Subscribe to EIR Online
This article appears in the May 9, 2008 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

Sir Cedric Cesspool's Empire

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

April 28, 2008

Mankind's most influential fools are divided into two general types. One type is represented by those Academics and their imitators who pride themselves on their use of deduction. However, the most dangerous fools of modern history, such as Britain's H.G. Wells, for example, belong to the set of those rarer, impassioned, influential, and more clever sophisticates, who rely on a malicious quality of insight. Both varieties, the pedantic and the sophisticated alike, are essentially sophists. These sophists are distinguished from one another as sub-types by the way in which sophistry uses them. Sophists of the type of H.G. Wells and Bertrand Russell, typify the more exotic, the truly satanic mental states lurking behind the promotion of what is identified currently as that "Lisbon Treaty," which is the present form of design for a new Tower of Babel, a Satanic form of the world empire called "globalization."

H.G. Wells' revised statement of his 1928 The Open Conspiracy, as updated as his 1935 What Are We To Do With Our Lives?, contains the essence of that scheme for the intended wars of a new phase of the British world empire for today, organized under the revolutionary rubric of the so-called Lisbon Treaty. Any fairly intelligent person should be able to recognize that that proposed Treaty is purely a fascist-imperial evil, even considering that matter from a merely deductive standpoint; however, it is truly essential to know what makes the super-fascist British Empire tick in the fashion to be seen at this present moment, as by considering the influence of the queer and evil insights of H.G. Wells, as we do here.[1]

There lies today's root of the conflict between the evil and the good.

"We Cesspools are not to be sniffed at!"
—Lady Cesspool in Al Capp's "Li'l Abner" Cartoon Strip

It has been frequently observed, that that capacity for evil which is specific to creatures such as H.G. Wells and Bertrand Russell, among similar such notables, is limited to a kind of voluntary powers given to human beings, that being a power of which the beasts are innocent. The perfect illustration of this point, which I develop here, is that of the current, evil intention of the British Empire, as expressed by the current imperialist plot associated with the draft Lisbon Treaty.

On the one side, such voluntary powers are expressed, when they are for the good, by the special quality of modern great discoverers from among such European scientific figures as Nicholas of Cusa, Leonardo da Vinci, Johannes Kepler, Pierre de Fermat, Gottfried Leibniz, et al.

The contrary use of that term, "insight," for evil, is typified by the leading sophisticates of modern empiricism, including the notable, indicated cases of Wells and Russell. The case of evil, for its part, is typified, in its general sense, by the history of Sophistry in known aspects of ancient through contemporary, globally extended European civilization, as Sophistry in the specific sense of the tradition of Aristotle, Euclid, Claudius Ptolemy, and, most clearly, Wells and Russell. The essential characteristic of that set, is the manifest intention to do evil, as this is illustrated by the British Royal consort and guiding spirit of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Prince Philip, he a malicious spirit currently represented by its Dracula-like, adopted mascot, a sucking, stuffed vampire bat in the essential likeness of the British Foreign Office's terrible, presently stuffed Jeremy Bentham.

An excellent choice of Classical illustration of that central point of distinction, the point about the essentially evil, which I am making here, is the case of the typical "environmentalist" Olympian Zeus, whose essentially evil character is portrayed by Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound. I explain:

For purposes of reference, define universal physical principles as Albert Einstein did. The universe is defined as finite, but unbounded. This is to say that the universe is bounded only by what are rightly defined, experimentally, as universal physical principles, such as Johannes Kepler's uniquely original discovery of the ordering among the Sun and planets by universal gravitation. Everything in the universe is bounded by such principles, such that, first, the universe is finite in this sense, and such that there is nothing outside it, excepting that which exists as the ultimate universal principle, the principle of the good, that as the expression of the universe's implicitly anti-entropic principle of self-development.[2]

This definition of insight provides human judgment with two options: either to accept that experimental premise, or implicitly defy it.

In both of these mutually opposing cases of good or evil insight, the cardinal assumption adopted is expressed by the human mind as an act of insight. Essentially, in the final analysis, we, as human beings, may choose to be good, or bad. No other living species is known to have been given that choice.

To clarify the statement made here thus far, consider the case of "fire," as this appears in Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound. "Fire" is typical of the good; it is the expression of a principle of the actual universe. Anti-fire (entropy), as prescribed by the character Zeus from the Prometheus Bound, is an efficiently evil conception. Unlike the foolish hoaxster, former U.S. Vice-President, and British agent Al Gore, Aeschylus' Olympian Zeus knows that the principle of "fire" is knowable by mankind, but insists, therefore, that man must not be permitted to acquire that knowledge. That devotion to evil, is, precisely, today's extremist version of "Malthusian" (in the sense of viciously anti-human maliciousness) prescribed by pro-satanic Prince Philip's lackey Al Gore.

The two opposing insights, as the case is so illustrated, each express that human power of insight which is external to, but bounds all mere sensation. By insight, we must intend to mean, that we have grasped the universal implication expressed by the way we are thinking about either the real universe, or which an opponent has adopted as one which he might maliciously intend that mankind should not be permitted to know. Indeed, the recognition of this quality of insightful intention is the underlying principle of all discovery of what may be presumed to be knowledge of any universal principle, either good, or evil. In present-day society, as known in history so far, only a small minority of persons have been, or are efficiently aware of this specific role of what were fairly described, for emphasis, as strategic insight.

In the case of Bernhard Riemann's 1854 habilitation dissertation, or, Nicholas of Cusa's identification of that systemic fallacy of Archimedes' resort to quadrature in Archimedes' erroneous definition of the generation of the circle, we are presented with a specific illustration of this point.

For example: no a-priori definitions, axioms, or postulates, are permitted in Cusa's De Docta Ignorantia. Only the insight into the power of creation is acknowledged, a power whose ways must be discovered as an expression of a single supreme principle of the universe. The same is the principle, in effect, in the method identified by Bernhard Riemann's 1854 habilitation dissertation. That work by Riemann represents, typifies, a form of insight, which is also expressed in every insight of valid scientific creativity involving a discovery of a true principle.

Evil, on the contrary, is typified by Classical Sophistry, such as that of Aristotle and such among Aristotle's followers (in method) as Euclid. The recognition that his form of Sophistry, as expressed in adoption of a-priori presumptions, shows us that, like the underlying thesis of the "Big Brother" known as H.G. Wells, it is also a presumed universal, but, is the typification of evil—the truly Satanic quality of evil echoed by the World Wildlife Fund's Prince Philip.[3]

Humanity, typically, in our experience thus far, is largely composed of people lacking insight, as I have described a principle of insight here. Such is the case of the student of physical science who operates within the bounds of a-prioristic assumptions, assumptions for whose actual origins he, or she fails to account. The latter behavior is evidence of a lack of insight. For example, those who accept the presumptions of "free trade," are also persons who have adopted an evil principle, but are incapable of accounting for their behavior on this account; since they lack insight.

1. The Brutish Empire

Albert Einstein traced his modern science, and that science's notion of a finite-but-unbounded universe, by tracing it to the insight expressed by Johannes Kepler's uniquely original discovery, as in his Harmony of the Spheres, of the Solar System's expression of a universal principle of gravitation.[4] In my writings on scientific subject-matters bearing on my speciality, the science of physical economy, I have frequently addressed the principle involved as key for understanding the commonplace failure, on this account, among even relatively numerous leading physicists. Nonetheless, it is essential for the reader, here, that I include an historically timely clarification of the relevant issue of scientific method.

Competent economic science is not premised on monetary considerations as such, but on the underlying moral principle expressed as mankind's willful increase of potential relative population-density, which is a quality specific to the human species. This is an increase effected, uniquely, through the discovery and application of the underlying principles expressed by progress, expressed as both physical science and in appropriate methods of Classical artistic composition and its performance. This includes such artistic principles as those expressed by the method of Johann Sebastian Bach and such among his faithful students of Bach's uniquely Classical method as Haydn, Wolfgang Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, et al., or, as also expressed by the revolution in painting (and many other things) by the great student of the work of both Brunelleschi and Nicholas of Cusa, Leonardo da Vinci.

As I have emphasized, repeatedly, in relevant published accounts: the foundation of competent physical science and Classical artistic composition, is commonly located only in the principle of insight: insight as distinguished from sense-perception. The distinction between the two categories distinguished as, science and art, is that the former is expressed as physical control over nature, whereas true Classical art is addressed to the subject of the celebration of that quality of the individual mind, in which the well-developed individual human mind expresses the "location," so to speak, of the subject-matter of that same, uniquely human power of insight on which the relatively valid, but lower order of knowledge and specifically successful physical-scientific achievement, depends.

That expression of art which does not satisfy that definition, that specific quality of insight, were better relegated to the subject of the sociology of the chimpanzees, as also among social relations crafted according to the tastes of the co-thinkers of the unlamentable Margaret Mead, and of the positivists and existentialists generally.

On the Subject of Geometry

It is of crucial importance here, to report, as I have reported in several published locations, that my own personal apprehension of this view of such matters, came during my adolescent exposure to secondary school, on the occasion I first encountered, and immediately rejected the conception of what was termed "Euclidean geometry." The germ of every intellectual accomplishment which I have gained during my entire life to date, since that adolescent experience, rests upon that notion of insight which I adopted in my rejection of the Sophistical method of Aristotle and his follower Euclid, or of the hoaxster Immanuel Kant who dared not put out his snout, as he did with his Prolegomena and Critiques, until the powerful intellect of his deadliest intellectual nemesis of that time, Moses Mendelssohn, was removed from the scene.

