Typo corrected version posted 10/11/2011 5:22pm edt.

THREE STEPS TO RECOVERY?

By Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

September 12, 2011


A NOTE TO THE READER:

Since the February 1763 “Peace of Paris,” the dominant history of the world has been chiefly divided, for most of that time up to the present moment, between two leading, contending, English-speaking currents of the history of the planet. These two have been the British empire, on the one side, and, on the other, our own United States’ republic. Should the British empire, the implicit adversary of our United States since 1763, continue to be arrayed as the controlling force on this planet still today, the entirety of the planet would plummet, very soon, into a nightmare far worse than a planet-wide “new dark age.” This has threatened to be the end of the line for a trend which had been operating since the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert. Unless there were a change away from this still present trend since the two Kennedy assassinations, the collapse of the economy of the planet as a whole were, probably, the option presently in sight now.

Soon, our U.S. quarrel with the British Empire will be settled in one way, or another. The outcome of this quarrel will depend upon considerations which must take into account issues in which leading nations on Earth, such as the United States, Russia, China, and India, must work in concert, to meet the challenge of the presently oncoming turn in our galaxy. On that account, we find ourselves as if locked, for the moment, in a time during which we are now threatened with a continuation of the recent trend of worsening failure by the present government of our United States. A failure to check the pro-genocidal impulses of the British monarchy now, would virtually assure the descent of the planet into a planet-wide “new dark age.”

Therefore, I restate what I have said above. Our role, presently, must be recognized in the immediate challenge of defeating a British-empire-led threat to the continued existence of our United States’ republic. It is, in fact, a present threat by the British Empire to the existence of our human species. The defeat of that British threat to civilization, is now still the crucial strategic mission before this planet as whole.

A sad outcome for those among us dwelling in earth’s near future, is, fortunately, not yet inevitable. Nonetheless, that danger must be presently considered as a threat for the near future. Heaven help us, if the now plummeting British puppet, U.S. President Barack Obama, were not to have been ousted from office, in disgrace, during the days ahead.

Therefore, that being our concern, let us now make a forward leap for mankind. Ask, what are the forces which are to be assigned duties benefitting the present future of the human species? For a hint of the answer to such questions, start with attention to modern European history since the role of Nicholas of Cusa in the preparations and conduct, and beyond, of the wonderfully hopeful, A.D. 1438 Council of Florence.

What Did Columbus Discover?

Consider the virtual prophecy of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa in that light. The foresight of Cusa back then, had prompted Christopher Columbus to promote voyages across the Atlantic into the Caribbean, and had, in that way, brought about the present division between “Old Europe” and what thus came to be identified as a triumphant United States.

So, it has come to be the present fact of the world in these modern times, that the failures among the leading nations, had left the fate of the present, post-Renaissance, modern world, largely within the hands of what were to emerge as the two great traditionally English-speaking powers of the world: a fate left within the hands of the rapidly waning means of the British Empire, or, possibly, a triumph of our own United States against Britain.1The February 1763 “Peace of Paris” established the long-term trend in European culture to be pivoted on the division of Europe as being destined, until now, to become as an Anglo-Dutch trans-Atlantic culture, since the accession to power of the William of Orange who invaded and conquered the British Isles in his role as the representative of the flag of “The New Venetian Party,” and as the successor to Britain’s James II, in 1688. William, whose power came from Paolo Sarpi’s coup d’etat within the old Venetian Party, had crafted the succession in the British Isles which, in turn, launched what become the future British Monarchy of George I. The modern British empire was put into place as the rising power of the British East India Company in the February 1763 Peace of Paris, that under the leadership of Lord Shelburne, who, during 1782, established the British Foreign Office which was, thus, de facto, the actuality of the British Empire’s subordination of the British Kingdom to the authority of what was to become known as the British Empire in fact.

Unfortunately, that power currently represented by the heads of state of the British kingdom today, has been largely spent under the global reign of British imperialism.

So, we have lived throughout the relatively recent past, under the domination of the planet by the hands of such as either British tyrants such as the Empress Queen Elizabeth II, or, in the too rare, better moments, under the alternative represented by the leadership of such opponents of imperialism as specifically the Twentieth-century U.S. Presidents, such as William McKinley (very briefly), Franklin D. Roosevelt, General Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and “Bill” Clinton.

Unfortunately, since the close of President Clinton’s two terms in office, his two successors have brought upon us the worst prospects for our United States, that which we have suffered under such ruinous Presidents as George W. Bush, Jr., and the British Empire-controlled, U.S. puppet-President, Barack Obama.

For the remainder among the actually leading heads of state among great powers, during the post-World War II 1946-2011 interval, there had also been, chiefly, the Soviet Union (until its fall), India, and China, which had, or have been the “great nations” on account of the history of their territories and cultures, and on the account of the number and rising power which the U.S.A., Russia, China, and, potentially, India, have come to represent, as in aggregate, today.

Presently, the leading hope for mankind is centered, chiefly, on the possible roles of the United States, Russia, and China in their own right, and with India soon after the establishment of the practical unity among the initiating three. India as a notable power, once freed from the still persisting residue of British influence, remains a power with pending, near-future claims to rising leadership in the world, that in its own right.

Therefore, that consequential four, the three-plus-one, are the leading partners on which the world’s peoples must rely for those immediate years now ahead, and for the quality of such cooperation from among leading nations in bringing humanity into a system of emerging world-wide initiatives expressed as sovereign nation-states of our planet and expressed as what must also emerge as the role of mankind in the Solar system and beyond.

Unfortunately, the currently menacing role of the British Empire still exists. It continues to exist, presently, as during the recent past decades, as with such diverse British agents-in-fact as Margaret Thatcher, François Mitterrand, and their rather foolish, but nasty accomplice, U.S. President George H.W. Bush, the latter a son of one-time Adolf Hitler sponsor Prescott Bush. The latter collection of such awfully bad leaders, has recently deprived the other nations in western and central Europe of their own claims to enjoying a truly continuing, future sovereignty: a loss of sovereignty recently renamed under the category of that reign of the bastards called “governance.”

So, in summary, for the moment when these and the following words have now been written here, the initiative for the planet as whole, now appears to depend, for the moment, upon the hoped-for cooperation sparked among three of the leading powers of this planet, our own United States, Russia and China. Those three represent, for the moment, the immediate prospect of a trio of nations whose peculiar, immediate importance for the nations of the planet as a whole, is crucial in a very much particular way, as during this immediate moment of crucial decision in the present and immediate future history of the world.

Soon, we expect that India shall quickly join those three to define a fourth leading nation of the same group and its shared intention.


Preface:

WORSE THAN HITLER!

Only mankind knows, and lives, or suffers, the experiencing of history.

Once upon a time, there had been an ogre named Adolf Hitler. However, that Adolf was, virtually, a mere puppet, which had been created, and then steered by a British imperial monarchy. That British monarchy has functioned as a “Fourth Roman” empire, an empire which has turned out, since Hitler’s death, to have been a far more evil, but also more durable creature than a Hitler.2Do not overlook the fact, that the British brought Adolf Hitler to power during the period that U.S. President-elect Franklin Delano Roosevelt (a.k.a. F. D. R.) was about to be installed in office. All the relevant decisions on the Hitler promotion were managed among the British Royal family, The Bank of England, and the Wall Street circles within which Brown Brothers, Harriman’s Prescott Bush, and the Bank of England, created and ran Hitler up to that time, and had controlled his installation, until the moment of Hitler’s suicide later. Such has been the current Royal-household crew of imperialist lackeys behind the pro-genocidal World Wildlife Fund (WWF).3The original (first) Roman Empire itself, was succeeded by Byzantium, the Norman system, and the British (“Fourth Roman”) Empire. This “Fourth Roman Empire” was created in fact by the British victory in the 1763 “Peace of Paris.” Since that time, the only truly effective challenger to British imperial power has been the anti-imperialist United States of America (U.S.A.). The British monarchy has feared a true rebirth of our United States most of all; otherwise, among most continental Europeans and the heirs of the Habsburg dynasty, and even foolish citizens of the United States, even among some of its Presidents, there have been traditionally muddled ones.

The problem was plainly illustrated by the case of that nasty successor to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the “Harry S Truman” who had been better recognized for his role as a Wall Street variety of Winston Churchill devotee.

The cases of a murdered, truly American patriot, President John F. Kennedy and, also, his assassinated brother, Robert, should remind us of the effects of the kind of roles played by the British imperialists and their U.S. lackeys of today.

For example, take the case of the wretched Harry S Truman who had been, essentially, of a “Wall Street vintage.” He had been a true successor in a role akin to such outrightly treasonous, anglophile louts as Confederacy-heirs Theodore Roosevelt and Ku Klux Klan fanatic and President Woodrow Wilson. Both of which latter pair had walked in the tradition of British agent Aaron Burr, and also of Burr’s asset, and sometime U.S. President, Andrew Jackson. All of those regrettable U.S. figures, including Jackson himself, were, similarly, creatures in the footsteps of Jackson’s Wall Street patron, backer, and his successor in the Presidency, Martin van Buren.

The defeat of Truman’s re-election, by the election of patriot and President Dwight Eisenhower, had blocked the most noxious effects of a Truman legacy for a time. The later election of a President fully devoted to the Roosevelt tradition, John F. Kennedy, relaunched the President Franklin Roosevelt commitment; but, the Liberal establishment’s role in covering up the facts of the assassination of that President Kennedy and, then, of his brother and leading Presidential pre-candidate Robert, had launched that process of destruction of our United States which has continued, more or less aggressively, to the present date. The worst of such calamities came with, first, two terms of President George W. Bush, and, then something even far worse, that of the plausibly insane, British-created puppet-President, Barack Obama.

President Barack Obama himself has certainly been the worst, the most treasonous-in-effect President of the United States ever; but, there was nothing accidental in the fact that a significant number among U.S.A.-elected Presidents, such as Obama himself, had been, de facto, outright British agents working against our United States and its people.

Presidents Whom Money Did Buy

The list of implicitly treasonous, or insane, Presidents or Vice-Presidents, has included such cases as the treasonous Aaron Burr who took his direction from that boss of the British East India Company known as Lord Shelburne and from Shelburne’s lackey Jeremy Bentham.

There is a list of those U.S. Presidents who have been under the influence of treasonous or kindred types, including the type of Lord Shelburne’s handy-man, Bentham. Bentham directed the Aaron Burr who was a British agent and a traitor to the United States. Similar cases, in effect, have been the lackeys, or merely wimps who have been employed in working against the United States, as “from within,” still today.4The fact that President Abraham Lincoln proclaimed clemency for the misguided soldiers who were veterans of the Confederacy, was not intended as a denial of the fact that such clemency was required as an act of forgiveness for crimes into which many participants in the British-created Confederacy had been misled. The purpose of Lincoln’s action in this instance, was the redemption of the prodigal by the family which they had betrayed, the folly, on that soldier’s part, as the misguided dupes of the British imperial hoax of “State’s rights.” Unfortunately, more than a decade after the death of President Lincoln, British-influenced violations caused the rights of the freed Negro slaves, to be largely nullified, creating, thus, a state of virtual, if not nominal slavery. The consequences of that moral crime, under British-influenced, erring circles, had been adopted, as a concession, in favor of British imperial interests, one adopted, long after President Lincoln’s assassination (1865), a cruel action by the corrupted President-elect Rutherford Hayes. Hayes had been born, almost exactly 100 years before my own birth (Sept. 8, 1922) on October 4, 1822; Hayes had gained victory in a most fiercely contested Presidential election, through betraying the entire sweep of President Abraham Lincoln’s legacy, an action by Hayes which has cursed our United States to the present day: like that evil President Barack Obama who has created a far more evil crime than even that of Hayes, against not only our United States, but humanity at large, including, more notably, the present African victims of British mass-murderous slavery, and slavery-like brutality, still today.

The Lord Shelburne who is also notable for his sponsoring of Edward Gibbon’s The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, had emerged from the February 1763 “Peace of Paris” as a key figure in the “Seven Years War,” and had come to represent the power of the British East India Company of his time. It was that British East India Company, which was already in the process of virtually digesting a putative sort of British national monarchy. The effect was that the actual British realm was submerged in what emerged from the combination of Shelburne’s rule and the defeat of the Emperor Napoleon, which was a “New Roman Empire,” an empire cast, still today, in the adopted tradition of the Caesars.

This present British Empire had been, originally, and still remains as the “fourth” in a series of the successive Roman empires, which included the second: Byzantium; (the third), the Venice-directed Norman Crusaders (who dismembered the remains of Charlemagne’s legacy); and, (the actual “fourth,”) the modern British (a.k.a. “New Venetian”) Empire. All among these were, in principle, the enemies of the intention of the Fifteenth-century, Great Ecumenical Council of Florence. The “British Empire” became the first actually global, modern empire which has been virtually in existence as a pretender-form of empire since that time, up to the present date of a ruined Western and Central continental Europe which has been now nearly reduced to that lackey-like status of ridicule known as a state of mere “governance” today.

The consequence of that succession of bad developments, is presently, that the British empire itself is now in a virtually terminal state of disintegration. The question so posed, is whether the collapse of the British empire will lead into that empire’s richly deserved “new dark age,” a dark age presaged by the tenures of Presidents George W. Bush, Jr., and the evil Barack Obama; or, whether the U.S. recovery through the immediate ouster of the ostensibly insane Obama, will enable the revival of the intention of the U.S. Federal Constitution’s influence as a leader among equally sovereign nation-states. A U.S.A. failure to meet that challenge immediately, now, would condemn civilization to collapse in its entirety.

In the case of a U.S. failure to effect the richly warranted ouster of Obama now, the United States would soon vanish from the world’s political map, even immediately.

To prevent such an outcome, a Europe of sovereign nation-states, with their respective languages, could be, and must be restored. It could be restored, in principle, as by means of a return to the intention which had once inspired the great ecumenical Council of Florence of A.D. 1438. That means, presently, employing the present day’s language, an attempted return to an intended world-wide condition as a system of a composed set of cooperating nations of respectively, perfectly sovereign quality of nation-states. This corresponds, for example, on that particular account, to the implicit intention of the original Federal Constitution of our own United States.5See: Nicholas of Cusa’s Concordancia Catholica and De Docta Ignorantia. The birth of both a competent physical science, and the principles of modern European science and statecraft, are to be traced, in a large degree, to the contributions of Filippo Brunelleschi and Nicholas of Cusa. That pair shared honors in the establishing of the physical principle of the catenary as the kernel of the development of the core principle of physical geometry, as in Brunelleschi’s crafting of the cupola of Santa Maria del Fiore, and the De Docta Ignorantia of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa. The elaboration of the essential principle of the related forms of the catenary and the relationship to the tractrix of Cusa’s follower Leonardo da Vinci, are notably relevant. Cusa was also the original author of the enterprise which produced the Fourteenth and Fifteenth-century “discovery of the Americas.” The trend toward degeneration of science over the course of the later Fourteenth and Fifteenth centuries, saw the ironically contrasting trends toward both scientific progress and the corruption of modern science caught between its competent development, and the corruption by modern liberalism, as a process, up through the present day.

