This article appears in the June 18, 2021 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
February 19, 2008
A STRATEGIC ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
That Doomed & Brutish Empire
Whatever happens otherwise, if the United Kingdom continues its present course, Britain’s imperial design (1763-2008) is now soon doomed to a very early and ugly end. All that remains in doubt on this account, is, whether or not the disintegration of the British empire will carry the rest of European civilization down with it, down into a prolonged, planetary-wide dark age, down forever from the Britain of Lord Shelburne which aspired to become a permanent successor to the failed Roman Empire. Thus, Britain’s only chance of surviving, not as an empire, but as a mere nation, would be to choose to accept the defeat of Shelburne’s imperial dreams, as it should have accepted this fate no later than the close of World War II: a defeat of its present imperial commitment to a suppression of the 1648 Peace of Westphalia.
Editor’s Note: This article was first published in EIR Vol. 35, No. 11, March 14, 2008.
Bertrand Russell wrote in 1953: “As for public life, when I first became politically conscious, Gladstone and Disraeli still confronted each other amid Victorian solidities, the British empire appeared eternal, a threat to British naval power was unthinkable, the country was aristocratic, rich and growing richer.... For an old man, with such a background, it is difficult to feel at home in a world of ... American supremacy.”
Bertrand Russell, the accomplice, and sometime rival of the avowed fascist H.G. Wells, had spent his public life in furthering a British imperial commitment to destroy the empire’s deadliest adversary, the United States of America. Now, Russell, like Wells, is dead, but their common devotion to that wicked intention is very much alive, not only in the United Kingdom, but among all too many brazen influentials met among the nominal citizens of our own United States today.
Worse, the current trend in thinking among London’s allies in that wicked intention, is as the wicked New York City Mayor Bloomberg and his accomplices have proposed, the “globalized,” neo-Malthusian break-up of all of the world’s present nation-states, using a form of political society cast in the self-doomed model of medieval Venice’s organization of that Lombard League of city-based banking power which crashed in Europe’s Fourteenth Century. The latter, medieval system which crashed in the Fourteenth-Century, was the infamous “new dark age” which began, like the threatened outbreak of a “new dark age” today, when one of those Italian cities’ Lombard banks, Lucca’s House of Bardi, set off a chain-reaction, that great wave of doom, which plunged all of Europe into a “New Dark Age.” It was a catastrophe in which half the parishes of Europe vanished from the map, and the population shrank by about one-third during a short interval of a few decades.
In sharp contrast to those medieval models, over the course of President Franklin Roosevelt’s 1933-1945 Presidency, the U.S.A. rose from a deep economic and moral depression, to become the most powerful economy and military power the world had known. Yet, still, despite that lesson from recent experience, a ruined British Empire, at the close of World War II, remained determined that, as both Winston Churchill and Bertrand Russell had vowed, Franklin Roosevelt’s victory would become no more than the temporary triumph of our U.S.A. over the British Empire. The British imperialists aimed to bring about a ruin of U.S.A. world leadership, which the British empire intended should not last for much more than another full, post-war generation. If in only a certain degree, the British were successful in bringing on their intended evil.
So, through the complicity of President Harry Truman in furthering imperialist Churchill’s anti-FDR intentions, U.S. power began to slip away, as from the time of the 1963 assassination of a U.S. President, John F. Kennedy, and, beyond that, through the ruinous, decade-long U.S. war in Indo-China which that assassination made possible. Thus, from 1968-1971 on, the U.S. economy and political system have been falling, more and more, into the hands of our avowed, old enemy, that vengeful old imperialism of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal financier oligarchy, an oligarchy which is centered, at least officially so, in the City of London and the associated British monarchy.
Thus, to a large degree, beginning with President Truman’s ruinous policies, the British Empire has appeared to have succeeded, as if inch-by-inch, in its decades-long, post-1944 intention. So, as an Athens was misled toward virtual doom by its Sophists during the time of Pericles, the British empire has sought to employ the corrosive influence of a form of increasingly radical sophistry spread among our leading political and other relevant institutions, and also the population generally, as the means for bringing down the U.S. economy and U.S. political influence world-wide.
Yet, despite Truman’s globally crucial strategic accommodations to the U.S.A.’s avowed imperialist enemies from old Europe, we remained a growing economy until about 1968, as the successful adoption of the manned Moon-Landing project attests. Up to about 1967-68, President Kennedy’s leadership had shown that, despite the systematic undermining of our American tradition during the 1945-1968 interval, the post-FDR design of the U.S. economic system itself had remained inherently strong in its potential for a morally driven, fresh recovery, but this option remained, if only until the eruption of a new phase of moral decadence which was highlighted as the aftermath of the assassinations of the Rev. Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy and the tragic cultural-paradigm which was unleashed by the neo-fascist “left” called “the 68ers.”
In such cases of long waves of decadence, as such are to be recalled from the examples of the repeated attempts at assassination of France’s President Charles de Gaulle, the orchestrated scandal which ousted Prime Minister Harold Macmillan in Britain, and the assassination of President Kennedy, it is not the assassinations and kindred ousters of leading figures which are the roots of an ensured moral disaster; but, rather, as in the failure to properly punish Prime Minister Tony Blair, and also in the case of the current Bush Presidency’s criminality, the worst disasters are fostered by post facto complicity of those leading circles, such as Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s fascist Felix Rohatyn, which cover up the actual authorship of such mass murderous crimes, as in the launching of a new Iraq war through the outright, aggravated, official lying so lavishly condoned by the current U.S. Speaker of the House. When both officialdom and the general public consent to such after-the-fact complicity in such moral indifference to great matters of truth, the political process of government and electorate alike become polluted, more by their own complicity after the fact, than by even the preceding, relevant terrible act itself.
So, over the course of three subsequent, post-1968 U.S. Presidencies, Nixon, Ford, and Carter (1969-1981), the most essential policy elements of U.S. physical-economic strength were destroyed. The U.S.’s reliance on the Bretton Woods, fixed-exchange-rate, monetary system was shattered, treasonously, under President Nixon; and, the essential elements of a sane and sound physical economy were shattered and smashed under the Carter Administration’s control by the wrecking actions of an implicitly treasonous Trilateral Commission’s 1970s program of “controlled disintegration” of the U.S. economy.
The global irony of all this, is that the slow seismic-like, global effects induced by British imperial guile, may have ruined our U.S.A.; but they are, with merciless historical irony, also, already collapsing the pillars of what is now the certainly foredoomed British system itself.
I explain the relevant systemic connections, if only summarily, as follows.
A Sick World System
Over the course of the recent three-and-a-half decades, I have, often, publicly addressed numerous aspects of the subject of the presently accelerating, global threat to our decadent world civilization as a whole. This, I have identified, repeatedly, as a threat radiating chiefly from the influence of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal, neo-Venetian, Sarpian (i.e., Paolo Sarpi) system of finance-imperialism (otherwise known as the hoax of free trade). Here, in what I write here and now, I put my earlier published treatments of those subjects on a nearby shelf, where they remain constantly available on the record, to be recalled when they are of needed relevance for some occasion of today and beyond.
I impose this limitation on my subject here, so that I might now concentrate the readers’ attention narrowly, here, on the subject of the specific, systemic effects of that ultimately decisive aspect of the intellectual failure, in economics, by virtually all among today’s official and other leading specialists in the shaping of our republic’s financial and economic policies. These are the policies whose effects include the current cases of both the U.S. Treasury Secretary and Chairman of the Federal Reserve System, for example, failed officials whose recent spurts of hyper-inflationary madness show them as being demonstrably, pathetically incompetent in matters of national economy.
What I have to report on those accounts, in this present location, is a matter of what are, presently, the rarely known, fundamental principles of a science of physical economy. This must also include the rare, but, nonetheless, essential subject of what I must also emphasize as the importance of a related expression of the same Classical Principle of Tragedy shown by the works of Aeschylus, Shakespeare, and Friedrich Schiller. Economic processes are not merely things which happen; they are chiefly the result of what the often errant will of people, either high or low in rank, have caused to happen. Thus, “the people factor” in economy reigns today, chiefly, as a principle of tragedy, a type of principle of which most of today’s existentialist and other philosophically reductionist types of supposed academic and other specialists in the subject of drama, are, actually, pathetically ignorant.
That is to say, that the subject of a true Classical tragedy, as tragedies by those whom I have just referenced as masters of the drama typify the case, is a society, such as the real-life society which was the setting of Friedrich Schiller’s Wallenstein trilogy, for which that particular drama presents an actual case of a society which was inherently doomed by its adherence to what virtually influential strata of the subject society regarded as the culture which they assumed it was their principled, if foolish commitment to defend. It was loyalty to their foolish oaths which doomed them.
The real-life Wallenstein, like that of Schiller’s trilogy, came to realize that he must betray the evil Habsburg rulers; but, as playwright and historian Schiller emphasizes, Wallenstein, both in real life, and in the drama, could not conceive of the needed remedy which lay only beyond the bounds of his perceived tradition.
A tragic society, such as the real-life Europe of the actual Wallenstein’s wars, is doomed by what its ruling bodies of generally ruling opinion have come to accept as the limited assortments of those axiomatic-like principles, or even mere habits of conduct, which they have come to regard as a set of generally accepted customs. Shakespeare’s Hamlet is an example of such a type of society which is doomed by what it has either inherited, or recently adopted as the moral boundaries within which its ruling culture must roam, even if that means the fatal choice which Shakespeare’s Hamlet made.
Thus, it was the character Hamlet’s limitation of his outlook to the confines of the culture of the people of Hamlet’s Denmark of that time, which, as Shakespeare demonstrated, was a culture already self-doomed by its own nature, at that time: a habituated impulse for self-inflicted doom from which Shakespeare’s Hamlet refused to break free, a doom which he embraced, thus, as the awful fate, the awful culture from which he refused to change. The wanted change in that society’s culture, was, so to speak, as in the fatal quality of the ultimately doomed in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, “Greek” to Hamlet.
Such, precisely, has been the tragic failure menacing the continued existence of our U.S.A.—and the world at large—at the moment of the present U.S. pre-Presidential election-campaign.
It is essential to recognize, in this way, that the root of the principal long-ranging failures of nations’ economic policies, is located in the same principle of systemic moral error identified, as warnings, in the best examples of European Classical tragedy.
Thus, for example, a competent practice of economics as physical science, shows that any society which has adopted “free trade” as a standard of public behavior, has thereby adopted all the inherent characteristics of a culture which is now doomed, so far, to be efficiently destroyed by no other required means than by relevant, ingrained cultural habits of its own people. The distinguishing difference among such sundry varieties of such fools, is, essentially: all are ultimately like political cannibals at heart, but, some such fools are eaten sooner, and others later. In the present case of the British Empire today, all of Britain’s victims, the Americans and the Europeans, and Britain itself, would be consumed by their own intentions more or less simultaneously—unless they make the needed changes from their presently habituated, prevailing habits in making their opinions.
That is the type of the tragedy which grips the leading institutions of government and popular opinion of a virtually doomed U.S.A. today. It also dooms, especially, the relevant predatory fellows who, like New York City’s avowedly fascist (i.e., “corporatist”) Mayor Bloomberg and filthy Felix “ppp” Rohatyn, are working to destroy our republic. [“ppp” is an acronym for corporatist public-private partnerships.] These sundry varieties of fascist, or fascistic malefactors typify the same Anglo-Dutch Liberal cabal which put the dictators Mussolini and Hitler into power: which they did for the purpose of carrying out the tragedy which was the way the post-war peace was ordered intentionally in the proceedings at post-World War I Versailles. That was the exact same kind of tragedy which has, now, been ripened to the point of revealing itself as having been the diabolically malicious intention of that criminally insane policy authored by the Thatcher-Mitterrand Maastricht decree. Maastricht was a “Versailles II” Treaty: the agreement which the wicked Mrs. Thatcher’s British Empire demanded, in her expressed intention to destroy the economy of a reunited Germany.
That much said as preface; now, turn to the technical meat of the matter.
1. Money Versus Value
The potentially fatal intellectual and moral flaw in the thinking of the majority among the currently influential stratum of the U.S. population, has been its fanatical, monetarist’s obsession, its delusion, that money as such is an efficient measure of economic value.
So, looking more broadly, over the passage of longer times and wider places, the essential, potentially fatal error which standard financial accounting practice makes when it pretends to be the basis for shaping economic policies, is that accounting practice, like financial dogma generally, is essentially digital by definition, and is implicitly Cartesian; whereas, the principles of competent economic practice, which reject the delusions inhering in the accounting model, are not statistical, but are dynamic, and belong to a category of a specific quality of non-statistical, dynamic, non-linear, “analog” functions.
A sane government’s monetary policy, such as that crafted under the leadership of Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, Henry C. Carey, and President Franklin Roosevelt, is what is recognized by terms such as “protectionist,” or “fair trade.” Government regulation must manage relative pricing within ranges which correspond to the physical effects of such regulatory policies.