That discovery of mine was truly elementary. During a year or so earlier, I had been fascinated by my observations made, as a somewhat frequent, early-adolescent visitor to the nearby Charlestown Navy yard, observations of the functional relationship between the variable strength expressed by the interactions of the specific form and relative mass of supporting structures. So, as a consequence of this experience, in my first class in Euclidean geometry, where I was challenged to state what geometry meant for me, I responded according to that preceding experience at that Navy yard: I replied by stating that this was the matter of the geometrical relationship between minimal weight and maximal strength. That notion of mine was promptly and widely rejected among teachers (and, later, some of my professors), as also fellow-students, of course; but, at the same time, I, in turn, rejected any concept of geometry which overlooked what I identified as the physical principle of any functionally competent geometry. This was to lead, over the intervening years, toward my 1953 adoption of the standpoint of Bernhard Riemann's 1854 habilitation dissertation.

It was the insight expressed as my recognition of the importance of my rejection of an a-prioristic geometry, which has been the crucial item of insight which has guided all my critical thinking on science, art, and social relationships since that crucial adolescent classroom experience. Over the years, during the numerous decades since that first experience, the notion of such a universal principle of scientific insight, although much improved in scope, has remained, in essence, the same toward which I have pointed, here, as that youthful experience.

This did not afford me much benefit from among the proverbial Laputans of the relevant academies, or the like; but, it has been a great source of both consolation and achievements for me, especially in the domain of the science of physical economy. My uniquely original successes as a long-range forecaster in the field of economy, as distinct from the muttering grouches who, foolishly, reject my methods, have depended absolutely on my attacks on the leading work of such relevant hoaxsters as Professor Norbert Wiener and John von Neumann, as much as my contempt for Jeremy Bentham's Haileybury school of Brutish methods in political-economy, more broadly.

Look at the practical issue of the role of Sophistry in the way it bans the quality of human insight from science, still today.

Sophistry Versus Insight

Take the specific mode of Sophistry associated with the method of that infamous enemy of Alexander the Great known as Aristotle,[5] the pupil who hated, and was savagely hated by that tutor. Alexander became, otherwise, the representative of a branch of his family associated with the temple of Ammon in the Egyptian maritime region of Cyrenaica.[6] It was through aid of the latter association, that Alexander was enabled to outflank the evil city of Tyre, from Egypt; and, it was by the hand of the notorious poisoner Aristotle, that one known attempt, and also, possibly the actual assassination of Alexander, was effected. In a related matter, the essential evil of the theology of Aristotle was pointed out by a contemporary and friend of the Christian Apostle Peter, the rabbi Philo of Alexandria, who pointed out, and totally rejected Aristotle's implicitly pro-Satanic method, which required that, since, allegedly, God's creation was perfect, God himself could not alter Creation's composition once the initial work were launched. Hence, the Aristotelean view relegated, systemically, implicitly, the power to introduce changes to the universe as consigned, thus, to the Devil, as to the Devil's own Bertrand Russell and H.G. Wells.[7] Hence, the Aristotelean view expressed by Friedrich Nietzsche, "God is dead."[8]

The most notably pivotal feature of that skein of ancient history of the Mediterranean and associated regions, has been the role of the influence of that particular maritime power of usury associated with that Delphic Apollo-Dionysus cult of Sophistry from which the Lycurgan "constitution" of Sparta was spawned, and also the implied design adopted for the post-February 1763, neo-Venetian form of maritime power of the British East India Company and its outgrowths.

This is the Delphic cult which Aeschylus attacked in his Prometheus trilogy. As the case of the syphilitic modern monster Friedrich Nietzsche illustrates the point, that Delphic legacy which the consummately lying Sophist high priest Plutarch exemplifies, has been the continuing legacy of evil embedded within the globally extended influence of European modes of Sophist culture since those very ancient times, times prior to our reasonable knowledge of the most notable internal features of the evolution within extended ancient through modern history of European-centered culture of today.

Somewhere in this skein of things, the humanist aspect of ocean-going maritime cultures had been corrupted by the emergence of the Atlantic (maritime) powers whose aggression was, according to Plato, challenged by an earlier incarnation of the city-state of Athens. The account of the forces at play in such a Mediterranean conflict, was given in somewhat different, but related terms, by the Sicilian chronicler of Roman times, Diodorus Siculus. Those accounts, as complemented by the Homeric Iliad and Odyssey, conform fairly to what we know with certainty as the types of implications to be drawn from so-called "Ancient Greek" and related evidence.[9]

In all this written here thus far, it should be treated as accessible and true knowledge, that the choice of any set of what are presumed to be universal physical, or related principles, involves the higher matter of choice per se. This higher principle, of choice-per-se, corresponds, ontologically, to the subject of human insight in matters of physical science and artistic composition.

2.The Oligarchical Model

My best information, to date, is that the successful attempt at the Sophist type of global insight has usually appeared, thus far, in such relatively rarer individual cases as that of H.G. Wells. The effective agents of this kind of change are not the mere dupes, today's "free trade" faddists advancing like legendary zombies marching up from some "dark lagoon." Evil insights such as those expressed by Wells, define what is intended to be a popular submission to the idea of a universe in which a monopoly of power over the minds of masses is intended to be exerted by an oligarchical type of priest-like, ruling "intellectual" stratum, a stratum in which Wells situated himself as a leading, Satan-like influence. The great mass of the credulous believers in the leadership provided by the likes of an H.G. Wells, are merely dupes, like the locust hordes of the medieval New Dark Age's Flagellants. The spread of the lunatic cult of "environmentalism" is a testament to the lack of actually independent insight among the followers of the likes of British asset Al Gore today.

This relatively much smaller population of the oligarchy, is intended to rule, thus, over that many which it herds as virtual cattle. So, today, the big-financier-controlled Democratic Party apparatus associated with Party boss Howard Dean, fascist Felix Rohatyn, George Soros, et al., have had most of the Democratic Party hanging, until a recent turn toward the better, like haplessly moving marionettes on puppet-strings. This was not done by Senator Barack Obama; he was one of the puppets, and an intended principal victim, by international London-directed financier-oligarchical interests which intended to use him as a missile to destroy himself and Senator Hillary Clinton in what would be a virtual single stroke, orchestrated by scoundrels such as financier-owned Howard Dean and Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

This exertion of oligarchical tyranny by London-centered financier interests steering U.S. foreign policy and internal politics, is merely typified by the top-down control of that Party's machine today. That has been a control which depends, to a very large degree, on banning the access to actual power by that machine's ostensible human subjects, chiefly duped subjects representing the vital interests of the lower eighty percentile of today's family-income brackets. Even, presently, a large ration of our society's scientists and other academics, have been chiefly employed in rendering their own ranks into an intellectual condition in which they are, relatively dysfunctional intellectually and politically.

The method used for this sort of mass "brainwashing" of our electorate and its customary types of leaders alike, is deceiving the lower-ranking part of the population into rejecting the acquisition of actual knowledge of discoverable universal physical and comparable principles of what would be, otherwise, a more successful nation and economy than we have enjoyed in the U.S.A. and Europe since about the time before the so-called "68ers," or, you might suggest, the earlier assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy.

The banning of man's knowledge of the use of "fire," such as the power of nuclear fission, as such a ban was expressed earlier as the case against "knowledge of fire" presented by Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound, or by the "Malthusian" fraud of Jeremy Bentham's Haileybury School, or the duped victims of the "Global Warming" hoax of today, are typical expressions of the Sophist's crafting of oligarchical models. That is not only a corrupting influence exerted over institutions such as the presently controlling top ranks of the Democratic Party's bureaucracy, but over more or less all among the leading institutions, influences of those present, Anglophile-dictated authorities controlling our present society in the general way typified by the vulgar arrogance of the Howard Dean and the Rohatyn-steered Pelosi machine.

In this process, the presently reigning mass-circulation press and other, chiefly London-steered, pro-imperialist mass-media outlets, have taken the place of influence once occupied by the medieval European, dogmatic, ideological function of the Sophist pulpit.

At this point in the present chapter of this report, the continuing presentation of the subject of the body of this report will now be divided, thereafter, firstly, among both the present and two additional chapters:

First, in this present chapter, I shall emphasize the means by which various modes of oligarchical systems have conducted their repeatedly attempted suppression of science and sanity during the course of approximately three thousand years of the reasonably well-known emergence and development of the culture of European civilization. For convenience, I illustrate my meaning here, now, at this point, by reference to Friedrich Schiller's treatment, as in his Jena lectures, of the subject of Solon's Athens versus Lycurgus' Sparta.

Second, I shall outline the contrary element of that history, the development expressed in the humanist struggle to overcome oligarchism and its demoralizing effects, as typified by the beneficial influence, for all mankind, of the work by such paragons as the Pythagoreans and the followers of Plato.

Third, I shall then be situated to bring into view the precise significance of the notion of human immortality, as a practical sort of functional notion of scientific principle in general, and strategy in particular. I treat this matter, as expressed by an appropriate view of the role of culture in shaping history and defining the role of the immortality of ideas transmitted through a process of development among successive generations, and, in pinpointing what may be properly defined, as the "living substance" of a well-defined notion of strategy, as for the defense of the role of the U.S.A.'s specific heritage in the development of modern civilization.

On the premise of those three sets of considerations, I shall then, fourthly, place the immediate practical issues of a necessary U.S. approach to contributing remedies for the catastrophic, nightmare state of global affairs today. To this end, it is necessary, if our republic, and civilization more broadly, are both to survive this immediately onrushing, global, general economic-breakdown-crisis of civilization. It is indispensable that we depart the babble of today's typical academic classroom and popularized sophistry of current press opinion, for some serious thinking, instead.

There is a crucial principle, respecting human, as distinct from animal behavior, which subsumes all four of these considerations. It is time for citizens generally, as much as typical so-called "influentials," to grow up into some urgently needed serious thinking about the tragic character of the role they had been induced to adopt during recent decades. I emphasize this, that they might thus, now, think about those decades of recent folly, including their own, which has brought about the correspondingly ominous, tragically rotting state of present world economic and related affairs.

