How Satanic Lord
Became an Evil Man
GET FREE ALL THE OTHER 15 ENERGY ENHANCEMENT BOOKS..
Reflections Upon Tragedy & Hope
The spark of genius in the pre-school child, if it has not been destroyed already, is often typified by the Socratic manner in which the child asks "Why?" Sadly, in the United States in our times, that spark of genius is usually soon quenched by the old dishwater of what Riesman termed "other-directedness," by that peculiar turn of the sadistic screw sometimes named euphemistically empiricism and pragmatism. A child's spark of genius, the will to find out how and why past or current opinions and events came into existence, is replaced by brutish faith in the fruits of mere inductive generalization from individual and collective experience, a form of moral self-degradation often termed "practical common sense," or with credit given appropriately to bestiality, "horse sense."
All of the truly great philosophers and teachers of the known history of European civilization, beginning with the best of the Ionian Greeks, and associated famously with Plato's Academy at Athens, or Nicolaus of Cusa and Gottfried Leibniz, have evoked true genius from within young people by recapturing that innate spark of potential, using what is most fairly described as Socratic method. Formalism, by contrast, kills the soul, as this was recognized by the most famous of the modern formalists, Venice's Pietro Pomponazzi,2 who searched for his own soul, and, poor schlemiel that he had become, reported that he had none.
Thus, since it is that innate spark of potential for genius in every human child which sets all mankind absolutely apart from and above the beasts, we are able to recognize, as Philo of Alexandria shows this the necessary reading of Moses' first chapter of Genesis, that that quality of genius is the human soul, is the aspect of the individual person which is, in the Latin of Nicolaus of Cusa, both imago Dei (the image of God) and capax Dei (the potential to participate in God) .3 Thus, the formalism which caused the loss of Pomponazzi's soul is intrinsically the adversary of the Good, is evil.
Fortunately, in most cases it is possible to requicken the spark of genius innate to the new child. All the great teachers did this. Every good teacher attempts to do that in some degree, in his or her approximation of the Socratic method employed by Plato, Eudoxus, Theaetetus, Archimedes, Cusa, and Leibniz. One need but reawaken the genius of the child, by citing the password to genius, "Why?"
Begin by choosing an important single event from history. Choose any such event in which there is evidence that the event was motivated by aid of some widely accepted, but fraudulent pretext. Seek to discover what motivated that fraud, and seek to uncover also the reasons that fraud was tolerated by its dupes. Keep asking "Why"? Peel the onion, layer by layer, until the history embedded in that single act is brought to the surface. The result of that sort of Socratic exercise is a referent for the proper definition of the word "knowledge."
So, let us begin.
See in your mind's eye a B-29 bomber aircraft, called the "Enola Gay," flying to its hellish appointment, that horror-stricken summer's day in 1945. 4 Why did the United States government drop the only two nuclear-fission weapons in its arsenal upon those two virtually defenseless population-centers in Japan? The U.S. government lied when it said this was necessary to save perhaps a million or so U.S. soldiers' lives.
Before the dropping of what quickly came to be described in awe-stricken tones as "the bomb," the Emperor of Japan was already negotiating surrender with the Truman government, through Vatican channels, on the same terms Japan's surrender was accepted after the bombs were dropped.5
With that brief reminiscence, we have touched the history of this century at one of its crucial turning-points.
Since the alleged military urgency of the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a lie, whose purpose did that bombing serve?
One of those whose purpose was served in Hiroshima that day, was a modern Mephistopheles, Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell , whose shadow is cast ominously upon both the living and generations of all mankind yet unborn, at the projected 1994 U.N.O. Cairo Population Conference.
To understand why British intelligence networks inside the U.S. government manipulated President Harry Truman into dropping those unnecessary atom bombs upon Japanese civilians, it suffices to read Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell's own explanation of his and Winston Churchill's nuclear-weapons policy, in the September 1946 edition of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: "The Atomic Bomb and the Prevention of War."6
In that 1946 report, Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell presents his motive for the continued use of the geopolitical threat of nuclear weaponry by himself, Winston Churchill, et al.: to blackmail Moscow into submitting to an agreement whose purpose, Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell states explicitly there, is to transform the then recently established United Nations Organization into the kind of one-world dictatorship for which his world-federalist utopians have continued to work throughout this century.7
Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell 's strategic dogma, as articulated in that 1946 edition of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, has shaped most of the history of this planet since that date. Since Soviet General Secretary N.S. Khrushchev sent four official representatives to Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell in London in 1955, to negotiate a thermonuclear condominium along the lines Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell had prescribed in that 1946 statement of his strategic doctrine,8 until the fall of the Gorbachev government in August 1991, the smaller and weaker nations of the world have been ruled by a U.N.O. world government in the form of a thermonuclear condominium between the political blocs dominated respectively by the two rival super-powers, Moscow and the Anglo-Americans.
For those who know both the approximately fifty-years history of the discovery of nuclear fission and fusion, since the discoveries of both Professor Dmitri Mendeleyev and the Curies,9 the proof exists to show that Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell's intent as expressed in that 1946 article, was the same intent which Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell and his cronies had in duping the United States government into building the bomb in the first place: to produce and use a weapon so horrifying that nations would surrender their sovereignties to a global arbiter of policy, a United Nations world-government dictatorship, the "final imperialism."
Excepting a few, such as the Dr. Leo Szilard,10who was approximately as evil as his master Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell , most of the scientists working on the Manhattan Project were, like the Fusion Energy Foundation co-founder, the late Professor Robert J. Moon ,11 dedicated and accomplished persons, who sincerely believed Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell's great lie of 1939, that Hitler was committed to building a nuclear-fission weapon, and that we must get there first.
Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell and his cronies, the true authors of the famous letter to President Franklin Roosevelt which Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell's cabal induced Albert Einstein to sign,12 knew that Hitler was not going to sponsor such research and that the relevant German scientists around Professor Werner Heisenberg were determined that such a weapon not be built for Hitler's use.13
Unlike the misinformed honest atom scientists, the Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell of 1939 pushed to have the weapon built for exactly the motives he articulated later in the 1946 restatement of his intent. World-federalist, utopian fanatic Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell conceived of the development and use of nuclear weaponry as a trick for terrifying governments into abandoning the right to defend their sovereignties by military means. As he stated this purpose in his 1946 piece, he intended to terrify the peoples of the world into submitting to rule by a global arbiter of conflicts, to a world empire, a global, Malthusian dictatorship of the United Nations Organization.
Britain's Lord Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell has been, beyond any reasonable doubt, the most evil public figure of the passing century.
England's murdered Christopher Marlowe might have said fairly that the Thule Society's monstrous Adolf Hitler was but a picaresque rogue cast as Dr. Faustus, whereas Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell was a true Mephistopheles. Marlowe would insist upon qualifying his observation: "A truly Venetian Mephistopheles."14
Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell personally did not cause all of the evil which has proliferated throughout our planet during the past hundred-odd years, but he was one of the most influential individuals among those who did. Moreover, if one traces out the influences which caused Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell to become an evil man, one will also come to understand not only what went wrong during the Twentieth Century, but many preceding centuries before that.
The Twentieth Century will go down in future history, as the century which is outstanding for the endless monotony of its popularly believed lies. The myth of Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell as an utopian humanitarian, is perhaps among the more widespread such lies which persist as generally accepted among literate people who ought to know better. How is such amazing credulity of presumably literate, educated people possible, even up to the highest ranks in academia and even the intelligence services of the U.S. government, for example? We use the case of Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell here as an example of that problem. Reviewing the highlights of Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell's multifarious evil provides the setting in which to supply the answer to the question, "Why are today's putatively literate people so blindly credulous?"
The answer to that question is the subject of this report.
1. Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell and Hitler
Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell played many strings on his fiddle of evil. His proposals for genocide, especially against populations with darker skin-hues than that of the Vril Society's self-esteemed Anglo-Saxon master race, are fully as satanic, and more viciously personalized than his policies of world dictatorship through nuclear terrorism. He was also a savage hoaxster in his corrosive influence within the domains of philosophy and natural science. He was not even truly British; there is not a gram of concern for the well-being of the inhabitants of the United Kingdom in that scoundrel. No notable representative of liberal philosophy during this century, not even such consummately perverse creatures as Sigmund Freud or Theodor Adorno,15 has been so consistently a virtual incarnation of Satan as the Mephistopheles of this century, the evil Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell .
Yet, within each part of the intellectual spectrum which he infested at one time or another of his life, there are still dupes who regard this unmitigated scoundrel as a respectable figure, even a great intellect. How could civilization have fallen so low, that many among the world's putative intelligentsia exhibit such intellectual or even moral shamelessness as to profess what is termed popularly "respect" for such a creature?
Consider a handful of crucial passages from Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell's racialist writings of the pre-war and post-war period; these writings show the true moral nature of the purpose to which Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell dedicated that dogma of nuclear blackmail which he and Leo "Strangelove" Szilard bestowed upon such worthy apostles as Robert Strange McNamara of the Vietnam "body count" enterprise16 and upon self-proclaimed British Foreign Office agent Henry A. Kissinger.17
This writer had reached his present judgment on Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell by 1978. It was a conclusion which had emerged in steps, beginning the 1950's. Over the following two decades, the insistent evidence piled up, piece by irrefutable piece. In 1978, this judgment was shared with a pair of collaborators, who produced a 1980 book documenting Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell's evil nature.18 During 1978-1980, the purpose then was to show the horrifying things which had happened to humanity during this century, things which would not have happened but for Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell's influential, and thoroughly evil role as a self-proclaimed utopian pacifist, world federalist and genocidally inclined Anglo-Saxon racialist.
All of the immediately following quotations of Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell are from a selection provided in one of the chapters of that 1980 book.
Begin with the Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell of the early 1920's, the Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell who had just returned to Britain from a stint indoctrinating numerous of the future leaders of Communist China.19 Read the following gem from Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell's treasury of a liberal pacifist's sentimentalities, this from his 1923 Prospects of Industrial Civilization:20
Socialism, especially international socialism, is only possible as a stable system if the population is stationary or nearly so. A slow increase might be coped with by improvements in agricultural methods, but a rapid increase must in the end reduce the whole population to penury, ... the white population of the world will soon cease to increase. The Asiatic races will be longer, and the negroes still longer, before their birth rate falls sufficiently to make their numbers stable without help of war and pestilence. ... Until that happens, the benefits aimed at by socialism can only be partially realized, and the less prolific races will have to defend themselves against the more prolific by methods which are disgusting even if they are necessary.21
In his 1941 Generalplan Ost for the occupation of Russia and other parts of Eastern Europe, Adolf Hitler put precisely these disgusting policies of Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell 's into practice.22 So, in 1945, we came to identify the consequences of Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell 's empiricist dogmas by such appropriate terms as "genocide," "holocaust," and "crimes against humanity," as practiced in war-time Auschwitz and other locations in Eastern Europe:
In the areas in question we have to push a deliberately negative population policy. With the propaganda campaigns, especially in the press, radio, movies, leaflets, short brochures, educational presentations and the like, the population must be induced toward the thought of how damaging it is to have many children. We must point to the costs which children entail, and then it should be pointed out what could have been bought instead. The great dangers to the health of women which can emerge in births can be pointed out, and the like.
In addition to this propaganda, generous propaganda in favor of means of birth control must be spread. An industry specialized in such means has to be created. Neither the approval or dissemination of birth control means should be punishable, nor abortion. We ought to absolutely promote the establishment of abortion institutes. Midwives and medics can be trained to give abortions. The more professionally the abortions are carried out, the more the population will gain trust in this respect. Also physicians must of course be permitted to carry out abortions, without a violation of his medical oath coming into question.
Voluntary sterilization is also to be promoted. Infant mortality must not be combatted. Mothers must not be instructed about care for infants and children's diseases.
Once we have converted the mass of the people to the idea of a one- or two-child system, we will have reached the goal we are aiming at ... .23
On the basis of such evidence, the sole grounds on which we might be prohibited from describing as "neo-Nazis" Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell and such among his liberal U.S. co-thinkers as the Harriman and Bush families' eugenics circles of 1932, is that the ideas Adolf Hitler copied were those of his British and U.S. admirers of the 1930's, such as Sir Peregrine Worsthorne's stepfather, Montagu Norman, George Bush's father, Prescott Bush, and those other professed non-German admirers of Adolf Hitler who authorized and funded the coup d'état which put Hitler into power in Germany in 1933.24 It would be appropriate to describe Adolf Hitler as an exemplary follower of Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell .
Even the post-war exposure of the horrors of the Nazi concentration camps did not hinder Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell's continued brazen exhibitions of shamelessness. Read some gems from his post-war writings, his 1951 The Impact of Science on Society:
But bad times, you may say, are exceptional, and can be dealt with by exceptional methods. This has been more or less true during the honeymoon period of industrialism, but it will not remain true unless the increase of population can be enormously diminished. At present the population of the world is increasing at about 58,000 per diem. War, so far, has had no very great effect on this increase, which continued through each of the world wars. ... War ... has hitherto been disappointing in this respect ... but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. ... The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of it? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people's.”25
Then hear Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell
the pacifist speaking in a BBC
interview in 1959, approximately four years after Soviet General Secretary N.S.
Khrushchev had sent four emissaries to Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell's
1955 meeting of the World
Parliamentarians for World Government. The Soviet emissaries had praised Satanic
Lord Bertrand Russell
publicly in Khrushchev's name, and had opened up subsequent negotiations with Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell for the Soviet nuclear condominium associated with such Pugwash Conference creatures as Dr. Leo Szilard and British foreign intelligence's agent of influence Henry A. Kissinger. Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell speaks in answer to a British Broadcasting Company's question concerning his advocacy of a post-World War II "preventive nuclear war":
Q. Is it true or untrue that in recent years you advocated that a preventive war might be made against communism, against Soviet Russia?"
Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell : It's entirely true, and I don't repent of it now. It was not inconsistent with what I think now.... There was a time, just after the last war, when the Americans had a monopoly of nuclear weapons and offered to internationalize nuclear weapons by the Baruch proposal, and I thought this an extremely generous proposal on their part, one which it would be very desirable that the world should accept; not that I advocated a nuclear war, but I did think that great pressure should be put upon Russia to accept the Baruch proposal, and I did think that if they continued to refuse it it might be necessary actually to go to war. At that time nuclear weapons existed only on one side, and therefore the odds were the Russians would have given way. I thought they would ... .
Q. Suppose they hadn't given way.
Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell : I thought and hoped that the Russians would give way, but of course you can't threaten unless you're prepared to have your bluff called.26
Pervading these and other public utterances by Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell , there are three pervasive themes overall: (1) a racism as virulent as Adolf Hitler's; (2) a feudal-aristocratic socialist's Ruskin-like hatred for modern European civilization; and (3) a utopian's obsessive commitment to bringing about civilization's descent into a parody of pre-Renaissance feudalism, or sometimes even pre-civilized barbarism. No one could miss this in Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell's published utterances such as those famous titles referenced here.
If there were any doubt of Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell's racism after reading relevant passages from his books, one might compare what he published in 1923 with remarks on the subject of African-Americans, supplied in a 1914 letter to Ottoline Morrell, written on the subject of his visit to the United States:
I find the coloured people friendly and nice. They seem to have a dog's liking for the white man—the same kind of trust and ungrudging sense of inferiority. I don't feel any recoil from them.27
His hatred of
the past six centuries of European civilization permeates his writings, like the
writings of John Ruskin's Oxford-based Pre-Raphaelite Society. Satanic Lord
's 1923 books, The Problem of China 28 and Prospects of Industrial Civilization, teem with eruptions of his neurotic's petulant obsession on this account. A passage from his cited 1951 book is fairly identified as typical of such maudlin outbursts; he prophesies, that under the influence of his utopian dogmas,
the present urban and industrial centers will have become derelict, and their inhabitants, if still alive, will have reverted to the peasant hardships of their medieval ancestors.29
From the Sixteenth into the Eighteenth Centuries, Venetian bankers shaping the policies of the English government created a new stratum of the modern British feudal aristocrats and financial nobility, of which Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell and his ancestors are typical. It is as the heir to the title of Earl of Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell , and as grandson to that same Palmerston crony, Lord John Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell , who directed the Confederate insurrection against Lincoln's United States,30 pre-Nazi Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell reflects upon his hatred for modern civilization, hating the United States of America with that same Metternichean passion to which British intelligence's own Henry A. Kissinger has subscribed over the past four decades.31 The following passage from Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell's cited 1951 book is typical:
... when I first became politically conscious, Gladstone and Disraeli still confronted each other amid Victorian solidities, the British Empire seemed eternal, a threat to British naval supremacy was unthinkable, the country was aristocratic, rich and growing richer. ... For an old man, with such a background, it is difficult to feel at home in a world of ... American supremacy.32
These were not only the ideas of Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell . They were shared fully by the stoutly plebeian one-time head of British foreign intelligence, Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell's crony and sometimes factional rival, the "Morloch"-hating Fabian H.G. Wells.33 These were not simply aristocratic atavisms; Wells was a man whose claims to the social status of picaresque are as impeccable as those of such like-minded wretches as 1932 New York Eugenics Congress hero Adolf Hitler,34 or the Henry A. Kissinger who authored the Nazi-like policies of 1974 National Security Study Memorandum 200.35
These ideas were the evil against
which this present writer fought during the 1960's, ideas which took over a
large section of those youth drawn into the Anti-War movement and "rock-drug-sex
counterculture" cult. These were the ideas of pacifist Satanic Lord
and his cronies; these were also the ideas which many 1960's New Left advocates attributed accurately to the New Left followers of the "Frankfurt School" of Georg Lukacs, Herbert Marcuse, Sigmund Freud, Walter Benjamin, Theodor Adorno, Hannah Arendt, and Arendt's former lover, official Nazi philosopher Martin Heidegger.36
These were also known as the educational and related ideas of Kurt Lewin and his National Training Laboratories, and of the National Education Association ideologues steered by National Training Laboratory influences.37 During 1969-1971, this stratum from the New Left of the 1960's was re-programmed by its Reichian and other T-group controllers to become the polymorphous perversity of the early 1970's "Rainbow Coalition."
Many among the now aging relics of the 1960's "rock-drug-sex counterculture" youth movement entered the 1970's as the "Rainbow Coalition" constituency for the Nazi-like population policies of the Club of Rome's defeated first, Bucharest U.N.O. Conference of Summer 1974.38 Today, the ranks of that pre-New-Left generation which successfully resisted the Club of Rome's neo-Nazi population policies in 1974 have been depleted by twenty years' attrition. As the proposed Cairo U.N.O. Conference on Population menaces the last shreds of moral decency upon this planet, the dwindling number of bearers of the moral heritage of European civilization is nearly outweighed by the multiculturalist horde of satanic ideas of Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell , Theodor Adorno, and Adolf Hitler's Martin Heidegger.
From Whom Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell Copied His Ideas
During the 1920's, 1930's, and 1940's, unless one studied the Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell texts referenced above, or unless one were a specialist in the relevant branch of mathematics, Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell was perceived as little more than a notorious British eccentric with a wont for lewd utterances. This present writer had traversed his own adolescence, steeped in the controversies of the principal English, French, and German philosophers of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, before his first, late-1930's encounter with some of Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell's shorter pieces. From then, until the mid-1950's, Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell was put aside as trivial stuff, Voltaire on a very dull day.
Then, there came a more time, nearly two decades later, that Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell's mathematical and related philosophical writings were examined more systematically. By the late 1970's, this writer recognized the monstrous effects of Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell's continuing influence. The combined effect of seeing both the banality of Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell's thought and the evil consequences of his influence, was the thought that perhaps the roads leading to Hell are paved with platitudes. To put the point more exactly, the present writer recognized that the successful practice of evil builds upon diffidence respecting those creative qualities of intellect which set the individual person absolutely apart from and above all species of beasts.
Understanding Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell begins with the realization that Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell's published writings contain no true originality, but only novelty of the same special quality provided by the writings of the Marquis de Sade. If we limit discussion to the matter of essentials, there is nothing essential in Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell which is not repetition of what had been written by the founder of the British foreign intelligence service, Jeremy Bentham, now more than two hundred years ago.
Once that point is grasped, one should not be startled that the consummate evil of Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell , like that of Bentham's inspiration, Giammaria Ortes, is served up as gobs of trashy empiricist sentiment. Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell's Mephistopheles is a shallow-minded British snob quoting snippets from the banalities of Bacon, Locke and Hume; he is Goethe's Mephistopheles in Auerbach's cellar, prating unctuously on the matter of a flea.
Is a sense of the quality of evil not typified by a deception which might cause one of us to imagine for but a moment that a cleverly contrived, full-scale, programmed puppet is the dear friend one had thought deceased, come back to life? After that moment, comes a horrifying aftertaste of such a virtual reality, a sense of the principle of evil: that this sophisticated puppet, this wind-up toy demonstrates the principle of the fabled schlemiel, a Padua Professor Pietro Pomponazzi, a poor Golem with no soul of its own.39
deeper insight into Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell
came during the mid-1950's, in recognizing that a
special kind of wickedness is packaged within the deceptive superficiality of
Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell's
utterances. True, all of Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell's
sentimental babbling in the name of
philosophy and mathematics was no more than a stream of shallow sophistries,
chiefly petty, malicious mere gossip against the reputations of Leibniz and Georg Cantor. Compared to the Immanuel Kant against whom this writer had
wrestled in defense of Leibniz's Monadology during his adolescence, Satanic Lord
's philosophical method was that of parodying crudely the Eleatic sophistries which Plato treated to such devastating effect in his Parmenides.40 Reading some selections from the writings of Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell's intellectual cronies, this author saw that the motive for much of that literary output had been Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell , Carnap, Korsch, and the pathetic Wittgenstein, maleficent sophists all, telling one another how devilishly clever they all were. This snobbish banality is also to be recognized as evil.
Seen with rigorous objectivity, Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell
is a satanic
bore. Precisely therein lies that Venetian-monkish quality which made Satanic
Lord Bertrand Russell
, like the Eighteenth-Century Giammaria Ortes, so dangerously influential among those whose impaired psychosexual sense of personal scholarly identity dwells within fantasies residing at or below their waistlines. It is in the controlling influence of Ortes over the thinking of his British contemporaries Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, and Thomas Malthus, that one finds the key for understanding both Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell and his exemplary place of influence among the greatest follies of our vanishing present century.
He is exemplary
of a strictly definable, sterile type41
of British imperialist, which, collectively, has not made an original scientific
discovery of principle in 250 years. This distinct type came into existence as
the dictatorial cabal around the notorious William Petty, the Second Earl of
Shelburne, during the last half of the Eighteenth Century.42
That cabal, known then as "the Venetian Party" radicals,43
has ruled Britain, its empire, and later the present-day United Nations
Organization, since Lord Shelburne emerged, over the course of the 1763-1783
struggle for independence by the American colonies, to occupy the highest level
of actual political power in the British imperial monarchy. Satanic Lord
, while he lived, was a purebred Venetian dog of this Shelburne type.
Consider four among the leading figures of late Eighteenth-Century British philosophical radicalism, all political lackeys wearing the colors of Lord Shelburne's British East India Company: Adam Smith the so-called economist, Jeremy Bentham the first head of the British foreign intelligence service, Edward Gibbon the historian, and Thomas Malthus the plagiarist. All but Gibbon owed virtually every idea for which he is famed today to an influential contemporary, a Venetian monk named Giammaria Ortes (1713-1790). There was nothing in the work of the leading Nineteenth-Century British liberals—such as James Mill, John Stuart Mill, Charles Darwin, William Jevons, Charles Darwin, Thomas Huxley, John Ruskin, and so on—which was not derived directly from either these Shelburne lackeys, or from the work of such members of Venice's Eighteenth-Century intelligence service as Ortes. There is nothing essential in the writing of Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell which does not come, in turn, from these sources.
Understand this, and you understand Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell . Understand Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell in that way, and you begin to understand the past six hundred years of European and world history. Then, you begin to understand the important features of the now-fading present century.
Take Malthus for example. His famous 1798 On Population,44 was nothing more than a bowdlerized version of Giammaria Ortes' 1790 publication, Riflessioni sulla popolazione delle nazioni.45 In turn, Charles Darwin admits that his now-famous notions were the arbitrary superimposition of Malthus' book upon hapless biology.46 Ortes, in turn, had borrowed the same idea from not only a contemporary Berliner, Maupertuis,47 but both had borrowed the same notion from a Sixteenth-Century Venetian by the name of Giovanni Botero.48 Properly, none of those efforts can be considered seriously original; the doctrine was already spelled out in detail as the population policies embedded in the decrees of the Roman Emperor Diocletian.49
The same debt to Ortes dominates Adam Smith's 1759 The Theory of Moral Sentiments, and the entirety of his Wealth of Nations.50 Ortes' influential work on economics, that for which British agent Karl Marx praises Ortes,51 is his second work on this subject, his 1777 Della economia nazionale libri sei. Of far greater significance is Bentham's Principles of Morals and Legislation,52 Bentham's major elaboration of what is termed, alternately, his "felicific calculus," or, more plainly, "hedonistic calculus." Bentham's work is derived entirely from the published ideas of Ortes. All British philosophical radicalism, from approximately 1760 to the present day, is premised upon the specific influence of this notion of a "hedonistic calculus," the radical-positivist notion that all ideas, all social relations may be reduced fairly to representation in terms of linear-algebraic functions modelled (as Ortes emphasizes this connection) on the mathematical methods of Galileo and Newton.
Nineteenth-Century Britain, Bentham's Ortesian "hedonistic calculus" is known as
the "utilitarianism," and doctrine of "marginal utility" of John Stuart Mill,
William Jevons, et al. The most famous mathematical work of Satanic Lord
, his and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica,53 is the application of the same radical-positivistic dogma to arithmetic. It is relevant to stress here, that Norbert Wiener's "information theory," and the economic doctrines of John Von Neumann are the same radical form of hedonistic principle carried to the outer limits of ambulatory lunacy, the mathematical idiot savant's so-called "chaos theory."54
London As 'The New Venice'
The influence of Ortes, in shaping the thinking of the new British imperialist institutions established under Shelburne's behind-the-throne reign of the late Eighteenth Century, reflected Ortes' position as one of the key figures within which a later British historian might be tempted to name as "Conti's Kindergarten," as prefiguring that famous Fabian institution, that so-called "Kindergarten" of Lord Milner, Halford Mackinder and H.G. Wells, which cooked up World War I.55
The Venetian nobleman Abbot Antonio Conti (1677-1749) was a top intelligence-operations control agent for Venice, working on France, Germany, and England during most of the adult portion of his life; he is one of the more important figures, whose role can not be omitted from any competent tracing of the crucial turns of the Eighteenth Century.
He assembled a celebrated salon of Venetian agents, through which these operations were coordinated.56 During Conti's life-time, Giammaria Ortes was one of the key agents active in this group. Later, but still during Ortes' lifetime, two of the most famous of this salon were the notorious Giacomo Casanova (1725-1798) and Count Alessandro Cagliostro (1743-1795).57 After the deaths of Ortes, Cagliostro, and Casanova during the 1790's, the continuity of Conti's projects was maintained by Venice's most celebrated agent of that later period, Count John Capodistria, the controlling figure behind Russia's ambassador Nesselrode and Prince Metternich at the 1814-1815 Congress of Vienna.58
Situate that Venetian bachelor, Giammaria Ortes, who fathered Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell (and many like him) within this interval, 1688-1818. Look at the Conti salon and its aftermath in this context.
This 1688-1818 interval is the critical period of modern history in which Seventeenth-Century England's London was transformed into the capital of an emerging world-empire. This is the interval during which France, until 1815 the leading nation of Europe in science and economy,59 was half destroyed by Venetian design, to remove France as a threat to the emergence of future British imperial power. This is also the interval in which the United States emerged to provide a new model of sovereign nation-state republic which, first as inspiration, and then as strategic threat in its own right, might have destroyed the emerging world empire of London.60 This is the period of modern history from which are derived all of the underlying ideas of Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell , Margaret Thatcher, and so on, to date. This is the period during which there was established that set of ideas which, among other results, sent the "Enola Gay" winging its way to deliver Hell on earth that tragic summer's day in 1945.
As we have suggested at a slightly earlier point in this report, to understand that flight of the "Enola Gay," one must understand those policy-shaping trends of this century, within which that type of event was generated. To understand the relevant currents of this century's British policy-shaping, one must know the origin and development of those ideas and their influence since the second half of the Eighteenth Century. To understand the germination of that radical-empiricist current in leading British policy-thinking under Shelburne, we must understand the interaction between those British currents and the influences acting upon them over the interval between approximately 1688 and 1818. Similarly, to understand the Venetian influences on the British liberals, from Locke through Bentham, Pitt, Castlereagh, Canning, and so forth, one must be able to situate those interacting developments of the 1688-1818 interval as a type of development within modern history.
Briefly, then, to situate the 1688-1818 period so, and then return to Conti et al.
For reasons to be supplied below, the use of the term "modern history" should be understood to signify the time beginning with the emergence of what is called the "Golden Renaissance."61 Within that approximately six-hundred years of Modern History to date, the interval from approximately 1688-89 until the so-called Carlsbad decrees of the post-Vienna Congress' aftermath, is marked off as a distinct phase of modern history, during which Venice played its last phase as a state, a state which exerted still a peculiar kind of world power through its diplomacy, its foreign intelligence service, and its still-central position in controlling international finance. This is Venice from the time its invasion of the Peloponnesus,62 through the Venetian agent Count John Capodistria's controlling role in the 1814-1815 Vienna Congress and its aftermath.63
Conti bore a long Venetian tradition of destabilizing western Europe from the inside going back to no later than the time of Charlemagne. The immediate issues of Conti's concern are adequately represented in the developments within modern history during his time. Yet, to understand the new, one must identify the collapse of the old.
About six and a half centuries ago, the economy of Europe had collapsed into what historians recognize by the name of Europe's "New Dark Age," the greatest economic and demographic collapse of Europe since the collapse of the Roman Empire—from about the time of the Emperor Diocletian (for example).64
This "New Dark Age" had its roots in the so-called "Fourth Crusade," beginning circa a.d.: 1204. By means of this war, Venice used the pretext of a Crusade to conquer, loot its former patron and its principal rival, Constantinople, establishing the long occupation of the region by the Latin kingdom.65 Venice emerged from this as the leading power in the Mediterranean world. It used this power as a lever for taking over all of western and central Europe through usury and related forms of corruption.
In the last part of the reign of the Holy Roman Empire's ruling house, Frederick II and his son Conradin, Venice used this accumulated maritime supremacy, its control of trade and banking, and its increasing control over Italy to orchestrate warfare and usurious looting throughout western and central Europe, at the same time that Venice's Mongol friends were menacing all of Europe from the east.66 So, from the middle of the Thirteenth Century until the period of the Black Death pandemic's spread into western Europe a century later, Europe waned in accelerating economic and demographic decline. The general estimate from the vital statistics and correlated evidence laid down during that period, is that the population of Europe was approximately halved by the famine and disease caused by economic decline, even prior to the eruption of the Black Death pandemic there.67 The central feature of this was the Venice-coordinated Lombard banker's use of usury as the means for profitting immensely from the internecine warfare which Venice orchestrated throughout Europe.68
Thus, during the middle of the Fourteenth Century, much of this power of Venice abruptly disintegrated. This disintegration erupted as the sudden, chain-reaction collapse of the worst financial bubble of debt-speculation in history until the 1972-1994 period. The disintegration of the Venice-controlled financial system of Europe was aggravated in after-effects by the arrival of the Black Death pandemic, whose spread was fostered by the unsanitary and other immune-suppressing conditions caused by Venice's orchestration of intermingled warfare and usury over the preceding hundred-odd years of Europe's economic decline from the high point reached earlier under the Staufer emperors, Frederick I ("Barbarossa") through Frederick II.69
As in every similar case in past and modern history, this medieval collapse of the Lombard debt-bubble caused a corresponding collapse in the power among the great oligarchical families who had risen to virtually unrivalled power, as allies of Venice, during the preceding hundred-odd years. At the same time, the Papacy was thrown into virtual disintegration through the cumulative effects of Venice's corrupting games of feudal rivalries.70
In this Classically tragic71 circumstance, the forces of a renaissance emerged into positions of growing influence. These forces were centered around the networks which had been established by Dante Alighieri, and continued by Petrarca. During the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries, the history of Europe, and then of the entire planet, came to be dominated, to the present day, by a ferocious conflict between the forces of good, the Renaissance, and the forces of evil, the oligarchical network of usury-based powerful families allied with Venice.
If we grant that there are obvious distinctions of quality between medieval and modern history, is there a well-defined dividing line between the two? Do they shade into one another, gradually, over a long period of time when the history may be fairly described as a bit of both qualities; or, is there a well-defined dividing-line, some provable singularity, some difference in generating principle, which places one period of history before that dividing point, and the later period of history in the new? If there is a provable dividing-point, how and when, at what singular point of discontinuity did Modern History begin?
For reason of the circumstances under which that ecumenical council had been assembled, and the reunification of the differing rites achieved,72 the rational agreement by the combined rites on acceptance of the truth underlying the Latin principle of Filioque brought implicit acceptance of the principles underlying the new institutions of lawful nation-state republic and scientific progress as the mandate given to the republics.
Modern history superseded medieval at that moment that the institutions which singularly distinguish modern from medieval history were put into place. That development occurred at the point Patriarch Isidor and other representatives of the Eastern Church convened at the Council of Florence accepted Nicolaus of Cusa's argument and supporting evidence, showing that the Latin Filioque of the Creed was implicit in the understanding of early councils of the united Church.73
From the year the basis for the emergence of those new institutions was established, a.d.: 1440, Venice, the leading representative of the old, declared war on the new. That war between the heritage of the Renaissance and the tradition of Venice has been the characteristic conflict within European civilization from that day to the present day.
What were those new institutions? There are two new institutions which are most characteristic of the singular point of difference between all human existence prior to a.d.: 1400, and modern history: (1) the conception of the modern nation-state republic under the governance of natural law as the organizers of the Council of Florence understood the Christian principle of natural law74; (2) the central role of the fostering of scientific and technological progress in the morally obligatory functions of such a new form of state.75
The very existence of the commitment to these new institutions, even by a significant minority within European civilization, made the existence of those institutions an efficient principle of interaction within European culture as a whole.76 To restate this crucial argument: their existence as institutions, in any part of Europe, changed everything in all of Europe, in the degree that all of Europe must now adjust its behavior to this efficient fact. To restate it once more: since these institutional changes increased the rate of development of the per-capita and per-square-kilometer power of mankind over nature, their very presence changed the character of every part of the historical process with which they interacted. This interaction to that effect began virtually the moment the relevant ecumenical agreements were reached in the Council.
For example: Venice correctly perceived accurately the developments at that Council as a relatively immediate threat to the most vital interests of the Venice financial oligarchy and the state. She reacted by such means as enlisting Scholarius of Mount Athos ("Holy Mountain"), among others, as Venice's ally against both the Paleologues and the Papacy, also recruiting Muscovy to the Venice side.77
Similarly, the Europe transformed by the chain-reaction influence of the Council's new institutions nearly crushed Venice out of existence, through the League of Cambrai; all of European history, from 1440 to the present time—the essential conflict within European, and later world civilization—has been the effort of Venice and its factional followers to destroy the form of modern nation-state and culture which came out of the work of the 1439-1440 Council.
Although Venice frustrated the efforts to establish such a new form of nation-state in Italy itself, the first success occurred under France's Louis XI, who approximately doubled the per-capita income of France during his reign, and defeated all of France's principal adversaries at that time, from England, Burgundy, and in Spain. Louis XI's success sparked a chain-reaction of efforts to establish a nation-state on this model, in Henry VII's England and elsewhere, assisted by such followers of Cusa as Erasmus and the Oratorian movement of which Erasmus and Raphael Sanzio were early leading figures.
The increase of per-capita power over nature fostered by these new institutions of the Renaissance produced dangerously powerful adversaries impeding the pathway of Venice's efforts to resume the kind of power it had had in the Mediterranean region prior to the mid-Fourteenth Century bursting of the great debt-bubble. Indeed, the adversaries of Venice's evil, led by an alliance between France and the Vatican, came to the verge of crushing Venice at the beginning of the Sixteenth Century.
Venice survived by corrupting its adversaries into making war against each other, breaking up the anti-Venice League of Cambrai.78 However, by 1582, a faction in Venice, led by one Paolo Sarpi, had selected London to be the capital of a new Venetian empire.79 These Venetians understood, and argued that Venice could not defend its position in the north of the Adriatic indefinitely; the oligarchical families of Venice must cultivate a new base of operations to set up a global financial and maritime power capable of crushing the new kinds of institutions out of existence.80
Sarpi's 1582 factional victory over his opposition inside Venice meant that the power of Venice was committed to a full takeover of England, preparatory to transforming the British Isles into a bastion of Venetian-style oligarchical thinking capable of becoming a global maritime power analogous to Venice's lost domination over the Mediterranean region. The assassination of Christopher Marlowe, and the Cecil role eliminating Elizabeth I's adopted heir, Essex, typify the bloody intelligence warfare which was once again echoed in England's late Sixteenth Century following the Sarpi faction's policy victory in the Venice of 1582.
Admittedly, it had been Venetian agents, from 1517 onward, which threw the Howards' ill-fated temptress Anne Boleyn at Henry VIII, to drive him insane enough to break his precious ties to both France and Spain—and theirs to England. That was part of Venice's playing the former allies of the League of Cambrai against one another, seeking to destroy each, one by one, as Venice had played the aristocratic and royal varieties of feudal fools against one another during the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries. Whatever may have passed through the heads of various Venetian factions during the earlier decades of that century, as of 1582, the commitment to building up London as a "Venice of the North" was a formal commitment of the Venetian state, the adopted long-range strategic perspective of the majority of the Venetian oligarchy.
The role of Francis Bacon, his Thomas Hobbes, Elias Ashmole, et al., following the accession of King James I is tell-tale.81
The crucial event leading into the Venetian operations of 1688-181882 is the 1662 accession of Cardinal Mazarin's powerful protégé Colbert into the position of France's Controller General (of finances). France, already the leading nation of Europe in science, technology, and economy, was mobilized under Colbert's leadership into bold achievements which the Venetian patrons of London found most alarming. Given the superiority of France in science and technology, the development of France's maritime power under Colbert was a direct threat to Venice's strategic interest. In the effort to destroy France, Venice resorted to its old tricks of playing one nation against the other in debilitating, protracted warfare.
That brought Europe, and implicitly also the European colonies and other non-European regions, too, up to the events of 1688-1818. At that point, still powerful, but decaying Venice moved toward establishing London's position as the future capital of a neo-Venetian global empire. During this approximately 130-year interval, the Venetian gamemasters and their protégés adopted three principal objectives. These are listed for identification here; the relevant features of each of the three are treated at a later point.
(1) From the beginning, as early as the 1666 war, the object was to eliminate France as an obstacle to the emergence of London's global imperial supremacy, beginning with the destruction of France's credible threat, under Colbert, to establish maritime supremacy.
(2) From near the beginning of the Eighteenth Century, to defame and destroy the influence of Gottfried Leibniz; this was a central concern of Abbot Conti and his salon.
(3) From no later than 1763, to crush permanently the aspirations to political autonomy and economic development among the English colonies in North America; this was a task to which Lord Shelburne assigned his lackey Adam Smith during a conversation held on a carriage-ride in 1763.83
The 1763 Treaty of Paris marked the defeat of France's possibilities for challenging London's global maritime supremacy. The new task assigned by the Venetians then formerly associated with Conti's salon was to destroy France as a land-power, and to induce London to adopt those institutionalized commitments which would guide it to establishing a world-empire according to Venice's approved principles of a global, oligarchical model.
For this latter "sociological" purpose, the Locke model of empiricism was not adequate; deference, even corrosive deference to custom was not a tolerable trait among those who must be trained and selected as Britain's ruling elite. For this work, the Venetian controllers of London required the change to the radical empiricism of a "hedonistic calculus."84
Here lies the specific historical significance of the promotion of Ortes' writings by the Venetian salons shaping the collection of veritable juvenile delinquents composing Shelburne's "Kindergartn en"—figures such as Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, Thomas Malthus—of post-1763 Britain. Thus was imperial London established under Shelburne as "The New Venice." Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell and his followers are the end-product of that metabolic process.
The 'Brutish Empire'
Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell became an evil person because he was developed to become a representative of his family heritage. That heritage represents a philosophical type. In contrast to the Renaissance, of which Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell's family was an avowed enemy, all modern empiricism, including its existentialist and positivist derivatives, is based upon the same type of rejection of any principled distinction between mankind and the beasts. Thus, Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell's utopia were fairly named a "Brutish Empire."
There was already the Seventeenth-Century bestiality of Bacon, Hobbes, Elias Ashmole, John Locke, et al. However, out of the salon of Venice's Abbot Antonio Conti, the single most important direct influence upon the culture of Eighteenth-Century England, was that radiated from salon member Ortes' writings. Ortes and his depraved British dupes, such as Adam Smith, Bentham, and Malthus, represent what is called radical empiricism, which is the same thing axiomatically as the Nineteenth-Century French radical positivism introduced by the circles of Abbot Moigno: LaPlace, Cauchy, Comte, et al.
British radical empiricism, and its bastard child, French Restoration positivism, is, like philosophical liberalism generally, a rejection of the idea of any scientifically knowable distinction between man and the beasts. All liberalism rejects the existence of intelligible truth, on the same philosophical premises. The radical empiricism of the late Eighteenth Century carries this immorality of the liberals to the extreme, by reducing all apprehensions of human behavior to the mechanistic terms of a linear algebra modelled explicitly upon that of Galileo and Isaac Newton.85 That latter, radical transformation of the previously established empiricism of John Locke, et al., was the specific product of the influence of Conti's salon upon England, a radicalism infused directly through the work of Giammaria Ortes.
Thus, all British radical empiricists, and their bastard French offspring the positivists, were bred to become what is recognizable today as behavioral psychologists, in one or another academic disguise. This includes not only the new pseudo-sciences of ethnology, anthropology, Wundt's psychology, and sociology introduced during the post-1814 French Restoration's Nineteenth Century. Through such forms as the pragmatism of William James and John Dewey in the United States, for example, this poisonous influence corrupted nearly every aspect of modern culture and education there. Through the ethnologists (anthropologists), the sociologists, the psychologists in the traditions of Wundt, the behaviorists generally, psychoanalysis, and institutions such as the "Frankfurt School" and London Tavistock Clinic and Tavistock Institute, humanity under the emerging world-empire of the U.N.O. is rapidly becoming a multicultural zoo of persons degraded to the status of "just another animal, like the rest."
transformation, whose echoes are typified by all of the leading influences
sponsoring the proposals for the September 1994 Cairo Conference on population,
is today's distilled embodiment of an evil far more extreme than that earlier
phase represented by the Venetian Thule Society's Adolf Hitler.86
From the presumption that mankind is "just another animal species," any
monstrous immorality may become enthroned law, such as a Nazi holocaust, or the
same method may be employed as apology for such sub-human behavior as ritual
cannibalism, or the savage rituals of brutish Aztecs or other depraved forms of
cultures. Out of "indigenists' " defense of the hideous Aztec culture, comes an
utter abandonment of any semblance of morality; for example, there may come
sympathy for the kindred evil of Adolf Hitler, or, worse, Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell
's one-world and kindred utopian projects.
Consider in this light the invitation to former U.S. Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger to deliver a commemorative, May 10, 1982 public address in London, celebrating the two-hundredth anniversary of Jeremy Bentham's founding of Britain's imperial foreign intelligence service. On that occasion, Kissinger bragged publicly that he had acted as an agent of British foreign-policy influence, behind the backs of two U.S. Presidents, while he was serving as National Security Adviser and Secretary of State.87
Note with special interest Kissinger's references to policy conflicts between the U.S.A. and the British Empire, as typified by the quarrels between President Franklin Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston Churchill over what Roosevelt identified, with a certain pungency of expression, as "British Eighteenth-Century Methods."88 Note that these are the motives for the attacks upon President Clinton by the faction of British intelligence and its allies represented by Conrad Black's Hollinger Corporation,89 the Hollinger Corporation's Henry A. Kissinger, John Train, the traditional British intelligence service's assets among the so-called U.S. "neo-conservatives," and the Bush League faction of the U.S. secret-intelligence community generally.
