In late Summer 1977, I had committed myself to what was to be later named “A Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI)” by President Ronald Reagan; but, what we know today as the perennial, official damned fools, had voted President Reagan’s policy down, not once, but twice. Today, the great fools of our world appear to be about to go all the way to Hell; they seem committed to plunging the planet into a thermonuclear “Armageddon.” Tomorrow, some people might call it a “thermonuclear Hell,” or, perhaps “Queen Elizabeth II for a day.” I will not accept such a purportedly final judgment on mankind. Neither, I believe, would Russia and China.
It all needs more than a little bit of explaining, here and now. Up to this moment, the following is my story, and, also, probably, yours, too.
The subject of this report, bears on the presently grave likelihood that the British monarchy, and its notable mere puppet, U.S. President Barack Obama, will bring a general thermonuclear bombardment upon this planet; there is even the clear possibility, even if merely a possibility, that the human species might not outlive such a holocaust. Both the British monarchy and President Obama are insane enough, although in slightly different ways, to bring such a catastrophic event, into being or something near to such an effect. Could some sort of species, one comparable in motivation to the evolutionary set within which our human species came about, exist as a knowable option within the bounds of such as either our present galaxy, or the super-galaxy suggestibly superior to the presently, dubiously fixed presumptions of the fabled “fine-structure constant?”
I shall now proceed from these prefatory remarks, toward the underlying, broader and deeper implications of the question which I have just posed. My intention in this venture will become obvious soon enough, perhaps before the writing of this present piece has been completed. The issues posed within this report are premised on certain original discoveries of principles which I have also made earlier, respecting the implications of the concept of “human mind.”
In a crucially important, most recent publication, bearing the title Principle or Party?1EIR, Nov. 11, 2011 (http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2011/3844principle_or_party.html); LaRouche PAC (http://www.larouchepac.com/node/20133), I featured what should have become recognized as an urgently needed, more precise, and more truthful meaning for what has been named “physical science.” That meaning, with its further implications presented here, is typified by an historical succession of the known principles of scientific revolutions thus far, an experience which has prompted me to adopt certain, selected qualities of presently added discoveries, discoveries which had been premised, chiefly, on the crucial work of such followers of Carl Gauss as those nineteenth- and twentieth-century revolutionaries typified, specifically, by Bernhard Riemann, Max Planck, Albert Einstein, and V.I. Vernadsky, considered in that order.
What is most emphatically unique in my report here, has been my own discovered principles respecting the nature of the actual human mind, as distinct from what is merely the “human brain,” principles on which only the creative powers of the human mind, rather than the mere brain itself, have been demonstrated to depend.
Those matters are my subject in this report, a report which depends crucially on a certain, included, and crucial principled discovery based on my own rejection of contemporary reductionist standards.
Those matters, considered essentially in that same order which I have just indicated here, are of crucial importance for any effort to get to the root of understanding the underlying principles of certain, more than merely global considerations. These are considerations of universal principles, which must now be adduced and mastered, if we are to understand the deeper implications of the issues which I had already presented within my just recent, October 31, 2011 report, Principle or Party?
My own specific authority to speak personally on the subject of such things, has depended upon the singularly beneficial effect of my efforts to free certain present-day scholars, and also others, from what has actually been a set of certain, increasingly decadent, current trends respecting certain presumed principles of “physical science.” The future security of mankind, requires that we move our attention away from, and beyond, the popularized, but broadly corrupting spread of certain still persisting, academic notions of sense-perceptual “things.” Freedom from control by “such things” as those, could not be obtained without freeing persons from the maliciously nagging effects of what continues to be that still popular, but demonstrably absurd, reductionist’s conception of what is named “matter.”
Implicitly, respecting the presently widespread thrust toward an ever more radical reductionism, the problem which is to be emphasized in this present report reflects the needed adoption of a specific, revolutionary leap forward from within science, a profound change like that which was introduced by Academician V.I. Vernadsky’s crucial accomplishment in his putting forward the successively advanced, ontological notions of “Biosphere” and “Noösphere.” The latter of those two, the “Noösphere,” on the subject of mankind, must be considered most emphatically in the conclusion of this present report.
That means, that the assignment of an “elementarity” of two different qualities, such as the pairing of “life as such” and “human creativity,” must be taken as a commitment to a specifically metaphorical, but efficient interrelationship of both those just stated, respective notions. This is a commitment which must become recognized as being the effect of overthrowing that stubbornly pathological, reductionist’s notion, the notion of what might be described as “physical elementarity.” It is a notion which has been long typified as a reflection of that swindle known as “Euclidean geometry.”
In that way, my long-standing attack on the corrupting effect of faith in sense-certainty, has been an attack which points toward the true identity of what should have become recognized, long since, as being an inherently pathological world-outlook. This involves a recognition which is, not surprisingly, in opposition to the relevant, still most popular meanings in currency today.
The systemic pathology of philosophical reductionism, as it is identified, and condemned in the opening paragraphs of Bernhard Riemann’s 1854 habilitation dissertation, identifies the problem which is to be recognized for the evil it is. That problem is to be recognized by aid of the fact that that problem is actually an existing symptom of what is still presumed, wrongly, to be the axiomatic, implicitly underlying, “Euclidean” meaning of what still passes, widely, for the basis for the primitive foundations of what is, actually, merely an allegedly “physical” science. The recognition of the wrongness of the popularized, intrinsically fraudulent, Euclidean standpoint of ancient and modern reductionism, alike, provides the necessary basis for those methods presently required to clarify the foundations of a quality of an actually “physical” science, a science which is suitable for displacing the inherent error embedded in certain among today’s popular presumptions.
The clarification of that intention depends upon the specific discovery presented in this report.
To illustrate that point, consider that fraud against science which was rightly attributed as being the fraud attributed to Euclid’s geometry by the Philo identified as “Judaeus.” That is the same, celebrated Philo who is to be remembered as associated with the Christian Apostle Peter. Philo’s argument, when considered in light of the frauds of Euclid, presents us with what is to be regarded as exposing the inherent evil of an elementarily “Satanic” principle of the same presumed universal ontology, as that of Friedrich Nietzsche. So, Euclid and Nietzsche, are to be recognized as sharing a kinship among those who have been among the most vicious opponents of what should have been celebrated as the ontological principle of Heraclitus, and, also, of Plato’s exemplary argument in his own Parmenides paradox.
It is important to make that contrast here, since we are obliged, by force of circumstances, to demonstrate the crucial principle presented in this report here. The argument to be presented, is elementary; but, it is not simple.
This brings us to the issue of Oligarchical method.
What we actually know respecting the ancient roots of presently remembered science and culture, is actually centered in an embittered conflict between, principally, two bodies of cultural practice, a conflicted reflected in the legendary war between what are known, respectively, as humanism and oligarchism. The first of these, humanism, is associated with the name of Prometheus, whose adversary is the Olympian Zeus. That Zeus is to be associated with the Olympians’ oligarchical principle which produced the Roman Empire in four successions to date, including the British empire under Queen Elizabeth II, presently.
The appearance of the systemic conflict between Plato and the professional poisoner known as Aristotle, was already an expression of the exact-same conflict as that between what appeared as Christianity’s struggle against the Roman Empire, and as Christianity pitted against the modernist existentialism of Friedrich Nietzsche. Although this conflict is often seen as a matter of contrasting qualities rallied under the underlying presumptions of religion, they are actually, at the same time, the underlying principles of respectively conflicting foundations of what often functions as scientific belief. The reference to the precedent of the case of Plato against the sophistry inherent in Aristotle and Euclid, is the most convenient reference to be used for the introduction of the subject of our report on scientific matters here.
The great irony here, is this. The proof of the fraudulent character of the essentially underlying presumptions of Euclidean geometry is virtually self-evident. Why, then, has it persisted as an allegedly “self-evident” doctrine? There has been but one essential reason for that: the belief in what is called “the oligarchical principle,” otherwise to be known as the most typical principle of evil among human beings.
For example, the most evil man in the Twentieth-century history of physical science, and also contemporary immorality, has been the Bertrand Russell who was complemented on this account by his senior, H.G. Wells. Both of these monumental wretches functioned, explicitly and utterly shamelessly, as instruments of a British Empire whose essential qualities were not inconsistent with the essential features of the Emperor Nero. Both are properly associated, still today, with the intellectual causes for holocausts against modern humanity at large. Combined, Britain’s Wells and Russell have exerted a resonant ideological influence, a kind of resonance which, itself, has killed the relatively greatest number of human beings in modern European history, including the toll of two so-called “world wars.”
That evil has been continued as a tradition up to the present time, even while the miscreants are presently, rather long dead. On this account, each of that pair of English figures, Wells and Russell, has actually authored more evil on this planet than had the infamous creation of the British (and Wall Street) imperialism’s influence, Adolf Hitler. Hitler is dead; but the legacy of Wells and Russell, like that of President Barack Obama now, is still an evil more rampant today than anything in earlier modern times.
The best choice of past references for discussion of this set of contemporary issues, is the mass-murderous reaction of the Roman Empire to the existence of Christianity. That is best typified, clinically, by the case of the immediate conflict of principle between the sheer evil of the Emperor Nero and the murdered Christian Apostles Peter and Paul.
That fact was already documented publicly, in April 2009, by the proof which I presented in my public, webcast exposure of the characteristics of the personality of U.S. President Barack Obama. I exposed Obama then as exhibiting an echo of a mental disorder identical with that of the Emperor Nero.
That widely circulated report of mine, which has been widely circulated among relevant members of numbers of nations, has stood up to the tests of time. It has been proven since to be a perfected exposure of a great evil which Obama represents, exactly as I had warned, and to the present day. Obama’s evil is ever more clearly demonstrated, in fact, up to the present instant of this reporting. Many nominally powerful political figures of our United States submit to Obama, that chiefly because they fear the repeatedly demonstrated evil within him, just as silly but evil Nero was feared among the reigning oligarchy of ancient Rome in his own time.
What I have stated above, respecting personalities, is systemically true history, just as Philo Judaeus (“of Alexandria”) affirmed the fact of the implicitly Satanic (and, actually Nietzsche-like) characteristic of Euclid.2Philo is associated with the Christian Apostle Peter, in the time when most leading Christians were actual or virtual Hebrews in faith. The determination of the current British Royal household and essential elements of its retinue, stands as openly avowed in their roles as authors committed to a satanic-like reduction of the present human population; this is the essence of their “green” obsessions, that of the British monarchy’s presently, thoroughly evil devotion to the rapid reduction of the human population, from a reported seven billions living persons currently, down, precipitously, to one billion or less currently. Precisely that genocide has now been set into motion under the joint promptings of the British monarchy and its puppet, President Barack Obama. That policy is fully in progress presently; that is being done currently at accelerated rates of movement toward that intended outcome. This is being done not only in the British Isles, but, presently, as through President Obama’s actions against increasing numbers among the citizens of our United States, as such practices of genocide had already been done, repeatedly, by the British on a wide scale, formerly in India, and, still today, throughout the continent of Africa.
