Updated version posted 1:00pm est, 1/18/2013.
The account which I now present here, begins with what is, for me, a proverbial “old story.” But, still today, with most others, even relevant academics, that old story contains a truth which even many graduated scientists had failed to grasp, and often enough defended the same old errors, some even hysterically, even recently. Among a growing ration of academics today, the incompetence in related subject-matters grows worse, even acute.
Those who have paid fulsome attention to what is important, will recognize that the subject on which I am focused here, is that which is commonly called “sense perception,” but which, nonetheless, fails to define the very real “physical geometry” of that real universe which we inhabit. Thus, on precisely that account, sense-perception often represents what I fairly describe as “sense-deception.”
My mission in writing this report here, is, specifically, to emphasize a warning against that deception of the human mind which is induced by means of an axiomatic quality of “blind faith” in a misconceived, but, nonetheless, widely alleged verity of the doubtful notion of the human senses as such.
I had first presented my argument here, decades ago. The argument has been derived from a fact which I had known since my explicit rejection of Euclidean geometry at about the age of fourteen. Notably, my awareness of a specifically controversial feature of that experience is something which I had first expressed publicly during the course of the first day of a class in “Plane Geometry,” the exact point in past time when I had first recognized the need for my sudden and systemic rejection, in fact, of a standard notion of pro-Euclidean notions of a Plane Geometry.
I had departed from that first day’s geometry lesson, knowing that I had been, and had remained on the right course in my own understanding on such matters, despite what I knew would become, very soon, the contrary sillynesses prevalent, even currently, among my nominal peers, and others, then, and even in much later times, even among numerous, relevant professionals today.
The root of the matter was clear enough.
At that early age, as also much beyond, the relevant evidence had become clear for me: as by my repeated, original experience of a discovery of that principle of actually physical geometry which is systemically contrary to Euclid. This had been a discovery which I had already made, significantly earlier than that first day of the referenced geometry class; but, up to that point, I had not fully understood that there was a serious controversy involved in a matter which had actually been learned by me from the experience of several observations of construction-in-progress at the Navy Yard. Those had been several, repeated occasions, during which I had experienced my interest, which had been my repeated fascination with some constructions then in progress at sites of the Boston area’s Charlestown Navy Yard.
I had simply not known, up to the time of that referenced geometry class, that there was any known, responsible sort of opposition to what I had already learned from my visits, as a spectator, to construction sites at that Navy Yard.
“Why the ‘holes’ or the like, built into some steel beams of high-rise construction?” So, it was on the basis of that specific background, then, that I had first stated to my first day’s class in “Plane Geometry,” exactly what had been my experience on that point, as I had presented exactly that principle when I had been called upon during my first day in that secondary-school class’s approach toward “Euclidean geometry.”
The time has now long passed since that past time, as the notion of an actually ontological idea of time had also been changed for me as a later consequence of the same root-issue of other persons’ stubbornly blind belief in sense-perception. Not much later than beginning with my entry into my first year of university life, I met my first experience, this time off-campus, with the keystone issue of the controversy. Since that time, I had reason to re-state that same case, not only repeatedly, but with gradually increasing clarity and firmness respecting important, if merely preliminary indications of what “all this meant.” That had occurred with greater depth and passion of meaning, through my insight—“off campus”—into freshly added views on the subject of an actually ontological conception of what was to be recognized as becoming an expression of an actually physical science.
The simplest way of presenting that case during a span of my years after my graduation from secondary education, had been to insist that the principles of the universe are not to be defined by a merely axiomatic notion of sense-certainty; rather, I knew then, that the truth of the matter runs in a directly opposite course from that of a merely formal geometry in the tradition of such as Aristotle and Euclid. Later, this evolved into recognizing the frequent delusion on this account, as still today, which is to be expressed now by recognizing the falseness of a certain, unfortunate presumption: the false presumption that the principles of the physical universe are to be derived from alleged “proofs” based on some presumed authority of sense-perception as such.
The continuing search for truth in such matters of principle, is to be found, from its first approximation, by means of the evidence, that it is progress in defining the universal principles of action which must be discovered, and that based on nothing less than the approximated notion of the “top down” quality of wholeness of a universe. It is a notion which must be called upon to supersede that illusion which is expressed as a misguided reliance on the effects of succumbing to the notion, that the basis for principles of physical science is to be located in what were merely the presumed “root” of sense-perception.
The argument made in the immediately preceding paragraph here, had been already presented in the De Docta Ignorantia of Nicholas of Cusa, and Cusa’s other discoveries became a body of competent practice of an actually physical science, through Cusa’s leading heir in physical-science practice, Johannes Kepler, in his providing the basis for all competent approaches to a general principle of a universal physical science of such as Gottfried Leibniz.
That much said, and considerably more in the same direction, I had come to understand with an increasing awareness of the broader implications of my originally adolescent discovery on this account, one which had occurred, albeit with much help in the later, further and broader development of an understanding of that principled quality of progress which I had come to enjoy from the inspiring experience gained from what had been repeated and joyfully long hours in the archive of the relevant reading-room in the then-great Boston Public Library of those same years.
