A Deadline in Destiny
Increasingly, over the course of passing decades, my role in the life of our nation and also that of our world, has been that of a strategic character, a role which I have sometimes performed from the standpoint of what has been my unique function as, in effect, a conspirator against the British empire’s role as a certain kind of reincarnation of the ancient Roman empire. It is philosophers who sometimes play the kind of role which I had seemed to have fallen into over the course of my adult lifetime, philosophers who have been able, in their past, as I do now: philosophers, who, sometimes play a crucial strategic role in confronting a threatened, great existential crisis of the planet.
Such, for example, was my role in creating the proposal for an SDI during the late 1970s and 1980s, and, again, in the threat of a global form of terminal sort of rising economic crisis of Summer 2007 and beyond.
In such a time of great world crisis as now, consider the following case, as being of the type of strategic crisis presently reaching a terminal state in world affairs, one defined as follows:
Had U.S. military forces not arrived in France at about the time they did, what has been named “World War I” would have concluded with a German victory. Had the British Royal family not succeeded in expelling Chancellor Bismarck from office when they did, what is called “World War I” would not have begun, because Russia would not fall into the Balkan trap which the silly old Austro-Hungarian Kaiser had set into motion. Had Russia’s Czar heeded Bismarck’s council, the British monarchy would not have been situated to start the world war in Europe with the silly old Austrian Kaiser’s Balkan war, and the weak-witted Russian Czar would not have died as he and his family did. In warfare, as in economics, statistical forecasting, whether in war, or in the works of peace, is the work of fools. In war, as in economy, there is an approximate time-frame for nearly every outcome of general significance for societies. That is not a matter of sentiments, nor of statistics, but of science. I explain.
“The destruction, of the destruction of the destruction”
It is not a certainty, but nonetheless much better than merely a fair estimate, that unless the passing of the re-enactment of the original 1933 Glass-Steagall law occurs before mid-Summer of this year, the trans-Atlantic economy would probably be toppled into a breakdown-crisis comparable to the 1923 Weimar hyperinflation, but, this time, on a global scale. It would be a crisis in a form not unlike that of the 1923 Weimar Germany hyperinflation. That crisis, unless prevented by the kind of leadership which I foresee as presently necessary, would, if allowed, uncork a chain-reaction-like spread of the destruction even into such major Asian nations as China and India.
Heretofore, when history is being made in the face of a crisis on a grand scale, as now, it is not events as such which define the likely outcome; it will be an orchestration of crucially significant arrangements and events, all combined in a form of expression which only a creative leadership could supply, a leadership supplied by means of the crucial role of even a single person.
This means such a person as the exemplary Benjamin Franklin in his role in the history of the American struggle for freedom against the British imperial tyrant. In times of a great crisis such as this in progress now, it is not events which make history; in these times, either a mere one, or several leaders would provide the conceptual quality of leadership required, or else, the outcome would be a disaster by default.
The fate of mankind has always been, ultimately determined by the presence, or lack of extraordinary leading figures, such as Benjamin Franklin in his time, whose ability to muster a relevant personal force of creativity has made the difference between achievement or dismal failure of great enterprises. Without the triumph of creative forces over those forces of tradition which doom thus failed nations and cultures, history would write off entire nations, even entire peoples, and, ultimately, even the human species as a failure.
So, a great victory for mankind, under the circumstances of any truly grave crisis of civilization, is always expressed by a principled conception which is lodged, primarily, in even a single figure who rises in those circumstances to be the beacon of a concept of victory for the existential struggles of an historically critical time: in the final analysis, our Creator does not take failure kindly.
The characteristic of such a required leadership, is that leader’s expression of true human creativity, a creativity of the type which is modelled on a valid choice in discovery of a relevant universal physical principle. Mere formulas are worthless in such a crisis; accomplishment depends upon the quality of creativity comparable (in substance, rather than mere form) to a successful discovery of principle in physical science, one which can supply the leadership which a grave world crisis demands.
Whatever the actual date for a crucial decision on this account, the outcome for a nation, or even the entirety of mankind, requires the appropriate, relatively tiny group of the relatively best qualified, principal leaders operating in any acute crisis, a crisis such as the presently terminal state of the trans-Atlantic regions’ economies now.
It must have been a leadership which must have taken into account all reasonable forms of uncertainties. So, we must not risk simply waiting for the renewed Glass-Steagall law; whatever the actual course of events immediately ahead. We must have intended to achieve success in the Glass-Steagall law’s passage within an interval of about a month from now. Failure to pass Glass-Steagall in the immediate future, would, in any case, soon uncork a horrid catastrophe for mankind throughout the planet.
The leading crises of globally extended European civilization, have often been a reflection of such considerations. Great wars and kindred great turns in the course of history, as at this present, existential moment, are like that.
That goal which I have set in my own mind, takes into account the fact, that it will be the policy of the British monarchy and its captive toady, President Barack Obama, to cause a veto of a re-enacted Glass-Steagall law. However, once that legislation had been passed in the U.S. Congress itself, the presently installed British royal puppet, Obama, would be on the way out of office, and, then, probably, the re-enactment of Glass-Steagall would prevail. Despite the threatened veto, once that pending law were passed in either house of the Congress, Obama’s career were finished. That would present mankind with the prospect that civilization could then be saved, as it could not be saved otherwise now.
The timely, immediate decision for Glass-Steagall in the U.S. Congress is presently crucial; no nation other than our United States, has the capability for actually initiating such a successful rescue of civilization from what I have just indicated as the currently onrushing, general economic-breakdown crisis of this planet.
The authority for a high probability of success for this foregoing assertion of mine here, reposes, essentially, in the history of the creation of the U.S. Federal Constitution, a constitution which was made possible by those leaders of the crushed Massachusetts Bay Colony who, despite that setback, in a manner of speaking, created the victory accomplished under the leadership of Benjamin Franklin, Such is, thus, a particular history traced from the Pinetree Shilling established under the original charter of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. As in an effective command of leadership in warfare which typifies the pathway to victory, it is principles tantamount to principles of physical science, which will be decisive in any victory secured by these United States and others, within the setting of the present world, economic breakdown-crisis.
