WAS DORIAN GRAY AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL?:
How London Goes Down
by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
February 17, 2009
Russia's sub-prime Minister Kudrin returned to Moscow from discussions in London, proffering a London-steered scheme designed, in effect, to sink the United States, and Russia, too. For a few years now, such a policy has been the odd-ball line of thinking advanced by what must seem to some to be no more than a small set of London's Germany-based devotees, known as Solon-line. Putting both that group and Minister Kudrin into retirement, would be clearly no loss to the cause of civilization. Russia, however, must play a necessary part, together with the U.S.A., China and India, and others, in a global recovery-program for mankind generally, a program echoing U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt's anti-Keynesian, Bretton Woods policy, an effort which must be launched, soon, from the U.S.A.
The point of mentioning the strange coincidence of Kudrin and tiny Solon-line in this location, is that the effect of their intended role would take them, too, into the Hell they would have brought upon themselves. Oscar Wilde would have been sadly amused.
I Warned Them
The issue is the behavior of, apparently, all presently leading governments and virtually all presumed economists of the world, who have failed to face the most essential aspect of the reality of what is a now the accelerating, onrushing breakdown-crisis of all of the entire world's economies. One might think that this cruel fact would have provoked an outburst of resistance against the present system from among the people of those nations generally. On the surface of things, it would appear that one of the most likely among the immediate dangers to humanity from this crisis, would be a recent general tendency for the early spread of extremely brutish, fascist-like governments among ruling institutions, not only in Britain, but in most nations, including the leadership of Congress in the U.S.A., and in western and central Europe.
Ironically, the good news amid all this is, that, probably, as I shall show in the following report, there is no marginal interval of time now available for any development but, either that correction, as defined by me, which must be consolidated during the very short, remaining interval between the already bankrupt condition of virtually all leading nations of the world, on the one side, and, on the other side, the British empire's self-inflicted lurch into into a planet-wide dark age, a collapse, on a global scale, into something worse than that of Europe's infamous, Fourteenth Century "New Dark Age."
That means, that the crucial fact of the present situation is, that the global crisis which broke out, exactly as I had forecast in my July 25, 2007 webcast, has been no "recession," nor mere "depression." What we are experiencing, is a currently onrushing, self-inflicted, systemic, general, physical breakdown-crisis of every part of this planet as a whole, without exception. Under present trends in policy, there is no part of the world which could recover, in our present time, from the presently onrushing general breakdown-crisis. The planet could be saved from this crisis, but only by actions which would have the included effect of ridding us of that Liberal disease of monetarism, which is now killing all the nations of the planet. Any different view of the present situation by any part of this planet, would be a consoling delusion.
However, there are remedies. The needed remedies include, eradicating the existence of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal monetary system itself. Unless all existing monetary systems among leading nations are destroyed, by being replaced by the kind of fixed-exchange-rate credit-system inherent in the U.S. Federal Constitution, there is no chance for a continuation of civilized life on this planet; we are already gripped by an accelerating slide into the course of a presently accelerating dive into a planet-wide new dark age.
Thus, the current behavior of most among the present governments is to be compared to a driver accelerating down a very steep hill into a crossing below, without knowing that the vehicle's brakes have already ceased to function. He, like most of the world's presently installed governments, is certain that he might be able to manage the situation, and would probably never discover that he had failed.
To understand this crucial, present situation of the planet as a whole, we must begin by the preliminary step of tracing the history of the rise of fascism in European history since eighty-six years ago, in Italy. Yet, today's threat goes far beyond fascism, with effects which would be potentially far, far worse. Now, more than a year-and-a-half since my July 25, 2007 forecast, that general collapse of the planet as a whole, against which I had warned then, has come on rapidly, while the highest-ranking fools of this planet are tearing that world economy apart with their hyper-inflationary follies of "bail-out" and "stimulation," always fanatically, like some fabled Rumpelstiltskins, themselves.
It would be a mistake to suggest that there is not a definitely strong element of an intended drive toward fascism in the current policy-trends of leading nations, including the British system in Europe, or the antics of the last months of the President George W. Bush Administration inside the U.S.A.. Those trends are already clear; my qualifying point here, is that the system is now already scheduled to disintegrate before that fascist system could be consolidated in the sense it had been in Europe during the interval between the so-called two "World Wars" of the last century.
The crucial point about the present crisis is, that this crisis is something even far worse than that wave of trends toward fascist states which is, admittedly, presently underway; we are being hit by the threat of a general and essentially immediate, planet-wide breakdown-crisis, far worse than even that of Europe's mid-to-late Fourteenth Century. It is hurtling against us, now, coming on very fast, and at an accelerating rate. Already, there is no possibility of an economic recovery of the present national financial systems in their present form, ever again.
The Issue of Synarchism
Nonetheless, the fact persists, that, to all intents, when the fact of that crash is put, hypothetically, momentarily to one side, the present trend in international and nations' internal affairs, is showing all the principal economic and related symptoms of an oncoming form of what became known as fascism in 1920s Italy, and what had been actually developed in 19th-Century France under the name of the "synarchist" movement.
That was the synarchist movement which had developed about the close of the 1860s and beginning of the 1870s. That form of synarchism which was recognized as "fascism," was originally introduced, later, as a label for the form of synarchism which the British asset and Venetian financier, veteran of London's "Young Turk" operation, Volpi di Misurata, brought into Italy during the early 1920s. The selection of the trade-style "fascism" as a name for a synarchist scheme in 1922 Italy then, was a choice based on the intent to present an obvious appeal to memory of the legendary Roman imperial legions. In turn, Nazism was the intentionally Wagnerian-flavored brand-name supplied to bring the so-called fascist model of synarchism from Italy, into Germany, and also back into the occupation of France. That French government was, frankly, the synarchist formation which had arranged the victory of the Wehrmacht over what was, technically, a relatively superior military force of the French nation.
It is important to recognize the symptoms of fascism of which Prescott Bush would have been proud, in cases such as the 2001 inauguration of his worse than foolish grandson, President George W. Bush, Jr.
The importance of emphasizing this Bush heritage, is that we should recall, that, after the 1929 U.S. stock-market "crash," what had become known as fascism during the 1920s was about to take over in the United States. Fascism would have taken over the U.S.A. then, but for the election and inauguration of President Franklin Roosevelt. The right-wing, anti-Roosevelt movement led by the Wall Street financier interests during the 1930s, was intended to achieve a fascist takeover of the U.S. government, even by an intended military seizure of power by Wall Street interests. The same trend toward fascism has been clearly expressed recently in President George H.W. Bush's collusion with British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the matter of Germany's reunification. It is to be recognized, recently, in the two successive terms of President George W. Bush, Jr., that the Bush impulse toward creating a new fascist system has persisted, inside the U.S.A. and elsewhere today; the policies of "bail out" and "stimulus" of recent cases, such as those of the Bush Administration and the often simian-like antics of U.S. Democratic Representative Barney Frank, have typified this trend.
It is important to recall, that during the interval of the 1920s and 1930s, fascism had become an active force inside London itself, even into the ranks of the monarchy. This included the official British fascists' role as a spin-off from the Fabian Society of H.G. Wells and his ilk, and as also expressed, nakedly, in the avowed 1937 intention of John Maynard Keynes. This pattern in the 1930s had been preceded by efforts introduced, also from London, into the U.S.A. through Wall Street and related circles, as introduced by Wall Street and related sympathies for Mussolini and Hitler, by the leading adversaries of what Franklin Roosevelt represented, during both the 1920s and 1930s. Not surprisingly, this pattern continued throughout the 1930s, up to the time of Italy's joining the Wehrmacht "Blitzkrieg" in France; a moment when Britain's Winston Churchill had deftly abandoned his adopted Italian protege, Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini.
Today, we must recognize the current influence of the same synarchist trend in the U.S. circles which had been associated with circles of the faithful followers of the tradition of Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Those two U.S. Presidents were second-generation products of the British-directed Confederacy's attempt to destroy the U.S.A.; they were, in historical fact, traitors of the type which also qualified as later supporters of the same synarchist tradition also expressed by the 1920s Italian and German sympathizers of Mussolini and Hitler. London's assets reigning in Wall Street, constituted a nest of such enemies of the United States' Constitution during the 1920s and 1930s, including names from among those of the circles of the principal targets of the 1930s Pecora Commission investigations. Prescott Bush, the London-steered man who was assigned to release the Anglo-American funds to assist Adolf Hitler into power, had committed that act on behalf of his employers (both the Bank of England's Montagu Norman and Brown Brothers, Harriman), who were leading members of the same pack from among leading Anglo-American backers of fascism.
For most relevant, ironical reasons, the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japan which had been a British ally against the U.S.A. since no later than 1894, turned out to be a momentary great embarrassment for the anglophile, pro-fascist, Wall Street enemies of President Franklin Roosevelt's 1930s and early 1940s U.S.A.; but, those European and U.S. fascist enemies of President Franklin Roosevelt remained a credible force, despite their embarrassment over the Pearl Harbor attack. They remained an active political force in the background throughout the 1942-1945 period. They reappeared on the streets in newly chosen habitual guises, returning to the surface of visibly leading positions of influence, from about the time of the events at Normandy in June 1944. With the death of President Franklin Roosevelt and the inauguration of President Harry Truman, the lurking fascist circles inside the U.S.A. slid into a nearly controlling political position in the U.S.A., throughout the terms of the Truman Administration, and have remained a stubbornly persisting, and growing, Wall Street related factor, as they have been since the riots of 1968 and the election of President Nixon, until now.
It was not only fascist nations of the past, but, rather, the persistence of this presently global, fascist threat, which has been a principal factor in world politics since the interval of London's appointment of Napoleon III to reign as London's agent over France. The source of the threat, in whatever nation it has arisen as a ruling political influence, was never spontaneous. During this time, synarchism, fascism, and their offshoots, have always remained essentially a disease spread to other nations by the British Empire, as it had been when the British Foreign Office's Lord Palmerston inserted his asset, Napoleon III, into the government of France.
Sometimes the British government is fascist itself, as the case of former Prime Minister Tony Blair suggests that intention. At other times, they spread that disease only to their intended victims. After all, a true empire is not a cause; it is a system of reign over, and management of its current and intended victims, all in the tradition of the British launching, and management of the pre-February 1763 Seven Years War.
Since 'World War II'
In 1945, the head of O.S.S., General Donovan, came out from his last visit to President Franklin Roosevelt's White House office, reporting softly, and sadly, to his associate: "It's over." As Donovan expressed his fear then, Wall Street- and London-centered forces have dominated U.S. political life, including the leading news media, top-down, since that time. Thus, through twelve of the most recent twenty years, a son and grandson of Prescott Bush had come, as if in succession, to serve that family tradition of one-time Hitler backer Prescott Bush, in their positions of misleadership in and around the U.S. Presidency.
For my part in all this, I became a conscious part of the battle against the looming surge of post-World War II, British-organized fascism, in the setting of Spring 1946 Calcutta, that shortly before I returned from my overseas duties of 1945-1946 in Asia. The latter was during a time when, for special reasons, I had made an immediate personal commitment, to myself, which has led me more and more, and continuing up to this present moment, nearly sixty-three years later, into my defending the U.S. interest which had been betrayed by Harry Truman, and many others, including our Bush-leaguers still today, since the death of President Franklin Roosevelt.
Until the mid-1960s, my public political role as such was all but rarely marginal, but the developments of that twenty-odd-year interval until that period of my more active role in economics-rooted political-intelligence activity since the mid-1960s, have come to show that my political commitment of the 1946-1965 interval, has turned out to have been necessary preparation for my increasingly significant role in becoming a prominent intelligence specialist during the course of the 1966-2009 interval to date.
Since 1966, my associates and I have often taken abuse from those against whom I have fought for that cause. This abuse has included betrayal by those who, after they had descended to levels below the rank of former friends, went over to the adversary camp, out of such apparent motives as fear, greed, pleasure in perversion, or a combination from among such impulses—although I had done actually nothing of which anyone could justly say I should be ashamed in carrying forward the intention which I had adopted in Spring 1946. Such defections are an effect, a frictional cost, to be expected in any really serious political effort.