“Free trade” is an ironical form of consent imposed by the tyrant on the victim who is weak-willed, foolish, or, simply, vulnerable. A proper regulation of tariffs, credit, and pricing, is an absolute necessity for the health of an economy of a free people. “Free trade” is often a name for the looting of the unprotected.
The essential conceptions of any competent view of modern economy, which must inform the indicated matters of policy shaping by and among sovereign nations, are rooted in a rigorously crafted certainty of the existence of an absolute, categorical distinction of the human species from all lower forms of life. Therefore, the human standard of value can only be one which takes efficiently into account Genesis 1’s categorical distinction of man and woman from lower forms of life. The notion of value must be in agreement with the significance of that power of human reason which enables man to change the ordering of developments, including increases in mankind’s potential relative population-density, within the universe which he inhabits.
In fact, man accomplishes this needed quality of successive changes, only through those mental powers of creativity which are typified by Johannes Kepler’s uniquely original discovery of one of the universal physical principles of our universe: the so-called principle of universal gravitation.
Therein, in that kind of notion which represents characteristically human, rather than beastly values, lies the key to understanding both the causes and remedies for the prevalent, literally axiomatic incompetence of what is generally accepted, as academically, as “economics” today.
That distinction, between beast and human, is shown clearly only in those manifestations, such as the effect of scientific potential in effecting the increase of the potential relative population-density of the human species, an increase which correlates with humanity’s specific distinctions of superiority, as a species, over all other forms of life. This standard must be emphasized as representing an absolute. That distinction lies only in the manifest role of the power of creativity, as creativity is expressed only as the anti-entropy which originates from within a sovereign potential of the individual human mind.
It is that distinction of the human species which must regulate the choice of notions of relative economic value for different forms of organization of society, and for each society of a distinct type of organization.
The Promethean ‘Model’
As I have repeatedly emphasized throughout my adolescent and adult life, that since the moment I rejected the a priori characteristics of the Euclidean geometry as, intrinsically, a specifically Sophist form of systemic incompetence, we must, therefore, then recognize, that the proper, absolute distinction of the human being from all other forms of life, is located in those specifically creative powers of the human intellect which were banned from human practice by the Olympian Zeus of Aeschylus’ Prometheus Bound. This specific Olympian quality of incompetence which I denounce here, is one which is typified by that ancient, medieval, and modern form of Sophistry, which has assumed a special form of expression in its modern role as the central role of Cartesian and similarly aprioristic methods, such as these are encountered in the prevalent forms of customary, axiomatic assumptions of the modern world’s widely accepted teaching of what is called “science,” or, worse, the functionally psychotic, contemporary neo-Malthusianism rampant among the so-called “environmentalists” of our “Baby Boomer” generation.
There exist sundry, theological and other objections to the presentation of a “Promethean Model.” Competent science shows these objections to be either false axiomatically, or the fruit of a misunderstanding of the subject-matter. The most common form of objection to the “Promethean model” is premised on an arbitrary, Sophist type of assumption. That latter is an assumption specifically contrary to Genesis 1, an erroneous assumption to the effect that the Creator of the Universe was a kind of mere “local king” of the universe, who had lost any former power to create once He had finished the work of creation: Friedrich Nietzsche’s Sophist argument for a “God is dead” thesis.
This issue, the “good news,” so to speak, posed in this report, as I have just defined it in that manner, is an expression of the principle which is key to recognizing the presently virtual inevitability of the impending fall of the British Empire into its presently looming, richly deserved oblivion.
However, that much said, there is a still more profound implication in this. What the looming catastrophe of the British imperial system represents, is something of much broader and deeper significance for all mankind.
Consider some of the relevant historical evidence to that effect.
The recent, approximately three thousand years of a relatively well known history of the roots of what we call European culture, and of the history of the development of that culture through its ups and downs, presents us with a record which has been dominated by a series of linked catastrophes often identified as empires. These cases have included those, most significant, relatively universal imperiums of the Babylonians, Achaemenids, Rome, Byzantium, as also the imperial form of the medieval, Venetian-crusader pestilence, and, now, what is fairly described, interchangeably, either as the British empire, or, more precisely, the imperial form of neo-Venetian, Anglo-Dutch Liberal form of financier oligarchical hegemonies.
The circumstances which define the relative hegemony of the present Anglo-Dutch Liberal, neo-Venetian system of financier tyranny, especially the characteristics of that system’s evolution over the period since 1968-1972, have created a quality of crisis which is implicitly of a quality of profundity greater than at any juncture in the preceding phases of European culture’s historical evolutions. The relevant fact is that the human population has now reached a level approaching seven billions living individuals, bringing us to the point, that, arguably, the planet’s population could not continue to exist at present levels under such presently proposed, mass-homicidal conditions of deliberate, “neo-Malthusian” abortion of scientific-technological progress in economy, such as the current “Global Warming” hoax.
Therefore, science, as typified by the implications of nuclear fission, must be liberated fully from the neo-Malthusian hoaxes, such as the current hoax of “Global Warming,” which have been increasingly dominant in the planet’s practice in the aftermath of the riotous upsurges of 1968.
For this purpose, if civilization is to avoid the presently onrushing plunge into another “new dark age,” not only must a great affirmation of the concept of the sovereign nation-state republic take over general practice, but the commitment to a return to science-driven economic progress must be freed from that fatal curse of the irrationalism—e.g., Sophistry—which is inherent in Liberalism.
At this same time, we can show, at least to those lively minds continuing the sentiments of the Kennedy Manned Moon Landing effort, that we have available a clearly visible and hopeful prospect of changes in the organization of relationships. These would be changes echoing the great principle of the Peace of Westphalia: relationships for practice among sovereign nations, through which scientific potentials can be mustered to supersede the somewhat arbitrarily assumed barrier represented by global population-levels in what some project as the seven- to eight-billions range of living human populations.
Any attempt to continue the current fascistic, neo-Malthusian trends now dominating the rhetoric of the financier interests of Europe and the Americas (and their political hangers-on), would mean a general breakdown-crisis of the planet’s culture, a breakdown which would probably become far worse than the effects of Europe’s Fourteenth-Century “New Dark Age.” At the same time, if we are disposed to crush the fascist impulses met among trans-Atlantic and kindred financial and other oligarchies, the sense of the present crisis should supply us the impetus needed to commit ourselves to launch the next great, qualitative technological and cultural leap forward in mankind’s relationship to our universe.
Prometheus, When Unbound
What Aeschylus’ Prometheus Bound signified by the existence of a principle which might be given the name of “fire,” is, in fact, the human mind’s specific capability of discovering universal physical principles of the type represented by Johannes Kepler’s uniquely original discovery of the principles of universal gravitation. I explain the crucial point of distinction as follows.
As I have emphasized in locations such as my Monadology, the key to man’s origins and essential nature is stated, poetically, in Genesis 1. Mankind is set apart from the beasts by special powers which present man to us as in a certain likeness to the Creator of the universe. These are of the type of the powers which include what are known to competently educated minds as discoverable universal physical principles. The modern precedent for the defining of such principles, was Kepler’s uniquely original discovery of the principles of universal gravitation. Unfortunately, the actual discovery of gravitation, by Kepler, is, presently, chiefly either savagely misrepresented in classrooms and comparable circumstances, or is simply unknown to most of those of today’s nominal title as scientists, or others. That is especially so in a world which is dominated by the radical extremes of today’s morally corrupting influences of the present adult generations’ extremely decadent, “post-industrial” form of what is identified historically as Anglo-Dutch Liberalism.
The most convenient summation of the point just made here, is that view of the implications of the work of Bernhard Riemann adopted by the greatest among the Twentieth-Century scientists, such as Academician V.I. Vernadsky and Albert Einstein, who provided clarity for the use of any mind informed by the distinct meaning of the term “universal physical principles.” These are principles as that term refers to what was understood by the ancient Pythagoreans, by Plato, and by Nicholas of Cusa, Johannes Kepler, and Gottfried Leibniz, which Riemann and such followers as these have provided.
On the contrary side, actual knowledge of this Riemannian notion of universal physical principles, does not presently exist in the practice among most of the present generation of scientists, scientists whose capacities for clear thinking about such more profound matters have been virtually destroyed by the intended quality of influence of the radically reductionist dogmas of followers of the Ockhamite irrationalist Paolo Sarpi and his empiricist, positivist, and existentialist followers, especially among the devotees of the relatively more depraved “post-industrial” ideologies of empiricism, positivism, and existentialism of today.
Not only did the Philosophical Liberalism of Sarpi, et al., prohibit the use of the notion of actual universal physical principles, under the prevalent rules for contemporary reductionist fads usually practiced in the name of science today; but, under those circumstances, no competent conception of the functional nature of the human individual is possible.
The practical issue so situated, is posed by the proof, that, as Genesis 1 prescribes in its chosen fashion, man and woman have both a given capacity, and a corresponding obligation, to take care of as much of the universe as comes within the present reach of mankind’s developable capabilities for improving that universe in modalities consistent with the principled character of a human species made in the likeness of the Creator. This distinct power of mankind resides in the sovereign, miraculous capabilities of the individual human mind: what are efficiently identified as the “creative powers” of that mind, using the term “creative” as congruent with anti-entropy.
Essentially, those “creative powers” are typified by the discovery of universal physical principles, as the Pythagoreans and Plato recognized this, and as Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa launched the uniquely competent modes in modern, creative (i.e., anti-entropic) European science and Classical art, through his re-discovery of the remedy (the notion of the “ontologically infinitesimal”) for the crucial systemic error in Archimedes’ claim to have defined the generation of the circle by quadrature. It was Kepler who gave those discoveries by Cusa their realization as universals of scientific thought, as expressed most clearly through Kepler’s unique two principal discoveries in astrophysics.
It was Albert Einstein, looking backwards, who recognized the significance of the role of Cusa’s and Kepler’s notion of the ontologically infinitesimal, by tracing the concept of a “finite, but unbounded universe” to roots in the work of Kepler, and by defining modern physical science in terms of the process of development of such a conception of the universe, as a whole, in those terms of reference.
It is that course of development, launched by the work of Cusa’s great follower Johannes Kepler, which is the implied bench-mark of reference for measuring value in modern economy.
The specific role of Vernadsky, relative to Einstein’s statement on the importance of Kepler’s work, is to be recognized in the way in which Vernadsky defined the physical-chemical universality of the biophysical phase-spaces of the Biosphere and Noösphere, respectively. His discovery on these accounts affords us a crucially important insight into the way in which the concept of the Kepler-Riemann universe seen by Einstein must be approached by us today.
As I have emphasized in my report of my experience with Leibniz’s Monadology, the long reign of Sophistry within European culture, in particular, has premised itself on attributing a “self-evident” authority for sense-certainty, as Euclidean and Cartesian geometry does this. Therefore, among European culture’s examples of scientific opposition to Sophistry, as in the tradition of the Pythagoreans and Plato, human knowledge, especially scientific knowledge, is premised chiefly upon conclusive demonstration of the fallacies inherent in belief in sense-certainty.
For example, a former associate of mine, from more than a quarter-century past, called my attention then to the extant proof of Philo of Alexandria’s refutation of syllogistic Aristotelean theological dogma, a proof entirely consistent with the astrophysics (Sphaerics) of the Pythagoreans. Briefly, the Sophist form of reductionist’s argument used by those Aristoteleans, was that if the universe is perfect, then God Himself could not have changed anything essential once the universe had been set into motion as created: essentially, this was the model for the later Sophistry of the hoaxster Claudius Ptolemy.
The same principled fallacy persists today within the common teaching of science, and in kindred precincts, as in the expressed, reductionist views, such as those of the modern Cartesians and their mimics, which, contrary to the famous principle of Heraclitus, and contrary to the case presented by Plato’s Parmenides, separate existence, ontologically, from motion.
When that error is corrected, the error of separating the ontological notion of being from the motion of a process of qualitative self-development, the hero of mankind called Prometheus, in effect, is thus unbound, as Heraclitus’ famous aphorism suggests. The result of recognizing this needed correction, is expressed as the concept of universal anti-entropy (contrary to the hoax of a so-called “second law of thermodynamics”). This is the concept represented by Nicholas of Cusa’s founding of all valid currents of modern European science through his rejection of Archimedes’ notion of the quadrature of the circle; this is the concept underlying all valid claims to progress in not only the properly intended practice of modern science, but progress in realizing that intended role of man and woman in society which is implicit in Genesis 1.
