and pain. Better said, it were a system based upon the practice of the manipulation of the population’s experience of the ruling stratum’s crafting of the selection of pleasures and pains which the ruling agencies prescribed for administrative application.

We see the evidence of this in a clear and relevant expression among the shifting trends of behavior of legislators in North America and Europe. Those supposed paragons of public virtues are, chiefly, the whipped and whimpering weaklings they, in our United States and in Europe, have become since the success of the British and Wall Street interest gained through the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, as we have lately often witnessed this shamefully, cowardly pattern of behavior among U.S. Federal legislators and related political-party leaderships. In such circles “practical” usually signifies the political path of the legislator’s anticipation of the least pain expected by choosing that course of action which is believed to represent the relatively least pain, rather than the actual merits of the issues.

However, before blaming the legislators and their like for what is admittedly their alternation between their cowardice, and their joy in being part of some abusive action against a selected sacrificial lamb for the likeness of the human sacrifice of the moment, it were more important that we recognize that it is the use of the cattle-prods of pleasure and pain, by which legislators and the like are usually herded into a controlled state of behavior. We must consider the means needed to terminate the use of the pleasure-pain principle as a means of control over the intellect of the selected legislative and other targets, including the generality of the citizenry itself.

It is essential that an intended moral reform in the systems of government in the trans-Atlantic regions, be affirmative, rather than capriciously punitive, as the latter option is the prevalent state of affairs met among nations of the trans-Atlantic regions today.

An outhouse behind the house was once named a “convenience.” The populace and governments of a nation should not continue to be degraded to the status of a convenience.

Instead, there must be a political campaign for consent to a relevant change in the standard of morals, away from the habit of an application of the notion of what the consummately evil Jeremy Bentham had proposed as his filthy principles of legislation and morals. It were best said, that it were time that the old corpse of Jeremy Bentham be stuffed in a better way, and to a more suitable outcome.

Money & Credit

It is not as much the use of money as such which defines the intrinsic insanity of monetarism, as it is the insane belief that money itself contains some curiously hidden, mysterious sort of intrinsic physical-economic value. The issue is that of the credulousness of a people enslaved in their own minds to a notion of value wrongly defined as being attributed to being a “natural value” of that for which payment in what is fictitiously denoted real wealth might be, actually, wrongly considered as being a naturally required amount of real wealth. Whereas, in truth, the proper use of money is as a reflection of a realizable relative value, as credit, as the Massachusetts Pinetree Shilling or the U.S. dollar of a constitutional credit-system, as defined by Alexander Hamilton, denoted the proper conception of credit.

That notion of credit is only hopefully presumed to be equivalent to a physically-efficient form of productivity attributable to what represents objectively real wealth, a presumption which must be discarded if the real, physical wealth does not appear in some appropriate form.

Thus, simply said, realizable wealth is not embodied within money, but only in hopes, or, in the alternative, merely unrealizable dreams, such as the unrealizable form of alleged “wealth” known as the slop of merely fictitious U.S. “bail-out money” uttered by the successive Bush and Obama administrations. The guilt shared by that pair of ill-chosen Presidents, on this account, was shown in a mass flood of electronic minting of fraudulent masses of merely nominal wealth, for which no future redemption were possible, a kind of merely “electronic paper” which has no credible hope of realization as real wealth, such as the actually worthless trillions of U.S. dollars of Federal Reserve and related forms of “bail-out” proceeds.

The willful uttering of dubious forms of money, under such inherently and willfully fraudulent circumstances as those, is clearly a case of willful fraud against both the bamboozled sucker in the affair, and an implicitly treasonous act of lechery against the nation as a whole.

Such are the delusions fostered by the effects of movement away from devotion to an actually productive society, which the U.S.A. was formerly, to a “post-industrial” form of merely monetarist society which is the practice of the two persons most recently occupying the U.S. Presidency.

The U.S. Credit System

As I have written above, the anti-monetarist, real, U.S. standard for portable forms of wealth is therefore modelled on the precedent of the use of the credit system established by the original Pine Tree Shilling of the Massachusetts Bay Colony under its original charter, that as a charter in force prior to the process of crushing the Massachusetts colony, and immediately preceding the murderously inclined tyranny installed in Britain by the invasion conducted by the New Venetian Party’s William of Orange.

Contrast that development to U.S. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton’s declared intention, that being to prompt what became the working foundation for the U.S.A.’s creation of its original Federal Constitution. Hamilton’s action on this account, had saved the United States from an ominously hopeless sort of bankruptcy, like that which Presidents Bush and Obama have foisted on our nation presently. Hamilton’s initiative became a means of rescue of the nation’s credit, which was accomplished by shifting the burden of the unpayable obligation of the young republic’s war-debt to the national (now Federal) government, a form of government whose inherent credit-worthiness could be defended by the means expressed in, most emphatically, the Preamble of the U.S. Federal Constitution.

Unfortunately, today, as I noted the cases of some among the most recent batch of those brought into the Federal legislature by the recent, November 2, 2010 elections, there are included a number of a fanatical sort of political and legal illiterates of the type of those, recently elected, who have expressed nothing as much as what is, frankly, the functional illiteracy which seeks to deny the rightful authority of that Preamble, the rightful authority which exists in defiance of any foreign body, such as the British imperial system, which may attempt to impose a reading contrary to that of our own original, Federal Constitution.