Since the Renaissance, all European civilization has been divided into but two principal, contending factions. The one faction is that Platonic current which is Christianity in the tradition of the Moses of Genesis 1,90 of such exemplary documents as the Gospel of John, the Epistles of Paul, and the work of Augustine, which organized the Golden Renaissance.91 The opposing faction is typified by those who, like monks Conti and Ortes, sometimes wore the Venetian mask of feigned Christianity, but are condemned by their own writings as agents of some pagan Mephistopheles, Moloch, Baal, or that Jekyll-Hyde Deity of the pagan vale of Gaia, Python-Apollo-Dionysos.92
Three institutional features interdependently characteristic of the Renaissance have been the principal issues for Venice and its oligarchical allies: (1) the Renaissance's replacement of a system of nested covenants and fealties (the imperial form of society) by a form of sovereign nation-state republic based upon a Platonic Christian notion of intelligibility of natural law93; (2) The principle of the new state's function of fostering generalized scientific and related progress in knowledge and improved practice94; (3) the notion of intelligibility of the laws of the universe to persons, through the development of that divine spark of reason which is the aspect of man in the image of God: both imago Dei and capax Dei.
Venice, sensing the power flowing from the application of these three interdependent sets of ideas, knew that its power, its very existence was mortally threatened. All European history since that time has been shaped predominantly by the efforts of the Venice-led oligarchy to crush out of existence this three-fold institution of the Renaissance. It may be said fairly, that those who do not understand this to be true, know virtually nothing essential of the internal dynamics of the history of the Twentieth Century, of the past six centuries of European and world history, or concerning the vital issues immediately confronting us today.
Prior to this Renaissance, there is no known instance of the existence of such a form of republic in all of human existence. On the basis of evidence yet to be identified here, below, it can be reasonably inferred that none such could ever have existed. The first proposal for such an open break with the old imperial system was Dante Alighieri's electrifying De Monarchia.95 Then, at the beginning of the Fourteenth Century, the political and financial power of Venice in the Mediterranean region was near to its zenith96; Dante's proposal was tactically hopeless under those immediate political conditions, but the proposal lived to be implemented during the Renaissance.
Dante's design was centrally premised explicitly upon the importance of a literate form of popular language. This premise is demonstrated by his work reviving the ancient Italian language from its conquest by Rome.97 His masterpiece, the Commedia, is a prime exhibit on this point98; the work of Dante and his followers on poetry and on the relationship between poetry and musical composition, is also relevant background for reading his De Monarchia.
If a people is to participate in self-government, to the effect the interdependent notions of imago Dei and capax Dei require, they must participate in the ideas by which society is self-governed. Ignorant, illiterate persons can not participate competently in self-government; they do not know what the issues of government are! Indeed, as for the African-American slaves of the Nineteenth-Century United States, literacy is the first condition of freedom. Thus, the issues of literate language and of corresponding levels of knowledge are crucial for instituting among men and women those forms of self-government which do indeed fulfill the requirements of Christian teachings. The degeneration of a people into a babble of competing, relatively brutish local dialects prevents stable self-government. The substitution of a system of covenants, conquests, and fealties for self-government, is thus to be judged an hubristic offense against Christ.
Dante's conceptions were kept alive over the course of the Fourteenth Century by intellectual heirs such as Petrarca. In Florence, literate Italian was brought to the people by such means as daily readings from the text of the Commedia. It is the ideas of Cusa's Concordantia Catholica and De Docta Ignorantia, situated in the setting of the Council of Florence, which established the new threefold institution of a modern nation-state republic, committed to scientific and related progress, and self-submitted to the principles of natural law known by means of that spark of creative reason which sets mankind absolutely apart from and above the beast.p>It was not such an easy matter for Venice to crush this Renaissance and its new social institutions. The point is illustrated most dramatically by combining the two statistical curves covering ancient to present-day population-densities and demographic characteristics of populations. [see: Figure 1] Prior to the Renaissance, the population of this planet never reached more than several hundred millions persons; the curves show that under the influence of the new form of nation-state and related institutions introduced by the Renaissance, the power of the household and person zoomed upward, both per capita and per square kilometer of the planet's surface. Also the attainable levels of normal life-expectancies and conditions of health improved together with the increase of population-density, wherever Renaissance policies prevailed.
This aspect of the matter is pointed up clearly by the effect of Louis XI's reforms in France, where the per-capita income approximately doubled during his reign. The work of Leonardo da Vinci99 and the military and related writings of Niccolò Machiavelli100 make the same point. By increasing the power of a society, per capita and per square kilometer, we increase not only its military potentials, but its general strength in depth in other relevant respects. The enemies of the Renaissance might attempt to eradicate the institution of nation-state and scientific progress, but until that suppression had actually occurred, the enemies of the Renaissance must adapt themselves to its impact or be crushed by failing to do so.
Since the dissolution of the League of Cambrai, until now, the enemies of the Renaissance have succeeded, on balance, in increasing their control over the financial and political institutions of the planet. Witness the rise of London as the "Venice of the North" since a.d.: 1666-1688, to victories in repeated wars against France, then against the allies of the Vienna Congress, to the emergence of the global form of the British Empire during the Nineteenth Century, and, now, since the collapse of the Soviet system, the attempt to transform the United Nations into the instrument of London's global dictatorship: a "world federalist" form of world empire: a "Third Rome," or in the German of Fyodor Dostoyevsky's Moeller van den Bruck, a Third Reich.
To accomplish this, imperial London has been required to adapt to those very institutions it intended to destroy. Until the turn into a "post-industrial New Age," following the assassination of U.S. President John Kennedy and the consequent awesome intimidation of President Lyndon Johnson, the overall trend in world productive technology, in productive powers of labor, and in trends of demographic standards of life was overall upward—despite all the evils and oppression which oligarchism and illiterate ignorance imposed upon most of the world's population.
Not until Soviet General Secretaries Khrushchev and
Brezhnev had submitted to the nuclear-terror condominium proposed by Satanic
Lord Bertrand Russell
, and the U.S.A. had acceded to this scheme of "mutual and assured destruction," did the oligarchy have the strategic possibility of successfully transforming the United States and western continental Europe into "post-industrial" refuse-heaps over the period 1966-1994.
A bit later down the road, during late 1989 through
Summer 1991, once the Soviet system had lost its potential capabilities for
reversing the agreements which had been reached through Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell
's Pugwash channels, the oligarchical faction centered in imperial London unleashed Venice's five-centuries-long commitment. Those whom the 1982 Chatham House Henry Kissinger had proudly exposed as his masters in the British foreign-intelligence service, ordered their "go-fers" of 1989-1991, the pathetic pair of Margaret Thatcher and George Bush, to set into motion their "new world disorder" leading into the dissolution of the sovereign-nation-state institution, leading toward the establishment of U.N.O. Malthusian dictatorship over this planet forever. Hell had come to rule on Earth, riding beside George Bush on the train of Lady Thatcher's broom: Apocalypse threatened!
Since the time of Solon of Athens, the greatest composers of Classical tragedy in the tradition of Aeschylus, Cervantes, Marlowe,101 Shakespeare, and Friedrich Schiller have worked to develop the dramatic stage as a powerful vehicle for imparting a true sense of history to audiences.102 Hence, a reasonably competent study of history, or political science in general, includes obligatory study of the Classical tragedy of these five great masters and of others.
That method of thinking about real history is enriched by employment of the same principle of mastery of geometry and physical science used in the Classical Christian Humanist mode associated with Groote's and Thomas à Kempis' the Brotherhood of the Common Life, and by the Schiller-Humboldt Nineteenth-Century reforms of Gymnasium education in Germany.103 This method is described by the present author in various published locations, most emphatically in his treatment, referenced above, of the imagery of Raphael's famous "School of Athens."104 Let us now apply those two methods, the method of Classical tragedy as best apprehended by Schiller, and the historical principle of a Classical method of scientific education, to the paradoxical subject-matters of Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell and his "Brutish Empire" utopianism.
Immediately, here, we address the comprehension of modern history's sweep in terms of interacting types of sequences of developments. That puts the issues on stage, so to speak, as the Classical tragedians would do. In the subsequent section, we address the role of ideas in history.
Mind Over Mortality: A Lapsed-Time View
So, before proceeding further, we must now bring the rise and decline of Venice's "Brutish Empire" into focus, for the purpose of showing the coherence in all of these and related issues of the recent six centuries. The principled difficulty impeding the typical reader's comprehension of history is the cultivated habit of looking at the facts of history selectively, from the vantage-point of one's mortal, and ever-hesychastic umbilicus. It is chiefly that specific difficulty which we must overcome.
To the purpose of supplying a practical remedy for that impediment, let us employ a ruse of modern biology; let us apply the technique of lapsed-time photography to the six-plus centuries under review. By means of this experimental ruse, let us bring all of this span of history into the focus of the contemporary mortal individual's powers of perception, employing for that purpose the solution-method embedded in Plato's Parmenides.105 By reducing the facts of these centuries to that analog of a cinematographic representation, let us condense this history into the form of an experience by the mortal individual.
What the typical putatively educated individual believes about history is nonsense or worse, a kind of lie, in fact. It is nonsense according to the principle of fallacy of composition. It is a lie, because the individual's resort to such fallacy of composition is witting. He (or, she) is imposing a false philosophy upon the selection and interpretation of the evidence, and refuses, on the grounds of adhering to "our way of thinking," to entertain any criticism of the appropriateness of that philosophy itself.106 In that mode, those deeply embedded habits of both the street and classroom have taken on the quality of axiomatic mental and social behavior within the victim of such conditioning. It is important to provide that victim with a pedagogical prosthetic device, by means of which history is made accessible to him in terms of even his own limited powers of comprehension. "Lapsed-time photography" has an appropriateness which is more or less self-evident.
To assemble such a lapsed-time portrait of the origins, rise, and fall of Venice's imperial London, the configuration of more than six centuries of events is required: according to two principal types, under the governance of a third type, which latter is the interaction of the other two.
Instead of arraying the events and related facts in the foolish way the Eleatics and Sophists did, statistically, apply the lesson of Plato's Parmenides; adduce as the crucial facts of the series, the characteristic quality of change107 which defines the relationship among successive sets of events in the historic sequence. So, in the first series, we have changes which are generated by the principles of the Renaissance; in the second series, changes generated by the oligarchical principle of Venice and its accomplices; in the third series, the generating principle is the interaction between the first two series, this under the governance of the interaction between the first two generating principles. Thus is the analysis of historical processes rendered comprehensible, by examining them as processes composed through the interaction of types.
Consider some highlights of such a lapsed-time portrait of the key events themselves. A few key cases are sufficient to situate the case of Conti and Ortes:
Mid-14th Century: A chain-reaction of reversed leverage collapses the Venice-dominated semi-global financial system, throwing Europe into virtual chaos, and shattering temporarily much of the oligarchical power of Venice and its accomplices.
Mid-15th Century: The temporary reunification of the Eastern and Western rites of the Christian churches at the a.d.: 1439-1440 Council in Florence, sets into motion a revolution in political institutions, whose emergence threatens Venice's efforts to resume the levels of world-power it had enjoyed during the Thirteenth Century.
Late-15th Century: Venice launches a counter-offensive aimed at destroying the Renaissance. On the intellectual front, it mobilizes the Averroeist Aristotle of the Twelfth-through-Fourteenth Centuries gnostic cults. Otherwise, Venice's espionage and diplomacy recruits the Greeks of Mount Athos to betray Greece to the Ottoman conquest, and establishes an alliance against the Renaissance with the rulers of Moscow.
Early-16th Century: The Papacy allies with France and other powers of Europe, the League of Cambrai, in an alliance committed to destroying this usurious enemy of civilization, Venice. By 1508-1509, when the forces of the League are at the verge of crushing the adversary, Venice strikes back with its "fifth column" forces of corruption, to divide the allies of the League against one another. Venice then goes on the offensive, where its faction remains to the present day.
Early-16th Century: Venice uses its oligarchical assets in northern Germany to incite the schism led by Martin Luther. This schism is orchestrated by Venice's funding of the publication of Luther's works, by Venice's control over the finances of the Hapsburg Emperor Charles V, then also King of Spain, and by the "peace-maker" role of the anti-Renaissance Aristotelian, Venice's Gasparo Contarini.
1517-1582: Venice's intelligence services move in on a crucial ally of Spain and France, Tudor England. Venice assets in England, the Howards, deploy seductress Anne Boleyn to corrupt King Henry VIII.108 Henry's induced lust for the temptress renders him an obsessed fool under the control of Venice's manipulations. Relations of England to both Spain and France are not repaired after that until the period of the Napoleonic wars and their aftermath: after 1814, when the post-Vienna Congress France of the Restoration and Napoleon III becomes a de facto political catamite under London's imperial domination.109
1582 Onwards: Out of a factional affray within Venice's oligarchy, that faction, the so-called "Giovanni," led by one Paolo Sarpi, takes the leadership.110 Venice is committed to base its strategy upon developing the northern Protestant regions as its Nordic bastion against the anti-Venice forces of the regions, such as France and Spain, more closely tied to the Papacy. Actually, Venice is playing both sides in a "balance of power" game, as usual.
16th and Early-17th Centuries: Venice launches empiricism from among the followers of the Padua Aristotelian Pietro Pomponazzi, such as the notorious Francesco Zorzi ("Giorgi").111 After the Sarpi factional victory of 1582, the effort of Venice to destroy the scientific method of Plato, Nicolaus of Cusa, Leonardo da Vinci, et al. becomes more energetic, adopting figures such as Galileo, Francis Bacon, Robert Fludd, et al. as part of the deployment of empiricism to destroy the vitality of science from the inside.112
Early-17th Century: Venice orchestrates the launching of the so-called "Thirty Years War" of 1618-1648, destroying Germany and much of the rest of Central and Northern Europe, while finishing off the already broken power of Spain.
Pope Deploys Vatican Diplomat Mazarin to Become Candidate Successor to Richelieu in France:113 It was Venice's orchestration of perpetual conflicts between France and the Hapsburg interests which was bleeding Europe into a threatened "New Dark Age." The result is a somewhat stable peace, organized largely by Mazarin during the 1648-1652 interval. Mazarin's protégé, the most capable Colbert, becomes temporarily the power behind Louis XIV's throne (1662-1683).114
Beginning 1666, Venice organizes 130 years of almost continuous warfare and debilitating internal intrigues against its principal adversary, France,115 until the power of France is broken, and France goes virtually under British mandate in 1815.
Early-18th Century: London comes increasingly under the direction of Venice's intelligence controller Abbot Antonio Conti.
1763-1793: London organizes and then coordinates the French Revolution of 1789-1793. In 1763, Lord Shelburne employs Adam Smith to work on projects intended to bring about the destruction of France and the crushing of the aspirations for economic development and autonomy among the English colonies of North America.116 Shelburne, as Prime Minister of Britain, conducts secret peace-treaty negotiations with the newly independent American colonies and France; imposes Adam Smith's novel concoction, "free trade," as a condition of peace, intending thereby to bankrupt both the U.S. and France. In 1789, British intelligence assets such as the Duke of Orléans, Robespierre, Danton, and Marat, each and all directed by Shelburne's British foreign-intelligence service chief Jeremy Bentham, plunge France into the obscenities of the Jacobin coup d'état and rule.
Early-19th Century: After the defeat of and virtual British mandate over France, London prepares to destroy both the United States117 and its principal allies of the 1789-1815 wars against France. Against the U.S.A., it uses the opium-trading, treasonous "Hartford Convention" accomplices of Jeremy Bentham's British intelligence agent Aaron Burr. Against its former allies Spain, Russia, and Austro-Hungary, it deploys British intelligence's agent Napoleon III and the neo-Jacobin radical networks of British intelligence agent Giuseppe Mazzini.118
Close of 19th Century: London organizes for a coming Europe-wide general war, whose purpose is to finish off all European resistance to a "world-federalist" empire. The principal targets for mutual destruction in this war are Russia, Austro-Hungary, Germany, and the Ottoman Empire. The principal so-called "geo-political" motive for London's plans for such a general war is the collaboration, centered in proposed Eurasian railway development programs, between Russia's Minister Count Sergei Witte and France's Minister Gabriel Hanotaux. Should such projects mature, as Hanotaux and Witte intend, Britain's hopes of a world-empire were destroyed by the economic development of Eurasia which must result from carrying through Witte's policies.
Close of World War I: The utopian world-federalists, the hard core of the Venetian faction around Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell and World War I British foreign intelligence chief H.G. Wells, takes over. London views the ruinous effects of the recent war as clearing the way for efforts to establish one-world government along Venetian utopian lines.
Following 1953: The death of Soviet General Secretary Josef Stalin clears the way for Moscow's capitulation to Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell's demands for a nuclear condominium between the superpower blocs as a basis for developing the U.N.O. into a one-world dictatorship. The Anglo-American utopians move to unleash, beginning 1964-1966, an end to scientific progress ("post-industrial" paradise), aided by unleashing of the mind-destroying "rock-drug-sex counterculture" upon—first—the university youth-strata of North America and Europe.
Following 1989: The "collapse of the wall" is viewed in Prime Minister Thatcher's London as the end of the super-power controversy,119 clearing the way for the early transformation of the U.N.O. into a "one-world government" dictatorship, eliminating both the institution of the modern nation-state republic and scientific progress.
From the crucial decisions at the Council of Florence, until the present, is a span of 554 years. Since the bursting of the great Fourteenth-Century debt-bubble, which opened the way for the Renaissance to challenge Venice's oligarchism, is nearly 650 years. Although the institutions of statecraft created by the Renaissance were new, the underlying issues were not.
The evil of oligarchism is older than Babylon. In European history,120 the war between Venice and the Council of Florence is an echo of the war between the followers of Plato and those of the oligarchist Aristotle, or the uncompromisable conflict between the constitution of Solon's Athens and the oligarchic slave-system of Lycurgus' Sparta: that represents for us today a span of between 2,350 and 2,600 years.
Our immediate subject here, is that of recognizing the significance of the influence of an Ortes, more than two hundred years dead, not only upon Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell et al., and on the relatively immediate fate of our world today, the United States included. Our subject is implicitly: How ought we to shape our practical response to current events? Our answer here, is that we must see current developments in light of roots which go back in a rather immediate way even hundreds of years, or even longer. To make that conception itself comprehensible in a practical way, we must leave the mechanistic fantasies of Cartesian space-time, and adopt instead a sense of real history, a sense of the "boundedness" of a period of time which stretches back thirty to a hundred and thirty generations.
The History of Chronology
Before resuming our examination of the 650-year process we have just illustrated with our series of highlights, let us attempt to define what a magnitude such as 650 to 2,600 years ought to signify to the way we may understand current events.
Roughly speaking, a glacial cycle is determined by astrophysical cycles at approximately 100,000 years, with intra-glacial warming periods of approximately 10,000 years.121 The existence of mankind on this planet is currently estimated, on the basis of evidence, to be not less than about two millions years. The most recent melting of the glaciation began less than 20,000 years ago, with the oceans levelling off at about their present levels during the middle of the Second Millennium b.c.: , about the time the ancestors of the Greeks were invading the Mediterranean region as "Peoples of the Sea" in their Viking-like craft, as described by then-contemporary Egyptian portraits.122 [see Box] The geography of most of Northern Hemisphere, the courses of major and other rivers, and the levels of the oceans and seas have been altered radically during the most recent 200,000 or even 100,000 years of glaciation.123
What a tiny fraction of human existence these recent 2,600 years of European history occupy—perhaps about 1%! Yet, the archaeological and other relevant objective demographic evidence is that the development of mankind's power to exist has been greater during the recent mere six centuries of post-Renaissance European history than during all human existence earlier—near to 0.2% of all human existence, at most. Thus, we know far more about man—respecting "human nature"—from the recent six centuries of the development and impact of European civilization than from all of the millions of years earlier. When we take into account the debt of European civilization's development to the impact of Jesus Christ's ministry upon the level of knowledge developed by Plato's Academy at Athens, the relative weight of the recent 2,500 years of European culture is truly awesome.
The key to that science of history which one must
master to understand fully subjects inclusive of the Venetian case of Satanic
Lord Bertrand Russell
and the "Brutish Empire," is the distinction which sets mankind absolutely apart and above the beasts. Man is the only species which is manifestly capable of willfully increasing its power to exist—per capita and per square kilometer. This increase is premised upon discoveries, such as valid scientific discoveries of principles of nature, which, relative to any formal logical schema, have an axiomatic-revolutionary character.
The development of the human knowledge employed to this effect is the characteristic of human existence which does not exist within any animal species. Thus, the very existence of mankind, of particular societies, is never premised upon hedonistic traits such as those which characterize any animal species, or ordinary, simple interaction among the aggregate of lower life-forms within an environment. Human existence is characterized by the development of those ideas whose emergence, by the very nature of those ideas, impacts the power of mankind to exist, per capita and per square kilometer.
Thus, history can not be described in an actually rational form, except as it is viewed as the practical history of the axiomatic-revolutionary emergence and subsequent development and interaction of such ideas. The long sweeps of history, such as the conflict which has shaped the recent six centuries of European history, represent the unfolding and interaction of such ideas in their practice, and impact upon the development of precisely such ideas.
The concept of the punctum saliens, as identified by Schiller in his presentation of the principles of composition of tragedy,124 is also properly expressed as it has just been described here.
To understand historical processes, one must first apprehend a sweep of history in the terms outlined immediately above. One must then permit the types of ideas represented in that history to play out within one's mind as their stage. One must recognize that interplay within the actual history unfolding, in the sense of comparing the interplay of those types of ideas within one's own mind with the actual interplay manifest upon the stage of history.
One thus becomes, as a member of that audience, a participant in the history on stage, rather than a typical audience of "reckless bystanders," spectators commenting inanely upon the catastrophe they are witnessing. Such a participant in the audience of a Classical tragedy thus emerges from the performance a wiser and better person than entered the theater earlier. That is the principle of composition of Classical tragedy applied to the business of comprehending real history. That is the principle we are referencing by means of Socratic exposition here.
The moment we situate our personal identities within the domain of that view of the history of ideas, each of us is lifted out of the momentary span of our individual mortal existence. The moment we participate in the practical history of ideas as ideas, the span of six centuries on the Classical stage of real-life history becomes a drama in which we have a part, in which each of us has a relevant personal place. We assimilate, we act upon those ideas which are unfolding there. We able to assimilate those ideas, and to understand them as types. We are able to act upon those ideas, those types of ideas. Thus, efficiently, we are lifted out of the tiny confines of our mortal existence's time and place, into global history of ideas on the scale of centuries and longer.
That change in viewpoint affords us a far higher and vastly better prospect for comprehending the sweep of events in which our brief mortal existence is caught. It is from this vantage point that the formerly obscure becomes transparent, that the influence of Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell today is efficiently situated in the influence of Conti's salon upon Eighteenth-Century Britain, and that Britain is situated efficiently within its true origins within the recent six centuries of Venice's efforts to eradicate the new institutional developments of the Golden Renaissance.
That situates us to examine more closely the efficient relationship among Conti, Ortes, William Fitzmaurice Petty (Lord Shelburne), and Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell . We examine next the crucial features of those changes which mark the transition of Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell's precious David Hume, from a follower of Locke, into a follower, like Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell himself, of the Venetian Conti salon's Giammaria Ortes.
2. Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell : 'The Devil in the Detail'
Biology requires the investigator to rise above the methods of organic chemistry, and enter the higher domain of living processes. Similarly, to understand human behavior, one must leave behind "Brutish" methods of animal husbandry, to rise to the higher domain of that which sets all human behavior absolutely apart from and above all lower forms of life.
Were man a beast, the total number of persons living on this planet would never have exceeded a level approximately equal to that of the chimpanzees or baboons.125 By medieval European times, the population of this planet had exceeded man's primitive population-potential by decimal orders of magnitude. Presently, we have surpassed that by more than an additional such order of magnitude. [see: Figure 1] Had we employed adequately the levels of scientific knowledge developed by the time of the first manned landing on the moon, the potential population of this planet today would be about twenty-five billions persons, with a standard of living about that of the U.S.A. 1967-1969 or higher. Plus, we would have already begun, not only the exploration of, but colonization of space.
The distinguishing characteristic of all known human existence, and thus the characteristic feature of any species' standard for successful human behavior, is a continuing succession of increases in potential population-density, for which the only comparison among lower forms of life is successful biological evolution to a higher species of life-form.
This characteristic behavior of the human species is the generation of a specific type of ideas. These are those ideas which correspond paradigmatically to valid discoveries of more powerful principles of scientific knowledge, whether in natural science or Classical art-forms.126 The existence of the human species to date has depended absolutely upon such changes in man's relationship to mankind and to nature as have been generated by those types of ideas.127 In that strict sense, and no differently, it is admissible to employ the short-hand expression: the difference between man and lower forms of life is that the existence of the human species is determined by ideas.
It is the governance of human practice by ideas, as we define that here, which is the ordering principle of history. This is the principle which orders each among the types of successive events in a well-constructed lapsed-time image of history over a span of decades, centuries, or millennia.
Let it be understood at the outset of this
discussion, that valid discoveries of scientific principle are but a
paradigmatic portion of what the term "mental-creative processes" must be
understood to signify. With that restriction, it is admissible to focus upon the
crucial epistemological features of mathematical physical thinking. That
provisional inquiry provides the starting-point for a systematic comprehension
of the curiously perverted mental processes of the late Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell
. This also addresses a much larger, more fundamental issue, the role of transmission of ideas over centuries in shaping the history of the recent six centuries of European and global civilization.
This is of special importance as a prerequisite for understanding the British radical empiricism introduced to Adam Smith, Bentham, and Malthus by Ortes, and the bastard French offshoot of that radicalism, the positivism which emerged over the course of the recent two centuries from the post-Restoration circles of Abbot Moigno's followers. This is indispensable for understanding the systematic evil permeating all of Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell 's known work in every field.
As indicated above, this author did not take Satanic Lord
seriously until the middle-to-late 1950's. That re-examination occurred as an indirect result of the author's own discoveries of 1952.128 Those discoveries made readily transparent the vicious incompetence of Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell
's mathematics work, notably the sophistry upon which the entirety of the Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell -Whitehead Principia Mathematica is premised axiomatically.
For the benefit of those who might wish to argue that that examination proved no more than that Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell was a nasty sort of idiot savant in the natural sciences, let it be taken into account, that once the scope of Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell's mathematical and related philosophical writings is considered from the standpoint of Leibniz, Riemann, and Cantor, the systematic features of Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell's evil, and his connection to Ortes' "methods of Galileo and Newton" are clear beyond doubt.
To that end, situate Conti, Ortes, Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell , et al. within a six-centuries' history of science, a history which both parallels and intersects the lapsed-time portrait sampled in the preceding section.
Perhaps Mephistopheles began his corruption of the damned soul routinely with a very tiny little sin. Without doubt, that is the way in which what might seem to many an almost undetectable sleight of hand, a so very tiny apparent blunder, unfolds to become the irredeemable evil of the notorious Principia Mathematica. For reasons to become clear, the author can hear Johannes Kepler laughing happily in the distance from where he dwells, somewhere above.129
Only a tiny error? Tiny, like a leak in a Netherlands dike, and, as we shall point out, approximately as devastating.
In 1931, a very gentle, self-effacing young
mathematical genius, an Austrian by the name of Kurt Gödel, submitted a paper
which implicitly obliterated all of the mathematical work of Satanic Lord
, and also debunked some very pompous, related absurdities of hesychasts such as John Von Neumann. Considering the content of his remarkable paper, the degree of personal modesty with which Gödel presented his argument, both orally and in his now-famous paper, is fairly described as "awesome."
That paper is entitled, in its English translation,
as "On formally undecidable propositions of Principia Mathematica and related
systems I."130 In principle, the kernel of Gödel's point is an echo
of the devastating proof against the Eleatic school supplied by Plato's
Parmenides approximately 2,400 years earlier; the conclusion presented was well
known to Leibniz,131 and had been addressed by such
Nineteenth-Century titans of science as Gauss, Dirichlet, Riemann (as we shall
note), Weierstrass, and also Georg Cantor.132 In short, the
mathematical-physical principles of the case were laid down fully more than a
decade before Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell's
hoax, and three decades prior to Gödel's 1931 paper. The
historic significance of the Gödel of 1931 is not that he had refuted Satanic
Lord Bertrand Russell
's sophistry, but that he had refuted Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell and the radical positivist school as a whole, on their own formalist terms. The resonating effect of his paper was therefore devastating at that time and later.
For our purposes here, we must address the same issue addressed by Gödel from a more fundamental, and traditional mathematical-epistemological standpoint, a more elementary and direct approach, that of Plato, Cusa, Leibniz, and Riemann. In any case, as will be reported here below, the origin of all of Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell's abortive attempts at gaining fame in mathematics is rooted in the attacks upon Gottfried Leibniz by Abbot Antonio Conti and his salon. It is by situating Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell's hoaxes with respect to whom Conti, Ortes, and Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell after them, are attacking, Leibniz, that the motive underlying the issues posed becomes adequately clarified.
Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell's putative contributions to Principia Mathematica133 touch a most crucial area of Leibniz's continued influence upon Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century physical science. That topic is conveniently identified as the "continuum paradox." The relevant succinct statement of that topic is highlighted by citing two relevant passages from the last section of Bernhard Riemann's famous 1854 Habilitationsschrift.134 Consider the issue as referenced by Riemann there: Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell's methodological frauds in the name of mathematics in the Principia will be shown to embody the crucial implications of the entirety of radical empiricism.
From the referenced White translation of that Riemann work, consider the following:
... there subsists an essential difference between mere relations of extension and those of measurement: in the former, where the possible cases form a discrete manifold the declarations of experience are indeed never quite sure, but they are not lacking in exactness; while in the latter, where possible cases form a continuum, every determination based on experience remains always inexact, be the probability that it is nearly correct ever so great. This antithesis becomes important when these empirical measurements are extended beyond the limits of observation into the immeasurably great and the immeasurably small. ... [W]hile in a discrete manifold the principle of metric relations is implicit in the notion of this manifold, it must come from somewhere else in the case of a continuous manifold. Either then the actual things forming the groundwork of a space must constitute a discrete manifold, or else the basis of metric relations must be sought for outside that actuality, in colligating forces [darauf wirkenden bindenden Kraeften] that operate upon it [emphasis added—LHL]135
A few lines later, appears Riemann's electrifying concluding sentence for the dissertation: "This leads into the territory of another science, into the domain of physics, which the nature of today's occasion [on the subject of mathematics] does not permit us to enter."136
Kepler, reflecting on his 1611 "Snowflake" booklet, would be very much pleased by that work of Riemann. To the careless observer, everything which is of fundamental importance in mathematics is disregarded as trivial, because it seems to him to be nothing in scale. We shall find Riemann's "immeasurably small" playing a crucial role in the work of Plato's Academy, about 2,450 years ago, as also up to the most recent work in exploring the "virtually null-dimensional" realities of modern nuclear physics.
Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell , for example, was familiar with this work by Riemann, and its relevance as counter to his own opinions.137 Yet, virtually no contemporary mathematician representing a positivist view like that of Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell , Von Neumann,138 or information-theorist Norbert Wiener139 has proven himself capable of understanding the crucial point made by Riemann in that passage.
From the standpoint of formal mathematics, the "continuum paradox" signifies that every effort using formal logic to perfect the continuity of a line, a surface, solid "space," or "space-time" fails. The failure is small, but its smallness does not lessen the fact that the failure is an efficiently devastating one in its effects. How small? "Immeasurably small," virtually null-dimensional.
Kepler, be assured, is chuckling again.
Riemann's "immeasurably small"140 is an ironical choice of descriptive term. These apparent lapses in the continuum, which no formal logic can bridge, are mathematically "virtually null-dimensional"; they have no lower limit to their measurable degree of smallness, yet the presence of their discontinuity can not be eliminated. They are what we must call "true singularities." Not only is formal logic unable to rid mathematics of their most abundant presence, but they have an extremely significant role in physics, as we shall identify one example of that at the appropriate place below.
Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell and his admirers have no defense against this. The continuum paradox was not dreamed up by Riemann. It is the central feature of Leibniz's Monadology.141 It involves a phenomenon central to the mathematics work of Plato's Academy. It was central to the work of Kepler before Leibniz, and was a central concern of such followers of Carl F. Gauss as Riemann's teacher Lejeune Dirichlet,142 and Karl Weierstrass, among numerous others. In the history of science, rigorous treatment of this problem is as old as the treatment of both "incommensurables" and the "Platonic Solids" by the mathematicians Plato, Eudoxus, and Theaetetus at the Academy of Athens. Modern science was founded on the basis of recognizing a crucial further implication of this problem.
While we conduct this necessary, and brief excursion, the reader should not lose sight of our purpose here. The issue is not a formal issue of mathematics and mathematical physics. This is being addressed here only in the degree this important detail of mathematical-physical principle is key to understanding the implications of Conti, Ortes, and Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell , and the historical implications of radical empiricism in general. The background for this is summarized now.
The Principle of Metaphor in Science
Although the roots of modern science are found in Plato's Academy of Athens, modern science as such began with Nicolaus of Cusa's De Docta Ignorantia,143 published in the setting of the 1439-1440 Council of Florence. It was Plato's Academy which first supplied a rigorous treatment of the problem of the "immeasurably small." The central formal feature of Cusa's breakthrough in mathematical science was his application of the solution-principle of Plato's Parmenides144 to effect a correction in Archimedes' constructive efforts at quadrature of the circle. Cusa's work bears directly on the issue of the same "immeasurably small." This case bears directly upon the central fraud of Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell's work in mathematics, a fraud which is also central to all radical empiricism and its positivist derivatives.
All of the issues to be addressed in exposing the implications of Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell's mathematics are covered in the present author's "Metaphor" series referenced above. Thus, taking into account the limited purpose of addressing this matter here, it should be found sufficient that we consider with minimal delay the several successive conceptions which are indispensable here, and refer the critic of our argument here to those earlier locations where the sundry aspects are treated at some length.145
(a) The Four Types of Mathematical Ordering
To bring the issues within the scope of the reader whose mathematical education is somewhat less than professional, the relevant features of Archimedes' approach to quadrature and of Cusa's correction of Archimedes' error, are summarily as follows.
The term "quadrature of the circle" signifies an attempt to construct a practical estimate of the value of a number, π, which represents an estimated ratio of the length of the perimeter of a circle to that circle's diameter.
Insofar as records exist, the more rigorous proof of the existence of a class of magnitudes not congruent with rational numbers was developed by Plato's Academy, following the lines of prior work by Pythagoras et al. As the geometric proof of the famous Pythagorean theorem is exemplary of this conception, there exists a class of magnitudes in geometry which can not be rendered congruent with rational numbers: incommensurable magnitudes, such as the hypotenuse of a right triangle. However, by use of the principle of geometric proportions, we can place these incommensurables between two magnitudes which are congruent with rational number orderings, showing that the incommensurable is less than the one of this pair, but greater than the other.
This concept was embedded in a tactic employed by Plato's student and collaborator Eudoxus, the "Eudoxian method of exhaustion," which was used by him and other Greeks to perform an early form of integration, treating the incommensurable volume of a pyramid or cone, for example, as a subject.
Archimedes used this Classical Greek method of Plato's Academy for his theorems on quadrature.
Choose a circle. Simultaneously inscribe and circumscribe regular polygons of an equal number of sides. [see: Figure 2] Increase the number of sides, at a constant rate of doubling, to a very large number. Since the radius (to the point of tangency of the circumscribed, or the apices of the inscribed polygon) remains constant, calculate the variable length of the relevant side and area of each of the triangles of which each polygon is composed. Determine thus, the perimeter and area of each of the respective pair of polygons. Average the perimeters and areas. By this method, without further improvement, the arithmetic value of π may be measured to any desired decimal precision for such purposes as carpentry, plumbing, or ordinary engineering tasks.146
Can it be assumed, therefore, that the series of polygons 2n converges upon identity with the circular perimeter? "No," replied Cusa: the polygonal and circular perimeters are of different "species," of which the circular species is higher.147 If one chooses a length of side no greater than 10-33 centimeters, and a diameter of the circle greater than any specified estimate for the size of the universe, there will always be a gap between the polygons and the circle; on other grounds, too, there will be progressively less congruence between the polygonal and circular perimeters as the number of sides is increased.148
At that point in the construction, Cusa made the discovery which set into motion the development of modern science. He stated that this construction proved that the circular perimeter is of a higher species of existence than the polygonal. Earlier, Plato's Academy had shown that measurable magnitudes were divided between two species, rationals and incommensurables. So Archimedes had viewed the matter; it had remained at that level until Cusa. Now, Cusa had shown that the incommensurables were divided into two mutually exclusive species; the first we term today the "algebraic" magnitudes; since the work of Leibniz and Johann Bernoulli during the 1690's, the second, the higher species discovered by Cusa has been identified as either the "non-algebraic" or, more commonly today, the "transcendental" domain. Later, Georg Cantor added a fourth species of magnitudes, the higher "transfinites," or "Alephs."149
So, we have, in succession, in order of rising cardinality (increasing "power"), four species of magnitudes: rational, algebraic, transcendental, and the higher transfinite species. Each of these four mutually distinct species of magnitudes is separated from its successor, of the higher species, by a gap, such that the higher can not be accessed formally from the predecessor, although the lower can be accessed from the standpoint of the higher. This gap in the upward succession is termed a logical discontinuity, or a singularity.
Cantor's Alephs, the domain of the higher transfinite, has the included physical significance of corresponding to what Riemann references in the cited location as "the immeasurably small" (Unendlichkleinen). We might term this the domain of "the virtually null-dimensional." This notion of such discrete and also efficient existences (e.g., objects) which have "virtually null-dimensional" magnitudes, has a very precise, central significance in the branch of physical science called Physical Economy.150
It must be recognized as a principle of knowledge, that no student could ever come to know a previously developed axiomatic-revolutionary discovery of valid principle unless the student has, in effect, replicated the original mental act of discovery by reliving it. That principle is most aptly illustrated by applying the solution-principle which Plato embeds implicitly in his Parmenides to the study of the four successive levels (powers, cardinalities) of mathematics just listed here.
This must be understood to recognize the devilish effect of the radical empiricist method in destroying essential faculties of judgment in its credulous victim. The close examination of Cusa's discovery of what we term today the "transcendental" domain from the standpoint of Plato's Parmenides, is the most direct way of illustrating the principle of creative reason in mathematics discovery.
Cusa's treatment of Archimedes' attempted quadrature of the circle is among the best conceivable illustrations of Plato's Parmenides. We employ that connection pedagogically here.
One of the simplest ways to set up the increasingly precise estimation of the rational approximation of π, after Archimedes' theorems on quadrature, is the following. Again: begin with squares, one inscribed in the circle, the other circumscribed. Then make finer approximations in a succession determined by halving the angle between the points of tangency of polygon to circular perimeter. This defines a general case for paired polygons: 2n [n = 2] sides. For each value of n
2, there is a corresponding estimate of a numerical approximation for |π |
The resulting, indefinitely extendable series of estimates, π : F(2n),
can be regarded in the light of the Parmenides as a "Many." What is the unity which subsumes all of these elements of the "Many" into a "One"? The answer, in modern language, is to treat the "Many" as a Cantor type. The answer is, thus, the change from 2(i) to 2(i+1). From the standpoint of geometric construction, the change is clear enough151 ; Cusa's recognition that circular action is a higher species of mathematical existence than algebraic magnitudes, flows directly from this.
The result is the recognition that the set of interdependent formal axioms and postulates of so-called "Euclidean" geometry must be superseded by adopting circular action as such in place of the so-called "Euclidean" axiomatic definitions of point and line, that we must abandon the notion of unbounded space-time,152 and that we must accept Nicolaus of Cusa's, Pacioli's, Leonardo da Vinci's, and Kepler's notion of a bounded physical space-time.153
(b) The Method of Mathematical Discovery
Once we have established ourselves in Cusa's domain of the transcendental, all of the arithmetic and algebraic realms, respectively, are accessible to us as a special, subsumed case of the transcendental. One can always reach the lower, the more primitive from the higher; the problem is, one can not reach the higher by a deductive analysis of the lower. How, then, does one reach the higher for the first time?
That question is the focus for all of the culminating work of Immanuel Kant's life, his famous Critiques.154 From the standpoint of a thoroughly Aristotelian formalist such as Kant, Plato's proposal that one discover a single unifying principle for the "Many" addressed in the Parmenides would be to go outside the deductive-inductive mode of formal logic, and to arrive at the answer by means of a "leap." That is the formal basis for Kant's obsessive vendetta against the work of Leibniz. That locates the crucial point at issue between Mosaic and Christian tradition, on the one side, and the Aristotelians, such as Pomponazzi and Kant, on the opposite side. This is otherwise known in the Classical literature as the issue of hypothesis; we shall come to that below.
Before addressing this matter of the apparent "leap," let us grant, since it is demonstrated to have occurred so often in history, that the "leap of discovery" bringing mankind to use of valid new principles does occur, and that successful students do relive many such leaps as an integral part of their educational experience. Acknowledging for the moment, the fact that this does occur, how do we represent the fact of this occurrence in physical science? Use the mathematical examples just referenced to show the answer to that question.
Pause for a moment to consider the following thought. Permit us to introduce at this point of the discussion what might appear to some an arbitrary definition. Let the reader understand, that from this point on in this text, we are using the terms "power" and "cardinality" interchangeably. On the one side, we are introducing this ascribed equivalence in the sense Georg Cantor, for example, employs the "sieve" of Eratosthenes to provide the student an intelligible notion of the equivalence of "power" and "cardinality" in number theory.155 As will be indicated below, the present author's discoveries in physical economy show that this notion of "power" has a most important physical significance, in addition to a number-theoretical one.156 With that in view, this special emphasis upon the use of Cantor's notion of "power" is underscored at this present instant.
In ascending "power" (cardinality), today we know four species (types) of mathematical functions: A = rational numbers; B = algebraic functions; C = non-algebraic, or transcendental functions; D = higher transfinite functions, beyond the transcendental. Access to the higher, successor species of function from a relatively lower is blocked by a formally impassable gap, a discontinuity, a singularity—although there is no difficulty in passing from higher to lower. This gap is "immeasurably small,"157 yet formally impassable. Consider: what knowledge can be extracted from these several facts of the history of mathematics?
At the implied insistence of Kepler, perhaps it is indispensable pedagogically that the crucial mathematical feature of Cusa's discovery of the transcendental domain, the ontological reality of the existence of the immeasurably small, be stressed again at this immediate juncture.
The commonplace fallacy of such persons as Isaac Newton, Samuel Clarke, Felix Klein, and Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell's besotted admirers among mathematicians, is to abandon the standpoint of Classical constructive-geometric rigor in thinking, in favor of a flight into the domain of arithmetic-algebraic fantasies: to assume that the apparent convergence of infinite series upon a boundary value signifies ultimate congruence with that boundary. In short, that there are no true discontinuities, no true singularities.
As we have illustrated the conception, by using a side of a regular circumscribed polygon no larger than 10@ms33 centimeters for a circle larger than any assigned size of the universe, it is impossible to conceive any point at which the persisting existence of an unbridgeable gap between polygonal and circular perimeters might dissolve from definiteness into fuzziness. The existence of the gap is not merely persistent, but absolute.
By constructive-geometrical rigor, we are emphasizing at this moment the notion that equivalence is dependent upon congruence by virtue of "hereditary" implications of a method of construction. That equivalence and congruence so defined must be shown in that way. Something is a part of the series of events of which it is generated as a part. For example, by this definition, the value of the hypotenuse of a 3,4,5 triangle is not the rational number "5," but the irrational (algebraic) number "5.000...000... "; a number is the way in which it is generated, by the function which it performs, rather than what it appears to be as viewed in isolation from the context in which it occurs.158
Cusa's discovery of the transcendental domain, not later than a.d.: 1440,159 was prompted by recognizing that this ineradicable gap between the perimeter of the "infinite" polygonal series and the circle is a difference in (what we term here) "power," or cardinality, placing the circular action in a higher species, unreachable by the polygonal series of algebraic numbers.
Each of the three higher species of magnitudes—incommensurables generally, transcendental, and Alephs—were discovered by a mental act comparable to the implicit solution-principle for the ontological paradox which Plato poses by his Parmenides. The apparent "leap of discovery" in each such case corresponds to the "gap" of singularity which separates the lower species from formal access to the higher.
Let us apply to that ordered series of species (of mathematical function) the same Parmenides solution-principle which Cusa applied to Archimedes' quadrature theorem. Let the succession A, B, C, D be the "Many." What is the "One"?
