This article appears in the February 13, 2004 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

by Lyndon H. LaRouche,

January 12, 2004

During 1959-60, I began warning, as an economist, that if the policies associated with Arthur Burns were continued deep into the 1960s, we must expect a series of crises in the existing monetary system during the second half of that decade. I warned, that if those policies were continued, despite the warning-shots of these monetary crises, there would be a general collapse of the existing Bretton Woods system. President John F. Kennedy threatened to correct those erroneous policies; the 1962 missile crisis, his assassination, and the official Indo-China war which his assassination made possible, ensured that the economic trends against which I had warned in (admittedly) reports of limited circulation, would continue. Whether my voice were much heard or not at that time, the decision was made, in effect, and the consequences which I had foreseen followed.

These warnings had been made initially within limited circles, but came increasingly to public attention during the 1966-67 interval, especially in the aftermath of the successive shocks of the Autumn 1967 crisis of British Sterling and the ensuing, January-March 1968 crisis of the U.S. dollar.

The general collapse of the Bretton Woods system, against which I had warned, occurred between the August 15-16, 1971 collapse of the system by the hand of President Richard Nixon, and that 1972 Azores monetary conference which set the presently doomed floating-exchange-rate monetary system into operation. The 1971 crack, which virtually all other economists and textbooks said was impossible under the reign of existing "built-in stabilizers," defined me as a political form of intellectual force with which the establishment had to reckon. They "reckoned" that they should be rid of me as quickly as possible, before the effects of my earned credibility would bring me into a position of greater political influence than they considered tolerable.

At that time, I warned that if we failed to learn the lesson of this 1966-1972 experience, the world would be lurching in the direction of new threats of fascist insurgency, like the fascist insurgencies of 1922-1945.

Now, we are in the grip of the terminal phase of a general collapse of the existing world monetary-financial system. As I warned, we are also gripped by the threat of a general fascist insurgency, as merely typified by the impact of U.S. Vice-President Cheney’s revival of a strategic doctrine of "preventive nuclear warfare," and a Nazi-like replacement of the traditional military forces and doctrine of modern civilization, by a military doctrine echoing the Roman imperial legions and the Nazi intent to establish a world-reigning international Waffen-SS.

The process which has brought us to this point, since the onset of the official U.S. war in Indo-China, has had the character of a long-wave cultural-paradigm shift, a cultural change which erupted as the mid-1960s "rock-drug-sex counterculture" and the related phenomena of the 68ers and so-called "post-industrial" faddisms. Since 1971-72, there has been a systemic uprooting and destruction of the institutions upon which both U.S. recovery from the Coolidge-Hoover depression and Europe’s recovery from the ruin of World War II, had depended.

During this period, from 1971 to the present, I have warned of the need to resist this cultural-paradigm shift.

Those warnings have been accompanied by long-range economic forecasts which have always proved accurate estimates of the nature and timing of new critical developments in the economic-monetary system. Those warnings, repeatedly vindicated, were shrugged off. Now, the accumulated effects of that against which I had warned, have doomed the present world monetary-financial system.

This means, that either my warnings are accepted in relevant ways now, or our civilization generally is faced with the likely prospect of a relatively immediate plunge into what will emerge as a generalized, planetary new dark age.

Therefore, the subject of this report, is certain urgently needed, radically new policies, respecting the regulation of tariffs and trade. These will be a crucial part of the changes, in our nation’s thinking and practice, which must be made soon, if there is to be any realistic hope of a durable reversal of the presently inevitable, and early bankruptcy of the U.S. economy. This collapse, unless reversed by an early turn to the philosophy of practice of President Franklin Roosevelt in comparable circumstances, would mean a collapse of the present world monetary-financial/economic system into a relatively much deeper trough than during 1928-1933.

Despite the repeatedly fraudulent figures crafted by Chairmen Paul Volcker’s and Alan Greenspan’s Federal Reserve System, there is no possibility of recovery from the presently onrushing general depression, unless we, throughout the course of the coming four years, stimulate national economic growth with a relatively vast shift of national policy, away from financial-market speculation, back to new medium- to long-term capital investment in employment for production of basic economic infrastructure, and other useful physical goods. This recovery program must include investment in basic economic infrastructure, in the order of no less than $6 trillions of today’s valuations for the years immediately ahead. This newly created Federal long-term credit, must be used both to raise the level and quality of employment of the labour-force.

In this way, by these measures, we shall raise the level of real income of the nation and states above the level of break-even, and create an even vaster amount of new long-term capital investment in both new economic infrastructure and new technologies.

However, under the presently disastrous world financial situation, even that kind of recovery effort would fail, unless the world’s presently bankrupt, floating-exchange-rate monetary-financial system, were replaced by a return to that model of the fixed-exchange-rate system which was launched at the original, war-time Bretton Woods conference. This new, Bretton-Woods form of fixed-exchange-rate system, must include a long-term commitment to continuation of such policies, over a span of two coming generations, under basic long-term-credit terms of between 1 and 2% simple-interest rates.

Most crucial of all the changes needed, if the U.S. economy is to survive the presently onrushing catastrophe, is a deep-going, sweeping change in the way of thinking, away from the trends of the recent forty years, back to that world-outlook expressed by President Franklin Roosevelt, upon which the U.S. recovery had depended for recovery from the effects of the Coolidge and Hoover administrations’ follies. Our survival as a nation will now depend upon the willingness of the majority of our people, and our institutions of government, to reverse the trend into the predominant, so-called "post-industrial" ideologies of the "Baby Boomer" and "Generation X" generations of the U.S.A., Canada, and western Europe today. We must turn away from those foolish ideologies which have brought us to ruin today, and turn back to what had been the traditional, successful policies of the Roosevelt-led recovery from the last great, world-wide depression.

This investment by initiative of governments, which I have continued to propose, must be typified, largely, in such categories of U.S. investment in basic economic infrastructure as a.) generation and distribution of power; b.) large-scale water management, and related "environmental" programs; c.) mass transport, chiefly rail, maglev, and new air-ground transport systems; d.) health-care facilities and related systems; e.) educational systems installations; f.) a space-oriented science-driver program; and g.) reformed modes of urban infrastructure. Like the TVA project under President Franklin Roosevelt, these investments will be associated with investment cycles of initial financial maturities of from a quarter to half a century.

These categories of long-term investment in basic economic infrastructure, will be used as the principal new stimulant for expansion and technological upgrading of expanded employment within private entrepreneurships.

The question implicitly posed is, therefore: what might be the foreseeable likelihood, that the new issues of financial capital investment might be diverted largely into wasteful financial speculation, diverted into waste like that we have seen under the Presidents we have enjoyed during the preceding three-and-a-half decades? We must not send new capital down the same economic toilet-bowl into which vast amounts of previously invested financial capital has been dumped by our economy under those misguided administrations.

Therefore, we must pose the following question bearing on needed changes in policies respecting tariffs and trade.

On what premises might we honestly assure both government and private investors, that the financing of economic recovery during the relatively short-term, will not be diverted from the purpose stipulated above, into a long-term, bottomless rabbit-hole of "free trade," like that into which we have been sent, by the policy-making of government and others, during the recent four decades: four decades of shift of U.S. national policy, away from having been the world’s greatest producer nation, into becoming today’s intrinsically bankrupt, parasitical nation of "bread and circuses" life-style pursuits? [1]

For discussion of that subject, we must situate the arguments within the context of implementation of the "New Bretton Woods" system of fixed exchange-rates, a system which must supersede the world’s presently, hopelessly bankrupt, floating-exchange-rate, monetary-financial system. Our subject here is, therefore, as I shall explain, the, unfortunately little understood, crucial roles of medium- to long-term sets of relatively fixed standards of tariffs and trade agreements within the process of a general recovery of the U.S.A.’s—and the world’s—present economy.

To situate that discussion itself, I shall take into account the following general problem of mental life, which is prevalent among both leading figures and ordinary citizens, in our nation and elsewhere, today. I launch that discussion with the following general observation, to which I shall return, to examine in some much needed depth, at a later point in this present report.

The Root of the Problem

The important remedies for this crisis, include a return to U.S. principles of tariffs and trade policies which were the prevalent doctrines of our republic’s founders, policies which stood us in good stead when we returned to them repeatedly, as under President Franklin Roosevelt. Today, those policies, which are among the essential elements of any workable economic recovery from the presently onrushing collapse, are rather fiercely resisted. Were that resistance to prevail, our republic might not survive the coming several years of crisis in a recognizable form. This resistance, is as grave a threat to our republic’s continued existence, as any other. Therefore, the roots of that resistance must be identified, if the republic is to be saved from the dangers menacing it today.

The leading political problem, which most leading political figures of our republic are most reluctant to address, is the popularity of axiomatic-like notions such as "free trade." Although, as the ruinous effects of NAFTA show, "free trade" is a principal cause of the ruin of our economy today, it is an issue which few political figures have the courage to address in an efficient way. "Free trade" has become deeply embedded in the most popular of the relevant academic and kindred sophistries of our time. Policy-shapers therefore prefer to seek remedies which do not offend that disease of contemporary sophistry, lest they go against the current majority of popular opinion.

Thus, as long as citizens demand simple, populist slogans as the basis for choices of policies, our republic were doomed. Unless the majority of our people can be taught to abandon that sophistry which is the popular opinion in favor of continuing "free trade" and related policies, this republic would not now long survive. Therefore all simplistic arguments bearing on policies of tariffs and trade, pro and con, must be tossed aside. Sophistry must be replaced by reason, however unpopular reason might appear to be these days.

In respect to my own personal role in these matters, the warnings and policies I have presented during nearly a half century have been affirmed by history to date. During more than three of those decades, since 1971-72, my arguments have been circulated widely, among leading national and international circles. Over the latter period, it must be said that my views have been proven correct, and those who opposed them wrong. When people in high positions refuse to learn proven relevant lessons of this importance, the ideology responsible for their stubbornness must be examined with the intent to uproot those sophistical opinions which have prevented those now richly validated remedies for our present crisis which have been postponed for so long.

Also, considering my position as, with Senator John Kerry, among the most likely surviving of the present candidates for the 2004 Democratic Presidential nomination, I have a corresponding, special form and degree of responsibility for publishing an account of the scientific and related premises of my policy-shaping. Whether all citizens fully understand the principles of my exemplary accomplishments in the field of economics, they have a right to have access to a careful account of the principles I employ in addressing the crucial policy-issues confronting our republic during the coming four to eight years. I take that responsibility into account here, accordingly.

We must therefore address the underpinnings of the issue of policies respecting tariffs and trade regulations. We must expose, and uproot the popularized sophistries which have sent our republic down so deep, for so many decades. We must poke into the minds of those who have adopted the relevant sophistries, as I act to educate what must become the leading policy-shapers associated with the next President of the U.S.A.

With rare, and precious exceptions, today’s now-dominant generation of university-qualified economists and general public, alike, are pathetically ignorant of even the most elementary of the long-term physical principles of successful political economy. Under the present circumstances, of onrushing general collapse of the present, floating-exchange-rate, world monetary-financial system, that prevalent ignorance among even professionals, now represents a severe threat, a source of mortal danger to the continued existence of our own republic.

To quote from my recent remarks to a Mainz-Laubenheim (Germany) youth conference: in the matter of economics, today’s typical U.S. citizen, whether of high or low academic ranking, is like one of a swarm of captive fish in a goldfish bowl, a bowl which, itself, is being carried, presently, toward the financial-cultural toilet where the contents of the fishbowl might be dumped.

The bowl which imprisons those captives so, is a delusion concerning the nature of both economy in general, and money in particular. That citizen is a victim of belief in a set of axiom-like assumptions which are false to reality, such as the dogma known as "free trade," a dogma in which he believes more or less devoutly. His beliefs are bounded by a set of such axiomatic, or axiom-like assumptions, which prompt him, or her, to deny any actuality which exists outside the bounds of consistency with his delusory assumptions. [2]

The trouble is, that the typical citizen views the opinions he, or she, derives from such axiom-like assumptions, as "practical." He, or she, therefore considers opinions contrary to those assumptions as "impractical," "only theoretical," or, perhaps what the sick-minded existentialist of today derides as "conspiracy theories."

So, the unwitting citizen’s mind is imprisoned within a goldfish-bowl-like wall, in which that mind swims, as if refusing to accept the notion that anything really exists outside that wall, or, even the existence of that wall itself. Such a citizen, within his bowl of self-delusion, becomes, thus, comparable to the legendary lemming, running over the edge of the cliff to the rocks below, for the sake of "party unity," because he rejects the notion that it were socially unacceptable to act differently. However, usually, the man in the bowl does not actually run over the cliffs; rather, he lets his bowl of delusion carry him to his doom as if spontaneously. So, the world’s most productive economy of 1963, has been transformed, over forty intervening years, into the disaster which acquired habit has produced for today.

