Devant l’urgence de la situation internationale et les échéances américaines de ces prochains jours, nous vous présentons ici en langue anglaise le dernier écrit de Lyndon LaRouche publié samedi par son Comité d’action politique.
nb. : il s’agit d’une version pré-publiée et donc non-revue.
The wonderfully immortal Ghosts we must be :
EINSTEIN VIEWED KEPLER
by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
October 4, 2010
In my recently published “Science & Drama : What Is Sense-Perception”, I had emphasized the principle of Classical tragedy as tragedy is associated with drama, as dated from Homer’s Iliad and the tragedies of Aeschylus, through William Shakespeare and Friedrich Schiller. Contrary to what Heinruch Heine denounced as the Romantic School, the Classical tragedy as such, is a Hellish domain, like that of Mozart’s Don Giovanni, in which there are no actual heroes, except in the leering Romantic fantasies of the credulous. The true Classical tragedy presents us with a sheer evil which is without remedy in itself ; so, Franklin Roosevelt’s war-time Presidency viewed the Adolf Hitler syndrome : “Know the enemy,” as President Franklin Roosevelt did, even when it is, also, apparently, a (temporarily)British ally of our United States, still today.
Accordingly, in my “Science & Drama : What is Sense-Perception” I had identified the adversary of true insight as being the Romantic’s foolish notion of a reigning, pseudo-heroic tragedy. Therefore, as a precaution against such shallow, popular delusions, I presented a summary defense of the tragic principle of that Classical dramatic stage on which the Romantic’s prancing would-be heroes are, like Friedrich Schiller’s portrayal of Posa from Don Carlos, the most evil figures of tragedy.
Now, here, I treat the same subject of tragedy from an opposing viewpoint : I present the immortality of the true citizen in its aspect as a subject of physical science. That is the view which is to be sought from among those spectators viewing the drama, as by one who has risen to the true nobility of that soul, like the fabled Prometheus, a Prometheus who pities those foolish folk who would wish to see their rulers seem to be as gods.
In this present report, the subject is the notable practical mission is the freeing of the economy of people from Satanic worship of the “Shackles of filthy Lucre :” money per se. The mission, here, is the knowledge needed to free the mind of the citizen from enslavement of the soul, a soul seized by that most essential evil which is the popular worship of a form of money which appears to the pitiable as being the intrinsic form of“wealth.”
Admittedly, I have, addressed this subject by name in sundry reports published earlier ; the present report, restates the case more fully, from a uniquely distinct, fresh vantage-point.
In Review :
In the several reports which I have published on this subject over the span of now more than two years, I have pointed to the evidence which proves that the popular notion of an a-prioristically mathematical physics, is to be recognized as intrinsically incompetent when compared with a real physical science in the tradition of both the trio of Dirichlet-Abel-Riemann and also, later, Albert Einstein. This is not a matter of even a systemic error within a mathematics ; it is a matter of a different, actually real universe than is imagined by a person who is merely a mathematician.
In the simpler illustration of that same fact, I have pointed to the intrinsically paradoxical, mistaken presumption, to the still-popular delusion that the real universe is expressed explicitly by mere sense-perception.
There are numerous choices of valid proofs of the judgment which I have just identified in this way here. In their conception, all of these proofs are congruent with what I have emphasized in relevant, earlier accounts in which I have treated the common errors of even most educated forms of popular belief.
In short, we must present what are still rarely understood proofs, proofs which must be emphasized, nonetheless, as being the actual method of that uniquely original discovery of the principle of universal gravitation by Johannes Kepler, that as Kepler’s achievement was reviewed by Albert Einstein. As I have stated, repeatedly. and have held this view of the nature of “human creativity” over what has become a span of more than two generations, our actual knowledge of the nature of the universe we inhabit, is not competently supplied by bare faith in mere sense-perception, but, rather, for example, must depend on the proof of conflicts between the evidence supplied by such different qualities of sense-perception as an essential conflict between the contrasted evidence of sight and harmonics.
Kepler’s uniquely original discovery of the principle of universal gravitation, in his The Harmonies of the Worlds, was the uniquely original, true discovery of the principle of gravitation. As Albert Einstein pointed out, Kepler’s discovery demonstrates something much more profound than merely the existence of a principle of gravitation itself. Indeed, it also points out something, as I shall show, which is more profound, more universal in scope, than even that achievement which Einstein himself reached in the relatively well-known record of his own work.
That still more profound principle was presented in my treatment of “Science & Drama,”, but only in one aspect. In this report, I go a large step further, to reach the most essential point yet to be made. The principle of Classical dramatic tragedy, as I have addressed that subject earlier, has gone, so to speak, already half-way toward the point which I now emphasize in the following pages.
The fact to be noted for its relevance in the following pages here, is that there was never an actually competent definition of a medieval or modern principle of universal gravitation, other than either Kepler’s own discovery, as in his The Harmonies of the Worlds, or extension of that discovery by later good sources. For this, Copernicus is not quite irrelevant at best, when not mistaken. Isaac Newton is simply absurd. Titius-Bode is simply an intentionally misleading attempt to come close to Kepler’s previously esablished values for the orbits ; pathetic Laplace‘s attempts to “lay the ghost of Kepler,” leads him into the absurdity of his paradox. The most significant approach to defining relevant needed principles as such, is that of such as Gottfried Leibniz and Jean Bernouilli. The systemic extension of astronomers’ insight into Kepler’s principle was Carl F. Gauss’s implicit invention of the tensor, as in his discovery of the orbit of Ceres. The crucial addition to that is presented such followers of Gauss, as Abel, Dirichlet, and Riemann.
I. THAT HIGHER PRINCIPLE OF SCIENCE
The subject which I address in this report, falls, historically, under the heading of the domain of the Platonic hypothesizing of the higher hypothesis.
In any competent representation of that principle , as that of a number of scientific thinkers in the Platonic tradition, hypothesis negates the beliefs associated with raw sense-perception, doing so in the principled manner which Johannes Kepler presents in his uniquely exemplary, original discovery of a universal physical principle of gravitation, in his The Harmonies of the Worlds. There, Kepler juxtaposes the incommensurate senses of sight and harmonic hearing paradoxically ; he defines a measurable value for, and a proof of a principle of universal gravitation, a notion whose substantiality lies outside the domain of simple sense-perceptions as such.
That universal principle which those considerations demand, have been defined by me in work which I have presented as defining the distinction of the human mind from the mere imageries of sense-perception, with special emphasis on a necessary ridiculing of the effects of limiting human sense-perception itself to “the five senses.”
For those thinking of the domain of “hypothesizing an higher hypothesis,” Albert Einstein is to be situated as reviewing the broader implications of the discovery of the principle of gravitation by Kepler, the avowed follower of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa ; that in the way Kepler poses an higher hypothesis.
Thus, Kepler’s discovery of gravitation implies necessarily, as Einstein recognizes, that the universe which contains this discovered principle of gravitation, defines a universe which is implicitly a finite universe, but one without an efficient boundary. It is to become more widely recognized as a universe defined by the absence of the existence of “empty space.” a universe permeated with cosmic radiation, but with singularities, rather than a universe with regions of “empty space” presumed to contain “particles.”  Einstein’s discovery of crucial aspects of that higher reality, is implicitly based on the work of Niels Hendrik Abel, the discoveries of Lejeune Dirichlet, and the revolution launched by Bernhard Riemann, as Riemann’s work is reflected as a subject of concern in Riemann’s treatment of Abelian functions.
Some among my young associates of the rank of our “basement” project have emphasized these facts ; but, this emphasis does not yet go far enough ; our error of omission on that account, which strikes us if we permit ourselves to pause at that point of contemplation, is that we must now recognize that we are still treating the universe we are describing as an object of our contemplation, rather than, correctly, seeing the higher authority in that universe as contemplating us in His active manner.
Therefore, let us shift gears at this point in the discussion. For reasons which I shall make clear, in due course, here, we must speak of the concept of “God.” I mean that “Creator” which is the subject of Genesis 1.  The role of the notion of that Creator for physical science, will be made clearer, in due course, later in this present report.
To be certain we are actually referring to that Creator, we must now turn our immediate attention to devoting some space to the clearing away of the use of the term “gods” which we encounter in not only the pagan Greek legendry of Homer, but the terms with a similar connotation of the plural term “gods” when the latter term is used, as by the exemplary Mesopotamian and Delphic forms of oligarchical cults, to denote reference to a certain type of ruling “race,” or social “class” of rulers, or numerous similar cases found among the pathetically erring, nominally “Christian,” or other religious cults which degrade the notion of a universal power in the universe to the caricature-like image of a nation’s monarch, as this problem is typified by the Emperor Constantine’s attempts to situate a legalized, syncretized cult in the abused name of Christianity within a pagan Roman Pantheon, through imperial control over the bishops. 
The Example : The Sons of Kronos
Since this report’s emphasis is placed upon the global maritime-cultural systems rooted in the Mediterranean, the apparent concept of “the pagan gods” is typified for our requirements here, by the type of the maritime system of those sons (and reputed parricides) of Kronos known as Zeus, Poseidon, and Aides. An equivalent usage is met in the similar cases of reigning forms of those ancient maritime-rooted cultures in the Americas which appear during and following the period of melting of the last great glaciation. The characteristic of those specific types of social strata which are associated with the skills inherited from a transoceanic maritime culture, is located in manifest experience of extended periods of the practice of long-ranging trans-oceanic navigation, as is suggested by the example of the Homeric Odyssey. The “celestial” knowledge which such maritime cultures require to exist in recognizable forms of expression, corresponds to what I have lately defined under the improved choice of heading, that of what I have chosen with improved precision under the title of “cultural-economic platforms.”
Thus, the known maritime cultures which appear to us within the recorded evidence of recent ten thousand years or so, as since the flooding of the post-glacial lake which the Black Sea had been prior to the in-rush of Mediterranean salt water, exhibit a pattern of social-caste division between a maritime population which has the characteristics of those often termed the relatively ancient “:gods,” as distinct from the “mere mortals.” This historical pattern also appears in the relevant regions of the Americas, as also in the orbits of the Mediterranean and Indian Ocean, for example. Bal Gangadhar Tilak’s Orion and Arctic Home in the Vedas, present exemplary cases.
The ancient “Greeks” properly attributed by Homer as being such as the Akhaians of the Trojan War time, present a relevant reference, as, apparently, do the ancient Egyptians, Hittite iron culture, the maritime tyranny of ancient Tyre, or the founders of Sumer. These cases are among the relevant bench-marks. Ancient maritime cultures, for better or for worse, dominate known post-glacial cultures almost absolutely, until a definitive sort of initial breakthrough to establish, under Charlemagne, the specific quality of continental riparian systems based on linking of principal river systems by canal-systems.
It is the latter development of riparian systems, which served as the structure on which the Nineteenth-century spread of railway systems depended initially, including the crucial, further development of trans-continental railway systems within our United States. It is the appearance of those latter systems modeled upon the precedent of the U.S.A.’s transcontinental railway system, which marks that presently continuing conflict between maritime imperialism and land-based modern society, a period of mass-murderous warfare which erupted with that 1890 ouster of Germany’s Bismarck, a global “geopolitical” conflict, which has been the determining issue of the1890-2010 interval of what the British empire has launched as the permanent”world warfare” up to the present moment.
Thus, the concept of “the Olympian sons of the murdered Kronos” and those parricides’ subsequent conflict with a then contemporary Prometheus, has been the typical image-pattern of the principal cultural force in now globally extended European culture and its global warfare up through the present instant of an onrushing state of global breakdown-crisis.
The attribution of the notional conception of “gods” to the tyranny exerted by such maritime cultures as that of the “Olympians” under the leadership of such as Poseidon, is the most useful image, pedagogically, in referring to the practical implications of a notion of a (frankly) class of pro-Satanic “gods,” as distinct from, and opposed to the notion of “God The Creator,” is the crucial issue which must now be settled, as a matter of science, with a degree of “finality.”
That distinction of the oligarchical “gods” from the “mere mortals,” is what is typified by the murderous doctrine of what is known , still today, as the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) authored by Britain’s Prince Philip and the Netherlands’ late Prince Bernard. We have, similarly, the essentially evil economic policies inherent in the British intelligence service’s Cambridge Apostles and their products, the latter such as the Club of Rome and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) presently. The relevant doctrine of the oligarchical interests of ancient and modern maritime cultures, as of the type of Princes Philip and Bernhard, is that the “rule of the gods” could be secured only by keeping the mass of the population both relatively stupid, and limited in allowed numbers of living human individuals, as according to both the WWF and the fascistic dogma of “creative destruction” of Joseph Schumpeter. Today’s frankly satanic, dionysian cults of so-called “environmentalism” the present expression that ancient evil of the same cult of Dionysos which gave us the “French disease” of Italian fascism. and Nazism.
The principal Classical model for understanding the subject of this historical view, has been Aeschylus’ Prometheus Trilogy. That tradition is typified for modern times, as in the form of the “green” policy of such depraved creatures as the devotees of Bertrand Russell and the generality of anti-nuclear fanatics today, including U.S. President Barack Obama.. This is also expressed, as I have said, by the fascist model of society pioneered by Friedrich Nietzsche’s, Werner Sombart’s and Joseph Schumpeter’s doctrine of “creative destruction,” also, still today. 
