Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

------------------------------MAIL:----------------------------- L: NEC, JEFF STEINBERG W: HELA ZEPP-LA ROUCHE, EEC, MARK BURDMAN M: FERNANDO QUIJANO, IALC EXECUTIVE FAX: TANU, PAKDEE, NEW ZEALAND, TOKYO -----------------------------TEXT:----------------------------- This document bears RESTRICTED Classification #2: INTERNAL WORK-PRODUCT. A Classification #2 document is literary work in prog-ress. It is not intended for general or cas ual dissemination in its present form. To reference this document in communications to the author, identify LAR document MSG531A, or [88-53-1/LAR001]. LYNDON H. LA ROUCHE, JR. Message TO: THE HOST OF HERMES RE: THE ADVERSARY RELATIONSHIP 25 Dec. 1988 On the subject of female priests in the Anglican Churches, a wag might observe: "Those bitches wish to become witches." Respecting the implied offer of opportunity of mediation of terms, conveyed as representing the actions and views of that portion of the Atlantic Liberal Establishment controlling the U.S. Federal courts: First, the species, species-nature, and species-nat-ure motivations of my avowed adversary must be clear, the discussion freed from that specious cover-story being spread to the credulous by the indicated "Hermes" and through other channels. Working from the lesser to the primary motives of this social formation, we have the following array: 1. For purposes of identifying "Hermes'" principles in first approximation: My adversary is a social formation accurately identified as the present-day form of the 1918-1927 "Anglo-Soviet Trust." The subsumed motives of that adversary, for its wish to eliminate my personality and the organized form of my associates, include, as a predicated secondary feature, that social formation's global-power-sharing arrangements with the Soviet "Andropov-Ogarkov Kindergarden." It is relevant to the same effect, and to the same degree, that the hard core of these oligarchical families, in Europe, in North America, and elsewhere, was formerly a partner with Moscow in the creation and deployment of the Communist International, and was more emphatically the sponsor of what became both the Comintern's Left and, more emphatically, Right Opposition. This is the same social formation which participated for a time in the adoption of Adolf Hitler as an expendable agent of influence of a policy, which mooted the elimination of that asset at some points during the 1930s, and which finally de-cided to prefer the "Age of Aquarius's" Soviet Romulus to its Nazi Remus, as the adopted instrument of destruction of the characteristic "cultural matrix" and related institutional forms of western european Christian civilization. 2. On the second level of motivation, subsuming the tertiary ones, this social formation's primary motives are the same motives which impel it to have continued to seek a form of "world federalism" through negotiation of a global power-shar-ing arrangement with the Soviet Nomenklatura. 3. In Britain, this social formation is a subsumed feature of a faction known as "the venetian party" during the 1688-1714 interval, and was a continuation of the same "venetian party" under such guises as British cabalists, self-avowed British Israelites, and Rosicruceans during the Tudor and Stuart monarchies. This is a continuation of the "Black Guelph" and associated "Lombard" finance during the late thirteenth and the fourteenth centuries. This is, more recently than any of thos e past periods, the same "venetian party" which, partly through its agent, the Venetian Count John Capodistria appointed the Czar's foreign plenipotentiary, steered the processes of the 1814 Congress of Vienna and the temporary established of the lunatic Czar's asiatic hordes as "policeman of Europe" under the terms of the Holy Alliance. This is the faction of opposition to the terms of agree-ment, on various matters, reached at the 1439 Council of Florence. This faction is accurately described as the "venetian party," and in that respect is relevant to the history of the Levant Company, and the Levant Company's northward movement, from its looting of the Iberian states and their colonies, to a ssume such forms as the East India companies of Britain, the Netherlands, and Denmark. However, it is otherwise self- identified, and most meaningfully so, as the Romantic party of the circles of such as Montesquieu, Rousseau, et al., during the eighteenth century, and the spread of this Romantic Party into control of Germany's and Italy's culture during the nineteenth century. To wit: the eradication of Augustinean and Renaissance Christian humanists' natural law, for a parody of the philosophy of law and culture of the Roman empire (e.g., Karl Savigny and the neo-Kantians, as well as the Benthamite "British philosophical radicalism" of James and John Stuart Mill.). To wit: this adversary is a distinct species, with a species-nature, which is identifiable from its spoor, as a hunted beast is. It hates me not for any particular reason, which means not for any of the reasons which the putative "Hermes " has transmitted, or for any of the same reasons now saturating other relevant channels throughout the world today. It hates me as if instinctively, out of its acquired "in-stincts" as an historically determined social formation. It hates me inst inctively as "potentially dangerous" to its spec-ies-interest, and resolves to destroy me to the degree it regards the efforts with which I am associated as being notably effective, and threatening to become more so. It hates me for reasons most of the leading circles of this social formation do not themselves comprehend, although a handful of theologically inclined representatives occupied with classical historical studies do, more or less. Hence, in the main, in the higher circles of the relevant "families," these are poor fellows, like goldfish swimming within the confines of a bowl, who have become so habituated to the bowl, it has become primary reality for them. They react so, knowing not fully what they do, or for what deeper reasons of motive impel them to do it. As a result, the wont for my des-truction is expressed in the form of blind, unreasoning, instinctive hatred. So, instead of telling the truth respecting their