Now, when for this moment, a momentarily triumphant British world-empire is ripe to be displaced by the recently threatened sovereignty of our constitutional United States and such among the U.S.A.’s new allies as Russia, China, and soon after that, India, there will be a U.S. reoriented to a trans-Pacific revival of our planet. The present threat to mankind lies in the risk, that the nation-states throughout the planet, regrettably, might have vanished as if by the resonance of a single blow. Such a threatened blow were likely to be struck by a British-monarchy-led process of pro-racialist mass exterminations among the great majority of the population of our planet.

As the alternative to such an evil destiny for this planet which would be represented by the influence of the British empire today, we must accept the intention which is implicit in the U.S. Federal Constitution.

We are thus left, at this moment, to react by means of an urgently needed global fraternity of a set of respectively sovereign nations, nations which have, respectively, specific distinctions in culture, but which are nonetheless destined to emerge soon as perfectly sovereign nation-states each devoted to a common purpose for their unity. The purpose of such a unity is that of being already, or becoming states as nations which will have the shared enjoyment of a roster of a newly recreated set of nations. These would be nations typified by an alliance among the Pacific states of the United States, Russia, China, and others, sharing an efficient common interest in respectively perfect forms of sovereign personalities, but which are also devoted to a common purpose for the achievement of common ends befitting the uniquely designed, innately creative nature of human sovereignty.

That latter intention could now be efficiently enacted and maintained within a common prevalence of certain principled terms of definition of the practiced meaning of such a notional quality of sovereignty, as such. The realization of that historical intention, is the subject of the following pages of this report.


I. THE HUMAN PRINCIPLE


We must count as the most common obstacles to a notion of specifically human creativity, the failure, as among nations, to recognize three required, principal qualities of the characteristics of living human personalities. These are the ordering of their intrinsic interests which are in accord with the fundamental scientific progress of our species. These characteristics should be considered as being those in accord with the most essential facts respecting the inferior three, of a total of four steps in a successively ordered sequence, as follows.

Our subject here is the true nature of the human mind.

The lower three of that four are fairly represented by the following array of their faults:

  • A mistaken faith in sense-certainty;
  • A mistaken belief in the existence of space;
  • A mistaken faith in the existence of simple time.6I.e., as defined by the failed Pierre-Simon Laplace.

The fourth, nominally “transcendental” step in that ordering, is defined at an appropriate point, below.

The first two among those initial three facts were clearly noted as being such by Bernhard Riemann, as said by him in the concluding, third principal section of his 1854 habilitation dissertation. The choice of the third step had been affirmed, as the implied conclusion of Albert Einstein; this would almost surely have been affirmed, on reflection, by Riemann’s assent.

Here, on this point, I shall now insist on the added, fourth item for this listing, which I shall now merely note for later treatment in this present report. The first three listed above, are no better than merely the shadow-like experiences cast by a quality of reality (the fourth item) which supersedes all notions of mere sense-perception as such. Hence, on account of this fourth consideration, we must also focus on the crucial nature of the distinction of the brain (as the practical pinnacle of sense-perceiving), from the vastly higher authority of the mind, or, as it may also be said, the quality radiated as the human soul.7It is important to be noted at this point in the account, that the actual discovery of the principle of universal gravitation, was that expressed by the uniquely original discovery, by Johannes Kepler, of the principle of gravitation, as discovered by him. This discovery was expressed by the ironic juxtaposition of two physical sets of measurements, yielding a value which was that of neither. The conception applied by Kepler to this purpose and effect, reflects the preceding adoption, by Kepler, of the notion of a vicarious hypothesis, which was echoed by the further consideration of a larger framework within the Solar system than had been considered explicit in Kepler’s The New Astronomy. From the advantageous standpoint of the modern, later, evidence of competent Nineteenth and Twentieth centuries’ modern science, the conclusive scientific evidence has been, that the actually scientific discovery of gravitation was never made by Sir Isaac Newton; Newton was a sheer fraud on all accounts. The claims often made for the “black magic” charlatan known as Newton, even among what were otherwise often claimants to the profession of science, were more of the nature of a pagan-religious sort of political hoax, one made in the nature of admission to membership in a mysticism-inclined club of charlatans, with no connection to actual science.
 
The case of the insanity which seized mathematician Georg Cantor in the last decades of his life, is relevant to the case of the Newton hoax: Cantor, already a hotly pursued, intended victim of the circles of Bertrand Russell, attempted, under this pernicious influence of the Newton cult, to be remembered for a most unsuccessful attempt to recruit the Pope to worship of Isaac Newton! This matter was clarified by the outcome of two somewhat riotous sessions among the notable scientists assembled at successive sessions of a leading scientific organization, the Fusion Energy Foundation (FEF). Cf. the Notes attached to Philip E. B. Jourdain’s English translation of Cantor’s Contributions to The Founding of The Theory of Transfinite Numbers, 1915. pp. 202-208. Cf. editors Prof. Herbert Meschkowski and Winfried Nilson, Georg Cantor Briefe, and Cardinal Franzelin, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1991. Also consult Cantor’s own correspondence, for comparison, in Georg Cantor; Gesammelte Abhandlungen mathematischen und philosophischen Inhalts, Springer 1990.

The nominal objects of sense-perception, and the like, have an essentially ironical connection to sensory reality, as such irony is best typified by the notion of metaphor. There is no “sensed” object as such which qualifies itself as that principle of action known as “metaphor;” “metaphor” is not an expression of a set of fixed objects of sense-perception; it is a principle of action.8In reality, objects as such do not exist. Only the quasi-objects known as “becomings” do. Thus, Heraclitus was not so enigmatic as often presumed when he wrote: “Nothing exists but change.” It is on this distinction that the notion of an actual physically efficient notion of “ontology” depends. Elementary? But also, respecting traditional errors of judgment, the simple correction of a very popular mistake, the notion of fixed sensory objects, called “sense certainty,” a subject which I shall clarify at a suitable point, later in this report. It is the highest quality of human consciousness, beneath which all functions of sense-perception are subsumed as being merely as if the kaleidoscopic moments of a continuous process of absolutely non-linear action.

Hence, the hierarchy of the objective world, including the unsensed powers such as the principle of a really efficient world, may be configured in the realities of ontological ordering, of, highest, metaphor (e.g., the Classical poetic imagination); then what is derived from the adduced physical principles of science; and, on a still lower level, the human sensory experiences as such.

Hence, what may tend to be ranked as the least tangible experience, is, each, ranked uniquely in order, that according to the sense of what is the immediately “relatively truthful.” Even if also wrong in part, it is, actually, relatively “nearest to our presently known reality,” and, then, hopefully, “the most nearly truthful” known to us thus far.

Thus, we have the relatively superior powers of the human individual mind—the uniquely and truthfully creative powers of the mind, the creative means of metaphor. All of these are to be located in that which subsumes the inferior faculties of sense-perception per se, as by the influence of the higher experience of true principles of science. This view of science is that which subsumes the otherwise deceitful experience of what is merely the shadow-world of sense-perception as such. Such is the import of the noëtic (e.g., metaphorical) quality of the concluding, extended paragraph of Percy Bysshe Shelley’s A Defence of Poetry.

It is an amusing, but, nonetheless, a practical reflection of the aforesaid specifications, to recognize the distinction of the sensory functions of the human personality from those of the lower species of life. Imagine, for example: “Do birds actually sleep during much of their time in migratory flight”—since they are, in effect, usually on “autopilot” when following the pathway defined by the magnetic field?

In that just-stated perspective, and the like, the only really thinking creature presently known to us, is the human individual as a type —wherever, or however that likeness in effect might be shown to have been replicated. Only the human mind makes the noëtic [e.g., metaphorical] quality of decisions which craft a choice for action which has the quality of effect, in principle, of a voluntary formation of a choice of the virtual “invention” of a profoundly new quality of behavior which is other than being a previously experienced, or otherwise “built-in” type.

In respect to speculations on such matters, consider the exemplary case of a (superficially) merely seeming-to-be-human-like effect, as to be considered when seeking to treat the behavior of a mobile sort of electro-magnetic toy, then considered as the to-be-contrasted exhibition of such toy-like, living, or other objects which are to be contrasted to the characteristically insightful behavior of the purposed pre-choices of the science-driven, human inventor.

In a certain kind of summary of the points so arrayed, the human mind expresses the effect of that quality [of “human mind”] which must be considered by us, as if from “the top down,” rather than random-like “search-and-find” patterns typical of the implicitly experience-bound habituation shown among the lower forms of life.

Creativity as Uniquely Human

Creativity, as a strictly defined, tell-tale influence, has characteristics which are essentially distinct as the specific qualities which cause the functions of human reason to differ, in essential respects, from the actions of the type of either mechanical reactions, in one type, or, instead, that other type which might be expected among apparently voluntary actions among living creatures other than mankind. Each categorical type, including the highest quality of state, that of specifically human creativity, has certain systemic distinctions from the other categories of topics. In the case of the human species, in the ability of the human specimen, or as like those found among human specimens, there exists a crucially significant, categorical distinction, a distinction which is fully as great a distinction as that between, on the one side, inanimate action of non-living creatures, and that of living creatures on the other, as that line of distinction, lies as an absolute division between the categories of what are merely animals and those who are actually human.

The distinction of animal from human behavior has a range of expressions which are, actually, qualitatively greater than that between electro-mechanical responses and animal species other than mankind, a distinction of humanity which is not merely quantitative, but distinct, as the work of V.I. Vernadsky attests, ontologically (e.g., metaphorically) beyond that met among the merely animal species.9The recognition of the difference between the values attributed to human sense-perception, including consideration of the systemic differences inherent in the contrast of Euclidean measures, to physical systems congruent with the catenary-tractrix geometries, illustrates the relevant contrasts to be considered here. The differences are to be examined on a deeper ontological level with reference to the implications of the ontological considerations presented in the third principal section of Bernhard Riemann’s habilitation dissertation.

As I have indicated, the putative objects of sense-perception as such, are intrinsically shadows cast by an imperfect expression of reality, a reality which is invisible to actual sense-perception, except in respect to its likeness of a “shadow cast.” The best representation of the nature of that difficulty is to be considered in reading, first, Johannes Kepler’s argument for, and use of what he presented as a “vicarious hypothesis,” as that usage was extended to his related, later discovery of the unique principle of universal gravitation.

Thus, once that reality is actually taken into account by the student of physical science, we must find ourselves immediately troubled, that in a thoroughly profound way, by the misguided suggestion that sense-perceptions might be images of a “physical reality,”10A man is not a mere part of his shadow. rather than some shadow-like creatures which bear nothing actually belonging intrinsically to the mere image of the sense-impressions being referenced. Obviously this fact should not impel us to a rejection of the function of sense-perceptions. Exactly contrary. By giving up the confusing effects of attempting to defend “sense certainty” as representing a fixed quality of an ontological certainty, we gain confidence in the relatively truthful aspect of sense-impressions, as their being merely moving shadows cast by the light of a sense of an entirely different quality of object, an actual, transcendental truth expressed as in non-linear realms of action.

Which is real? Is it the object to be known as a sense-perception, or the object of the human imagination as defined by the ontological quality of metaphor: Percy Bysshe Shelley’s imagination, for example? Let us recommend Shelley on this account.

An Hypothesis on a Relevant Point

For example: take the case of Kepler’s uniquely original discovery of a principle of gravitation. Take the case, again, of his recognition of the necessity of considering a vicarious hypothesis, as introduced in The New Astronomy, and as echoed in the standpoint of the method which Kepler employed for his discovery of a principle of gravitation.

There are three profoundly great principles of physical science which are most clearly pesky for a perplexed reductionist. The one is the notion of a principle of the “time related” relativist’s notion of action per se; the second, the principle of the quality of action by life per se; and, the third is the principle of, specifically, the distinct quality of action by the living motive of human creativity (i.e., V.I. Vernadsky’s notion of human creativity).

Taken into account as a whole, we have the kernel, thus, of the essential argument against the notions associated with the conceit known as “reductionism.” That consideration refers us back to the qualified, shadowy unreality of the first three of the four notions of ontology (or, what might be regarded as “quasi-ontology”) presented in the opening portions of this present chapter.

As troublesome as my argument, taken as a whole, here, might be, tending to spoil the party of the stolid believer in the likes of “sense-certainty;” so Shakespeare, for example, might chide that reductionist whose prejudice deprives him (or her) of the metaphorical ontology of that pleasure which deserves “the name of action per se.”

You might be tempted to ask: “What might be gained from those reflections?” What must be gained, is a clearer insight into the ontologically superior reality of the concept of the human mind as being the most fundamentally “physical” experience, as being expressed in the notion of the principle of the human mind itself, or, in other words, the “soul,” rather than as an expression of “the flesh,” as the only real expression of the living human identity.

The distinction of human from beast, lies, essentially, in those specific kinds of creative powers of the imagination, the which are expressed as the specifically creative powers which distinguish the human individual as a type absent in the existence of all lower forms of living objects.

At this point, you must permit us the luxury of what might appear to some as merely speculation. Let us negate the simplicity of the reductionists, so that we might thus discover to what naughty ends merely apparent speculation misleads us. Are not those four categories of action, listed at the beginning of this chapter, expressions of physical actions, at least in the effect of all among them?

Thus, in this manner, we have introduced the paradoxes which the succeeding chapters of this report must treat.

A Word of Caution to the Reader:

From this moment onward, through to the close of the concluding passages of this report, the reader, whether professional, or layman, must take into consideration the fact that the views presented here belong not only to a leading, long-standing, and outstanding professional economic forecaster in the field of political-economy; but, that his record of long-standing, extraordinary successes as a professional forecaster has depended on considerations of physical principles which are unique in their successful attention to certain ironical characteristics of the human mind which have been excluded from the attention of not only bookkeepers, but have been excluded from the needed attention of otherwise competent leading economists.

The result is that the treatment of the subject here requires attention to parameters which have been virtually unknown even among relevant professionals generally, and are now becoming known only among a still smaller ration of them. Success in the field of economic forecasting today, now requires different sets of parameters to be considered than have been known even among some leading professionals so far today.

The report presented here employs those parameters which represent a different set than have been used by even most leading economists. The most crucial of those distinctions are expressed as the distinction between sense-perceptual and deeper factors in categories of human behavior. Those distinctions are presented and discussed at length in the following pages; they should be recognized, and the categories of distinctions recognized for their authority in defining the categorical terms specified for the reading of the text.


II. THE MATTER OF PRINCIPLE: FIGHTING REDUCTIONISM


The present avalanche of collapse in the trans-Atlantic financial community, became virtually inevitable with the blocking of my draft legislation for a Homeowner’s and Bank Protection Act of July-August 2007. The blocking of that legislation cleared the way for the subsequent swindle known as hyper-inflationary “bail-outs,” an outright fraud which came to the surface a year later. That series of international “bail-outs” brought on the 2008-2011 onset of a global, hyper-inflationary, “chain-reaction” explosion throughout the entirety of the trans-Atlantic region, and beyond.

The present, 2007-2011 pattern of this presently hyper-inflationary breakdown-crisis, has now mimicked the pattern which struck Weimar Germany during 1923. The present, hyper-inflationary blow-out has now become a catastrophe far worse in its intended effects on the trans-Atlantic system as a whole, than the condition which Weimar Germany reached in the closing months of 1923.

The understanding of the possible remedies for the presently on-rushing, present, virtually terminal, trans-Atlantic breakdown-crisis presented in my present report, is to be recognized in my own, unique successes as the world’s leading forecaster in the development of a modern, actually physical science of economics premised on the principle of credit, rather than money. The root-causes of the present crisis are a matter of a very long story concerning the history of European civilization itself going back to a time before the founding of the Roman Empire; the cure of the present form of the problem, seems to be a less-complicated matter when one begins from the standpoint of modern physical science—but, merely seems to be less challenging than that.