Today’s pro-fascist, “environmenalist” doctrine of “population control” was already the central topical issue of the ancient Aeschylus’s Prometheus Trilogy, and has been the essential social characteristic of the Delphi Apollo cult’s Apollonian and Dionysian aspects. Keeping the general population relatively stupid and brutish through the instrumentality of cults such as the a-priorism of Euclidean geometry and dionysian campaigns of hatred against reason, have been the most essential, and enduring traditions of the same cult of Delphi which used its mystical mumbo-jumbo as a tool for organizing the kind of mutual destruction prescribed by such followers of Paolo Sarpi as the admirers of Isaac Newton, among what had been relatively civilized cultures of modern times.
I refer to such exemplary cases as the Trojan and Peloponnesian wars, as echoed by the policy of the British empire since the Seven Years War, that through the same model used for orchestrating the Napoleonic wars, two “World Wars,” the “Cold War,” and the perpetual Middle East warfare conducted in the traditions of Britain’s “Young Turk” cult, and the perpetual state of Middle-East warfare conducted, to the present day, under the specifications of the Sykes-Picot agreement.  In other words, the British intelligence services’ use of its agent Alexander Helphand (aka “Parvus”) in authoring the still persisting strategic doctrine of “permanent warfare, permanent revolution” which British (Fabian Society)intelligence operative Helphand foisted on the a particular dupe usually referenced as Helphand’s sometimes dupe Leon D. Trotsky. 
The importance of such just-listed connections for our purposes here, today, is that the essential issue of strategy in the history of the Mediterranean region and beyond, had never been set into motion by the peoples thus engaged in killing one another ; rather, these conflicts were orchestrated among the largely witless, or half-witted dupes among leaders of nations. This was accomplished through the use of devices of mass social control whose intent was, as in the case of the Homeric accounts of the Trojan War and the Peloponnesian War, or the British imperialism’s initial triumph through the “Seven Years War” of 1756-63, or the Napoleon Wars, a reflection of the intent of bringing about the mutual ruin of those nations and analogous bodies, through long wars between the assembled sets of dupes. That is the essential strategic-imperial principle of the constitution of the British Empire from the February 1763 Peace of Paris, to the present day.
Thus, under ancient Roman imperial warfare, for example, the political system of the relevant regions of the planet, Roman law made a categorical distinction in essential law between empire and nation, and, thus, between “emperors” and mere “kings.” Only the empire was accorded the authority to make law ; the mere kings could merely reign over their territories, and fight wars, to Roman imperial advantage, against, and among the implicitly silly other kings.
Some Other Examples
To illustrate the point made above, consider the following :
Under the Prince of Wales, Britain compacted an agreement with Japan Mikado, circa 1894, for an alliance in permanent warfare against China and Russia. This arrangement set into motion the continuing Anglo-Japan warfare against China in 1894-95, as extended against Russia in 1905. The effects continued into the 1941 Japan attack on Pearl Harbor, and the August 1945 surrender of Japan to General Douglas MacArthur.
This same British-Japan alliance against China and Russia, had been extended to include the United States as a target, since the early 1920s of the side-effects of this warfare. It was the British-Japan 1920s plan for attacks on the U.S.A., and, the Pearl Harbor base in particular, which had launched the actual attack on the U.S.A. in 1941. 
Thus, from about 1895 until some time, as from case to case, between 1940 and 1941, the British Empire had been the chief authority behind the intention to engage Germany and the Soviet Union in a war of mutual destruction, while, during the same general lapse of time, the Anglo-French and related interests, such as fascist Italy, sat out the process of the mutual destruction of the nations of Central Europe. Japan was nominally still an ally of Nazi Germany and of the British at that time, until the Wehrmacht breached the “western line,” and had overrun continental Europe west of the Soviet border. This British scheme known as “World War I,” was made feasible through, chiefly, the assassination of U.S. President William McKinley, thus bringing to power the Vice-President Theodore Roosevelt foisted upon McKinley by the London-steered Wall Street gang within the Republican Party, all in much that same fashion in which Wall Street stooge Harry S Truman had been foisted upon President Franklin Roosevelt as his Vice-President-elect of 1944.
Then, when France had fallen, and the United States was brought to the rescue of Britain, Japan broke its continued alliance with Britain, that done in order to carry forward Japan’s intention to destroy both the United States and the Anglo-Dutch empire in Asia. This was done according to Japan’s perceived greater interest in the destruction of the United States which had been the joint intention of both the British empire and Japan since the earlier 1920s plan, by, originally, both the British and Japan, for the Japan attack on Pearl Harbor. 
Japan’s conduct in actually launching the long-prepared attack on Pearl Harbor, acting thus as a former British ally against the United States, as also against China and Russia, was not that Japan wished that war to occur under the conditions of that immediate time, but that the launching of the attack on Pearl Harbor without support from what had been its anti-U.S.A. British ally, was considered, as the debates within Japan on that actual attack showed, as being virtually a possible suicidal act of desperation by the calculations of Japan itself, for reason of that specific set of global circumstances. For, it the U.S. were to succeed in rescuing Britain from the Nazis, the success of the U.S.A. would put an end to Japan’s imperial intentions since in its 1890s agreement with the British Prince of Wales. Japan caught between the great powers respectively represented the English-speaking rivals, the British Empire and the U.S.A., was thus placed in the position that when it actually launched the attack against Pearl Harbor, Japan already knew full well, that it had thus launched a war against the U,.S.A. which Japan’s relevant leaders regarded as an act of strategic desperation.
Such is the prevalent, if not entirely infallible nature of the shifting strategic arrays of a world dominated by a set of virtually kaleidsopic effects of British imperial stratgy since the Seven Years War and that 1763 Peace of Paris which established the British East India Company as an imperial power.
It is relevant, that Franklin Roosevelt had a specific strategic purpose for the United States ; under the circumstances of World War II and its conclusion. Stalin’s intention toward a United States under a Presidency like that of President Franklin Roosevelt, was also clear and sincerely so. It was only the deaths of, first, Franklin Roosevelt, and, later, Josef Stalin, that allowed the conflict between British puppet-President Harry S Truman and a Soviet Union under Josef Stalin to proceed toward a threatened thermonuclear conflict. The cases of the policies of Dwight Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur, and “Wild Bill” Donovan remained, that for as long as they and their co-thinkers lived as influential representatives of the true patriots of our United Sates, they remained a powerful influence in U.S. policy. This continued until the effects of British imperial success in ruining the U.S.A. itself through a decade of lunatic warfare in Indo-China.
The continuing British imperial interest through all of these developments since the “Seven Years War,” to the present day, has been the included, and featured intention of that new Venetian interest of the Venetian Party faction of Sarpi et al., which has been the chief agency behind the efforts to prevent, and later to to destroy what woould become the “unique model” or our constitutional United States. This British intention has continued, with the qualification that the British empire itself must not be destroyed by the risk for Britain in making such treacherous adjustments in its current, temporary rosters of “friend and foe.”
Presently, the successive U.S. Presidencies George W. Bush, Jr. and Barack Obama, have combined effects aimed at the destruction of the United States (on behalf of the British Empire), but, this time, the British Empire would not outlive its efforts to destroy our United States. History’s patience with continued existence of the British Empire is now worn out.
The Brutish Empire
Meanwhile, excepting the case of the economist Rosa Luxemburg, until the work of the U.S. State Department’s Herbert Feis, and until my own case, it is apparently the case, that almost none of the Twentieth-century’s notable economists has shown a competent insight, in their own life-times, into the actually scientific meaning of “imperialism.”
Since the decline of Babylon and what is called “The Persian Empire,” all notable warfare has been dominated by empires such as that of Rome, Byzantium, the Habsburg tyrannies, and the British Empire.
So. that remains the actual case today.
Examining warfare, from the top down, over the interval from the Peloponnesian War, into the present day, the empires, such as today’s British Empire, an empire which now controls the U.S.A. top-down, for as long as British puppet Barack Obama remains President, have managed wars as the Roman Empire did, by orchestrating the duped nations or the like which were orchestrated into wars against once another under the direction of an imperial force transcending the nominally sovereign nation-states and the like who, usually butchered one another in ways which kept the imperial overlords in the saddle.
Thus, the assassination arranged at a high, international level, to eliminate a President John F. Kennedy who refused to accept the British intention to ruin the U.S.A. by sending the ruinous, approximate decade of wasting warfare in Indo-China, had enabled the British, by 1968-1971, to destroy the U.S. economy to such a degree that the Anglo-American oligarchical interest was able to wreck the U.S. economy to a point of near destruction over the 1971-2010 interval. The British empire’s clear control over the U.S.A., was established by the coincidental actions of the August 1971 break-up of the Franklin Roosevelt “fixed-exchange-rate” system, and the launching of the intended replacement of U.S. independence by the launching of what has been Lord Jacob Rothschild’s launching of the Interp-Alpha Group, a financier empire which dominates an estimated 70% of the world’s banking systems currently.
Consider the essential background for this pattern of developments over the 1890-2010 interval.
Rosa Luxemberg, in her time, like historian Herbert Feis later, recognized imperialism as expressed by a system of international monetarist loans. Typical is the just stated fact of such developments as the launching of the imperial Inter-Alpha Group, which organized under Britain’s Lord Jacob Rothschild, on behalf of the British monarchy, in the same year, 1971, that the perennially drug-trafficking British monarchy’s imperial assets inside the United States, under Richard Nixon, sank the sovereignty of the U.S. dollar. British puppet-President Barack Obama’s protection of the London-protected drug-traffickers of the Afghanistan trade, is typical today.
For example : the British launching of what became World Wars I and II, was put on the launching-pad in 1890, with the ouster of Germany’s Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. The assassination of France’s President Sadi Carnot and the orchestration of the Dreyfus case, were early elements of this change ; the British launching of Japan’s wars against China and, later, Russia, were expressions of this continuing process.
The issue which prompted the British to organize events of the 1890s such as the British Treaty agreement’s pact with Japan for perpetual, “geopolitical” warfare against China, Korea, and Russia, is typical. The relevant, so-called “issue” was the successful launching of both the U.S. trans-continental railway system, and the echoes of that same kind of achievement by a united Germany and Russia. The assassination of U.S. President William McKinley by an imported European assassin, via New York’s Henry Street Settlement House, was a crucial part of the same process, historically, in effect, a “9-11“ attack which brought the nepew of the top spy, James Bulloch, the loving uncle of President Theodore Roosevelt, the Bulloch who was used. as the London-based, chief spy working against the United States during that British not-so-surrogate war against the United States which is called our nation’s “Civil War, a by the British empire, for the launching of that attack on our United States.
The British Empire’s direction of the 1905 Russo-Japan war, was, in crucial part, a reaction against the U.S.-prompted spread of transcontinental railway systems which, by their very existence e threatened the British domination of the world through maritime power. Hence British imperial rage against the “geopolitical” threat of the spread of continental railway systems, since the British-directed ouster of Germany’s Chancellor Bismarck, in a British imperialist rage which is fully continued up through the present date. Two world wars and the so-called “Cold War” launched by Britain’s Churchill and his Wall Street-linked stooge Harry S Truman, were already the continuing expression of that British imperial reaction, up through the British monarchy’s current imperialist threats against any restoration of the Glass-Steagall law, a law on which the very continued existence of our United States depends today.
So, it can be fairly said today, that without an action like that of the assassination of President William McKinley, Britain could not have launched World War I successfully against what had been the McKinley Presidency of the U.S.A., and could not have sustained Britain’s imperial policy today, without the use of imported assassins to assassinate President John F. Kennedy ; without the assassination of President Kennedy, the United States could not have been ruined, as it has been, by the virtually decade-long war in Indo-China. 
Contrary views of those portions of world history, are to be recognized as simply childishness. Popular ? Yes ; but, childishness nonetheless.
God, or “gods” ?
I have emphasized, repeatedly, in sundry relevant publications and on sundry occasions, the example of Johannes Kepler’s uniquely successful method for the discovery of the principle of universal gravitation. That specific discovery has proven itself, in its effects, to be sufficient evidence of the systemic failure of all Kepler’s notable opponents in both this and related matters of the fundamental principles of physical science.
However, the most notable aspect of this history, from the Peloponnesian War to the present moment of an onrushing, global, economic breakdown-crisis, has been the crucial role of what is called as “Malthusianism,” such as that of the pro-genocidal World Wildlife Fund (WWF), the Club of Rome, the Cambridge University offshoot of International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), and the U.S. Administration of the pathetic narcissist Barack Obama whose threatened scheme for what would probably become the British burning down the “White House” for a second time, is expressed by the intention to place Solar reflectors on the White House roof ! 
The alternative to such follies as those which I have examined in the preceding pages of this present chapter, implicitly defines the need for replacing the customary policy-shaping of this planet by imposing a certain, higher principle of science.
This brings us to the needed, brief emphasis, here, on the relevance of the functional distinction between “God” and “the gods”“ of Olympus and the like.
When we consider the implications of the trilogy of “Noösphere,” “Biosphere,” and “Lithosphere,” as this trio of interdependent phase-spaces was defined by Academician V. I. Vernadsky, the systemic implication is that the universe is enveloped by the systemic implication that the universe is enveloped by the Noösphere, which, therefore, envelopes the distinguishing quality of the creative powers of the individual mind, and, which, in turn, dominates the Biosphere, which, in turn, dominates the Lithosphere. That is to say, that the universe itself expresses the specific trait of the Noösphere, a trait which is echoed in the essential distinction of the human species from the Biosphere otherwise. Implicitly, the higher, universal expression of the Noösphere typifies a God which is echoed in the form of the specifically creative (noëtic) potential of the appropriately developed human individual.
As for the attribution of “gods” to men and women otherwise, that is essentially nonsense. The argument this set of distinctions demands be developed. is to be argued here as follows, as “The Subject of The Human Mind.”
