Subscribe to EIR Online
This article appears in the December 19, 2008 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

The Gravest Moment of
Crisis in Modern History

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

Delhi, December 9, 2008

[PDF version of this article]

If we could presume that these last two months of the George W. Bush Administration will not produce some monstrous actions, either from the Bush Administration, or steered from London, or both, the long-term fate of every part, and all of this planet will now depend, in fact, on whether or not a specific kind of pro-Westphalian, post-imperialist, global cooperation, is launched through an initiating role of cooperation among the U.S.A., Russia, China, and India. Such cooperation would mean an early end to the existence of that British empire founded, as a private empire, at Paris, in February 1763: the moment which created a break between London and England's English colonies in America, and which has defined the British empire as a world empire in fact, since that time, to the present day.

The current outcome of that continuing British arrangement, has been a present world-wide crisis, a crisis for which nothing comparable to this presently oncoming crisis-situation has occurred in globally extended European history since the advent of Europe's Fourteenth Century New Dark Age. This present crisis requires the liquidation of what has been called the British Empire, an empire which, in fact, has dominated the world's economic and related affairs to this present moment, most recently, since the August 1971, U.S. termination of the Bretton Woods concept of a fixed-exchange-rate system. Now, a reversal of that Nixon action is urgently needed, for the sake of humanity as a whole.

However, it will not be sufficient to return to the monetary system which still existed during the March 1 1968-August 15, 1971 interval. A change to the kind of anti-imperialist credit-system which President Franklin Roosevelt had specified for the 1944 Bretton Woods conference, were indispensable at this time. Hence, the absolutely indispensable exclusion of the British empire-system from the negotiations establishing the initial basis for the new world system of anti-British imperialist cooperation among key leading sovereign nation-states including the U.S.A. Without the inclusion of the U.S.A., the situation of the world at large would be hopeless, or virtually so, for generations yet to come.

Notably, the likely, happier outcomes of the required sort of a change, would include the emergence of England, Scotland, and possibly Wales, as sovereign nations regaining, among other goods, the level of economic well-being and happiness which was lost in those territories with the advent of the first government of Prime Minister Harold Wilson (not to speak of the luridly pro-Satanic antics of the fanatical anti-Westphalian imperialist, Prime Minister Tony Blair). Such changes would be the "land-mine-like" economic explosion which would be the end of that vast empire, still today, which was crafted by the intention of the Liberally irrational Paolo Sarpi, but that according to the image of Julian the Apostate's Liberally augmented Pantheon. This is the British empire which, at the present moment, is emulating that same Julian in the terrorist practice of religious warfare as a principal instrument of London's intended global imperial rule.


The Way England Seems to Rule:

The widespread, softheaded sympathy for so-called "globalization," and the Duke of Edinburgh's neo-malthusian cults, shows that the world's contemporary societies are, usually, each, including the U.S.A., bound together by their lack of any efficient comprehension of how today's societies, including their own, are controlled.[1] With the emergence of the British empire as today's only true imperial power, an imperium which had been spawned by the influence of Venice's Paolo Sarpi, Sarpi's British heirs took pains to ensure that the very idea of a universal physical principle would be outlawed from the knowledge and practice of ruling institutions and their subject populations. Hence, in modern European Liberal cultures affected by Anglo-Dutch Liberal paradigms, for example, mere mathematical formulas have tended to be treated as substitutes for the expression of what are actual physical principles.

Thus, the definition of a leading idiot, such as one from among today's contemporary neo-malthusians, which one might expect to meet in any university's science department, is one who shares that utterly fraudulent and actually silly myth, which claimed that Isaac Newton discovered Johannes Kepler's universal principle of gravitation. That was the British claim made on silly Newton's behalf, although the record of that discovery as made uniquely by Kepler, can be found in a process of discovery laid out in great detail in Kepler's own The Harmonies of the World.

There is no competent argument which refutes the crucial evidence, that the principled character and authorship of the actual discovery is readily available to be known still today. For example, Albert Einstein was emphatic, and extremely clear in this matter; the relevant details are in print, or available on the internet, where anyone who is serious can find them. In short, when any scientist says that Newton discovered gravitation, that scientist is either brainwashed in some way, or is either grossly incompetent, or simply singing lies for his supper.

