* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
A word from our sponsor


The Rule of Natural Law

Friday, July 17 2009 @ 09:53 AM CDT

Increase font    Decrease font
This option not available all articles


by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

During my most recent return flight from Europe, I employed the leisure time so afforded me, to outline a number of topics which are to be considered as more or less mandatory sequels to my Economic Science, in Short. In this way, more on the subject of the principles of the individual's human creativity came out at the top of that list of either amplified, or added topics.

When the matters before us here are reconsidered in that way, our primary subject for economics, in particular, and, science as a whole, becomes natural law, as opposed to presenting the same topics in the terms of reference of the currently popular, virtually Cartesian sort of imperialist obscenity which is usually presented in the name of "international law."

The item which I elaborate here, is to be considered as the next in a sequence of contributions to the urgently needed account of the identity of those universal physical principles of human creativity which should now subsume virtually all competent studies of economic processes. However, it must also be said on that account, that this principled aspect of the appropriate practice of society's economic behavior, is to be considered as a subsumed feature of the true nature of mankind's existence in the universe, the nature of man's obligation to serve the mission of truly universal, "non-mathematical," natural law.

Substance Versus Shadow
Contrary to any remaining, wishful, contrary views on the current world situation among nations presently, the present world monetary-financial system has already entered fully into a now accelerating process of a general physical-economic breakdown-crisis. There is presently no nation which is presently exempt from the presently accelerating dive into doom. This present state of affairs would not have been inevitable, had the U.S. Government accepted those reforms which I detailed during the interval of July-September 2007. The presently oncoming disintegration of the economies of all among the world's present nations, is to be blamed entirely on the refusal of those nations, especially the U.S.A. and its principal adversary, the British empire, to accept the reforms which I had prescribed during that July-September 2007 interval.

What I had proposed in that July-September interval, was, essentially, a change from what had been, all along, a trend of monetarist-driven, scientific incompetence of the economic policies of practice, of all among those nations of this planet which had based their doctrines of practice on the intrinsically pathological, axiomatically malicious presumptions of such ideologues as John Locke, Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, and also apologists for their malicious lunacies, such as Karl Marx.

Therefore, the indispensable intellectual remedies on which salvation of civilization immediately depends, must be premised on relevant scientific methods and conceptions which are systemically contrary to the practical implications of the presently prevalent, reductionist qualities of academic doctrines and related economics practices. It is those beliefs, which are generally accepted among governments still today, which are the infection expressed as the present, planetary, terminal pandemic of economic policies, policies which are, in themselves, the diseases from which the world's other present calamities have been derived.

Consequently, without considering precisely those issues of scientific method and principle which I have addressed in the referenced, preceding writing, and that I shall have added here, there could be no rational comprehension of those methods of immediately applied reform, without which, no remedy from an immediate, planetary plunge into general breakdown of the present economies of all nations, could be secured.

So, the underlying theme of the relevant preceding work, Economic Science, in Short, had been, that to understand our universe, we must reverse the customary, vicious error of classroom mathematics, to emphasize mathematics as being merely an auxiliary, subordinate doctrine, which has been superimposed formally upon physical science; we must no longer emulate the famous hoax of such as Euclid, as by adducing the notions of physical science from an essentially, merely deductive, a-priorist mathematics. We must view the universe as a whole, from its "top, down," from the appropriately superior role of the creative powers of the individual human mind, at that top, rather than as defined from the very foggy bottom of reductionist mathematics, such as Euclidean a-priorism, and statistics.

This indispensable correction must be, viewing the universe from the creative powers of the human mind, as superior to life, and life as superior to non-living processes, looking downwards, as I do here. This must now be policy, as by me, among others, through emphasizing the crucial lesson to be adduced from Academician V.I. Vernadsky's systemic distinctions of seeing the universe top-down, with the abiotic domain at the bottom, the Biosphere, higher, and both of those, in turn, as subordinated by that Noösphere which dwells, by destiny, among the stars. In doing that, I followed the precedent set by the founder of modern physical science, Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, as in Cusa's keystone work on physical science, his De Docta Ignorantia. The sum-total of the work of Academician Vernadsky, when so viewed, has actually preceded in the order of the human mind, at the top, and below them, next, life, and then pre-life, always rejecting the systemic wrongness of subsuming life and humanity as subordinates-in-practice of mathematical notions of the abiotic as subsuming, first, life, and, after that, what should have been recognized as the superior power and authority of human reason expressed in the likeness of the Creator, over all of the rest.

The kernel of my approach in that work, what has become my life-long devotion, from the start of a witting commitment to this mission for my adult life, since about the time of my post-war experience in India, during 1946, to a long-needed effort, was that we must free our culture from the tyranny of both British imperialism and both a-priorist Euclidean geometry and kindred reductionist systems of mere mathematics, by adopting a system of thought rooted in defining those creative powers specific to mankind, powers which I came to recognize, later, as being exemplified by the discovery of the concept of universal gravitation by Johannes Kepler, a Kepler who was, on this account, the follower of that Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa who had been, in turn, the principal founder of the guiding conceptions of all competent expressions of modern science.

To this effect, I have emphasized, as I did in rejecting the lunacies of Bertrand Russell's clones Professor Norbert Wiener and John v. Neumann, that the first step toward scientific competence, is to be located in the creative powers expressed, uniquely, by the human species, as distinct from all other living species, powers which are not expressed, essentially, in mathematical systems as such, but, rather, in those creative powers of the human mind specific to Classical artistic composition, such as Classical poetry.

On this account, within the referenced antecedent writing, I emphasized not only that the creative powers of scientific and related discovery are situated, not within mathematics, but within the Classical artistic powers, as those of Classical poetry and music. I also emphasized, that the comprehension of this point which I have just restated here and now, depends upon the freeing of the specifically creative powers of the human mind from the habits associated with sense-certainty, by locating the actual human identity of the individual person in its expression as within the frame of Classical poetry.