Take the case of my relationship to the work of Bernhard Riemann.

The Encounter with Riemann

My adoption of Bernhard Riemann’s 1854 habilitation dissertation, as supplying the basis for economic forecasting, was essentially completed in outline, by February 1954. Deeper implications of physical principle became clear later, step by step, as you shall encounter these, in part, in this present chapter of the report.

For example, there had been many relevant evening hours spent on struggling through references to the work of Riemann followers Max Planck, Albert Einstein, and related authors, in the Boston Public Library during my first exposures to this subject during 1940-41, and, later, 1946-47. Notably, these were not as much merely academic, as also war-time years, part of a span from what became known as the transition from the setting of “World War II” through the transition into the so-called “Cold War.” As it has turned out, the two warfares were for me, ironically the same.

This passage of time, during the early 1950s and later, was, again, as for me, the setting of another kind of war, a war which had been first launched by me during the mid-1930s, expressed then as an adolescent’s rejection of the reductionist follies of Euclidean geometry. I exaggerate nothing when I insist that the two kinds of war, that of economy and combat in warfare, expressed the same issue in the end. My point is as follows.

Essentially, it was my adolescent rejection of anything resembling Euclidean geometry which worked to my own relatively greatest advantage in choosing, in effect, that course of style of life which I have led. This juxtaposition needs some explanation here, but, as I shall now make clear enough in due course, I do not exaggerate in the least in making that juxtaposition.

Probably, some readers would presume that my comparison of mathematics and warfare has something to do with money as such. I do not mean financial gain or the like, but, rather, the notion of a successful net physical outcome of a choice of culture as measured over a span of entire kinds of what we might term “cultures,” as, for example, as a successful species, as contrasted with such a “test case” as the famous outcome for the dinosaurs.

Take the case of the four successive phases of the Roman empires, each of which has been either entirely a catastrophe either from the past, or, as in the case of the fourth, the British Empire, an entity presently sliding down into its own probable early extinction. What is the ultimate direction toward which the practice of a species of life, or a type of human culture is destined? What kind of life is to be mourned, and which should have become despised?

To illustrate the definition of a failed society, consider the miserable failure which has been represented by a believer in the ideology of the notorious British swindler Adam Smith. Smith insisted that human life had no provable meaning in the sense of a foreseeable sort of rightness or wrongness. As in the case of the Roman emperors and their successors, such as Byzantium, or, also, the old Venetian system, or the New Venetian Party which established the British Empire, the first three had turned out as useless in the end, while the fourth, the present British Empire of Queen Elizabeth II, is on the verge of achieving a similar demise.

In the end, there have been either successful or failed, past, present, and future cultures, whose measure, as I explain here, is to be sought in what we might term “their souls.”

In the case of our United States, for example, our national culture is to be traced to modern civilization’s standard of the intended accomplishment represented by the Great Ecumenical Council of Florence. That Council may seem to have been crushed, in one sense, but, nonetheless, the launching of our United States came about through nothing different than that intention of that Council, an outcome steered prominently by the genius of Nicholas of Cusa, an outcome of his efforts, as this is expressed by the initiative of the Plymouth settlement, and of the Massachusetts Bay Colony before its crushing by the invading forces of the New Venetian Party of usury. In such matters, “success” must be measured by the legacy it hands on to the future of mankind, even if that party had been crushed, or not, in the meantime.

Thus, despite the uncertainties which may prove to have been beyond the reach of preference for certainties, there is the clear idea of a good culture, as distinct from an intrinsically failed culture. That works to such an effect, that, some time in the future, results will tell. As the Great Ecumenical Council of Florence demonstrated, Jeanne d’Arc did win for her cause over those evil Norman perverts who cooked her to death.

For example: among the earliest, and most crucial of my own notable gains on this account, was my good fortune in recognizing the ontological implications of what was, for me, the connection between the relevant, systemic implications of my wrestling with the relationship between the most notable of the barely fragmentary remains of the work of Heraclitus, and the relationship of those remains to the comparable implications of Plato’s Parmenides dialogue.11Despite the despicable hoaxster G.W.F. Hegel. That latter connection was probably the most crucial among my reportable experiences bearing upon the ontological aspects of my successes in physical-economic forecasting.

To the best of presently shared sources of knowledge of physically efficient principles, “space” is, ironically, super-dense with cosmic radiation throughout: which is to emphasize the indicated view that there is neither a finitely bounded, nor an “empty” space. In the beginning, as in Classical artistic composition, there is a yearning for distinct ideas; which is to say, that there is metaphor. Then came searches for what one might hope would prove to be efficient notions of physical principles. Then, on a lowest, least stable level of investigations, comes the effect known as discrete action.

To sum up the reflection on the meaning of life and its struggles, the society of merit is a knowable conception. There are societies whose merit is clearly knowable, even when that society might have been crushed. That is a value which endures, despite all else.

Similarly

In order that we might free ourselves from such a mere illusion as that of elementary sense-perception per se, consider this. Your commitment must become rooted in that which is not to be considered as, for example, the merely literal notion of a mere sight, or sound, in and for itself. The principle to be kept in mind, especially in matters of science and morals, is that associated with the notion of metaphor, rather than emphasis on so-called “fixed,” “discrete” objects.

To restate the point: your goal should have become a devotion to treating mere sense-perceptions as merely a sometimes useful, but, nonetheless, a discrete image of the slice of a passing shadow cast, rather than regarding acquired habits as the habituated reductionists do, as being the cause of a sensed, discrete effect in and for itself.12As the distinction between symbol and reality is elaborated on from the beginning of Chapter I onward. To be human, is to be passionately creative in an intention never to be less than the agent of a continuing creative process of development: to be creative, rather than entombed as a victim of the stagnancy of gossip-ridden reductionism.

The characteristic trait attributable to humanity is, at best, “willful creativity.” In such a case, we create a condition which had not previously existed, and we do so as a voluntary act of creating. It is that process of willfully creative change effected by relevant human intention, which best distinguishes the human individual, and also distinguishes the human species from the beasts. It is what we cause the outcome of our lives to have been, which is the legacy which is what we are actually.

True, species evolve; but, the willful change of human nature, that from one generation to a next, is the change of the characteristic of the human species from one generation to, hopefully, a rise to a higher quality of existence, that through the means of willful creativity. This is to be expressed either as a qualitative change in a mere species, or as the expression of the willful creativity of the human species as a willfully self-creating species.

Consider the example of Johannes Kepler’s success in his willfully creative discarding of what had been treated, erroneously, as virtually eternal notions, thus enabling himself to discover what the dupes of Isaac Newton, later, seemed never capable of doing: discovering an actual principle of gravitation, as Kepler had done.

In stating what I have just argued here, above, I mean that in the way in which gravitation, as discovered by Kepler, represents the being of a principle, rather than a merely discrete event.

For those like the dupes of Sir Isaac Newton, almost anything becomes experienced essentially, as functionally, as merely an arbitrary symbol, as a mere marker, a merely dead and stagnant shadow of that of which it is purposed to become and to remain a shadow without any active meaning except to admire that as a mere symbol for itself. The whisper heard by the soul, rather than merely the object seen by the eyes, by the ears, or by their dream-like companions, must express a subtle passion which comes to us as if radiated from a distant and higher place, a place found amid a passion of silence which conquers all mere sight or sound as such.

It is the sound heard in the mind, if not as if in the ear, which must serve as the gentle shadow of a kind of a softly imagined, but actually powerful voice, for which the suggestions of even mere whispers, are the most powerful ideas, ideas as heard, actually in the mind. That is so, for reasons of irony which I have already defined, earlier in this present report, as a principle of metaphor.

The belief in “sense-certainty,” is to be attributed, in effect, to the reductionist doctrines of the British hoaxster Adam Smith, who would, if he were able, have limited permissible human knowledge to merely discrete and utterly irrational forms of sense-perception as such. Smith had forbidden any foresight into the consequences of an efficient action. Whereas, in an efficient practice of physical science, we rely on the discovery of universal principles whose intention changes our world, even our universe, rather than the meaninglessness of what are foolishly presumed to be random sensory effects as such.13Smith’s 1759 Theory of Moral Sentiments and the 1776 Wealth of Nations.

Should we be like the fools who believe the hoaxster Adam Smith? Intelligent people will not presume to actually “know” what they merely sense; what we actually know is the experience of changing of the efficient principle of action, such as by the discovery and use of a universal physical principle, as contrary to Adam Smith’s arbitrary dogma of “the unknowable truth” within the universe.

To understand a part of the experience of the universe, one must gain knowledge of the principle which runs the universe, as from top down, rather than accruing particular sensory experiences. What is that which makes universality an integrable whole-in-the-making?

A Lesson from a Personal History

For example:

I had already become consciously committed to my choice of the functional meaning of “physical intention,” on this account, when that had first occurred to my present memory over the span of my fourteenth and fifteenth years. This recognition had occurred, when I had first come to recognize something to the effect of “telling me, that that time had arrived” when I should have come to despise Euclidean geometry as being a noisy classroom’s sort of nasty frauds. Thereupon, I soon gave up the attempt to attribute intentional action to that merely nominal phenomenon as such. “What the soul expresses on that account, belongs less to the keyboard, than to the power expressed by soundlessly insistent whispers of the mind.”

So, as early as during my fifteenth year, any attempted attribution of meaning to Euclid, was already becoming, for me, the intolerable demand that I worship the hateful Olympian Zeus, or his likeness. I refused to believe in lines drawn to a non-existing endlessness of a merely formal geometry of a boundless and emptied space. Similarly, I knew pain, but sensed that neither pain nor pleasure were the outcome of the truthful meaning of our lives, as if in and of themselves. Pleasure or pain, are to be regarded, each, as merely varieties of sense perception, which must be made useful to us in their fashion, when either were needed as goads for appropriate passions; otherwise, each were a lying nuisance. Nonetheless, I emphasize that Euclid’s hateful text is the lie it was.14Cf.: Kurt-R. Biermann, Carl Friedrich Gauss: Der “Fuerst der Mathematiker” in Briefen und Gespraechen Verlag C. H. Beck. Muenchen, 1990. Note 99: Goettingen, 1832: C. F. Gauss To Farkas Bolyai. Cf. Bernhard Riemann, 1854 habilitation dissertation: III. Anwendung auf den Raum.

The lie which is the dogma of Euclid has often been taught by the unscrupulous for the edification of the credulous. It a belief which has been typified by its effect of cultivating the fraudulent teaching of the credulous. Whereas, the proper foundation for teaching of geometry as a science today, requires what Bernhard Riemann had demonstrated on this point.

Euclid’s heritage of definitions, postulates and axioms, is a lie which provides, thus, the boundary-conditions for the worship of a Euclidean hoax, a condition which is not to be attributed to the honest notions of sensory experience. It was, and remains, a hoax, a sometimes useful concoction of what has been, otherwise, sheer, noisy, empty imagination.15See the brilliant exposure of the fraud of Euclidean geometry, and also its systemically relevant theological implications, by the friend of the Apostle Peter, Philo of Alexandria, respecting the portion of the present chapter thus far.

Thus, in such a fashion as I have just summarized here up to this point, the belief in what never actually existed, the belief in the empty space beyond nowhere, has served us when it were useful as the prompting of those beliefs which have never actually been proven, but, in the end, are therefore akin to imagined footprints left behind by a footless traveler into nowhere. The more that many people worship such merely symbolic, conditionally adopted beliefs, the more often they believe that which, in the end, had never meant anything for the true meaning of our lives and their outcomes; they were the echoes of the mistaken, even merely arbitrary faiths of sense, space, and simple time.

So, the victim of Euclid had believed, as did those who adore those beliefs which he, or she, has never imagined a competent reason to disbelieve. Thus, for many, the unimaginable chasm, such as the Euclidean delusion, is therefore considered all the more self-evident because nothing seems to contain it! Such is the proof which is called the “self-evident;” such is the thunder hidden within an inflated, but empty purse! Such “self-evidence” is the relatively widespread viewpoint, under the conditions of the presently ongoing general breakdown-crisis of the markets of the presently wide-world system. It is the overview of the emptied, and the virtually useless, the person whose understanding of life itself has become, in effect, an eternally parallel pair of lines, and, hence, a virtual nothing.

So, therefore, in first approximation, let us consider the clinical truth about what are called “sense perceptions”—or, perhaps, what you heard was the high-priced sounds resonating from within what had already been your lender’s emptied purse.

To sum up that point, I restate the principle of my argument in the following historic case.

The Conflicts of Eratosthenes & Archimedes

In a fair estimate, the so-called principles of so-called

Euclidean geometry, are essentially a hoax wrought upon those victims who should be described as “the credulous.” The more the certifiably educated person attains the highest academic, or comparable honors, the more likely is the proof of his, or her tendency of the person of acquired ignorance to play the charlatan. There are exceptions to such a rule; but, in a real universe, such tolerances tend to be in the minority. All of the thought along presently customary lines, expresses, in a large degree, a condition of ignorance which serves as the outgoing “bad doctrine” delivered to the credulous.

That much said on this subject thus far, now consider a certain case or two which I have introduced to make my point.

Take, for example, the contrasted, but actively associated cases of Eratosthenes and Archimedes, those respecting the principle of the generation of the circle.

Eratosthenes had been justly famous among the truly learned, for his ostensibly original, physical measurement of the approximate size of the planet Earth (and of the distance of an approximately great-circle arc from the capital of ancient Egypt, to the city of Rome).

Thus, the corruption of an otherwise gifted Archimedes’ frankly silly error of his blinded faith in his apparently pro-Euclidean fantasies respecting the origin of the circle, was doubtlessly born of someone’s certainly political motives of the relevant time. This error attributable to Archimedes, was later exposed by Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa. Cusa who had been the relevant author of his relatively earlier, leading scientific work, his De Docta Ignorantia, presented a conception on which all practically competent taught science since that time might be seen as having depended.

Those matters taken into consideration, why should we become so foolish as to believe that a merely arbitrary, reductionist’s set of relatively empty presumptions, such as those premised on the bare notion of the extremes of the “rather large and rather small,” or “loud or silent,” should have been predefined as proposed on meager premises, that by those who had a limited, merely shadowy grasp of the reality of what we imagine to have “heard,” or “seen,” or which were “silenced.” Such were the actual experimental extremes of the ideas of such suggested extremes as the very large and the very small.16E.g., Bernhard Riemann, Sec. III of his habilitation dissertation. I.e., this (mathematics) leads into the realm of another science, into the domain of physics, which the nature of the present subject of this department of science (mathematics) forbids us from entering.

Thinking along lines similar to those of Bernhard Riemann, one must ask oneself today, why do silly people insist on the efficacy of an alleged “Second Law of Thermodynamics” when the conclusive evidence accumulated from about a half-billion years of the residual evidence of living processes’ “histories,” demonstrates the direct opposite: the “principle” of the universal as being a fixed sort of bounded value,17The hoax known as “The Second Law of Thermodynamics.” is to be discarded as a fraud which were worse than merely incompetence, and, therefore, a matter to be considered as superseded by the recognition of the persistently higher degrees of “energy-flux density,” that without notable exception.