Man and Beast

Those of us familiar with domesticated animals, especially the dogs taken into the status of "family members," are aware of the tendency of such creatures to adapt to their setting in ways which often prompt us to attribute "almost human" culturation to these creatures. Sentimentality often prompts the actually human member of that household to go a bit too far in assuming that that dog's cultivation in a human setting has produced a creature of the specific characteristics of a human cognitive function.

The wise dog, for example, would have none of that! He or she expects human associates to live up to the responsibilities of the human partners, while the respectable dog of the household makes it clear, that he or she expects the master to fulfill the specifically human responsibilities of the household's partnership. The tendency for some confusion in this matter is sometimes prompted, probably, by the fact that the distinction of man from beast is not always a clearly manifest feature of the behavior of the human member of the household.

There is, perhaps, no better way to approach the questions posed implicitly in this comparison, than to focus neatly on the matter of the human individual as a creature of history, rather than merely biology. Yet, we should not send our pets "to the dogs," so to speak, in emphasizing the human species-functional distinction; a decent show of mutual respect among the representatives of the relevant species, is in order.

The key word to bring into play at this point, is history. However, while this observation points toward the matter of science involved in historically determined evolution in human behavior, the customary mis-definition of the idea of history itself, usually reflects its nature, in both individuals and in social strata, as an expression of a mechanistic, rather than truly dynamic conception of that subject-matter. This is often the case, even among those who consider themselves informed about history.[10] In any case, that problem notwithstanding, while there is a history of pet dogs adapting to learned behavior, no dog, even one who has sniffed out many things overlooked by mortal man, ever made a discovery of a true universal principle.

On a related point, it should be recognized as contemptible behavior of experts and others living today, to suggest that the human species came into existence out of biological evolution during a period as brief as a mere few millions years, or in a region as local as Africa. The appearance of genuine geniuses among the descendants of some so-called Australian "aborigines," appears to have been a confrontation which exposed the monkey lurking inside many among that lower form of life identifiable as European civilization's Darwinians.

The human individual has a specific characteristic, that which Academician V.I. Vernadsky identified as the principle of the Noösphere, the same principle which sets the human individual and his, or her society, absolutely apart from the beasts. That characteristic is best located in a proper working conception of human cultural history, as distinct from any biological differentiation in characteristics of human family groups. In other words, there never was a division of the human species among separate "races"; there is only a single human race, all of whose members not biologically crippled in their cognitive potential, have available to them the same kind of specifically behavioral qualities of cognitive potential, and related needs, as every other.

All claims by human beings put forward in the name of "race," as by the recently celebrated case of the real-life Elmer Gantry known as the U.S.A.'s Jeremiah Wright, are properly despised as infected with mental and moral disorders specific to the moral disease of "racism," and to the specific expression of racist ideology associated with that self-degrading drug of ideology—"We need that money!"—known as that present Bush Administration's swindle of those suckers by the lure of what is called "faith-based initiative." All of the important differences met among human beings are essentially cultural, not biological.

My multi-faceted view of mankind, so expressed in these immediately preceding paragraphs, is congruent with a properly defined use of the term "history." [11] History is then intended to signify, the common, specifically human principle which, as I have said above, subsumes all three of the distinct categories of types which I have defined at the outset of this chapter.

That much said as a matter of introduction to the subjects of this and the following chapters, situates the concept of insight presented in this report as a whole.

The Delphic Model

As I have treated the subject of human nature in many reports published in the course of about five decades, human nature is, not relatively, but specifically distinct from that of all other known living beings. This specific distinction is functional: the human individual has a quality of capability, as for the discovery of universal physical principles, and their proof, which does not exist in any other known living species. The capacity is a characteristic potential of not only all biologically sound, living human individuals,[12] but also our eerie living memory of a deceased individual person's former incarnation. It is in that living memory of such persons' potential of this quality, that the actually functional notion of history, as distinct from what are merely chronicles, is properly identified. That is to say, that the human individual can be immortal, in a very specific, but also crucially important sense.

In this setting of discussion of that matter of human specificity, the term "Delphic" signifies the systemically irrationalist method associated with the cult of Delphi.[13] The aspect of the Delphic tradition on which I focus the reader's attention in this report, is that underscored by the Prometheus Bound of Aeschylus.

As I have reported in numerous, relevant earlier locations, the psycho-social-economic model of oligarchical society, whether that such as the ancient Babylonian, the Delphic, the Roman or Byzantine imperial systems, or the medieval Venetian-Norman system, or the modern British (i.e., Anglo-Dutch Liberal) empire, is the same policy as that behind the organized hatred of Gottfried Leibniz which was associated with the Eighteenth-Century, reductionists' conspiracy of such allies of the avowed Cartesian virtual "inventor" of the synthetic personality of the "black magic" specialist Isaac Newton, Antonio Conti, allies such as Voltaire, de Moivre, D'Alembert, Leonhard Euler, and Lagrange, as also such relevant early Nineteenth-Century culprits as Laplace, and the caught-out plagiarist and hoaxster Augustin Cauchy.[14] The common feature of that collection of reductionist rascals, was their shared denial of the existence of the ontologically infinitesimal of modern experimental physical science, on which a competent modern conception of our universe had depended since the seminal discoveries of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, as in his De Docta Ignorantia.[15]

The control over the so-called "lower classes" of the populations of oligarchical cultures such as those of the U.S.A.'s top-down, financier-controlled political system of today, has been that shaped by the de facto global British empire, shaped through the global dynamics of a system of reigning, financier-centered system of intrinsically lawless "free trade." It is the duping of the mass of our political representatives and others into submission to that specifically anti-U.S. Constitution "free trade" hoax, which has made virtual willing slaves of the great majority of the U.S. population over the course of the period since the wave of crucial political assassinations here through the 1963-1968 interval.

To be specific, consider the following.

The revolt of the anarchoid, implicitly neo-Malthusian faction of the so-called "Sixty-Eighters," disrupted the social pact premised upon the Preamble of our Federal Constitution, that among labor, farmers, scientists, Classical artists, and others. This is, the social pact through which President Franklin Roosevelt had rallied the majority of our people of that time of crisis, not only to rescue us from the existential nightmare which a continuation of the Wall Street-controlled Hoover administration would have represented; he did this also to rescue the world from that fascism, as typified by the Mussolini and Hitler regimes, as regimes which he knew as having been put in place through, chiefly, collaboration to this purpose among the trans-Atlantic financier gangs centered in London and Manhattan.

It is instructive to compare the U.S. under Franklin Roosevelt's leadership with the sheer obscenity of the ideology and practice of the likes of the intrinsically fascist Weatherman bombers which wrecked the Democratic Party, and thus ushered the fascist impulses associated with the Nixon administration's rise into power.[16] The misguided reforms advanced by three Rockefeller brothers, each with distinctively different emphases, respectively Nelson, David, and John D. Rockefeller, during the course of the U.S. Nixon, Ford, and Carter administrations of 1969-1981, not only led to sundry measures destroying the foundations of the U.S. economy. It was through measures such as the 1971 wrecking of the Bretton Woods system, the subsequent turning of the power over the U.S. dollar to the Amsterdam "spot market" through the Nixon Administration's petroleum hoax, and the Trilateral Commission rape of the U.S. economy under the Carter Administration, that a London-steered policy-shaping paradigm was set into motion, a paradigm which has now plunged, not only our U.S. economy, but the economy of the entire world, into what would now become a general, planet-wide breakdown-crisis, unless certain sweeping sets of measures which I have prescribed (in other locations) are adopted almost immediately, now.

The Modern Liberal Model

From the moment of that February 1763 Treaty of Paris which established the British East India Company as a private empire of global Anglo-Dutch Liberal financier interests, the role of the Company's Lord Shelburne was as crucial as his reputation was justly considered to be awful. It was Shelburne's crew which created the British Foreign Office, directed from the inside by the Secret Committee of Shelburne's notorious lackey Jeremy Bentham.

Indeed, to the present day, the real power of the British Empire resides not in the British monarchy as such, as much as the monarchy performs a crucial function on behalf of the British Empire's real power, the neo-Venetian Anglo-Dutch Liberal financier-oligarchy rooted axiomatically in the authorship of Venice's Paolo Sarpi.

Those, including sometimes powerful heads of state, or outright tyrants, who view the matter in a manner other than I describe it here, are prone to making awful mistakes which they may, or may not prefer to live to regret. The suicides of Adolf Hitler and Josef Goebbels, who loved the British enough to destroy their intended victim Germany, and, finally, themselves, for London's advantage, are notable among the suicides who already foresaw, before the end, the risk which they perversely enjoyed in being "world-historical" creatures spawned for sacrifice by the Anglo-Dutch Liberal financier-oligarchy.

We, from among the relatively few better informed true patriots among intelligence specialists of our United States, recognize, even if not publicly, the true nature, rather than the popular myths concerning the power and policy of that Brutish empire, our republic's oldest and most enduring foe, as it existed then, and does now. That empire is not essentially an instrument of the people of the United Kingdom, or the people of any other part of that Commonwealth; the empire exists, as Mussolini and Hitler were also created, for their time, as "futurologist" H.G. Wells would argue, by that global, imperial financier-oligarchical interest, created to sacrifice the nations over which it ruled, if necessary, to preserve an implicitly global type of imperial financier-oligarchical interest, which is, in fact, as old as Tyre, Babylon, and the cult of Delphi.

My point in entering reference to the overlapping roles of Shelburne, Gibbon, and Jacques Necker here, is to clarify the distinction of myth and substance on that account. The relevant myth is the delusion that Gibbon had designed a British Empire according to Julian the Apostate's vision of a new imperial Rome, which would not permit actual Christianity to exist, as what Gibbon, and presumably Shelburne, considered to be a lurking fatal flaw within both the ancient Roman and Byzantine system. It is not only the Vatican which has long suspected that the specter of Julian the Apostate does actually reign, still, in imperial Britain.