Once the issue of that definition of the required leadership were settled to the effect which I have just indicated here, as in the exemplary case of Benjamin Franklin, the formation of a leadership in depth, proceeds with a likeness of such actions as were taken by Franklin follower Alexander Hamilton, a Hamilton who came to the surface of great events as a leader in the crafting of our Federal republic.
That crucial aspect of the legacy of the original charter of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, is to be traced to the notion of a credit system, as opposed to a monetarist system. A credit system is to be understood as being the root-model for the same economic policy which Alexander Hamilton introduced as the cornerstone of the U.S. Federal Constitution itself, with such consequences as the Preamble of that Constitution.
This commitment to a credit system, rather than the likeness of a European monetarist system, has been the legacy which informed the leadership of our republic under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the legacy on which the design for Glass-Steagall was premised in our constitutional system. Both Hamilton and his collaborator Isaac Roosevelt, the latter the ancestor of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, are to be identified with the establishment of our republic’s constitutional tradition, on that account.
The citizen should locate the key to that Constitution as being located, essentially, in the Preamble of that Constitution, a Preamble which expresses the superior principle of the entirety of that Constitution, the principle which expresses its intention in the terms of the arrayed list of obligations which the Preamble adopts for the body of that Constitution as a whole. This set of obligations presented there, defines the implicit physical objectives assigned to a U.S. Credit System, as that System is associated with the stroke of genius shown by Alexander Hamilton in rescuing our then young republic from the otherwise fatal grip of an insoluble war-debt of the respective states.
The problem in Europe, is of just that type against which I have warned here, above. That has been often the case, with some relatively brief exceptions to the past century’s European economic traditions. I am pointing now to such exceptions as those of Germany under Adenauer, and aspects of Charles de Gaulle’s Fifth Republic policies. The tradition of our U.S.A.’s constitutional law, as a credit system, is deeply rooted in our Constitution’s principled rejection of monetarism, as this rejection is expressed now as the urgently needed return to the U.S. constitutional principle, the principle of a credit system, rather than a monetarist system. Hence, Glass-Steagall.
Granted, continental Europe, perhaps even the United Kingdom, might, or could choose to emulate a U.S. re-enactment of the original Glass-Steagall law; but, in the feasible order of such an action, the United States must first act to start that global process of the needed turn away from monetary systems, to a fixed-exchange-rate agreement, and, beyond that, onward to partnerships in a credit-system.
Thus much said, now let us look into the difference between the U.S. Federal Constitution’s underlying, original principle, and the principles which rule nations such as those of Europe generally today.
The crucial fact is, that:
Under the U.S. constitutional credit-system, as the implications were set forth in the Preamble of that Constitution, the value of the U.S. currency is premised, for our Constitution, on the notion of physical values; whereas, in European monetarist systems, the value of physical wealth is rooted in the ultimately fatal fault of being placed on the price of mere money per se.
For its part, the monetarist principle works to such effect, contrary to our Federal Constitution, that the currency which commands the nominally highest relative monetarist value, reduces the others’ monetarist systems to relative serfdom. Hence, empires are impelled to take such special measures as were likely to orchestrate such an effect.
It was never colonies which defined a Europe-centered empire, but, rather, the relative price of a certain reigning form of money within an international monetary system. Hence, to save civilization from immediate disaster now, it is urgent that we re-establish a fixed-exchange-rate system, a system based on physical credit, as what is now urgently needed at this time, a system of credit employed for the recrafting of what is presently a largely ruined, international monetary system, for its reincarnation as a credit system.
Some doubters would suggest the cases of China and India as being exceptions to such a presently British-dominated monetarist rule since 1971. On the contrary, consider the relative price of labor in those two nations, each considered as a whole. Considering not only the purchasing power of the relatively skilled labor, you must weigh the effect of the relative poverty within the population as a whole.
The widespread confusion among even most contemporary governments and economists in this matter, can best be clarified, by considering physical production and consumption as the standard of performance, rather than relying upon any intrinsically fraudulent, presently established monetary standard to serve as the basis for a reliable approach to economic analysis.
This brings us here, now, to the following, urgent considerations.
All competent definitions in the domain of a modern science of physical economy (rather than a monetarist one), are to be measured in terms of physically relative time. This is as I have treated the implicit, physical meaning of the concept of time within published locations earlier, such as my “When Governments Crumble.”
The measurements presented in that mode, can then be competently reported within the terms of a nominal calendar time, but that could be done in a tolerable fashion, only as a description of the effect of the action (the mere footprint), not the action by the moved foot itself. What is to be measured, primarily, in physically relative time, is reality; contrary to other kinds of measurements made in what are considered conventional measures found among those mere shadows which are the notions of mere space-time. The others are to be treated as shadows cast in the applicable “light.” As being merely descriptions, mere shadows, rather than substance.
It is that which casts those shadows, but not the shadows themselves, which is to be adopted as the subject of a system of physical economy consistent with the intent expressed implicitly by the Preamble of the Federal Constitution of the United States of America.
In due course, within the presentation of this present report, I shall have explained the scientific relevance of this crucial point which is to be located within a science of physical time, rather than a shallow-minded attempt at physical science in what have been viewed as the physics of “space and time.” This correction will serve as a necessary reference to my own work in the field of physical economy, and to the added features of that method as supplemented recently by my associate Sky Shields. This should be considered as a necessary recapitulation of that earlier work for our immediate, present purposes here. Two points are crucial at this point in the delivery of the report.
First, the set of categories associated with the set of terms, “space, time, matter,” is systemically flawed in the respect that “space,” as distinguished from “matter,” does not actually exist. The “finite, but unbounded universe,” which Albert Einstein reported from his consideration of the uniquely original discovery of gravitation by Johannes Kepler, is fulfilled, one might say “ebulliently,” that with the very substantial expressions of the physically efficient actuality of a (finite, but unbounded) universal, physical domain of cosmic radiation.
Second, as Sky Shields had recently put my standing point-of-view emphatically, the notion, as he emphasized this point, is the ridding of the name of science of a notion of time as presented by a foolish Newton or Pierre-Simon Laplace, the successive elimination of such trash as that known as a notion of time as being measurable, physically, as by means such as the ontological absurdity of a notion of simple clock-time.
As I had emphasized in “When Governments Crumble.”