So, it is the case, that entire clusters of species are rendered extinct. To our mind’s eyes, they are premised upon the presumption of the widely accepted, but utterly fraudulent standard for the reading of an array of living processes. That error demands that we must, rather, adopt the truth of the necessity of our sundry species’ evolutionary progress of adaptation to higher states of relative energy-flux density.

Why is that so often the issue?

We tend, thus, to adopt the silly notion of a downward “progress” toward the starting point of a relatively lower level of mean “energy-flux density” per capita of population-growth, when we should, instead, have relied upon the fact of relatively higher quality of general platforms, as that might have been considered in respect to the flow of successively past, current, and future living systems. The evidence which shows the upward evolutionary transformations of living species, is the evidence that reality runs from relatively lower, to the relatively higher species of per-capita, or comparably more advanced degree of existence, and to the by-products of their upward development to higher levels of what might be fairly measured as rises in energy-flux density.

The fact is, that the only notable basis for the credulous folk’s being taken continually for the poor fools who believe in the outrightly fraudulent “Second Law of Thermodynamics,” is not a result of any actually physical-scientific proofs; but, it is, rather, a result of the mass-brainwashing of those credulous persons who seem to know nothing more important for them than the emptied passion of their own, pitiably credulous lust to believe. This folly occurs as being a result of fraudulent conditioning which tends to persuade them to believe in what is not merely a fraudulent, but an insane form of religious worship, the worship practiced by the believers in a presumably de facto image of an oligarchical, virtual “Satan.”

I mean, here, an image of Satan, as that is to be found as a commonplace among those who have degraded themselves into submission to becoming perverted subjects of the “oligarchical principle,” an appellation, for the worshippers of the Satan, for the oligarchical systems’ principle. The same “Satan” was the relevant figure of Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, or of Wall Street: the worship of Satan, or the maniacal figure of President Barack Obama as a maniacal caricature of a baldly Satanic figure, or a would-be Olympian Zeus.

“De Docta Ignorantia”

It remains uncertain, to the best available knowledge in this matter, how much of the actually creative achievement of Nicholas of Cusa, had been discovered earlier as some significant portion of the discoveries of the same Filippo Brunelleschi who had discovered that the funicular curve (i.e., the catenary) is a universal physical principle. Brunelleschi’s proof had come before the later argument to this same effect was to have been introduced by his relatively youthful contemporary, Nicholas of Cusa, but the question whether or not this had been a coincidence is not known to me presently.

There is no controversy in this matter of fact; it were sufficient, for our purposes, that the effect of their known actions converged on a common principled outcome, and that their arguments on this matter were rooted in original discoveries by each.

For an illustration of this point:

I, for one, had come to understand the physical principle of both Brunelleschi’s and Cusa’s actually physical principle of the catenary more clearly, while I was returning, by train, back during the mid-1980s, from Florence to my Frankfurt-Wiesbaden destinations of that occasion. This occurred at a time, when, during that particular travel, the notion of the principle underlying the cupola of Santa Maria del Fiore, flashed into an electrifying realization in my mind.

This occurred during the same day during which a relevant collaborator of that time, a Florence-based scientist “back there” in Florence, had come to the same conclusion during that same interval of a lapse of time. Actually, both that Italian associate and I had echoed a nearly ripened proof we had shared in that imperfect condition prior to the time of my boarding of my train to Frankfurt, a proof of the physical principle shared between us on the subject-matters of the catenary and its complement, the tractrix, as the latter was illustrated for us by Leonardo da Vinci’s construction. It had been an experience with the unique physical principle of the catenary which coincided in the same time of my experience in which occurred a freshly heated debate respecting Kepler’s discovery of gravitation in which I was embroiled as a proponent, which had occurred, for my part, during two relevant, highly excited. successive, mid-1980s sessions of the Fusion Energy Foundation (FEF).

There was a very special significance of that insight, which I share, in memory, with Brunelleschi, Cusa, and Cusa’s follower Leonardo da Vinci, an insight which I had come to share respecting my recognition of the fact, that the catenary is the expression of a universal physical principle, a principle which persists as superior in order to the circular curvature’s expression. The proof was that of a universal physical principle of the universe, a principle to be as known to us by such and related physical experiments.

As for the indicated discovery by Brunelleschi, the physical proof of the principle of construction is built into the uniqueness of the “free-hanging constructability” of the cupola of Santa Maria del Fiore, a construction (otherwise known as the funicular hanging curve) of the construction itself.

The significance of the catenary’s role as an expression of a universal physical principle of that same principle of the catenary, is not only that it represents the same notion of a universal physical principle which had been developed to a further degree in Cusa follower Leonardo da Vinci’s discovery of the complementary character of both the physical principle of the catenary and of the tractrix.

That fact persists, as in the instance of Cusa’s De Docta Ignorantia, to the effect that Cusa’s work defined the uniquely competent approach to all the underlying epistemological manifestations of the principles of modern physical science, from Cusa through Einstein and Vernadsky, and beyond; it persists, as amplified, and that in a crucial way, by Johannes Kepler’s uniquely original discovery of the principle of universal gravitation and the consequent original discovery of principle of Albert Einstein: that the principle of gravitation, as that had been discovered, uniquely, by Kepler, led to the crucial discovery, by Albert Einstein, such that Kepler’s discovery implicitly defined our Solar system, or the galaxy within which we must regard it, as “finite, but unbounded.”

Although I have added some things of significant usefulness for me, to the insight into the implications of that body of knowledge, as in my argument introduced in this current writing, these considerations remain only what I have recognized as implications of what had been known to me as the leading accomplishments of such outstanding geniuses of our modern age as the exceptional followers of Riemann, Albert Einstein and V.I. Vernadsky, as such are to be recognized in the resonant memory of Bernhard Riemann’s celebrated 1854 habilitation dissertation.

The actually small refinement among the observations which I have actually added to that vast store of modern scientific progress, as I have done in this present report, has been merely to have drawn out what I must regard as a needed conclusion for me. These were conclusions such as those which might have been drawn from any sympathetic soul who recognized such implications as an expression of something from Riemann’s standpoint in that location, as for that which I have just summarized in the preceding chapter of this report.

“The greatest scientific principle” since the work of Filippo Brunelleschi and Nicholas of Cusa, found its resonance in the voice of a modern contributor to the emergence of the later, successive stages of progress in development of science’s most recent predecessor respecting systemic contributions to the body of that science, Academician V.I. Vernadsky. It is a fair estimate, that the justified excitement of every true discoverer expresses what he, or she, experiences, in each instance, as a moment of the relatively greatest personal experience of any significant, greater or lesser contributor to such a lesser or greater quality of an earlier or more recent discovery, or even rediscovery, when it has been sensed at a similar moment of realization.

My modest, but nonetheless crucial, rediscovery during what I have referenced, as being the creativity of Brunelleschi and Cusa, as that experience was echoed in a specifically relevant train-ride from Florence to Frankfurt, was inspiring, and important, as such exercises go, although, admittedly, not awfully profound on my part in this case; but, nonetheless, it also resounded as something which was practically very important, in and of itself. In such cases, the essential importance lies in the experiencing of any kindred sort of experience of a discovery of such characteristics. I mean the characteristic of what is essentially a discovery of what should have recognized as if under one’s nose. It is the what-should-have-been-obvious, except that it had not been experienced in that same way, with not quite the same, richer meaning, before.

It is another case of exactly the same way in which I came, years past, to the conclusion that the notion of sense-perception, when employed for the definition of the use of language, has no necessarily efficient connection with the subject-matter to which the notion of a certain quality of language is applied. That is the importance of the subject of the present report, when it is taken properly into account as what may be fairly described as a wholly rounded experience.

The Principle of Metaphor

To recapitulate the leading elements of what has been presented here this far, consider the primitive, erroneous notion of what could be considered as the paradoxical essentials of what is accepted as the notion of implicitly physical-perception, thus far: it is the notion of “reality” which is mapped onto a kernel which ranges, conventionally, from a narrowed band of what are termed five “physical sense-perceptions” to a range of about twenty. Already, in this report thus far, I have emphasized that we should consider this array in the image of a reorganized array of the problematic cases identified as of a core of four categories named in the opening principal, three-plus-one cases which I identified in the opening of the first chapter: three of an implicitly “physical” sub-category, and a fourth which is essentially “mental.”

In the case of what I identified as the fourth which I have attached to the idea of the first three as general, while the fourth, creativity as interchangeably “metaphorical,” or as “specifically human,” is limited (to the best of our present knowledge) to human powers of “creativity.” To restate the point, it is the lower three notions of “sense” which are to be recognized as being, speaking relatively, the shadows, and the domain of validatable metaphors as the domain of the highest ranking, and uniquely real.

Thus, on that account, my report being elaborated in this specific publication, has already emphasized a certain inherent, and even necessary inclusion of shadow-likeness in all notions, such as those indicated, initial “lower three,” the traditionally popular, but mistaken notions which I have associated, in the preceding chapter, as being associated with what is customarily misnamed as being experienced as “physical reality.”

The Truth about the Human Mind

To make a necessary restatement of the just-stated point: the objects customarily treated as being objects of sense-perception, are associated with the misapprehension of what is merely sense-perception as being a directly objective reality. The actual reality for which we should be searching is the real object which we do not actually see directly, but only as a shadow.18“For now we see [as] through a glass, darkly; but, then, face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.” I Corinthians 13: 12. Obviously, the Roman empire which murdered the Apostles Peter and Paul, was not pleased. The actual reality, which even otherwise capable scientific professionals tend to fail to comprehend, is the implications for the foundations of a competent physical science of the universal physical principle of credit, as I presented that in the course of a recent delivery of a national address.

Therefore, let us recognize those uniquely human powers of willful creativity as being the actual reality of the human knowledgeable experience. That means to recognize the fact that the actually metaphorical quality of human scientific creativity, insofar as this is expressed as the human power to change the ordering of the universe which we experience as physical-scientific creativity, is the expression of the real universe: that being the case as shown through the role of man’s creative-mental powers to change the universe through our willful actions. The discovery of a true universal physical principle by mankind’s intellectual means, is what is proven, experimentally to be mankind’s uniquely direct experience of our humanly active relationship to the universe.

Therefore, when that experimentally proven role of the creative powers of the individual human mind, is acknowledged as an experimental result of man’s action on the universe, there should be little difficulty in representing the types of experience associated with the designated “first three,” as representing the first three as being symbolically truthful in the sense of being like shadows cast by the otherwise unseen reality of mankind’s experience. What I am arguing here, is that there is no reliably functional equivalence between what might appear to be such a symbolic option being an acceptable symbolic “name” for a sense-perceptible object, and the reality of function performed by mankind’s inherently “metaphorical interrelationship with the actual universe.

Rather, we should locate efficient reality as located not within the bounds of what is typified by the first three of the four types which I enumerate here, but only by the function actually expressed in the last of the four as identified by the category of experience associated with the noëtic characteristics of the fourth case, the case of specifically human noëtic powers. “Otherwise” aside, it is the process expressed by actual human physical creativity, not the attributed “parts” of sense-perceptions as such, that which is adumbrated as human physical creativity per se, which embodies the efficient relationship of mankind to the universe.

At first examination, my argument here would tend to be considered as broadly acceptable to competent scientists, and also, with a certain shift in point of emphasis, among Classical artists. My point here, is that I would consider such an argument from such sources as objectionable if it were presented as merely a contemporary notion of today’s classroom or related science. I would insist, as I do here, that such a narrow conclusion were not properly tolerable, especially when the higher ontological issues of a science of physical economy, my specialty, were taken into account, as I have referenced the words of the Apostle Paul on account of this specific distinction.

Therefore, on this account, I have treated human economic creativity, expressed in the role of increase of man’s physical and related powers in the universe, as the immortal principle of the true meaning of the principle of credit in mankind’s economy. Credit, so defined, is of the essentially ontological character of mankind’s increased power to exist in the universe, which is the only truthful principle of economy.

I would add to that prescription, that such a stricter standard were presently mandatory when the wretched effects of the contemporary, but usually mistaken notion of the role of economy is taken under consideration. That is the core of the argument which I shall be proffering in the course of the remaining chapters of this present report.


III. THE ECONOMIC FUNCTION


That much said in this report thus far: take a moment or two for some brief “time outs,” to consider the subject-matter of, in fact, two relatively brief, but essential matters, two brief but relevant and strong sorts of hypothetical subject-matters.

In the case of these two relatively briefer chapters which I am now presenting, I would suggest, that to understand the true genius of human life adequately, it were not sufficient merely to compare human life with animal life on Earth generally; we must be occupied, with the prospect for future human life, or with conjectured, even higher forms of life generally. Therefore, what we require, is some sort of measurement of the characteristics of our own galaxy with the comparable characteristic of other galaxies, especially those which might be described by our scientific humorists, as “nearby galaxies.” It is urgent for our report as a whole, that, in a certain way, we must gain a better insight into the future (and past) of some plurality of existing other galaxies.

We might presume, that there must exist a necessary indication of the imputable purpose for the existence of mankind within the scope of some fairly approximate understandings of the topics encountered within the necessity of the subject of our universe generally. My reading of the passage from the Apostle Paul, to which I have referred in the immediately preceding chapter, implies some degree of answer to such existential questions; but, even that is not fully satisfying.

It might be impossible, so far, to provide a fair estimate of the answer to such questions; but, the mere fact of some sort of better approximation of an answer might permit our prospectively to-become-deceased human beings to live the better at peace with the joy which may be extracted among those faced with the ultimately fatal consequences inhering in the course of human life. This presents us with the prospect of some significant consequences for the consideration by at last some among our presently living people.

As I shall demonstrate by this relatively brief, present chapter’s assigned outcome, that sort of question has a very high degree of practical importance for those of us presently living. This questioning presumes the additional question of the meaning of “an existent Creator.” It is a question which is unthinkable for any known sort of creature of a lesser order of existence than mankind itself, as also for whatever might prove to be creatures of a higher quality of existence than our own. It bespeaks a creature of no lower quality of existence than mankind, as that could be considered at our best today. It is no idle question; it is a necessary question to ask of ourselves now, in this present time of grave crisis.

Some will, doubtless, insist that that is “a silly question” for us to demand of ourselves; I disagree, most emphatically. Our existence, as the citation from the Apostle Paul implies the importance of the question, can not permit such a pessimistic distinction between purpose and realization.

Take into account, the notable fact, that I had been reared, in my parental family, and otherwise, amid religious questions, and had experienced, chiefly, one suggested answer usually sillier than another. That was not because the question itself were irrelevant; the belief in a Creator is extremely relevant, as I have referenced the Apostle Paul in the preceding chapter on that point here; but, the presently proposed run of answers falls far short of the intention of the questions themselves. The point of such speculations, is, the subject of the occasion as considered when the question is situated within the province of this report; it is our attempt at an actually functional clarification of the specific nature of the purpose of the universe which we inhabit.

The presently optimal attempts at a meaning containing the idea of the necessary existence of our galaxy, have not been sufficient to conceptualize the actuality of an actual Creator. However, in the alternative to that, by considering questions respecting the order of the meaning of such terms respecting relationships among two or more universes, our attention is brought toward a kind of knowledge which a Creator might think it timely for mankind, or, perhaps, our plausible successors, to come to know.