In fact, I have had some happy occasions when I was able to strike at least an apparently small, but timely blow for civilization against my republic's imperialist enemies. Those were enemies who were centered chiefly in the international drug trade's traditional and continuing financial center, in London, as I fight, still, against such monstrously evil men and women as George Soros and Soros's crony, Lord Malloch Brown, now. It is the ability to continue to carry that fight to the enemy, however long and difficult the path which that effort requires, which prepares the surviving political leadership for the duties which the obligations for victory would impose upon it.
Now: Amity Shlaes' Lies
Against the background which I have just summarized so, the barrages of today's wildly lying attacks on the 1930s role of U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt, are to be seen as currently typified by a sort of lying scoundrel who is otherwise a known public figure associated with the historically pro-fascist American Enterprise Institute, Amity Shlaes. Shlaes, who first came to my personal attention through the London Financial Times of January 3, 2005, and also turns up in the chatter around the pair of Felix Rohatyn-linked Senator Christopher Dodd and Representative Barney Frank.
Both Dodd and Frank have played a key part, by sabotaging my draft Homeowners and Bank Protection Act legislation which would have prevented the worst developments our nation has suffered during the past year and a half. Worse, it has been the role of that latter pair, which typifies the causes for the consequent plunging of the U.S. financial and political system into its present state of a U.S. wild-eyed descent into what is now already the biggest, and, now, probably the deepest plunge into bankruptcy in known world history to date. Of course, they were acting merely as agents, but that consideration does not diminish their culpability.
Shlaes is notable because she is not an exception to the escalating set of lying attacks on the memory of President Franklin Roosevelt, attacks which have been unleashed by forces determined to intimidate President Barack Obama and others into submission to a course of action which would, in its effect, not merely plunge the U.S.A. into a hopeless state of bankruptcy, but create the preconditions for the nation's political disintegration.
To really understand both Shlaes and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), one should look back to the roots of the AEI among the pro-fascist circles of influence in the U.S.A. back during the 1930s. Notably, Shlaes' lies represent a totally fraudulent representation of the actual state of affairs back during those 1930s, a fraudulent representation which is consistent with those pro-fascist policies and roles against which our patriots fought back then.
The lies of Shlaes and others of her type only typify that noxious tradition of London-steered, Wall Street-style of thieving fascism in America, as in Europe, at the present time. Unfortunately, she is by no means the only avowed, lying adversary of U.S. President Obama from such traditionally pro-fascist quarters. There are notables such as George Shultz's frankly fascist crony Felix Rohatyn and Britain's and the world's currently biggest and most evil dope pusher, Lord Malloch Brown's associate, the global drug-trafficker George Soros, whose shameless characteris expressed in his service to British operations today, and who, according to his own confession, formed his present, personally depraved character, in his youthful evil, if auxiliary service to the Hitler machine's mass murder of Jews.
I. London, like Dorian Gray
That much said to set the stage, my subject here is the question some people will ask: "Could London win?" Not really.
London's chances, unless it suddenly improves its ways very much for the better, are similar to those of the, similarly, once triumphalist, Fourteenth-Century, Lucca-based, Lombard banking-house of Bardi. Like Venice's Lombard bankers of that former time, today's London and its Wall Street cronies, with their financial-derivatives swindles, have been playing out a present-day imperial parody of Europe's mid-Fourteenth-Century financiers, and are on the road toward an early arrival at the same deadly destination, a "new dark age," as Fourteenth-century Europe had been.
I do not presume that imperial London actually intended something exactly like the presently probable outcome of its own disintegration to happen. What is onrushing against the British empire now, would happen as did the doom of the Don Giovanni of the Mozart opera, or, perhaps, as doom had come to the corpse of some stinking opossum. Contrary to the silly romantics of academic life and other sophist opinion today, London's probable, ultimate fate today, has been a tragic destiny, like all such victims of their own, truly tragic destinies, none of which are the victim of a personal error of one person, or several individuals, but are controlled by what is bred into the adopted nature of the species-like quality common to the relevant strata of that culture as a whole. The keystone of my argument on this account, is my focus on the nature of such hapless creatures of such a culture, such as Oscar Wilde's putatively fictional character Dorian Gray.
The meaning of those words of mine on the subject of tragedy, just stated above, is to be placed in what have been my rather frequent references, over many decades, to the concluding paragraphs of Percy B. Shelley's A Defence of Poetry. I have identified the epistemological significance of that concluding paragraph of his poetic essay, as located in that concept of dynamics which the Gottfried Leibniz of the 1690s adduced from the dynamis of the ancient Pythagoreans and Plato.
Leibniz had introduced this notion of dynamics, then, in his denunciation of the frauds which underlie the specific form of that same reductionist method of Paolo Sarpi which permeates and underlies the scientific fraud which underlies all of the doctrine of both Sarpi follower Rene Descartes, and Descartes' own followers. Descartes, in turn, is echoed by that similarly a-prioristic, mechanistic echo of Euclid, which permeates the argument of the Eighteenth-century empiricists such as Abraham de Moivre, Jean D'Alembert, Leonhard Euler, Joseph Lagrange, and, also, by such typical Nineteenth Century science-misfortunates as the devotees of Pierre-Simon Laplace, Augustin Cauchy, Rudolf Clausius, and Hermann Grassmann. The Eighteenth-century empiricists and their followers, included such as David Hume, Adam Smith, and Immanuel Kant, and, in the Nineteenth Century, Adam Smith's avowed devotee, Karl Marx.
Shelley's use of the name and concept of "the imagination," is not fanciful in any way. On the contrary, it refers to the fact that the powers of sense-perception, powers which reductionists such as the empiricists and usual populists raise to the status of a deity, are merely powers of sense-perception, comparable in their function to that of the scientific instruments of the laboratory, which do their work, but, contrary to the damaged Bertrand Russell creations John von Neumann and Professor Norbert Wiener, are not themselves the substance of competent scientific thinking.
The reality associated with experimental use of scientific and comparable instruments lies, as with the discoveries to which Helen Keller was led, within the expressions of cognitive powers, the powers of cognitive insight of the human mind, the power to decipher the reality of that process in motion which subsumes the virtual mere footprints of sensory experience (i.e., dynamics). Her efficient discoveries of the real world, are to be compared with the example of Johannes Kepler's uniquely original discovery of the principle of the ontological actuality of a universal principle of gravitation, the discovery which Newton merely asserted, fraudulently, to be his own, but was incapable of defining in the terms of actual physical-scientific discoveries. Kepler's discovery of this ontological actuality, is that detailed in his The Harmonies of the World, and, as Albert Einstein explained Kepler's discovery of gravitation, as no follower of Newton, or Newton himself, ever could.
The Historic Role of Shelley in This
Percy Bysshe Shelley's emphasis on the efficient reality of that power of insight to which he points as being expressed by the creative power of "the imagination," is to be compared with, and also integrated into Albert Einstein's view of Kepler's founding of modern physical science as what Einstein recognized as a Riemannian conception of the implications of the founding of a generality of modern experimental science by Johannes Kepler. It is that specific notion of cognitive insight into the experimentally provable domain of an unseen "object" which casts the shadows called sense-perception, the unseen, but real object, the matter of universal principle, to which Shelley refers as the subject of "the imagination."
The systemic failure, as by actual scientists, or merely nominal scientists from among the apologists for Newton, is the same systemic incompetence which has misled the putatively leading economists of the world as a whole into both creating, and defending the methods which have played a leading influence in the leading of the present world into the presently onrushing breakdown-crisis of our planetary economic system as a whole.
The practical implication of those distinctions which I have just emphasized here and now, is that they reflect the human mastery of the challenge of maintaining and increasing the potential relative population-density of the human species, a kind of achievement which depends absolutely on the development of that power of insight to which Shelley refers in the presently referenced location. He refers to the power of "the imagination": the crafting of those mental images which correspond to what the principle of unique physical experiments defines as both universal physical principles and related subject-matters. The failure of the economists on this account, represents exactly the same issue of the systemic incompetence of the opponents of Kepler, Leibniz, Riemann, Max Planck, et al. in every branch of scientific inquiry. They lack any comprehension of that specific physical principle which underlies the physical-economic increase of those productive powers of labor as measurable in effects per capita and per square kilometer.
So, the principle of ancient Egyptian and related "Greek" science, dynamis, pertains to phenomena which correspond to the power of the human mind to discover the existence and efficiency of those principles which are expressed in practice by the power of humanity to increase its species' potential relative population-density, as no lower form of ecology's life can do this. The essential, and pervasive, systemic incompetence of virtually all leading accountants and economists of recent times, is expressed essentially in their inability to understand the way in which, in particular, post-1945 economies have become systemically characterized by a process, especially since 1968, which has led humanity in general, step by step, into that declining trend in productive powers which I was able to foresee and forecast, where every other leading, known economist and related sorts of specialists have failed, on this point, so far.
To restate that crucial point: the collapse of the U.S.A.'s economy, and that of most of the world besides, was already fully underway by Spring 1968. It was not a recent development; rather, the fact of this trend was variously overlooked, or denied over the course of those four decades, since 1968, when the trend should have been already recognized by any actually competent and honest economist. Worse, the causes for that collapse have not merely continued to shape the direction of the economy of the world considered as a whole; but, the rate of collapse has been accelerated by each and all of the so-called reforms of the world economy introduced as supposed remedies, ever since.
Just so, instead of adopting my July-August measures which would have brought the ongoing collapse of the U.S. economy to a halt, virtual idiots, such as Senator Dodd and Representative Barney Frank, led the charge in transforming, maliciously, what could have been a manageable crisis, had my 2007 Homeowners and Bank Protection Act been allowed to go ahead, rather than suffer the hare-brained and malicious insanity typified by the actions of Representative Barney Frank. Speak, thus, of the doctors and advocates of the majority of the economics profession, as echoed by the actions of Barney Frank, whose proposed remedies for others are their own diseases.
Here in the case of both Dodd and Frank, and their accomplices, we meet a typification of the principle of tragedy implicit in my references to Shelley's A Defence of Poetry.
Those who are entrusted with power, since their selection for positions of power is based on a presumption of their fitness to represent, even vigorously, a currently ruling body of what is demonstrated to have been, an inherently failed opinion, as Dodd and Frank merely illustrate such cases, typify the true principle of Classical tragedy exposed by such great dramatists as Aeschylus, Shakespeare, Lessing, and Friedrich Schiller. True tragedy is a mass effect of the type lying properly under the subject-heading of dynamics, as Leibniz emphasized, and as Bernhard Riemann's 1854 habilitation dissertation has been, in fact, the most liberating of all of the discoveries of principle in modern science. Tragic ends occur because follies are considered to represent an obligation to submit to, and serve whatever chances to be ruling political, or merely academic opinion.
It is erroneous popular opinion cloaked with ruling authority, such as morally and intellectually depraved, but reigning cultural traits, which has been the root of tragedy, both as the subject in Classical drama, and in actual history.
Tragedy in Physical Science & Economy
The most commonplace source of disorientation spread among what are otherwise even excellent modern scientific thinkers, has been the gigantic fraud which the followers of Paolo Sarpi perpetrated against the work of Johannes Kepler, a fraud which they (e.g., the Cartesians) continued against that work of Leibniz which is typified by Leibniz's uniquely original discovery of the form of the calculus: a discovery which had been earlier projected, by Johannes Kepler, as a work to be done by "future mathematicians."
As Albert Einstein emphasized, in his pointing out the way in which Bernhard Riemann's discoveries had made clearer the unique significance of Kepler's work for all modern physical science, competent science "departs the realm of mathematics, for physics." This means, that whereas the followers of Paolo Sarpi had rejected the conception of knowledge of actually universal physical principles, in favor of the ontological fallacy of what are actually, or in effect, merely mathematical formulations, Kepler's uniquely original discovery of a general principle of gravitation, located the existence of universal principles as he defined the discovery of universal gravitation, as Einstein did, as a self-containing, unbounded, but finite universe, rather than being a mathematical formula for measuring observed, Cartesian-like, kinematic connections within the universe. Hence, Einstein's "finite but unbounded," intrinsically anti-entropic universe.