In both that Library and libraries located nearby, later, I had first experienced what I came to view as a credible, but not particularly satisfying Princeton University publication on the subject of Bernhard Riemann’s Habilitation Dissertation, the dissertation which Riemann had presented under the title of, “Über die Hypothesen, welche der Geometrie zu Grunde liegen.” It had been at a later time,1My earlier, 1941 contact with a nominally Riemannian presentation, had been Luther Pfahler Eisenhart’s 1926 Riemannian Geometry. I, had, by chance, begun a program which I had set for myself with Philip Jourdain’s English translation of Georg Cantor’s Contributions to the Founding of the Theory of Transfinite Numbers, which I picked up in a Minneapolis bookshop in 1949. There followed Riemann’s1854 Habilitation Dissertation, which I had studied, repeatedly, in published sources during the same period, from both English translations as such, and as acquired within an 1859 German edition in a Dover, German-language reprint edition of his published works in 1902, and in 1953, and a more nicely packaged gift from a cherished source in 1994. The opening and concluding portions of the original 1902 German text of his habilitation dissertation, had dominated my life. One of the most relevant factors in my association with physical science, had been my association with my participation in the founding of the Fusion Energy Foundation, a setting which did much to provoke my launching of an idea, in my September 1976, and later organized electoral and related efforts, which, in turn, had led into that Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) which had been adopted, in 1983, by President Ronald Reagan, and in his continuation of support for that through his second term in the Presidency. during the extended leisure of a post-World War II convalescence from a nasty siege of hepatitis, that I had come to realize the actually correct, and ever fuller import of Riemann’s closing, and also from an abruptly stunning single, simple closing sentence in that work, and, therefore, also the evidence for a true distinction of the science of physics from what is a mere, barely deductive mathematics.
Nearly three decades of my later experience, during the course of my early 1970s’ growing attention to the practical issues of thermonuclear fusion, had urged my fresh attention to the work-product of a significantly expanding minority, but then still a minority from among us. This, combined with President John F. Kennedy’s launch of NASA, had the included effect of shifting my own recent emphasis away from viewing space from Earth, as a merely practical matter, away from a limited view of such processes on Earth itself, and turning things around into the commitment to Defense of Earth, in respect to which Dr. Edward Teller had played a crucial role at the right moments, as matters might be more usefully viewed retrospectively.
Thus, we are all, now, thus, properly obliged to view Earth, minimally, from the vantage-point of Mars, as I had come to that outlook in my own, and my immediate associates’ dedicated efforts for a defence of Earth from space, as this had become the basis for my “SDI” presentation during the span of the late 1970s and early 1980s, as I was to recognize what became typified for me as better done in Riemann’s own, relatively unique way,2Compare the concluding sentence of Riemann’s habilitation dissertation. then, in fact, as an included effect of the notable efforts of Dr. Edward Teller. Therefore, today, we can no longer consider Solar space “outside” Earth as “outside” in principle; we must know that the so-called “outside” is something which defines our existence on Earth (and also other important places), and that as what must be presented to our attention accordingly, as I had campaigned for such a “practical view” of these matters, in what had been my intentionally provocatively titled, 1988 “The Woman on Mars.”3A half-hour national TV broadcast during the 1988 campaign for the Democratic Presidential nomination. See EIR, Jan. 23, 2004.
However, there was also the spread, of an unfortunate notion, such as the mistaken notion that it is not essential, that as if for the sake of mankind’s continued existence, to establish man’s potency as expressed on Earth, from the basis of a synthesized view from Mars, or, also, from still more distant locations.
That experience should have signaled something of grave importance to professionals: the warning conveyed to my present associates, and to others, was, that, at long last, which is to be emphasized to the effect, that:
It is the power of that Solar System’s expressed role which leads into our growing awareness of a relatively more hazardous route within our galaxy, which determines a needed change for defining the apparent future, rather than merely human sense-perceptions of the experience of life on Earth, which should be seen as if from Mars. That is to be seen from the vantage-point of the fact, that it is wrong to consider mankind in terms of the presumption that the experience of the universe were properly still confined to sweeping. but also erroneous deductions from what were merely sensory experience from on Earth.
Therefore, the desire to put a man (or, woman) on Mars, has an also crucial, if presently only intermediate use, on this same account. Can we control regions of the Solar system which lie, speaking relatively, immediately beyond Earth, but within our galaxy, especially when there are potent threats to human life on Earth, as from other regions of our Solar system, and beyond?
Must man, therefore, act on a presumed vision of Earth from Mars, thus to achieve the necessary goal of a clearly true understanding of the subject-matter which the subject of Mars now brings to set before us?
Not necessarily. There is an intermediate step to be taken.
Can we place mankind’s influence over the role of Mars, as Mars exists for us, as being an intermediate phase of our practice? The achievement of the landing of “Curiosity,” despite President Barack Obama’s wicked efforts to bring a halt to such endeavors, has had, speaking properly, the quality of a warning jolt. What if the ability to defend life on Earth from Mars, is taken away from us by this President, as Obama himself has intended? Shall that foolish part of mankind, which accepts weak-kneed submission to that President, render our desire for the defense of Earth to be a helpless cause, merely because of that President’s exotic desire for outrightly unlawful and increasingly wicked caprices in matters of his own opinion?
What, therefore, is the systemically functional distinction of that which were merely “occupied,” from that we might actually “control”?
Certainly, planets such as the prospectively most unpleasant (for our habitation) Venus, Jupiter, and Saturn, are probably not to be placed, presently, on the currently leading list of prospective “colonies” on which to dwell. Therefore, could a mere mankind of a present vintage, now place devices which use Mars (and other locations beyond), as bases for exerting control over processes which are effectively controlled intentions ( as, perhaps, “electronically”) of Earth, as the recent achievement of “Curiosity” demonstrates the proximate prospects for the use of Mars as a part of a system essential to the defense of human life on Earth, as that might be accomplished by aid of those actions whose deployment is ostensibly of the form of “from Mars,” but, is, nonetheless, a source of efficient measures of control by mankind, as a controlled effect which may be efficiently exerted on behalf of Earth, but as if, in part, from Mars?