The colleagues of such illiterates as those who would have us violate that Constitution, should urge such errant types of prospective, or current colleagues to do the honorable thing, by abstaining from election to, or resigning from the legislature, that done on grounds of their complicity in that specific kind of functional illiteracy respecting the principles of government and economy which might be fairly considered to be chronically wicked, if they fail to meet the standard of cure provided as a relevant literacy examination.

In the actual case of the formation of the U.S. Federal Constitution, which is the original document on which the means for the continued existence of the United States depended, the needed credit-worthiness depended on means which corresponded exactly to the exemplary specifications of Treasury Secretary Hamilton’s three crucial messages to the U.S. Congress. Under the sum-total of the provisions of the Preamble and the use of the credit-worthiness of the Federal Government which had been created to pledge support for postponed repayment of the war debt of the sundry states, that Government was enabled to pledge new credit uttered as loans for redeemable, chiefly physical projects placed within the types of categories specified by Secretary Hamilton’s official Reports: On Public Credit, On a National Bank, and On the Subject of Manufactures.

Hamilton’s measures as Treasury Secretary, were to be defined as of a constitutional quality of authority, that by the nature of the process of the generated productivity shown by his quality of expertise in the principles on which the very creation of the Federal system itself, depended. This thus represented a constitutional quality of authority, rather than the lesser authority of a legislative act.

A competent Federal Constitution is not to be considered as a fair target-area for the aims of liberal nags lacking in any respectable sort of actual principle. The original intent of our Federal Constitution, to provide us with a Federal Constitution which serves as our people’s defense against the liberal evils against which we fought the British tyrant, is not to be whittled down liberally by the same liberalist foreign interests against which our founders fought to defend us against British liberalism. Ours is a republic built upon constitutional law, not the liberal conventions our nation had been constituted to defy, especially those liberals of the British Liberalism type, a people ruled by a monarchy which has no true constitutional principles of its own.

The Bad Real Andrew Jackson

This contrary to those inherently despicable, so-called “Jacksonian” impulses, which were products or reflections of a monstrously damaging, and also fraudulent reading of the intention of the U.S. Federal system, frauds such as those both foisted by Andrew Jackson, as a de facto agent of the Aaron Burr successor, in concert with that swindler (and later U.S. President) Martin van Buren himself. Van Buren had used the stampede associated with Jackson’s populist hoax against the Second National Bank of the United States, to facilitate van Buren’s own actions plunging the United States into that Panic of 1837, whose bankruptcy destroyed the credit of the United States for a considerable time.

It is of most notable relevance on this point, that the credit of the United States, which secured the United States against the British-directed Confederacy, as had been done by President Abraham Lincoln’s greenback policy, had been cancelled later to the effect of wrecking much of the great achievements which had been accomplished under Lincoln’s6Jackson’s actions to shut down the Second Bank of the United States, actions taken on behalf of his master and successor, Martin van Buren’s fraudulent Land Bank swindle, wrecked the credit of the United States for some time to come. These actions by Jackson and van Buren which opened the gates for Lord Palmerston’s launching of the more energetic promotion of Britain’s control, armed defense, and promotion of the Spanish importation of captured African slaves into the United States’ expanded plantation-system, were assisted by an action which been aided by the destruction of the Cherokee nation (“The Trail of Tears”). Palmerston et al., used the effects of the operations of the scoundrels Jackson and van Buren, to introduce Palmerston’s “Young Europe” branch into the United States. It was this American branch of “Young Europe,” “Young America,” which became the Palmerston-backed Confederacy created and intended by Palmerston as a means to destroy the United States. Earlier, Jackson, incidentally, had been caught red-handed in a tell-tale Aaron Burr operation intended to break apart the territory of the United States. Burr himself had been, at that time, personally an agent of Lord Shelburne’s Jeremy Bentham, the “dirty tricks” operator, as chief for such functions of the British Foreign Office created under Shelburne in 1782. policy, a wrecking of our republic done at the behest of the same London which had created the Confederacy. This was a part of what would be the same British subversion expressed by the subsequent launching of the British imperial ouster of Chancellor Bismarck in 1890, by the British-Japan pact which opened what became World War I, through the vehicle of the war-treaty of Britain with the Mikado against China, Korea, and Russia, and World War I, all done by a scheme in which Theodore Roosevelt played a treasonously ugly part in his time, together with the notorious case of the Woodrow Wilson who had launched the rebirth of the Ku Klux Klan personally from inside the White House.

The notion of “legal precedents” becomes silly when some insurgent’s piece of nonsense is pushed through in spite of the constitutional principles on which the sovereignty of our United States has depended, as from the formation of the Federal Constitution to the present day. It is the realization of the principle of intent, including the crucial economic intent, expressed in the formation of the Federal Constitution, its Preamble most simply and emphatically, which defines the shaping of the proper, higher authority in law needed for survival of our United States under the mass-murderously threatened situation of our constitutional republic today.