Leibniz's original discovery of the infinitesimal calculus, was a first clear step in this direction, a solution by Leibniz, which had been pre-stated, as a task, by Kepler. The further treatment of this matter by both Leibniz and Jean Bernouilli, reflecting the importance of Fermat's famous discovery, and the subsequent, revolutionary discoveries by Riemann, defined the point which Einstein made on the subject of our universe in general. The point which I am stressing, on the subject of a science of physical economy, in this immediate location, is that the idea of universal gravitation, as appreciated by Einstein, is an exact sample of the kind of true idea of principle to which Shelley referred, on the subject of the imagination, in the concluding paragraph of his A Defence of Poetry.
It is only in those creative powers of discovery, such as Kepler's uniquely original discovery of the universal principle of gravitation, which Shelley would have located in what he defined as the domain of the imagination, that contemporary society would be made capable of recognizing the relevant principle. That is the principle, which I have clearly seen, which has governed the stunning evidence of decline of the potential for human existence, globally, since no later than about 1968.
At the same time, the proof of the spuriousness of the apparent, recent decades' alleged improvements in aspects of the economy of nations which were merely recipients of the supposed benefits of export of production from formerly productive nations to cheap-labor markets, is shown afresh by what had already been, not only the collapse of the economies of the U.S.A. and Europe over the post-1968 interval to date, but also the presently stunning effect of this policy on the onrushing, great, and rapidly deepening, global collapse of the economies of China, Russia, and others, now.
The most recent months', shockingly visible collapse of the economies of weighty nations such as Russia and China, is a reflection of the hopeless condition of the economies of the world as a whole for as long as accommodation to the British imperialist form of monetarist system is continued. Such was the U.S. capitulation to those same ideas of Adam Smith which were wrecking the Soviet economy, the same which, from the death of President John F. Kennedy, on, had caused the U.S.A. to wreck its own economy. For much of this we in the U.S.A. can blame Arthur Burns and his (actually) pro-fascist miscreation, Milton Friedman.
There will never be a recovery of those or other nations, for as long as nations do not abandon the present world monetarist system and its political expression, in favor of a return to the principle of a fixed-exchange-system set forth by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt respecting the Bretton Woods conference, in 1944. In effect, the nations, especially leading nations, have the present choice of accepting that change, as I have proposed it, or accept the doom their decision brings down upon themselves, their children, and the populations in general.
Wisdom lies not in gaining what you, or the egotism within you, might desire, but in succeeding in doing good for mankind, that, especially, for the future representatives of the present population.
On this account, what is probably the worst aspect of the cultural degeneration of the present U.S. population, is the effect of the "Frankfurt School" corruption by what was known in Europe as the post-World War II Congress of Cultural Freedom. Most typical is the existentialism of Martin Heidegger et al., in cutting the threads of Classical modes of cultural continuity which had formerly united successive generations in a sense of shared historic mission into the future. The most notable practical effect of this existentialist cult of Heidegger, Arendt, et al., is the abandonment of a sense of an immortality of a sense of mission, across successive generations, a sense of mission whose expressed substance had been serious ideas, such as ideas of the benefits of scientific progress.
So, the malthusian legacy of Giammaria Ortes, which we see in the mass lunacy of windmills and solar receptors today, is typical of the result of this lack of human morality among the alienated, brain-washed victims of the neo-malthusian cult on younger generations of today.
That the reader might understand the world's present strategic crisis, I have devoted the present chapter of this report, to words to be added now, respecting the present economic crisis, to the content of my earlier reports on that subject. These presently added words take up the most essential elements of the deep background concerning those relevant essentials bearing on the subjects of the origin and nature of that great evil popularly known as the British Empire.
The Origin of Empire
Considering all known history to date from the standpoint of the principle of dynamics, there have been chiefly three kinds of what may be usefully classified as empires. One is the land-based Asia model, typified by the sequelae of Babylon. Another is the maritime-financial empire, as typified by ancient Tyre, and by what became the Roman, Byzantine, and Venetian empires. The third is typified, in reflection, by the special Eurasian form of the former Czarist Russian empire of serfdom, and what had been intended, much earlier, as a joint empire of what had been the subject of negotiations between, on the one side, Philip of Macedon and his Greek advisors, and Persia, on the other. This includes on this list, a current expression of that Venetian empire, that of the Anglo-Dutch-Saudi financier empire of today, the empire of those spawn of that evil Paolo Sarpi who had come around to adopting the somewhat misleading name of "British," when "brutish" would have sufficed.
The crucial issue which virtually no other leading economist, or government of the world appears to have understood, is the implications of the principle of dynamics as reintroduced to modern science by Gottfried Leibniz. All failures of modern economies properly attributable to those professions as such, are failures fairly identified as the influence of the systemic scientific incompetence of that follower of Paolo Sarpi known as Rene Descartes, on whose alleged authority the design of the British monetarist system has depended for its shallow touch of the so-called science of the Sophist's salon. This effect can be attributed largely to the emergence of the dominant role of Sarpi's radiated influence, as through both the impact of France's Louis XIV and the rise of British maritime power during the Eighteenth Century. As Leibniz had identified that problem, earlier, and as Riemann carried that matter forward from Leibniz, the issues posed can be fairly restated as a lack of consideration of the principle of dynamics.
That is the categorical setting of this entire report. However, to make clear the origin and looming, self-inflicted doom of that British empire, we must proceed now from the following remarks.
The Imperialist Legacy
To understand the nature of the British empire, we must recognize the deep origins of that empire as to be located, essentially, in the emergence of a certain class of systems of those actual empires which were based on the Mediterranean and Atlantic models, models which are to be conveniently dated, for purposes of study, from the aftermath of the ruinous Peloponnesian War. Philip of Macedon, et al. had intended this unified, Mediterranean-Asian model of empire, as to be established in the later war which he intended would begin with his attempts to bring about a treaty-organization establishing a system of imperial cooperation between the maritime power of an intended Eurasian empire, centered then in Macedon, with the essentially inland-based Achaemenid Empire.
At this juncture in this report, I am focused on a subject-matter which had been a subject of research and related discussions by me among our associates, held over an interval of nearly four decades to the present date. This represents the included factor of my consideration and endorsement of the fruit of many contributions and criticisms of those associates and their sources. For the end-result of that process over decades to present date, I assume accountability, but not the exclusive credit, as follows.
That attempt by Philip of Macedon ended after that killing of Philip which was prompted by the seemingly irrelevant issue of justice for the victim of an act of sodomy within Philip's court, and prompted by the subsequent process leading to the replacement of the deceased Philip by Alexander the Great. This Alexander, the enemy of Aristotle, had highly relevant, historically and strategically, links, by family ties, to the ancient maritime culture of a Cyrenaica which would be associated later with the great Eratosthenes. Alexander's own assassination, sought by Aristotle, and accomplished by his poisoning as a dinner guest, led to divisions of the power of the region around the Mediterranean.
This division of such powers continued, apparently without resolution, until the intervention of the priests of the Cult of Mithra, who played a crucial part in discussions held on the Isle of Capri, discussions held with the Octavian who would come to be known as the Roman Emperor Augustus Caesar. Those latter negotiations created the agreement establishing what was to become a single Roman Empire based, essentially, on a fusion of the combined oligarchical forces of Rome, Egypt, and Southwest Asia.
Since that first establishment of the Roman Empire, the dominant power in the world as a whole had been the maritime culture based on the Mediterranean, until the emergence of the Paolo Sarpi-crafted, Anglo-Dutch Liberal form of imperial maritime power, a power which was built up on the northern coasts of Europe and within the Atlantic.
Throughout the relevant portions of known history, from the mist-draped time of the siege of Troy, the ocean-going maritime power of navigation reflected in the most ancient of the known, valid calendars dated to pre-history, had remained the dominant form of strategic cultural potential, until the United States' initial development of its continental railway system.
The establishment of such transcontinental railroad systems, whose initial success was an outgrowth of the period of the U.S. Presidency of Abraham Lincoln, defined the issue of what became known as geopolitics, when the British Empire, under Prince of Wales Edward Albert's circles, defined the adoption of the economic model of the American System of Abraham Lincoln and Henry C. Carey, by Germany, Russia, and other continental powers, as a mortal threat to permanent world rule by the global maritime power of the British Empire.
All world history since the 1876 Philadelphia Centennial, has pivoted on the British imperial reaction against this systemic shift triggered by the U.S. transcontinental railway system.
On this account, the British empire, led by Prince Edward Albert, plotted what became known, in the aftermath of the interval 1890-1917, as "World War One." That war, organized under the direction of that Prince, the later Edward VII, was conceived as an echo of the Anglo-Dutch imperialist scheme which became the "Seven Years War" on which Britain's rise to empire at the 1763 February Peace of Paris had depended. Consequently, the entire war-guilt for World War I, was only that of the British Empire. For the others involved, their guilt was merely that of credulous fools who walked into the trap which the British had prepared and triggered. The details of this are not really a secret in any meaningful use of the term "secret."
The same "Seven Years War" syndrome of the British empire, is key to the understanding of the Napoleonic wars and their aftermath. Contrast "Author of Victory" Lazare Carnot's defeat of the united enemies of France, and Carnot's policies, with those of the British Foreign Office's unwitting puppet, Napoleon Bonaparte, who replayed a strategic role, to the end, which was nothing other, in net effect, than a replay, to British strategic benefit, of the Seven Years War, a state of virtually perpetual warfare, fought, in fact, for the greater glory of Britain, throughout a consequently ruined Europe.
Oh, that poor, so cruelly misunderstood British Empire, that virtually none of its victims recognize the essential, most admirable fact, that Britain's secret of success is nothing other than the silliness of its intended principal victims. It might therefore be said of Britain's principal victims in these affairs, that that Empire would prefer to be destroyed than permit its victims to recognize the implications of the evidence of Britain's only ultimate strategic weapon, the stupidity of Britain's intended victims—still today. The British empire is one which would rather be destroyed than outlived, and would therefore, in the extreme, take the rest of the world down to Hell with it.
London's Hatred of Lincoln
The British Empire's preparations for what was to become famous later as "World War I," began somewhere between developments leading into the surrender of Confederate General Robert E. Lee, at Appomattox, and developments around the First U.S. Centennial celebration at Philadelphia, in 1876.
The victory of the U.S.A. at Appomattox humiliated Britain; but, what Britain really hated the most, was the completion of the U.S. transcontinental railway system which united the territory of the U.S.A. from Canada to Mexico, and between the two oceans, and the explosion of scientific progress expressed at the 1876 Philadelphia Centennial, which revolutionized thinking in and beyond continental Europe, and which prompted the scientific-economic revolutions which occurred in Germany, Russia, Northern Italy, in France, and beyond. The continued existence of an Anglo-Dutch Liberal empire depended upon destroying this U.S. influence on the character of the nations of Eurasia; destroying thus the emergence of projects for transcontinental railway systems paralleling the effect of the U.S. transcontinental railway system. This was the crucial motive for the British empire's launching of that new version of a "Seven Years War" model, with the resulting British creation of what became known as its unique and essential war-guilt for "World War One." Only a wretch such as Ku Klux Klan sponsor Woodrow Wilson's Secretary Lansing could have proffered a different judgment.
So, in Britain's terrified reaction to the spread of such continental railway systems, during the 1920s period of naval parity negotiations, the British monarchy plotted with Japan for a projected attack on targets including the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor. This war-plan was an outgrowth of the naval power negotiations launched with London's intention of reducing U.S. naval power to the limited scale deemed pleasurable for that British empire which was already committed to the long-term effort to break up the United States in a manner like that failed attempt made by Lord Palmerston's backing of his London-created, Confederacy puppet.
The outbreak of what became known later as that "Great War," did not begin with the "Guns of August." The first major break in that direction, came once the Bismarck who opposed World War I, was ousted, in 1890, through the influence of Prince Edward Albert on his nephew, the German Kaiser. With that ouster of Bismarck, Germany was already walking into the British trap. The next major step was the assassination of France's President Sadi Carnot, and the hysteria caused by the structuring of the fraud against French Captain Dreyfus. The next major development was Prince Albert's recruiting the Mikado into launching what became the 1895-1945 warfare by Japan against China (and also the 1941 Pearl Harbor attack) as against Russia in 1905.