As mankind’s power to control our fate, in space, as if from on Earth, is enhanced by the successive orders of magnitude of such a power as that, those situations to which I have pointed, are typified by advances in the prospect for the control and, ultimately, the practical use of the continuing development of thermonuclear fusion and of matter-anti-matter potencies. We should become capable, thereby, of producing successive orders of such higher magnitudes of effective achievements within the Solar system, and, then, beyond. Mankind’s potency is to be defined in terms of successively higher orders of magnitude for our species’ ability to act, that, as Riemann had stated in his habilitation dissertation, into even the relative adequacy of the unimaginably large, and also into the corresponding very small. In both directions, the key notion from the department of physics, is to be applied according to the convenient notion of “energy-flux density.”
It has now become more or less customary, and admittedly so, to presuppose that the forces at play within the universe, might be essentially subjects for human pride in the illusion of a power of man-on-Earth, as if such a limitation might be sufficient for the defining of what might be curiously viewed as the presumed elementarity of the power exerted as of human sense-perception operating over the processes at work on Earth, or also beyond. Yet, power, as we actually know it, is also an expression of “relative energy-flux density”: also as actually a law of the principle of life, and of more.
However, one more stipulation must be presented. We must now take into account an added quality of principle. The human species is “equipped,” as if uniquely, with the intentional ability to act upon both the knowledge and effects of the actual human future. Without the possession and manageable development of specifically that distinctive potency, mankind were, by its nature, only another animal.
The contemptible claims of the wickedly foolish ones, such as Euclid and Aristotle, not withstanding.
As I have already prefaced that point here, above, as with reference to the most common of the fallacies of a human sense-perception, it is the misguided notion, that the biology of sense-perception is the basis for what is actually a mistaken presumption: the folly of presuming that belief to be presumed to be an actually truthful representation, when it is actually a mistaken belief in sense-perception, instead.
I speak, thus, of what might be an efficiently real system of correlations, such as the correlation between man’s merely subjective opinion, and the experimental quality of a reality of the universe in which the human species, and its attribute of sense-perception, might then be brought into proper accord: as if it were expressed in an optional view of the processes which are occurring on Earth. Those are such presumptions, as that of human life per se on Earth, as from the standard of a desired effect, which should be considered as if generated by the existence of what is occurring on Mars.
My own youthful rejection of those methods of identifying what I already knew to be an actually false notion of “sense-certainty,” addresses a falseness which were commonly traditional for types such as Euclid and Aristotle. These cases now point our attention toward the paradoxical, and also ultimately foolish notion, of what is merely presumed to be a functional relationship, and, therefore, an actual difference between mere phenomena of sense-perception on the one hand, and the principled features of a truly physical science, on the other.4The case of Philo of Alexandria is a relevant reference for comparisons.
That discrepancy between scientific truth (i.e., reality) and sense-perception (itself a merely biological sensory experience), is a kind of contradiction which presents us with recognition of the foolishness of those human habits, and related beliefs, which separate belief in mere sense-experience from the broader, systemically discoverable realities of the universe which we inhabit. That distinction between those two, scientific truth and what is merely shallow confidence in mere descriptions of sense-perception (so-called “common sense”), is the essential foundation of the distinction-in-practice of popular opinion from that actual reality which is specific to a valid practice of physical science. I shall now seek to clarify the essential contradiction in several distinct steps, each at an appropriate moment following below.
The efficiently qualitative exposure of that distinction in method, is conveniently locatable, that by the means of demonstrating a systemic distinction of man from beast.
Usually, unfortunately, currently prevalent opinion leans, in effect, toward the contrary standpoint, to the standpoint commonly shared among both the beasts, such as the movements of crocodiles or toads in an Arctic Winter, and the so-called “environmentalists.” To understand the actuality of that crucial distinction, it is, therefore, essential to locate precisely the distinction to be applied, as by the practice of such as Bernhard Riemann, Max Planck, Albert Einstein, and Wolfgang Köhler: not as merely a distinction from sense-perceptions as such, but from a sense of the systemic error of a sensing process which is enslaved to a passion of devotion to mere sense-certainties: despite what might be considered to be attributable to all other, presently known, animal forms of living species. That means to say: rather than the specifically systemic distinction of the truly human principle from that of other known forms of life.
Consider why the lack of the ability to locate and to understand that systemic distinction of man, as to be misjudged as what might be often popularly misjudged by many, but which is, actually, a bestialized mode of those human behaviorisms which are characteristically premised upon the mere opinion of sense-certainty. That is a distinction to be located, in practice, as that tendency toward the relative bestiality which underlies much of generally known, but actually pathological forms of organized human society. I am pointing here to forms of ultimate horrors typified by the illustrative case of the siege and conquest of the archeologically famous model of an ancient Troy.
Consider the required distinction which is the characteristic evil of that clinical case which the destruction of ancient Troy presents, still today, as that might provoke a view required for relevant research into the matter of the products of ancient Homeric sources for scientists and scholars.