II. THE SUBJECT OF THE HUMAN MIND
Now, against the background laid out in the preceding chapter :
Much of the most relevant historical background identitied, from this point in the report, onward, our attention here will be centered on the implications of two principal conceptions which should be considered as the hallmarks of what will represent a qualitatively new phase in mankind’s practice of a science of physical economy. The matter to be considered on that account, as during the remainder of this present report, is a subject which, in its kernel, is composed of the following, leading considerations :
(1) on first account, we must consider a conception of the human mind which transcends all hitherto leading forms of customary usages, by virtue of the absolute terms of reference which we employ here. This is, in the first instance, a conception which I have already identified, although only in broad terms, on several occasions during the recent several years. This part of the argument, is of capital importance for correcting those opposing, mistaken views which are, admittedly, prevalent, even among many professionals today, but are views which are thoroughly incompetent, while generally accepted misconceptions of economy.
(2) Second : there is the matter of a closely related principle, which affirms, but also reaches far beyond what had been recognized earlier among outstanding specialists today ; a crucial addition, based in the corrected notion of the subject of the human mind, to be applied to certain deeper implications of Albert Einstein’s own notion of general relativity.
The resulting conclusion, is an implied transformation of the otherwise defined “Table of Elements,” away from the notion of particles within space, first, to that of the function of singularities within a universal domain of pervasive cosmic radiation : a reality in which space-as-such no longer exists for us ; beyond that, this brings us to what is essentially a radically newer conception of the implications of the term “space-time.” This radically new conception, as emphasized here, completely overwhelms what had been attempted in earlier approximations.
The combined considerations which I have, thus, set before you here, thus far, are not actually novelties of my creation ; they are overdue conclusions, for which the related conclusions have already been mandated by more or less long-standing evidence established by others and also myself a currently leading economic forecaster of the world, a process which has been ongoing over the course of more than a century. In short, the burden of failures in this field, lies with those who have clung stubbornly to what should have been recognized as what I ave repeatedly proven to have been discreditable presumptions which have produced great errors and great margns of error, as since the close of August 2007.
The latter of these two phases of development of the foundations of a competent practice of economic science, is, currently, chiefly, a subject of the ongoing attention of the relevant “Basement Team.”  The related conception, that of the human mind as such, is, emphatically, my own special responsibility here. Despite those distinctions, the relationship between the two subject-matters is essential. reciprocally, to each.
The subject of cosmic radiation, requires our deeper insight into the specific potential of the human mind, as distinctly separate from mere brain functions as such. The mind views what are merely brain functions, as such, as an object which that mind-as-such must create if it is to exist in the form of a universal physical principle, or its likeness.  Some implications of this subject of the human mind’s behavior, were explored by Wolfgang Koehler ; but, there is another approach, rather than that of Koehler, to the understanding of such phenomena. That alternate approach is one which I have introduced repeatedly on earlier occasions, but which I press here in a more definitive manner. This time, I focus on the implications of the subject of cosmic radiation, as placed in view by the problems posed by the richly paradoxical intersections of the work of Albert Einstein with the relevant aspects of the work of the younger de Broglie.
It is of not merely great, but crucial importance to be emphasized, that what are considered “particles,” are not merely singularities, but that, as I shall elaborate, require us to adopt a corrected view, a view which is now of the greatest degree of importance for the impending forms of progress in the practice of science generally today.
Therefore, I proceed now, accordingly. I shall explain, in due course, the immediately foregoing caveat which I have just expressed.
First, review the argument which I have presented in earlier treatments of this same subject-area.
The Human Mind : Ontologically
What had been, heretofore, the customary, modern definition of “matter, space, and time,” has been premised, implicitly, and erroneously, on the implied, or even explicitly demanded, popular presumption, that the human mind is chiefly an extension of about five qualities of sense-perceptual experience. 
That much taken into account, there is an already crucial source of contrary , popular, but clearly erroneous—even absurd, even actually fraudulent presumptions, such as those met in the following matters.
All such, and related presumptions of presently prevalent modern European cultural traditions, including physical-science presumptions generally, are premised, from Aristotle through Paolo Sarpi, and beyond, on the arbitrary, and actually false belief in something implicitly akin to the notion of a universal principle of entropy (e.g.,, the fraud of a “second law of thermodynamics”). The most crucial of the functional implications of that superstitious belief in “universal entropy,” can be traced conveniently, for our discussion, not only from the precedents of the dogma of Aristotle and Paolo Sarpi, but through Rudolf Clausius, Bertrand Russell, John von Neumann, et al., or, as otherwise reflected in the absurd, essentially a-prioristic, merely mathematical notions of the ontological presumptions of Euclidean geometry and its variants. Those morally debased derivatives of Aristotle which are also inherent in the dogma of the empiricism of Paolo Sarpi and his imitator Adam Smith,  or even much more debased notions, underlies the systemic failures of most systemic dogma respecting the functional relationship of the human mind to the universe which we inhabit.
The intrinsic incompetence of all monetarist doctrine lies, essentially, in the reliance on an “a-prioristic” presumption of the type associated with the delusion that the universe is organized according to the merely mathematic presumptions of the sickly-minded reductionists,, such as those of such notable devotees of Isaac Newton and Adam Smith as Leonhard Euler, Pierre-Simon Laplace, Augustin Cauchy, Rudolf Clausius,, Karl Weierstrass, and the mere mathematicians such as both the more respectable Rudolf Hilbert and the utterly despicable Bertrand Russell and his devotees. 
The fact of the matter, respecting our immediate galaxy and its subsumed general features, on down, is that the universe itself is a process of ongoing noëtic development, a universe which is, implicitly, finite but unbounded, as Albert Einstein attributed such a conclusion to the implications of the original discovery of what the, unfortunately, relatively rare case of a sane sort of a modern scientist : a universal principle of gravitation by Johannes Kepler, the implications presented in detail in Kepler’s Harmonies of the Worlds. This notion implies a corresponding, inherently, noëtically top-down organization of our universe, such as from our galaxy, downward, to shaping the existence of life on our planet Earth. 
Since all such and contrary notions in known scientific practice are known to us as being products of the functions of the human mind, the crucial question posed to mankind’s own experience, may be expressed in the following hypothesizing of an higher hypothesis : Do individual men and women create forms of knowledge through which the universe can then be altered by them into a higher order of anti-entropic state, as through the noëtic powers of the individual human mind ?
The best choice for illustrative designs of experiment which address those hypothesized implications, involve the notion of such effects as increase of the potential relative population-density of human societies through increase of the applied energy-flux-density applied to improvement of the productive powers of labor. Notably, mankind is the only species which not only chooses to use fire, but whose continued existence depends upon the intentional application of “fire” as a trend of rise in relatively increased energy-flux density of action. The fact that the history of the progress of cultures, per capita and per square kilometer, depends upon progress measurable in terms of increasing energy-flux-density per capita and per square kilometer, is a crucial first step toward a richer understanding of these matters.. Indeed, any society which limits itself to a fixed upper level of energy-flux density, is a dying society, dying through a willful quality of disposition for adopting a belief in a necessity of entropic attrition. (a society which descends, today, to windmills and solar collectors, is not fit to exist, and will, in fact, not continue to exist much longer.)
Thus, for the history of European civilization, in particular, the oligarchical social interest’s attempting banning of the progressive use of fire by ordinary men and women of what are implicitly designated as the lower social classes, symbolizes the essential form of the “tyranny of the pagan gods” prescribed by the Olympian Zeus of Aeschylus’ Prometheus Bound. In fact, already in the time of Aeschylus, the pro-Satanic, Apollo-Dionysus cult of Delphi, was a model for what the corrupted forms of maritime societies of that time had adopted as the so-called “oligarchical model” of both the Delphi Apollo-Dionysus cult and the so-called “Persian model.” This has been the same model represented by the ultra-malthusian cult of the World Wildlife Fund of Prince Philip and the late Prince Bernhard, as also that of cults such as the Bertrand Russell-flavored Cambridge Apostles, or. such of their offshoots as the Club of Rome and the rabidly pro-malthusian, Laxenberg, Austria, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA). 
The hypothesis must be of the form implicit in the efforts to account for the production of life within our Solar System as a product of a higher principle of the immediate galaxy which the fringe of our Solar System inhabits. 
The problem with what is widely tolerated, even among professional circles, on this account, is that there exist no acknowledged forms of actual universal principles in the beliefs among the followers of tyrannies of such as old Aristotle-Euclid or modern Paolo Sarpi. In the belief-system of the latter, there is only a fixed system of pagan October 18, 2010 a–priori religious beliefs in the reign of the conclusions for which no actual origin is known. 
The Human Mind : A Review
Whereas, sense-perception degrades man’s view of the universe, either to simply objects in space, or to a misreading of the third section of Riemann’s habilitation dissertation : the singularity which mere sense-perception attempts to define as an object in space, appears to the functional healthy mind as an expression of the attributed object which defines the locality of the singularity in space-time. There is no existing “empty space” to contain the singularity as an object “in space.”
The fact of this absence of an actual “empty space,” should prompt us to undertake a radically profound view of the nature of those powers of the individual human mind which prevail beyond what is still generally regarded as the individual human mind, beyond the mere five-plus, presumed sense-powers of the human individual.
Read this distinction as follows.
III. WHAT IS YOUR MIND — REALLY ?
Now, let us proceed with a resumption of the argument on the subject of the human mind, which I introduced in reports several years back. Consider the popular academic error which must be identified, and then removed, in order to address the real principles to be considered here now.
To moor this study in the time and space in which I had begun this excursion into science, during my early years, I now recall your attention to my earliest conscious recollection of the roots of my present philosophical outlook, which came at about the age of fourteen. This occurred during a time my family’s weekend visits to Boston’s Charles Town Navy Yard had already precluded my respectful consideration, by me, of the essential feature of the a-priorism of Euclid.
That experience from my adolescence, had led me toward what became my consequent, later intention, this time over the course of the post-World War II 1940s, to develop an argument which I presented to myself, an argument which was, first of all, one which, in large part, was a fruit of my reaction, at that time, to the hoaxes of such as both Professor Norbert Weiner (“information theory”) and John von Neumann’s irrationalist approach to number theory, both of whom had been dumped, decades earlier, as being hoaxsters, from the famous Göttingen University-based “Mathematics Genealogy Project” of Professor David Hilbert. 
Turn attention, briefly, to Hilbert’s own errors.
The sundry “Genealogy of Mathematics” schemes, including those from opposing currents of, on the one side, the Austrian School of Ernst Mach and the German reductionist school of David Hilbert, and, on the other side, Bertrand Russell. Russell’s Principles of Mathematics, and his role in Principia Mathematica, arguments of Russell which have become, since the 1920s, a leading factor in the attempted, widely successful destruction of science, and in the promotion of the correlated, neo-malthusian cults, up to the present day. The widespread academic support for these latter, sundry, radically reductionist cults, within universities, and elsewhere, have been a leading factor in the implementation of those policies which have destroyed European civilization from the inside, since then, up to the present time.
Essentially, the argument of Russell’s followers, those such as the hoaxsters Weiner and von Neumann, has been specifically anti-humanistic. At first glance, some might argue : “So, what ?” Was Russell’s argument not rooted in the reductionist follies of, most notably, a long skein, from Euclid, through the followers of Bertrand Russell. Reductionism of that quality was what Aristotle taught ; and, that was what the prophets of Paolo Sarpi (such as that of the hoaxster Adam Smith) preached for the worst effect on society.
Russell and his followers were much, much cruder in the essentials of their argument. What Russell’s devotees, such as both Weiner and von Neumann, preached, was to become, in its inherent effect for society at large, what would come to be rightly denounced as the Hitler-like doctrine of Joseph Schumpeter’s “creative destruction,” another brand name for the same Hitler-like social policy, of intended mass-genocide, which has been represented by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) of Britain’s Prince Philip and his subsequently deceased accomplice, the Netherlands’ Prince Bernhard. 
The essential evidence showing the fallacy of assuming a merely mathematical standard for defining physical principles, as, for example, the followers of Bertrand Russell Russell have done, is to be located in the fact that the discovery of universal physical principles lies, actually, within the domain of generating the type of proposals for testing hypotheses which must then be subjected to experimental proof, that by methods which must be, in turn, then be subjected to crucial experiments for presumably universal validity of what may have been proposed as a claimable discovery of an actually universal, physical principle. The examples of this are to be obtained from cases such as Johannes Kepler’s uniquely original, and also uniquely successful discovery of the principle of universal gravitation, as Albert Einstein assessed the implications of Kepler’s success : a implying a universe which is finite, but not bounded.
The relevant fault in much of the history of substituting mere mathematics for science, as the sundry followers of a merely mathematical design for science have done, is that, as illustrated by the case of Johannes Kepler’s uniquely successful, original discovery of universal gravitation illustrates this point, that the discovery of valid universal physical principles lies entirely outside the domain of a merely mathematical deduction, or outside what Bertrand Russell identified as the equivalence of deduction and induction. Thus, both Aristotle and Sarpi were equally absurd in the end-game, as this is shown sufficiently well by their a-priorist’s efforts to attribute actually physical principles to mere mathematics, as Aristotle and Euclid had done for geometry, or, as Sarpi and Adam Smith had done, to employ the perceptions of pleasure and pain as substitutes for principle. Such a substitution was the premise of the followers of what Paolo Sarpi and Adam Smith had not merely done, but had proudly confessed as what they had done.