Nonetheless, the shameless lie, claiming Newton to have been the author of the discovery of a principle of gravitation, persists into those charnel houses of dead intellects to be recognized in relevant departments of many leading universities and allegedly scientific foundations of the decadent world at large today.

Nonetheless, I would not have brought this troublesome subject-matter up here, as I have just done, unless it were one of the best examples of the reason for the typically systemic failures of governments and their leading intellects today, especially on the subject of empires. The significance of the Newton hoax, is that it is, clinically, a typical by-product of that doctrine, launched by Paolo Sarpi, on which all modern varieties of philosophical liberalism, including its intrinsically diseased varieties of statecraft, are premised.

Sarpi's Design

Sarpi's advantage over his rivals of the Council of Trent, was that Sarpi recognized that the failure of the original promoters of what was to become the A.D. 1492-1648 sweep of religious warfare to succeed in the efforts to crush that modern nation-state institution which had been launched by the forces of the great ecumenical Council of Florence, had been religious warfare rooted in an hostility to science which was, itself, premised on the supposed authority of the same ancient Sophist, the Aristotle who had been a crucial influence in inspiring the fanatical nonsense of Euclidean a-priorism. This was the same assumption which had been the premise for teaching of that doctrine of mathematics as a substitute for physical science, a sick habit which continues to pollute much university and other education today.[2]

On this account, Sarpi had adopted a non-Aristotelean variety of Sophist doctrine, a doctrine rooted in the teachings of the lunatic, medieval "deconstructionist" William of Ockham,[3] whom Sarpi selected as his own choice for the anointed spiritual father of modern European theological and secular Liberalism.

The point of the matter is, that it was the Renaissance's practical power in creating the institution of the modern sovereign form of nation-state defined by Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa,[4] which had fostered science-driven technological progress, and thus afforded the new nation-states, such as those of France's Louis XI and England's Henry VII, as model forms of society which had expressed their innate superiority over efforts to revive the medieval, usury-based, pro-feudalist traditions. Some of the relevant factors at play in this are extensively documented in those publications of Niccolo Machiavelli which had once served as the foundation for modern instruction in the principles of warfare.

So, to repeat relevant arguments which I have presented as cases in proof in locations published by me earlier, Sarpi permitted controlled innovation of forms called philosophical "Liberalism" today, where the Aristoteleans of that time had essentially banned scientific progress of any kind. This gave a decisive strategic advantage to the Venetian faction of also evil Sarpi, over its pro-Aristotelean rivals, a Sarpi faction which oriented its influence away from the Mediterranean, into the maritime regions of northern (nominally Protestant) Europe. However, at the same time, Sarpi et al., like his followers, such as the hoaxsters Galileo Galilei and Rene Descartes, worked to suppress all knowledge of the methods of actual scientific discovery. This was expressed in the campaigns which attempted to exterminate knowledge of the work of Kepler, Fermat, Leibniz, Gaspard Monge, Lazare Carnot, Carl F. Gauss, and Bernhard Riemann, campaigns which sprang from the Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries' Liberals, and, with extraordinary fanaticism, by the followers of Ernst Mach, and, worse, the followers of that most evil and impassioned deconstructionist, Bertrand Russell.

Such has been the setting of the essential effect of modern academic Liberalism's efforts to reconcile Aristotle with the Liberalism of Ockham, as the perfervidly deconstructionist Bertrand Russell and the followers of the Russell cult, have attempted, with increasing fervor, during the Twentieth Century. The notion of an Aristotelean reconciliation with a doctrine of "free trade," is an example of this medley of intellectual and moral corruptions.

That effect has been, most notably, that, as Gottfried Leibniz emphasized, during the 1690s and later, between the two Sophistries of Aristotle and Sarpi, what had been the competent, preceding practice of science, that of the Pythagoreans and Plato, had been largely suppressed. The crucial concept to be emphasized on this account, is that which Leibniz named "dynamics," as a translation of the ancient Greek science's term dynamis.

The significance of this concept of dynamics for political science today, is that it points out, that the principled character of social processes lies not in the notion of kinematic-like interaction among separate elements, but that those processes are subsumed, in each distinct type of case, by an efficiently encompassing single principle. This signifies a principle as conceived as in the likeness of Johannes Kepler's uniquely original discovery of a general principle of gravitation governing the composition of the Solar system.