The principal feature of the upward aspects of the modern trend in the course of the evolution of European civilization, had been centered, in its time, in the regions of the Mediterranean under the influence of that revolutionary Great Ecumenical Council of Florence, whose leading achievements had been centered on the influence of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa’s revolution in science and culture generally. However, the history of the world over the much longer span, has continued to be dominated, repeatedly, by the influence of the great, continuing conflict between the legacy of Plato against the oligarchism of Aristotle’s service to the legendary Olympian Zeus. There is no other way in which the history of trans-Atlantic civilization and its physical science and economy could be clearly understood presently.
To restate that crucially important point, the long-ranging war, by the children of the Plato legacy, against the legendary, oligarchical model of Aristotle and the figure of the legendary Olympian Zeus before him, remains the essential reality of living world history, still today. The elementary features of that still long-lasting conflict between the Florentine Renaissance and the forces of modern European oligarchism, remain the fundamental issue of conflict which dominates the world still today.
That much said, I must now proceed here, to expose the merely arbitrary, and essentially fraudulent basis, for what has been a wrongly, but nonetheless widely accepted ontological presumption, a presumption associated with matters related to the indispensable exposing of the “a-priorist” fraud of Euclidean geometry, that for both the sake of science, and for other compelling reasons.
Therefore, I continue to attack the same, wrongful presumption which is attributed not only to Euclid and Aristotle, but has been more or less naively adopted by many richly misguided academics and others, up through the present day. The point to be reviewed on this account, at this moment, is that the elementary fact of Euclid’s shamefully presumptuous fraud, is a fact which suffices to force our attention most directly to what should be recognized as the vividly evil, systemic characteristics, characteristics which have been embedded within even the seemingly “merely practical” implications of that stubbornly persistent, monstrous hoax which Euclidean geometry has always represented.
This case of Euclid typifies the actually most evil implications of the continuing corruption of the body of science itself, the infectious criminality expressed by both the mathematical-physical and related forms of the reductionist doctrines which are still widespread among the devoutly credulous presently.
Today, unfortunately, there has been little attention to the actual breadth and depth of the existing evidence which is needed to support an understanding of how and why such a large part of even a putatively well-educated part of our populations, could have been so readily duped into the fraud peddled under the nominal pretext of a modern version of a pro-Euclidean reductionism. I emphasize the evidence of those who were similarly duped into the essential, reductionist frauds perpetrated in support of the dribbling and currently rabid, terrorist’s lying by a depraved Nero-mimic, President Barack Obama.
Therefore, I emphasize the fact here, that the basis for such popularized, academic and other frauds, as spread among university graduates today, lies, essentially, in the simplistic presumptions of “sense-certainty,” or, said otherwise, the persuasive fetishism of nominalists’ objects, especially such as that which is named “money.” Both errors of presumption are typical of the rather popular, other names for “the work of Satan,” including the name of that now best known as, variously, the “British,” Wall Street’s,” and comparable notions of “the magic of the money-place.”3So, the rule has been, especially since the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy and his brother, the pre-Presidential candidate Robert Kennedy, that the lowering of the physical incomes of nations in the trans-Atlantic regions, has undergone a long-ranging rate, of accelerating worthlessness of nominal “money,” since the inauguration of wild-eyed monetarists such as, the passably Euclidean model of our late President Richard M. Nixon.
So, on this same account, as in my preceding report, Principle or Party?, I have treated some essential principles of mankind’s place in the known universe. Now, here, presently, we must, ultimately, concentrate attention on added aspects of same relevant controversy within the ranks of mankind, as follows.
This set of added concerns, is, in effect, approaching its fuller appearance here in the most convenient mode. What is to be added here, is to be shown by proceeding from the controversy present so far, but by also considering another great error frequently experienced from within the ranks of the previously existing modes of making opinion.
Such has been the continuing controversy between what should be the normal conduct of the contemporary human species and that of our present set of intrinsically wicked, cultural offenders. Such is that oligarchical social system which is currently typified by both the British monarchy and the U.S. followers of the “monetarist” system of such as London’s and Wall Street’s “oligarchism.” This subject-matter can be approached in an efficient manner; but the essential added facts could be actually brought into view only by considering the conflict inherent in the systemic nature of the essential, persistent conflict between the oligarchical classes, so called, on the one side, and, the oligarchy’s customary victims, the typical membership of the so-called “customary and considerate classes” of society, on the other.
This is not to imply a bald assertion to the effect that the one party is “the good guys” and other “the bad buys.” In the degree that a society is dominated effectively by an oligarchical class, nearly all of that society, the intentionally vicious and the merely misguided, alike, is comprised of those who act, in effect, either as explicitly “the bad guys,” such as today’s and the City of London’s Wall Street gang, or, as that breed’s culpable accomplices, who are, whether fully witting, or not, an integral part of the mass of legendary “bad guys.” Those who have chosen to participate knowledgeably in such crimes, or even those who do so only indifferently, are also among the criminals who serve as accomplices in bringing down horror upon the heads of us all.
The most relevant fact here, is the fact that that “money” which is, currently, being “protected” by the trans-Atlantic governments of such as the United States and western and central Europe, is already, actually worthless, and has been fully worthless since the relevant decisions made in the United States since August-September 2007. Actual production of physical wealth and actually productive employment, have been collapsing at an accelerating rate of depreciation of actual value per capita and per square kilometer, at the same time that speculation based on increasingly worthless, nominal money has been soaring at an accelerating rate, while the net product and real incomes of the population, and the net physical output per-capita, have been collapsing at an accelerating rate per capita and per unit of area. The entirety of the “bail-out” since 2008 has been worse than worthless. “Bail out” has been the addition of the putrid to the worthless.
Such depravity of economic practice, is the destiny of slaves, as those who are to be defined as slaves in both spirit and intention, by reason of their devotion to submission to the slave-masters responsible for the present trans-Atlantic, monetarist bubble-economy. (You become that which controls you, or does not.) The relevant distinction on such accounts, is that between not only the evils inherent in traditions of the oligarchy, but also in traditions inherent in the complicity of those who submit to a social system which is, itself, more or less changeless in respect to its adherence to cultural habits in the manner of a type of a lower form of life.
I mean, thus, a form of life which clings, as if organically, to the habits of service to a sameness of that submission which is comparable to a seemingly animal-like devotion to a bestial cultural tradition. It is a devotion tantamount to the kind of tradition met characteristically, as if sometimes only biologically, in a form of human behavior which is typical of a mere animal, rather than human species.
In summary of this present part of our remarks, thus far, our subject must be considered as the evil effects of a human society’s devotion to membership in a specific type of submission to an oligarchical, therefore bestial, conception of the composition of society as a whole. Such has been exactly the type of case as that represented by the rule of four successive Roman empires to the present date of the British empire, represented as being the traditional evil to be remembered as the effects of the victory of the so-called Greeks in the Peloponnesian War. The latter case is to be contrasted, in one type of case, with the outlook on matters of scientific and social outlook of such as Heraclitus, Aeschylus, Socrates, Plato, and those others also exemplified by what had become known, largely, as those who suffered and died in service to the mission intrinsic to humanity, such as those who were opponents of the oligarchical principle associated with Aristotle, and Euclid.
It is convenient for some persons, but, unfortunately, not always accurate, to treat nominal Christianity as being, broadly, the example for our argument here. However, there has been a wide variation of contesting putative or other qualities of devotions among nominal “Christians,” among which many would certainly not meet the standard of such martyrs as the Apostle Paul (of First and Second Corinthians), or other most notable victims of Obama’s likenesses such as the Emperor Nero. Consider the matters thus placed at issue in the following manner.
Scientifically, the proper standard for the adversaries of the pro-Satanic Olympian Zeus, has been the notion of a ruler with universal authority to rule arbitrarily. That is the fair description of the principle of evil in practice.
This standard presumes, that if one can recognize the proper standard for that arbitrary form of authority, whatever that standard itself prescribes, on that occasion, should be justly recognized as being a supreme imperial law for that occasion. The continuation of this present report, should now turn to the problem of defining a principle which clarifies that issue by destroying the claims for the oligarchical principle of the original Roman Empire or its British sequel. This returns our attention to the central issue of principle in the preceding, published report: Principle or Party?
Unfortunately, some important questions such as those which I have enumerated thus far, are not to be treated as simply as popularized opinions might imply.
There are relevant cases of what is actually outright evil, as expressed under the tyranny of President Obama at this juncture. However, in the contrary intention of practice which meets the universal standard of distinction represented by what is presently knowable as the actual distinction of the human personality from all other presently known kinds of living species, there is an entirely lawful approach to the conduct of government.
I have treated that problem of possible uncertainties on that point in my response to questions presented during my National Broadcast of September 30, 2011. Therefore, I shall state the relevant matter of principle, summarily, in that prefatory light, as follows, now; but, I postpone the deeper implications to later sections of this present report.
According to the Apostles Peter and Paul, notably, mankind exhibits a certain potential which mankind shares lovingly with the Creator. That is the potential to which Philo implicitly refers in defending the permanent creativity of a Creator. Philo’s defense of the Creator affirms a potential in the quality of that voluntary power of human creativity through which mankind is enabled to rise, as a species, above the mere capacity to live and grow.
I refer, thus, to mankind’s power to act in accord with certain extended rules in that universe, rules which have contained us so far. We have what is knowable for us, presently, as being the power springing from within the human species. That is the power to develop, which it must be our motive to extend in practice not only within our Solar system, but even far beyond. The implied intention is, that man must act and develop human powers according to intentions and means used to increase mankind’s power of contributions to the development of the useful role of our species within, and, even beyond the reaches of our galaxy.
Progress in mankind’s power and conditions for progress, per capita and per unit of measurement of our domains, is, when properly conceived, the characteristic of that general obligation for our species’ scientific progress of practice, as a standard of practice.
As I have emphasized in certain earlier locations, the most essential, known distinction of mankind from other forms of life, is that which passes for the essentially and consciously willful role of the human personality, and, also, for that person’s participation in social processes. It is the ability to willfully change one’s patterns of behavior from “a conditioned behavior,” to the expression of a discovery of an adopted principle of action for physical progress in the conditions of human life, which marks the action of those voluntary powers which express a recognizable discovery of principle, and, thus, distinguishes the human species from beasts such as the rulers of today’s British incarnation of the oligarchical principle also known to us from the Peloponnesian War and the original Roman Empire alike.