2. Creativity as Universal Motion
As I have emphasized in my recent, earlier report on the lesson to be taken from the Monadology, the idea of a universal physical principle, is the notion of not merely an active, but a universally acting principle, whose own actual existence is external to sense-perception as such, but whose existence, expressed by effects, as being exactly such a universal principle, is effectively demonstrable empirically (e.g., experimentally) through methods sometimes identified by professionals as “crucial experiments,” or better named either “unique” or “universal” experiments. The most important of the latter type of cases include the illustration given by Kepler’s presentation of universal gravitation; that is, not only as a principle as such, but as that principle entirely underlying that organization of the Solar System in a physical space-time which is beyond the controlling, direct reach of, for example, either the assumed visual or auditory fields. The more exact method for definition of universal evidence, cohering with that of Kepler, is supplied as Riemann’s notion of “unique experiments.”
As I have emphasized in that earlier report, if we limit the significance of the concept “universal” to a merely spatial quality of an instantaneous existence, as might be implied by the notion of a naively defined space-time such as that of a student’s Euclidean geometry, or, as Leonhard Euler erred in his ontologically fraudulent attack on Leibniz’s concept of “infinitesimal,” we could fail to come up to that level of Einstein’s famous defense of Johannes Kepler’s unique achievements respecting the founding of a practically universal modality for modern experimental science thus far..
The crucial point here, is that the essence of all competent scientific thought, whether as physical science, or in the counterpoint of Johann Sebastian Bach, is located in motion, or, as conductor-composer Wilhelm Furtwängler stressed the same principle with extraordinary excellence in practice, a science of rubato in the broader and deeper meaning of his manifest applications of the conception of the Pythagorean comma, as “between the notes.” Truth in science is not what is perceived; it is what is truthfully demonstrated to be a process of becoming, as Einstein echoed Heraclitus and Plato for physical science generally, as in his own defense of Kepler’s unique role in all competent modern science.
Such essential notions of physical science and Classical artistic composition, can not be presented competently as mere definitions which are bounded by the sterility of a dead formal logic, such as that Sophist dogma of Euclid’s which is associated with Aristotle. The relevant act of a quality of defining experimental discovery, must be experienced as demonstrating a certain efficiency of a quality of existence, a quality of existence demonstrated to be operating as if “from outside” the domain of mere deductive-inductive abstractions from ordinary sense-perceptions.
Principles of Experiment
Thus, no actually existing universal physical principle could ever be competently demonstrated by a design of experiment which pretends, as empiricism does, to locate what is actual within axiomatic ontological presumptions adduced from naive sense-perception, as Euclid and Descartes did, for example.
Select the case of Cartesian method to illustrate this point.
Cartesian analytic geometry proceeds from the assumed physical existence of a set of quasi-Euclidean, a-priori notions of space and time. This presumption of Descartes was demonstrated to lead, inevitably, to what Gottfried Leibniz demonstrated to have been an arbitrary absurdity; this demonstration was the pivotal experimental evidence against the absurdity of Cartesian geometry, which was employed by Leibniz to revive the experimental physical principle of dynamics (dynamis) from its ancient origin in the legacy of Pythagorean Sphaerics and Plato. Leibniz viewed this demonstration of a fundamental fallacy in all empiricist method (such as that of Descartes) as a demonstration which served as a kind of launching-pad for developing his (and Jean Bernoulli’s) work in showing the general physical implications of the related notion of Fermat’s principle of “least time.” The result was that Leibniz-Bernoulli concept of universal physical least-action, which is the original crucial proof, within modern science of the Riemann-Einstein tradition, of the need to dump the false axiomatic assumptions of digital methods in favor of what are termed “analog” methods.
The fallacy inherent in all empiricist and related method, is an expression of the same essential Sophistry traced as a systemic error from Aristotle to Euclid, and from Aristotle and Euclid to Claudius Ptolemy’s hoax. In all of these and related cases, it is assumed that the real universe is the universe of sense-certainty as misdefined by extension, for the very small. In all related cases, the a-priori assumptions inferred from a notion of sense-certainty are treated as if that notion were the basis for a set of self-evidently universal physical principles, as Leibniz exposed the fallacy of this kind of presumption by Descartes and others in Leibniz’s “Specimen Dynamicum” and other writings on the subject of physical least action.
So, when proverbial Professor X went to the blackboard to demonstrate a point, he had already, then and there, built in axiomatic-like assumptions about some primeval state of space and time into defining the subject he would then allege he was explaining to whoever present were credulous enough to believe in this academic occasion’s sleight of hand.
What Leibniz represented in that refutation of Descartes, et al., echoed the earlier discovery of the same quality of proper meaning of the term “truth,” as in the experience which, like Kepler’s discovery of the ontologically infinitesimal local action of gravitation, demonstrates the existence of an efficient principle which is acting from beyond the domain of sense-perceptual notions as such. Kepler had demonstrated that we must not attempt to derive universal physical principles from a naively aprioristic geometry, but must define physical geometry from the standpoint of relevant, crucial-experimental demonstrations of what the cognitive powers of our mind must discover to be the physical principles, contrary to sense-certainty, which define the physical geometry of efficient space with regard for the implications of both the very large and very small.
A rigorous sense of the failures implicit in apparent limits of apparent sense-perceptual certainties, is a precondition, as by continuing a Riemannian process of elimination, for defining the efficient existence of principles of action, such as universal gravitation as discovered by Kepler, which are operating from outside the repertoire of what might be explained as effects of explicitly sense-perceptible actualities.
The paradoxes to which I have thus referred, should already have become clearer to us, through experimental penetration into the evidence of experimental knowledge of the atomic and sub-atomic domains, at the one extreme, and as to the higher astrophysical scale, on the other. In these domains we can no longer rely on the simple evidence of our sense-perceptual apparatus; we require the design of instruments, instruments which, since they must remind us of the functions of our naturally supplied senses, and thus serve as surrogates for our sense-perceptual powers, warn us that a naive estimation of our given powers of sense-perception also suffers a tendency to promote erroneous, axiomatic, or axiomatic-like presumptions; this should, therefore, warn us against a popular tendency for fallibility in the way we tend to think about defining our natural or synthetic perceptual experiences, respectively.
So, now, proceed from those remarks, to treat some relevant higher considerations.
Prototypes of what I had just stated, include the identification of the specific form of dynamic distinction of the physical geometry of living chemistries from non-living ones, that in a way which defines a physical-chemical definition of a principle of life per se operating from outside the functional capacities of what are otherwise experimentally known as the ordinary physical-chemical domain. Or, similarly, the efficiently practical proof of the uniqueness of human creative powers, and their relevant physical geometries, as experimentally distinct, on principle, from anything extant among lower forms of life. These distinctions arise in experimental methods of investigation, but arise only through attention to the implications of the concept of the ontological specificity of the Leibniz infinitesimal, as opposed to the explicitly fraudulent denial of the evidence of the ontologically infinitesimal by reductionist ideologues such as de Moivre, d’Alembert, Euler, Lagrange, Laplace, and Cauchy.
Therefore, it is of crucial importance that we recognize the fraudulent character of the typical arguments of followers of Sarpi’s dogma, such as Galileo, Descartes, de Moivre, Euler, Cauchy, Clausius, Grassmann, Helmholtz, et al., as typically symptoms of the role of Ockham’s irrationalism when expressed, typically, for modern society in the form of empiricism, positivism, contemporary monetarist ideology, and the radically deconstructionist methods of the existentialists.
All of these bounding considerations which I have just summarized in the preceding paragraphs, come into focus in defining economy as implicitly defining a physical economy which is expressed as the function of a process of discovery of universal physical principles which is unique to specifically human practice. Thus, a science of physical economy, as I have defined this for what have been my uniquely successful methods for long-range economic forecasting, corresponds to the presently highest known standpoint of physical science in general.
Conversely, the comprehension of the actual, physical principles of economy could not have been discovered in any different way than the way in which I developed my own original insights into the principles of economy, through the implications of my own, ostensibly spontaneous recognition of the inherent fraud of what was presented to me as a Euclidean geometry.
The most essential pre-condition for scientific thinking, in this case of my experience and similar cases, pertains to the desire to avoid those conclusions respecting our knowledge of the universe, the which ignore that qualitative distinction between human knowledge, on the one side, and the different kind of experience of the universe, on the other side, expressed by the species-reproductive modalities of lower forms of life. Therefore, the only competent premises for any branch of physical science, are those specific to the design based on experience of mankind’s willful accomplishment of a willfully driven qualitative form of progress in potential relative population-density per capita and per square kilometer which, specifically, does not occur under any lower form of living process.
Thus, the professional who insists, “I am a scientist who has no time to bother with economics” has thus exhibited a specific, specifically anti-humanist kind of incompetence respecting the principles of science in general. He has ignored the specific characteristics of the social-reproductive processes of the species he is implicitly considering, the human species.
Human progress in the raising of the potential relative population-density of societies, and, thus, of the persons who dwell within them, depends upon conscious intention to increase the potential relative population-density of the society as a whole. This is not limited to one’s own nation; the very principle of dynamics itself, shows that the failure to raise the level of potential relative population-density of any section of humanity, has a depressing effect on what would be otherwise the increase of the potential of those portions of humanity which are progressing, relatively, in other ways; real economic processes are globally (i.e., universally) physically dynamic, not Cartesian.
Only when I had progressed from my initial commitment to what were, for my adolescent years, the crucial implications of the work of Leibniz, to my realization of the significance of Riemannian physical geometry, nearly two decades later, did I recognize those crucial implications of dynamics for a science of physical economy on which my unique successes as a forecaster have depended. Not only was it necessary to make these steps; with a certain healthy contempt for the false ontological presumptions of so-called conventional views, I would not have been impelled to work adequately through the implications of the demonstrable follies within views of economy antithetical to my own.
Among the most agreeable sensations experienced in that enterprise has been the recognition, first, of the exciting discovery of the essential validity of the founding and further development of the American System of political-economy, which was already, in my youthful experience, contrary to what had been taught to me in the circles of my parents and others from adolescence through my thirties and beyond. Without these preliminaries of adolescence and young manhood, my 1953 discovery of the relevance of the principles of Riemannian method would not have been possible.
Failure to recognize the proof of the ultimately disastrous effects for humanity as a whole of the presumption of “globalization,” the delusion that the cheapest labor is competitively the most efficient for humanity as a whole, is the presumption of fools ignorant of the barest elements of the dynamics of actual economies. Transferring the property-title for government-financed and created basic economic infrastructure to a mechanism of looting the nation in the hands of loan-sharks who are misnamed “private entrepreneurs,” is an economic and moral disaster copied from those practices of Lombard-banker usury which plunged all of Europe into the great medieval “New Dark Age” which wiped out about half the parishes of all Europe and reduced the population by about one-third within approximately a generation!
It was once famously said by a Professor George Santayana from Harvard, of all places, that those who have failed to study history are condemned to relive it. One wonders today: How foolishly illiterate can some elected officials, Presidential candidates, and others, be?
3. Sumer, Women & History
Humanity is the only living species which is capable of a willful mode of progressive ordering of the increase of its species’ potential relative population-density. Once we have accepted the reality, that man and woman are distinguished categorically from all other mammals by the potential creative (anti-entropic) intellectual powers specific to the human species alone, the subject of history is to be recognized as nothing other than the processes of evolution and devolutions of human cultures’ combined scientific and Classical-cultural response to that Solar System setting from within which humanity is operating.
From that point on, the subject of the action exerted by that historical process is located, for competent thinkers, as lying principally in the Noösphere, rather than the Biosphere.
1. Life has never come from non-life. 2. The distinction of human life is located in a principle which belongs to a domain outside the domain of animal life. In the evolution of our planet, there are three presently known, categorical phases, the pre-biotic, the Biosphere, and the Noösphere. The characteristic direction of both our Solar System and the transformation of our planet itself, has been the creation and the increase of the Biosphere, as typified by the generation of a breathable atmosphere and of waters, relative to the non-living, and of the Noösphere, relative to the Biosphere.
On those accounts, there is a relevant lesson for today to be learned, as an example, from inclusion of questions posed by one of the crucial case-studies of the known ancient history of the physical economy in the west Asian part of the larger, Mediterranean-centered region within which European civilization arose. That is the ironical case of the rise and fall of ancient Sumer and other expressions of the cuneiform culture, and the even more profoundly ironical lesson to be learned when we compare that case of ancient through medieval Mesopotamia with a present-day problem associated with the role which, unfortunately, continues to be assigned, if only implicitly, to women generally, in modern European cultures today.
Ancient Sumer’s attributable origins were those of a maritime culture expressed in the region of the Indian Ocean, one among the examples of the way in which the non-Semitic, dominant maritime cultures of the last great, millennial post-glacial melt period had functioned. That culture is best known to us today in its manifestation as a cuneiform culture, a colonization typical of notable lower riparian regions upstream from the mouths of those major rivers which had been left running in the wake of the earlier portions of the great post-glacial melt.