I shall return to that strategically crucial problem of the mental health of the U.S. today, at a later point in this report, after I have lain the basis for that discussion, by, first, now, identifying the way in which a "free trade" system, such as the present "floating-exchange-rate" monetary-financial system, destroys an economy by destroying those modes of capital investment on which continued prosperity depends.

1. The Notion of Capital

Forget what most among us today had been taught to believe that they knew about economics. Ignore what today’s usual university-trained economist attempts to teach you about economics, even in face of the evidence that those teachings have led our nation into present conditions of virtual U.S. national bankruptcy. Instead of accepting such popularized delusions, think as a scientist should.

From the standpoint of any competent form of elementary business management practice, the notion of capital is associated with "stored up" costs of production. Two directly opposite notions of such capital, physical versus financial, exist. In today’s widespread, disoriented state of mind, which has become commonplace among most economists, accountants, and the general public, it is assumed that capital is essentially of the form of financial holdings (which are, after all, only "paper," rather than being measured primarily, ontologically, in real, which is to say, physical, terms).

Real, physical capital includes improvements, such as those in basic economic infrastructure, which are a form of physical, rather than often delusory, fictitious notions of financial capital which are still widely popularized today. Otherwise, apart from such accounting fantasies as those, we may agree with that practice of most accounting which defines "current" as what might show up on the balance-sheet and profit-or-loss statements at the close of a fiscal year. Using a one-year cycle as a standard for comparisons, just as we use the same measure, the cycle of the Solar (or, Sidereal) year, as the comparative standard for astronomy, we have, then, the following relevant distinctions for our discussion here.

We must make the approximate distinctions among: short-term capital (that invested in the interval, often less than a year, between the start of production of a product and its purchase for consumption); medium-term capital (involving a cycle of investment, production, and consumption contained within a few years; and, long-term capital (such as machinery, plant, and equipment) whose life-cycle of investment may be as long as one to two generations (a quarter- to a half-century).

In all competent discussion of the role of capital in an economy, we start with the notion of physical capital, and compare cycles of growth and depletion, and trends so defined. We must contrast the actual, physical capital invested, to the money-value used for financial and cost accounting for those physical investments. This confronts us with the challenge of regulating financial values of capital to conform to the functional, rather than object-by-object notion of comparative financial valuation attached to physical values. The regulation of financial and monetary behaviour, for the purpose of controlling the wild-eyed follies inhering in the irrational behaviour often induced by blind religious faith in money, is the means, by which, despite delusions about money, we are enabled to foster a sane effect in the real, physical economy. This role of sanity by government, is what is known as "protectionism."

Two contrasted, but each valid ideas associated with the notion of a physical value of physical capital, must be compared:

First, we must replace the physical capital which is being used up. Second, we must take into account the additional effects of technological attrition. We must not merely replace worn-out capital; we must introduce the new, more advanced technology needed to overcome the backwardness caused by lack of technological improvements.

That pair of considerations obliges us to introduce the notion of physical-economic values as such, in the following way.

Gauss, Riemann, and Economy

On the subject of an economic science, as in the case of any branch of science, there is always a single, underlying, universal principle which properly defines the subject-matter. Without adherence to a valid such principle, there is no science, but no more than a sophist’s mere opinion, as the latter fault is typical of the customary textbooks and classroom instruction on economics today.

As a matter of physical-scientific principle, the known basis for a science of economy is, as I shall indicate here, at least as ancient as the adult lifetimes of Athens’ Solon and Plato; but, the existence of a true economy is a creation of modern European history, which dates from its beginning in the founding of the first modern nation-states, Louis XI’s France and Henry VII’s England, during the late Fifteenth Century.

The underlying, fundamental principle of a science of economy, from whose application modern economy is derived, is the notion of "powers" (ancient Greek: dynamis) which Plato adopted, chiefly, from the work of the Pythagoreans. All of the important varieties of incompetent modern doctrines of political-economy, such as the empiricism of Locke, Mandeville, Quesnay, Adam Smith, and Jeremy Bentham, take the root of their intrinsic incompetence in either simply evading, or flatly denying the existence of the principle of "powers," as Euler and Lagrange, et al., have denied the actual existence of those Leibnizian universal physical principles which are higher in authority over the universe than any mere financial or other arithmetic. [3]

The presently onrushing collapse of the world’s floating-exchange-rate monetary-financial system, is an example of the outcome of the most extreme kind of general incompetence in thinking about economics, as by most among the generation of those currently leading political and academic figures, who are typical victims of the "Baby Boomer" generation, who are currently either in their fifties, or entering their sixties. Recognition of that systemic incompetence, is key, as I shall show later in this report, for understanding the follies of much currently prevalent academic opinion on the subject of tariffs and trade.

What reductionists such as Leonhard Euler, Thomas Huxley, and Frederick Engels, or the far more radical reductionists Ernst Mach, Bertrand Russell, Norbert Wiener, and John von Neumann, never wished to understand, is that the human individual is neither a higher ape nor a form of non-life, such as a mere machine. That observation is the essential point of the argument to be made against the reductionists, the argument which Carl F. Gauss made against Euler, Lagrange, et al., in his 1799 The Fundamental Theorem of Algebra. There, he exposed the foolish blunders of Euler and Lagrange, on the particular subject of mathematical physics. The "complex domain" of mathematics, which Euler, Lagrange, and other empiricists had rejected, reflects man’s knowledge of those experimentally provable fundamental physical principles which are not perceived directly through the senses. Contrary to Euler and Lagrange, Johannes Kepler’s uniquely original discovery of universal gravitation is typical of principles knowable for mankind, which can not be known as objects directly through mere sense-perception. [4]

As I shall emphasize repeatedly here, and elsewhere—respecting the case of the "goldfish bowl"—in the course of this report, Gauss’ 1799 argument against Euler, Lagrange, and the reductionists generally, reflects his recognition of the importance of an anti-Euclidean (also known as ante-Euclidean) physical geometry, as distinct from what is fairly described as merely a non-Euclidean geometry (e.g., those of Lobatchevsky and Bolyai).

No lower form of life, including the higher apes, let alone a mere digital computing device, is capable of discovering, and knowing a physical principle. This unique quality of the human species, sometimes called "Promethean" or "the Sublime," defines the meaning of "spiritual" for physical science, including the science of physical economy. This is the empirically knowable, "Promethean," or "Sublime" quality of the human social individual, on which is premised the notion of man and woman as made equally in the likeness of the Creator of the universe.

Therefore, this rigorously scientific notion of that special, immortal, spiritual nature of man, as distinct from lower forms of life, is the basis for what is known to competent theologians and historians as "natural law." The principles of sovereignty, the general welfare (e.g., common good), and posterity, which are set forth, in the Preamble, as the fundamental principles of the U.S. Federal Constitution, are expressions typical of such natural law. All sound political-economy, and related statecraft, such as what Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton described as "The American System of political-economy," is derived from the application of that body of natural law, as I summarize here those relevant crucial aspects of that matter bearing on the issues of regulation of tariffs and trade.

The discovery which Gauss presented in that 1799 paper, reflects those foundations of pre-Euclidean Greek mathematics, called "spherics," which Thales, Pythagoras, Plato, et al., obtained from under the shadow of those remarkable astronomical instruments known as the Great Pyramids of ancient Egypt.

The relevant argument respecting economic science proceeds from that point, as follows.

Infrastructure generates productivity: A 1981 graph of the physical economy of the United States over the previous two decades, using the LaRouche-Riemann Economic Model, showed clearly the direct relation of investments in economic infrastructure, and the economy’s real productivity measured the following year (economic surplus generated, S, as a ratio of capital and labour costs, C and V).

Every experimentally validated universal physical principle corresponds to the discovery of some stubborn anomaly within the domain of sense-perceptual experience. Such anomalies reflect the fact, that the human individual’s sense-perceptual apparatus is a part of the mortal organism of the living individual. Therefore, our sense-perceptions are the footprint, not the foot itself, of the passage of the real universe, upon our biological sense-apparatus. The challenge to the human mind is to discover the principle which has generated the footprint. [5] Gauss’ notion of the complex domain, as presented in opposition to reductionist fanatics such as Euler, Lagrange, et al., defines an approach to mathematical physics by means of which we are able to show a functional correlation between the sensed part of experimental experience and the unseen, but discovered principle, which controls the casting of the relevant shadow, the footprint.

Kepler’s uniquely original, finely detailed discovery (1609) of such a principle of universal gravitation, is an historic example of this.

My own original discoveries of 1948-1953, within the context of Leibniz’s original (1671-1716) discoveries in the science of physical economy, were initially developed by my viewing technological progress as the outcome of those discoveries of universal principle which are situated within the domain of that notion of irony which is defined otherwise, but to the same effect, according to the principles of Classical artistic composition.

In other words, I rejected the contemporary, popularized division of academic knowledge into what British author C.P. Snow identified as a division between "two cultures," physical science versus the arts. [6] I recognized a Classical form of irony (e.g., metaphor most emphatically), if it were truly Classical irony, as the complement to the paradoxes which promote the birth of discovered physical principles. Physical science, as usually viewed, pertains to the implicitly direct relationship of the cognitive powers of the sovereign individual mind to the physical universe. Classical art, especially Classical artistic irony, references the same kind of individual cognitive powers, but for the case that the immediate subject is the social process, rather than the individual’s ostensibly simpler, presumably direct relationship to the physical domain. [7]

I recognized, in a way re-enforced by my subsequent study of Riemann’s argument, that it is in the social dimension of cognition, that the individual forms those ideas for practice which are valid universal principles of physical science. [8] Hence, the relative uniqueness of my discovery on this point.

In the effort to give my own discoveries the "legs" needed for day-to-day, mathematical or quasi-mathematical practice, I revised my preceding discoveries, in 1953, in accord with Riemann’s 1854 habilitation dissertation.

Hence, the application of Riemann’s discoveries to my own original discovery: the so-called LaRouche-Riemann method. This method has proven itself to be not only the best tool for long-range economic forecasting, but virtually the only known competent, and only consistently successful such tool during the period of about four decades. The "goldfish bowl" pedagogical, treated within this present report, will illustrate the crucial point about my method of long-range forecasting.

Riemann’s discoveries, most notably his 1854 habilitation dissertation and his treatment of Abelian functions, are the natural outgrowth of that general theory of curved surfaces which Gauss had developed from the seed of his attacks on Euler, Lagrange, et al., in his own, revolutionary, 1799 The Fundamental Theorem of Algebra. [9]

I say again, that the significance of these discoveries was already known, implicitly, to such pre-Euclidean Greek astronomers as Pythagoras, and also to Plato. Gauss’ referenced 1799 paper refers explicitly to that ancient, pre-Euclidean connection to the geometrical methods of the Pythagoreans and Plato. The case of the doubling of an axiomatic line, square, or cube, is the simplest illustration of the point made by the pre-Euclideans of Plato’s time, and Gauss later. These three elementary cases of paradoxical doublings, as amplified by the construction of the Platonic solids, already define ontologically what Gauss presents as the complex domain.

To double the volume of a given cube, one must find a length equal to what we call today the cube root of 2. Forget the calculator, can you construct it? Archytas, a contemporary and collaborator of Plato, was the first to show how. His solution requires the intersection of three surfaces. The solution is derived from the point P in the illustration, where the torus, cylinder, and cone intersect. Gauss’s construction in the 1799 “ Fundamental theorem ” paper also involves the intersection of three surfaces, and can be used to produce the double cube.

In each case, the solution to the paradox is a principle which is invisible to sense-perception, but which corresponds to a willful human action by means of which the solution is generated, as by the action of construction. [10] The most dramatic of these ancient solutions is, of course, Archytas’ solution for the construction of the doubling of the cube, in which two successive mean actions are required. The typical modern example, is, I have already emphasized here, Kepler’s uniquely original discovery of universal gravitation, as detailed, for example, in his 1609 The New Astronomy. Beyond the scope of Gauss’ restatement of the three most elementary Pythagorean examples, is the construction of the Platonic solids, which serves Plato, as in his Timaeus, as demonstrating that physical space-time exists beyond the axiomatic bounds of a Euclidean (or, Cartesian) aprioristic geometry,

By such pre-Euclidean (e.g., pre-Aristotelean) geometries, we should intend what I have referenced above as what the Pythagoreans knew as "spherics."