The failures of both the generally right-wing and frankly populist variants in types of leadership, must be considered as the kind of noise-making conducted on the periphery of that true constitutional patriotism which was aimed at the realization of the intention which had created in patriots’ blood, this, our constitutional republic.

Meanwhile, the creation of Federal credit for the establishing of a platform of scientific and technological progress as the overriding policy of the U.S.A. must continue to override the intentions motivating that “environmentalist” nonsense which had been launched inside the U.S.A. as the tradition of the treasonously inclined President Theodore Roosevelt, a Theodore Roosevelt who had been the nephew and protégé of the uncle who was convicted of the crime of having been worse than merely a traitor. That Theodore Roosevelt, who happened to have been launched into leading U.S. political functions by the traitor and pro-slavery son-of-a-bitch, Roosevelt’s uncle, Bulloch, who had served as the London-based Chief of Intelligence for the Confederacy and was the virtual creator of the political figure of Theodore Roosevelt, should have his so-called “enviromentalist” oligarchical policies of suppression of scientific progress cancelled forever, now. These were British inspired, alien expressions of “Green” policies which were to become a violation of the intent of the Federal Constitution of the United States. Those who can not accept that fact today, should be instructed that they can remain among us, but their evil, and implicitly treasonous policies toward mankind will not be tolerated any more. The practice of such “greenie-ism,” is a crime, sometimes of the proportion of a major felony, even an act of treason against the clear intention of our Federal Constitution.

There are some other categories to be considered before turning to our more positive considerations here.

For example, the useful applications of the standard of physical economy must apply the principles of bankruptcy to purge a national economy of worthless values, such as those traced in the recent U.S. history of J.P. Morgan’s asset Alan Greenspan, the which were already, or retrospectively intrinsically worthless at the time they were initially uttered as named monetary assets, that done quite fraudulently.

In contrast to that, the very existence of the United States now depends, absolutely, on the elimination of the implicitly criminal effects of that subversion of the constitutional provisions which freed the United States from the alien policies of monetarist practice from any part of the authorities over our government of the United States. This time, we must ensure that Glass-Steagall is made to stick, without possibility of compromise to the contrary.

Thus, it would be impossible, without a very strict version of the enforcement of Glass-Steagall, to be tolerant of any part of the presently ruinous economic policies of the likes of Presidents George W. Bush, Jr. or Barack Obama, or to ignore the presently manifest fact of the hyperinflationary magnitudes of the intrinsically worthless and fraudulent debt created under the successions of those same George W. Bush, Jr. and Barack Obama. On that account, it is absolutely required that we prevent that destruction of the United States which had occurred under the reign of those errant Presidents, or their part in a swindle of the people of the United States which would not have been possible without an intrinsically fraudulent argument employed for the Congressional nullification of that implicit principle of the U.S. Constitution which is located as having been the basis for the 1933 Glass-Steagall law.

What should be done, must be done to the effect of casting out the devils responsible for the incredibly dumb 2008-2011 “bail-out” debt of the United States and that debt itself, thus sending such wicked notions to the Hell to which all of the worst of the worthless works of Satan must be relegated, if the continued very existence of the United States is to be assured.

There are no honestly practical alternatives by which to thwart the evil intention of the successive subversion and swindles embedded in the role of the now former J.P. Morgan agent and Ayn Rand devotee Allen Greenspan’s swindles, those swindles which had been launched in a time since his role as an agent of J.P. Morgan during the early 1980s. There is no reason that his role might be considered morally a legitimate practice in law under the U.S. Federal Constitution in the past, or today. That neglect of truth which the toleration of his swindles represents, such as the disregard for law, or other expressions of justice, such as the rights of life, liberty and justice, now persists, perpetually, as a form of falsehood and cheating, against the honest practice of the honest law of an honest nation.

Otherwise, presently, without the immediate action required to restore the remedy of the original Glass-Steagall Act, the existence of the present United States (and relevant other nations), would soon be ended by what is presently the already ongoing acceleration of hyperinflation during the course of the months now immediately ahead, So, in the failure to re-enact Glass-Steagall now, the governments of the entirety of the trans-Atlantic regions must crumble. That crumbling is not merely ongoing presently, but, at an accelerating rate of disintegration. Under the present regime under London’s bought-and-paid-for election of President Barack Obama, our United States would now soon cease to exist.

That benefit to our republic and its posterity which is the alternative to such a fatally destructive type of state of bankruptcy as that which has been expressed as the menacing outcome of the recent decades of practice, must become the benefit which re-enactment of Glass-Steagall now uniquely affords; this is an elementary fact of the matter. This benefit is to be found as being rooted in the example of the manner in which the United States’ Alexander Hamilton defined the crucial physical-economic principle of a responsible form of national sovereignty, the principle of economic reform on which the unique design of the original U.S. Federal Constitution was premised, the same principle which the original intention of Glass-Steagall expressed.

To understand this point respecting the origins and continued implications of that Constitution’s roots, it were sufficient to discard the silly, drunken-like presumption, that our Constitution prescribes a typically British design of some silly sort of precedents of “do’s and don’ts,” each one at a time, and each, relatively, independently situated, in a largely ad hoc practice in law.