From notable archeological studies, amid the available evidence from the relatively earlier portions of this colonization-process, we have the appearance, in this case, of what archeologists have defined as an ancient “bow-tenure system.” In this system’s more respectable phases of existence, the farmers who maintained the irrigation system, and defended it against salination, among other threats, had a positive kind of symbiotic physical-economic relationship with the managers and bookkeepers of the great common granaries.
What appears to have been the original form of this riparian system, underwent crises, crises leading toward the rise and fall of an Akkad which was partly an echo of the cuneiform culture of Sumer, and also continuing what became a subsequent underlying, see-saw pattern of riparian cultural developments and crises, past the rise and fall of the great Baghdad Caliphate of Charlemagne’s ally Haroun Al-Rashid and the latter’s successors. There lies a pattern which remained evident to the eye of the witting traveler as I spent a couple of days moving by helicopter, up part of the Euphrates north of Baghdad, in April 1975.
The essential feature of this pattern itself, had been the recurring effects of a pattern of cultural degeneration from the equivalent of “bow tenure,” to the equivalent of hired “stoop labor,” to outright slavery, as in the repetition of such patterns of decadence which followed the decline of the great Arab civilization of the Baghdad Caliphate. That pattern, which has continued throughout Europe, still today, through the time of that infamous modern Sophist and organizer of African slavery in North America, John Locke, was first made clear for modern students of archeological history, by their considering the long-ranging pattern of the evidence assembled from such beginnings as archeological studies of Sumer. This provides us a demonstration of the otherwise typical effects of a periodical eliminating, or virtual eliminating of the role of the willfully creative powers of the individual human mind from the general cultural practice of the relevant society.
The modern expression of the effort to suppress the recognition of the creative powers of the human mind, is the so-called philosophical Liberalism introduced to modern Europe by Paolo Sarpi, as his revival of the doctrine of the medieval irrationalism of William of Ockham, a form of modern irrationalism which emerged during the Seventeenth Century in such expressions as empiricism, positivism, and existentialism, all of these under the rubric of the form of irrationalism which came to be known as modern Anglo-Dutch Liberalism.
Against the background which I have just identified in this present chapter thus far, I refer again, as earlier in this report, to the concept illustrated by Aeschylus’ Prometheus Trilogy, the surviving elements represented by the Prometheus Bound most notably.
Women in Recent History
Within the range of such historical studies of these and other roots of development of what emerged as European civilization, when that evidence is compared with similar patterns in known history generally, we have the not-unrelated case of the long record of relegation of women, of even our own present-day society, to a second-rate intellectual development, that even in modern European culture, as in the case of the U.S.A. during the Twentieth Century and now: a matter forced to special attention now, at the moment of the presently ongoing U.S. Presidential campaign.
The discussion becomes most interesting, and also most controversial, the moment we shift emphasis to a focus of attention on the subject of the often relatively degrading, assigned role of women in what is termed “social work.”
I emphasize, thus, the example of a certain kind of “willing intellectual slavery,” rooted in the forms of Sophistry associated with the behavioral characteristics of modern radically reductionist dogma and its habits, as found among avowed “feminists” and other “middle class” women in the globally extended European culture of today. I refer to the case in which women are ostensibly upgraded in their accessible relative social-status rank in the government of society, but achieve this gain under the frequently implicit condition, that the intellectual and moral condition of women generally, and the feminist of the relatively higher income brackets in particular, may enjoy certain benefits of social change, but usually gain virtually no net intellectual improvement in actual cognitive potential, relative to that of comparably leading cases from earlier generations; rather, the recent trend has come to represent a factor of relative cultural decadence, as in the decline of culture in Europe and the Americas since, especially, 1968.
Thus, in the wake of the shift to post-industrial society, a shift against which President John F. Kennedy fought the last few years of his life, the shift into a post-industrial ideology of practice saw women rising in their relative participation in executive roles, but also, therefore, sharing in an accelerating decline in the economic culture and general welfare and economy of the nation as a whole. More and more women came to play a relatively more significant role of influence in the management of what was, in net effect, an accelerating cultural degeneration of the society at large. This was, thus, a most ironical, relative advancement of more and more women of the upper through middle income-brackets to an executive role of participation in steering the economy presently toward Hell.
Since the immediate aftermath of World War II, there has been much change, especially that expressed by increasingly wild-eyed eruptions of sophistry and smoking of psychedelic marijuana, but, since the mid-1960s, no net advancement, but, rather, widespread retrogression exhibited, in respect to the functional quality of developed intellectual powers. Through methods of acute cultural degeneration of European civilization as a whole (such as the spread of existentialism), the standard of intellectual life in Europe and North America today, for both women and men, has fallen generally to what is relatively an abysmal level, relative to earlier times.
Therefore, we must not confuse the issue of currently relative social status, with that of absolute status. Sharing that poverty, or, the effects of the cognitive decadence which has become increasingly widespread in the Americas and Europe today, is not what should be intended as an advancement in “equality.” Rather, it is the distinctions of the human being from all the beasts, distinctions specific to the creative powers expressed by Leibniz’s notion of the ontological infinitesimal, which should be recognized as the absolute issue of political life today; it is those qualities of the development and expression of the creative powers of the individual human mind, which distinguish man from beast, those creative powers of the human mind which do not exist among the beasts, which must be recognized as the existential quality of the “fighting issues” facing all humanity, still today.
That case of the relative condition of women, must be compared with the contradictory trends of recent decades in both the Americas and Europe. We witness the accelerating rise of the incomes and influence of our parasitical classes, such as the case of the parasite, New York Mayor Bloomberg, which must be compared to the plummeting standard of living of the majority of our U.S.A. and western European populations since, not only, the early 1970s petroleum-price hoax which made the U.S. dollar a tool of the European petro-dollar swindle, but, most notably, under the Y2000 collapse under Ayn Rand follower Alan Greenspan’s reign at the Federal Reserve System.
Reliance on statistical trend-lines in economics, is intrinsically incompetence, as the influence of such incompetence of official reporting over the U.S. decades since the assassination of President John F. Kennedy has shown. Competent measurement in economy is not financial-statistical, but physical; it is essentially a matter of physical measurements which must be made according to the principles of Leibnizian (i.e., Riemannian) dynamics, not neo-Cartesian statistical mumbo-jumbo.
A pig has what some people might wish to consider “free will;” only human individuals share in common the specific potential creative powers of a Plato, a Nicholas of Cusa, a Dante Alighieri, a Kepler, a Leibniz, or a Beethoven. The relevant principle of dynamics is expressed both in terms of (Riemannian) potential relative population-density, and the specific rate of increase (or, decrease) of the characteristic rate of change in relative potential population-density for societies as wholes.
Thus, it is a mark of the physical-economic decadence of intentions of governments and popular opinions, which the U.S.A. and Europe are currently suffering, that, still today, the underlying, widespread, Romanticist’s quality of implied presumption, is, in practice, that the modern woman is specially suited, not for the science upon which the maintenance of the conditions of life depends, nor for the modes of Classical artistic composition typified by Leonardo da Vinci, William Shakespeare, Johann Sebastian Bach, and Friedrich Schiller, which promote insight into the social process as a human process, but for the “social work” which is comparable to “rearranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic,” or the like.
Currently, the prevalent idea of a woman in management of a firm of any kind, is usually degraded to some form of the presumption, which might have been borrowed from the French sociologists of notoriously pro-existentialist leanings, such as the utterly decadent European Congress for Cultural Freedom, that the managerial post is intended to be a form of drawing upon the same quality of special, limiting capabilities of women for work which is comparable to the set of assumptions peculiar to the idea of “social work,” as “social work” is associated with the relevant characteristics of the existentialist academic modalities typical of the types of “Lady-do-rightly” social-work doctrine during the childhood, adolescence, and adulthood of the generation born between 1945 and 1958: not making chairs, but merely re-arranging and decorating them.
This is to be compared with a growing, tragi-comic tendency, largely by default, to promote men from other employment, to the role of being “mothers” in almost all expressions short of child-bearing, with the consequent presumption that these new, “odd couple” types of “feminized” Don Juans will develop proficiency in “nagging.”
As one excellent model of a modern woman I know puts it most aptly: “Intellectually impotent men bring out feelings of aggression in me!” Some women prefer, or even insist upon the type of intellectually impotent male upon which they will tend to chew as on the head of an old-fashioned lead-pencil, or they will be enraged by a male who refuses to cooperate, submissively, in that intellectually degraded sort of pair-wise social relationship.
However, in all of this, the crucial fact to be considered is the role of dynamics. The quality of life in a society is the quality defined by the conditions among all sectors of its population. If men were well educated, and women not, the entire society will be dragged down, both physically and intellectually, by the resulting nature of the interaction of men and women generally. If part of the society lives in cruel poverty, the entire culture is morally and otherwise degraded. This principle of dynamics applies not only to men and women, but to the intellectual interrelations among all parts of the culture, as to the relationship between rich and poor alike.
That is the tragedy of oligarchical societies, even those maritime cultures which had been, until recently, the leading edge of cultural progress. As the case of examination of the United Kingdom today shows, an advantaged social class, like that of the British, is degraded into decadence by the effects, upon itself, of its attempted oligarchical forms of tyranny practiced upon the intellectually and culturally stultified masses.
Therefore, the Monadology
Instances of that sort should direct our attention back to both the opening subject of this report, and of my preceding report on the Monadology: the function of individual creativity in society, as I have defined creativity here. At the present moment, concentrate for a time on the role of true creativity in pair-wise and broader social relationships. Acknowledging the all too typical intellectual habits of our times in their own terms, you might be blinded by your own conceits, to the point that you do not recognize the singular importance of that issue; but, after all, it is not the pain we suffer which is the most important of the practical issues we should face; but, rather, what should be crucial for us, is securing the means by which we may locate in ourselves the power to be freed from intoxication with the assorted types of fears and fantasies which, combined, tend to shackle, and stupefy the minds of most of humanity, world-wide, today.
Thus, in these terms of reference, the clinical, benchmark case of ancient Sumer becomes a model benchmark-issue on which to moor our perspective on history’s unfolding development over millennia leading to the state of affairs of today. This leads our attention to the subject of creativity per se, not merely as a matter of individual potency, but, as the principal, determining point of reference for tracing the evolution, or devolution of the role of dynamic social relationships in shaping the course of that span of history up to the present time. That, in turn, guides us to insight into the self-inflicted, now onrushing destruction of the British empire today.
The ultimate origin of all true progress in both the increase, and even the maintenance of the potential relative population-density of a society, depends upon the role of what are actually the anti-entropic, ontological characteristics of relative qualities of expression of potential individual human creative mental activity, that in the roles of both increasing the potential relative population-density in a culture, and in resisting the entropy induced by a lack of the beneficial effects of such creativity. In the attempt to overcome these flaws in currently prevalent patterns of beliefs, what is decisive is knowledge of the role of the individual in generating and mediating conceptions which are essentially anti-entropic in their opposition to the stultifying prejudices of the existing culture.
The benefits of these forms of creativity, which are rarely recognized in European culture today, are expressed, chiefly as either discoveries of universal physical principles, in the tradition of Cusa, Kepler, and Leibniz or, similarly, of the applicable implications of such discoveries, or in the form of Classical irony in Classical artistic composition. The standard which defines “progress” in cultural development, is, specifically, a manifest net increase in the potential relative population-density of a society as a whole: a term specific to the conception of dynamics, especially Riemann dynamics.
As I have frequently emphasized in my writings, and otherwise, on this and closely related issues of creativity, as during the past sixty years, the most characteristic issue to be treated in any examination of human cultures during the just-indicated or much earlier times, is the issue summarily posed by the great Aeschylus’ Prometheus Trilogy, the surviving fragment of that Trilogy, Prometheus Bound, most notably. That is the issue, the issue of that creativity which is essentially the functional distinction of human beings from beasts, a standard which is most typically represented by the conflict of Solon of Athens with that slave-system of Lycurgus’ Sparta which typifies the Delphic origins of the Gaea-Python-Apollo-Dionysus cult associated with the roots of ancient Greek Sophistry.
The crucial fact of history implicit in these points which I have introduced in this present chapter thus far, is that there are two absolutely contradictory conceptions of the characteristics of the rise of modern European civilization since its roots in the relatively known history of the “Middle East/Mediterranean” region. This is a contradiction whose known history can be traced efficiently since a point significantly earlier than the birth of what became a specifically European civilization born about the time of an alliance of Egypt with the Etruscans and Ionians against the maritime power of Tyre, approximately 700-600 B.C.
This is shown by the examples of the implicitly known work of Thales and Heraclitus, and the echoes of their work in the development of the foundations of known physical science by the Pythagoreans and the network of Plato. Through that entire interval, since the time of Thales, there is a clear pattern of conflict between two diametrically opposed conceptions of the nature of the human species, an opposition which is aptly typified by the real-life historical implications of Aeschylus’ Prometheus Trilogy.
