I keep a promise made on September 30:

THE MYSTERY OF YOUR TIME

By Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

December 25, 2011


At this moment, the immediate, existential issue of overriding importance for society as a whole, and our United States in particular, is the growing threat of a thermonuclear war which presently hovers, even at this present moment, over the United States, as over the immediate targets in Eurasia. The failure, as in leading circles of the United States, to face that reality, is the state of cowardice which threatens to become the early end of us all for this immediate future. People who avoid the fact of that reality, are posing a grave threat to all humanity, including, personally, their own.

In order to compact the essential elements of this report into affordable space, the content of this report is, in its largest part, a descriptive presentation of a roster of the identity of essential facts and, for the greater portion, some of their more crucial details. The intent is to provide a needed overview of a large and very important subject.

At the close of my national webcast of the early evening of September 30, 2011, I was presented with three successive questions bearing on certain crucial matters of science. Two of these three questions concerned the crucial role of the notion of a principle of physical time, as distinct from what is merely “clock time.”

The role of “Time” as I referenced it on that occasion, is a positively determining factor in mankind’s scientific, and, therefore, also specifically physical-economic progress. This is the distinction which is to be located in what is actually achievable by man, only through those specifically human, creative powers; these are powers which are typically expressed by means of a well-ordered series of discoveries of physical-economic principles.

These are principles which are to be defined, in each case, as “necessary violations” of what have been, heretofore, the popular notions of human sense-perception respecting what is merely the “clock time” of such as Pierre-Simon Laplace.

Consequently, the only competent principle of economy, is that of what, for example, has been, until now, a rarely encountered notion of physical time, rather than that customary notion of a “clock time” located within the bounds of a monetarist’s systemically mistaken notion of economy. Thus, since the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert, the latter then the Democratic Party’s prospective Presidential candidate for 1968, we have suffered a persisting, withering trend of worsening failures in attempts to define a sense of the direction of the case for a devolving U.S. physical economy.

The possibility for the resumption of an existence of a viable form of economy for today, depends on reversing the recent nearly fifty years of London and Wall Street-directed, both moral and physical, long wave of net decay within the trans-Atlantic world, in particular.

In the course of this present report I shall explain the urgently needed, principled considerations which I had presented on this matter on the occasion of the past September 30.

Thus, during my reply to two indicated questions on the subject of time, which were raised during that event of this past September 30th, I had pointed toward the existence of certain principles which I had indicated as having a profoundly scientific importance in and of themselves. I had pointed attention toward those two particular questions of that evening, only insofar as that particular occasion itself had warranted. However, those questions, to which I had replied then, implicitly demanded a later consideration of certain much more profound principles inhering in those same subjects, as I shall treat those deeper matters, here, in the course of the following pages.

Those latter, now presently augmented considerations, here, would require answers to additional questions, questions for which the included opportunities of that occasion did not permit discussion in a relevant greater depth at that time. The time allotted for that occasion of September 30th, was then running out; nonetheless, I held myself responsible to take such matters up publicly during some suitable, hopefully, relatively early future time. Now, that time has come.


Introduction:

On History & Creativity

As a result of an inherently systemic error which is built into a widely popular reliance on the notion of sense-certainty, people generally, including most among ostensibly well-educated scientific and other professionals and the like, tend to premise their interpretation of experience according to the so-called popular opinion’s fallacious, pro-Euclidean folly of belief in a merely a-priori sense of the alleged certainties of what popular opinion would consider as being merely clock-time. In the final analysis, the subject of this report will turn out to have actually been the subject of removing doubts respecting the bounds of human mortality. Thus, what are to be recognized as the worst disasters in the history of mankind, have been caused by neglect of those available truths which the large majority among even the privileged leaders in society, as today, had not known, not known because they had been pre-conditioned by the legacy of what is known as the oligarchical principle, and had not wished either you, or themselves, to know.


What would probably appear soon, even among most of the current roster of those who are more or less qualified as scientists, will be what I shall detail, in this report, as a development in world economy whose causes lie outside the domain of today’s prevalent, but (as I shall demonstrate here), also a mistaken reliance upon what are currently still “conventional,” but relatively naive notions respecting some most crucial aspects of science as such. It is a problem, as I shall emphasize here, which inheres in a still widely spread, blind faith in sense-perception.

Neither complexity, nor simplicity, is necessarily a correlative of truthfulness; nor are today’s types of academic and related commonplaces to be taken for granted as measures of wisdom. Nonetheless, what I deliver to your attention in this report, involves conceptions which, for many, will seem to be the most challenging subject-matters to be taken into account in reconsidering the subject-matters of the series of reports presented as a unified package here. They will be intended to supersede the incompletenesses of much of that which I had already presented here earlier, in my step-by-step approach to these subject matters over the larger part of this present year to date.

It has been, and remains my intention here, to proceed by such steps, proceeding, as much as seems to be feasible, by progressive steps, steps which range from the relatively less challenging, into the deeper, and, still more challenging notions which mankind needs urgently at this present time, in a time of a presently most profound, most complex, and also most menacing, modern crisis for humanity as a whole, until now.

I do this with a no less than compassionate understanding of the unavoidable difficulties with which I shall be confronting the reader, step by step, in the course of this report. What I do, will have been done out of a regard for the great practical necessity that this step occur now: it is to be done with particular emphasis on the increasingly ominous challenges now before this planet, including the immediate, British-led imperial threat of a potential general thermonuclear war, a threat which has now come to confront and consume us, perhaps immediately, from inside our United States and beyond, since the close of August 2007.

Such has been the case, since the recent arrival of a new, more critical phase in the already ongoing breakdown of the trans-Atlantic sector of the world’s economy, most notably a present phase which had been transformed from a preceding, hyper-inflationary breakdown-crisis of the trans-Atlantic system. This has been a crisis which dates from the inauguration of five, hyper-inflationary months of what has already become actually an initial phase of an hyper-inflationary spiral which had been set into motion during late 2008, and as the same folly has been continually worsened through the present instance of an actual, essentially trans-Atlantic breakdown-process. It is a breakdown whose present “center of gravity” continues to be centered, presently, in the so-called “Euro system” of a post-Westphalian, virtually stateless system of “governance” on the continent of western and central Europe.

These new phases in the development of that process of rushing toward a breakdown crisis, as it is being experienced in the United States, in particular, had been set into motion through the actions taken in the U.S. Congress to prevent the institution of my proposal for a Homeowners and Bank Protection Act of 2007. The result of that latter Congressional action, had been expressed by the formal launching of the Anglo-American-led mass-insanity of the “bail-out” unleashed in the closing months of 2008. Consider the entirety of the trans-Atlantic region of the same form as the artificially induced “1923” Weimar Germany hyperinflation, but, now, this time, it signals the unleashing of a general monetary, inflationary breakdown-crisis on a virtually global scale.

Thus, the greatest part of the world’s trans-Atlantic economy, is now to be seen in what had become its recently, awfully distorted form assumed by a culture which seems to have almost reached the brink of having ceased to exist: it moves like a dead man stumbling in a lantern-lit darkness, bearing a shovel with which to bury himself, as he, presently, stumbles forward, in the fashion which one German cartoonist of the early 1930s had dubbed “A Seventh-class Funeral.”

There are possible remedies for this condition which we are experiencing in this process; but, the remedies will not exist, unless a set of those remedies is based on a return to a system of sovereign nation-states, as might be adopted by a relevant bloc of respectively sovereign, cooperating nations, each and all employing, and enjoying a commitment to fixed-exchange-rate-based, physical-economy-based credit-systems among them. Those corrections must now be employed, as if immediately, to replace the presently unsalvageable, world monetary system, which were better identified as what may be properly defined, interchangeably, as “oligarchical,” or “monetarist” systems.

The deep, primary causes for this crisis, have been radiated from, and are lodged, virtually entirely, within the same, London-centered, trans-Atlantic, monetarist set of Wall Street/London, merchant-banking swindles, swindles which had, in earlier times, brought Adolf Hitler to power in Germany. These are the same types of swindles which had, presently, produced a not dissimilar, but far worse form of what is a presently, immediately threatened combination of a global, trans-Atlantic, total financial breakdown, and also the imminently thermonuclear-warfare conditions presently being crafted and launched under implicitly genocidal population-reducing directions from Buckingham Palace today.

Thus, the present combination of a trans-Atlantic monetary crisis, and the immediacy of the pending launch of a global thermonuclear war which the British empire intends to effect through its control over a mentally impaired, virtual “new Emperor Nero,” Barack Obama, now presents us all with a presently immediate, unprecedented quality of crisis for all humanity: a presently threatened, real-life version of an H.G. Wellsian “Things-To-Come” variety of thermonuclear, virtual extinction-crisis for mankind.

Indeed, so far, since the clear-cut fact of the pre-calculated murder of what had been an already captive, Libyan President Muammar Qaddafi, the world has been virtually hanging, from week to week, on the threat of the launch of what would become, quickly, a thermonuclear war extended to a global scale, extended so by using threatened attacks on Iran and Syria as the chosen detonators employed to create the giant explosion, to bring on active hostilities to the point of the actual launch of a presently intended, thermonuclear attack against no less than Russia and China. Hence, what is currently implied, is nothing less than thermonuclear warfare with world-wide consequences.

Only the immediate ouster, for a just cause, of an insane President Barack Obama, as effected under the provisions of Section 4 of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Federal Constitution, would suffice to render the outbreak of thermonuclear war almost impossible to be pulled off effectively. Without U.S. action to that comparable, related effect, the clearly intended, British orchestration of an intended thermonuclear attack on Russia, China, and also others, would be a considerable, near-term undertaking. It were no mere coincidence that this threatened, most terrible of world wars, should coincide with a British monarchical, avowedly “green” intention, to reduce the world’s population, rapidly, and also suddenly, from seven billions to no more than one billion persons on this planet.

As long as the Nero-like, British royal tool, Barack Obama, were to remain President in fact in the United States, the greatest holocaust known to mankind presently, were almost certain. Without the complicity of the U.S. government held under the virtual thumb of an Obama Presidency, the London-centered launching of that threatened thermonuclear war, were not a likely prospect for a strategically credible undertaking by any set of other powers.

Presently, the causes for Obama’s immediate removal from office are already massive and clear. Two options, appropriately adopted as concerted effects, presently exist. Under Section Four of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Federal Constitution, Obama is ripe to be considered for removal on grounds of mental disqualifications. He has committed repeated violations of his oath of office, violations which warrant summary removal from office. In addition to that, his mental and moral disabilities not only warrant, but require his prompt suspension and probable removal from office. Otherwise, the probable outcome would actually be, for most of us, the terribly inevitable.

The Issue of the New War

So-called “world wars,” are, by their special nature, oligarchical wars, as we might consider the Peloponnesian War for its own time as an example. Such wars are those which are fought, as imperial wars, to the intended conclusion of the crushing of one, or both the principal parties to the verge of a mass extinction. Thermonuclear wars are wars which would now proceed, by their oligarchical natures, up to or beyond extinctions, as all British wars against relatively great powers since Paolo Sarpi’s intended “Thirty Years War,” and the later British model of a “Seven Years War” have done, inevitably, since the original model of a British empire was brought to its successful conclusion with that Peace of Paris which established the British East India Company of Lord Shelburne as an empire in fact.

As “Frederick the Great” had come to recognize much later than he would have liked in retrospect, that “Seven Years War” has been the actual, prototypical model for the recurring practice used for each and all British imperial strategy from the time since the wars launched by the New Venetian party of Paolo Sarpi’s followers, a Sarpian model of cases including the pre-Westphalian “Thirty Years War,” and including the intended, British-created, imperial, “post-Westphalian,” anti-Westphalian conspiracies of the British empire still today. The Frederick who had thought he had fought the right war for the right purpose, lived to discover, and to regret, the fact that what he had actually won, was the creation of the original British empire’s power over continental Europe,—that, in fact, to the present day!

In the case of the current British Empire, which was established in fact by the February 1763 Peace of Paris, all British imperial warfare has been premised on the essential principle of a design modeled on the Anglo-Dutch (i.e., “New Venetian party”) model of the “Seven Years War” which Britain’s Lord Shelburne had won, to lure a Germany whose Kaiser had loved his own British imperial cousins all too well, in the case of that so-called “World War I,” to bring Germany into joining and losing a First World War for which the British empire should have been the party closed down for much-needed “parental corrections.”1See the note appended to this report as a whole on the subject of the lessons to be adduced from the so-called “Franco-Prussian War.”

In fact, the present British imperial policy which London has already imposed upon continental western and central Europe, has been identified, with utter shamelessness, as “a post-Westphalian” system, a system which is intrinsically a colonial branch of what is known presently as a system of stateless “governance,” a system of “governance” which Britain has imposed upon those continental European, formerly sovereign nation-states, now being degraded, at least for this moment, to the “governanced” status of captive British puppets.

In the meantime, relevant influential, institutional forces within the U.S.A. have, fortunately, recently induced a temporary delay of President Obama’s efforts to bring off a new world war according to a thermonuclear form of the Thirty-Years-War model depicted by Friedrich Schiller’s Wallenstein Trilogy. Nevertheless, despite any further delay, the strategic situation around this planet remains more than merely critical.

Only by a refusal by the U.S.A. to permit British puppet Barack Obama to continue to proceed freely with the kind of operations set into motion by the present-day replay of the old Sykes-Picot operation used to set off World War I of the British East India Company’s Fabian agent Alexander Helphand’s “Permanent War, Permanent Revolution,” could some of us have provided the means by aid of which a certain group of nations has so far blocked the presently intended, British/Obama series of actions leading quickly into general warfare. It will, or would be a kind of warfare which had been intended to be launched as soon as the British-led war-making party were certain that Muammar Qaddafi were securely and suddenly dead. The delay in carrying out such British-led action against civilization, were, for the present moment, just that, merely delay.

Saner, hopefully temporarily minority forces, within the United States and Israel, respectively, have played a key role in delaying, thus far, the detonation of what could quickly become assuredly thermonuclear warfare. The combined roles of both Russia’s President and Prime Minister, have been that of crucially important participants in the attempted blocking of the launching of what could become, virtually automatically, the world’s first, and perhaps final, thermonuclear war, a war-policy modeled on the late, professedly “pacificist” Bertrand Russell’s 1946 declaration of his loudly asserted intention to set off a “preventive nuclear war” destruction of the Soviet Union.

In any case, the present monetarist’s hyper-inflationary crisis, now spread throughout the trans-Atlantic region, has already more than exceeded the limits for sustaining the continuation of the present, trans-Atlantic “bail-out” program. The “Euro” system is now past the point of ripeness for threatened disintegration; a return to a system of European continental, systemically sovereign nation-states, is now urgent and existentially so.

The key for understanding this situation is to be found in the urgently needed reforms in the world’s present economic-financial situation, especially the threat of a breakdown-crisis originating as centered in the British imperial system. I explain the crucial point on that account, as follows.

How Britain Ruined the United States

There are many factors and stages mixed into what is to be recognized as included in the process leading out from that London-steered assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy, which made possible the ruinous, 1964 launching of the intentioned ruin of the U.S.A. through a practically decade-long war in Indo-China. That war has shown itself to have been a precedent which, in turn, has led the U.S.A., and therefore the trans-Atlantic region generally, into what has become that general, monetarists’ breakdown-crisis which entered its intended concluding phase with the repeal of President Franklin Roosevelt’s 1933 Glass-Steagall Law, the same law on which the U.S.A.’s crucial role in the defeat of Adolf Hitler, for example, had depended.

It was the intrinsically hyper-inflationary measures leading up to the recent decade’s repeal of the Glass-Steagall Law, which had provided the way for those virtually treasonous measures under the rabidly anglophile successors of one-time Adolf Hitler backer Prescott Bush whose family tradition was to be expressed, through the George H.W. Bush and childish prankster George W. Bush, Jr. (the stand-in comic role for what was actually the Dick Cheney Administration), which cleared the way for the beginning of that trans-Atlantic monetarists’ break-down crisis on stage, which has presently reached the present condition of a general monetary breakdown crisis of the trans-Atlantic banking systems under London’s puppet-President, the Barack Obama Administration.

I have had a special kind of crucial personal, patriotic role of opposition during that more recent phase of that Bush-league process of nastinesses and pseudo-patriotism, in my uttering my July-August 2007 draft for a Homeowners and Bank Protection Act. That Act, had it not been blocked, would have prevented the fall into the British trap set by Lord Rothschild’s international banking practices, the trap which was to become known as that “bail-out” process which has led into a breakdown which has reached its virtually terminal stage for the trans-Atlantic financial system, a point of virtual breakdown which was being reached, during the most recent weeks, when the so-called “Euro system” had entered a state of worse than mere preparation of its own early disintegration.

This trans-Atlantic breakdown-process, had been the special circumstances arranged through the role of a fraud by the British empire’s launching, through the agency of Britain’s lying Prime Minister Tony Blair, of a new Iraq War pushed by the British imperial interests under silly President George W. Bush, Jr. This pattern was continued and then greatly aggravated under what has been in fact a singularly unpatriotic, actually British Royal agent, the President Barack Obama, whose personal mental characteristics have been shown, most abundantly, to be those of a virtual duplicate of a new Emperor Nero.

So, in such a manner, a virtual psychopathological replica of the worst of Emperor Nero, the U.S. President Barack Obama who is both a puppet-President, and a nasty-puppet-on-strings of the British monarchy, has brought the world to the brink of a plunge into thermonuclear warfare, by aid of a Libya adventure which had prompted the hastened murder, with Obama’s clear backing, of an already captured President Muammar Qaddafi of Libya. A murder of a Muammar Qaddafi already taken captive, murdered for the political convenience of a guilty, and probably treasonous (were he not already insane) U.S. President Barack Obama.

The intended murder of President Qaddafi had been scheduled to clear the way for launching those attacks on Syria and Iran, which were, in turn, intended to be the reactivated spirit of “Sykes-Picot” detonators for, first, an incident plotted against Syria and Iran, which was intended, in turn, then to serve as the pretext for detonating thermonuclear attacks against targets including Russia, China and other selected Eurasian targets of British imperial-directed general thermonuclear warfare, and for unlimited murderous measures to be taken against U.S. nationals which a Nero-duplicate Obama and his cronies might happen to dislike.

Fortunately, so far, the proverbial saner leading elements in the U.S. military, Israel, and Russia, most notably, have acted to delay what had been the intended, reckless and “capital” thermonuclear assaults on Russia and China, but that for who, presently, knows how much longer.

A British empire, exerting its Obama-puppet control over the United States, could not tolerate a relatively prospering set of Asian nations not being destroyed, under the conditions, at the same time, that the trans-Atlantic region was being plunged by British-led interests into its presently on-rushing, and almost terminal stage of breakdown-crisis. The only means by which that awkward intention could be accomplished, would be thermonuclear attacks on Russia and China, among other regions of a Eurasian set of nations.

In the meantime, the ongoing trans-Atlantic hyper-inflation has reached beyond limits of control. The critical point was reached with the death of President Qaddafi, and now with the monetarist system of, most apparently, western and central Europe, collapsing out of control under the crumbling of the “post-Westphalian” design intended for a system of captive European-continental puppets, all of them operating under the presently turned-questionable prospect for British “Euro” control over the post-nation-state system, called “governance,” of a system of British colonies over the region of continental Europe and beyond.

My Economic Reforms

As I have pointed out above, this new phase of the process of a breakdown, had been set actively into motion through the actions taken in the U.S. Congress to prevent the institution of my proposal for a Homeowners and Bank Protection Act of 2007. The result of this intervention from the U.S. Congress, was expressed by the formal launching of the Anglo-American-led mass-insanity of a process of “bail out” which was unleashed during the closing months of 2008, and continued with utterly boundless mass-insanity, by members of the U.S. Congress, among many others, up to the present date. The entirety of the trans-Atlantic financial-monetary system, is now gripped by a general, monetarists’ breakdown of the trans-Atlantic region, through the same kind of formulations as were used to launch the artificially induced 1923 Germany hyperinflation, but, this time, the unleashing of a general monetary breakdown-crisis on a virtually semi-global scale, or perhaps, global scale.

To begin that unavoidably turbulent journey on which the evidence of this present report and its inherent passions have taken us this far into the pits of Hell, I forewarn the readers that the remedies for that crisis lie, in fact, under the subject-heading of the potential of that specific expression of the human species’ potential immortality, which is intimated as that same implied question of immortality which challenges the reader of the Apostle Paul’s First Corinthians 13.

The crucial relevance of that latter subject-matter, as identified here, is, that, under today’s conditions, when the susceptibility to believe is concentrated in the sucking quicksands of sense-certainty, the prevalent forms of belief tend to assume the form of what is, in fact, a certain, systemically vicious error. This is a kind of error of oversight, the like of which, in certain past periods of history, has often had horrid portents for mankind generally, but even many such past miseries must seem relatively mild, when compared to the monstrously greater horror of those thermonuclear bombardments immediately threatening civilization in this profoundly troubled present time.

Exactly that threatening state of affairs, is now mankind’s immediate, political-economic situation, at a time when we are presently confronted by the immediate threat of more or less global, thermonuclear extinctions, as that has been set into its present motion, by what appears to be the hand of the British Empire’s foolish, and habitually enraged, Emperor Nero-like, U.S. puppet-President Barack Obama, today. It must be said, of these matters, that humanity has a far greater importance, and consequent obligations in our locality in the universe, than most among our citizens have yet even begun to know.

These are, thus, times, in which certain well-defined types of fundamental changes must be introduced to the economic practices of our present nations, including our own U.S.A. most emphatically. Our presently continuing investigation, both as to how we came here, and where we must go, impels our attention deep into the relevant elements of past, present, and future history, including those of present and future physical science. Some measures are immediately obvious; but we have, apparently, still far to go, if we are to bring on truly durable cures.


CHAPTER I: THE ACTUAL HUMAN MIND

The most urgent of the categories of subject-matters which this report requires of me, pertain to certain profoundly misleading categories of intention which might appear to have been “built into” the designs of human sense-perceptions.