The feasibility of any practically worthwhile speculation on the subject of “Creator” from this vantage-point, depends on the precondition of recognizing the systemic difference of the human species from all other types of presently known living species of which we might have been aware thus far. Call this view the effect of mankind’s recent arrival, during the course of the recent several millions of years of our species’ presently estimated existence on Earth; consider the fact of mankind’s arrival at a time of what has been suggested by the name of “an extra-territorial imperative,” as that may be deemed as implying a characteristic aspect of the destiny of mankind.

Clearly, viewing matters from that standpoint, the Creator has no future use, other than as some sort of scarecrow, for such a virtually Satanic creature as our implicitly mass-murderous President Barack Obama. That is to say: Obama, or his like, Dick Cheney, have no discernible useful purpose for existing, but to confront those who might err in accepting the existential impulses of such a misfortunate creature as that, or such a current advocate of mass-extinctions of human beings, as some among the family circles of the present Queen of England.

What, therefore, are we to seek to understand on this account, respecting the notion of a living and willful Creator? The contrast between the existence of animal species, as contrasted by the qualitatively different characteristic of the human species? The latter need of response to such matters is located, ontologically, in the considered distinction of the human species, that of being creative in the sense that no mere animal matches the distinction of the creative human will.

It is the rejection of what is truly human scientific creativity which shows us the distinction of the animal from the actively “creative” human individual mind, the difference of mind from beast, or, the bestiality of the professed outlook of the so-called “liberals,” such as the followers of the pro-Satanic likeness of the properly infamous “Adam Smith”—in brief, “The Old Adam!”

I refuse to respond to silly questions such as “What is God’s intention for me?” They are silly, precisely because anything said along such lines has been already said by some other person, more or less well enough on that account, but not good enough to provide a reasonable answer on our subject in this report.

The question is: what is the intention of a Creator for Himself, that we might serve that intention more wisely than recent records of human performance have suggested? Should a Creator not foresee appropriate intentions expressed voluntarily among the created? Are we not intended to be in a certain degree of likeness to a Creator, rather than the likeness of some “store-bought, Heavenly wind-up toy?” Do we not require of ourselves an appropriately anticipatable mission for our fulfilment? How shall we better “obey” through foreknowledge of what we must create in service of the intention which we must supply to the universal creative process; are we not to become what is the clearly willful means of fulfillment of a Creator’s intentions?

Why should we seek anything less than that of ourselves? Universal creativity, which happens to be confined to the best of our present knowledge, is to be considered for our present studies; it must be considered, at least hypothetically, as both the origin, and the course of continued development of our universe-in-itself in the making. What is the necessary passion on which the motivation of our continued existence for the benefit of our universe depends? Is that question itself not the implied answer? Let us ask ourselves what we might be enabled to actually know.

Why Ask These Questions Now?

Our relevant associates and other sources are now properly pointing out the indications of a possibly catastrophic trend in progress within the range of our immediate galaxy, a condition which, in particulars, represents a quality of threat which had not yet been experienced by human life within the span of several million years, or possibly more, during which there has been evidence of the notable existence of our human species. Whatever the actual extent of that present range of threats against our species, the existence of such a form of threat is now sufficiently clear to prompt some thoughtful sorts of some scientifically developed human minds, to pose the issue of more or less urgent discussions of alternatives in the category of “extraterritorial imperatives.”

Having posed the questions so implied, let us, for the moment, put conceivable threats aside. Let us confine our inquiry, here, for this moment, to the mere fact of such a problem of some different sort of existential threat, which might exist somewhere in the future. In such a case, where should our species go? How? “Why?” Or, “What else might we do,” and, again, “Why?”

Amid such questions as those which I have just set forth, one fact is most clear. That fact is the notion of creativity-as-such. That notion is of the human creativity which distinguishes the human will from that of the mere beasts. That fact, thus far, is the best guess of the answers to such existential questions. So far, the best which we have been enabled to do, remains our effort at an upward-searching back-tracking into the direction shown by continuing investigations of the past to present of our universe, thus far.

Mankind is not a creature with the inclination to create a higher state of the universe; as I have emphasized in the opening two chapters of this report, above, humanity is inherently creative, and could not exist as a human species otherwise, or in a universe otherwise definable.

That investigation can not be delimited to the past as such. Only the human capacity for discovery of higher orders of principles than we had experienced from the best of earlier, truly revolutionary changes upward, affords us a suggestion of where the future as such were likely to move. We must enrich our insights into the direction which the record of past revolutionary changes from a pre-fixed trend by new discoveries has demonstrated as being the likely qualitative changes which the future were likely to pursue. It is that challenge given to us as nothing less than the unknown, which represents the riddle which we must tease ourselves into solving—solving in advance. We call it the discovery of a principle of a higher order than deduction could decode.

The crucial principle which arises from the pages of this present chapter, is the fourth principled fact among the four principles with which I opened the first chapter of this present report: mankind differs from the beasts as the fourth principles defines this. Man differs from the beasts as containing the idea of the efficient effect of the future existence of a higher species than its own.

That brings our account to the subject of both NAWAPA and what NAWAPA actually represents for us on Earth.


IV. NAWAPA SPEAKS!


There is no reasonable doubt that what was presented as the original design of the North American Water and Power Alliance (NAWAPA), the original prospect for an alliance in water-management among the U.S.A., Canada, and Mexico, was no more than an indispensable, proverbial “wedge-end” of the intention for a vast expanse of the trans-Pacific region for the next great development of our planet as a whole. In translation, that means, most essentially, a grand alliance in development of, most immediately, Russia, China, and the United States, a trio of nations which, by inherent notions of design, means, first above all, the leading role of the entirety of the Pacific-Indian Ocean basin, a role leading into the conquest of the mystical lure of both the Arctic and the Antarctic, and, along the way, the colonization of certain planetary expressions of the Solar system, and beyond.

What has already been noted by some wiser prophets of space-exploration, is the fact of the spread of the colonization of the Solar system’s suitable ranges for such allegedly absurd purposes as proposing to reduce the net risk to humanity generally, of foolishly limiting the scope of our species’ existence to Earth alone. We must consider the implicitly calculable threat to a human species which failed to reach beyond the habit of a human life confined to planet Earth.

Put the relevant “nay-sayers” such as the worse than silly, and probably deranged Barack Obama, to one side. We will find it useful to concede the point in advance, that such implied forms of undertakings for the future, require a per-capita energy-flux density vastly beyond anything presently known on Earth itself. So did Christopher Columbus’s first trans-Atlantic voyage. So, “what of it” as that ugly bastard Bertrand Russell had once said; we are still experiencing a lunatic’s virtually mass-suicidal sort of resistance to the indispensable role of established principles of nuclear fission; we are barely touching the vastly greater resources of thermo-nuclear fusion; and, have yet to more than touch the mere prospect of “matter-antimatter” reactions.

The one clear statement which our galaxy has provided for our edification, is that the conquest of a region on the scale of a Solar system, is a relatively junior grade of challenge once we had faced up to what is already the implicit future of mankind’s role in this universe. Much of modern scientific practice, so far, has failed to grasp those underlying implications of the third, concluding portion of Bernhard Riemann’s 1854 habilitation dissertation.

Thus, we know so far, that human creativity begets human super-creativity, and that of still orders of magnitude beyond. We have, in brief, yet to begin to understand mankind’s place within the reach of the nearby galaxies of our universe.

What has held mankind backward scientifically, up to the present time? The answer, at least the best answer provided by known scientists to the present date, is that the oligarchical principle, which denounces physical-scientific progress by nations, is a product of that shamelessly Satanic monster known to Aeschylus’ account as the Olympian Zeus.

The willful, often British enemy of mankind, that oligarchical Olympian Zeus, has been the enemy from within mankind. The proper name of that present enemy of mankind is what is called, thus, “the oligarchical principle,” otherwise best known to us in the trans-Atlantic and Mediterranean regions, still today, as the four ancient through modern, evil empires of ancient imperial Rome, the Byzantine system, the Crusader system, and, presently, the British empire in all of its sundry phases. The British empire of today, is the most monstrously evil of all among the greatest tyrannies which exist on our Earth still to the present day.

Lest you wish to be so silly as to deny what I have just written here on the subject of space-exploration, consider the British monarchy’s currently stated proclamation to reduce the population of this planet from the order of as much or more than seven billions persons, to one, or less. Consider the level of stupidity imposed on the human population by the mass-murderous, so-called “green” policy which is premised on a combination of enforced relative bestiality and mass-murder, a current British imperial scheme which is intended to be far worse than that attempted by Adolf Hitler, as that same type of criminality is represented by the present “green” policy of the British imperial monarchy intended to be applied, presently, to the entirety of this planet. No one could deny, truthfully, that the British monarchy and its “green” policy are the most hideous of the leading criminal bands to be presented to all mankind presently.

That policy of an utterly depraved British monarchy and its satellites, is presently the gravest threat of mass-extinction of the peoples of this planet in all known history to the present date. Many millions of Americans, alone, are currently, already in the death-grip of a British monarchy’s intention for its current puppet, President Barack Obama, presently. Those facts are clear; it is only the coward’s fear among highly placed political figures to tell the truth, a denial of truth which stands in the way of bringing the human species back to safety from such predators as that British monarchy. The British mass-murder through London’s policies for Africa, is to be seen by honest speakers, as merely typical of British imperial criminality, a criminality which is, in effect, and remains worse than that of Adolf Hitler’s tribe still today.

The power to reverse such evils as those typified by the British monarchy’s role as a present-day empire, lies in the power represented by the forces ready to gather around a trans-Pacific alliance among the nations gathered in cooperation around what I have identified, above, as the readiness for a leading role of the United States, Russia, and China, all in opposition to that mass of moral depravity which persists as the British empire presently. The greatest danger to mankind as a whole today, is the lack of the proverbial guts to support the necessary remedies at hand. The danger lies in what has been, so to speak, “traditionally,” the question posed by the attempted reliance upon a presumably conventional notion of the meaning of a language suited to, and for science.


V. DECODING THE FUTURE OF MANKIND


Now, since I have brought into consideration the relatively brief notices contained within the two immediately preceding chapters, I return our attention to the original mainstream of this report as a whole.

In the two opening chapters of this report, I had warned that standard sense-perceptions do not represent the actuality of what common opinion still wishes, in the main, to believe are objects; but, they are not the actual objects of the real universe, but, rather, essentially shadows, rather than the substance of reality. I now restate those points which I had emphasized to this effect in Chapter I of this report. I emphasize the lesson to be adduced from two principal sources in the discoveries of the astronomy of a system of universal gravitation as the case was presented most successfully by Johannes Kepler.

For our purposes here, I begin this present chapter with references to the discoveries in Kepler’s New Astronomy and Harmonices Mundi, the two works which are to be treated as a typical centerpiece of Kepler’s treatment. Those subject-matters were treated as astronomical processes, with specifically superior competence by a special team of my associates whose work in this field had reflected some sharp criticisms of the rather typical, reductionists’ errors made, a few years back, in, at least, one leading Boston-area university.

That now brings our attention to the matter of a crucial feature of Kepler’s uniquely successful effort in founding a modern astronomy, as this is expressed most succinctly in his uniquely successful discovery of the principle of universal gravitation. His work was typified by both his discovery of the principle of gravitation, and by the additionally conclusive argument in this matter which is expressed by Albert Einstein’s notion of a finite, but unbounded universe. Einstein’s treatment of this matter is most notable, today, in that it has shown that, implicitly, no true principle of the known universe can be simply deduced as if “objectively.”

Such is the problem which has been chiefly responsible for the confusion generated against Kepler’s work in relevant university circles. In such and similar locations, the problem has been, most significantly, a result of a massive, fraudulent campaign against Kepler and his work which was launched by the same neo-Venetian scoundrel Antonio S. Conti (1677-1749), who was employed in a desperate effort to defame the leading scientist of that time, Gottfried Leibniz. Notably, Conti, a key forerunner of the pro-Satanic Adam Smith, held back his public attack on Leibniz, until Conti had received assurance that Leibniz had just recently died. The joker which Conti et al. used in their crafting of the anti-Leibniz hoax, was a crude British black-magic specialist known as Isaac Newton, the Newton who, as a matter of fact, never actually proved any discovered principle of modern science.

As I had noted in Chapter I of this present report of mine, no standard method based on the notion of sense-perception as such, has ever represented, nor probably comprehended any valid discovery of a principle of nature. Rather, taking the simplest approximation of an attempted definition of an object of experimental knowledge, such as the modesty of merely a few senses, we must consider the attempts to represent an experimental object in terms of a combination of differing kinds of sense-perceptions, such as “the meager five senses,” as a serious form of systemic error. Kepler, who was a gifted student of the work of the principal, first founders of modern European physical science, and the only original discoverer of a physical principle of gravitation, derived it from the basis which had been provided based on the work of Brunelleschi and Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa.

Kepler’s uniquely original discovery of the principle of gravitation, made the first step toward the discovery of the principle of gravitation by a more adequate, interacting set of physical experiences. What was actually “measured,” was a complex of shadow-like, sense-perception-like measures and the like sort of the shadows cast by a complex of observations of the form recognized as, at best, physical experiments. The most typical of Kepler’s contributions to a modern physical science resulted in such achievements as Leibniz’s uniquely original discovery of the calculus and the treatment of the subject of elliptical functions by the circles associated with Carl F. Gauss.

Certainly, there is nothing actually wrong in employing Kepler’s methods. The crucial sort of blunders by Kepler’s putative rivals and critics, arise when seemingly elementary deductive methods are presumed to provide direct evidence in support of conclusions which might be drawn from wrongly chosen evidence.

For our purposes in this present report, it is important to emphasize that the modern physical science of Russia’s Academician V.I. Vernadsky, apportions subject-matters among three categories of phenomena: the Lithosphere, the Biosphere, and the Noösphere. Each of those three is defined, categorically, by respectively, (first) a principle of non-life, (second) a principle of life as such, and (third) a quality of action which underlies the creative principle of human cognition as such.19As Academician Vernadsky was to emphasize from the mid-1930s onward, a competent, modern concept of a universal principle of life, especially that of the human mind (i.e., the Noösphere), has depended upon the work of Riemann.

Compare that assorting-process with Bernhard Riemann’s argument in the concluding section of what I have referenced, earlier in this report, as the third section of Riemann’s 1854, Göttingen habilitation dissertation. In short, for those and comparable reasons of evidence, there is no necessity of a direct correlation between the assortments of sense-perception and the efficient role of the work of the human mind’s approach to definitions of adducible phenomena. The cases of the need to define “a principle of life,” and that of “human creativity,” are well used as among the most crucial implications required in defining the solution for the problem of bringing home the task of defining the actual objects of sense-perception, that done in the relatively most simple fashion.

A Riemannian view of the notions of “life” and “creativity” as principles associated with such prominent names as Albert Einstein, solves one type of question. This accomplishment was effected at the price of the obligation to define the meaning of “truth” in terms coherent with an appropriate physical-scientific method, rather than a merely mathematical one. Consider the following points of relevance.

A Matter of Substance

The intrinsic incompetence of mathematical methods respecting physical subject-matters, and also the still higher quality of human mentality, is fairly identified as “psychological,” that in the most profound sense of the ontological implications of the use of the term designating the concept of “mind.” I explain this crucial principle of a competent modern science as follows.

To introduce this presently, little-understood principle of mind, it is important to emphasize the fact, that two of the most important principles of all scientific method, are the related, but also respectively distinct concepts of “life” per se and “human mind.”