This principle of dynamics as expressed by Leibniz in terms of a universal physical principle of least action, assumed a refined form through the discoveries of Bernhard Riemann. This work, in turn was enriched by the respective work of Albert Einstein and Max Planck, in one aspect, and, also, by the concept of Biosphere and Noösphere by Russia's Academician V.I. Vernadsky. All of these notions of dynamics are to be regarded as combined into a single conception in study of such social expressions of dynamics as those of such subjects of economy as nations, or empires.[5]

The notions to be associated with the categorical terms nation or empire, and the distinctions between the two, are to be recognized from the standpoint of this notion of dynamics. Take the category of "British empire" as a case in point.

1. The U.S.A. Under a British System

The role of a corrupted, pro-fascist government of France, in opening the gates of France's military institutions to permit a superior French military's stunning defeat by the Wehrmacht, shocked many long-standing fascist or pro-fascist elements, such as the grandfather of the still-incumbent President of the U.S.A., in both the United Kingdom and the U.S.A. to give way to U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt's leadership in organizing the alliance which was to defeat the forces of fascism allied with Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler.

From that point on, until developments of the 1968-1973 interval, the principle of the Bretton Woods system defined by U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt, had been the dominant force in economy world-wide. With the wrecking of the U.S. commitment to scientific progress in economy, by the upsurges of pro-fascist, so-called "left-wing," dionysian, "68er" forces in the Americas and Europe, the door was opened for the grab of the U.S. Presidency by the candidacy of Richard M. Nixon.

It is of crucial importance to recognize, not only that Presidents George H.W. and George W. Bush are offshoots of the Wall Street gang which had supported Hitler until the Pearl Harbor casus belli changed their costumes without changing their pro-fascist inclinations, but that that gang has been the same circles behind the leading "right wing" think-tanks and press and dominating much of the U.S. political scene since the inauguration of Winston Churchill's and Bertrand Russell's political-strategic accomplice, President Harry Truman. It is no coincidence that the two referenced Bush Presidential administrations are products of the same right-wing tradition expressed by Prescott Bush's key role, as an accomplice of the head of the Bank of England in financing Hitler's rise to dictatorial power.

To understand the problem that part of present history typifies for the condition of world crisis today, it is essential that our political leaders and other citizens examine such matters from the standpoint of the definition of dynamics just indicated. The actual British empire in question, still today, is not a secretion of the British Isles. A more exact term would be "Anglo-Dutch Liberal," a.k.a. Sarpian, type of "neo-Venetian imperialism." This is otherwise to be recognized as a dynamic of a phenomenon of slime-mold likeness, a phenomenon dominated by a (dynamically) integrated aggregation of financial entities whose integral action suggests the life-style of a common slime-mold.

In that configuration, the appearance of British elements, including the monarchy itself, is that of a feature of a slime-mold which is, when taken as a whole process, the empire as such.

Then, view the organization of this slime-mold as follows.

The overall slime-mold, when considered as a whole, is what is to be identified as "the empire." A typical empire of this general type would be composed of such subordinate features as the equivalent of mere "kingdoms," of which one is the United Kingdom. However, do not overlook the fact that this empire is organized, as Lord Shelburne adopted this policy, according to the model of the Byzantine Empire under Julian the Apostate, in which the component elements are treated as parts of an extended Roman Pantheon, of which the United Kingdom as such, or the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, are, in fact, each, merely one part. In the case of the Saudi Kingdom, it, in turn, is a leading feature of the British imperial subsidiary which is the colony known as the multi-national, "Sykes-Picot" treaty organization. This latter has been extended to include Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and other localities, and their role in international terrorism, each quasi-distinct, but considered each as an element of the extended imperial Pantheon according to the model of Julian the Apostate.

Then consider the financial-monetary aspect of this same slime-mold-like concoction.

The Financial Slime-Mold

Since the British puppet Richard Nixon had been foisted upon the U.S. Presidency by aid of the Dionysian cult known as the rampaging "68ers," and, since the consequent 1971-72 breakup of the Bretton Woods fixed-exchange-rate monetary system, the British empire has employed the break-up of the Bretton Woods system, as the opportunity to assimilate the United States itself into the grip of a floating exchange-rate form of London-centered, imperial slime-mold. (Hey, Sucker: our U.S.A. has thus been colonized by London!)