The next principal step had been the assassination of U.S. President McKinley, the assassination which made possible the Presidencies of two relevant sympathizers of the British-created Confederacy, U.S. Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. The detonator of the war, organized by the intention of Prince Edward Albert through the ouster of Bismarck, was the use of the Austrian Kaiser as the fool he had been intended to become, by London, since the late 1880s, to start the Balkan war which was intended, already during the 1880s, to serve as the trigger for a war between Russia and Germany. It was the Habsburg launching of the Balkan wars, which served, thus, as the actual trigger for what became known as "The War to End War."
World War I, in turn, laid the foundations for Britain's plan for World War Two in the creation of what became Britain's sponsorship of the rise to power of the Adolf Hitler regime, and, thus, so-called World War II.
Beyond a 'Second World War'
However, when the Wehrmacht had overrun France, the same London which had backed Hitler until the Wehrmacht's over-running of France, the same British circles which had created Germany's Hitler regime with the intent of destroying both Germany and Russia in their mutual conflict in war, decided to run to the United States for help in preventing what, as Walter Lippmann wrote during that time, they regarded as an ungrateful Hitler's aim of gobbling up Britain through breaching the western border of Germany.
In that set of circumstances, Britain's half-century-long-standing alliance with Japan against the United States, ended with Japan's continuing its alliance with Hitler against the U.S.A to the bitter end, that of Japan's launching what had been both Japan's and Britain's decades-old war plan for Japan's attack on the Pearl Harbor naval base. So, Winston Churchill became the U.S.A.'s very reluctant ally in the Pacific war, and, so, the genius of General Douglas MacArthur came into play, a role for which MacArthur was never forgiven by Britain, or by such British flunkeys as President Harry Truman and that pro-fascist gang in Washington typified by such as that Harriman crowd left over from its own nasty role in the 1932-1941 interval.
The British plan for World War II, which had been based on the same matrix defined by the Seven Years War, was Britain's build-up of the Nazi organization in Germany for a war of mutual extermination between Germany and the Soviet Union. This war was already a sealed intention of London at the time that London put Adolf Hitler into the position of a dictator through the Reichstag fire, an effect already secured before newly elected President Franklin Roosevelt would actually be inaugurated. But for President Franklin Roosevelt's election and incumbency, and for the forces he was able to enlist from within the institutions of the United States, the world would have become the victim of a one-world, British global empire, as evil as, or more evil than any empire before it.
There were complications. Even under a Hitler dictatorship, Germany's military could not be induced to go directly to an attack on the Soviet Union while it had "France at its back." So, the synarchist regime then in charge in Paris, was used by Germany's relevant military strategists to enable the Wehrmacht to execute a successful form of known strategic approach to the Nazi occupation of France. London, in its zeal, had made a potentially fatal strategic miscalculation. The pro-fascist London which hated and wished to destroy President Franklin Roosevelt's government, was thus compelled to beg at the feet of Franklin Roosevelt. Thus, the curious alliance of the historic enemies, the U.S.A. and the "Brutish Empire," who maintained a most difficult alliance from the time of the collapse of France, until the moment of the death of President Franklin Roosevelt.
Immediately, with the installation of the very dirty sort of right-wing President, Harry S Truman, World War III was already on London's strategic agenda. It was a virtual "Hollywood re-make" of one more "Seven Years War." Truman had to be informed, by much higher authority than he would ever represent, that this was intended to be a new kind of warfare, Bertrand Russell's continuation of H.G. Wells' design for nuclear warfare, which brought the previously unwitting Truman quickly up to date. So, the planned use of the hottest weapons ever built, came to be known as a "Cold War."
Nuclear 'Preventive' War
It is my personal knowledge from relevant diplomatic and related sources who have been "on the ground" at relevant times, in relevant places, that Japan was ready for surrender before a single nuclear weapon were dropped on its territory. The problem which blocked already defined terms of surrender until after the nuclear bombing, was the London's knowledge and influence in stalling the proffer of the terms of surrender until after the nuclear weapons (the only ones in the U.S. arsenal at that time) were dropped.
Britain was back at long-range planning of a new variant of a "Seven Years War" scenario, that of the type which, aided by a Saudi involvement in the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York City, created the setting in which the George W. Bush, Jr. regime, operating under the influence of London's Prime Minister Tony Blair and his lies, steered the United States into a ruinous long war in Southwest Asia, which is being continued to the present day, actually a British imperial war in fact against no lesser intended victim than the U.S.A., against the image of the 1782 victory of the United States in defeating Lord Shelburne's, Jeremy Bentham's, and American traitor Aaron Burr's British Empire.
II. The Fall of an Empire
For the purposes of this report, we should regard ourselves as concerned with those origins of the economic implications of the present world crisis which bear upon our pin-pointing those deeply embedded principal, cultural errors of European and related civilization as a whole, which have shaped those assumptions of practice by nations which are, in turn, responsible for those unnecessary, worsening systemic failures of the economic systems of the world as a whole, failures which emerged anew since the death of U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt.
This change for the worse, which followed the death of President Roosevelt, was coupled with the fraudulent effort to represent Roosevelt's Bretton Woods reform of the world financial system as being consistent with the dogma of Roosevelt's Bretton Woods adversary, the pro-fascist John Maynard Keynes. Once President Roosevelt had died, the Truman Administration, and those Truman circles associated with formerly fascist sympathizers of Hitler, such as the Truman crony Averell Harriman (whose firm had once rescued Nazi Adolf Hitler from bankruptcy, for Hitler's rise to power shortly thereafter), shifted U.S. policy-outlook from Roosevelt's Bretton Woods, to that of Keynes.
The blame which I have thus attributed as incurred by the post-March 1945 U.S.A. and British adversaries of Franklin Roosevelt, are those injuries to the U.S.A. and world economies which are defined in clearly specific terms, by the role of the action of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill's accomplice Harry S Truman in cancelling, and even reversing President Roosevelt's clear intentions for the post-war world.
Most notably, President Franklin Roosevelt, during the war, had been indelibly clear in warning Churchill, among others, that, despite the more than merely difficult, temporary, war-time alliance with Churchill's Britain against the Nazi-led forces, the U.S. post-war intention was to eradicate the British and other colonial empires from the planet, while employing the great productive potential built up for winning the war, for both the liberation and economic development of the potential nations which had been imprisoned and looted within the bonds of Anglo-Dutch Liberal and related forms of colonial exploitation.
Immediately, beginning President Roosevelt's death, the Truman Administration launched vigorous support for building up the colonialist features of the British and related empires, a policy which included the destruction of that convertible war-production potential which Roosevelt had intended to be converted to relevant capital improvements of the productive potential of those nations which President Roosevelt had intended should be freed to enjoy progress toward prosperous independence.
The included effect of Truman's kissing the flatulent rump of the British empire, was, thus, a deep, totally unnecessary post-war recession in the U.S. under Truman's Presidency. This shift was accompanied by the launching, under the Truman Presidency, of an intended nuclear attack on the Soviet Union, planned by the evil successor of H.G. Wells, Bertrand Russell, and adopted by the Truman and British government, an attack on that Soviet Union which had no hostile intention against the U.S.A., but quite the contrary, at that time. This attack was averted by the fact that the U.S.A., under the lying Truman Administration, had wasted its nuclear arsenal of 1945 in an unnecessary nuclear bombing of Japan, and by the related fact, that the Soviet Union had developed its nuclear arsenal, in response to Churchill's and Truman's threat, before the Anglo-American arsenal could be built up for the planned Anglo-American attack on the Soviet Union.
Apart from President Truman himself, who showed no particular strategic competence in such domains, his, Bertrand Russell's, and Churchill's Anglo-American intention in this matter was an extension of the long-standing British imperial intention, since February 1763, of establishing a world empire through a continuation of the Anglo-Dutch policy against all continental European nation-states excepting the Netherlands: the policy of stirring up prolonged, ruinous warfare as a way of weakening nations, including the U.S.A., which might be potential rivals of the British empire.
Similarly, the introduction of Britain's neo-malthusian, so-called "environmentalist" policy, as devised by Bertrand Russell, et al., was intended, as Russell wrote and stated prominently, clearly, and repeatedly, to induce the nations of a foolish U.S.A. and western continental Europe to destroy themselves by turning the clock of scientific progress backwards. It has been that British neo-malthusian policy which also played a crucial role in the, later, 1980s self-destruction of the former Soviet Union, especially since the installation of—to make the point as gently as possible—the London-oriented Gorbachev regime, and which has reduced the potential European rivals of Britain, especially since 1991, to a ruined shadow of their former economic selves.
Although my immediate concern here, is a matter of what are, historically, more recent effects, until we take into account the references to the U.S. mid-1940s shift to Truman policy, it were impossible to acquire a competent grasp of the largely quite ancient, relevant social and political processes which underlie those relevant traditions which govern the world as a whole still today.
In that respect, we can not understand the behavior of contemporary societies of European cultures, without tracing the relevant features of the interlocking actual histories of Europe and Near-Eastern Asia, since a time no later than the time of the Homeric Iliad and Odyssey. The preceding chapter of this report posed rather obvious questions respecting the relevant issues to which that history refers.
The Defense of Human Nature
Although the point is not generally clear to contemporary universities of Europe and the Americas today, mankind is not an order of the monkeys, nor, as Wolfgang Koehler understood most clearly, the higher apes. Mankind's cognitive powers, are expressed in the manner Johannes Kepler detailed the discovery of the universal principle of gravitation in his The Harmonies of the World; the human personality has access, by the unique nature of mankind, unique among all living creatures, to the power of discovery and assimilation of knowledge of universal physical and comparable principles. These are those powers of the creative imagination which Percy Bysshe Shelley emphasized in his A Defence of Poetry.
The actual principles of human knowledge are not confined to what is learned; they are acquired through means of the pre-existence, for mankind, of those creative powers of mentation which are met only in those aspects of human behavior which account for the human species' ability to rise above the relatively fixed range of the ecological relative potential population densities of sets of mere animal species. The ideas which reflect what tradition regards as that unique, ostensibly spiritual power of the human individual, are what might be described as having the expressed form of creative discoveries of classes of ideas which, once discovered first by someone in a currently living generation, are intended to be replicated in practical ways as experiences of discoveries by future generations.
Thus, as Russia's Academician V.I. Vernadsky has shown, we have the systemic superiority of the human species as a species, above all other living species, a superiority, in absolute principle, of the Noösphere over the Biosphere, a superiority which is located, in hereditary principle, in its expression as the source of the existence of a Noösphere. There is no principle which should be named "human ecology," but only man's need, and ostensibly spiritual ability to cope with the temporary barriers to growth set up by the habits specific to the inferior categories of inanimate and animal populations.
Thus, the manifest history of mankind, is the struggle against those forms of bestiality by society, such as "environmentalism," which echo the ecologies of the lower forms of life. That is the real history of mankind, on which competent statecraft and accounts of history depend absolutely.
With the just stated standpoint in view, how shall we show where and how did this evil empire, the so-called British Empire of today, come about? How can that empire be removed effectively, and in a just manner, from the future stage of history, that we might save humanity, now, from yet another round of such persistent, repeated source of repeated evils as that empire and its predecessors have represented, thus far, in their past?
Therefore, to understand ourselves and our modern nations today, we must focus attention on the root of that problem. Since the systemic roots of the present world crisis are, physically, economic in form, we must approach the relevant, immediate issues of economy from the standpoint of still deeper, historical considerations of physical science, not monetarism. Therefore, we must examine the presently continuing policy of the so-called British Empire which came about, eventually, in the following, fateful way.