As I had insisted, once more, in that location, that the fatal flaw in the prevalent view of physical science as "mathematical," or, worse, "statistical," lies in the failure of the credulous to recognize not merely the fact, but also the crucial implications of the role of the human powers of sense-perception as being merely instruments in the same sense as any laboratory instruments and their like. Instruments such as mere sense-perception, are systems which do not show us the reality of the universe which we inhabit; but, rather, show us some shadows cast by reality, rather than the actual relevant object of the experience. Our task is to decode those shadows, as the Christian Apostle Paul warned in his I Corinthians, 13.

True science, like Classical poetry, is defined by devotion to discovering those higher states, which are true reality.

I have therefore emphasized, as I have done again in this present report, that actual human knowledge lies in a reality which is not seen directly by our mental sense-apparatus, but, rather, is to be found, more directly expressed, only in that domain of the anti-reductionist, creative imagination associated with the type of Classical poetry.

Such is the nature of true law among nations, as distinct from, and opposed to those perverted notions associated with the term "the positive law," the latter a term which is a product of the heritage of the conception of imperial pagan law, such as the intrinsically imperialist depravity of Roman Law.

False Notions of Law
So, I emphasized, that under the customary procedures in negotiation among nations generally today, the true meaning of what is presently called "international law" is to be properly identified, instead, as "imperialist law," or, as that British positive law derived from the heathen Liberalism of Paolo Sarpi, a Liberalism which all true patriots of our United States have hated and defied, since the founding of what became our anti-imperialist republic. The particular such evil of Liberalism, which is often uttered in the abused name of law today, is, as under the rule of such empires of the past and present as the ancient Roman Empire, or the modern British empire of former Prime Minister Tony Blair, is a depraved notion of law, whose assumption is that of a "behaviorist's" notion of a kind of man-made universal law uttered as a replacement for, and also displacement of the natural law.

As I summarized the case in Economic Science, in Short, from the setting of the Peloponnesian War, through the Roman Empire and its Byzantine sequel, and through the dominant role of the Venetian domination of the international monetary systems of Europe and beyond, to the present moment, the world's political systems, excepting, chiefly, the best intervals of the history of our own United States, have been controlled by superimposed monetary systems. Only the Hamiltonian principle of sovereign national credit specification of the constitutional intention of the U.S.A.'s American System of political economy, has been a significant exception to the centrally dominant role of the imperial power of the European, traditionally Venice-centered monetary system over the world as a whole, that during all but a few exceptional intervals, as under U.S. Presidents Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt's role during their Presidencies.

It is the extreme decadence of that London-centered monetary system which permeates and pollutes the entire world with its supremacy since the treasonous wrecking of the U.S. dollar during 1968-1973, which has made possible not only the continuing physical-economic decline of the world as a whole, since the 1973 launching of Anglo-Saudi oil-price swindle of 1973-2009, but, later, the even wilder insanity launched under the control of the U.S. economy by Britain's flunkey, Alan Greenspan, as Chairman of the Federal Reserve System.

As a result of that history, the world as a whole exists today as a victim of accumulation of a virtual world-wide hyper-inflationary monetary "bomb" building up under what is currently the greatest rate of deflationary collapse of real production and income of every nation of the world as a whole. The present world monetary-financial system is now going out of existence, soon, while the physical economies of nations are at the brink of a general, complete physical breakdown-crisis of the planet in its entirety.

The only remedy available for all, or any national economy of the entire world today, is the cancellation of the present world monetary systems through an ordered action of bankruptcy of all monetary systems, through a prompt, concurrent reorganization in bankruptcy, through the entire replacement of all monetary systems by the cooperative installation of a system of cooperating nation-states in launching a fixed-exchange-rate system based on a treaty organization assembled from among perfectly sovereign national credit-systems of the type inherent in the U.S. Federal Constitution.

The lawful mechanism for bringing this rescue-action about is the same principle of natural law adopted by the U.S. Federal Constitution. The authority for determining credit, prices, and guaranteed national credit for physical-economic development must come from relevant principles of natural law. The implementation of such a rescue of the nations, must be crafted on the foundation of the notion of a physical economy, rather than a monetary system. This must be based on a notion of natural law which expels monetarism.

This requires some discussion.

Otherwise, without that reform, the present situation of the nations of the world is a hopeless one, for generations still to come.

All hangs, therefore, on an adequate grasp of that meaning of "natural law" which I supply here.

Leibniz's Natural Law
What saved me from the mistakes of my more important rivals among economists, has been, first of all, the influence of Gottfried Leibniz on me from about the age of 14-15, and, later, since my embrace of it by January-February 1953, principally, Bernhard Riemann's work, his 1854 habilitation dissertation, most emphatically.

Principles of natural law also apply to situations defined by one or another form of combat, as in this case of combat between the present world monetary system, which menaces all mankind, and the opposing force of an economy based on a physical principle of natural law.

The proper standard of law for the use of the term "natural law," is that it meets the requirement of being a body of "discovered," rather than "positive" law, as, similarly, in an anti-empiricist mode in physical science, as typified by Johannes Kepler's uniquely original discovery of the principle of Solar gravitation. As, similarly, in the case of the uniquely original discovery of the principle of universal gravitation by Kepler, the discovery of the generation of a previously existing natural law, which is also a natural law which is contrary to the opinions of all silly academic dupes who believe in the mere myth of an alleged discovery of gravitation by the silly Sir Isaac Newton.

What has been merely alleged to have been Newton's formula, which was essentially a plagiarist's copy of the mathematical expression of characteristics already as defined, uniquely, by Johannes Kepler, was adopted by "the Brutish" ideologues, as a convenient image of the effect of gravitation, an image which they copied from Kepler's original work, while saying nothing of the way in which the discovery of the effect known as that form of image had been defined by Kepler. True physical laws are not mechanical-mathematical contraptions added to a Cartesian repertoire, such as those of the same foolish, Cartesian fantasy permeating British empiricist doctrines respecting science still today. As Albert Einstein emphasized, gravitation as it was defined uniquely by Kepler, reflects a power which contains the physical universe as a conceptually finite oneness, a universe as if contained by a principle of universal gravitation. That formulation for expressed gravitation, is a reflection of the finiteness of the universe, as Einstein recognized this implication of what had been, uniquely, Kepler's discovery.