In Plato's theory of knowledge, each of the "leaps" corresponding to a singularity is a phenomenon of mental life designated as an hypothesis. Thus, for this case, we have hypothesis AB (the leap from A to B), hypothesis BC, and hypothesis CD. The question implicitly posed by comparing this situation to that of the Parmenides is whether or not there is a common principle of change which generates B from A, C from B, and D from C? If so, then that intelligible form of a principle of change represents what we know as an higher hypothesis. If, in science and Classical art-forms, there are several valid choices of higher hypothesis, the question, whether these are commonly subject to some higher, subsuming principle connotes hypothesizing the higher hypothesis.160
That quality of knowledge which corresponds to the solution for such a gap, i.e., hypothesis, is the proper definition of the term "metaphor."161
Kant, the least irrational of the historically prominent Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century opponents of Leibniz, professes to see something intrinsically unintelligible in the very idea of human creativity. On the premise of that false assumption, Kant rejects the Platonic principle of discovery (hypothesis) used by Leibniz. It is against the background of that Kantian formulation of the issue that Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell's mathematical follies—and those of all the modern positivists, such as such Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell followers Karl Korsch, Rudolf Carnap, and Von Neumann, as well as Norbert Wiener—are strictly identified and understood for what they are.
Essentially, these radical empiricists deny that human creativity actually exists. One might wonder, whence apostles of such an irrational dogma fetch the temerity162 to describe themselves as scientists?
(c) The Demographic Evidence
This creativity, which the empiricists, and the Aristotelians generally insist does not exist, is expressed most plainly in its essential function as the characteristic of the continued successful existence of society. It is, thus, nothing less than the successful existence of the society itself, which these misguided fellows overlook.
The British empiricists, and Aristotelians generally, place great emphasis upon sense-perception, but slyly evade those relevant sense-perceptions which would shatter their foolish philosophical prejudices. For an inhabitant of modern history, the evidence of the recent six centuries' changes in the population-density, productivity, and consumption of society is overwhelming evidence against most of what is either explicitly taught or implicitly assumed as philosophy and scientific method in universities today.
The "hard factual basis" for examining the effects of creativity, or its absence, upon the possibility of society's successfully continued existence,163 is called the science of physical economy.
It is shocking, and unfortunately commonplace, to encounter a professional scientist who blunders ahead in life, in blind ignorance of the existence of the physical-economic process which exists more despite today's financial markets, than by aid of them. If scientific ideas are sound, must they not imply a potential for increase of man's power, per capita and per square kilometer, over the universe? Is that relationship not a measurable one?
Those considerations are introduced at this point of the report, as precondition for locating the physical significance of the "immeasurably small" in a matter of no less importance than the successfully continued existence of mankind.
For any reasonably intelligent person who has a working experience with the management of modern manufacturing or modern agriculture, including skilled industrial operatives, no further special training is needed to guide one's hand in marking out a set of linear inequalities which fairly describe the prerequisites and effects of improvement, in terms of per capita, per household, and per square kilometer, in the productive powers of labor.164 Once that had been done, one would do two obvious things: (1) Examine the changes in productivity and composition of the social division of labor since the founding of our Federal republic in 1789, and (2) Examine this economic history of changes from the standpoint of the forecast of such changes supplied by U.S. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton in his December 1791 Report to the U.S. Congress "On the Subject of Manufactures."
Mankind exists by producing. Our households consume to exist, to be productive, and to develop the institution of the household and of the persons within it; our farms, factories, and essential infrastructure consume to continue to exist, to develop, and to be productive or otherwise useful.
If we wish to compare the two processes, consumption and production (or other necessary forms of output), we must define the labor-force as a common parameter of the households and of the sundry forms of both the productive and other necessary sorts of analogous enterprises. We treat the household as a whole as a culturally determined function of the reproduction of the members of the labor-force. We measure these functions of consumption and production in the place where they occur (principally), by relevant kind of land-use classifications for each such activity.
We have thus defined the general requirements for allotting statistics, according to total land area, and land-use portions, and in terms of values stated per capita, per household, and per square kilometer. We must incorporate "market baskets" as a way of expressing the relationship between the supply of necessaries and their consumption.
To shorten the account, in keeping with the purpose for which these matters must be mentioned at this juncture, our next step is the labor of refining the notion of "necessary consumption." Consumption for production by agriculture and manufacturing, for example, is readily understood by anyone familiar with the industrial-engineering preparation and use of bills of materials and process sheets. Since objective requirements of production processes are readily approximated, at least as a matter of principle, the problem area of that ongoing inquiry is soon narrowed to the matter of functionally necessary consumption of physical goods by households.165
In this direction of inquiry, the variable area on which attention must be focussed is soon narrowed to consumption of physical goods plus necessary levels of certain categories which are best identified as "infrastructure." We employ "infrastructure" to signify something which is not directly consumed by households or goods-producing enterprises in separable units, but whose presence or absence, diminution or increase, affects the productive powers of labor in a variable way. These include what we may term "hard infrastructure," such as water management, general land-improvement and sanitation, general transportation, general supply of power, general urban and related infrastructure. These also include certain rather well-defined areas of "soft infrastructure," such as general requirements of education, health-care, scientific development by both households and productive and related enterprises. This combination of physical goods and infrastructure embodies the variable determinants of potential levels of net productivity of society as a whole.
Thus, for example, the quality of constructive leisure, education, health, technological advancement, and general physical consumption by the household, has a functional bearing upon the relative potential productivity of average members of households with those consumption and related characteristics.
Successfully continued survival may be expressed as a functional conception: potential relative population-density. This notion combines, statistically, notions of per capita, per household, per square kilometer, for land-use, for consumption of physical goods, for hard and soft infrastructure. This bears upon life-expectancies, health-expectancies, school-leaving age, adequate public libraries, and so on. This is packed together thus as what is usefully termed "general demography."
Sitting up, after a spate of working through such historical studies of the recent two centuries of the U.S. economy, one has a sense of something very special about the recent six centuries of western European civilization. Look at the changes in the social division of labor! It is as Alexander Hamilton described it in his "On the Subject of Manufactures"!
As recently as the first decennial U.S. Census of 1790, the U.S. population was more than 90% rural; yet, relative to medieval Europe, this represented already a very advanced degree of urbanization. Relative to medieval Europe, most of human existence, then and earlier, had been truly wretched. For countless millennia, prior to the Golden Renaissance, much more than ninety percent of the population toiled with the soil, to provide itself a precarious hold upon a meager existence.
If we assume today, that over 60% of our total labor-force should be employed in either manufacturing or infrastructure, with less than 2% rural component required by modern technology, the majority of the employment in manufacturing should be in the capital goods sector, and a growing portion of that in the machine-tool sector, with between 5% and 10% of the total labor-force employed in either scientific development or related pursuits—the latter in order to keep the rate of flow of new technologies adequate to human needs generally.
These changes in the social division of labor are functionally related to the increases in potential population-density. That is to emphasize the rapid reduction of the average amount of land-area which is required to sustain the average person in a demographic well-being better than his or her parents and grandparents.
How has this occurred? Through the mutually reenforcing relationship between pure scientific progress and the investment of that scientific progress, as improved technology, employed in a capital-intensive, energy-intensive mode in increase of the productive powers of labor per household, per capita, and per square kilometer.
How did this function prior to the mid-1960's shift to a "post-industrial," "countercultural" cultural paradigm? How was it that one U.S. penny invested in President John F. Kennedy's aerospace "crash program" of the 1960's returned a fairly estimated fourteen cents to the U.S. economy? One would think every scientific thinker with a conscience would have posed and answered such a question.
The cycle begins in "pure science." To demonstrate a discovery, a proof-of-principle experiment is required. This latter is expressed in the construction of some sort of apparatus. Once a satisfactory experiment has been conducted and suitably refined, the refined form of the experimental design becomes the basis for adding a new, improved machine-tool principle to the repertoire of capital-goods designs available, and of product and process designs, too. The flow of improved machine-tools and related benefits, as investment, into production, combined with the flow of newly developed knowledge, results in a spreading increase in productivity of labor per capita, per square kilometer.
Put that type of scientific discovery, from which this benefit is ultimately derived, under an appropriate kind of microscope of the imagination.
The possibility of a formal mathematical physics rests, in first approximation (at least), upon achieving an approximate deductive consistency in the mathematical representation of the perceived physical relations which are chosen to be abstracted from the real process considered. In that degree, such a formal physics describes a consistent, open-ended theorem-lattice, such that all possible theorems which might exist within that lattice (within the bounds of consistency) are mutually consistent with one another and, above all, with each and all of the relevant set of underlying, axiomatic assumptions—stated, or implied.
To the degree we signify such a mathematical physics, we are implicitly obliged to recognize a qualitative distinction between the one kind of discovery, which is the generation of an added theorem to be incorporated in that lattice, and a discovery which forces the replacement of that entire lattice by a new one. Looking at the second type of case from the standpoint of the formalist, the new theorem is of a type which implicitly overturns one or more of the axiomatic assumptions underlying the previously accepted theorem-lattice. In other words, the discovery has an "axiomatic-revolutionary" character.
The following crucial observations on discoveries of the second type are now to be identified and then examined.
1. The discovery of each of the three higher species of mathematics is exemplary of a discovery of the second, or "axiomatic-revolutionary" type.
2. All such discoveries are of the type represented by the solution-principle of Plato's Parmenides.
3. Each axiomatic-revolutionary discovery, just because it is axiomatic, is unreachable deductively from the relevant theorem-lattice which it overturns. It is thus defined by an absolute discontinuity of this formal type. This discontinuity, or singularity, is effectively virtually null-dimensional.
4. All valid such axiomatic-revolutionary discoveries therefore form a series of a type or types.166
5. The axiomatic-revolutionary character of the discovery has the dimensionality of axiomatic change.
6. The nature of the axiomatic transformation effected is reducible to a type of such change.
7. Thus, the discontinuity marking such discoveries of the second type is virtually null-dimensional, but not empty. It has the qualities of change and power; it has the quality of causality.
What is the size and weight, the mass and velocity, of the thought which represents such a second type of discovery? Is the result not that which we associate with the impact of an increase in power? Is there some connection between the type of thought which prompts us to equate "power" and "cardinality," and "power" of the type we associate with man's increased power over nature per capita and per square kilometer?
Before suggesting the answers to those questions, consider the same demographic facts just outlined from a slightly different vantage-point.
(d) What Should 'Negentropy' Signify, If Anything?
Once it is discerned which produced elements of consumption are necessarily variables or simply preconditions for a certain level of productivity with a certain level of technology, express this as required input to the demographic process. Term this the relative "energy of the system." Compare this with the rate of output of those same types of components. The difference in magnitude between the two (per capita, per household, and per square kilometer) may be viewed as the relative "free energy" of the process. The ratio of the two, "free energy" to "energy of the system" yields a "free-energy" ratio.
In any healthy economy, that "free-energy" ratio is rising, per capita, per household, and per square kilometer. However, as inspection of physical-economic history over the recent six centuries shows, the maintenance of this needed "free-energy" ratio depends upon increase of the relative "energy of the system" per capita and per square kilometer:167 without an increase in the capital- and energy-intensity of the economic process as a whole, as well as at technologically advanced points of production, the net physical productivity of labor can not be improved, or even sustained.168
This is not only an ostensibly anomalous picture of any healthy state of a modern economy; it is crucially paradoxical. No ordinary thermodynamic representation of this is possible.
The cause of this anomalous correlative of successful economic growth is clearly defined, by isolation. Speaking paradigmatically, this cause is investment in scientific-technological progress.169
In making the statistical estimates which correspond to this case, we must discount the fact that the economies of so-called metropolitan countries have been heavily subsidized, during recent decades, by relatively very large net flows of capital out of the developing nations economy into London, etc. Without those subsidies of the "formerly industrialized nations" by the so-called "Third World" nations, the industrialized nations of the northern tier would have collapsed more than a decade ago.
The spectacle of post-1963 Britain collapsing into a "post-industrial rubbish-heap," while the London financial center ostensibly prospers from those profits of pure swindle called "invisible earnings" from foreign sources, typifies the need for discounting the statistics to reflect the net physical-economic growth generated through improvements in the national economy's own performance at home, and also net contributions to improvements in the global economy taken as a whole.
To resume the discussion of the thermodynamically anomalous picture of sustained growth: in brief, any economy which collapses into a state of "zero technological growth" will collapse from cumulative technological attrition (unless it postpones this collapse by looting other economies). It is infusions of what Hamilton named "artificial labor,"170 which are the source of the apparent "not-entropic" character of any successful physical-economic process, that is the source of the increased "power" over nature, per capita and per square kilometer.
There is only one place in mathematics in which this kind of power-function is found. Consider, for example, Cantor's series, Aleph-1, Aleph-2, Aleph-3, ... . Each term is of higher power than its predecessor, yet the entire series is of a strict type. Indeed, strictly speaking, the successive Alephs, from Aleph 1 upwards, should not be treated as simply successively higher types (species), but rather as the domain in which cardinality supersedes ordinary notions of denumerability in the function of ordering-principle. They form a series (a type) whose characteristic change is increase of power.
What ought we to signify by such observations? We must move beyond the territory of mathematics, into the domain of physics.171 To recognize that there is interdependency of the thermodynamically anomalous phenomena of sustained growth of modern economies with the "causal factor" of scientific discovery measured as a virtually null-dimensional singularity, is the key to economic science, and also the key to the history of physical science in general.
Look first at the biogeochemistry172 of the economic process. The planet Earth is a bounded system. The entire universe is a bounded system, too. Therefore, throw away, as useless for any practical application, the Cartesian manifold as employed by Galileo and Newton, et al. Look at the bounded processes whose development and character are essentially internal to the planet Earth; see this through the eyes of the Kepler-Gauss use of the subject of Pentagramma Mirificum as a way of furthering what Plato began with his understanding of the implications of the so-called Platonic Solids. Begin with our planet, and see our planetary civilization's changing relationship to the universe at large, in terms of the interaction of those two layers of bounded processes.
Look at the Earth, as if from nearby space. Look at what Vernadsky defined as the noosphere, which, today, is the relatively shallow covering of this planet inhabited by regular human activity. This stratum extends downward from the planet's land and water surface through mining; the balloon, the dirigible, and the application of Leonardo da Vinci's and Bernhard Riemann's anti-Helmholtz hydrodynamics to powered flight173 have extended man's reach upward. We have moved from the heights of balloons to the geostationary orbit around Earth which is our future base for an interplanetary travel freight and passenger terminal. Technology in sight will permit us to bring mankind's personal reach into space to within the limits of the asteroid belt, to limited Mars colonization by a "science city" base for astrophysical and related researches.
Already, the boundedness of the universe was shown not only by Plato's recognition of the implications of a delimited possibility for partitioning the interior surface of a spherical shell, but by Leonardo da Vinci's recognition that the radiation of light was bounded by limits upon a potential rate of retarded propagation, as this was measured by Christiaan Huyghens' student Ole Rømer in 1677, and used successively by Huyghens, Johannn Bernoulli, and Leibniz to establish the foundations for a modern physics of a complex variable.174 I am certain I hear Kepler acknowledging that this is consistent with his standpoint. As he would agree, most emphatically, there is a reciprocity between the boundedness of the universe in the large and the continuum paradox encountered in the "immeasurably small." If one wishes to master economic science, these matters must be mastered; if we wish the human species to survive the sundry looming threats variously nearly or distantly visible before us today, we must master that quality of economic science.175
Accordingly, the statistical application of economic science begins with the examination of the historical development of this relatively thin spherical shell, which Vernadsky locates as the noosphere. To help to overcome the fear and confusion which modern education fosters respecting anything to do with scientific work and conceptions, we must seek to bring home to the reader a sense of the reality of the subject-matter within which this unavoidable anomaly appears.
To afford the reader a sense of the concreteness, the reality of the work of applied physical economy, some of the features of statistical applications are now described briefly.
The core of the special problem in this case, is that economic processes are, on the one side, readily measurable, but, on the other side, those measurements themselves produce results which are not consistent with today's generally accepted notions of statistical or other mathematical functions. That is the anomaly. That is the source of the feeling of eeriness which the typical science graduate suffers when confronted with the simple showing of this anomaly.
Therefore, it should be most helpful to such readers, emotionally and otherwise, to situate the anomalous phenomena in their concrete setting. Then, the characteristics of economic science lose much of their strangeness, and the special problem of "negentropy" is more readily comprehended.
Review summarily the policy for applied physical economy specified by the Executive Intelligence Review News Service, Inc.176 Presume that the reader had a modern personal computer of relatively large capacity and power. Presume also, that, given this facility, and some talent in using such devices, that reader were to wish to set himself or herself up "doing applied physical economy."
Start with the graphics; it is crucial that the work begin with the graphics.
Start with an animatable Earth-ball, whose average surface of reference is the relevant, very thin ellipsoid shell situated slightly above sea-level. This should permit one to view Earth's physical geography as it appeared circa not later than 18,000 b.c.: , with projections of likely geography up to, at a minimum, a.d. 2200. It would be useful to have also one of the relatively low-cost and reasonably accurate animatable astronomical maps, to enable one to look at the night sky on any assigned date from any part of the planet back some eight-thousand years, or something approximating that.177 In addition to astronomy, correlate weather and other global phenomena with this Earth-ball model.
Correlate this Earth-ball with a collection of two sets of regional and local electronic maps. Use the positions of latitude and longitude on the Earth-ball to make this correlation. Two master sets of regional and local maps are required: physical geography, and political geography. These must be correlated with a cell-grid system, common to the physical and geographical maps, whose grid correlates geodetically with latitude and longitude. On the mapping of physical geography, the customary features of physical geography are located functionally. Man and his activities otherwise are located on the political mapping. The two mappings are overlapped in terms of land-use parameters.
The political mappings are, from the top down, continents, regions, nations, regions within nations, states (analogous to U.S. Federal states), U.S. counties, or analogous, and urban areas. The economic mappings are superimposed upon the correlation of physical and political geography.
Consider urban areas, for example. An urban area's land-use is apportioned among residential, industrial, commercial, parklands, and other municipal functions. One requires a grid which is sufficiently fine-grained to apply relevant statistics which are land-use-type related to the topical analysis of the land-area of this municipality. It would be convenient, as much as possible, to be able to assign entire cells to one of these land-use categories, or to such manageable approximations as "50% residential, 15% commercial, ... ."
People and persons and households, appear in this mapping in principally two ways: in residence, as members of households (chiefly), or as place of employment. When those persons are in neither of the two principal types of land-use location, but "in between," they are in transportation, visiting parks, city hall, or perhaps strolling about the city's sidewalks. It is sufficient, at first pass, to think of a percentile of the month's total hours spent in the residential area of the households, so many of those total hours in land-use area of employment, leaving a residual percentile for the "in-betweens."
Also, we must take into account the fact that people may reside in one locality, outside a city, while being employed regularly in that city.
Also, remaining for the moment with the urban case, we must superimpose basic economic infrastructure upon the whole complex of various land-uses. We should provide for noting capacity and utilization of water, sanitation services, power, educational services, medical services, scientific services, and so on by land-use types.
Land-use types are composed generally of "waste land," "reserve land," land utilized by transportation and closely related warehousing, land used for generation and distribution of power, "rural productive, other" "urban productive, other," and residential, etc. portions of the "rural productive" and "urban productive" areas. "Land-use types" overlap "land types" which themselves often overlap one another mutually: desert, tundra, mountain, forest, pasture, riparian, coastal, and marsh and swamp subsidiaries.
All of these and related structures of the economic study are in the form of graphics, with no demographic data yet "plugged in." We are thus prepared, conditionally, to situate such data in its appropriate time and place. The condition is, that for each decade of economic history of the planet or of the region being considered, the land and land-use types assignable to grid-locations vary, as the star-map varies by place and time.178 For U.S. statistics, the decennial census is a useful choice of periodicity for shifting from one land-use model to the next, treating interim developments as applications to modification of the land-use model established for the beginning of the decade.
Now, assign the data, learning from C.F. Gauss the principles for alloting observations to assigned places and times in physical reality.179
Above all: Any effort to generate a statistical forecasting model of the sort in commonplace professional practice today, is to be strictly prohibited. Insofar as the consequence of an action is mediated through a human agency's response to that action, all assumptions of behaviorist sociological and other dogmas recently or currently in vogue are incompetence per se, even absurdity per se.
The function of economic-statistical observation is not to assume how people will behave, but to show the effects of the way in which they did behave. Plug in the data-arrays accordingly.
Since health-care policy is among the leading topics of policy-discussion in the U.S.A. today, examine briefly now some of the applications of that to the kind of "modelling" just described.
The former post-war Federal standard for health-care was provided by the wonderfully neat, pungent and forceful Hill-Burton legislation, which the United States ought not to have abandoned, as it did under the influence of such mid-1970's follies as Felix Rohatyn's disastrous financial-looting operation for New York City, "Big Mac."180 The point is, if Joe Doaks or his wife falls down in the street, or is taken sick at home, or their son is stricken in the schoolyard, that person shall be treated promptly and adequately, and the financial implications of the events attended to after adequate care has begun and its continuation assured. During the post-war 1940's and 1950's, in the days of the post-war U.S. National (Economic) Security doctrine, when the U.S. population was still moral, as under the Administration of President John F. Kennedy and President Johnson's Civil Rights legislation, the right to life and health of every person was implicitly the standard of political behavior.181
Situate the impact of Hill-Burton goals in the graphics scheme of economic-data mapping described. To the extent Hill-Burton is representable in terms of the infrastructural logistics of delivery of health care reasonably proximate to when and where it is needed, what is the distribution of capacity for care?182 This typifies the logistical aspect of the "soft infrastructure" concept for health, education, and science services to households and productive functions alike.
Those kinds of studies, today technologically within the reach of small research organizations, represent an elaboration of the approach employed by this writer back during 1948-1951, in connection with his ongoing commitment to refuting Norbert Wiener's radically positivist Golem, the attempted application of statistical "information theory" to human behavior. The conceptual problem which the author addressed then, is the commonplace problem to be confronted in the course of any competent sort of economic analysis today. The issue today, as during the 1948-1952 period of the author's original discoveries in this field, is to put aside for the moment any prejudices respecting mathematical physics learned from the classroom, and simply to measure the comparison of successful and failed economic policies of practice as those distinctions occur in nature, whether taught thermodynamics likes that result, or not.
Entropy, as this is defined by Clausius, Kelvin, Boltzmann, et al., has a well-defined ontological character, an essentially mechanical character. Wiener et al. perpetrated the kind of fraud which implicitly justifies David Hilbert's expulsion of Wiener, as incompetent, from a Göttingen seminar. Wiener et al. employ a low-probability factor within Boltzmann's mechanical derivation of his H-theorem, the low probability that, in that case, apparent entropy might be reversed temporarily and locally.183 Wiener et al., make the wildly extravagant ontological assumption, that because neither living processes nor intelligent human behavior are characteristically "entropic," their characteristic "not-entropy" is to be neatly explained statistically as a temporary and local reversal of universal mechanical entropy, Wiener's abusive reading of his neologism, "negentropy!" Wild positivist John Von Neumann, fleeing from the avenging furies of Gödel's 1931 proof,184 performed an even cruder, but otherwise Wiener-like hoax in the name of economics.185
Through the influence of radical positivists such as Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell , Wiener, Von Neumann, and many others, the world of democracy has come under the ideological reign of madmen. In place of rule by old forms of flesh-and-blood individual despots and Babylonian, or Roman or Mongol or British military forces, we have entered into the Dantean Hell in which Walter Lippmann's utopia of induced public opinion reigns, induced by mass media, induced by democratic guises for Nazi Gleichschaltung,186 a more lunatic tyrant than a Nero, Dracula, Henry VIII, or Ivan "The Terrible" in the flesh.
In that spirit, in place of economic policies premised upon successful forms of economy, policy-shaping is ruled by the Von Neumanns, the von Hayeks, the Milton Friedmans, the "Chaos theorists," and even the Phil Gramms, who measure success not by the old-fashioned, objective performance of economies, but what is called the more "conservative" modernist standards of conformity with some recent radical-empiricist lunacy which has been awarded academic or Nobel Prize credentials.187 These dogmas, if put into practice, show a common, perverse quality of self-fulfilling prophecy.
It is fair to say of Thatcherism, one of this recent rash of extremist "isms," that she promised to purify the British economy of any economic practice not consistent with her dogma. In that particular aspiration, she succeeded; the British economy obediently died. Seeing the followers of Smith, von Hayek, Von Neumann, Friedman, and Sachs, one might think of an auto-mechanic who assures his client, "I am going to bring your automobile up to my standards, even if it kills you." Such is the way in which the U.S.A. and world economy is viewed by the "free traders" in London, Washington, or the Wall Street Journal; such is the way in which the economies of the "Third World" nations, sub-Saharan Africa most notably, are viewed by the followers of Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell , the Malthusian fanatics currently controlling the policies of the U.N.O.188
Apart from such fanatics as those, their cases but illustrate more luridly the vicious incompetence of the reigning liberal189 theoretical economists before them. All efforts to impose a linear model of performance upon economy must tend to have the practical impact of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Any economic process which is subjected to a form of policy-making which is itself based upon a "linear model" will be "linearized" by efficient enforcement of those policies; in that case, the economy will, in the relatively milder cases, undergo cycles of entropic collapse, or a more devastating collapse like that gripping the entire world presently.
Academics who fail to grasp this connection, will insist on babbling a post-mortem diagnosis on the state of a collapsed economy of this sort, "You see, the economy's behavior is linear, and also demonstrates once again a principle of universal entropy."
Both Von Neumann's and Wiener's dogmas are characteristically linear; therefore, the effect of adopting their dogmas as policy can be nothing but disastrous. This illuminates the fact, that Wiener's definition of "negentropy" is simply reversed "entropy," and is strictly linear in consequence of this. In contrast, the "not-entropic" processes of living beings and of human intelligence are not linear. Either one uses "negentropy" to signify the latter, non-linear characteristic, in which case "negentropy" has nothing to do with "information theory," or "negentropy" has the dictionary meaning supplied by Wiener, in which latter case it is a nonsense-word.
During the interval he progressed into making his original discoveries in economic science, this writer was confronted with the choice: accept the evidence of measurement, or accept the established dogma of present-day physics-teaching. The author chose to stand by the evidence of measurement, and leave the dogma to those ivory towers where dwell those hesychasts who seek refuge for their fantasies in a dwelling-place as far removed as possible from cruel reality. After all, everything we have come to discover as truth was gained for mankind by adhering to that same principle; a well-defined anomaly, based on good measurement, has always been the signpost leading the way to scientific progress.
Educating For Creativity
Before describing the influence of Conti upon modern science and political philosophy, it is essential to focus attention directly upon the issue of formal intelligibility of that creativity which Kant abhorred and which the radical empiricists savagely deny to exist. Plato's Socratic method, the only known standpoint from which creative processes were ever rendered intelligible, is made comprehensible through focussing attention upon what ought to be the obvious implications of a Classical Christian humanist form of education, such as that of the Brotherhood of the Common Life and the Schiller-Humboldt reforms of education in Nineteenth-Century Germany.
From a study of the history of science against the points of reference touched upon in the preceding portions of this section, those approximately two-hundred years of Classical Greek culture, which span approximately the time from the trial of Socrates through the time of the deaths of Eratosthenes and Archimedes, are among the most excitingly productive intellectually in all history of science190 . It is against the influence of that Classical background that we must view the Christian Renaissance of the Fifteenth Century.
The other notable feature of the Renaissance, is that it was led by geniuses. The source of that supply of geniuses is typified by the teaching methods and influence of Groote's and Thomas à Kempis' Brotherhood of the Common Life, establishing a tradition which persisted beyond the middle of the Sixteenth Century through such offshoots of the Brotherhood's influence as the Oratorians around Erasmus of Rotterdam and the School of Raphael.191
The characteristic of this Christian humanist method of education is emphasis upon studying the most important discoveries in all human knowledge by aid of emphasis upon primary sources, preferably the account of the discovery written by the discoverer. The centerpiece of that program is the study of Classical Greek geometry, from Pythagoras through Archimedes and Eratosthenes, from this standpoint, with heaviest emphasis on the writings of Plato and the work of his Academy.
The characteristic feature of this method of education, is that the student must relive the experience of the original mental act of discovery, rather than learn to recite and apply a formula from the banalities of, for example, today's typical sort of textbook. The mastery of a Classical constructive approach to geometry by this means is the foundation of all successful such education; this approach to the study of geometry provides the student with a sense of scientific rigor, an attainment which can not be duplicated by any alternative means.192
Placing a constructive view of geometry at the center of such an educational program, introduces the pupil to the intelligibility of history as shown in terms of the history of ideas. The more readily accessible intelligibility of the internal history of geometric ideas serves as the cornerstone for conceptualizing the historicity of ideas generally. The mathematician may represent this by comparing Euclid's Elements193 with Legendre's Eléments de Géométrie (1794),194 and Legendre's and Monge's work with that of Jacob Steiner thereafter.195
The first conception to be adduced from such a scrutiny of geometry is the notion of ordering: "necessary predecessor," "necessary successor." Such a scrutiny should begin with the simpler case, the discovery of new theorems within the same theorem-lattice; this is the case in which no change in axioms or postulates occurs in the passage from one theorem to another. The case of Euclidean plane geometry is the appropriate choice of first step. After completing Euclidean geometry, examine the second class of discoveries, beginning with examination of the transition to the so-called non-Euclidean geometries, such as the Nineteenth-Century changes introduced by Gauss, Bolyai, Lobachevski,196 and Riemann197 ; but, before drawing conclusions on this basis of this, examine Leonardo da Vinci's introduction of the notion of geometries of bounded systems,198 and Kepler's thorough reliance upon this principle.199
In the discovery of the simpler type, the proof of one theorem of the lattice is a (more or less) necessary formal antecedent to the proof of the second.200 In the discovery of the second type, the relative cardinality of the theorem-lattice defined by their differences in axiomatics is the ordering principle: e.g., rational, algebraic, transcendental, Alephs. In the second class of discovery, this relative difference applies not only to the issues of ontology and form of mathematics as such, but to the axiomatics of physics. In the second case, as in the instance of the author's 1952 discoveries, it is the mathematical-physical anomalies which are the point of reference to cardinality.
In both classes, the notion of cardinality is preserved under the ordering of "necessary predecessor," "necessary successor." This is a crucial feature of the formal representation of the intelligibility of discoveries in general.
To begin, compile a partial listing of a fairly narrowly defined set of types of discovery in mathematics and physics, limiting the physics to those cases in which the physical anomaly forces directly an axiomatic issue of mathematics, such as Bernoulli's and Leibniz's 1697 use of the general case of refraction of light to prove the necessity of nothing less than the transcendental domain in mathematics for physics.201 Consider then the most relevant expression of the general case, as follows.
Under the implied rule for Classical Christian humanist forms of secondary education, the student is presented with the personalized historical identity of a discoverer, preferably accompanied by a sculpted, drawn, or photographed image, and a visual insight into some circumstances in which one or more of the crucial discoveries which that historical person effected. The student is induced to relive the experience of discovery; the teacher's function is, most essentially, to situate fairly the elements arrayed at the onset of the discovery. The teacher says: "X solved the following problem, in place P, in the year T; you have the prerequisites to repeat the mental experience of that act of discovery." The source materials, preferably primary ones, are set before the student. The experience begins.
Once the pupil has relived that experience, in that way, the imagined face and setting of that original discovery will remain with the successful student through the remainder of his life. The student has made, thus, the transition from observant layman into the world of science.
Through such repeated experiences, the pupil's mind becomes populated with an assembly of such images of discoverers, the student's private School of Athens.202 The content of each such image is a reconstructable memory of the experience of reliving the discovery, or discoveries which the student associates with that image, or set of images. The discoveries so represented by the inhabitants of the student's private "School of Athens" constitute a "Many," in the sense of Plato's Parmenides. What is the "One" which corresponds to this "Many"?
This is the point, beyond which, Venice, and a modern positivist such as Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell , forbids you to tread! There is the source of that prohibition, whose terror crushes the intellects of promising young scientists into an algebraicized state of Newtonian "political correctness."203 This is a process which should be seen as like the use of threat of a colonial power's musketry, for the dumbing-down of wild herds of captive human beings, over several successive generations, into a breed like dumb cows.
The establishment of such an isochronic relationship with a discoverer's original discovery, spanning a distance in calendar time of decades, centuries, and sometimes millennia, is the means for transforming the mental act of reliving such a discovery into an intelligible object of conscious reflection. There is thus the sharing of this experience, not only between the individual student and the original discoverer, but among all those who, from all centuries, have shared such reliving of that same original experience in this isochronic way.
This is what Francesco Zorzi prohibited,204 what Paolo Sarpi's asset Francis Bacon forbade,205 what Newton implicitly banned with his "hypotheses non fingo,"206 and what Immanuel Kant abhorred in Leibniz's Monadology.207 That prohibition and abhorrence are directed explicitly against the practice of apprehending as intelligible objects of conscious reflection the provably creative processes of mentation.
All these Aristotelians, whether as materialists,
empiricists, or modernist logical positivists, demand that the subjects of
conscious reflection be delimited to two classes of experience:
sense-perceptions and the emotions which are more or less mysteriously attached
to those sense-perceptions.208 From this is derived the empiricism of
Zorzi, Bacon, Hobbes, Locke, and the radical empiricism of Ortes, Adam Smith,
Jeremy Bentham, Thomas Malthus, James Mill, John Stuart Mill, and Satanic Lord
, the "information theory" of Norbert Wiener, and the pseudo-scientific economics of John Von Neumann.
In defiance of such Venetian and kindred prohibitions, continue with our subject of this moment, the indicated humanist method of education. Continue to focus upon a constructive geometry as the model topic for such a method. Through the method indicated, the secondary school pupil is becoming acquainted personally with the experience of two types of discovery indicated: those which extend a theorem-lattice, and those which are true Platonic hypotheses, which overturn a lattice of reference.
Most of today's relatively better formal education209 functions somewhat well on the lower level: extending the lattice. This is good, of course. The pupil is taking the historical examples as a model of a method for elaborating propositions which are hewed, if possible, into consistency with a recognized set of underlying axiomatic assumptions. As long as the propositions are rooted in the notion of actual or anticipated measurement of actually occurring processes, this is an indispensable part of the educational process.210
Henceforth, the reader should continue to read what is written here, on this subject of humanist methods of education, with the presumption that we are referencing as "humanist" an emphasis upon the use of primary sources as a guide to reliving the original experience of a specific discovery. The essential connection between the two classes of discovery in all uses of this method, is that the pupil is rendering the quality of those mental processes which generate (and regenerate) that discovery an intelligible subject of conscious reflection. The difference, is between the species of mental activity which are taken as the subject of conscious reflection. This is the kernel of Nicolaus of Cusa's method of learned ignorance (De Docta Ignorantia), upon which the emergence of modern science was founded.211
In both cases, the result of successive acts of reliving original discoveries is the implied establishment of a proposition in the form of Plato's argument in his Parmenides. Let us represent the mental events upon the first level of discovery by L1, L2, L3, ... , and on the second by A1, A2, A3, ... . In each case, what is the recognizable (intelligible!) common difference the change between them?
In all scientific work passably worthy of that name, the intelligibility of the first quality of discovery is indispensable to comprehension in exchanges among the collaborators, or disputants. However, in differentiating among the different types of theorem-lattices within which changes of the first order of discovery occur, we are compelled to distinguish among these types according to the second order of changeA1, 2, A3, ... , the discontinuities (singularities) which are the recognizable mental acts through which the transition from one species (type) from one theorem-lattice to another is effected.
Let us supply the appropriate glossary for what has been just so described. The conceptions are those taken from Plato's works:
Hypothesis: Any term of the series A1, A2, A3, ... .
Higher Hypothesis: The recognizable principle of change which is implicitly defined by any series of axiomatic-revolutionary discoveries, the which is, in turn, commonly generated by the same quality of mental activity.
Hypothesizing the Higher Hypothesis: There are different qualities of higher hypothesis, each series distinguished as a type from all others twofoldly: (1) It corresponds to a different generating-principle, a different quality of recognizable act of generation common to all members of that species; (2) It has a relative cardinality ("power") relative to other recognizable such generating principles. Conceptualizing those twofold differentia among different qualities of higher hypothesis, is "hypothesizing the higher hypothesis."
The same method of (Platonic) Socratic hypothesizing obliges us to recognize a correspondingly higher quality of mental existence: the Good (Plato) or the Absolute (Cantor).212 Change is knowable (recognizable, intelligible) for the mind of mortal man in the form of Becoming. The generalization of man's knowledge of change is therefore hypothesizing the higher hypothesis. However, the same principle of knowledge obliges us to recognize the efficient existence of an ontologically higher state than Becoming. In this latter higher state of existence, all possible hypothesizing the higher hypothesis is subject to the defining of a One corresponding to a Many. This is Plato's The Good.
This Good has necessarily two knowable (intelligible) qualities. First, all Becoming is condensed into a One: all time and all place are condensed into a One. Since this is comprehended only through that quality of creative mental power by means of which hypothesizing the higher hypothesis is intelligibly knowable for mankind, by the quality of imago Dei/capax Dei, this One has the universal quality of creative intelligence.213
Through submitting to the development principle which is implicit in perfection of and obedience to knowledge in this way, we, as each individual mortal persons, rise above the bounds of time and place to participate efficiently in all history, the history of those ideas which set mankind, as imago Dei, apart from and above, with dominion over, all other forms of life. This has been known since before the time of Plato, when the powerful Egyptian Moses214 wrote the first chapter of Genesis.215
What some might deprecate as but Plato's (or, this author's own) "speculation" upon the Good, is readily shown to be a crucial factor in defining knowledge. The following synopsis of that proposition should be sufficient here.
Once the form of intelligibility of Plato's principle of hypothesis is shown, as we have indicated the case for that, we have shown how a result may be reached, but without yet supplying the motive for the occurrence of that possible result: Why should one seek to reach that result? Is the fact that it is attainable, a sufficient motive, in and of itself, for such an effort?
What is being stated here implicitly, is that, in some sense, individual action is motivated essentially by an effort to affirm one's identity as something more than that of just another individual member of a species of beast.216 Plato's notion of the Good puts that motive into not only an intelligible form, but provides us an intelligibly truthful conception of our individual identity as mediated through that principle of an efficient, intelligent Good, as capax Dei, if you will.
Every serious scientist, every serious Classical artist will concede this to be the nature of his or her motivation, if that proposition is represented to them in the way which corresponds to their inner experience.
As reference to Classical humanist education in geometry already illustrates the general case for scientific education, becoming a scientist can occur only through first establishing a very intimately personal, isochronic relationship with discoverers, a relationship which often spans centuries or even millennia. It is a relationship which, by its nature, transcends the mortal bounds of space and time. It not merely transcends such bounds, but transcends them essentially. It is a relationship to nature through these isochronic social relations, in terms of ideas of discovery. It is a commitment to truthfulness, and implicitly a commitment to participate in Plato's Good.
In music, it is the same, but more intimately so. How does one learn music, but through replicating Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Brahms?217 The attempt to replicate the mental experience of discovery of the composer is the essential basis for one's relationship to music as an historical process of development.218
The motive is expressed by the happy child's "Why?"
The ability to address mental acts of valid axiomatic-revolutionary and other valid discovery as objects of conscious reflection, is the means by which the higher features of human mental life are made intelligible to us. This can be done only in a social way, and must include a replication of the living experience of discovery by the "dead white European males" who are, for historical reasons, responsible for at least a proverbial ninety percent of the storehouse of scientific knowledge indispensable for continued human survival today.
Yet, as we view the sum-total of human knowledge, we are able to look at the matter more broadly, outside those areas of scientific and musical developments in which the standard of knowledge today was built up chiefly either by Europeans or by others in reaction to European civilization's contributions to universal culture. Take ancient Indo-European language, for example.
The solar-sidereal calendars embedded within the system of ancient Vedic hymns afford us a sense of the antiquity of a highly developed Indo-European language. This connection was actively under study as early as Kepler's attention to those calendars.219 That content of the hymns, and related information concerning astronomical fragments in the Zend Avesta from an earlier time,220 dates the kernel of those hymns surviving into literary times. The dating is within the period the Vernal Equinox was in the constellation of Orion; as Tilak argues from his sources, this would be between 6,000 and 4,000 b.c.: 221 Similarly, in the case of pre-historic China, the standing analysis on the antiquity of China's solar-sidereal astronomical calendars is that given by Edouard Biot and Gustav Schlegel, which places those at about the beginning of the melting of the glaciation (c.17,000-18,000 b.c.).222
A literate form of spoken language, as the school of August Boeckh, the von Humboldts, et al.,223 elaborated the Indo-European case, is already a highly sophisticated development, more advanced in design than any formal mathematics yet developed. The point can be made clear, on the condition this matter is examined from the vantage-point of what we have stated here, using mathematical formalism as an example.
The use of a name or phrase to signify a mental object (as distinct from a mere sense-perception) is the essential quality of metaphor.224 In the case of mathematical ideas, as treated above, all ideas are of this quality of metaphor: a mathematical representation of a discovery is a metaphor for the mental object which is the original (or replicated original) act of discovery. Nothing shows the applicability of this to language in general better than Classical forms of poetry.225 The function of the so-called "non-plastic" Classical art-forms, which are premised entirely upon this principle of metaphor in language,226 in successful types of cultures illustrates the point: the role of these in both the education of leaders, and in the broader social life in general.
The relevant argument may be summarized briefly as follows.
We have noted above: the characteristic of human existence, the conclusive proof setting mankind absolutely apart from and above the beasts, is the role of a certain quality of ideas through which our species is uniquely enabled to generate increases of potential relative population-density.227 These ideas belong, in each particular instance, to classes which may be symbolized by formal theorem-lattices or analogous forms. The passage from one such class to another class of higher relative "power," is known as cultural progress. These classes are otherwise describable as "cultures." That supplies the significance of "cultural progress."
The phenomenon of "cultural progress" is not a sidewise movement from right to wrong. Any change which increases the potential relative population-density of a people can not be entirely "wrong." Rather, that which supersedes is derived from superseding its predecessor, which latter is the launching-pad from which the creative leap is effected. "Wrongness" is an idea which must be associated with stubborn "backwardness," or even with Thoreauvian, Spenglerian, or other variety of existentialist regression to a "Walden," or analogous sort of cultural cesspool.
Among "ideas," we must distinguish between conditioned habits for intellectual interpretation of sense-perceptions, as distinct from ideas which correspond entirely to mental objects. It is the mental objects which reflect immediately the set of axiomatic assumptions defining that class of ideas as a whole, that culture, which are of primary interest to us. It is this higher class of ideas which must be placed at the center of our investigation of any specific culture, such as our own.
Consider one of the author's long-standing classroom favorites: the cultural transformation of the perception of a rock from a mere "rock," to "ore."228 The object of perception remains the same; the perception changes. Culturally determined judgment is integral to perception. Nonetheless, despite such changes, something of the old is passed to the new. Since all of this aspect of culture appears in knowledge solely as metaphor, all human knowledge must be viewed as an accumulation of metaphor. It is metaphor which shapes language, although the degree of literacy in form of language delimits the quality of ideas which can be identified by means of language. It is this accumulation of "Alephs," metaphors, which is the increase of power of a language achieved through increased literacy.
The point to be stressed here, for purposes of limiting the body of the text, as much as possible, to the object in view, is the notion of the intellectual potentialities of a literate form of modern language, such as the Indo-European group: the "power set" thus represented by the accepted use of that language per se. This, a literate language, the author wishes to stress, is a heritage of awesome import, which embodies within it the included handiwork of long-lost generations from the very beginnings of human existence.
As we must presume Dante Alighieri would have concurred, a literate form of such a language, expressed as true Classical poetry, is already the highest form of mathematics the human species has ever possessed. All ideas are metaphors, and language is the mathematics of metaphor. The greatest calculus is that of the tragic dramas of Aeschylus, Marlowe, Shakespeare, and Schiller.
(f) Antonio Conti & His Salon (see end note)
Our attention here is focussed primarily upon approximately a century of British history, beginning Abbot Antonio Conti's rise to great influence over England's destiny, at the beginning of the Eighteenth Century, and concluding a decade after the 1790 death of Giammaria Ortes. The conclusion of that Eighteenth-Century interval is marked chiefly by three relevant events: (1) the 1798 publication of Thomas Malthus plagiarism of Ortes' 1790 Riflessioni229 ; (2) Napoleon Buonaparte's dissolving the existence of Venice as a state; (3) the emergence of post-Italian-campaign Napoleon to power, in search of his Caesarian dynasty in a new Roman world-empire.230 It is a period which begins with the maturity of Conti, and which ends more than a decade prior to the key role of Venice's plenipotentiary agent, Count John Capodistria, at the Congress of Vienna. This is the century during which British government replaced English self-rule, the century during which the ideological and political institutions of an emerging world-empire were set into place. This is the pivotal century of modern history to date, approximately two centuries after the League of Cambrai and about two centuries prior to the looming collapse of today's global, Venetian-style financial system.231
It is upon these connections, of this period, on which attention must be focussed, to define the origin and influence of those radical-empiricist conceptions which have defined the British Empire, its founding, and its aftermath, from the accession of George I as the first British monarch, to the present date. Therefore, first, briefly, situate that British century, 1700-1800, within the six centuries' span as described earlier.