Such ancient subjects treat results which are typified by the bestialized form of a systemic notion of a so-called “empire,” one of a type which is presumed to compose the dominant features of “imperial systems” which are traceable from the evidence confirming the truth of not only the clinical view of the case of Troy, but in the defense of humanity against the more brutish (and Blair-like variety of “Britishness”) of the presently up-to-datedness of the more modern forms of imperialist and kindred depravities. I aim at the target of brutishness, as in its opposition to the Platonic and related currents of civilization, as also, for example, in my defense of the root of the original disciples’ Christian tradition.5E.g., I Corinthians 13. Cf . Johannes Brahms’s “Four Serious Songs.”
Notably, the occurrence of error in societies which is premised on a misguided theological basis, is, according to clinical-historical evidence, the corruption of a deformation of the notion of human society. That expresses a deformation expressed in the effects of the establishment of imperialist and related methods for reducing human societies to forms of those bestial practices which had been imposed as a leading practice of “population control,” as such control is wreaked upon the systems of what are essentially, oligarchical subjugations of the relatively larger segments of the populations of society, such as that of the British Empire’s implicitly tyrannical and mass-murderous control over population-levels of virtually the entirety of Africa and other places in general.
In the actual cases of the degenerate forms of society such as the Roman Empire and others of its typical heirs-in-conquests, we meet a general condition separating “beast-man-in-supremacy,” from a mankind subjugated as “bestialized-in-lower-class-status.” I emphasize, that this relationship’s existence, still today, may be demonstrated by the bestialization-in-fact imposed by the effects of the existence of the oligarchical and kindred forms of “class systems,” as demonstrated under the policies of practice of the British monarchy’s essentially global rule today.
For example, in the United States itself, especially since the nominal reign of that systemically evil, implicitly treasonous British puppet of the predator varieties of British bankers, President Andrew Jackson. Jackson’s was a reign which existed under a common rule by what were, flagrantly, rosters of both British tyrants and American traitors. The latter are typified by such as Aaron Burr and U.S. President Martin Van Buren. That state of affairs, then, or in hyper-inflationary London and Wall Street law alike today, is something to which we must respond with an awareness of such an actually treasonous trend continued among high-ranking official opinion, in even our own republic presently. That expresses a state of affairs such as that not only established under the Jackson administration (in particular), or during the span of the treasonous evil built up since the heroic victory of President Abraham Lincoln over the agents of the British, and very much “brutish,” empire.
During the meantime, there have been those who express a later resumption of the same treasonous trends as what had been typical of that Jackson Presidency whose treasonous elements had used monetarists’ devices applied on behalf of the special interests of the British empire, for the purpose of destroying the American constitutional system. Consider, for an example, the ideological circles of Cass Sunstein.
Until recently, there has been only a relative minority from among U.S. Presidencies which were not largely, or, some even almost totally under the domination of the monetarist systems and practices centered for practice in the British empire’s City of London, as this has become a trend since the in-fact reign by Lord Shelburne, as in his sundry most notable nominal incarnations, as since the “high points” of the 1782-83 interval.
The nominally expressed pattern of what had been that of a U.S.A. under the foot of a British world empire, and the corruption of some of our Presidents, since Thomas Jefferson’s absconding from the Presidency of George Washington and the economist-genius Alexander Hamilton, was altered from time to time; but, the legacy of the British imperial system as being one of a world empire in fact, has persisted since the effects of the brutishness expressed in the British oligarchy’s gain of control over the course of the famous French Revolution. This was also demonstrated by the effects of the immediate sequels of such relatively concentrated British bestiality as were supplied by Prince Metternich’s role in the 1814-15 Congress of Vienna, its reigning heritage and wicked rampages in Europe still today, and the frankly treasonous pretensions of such as a recently notable accomplice of President Barack Obama, that certain Cass Sunstein who proposed, at last report, to render the U.S. Federal Constitution to be rendered extinct.
Since the British-directed assassination of our profoundly wise, if martyred, President Lincoln, there has often been an uncertain balance between those who have provided our rare instances of truly great Presidents, and the majority of cases of a considerably lesser quality. Those of a pro-British imperial disposition, had, in fact, more frequently held the Presidency, and had been shown to have shed a much dimmer light, even a darkness comparable to the deep, moral inferiority of British-imperial forms of oligarchical intentions.
On the contrary, truly great Presidents had been often typified by such as the facts of the assassination of that truly great President William McKinley, whose murder bespeaks the work of a contrary, ugly tradition of such treasonous scoundrels as such de-facto British agents as Aaron Burr, Martin Van Buren, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and also Harry S Truman, and those other, later cases of Presidents who had been similarly enemies-in-fact of both our United States Constitution, such as Barack Obama, and who were also opponents of those truly patriotic interests which had been expressed under the much sterner truthfulness as met in the cases of President Franklin Roosevelt, and by Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt’s choice of President, John F. Kennedy. In the case of the assassinations of Presidents Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy, the British empire had used assassination as the specific means for removing a President whose “all-too-patriotic impulses” had been “all-too-much-good-to-be tolerated” by the British empire, and also clearly too much good performance for the irked British empire’s convenience. Every former President who had been assassinated, died for reason of such expressions of deadly hatred against those of efficiently patriotic temperaments.
Similarly, and as a matter of related facts, there was the matter of the British hand in the 1890 ouster of the strategically crucial case of Chancellor Bismarck, an ouster which was the stroke which cleared the way for the British empire’s launching of what became known as not only “World War I,” but also the waves of assassinations of crucially significant public figures who were brought down during the interval from the ouster of Bismarck through the most recent among the still continuing hatchings by a succession of virtually “world-wide warfare campaigns,” like that promoted in the intentions of a Tony Blair, or a President Barack Obama currently.