Such is the extent to which our species might reach in service of those effects upon itself which will be improvements to the effect of whatever the universe is aided to move us in a certain, ecumenical direction beyond our earlier means to do so. That is a mission of devotion to progress which begins with the contributions of respectively sovereign nations to the common benefits of mankind as a whole.
That signifies, for example: “The common aims of mankind,” as that was said on behalf of the SDI, by a then leading U.S. nuclear scientist, Edward Teller, during the celebrated meeting at Erice. That was the Erice conference which had come about, then, as part of the preparation for an intended treaty-agreement between the United States and its willing associates, on the one side, and the Soviet Union, on the other side.
The same, hopefully accessible potential for such an agreement, should be sought as presently within reach of a circle of nations assembled from among those who tend to be associated with Russia, China, and India, among others eligible for the equivalent of an “Erice” principle of common interest and principle on such an account, today.
Contrary to what must surely be the protests raised by some possible readers, the following set of arguments does not permit mere speculation. A very clear, discovered physical principle underlies the argument to be presented. A new, substantial, scientific revolution for mankind, is already knowable, and also overdue.
As I shall show in due course here, the significance of that statement, has a sound practical foundation, and, therefore, a rather awesome pair of potential implications for mankind now. At the very least, it compels us to make somewhat radical, but nonetheless necessary changes in society’s conduct, that of a type which departs from the previously adopted limits associated with the more popular assumptions among scientists, like others, up to recent times.
As it should be, the source of creative advances sometimes lies in the recognition of the discovery, and correction of more or less silly errors, either those of omission, commission, or a combination of both, each made, as if all at once, that in the service of what had been some once well-meaning and widespread, but erroneous presumptions. That is the case with the subject I shall now put before you. Be patient, and the subject can be made clear.
For example: the ontological implications of the distinction of living processes from mere substance, and the difference of actually cognitive human processes, from what are merely living processes, have urgent implications which still await serious consideration, and, sometimes, extraordinary forms of corrective action. That latter is the case to be considered here and now.
This specific challenge to modern science, which has been in process since the late Nineteenth Century and the early Twentieth, must continue to be considered in respect to Academician V.I. Vernadsky’s distinctions among abiotic, living, and creative matter. Predecessors such as Louis Pasteur had struck in that direction, as will those who will have continued in Vernadsky’s direction still today.
Now, scientific progress respecting the subject of life as such, but, especially, human life’s relationship to developments in nearby parts of galactic space, now seems to “close in on us,” as with recently discovered developments within both our Solar system and the galaxy which contains that system. Given the consequently menacing changes in our Solar System’s situation, changes which menace the world now, we are obliged to dare to plunge into the matter of not only both presently known developments, but, also, to work to solve existing, increasingly compelling questions which still remain systemically unresolved issues.
For example, given the estimated antiquity of the human species’ relatively limited experience, the fact is, that we are presently approaching changes in the current, galactic setting of our Solar system. These are changes which may be more than our species could endure under present standards of protection for our species under present Earth conditions. For example, we might not be capable, biologically, to continue to exist as a species, unless we were to throw U.S. President Barack Obama out of office almost immediately. So, we may hope to unleash science against the threats of certain likely changes in our galactic environment, in at least a sufficient degree to generate those kinds of means, by aid of which we could enable our human species to withstand what appear, presently, to be some menacing kinds of approaching environmental conditions within the part of the galaxy to be immediately occupied by our Solar system soon, or now.
On this account, we must recognize the fact, that we can not presume that we can change the biology of the human genotype to such a degree that we might make ourselves inherently impervious to the threat of oncoming changes in our Solar System’s oncoming galactic settings. However, with the development of technologies in the order of thermonuclear-driven developments of man’s power to raise defenses, and, hopefully, do a bit better than that, we might be enabled to develop relevant, scientifically advanced systems providing some kind of “protection” for a healthy and happy future of our species on Earth.
There is a second option to be taken into consideration on this account. This must be considered now, at the same time that we are weighing the challenge which I have just stated, above.
We may hope, that through either the use of alternatives, or, suitably complementary measures, we might muster the insight required to gain intellectual control over the circumstances which galactic adjustments may require of us. These are types which might often include forms of a living chemistry which are to be located outside the bounds of the manner in which the subjects of life and cognition might have been defined prior to this present time’s implicitly threatened galactic crisis for mankind’s approaching future.
Let us consider a relatively worst option for mankind.
The development of means in that optional direction, presents us with additional options, options which might also lead us to discovery of other means for protection of our own present species’ requirements. “Wild-eyed?” Perhaps, but true, nonetheless. Hope that that option might not turn out to be hopeless for mankind.
However, let us put speculative options to one side for a moment. Let us consider, first, what might appear to be the better option. However, even prior to that point, we should re-examine the case for mankind’s role as an “earthling.” The discoveries which I reported in Principle or Party?, point us towards suggested remedies. There are other possible options, which we must not continue to overlook, also to be considered.
What we might presently presume to know about galactic matters today, indicates to us, that, perhaps, the human species presently knows, or might become capable of knowing other species of living creatures which might exist somewhere, as species which have characteristics comparable to those specifically and consciously noëtic powers of creative principle which are either already categorically characteristic of the human species, or plausible options. Perhaps a human being might fall, if but potentially, into that category. I, for one, am certain that that is true. It requires only the proper approach.
All this now leads into a related case.
We have the hypothetical case of a kind of what is merely sense-perception, the which, in fact, nonetheless goes beyond what has been assumed to be case for the quality of willful action usually attributed to mankind thus far. That distinction, which defines the notion of life-in-itself, is known as an experienced fact, by its contrast with a state of death; but, up to this present time, people have usually failed to define life itself in a credible manner of a kind which is comparable to a sensed “object” in and of itself. The relevant presence is sometimes sensed by some persons, but it is actually known only in the form expressed as metaphor.
Pause here, for review of that certain point! In order to grasp the concept of metaphor appropriately, consider the actual case of Johannes Kepler’s uniquely original discovery of the universal principle of gravitation. Proceed as follows.
The commonplace, but wrongly presumed notion of subjects of conception, has usually, mistakenly assumed them, until now, to be the objects of human perception. This was not always the case among some leading ancient Classical authorities in science. Heraclitus and Plato, are definable, systematically, as typical exceptions to that commonplace folly which is still reigning in most locations of modern scientific practice, still today. Among modern scientists, two among the most notable cases from the Renaissance were the true scientific genius Filippo Brunelleschi, for one, and, more emphatically, his younger contemporary, Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, as in Cusa’s De Docta Ignorantia.
The commonplace, reductionist’s error to which I have just made reference, is the crucial point of departure for the case I am presenting here. It is a notable feature of the revolution in science which was made by Cusa in such locations as his De Docta Ignorantia, a discovery which led explicitly into such unique accomplishments as Cusa’s and, later, Kepler’s approaches to what became the avowed Cusa follower Kepler’s explicitly unique, original discovery of the principle of gravitation. The principle of that latter discovery is what is otherwise to be recognized as, also, the great principle of all truly Classical poetry, the principle of metaphor.
It is relevant to that same point, that there is a crucial difference between animals generally, and what is actually expressed as those voluntary shapings of patterns of behavior which are presently known as being uniquely specific to the human individual.4Pending the discovery of some other species, somewhere in the universe, which might be proven to share this characteristic. I emphasize considerations which are associated with the discoveries of Academician V.I. Vernadsky. This distinction includes, most significantly, the crucially distinct function of a principle of metaphorical irony as a distinction of that which is actually a human, from a merely animal form of behavior, as I had indicated such a necessary trend for continuing scientific inquiry, as I did within my Principle or Party?
As I have presented the case of metaphor in Principle or Party?, a metaphor is to be defined as two, or more, fully unlinked names for sense-perceptual objects, whose connections as images lie outside the domain of biological perception of sensed objects themselves as such, but which indicate a real action within the real universe, but which, nonetheless, actually exists only “outside” the literally implied domain of sense-perceptions as cause and effect in and of themselves.
For example, from Shakespeare, we have the ontological irony, with respect to sense-perception:
“Thus, conscience doth make cowards of us all...”
That reflects the same “logic” as Kepler’s discovery of the principle of universal gravitation. It is, in all relevant cases, the principled action, or other effect, whose existence lies “outside” the literal quality of sense-perception as such.
On that account, we human individuals must continue, presently, to act as of the strictly peculiar quality of being a higher species. We must do so on the tentative presumption that we are a type which is presently otherwise unknown to us (except as a being of the noösphere), as differing from among the other species (of the biosphere), other than humanity as such. I mean our necessarily conjectured search for “another species,” as a species which shares access to a form of actually voluntary expression of a genuine, categorical quality of willful creativity, a creativity of a quality comparable to mankind’s discovery of the principled notion of a uniquely formed, original quality of universal physical principle.
The instances of the physical principle of life-as-such, have yet to be both commonly and properly defined in terms of a credible notion of a universal physical principle as such. I have already emphasized this in Principle or Party? We must consider such challenges from an adopted standpoint, which is that of a somewhat altered notion of physical science as such. This means that, as I shall emphasize at a later point in this present report: the principles of life and human cognition are actually, physically, of the strictly ontological category of metaphor, rather than sense-perception as such.5They are, as in the application of Metaphor, sensed, rather than sensing. See Chapter Two: “The Human Credit System” in Principle or Party?, or for the case of the uniquely original discovery of the universal principle of gravitation by Johannes Kepler. Here, the speculation which is necessary for the exhaustive investigation of the anomalies of both life and cognition, is not to be put aside any longer; the risks of negligence as such have been far too menacing to tolerate continued complacency in this matter.
However, to get at the truth of such matters now, we must begin our searches with the effort to identify the frauds which have been drilled into popular opinion, notably those frauds which have been crafted through means by which men and women are made slaves-in-fact to that complacency of sense-certainty which is built into present-day, popularized frauds of a specifically oligarchical authorship.
Those are frauds which still serve as the most notable sources of the falsehoods which men and women bear in the form of the virtual shackles of the popularized lies which make men and women slaves to what are popular, but false, even fraudulent patterns of formation of ideas among widespread beliefs. The popular belief in “money” as being imagined as a really, physically efficient value, is a prime example of such popular frauds which are expressed as popular opinions.
That much now said; I proceed now, accordingly. All truth respecting such subject-matters, enjoys the potentiality of a rigorously scientific basis: as my responses to questions posed during my September 30th National Broadcast indicate the nature of the answer to such questions.
For this reason, we are compelled to break free of those shackles which are the frauds which might be defined as the reductionist principles of “deductive logic.” We are obliged, thus, to leap into opposing directions, away from the merely deductive, into the creative imagination of the true discoverers’ hitherto unknown, universal physical and comparable principles. We must lunge forward, always lunging into the direction of examining those processes by means of which we are to be enabled to take ourselves out of the domain of mere deduction, into a higher ontological condition, that of metaphor, than we had imagined before.