The history of modern England and its successor, Britain, begins with the defeat of England, Burgundy, and Spanish opponents by the King Louis XI who established modern France as the first nation-state. Louis XI's victories, and his stunning successes in economic development, inspired imitation of his successful venture among crucial circles in Spain and England, notably the circles around King Henry VII. This established a common interest and collaboration among France, England, and Spain, which was later broken, during the interval 1517-1527, by Venice's intrigues inside the court of Henry VII's successor, King Henry VIII.
That process, which begins with the presentation of the Howards' bait to the susceptible King, marks a discontinuity within the history of England, and of Europe as well.
In shorthand, the setting for the study of the Eighteenth Century, the five centuries' history of European civilization since the collapse of the League of Cambrai, can be conceptualized in terms of the following highlights.
From circa 1517-1527, until the 1815 sessions of the Congress of Vienna, all of European history is dominated by a Venice-orchestrated circumstance of general warfare, both civil warfare, such as that within England over the period from Henry VIII's Venice-sponsored marriage to Anne Boleyn through the Essex affair and political assassination of Christopher Marlowe, and international wars, such as the Hapsburg looting of Rome, the Venice-orchestrated "Peasant War" in Germany, and the wars among Hapsburg Spain, France, and England, and the Netherlands.
The reflection of this process into England itself defines five relatively distinct periods, to the present date, in the history of England-Britain since a.d.: 1517. The first, from c.1517-1527, Venice's takeover of Henry VIII, through approximately the time of the 1589-1603 coups orchestrated by Paolo Sarpi's circles, to secure the succession of James VI of Scotland to the English throne. The second, from the accession of James I (and Francis Bacon's mob) through the interval 1666-1689, culminating in the "Glorious Revolution" and accession of William of Orange. The third, the transition from the accession of William of Orange through the victory of the British Empire (in fact) at the 1815 Congress of Vienna. The fourth, the rise of London's world-empire, 1815-1914. The fifth, to the present, London's post-1914-1918 drive to dissolve the British Empire into the safe haven of a larger, global world-federalist dictatorship controlled by Venetian-British radical ideology: a utopian goal first sought through the abortive League of Nations, and, later, the United Nations Organization.
Conti emerges as a figure prominently involved in the shaping of future history approximately at the outbreak of the Venice-orchestrated "Marlborough Wars" of the "Spanish Succession." Here, we are focussed upon the historical significance of those radical-empiricist conceptions which Ortes' influence established as the reigning doctrine of British global policy, from the last quarter of the Eighteenth Century down through the present-day proposal for the adoption of Ortes' 1790 population dogma as the enforceable law of a worldwide imperial tyranny known as the U.N.O..
The kernel of this inquiry is: how did the radicalism of Conti's Eighteenth-Century circles differ, and to what effect, from the earlier forms of Venetian empiricism, such as the Aristotelianism of Pomponazzi, the Kabbalistic empiricism of Francesco Zorzi, the empiricism of such Rosicrucian cultists as Francis Bacon, Robert Fludd, Thomas Hobbes, Elias Ashmole, John Locke, and Isaac Newton, or the early-Eighteenth-Century empiricism of David Hume?
The topics addressed in the preceding five sections have prepared us to attack now those kernel-questions which we have just posed.
The common trait of the Canaanites of Tyre, of the Roman Empire and its Byzantine successor, of medieval Venice, and of such Venice-controlled corporations as the Portuguese, Dutch, and English trading companies, is traffic in slaves. This was the pedigree and heritage of England's Levant Company and of its successors, the Bank of England, the Eighteenth-Century British East India Company, and the Barings bank of the evil William F. Petty, the Second Earl of Shelburne. This is the heritage of the author of Aristotle's overt apology for evil, his Ethics and his Politics. The practice of, and apology for, the practice of slavery or kindred forms of usury, is the common attribute of a form of society which is truly evil, a form of society common to ancient Tyre, Lycurgus' Sparta, the Roman Empire, Venice, and the thoroughly Venetian Anglo-Dutch "India" companies.
The essence of the methods of "dumbing down" slaves, of subject nations, and of U.N.O.-designed "Outcome-Based Education" applied to would-be victims of a U.N.O. world-dictatorship,232 is the vicious suppression of the creative powers of reason, those distinctively human mental capabilities which are expressed typically in the form of valid axiomatic-revolutionary discoveries in physical science.
That has been the role of Delphic Aristotelianism since the time of Plato's Academy, and the role of Parmenides' Eleatic and the Sophists' schools of anti-Pythagorean formalism earlier.233 That is the significance of the Venetians' creation of the fame of Galileo and his English parody, the Kabbalist Isaac Newton;234 that is the significance of the Critiques of Kant. That is the precise significance of Newton's hypotheses non fingo.235 That is the method of Norbert Wiener, John Von Neumann, and other founders of the pseudo-scientific "artificial intelligence."236 That is the significance of the Conti circles' radical use of the algebraic methods associated factionally with Galileo and Newton as the basis for delimiting all forms of allowed human behavior.
An insight into the crucial sociological features of the slave-trade is key to understanding the philosophy of the United Nations Organization's utopian efforts at world government today, and is key to understanding the motivating world-outlook of Conti, Ortes, Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell , and their like.
Remember! How does one transform a corral filled with yesterday's raw crop of captured slaves into a relatively docile collection of tamed human cattle? Societies based upon the practice of slavery employ the same methods required for breeding down wild herds into domesticated dumb beasts prized for their milk, meat, and docility. Colonialism, such as that of the Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Centuries' British Empire, applies these methods of slave-breeding to the taming, the dumbing-down of entire subjugated nations. The same colonialist methods were applied to the defeated, as both occupation and post-occupation policies, by the victors at the 1815 Congress of Vienna, and of the two World Wars of this century. This was the method applied to Argentina in 1982, by Britain's Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (and her Lord Carrington), the same method applied to Iraq, by her and her familiar George Bush, in 1990-1991.237
The Eighteenth-Century radical empiricists' use of "the methods of Galileo and Newton" to retard creativity in all fields, not only physical science, is the central feature of British imperialism's Venetian strategy for "dumbing down" the human species globally to a level of readiness for world-government. Once the implications of this detail of the radical-empiricist method is made clear, the rest of British imperialist and related policy is readily understood, including the methods of "dumbing down" slaves and for British brainwashing of other subject populations, such as that of the Twentieth-Century United States.
Consider in this light the principal successive changes, from the mid-Fifteenth-Century attack on Nicolaus of Cusa by John Wenck,238 into Ortes' injection of radical empiricism into London. Here lies the key to Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell ; here is the detail in the devil.
Pomponazzian Francesco Zorzi's 1525 Harmonia Mundi, a Kabbalistic attack upon Cusa's De Docta Ignorantia, is the first known point of origin of empiricism per se inside England.239 From this point on, from Zorzi through Bacon, Locke, Francesco Algarotti,240 Ortes,241 Adam Smith, and British foreign-intelligence chief Jeremy Bentham, James Mill, the British and Vienna utilitarians, the French positivist followers of Abbot Moigno, and Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell , all empiricism and its existentialist derivatives is based upon this argument set forth by Zorzi.242
It was not until Paolo Sarpi that we see a consistent effort by Venetians to erect a systematic empiricism as an anti-science against the modern science established by Cusa, Pacioli, Leonardo, and Kepler. Briefly, summing up the case: Toward the end of the Sixteenth Century, Venice moved in against the Classical current in Renaissance music, co-opting the son of the musician Galilei in the same general time-frame that the talented Claudio Monteverdi was transformed into a pre-Wagnerian pagan.243 In this batch, Venice picked up and "turned" a former student of Johannes Kepler's work, Galileo Galilei, whom Kepler had come to know through Kepler's own earlier studies in music under Galileo's father. Sarpi protégé Galileo reworked information he had received from Kepler, perverting it to remove all traces of the Platonic method which Kepler had employed to make these discoveries.244 Thus, under Sarpi's patronage and direction, was born the mechanistic or empiricist school in algebraic physics.
The open assault upon science by Sarpi's protégés is centered most prominently in three published writings of the early-Seventeenth Century: Francis Bacon's New Organon (Novum Organum)245 , Robert Fludd's Rosicrucian parody of Zorzi's Kabbalistic Harmonia Mundi,246 and Galileo's Dialogues....247 All of these have in common two features: (1) They reaffirm the Aristotelian standpoint of empiricism, that of Wenck, Pomponazzi, and Zorzi, insisting that only "induction" from sense-perceptions is permissible; that mental objects must be excluded from consideration. (2) They insist that arithmetic and algebraic methods of Aristotelian deduction (and induction) are the exclusive basis for measurement of the cause-effect relations inferred from simple sense-perception.248
Out of this Jacobite crew of Rosicrucians, Bacon, Fludd, Thomas Hobbes, and Elias Ashmole, the original Ashmolean cult of British speculative Freemasonry was spawned during the 1640's.249 Out of the same British branch of the Stuart Rosicrucian cult250 came the London Royal Society of John Locke, Kabbalist Isaac Newton, et al. The Society was established by these British Rosicrucian heirs of Bacon and Fludd, to combat the forces of "continental science," the latter a catch-all term for the work of Cusa, Leonardo da Vinci, Kepler, and, later, Desargues, Fermat, Pascal, Huyghens, Leibniz, Johann Bernoulli, Legendre, Monge, Gauss, Riemann, Weber, et al. Newton's hypotheses non fingo is the tell-tale symptom; the method of discovery is banned. Wherever that tell-tale symptom is presented, the methods of the slave-master are at work: the dumbing-down of scientists is in process.
That is the general development of empiricism up to the appearance of Conti's circles. First, it appears as the corrosive Aristotelianism of Wenck, Pomponazzi, and Zorzi: an anti-science attack upon the Renaissance's philosophical flank and theological flank in general. Then, following Zorzi's influence in Henry VIII's England, toward the end of the century, under Paolo Sarpi, there is the attempted political takeover of existing science, using the empiricist methods of Bacon, Fludd, and, later, Newton. Then, enter Conti et al.
Conti comes on stage251 during the last gasp of Venice's military power under such notorious houses as the Mocenigo and Morosini. There is no apparent reason to quarrel with the commonplace view that the 1699 Peace of Karlowitz was the high-water mark for Venice on this account. In the wake of these wars of conquest in the Peloponessus, although Venice stagnated in its own decadence at home, its intelligence apparatus abroad is estimated to have increased in power and influence into the middle of the Eighteenth Century. In this circumstance, Venetian nobleman Antonio Conti emerges as a growing power in the internal life and foreign affairs of France, England, and Germany.
It is Conti, eventually a member of the London Royal Society, who organizes the attempts to defame Leibniz, and, in that connection controls the British side of the famous debate-by-correspondence among Leibniz, Samuel Clarke, and Newton. It is Conti's circle which deploys the famous Venetian boudoir agent Giacomo Casanova against the court and person of France's Louis XV. It is Conti who coordinates the Venetian agent Abbot Giuseppe Riva in operations against Leibniz inside the circles of Hanover's Venetian dupe, George Ludwig, that Venetian dupe who became the first British monarch, George I. It is Conti who controls agents such as Francesco Algarotti and Giammaria Ortes; it is Conti's network, continuing after his death, which deploys the notorious Count Alessandro Cagliostro against the monarchy of France's Louis XVI and the King's wife, Marie Antoinette.
As noted earlier, Conti and his salon had two primary adversarial targets, the nation of France, and the person of Gottfried Leibniz. Otherwise, Conti and his mob of agents had one principal undertaking, revolutionary transformation of already existing empiricism into a truly radical form of counterculture, basing the form of this transformation upon general application of the algebraic mechanistic methods of Galileo and Newton.
This was the circle of Venetian agent-controllers which produced the French Physiocrats and the networks of Voltaire. These were the coordinators of the Orléans faction of Jacobin leader Philippe Egalité. Conti's circle were the necromancers who took the deceased Galileo from his cozily warm repose in Hell,252 and apotheosized a Newton out of that gentleman's richly deserved obscurity. These were, in fact, the creators of Jacobinism itself, as Karl Marx would have been most pleased to learn—if Marx's British-intelligence controller Urquhart did not indeed confide this somewhat delicate information to him.253 Apart from these details, the primary historical significance of Conti's circles today, is their successful hoax, their fraudulent apotheosis of Galileo and Newton, as a central figure of their initiation of Shelburne's apparatus into the mysteries of radical empiricism: the hedonistic calculus.
We have indicated the nature of the distinction between the overtly anti-science philosophical and theological bias of the early-Sixteenth-Century Venetian Aristotelians, and the use of the same empiricist method to take over political control of institutions of science, under Paolo Sarpi et al. at the beginning of the Seventeenth Century. The emergence of radical empiricism represents a similarly well-defined change from the form of empiricism characteristic of the preceding Seventeenth and early-Eighteenth Centuries. One aspect of this difference, the radicals' break with cautious deference to custom, has been addressed earlier here; the second, the Conti circle's growing emphasis upon the mechanistic algebra of Galileo, Descartes, and Newton has been identified, but wants to be stressed a bit more for purposes of clarity now.
The simplest way in which to demonstrate the practical implication of the difference, is to examine the modern history of "Malthusianism."
It should be conceded that the history of population control is very ancient, and very pagan. Typical, is the method of the Canaanites of Tyre, the worshippers of Moloch and kindred images of self-degradation. There is the Tyre-like conduct of Herod, as summarized in the Gospel According to St. Matthew, Chap. 2. During the recent two thousand years of European history, the first "Malthusian" law similar to what is proposed for the U.N.O. Cairo Population Conference, was the "socialist" decrees of the Roman Emperor Diocletian.254 In modern European history, the center of population-control policies of this sort has been consistently Venice. The beginning of Malthusianism in Britain was imported from Sixteenth-Century Venice, in the form of the 1606 English translation of Venetian Giovanni Botero's "Delle cause della grandezza e magnificenze della città." (1588).255
As Schumpeter notes, Botero's population policy was adopted by the most influential, Venice-linked grandfather of Jeremy Bentham's and Thomas Malthus' Shelburne, William Petty, in his 1682 "Essay Concerning the Multiplication of Mankind."256 Through the influence of this Petty and such radiations of that as through Adam Ferguson,257 this form of the Malthusian dogma was already in circulation in Britain prior to the arrival of the writings of Ortes.
That Thomas Malthus parodied Ortes' Riflessioni is beyond doubt. More significantly, Charles Darwin's work in biology was premised explicitly upon Malthus' An Essay on Population. The social and political philosophy of the eugenicist movement, including the political philosophy of the Harriman and appended Bush families in their 1930's support of Adolf Hitler, and in U.S. political and juridical life generally,258 is premised upon blind adulation of Darwin as a "Malthusian." Malthus-adulator Darwin has been superimposed arbitrarily, officially, and widely upon the theory and teaching of biology. Yet, the elaborated conception of "carrying capacity" embedded in the Hitler-like pro-genocidal U.N.O. proposals for the 1994 Cairo Population Conference is adduced not from Malthus' text, but rather that of Ortes. What is specially significant about Ortes on this latter and related accounts?
Schumpeter typifies the lack of elementary scientific literacy among those who imagine that Petty's suggestion of a "law of geometric progression" shows that this notion was implicit in the work of Botero.259 The notion of geometric progression was established by Leonardo of Pisa's Liber Abaci (1202). With the work of Luca Pacioli and his student Leonardo da Vinci,260 the importance of work such as Leonardo of Pisa's "Fibonacci Series" was fully superseded. The special significance of Ortes' role in modern Malthusianism came about as a continuation of the war against Leibniz by Conti and Venice's agent Voltaire. Ortes' "Malthusian" work developed out of the following sequence of events.
A follower of Leibniz, Süssmilch, in 1740, produced a work promoting population growth, which provoked one among the "Encyclopedist" confederates of Conti and Voltaire, Pierre Maupertuis, then working at the Berlin Academy.261 This produced a work which Ortes reported as being influential for his own work on population theories. Among the notable retorts against Maupertuis' dogma is one produced by Benjamin Franklin, a North American associate of the international Leibniz networks.262 Maupertuis' reaction against Süssmilch is the key to the specifics of Ortes' Riflessioni and its influence.
From a great statistical distance, the most conspicuous correlative of the post-a.d.: 1400 increase of population is urbanization. On closer inspection, the process is as described, somewhat prophetically, by U.S. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton's 1791 Report to the U.S. Congress "On the Subject of Manufactures".263 The productivity of agricultural labor, per capita, per household, and per square kilometer, is increased by the development of infrastructural public works, and by the benefits of urban manufactures for the technology and productivity of agriculture. Globally, the urban-rural relationship within the nations of Western European civilization is replicated to a significant degree in the relationship between the relatively more, and relatively less industrialized regions of the planet.
This urban-centered global development required nurture of the cultural potentials of the average person, and also required an accelerating emphasis upon the division of labor, especially in the urban regions. In military terms, this combined economic and social development increased not only the per-capita productivity of labor, but also the superior military potential of the technologically more advanced states. Thus, all in all, without the kinds of intervention which Venice launched in the attempt to slow down the rates of economic and scientific progress, especially economic progress, the states based upon commitment to scientific and technological progress would become dominant in life throughout the planet.
That would signify the death of oligarchism. Nations which foster the creative-mental development of their populations produce a people which will not tolerate oligarchical forms of rule indefinitely. Illiterate, technologically backward populations will; indeed, illiteracy and technological backwardness are contributing causes for the emergence of oligarchical rule. The very existence of the young U.S.A. as a Federal Republic is a demonstration of this point. The average American was culturally and economically superior to the average Briton of the Eighteenth Century: over ninety percent of the U.S. citizens were literate, as contrasted with a poor forty percent of the Britons. Moreover, since nations which did not compete technologically would be strategically inferior, even the states committed to oligarchism, such as Eighteenth-Century Britain, were compelled to adopt from Colbert's France and Leibniz that same technological progress which they hated to see in French hands.
Consider the case of population policies within Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century Venice itself. As a measure to prevent the parcelling of family wealth into relatively smaller units, the leading Venetian families had imposed strict measures of birth control upon their own ranks. This, not an excess of religious fervor, accounts for the proliferation of monks and nuns, as well as powerful abbots (with practice of vows in abeyance) among these noble Venetian households. This did not originate in Venice; the collapse of the Eastern Roman Empire was a result of the same policy, under the "Malthusian" decrees of Diocletian.
For the Venetian nobility and their oligarchical clones throughout Europe, the interdependent advance in science, culture, technology, the division of labor, and population generally was a great catastrophe: for them, a virtually apocalyptic catastrophe. From their standpoint, one could not choose not to take that route; the nation which chose abstinence from progress, while other nations advanced, was choosing its own political oblivion. In the oligarchy's view, therefore, no nation must be permitted to continue these practices; these practices must be banned from the planet.
By the middle of the Eighteenth Century, the Venetian oligarchy throughout Europe had become alerted to what Leibniz's circles understood: that there is an interdependency between levels of technological progress and potential population-density. The work of Süssmilch, which excited Maupertuis' frenzy, illustrates that connection explicitly. Without scientific and technological progress, the level of population could not be sustained; however, with technological progress, oligarchism would not be tolerated much longer anywhere. So, "the Venetian Party's" commitment to a Malthusian utopia, an oligarchical "one-world" imperial government developed around Venice's British option, became an hysterical commitment during the course of the Eighteenth Century.
By this time, Europe's Venetian oligarchy264 had had its "racial memory refreshed" on the subject of Plato's principle of knowledge, the principle of Socratic hypothesis. It "remembered" collectively why the Apollo cult's oligarchy had hated Socrates and Plato so bitterly, why the Rome branch of the Apollo cult had hated Jesus Christ so bitterly.265 When men and women come to base their social relations upon taking creativity (hypothesis) as the object of conscious reflection, and placing that above bare sensuality in rank, society knows in that way the meaning of Genesis 1:26-28. Then, man cannot be as a beast to man, leaving no room for the continued existence of societies degraded by submission to oligarchical forms of the family.
It was not so much science as such that the Venetian oligarchy feared, as the reciprocal relationship between Christianity and the forms of scientific and artistic progress typified by axiomatic-revolutionary acts of scientific discovery. To express this Venetian enmity, the apotheosized methods of Galileo and Newton served a double purpose: these methods virtually outlawed creative thinking, and were also useful for administering a society according to what came to be recognizable as Malthusian principles. Thus, the hatred of Nicolaus of Cusa, of Leonardo da Vinci,266 of Kepler, of Pascal, of Colbert, and of Leibniz.
In this fashion, the form of Aristotelianism known as the empiricism of Galileo and Newton became a religion for these haters of Plato and Leibniz. That religion of Voltaire, of the Encyclopedists, of Ortes, of Adam Smith, of Bentham, of Thomas R. Malthus, and of Bentham agents Robespierre, Danton, and Marat, was the late-Eighteenth-Century "Enlightenment."
In this same fashion, under the leadership of Venice's Abbot Antonio Conti, the otherwise obscure Galileo and Isaac Newton were elevated to virtual sainthood in Venice's hagiolatry. The strict imposition and enforcement of the mechanistic world-outlook and algebraic methods of these two, and their like, became articles of faith which the Venetians sought to impose upon every area of scientific inquiry, including social relations in general and economics in particular, outlawing all contrary conceptions and methods from science wherever they could. Conti's and Voltaire's campaign against Leibniz, under the banners of Galileo, Descartes, and Newton, launched the Venetian oligarchy's worldwide campaign to impose this "political correctness" upon the institutions and practice of science worldwide. The fraudulent claims for Newton's discovery of a calculus, a project concocted by Conti and furthered by Voltaire and his minions, were the beginning of this campaign. With Ortes' work, this radical empiricist view was established under the Union Jack.
Wherever the Venetian party won a war, the subject folk were compelled to expel all scientific thinking not submissive to the religious worship of Galileo and Newton. So, in 1815, it went with France under the Restoration Bourbons. So, to a large degree, it went in the divided Germany of Gauss and the Humboldts, as the cases of Clausius, Helmholtz, Kronecker, and Felix Klein attest.
(g) The Case of Felix Klein
Earlier here, we identified Nicolaus of Cusa's crucial discovery of the transcendental domain, circa a.d.: 1440. If the work of Conti's salon were not known, one would find it virtually inexplicable that one of the most famous figures in modern mathematics, Göttingen's Professor Felix Klein, should have claimed in 1895 that the transcendental character of the magnitude π had been first proven by Lindemann in 1882.267
That is not the only such folly by Professor Klein. Three other, closely related cases are directly relevant here: his misrepresentation of a crucial feature of Riemann's Hypothesen dissertation,268 his incompetent regard for the work of Georg Cantor, and his shameless efforts to represent Professor G.W.F. Hegel as the man who prevented the suppression of the teaching of calculus in Prussia.
In the first three cases, Klein falsifies by resort to fallacy of composition. That is to say, there is nothing objectionable in what Klein actually shows; he shows something, narrowly, which is truthful as far as his demonstration goes, but pretends that what he shows also demonstrates something more fundamental, which he knows it does not. In the fourth instance, his defense of Hegel, his argument is flatly contrary to the truth. In fact, the introduction of Nineteenth-Century mathematics at Berlin was accomplished by Alexander von Humboldt and the Prussian military, virtually over the protesting dead body of Professor Hegel.269 The latter issue must be mentioned because reference to the fact of this matter is helpful for understanding the first three.
In other words, in the first three matters referenced, he is lying Delphically. Why does he lie so? He is engaged in political lying about scientific method; his mind has become, if not explicitly a British-occupied territory, a region under Conti's influence. His praise of Hegel exposes his political motive for the false representations in the first three instances cited here.
Remember Soviet science under Stalin? The public papers of the best scientists in Russia, Ukraine and so forth, often began with paeans to the scientific genius of Stalin himself, or to the Friedrich Engels of "opposable thumb" notoriety. An analogous display occurred sometimes under Adolf Hitler. One wished to believe that none among those scientists could have believed a word they were saying in such ritually required obeisances. It is not necessary to do such things in Russia today. One may be inspired by that example to hope that in the not-too-distant future, professors of mathematics and physics generally will be given a similar freedom, so that they are no longer obliged to make themselves disgusting by politically correct ritual obeisance (Gleichschaltung) to the names of Galileo and Newton.
Professor Klein was not prostrating himself before a Stalin, who was not available for that part then, or British intelligence's Engels, who was; he made do with occasional allusions to Hegel. His behavior is an example of the Conti phenomenon; it is a bellwether of what has happened to science and culture in the United States and other nations today.
This is not limited to the area of physical science, but since mathematics is a more primitive language than the spoken ones, the case is made more readily by reference to such examples. The phenomenon which Klein's case illustrates is a general one today, a phenomenon which could not be understood unless it were viewed historically.
Look at Klein's case from the standpoint of the Friedrich Schiller whose historical genius provided his survivors the key to freeing Europe from Napoleon Buonaparte's tyranny.
It was Schiller's studies of the struggle for the freedom of the Netherlands and of the Thirty Years War, which afforded the circle of von Wolzogen, Scharnhorst, vom Stein, and von Humboldt the key to the military defeat of the Emperor Napoleon. It was to a large degree the inspiration of Schiller's poetry and tragedies which enabled the volunteers to conduct themselves in the manner which pleased Blücher so grandly. When Europe was then free from Napoleon, as she would not have been but for these Germans acting upon the lessons provided by Schiller, how was Germany rewarded by the Vienna Congress? Vom Stein was sent into internal exile, and Schiller received the posthumous boot of tyranny under the Holy Alliance's Carlsbad decrees. In this circumstance, there came to the top of Prussian celebrity the Metternich spy G.W.F. Hegel, and, at Hegel's side, the prophet of Nazi law, the Romantic neo-Kantian F. Karl Savigny.270
Meanwhile, as we have noted earlier, repression also came to French science. At the Ecole Polytechnique, Gaspard Monge and his program were uprooted from that institution, which was given over to the neo-Newtonian creations of Abbot Moigno, LaPlace, and Augustin Cauchy. Alexander von Humboldt, working to snatch real French science from under the hooves of Cauchy and his crew, faced the difficulty that the university at Berlin, which should have been nominally under the direction of Alexander's brother and Schiller's follower, Wilhelm, was actually under the veto-control of a pair of tyrannical, anti-science rogues, Hegel and Savigny. Hegel was determined not to allow men who would appear, later, as the world's greatest gathering of scientists, to be habilitated at the university. To get around Metternich-asset Hegel, Alexander was obliged to establish advanced mathematics instruction in the philology department, and to rely upon the Prussian military to habilitate professors at their academy, who could not be prevented then from teaching at Berlin.
For an extended period, there was a similar, perhaps worse situation of political repression at Gauss' Göttingen University, under the tyranny of the British House of Hanover. Gauss' letters to the Bolyais, father and son, on the matter of his own suppressed discoveries in non-Euclidean geometries, reflect the degree to which this political terrorism by reigning authorities was able to suppress science.271 In that time, there was a notorious case of mass suppression of academic freedom there, the case of the "Göttingen Seven."272
Beginning 1850, even before Gauss' death, London launched a major onslaught against the influence of Leibniz's and Gauss' science in Germany. Kelvin performed a critical role in this. London's exemplary assets in German science during the middle of the century were at that time Rudolf Clausius and Hermann Helmholtz.273 By the close of the century, when Klein delivered his "Famous Problems" lectures, German science was in significant political decline, under increasing onslaughts from the radical positivists, such as Ernst Mach.
One must look back to the early decades of Nineteenth-Century Britain to put the political decline of German science into proper historical perspective. As of close of the Napoleonic wars, when John Herschel and Charles Babbage wrote their celebrated "D-ism and Dot-age" paper, ridiculing Newton's influence and the London Royal Society,274 John's father (and Carl Gauss' friend) Wilhelm Herschel the astronomer from Hanover, was the only first-rate scientist in Britain. Almost reluctantly, Britain crawled out of these decades of lapse into scientific illiteracy, junked Newton's pseudo-calculus for a bowdlerized version of Leibniz's, and established the British Association for the Advancement of Science (BAAS).
Then, Britain concentrated upon attempting to wreck scientific progress in the nations, including Germany, from which it had borrowed so much for its own recovery: Conti would have been pleased with the performance. Why was Gauss afraid to reveal his work in discovery of non-Euclidean geometry? To what purpose did Thomson (Kelvin) direct Clausius? Why did the British steer Helmholtz's fraud against music, and in other matters?275 Why did so many Nineteenth-Century German scientists feel obliged to begin serious works with a literary genuflection to the "Engels" (Newton) whom they repudiated implicitly in every part of the work which this disgusting genuflection prefaced? Such considerations do not justify Klein's contested behavior, but they do render it historically comprehensible.
This brings us again to the detail in the devil, the crux of Klein's fallacy of composition in the matter of π.
Circa a.d.: 1440, Nicolaus of Cusa discovered that the circle is that higher species of function which we term "transcendental." The crucial advances in science accomplished by Pacioli, Leonardo, Kepler, Desargues, Fermat, Pascal, Huyghens, Leibniz, Gauss, Riemann, et al. after that, are all derived from the radiated influence of this discovery by Cusa. Consistently, since Pomponazzi and his Kabbalistic follower Zorzi, the Venetians have fought to suppress not only the fact of Cusa's discovery, but also the method by means of which the discovery was accomplished. The empiricist method of Galileo, Descartes, Newton, and Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell is premised upon that Aristotelian fraud of Pomponazzi, Zorzi, Conti, et al. That is the key to each and all of the four listed frauds of Professor Felix Klein.
It is sufficient to focus on the one selected example, Klein's false statement that the transcendental nature of π was first proven by Lindemann in 1882, approximately 440 years after that discovery and proof of it were actually supplied by Nicolaus of Cusa. Klein is arguing from an Aristotelian standpoint; the issue was well known in Germany at that time; Klein ran up against this frequently during the 1882-1895 interval preceding the lectures on "Famous Problems." All of Cantor's fundamental discoveries were publicly represented by him as premised on an anti-Aristotelian basis in Plato as viewed by Cusa.276 Klein is also aware of the same issue in the center of the so-called Leibniz-Clarke controversy and sundry attacks upon Leibniz's Monadology.277
Dr. Samuel Clarke's performance in the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence is immediately crucial for identifying the pretext underlying Klein's hoax on the subject of the discovery of π's transcendental character.278 Clarke is not engaging in a dialogue with Leibniz; he is behaving like today's literary hoodlums from the ranks of mass-media journalism, such as the London Daily Telegraph, Washington Post, New York Post, or NBC-TV News; he is carrying the "party line" of the Abbot Antonio Conti, who manufactured the issues being debated from the British side; no fact swerves Clarke from mindlessly repeating Conti's "party line." The issue posed by Leibniz there is clearly stated: Newton's "fluxions" is not a calculus, but simply a rewarming of familiar stunts with infinite series.
This is the crux of the formal argument in exposing the fraud of a Venice-directed Leonhard Euler in 1761,279 a Cauchy of the Bourbon Restoration, or a Felix Klein of 1895: a refusal to admit that an infinite series of a lower species of function can not become congruent with a higher species of function. One of our given illustrations of this issue was the refusal of some to acknowledge a species-difference between the integer "5" and the similar quadratic root. Consider, as briefly as possible, the nature of the issue as Klein identifies it in the given text-reference.
Consider carefully the elements of witting fallacy of composition which Klein employs to avoid touching upon facts which would reveal his sleight-of-hand in choosing the 1882 dating. Begin with a crucial instance of this, on pp. 55-56.280 He begins by stating the proposition in the following ambiguous terms: "... if the number π is not algebraic, it certainly cannot be constructed by means of straight edge and compasses. The quadrature of the circle in the sense understood by the ancients is then impossible." [italics in original—LHL] On p. 56, he proceeds to the following statement, which includes a revealing omission and a falsehood:
The Greeks rose above this empirical standpoint [of the Rhind papyrus—LHL], and especially Archimedes. ... His method remained in use until the invention of the differential calculus... .
The crucial intervening development was the rigorous definition of the class of incommensurables by Plato's Academy at Athens, notably the method of Eudoxus, on which Archimedes' attempted quadrature was premised; Klein's witting omission of that fact is an important fallacy of composition, permitting Klein to falsify his argument further, by also omitting reference to the ontological issue addressed successfully by Nicolaus of Cusa.
Those choices of starting-points set the stage for Klein's crucial, false assumption, set forth on pp. 58-59:
3. The period from 1670 to 1770, characterized by the names of Leibniz, Newton, and Euler, saw the rise of modern analysis. Great discoveries followed one another in such an almost unbroken series that, as was natural, critical rigor fell into the background. For our purposes the development of the theory of series is especially important.
With that silly bit of pedagogical hand-waving there, you have Klein's hoax set into place on stage. Henceforth, everything said by Klein is an extension of that whopper, that fallacy of composition.
The crucial code-words from that citation are "analysis" and infinite "series." Those code-words' appearance rightly implies that Klein is not addressing the ontological problem of species-distinction, which he only pretends to be attacking; he is engaged in a sleight of hand, pretending to address an ontological problem, while considering only a formal one.281 He is addressing a problem in infinite series; he is using the credibility of Hermite's and Lindemann's work on this problem of infinite series, to deflect the viewer's attention from the fact that he is not addressing the ontological problem at all. That is the formal nature of his fraud.
Review very briefly some relevant points identified earlier.
1. Klein is addressing a matter addressed by Cusa more than 450 years earlier: to demonstrate that the domain of incommensurables is divided into not less than two distinct species: the one, the notion of squaring the circle, and the magnitude which can not be squared. The proof of this distinction's discovery rests upon the method for defining incommensurables developed by Plato's Academy at Athens.
Without referencing, or replicating those well-known methods of that Academy which were emulated by Archimedes, no treatment of this matter can be regarded as scholarly or scientifically rigorous.
2. The definition of species of numbers or of magnitudes, or functions which serve as substitutes for numbers, is that the higher species is axiomatically incommensurable in terms of the lower one. Thus, Eudoxus, and Archimedes after him, knew that an infinite series in lower terms could not be congruent with, but only approximate closely values which are higher or lower than the magnitude of the incommensurable.3. Cusa's "De Circuli Quadratura" is the classic method for determining the fact that circular action in space-time is a higher-order of species than simply extended magnitudes in space.
Work on infinite series is not useless; as in the case of Hermite and Lindemann, it represents a continuing effort to refine the methods available for giving less inexact, far more rapidly acquired numerical approximations of complex curves and surfaces in the complex domain, for manipulating different kinds of such series as sub-types, and so on. But ... a well-cooked meal is a good thing, but not an appropriate motive for marrying the stove.
Such useful mathematical development as that of Euler, Hermite, and Lindemann, for example, has the ironical quality, that the more it succeeds on the one side, the formal side, the more problematic it becomes on the other side, the ontological side. This is the problem addressed by Riemann in the passages we cited earlier from his Hypothesen; that entire work is dedicated to the same problem. This is the issue of that formal side of the ontological problem of the "immeasurably small," the formal issue which was greatly simplified for comprehension by the work of Cantor on the matter of transfinite types. From the vantage-point implicit in these references to Riemann and Cantor, the significance of Klein's sleight-of-hand is that he is attempting to bury this ontological problem of mathematics out of sight, under a dung-heap of formalism; that is the essential fraud typified by his Famous Problems.
Formally, Klein's presentation of his Famous Problems is an attack upon Leibniz and Riemann from the standpoint of Euler,282 Clausius, et al.283 This is by no means a mere classroom issue of mathematical formalities.
Most readers are probably aware, that one of the results of the popularization of the word "relativity," into the 1970's, was significant discussion, among scientific circles, in college classrooms, and in some daily newspapers' "Sunday Supplements," of whether our universe were "curved," and what sort of "curvature" it might have. In time, many have debated that issue without first troubling themselves to discover the nature of the evidence being debated to this effect. The better educated among persons from those generations may recall, that Albert Einstein referred to Riemann—and also Kepler—as an important forerunner of the present century's discoveries of Einstein et al. Riemann's Hypothesen paper is the location in which those deeper implications of relativity were first addressed publicly.284 Let us compare the import of that aspect of the dissertation with our ongoing presentation of the method of history applicable to the exemplary case of Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell . In that way, the broader historical significance of Klein's fallacy of composition is made clear.
The key here is Riemann's method, the same Platonic method of hypothesis employed by Nicolaus of Cusa for the discovery of that which we term today the transcendental domain. The same method was employed by Gauss, by Bolyai, by Lobachevski, and by Riemann for the discovery of both so-called "non-Euclidean" geometry, and for the development of the notion of the hypergeometric domain. By questioning the generally accepted assumptions of geometry and of mathematics generally at that time, these Nineteenth-Century discoverers did to geometry generally what Cusa did to the quadrature theorems of Archimedes: Riemann, like Cusa, focussed upon the presumptuousness of the axioms (Riemann: "hypotheses") which underlay generally accepted classroom mathematics of that time.285 This led to the result upon which Einstein made his referenced general comment, on a small but important aspect of Riemann's dissertation as a whole.
As Einstein understood this corner of the business, the question is posed: What are the differences which might be observable by people living within our physical space-time domain, by means of which we might discover whether our universe has a predominantly negative, positive, or zero curvature? Einstein read the relevant literature as showing, for example, that Gauss and Riemann inferred a spherical curvature, and Lobachevski a negative (hyperbolic) curvature. By contrast, the mathematical method of Galileo, Descartes, Newton, and Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell belongs to a universe which has implicitly a zero curvature.286 Riemann reports that he addressed this proposition with help of concepts suggested by two of Gauss' crucial writings, the first on biquadratic residues, and a second on curved surfaces,287 and, as noted above, by some promptings from the work of a one-time student of Schiller's work, the anti-Kant philosopher Herbart.288 With aid of the suggestions taken from Gauss' work, and an intensive study of the work of Newton, as well as Legendre, et al., in addition to studies under Jacob Steiner, Riemann effected what he correctly understood to be a revolution in mathematical physics, that which centered around the possibility of measuring the curvature of the physical space-time in which our species acts.289
This was a Platonic revolution, which Riemann's posthumously published papers on Herbart, combined with the evidence of his Hypothesen itself, oblige us to view in no other way but that.
In reviewing professional opinions on Riemann's rigorous original and profound contributions to the formalities of mathematics and mathematical physics, it should be recognized that these aspects of his work are often referenced to the (sometimes intended) effect of misleading our attention away from the well-springs of his genius.290 The center of Riemann's discovery of the 1853-1854 interval lies not in the mathematical formalities of the subject-matters principally addressed; Riemann's genius lies in emphasizing the subjectivity of all scientific work, as his posthumously published critical items on Herbartian method corroborate the explicit guidance provided within the dissertation itself.
The key to understanding the essential subjectivity of Riemann's revolution is the present author's "Metaphor" series, including the relatively most recent "The Truth About Temporal Eternity."291 Apply the more general implications of the Riemann argument referenced by Einstein. The argument to be made is as follows.
In earlier portions of this present report, as in the referenced "The Truth About Temporal Eternity," the case is made that the absolute distinction which sets mankind apart from and above all other species is mankind's manifest capacity to alter willfully, successfully, our species' potential relative population-density. The quality of this capacity is shown to us chiefly in two ways.
First, we can look at all of discoverable human existence from the standpoint of the recent six centuries of the combined physical economy and demographic characteristics of European civilization. This enables us to recognize not only the benefit of replacing the old feudal and other forms of imperial social organization by Dante's and Cusa's notion of the sovereign nation-state republic based upon subjection to a Christian definition of natural law, but also willful fostering of the forms of technological progress in infrastructure and production which depend, in turn, upon progress in science and in Classical forms of art. This enables to recognize the efficiency of precursors of such progress in earlier forms of society, including the evidence of the continuing development of language itself.
Second, the young child learns the concepts of his or her civilized culture by reliving the act of discovery of those conceptions. "Why?," the mentally healthy child asks. As we have indicated, respecting the Classical alternative to textbook education, once we are able to replicate willfully what we can recognize as an act of original and fundamental discovery of a new principle of science, we are thus enabled to make ourselves conscious of that specific type of mental activity which we have replicated within our own minds. By recognizing such creativity as being a type of activity, rather than an isolated act, through replicating numerous such original discoveries, creative mentation becomes an object of which we are conscious as we might be conscious of any sensory event.292 By employing the same method for discovery of new theorems consistent with an established theorem-lattice, and also discoveries which overturn such theorem-lattices axiomatically, the conscious mind of the student is enabled to distinguish between ordinary discovery and axiomatic-revolutionary discovery, the latter Plato's notion of Hypothesis.
From the combining of these two points of reference (as we have outlined those standpoints above here), we are able to define human creativity as a mental object, and this in the same sense that we use the term "object" to identify the conception we associate with any empirical phenomenon. It is only by doing precisely that which Pomponazzi, Zorzi, Francis Bacon, and so on explicitly prohibit, including "mental objects" (e.g., metaphor) as scientific phenomena, that we are able to adduce that efficient quality which defines mankind as a species set absolutely apart from and above all other species.
So, as we have emphasized at an earlier point, relative to science (e.g., Riemann's principle underlying his fundamental breakthrough of 1853-1854), in mathematics and related aspects of physics we encounter two general classes of what Riemann identifies as Geistesmassen,293 the metaphors which the present writer has termed "thought-objects."
From the initial vantage-point referenced by Riemann, that of Classical constructive and formal geometries, the lower of these classes is the notion of the Cantorian transfiniteness of any formally consistent theorem-lattice: that, for the array of both known and yet-to-be-discovered theorems in a given lattice, we may substitute the set of axioms and postulates underlying that lattice as a whole. By conceptualizing that latter array of axioms and postulates as a "generating principle,"294 we are to present to ourselves the solution-principle of Plato's Parmenides; in place of the Many theorems of the open-ended lattice, we substitute as a One the unified conception of the array of axioms and postulates as a single mental object.295
However, it is impossible to conceptualize such a set of axioms as a "One" from within the confines of reference to but one such theorem-lattice. To overcome that difficulty, one must either generate a valid new theorem-lattice, more powerful (in cardinality) than the first, or one must relive someone else's original discovery to that effect. This difficulty, of conceptualizing the One which is a generating-principle for a Many, cannot be solved by merely comparing two axiomatically distinct theorem-lattices; one must experience the generation of the higher from the lower, either an original experience, or as a replication of that original discovery within one's own mental processes.
One can then name that discovery "Pythagoras," "Plato," "Eudoxus," "Eratosthenes," "Archimedes," "Nicolaus of Cusa," "Leonardo da Vinci," "Kepler," "Desargues," "Pascal," "Huyghens," "Leibniz," ... , "Riemann," "Cantor," or "Gödel," as all good literate scientific practice has learned to do. If one of these has effected several discoveries of principle, or qualitative improvements of such a discovery, we use the names of the discoveries, separately, or hyphenated, as "person-species" of discovery, or assign a sub-name to each of the discoveries of that person.
It is only in such social relations, premised in the domain of such mental objects (Riemann's Geistesmassen), that real science proceeds. By looking into the mind of others, through reliving their acts of axiomatic-revolutionary discovery, and their experience in reliving, in their turn, the axiomatic-revolutionary discoveries of others, we are able to look similarly into our own minds. Otherwise, without that specific, and very immediate quality of social relations with others—in terms of relatively valid axiomatic-revolutionary discoveries,296 including many long dead, science were impossible.
Without experiencing the generation of successively higher cardinalities of species-distinct theorem-lattices (or, the equivalent experience), it were impossible to conceptualize the set of axioms of a single species of theorem-lattice as a generating-principle, as a Platonic One. The lesson of Plato's Parmenides may be restated, therefore: Human knowledge through mere sense-perception alone were impossible; except as man acts, through thought-objects, to change human behavior axiomatically, man were incapable of that quality of distinction from the mere beasts for which we assign human significance to the term "knowledge."
That returns one's study of Riemann's work to the opening outline of his referenced dissertation: the task is to examine, in a general way, the presumptions, called axioms, which underlie (as "generating principles") the various forms (theorem-lattices) of geometry (and physics) which have existed from Euclid through Legendre.