Therefore, I Call It 'Brutish'
With the sharp decline of Byzantine power during the time leading into the Norman conquest of England, the power of the imperial Mediterranean tradition shifted into the hands of the emerging maritime and financier power of Venice. Under the conditions established by the Norman subjugation of Anglo-Saxon England, the Norman chivalry, now the leading imperial power based within Europe, became the muscle of chivalry expressed under the controlling manipulations by the scheming of the Merlins of Venetian monetary, and consequently, financial power. The so-called "Crusades" conducted by those dupes, typified the depraved sort of symbiosis of Norman chivalric and Venetian maritime-financier powers; the financiers' maritime power of Venice, controlled the land power of the Norman chivalry in such ways as through engaging the chivalry in long, wasting wars, such as Crusades, that in a way like that which Britain's evil and lying Prime Minister Tony Blair had recently employed in setting a trap for a foolish United States under the influence that disgrace of all Bozos, the clown prince George W. Bush, Jr.
Notably, it was that rather satanic, lying Mr. Blair, who proclaimed his British imperial revocation of the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, that in aid of a Saudi-assisted return to the kind of foolish sort of perpetual religious warfare which had already dominated, and repeatedly ruined Europe, during the 1492-1648 interval.
Now, as to this matter of London's brutish heading-up of an empire of the Venetian type, rather than a nation-state, the following must be said to clarify the use of the term "empire" as it can be properly applied to the situation at hand.
At this point, for the sake of clarity, I must now restate a point which I have made here earlier.
I repeat here, as I have noted in the preceding chapter, that in known history, the principal forms of empires, have been expressed by alternatives in the form of three, respectively, rather distinct types of empires. Simply said, the rough, but essential distinction is among: first, empires of the Asian inland type, such as Babylon and its successors; also, empires of the Eurasian type, such as the pre-Soviet Russian Empire, and that of the earlier, projected scheme of Philip of Macedon, from (most notably) Peter the Great; and, most significantly, third, the modern Mediterranean, and world empires of the maritime type. This latter, third type is illustrated by the attempt, ultimately unsuccessful, by Pericles of Athens' launching of the Peloponnesian War; but is also a form which was successfully established, later, a form based upon a plot against Cleopatra and Marc Antony, crafted on the Isle of Capri between the priests of the Mithra cult and the Octavian who would be later renamed Augustus Caesar. The latter island represented a seat of empire established nominally later, on Augustus and Tiberius' Isle of Capri, until the time of Diocletian and Constantine. Capri and related religious sites remained "sacred properties" of the western Roman Empire, until they were handed over to monastic authorities, such as the Benedictine order, about, roughly, A.D. 500.
Given that historic setting of these developments, the continuing historical significance of Philip of Macedon's intention, is to be located in the nature of the proposed pact described by the Athens school of rhetoric. The two aspects, western- versus Asian-based, of the projected Eurasian empire, were to be joined by a common oligarchical principle uniting what was, on the one side, predominantly, a Mediterranean maritime culture, with, on the other side, an inland, Asian culture. Alexander had a different conception, as both Aristotle and the Emperor discovered to their sorrow; but, with the death of Alexander, the process of partition took over, and persisted, as a trend, until the deaths of Antony and Cleopatra.
Much later, in feudal Europe, after the death of the Hohenstaufen Emperor Frederick, and after the events of both the slaughter of the relevant members of his family, and the event of the Sicilian Vespers, there was an effort to establish an empire under a supranational Habsburg family dynasty, intended to cover all of western and central Europe, as attempted until the 1648 Peace of Westphalia. However, since about A.D. 1066, with the Norman conquest of England, and the precipitous decline in the power of Byzantium, the real seat of imperial power in Europe had fallen, not into the hands of the Norman chivalry, but the usurious Venetian financier oligarchy.
Florence: The Birth of Modern Europe
So, in the Fifteenth-century aftermath of the Fourteenth-Century "New Dark Age," the power of the feudal system had rotted away, and the developments culminating in the great ecumenical Council of Florence established the foundations in law and physical science on which the civilized form of a society based upon the principle of the sovereign form of modern nation-state would emerge.
However, although, as it was said of that Council, that "The Heavens Rejoiced," the jubilation which that achievement inspired, was soon cut short. The creeping power of the former Venetian usury was revived sufficiently to challenge the continued existence of the modern society launched at Florence. It would not be until the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, and the related breaking of the back of the Habsburg hope of its tyranny over all of Europe, that the outlines of modern European culture and its internally conflicted history, could be regarded as more or less established.
With 1648, Europe was now securely oriented to the trans-Atlantic world, rather than under the domination of the Roman Empire's Mediterranean Sea; but, even that accomplishment was, in effect, spoiled considerably by the grip on European power held by what is fairly defined by the name and spreading influence of the Anglo-Dutch Liberalism built upon the foundations crafted under the leadership of the Venetian Paolo Sarpi.
So, following the 1492 outbreak of the Habsburg-orchestrated, religious warfare in western and central Europe, there had been a direct Venetian intervention into England for the purpose of eventually taking over the English monarchy, an attempt launched initially from on the ground in England itself. This operation had been steered by a leader of the Venetian intelligence service, Francesco Zorzi (aka Giorgi), an avowed enemy of the work of Nicholas of Cusa, operating within England under the cloak of marriage councillor to King Henry VIII, in concert with a Plantagenet Pretender (Cardinal Pole), Thomas Cromwell, et al.
Zorzi's intention was not merely to break the dynastic alliance-by-marriage between Henry VIII and his Spanish Habsburg wife, but to realign the political-military forces of Europe between a northern (predominantly Protestant) faction and a southern (predominantly Catholic) stratum, integrating other elements forming the northern faction, such as the Netherlands and their French-speaking Swiss elements, with the rival forces led by Martin Luther. After the Council of Trent, Zorzi's role was taken over, on a grander scale, by the founder of modern Liberalism, the Venetian Paolo Sarpi.
Amid these developments, the current course of history was being shaped by the Habsburgs' role in the launching of the wars of the Inquisition by that expulsion of the Jews from Spain which reminds thoughtful historians today of the great historical irony of the way in which the British Empire of today uses its London-orchestrated Sykes-Picot mechanisms in the Arab-centered cockpit of Southwest Asia.
The significance of the operation led by Venice's Francesco Zorzi, is located within the spreading of the Habsburgs' religious warfare against the Netherlands into that full-blown form of the 1492-1648 religious warfare dividing all Europe against itself. The object was to obliterate the Renaissance-launched institution of the modern sovereign nation-state republic. The effect was to set up the preconditions for the emergence of the Paolo Sarpi, whose rising influence, following the Council of Trent, created the preconditions for the establishment of that nominally Protestant alliance of the followers of Paolo Sarpi's scheme which crafted the 1618-1648 Thirty Years War, and which would become the institution which is known conventionally as the British world empire of today.
From Olympian Zeus to Bertrand Russell
Although the distinguishing features of the rebirth of physical science were introduced during Europe's Fifteenth Century, that, in significant part, by Filippo Brunelleschi, and, in general, by Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, the actual development of a systemic body of scientific practice has been centered, as Albert Einstein was to emphasize later, in Cusa follower Johannes Kepler's development of the keystone principles of all competent modern physical scientific practice, through the point of Kepler's completion of the only original discovery of a universal principle of gravitation in his The Harmonies of the World.
During this time, a contemporary of Kepler, Paolo Sarpi, did the most, with the assistance of his lackey, the hoaxster Galileo Galilei, to prevent the continuation of a valid form of modern science. I have described this process earlier, but it must be restated, if briefly, for the purposes of the subject at hand here.
Sarpi's action, like that of Sarpi's modern Aristotelean rivals, was a throw-back, in purpose, to the case of the Olympian Zeus of Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound. All of the systemic follies of those factions of modern science associated with Anglo-Dutch Liberalism of the followers of Rene Descartes, and of such empiricists as Abraham de Moivre, D'Alembert, and Leonhard Euler, are to be traced to the manner and means by which Sarpi imposed the revived lunacy of the medieval William of Ockham on the launching of that modern Anglo-Dutch Liberalism which is presently hegemonic in the U.S.A.'s and European universities and related circles today. However, Sarpi's approach to this goal was a bit different.
In other words, Paolo Sarpi is unique for his role in creating that same form of moral depravity known as modern Liberalism, which would later culminate in the corruption expressed by such devotees of Bertrand Russell as Professor Norbert Wiener and John von Neumann.
The almost pervasive root of the systemic, strategic incompetence among virtually all economists whose work I encounter today, is their lack of any effective economic conception of the relevant systemic difference between man and ape: the difference otherwise known as the principle of actual human creativity. For this state of economic affairs, the culprits Aristotle and Sarpi are, on balance, the chief pernicious influences within the culture of modern Europe.
This incompetence has the form of a systemic form of ignorance of the principles of any competent economic science; but, simple, innocent ignorance does not explain this problem. The root of the ignorance which has led repeatedly to the doom of cultures over the span of known or reasonably adducible histories, is a product of the customary means by which a reigning few are enabled to rule over the many, a reign, like that of the gods of Olympus over the oppressed human population, which is often brutally intentional on the part of the ruling strata, strata which snicker at the way in which the notions of popular "common sense" serve, quite effectively, as the chains of illusion which blind, and shackle the credulous mass of the ruled. "Populism," as that term is widely used in English-speaking North America, is a common expression of the effect of keeping a mass of the population "arrogantly foolish" on the matter of the means by which they cause themselves to be virtually the lawful prey of those rulers who hold that arrogant slave, serf, or typical populist, in the state of surly submission, to the classes which rule over them in this way. The populists curse the master whose foot, or other organ, they kiss while cursing.
Often religion, as in the varieties of religion associated with a Pantheon, is the trick which herds the serf, or the all too typical American populist into self-inflicted submission. This populist behavior is consistent with the view of that reigning role of the Roman imperial pantheon which Edward Gibbon, the author of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, recommended to Britain's Lord Shelburne as the method of government used by the Roman Emperor known as "Julian the Apostate." The arbiter ("referee") of the contending religious affiliations of a Pantheon, such as the Sykes-Picot domain of Southwest Asia, promotes and manipulates the conflicts of the victims of the empire to those bloody and related conflicts with one another, like Arab and Jew, by which mechanisms the ruler, such as the British Empire of today, controls the contending factions of his Asian victims.
By permitting each of the conflicting sets of believers to claim self-evident affinities to their choice of "the true god," the imperial ruler has been customarily enabled to rule over an assortment of those putative "true believers" which would have, otherwise, combined efforts to "eat him,"—the tyranny which plays both factions like puppets on British strings. This British Empire is typical of such rather successful practices in controlling the large assortments of dupes of the so-called "free trade" system. Such is the intrinsic nature of all varieties of what is called "populism." Sometimes, often enough, the British tyrants create new religions, or religion-like cults, such as "environmentalism," to enrich the repertoire of follies by means of which the Brutish come to be wooed for favors by each among the savagely quarreling victims.
This swindle, on which more or less durable empires have been based, therefore depends upon those kinds of superstitions which have become regarded by the credulous as self-evident truth. Obviously, once a truly scientific insight into matters is introduced, the empire is doomed, as was the case in the U.S.A.'s struggle to secure its freedom from Anglo-Dutch Liberal forms of tyranny.
Marx knew the chains of illusion very well; he should have, since he had become Liberally accustomed to wearing them.
Once we have taken into account those considerations which I have referenced, albeit in varying degrees of depth, so far, the remaining task before me here and how, is to indicate the remedy for the perilous situation which presently reigning bodies of popular and leading opinion have created.
III. The Economists Who Fail
The most significant of the frequent cultural differences between the traditional citizen of the United States' economy, and those of the typical European economy, is the centuries' long, virtually instinctive aversion of the traditional, veteran U.S. patriot to the European feudal, or comparable forms of oligarchical tradition. This, for example, is the pivot of the difference between the U.S. Federal Constitution, with its Preamble as fundamental law, and those European codes which, as in the case of the law of the Federal Republic of Germany, employ numerous specific elements of basic law otherwise met in the U.S. constitutional tradition, but, yet, like most of Europe, represents a society which tends toward a parliamentary form, rather than a true Presidential system comparable to that of the U.S.A. As a matter of dynamics, the same element of law existing in different systems, is a different law in its specific effect. These residues, which are inherent in parliamentary systems, reflect the still unresolved habits descended from a past feudal order, and, thus, reflect modern traditions which are more or less improved adaptations to the legacies of a feudal, or quasi-feudal past.