Physical Astronomy

Looking up to the night-time sky, we find ourselves, as observers, within what must seem to be a spheroidal physical space-time of unknown diameter. In these observations, we know only angular displacements. Among these observations, we may distinguish anomalous angular motions, apparent motions which are not consistent with a simply regular spherical action; the equinoctial cycle, for example, known to the ancients long before the earliest known sign of civilization of a pre-Dravidian language-group culture called Sumer. [11] What are discovered include what Egypt’s Great Pyramids attest to be very, very long cycles, which are adduced from study of apparently anomalous patterns not consistent with the attempt to read simply continuous motion into regular patterns of directly sense-perceived angular displacement.

These invisible principles, which produce visible, experimentally proven expressions of universal cycles, or like anomalies, were known to the ancient Pythagoreans, and Plato, as "powers" (dynamis). Thus, to those ancient, pre-Euclidean Greeks and their relevant predecessors, no aprioristic (i.e., so-called "self-evident") notions of definitions, axioms, and postulates are allowed in science. Only experimentally defined universal "powers" are permitted, in the place where reductionists have wrongly introduced arbitrary, fanciful definitions, axioms, and postulates. [12] Thus, Riemann’s 1854 habilitation dissertation brings us, beyond Gauss, to a notion of a universe in which the only axiomatic characteristics of geometry are those powers which qualify as experimentally defined universal physical principles.

"Powers" so defined, are the absolutely exclusive basis in principle for any competent form of study of political economy. Such a political economy is, essentially, a science of physical economy. The relevant connections are, summarily, as follows.

Broadly stated, were man a species of higher ape, the human population would never have much exceeded several millions living individuals. Today, we have a reported total in excess of six billions. Animals, including apes, can not acquire powers beyond what is implicitly in their relatively fixed, "genetic" dispositions. Thus, we measure the effect of the relative viability of a culture by measuring its estimated potential relative population-density. The gains in potential relative population-density are delimited by the accumulation of those powers currently employed as the repertory of that society. This is the required approximate measurement of the relative productive powers of labor of a given, current national culture, for example. The rate of discovery of such powers, and the rate of realized application of those discoveries, indicates the potential of that society for growth, and for recovery from man-made or other catastrophes.

So, the competent modern form of a science of physical economy is broadly defined as Riemannian. In place of fanciful, aprioristic definitions, axioms, and postulates, we allow only the notion of powers, and of changes in geometry of practice effected through employment of newly discovered, relevant powers. Such is a generalized notion of a Riemann surface as applicable to the domain of practice of a science of physical economy.

Now, examine the practical implications of this for shaping policies of nations. Start with the distinction between basic economic infrastructure and entrepreneurial-local action.

2. Basic Economic Infrastructure

The same levels of an individual’s skill will have different outcomes in different environments. The productivity of the individual, or individual entrepreneurship, exists within an environment determined not only by the technology employed, but by the relative level of development of the infrastructure in which that individuality operates. On this account, the current, "cross-sectional" state of economic progress of society, is determined by two leading considerations. First, the development of what is called basic economic infrastructure. Second, the degree to which the population is developed, and employed for its relative cognitive potential, rather than as virtual beasts of repetitive, relatively simpler forms of ("cheap") labour.

Glance first at the second consideration.

What we know of the history of mankind, shows that until the revolutionary, Fifteenth-Century European Renaissance, the general, physical-economic characteristic of society, was a relatively smaller number of persons exploiting a larger number as virtual human cattle, either as wild cattle to be hunted down, or, as often enslaved, tamed, herded cattle, kept in flocks which are (usually) duly culled in a timely way. If fact, the latter were not less than human; they represented the individual’s potential for discovery and employment of powers; however, in the main, their lives were regulated, by punitive and other measures, in such a way as to suppress the natural expression of the cognitive potential within them. [13] They were, thus, bestialized in that degree.

Modern European civilization was born during the Fifteenth-Century Renaissance. This liberation from the medieval feudalism of the Venetian bankers and their Norman allies, was the result of a combination of actions. Most important among the positive features of the situation, was the included return to the Classical Christian humanism of the Platonic Greek tradition, the tradition of Christian Apostles such as John and Paul, combined with the related birth of modern experimental physical science, as the latter was typified then by the initiatives of Brunelleschi, Nicholas of Cusa, and Leonardo da Vinci. This Renaissance produced the founding of the first nation-states, Louis XI’s France and Henry VII’s England, committed to the notion of a commonwealth. Under that new form of nation-state, the legitimacy of government was conditional upon its efficient service in promotion of the common good of all of the population and its posterity (agape).

Thus, the Fifteenth-Century Renaissance’s liberation of mankind from a "traditional" state, in which the majority of persons were treated as wild or herded human cattle, was the beginning of the modern form of sovereign nation-state, as typified, early, by the mission of Jeanne d’Arc, by Louis XI’s France and Henry VII’s and Sir Thomas More’s England. The notion of natural law, that government were not morally legitimate, unless it were efficiently committed to the promotion of the general welfare of all of the people and their posterity (agape), is the founding distinction of modern political-economy, as distinct from, and opposed to both the Norman-Venetian ultramontane model, [14] and the financier-interest-ruled Anglo-Dutch Liberals’ Eighteenth/Nineteenth-Century, pro-imperialist parliamentary model, a model also known in Eighteenth-Century Europe as "The Venetian Party."

The crucial distinction of the U.S. 1776 Declaration of Independence, and the 1789 U.S. Federal Constitution’s doctrine of natural law, as expressed by the Preamble, is the distilled prototype of the genius of the modern sovereign nation-state, and of modern political-economy. The establishment of the U.S.A. as the first modern constitutional republic, [15] was a unique expression of that Renaissance heritage. President Franklin Roosevelt’s defence of the general welfare against predatory oligarchical usury, was a reaffirmation of that character of the U.S. as a republic of unique distinctions.

However, during the recent four decades, most of the adult population of the Americas and Europe which came into maturity following 1963, has been relatively bestialized by the transition of the U.S. from the world’s leading producer economy, into the "post-industrial" decadence of "bread and entertainment circuses," a decadence echoing the tradition of ancient imperial Rome.

Similarly, the introduction of the radically neo-Lockean dogma of "shareholder value," as from the lips of the frankly fascistic U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, [16] is an implicitly treasonous attempted transformation of the U.S., juridically, from a true republic to a society based on the subjugation of the lower eighty percentiles of family-income brackets to that systemically brutish corruption known today as "popular culture." The return, as by Scalia, from the principle of the general welfare, to the inherently predatory, neo-feudal doctrine of Lockean "shareholder value," is a signal expression of that corruption.

For reasons which I shall show here, the notion of basic economic infrastructure must be derived from the approach expressed as the historically determined features of what our republic’s first Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton described as "The American System of political-economy." Hamilton expressed the U.S. republic’s scientifically grounded alternative to the academically popular, but pathetically failed, reductionist Anglo-Dutch Liberal parliamentary models of the British East India Company’s Haileybury School. The latter are, notably, the "free trade" models which Karl Marx praised as "the only scientific political-economy" of his time of studies under his British intelligence controller Urquhart at the British Library. [17]

The true history of today’s typical academic indoctrination in economics, shows that indoctrination has ill-served most of the world, as the generally accepted recipes for global catastrophes such as the world’s presently collapsing, "floating-exchange-rate," monetary-financial system. Unfortunately, "Economics" as it is usually mistaught today, as that incompetence defended by most among the putative academic and other experts, is, as some say, "an altogether different kettle of fish," as you shall now see in my following series of summaries on the underlying principles of basic economic infrastructure.

To Understand Our Hamlets

As Professors Minsky and Chomsky have shown, at MIT, it is possible to make a credible likeness of the behavior of an ape out of a man (even out of a pair of Professors), but to make a thinking man of out of an ape, is an impossible species-jump. The first law of infrastructure, which should be taught in every introduction to the subject of economics today, is that infrastructure is nothing less than the human species’ indispensable management of what V.I. Vernadsky defined as the Biosphere. [18] Thus, the functional definition and analysis of infrastructure, is an expression of that quality of the human species which does not exist in any form of life except mankind. The difference that makes, is literally Earth-shaking, as I shall indicate in due course, at bit later, here below.

The concept involved in understanding that distinction, is older than Heraclitus’ "nothing is permanent except change." By discovering the kind of added universal physical principles implicit in Gauss’ 1799 attack on the fraud of Euler, Lagrange, et al., man becomes capable of distinguishing himself, practically, as a form of existence expressed by a principle of such quality of change. The fact that the universe not only tolerates, but obeys such progress by mankind, demonstrates, that this principle of change is a characteristic principle of the universe itself. That is the notion which underlies Plato’s Parmenides dialogue, as it also does Heraclitus’ famous aphorism. Man is the only known creature made in the image of the Creator of the universe, a universe which is not the fixed creation which the reductionists have assumed it to be, but a self-changing, self-developing universe, which develops in a way comparable to mankind’s change, through applied fundamental scientific progress, in mastery of that universe. [19]

The immediately foregoing considerations, lead us to the conclusion that any scientific notion of the roots and characteristics of the functions of basic economic infrastructure, must be derived from the concept of a mission-oriented predetermination of long-term investment in certain kinds of choices of investment in infrastructure. This sense of mission is aptly illustrated, if negatively, by the famous case of Shakespeare’s Hamlet. An understanding of the tragedy of Hamlet is a better choice of point of departure for discovering the principles of modern economy, contrary to all of the customary academic trash accumulated under the rubrics of Locke, Mandeville, Quesnay, Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, John von Neumann, et al.

Accordingly, what I have just stated, summarily, has several crucial practical implications for the design of the much-needed economic-recovery policy. One of those implications is the subject of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, notably the issue posed by Hamlet’s Third Act soliloquy. It was the crucial issue of that kingdom of Denmark; it is the same crucial issue in making a choice of President of the U.S.A. under the conditions of existential crisis facing this planet now.

Hamlet, the killer swordsman, is not frightened by dying, but by what might come after his death. So, he dies as a pathetic fool, taking his kingdom to disaster with him, not for fear of death, but fear of immortality. Review that soliloquy, this time thinking of any typical selection of candidates by the Fowler side of the Democratic Party, the side of National Chairman Terry McAuliffe. See the tragic Hamlet in the faces and conduct of even the relatively best of those candidates. Remember that this play was composed by a true genius, William Shakespeare, a true student-follower of Sir Thomas More’s inspiration, who thought like a great historian. What you hear from the lips of Shakespeare now, is no fanciful piece of mere entertainment, no concoction by the like of an Orson Welles, but a profound and true insight into one of the greatest principles of the known history of mankind.

"To be? Or, not to be? That is the question:
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or, to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And, by opposing, end them? To die? To sleep
No more: and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache, and the thousand natural shocks

That flesh is heir to? ’Tis a consummation,
Devoutly to be wished! To die: to sleep.

To sleep! perchance to dream? Ay, there’s the rub.

For in that sleep of death what dreams may come,

When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause: there’s the respect
That makes calamity of so long life.
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely,
The pangs of despis’d love, the law’s delay,
The insolence of office, and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin!? Who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But! that the dread of something after death,
The undiscovered country, from whose bourn
No traveller returns: Puzzles the will!
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others we know not of?
Thus, conscience doth make cowards of us all;
And, thus, the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought;
And enterprises of great pith and moment,
With this regard, their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action."

These candidates, even the relatively best, or, also, the least worst among them, have thus, so far, lost the capacity for name of action respecting those matters which are of life-death importance for our nation, our civilization today. They condemn themselves to relive the tragedy of Hamlet, perhaps even throughout eternity.

Take another dramatic lesson, this time the case of Jeanne d’Arc. Our included advantage in this choice for our reflections, is the essential dramatic agreement between the thoroughly studied facts of the case, and Friedrich Schiller’s insightful Maid of Orleans. The purpose here, is to emphasize the contrast between the tragic Hamlet and the Sublime Jeanne. She had a mission, which she refused to betray even at the price of being burned alive for that cause; a dedication which aroused France to the liberation which enthroned the first modern nation-state, that of Louis XI, and had also added a crucial impulse to the great Fifteenth-Century Renaissance’s rebirth of the Papacy.

We all die. Life is a talent, like a penny to be spent; the trick is to spend it wisely, to spend it fruitfully for humanity. To be fruitful in the higher sense, is, as the Apostle Paul warns in his I Corinthians 13, not to pass a standard Texas schoolbook examination in the current President’s textbook morality, but to act for love of mankind, to bring forth not that which was expected, but that unexpected which were needed. That is the Sublime: to go beyond the limits of the customary, to find a higher solution in the domain beyond the customary, or even the known. To be fruitful in that way, is to act as did the authors of the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, in finding escape from more than a century of preceding religious warfare by putting first, not one’s own desire, but something outside the reductionist’s small-mindedness, the advantage of the other.