The first of these mischances which I shall address in the beginning of this first chapter, is the category of what is fairly identified as “clock time,” as that is typified by the argument of Pierre-Simon Laplace.2There are two Pierre-Simon Laplace’s to be considered here. One is Laplace as a physicist; the other is a mathematician pretending to be a physicist, as in the tradition of Euclid, the mere descriptions of form pretending to be substance, which is what we are considering here.

The resulting, second error, falls, in effect, into the category of the role of the customarily troubled ontologies in the misapprehensions respecting the nature, and the use of language.

The problematic feature of each of those “guilty” functional categories locatable within the ranges of sense-perception, is centered in a failure built into a troubled physical function associated with the customary notion of time adopted by such charlatans for that occasion as amazingly perverse Pierre-Simon Laplace.

The first error is expressed by the fallacies associated with the particular functions of what are customarily identified as the human sense-perceptions. The second is the notion of the related notions of organization associated with the fallacies which are inherent in the mistaken notion of the organization of what is considered, customarily, as space-time as such.

The crucial matter of distinctions, is that of the qualifying distinction of physical “space-time” from what is no more than physical time.3The inclusion of the term “space” in respect to the common use of the term “space-time” by me here, is merely nominal. “Space” as such, does not exist. It appears as a result of the failure to comprehend the physical implications of time. The actual origin of much of the problems of similar types, is to be blamed on the observer’s failure to recognize the errors of presumption inherent in a “literal” belief in the measuring of the experience of sense-perception as such. That point is prominent among the crucial ontological issues of distinction of the “failings” inherent in the subjective nature of sense-perception as such, when the fact to which the sense-perception is referred in reality, is not taken into account. For example: a higher rate of action is equivalent to an arrival in a different place in the generality of physical space-time. We require, for example, the dumping of the ontological category of “space,” and redefining of the notion of “time,” as this is already implicit in the work of Max Planck, Albert Einstein, and relevant others.

Reference the notion of a rate of physical energy-flux density as an address of one’s state of existence, as alert scientists sensed it necessary to introduce distinctions of such likenesses since the implications of the distinctions of a state of nuclear-fission relative to the respective chemical, thermonuclear fusion, and matter-anti-matter states, as a comparable approach is suggested in the implications of the concluding section of Bernhard Riemann’s 1854 habilitation dissertation. The matter to be compared, in the case of evolution among living species and classes of species, is the difference between different rates of activity, differing species, and of states among other categories of both living, and not-living processes, plus V.I. Vernadsky’s crucial definition of a “noösphere.” Compare such cases with different species of “energy-flux density” among qualitatively differing qualities of energy-flux-density functions in categories of social-economic processes of varying degree in respect to their qualitative development. Think of variability within the bounds of distinguishing categories of development, rather than a mere difference in degree of development.

Human economy, for example, involves the notion of “leaps” from one state of development to another, as a distinction from a change within the definition of the bounds of variation of a specific quality of a common state of development. Development from one category to a higher species of category of development, has the implied effect of “a species-jump.” The role of qualitatively defined states induced by the use of qualitative steps in scientific progress on Earth, or in constantly accelerated, decelerated voyages, points in the same general directions. This is a pattern which is commonplace in actual economies.

In terms of economy, as that subject was touched upon in the September 30th treatment of the subject of physical-economic progress, this was located by me then and there below the level of a species-jump; the “leap” from one species-level to another, is a qualitative leap of ontological implications, rather than a degree of a fixed quality of change. Man’s experience with the travel to as modest a choice of destination as that located in accelerated-decelerated travel over intervals such as to and from Mars, would leave a strong suggestion of such classes of experience to those who comprehend even the presently formally reported effects of such movements.

Those general qualities of categories, when each is treated as a single subject, serve us as a key to understanding, and correcting the habitual notions of the effects of the functional distinction of perception from the object being experienced as the effect of sense-perception on the mental-sensory functions.

On History & Creativity

In my Introduction to this present report, which I had named “On History and Creativity,” I had emphasized, summarily, the need to free the human mind from so-called “popular opinion’s” pro-Euclidean folly of belief, a notion of beliefs based on a merely a-priori sense of the alleged certainties of what the intrinsic errors of popular opinion would adopt as being merely “clock-time.”

As I had set forth the basis for the following remarks, as I had done in the course of developing this present report up to the point of opening this present chapter, the folly of the popular opinion on which Laplace had premised his celebrated, but foolish doctrine respecting time, is both his refusal to recognize the reality of a principle of “physical time,” and his silly enthusiasm for his own avowed affinity to the outright hoax of both “The Second Law of Thermodynamics” and of Euclidean “infinity.” By pointing out these exemplary problems, I have intended to emphasize their relevance to the challenge of defining the access to the proof, that the sequence of events of worldwide importance, must take into account the efficiency of physical time, rather than what is, comparatively, the effectively silly “Euclidean-like” notion of “clock time.”

That was, in brief, the ostensibly “hidden implication” of my replies to two of the questions posed to me during the closing portion of the national webcast of this recent September 30. I now carry those subject-matters to the fundamentals which lurked behind my answers to two of the three questions posed to me on that earlier occasion.

By physical time, I have signified a measure of the notional rate of efficiently physical creativity in determining the relativity of a physical outcome measured in terms of change of rate of physical effect during an experience of a passage of what we regard, mistakenly, as merely clock time. This distinction, which I first adopted as a formal notion of physical-economic time, was then employed by me as expressing the characteristic of the conception of the relative rate of net physical-economic progress of an economy treated as a process of qualitative development of “physical economy” over a lapse of apparent time. I have called this “physical time,” as to be strictly distinguished, from here, onward, from being “merely clock time.”

My argument here has a significant basis in actual history, a history which, in the relatively short term, now begins, step by step, as follows.

My Original Economic Forecast

In light of the fact, that I have rejected statistical forecasting methods as being intrinsically incompetent substitutes for any truly competent scientific understanding in and of themselves, it should be clear that I have no great affinity to the statistical methods which remain prevalent practice in what is foolishly mislabeled as being “economic forecasting.” Yet, in fact, I have the absolutely best of the known records in major cases of strategic qualities of economic forecasting for the U.S. economy at any time since my first public, professional forecast laid down in late Summer 1956. The difference is, that what I practice is an excellent sort of relevant science: as many embittered veterans of the August 1971 crash remembered with pain since their rather uncertain steps to intend to return to their business or relevant academic quarters throughout the remainder of that year, and rather far beyond.

That just-stated fact has the most profound implications for every leading nation of the world at this present moment of impending thermonuclear warfare. To explain the principles involved in such forecasting, I shall present a paragraph’s worth of explanation of this apparent paradox here, in advance, and then proceed to what readers might consider as a hard synopsis of my first eminently successful venture of that sort, in a crucial forecast of what virtually “broke out” as a sudden, deep, and somewhat prolonged, first post-World War II U.S. recession (actually a depression), which broke out into the open at the close of February 1957.

Customary forecasting, as adopted for most leading economists and their markets, creates the actual causes for their customary failures in that profession, as a consequence of the fact that the customary, but usually failed method for forecasting, still today, is statistical: depending upon forecasting what might seem to be the pathways of the future, by following the footprints left by the past. That means, that such forecasting begins with the inherent incompetence of proceeding from calculating what is expected to happen, based on statistics from the past, rather than approaching the matter from a truly forseeable basis in the intellectual freshness of the actual future.

About the past, there is little one might be able to accomplish. Seeking the future in the relics of the past, is for dupes and kindred sorts of intellectual failures.

Admittedly, of course, I, too, use evidence from the past in my own successful forecasting. The difference is, that most others read the footprints of the future while dreaming of a future copied from the past; I relied on the evidence of the direction of, not the footprints of where the man has walked, but the combination of both of those footprints where the man has walked, and whither the effect of that intention is leading him in what he imagines he is walking toward, often without his knowledge of his actual choice of direction; it is the mere dream of the past itself which often prevails in shaping his judgment. Many people, for example, dream of being rich, or the like. They desire to be rich, or powerful, or something in the direction of either, or both. I put my trust in doing that which will be beneficial for society, relying on the durable advantage found in what I gained as my own foreknowledge, as, for example, my adopted emphasis on coming to gain a reliable insight into both the wrongness of Euclid and, the contrary, wonderful and important implications of Bernhard Riemann’s habilitation dissertation, which became the cornerstone of my memorable achievements as an economist in the practice of forecasting.

My exceptional success in my aforestated forecast, in late Summer of 1956, of the major so-called “recession”—actually a depression,which erupted exactly as I had forecast,—at the close of February 1957, is an excellent case in point.

My presently long-standing profession as a physical economist has been situated within the domain of physical economy, as distinct from the silliness of the use of the inherently mistaken methods of financial accounting, especially when they have been used as a monetarist’s counterfeit as a substitute for a competent approach to the future of a real economy. The uniqueness of my successes in economic forecasting, as compared over the span since Summer 1956, with a record of the relatively consistent failures of leading forecasters, and leading governments, otherwise, has had absolutely nothing accidental in it. That point is made most clearly, when the emphasis is placed on physical-economic considerations, as I have done, rather than a typical monetarist’s statistical-accounting practices, the latter a practice whose application is, commonly, either based upon, or even claimed to have been based upon statistical-financial and related methods. My earliest and completely successful, first general forecast made for the U.S.A. economy, during the interval 1956-57, and beyond, adequately states the essentials of the case.

As I have just stated, my first national-economic forecast for the United States, was developed during the Summer of 1956, where it emerged in the form of my forecast for an “unusually steep and profound U.S. recession,” more appropriately identified as “virtually a depression,” which was located during the February-March passage of 1957 and its downstream aftermath. That recession had, then, actually happened in the late February-early March location of 1957, exactly in respect to the timing, characteristics, and evident causes, which I had forecast.

The studies which led into the forecast which I had made, for late-February/early-March 1957, during August 1956, were premised, in respect to variables, primarily, on my studies for the U.S. automobile production and related marketing processes during the 1954-1956 interval. I had used the cases of other major elements of mass-marketing of hard goods sold on account of loans, for comparison with the evidence of marketing of sales of new and used automobiles on multi-year credit.

Later, after the disaster in the industry had happened, automobile manufacturers moved in the direction of adopting the changes in types of accounting systems not far distinct from the cardinal points of reforms which I had stressed most emphatically during the course of 1954-57, but they then went on to make new crucial mistakes, instead.

The study on which my forecast had depended, had been prompted by a coincidence between a study, launched by me in 1953, and based on the opening paragraphs and more extended closing sections of Bernhard Riemann’s 1854 habilitation dissertation, and a study by me which had been provoked, earlier, by the prompting of perturbations shown for the steel industry which had to be noted as a matter of policy during that earlier time as a decline which I had then attributed to the effect of a clearly manifest set of destructive, anti-Franklin Roosevelt policies which expressed the legacy of the pro-British trends in economic policy practiced under the Harry S Truman Administration.

The marketing and credit policies under the Truman Administration and its aftermath had quickly become, early on, an obvious source of what were, in large degree, an intentional set of often intentionally chosen, but looming economic and social disasters: all done to the clearly intended effect of a British intention to weaken a U.S. economy whose strengths were deemed a threat of Franklin Roosevelt’s superior intellectual and moral advantages relative to the inherent decadence of the British imperial system. The pathological developments, since the inauguration of President Harry S Truman, in the trend of U.S. policy governing public and private credit in the marketing of the combination of new and used automobiles during that time, had already been indicative consequences of the “pro-Churchill,” “pro-Wall Street,” Truman legacy.

From the beginning, Wall Street “maven” and Senator, Harry S Truman had entered the Vice-Presidency as the malicious opponent of that President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who witting patriots zealously hoped would outlive the completion of his fourth Presidency. Unfortunately, Roosevelt did not live long thereafter, and the worst that could be expected to happen, happened: Winston Churchill owned whatever passed for Harry Truman’s political soul, and that was evident to the man who had been the head of the wartime OSS, Donovan, the same who had left the visit to the President’s Office, shortly before President Roosevelt’s death, saying “It’s all over.” If the effects of the change, after Franklin Roosevelt, to the policies of Truman, had not been the fruit of virtual treason, what was?

The Presidencies of Dwight Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy did what they could, and a good share more; but both President Kennedy and his brother Robert, were not permitted to live long enough to remedy what the British monarchy and Harry S Truman had already done to ruin our United States.

For example, consider the specific, early failures in the national domestic economic policy of President Dwight Eisenhower’s Administration’s already disastrous Economic Advisor Arthur Burns. These were failures which were centered in the incompetence of the policies expressed by what would become Burns’ later, continued role as a policy advisor to official Washington, through to the time of the Richard Nixon Administration’s great collapse of the U.S. economy, which struck in August 1971. It was the uniqueness of my 1966-1971 steady forecast of what became the August 1971, Nixon Administration crash, which caught the inevitable attention to what had been already my consistent record of unique competence as an economic forecaster, since Summer 1956.

I had conducted the studies on which my unique forecast of the 1957 “crash” had been based, during a period from the middle through late 1950s, based largely on my investigations which were then based chiefly in what soon became my position as an executive in a large management consulting firm. That investigation, which was conducted during the period of the Eisenhower Administration, continued under other auspices over the course of time leading into the virtual world-ranging breakdown of the existing trans-Atlantic monetary system in that August 1971, which was both the time of my unique recognition as a leading economic forecaster in the matter of the August 1971 collapse of the Bretton Woods system, and a source of pain to those leading economists who had all “totally missed the boat” in that matter.

That collapse had three outstanding causes. First, the 1957 “crash” whose embittering effects lingered on in that state, until a time within the early days of the Presidency of John F. Kennedy, when an economic recovery was finally, if temporarily under way. Second, the immediate, depressive effects of the assassination of President Kennedy. Third, the assassination of Senator Robert Kennedy, which brought former Vice-President Richard M. Nixon into the Presidency, setting the pattern for the downturns which followed, into the abysmal Obama Presidency which has followed since. Even a President of promise could do no better than resist the continuation of the pattern of declines which followed the assassinations of the two Kennedys. The defeat of the SDI and the fatal affair of the folly of the ideological misjudgments which caused the avoidable folly of the “O-Ring” disaster, signaled the character of the trend which had remained in charge of the fate of the Presidency, since the combination of the effects of the assassination of the two Kennedys, as the death of President Franklin Roosevelt had already destroyed so much of what he had launched or intended earlier.

Meanwhile, under the conditions of the middle to late 1950s, the quality of the performance of the automobile industry’s quality-control practices plummeted, while the speculative orgies in the marketing of new and used automotive vehicles, and in related production and marketing practices, progressed, and continued so, despite the progress of the space program, and in the reforms of the John F. Kennedy Administration, reforms which had had the effect of having been introduced to reverse regrettable developments in the heritage of the Harry Truman Administration, onward, despite the fact that the longer-term tendency toward cultural decadence since the death of Franklin Roosevelt, was still under way in developments proceeding from the category of a doubtful, to a virtually lunatic practice of a system of financial management which had been accelerated into the relative “stratosphere” of the marketing of automobiles (new and used alike).

However, despite all that, the failures in the U.S. economy of the 1950s, such as that of the 1957 crash, had coincided with the arrival of the contrary trend of an economic stimulus in the United States which erupted from within the Eisenhower Administration, a beneficial economic stimulation introduced as the economic after-shock which came as a stimulating by-product of the Soviet launching of the challenging appearance of “Sputnik.” It was that latter shift which prompted the late 1950s surge associated with the coordinated, international roles of President Dwight Eisenhower, President Charles de Gaulle, and the Chancellor of West Germany, Konrad Adenauer. It was the defeat of Vice-President Richard Nixon by Presidential candidate John F. Kennedy, the seemingly perpetual, attempted assassinations of Charles de Gaulle, and related developments culminating in the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy, combined with the post-Kennedy Indo-China war, which set into motion the long-term down-turn, per-capita in the U.S. physical economy.

It is important, that some additional facts, rooted in the ruinous passage from the Franklin Roosevelt Administration, into a descent into the disgusting Truman Administration, be emphasized in connection with events reaching far beyond the assassinations of John F. and Robert Kennedy. However, a longer view of U.S. national economic history, must be taken into account, before coming to a firm decision respecting the economic trends of both the post-Franklin Roosevelt Administration and before relevant, later international political-economic processes, could be duly taken under consideration.

National and international strategies are a crucial factor in economy, internationally, as also nationally, and are also as much political, as economic matters. Indeed, the greatest damage done to the U.S. economy, in particular, was done, permitted, and aggravated, by what was already set into motion, from the incumbency of Harry S Truman, as the actually enacted net downturn in national legislation, as also by pernicious forms of cultural trends. The reductionist ideologies jammed through much of the U.S. Congress, had become the vehicle for acts of law which have had, usually, a cumulatively, increasingly pernicious character of effects, up to the most recent several years, as the most monstrous of the disastrous effects which the economy and population of our republic have suffered over the course of the post-World War II period, especially with the arrival of President Richard Nixon’s, increasingly utterly stupid, as much as destructively pernicious, British-like brands of his ideas in office.

In the meantime, social fads, such as the effects of policies like those of the post-World War II Congress for Cultural Freedom, have probably been a more significant source of corruption of the trans-Atlantic economy than other post-World War II factors of cultural depravity, excepting the far worse case of the post-John F. Kennedy military policies’ pattern of worsening trends in strategic practices which have been centered, as in the-post President Kennedy custom of chronic long wars. These were the beginning of that pattern of “long wars” which have included virtually perpetual states of warfare and war-postures, for the planet as a whole since the elimination of President John F. Kennedy.

This foolish policy of long, wasting wars, was often expressed as the fruits of implicitly criminal, British-imperialist influences on military and related policies and practices of such victims as the United States itself, such as the crimes against humanity of the chronically lying and systemically perverse Tony Blair. The election of the essentially foolish, two-term President George W. Bush, Jr., has been the prompting opportunity for the worst, most morally-criminal trend, as the fraudulent role of Britain’s Tony Blair in the case of Iraq, has been an outstanding trigger for what became the virtually criminal and treasonous, global roles of President Barack Obama.4Notably, even after the George W. Bush Presidency had been officially exposed by Secretary of State Colin Powell, for its role as a dupe of an outright fraud fabricated by Prime Minister Tony Blair’s lies used for the launching a war against Iraq, that war itself was continued almost to the present day under both the George W. Bush, Jr. and the later Obama Administrations.

So, looking backward from today, the long-wave view of the quality of performance of the government and economy of our U.S.A., has been on a net downward track since the death of President Franklin Roosevelt.

Hence, we must examine the indispensable distinction of the notion of “physical time” from merely “clock time.” Without employing my own stated principle, or its equal, on that account, there could not be a scientifically competent notion of the actually efficient significance of the physical lapse of nominal time in shaping the unfolding history of the human species. It is the willful nature of the conception of physical time, rather than “clock time,” which, essentially, distinguishes the effects of competent human beings from beasts. It is the notion of physical-time as of a physical, rather than merely clock-time nature, a principle of a causal nature, without which there is, ultimately, neither a competent science, nor the notion of a viable economy.

The Principle of Physical-Time

Up to this point in my treatment of the notion of physical time, what I had said this far in that report, was already true; but, there is more of great importance which remains to be said on this matter, before we will have gained an adequate representation of the implications of what I have developed, and will have written here on this subject up to this point. Were we to depart from the strict definition of physical time at this point, what I have written were not negated; but, it would be a seriously incomplete, and thus a “crippled conception” in that degree and from a practical standpoint. The fault would not lie in what I had said this far, but what has been left unsaid as both policy and law.

We must, first, discard the still popular, but illusory notion of the idea of a linear space-for-itself. In practice, as I have already noted here earlier, the fact remains that “space as an independent dimension” does not exist, and, in fact, never did.

There is little that is more foolish, and also a more likely cause of a person’s willful self-destruction, than “blind faith” in the apparently obvious popular beliefs and practices, in which the credulous have been induced to believe.

The root of the illusion (or, delusion) in popular views on the subject-areas to which I have just referred, must be recognized as frequently located explicitly in the a-priorism of an Aristotelean-Euclidean delusion, the delusion which is the expression of an implicitly a-priori set of notions of space, time, and matter, as this point-in-fact is illustrated by my unique success, then, in forecasting the deep recession which broke out in February-March 1957.

Speaking pedagogically, as I have already emphasized in this report, the notion of an a-priori existence of “space as such” does not exist. An apparently similar, not unrelated fallacy of presumptions, is confronted in the assumed case of “time as in and of itself.” “Physical time” exists in a certain manner of speaking; but, that must be what could be fairly regarded as a physically efficient expression of “action” measured against both lapse of time and the changes in “energy-flux density” of that action taken in time. The notion of “clock time” as defined according to such figures as Laplace, should have been dumped, on precisely these premises.

Once the elements of a-prioristic presumptions have been placed to one side, the variable density of action and the effect of the changing rate of density of action on the notion of time, have eliminated the “reasonable standing” for any remnants of the worse than worthless Laplace’s a-prioristic presumptions respecting the notion of physical action as compared with “simple” time. What I have employed with more or less consistency over the recent sixty years, has been a notion of physical time as a unified notion of a principle of action. One may often wonder, which were the more destructive, that which people do not know, or what certified authorities in nominal expertise, often induce the fearfully weak or simply credulous to believe.

While such considerations as those which I have just indicated, are definable in terms of relatively universal physical time, the full impact of the significance of those words is essentially specific to human behavior. The specific quality to be considered on this account, is the need of a noëtic principle’s role as a principle of action specific to human behavior. We should have learned from returning attention implicitly to the subject of the former auto industry of the 1950s, on this account.

The Subject of Energy-Flux Density

Among all presently known living species, only the human mind is qualified for expressing actually noëtic (Vernadskyan) characteristics in behavior, notably in the willful character of the variability of the effects of increase of energy-flux density in human social behavior. The human body is not immortal, but the unique fruits of human creativity are potentially immortal.