Mankind must create states of existence coming more from out of our vision of the future, than our past experience. This is to be accomplished as mankind is being freed from the shackles which are the leftover-habits of the past. Such successes should become the proper distinction of mankind from the relative bestiality inherent in earlier, relatively ritualized conventions of popular belief.
For example: I had spent significant efforts toward breaking those habituated boundaries in the course of producing my recently presented Principle Or Party? I am now venturing, here, to lead us into still broader and deeper implications of the future, as I have demanded in what I have presented in that recent publication.
So, that much said, presently, we must recognize that even the weather we experience on Earth, expresses elements of causality which reach into the expressions of Earth’s place within the functions of that same galactic system within which Earth’s human experience, as human experience, per se, is functionally contained.
However, nonetheless, perhaps none among those of us who share that much of the relevant knowledge for today, would actually dare to presume that living creatures not significantly unlike our own species’ already known Earthly powers, represent a significant “intellectual” challenge to our understanding of our role within the universe so far. Rather, the discovery of the existence of such a species would certainly have a startling effect on our nation’s presently best scientific practice. However, the actual discovery of such a species-type would merely supply an ontological correction of any presently existing notions of a generally living, and specifically cognitively-creative species already known. The change of our adopted self-image does not change what we are in effect. One observer’s monster may be another’s beloved. It is function which is essential.
The crucial point is, that the distinction of the human species from the lower forms of life, has a certain, very much specific quality of relatively absolute distinction among species-types. Mankind is already a species which, naturally, tends to evolve intellectually, rather than, apparently, “only biologically.” For reasons which I shall make clearer at a later point within this report, any species actually superior to our own human species, would be a human-like species (functionally) in respect to its commonly characteristic, shared qualitative distinction from lower forms of life.
Evolution, or the like, in the matter of the development of a species superior to the human intellectual type, would be found in the existence of a human-like, cognitive function which evolved under the conditions of a qualitatively different biology than that of other living creatures on Earth. However, even then, the principle of the human cognitive function is a quality which implicitly supersedes differences in the biology likely to be “encountered” in a biology far different than that we know on Earth presently.
For example: in some essential respects of function, we could not dwell, for at least some significant passage of time of dwelling, in some other parts of the Solar system, or of our galaxy. We must also consider the case which involves systemic preconditions which might be experienced only among inhabitants of some other parts of our own galaxy, or in the larger regions among which particular galaxies may be found: what of a universal system which includes billions of galaxies? For how long might a “fine-structure constant” within an evolving universe appear to remain constant? Could we believe in the impossibility of some existence of a species possessing the specific quality of life which parallels the systemic distinction of the principle of the Noösphere from that of the mere Biosphere, as in the case of a species with systemically voluntary powers of creativity, such as our own, but not of any species presently known to us but mankind?
This points to the notion of a species with cognitively creative powers for discovering and incorporating functions of higher than presently human expressions of consciously motivated creativity, as this might be expressed by a type of species whose modal functions are situated within a species which has none of the hereditary characteristics of our own species’ modes. Are we to presume that the principled quality which we associate with the human Noösphere could be expressed by a species whose apparent biochemical composition and origins are more or less distantly distinguishable from the set of zoölogical biologies known on our own planet, or within the bounds of a different stellar set than that our own experience shows thus far?
The crucial question which I have intended to pose by my remarks here thus far, is: could the characteristic function of creativity in the discovery of cognitive principles, be replicated in a species with a different biology than that which encompasses the evolutionary emergence of a human cognitive type of being on Earth? Or, to restate the same point in another fashion: is there a principle of evolutionary biology which transcends even radical differences from the biology on Earth, but nonetheless replicates the accomplishment of the evolutionary principle shown by the creative developments of the cognitive functions of human biologies on Earth presently? In other words, is that cognitive function we know on Earth, one which is subsumed by Earth biology; or, is the presumably human-like cognitive function (despite mere appearances) superior to the specificity of all Earth-bound-like life-forms to be found as specific among radically different kinds of biologies than those associated with the apparent form of life on Earth?
I have strong indications, as implicit in what I have written in Principle or Party?, that such “parallels” must necessarily be treated as a serious possibility as an option. The fruits of the argument which my just-stated, provisional thesis here indicates, will not necessarily lead us directly to suitable answers to such questions; but, might present us with a greatly improved, approximate insight into what mankind actually represents.
Accordingly, therefore, these subjects must never be considered as merely matters of some idle conjecture. We must consider what is urgently at stake for essential practice by our own species now, in our quest for the answer to the ostensibly speculative question which I have just posed. For, in respect to discovery of that principle of life-per-se which permeates our many galaxies, it is of grave concern for all mankind, that we discover those principles of creativity which we must entertain in our considerations, and must do this because the principle of life per se might show us cases of galaxies in which the universal expressions of the principle of characteristics of life-per-se are to be recognized, as V.I. Vernadsky has already demonstrated, by both the principle of life per se, and by the principle of the Noösphere per se, that the relevant principle to be employed for comparisons.
Therefore, we have the inhering, lurking mission of possibilities which implies tracing the experience of human life into that future development of some cognitive species which the specific model of mankind-on-Earth has yet to have touched. This is not a mere matter of curiosity; it bears on the principle of choice through which the destiny of species within entire galaxies, including places within our own present galaxy, presented as choices of options suited to the intellects of future contacts with other living, also possibly cognitive species, might be better obtained. Is it not the case, that the principle of life, even that of creative cognition, presents us with a truly fundamental principle of our universe?
This is, by no means, an idle proposition. Consider the following line of argument.
As I had introduced the following conception, publicly, to the question-period of a national webcast of this past September 30th, the specifically known distinction of mankind from all relatively lower forms of life on Earth, is, manifestly, that the human species is absolutely different than all other, presently known expressions of living creatures. The remaining question is, is there a category of species in the universe which is superior to our own on such accounts, whatever the estimated form of its actual existence?
This matter of difference presupposes, and, reposes within, uniquely, the role of a unique quality of the range of behaviors of living species existing under radically different qualities of creatures. This unique quality is expressed, most typically, in the unique quality of the functions of those human mental processes’ specific quality of creativity identified as an existence of creativity-in-principle.
This question then turns in what I suggest here must be a most interesting fashion.
This notion of creativity-in-principle points toward the implied existence of an agency, by means of which, discoveries of principles-of-human-action, transform the human species for us, as if into a higher form of life, yet, without changing the characteristic set of ostensibly biological distinctions of the human species presently defined by us as such. Permit us to employ that conjectured distinction upon which qualitative leaps in human, willfully specific, noëtic mental behavior, which effect qualitative advances in the performing mental powers of the relevantly affected portion of the human population might be considered as occurring.
I point to the consideration of an imagined, evolvable series of species, each with cognitive powers, but of a different biological-evolutionary track than the range of evolution of species of Earth, or of a set of such species situated more broadly than our own, but, one which might be enabled to bring about an evolutionary enhancement of its own powers, that accomplished as virtually, a series of species superior to the evolutionary track-set within which the human species itself might have wished to be considered as the effect of an evolutionary upward-leap in mental-creative powers.
The question is not unanswerable; but, it reflects possible tracks which, while not yet adopted, must not be regarded as proffering a hint of simple certainties.
Turn your attention to my replies to questions which were presented to me during the referenced, September 30th National broadcast. Before we come to the matter of specifying the biological design of a species with something akin to human creativity, focus attention on the function of human creativity itself. We are in search of a model of breeding of a species which lacks any obvious similarity to the biological model of a human-like form of quality of creative powers, but which does not otherwise have a similarity to a human form.
Translated into simpler language: can there be a creature which can be developed into exhibiting a creativity comparable to the human patterns of creativity, and yet lacks an adduced biochemistry consistent with any design among the species identified with the habitation of Earth?
That implies, that where the human genotype is the only known model which is capable of demonstrating forms of creativity specific to the human species, can we find acceptable indications that a species entirely unlike the Earth-bound series of types provides a model in which, a principle equivalent in performance as a species to human-like creativity, provides a model of creativity which subsumes a collection of entirely different organizations which exhibit creativity of a type which is comparable to mankind as a quality of function, but exists in chemistries which are not coherent with any presently known biological model? Challenge your opinions: “Could a planet be our living neighbor, with, in effect, an efficiently virtual mind of its own?” Is mankind itself, not already such a planetary “neighbor” of some other planet?
That much said on that account, return to my September 30th remarks on the subject of human creativity. Would such a creative planet-being be a truly creative being, as a human individual is —with the quality of “a soul?”
That said, return to the case I presented in my reply to the questions addressed to me this past September 30th. Ask the question again: “What is creativity?” Or, the same point better said: “What could be human immortality?” The answer is not far distant from experimental knowledge, but that is true only if one thinks appropriately.
We humans have, so far, obtained life-spans in the order of approximately the span of a century when measured in Earth years of age. In successful models of society, the modal life-span of the human individual will tend to be longer as mankind’s culture advances, as, for example, in physical scientific practice, and also tends, in that way, toward a higher net rate in production of manifest creativity. The use of the term “human individual creativity” reflects an advance in the relative, net productive powers of what were fairly termed “the realization of what is tantamount to a revolutionary increase in the principled quality of productive powers.”
In brief, this recurrence of such successive, qualitative advances in mental powers, as those on which I have implicitly speculated here, poses the following question. Without an accompanying change in the genetic type, what best distinguishes the essential, general form of a model difference of man from beast, but might be a product of development of a species, or, more significantly, even forms of life outside those of even our galaxy with such potential capabilities, which is not of our own biological track of origins. It might be regarded as a “spiritual evolution” into a higher variety of a species, or even, in effect, an advance into the quality of the evolutionary transformation to the same effect as that were that of evolution into becoming a higher species “biologically,” rather than the development of the presumed human mind as such, rather than any other aspect of the biological genotype itself as such.
My own recent publications and related work on the subject-matter of human creativity, present fair approximations of a truer than so-called “conventional” meaning of human creativity. The following relevant considerations come under consideration.
This manifest creativity, when realized in practice, is not simply individual, but social; it involves the transmission of creativity from members of one generation, to later generations. It is also expressed by the growth, and also the growth of the productivity and fertility of relevant populations. It has an additional, essential characteristic: the potential rate of creativity must be increased with successive generations. Creativity is, in effect, the fruit of the interaction of minds, rather than the secretion of individual brains. It is shared among generations, but also across the span of successive generations. Those two considerations are the essential facts which make the crucial difference about everything we must consider.
I shall return to those latter, broader considerations at a later point in this set of chapters.