Both of my just stated, two points, require that we define real time—physical-process time, rather than clock time—as efficiently acting on the physical past, as, also, concurrently, on the present and the future. Speaking ontologically, the notion of a simple clock time, when used as if it were an integral notion of physical principles, is a systemic fallacy, possibly even a fraud, as the cases of Newton and Laplace were recently pinpointed by Sky Shields.
The several points which I have just set forth above, are to be understood in light of the fact, that human sense-perception, when used as a description of the actual physical universe, presents us with what is to be fairly identified as a fallacy of presumptions. It is a fallacy which was defined implicitly as such a fallacy, as in the concluding section of Bernhard Riemann’s 1854 habilitation dissertation. However, wider and deeper insight into the genius, as had been already shown by Riemann in this respect, had begun to be appreciated more fully at a later time, by means of an improved insight in the work of such as Max Planck and Albert Einstein. The present time’s grasp of a fuller meaning of what Planck and Einstein had specified, has depended chiefly on the impact of the Riemannian discoveries of V.I. Vernadsky and his associates and followers.
We are to be certain, today, that human sense-perceptions are only among the virtual shadows of an actually principled character of our experience of the universe which we inhabit.
Thus, since Riemann had posed the paradoxes of space and time, and of a mathematics so located, in both the physical concept of Abelian functions, and also, in the concluding section of his habilitation dissertation, we are informed to view that dissertation as representing an expanding panoply of “synthetic” supplements, supplements to be contrasted to mere sense-perceptual functions. This aspect of Riemann’s work, has had the effect of expanding mankind’s notion of the known physical domain, and has done that in the same general method of approach already encountered in the challenging, concluding section of Riemann’s habilitation dissertation.
In that just stated connection, special attention must be paid to the final sentence of Riemann’s dissertation: the necessity of basing science on abandonment of the department of mathematics. The significance of that is, briefly as follows.
The presumption that physical processes might be generally representable by the formalities of mathematical procedures as such, perpetuates the absurd presumption that the principles of physical science might be reflected within a mathematical system as such. It is crucial to recognize that physics defines mathematics, not the other way around; hence, the warning delivered by Riemann as the concluding sentence of the habilitation dissertation.
So, competent science today, is that which accepts the obligation to depart from reliance on the presumed boundaries of mankind’s given sense-functions, just as Riemann had warned us on this point. A statistical substitute for physical science applied to the domain of a physical economy, is a pure folly on which the worst crises of economies, among other misfortunes, are generated.
At the same time, respecting the same ontological issue, we can no longer consider ourselves as “naturally” bounded by our given sense-perceptual powers. Reality, as reality is to be known by relevant sources today, is to be represented as a richly expanding array of “precursor senses” now dominates a currently competent science. That is also true for any competent quality of forecasting and other law-making by governments enjoying the resources needed to make such projections.
Any competent notion of a physical science, including economic forecasting, depends upon the kinds of considerations which I have summarized above. We are enabled, thus, to escape the imprisonment of mere sense-perceptions, to enter into the true domain of physical science, into the expanding roster of recognized, elementary faculties of human mind. Old sense-certainty now squats in ridiculousness; whereas, the creative powers of insight of the human intellect open up a vast panoply of added faculties to supplement the meager five delivered, as in the human package delivered at birth.
Bernhard Riemann would, assuredly, be pleased with that view, but not satisfied by it, nor would I.
So, the time has long since past, when powerful nations could be excused for condemning the greater part of their populations to reliance on the meager resources of the five categories of sense-perception. Yet, there is something more than that to be considered.
Today, long-standing features of that galaxy within which our Solar system is situated, now confront mankind with intimations of foreknowledge of the dangers which mankind has never before encountered during those several millions years which the human species had existed thus far. Yet, at the same time, mankind as a living species is of a most unusual kind.
Other species known to us, are, like all things in the universe: they are creative in fact. However, with mankind, there is a great difference, a difference of ontological, rather than merely formal dimensions.
The difference is, that mankind is the only species of which we have present knowledge whose creativity can be expressed as intentionally voluntary in its potential nature as a species. Mankind is the only known type of species equipped with a built-in potential for the power to choose a voluntary creativity in respect to the discovery of the use of the potential of valid universal forms of created and creative principles.
Consequently, the ability of mankind to acquire the use of the new, more powerful principles generated by human creativity, indicates a capacity unique to mankind, the ability to discover a universe which is larger, in a certain sense, than that which might have been presumed to enclose that which we might have thought we knew well enough before. The potential explosion of access to such knowledge since the launching of NASA, typifies this fact.
This, however, depends on governments which permit, and also support such discoveries of new principles, and of their use. This consideration supplies a presently new direction in the increase of the human species’ power not only to survive menacing new kinds of conditions, but to open up for our use grand dimensions of a truer universality than what we had known before.
The world, already most of its nations and among their populations, especially those of the trans-Atlantic regions, has been careening lately in a downwards direction of the world’s economies considered as a single whole. There has been a recently accelerating trend which has now brought the principal nations of the trans-Atlantic sector to the brink of a general, hyperinflationary “breakdown” crisis. The threat of a general collapse, has been, as a fact, as serious in its way as the 1923 hyperinflation was for Weimar Germany; but, potentially, the foreseeable consequences are presently even far worse, as the economies of many nations are now careening, globally, toward a common, and early dead-end.
For us, in the United States, that present economy of the trans-Atlantic regions is, morally, systemically, an expression of economic folly, a persisting folly which has been behind the creation of the presently awful present state of affairs. This pattern has had its post-World War II roots in the transition away from the policies of that President Franklin D. Roosevelt who had led a once-bankrupted U.S.A., to be the greatest nation-state power the world had ever known, up to the time of his demise. Churchill and his lackey, President Harry S Truman had changed the world’s direction, into a direction away from the greatness associated with President Franklin Roosevelt.
That downward turn had actually begun under the influence of Churchill’s and Wall Street’s influence over the new President, Harry S Truman. Truman, as President, was a virtual little twerp whom Wall Street had put into the nomination for a U.S. Vice-President—“Vice” indeed!—a nasty sort of figure who was, speaking strategically, a sly but witless dupe of British imperialists Winston Churchill and Bertrand Russell.