This difference between two opposing conceptions of human nature, is the key to the understanding of the crucial issues determining all of the world’s history, now, and for the generations yet to come. The crucial issue underlying all of this, is the notion of the ontologically infinitesimal, a notion already implicit in the work of the Pythagoreans and Plato, which was revived as the basis for modern physical science by Nicholas of Cusa, and expressed as the foundations of modern scientific progress in the work of Leonardo da Vinci, Johannes Kepler, Fermat, and Gottfried Leibniz, and, by Gauss, Riemann, Vernadsky, and Einstein. It is what I have identified as the systemically anti-reductionist physical principle of the ontological infinitesimal of the Leibniz-Bernoulli principle of universal physical least action. This latter is the same principle featured in my “On Monadology.”
4. The Monadology & You
The ostensibly sociological issue which I have emphasized in the preceding chapter, and in my earlier paper, “On Monadology,” poses questions of urgent importance for our presently, increasingly calamitous times, social questions which we must refer, for answers, to the domain of Riemannian physical geometry.
As I have stressed in locations published earlier, the physical-chemical evidence which was implicitly referenced by Academician V.I. Vernadsky in defining the Noösphere, locates the efficient expression of the distinction of man from beast in a principle which is necessarily distinct from, in the sense of being categorically “above,” the elementary concept of life as a principle of the Biosphere. This quality which distinguishes man fundamentally from beasts, is associated with the principle of specifically human discovery of true universal physical principles, as this notion from the ancient Egyptian and Greek Classical times was re-introduced to modern European civilization by Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, as in locations such as his founding of modern European science in works beginning with his De Docta Ignorantia.
It is this same principle which is expressed by Johannes Kepler in Kepler’s uniquely original discovery of the universal principle of gravitation, and which is at the center of Gottfried Leibniz’s uniquely original discovery of the calculus of the ontologically infinitesimal. It is the same principle, which owes its more fulsome expression, chiefly, to the anti-Euclidean physical geometry of Bernhard Riemann’s 1854 habilitation dissertation.
The central feature of the relevant argument which I present in this present report, depends upon Vernadsky’s proofs in the domain of physical chemistry, crucial proofs of the existence of a principle of life which does not occur within non-living processes. This also demands that we pin-point the independent universal physical principle which distinguishes the human individual, ontologically, universally, absolutely, from all lower forms of living processes. The relevant argument required for our purposes here and now, goes as follows.
There is no competent science of economy which does not rely upon these foregoing foundations of a competent science of economy.
To understand the cultural crises which wrack and ruin today’s world as a whole, we must recognize that the notion of Sophistry, which is traceable in European civilization from such ancient sources as the Delphi Apollo-Dionysus cult, has been reincarnated essentially in the domination of the cultures of modern European society by the Anglo-Dutch Liberalism whose proximate origin is to be traced to the influence of the founder of the Neo-Venetian political party of Paolo Sarpi, a Liberalism whose influence produced that modern imperial form of Sophistry known as the neo-Venetian phenomena of Anglo-Dutch Liberalism, such as Cartesianism.
Economy & Modern Imperialism
From its February 1763 Peace of Paris, which was the occasion of the founding of the actual financial empire of Lord Shelburne’s British East India Company, still operating, if under modified costuming, until today, the British Empire has been essentially a neo-Venetian (Sarpian) form of global maritime empire of a reformed Venetian financier-oligarchical system, a reform based on the revived irrationalism of the medieval William of Ockham, which thus superseded the failed Aristotelean doctrine of the old Roman imperial model of Byzantium and of the Crusaders’ medieval Venice.
The installation of this philosophical standpoint of Anglo-Dutch Liberalism, has created an imperial boundary for development of modern society, a boundary within which it seeks to confine the prospects for continued human existence in that mode. This British imperial boundary imposed upon humanity at large, has been challenged by the developments in North America which, while transferring the best known fruits of modern European culture to the Americas, created an ordering of affairs within North America which was thus significantly, if not perfectly, free from the corruption represented by the neo-Venetian system of Anglo-Dutch Liberalism.
For reasons which I shall emphasize in the concluding chapter of this report, the continued role of the neo-Venetian style of financier imperialism represented by the British system, has imposed its threatened absolute boundary-condition on a civilization which succumbed to a continued hegemony of this British influence. The extension of world history under the inherent reflexes of that British system and its auxiliaries, would tend, strongly, to bring humanity as a whole to a limit at which a general, vastly genocidal breakdown of the present world system would occur: unless we now introduce certain radical changes which would, significantly, prevent that catastrophe.
The world has now reached approximately that limit, that verge of a now immediately threatened general, planetary breakdown-crisis.
The existence of this kind of now very rapidly approaching boundary-condition, was already demonstrated most clearly during the period of President Franklin Roosevelt’s service. It was clear to Roosevelt and to his relevant adversary Winston Churchill, that the success of U.S. leadership in making possible the defeat of the Hitler regime, defined the immediate preconditions for an inevitable collision between the U.S.A. and British systems, as President Roosevelt stated this frankly, and repeatedly, to Churchill during the course of World War II, and as Churchill’s Britain understood this clearly in its own determination to uproot and destroy all of those qualities of the U.S.A.’s constitutional system which had defined the absolute superiority of the U.S. system to the British one.
Immediately upon President Franklin Roosevelt’s death, President Truman joined Churchill’s cause in the effort to castrate and gradually destroy those anti-imperialist characteristics of the U.S. constitutional system which Churchill and his confederates hated so devoutly. Later, with the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the process of attempting to uproot the Franklin Roosevelt legacy, went from sabotage to intentional uprooting and destruction of everything which had made the U.S.A. the great power which had led in the defeat of fascism. What H.G. Wells praised, as he did during the early 1930s, as his own, British style in fascism, has taken over, more and more, the cultural trends within the U.S.A. and Europe over the recent decades.
So, today, especially under the Bush-Cheney Administration, the U.S.A. has now become virtually self-destroyed, aided, lately, in this by the complicity of such fools as Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, an asset of the perfervidly fascist Felix Rohatyn. However, what the resulting, present state of world affairs represents more immediately, is the attempted triumph of the British empire’s program for a model of society which is to be fairly described as a globalized new Tower of Babel. World civilization at large could not long outlive such a mode of collapse of the U.S.A., a collapse which would be, presently, a greater calamity than that which Europe experienced in the middle of its Fourteenth-Century “New Dark Age.” Thus, the triumph of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal system at this time, would be the doom of civilization world-wide, a doom expressed in a chain-reaction style of general breakdown crisis of the planet as a whole: that for reasons I shall make clearer in the subsequent, concluding chapter of this report.
Those things considered, the question to be addressed is defined broadly as follows.
To serve the purposes of the subject which needs to be set forth in this particular report, I must devote the following portions of this present chapter of my report to presenting a relevant kind of summary form of recapitulation of the arguments on the subject of the physical science of economics which I have published in earlier locations, as follows. I present four categorical arguments to this effect.
First: What Is Science?
From the relevant known, attributable evidence obtained from ancient until modern sources, science begins where the reign of “sense-certainty” has been brought to a close.
The notion of science is, properly, the notion of knowledge addressed to specifically universal subject-matters, which means observation of principled changes in the observable universe, especially the astronomical universe. Such changes became observable for scientific or related purposes, only under the conditions of use of very long periods of observation of the visible aspects of our surrounding universe, for guiding what had been ancient, long-ranging, often repeated migrations.
In fact, for that reason, true scientific knowledge could not come into existence except through the effects of society’s use of celestial navigation as a method for repeated migrations, back and forth, either under the conditions of long-term glaciation of large regions of the planet, or comparable circumstances.
It is presently known, as since Bernhard Riemann’s reference to this fact in his 1854 habilitation dissertation, that phenomena occurring on a scale corresponding to the atomic and sub-atomic, on the one side, and phenomena on the astronomical scale, on the other hand, can not be competently represented by resort to assumed geometries which were based on the ordinary macro-scale’s observations.
Thus, anything deserving the name of science, is a matter rooted in celestial navigation, as in the course of regular, probably seasonal migrations over navigable distances of thousands of kilometers, that during a span of very many generations. As study of ancient calendars points out to us today, a valid concept of science could have arisen only under such conditions of persisting, long-ranging celestial navigation. From thence, the idea of a true physical science descends to more local earthly activities, until the scientific crisis met on the scale of the atomic and sub-atomic becomes the new quality of challenge to be considered.
As I have emphasized repeatedly, earlier in this present report, and many reports uttered by me earlier, any and every attempt to interpret events and processes from the standpoint of a-priori assumptions, such as those of widely taught Euclidean Sophistry or kindred presumptions, introduces a crucial element of systemic incompetence, even into what were otherwise qualified experimental investigations. It is for these reasons, that virtually every general sort of long-range economic forecast presented publicly by leading personalities and institutions has proven, consistently, to be essentially incompetent, as we witness this incompetence afresh, in the policy shaping of the U.S. Federal government, and also most foreign governments presently.
What should have been the obvious issue here, is the fact, which I explain, I think that done adequately, in this location, that science and sense-certainty are antithetical subject-matters. Science requires some kind of evidence whose very nature affords us a means of verifying, or refuting the notions of the organization of the universe which sense-perceptions alone would tend to imply. In other words, science begins where and when a-priori presumptions, such as those of Euclidean geometry, have been cast aside as being inherently, systemically, absurd.
Thus, contrary to the viewpoint expressed by the dupes of the Sophist hoaxster Claudius Ptolemy, the universe never simply repeats itself. There are always what may appear to be cyclical changes, but any given such set of changes is also subject to a higher set of changes, and so on. It is not some observed simple repetitions which define the organization of the celestial navigator’s universe, but, rather, a nested array of successively higher-ranking such changes. It is the adducible principle of these nested orderings which provides us a practically reliable, actually physical notion of the meaning of “universe,” as in the case of Einstein’s notion of a finite, but unbounded universe.
Such arrays of experimentally verifiable, nested patterns of universal change, thus define the proper meaning of universe. This situates the notion of universal physical principles. These are notions which correspond to recorded experience of observations in long-ranging calendars of the type attributable to products of a culture shaped by a long-ranging practice of celestial navigation, and are, thus, specific to the fruitful work of successive generations of astro-navigators. The notion of a universe of anti-entropic changes, so defined, is the unique quality of founding basis for a competent representation of any notion of science as such.
So, from that standpoint, we have Heraclitus’ famous aphorism, and its echoes in Plato’s Parmenides dialogue. In a true scientific knowledge of the type rooted in the habits acquired from celestial navigation, nothing exists but continuing change. Only the practical reliance on evidence of the universal, as demonstrated by reliance on long astronomical cycles expressed in terms of calendars of several thousands of years, or much longer evidence from the practice of celestial navigation, permits mankind to escape successfully from the folly of assuming that a-priori notions of sense-certainty define the actual universe in which we exist. That is to be taken as the practical meaning of the term “universal.” It is the study of qualitative changes in ordering of the universal process, as in astrophysics or microphysics, which, by freeing us of the effects of blind, habituated faith in sense-perception, define the only competent notions of truthfulness essential for the foundations of both science and competent statecraft generally.
Second: The Method of Science
Thus, the Pythagoreans, who benefitted most notably on this account from the influence of the science of the Egyptians, adopted an expandable body of scientific knowledge which the Egyptians shared with relevant Classical Greeks, a knowledge named Sphaerics by them. Although we know competent science to be much, much older than the Pythagoreans, the poor state of organization of surviving documentation, such as the fragmentary, surviving documentation of the work of Thales and Heraclitus, compels us to take the known heritage of the Pythagoreans and Plato as today’s historical benchmark-knowledge of systematic scientific thought.
In adopting that view, we must emphasize that the views on matters of physical science which are, like the Sophistry of Euclid, or reductionists such as the crude materialists, contrary to that of these preferred sources, are proven to be incompetent, even in their own terms.
We are thus obliged, as were the Pythagoreans and Plato, and Nicholas of Cusa and his intellectual heirs later, to contrast the notion of universals to the notions of local sense-perception.
On this account, the pivotally crucial heritage of the Pythagoreans and Plato is to be located in three outstanding features of the knowledge presented by these sources:
First, the notion of the comma, from Pythagoras.
Second, the duplication of the cube (purely by methods of construction), by Plato’s friend, the Pythagorean Archytas.
Third, the conception of the immortality of the human soul, attributed implicitly to Pythagoras, and rigorously defined by Plato.
When we view the accomplishments of the Pythagoreans, in retrospect, from the standpoint of Kepler’s fundamental discoveries of principle presented in Kepler’s The New Astronomy, the notion of Sphaerics is stretched, as the evidence requires, to take into account the notion of the ontologically infinitesimal associated with elliptical functions as this challenge was presented by Kepler to his intended heirs in the founding of modern physical science. By “modern physical science,” we must signify such matters as the uniquely original discovery of the ontologically infinitesimal calculus by the Leibniz who combined Kepler’s own discovery with the experimentally grounded, universal principle of least action which had been presented in a preliminary form by Fermat.