President Barack Obama, for example, is not a morally decent sort of lawyer, a fact which his practice, since his entering the office of the U.S. President, has fully demonstrated to have been a grievous fault in either his nature, his development, or both. His is a radically egotistical, false law of the narcissist, one of the type of the reckless, feckless, and immoral gambler, the pirate's law called "winner take all." Only his utter defeat in his reckless, immoral enterprises could bring that fault under some significant degree of civilized control.

In fact, in his special case as representative of such a type, his moral and intellectual disabilities have been shown to be, essentially, those of a man suffering from what is to be classed, specifically, as of the variety of narcissist classed as the victim of "a Nero Complex."[1] This nature of his personal disability, has been shown most prominently since his own, and his wife's visit to meet with the Queen of England and with the Queen's husband, Prince Philip, who is a leading proponent of the pro-genocidal cult of flagrantly anti-science lies known as the World Wildlife Fund. I refer to a fault conceived in Obama's caricature of himself, which is not only akin to that of the Nazi dictatorship in Germany, but, as Obama's proposed "health reform" shows, is a product, and faithful copy of the same British cult from which the infamous pro-genocide, 1939-1945 practice of the Hitler regime was originally derived, then, as now.

There can be no competent doubt of the President's personal moral and intellectual incompetence for the office to which he has been elected, once we have taken into account his adoption of the Hitler-echoing doctrines of his retinue of so-called "Behaviorist economists," as expressed by his reliance upon his retinue of the morally and intellectually depraved, such as Larry Summers and Peter Orszag.

From a Judeo-Christian View
What I have just written here in these foregoing, opening paragraphs of this report, thus far, is said from the standpoint of a truly natural law, as the essence of the Mosaic tradition and Christianity typify that which converges, in practice, upon an expression of what we must regard as an expression of natural law, in effect: I refer, thus, to the natural relationship of the needs of the human immortal personality to the requirements of the Creator of the Universe, as the first chapter of Genesis typifies this, as being the natural moral requirements for a proper human existence.

In contrast to the moral and intellectual failures of President Obama, the discovery of universal physical principles, such as Johannes Kepler's uniquely original, and uniquely valid principle of gravitation, typifies those matters which fall under the categorical conception of a body of natural law. However, this is the case today precisely as an outcome of the fact, that Kepler's discovery was rooted in the work of the great modern scientist and theologian Nicholas of Cusa's definitions of those principles of natural law from which Kepler derived his subsumed, uniquely original and valid discovery of gravitation.

Natural law, so defined, is the only principle of law rightfully imposed upon a nation and its elaboration of a morally tolerable form of positive law; all decent law is, thus, premised on this conception of all mankind, as a species, as made in the principled likeness of the Creator. This same notion was delivered to the formation of our own republic, through Gottfried Leibniz's influence, in his condemnation of the evil of John Locke's active promotion of Africans' slavery. Leibniz emphasized the necessary shaping of what we adopted as our constitutional law of the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble of our U.S. Federal Constitution. That Constitution has served, from its launching, as the model of the international law which was adopted as the basis for the existence of our Federal Republic, and the foundation of any international law tolerable to our republic.

For example, our U.S. Constitutional law was derived chiefly, and most directly, from the influence of Leibniz's contributions to universal science, in opposition to the intrinsic depravity of the notions of law associated with the British Empire's adoption of the evil, Ockhamite tradition of Paolo Sarpi, and, from what was so derived from that same root of medieval Ockhamite irrationalism, such as the pro-slavery dogma of John Locke, or the utter depravity of Adam Smith and Jeremy Bentham.

Such is the view from the standpoint of our own republic's notion of the natural law, a natural law which coincides with the affirmations presented in the great U.S. Constitutional principle, of human happiness, that of Leibniz, which we meet at the center of our Declaration of Independence and the Preamble of our Federal Constitution. It is a notion which has been in deadly opposition to that opposing, imperial tradition of law, against which our patriots fought, against the evil oppression and perversion of law which has been the law and contemporary offshoots of the merely positive law of the British Empire, such as that of Adam Smith's obscene Theory of Moral Sentiments, and in the center of our republic's rejection of those obscene adversaries of the true natural law.

So, if we continue the argument for discovered natural law, rather than what is known and concocted as the merely concocted choice of positive law, we come to the aspect of natural law which sets the human individual apart from the beasts, as from the British imperialists, and their Roman imperialist predecessors, alike. The proper ruling law of the U.S.A., for example, is the natural law as expressed by our 1776 Declaration of Independence, and, as the Preamble of our Federal Constitution expresses influences consistent with that relevant opinion of Gottfried Leibniz which is embodied in our U.S. Declaration of Independence.

This, our republic's founding principle, was derived from the notion of natural law for mankind in the universe, and was adduced as consistent with Leibniz's specified distinction of a body of law which opposed contrary conceptions, especially those implicitly imperialist conceptions of a merely positive law which were demanded by such pro-Satanic spokesmen for the British Empire today, as former British (or, perhaps, better said, "brutish") Prime Minister Tony Blair. Contrary to the evil sophist Blair and his like, our republic's constitutional law is not a positivist's law, but a body of discovered universal law, as in the same sense of that as is given to us by the example of the discovered universal physical principles of science.

The Matter of Physical Science
Keep that image in mind. The future of the universe, and of mankind within it, is brought forth, in each forward step, by a higher authority than anything previously presumed to be known. In this matter, it is not such law which has been limited, thus far; it is mankind's knowledge of that open body of law which is limited. This discovery of an already needed, newly discovered principle of the universe, and of human behavior within it, always comes from outside of that which had been viewed, mistakenly, earlier, as being already completely predetermined. That is the proper general definition of human creativity, which proceeds not to completeness, but to the discovery of the perpetual incompleteness of our progress in dealing with both our experience and knowledge to date, and also with the revolutionary evolution of the universe itself to higher states of being.

That distinction is the approach which will bring us to that higher standpoint in science, where we gain the knowledge required to assure our continued efforts on behalf of the existence of mankind. That is the outlook which I present in these pages. The proof of the point is to be made relatively clearer, as follows.