Contrary to a shameful sort of British notion of a “common law,”our Federal Constitution expresses nothing less than a supreme principle of a design for a type of government committed to the endless supply of positive improvements in the human condition. This was adopted in opposition to the doubtful merit of largely makeshift, putatively cunning evil in British law, the law of a systemically parasitic form of rules of combat better suited to debating the assignment of the awards from awards made for the evening sport in a boxing, or wrestling ring.

Now, that said to dispense with the evils just described here, thus far in this present chapter, and for the remainder of this report, we shall be focussed on several crucial points of the history of Europe-based development of the reigning principles of government of and among nations. I present that case not always in nominally historical order, but according to the notion of the manner in which the changing processes represented as systems of European-rooted government since the fall of the Asian-based Achaemenid Empire, have shaped the relationship between, on the one side, the principled political reign of systems of government, as those changing systems have interacted with the discoveries of the physical principles which respective systems of government have often violated, but which have been, nonetheless, identified with, in one respect, respective systems of government, as being seen in a relationship to the changing characteristics of the knowledge and practice adducible as physical principles.

That means, implicitly, not to overlook the fact that we must emphasize the point, that all willful actions by governments and peoples have consequences; All policies of government, either government in general, or particular periods of governments of our U.S.A., reflect the differences between actually patriotic U.S. Presidencies, on the one side, and, on the other, those figures and factions more inclined to recklessly negligent, or even treasonously imperialistic forms of such British-system-modelled pursuits and diversions as those echoing the monetarist practices in the Roman and Byzantine imperial and Venetian monetarist traditions.

Therefore, the relations between systems of government and nature, either among, or within nations, are often those of respectively opposing authorities, distinguished from one another as both the will of man and the will of man’s accountability to the principles of nature which are expressions of the superiority of humanity to the beasts. These differences are not always an expression of systemic forms of opposition, but have been usually at odds in effects of practice, among actually known governments, often even as systemic differences among the cultures of sovereign peoples. Taking the record of case to case, these differences are not necessarily in conflict by intention, even when, as in instances of ignorance of principles on either or both sides, the effects of the difference in authority among the two types of cases may define a serious conflict. Higher orders of principles must be applied to the relations among sovereigns.

Ultimately, the conflict tends to be between the ego of government per se and the principle of nature which human scientific and related revolutions express. There is no simply rational resolution of the difference between the two categories, since, as we know from current experience, in particular, that misconception of both government and nature by the current British monarchy and the recent President George W. Bush, Jr., and worse Obama Presidency, could not be properly considered as anything different than being insufferable on true principle to all or any part of the human species, and to the positive evolution of the system of nature more generally, alike.

Those are, so far, broadly defined considerations, but they should be considered for adoption as the ostensibly conflicting considerations to be taken into account in the following pages of this present chapter. The only form of actually efficient approach to deliberation on the matters stated thus far in the present chapter, is to shift the emphasis of the discussion to physical economy, as such, rather than monetarist systems.

The Case of Arthur Burns, et al.

I begin the following part of this present chapter with some highly relevant remarks on my investigations of the 1957 effects of the particular insanity of the economic policy formed under Arthur Burns’ leading role for this under the Eisenhower Administration, with primary emphasis on the exemplary effects in the marketing of automobiles over the interval of 1953-1957.

The most crucial of the cases considered on that account, was that of those marketing and related financial practices of retail and wholesale sales of automobiles, which played a central role in bringing on what I had forecast, in Summer 1956, as the February 1957, sudden plunge of the United States into a steep and stubbornly prolonged recession, that up to and into the earliest years of the John F. Kennedy Administration. It was my study of the U.S. economy centered on the leading role of what I discovered as the clearly fraudulent aspects of the automobile marketing practices of that pre-1957 period, which had first established my toe-hold on successful economic forecasting, and has remained as my increasingly significant role conducted under what came to be recognizable as my uniquely superior credentials in the function of long-range forecasting, this from that time to the present.7At the time I made that forecast, I was employed as an executive of a consulting firm in its New York City offices. Notably, I ran into a conflict with certain other, relevant officials of that same consulting firm, that over the issue of this forecast. They insisted on statistical forecasting, which I knew as an inherently incompetent approach to the matter at hand at that time. Those advocates had not understood the significance of the practices typified by the role of Robert S. McNamara at Ford, where the most notably worst of the relevant, damnable practices had been launched from an accountant’s, rather than a scientist’s standpoint. This had been done in defiance of the correct policy of the actual competent industrial leadership of Ford, the leadership which McNamara’s promotion had superseded. The lack of competence McNamara and relevant others had shown, then, was relatively minor when compared to the “post-industrial,” actually “post-human,” lunacy radiated from Wall Street and London today. Accounting itself, which was largely created in its present form by the founding of the Federal Reserve System, especially the part played by Woodrow Wilson, has inherent fallacies in its practice, but, given the circumstances, competent accountants are useful; some, unlike McNamara, have been actually impressive as intelligent persons in their own right.