It must be recognized, that, in some instances, the colonists from Spain fled from the insanity, the butchery which post-1492 Habsburg Spain represented. In the case of the settlements in Massachusetts, beginning 1620, or the later arrivals of that century in Penn's colony, the flight was more often "to," rather than "from." As in the cases of the 1620 Pilgrim settlement, or that of the Massachusetts Bay Colony of the Winthrops and the Mathers, the experience of the insanity of the approach and onset of the European Thirty Years War, affirmed the intention of the Fifteenth-century Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa,, who had prescribed future voyages across the oceans, such as that of the Christopher Columbus who followed the message of Cusa on this account, voyages to rescue the goodness of the culture which the Council of Florence had represented for Europe, in the culture's hoped-for realization in new, distant places across the oceans.
The crucial aspect of such differences between the European cultures in those English settlements in North America, in particular, and those left behind, is reflected, most notably, in the quality of the U.S. constitutional form of national banking law, as distinct from, and opposed by the European style in monetary systems. France sometimes comes closest to the United States, on this account, and that for readily appreciated reasons. For the United Kingdom, a Presidential system and a Hamiltonian national-banking principle, are anathemas. While modern Germany leans strongly toward the Bismarck reforms' orientation toward the American System as defined by the Alexander Hamilton legacy of Abraham Lincoln and Henry C. Carey, the French occupation in post-World War I Germany, and, most emphatically, British occupation in post-World War II Germany, and the role of that London-steered Liberal faction in Germany which pushed out Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, have tended to promote a corrosive, pro-Anglophile drift in common practice, while, meanwhile, the unresolved issue of the Mezzogiorno has cursed the efforts at full development of the culture of Italy.
On this account, Hollywood has never achieved the British-aristocratic touch toward which it appeared to yearn. Only "Wall Street," which tends to be hated on precisely that account, has achieved the British sort of status of a justly hated, and also envied "class."
The proper mission of the United States, on this account, has been, or should have been, to bring the nations of continental Europe and the U.S.A. closer to convergence of Europe with what might be loosely called the common democratic goals of the continental Europe and North America of the 1776-1782 interval, as the case of the Marquis de Lafayette illustrates the distinctions, and the role of Lafayette's German protege, Friedrich List later, or, still later, the mark of Chancellor Bismarck's affinity for the work of Henry C. Carey.
Leibniz Versus Descartes & Sarpi
Although the seeds of Leibniz's work are to be found in his accumulated, implicit debts to Filippo Brunelleschi, Nicholas of Cusa follower Leonardo da Vinci, Johannes Kepler,  Fermat, and Christiaan Huyghens, Leibniz's revival of the ancient Pythagorean and Platonic conception of dynamics (dynamis) has been the most powerful contribution to all valid modern science thereafter, while science and Classical culture have been the great levelers in modern European cultures. Leibniz's discovery of the modern relevance of dynamics, provided the leap from Leibniz's and Jean Bernouilli's own work, to the 1854 habilitation dissertation of Bernhard Riemann. For example: it was the anti-Cartesian aspect of Leibniz's development of the calculus, which had been the most crucial source of inspiration for my own discoveries in the field of a science of physical economy. It is highly relevant that this notion of dynamics is the crucial feature of Classical poetic composition and Classical tragedy, as that point, on irony, is emphasized in Percy Bysshe Shelley's A Defence of Poetry. In the final accounting, it is those advances in those creative powers of the human mind which distinguish the human individual from the beast, which are the great liberators from the corrupting influence of the brutish notion of social class.
As Albert Einstein emphasized, respecting the work of Kepler as viewed through the prism of Bernhard Riemann's treatment of the anti-entropic principle of dynamics, Kepler's uniquely original discovery of the principle of universal gravitation, in Kepler's The Harmonies of the World, is the properly adopted foundation for all modern physical science. This implication of that discovery by Kepler, is advanced in a crucial way by Leibniz's progress in his uniquely original discovery of the infinitesimal calculus. Einstein drew the further conclusion, from the work of these predecessors, that the universe is finite, rather than infinitely extended, and it is self-bounded (therefore unbounded) by the universal physical principles of which it is composed , such as gravitation. It is unbounded, because, as Philo of Alexandria emphasized in his denunciation of Aristotle's theology, the universe is not Aristotelean (not fixed), but, rather, properly destined to be self-developing (anti-entropic).
That discovery, embodies the work in the same direction of method since the ancient Sphaerics of the Egyptians and Pythagoreans.
When we return our attention, from the immediately preceding reflections, to Leibniz's own discovery of the principle of the ontologically infinitesimal of his calculus, especially his improved appreciation of that calculus from the standpoint of dynamics, during the 1690s, the general principles and preconditions for a science of physical economy begin to emerge.
It is most relevant for our subject-matter here, that this tendency toward a "leveling" benefit of scientific and Classical-artistic progress, has not always been the general case.
In ancient European culture, the banning of actual creativity is apotheosized for the record, as was the banning of creativity by the Olympian Zeus who is the evil tyrant of Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound. As Philo emphasized, creativity was explicitly excluded, systemically, by Aristotle, and by all contemporary adversaries of scientific truth, such as Britain's Duke of Edinburgh today, who heads the anti-humanist World Wildlife Fund. This was an exclusion of human dignity which was the pervasive principle on which Euclid's Elements was premised; that was the same intrinsic evil of that Euclid which was overthrown in practice by such European Renaissance figures as Nicholas of Cusa, Leonardo da Vinci, Johannes Kepler, Pierre de Fermat, Gottfried Leibniz, Jean Bernouilli, and Bernhard Riemann.
A duped Karl Marx's abject confession of perpetual, virtually abject religious devotion (of a certain sort) to the doctrine of the degraded plagiarist Adam Smith, as in Smith's The Theory of the Moral Sentiments, is only typical, as is also the case of all among the followers of the British Haileybury School. This ought to have been sufficient warning that, excepting the work of the American System economists such as Alexander Hamilton, the prevalent doctrines respecting economics, throughout the world, especially those derived from those teachings of the British school which are derived, in turn, from the Ockhamite dogma of Paolo Sarpi, such as the variant of Descartes, have been not only intrinsically incompetent from the vantage-point of science and Classical culture, but intentionally so. They have been incompetent in practical terms; they have been far worse than that from the standpoint of relevant science.
A Lesson from Vernadsky
Contemporary, fraudulent, imperialist Anglophile trends in physical science and social doctrines, have been derived, since the 1920s, chiefly from a set of British imperialist ideologues led by that trio from the nest of the Fabian Society, the avowed Satanist Aleister Crowley, H.G. Wells, and Bertrand Russell. Notable among the devotees of that trio, are two of the grandchildren of the Thomas Huxley who had launched H.G. Wells, Aldous and Julian, and also a third case, George Orwell. This was the circle which created the cult of LSD and kindred concoctions. Aldous, Julian, and George Orwell were notable figures in Crowley's program of spreading what became known as that LSD cult. Julian is especially notable for the purposes of this present report, for his significant role in the post-World War II United Nations Organization (UNO), a role which includes prominently his leading part in crafting a neo-malthusian dogma in animal and human ecology.
At the same time, a modified, implicitly fascist, pro-Satanic form of ecological dogma, was developed by Bertrand Russell and such among his followers as the influential science-hoaxsters Professor Norbert Wiener and John von Neumann. The cult of "information theory" was a notable offshoot of Russell's savagely anti-humanist Principia Mathematica hoax.
All-in-all, the influence of these and associated characters, has come to define the foundations for what was to appear as the post-World War II plunge into the rampant pro-Satanic decadence of existentialism whose influence was multiplied under the influence of such degraded cults as the projects of the post-World War II European Congress for Cultural Freedom.
These British (or, should we not say "brutish") and related trends of the radically reductionist, Twentieth Century moral and intellectual decadence, were countered, most prominently, in science during that time, by the leadership of two outstanding, systemic followers of the work of Bernhard Riemann in the field of the methods of Leibnizian and Riemannian dynamics, Russia's Academician V. I. Vernadsky and Albert Einstein. The best way in which to deal with the rot which has passed for relatively official Liberal economic dogmas during the post-Franklin Roosevelt era, is to focus on the implications for a competent science of economy of these decadent varieties of Twentieth-century currents in dynamics, the implications of which are the adoption of a competent mode in the shaping of economic policies of both nations and the world at large.
Sarpi's Ockhamite Dogma
All of the leading problematic issues of modern European policy and practice which I have identified in this report thus far, are offshoots of Paolo Sarpi's adoption of that medieval madness of William of Ockham which provided the entire basis for Sarpi's and Galileo's doctrines of sociology and the empiricists' substitution of craft skills for science.
To recapitulate what I had stated on this matter earlier, Sarpi's strategic trick was, to escape the strategic trap which modern European science represented for the Aristotelean opponents of the modern European nation-state, by permitting limited innovations in technology, but, nonetheless, banning competent science, especially that of Cusa and Johannes Kepler. Sarpi and his followers did that almost as ferociously as the modern European followers of Aristotle did. A typical expression of this Sarpi policy has been that degeneration in the practice of modern science which substitutes mere mathematics, and, in the worst case, statistical method, for physical science. To secure this effect, Sarpi and his lackey Galileo promoted the medieval obscurantism of Ockham, as their choice of foundation for what the European Liberals substituted for physical science. Hence, Rene Decartes and his follower Abbé Antonio Conti, and, hence Conti's followers, the neo-Cartesian champions of the mythical Sir Isaac Newton.
The depraved medieval irrationalist Ockham was the true prophet for Sarpi's modern British Liberalism.
For purposes of clarity, I shall now recapitulate what I have just said, this time in the light of Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound.
The Bertrand Russell Cult
As I have pointed out earlier in this report, the characteristic evil of known European ancient and medieval society, is the ban by the Olympian Zeus of Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound, against allowing knowledge of the discovery of actual scientific principle to the generality of the population. This is, of course, the basis for the so-called Malthusian dogma introduced to London by Giammaria Ortes, and the policies of such depraved influences as the Duke of Edinburgh's World Wildlife Fund today. Thus, contemporary scientific and economics practice is crippled systemically by that formal algebraic mathematics which excludes acknowledgment of the existence of the ontologically infinitesimal of Leibniz. Such were the cases of the Eighteenth-century empiricists who followed the leadership of Abbé Antonio Conti and Voltaire, such as Abraham de Moivre, D'Alembert, Leonhard Euler, and Joseph Lagrange, and the latters' Nineteenth-century devotees, such as Laplace, Augustin Cauchy, Rudolf Clausius, and Hermann Grassmann. The mechanistic cult of Ernst Mach and the more radical cult of Bertrand Russell, are more recent, and more savagely extreme variants on the theme of Sarpi's promotion of the Ockhamite cult.
In this way, Russell predecessor Sarpi defended the ban on science by the Olympian Zeus, but permitted a limited amount of leakage of mechanical innovation, without permitting the spread of knowledge of such universal principles as Kepler's uniquely original discovery of universal gravitation. The British evaded the fact that the half-witted plagiarism of Kepler by the circles creating the Newton cult, did not permit the consideration of any relevant, experimental proof of principle; hence, the silly diversion of proposing that Isaac "I do not make hypotheses" Newton had discovered gravitation through being hit on the head by an apple. (Presumably, if we consider the relevant evidence at hand, that apple either hit Newton too violently, or, in the alternative, not hard enough.)
So, the modern empiricist cult introduced by Sarpi and his followers, adhered faithfully to the Olympian Zeus's ban on discovery of principles, by restricting innovation to what were, essentially, mechanistic forms of algebraic techniques, excluding universal physical principles.
This Sarpian fraud of the empiricists, is the systemic root of the inherent incompetence in method of all putatively conventional teaching of modern economics dogma. It is exactly for this reason, that I have been the most successful of all known modern economics' long-range forecasters, since 1956 to the present day, whereas all putative known rivals whose work is known to me, including Nobel prize-winners, even those who have serious achievements in other aspects of that subject, have been relatively failures in this crucially significant aspect of crisis-forecasting, over the course of that same lapse of time.