For the remainder of the matters to be considered on this account, the essential issue of scientific method was settled in the opening pages of Bernhard Riemann’s habilitation dissertation, when time by itself, matter by itself, and space by itself, ceased to be subjects of competent science, and the world view later expressed by Albert Einstein took over competent physical science, top down.
Third: Physical Science & Classical Culture
This author’s deepest personal complaint against the kind of argument underlying the notorious New York Times’ Style Book, is that the implicitly calculated, net effect of the change from Classical modes, which the Times’ manual represents, is not merely entirely away from Classical practice, but habituates the consenting dupe of that manual to either a “grammarian’s funeral,” or, at the least, a systemic violation of the most essential features of the higher order of mentation expressed by all thoughtful modes of Classical prose and poetry. The mind of the victim of the Times’ implicitly embedded doctrine, is a crippling form of stultification of the processes of thinking and communication which directs the Times’ victim into the essentially irrational habits of the kind of Sophistry which is, indeed, fairly recognized as the duped readers’ loss of power for actual Classical thought and composition.
By preventing the victim of the Times’ and kindred doctrines from communicating in terms of what Percy Shelley identified, as in his In Defence of Poetry, as profound and impassioned modes of communication respecting man and nature, the Times’ and other sources avoid, and even seek to destroy the same intellectually and morally superior terms to which I had become habituated, since childhood and youth, from Classical authors’ works. The crippling of the power to speak coherently, as by the Times’ doctrine, is also an habituated crippling of the power to think. So, the credulous victim of the Times’ doctrine suffers a crippling impairment of the ability to think competently at all.
The systemic fault in what the Times’ style typifies, is properly recognized as the same systemic form of pathology expressed in the way in which Eighteenth-Century, neo-Cartesian empiricism corrupted the ability among many relevant, nominally leading scientists, of that and later centuries, to think scientifically. For example, without such systemic stupefaction in institutionalized education generally, today’s acceptance of Ernst Mach, Bertrand Russell, and such Russell epigonoi as Professor Norbert Wiener and John von Neumann, would not have been feasible. Typical, and crucial in this Sophist perversion called modern Liberalism, is that denial of those essential principles of competent modern physical science which is associated with Descartes and such among his successors as the empiricists generally, the positivists, and the existentialists. Crucial, is the loss of the principle of the Pythagorean comma, which is not a mere punctuation mark; that loss is the same thing as the loss of access to the conception of the ontologically infinitesimal in physical science.
The fraudulent element in schemes akin to the New York Times’ Style Book, is the transparent attempt, there, to appear to emulate the Aristotelean syllogistic method. This is to be viewed from the standpoint of the theologian, in terms of what I have referenced earlier as Philo’s condemnation of the Aristotelean theology of his time. The Times follows in the footsteps of those Gnostics who came under attack by Philo on this same account.
That is to emphasize, that the universe, like our Solar System itself, is a process of anti-entropic creation. The force of creation (anti-entropy) is expressed as an undeniable paradox which is presented for observation as an irony, the irony, akin to the type of irony which drives a Mozart or Beethoven composition in conformity with the principle of J.S. Bach, of some actual feature of a process—the proverbial “punch line,” which reflects the fact that the process represented is not closed, is perfectly imperfected, waiting to be perfected by the relevant richer development of the creative powers of the individual human mind.
All meaningful statements in Classical art-forms are pointing to a coherent process of “imbalance,” like the ontological infinitesimal of Cusa’s rejection of the fallacy of Archimedes’ quadrature of the circle, an affirmation of the principle of gravitation which drives Kepler’s Solar orbits, the Leibniz calculus, or the eyes of a Rembrandt masterpiece. It is that quality of irony, so expressed, which marks the difference between the ideas of irony which drive literate poetry or prose, and the practice of Sophistry prescribed in the New York Times Style Book.
Fourth: Human Immortality & Science
Every meaningful aspect of human practice of true science and Classical artistic expression, reflects a principled difference between the personality of the living human being and any and all species of animal life. This consideration, as just so stated by me here, is crucial to the entire argument of this document.
Call it a kind of quality of “resonance.” I explain this as follows.
When we take the relationship of the human species to all other living species, and also treat the relationships within the other living species, and the effect of the human species’ dynamic interaction with those others, the action of the human species upon the set of all living species, is to be seen as unique. This uniqueness is located within the specifically creative potential of the individually sovereign mental powers of the human individual. In this set of relationships, the human species is unique by virtue of its unique kind of capacity for the willful ordering of the increase of the potential relative population-density of living species generally. This uniqueness of the human individual’s powers, and, therefore, that individual’s species-nature, is expressed in its effects as intrinsically immortal.
The point which I have just introduced here, thus, should be weighed from the standpoint of the methods of physical chemistry defined by the work of Academician V.I. Vernadsky, the Vernadsky view of physical chemistry which was unique in his original definitions of the respective principles of the Biosphere and Noösphere. From the experimental standpoint of Vernadsky’s emphasis on physical chemistry, we must recognize that the distinction between man and beast is comparable, from the standpoint of universal physical principles, to the physical-chemical distinction of the non-living portion of the gross mass and weight of our planet from that portion expressed as the Biosphere. The distinction between Biosphere and Noösphere is also an expression of a universal physical principle of distinction between the Biosphere and Noösphere treated, respectively, as universal phase-spaces.
Where then, is the principle of human cognition situated, in a fashion comparable to the difference in principle of phase-spaces separating the physical chemistry of non-living processes from living ones? In other words, in brief, there must be a universal principle, located in the individual human mind’s development, which is not to be located in any other expression of life.
In effect, the answer assumes the broadly descriptive form of “tuning.” Rather than presuming that human cognition is an “evolutionary” outgrowth of living processes generally, consider the Biosphere as a physical phase-space which provides the soil in which the independently created seeds of human individual cognition are able to take root and grow.
The importance of posing that conception in the fashion which I have done here, as in some earlier locations, is the uniquely specific effect of human creativity in changing the composition of the physical universe as a whole, that in the sense of the way in which human creativity has already willfully directed a conceptually orderable process of changes of the planet Earth as a whole in respect to both abiotic forms and the Biosphere.
In other words, actual human creativity (anti-entropy) is a universal physical “force” independently of the capabilities expressed by both the abiotic universe (as a phase-space) and also the principle of the Biosphere.
The stereotype of this human cognitive principle, is seen in the physical effect of the change of the planet Earth as a whole, changes such as the increase of the mass of the Biosphere relative to the abiotic phase of the planet, and, also, the increase of the Noösphere as a whole, relative to both the Biosphere and the abiotic mass of the planet. In effect, thus, the creative powers of the individual member of the human species are a physical force of self-change in and of the universe as a whole. Ideas of the type associated with the generation of this unitary process of universal change in the physical universe, are efficient “physical forces” in and of themselves.
In effect, therefore, the mind of the living mortal individual, insofar as that individual develops creative powers as I have indicated in this published location, is a universal physical principle of the universe, as the relevant portion of Genesis 1 identifies, if only symbolically, the special place and role of man and woman in the universe as a whole.
These relations of the human intellect’s immortal capability, while the individual is still alive as a medium for transmission of this higher power, have, thus, the general categorical quality of resonance, tuning. The instrument dies, but the music is immortal.
This brings us to the matter posed at the outset of this report: The assuredly self-inflicted present doom of the British Empire.
5. Why That Empire Is Doomed
I am, as Friedrich Schiller proposed, a patriot and a world citizen, a citizen and humanist. In such a profession there are few guaranteed rewards proffered to the wise, except that of what one has contributed to one’s own immortality. Therefore, let us rejoice.
One night in the Spring of 1946, I stood in the Calcutta Maidan, watching literally millions of Indians marching en masse, as brothers, shouting an antiphonal chorus of “Jai hind” and “Pakistan zindaba,” demanding promised freedom as a price for the terrible mass murder which British occupation police had wreaked with direct, headlong, massed machine-gun fire into the forward ranks of an approaching crowd of protestors. The congealed blood had been still thick on the pavement of that street on the following morning after that shooting. President Franklin Roosevelt had died just a year before, Harry Truman was U.S. President, and I knew then, with great sadness, the general nature of what the death of President Franklin Roosevelt had meant.
In the following year, it would be reported that virtually the same men who had marched together in Calcutta, then, would be slaughtering one another, for the amusement of the British, in the bloody division of what had been a united people in the year before.
As I have stated in the beginning, whatever else happens, today, that British Empire which I learned to hate devoutly in Calcutta, is now probably doomed, by its own hand, in one sense of that, or another. The United Kingdom could participate in a general economic recovery, on the condition that it is willing to give up ties to the present Anglo-Dutch Liberal form of an attempted, global, neo-Venetian financier empire, now, as the United Kingdom should have given up imperial intentions in honor of the President Franklin Roosevelt who had died fighting that cause for all humanity; otherwise, in any case, that empire, if it continues, were now doomed by its own hand.
Now, today. the potential ability of the world’s human population to sustain the present level of human population under presently prevailing standards of practice, has already exceeded the limits which the policy of our present world has allowed to be imposed, artificially, upon itself. This tragic horror is largely a result of the introduction of “globalization” and “neo-Malthusian” fads, circa 1970-72.
This situation has been brought about by the present influence of a lunatic form of Delphic “environmentalism,” a mass-murderous Dionysian cult. This cultish folly of these establishment cultists, has lowered the potential relative population-density of the planet, at the same time that the population of the relatively poorest regions of the planet have expanded their role in the world’s production of physical needs, while the active productive potentials of the populations of North America and Europe have undergone the self-inflicted punishment of a continuing, presently aggravated form and degree of artificially induced, physical collapse.
Most unfortunately, since the aftermath of the death of Franklin Roosevelt, until today, most among our present generations of typical Americans, even leading political figures, among others, have lost connection, through attrition, to any competently systemic knowledge of their nation’s actual history. Only an exceptional, relative handful of those born between 1945 and 1958, even among today’s political leaders, possess a significant remnant of such intellectual competence.
Therefore, to summarize the case at hand in this report, we must step back a pace or two in modern European history, to consider the developments which led, from the events leading into that 1763 break of England with its colonies in North America, and on into the establishment of the U.S. Federal republic.
Briefly, therefore, some highlights of this history are to be considered as matters of background for presenting the crucial point of this present chapter of the report:
London: Our Republic’s Great Adversary
From the accession of France’s Louis XI, until the follies of France’s so-called “Sun King,” Louis XIV, France had been recurrently, the first true and leading modern nation of Europe. Since the death of Louis XI, France’s greatest period of power in outlook, science and scientific leadership in the world at large, and of related economic development, came to life again through the role of Cardinal Mazarin and Mazarin’s associate Jean-Baptiste Colbert. France, then, under the leadership of that Colbert, was the leading nation of Europe, and remained the leading nation in physical economy and physical science even into the great decline of France as a nation during the succession of the Martinist masonic cult of Count Joseph de Maistre’s typical, London-steered cases of the Queen’s Necklace, the Jacobin Terror, and the Napoleonic wars.
The foundations for the decline of France from about the time of the wars into which Louis XIV was lured, led into the corresponding, continuing rise, as during that same time, under the influence of such as the Cartesian Abbe Conti, of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal heritage of Paolo Sarpi.
Thus, the Eighteenth Century still echoed the effects which had become embedded during the earlier phase of religious warfare, warfare which had been launched, chiefly, by that Venetian financier oligarchy associated with Paolo Sarpi. It must be remembered, that both of the opposing factions of Venice had previously combined their efforts to ruin European civilization with Sarpian, Liberal Venice’s orchestration of the religious warfare during the 1492-1648 interval; this had left effects. That time, prior to 1648, had been the interval of a return, then, to a virtual “little new dark age” in the political history of Habsburg-inflicted Europe. It had been a kind of relative dark age which had persisted in successive phases from the launching of systemic anti-Semitism in modern Europe by the Spanish Inquisition (1492), until the Peace of Westphalia (1648).
However, in 1648, the role of the Pope’s special agent assigned to France, Mazarin, had been crucial in creating the conditions for a revival of modern Europe, through an ending of generalized religious warfare per se. What emerged after 1648 was a modern European civilization, however troubled still. An order worthy of the name of civilization, was reborn with the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, thus establishing a civilization which would die in infamy today were the evil forces represented by the enemies of the Westphalian principle, such as former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, to triumph in trans-Atlantic relations now.
It had been during the time of the follies of that model predecessor of the Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, France’s Louis XIV, that France was lured into the snare prepared by the maritime financier power of Sarpi’s Anglo-Dutch successors.