That point which I had just made in the preceding sentence, is to be emphasized as expressing a uniquely human characteristic which is capable of expressing the determining role of effects of productive employment of increased energy-flux-density in society on the potential quality of human existence in society. Indeed, it is the case, that we must expect, as from a true disciple of the hoaxster known as “the Prophet Laplace,” what has been a specifically entropic decrease, over about a half-century, in the productive powers of labor, that in a society which has been ultimately affected by means of a failure to apply the required potential of a relative increase in net energy-flux density to a better than currently existing, or higher level of application of progress in technology.

Societies will undergo deterioration in the productive powers of labor, as a result of a fixed level of applied energy-flux density (i.e., “zero technological growth”). “Zero-growth economies” are inherently failed economies, already facing a threatened, aggravated rate of decline. We, in the trans-Atlantic region, have sometimes experienced a long wave of what, in net effect, is simply physical decline, or even, as presently, now prospective, and actually currently accelerating, “pro-environmentalist” waves of devastating human collapses and other signs of extinctions.

In fact, a culture which does not exhibit upward trends in effective increases in energy-flux density, will soon show itself to us as a probably doomed society, as the history of Europe has demonstrated that fact in what has been sometimes described as a recurring “Rise and Fall of the Roman...” empires, from the first accession of Caesar, to the general collapse in the trans-Atlantic region now in progress under the current British Empire today, as with all other expressions of the Roman empires and their known consequents, now.

Such latter types of results may occur in terms of relative (“ups and downs”), or as absolute declines. The ultimate standard for measurements of causes and effects, is the rise or decline of potential relative population-density, as defined relative to a relatively fixed standard of living for a relatively fixed level of population and its rates of reproduction over time.

Thus, the lessons which should be adduced from what I have identified as the characteristics of the just-outlined case of the 1953-1957 interval of accelerating inflation in the automotive and related industries. Such declines have been sometimes resisted for a time, even periodically, to say the least. In retrospect, no competent economists, as defined by a reasonable standard of professionalism, could competently deny the effect of my unique successes in the matter of the sudden and steep U.S. “recession” of the late 1950s, nor today; but, the fact of my successful forecast of the Summer 1971’s steep decline in the U.S. physical economy, has proven itself to be the herald of a decline which has persisted without an actual reversal in that long-term trend, as this has been expressed, in relevant effects of trends over the interval from 1971, into the new “crash” which had arrived, as I had forecast, during the late 1980s, and the plunge into a persisting wave of systemic “economic breakdown-crisis” since the onset of the George W. Bush, Jr. Administration, and the wildly accelerating steepness of a virtually terminal plunge into doom under the Barack Obama Administration.

Unfortunately, according to the actual record, the typical practice in economic forecasting in process now, has been of a “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” variety, as this was emphasized repeatedly by the “ghosts” of the celebrated German motion picture Das Spukschloss Im Spessart (1960).

The Doom of Laplace as Such

Take into account, as an important example for us to consider in that light, the inherent incompetence of a widespread blind faith in “clock time,” as that foolish belief had not only been promoted by the errant Pierre-Simon Laplace himself, but, worse, as his foolishness on this account had become deeply embedded in the stinking, greenish quicksands of what is, presently, both a popular, and also an utterly fraudulent version of “scientific opinion,” today.

The particular argument on behalf of the folly of both Laplace and of those who have shared his regressive fantasies, has been ridiculous, especially so when their common follies are considered in light of what have been the contrary true insights into the knowledge shared among those modern, pace-setting scientists typified by such followers of Bernhard Riemann’s pioneering role as Max Planck, Albert Einstein, and also, most notably, the V.I. Vernadsky who taught scientists to fill themselves with both life and the uniquely human power for genius.

The work of that latter pair of Planck and Einstein (and of others of kindred persuasion) had inaugurated the competent science of the Twentieth Century in their courageous opposition to the principal frauds of that century, as those frauds are typified by the most typically evil cases, as that is illustrated by the Austrian School’s Ernst Mach, and Mach’s putative, and worse successors, such as the British Empire’s Bertrand Russell, and the richly deserved notoriety of Russell’s quantum-theory lackeys at the 1927 Solvay Conference.

That summary piece from history taken into account, we must locate the root of our argument for this occasion, by considering the crucial case for the true beginnings of all that has been the specific competence of that original modern science which had been founded by the genius of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, and the implications of these matters from the vantage-point of the crucial features of the work of such bench-mark figures as the “book-end”-like figures of modern science’s Bernhard Riemann and V.I. Vernadsky, as I address this crucially important matter under the subject-matter of Chapter I here.

On the subject of this matter as a subject of European history, it is to be noted that, excepting the sheer genius of Charlemagne’s revolutionary achievements in statecraft, and his collaboration with Haroun al-Raschid, in their time, there is not much good to be said, strategically, in the proverbial “final analysis” of the European and neighboring regions’ statecraft of nations and peoples existing prior to Europe’s Fourteenth-century “New Dark Age.”

Indeed, to the extent that scientific practice today is centered on the legacy of the great modern polymath Nicholas of Cusa and his followers, theirs is a legacy within modern European science which represents a tradition without any important rival in European history since the Classical Greek history leading into the work of Plato and such among his followers as the notable Eratosthenes. The genius of the principal followers of the work of Cusa and his followers in modern science, through the influence of such moderns as his followers, Kepler, Leibniz, their followers, and the great V.I. Vernadsky, is as Percy Bysshe Shelley wrote of his own colleagues in his A Defence of Poetry.

Therefore, to understand the roots of what we are today, we should now look back a few centuries. Look back to the great genius from the time of what was named “The Golden Renaissance” of the time of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa. Cusa, in his time (A.D. 1401-1464), had exposed the fraudulent character of what would become the variety of popular silliness embodied, later, in the modern reductionism of the dupes of that charlatan known as Bertrand Russell.

Cusa’s own achievement as the outstanding figure in the founding of modern science, had been shown in its most concentrated, wholesome expression, by his De Docta Ignorantia. Something in the likeness of his judgment had been already foreseen, in significant degree, among others such as Cusa’s relatively senior contemporary Filippo Brunelleschi, and as what would become the somewhat overlapping, later achievements of Brunelleschi and Cusa, achievements which would be echoed, in some crucially significant degree, by such as Johannes Kepler. It has been Cusa’s method in physical science, which had been explicitly derived from Brunelleschi, Cusa, Leonardo da Vinci, and others, which is echoed in those great advances in science to be recognized in the outcome of Kepler’s own, absolutely crucial, uniquely original discovery of the universal principle of gravitation. The implications of Kepler’s discovery, however denied by the corrupt or merely credulous, still today, go into the very deep roots of all competent scientific practice today.

In one view of that matter, Kepler’s greatest, unique accomplishment in all physical science to date, had been his discovery of what has been named as the principle of gravitation. In fact, although Kepler’s discovery of the principle of gravitation, was a unique masterpiece in its own right, as I shall emphasize here, Kepler’s own greatest achievement lay in his earlier discovery of the universal discovery of the principle of metaphor, metaphor as the principle of that which moved the stars and all which we have customarily regarded as “beneath”: the application of the universality of the physical principle of metaphor, was heralded by his notion of a “vicarious hypothesis.Kepler’s discovery of gravitation, depended crucially on his expressed application of what is, in practice, the absolutely universal quality of the intrinsic humanity of the physical principle embodied within Classical poetic metaphor.

Later, in Chapter III, we shall uncover the crucial connection of this specific notion of metaphor to the function of physical time to be counterposed to the notions of Laplace.

To continue this report on some of the most crucial matters of science, as we must also present the truth of his achievements for students and others today, we must now, also, put away the desire to revive certain garbage produced by certain from Kepler’s notable adversaries from later times.

The Sequence To Be Chosen

What I have just stated here this far, is perfectly true beyond reasonably competent objections. Despite that fact, the popular mind of much of what is even purported scientific opinion today, is polluted to extremes by, chiefly, what is to be recognized as the effects of drilling and grilling of dupes into adopting what have been the prevalent, specifically oligarchical traditions of sundry ancient through present-day cultures. Such is that controversy which I am addressing, at this moment, as being a certain conflict respecting the choice of alternative pathways in the ordering of the steps which I, as author, must prefer as a subject-matter to invade at this juncture.

The consequently implied question is: shall I proceed, pedagogically, henceforth, by presenting, first, the presently popular, but incompetent features of presently dominant traditions rooted in the heritages of oligarchical cultures, or, as an alternative, should I proceed directly to a presentation of the truthful argument, which I already know as an argument which must replace the inherently foolish beliefs, respecting such subject-matter, which are associated with the customary traditions and present classrooms for today?

For me, the truth is too much purely creative fun to permit it to be avoided. The remedy to which I have just referred above, the principle of Kepler’s unique discovery of a principle of gravitation, must step in.


1.1 The Enemies of Kepler

I have chosen it here (or, perhaps, it has chosen me), to emphasize a direct attack which uses Kepler’s proof based on the conclusive method of metaphor, as, implicitly, Albert Einstein had, clearly, also done later, using the principle of (in fact) what is actually the physical-scientific principle of metaphor, this time, as the keystone which must now be imposed upon all design of standards for establishing anything truly competent in the sense of “finality” within scientific method. The method which I shall employ in this report for that purpose, rests upon speculation, but also crucial evidence. I shall proceed accordingly, through application of the method of the principle of metaphor, as the required method of attacking directly the principled errors embedded in the relatively more significant output of those who have played a leading part in establishing what should be regarded by us, as the relevant reigns of error in science, and the like in the abused name of truly Classical art, today.5For my purposes, I have divided the subject of human knowledge according to a “hierarchy” of the organization of human knowledge, which begins, from the top down, with the principle of metaphor, on which well-organized knowledge depends. The practiced expression of the principle of metaphor, has two subsidiary qualities of leading expressions, which are, respectively, foremost, Classical artistic composition, and, then, physical science. All respectable other expressions are reflections of all three of the above. Albert Einstein, I suspect most strongly, would have agreed. As I shall have demonstrated at an appropriate later point in this report, there is an ironical quality of wastefulness in premising the notion of metaphor on use of a spoken language. I shall clarify that matter in due course.

For example: consider the contrary opinions of some among Kepler’s most outspoken, reductionist opponents, which are rather prominent even in contemporary academic life today. They, the credulous, have often continued to express themselves in manners coinciding with the sundry willful frauds utilized by those, such as the most typically evil Bertrand Russell, who remain the most significant representatives from among the opponents of both of, typically, the likenesses in spirit and practice of Cusa, Leonardo da Vinci, Kepler and Gottfried Leibniz, and also, of those, later, typical opponents of reductionist dogma who are typified by Bernhard Riemann, Max Planck, Albert Einstein, and, in a most crucial way, V.I. Vernadsky, up through this present time.

A Babylonian Priesthood Said “No!”

I refer you to the fact which had once not only shocked, but astonished me, in my recognition of the number of what I knew as usually gifted physicists and other highly regarded scientists, who fell into even collective rage-fits at the mere mention of the name of Johannes Kepler; worse, they were each, in such cases, also impassioned devotees of the dogma associated with the name of the silly charlatan, Isaac Newton!

These were mistaken, but not all were “bad people.”

Ordinarily, I admired the work of many of them as both persons and scientists, most of the time. However, they had also been taught, unfortunately, that they had better not risk their careers and family incomes alike, by saying unpleasant words about the disgusting swindler known as “Isaac Newton.” Even some from among the best and otherwise most courageous scientists, even many of impressive rank, have been included, usually, as of the types who have been incapable of rejecting a standing academic order to kiss the butt of Newton publicly, or to refrain from ridiculing the silly and thoroughly fraudulent decree of such as the hoaxster and mathematician Rudolf Clausius’ “Second Law of Thermodynamics,” or Laplace’s doctrine publicly.

The roster of the opponents of Cusa and of Cusa’s followers through such of those followers of Cusa’s initiatives as Riemann, Planck, Einstein, and Vernadsky today, should include a list of such representatives of the oligarchical cults, a list which includes the Venetian hoaxster and hater of the then deceased Nicholas of Cusa, the same Francesco Zorzi (a.k.a. Giorgi) who played a key role as a top-ranking Venetian spy in the crafting of the personality of, and political influence over England’s disastrous Henry VIII.

More than a century later, Venice’s unscrupulous Cartesian Abbé Antonio Schinella Conti, had served in his own time as the virtual “ghost writer” for that charlatan working as Conti’s silly puppet Sir Isaac Newton. The reductionist frauds perpetrated under the direction of Conti and other relevant opponents of both Kepler’s and Leibniz’s achievements in science on such crucial points of the history of science, have remained the typical expression of a willful, well-defined case of a virtually “satanical” corruption.

Such has been the specific corruption which continues to be represented by a certain disgusting variety of theology which was already inherently specific to an ancient oligarchical tradition, as still today.

Fortunately, we are presently enabled to consider the case of the truly great scientific minds from the standpoint of the times of such as the original founder of a comprehensive notion of what has remained today as not merely an original father of an actually modern science, Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, but as, still today, an active leading factor within the roster of scientific thinking, like such of Cusa’s notable followers as Leonardo da Vinci, and Kepler, or one of the greatest of all modern scientists, Gottfried Leibniz. The living role of Kepler’s contributions to the essential foundations of all modern science, has lost none of its luster in that respect, even to the present day: as the case in hand here and now, makes exactly that point. So, did those who think as Cusa did in his identifying the solution for this principle of paradox which is the nature of the character of the universal physical principle called metaphor, as Cusa had done this throughout the composition of his De Docta Ignorantia.

Most notably, Cusa’s work remains as it is to have been, on reflection, as embodied still today, in the actual launching of the centrally underlying principle of all competent modern science.6Helga Zepp, then soon to be known as Helga Zepp-LaRouche, had played a unique role as a pioneering European journalist visiting China during an interval of some months within that special time-period of “The Great Leap Forward”; but, soon after her return from China, she had then chosen to enter a scientific program back in Germany. Not long thereafter, she was in the process of upgrading her commitment to a career into scientific studies. She had participated in a conference of the Cusanus Gesellschaft, under its celebrated leader of that time, Father Rudolf Haubst, when she had reported her participation and impressions to me directly. I was inspired by the report, and encouraged her to consider steering her career in accord with Professor Haubst’s association. Soon, there those who were to become our friends among the clergy in the circles of the Vatican. It was a decision, coupled with her interaction with my initiative launched during the late 1977 start of my original launching of what became the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), which had then catalyzed the destiny of both of us up through the present time these words have been written. That was a development, in which Cusa contributed several crucially unique roles, including those to such effect that every leading current of competence in European and trans-Atlantic physical science, owes the shared foundation of the modern, specifically trans-Atlantic development of all competent modern science, to the radiating influence of that revolution in science, whose origin had been centered in the foundations supplied by an hereditary quality of influence embodied in Cusa’s work, as in also the fulsome pre-shaping of the rudiments of every notable competence which endures as uniquely specific to modern science still today.

The Defense of Science, Still Today

The foregoing, stated considerations, lead us, properly, toward the most profound among all of the relatively better known, historically rooted issues of physical science, as I emphasize in the following outlines.

There was nothing accidental in the stunningly exceptional, revolutionary character of Nicholas of Cusa’s revolution in science and statecraft, as this is typified by his De Docta Ignorantia. Throughout the histories of the Mediterranean and the trans-Atlantic regions, there have been, principally, two mutually irreconcilable conceptions of man and our universe, conceptions sometimes referenced, on the one side, as God the Creator, and, the other, the Satan who, like his other nominal incarnation, the Olympian Zeus, has served in known history as the image of the archetypical, pro-Satanic mode of oligarch.

What the student or others have met as a medley of science, legend, religious traditions, mysticism, outright lies, and the like, have shown one clearly consistent quality over the course of time: they are footprints left by history, which include the history of lies. The clue to understanding such medleys as that, is the saving fact that the history of lies, if and when the lies in and concerning history are considered, is part of the evidence which a real history of mankind and mankind’s experiences must consider, if an understanding of real history is to be adduced.

For example: take the case of the Olympian Zeus, as described. He is a fiction created by evil. It is the evil which is the false reality of that account of history, when the myths of the oligarchs are recognized as the diary of evil written as an apology for its own existence as an evil existence.

Similarly, the history of the reign of that British puppet now known as U.S. President Obama, is the history of an evil done to our United States under the influence of an oligarchical system known as the British form of attempted reincarnation of the Roman empire. The spoor of evil, such as that evil, is real; but, we must keep clear heads in respect to this experience. It was an evil done to our United States by an influence of forces, including such as the instrument known as Obama, which has done evil to our republic, and also to the world. The bloody footprints which Obama represents, are actual footprints; but, the floor itself must, repeatedly, be made clean.

The principle of a true account of history is, that evil deeds have happened; but, as history should remind us, evil, such as that of the Emperor Nero, was never necessarily to have happened; it should not have happened. What should not have happened, was not necessary to have existed. Mankind should have improved itself to the effect that such an experience, such as that of an Emperor Nero on whose character President Obama has been modeled, should not have been permitted, by mankind, to have occurred in the form and role he has represented.

The Lesson of Philo

It will be helpful to the reader at this moment of the argument, to emphasize that this same kind of specific distinction which I have emphasized as the attack on Aristotle by Philo of Alexandria, was by a Philo who was, not just incidentally, an associate of the Christian Apostle Peter.

Philo had attacked a systemically Satanic doctrine which he attributed implicitly to Aristotle, as being also expressed by the doctrine expressed as the wicked, a-priorist presumptions systemically inherent in the system of Euclidean geometry, including its worst presumptions, presumptions which are still widely taught as virtual doctrine to those who are either the unwitting, or the corrupted, as expressed in some specific or mangled form, in schools today. The principle of “a-priorism” of Aristotelean and Euclid’s methods, then as now, is, as Philo argued, the same doctrine of “God is dead” which was later asserted by Friedrich Nietzsche. That doctrine, which is also associated with the notional theological dogma of such as Euclid and Nietzsche, is to be known, traditionally, as “the oligarchical principle,” otherwise known as the assertion that “God the Creator” is dead!

We must not confuse the simply factual “it happened,” with the silly, “it was necessary, therefore it had happened.” The sophistry of “it happened; therefore it must have happened,” must not be treated as a product of a doctrine of legal precedence as such. The Emperor Nero and “President Obama” are developments which should not have happened, and, were, therefore, under proper law, precedents not to have been considered precedents “because they had existed,” or, at least, “not to be considered as lawful precedents,” despite such silly pretexts as “post hoc, ergo propter hoc.”

Laplace, Once More

The same false apology as that already identified here, is an essential feature of the virtually “religious beliefs” of Laplace.

In other words, the essentially common argument of both Euclid and Nietzsche, is that same literally Satanic doctrine which is expressed, still today, by the British monarchy’s currently continuing commitment to reducing the human population from a present level of seven billions souls, to one billion, or even less. It is that British, present-day, mass-murderous, oligarchical form of religious doctrine of mass murder (i.e., genocide), which is disguised to seem, euphemistically, as an allegedly eternal serenity of genocidal “zero growth.” “Zero growth” is a commitment to genocide shared by the British monarchy’s “population policies” and that monarchy’s Hitler-like advocates in the matters of health-care and related policies, as in the case of the Nero-like President Barack Obama.

Hence, we have the related case of the modern conflict between the work of Nicholas of Cusa and that of a certain master of sheer evil, who was known in his time as the Venetian super-spy Francesco Zorzi. This was the Zorzi who, quite literally, virtually created England’s clinically insane mass-murderer in the psychopathological likeness of the Emperor Nero, Henry VIII, both of whom were created out of a mass-murderous quality of intellectual filth. All of Henry’s publicly known crimes were done on site with the help of Zorzi’s accomplice and Norman Pretender Cardinal Pole. That Zorzi is to be marked as equally in the traditions of those pieces of Venetian filth known in such later incarnations as both Paolo Sarpi and, later, the Abbé Antonio-Schinella Conti who created the career of Sir Isaac Newton out of what might be regarded, as being the alternative of either virtually nothing at all, or as something much worse.

Thus, the issue so presented to us is not some merely arbitrary notion of this or that, odd religious beliefs. The issue is the most fundamental of all of the possible foundations respecting the lawful (e.g., “specifically scientifically creative”) ordering of the universe. It is the issue on which the choice of a survival, or a looming extermination of the human species, depends, and does so even during the relatively immediate future. It is a matter of conflict over a universal physical principle of continuing creation presented to us, still today, as presented in the guise of certain, otherwise conflicting religious beliefs.

This, which I have identified here, is the issue which could be resolved only by the “more sophisticated” means which I employ later in this present report. The issue is that of the inherently satanic quality of the oligarchical system often referenced to the image of the Olympian Zeus. Evil exists, but it must be regarded as an evil which needed to have been removed, if it could not have been prevented. When evil makes law, that law is a precedent for, even a father of evil. The reign of oligarchy as a system, is inherently evil; it is the Satanic-like practice of tyranny. A-priori is a special sort of crime.

The Oligarchical System

Plato’s profound genius has contributed greatly to the presentation of clarifying illustrations of the same relevant issue of conflict on which I have focused your attention here. That same controversy which is associated with the memory of Plato, points out the existence of a contrasting, deep, hereditary root of the failures which have continued to predominate in the exemplary history of the nations of western and central European culture, in particular. Such cases as those should be traced, as if clinically, chiefly, to a conflict with the hegemony of what is defined as “the oligarchical system.” That system embodies the specific type of oligarchical evil which has tended to dominate most of European civilization since the times of such evils as those, to name but a few, of Babylon, the Peloponnesian War, and the succession of Roman empires, including the present case of the present-day British empire’s role as a virtual Fourth Roman form of world empire, up into the present date.

It is only when we human beings see these matters in terms of what can be proven to have been lawful principles previously beyond the bounds of what had been our previous understanding of the universe itself, rather than the form of the pathetic limitations imposed upon social systems by those oligarchical interests and their practices, of such as the virtually Satanic quality of the processes of “bail-out hyperinflation” presently, that the human species becomes prodded intellectually, to the degree of becoming morally capable of rising to the requirements of its proper, inherent mission of a mankind dwelling among the precincts of our present galaxy, and implicitly far beyond.