How It Grew

The empire now seated essentially in Amsterdam and London, an empire which dominates the world, especially since the time of the U.S. Nixon administration, did not originate as a British empire as such. It evolved as a by-product of the efforts of the factional circles of the "new Venetian party" of Paolo Sarpi, et al., to free the Venetian financier-oligarchical cause from what appeared to them to be the probably fatal result of continuing to back the reactionary Habsburg cause associated with the Hitler-like brutality of Tomas de Torquemada and Philip of Spain. It was evident, in this connection, that the City of Venice could remain the center of power for the global cause of usury, but not if it sought to maintain that role as a naval power stuck up in the north of the Adriatic.

Therefore, Sarpi and his Venice faction substituted a new model of financier imperialism, one which shifted the maritime base of its imperial power in the maritime territories along the northern coasts of Europe, as in England, the Netherlands, and along the old Hanseatic route into the Baltic. This outlook was reenforced by the experience of the defeat which the Venetian cause suffered at the hand of Cardinal Mazarin and others in introducing the 1648 Peace of Westphalia. The result was the resurgence of the France of Mazarin and Jean-Baptiste Colbert, in their role as the world's leading science-center and driver of economic progress in Europe. Thus, the use, by France's adversaries, of that corruptible Louis XIV whose case supplied the model for the later religious and other policies of the Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, was used as a flaw in France's government which cleared the way for ruining France considerably, and for establishing the Anglo-Dutch Liberal maritime power in northern maritime Europe. It was from this, that the future British empire of the British East India Company emerged, in February 1763, that together with those provocations which provided the excellent, systemic motive for establishing our own nation's independence.

The idea of an imperial power sprung as some innate genius of the English people, is essentially a fairy tale. England did not make that choice, nor did the Netherlands for its own case. The choice was made, chiefly, by the network of Venice-centered banking houses in the Fourteenth-Century Lombard tradition. It was this Venetian interest, associated with the influence of Sarpi, which adopted the Anglo-Dutch pivot as the political center of its strategic financier-oligarchical operations.

In the whole sweep of the process in Europe and the Americas, leading from the launching of the Thirty Years War, in 1618, the most crucial positive development has been the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, and the most ominous product of folly the February 1763 Peace of Paris, which established what has been the British Empire during the centuries since that latter time.

Here we have the key to the role of H.G. Wells; the key issue is the role of the system of modern European nation-states established by the 1648 Westphalian peace, in opposition to the contrary motion unleashed by the succession of the Dutch wars against the France of Louis XIV, and the establishment of the imperial maritime primacy of the British East India Company in 1763. The net result of that succession of 1618-1763 developments, has been the 1761-1776 emergence of the U.S. republic, to become the most crucial challenger of the attempted global imperial supremacy of the British Empire as a tool of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal system, all that the consequence of a continuing conflict of interest set into motion around the figure of Paolo Sarpi.

Thus, the strategic characteristics of Anglo-Dutch Liberalism are "axiomatically" the form of Liberalism crafted by Paolo Sarpi's circles as the chosen replacement for the system of Habsburg butchery attributable to such monstrous creatures as that Grand Inquisitor Tomas de Torquemada who served as the chosen model for the bloody purposes of the London-steered, Martinist Freemasony of Count Joseph de Maistre, who served as a hand behind the stunt of the Queen's Necklace, the French Terror, the design of the ill-fated Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, and the model for Adolf Hitler's tyranny later.

The Brutish Empire Today

Since the idea of a "British Empire" is a source of misdirection, we must acknowledge the actual character of the actual, essentially global empire, as much better named "Brutish," than "British." In principle, the specter of H.G. Wells, wherever his soul might be roasting today, would, however reluctantly, agree. The characteristic thrust of his The Open Conspiracy does not permit any truthful sort of contrary conclusion.

The key to all of this is shown nakedly by Wells' perpetual drumming of the theme: "The nation-state, or anything like it must be destroyed" for the sake of whatever Wells' desire for seamless "globalization" might bring. On this recurring, thematic point in Well's The Open Conspiracy, he returns always to that theme, just as his partner in crime, Bertrand Russell, demanded a preventive nuclear assault on the Soviet Union, to bring about what Russell stated emphatically was the establishment of world government, as today in the attempted foisting of the Lisbon Treaty menaces continental European civilization, and also probably large-scale nuclear warfare against Russia and Asia during the relatively near term ahead.

The popularized illusion of a specifically British origin of the British empire, is typical of a habit of foolish misreading of the nature and root of the principal empires of ancient, medieval, and modern Europe. In no case did a people choose the empire; in each case the empire chose them. In that point, we find the key to the general plan underlying the model of one-world empire proposed by H.G. Wells, as in his The Open Conspiracy and What Are We To Do With Our Lives?

In the case of modern European Liberal models, which are the offshoots of the "New Venetian" system of lying lackey Galileo Galilei's master, Paolo Sarpi, the systems of simpler, forced suppression of scientific and comparable discovery, were superseded by the use of a system of the victim's intended self-deception, a system of Sophistry now identified, as in the U.S.A. and Europe, as elsewhere, by the technical term of "Liberalism."

This mode of deception is that which was introduced by Sarpi, either on his own initiative or as an instrument of others, is based, as a doctrine, on the model of the medieval irrationalism of William of Ockham (Latin: Occam). The role of the irrationalist doctrine of Ockham-Sarpi is crucial in all modern Liberalism, especially so with the influence of the radically irrationalist Bertrand Russell reflected in the post-World War II radical-positivist movement in both science and science-fiction alike.[17] With the rise of the power of the British empire during Europe's Eighteenth Century, especially since the February 1763 Treaty of Paris,[18] the policies associated with the Sarpi initiatives had shaped a new quality of design of overreaching world empire, an empire fairly identified, interchangeably, with either "British Empire," or, more precisely said, the Anglo-Dutch Liberal system of imperial financier power, and in the radically Liberal cults in science and arts today, such as the extreme moral and cultural decadence of the so-called "68ers" today.

It is this feature of Liberalism, the feature which Sarpi adopts from the medieval legacy of the irrationalist Ockham, which is the core of the Brutish system, and the key to all of the dogma of both Wells and Bertrand Russell, all the way through to the dupes of the legacies of Professor Norbert Wiener and John von Neumann in particular. We shall return to this subject-matter repeatedly up through the conclusion of this report as a whole.

Yet, although I have just emphasized, above, that the principal enemy now menacing our U.S.A. is a British empire which emerged, not as sprung from Britain, but as a migrant, a parasite attaching itself to this or that national camping-ground as it had migrated, since ancient times, from places such as ancient Tyre and Babylon into medieval and modern Europe—and to European colonies beyond. However, there is, as I had already promised to address this point, a qualitative distinction of the present British Empire from those particular forms which preceded it in these successions. That special distinction is the adoption of the Liberalism introduced under the leadership of Paolo Sarpi.

Ockham, Sarpi, and Wells

The crucial feature of the implied design underlying all of the conceptions advanced by Wells in his The Open Conspiracy is located in the motives of Paolo Sarpi in his replacing the traditional position of Aristotle in previous European oligarchical systems, such as the frauds of Claudius Ptolemy, with that of the medieval irrationalism William of Ockham (Latin: Occam). That substitution of Ockham, by Sarpi, is the essence of all modern Liberalism.

The crucial implication of that substitution of Ockham, must be recognized as an outgrowth of Sarpi's recognition that the bloody failure of such monsters as Tomas de Torquemada's inquisitional program, as from the 1492 expulsion of the Jews from Spain, on, was that the new model of European society, which had been set into motion largely through the crucial, Fifteenth-Century contributions of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, had not only freed science from the death-grip of Aristotelean Sophistry, but had thus introduced a new kind of society, with an included emphasis upon giving freedom to science and technology. It was this factor of science-driven innovation, set into motion largely by Brunelleschi and Cusa, but most emphatically Cusa, which has defined all of the most crucial among the actual achievements by modern European civilization and its influence extended into the Americas.

Thus, when the attempt to turn back the clock of history was made, as signalled in the 1492 expulsion of the Jews, the effort to crush what had emerged as the modern sovereign nation-state, as in the models of Louis XI France and the imitation of Louis XI's reforms by England's Henry VII, the sheer physical-economic benefits of Cusa's revolutionary work, as in the cases of the seemingly miraculous progress in France and Henry VII's England, had introduced a factor of scientific progress's effects, in European society, which made it virtually impossible for the dark forces of medieval-style Aristotelean Sophistry to overcome this new factor in world history.

Thus, for reasons I shall emphasize immediately below, Sarpi's innovation was recognized by a growing section of the neo-feudal reactionaries as the probable solution for their failure to crush the modern European sovereign nation-state out of existence. There were two considerations, which had been defined, chiefly, by Cusa, in Sarpi's turn to the revival of Ockham: the influence of Cusa's Concordancia Catholica in defining the principle of the modern sovereign form of nation-state, echoing Dante Alighieri's De Monarchia, and the founding of modern European science by the influence of a series of works by the same Cusa, works beginning with his Platonic De Docta Ignorantia. It was the combination of these currents associated with the initiatives of Cusa, which had lain the basis for the emergence of modern European civilization from the ashes of Europe's Fourteenth-Century "New Dark Age."

In matters of detail, what baffled the Aristotelean elements of the neo-feudal reaction, was the effect of innovations in both technology and the organization of the internal life of, and relationships among the cities.

Sarpi's proposed remedy for the Venetian forces' strategic predicament on this account, was to create a scheme under which "practical" innovations were allowed within his proposed re-organization of European society, but without permitting knowledge of the actual scientific methods of Cusa, Leonardo da Vinci, Kepler, et al. to be introduced to the relevant European institutions. Sarpi's proposed remedy was, thus, his promotion of the irrationalism of Ockham, or what is otherwise known as modern Liberalism, whose extreme state of degeneracy is known today, variously, as Malthusianism and its by-products, fascism (e.g., neo-conservatism), positivism, and existentialism,.