So, accordingly, the roots of the British monarchy’s Anglo-Dutch Liberal system of pro-genocidal practices, such as those of the inherently mass-murderous, Anglo-Dutch imperialist World Wildlife Fund (WWF), are most clearly treated by the historian-dramatist Aeschylus in his Prometheus Trilogy. Aeschylus rightly used the dramatic device of an Olympian Zeus’s banning of the use of “fire” by the planet’s so-called “lower classes,” all done with the exact same intent currently expressed by official, pro-genocidal policies of the World Wildlife Fund of today’s British —or, should we say, “brutish” —monarchy.
However, the point which must be emphasized, that in attempts to assess this present British policy of global genocide, the needed remedy for the poisonous influence of British imperialism’s ideology, must be accurately identified as that of the principle of creativity, as I define that principle here.
What Is Human “Creativity” ?
Let us not be so silly as to presume, that there is an element of truth in what came to be known as the so-called “second law of thermodynamics ;” it was a fraud from its inception. All of the universe as we presently know it, is truly creative in itself. The difference, on this account, between the human species and animals, in particular, is that, whereas animal creativity, for example, is innate to the universe’s life-forms ; mankind’s creativity is specifically, intentionally, noëtic : a principled quality of intention which is which is ultimately ordered according to Plato’s notion of hypothesizing the higher hypothesis ; a quality of intention does not exist for radical reductionists such as the followers of Aristotle or Sarpi, or such frankly satanic varieties as Russell and his followers.
For example, man’s existence depends, universally, on what might be considered, mistakenly, as a fatal commitment to “using up” the most advantageous choices among the raw-materials resources being consumed at any occasion. It is only through actions which have the effect of increasing the “potential increase of relative energy flux-densities,” that we are able to effect those qualities of capital-intensive advances in the productive powers of labor which would be sufficient to more than offset the relative depletion of what had been considered as the relatively richest of the employed sources of “raw materials.” The universe is like that !
That point has been demonstrated beyond all sane objections, by examining the fossil record of forms of life on Earth. To similar effect, the case was summarized in the recently uttered science “video,” “Extra-territorial Imperative—Part II,” respecting the correlation between the periodicity experienced, by the action of our Galaxy, on the existence and role of life within the functional bounds iof our Solar System. We now see the “early history of life on Earth” within those galactic parameters, and can remark with initial astonishment on the evidence of a very long history of the domination of life-forms on our planet in a unicellular or closely related form. Life is not an expression of plants and animals ; plants and animals are a product of a universal principle of life. 
The case to be made, as in Genesis 1, is that the entire universe is a continuing effect of universal creativity—universal noësis. However, nonetheless, there is also creativity as expressed in the forms of what are classed as non-living processes, the processes which Academician V. I. Vernadsky defined as the Lithosphere, on the one hand, the creativity of the processes of living creatures, as an another, and the power of willful creativity which is attributed only to mankind and the Creator Himself.
The immediately foregoing are considerations which have been proven, with relatively unique authority, by use of the method expressed by my uniquely successful accomplishments in economic forecasting—since my Summer 1954 forecast of the most severe U.S. economic recession to occur at some point between the close of February and early March of the following year. The proofs which I have supplied, have been, obviously, addressed to selected, relatively exceptional cases ; however, when the higher experimental implications of my successes in use of that Riemannian-based method of forecasting are taken into account, those successes of mine are like “bench marks” in respect of the way in which they express a universal principle.
My mid-1950s success as a forecaster, depended on the fact that the combination of the policies of a foolish Arthur Burns produced the 1957 recession, which is to be seen more clearly when that factor is combined with the general practice of the Adam Smith school ; such an outlook at that always neglects to take into account those long-ranging effects of physical-economic principles, which always lead to a more or less catastrophic outcomes, as we are experiencing that effect in the extreme, presently. The follies which the reigning schools of economists generate in this way, would not be allowed under the conditions imposed by the policies of President Franklin Roosevelt. For just that reason, all of the major crises of the U.S. economy during the post-World War II period, especially since the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, have been the product of the taught, anti-FDR doctrines of the financier community and that community’s street-walkers of the university campuses and most among the leading press. What I had forecast in mid-1956, had been what should have been obvious to any economist carrying the burden of depravities such as those of Arthur Burns’ persuasion.
Looking more deeply into the history of similar follies of ancient through modern European civilization—and also those of others, provides conclusive factual knowledge of the history of mankind within the regions bounding the Mediterranean, a view which traces the idea of the imposition of a proximate doctrine of human “zero growth” to a very specific, willful concoction of depravity, to forms of society such as those of ancient Babylon, or Greece under the sway of tyrannies from such as the Apollo-Dionysus cult of Delphi, to the willful imposition of a state of brutish servitude on the greatest portion of humanity living within that region. This were the case of a brutish, essentially arbitrary, clearly fraudulent policy, named “the oligarchical model,” even during those times, a model which is typified by proposed two-part empire of King Philip of Macedon and the so-called “Persian Empire,” as, also, by the contemporary “environmentalist movement” currently associated with depraved social groups which are exemplified by the British monarchy and such U.S. Presidents as Theodore Roosevelt and Barack Obama.
The Myth of Over-Population
“Over-population of what ?” Did you not notice that the Earth is a tiny part of our Solar System, and that Solar System a tiny late-comer on the fringe of the relevant galaxy ?
Contrary to the fraudulent pretext proffered by such depraved creatures as the authors and supporters of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) today, there was never, from the time of known ancient cultures of the rim of the Mediterranean, to the present day, actually a threat of “over-population ;” rather, the motive for such systemic practices of population-control, has been a specific sort of brutish lust inherent among the rule of tyrants such as those of the British Empire of today.
Indeed, the entire history of the roots and development of our United States, has been the struggle for freedom from that brutish reign of oligarchism which has been typified for us, most emphatically, strategically, by the continuing design of the British global financial oligarchy. This is typified by Lord Jacob Rothschild’s 1971 creation of the Inter-Alpha financial Group (BRIC), a policy designed in effect to lead into the final eradication of our republic, and most of the world’s present level of population from this planet, a feat being attempted through aid of the British-puppet Presidency of Barack Obama now.
The present policies of Barack Obama and the head of the Federal Reserve System, are a commitment to the presently accelerating zooming of the death-rate among the majority of our citizenry, and effect propagated through precisely the kinds of measures launched, most emphatically, under U.S. Presidents George W. Bush, Jr. and Barack Obama.  That is a modern expression of the exact-same “oligarchical model,” as defined by that name, in agreements reached between the Persian Empire and the ill-fated Prince Philip of Macedon. Any support of such a model introduced to our republic, is implicitly an act of treason, or a contributing effect of the British drug-pushers’ Obama model of warfare such as that currently ongoing in Afghanistan, against the Federal Constitution or our United States.
The intention of that “oligarchical model,” was not, essentially, a “sincere” concern for “over-population.” The clear and cruel intention, like that of the health-care policies of Britain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair and U.S. President Obama in their respective times, has been to reduce the mass of the population to a level of sodden, brutish depravity, just as the legacy of the British-run Confederate States of America demanded, until quite recently—in some places, still today, that an African-American stand aside, hat held in worshipful hand, when what was, supposedly, a gentle Caucasian lady passed on the sidewalk even in the greater part of the recently past century of U.S. social life.
The intention of oligarchism is expressed as the development, sparead, and preservation of a system of oligarchy, the same international policy of the British Empire today. The intention pf oligarchism is to keep the mass of the population stupid ; to that end, social formations of oligarchs must lower the allowed population-density of those victims, which also means to stupefy that population respecting the uses of relevant forms of “fire” (“energy-flux density”). Hence, the implicitly genocidal policies of today’s virtual Jacobin mob-formations against any form of competent source of applicable power, and in favor of substitution of monstrously costly windmills, and inherently wasteful and essentially worse than useless solar collectors, for sanity.
The danger to the oligarchical faction’s presumed self-interest, is that a population threatens to become truly intelligent through such means as promotion of the practice Classical artistic composition, as this was the fear expressed by trans-Atlantic oligarchical circles, as suppression of decency is shown in post-World War II Europe, through the introduction of the practiced policies of “The Congress for Cultural Freedom..” Such is life under the reign of a more than slightly maddened Barack “Uncle Tom” Obama’s health and related care today.
Granted, that keeping people stupid—and, therefore, also much less productive, as the narcotics and related practices of the present Obama Presidency aims to bring the latter effect about ; the functional intent of the oligarchical populations’ policy of population-control, was not, in itself, the fear that people would become more numerous ; the oligarchist’s fear was that the need to support a growing population would demand devotion to scientific and related intellectual development of the generality of the subject population. To make an educated population stupid, you must first drive them stupid through driving them mad, as the trend of the world’s so-called “environmentalist” ferment, an perpetual states of long warfare in parts of Asia and Africa demonstrates this connection.
So, the purpose of promoting the anti-scientific fraud known as “environmentalism” as the practice of the British monarchy, has been to arrange a means by which the relative power of the financially privileged oligarchy, as in the City of London, the Boston Vault, Wall Street, and “The Chicago School” .
This same social policy was already the motive of Aristotle in particular, as had already been the case under the Cult of Delphi, which was the bitterest opponent of Plato and his legacy. That was continued as the motive of the Emperor Constantine, in decreeing that the Christian bishops must be under the control of the cult of the Roman imperial Pantheon. That same fear of the threatened development of the creative intellectual powers of freedom by the people, was why the Emperor Tiberius, acting from his base on the Isle of Capri, ordered the crucifixion of Jesus, and why the Emperor Nero launched the Roman empire’s mass slaughter of the Christians.
To understand the roots of the Roman Empire, it is essential to to include recognition of the part played by the negotiations conducted on the Isle of Capri between the Octavian who was later to be known as Caesar Augustus, with a visiting pack of priests of the Middle-Eastern Cult of Mithra. This set of negotiations which arranged the combining of the rival powers represented, respectively, by the Middle-Eastern Cult of Mithra, the cult of Egypt, and Rome itself. The resulting, pantheonic agreement, once its implementation was facilitated by eliminating the obstacle represented by Mark Antony and Cleopatra, cleared the way for the establishment of a single Roman Empire reigning over no less than the Mediterranean and its littoral. The development is the keystone of the history of European civilization, from that time to the present efforts to revive a new Roman Empire centered in London’s financial center and Royal House, this time, since 1971, under the Inter-Alpha Group of finance, through the provisions of the Maastricht agreements today.
Just so, the roots of a Mediterranean-centered form of ancient maritime imperialism, did not begin with the emergence of imperial Rome. Imperialism, whose most characteristic feature is monetarism (as distinct from, and opposed to modern sovereign systems of national credit, such as that of the U.S. Federal Constitution), paralleled the array of rivals’ inland and maritime forms for more than a millennium, prior to the reign of an arbitrary single rulership by an imperial monetarist system which had been established through the fruits of the Capri negotiations.
Maritime imperialism, under whatever name it may conduct its affairs in sundry times, has always been international, which is to say an empire, or set of empires. Such was Roman law, a Roman law which defines the basis for the world’s system of monetarism today. As long as, and wherever a monetarist system exists today, the mere nation-state is degraded to just another puppet of a global financier’s monetarist empire. The 1971 termination of the fixed-exchange-rate system through the instrumention of this British intention through the U.S. Presidency of Richard M. Nixon’s immediate controllers, such as Arthur Burns and George Shultz, all for the benefit of the new imperialist world monetarist system being created for her imperial Majesty Queen Elizabeth by royal household craftsman Lord Jacob Rothschild and the launching of his Inter-Alpha Group.
Under monetarist expressions of ancient, medieval, and modern forms of imperialist systems, such as the British imperial Commonwealth and the Inter-Alpha Group of today, the value of nominal and other wealth is not attributed to a physical function of nominal wealth as such, but to the power to superimpose nominal current values, as a power enjoyed by an international form of imperial system, just as Rosa Luxemburg wrote in her The Accumulation of Capital, as the U.S. State Department’s Herbert Feis subsequently verified her argument, and as the principles of known Roman imperial law emphasize, that fact despite virtually all other well-known contemporary economists tackling this subject to the present day. Imperialism is not product of a nation-state, although the empire may include a nation-state, such as today’s United Kingdom as a subsidiary of the empire. An empire may combine rule over nations subject to it, but the empire’s existence as such remains the expression of a supra-national primary interest, as is illustrated by the role, since 1971, of the Inter-Alpha Group established in the same time-frame that the termination of the Franklin Roosevelt-launched fixed-exchange-rate system.
The general failure among even most leading economists and national governments of the world in economic affairs today, must be traced, chiefly, to widespread belief in the fiction which seeks to obscure the evidence that any monetarist system operating in a supra-national mode, is intrinsically the embodiment of an imperialist system, not a sovereign nation-state.
The relative imbecility respecting economics, which is expression by popular or other, virtually religious devotions to notions of monetary values, finds a highly significant corrolary in the inherently incompetent system of the form lacking the reality of substance, a lack which is typified by the case of Euclidean geometry.
As the case of Euclid shows, the effect of Aristotle’s intention, was the irrationalist cult of Euclidean geometry from which efficient physical causes are excluded.  The notion of that religious devotion known as “The Genealogy of Mathematics,” as commonly proposed by such moderns as the mathematician Rudolf Clausius and, later, David Hilbert, was the contended matter of a lurking quarrel which Gauss prudently evaded, out of respect for the nature and political power of the reigning, inquisitional quality of the mathematical ideologies of that time. The issue, to the present day, is categorically seated in the credulous varieties of development and use of mathematics by physicists, and through the brainwashing of physicists by the mere mathematicians, the worst among which latter have been the devotees of boundlessly maleficent Bertrand Russell.