For example, the coup in England represented by William of Orange and his Anglo-Dutch Liberal faction, had led, in turn, to the establishment of a new empire through the means of London’s orchestration of the so-called “Seven Years War” among the continental powers of Europe. This had led, in turn, into the emergence of the British East India Company of Lord Shelburne in the February 1763 Peace of Paris, where Canada and India, among other strategically crucial places, fell into the hands of the maritime power of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal forces now centered in London.
With that February 1763 Treaty of Paris, the Anglo-Dutch Liberal faction embodied in the British East India Company became, by fact and intention, a certain kind of caricature of what British braggarts called a new Roman empire. It was an empire indeed, but, essentially, a world maritime empire cast in the likeness of the realm of the Venetian financier-oligarchy.
From the time of the rise of the Presidency of Franklin Roosevelt, through the lingering aftermath of a U.S.A. leadership representing loyal veterans of the Roosevelt Presidency, the legacy of that Roosevelt Presidency resonated still, until August 1971: until the successive effects of the wrecking of the Bretton Woods system and of the oil-price hoax which combined effects to establish the present hegemony of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal control over the price of the U.S. dollar by the “spot market.” This deplorable state of affairs has continued up through the moment I write, today.
Through the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy, and the consequent closing of that planned trap for the U.S. which became the launching of that war in Indo-China which that Kennedy, like Generals of the Armies Douglas MacArthur and Dwight Eisenhower would have prevented, the U.S.A. has been induced to destroy itself, by attrition, as a nation, under the guidance of the British empire and its virtual British colonial officials operating in financial centers such as Manhattan and Chicago.
Since then, during the course of 1968-1981, under the successive Nixon, Ford, and Carter administrations, the U.S. economy’s most essential pillars of true sovereignty have been systematically destroyed by the complicity of our own elected governments, complicity in submitting to the policies which the British empire worked to impose upon us. I must emphasize that this has been a submission which has been led by our elected governments themselves, right up to the present instant I write these very lines.
Now, the Present Crisis
The means by which the present, lunatic policy of global practice, which I have denounced here, has persisted, since 1971, for as many decades as it has, has now produced a wave of what has now become an intrinsically hyperinflationary expansion of merely nominal financial-monetary assets. Thus, in the recent decades, 1987-2008 most notably, through an intrinsically hyperinflationary scheme typified by the policies of practice of former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, a great portion of the physical output of the planet has been managed through the relentless expansion of unpayable debt to be delivered to the customer who could never repay the obligation incurred by the product for which the producer will never actually be paid. Recently, the point was reached, quite lawfully, at which a hyper-inflationary crisis of the type experienced by 1923 Weimar Germany has struck the global Greenspan “Pyramid Club” scheme.
Unless appropriate reforms of the type which I have specified are adopted very soon, a general, global breakdown-crisis will unleash a chain-reaction general collapse of the present world system, a collapse comparable to what struck Germany in 1923, and Europe as a whole, earlier, during the mid-Fourteenth-Century “New Dark Age.”
Were the present quasi-medieval, “Tower of Babel”-like policies of “globalization” continued under current conditions, the potential relative population-density of the world as a whole would collapse in a degree greater than the rate of depopulation which struck Europe during the mid-Fourteenth-Century “New Dark Age.”
In the meantime, we have used up a critical margin of the presently standard quality of the world’s raw materials. This, by itself, is not necessarily a cause for a crisis. Were the world to unleash a widespread application of capital-intensive investment in existing models of nuclear-fission power, and abandon the lunatic “green” models favored widely today, the problem of apparent raw-materials scarcity would not be a critical problem, respecting quantities, qualities, or prices. However, under a “green” and “globalized” doctrine, the presently onrushing, global crisis, would mean a prolonged and very deep depopulation of a planet sunk deeply into a prolonged, new dark age.
Unfortunately, a great private institution, the Fusion Energy Foundation (FEF), was destroyed by what the U.S. Federal courts later classified, albeit with manifest reluctance, as a fraud upon the bankruptcy court, a fraud organized by the office of the Attorney-General of the U.S.A., acting through the jurisdiction of the notorious “rocket docket,” the Alexandria, Virginia Federal Court under Judge Albert V. Bryan. Nonetheless, during the preceding period that FEF was permitted to function, certain notable contributions to science and the cause of statecraft were made by it, made directly, or by a kind of ricocheted effect. Among these contributions was the adoption of a proposal for general use of the term “energy-flux density,” as had been proposed by a leading Soviet scientist.
I stress that this adoption of the term “energy-flux density,” by scientific parties on both sides of the “Cold War” divide, was a kind of moral compromise, although, under the circumstances of that time, a justifiable one.
The serious practical problem which this use of “energy-flux density” was adopted to moderate, is that critical developments of the 1970s had destroyed the ability among informed persons of good conscience, to continue being willing accomplices in the toleration of a famous hoax, a hoax in the name of “thermodynamics,” the so-called “Second Law of Thermodynamics,” a hoax which had been launched by the Nineteenth-Century figures Clausius, Grassmann, Kelvin and others.
The hoax in question had been launched as a radical-empiricist (e.g., “positivist,” “radically reductionist”) reification of an important contribution to the understanding of the subject of thermodynamics by a prominent member of France’s École Polytechnique, Sadi Carnot, on the subject of heat. Like the legendary “Fat Lady” of the carnival, Clausius, et al. had degraded what was called thermodynamics to the simplistic counting of calories. The use of the term “energy-flux density” served as a rule-of-thumb variety of remedy for some of the worst effects on policy-shaping which had been contributed by the silliness of Clausius, Grassmann, Kelvin, the Machian Ludwig Boltzmann, et al., in the matter of the discussion of nuclear-fission power and related matters. In the meantime, the fact of the matter is that the density of power, per square centimeter of cross-section of flux, describes a “non-linear” function, such that the same number of countable calories of nuclear-fission power is far greater in its power to do work, per countable calorie, than any ordinary chemical source.
It is the increase, by orders of magnitude, of the equivalent energy-flux-density of sources of power, which defines, conveniently, the amount of actual net work which a single calorie may effect.
We have presently entered a phase-shift in world physical-economic history, at which the limitation of sources of applied power to less than the nuclear-fission level, puts a seriously declining upper limit on both the size and quality-of-life of the human population of this planet. To oppose nuclear-fission power as a general source, is, now, in effect, a criminal form of practice of mass-murder against the human race. In fact, the present scheme called “globalization” must be identified now as a practice of “genocide.”
This case is a convenient illustration of the problem to be addressed in the following, concluding part of this present report as a whole.
The Road to Britain’s ‘Catch-22’
What Winston Churchill and others regarded as the threat which President Franklin Roosevelt represented to the continued existence of the British Empire, was, in sum, that the unleashing of the popular will of the people of the U.S.A. for a great expansion of the productive powers of labor represented an immediately mortal threat to the continued existence of the British Empire. In this estimation, the British imperialists were correct.
The immediate threat perceived by London, was President Franklin Roosevelt’s repeatedly stated intention for the post-war world: that the great military-economic, agricultural, industrial, and infrastructural machine which that President had mustered both for the recovery of a shattered U.S. economy and in preparation for a war which had just become already inevitable a few days prior to Roosevelt’s first inauguration, would be converted, at the close of the war, for the included purpose of developing the colonial and semi-colonial territories of the world in ways essential to establish those territories as independently sovereign nation-states, thus eradicating the institution of imperialism from the world at large. Such were the intentions expressed by the 1944 proceedings of the Bretton Woods monetary conference. Such was Roosevelt’s intention for founding a United Nations Organization.
Immediately following President Roosevelt’s death, the British monarchy and the right-wing U.S. forces which had been pre-war backers of Mussolini and Hitler’s rise to power, reverted, under President Truman, to begin the process of destroying the Franklin Roosevelt legacy, and its capabilities, and to do this as rapidly as were feasible.
Since such shifts in policy, from one direction toward an opposite one, must allow time for uprooting the established paradigms of the presently influential generation, it was nearly twenty years, the lapse from the death of Roosevelt to that of the John F. Kennedy who had strongly reaffirmed a commitment to the Roosevelt legacy, before the work of actually destroying the U.S.A.’s economy could be set fully into motion by the War in Indo-China and the unleashing of the Sixty-Eighters for what was shamelessly identified as “a cultural-paradigm shift.”
During the interval 1961-1968, there had been many attempted assassinations of high-ranking figures associated with the cultural paradigm of the World War II military veterans and related types of political leaders, such as Charles de Gaulle and Kennedy; there were other de facto coups d’état or assassinations to kindred effect. The shock effect of these tumultuous doings, especially the assassination of President Kennedy, enabled the launching of the War in Indo-China, over, quite literally, President Kennedy’s dead body. However, the most crucial of these politically orchestrated, horrid developments was the coordinated unleashing of the Sixty-Eighters and the role of those Sixty-Eighters, internationally, in launching that new epidemic of Malthusianism called anti-nuclear, anti-farmer, anti-industrialist “environmentalism.” These have become the new breed of existentialists and other virtual traitors to the human species.
All that evil in defense of the British Empire!
It has not ended with those developments. “Globalization,” the campaign for a new “Tower of Babel,” is a crucial part of this. The British imperial faction has gone back to its 1920s and 1930s promotion of the fascism of Mussolini’s Italy, Schacht’s and Hitler’s Germany, and similar cases of that time. Today’s George Shultz and Felix Rohatyn are typical of today’s would-be copies of the fascist figures and tyrannies of the 1920s and 1930s, figures of the types which the British monarchy had played a leading role in creating and backing from the start, then, as now.
Now, comes the proverbial “Catch-22” as such.
The pattern just described is known to ancient through modern history by various names, all properly chosen to express the same phenomenon. Typical names from ancient times are “The Persian Model,” or, generically, “The Oligarchical Model,” as typified by the legacy of Sparta, of the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the Venetian-Crusader tyranny, and by British imperialism, and its successor, the fascism of Felix Rohatyn, Michael Bloomberg, et al., since 1763.
The paradigm which underlies these expressions of the oligarchical model, is found in Aeschylus’ Prometheus Bound. The key to the oligarchical model is the banning of knowledge of universal physical principles from the generality of the population, especially the so-called lower classes. The British population as seen, and, perhaps worse, heard, on the television receivers today, is typical of a population which has been, to a large degree, stupefied culturally into a mental state suited to the making of a helotry in the tradition of the ancient oligarchical model.
All imperial systems, in their character as systems, depend for their conditional durability on stifling those creative powers of the human individual which are expressed typically in the form of discovery of universal physical principles, or comparable intellectual qualities of Classical artistic activity. The design is intended to degrade the great mass of humanity, as virtual cattle, to a condition of mental life in which human mental life is brought to resemble the farmer’s herd of cattle. This effect is accomplished, simply, by outlawing mental activity tantamount to knowledge of fire, or, better said today, nuclear fission. It was on this account, that the legendary Olympian Zeus of Aeschylus, condemned Prometheus to quasi-permanent torture for confiding knowledge of the use of fire to those intended Delphic cattle known as mortal man and woman.
To keep a large population stupefied in a state like that of the unfortunate ordinary “Brit” seen on screen today, is considered necessary if the population is to be mentally self-incapacitated in a manner suited to oligarchical overlordship. The destruction of Classical culture in Germany from the mid-1960s on, and the brutish dogmas of practice of that piece of fascist filth of Adorno, et al., the book called The Authoritarian Personality, are typical of such swinishness.
Such Malthusian or kindred policies of practice, encounter an existentially crucial problem for the society which harbors such trickery. Any society operating on a fixed technological level is doomed on that account, but any culture which promotes the creative powers of its general population is one which will come around, sooner or later to overthrowing oligarchical modalities. Thus, the British empire, if it wishes to remain an empire, must suppress actual creativity in the generality of the subject population, or cease to be tolerated as an empire, thus creating a situation in which the British must either give up their imperial tradition, or be doomed by the consequences of suppressing scientific progress as a characteristic of the morality of its own population.
I.e.: “Catch-22.” The British must monopolize scientific-technological progress in order to stupefy its subject populations, which it must do to remain an empire. Yet, if it does not promote that scientific and technological progress in practice in such a general way that the potential productive powers of the general labor-force keep ahead of the rate of attrition inherent in a fixed level of technology, the empire will undergo a physical collapse, as is witnessed by the general history of imperial and similar attempts at “zero-technological-growth” systems.
Lately, the combination of the increase in population, especially among the relatively poor masses into which much of production has been shifted away from the formerly industrialized powers, with the falling overall productivity caused by this “outsourcing,” has produced a fall in per-capita and per-square-kilometer rates of net physical output which will doom the present civilization, if continuation of that approximately net-zero-growth policy were permitted. Currently, the world is operating below technological break-even on this account, for precisely this set of reasons.