However, the worse down-turn was effected, later, through the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the assassination which overrode the opposition to a U.S. engagement in a war in Southeast Asia, an opposition which had been led jointly by President Kennedy and General Douglas MacArthur.
The later assassination of that President’s brother, a Robert Kennedy likely, until his 1968 assassination, to become the next Democratic Party candidate for U.S. President, was the assassination which greased the skids for what would be proven to be the newer catastrophe, the Richard Nixon Administration. The U.S.A. has never recovered since; in fact, the worst U.S. President in all U.S. history pollutes the seat of the Presidency today, the Nero-like mental case and the British monarchy’s shamelessly lying toady Barack Obama.
It would never be sufficient to attempt reforms which did not deeply hurt the feelings of those who had become habituated to the policy-outlooks which had ruined us over the period since the death of President Franklin Roosevelt. The problem is not simply that mistakes were made; it is the intentions which became deeply embedded positions imposed upon our nation, under the reign of those wrong-headed Presidencies which had peopled significant portions of our nation’s history. The worst of them all has been that pair of the recent decade, poor wretches who have done the most in all post-World War II history of the Presidency to ruin us from within, poor creatures who must be not merely replaced, but the tendency for the installation of their future likenesses thoroughly uprooted.
It were urgent that we now replace this awful President, Obama, preferably under either Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, or, at the least, the weight of the threat of that being done. More reforms than that are needed; the legacy of error which has been ruining us through most of the time since the death of President Franklin D. Roosevelt must be righted. However, it is not the person of a pair of the recent decade’s very bad choices of President, which is the most crucial fact; it is the fact of the lack of a regard for the principled intention of, above all, the Preamble of our Federal Constitution, which had been already embedded in our Federal Constitution from the start.
It is to that latter principle, that this report is dedicated.
Aword to the wise. From this point onward, it must be borne in mind, that we have implicitly departed from the domain of the imagery specific to mere sense-perception. Despite the attempts to cling to the habit of visualizing experience in terms limited by the notion of “the five senses,” our actual thinking must be shifted in its characteristics to an ontological conception of mind as such, a notion of “mind” which is self-improved by discoveries of new physical principles, but which is also adaptable to the changes associated with advances in the implied dimensionality of an expanding array of true physical principles. That is a “new habit,” which need be adopted, even if that takes time before the notion is comfortable.
Still today, in what had once been the rather famous concluding paragraph of his A Defence of Poetry, Percy Bysshe Shelley summarized his own view of the matter of those kinds of influences which are, rather often, seen as mysterious forces. These are to be seen as acting within a population. Rosa Luxemburg, much later than Shelley’s prophetic work, would identify this phenomenon as reflecting the principled character of forces acting upon a population to produce what she called “a mass strike.”
Some interesting suggestions respecting the nature of such manifest upsurges, have existed, most notably among important professionals or their like. However, until recently, the mysteries involved in such phenomena, appeared to defy credible suggestions from physical scientists, excepting some tempting indications from that scientist Wolfgang Köhler, who was a friend and collaborator of Max Planck. I emphasize Köhler’s work on the subject of what he had named as Gestalt psychology, as my “basement” associates have done on their own account.
During the course of 2010, the subject of Köhler’s argument had come up, repeatedly, within discussions among the scientific workers of the LPAC “basement team.” In August of that same year, the members of the team came to a stated agreement to come forth openly in supporting, in a practical way, the conclusive evidence that no “empty space” exists in this universe. What is called “space” is “chock full” of a massive and marvelous complex of universal, cosmic radiation.
Indications given to us, such as that provided by the role of such radiation in steering the flights of migratory birds, or the stampedes of apparently suicidal mass “fish kills” along our Pacific coast, or the scientifically forecast and confirmed earthquake precursors of a stampede of pigs in China, have pointed in the direction of forms of inter-body communication which have not usually been recognized, heretofore, within the bounds of human sense-perceptual capabilities.
Our engagement in studies touching upon this particular sort of evidence traced to the category of “cosmic radiation,” has greatly improved the scientific productivity of the “basement team” in this respect, and in related ways otherwise. A collaborative understanding of the existence of that obstacle to scientific progress, the which is embedded in the debilitating belief in a notion of a kind of “space” which has no truly crucial proof of its known actual existence, was a generally notable, and successful factor in our work.
Now, to come quickly to the point, experimental facts pertaining to this particular subject-matter, are among the proofs of the crucially important fact, that the celebrated five senses of human sensory experience are not actually the truth. They are only a collection of the functional equivalent of a narrow set of certain types of “laboratory instruments” which were, so to speak, intended to be delivered “in the box” of the human infant who had just been born. This fact should impel any competent thinker in the field of physical science, to reconsider the remarkably unique achievement of Johannes Kepler in the discovery of the principle of universal gravitation.
The fact of this matter is, that mankind develops what might be classed conveniently as additional varieties of sources of what we might refer to as being comparable to “instruments,” instruments whose use provides the functional equivalent of “additional human senses.” It is the density of such combined types of senses, which determines such results as the ability of man, with the aid of science, to foresee the future, and to forestall those follies which lead to great tragedies.
The principle expressed by the adoption of what proves to be qualified for the role of supplementary, “sense-perceptual” functions, is to be considered from the standpoint of the concluding section of Bernhard Riemann’s 1854 habilitation dissertation, as follows.
Through instruments which enable mankind to “sense” beyond what seem to be the natural limits of the ability to experience the “extremely large,” or the “extremely small,” as done in “areas” beyond the hope of ordinary competence in probing such relatively extreme domains, we are enabled reach into a reality far beyond the possibility of “line of sight” successes in increasing man’s power to exist. The same distinction, as made implicitly, very clear, in that section of Riemann’s habilitation dissertation, a distinction which virtually explodes with a sense of the existence of the greater possibilities to be found in the electrifying domains represented by the kinds of a concert of panoplies required for exploring the extremes beyond the range of those powers of deduction applied merely to the proverbial “five categories of sense-perception.”
Sometimes, it is impossible to represent a subject both competently and “objectively,” at the same time. A change in one’s principled outlook which partakes of one’s own sense of personal identity, is not simply an event which impinges upon human sense-experience; it must also be considered subjectively. This were inevitably the proper approach in matters pertaining to the proofs for scientific or comparable expressions of lawfulness after the fact, as in a genuine process of an accomplished discovery of principle. The role of the individual’s imagination in respect to the process of generating discoveries in the methods of scientific inquiry, is such an occasion for autobiographical reports.