Therefore, the most pitiful thing, is to be the kind of leading figure in one’s own nation, who, like Hamlet, evades the existential issues of one’s time, as my rivals for the Presidency have done, by flight into the imagined safety of avoiding the challenge of the great issues on which the future of one’s nation, or even more, depends. They ignore the crisis on whose outcome their nation’s, and mankind’s fate hangs. Instead of courage, they offer "My Plan is..." They do not call such behavior by them by its right name—a cowardly spirit of inaction—but, rather, they choose, slyly, a less abrasive term, the ring of which were better consolation for the conceits of sorry fools: "prudence," or, even worse, "temperance."

That is but a subsumed aspect of the issue on which we must focus at this juncture. Hamlet typifies the human being, the leader, who has failed. What is the remedy for such examples of tragedy? Look to the other side of the matter; what should be the normal behavior, the normal attitude of the moral individual? What is tragedy? It is failure to meet the challenge of the future; it is the failure to bring forth today, that which the small mind deems a "seemingly impractical" action, but an action on which the possibility of existence of an acceptable tomorrow depends.

Therefore, the most important characteristic of a healthy individual human personality, and the only alternative to tragedy, is a controlling sense of mission-orientation. The moral and related natural intellectual quality of the healthily developed individual, that which should be considered the normal, e.g., sane, human individual, is a commitment to bring about the discovery and beneficial use of principles of the same type of quality as Kepler’s discovery of universal gravitation, or Leibniz’s discovery of the principle of universal physical least action. The moral, and immortal function of the mortal human individual, is not to do what is expected, but to perform that unexpected action which contributes to pushing the universe a notch upward, at least by a nudge or two, of making the universe a notch newer and better than it was.

This quality of mission-orientation, looking always outside and beyond the habituated ways, expresses the essential nature of man, the distinction of man from the beasts. The individual who, under conditions of crisis, clings to what he or she considers the safe side—popularized habits, the "generally acceptable"—is not acting as a person, but as yet another tragic Hamlet-like figure, a person whose motivating self-image has retreated from the divine quality of man, into the realm of the beasts who do, customarily, as their fathers and grandfathers have done dutifully before them. This is the essence of the higher realms of strategy in general; it is also the key to the needed crucial insights into the role of basic economic infrastructure. Take, for example, the investigation of this type of problem by the late Dr. Lawrence Kubie, a distinguished psychiatrist who had something of relevance to say on this matter.

The problem on which this aspect of Kubie’s work was focussed, was expressed by his aptly titled book: The Neurotic Distortion of the Creative Process, [20] as amplified by a later publication, "The Fostering of Scientific Creative Productivity." [21] It was my own studies of the possible causes for relatively successful and failed performances of employees of a large consulting firm, and similar other studies to the same effect, which led me to discovering Kubie’s work, a work whose conclusion I found consistent with my own experience of this same problem. The problem which my studies encountered, and Kubie’s, is widely characteristic of, among others, post-baccalaureate university professionals. The pattern is congruent with the Hamlet syndrome, and also some leading Presidential pre-candidates and similar cases today. The pattern, as experienced by me, and as described by Kubie, runs more or less as follows.

Given promising young intellects entering university science programs (for example), now as then, there is a tendency for them to lose their creative impulses as they approach the point of being awarded higher professional degrees, or settling into the early phases of their post-graduate career appointments. Like a well-trained old dog, they retain the skills they have acquired through their youthful conditioning in the academic kennels, but their ability to go beyond that has been sharply attenuated, as their efforts focus upon defending the actual, or imagined status they have acquired against the risk of "discovering something" which might prompt their actual, or imagined, ever-vengeful peers, to put their own presently secured career-track into jeopardy.

Hence, I have placed a particular form of importance on young people between the age-interval of 18-25 years, when they are no longer adolescents, but are emotionally young adults, and have perhaps avoided, thus far, the decadence to which Kubie refers, a decadence which often sets in for life thereafter, somewhere between eighteen (or even earlier for the precociously sycophantic) and an age of not much later than thirty.

The more important class of victim of this pathetic syndrome, is the all-too-common tragic case of those gifted physical scientists, whose experimental work is brilliant, but who are terrified of presenting any result, however valid, which might bestir the wrath of the high Babylonian priesthood of generally accepted classroom mathematics. Such are the kinds of real-life cases considered in Kubie’s reports in investigations of emotionally driven failures in the field of scientific progress. Mathematicians are, generally speaking, the worst in this respect; the productive experimental physicists have built-in qualities which are, relatively speaking, redeeming, that for much the same reasons which set Gauss apart from and above such formalist fanatics as Euler and Lagrange.

The frequently mistaken reading of such evidence, is expressed by the misguided, all too superficial diagnosis, that the subject person has "gone stagnant" intellectually, his creative powers seemingly aborted in the aftermath of some particular achievement. The problem is not merely that the individual has failed to make a new breakthrough. Science is not a series of steps; it is a continuing process of creativity, in the sense of Heraclitus’ "nothing is permanent but change." It is a creativity properly nourished by each accomplishment, an accomplishment which itself moves the healthy mind onward and upward toward greater challenges than those he, or she has just conquered.

It is not "a change" which defines science; it is an ongoing, unbroken, growing, ever-strengthening process of constantly changing, a progress which continues to the last good years of an individual creative life. Scientific achievement is not a discovery; it is an unending process of further discoveries. The true scientist is not a discoverer of this or that; he, or she, embodies a process of ongoing, successive discoveries. It is not the act of discovery, that defines the scientist; it is the unending process of generating new discoveries.

So, contrary to the creative personality, the stultified academic neurotic considers himself, or herself, at a certain point, like Hamlet, a perfected swordsman, a professional. That neurotic becomes for us, thus, as like a dead Egyptian soul, like poor Hamlet, admiring the image of his mummy. Some might, therefore, say of him: "Mummy-dominated." In contrast to that wretched outcome, the healthy mind locates his or her identity in being on a continuing mission of discoveries, continuing change of accumulation of principles. He or she has a mission-orientation in life. He does not merely have an adopted mission; his or her life, his or her very existence, becomes an impassioned mission-orientation. So, we have the contrast between the politician who fears risking his career, as Hamlet might; and, the rarer, needed political leader who rises to the challenge to become whatever society’s progress requires him to put himself at risk to become.

The Hamlets of political life understand infrastructure after it has been developed. Morally, for them, life then ends as with a frightful, necrotic-like dream. They have not grasped the necessary further development of infrastructure as an urgent mission of change. Yet, for the sane human individual, life goes on, without end; the mission of the deceased lives on, in the fruitful achievements of the successors. It is that which lives on, in the simultaneity of eternity which must follow death, which is the only motive of the morally healthy mind. It is the quality of the Prometheus hated by the Zeus of Aeschylus’ Prometheus Bound.

Take the case of Eratosthenes’ measuring the circumference of the Earth, a measurement whose memory was to be reborn in the map which Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa’s collaborator, Paolo dal Pozzo Toscanelli, crafted, and entrusted to the Christopher Columbus who re-discovered the lands across the Atlantic Ocean. Cusa was the founder of the modern conception of the sovereign nation-state (Concordantia Catholica) and modern experimental physical science (e.g., De Docta Ignorantia). Cusa, then a leading Cardinal, was the source of the policy of exploration of what he, and all competent scientists of that time knew to be the spheroidal-like planet Earth, across the Atlantic, and into the Indian Ocean, to come around behind the Ottoman Empire, and to ally with the peoples living at the opposite extremity of such voyages. Those who are wise and potent live in perpetuity, in that, from them, which enriches the work of those who have gone before them, and makes eternal the benefits which they give to future mankind.

In the development of great projects of basic economic infrastructure, we are launching works to be realized over an immediate future period of not less than one or two generations, and are thereby laying the foundation for a future benefit of mankind which lies many generations beyond that. It is that passion of individuals which is expressed as a mission-orientation in life, which generates great works of infrastructure, and thus makes possible the existence of a future mankind. Without that mission-orientation, decadence looms.

Without that foresighted passion, what had become urgently needed for mankind, had been undertaken much too late for those deprived of existence of what had to have been built a generation or more before!

This is not simply a passion for the general idea of doing some good. It is the active principle which makes possible the coming-into-existence of that good which is produced. A series of good deeds does not define a moral person; rather, it is a moral person, committed to creative innovation, and dedicated to love of mankind, which imparts the commitment to generate good results to others, and, also, to himself, or herself. Persons who lack that quality of mission-orientation are already psycho-sexually inert, virtually already dead. That sense of deadness is what we feel when we are in the presence of persons who have been seemingly burned-out by what Kubie described as "the neurotic distortion of the creative process."

Vernadsky and Infrastructure

Since no later than ancient Greece, European civilization has known that the universe, as we know it, is composed of what modern science would term three distinct, but interacting universal phase-spaces. In that tradition, we speak of the abiotic (universal non-living processes), the biotic (living processes and their products), and the noëtic (the creative processes uniquely expressed by the Creator and human individuals).

The subject of the distinction and connection among these three phase-spaces, has been the pivotal feature of my intellectual life since approximately the age of 14, when I, in despair from knowing the lack of truthfulness in my own family, schools, and so forth, adopted the resort of taking up reading of the compared works of the leading English, French, and German philosophers of Europe’s Seventeenth and Eighteenth centuries. [22] It was during those years, that I chose Leibniz, over Hobbes, Descartes, Locke, and Kant. During the years immediately following World War II, it already seemed clear to me from my recognition of some of the deeper, intrinsic philosophical-scientific incompetence of philosophical reductionism, that life represented a different universal phase-space than the intrinsically non-living, and that those processes of discovery denied by Kant also defined a phase-space higher than biotic phase-space in general.

These notions assumed what might be described as a crystallized form in my 1948-1953 encounters with the work of the radical reductionists Norbert Wiener and John von Neumann, an encounter which impelled me to respond by seeking out, and making relevant discoveries, including some uniquely original ones, in the domain of a science of physical economy. In the course of this, I had my first, initially shadowy encounters with the work of Russia’s V.I. Vernadsky; but, it was much later, during the post-1989 years, that I was able to examine his method for defining the Noösphere in a more precise way. [23] Broadly, the conceptions expressed in his 1938 paper, pointed out the way in which to approach the task of integrating the region of central and north Asia into the tasks of building a Eurasian infrastructure adequate for the long term (two and more generations duration, in this case), for the initial development of a great new social and economic potential for that Eurasian inner space, now coming within reach of mankind. [24] The rigor of Vernadsky’s argument [25] also permitted me to state the case for infrastructure generally with qualitatively better precision than before. From that 1938 writing itself, the Vernadsky one meets there was a rigorously hard creative thinker of a type rarely encountered today, not one to brush away fleeting warnings on the presumption they were not socially acceptable facts in the academic commonplaces of his time.

There are two sets of pivotal implications of Vernadsky’s work which are of crucial relevance for the specific policy of infrastructure-building which is required for the U.S. national, and world-wide situations presented, today, by the presently accelerating onrush of the rotten-ripe general collapse of the world’s present, floating-exchange-rate, monetary-financial system. The first set, references the revolutionary significance of Vernadsky’s 1938 summary of his case for understanding the economic significance of infrastructure. [26] The second focuses upon the unique qualities of the human mind which must be more clearly defined for comprehending the way in which Vernadsky’s contributions are to be focussed for world economic policy-making under today’s global conditions.

The first set of implications is adduced, in first approximation, by comparing the long-term, planetary relationship between the biotic and abiotic phases of our planet’s "history," as viewed from the standpoint of the special form of physical chemistry developed by Vernadsky: biogeochemistry. The study of the accumulation of fossils added from outside the abiotic functions of the planet, demonstrates the superior, long-term powers of life over the abiotic processes. Then, we compare the functional relationship of the cumulative impact of the sovereign noëtic powers of the individual human mind, upon the combined abiotic-biotic domain; the human mind’s superior, noëtic powers are in the process of assimilating the planet under its control.

These accumulations reflect the increasing power of the biotic over the abiotic phase, and of the noëtic over both; these increases are correlated with the relative mass of the biotic and noëtic fossils. This combination of growing accumulations of such fossils, and of the increased rate of action to the same effect, defines the appropriate functional notion of basic economic infrastructure.

This role of the noëtic processes, so situated, and examined in the way those views of Vernadsky’s work so implies, focuses our attention upon the implications of Carl Gauss’ attack on the folly of Euler, Lagrange, et al., and implicitly also the intellectual sterility of I. Kant, in Gauss’ 1799 The Fundamental Theorem of Algebra. By contrasting Gauss to the "Hamlets" of mathematics, such as Euler and Lagrange, we gain an intimation of the way in which the world must define the function of development of basic economic infrastructure for present crisis conditions.

Consider the following points in that light.