The problem was also to be encountered as frequently met in a different expression shown by the cases of those among those other Presidents who were patriots, clearly enough, and who were, also, efficiently, truly patriotic leaders in terms of their own intention, but, had also been successfully hampered, as by aid of Congressional complicity, in realizing their natural impulse as patriots; the ugly burden upon their decision-shaping, had been represented by a relatively large degree of the success of an applied alien control, especially the essentially alien monetarist interests virtually bought-and-paid-for by Wall Street and by kindred influences exerted so over the United States. That control was usually executed through the influence of the British empire’s deeply monetarist penetration and corruption of the institutions of national governments of not only the United States, but throughout Europe, as, for example, since that ouster of Germany’s Otto von Bismarck, in 1890.
Consider the ouster of Bismarck in such a light, once more. Consider the British royal family’s crucial role in having been not only the agency which had unleashed the process leading from that date, until the election of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, especially since that assassination of President McKinley, which cleared the way for his replacement by the treasonously leaning Vice-President Theodore Roosevelt. All other major war-threats of the world, had been greatly impeded by Bismarck’s leadership, until his expulsion from office through massive pressures from the extended British royal family, leading into Bismarck’s ouster under heavy British royal family pressures in1890.
Since that ouster of Bismarck, the last major block against recurring world warfare, has been undermined, up through the present time: whether in periods of war, or periods of outward relative peace which were often actually preparations for new spates of actual, or virtual world war. That included wars under British imperial and Saudi scheming, as that up through the British-Saudi orchestration of the U.S. “9-11” experience of 2001, and, continued beyond that, now still in process up through the present date, as in not only the British-Saudi launching of the “9-11” attacks on the U.S.A., but also President Barack Obama’s clearly implicit complicity in the new “9-11” attack on the U.S. mission by Obama/Saudi agencies in Benghazi of 2012.
Such expressions of major systems of more or less world-scale butcheries, have been expressions of a policy which is to be remembered as echoes of the 1782-83 role of Britain’s Lord Shelburne in his expressed intention to realize Eduard Gibbon’s design for a Second Roman (“world”) Empire, actually up to the present date of that same, evil Tony Blair, whose notorieties include the direction, during much of the time from Chicago, of the British Monarch’s U.S. puppet-President, Barack Obama (as considered by those who are neither ignorant nor otherwise deceived).
Although the intention of the British puppet-President, President Harry S Truman, was replaced, for a certain time, by a succession of Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and President John F. Kennedy,6Notably, it had been the non-support from President Dwight Eisenhower of the Republican Presidential candidate Richard Nixon, which supplied a crucial margin of victory for the election of President John F. Kennedy. the assassination of President Kennedy had sent the U.S. government’s patriotic intentions careening into a prolonged disaster, a disaster under which the U.S.A. has been in a continuing general average state of economic and cultural decline since that time. That pattern has become an almost perpetually British (i.e. British-Saudi) imperial domination-in-fact, as by British control over Wall Street and related practices since, frequently, into the presently recurring U.S.A. and also trans-Atlantic disasters, up to the present date, this far.
The fact of the elementary difference in principle between the human and all other known species, is a difference which, when rightly understood, makes clear the actually tormented characteristics, and the often tortured history of our attempts to maintain our U.S.A.’s actually constitutional system. Such has been the case, despite the historical fact of ours having also been a system which has often been repeatedly under foreign corruption, and had been often otherwise degraded, in fact, to a system which had served, frequently, to make our United States often a virtual mere lackey of that specific British imperialist world-system under London’s orchestration over Wall Street-centered domination, a domination which had come into being as a representative in fact of the special offshoot of the New Venetian party led by William of Orange.
We must recognize that it was that William’s campaigns for trapping the France of Louis XIV, a France which had been soon succeeded by William’s own rise to power over the British Isles, still as the agent of the New Venetian Party, and, still, later, as the heir of that same “Venetian Party,” which would be the continuing root of the same British Empire of such as the famous, second Lord Shelburne (William Petty)7Cf. The role of William Petty, the Marquis of Lansdowne, (1737-1805). aka Second Earl of Lansdowne, and the great pestilence afflicting the young U.S. republic from 1782-83 on. A key factor leading into the rise of England into the status of a world empire, had been the foolishness of Louis XIV in rejecting the policies of Gottfried Leibniz’s French patron, the Jean-Baptiste Colbert who had warned Louis against participation in the trap of folly of “The Dutch Wars” of the New Venetian party associated with the leadership of William of Orange. An exemplary lesson in history to be explored as a matter of world history now., he who had laid claim to be the author of a “a new Roman Empire,” the British Empire, as the leader of an empire which was to be raised through the advocacy of Shelburne as the prescribed design for the policy implicit in Edward Gibbon’s massive The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.
Indeed, that Shelburne’s initial, personal promotion of Gibbon’s mammoth work, has actually held the real British Empire, through to the present date, in the virtual status of a seeming permanent captive to the myth of the reputation which author Gibbon had adopted for the modern monarchy. Imperial power is that which Britain has been enabled to secure for as long as it continues to be enabled to impose its imperial claims upon its victims, as ancient Rome had done, similarly, in its turn. That is the view which holds the British virtual world empire of the present time captive to what it cherishes as its imperial intention, that for as long as other nations and peoples of the world would have it so, whether by intent, or neglect. So it was for the ultimately doomed original Roman empire. In one fashion or another, that is the pivot of successive states of imperial rule which has now come to its virtual end in one way or another: either by overturning the system, or the virtual extermination of human society by means of such as the thermonuclear warfare which presently lurks on the nearby certainty of human self-extinction. If Britain were wise in these matters, the nation of Italy rather than empire, were the actual, if somewhat troubled model for its preferred, further destiny.