Hence, we turn come to the matter of the relatively bounded nature of the essential distinction of the great Plato from the evil of Aristotle, as expressed in sundry guises to the present time.
What Is The Matter ?
The source of all that is readily definable as a pattern in and among the policy-shaping of nations, as being the systemic incompetence in ancient through present-day practices in the name of science, is most readily typified by the common features which subsume both the teachings of Aristotle (e.g., Euclidean geometry) and the modern Liberalism of Paolo Sarpi and of the followers of his advocacy of the empiricist method in mathematical varieties of reductionist methods.
Philo of Alexandria, who was associated with the Christian Apostle Peter, denounced Aristotle’s insistence that the Deity’s power of creation ceased with the completion of the universe. There is no coincidence in this treatment of Aristotle by Philo. The universe is creative, and has never ceased to be such. Yet, society today is still afflicted by the nonsense which Philo rightly recognized in Aristotle’s doctrine. Such is the hoax known as the “second law of thermodynamics ;” as the Apostle Luke warned, “Even the stones might speak !” The universe is, in fact, run by nothing so much as universal creativity, as Albert Einstein pointed out Johannes Kepler’s achievement in recognizing a universal principle of gravitation as expressing a finite, but unbounded universe, that at each moment of that universe’s higher level of existence.
The “second law of thermodynamics,” was never a principle of a competent scientific practice, but, in fact, a hoax. It was always, as it was for the Aristotle who was a working devotee of the oligarchical cult of Delphi, a social doctrine, a certain kind of religious doctrine, not a scientific one. Hence, we had the rejoinder by Aeschylus, in the Prometheus trilogy.
The introduction of the remarks in this present chapter, so far, has now brought our discussion to a crucial phase : our subject now, becomes the distinction between mere sense-perceptions and true knowledge of universal physical principles. This is the principled location of the absolute difference between sense-perception and human creativity. This is the source of the fraudulent, ontological separation of the notion of mere sense-impression from the ontologically independent, creative powers of the human mind. We have come, thus, to the central topic of this report in its entirety. I refer, now, with special emphasis, to the concluding, third section of Bernhard Riemann’s 1854 habilitation dissertation.
IV. ECONOMICS AS APPLIED PHYSICAL SCIENCE
In previous publications which I have devoted to related matters of physical science as such, I have repeatedly emphasized, that the noëtic functions of the human mind must be distinguished categorically from the functions of human sense-perception. The evidence bearing on the necessary judgment which is demanded by stating that distinction, must be informed by other evidence showing the particular falseness of the notion of the universe as a dominion of space as such. Sense-perception is shadow ; mind is substance.
In launching this chapter, I elected to postpone the outlining of the basis on which I have established and applied the notion of economics as a physical science to a later chapter of this report.
I emphasize : it was a choice. I decided that although the proof of my insistence that competent economics is physical science, not financial accounting or the like, that I might better present some of the conclusions which depend upon that proof in the subsequent chapter, with the cautionary statement that what I shall present in this current chapter will be made clearer as the nature of the underlying principle of economic science after treating the content of this present chapter as, retrospectively illustration of the principle, first, and, thereafter, present the actual principle which underlies those illustrations provided in this present chapter.
I leave to the reader to choose which order in which to weigh the contents of this present and the subsequent chapter. In that fashion, I state first what, in effect, happened, here, and, thereafter, identify the principle which caused it to happen in a certain specific way.
In approaching our subject here, we should be reminded of the fact, at the outset, that all competent discoveries of physical principle which have been made by means of experimental methods, have been accomplished in a fashion similar to that of Johannes Kepler’s uniquely original discovery of the principle gravitation. So, he had located the desired discovery of the principle as located, simultaneously, “outside and among” two or more contrasting qualities of either sense-perceptual, or comparable notions of instrumentation : not by mere deduction from sense-experience as such.
Therefore, the principles so adduced in this report, belong chiefly, as Riemann’s argument in the concluding, third section of his 1854 habilitation dissertation shows, as the principle of simultaneity of the type of contrasting experiences from the domains of the very large, and very small, the experiences of the domain addressed by Bernhard Riemann in the concluding section of his 1854 habilitation dissertation. That was what had been accomplished in Johannes Kepler’s uniquely successful discovery of the principle of universal gravitation, a discovery which had depended, uniquely, upon the contradictory characteristics of two distinct categories of sense-perception, sight and the harmonies of hearing, which demands a method of contrast which is typical of my ontological definition of the means for the discovery of any actual universal principle.
In approaching the subject-matter just so referenced, we must recognize, that the competent view of modern physical science, is to be found in that part of the dialogue which had been developed within those rather strict limits which had been defined for all science, by the setting of the subject within what is associated with the Classical Greek precedent of such as Plato’s notion of hypothesizing the higher hypothesis. In modern language, this means the standpoint of Johannes Kepler’s unique discovery of the physical principle of gravitation, a discovery which must be viewed from the standpoint of Albert Einstein’s reference to Kepler’s work, in Einstein’s own emphasis on the reality that Kepler has implicitly defined the universe as, in any moment of reference, as finite, but never externally bounded in space-time.
So, that great hoax associated with such as Aristotle and Euclidean geometry, was overthrown by the modern school of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa’s De Docta Ignorantia ; but, the recognition of that fact, where the recognition exists now, still today, must have the effect on the modern student, of suggesting that, in some fashion, that Plato has already said as much, in principle, as I present here, and as his associate Archytas had demonstrated the point in a crucial experimental fashion with what Eratosthenes was to praise, later, as Archytas’ constructive duplication of the cube.
Thus, the result of any thorough examination of the application of that approach, will lead a successful case of such a venture, toward the recognition of the true meaning, in modern language, of Plato’s notion of the hypothesis of an higher hypothesis. For example, Kepler’s discovery of the universal principle of gravitation, through the contrast of sight with the harmonic ordering of hearing, was the solution for an hypothesis. Albert Einstein’s recognition of the genius of Kepler’s discovery of gravitation, had led Einstein to the higher order conception, a relative hypothesis of the higher hypothesis, which states, in fact, that the universe within which the principle of gravitation, as discovered by Kepler, exists, is, itself, governed by a notion dependent upon the notion of that hypothesis of the higher hypothesis, which presents the universe to us as finite, but yet unbounded experimentally.
Thus, the very idea of the possibility of the existence of distinct qualities of space, time, and matter, is to be recognized as presuming a set of fictions which have lately outlived their former degree of usefulness for guiding the practice of peoples and their nations. Belief in matter, is a production of the human mind, a mind which conducts those experiments by means of which belief in any single view of the meaning of “matter,” is to be proscribed.
Take, for example, the case of the world’s economies, as known from ancient times up through the presently catastrophic failure of not merely virtually the government of every nation of the planet, but of mankind as a whole, not only during the recent thirty-odd years, but, clearly, since the early 1960s, even prior to the assassination of U.S. President John F, Kennedy. In fact, from the standpoint of practice, the policies which have reigned over the direction of the planet’s economies as a whole, since, for example, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, are now to be seen as having been clinically insane en masse ! 
There have been, admittedly, some local forms of relative success in some parts of the world during the post-1945 interval ; even since Kennedy’s assassination, but, despite improvements for some of the populations of India and China, for example, for the world considered as a whole, the net trend, measured in physical per-capita terms of changes, especially since the assassination of President Kennedy, has been not merely downward, but catastrophically so. Worst of all, the trends in prevalent opinions bearing on the effects of policy-shaping, have been downward, and that, in recent decades, at an accelerating rate.
As the world as a whole now teeters at the onset of a general, planet-wide breakdown-crisis, presently in motion, we should now ask : what is the change to be made in the way nations and peoples as a whole have shaped their opinions, until now, if the planet is to survive the prolonged dark age which is now descending upon it ? What, therefore, has been wrong with the way the nations have thought ? Virtually all among the present nations ?
Where Is The Remedy ?
Those which are fairly defined as the Platonic views which I bring to bear here, go directly to what I have already referenced as the third section of Riemann’s habilitation dissertation : the universe as a whole, considered within the range from the inclusion of the immeasurably very large, to the immeasurably very small, can be conceived only in one way : in a manner typified in the exemplary fashion of the method expressed by Albert Einstein’s appreciation of both Kepler’s discovery of universal gravitation, and the impact of those discoveries of Riemann which had played an exemplary part in leading me to my successful redefinition of the notion of an actually physical principle of economy.
For the moment, permit me to summarize a broad view of this subject-matter in the following terms of approximation.
For our purposes, in seeking to get to the legendary bottom of the roots of the present failure of leading opinions among nations on the matter of our subject here, the key to the needed answers for these questions, is presented in the single sentence with which Riemann concludes his 1854 habilitation dissertation. That single, most provocative sentence, is what I found, at the beginning of the 1950s, as the most efficiently fruitful introduction to a modern science of physical economy today, because it frees physical science from all things which are likenesses of the influence of Aristotle and Euclid, and, therefore, also the sophistries of the British, and other brutish followers of Paolo Sarpi., and from, as Riemann wrote, “the department of mathematics,” in particular. 
I am an economist, and write here as a physical economist, and, insofar as I have delivered forecasts, since mid-1956, the relatively most successful forecaster, in the matter of results shown, over the period since that time. There was never any “magic” in this contribution of mine to science ; the cause for those relative successes of mine, has been systemic. It is the contrary opinion, that which has been accepted as a standard of performance for economists, which has failed so visibly, and so awfully now ; the errant standard imposed among all leading nations participating in shaping the policies imposed upon the others, is that which has failed, and that consistently, that over the entire span since the detestable Wall Street asset, Harry S Truman, superseded the incumbency of President Franklin Roosevelt.
This been especially notable since the virtual assassination of the echo of the policies of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, with an effect like that which is echoed later in the opposition to the crucial economic policies of the assassinated U.S. President John F. Kennedy’s Administration, all for British-centered political motives : most notably those Kennedy policies of forbidding a U.S. war in Indo-China, a policy of opposition to the launching of that war which Kennedy shared with the co-thinkers of General of the Armies Douglas MacArthur, a policy which could have been removed, then, only by the assassination of President Kennedy, as that was, in fact, done.
To sum up the most crucial point which this view implies, the fact must be noted, that the efforts to adduce a competent physical science of economy from the mere efforts to stretch the hereditary implications of a Aristotelean, or a dubious, so-called non-Aristotelean design for geometry. such as that of N. Lobatchevsky or Jonas Bolyai, must be considered as, functionally, as at the root of the presently onrushing general breakdown-crisis of the world as a whole during, most notably, the August 1971 break-up of the U.S.A,’s system of economy at that time.  That portion of the profession of economists, for example, which has not considered the systemic fallacy of the economics taught among the relevant professions of leading governments and their standard experts today, has been the key to the factors contributing to that great tragedy now expressed as the presently onrushing, planet-wide general economic breakdown-crisis of physical systems of economy world-wide. It is that failure which has been induced through the influence of prevalent political-economic dogmas on the direction — of an accelerating rate of down—which exerts political control over the planet generally, at the present moment this report is written.
There has been the attempt to address the problem expressed by that cited failure of that portion of the leadership of leading and other nations of the world, that by leading, often even brilliant minds, which have, heretofore, considered matters from the standpoint of what have been considered conventional dogmas. That belief is, in fact, the principal among the efficient causes of the onrushing general breakdown-crisis of the planet as a whole. The policies of the “Euro system,” as set by the trio of Britain’s Margaret Thatcher, France’s President Francois Mitterand, and U.S. President George H. W. Bush, a system which their joint actions created, has been an action which was actually defined by neither the dubious French President Mitterand, nor the British imperial system reigning over that Euro arrangement ; the system then introduced, to the effect iof ruining Europe to the present day, are the expression of insanity of nations driven to the relatively wildest extremes of a worse-than-Weimar-1923 thrust, presently, into a global, hyper-inflationary breakdown-crisis underway since September 2007, that under the terms of rabidly anglophile pair of, first, U,S. President George W. Bush, Jr., and, then, Barack Obama.
There are many expressions of the mass-behavior which has been brought upon the world as something comparable to this present set of expressions effects of an onrushing, global breakdown-crisis. Among these, the most efficient remedy will be the treatment of the principal causes of this soaring crisis from the vantage-point of a science of physical economy, a treatment which must be combined with a coordinated termination of systems of monetarist economies. Among the particular subjects which a successful examination of the remediable causes for the present world crisis demands, that is to say, the subject which I address in this present report, is the most useful, perhaps the only choice.
That statement will shock some. Yet, it is not only true, but crucial for dealing successfully with the present crisis. Why is this so ?
To meet the challenge which that hypothetical question implies, we must soar to a higher authority than that of what is considered the standard categories of physical science currently. This is the challenge of replacing the existing doctrines of economics with a sweeping change, by a change to a specific science of physical economy. This is the challenge represented by a principle of a universal nature which virtually no conventional sort of modern mathematician seems to know, but which only truly Classical poets will be competent to admit knowing, publicly. This remedy is expressed as the principle of human creativity on which everything pertinent to the existence of not only our present civilization, but mankind’s role in the universe, now depends. It is a principle which exists for practice only in the domain customarily associated with the role of irony within a notion of Classical poetry, a notion, echoed in the work of the late William Empson’s Seven Types of Ambiguity, a long admired insight which has become an expression of what I shall present, here, as a work in metaphysical science.
We now proceed as follows.