Only from the standpoint of physical economy, as this writer has defined that relevance here and elsewhere,297 is a rigorous science possible. The question, "What is knowledge?," must first be restated, "What is human knowledge?" Animal behavior is put out of consideration axiomatically; any person who extends comment on human behavior from the behavior of animal types, such as the late Professor B.F. Skinner, is a blundering incompetent or a dangerous quack.298 Human knowledge is that process of development which distinguishes the human species absolutely from all types of beasts. The physical-economic, demographic history of mankind is the starting-point for the study of knowledge; that history is defined as the comparison of (changes) increases of potential relative population-density with implicitly axiomatic-revolutionary changes in ways of thinking, from sets of ideas with relatively lower cardinality, to those with relatively higher. The truth lies not within any term of that series, but rather in the principle of change which orders the succession to ever-relatively higher cardinality.
That notion of change, termed by Plato the principle of hypothesis, is what the Venetians have banned. The attempt to restrict thought to sense-objects, and to ban thought-objects from scientific work, is the essence of empiricism, and the essence of a principle of evil. Thus, Galileo's method is an embodiment of evil; the insistence upon substituting infinite series for a principle of discovery (hypothesis), is the most common reflection of the influence of evil institutionalized within academic and related life over the course of the recent five centuries. That is the evil within Klein's fallacy of composition respecting π. The connections indicated are key to understanding the evil embodied by Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell .
From the standpoint of the science of physical economy,299 the generalized geodetic required by Riemann's discovery, is not as Einstein mistakenly imagined: universal physical space-time is bounded externally, not by some conjecturable "fence" around the universe, but transfinitely, as Cantor understood that Plato's notion of the Good bounds the Becoming, as hypothesizing the higher hypothesis is so bounded by that One which subsumes the Many-ness of all hypothesizing. The generalized geodetic required is the characteristic of efficient human activity within the universe. From the standpoint of the universe, the only truly efficient expression of human activity is that successive rise to relatively higher orders of cardinality of knowledge which is representable by a corresponding series of axiomatic-revolutionary discoveries.
That geodetic defines the true curvature of our universe, because it reveals the laws of the universe as that One which corresponds, as an externally bounding principle of universal change, to man's successfully increasing mastery of the universe in per-capita, per-household, and per-square-kilometer terms.
That geodetic is also that map of the human intellect which is our indispensable guide to scientific knowledge, including what we term "moral knowledge," or "natural law." Without it, scientific progress in the larger sense were impossible. Science has progressed despite the Aristotelian-empiricist attempt of the Venetian Party to halt it. The dogma of Galileo's method, and the related insistence that apparent convergence in terms of infinite series eliminates the existence of singularities, is the devil's own work, a product of the Venetian efforts to bring human knowledge to a halt by outlawing anything but the empiricist method of Aristotelians and neo-Aristotelians such as Pomponazzi, Zorzi, Bacon, Locke, Newton, and Ortes.
To understand the recent six centuries of European civilization's process of emerging as the dominant characteristic of a planetary culture, we must return to reconsider a point identified here earlier. Consider the principles of the Renaissance as one type of geodetic, the opposing principles of the Venetian Party as an opposing type of geodetic, and the actual course of the internal history of the recent six centuries of European civilization as a third type of geodetic.
The case of Klein's frauds illustrates the scope of the "brainwashing" of institutionalized science by rendering obeisance to an axiomatically empiricist form of argument typified by what is often identified as "generally accepted classroom mathematics." Klein's relevance to the case of Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell is essentially that Klein's moral corruption typifies the environment which rendered possible the toleration of an influence as patently evil as Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell efficiently has remained to date, live or deceased.
Thus, science itself has been a victim of British colonial methods.
Remember! How did the "Venetian Party" of Britain build its empire?
First, came gun-boats, muskets, and Venetian-style diplomacy—which of the three weapons is more despicable, remains uncertain, though the evidence tends to suggest the latter. Thus, the people are subjugated, more or less in the fashion one herds wild animals into a corral.
Then, comes the business of taming the captive herd. Forceful restraint is still obligatory. Those captives tending to rebelliousness must be detected, and either eliminated or reduced to a moral condition of old jello. The flock must be bred, to evoke in the cultivated descendants the desired attributes of milkiness, meatiness, and docility. In this way, the captive breed is brought into a state of self-government, in which the ruling bureaucracy is more savagely British than the Brutish Empire itself. At that latter point in the dumbing-down process, come the "winds of change," and the captives are entrusted with the duties of fettering themselves at night, or whatever else the I.M.F. or the London financial market suggests.
So, it was with the Venetian Party's taming of science. The insistence upon the methods of Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Helmholtz, John Von Neumann, Norbert Wiener, and Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell has turned the leaders of science into an irrationalist pagan priesthood, tyrannizing those who teach in classrooms, spewing their obiter dicta through sewer-pipes such as Nature and Science. So, for the purposes of dumbing-down the captive herds still further, the "New Math" was introduced during the late 1950's and 1960's. So, today, to transform the children of once-civilized people into disgustingly rutting Yahoos, the imperial bureaucracy of the United Nations' one-world dictatorship introduced to the U.S. schools "Outcome-Based Education," well designed to transform a human being into a dumb cow.
So, the time has come, when the London Venetian Party has put on its World Federalist mask. The time has come to cull the dumbed-down human herd "by methods which are disgusting, even if they are necessary." Evil Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell ; poor, duped Felix Klein!
3. The Coming of Age of Humanity
We have now reached the point at which to set forth summarily the conclusions which we propose ought to be reached through the types of evidence which have been sampled in our presentation of the foregoing, lapsed-time portrait of recent history.
We might have chosen to title this summary "Of Principalities and Powers." The past six centuries, taken in the context of the two thousand years preceding the Fifteenth-Century Renaissance, illustrate the point that history is shaped by ideas. These are ideas which shape the rise and fall of entire civilizations, entire cultures, over period of not less than centuries. This shows us how impotent and ineffectual men and women are whenever they limit their exertions to matters of flesh-and-blood, practical social relations over such relatively insignificant intervals of time and place, as the span of a generation or two within some local area of this planet.
Only as we act efficiently in steering, altering and developing those ideas which shape a half-millennium or so of history, either throughout this planet, or in a large region of it, do we have any willfully significant effect upon the fate of nations, of entire civilizations. The paradigm for this fact is the past six-centuries' history of what we call physical science. The kind of conscious and efficient influence which an individual person might have on the outcome of an entire period of history, is typified by the individual who relives those moments of the past, which correspond to axiomatic-revolutionary types of scientific discoveries, and who reacts to that by correcting those discoveries, and bequeathing so an improved body of science to future generations.
In the case of so-called physical science, one can willfully shape the history of science efficiently according to one's intention; the key is to master consciousness of the principles governing valid axiomatic-revolutionary types of discoveries, as we have indicated above. That requires mastery of Plato's method of hypothesis; no alternative method for this purpose is yet known to exist.
All of the bodies of ideas which shape history over the span of centuries are analogous to the case for the ideas of physical science. The individual person participates efficiently in shaping willfully the outcome of his own existence only to the degree he or she participates consciously, efficiently in mastering those qualities of history-shaping ideas.
One cannot learn the principles which shape history from only the facts of the immediate social relations personally experienced within the span of a single person's lifetime. Many have proposed to premise alleged principles upon just that limited experience; inevitably, what they propose always turns out to be utopian rubbish, or worse.
Such misconstrued "experiments" are justly put into the same class as "flat-earth" dogmas generally; they are the delusions of persons who imagine themselves to be dwelling in a universe of "zero curvature": they do not wish to recognize that they have been experiencing history of a certain "non-zero curvature," have been living in a manifold in which direction is determined in accord with the position in the stream of history in which one is located at a particular moment, a direction which could not be the same if one were in a different position within that stream, a result which would not be the same had the action transpired in a different position.
Alas, we live on a planet peopled largely with Don Quixotes and Sancho Panzas. Most persons dwell either in the mists of some academic or related sort of ideological fantasy, like Cervantes' Don Quixote, or they are so busy with their personal pleasures and family affairs that "I have no time to waste on history." The Don Quixote is willing to govern society, but governs it madly. The more numerous Sancho Panzas cannot rule society, because they cannot even govern themselves. Until we can bring mankind into the Age of Reason, which we might wish were the Coming Age of Humanity, history will be shaped in actuality, not by the wills of masses of humanity, but by the mere handfuls who, for purposes of good or evil, steer the fate of mankind generally as herds of cows are steered to and from the pasture—and, occasionally, also to the slaughter-house.
The Age of Reason signifies a world in which the typical individual is no longer a Don Quixote or Sancho Panza, but rather a person who is efficiently conscious of the proper role of the brief mortal moment of the individual's mind in shaping the millennial spans of human history: national, regional, planetary, and interstellar. This Age of Reason will be no utopia, no perfectly designed order of things; by the very nature of things, such a goal could never be attained. The very idea of a utopia—any utopia—always has, and always will do no better than to drive the credulous into lunacy. It will simply be an Age in which most adult persons understand that history is ruled not by flesh and blood, but by principalities and powers, powers whose existence is typified by the recent six-centuries' struggle between Good and Evil in the domain of development of physical science. It will be an Age in which most adult individuals recognize that the meaning of life is to be found in participating in shaping those ideas which, in turn, shape history over the span of not fewer centuries. It will be an Age in which adults generally recognize the nature of the human species, as in the image of God—by virtue of physically efficient, valid axiomatic-revolutionary creativity in ideas. It will be an Age in which most adults act according to that knowledge.
What do we do in the meanwhile, given the prevalence of Don Quixotes, Sancho Panzas, and even worse? How do we get through the present mess? The proper answer to that is as ancient as Plato: the so-called "philosopher kings." The "philosopher king" is a person who has accepted Miguel Cervantes' plea to the poor wretches of Sixteenth-Century Spain, that he or she rise above being a Don Quixote, or Sancho Panza.
The professor would say, "That is a good question." Only a few of us are likely to participate in the Age of Reason; most citizens, even in the nations which are relatively best off, will remain Don Quixotes or Sancho Panzas. Not only would they fail to become "philosopher kings," they would, for the most part, reject rather angrily any demand that they cease being Don Quixotes, or Sancho Panzas. Most nations will remain for the present moment as Lazare Carnot found France at the moment Carnot accepted what appeared to be the "lost cause" position of organizing France's defense against all-conquering enemy invaders. That is to say, there is no nation on this planet qualified to enter directly into an Age of Reason earlier than several generations yet to come. We must be content to seek nothing more ambitious than a modest intermediate condition, a condition fairly described as the Age of Survival.
The best we can desire from the present moment of all humanity's great peril, is that we have leaders in whom the people place their trust, and who are morally qualified to be such leaders. The people generally will continue to seek simple things, the possibility of immediate survival for their families, personal freedom, and the expectation of the development, and security, of their posterity: those simple, but just possessions whose existence is now increasingly in jeopardy throughout the entirety of this planet. The people will find survival as a crowd of confused persons would find escape from a burning building; they will seek escape from the intolerable under the guidance of qualified leaders whom they have chosen as worthy of their trust.
The Age of Survival is one in which the people have such qualified leaders, and in which the citizens have enough sense to have chosen them. Those people will recognize such leaders chiefly by three qualities: (1) That the prospective leaders have a record of success in forecasting the effects of a few crucial policy-choices. (2) That the prospective leaders do not shilly-shally in face of pressures of "political correctness." (3) That the prospective leaders have recognized, and have earned murderous hatred from, those powerful forces who are—today—behind the traditions of such "Venetian Party" figures as Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell .
Five-and-a-half centuries after the Council of Florence, Venice and its outgrowth, the "Venetian Party," has come to dominate not only the financial institutions of the world, and most of the political ones, but also dominates the institutions of science, arts, and education generally. Under this reign, the world has been brought to the verge of a general collapse of an apocalyptic quality like that of the Fourteenth Century, but much worse. Time is running out rapidly.
There are three foreseeable alternatives for the next several years before us. Either we reverse the Venetian rule, or the Venetian faction will establish the kind of global, one-world dictatorship which the proposal for the U.N.O.'s Cairo population conference portends, or, the failure of both efforts results in a planetary chaos far worse than that of Fourteenth-Century Europe.
The people will survive that peril before us in but one way: By mobilizing themselves against those forces of Evil—those "principalities and powers"—merely typified by the case of the late Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell . If the people are to survive, they will recognize that adversary to be such rather soon. There is little time to waste if they are to survive; it is already very late. When they do react so, they will be disposed to choose appropriate leaders. Our task is to ensure that they find enough of them.
Note: The researches of the author and his associates into the following and related material on the Venetians involves dozens of persons over the recent two decades, in some cases longer. All of the conceptual analysis of the relationship among the work of the Venetian Aristotelians and European science and theology is the author's original work. The documentation of the historical details and documentation added to the author's files on the Venetians themselves was done principally by Classical scholars and others literate in Italian and Latin over much of these past twenty years. Since the documentation is so dense, we have elected to note the documentation only in the instance it has direct bearing upon the mainstream of the argument in progress, and is not commonplace documentation of the history of Venice and its agents given in other published locations.
1. See David Riesman, The Lonely Crowd: A Study of the Changing American Character, in collaboration with Reuel Denney and Nathan Glazer (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950); see also Robert Staughton Lynd and Helen Merrell Lynd, Middletown: A Study in American Culture (1929) (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1956). back
2. Pietro Pomponazzi (1462-1525), the gnostic teacher of Averroës' Aristotelianism famous for having demonstrated that a consistent philosopher of his teaching has no soul. Major work, De Immortalitate Animae (On the Immortality of Souls) (Bologna: 1516). See Martin L. Pine, Pietro Pomponazzi: Radical Philosopher of the Renaissance (Padova: Editrice Antenore, 1986); see also Studi su Pietro Pomponazzi, ed. by B. Nardi (Florence, 1965). back
3. See Philo ("Judaeus") of Alexandria, "On The Account of the World's Creation Given by Moses," in Philo: Vol. I, trans. by F.H. Colson and G.H. Whitaker, Loeb Classical Library No. 226 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1981), sec. XXIII, pp. 55-57. For Cusanus on the intellect as "a living similitude of God," see "On the Filiation of God," in Toward a New Council of Florence: 'On the Peace of Faith' and Other Works of Nicolaus of Cusa, trans. by William F. Wertz, Jr. (Washington, D.C.: Schiller Institute, 1993), p. 188. Cusanus refers to capax Dei and imago Dei in "On the Vision of God," in Nicholas of Cusa's Dialectical Mysticism, trans. by Jasper Hopkins (Minneapolis: The Arthur J. Banning Press, 1985), p. 127. In this location, Cusanus writes that man is "capable of receiving" God and that "the capability which conduces to union is only likeness." back
4. Aug. 6, 1945. Claude Eatherly, the pilot of the reconaissance plane on the "Enola Gay" mission, was never able to adjust to civilian life; in 1962 he wrote (with Gunther Anders) Burning Conscience (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1962). Robert Lewis, the co-pilot of the "Enola Gay," later said: "If I live a hundred years, I'll never quite get these few minutes out of my mind." [Quoted in Robert Rhodes, The Making of the Atomic Bomb (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1986).] When the U.S. Army Air Force General Carl Spaatz took over as commander of Strategic Forces, Pacific and was briefed on the atomic bomb mission—which would officially take place under his new command—he insisted, "If I'm going to kill 100,000 people, I'm not going to do it on verbal orders. I want a piece of paper." [Gordon Thomas and Max Morgan Witts, Enola Gay (New York: Pocket Books, 1977), p. 244.] back
5. The recently deceased Max Corvo, then OSS field chief for Italy, represented the U.S. in the mediation supplied through the Vatican by the late Pope Paul VI (then, Cardinal Montini). A massive operation by British agents, including London assets, such as the OSS's Allen Dulles and James Jesus Angleton, worked to discredit the Vatican as a way of neutralizing the evidence of the hoax behind the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. back
6. Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell , in The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Nos. 5 and 6, Sept. 1, 1946, p. 19. back
7. Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell writes: "It is entirely clear that there is only one way in which great wars can be permanently prevented, and that is the establishment of an international government with a monopoly of serious armed force. ... An international government, if it is to be able to preserve peace, must have the only atomic bombs, the only plant for producing them, the only air force, the only battleships, and generally whatever is necessary to make it irresistible. ... The international authority must have a monopoly of uranium, and of whatever other raw material may hereafter be found suitable for the manufacture of atomic bombs. It must have a large army of inspectors who must have the right to enter any factory without notice; any attempt to interfere with them or to obstruct their work must be treated as a casus belli. ... [T]he international government ... will have to decide all disputes between different nations, and will have to possess the right to revise treaties. It will have to be bound by its constitution to intervene by force of arms against any nation that refuses to submit to the arbitration. Given its monopoly of armed force, such intervention will be seldom necessary and quickly successful. ... back
8. For a history of Pugwash, see J. Rotblat, Scientists in the Quest for Peace, A History of the Pugwash Conferences (Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1972), p. 2.back
9. Professor Dmitri Ivanovich Mendeleyev (1834-1907), discoverer of the famous Periodic Law of chemistry, and teacher of the founder of the Soviet nuclear weapon, Academician Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky (1863-1945). By the beginning of the Twentieth Century, the addition of the Curies' discovery of nuclear radiation to the implications of Mendeleyev's Periodic Law had established the notion of nuclear energy as a source of power. Cf. Frederick Soddy, The Interpretation of Radium and the Structure of the Atom (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1922), based upon lectures first given in 1908. See also H.G. Wells' Acknowledgement to the Soddy work, and the incorporation of the idea of nuclear weapons into Wells' pre-1939 fiction, in his The World Set Free (London: Macmillan, 1914). For a review of Wells' activities, see Carol White, The New Dark Ages Conspiracy (New York: New Benjamin Franklin House, 1980), pps. 11, 172-174, 183 back
10. Leo Szilard (1898-1964) Hungarian-born physicist, crony of Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell , and the man whose real-life address at the 1958 Quebec Pugwash Conference, advocating what came to be known as "mutually assured destruction," earned him fictional fame as "Dr. Strangelove" in the 1960's film of the same name. back
11. Robert J. Moon (1911-1989), Professor of Physics, University of Chicago, a co-founder of the Fusion Energy Foundation, assembled the first test pile under the direction of Professor Enrico Fermi. back
12. According to James Hershberg, James B. Conant, Harvard to Hiroshima and the Making of the Nuclear Age (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1993), p. 137, "Leo Szilard, Eugen Wigner and Edward Teller saw Albert Einstein and persuaded him to sign a letter to Roosevelt warning of the terrible danger should Hitler get the bomb first. On October 11, the financier Alexander Sachs [Szilard's patron—ed.] carried this warning to FDR ... ." back
13. Thomas Powers, Heisenberg's War: The Secret History of the German Bomb (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1994). back
14. Christopher Marlowe, playwright and collaborator of William Shakespeare, murdered in 1593, presumably by a representative of the so-called "Venetian Party" of Paolo Sarpi et al. His celebrated drama Doctor Faustus, is a dramatic treatment of the ongoing takeover of England by Sarpi's Venetians. back
15. On Adorno and the Frankfurt School's influence, see Michael J. Minnicino, "The New Dark Age: The Frankfurt School and 'Political Correctness,' " Fidelio, Vol. I, No. 1, Winter 1992; see also, Michael J. Minnicino "The Nazi-Communist Roots of Post-Modernism," Fidelio, Vol. II, No. 2, Summer 1993. back
16. Robert S. McNamara (b. 1916). Dr. Edward Teller emphasized in a famous public address in Washington, in the Autumn of 1982, that the middle initial "S" in the former Defense Secretary's name, like his opinions and actions during and after that service, does actually signify "Strange." Teller was referencing the insanity of McNamara's perfervid advocacy of "Mutual and Assured Destruction." back
17. In acknowledgement of services rendered to the British crown, former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger delivered the featured May 10, 1982 address commemorating the founding of the British foreign intelligence service, by Jeremy Bentham and Lord Shelburne in 1782. On that occasion, Kissinger boasted to British foreign service's Chatham House audience, that he had always taken the side of Britain against the United States in disputes such as those between President Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, and illustrated this by reference to his own going behind the backs of Presidents Nixon and Ford while 1973-77 Secretary of State. Kissinger's career with the British foreign intelligence service began under Professor William Yandell Elliot of the Harvard University-based section of Chatham House's Wilton Park unit, continued under the direction of the London Tavistock Institute, and continued with a seconding under the sponsorship of McGeorge Bundy at the New York Council on Foreign Relations. From that seconding to the present time, Kissinger has served British interests in and out of the Fabian Society's Pugwash Conference, pushing Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell's long-range scheme to establish the U.N.O. as a global world-government tyranny. See footnotes 60 and 87 for excerpts of the Chatham House speech. back
18. Carol White, The New Dark Ages Conspiracy (New York: New Benjamin Franklin House, 1980), pps. 11, 172-174, 183. back
19. See Roland Clarke, The Life of Satanic Lord
(New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1976), p. 389. back
20. Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell , Prospects of Industrial Civilization (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1923). back
21. Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell , Prospects, ibid., p. 273 back
22. See "Stellungnahme und Gedanken zum Generalplan Ost des Reichsführers SS," drafted by Erhard Wetzel, head of the department for racial questions in the Reichsostministerium under Alfred Rosenberg, Geheime Reichssache, Dokument Nr. 2 (Alliiertes Dokument NG-2325), as quoted in Helmut Heiber, "Der Generalplan Ost," Vierteljahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte, Heft 3, 1958. back
23. Ibid., p. 317ff. back
24. See Webster G. Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin, George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography (Washington, D.C.: Executive Intelligence Review, 1992), pp. 26-62. back
25. Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell , The Impact of Science on Society (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1953), pp. 102-104. back
26. Quoted in Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell , The Future of Science, and Self-Portrait of the Author (New York: Philosophical Library, 1959), pp. 81-83. back
27. See Ronald Clarke, op. cit., p. 229. back
28. Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell , The Problem of China (New York: The Century Co., 1922). back
29. Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell , The Impact of Science, op. cit., pp. 102-103. back
30. See "Lord Palmerston's multicultural human zoo," Executive Intelligence Review, Vol. 21, No. 16, April 15, 1994, pp. 3-35. This feature contains nine articles on the above-cited topic, taken from presentations to the Schiller Institute and International Caucus of Labor Committees Conference, Feb. 19-20, 1994, Washington, D.C. , including "Palmerston's London during the 1850's: a tour of the human, multicultural zoo," by Webster Tarpley; "The Venetian takeover of England: a 200-year project," by Gerald Rose; "How the Venetian virus infected and took over England," by H. Graham Lowry; "The bestial British intelligence of Shelburne and Bentham," by Jeffrey Steinberg; "America's 'Young America' movement: slaveholders and the B'nai B'rith," by Anton Chaitkin; "Palmerston launches Young Turks to permanently control Middle East," by Joseph Brewda; "Freud and the Frankfurt School," by Michael Minnicino; and "Jim Crow, a cultural weapon in the hands of the Confederacy," by Dennis Speed. back
31. Henry A. Kissinger, A World Restored: Metternich, Castlereagh and the Problems of Peace 1812-1822 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1957), passim. back
32. The Impact of Science on Society, op. cit. back
33. "Morlochs" appear in Wells' 1895 The Time Machine, when the future human race has split into two different species: the physically beautiful Eloi, and the monstrous Morlochs. According to Wells' present-day protagonist, "the gradual widening of the present merely temporary and social difference between the Capitalist and the Labourer, was the key to the whole situation." The narrator explains that the British workers de-evolved into subterranean beasts in strict Darwinian fashion. Wells' view of mankind's essential bestiality is also the central motif of The Island of Dr. Moreau (1896) and The Invisible Man (1897). back
34. Tarpley and Chaitkin, loc. cit. back
35. Recently declassified NSSM-200 defines population control of Third World and other nations a matter of U.S. national-security interest—in the natural resources of those nations, lest the people eat up those resources before we in the U.S.A. might require them. See "Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests," National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM-200), Dec. 10, 1974 (unpublished, available in the National Archives, Washington, D.C.). back
36. On these Frankfurt School characters, see Michael J. Minnicino, op. cit. back
37. For a history of the Kurt Lewin-created National Training Laboratories (NTL), see Kurt Back, Beyond Words: The Story of Sensitivity Training and the Encounter Movement (New York: Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell Sage, 1972); for a more-critical review of Lewin, see Richard Freeman, "Rockefeller's Fascist Labor Policies," The Campaigner, Vol. 7, No. 7, May 1974. Lewin's relations to the National Education Association (NEA) are described in the pamphlet, "Will You Allow Your Child to Be Spiritually Molested: Get the ADL-NEA Brainwashers Out of the Schools," published by The New Federalist, Leesburg, Virginia, August 1993. back
38. Helga Zepp led a delegation of the LaRouche-founded International Caucus of Labor Committees to expose these Nazi-like policies during the conference. See "Rockefeller Blasted at U.N. Meeting," New Solidarity, Vol. V, No. 42, August 31, 1974; see also Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., The Power of Reason: 1988 (Washington, D.C.: Executive Intelligence Review, 1987), p. 289. back
39. See footnote 2. back
40. Plato, Parmenides, in Plato: Cratylus, Parmenides, Greater Hippias, Lesser Hippias, trans. by H.N. Fowler, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926). back
41. "Type" is used here in the sense of Georg Cantor's usage of that term. "Type" so employed signifies identifying a number, for example, according to the "generating principle" which governs the occurrence of that number within a series. To illustrate the point in the simplest way, consider the length of the hypotenuse of a 3,4,5 right triangle. Is that "5" an integer; in other words, is it a member of the set of rational numbers? Clearly, it is not, since this "5" was known to the Classical Greeks by the Pythagorean theorem, in which the hypotenuse is an incommensurable, i.e., a quadratic number "5.000 ... 0 ...," not the "5" of the series of integers. In mathematics generally, for example, we know of more than four species of cardinalities: rational; algebraic; "non-algebraic," or transcendental; and the Alephs, from Aleph-1, Aleph-2, ... . Each of those distinct species of cardinalities represents a distinct generating-principle, a distinct "Type." The same principle of "Type" also applies to comparisons among series of events, or of series of ideas. back
42. William Petty, Second Earl of Shelburne (1737-1805), Prime Minister of Britain, July 1, 1782 to Feb. 24, 1783. As Minister under Rockingham, and then Prime Minister, Shelburne organized the first, secret peace-treaty with the United States and France, making the adoption of Adam Smith's new dogmatic fad, "free trade," a conditionality. While Prime Minister, created the British foreign service, with his appointee, Jeremy Bentham, as first head of the British foreign intelligence service. Emerging as the most powerful man in Britain over the last decades of the Eighteenth Century, beginning approximately the time of the accession of George III (1760). Chief representative of the British East India Company and Barings bank, the power behind William Pitt the Younger (Prime Minister, 1783-1801, 1804-1806). For special historical reasons, this Shelburne's name is sedulously omitted from textbook varieties of accounts of precisely those leading developments in British history in which he played a principal role. For this latter reason, he is sometimes confused with the also powerful Sir William Petty, his grandfather, a leading figure of the Restoration Stuart decades, who lived 1623-1687. In addition to William Pitt the Younger, and, reputedly also the King himself, the East India Company's Shelburne owned such notables of the reign of George III as Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, Edward Gibbon, and Thomas Malthus. It was Shelburne who remodelled Britain to become a global empire, and who stamped Britain's establishment with the radical mind-set sometimes described, misleadingly, as British Nineteenth-Century philosophical radicalism. back
43. The most famous of the events within the field of philosophy which mark the change from the empiricism of Locke and Walpole's Liberals, to British philosophical radicalism, is Immanuel Kant's open break with his former mentor, David Hume, as Kant indicates in his Preface to the first edition of his Critique of Pure Reason, and as he clarifies the matter within his Prolegomena to a Future Metaphysic. Although John Locke was formally a radical positivist in the construction of his empiricism, as were Francis Bacon and Thomas Hobbes before him, Locke tempered his policy with cautious deference to custom. This respect for custom had later been adopted by David Hume. In this matter of custom, Immanuel Kant followed Locke and the relatively younger Hume; Kant's Critique of Practical Reason, especially the concluding section, "The Dialectic of Practical Reason," displays Kant's commitment to this policy. At the point that Hume later altered his views on custom, to take a more radical view, akin to that of Ortes, Adam Smith, and Bentham, Kant made his reluctant open break with Hume. More on this development below. The issues of Kant's break with Hume defines the singularity separating the old empiricism of Locke from the British philosophical radicalism of Shelburne's lackeys, and of the Huxley family and Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell later. See footnote 154. back
44. Thomas R. Malthus, An Essay On Population (1798) (New York: E.P. Dutton and Co., 1960). back
45. Giammaria Ortes, Riflessioni sulla popolazione delle nazioni per rapporto all'economia nazionale (Reflections on the Population of Nations in respect to National Economy) (Venice: 1790). Ortes' economic and related writings are reprinted in Scrittori classici italiani di economia politica, ed. by P. Custodi (Milan: G.G. Stefanis, 1803-16). For more on Ortes, see footnotes 56, 85, and 241. back
46. Darwin writes in his autobiography, "In October 1838—that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic enquiry—I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of new species. Here, then, I had at last got a theory by which to work... ." Quoted in Christopher Ralling, The Voyage of Charles Darwin (New York: Mayflower Books, 1979), p. 169. back
47. Pierre-Louis Moreau de Maupertuis (1698-1759). French mathematician and astronomer; member, Académie des Sciences (1723), introduced Newton's doctrine of gravitation to France (1731). Reorganized the Berlin Academy of Sciences beginning 1744, serving as president 1746-1759. Public controversy erupted when he presented Leibniz's "principle of least action" as his own in the Recherche de lois du movement (1746) and Essai sur cosmologie (1750). His Essai de philosophie morale (1749) contains the "hedonstic calculus" adopted by Ortes and later Bentham. back
48. Giovanni Botero, Della ragion di stato (1588; Engl. trans., 1606). See the Appendix, "Delle cause della grandezza e magnificenza delle città," for Botero's theory of population. Botero was a figure in the ambiance of the notorious Paolo Sarpi, who had studied with the notorious Aristotelian fanatic Bellarmino. In addition to his population theory, Botero is famous for his attacks, in De regia sapienta (1581), on Niccolò Machiavelli's work. back
49. For the decrees of Diocletian and other emperors, see Codex Theodosianus: Theodosiani Libri XVI cum Constitutionibus Sirmondianis, ed. by T. Mommsen (Berlin: Weidmann, 1962). For an account of the disastrous results of Diocletian's measures, see Tenney Frank, An Economic History of Rome (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1927), chap. XXII, "The Beginnings of Serfdom." See also Stephen Williams, Diocletian and the Roman Recovery (New York: Methuen, 1985). back
50. Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776), reprinted as The Wealth of Nations, ed. by R.H. Campbell and A.S. Skinner (London: Oxford University Press, 1979). back
51. Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. I (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1965), chap. XXV, § 4, p. 646. back
52. Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789) (New York: Hafner Publishing Co., 1970). back
53. Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead, Principia Mathematica (1910) (2nd ed., 1927) (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1968-1973). back
54. No mathematician who understood the significance of the principle of "cardinality" in defining transfinite mathematical types would be lured into the sophomoric blunder of so-called "chaos theory." In any well-ordered institution, the student's proposal that cardinality must vanish with the appearance of Aleph-0 earns the offender an automatic flunking grade for the term. Hence, the appropriateness of the term "idiot savant" here. back
55. See H.G. Wells, Experiment in Autobiography (1934) (Boston: Little, Brown, 1962) for his relationship to Mackinder and Milner. For a discussion of Wells, Milner, and Mackinder's joint work with the Fabian Society's "Co-Efficients' Club," see Carol White, op. cit., passim. back
56. For a description of the Conti-Emo-Memmo-Ortes salon, the "conversazione filosofica e felice" which also directed Casanova, see Piero del Negro, "Giammaria Ortes, il Patriziato e la Politica di Venezia," in Giammaria Ortes: un "filosofo" veneziano del Settecento (Convegno internazionale di studio promosso dalla Fondazione Giorgio Cini con la collaborazione della Societá italiana di studi del secolo XVII di Roma e dell'Universitá degli studi di Venezia, convegno svolto all'idola di San Giorgio Maggiore nei giorni 14 e 16 dicembre 1990) (Firenze: L.S. Olschki, 1993), pp. 125-182. For Conti's writings, see Antonio Conti, Scritti filosofici (Napoli: F. Rossi, 1972) and Conti, Prose e poesie, 2 vols. (Venezia, 1756). For Conti's influence on Ortes, see Mauro di Lisa, " 'Chi mi sa dir s'io fingo,' Newtonianesimo e scetticismo in Giammaria Ortes," Giornale critico della filosofia italiana, LXVII (1988), pp. 221-233. back
57. Giacomo Casanova was officially a paid agent of Venetian intelligence assigned primarily to work against France by his controllers and sponsors, who included Andrea Memmo of the Conti "conversazione" salon, Francesco II Lorenzo Morosini (Procuratore di San Marco), and Senator Matteo Giovanni Bragadin. Casanova's main patroness in France was Mme. Jeanne Camus de Pontcarré, Marquise d'Urfé, the former mistress of the Duke of Orleans when he was Regent of France. One of Casanova's agents appears to have been the Cardinal de Bernis, the diplomat who negotiated Louis XV's Austrian alliance in the diplomatic revolution of 1756. For Casanova, see John Masters, Casanova (New York: Bernard Geis, 1969); James Rives Childs, Casanova: A Biography Based on New Documents (London: Allen and Unwin, 1961); and Edouard Maynial, Casanova and his Time (London: Chapman and Hall, 1911). Count Cagliostro, born Giuseppe Balsamo in Sicily, was the prime mover in the so-called Queen's necklace affair of 1785-86 which involved the Cardinal Prince of Rohan and others in a scandalous public trial which ruined the reputation of Queen Marie Antoinette and, in the judgment of Napoleon Buonaparte, constituted the starting point for the French Revolution of 1789. See François Ribadeau Dumas, Cagliostro (New York, Orion Press, 1966) and John Hardman, Louis XVI (London: Yale University Press, 1993). back
58. For Count Giovanni Antonio Capo d'Istria (Capodistria) (1776-1831) at the Congress of Vienna, see C.K. Webster, The Congress of Vienna (London: Oxford University Press, 1919). For his later career, see Wilhelm Schwarz, Die Heilige Allianz (Stuttgart: 1935) and Alfred Stern, Geschichte Europas seit den Vertraegen von 1815 bis zum Frankfurter Frieden von 1871 (Berlin: W. Hertz, 1894-1924). back
59. G.W. Leibniz, Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe, published by the Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Darmstadt: O. Reichl, 1923-), Reihe 4, Politische Schriften, Vol. 1. After his Paris trip and contact with the Académie des Sciences, Leibniz made frequent reference to the science and economy of Colbert's France as far the most advanced among nations. back
60. Henry A. Kissinger, "Reflections on a Partnership: British and American Attitudes to Postwar Foreign Policy," speech delivered at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Chatham House, London, May 10, 1982 (unpublished, available from the Cener for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, D.C.). Kissinger reviewed the unbridgeable philosophical differences between the United States and Great Britain, saying that on these points he sided with the British policy outlook. "British [World War II and post-war] policy drew upon two centuries of experience with the European balance of power, America on two centuries of rejecting it... . Britain has rarely proclaimed moral absolutes or rested her faith in the ultimate efficacy of technology... . Philosophically, she remains Hobbesian... . American foreign policy is the product of a very different tradition. ... We had created a nation consciously dedicated to 'self-evident' truths, and it was taken for granted in most American public discourse that our participation ... in the world could be guided exclusively by moral precepts." Later, Kissinger complained bitterly that "Americans from Franklin Roosevelt onward believed that the United States, with its 'revolutionary' heritage, was the natural ally of peoples struggling against colonialism; we could win the allegiance of these new nations by opposing and occasionally undermining our European allies in the areas of their colonial dominance. Churchill, of course, resisted these American pressures." See footnotes 17 and 87. back
61. Although the institutions of that Renaissance were established formally in the ecumenical victory for the circles of Nicolaus of Cusa and the future Pius II at that Council of Florence, in a.d.: 1440, that event was the outcome of a process of rebirth which had been begun, chiefly by the followers of Dante Alighieri, such as Petrarca at Avignon, during the preceding century. Consider the period from the collapse of the Venetian debt-bubble, in the middle of the Fourteenth Century, to the Renaissance Council of Florence, as a period of transition from the old to the verge of the new; in that sense, Modern History begins with the transition from the pre-1439 conciliar meetings, including Constance, to the Renaissance Council of Florence. back
62. According to historians, the Venetians earned deep hatred from their Greek victims in the course of Venice's 1645-1699 wars of conquest against the vulnerable fringes of that decaying Osmanian dynasty which the Venetians themselves had helped to conquer Constantinople in a.d.: 1453. From the Fourth Crusade onwards, looting of the tortured remains of the Byzantine Empire, whether under Paleologue, Osman, or for the purposes of the Fourth Crusade, was a recurring Venetian swindle. In the course of its invasion and occupation of the Peloponnesus, the Venetian occupying force's explosives transformed the Athens Parthenon into a ruin. back
63. Capodistria, after serving Venice's diplomatic/intelligence services in Russia and Switzerland, ended his life serving as British-approved governor of the nominally liberated regions of Greece. back
64. See footnote 49. back
65. For Enrico Dandolo and the Fourth Crusade, see John Julius Norwich, A History of Venice (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1982), p. 122ff. Cf. Frederick C. Lane, Venice: A Maritime Republic (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973). back
66. Miriam Beard in her History of the Business Man (New York: Macmillan, 1938) writes: "... when Genghis Khan ruled from Korea to Persia, the Mongols were extending their colossal empire westward. ... At every stage, the Mongol generals informed themselves ahead of time about the state of European courts, and learned what feuds and disorders would be advantageous to their conquests. This valuable knowledge they obtained from Venetian merchants, men like Marco Polo's father. It was thus not without reason that Polo himself was made welcome at the court of Kublai, and became for a time administrator of the Grand Khan." (p. 105). See also B.H. Liddell Hart, Great Captains Unveiled (London: 1927) for the role of the Venetians as the "intelligence service of the Mongols." back
67. Barbara Tuchman, A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous Fourteenth Century (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978). back
68. For the Crusades, see Sir Stephen Runciman, A History of the Crusades, 3 vols. (London: Cambridge University Press, 1951-54). See also Jonathan Riley-Smith, The Crusades: A Short History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987) and Hans Eberhard Mayer, The Crusades (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988). back
69. For Frederick I Barbarossa, see Helmut Hiller, Friedrich Barbarossa und seine Zeit (Munich: List, 1977) and Peter Munz, Frederick Barbarossa: a study in medieval politics (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1969). For Frederick II see Stupor Mundi: zur Geschichte Friedrichs II von Hohenstaufen (Darmstadt: 1992) and Georgina Masson, Frederick II of Hohenstaufen: A Life (New York, Octagon Books, 1973). back
70. The Venetians manipulated the wars of the Lombard League against Frederick I (battle of Legnano, 1176) and the wars of Charles of Anjou against Frederick II and his heirs (battle of Benevento, 1266). Venice was also instrumental in unleashing the Hundred Years' War (1339-1453) between England and France which was started by Venice's ally King Edward III of England. For the "Babylonian captivity" of the Papacy in Avignon, see Guillaume Mollat, The Popes at Avignon (1305-1378) (New York: Harper and Row, 1965) and Yves Renouard, Avignon Papacy, 1305-1403 (London: Faber, 1970). back
71. "Classical tragedy" should be read here in the sense of Aeschylus' Prometheus, and in terms of the principles of tragedy as set forth by Friedrich Schiller. For Schiller on tragedy, see "On the Use of Chorus in Tragedy," Fidelio, Vol. II, No. 1, Spring 1993, pp. 60-64. See also "Über den Grund des Vergnügens an tragischen Gegenstäden" ("On the Reasons We Take Pleasure in Tragic Subjects") and "Über die tragische Kunst" ("On Tragic Art") in Friedrich von Schiller, Sämtliche Werke in Sechs Bänden (Stuttgart: Phaidon Verlag, 1984), vol. 5, pp. 127-162. See also "On the Pathetic" and "On the Sublime," in Friedrich Schiller, Poet of Freedom, Vol. III, ed. by William F. Wertz, Jr. (Washington, D.C.: Schiller Institute, 1990). For Friedrich Schiller on the role of the punctum saliens in tragedy, see, e.g., the "Introduction" to his History of the Revolt of the United Netherlands Against Spanish Rule, in Friedrich Schiller, Poet of Freedom, Vol. III, ibid., pp. 177-191. back
72. Even if but for approximately thirteen years, until the Ottoman sack of a betrayed Constantinople in a.d.: 1453. back
73. See Helga Zepp-LaRouche, "Nicolaus of Cusa and the Council of Florence," Fidelio, Vol. I, No. 2, Spring 1992, pp. 17-22 (Address to the Schiller Institute conference commemorating the 550th anniversary of the Council of Florence, Rome, May 5, 1989), for her presentation of the proofs supplied to the Council by Nicolaus of Cusa from Greek documents Cusa gathered during his visit to Byzantium. back
74. The two principal writings to be consulted for understanding the conception of the modern nation-state republic under natural law are Dante Alighieri, De Monarchia [trans. by Herbert W. Schneider as On World-Government (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1957)] and Nicolaus of Cusa, Concordantia Catholica [trans. by Paul E. Sigmund as The Catholic Concordance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992)]. back
75. On the founding of modern science, the key works are by Nicolaus of Cusa: De Docta Ignorantia (On Learned Ignorance) (1440) [trans. by Jasper Hopkins as Nicolaus of Cusa on Learned Ignorance (Minneapolis: Arthur M. Banning Press, 1985)]. back
76. In formalist's terms, this is analogous to the effect of an axiomatic-revolutionary change within the set of axioms and postulates defining the generating principle which subsumes a specific type of formal theorem-lattice. One such change in axiom (or, postulate) revolutionizes the generating principle, to such effect that no apparently similar theorem of the implicit new lattice has any actual congruence with any possible theorem of the old. back
77. When Isidore of Kiev, who had been the Russian delegate to the Council of Florence, attempted to proclaim the unity of Christendom in Moscow, he was lucky to escape alive from the fury of Grand Prince Vasily the Blind. For Isidore's story as told in the Second Sophia Chronicle, The Tale of Isidore's Council, and Selections from the Holy Writings against the Latins and the tale about the composition of the Eighth Latin Council, see EIR Special Report: Global Showdown (Washington, D.C.: Executive Intelligence Review, 1985), pp. 87-89. For an Orthodox account, see Ivan Ostroumoff, The History of the Council of Florence (Boston: Holy Transfiguration Monastery, 1971), pp. 182-184. Approximately thirteen years after the Council, Constantinople fell to the Ottoman conquest. Scholarius assisted the Ottomans by mobilizing the Greeks not to rally to the defense of Constantinople. In reward for this treasonous service to his Greek countrymen, the Ottomans took time from sharing up the remains of the conquered Greece with Venice, to appoint Scholarius the religious representative for all of the non-Muslim population of the Ottoman Empire. back
78. For the League of Cambrai, see Felix Gilbert, The Pope, His Banker, and Venice (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980). See also John Julius Norwich, A History of Venice (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1982), pp. 390-433. back
79. For analysis and bibliography on Sarpi, the Giovani, and England, see Webster G. Tarpley, "The Role of the Venetian Oligarchy in the Reformation, the Counter-Reformation, Enlightenment, and Thirty Years' War," The New Federalist,, Vol. VII, No. 14, April 12, 1993, pp. 6-7; and "The Venetian Conspiracy," Campaigner, Vol. 14, No. 6, Sept. 1981, pp. 23-46. back
80. See Gaetano Cozzi, Paolo Sarpi fra Venezia e l'Europa (Torino: Einaudi, 1978) and Enrico De Mas, Sovranitá politica e unitá cristiana nel seicento anglo-veneto (Ravenna: Longo, 1975). See also William J. Bouwsma, Venice and the Defense of Republican Liberty (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968).back
81. As a matter of population-control applied to their own ranks, in the last two centuries of Venice's political independence, the time came that her oligarchy imposed increasingly strict celibacy upon a growing majority of its progeny. By the late Seventeenth Century, a typical Venetian oligarch travelling abroad, was, if not an abbot, a monk with vows in more or less perpetual abeyance—like Ortes. This style was associated with a proliferation of homosexuality among male and female members of the Venetian oligarchy, a city which rivalled Biblical Sodom and Gomorrah on such accounts. The spread of this Venetian oligarchical bachelor style, is often a marker for Venetian moral affiliations, which was clearly the case for Bacon and such kookish cronies of his as Hobbes, Elias Ashmole, et al. back
82. The dates are approximate. Crucial respecting 1688 is the disintegration of the reign of England's James II, which left Venice no option but to proceed with the deploying of its asset William of Orange into London. Crucial respecting 1818 is the full unmasking of the tyrannical character of the Metternich Holy Alliance. back
83. Lord Edmund Fitzmaurice, Life of William, Earl of Shelburne (London: Oxford University Press, 1907) p. 73. back
84. As noted above, this singular change within the doctrine of empiricism is the issue which prompted Kant's open break with his former mentor, David Hume. back
85. For Ortes, see the Cini Foundation symposium cited above under footnote 56. See also Gianfranco Torcellan, Settecento Veneto ed altri scritti storici (Torino: Giapichelli, 1969). For Ortes' shorter writings, see Giammaria Ortes: Calcolo sopra la veritá dell'istoria e altri scritti, ed. by Bartolo Anglani (Genoa: Costa and Nolan, 1984). For Ortes' economic writings, see Della economia nazionale (Milano: Marzorati, 1971). Ortes' economic and related writings are reprinted in Scrittori classici italiani di economia politica, ed. by P. Custodi (Milan: G.G. Stefanis, 1803-16). See also Webster G. Tarpley, "Giammaria Ortes and the Venetian Hoax of Carrying Capacity," The New Federalist, Vol. VIII, No. 22, June 20, 1994, pp. 6-9. For Conti, see footnote 56. back
86. The Thule Society, and its later offshoot, the aristocratic Allgemeine SS, were creations of princely forces from within the Fürstentum of the Twentieth-Century carry-forward of the Holy Roman Empire. This covered, in area, a large portion of the princely and related aristocratic families of the regions from Istria and northern Italy, northward into the circles of the Bavaria monarchy. These, otherwise typified by the renegade Benedictine Abbot who early met young Hitler, had been the backers of Giuseppe Mazzini's British bomber, composer Richard Wagner, created Adolf Hitler, and passed Hitler on to the nominally Protestant, also Venetian-controlled circles of the Vril Society. As a sovereign state, Venice disappeared into the outhouses of the Nineteenth Century; as a network of interdependent financial and political potencies, Venice continues very much alive, as a parasite within numerous institutions, to the present day. There is thus a continuity between the evil Ortes and the modern expression of this Venetian evil, the Club of Rome, and the proponents of the Cairo Population Conference. back
87. Op. cit. Kissinger told the 1982 Chatham House audience: "The British were so matter-of-factly helpful that they became a participant in internal American deliberations, to a degree probably never before practiced between sovereign nations. In my period in office, the British played a seminal part in certain American bilateral negotiations with the Soviet Union—indeed, they helped draft the key document. In my White House incarnation then, I kept the British Foreign Office better informed and more closely engaged than I did the American State Department ... ." back
88. Elliott Roosevelt, As He Saw It (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1946). back
89. For documentation on the World War II origins of the Hollinger Corporation as a British foreign-intelligence operation run under private cover by the Churchill-Beaverbrook apparatus, see Assault on the Presidency!, published by the Committee to Reverse the Accelerating Global Economic and Strategic Crisis: A LaRouche Exploratory Committee, Leesburg, Virginia, April 1994. back
90. The leading allusion here is to the argument of Philo of Alexandria in his On the Creation, op. cit. God's universe is not premised upon a set of mechanical laws, fixed for all eternity. The universe is governed, rather, by a lawful principle of continuing creation. Cf. William F. Wertz, Jr. on the subject of Nicolaus of Cusa's De visione Dei: "Nicolaus of Cusa and The Concept of Negentropy," Fidelio, Vol. II, No. 4, Winter 1993. Creation, that power which casts man in the image of God the Creator, is typified—in Cantor's sense of "type"—for man's knowledge of this principle, by a valid axiomatic-revolutionary form of discovery of a scientific principle of nature.back
91. Since the demolition of the Babylonian Empire (under the Achaemenid dynasty) by Alexander, the ally of the Academy of Athens, the eastern Mediterranean became Hellenized, and remained predominantly so until the takeover of the remains of the decayed Byzantine Empire by the forces of the Osmanian dynasty and the Mamelukes. It was thus so in the time of Jesus Christ's ministry. The highest form of the Hellenic language of thought at that time was not the effectively extinct spoken Hebrew language, but rather the Greek of Plato's Academy at Athens. Christianity was understood generally in the language of the Platonic Greek of the Disciple John and Apostle Paul, for example, until Plato was banned by later Byzantine emperors. Aristotle was introduced into the Venice-dominated western Mediterranean through such Iberian gnostics as Moses Maimonides (1135-1204)
(Note: Author LaRouche does not support this characterization of Moses Maimonides. This footnote was inserted by then EIR editor, Nora Hamerman, who soon broke with LaRouche over related issues. Enemies of LaRouche took control of EIR and related publications shortly after his fraudulent imprisonment in January 1989. A rabid convert to Buckley family-style Carlist gnosticism, anti-semite Fernando Quijano was the leader of the clique, controlled by LaRouche's intelligence community adversaries. Quijano tendered his resignation from EIR to LaRouche on learning that LaRouche was being released from imprisonment. Editor Hamerman and her husband announced their break shortly after a September 1994 conference, at which their policy was defeated. Other "stay-behind" agents of the same pro-Carlist dispositions left at later times)
and Ibn Rushd (Averroës) (1126-1198) during the Twelfth Century, in the effort to weaken both Judaism and Christianity. The Aristotle of Averroës was revived at Padua under the Venetian Pietro Pomponazzi as part of Venice's efforts to undermine and destroy the anti-usury forces of the Renaissance. The alleged authority of Aristotle's putative authorship of the pro-slavery, pro-usury (Nicomachean) Ethics and Politics, was employed as apology for those and related practices of the Venice-centered oligarchical forces. back
92. The site of Delphi was originally consecrated to a pair of pagan deities, Gaia and Python, of the Shakti-Siva, Isis-Osiris, and Cybele-Dionysus model, typical of cults based on a moon-goddess who is also both Earth-mother goddess and patron deity of witchcraft and prostitution. Python is a serpent, belonging to the same pagan paradigm as the semitic Satan. From the East a new factor was introduced, the hybrid deity Apollo-Python, or, alternatively, Apollo-Dionysus. More on this Apollo-Dionysus cult in the European oligarchical tradition at relevant locations below. back
93. On the contrast with imperial law, see Friedrich August Freiherr von der Heydte, Die Geburtsstunde des souveränen Staates (Regensburg: Druck und Verlag Josef Habbel, 1952). On the principle of the modern nation-state republic, compare Dante Alighieri's De Monarchia, op. cit. with Nicolaus of Cusa's Concordantia Catholica, op. cit. back
94. See Nicolaus of Cusa, De Docta Ignorantia, op. cit. Consider also the unprecedented explosion of fundamental scientific and technological progress during the Fifteenth Century, from Filippo Brunelleschi through Luca Pacioli and Leonardo da Vinci. back
95. Op. cit. back
96. The qualification "near to its zenith" reflects inclusively the fact that in 1261 Michael Paleologue had overthrown the Venetians' Latin empire. back
97. The Humboldt brothers' project in Rome, at the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, demonstrated that Italian, while heavily doused with Latin loan-words over the more than two thousand years since the subjugation of the Italians by the Romans, was an independent language which had co-existed with Latin, rather than being a derivative of Latin. This announcement by the Humboldts and their circles of philologists was met by an explosion of rage from those whose concerns sprang from motives other than passion for truth. See footnote 223. back
98. This author constructed a project, defining the conditions of speech required to represent known states of mind by language. A team of Italian scholars compared this table of requirements for a literate form of language with the Commedia; all of the conditions were satisfied. back
99. Leonardo's contributions to military technology are summarized in The Unknown Leonardo, ed. by Ladislao Reti (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974), esp. Ludwig H. Heydenreich, "The Military Architect," pp. 136-189, and Bern Dibner, "Machines and Weaponry," pp. 190-215. See also footnote 198. back
100. Machiavelli's analysis of the superiority of a "well-ordered militia" based on an educated republican citizenry can be found in his Art of War, Book I (New York: Macmillan, 1975), and in his Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius, Book I (New York: Viking Penguin, 1984), chap. 4. For an appreciation of these ideas, see Michael J. Minnicino, "The Need for Virtù in Today's Politics," New Solidarity, Vol. VIII, No. 40, July 19, 1977; and Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., "A Machiavellian Solution for Israel," Campaigner, Vol. 11, No. 2, March 1978. back
101. The already referenced Doctor Faustus is one of the truly great tragedies, a composition whose prose parody by Goethe does not reach up morally or intellectually to the original. back
102. Although Cervantes also composed for the stage, his great Classical tragedy, on the Classical Greek model of Aeschylus and others, is in prose form, as Don Quixote. back
103. See William F. Wertz, Jr., "On the Brotherhood of the Common Life," Fidelio, Vol. III, No. 2, Summer 1994. On the Schiller and Humboldt reforms in education, see Helga Zepp-LaRouche, "Die Modernität des Humboldtschen Bildungsideals," Ibykus, Vol. II, No. SUPPLY, 1981. See also Wilhelm von Humboldt, "Preliminary Thoughts on the Plan for the Establishment of the Municipal School System in Lithuania" and "School Plan for Königsberg," which are summarized by Marianna Wertz, in "Wilhelm von Humboldt's Classical Education Curriculum," The New Federalist, Vol. VII, No. 10, March 15, 1993, p. 8; see also Wilhelm von Humboldt, Humanist Without Portfolio: An Anthology of the Writings of Wilhelm von Humboldt, trans. by Marianne Cowan (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1963). Humboldt's reform program was directly influenced by his long association with Friedrich Schiller. See "On Schiller and the Course of His Spiritual Development," by Wilhelm von Humboldt, and Schiller's "What Is, and To What End Do We Study, Universal History?" in Friedrich Schiller, Poet of Freedom, Vol. II, ed. by William F. Wertz, Jr. (Washington, D.C.: Schiller Institute, 1988). See footnote 223. back
104. On this point, see the author's references to the implications of the most famous among Raphael's (Raffaello Sanzio's) murals of the Stanze della Segnatura, the School of Athens. "The Truth About Temporal Eternity," Fidelio, Vol. III, No. 2, Summer 1994. See "III. The Education of Creativity"; also, the treatment of history as history of ideas, pp. 13-15, 25-30. back
105. Plato, Parmenides, in Plato: Cratylus, Parmenides, Greater Hippias, Lesser Hippias, trans. by H.N. Fowler, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926).