Therefore, turn your attention to what pedagogical licence suggests be named "human ecology."
It is precisely that which was banned by the legendary Olympian Zeus, the discovery of "fire" by mortal human beings (e.g., nuclear power) which distinguishes the practice of societies appropriate for human beings, from the gatherings of beasts.
During the course of the 1970s, nuclear scientists in various parts of the world introduced a use of the rule-of-thumb term "energy-flux density," as a way of pointing to the implications of the fundamental changes in the chemistry of power-generation and application typified so forcefully by nuclear chemistry and thermonuclear fusion, and, then, also the notion of "matter/anti-matter" reactions. This satisfied the need of leading the discussion of the physical chemistry of power away from the extremely misleading, and counterproductive practice of counting calories.
The deeper implication of this improvement in practice, was the fact that man's ability to sustain both higher physical standards of living and greater power to exist per-capita and per-square kilometer, required that we dump the fraudulent notion of a "law of entropy" proposed by such as Rudolf Clausius, Hermann Grassmann, and Kelvin, for a more appropriate notion of the way in which man is constantly being challenged by successively higher states of organization of the physical-chemical processes visible to science in the vast universe beyond, and also in delving deeper and deeper into the domain of the very, very small.
The more such topics were considered, and explored, the sillier and sillier the idea of "monetary values" appeared to be when regarded, in the usual simple-minded fashion, as a measure of economic performance per capita and per square kilometer. For truly thoughtful scientists in the field, the usefulness of currency as a medium of exchange, was not questioned; but the notion of money as a standard of physical value of product and process, was recognized by the keener minds, as being intrinsically absurd.
Thus, the source of the consistent superiority of my methods of long-range economic forecasting has been my recognition of that essential distinction between money and value.
It has not been a mere coincidence, that the decades-long, accelerating rate of decadence of the world's economic systems as a whole, was reflected in the combined effects of the 1971-1972 abandonment of the fixed-exchange-rate monetary system and the successor measure, the role of the Saudi petroleum hoax in creating the ruinous, Anglo-Dutch-Saudi spot market. The change from a "fair trade," to a "free trade" system, which accompanied these ruinous, U.S.A./Anglo-Dutch Liberal measures of reform, has been that adopted delusion which has guided the world as a whole, especially the U.S.A. itself, during the 1968-2009, presently continuing descent into the present global economic abyss. For as long as the floating-exchange-rate, monetarist system continues to exist, the world, in its entirety, is self-condemned now, condemned to an early descent into the abyss of the greatest, planetary "new dark age" on any known record today.
When Ecology Is Useful
The person, especially the economist or accountant, who believes in "human ecology," is a fool, at best incompetent, and perhaps even a danger to society. However, the application of the study of animal ecology to defining the absolute differences between a human culture and an animal ecology, can be very useful. In fact, a competent practice of (human) political-economy is based on making that distinction. My standard of measure, potential relative population-density, illustrates the point.
However, before plunging ahead on the basis of that comparison alone, it is essential to introduce an added, principled consideration: that same notion of dynamics which I had emphasized, in the first chapter, above, in such instances as our consideration of the implications of the closing paragraph of Shelley's A Defence of Poetry.
The popular misconceptions on which the usual professional and comparable practice of economics are premised, are traced to backwards from the follies of Descartes to ancient delusions such as the dogma of Euclidean geometry. Objects are treated as virtually floating in space, according to the a-priori definitions, axioms, and postulates of a Cartesian notion of objects floating in space-time. Leibniz, in his exposure of the frauds of Descartes, as in Leibniz's 1695 Specimen Dynamicum, makes a crucial kind of step in the direction of the latter dynamics of Bernhard Riemann. At this juncture I should restate, in summary, my own conclusions on this matter.
As I have emphasized here earlier, and in other published locations, our senses are comparable to the instrumentation of experimental apparatus used for proof-of-principle investigations. The apparatus does not think. The human mind, as of the relevant experimental scientists, proceeds as Johannes Kepler proceeded to the discovery of the general principle of universal Solar gravitation in his The Harmonies of the World. The human investigator, like Kepler, exploits the undeniable systemic discontinuities of the observed experimental evidence, to define the concept of a discovered physical principle whose efficiency can not be denied, but whose role can not be generated directly from any part of the experimental apparatus employed. It is not the senses, but the cognitive powers specific to the human mind which discover, and come to know the relevant physical principle.
Thus, the idea of empty space of sense-certainty, on which Descartes' argument depends absolutely, does not really exist in that sense-perceptual form. The fact is simply that instruments are what they are, and no more than that. "Empty space" does not exist in competent science; as Kepler demonstrated the universal principle of gravitation, in his The Harmonies of the World, where ignorant people, such as the positivist Ernst Mach, think in terms of interaction of particles in empty space, the competent scientist, such as Kepler, or Riemann, or Max Planck, thinks in terms of the harmonics of physical space-time. Implicitly, the implications of the point I have just emphasized, were known to Kepler, Fermat, Leibniz, Jean Bernouilli, Carl F. Gauss, Bernhard Riemann, Planck, Einstein, et al. Such is the distinction of dynamics, both as understood by the ancient Pythagoreans and Plato, and the celebrated aphorism of Heraclitus, as in Plato's Parmenides, and in competent modern science. Most significantly, this was the basis for the argument of Albert Einstein's characterization of the dynamics of physical space-time. The same kind of concept arises in the dynamics of animal-ecological systems; it is the same concept of dynamics which I identified, above, as key to what Shelley described, in the concluding paragraph of his A Defence of Poetry, as the principle of the imagination, and is the same principle of dynamics which underlies any competent identification of the principle of Classical tragedy.
Similarly, the composition of a set of animal species within a common habitat, is a dynamic system, and must be assessed as such. It is not the individual species, or variety which determines the potential relative population-density of that type, but the dynamic characteristic typical of the entire system of participating species in that habitat. Once we have accepted that fact, we can make certain types of general observations respecting the potential relative population-density respecting the system and, thus, the species or variety within that system. In this, the habitat acts on that system, and the system on the habitat and the subsumed species or variety.
In that sense, and only in the qualified view of the subject-matter, dynamic systems of participating sets of non-human species are constrained by relatively fixed boundary-conditions defining a potential relative population-density. No such species can willfully supersede such boundary-conditions. Only mankind can supersede those kinds of bounds.
The issue of economy, then becomes the matter of the preconditions for mankind's successfully sustained increase of our societies' potential relative population-density.
A similar set of dynamic conceptual problems arise in the matter of human potential relative population-density. However, before turning to that crucially important topic of discussion here, another consideration should be introduced. The dynamics of human populations can not be adduced from parallels to the model of animal ecologies.
The pivot of increase of potential relative population-density is, for the case of production by operatives, advances in adopted knowledge of universal physical principles. The pivot of the relative productivity, per capita and per square kilometer, of a sector of economy lies in the increase of the productivity, and life-expectancy and health of the setting in which production occurs.
For example, take a case of the type which I have employed for illustration on a number of occasions.
The Southern Coasts of India
India has achieved a population-level estimated in excess of one billions living human individuals. A very large ration of that total population is poorly skilled, and lives in terrible conditions. The decreasing potential of fossil water resources is closing in on the population. The per-capita productivity of the poorer sectors of the population is perilously poor. We can not expect spectacular increases in the potential rates of productivity of most of the population itself in increments of less than a half to a full generation of development. However, the introduction of relevant improvements in water-supplies, power, transportation, nutrition, and health-care, for example, would increase the effectiveness of the productive efforts of the existing labor-force. In short, dynamics.
A comparable relationship exists in the remarkably different preconditions presently existing in nations of western Europe or the U.S.A. Shortening the lapsed time, and physical costs to society, of commuting in the labor-force, and cheapening the physical cost (as distinct from price) of living of the productive element of the labor-force, while improving the factors of health and intellectual development of scientific and related factors come into play. However, these factors are dependent upon relatively high rates of science-driven and related cultural development, and a general increase of the average effective temperature of power-sources per capita, per square kilometer, and unit of production. These are challenges which could not be met on the planet as a whole today, except through a shift into greatly increased quantities of power, but, even more emphatically, an increase of the level of energy-flux density which could not be met without rapid expansion of installed nuclear power. Without the high rates of energy-flux density associated with nuclear power, the planet as a whole is presently at the verge of an ecological collapse of the potential relative population-density of the planet as a whole.
In all cases, the condition of the planet requires that the highest priority for improvements must come in those combined factors which bear immediately on the net increase of the productive powers of labor.
The Price of Survival
I have already emphasized the fact, that there is no intrinsic relationship between money-price and value. Most of the disasters, including the present onrush of a general breakdown-crisis of the planet into the nearby verge of a new dark age, are related to the delusion that there is a functional relationship between a presumed price-value and physical-economic value. It is the widespread delusion that such a reciprocal sort of price-value relationship exists, which has been fostering the virtual insanity of the prevalent economic policy making of nations during the recent forty-odd years.
What is needed, otherwise, is a durable fixed-exchange-rate, global credit-system. Otherwise, a general, mass-genocidal quality of economic breakdown-crisis of the entire planet, is now inevitable, and inevitably near. It is not the price itself which must be considered as paramount; it is the stability of establishing a relative price among currencies which is near to existing relative pricing, which is crucial. Thereafter, the prices of goods must be adjusted to the fixed price of currencies, rather than the other way around. Within the bounds of a fixed-exchange-rate credit-system, the concept of pricing of goods within, and among sovereign national systems, must be a return to what was formerly termed a "fair trade" system.
The "free trade" systems should be led out to the back yard, and killed mercifully. It is the lives of people, not money, which must be protected.
IV. Now: Strike off the Shackles
When I hear putative economists and related kinds of officials speaking on the subject of alleged principles of economy, I cringe, and blush out of a sense of pity for their shame. The absolute worst among such professionals, are, of course, those who follow a current fad of "financial engineering." For his recent condemnation of that folly, I give banker Paul Volcker full credit for his recent public remarks on that matter.
There are some other recent practices which must be terminated, too. For example, the disease called Adam Smith must be among the first to go.
Certain "fundamentalists' " religious worship of Adam Smith and his like, is centered upon admiration of Smith's successful foisting of a nasty, 1776 piece of his plagiarism of the work of A.R.J. Turgot, which occupies the principal "theoretical" content of Smith's explicitly anti-American tract, The Wealth of Nations. Therefore, no honest, and also sane U.S. patriot would, henceforth, have anything to do with Adam Smith. Were there doubts of this proposed policy, the more relevant, actually wicked work of Smith himself, is his 1759 The Theory of the Moral Sentiments, the book which attracted the 1763 adoption of Smith as an agent of the Lord Shelburne who was operating chief of the British East India Company, and 1782 founder of the British Foreign Office. In The Wealth of Nations, Shelburne's anti-American propagandist Smith presents what are only the virtual "stool specimens" of British doctrine, intended for the edification of those who enjoy consuming such stuff. In the earlier The Theory of the Moral Sentiments, Smith leads the reader into a permanent citizenship within the more original lower bowel and sigmoid as such.
Hence, it is time to recognize the ultimately fatal error of Karl Marx, insofar as Marxists continued what proved for the Soviet Union, for example, to be Marx's fatally reductionist reading of the descriptive account of Adam Smith's dogma.
The entirety of British political-economy since the accession of King George I, has depended upon the swindle embedded in the ontological presumptions identified in Smith's 1759 Theory of the Moral Sentiments. It is past time to recognize, that Karl Marx's fantasy was rooted in the premise that he, Marx, was a political opponent of that apprentice of Jeremy Bentham, the Lord Palmerston under whose London patronage Marx actually served London's interests, never recognizing the source of his own delusion. However, one should not gloat over Karl Marx on that account. There are few leading political figures in the U.S.A., the other Americas, or Europe today, who are not just as much victims of a political-cultural delusion as Marx was in his time. Marx was, on this account, a follower of the empiricist mystic Paolo Sarpi, and, in that degree, a dupe, "hereditarily," of the medieval William of Ockham.
Marx knew the chains of illusion very well; he should have, since he had become Liberally accustomed to wearing them.