This development was greatly aggravated by the 1973 launching of the British-Saudi oil-boycott hoax, which made possible the large-scale operations of the petroleum spot-market swindle, which, in turn, has tended to dominate the world economy since that time. This series of developments transformed the U.S. dollar into a plaything of the Saudi-British empire's Netherlands-based, post-1973, BAE-linked, "spot market," a market which is among the leading keys to international terrorism today.

The U.S.A. helped the British empire increase its relative power globally, at U.S. political and economic expense, through the U.S. Carter Administration's wrecking of the U.S. economy, as was done through Carter's submission to his sponsor's, David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission "scam." By October 1987, the accumulated effects of the combined follies of the Nixon Administration, and the continuation of willful wrecking of the U.S. economy by the Trilateral Commission, had brought on the greatest U.S. financial crash since 1929.

The response to this 1987 development, which was launched by incoming Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, was the post-1987 unleashing of a vast financial-derivative bubble, a bubble designed, to the personal profit of present California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, in accord with the model, such as Enron, provided by a Michael Milken who had been convicted for such kinds of practices. The grip of London on a U.S.A. now in the grip of the vast fraud of the financial-derivatives scheme, began to approach the state of desperation reached in late July 2007.

The preferred British method of imperial rule, notably since the beginning of the so-called "Seven Years War," is to subordinate its targets to control by the slime-mold effect of its Julian-the-Apostate-modeled orchestration of conflict ("divide and rule"), especially orchestrated religious and similar cultural conflicts, among the targeted elements thus assimilated into the "digestive tract" of the slime-mold itself. This came, to a large degree, to represent the assimilation of the U.S. economy itself into a globalized system of control centered in the Anglo-Dutch-Saudi control of the world financial system through the "spot market" created by an Anglo-Dutch-Saudi, significantly BAE-related, development, a development pivoted on the combination of the "spot market" and the intrinsically hyper-inflationary role of financial derivatives speculation.

The role of Alan Greenspan in creating the great financial-derivatives bubble now in the process of "popping," is a case in point. The subjugation of national governments to toleration of financial-derivatives raids conducted against their own nationals, is exemplary of the way in which these national governments were corrupted by the British Empire's slime-mold-like characteristics.

The U.S.A. Nonetheless

The U.S. Federal Constitution and what might pass for a semblance of a British constitution, are two distinct, and mutually antagonistic orders of living organisms, as distinct as mammals from reptiles, species lacking in any respective, mutual congruence. On this account, while the implications of Leibniz's "The Pursuit of Happiness" are even more profound than the difference in species defined by the language of the Preamble of the U.S. Federal Constitution, the two conceptions, that of the Declaration of Independence and Preamble of the Federal Constitution, are broadly equivalent in direction of intention, and are both adversaries of anything which might pass for the relatively reptilian quality of what passes for a British "constitution." The British and American systems are not only as different as ice cream and swamp-bred mud pies, but essentially so antagonistic that the one could not tolerate the other, let alone mate successfully. They are different species of existence.

To be specific, compare the U.S. Constitution's Preamble with the model of the enhanced Pantheon of the system of empire under either the Pantheon of Julian the Apostate or, the comparable Island of Dr. Moreau of author H.G. Wells. Wells himself is highly significant as an illustrative case of the depravity to which I refer.[6]

The Case of H.G. Wells

Wells' career began, essentially as an assistant to the notorious Thomas Huxley, the grandfather of the notable Aldous and Julian Huxley associated with The Open Conspiracy of the H.G. Wells of the 1920s and 1930s, the Satanist witch-doctor Aleister Crowley of LSD pre-history and the Lucifer (Lucis) cult, all together with Bertrand Russell, and with the George Orwell of 1984 notoriety. Here, in this set of British associations, we meet the heritage of the Satanic relics of Babylon, or of the Delphic Gaea and her chopped-up consort Python, or her Apollo-Dionysus cults. (What a pack of "Dick Tracy" or "Batman"-like characters!)