The central theme in this present chapter of the report, is, although in a limited degree, an echo of my argument in Chapter II of Principle or Party?
In effect, the immediate advancement of the given human species into the equivalent of a biologically “higher species,” occurs along a unique pathway of what is not an evolution of our bare biotype as such, but is a qualitatively induced change in the performance of that subject-matter of the human, a change without any foreseeably significant requirement for a specifically biological change in the human genotype itself, otherwise. It is consciously voluntary expressions of a combination of scientific, and comparable cultural progress unique to our known human species, which are chiefly responsible for a seemingly “biologically hereditary” set of upgrades in the manner and quality of the behavior of that specific, human genotype. This is the fact which should be our leading concern in our immediate discussion here, within this present chapter. Such is the first, immediate consideration in respect to the subject of human creativity.
There is much yet to be discovered in this domain of practice, but as the critical importance of the notion of a vicarious hypothesis, led Kepler to the basis for the subsequent discovery of the proper principled notion of an ontological principle of discovery employed for the discovery of universal gravitation, it is not sense-perception as such which leads to discoveries such as Kepler’s uniquely original discovery of gravitation; it is what is properly identified as a universal physical principle of metaphor, which shows the proper ontological approach to the discovery of physical reality, as opposed to mere sense-perception. I had stressed this earlier, in “Chapter II: The Human Credit System,” in Principle or Party?
For our purposes here, we must focus on cases which lie, demonstrably, in the media of a type of successful sequences of promotion of what might merely seem to be the functional equivalent (i.e., performance) of evolutionary advances in the human individual behavioral prototype, rather than a nominally genetic change as such. This fact is a reflection of that uniqueness of the human species which is the source of, and expression of, the true, humanly specific quality of human creativity lacking in all other species of existence presently known to us.
The most significant among what should be the preferred trends in such behavioral advances, have been usually expressed in terms of the standard of those Classical modes, of physical-scientific and artistic culture, which should be preferred as our focus here, at this moment. I emphasize this policy and its practice, as to be contrasted, most emphatically, to genetically induced changes. It has been the culturally induced modifications, much, much more than genetic changes, which have been, manifestly, the relatively most frequently determining factor of the effects of what might appear to be the virtual breeding of the progressively willful quality of development of the individual human personality, whenever such progress actually occurs.
Thus, in dealing with mankind, it is the frequent role of culture, especially progressive expressions in culture, which we must emphasize, rather than what are merely formal biogenetics. Of that, the earlier, and the more pronounced, the better: especially, respecting the more readily, and frequent the incidence of the manifest advances in human cognitive prototypes, as distinct from the processes of some customary standard for the merely genetic product of selective physical breeding of human offspring.
Indeed, the cultural trends in the younger generations of the post-World War II generations, especially since the so-called adolescent and young-adult “Baby Boomers” have been, in the main, increasingly decadent, and in chiefly downward motion morally and intellectually, during these present times. This is a trend which has converged predominantly, on the wide and worsening condition of what has become, intellectually, an almost destroyed, large portion of the younger generations of our young adults, adolescents, and children.6I emphasize, for this moment, that this type of a set of trends toward degeneracy among the relevant aspects of contemporary society, is not simply attritional in their characteristics. The problem this trending process represents, has characteristics which have more of the character of a evil and infectious disease, than merely an expression of attrition. The use of the term “evil,” expressed in the form of an infectious disease, rather than “wear and tear,” is required. “Induced insanity” were often the best of suggested terms for reference. The case of the virtual copy of the Emperor Nero, in the instance of President Barack Obama, properly falls under the same general categorization of such personal mental-social disorders of those cases which are both mentally and morally ill in that degree.
Accordingly, my own successful, diagnostic references to related subject-matters, which are emphasized in my recently published Principle or Party?, present those among us here with the image of a system of available, potential successes. These are diagnostic successes, either for better or for worse, of a form which is a matter of essentially intellectual life, rather than specifically animal-biology-likeness-driven advances in the creative potential of each among successive human generations. These are advances which point toward those more relevant issues considered in this report.
So, from the comparative perspective of a view of the recent four generations of this past century, but, especially, since the post-World War II, “sixty-eighter” generation, the most clearly defined quality of factors in human breeding, is the role of, or, in the alternative, the relative absence of what is referenced as the recent generations’ decline in use of the practice of “Classical humanist” practices in the culture of the young human individual. This has been a decline motivated by the increasing influence on society of what is often to be referenced as an increasingly pathological condition of what is often to be seen as so-called “popular” expressions of “culture,” rather than biological factors otherwise defined.
In contrast to recent, post-President John F. Kennedy declines in the quality of popular culture, the clearest cases of a type of curative quality of “Classical” inculturation, are related to emphasis on the specific role of Classical metaphor, as that role is typified by Classical modalities in music, poetry, drama, and architecture. In this matter, the issue here is as much a matter of what were properly defined as “morality,” as knowledge. So, as the ghosts from Das Spukschloss im Spessart (1960 German film comedy) had insisted repeatedly: “the important thing is ‘the effect’.”
I have referenced that point repeatedly, in various ways, in the earlier sections of this report, and in the central point of my opening argument in Chapter Two (“The Human Credit System”) of Principle or Party?
Any competent understanding of mankind in the most relevant and durable aspects of the shaping of recent history, especially in respect to the spread of what is termed “European culture,” seems to pivot on the rise of modern civilization out of the period of awful warfare during the interval 1492-1648.
I do not wish to seem to distract from the actual progress of mankind in extended modern European history (since A.D. 1401), but excepting a certain quality of cultural trend, modern civilization’s contributions to mankind generally, and of present trans-Atlantic cultures most emphatically, must be judged as having included important, “objectively” undeniable successes for our human species, including some outstanding aspects of European physical science; but this has often occurred under the sway of what is fairly regarded as the failures caused by chronic stupidity-in-fact, or, even outright evil.
Once the content of this immediately preceding paragraph, has been included in what is taken into account by us, this far, our study assumes two aspects. On the one side, there is a species called humanity, which is distinguished from the beasts by a human creativity of a type echoed in the best features of certain ancient cultures; but, this occurs at the same time that history is shaped by a contending, deeply entrenched force of evil. This has been a quality of evil known as the oligarchical principle, the oligarchical principle which is best known today from knowledge of its role in the ancient history of the peoples of the Mediterranean and immediately adjoining regions.
On this account, the history of European culture and its trans-Atlantic roles, is the most convenient selection of studies needed to gain an understanding of this history of the struggle of humanity against the oligarchical principle of evil which is expressed today most typically by the study of the history of oligarchical imperialism. That imperialism has been opposed by such conveniently typical examples as the tracing of the principles which inspired the leading features of Europe’s Fifteenth-century, Florence-centered Renaissance, the Renaissance which appeared over the course of the Fifteenth Century through the rise into the great Florentine Renaissance, as that may be traced in its origins through the A.D. 1401-1464 life-span of one of the greatest intellectual figures in physical science and statecraft of that time, Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa.
This was the same Cusa, who proposed and inspired the rescue of a systemically endangered modern European civilization in many successive ways, including the establishment of the foundations of modern physical science, as typified by his De Docta Ignorantia, and by his initiative for preventing any freshly-corrupted European civilization’s plunge into what became the extended, modern religious warfare which has dominated the world increasingly over the interval A.D. 1492 to the present date. This is, in principle, also the role of warfare, now, as then, which hovers at this moment as the British empire’s intent to unleash global thermonuclear warfare through aid of the British takeover of political control over the trans-Atlantic system of a continued tradition of the Roman Empire which is presently embodied in its more recent incarnation, in the present, British, monetarist form of Empire recently embedded in the intentions of the imperial British Inter-Alpha Group of finance.
The centers of western and central European nations have prepared themselves for the present “Armageddon-like” state of implicitly terminal warfare, by abandoning both human reason and national sovereignties for a policy of intended global genocide, a policy intended to reduce the human population as a whole, and that rapidly, from a present seven billions souls, to not more than one billion, all aided by such threatened actions as a thermonuclear warfare presently centered in Eurasia, but global in implications and effects.
The present, lunatic targeting, with complicity of the Arab League, against Syria and Iran, signifies, essentially, the use of the “new Balkans” region of Southwest Asia as the pivot for a global World War III. The assembly of military forces centered in the U.S. capabilities for launching thermonuclear warfare throughout Eurasia and beyond, is being directed under a British imperial mere puppet, U.S. President Barack Obama, all done in a manner according with the explicitly stated, British imperial oligarchy’s intent to reduce the present world human population, quickly, from a present level of seven billions persons, to not more than one.
The particular pivot of the crisis so identified, has been the immediate intention of the British empire to bring to an end the existence of our United States, and on behalf of the included intention of preventing an agreement of collaboration among such notable natural partners as the United States, Russia, China, and other readily recognizable nations. Such collaboration would eliminate the possibility of keeping this planet under the reign of that ancient oligarchical system of the nominal Olympian Zeus, an oligarchical system which is embodied as a traditional cultural factor of the legendary oligarchical tyranny in European and extended history up to the present time.
One might ask: “Why that new ‘world war’ at this time?”
This present, great intellectual/cultural crisis of mankind at this moment, could not have come into existence had the world’s rightly designated “great reigning fools,” not been driven by the existential fears gripping the present British empire.
It must be taken into account, that the British intention of incorporating a true world empire according to the ancient Roman model-in-general had failed, up to this time. This was the failure of that which they had attempted, repeatedly, in their repeated efforts to secure their permanent imperial role against the effects of the successful alliance of certain great powers of Europe to assist the United States’s coming into existence, as that occurred since the time of the British victory in the so-called “Seven Years War.” It had been this role of Europe in the American Revolution, which had prevented the fulsome establishment of a British world empire during that time.
Thus, for that reason, and for reason of those and related circumstances, the victory of the British East India Company interests in the February 1763 “Peace of Paris,” had been cheated of its intended global-imperial goals, through the continued eruption of the pent-up effects of the establishment of the temporary, relative independence of the Massachusetts Bay Colony.
Do not accuse the later plotters of the intended British Empire gathered around Lord Shelburne, of being stupid in this matter; they were, and remain as having been a witting, and very knowledgeable, neo-Venetian factor of immensely evil intention and guile. To be specific, the heirs of Venice’s Paolo Sarpi which were constituted as the same Netherlands-based “New Venetian party” which had orchestrated the ruin of Louis XIV’s France, then went on to put into power the New Venetian organization’s agent of maritime power, that William of Orange around whom the foundations of British imperialism were set into continuing motion, through the action known as “The Seven Years War,” to become an intended, modern world empire in the Roman imperial tradition, a tradition which remains the British monarchy’s legacy through to the present day.