Thus, from out of what has been denounced as “The Whore of Babylon,” through her unvirtuously virtual outcome, the British Empire of today has found its own adopted origins in what has been recorded on that account from the annals of both an ancient and modern actual history of civilization. The legendary Whore of Babylon, typifies both today’s British Empire and its likeness seen in Tony Blair, throughout most of the world today. Such has been the legacy of the British imperial tyranny as defined by various tricks in sundry guises over all of Africa, today. That practice of mass-murderous tyranny, has been defined by a partition of the human population divided among, on the one side, the representatives of a usually reigning oligarchical principle of those who were sometimes called the oligarchy of “the gods” in the time of the Trojan War, and, oppositely, those others reduced to the status of those victims known as “subjects,” or even virtually willing slaves represented by a range from the worst oppressors to the most self-debased victims.

Those of the latter category tend, still today, to be treated as what has been either “merely human,” or less. The tyranny of the oligarchical archetype of that evil old bastard, the mythical Olympian Zeus, was thus imposed upon a greater mass of the population, as if to spite the limited numbers of the qualified defenders of humanity, such as the legendary Prometheus.7The power exerted by mankind is not defined by the numbers associated with a certain opinion; it is defined by the qualities of passion and wisdom expressed by the human individual’s mind, however humble the presumed social standing attributed, momentarily, to that mind, might be.

This division lies truly between mankind and those depraved creatures who claim to be “gods,” or “merely almost gods” ruling over mankind, or, as pretended “gods” such as the inherently shoddy British imperial monarchy of today, a would-be ruler of the world, all pomp, and no true honor, but only circumstance.8I might just have an Norman prince or the like among an inhabitant or two up my own family tree: I would have probably preferred some Saxon of those times. The opposition expressed by such a division, has been continued in the form of a long recurring struggle of resistance of mankind against the oligarchical, so-called Olympian tyranny. The so-called “Olympians,” are actually the representatives of a form of imperial evil, “the oligarchical principle,” which has continued to pollute this planet into these modern times when the tendency has been the present tyranny of the British imperial monarchy and its Neronic puppet, Barack Obama, today. “It must be removed,” according to true law expressed, and carried forth in a lawful way, as the creation of our own original Federal Constitution had prescribed.

This issue which I have outlined thus far in this present report, permeates every underlying issue of civilization, known to me still today. The enemy of civilization is that which was founded on the power expressed as the hereditary evils which have tormented European peoples, in particular. That enemy must be defeated now, even for the sake of as little as the assured mere continuation of the civilized existence of a mankind which still has some semblances of actual freedom.

Time? It is time to have told the truth.


CHAPTER II: HERE AND NOW!


I begin this chapter with a fresh, and I believe, crucially necessary re-statement of an archetype of conflict represented as between the two characteristically conflicting motivations: the one, that of the power of the oligarchy, and the other, the mission of the individual in his or her rights as a citizen. That is a right which is to be recognized as put forth in my just recently published The Strategic Situation Now,9“Reflections on a Work by Nicholas of Cusa: The Strategic Situation Now,” EIR, Dec. 23, 2011;or Lyndon LaRouche Political Action Committee (http://www.larouchepac.com/node/20865).. the writing which, as I remind you, was released as part of this recent series, by me, just on December 14, 2011.

As I had emphasized in earlier accounts, the conflict internal to what is classed as modern science, is exemplified, as since approximately the close of the Nineteenth Century, by the brilliant achievements of Max Planck and Albert Einstein, on the one side, as against the monstrous evil expressed in the role and person of Bertrand Russell, on the nether part.

That is the only exemplary issue of active conflict to be considered at this stage of this, and, then, the following chapters of this report. It were good to remind onself, that the model of evil is typified by such examples as the continued influence of a now-deceased Bertrand Russell and his presently surviving adherents as living caricatures.

We must recall, specifically, the promotion of the induced depravity of the intellectual life radiated from the contemporary British re-re-incarnation of what had been the original, ancient Roman Empire. We should recall that evil influence presently still typified by a now deceased Bertrand Russell’s presently still radiated influence. We should recall the memory of an influence which tends to reign over, and radiate throughout the governing imperial institutions of the world still today, whose pollution of even the name of education, whose misconception, the “green stench,” has polluted the classrooms of even what is often, curiously named “science,” today.

There have been some precious, but unfortunately, so far, only rare, historical moments, which have typified the existence of exceptions to the frequently seemingly absolute tyranny of those varieties of oligarchical rule which we might properly choose to identify as today’s appropriate representation of the legacy of a “Whore of Babylon,” which is a suitable “party name” for the present-day British empire and its agents presently occupying that landmark which the wretched President Theodore Roosevelt, he the beloved nephew of a top-ranking British agent and treasonous spy, cursed with the name of “White House” still to the present day.

We are therefore also reminded of the Babylonian quality of degeneracy of the British Empire’s contemporary lackey, “Wall Street,” which, especially since 2008, has looted both the legitimate and the merchant banking systems of the trans-Atlantic region “down to the bone.” We should recall that the present British monarchy’s and Adolf Hitler’s programs of genocide, were, each in their time, really much the same, or, at the least reflected the same ultimate origins and intentions as the British empire of still today. Cato the Elder had warned us from Rome, repeatedly, as we might repeat his spirited intention today, “... delenda est!”

We should be reminded that the British evil of today is a present-day heritage of not only England’s evil King Henry VIII, but also the legacy of Paolo Sarpi and of what is properly considered in the light of his own role in the crafting of the Thirty Years War, the war which Sarpi’s influence had created. We should recall that it had been that Sarpi who had given sperm to the birth of what was to become William of Orange’s New Venetian party, from which the British empire was “begat” by the means of the British triumph in the same “Seven Years War,” the war which had given birth, in that 1763 Peace of Paris which, in its turn, had established the British Empire of then and, so far today, ever since.

The Physical Science of Language

However, there are other factors to be taken into account as a leading relevant point for consideration in our report here and now.

We shall be obliged, in opening this and the following chapters of this report, to meet the question:

“How is language, as it continues in being misused in sundry regions of the world still now, the virtual Freudian “Id” used to perpetuate oligarchical systems of practically imperial control over what should have been a fraternal community of the respectively sovereign nations of the world—as it must become that now?”

We shall come to a fuller treatment of that specific subject-matter in due course, throughout the remaining portions of this present report. In the meanwhile, that thought leads us toward our asking a question which is an expressed concern which will bring this subject much more fully to our intention, and that, hopefully, before this report has been brought to its conclusion. It will be a matter on which I have already touched, not infrequently, as on which I have written in relevant other reports uttered during the closing hours of this now passed calendar year’s end. It is a matter which exposes that potential for evil which I shall show as having greatly infected the present practice of the evolution of the use of language as such.10This signals the crucially important treatment, later in this report, of the roots of a natural language rooted in the principles of physical science.

There should be no doubt of the urgently needed, early, defeat of the oligarchical tendency in the cultures of present-day society; but, if we take such matters as seriously as we should, this means a necessary commitment to extirpate any continued intellectual premises of oligarchical influences as such. The relevant vulnerability of populations which permit themselves to be subjugated, and even re-subjugated, as the U.S.A. continues to be corrupted by the U.S.A.’s Wall Street, especially since the death of President Franklin Roosevelt, must be brought to a close. The force of incurable evil, expressed as the corruption inherent in Wall Street and its like, continues to be fostered by aid of the exploitation of its present abuse of language, lying, in one part, in the arbitrary features of the manner in which the use of language has been reshaped, repeatedly, generation after generation, as over the course of a generation or two, or more, and, that, for the worst part, according to the manner of the contemporary downward trends in the quality of the popular use of language, which have tended to degrade the generality of the mental life of populations of the contemporary trans-Atlantic generations at large.

This degradation, which I have pointed out here, now, is that which has been brought about by means of what is often described as “the popular use” of the insidious means of crafting of a conventional use of an imputed “literal meaning” of the words of a language. That decadence does not necessarily imply that we engage in a large-scale uprooting of what are known as literate forms of language; it does mean the need to halt the recently accelerated trend of cultural decadence in the trans-Atlantic system, as elsewhere. It also means that we must fight back against the influence of fallacious presumptions, which means, in turn, that we must also come to a deeper insight into often unknown, but nonetheless efficiently rooted, and corrupting presumptions, presumptions at the root of the customary misunderstanding on which the presently habitual, popular misuses of language depend, unfortunately, presently.

Perhaps, nothing illustrates that problem, and clues to its cure, more efficiently, and more directly, than a rigorous consideration of the subject of metaphor: as the spirit of the author of Percy Bysshe Shelley’s A Defence of Poetry, would concur.

From this point onward, throughout the remainder of this report, the subject has now been shifted in its essential meanings, by me, to the notion of language as a subject of an urgently needed upturn in the quality of the actual meaning, and spread of the notion of “physical science.”

Probably, most of you will be shocked at your own discovery of where the root of those indicated problems actually lies. For the moment, I shall appear to be continuing along the lines of the content of this immediate part of this report in this present chapter, a chapter which is now to be followed by a matter of the principle of history, immediately thereafter.11Henceforth, throughout this report, the subject matters of history intermingled with science, will alternate their emphasis, that for reasons which shall be made clear in due course.

The circumstances under which the so-called “Golden Renaissance” of the Great Ecumenical Council of Florence, of the time of Nicholas of Cusa (A.D. 1401-1464) came into existence, are indicative, still today. They are indicative of what must be regarded as standards to be kept in mind, and, so, to be referenced for guidance in the deeper matters which I shall bring into focus here. Consider, for example, the case of the preparation and landing of the ship Mayflower at Plymouth, following a brief stop at the Portuguese fishermen’s station now known to us as Massachusetts’ Provincetown.

The Mayflower’s Gift

Notably, ironically, it has been periods of a great collapse of some then reigning oligarchical system of imperialism, as in the case of the catastrophic collapse of that Venetian-dominated, governing European power during the medieval “New Dark Age,” which have sometimes served, with profound irony, as a kind of “triggering of opportunity” for the unleashing of great upward movements in society’s direction. That was the exemplary case of our own American Revolution, actually so since the foundings of the Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay settlements, and expressed in the continuing revolt of those and kindred settlements in North America against the British imperial tyranny which had been set into motion by the implicitly Sarpian, New Venetian party of the mass-murderous William of Orange in his time.12With the assassinations of Mary Queen of Scots by Queen Elizabeth I, by the ax, of Christopher Marlowe in a tavern, and the accession of Mary’s ostensibly foolish James I, the notorious Paolo Sarpi who had triumphed over the Council of Trent, became the incarnate spirit of all that is modern evil in trans-Atlantic civilization through to the present day. In Sarpi’s enjoyment of those outcomes, Sarpi, in fact, created what was to become known as “The Thirty Years War.” The Papacy’s concerned Cardinal had succeeded in orchestrating what became that Peace of Westphalia which had apparently ended Sarpi’s crimes for the moment. The Sarpian New Venetian party’s Dutch wars against the France of a foolish Louis XIV, and the consequent role of William of Orange, and successive deaths of both England’s Queen Anne and Gottfried Leibniz, allowed the use of “The Seven Years War” to be turned, at the 1763 Peace of Paris, into the Sarpian legacy’s establishment of a new Roman Empire after Lord Shelburne’s liking, into the British Empire which continues to dominate much of the world, still today.

The New England and related American settlements were far, far from being merely spontaneous eruptions.

It is, emphatically true, that the fabled European “Discovery of America” was accomplished through the work of the injunction by Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, that it was urgent that development of settlements based on European Renaissance culture be planted on territories across the great oceans, including, most notably, the then “New World.” Unfortunately, there was the pollution of the marriage-beds in the accession to the Iberian Peninsula by the Habsburg dynasty. That Habsburg link typified the early ruin among the development of the settlements planted by the efforts of the great navigator and devoted follower of the already deceased Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, Christopher Columbus.

Thus, because of the Habsburg pollution of Iberian marriage-beds, the founding of what became the United States of America, was left to be initiated by the original New England settlements at Plymouth, and by the Massachusetts Bay landings.13The original landings of relevance in New England had been established as Portuguese fisherman settlements based on collecting salted cod for marketing in maritime harbors in Europe. For example: the actual first landing of the Pilgrims in North America were made on the tip of what was to become known as “Cape Cod’s” Provincetown. The political birth of what was to become the United States of America was rooted in the contracts adopted by those and relevant added settlements of quasi-independence, agreements whose evolutions define a genetic relationship of intention to what was to be crafted as the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Federal United States Constitution. The accelerated immigrations urged under the Abraham Lincoln Presidency is the phase of development which established the United States as becoming a leading, continental nation of the planet.

Accordingly, to locate the essential distinction of what should be known presently as the efficiently original “American Revolution,” of 1620 and beyond, one must focus attention on several successive, critical American developments leading out of what had been Europe’s disastrous Fourteenth-century collapse.

That had been a collapse whose fortunate aspect had emerged in the bold expression of the inspired insurgency of Jeanne d’Arc, and, later, the consequent rise of the great insurgency which led into the Great Ecumenical Council of Florence, and which had led from that into the revolution led by France’s Louis XI from out of not only the legacies of Jeanne d’Arc and the Council itself, but the crucial, intervening role of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa’s emphasis on sending the fruits of that great Ecumenical Council across the oceans, a policy explicitly that of the Cusa who had, specifically, inspired the voyages made by Christopher Columbus.

Those developments, which made the American Revolution a future feasibility, and which had been realized in North America through our American Revolution, and the which were to become the accomplished assembly of our Revolution in North America, were to become as a “magnet” of hope for justice throughout world. This was a benefit which the world would have not heeded, without what would be typified by Christopher Columbus’ inspiration, as inspired by the effect of Cusa’s warning of the need for moving elements of European populations from oligarchical subjugation, to other continents. This initiative from the leading scientist of his time, Cusa, was what actually initiated the enriched process which was to be realized in the creation of our United States.

There is one crucial point to be added directly to what I have just written here on the subjects of this present chapter, thus far. With respect to Europe, it was the immediate aftermath of the 1763 Peace of Paris which prompted patriotic leaders from within the English-speaking North American colonies, to sever their earlier attachment to a British (now imperial) “mother empire,” after the victory of Britain at the Peace of Paris. That Peace of Paris, had relegated to what was to become the future United States, the role of fulcrum of a great, continuing conflict between the American-republican and European-imperial systems.

Thus, the American Revolution’s victory was accomplished. This was actually accomplished in effect, and also in historical principle, by what was, historically, the momentary aid of those continental powers of Europe which had just been thoroughly raped, earlier, during the Seven Years War, by the heirs of the New Venetian party’s still- reigning imperial government of the British empire-in-fact, a new empire-in-fact then centered, since the February 1763 Peace of Paris, in the British East and West India companies.

These are not matters to be buried within the mere memories of past centuries. To the present day, the constitutional systems predominant in Europe, have remained, “at heart,” as we might say, “chronically,” largely as offshoots rooted in what had been the later generations of the original Roman Empire, and, also, in the roots sprung from the institution of imperial law. In opposition to such ancient imperial evils, the United States’ Declaration of Independence, and, especially, the process of establishment of the Federal system of Constitutional law, has been, thus, a break between the English-speaking parties of the two sides of the Atlantic, the north Atlantic most emphatically: our United States on the one shore, and Europe on the other. Hence, the not unfamiliar quip, an English-speaking population divided by the use of a common language.

Every systemic corruption of our United States’ constitutional law, has been, in respect to essential principles, an expression of the syphilis-like patter of disease known both as Roman law, and as Roman law’s own leading predecessors. The pollution represented by the notion of a systemic principle of “states’ rights” is an example of the corruption to be recognized as expressions of the British offshoots of those roots of Roman imperial law also known to us, as by the replacement of European national sovereignties by the Roman imperial doctrine of “governance.” States’ rights, by their division of nations, create the preconditions for the petty regional tyrannies, by aid of which actually, and potentially great nations, alike, bring their consequent destruction upon themselves.

The recent emphasis, in Europe, on the depraved notion of superseding “government” throughout the European continent by “governance,” is a reflection of the intent to bring the world under a refreshened contemporary offshoot of a Roman Empire which has been presently familiar as being “British.” Hence, the present failure of the so-called “Euro,” which has recently reached what appears to be a virtual end of such an experiment in (British) empire-building. A similar, Romantic hoax has been intruded, via nominally U.S. channels of British imperial misbreeding, currently, into the arguments of the United Nations Organization.

Ironically, the recent, “grinding” destruction of the legacy of the American Revolution, with emphasis on the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and his brother, became a legacy greatly injured by the wicked advantage of the effects of the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert. The Warren Commission’s notorious hoax (and the British monarchy’s role in the causes and cover-ups of the Kennedy assassination) had unleashed a quality of demoralization which had, since, sent our United States, and therefore much of the hope for mankind in the trans-Atlantic world, toward ruin, a change of character of the effects of our U.S. Governments since, which has made what was once our republic a dedicated flunky of a British empire.

So, that promise which had been expressed by the earlier magnificent leadership of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, has been ruined, more and more, by the effects of those anglophile influences which were unleashed by the failure of the U.S. political process to uproot the forces which had been responsible for the failures of the United States under the wretched Wall Street maven Harry S Truman, and the effect of those assassinations of both President John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert. President Kennedy’s death, was used as the opportunity to unleash a prolonged Indo-China war which would not have occurred without the “provident” assassination of President Kennedy. The United States has been repeatedly ruined since the time of the treasonous toleration shown for the assassinations of both President John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert.

The effects of the toleration of those assassinations, have been reflected in the failure of some later U.S. Presidents’ efforts to muster the means to counter the treasonous effects intended by the authors of the U.S.A.’s engagement in the Indo-China war: a war which the leading patriots of our republic had abhorred, but which Britain’s tool of Wall Street viewed as the means with which to uproot the legacy of, most emphatically, President Franklin Roosevelt.

Such have been the treasonous influences radiated from our relevant Boston, Wall Street, and related, spiritually British merchant banking institutions of history since Newburyport’s properly notorious Judge John Lowell, noted, for your reference, in Anton Chaitkin’s Treason in America From Aaron Burr to Averell Harriman.142nd Edition 1986. New Benjamin Franklin House.

Thus, it had been the case in the U.S.A.’s earlier, brief moral and economic revival from the effects of British imperial corruption, which delivered to us the precious goodness which would not have appeared without President Franklin Roosevelt, as re-attempted under President Dwight Eisenhower, and, as attempted later, under President John F. Kennedy. The ugly decadence inherent, most notably, in the Nixon and Carter Administrations, and the failure of the Reagan Administration following the British role in using Soviet General Secretaries Yuri Andropov and the Mikhail Gorbachov who appointed himself my personal enemy, combined with the wretched roles of those worse cases of George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Jr., and, the worst treason of them all, that of Barack Obama, have worked as what are to be fairly named “American Tories in the British imperial service.” Such is the British imperial legacy which has been used to bring what Franklin Roosevelt had built, to a sick-puppet-like status under the conditions of British imperialism’s induced, internal rule and ruin of our republic by certain U.S. Presidents of doubtful actual loyalties.

Such exemplars of reality as Franklin Roosevelt, had given us the initiatives of certain relatively precious trends in their attempts at promoting a decent period of life for not only our own republic, but the true rights of other nations. Such have been honorable trends which had erupted again during certain times when our nation was being freed, if only during certain moments, from the shackles of the oligarchism known under those treasonous U.S. Presidents such as the nephew of a traitor, Theodore Roosevelt, the cases of such as the Ku Klux Klan fanatic in the White House, Woodrow Wilson, and, then, the disgusting Calvin Coolidge, and, then, a Wall Street-oriented Herbert Hoover who had originally harbored the inclinations of what had been the Hitler-liking, Wall Street opposition against President Franklin D. Roosevelt, or, as in the recent case of that implicitly treasonous (and mentally impaired) Barack Obama who serves presently as the British drug-traffickers’ tool in his inserted role as a puppet-President ruling over the U.S.A.

Under our present circumstances, those who have familiarity with some reasonable range of facts of world history, will think back kindly to our U.S.A.’s occasional victories over the evil schemes of the British empire, schemes such as those of a lying hoaxster and Prime Minister Tony Blair’s sending the United States to a prolonged, unjustified, wasting, and prolonged new war in Iraq. Then, came a new, Anglo-American -orchestrated series of warfare as in Afghanistan under President Obama, as had the foolish U.S.A. under Presidents George W. Bush, Jr. and, now, Barack Obama’s expressed intent for a proposed thermonuclear war between the British-directed United States and the Soviet Union, China, et al., et al. It is a war, which, if permitted, a foolish U.S.A. led by an implicitly insane, or simply treasonous President Obama, could probably not survive.

Our U.S. Legacy

Under such British behavior, our patriots should be looking with a loving eye toward the earlier precedent in the great celebration known as that Fifteenth-century “Golden Renaissance” associated with the precious moments of that Great Ecumenical Council of Florence, and the exemplary achievement of the Plymouth settlement. We must take into account what had been that Golden Renaissance which had led into Christopher Columbus’s 1492 realization of what a then-deceased Nicholas of Cusa had pre-planned for an arrival on such foreign shores as those across the Atlantic. That history points out the subsequent, actual founding of what was to become the United States, with the landing on the shores of Massachusetts.

That same, thus illustrated principle of the case of a “Glorious Renaissance,” which now echoes in the unfortunately rare memories of such as the Great Ecumenical Council of Florence, is the only presently existing, principled type of remedy for the presently threatened grave disaster of a planetary “New Dark Age” descending upon us at this moment. The leading question so posed, is “How do we bring such a Renaissance about, now, when it is needed so desperately, and, when the needed, educated quality of patriotic protagonists appears to become so rare?”

These times, can not be justified by the decadent citizen’s reference to an allegedly “realistic” outlook “as being our present times”; the mission presented to us has the same ultimate origins, and goals, to which the ability to reach, potentially, into an influence within our Solar system and its galaxy, has added tremendously powerful options now becoming clear to us as a manifest expression of the power and will of a Creator, an expression implicitly to our advantage, and far beyond anything dreamed by any known living creatures from a half-billion years ago, even human ancestors perhaps about ten millions, or fewer years ago.