Seeds of the form of moral corruption typified by the closely knit circles of British Brigadier John Rawlings Rees, the pro-Satan Aleister Crowley, H.G. Wells, and Bertrand Russell, were already present in a significant degree around the circles of Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Ku Klux Klan associate Woodrow Wilson, as among the circles of the family of Averell Harriman during the 1920s and the pro-fascist circles in the U.S.A. of the 1930s; but, with the incumbency of what President Franklin Roosevelt would have considered the virtually treasonous President Harry S Truman, the flood of the kind of British kookery associated with Rees, Crowley, Wells, and Bertrand Russell increased to the degree of virtually taking over relevant sections of U.S. academic and intelligence operations linked to the "white shoe" circles left over from war-time intelligence operations during World War II.[7]

The entirety of the so-called "environmentalist" and related cultish movements in and out of U.S. government circles presently, is a product of this, chiefly British, subversion of notable governmental, academic, and other relevant institutions of the U.S.A., including a large, largely brainwashed-greenie part of the Democratic Party apparatus, today, especially the foundation-linked, anti-"blue collar" parts tied closely to the circles of Bertrand Russell's ideological kiss-breeches today. Here, we encounter the British imperial slime-mold factor in subversive action against almost everything which the establishment of our republic had represented. Are these accomplices treasonous, or something even worse than treasonous, something virtually Satanic? Whatever might be said on that account, the fact is, that the "green factor" traceable to the modern neo-malthusianism of Princes Philip, Charles, and the late ex-Nazi Bernhard, is the principal means of policy by which our United States is being destroyed by such virtually Satanic invasions today. That is the relevant issue to be addressed by our citizens generally.

Such is the crucial slime-mold factor in the British Empire's use of such morally degenerated creatures as those deployed to bring our republic down from within.

2. Leibniz Versus Descartes

Among the causes for the prevalent incompetence of the so-called economics profession, more or less world-wide today, is that, despite the great advances in physical science since the revival of ancient dynamics in a modern form by Gottfried Leibniz,[8] the prevalent thinking about economy today is still in the contrary, relatively primitive, essentially Cartesian mode at best, with no account made for the relevant accomplishments of the Gaspard Monge-Lazare Carnot circles of France's Ecole Polytechnique, the circles of Carl F. Gauss, and of Lejeune Dirichlet and Bernhard Riemann, and, still later, the related, actual discoveries of Max Planck and Albert Einstein.

That, unfortunately, is not the worst of the failures of the current economics profession.

There has been, in fact, a sharp regression to the mechanistic primitivism of Ernst Mach, the extreme, deconstructionist depravity launched by Bertrand Russell's part in the Principia Mathematica, and the consequent moral as much as scientific depravity of the implicitly neo-Malthusian school of Cambridge systems analysis associated with promotion of anti-humanist, holistic mysticism. Not only is the idea of science-driver progress absent from the customary practice of the academically based ranks of the economics profession, the practice has degenerated to a purely monetarist form of statistical dogma, thus causing the practice of economics to degenerate to the brutish level of a statistical sociology. Hence the incompetence of all of my putative rivals among statistical economists, especially prize-winning ones, and also governments, on the matter of long-ranging forecasting.

On these and kindred accounts, it might be said, that the idea that something might be better, such as a daughter's choice of a marsupial as her husband, simply because this represents an interesting, current novelty in taste, such choices, such as the popularized neo-malthusian fads of former Vice-President Al Gore and his patrons of the British royal house today, ought to have been banned from the practice of science—and statecraft—long ago.

To complete the preliminaries for this chapter, I emphasize that we are presently returning, here, to the same subject of dynamics as in the preceding chapter's summary of the crucial characteristics of the so-called British empire, but this time from a positive standpoint. That is not to propose that there are good dynamics, as distinct from bad ones; all processes in the known universe, whether non-living, living (i.e., the Biosphere), or human (the Noösphere), good or bad, belong to the subsuming domain of dynamics: the universe is organized in a way reflected in the expressed principle of dynamics.

Look at this from the standpoint of Bernhard Riemann's work. Look at this principle as expressed by the ancient Pythagoreans, Plato, and, later, Eratosthenes, and also from the modern standpoint of (once more) Brunelleschi, Nicholas of Cusa, Leonardo da Vinci, Johannes Kepler, Fermat, Leibniz, Abraham Kästner, Gaspard Monge, Lazare Carnot, Carl F. Gauss, Lejeune Dirichlet, Bernhard Riemann, Planck, Einstein, et al. Take Einstein's crucially significant remarks on the achievements of Kepler and Riemann as a point of reference for all modern science.