That, however, is not the end of the matter, unless the presently teeming threat of global thermonuclear warfare, were to bring virtually everything, even perhaps the human species itself, to a final conclusion. In the meantime, the mere mystique of the idea of the British Empire, presently holds the fate of all mankind as what it claims to be, immediately, its virtual captive.
In the meantime, what had been Britain’s puppet, the France under a de facto British agent, François Mitterrand’s heritage, had played a crucial, participant’s part, in the general destruction of the formerly sovereign nation-states of western and central Europe. That had been the case since that collapse of the Soviet Union which had been brought off, largely, by the intellectual labors of what have been also Soviet Russia’s, nominally “Communist” anglophiles in the tradition of the Karl Marx who had personally hated Russia, and would have led professed Communists and the like to destruction. The cases of the roles of certain Soviet leaders are known to me for their strategically relevant, deep British-intelligence ties to Bertrand Russell circles, such as those, after Stalin’s death, such as Nikita Khrushchov; the practice was continued after Russell’s death by Yuri Andropov and Mikhail Gorbachov.
The essential fact of the matter, as popularly unknown even to many leading political figures up through the present heads of state of the trans-Atlantic region, and beyond, is that the actual British Empire has continued to be the dominant factor in the world’s government, since the defeat of France accomplished since the same 1763 “Treaty of Paris” which coincided with the close of the so-called “French and Indian Wars.” The peace treaty processes controlled (in fact) by the role of Lord Shelburne in the negotiation of the 1782-83 agreements between the United States and the British empire, had produced Shelburne’s swindle against the future prospects of the United States, through manipulation of the relevant sets of agreements among the British empire’s war-time opponents.
But, nonetheless, the option of a different, and far better outcome, lurks, on the condition that we now act to secure it.
The Homeric Iliad presented the report of a devotion to intrinsically evil gods, from whence came not only the butchery of the people of Troy, but what appears from amid the stories as a legacy of what we have been presently taught as the specific system of slavery in both ancient and modern Europe, alike, especially that of the region around the Mediterranean. The distinction of the mere, slave-like serfs from what became spread as the system of oligarchical lords, reigns, still today, as in what became the Mediterranean-centered system of imperial lordships.
In the true tradition of serfdom and its likeness, a European (in particular) system of what is called sometimes feudalism, and sometimes simply the practice of slavery, has dominated the trans-Atlantic world, in particular, through to the present day of both the British empire, and its assimilated Saudi partnership of mass-murderous practices, up through the time of such as the current U.S. President Barack Obama.
Whereas, such practices have been, and generally remain broadly expressed “principles” for the practical organization of even world society presently, this legacy is currently most nakedly expressed in current practice, by the current British imperial monarch’s recent demand for a rapid success in reducing the present global population of the planet, by the explicitly stated intention to reduce the current human population of the planet, from an approximate seven billions living persons, to the vicinity of approximately merely one. Within that context, the incumbency of U.S. President Barack Obama, currently represents a flagrant set of increasingly, flagrantly wicked schemes of more or less global mass-murderous operations modelled on the British monarchy’s intentions.
The knowledge by some of us who have been better educated, includes means by which such evil schemes as that spoken by her British Majesty should be averted, and, hopefully terminated. There, presently, lies the new perspective for an early future of all mankind presently.
In the meantime, there have been excellent remedies against the effects of those such evils to be traced from times such as those of the Homeric epic. On that account, better-informed modern scientists are situated to present a much-needed prospect for the future of mankind.
Therefore, some would rightly consider the Great Ecumenical Council of Florence, as the desirable point of reference for a modern dispensation for mankind, one which, in fact, was, in turn, an included, beneficial effect of the work of Cusa on what had been a doomed, then “old world.” It was this mission of Cusa which was to be realized, in fact, as the harvest of that development in a relatively distant, relatively new continent, as, implicitly, in the optimal case of the Americas. This result was to become seen by and from a Europe whose settlements in the Americas had been mustered through the deep quality of leadership radiated by Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa: the Cusa legacy to be the inherited direction of Christopher Columbus. I, for one, would insist, today, on precisely these following points of distinctions.
Despite the long reign of oligarchically crafted, religious warfare within Europe and beyond, the actual launch of that legacy which had been harvested by Columbus, had been provided as by the intention of Cusa. It was, therefore, a legacy given still twenty-eight years after that Cardinal’s death. Thus, that hope for the realization of the needs of future humanity, which expressed the influence of Cusa, was extended by Cusa’s great follower in science, the great Johannes Kepler, and, then, by the benefits of the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, as through the impact of the rise of “The New World” of the Americas, especially that which became the original United States of America. That history had held Europe as still relatively challenged, inescapably, by the wonderful forces at play in that newly established, emerging, American continental domain, a domain centered, principally, still today, in the process which had led into the founding of the original United States of America.
The failures experienced by that American effort, have been the consequence, chiefly, of the schemes and influences of the British imperial side of imperial London’s influence, an influence on not only the fate of North America, but ever since, a more or less world-wide tyranny, up through this present time.