106. Therein lies the intent, by him and also among today"s typical mass-media personalities, to perpetrate sophistries, falsehoods euphemistically described as the mass-media"s "fourth estate" right to "spin," which is "spin" for "to lie recklessly in the most outrageous extreme."
107. Plato, Parmenides, op. cit., Steph. p. 156c-e. Plato's notion of "change" is that of Heraclitus before him. Georg Cantor's derivation of the notion of a "generating principle" of self-similar forms of change as defining a "type," is derived from Plato"s conception of change. Cantor emphasizes this explicit connection in his comparisons of Plato's Becoming to his own Transfinite, and Plato"s Good to his own Absolute.
108. On the Howards' role in the divorce of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon, see Betty Behrens, "A Note on Henry VIII"s Divorce Project of 1514," Bulletin of the Bolton Institute of Historical Research, Vol. II, 1934, pp. 163-4; and David Cherry, "Venice and England"s Break with Rome: A Cold Coup Shaping 500 Years of World Empire," unpublished, Leesburg, Virginia, 1992. For the Venetian role in Anne Boleyn"s seduction of Henry VIII, see Huth, Christina Nelson, "The Life and Death of Saint Thomas More," The New Federalist, Vol. 3, No. 14 &amp; 15, March 24 &amp; March 31, 1989.
109. The marker for the character of France"s Restoration monarchy is the expulsion of Gaspard Monge and his educational program, to replace the leadership of the world"s most advanced science, Monge and Lazare Carnot, with the neo-Newtonian scoundrels, Abbot Moigno"s LaPlace and Cauchy. Thus, French science survived in Germany under the patronage of Alexander von Humboldt and his brother Wilhelm. From 1827, through the First World War, the world leadership in science was in the Humboldts" Germany. British agent Louis Napoleon Buonaparte ("Napoleon III") was a British foreign-intelligence service agent who was brought to power in France, first as President and then Emperor, by Britain"s Lord Palmerston; Palmerston prot&eacute;g&eacute; "Napoleon the Little"s" policy was always to maintain France as a junior partner of the British Empire, even to the point of establishing a junior French colonial empire as a junior partner of the big British colonial empire. Ironically, Palmerston lost his position as Prime Minister, and was downgraded to Foreign Minister, as a result of bringing Napoleon III to power. Queen Victoria, who did not always understand the devious methods required to bring her to the British imperial throne, was upset that her minister would replace a monarch, even a French one, with a mere plebeian such as Napoleon Buonaparte"s nephew.
110. For analysis and bibliography on Sarpi, the Giovani, and England, see Webster G. Tarpley, "The Role of the Venetian Oligarchy in the Reformation, the Counter-Reformation, Enlightenment, and Thirty Years" War," The New Federalist,, Vol. VII, No. 14, April 12, 1993, pp. 6-7; and "The Venetian Conspiracy," Campaigner, Vol. 14, No. 6, Sept. 1981, pp. 23-46.
111. Francesco Zorzi (Giorgi), De Harmonia Mundi (1525). Zorzi, a friar from a famous and powerful Venetian noble family, wrote this book, which was based largely on the Kabbala, as an explicit attack on the De Docta Ignorantia of Nicolaus of Cusa. Zorzi became influential in Henry VIII"s court after writing a brief in support of poor-fish Henry"s desire to divorce his aging Hapsburg wife and thus clear the way for bedding the Howards" bait, the temptress Anne. Zorzi remained in England from 1531 until his death in 1540. Zorzi"s work is of particular significance for his introducing the pseudo-scientific dogma argued later as empiricism by Francis Bacon, and laying the doctrinal basis in the Kabbala for the Rosicrucian Freemasonic cults of Robert Fludd and Elias Ashmole, et al. See footnote 239.
112. See the following section.
113. On Mazarin, see Anne-Marie Cabrini, Mazarin: Aventure et Politique (Paris: Editeur A. Bonne, 1962).
114. On Colbert, see Lettres, instructions et m&eacute;moires de Colbert, 8 vols., ed. by Pierre Cl&eacute;ment, (Paris: 1861-82) (Nandeln: Kraus Reprint, 1979).
115. England and the later "triple alliance," conducted war against France from 1666-1668; then the Dutch war of 1672-1678, in which England was a secret ally of Netherlands; the Palatine War of 1689-1697; the "War of the Spanish Succession" (1701-1714); etc. See H. Graham Lowry, How The Nation Was Won: America"s Untold Story, Vol. I (Washington, D.C.: Exectuive Intelligence Review, 1987), pp. 59-233, on English events of 1701-1714 as seen from the English colonies in North America.
116. Edmund Fitzmaurice, op. cit. Shelburne assigned British East India Company employee Adam Smith to prepare the research outline for what became Edward Gibbon"s The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.
118. Anton Chaitkin, Treason in America: From Aaron Burr to Averell Harriman, 2nd ed. (New York: New Benjamin Franklin Publishing House, 1985). See also footnote 30.
119. The quasi-official 1982-83 back-channel discussion, between this author and the Soviet government, of what became known as the Strategic Defense Initiative, already stirred up some ominous foretaste of the explosion which was to erupt from Moscow and its friends in London and within the U.S. intelligence establishment from the time President Ronald Reagan delivered the March 23, 1983 announcement. During this entire period, but especially from about 1985 onwards, there were what appeared then as some very surprising sympathizers, from high-level Western intelligence quarters, of the Soviet system"s prolongation. Bronfman"s Anti-Defamation League and World Jewish Congress worked very closely with the Soviet KGB and East German agencies, for example, even beyond the last weeks of 1989. Prime Minister Thatcher and her Conor Cruise O"Brien and Nicholas Ridley expressed the policy of her government in denouncing West Germany as imminently a Fourth Reich, as part of her effort to prop up the Soviet system. The fear was geopolitical: that Germany might take the lead in integrating the East Bloc economies, more or less intact, into the West, thus strengthening, rather than destroying, the system of sovereign nation-states and technological progress. Thatcher and Bush were determined to have destruction of the economies of all of the former Soviet sector, using methods such as those of George Soros and proteages such as Harvard"s Professor Jeffrey Sachs, which is what they succeeded in doing. In this way, by destroying the agricultural and industrial economies of the East, the downhill slide of the economies of the West was accelerated.
120. European history dates from the emergence of the Greeks from the "dark age" of illiteracy, or, by rule of thumb, from the composition of the Iliad and Odyssey. In such a period of European history, the crucial issue is the menacing role of Babylon and Tyre (Canaan), as distinct from the friendlier relationship to the principal adversary of Babylon and Canaan, the Egypt known to Solon, or the Cyrenaica of the time of Plato and Alexander the Great. The pivotal events emerge at about 599 b.c.: , with the Babylonian suppression of the revolt of the Ionian city-states, and the coincidental constitutional reforms of Solon at Athens. On related premises, Friedrich Schiller"s famous lecture at Jena traces all modern European history from the conflict between the legal systems of Solon"s reforms at Athens, versus the oligarchical systems of Lycurgus" Spartan slave-society. The war between the Council of Florence and the oligarchists of Venice is a modern re-enactment of the conflict between Plato"s Academy and Babylon, between the legal systems of Solon and Lycurgus, and between Plato and the oligarchist Aristotle.
121. Laurence Hecht, "The Coming (or Present) Ice Age," 21st Science &amp; Technology, Vol. 6, No. 4, Winter 1993-1994.
122. Since we know, on physical-economic grounds, that the archaeologists" so-called "riparian" urbanizing cultures could not have sprung autochthonously from "hunting and gathering" inland, the retreat of the glaciation of the Northern Hemisphere, from about 18,000 b.c.: , into the Second Millennium b.c.: must have buried much of the record of pre-ancient history under very many fathoms of water and silt. On grounds of energy-throughput of nutrient at various levels of technology of cultures, the development of agriculture to the level represented by riparian cultures, such as Egypt, could not have occurred autochthonously except through the development of quasi-maritime coastal settlements based upon pursuit of the fish of the estuaries and seas. These would be precisely the types of archaeological sites presently buried under many fathoms of the accumulations which have occurred during the recent 20,000 years.
123. We are presently but a few thousand years from an astrophysically determined growth of glaciation. See Hecht, op. cit.
124. "Classical tragedy" should be read here in the sense of Aeschylus" Prometheus, and in terms of the principles of tragedy as set forth by Friedrich Schiller. For Schiller on tragedy, see "On the Use of Chorus in Tragedy," Fidelio, Vol. II, No. 1, Spring 1993, pp. 60-64. See also "Über den Grund des Vergnügens an tragischen Gegenstäden" ("On the Reasons We Take Pleasure in Tragic Subjects") and "Über die tragische Kunst" ("On Tragic Art") in Friedrich von Schiller, Sämtliche Werke in Sechs Bänden (Stuttgart: Phaidon Verlag, 1984), vol. 5, pp. 127-162. See also "On the Pathetic" and "On the Sublime," in Friedrich Schiller, Poet of Freedom, Vol. III, ed. by William F. Wertz, Jr. (Washington, D.C.: Schiller Institute, 1990). For Friedrich Schiller on the role of the punctum saliens in tragedy, see, e.g., the "Introduction" to his History of the Revolt of the United Netherlands Against Spanish Rule, in Friedrich Schiller, Poet of Freedom, Vol. III, ibid., pp. 177-191.
125. Were the radical "environmentalists" to have their way, the population of this planet would soon collapse to that level, or, more likely, the human species would become extinct in the holocaust of disease brought about by such a biological shock.
126. See the author"s series of Fidelio articles on the principles of metaphor: "On the Subject of Metaphor," Vol. I, No. 2, Fall 1992; "Mozart"s 1782-1786 Revolution in Music," Vol. I, No. 4, Winter 1992; "On the Subject of God," Vol. II, No. 1, Spring 1993; "History As Science," Vol. II, No. 3, Fall 1993; "The Truth About Temporal Eternity," Vol. III, No. 2, Summer 1994.
127. See "The Truth About Temporal Eternity," ibid., for a treatment of the proof of this point. This definition of "idea" corresponds to Plato"s "idea" (eidos). In formal terms, any such scientific discovery, or equivalent form of idea, overturns at least one among the set of axioms and postulates upon which a pre-existing mathematical physics is premised. Thus, every such discovery of principle has an axiomatic-revolutionary effect, requiring an entirely new formal theorem-lattice to supersede the old. Thus, all of the actions subsumed by a new such discovery of principle are commonly members of a single type, as all placental mammals differ as a type from each and all marsupials. With apologies to biologists, it is admissible to understand Plato to signify by eidos "species," or, better mathematics, "type."
128. See "On LaRouche"s Discovery," Fidelio, Vol. III, No. 1, Spring 1994.
129. Johannes Kepler, De Nive Sexangula (On the Six-Cornered Snowflake), trans. by Colin Hardie (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966; reprinted by 21st Century Science &amp; Technology, 1991). The Latin title contains a relevant transliteral play upon the words "snowflake" and "nothing." Kepler, official court astronomer to the Emperor, is presenting one of the most important discoveries in science, illustrated by the case of the snowflake"s topology, as a "gift of nothing." As we proceed with the examination of Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell "s fallacy, the reader should come to recognize why Kepler is laughing so merrily. We hope the reader, once he sees the point of the joke, will join the old master in the merriment.
130. Kurt Godel, "Uber formal Unentscheidbare Saumlze der Principia mathematica und verwandter Systeme I" ("On formally undecidable propositions of Principia mathematica and related systems I," (1931) in Kurt Godel: Collected Works, Vol. I: Publications 1929-1936, ed. by Solomon Pfeferman et al. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), pp. 144-199.
131. See Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Monadology, trans. by George Montgomery (LaSalle: Open Court Publishing Co., 1989).
132. To grasp the essentials of the relevant three works of Georg Cantor, these are to be examined from the standpoints of Plato, Leibniz, Dirichlet, Riemann, and Weierstrass. The most relevant Cantor works are: Grundlagen: &uuml;ber unendliche lineare Punktmannigfaltigkeiten (1882-1883); "Mitteilungen zur Lehre vom Transfiniten" (1886-1888); and Beitr&auml;ge zur Begr&uuml;ndung der transfiniten Mengenlehre (1897), in Georg Cantors Gesammelte Abhandlungen, ed. by Ernst Zermelo (Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag, 1962). See footnote 149.
133. In speaking of "Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell
"s contributions," one must cast a
wary glimpse out of the corner of one"s eye at the protesting figure of
Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell
"s senior in the Apostles, and ostensible co-author, Alfred North
Whitehead. Without attempting to settle the dispute between the two of them
here, it is necessary to state that to anyone who has studied Satanic Lord
"s work, Whitehead"s accusations are plausible ones. Nonetheless, the point here is that we are considering those views for whose application Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell did assume responsibility in practice.
134. Uber die Hypothesesen, welche der Geometrie zu Grunde liegen (On the Hypotheses Which Underlie Geometry), in Collected Works of Bernhard Riemann, ed. by Heinrich Weber (New York: Dover Publications, 1953), pp. 272-287. For a passable English translation of the text, see the Henry S. White translation, "On The Hypotheses Which Lie at the Foundations of Geometry," in David Eugene Smith, A Source Book in Mathematics (New York: Dover Publications, 1959), pp. 411-425. Place the emphasis upon "III. Anwendung auf den Raum," in the Weber (pp. 283-286) ("III. Application to Space," pp. 422-425 of the Smith).
135. Smith, ibid., pp. 423-425. (Weber, pp. 284-286).
136. "Es fu:hrt dies himber in das Gebiet einer andern Wissenschaft, in das Gebiet der Physik, welches wohl die Natur der heutigen Veranlassung nicht zu betreten erlaubt." Weber, op. cit., p. 286.
137. See Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell , An Essay on the Foundations of Geometry (1897) (New York: Dover Publications, 1956); A Critical Exposition of the Philosophy of Leibniz (1900) (London: Allen and Unwin, 1967); "On Some Difficulties in the Theory of Transfinite Numbers and Order Types," Proc. London Math. Soc. 4, 29-53, 1907; Principia Mathematica, op. cit. Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell "s attacks on Riemann et al. are discussed in Carol White, op. cit., chap. 6, esp. pp. 206-217.
138. John Von Neumann and Oscar Morgenstern, The Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, 3rd ed. (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1953). Also, see work referenced, p. 1, note 1: John Von Neumann, "Zur Theorie der Gesellschaftsspiele," Math. Ann. 100, 1928, pp. 295-320. Von Neumann made the public claim, prior to World War II, that economic processes could be reduced to solutions for systems of simultaneous linear inequalities. This led to his close collaboration with fellow-positivist and marginal utilitarian Oscar Morgenstern in producing the wartime first edition (1943) of this work. This work contributed a key part to the post-war emergence of ivory-tower "operations research" kookery of the sort associated with Tjalling Koopmans et al. of the Operations Research Society. The work of both contributing authors is pure Giammaria Ortes, and also pure Jeremy Bentham "hedonistic calculus." The mathematical absurdities of Von Neumann are another illustration of the equivalence of these kinds of mathematical ideas and the teachings of radical empiricism in the areas of social sciences and social policy.
139. Norbert Wiener, Cybernetics, or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine (New York: John Wiley, 1948); 2nd ed. (Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1961). On LaRouche"s work to refute Wiener, see "On LaRouche"s Discovery," op. cit.
140. Unendlichkleinen. Weber, op. cit., p. 285.
141. Leibniz, op. cit.
142. P.G. Lejeune Dirichlet (1805-1859). A crucial figure in the Nineteenth-Century development of natural science. After the final overthrow and exile of Napoleon Buonaparte, Paris came under the domination of London and Metternich"s Vienna. In this circumstance, the "Venetian Party" inside France, such as the circles of the neo-Newtonians LaPlace and Cauchy, advanced to power, taking over the Ecole Polytechnique from Gaspard Monge, and ripping out the educational program which had made the Ecole the leading scientific institution of Europe. In this circumstance, French science found much-needed friends in Prussia and in the G&ouml;ttingen of Carl Friedrich Gauss. Similarly, Lazare Carnot, France"s famous "author of victory" and leading technologist of Europe, found refuge in the Prussian military academy at Berlin, and Magdeburg. The geniuses of French science relied upon their collaborator Alexander von Humboldt to assist them in saving French science from destruction. The famous Crelle"s Journal was representative of that new relationship. Thus, Dirichlet, while a most gifted student of the number-theorist and geometer A.M. Legendre et al. at the Paris Ecole Polytechnique, came under the patronage of Alexander von Humboldt, and emerged as among a gathering of mid-Nineteenth-Century German scientific geniuses in the Golden Age of Berlin University. Riemann became his student there. Later, at the death of Gauss in G&ouml;ttingen, Dirichlet was called to succeed him in that chair, and, upon his death in 1859 was succeeded by Riemann. One of the giants of number theory, famous for what Riemann described as "Dirichlet"s Principle"; a major player in the formal analysis of the continuum paradox.
143. Nicolaus of Cusa, op. cit.
144. Plato, Parmenides, loc. cit.
145. See footnote 126 above, for the titles and locations of the members of this series on the subject of metaphor.
146. See "On the Subject of Metaphor," op. cit.
147. Nicolaus of Cusa, "De circuli quadratura" (1450). For an English translation, see "On the Quadrature of the Circle," trans. by W.F. Wertz, Jr., Fidelio, Vol. III, No. 1, Spring 1994.
148. See "Metaphor," loc. cit.
149. Cantor, Beitr&auml;ge, op. cit., pp. 282-356. The available English-language reprint is Georg Cantor, Contributions to the Founding of the Theory of Transfinite Numbers, trans. by Philip E.B. Jourdain (New York: Dover Publications, 1955). A word of caution respecting the Introduction and end-notes in that translation, as supplied by Jourdain circa 1915. None of what Cauchy-apologist Jourdain represents as corrections of Cantor"s work, such as those allegedly by Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell , is to be considered competent comment upon Cantor today. See footnote 130: G&ouml;del demolished Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell "s criticisms of Cantor.
150. The Science of Physical Economy is a branch of physical science founded by Gottfried Leibniz, and developed chiefly by him over the interval 1672-1716. This was the original form of an economic science. Leibniz"s economic science exerted great influence during the Eighteenth Century and first two-thirds of the Nineteenth Century. For example, it appeared as a central feature within Alexander Hamilton"s "American System of political-economy," was the basis for the economics of France"s Ecole Polytechnique during 1794-1814 under Gaspard Monge, and was the policy of the Nineteenth-Century U.S. Whig Party and the Lincoln Republicans, in addition to the founder of the modern German economy, Friedrich List. However, under the influence of the Versailles Treaty and post-World War II financial system, knowledge of economic science vanished from the university campus, government, and industrial management. This branch of science was revived by the present author, based on new 1952 discoveries in this field.
151. I.e., circular construction is the method required; one can reach circular action only by way of circular action. The problem arises the instant we commit the blunder of abandoning constructive (e.g., "synthetic") geometry for formalist algebra. In the latter case, there is no true solution for this problem possible. See the discussion of Felix Klein"s "Famous Problems" hoax, below.
152. E.g., what is later adopted as the "Cartesian" space-time of Galileo, Descartes, Newton, et al.
153. E.g., the principle of universal least action of Gottfried Leibniz and Johann Bernoulli. The root of the notion of a bounded space-time is the case of the Platonic Solids, a track which leads through the work of the followers of Cusa, Pacioli, and Leonardo da Vinci, into explorations into the hypergeometric realm from such starting-points as C.F. Gauss" study of Kepler"s work on the Pentagramma Mirificum. See Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., "An Economist"s View of Gauss" Pentagramma Mirificum," 21st Century Science & Technology, Vol. 7, No. 2, Summer 1994. See also C.F. Gauss Werke (Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag, 1986), vol. III, pp. 481-490; vol. VIII, pp. 106-117.
154. The author"s teen-age wrestling with Kant began with his Critique of Pure Reason, trans. by Norman Kemp Smith (New York: St. Martin"s Press, 1965). The remainder of the series is Prolegomena to a Future Metaphysic, trans. by Paul Carus (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1977); Critique of Practical Reason, trans. by Lewis White Beck (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1956); and Critique of Judgment, trans. by J.H. Bernard (New York: Hafner Press, 1951). This series as a whole has two principal features: (1) The denial of the possibility of intelligible knowledge of a principle of creative reason ("synthetic judgment a priori"), the attack upon Leibniz"s Monadology, Theodicy, Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence, etc.; and, (2) a defense of custom against the extremism introduced in England through the British radical empiricists, including Kant"s former mentor, David Hume. Formally, Kant appears to have been the founder of the Romantic school in art (Liszt, Berlioz, Richard Wagner, et al.), science, and statecraft generally (e.g., F.K. Savigny and the "intuitionist" school in mathematical physics). The essence of Kant is that he was a Venetian work-product of the Conti brand, and implicitly the evil existentialist which Schiller suspected, and Heine (Religion and Philosophy in Germany) knew him to be.
155. Eratosthenes, an Athenian geometrician, grammarian, and historian of Cyrenaic extraction (b. during the 126th Olympiad, d. 195 b.c.: : c.80 years), famous for, among other achievements, estimating both the size of the Earth"s sphere, and the distance of the moon and sun from the Earth: estimated the perimeter of the Earth passing through Alexandria and Rome at approximately 24,662 miles. Moved to Alexandria, where he became Chief Librarian of the famous library there. He is otherwise most famous in geometry for his work on the so-called "Delian" problem of doubling the cube, and in number-theory, for devising a "sieve" used to locate the succession of prime numbers. The work on this problem later by (most notably) Euler, Legendre, Gauss, Dirichlet, Riemann ["U;ber die Anzahl der Primzahlen unter einer gegebenen Gro:sse," (1859), in Weber, op. cit., pp. 145-153]. Cantor used this work, notably Eratosthenes" "sieve," as a tool for defining the number-theoretical equivalence of "power" and "cardinality."
156. In fact, it was the author"s prior discovery of the physical significance of this notion of "power" which led him to his 1952 studies in the work of Cantor and of Riemann. See text, this section, below.
157. As White translates Riemann"s Unendlichkleinen.
158. Take the relatively commonplace misuse of the notion of applicability of the Golden Section to living processes. The estimated value of the Golden Section, as an algebraic root of the calculated ratio of two skew lines, is, obviously an algebraic number. What then of the disgusting spectacle of attempts to project harmonic orderings of living processes as if the Golden Section were a simple Galileo coefficient of mechanical action, a limit of a Fibonacci Series? Why do so relatively many foolish people fall into what should be such an obvious folly? The folly is the failure to ask oneself the question: Whence (i.e., "generating principle") did Luca Pacioli (De Divine Proportione, 1497), Leonardo da Vinci, and Kepler derive their notion of the ontological significance of the Golden Section? From the attempted partition of the interior of a spherical shell, leading to the proof that only five regular solids can be constructed so. That construction is illustrated by the Kepler-Gauss treatments of the Pentagramma Mirificum (see Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., "An Economist"s View of Gauss" Pentagramma Mirificum," (loc. cit.); this leads into the domain of hypergeometric functions as elaborated by Gauss and Riemann. See, C.F. Gauss Werke, loc. cit. This is a line of investigation which begins with our friend Kepler, and leads into the most fundamental questions of the mathematics of a generalized quantum field theory today. The significance which Plato, Pacioli, Leonardo, and Kepler find in the Platonic Solids harmonics is by no means a matter of an algebraic ratio.
159. Not Felix Klein"s fraudulent 1882! See below on Klein et al. Although Cusa"s formal proof of this was presented in his a.d.: 1450-53 "De Circuli Quadratura," loc. cit., the discovery is already reflected in the 1440 De Docta Ignorantia.
160. The discussion of these principles of hypothesis is found in the referenced "The Truth About Temporal Eternity," op. cit.
161. See "Metaphor" series, loc. cit.
162. Or, should one say, in the strictest sense, "termerity"?
163. See Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., In Defense of Common Sense (Washington, D.C.: Schiller Institute, 1989); also in LaRouche, The Science of Christian Economy and Other Prison Writings (Washington, D.C.: Schiller Institute, 1991).
164. For example, for an introduction to outlining such a set of inequalities, see Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., So, You Wish To Learn All About Economics? (New York: New Benjamin Franklin House, 1984).
165. See G.W. Leibniz, "Society and Economy" (1671), Fidelio, Vol. I, No. 3, Fall 1992.
166. On differing types of hypothesis, compare the discussion of this matter in "The Truth About Temporal Eternity," loc. cit., sec. IV, pp. 15-19.
167. Note that the relevant ideas within Hamilton"s "Manufactures" respecting "increase of the productive powers of labor" are derived from Leibniz"s design for the Industrial Revolution, done at the French Acad&eacute;mie des Sciences and elsewhere before and shortly after the beginning of the Eighteenth Century. This includes, notably here, work on the principles governing the relationship between development of heat-powered machines and rise of per-capita productivity. These were mediated into the American colonies from various channels, most emphatically Franklin"s direct intersection, especially between 1763 and 1787, with active continuations of the Europe-wide scientific and political networks formerly established by Leibniz. As a comparison of the John Locke draft of the constitution of the Carolinas, and the Preamble of the Constitution of the Confederate States of America, with the Preamble to the U.S. Federal Constitution of 1787-1789 shows, the American Revolution and founding of the U.S. Federal Republic were outgrowths of the victory of the ideas of natural law promulgated by Leibniz over the empiricism of John Locke. These political influences from Europe were intermeshed with those ideas of science, technology, and political-economy which figures such as Franklin conveyed from Leibniz"s heritage in Europe into North America.
168. The use of the term "productivity" here should not be confused with the monetarist"s use of the term "productivity" as synonymous with "rate of usury": i.e., the ratio of monetary profit to money wages. Statistically, "productivity" is defined as follows. As measured in physical units of market-basket consumption, the consumption-level must rise per capita, per household, and per square kilometer. (Compare Leibniz on the subject of real wages and productivity, in "Society and Economy," op. cit.) In these terms, that consumption must increase in correlation with an increase of the "free-energy ratio" as we have described that immediately above. The satisfaction of that constraint reflects an increase of physical productivity.
169. This was the "model," applied circa 1950-1951, which impelled the author to plunge into Cantor"s 1897 contributions.
170. I.e., investments in improved technology in a capital-intensive, energy-intensive mode. See U.S. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, "Report to the U.S. Congress on the Subject of Manufactures" (1791), in Nancy B. Spannaus and Christopher White, The Political Economy of the American Revolution (New York: Campaigner Publications, 1977), pp. 375-442, passim.
171. Thus, the present writer was electrified to re-read Riemann"s Hypotheses paper, following an intensive study of Cantor"s Beitr&auml;ge, in 1952.
172. I.e., the work of Academician Vladimir I. Vernadsky should be seen as an integral part of the further development of the science of physical economy today.
173. Bernhard Riemann "@auber die Fortpflanzung ebener Luftwellen von endlicher Schwingungsweite" (1860), in Weber, op. cit., pp. 157-175. For an English translation, seeOA "On the Propagation of Plane Air Waves of Finite Amplitude," trans. by Uwe Parpart and Steven Bardwell, International Journal of Fusion Energy, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 1-23. The publication of that translation was an outgrowth of conflicts (over geometric versus algebraic methods) with some leading physicists, which arose as by-products of those of the author"s 1952 discoveries in physical economy reflected here. In the midst of a quarrel with Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, and others, over matters including inertial-confinement fusion, in 1978, this writer asked two collaborators to secure from open Soviet scientific literature proof that Soviet H-bomb designs had depended upon Riemannian notions of isentropic compression. The search was a success; the translation of this Riemann paper, and certain designs tested by the Osaka Laser Engineering Laboratory, were included results of those controversy-ridden researches. This is noted here, because it is relevant to a major point to be made on Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell "s role in science below. See also, related work-products of such relevant followers of the Riemann hydrodynamics tradition as Ludwig Prandtl and Adolf Busemann. Note also, as of prime relevance for related matters of the internal history of science, that the pre-1945 German accomplishments of world-leadership in aerospace depended significantly on the leading role of Italy"s hydrodynamicists working in the field. Into the 1930"s, for example, Italy"s scientific and related engineering prowess in airframe design was the best in the world. The key to this was the fact that the leading tradition of Italian physics from the mid-Nineteenth Century on, was located in the Italian collaborators of Riemann, around Enrico Betti. The first supersonic wind-tunnel in the world, for example, was built by these Italian scientists during the mid-1930"s.
174. To "bound" the characteristic of this discussion in progress here, one should call attention to the implications of another major work establishing the young Riemann"s habilitation in German science, his 1854 "&Uuml;ber die Darstellbarkeit einer Function durch eine trigonometrische Reihe," in Weber, op. cit., pp. 227-265. This can be read usefully as a mathematical survey of the development since the crucial 1697 work on the light-based principle of universal action by Bernoulli and Leibniz. It is admittedly specialist"s work, but no one addressing the internal history of science should overlook Riemann"s account in this paper.
175. Gauss" successful demonstration that the asteroid orbits conformed to Kepler"s astrophysical case for the necessary former existence of a since-exploded planet in this specific orbit, between those of Mars and Jupiter, demonstrated crucially that all of the proposed alternatives to Kepler"s method, such as those of Galileo and Newton, had been shown to be erroneous by this evidence. See Gauss Werke, vols. VI-VII, passim. Kepler"s uniquely vindicated method for astrophysics, as reflected in the 1611 Snowflake booklet, is the relevant platform from which to launch a comprehension of this problem of reciprocity between a bounded universe, on the one side, and the matters of harmonic ordering (quantum field theory) and the continuum paradox on the other.
176. Executive Intelligence Review News Service, Inc. (EIRNS), 333@c4 Pennsylvania Ave., S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003. The newsweekly Executive Intelligence Review was founded in 1974. It was developed in conjunction with an international news service, which converted into a commercial vehicle those specialized news-intelligence functions which produced the work-product featured in EIR and other publications using this service. The publication"s authority was derived initially from this writer"s exceptional success in forecasting, during the 1960"s, the virtual inevitability and probable policy-sequelae of the 1967-1972 succession of crises leading into the breakdown of the original Bretton Woods monetary system. During December 1978, this present writer designed a computer-based quarterly forecasting system, using chiefly U.S. Value-Added data, which began publishing its regular quarterly forecasts in EIR magazine during the interval January 1980-October 1983; those latter forecasts were the only reliable forecasts issued publicly by any agency during that time. At the end of 1983, this writer advised EIR to discontinue the forecast, because of the wildly erratic fraud which the U.S. government and Federal Reserve System were employing for what might be termed charitably "cosmetic purposes." He recommended that a new forecasting base be constructed on the basis of physical data, rather than Value-Added ones. The publication of the 1986 textbook, So, You Wish to Learn All About Economics?, was a by-product of elaborating the specifications for constructing the data-base for the new forecasting system to supersede use of official (increasingly fraudulent and arbitrarily cooked) Value-Added data. What is described summarily here, are part of the current specifications for implementation of that EDP application.
177. Astronomical charts for various localities of the planet at various times past are extremely handy for the routine kitchen-work of the economic historian. (It is the quickest way to be certain that Claudius Ptolemy was essentially a hoaxster.) Who does not work with ancient and medieval economic history will overlook some of the most important differences which distinguish the present from the past.
178. "If one wished to be fancy," as the saying goes, one would use the astronomical model included among the graphics as the calendar and clock for all other studies included in the work. As we shift toward more and more space-exploration and colonization, even in the advanced-planning phases, we should begin to think in such sidereal terms.
179. No secondary pupil in any part of the world should graduate without knowing the highlights of Gauss" scientific biography, including his development of statistical methods for observations in the successive domains of astronomy, geodesy, and Earth-magnetism. By comparing Gauss" standard for this work with the previous highest standard, that of France"s Ecole Militaire and of the Ecole Polytechnique under Monge, Legendre, et al., the student acquires a sense of the difference between reality and observation which he or she will carry to great benefit throughout life, in whatever occupation, or simple functions of a citizen they are subsequently situated. In no place, does this challenge present itself more plainly than in the effort to allot available statistical data-arrays to the grid-cells of a scheme of the sort being outlined here.
180. On August 13, 1946, Public Law 725 went into effect, titled, "Hospital Survey and Construction Act," otherwise known as the "Hill-Burton Act" after its two chief sponsors, Senators Lister Hill (D-Al) and Harold Burton (R-Ohio). Hill-Burton authorized grants to the states for surveying the adequacy of their hospitals and public health centers, and for planning construction of additional facilities. The law, which was extended many times over through the early 1960"s, through Congressional amendments, can be found in the public laws volume for the 79th Congress, 2nd session, Chapter 958. Lengthy excerpts appear in the Executive Intelligence Review article, "Why U.S. health care must return to the Hill-Burton standard," by Donald MacNay, Marcia Merry, and the EIR Economics staff, Executive Intelligence Review, Vol. 21, No. 30, July 29, 1994, pp. 6-13. The 1970"s marked the end of Hill-Burton-standard health-care facilities throughout the U.S., and the beginning of the marked decline in facilities, staff, and treatment programs per thousands of population. In 1974 in New York City, for example, under the austerity measures adopted by the Municipal Assistance Corporation ("Big MAC") run by Lazard Fr&eacute;res banker Felix Rohatyn, community hospitals were penalized by New York State, which withheld reimbursement for indigent cases, if the hospitals" bed-use level fell below a new government-mandated level of 75-85%. This drove many hospitals into bankruptcy. In addition, "Big MAC"-style decrees eliminated thousands of specialty-care beds for the mentally ill; the patients were turned out into the streets.
181. Before the effects of the later 1960"s "paradigm-shift" to a "post-industrial" matrix.
182. Physicians, nurses, other specialists, etc., hospital beds, outpatient facilities, public health services, etc., with respect to efficient access to and by population served per 100,000 persons. Compare this combined capacity of the governmental and "voluntary" elements of personnel and facilities with the forecast of relevant disease, trauma, etc. and derived estimates of care requirements for the coming short-term (one year), medium-term (five years), and long-term (ten to twenty-five years). Return to the physician-patient relationship of past medical-ethics fame, instead of the recent trend of malpractice by government and insurance companies, which ignores the needs of the patient, and substitutes the assignment of the physician to deliver aliquot services on schedule to the type of legalized disease prescribed for authorized ministrations.