Riemann's Revolution

There are two points within the entirety of Riemann's 1854, Göttingen habilitation dissertation, which are of the most crucial, elementary sort of significance, bearing on my remarks at this point within this report. The first point is the ridding of science of the crippling effects of a-priori ontological presumptions, in the opening two paragraphs of the dissertation. The crucial complement to the content of these two paragraphs, is the closing sentence of the dissertation as a whole. When the entirety of the dissertation is considered from the reference-points of those bookends of the beginning and end of the dissertation as a whole, there is an effect like Archimedes' legendary cry of "Eureka," as I experienced this in 1953, an experience like turning on the light in a dark room through which we had been groping our way before that moment.

The result is not a "non-Euclidean" geometry, but an "anti-Euclidean geometry." There is an ontologically crucial distinction between those two choices. With the first, geometry remains within the ontological domain of a-priorism. With the second, geometry is freed from the dark, gloomy prison where modern, troubled mathematician graduates from confusion to the consolations of insanity are found. In contrast, Riemann's escape from the domain of a-priori mathematics, that significance of Kepler's uniquely original, uniquely competent discovery of gravitation becomes increasingly clear, as it appeared so to Albert Einstein's view of the matter.[9]

The question becomes, as for Kepler and for Leibniz's work in developing that notion of the ontologically infinitesimal (e.g., transfinite) of Kepler's discovery of universal gravitation, and as Einstein emphasized this relationship to both Kepler and Riemann.[10] The principle of gravitation bounds the universe, in the sense of containing it. The author of the revolution in perspective, Leonardo da Vinci, would have been greatly amused. Similarly, each true principle of the universe acts, like universal gravitation, to bound that same universe as in the manner of universal gravitation. The existence of the principle lies, thus, as if outside the universe it bounds, thus defining the universe, as Einstein emphasized, as self-bounded in that respect.

To this, Einstein, after Riemann, defined the whole universe as anti-entropic (bounded by a principle of universal anti-entropy), and, thus, without limit in this respect. Thus, the universe is finite, and self-bounded, but without bounds.

This view by Einstein, et al., is coherent with the superior view advanced by Academician V.I. Vernadsky, who introduced the evidence, chiefly from the standpoint of experimental physical chemistry, the evidence which showed that the universe of our knowledgeable experience to date, is partitioned, by two respectively distinct principles, of life, and of creative human cognition, thus defining domains, the Biosphere and Noösphere, respectively, distinct from, but "overlapping" the adducible abiotic domain dynamically.

The anti-entropic characteristics associated with both the Biosphere and Noösphere, define the universe of our experience as anti-entropic—as governed, from the higher level, by a universal principle of anti-entropic action. By anti-entropy, we should signify that the characteristic principle of action which distinguishes healthy human minds from brutish humanoids, is a universal principle of anti-entropy associated with mankind's discovery of governing principles of human action which supersede inferior qualities of belief which had reigned earlier.

This idea of fundamental scientific progress in principle, can be compared with the non-linear character of human progress from relying on simple sunlight, to a succession of relatively higher orders of fuels, from burning of trash, to charcoal, coal, coke, petroleum, hydrogen and closely related gases, nuclear fission, and, beyond. This progress is not to be measured in calories, but in terms of the quality of work in which a superior modality yields greater power of action than the same number of countable calories of a lower order of power of action.

A Lesson from Chlorophyll

Reserving the use of sunlight to promotion of chlorophyll, while relying upon nuclear-fission as a source of power, creates a vastly better environment for human existence than the deserts promoted by diverting Solar radiation from chlorophyll, in order to accomplish nothing so much as to throw the planet into a desert filled with, and defined by the lunacy of intrinsically dead Solar collectors massed, like inorganic effigies of ancient Chinese soldiers in parade formations.