Science & the New Renaissance

In the course of the events leading into that most recently published report of mine, The Strategic Situation Now, which I had released on December 14, 2011, I had repeatedly emphasized the urgency of recognizing the inherent depravity represented by the fallacy of what has remained as a still widespread belief in sense-certainty, even among a majority of today’s nominally scientific professionals, and from among other reductionist currents which may not have been scientists, but, like many among our leading officials, could and should have known better, despite all other considerations.

What I had repeatedly stressed on that account, has been the evidence which demonstrates the need to shift contemporary patterns of belief, including matters of science, away from a system of belief which had been based on an a-prioristic dedication to such as that of the regrettable Euclid, away from such foolish notions of sense-certainty, into a better standpoint traced from the modern influence of Cusa, and, which has led me, since 1953, into a standpoint of mine which was implicit in Bernhard Riemann’s launching of a mid-Nineteenth-century revolution in physical science.

Consider Riemann’s revolution centered in such of his exemplary published works as his 1854 habilitation dissertation, and in certain crucial, sometimes overlooked implications of his 1857 Theory of Abelian Functions. Therefore, I explain my current intention in this matter, briefly, as follows.

Some may, nonetheless, ask: Why my emphasis on a specifically scientific Renaissance, here and now?

These questions which I have just posed, including that question just posed, demand answers, including some answers needed to cure certain, presently very deep-rooted challenges to the present level of development of the powers of the human mind. These are challenges which could not be met competently without an actually deep-rooted study of the connection of the scientific achievements of Johannes Kepler’s uniquely original discovery of the physical principle of gravitation, to the natural function of the role of physical science in the proper understanding and use of the notion of language.

These questions bring the work of Kepler to a general and richly resonant complex of successes in respect of that needed understanding of what is usually overlooked, as the relevant countable numbers usually run, successes rooted in the indispensable role of metaphor in defining the means of progress in not only the human condition generally, but also in the ability of mankind to overcome the perils inherent in the currently shifting position of the Solar system within our galaxy.


CHAPTER III: KEPLER & METAPHOR


Within this chapter of the report, I now return here, this time at relatively considerable length, to the closely entwined principles of both “time” and of “the use of language.” I do so, that I might address the subjects which were the content of the two leading matters of discussion during the opening section of this report as a whole. These are the subjects of: first, what is the specific nature of “physical space-time?” and, then, turn to the matter of the “rigorously defined interpretation of the generality of sense-perceptions.” Thus, accordingly, we have opened the gates to admit the consideration of two great, rarely considered, but nonetheless fundamental issues of principle. We do this for the purpose of establishing a necessary redefining of certain present and the foreseeable meanings of the notion of “science,” especially the matters bearing on certain crucially needed reforms respecting the alternate roles of language which might be possibly selected for their role in science.

What I had emphasized during the preceding chapter, while true, had not yet fully met the needs for a full satisfaction at the level of today’s present requirements, were we to cope with the presently urgent challenge of the design for our society’s future, today.

In my experience, in one important, and also frequent type of case, the problem which confronts our society, demands attention to the evil of the oligarchical tradition’s intentions for the present. I am referring to the evil which is specific to the influence of the British monarchy and to the swindlers, or fools, such as those known as representing the present, intrinsically fraudulent opinion of the so-called “environmentalists.”

In the opposing type of case, which I present within this chapter, the most important, relevant problem, is the failure to comprehend the practical meaning of the challenge of Earth’s immediate future, a difficulty which is to be found in the already urgent challenge of securing the future of mankind beyond Earth, within and beyond our Solar system.

The principled challenge which I present to you in this chapter of the report, at this time of world crisis, is the necessity of freeing mankind, both individually, and in broader terms of reference, from the present, inherently terrifying crisis threatening our society now and in the estimated not very distant future, by our using means of the aid from a set of new substitutes for today’s conventional notion of language, a chance which we must be in the process of developing for the practical purposes of thinking about mankind’s nearby future, as it is to be considered within our own galaxy, the galaxy of which our Solar system is only a relatively tiny part.

The importance of that matter of language which pertains to the most urgent requirements in the here and now, will not be so much the language required to enable us to communicate with one another person socially; but rather, the radically new quality which must be incorporated within a more advanced form of the kind of language which our minds must acquire for the purpose of thinking in terms of sufficient actually scientific relevance for mankind’s dealings with physical processes on the scale, in the types, and according to broadened definitions of extended forms of human actions among our local galaxy and its neighbors.

The implications of what I have just written here, might seem to be obscure to some, until we, and they, have recognized the mischief inherent in the manner in which human speech has been defined, heretofore, for purposes of a broadened definition of the “languages” required for future “communication” with objects such as what we could readily define as witting forms of “beings.”

That is the proverbial gist of the surprising challenge which I intend to spring, virtually “upon you all.”

For Example ...

So, restate that point as forcefully as required:

For our looming prospective future, mankind is now entering the process of a changed state of awareness of the increasingly active space of aspects of our galaxy which are located beyond the Solar system’s confines as such. These developments may occur within, or for our persons, or as interaction with processes identifiable as located “out there.” We are, thus, confronted with a challenge which goes beyond what we have been readily prepared to consider as our presently acceptable notion of the functions of modes of communication, so that we might reach beyond the ordinary boundaries of our present notions of biologically defined conceptions. This will be a subject which is specific to the implications of the notions of “higher modes” of communication which I am addressing as the prospective challenge being considered here.

Already, from the leadership provided by the work of V.I. Vernadsky within his lifetime, we know of three leading states of nature, termed the lithosphere, biosphere, and noösphere; but there is no known basis for presuming that that defines some outer limits to conditions of existence we may expect to encounter even within our galaxy. Our provisions for what might be the challenge presented as states of nature, can not guarantee that man’s relationship to “things in nature” can be pre-limited to the three states of nature which Vernadsky established, since already our known states of nature include characteristics which Vernadsky had not known completely. So, until informed otherwise by experience within the scope of our galaxy and beyond, we must anticipate both known and presently confusing states of the human species’ relationship to nature even within our galaxy. The case of our already known-to-be-hyperactive Crab Nebula presents us with warnings on this account.

My present concern in this matter is not an idle concern. The evidence so far is, that the performance of even our modern science is heavily weighted with unnecessary, or outrightly false presumptions, even in the domain of physical science, with what are more or less clearly post-hoc (i.e., “statistical”) presumptions, as the practice of reliance upon statistics demonstrates this fact, rather than foresight into the frontiers of what had been experience of the future, as all truly scientific methods of discovery must meet such challenges. My highly successful, and also, heretofore, chiefly unique successes in my experience as an economic forecaster, have provided an elementary certainty in my knowledge in such matters.

Even without having yet taken those subjects fully into account, we already have available proof that the language generally used for the work of science rests upon what are the very crude tools of the given powers of human sense-perception. For the purposes of the challenges already represented by experimental physics, we must develop a kind of language of physical science which does not rely upon the inherently crude implications of that system of sense-perception which has been the inspiration of the greater part of our development of the kind of language which today’s practices of speech allow presently.

The very nature of the impediments which the ordinary means of human communications through spoken language, indicates as existent, requires a certain kind of hesitation in respect to confidence placed upon a language derived from the experience of built-in foundations of human sense-perceptions.

However, the case which I have just outlined in the preceding paragraphs does not present us with a hopeless case. The remedy for the faults of language on such accounts as those I have indicated up to this point, exists in the implications of the concept of metaphor. Kepler’s actual, and specifically unique discovery of the principle of universal gravitation, provides us a model sort of insight into the problems of a human-language-based speech, and the possible remedies for those problems. Stubborn resistance to the actually substantial meaning of “metaphor” is widespread, such that even those who imagine themselves to be literate in the matter of this subject, have usually failed in their attempted definition of the meaning of that term. Kepler’s actual discovery of gravitation is a most perfect short-range demonstration of the point.

However, the persisting sort of difficulty is that what we consider as “evidence,” customarily, still today, is usually (even almost universally) simply outrightly wrong. For the greater part, Kepler’s strict definition of the principle of gravitation, is the best guide for science on this account, still today.

What our sense-perceptions present, as Kepler’s uniquely original discovery of gravitation, and also Einstein’s “finite, but not bounded” echo, is the indication of the essential difference between sense-certainty and the actual science of Kepler’s emphatic resolution. This means that Kepler had recognized the intrinsic fallacy of adopting the notion of sense-certainty as “scientific fact.” It were effectively immoral to presume that the evidence of our senses must triumph over science; rather, as Riemann had emphasized in the concluding, third section of his 1854 habilitation dissertation, it is sense-perception which must submit to the authority of physical science, as Kepler did precisely that in his actual, and unique definition of a universal principle of gravitation. Such was, and remains, the stroke of genius which is the notion of metaphor in competent modern practice of both physical science and Classical artistic composition. Such is both the principle of Classical artistic composition, and of competent practice of physical science, as Brunelleschi and Nicholas of Cusa converged in their ironical presentations of the revolution which their combined efforts had presented as the foundations of a competent modern physical science. Such is the essential distinction of the competent modern science only typified by such followers of Bernhard Riemann as Max Planck and Albert Einstein, from the depravity of the frauds typified by Bertrand Russell and his followers of the 1920s and beyond, still today.

I am not confusing, here, what are merely “communications” with the presently defined general class of what might be living, intelligent beings within our galaxy, and, implicitly, beyond. My thoughts are presently, in the main, the need for deeper exploration of the functions of “information, command, and control” which are, obviously, required for places which mankind can not access as living sentient beings.

I am considering the advent of men and women today as explorers of the future of mankind, who, for the moment, will be seemingly even minuscule, relative to the vastly growing density of the devices which are presently relevant to not only the security of mankind’s persons within the Solar system, but including here “at home.” I point to a much vaster array of responsive instruments of information, command, and control, such as that associated with such functions as security placed, to mankind’s advantage, within not only remote and difficult regions of the Solar system itself, but penetrating special regions of our galaxy.

What for most among you, at the least, will be that which will shock you the most, respecting the arguments which I am about to spring upon you now, is the ordinary sort of fact, that you were surprised at all, even if not for very long: especially the children.

The requirement of placing such qualities of objects, for both purposes of security, and for comparable functions, within both the region of the inner planets of our Solar system and, increasingly, those more distant regions which lie within a nearby part of our galaxy, must be increased at an accelerating rate. This need has already been emphasized as a prospect-to-be-uncovered by persons such as those of us working within the mission-orientations of our own “basement team.” Much of this concern with developments in our galaxy, will be taken up with considerations tantamount to “galactic weather forecasting.” This would be our presently included mission in the meantime, unless the insanity exhibited by the retrograde and aberrant mind of the Obama Presidency persists as U.S. policy. The rate of increase of energy-flux density of human productive and comparable activities, should be increased by us “geometrically.”

Conclusions To Be Drawn?

This was already foreseen, if only implicitly, in his time, in the opening statements within the concluding Section III of scientist Bernhard Riemann’s 1854 habilitation dissertation.

The following is to be emphasized, on that account, that:

Not only are the presumably “natural ranges” of sense-perception’s access into the extremely large, as into the extremely small, beyond access to even augmented human sense-perception as such; mankind’s efficiently extended reach is typified in other ways, as in the development of the use of the notions of the farther reaches of such as nuclear-fission, thermonuclear fusion, and “matter-antimatter” capabilities, and in other prospects to which we may be brought by a margin of cumulatively seeming large orders of magnitude of efficiency, as this was already typified by the development of nuclear fission and thermonuclear fusion, during the span of the Twentieth Century.

On the one side, scientists are to be awed by what is not within the orders of magnitude of mankind’s efficient reach through what were considered “ordinary practicable means” as recently as approximately a century ago. Science is now dealing with stellar phenomena which bring our attention to phenomena on the scale of the galactic range, as the case of the hyper-active Crab Nebula tantalizes our imagination today. On balance, the conclusion respecting man’s role in the nearby universe, is that: “we are getting there!” if we can survive in the meantime.

Thus, we are presented with means which might appear to be tantamount in function to the present capabilities of our walking feet, but which must be mustered to match the achievable realities of the greater and still greater horizons beyond.

In brief: we must train our minds to think, now, in ways suitable to the willful management of those higher orders of the kinds of processes whose management lies within the scope of what our attention to the “framework” of the bounds of the galaxy will require of us.

There is a definite, implicitly Riemannian approach which is required for meeting such a challenge.

Is There “Artificial Intelligence”?

What I am now about to add to the repertoire of this chapter, is not entirely new to my previously published reports; but, it is virtually a few orders of magnitude higher, conceptually. What, then, really, deserves the title of “artificial”?

As I have already emphasized, earlier in this present chapter:

We are, unfortunately, presently accustomed to regard all human communication as being predicated on notions locatable within the domain of what we regard as speakable kinds of human language. We are accustomed to allow that to signify, either some variety of expression of spoken human language, or a symbolic substitute for a conception which could be translated according to conventions which use symbols for what was intended to be equivalent to the effect of a spoken-written language. That can not be changed by actually competent persons dealing with such matters as this; rather, we must become accustomed to that reality when it is represented. This report includes virtually unprecedented recent implications, as the following passages will illustrate that important point.

The widespread, popular conceit which is to be fairly considered as being presently in accord with the systemic kind of problem which those just-stated presumptions represent, had already been exposed as a false opinion, as this occurred through the actual, contrary method of discovery met in the actual content of the unique discovery of the physical principle of universal gravitation by Johannes Kepler. No one using a different argument than that used by Kepler for the uniquely original discovery of the actual principle of gravitation, has ever either actually understood, nor actually replicated and demonstrated that discovery.

To locate that problem in science more broadly, we should emphasize such modern cases as Filippo Brunelleschi’s discovery of the principle of the Florence Pazzi Chapel and, the role of the physical principle of the catenary employed in his unique design of the construction of the Dome of the Cathedral of Florence. Although Galileo pretended to have understood the principle of the catenary, his own portrayal of what he had claimed was that construction, has demonstrated that he did not, whereas Brunelleschi and Cusa demonstrated, a century earlier, that they had already done this.

At this point, once we have situated the place of Nicholas of Cusa in the process of science, our subject impels us to leap ahead to the most crucially relevant aspect of the same territory in modern physical science, two crucial subjects treated by Johannes Kepler. These were the earlier discovery of the use of the notion of vicarious hypothesis, and, then, its outgrowth, which was Kepler’s uniquely original discovery of the principle of gravitation: both of which subjects my “basement” associates and I have each referenced frequently on earlier occasions.

The lesson which that case poses, is affirmed in the following argument.

“The Kepler Revolution: ‘Metaphor’”

One among the “giant steps” by modern European civilization in the continued direction of the discoveries of Nicholas of Cusa, had been produced by Cusa’s avowed follower respecting the form of the unique contributions of Johannes Kepler. No fully competent modern scientist failed to recognize the unique genius of Kepler’s uniquely original method in the use of metaphor for discovering the principle of universal gravitation.

This action by Kepler, has been among the first steps by mankind which has been outstanding in the direction of the goals of an actually modern science, as distinguished from what I adduce as being the opinions of those who foolishly reject Kepler’s work. Still today, we face the challenge of effecting solar and galactic regions with systemic changes within the scale of an interplanetary framework “around us.”

There are some related, crucially important discoveries now urgently to be made within the framework of science as commonly defined now. We are fast entering a time and places in which we must effect qualitative changes in the way our species operates to shape effects located within a galactic framework.

This implies that the way in which we define “communication” presently, tends to fall short of defining the kinds of capabilities for “communicating” which depend upon means which lie beyond the framework of heretofore more or less customary notions of “languages” associated with both living and non-living processes. Such improvements as notions of that quality, require a qualitatively new means and definitions of qualities of “language” which may supersede the bounds which our own presently conventional views of human and related biology as our instrument of science may have accepted until now.

What must follow, will be a replacement for a medium which will be no longer adequate for the purposes of defining the required methods of defining the tasks we must master within the implications of the very large, or tiny of a galactic framework. The solution to the problem so posed, is not yet clear to me; but the proof that such an optional challenge exists to be developed, is already clear beyond any reasonable objection.

The relevant evidence supporting this view of mine, has been made clear by taking a clear view of what is clearly demonstrated to be the inherent failures in the notion of the principles of human communication now. The evidence of the relevant problem’s existence has been made clear; the solution toward which I point, must be explored. We need it.

What Is a Language, Really?

A new “Berlitz” program is not what I have in mind presently. What I do have in mind, is something which, so to speak, “came upon me” in my investigations of certain systemic faults in the way people think, as, for example, in what might be considered as “an ordinary way.”

My long-standing fascination with my own knowledge of the systemic features of the actual method of truly Classical metaphor, such as those of Percy Bysshe Shelley’s work, A Defence of Poetry, seized my imagination with my recognition of the related features of the notion of galactic anti-entropic (metaphorical) “communications.”

I have therefore divided this chapter into two general, complementary parts. First, the physical-science part; second, the coincident relationship of that matter for the subject of national and global physical economy.

Now, that much said, this means, among other things, that we must develop a broad view of the questions posed when we might consider how the human mind’s functions are actually organized, as a matter of contrast to more conventional current doctrine on such matters. In other words: this means the role of that principle of metaphor, which is the keystone of the entirety of this report. Kepler’s uniquely original, anti-reductionist’s discovery of the principle of gravitation, is exemplary; the ironies of likeness to the notion of a vicarious hypothesis which leads into the matter of the discovery of gravitation, must be placed in the foreground.

That much said, I now, for the moment, resume the course which I had already put into motion in the preparation of the present report in progress here.

Once that very interesting observation (for me) is considered, that seems to change my subject for me immediately. Let us, as I have done, now consider the biological system specific to human sense-perceptions, and, therefore, to the contrasting, qualitative notion of a human use of spoken and written language, as that must be based upon a principle of metaphor, as, for example, Kepler’s actual discovery of gravitation typifies a more general quality of notion of the physical science subsumed by the physical-scientific expression of metaphor.

Therefore, we must compare the system of human spoken language, to communications respecting the functions of physical science within what is usually considered as the bounds of a notion of mankind’s naturally biological modes of communication. Read such configurations from relevant aspects of the concluding portion of Bernhard Riemann’s 1854 habilitation dissertation. Amplify that outlook from Riemann’s actual standpoint in his treatment of, as much as the implications attributable to what are clearly implications of his own notion of Abelian functions, as contrasted to the relatively formalist, pro-reductionist misapprehensions of that subject’s intention.

Matters of Political Economy

Consider, now, in the light of what I have set forth as a fresher view of the relevant subject of the significance of the need for a uniquely original discovery of the universal principle of gravitation, that of Johannes Kepler. All of Kepler’s putative rivals were either failures in their adopted mission, or, worse, like the later fraudster Abbé Antonio Schinella Conti’s dupe, Isaac Newton, simply scheming frauds, such as Galileo Galilei earlier.

Now, as we have now approached closer to the inner subject-matter of this report, I must shock you, again, with a certain intermediate next step in this ongoing process of my “reporting-in.” I summarize the following points already made explicitly or implicitly, this far.

What I am confident of what I know of science, is man’s experience with the physical-economic practice of increasing the potential relative, physical powers of the human population to exist, as that is to be considered for mankind as a whole, and for each of the cases for each nation and culture. Thus, a science of physical economy, using those parameters, is the highest standard of competence for the practice of physical science as a whole.

Other “interpretations” of that matter, are systemically in error. The noëtic powers of Man, alone, are the only competent measure we possess, so far, respecting the elementary foundations of a physical science.

I have no doubt, that that is true for science as we have known it thus far, whenever it has been relatively competent, if and when we exclude the fraud known as “environmentalism” so-called. This outlook has been of crucial importance for mankind up to this point. Nevertheless, the highest order of rank known in human culture this far, is to be located essentially in the “domain” of ontological irony, actually, as also in Classical artistic composition, as such composition has been typified by Classical drama (such as that of Aeschylus), and as those others, such as Plato, have typified that. True physical science, when properly recognized and faithfully “watered,” has been the seed, root, and branch of the Classical compositional tree. The central principle of irony is that on which all great Classical artistic composition and, also, the birth of science, depends.

Such are also the fruits specific for a tree called metaphor; a literate expression of human language, as in actually Classical poetry, for example, is essentially metaphorical. The most convenient model of the principle of metaphor for use here, is provided by a crucially important, avowed follower of Nicholas of Cusa, Leonardo da Vinci, as by Johannes Kepler.

Within that setting, a crucial source of trouble has been, that while the name of “metaphor” is sometimes commonly used, until now, the meaning of “metaphor” has been very rarely understood in its true significance as the original essence of a competently defined set of physical-scientific principles. That which is, unfortunately, a rarely encountered insight, represents the first phase of the subject of the central, added scientific feature being presented in this chapter’s present report.

On exactly this account, Kepler’s greatest discoveries, whose outcomes include Gottfried Leibniz’s uniquely original discovery of the calculus, the development of elliptical functions, and also the general contributions by the contemporaries of Carl Gauss, are, when properly used and understood, directly scientific by-products of the most rarely understood physical principle which is that of metaphor. Bernhard Riemann’s habilitation dissertation, is exemplary. Those and kindred presentations of true principles may be treated as definably outgrowths of Kepler’s uniquely original discoveries in what is termed “physical science,” discoveries whose roots lie in the domain of physical astronomy, including Kepler’s uniquely original discovery of the principle of universal gravitation, as Albert Einstein affirms that specific connection of Kepler.

In this chapter, I wish to clarify metaphor in its Classical (but, presently, very rarely understood) traditional terms. In this Third Chapter of this report, I shall take the same theme, that of metaphor, to a higher category of meaning.

Kepler’s Genius

Meanwhile, I reaffirm that all that can be properly considered as an essential improvement in a competent modern science, and also Classical-artistic composition, depends upon a still rarely understood, but nonetheless actually physical-scientific meaning of the concept properly associated with the term Metaphor. That meaning came boldly to the surface in the context of both Johannes Kepler’s use of the notion of a vicarious hypothesis, as, first, in his The New Astronomy, and, with far greater importance, later, as the keystone role of the same principle of metaphor in his often identified, but only rarely understood competently, Harmonices Mundi.