The American revolt which emerged to the surface in the wake of the 1763 Peace of Paris, was a creation of the legacy of the Massachusetts Bay Colony of the Winthrops and Mathers, which had been defeated for a time; but, nonetheless, the American patriots continued to represent the then ancient foes of the same evil of England’s King Henry VIII and of that Henry’s own Venetian masters in fact. Since the steep decline of Byzantium, since the death of Charlemagne, and the rise of the Venetian control exerted through the brutish barbarism of the Crusades, a new style of the Roman empire was on the way to being hatched.
Modern imperialisms and related kinds of reigning leaderships may not be utterly stupid; but the representatives of the imperial tradition of the oligarchical tyrannies have a certain kind of “Achilles heel,” which blinds most of the world’s governments, still today, respecting the nature of the processes of deliberation among peoples, by means of which the emergence of, and the multi-generational persistence of the notions of the actually multi-generational plottings of the course of history are, inherently, so prolonged as they have been. It has been such that the span of the successive incarnations of the Roman empire’s oligarchical system has persisted as an impassioned intention embodied, recurringly, in successive generations.
The intention of nations may be affected, sometimes even strongly, across the span of successive generations, even when the persons who represent each of a sequence of leading layers of an intention rooted commonly in each of a succession of ruling generations, are controlled in the behavior of each as under the control of an overreaching, common sort of collective organism. On this account, the importance of the “individual’s personal will” in actually shaping history, is often greatly exaggerated.
In certain respects “ideas,” even “principled ideas” are “genetic” within a large range of each among a number of particular, heritages, and successive generations, rather than by individual personal idiosyncrasies of the individual, or the current generation. Usually, only those who understand this fact, and very few, presently, have been enabled, this far, to recognize the characteristic distinctions of the intentions of, specifically, the individual mind as such, as to be distinguished from the collective, virtually “genetic” influences whose influence spans successive generations of leading currents within and among entire cultures.
The case of the United States itself, is an excellent measuring-rod to be used in aid of the effort to distinguish the clinically definable implications of characteristics of current national cultures, from the influence of cultures over successive generations. On this account, the usage of “grandfather clause” is more revealing, as in a sense of scientific “forces,” than many would actually recognize. Should we not suggest the recognition of a distinction between what are relatively immediate passions and principles from broader and longer scales of societies’ development?
For example, the history of the emergence of our United States, goes back deeply into the developments of Europe’s Fifteenth Century, even to the impetus of Dante Alighieri, and, thence, the spectacular power for influence of the legacy which erupted in the beginnings of the Fourteenth-century Renaissance, as follows.
The following argument is most crucial for science.
The actually competent forms of conceptions of economic and social progress, and the related conceptions of human creativity, both depend absolutely on that which is also the fundamental distinction of human from beast.
This is the same principle also designated by the competent use of the term metaphor. The proper use of that term, metaphor, is the recognition of what is otherwise identifiable as specifically human creativity. It is the expression of a principle which is systemically antithetical to the attempted elevation of the notion of what is merely a failed, deductive attempt to simulate a principle of creativity. The ordinary practice of deduction is antithetical to a true notion of a physical-scientific method.
Creativity, as premised on the true principle of metaphor, has been typified in any competent practice of modern science as being the method by means of which the original discovery of a principle of gravitation, by Johannes Kepler, was actually effected. We must emphasize, always, that the only other appropriate name for this method, is nothing but the universal physical principle of metaphor, as Kepler employed precisely that method for his uniquely successful discovery of the principle of universal gravitation.
Since the urgently needed discovery of this principle of metaphor, is the expression of a crucial conception of any competent practice of science, clarity in this matter must be firmly secured, as by aid of the following exemplary observations.
Deduction and creativity are mutually antithetical notions. Science is produced by human minds, not blackboards, as by methods which were known to Carl F. Gauss, but which he avoided stating publicly, for relevant political reasons relevant to the nature of those times.
That needed principle of scientific discovery, had been already established for modern physical science by Nicholas of Cusa, and was practiced with meticulous pleasure by Cusa’s follower Johannes Kepler, which was richly enjoyed by their follower Gottfried Leibniz, and has been treated with rich enjoyment in practical effects left behind by successors of Leibniz such as those whose names I had emphasized earlier in this present report.7Since the Fifteenth-century Renaissance, throughout modern history, there has been an ebb-and-flow of alternating periods of relative progress and decadence in the notions of what has passed for science. Since the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy, especially since the assassination of his brother Robert Kennedy, there has been a net, long-term, accelerating decline in the quality of what has passed for the teaching and practice of physical and related science.
However, that much said, it should be found helpful to study the third section of Bernhard Riemann’s habilitation dissertation with special emphasis, in which the fallacies of deductive models based on sense-perception are shown to have been systemically nonsensical in respect to matters based upon faith in sense-perception; this was the same error adopted by the dupes of that implicitly predatory hoaxster, Euclid.
The principle of metaphor serves today as the only means of access to truth despite the prevalent error lodged in the presumption that faith in the senses serves as the typical means of representation of the experience of scientific truth.
As I had emphasized in Chapter II of Principle or Party?, human sense-perception as such, is not a representation of the actuality of that which we might imagine is truth; sense-perception as such is more in the order of a shadow cast by an “unseen” reality. The actual notion of metaphor as being a physical principle, is a direct reflection of the essential character of scientific fact. The integrity of Johannes Kepler’s method of vicarious hypothesis, as extended by the subsumed, uniquely discovered result expressed in his discovery of a universal principle of gravitation, is, as Albert Einstein emphasized in his own choice of terms, the identification of “a universe which is finite, but not bounded;” this is among the clearest of the scientific demonstrations of proof of the fundamental principle of the notion of an actual universal physical principle.
The customary error in many classrooms, on this account, is to be recognized as a reflection of the same fraudulent method which underlies such cases as not only Euclidean geometry, but also related forms of reductionist systems.
As Bernard Riemann emphasized in his 1854 habilitation dissertation, the universe is not bounded by such considerations as the mere measurements of human sense-perceptions. As Riemann insisted there, sense-perception does not supply the extremes of the knowledge of the very large or very small, nor does it define the ranges, nor the quality of effects associated with other expressions of our own sensible types of direct, or indirect experiences. Hence the fundamentally systemic characteristics of the discrepancy between mathematics and physical science.
We do not know the actual universe directly, but only through the means of help provided by those shadows which are merely sense-perceptions, which we know, as the Apostle Paul said in his I Corinthians 13: “now we see through a glass darkly.” We do not “see” that which casts the shadow of our world, but only that shadow itself which comes to us in the image of the likeness of the image in the mirror whose original image remains to be seen by us. We know the truth, as much as we are enabled to do so, through the manifest principle demonstrated by the patterns of concentrated effects which mankind’s mind presents not to only mankind itself, but upon both mankind and the universe which mankind experiences in that fashion. Such is the central point of the argument made by Bernhard Riemann in both his 1854 habilitation dissertation, and in the ontological, higher principles of geometry expressed in his related 1857 Theorie der Abel’schen Functionen. The same point is made, to a higher level of related effect, in Academician V.I. Vernadsky’s development of the notions of the Biosphere and Noösphere.8It is notable for our references here, that, during the latter decade of his life, Academician Vernadsky had correctly adopted the standpoint of Bernhard Riemann as coherent with his own. This connection has the same implication introduced by Bernhard Riemann, and is congruent with my own treatment of the subject of ontological certainty expressed in my expression on the subject of the method of both Riemann and Vernadsky, as I have identified this matter here thus far in this report, and in the relevant passages in Chapter II of my Principle or Party?
Now, return to three crucial precedents. The second such precedent was the establishment of the principle of credit, as I had presented that referenced in replies to questions at the close of my National Broadcast of September 30, 2011, and, as in “Chapter II (The Human Credit System),” of Principle or Party?, of October 21. Whereas the third precedent, which had been the general principle of a credit system, was that which was also adopted by me from my study of the original publication on this subject. that based on the argument by the leading Nineteenth-century American economist, Henry C. Carey. This is also notable, in that connection, for reason of the fact that Carey was a key figure in shaping the economic policies of both President Abraham Lincoln, and was also a principal U.S.A. advisor for the design of the brilliantly successful economic revolution of Germany’s Chancellor Otto von Bismarck.
However, return our emphasis to the first of these three, because of the specific importance of turning our attention to the root of that American System of political economy which was established by the Massachusetts Bay Colony during its period of Seventeenth-century freedom under the leadership of the Winthrops and the Mathers. That was prior to the consolidation of a tyranny under the New Venetian Party’s conquering representative, William of Orange.
William of Orange’s party was the same New Venetian agency associated with a leading enemy of Gottfried Leibniz, the Padua-born Venetian, Antonio Schinella Conti (1677-1749). That Conti had been a relatively long-term Paris resident, but, later, a British agent of Cartesian pretensions who played a leading part, from 1815 onwards, in promoting fraudulent claims as an enemy of Leibniz whose actual role was devotion to the fraudulent cause of his admirer and fellow-hoaxster, Sir Isaac Newton.
As for modern science itself, note the following points respecting the Fifteenth-century birth of modern science, through the transmissions expressed in the successive leading, but somewhat overlapping roles of, first, Filippo Brunelleschi, and, the great founder of a comprehensive principle for modern physical science, the author of the comprehensive definition of modern science, the De Docta Ignorantia of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa. It is essential to begin the actual pre-history of our United States with their exceptional historical relevance, as essential for clarity on the subject being examined here.
The comprehensive quality of Nicholas of Cusa’s founding of modern science, is, chiefly, either very poorly understood, or not at all. This is, despite the fact that all great advances in modern European science to the present day, have been hereditarily rooted in the virtually “genetic” succession of developments in modern science, as through a quasi-genetic succession of such exemplary figures as Johannes Kepler, Gottfried Leibniz, the leading work of the Ecole Polytechnique, the circles of Alexander von Humbolt, Lejeune Dirichlet, Bernhard Riemann, and such followers of Riemann’s discoveries as Albert Einstein and V.I. Vernadsky.
A key part of the problem was identified clearly in the concluding sentence of Riemann’s 1854 habilitation dissertation: to understand physical science competently, we must leave the department of mathematics. I explain, as follows.
Turn attention to Chapter II of Principle or Party?, titled “The Human Credit System.” To sum matters up, accordingly: we do not actually “know” what we sense. What we know, on this account, is, in and of itself, the experience of a reaction by a particular sense-organ itself, and nothing more than that. We never actually know, in and for itself, the object, or the objects, which we have sensed. Our predicament on this account is greatly worsened in the degree that a person presumes that what is known as the experience itself is a discrete object in and for itself.