My own personal experience, especially since adolescence, affords some important insights for today, into the strategically crucial matters of grave importance, now confronting society.
For example: For the benefit of those not already familiar with the following point, the point I make now might appear to some as a side-trip of sorts, but its implications are truly strategic in their significance. I repeat a point of fact which I have reported on fairly numerous past occasions.
After the results of my repeated experience, during my adolescence, in visiting constructions-in-progress at the Boston, Massachusetts area’s Charlestown U.S. Navy Yard, I could never accept what I was to encounter as my first classroom encounter with Euclidean Plane Geometry, or anything like such an explicitly, or virtually Aristotelean view of the universe. For exactly that reason, at a time not much later than that, I had soon begun to devour as much of the work of Gottfried Leibniz as the combination of the library in my home, and the Lynn, Massachusetts public library afforded. However well I might have understood what I virtually devoured on this account, then, that experience was already, for me, a pleasant place in which to live intellectually, and also emotionally. For me, then, any encounter with Euclid was already a language borrowed from either the virtually already dead, or the never actually living. In due course, I discovered, repeatedly, that I had been more correct than I had imagined in that judgment earlier.
Looking back to that set of adolescent and kindred experiences, from a vantage-point a decade or more years later, I was enabled to draw strategically important conclusions, such as the following.
I came, thus, only later, to recognize the actual significance of what had been my adolescent decision in favor of Leibniz. Years still later than that, what had been my, admittedly, awkward, adolescent apprehension of Leibniz’s work, my essential rejection of Euclid, came to represent what had begun as an axiomatic-like change in my world-outlook thereafter. At a present distance in time from my implicit decision then, I continue to enjoy a compassionate insight into the how and why of the way the choice of a certain actual principle of science could shape the mind of virtually the entirety of successive generations: for the better, or, without that principle, the worse.
For me, the issue of a merely supposed physical science posed by Euclid and its derivatives, was never the matter of the “parallel postulate,” that was neither what I saw as the issue then, or now. The real issue of Euclidean methods lay not in the imagined mathematical forms presented, as much as effects of the ontological implications of the a-priori method under whose reign the subject were usually taught. The practice of constructions was harmless, even beneficial; it was the brainwashing of the credulous student in the ideology which was the devil in the detail.
Years later, in encountering Carl F. Gauss’s evasive reply to both Farkas’ and Janos Bolyai’s complaint, it became apparent to me, that Gauss had scrupulously avoided, intentionally, the discussion of what he had actually come to know of the perils of expressing a competent understanding of an actually anti-Euclidean, physical geometry, rather than a merely formal one. It was the method used to explain a purported theorem, which was where the active devil was ostensibly sleeping. That fact was made clear by the work of, most significantly, Gauss’s immediate followers, Lejeune Dirichlet and Bernhard Riemann, of the Gauss who was sitting in the room as Riemann delivered his habitation dissertation there.
However, as much as I remained attached to my original rejection of a sense-certainty view of Euclidean geometry, my view of geometry continued to undergo an additional, gradual, and ultimately profound change over the 1950s and early 1960s. The change had begun in 1953, then as a correlative of my improved confidence in Bernhard Riemann’s habilitation dissertation. Even then, I considered myself as remaining loyal to the memory of Gottfried Leibniz, but I had come to regard Riemann as a proper successor, and, implicitly, as a continuation of what had been Leibniz’s own development, more than a century-and-a-quarter earlier. Gradually, more and more, the fuller implications of Riemann’s habilitation dissertation came into view. The ontological implications of Riemann’s treatment of Abelian functions are crucial.
The results assumed the following crucial features.
The concluding section of Riemann’s habilitation dissertation confronts us with evidence which leads toward disbelief in the popular notion of sense-perception. The evidence which exists in support of his argument there, forces the thoughtful professional into a state of disbelief respecting the presumption that ordinary sense-perception is the actual form of organization of the universe we inhabit. By following Riemann’s tightly composed argument in that closing section of the dissertation, the knowledgeable and clear-headed thinker is forced to consider the stubbornly insistent evidence of fact, that sense-perception is far, far from being sense-certainty.
Among the most relevant of the errors of popular presumptions along those lines, is encountered as what is presented as the paradox of time as such. “Time as such,” when associated with physical science, has only a meager relative authority in the domain of physical realities. That is not the end of that subject-matter; as I have emphasized the efficient existence of the physical past does not vanish with the appearance of the new.
Rather, as I have stressed this point in the course of my “When Governments Crumble,” and as Sky Shields has emphasized the intrinsic incompetence of Laplace’s system of purported physical time, in the opening of a web-site series currently in progress. That point is illustrated in a nominally physical sequence, A, B, and C. In that case, the existence of B modifies A as A’[PRIME], which produces adjusted B as B’[PRIME], as a B’[PRIME] defines C . . ., as this pattern occurs in, for example, a properly defined physical economy, or, in the universe generally.
Modern science, at its best, has been rooted in the resurgence of the methods of such ancient predecessors as by Archytas, in his discovery of the method of duplication of the cube, as by the method of Plato, and by the demonstrations of an Eratosthenes who, among other strokes of genius, measured the size of the Earth from a position of observation inside Egypt. A competent practice of a modern science is centered, in its own special origins, in both the pioneering work of the Brunelleschi who used the catenary as a principle of physical science, and, principally, the Nicholas of Cusa whose De Docta Ignorantia (1440) provided the initiative for all actually competent achievements, such as those of Leonardo da Vinci, Johannes Kepler, and Gottfried Leibniz. They showed this in their developing a method for a competent body of the modern science whose achievements are now marked, most notably, by the work of the followers of Bernhard Riemann and V.I. Vernadsky.
Those modern methods employed by a valid science, find their opposition in, chiefly, the legacies of the ancient Aristotle and the modern empiricism of that neo-Aristotelean revisionist Paolo Sarpi who was the founder of what became the modern British Liberalism of such works as Adam Smith’s 1759 Theory of Moral Sentiments, and of such as Lord Shelburne’s lackey Jeremy Bentham, as in Bentham’s notorious 1781 An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Relevant examples include the case of the notorious Lord Palmerston, whose offices adopted and controlled Karl Marx’s career in Britain through “Young Europe,” and the creation of the U.S.A.’s Confederacy through aid of the channels of Palmerston’s Giuseppe Mazzini, that known as the same Mazzini who controlled the branch of “Young Europe” which was also known as “Young America.”