The idea of "Solar power" should warn us that believers in today's so-called "environmentalists" are essentially brutish worshipers of the Olympian Zeus of Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound, or of the bat-loving, Nazi-like Prince Philip of the World Wildlife Fund.[11]

Such are the brutish, mankind-hating lackeys of Prince Philip as lying, perverted, former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore, or the George Soros whose drug-pushing habits of today were formed, according to his own account, when he, as an adolescent, a Jew, was running errands for Nazi mass-murderers of Jews, exactly as the late Ben Hecht described the Perfidy in which adolescent Soros had become a part. Then, as an adolescent, Soros ran errands for the Nazis; an experience he has repeatedly refused to regret, when challenged on this point in public interviews. Today he employs the same putrid instinct on behalf of the British Empire's drug-pushers, who evidently admire the connection between Soros' experience in such skills. Vice-President Al Gore's brutish defense of Soros against Malaysia, shows the essential, despicable kinship of Gore and Soros today.

Such are the Sun-worshipers and leading drug-pushers of our present times.

It is of crucial importance that we recognize the systemic connection between the feverish incompetence of many among our contemporary university science departments, such as those still prostituting themselves to teaching the Newton myth, and toleration for the kinds of evil which the viciously brutish habits of George Soros and Al Gore typify, on such accounts.

We are presently approaching seven billions living human individuals on this planet, unless types such as George Soros and Al Gore succeed in assisting Prince Philip's prominently and repeatedly avowed, Nazi-like intent to reduce the population to two billions, or less, to realization. Measures such as the WTO and granting patents on principles of living organisms to Monsanto, merely typify the steps toward genocide expressed by what "globalization" and "post-Westphalian," variously British and brutish forms of fascism represent today. Perhaps the worst of all offenses against decency, is the tendency, like the legendary indifference to smoke-stacks in Nazi Germany, to tolerate, or even admire those who are, in fact, practicing such services on behalf of global genocide today.

The ability of the human species to rise above the potential population densities, and civilization of the higher apes, resides entirely in those creative powers of the individual human mind through which mankind has discovered those universal physical principles on which the distinction between people and cage-fulls of brutish rhesus monkeys, or adult chimpanzees depends.

Thus, mankind is both set above all other things in the Biosphere, but, is, at the same time, obliged to employ uniquely human discoveries of ever-higher universal physical principles. The requirement, as I have noted in other locations, is to increase the potential relative population-density of the human race, by means which enhance the Biosphere per square kilometer of surface-area of our Earth. It is this absolute distinction of mankind, and its obligations to the universe, on which the very continued existence of mankind depends.

However, the essential thing which sets mankind absolutely above all lower forms of life, is the human mind's qualifications for performing this assigned mission. The more such human minds, so dedicated, the greater the benefit to all mankind, and, doubtless, to our Solar System as well.


The principal cause of disasters, within each known culture of the world, still today, has been the lack of a consciousness of that quality of creativity which does not exist for any species but mankind. The consequent tendency has been, to situate man as if man were merely another animal species dwelling in a Biosphere, but not what Academician V.I. Vernadsky chose to name the Noösphere. In reality, the planet Earth, including the Biosphere, exists within the Noösphere, rather than the Noösphere within the Biosphere. Nonetheless, the prevalent view is that man is, in effect, just another type of animal, albeit a talking animal.

This corrected view of humanity, as containing the Biosphere functionally, rather than living within the Biosphere, is now assuming the form of a precondition for much chance of anything which could be considered as "normal human life" on this planet. That is to say: the view of the planet as one in which man, as made in the likeness of the Creator, determines what the Biosphere must become, rather than man adapting to the Biosphere's requirements.

The failure of most of humanity, and most cultures, is to be recognized as rooted in the effects of what the great tragedian Aeschylus described, in his Prometheus Bound, as the reign of the Olympian Zeus over mortal mankind. Another expression of the same mortal failure extant among typical present states of cultures, is the form of Sophistry known as Aristoteleanism; the alternate expression of the equivalent defect in cultures, is to be seen in Sarpian empiricism and its derivatives.

In European theology, this case against Aristotle is stated by Philo of Alexandria in the following terms.

Aristotle argued, blasphemously, that if the Creator's creation of the universe were perfect, then the Creator himself could not alter that Creation once it had occurred. This argument is equivalent, theologically, to the insistence that the universe is governed by a thermodynamic principle of universal entropy (i.e., a "second law of thermodynamics"). Aristotle thus employed the same Sophist falsehood expressed by the Olympian Zeus of Prometheus Bound, as Johannes Kepler presented the proof against Aristotle (and Claudius Ptolemy) for Astronomy.