All of the most fundamental among presently known, underlying principles of physical science, depend, as I shall show here, on a precise representation of that which Kepler actually presents as his argument in (chiefly) both The New Astronomy and Harmonices Mundi. I shall clarify that matter in this present chapter, and continue to elaborate the ramifications of that principle, in the course of the remaining chapters of this present report.

During the further development of this present chapter, and at later points in this same report, I shall refer to this same argument in various modes; the reasons for my proceeding so, will become clear, step by step of approximation, as we proceed through this present report as a whole.

Conversely, I wish to affirm that any actually competent form of modern definition of metaphor, may be derived from the use of the true principle of metaphor as it was expressed in Johannes Kepler’s unique discovery of the principle of universal gravitation.

However, I must emphasize again, that the original notion of what is to be named as “metaphor” presently has a much deeper root than most users of the term “metaphor” will even recognize, let alone admit to be true. Therefore, first, I shall now define the underlying universal physical principle which underlies the notion of metaphor for itself. At a later point here, I shall describe the manner in which the concept of metaphor is expressed in terms of a relatively conventional treatment of the subject of scientific proofs of principle. When the subject of metaphor is approached in any different method than that, the attempted explanation fails, a failure which is incurred when the effort is not addressed at the proper choice of the subject considered at the beginning located in its foundations.

Defining Metaphor, Top Down

The root of the true concept of metaphor lies in the lack of any deducible origin of a truly universal, physical principle within any domain of sense-perception which is a domain represented as in and for itself. This is the same point, but made within the setting of a somewhat different language than I had employed respecting the same subject, here earlier. What I employ here, is exactly the same principled method of argument employed by Johannes Kepler in his reference to his experimentally crucial notion of a vicarious hypothesis, as in the sense of the correct notion of the principle of metaphor.

Kepler’s actually unique discovery of the principle of gravitation depended absolutely on the equivalent of an explicit insight into the actual notion of metaphor which I am emphasizing here.

He had adopted that notion in his original discovery of the organization of the motion of Mars and the Earth with respect to the Sun, as in his The New Astronomy. That notion later proved itself to be crucial within the context of his uniquely original discovery of the principle of gravitation, and crucial for Albert Einstein’s emphasis on the Solar system as “finite, but not bounded.” None of the well known proposals for an alternative to Kepler’s own original approach have been shown to have been actually honest efforts. Any implicitly deductive method, is inherently incompetent science: Einstein’s “finite but not bounded” is a crucial indicator.

I shall now continue my review of the highlights of the earlier parts of this chapter in that direction.

As a matter of precautions, Einstein’s actual genius was not located in mathematical-experimental notions as such, even though excellent experiments were made by him; his true genius is shown in the same approach, using the same physical principle of metaphor, as did Kepler’s use of the principle of metaphor in his treatment of the problems posed by the notion of a vicarious hypothesis. That is not the usually desired “answer” for the matters being considered here; it is an ironical form of allusion to the actual nature of my intention here. The problem thus posed, lies in the fallacious notions associated with the relatively more popular, reductionist’s notion of “matter as such.” It lies in the ontological fallacy inherent in the popular notion of “sense certainty.”

The Problem of Sense-Perception

What we recognize for practice as “human sense-perception,” represents, by its nature, a very poor, but nonetheless useful use of various levels of “sense-perception” whose physical expression is derived from the very crude sorts of biological reactions which are dependent upon the biology which constitutes what we consider our practice of “sense perception.” Relative to what Riemann identified as the extremes of the capability of human sense-perception, our powers of sense-perception as such are extremely crude, when contrasted with the capabilities of a properly read notion of physical-scientific instrumentation today, such as that Riemannian approach embodied in the essential product shown in the work of such followers of Riemann as Max Planck, Albert Einstein, and their like, and V.I. Vernadsky later.

On that account, all higher functions of the human mind are expressed biologically in a symbolic, rather than really direct reading of sense-phenomena. This was exactly the viewpoint employed by Kepler, in his own fashion, in his uniquely original, actual discovery of the principle of gravitation. Thus, the human mind, as distinguished essentially from the relatively simple, explicit brain functions, operates successfully as Kepler defined a principle of gravitation as distinguished from the relevant biologically based evidence as such. The principle which Kepler’s mind actually employed to this end, was the human mind’s specifically characteristic function of metaphor, exactly as his discovery affirms explicitly in its result.

Here lies the crucial distinction between the function of the human brain (and the explicit functions we employ in our use of the human nervous system), as contrasted to the functions of the human mind as such. Hence, we are obliged to distinguish concepts from sense-perceptions, the latter a set of distinctions of what Riemann noted as lying beyond the domain of the very large and very small. The conceptual powers of the human mind are expressed, in type, by the conceptual processes which are essentially equivalent to metaphors.

Hence, there is no deduction as such in metaphor itself; we are dealing, in that case, with the superseding, often deemed the quasi-spiritual reality of the mind, rather than the mere brain as such. The crux of the matter lies in a proper notion of ontology; metaphor is the highest form of expression of the root of the process of human discovery. This is a notion most readily defined in respect to the concluding portion of Bernhard Riemann’s third, and concluding section of his famous habilitation dissertation.

The commonplace tendency toward misconception of the mind, as distinct from, and superior to the brain as such, is an assertion premised on the presumption that the function of the mind “flows from the brain,” whereas the mind is the setting on which the development of the function of the brain depends as an instrument of an including ontological reality of mind as such, as opposed to the crudely reductionist form of misconception of the brain as ontologically primary. We are, in fact, is if “plugged into” an embracing system of a principle of mind.

This fact is rendered with clarity when we accept the evidence that the role of the human brain’s contribution to the function of “mind,” is a highly imperfect mirror of a higher order of function, where the object to which the mind’s function corresponds lies in the organization of the system of mind within which the human individual’s brain- response to what we regard as the phenomena of human response, is situated. (We contain a brain which, with its functions, is “plugged into” the function identifiable as the subsumed function of “mind.” When your brain dies, you are dead: you are, so to speak, “unplugged” in a fashion which suggests the Apostle Paul’s I Corinthians 13.)

We dwell on Earth within what appears to be an ostensibly finite locality, a universe, which has apparent limits, but no certainly fixed actual boundary. The implication of that distinction, as employed by Einstein, is inherent in the nature of the universe; the universe’s existence is “already” implicit in what we know of those of our own mental processes which tend to mislead the incautious observer into wrongly implying the notion of an externally bounded system, as with an imagined body “floating in empty space.”

In other words, that is to say that we know no “firm” external boundary, and that the proper understanding of that lack of such a boundary, is inherent in the organization of our efforts to define our relations within our own skin as if from within, which is to say “outward,” but not “bounded.” The included result of that recognition of the internal organization of our body, outwards, should have forewarned us against notions which imply any claimed certainty respecting externally applied boundaries. The notion of that organization of the system which our mental life inhabits, is not necessarily a physical bounding in the sense of reductionist opinions, but, rather, a conceptual organization of the systems which our mind attempts to comprehend out of the implied intent expressed in the form of the purpose of some useful sort of efficient effect.

I am not making a mere argument here. In the final analysis, what I have just spoken on this matter, involves a fundamental quality of experimentally demonstrable truth.

I now affirm, that our most urgent concern, that as we are presumably “thinking beings,” is with matters which should be recognized as lying in exactly that direction which I have just indicated. We can not insist that the universe were actually organized as a system among what were actually an approximation of actually existing spheroids; rather, that our practical understanding of that universe is “shaped” in the direction of what may appear to us as being spheroidal forms of self-containment as defined by what we might wish to regard as the internal self-organization of our mental-biological organization in our life.15You could be pleasantly amazed to discover the nature of the proof of that argument. That, of course, does not imply that our mental outlook in this matter is inherently wrong; it has proven itself to be quite useful for the purposes of what we might regard as successful modes of human thought and action within the universe, insofar as we have any sort of efficient knowledge in the matter.

In further consideration of the point which I have just introduced here, the most important implication of what I have just stated, is that the practical result of that system as I have just described the arrangement, has a record of generally successful performance when so applied. Kepler’s uniquely successful discovery of the principle of gravitation, and Einstein’s notion of a finite but not bounded system, have relatively universal significance for science up to the present point of our discussions in this report this far.

Having said that much on this subject thus far, we must be pleasantly astonished that such a system, as that of the human mind, works with any nearness to what it has shown to be capable of, as Kepler’s discovery of gravitation illustrates that point rather nicely. What gives external form of principled action to that which is presumed to have been a dependency on its internal relations of itself as a self-organized system? The general outlines of the indicated success as outwardly self-developing evolution of systems lend some powerfully convincing suggestions.

Among the most useful clarifications of what I have just outlined as description, is provided to us by the concept of metaphor: metaphor, as art first, and science second: as Plato, Dante, Shakespeare, and Shelley must have expected, or had actually known.

Kepler’s discovery of the use of what he termed a paradoxical “vicarious hypothesis,” had led, in turn, into the formation of the hypotheses on which, in turn, his discovery of the actual principle of gravitation depended absolutely. The outstanding importance of Kepler’s accomplishment in this process, had lain in his reliance on the notion of the identity of the physical principle underlying the discovery of the principle of gravitation itself: that was, again, the universal physical principle known as metaphor.

Our subject is adjusted, henceforth, to be “metaphor” as such.

Sense-Perception & Metaphor

There is a crucial difficulty which most often leads to the worst errors of judgment respecting the actual meaning of the notions of sense-perception: unless, and until the deeper meaning of that difficulty that I have already reported here, were taken duly into account. Until that step were accomplished, there could not be a deeper competent opinion on the subject of the principle of gravitation as discovered, uniquely, by Johannes Kepler. The relevant, more deeply underlying implications of my own treatment of the implications of the notion of human sense perception are required here. That needed notion is what is otherwise to be located in the proper, fuller meaning of the term “metaphor.”

By “metaphor” so identified, we should have understood as my intent to signify two or more distinct symbols which are not directly connected to one another in their apparent reality, but which function as if they were shadows cast by the conjunction of an unsensed single reality, in their effect. The naive observer sees this as a set composed of sets of presumably interacting “realities,” as if an actual Birnam Forest had actually come to Dunsinane.

In fact, however, the principal pathway of development from the work of Nicholas of Cusa, through such prominent benchmarks as Gottfried Leibniz, Carl F. Gauss, Lejeune Dirichlet, Bernhard Riemann, Max Planck, Albert Einstein, et al., is to be approached, by way of the seminal work of Nicholas of Cusa’s follower Johannes Kepler. This view has been in spite of the notorious frauds of Sir Isaac Newton’s virtual creator, the “black magic” charlatan Abbé Antonio Schinella Conti, and of Conti’s unscrupulous followers from the frauds perpetrated from among Eighteenth-century opponents of Leibniz’s great legacy.

That has been my explicit emphasis on this aspect of my defense of a universal physical principle of metaphor, an emphasis which happens to include the effect of, largely, my relatively unique successes as a forecaster working in the domain of a science of physical economy. My bringing into apparent existence of the principles of a science of physical economy, presently, is the outcome of an achievement of mine which reflects the same underlying principle which is specifically reflected in the unique pattern of successes I have enjoyed in the economic forecasts which I have actually made, and which it was my good fortune, on this account, to recognize, and occasionally to report via public media. A crucial aspect of the essential argument on that account, has been documented in my immediately preceding publication: The Strategic Situation Now.

I present a modest illustration of that point, as follows.

Only a small minority, even among otherwise qualified professionals, are exceptions to the compulsive impulse to think in those inelegant forms of “nitty-gritty” habits called “deduction,” rather than what I would recognize as “conceptualization.” So, on that account, there is an inevitable collision, respecting what may be described as “opposing ways of thinking,” between the two contrasted sets of premises underlying the systemic character of the form of a certain argument respecting the foundations of physical science generally, and the specific science of physical economy on which my discoveries have been premised.

The behaviorist’s, contrasting, characteristic, systemic error, reflects a difference between what is actually a conception of a true principle, and a deduction from collections of formulations which are often mistakenly labeled as “principles,” but which are more in the nature of what are identified as being merely impulsive guesses, even empty-headed sorts of merely habituated “mottos.”

Or, to state the same point in another style: only a very small minority of the putatively educated classes of today actually think “creatively.” The typically educated persons think deductively, rather than actually thinking noëtically. In contrast to that, for the creative personality, not even death itself ends the arrival of a new period of mankind’s existence.

Those faulty tendencies in performance which are associated with the superimposed habit of deductive forms of reductionist methods, may be regarded either as a by-product of a lack of comprehension of the actual significance of even the very term “principle,” or, in a plausible alternative, are simply to be seen as reflections of defects similar to those associated with some form of compulsive devotion to deductive methods as such.

Often, the mark of distinction between the two opposing, general modes in thinking, is to be recognized in the evidence of the relevant persons’ tendency toward what is actually a pathological form of devotion to a “boxed in” devotion to what he, or she terms “facts,” but, which are, unfortunately, merely arranged in a deductive ordering.

So, in the case of Kepler’s uniquely original discovery of an actual principle of gravitation, or Einstein’s related emphasis on a “finite, but not bounded” universe, we are often confronted with the contrary outlook of the modern reductionist mind’s contrarian tendency: a tendency which is expressed as a particular, inherently bounded form of what might simply appear to some misguided observers as being creative capabilities.

Consider some relevant illustrations.

The defective quality of “boundedness” toward which I am pointing in such instances as this, may be typified by the case of a person’s inability to think in terms other than a formal sort of mathematics, or the like, as when considering actually discovered knowledge; but, at the same time, that person is depending on a form of inductive thinking which is bounded by the deductive effects of a lust for that sterility of mere mathematics against which Bernhard Riemann had warned in the conclusion of his 1854 habilitation dissertation.

Kepler as a Crucial Factor

Consider, for an example of some of the worst of the modern mathematical sophists, the “idiot-savant”-likeness of the mind of a late John von Neumann who had been “booted out” of Göttingen University for reason of his worse than merely duplicating the cause (a charge of chronic incompetence) for the earlier removal of Norbert Wiener from the same location. This provides us with an example of two prominently featured, relatively extreme cases of such specific qualities of actions which combine mental, and, also, moral disorders. As a matter of contrast, Kepler’s discovery presents an excellent clinical illustration of the difference between a great scientist, such as Kepler himself, or Albert Einstein, and a prolific charlatan in the nature of those footsteps of a devotee of Bertrand Russell, in which the radical reductionists Wiener and von Neumann walked; probably David Hilbert was courteous, but, perhaps, not entirely pleased.

I have brought this matter up here, for a distinctly relevant set of reasons. On one account, the pair’s common addiction to radically reductionist methods favored by the circles of Bertrand Russell and his like; but, more so, for the great damage which their advocated method, like that of Russell, has done to the welfare of modern society, as typified by the outcome of the 1927 Solvay conference. The problem of such Solvay converts was often much like that of Leonhard Euler, who sought and gained fame by abandoning honor.

There are aspects of that pair of cases when considered as representing a type. Albert Einstein would have understood. Einstein would have naturally understood the significance of the work of Johannes Kepler, and very clearly did.

The crucially systemic distinction of the work of Kepler, as his success in discovering the principle of gravitation, is to be compared with the systemic failures of all of the equally celebrated, would-be discoverers who failed that test, is the point to be emphasized at this immediate juncture. Reality exists only outside the simplistic presumptions of a sophist’s sense-certainties. Kepler was completely the opposite of those opportunists: he was the exemplar of ruthlessly thorough creativity, in addition to his own crucially important, and meticulously crafted discoveries in deep principles of science

In opposition to the learned gulls and sophists alike, the benefit of Kepler’s “vicarious hypothesis,” as presented in his The New Astronomy, had been that it had proven itself the key to Kepler’s discovery of the principle of gravitation in his Harmonices Mundi. Otherwise identified, as by Kepler, the method for the solution was lodged implicitly within the domain of the principal founder of all competent, actually modern science, that of Nicholas of Cusa’s De Docta Ignorantia.

It will have been almost certainly the view of the reader here, that I have expended a certain amount of time and effort on what many once, or still misguided scientists, even frequently among those whom I have known personally to have been valid thinkers otherwise, have failed on sundry subjects, precisely because they have permitted themselves to be duped in the matter of Isaac Newton’s frauds. In such cases, I had no honorable option but to denounce the fraud of Newton, as, similarly, many foolish people had swallowed the reductionists’ “God is dead” hoax known as Euclidean geometry.

I explain a very important point in fact. It was the leading point throughout my The Strategic Situation Now. It is to be identified as the systemic fallacy of belief in sense-certainty. We must acknowledge that that which some among us tend to regard as sense-certainties, are actually fallacies inherent in the inherent defects among our powers of sense-perception, as I had already emphasized this point there. My specific emphasis, here, is on Kepler’s discovery of what should be recognized as a precisely specific, scientific matter: the principle of metaphor.

The matters which I have just addressed within the bounds of the present chapter of this report thus far, have crucial importance within the bounds of the series of reports of universal physical principles which are to have been “rounded out” in the course of this present publication.

Since Kepler Had Discovered Gravitation

Physical science is the planting of the fields and forests of civilization. Cusa, Kepler, Leibniz, Carl F. Gauss, and Dirichlet, Riemann, Albert Einstein, and V.I. Vernadsky, typify the planters of the great harvests. Classical artistic composition remains the seed, root, and seedling of the planting, and, also, the later harvest.

For the purposes of our present report, Riemann and Vernadsky, when combined, typify the true part played by modern science, and do that most conveniently.

The central features of Bernhard Riemann’s actually revolutionary accomplishments, are distinctly emphasized in the outcomes of two features of his 1854 habilitation dissertation.

First, the prefatory, boldly clear quality of his explicit declaration of the systemic absurdity which had been the prevalent formal characteristics of the generally taught mathematics up to what had been a recent time.

Secondly, there must be emphasis on the concluding, third section of that dissertation of Riemann, in matters relating to the fallacy of a relatively popular belief in the notion of a simply mathematical form of physical space, as is typified by the cases of Abelian functions as corrected by Dirichlet and Riemann, which brought about a qualitative enrichment of understanding of the urgently needed correction of the extant practice of, especially, the reductionists.

Notably, for me, the most startling feature of Riemann’s habilitation dissertation, had been the concluding sentence’s warning against the popular cult of mathematics as such; this direction of his views had coincided with the production of the direction of the work of his predecessor-in-office Lejeune Dirichlet, and with his own, distinctive, 1857 report on the subject of Abelian functions.

Consequently, it had become the most notable feature of my own unique successes in the special field of the physical science of political economy, to have proceeded from my adolescent years’ “flat rejection” of Euclid on grounds of my knowledge of the relevant physical evidence. This was a rejection based on the grounds of what had been for me, the obviously systemic fallacy on which Euclidean geometry has been premised. This required the conviction of mine respecting the incompetence of the elementary presumptions of Euclid, which I had recognized during my adolescence, and which had led me, about two decades later, into my own approach, as a practicing economist, for defining, on the basis of a notion of physical economy, the necessity of my special element of ontological insight into the usually still overlooked, today, but frequently misconstrued, ontological implications of what is named, on both sides of the relevant quarrel, as the “Abelian functions” of Lejeune Dirichlet and Bernhard Riemann—and, thence, to the urgent need for the higher vantage-point of V.I. Vernadsky.

That topic, which is already implicit in my recently uttered The Strategic Situation Now, needs to be extended into the subject-matter of the notion of a fully positive assertion of the proper meaning of the notion of “physical time.”16Do not attempt to reduce Abelian functions to a merely mathematical form. At a later point in this present report, I shall present the conceptual (i.e., ontological) implications of that design, which should clarify the matter sufficiently. The latter subject is to become recognized as what I can, and shall define in this present location, as the crucial ontological issue of all attempts at a true physical science of economy today: that is to speak of the practical issue of the urgently-needing-to-be-replaced illusions inherent in the practice of the still prevalently popular notion of an a-priori belief in “sense-certainty.”

In certain earlier publications, I had detailed some crucial evidence bearing on the inherent errors of sense-certainties, as I have stressed that in a series of publications culminating in my The Strategic Situation Now. The time has come, for me to actually cut the relevant ideological “umbilical cord.”

“Cutting That Cord”

As I have emphasized, and that repeatedly, the apparently traditional human reliance on adduced sense-certainties, however useful it may be for certain uses, has become of worse than diminishing relative importance during the human cultural progress which had brought mankind up from a seeming likeness to the apes, and, thence, into the presently rare, future prospect of an appropriately understood and practiced insight into the actual nature of the creative powers of the human mind.

This conceptual view of the human mind’s functions, requires constantly increasing emphasis on the design of those modalities of sensing, such as those which free man progressively from what were otherwise the human dependency on the ordinary sense-perceptions, a weakness which had often arisen from merely auxiliary roles, as mankind’s outlook is, and must be being shifted, more and more, into the direction into which we must now lead the practice of our human species as upward, toward the capabilities required for mankind’s extra-terrestrial destiny.

This so-defined, new orientation is one which, inherently, increases the relative emphasis on developing suitable synthetic environments, as into our immediate outlook on galactical space, an effort which must become characterized by a science-crafted medium of ostensibly “synthetic” human practices.

Three Principles of Humanity

There are three categorically contrasted aspects to the subject of this discussion.

First, there is the issue which is automatically posed by what I have just stated: an issue which resides in the misreading of the significance of what passes for the nominally functional “face” of the individual person.

Rather than the customary role of “smell” so popular among dogs and like varieties of household and barnyard creatures, the human personality is usually identified by physical features such as the “face” and as the role of sense-perception in defining the synthesized qualities of changes in a systemic pattern in practical relations among persons in society. So, the cultural progress of human beings in an actually progressive society, moves in a direction of development which shifts the human identity toward what will become, more and more, an increasing complex of arrays of those kinds of functional relationships which are not inherently coincidental with those simple marks of identity which are supplied by the notion of relationships intrinsic to modes of simple sense-perception as such.