The failure of the United States to enact that set of measures of legislation which I have prescribed since the time I presented my then increasingly popular proposal at that time, the proposed Homeowners’ and Bank Protection Act of 2007, could have stopped the nations’ plunge into the post-August 2007, a block to that indispensable immediate reform of mine which remains today the only action of U.S. policy which could have prevented that then already impending general collapse of the economy, a continuing collapse which Wall Street and London have led since September 2007. That blocking of my designed act has been the cause of what has become a now implicitly world-wide financial breakdown-crisis. Wall Street, with its Federal Reserve System appendage, together with London, have thus led the nations of the entire world into the most devastating economic breakdown-crisis in modern world history.
They may have imagined that they have triumphed over my presented remedy. In reality, contrary to their silly imagination, they have, in fact, destroyed themselves. Unfortunately, our nations are presently trapped. still, to this day, within their sinking ship.
Looking backward to July-August 2007, there can be no reasonable doubt of that historical fact. It was fact of a choice, whose effects are presently descending upon the entirety of the nations of this planet now.
The situation is such, presently, that if the United States collapses, as it soon would under a continuation of the Obama Presidency, then, first, the entire Trans-Atlantic region, and then the entire planet, will be plunged, more or less immediately, into a dark age exceeding all known precedents for the modern world as a whole, which is to say, since the beginning of the Fifteenth Century, Florence-centered Renaissance. Without the dumping of Obama, now, as through employing the provisions of the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Federal Constitution, the physical-economic situation for the world at large is already a hopeless one. The relevant, planet-wide New Dark Age, which is already descending at an accelerating rate upon the world now, is the looming threat of the end of civilization throughout the planet—unless we act to reverse the present trend immediately.
The suggestion delivered to me that, “We are not ready to make the kinds of changes you demand,” belong in the category of prospectively “famous last (tragic) words” by those who speak them. The fact is, that we can change the presently gloomy destiny of the peoples of our planet, if some of us are able to act to supply the seemingly impossible corrective measures, in a now fast-passing time.
That much is now said, by way of introduction for this chapter, and the remaining entirety of this present report.
Creativity Per Se
To sum up the burden of the remarks with which I have now just this chapter of the report so far : Any competent accounting for the presently onrushing, disastrous failures of the economies of the planet as a whole, demands a critical review of the leading opinions of statesmen and scientists of the planet, alike. To bring about an understanding of the fact of human creativity, we must act according to a means which does not exist within mathematics such ; it lies only in the spirit of physical science which expresses its creative form of human nature in Classical modes of poetry, music, and Classical artistic compositions, such as those of Leonardo da Vinci, Raphael Sanzio, and Rembrandt van Rijn. It is a matter of those productions which create an image of a state of mind not previously experienced, on behalf or what is more or less, otherwise, an already proven scientific discoveries of principle, which express the distinction of the human mind from the mentality of beasts.
The beasts are, in each type, expressions of a creative process in biological effect, but their creativity as such, is a biological experience which occurs to them from outside the generative capacities of a willful consciousness. Hence, the distinction, by Academician V. I. Vernadsky, of Noösphere from Biosphere. It is that willful creativity specific to Classical artistic composition, which is the “fire” which distinguishes persons from beasts, and which is made a conscious force unique to the domain of human creativity, including scientific creativity ; it is a uniqueness, which is expressed by Classical expressions of poetry, music, and painting, as opposed to the morally and intellectually formal sort of a blinded mind’s belief in what is merely mathematics as such.
The characteristic of these specific expressions of conscious forms of human creativity to be met in the domains of practice, is that they are implicitly anthropomorphic in their intention : “anthropomorphic” in the sense that they express that excitement of the mind of human beings which is expressed by knowledgeable states of existence which had not been imagined earlier than the intervention of an achieved state of mind which is implicitly forbidden to the common man and woman of Aeschylus’ Prometheus Bound. Under that mythical Zeus, the truly creative imagination were forbidden to anyone not beckoned into the rank of the Olympian system of gods.
Such power to exercise the ordinary individual person’s truly human identity, had been that natural right which was seized by those English settlers, and others, who sought true human freedom from the oligarchical system of the Europe of that time, in the Americas, as in the Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay colonies of what became, for a time, the virtual republic under the leadership of the Winthrops and Mathers. Hence, as much as there was admiration of British imperial ways met among Americans, it was, like the British admiration of its puppet, the Confederacy, the expression of a relatively depraved, mental, spiritual system of a self-imposed depravity expressed as worship of the imperial British crown.
What I have just written here, confronts us with the search for an implied image of the human personality which does not directly correspond to the shadow-like images of the domain of sense-perception. How can the human mind cope with a series of questions such as that presented as the fact that the most crucial distinction of the human mind pertains to images which do not appear in sense-perception as such ? Or, how can we imagine that works of art coherent with the notion of Classical artistic creativity, ciould be considered as really efficient objects of reality ? Or, how can we consider as real, that which has not yet become manifest to the powers of sense-perception ?
“Aye, there’s the rub ...”
Aha ! If the creative function of authentic Classical artistic composition is real, that in at least the same degree of weightiness which is popularly attributed to sense-perception, what has happened to mere mathematics ? What is being done to destroy the minds of those who predicate what they consider credible science on mere, pathetical mathematics ?
Thus, as the ghosts in Spukschloss im Spessart said, “Die Hauptsache is der Effekt.” The problem remains : What, then, should be be meant by the term, “effect” ?
Turn now, to restate the substance of what I have written earlier, during recent years, on this subject.
“Die Hauptsache is der Effekt.”
As I have insisted, repeatedly, that which is generally admitted to be the powers of human sense-perception, refers us to what can be otherwise identified as “merely instrumentation,” rather than a direct reading of an attributable notion of reality. Take, for example, the crucial evidence from the famous case of the development of the mind of Helen Keller, as a demonstration of the point to be made. In the end, she was more than merely human, that in spite of her reduced inventory of senses. What she achieved was clearly, in that sense, “largely a construct.”
Of construct of what ? By what means ? Not by the array of sense-perceptions through which those not crippled.
In my experience, it were useful that the appellation “genius” ought to be reserved for cases whose achievements have been accomplished through means which, in a large degree, are much less the fruit of formal learning, than a seeming instinct lodged within the powers of the creative imagination. All this amounts to much more than can be accounted for as the effects of an academically rigorous formal process of education and related development. The manifest results of Helen Keller’s development compels attention to such an inference. The case of the mind of Albert Einstein, is prominent among well known examples of the manner in which true genius functions. So, the mind of the true genius Abraham Lincoln, is a relevant case in point, as contrasted with the case of the mathematically facile, virtual “idiot-savants.” Consider, among the latter, those such as the cognitively crippled, seemingly almost human, virtual human digital computer, the famous random case of John von Neumann whom the famous David Hilbert had justly thrown out of Göttingen program for incompetence and worse, and also similar types of cases. 
Actual human creativity has a predominantly moral characteristic, a characteristic associated with the humanism of Socrates and Plato, or of the modern Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, and of such followers of Cusa as a Johannes Kepler, a Gottfried Leibniz, an Abraham Kaestner, a Friedrich Schiller, the famous von Humboldt brothers, or a Benjamin Franklin allied with Kaestner, or, a Bernhard Riemann, an Albert Einstein, or, a truly great genius such as V. I Vernadsky. That moral characteristic, and its location, is the principled subject of this report.
During recent years, I had composed and published a series of reports in which I outlined the inherent fallacy of the notion of what is named “sense-certainty.” In these reports, I had emphasized the essential distinction between sense-perception and actual truth, by pointing out that our legendary five senses are, essentially, merely “instrument readings,” rather than a true representation of the content of the phenomena experienced as fruits of “sense-certainty.” I have repeatedly emphasized, that, by applying the unique proof of the measure of gravitation by Johannes Kepler, and by taking into account the fact, that the view of Kepler’s unique achievement, as presented by Albert Einstein, has shown that sense-perception provides nothing more than the visible shadows cast by an unseen reality.
Continuing this review of my past accounts in this matter, I have shown that the implication to be recognized in this way, is a ontological gulf between the images of sense-perception and the reality which is reflected, as if by a cast shadow, to the cognitive powers of the actual human mind.
In the known history of the ancient through modern civilization found in the Mediterranean and Atlantic regions, we have three notably defective categories of interpretations of this experience of human sense-perception. The first, and lowest expression is that of bare and crude sense-certainty, which is that most proximate to bestiality, as such cases are typified by those who are professedly the mere materialists. The second, is the oligarchical form, as that is typified by the Delphic dogma of Aristotle and his follower Euclid, or the like. The third, is what is fairly identified as a masked version of Aristoteleanism, such as that of the devotees of the teachings of Paolo Sarpi, and of such hoaxsters among the unfaithful Sarpi’s morally depraved devotees such as Galileo, Rene Descartes, Francois Quesnay, and Adam Smith. 
All three of these types, or their approximations, and also comparable categories of social varieties, are what they are. Despite the dubious claims of some among these persons, to believe actually in “a human soul,” they express no actually efficient sense of the meaning of “a human soul,” but, rather, something which has died and is now attributed to a different universe than living mankind inhabits. For such unfortunate creatures, the notion of a “kingdom of Heaven” as a really efficient aspect of the universe we actually inhabit, simply does not exist, as it exists for certain others among us. The root of the mental disorder of the indicated category of the unfortunates, is to be recognized in the inability of the ignorant to recognize the physically efficient existence of the truly creative powers of the mind of the individual. In the imagery of Aeschylus’ Prometheus Bound, for the Olympian Zeus, it is presumed, and taught, that the creative powers of the individual human mind of the ordinary folk do not exist within the bounds of “popular opinion ;” where the likness of that Zeus and the evil Poseidon, typify the pompous “gods” who have taken away the “fire” which is the intellectual power of the ordinary peoples’ true souls.
Unfortunately, that specific form of each of those three forms of mental illness to with I have referred immediately above, is commonplace in the beliefs of many people in the United States of America, in particular, today. That is the occasion for applying the needed remedy for such morally debilitating beliefs, against which I have warned here, as a remedy on behalf of the victims of such induced states of belief as theirs.
The most pitiable among the customary presumptions met among the victims of such self-degrading opinion, is that one’s actions on the universe begin with birth, and end with death. Earlier generations, and later ones, alike, are not considered by the indicated unfortunates as being actually relevant for the decisions taken today. Whereas, in fact, the birth of those principles which society will often nourish in more or less increasing degree over two or more generations, before they are adopted for the general practice of crafting the powers of society generally, lie in the domain of societies’ future general practice, as we, the living, are bearers of the fruit harvested from the planting and cultivation of generations before our own. Creativity is a passionate expression of the realization of the necessary future in the present. That is the true principle of truth, and of beauty.
As it was for Plato, those creative powers which distinguish the human mind from the lives of those beasts ( wich are typified by the followers of Aristotle and Sarpi who are only allegedly immortal), is a kind of immortality which distinguishes the minds of mankind from those of the beasts. To participate in the work of immortal quality of boundless progress among successive generations of human souls, is the root and expression of all true morality, as is the case with true martyrs such as the Jeanne d’Arc whose horrifying sacrifice made possible what became the best of modern European civilization in that century, and beyond.
Therefore, let us cure this problem by defining the true meaning of the human individual’s soul within the terms of an appropriate quality of modern science. The following approach is indicated.
V. ECONOMICS AS THE “KING” OF SCIENCE
It would be a terrible thing for any person, or human institution, even a devoted religious body, to usurp those wonderful authorities which should be recognized as the property of the personality of the Creator of the universe, or to seek to impose an identity on that Creator which is other than that manifest. The only appeal which is allowed to us on this account, is our obligation to discover that will less imperfectly. This is, for our purposes, a matter of our development of an improved insight into both the universe and the pattern of changes which are presented to us as challenges.
This does permit any among us to treat that as a domain of aimless mystery, or arbitrary speculation. Rather, it obliges us to devout ourselves to understanding the intention assigned to the existence of mankind, and, as far as possible, the mission embedded in the existence of our personal selves.
Recognize the evidence of the Creator’s intention for mankind, and for our obligation as persons or nations, to recognize the mission assigned to us by the signs of what has confronted us with a specific sense of personal duty.
The evidence is, that, so far, the mission of powerful individuals and groups within humanity, as been a preoccupation with the lustful intention to cheat. That, of course, must be changed. London and Wall Street, and, now, the Governorship of California and the potencies of Chicago would be among the good choices of place to begin the process of cleansing.
The clearest choice of categories of evidence in service of that intended effect, is to study the pattern of creation of the universe, such major elements in it as a a galaxy, the evolution of a star and its features, the planet, life on planets, and, our nearest and dearest obligation, the mission of not merely mankind itself, but that which is implicitly required of our self as an individual.
Among economists, it is customary, although often essentially an opportunity for incompetence among most who are presently considered political authorities, to teach the lie, that economics is a syncretic application of the fruits of sundry learned and other disciplines, including mathematical techniques. That, and related presumptions, while widely accepted among professionals and layman today, nonetheless remain as fundamentally false ; the discovery of what is presently the extremely rare competence respecting regard for te underlying principle of a true conception of physical economy, is, for reasons I shall state in this present chapter of the report, the greatest, and properly reigning principle of all competent scientific thought.
Therefore, the great Carl F. Gauss, who appears to have suffered from a bit of male chauvinism on this account, regarded mathematics as merely “the queen of science.” Nonetheless, Gauss meant, and knew, quite rightly, however with cautious awareness of the terror of his times, that mathematics was not the supreme ruler in the field of competent scientific thought. Experimental physical science is—physical economy is, in fact, the highest authority in all competent science.