To understand the presently relevant aspects of that setting of Karl Marx’s activities in Shelburne’s, Bentham’s, and Palmerston’s Britain, the historian must develop a competent insight into the way in which the protocol of British intelligence methods is applied. The facts about what became British imperial operations, since the time of the accession of William of Orange, to the present time, warn us that we recognize that British intelligence and related operations are less under the direction of the monarchy, than the fact that the monarchy is run by what is fairly identified, for convenience, as the intelligence operations of the empire, chiefly in operations on behalf of the monetarist control over the empire and monarchy alike.
Since the invasion of the British Isles by the New Venetian Party’s Netherlands-based William of Orange, and his successors’ victory over continental Europe during the so-called “Seven Years War” of 1756-63, there had been a fresh reincarnation of the tradition of the original Roman Empire which has dominated Europe and its wars up through the present day. The nations of continental Europe have failed, so far, to understand what the British Empire really is, or, to summon the means to resist that British empire successfully, either abroad, or from within that system. Meanwhile, even our own United States has been corrupted almost beyond our patriots’ belief by the influence of such British methods, as since the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
Thus, inside our United States of America, for example, Wall Street and its complement in Boston, typify a system of British control, to a large degree, over the U.S.A. exerted on behalf of the British imperial interest. President Barack Obama did not invent that policy of practice as a British stooge; rather, the policy’s perceived requirements invented his role as a British stooge. The empire begat the British monarchy, and the British monarchy, on orders from the higher authority of the empire, begat the pathetic creature known as President Barack Obama.
The point, here and now, of bringing up matters such as these just presented here, is that the world as a whole is run essentially by top-down conspiracies, which makes any wise man wonder what kind of a dupe (or, outright liar) would believe, or pretend to believe anything to the contrary. As the Packard motor-car company used to write, with unintended irony, “Ask the man who owns one.”
Niccolo Machiavelli remains still today, as being, in effect, a critically significant factor in the shaping of a globally extended history of modern European civilization. He is to be characterized as typical of modern figures who have never been forgiven for their virtues and for their crucial achievements-in-fact which flowed from them.
Machiavelli was, essentially, one among the outgrowths of the great ecumenical Council of Florence, and thus one of the adherents among the followers of the influence of Nicholas of Cusa and Cusa’s own followers, such as Leonardo da Vinci. He came into view as an important figure of his time through the attention he enjoyed as having been a former official of the crushed Republic of Florence, a post for which he was victimized following the fall of that republic, during the remainder of his life. Nonetheless, his writings became greatly influential throughout Europe, as by friends and enemies alike, writings which shaped crucial features of the Sixteenth Century during his lifetime, and, also, far beyond his death; this was true both in spite of, and also because his influence and intentions as a Classical scholar in the great Renaissance tradition, fell outside the limits of, later, two contending parties of the later Sixteenth Century, after his death, and, thus, outside of the crisis of the crisis-ridden Council of Trent, and its aftermath, in his role as being an advocate of neither Aristotle, nor Paolo Sarpi.
Nominally, Machiavelli has come to be regarded as a principal founder of a specifically modern military strategy, an estimate which is formally true, but also misleading in its often presumed implications among the more ordinary sort of presumably literate reader in later centuries. Machiavelli is not to be blamed for the confusion about his nature, either then, or now. Rather, the confusion on that point is, itself, extraordinarily significant for understanding the more crucial of the follies of strategic thinking of peoples and their governments up to a time during the recently concluded century. It is for the specific implications of that point, that the subject of Machiavelli must be included, as I have done, in this present report.
His true significance, still today, lies in the fact that he was of a certain type of historic figure, who viewed the world as he knew it, and he knew it well. He understood the system of the ancient Roman empire and its continued expressions, which, as under its presently living successor, the British Empire, is most poorly understood by historians generally, and by leading statesman of the world still today. Today, recently, the most interesting feature of his manifold competencies, has been his attention to the matter of the subject of war. On the latter account, war, he had been greatly respected as a source, at least up to recent times, but, ironically, had been more conspicuously misunderstood by those military and related professionals of the world who have admired him. The other aspects of his life and nature are revealed most clearly from the vantage-point of understanding the mistaken opinion met among his admirers.
Military and related subject-matters have had a curiously double character. On the one side, the subject of how to conduct and win wars; on the other side, the true reason for the importance of avoiding them. Many specialists today do emphasize the importance of avoiding wars; but, almost none of these are prone to emphasize the true reason, as both President John F. Kennedy and his most important military advisor, General Douglas MacArthur, did for avoiding them.
On this subject, the following point is to be made.
Defective thinking in matters of statecraft and related matters, presumes that man is a known entity to which the issues of military conflicts have been simply added to a commonplace kind of “settled notion” respecting that which is for many, the inbred nature of the human species. What is required, in place of that prejudice, is insight into the way in which warfare, and the threat of warfare, actually define the nature of mankind in a general, enveloping way. That reason, the deepest reason for the avoidance of warfare, is that its principal cause is not some issue of honest grievances, or, ambition, or, kindred things.
The reason is, that warfare is the secret weapon by which the form of imperialism traced to the so-called “oligarchical principle” has used warfare among the parts of the imperial assembly as the principal means for managing the size and other features of the components of the imperial configuration. Wars among those nations of Europe which are actually offshoots of a common empire, is a quality of war which has been the chief pivot of terrible, and terribly prolonged warfares among nations, a tradition in those which have been, chiefly, common subjects of the same imperial monetarists’ system.
Take so the case of the mistaken view of warfare under the successive phases of what was originally the conduct of warfare under the Roman Empire, and also its European successors, up through the present time of the British empire of today.