When we, as Vernadsky did, make an experimental distinction between the abiotic and biotic domains, as functionally defined phase-spaces, we mean that we can not derive living processes from the principles adduced for non-living processes as a category. This signifies, experimentally, that the action of living processes, not only produces those characteristics of living processes not found in the abiotic domain, but, also, that the principle of life can impose its "will," its specific phase-spatial characteristics, on the non-living (abiotic) domain. The transformation of the composition of the planet Earth by the accumulation of fossils produced only by living processes, is superseded by the effects of willful (i.e., "voluntary") human noëtic action. [27]

The phases of that described relationship between increase of mankind’s potential relative population-density and the role of the development of basic economic infrastructure, may be summarized as follows.

In the first approximation, mankind acts to improve the biosphere in itself. In this phase of the action, we ignore anything done by man which does not replicate what nature itself would have wished to have done, but was unable to accomplish without man’s assistance. Man thus seeks to discover how the Biosphere tends to produce itself, and we, discovering this, help the Biosphere to walk where it would fail, or limp along poorly without our intervention. So, it is said, "We make the deserts bloom," treating the planet as a whole as the best traditions of agriculture worked to optimize the biosphere, rather than plunder it. Typically, we seek to increase the conversion of solar radiation into upgraded qualities and extent of biomass.

In that way, we make the planet more habitable, and able to support a higher quality and quantity of human population, even in that relatively most obvious way. Did we not do that, mankind’s potential population, and quality of individual life would never have risen above the condition of a baboon. Those deranged ideologues who denounce man’s every intervention into "natural nature," should inform us what they propose to do, by "Auschwitz" or kindred methods, with a present human population in the amount of more than six billions presently living persons, exceeding what were possible in a sub-human state of culture.

In the second approximation, we introduce "artificial" elements into the biosphere, such as mass transit (e.g., sailing ships), power generation, communication, sanitation and heath care, housing, urban infrastructure, and so on. We must class these as basic economic infrastructure, because that is the way in which they function to support a generality of human life. By increasing the relative power (e.g., "energy flux-density"), in both quality of level and amount, we transform mankind’s relationship to the universe, as measurable in potential relative population-density. We increase man’s power to exist, per capita, in the universe, and to produce new qualities of effects in service of that intention.

At this same level of second approximation, we move masses of water, by what might be fairly understood as "artificial means," from one part of the territory to another. We do the same in other respects.

Mass transit changes the environment (and the meaning of geography) as this bears on human activity as such. Mass communication is a kindred case. These changes in infrastructure bridge the relationship between the functions of the biosphere and human, noëtic-driven activity.

In the third approximation, we are dealing with maintaining a process of noëtic self-improvement of the characteristics of specifically human behavior. The introduction of that consideration into our discussion of infrastructure, obliges us to turn our attention now to the matter of the fact that a competent science of physical economy is characteristically Riemannian. This brings us to the role of the concept of power, as Plato, for example, defined power as a notion not to be confused with Aristotle’s notion of "energy."

This returns our attention to the implications, for the definition of human nature, of Gauss’ 1799 The Fundamental Theorem of Algebra.

3. The Concept of Power

At this point this report, it is essential that I stress again, as earlier, that the known origin of the concept of "power" is traced explicitly to the work of the Pythagoreans, and, implicitly, to that development of the principles of "spherics" which is implied by the astronomical features of the design of Egypt’s Great Pyramids. Earlier in this report, I defined the elementary difference between man and lower species, as the fact that mankind is able to free itself from that naive sense-certainty which shows the observer only the shadow-like effects of the action of the real universe upon the biological sense-organs. What the individual person accomplishes, on this account, is the discovery of the universal physical principles which are acting to produce the shadows called sense-perceptions.

The proof that those discoveries of invisible powers are not delusions, is supplied by relevant types of what are called unique experiments. [28] In the design of a relevant sort of unique experiment, there is a distinguishable feature of the structure of the experiment which implies the design of an apparatus by means of which to embed the use of the discovered principle into a relevant application. The qualitative gain in man’s power over the universe so acquired, corresponds, functionally, to that Classical-Greek use of the notion of power (dynamis) referenced earlier. This is the same notion of power associated with constructable solutions for crucial ontological paradoxes arising within a Pythagorean mode of constructive geometry.

Those conceptions from pre-Euclidean constructive geometry, are, still today, two-and-a-half millennia later, the indispensable, principled foundations of elementary competence in the subject of economy.

As I have emphasized earlier here, and repeatedly throughout the past fifty-odd years, the fundamental principle underlying all matters of the subject of economy, is the absolute superiority, and separation of the human species over all other forms of living processes. In other words, this is the same notion of the uniqueness of man and woman, when expressed in terms of physical science, as in Genesis 1.

The following, interconnected points, regarded as a single conception of principle, are of primary relevance for any competent treatment of matters of economic principles. Any adopted notion which is contrary to that conception, is a kind of elementary incompetence which, if extended in practice over a lapse of time in the order of several generations, will produce a manifest social-economic catastrophe, such as the general breakdown-crisis of the present world monetary-system currently in its terminal phase. In earlier history, the speed of the relevant reactions was relatively slower; for example, the transformation of the U.S. from world’s leading producer society to today’s collapsing wreckage, has been less than two full generations.

The argument to be made on those premises, is as follows.

The effect of the incorporation of realized discovery of universal physical principle within the repertoire of social practice, has an impact corresponding to a genetic up-shift among animal species. Therefore, mankind, be fruitful, multiply, and assume responsibility for the management of all creatures and things under the Sun! There is no possibility of a competent understanding of either human society, or the troubles for which it has shown itself susceptible, without proceeding from that absolute, "axiomatic"-like distinction of man and woman from the beasts. The moral, as well as intellectual incompetence of reductionists, as typified by such sorry, but influential figures of modern academic life as Euler, Lagrange, and Kant, is only one variety of the typical results of the worst possible form of ignorance, today’s widespread ignorance of the principled, scientifically definable difference between man and beast.

Those sorry opinions, of such as Euler, Lagrange, Kant, Mach, et al., not only deny the nature of mankind, degrading man to a beast. The so-called "Eighteenth-Century Enlightenment," which empiricist fanatics such as those typify from that time, was politically motivated by the effort to stop the development of the human condition along those lines typified by the impulses from the Fifteenth-Century Renaissance. The false axiomatic ideas respecting man and nature expressed by Euler et al., were a servant’s hod-carrying for such predatory, oligarchical masters as the Anglo-Dutch Liberal system typified by the Eighteenth-Century British East India Company’s rise toward becoming a new form of a Roman Empire.

It is only when the intellectual crimes perpetrated in, and spread from the mathematics textbooks and classrooms are understood as politically motivated, that the mask is ripped from the face of the reductionist doctrinaire, and the leering hatred of mankind itself displayed without disguise.

Explicitly contrary to the conceptual sterility of the ivory-tower-mathematical argument shared among empiricists such as Euler, Lagrange, and Kant, the original discovery of a universal principle, is not merely an increase in the efficiency of the application of previously known principles deemed universal. It is, as Gauss references the demonstrations by the Pythagoreans, on the doubling of the line, square, and cube, by no other means than geometric construction, the discovery of that power which is expressed, in a unique way, by that specific kind of physical act of construction. Kepler’s uniquely original discovery of universal gravitation, as detailed in his 1609 The New Astronomy, is not only of the same quality as the creative act of physical construction in the elementary cases of doubling; Kepler’s discovery depends more immediately on the implications of the construction of the Platonic solids, in dividing the universe between two universal phase-spaces, the abiotic and biotic.

In every case that society discovers and employs a newly discovered, true universal physical principle of that type, the society has effected an up-shift of its quality of living, to a qualitatively higher form of existence. This includes, more obviously, the notion of a scientific-economic revolution, as merely typified by the passage of social practice of society from the lowest physical state of human life, using sunlight for a fuel, to combustion of wood-stuffs and comparable materials, to mined coal, to the abiotic fossils of natural gas and petroleum, to nuclear fission, to thermonuclear fusion, and, probably, the mastery of the principled implications of matter-antimatter reactions.

One of the most important and destructive forms of widespread ignorance about matters of physical science and of economy, is the falsehood, which the modern classroom has traced from the influence of Aristotle: the reductionist’s assumption that power is a result of heat, rather than heat being merely one of the ways in which the effect of power may be expressed. Heat is not, in itself, a cause; it is an effect: the increase of mankind’s ability to generate controlled heat, is a footprint of progress, not a step of progress. It is often expressed as a by-product of power; but power itself is essentially of the type expressed by the developing of the science of what is known variously as constructive, or physical geometry, by the Pythagoreans, as by Plato.

The World’s Deadly Power Shortage

Focus now on one of the most crucial of the practical expressions of those issues, the awesome shortage of capacity to supply power in the U.S.A. (among other nations) today.

The discoveries of universal physical principles within the domains of microphysics (e.g., atomic and nuclear physics), are examples of discovered powers by means of which man is able to employ objects from outside the realm of direct sense-perception, as powers, by means of which mankind’s power in the universe is increased qualitatively. To describe this in what will pass today for conventional academic terms: the way mankind has proceeded to the level of nuclear, and toward thermonuclear power, as primary sources of applicable heat, shows the simplest measurable effect of the rise of the human condition above the bestial level of reliance upon solar radiation. This represents an increase of the amount of the heat-effect transmitted across a square kilometer of cross-section of the radiated effect. This measurement is named the "energy-flux density" of the process. At certain critical points in the process of increasing that energy-flux density of man-controlled processes, a qualitative, rather than a merely quantitative change occurs.

Typical of this was the leap upward in the productive powers of labor, and family income, available to the average member of the U.S. population, through the generation of electricity not only for lighting of cities, but as a higher quality of power which began to be supplied to the U.S. as power supplied for operation of rotating machinery, discoveries which were made possible through the original work of such scientists as our own Benjamin Franklin, Ampère, Gauss, Wilhelm Weber, and others.

Those old enough to remember the time when entire factories were still powered by a snarl of shafts and belts, to deliver power from a steam-boiler in the basement, or abutting the building, to the leap in productivity achieved from introduction of electrical motors attached to the function of the individual machine, could recall this leap upward.

It was recognized from the work of Rutherford and others, during the first decade of the Nineteenth Century, that the nuclear power expressed by the radiation from radium represented the future source of power for the world’s economy. This represented a rise in the level of cross-sectional energy-flux density to levels of application at which otherwise impossible increases in mankind’s power in and over nature could be achieved.

Unfortunately, although the more general feasibility of controlled nuclear fission was recognized during the course of the 1920s, it was only due to the power of nuclear-radiation weaponry, as first emphasized publicly by the utopian H.G. Wells in the preface to a 1913 novel, that the development of controlled nuclear-fission technology was set into motion during the 1930s. While the chief authors of modern nuclear warfare, the utopians H.G. Wells and Bertrand Russell, pushed the immediate development of nuclear fission as a weapon sufficiently terrifying to cause nations to submit to world government, others, as I began to do in early 1947, campaigned politically for the development of nuclear power as a crucial source of needed development of new nations such as India, in particular. By the early 1970s, I was pushing for the superseding of the lower-energy-flux-density capabilities of nuclear fission as a power-source, by the development of controlled thermonuclear fusion. [29]

In the meantime, the neo-malthusian doctrines of Thomas Huxley’s H.G. Wells and Abraham Lincoln-hating Lord Russell’s grandson Bertrand Russell were at work. The most crucial feature of Russell’s influence was his fully conscious role as a Synarchist-like "beast-man." Russell was a "beast-man" in the image of that true progenitor of Adolf Hitler’s vast crimes against Jewry and others, the notorious Inquisitor Torquemada. [30] Out of Russell’s U.S.-based Unification of the Sciences project, came the post-World War II campaign to realize the kind of global utopia depicted by H.G. Wells, as by Russell followers the Huxley brothers, Aldous and Julian, and their fellow-inductee into the psychotomimetic mysteries of Aleister Crowley’s theosophical "Gold Dawn," George Orwell: truly men of science, one and all. [31]

The needless dumping of two experimental fission-bombs on the civilian population of two cities of an already defeated Japan, Hiroshima and Nagasaki—continuing the policy behind the needless, and, actually, militarily counterproductive fire-bombing of Hamburg, Dresden, Magdeburg, and so on, in Germany—was intended, by Russell and his kind, not to win the war against Japan, but to terrorize the world into the advent of a turn of humanity downwards, into a bestialized culture, the Nietzschean "Age of Aquarius."