mot-ives for hatred of me, they invent false explanations. In part, as in the message transmitted by the relevant "Hermes," the explanations are essentially willfully false concoctions, s elf-serving black and grey propaganda. More deeply, since they are unable to see what they themselves are, they do not themselves know the deeper reasons for their "instinctive" quality of hatred, except to the extent the more honest ones would a dmit that the hatred is "instinctive," as of the form of one species' hatred against members of a different species. It is therefore impossible to conduct any discussions of this matter, except as the true issues are brought into con-scious form for deliberation. To wit: the true nature of the conflict must be brought into focus, and the silly propag-anda, such as that relayed from "Hermes," must be put to one side in the manner both parties to a discussion stipulate such views to be known to both parties as a silly lie. 4. The conflict, is an echo of the conflict between the Academy of Athens and the Magi controllers of the Achaemenid empire during the fourth century B.C. That conflict, as taken to a higher form than grasped by Socrates and Plato, in the crucifixion of Jesus Christ by the Magi's cult of Mithra, is the paradigm for the present global situation. In this, the indicated social formation, identified inclusively as the "venetian party" and Romantics, inherits the cause of the Magi and Tiberius. In religious terms, this social formation is the ancient and present author of Gnosticism, including the historically prominent role of the Bogomils-Cathars. It is otherwise de-fined in the following historical terms of reference. This species of oligarchist, which employed Isocrates of the Athens School of Rhetoric, and the Democratic Party of Athens as among their agents of influence, negotiated with King Philip of Macedon for the establishment of a global power-s haring arrangement, awarding the world to the west of the Euphrates and Halys rivers as a "western division of the Per-sian empire," with the remainder to be retained as the "east-ern division." This was conditional upon the solemn accept-ance, by Philip's dynasty, of a social composition of the "Western Division" based upon what was variously descrived as the "Persian" or "oligarchical" model. The published letters by Isocrates, to Philip of Maced-on, are worth reexamining as models for the uttered follies of today's Glasnost-lovers. With the influence of St. Augustine, the oligarchical model became known as the Byzantine model, with Venice serv-ing as key marcher-lord agent of this faction on the borders of western civilization. Gnosticism, including the notable in-stance of the bogomils, served not merely as the delphic mode of attack upon the "cultural matrix" of western Christian civilization, but embodied a social-political doctrine which shaped internally the character of what became known at var-ious ti mes as the "venetian party" in western civilization. The events of A.D. 1250-1460, of Black Guelph/Lombard insurgency, culminating in the New Dark Age, represented a victory for this Gnostic eastern party, including the virtual destruction of the institutions of western Christianity. However , the collapse of Europe into primal conditions, caused by the policies of these Gnostic oligarchs, was a tidal wave of destruction which affected the power of the oligarchs to such a degree that the heirs of Dante Alighieri, including the circles of Petrarca centered upon Avignon, were able to launch such projects as Groote's Brothers of the Common Life, l eading into the Golden Renaissance. If I am successfully destroyed, then the descent of a New Dark Age, this time on a global scale, is ensured. (Not that it might not occur even if I survive. Matters are too far advanced to offer certainty of survival to this planet.) With events leading into the A.D. 1439 Council of Flor-ence, my faction's counteroffensive won a great partial vict-ory over those who wear, then and today, implicitly the Mark of the Beast. Hence, that degenerate, John Ruskin, reflected the essence of the modern oligarchical viewpoint in his work on art, his participation in the Pre- Raphaelite Brotherhood, his role in the creation of British socialism, and in laying the fou ndations, together with the influence of J. S. Mill, (and the demoralizing impact of the Huxley-Darwin malthusian hoax) for the establishment of the Fabian Society. In the course of the fifteenth century, the faction to which I adhere laid the foundations for both a new form of sovreign nation-state republic, and, as Nicolaus of Cusa's adequately summarizes this, a policy of c ommunity of principle among such sovreigan republics as the proper political and social ordering of the affairs of humanity. Since that time, the Gnostic faction has been developed and hardened in the conviction that the Augustinian heritage, as strengthened by the work of the Council of Florence, must be eradicated in its institutions, and even from the memory of the human species. That sums up the issue, the only real issue for me, and the instinctive issue for those who "Hermes" references as his principals. 5. The interesting historical irony of all this, is that if the principals of "Hermes" succeed in securing my destruction, by aid of that success they will be soon destroyed, in part by aid of the very Soviet Golem they have done so much to unleash upon this planet. As a social formation, this set of oligarchical "fam-ilies," who occupy themselves in intramural fratricde while otherwise seeking commonly the destruction of their collective opponent, is fairly described as a set of "families," which, i n the form of and kindred institutions, esteems itself, as a collection, as in the likeness of the mythical gods of Olympus --and therefore esteems me as an aeschylean Prometheus, or new Socrates. In that respect, that formation as a whole has a species-character; in contrasting other respects, many of the persons associated with this formation are more or less human, who have accessible perceptions of human interests, interests whi ch conflict with the adopted interests of the oligarchy in its collective character. This set of ironies is the only sound basis for any discussions of the issue of