Both of those latter phenomena are properly associated with the function of “metaphor”: associated with principled characteristics of discovery in both Classical artistic modes and in the practice of physical science respecting the subject of discoveries of principle. The stubborn difficulties which are generally expressed, still today, in respect to both Classical artistic composition and the role of discoveries of physical principles, are of a systemic form of expression. This form of expression is that associated with those reductionist’s difficulties which are lodged in the fact, of the incompetence often found among popular scientific and layman’s opinions, such as those respecting both the role of physical discovery of principle in science and Classical artistic composition: both are products of a radically reductionist misapprehension of the principles of human creativity. This mental disorder, is typically expressed for diagnosis in the notable cases as to be treated in the cases of Classical artistic composition associated with the aid of competent insight into the roots of physical-scientific discovery.

Notably, on this account, it is essential to distinguish between what are fairly distinguished, as it is my practice to do this, as, for the one part, from the functional distinction of behavior of the functions of the brain as such (e.g., the “nervous system”), and, for the other part, the human mind. The capacity to define this distinction belies the reductionist misapprehension which presumes that there is a not a distinction of “brain” and “mind,” a distinction which could not be effectively defined, except in respect to those functions of behavior which distinguish human creativity (a function of “mind”), from the relatively bestial notion of mere “brain.” What is apparently the frequent difficulty in recognizing that distinction in the human individual, is that the two respective, but distinct characteristics are interactive, but that mind is qualitatively of a higher order than mere brain.

At first consideration of the distinction which I have just outlined, the evidence of the paradox is evident; but, the solution for the apparent confusion, needs clarification. I proceed as follows.

The Clarification

The most efficient distinction of the two states, as they interact, with varying degrees of relative “intensity,” seems to express evidence to the effect that the difference is to be located as a sort of quarrel between a “creative over-brain” and a bestial (e.g., “literal”) “under-brain”: both inhabitants of a common, “normal” human individual, as distinct from the beasts. The challenge, is typified for illustration by the conflict between the conceptions of J.S. Bach and so-called “popular musical entertainment” today.

Now, continuing in the same hypothetical vein, take the following considerations into account.

Study the patterns of human behavior which contrast the world-outlook of the qualified Classical musician’s performance to that of entertainments according to the post-World War II brutishness of those entertainments which are correlated with the habituating brutishness of the post-World War II “Congress for Cultural Freedom.” That hypothesis does appear to typify the functional expressions of the problem.

Now, bring into consideration the role of the spread of the radically “environmentalist” syndrome in “popular” entertainments and related behavior: this apparent factor appears to belong to systemic characteristics of the referenced, degenerated mental type. The study of the tendency toward “menticide” among “de-cultured” adolescent and young-adult youth, provides examples of those whose tendency for “brutish behavior” is that of persons “lacking in cognitive skills:” a relevant subject for “clinical” studies of the relevant syndromes.

Training people to accept conditioning to expressions of existentialist behavior, certainly does tend to transform human individuals’ personalities towards bestiality. That has been the long-ranging trend of changes in modalities among the successive generations of American and European populations, and in differentiations in patterns among social “classes” over the course of the recent nearly hundred years since my birth in 1922. The patterns to be recognized in study of patterns of behavior, tend toward a multi-generational decline in the quality and abilities of typically declining patterns of productive and related skills over the span of my own life from birth to the present time. Prevalent patterns of “cultural conditioning” of the populations over the course of successive generations, often do reflect a strong trend toward a rise of what may be fairly identified as “a depravity factor” among sundry social classifications respecting trends toward depravity in sundry classes of “groupings.”

That much said on the subject of pathological patterns of behavior; for the present moment, approach the same topic, human, versus socially induced patterns of pro-bestial behavioral trends, for syndromes which I wish to make “more deeply” understood here.

Classical Artistic Composition

Focus intently on the experience of Classical artistic composition and the patterns of expression associated with that name. To push aside the tendency toward ignorant prejudice on this subject, compare scientific and Classical-artistic modalities. For convenience, focus on two periods during which what is to be termed meaningfully as ancient Greek Classical compositions and their modalities developed, and the modern Classical composition in art, science, and correlated general social-behavioral trends since the work of such as Brunelleschi and Nicholas of Cusa.

For this mission, use the standard of rise, or decline, in the functional equivalent of “increase of effective energy-flux density” as since the work of Brunelleschi, Cusa, and their followers in the effective equivalent of rises, and also declines, in energy-flux density for both physical science and Classical artistic modalities. Take into account the role of “long wars” in fostering moral and economic degeneration among nations and cultural strata, as since the time of the assassinations of U.S. President John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert.

Consider the correlated phenomenon of accelerated incomes, and influence of the useless rich, with the decline in relative levels of physical incomes among the actually productive “classes,” as typified by the Americas and Europe.

Now, attempt to resolve those types of speculations. For this purpose, examine the implications of the term “metaphor.”

Metaphor as the Principle of Science

Earlier, here, I had posed the challenge embodied in the use of the term “metaphor.” I had left the deeper meaning of the term aside until such time that I should bring the proper use of that term forward, as I am doing that, in carefully selected changes during the near-term here and now. “Time,” as I shall confront you with that matter of meaning now, is essentially a pun (paronomasia).

Among the sundry categories of evidence which bear, more and more, as relevant events proceed, on the matter I am about to put forward for your attention, the pattern on which our attention must be focussed is fairly described, in the rough, so to speak, as follows.

Among the worst of the assumptions which need to be challenged here and now, is sets of widespread more or less popular presumptions which converge on the Laplacean fallacy of “clock time.” A number of relevant scientists and the like have recognized that some sort of fallacy inheres in Laplace’s argument, but, there is also concern, and outright doubt, but, often, also confusion, when serious scientists react to Laplace’s doctrine.

From my vantage-point, the suggested kind of attention needed to this matter points in the direction of an interesting suggestion, as follows.

In living processes, in particular, we meet certain conditions under which biological progress moves as progress in virtual waves of biological development; but, in the same process, a process in its “pioneering” phase, appears to shift somewhat to a lateral development. It appears that in some cases, as in economic progress, for example, development shifts toward development of a form of moving ahead, by developing “sideways,” rather than “simply forward.” The effect includes compound effects which suggest that the process appears to have shifted, with the effect that the compound process proceeds backward in its time-effect, while the forward movement slows relative to the branches of progress which locate “progressive growth” as being located in a relatively major degree on the growth of the relatively more “primitive” phase as a dominant feature of the process overall. This is notable in physical-economic growth. Witness the process of progressive collapse of such economies as those of Europe and the Americas since the turn which occurred, for example, during the interval of the U.S. 1960s warfare in Indo-China. Since that time, such complex processes have become predominant in the trans-Atlantic sector: progress in the trans-Atlantic region has been increasingly backward in net physical-economic terms, and that increasingly, since the installation of the U.S. Richard Nixon Presidency, and otherwise.

Phenomena of that same general directedness of combined progressive and regressive net effects, are best considered in cases in which forward and regressive developments are occurring simultaneously, as this is prevalent in the trans-Atlantic domain, in particular since the processes of the U.S. prolonged warfare in Indo-China.

The appropriate rough measurement of processes which correspond to that pattern, must be gauged against the fact that, absolutely contrary to the so-called “Second Law of Thermodynamics,” the biological evidence pertaining to our galaxy, as gauged against the mass kills of about 96% of known species on Earth during the recent term of approximately a half-billions years, shows that holding back on physical-economic progress, from relatively lower, to higher biological standards for continued species-existence, demonstrates that the Nineteenth-century foolishness known as the so-called “Second Law of Thermodynamics,” and its religious arm known as “environmentalism,” has been a fraud played upon the victims, from the outset.

As I shall be stressing that fact from here on, large populations have often been stupid in their mass-behavior, as, for example, in electing and tolerating a virtual disease such as the person of U.S. President Barack Obama. The aspects of mass behavior of peoples, or large rations of them, include the option of even virtually mass-suicidal forms of adopted national policy, with awful, and repeated effects of one sort or another. Only the human species is presently known to us as enjoying the privilege of willful control of its own behavior. Outbreaks of mass popular stupidity, such as that which brought both of the defectives known, respectively, as George W. Bush, Jr. and Barack Obama into the U.S. Presidency, are not astonishing when the facts of that history is taken adequately into account.

The Oligarchical Principle

Most of the known societies from history have been victims of a cultural-mental disease which can be identified as the oligarchical principle. Many political-social movements of cultures and nations are to be recognized as expressions of that same oligarchical principle. For the purpose of our discussion here at this time, the entire trans-Atlantic community has been dominated, more or less plainly, by the oligarchical principle which reduces large masses of subject populations to virtually sick sheep, one generation more frequently more decadent than its predecessor.

The most significant contemporary case is that of the British empire which dominated our planet’s system since that 1763 Peace of Paris which established the present-day British Empire in fact, since that time, to the present day. Indeed the only leading European nation which is not a virtually crushed victim of British imperialism today, is Russia under the leadership of such prominent leaders as Putin and Medvedev: the rest, for the most part, are victims of an epidemic form of British imperial dictatorship, a form named “governance.”

That brings us merely to the threshold of the great principle to which we must turn our attention now.


VI. SCIENCE AT WORK


During the course of entering the Summer of 2011, I had completed a consideration which passed for the subject of a notion of time, a subject which I had considered over the course of decades of re-thinking of the increasing attention to Bernhard Riemann’s work, especially the implications for the notion of physical time, a notion which was already implicit in what I have referenced, earlier, here as the concluding section (Section 3) of Riemann’s 1854 habilitation dissertation.

During the course of time, I had become emboldened to undertake the shaping of a conception of a statement on the subject of physical time, as contrary to merely a linear clock-time. My views on that subject were, intentionally, in sharp contrast to those such as the followers of Laplace; this was an argument which I had taken up afresh in the Spring and early Summer of this present year,20Compare the treatment of the function of physical time by Sky Shields in “Is the Past Fixed?” http://www.larouchepac.com/node/18639 a subject which I had resumed for further conclusions in the launching of this present writing, “Three Steps to Recovery,” beginning the recent September 12th.

Throughout that previous Summer, until that September 12th, when I actually committed myself to begin this present report, I had written essentially nothing substantially new in my writings on the subject of “time,” until I had begun composing this present report, about this recent September 12th. However, it has been evident to me that the subject of time was more perplexing than I had presumed earlier. That subject had now returned to the surface more clearly, and more emphatically, as now viewed in a relatively more advanced stage of a continuing progress than I had wished to assert earlier; I had thus presumed to risk putting these freshened thoughts to paper, as I am doing here.

The result of this continuing genesis has been the report now being presented to you for your study here. It has been a report intended, when completed, to be addressed principally to my young-adult professionals, that done with the intention to add a strongly motivated, if also suitably cautious, marginal emphasis on these more advanced matters which are the subjects of this present report.

In my determination to resume the completion of this report, I had found myself engaged in what I intended should prove to be a successful lurch toward completion in presenting an entire phase of that work on the subject of human creativity, which I have intended to be readied for early publication during this Autumn.

It should be noted in the following pages, that the emphasis of the challenge with which I was confronted in writing this on that account, had found its most convenient choice of antecedent for reference many years earlier, in Albert Einstein’s important comment on the implications of Johannes Kepler’s great work: the notion of a Solar system which is finite, but not bounded. The content of that adopted challenge, involved implications of the notion of causality, as causality is properly implied in what I have just referenced as what should be recognized as having been Albert Einstein’s most notable conclusion on this subject-matter.

The Political Years

Against that background of these earlier parts of modern world history which are to be seen from the vantage-point of the so-called trans-Atlantic “West,” the world is currently plunged into what now threatens us with the most menacing crisis in known, modern world history.

That requires a relevant amount of our deep rethinking, respecting the deeper ways in which the mind sometimes actually appears to work. That brings us back to the standpoint which I introduced for continuing consideration in the first Chapter in this report.

Therefore, since I had written the first Chapter of this report, not only Russia, but, lately, most of the world, has experienced a new political revolution.

This was made clear, in the recent joint action of the incumbent current President of Russia and his partner, the current Prime Minister, who are now designated to exchange posts.

Therefore, on this occasion, we must pause to rethink the strategic situation. Let us, therefore, rethink through the grand surprise which Russia’s political leadership has just recently employed to outwit and outflank what has been Russia’s and the United States’ rather ancient and foremost enemy, the British Empire, as follows.

Russia’s presently leading figures, the contemporary political leaders Putin and Medvedev, have not yet finally secured Russia’s next re-election; but, they had become, quite suddenly, impressively near to their crucial, present strategic objective of great progress. Our own traditionally British imperial adversary is now mightily perturbed on account of Russia’s recent progress. This relative achievement by Russia’s leadership, as by those two candidates for re-election, has come forth at a time when what has been seemingly most of the U.S.A.’s leading “party” machines, have been, busily, sending themselves and their admirers down to a monstrously bad political defeat, even toward Hell itself, that as now shown in the launching of an intended, 2012 election-campaign of President Barack Obama and his appendages.

As Plato might have written, were he alive today, Titanic changes in the course of current world history have just now come to the surface again, this time in Russia, and among other important nations of the world, too.

This change of the political weather eastward of Russia’s European border, means that the core of the potentially winning forces of the U.S.A. electorate, should now become aware, that nothing actually good is to be expected from the presently incumbent reigning Obama political leadership of the U.S.A., or from what had been until most recently, the present, downward-plunging trends of qualities and inclinations among the political leaderships of western Europe. Hopefully, there seems to be a bit of improvement on that account.

Inside the U.S.A. presently, relying on the mistakenly presumed quality of existing party leaderships until most recently, would be the fast track toward extinction under the present state of mind of the present trends in the U.S.A.’s Democratic and Republican leaderships. We in the United States, in particular, are being impelled to seek to overturn what had been the recent pattern of disgusting moral, economic and political failures which our Democratic and Republican “bosses” have provided since President “Bill” Clinton left the office of the Presidency nearly eleven years ago. Nonetheless, despite this, we do enjoy a small, if precious minority of those who are to be found among the ranks of current nominal Democratic or Republican parties’ actually trustworthy membership of either of those two political parties. Nonetheless, the majority of the voters of both parties have come to reject their parties’ leaderships, while tending, more and more, toward “independent” postures.

So, the trend has become, that party leaders find themselves surrounded by increasingly dissident masses in the nominal base of voters’ support. The presently onrushing economic breakdown of general collapse of the trans-Atlantic region of the world’s economy, has produced a significant ferment of impulses for fresh innovation in our social-political processes.

During that time, our republic has been impelled, as throughout the entire trans-Atlantic world, into the British-directed, steeply declining, and presently hyper-inflationary phase of the worst general breakdown collapse in what is customarily identified as modern, “Western” history. This trend has been, so far, the effect of utterly, shamelessly pro- British-imperial-dominated years under what are now nearly a dozen ruinous years under the reign of the succession of the mentally blemished President George W. Bush, Jr. who was already bad enough, and, the worst of them all, an ostensibly, visibly deranged virtual carbon copy of the Emperor Nero, Barack Obama.