The effect of the growing, paranoid form of fear of the very word "nuclear," spawned by the terror against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and aggravated, more and more, by the fear of thermonuclear war, was harvested with the 1962 "Cuba Missiles Crisis." The terror struck by a wave of Synarchist International-directed assassinations and attempted assassinations, as by Jacques Soustelle against President Charles de Gaulle, and, especially, the way in which both the assassination of President Kennedy and of its aftermath were handled by the U.S. establishment, terrified the souls of many among an emerging generation of university-bound young adults into a state of virtual political slime-muck. The cultural-paradigm shift orchestrated by that succession of developments produced the pro-psychedelic "rock-drug-sex counterculture" eruption of the middle through late 1960s, a spectacle of a serpent’s nest of writhing, tangled, naked human bodies in Hell, shrieking incoherent babble, all the while hating all that modern economic-technological progress which they believed had bestowed upon them the misfortune to have been born.

So came "Sun Day," and a determination to rid the world of technological progress. Fear of nuclear weapons, became the fear of the hated nuclear fire of Prometheus, as from the poor creatures of the evil Zeus’s Olympus. Since the beginning of that spawn of Nashville Agrarians’ creation, National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, there has been, until recently, a rising chorus of the ritual chanting, "Nuclear power must go!" [32]

Since that time, as the generation which had entered young-adulthood during the early through middle-1960s came into most among the leading positions in society today, the corresponding form of acquired "group-instinct," of "go along to get along" among the otherwise varied components of that generation has taken control of society. Those who are not fanatically opposed to even the very name of "nuclear energy," are afraid to express views which would offend the fanatical adversaries of technological progress.

As a result of those and related factors, we have reached the point that the ability of the U.S. to maintain even its existing levels of supply and of general power is collapsing, without remedy for that dismal outlook on the tables of government. Also, to cope with the new problems posed as needs for more or less revolutionary degrees of technological progress in both basic economic infrastructure and the production of agricultural and manufactured goods, we require sources of power of qualitative higher primary levels of relative "energy-flux density." This need dictates, among other things, return to emphasis on rapid expansion of the use of nuclear-fission power, and aggressive work toward bringing thermonuclear fusion on line as a principal power-source.

Without reversing the suppression of nuclear power, civilization as a whole is coming into jeopardy, and that rather rapidly.

For the quick-fix needs of the world, we have a proven type of nuclear power installation, the high-temperature pebble-bed reactor, which should be produced in series-production modes in, preferably, the self-regulating rate of 120-200 megawatts. Its smaller size permits earlier and broader installation, and brings us to the point that we can generate hydrogen-based fuels locally, rather than replying upon the costly bulk-transport and related features of low-value-per-ton product in ways which involve a high ratio of transport and other costs of distribution, relative to the value of the product generated at the point of production. The principal waste-product of these synthetic fuels is, chiefly, water.

This application of nuclear power also supports an emphasis on expanded mass-transport of both people and goods, reducing the trend toward using superhighways, more and more, as parking lots during high-traffic hours. It facilitates the use of magnetic-levitation forms of mass transport of either freight or people, both for urban, intra-urban transport, and as a large shift of present rations of air transport in the less economical range (per ton mile), to maglev along relatively high-density trunk routes of under 500 miles, thus improving air-transport service in efficiency and economy.

However, apart from all the goals which can be expressed in terms of kilowatt-hours of power supplied, there is the more crucial issue already mentioned here.
Mars and More

Consider two among the numerous typical types of challenges the coming two generations of mankind must face: the problems posed by the needed exploration of, and certain developments within nearby Solar space (e.g., the Moon and Mars), and by the increasing rate of consumption of certain raw materials we are accustomed to extract from within fossil regions of the Earth’s Biosphere. Consider each in turn.

The greatest danger to our space program, apart from those who are opposed to it altogether, is the tendency which has prevailed since just before the 1980s Shuttle disaster, of reducing costs at the expense of safety. It is fair to say that the notion of space-exploration travel currently mooted in the news media and like places, and within the political processes, is foolishly, even dangerously simple-minded. Three overlapping, but distinct issues of policy are critical: security, capability, and mission.

As to security, in no case should an individual vessel carry a human being from Earth orbit to Mars orbit; and even a flotilla, [33] which could be mutually supporting in interplanetary travel, should not be deployed without continuing acceleration/deceleration over most of the interval of travel.

For related reasons, which include both the role of manned and other exploratory flight, the idea of sending some single object, or even a few coordinated objects from Earth-orbit to Mars-orbit, is proof of incompetence. We must build the capability represented by a supporting infrastructure of space-transport and exploration over the span of relatively frequent flights between Earth and Mars. This means new sources of power deployed for purposes which include powered flights. The building of this infrastructure were not possible without a prior "industrialization" on the Moon. So, we must base our space-exploration policy on nothing less than erecting the necessary supporting intra-inner-Solar-space infrastructure of a long-term, continuing Mars-Moon program.

"Cheap discount flights to Mars" exist only in the dreams of fools.

The third, and rather obvious question to be addressed, is: "Why go there at all?" That will lead into the second issue, of the problem of adequate raw materials for us on Earth. The answer to that question does not involve hauling raw materials from space; it involves the lessons about the physics of assuring a future life on Earth, lessons which we must learn, at least in large part, from space-exploration. Our mission is not a junket to Mars; our mission is exploring the Solar system for answers needed for life on Earth, which can not be secured without space exploration.

One should recall the study which showed that the U.S. gained more than ten cents’ worth of benefits on Earth, from every penny we spent developing the technology and techniques needed in order to accomplish the manned Moon landing which had been prescribed by President Kennedy. That, however, is only a taste of what is to be accomplished by a broader, mission-oriented space program.

In Central and North Asia

Now look at the future problem of raw materials in that light. Consider the following hypothesis, from during the period of the very early 1980s, when I was working on a design for what President Reagan was to name publicly "A Strategic Defense Initiative." It might be argued by some that this was only an hypothesis, but it is one which must be addressed, in any case, and, it is one which points more or less directly to the long-term problem of securing needed raw materials from within the fossilized layers of the Biosphere.

It was clear from consulting relevant scientists, that the Mendeleyev elements composing our Solar system had been generated by the Solar system itself, during a period when our Sun was rotating much faster than today. It was clear that since the estimated thermonuclear fusion of the interior of the Sun itself could not have generated the full Mendeleyev "table," we must look to the "disc" of material which had been placed then as the "shedding of motion" by the younger years of the Sun. My proposal was, that "polarized fusion" within that "disc" could have generated the Mendeleyev table’s components by nuclear fusion, whereas the Sun would have otherwise stopped approximately at Iron; that this was an immediate challenge to be addressed by scientists. Some at Lawrence Livermore Laboratories then agreed that the thesis was a plausible one, on the basis of relevant experimental data on thermonuclear fusion already at hand.

That would signify, following Kepler’s original discoveries of the constructive-geometrical form of mathematical-physics composition of the Solar system, that the material produced within the polarized fusion of the disc would have been "fractionally distilled," to be distributed among the available roster of harmonically ordered, potential Keplerian orbits. Gauss’ crucial proof of Kepler’s argument, in the matter of Ceres, et al., had encouraged me to firm confidence in this view of Kepler’s geometric argument.

This investigation died on the vine, except for my mid-1980s proposal for a Moon-Mars establishment of Los Alamos "science-cities" in the subsurface of Mars and my 1988 national, half-hour TV special, "The Woman on Mars," of 1988. In the meantime, a new, related track opened up. Some of my work had prompted a collaborator, Professor Robert Moon of Chicago, to reopen his own earlier studies of the constructive geometry of the Mendeleyev periodic table. Then, most unfortunately, Professor Moon died suddenly in Chicago. With his death, the examination of the "Moon Model" for the periodic table, went onto the shelf for a decade.

Meanwhile, another track on the purpose of the Moon Model project began to emerge. In February 1983, during a meeting held as part of my private back-channel discussion of a proposed "strategic defense initiative" with the Soviet government’s representative, I had the occasion to warn the Soviet government, that should President Reagan make the offer, which he in fact did make on March 23, 1983, and if the Soviet government were to reject that Reagan offer, as my Soviet channel indicated were almost certain, then we must expect that, for economic reasons, the Soviet economic system would collapse in approximately five years. It actually collapsed within approximately six years.

Later, after Soviet General Secretary Andropov had publicly rejected the President’s offer, out of hand, I repeated the warning of a probable Soviet collapse within "about five years." It was for that reason, that, on October 12, 1988, I conducted a Presidential candidate’s press conference in West Berlin, at which I set forth the expected reunification of Germany, with Berlin designated as its future capital, under the conditions of an already imminent chain-reaction collapse of the economies of Eastern Europe and then the Soviet Union itself, and proposed a U.S. policy for cooperation in the economic recovery of those nations. That October 1988 press conference was broadcast on U.S. national television a short time later, prior to the November election.

These developments of the 1980s provided the foundation for a 1989 design for what was named a "European Productive Triangle: Berlin, Vienna, Paris," which became the keystone for a 1991-1992 design for a Eurasian Land-Bridge proposal uniting the proposed European Productive Triangle with a network extended to include Russia, China, and India as pivotal reference-points.

The relevant implications of that Land-Bridge design for biogeochemistry topics, are chiefly the following.

The aggressive development of the heavily populated nations of the Eastern, Southeastern, and Southern rim of Asia, poses the long-term question: to what degree can the fossil-based mineral deposits of central and north Asia meet the requirements of the growing, and developing regions of the most populous regions of Asia? At that point, the role of a long-term Moon-Mars exploration mission becomes clear.

Since much of the indispensable mineral wealth embedded within the fossil strata of central and north Asia (and also elsewhere) are limited, how do we face the challenge of overcoming the effects of increasing rates of consumption of these resources by a growing and developing population of east and south Asia, in particular? We do know that most of these deposits were created as the "skeletal" remains of living creatures over up to billions of years. How shall we regenerate what society is consuming? How should we shift the composition of our use of materials, to prevent critical shortages? What are the lawful methods, apart from brute-force techniques, for transmutation of elements and their isotopes?

Faced with that challenge coming up ahead, we need a physical chemistry which does not continue to rely upon blind faith in "magic numbers," to seem to explain away how the Solar system actually generated the repertoire of what is already known as the naturally found periodic table of the Solar system. What do we do? The required approach is multi-facetted; but, the most obvious of these is an intimate study of the physical chemistry of a planetary Solar body which is not the Earth. The study of the Moon, in this way, is indispensable, but by no means sufficient; the Moon is a child of the creation of the Earth. We must get out of the intellectual prison of our current textbooks, and go to Mars, hoping to find the different physical chemistry which will help us to develop a physical chemistry, including a nuclear physical chemistry beyond what we know from studies on Earth.

In this connection, Russia and Kazakstan have a multi-facetted role which is of special importance for the planet as a whole. Not only is Russia the most experienced nation, scientifically and otherwise, in the special problems of management of central and north Asia; Russia’s scientific tradition, since Czar Peter the Great’s visits to the Freiberg Academy in Germany’s Saxony, and Russia’s developments in geology and related matters are of outstanding relevance for the planet as a whole. The traditions of Mendeleyev and Vernadsky are at the center of the relevant Russian scientific tradition today. Kazakstan is a crucial part of the infrastructural, biogeochemical, and astrophysical program needed to address this challenge.

The scientific form of that challenge is the need to free science from the disorienting, reductionist’s grip of the mechanistic concept of "energy," to return to the standpoint of science associated with that concept of powers underlying Kepler’s uniquely successful definition of a Solar system whose existence, and continuing development requires emphasis on that principle of hypothesis upon which the very existence of competent science has depended since no later than the time of Pythagoras.

We must view the Solar system in which we live as not a fixed thing, but an ongoing process of development, into which we must intervene within that whole system, as such intervention has prompted all of mankind’s successes, as a species, on a single planet, Earth. The relevant argument is as follows.

How Economic Science Works

In that connection, let us reconsider the way in which physical science works. Think of the doubling, by geometric construction alone, of the line, the square, and the cube. Think of the purely geometric construction of the five Platonic solids. Think of Kepler’s discovery of a universal principle of gravitation. Review the way in which discoveries of universal physical principle are made, and proven to be such discoveries.

Anything which is simply perceived as a statistically consistent rule, is not a universal physical principle. The discovery, or recognition of a principle begins with recognition of the stubborn occurrence of something observed which defies those rules adduced from simple statistical "repeatability."

Kepler’s discovery of universal gravitation, is a prime example of this. In discovering a principle such as gravitation, we have recognized the existence of some regular rule, but a rule of a different quality, a much higher quality, than the rules associated with a "repeatable" observed occurrence. These are the unseen, but demonstrably effective rules which govern the mere shadows of reality presented to us by sense-perception. Hence, the ontological implications of Gauss’ notion of the complex domain. These higher rules are recognized by the creative powers of the human mind. They are rules which operate beyond the reach of sense-perception, but, as Carl Gauss’ 1799 paper exposed the error of Euler and Lagrange, they are more efficient in controlling what we perceive than any ordinary, simply arithmetic sort of statistical rules.