Despite the Venice-orchestrated set-backs to what had been, for a time, the initiatives of the great ecumenical Council of Florence, Nicholas of Cusa’s work remained a powerful influence, as exerted on me, for example, to the present time. One among the more significant by-products of that influence had been the rise of Niccolo Machiavelli’s role in mustering the opposition to the dominant Habsburg partisanship of his lifetime. This has been a factor, from that time, up to virtually the present time, despite the widespread, ultimately futile efforts to deny the fact of Machiavelli’s effect on his times, or the effect of either on the strategic thinking, or the lack of such, in modern European civilization, even to the present day.
The fact of the persistence of the continued influence of his work, even presently, is in no way mysterious to those who have actually understood the common principle under which both great Classical artistic composition and discoveries of science’s universal physical principles are to be commonly defined. Any truly universal principle, such as the principle expressed as the discovery of a universal principle of physical science, is functionally immortal by its still radiant very nature. Be that principle rightly understood, or not, what has been the creative discovery of a truly universal physical principle, continues to act in future generations of society, long after the actual discoverer of a principle has been deceased. The same is true for great Classical compositions, as in music and otherwise.
The customary lack of insight into that just stated fact respecting what are truly discoveries of universal physical and related principles, is given a particular expression in the principles which underlie Machiavelli’s expressed genius.
On this account, his role has remained a deeply embedded factor in the culture of globally extended European civilization, that up through the present time. Even when his work has been presumed by some to have been neutralized, the effects of what he had accomplished remain an essential component of modern European strategic thinking to the present day. This has been the case, because his influence has been situated within the domain of contentions over subject-matters of principle, rather than merely tactics.
To clear away some of the fog surrounding the usual view of Machiavelli’s character and work, the following must be said.
On this account, the most common error of presumption among the contending factions engaged in war against one another, has been the assumption that they are warring to defeat an enemy, when, in fact, most war has been at the pleasure of an imperial ruler of many nations of a common monetarist system. War has been used by empires in order to induce those duped into it to defeat themselves—just as Bismarck’s warning against the coming world war identified the “principle” of the Anglo-Dutch (“New Venetian Party”) swindle known as the Eighteenth-century “Seven Years War.”
Like the audience for the slaughters in the imperial Roman arenas which had admired such wicked nonsense as that sort of warfare, the victims in the pit killed one another, as it was said, for “sport.” Others thought it were for amusement of the Emperor and the populace. Those who understood the game, knew, as St. Augustine had warned explicitly, that it was such games of the arena which used the audiences of the arenas to induce the mass of the citizens, from the top to lowest ranks, to degrade themselves into a reaffirmed, freshly impassioned role as hapless dupes of the empire as a system.
Look back toward the figure of Machiavelli in those terms of reference to that setting. The crushing of the Republic of Florence, was the means for destroying the Renaissance, as the case of the Medici as fools, is shown in their part in the destruction of the principle of the great ecumenical Council of Florence, that done in favor of a return to the rebuilding of the old Roman empire in a modern, Sixteenth-century form known as the religious warfare of 1492-1648.
That much said here on Machiavelli himself, the issue of “who is the real enemy?” remains unsettled among the governments and general populations of today. They may abhor the effects, but they repeatedly embrace the causes for that which they have come to hate, as in the ruinous, unnecessary war in Indo-China which the assassination of President John F. Kennedy had made possible.
The question which obviously needs to be asked repeatedly, is: “Why has the great majority of the populations of nations been so often, so stupid in this way? So monstrously stupid, in both their understanding of reality and their lack of competent understanding of their own wayward passions?”
Some would say, especially the most stupid, or simply evil of them all, that an imperial form of “governance,” in place of national sovereignties, is the remedy for war. On the contrary, in fact, it is the most efficient policy and practice for unleashing genocide against a population which a passing oligarchy fancies as having grown too numerous, as by the late most evil man of the Twentieth Century, Bertrand Russell, and his royal similarity, Prince Philip of the British imperial household.
When the “green disease” of massive population reductions far beyond the range of Adolf Hitler’s orgies, is presented now in a more than redoubling of the toll of Hitler’s crimes, as in the trans-Atlantic region, against the victims in Africa today, the question whether the human species has retained the fitness to survive, comes upsurging in the greatest emetic performance of them all: “Has a mankind which follows in the footsteps of Prince Philip and Bertrand Russell, or the British royal puppet, or the admirers of a President Barack Obama, been actually fit to survive?”
Machiavelli had expressed, and had understood that issue, as in his The Art of War.
How could this come to be, in what is, astonishingly, called “modern civilization”? Ask the Liberally depraved who have walked in the footsteps of Adam Smith and Jeremy Bentham.
True: not all wars were unnecessary. President Franklin Roosevelt had understood this; his successor was, unfortunately for us all since, like Winston Churchill and both the mass-murderously intellectually slavering Bertrand Russell and a petulantly lisping Winston Churchill, of a directly contrary opinion.
The best thing that might be said of Liberalism, is either that it is essentially inhuman behavior, or, in the alternative, that it is less than actually human. The argument to be made in support of that judgment, is the following.
Aristotle had imposed certain arbitrary presumptions on his believers, as that is aptly expressed by the a-priori presumptions of Euclid’s Elements. Sarpi’s Liberalism had cut that fragile craft from its moorings. Where Aristotle had professed to have knowledge of truths, Paolo Sarpi had insisted that there is no reality in the beliefs which Liberalism imposes on the mass of the people of the nations. Adam Smith, as in his 1759 Theory of Moral Sentiments, had insisted upon that policy most explicitly, and, also, in more than sufficiently detailed specifications as were sufficient to leave no doubt of the intention of that instruction, an instruction which was intended to be found among the willing victims represented by both Smith’s contemporaries, and the foolish victims from among the members of their posterity.
That has become, and has persisted as the Liberal opinion of Smith’s duped posterity.
Smith reduces the permitted choices of the customary members of society to a form of behavior whose premises allow no freedom for ordinary folk to know the truth. All that is allowed is the privilege of experiencing pain or pleasure, or both combined according to the reign of a virtual cattle-prod in an empire of “ouch!”
The result is what is prescribed as an induced “popular opinion” of the intellectually numbed. It is otherwise known as what is induced as the witless ecstasy of “popular opinion.”
It is often called “political freedom.”
There is an implicitly available reason in all this, despite what appearances might otherwise suggest.