For example, scientific competence were more likely to begin, however faintly, when we discard ontological presumptions, as that to the effect that the experience is necessarily equivalent to a contact with what our sense-experience presumes were of the self-subsistent quality of a discrete object. We must proceed from the “safer” presumption that there is no actually physical space in accord with the notion of the ordinary presumption that “space” exists in a literal sense. We know a sense-experience, and that more or less poorly, mostly more.
What we are enabled to “know,” from the proverbial start, is that something appears to have happened. We are more or less enabled to distinguish the elements of a repertoire of such experiences, such as the sense-location and specific distinctions of the experience, and to compare a specific experience with patterns of experiences. If we are neat in the manner we borrow presumptions from sense-experiences, we know that we have experienced something as if by touching an unseen “wall” composed of a complex of sense-perceptual experiences. We may attribute a sense of an object “there,” such that what we actually “know” as a shadow, may be considered as if “known.”
Someone might protest that this arrangement is “unfair” to the person who wishes to claim to know exactly what has been experienced. What were actually “unfair,” were attributing a merely presumed sense-certainty to a shadow of something whose actual identity we do not know.
Consider such a case as that of the man who acquires a sense of friendly intimacy with a hungry crocodile, or simply, believes that the object was an assumed friend, but, which was, in fact, a malicious adversary. The category of persons known as “greenies” presently, typifies persons suffering a powerful love for the same “environmentalism,” a quality of perversion, which, unless rejected, promises the probably early death, or the like, of those who are foolish enough to believe in the dogmas of the “greenie” cult.
I have treated this theme of metaphor more fully, but adequately for reference as I have done here, as also in respect to the most crucial essentials, in Chapter II of Principle or Party?
Now, having said as much as that written above as a bench-mark of our investigation, now shift our attention, for a moment, to two relevant, but sharply contrasted cases of failures in science: one temporary, the other systemic.
The first case, is one of the temporary case of the otherwise brilliant Erwin Schrödinger’s notably failed enterprise, What Is Life? That book showed the reductionist influence of the Austrian reductionist school of such predecessors as Ludwig Boltzmann, as this was reflected during the relevant period of Schrödinger’s adopted exile from the Nazi-dominated regions of the continent.
A second case, that of a chronic failure, is A. Oparin’s own all-too-“Marxist,” mechanistic treatises9I.e. the British Fabian school of counterfeit physical science led by the British spy and the British Fabian Society’s Frederick Engels, who created the infamous British Ukrainian-rooted intelligence agent “Parvus” (Alexander Helphand) of both British arms trafficking and revolution-manufacturing “Permanent War, Permanent Revolution”, all done as if out of his role as a British intelligence operation specializing in British arms-trafficking, British-organized wars, and British-intelligence-organized revolutions.. Oparin’s notions reflected the set of Bertrand Russell-related contributions of the cult known then as Cambridge Systems Analysis. Oparin’s ties to the British “dialectical materialism,” as through links to J.B.S. Haldane, were counterposed, and that quite viciously, to the actually brilliant scientific achievements of V.I. Vernadsky.”10Cf. A.I. Oparin on The Origins of Life on Earth (1936). Oparin is typical of the British school of Cambridge systems analysis of Bertrand Russell and (more immediately) J.B.S. Haldane. That same dubious “school” of Russell et al., is represented today by the Laxenberg, Austria-based, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), presently.
The foolishness shown variously in the two cases, those of Schrödinger and Oparin, is to be recognized as elementary.
Schrödinger’s folly in his 1944 What Is Life?, while a serious moral, as much as a scientific error, is the milder offense: an “understandable,” but still regrettable gesture toward a long deceased, misfortunate fellow-Austrian predecessor, Ludwig Boltzmann. The pitiable reductionist’s kind of error in What Is Life?, probably would not have occurred, except as a reflection of the stresses of Schrödinger’s stress of having lived in the environment among what he had hated as the Nazi influences reigning among what had been his Austrian fellow-nationals. In the case of Schrödinger, his life’s other work as a leading scientist more than compensates for his errors of his What Is Life? The case of the nominally Marxist cronies of the circles of a thoroughly British oligarch Bertrand Russell, includes the far more significant error, and also longer-ranging historically. Nonetheless, both cases have a deep-rooted problem in common.
Oparin’s was a deeply embedded, systemic fallacy, representing the cult of reductionism. His reductionist traits are intrinsically an offense against the principle of science, and therefore, a moral offense as well. The offense of the two on this account, Schrödinger and Oparin had two relatively distinct characteristics, but the indicated errors of both converged upon an ultimately common, ultimately immoral effect; that of Oparin was deep-rooted, as in the case of the British agent Helphand-Parvus, the latter who served the cause assigned to him by the British Fabian Society’s intelligence agent Frederick Engels, and also the common cause he shared, in principle, with the consummately evil pair of British super-spies H.G. Wells and Bertrand Russell.
In the comparable case of the United States’ ideological miscreants, significant commitments to treason among the citizens of our own republic have been, chiefly, a practice directed by a more or less frankly treasonous streak of British influence. That type of treasonous influence is associated chiefly with circles of finance centered in those U.S. merchant-banking social circles typified by the original centers of merchant-banking corruption originally centered in Massachusetts and Manhattan, locations which have been a source of leading contributions to the overtly London-directed, principal, merchant-banking factor of endemic treason within our United States itself, that since the 1763 Peace of Paris, up through the present year, and, presumably, beyond.
Over the course of the centuries since February 1763, the fact of the matter has been what was to become a leading expression of a treasonously inclined merchant-banking network operating within what has become our United States of America, which has been in the main, and virtually from the start, a plainly predatory outgrowth of that particular form of evils, including sundry sorts of free-booting, included the chief part of the conduct of international narcotics traffic, up to the present day these lines are written. The fact of the matter is beyond reasonable doubt of actually literate, adult men and women; it is only the often devious mechanisms of such treasonous practices, which presently need very serious, prompt, and precautionary clarification.
The most significant element of complication in this matter, is the general lack of competent insight into the real meaning of the physical characteristics of a viable form of national economy, a form which must be employed immediately as a replacement for the hopelessly errant, rampant beliefs respecting the physical principles of either a national, or world economy.
This matter could be explained in sundry more or less useful ways. However, the issues posed by an actually truthful account of the physical principles of a national, or world economy, are a different matter. The best approach to gaining the understanding of the physical principle of economy, is the specific type of physical economy which I had presented in replies to questions posed to me in a National Broadcast of September 30, 2011.
I shall therefore, now, complete this present report by presenting those essential principles of the principle of credit which I had referenced in the concluding portion of the September 30, 2011 National Broadcast. With that case presented, the case treated in this present report as a whole, will have been completed for the time being.
That mission will be completed in this closing chapter of the report, with, first, a summation of the way in which the principle of human life pertains to the actual functions of a human economy, and, second, a closely related clarification of that principle of evil, known as oligarchical monetarism. That has been the monetarism which has been the chief natural threat to society for as far back as relevant forms of known records of economy presently reach. The central feature of the discussion of both matters, is the equivalence of a notion of public credit to the essential goals of protecting our human species from past and recent threats of human extinction.
I shall now proceed to the concluding, principal points of this present report, a relatively fulsome presentation of the point which I presented briefly through answers to questions in the conclusion of my September 30th National Broadcast. This is to be recognized, in its fuller implications, as being a relatively fulsome summary of that which had been, hitherto, almost unknown generally, but, nonetheless, is an expression of the absolutely crucial principle of human creativity.
For initial purposes of pedagogy, the typical notion of human creativity may be expressed in first approximation, as a correlative of an effect of an increase of the “relative energy-flux density” of power driving a process, as defined by a specified notion of relative magnitude. To be more precise, the proper general principle is a discovery of a qualitatively improved mode of action, whose effect may frequently be measured approximately as a gain in order of qualitative magnitude of effect.
A convenient view of such qualitative effects, is provided by study of advances in effective power of living processes, as that is typified, paradigmatically, by the historical evidence of the general evolution of living species on Earth during the recent half-billion years.
For the purposes of this report, we emphasize the human form of expression of such creativity, “measuring” the effect as one generated by means of specifically human creativity. In this report, our choice of subject is the comparison between the quality of creativity expressed by an upward evolution of quality of living species and discovery of principles of action, as distinguished from mere relative quantity of action as measured in terms of energy-flux-density equivalents.
The generally guiding, rule-of-thumb conception for this purpose, is the quality of effect underlying a relevant type of adducible, quantitative effect.
The relevant argument which I had presented in answers to questions bearing on these effects during my September 30th, 2011 address, is to be taken as implied throughout the following accounts.
However, we must proceed in this matter with an eye to the manner in which V.I. Vernadsky treated the defining of the qualities of action, as this point is illustrated by V.I. Vernadsky’s definitions of the respective qualities of the principles of life-as-such, such as the Biosphere and Noösphere respectively.
That much now said here on account of the array of immediately foregoing qualifying remarks, we shall now subsume the content of the entirety of the immediately foregoing discussion under the title of The General Principle of the Science of Physical Economy.
This is now to be correlated, henceforth, with a subsuming notion of a general principle of Human Creative Biophysical Space-Time. This latter notion can be fruitfully identified with A Subsuming “Creator” Principle of Universal Action, under which what is actually human creativity, as such, is subsumed, as in Vernadsky’s implicit notion of the Noösphere.
All of these notions just assembled here on the subject of human and related creativity, imply the defining of the existence of a universal system which is to continue to be defined.
The present report, now going to print here, and also its immediate predecessors of the Spring and Summer of this presently concluding year, have emphasized the need for establishing “physical space-time,” rather than “clock time,” as a standard, and, with that, repudiating all that is associated with such follies as that of the reductionist’s “clock time” of Pierre-Simon Laplace, et al. The event presented as a National Broadcast of this recent September 30, 2011, became the occasion for a formal introduction of the notion of the distinction of physical time, rather than the intrinsically misleading practice of what had been long regarded, mistakenly, as the use of “clock time” as a standard of measure for what, on the contrary, are actually physical processes.
It has become more urgent to settle a certain question, respecting the argument of Laplace and others, which has been the case, apparently, never known to have been recognized by the scientifically relevant general public before the present time. Although this need might be classified under the general notion of a correction which should have been made before recent times, recent and global political-economic considerations, have made my reform presented here a practically urgent matter.
The argument for such actions has been cumulatively manifold. I limit my argument, here, for that, to points of practical physical-scientific and closely related qualities of urgency. I would place special priority on the need to free science of the crippling effects of the demonstrably fictitious notions of linear (actually non-existent linear) space, and of the notion of linear time. My own special point of concern and emphasis in this matter, pertains most immediately, to the grave, practical importance of superseding the intrinsic folly of the use of clock time, rather than physical time, as a proper measure of physical performance of national and world economy. The need for the execution of such a change is now much more than merely urgent. The need is global.