By "higher standpoint," or, in the alternative expression, "underlying," I am pointing, as I shall explain, again, here, at a later point, to an open-ended approach to higher expressions of that concept of dynamics, as dynamics was defined for modern science by Gottfried Leibniz, or by the haunting, "tensor-like" conception represented by the concluding paragraph of Percy Bysshe Shelley's A Defence of Poetry.[2]

As I had emphasized in my just published Economic Science, in Short, Academician Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky, of Russia and Ukraine, has supplied those relevant discoveries of his conceptions of the natural partition of physical space-time among the phase-spaces of the abiotic, Biosphere, and Noösphere. In his bringing modern science, thus, to a higher standard for the sense of a universal body of natural law, he went outside, beyond, and above what had been mistaken for completed knowledge earlier. These three universal phase-spaces represent a certain set of which all are of crucial relevance at this time of the present world crisis. It is the Noösphere which expresses that principle of universality by which the universe is directed, top down. It is in such progress into matters not known to practice earlier than that, through which mankind rises out and away from impending doom, to the relative security of a higher state of human existence than had existed before.

That might be restated as follows.

The connection which was often missed in the effort to adduce the practical implications of the singularly awesome, opening chapter of Genesis,[3] has been missed as the result of a lack of an adequate comprehension of that specific significance of the same notion of creativity per se which I have presented as the keystone feature of that leading work just published earlier on this same subject: the subject of the specific uniqueness of human creativity as contrasted with the essential quality of any other known form of inanimate or living existence.[4]

Therefore, here, I emphasize the continuing significance, for this present and subsequent publications, of my decision to include the appended "In Short" in the title of the preceding published work. My intent here is to emphasize that that piece, when considered as a whole, provided a truthful account, but only as in a summary of what is still required for a continuing series of extended treatments of those topics which I identified there, as I do, again, now.

The further elaboration of one, crucially important example of that notion, is required for treating a particular aspect of the subject of creativity, an aspect now treated more fulsomely in this present location. This present writing here, also precedes anticipated, subsequent publications which, when written, will have presented a series of comparable treatments of some highly relevant, other leading topics identified, in a preliminary way, in that completed set of relevant earlier pieces.

The mission so defined, is the role of mankind in the specific labor of developing the universe itself to higher states, that according to the mission for man and woman implicitly specified in the opening chapter of Genesis.

During the brief time in which the already completed, introductory report of this series has been in circulation, the "In Short" part of the title of that report, has already attracted what I had intended to provoke as a certain, fruitful kind of anxiety about certain matters. As I have just indicated here above, that work was composed to provoke as much anxiety about more or less popular, false assumptions, as it did answers. It was essential to the intended end-result, to promote and sustain, a state of internal intellectual tension which should serve as an introduction to the following, present, in-depth treatment of my launching of what is a matter of presently great importance for the benefit of mankind as a whole, and in the matter of a science of physical economy, in particular.

So, this current work in progress, when considered as a whole, was intended, in effect, to lead to a needed, more fulsome presentation of each of the collateral topics which I have invoked, in presenting the urgent need for presenting a science of physical economy, not merely as a long overdue change in outlook, but what must now replace what has now become, almost entirely, the disastrously failed, present methods otherwise extant in the professionals' practice of political-economy, in the policies of all nations, everywhere, today.

The Trouble with Popular Opinions
The follies permeating the current, egomaniacal policy-shaping of a Nero-like President Barack Obama, and the already ruinously foolish performance met in all the work of his predecessor, are key elements of the presently extreme case of a trend in economic and social policy-shaping which has become an absolute disaster, for other nations as also our own—indeed, for our planet as a whole. This has been the ugly trend toward a new rise of fascism in the Americas and Europe, today, even globally, since, in fact, about the time of the March 1, 1968 turn in economic affairs, which accompanied the emergence of the full-blown, venereal, Dionysian rage of fascism which was only typified by the 1968-69 role of Mark Rudd at Columbia University and related environs, increasingly, during the remainder of that and the following years, up to the present day.

It is important to emphasize, that I have been provoked to this present step of a radical revision of all existing national economic systems, out of my decades-long progress as being what is, in fact, presently, a leading known economist: probably, by standards of performance in forecasting, the leading economist in the world today. My emerging role to this present effect, came through a variety of converging current circumstances, including the issues posed among serious, presently working economists, and others similarly occupied, for the presentation of a new, general conception of the principles of a science of physical economy. Those sequels, such as this in progress here, must be called into general use, if a successful, much-needed, and very radical change in the practice of "economics" is to become available now.

Although the already published portion of my still ongoing recent work to this effect, has included a certain amount of reference to the roots and role of creativity in any possible form of human society, what I had provided up to this moment, while accurate as far as it goes, has been only preliminary with respect to what remains to be done, stepwise, in the relatively immediate future. At this same time, the world is confronted with the urgent need for doing a bit more than to simply put a presently bankrupt world into some urgently needed form of reorganization, as I had proposed just such a relatively immediate remedy, for my own part, quite successfully, during July-September 2007. The wildly insane measures taken, by the U.S. government, and also relevant other leading national powers, since September 2007, have created what has now become a global disaster for all humanity, a development which has now gone beyond any tolerable limit for every part of humanity as a whole. The time for mere reform has passed; the time for a revolution in the notion of economy, has arrived. On this account, what is urgently needed, as I have already emphasized here, is something which is not merely a reform, but an entirely new way of thinking about economy. That is my duty and intention, as expressed again here.

The mission here may be summed up fairly, as follows.

The Franklin Roosevelt Legacy
The presently onrushing, monstrous failure of the world's economy in general, throughout the sweep of the time since what has been shown to have been the calamitously premature death of U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt, and up to the time of the presently onrushing, global breakdown-crisis of the world at large, compels us to adopt what are, for nearly everyone today, fundamentally new conceptions respecting economy in general. There are new conceptions respecting new kinds of relations among national economies, novelties which must now be overthrown entirely, many among which have been long considered as axiomatic truths, but are, as they have been now shown to have been, the presently, brutally failed principles which had come, unfortunately, to be generally accepted among nations.