The Financiers & Their Folly

The root of the present, systemic political crisis in the United States, actually began with the death of President Franklin Roosevelt, and the incumbency of the virtual Wall Street/London puppet, Harry S Truman. Two terms under President Dwight Eisenhower reversed the worst strategic effects of the Truman Administration, but London and Wall Street continued to increase their power over the U.S. economy. The U.S. economy of a President John F. Kennedy had turned the U.S. economy and related policies back into the tradition of President Franklin Roosevelt; but, the assassination of President Kennedy, and also the assassination of his brother Robert Kennedy, sent the U.S. careening into the opposite direction downward, into which the U.S.A. was plunged, in net effect, over the entire period since the assassination of John and Robert Kennedy.

Under the effects of a continued mis-leadership of the trans-Atlantic world, that under the present tyranny of the present British monarchy, there would be, presently, no hope for rescuing the United States, from a presently onrushing, general breakdown-crisis of the planetary economic-political system in its entirety and perhaps even the planet as a whole.21In reading these lines, the reader must join us in taking into account the fact, that the general breakdown-crisis of the trans-Atlantic system of nations is already on the verge of a general “breakdown” collapse worse than that which struck down Weimar Germany in late 1923. Once the present trans-Atlantic system had been sent into a “breakdown,” the immediate damage this would cause, would never be recoverable in anything resembling its present form. Under such conditions, the British Royal Family’s hope for a level of genocide reaching the vicinity of a one billion ceiling on global population-levels would become close to prophetic for generations yet to come. The London-led hyperinflation under creatures such as Geithner et al., would be virtually unstoppable, once the coming “crash” had actually occurred. The first actual sign of hope for a better outcome, was launched, as a very painfully shocking surprise, a sudden ruin of the strategy behind British imperial hopes, a serious setback caused by the sudden surprise delivered to the British and their lackeys, as represented by the decisions rendered by the joint action of Russia’s President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin at the just recently concluded meeting of their party’s convention.

Now, I emphasize the point, that western and central Europe themselves, had entered beyond the brink of the presently terminal phase of the worst general, hyper-inflationary breakdown-crisis in modern trans-Atlantic history. The principal expression of this crisis thus far, lies in the fact that unless that British royal lackey, U.S. President Barack Obama, were now ejected from that office in the United States, there had been virtually no chance proffered during and following the installation of the Blair Prime Ministry, in particular; it had seemed to be impossible to prevent a virtually immediately economic and physical breakdown-crisis of the trans-Atlantic region of the world, an early crisis of a kind, which, if continued, the remainder of the planet could not outlive for long.

Fortunately, the recent actions led by Russia’s leaders Putin and Medvedev, in their own successive terms in the office of Russia’s Presidency, have brought forth the factor of a revolutionary moment in world history, a moment which has now demonstrated a great potential for initiating what were now presented publicly as otherwise deep-threatened changes not only for the benefit of Russia, China, India, and other East and Central Asia nations, despite the presently very advanced process of the threat of an oncoming collapse of the nominally leading political currents presently in office, but also great potential for a popular revival of the U.S. legacy of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, now to be recognized as a true world leader from our past. Russia’s recent action, together with its present partners, proffers the only present hope for escape from the presently onrushing, hyper-inflationary mass of human extinctions of the greater part of the trans-Atlantic and other regions—unless President Barack Obama were removed almost immediately during the very short time immediately ahead.

While the worst influences seemed to be in charge of recent world history, especially throughout the trans-Atlantic region, other processes have been in motion, apparently under the surface of what have been presumed to be reigning trends.

These feature notably, the presently continued acceleration of a form of trans-Atlantic hyperinflation which is already far beyond anything experienced in the 1923 Weimar “hyperinflation”; the trans-Atlantic economic collapse is already far worse, respecting its global magnitude, than any earlier financial crises of the post-World War II period.

Ah! But, there have been less noticed processes under way, as if under the surface.

The great Asia nations could not long outlive the after-shocks of the trans-Atlantic hyper-inflationary “bubble” overripe for a total-breakdown form of financial-monetarist collapse. Only the immediate retirement of President Barack Obama from office, could avoid the sudden extinction of as many as hundreds of millions of lives in even North America, Europe, Africa, and beyond, through effects of massive and accelerating famine and disease alone. Not only must Obama go peacefully, but, there is apparently no alternative to his going. Also, the likely fact is, that an assassination of Obama would uncork a nightmare perhaps as ominous, or worse, as his continuation in office during the approximate month ahead. He must be placed in secured, protective retirement immediately. It would be virtually an act of treason not to bring him safely out of office immediately; but, he must be out immediately.

There are two options for a needed, de facto, immediate removal of Obama from office. One option is impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors, of which he is to be judged fully culpable, already. The alternative option is provided under the Twenty-Fifth Amendment’s Section 4. At the likely minimum, as the case of a Section 4 action implies, the suspension of his powers in office for such reasons, would be the preferred immediate form of action to be considered. Any violent mass-action, by, or against the implicitly treasonous, or simply insane Obama administration would threaten a nightmare comparable to an Adolf Hitler, or Dick Cheney-led, bloody mass purge.

The Matter of a Recovery

The present level of destruction of the present economic system in place, when combined with the accelerating rates and existing magnitude of the trans-Atlantic rates of monetarist hyper-inflation, has now generated virtually skyrocketing levels and insurging rates of threatened changes, such that even an immediate halt to the hyperinflation, through a Glass-Steagall mode, could not, by itself, solve the problem of the levels of bankruptcy now being reached.

Yes, that is the apparent state of affairs. However, before that point were reached, Glass-Steagall must have been put into effect. Without that, no immediate and irreversible breakdown-crisis of a type leading into early waves of mass deaths, could be avoided. Unfortunately, the net residue of viable physical-economic assets has been diminished to such a degree that only the accompaniment of Glass-Steagall by a shift to a Federal credit-system, as was already implied under the initial U.S. Constitutional formation of a credit system could provide even a temporary rescue. The application of a credit-system, as a replacement for the present money system, or, for a worse kind of economic sickness, a monetarist system, must be promptly installed.

An exposition on the matter of policy must be presented, before continuing with the discussion entered immediately above.

“The Old Adam”

The likely objection we might expect from the more sophisticated, but still monetarist sources, would still put the U.S.A. (and other nations) under the same old (“The Old Adam”) policy which has been the principal expression of the ultimate evils which now threaten the very existence of any civilization.

In brief, the amount and rate of monetary expansion which were needed to provide a net margin of actual recovery, would become hyper-inflationary under the trans-Atlantic world’s present needs if any sort of “free trade” or kindred reform were attempted. To say the same thing in other words, a Federal Credit System steered into very high rates of “injections” of high-energy-flux density is now urgently required. Heightened capital-intensity of U.S. Federally backed programs related to a maximal rate of development of an extended version of the NAWAPA system, must be placed into motion, immediately, and at the maximum scientifically feasible rate.

Furthermore, the NAWAPA design must be extended to the scope of a Pacific Basin scale reaching deeply into regions such as Russia and China as also the U.S.A. and Canada. The characteristic features of such a credit-based Federal system, and their international systems of cooperation of what would be considered today as very high-energy-flux-density platforms for the agro-industrial foundations of the nations which are urgently needed for bringing even the bare recovery needed for the next two generations of mankind, require means of very high capital-intensity of power and net physical output.

Some Aids to Survival

Productive employment on a vast scale, is urgently needed now, even more than under the early years of the Franklin Roosevelt Presidency. There must be relatively very high levels of energy-flux density, especially in very highly productive rates of investment in basic economy in the understructure on which essential marketable services and production of directly consumable agricultural and manufacturing output depend.

Fortunately, the recovery of the U.S. economy under President Franklin Roosevelt made an otherwise unattainable victory over a potential Adolf Hitler possible. As a result of the Franklin Roosevelt recovery of a U.S. under the conditions of World War II, we equipped our forces with tons where the Nazis were compelled to rely on merely pounds—as the relevant German leaders complained at that time. We must and can assume the model of the Franklin Roosevelt recovery again, now, and that with the greatest imaginable haste and vigor. That would work; nothing less could.

In brief, we must produce at such rates of increase of relative energy-flux density in productivity, that the increase of the net physical output of growth of the U.S. economy accelerates in such a fashion as to greatly outpace the debt generated by investment in expanded and increasingly productive rates of growth per capita and per square kilometer. As early colonist Captain John Smith is said to have said, “To eat, you must first work.” Not only physical work, but high-technology physical-output in a capital-intensive mode.

In short, we must return to those capital policies of Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton which rescued our republic from the onrushing jaws of monetarism, threats which have threatened the efforts for another American victory over our same old enemy, the British imperial monarchy, still today.

The Two Crucial Motives

There are two distinct qualities of action to be considered, respecting the urgency of removing the rabidly incompetent President Barack Obama to appropriate supervision, Federal protection, and legal action. These are not only urgent but mandatory: sudden removal for his immediately orderly and prompt suspension and personal security out from public office.

First, and foremost, for as long as he remains in office, not only is the United States almost certainly doomed; but, second, without a certain form of alliance among the United States, Russia, China, and certain leading other nations, especially of the Pacific-centered domain, that doom will be carried beyond the collapse of the immediately threatened trans-Atlantic regions, but, subsequently, throughout the planet as a whole.

The Galactic Threat

We must also consider the implications of a certain galactic-weather threat, as follows.

The most obvious of such threats to human existence, is presently onrushing threat of general physical-economic breakdown-crisis of most of the planet, especially the combination of the trans-Atlantic region, and, following that, the planet as a whole. The sudden and rapid opening of a general, physical economic breakdown of the planet, especially beginning within the Trans-Atlantic region, now, would probably mean a nightmare on the scale of a rapid collapse of the human population, a depopulation consistent with the current British monarchy’s announced determination to collapse the human population to the level of no more than a billion persons.

The second level of threat comes from our galaxy. If, as is indicated, that the human population on this planet began at a time as early as a few millions of years ago, then it were possible that the human species might be expected to disappear in the way of the dinosaurs. It would be foolish in the extreme not to consider the possibility of such a challenge. In the latter circumstances, under expected changes expected by the shifts within Earth’s position in our galaxy, human existence would apparently depend upon the development of technologies of far greater “energy-flux densities” beyond anything which could be possible at the relatively low-energy-flux densities of employed power associated with the presently impassioned primitive technological levels permitted by the British-monarchy-led, so-called “environmentalists” of today.

The root of that, factually, pro-genocidal policy of the British monarchy since the close of the Eighteenth Century, is the central feature of the global threat to the continued existence of the human species looming before humanity as a whole: the so-called “environmentalist movement,” the oligarchical program of fostering of genocide threatening the continued future of human existence at the present time.


VII. CHARLEMAGNE’S LEGACY


Briefly, shift the subject to a timely theme:

In the English translation of President and General Charles de Gaulle’s uncompleted Memoirs of Hope, he began as follows:

“France has emerged from the depths of the past. She is a living entity. She responds to the call of the centuries. Yet, she remains herself through time. ....”

That opening statement by President de Gaulle, is not precisely true.

In that matter, we must never forget Charlemagne’s France, a France then comprised, in Charlemagne’s time, of the essential territory of what is known today, to a large degree, as the separate nations of France and Germany, a France of that Charlemagne who was the partner in anti-imperialist alliance of another great sovereign, that of the Baghdad of Charlemagne’s time, Haroun al-Raschid. When these two leaderships had died and their reigns shattered, Europe had degenerated rapidly into what became the perpetual religious warfare which concluded in the so-called chivalry of that reign of the great wave of deaths which was the Fourteenth-century New Dark Age.

The error in President de Gaulle’s assumptions in his time, was his failure to take into account the crucial historical importance of the failure of European civilization, as contrasted with the historic role of our United States, the same error he made in underestimating the crucial role of the American Revolution in world history up to the present moment.

Charlemagne Had Been Crucial

With the great economic system, the true civilization, and great internal hydraulic systems of central Europe (i.e., what are presently known as the separate nations of France and Germany at that time), when Charlemagne died European civilization had been collapsed. Continental Europe collapsed into the effects of a bestiality which became the decline into the Crusader system. A Crusader system which led into the succession of a “Black Death” could be prophetic if the “green” option were to prevail.

Next there came, decades later, a gradually accelerating recovery from about the time of the early decades leading into the Great Ecumenical Council of Florence, out of the emergence of the centuries-delayed revival of some elements of Charlemagne’s distant memory. This renaissance led into the rise of the great statesman of a reborn France under the memory of the great Jeanne d’Arc, her heir, the Louis XI who emerged as a great, briefly reigning political-economic instrument of an emergent modern civilization.

But, then came the resurgence of the House of Habsburg’s invasion of the royal bedrooms of the Iberian Peninsula and the great religious warfare throughout Europe over the 1492-1648 interval. Warfare between France and Germany, aggravated by England’s Henry VIII, became a crucial part of the means by which the legacy of the ancient Roman Empire has been maintained as an imperialist trick of division of Europe, by means of which what had been one form or another of the Roman empire, were perpetuated to rule and ruin the nations of Europe and beyond.

Then came the rise to power in Britain of the New Venetian Party whose power was centered in the financier center of the Netherlands where the lying scoundrel Rene Descartes and his successor William of Orange established his new empire through the sheer silliness of France’s Louis XIV and XV, and William’s invasion of the British Isles. By the 1763 Peace of Paris, the British empire had become established as the heritage of the new, world Roman Empire, the British Empire of the heirs of Lord Shelburne, up to the present days of ruin of the trans-Atlantic world.

With modern history now to be read against that summarized historical background, the following must be considered.

The American Option

Nicholas of Cusa’s design had established the roots of a modern civilization at a relatively safe distance from “old Europe,” exactly as Nicholas of Cusa was the first to recognize the failure inherent in an “Old Europe” far too close to the legacy of the succession of Roman empires. That problem has persisted up to the present time; it is the influence of “Old Europe,” that hand of decadence which has cursed Europe and also the Americas to the present day.

So, the criticism to be made of President de Gaulle’s vision of France’s true roots of nationhood, was justified prior to the maturity of his Fifth Republic mission, more less, in some degree, as the implications of a true history of European civilization. He had, however briefly, rightly sought and desired the quality of a Europe which he shared as a bold and noble intention with Chancellor Konrad Adenauer. The intention of the de Gaulle of the Fifth Republic and Konrad Adenauer was betrayed by the British imperial influence. There were British lackeys in the mold of France’s President Mitterrand. There were British interests who gained power over the United States through the work of the assassins of U.S. President John F. Kennedy and John’s brother Robert.

For such reasons, as long as President Kennedy had lived, the cooperation between de Gaulle’s France and Adenauer had been a blessed moment, but, unfortunately, that was to give way to victory of the British empire over the continent of Europe with the assassination of President Kennedy, which wrecked De Gaulle’s intention, and which, in turn destroyed the fixed-exchange-rate which had been established by President Franklin Roosevelt. So, precious, blessed moments had come and passed, until today’s hope of a return to the Franklin Roosevelt legacy for which the world is still waiting, now.

France’s long failure, earlier, since the death of Louis XI, to recognize the legacy of Charlemagne’s peace of the region which Charlemagne had erected against the evil tradition of the Second Roman empire, has been key to a competent understanding France’s failures to continue to realize what President de Gaulle of the Fifth Republic would seek to bring about, thus to bring about the goal intrinsic to Charlemagne’s effort to destroy the evil tradition of the Roman Empire.

On this account, France’s failure since the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, is to be blamed on, principally two factors. One fault is to be blamed on the successful British interest’s success in exploiting the assassination of President Kennedy. The other, has been France’s own failure since the assassination of President Kennedy, the failure to recognize the way in which the British empire has maintained the role of the Roman empire of “divide and conquer,” the development which is key to understanding the assassination of President Kennedy, and also the assassination of a Robert Kennedy about to become the new U.S. President.