As I have emphasized, above, from the outset of this presentation, there is what is to be termed, both appropriately and often merely conveniently: an available access to reason which is to be found in the lessons found among the wreckage of what is implicit in the presently worsening condition of most of the governments of the trans-Atlantic region. What some would wish to identify as the needed “trick” by which to secure our actual freedom, actually lies in our entire experience of what is truly scientific progress implied for each and all of us. If that is not presently the case as it should be, we are left with nothing as important for us today, as to seek and enjoy the relevant new discoveries which overcome our want.
We must discover such a needed remedy in time.
As my associate Sky Shields has made the point quite elegantly, the virtual crime common to such people as the foolish Isaac Newton and the infinitely tortured Pierre-Simon Laplace, has been the presumption that the present is the death of that which has just passed in time. Unfortunately, Laplace’s argument, while less inelegant than the bald assertions of the brutish “black magic” specialist Newton, has outlawed the very principle upon which the existence of our universe depends, the principle of a universal creativity.
The principle which is neglected by Laplace, is what should be recognizable as a universal principle of physical time, rather than the alternate image of “clock time.”
Albert Einstein’s treatment of the universe defined by Johannes Kepler’s uniquely successful discovery of a principle of universal gravitation, proffers an important key to the understanding of the alternative which is nameable as “physical time.” Einstein’s conception is made clearer by thinking through the implications of what he identified as the notion of a “finite, but unbounded” universe. That term points to a physical concept which is that of a universal quality, rather than a merely mathematical one.
Otherwise said: no imputation of a size of the universe can be attributed here, but, rather, the increasing density of the continuing process of universal creation. It must appear that the yardstick of the universe keeps shrinking, but at varying rates. We may probably do no better in obtaining final answers than only hope to infer its age. All this is tolerable, if we acknowledge that we can enjoy the ride without an apprehension of a concluding destination.
No approach presently serves us better on this account, than my own favorite science, my beloved professional speciality, the science of physical economy. There are some relatively more convenient illustrations of the point. The matter of time, is key to a system of understanding which eliminates the unnecessary agony of what is alleged to have been a demonically tortured Laplace—who was, by the way, no legendary Atlas!
Therefore, turn back to Einstein’s and Max Planck’s doubts respecting Laplace’s allegedly demonic conception—or, rather misconception—of “time.” There is a double fallacy in the notion of Laplace and virtually all others of the reductionists’ religious perversions, especially those fools who babble endlessly about the legend of a finite universe and the silly “Second Law of Thermodynamics.” Progress does not “use up” progress; rather, it feeds it.
Not only is the “Second Law of Thermodynamics” a lie; it is of the category of “Big Lie.” It is, as I have just written above, an expression of the oligarchical principle, as associated with the cult of the Olympian Zeus of Aeschylus’ Prometheus Trilogy, of the brutish empire’s Bertrand Russell, and both the pro-genocidalist Prince Philip’s (and the late Prince Bernhard’s) Anglo-Dutch Liberal sort of the New Venetian Party which came to be commonly known as the modern British empire. That empire’s “New Venetian” policy, as of that Party’s William of Orange, has been to keep the under-class’s condition as brutishly barefoot, pregnant, and regularly winnowed, with the death of the underclasses the price those classes must pay, as Russell put the point, so that the doomed underclass “might procreate more freely.”
If we were to adduce the lawfulness from the pattern of development of living species, every species which does not develop into the building of a higher order of living species than had existed previously, is foredoomed to probable extinction, as the species called “mankind” would be doomed into a state of readiness for the sort of chop once awarded to the legendary dinosaurs, unless it avoided the extinction implicit in the pro-genocidal policies of such as Thomas Malthus, Bertrand Russell, and Princes Philip and Bernhard.
We may be, in fact, presently just in time to prevent the human species from going down the hatch as the legendary dinosaurs did, unless we proceed with efforts for which the emblems are not only the proliferation of nuclear fission, but also thermonuclear fusion, and into higher orders of relative energy-flux density upward and beyond that.
The Timely Principle
The most obvious error in Laplace’s loony prospect is that he lacked any conception of the inextricable interdependence of the concept of time and of creativity as combining in effect as the principal “force” of change in the universe.
As the circles of such as Max Planck and Albert Einstein had already reckoned in their time, the description of reality in terms of the respectively distinct categories of such nominal categories as “space, time, and matter,” is both a myth and a lurking disaster in effect. There is but one ontological basis, in which “time” is an expression of the active principle of creativity per se on which the entire edifice of existence is premised in fact of practice. Time, when considered as a physical principle of action, is the metric of the universal creativity which is otherwise to be known as a universal concept of physical anti-entropy.
The metric of time is the simultaneity of the combining of the transformation of the past, with the extension into the future. In other words, a universal principle of physical time.
In fact, that principle has already been discovered, at least within the domain of a recognized physical reality. The unresolved problem is the custom which insists on denying the necessity of a lawfully determining, ontological progress as the unifying principle of the universe.
Nothing demonstrates this more clearly than the evidence rooted in an actual physical science of human scientific progress in terms of adducible principles of physical economy. The problem is, that the oligarchical version of society seeks to prevent this reality from being what the crucial evidence proclaims as accomplished scientific fact.
One may fairly say the Olympian Zeus is a “stage name” for Satan, a Satan whose local address among us is “Wall Street,” the place where cannibals worship in a ceremony fairly described as “eating our children,” and, no doubt, their grandparents as well.
In the physical science of economy, the past exists in the changes effected upon it by a present which demands its proper successor, the future. We call this process time, which is a variable. That variable is to be measured as creativity. By creativity we should intend to say, a quality of progress consistent with rises in what we term “energy-flux density.”
As the known record of life during the recent half-billion years of our planet attests, the general principle of the variable rate of progress called time (meaning physical time), is to be recognized in terms of species of existence of a higher order of being and organization.
The continued existence of the human species, is to be contrasted with all other known species of life, as in terms of progress to higher states. All species are compelled to obey that requirement. Mankind represents the option of willful creativity, which means the willful capacity to choose actions which are not predetermined by the presently unfolding state of nature, but as a solution which the unconscious forms of expression of increase of universal creativity are unable to choose.
Such is mankind’s destiny. We have now reached a point of crisis, at which the resistance to progress from the oligarchical interests, must take its turn in that great sweeping away of the kind of development which ended the reign of the dinosaurs.