In the practice of any branch of physical science, or Classical artistic composition, the quality we rightly associate with genius, we drive existing human knowledge of some aspect of experience to a point beyond all presently explored limits. We seek to discover a stubborn anomaly, a situation in which reality violates, perceptibly, all of the stock of our presently known, most precious rules. That paradoxical event, that anomaly, that ambiguity, poses a challenge to the creative powers of the mind: What is that unseen creature, that universal physical principle, which is producing that ontological paradox? [34]

Thus, to discover those laws, specific to our Solar system, which lie above, below, and beyond what our scientific discoveries thus far have demonstrated, we must go beyond the upper and lower limits of investigations so far. We must discover laws, characteristic of the Solar system, but engaging principles expressed in ways beyond the frontiers of what our experience has enabled us to discover thus far. This means that we must choose the creating of an organized infrastructure of scientific exploration, embracing the Moon, Mars, and the getting back and forth between them, as the frontier of new dimensions of exploration, in search of newly discovered laws of our Solar system and, inclusively, its biogeochemistry. This must be conducted on an astronomical scale, but also, simultaneously, along the frontiers of nuclear microphysics.

What I have just described is a reflection of the fundamental, but unfortunately rarely understood, principle of any competent form of economic science. The progress of man, from the ape-like level of potential population of a few millions living individuals, to more than six billions reported today, is the outcome of the application of an accumulation of discoveries of principles, principles accumulated and, largely, transmitted across many successive generations, and also from one culture to another. The crucial feature of that process of increasing the potential relative population-density of the human species, is the act of original or replicated discovery of universal physical principles of the characteristics I have just, once again, summarized above.

These discoveries act as powers, as Plato, the follower of the Pythagoreans, employs the Classical Greek term dynamis, and as Leibniz, the founder of the modern economic science of physical economy, introduces the German Kraft as the appropriate synonym of dynamis in its Platonic meaning. Those powers which are so defined as expressions of experimentally validated discoveries of universal physical principles, [35] define added dimensions of effective human activity. These principles, as reflected in the technologies derived from them, are the primary source of all increase of the productive powers of labor. The study of that becomes more than a bit more complicated as we examine the intricacies of the social processes involved; but the cited elementary principle itself is preserved intact through all consideration of additional features of the process.

The embedding of these discovered intellectual powers in the culture of a society, is that society’s primary capital. However, the effective expression of that primary capital, requires investment in the physical activities, including educational activities, and the physical structures through which those powers are efficiently expressed at the proverbial "points of production and consumption." The activities expressing those levels corresponding to an array of powers, are to be regarded as capital investment: as in basic economic infrastructure, in capital of production of goods, and in necessary capital of productive firms and of households.

The prices attributed to these forms of capital must correspond with both the maintenance required to sustain present levels of society’s potential relative population-density, and some determined rate of improvement of the society’s potential relative population-density. The latter improvement corresponds to what might be termed, for convenience, "social profit."

The included function of sundry protectionist measures, including the crafting of both tariff and trade standards, and taxation policies, or minimum wage levels, and so on, is to set limits (boundary conditions) within which a reasonable expectation of a continued "social profit," so defined, might be assured. Excepting extraordinary circumstances, as during World War II, these protectionist measures are not price-control measures, but do function to be effect of being "fair trade" standards.

The general intent is to increase accumulation of effective physical capital, where needed, or where strongly desired in the national interest, while protecting existing levels of capital, including the de facto physical-capital investment in the quality of life of households and labor.

Typical of what is required, is the forms of regulation destroyed under the 1969-1981 administrations which William Yandell Elliott-sponsored Henry A. Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski served as National Security Advisors. We require remedial measures, such as the repeal of the extremely destructive Garn-St Germain and Kemp-Roth legislation. Now, examine the principles underlying that precious, protectionist heritage of our republic, a heritage which those wrongdoers ruined.

4. The Price of Production

It is possible to provide a useful illustration of the case to be made here, from the standpoint of reference to the pre-1983 application of the U.S. system of national product and income accounting which had been developed, in significant part, by the late Professor Wassily Leontief. From 1952, until 1983, in my management consulting and other professional activities, I had relied to a significant degree on comparing studies which I had made, with a combination of the U.S. official and private statistical and related reports and studies based upon that model of national accounting. In my successful, short-term, late-1956 forecast of the worst U.S. post-war recession, as about to break out by Spring of 1957, my studies of the consumer-credit bubble took into account the way in which that bubble was situated within the economy, as represented by relevant Federal statistics on national product and income. [36] The pattern of my consistently outstanding successes in long-term forecasting, from 1959 onward, demonstrates the conditional usefulness of such forms of analytical reporting in providing the kinds of information needed for the work of the forecaster. [37]

Unfortunately, during 1982-1983, the reporting by the Federal Reserve and Administration went from somewhat problematic, to outright fraud. In a half-hour nationwide TV broadcast of my 1984 Democratic pre-Presidential campaign, I warned of the systemic fraud in official U.S. government reports on the economy, especially frauds on the subject of rates of inflation, and thus publicly terminated the issuance of what had been formerly my eminently successful quarterly forecast reports. Since then, government reports have become frankly and increasingly fraudulent. Reliable information on the overall state of the real economy has virtually vanished from the official summary reports by Fed Chairman Greenspan, et al., replaced by intoxicated admiration of the increasingly deadly, cancerous growth of the Wall-Street-centered financial bubble.

It should also be emphasized, that my principal achievements in the theoretical side of the development of my LaRouche-Riemann method, were, in significant degree, the outcome of my grasp of the potential fatal weakness, of linearity, in over-reliance upon the Kondratieff-Leontief approach to analysis of national economies. [38] Actual economic processes are intrinsically non-linear in the sense of Riemannian physical geometry. Nonetheless, provided the teacher and students understand the implications of that distinction, linear models of a type may be used for the introductory phase of education in economic science, as in classrooms. I include that pedagogical approach in developing my argument here.

For purposes of linear approximation, the standard of measure to be used in national-economic estimates intended for crafting policy, is a certain kind of normative standard of physical family income, including all participation in essential public services of basic economic infrastructure. The average of actual data is not to be used for the purpose of defining policy; instead, we must use a standard corresponding to that required of households meeting an adopted synthetic standard, one chosen for a household whose employment expresses a specified level of development technology employed in production. This standard is extended as a requirement for all portions of the households.

An explanation of that approach is needed at this point.

How Statistics Usually Lie

The most widespread of today’s foolishness, by both professionals and non-professionals, in discussing the economy and economic policies, is a fanatical reliance upon what they choose to regard as "statistical facts," which are almost never actually facts in the sense presented, and which are, usually, also the product of a wild-eyed misconception of the nature of what passes for statistics.

As I have already emphasized here, above, no ordinary statistical trend ever shows, or proves a principle of nature. The characteristic failure of Aristotelean and empiricist astronomy, from the Roman Empire’s Egyptian hoaxster Claudius Ptolemy, through Copernicus and Tycho Brahe, was the assumption that the apparently consistent orbital pathways, as observed by them or others, corresponded to the knowable laws of the physical universe. In fact, as Kepler demonstrated, it was evidence which stubbornly violated those simplistic statistics of the Aristoteleans and empiricists alike, which reflected the existence of some controlling intention, built into the astrophysical processes, an intention which could be identified as a universal physical principle only through the methods of Platonic hypothesis. [39]

Statistics, at its best, is incapable of showing us anything but the relatively least interesting aspect of experience. All known important progress of the human species, has depended upon attention to evidence which shows us the folly of blind faith in mathematical statistical consistency. It is the statistically unexpected, sudden changes in the pattern of historical events, for example, which challenge the human mind’s powers of creative insight, and, thus, prompt, once again, discovery of that controlling "hand of fate" working from behind the curtain of sense-perception. This is the hand which sane men may recognize as of the quality of a universal physical principle: such as universal gravitation. All of the most significant features of an economic process, have the quality of application of newly discovered, relatively long-term effects of the workings of principles, principles which have been operating, apparently, from behind the curtain of the customary forms of statistical analysis.

So, in assessing the cost of producing a certain required quality of cultural development of a typical family household, we must not use those measurements that ignore the actually measured, current real-income levels; but we must not brush aside the need to determine the effects of deviations of actual real-income levels from what is required to sustain the constantly improved performance which society’s general interest requires.

There are some obvious illustrations of the point. Education, health care, and conditions of personal life within the household and community, are of crucial importance, such as that determined by quality of housing required to allow efficient privacy of members of the family. We must promote the development of all persons, to produce the quality of capacity, including knowledge (as distinct from mere learning), which is consistent with those levels and rates of scientific-technological, and cultural progress which the leading edge of current national economic activity indicates as needed. We must be educating today’s children for adult roles in the much more technologically advanced economy, for example, which they will enter twenty to twenty-five years later. We must be qualifying them, as children and adolescents, for the kinds of new technologies which are currently in the process of emerging.

Too often, even in the case of our own U.S.A., policies of practice, notably including policies of government, are aimed (post hoc, ergo propter hoc) to conform to the burdens of past practice, rather than build the foundation for the emerging practice of the future.

There is nothing strange or exaggerated in that statement. Most of the immigrants who came into the U.S. three generations and more ago, landed as poor "green-horns," working to build a better life for their children and their grandchildren. The not atypical case of the history of an immigrant family of our melting-pot nation, from the underpaid factory worker who entered our nation, to the scientist, physician, and so forth among his or her grandchildren, illustrates my point.

So, that much explanation supplied, our national economic policy must be premised on a standard of what the cost of living of a family household should be, in physical terms, rather than accepting the actual current state of affairs as a standard of reference for study of the economy as a whole.

Thus, the attempt to define the price of labor in terms such as a desire for competitive cheapening of wages through so-called "free trade," is both immoral and, scientifically, insane. Lowering the standard of general education of most young to what someone believes is sufficient for their expected employer’s requirements, is as foolish an economic policy, as it is also an immoral practice. Lowering the physical income of the household below the standard associated with such factors as both qualitative and quantitative productivity, would be morally reprehensible in the extreme, and, from the standpoint of promoting physical productivity of a national labor-force, insane. The physical cost of labor, is the cost of producing family households whose labor embodies not only a certain current level of technology and motivation, but also some rate of improvement of those qualities. [40]

That precondition stated, the determining function within a physical economy, is the human activity expressing both a.) the level of technology achieved by the society, and b.) the rate of progress of the further development of that technology through, chiefly, fundamental discoveries of universal physical principle. Consider some of the relatively simpler aspects of this, first.

On the subject of basic economic infrastructure, there is also variability. In the extreme cases, which are not necessarily rare ones, such as inhabiting the desert-areas of the Middle East or northern Africa, the costs of maintaining an area as competitively productive and habitable, means an added margin of cost of development of the basic economic infrastructure. However, usually the gains in productivity of the population through effects of developing relatively marginal regions, both per capita and per square kilometer, will more than offset the continuing costs of development of the area as a region of habitation. Our planet-wide object should be an approximately self-sustaining "greening" of desert areas, by aid of development of relevant micro-weather patterns through large-scale development of forests and other green areas.

By these means, the productivity of the entire population, both per capita and per square kilometer, is raised to a higher level. These gains in the totality of the society more than overwhelm the impact of the higher infrastructure costs incurred for making formerly sub-standard territories productive ones. That deduction from the total wealth of the society, which marginal lands always represent, is overcome in this way.

Otherwise, the individual productive enterprise, of agriculture or industry, for example, like the family household, is situated within a larger area whose basic economic infrastructure can not be rationally assigned to individual private enterprise, but must be provided either by government, or government-regulated, sometimes privately-owned, public utilities. This infrastructure’s true physical cost of combined operation and maintenance, must be calculated over a span of something in the vicinity of between a quarter and half century. The ratio of physical costs of infrastructure to income of households, is to be so calculated.

In agriculture and industry, for example, the costs of production must include similar estimates of the distribution of physical-capital factors to current operations.

As part of this, we must include a margin for growth. This is expressed as a margin of profit incorporated into the total physical costs of production and household incomes. While this does provide for "horizontal" growth, that is to say on the current level of technology being practiced, the emphasis must be on rate of scientific-technological progress.

Scientific-technological progress includes taking into account the frictional costs of "technological attrition." It also includes a margin of scientific-technological progress beyond what is absorbed in combating losses in relative productivity attributable to technological attrition. This added margin of scientific-technological progress, is the source of the real net growth of the economy.