The crucial turn in the program which Sarpi launched, came with the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, which was led by the actions of the Papacy's delegate to France, Cardinal Mazarin, and the leading role of Mazarin's collaborator, Jean-Baptiste Colbert, in unleashing an astounding rate of progress in both infrastructure, and in accelerated fundamental scientific and technological progress in France. The weak strategic flank for France proved to be essentially the same King Louis XIV whose statecraft and related policies were the model for Martinist Count Joseph de Maistre's redesign of the Robespierrean Jacobin Napoleon Bonaparte, as what was to become the model for the later strategic design of Adolf Hitler.

With the 1712-1714 victory of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal party of William of Orange's heirs over the leading role being played by Gottfried Leibniz and his English Tory allies, the way was cleared for the massive campaign of Walpole's corruption in England, which, by breaking the back of the Tory opposition to the legacy of William of Orange, unleashed the strategies of intellectual and bloody warfare, such as London's and Amsterdam's orchestration of the so-called "Seven Years War," which, in turn, established the "new Roman empire in fact" in the form of that February Peace of Paris which established a neo-Venetian model of what Shelburne was to foresee as a British successor to the fallen Roman empires.

Shelburne did not create Britain's "New Roman Empire" model; Shelburne merely had his lackey Gibbon forge the patent for him to paste on the wall.

The outcome, as historian H. Graham Lowry has shown in his How the Nation Was Won,[19] was the rallying of the anti-imperialist, republican forces of Europe and the Americas around the establishment of an American replacement for the oligarchism-ridden, failed parliamentary and monarchical models of Europe.

The victory of President Abraham Lincoln's U.S.A. over the combined forces of the British Empire, Britain's Nineteenth-Century Spanish monarchy, London's African slave-trading subsidiary of that century, and Napoleon III's France, in the double defeat of Britain in the U.S.A. and in Habsburg Mexico at that time, was the prompting of the continuing pattern of world-wide imperial wars, designed and launched by the British Empire, during the period from the 1890 ouster of Otto von Bismarck by the British Prince of Wales' order to his nephew the Kaiser, through to the new world-wide warfare being launched under the guidon of the draft Lisbon Treaty of today.

For the moment, most of the continent of Europe east of Belarus, has been degraded by Fabian London into a lackey of the principal mortal enemy of our United States, the current British empire. That empire and its agents, saturate the command of our political parties, loot us with their global financial swindles, and the awful puppets who conspire to ruin our economy from seats in the Federal Reserve System and the traditional Morgan-centered assets of London in our leading state and private financial and monetary institutions, as in much of the top-ranking leadership of our leading political parties.

The emblem of this treasonous state of our national affairs is, as should not be surprising, the H.G. Wells Society and its penetration of our diplomatic and related services.

3. The Pythagoreans & Plato

Our subject in this present, and the succeeding chapters, is a science of history. In this present chapter, our attention is focussed upon history as an idea of essential importance for mankind, as mankind is distinguished absolutely from other forms of life, on precisely this account. In this chapter, we treat history as a concept linked to the distinction between man as man were only another mammal, and that personality of mankind which exists efficiently as a phenomenon of continuing, efficient significance, even after the relevant person is deceased, sometimes long deceased.

In the subsequent, concluding chapter, we subsume this present chapter's attention to the illustration of the concept of history itself as an idea, to the essence of the matter, the immortality of the human soul.

In earlier portions of this present report, and in numerous locations published earlier, I have emphasized that there could be no competent insight into the existence of our unique, human species, except by including the verses 26-31 of Genesis 1as a clear summation of what we should have recognized, in fact, from our knowledge of the nature, and cohering function of our human species as far back in antiquity as we could consider the available evidence we have assembled thus far. We must consider the intended content of this set of verses to be highly reliable scientifically. Obviously, some people back then, in Moses' time, were a lot smarter than most people today.

The idea of distinctive quality of man and woman to which those verses from Genesis refer, has declined in the populations of, for example, the U.S.A., since the transitional interval between 1964 and 1968.

Creative mental activity as such is typified as creative by virtue of the content of that action, as that is exemplified by cases of the discovery of a valid principle, such as a scientific principle of nature. The form of such mental action is congruent with the concept of the (ontologically infinitesimal) in the Leibniz calculus, as distinct from, and opposed to the fraudulent arguments against Leibniz by de Moivre, D'Alembert, Leonhard Euler, Joseph Lagrange, et al., and by Laplace, Cauchy et al. during the Nineteenth Century.

We know from experience of such cases, that, in particular, what can be identified as actually creative mental activity, can occur only as a process within the sovereign creative processes of the individual human mind, never, contrary to what some people at MIT's RLE thought about "creative problem-solving" back during the late 1940s, when they addressed as what might be fairly considered "group-think." The creative process of the human mind has the same character of an independent action of an individual mind, which it shares with an individual original or recreated experience of discovery of a universal principle of nature, or comparable discovery. This occurs to the effect that the perfectly sovereign cognitive power of the relevant individual mind has conducted a transaction as if directly, by an individual person, with the universe, as Johannes Kepler did.

I shall write more on the subject of this excerpt from Genesis, at a later point here.

In contemporary U.S.A. society, in particular, such performances appear to be extremely rare, if and when performance is compared with that typical of two generations ago. The U.S. of today has ceased, we might hope, only temporarily, to be a creative society, relative to what was true, relatively, of the period prior to 1968. As the older two generations, which represented a repository of relatively higher "creativity quotients," have chiefly died out, employment in actually creative, even merely productive forms of scientific, artistic, and related forms of employment, has dwindled toward a vanishing-point. Since then, there has been a manifestly accelerating decline in what may be considered to be actually cognitive activity as such, as, of course, a comparable, corresponding net decline in the actual net physical productive powers of labor, per capita and per square kilometer. This change, downward, correlates directly with the U.S. moral and intellectual degeneration into a "post-industrial" society; but, it may also be studied as conspicuously so in the case of accelerating moral and other, existentialist and kindred degeneration in the field of entertainment and artistic activity generally.

Those are, broadly speaking, the kinds of parameters within which our subject immediately at hand is situated.

Apart from those general observations, the most relevant evidence comes from studying expressions of the virtual systemic suppression of actually human creative activities in most of the populations, as over intervals of up to chunks of hundreds of years, or more, in entire regions of globally extended European civilization, during an inclusive span of from the close of the Second Punic War until the birth of modern Europe in the Fifteenth-Century Renaissance. This case for study, is illustrated by the image, from Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound, of the banning of mankind's "knowledge of fire" by the decree of the Olympian Zeus, or in more recent times, the murderous "Neo-Malthusian" dogma of Britain's Prince Philip and Philip's lackey, former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore.

The latter, abortive features of large regions of known history of the process of human existence, require our emphasis on physical, rather than monetary economy. This requirement is not imposed by the fact of large historic intervals of breakdowns of monetary systems, but by the nature of monetary and financial systems as such.

Some Problems in Economy

For example, there is no basis in financial statistics as such, for determining the cause-effect relationship between an economy misdefined as a financial-monetary process, and, the correct attack on the subject-matter, the economy as a physical process. The latter, economy as a physical process, is properly measured in terms of changes, upward, or downward, in the physical relative population-density of habitation of entire areas corresponding to national identities. Money enters properly into consideration in this matter only as it bears upon the appropriateness of the financial and related actions upon which we depend, exclusively, for the relevant desired physical effects of the physical action itself. The appropriateness is determined properly only in terms of the physical process of production, physical design, and investment in products: principally, the effective increase, or decrease of the potential relative population-density.

The concept of "free trade," for example, is suited to the economy of utterly non-productive communities of pirates, such as the recent tribes of hedge-fund predators cast in the Michael Milken and Alan Greenspan tradition.

One of the best illustrations of the point just made, comes from the case of France under King Louis XI, who bribed his enemies, as they had demanded, and triumphed over them by these means, while accelerating the productive powers of labor in France in a fashion not seen since Charlemagne. The experience of Louis XI's France, was replicated in the English kingdom of post-Richard III Henry VII.

As for England under the Seventeenth Century's Jameses and Charleses, the Massachusetts Bay Company, starting with means never better than those already available to the culture of England, outpaced the rate of accomplishments in England itself, until the effects of the reigns of James II and William of Orange, to be seen after1688-89. Similarly, the rate of progress in the U.S. economy, during and after the process of the defeat of that treasonous British puppet known as the Confederacy, the U.S.A. outpaced the world in rate of progress, until a monstrous politically-directed, 1877 downshift in the conditions of life of the U.S. population generally. The case of the U.S. under the leadership of President Franklin Roosevelt, attests to the vast superiority of the American System of political-economy of Hamilton et al., as revived under President Roosevelt, over all European systems to date.

The history of the economy of the sovereign U.S.A., when it was relatively free of the overreaching imperial forces of the British Empire, is that the U.S. economy, when permitted to be itself, always outpaced the domestic physical economy of every other European and American nation.

The troubling factor in this European part of world history, has always been twofold. First, generally, the legacy of the system of class-aristocracy and the reflection of that factor of class-distinctions, in the perpetuating of the control mechanism of the always troublesome parliamentary systems. Second, the powerful influence of Venetian-style monetary-financial systems imposed upon governments and nations by the combination of the traditions of aristocratic and financial-aristocratic classes. Since 1782, Europe's best economic and related performance was comparable with our national-economy's relatively poorer sector of standard performance.