The role of sense-perceptions, including the principal sense-perceptual modes, does not vanish with the direction of that progress which I shall emphasize in this present report; but, the relative importance of those apparent forms, has already been shown to diminish, and that necessarily, relatively to the progressive development of human cultures.

This rule is not simply intrinsic to an even much more radical effect than I have shown here this far in our relationship to subject-matters other than those of simply human identities as such.

That much said this far, the reader is now prepared to delve into the meat of our subject-matter. The fallacies inherent in a belief in sense-certainty are not only crucial, but are at the core of all fundamental questions respecting the presumed meanings attributable to human sense-perception.

Physics as a Language

The extended discussion of sense-perception and its alternatives which I have conducted, up to this point, here, needs to be turned around, such that we consider the subject of the biological processes of human sense-perception and its immediately related functions, in reverse. This time, look at sense-perception as a shadow of the electronic domain for which sense-perception occurs as a shadow, rather than as the experience of a primary source. Here, with this bit of turnabout, our fun begins. What the human mind can do with the experienced sense of the universe from the standpoint of reading human biological sense-perception from the vantage-point of physical experiments, now looks at microphysics’ view of the phenomena associated with the biophysical chemical processes expressed in the sensory and related functions of the human mind.

This reversed view, must now be considered in light of V.I. Vernadsky’s definitions of the categories of the lithosphere, biosphere, and the specific types of living action associated with the functions specific to the human mind.

The implication is that the principle of metaphor, on which the functions of the human mind depend, as beyond sense-perception as such, can be treated as a standpoint of reference for transforming the complex which I have summarily treated in these preceding remarks. It is Vernadsky’s definition of the practical concept of the Noösphere, which opens the gates for viewing the human mind, and the biology of the associated processes as an experimental subject of the physical science of the Noösphere as such. A new notion of language ensues.

Man now begins to study man properly, at last. Man becomes both a principled force in the universe, and also a subject of the man in the Noösphere and the implicitly specific language which that view of the universe defines.

Man’s Mortality

In my Introduction to this present report, “On History and Creativity,” I had emphasized, summarily, the need to free the human mind from “so-called popular opinion’s” pro-Euclidean folly of belief, a belief based on a merely a-priori sense of the alleged certainties of what popular opinion would consider as being merely “clock-time.”

As I have continued to set forth the basis for those remarks, as I had done in the course of this present report, here and now, up to the point of opening this present chapter, the folly of the popular opinion on which Laplace had premised his celebrated, foolish doctrine, is the failure to recognize the reality of a principle of “physical time.” By that, I have intended to emphasize that the sequence of events must take into account the efficiency of physical time, rather than merely “clock time.”

That was, in brief, the tenor of my replies to two of the questions posed to me during the closing portion of the national webcast of September 30, this year. I now take those matters to the fundamentals which lurked behind my answers to two of the three questions posed to me on that earlier occasion.

By physical time, I have signified a measure of the notion of a rate of physical creativity in determining the relativity of a physical outcome measured in change of rate of physical effect during a passage of what we regard, mistakenly, as merely clock time. This distinction, which I first adopted as a formal notion of physical-economic time, was first employed by me as expressing the characteristic of the conception of the rate of net physical-economic progress of an economy treated as a “physical economy” over time. I have called this “physical time,” as to be strictly distinguished, now, from here on, from “merely clock time.”

My argument here runs, step by step, as follows.

My first national-economic forecast for the United States, was developed during the Summer of 1956, where it appeared in the form of my forecast for a “steep U.S. recession during the February-March passage of 1957.” It had actually happened in 1957, exactly as I had forecast.

The studies which led into my August-September 1956 forecast, were premised primarily on my studies of the U.S. automobile production and marketing processes during the 1954-1956 interval. That study had been prompted by a coincidence between a study, launched by me in 1953. and based on the brief opening and more extended closing sections of Bernhard Riemann’s 1854 habilitation dissertation, a study originally launched by the prompting of a decline in the steel industry started during that time, a decline which I had attributed then to the clearly manifest, destructive trends in economic policy under the Harry S Truman Administration.

The subsequent, specific, early failures in the national domestic economic policy of the first Eisenhower Administration’s already disastrous Economic Advisor Arthur Burns, were centered in the incompetence of the policies expressed by Burns’ continued role as a policy advisor of the Richard Nixon Administration; the marketing and credit policies under those Administrations had quickly become, early on, an obvious source of looming economic and social disasters. The developments in the role of credit in the marketing of the combination of new and used automobiles, were indicative.

I had extended these studies, which were then chiefly located in what became my executive position in a management consulting firm, to other sectors in which the Eisenhower Administration’s policies produced problems similar to those of the marketing practices of the automobile sector which were clearly visible for Canada, as for the United States.

The quality of the performance of the automobile industry’s quality control practices plummeted, while the speculative orgies in the marketing of new and used automotive vehicles and related production and marketing practices progressed from the category of doubtful, to a virtually lunatic practice of financial management which had been accelerated into the stratosphere of the marketing of automobiles (new and used alike), which now coincided with the arrival of the economic stimulus which the United States, and the Eisenhower Administration, then experienced as a beneficial economic by-product of “Sputnik.”

It is important, that some additional facts, rooted in the ruinous passage from the Roosevelt Administration, into a descent into the disgusting Truman Administration, be noted in this connection. A longer view of U.S. national economic history, must be taken into account, before coming to a firm decision respecting the economic trends of both the post-Franklin Roosevelt Administration and before relevant international political-economic processes, could be duly taken under consideration.

National and international strategies are a crucial factor in economy, internationally as also nationally, and also in political, as much as economic matters. Indeed, the greatest damage done to the U.S. economy, in particular, was done, permitted, and aggravated by enacted national legislation, as also by pernicious forms of cultural trends. The U.S. Congress has become the vehicle for acts of law which have had the character of the most monstrous of the disastrous effects which the economy and population of our republic have suffered during the course of the post-World War II period.

In the meantime, social fads, such as the effects of policies like those of the post-World War II Congress for Cultural Freedom, have probably been a more significant source of corruption of the trans-Atlantic economy than nearly every other post-World War II factor, excepting the post-John F. Kennedy military policies pattern of worsening trends in strategic practices which have been centered, as in the-post President Kennedy custom of long wars, including virtually perpetual states of warfare and war-postures, for the planet as a whole, in British imperialist influences on military and related policies and practices. The election of President George W. Bush, Jr., has been the prompting of the worst, actually morally-criminal trend, as the fraudulent role of Britain’s Tony Blair in the case of Iraq has been the trigger for this, now global trend.

Hence, the indispensable distinction of the notion “physical time” from merely “clock time.” Without employing my stated principle on that account, there could not be a scientifically competent notion of the significance of time in shaping the unfolding history of the human species. It is the willful nature of the conception of physical time, which essentially distinguishes sane human beings from beasts. It is the notion of physical-time as a causal physical principle, without which there is, ultimately, neither a competent science, nor the notion of a viable economy.

The Principle of Physical-Time Again

Up to this point in my treatment of the notion of physical time, what I had said this far is true as far as it goes; but, there is more to be said on this matter before we have gained an adequate representation of the implications of what I have written on this subject up to this point. Were we to leave the definition of physical time at this point, what I have written is not false; but, it is seriously incomplete, and thus a “crippled conception” from a practical standpoint. The fault lies not in what I have said this far, but what needs to appear to be “unsaid.” We must, first, discard the still popular, but illusory notion of the idea of space-for-itself. In practice, “space as independently a dimension” does not exist.

The root of the illusion (or, delusion) in popular views on this subject-area, must be recognized as located in the a-priorism of an Aristotelean-Euclidean delusion, the delusion which is an expression of the delusion represented by an implicitly a-priori notion of space, time, and matter.

Speaking pedagogically, the notion of an a-priori existence of “space as such” does not exist. An apparently similar, not unrelated problem, is confronted for the assumed case of “time in and of itself.” “Physical time” exists in a certain manner of speaking; but, that must be regarded as an physically efficient expression of “action.” Indeed, by approximately the beginning of the Twentieth Century, most of the hitherto popular sorts of a-prioristic nonsense about these subject-matters had been junked by responsible science. The notion of “clock time” as defined according to Laplace, should have been dumped on the same premises.

Once the elements of a-prioristic presumptions have been placed to one side, the variable density of action and the effect of the changing rate of density of action on the notion of time, have eliminated the reasonable “standing” of any remnants of Laplace’s a-prioristic presumptions respecting the notion of physical action as compared with in time. What I have employed over the past forty years, has been a notion of physical time as a single-compound notion of a principle of action.

While such considerations as those which I have just indicated, are definable in terms of relatively universal physical time, the full impact of the significance of those words is essentially specific to human behavior. The specific quality to be considered on this account, is the noëtic principle’s role as a principle of action specific to human behavior. Return attention to the subject of the auto industry of the 1950s on this account.

Only the human mind is qualified as expressing actually noëtic characteristics in behavior, notably in the willful character of the variability of the effects of increase of energy-flux density in human social behavior. That is to emphasize the determining role of effects of productive employment of increase of energy-flux-density in society on the potential quality of human existence in society. Indeed, it is the case, that we must expect a specifically entropic decrease in the productive powers of labor in society with a failure to apply the potential of a relative increase in net energy-flux density to a currently existing level of technology. Societies will undergo deterioration in the productive powers of labor as a result of a fixed level of applied energy-flux density (i.e., “zero technological growth). “Zero-growth economies” are inherently failed economies facing threatened decline, or even extinction. A culture which does not exhibit upward trends in effective increases in energy-flux density, is a doomed society.

Such latter types of results may occur in terms of relative, or absolute declines. The ultimate standard for measurements of causes and effects, is the rise or decline of potential relative population density relative to a relatively fixed standard of living for a relatively fixed level of population and its reproduction.

Thus, the lessons which should be adduced from that just-outlined case of 1953-1957 interval of accelerating inflation in the automotive and related industries, have been resisted. In retrospect, no competent economists, as defined by a reasonable standard of professionalism, could competently deny the effect of my unique successes in the matter of the sudden and steep U.S. “recession,” nor the fact of my successful forecast of the Summer 1971’s steep decline in the U.S. physical economy, a decline which persisted in effects over the interval from 1971 into the new “crash” which had arrived, as I had forecast, during the late 1980s. Unfortunately, the typical practice in economic forecasting, has been of a “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” variety as emphasized repeatedly by the “ghosts” of the German musical drama Spukschloss Im Spessart.

Most experts, like most leading political leaders, may notice the most spectacular effects of a catastrophic event in the economy, but almost never recognize the developments which should have enabled observers to foresee the actual process of the generation of the effect of the trend which had led into that event.

The virtual uniqueness of my repeatedly exceptional successes in physical-economic and related forecasting, over the past approximately fifty years, have not been due to some accident of apparent genius, but to the stubborn “go along to get along” follies of my putative rivals in economic forecasting, as also among putative economists throughout most of the world known to me, over the entirety of that same lapse of time, up to the present day.

Why the Forecasters Failed

All cases of economic failures which should have been functionally defined as systemically-generated effects of failure in economies, have been rooted, systemically, in induced belief in what is best defined scientifically as “the oligarchical,” or “the monetarist principle.”

This is what produced the effects experienced by the post-Franklin Roosevelt Truman Administration; this was the source, in reigning U.S. economic policy of the Eisenhower Administration’s period; it was President John F. Kennedy’s bold attempts to reverse the post-World War II reign of the oligarchical principle of monetarist rule (e.g., a “fundamentalist notion of money”), which was at the bottom of the motives for his assassination by the trans-Atlantic oligarchical interests centered in the British Empire, the same interests which attempted to ruin President Clinton, and virtually created the George W. Bush, Jr., and Barack Obama Administrations, and those administrations’ ruinous effects.

It is the quality of ostensibly “willful self-blindedness” to realities which the oligarchical principle demands that so-called “respectable people” ignore, that in favor of the psychological influence of the so-called “monetarist principle,” which had been the truly underlying cause of the post-John F. Kennedy failures of the trans-Atlantic economies up through the present moment.

That has been the same oligarchical principle which has underlain the scientific frauds perpetrated by such cases as that of Pierre-Simon Laplace, Rudolf Clausius, and the dupes of Bertrand Russell’s brutish blandishments during the 1927 Solvay Conference, and beyond. Hence, the behavior of the relevant specimens of collections such as the Solvay Conference who did not like Albert Einstein very much after their brainwashing into submission to Bertrand Russell’s role at that conference, and beyond.

That, fairly stated, is the actual, primary root-cause of the general incompetence of what is to be considered as the effect of the “respectable authorities” of the trans-Atlantic ruling classes on the mind and morals of the leading political and social classes of financial and general intellectual life, still today. When one observes that the putative leading classes of representatives of the power of influence within and over a society, are enabled to “brain-wash” the generality of “leading classes” of a population, one has been given essential clues pointing toward both the motivation for the hoax by Laplace, and the source of the otherwise astonishing credulity shown by those, even actual scientists, who were enabled to be duped among successive generations of what were, otherwise, even plausibly leading scientists.

Now that I have said as much as this on that aspect of the matter before us, it should be less difficult to make clear, both how, and why so many among even otherwise credible scientists, have consistently failed to grasp that principle of physical time being considered here and now.

Take the exemplary cases of what were otherwise highly respected scientists, who virtually “went ape” at my mention of the silliness which the influence of a Sir Isaac Newton who had never produced a successful actual discovery, had exerted over them.

I must, therefore, explain, and work to remedy the relevant mechanisms of influence underlying that effect. The fact of the clearly increasing evidence of the incompetence of the economic thinking within the trans-Atlantic world (in particular), has presented the leading circles of influence in this region with a very deep cultural shock. The sheer hatred, born of increasing desperation among leading and other strata of trans-Atlantic society (and elsewhere), has called into deep question the entire basis for that monetarist ideology which had dominated virtually all of the social conventions of that region of our planet. Now, contempt for the implications of Laplace’s foolish doctrine on the subject of time, can be brought to the surface. The “economics dogma” which has held popular and other minds prey until now, is rotten-ripe to be overturned. Only the action to effect that urgently needed “overturning” is wanting.

Hating the “Magic” of the Marketplace

The only serious reason for the successful duping shown by modern society’s failure to dump the silly prattling by Laplace, is that the same population which appears to be desperately devoted to its specific real needs, permits the delusion which is the basis for the heathen worship of money to be placed between the people and the actual realization of their actual needs. Karl Marx and his followers have been just as silly on this point as anyone else. The monetarist system, which is ironically typical of the thwarted minds of the generality of the U.S. population at virtually all levels, has constructed an effect of impenetrable darkness between the actual needs of the population, and the worship of a money which then becomes the secular religious devotion of the credulous.

With the advent of the Pilgrim Fathers and the founders of the Massachusetts Bay Company, the true founding of what was to become our Federal Republic was accomplished. With the crushing of our virtually true republic, such as the Massachusetts Bay Colony crushed under the heel of the Sarpian New Venetian Party’s William of Orange, there came, fortunately, a great struggle to recapture what had been the mission of a Massachusetts under the leadership of the Winthrops and Mathers. The result brought on by the surviving patriots, was a specifically American renaissance typified by what emerged as the seminal role of Benjamin Franklin.

Notably, the characteristic distinction of the true American System, is that American System’s distinction from the imitations of essentially monetarist-oligarchical European systems under British imperial domination by virtually mass-murderous, “post-Westphalian,” neo-imperialist mechanisms.

That brings us to the crucial matter of the issue presented, typically, by the great fraud of Laplace, his religious quality of devotion to the idea of money, as that is expressed by his virtually Venetian, perverted, oligarchical approach. This has been, in fact, the actually imperial (i.e., oligarchical) notion of money, as that notion is to be contrasted with that notion of a credit-system introduced to North America by the Massachusetts Bay colony under the leadership of the Winthrops and Mathers, as that was resumed under the leadership of Benjamin Franklin (“On a Paper Currency”), and by the principles of the U.S. Federal Constitution.

The notion of an allegedly presumed notion of a monetarist system, as the intrinsically oligarchical notion of a money system (the morally perverted system of Adam Smith, for example, a virtual slave-system) is fanatically opposed to a credit system of the type introduced to the Massachusetts Bay Colony and our own Federal Constitutional system.

The relevant point to be emphasized, here and now, is that without the change from a European monetarist system, to an intrinsically American-republican credit system, we could not prevent a deep descent into a virtually mass-genocidal continuation of the present, Europe-based, British-dominated, implicitly thieving, “Adam Smith-like,” and intrinsically oligarchical, “monetarist system.”

To make this point clearer for the reader, consider the following point.

The Lesson of Archeology

There exists presently, a richly elaborated record of key effects recorded from approximately a half-billion years of the record of the evolutionary development of species within the galactic framework of our Solar system’s products known to us, chiefly, from Earthly records combining known as living species, including the very special case of we, the human species, within that half-billion years’ framework of systems of biological development. Of all of these species on record for us today, the human species is unique respecting its specific character as a voluntarily creative species.

The latter conclusion has been advanced by an array of presently higher, and still progressing contributions out of the leadership expressed by V.I. Vernadsky’s distinction among three distinct, general types of processes: non-living, merely living, and human-cognitive processes. The relevant evidence which has now outlived the earlier, relatively primitive notion of biological evolution, is that the development of our human species has been the outcome of the imposition of an apparently top-down effect of a process of development of living species under the continuing, original influence of universal principles from out of which the development of the human species, thus far, has necessarily emerged. The corresponding implication is, that the higher development of our human species should be expected to be awaiting us in our emergent role in extra-terrestrial development of life from among us. For us, the moral system required by us proceeds, properly, in that direction. Hence, the crucial importance of the distinction of what is efficiently represented by the human mind, rather than merely the human brain as such.17This matter is taken up, or about to be taken up, in various other chapters of this report.

That is a matter for a different discussion; it is, presently, a point not to be omitted from mention in this present location. The practical implication of that subject, at this immediate point in this report, pertains directly to the matter of the common fraud of Laplace, Clausius, et al.

There is an adducible, not speculative principle of evolutionary ordering, in the development of living species on Earth which is to be correlated with the increase of the relative energy-flux-density of the processes within whose context the actual increase of “energy-flux density” of processes on Earth (and beyond) occurs. This is a process of relatively undebatable point in relatively recent time, in which we have evidentiary estimates for the emergence of the human species as a willfully anti-entropically higher species.

Relative to the brutish outlook inherent in the argument of Laplace, Clausius, et al., the emergence of the human species as a creative form of cognitive species, has the effect of redefining the significance of life on Earth; man defined as made in the likeness of a Creator, is expressed in a virtually “top-down” relationship, relative to all other known living species on Earth. This “top-down” ordering-process, is in accord with the notion of man as in the living image of a Creator. In turn, that view of mankind’s emergence in respect to the increase of the energy-flux density of mankind’s qualitative progress on Earth, implicitly defines a crucial significance for the actual physical evidence of mankind’s existence as predicated upon a characteristic increase of the energy-flux density of the development of human society.

The notable fact which confronts us, immediately, in the fact of the folly of Laplace and the lies of Clausius, et al., is that the so-called “Second Law of Thermodynamics” was and remains an outright hoax in the nature of the lying which is traditional among representatives and slaves of the principle of that oligarchical model, whose clearest modern typification, is the British Empire of today.

A Needed Political Solution

There are several essential points to be adduced from the immediately preceding arguments presented in this chapter thus far.

The first, presented, in order, by me, is the fact that the continued existence of the human species depends upon adherence to what has often been identified as “a principle of progress” optionally measurable in terms of “per capita,” and per unit of “increased energy-flux density,” also per capita, but also as in the equivalents of “increased cross-sectional density of population” and also, simultaneously higher physical and intellectual standard of living per capita, per successive generations.

The notion of reaching a state of intrinsic “over-population” is a typically oligarchical hoax of the type to be expected of that untimely relic known as today’s British monarchy and her present imperial dispositions. However, down the line, and that not really too distant a number of successive generations, we must be already preparing the advanced stages for a human extra-terrestrial role within, and eventually beyond our galactical system containing our present Solar system.

This will entail complex designs and developments of extra-terrestrial options, as needed for temporary and longer-ranged habitats. These options will be necessarily premised upon the basis of orders of magnitude beyond the kinds of habitats we might be enabled to craft as operational within the range of a present grandchildren’s generation, but we must be soon en route toward preliminary steps in that general direction. This must be done with preparatory measures of action intended to prepare the grounding of human-habitable, semi-permanent types of settings on locations typified by the prospect for development on Mars.

There is no presently plausible argument which might permit us to presume that human individuals may not require what we would consider now as extraordinary steps of bio-modification of the space-wanderers and their suitably crafted habitats. Yet, we already know that rather gigantic leaps should be available options for later in the present century. After all is considered, the degradation of the physical economy and its habitats since the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, in particular, has been a virtually criminal Solar-galactic waste relative to what should have been an honest continuation of the inherent intention had President Franklin Roosevelt had not died when he did.

To state the crucial point which I have been making in these recent paragraphs, what we know presently as the human species is implicitly an antecedent for future descendants with capabilities supplied by sundry means, beyond those of the human normal for today. We must prepare the way for that next great leap for mankind, with rejoicing.


CHAPTER IV: THE HISTORY OF MANKIND


When we trace man’s current knowledge of the “history” of life on Earth, since a time about a half-billion years ago, and also consider what is known, presently, as evidence of human life on Earth, since a few millions of years ago, what is usually taught as the alleged lessons of recent history, should appear to us to be “pretty damned silly”—sometimes, with a pronounced emphasis on “damned.”