That kind of delusion, which is by no means peculiar to actual, or presumed Marxists, is the reason the presently onrushing general economic breakdown-crisis of the entire planet, now, is such an ominous danger to all mankind. The danger lies in the fact, that the typical leading politician, or putative economist, of the U.S. today, is no exception to that general, destructive error of opinion.
In this immediate location, I have pointed to some of the obstacles, represented by recent and current customs in Europe, to establishing a global system of cooperation among respectively perfectly sovereign nation-state republics. The principal obstacles to that from within the trans-Atlantic sphere have been chiefly the influence of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal imperial system. As long as London could play one side of the Atlantic against the other, with the assistance of the traditional Anglophile party of treason, descended from the British East India Company party inside the United States itself, the republics on both sides of the Atlantic could be, and have been played against one another. This cleavage in trans-Atlantic relations spills over into the difficulties in the relationship between, most notably, the United States and Asia, and also assists the British empire in continuing its mass-murderously systemic oppression of the people of Africa.
The remedy remains, the affirmation and enforcement of the Peace of Westphalia, and the constitutional form of order within a planet composed of respectively sovereign nation-state cultures.
Policy for Now
What is required now, is a clear understanding that the recent forty years of moral and physical decay of the governments of nations generally have lowered the potential relative population-density of the planet at the same time that the population of the planet has soared. The included consequence of that pattern of a shift into so-called "post-industrial society" during about forty years, when combined with the effects of the failure to eradicate the old imperialism of Anglo-Dutch Liberalism, is that, despite relatively short-term surges in some parts of the planet, the potential productivity of the planet's labor-force as a whole, per capita and per square kilometer has been one of a massive depletion of essential infrastructure and related productive resources, combined with a reduction of the net physical income-levels and actual productivity of the labor forces, such that the attempted revival of economies on the basis of increased employment alone, would be a terrible failure. The factor of lost skills, as in the U.S. and European labor-forces is dreadful.
Thus, we must place emphasis on high-technology-driven massive, largely capital-intensive investment in basic economic infrastructure, with an included emphasis on nuclear power. Otherwise, were we to rely on the hoax of so-called "free energy," a horrible dark-age-like condition would now seize and destroy much of the population and presently remaining economic potential of the planet as a whole. We are at the point of global crisis at which a "free energy" policy is a policy of genocide, just as Britain's Duke of Edinburgh and his World Wildlife Fund have frankly intended.
The human species' essential economic distinction from the beasts, is those creative powers of discovery, as typified by increased energetic, increasingly capital-intensive production, on which the increase of the potential relative population-density of the planet now depends immediately and absolutely. We are at the point at which only the policy-outlook of U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt's administration could secure the means to overcome the terrible, global, existential crisis which has now, already, descended upon this planet.
 The October 24, 1922 "March on Rome." I was born forty-six days earlier.
 It is to be stressed, that this was part of a change in British imperial policy brought about in reaction to President Abraham Lincoln's victory over British Lord Palmerston's puppets known as the Confederacy and Mexico's Maximilian, and to British master strategist Palmerston's own death. Lincoln's victory changed the British empire's global strategic perspective, globally.
 It would appear to some critics that I disagree with President Lincoln's post-war declaration of his commitment to take the errant states back into the Federal system as if they had never departed it. It was correct for President Lincoln to state, and mean that policy under those specific circumstances. Comparable conditions do not exist under the circumstances of the presently ongoing drive toward fascism by forces related to the case of Amity Shlaes.
 At the time that Prescott Bush, the father and grandfather of U.S. Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, Jr. respectively, had moved the money to bail out Adolf Hitler's Nazi Party, Bush was executive officer for the New York firm of Brown Brothers, Harriman. That firm was the U.S. branch of the operations of that head of the Bank of England, Montagu Norman, who had created Hitler's actual candidacy for the appointment as Nazi dictator of Germany. Even after December 7, 1941, Prescott Bush was still entangled, for a time, in those international financial connections. Those Bush family connections to London remain today.
 The crucial issue to be considered, in assessing the political shift of Summer 1944, is the British role in willfully prolonging the war in Europe by betraying the German generals who were ready to sue for peace after the Allied breakthrough in Normandy. The included purpose was to prolong the war in Europe in ways which would set up the situation for such effects as the conflict with the Soviet Union. The war continued for the greater part of a year, past the point of the death of President Franklin Roosevelt, and the inauguration of the British strategic asset, Harry S Truman!
 It is of first-rate relevance, that Germany's Chancellor Bismarck did not wish the continuation of a war against France once London's puppet, Napoleon III had been removed. Bismarck with his typical insight in such matters, knew the crucial, strategic difference between a war against London's puppet and that war continued against France, which, in fact, prepared the ground for the British Empire's orchestration of what became World War I. On the precise definition of the British Empire, see below.
 "Rage-balls" such as former Vice-President Dick Cheney are never the true controllers of the ventures in which they are ostensibly featured. The really dangerous masters of the game are Gray-faced, dispassionately cold-blooded killers, like those who sent British-controlled thugs such as Dick Cheney and half-witted President George W. Bush, Jr., out to earn the blame for the atrocities which such masters of the game as the owners of the puppet Tony Blair actually controlled. The director of the tragedy should not, as a matter of ethics, appear directly on stage, until the curtain has fallen.
 The inclusion of the interval of eight years, of the U.S. Clinton Administration, between father and son Bush, was a significant shift at the time, but it did not break the long-term pattern of the connection from father's administration, to that of the son.
 There has been much speculation on this subject of my career at various times, in various places, most of it silly. The FBI had attempted to recruit me to play what I considered a fraudulent role as their agent-in-fact. I had politely turned down the demand from the FBI, stating as my parting remark at that meeting in the lobby of New York's Chanin Building, that I was a patriot who would not condone serious law-breaking against our republic, but, pending evidence to such effect, there was no reason I should consider their proposition that I spy maliciously against citizens who represented no relevant threat of serious harm to our society. They decided, at first, to bring heavy pressure on me and my household to yield to their proposal, and then elected simply to attempt to destroy me financially and otherwise. They ruined my family life of that period, successfully, but not my intentions. I found ways and means to continue the mission to which I had become already fully committed, on principle, in later Spring 1946, when I already had British intelligence services stationed in Calcutta, as active adversaries on my tail. I have my loyalties, but never at the cost of my independence of action, the independence on which I have relied to ensure that I could trust myself in formulating my judgments.
 The relevant portion of the report in hand reads:
"Who Designed and Backed This Bailout?
"The idea for the Dodd-Frank bill was put in circulation by British-linked anti-FDR economists at the New York Council on Foreign Relations: 'world currency' promoter Ben Steil, neo-Conservative Amity Shlaes, former Federal Reserve Governor Thomas DeLilio.
"The bill was specifically designed by Wall Street and London financiers—by Credit Suisse Bank in particular—working with the staffs of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, and with Paulson's Treasury. It was also pushed by Fannie Mae CEO Daniel Mudd—he lost his job in the big bailout push this weekend, but will probably leave with a very 'golden parachute'."
 The nature of this commitment by me, goes, as Shelley would have agreed, to the true nature of my soul. Shelley has been among those qualified to give a poet's expression to that world-outlook.
 It is sufficient, for our purposes here, to report that Karl Marx was a complex fellow, with whom Heinrich Heine had become acquainted, and whom Heine attempted, if unsuccessfully, to rescue at that time. Marx, who was already lured into British intelligence operations in post-Hegel Berlin, became a full-fledged British agent in fact, as part of Lord Palmerston's Young Europe network. He was directed in that role under a principal senior British intelligence services executive serving as controller of that network, who was operating, at that time, from a posting at the British Museum. The overwhelming evidence in the matter is to the effect, that Marx himself honestly never recognized that he was an agent deployed by the Lord Palmerston whom Marx hated more than anyone else, all that time. The role of Friedrich Engels in British Foreign Office control over Marx, is a story in itself, including the role which Engels continued to play, even after Marx's death, as in the case of Engels' key personal role in the London induction of "Parvus' " (Helphand) 1890's assimilation into life-long service to British intelligence, from that time on. The interesting aspect of Marx's own argument, as distinct from its historical setting, lies as if "between the cracks" of what he had adopted from, chiefly, his British mentors.
 Both of this Bertrand Russell-crafted pair, at different times, Wiener earlier, and von Neumann, later, were dumped out of Göttingen on well-founded charges of the systemic incompetence specific to Russell's followers of the Cambridge systems analysis cult whose influence into Soviet affairs was mediated through the British-USA-steered Laxenberg, Austria International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA). In addition to the powerfully corrupting influence which Russellite Cambridge systems analysis had in spreading its radically reductionist decadence into the Soviet system, similar effects are to be seen in the Nazi-like follies of terrorism which "effects-based operations (EBO)" schemes had in leading the Israelis into their recent catastrophes in Lebanon, and, now, Gaza.
 So much can be said of the absolute fraud promoted by those putative scientists who insist, fraudulently, that Isaac Newton, whose friends merely copied an aspect of Kepler's published work, is the discoverer of gravitation.
 I.e., the concluding sentence in Riemann's 1854 habilitation dissertation.
 On a deeper level, the most frankly Satanic influences responsible for the greatest evils which mankind as a whole has suffered since the beginning of the Twentieth Century have been those traced to the collusion of avowed Satanist Aleister Crowley, and his leading partners H.G. Wells, and Bertrand Russell.
 Cervantes' Don Quixote may have been a "pot head," but, in the matter of windmills there is something to be said for him today.
 I shall take up this same matter in another context, in the next chapter of this report.
 Better "Anglo-Dutch," as in William and Mary. At the beginning of Europe's Eleventh Century, with the onset of the decline of Byzantium, the emerging Venetian financier power, based in the area of the head of the Adriatic, became a power associated with the rise of what had been sponsored earlier as the Norman interest, that as a foe of Charlemagne's France, by Byzantium. The Norman conquest of A.D. 1066 signaled the beginning of a long reign of the medieval system which collapsed with the bankruptcy of England which occurred on account of, principally, its debt to Venice-controlled, Lombard usurers such as the Lucca-based house of the Bardi. This event triggered what became known as the Fourteenth Century's "New Dark Age." The later, Fifteenth-Century great ecumenical Council of Florence was the birth of modern Europe. The Russian Empire was predominantly an empire on the Asian model, as shaped by Peter the Great's breakthrough to the Baltic, which strengthened the European maritime orientation.
 E.g., Specimen Dynamicum (1695).
 Keynes' doctrine was that presented by him in his original, 1937 German edition of his General Theory, which as Keynes emphasized in the preface of that book, had been published first in a Germany whose sentiments of that time were to be deemed more suitable for its practice than in the English-speaking world.
 E.g., Jesus of Nazareth, born in the time of Augustus Caesar, was crucified under the Emperor Tiberius' special authority, that lawfully unique to the Emperor himself. But bestowed through Tiberius' nominal son-in-law, while Tiberius waited back at his usual nesting-place of Capri.
 Brunelleschi's use of the catenary as the physical principle of construction of the cupola of Florence's Santa Maria del Fiore. This was no mere copy of the funicular curve, but an actively physical principle.
 E.g., his discovery of a new principle of perspective, and of the implications of the catenary and tractrix.
 The calculus.
 Refraction, least action.
 It was my good fortune, as I have noted in locations published earlier, never to have accepted Euclidean geometry, even at my first encounter with such stuff. I had been implicitly warned off by a crucial intellectual confrontation with principles of iron and steel construction early in my adolescent exposure to the nearby Charlestown Navy yard, such that I was strongly impressed by the need to optimize the geometrical form of the mass of supporting aspects of structures with respect to weight of the whole assembly, and, therefore, could never accept an abstract, as distinct from a physical geometry. So, I strongly resisted indoctrination in that intellectual sewer of Euclidean and Cartesian geometries into which so many among my youthful associates were intellectually drowned by the secondary and university undergraduate programs to which we were all routinely exposed.
 For a more candid insight into British empiricism, the racier works of the head of the secret office of the British Foreign Office, Jeremy Bentham, and Bentham's role in orchestrating the uglier events of the French Jacobin Terror, would be of much greater clinical scientific interest.