The notion of formal, deductive systems, as often supplied as a substitute for creative science, confines the mind to that deductionist's prison, called sense-certainty, such as that of the founders of a modern reductionist, positivist, or even worse mathematics which have been adopted, in practice, as a replacement for actual science. They are typified, still today, by the earlier attacks on Leibniz by such perverts as the followers of Abbe Antonio Conti and Voltaire, such as Abraham de Moivre, D'Alembert, the scoundrel and turncoat Leonhard Euler, Adrien-Marie Legendre, Pierre-Simon Laplace, Augustin Cauchy, or Rudolf Clausius and Herrmann Grassmann, and London-linked Hermann von Helmholtz.

The essence of competence in science, mathematical or otherwise, is to recognize the smell of intellectual death in such as the work of Aristotle, Aristotle's scoundrelly heir Euclid, or all others who rely upon an a-priorist, deductive model in place of, and in opposition to that process of overthrowing of all deductive systems, a process upon which competent Classical poetry and science depend absolutely.

The notion of a purely mathematical physics, as by the adversaries of Leibniz, Einstein, and others, hangs upon the legacy of the a-priorist followers of Aristotle, such as Euclid.[5] From this legacy, and expressed by the even more radical corruption of the Ockhamite followers of Paolo Sarpi, comes the modern European mental illness known as an essentially deductive mathematics with its notion of the proximate "completeness" of a sufficiently extended array of present, formal mathematical systems.

Therefore, the satanic Olympian Zeus, and all his Delphic-like doctrines, be damned; I begin with the most essential of those topics which were identified in the previous paper's summary of the nature and role of the creative powers of the human mind in defining a physical economy.

The significance of what I have condemned as that widespread popularity of the notion of the science achievable through a search for consistency of mathematics through deductive extension, is the pathology of which science, together with the New York Times style book, must be cleansed, in order that honest creativity might be freed from the inherent, corrupting stagnation of the contemporary formalists.

I. An Essential Recapitulation
To get down directly to the chief business at hand, when we view the present world-wide situation rightly, we appear to be, already, throughout this planet, at least arguably so, now almost as much as doomed and dead; that becomes a certainty, if presently prevalent trends in opinion about science, such as the obscene, virtually Satanic, genocidal lie of "global warming," are permitted to be continued. This is not for reason of the currently surging global pandemic, a pandemic which may, or may not be chiefly from "natural causes." The character of the problem is, that it reflects the deteriorated, general physical conditions of life which recently, or, currently prevalent politics, have brought down upon the planet as a whole, especially since the global, existentialist, moral catastrophe of Spring 1968.

The foul corruption responsible for this condition, has been fostered under the present global circumstances of a general monetary and physical-economic breakdown-crisis, a crisis radiating from the global system of monetarist powers centered in the evil radiating from the virtual empire of the monetarist United Kingdom: that United Kingdom which has been operating according to the so-called "green" policies of the pro-genocidal, essentially pro-satanic World Wildlife Fund of Prince Philip et al., and according to the continuing complicity in this evil, by the current President of the United States, especially so since the 1968-1973 interval, to the present date

In the earlier, substantial, introductory portion of this presently continuing series, I centered the reader's attention on the distinction between two available, voluntary types of choices of an operating sense of personal identity in society today. The first choice, what I have identified as a defective state of mind, has, unfortunately, usually been the location of the individual's optional sense of personal identity, as expressed, typically, in terms of the crude belief in sense-certainty. It is that influence which has continued to be the customary location of that which the usual individual regards, what is for him, as his, or her intra-social expression of personal identity. In my own, contrary, preferred choice, I locate the individual's properly chosen sense of his, or her personal identity, quite differently. It is notable that I do so out of my included great respect, even sometimes awe, for what the greatest scientific minds and Classical artistic geniuses have accomplished on relevant accounts.

That much said thus far, to open the following chapter, I shall continue my account by noting, that in the modern physical science which flowed from the work of such geniuses as Brunelleschi, Nicholas of Cusa, Leonardo da Vinci, Johannes Kepler, Pierre de Fermat, and Gottfried Leibniz, the distinction of the creative personality, lies presently in the recognition of the ontological actuality of the so-called "infinitesimal" of the Leibniz calculus, as opposed to such follies as the corrupted version of the calculus associated with such perverts as the hoaxster (and sometime plagiarist) Augustin Cauchy.

A Role for the Tensor
While the distinction which I have just emphasized in the immediately preceding paragraphs, is already formally correct, there is a still deeper—much deeper—issue of scientific method involved. It goes as follows.

The organization of evidence for purposes of a process of physical-scientific discovery of principle, begins, as it must, with reference to the role of experimental experience in the employment of powers of sense-perception. This includes not only what may be recognized as the individual person's "native senses," those which are delivered somewhere along the course leading to the birth of the new individual, but also includes artificial senses comparable to the category of scientific instruments, such as telescopes and microscopes, or sundry varieties of heat-sensing devices employed in exploring behavior in the extremely large, or in the extremely small.[6]

However, while the experience of sense-perception is essential for the development of knowable, effective human power for inducing change in the universe, the paradoxical relationship among differing specific modes of experience presents us with many mutually contradictory presumptions, such as those of the fabled blind men and the elephant, as to what the real universe is, actually. We are brought, thus, to the point, that the paradoxes of sense-experience associated with different choices of natural, or synthetic sensory experiences, confront us with the practical need for what have come to be known as universal physical principles: principles which are not defined by sense-perceptual experience as such, but, rather, by the fact of what are the mutually contradictory results among the categories of sensory experience. This includes not only the experience of the given, inborn, biological senses, but also the artificial ones, such as those of scientific instrumentation.

Modern Science as Such
On account of the fruits of those combined sources of evidence, in all modern physical science, the discovery, uniquely, by the follower of Nicholas of Cusa's founding of modern science,[7] Johannes Kepler, of the principle of universal gravitation within the Solar system considered in the large, has become, as Albert Einstein emphasized, the unique foundation of universal systemic scientific competence within the domain of applied modern physical science.

Therefore, for reason of our reliance upon that ironically juxtaposed experimental evidence on which competent scientific practice depends, we must emphasize the role of the tensor, in addressing all matters bearing on any contemporary proof of universal principle. We must define the role of the tensor in such terms, but not the often deceptive standpoint of the mathematician as such, the reductionists excluded most emphatically.

Those distinctions just summarized, are to be considered as follows.