The empire, just because it is an empire in terms of the embedded cultural characteristics of its reigning institutions, is probably doomed, simply for the reason that it would prefer to die, than abandon those features of its embedded cultural reflexes which define it as an empire. For the rest of us, the question is: do we prefer to go down with the empire, or to cut free from both its physical, and, more important, cultural embrace?
[fn_1] The February 1763 Peace of Paris had already established the British East India Company as a British-empire-in-fact. The late, evil Tony Blair government was not merely the author of the fraud used to launch the currently running Iraq War, but led the effort to crush the Peace of Westphalia out of existence. [back to text for fn_1]
[fn_2] Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society, Simon & Schuster, New York, N.Y., 1953. Russell had been the author of the policy of “preventive nuclear warfare,” to establish, thus, “a system of world government,” as this already existing intention to extend the British Empire had been boldly publicized to the world at large in “The Atomic Bomb and the Prevention of War,” in the The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 2, Issue 7-8, September 1946. [back to text for fn_2]
[fn_3] H.G. Wells said, in a public speech at a club of Liberals at Oxford in 1932: “I am asking for liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.” See “Churchill Boosted Oligarchical ‘Pan-Europe,’” in EIR, Vol. 35, No. 9, February 29, 2008, p. 26, for the role Winston Churchill played as protector and friend of Sir Oswald Mosley, leader of the British Union of Fascists.. [back to text for fn_3]
[fn_4] The original form of what became known as modern fascism, called “corporatism,” was actually organized under Italy’s Benito Mussolini, organized by Venetian bankers such as British agent Volpi di Misurata, along the same lines as those of the Fourteenth-Century Lombard League. Typical of this model for today, is the present program of fascist banker Felix Rohatyn and the cabal organized around Mayor Bloomberg by the Rockefeller Foundation, together with the son of a Nazi, Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is today’s Governor of California, and Governor Rendell of Pennsylvania. Behind this present revival of the old Venetian model of financier leagues of cities, is the same Felix Rohatyn who figured, together with George Shultz, in backing that Pinochet dictatorship of Chile which is also notorious for its role in that Nazi-mass-murder operation of the early 1970s known as “Operation Condor.” [back to text for fn_4]
[fn_9] Paolo Sarpi, the leading figure in the late Sixteenth-Century launching of that New Venetian party which founded modern European Liberalism, and from which Anglo-Dutch Liberal imperialism developed. [back to text for fn_9]
[fn_10] Beginning the Autumn of 1977, I began investigations intended to define scientific-technical and related political measures which might effectively reduce the continuing threat of a thermonuclear exchange among principal military powers, a threat which was significantly increased by the inauguration of a U.S. Carter government assembled around National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski’s Trilateral Commission. I proposed such a policy as a plank of my U.S. Presidential pre-candidacy in the Summer of 1979. A team at a high level within the new Reagan Administration provided supervision on behalf of that President for my exploratory discussion of my proposed policy with the Soviet government. The President announced the policy in a March 23, 1983 five-minute segment of his live television broadcast. The Soviet General Secretary turned the offer down flat. His Soviet successor, Gorbachev, grew very nasty, especially against me personally, over this matter. The fiercest aspect of the fraudulent legal and related Anglo-American harassment against me personally, and against my associates, was launched in the immediate weeks following that broadcast. This is the heart of the continuing “heat” around the name “LaRouche,” still to the present day. I warned in 1983, that the Soviet refusal to negotiate President Reagan’s offer meant that the Soviet system would collapse “in about five years.” A little more than five years later, in an October 12, 1988 broadcast from Berlin, I announced the impending months collapse of the economies of the Comecon, to begin within Poland. At that time, I identified a constructive offer which the U.S.A. should extend to the Soviet government under those conditions. When we compare my alternative, presented thus on October 12, 1988, with what President George H.W. Bush and Prime Minister Thatcher did to Russia et al., there is no mystery as to why I was railroaded, by a fully transparent judicial hoax, into prison, that at approximately the exact-same moment George H.W. Bush was inaugurated. Beginning 1989, Germany, under the British imperial policy to become known as Maastricht today, is being given the same kind of treatment by Britain, that Britain had heaped on the Germany of the early 1920s. [back to text for fn_10]
[fn_11] For an introduction to the principles which underlie a competent economic thinking, see my “My Early Encounter with Leibniz: On Monadology,” EIR, Vol. 35, No. 8, February 22, 2008, pp. 26-43. Anyone who has failed to grasp the argument I have made there, is thus rendered intrinsically incompetent in dealing with the essential features of successful economy—for as long as he, or she persists in that delusion. Admittedly, that piece of mine is intellectually challenging, but, unless it were understood, no one should think of himself or herself seriously as an economist. “Analog” as in the Leibniz-Bernoulli conception of the principle of universal physical least action. [back to text for fn_11]
[fn_14] The medieval empire had two phases. The first, prior to the Fourth Crusade, and the later emergence of the dominant role of the practice of usury under the system of that Lombard League. It was that Lombard League phase of the medieval system, whose practices of usury brought on the Fourteenth-Century “New Dark Age,” which is the precedent for the presently ongoing, global breakdown-crisis. [back to text for fn_14]
[fn_15] The ontologically infinitesimal power of anti-entropic change, which is uniquely specific to man, among living creatures. See LaRouche, “On the Nöetic Principle: Vernadsky & Dirichlet’s Principle,” EIR, June 3, 2005; pp. 32-51; and Sky Shields, “What Exactly, Is a Human Being? Analog, Digital, and Transcendental,” EIR, Vol. 35, No. 1, January 4, 2008, pp. 59-63. [back to text for fn_15]
[fn_16] For precision, the following definition of “Anglo-Dutch Liberalism” must be provided in the form of an extended footnote. The proper, precise meaning of the term “Liberalism,” as employed here, refers to the axiomatic-like change in Venetian dogma which occurred in the form of the action, by Paolo Sarpi, the putative founder of what is called the “New Venetian Party,” in adopting the irrationalist dogma of the medieval William of Ockham (Latinized: “Occam”). Sarpi’s essential argument was that the Aristotelean baggage of the old Venetian system would not permit Venetian interests to adopt the improved measures of armed and related combat needed to defeat the rising potentials which had been unleashed by the great reform launched as the 1439 A.D. Council of Florence (i.e., of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, et al.), unless the New Venice party allowed a practice of innovation which would be intrinsically contrary to the inherent, pro-Aristotelean stagnation of medieval feudalism. Sarpi’s rise to power coincided with his New Venetian Party’s shift of its economic base of strategic, supporting maritime economic power from the Adriatic to the natural maritime regions of the North Sea, Atlantic, and Baltic. Thus, a Sarpian “New Venetian” maritime power, was concentrated in the Netherlands and along other coastal regions of northern Europe, up to the point of William of Orange’s coup d’état in England. The power of imperialism does not spring from the interior of political-economies, but from financier-oligarchical modes in maritime power. Hence, the needed precision embodied in the expression “Anglo-Dutch Liberalism” today. [back to text for fn_16]
[fn_18] The discovery of the actual, crucial-experimental, physical-chemical concept of the Noösphere is actually unique to Vernadsky; earlier references to such a term, as by Teilhard de Chardin, were fanciful, without actual evidentiary basis. See my “Vernadsky & Dirichlet’s Principle,” Op. cit. [back to text for fn_18]
[fn_19] Notably, both Copernicus and Tycho Brahe, who recognized a formal fallacy in Claudius Ptolemy’s hoax, failed to define a principled form of organization of regular action in the Solar System, where Kepler succeeded in discovering the principle of gravitation. The method employed by Kepler for his unique success is the same method of Sphaerics represented by the Pythagorean Archytas’ construction of the duplication of the cube, as Eratosthenes emphasized the significance for all science of that construction by Archytas. The same issue was posed implicitly by the success of Leibniz and Bernoulli, as contrasted with the frauds on the subject of the ontologically infinitesimal by de Moivre, d’Alembert, Euler, Lagrange, et al. [back to text for fn_19]
[fn_24] W.A. Mozart’s Ave Verum Corpus is an elementary demonstration of this role of the sequence of Lydians in leading to a concluding realization of “becoming,” an achievement by him which is expressed as the underlying intention of all truly great Classical musical compositions since J.S. Bach. [back to text for fn_24]
[fn_25] “Specimen Dynamicum,” in Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz: Philosophical Papers, L.E. Loemker, trans. ed., Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Boston, London, 1976. 2nd edition. [back to text for fn_25]
[fn_27] Note that Riemann, as in his 1854 habilitation dissertation, warns that competent science does not extend apparent space-time from the ordinary experience into the domains of either the astrophysically very large or microphysically very small. [back to text for fn_27]
[fn_28] For example, only a kind of utter, ideologically driven incompetence, could have impelled the devotees of the wild-eyed Sophist Ernst Mach into attributing the apparent form of organization of visible objects in sense-perceptual space to the ontology of a sub-atomic, microphysical domain. [back to text for fn_28]
[fn_29] This is to be recognized, otherwise, as the principle named dynamis or dynamics, as Leibniz emphasized the latter term in exposing the fraud inherent in Cartesian method. [back to text for fn_29]
[fn_31] Although Charlemagne received the imperial crown, he was not only an enemy of the Byzantine imperial system of that time, but his achievements were the target of both the Byzantine Empire and its Norman-Venetian successors through those deaths of the Staufer emperors which paved the way for what was to become the Fourteenth Century’s “New Dark Age.” Peace between France and the Arab states of near Asia, was the mainstream of the diplomatic and related policies of Charlemagne and his notable successors through the death of Staufer emperor Frederick II. This was an underlying trend in anti-Norman policy of medieval and modern France, from Louis XI, until Napoleon Bonaparte’s regime reversed it. [back to text for fn_31]
[fn_32] The term “psychedelic” was minted by the circles of followers of the pro-Satanic Aleister Crowley, such as his initiates Aldous and Julian Huxley. It was introduced as a surrogate for the clinically authentic term “psychotomimetic.” The promotion of this explicitly Luciferian cult was centered in the circles of the same Brigadier John Rawlings Rees of the British official psychological warfare organization featured in the establishment of the London Tavistock Clinic, the organization which sponsored the development and promotion of LSD. Marijuana of an increased psychedelic potency is included in this repertoire. [back to text for fn_32]
[fn_33] Bloomberg’s identity as essentially a parasite is typified by his scheme for buying up government-created infrastructure at bargain prices, and then looting the public by charging usurious fees for the public’s use of that infrastructure. [back to text for fn_33]
[fn_34] The depletion of a finite resource, as through compelling resort to poor qualities of such resources, lowers productivity. This must be offset, ultimately, by more advanced (“more powerful”) higher energy-flux-densities of principles, technologies. or new resources). It is to be emphasized that the interval c. 4,000-2,000 B.C. represents the fag end of a long wave of glacial melt, from about 17,000 to about 2,000 B.C., during which the typical rise of the ocean levels, to present ones, was between 300-400 feet. The geography of the coastal regions, and the related changes in riparian characteristics, must be taken into account. [back to text for fn_34]
[fn_35] I.e., the modern conception of the ontologically transfinite was introduced by Nicholas of Cusa’s correction of the erroneous assumption specific to Archimedes’ quadrature of the circle and parabola. The first systemic experimental proof of this discovery by Cusa was provided by Johannes Kepler’s demonstration of the principle of “equal areas, equal times.” Kepler’s discovery is the foundation of the method employed by all competent modern physical science, as by Fermat, Leibniz, Gauss, Riemann, Vernadsky, and Einstein contrary to the Sophist methods of the empiricists and their like. [back to text for fn_35]
[fn_38] Note again, that the conception of a “finite but unbounded universe” is specific to a science free of the intrinsically pathological presumptions of reductionist methods such as empiricism. [back to text for fn_38]
[fn_39] As typified by the École Polytechnique under the leadership and programs of Gaspard Monge and Lazare Carnot. The great decline of France came under the combined effects of the reign of Napoleon Bonaparte and the wrecking of the quality of the École Polytechnique under the interim occupation regime of the Duke of Wellington and British occupation agents Laplace and Cauchy. By the late 1820s, leadership in science had passed from France to the then fragmented Germany of Alexander von Humboldt, Gauss, Dirichlet, and Riemann. [back to text for fn_39]
[fn_40] Not to be mistaken for another member of the same family, the President of France whose assassination was instrumental in preparing the stage for what was to become known as “The First World War.” [back to text for fn_40]
[fn_41] Many economists and others have stated ex post facto, that John Maynard Keynes had defined Franklin Roosevelt’s intention for the post-war monetary system. The ex post facto judgment is mistaken, but for many, an honest error. Roosevelt’s intention had been the break-up of the British and kindred empires. President Truman’s virtual kissing of the imperial rump of Winston Churchill, thus produced a scheme which might appear to conform to the proposal in Keynes’ 1944 Bretton Woods address. [back to text for fn_41]