The combination of those aforesaid and related factors associated with these comparisons, has been reflected, as prior to the U.S. of 1968-1969, with the essential superiority of the U.S.A.'s constitutional rejection of a European style of monetary system. Under the U.S. Constitutional system, when defended, money can be uttered legally only by either the relevant direct action taken by the Federal Government, with consent of the U.S. Congress, or through adoption of our sovereign choice of relevant treaty-agreements respecting tariffs, trade, and credit, with foreign powers. The Bretton Woods draft of 1944, as distinct from the opposing draft presented by Britain's John Maynard Keynes, is, for example, the model to which the world must return today, and that urgently, if our republic, and also civilization generally, is to survive the presently ongoing, Germany-1923 style, hyper-inflationary blow-out and breakdown of both the present U.S. and world financial-monetary systems.

The History of Cultures

When we consider the benefits contributed by authentic "geniuses" in the fields of physical science, statecraft, and Classical art-forms, we ought to feel the impact, with an accompanying sense of shock and horror, of how much humanity has suffered, in each nation, each culture, and in society as a whole, a suffering caused by the failure to develop a much larger quotient of actively creative minds, minds which would be comparable to those of truly great discoverers. Thus, for me, one of the ugliest of all spectacles, is the way in which currently prevalent human moral and intellectual mediocrity is promoted.

We have accessible knowledge of the case of the effects of the degenerated form of earlier, transoceanic maritime culture, as typified by the case of the Olympians who represented a particular case of degeneration of Atlantic maritime cultures, the morally degenerate Olympians of Homer's Iliad, Olympians whose memorable tyranny as such is the context of Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound.

Here is a more relevant example of the sheer evil inherent in that global system of tyranny associated with the domination of our planet, especially since August 15, 1971. I mean the present domination of our planet's affairs by the Anglo-Dutch Liberal imperial system centered, nominally, in the City of London.

This shift of power from the U.S.A., to the Anglo-Dutch Liberal system, was prompted by the effects of the U.S.A.'s being lured into the folly of an unnecessary and long war in Indo-China, which persisted during the same lapse of time that the cost of this war was used as a pretext for draining down the measures of U.S. economic reconstruction attempted, as in the steel case, by President John F. Kennedy. The crucial point in that post-Kennedy process of the 1960s came in 1968, when the moral fiber of trans-Atlantic society was ruined by the explosion of the so-called 68ers, a 68ers phenomenon which split the Democratic Party between "blue collar" and the fascist 68er cult, and thus brought the implicitly fascist government of President Richard Nixon into power, and then, the continued physical and moral wrecking-job wreaked upon the U.S. economy and its culture under the Ford and the Trilateral Commission's Carter Administration and beyond.

The crucial measures, which led in the destruction of the U.S. economy were: 1.) The arbitrary, but not unexpected wrecking of the Bretton Woods system, by the Nixon Administration, in July 1971, as adopted by Europe, with some reluctance, in 1972. 2.) The orchestration of a fraudulent mammoth, international petroleum shortage, especially directed against the U.S.A., which created the Amsterdam-centered internal petroleum "spot market," and thus transferred the basis for the U.S. dollar, from the U.S. itself, to an Anglo-Dutch Liberal international cartel controlled from within London and Amsterdam. 3.) The "controlled disintegration of the economy" program of the Trilateral Commission, which destroyed the U.S. economy's basic internal structure, from 1977 through 1981. 4.) The Michael Milken syndrome, which served as the model for that lunatic program of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan which has led into what has been, since the end of July 2007, the present hyperinflationary, Germany-1923-echoing bubble racing toward its destiny with doom today.

In all this 1968-2008 process to date, the system which has replaced the U.S. control of its own dollar by the spot-market/BAE system of imperial power, is the power dominating the U.S. economy, and others, presently. The British Empire is no ally of our U.S.A., but the deadliest present adversary of not only the U.S.A., but virtually all mankind. This has occurred under the same principles of British imperial, specifically geopolitical policy behind Prince of Wales Edward Albert's'/King Edward VII's orchestration of the 1890-1905 developments which created World War I, and the British imperial monarchy's putting its proteges Mussolini and Hitler into power in Italy and France, respectively, to bring us into World War II. The most notable irony in all this, as the so-called Billy Mitchell case underscores the point, is that Japan had been entrusted by its then British partner, to commit itself (already in the 1920s) to a Japan naval attack on the U.S. Pacific naval base in Pearl Harbor. Times changed; Britain switched, like the relevant New York bankers ( including the grandfather of the present occupant of the White House), from its commitment to back those Mussolini and Hitler regimes, fascist regimes which London itself had put into power, and had supported massively during those regimes' early years, switching to accepting an alliance with the U.S. against Japan and Hitler's Germany. So, Japan carried out the Pearl Harbor attack which had been assigned to it, earlier, by Britain, against what had become a most difficult British ally, the U.S.A.

Thus, if and when we reconsider what we have come to accept, to tolerate as "the way things just are" among our people today, we should be angered by nothing as much as our foolish selves, that we not only practice, but defend those fetters on the individual human mind, by which powerful forces of international finance rule over our government and degrade us all, by aid of our own consent.

New York Mayor Bloomberg was reported to represent an estate amounting, according to various accounts, to something between $9-11 billions; according to reports, he protested this, asserting that $40 billions were a more appropriate estimate. I have observed him speaking on some subjects, including the subject of "infrastructure." On the basis of that evidence, the man is simply a predator, who does not care how he steals, and is among the most contemptibly silly asses wandering loose on the political landscape today. We are no longer ruled by the power of tycoons, but the organized criminality of the narcotics trade, and sheer, legalized pilfery like that from which California Governor Schwarzenegger profited while a private citizen. He was permitted to do that at the expense of California's government and people, and was rewarded with the fruits of the folly of those California citizens who support his ruinous, predatory tenure, even still today.

We consent, thus, and in related ways, to our own ruin, even seem to admire the predators who loot us, and who destroy our nation from within and without.

Our citizens themselves, at least very many among them, have large opportunities for self-improvement before them.

The Root of the Decline, & Wells

If you understand the motive of Prometheus Bound's Olympian Zeus, you can more easily recognize the root of the issue which has made the British Empire (i.e., Anglo-Dutch Liberal imperial power) the long-term enemy of our U.S. constitutional republic, since the February 1763 Peace of Paris.

The authors of the oligarchical principle, as typified by the attempted alliance of Philip of Macedon with a Persian emperor who was actually controlled by the continuation of the old Babylonian bureaucracy (priesthood) of the quasi-mythical Belshazzar, proceeded on the well-established certainty that if the general population were permitted to gain not merely knowledge of, but freedom to practice scientific and comparable progress in their economy, tyrannies of the type which playwright Aeschylus describes for the Olympus of Zeus, could not, can not endure.

That is the pivotal difference among the old tyrannies of Europe, for one case, the oligarchy-dominated parliamentary systems of most of Europe today, and the anti-oligarchical Constitution of the U.S.A. If we were to permit the nations of Africa, such as Zimbabwe, for example, to obtain actual freedom from British imperial tyranny, there would be no British empire, or its like, for long. The British backing for its long-standing "Quisling," the morally debased, formerly Nazi-allied Dalai Lama, is a case of similar import.

There are three basic rules which, in fact, permeate H.G. Wells' intention in his The Open Conspiracy. 1.) No tolerance for expressions of sovereign forms of nation-state culture. 2.) No promotion of knowledge of "fire": i.e., the discovery of an applicable universal physical principle of general use in economies, such as nuclear-fission power. 3.) No efficient access to continued knowledge of national cultures. This is precisely the same type of policy expressed by the Olympian Zeus of Prometheus Bound.

The crucial feature of such prohibitions, as by Wells, is the relationship between the knowledge of, and practice of discoverable universal physical principles as might be used to promote an increase of the typical individual's practical understanding of man's power to increase our species power to exist, through the discovery and application of fundamental scientific progress (e.g., "fire").

We see this same pro-bestial policy put forward by Wells, in the stripping down of essential industries within already relatively economically developed economies, as those of North America and northern Eurasia, through aid of the transfer of both production employing modern technology, and also the infrastructure needed to support that production out of developed modern economies, into national territories in which about eighty percent of the population of those nations lack the cultural and related development to absorb advanced modern technologies!

In all this, the "machine breaker" mentality of the "68er" paradigm is crucial. For example: modern technology developed for installation by Germany, is not permitted to be invested in the development of the internal economy of Germany.

It is the human species itself, which H.G. Wells and his like hate the most. That was the doctrine behind the systems of slavery (such as the helot system of the society designed for Sparta by the Delphi cult of Apollo-Dionysus); that is the essence of all of the empires established in Europe. That is the depravity of the "68ers." That is the Satanic quality which H.G. Wells and his followers have shared with Aleister Crowley and Bertrand Russell. For the followers of those degenerate influentials, it is the mind of man which is the enemy of the oligarchy they admire.

The Remedy

As I have indicated, repeatedly, what we know as European civilization is presented to us immediately in evidence from about 700-600 B.C., when a form of maritime alliance was formed, by Etruscans, Ionians, and Cyrenaica, against the maritime power whose very name means tyranny. Here in the context of the wake of Homer's work, here, in this interval of Mediterranean-centered civilization from about 700-600 through about the 200 B.C. wake of the Roman victory, the Second Punic War, we meet a sufficient portion of that chatter on the street, so to speak, which reflects the actual social-intellectual dynamics of developments within that interval.

For sundry good and strong reasons, our best sources from that period pertain to, either, the developments in physical science, as, most emphatically, the Pythagoreans, such as Plato's friend Archytas. From the firm ground of physical-science issues, as, for example, the fight against Sophistry, we are delivered the opportunity to decode the political and related elements of social history through attention to related matters in topics of physical science. The most convenient illustration of the relevant connections is the case of the provable scientific fraud permeating the work of a new stratum of Sophists associated with Aristotle and his follower Euclid, the latter of Euclid's Elements folly notability.