This principle of creativity is demonstrated by the increase of the potential human population-density, relative to the higher apes. By no means is this effect limited to post facto statistics; the science of physical economy provides us what may be fairly described as exact knowledge of how this gain by the human species occurs.

In this way, the portion of the total mass of the Noösphere is increasing, relative to the Biosphere, as the percentile of the total mass of the Biosphere is increasing relative to the abiotic mass of the Earth. The rate of increase of the mass of the Noösphere is conditional upon relevant rates of increase of the Biosphere, both per capita of human life, and also upon the increase of the Biosphere relative to the total mass of the planet.

These required increases are, in turn, dependent upon mankind's discovery and employment of new physical principles. These principles are associated, in a general way, with an increase of the power of human action as measurable in such forms as decrease of the cross-sectional area of the pathway through which a standard quantity of action is transmitted. This may be translated for convenience into a measurement called "energy-flux density." This increase is typified by the term of convenience, "energy flux-density." Hence a low-density form of power, such as solar radiation at Earth's surface, is qualitatively inferior to the same number of calories along a channel with a smaller cross-section. So, chlorophyll is qualitatively superior to sunlight, and so on. It is through scientific progress to this effect, that the Earth is transformed in organization to the effect of both maintaining and enhancing the preconditions for human life.

This defines the Noösphere as superior to the Biosphere, and defines man, not the so-called "natural environment," as the governing principle of any sane and moral form of society.

This is the principle which must govern each and every wise nation and people of this planet over all sane society henceforth, in all times to come.

[1] That World Wildlife Fund's pro-genocidal neo-malthusian cult launched by the Duke of Edinburgh and his partner the former Waffen-SS member Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, was chiefly the product of the influence of the most evil man of the Twentieth Century, the Bertrand Russell who proposed nuclear warfare in September 1946, and who had also launched the relevant cult of Cambridge systems analysis.

[2] See Bernhard Riemann's 1854 habilitation dissertation, especially the opening two paragraphs, plus the dissertation's closing sentence.

[3] Latin: Occam. (e.g. "quasi-Cartesian").

[4] Concordancia Catholica.

[5] There is no essential difference in the meaning between this term dynamics and the dynamis of the Pythagoreans and Plato.

[6] There is nothing surprising in the congruence of H.G. Wells' youthful apprenticeship under T.H. Huxley, and both the conception underlying the plot of The Island of Dr. Moreau, Wells' adult role as a leader of the Fabian Society, and Wells' later ventures such as The Open Conspiracy and his The Shape of Things to Come.

[7] With the breakthrough against the Nazi forces at Normandy, the old gang of Anglo-American backers of both Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, from Wall Street and London crawled out of their warrens, to force President Franklin Roosevelt to accept a representative of the Wall Street-centered pro-fascist gang, such as the Brown Brothers Harriman gang represented by the grandfather of the current U.S. President George W. Bush, Senator Harry S Truman, as President Roosevelt's selection as Vice-President. Roosevelt's early death resulted in a sweeping reversal of crucial features of President Roosevelt's intention for post-war reconstruction in a war-torn world.

[8] And the crucial discoveries of Kepler and Fermat earlier.

[9] Cf.: Einstein-Born debate for related points. See EIR, Dec. 23, 2005, pp. 64-66.

[10] Re: ontologically infinitesimal. Either through intentional fraud, or, perhaps, acquired incompetence, a decadent Leonhard Euler of the mid-Eighteenth Century, was either incapable of understanding the Leibniz calculus, or was lying opportunistically, as, for example, a matter of enjoying favor with the reductionist circles of the notorious Cartesian circles of Voltaire, de Moivre, D'Alembert, et al. Euler took a brutishly crude view of the matter, in misrepresenting the Leibniz infinitesimal as a matter of smallness in Cartesian space-time; the Leibniz infinitesimal is not mathematical, but ontological, and thus dynamic. That is, any true universal principle is efficiently a principle of the universe which contains the domain of the relevant physical action: it contains the relevant physical phase-space-time, whose effect may be found in a range smaller then any you might choose to imagine: since it bounds the universe, in that respect, ontologically, as an all-bounding principle of that physical phase-space does, dynamically.

[11] One recalls the motion-picture recorded scene of Hermann Göring seated amid the neo-malthusian Sun-worshipers at a late 1920s Nazi Party rural retreat.

Back to top