Also, the fact that there is a worse-than-Hitler program of explicitly actual genocide, now being pushed by the British Empire, a program which exerts current top-down control from both that Monarchy itself and such immediately preceding Presidents of the United States, as George W. Bush, Jr. and Barack Obama. The latter are representative of an implicitly treasonous, British-dominated combination which currently proposes the rapid reduction of Earth’s human population down to one billion persons, from a present level of seven billions. This, in turn, poses the following practical question:

Are the present governments, or even the general population of the people of most nations of the trans-Atlantic region, still morally fit, as nations, to survive? Can they actually survive while still supporting such implicitly mass-homicidal policies as those promoted vigorously by the British Royal family’s circles today? That is what is manifestly the fact, and that what is, functionally, in effect, a criminally insane current President of the United States, Barack Obama, is still holding office, now. That bespeaks a profound, widespread, moral failure within a majority of the currently reigning political strata of the nation which is backing that Obama even now.

The only competent action which might be sufficient to assure the prevention of a vast wave of extermination of the world’s human population during even the few months, or even few weeks ahead, would be, now, the immediate ouster of the functionally insane, Emperor Nero-like, and currently incumbent President of our United States, Barack Obama. Although the root of the evil which Obama’s incumbency expresses, is centered in the imperial British monarchy, without the British empire’s resources in the United States, the warfare now planned by the British empire could not be carried out. Thus, we have threatened to condemn ourselves to suffer the consequences of complicity. The only action presently in sight, would be the immediate suspension of a functional insane, Emperor Nero-like Barack Obama from the U.S. Presidency, under Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and, then, the prospect of his condemnation for his growing list of crimes against our republic.

There is only a rare competent choice of subject now presented before the current generality of the leading powers among the trans-Atlantic nations today, which has any relevance for the planet as a whole. This remains the prevalent condition, for as long as British royal puppet Barack Obama remains in power in the U.S. Presidency. Any effort to change the subject in a way which might be an attempt to hide that issue, is no better than a certain, malignant kind of insanity in itself.

That is not, by any means, the end of that problem which menaces mankind at this time. The menace to which I have just referred, is a menace which is not merely a global menace, but something which collides with what is presently a very significant, galactic conjuncture. We must take into account the larger, galactic prospects now rising before us, if we are to account competently for the fundamental, but largely neglected galactical implications of the changes which humanity must now begin to comprehend, and then master, as our Solar system moves into its new “local neighboring conditions” within our always fast-changing galaxy’s changing Crab Nebula. As to what might be considered as ultimate conditions, we have very little capacity to know the answers with certainty; but, we can, and we must do as much as might be possible for us to do, as it is sometimes said, “to stay ahead of the game.”

“Staying ahead of the ‘galactic’ game of constant change,” means, presently, redefining mankind’s powers in each immediate part of our universe, as might be done through overcoming the folly of clinging to the prevalent form of popular and other belief in what is termed “sense-certainty.”

That much said this far, let us now proceed to a summary of the argument which has been made in this recent series of reports on this matter over the course of the recent months, thus far, considering both the fallacies of sense-perception already emphasized in the earlier reports, and, next, now, beyond.

Let It Now Pass in Review

As I have emphasized since the outset of this present series of reports on the present subject-matter: the most ominous of the failures in the human system of communication, lie in the dependency of societies on the naiveté of the adopted role of sense-perception as such. It is to be noted, on this account, that sense-perception does not actually represent what we tend to regard as the actual objects of the sense-perceptual experience; it fails, by its very nature, to represent the actual objects to which we attribute a sense of a perceived object as such. It is also to be noted, as I shall emphasize, once more, in due course here, that there is a related, elementary sort of ontological distinction between the object commonly identified as “the human brain,” and the actually efficient reality of that which is functionally attributable to the human mind.

That set of conditions which I have summarized in the preceding paragraph, has a curiously important connection to the content of the concluding, third section of Bernhard Riemann’s 1854 habilitation dissertation. Sense perception does not define the presumed objects of sense-perception, and could not do so, since those perceptions are more symbols, rather than actually objects.

In fact, humanity actually creates through a means which we may properly describe as “creative insight,” the discovery of that which we experience as those newly acquired notions of categories of objects which we have come to have recognized, as if “historically,” as “discovered categories of objects.” What we are accustomed to imagine as being the objects of “sense-perception as such,” are actually reflections of the living physical chemistry of the processes of sense-perception which owe more to the experience of the senses and the human brain, than “the really-external” objects which have some sort of existence “out there,” but which are not actually the objects which sense-perception itself seems to infer.

Such are the reflections of those deeper considerations which Lejeune Dirichlet and Bernhard Riemann sought to define in respect to the notion of a process of “Abelian Functions.” Such are the implications of the successes of V.I. Vernadsky’s introduction of the distinctive categories of universal principle which Vernadsky defined, in summary, as non-living, living, and cognitive existences, efficient categories of existence which govern our experience of the universe, as universalizing categories, rather than being discrete objects as such.

So, we do not fully know ourselves as actually being ourselves, since we have yet to encompass the fulness of that noëtic principle expressed as what we are always in the process of becoming.

The Case of the Perceived Object!

The perfectly actual principle to be associated with the notion of physical time, suffers from the abuse of not being fairly recognized for what it is. The people who heap such abusive neglect as that, are not being fair, but it is they, not “time,” which will be punished for that in the end —possibly, their end. Or, perhaps, we should classify them as victims of sense-deception. They may consider physical progress in time as an effect, but not as a lawfully principled sort of change which they might either effect, or be punished by their own hands, for failing to effect.

Back during the pre-Andropov days when both sides of the strategic divide were working through the prospects for a joint effort in support of a Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), a certain prominent Soviet scientist suggested to us the adoption of a notion of “energy-flux density.” I, as others of our particular pack, recognized the conception as a correct and extremely useful conception. The Soviet Union has passed, but the benefits of conceptions related to the discussions of “energy-flux density” are still with us, stronger, in fact, than ever before. The particular charm, and virtue, of this use of the term “energy-flux density,” is that it aids us in consolidating concepts which are the same, but have not always been recognized in a proper set of terms of reference. Things which have been shown to belong together, should be recognized for that fact. Otherwise science suffers, and when science suffers, mankind may expect to continue to suffer.

Take the case of the somewhat well-documented history of life within the Solar system, and under the reign over our Solar system by our galaxy. There is a long-term process of trends of change in the energy-flux density associated with the increase of an effective “energy-flux density” in the course of the evolution of forms of life to higher levels of effective “energy-flux density” in the evolution of species during approximately a half-billion years. In our “basement” activity in science and related projects, this characteristic of the long-term evolution of living processes relevant to our galaxy, has become simply “a fact of life.”

There has been a great lie projected into the discussions of Nineteenth-century academic life by the Bernhard Riemann-hating Rudolf Clausius and others, which led into “the big lie” known as “The Second Law of Thermodynamics.” In fact, there is a rather steady, continuing “flux” of increase of energy-flux density in the living aspects of the processes of our planet. Like the British Monarchy’s faddish “great green lie” at present, there is no physical reality expressed in the absurd, so-called “Second Law of Thermodynamics.” You might say, that Rudolf Clausius, like many who are essentially merely mathematicians who appear to have borrowed something from the “God is dead” tradition, shared something essential from the perversion known as the reductionist tradition of such as Euclid and Friedrich Nietzsche.

The Outlook Before Us Now

In what is to follow now, in conclusion here, I shall have, of necessity, divided the subject among three principal, distinct categories.

The first of these three categories pertains to the role of human sense-perception as a reaction to actions by the individual person as such. The second pertains to objects to which, on the one side, man is reacting.

Both of these first two of these three categories can be made more or less clearly apparent without extraordinary difficulties, when we are doing this as the work of a well-developed human mind. A crucial, third category, is virtually ignored by most, but, by me, only temporarily, and, ultimately, not at all.

In that statement, I am excepting a lack of the urgently needed, crucial implication of the notion of a triadic deity, and also certain credible doubts respecting the notion of a “fine-structure constant.” I shall treat what I have just identified as the third category and its most relevant features, before coming to the conclusion of this report currently in progress.

The inherent nature of the triadic subject-matter which I have just outlined in this fashion, demands a pedagogy which concentrates initially on the first two of the three categories. As I have just stated, above, I have intended to reserve the review of the third category, until the ground for that has been prepared, as I shall demonstrate the relevant principle to be considered by a process of working through the relationships between the first two of the three general categories which I have merely indicated thus far.

The principal quality of systemic incompetence exhibited by the “customary” individual person, thus far into my account here, is the relatively brutish, seemingly pre-human mode of expressed belief in worship of a bio-chemical quality of what is frequently identified as “sense-certainty.” The idea of a principle of human “life” has enjoyed a hazy sort of uncertainty, but, despite some ultimately irrelevant uncertainties, “life per se” remains a concept which intends to defy the presently impending sheer evil of both British imperial, and kindred reductionists’ presumptions.

This planet has recently entered a serious threat of mankind’s threatened voluntary self-extinction by an Anglo-American-led unleashing of thermonuclear war and related measures of self-extinction. That wicked wont, centered principally in the current British monarchy and its U.S. Obama puppet, can not be competently separated from that same monarchy’s recently avowed intention of effecting a rapid reduction of the planet’s population from a presently reported level of seven billions persons, to one or less, can not be separated from the avowed intention of the monarchy and such of its accomplices as U.S. President Barack Obama to unleash a thermonuclear warfare intended to bring the nations of Asia down, soon and rapidly, to the degree that Asia shall be destroyed to a degree far below the level which the allies of Britain and the Obama Presidency intend to lower the trans-Atlantic nations’ populations.

Yes, what the British monarchy and its present accomplices have not only intended, but have already set into progress, is evil, worse than what was rightly associated with the crimes of the Adolf Hitler regime. Yet, we should not be surprised by this fact. Throughout the known history of nations and peoples, there has been the often powerful influence of what has been known as “the oligarchical principle” of the same characteristics associated with the forces behind the long Peloponnesian War, and similar outbursts of warfare, such as that launched by the Roman, Byzantine, and Crusader systems, and throughout much of the 1492-2011 mass-killing ventures up through the British imperial control exerted on the continent of Africa and, already, much of southwest Asia presently. Such atrocities are inherent in the nature and the chronically murderous and evil disposition of the oligarchical system, such as that of the British empire since the New Venetian party’s imperial wars such as the Thirty Years War and the subsequent wars, such as those of the New Venetian Party of William of Orange, to establish the British world empire by means of, first, the so-called Seven Years War, which established the British Empire in February 1763, which has plagued most of the planet since that time.

Throughout the existence of the oligarchical wars over a period from such events as the Peloponnesian War and the ancient evil of Babylon, society has been largely organized around an oligarchical system whose habit was to cull, and also work to stupefy the intellects of the greater portion of the human population’s ordinary folk periodically, to ensure the security of an oligarchical party’s control over the sundry bodies of slaves and quasi-slaves of the system of oligarchical tyrannies maintained, still, by the British oligarchy of today.

The British-inspired assassinations of U.S. President John F. Kennedy and his brother and Presidential pre-candidate Robert, were used to drive our United States into a state of perpetual self-ruin through a system of long wars spread among the nations of the world, a systemic continuity of such practice since President Jack Kennedy was assassinated to drag the U.S.A. down economically and otherwise, for “British imperial advantage” since that time.

That criminal pattern of that British oligarchical system under the guidance of the presently reigning house, is not a natural disposition of the population of the British Isles. It is the expression of a form of top-down reign of murderous banditries which sits upon the fears and dulled minds of what are classed as “subjects” of an oligarchical system.

The Human Relative Immortality

Now, I turn your attention, briefly, to what I had postponed to a later date, in the conclusion of my replies to questions on the National webcast event of this past September 30, 2011. What had been postponed on that occasion, had included what would be certain aspects of the intrinsic role of the notion of physical time as being contained, in effect, within an integral function of human creativity. In other words, the necessary elimination of the notion of that separation from the notion of action in relative time which eliminates proper consideration of the function of time as independent of an effect wrongly attributed to a non-existent, but presumed to be independent phenomenon which used to appear to be a function of “space.”

I had intended, at that time, to employ a two-phased prospect for progress into mankind’s future. This would mean rates of increase of effective energy-flux-density consonant with the requirements of mankind’s ability to overcome the present lack of adaptability to mankind’s needs for human life on Mars. It would also mean keeping “the curve of realized scientific progress” for the rate of advance of the productive powers of mankind on Earth which is consonant with a necessary development of man’s habitation of Mars.

The problem to be referenced on this account, lies in a flaw created by the notion of the autonomous “brain,” a notion which has been usually employed to create the apparent image of the “conquest of space.” In fact, the relationships to be considered as the equivalent of “material,” are reflections-in-fact of different “rates” of action.

To translate the conjectural implications of such notions, we must rely, for an adopted starting-point of reference, on a more clearly defined notion which had been made accessible to us, during the period of the work during the late 1970s and middle 1980s, of the Fusion Energy Foundation (FEF), as such performance was measured then, in terms of “energy-flux density,” and that to such effects as the compounded effect of time and rate of effective increase of the power (“density”) of human creative action of discovery, over any standard of what might be estimated as constant value for mere clock-time.

In the September 30th event, I had intended to emphasize launching and sustaining a rate of progress in the human condition aimed at goals of standard degrees of power defined in increases in the probability of mankind’s controllable energy-flux density at levels and rates of advance consonant with reaching goals for human life sustained on Mars

What might be properly considered as a relative valuation for such a function, involves the notion of relative immortality of mankind’s advances in terms of reference to a notion of “physical space-time” located within the goal of mankind’s ability to run “ahead of the curve” as this might be definable in terms of human physical progress relative to rates of ageing of both mankind and of the conditions of life required to sustain that progress.

All of this, to which I have referred here, immediately above, bespeaks a certain, promising future condition of mankind. The effective rate of progress of “science and technology,” as also expressed in the language of “increase of the rate of energy-flux density” which is implicit in the invented and practiced progress of human scientific, Classical-artistic, and related creativity, will now serve to lend a new meaning to the meaning of mortal life-span, and, thus, the true meaning of the role of our human species within, hopefully, our galaxy and beyond. The human species’ participation in a realizable sense of immortality, will be found in the sense of a rate of progress of relative energy-flux density, achieved through human creativity “beyond the curve.”

The pace thus to be set is to be measured in terms of the order of magnitude associated with mankind’s successful landing, and rendering habitable conditions for mankind on Mars. The feasibility of such a goal is to be measured in leaps in orders of magnitude of successfully applied “energy-flux density.”


A MILITARY APPENDIX:

The Lesson of the Franco-Prussian War

To sum up the point: The Prussian strategy for dealing with the aggressive war launched by France’s Emperor Napoleon against Prussia, was necessary. The error of Prussia, and its German partners, lay in their continuing that warfare once Napoleon III was dumped. Germany’s error was contrary to the instinct of Chancellor Bismarck whose economic policies for the development of the economy of Prussia and Germany were based on the U.S.A.’s Lincoln-Henry C. Carey model of economy-based statecraft. It had been the British Empire’s captive puppet, the silly Napoleon III, who had been deployed in the effort to curb the brilliant successes of Prussia under Bismarck’s policy, successes which had prompted the British empire to unleash the silly if nasty Napoleon III against intended target Prussia, all in the effort to play the German princes against Prussia. At that moment of decision, failing to press a peace agreement on France, and willing the continuing warfare in the form of, especially the siege of Paris, was about as dumb a choice of both German and French ego-trips as might be imagined for that occasion. Germany’s command had made a capital strategic mistake, as von Moltke had understood very clearly somewhere along the line, and Bismarck had remembered explicitly in the course of his own role as Chancellor. The enemy of humanity, especially European humanity, was, and continues to be, still, the British empire. Therefore, failure to present a France suffering the disgrace inflicted upon it by the British puppet, Napoleon III, with the armistice and peace negotiations needed for the occasion, was the foundation of the part played later as the great folly played by a later Kaiser who did the British imperial bidding in dumping Bismarck. So, as a result of that sequence, Germany was crushed twice in later “world wars,” by the same “Seven Years War” practices inherent in the British Empire’s “New Venetian” methods.

European nations which forget, or even deny, that the British empire is Europe’s natural captor and, therefore, enemy, repeatedly end up in terrible messes created by great aid of the continental Europeans’ apparently habitual folly. However, it must be added, that the worst things which have happened to the United States were, similarly, a result of the U.S.A.’s own foolish leaders, such as Vice-President Dick Cheney, who had kissed the British butt more than one time too often.

What did fool the British strategists such as the Chamberlain circles of Montagu Norman’s London, who had planned, and also funded Adolf Hitler’s rise to power, and therefore what caused Winston Churchill to beg for a rescue of Britain from Britain’s, and France’s creation, the Adolf Hitler regime in Germany, was what Britain considered the hated President Franklin Roosevelt, which prompted Winston Churchill to defer for a time, to a Roosevelt who Churchill hated bitterly, but feared him cautiously for as long as President Roosevelt remained President. Nasty, but foolish Wall Street toady, Harry S Truman, was the Presidential type which Churchill preferred “to handle.”

Footnotes

1See the note appended to this report as a whole on the subject of the lessons to be adduced from the so-called “Franco-Prussian War.”
2There are two Pierre-Simon Laplace’s to be considered here. One is Laplace as a physicist; the other is a mathematician pretending to be a physicist, as in the tradition of Euclid, the mere descriptions of form pretending to be substance, which is what we are considering here.
3The inclusion of the term “space” in respect to the common use of the term “space-time” by me here, is merely nominal. “Space” as such, does not exist. It appears as a result of the failure to comprehend the physical implications of time. The actual origin of much of the problems of similar types, is to be blamed on the observer’s failure to recognize the errors of presumption inherent in a “literal” belief in the measuring of the experience of sense-perception as such. That point is prominent among the crucial ontological issues of distinction of the “failings” inherent in the subjective nature of sense-perception as such, when the fact to which the sense-perception is referred in reality, is not taken into account.
4Notably, even after the George W. Bush Presidency had been officially exposed by Secretary of State Colin Powell, for its role as a dupe of an outright fraud fabricated by Prime Minister Tony Blair’s lies used for the launching a war against Iraq, that war itself was continued almost to the present day under both the George W. Bush, Jr. and the later Obama Administrations.
5For my purposes, I have divided the subject of human knowledge according to a “hierarchy” of the organization of human knowledge, which begins, from the top down, with the principle of metaphor, on which well-organized knowledge depends. The practiced expression of the principle of metaphor, has two subsidiary qualities of leading expressions, which are, respectively, foremost, Classical artistic composition, and, then, physical science. All respectable other expressions are reflections of all three of the above. Albert Einstein, I suspect most strongly, would have agreed. As I shall have demonstrated at an appropriate later point in this report, there is an ironical quality of wastefulness in premising the notion of metaphor on use of a spoken language. I shall clarify that matter in due course.
6Helga Zepp, then soon to be known as Helga Zepp-LaRouche, had played a unique role as a pioneering European journalist visiting China during an interval of some months within that special time-period of “The Great Leap Forward”; but, soon after her return from China, she had then chosen to enter a scientific program back in Germany. Not long thereafter, she was in the process of upgrading her commitment to a career into scientific studies. She had participated in a conference of the Cusanus Gesellschaft, under its celebrated leader of that time, Father Rudolf Haubst, when she had reported her participation and impressions to me directly. I was inspired by the report, and encouraged her to consider steering her career in accord with Professor Haubst’s association. Soon, there those who were to become our friends among the clergy in the circles of the Vatican. It was a decision, coupled with her interaction with my initiative launched during the late 1977 start of my original launching of what became the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), which had then catalyzed the destiny of both of us up through the present time these words have been written.
7The power exerted by mankind is not defined by the numbers associated with a certain opinion; it is defined by the qualities of passion and wisdom expressed by the human individual’s mind, however humble the presumed social standing attributed, momentarily, to that mind, might be.
8I might just have an Norman prince or the like among an inhabitant or two up my own family tree: I would have probably preferred some Saxon of those times.
9“Reflections on a Work by Nicholas of Cusa: The Strategic Situation Now,” EIR, Dec. 23, 2011;or Lyndon LaRouche Political Action Committee (http://www.larouchepac.com/node/20865)..
10This signals the crucially important treatment, later in this report, of the roots of a natural language rooted in the principles of physical science.
11Henceforth, throughout this report, the subject matters of history intermingled with science, will alternate their emphasis, that for reasons which shall be made clear in due course.
12With the assassinations of Mary Queen of Scots by Queen Elizabeth I, by the ax, of Christopher Marlowe in a tavern, and the accession of Mary’s ostensibly foolish James I, the notorious Paolo Sarpi who had triumphed over the Council of Trent, became the incarnate spirit of all that is modern evil in trans-Atlantic civilization through to the present day. In Sarpi’s enjoyment of those outcomes, Sarpi, in fact, created what was to become known as “The Thirty Years War.” The Papacy’s concerned Cardinal had succeeded in orchestrating what became that Peace of Westphalia which had apparently ended Sarpi’s crimes for the moment. The Sarpian New Venetian party’s Dutch wars against the France of a foolish Louis XIV, and the consequent role of William of Orange, and successive deaths of both England’s Queen Anne and Gottfried Leibniz, allowed the use of “The Seven Years War” to be turned, at the 1763 Peace of Paris, into the Sarpian legacy’s establishment of a new Roman Empire after Lord Shelburne’s liking, into the British Empire which continues to dominate much of the world, still today.
13The original landings of relevance in New England had been established as Portuguese fisherman settlements based on collecting salted cod for marketing in maritime harbors in Europe. For example: the actual first landing of the Pilgrims in North America were made on the tip of what was to become known as “Cape Cod’s” Provincetown. The political birth of what was to become the United States of America was rooted in the contracts adopted by those and relevant added settlements of quasi-independence, agreements whose evolutions define a genetic relationship of intention to what was to be crafted as the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Federal United States Constitution. The accelerated immigrations urged under the Abraham Lincoln Presidency is the phase of development which established the United States as becoming a leading, continental nation of the planet.
142nd Edition 1986. New Benjamin Franklin House.
15You could be pleasantly amazed to discover the nature of the proof of that argument.
16Do not attempt to reduce Abelian functions to a merely mathematical form. At a later point in this present report, I shall present the conceptual (i.e., ontological) implications of that design, which should clarify the matter sufficiently.
17This matter is taken up, or about to be taken up, in various other chapters of this report.