What we recognize, through our powers of sense-perception, is not the real universe we inhabit, but only a kind of shadow cast by that universe's existence, shadows such as those cast as sense-perceptions, or by instruments such as those which are employed to extend the reach of the mind to the very large or very small.

An Anti-Entropic Universe
The common root of the systemic moral failures in most of taught scientific education and related subject-matters, is what is typified by what Philo of Alexandria exposed as the Aristotelean perversion of the teaching of geometry, a teaching which remains, still today, the hereditary principle of intellectual rotting traced, variously, to Euclidean geometry, and to related forms of intellectual perversion, such as modern empiricism. These are exemplary of the cases which implicitly presume a methodologically deductive array of scientific and comparable knowledge, a prevalent academic and related perversion which has been premised on a system of deductively polluted consistency, called, with farcical solemnity, mathematics, which undercuts and ruins the creative potential of the minds of most trained professionals and related cases, still today.

We live in a self-developing, anti-entropic universe, not one of a fixed, deductive design. Hence, the influence of the mystical dogma of "universal entropy" on the minds of so many among our academic specialists in mathematics, makes them become more or less rabidly insane by about the time they come to enjoy what is termed, quite ironically, a "terminal degree."

For example, Kepler came to recognize, as in his The Harmonies of the Worlds, that neither the application of the sense of a visible line of sight, nor of musical harmonics, could define the principle of organization of the Solar system as known to Europe up to that time. However, a paradoxical juxtaposition of the two alternately presumed notions of a general ordering factor, sight and harmonics, provided the remedy, and yielded the same general law of gravitation plagiarized from Kepler's own original discovery by the custodians of a curiously mad and scientifically inept black-magic specialist Isaac Newton.

In a similar fashion, Sky Shields' recently published mapping of the actual process of discovery represented by Carl F. Gauss' discovery of the orbit of Ceres, unveils the actual workings of the creative mind of Gauss in his original discovery of the asteroid orbits.

All true universal physical principles, as known, show that same type of ironical composition. Hence, the singular importance of the work of Bernard Riemann's discoveries in bringing the use of tensor-like methods of Gauss to its proper place in the general repertoire of physical scientific methods. Sky Shields' application of the tensor to craft a physical, rather than simple image of the orbit of Ceres, illustrates a point which is applicable to all cases of discoveries of a generally true physical principle in any domain, including a competent science of physical economy.

Euclid's Relevant Great Crime
There are three methods available in modern scientific practice, for defining a general principle. The typical model in European civilization today, although incompetent, is that associated with the model of Euclidean geometry. The assumption is, "Is the assumed principle true in all possible cases?" While that guideline may appear suited to abstract Euclidean or an "imperfectly Euclidean" variety of formal geometry, as by Lobatchevsky, it fails to meet the standard which must be required of a presented case of physical science. This distinction was made clear with the appearance of Bernhard Riemann's 1854 habilitation dissertation, in which no a-priorist assumptions were permitted in the domain of physical geometry. Since Riemann's habilitation dissertation, all later competencies in physical geometry were defined by relevant conceptual methods of physical experiment, rather than implicitly a-priorist formal geometries.[8]

At least, that was true in principle; in practice, the matter was not so simple.

The universe of Bernhard Riemann, and of such followers of Riemann as Albert Einstein and V.I. Vernadsky, is a kind of physical universe in which the most underlying characteristic of action is the emergence of new, more truthful kinds of physical dimensionality. Today, since the work of Vernadsky, in ordering physical-scientific practice, we should examine such qualitative changes associated with a self-evolving physical geometry, evolving with those kinds of qualitative changes in the periodic table of physical biochemistry which we associate with evolutionary changes in quality among the abiotic, living, and human-cognitive qualities of physical phase-spaces of the universe considered as an integrated whole.

Today, with the appearance of any newly considered universal physical principle, no previously existing geometry can satisfy the notion of completeness within the bounds of any formal geometry. There is no longer any competent equivalent of such presumed systems extended to completion "in infinity" as a Euclidean geometry.

There are two most notable transformations to consider on this account.

First, we must take into account, that sense-perceptions present us with no better than the kinds of shadows cast by the real universe, rather than the real universe as such. Second, since the work of Academician V.I. Vernadsky, we are properly obliged to view the universe of our experience as one in which the Noösphere as defined, functionally, subsumes the Biosphere, and the Biosphere, in turn, subsumes the abiotic domain. The definition used for this purpose is supplied by the question: which domain changes which?

Nonetheless, in the struggle of scientists to make a career, so to speak, they were often obliged, to suppress their fidelity to strictly scientific principles, out of a generally imposed requirement to show a certain degree of consideration for a-prioristic geometries modeled, more or less, on the widely approved fantasy known as Euclidean geometry. So, to survive in the practice of their professional career in science, they found it expedient to, at least, pretend that they believed in the test of deductive completeness as an idealized, entropic standard, imposed arbitrarily, for any generally accepted practice of geometry. Curiously, and, also, not so curiously, the product of exploring the domain of physical geometry from the standpoint of the assumed principle of axiomatic completeness for any geometry, turned out to have its heuristic merits within the domain of the ante-room to a physical-scientific form of geometry, as this is illustrated by the explorations conducted under the direction of the famous David Hilbert.

However, thanks given to Hilbert for exposing the assumption he tested, the universe is actually anti-Euclidean, as Hilbert helped to demonstrate this after his fashion.

Since I am writing this work, some account for my own history in respect to these matters has a certain, much more than passing relevance for the purposes of my account here.

II. My View of This Matter
In entering this chapter of the report, we must recognize two crucial features of my point. First, that I am not only an economist of notable, largely unique achievements in long-range forecasting, but that the highest form of known physical existence in our universe is the role of discoveries of the universal physical principles which underlie the notion of a physically successful economy as a whole.

The related problem has been, not that our scientists have been stupid; rather, they have been forbidden to bring the crucial physical evidence of universal and related economic principles into the domain of my particular expertise, the science of physical economy.