This fateful influence has included the effects of the role of the numerous assassinations of influential U.S. Presidents, and of other significant personalities whose survival was not desired by British imperial interests. Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy, were the last, this far, of those truly great Presidents who did not live out their elected term in office, for one cause, or the other. In the meantime, British agents-in-fact, frequently controlled the Presidency, such as those who had been associated with “Wall Street” since such British agents as professional assassin Aaron Burr himself, Burr’s accomplice, the evil Martin Van Buren, and by aid of the erratically nasty and treasonously-inclined President Andrew Jackson, a long-standing agent of Burr. Van Buren had (nominally) continued to lead the virtual parade of a treasonous pack of several, often treasonous varieties infesting our high-ranking institutions, still to the present date.
Much of the suffering of our patriots can be blamed, generally, on the essential incompetence of humanity’s often blind faith in the mere effects of sense-perception as such, a faith reposing essentially in the intrinsic absurdity of the mere fact of credulous beliefs in the mistakenly presumed nature of sense-perception as such. Any insistence to the effect which the mere presumption of a belief in sense-perception claims to represent, is to be rejected now, even in and for itself, as certainly, by all patriots still presently. That rejection reflects an actual, as if intrinsic, actually direct expression of the authority of the general principles of man’s required role within the universe, an historic role, rather than being merely distinctions of what is perceived as the paired expressions of pain and pleasure, yearning, or surfeit, and so on.
Like avoiding the placing of a bare hand on a hot stove, these foolish, for, for some, sometimes seemingly “necessary” features of our experience within our “environment,” represent the choice, or absence of either aversive, or pleasing experiences of sensory effects. The identity of the subjects of such experiences, are, so to speak, “up to you.” In the case of the actually sane, and the more intelligent human individuals, in particular, the effect of the choice of reactions respecting the success or failure of the intended results for improvement or failure of attempts to realize it, it is the success expressed by the necessary goals of the practice, rather than the merely mere sensory, or related effect of the practice itself, which constitutes what can be usefully identified as a purpose to be realized by means of the choices of intentions to be realized. That is as if to say, as a realization of the personal intentions for the sake of the necessary effects upon the universe which we inhabit.
Therefore, we must distinguish the literal pleasure-pain experience, from the motive of a purpose which lies outside the merely biological experiences of bare pleasure and pain per se. What is essential, is the human purpose for a living, human social experience, rather than a merely personal pleasure-pain defined otherwise. We depend upon that on which the human species depends for a truly existential experience as being an active part of the human form of a generalizable social experience of progress in the human experience.
This means the inclusion of such considerations as those which arise in the matter of a notion of what is implicitly a social form of intention, as that is typified, essentially, as either by love for human society, or an aversion rooted in a social, rather than a merely individual sense of such a personal physical gratification of that called “pleasure,” or that of pain.
The approach to these matters which I have just referenced, implies, for any actually matured human individual, a concern located primarily in a desire for the benefits accorded to society generally, that by the practiced social intentions of either the individual, or, at a higher level of judgment, by other, plural elements among groupings within a society: true “love for the others,” rather than the pathological habit of acting in favor of the relative brutishness of “self in-and-of-itself, individually.”
On sundry occasions, and under sundry circumstances, the only efficiently “moral” motives of the human individual, are to be located in the sense of a personal interest which lies essentially in the devotion of any generation to its successors, not only for reason of family successions, but for the purpose of the indefinitely flowing progress of nothing less than an indefinitely extended successively higher quality of the life and power in the universe of future generations of human society generally. Hence, we should consider ourselves obliged to despise the brutish selfishness which is inherent in the advocacy of that spirit of selfishly grasping evil which is the nature of so-called “environmentalism.” Whereas, the survival of the appropriate missions of the existence of the human species as such, depend, essentially, on the increase of the per-capita energy-flux-density of the progress of human society over the course of the next generations to come. Hence, the requirement of an increase of the basis in energy-flux-density is a precondition for the continued existence of human civilization.
Hence, similarly, we have the astronaut’s principle, that of an existing, perpetual “extra-territorial mission” as being the inherently necessary destiny of a viable precondition for the continuation of the existence of the human species. Hence, the implicit immortality of the human species, and the mortal individual’s passion, that that individual’s death shall be superseded by means of that perpetual progress of the society, on which the mortal individuality is secured, as no other known kind of living species has ever achieved that quality of life unique to what we know of the immortal achievement of the human species in its essential dedication to a quality of permanent creativity as such, as no other known species has been shown to have done.
My just stated principle here, for the human species as such, is, therefore, the distinction of our own species, as distinct from that of every other, known case. Indeed, there having existed other known varieties of living species, we must consider the meaning of their having existed in their importance for the human species’ own, ostensibly unique standpoint. This is to be expressed by the absolute increase of the power of the human species within this Solar System—and within the galaxy which that Solar system inhabits. All that for reason of the reality of mankind’s role as an implicitly perpetual existence of our immortal species’ mission, that to provide that much of our progress which is to be defined as that which secures such an implicit intention. We, thus, each share an immortal legacy to have lived a good life for the sake of our species, as much as we can.
The failures to realize that achievement, are to be located, as to relevant cases, by the failure of society to commit itself to no lesser reason to exist, than the increase of the power of the human individual generation’s obligation to find a next higher step toward the ultimate purpose for our own having lived within the immortality of the progress of our species, as that is to be typified by fundamental scientific progress, progress from generation to each next generation, as experienced in this manner. Such was the uplifting experience of those who had experienced the joy of the successful accomplishment of the assigned mission of “Curiosity,” to land for the purpose of its assigned mission on Mars.
The relatively depraved human individual asks, “What is in it for me?” The retort is: “What, therefore, does it mean to sense a participation in a human quality of immortality, as by means of the mode of the endless succession of achievements of a systemic quality of succession of human generations?”