Just as the post-Franklin Roosevelt United States had become the victim of a return to the same practices of Wall Street and London which had caused the so-called “Great Depression” of the 1930s, London and Wall Street who were personally the authors of installing the Nazi Party and Hitler regime in Germany and similar tendencies in London’s partner France of that time, the allied victory of the 1944 landing in France had unleashed Wall Street and Churchill to return to “old ways.” Once London and Wall Street foresaw the coming end of the Franklin Roosevelt administration, Wall Street, in particular, had gone back to the ways seen in the launching of Hitler into power by the actions of Brown Brothers Harriman’s financing of that financial rescue of a bankrupt Adolf Hitler which had been part of the Bank of England’s Montagu Norman-led effort in bringing Hitler to power, and taking down, suddenly, all the political parties which had been rivals of Hitler.

President Harry S Truman, a traditional Wall Street hawk in the Senate during the early years of the U.S. engagement in World War II, became, as President, a shameless boot-licker for the post-war policies of Winston Churchill, thus accompanying a rapid turning back toward the pre-war policies of Wall Street’s and of some others, which included those of persistingly fascist proclivities under the Truman administration itself.8Lest my remarks be deemed “unfair” by some, the following should be put on record here. Although the modern use of the term “fascism” is traced prominently to Venice’s Volpi di Misurata and his protégé Benito Mussolini, the content of modern fascism, the substitution of a dictator for an imperial monarch, is to be traced immediately to Bonapartism in France, which directly supplied the principal elements of content for the immediate model used for Mussolini’s fascism. The case of Mussolini is to be traced back to the British Foreign Office-steered, terrorist wing of the French Revolution, as this was developed into a form which was expressed explicitly by Napoleon’s dumping of his wife Josephine, who was tied to the pro-Ottoman, anti-Habsburg side of France’s history, for Napoleon’s marriage to a Habsburg princess. The coronation of Napoleon by the Habsburgs, had the net effect of reviving the legacy of the original Roman emperors more nearly. The resulting fascist conception became that of what is termed “governance” as the new name for the assimilation of the nations of continental Europe and others, in a form more nearly that of the ancient Roman fascism copied by the likes of “Il Duce.” The long period of extended affinity between Winston Churchill and Mussolini, carries the smell of such affairs up through the present day of such advocates as the inherently disreputable Tony Blair.

The immediate policy of the British interests then, and of Wall Street, once Franklin Roosevelt were dead, included among its most notable features Bertrand Russell’s September 1946 declaration of the intention to launch “preventive nuclear war” against the Soviet Union, a policy certainly not alien to the bosom of a Winston Churchill then moving into his waning years. Later, with Josef Stalin conveniently dead, Stalin’s successor Nikita Khrushchov, entered into an arranged pact of understanding, negotiated at the meeting of Russell’s World Parliamentarians for World Government, with the same Bertrand Russell who had attempted to launch a massive nuclear bombing of the Soviet Union. The independent Soviet development of nuclear weapons prior to Russell’s intended stated readiness for launching “preventive” nuclear warfare, prompted the persistently evil Russell to return, for the remainder of his life, to the British “dark arts” of a modern Aristotle, rather than open warfare.

Now, as since beginnings under President Harry S Truman, the trend toward shucking the American model of economy for a Roman-British imperial form of globalized model, meant the shucking of American agro-industrial, high technology forms of physical-economic development, that done in support for a British imperial-like model of the type we tend to term, presently, as a “post-industrial” model, under which influence the main burdens of producing exports for the world market, the main burdens of agriculture and industry have been shifted, increasingly, to cheap-labor markets. This trend was represented in the model of the combination of the assassination of President Kennedy, and, later, his brother Robert, an assassination which was exploited to clear the way for both the launching and continuation of the war in Indo-China which the British interests demanded of the U.S.A., and sealed by the definitive economic step of puppet-President Richard Nixon’s cancelling President Franklin Roosevelt’s Bretton Woods agreement.

What is projected as part of the mass-genocide now pushed for the trans-Atlantic world from Britain’s monarchy, as through the disgusting channels supported by President Barack Obama’s advisor John Holdren and Britain’s agent Schellnhuber, is a British-directed, global intention to reduce the world’s population, very rapidly, to less than one billion, rather than Prince Philip’s suggested two. This plain fact may be officially considered incredible among those who lack an understanding of even elementary facts, such as even the ABCs of history, but the British monarchy is doing nothing which differs essentially from the pro-genocidal practices of the ancient Mediterranean and similar expressions of what was known, explicitly, in ancient times as “the oligarchical model: keep the numbers of the underclass barefoot, ignorant, and minimal,” such that the lower classes might never become enabled to overturn the oligarchical model typified by the British monarchy presently.

Regrettably, although the average American adult of my own generation, and a later generation or two, is not ignorant, yet, the extent of their knowledge has been narrowed, as much as convenience permits, to exclude the citizens’ awareness of the larger picture in which the efficient motives of the leading oligarchical circles in the U.S.A., in Europe, and elsewhere, are hidden behind a screen of a widespread, cultivated ignorance of the true character and motives of that oligarchical ruling class which is mobilized like chicks in a brooder, around the central figure of the imperial, ever-drug-trafficking system of the British monarchy whose role in government had been long fit for permanent retirement from any status higher than a fancied-up show-case relic. The relevant principle to be learned from such facts of real life, is that much of what you apparently do not know were otherwise likely to kill you in vast numbers today. Imagine, the number of poor fools who refuse to face the fact that the World Wildlife Fund’s Prince Philip does loudly and proudly in deed, intend to reduce the present human population to no more than two billions, and the British monarchy is doing about as much as possible to bring that result, or not more than one billion, about, soon.