From these considerations, we are enabled to adduce some important, firm conclusions about the millennia immediately preceding the time of Pythagoras. The most significant of all these sundry forms of benefits from study of this history are those rooted in the form of physical science, especially astronomy and (implicitly) astrophysics, derived from the transoceanic maritime cultures which invaded the Mediterranean late during the aftermath of the process of melting of the great glaciation in the northern hemisphere, a glaciation which is threatening the world again in the future, today. Universal means astronomy, implicitly, better said, astrophysics. It is those observable changes in the observed celestial system which are indispensable for the transoceanic navigation by flotillas under "ice age" conditions, which promote those calendars which reflect long spans of cultures which navigate great distances by the stars.

This has several implications of crucial importance for us here. Two types of changes are to be considered. Those which are effectively repeating cycles, and those, of a higher order, which are not. The issue which reflection on this poses, is the question, whether the universe is governed by a pre-fixed, cyclical ordering (a universe according to Aristotle, the hoaxster Claudius Ptolemy, and Clausius-Grassman), or the universe is actually governed, ultimately, by progressive and permanent principles of development (anti-entropy). It is these issues of navigation by the stars, which present mankind, pre-historically, historically, and otherwise, with the notions of universe and also of universal. The latter choice, anti-entropy, is implicitly the finding of Johannes Kepler, and of Pierre de Fermat and Gottfried Leibniz, and the firm conclusion of Albert Einstein's conception of a finite, but unbounded form of specifically Keplerian universe.

This poses very serious questions, questions which lead our attention, as Plato did already, to the subject in which the most essential question is situated, the concept of human immortality as a scientific principle. This is the question posed, successively, at relevant length and great conceptual depth, by Plato and Moses Mendelssohn.

4. Human Immortality

A type of error which often distinguishes the mere chronicler from the true historian, is the former's inclination to view processes occurring in past history from the standpoint of his own contemporary experience of life to present date, or to interpret developments within the culture of another people from the standpoint of his immediate experience of his own.

As should be well known, I have spent most of my adult life in the field of intelligence, an experience which includes a period of a relatively menial role in training some inductees during World War II, and, more importantly, the experience of living through an early 1946 period of post-war military service in Bengal, where I chanced to be proximate to a crucial period of developments there, a latter experience which proved to be my initiation into the experience of operating as if in the mode of an intelligence operative in hostile, foreign territory, then as a persuaded Franklin Roosevelt man in opposition to what I knew, very clearly at that time, to be our own nation's British foe-in-fact.

The point of my reporting that experience here, is to situate my stating that competent intelligence work, in my decades of experience, is accepting the fact that one is operating in one or another kind of hostile territory, but avoiding showing this when such self-exposure of parts of one's inner self, as hostility or otherwise, is neither necessary, nor in fact, desirable, for the purpose of the function one is performing. For the greater part, one operating so does not need to choose such roles; the roles are made clear to one from the nature of the circumstances in which one is operating.

So much for the times and places of contemporary experience in local settings. I have referred to the kinds of situations which I have just mentioned, to get into a different expression of a similar challenge, traveling back, as if by a time-machine, to distant past times in a foreign land. For such ventures, thinking like a true historian is essential. "Ah!" You might have said, and then added, "but, what is the use of that for investigation of contemporary situations, especially in one's own culture?" The questioner obviously missed my point; I was referring to the past times and distant places which are, functionally, an integral part of the personality on whom my attention is focussed, even if he or she is not aware of the significance of what is thus embedded within him, or her.

For a simple explanation of my point, think of the typical post-adolescent in today's United States, for example, the one who "googles." The opening up of those and comparable resources for that generation (in particular) appears to create opportunities for knowledge which were not readily available, by the touch of relevant buttons, for the preceding generation. Unfortunately, there is a very serious, very bad down-side to reliance on such resources. One of the leading misfortunes of the generations which had come into adulthood with recent decades of the so-called "information age," is that the world they actually believe that they know, tends to be limited to the electronic tit on which they are sucking. Worse than that, it is clear that those who manage such electronic "tits," are not informing their clientele as much as they are managing the minds of that clientele. They are duped by their habituated inclination to consider "information" as "knowledge."

All in all, the problem I have just outlined refers to the dark side of the influence of H.G. Wells, to his influence on the author of 1984. The orchestrated electronic environment of "information" is, in fact, "Big Brother."

To make the point clearer, I proffer the following, briefly stated anecdote.

A Matter of Science-Education

During my own 2000 U.S. Presidential campaigning, I had what I considered a significant experience with university students of the age qualified to vote. My experience of that layer presented me with the important indication of a new quality of response in a university-oriented generation which is now, nearly a decade later, between the ages of twenty-five to thirty-five, with a significant selection of science-oriented undergraduates among them. This became the human foundation of what became the "LaRouche Youth Movement (LYM)," but there was a process through which the most significant aspect of this development occurred: physical science and Classical music.

The relevant development was first concentrated on the West Coast, where our association had some excellent capabilities for laying a science-foundation focussed on tracing the origins of modern European scientific culture to the Pythagoreans, with a strong emphasis on the great experimental proof, by Archytas, of the construction of the doubling of the cube. Later I intervened more directly in the relevant educational program, setting up a program of combined Classical musical choral training with continuing the foundation lain in the study of the Pythagoreans' and Plato's science, to the succession of the laying of the foundations of competent modern physical science in the revolution launched by Nicholas of Cusa's De Docta Ignorantia. The first major project was reliving the discoveries in astronomy and physical science generally, by the leading echo of the achievements of Cusa and Leonardo da Vinci, Johannes Kepler. The work accomplished on this account, was indispensable, brilliant, and unique in modern treatments of that subject. The next major focus has been the mystery of Carl F. Gauss, who, for reasons of personal security and his career, never fully disclosed the methods of those discoveries of his for which the after-the-fact proofs were brilliantly valid leaps forward in science. The next project, following the completion of a mammoth Gauss program, will be the work of Bernhard Riemann, especially those parts of his life's work which are less fully worked through still today.

I cite this part of my account here, to make as clear as possible, that it is necessary to employ the most appropriate choice of the subject of history, the history of physical science (not mere mathematics). We must explore to discover whence and when our minds must have visited, to understand what, from even the deep past, and distantly foreign past, is buried, very much alive still, in the evolutionary development of all human culture today. Admittedly, the program I have described is not all-encompassing; but, it typifies the way we must approach a broader spectrum in our investigations, if we are to recognize the mind speaking from the past, respecting what we may be often mistakenly tempted to believe that we can understand through little more than one might acquire through "googling."

In many internet queries which I receive, for example, the questioner is obviously a victim of the shallow-mindedness induced by relying upon what are assumed to be the standard quick-reference works, as if what is there, or not there, is a measure of truth. Very often, it was very, very far from anything resembling truth.

What Are We Talking About?

It is those discoveries of principle, as a competent history of science typifies this, which point out, most plainly, and most clearly, why only the human species breaks through the kind of upper limits on potential relative population-density which bounds every other living species.

This inquiry is best pursued, not through mathematics as such, but physical science, with the emphasis on "physical" absent from the minds of the pure mathematician. Once that fact is taken into account, we are able to recognize the terrible damage done to the mind of many generations through the influence of sophistries, such as those ancient sophistries of Aristotle and his followers Euclid and Claudius Ptolemy, those modern Liberals typified by the legends of Galileo, Hobbes, Locke, the doubtful existence of Isaac Newton as an actual scientist, and the Eighteenth-Century and later dupes of the anti-Leibniz dogma of de Moivre, D'Alembert, Euler, Lagrange, Laplace, Cauchy, Clausius, Grassmann, et al., to say nothing of such rabid lunatics as Ernst Mach, or the even worse Bertrand Russell and his devotees.

The crucial issue here is defined by the attack on Leibniz by the associates of Euler and his Nineteenth Century followers. Euler was a clever fellow, but made up for that by being utterly dishonest when he chose to be so, as in his mid-Eighteenth-Century attacks on Leibniz.

The importance of the specific kind of Sophistry of both the Aristoteleans and the modern Liberal followers of Ockham and Sarpi, is as follows:

The absolute difference between man and monkey, on this account, lies in the fact, that the human species is capable of discovering what the Aristotelean and modern Liberal, alike, deny: an actually existent—physically existent—universal physical, or comparable principle. The effect of the realization of the absolutely superior quality of the human species, the quality of a creature in the living image of the Creator, is the human individual's creative powers, as potential, for discoveries which not merely increase, qualitatively, the potential relative population-density of our human species, but change the universe in ways no other species can do.

On this account, the human being does not behave as a fixed species-type; what might otherwise be considered as a fixed genetic type, is changed willfully, often from the equivalent of a relatively lower, to a higher species through changes in the underlying cultural assumptions of behavior.

On this account, the importance of protecting the integrity of language-cultures, and therefore the political independence among national sovereignties, is to defend against all new attempts at creating a tumbling "Tower of Babble" through scrambling the functional integrity of the mass of the past development embedded in the accumulated cultural development and experience of a people's use of its language to present date. We of the respective, properly sovereign cultures, must share our experience of culture, but we must defend the right and ability of the member of each culture to have efficient access to a reenacting of that past experience through which the revolutionary-evolutionary changes associated with the actual and potential progress of that specific culture remain accessible to the living.

The living past, vibrates, thus, in the living pages of present experience. History, from the standpoint of specific cultures so considered, is a living tissue to which our deceased have contributed in such a way that they, though dead, live, and act, through culture as history, still thus.