The nature of the error of Laplace et al. on this account, is much more than merely evident.
The application of about a half-billion years of history of life-forms and related evidences bearing on life’s developments within Earth and the Solar System, and certain pieces of galactic evidence, have conveyed a predominantly biological quality of crucial evidence of the action of physical time, rather than “clock time.” The advances in the evolutionary development, as marked by the history of life-forms, have provided a gauge for biological “clock time,” which has aided us greatly in defining the principled notion of a “clock of evolution” operating within our universe.
However, once that part of the evidence is taken into account, the evolutionary history of the evolutionary physical-economic progress experienced, and sometimes apparently reversed, has enriched our capacity to define an approximate “clock” for the history of our galaxy. The combined comparison and contrast between evolutionary rates, forward and sometimes apparently backward, in the development of society, shows us evidence of the way in which the human will, contributes what we are obliged to regard as a still higher, sometimes relatively contradictory quality of lawfulness in human creativity than is to be experienced among lower forms of life.
In the meantime, all of today’s rather popular notions of the evolution of human economy and its effects on the world it inhabits, are demonstrated to have been, in the largest degree, utterly nonsense, especially when the relevant evidence is considered scientifically. The systemic folly of Laplace’s erroneous notion of time, is not merely in error, but essentially ridiculous.
Although the occurrence of two of the three questions to which I replied on September 30, 2011, had a certain element of coincidence in their appearing on that specific occasion, the points I made in reply to those two questions, were already deep-rooted in the history of my discoveries as an extraordinarily successful long-range forecaster in the matter of economies as considered from the vantage-point of physical-scientific, rather than what has been repeatedly demonstrated to have been inherently incompetent, statistical forecasting.
Certain more notable experiences than that fact of the recent six decades of my experience of concern with the nature of physical-economic processes, have been developments which followed my unique success in forecasting the Summer 1971 general breakdown set prominently into motion by the effects of the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert. The most distinctive, relatively immediate effect of those assassinations, was the setting into motion of the systemic reversal in the direction of the conspicuous, and also systemic character of the continued decline of the U.S. physical economy since 1968, up through the present moment of a general breakdown-crisis in the trans-Atlantic region of the planet.
In effect, the trend of the trans-Atlantic economies since the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and the consequent decline of the role of France’s President Charles de Gaulle, has been systemic, rather than a coincidence in any meaningful sense. Mistakes may cause accidents, but systemic errors of policy among nations may cause virtual, or actual “new dark ages” of mankind, or worse, as now.
Thus, the time has come, at this page in the still ongoing report, when we must briefly shift our attention from that pattern of the 1963-2011 span of the long trend of decline in the trans-Atlantic region, to concentrate attention on the root-nature of a relatively brief economic depression, in a long-ranging, systemic breakdown-crisis which now appears, retrospectively as a continuous decline of the 1963-2011 interval of the trans-Atlantic region of economy.
The Crisis of 1963-2011
The first step toward the present great depression in most of the trans-Atlantic sector, was the death of President Franklin Roosevelt. The proximate, apparent cause of that moment of decline, was the role of President Harry S Truman as a traditional Wall Street stooge, who had been imposed on the position of U.S. Vice-President as a British-dictated price for Franklin D. Roosevelt’s fourth election to the U.S. Presidency. The turn had come with the successful Normandy landing of the Allied forces, since which the British monarchy has resumed, and continued its traditional evil imperial role as the leading enemy of the continued existence of our United States.
By the time of President Dwight Eisenhower’s run for the U.S. Presidency, especially Eisenhower’s role in shutting down the Korean war, President Eisenhower had secured a number of signal victories over our ever-treacherous, British imperial partner. President John F. Kennedy’s dealing with the “Cuba missiles crisis,” permitted President Kennedy to settle into a scant few fruitful years against our British adversaries and their traditional Wall Street accomplices. The Anglophile alliance struck back with the assassination of President Kennedy. Although certain precious elements of the policies of such as President Kennedy and veteran Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur, were still influential, the British empire, and its Wall Street accomplices, wrecked the U.S. economy through the continued wasting warfare modeled on British weapons-and-war trafficker Alexander Helphand (“Parvus”), as in Britain’s world wars, wars in Indo-China, and in fraudulent wars like those, recently, in the traditional Sykes-Picot traps of Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, and so on.
The British monarchy created Adolf Hitler, with the help of Wall Street’s Prescott Bush (the father of U.S. President George H.W., and grandfather of George W., Jr.), and, then, sought to weaken the United States, after the bleeding done during a decade in Indo-China, with the new Alexander Helphand-style rage of British imperial “Permanent War, Permanent Revolution,” in the present tradition of British agent Alexander Helphand. Meanwhile, the British monarchy and its Wall Street agents, worked to destroy the United States itself from within, and with the help of the notorious “68ers.”
At this very moment, under the mere puppet-Presidency of the British monarchy’s Barack Obama, the United States is being “taken down” by the British monarchy, and by its mentally deranged, Obama puppet, that in a literally mass-murderous fashion.
Thus, in brief, we have the history of the United States’ principal, British imperial afflictions, since (actually) the assassination of U.S. President William McKinley, through the present time of the British puppet-regime of the U.S.A. under the mentally deranged “Section 4“ President Barack Obama.
Essentially, the afflictions of the United States are dated historically from origins in that reign of William of Orange in Britain which secured the virtual crushing of the Massachusetts Bay settlement. We Americans had, nonetheless, taken the road back toward freedom, in the break with the British empire in-fact newly established in the 1763 Peace of Paris, and more emphatically in 1776-1782. The British empire, for its part, has been working to the intended end of destroying our independence ever since that time, even during temporary alliances with the United Kingdom as during “World Wars” I and II. Anton Chaitkin’s Treason In America11See Anton Chaitkin, Treason in America: From Aaron Burr to Averell Harriman, 1998 (http://www.larouchepub.com/pubinfo.html#BOOKS). tells enough of the true story to make an overwhelmingly clear case for the prudent and rational.
To understand the presently deadly conflict between our republic and its principal enemy, the British monarchy, still today, we must brush aside the sentimental kindergarden fables still taught to the credulous and the outrightly silly. Since no later than the ancient Peloponnesian War, there has been a radiating system of empire dominating the Mediterranean and its shores, and spreading out, from the establishment of the original Roman empire, through the present, fourth, reincarnation of the Roman imperial tradition represented, still today, by the imperial British monarchy.
My own approach has been that of the most successful economic forecaster on public record in recent decades, that since my first significant forecast, in Summer 1956 of the deep recession which hit in late-February, early March of 1957. This record has had a certain, crucial significance. I explain the crucial point to be made, as follows.
I have always premised my economic forecasting (primarily) on physical-economic developments, rather than monetarist-statistical methods. Since approximately February 1953, my approach has been shaped by the influence of Bernhard Riemann’s 1854 habilitation dissertation, especially, first, the opening paragraphs, in which the disease of popular economics is exposed, and, in that concluding section which defines the core principle of a physical economy. Essential national infrastructure, like production and distribution of food and essential products otherwise, including essential physical services, are physical realities, rather than monetary exchanges. In the end, it is the physical factors of economy, including the essential feature of knowledge of physical science and human history, which determine the physical effect upon the nation and its population, which count. For purposes of determining a nation’s and the world’s actual destiny, only such physical realities affect the outcome of economic policies of practice.
In fact, the system of money may work to good or bad ends, depending upon the quality of physical management which is applied. It is the physical-economic effect, and nothing else, which is capable of defining the end-result for either a nation, or the world at large. It is the British imperial system of today, of which a sane world must rid itself now.
As I have referred earlier to my associates’ defining of the patterns of life on Earth during the recent half-billion years, all known processes of life-in-general known to us on Earth during that lapse of time, have depended on patterns of biological evolution which generate higher forms of life, to supersede the old. The general measurement of this effect, is a rate of continuing physical increase of the equivalent of the “energy-flux density” of the processes which life represents.
The patterns so defined by standards of success or failure of the maintenance of existence of life-forms, depend upon the need for a standard of a relatively constant “flow” of changes expressed as qualitative improvements in the specifically creative-mental habits of the human population. With mankind, this requirement shows two distinct, but interrelated factors: resistance to the “wear and tear” of the physical passage of time, and outpacing of the inherent attrition in any established level of productive performance in society, that more or less as this occurs among living species generally. Thus, mankind’s progress requires the establishing and improvement of net gains in the equivalent of science-driven forms of revolutionary scientific-technological progress in the increasing rate of energy-flux density of the productivity of society per capita and per cross-sectional portion of the ongoing capital intensity as measured in such included terms as rising energy-flux density of application of the physical quantity and intensity and heat.
That standard has the following, crucially significant implications. There are two, leading, interdependent “factors” in this process. First, the rate of increase of the energy-flux density; second, the rising rate of the increase of required energy-flux density determined by the requirements of the human species’ successfully continued existence. This defines a required rate of anti-entropic transformation, as required to maintain a net constant rate of existence of growth under the given preconditions, as compared to the variable rate of increase of the required increase in mean energy-flux density.
This implies a notion of a required, determined physical time as such, as opposed to a notion of clock-time. “You are where your action places mankind on the map of rates of growth, stagnation, or decline on the world physical-economic-time map. What you must accomplish in time to maintain the successfully continued existence of the human species, defines a ‘physical time,’ as distinct from a mere ‘clock time.’” Thus, whatever the actually changed degree of requirement, changes the location on the “clock” of physical-space-time for our human species.
What man must do, and where mankind must go to do it, defines a variable magnitude of required physical space-time, a value which Laplace chanced not to know.
Once we have defined a zero-balance as a standard of reference for defining physical space-time, as stipulated above, we are presented with the challenge of the human species’ ability to avoid slipping backwards in a movement pointing (forwards or backwards) in physical time. The net effect means where man is dwelling on the galactic map of relative physical-economic space-time.
This brings another, crucial factor of the history of our universe into play: the actual economic history of the economy of mankind. The crucial consideration for we inhabitants of Earth, is where we stand momentarily at present, but, also, at what rate we are moving forward in relationship to physical time’s relative “zero point.” Here, we are obliged to focus on the willful action of human beings, the action which, in net effect, determines whether mankind is moving forward, or backward, in a relative standard physical time, as distinct from what is presently accepted as “clock time.” It is the advance of human time, relative to an absolute relative physical time, which defines the net productivity of society relative to those changes in the universe of other than human causes in the general rate for that society.
What is then crucial, is the role of increase of energy-flux density per capita and per square kilometer in society, in the equivalent of these considerations. The universe is increasing its equivalent of movements to “higher speeds,” and it is our duty to keep running ahead of those speeds, even by giant leaps.