183. Cf. Morris Levitt, "Linearity and Entropy: Ludwig Boltzmann and the Second Law of Thermodynamics," Fusion Energy Foundation Newsletter, September 1976, pp. 3-18.
184. Loc. cit.
185. Loc. cit.
186. The Nazi Gleichschaltung is fairly translated as equivalent to today"s "political correctness."
187. Even the language which these ideologues apply to themselves is unabashedly Orwellian Doublespeak.
188. All of these modernist varieties of economist are intrinsically fascists. Fascism is no more than an attempted throw-back to Caesarism under modern circumstances. The model Roman economist is thus Illyria resident Diocletian, the man who split the Roman Empire into two parts and passed the remains to his heir Constantine. It was the "Malthusian," or often so-called "socialist" decrees of Diocletian, which are the specific precedent for all Twentieth-Century fascism. Notably, the effect of these decrees was to accelerate the rate of collapse of the Empire as a whole, leaving the more civilized, less depopulated sector, the Greek-speaking region, to rot away over the ensuing centuries, in an overall constantly descending spiral of decadence and attrition. There are many precedents for fascism in modern European history, notably the British system of colonial rule, and all the other petty and more virulent tyrannies which esteemed the Roman Empire as their model. The comparison to the characteristic, regressive economic features of Diocletian"s decree is the reference to be made in examining liberal and post-liberal varieties of economic dogma today.
Part III Footnotes
190. The Roman killing of Archimedes in 212 b.c.: , and the more rapid encroachments of decadence within the eastern Hellenic culture during the following century, set off the referenced, preceding two centuries of rise of Hellenism (to gain and hold its power in the region) as exceptional in quality.
191. Gaspard Monge, founder of the Ecole Polytechnique of 1794-1814, and his one-time student and collaborator Lazare Carnot, were products of the pre-Revolution Oratorian Order in France, a teaching institution which intersected the Colbert-founded Académie des Sciences (where Huyghens and Leibniz once collaborated) and the military school. Thus, although Aristotelian fanatics (e.g., Venetian factions) more or less effectively destroyed the Brotherhood of the Common Life during the course of the Sixteenth Century, its influence persisted in other ways. See W.F. Wertz, "On The Brotherhood of the Common Life," op. cit.
192. The introduction of the mind-destroying "new math," at the close of the 1950"s and early 1960"s, brings into a more extreme form a longer-term tendency toward crippling talented minds during their adolescence by means of placing priority upon algebraic methods in establishing the mental habits of mathematical thinking, and also of scientific thinking generally.
193. The Thirteen Books of Euclid"s Elements, trans. by Thomas L. Heath (1925) (New York: Dover Publications, 1956).
194. Adrien Marie Legendre, Eléments de géométrie (1794) (Paris: Firmin Didot fréres, 1857); Engl. trans. by David Brewster as Elements of Geometry and Trigonometry (New York: Gallagher and White, 1830). This was the work written by Legendre to define the program of education in geometry used by the newly founded Ecole Polytechnique of Monge.
195. Jacob Steiner"s Gesammelte Werke, 2 vols., ed. by Karl Weierstrass (1882) (Bronx, New York: Chelsea, 1971). Steiner is the "father" of a refined form of constructive geometry known as "synthetic geometry." Bernhard Riemann, who studied Steiner"s program in systematic constructive (i.e., "synthetic") geometry under Steiner himself, emphasized to Enrico Betti that education in science should be premised upon a mastery of Steiner"s work.
196. The cases of Gauss, Bolyai, and Lobachevski are adequately represented in either Gauss" writings, or references to this connection. For a general guide to the C.F. Gauss Werke, op. cit., see W.H. Buehler, Gauss, A Biographical Study (New York: Springer, 1981). On Gauss" relations to Bolyai and his work on Lobachevski, see also Carl Friedrich Gauss, Der "Fürst der Mathematiker" in Briefen und Gesprächen, ed. by Kurt-R. Biermann (Munich: Verlag C.H. Beck, 1990 [(@cW) Urania Verlag, Leipzig]), with Introduction (Einfuehrung) by Professor Biermann. On Bolyai, see Einfuehrung (Introduction), p. 12 (Wolfgang, father) and p. 27 (John, son), and Nicolai I. Lobachevski; see also Letters to Christian L. Gerling #96, #137, and to Wolfgang (Farkas) #99. On Lobachevski, see also Letter #137. On both Bolyai and Lobachevski, see also C.F. Gauss Werke, op. cit. "Briefwechsel mit Gerling," Letters #337, #338, pp. 666-668.
197. Op. cit.
198. See, e.g., The Notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci, 2 vols., ed. by Jean Paul Richter (1883) (New York: Dover Publications, 1970). Vol. I contains all of Leonardo"s entries on the principles of perspective, light and mathematics, light and shade, and all topic areas related to drawing and painting proper. Vol. II contains all applications of these principles to nature and the sciences (astronomy, anatomy, geography, etc.) and the constructive arts (architecture, design, mechanical and military appliances, music, etc.).
199. E.g., The Six-Cornered Snowflake, op. cit.
200. The apparent exceptions to the rule, on closer examination, merely prove the rule as cited.
201. This cited example is one of the most crucial to be presented to the student in a mandatory introduction to mathematical physics on the secondary level. The student would begin from the Cusa proof of the transcendental character of @gp, and proceed through Roberval"s and Huyghens" treatment of the cycloid. Convenient references are: (Roberval) Evelyn Walker, A Study of the "Traite des indivisibles," (New York: Teachers College, 1932) (available in libraries), with relevant excerpts provided by D.J. Struik, ed., A Source Book in Mathematics, 1200-1800 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1986). (Huyghens) Christiaan Huygens, The Pendulum Clock, or Geometrical Demonstrations Concerning the Motion of Pendula as Applied to Clocks, trans. by Richard J. Blackwell (Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1986); Treatise on Light (1690), trans. by Sylvanus P. Thompson (New York: Dover Publications, 1962). Also in Struik is a translated excerpt from Johann Bernoulli"s announcement of his solution to the brachystochrone problem, under the obvious Latin title of "Curvatura radii in diaphanis nonuninformibus," Acta Eruditorum, May 1697. The implication is, that the crucial functional appearance of the cycloid in the two cases—the pendulum clock and the refraction of light under conditions of retarded potential for propagation, as shown by Ole Römer and assessed by Huyghens—requires a change from the space-time of Galileo and Descartes to that of Cusa, Fermat, et al., the non-algebraic or transcendental domain.
202. Cf. LaRouche, "The Truth About Temporal Eternity," loc. cit.
203. The reader is reminded, that the German translation for this form of "political correctness" is Gleichschaltung.
204. Zorzi (Giorgi), loc. cit.
205. Bacon asserts in the New Organon: "There are and can be only two ways of searching into and discovering truth. The one flies from the senses and particulars to the most general axioms ... . [T]his is now in fashion. The other derives axioms from the senses and particulars, rising by a gradual and unbroken ascent, so that it arrives at the most general axioms last of all. This is the true way, but as yet untried." Aphorism XIX, in The New Organon and Related Writings, ed. by Fulton H. Anderson (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1960), p. 43.
206. Sir Isaac Newton"s Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy and His System of the World, revised trans. by Florian Cajori (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1960), General Scholium, p. 547.
207. Kant, loc. cit., passim.
208. Among "New Age" varieties of psychologists and sociologists, Sigmund Freud popularized the term "cathexis" for this. The U.N.O."s mind-destroying "educational reform" sometimes promoted under the rubric of "Outcome-Based Education," is based upon virtually banning all cognitive thought. Out of racists such as the Harvard University circles of Jensen and Shockley comes the dogma that certain "races" are not naturally inclined to cognitive thought, but only to conditioning of their associative-emotional behavior. The New Ager cult-lunacy of "right brain, left brain" originates in the same pseudo-scientific gobbledygook as these referenced U.N.O. and Harvard developments.
209. If itself tending increasingly to the exceptional.
210. It is sufficient to note, as a word of caution, that without that mooring in an orientation toward measurement, examining formal theorem-lattices merely from the standpoint of Aristotelian logic can lead into insanity. This is a notorious problem among specialists in mathematics from a logical positivist or related standpoint: they do not go mad despite being "good mathematicians"; they go mad because they are all too devoutly trained in that variety of "mathematical thinking"; the more academic honors they accrete, the greater the danger, the rarer the survivor of that lately increasing mental disorder: "Kronecker"s Disease."
211. This is perhaps the place to note, specifically, that the same method is key to Classical fine arts. The failure of many otherwise gifted and learned musicians to grasp the rudiments of Beethoven"s method of composition, as employed in most exemplary fashion in his late quartets, can be represented as the same form of mental disorder which impedes comprehension of Georg Cantor"s work on the transfinite, or Riemann"s famous Hypothesen dissertation. The ontological key to the connection can be discovered only from the humanist standpoint addressed here: the principle of change represented by the intervals. One must think always of tones in their place in the C=256 musical continuum, but we must also be conscious, thereafter, that it is the interval "lying between the notes" which is the ontologically primary event (change) upon which heard music is premised. For example, after Haydn"s revolutionary Opus 33, No. 3 quartet, the subsequent event with the greatest impact upon music- up to and into Beethoven"s compositions from Opus 102 onward- is Mozart"s discovery, through van Swieten"s regular Sunday salon, of the six-part Ricercare from J.S. Bach"s Musical Offering. The proliferation of Mozart"s compositions, and then of Beethoven and other successors, based directly upon Mozart"s combining of Haydn"s discovery with Bach"s, is the central event of all Classical forms of musical composition from 1783 through Brahms" "Four Serious Songs." From Mozart"s discovery, and Beethoven"s own, frequent, pre-Opus 102 elaboration of it, into such works as his Opus 111 treatment of this, his usually misapprehended Missa Solemnis, and his last quartets, everything depends upon the freshly acquired comprehension of "composing and performing "between the notes" as primary, which first emerges clearly in Bach, and in a more advanced way in post-1781 Mozart. From this vantage-point, musical and mathematical creativity are reflections of a common mental substance.
212. See Georg Cantors Gesammelte Abhandlungen, op. cit., pp. 204-209 ("Anmerkungen des verfassers zu Nr. 5," of Über unendliche lineare Punktmannigfaltigkeiten). Cantor"s view on this matter is to be judged by the information that he equates his use of "Transfinite" to Plato"s "Becoming."
213. Some Aristotelian, or quasi-Aristotelian hard-heads will insist that "This sounds like Deism to me." So, Pietro Pomponazzi professed that he had no soul, and so atheist Paolo Sarpi, a sponsor of Galileo"s method and the sponsor of Francis Bacon"s "Zorzian" British empiricism, professed the non-existence of God. Since the idea of the existence of God is not possible within a consistent Aristotelian argument, the Aristotelian can provide a place for the existence of God only outside all logic. This was a crucial, included feature of Philo"s valid argument against the folly of Aristotelianism. The Aristotelian"s "God" is not the God of Moses and Christ, but, rather of the Delphic pagan apotheosis of Jekyll-Hyde, Apollo-Dionysus. (Since Aristotle was an agent of the Cult of Apollo, this connection might not surprise us.) Thus, Dionysus Nietzsche deriding Apollo (Aristotelian formalist) Kant for being a "mandarin from Königsberg," is Mr. Hyde ridiculing Dr. Jekyll. The satanic Nazi, Martin Heidegger of the ultra-leftist school of Horkheimer, Adorno, and Arendt, is therefore a consistent Tübingen University Aristotelian when he makes room for the release of his infantile, Dionysiac inneren Schweinhunds from between the cracks of the Aristotelian formalist"s latticework of logicism.
214. Get the picture! Visualize the situation. This high priest, Moses, walks freely into Pharaoh"s presence (Exodus 7). On the first visit, Aaron throws a snake into the presence of mighty Pharaoh. The next day, they return to Pharaoh"s presence, retrieve the snake, and threaten to turn the waters of Egypt into blood. Next visit (Exodus 8), a pestilence of frogs. Next visit lice ... flies ... boils ... more pestilence ... thunder, hail, and fire ... locusts ... . Imagine some priest had prophesied one-one-hundredth as much as any one of these (say a couple of days of acne) to the recently self-proclaimed U.S. Pharaoh George Bush: does one not know what would have happened suddenly to every parishioner of that church! Pharaoh could have told you: Moses was powerful.
215. Cf. "The Truth About Temporal Eternity," loc. cit., passim.
216. It is sometimes argued, not without grounds, that the motivation is supplied by a sense of one"s mortality. The author would object to that as of no more significance than a predicate of the actual motive, the latter a motive which is visibly embedded in the response, a response which reveals an active axiom permeating what it means to have distinctively human powers of consciousness. It is not the questioner who defines the answer, but the character of he who responds.
217. The principle of the Good applies only to the case of Classical composition and its historical antecedents. "Romanticism," like the philosophical empiricism from which it sprang, is based on a rejection of this principle of truthfulness in composition and performance. Modernism is radically empiricist on this account.
218. Some highlights of the author"s own musical experience may be helpful in fostering recognition of the more general point being illustrated. During the post-war 1940"s, the author took the factional position, on purely musical-content grounds, rather than other documentation, that Mozart"s K.475 Fantasy had been intended to be prefixed to Mozart"s K.457 piano sonata. This led immediately to recognition of the many compositions by Mozart and Beethoven based upon the same "germ" as the combined K. 475/457. Why was the author so excited by this, so driven to discover some higher principle involved? Later, he recognized that Beethoven"s method of thorough composition had something to do with the same principle developed by Georg Cantor in mathematics. One of the most exciting moments in his life came more recently, when a friend pointed out the significance of the first movement of Haydn"s Opus 33, No. 3. This information put the roots of Beethoven"s method of composition in his last quartets into focus. (See "Mozart"s 1782-1786 Revolution in Music," op. cit.) What is the driving force behind such researches, whence the motive? In these matters it is in the very nature of Classical musical composition, the relationship between the performance of the music today and the composing of that work a century or more ago.
219. The analysis of the astronomical picture to be adduced from these Vedic sources was virtually completed during the lifetime of Gauss. These were the sources referenced by Bal Gangadhar Tilak in his The Orion; Or, Researches into the Antiquity of the Vedas (1893), 5th ed. (Poona: Shri J.S. Tilak, Tilak Bros., 1972). See also, his The Arctic Home in the Vedas, Being Also a New Key to the Interpretation of Many Vedic Texts and Legends (1903) (Poona: Tilak Bros., 1956).
222. The French scientist Edouard Biot and the Dutch philologist Gustav Schlegel, proved from evidence in the Confucian classics that astronomical science was already highly developed in the Third Millennium b.c.: ; and Schlegel"s research led him to hypothesize that significant mapping of the heavens existed at the extremely early date of the Sixteenth Millennium b.c.: Joseph Needham"s attack on these datings [Science and Civilization in China (London: Cambridge University Press, 1954), Vol. III] is transparently scurrilously incompetent in method, and therefore not to be considered seriously; see Michael Billington, "The Taoist Perversion of Twentieth Century Science," Fidelio, this issue, pp. 00-00.
223. For a convenient English text on Wilhelm von Humboldt and the orbit into which Boeckh"s work fitted, see Paul R. Sweet, Wilhelm von Humboldt, A Biography, 2 vols. (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1980).
224. The use of the literal name of one object to name a different object, is but a special case of this, the exception which reveals the rule. For one object to bear the name for another, if this substitution is meaningful, rather than only arbitrary playfulness, signifies an effort to show that the two different objects are predicates of a common mental object, as distinct from a sensual one.
225. During the author"s recent visit to Weimar, a copy of Goethe"s Mailied was seen affixed by the curators to a wall of the museum which had been the poet"s residence there. Nothing illustrates the principle of metaphor in poetry more simply, more intelligibly than the role of the concluding couplet of the most popular and typical short Goethe poem. The present author adopted this use of "metaphor" for all representations of mental objects (as distinct from mere sense-perceptions) circa 1947, as his own interpretation of the argument put forth in William Empson, Seven Types of Ambiguity (New York: New Directions, 1947).
226. Music is an integral aspect of all language. Music is derived from the singing of Classical poetry according to the natural principles of vocalization. The existence of five ordinary, and, in the extreme, six distinct, natural species of singing/speaking voice, each defined by its own distinct, characteristic array of bel canto mode register-shifts, defines natural polyphony, and the well-tempered system as discovered by J.S. Bach, through his work on countrapuntal ensembles" singing voices of people and their artificial instruments. Music is derived from the singing of Classical epic and other poetry, using the vocalization of the spoken terms as the implicit musical scoring.
227. LaRouche, So, You Wish to Learn, op. cit., pp. 23-39.
228. Those who passed through the author"s one-semester course of the 1966-1973 interval will perhaps smirk at this reminiscence. Certain pedagogical ruses, when apparently successful in one semester"s course, tend to be carried over to the next, and to the next, and ... .
229. Ortes, Riflessioni, op. cit.
230. Napoleon came out of his campaigning in Italy like Caesar returned from Gaul. In Julius Caesar"s footsteps, he went to Egypt, and then sought to become Caesar. However, meanwhile, according to the suggestions of Ortes, Shelburne"s Gibbon had been assigned already to write a handbook of guidance to those engaged in establishing London as the capital of the Third-Rome empire. As to the interesting scientific role of the Ecole Polytechnique in Napoleon"s Egypt campaign, that is another topic, another heritage, for which one must turn to study of the global strategic policies of Gottfried Leibniz.
231. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., "The coming disintegration of financial markets," Executive Intelligence Review, Vol. 21, No. 26, June 24, 1994.
232. The United Nations aided the design of Outcome-Based Education (O.B.E.) via the work of Robert Muller, a former deputy secretary who is now Chancellor of the University of Peace, an institution related to both the U.N.O. and the U.N.O.-connected Lucis Trust (formerly Lucifer Trust). For this and an overview of O.B.E., see "Will You Allow Your Child to be Spiritually Molested," op. cit.
233. Aristotle was trained at the center of the teaching of sophistry in Athens at that time, the School of Rhetoric of Isocrates. This School was a leading philosophical and political adversary of the Academy of Athens. Aristotle was deployed from the School of Rhetoric to infiltrate Plato"s Academy. Aristotle"s writings, not only his infamously oligarchical Ethics and Politics, but also his so-called scientific works, are a thoroughly anti-Socratic expression of the same sophistry promoted by the Delphi agents of that time, such as the School of Rhetoric.
234. As noted in the author"s "History As Science," op. cit., the monetary theorist John Maynard Keynes was entrusted with the assessment of a chest of Isaac Newton"s private scientific papers. Keynes, opening the chest, was shocked to find the scribblings of a superstitious lunatic, a Newton whom he described, in his report, as "the last of the magicians, the last of the Babylonians and Sumerians ... wholly devoid of scientific value"; see "Newton the Man," in Newton Tercentenary Celebrations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1947), pp. 27-34.
235. Op. cit.
236. See Norbert Wiener, Cybernetics, op. cit.; John Von Neumann, The Computer and the Brain (Stillmann Lectures) (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1958); Alan Turing, Mechanical Intelligence, (New York: Elsevier North-Holland, 1992); Marvin Minsky, Artificial Intelligence (Eugene: University of Oregon, 1973); Noam Chomsky, Cartesian Linguistics: A Chapter in the History of Rationalist Thought (New York: Harper and Row, 1966); and Kenneth Colby, Artificial Paranoia: A Computer Simulation of Paranoid Processes (New York: Pergamon Press, 1975. See footnote 248.
237. The issue behind the British orchestration of the Malvinas War against Argentina, in 1982, was London"s effort to push through a new NATO doctrine called "out-of-area deployment," signifying the use of NATO military forces outside the delimited areas of operations designated by existing NATO treaty-agreements. London, eyeing the oil-rich regions of Argentina"s Atlantic shelf, chose Argentina as the target for a precedent-setting operation. The "bait and switch" was set up through Lord Peter Carrington, one of Mrs. Thatcher"s highest-ranking controllers of that time, and her Foreign Minister "Palmerston" of the moment. Secretary of State Alexander Haig, a former protégé of London"s Henry Kissinger, was used to assist this operation. London "let it be known" to the ruling Argentina junta, that London might turn a blind eye to Buenos Aires simply taking the contested Malvinas islands; both direct British channels and Haig were used to foster this. Once Argentina took the British bait, Britain was able to secure full support of the U.S. government for a colonial war of subjugation, and the subsequent "taming" process, against the Republic of Argentina. Thatcher and Bush repeated the exact-same "sandbagging" technique to set up the 1990-1991 "out-of-area deployment" against, and prolonged colonial occupation of, Iraq.
238. See Jasper Hopkins, Nicholas of Cusa"s Debate With John Wenck, A Translation and an Appraisal of De Ignota Literatura and Apologia Doctae Ignorantiae, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis: Arthur J. Banning Press, 1984). Hopkins" work is invaluable as a scholarly treatment of this topical area, but the reader should be cautioned that this is by no means a blanket endorsement of Hopkins" commentary here: the skater must be alert for some not entirely surprising philosophical thin ice here and there on crucial conceptions of Cusa"s Platonic method.
239. Zorzi, op. cit. From Francis Yates" translation: "Those who retreat from the direct knowledge of the universe will retreat into the Docta Ignorantia" [Francis A. Yates, The Occult Philosophy in the Elizabethan Age (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1979)]. This statement foreshadows the same argument in Francis Bacon, who denounces the deviation from sense-perceptions into consideration of mental phenomena, such as metaphor, as objects: How could anyone seek to sustain insistence upon the myth that Bacon actually wrote Shakespeare"s works after comparing Shakespeare"s work with Bacon"s attacks on metaphor! It should not be imagined that Kabbalism originates in Judaism; it does not. Moreover, the English Kabbalists of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries were a stoutly anti-semitic crew centered, from no later than mid-century, at Cambridge and Oxford universities, and also, in Elizabethan times, in Walsingham"s intelligence service.
240. A significant player in the circles of Conti and Ortes. Born in Venice 1712, died in Pisa, 1764. In 1726, he began studies in Bologna under the circles of Ortes" patron, the leading apologist for Galileo, Abbot Guido Grandi. Achieved fame in 1729, with his adulation of Conti"s protege Isaac Newton: "Saggio sopra la durata dei reigni dei re di Roma." Appears in Paris in 1735 as an acquaintance of Voltaire and of the Maupertuis from whom Ortes adopted features of his own hedonistic calculus. Visits England, meeting with Conti"s network of Newton-faddists there.
241. Giammaria Ortes, born in Venice, 1713, entering the Camaldolensian monastery of Murano as a novice in 1727. Died 1790. During 1734-1738, a student, at Pisa, of Camaldolesian professor of physics Abbot Guido Grandi. Praised as an economist in Karl Marx"s Capital, Vol. I, chap. XXV, sec. 4; Marx lays emphasis upon Ortes" second general work on economics, the 1777 Della economia nazionale libri sei, published after the 1776 Wealth of Nations of Ortes" student Adam Smith. Author of the 1790 Riflessioni (op. cit.) upon which the currently proposed U.N.O. Cairo Population Conference draft is based (as distinct from Thomas Malthus" more famous 1798 parody of Ortes" work).
242. The reader should be reminded, that, also with the existentialists of Nietzsche"s Vienna following, the gentle Delphic art of Aristotelian formalism corresponds to the Apollonian side of the pagan Jekyll-Hyde cult of Apollo-Dionysus, Apollo-Osiris, Apollo-Python Apollo-Satan. Even the late Bruno Walter, whom one might have taken for a genial and honest man, effused the babbling nonsense of this crew of Nietzscheans and Wagnerians, publicly, on a New York City radio broadcast, stating the unmusical proposition, that whereas Brahms "was an Apollonian," Beethoven "was a Dionysian." There have been, unfortunately, those conductors who have contrived to perform Beethoven as if his works had been composed by either Nietzsche"s Silenus, or, worse, Stockhausen! Beethoven was, in his own way, a devoutly Christian adversary of the pagan deities, a Promethean bringing the fire of creative genius to mankind in defiance of all of the pagan gods of Olympos.
243. E.g., "The Coronation of Poppea."
244. Galileo Galilei, Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences (1638), trans. by Henry Crew and Alfonso de Salvio (New York: Dover Publications, n.d.). Exemplary of the empiricist method of Sarpi"s protégés, is the case of Galileo"s and Newton"s shared fraudulent claims to have discovered universal gravitation. For a demonstration of the way in which this Galileo-Newton hoax was constructed, see Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., The Science of Christian Economy, chap. VII, notes 7-9, in The Science of Christian Economy and Other Prison Writings, op. cit., pp. 471-473.
245. Op. cit.
246. Robert Fludd, Harmonia Mundi (1527). See Johannes Kepler, Harmonice Mundi, Book VI, for the reply to Fludd"s attack; Johannes Kepler, Harmonice Mundi (1619) German trans. by Max Caspar as Weltharmonik (Munich/Vienna: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 1982).
247. Galileo, op. cit.
248. This ruse later served as the assumption employed for defense of the idea of a mechanical "artificial intelligence (AI)," beginning the 1930"s work of formalists such as Alan Turing (e.g., "Turing machines"). Since, as Gödel (1931) showed the implicit impossibility of simulating the human mind mechanically, the defenders of AI retorted with a proposal to ignore all aspects of human mentation which could not be reduced to "algorithms" of which they approved. Thus, out of the combined work of AI zealot Marvin Minsky and Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell follower Noam Chomsky at M.I.T., came researcher Kenneth Colby"s computer model, which neatly simulates cognition-free, associative-emotional types of psychotic behavior! See footnote 236.
249. For which the Ashmolean Museum is named, of course.
250. The putative origins of the cult are in the early-Seventeeth-Century Palatinate, where, ostensibly, the myth of "Christian Rosencreuz" was either spawned, or first found notable support. It is a medley of gnostic cults, all relying upon the methods of symbolic magic, and heavily saturated with heirlooms of the Bogomil and other cults proliferating in the Burgundian and Pyrenees regions. Adolf Hitler, like others associated with the Nordic Vril society, was a patron of this cult.
251. b. 1677, d. 1749.
252. The sub-circle around Abbot Guido Grandi negotiated the rehabilitation of Galileo, which occurred in 1757.
253. See footnote 30, "Lord Palmerston"s human zoo." In any case, Karl Marx had been warned of the fact that his organization, the Mazzinians, were controlled by Lord Palmerston"s Bentham-founded British former intelligence service, through Heinrich Heine"s famous exposure of the case of Ludwig Bo:rne ["Ludwig Bo:rne, Eine Denkscrift" (1840), in Heinrich Heine, Sa:mtlich Schriften in Zwo:lf Ba:nden, ed. by Klaus Briegleb (Munich: Carl Hanser Verlag, 1976), vol. 4]. Marx refused to accept the evidence, of course, since it would have obliged him to face the somewhat disconcerting fact that he, too, was nothing more than an agent of Britain"s Lord Palmerston!
254. See footnote 49.
255. Giovanni Botero (1544-1617). Although he studied Aristotelianism with the notorious follower of Pomponazzi, Bellarmino, the Jesuit order showed an aversion to Botero, and refused to accept him as one of their own. Although a Venetian agent closely tied to Paolo Sarpi, he was officially an agent of the House of Savoy throughout his adult life. The significance of Botero in introducing Malthusianism into Seventeenth-Century England is emphasized in Joseph A. Schumpeter"s A History of Economic Analysis (New York: Oxford University Press, 1955).
256. Karl Marx, Theories of Surplus Value, I: Addenda, [3.] Petty, Sir Dudley North, Locke (Moscow: Foreign Language Publishing House, n.d.). See also Schumpeter, ibid.
257. An Essay on the History of Civil Society (1767) (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1966).
258. Tarpley and Chaitkin, op. cit., passim.
259. Schumpeter, op. cit.
260. Luca Pacioli, De Divina Proportione (1497) (Vienna: 1896; Milano: Silvana Editoriale, 1982, facsimile of 1497). Leonardo"s work on the application of Plato"s Solids, and the derivation of Kepler"s work (op. cit.) from this established the general principles of biological growth as general knowledge throughout literate circles of post-Renaissance Europe.
261. See footnote 47.
262. Benjamin Franklin, "Observations Concerning The Increase of Mankind, Peopling of Countries &c," (1751). See H. Graham Lowry, op. cit., p. 460, 463.
263. Loc. cit.
264. It is admissible, and convenient to speak of a Europe-wide "Venetian oligarchy." Over the centuries since the Council of Florence, especially since the collapse of the League of Cambrai, Venice"s nobility had assimilated more and more of Europe"s aristocratic and other oligarchical forces into its faction. By the time Venice fell from the status of a government, most of the royal and aristocratic houses of Europe, and the financial nobilities, were being assimilated into a Europe-wide social stratum basing itself everywhere on the Venetian model, and ruled more and more by Venetian ideas. Insofar as exceptions existed to this process of assimilation, the result was a division, across national boundaries, between a hardened Venetian oligarchical faction, and its opposition. The League of Armed Neutrality, which brought Britain to its knees on the issue of U.S. independence, is typical of this sort of division, as well Czar Alexander II"s similar action to defend the 1862-1863 United States against a planned intervention by joint British and French imperial forces.
265. Admittedly, it was the Cult of Mithra with which Octavian had struck the deal leading to the defeat of Antony and Cleopatra, and thus to imperial power, on the Isle of Capri. It was Tiberius" Cult of Mithra which murdered Christ (with help of a "Quisling" jury), and which committed mass-murder of Christians under Roman emperors from Nero through Diocletian. Nonetheless, the forces which murdered Christ and the Christians in this way were the same forces behind that Democratic Party of Athens which murdered Socrates, ostensibly in a "neo-conservative" fit of "political correctness." Key is the fact that the controlling force behind the rise of Rome was the same Cult of Apollo which had orchestrated the affairs of Classical Greece and Hellenism afterward.
266. E.g., Sigmund Freud, Leonardo da Vinci: A Study in Psychosexuality (New York: Random House, 1910). Or should one say Sig. Fraud? Freud had been a practicing homosexual, ostensibly ending the affair several years prior to publication of that book; there is no evidence that Leonardo was homosexual, and all the psychosexual indicators are to the contrary. Key to Freud"s book: Leonardo was creative, unlike the Freud who was innovative in a different sense.
267. Felix Klein, Famous Problems of Elementary Geometry, in Famous Problems and Other Monographs, trans. by Wooster Woodruff Beman and David Eugene Smith (New York: Chelsea, 1962), pt. II, "Transcendental Numbers and the Quadrature of the Circle," pp. 49-92.
268. Klein insisted upon the most simplistic, wrong reading of "Pythagorean" form under the second, middle section of Riemann"s paper.
269. Hegel died in 1831, during an epidemic, still doing his utmost to prevent the introduction of Nineteenth-Century science to the University of Berlin.
270. Savigny, to whom Karl Marx owed his instruction in law at Berlin, is the forerunner of Carl Schmitt, whose radically positivist dogma provided the basis for law under Hitler"s Reich. Real history tends to be like that; Heinrich Heine understood the principle of the matter when he wrote of the Rothschild control over the future revolutionaries of 1848, and later of the evil embedded in Kant.
271. Loc. cit.
272. See Bierman, op. cit., pp. 25-26.
273. It was under the direction of Kelvin, and with mathematical assistance from Grassmann, that Clausius cooked up the "second law of thermodynamics" by aid of an elementary blunder of misreading of the work of Sadi Carnot. Helmholtz was a robust and frequent hoaxster, devoid of scientific conscience, and completely a British agent.
274. Charles Babbage and John Herschel, The Principle of Pure Deism, in Opposition to the Dotage of the University (1811), an attack on the uselessness of Newton"s "fluxions," demanding the adoption of a real calculus, that of Leibniz, instead.
275. Professor Hermann Helmholtz, The Sensations of Tone (1863), trans. and appendices by Alexander J. Ellis (New York: Dover Publications, 1954). Under British "influence," Helmholtz attempted to impose Conti"s methods of Galileo and Newton upon music. Among the notable frauds in his work: (1) he proposed to eradicate the foundations of Classical music, the Florentine method of bel canto voice-training, substituting an unpleasant Nineteenth-Century British novelty, the "blank voice"; (2) he sought to outlaw the entire Classical tradition of musical tuning, that of J.S. Bach et al., and to replace it by a false, mechanistic model derived by Conti"s methods of Galileo and Newton; (3) he concocted a false theory of hearing to conform to his dogmas on music. (See Riemann, Werke, op. cit., pp. 338-350; see note by the original publisher on page 338: Riemann was correct scientifically; Helmholtz"s "politically correct" concoction on this subject, not.) In addition, still taught in defective university and conservatory classrooms today, is the argument of Ellis included in the appendices to Helmholtz"s work. In the case of those organs identified by Ellis on which Bach actually performed, only by adjustment and keyboard transposition could the organs have been tuned to ranges which Bach"s singers could have tolerated, a fact which Ellis knew, and which every competent instructor in a contemporary conservatory then or now has known: fraud! See A Manual on the Rudiments of Tuning and Registration, ed. by John Sigerson and Kathy Wolfe (Washington, D.C.: Schiller Institute, 1992), passim, for documentation of the ranges and registration of the human singing voice. The only reason that Helmholtz"s fraudulent opinions, and modern elevated pitch, are tolerated, is the pervasiveness of Nazi-like Gleichschaltung: "political correctness." Conti again.
276. See Cantor, Gesammelte Abhundlungen, op. cit., pp. 205-207, especially notes 1) and 2), the references to Plato and Cusa. (Cantor"s view of Giordano Bruno as a follower of Cusa is mistaken as to Bruno; it must be recognized that on this point Cantor is relying upon the secondary source.) Access to the issues arising between Cantor and Klein over the period of their sometimes close professional relationship is noted by Herbert Meschkowski and Winfried Nilson in their Georg Cantor Briefe (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1991). See Letters and editors" notes on pp. 63-64, and in the editors" references to the controversy with Klein in notes on pp. 109-110. Although Klein was a signator to the 1916 Göttingen honors for Cantor, he had joined the ranks of Cantor"s scientific adversaries long before 1895.
277. E.g., Euler, 1761. See Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., "Euler"s Fallacies on the Subjects of Infinite Divisibility and Monads," in The Science of Christian Economy, op. cit., pp. 407-425. This was also the central issue of Kant"s attacks upon Leibniz in the Critiques.
278. See G.W. Leibniz, "History and Origin of the Differential Calculus," in The Early Mathematical Manuscripts of Leibniz, trans. by J.M. Child (Lasalle: Open Court Publishing Co., 1920), pp. 22-58. See also, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Philosophical Papers and Letters, ed. by Leroy E. Loemker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956), pp. 1095-1169.
279. LaRouche, The Science of Christian Economy, loc. cit.
280. Remember, in reading Klein, we are not dealing with some half-educated modern university graduate; Klein had a grounding in a serious Classical education, and was well-versed in the history of mathematics. The omissions we identify here could only have been witting fallacies of composition. One will see that there is a clear pattern to these.
281. Klein"s lecture may be compared with David Eugene Smith, "The history and transcendence of @gp," in Monographs on Topics of Modern Mathematics Relevant to the Elementary Field, ed. by David E. Smith (1911) (New York: Dover Publications, 1955).
282. LaRouche, The Science of Christian Economy, loc. cit.
283. See a note by Heinrich Weber, citing one of Clausius" blundering attacks upon Riemann, in Riemann, Werke, op. cit., p. 293. This is typical of the attacks upon the work of Gauss, of Heinrich"s brother Wilhelm, and Riemann coming from Britain, through Clausius, Helmholtz, et al. under the influence of Thomson (Kelvin) et al. from the 1850"s onward. James Clerk Maxwell, like Rayleigh, one of the leaders of the British attack on Gauss, Weber, and Riemann, made clear that he and his colleagues were rewriting electrodynamics in order to rid the subject of mathematical conceptions rooted in "geometries other than our own." Rayleigh went so far as to insist, that were Riemann correct in showing the possibility for powered transonic and supersonic flight of projectiles, then all of British mechanistic physics would collapse; therefore, he argued, Riemann had to be wrong. Under the initial direction of his senior in the Cambridge Apostles" cult, Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell got into this British business of Riemann-hating in the 1890"s, with his tour of lectures in geometry.
284. Cf. Riemann, Werke, op. cit., p. 273: "... in which the difficulties lie more in the conceptualizing ... and I could make use of no preparatory work but several very brief indications given on this by Privy Councillor Gauss, in his second treatise on biquadratic residues ... and some philosophical investigations of Herbart." According to the Weber Werke (N.B., Appendices, pp. 507-558—one should ignore Hans Lewy"s tendentious introduction to the Dover reprint edition), Riemann"s revolutionary breakthrough came during a period of intense work, during a period preceding the crucial date of discovery, March 1, 1853, through his June 10, 1854 presentation of the hypothesis dissertation. It was his initial breakthrough of the earlier of those dates which plunged him into intensive library researches. Notably, it is the mid-1840"s Göttingen lectures of a former student at Friedrich Schiller"s Jena, the anti-Kantian Herbart, which continues through 1853 and beyond, to supply Riemann"s point of departure for his revolution in physics. He is fully aware of this nature of his work in the 1854 dissertation, as the reference to March 1, 1853 otherwise indicates. One should not exaggerate Einstein"s insight into Riemann"s work; briefly, there are indications that Einstein, although he broke with Machian positivism, was not able to comprehend the ontological implications of the crucial discoveries of his friend Gödel, or of Leibniz, Riemann, Cantor, et al. (The portion of the Riemann paper to which Einstein refers implicitly is section II, as summarized in sub-section 5.)
285. Riemann, Werke, op. cit., p. 272.
286. Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell admittedly played around with pretending to understand such matters. Notably, he played the role of Britain"s assigned control of Albert Einstein for a while, gaining at least one expression of glowering resentment from Einstein for this, and Marburg gnostic Ernst Cassirer"s opportunity, in his book Substance and Function, to poke great fun at Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell "s virtual philosophical illiteracy. This is in addition to the fact, that Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell "s access to Einstein had some other unpleasant, radioactive and related consequences.
287. From Gauss" Werke, op. cit., "Theoria residuorum biquadraticorum II" (1832), II, pp. 95-148 (Latin), pp. 170-178 (Gauss" German-language commentary on the Latin work); "Anzeigen: Disquisitiones generales circa superficies curvas" (in German) (1827), IV, pp. 341-347.
288. Riemann, Werke, op. cit. For Riemann on Herbart, see pp. 509-525; for editor"s comment on this, see pp. 507-508.
289. The term physical space-time is used here in the sense of Riemann"s definition of higher geometry-like relations above the mathematical domain.
290. The now customary reference to Riemann"s alleged debt to Cauchy typifies the phenomenon. (What of plagiarist Cauchy"s fraud respecting his own debt to Abel?) Riemann himself emphasized a debt to an Isaac Newton with whom he disagreed: See, for example, the page note on p. 534 of the Werke, citing "the third letter to Bentley." See in the context of pp. 524-525 (on "causality") as a whole the last lines on p. 525, beginning with "Das Wort Hypothese (the word hypothesis)," through to the bottom of the page, "... so würde er diese Geschwindigkeit beständig behalten."
291. LaRouche, loc. cit.
292. See Riemann"s treatment of what he terms Geistesmassen, in Werke, op. cit., pp. 509-525. This same matter is treated at length in the author"s "Metaphor" series, loc. cit.
293. Riemann, Werke, op. cit., p. 507.
294. The term "generating principle" is employed here strictly in Georg Cantor"s sense of the notion.
295. In first approximation, the relationship between the relative species-distinctness of the One versus the Many is formally analogous to the distinctions made by Kurt Gödel"s famous proof (e.g., 1931, op. cit.).
296. The formal definition of "relatively valid," as employed in this location, implies the test of the relative cardinality of the state of knowledge achieved through the discovery.
297. N.B., "The Truth About Temporal Eternity," loc. cit.
298. See B.F. Skinner, The Behavior of Organisms; An Experimental Analysis (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966); also Science and Human Behavior (New York: Free Press, 1967).
299. For which the author is indebted principally to Leibniz"s discovery of that science, and to Riemann"s discovery, with a crucial subsidiary debt to Cantor.
Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell and Satanic Oligarch Ludwig Wittgenstein
by Miles Mathis
First published May 19, 2020
They never tell you in
school the interesting or important things about historical figures, but I will.
Some of you may know I majored in philosophy and Latin. I sat in on a
graduate-level course on Wittgenstein my senior year, though I found it very
tiresome. I took it only because we had a Wittgenstein specialist in our
department, and he was highly regarded—though I don't remember by whom. Not by
me. We also covered Russell in another class, though briefly. I always had a
sneaking feeling he was big phony, and of course it turns out I was right.
However, at the time I would never have thought to connect either of these guys
to the rising Modern art movements of their time, or to Modernism at all. That
is because of the way they are taught—the way everything is taught in college.
In fact, I wouldn't now say that Wittgenstein and Russell were taught in college; rather, they were promoted. We were supposed to believe they were important for some reason, though no one ever really got around to saying why. All the evidence was to the contrary, so everything had to be spun hard. I now suspect that those promoting them must have been related to them somehow, though I was in Texas. I can't figure out why else anyone would promote these guys, or find them fascinating enough to study.
To start with, both of them come from fantastic wealth. Wittgenstein is admitted to be Jewish—the family had previously been Meiers—and his father was one the wealthiest men in Europe. Karl Wittgenstein was an industrial tycoon who had a monopoly on Austria's steel cartel, and he was a friend of Andrew Carnegie. He owned 13 mansions in Vienna alone. But we are supposed to believe his son's fame had nothing to do with that. It also had nothing to do with being promoted by his professor Russell, a future Earl, who was also from one of the wealthiest families in Europe. Here is Pembroke Lodge, where Russell grew up:
And that picture makes it look smaller than it actually is. It was given by Queen Victoria to her prime minister Lord John Russell, who entertained the Queen there as well as Dickens, Thackeray, Longfellow, and Tennyson.
The Russells were dukes, earls, and everything else, descended from the Duke of Bedford who had been raised to the peerage by Henry VIII and given land and property in Tavistock stolen from the monasteries. In fact, that is one reason why that name Tavistock is important. They try to hide the roots of these Russells, scrubbing them before that, but it is not hard to find that they descend through the female line from the de la Tours, top nobles of France connected to the Royal lines back to the time of Charlemagne. See Hugh of Tours, whose two daughters married into the Carolingian and Capetian dynasties. His first daughter Ermengard married Lothair and become Empress of the Romans. His second daughter married Robert the Strong, making her the grandmother of Hugh Capet, King of the Franks. We also link to the Habsburgs, since Hugh of Tours was an Etichonid, that is a descendant of Adalrich, Duke of Alsace. Through his wife, we link to even earlier Merovingian kings of the Franks (including Clovis), as well as to the kings of Thuringia (Germany). We are taught these Frankish kings descended somehow from Roman generals, but there is no evidence of that. So we may assume the most likely thing, given what we already know: they were Phoenician navy.
I mean, just use your eyes! Does he look Jewish/Phoenician or not?
photo by Allan Warren
There is another recent Russell, Duke of Bedford. Any questions?
Also remember that Russell's mother was Lady Catherine Stanley, of the Barons of Alderley, Isle of Mann. They are also Owens, Lathoms, Cholmondeleys, Warburtons, Pitts, Leighs, Lennards, and Holroyds. Through his paternal grandmother, Russell was also a Murray, so his parents were cousins. The Murrays and Stanleys are closely related, and the Murrays actually took up the Stanley line. In this line he is also a Steuart, a Spencer, and a Hamilton.
But although the Jewish thing is an easy card to lead with, it isn't why I am here. I am here because I detest everything these guys stand for. Let's just go down Russell's Wiki page to see why I say that. We are supposed to believe that by his teens he had already come to the conclusion there was no free will and no life after death. We are told that Mill's Autobiography convinced him to be an atheist. So he was a sad case from the beginning, either ruined by his aristocratic upbringing or recruited to promote those ideas to the plebes.
He soon ended up at Trinity College, Cambridge, AKA spook college #1. It makes Skull and Bones at Yale look like a Tupperware party. This is where he became an Apostle. These are the spooks that fed the Bloomsbury Group, which was mostly gay and totally Jewish. They promoted “intrinsic value”, which was a misnomer since it had no value. It was an excuse for these rich people to do as they pleased with no regard for the consequences of their actions. Amazingly, even Wikipedia now admits that on the Bloomsbury page. We are told the group reacted against bourgeois habits. . . as if they knew anything about bourgeois habits. Basically they were a group of miserable super-upperclass bastards and cunts who hid behind fancy terms like philosophy, politics, and art, to justify doing just as they pleased—and that was always vulgar, shallow, and ignoble. Same thing the rich have always done and still do.