Take the case of the so-called “anti-nuclear freaks” of the so-called “environmentalist movement.” The very policies which the freakish mass-ferment types harboring such persuasions advocate today, advocating this as their “movement,” are those which they intend, shamelessly, will bring about, in fact, the induced mass-death rates which criminally-inclined minds such as Schellnhuber and President Obama’s John Holdren are bent upon imposing upon the people of such nations as the United States now. What is explicitly intended, as openly stated, is a rate and mass of such mass-murder which dwarfs the evil intentions of Adolf Hitler in the extreme. These “freaks” are the incarnate echoes of the Flagellants of Europe’s Fourteenth-century “New Dark Age.” It is past time that such presently deluded fanatics of the Three-Penny Opera tradition, as that, be brought back to their senses in time to save even some semblance of civilization.

The Science of Physical Economy

I have recently given way to the clear need of declaring myself committed to adopting a public utterance of a rather long-standing tradition of mine, one which has been based on my reflections on the scientific implications for today, of the practices of Charlemagne in, as a matter of fact, defining a platform of level of development of an entire territory, as he did in integrating the rivers internal to his region of Europe by creating a system of canals for a design which was finally completed in Germany during the 1990s.

Other, coincident, original features of Charlemagne’s steps toward organizing a new quality of European economy, which were combined with the inland riparian development, had pointed to other factors, including the fact that the development of what was to emerge as the United States was based not only on inter-urban and other roads, but, successively, on riverway-canal programs echoing the Charlemagne precedent, and the extension of that riverway-canal development into, first, closely related railways running more or less parallel to canals, and, still later, the trans-continental railway system. The role of the introduction of steam-power and related applications of ever-hotter expressions of fire, to supplement the impetus provided by action related to railway development, emerged as the great strategic threat to the continued existence of the British empire which prompted a desperate British empire to cause the assassination of France’s President Carnot, the launching of the fraudulent trial and sentencing of Alfred Dreyfus, the British-Japan treaty which launched the 1890s wars against Japan, Korea, and later Russia, and, also, the new Balkan wars which led into what became known as “World War I.”

Against that indicated background, and my association as one among the founding members of the Fusion Energy Foundation (FEF) in the 1970s, and my personal collaboration, through the launching of the FEF, with Chicago University’s Professor Robert Moon, I had set into motion a number of important developments, which, taken together, prompted me to define perspectives in terms of the nuclear physical-chemistry principle of “energy-flux density.”

The notion of nuclear energy-flux density, in turn, impelled me to adopt the standpoint in a science of physical economy demonstrated by certain scientists of the time, as comparing the effectiveness of energy-flux density as a measure of the qualitatively differing forms of combustion and the like application of the general notion of the factor of energy-flux density in greater depth of insight to that concept’s implications for a general principle of that type.

Such factors as speed of travel per ton carried, and other expressions of “heat-energy” concentrations, combined with inland water resources development, are now clearly established as being among the elements of related expressions of “energy-flux density” which situate a national territory’s potential for rates of per capita and per-square-kilometer, net productivity, as effects to be measured in terms per capita and per square kilometer.

Space exploration, including the development of orbiting and kindred use of satellites, are also among the relevant correlatives for defining principled forms of upward leaps in physical productivity, per capita, in combined Earth-bound and extraterrestrial terms of reference.

Such were the relevant considerations, considerations which have improved the quality of my assessment of economic factors bearing upon the appreciation of an Earth-based extension of mankind’s engagement through further reaches within the Solar system, and beyond.

It was not a mere coincidence that the notion of continuing increase of “energy-flux density” should be applied to sundry expressions of extra-terrestrial development in their own right, in addition to their more immediate function “back on Earth.”

The most notable other factor in the further development of this outlook, was the more recent commitment to abandon further defense of all conventional notions of space, most emphatically “empty space.”9During my immediate post-World War II years, when I began a modest, temporary career as a poet, I dedicated a short poem, titled “My Lyre,” in which I envisaged the image of an idea of ideas as “bending stars like reeds.” Notably now, the “me” of then, would have been pleased by my attachment to the principle of “universal cosmic radiation” now. The enrichment of the work of the LPAC organization by the effect of our adoption of that “cosmic radiation” perspective, has produced what is, on reflection, an astonishing rate of increased progress in the team’s successful advances, including advances which have been of considerable practical benefit in results thus far. The recently developed, relatively richer image of the role of the intimacy of the location of both the Earth and the Solar system within its own galaxy, was brought about through freeing the minds of our team from the burden of carrying the useless baggage of “traditional” belief in the existence of bodies separated by “empty space.”