Thus, what might have been considered, mistakenly, as de Gaulle’s failure, might be fairly said prior to President de Gaulle’s role under the Fifth Republic, but not as the de Gaulle of the Fifth Republic until President Robert Kennedy was assassinated. The fault of a France prior to the Fifth Republic had been its softness toward the British and Habsburg versions of the Roman imperial tradition. France’s frequent failure earlier than the Fifth Republic was its failure to understand the evil of the sundry expressions of the Roman empire up to the present date, especially France’s folly in allying with the British form of manifestation of the Roman imperial tradition, and with the British use of conflicts between France and Germany for the advantage of the British imperial menace to them both.

The principle to be emphasized here, was France’s frequently earlier failure, prior to the Fifth Republic and with the rise of the British asset Mitterrand, to recognize that the worst of the experience of France had always been the legacy of the Roman Empire’s continuing to play that old role as under Rome’s reincarnation as the old Venetian tyranny of monetarism, as the monetarism of the New Venetian Empire which marched into Britain and Ireland under the banner of William of Orange.

Europe’s Curse

At the bottom, the failures of France itself, and that of Germany, too, must be attributed chiefly to the failure to recognize two cardinal facts of ancient through modern history. First, was the inherent evil of the method of the oligarchical system, as expressed by the existence of the oligarchical system typified by the Roman Empire and its successors; secondly, the failure of France and Germany to recognize, that it has been in more recent centuries, the folly of both of France and Germany to fail to understand their respective frequent betrayals of the legacy of Charlemagne.

The tragic failure of both France and Germany, among others, has been the failure to realize that the terrible mistake of both, has been their failure to recognize the meaning of Charlemagne’s great reform, the reform of the notion of the sovereign nation-state which had been built, so brilliantly, on the foundation of the great design for a peace of the Mediterranean region, which Charlemagne and Haroun al-Raschid had crafted as their intention for as long as they had lived.

The truth about modern Europe, and its more honorable intentions, has often, thus, been buried under the crushing of the great ecumenical Council of Florence under the evil which was the legacy of a succession of Roman empires, from the likeness of Caesar Augustus, through the loss of western and central Europe’s crushing of its former sovereignty under the brutish heel of the legacy of the succession of Roman Empires, from Caesar through the present British empire of the present moment under Elizabeth II. It must be remembered, that it was the “divide and conquer” of the system of Roman imperialist divide-and-rule under the almost global British imperial outgrowth of the ancient Roman empire and the legacy of the oligarchical principle, which crushed the intention of that President Charles de Gaulle to unite the common intention against the British imperial adversary of virtually all continental Europe.

Despite the systemic failure of France prior to the Fifth Republic, President de Gaulle had come to epitomize an intended practice which had become, in a significant respect, an appropriate modern successor of the principles of statecraft which the genius of Charlemagne had represented in an earlier time. Admittedly, those specific connections to Charlemagne had been lost, once again, with his death, and lost again, and again, in the rubble of what was to become Europe’s Fourteenth-century, “old Venetian” New Dark Age. However, it was a folly also expressed even after the greatness of Louis XI, all these failures the expression of a continued Venetian depravity to be reborn once more as the “New Venetian Party” of both William of Orange, and, once more, the depravity of Leibniz’s personally living enemy, Leibniz’s bitter adversary, Abbe Antonio S. Conti, together with Conti’s British “stand-in,” the utterly degenerate Isaac Newton.

The special significance of the role of President de Gaulle for the purposes of this present report, is that western and central Europe have been, to a large degree, still largely the puppets of the British echo of the original Roman Empire, ever since the ouster of Germany’s “dropped pilot,” Chancellor Bismarck. For a virtual moment in Europe’s history, until the assassination of the United States’ President John F. Kennedy, France’s President Charles de Gaulle had come close to being a participant in the role once exemplified by Charlemagne. With the assassinations of both President John F. Kennedy, and, then, of his brother, prospective U.S. President Robert Kennedy, France had lost control of its own true sovereignty, to the reign of such British assets as that echo of Napoleon III, François Mitterrand.

That much said on the those indicative points of political history, now return to the subjects of science introduced in this report’s opening two chapters.


VIII. YOUR HUMAN MIND


In the opening this report, I had outlined the distinction between that illusory view of human knowledge which is presented as sense-perception, and the contrasted view which I identified as “The Human Principle.” I now return your attention to Chapter I of this report, in which I had emphasized the crucial role of the principle of metaphor as representing a typical principle of action: the ontological principle of the elementarity of action, rather than the devotion to a relatively finite objective. Restated, our weapon of recovery for a presently endangered world’s economic system is to be found in Heraclitus’ ontological/cosmic principle of metaphor: “Nothing is constant but change!”

In this relatively brief concluding chapter, I shall limit our attention to a small number of useful illustrations, as follows.

The leading implication of the argument which I had introduced, essentially, in Chapter I of this report, is that the actual existence of the human individual identity is “not visible” to the sensory system of the human individual; but, nonetheless, the “not-seen,” actual individuality, is the actual “location” of the actual identity of that individuality.

The individual does not “see himself,” or “herself,” but the healthy individual mind recognizes the fact of the individual’s efficient existence, and is able to recognize the “felt” presence of that individuality. The individual tends to regard the sensed presence of self as represented by the sensory experience and related attributes of the person as the attributes of the personality. The healthy personality attributes the quality of an “unsensed soul” to the innermost location of self-identity.

Therefore, the “unsensed soul” is regarded by the person identifiable as the healthy personality as the “I” of personal identity.

The healthy personality must tend to locate reality in the metaphorical terms of the concept of mind, as I supplied that distinction in Chapter 1, above.

The characteristic of the healthy personality, so defined ontologically, is what we should recognize as anti-entropic creativity. The notion of anti-entropic creativity is coordinate with the notion of an anti-entropic universal principle (e.g., “creative” mental and other aspects of human identity).

Therefore, for the sane human mind, the existence of “space” as such does not exist. Valid human existence is inherently anti-entropic.

Footnotes

1The February 1763 “Peace of Paris” established the long-term trend in European culture to be pivoted on the division of Europe as being destined, until now, to become as an Anglo-Dutch trans-Atlantic culture, since the accession to power of the William of Orange who invaded and conquered the British Isles in his role as the representative of the flag of “The New Venetian Party,” and as the successor to Britain’s James II, in 1688. William, whose power came from Paolo Sarpi’s coup d’etat within the old Venetian Party, had crafted the succession in the British Isles which, in turn, launched what become the future British Monarchy of George I. The modern British empire was put into place as the rising power of the British East India Company in the February 1763 Peace of Paris, that under the leadership of Lord Shelburne, who, during 1782, established the British Foreign Office which was, thus, de facto, the actuality of the British Empire’s subordination of the British Kingdom to the authority of what was to become known as the British Empire in fact.
2Do not overlook the fact, that the British brought Adolf Hitler to power during the period that U.S. President-elect Franklin Delano Roosevelt (a.k.a. F. D. R.) was about to be installed in office. All the relevant decisions on the Hitler promotion were managed among the British Royal family, The Bank of England, and the Wall Street circles within which Brown Brothers, Harriman’s Prescott Bush, and the Bank of England, created and ran Hitler up to that time, and had controlled his installation, until the moment of Hitler’s suicide later.
3The original (first) Roman Empire itself, was succeeded by Byzantium, the Norman system, and the British (“Fourth Roman”) Empire. This “Fourth Roman Empire” was created in fact by the British victory in the 1763 “Peace of Paris.” Since that time, the only truly effective challenger to British imperial power has been the anti-imperialist United States of America (U.S.A.). The British monarchy has feared a true rebirth of our United States most of all; otherwise, among most continental Europeans and the heirs of the Habsburg dynasty, and even foolish citizens of the United States, even among some of its Presidents, there have been traditionally muddled ones.
4The fact that President Abraham Lincoln proclaimed clemency for the misguided soldiers who were veterans of the Confederacy, was not intended as a denial of the fact that such clemency was required as an act of forgiveness for crimes into which many participants in the British-created Confederacy had been misled. The purpose of Lincoln’s action in this instance, was the redemption of the prodigal by the family which they had betrayed, the folly, on that soldier’s part, as the misguided dupes of the British imperial hoax of “State’s rights.” Unfortunately, more than a decade after the death of President Lincoln, British-influenced violations caused the rights of the freed Negro slaves, to be largely nullified, creating, thus, a state of virtual, if not nominal slavery. The consequences of that moral crime, under British-influenced, erring circles, had been adopted, as a concession, in favor of British imperial interests, one adopted, long after President Lincoln’s assassination (1865), a cruel action by the corrupted President-elect Rutherford Hayes. Hayes had been born, almost exactly 100 years before my own birth (Sept. 8, 1922) on October 4, 1822; Hayes had gained victory in a most fiercely contested Presidential election, through betraying the entire sweep of President Abraham Lincoln’s legacy, an action by Hayes which has cursed our United States to the present day: like that evil President Barack Obama who has created a far more evil crime than even that of Hayes, against not only our United States, but humanity at large, including, more notably, the present African victims of British mass-murderous slavery, and slavery-like brutality, still today.
5See: Nicholas of Cusa’s Concordancia Catholica and De Docta Ignorantia. The birth of both a competent physical science, and the principles of modern European science and statecraft, are to be traced, in a large degree, to the contributions of Filippo Brunelleschi and Nicholas of Cusa. That pair shared honors in the establishing of the physical principle of the catenary as the kernel of the development of the core principle of physical geometry, as in Brunelleschi’s crafting of the cupola of Santa Maria del Fiore, and the De Docta Ignorantia of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa. The elaboration of the essential principle of the related forms of the catenary and the relationship to the tractrix of Cusa’s follower Leonardo da Vinci, are notably relevant. Cusa was also the original author of the enterprise which produced the Fourteenth and Fifteenth-century “discovery of the Americas.” The trend toward degeneration of science over the course of the later Fourteenth and Fifteenth centuries, saw the ironically contrasting trends toward both scientific progress and the corruption of modern science caught between its competent development, and the corruption by modern liberalism, as a process, up through the present day.
6I.e., as defined by the failed Pierre-Simon Laplace.
7It is important to be noted at this point in the account, that the actual discovery of the principle of universal gravitation, was that expressed by the uniquely original discovery, by Johannes Kepler, of the principle of gravitation, as discovered by him. This discovery was expressed by the ironic juxtaposition of two physical sets of measurements, yielding a value which was that of neither. The conception applied by Kepler to this purpose and effect, reflects the preceding adoption, by Kepler, of the notion of a vicarious hypothesis, which was echoed by the further consideration of a larger framework within the Solar system than had been considered explicit in Kepler’s The New Astronomy. From the advantageous standpoint of the modern, later, evidence of competent Nineteenth and Twentieth centuries’ modern science, the conclusive scientific evidence has been, that the actually scientific discovery of gravitation was never made by Sir Isaac Newton; Newton was a sheer fraud on all accounts. The claims often made for the “black magic” charlatan known as Newton, even among what were otherwise often claimants to the profession of science, were more of the nature of a pagan-religious sort of political hoax, one made in the nature of admission to membership in a mysticism-inclined club of charlatans, with no connection to actual science.

The case of the insanity which seized mathematician Georg Cantor in the last decades of his life, is relevant to the case of the Newton hoax: Cantor, already a hotly pursued, intended victim of the circles of Bertrand Russell, attempted, under this pernicious influence of the Newton cult, to be remembered for a most unsuccessful attempt to recruit the Pope to worship of Isaac Newton! This matter was clarified by the outcome of two somewhat riotous sessions among the notable scientists assembled at successive sessions of a leading scientific organization, the Fusion Energy Foundation (FEF). Cf. the Notes attached to Philip E. B. Jourdain’s English translation of Cantor’s Contributions to The Founding of The Theory of Transfinite Numbers, 1915. pp. 202-208. Cf. editors Prof. Herbert Meschkowski and Winfried Nilson, Georg Cantor Briefe, and Cardinal Franzelin, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1991. Also consult Cantor’s own correspondence, for comparison, in Georg Cantor; Gesammelte Abhandlungen mathematischen und philosophischen Inhalts, Springer 1990.

8In reality, objects as such do not exist. Only the quasi-objects known as “becomings” do. Thus, Heraclitus was not so enigmatic as often presumed when he wrote: “Nothing exists but change.” It is on this distinction that the notion of an actual physically efficient notion of “ontology” depends. Elementary? But also, respecting traditional errors of judgment, the simple correction of a very popular mistake, the notion of fixed sensory objects, called “sense certainty,” a subject which I shall clarify at a suitable point, later in this report.
9The recognition of the difference between the values attributed to human sense-perception, including consideration of the systemic differences inherent in the contrast of Euclidean measures, to physical systems congruent with the catenary-tractrix geometries, illustrates the relevant contrasts to be considered here. The differences are to be examined on a deeper ontological level with reference to the implications of the ontological considerations presented in the third principal section of Bernhard Riemann’s habilitation dissertation.
10A man is not a mere part of his shadow.
11Despite the despicable hoaxster G.W.F. Hegel.
12As the distinction between symbol and reality is elaborated on from the beginning of Chapter I onward.
13Smith’s 1759 Theory of Moral Sentiments and the 1776 Wealth of Nations.
14Cf.: Kurt-R. Biermann, Carl Friedrich Gauss: Der “Fuerst der Mathematiker” in Briefen und Gespraechen Verlag C. H. Beck. Muenchen, 1990. Note 99: Goettingen, 1832: C. F. Gauss To Farkas Bolyai. Cf. Bernhard Riemann, 1854 habilitation dissertation: III. Anwendung auf den Raum.
15See the brilliant exposure of the fraud of Euclidean geometry, and also its systemically relevant theological implications, by the friend of the Apostle Peter, Philo of Alexandria, respecting the portion of the present chapter thus far.
16E.g., Bernhard Riemann, Sec. III of his habilitation dissertation. I.e., this (mathematics) leads into the realm of another science, into the domain of physics, which the nature of the present subject of this department of science (mathematics) forbids us from entering.
17The hoax known as “The Second Law of Thermodynamics.”
18“For now we see [as] through a glass, darkly; but, then, face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.” I Corinthians 13: 12. Obviously, the Roman empire which murdered the Apostles Peter and Paul, was not pleased.
19As Academician Vernadsky was to emphasize from the mid-1930s onward, a competent, modern concept of a universal principle of life, especially that of the human mind (i.e., the Noösphere), has depended upon the work of Riemann.
20Compare the treatment of the function of physical time by Sky Shields in “Is the Past Fixed?” http://www.larouchepac.com/node/18639
21In reading these lines, the reader must join us in taking into account the fact, that the general breakdown-crisis of the trans-Atlantic system of nations is already on the verge of a general “breakdown” collapse worse than that which struck down Weimar Germany in late 1923. Once the present trans-Atlantic system had been sent into a “breakdown,” the immediate damage this would cause, would never be recoverable in anything resembling its present form. Under such conditions, the British Royal Family’s hope for a level of genocide reaching the vicinity of a one billion ceiling on global population-levels would become close to prophetic for generations yet to come. The London-led hyperinflation under creatures such as Geithner et al., would be virtually unstoppable, once the coming “crash” had actually occurred.