Bloomsbury is our first explicit link to Modern art, which I alluded to above. These people fancied themselves writers and painters, but none of them could write or paint—which is what makes them Modern. They linked themselves to the post-Impressionists, which was the beginning of the end for art. It bottomed out soon after that, in no small part due to these people and their pathetic ideas. For more on this, see my old paper on Clive Bell and formalism.
We are supposed to believe that the Bloomsbury Group, the Apostles, and people like Russell were liberal, but that is just a joke. They weren't liberal, they were Marxist, that is, crypto-fascist. Yes, they believed in sexual freedom, but that isn't liberal, it is licentious. Liberal implies they were for fairness, but how could they be when their lives depended on privilege? In a fair world, people who could actually write, paint, and do math would have become famous writers, painters, and mathematicians, instead of them. Do you think they really wanted that?
If you don't think Russell was a spook, you may want to read more on the Apostles, especially the later Cambridge Five (note how the Rothschilds are involved there). You will say that was after the time of Russell's heyday, but he was still around. He was alive until the 1970s, and the Cambridge spies were admitted to be there from the 30s to the 50s. That was just one of the rare cases it became public. The Apostles were always spooks, back to the very beginning. They were founded in 1820 by George Tomlinson, later Bishop of Gibraltar, who, during his time at Cambridge, was a protégé of Sir Robert Peel. We are told Peel hired Tomlinson as a tutor. . . wink, wink, nudge, nudge. You remember Peel, right? The guy who is on the cover of Sgt. Pepper's? The guy, Baronet Peel, who was from a family of wealthy textile manufacturers? The guy who was Home Secretary and twice Prime Minister of England? The guy who founded the Metropolitan Police force and Scotland Yard? The guy who basically founded MI5 eighty years before you are told it was founded?
Another thing to know is that Tomlinson's father-in-law was General Sir Patrick Stuart, Governor of Malta. He was not only of the Lords of Blantyre, he was a Hamilton, a Lyon (Earls of Strathmore), a Stanhope (Earls of Chesterfield), and a Lindsay. So he was connected to the royal houses of England and Scotland in many lines. Tomlinson's second wife was also a cousin, and his second father-in-law was Colonel Charles Mackenzie-Fraser, 10th of Inverallochy. This connected him to the Mackenzies (Earls of Seaforth), Forbes, Hays (Earls of Erroll), Erskines (Earls of Mars), Douglases (Earls of Buchan and Earls of Morton), Keiths (Earls Marischal), and Stuarts (Dukes of Lennox).
Anyway, back to Russell. By age 24 he was teaching German social democracy at the London School of Economics, proving once again his spookhood. There is no such thing as German social democracy: that is just another term for Marxism, and we know what to think of that. Russell then joined the Webbs in the Fabian Society, which was more of the same. The current Queen is a Webb. The Fabians are the ones that proudly announce in their coat of arms that they are wolves in sheep's clothing.
Their job, like that of Marx, Debs, and thousands of others, was to infiltrate labor and utterly destroy it. Which they have done and continue to do. So you can see why I scoffed at Russell's claim to be liberal. No one connected to the Fabians and the London School of Economics is liberal.
In 1903 Russell published The Principles of Mathematics, which was rightly called 500 pages of garbage at the time. Peirce, who they apparently forgot to pay off, said it was completely unoriginal and “hardly literature”. Even G. H. Hardy, who was paid to promote it, admitted that Russell's dismissal of Relativity was a mistake. Russell ended up agreeing, since in later works he jumped on the Relativity bandwagon, promoting Einstein far beyond his merits while overlooking the obvious mathematical mistakes of the early Relativity papers. You should ask yourself, if Russell was such a great mathematician, why didn't he spot these basic algebraic errors in Einstein's published papers? Did he even read the original documents, or did he just read reports of them?
Strangely, Hardy also admits:
The philosopher who attempts to read the book will be especially puzzled by the constant presupposition of a whole philosophical system utterly unlike any of those usually accepted.
Like Hardy, I also used to be puzzled by this, but no longer am. I now know that Russell was on assignment, and like the rest of the Moderns he was instructed to “presuppose” idiotic ideas in order to create chaos. It wasn't an accident.
You may wish to read Jules Vuillemin's 1968 review of this book a little more closely:
The Principles inaugurated contemporary philosophy. Other works have won and lost the title. Such is not the case with this one. It is serious, and its wealth perseveres. Furthermore, in relation to it, in a deliberate fashion or not, it locates itself again today in the eyes of all those that believe that contemporary science has modifed our representation of the universe and through this representation, our relation to ourselves and to others.
Yes, and that is precisely the problem. Contemporary science has certainly modified our view of the universe and so on, but not in a good way. The analogy is contemporary art, which has also modified our view of things. . . by destroying art. Also curious to find it admitted that “contemporary science” goes back to 1902 and earlier. That was before Relativity and before Quantum Mechanics, so we are not talking about those things here. Russell and others had already redefined science before those things came along. The destruction of math and science has its roots in the 19th century, going all the way back to Gauss and Lobachevsky in the 1820s—about the same time Socialism rose its ugly, fake head.
Wikipedia also tacks on a tacit admission that Russell purposely blackwashed Leibniz in this book, see Katz and Sherry, 2012, at ArXiv. [This ties into my recent paper on Newton.] They accuse Russell of a string of non-sequiturs, which is generous. The book is really just 500 pages of sludge, and doesn't bear reading much less rereading or serious study.
I mean, this is a guy who thought Wittgenstein was a genius. If you are disposed to consider that possibility, based on prior promotion, you might wish to either read the Tractatus, which is short, or— if you actually have a life—study this list of his seven main propositions:
1. The world is everything that is the case.
2. What is the case (a fact) is the existence of states of affairs.
3. A logical picture of facts is a thought.
4. A thought is a proposition with a sense.
5. A proposition is a truth-function of elementary propositions. (An elementary proposition is a truth-function of itself.)
6. The general form of a proposition is the general form of a truth function.
7. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. Given that, we wonder why Wittgenstein didn't remain silent.
In fact, he admitted in later writings (Philosophical Investigations) this was all bombast, but those writings were suppressed until after his death.
Here is another example of Wittgenstein's brilliance. In his “picture theory”, we are told:
According to the theory, propositions can "picture" the world as being a certain way, and thus accurately represent it either truly or falsely. If someone thinks the proposition, "There is a tree in the yard," then that proposition accurately pictures the world if and only if there is a tree in the yard:p53.
Yes, someone actually found that statement worth footnoting. Good to know that kids are now paying
$60,000 a year to go to college and learn such things (online).
In 1913 Russell and Whitehead renamed Principles of Mathematics as Principia Mathematica, padding it out with a further 1,500 pages of schist, which probably no one in history has ever read, or should read. This work is most famous for solving Russell's own fake paradox of 1901, which I suppose he knocked together just so he could be famous for later solving it. I have previously stated my opinion that this was all a tempest in a teapot, and that any truly intelligent person would have solved the paradox in about fifteen minutes. No, even that is saying too much. An intelligent person would have never recognized a paradox to start with, since the original “paradox” was just the manufacturing of a problem where there wasn't one. These rich, talentless babies have to justify the air they breathe somehow, at least to themselves, and this is the way they do it.
If you don't believe me, Wikipedia is good enough to admit it:
Somewhat infamously, several hundred pages of PM precede the proof of the validity of the proposition 1+1=2.
Russell had three aims in writing this 2000-page work, the second one being:
to precisely express mathematical propositions in symbolic logic using the most convenient notation that precise expression allows.
Part of that precise expression was the several hundred pages we just heard about, which include this highly useful proof of 1+1=2:
If that's what you want to do with your life, have at it. I have better things to do. Such as real math and real physics.
Now let's switch over to Wittgenstein for a bit. His cousin on his mother's side was Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek. Think actress Salma Hayek, who played her cousin Frida Kahlo. We are told Salma's father is Lebanese, but he is Jewish. Salma is married to billionaire Francois-Henri Pinault, who is also a Perrine and a Gautier. Meaning, he is also Jewish, related to the Perons, Penns, Pereiras, etc. He owns Gucci, Puma, Yves Saint Laurent, and many other brands.
Kahlo was also a Calderon, and she allegedly slept with Trotsky, remember, although these people are normally gay and just beards for one another. It is known Kahlo was gay, since she famously wore men's clothing and slept with Georgia O'Keeffe and Josephine Baker—although this is not mentioned on her Wiki page.
Baker of course was a spy.
Both her parents are hidden, though her father was obviously white. Her mother
was half-white as well. Baker had a long Jewish face and nose, so we may assume
her “German” father was Jewish, especially given her fame. Only Jewish people
get famous, you know, especially in the arts. Here's some numerology from her
bio to salt that in:
At 13 Baker worked as a waitress at the Old Chauffeur's Club at 3133 Pine Street.
Just study her face: she looks 3 parts Jewish and 1 part black. She supposedly married first at age 13.
Later she married French industrialist Jean Lion (Lyon/Lyons, the current Queen of England is a Lyons). His mother was a Levy.
Kahlo's husband was artist Diego Rivera, real name Diego Maria de la Concepcion Juan Nepomuceno Estanislao de la Rivera Barrientos Acosta y Rodriquez. So we can tell he was not only nobility, but which nobility. Nepomuk Stanislaus—which links him to the Nepomuks of Bohemia, especially Prince Klemens Nepomuk Metternich, Chancellor of the Austrian Empire 1821-48. One of the premier fascists and tyrants of all time. This tells me Rivera's famous run-in with Nelson Rockefeller over the mural in New York was probably manufactured. Rockefeller would have no problem with a painting of Lenin, since people like him put Lenin in power to start with. Given the people involved, the mural flap was probably an argument over money. Being an aristocrat himself, Rivera probably expected to actually be paid for his work. The Rockefellers weren't used to paying artists fairly for their time, you know. Plus, we know the story about removing the mural with jackhammers is false. Why would you remove a mural with jackhammers when you could just paint over it? If you want to be sure it is never restored, just wash it with turpentine or some other solvent.
Rivera was later head of Ancient Mystical Order Rosae Crucis in Mexico, which had been founded in the US in 1915 by Harvey Spencer Lewis, who of course was age 33 at the time. Lewis was also a Rittenhouse and a Hoffman. In 1905, at age 20, Lewis had also founded the New York Institute for Psychical Research, proving that was also a spook front. It was a spin-off of ASPR, founded 20 years earlier by another set of spooks, including William James, Granville Stanley Hall, George Stuart Fullerton, and many others. They were all precursors of people like James Randi, who is cut from the same cloth.
Reading about the lives of Baker, Kahlo, and these people may make you wistful. You may think these people led such interesting lives. But most of that glamor is only on paper. In real life they were awful people who soon burned themselves out. Kahlo painted the same painting over and over for two decades, while being a drunk and a floozy. Her husband was a fat ugly Jew twenty years her senior, whom nobody could have wished to sleep with.
That picture is almost as painful to look at as the pictures of Salma Hayek with her gnarly old husband.
Kahlo had syphilis and a
variety of other diseases, which killed her by age 47.
Friedrich Hayek was also a big fake of course, as all famous economists are. He is famous for The Road to Serfdom, and no, I don't think that title is meant as a handbook to serfdom, although it might as well be. We are told:
Hayek was concerned about the general view in Britain's academia that fascism was a capitalist reaction to socialism and The Road to Serfdom arose from those concerns.
Yeah, I'll bet. Are we really supposed to believe any thinking person thought fascism was a capitalist reaction to socialism? Talk about turning the screw! Fascism isn't a reaction against anything, since it is the fundamental, default, and hidden position behind both socialism and capitalism. All the governors and governments are fascist and always have been, though they later became capitalist as well. That simply means that those with huge amounts of capital own everything, and everyone else owns nothing of importance. Socialism is just a curtain the fascists hide behind. So there was nothing for Hayek to be concerned about one way or the other. Except that he was hired to provide the second path of misdirection here.
Of course Hayek also came out of the London School of Fascism, I mean Economics. Amazingly, they try to sell Hayek's ideas as Classical Liberalism. You have to laugh. These spooks like Russell, Rivera, and Hayek are always liberal. We are told that Hayek “warns of the dangers of tyranny that inevitably result from government control of decision making through central planning”. Warns? As if that is something that might happen in the future? Is Hayek implying he knows of some government that isn't tyrannical by that definition? Can he tell us when or where that existed? Hayek tutored David Rockefeller, which tells you just how liberal he really was.
Guess who promoted The Road to Serfdom in the US right after the war in 1945? Max Eastman, who we looked at in my paper on Eugene Debs. Eastman was Jewish, Communist, protégé of Dewey, died in Barbados, mother was a Ford, pretended to be Protestant, married a Bolshevik, brother-in-law of Soviet Commissar of Justice Krylenko. Eastman early pretended to be a radical, but of course ended up at the National Review. Enough said. The standard career arc of these people.
The Road to Serfdom was just the usual feint, written to make its readers think the US hadn't always been a fascist state run by a small minority. It was the standard flag-waving misdirection, meant to fool its Readers Digest-level audience into believing their governors had their best interests in mind by embracing capitalism and privatization. Also remember that Thatcher was a big fan of Hayek, which tells you again just how liberal he was. Thatcher, like the rest, wanted you to believe it was all a question of Socialism versus Capitalism, when it wasn't. Both Capitalism and Socialism were fronts for the same Tory fascists who had always been running the world, but they had to keep your eyes off that by any means.
Wittgenstein grew up at the center of Viennese culture at the turn of the century. His father collected Rodin, Klimt painted his sister, and Brahms and Mahler played concerts in the house.
Wittgenstein and his siblings were tutored at home by the best teachers in Europe. Despite this privilege, three of his four brothers later killed themselves, and Wittgenstein was always suicidal. We are supposed to believe he was raised Catholic, but they admit that, like Russell, he was an atheist by 15. At the same time, Wittgenstein became a devotee of Otto Weininger (1880–1903):
Weininger, who was also Jewish, argued that the concepts male and female exist only as Platonic forms, and that Jews tend to embody the platonic femininity. Whereas men are basically rational, women operate only at the level of their emotions and sexual organs. Jews, Weininger argued, are similar, saturated with femininity, with no sense of right and wrong, and no soul.
Really? Well, I guess that explains a few things. As you see from his dates, Weininger also died young, by suicide. No wonder. We are told Weininger influenced August Stringberg, James Joyce, and the Nazis. That also fits like a glove, doesn't it? A few months before his suicide, Weininger converted to Protestantism. Wittgenstein attended his funeral at age 14, which tells us a lot.
Wittgenstein and Hitler went to school together, proving once again Hitler was from wealth, but this is papered over with all sorts of absurdities like this:
Laurence Goldstein argues it is "overwhelmingly probable" the boys met each other: that Hitler would have disliked Wittgenstein, a "stammering, precocious, precious, aristocratic upstart ..." Other commentators have dismissed as irresponsible and uninformed any suggestion that Wittgenstein's wealth and unusual personality may have fed Hitler's antisemitism, in part because there is no indication that Hitler would have seen Wittgenstein as Jewish.
Except that they are forgetting several important facts: Hitler was also Jewish, gay, precious, aristocratic, and an actor. But note who is promoting this confusion: a Goldstein. So what do you expect. He has no soul.
They admit Wittgenstein only attended college for three semesters, but for some reason was given a diploma anyway, when he had just turned 19. You will remind me that I almost graduated at 19, but I spent more than three semesters at university. If I had graduated at 19, I would have been in school two full years, plus three summer schools, plus testing out of 30 hours. We have no indication Wittgenstein did anything like that. That same spring, he allegedly began working on a doctorate in aeronautics at Victoria University of Manchester, though they admit he was hopeless at that and soon quit. Suddenly he took an interest in logic in 1911 and immediately showed his first work to Frege at the University of Jena. You know, as you do. You dabble in something for a few weeks and then introduce yourself to the world's foremost authority on the subject. For some reason, Frege sent him to Russell at Cambridge—probably as some sort of cruel joke upon Russell. They admit Russell's lectures were very poorly attended, and that Wittgenstein became his fourth (unofficial) student. Wittgenstein was not accepted to Cambridge at that time, so he was just sitting in. Then we get this, which is quite easy to see through:
Three months after Wittgenstein's arrival Russell told Morrell: "I love him & feel he will solve the problems I am too old to solve ... He is the young man one hopes for." Wittgenstein later told David Pinsent that Russell's encouragement had proven his salvation, and had ended nine years of loneliness and suffering, during which he had continually thought of suicide. In encouraging him to pursue philosophy and in justifying his inclination to abandon engineering, Russell had, quite literally, saved Wittgenstein's life.
So, the usual Greek thing. Wittgenstein remained a big baby his whole life, needing the protection of older men, as we see from his later run-in with Karl Popper in 1946. Wittgenstein was 56 by then, so he should have been capable of debate, but he wasn't. Popper was guest speaker at the Cambridge Moral Sciences Club, with Wittgenstein in attendance. Popper correctly pointed out that philosophy was the study of real problems, or should be, not just the listing of linguistic puzzles, when Wittgenstein started waving a poker at him and demanding he give an example of any moral rule. Popper offered the rule that guest speakers should not be threatened with pokers, but Russell had to intervene. Wittgenstein ended up storming out of the room. I guess he went to crawl under the bed and reread his Weininger.
Wittgenstein also became an Apostle, although he didn't like the meetings because he wasn't the only beloved one there.
Russell had been worried that Wittgenstein would not appreciate the group's raucous style of intellectual debate, its precious sense of humour, and the fact that the members were often in love with one another.[McGuinness, 1988]
Hmmm. Interesting to see someone admit it. Actually, Wittgenstein's homosexuality is well documented, which should bring into question Russell's sexuality. But strangely it never does. Russell is protected by his four wives. However, it is worth pointing out in this regard that Russell was always a leader in homosexual law reform, later taking credit when homosexuality was partially legalized in 1967. Not saying that is conclusive, but it is a clue.
In 1913, Wittgenstein's father died, making him one of the wealthiest men in Europe at age 23. Why don't they ever teach that in school? I never knew it until today. Wittgenstein earned no degree from Cambridge at the time, just being allowed to hang out there because he was a rich guy, I guess. In his bio, I find no evidence he was even accepted there. At any rate, after coming into his inheritance, he took off for Norway, to write the misnamed Logik. While in his cabin, he insisted Cambridge don G.
E. Moore visit him to help him with his manuscript. Again, as you do. You have trouble finishing a paper in your cabin in Norway, so you helicopter in the don of Cambridge.
By the way, Moore's grandfather was the famous British Israelite Dr. George Moore. Not beside the point, as you now understand. Moore's grandparents were cousins. As Sturges, they were peerage, related to the Marshalls, Sargents, Clothiers, Clarkes, Newmans, Cadburys, and Russells. Geni fudges this as Rustell, but they aren't fooling me. They were Quakers. Moore's wife was an Ely, also peerage, related to the Stuarts.
Even with Moore's help, Wittgenstein made little progress. He demanded that he should be able to spot a tautology on sight, but never really figured out how to do that. So he gave it up and simply asserted that tautologies announced themselves.
The next year, 1914, we are supposed to believe one of the richest gay men in Europe volunteered for the Austrian army. Yeah, I bet he did. We are told almost nothing of his first two years as a soldier, but then we are told that in 1916 he was on the Russian front, where he allegedly fought against British troops, and was awarded many medals. He was finally promoted to lieutenant in 1918, so we are supposed believe he was a private from 1914 to 1918? Oivay. We are then supposed to believe he took military leave in summer of 1918, retiring to his summer house in Vienna to complete the Tractatus. Yeah, that makes sense. You get promoted to lieutenant near the end of the war, during the heaviest fighting, and they immediately send you home to work on your famous book? And you have no problem concentrating on that book after almost four years of being in the army, in the worst war of all time?
After giving his book to the publisher, in October Wittgenstein was sent back to the front and was allegedly captured by the Allies in Trentino. We are supposed to believe the richest man in Austria then spent nine months in an Italian concentration camp. I guess his bunkmate was Andrew Carnegie.
When he was released, he decided to become an elementary school teacher and give up his fortune. We are supposed to believe he gave it all to his siblings, and despite the fact they thought he was shellshocked from the war, they accepted. Witty didn't do this because he admired the common man and wished to live more simply. On the contrary, we are told he despised the riffraff around him. We are supposed to believe he beat his students, even the females, scoffed at the priests, and shouted insults at the headmaster.
None of this is believable in the least, and it is hard to believe anyone takes the time writing it down.
The only book he published in his lifetime, the Tractatus, came out in 1921, when he was 31. It was only 75 pages, but it was still at least as unreadable as Russell. It was published only with the help of Russell, who wrote the introduction. Wittgenstein couldn't even come up with a title: it was Moore who did that, referencing Spinoza—who must have turned over in his grave. On the authority of Russell, the book became a minor sensation. All the cool people had to pretend to read it, pretend to understand it, and pretend to admire it—sort of like with Derrida later, or Stephen Hawking even later.
Wittgenstein then moved to an even smaller town, where he thought even less of the people.
These people are not human at all but loathsome worms," he wrote to a friend—and he left after a month. In November he began work at another primary school, this time in Puchberg in the Schneeberg mountains. There, he told Russell, the villagers were "one-quarter animal
and three-quarters human."
In 1926, Wittgenstein was teaching 11-year-olds, and beat one boy until he collapsed. This reminds us that Witty was not only gay, but also imbalanced and possibly insane. He should not have been teaching young boys at all. He had previously beaten a young girl from the same class until her ears bled. The police were called but Wittgenstein fled. A judge ordered a psychiatric evaluation, but Witty was gone. And now for the punch line. The boy soon died, but we are assured it was from hemophilia. Sure it was. The case was covered up by family money, but it looks to me like Wittgenstein was a child murderer. I don't remember being taught that in my class in college.
Somehow Wittgenstein got famous, probably by just buying fame outright. Early on, it was claimed the Vienna Circle had formed just to discuss the Tractatus, but the historians have changed their tune on that one. Those involved probably spent their money and decided they didn't want that on their records, so they changed the story. It was then Mach, Frege, and Russell who influenced them. It doesn't really matter who influenced them, since it was just a Circle Jerk of homunculi. Popper destroyed the whole lot of them with one hand, and even Popper was no genius. He was sober and disciplined, and wasn't a Modern, and that was all that was required.
This will give you an idea of the sort of fawning that went on over Wittgenstein:
His point of view and his attitude toward people and problems, even theoretical problems, were much more similar to those of a creative artist than to those of a scientist; one might almost say, similar to those of a religious prophet or a seer... When fnally, sometimes after a prolonged arduous effort, his answers came forth, his statement stood before us like a newly created piece of art or a divine revelation ... the impression he made on us was as if insight came to him as through divine inspiration, so that we could not help feeling that any sober rational comment or analysis of it would be a profanation.
That is from Rudolf Carnap, one of the logical positivists. Remind yourself that Wittgenstein was a billionaire, lunatic, and child beater, and then re-evaluate that statement. Carnap just sounds like a toady, doesn't he?
In 1929 Wittgenstein returned to Cambridge. Since he was 40 and had no degree, he “initially” couldn't join the PhD program. So he entered as an undergraduate. But he (or Russell) soon paid off the right people, and within a few months they gave him a PhD, appointed him as a lecturer, and made him a fellow of Trinity College. As you might expect, Wittgenstein didn't take this very seriously either, and buggered off to Norway, France, or Ireland whenever he felt like it.
The Wittgensteins were granted mischling status by Hitler, though it is admitted they had three Jewish grandparents (and they actually had four). Only 12 people were granted this status in 1939, and six of them were Wittgensteins. But I'm sure the fact they were billionaires had nothing to do with it. In fact, we now know that this whole mischling thing was misch-direction, since Hitler and all his top people were Jewish, including Eichmann, Himmler, Goebbels, and all the rest. Most of Germany's generals and field marshals were Jewish. But Wittgenstein getting a bye on the Jewish question is still informative, since not all the richest Jews did, according to the mainstream stories. Many were allegedly sent to camps, although these stories are false. So why not make up one of these stories for the Wittgensteins? I guess because they had already told enough tall tales about Ludwig during the
First War, and didn't feel like doing it again.
In 1939 Wittgenstein was given English citizenship and became head of the philosophy department at Cambridge. As head, he came up with some more striking and brilliant ideas, such as denying that there were any mathematical facts to be discovered. He had previously denied that you could talk sensibly about religion, aesthetics, ethics, and mysticism, and he was now adding math and logic to that. He should have said that he could not talk sense about any of those things, which was undeniably true. He never once did.
In these years, around age 50, Wittgenstein should have been at the peak of his powers, but he wrote and published nothing and lectured very little—and when he did it was unintelligible. Mostly he watched movies and read detective novels.
There was only one good thing about Wittgenstein: he knew he was a fraud and kept returning to manual labor. He hated being department head at Cambridge and took a job at a nearby hospital running errands. He delivered drugs from pharmacies to patients, then advised them not to take them. You have to like that. He should have been a janitor or a ditch digger. At 50 he still couldn't speak English well, which doesn't say much for his intelligence. He admitted throughout his life that he was miserable everywhere he went, and constantly thinking of suicide. More indication he was out of place in academia.
So why did Russell and these other people promote him? Was it all just a cruel joke? Was it all just for money? Did he give millions to the college with the understanding they would sell him as a philosopher? Or was it all just one more script of Project Chaos: sell this nitwit as the greatest sage since Spinoza, to confuse the Gentiles? That is the only way I can make sense of it. In that way, he was part of the Modern Art project. The grand 20th-century plan of purposeful dissolution of everything, the destruction of society for further profit and control. Wittgenstein should have been sold as part of Dada, except that would have been to admit it was all a purposeful absurdity. That wouldn't do because they wanted you to take all this philosophy, math, and science seriously. If you did your ability to think would be permanently short-circuited, and you would believe anything and agree to anything. It was a form of brainwashing via a faux-education.
And of course that is the right answer, since that project has continued to expand and accelerate every decade since then. All of modern life has been subsumed in that project, which we might call “confound the Gentiles”. The analogy is the Native Americans hunting pronghorns with magic wands, hypnotizing them with chanting and weird motions, except here the Jews are the hunters and we are the pronghorns. We are the ones that pile up in a running wreck, where we are slaughtered for our fur and horns.
But let's finish off Wittgenstein before returning to Russell. They admit Wittgenstein was sleeping with his students at Cambridge, including some young men who were only teenagers. He just gets more endearing the more we know, doesn't he? At least he didn't kill any of these kids, as far as we know. Or maybe he did. One of them was Francis Skinner, who became his lover in 1930 at age 18. Witty was 41. But Skinner didn't make it 30, dying in October 11, 1941, allegedly of polio. Given Wittgenstein's known past, that should look suspicious, and to me it does. Although Skinner took a degree in mathematics and was awarded a postgraduate fellowship, we are told he dropped out of school and became a mechanic—with Wittgenstein's encouragement. So, either Skinner faked his death and joined MI5, or something more sinister happened there.
Anyway, Wittgenstein then hooked up with Skinner's bodyshop pal Keith Kirk, who was even younger. This was 1939, so Wittgenstein was now 50. That didn't last long, since Kirk allegedly got married (or went into MI6, or ended up in the Thames). So Wittgenstein then hooked up with Basil Reeve, a young doctor he had met at the hospital where he worked. So now I guess we know why he wanted to work in the hospital. Not enough first-rate tail at Cambridge. That lasted a couple of years, but then Wittgenstein moved on to Ben Richards (above), who remained with him until his death about five years later. Wittgenstein had looked very young his whole life, but suddenly at age 60 he hit the wall, we are told due to prostate cancer. He died two years later, but given he had been sleeping with so many young men, my guess is he died of some kind of venereal disease. Who knows. Who cares?
You will say I seem to have lost my usual cheery demeanor, along with my usual levels of pity and sympathy, which is true. These people will do it to you. I think you see why I am disgusted by Wittgenstein. It isn't his Jewishness or homosexuality. It is that he is such an obvious fraud, promoted
only because of his money and background. It is that his bio is such a pathetic lie. It is that he beat up children and called country people worms and animals. It is that he used his positions to prey on young men. It is that he continues to be promoted by his cousins, although they must know all this. It makes me wish the corona hoax will bankrupt all the universities, and that students will refuse to return to them in the fall, to pay exorbitant amounts to be lectured to online by a series of charlatans, liars, and monsters.
Perhaps the most amazing thing is that all that I have shown you above is freely available at mainstream sites. I have not done any original research here. Most of it is posted at Wikipedia, so it isn't like people don't know any better. Academics and other professionals know exactly what is going on, and they continue to promote it.
OK, so let's finish off Russell so that I can go take a series of showers, washing this misery from me. I now think that Russell's Socialism, pacificism, and other political stances were misdirection, Russell being an agent of the Eugene Debs sort. Debs fooled me for years, until I finally looked closely at him. At that point, everything flipped 180 degrees. Debs was clearly an agent whose job was to infiltrate the unions and detooth them. Russell was simply his British counterpart, both of them controlling the opposition. What clued me into this was the claim that Russell spent six months in Brixton prison in 1918 for his vocal opposition to WWI. Exactly like Debs did in the US. But there is no possibility Russell ever spent a minute in prison. Remember, he was a 46-year-old Earl by that time, and world famous. His prison term was faked to scare others from opposing the war. What better way to squelch dissent?
Like others we have looked at, Russell couldn't maintain the pose for long, and he later was in favor of preventative nuclear war, nuking Japan, world government, and other clearly fascist enterprises. He also supported the war against Hitler, so he was just reading from whatever cue-cards his cousins were feeding him. If they wanted him to pretend to be against WWI, he was. If they wanted him to be for WWII, he was. If they had told him to go on all fours and bark like a little terrier, he would have done that, too.
Also a clue is that Russell was promoted in rank. His father was only a Viscount, but Bertrand was promoted to Earl. So the monarch couldn't have been too upset by his pacifism, eh? In 1949 Russell was awarded the Order of Merit by George VI. George pretended to be embarrassed at giving the award to someone jailed by the Crown for a conviction under Defense of the Realm Act (passed on August 8, 1914, by the way, aces and eights, Chai), saying "You have sometimes behaved in a manner that would not do if generally adopted". But this was all more theater, of course, since if Russell had really caused the Crown any trouble, they would not have given him awards. Same thing we saw in earlier papers with the Rolling Stones, who were knighted despite supposedly attacking the monarchy on many occasions.
We have more evidence of this when, immediately after the War, he was reinstated at Cambridge. This after being dismissed in 1916 for his pacifist writings and statements. Why would they reinstate him right after he got out of jail? I am telling you why: because he was never in jail. It was all a stageplay, and after the war the stageplay was over. Time to get on to the next project.
That project was another spook project, since as soon as he had he rejoined Cambridge he travelled to Russia to “investigate the effects” of the Revolution. Right. He and his delegation weren't there to investigate effects, they were there to manage their actors. As cover, Russell later wrote he wasn't a fan of Bolshevism, but that didn't stop him from dumping his wife for Dora Black, who was
simultaneously selling the Revolution as the greatest thing since. . . since the previous fake revolution. Dora's father was Order of the Bath, but her mother is scrubbed at both Wikipedia and thepeerage.com. Geni gives her as Davisson, then scrubs her. Geneanet has several pages on Russell, but all of them also scrub Dora Black. However, the Blacks were baronets at the time, related to the la Touches, and through them to the Pagets of Anglesey. Also related to the Leesons, which linked them to the Leighs. Russell was also a Leigh, so Dora was a cousin. Of course. This tends to support the idea that she was mainly a new beard. The Blacks were also related to the Jocelyn Earls, and through them to the Hamiltons. Linking Dora and Bertrand a second time.
Dora was six months pregnant when Russell finally asked Alys for a divorce. He married Dora six days after the divorce was finalized. So, a lovely man. He had started the relationship with Dora when he was 47 and she was 25. Their relationship lasted only about ten years, since at that time she had two children with an American journalist. Russell then married Marjorie Spence, an undergraduate at Oxford who had been his children's governess. She was 21 when they met. They married on January 18, 1936, aces and eights, Chai. She was known as Peter and smoked a pipe. A previous lover female lover of Russell called herself Barry. Strange. Spence is scrubbed in the peerage, but the Spences are there, since it is just a variant of Spencer. Strangely, there is a second Marjorie Spence in the peerage with almost the same dates, though she was from Buffalo. The Spences of the peerage are extremely well scrubbed, with many listings that don't go anywhere or link to any peers. But we do find they are related to the Leighs, Flemings, and Dukes of Hamilton, indicating Marjorie was another cousin of Russell. This marriage also lasted about a decade, and was equally unhappy.
In 1950 Russell joined the Congress for Cultural Freedom, later admitted to be a CIA-funded anti- Communist organization. So we at last have absolute proof Russell was a spook. He kept up the antics until he was almost 90, and we are supposed to believe he spent a week back in Brixton prison in 1961, this time for an anti-nuclear demonstration. Daniel Ellsberg has taken his script from Russell in many ways, continuing to infiltrate and control the opposition decades after his premier projects ended.
In 1957 Russell won the Kalinga Prize via UNESCO, a known CIA/MI6 front. It was front-funded by Biju Patnaik, an Indian spook and buddy of Nehru working for the Brits. Biju had several palaces in India, including this one:
He was one of the richest men in India, and you don't get there by being honest. Patnaik was the Union minister for steel and mines, in which field he had made much of his money. He was also a shipping magnate, linking him to the Phoenician navy. That is why we see him here. He built the port at Paradeep, supposedly with his own money, though of course the government reimbursed him. One of his most famous quotes is “To be born poor is not a crime but to remain so is indeed a crime”. So, another lovely man.
At age 90 Russell had a role in the fake Cuban Missile Crisis, sending Kennedy a fake telegram pretending to take the event seriously. He did the same thing after the fake assassination of Kennedy, selling it as real in the Who Killed Kennedy Commission. In this Russell was, as usual, the controlled opposition, questioning the Warren Commission but never questioning the event as a whole. As late as 1970, at age 97, Russell was pretending to be the opposition to Israel, condemning their aggression in the Middle East. In this, he was showing the way to Noam Chomsky, who would take over his role as controlled opposition in this and many other questions. It was all another pose, since Russell admitted he was a Zionist in his writings and speeches. The Jews knew exactly who he was, since he was awarded the first Jerusalem Prize in 1963. Do you think they award that to their opposition?
On the way out, I am afraid I have more bad news. I tripped across this photo while searching for those of Wittgenstein:
The hidden hand.
That's Nietzsche, telling us who he was at that age. Did he turn against his own people, or was he also controlling the opposition? Grist for a future paper.
THE BORGIAS, LIKE THE ROCKEFELLERS, ARE ONE OF THE GANG CLAN FAMILIES WHO STILL RULE THE WORLD THROUGH THE BRITISH EMPIRE, THE VATICAN, JESUITS, KNIGHTS OF MALTA, BRITISH EMPIRE PRIVATE CITY OF LONDON THOUSAND YEARS OLD ANCIENT MERCANTILE LIVERY COMPANIES, MASONS WORLDWIDE - ARISTOCRATIC AGENT MAO WAS A 33RD DEGREE MASON!! JESUIT BLACK POPE CONTROLS THE 900 YEARS OLD INTELLIGENCE ARMY OF THE KNIGHTS OF MALTA (SMOM) GANG MEMBERS - THE BUSH FAMILY, TONY BLAIR, GEORGE SOROS, HENRY KISSINGER, ALEXANDER HAIG..
SATANIC HISTORY OF THE WORLD PART FOUR - The Satanic Inter-Alpha Group Corporatist Fascism is Globalization One Hundred and Eight City of London Satanic Anglo-Dutch Admiralty Law Masonic Lodge Livery Companies political and military tool of the Empire which the Satanic Generational Gang Families from Babylon Venice and Vatican Rome Jesuit Masonic, Knights of Malta, Control
THE SATANIC HISTORY OF THE WORLD PART 3 - OSHO ON ARISTOCRACY - ARISTO - ARISTOTLE, CRACY - GOVERNMENT BY.. THOSE ARISTOCRATIC OLIGARCHIC SATANIC BABYLONIAN PAGAN ROBBER BARON GENERATIONAL GANG FAMILIES AND THEIR CREATIONS, JESUITS AND KNIGHTS OF MALTA - WHO DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE SOUL.. THEY WANT TO KILL YOU!!
KILL THE MESSENGER - SATCHIDANAND ESOTERIC MOVIE REVIEW
WEALTH - THE NEW HUMAN RIGHT Russell Brand and Satchidanand on Wealth and Inequality
NEW ECONOMIC HUMAN RIGHTS TO WEALTH FOR ALL - A New International Economic Order
The Satanic Anglo American Establishment Ebola/ISIS Pincer movement against Europe/Russia and Arabia vs the Rise of the BRICS and the BRICS Infrastructure Bank
clean power concept is cheaper than coal
Eugenics and the Nazi Fascist Holocaust - and Satanic Agents Dawkins, Darwin, Huxley, Wells, Lord Bertrand Russell, Prince Bernhard, Prince Phillip
The Anglo-American Establishment Created Saudi Arabian Wahhabism andSatanic ISIS
The Satanic Freemasonic Muslim Brotherhood Worship the Goddess Isis - The ISIS Arc of Crisis and the Demon Choronzon Khorason
SATANISM AND THE DYING GOD
Enlightenment Only comes from Addiction to the Samadhi Meditation State
The Suppression of Fusion Power Generation by the Oligarchic Satanic, "Principle of Poverty"
THE SATANIC SUPPRESSION OF The Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) FOURTH GENERATION NUCLEAR POWER PLANT
The Earth is a Factory for the production of Enlightened beings and Karma is the Method of their Refinement
TEN THOUSAND YEARS OLD, "PRINCIPLE OF POVERTY",
THE TEN WAYS OF CREATING POVERTY AND
THE HUMAN RIGHT TO
The Satanic Science for the Creation of Implant Addiction Energy Blockages, Mind Control Energy Blockages Sexual and Drug Addiction Energy Blockages for the Removal of Conscience
THESE RITUALS DEFINE SATANISM.. RITUAL SEX, RITUAL DRUGS, RITUAL HUMAN SACRIFICE, RITUAL CANNIBALISM, RITUAL CASTRATION
THE HUMAN RIGHT TO WEALTH
How Satanic Lord Bertrand Russell Became an Evil Man
Old Rothschild- and Rockefeller hands created Austrian Economics and the Libertarian-Communist dialectic
SATANISM, RITUAL SEX AND HUMAN SACRIFICE, BLOODLINES, SATANIC PROPAGANDA DARWINISM EUGENICS AND THE REMOVAL OF IMPLANT ADDICTION SEX AND DRUG BLOCKAGES
ESOTERIC MOVIE REVIEW LUCY - LUCYFER, LUCIFER, SATANISM, SATANIC
MEMES, THE SINGULARITY, DRUGS, TRANSHUMANISM, EUGENICS
The Antahkarana, the Watchtowers of Dee's Enochian Keys and the Chakras above the Head - The Perverted Kundalini Key
THE SATANIC INFILTRATION OF RELIGIOUS CULTS TO CREATE POVERTY AND CONTROL HUMANITY The Witchcraft of Christians Who Are Not Christians and the Satanic Infiltration of Isis, Horus, Osiris and Dionysius.
Satanic Secret Agents, Aristotle; Contarini, Pomponazzi and Giorgi; Sarpi, Galileo and Kepler; Conti, Newton and Leibniz - The Satanic Corruption of Science by the Satanic, Slave Trading, Drug Running, Bankster run Venetian Empire
The True History of The Satanic Venetian Empire's Secret Agent Fra. Paolo Sarpi and his Operation against Liebniz to create Worldwide Poverty by Sabotaging Scientific Development with Satanic Scientific and Economic Empiricism
ONLY ENERGY ENHANCEMENT GIVES THE REAL DEAL ON MEDITATION!! SEE SATCHIDANAND'S BOOK, "SACRED SYMBOLS AND SUPER ENERGY!" DETAILING ALL THE TECHNIQUES REMOVED FROM TRADITIONAL MEDITATIONS, BROUGHT BACK WITH ENERGY ENHANCEMENT.. CLICK HERE!!.."Traditional forms of meditation are designed to fail!!"
THE ENERGY ENHANCEMENT SECRET KNOWLEDGE OF LUCIFERIANISM AND SATANISM BY THE NEOPLATONIC ELITE Satanism, Luciferianism, Paganism, The Old Religion from Nimrod and Babylon and the Generational Family Gangs who created the Slave trading, Drug Smuggling Roman Empire, Venetian Empire, Dutch Empire, British Empire, Anglo-American Establishment, Vatican, Jesuits, Knights of Malta, New World Order... "The Principle of Poverty" The survival of the species demands a revival of the "secret knowledge" of the Neoplatonic elite. That knowledge must not only be revived, but as we do here, must be situated within and updated by appropriate terms of modern scientific and Energy Enhancement Spiritual knowledge.
THE SATANIC HISTORY OF THE WORLD -
PART ONE - The Satanic
Psychopathic Palmerston, Prime Minister of the British Empire circa
1850 - and his Three Satanic Psychopathic British Agents, Mazzini, Urquhart and
Napoleon III - as a Continuation of the same Satanic Psychopathic Families from
Satanic Psychopathic Babylon through the Satanic Psychopathic Roman Empire, the
Satanic Psychopathic Venetian Empire to the Satanic Psychopathic British Empire
to the current Satanic Psychopathic Anglo-American Establishment
SATANIC HISTORY OF THE WORLD - PART TWO -
SATANIC HISTORY OF THE WORLD PART 3 -
ON ARISTOCRACY -
ARISTO - ARISTOTLE, CRACY
- GOVERNMENT BY.. THOSE ARISTOCRATIC OLIGARCHIC SATANIC PAGAN GANG GENERATIONAL
FAMILIES AND THEIR CREATIONS, JESUITS AND KNIGHTS OF MALTA - WHO DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE SOUL..
THEY WANT TO KILL YOU!!
SATANIC HISTORY OF THE WORLD PART FOUR
- The Satanic Inter-Alpha Group
Corporatist Fascism is Globalization One Hundred and Eight City of London
Satanic Anglo-Dutch Admiralty Law Masonic Lodge Livery Companies political and
military tool of the Empire which the Satanic Generational Gang Families from
Babylon Venice and Vatican Rome Jesuit Masonic, Knights of Malta, Control
BORGIAS, LIKE THE ROCKEFELLERS, ARE ONE OF THE GANG CLAN FAMILIES
WHO STILL RULE THE WORLD THROUGH THE BRITISH EMPIRE, THE VATICAN,
JESUITS, KNIGHTS OF MALTA, BRITISH EMPIRE PRIVATE CITY OF LONDON
THOUSAND YEARS OLD ANCIENT MERCANTILE LIVERY
COMPANIES, MASONS WORLDWIDE - ARISTOCRATIC AGENT MAO WAS A 33RD
DEGREE MASON!! JESUIT BLACK POPE CONTROLS THE 900 YEARS OLD INTELLIGENCE ARMY OF
THE KNIGHTS OF MALTA (SMOM)
GANG MEMBERS - THE BUSH FAMILY, TONY BLAIR, GEORGE SOROS, HENRY KISSINGER,
|The Anglo-American Empire Created Saudi Arabian Wahhabism and Satanic ISIS through British Agent Hempher in 1750 - Later the British Installed King Saud to control Oil and create Mercenary Wahhabist Armies||THESE RITUALS DEFINE SATANISM.. RITUAL SEX, RITUAL DRUGS, RITUAL HUMAN SACRIFICE, RITUAL CANNIBALISM, RITUAL CASTRATION||THE TEN THOUSAND YEARS OLD, "PRINCIPLE OF POVERTY", THE TEN WAYS OF CREATING POVERTY AND THE HUMAN RIGHT TO WEALTH|
How Satanic Lord
Bertrand Russell Became an Evil Man
Satanic Secret Agents, Aristotle; Contarini, Pomponazzi and Giorgi; Sarpi, Galileo and Kepler; Conti, Newton and Leibniz - The Satanic Corruption of Science by the Satanic, Slave Trading, Drug Running, Bankster run Venetian Empire
The True History of The Satanic Venetian Empire's Secret Agent Fra. Paolo Sarpi and his Operation against Liebniz to create Worldwide Poverty by Sabotaging Scientific Development with Satanic Scientific and Economic Empiricism
MEDITATION WITH COJONES
EE LEVEL1 EE LEVEL2
EE LEVEL3 EE LEVEL4 EE FAQS