Although my dedication as a protagonist of physical economy, rather than of physical space-time, was in the making by the early 1950s, the breakthrough represented by our 2010 adoption of the ontological standpoint of “cosmic radiation,” rather than “physical space-time,” not only improved our appreciation of the accomplishments of Planck and Einstein, but accelerated the general rate of progress among, and by our LPAC team. It was only after we had experienced the dumping of: “space” and “space-time” as such, that we came to realize what a useless load of rubbish we had been carrying in the name of “space-time,” earlier. Our appreciation, as followers of Riemann’s powerful revolution, and of the work of Planck and Einstein, as also Riemann’s successor Academician V.I. Vernadsky, increased greatly.

The effect of combining these matters in such a way as to incorporate the work of Vernadsky and his relevant associates and his notable followers in the matter of the distinction of living physical-space-time from the attributed physical-space-time of the Lithosphere, has also been crucial for us. The most significant among the related effects, is that these considerations suggest a location of one’s sense of personal identity as not only somewhat freed from the shackles of enslavement to time, but, also, from the notion of limitation to the bounds of a place on Earth, as distinct from functional accountability for one’s part in working within a “home” which is in the neighborhood of our galaxy.

The outcome, so far, of not only these and related discoveries made by the immediate associates of the scientific and closely related work of the LPAC team in these Virginia locations, has been an entirely fresh view which I have been in the process of experiencing, in my view of my own clearly implied duties in defining a meaning of physical-economic processes which is located in a point of reference looking back at Earth from what an imagined galactic point of intellectual reference of our experience as a team might be. It is the sensation of looking at human life on Earth as being more essentially in the nature of a galactic mission for the inhabitants of Earth, than merely being just another earthling.

Bernhard Riemann & V.I. Vernadsky

The entire span of the impact of the now globally extended modern European civilization, since the year of the birth of Nicholas of Cusa in A.D. 1401, until the present date, is, at bottom, all of a single piece which is qualitatively distinct in its separation from the specific characteristics of earlier history. Although the idea of modern European civilization presented in the expressed creativity of Dante Alighieri, was almost extinguished by the malice of Dante’s foes, during the monstrosities of the Venice-played nightmare-themes of Europe’s Fourteenth Century, the collapse of the core of the medieval system, including the deep setbacks to the satanic spirit of Venice, sparked the eruption of an entirely new conception of the very idea of a modern European civilization, that as a conception whose central expression became the great ecumenical Council of Florence in which the priest and scientist Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa emerged as the defining figure of the science, culture, and statecraft of that entire century, and for the emergence of modern science over the span from the beginning of Cusa’s century to the present time. Leonardo da Vinci, an avowed and magnificently accomplished fruit of Cusa’s influence, touches all of the principal accomplishments of science and statecraft into the lifetime of Gottfried Leibniz, and beyond.

The privilege of launching a fresh insurgence in the continuing legacy of Cusa et al. before them, combined with the crucial, later, transitional role of Friedrich Schiller, Carl F. Gauss and the brothers Alexander and Wilhelm von Humboldt and the legacy of France’s original Ecole Polytechnique, have defined a new era developed within the Nineteenth Century, which came to be centered on the revolutionary achievements by Bernhard Riemann, beginning with his celebrated, multi-century-spanning 1854 habilitation dissertation, and continued through the work of such as Max Planck and Albert Einstein, into the commanding genius with which the world has entered into the richer meaning of the accomplishments of a great heir of the Riemann tradition, and today’s exemplary prophet of the present cause of humanity’s science, Academician V.I. Vernadsky.

Our chosen task must be to develop the means for fulfilling those missions which now lie even beyond that which we, or others on this planet presently know. The consequent choice which we must select as our evolving mission, is to foster the generation of those leaps in scientific and related powers of work which are not only what mankind needs as advances in those benefits of fundamental qualities of scientific progress on which the continued existence, and improved welfare of mankind depends, but, which, above all, mean progress from moving rocks on Earth, to galaxies above, as we now read the injunctions of Genesis 1.

The achievement of that, or any kindred sort of intention, becomes, thus, for those of us who accept such devotions, that quality of immortality which the true mind of the individual person may achieve through sharing in the creation of those principles of progress which, as principles, are truly immortal, since they continue to live on as known and knowable principles to guide humanity upwards, as principles which live on, fully efficiently, after the discoverer is officially mortally deceased. The distinctive principle of human life so observed, becomes, in and of itself, the expression of that immortal principle for which we are the servants, the mission assigned to humanity, to create the discovery of the miracles which conquer the obstacles of the apparently impossible.

The shift which we participants in the spirit which inhabits the intentions of our scientific team now sense as the galactic implications of the mission currently set before us as part of our devotion, gives us, thus, a confident sense of inspiration for identifying and working to contribute to the missions which we are discovering as the challenges now emerging, including ominously menacing ones, before us.

Mankind’s essential nature, which Genesis 1 attributes to the creative powers which man and woman are entrusted for the outcome of the future, is now confronted with a now actually galactic quality of implicit challenge respecting the future. Much is now in doubt, but the mission we currently share remains a clear, and uniquely clear one: devotion for the sake of the outcome of the implied mission which our species is presently entrusted as a mission within the region of our galaxy which we must now recognize as the region of our immediate concern on behalf of the mission of our human species in the large, that for the outcome of the fact that the presently living have, indeed, lived as those with the intention of the immortals.