Since all matters of physical chemistry's role in economies lie within my domain of principal practice, the chief source of the failures of policy-shaping among modern nation-states has been that the most crucially important aspect of physical science, the economic progress of mankind, has been abandoned to the Delphic frauds of a pro-Satanic class of political-economic religious ideologues, such as our leading financial accountants and bureaucrats of kindred superstitions.

The essential failure common to both most practice of economics and financial accounting, is typified by the fraudulent approach of Laplace colleague Augustin Cauchy to the subject of the calculus. Following the school of Eighteenth-century Leibniz-haters such as Abbe Antonio Conti, Voltaire, Jean le Rond D'Alembert, Leonhard Euler, and Laplace, the factor of change which defines a science of reality, the Leibniz infinitesimal, was suppressed by the systemically reductionist pagan priesthoods of mathematics.

What is fairly described as the uniqueness of my own successes as an economic forecaster, beginning the middle of the 1950s, was rooted, on the one side, in my recognition, since early adolescence, of the intrinsic absurdity of any formal geometry similar to that of Euclidean geometry. This defined the basis for my subsequent adoption of the standpoint of Gottfried Leibniz's condemnation of the inherently systemic fraud of the work of Descartes, in favor of Leibniz's adopted standpoint of that principle of dynamics, which has underlain all higher development in the progress of physical science, as to matters of principle, since that time. The collaboration of Leibniz with Jean Bernouilli, in applying consideration of Pierre de Fermat's principle of least action to elaborate a general principle of universal physical least action, has been considered by me as the continuing mainstream of inspiration for all truly principled accomplishments, such as those of Carl F. Gauss and Bernhard Riemann, since.

This led me, in turn, to come to the view that sense-perceptions were not realities, but shadows of reality. In this way, I came to the related view, that the definition of the infinitesimal by Leibniz expressed the essential difference between the real universe we experience, his view, and the shadow-like images of that experience associated with naive sense-certainty, his adversaries' view.

The attacks on Leibniz's work by empiricist followers of the Ockhamite irrationalism of Paolo Sarpi, were to be traced, during the Eighteenth Century, through such accomplices of the hoaxster Rene Descartes, as the set of empiricists led by Abbe Antonio Conti and Voltaire, to hoaxes such as those which are to be traced to the hoaxsters Abraham de Moivre and D'Alembert, who concocted the hoax of "imaginary numbers," and, later, the less exotic trick of simply denying the existence of the Leibniz "infinitesimal" by the opportunist hoaxster Leonhard Euler (who knew better than to actually believe his own rubbish on this account).

The issue so posed to Eighteenth-century physical science was that, if, sense-perceptions are merely shadows cast upon the mind, rather than the actual objects which have cast those shadows: what, then, is the knowable expression of the differences between reality, on the one side, and the shadows cast on human opinion by the experience of that wrongly conceived reality known as "sense certainty," on the other. The implication of this, in turn, forces us to consider the implication of the evidence, as Leibniz adduced his discovery and subsequent development of the concept of the differential calculus from the implications of the successive work of such as Kepler and Pierre de Fermat. The reality of experience lies not in the perceived object, or its idealization as such, but in those kinds of actual, efficient changes in perceived state, which violate, experimentally, the notion of deductions from merely apparent sense-certainty? Leibniz's definition of dynamics, as a revived expression of the principle of dynamis expressed by Classical Sphaerics, as in the duplication of the cube by Archytas, and the consequences of this for Archytas' associate Plato, defined the universal physical principle specific to both Leibniz's original definition of the calculus, in 1675, the addition of dynamics, during the 1690s, and his enhanced reworking of this as a universal, catenary-tractrix-cued, physical principle of least action, as cast in collaboration with Jean Bernouilli.[9]

In other words, between the view of real experience implied by notions of sense-certainty, and the real universe, there is a gap expressed, typically, by that notion of the "infinitesimal" whose existence Euler, with bare-faced fraud, simply denied.[10]

I came to that view of Euler's fully witting hoax, in his attack on the then long-deceased Leibniz, through my disgust at the teaching of both analytic geometry and the calculus to which I was exposed in both my secondary-school education, and in my attendance at a university, later. I could never bring myself, formally or morally, to pollute my mind with belief in the empiricist rubbish which I was instructed to believe on those occasions. This rejection of such instruction turned out to be a source of my most important margin of intellectual advantage over my putative professional rivals among the economists of the recent half-century to date.

What saved me from the mistakes of my more important rivals among economists, has been, first of all, the influence of Gottfried Leibniz on me from about the age of 14-15, and, later, since my embrace, by January-February 1953, of, principally, Bernhard Riemann's work, his 1854 habilitation dissertation, most emphatically.

Thus, today, if any good outcome is to occur during the presently onrushing general physical-economic breakdown-crisis of the world as a whole presently, this can only occur through the influence of those same principles which I have adopted in the course of my unique successes as an economic forecaster during the recent half-century.

This involves what must be considered, under present circumstances, as a specific, unique conception of the nature of the power of creativity encountered in the characteristic potential of the human individual mind expressed by discovery of universal principles of experiment. This is the immediate subject here, the subject on which the urgently needed adoption of a competent notion of principles of physical economy now depends. The "great experiment" on which the desired achievements depend, is found in the examination of the nature of the efficiently creative powers of the individual human mind.

I illustrate the point, by beginning with a relevant restatement of the nature of the evidence toward which I have just pointed here.

My Own Outlook Was Situated So
My earlier conscious awareness of the crucial issue underlying my account in such locations as here, today, dates, essentially, in beginnings identified with my first encounter with secondary-school teaching of plane geometry. As I have written of this on sundry, relevant occasions, I had rejected the a-priori assumptions flatly at first encounter, asserting my belief, then, that only a physical geometry of the type relevant to design of supporting iron or steel materials crafted to optimize mass and strength according to structural forms, represented a true geometry.[11] Once the subject of construction was freed from the illusions of Euclidean geometry by attention to the physical principles of design of forms of construction, the absurdity of Euclid's mis-interpretation of the achievements of those forerunners from among the Pythagoreans and Platonics, became immediately as obvious as Riemann insisted to be the case, as in the opening paragraphs of his 1854 habilitation dissertation.