Physical economy expresses those actions of mankind which change the universe within the range we are enabled to act to such effect. Physical economy is encompassed by, and expresses mankind’s, distinction from the beasts, and man’s likeness to the Creator, and must practiced, in the light of those moral obligations, as the supreme physical science, accordingly.
You think that what I have just written here, is arrogant, even false ? Aha ! Then, you do not yet recognize what should be the obvious role of a science of physical economy in all competent scientific and national-political practice ; it is, properly conceived, a truly Heavenly practice. The practice of economy must be free of the contamination by filthy lucre.
That much said by way of a useful sort of opening provocation of the reader’s attention at this point in the report : We have now entered a discussion of the pivotal point of the general argument to be made respecting those creative powers of mankind which set our species absolutely above all other known forms of life on our planet, or, presumably, within our present galaxy. Therefore, I begin this here by restating the definition of a distinction of mind from sense-perception, a notion which I had introduced in earlier published locations during the recent several years.
I speak in this choice of terms, because human civilization on this Earth as a whole, has now attained that most terrifying point in mankind’s affairs on Earth, at which the miraculously clear and truthful meaning of the famous first Chapter of the Biblical Genesis, especially respecting the special role of man and woman in this universe, both as it always was, and it should be seen most clearly under the present state of mankind’s crisis within our Solar System, and, doubtlessly, also our galaxy, today. Ours, today, is, therefore, both a terrifying time, and it is now nearly way past time, to present what some British folk are wont to term “certain home truths.”
I do not write here of theology. That would have been superfluous, since we assembled here have already placed ourselves within those assembled to deliberate on the awesomeness of eternity which should shape our devotions in the progressive development of the improvement of the increasingly knowledgeable role of man in the universe, and therefore in society. I speak of the Creator as to be considered in the aspect of representing the model, higher authority for showing, and guiding the expression of the duties and capabilities of mankind. I speak and write of that which is not merely good, but the knowledgeably good, if we recognize it, in mankind’s implicitly assigned. and foreknowable, proximate destiny.
The crucial issue which has been thus posed here, up to this point in the present report, is to be defined in the following terms of a true science of physical economy, as follows.
I open the discussion of that subject with the following point of illustration. Is my language poetic ? Doubtlessly, and necessarily so. It is time for mankind to abandon our presently habituated, childishly prosaic ways. Am I inspired ? Certainly, that is so, and there is nothing which is not truthful and relevant for all mankind today, in that. No more Olympian Zeus ! No more Aristotle !. No more Euclid ! No more Liberalism ! Truth is already overdue ; let us now bring it on, as the greatest original founders, such as the Winthrops and Mathers, intended in Massachusetts. Call it the truth about economy, if you mean physical economy as the highest ranking expression of that to which we award the name of “science.” The time for the end of man’s greatest present folly to be brought summarily to an end.
The creative powers unique to the human species, among all presently known species in the universe, are man’s relationship to mankind’s implicitly intended role within the universe, as the opening chapter of Genesis demands.
I have now set the stage for focus on this subject-matter as representing the key to all worthwhile human knowledge of our species’ accountability to what is constantly becoming All. Therefore, we shall now proceed directly toward the points to be made in conclusion here on that account.
The first, next thing to be done here, is to outline the agenda to be considered. This is to include, either as stated, or as implicit a set of points already made in earlier published locations. There is also some necessary duplication which must be included here for the purpose of presenting the matter to be be presented as a whole.
Beyond Sense-Perception : Mind
As I have emphasized this crucial turning-point in the relevant argument, in a series of occasions over the span of the recent years, the beginning of a branch of science which is of relevance to defining the quality of science required for today, lies in the recognition of the systemic distinction between what is merely sense-perception and its measurements, and the contrary subject-matter of that which is actually human knowledge.
For the purpose of defining the practical expression of that specific distinction, the most efficient demonstration, pedagogically, is the succession of the respectively, originally unique discoveries of universal gravitation and its universal implications, by first, Nicholas of Cusa’s follower Johannes Kepler, and Albert Einstein.
The first great step by Kepler on this account was the process his discovery, as reported in his The New Astronomy, of the principle of the comparable orbits of the Solar System’s Earth and Mars. This achievement of his contained the implication of the use of the contrast of the orbits of Mars and Earth to define the principle of the orbits. In The Harmonies of the Worlds, Kepler employed the contrast of the sense-faculty’s definition of vision with the definition of harmonics, to derive the only known, competently original discovery of the principle of universal gravitation, as of our Solar system.
That accomplishment’s implications, must be extended, next, to consider the range of what were to be recognized as the human mind’s most immediate sense-perceptions of an implicitly universal sense-perceptual experiences.
These considerations, when drawn out in the fashion which I have employed in earlier published locations, affords us accress to a systemic approach for approximating the principled distinction between human sense-perceptual experiences and the human mind as such.
The recognition of this fact, which was brilliantly treated by Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa in his De Docta Ignorantia, must be appreciated in a more adequate fashion by noting the direction connection to an earlier discovery by an elder contemporary of Cusa, Nicolo Brunelleschi’s discovery of a physically principled, non-Euclidean curvature, the catenary principle employed as a principle of physical construction by Brunelleschi, as employed by him for the possibility of constructing the cupola of the Florence cathedral Santa Maria del fiore. This set of cohering discoveries of principle, led to such outcomes as Cusa follower Leondardo da Vinci’s development of the conception of the physical principle of the catenary-tractrix, and to Kepler’s discovery, on the same basis, of the principle of universal gravitation.
Those discoveries, which had their ancient antecedents in such sources as the universal methodological outlook of Plato, provided the foundations for Kepler’s universal achievements such as the discovery of the principle of gravitation.
In the meantime, all of this was strongly affected by the contributions of Dante Alighieri.
All among these and comparable background-sources can be represented as the standpoint expressed by the work of Plato, as also by the central achievements of Moses Mendelssohn, such as his Phaedo. It is a matter of crucial notability, that the scientific and related work of this astounding Eighteenth-century genius is situated within both the context defined proximately by the school of Gottfried Leibniz, as expressed during the sweep of the Eighteenth Century by the avowed intellectual heir of both Johann Sebastian Bach and Leibniz himself, the Abraham Kaestner who was the leading German mathematician of the middle to end of that century, but also a leading architect of the support for Benajmin Franklin’s role in authoring the continuation of that American Revolution rooted in the Massachusetts Bay Colony of the Winthrops and Mathers. Kastner proteges Gotthold Lessing and Moses Mendelsohn were the leading intellectual adversaries, in Germany, of the degenerate intellectuals of the Eighteenth-century “Enlightenment,” such as Abbe Anontio S. Conti, and such creatures of “the Age of Voltaire” as the renegade from Leibnizian science and hoaxster, Leonhard Euler, et al. It was not until Moses Mendelssohn was removed from the field of activity by his great illness, that Immanuel Kant dared to venture with his foolish productions, and that the worst of Kant could be circulated in the form of the putative founder of a modern fascism predicated upon the image of Napoleon Bonaparte, G.W. F. Hegel.
It is relevant to the report being presented here, that the achievements of Eighteenth-century European culture, despite the followers of such as the fakers known as the Newtonians, such as Conti and Voltaire, and the viciously corrupt, if talented opportunist side of the character of the Euler who emerged after Leibniz’s death. From the continuing influence of the legacy of such as Cusa and the France of Jean-Baptiste Colbert, there emerged such benefits as the spirit of the Seventeenth-century Massachusetts Bay Colony. Such was the role of the mantle of the legacy of Gottfried Leibniz, as expressed in the great Classical renaissance orbitting around the Leibnizians of the Eighteenth century, even under the conditions of terror and ruin of the French Revolution orchestrated by the British Foreign Office in cooperation with Metternich and the Romantics spawned in the wake of Napoleon’s banditry. 
The legacy which is typified by the role of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, finds its essential conception in that of the Creator as being such. The developments specific to the legacy of the great ecumenical Council of Florence, to the relatively leading role of Cusa in that process, his unique quality of scientific insight into the nature of creation, and his global outlook on the mission to be chosen by humanity, exemplifies a a quality of what can be considered as taste of the instinct for a divinely inspired sense of the efficiently implicit presence of the Creator of the universe, an sense of what is resonant in man’s accessible knowledge of the meaning of the intention of creation in the large.
When the experience of a validated creativity, as expressed in the sense of direction of progress in physical science, is taken into account, those improvements in mankind’s practice which point to mankind’s rising capacity to generate improvements in the situation of mankind within an evolving universe, are to be chosen as portents of mankind’s divine mission respecting the future of mankind in the universe, and respecting the passion which must be cultivated to that end. Man as the apprentice to the Creator.
It is then, that aspect of our mental powers which works to precisely that end, which becomes the direction of evolving changes in our own morality of practice. The affinity to that which comes ever closer to atonement with the mission of the Creator, is reflected as relevant changes in the passion and the general moral sense of those devoted to this mission.
There are several indications at hand which make the subject immediately at hand more readily understood. Therefore, we must now proceed as follows.
The Human Mind As Such
Those discoveries which conform to the definition of universal physical principles presented by Nicholas of Cusa, as in his De Docta Ignorantia, lead us to the means to distinguish between the information associated with the experience of sense-impressions as such, and the reality which is responsible for the shadows of reality which are sense-perceptions, as reality which is located essentially within those notions of universal physical principles which do not exist for either the brutish view of sense-perceptions, or the view of the Aristotelean, or that of the devotees of modern Sarpian sense-certainties.
This identifies the distinction between sense-certainties and true physical and related principles : the difference between sense-impressions and the realities which have cast those shadows attributable to mere sense-impressions. The case of Johannes Kepler’s discover of the principle of universal gravitation by his chosen method, the only competent method for that work, is now of crucial significance for us here. Rather than treating such actually efficient principles as primary, the naive mind tends to treat the existence of the principle, if at all, as, ontologically, a mere shadow of sense-impressions, all as if a man’s wife seeks to call him back from his mistress of the moment by beating the children, and torturing their favorite cat to death, or by killing the wayward husband as a way of preventing his willful straying from home.
However, if we see the universe as one in which universal principles, rather than those mere shadows called sense-perceptions are realities, the following changes in viewpoint are introduced.
We now see the universe as being expressed in mankind’s capacity to increase the power of humanity in respect to the domain which it inhabits. Those inventions which qualify in effect as the discovery of practicable higher universal principles, now present mankind with the sense of identity which expresses human creativity as the participant in the quality and intention of the work of the Creator. This latter view is at least as much a sense of mankind’s participation in the Creator as the sense of man’s own power within Creation.
In point of fact, the nature of mankind and of the individual person is to be defined in precisely those kinds of terms of reference. So, the human mind, once embarked on tracing the back-trail which this evidence indicates, looks as if upward to those successively higher levels of existence corresponding to advancing from creativity as a relatively local experience, to an approximately global, and in terms of looking forward to future states of Earth’s history, and beyond the confines to Earth, at the same time that we treat the exploration of the developments in the past as indications of those kinds of trends which examine for clues to the methods by which future possibilities might be anticipated.
The Human Mind
Once we have located reality in the human mind, rather than in man as essentially a creature of sense-perceptional experiences, especially as the notion of the orderable sense of the experience of progress in the creation of higher orders of knowledge of efficient physical and related principles, the individual tends to think in terms of the human individual, and his or her society, as defined by a principled ordering of progress, rather than a mere effect of progress which has occurred.
The individual now has recognized the concept of his or her own mind as something higher, and more real than being a creature of mere sense-perceptual experience. Once that more appropriate sense of the ontological reality of the human being in the human experience emerges, the sense of progress as the purpose of human existence gains precedence over attentions to the pseud-realities of sense-perception. Making what may be considered as progressive changes in the ordering of the domain for which sense-perceptions are only shadows case, as being the expression of reality, becomes an ontological quality of change in one’s own notion of self.
Proceeding in an upward-looking direction, from such preliminary inferences, we are impelled to regard mankind as an instrument of qualitative creativity, in which progress in a reflection of mankind’s reflection of the benefit of the existence of a Creator.
This becomes, then, a reflection of Academician V. I.Vernadsky’s notion of the Noösphere.
That approach to defining the Noösphere, persuades man that the power of the process of creation, a power which reposes within the universe, therefore reflects the power of the mind of mankind, over the lower forms of hierarchy of human existence. Everything on Earth is now located as subordinate, in principal, to everything under the powers given to mankind as a servant of the Creator. That becomes the indispensable standpoint for a competent view of the meaning of physical economy of nations, the world at large, and of mankind’s intended mastery of some nearby planetary masses.
This, in turn, is the appropriate view for defining a science of physical economy, and thus, a notion of physical economy which defines all aspects of the economy which depends, by extension, upon progress in the practice of physical economy.
This now presents you with a fair rough drafting of a report on where, and why, you stand in respect to your existence on Earth today.
 The presently known form of the Periodic Table is preserved in all its essentials but the notion of particles, eliminating the reside of an a-priorist notion of “space-time,” ridding us of the burden of belief in a spectacle like that of a vision of particular “ raisins” speckling what were otherwise deemed an “empty space.”
 This is to say : “Without considering the syncretic elements,” such as “The Garden of Eden,” which were added under the directions of such as those pagan Babylonian and later Achaemenid captors of the captive Hebrew scholars who had been assigned to add pagan ornaments to the original Mosaic texts. Or, similarly, the case of the Emperor Constantine who sought to confine the Christian doctrine to the share in a niche in the confines of his imperial Pantheon.
 What Hildebrand did, later, to the regulation of the Christian bishops, is yet anther matter.