As I have already emphasized, here above, the crucial consideration is that we must discover an actuality of immortality which is expressed in “the passing of the torch of the individual life” to the succession of our society’s mortal descendants’ progress in an intended immortality in a perfection of a continuity of achievement toward a reigning idea of achieving a perfect progress in our species’ mission. That is typified, as in an ironical way, by the trend of plunging folly since the particular experience of the moral decline in that realization of human progress, which we have experienced, notably, since the crime of the unsettled murder of not only President John F. Kennedy himself, and of his brother Robert, too; but of the nation through the traitors’ fraud of complicity in a murder for which there has never been a true atonement, yet.
The fact of that case, is that the assassination of President Kennedy, and, later, the also fraudulent report of his murdered brother’s death, has placed a virtual curse on the Presidency of the United States, ever since, as through the dubious election and presently crime-ridden career of the revealed intentions for the unquenched guilt of Barack Obama.
Those facts from our republic’s history, hang over our nation like the curse which consumed the existence of both William Shakespeare’s ghastly, and also real, Richard III and Henry VIII, this as by the dramatic and real history, alike, and like the imagined Macbeth, Hamlet, and Othello, too. Such ghastly figures, and their likenesses, haunt the crimes with the image of a satanic kind of immortality of their own. The souls of those dead, real or imaginary, haunt us with the shadow of incurable guilt, that for reason of the ostensibly immortal principle of a ghastly sort of unquenched evil for itself, like the soul which is given no peace in its end.
That which I have just described, is no mere fantasy. The reality of what are marked to be the unquenched crimes against humanity, are not each to be treated as merely a ghost-like apparition. The truth, as what Johannes Kepler already knew as fact, with his emphasis in the reality of “vicarious hypothesis,” is the principle that the real human mind is not that of our explicitly conscious sense-perception as such; but, instead, that our sensory imageries are as if a shadow cast by that aspect of the individual human mind’s real existence. For example, Johann Sebastian Bach’s systems of preludes and fugues is, relatively, the expression of the realities of the human mind, rather than mere sense-perceptions considered otherwise as the “literally so” of unqualified, mere sense-perception as such.
In fact, Kepler made that distinction explicit with his use of the notion described as “vicarious hypothesis,” just as the great Classical dramatist parallels the equivalent of “vicarious hypothesis” with the uttering of the Classical dramatist’s reality of the performance of the actually Classical mode in “metaphor.” Both of those two categories of “the ostensibly experienced” results, are real images in their own, common fashion, as images of the contested relationship of shadow cast as sense-perception, to an actually efficient reality of the mind’s action as such.
For example, the shift of opinion, as typified by the ontologically systemic contrast of Classical composition which separates Classical art and science from the “Romantic” of such as the systemic frauds presented in the compositions of Franz Liszt and Richard Wagner, or the truly abysmal perversions of so-called “popular” compositions prevalent in currently “popular” trends in “entertainments.”
The competent presentation of the actual Classical drama, when it is properly presented as a real performance as if lived in another world, touches the minds of actors and audience, somewhat alike, even as a powerfully commanding sense of some higher reality than could occur merely within the limits of the application of the buttock to the seat among the audience, or as that surrogate for a semi-perpetual, pseudo-coitus in relevant sorts of popular, massed recreations in view.
We are now presently poised, since the Mars landing of “Curiosity,” to accept an enforced enjoyment of a surrogate sort of experience of a life on Mars, that occurring within the bounds of the reach of Earth and its Moon.8As I had crafted my imagination for the crafting of a “Mars landing” scenario. Experiences such as that, are to be extended to us now as our only imagined presence on Mars as such. It is convenient to consider the efficient irony of the ability to imagine that we (“some of us”) are imagining with considerable efficiency that we are, in some very efficient sense, actually acting, implicitly, on, and even from Mars, pending the time when we might actually experience such a practical state of affairs within the actual habitations used by our actually mortal body as such.
I believe that, henceforth and onward, mankind under sane cultural terms, will spend much of our species’ experience on what can be treated as the efficient imagination of a real experience on Mars, or other suitably synthesizable experience of an actualizable experience away from Earth. As the dramatists of Germany’s 1960 film Spukschloss im Spessart had repeatedly demanded, “Die Hauptsache ist der Effekt!” [“The main thing is the effect!”] This has, thus, lately, now been intimated, clearly, with a very fresh, but, a very, very real, and new meaning, that for mankind within the conveniently, relatively new meaning in relatively nearby Solar space.
Since the fruit of Bernhard Riemann’s work, as harvested by scientific geniuses such as those gathered around such as the “pre-World War II” incarnations of a common generation of experiences shared proximately with their lifetime of the great, fully Classical, rather than so-called Romantic compositions: actually Classical compositions which were specific to that genius of a Johannes Brahms, as by a Clara Schumann, had touched, in essential spirit, upon the then continued lifetimes of both the truly great Classical musicians Max Planck and Albert Einstein in their own times. Such is the true nature of the domain of what were truly ideas specific to the Classical intention of such as Johann Sebastian Bach.
The crux of my purpose in such reflections as these, reaches back to the lives of such most notables of that same tradition as Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa and his virtually immediate successor, Johannes Kepler. The personal souls of the truly great, share such implicitly close fraternities within increasingly broad perspectives. The appropriate view of man’s present prospects for accomplishments within Solar space and beyond that, should be considered in such a context as that, too.