So, from that date during my early adolescence, on, all of my subsequent exposure to instruction in secondary education and as much higher education as I could tolerate, placed me in opposition to the underlying presumptions of almost everything in, or about the method for science thus presented to me in those classroom environments, at those times.

Satan and His Monetarism
All standard teaching of modern economics dogma has been premised on the misguided presumption, that the appropriate assignment of a notion of relative economic value was a statistical-monetary function: monetarism. To understand that prevalent error of classroom and related opinion, and, thus, the practical consequences of the existing of the present world monetary form of general breakdown-crisis of all among the present world monetary systems, we must consider the following typical aspects of the history of this phenomenon of globally extended European culture today.

This notion is traced in European history since the period of the Peloponnesian War, with the reign over European and extended civilizations by monetarist imperial powers of the type associated with the functions of the treasuries located under the direction of the Delphi cult of Apollo-Dionysos.

The failure of the propagators of the warfare among Athens, Corinth, and Syracuse, created what Plato treated as the opportunity for what had been envisioned by him as the opportunity to consolidate the salutary destruction of the temporarily failed maritime-monetary power of the Delphi Apollo-Dionysos cult during that time. The later establishment of the Roman Empire, through the negotiations conducted between the figure who was to become known as Augustus Caesar in negotiations with the Isle of Capri-based representatives of the priesthood of the Mithra cult, did establish a Mediterranean-based form of maritime-based, single monetarist imperialism, a Roman empire still dominated by the Delphi cult since a point through, and beyond the lifetime of the last leading priest of that cult, the notorious, typically Delphic, illustrious liar Plutarch. That imperialism, in its subsequent incarnations in sundry kaleidoscopic expressions, has been the imperial monetarist system which has reigned over Europe most of the time, since that time, a monetarist empire of which the Anglo-Dutch monetarist imperialism is the world-dominating expression at the present time.

Contrary to the fables of monetarism,, the ruling principles respecting the determination of effective value, lie within the bounds of a needed science of physical economy, not the statistical habits of intrinsically imperialist monetarist systems.

Essentially, from its beginnings in such places as 1620-1687 Massachusetts, the design of the American System of political-economy, on which the United States' republic was premised, has been based on a credit system, rather than a monetary system, Alexander Hamilton's particular genius in defining the American System of political-economy as a remedy for the bankruptcy of the separate banking systems of the thirteen former colonies, required, and established that Constitutional reform of a constitutional republic, rather than a confederation, a sovereign republic whose existence was indispensable for saving an otherwise bankrupt, new nation-state.

It was this same principle of our Constitution, which was employed by President Abraham Lincoln to defeat the otherwise victorious British imperial power behind both the slaveholders' secession and the London-owned New York bankers, through the system of "greenbacks" which was organically integral to the great principle of physical economy on which the creation of the U.S. Federal Constitution was premised.

This must be said, to make clear the impossibility of any continuation of civilization on this planet without eliminating all monetarist authority and monetarist systems. The action required is to establish a planetary system based on a fixed-exchange-rate credit-system among a leading set of the aggregately powerful nation-states of the planet, to the effect of putting all monetary systems out of existence. This reform must employ a credit-system as a medium designed, and managed, all to the effect of creating a system of international credit, that based on a principle of fixed-exchange-rate lending among the participating sovereign states of the planet.

This measure solves the immediate problem of global bankruptcy among all nations presently, but it also poses the need to take the matter of policy of credit and prices out of the domain of "free trade" monetarism—or anything like it, thus posing the issues of physical-economic values, rather than the merely nominal, and usually more or less badly mistaken notions of relative monetary prices. The Hamiltonian form of constitutional model of the U.S. Constitution, serves as the needed linchpin for establishing the pattern of global, long-term credit-agreements among a dominant set of initiating nations composing the kernel of the new world physical-economic system.

What are the chances of establishing such a system now? The only force which exists to bring this change about, is that no nation of the planet has any rational chance of surviving the presently wildly escalating crisis, without accepting that reform. That is the looming breakdown-crisis being brought on rapidly, now, by the miscreations called the British empire and its pro-fascist-like puppet, the Obama administration, whose self-inflicted folly will present what I have proposed as the only available opportunity for surviving the presently onrushing, global breakdown-crisis.

Do the Anglo-Dutch Liberal oligarchs know this? Of course they do: much better than you do. Nonetheless, their inherently self-doomed system is the only world system under which they are presently disposed to live. Their impulse is either to win, or to bring down all nations of the world, like the fabled Cities of the Plain, rather than accept the existence of any world system but their own. Therefore, foolish Obama as been chosen as their silly tool.

Where I Stand
On that account, I have paid a certain price, from adolescence to the present day, for my resistance to what I was presumably being ordered to comply with in these matters; but, then, experience, since that time, has demonstrated, that those of my contemporaries who accepted what I had resisted, paid a fearful price for what they had lost from their own creative powers, that by accepting the damaging, axiomatic and kindred beliefs which I had the good fortune to have rightly rejected. So, we have the fact that virtually every putatively leading economist, even among the relatively best, has failed in precisely those crucial aspects of forecasting in which my successes have been unique, the fact which illustrates the point.

Now, on the happier side of such matters, the truly intelligent professionals in the field of economy will be inclined, increasingly, to collaborate with me in bringing about the needed measures to save our republic, in particular, and the rest of the nations as well. Once the principle of the matter is made clear to them, many among them will discover, already lurking within themselves, what is otherwise needed to make them adequate to carry out the remainder of the task.

Recently, since, most notably, the aftermath of my July 25, 2007 forecast of the imminence of the general breakdown-crisis, my relations with leading U.S. and other economists have been significantly improved. Such has been the effect of the forecast which I presented in an international webcast, brought forth on that occasion. However, while the importance of my unique contribution has become appreciated, more and more, among competent professionals, the essential reasons for the success of my own record as a forecaster over recent decades, has not yet been grasped adequately even among the relatively best of those among what might be termed my "relevant peers." It is thus, my obligation, as here, to improve this state of affairs, which is prominent among the motives for publishing what I now write on that account.

Continue to Part 2

Comments (0)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
A word from our sponsor


Main Headlines Page

Main Article Page
The Rule of Natural Law

Check out these other Fine TGS sites

Texas Nationalist Movement