 Cf. Friedrich Nietszche, “Thus spake Zaathustra.” Larry Summers, lately a co-author of the U.S. Obama Presidency, has been a notable, and rabid follower of this same. pro-Hitlerian dogma adopted by the U.S.Obama Administration health-care policy. The contemporary use of the term “facsism” is traced from the Mussolini dictatorship in Italy. Until that time, what has become known as “fascism” was expressed, chiefly, by such French models as the Reign of Terror and the Bonapartist reigns, or, simply, “Caesarism” earlier.
 “Young Turk” is typical of British Nineteenth-century cult-formations such as the “Young Europe,” “Young Italy,” and so on, as concocted by then British intelligence chief Lord Palmerston. “Young America” was the treasonous Palmerston concoction otherwise known as “The Confederacy States of America.”
 Although Helphand’s British-intelligence pedigree is better known for his role as a British armaments trafficker, his adoption by the Fabian Society was originally defined by Helphand’s meeting with Frederick Engels, whence he was deployed to orchestrate the “left-win” : Social-Democratic press in Germany, that in concert with his the same asset, Karl Radek, used for negotiating the German backing for V.I. Lenin’s famous train-ride from Switzerland into Finland and revolutionary Russia.. .Thus, Trotsky and Bykharin :”saved the British empire’s imperial ass” in the Best-Litovsk negotiations.
 In the early 1920s, the U.S. military had developed a set of war plans which included the subjects of Britain, Japan, Germany, et al. It was under the U.S. war plan for the contingency of the attack on the U.S.A. by joint action of Japan and British attacks leading attacks of naval forces against the United States that General Billy Mitchell had developed that notion of the naval efense of the U.S.A. by the development of air-craft carriers had been generated. It was a pro-British circle within the U.S. Federal establishment who had rigged the military trial of Billy Mitchell.
 Cf. U.S.A. war-plans “Red” and “Orange.”
 Had President John F. Kennedy not been assassinated, the British empire
could not have brought about the relative destruction of the U.S.A. through the prolonged draining of the U.S. war in Indo-China.
 Notably, the former President Jimmy Carter, who had been duped into foisting that scheme on the White House, had thus prompted President Ronald Reagan to remove that recklessly conceived obscenity. Both Carter and now Barack Obama were, like Larry Summers and the current British Royal Family,, naked “creative destructionists” in the footsteps of Nietzsche, Werner Sombart, and Joseph Schumpeter. Nietzsche died too soon be actually awarded a Nazi party card, the best information is that Nazi fellow-traveller Sombart did not actually take out a membership, and that Joseph Schumpeter spread what is, in principle, the same Nazi-like dogma through channels in the English-speaking world. channels such as Prime Minister Ton Blair, and before him, Harold Wilson.
 There are, of course some leading economists in practice who are competent in what they do as professionals. It is the principles of a true physical science of economy which remains to be cultivated sufficiently for the world’s currently leading needs.
 What I have often referred to as the “third section” of Bernhard Riemann’s 1854 habilitation dissertation shows its crucial importance in this way.
 The concluding paragraphs of Percy Bysshe Shelley’s A Defense of Poetry presents us with evidence of an implied power of communication which lies outside the standard assumptions respecting sense-perception. In particular, the electromagnetic domain provides forms of communication, including implied human mass-communication which are to be located “outside” the limits of ordinary sense-perception. This also implies considerations beyond the bounds of the views proffered by the younger de Broglie.
 The specific reference in this location, is to Smith’s 1759 Theory of Moral Sentiments.
 Hilbert showed discretion in heaving both Norbert Weiner and John v. Neumann out of Göttingen. Bertrand Russell virtually created the latter pair.
 The case of self-designated V. I,. Vernadsky adversary A. I. Oparin, typifies the degree to which British intelligence dominated much of Soviet Communist Party opinion on the subject of physical science. Oparin, an advocate of the ideological nonsense of British intelligence operative Frederick Engels, was influenced strongly by, and allied with J. B. S, Haldane. Note the case of Engels’ role in sponsoring the British Fabian Society’s intelligence agent, and “Young Turk”-affiliated gun-runner, Alexander Helphand (“Parvus”). Oparin, became locked into the control mechanisms of the top levels of British intelligence services, as these corrupt connections to Russian science and political life today are controlled by British intelligence’s International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), which, together with the frankly fascistic cult of Joseph Schumpeter’s “creative destruction,” is among the most effectively destructive of the British influences (e.g., Lord Jacob Rothschild’s imperial Inter-Alpha Group – - 1971-2010 to present date) penetrating Russian economic policies presently. Since the influence of Arthur Burns, George Shultz, et al. on the policies of U.S. President Richard Nixon, “creative destruction” has been the reigning economic policy of the U.S. Federal government, a practice of “creative destruction”imported from such British figures as Prime Minister Harold Wilson, and carried to a radical extreme under the brutishly destructive, tragic figure of U.S. President Jimmy Carter.
 It is a matter of relevant concern, at this point, sufficient to shock some readers, especially some Russian ones, by pointing out, again, as in a note above, that internal threat to Russia and its economy today which is typified, as in the form of an hereditary disease. I refer, once more, as above. to the rant of British-controlled, Soviet ideologue of earlier times, A. I. Oparin. Oparin, who I have identified in an earlier note as a confessed convert of the British intelligence circles associated with J. B. S. Haldane, produced a number of samples of the kinds of lunatic dogma which often bridged the frequent ideological connections between certain the British and Soviet circles of the nominally “Marxist” equations. “What is Life” by Oparin, or his “The Universe” co-authored with V. G. Fesenkov.(Moscow,1960) are typical. It were sufficient to examine the Preface of that latter small book, co-authored by that pair, and its first chapter, composed by Oparin, to identify the virtual pseudo-scientific, “pulp fiction”-quality of pseudo-scientific trash counterposed by the form of argument employed those who against the rigor of the work of their chief hate-object of that time, Academician V. I. Vernadsky . The same quality of trash, is actually of British academic origins such as the circles of Bertrand Russell and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in economics, and the admirers of Lord Jacob Rothschild’s Inter-Alpha Group concoction, ”the BRIC,” still today.
 A crucial feature of the failure of David Hilbert’s “Genealogy of Mathematics” must be traced in Nineteenth-century history to the work of the mathematicians Hilbert and Hermann Grassmann, both of whom can be considered as founders of the hoax known as a modern “second law of thermodynamics.” Together with Karl Weierstrass, Clausius is among those who opposed a science of physics in the name of an a-priorist mathematics. Fanatics such as Professor Norbert Weiner and John von Neumann, are products of a wildly anti-science fanaticism launched in Bertrand Russell’s preemption of the content of the Russell-Whitehead Principia Mathematica. Alfred North Whitehead has spoken on Russell’s role for himself. Both are reductionists ; but Russell’s is essentially crude, like the product of his follower John von Neumann. The utterly depraved Russell’s influence, came to dominant British-controlled, world science over the course of the Seventh Solvay Conference and its outgrowths. The has been the leading edge of the corruption of the academic teaching of physical and social science since that time. Weiner’s Cybernetics was written with initial emphasis on technologies of “automation” which were feasible for that time, but, as he made clear through fraudulent elements in later portions of Cybernetics, and most clear with the frankly evil The Human Use of Human Beings, his essential committed was vicious, even evil.
 As Russell admitted, both he and his empiricist predecessor Paolo Sarpi were Aristoteleans at bottom—most emphatically “at bottom.”. For them, Aristotle was for aristocrats ; empiricism, was a swindle which the dupes of hoaxsters such as Sarpi and his followers Galileo and Abbe Antonio S. Conti considered it useful to foist on the lower classes among the dupes of modern academic forms of intellectual life. The initiator of the WWF was Julian Huxley, the notable brother of the drug-cultist Aldous Huxley. The pattern of “mental health” history among Thomas Huxley and his descendants, is a relevant part of this aspect of British imperial political life.
 This is illustrated by the case of the conflict between the school of British, mechanistic ideology, as typified by A. I. Oparin’s silly What Is Life ?, as Oparin’s blunder is exposed by one of the actually greatest scientists of the Twentieth Century, Academician V. I. Vernadsky.
 President Obama’s “health-care policy” is entirely modeled on the NICE program of Britain’s former Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose health-care policies have been copies of Adolf Hitler’s notorious T-4 health-care policy, the policy condemned at Nuremberg. All are expressions of the “creative destruction” dogma of Joseph Schumpeter and Schumpeter’s predecessors Friedrich Nietszche’s “Thus Spake Zarathustra” and of the fellow-traveller of the Nazis on this account, Werner Sombart.
 See Carl F. Gauss, March 6, 1832 : from Göttingen to Farkas Bolyai on the subject of Farkas’ son’s, Jonas Bolyai’s claims to have discovered a principle of non-Euclidean geometry. Gauss warned that he had already discovered the true principle during the 1790s of his studies (under, in fact, Abraham Kästner). However, Gauss declined his opposition to Jonas’ argument (as, implicitly, also that oif Lobachevski). Nonetheless, Gauss’s intention was made clear by his protege Bernhard Riemann, as in his treatment of Abelian functions and in Riemann’s own 1854 habilitation dissertation, a presentation by Riemann in the presence of the Gauss who what this was all about. What Lobatschevski and Jonas Bolyai had actually. The relevant connections are made implicitly clear for those who wished to know, in references made by Riemann on the occasion of the presentation of the habilitation dissertation. The key was already demonstrated implicitly, in fact, by Gauss, in the method which he had actually employed for his solution for the Orbit of Ceres. The essential point is that the discovery lay within the domain of physical geometry, not mere mathematics. It was my good fortune, to have rejected, courtesty of the Boston area’s Charles Town U.S. Navy Yard, of the Euclidean geometry and related hoaxes from about the age of 14 onwards.
 For me, I was shocked and saddened by that President’s murder, but it was only as my knowledge of the event became enriched, phase by phase, and as the motives for the assassination was more clearly revealed by the outcome of the Warren Commission’s hoax, that the magnitude of the effects accomplished by the authors of the assassination, as by the Warren Commission itself, became clearer and clearer to me over the decades which followed.
 As Professor Henry S. White translated the concluding sentence of Riemann’s habilitation dissertation : “This path leads out into the realm of another science [physics—LaRouche], into which the nature of this present occasion [mathematics] forbids us to penetrate.” [Es führt dies hinüber in das Gebiet einer andern Wissenschaft, in das Gebiet der Physik, welches wohl dir Natur der heutigen Veranlassung micht zu betreten erlaubt.”] (Riemann Werke, pp. 286).
 Typical of the failed “non-Euclideans” are N. Lobatchevsky and Jonas Bolyai. Cf. Carl F. Gauss to Farkas Bolyai, March 6, 1832. Gauss’ reluctance to elaborate on this fact, reflects the political conditions in Germany at that time. In fact, Gauss’s own notions of a non-Euclidean Geometry had been fashioned during Gauss’s studies under a follower of Gottfried Leibniz in his own role as a leading mathematician and key political figure of the Eighteenth Century Abraham G. Kaestner (1719-1800) who had initiated the notion of an anti-Euclidean geometry.
 The principal reference to von Neumann here reflects many things, but, includes as notable, his part in the composition and influence of his collaboration with Oskar Morgenstern in launching the lunatic school of “mathematical economics” as a theory of games, which has made an overly generous contribution to the cause of breeding rabidly incompetent professionals among the post-World War II generation of economists. The influence of Bertrand Russell shaped von Neumann influence in post-World War II teaching of economics, an influence has been among the most damaging influences within the trans-Atlantic post-World War II economy.
 With Sarpi and his followers, Aristotle is the “secret doctrine of their elite,” whereas the crude superstitions of the followers of Abbe Antonio S. Conti, Leonard Euler, the Physiocrats, and Adam Smith are left for the unfortunate to share in the trough with the unfortunate, grunting, rooting, and rutting actual, or virtual pigs, as also typified by the worst of the rutting creatures from among the opponents of science from among the ranks of the “68er” and comparable breeds.
 The reader should be cautious when faced with some popular explanations of events associated with the French Revolution. Most of what was evil during that enetire period, and in later decades, was a product of the combination of Lord Shelburne’s 1782 launching of the British Foreign Office and the relations of that Foreign Office with the devious doings of Prince Metternich, as through 1815. Notable was the role of the change in Napoleon’s wives, from the Josephine was reflected the anti-Habsburg Ottoman connections of France, to the shift, by a Napoleon defeated in his Near East adventures, to a new choice, a Habsburg wife, and became a tool of Metternich. From that point on, Napoleon was more thieving bandit than statesman or warrior, who seemed to thrive, for a time, by aid of a London and Metternich who were playing him, jointly, like a monkey on a string, to the purpose of destroying the last remnant of the alliance of 1782, that of Spain, France, and the Czarina Catherine’s roles in forming the League of Armed neutrality, which had been essential to the winning of the American Revolution. To this present day, continental Europe has never really recovered from the effects of the British and Metternich’s orchestation of both the French Revolution and the Napoleon wars. That operation is what is termed , in some quarters, as “Grand Strategy,” which is getting your paired suckers to ruin themselves, to the greater glory of British imperialism, by making wars on one another, as the strategically designed assassination of President John F. Kennedy, had enabled the destruction of the U.S. through the process unleashed by the post-Kennedy war in Indo-China, a by the Middle East wars orchestrated by British ministers such as the lying Tony Blair, as that was assisted by the convenient murder of Dr. David Kelley who had blown Blair’s cover. I know this because I was personally involved in the operation of which an honest and capable British agent, Dr. Kelley, was, functionally, a part.