The Practical Political Consideration

Today, I am often distressed, and rightly so, by the loss of a sense of personal immortality among the present population. All great works of man tend to lie, actually, within the span of the actions of several or more successive generations. This contribution to progress, justify the lives which had passed before our time, and make the future possible. When the individual, such as the all-too-typical specimen of a U.S. citizen today, breaks away from the continuity of successive generations, the motives of the individual became decadent, degenerate. The selfish cry of "Me," excludes the efficient reality of past and future alike, and the great works of mankind needed to give our human race, our nation, a real future, are cast aside, like junk, to litter the sides of the road of progress. Then society rots, as our United States, and the nations of Europe, for example, have rotted away almost to nothing worth remembering, through the specific kind of selfishness which enjoys abandoning the essential obligation of government to provide, as forcibly as needed, for the essential works which secure not only the conditions of life of the presently living, but also the dedication of the living to the concerted, long-ranging actions, which, reaching beyond the life-span of the presently living, make possible the future, and are the essential justification for the fact that the presently living will have lived.

[1] See The Open Conspiracy: H.G. Wells on World Revolution, W. Warren Wagar, ed. (Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 2002).

[2] Until late in his life, Academician V.I. Vernadsky still defended the Clausius-Grassman-Kelvin definition of "energy" as firmly established. Whether this was a reflection of conditions of public life under Soviet rule, or actually his private view at that time, is not clear. Compare the publicly expressed view by Vernadsky in the early 1930s with the issues posed in my relevant Moscow public debate with my since deceased, celebrated Russian friend Pobisk Kuznetzov, on the difference between my concept of universal anti-entropy and the reductionist view. A similar shock at my presentation of the Leibniz principle of physical least-action was expressed, later, on the occasion of my Moscow presentation to the Academy. Under the Soviet Union, the reductionist view was reenforced by the neo-Aristotelean influence of the Marxist formalists (e.g., the admirers of Britain's Frederick Engels, who himself was presented as a willing Fabian Society asset during the last years of his life, as was revealed in connection with British intelligence's life-long, London induction of Helphand-Parvus to its service).

[3] It is important to note here, that George Orwell, the author of 1984, was a member of a trio (himself and the two—Aldous and Julian—of the three Huxley brothers) inducted to the synthetic psychosis of the naturally-occurring equivalent of LSD, under the direction of the British Satanist (Lucifer cult/Lucis Trust/Temple of Understanding) Aleister Crowley. Crowley was a 1920s intimate of both H.G. Wells and Bertrand Russell. The personal association of Wells and the young Huxley brothers of that time, was an echo of Wells' own apprenticeship under Thomas Huxley. It should be noted, therefore, that the fascist character of the "Big Brother" of Orwell's 1984 is, in fact, an echo of the model represented by the pro-Satanic, real-life H.G. Wells who had identified himself, in the early 1930s, as a fascist.

[4] As I recall, vividly, from such meetings, during the mid-1980s, among even some leading mathematical physicists, as those of the Fusion Energy Foundation (FEF), even many leading such scientists were incapable of insight into that discovery of a universal Solar principle of gravitation, even in relatively happier days of scientific practice than now, back then. That lack of insight was typical of scientists who were victims, directly, or not, of the influence of the followers of Ernst Mach, but was expressed in an even more radical modality by victims of Bertrand Russell's influence during and following the international Solvay sessions of the post-World War I 1920s. See: Thomas Powers, Heisenberg's War: The Secret History of the German Bomb (Boston: Little Brown, 1993). See also, the complementary Operation Epsilon: The Farm Hall Transcripts (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993). See the Einstein-Born correspondence for a relevant insight into the positivists' perverse and fanatical obsession of hatred against the method of Einstein and Max Planck. This reductionist's hostility, which was even carried to the extreme of refusing to examine Kepler's actual report of his discovery, or, similarly, rejecting serious consideration of the actually original, relevant work of Planck and Einstein, was widespread even among many leading, relevant scientists. This latter, systemic lapse, is typical of the effects of a conditioning in the practice of science which is developed without true insight. The essential source of the positivist perversion on this account is the presumption that their method is "objective," rather than being human; here, my authority as a physical economist must supplant reductionist methods in science generally.

[5] Alexander the Great, although the son of Philip of Macedon and the assigned pupil of an Aristotle whom he hated, represented a philosophical pedigree of contrary vintage. This was to be expressed in Alexander's reversal of the specific form of intended, pro-oligarchical model of strategic outlook toward negotiations with an Achaemenid dynasty controlled from within by the Babylonian priesthood.

[6] This role of Cyrenaica as a leading maritime region in the Mediterranean and beyond, continued through the life of the great scientist Eratosthenes, the correspondent of Syracuse's Archimedes, who was the first to measure the Polar great circle of the Earth. The approximate coincidence of the end of the Second Punic War with the deaths of Eratosthenes and Archimedes, identifies the great moral and cultural downturn in a portion of Mediterranean-centered civilization coincident with the process leading into that pact, sealed on the Isle of Capri, between the priests of the oriental cult of Mithra and the man who named himself Augustus Caesar.

[7] Hence, the methods of Aristotle were not accepted by Christianity under the early Fathers who followed the Apostle Paul on this account; although Aristotle's standpoint was mistakenly and widely tolerated, later, in respect to inferior earthly matters, by a Christian church influenced by the legacy which was dictated by the Emperor Constantine's pantheonic standpoint as Roman emperor. The error by the Christian Church in tolerating the Sophist dogma of the hoaxster Claudius Ptolemy, illustrates the point.

[8] But, it is said by some, that God has replied with the announcement, "Nietzsche is dead."

[9] As in good historical novels, or related materials, the requirement should be, that the principled dynamic of the story, or legend, should conform to the principled outlines of actual history, as in the case for Shakespeare, and, most emphatically, the dramas of Friedrich Schiller. In considering the case of Schiller's work, it is to be emphasized that the Prussian policy for defeat of Napoleon's Grande Armée in Russia, was premised, by the circles of Scharnhorst, on the strategic studies, by Schiller, of the Netherlands and Thirty Years War. Schiller's method thus attests to the principle of true historical insight, as opposed to fiction, in both strategy and history, and also Classical poetry and drama. This quality of insight, rather than the intrinsically incompetent methods of the statisticians, is the "secret" of the unique successes achieved in my methods of long-range and related forecasting.

[10] There are some very useful specialists who are better named "chroniclers," as in the memoir of the medieval Jean Froissart, than historians, the latter which supply useful accounts, but whose work does not reflect efficient insight into the process of history within which the reported sequence of events is situated as an event of historically generated characteristics. That distinction between what is actually a credible chronicler, rather than an actual historian, is a distinct of crucial importance in my present account of the notion of insight. The comparable contrast is good practicing astronomers who refuse, more or less hysterically, to recognize the actual, fundamental scientific issues of Kepler's Harmony of the Spheres.

[11] There was the case of a Polish gentlemen of some notability, once resident in a fashionable area of Connecticut which he shared with harpsichordist Wanda Landowski, Count Alfred Korzybski, who uttered a notion which he titled "General Semantics." He should be mentioned by me here on two accounts. First, he was the most brilliant among figures of that type, but like the rest of them, also wrong; his fault was that he was a reductionist, like the rest of them.

[12] Here and elsewhere in this piece, I employ the term potential only in the sense of dynamics, as "dynamics" is an attribute of the scientific method of the Pythagoreans and Plato, in ancient times, and the usage of Gottfried Leibniz, Bernhard Riemann, et al., in modern science.

[13] The cult of Delphi is identified in history and related accounts by emphasis on variously, its legendary origins as the encounter of the goddess Gaea and her consort, Python with the bumptious intruder called Apollo, and, otherwise, to similar effect, with the notion of the Olympian cult of Apollo-Dionysus. Here, the most relevant topic keyed to the subject of Delphi is the subject of Sophistry, especially that form associated with Aristotle and the hatred against Prometheus (e.g., physical science of the type traced from both the legendary Thales and Heracleitus and the Pythagoreans and Plato).

[14] In the taking of an inventory of the papers in the possession of Cauchy, the long "missing" paper of Niels Abel which Cauchy had in fact plagiarized, turned up neatly filed and classified.

[15] My association's emphatic attention to the crucial role of Nicholas of Cusa, was begun by a report delivered to me during the mid-1970s, by my wife Helga (actually prior to our marriage), who had just come from participation in a session of the Cusanus Gesellschaft. Helga was then considering a change in her approach to a doctorate; on the prompting of my encouragement, she approached the head of the Cusanus Gesellschaft, Haubst, for advice on a shift to include emphasis on the standpoint represented by the work of Cusa. For me, the work of Haubst and his associates of the Gesellschaft represented a set of the much needed keys to a revolution in our approach to the connection between ancient Classical, mistakenly so-called "pre-Socratic" science, such as those of the Pythagoreans and Plato, and modern science since Leonardo da Vinci and Kepler. Helga was also responsible for the initiation of our association's emphasis on a fuller exploration of the implications of the work of the Friedrich Schiller to whose work she had already become greatly attached during the period leading into her Abitur, at a point which immediately preceded the beginning of the systematic destruction of the Humboldt Classical curriculum.

[16] My identification of the stratum merely typified by Mark Rudd, et al., was first presented in print, under the title of The New Left, Local Control, and Fascism, in June-July 1968. The report was based on on-site studies of events at Columbia University campus during the preceding weeks. I compared the current associated with Rudd, clinically, with the frequent swapping of large portions of the respective Communist and Nazi party rank-and-file during the course of the famous Berlin trolley-car strike.

[17] While the influence of the positivist cult of Ernst Mach is significant in this, the transition from the doctrine of Mach to the more wildly radical fraud concocted by Bertrand Russell (as in his Principia Mathematica) is the dogma which has taken over a leading position in the contemporary, virtually "Laputan," post-1945 irrationalism of John von Neumann and Professor Norbert Wiener, widespread in the increasingly intellectual bankruptcy in official science dogma today.

[18] But, echoing some of the characteristic features imposed on the Massachusetts Bay Colony during 1688-1689.

[19] H. Graham Lowry, How the Nation Was Won: America's Untold Story (Washington, D.C.: Executive Intelligence Review, 1988).

Back to top