The denial that such scientific-technological progress is the source of actual economic net growth of civilization, is the obvious source of the statistical lies permeating the recent decades trends in U.S. policy and public opinion. However, the causes for these trends can not be understood efficiently, without looking into the matter more deeply, as follows.

The Crime Which Is Empiricism

Never forget, that, prior to those revolutionary changes in European culture introduced by the Fifteenth-Century Renaissance, all known world cultures were committed, in principle of practice, to forms of society in which the majority of human beings were treated as either wild (e.g., hunted) or herded human cattle. As the cases of Solon, Socrates, and Plato attest, as does the Christianity of the Apostles John and Paul, the best within ancient Greek culture were committed, in contrast to Lycurgus’ Sparta, to providing all of society the benefit of the common good (general welfare, agape). The idea of goals of a just form of society had existed, as the Apostle Paul’s I Corinthians 13 attests, but, until that Renaissance, it did not exist as the generalized practice of those principles by any society. [41]

From the aftermath of the reign of Charlemagne, through the close of Europe’s Fourteenth-Century "New Dark Age," Europe was dominated by an ultramontane (e.g., imperial) world order which was ruled, in fact, by an alliance of maritime Venice’s financier oligarchy with Norman chivalry, an alliance which we associate with the bestiality of the Crusades, the bestiality of the Spanish Inquisition’s Nero-like mass executions, and as the tradition of bestiality revived by Adolf Hitler’s Torquemada-like mass murder of Jews and other selected categories of victims.

The crucial change, toward both the revival and consolidation of the Classical Greek humanist, Christian conception of man and woman, came with the Fifteenth-Century Renaissance. An exemplary part of the leadership for that Renaissance was provided by Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa. Cusa was the author of the Concordantia Catholica which contributed a crucial part to the emergence of a system of modern sovereign nation-states; he was also, as Kepler emphasized later, the founder of modern experimental science, beginning with his De Docta Ignorantia. In addition, Cusa was the author of the policy of exploration which resulted in Christopher Columbus’ re-discovery of the Americas.

It was in that context, that the founding of the first actual modern nation-states committed to the common good (general welfare, common weal) was launched. Louis XI’s France and Henry VII’s England, became, thus, the models for the establishment of modern sovereign nation-states in general.

During the late Fifteenth Century, Venice and its pro-feudalist allies had already begun to strike back, and that savagely, against this insurgent triumph of Christianity. During the Sixteenth Century, the reaction became systemic. The virtually Satanic Spanish Inquisition and the religious warfare which dominated Europe during the interval 1511-1648, typify the pro-feudalist reactionaries’ effort to reaffirm world rule by bestiality.

However, the idea of the sovereign nation-state and of scientific progress, could not be eradicated so simply. So, the reactionaries, typified by the neo-Aristotelean followers of Venice’s Francesco Zorzi and the new Venetian faction of the followers of Paolo Sarpi, tried a new assault on the threat which the Renaissance had represented for the Venice-Norman tradition. The slyer among the enemies of the Renaissance, such as Venice’s Paolo Sarpi, gave up the hope of returning to feudalism by eradicating science altogether. They resorted, instead, to allowing some of the products of modern science to be tolerated, but, on the condition that those scientists who consented to these Venetian reductionist cults were turned into intellectual eunuchs. The spread of Cusa’s scientific method was thus banned, as this banning was typified by both Zorzi and the empiricists and their positivist and existentialist outgrowths still today.

That bestiality of the Venice-led reaction against the modern sovereign nation-state, produced both the neo-feudalist Physiocrats and that axiomatically anti-moral, Anglo-Dutch Liberal form of parliamentary democracy’s "free trade" dogma. Similarly, the adoption of a virtually inquisitional form of that doctrine of "free trade," that of the Mont Pelerin Society’s ultra-simple-minded Milton Friedman, has transformed the U.S. economy, over the recent forty years, from the world’s leading productive power, to the mass of bankrupt, rotting and ruined, parasitical state of Roman-Empire-style "bread and circuses," today. [42]

The essence of the ruse employed by both of these anti-Renaissance factions, was the denial of the existence of that quality which sets man and woman absolutely apart from and above the beasts. The aim of these anti-Renaissance reactionaries, was to obliterate the notion that there exist discoverable universal physical principles which are not directly discernable by the animal-like aspect of man’s nature, sense-perception. The savage, even lunatic attacks on Leibniz by the empiricist fanatic Euler, is the best example of this, since Euler was the most skilled of the ivory-tower mathematicians among those empiricists, and therefore the more consistent sophist in his crafting of the same fraudulent argument proposed by many others, such as his crony and accomplice Maupertuis.

The most significant political expression of this anti-humanistic reductionism of such as Descartes, Locke, Hume, Quesnay, Adam Smith, and Euler, was the Anglo-Dutch Liberal model of parliamentary imperialism. This imperial power was established, as such, by the British East India Company’s 1763 triumph over France, and that Company’s related triumph in India.

The emergence of the power of the British Empire, especially after 1815, defined the Anglo-Dutch Liberal form of empiricism, with Isaac Newton as its ship’s figurehead, as the leading enemy of the Renaissance’s legacy through Europe and the Americas. In this process, the extremist expressions of empiricism, as by Hobbes, Locke, Mandeville, Quesnay, Hume, Turgot, Adam Smith, and Jeremy Bentham, were adopted as the basis for the influential Anglo-Dutch Liberal model of a doctrine of political-economy.

During the late Eighteenth Century, the leading opposition to this Anglo-Dutch Liberal prescription for man’s bestiality to man, was assembled, as an international force, around the cause of the freedom of the Benjamin Franklin-led U.S. republic. The tradition we represented so was that of the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, which had ended the Venice-orchestrated religious warfare of 1511-1648. In economic policy, we American patriots represented the legacy of France’s great nation-builder, Jean-Baptiste Colbert. In fact, especially from the mid-Eighteenth Century onward, we expressed the constitutional and economic policies of Gottfried Leibniz’s devastating refutation of John Locke’s pro-slavery doctrine of shareholder value, Leibniz’s concept of "the pursuit of happiness," as the latter, defined in Leibniz’s New Essays on Human Understanding, became the principled basis for our form of constitutional self-government, and the source of the concept of "the pursuit of happiness" featured in the 1776 Declaration of Independence.

It was to prevent the spread of the achievements of U.S. liberty from spreading throughout Europe, that the British East India Company, led by Lord Shelburne, organized the French Revolution, and set into motion the Hitler-like warfare and tyranny of Napoleon Bonaparte.

The Congress of Vienna, which celebrated the ruin of the Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, is fairly called The Sexual Congress of Vienna. While countesses and others were steered by Metternich’s Habsburg secret police into providing diverting entertainment for many among the representatives of states gathered there, Metternich and Castlereagh made the leading decisions, which led, in due course, to Lord Palmerston’s success in deploying his agent Mazzini, for the mission of toppling Metternich from power. [43] The Europe which emerged under the rule of that Vienna Congress, dominated a division of power between the British Empire and a neo-feudalist European continent, isolated and imperilled the continued existence of that constitutional republic we had formed in 1789. It was not until a U.S. led by President Abraham Lincoln freed us from rule by the slaveholder’s doctrine of "free trade," that the U.S. emerged rapidly as the greatest single economic power among individual nations in the world, a status which it retained, until the lunacy of "free trade" and "counterculture," which came to grip us about forty years ago. [44]

Admittedly, we came repeatedly under the influence of the London-backed slaveholder faction, as also from the Habsburgs and the slave-trading Nineteenth-Century Spanish monarchy, prior to 1861-1865, and under the influence of pro-Confederacy Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Recently, especially since the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, our nation has become the victim of a mimicking of the depraved "free trade" policies of the alien Anglo-Dutch Liberal model. However, despite those excursions into depravity, we have, until now, remained, genetically, in the political sense of the term, what Franklin’s legacy made us, except as we have been, so frequently, the virtually apostate victims of either the evil, over-reaching power European coalitions which hated our existence, or victims of our own willing, induced self-corruption, as today. Our Constitution, and our conception of an anti-British East India Company policy known as the American System of political-economy, our fundamental opposition to an intrinsically predatory and imperialist Anglo-Dutch Liberalism, is a deeply embedded special character, our patriotic tradition, even today.

Today, we are no longer virtually the "only power" on this planet, as we were until President Harry Truman began to spoil Franklin Roosevelt’s achievements. However, the American System of political-economy, which is our constitutional tradition, is the rallying-point in tradition around which many nations of the world can be grouped today. This can be done today, on the condition that we dump the imperialistic among some of us, to return to what President Franklin Roosevelt had intended, contrary to the Truman Presidency, had he lived to conduct his own post-war policy.

The purpose of such a coalition must be that which I proposed, and heartily endorsed as the draft for a new, just world economic order, adopted at the August 1976, Colombo meeting of the Non-Aligned nations: to create a just new world economic order among perfectly sovereign nation-states, an order freed from those "free trade" and related policies which have now, nearly thirty years later, brought European civilization as a whole to the verge of willful self-extinction.

The commonly crucial feature of this Anglo-Dutch Liberal model, whether as mathematical physics or political-economy, was the denial of the knowable existence of any universal physical principle beyond the statistical interpretation of mere sense-perception as such. In both of these expressions, the effect was the denial of any knowable quality of the human being by means of which man might be distinguished from a beast. At the same time, as a correlative of this, it was denied that man was capable of discovering, and employing any knowable form of universal physical principle outside the realm enclosed by the experience of sense-perception. In short, man as a fertile creature of ideas, was castrated by the "Ockham’s Razor" of Sarpi’s empiricism, to produce a moral eunuch, who might admire, and be humbly mystified by the principled artefacts of scientific reason, but could not actually produce them.

The crucial political significance of empiricism, in particular, is that it does as reductionism does in general. It denies, even virtually prohibits that specific quality of man and woman which sets human beings absolutely apart from and above the beasts.

For example, the notorious Physiocrat, Dr. François Quesnay, used his degradation of the laborers on the feudal estate to the same status as cattle, to pretend to show that all of the profit created by the estate was the fruit of the mystical powers of the feudal landlord’s title of overlordship. This conceit by the wicked Quesnay was represented by Quesnay’s doctrine of laissez-faire, which Adam Smith plagiarized as the dogma of "free trade." The same argument had been made by John Locke, earlier, on behalf of the dogma of "shareholder value" (e.g., property). [45] Mandeville, the adopted patron of von Hayek’s and Milton Friedman’s Mont Pelerin Society, traced the genesis of wealth to the private practice of personal vice, thus choosing Satan as his favorite god. The same argument was made, with slightly different literary packagings, by Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, and all other leading ideologues of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal dogmas.

In other words, all of these reductionist ideologues sought to turn back the clock of history, from the high point typified by the Fifteenth-Century Renaissance, back to the form of society in which most people were degraded to the status of either hunted or herded human cattle. The conditioning, one might say "brainwashing," of our young in schools and universities, as elsewhere, into versions of learning which are axiomatic expressions of reductionism, has produced a pervasively stultified state of mind of the population, and of its policy-shaping habits, which repeatedly impels us into forms of mass behavior by which we are repeatedly, nearly destroyed, as by the legacy of Coolidge and Hoover, or the trends of the recent forty years which have brought us to the brink of economic doom today. The kernel of the problem is, that the idea of the existence of the actual creative powers of the individual human mind is either denied, or mystified in such a crippling way, that the factor of actual human creativity is not featured as a determining factor in the welfare and progress of society as a whole.

This was the criminal role of empiricism, and kindred forms of reductionism, in degrading the conception of man and woman to that of mere beasts. The purpose was to ensure that the majority of the population, even those educated as putative scientists, would think of themselves as in the likeness of human cattle. The latter were induced, as Euler and Lagrange were, to think only as Isaac Newton did, as in the likeness of human cattle: denying the existence of those qualities of discovery which located knowledge of principle outside mere sense-perception: denying truth, hypothesis, as unnecessary, as Newton did. Compare the case of poor Georg Cantor, once a true genius, but, who, after being driven insane by his persecutors, such as Kronecker, proposed the adulation of Isaac Newton, even if unsuccessfully, to Pope Leo XIII! [46]

As a result of this continuing mass-brainwashing by empiricism, that activity which distinguishes man from the beasts, the process of discovery of fundamental scientific principles, is excluded from the taught principles of economy. In a society putatively dedicated to the profits of usury, such as the Anglo-Dutch Liberal system adopted as his model by Marx, the activity which actually produces such margins of gain, the discovery of scientific principles, is excluded from the description of economic processes.

Acceptance of that reductionist’s dogma of "free trade," is the crime for which my fellow-citizens, like poor, demented flagellants, are still, often, punishing themselves.

To Continue...