Footnotes

1The original phase of this trend was set into motion during July-August 2007. It has been continuously aggravated since the initial phase of the presently continued succession of “bail-out”schemes in 2008.
3Cf. Bernhard Riemann, Habilitation Dissertation, concluding section.
4It was my recognition of this experimental proof of the falseness inherent in a Euclidean geometry, which had won me to the study of the work of Leibniz at the beginning of my adolescent years. It was made apparent to me, even then, from study of the role of steel in the erection of high-rise structures, that no single physical dimension of sense-perception can define the meaning of experience. Today, I would prefer to have traced the principle so expressed to such ancient and modern precedents as Archytas’ duplication of the cube, Eratosthenes’ measurement of the size of the Earth, the discovery of the physical principle of the catenary by such as Filippo Brunelleschi, and by such others among his followers as Nicholas of Cusa and as by Leonardo da Vinci, and the development of the physical principle of least action by Gottfried Leibniz, as he had done, in following Johannes Kepler’s uniquely original proof of the discovery of a universal physical principle expressed as the principle of gravitation.
5In published earlier locations I have referred to the way in which the Venetians of the Fourteenth Century had played their clients, the Italian merchant bankers of the virtual “Wall Street” of their time, for fools, thus setting off the hyperinflationary process which detonated the accumulated follies of that century.
6Jackson’s actions to shut down the Second Bank of the United States, actions taken on behalf of his master and successor, Martin van Buren’s fraudulent Land Bank swindle, wrecked the credit of the United States for some time to come. These actions by Jackson and van Buren which opened the gates for Lord Palmerston’s launching of the more energetic promotion of Britain’s control, armed defense, and promotion of the Spanish importation of captured African slaves into the United States’ expanded plantation-system, were assisted by an action which been aided by the destruction of the Cherokee nation (“The Trail of Tears”). Palmerston et al., used the effects of the operations of the scoundrels Jackson and van Buren, to introduce Palmerston’s “Young Europe” branch into the United States. It was this American branch of “Young Europe,” “Young America,” which became the Palmerston-backed Confederacy created and intended by Palmerston as a means to destroy the United States. Earlier, Jackson, incidentally, had been caught red-handed in a tell-tale Aaron Burr operation intended to break apart the territory of the United States. Burr himself had been, at that time, personally an agent of Lord Shelburne’s Jeremy Bentham, the “dirty tricks” operator, as chief for such functions of the British Foreign Office created under Shelburne in 1782.
7At the time I made that forecast, I was employed as an executive of a consulting firm in its New York City offices. Notably, I ran into a conflict with certain other, relevant officials of that same consulting firm, that over the issue of this forecast. They insisted on statistical forecasting, which I knew as an inherently incompetent approach to the matter at hand at that time. Those advocates had not understood the significance of the practices typified by the role of Robert S. McNamara at Ford, where the most notably worst of the relevant, damnable practices had been launched from an accountant’s, rather than a scientist’s standpoint. This had been done in defiance of the correct policy of the actual competent industrial leadership of Ford, the leadership which McNamara’s promotion had superseded. The lack of competence McNamara and relevant others had shown, then, was relatively minor when compared to the “post-industrial,” actually “post-human,” lunacy radiated from Wall Street and London today. Accounting itself, which was largely created in its present form by the founding of the Federal Reserve System, especially the part played by Woodrow Wilson, has inherent fallacies in its practice, but, given the circumstances, competent accountants are useful; some, unlike McNamara, have been actually impressive as intelligent persons in their own right.
8Lest my remarks be deemed “unfair” by some, the following should be put on record here. Although the modern use of the term “fascism” is traced prominently to Venice’s Volpi di Misurata and his protégé Benito Mussolini, the content of modern fascism, the substitution of a dictator for an imperial monarch, is to be traced immediately to Bonapartism in France, which directly supplied the principal elements of content for the immediate model used for Mussolini’s fascism. The case of Mussolini is to be traced back to the British Foreign Office-steered, terrorist wing of the French Revolution, as this was developed into a form which was expressed explicitly by Napoleon’s dumping of his wife Josephine, who was tied to the pro-Ottoman, anti-Habsburg side of France’s history, for Napoleon’s marriage to a Habsburg princess. The coronation of Napoleon by the Habsburgs, had the net effect of reviving the legacy of the original Roman emperors more nearly. The resulting fascist conception became that of what is termed “governance” as the new name for the assimilation of the nations of continental Europe and others, in a form more nearly that of the ancient Roman fascism copied by the likes of “Il Duce.” The long period of extended affinity between Winston Churchill and Mussolini, carries the smell of such affairs up through the present day of such advocates as the inherently disreputable Tony Blair.
9During my immediate post-World War II years, when I began a modest, temporary career as a poet, I dedicated a short poem, titled “My Lyre,” in which I envisaged the image of an idea of ideas as “bending stars like reeds.” Notably now, the “me” of then, would have been pleased by my attachment to the principle of “universal cosmic radiation” now.