my projected death. As a social formation, the "families" success against me ensures their own destruction, and that for reasons I shall indicate below. As h uman beings, their true interest is coincident with that which I represent. Do they, as families, wish to avoid their own dest-truction? I can not promise that for any of us; in con-sequence of a long march into folly, especially that of the recent twenty-odd years, we are too near to the plunge into the dept hs of the worst Dark Age this planet has known in historical times. Only a miracle, or near-miracle could save any of us. I can offer merely the best chance of survival. I am willing to aid them on this account, to the extent this is a condition for survival of civilization. As human beings, they have my sympathy. That is always a subject of reasonable negotiations. It is their suicidal policy-shaping impulses which must be checked and turned. All humanity requires this. It is a matter of inflexible principle, from which there is no turn-ing back. If I fail, pray that the Creator, who has already shown His love for mankind, will be merciful to that pack of suicidal fools humanity generally has become. 6. One of the glaring pieces of misleading information in the message from "Hermes," is the assertion that this is a decision of the American oligarchy. The proximate origin of this decision on my prospective fate is european, not American. I know the American oligarchy as a hunter knows his prey from its spoor. In crude forms of sheer nastiness, and ill-founded arrogance, there is nothing wanting in these American liberals. They have acquired during this century, a great, if presently collapsing power, especially following those acts of collective mass-suicide associated with the fruits of the european oligarchies during two World Wars of this century to date. They have established an Orwellian form of totalitarian government in the U.S., aided in this partly by the Ken-nedy assassination, and, more emphatically, by the 1968-1972 destruction of the constituency institutions of the Democratic Party and the "Watergate" proceedings role in destruction of the constitutional functions of the U.S. Presidency. However, in the course of establishing this Orwellian totaliarian arrangement, the quality of the "families" and their attached professional elites has degenerated greatly be-low the poor level already represented during the 1960s. In my e xperience since the 1950s and early 1960s, I have been able to observe directly the passing of power to a third generation later than the leading strata of my young manhood. The degen-eration portrayed as the moral and intellectual inferiority of o ne generation of the families and elites, relative to the preceding generation of leadership, can be fairly described as a "descent to the apes." A Jonathan Swift were required to do justice in describing the transformation of a merely poor qual-ity of men into outright American Yahoos over three generations to date. The U.S. population, is controlled through mechanisms of "other- directedness," but the tool has shaped also the self-destroyed mentality of the oligarchical tool-user. I know the elites very well. Some of them wish to view themselves as patriotic, and some are extremely intelligent in a narrow, if culturally shallow way. Their weaknesses on this account are not their fault entirely, even largely. Not only the lack of any rigorous classical education and culture, but the erosive moral imbecility of American pragmatism, over the course of approximately four generations, has deprived them of the ability to think clearly, rigorously. Even those who have noble impulses, have not the slight-est notion of how such goals might be realized in fact. At best, they are calvinists at their worst, in the sense of David Hume's and Adam Smith's brutish dogma on human nature, an d Smith's lunatic notion of "The Invisible Hand." They have no sense of culture as a primary force in history, and, of their own volition, would, and do lose every cultural warfare engagement with a capable and determined adversary. The American oligarchy as such relies on the formula of the SOE period, "American muscle, British brains." At the lower level of the political- intelligence establishment, "British Brains, Yankee Brawn," is all they know. At a somewhat higher level, Venice, as represented by such in- stitutions as the Cini Foundation of San Giorgio Maggiore, is the cynosure; the higher ranks become extremely nasty when Venice is criticized in relevant terms, and hysterical at the mention of Ale x Muenthe's Capri. The U.S. liberal establishment is nothing but a cultural satrapy of the european "venetian party." That is the way in which the American liberal establishment was actually molded, historically, from the time of Governor Andros, and the lun acies of Jonathan Edwards' "Great Awakening." That is the way it was molded by the East India Company, during the late eighteenth century and the nineteenth. That is the fruit of the New Ager's, Teddy Roosevelt's radicalism. That is the fruit of the American branch of the British Fabian Society, including such representatives of this current as John Dewey, Charles Beard, Walter Lippmann, et al. This is the fruit of the vast influence of Bertrand Russell and of the Russell/ Wells/Crowle y pack generally. That is specifically the fruit of arrangements reached approximately 1938. Some of the S.O.E. period's "Oh, So Social" circles, and their progeny, imagine themselves very cleverly covert, revealing little or nothing of the nature of the control exert-ed over them. Yet, putting aside relevant details not known to me, they can keep no secrets from the hunter who relies upon the spoor of his prey, rather than demanding a detailed curriculum of the beast's ancestry and past itineraries. A man is the way in which his mind works, as judged in light of the p ractice informed by that mind. Being an reformed evang-elical protestant myself, the discrepancy between professed faith and works is painfully conspicuous to me, and thus their clever attempts at dissmulation are actually readily visible to me. This pack of American oligarchs and their hangers-on can conduct an execution as brutally as one might desire, but they can not grasp the rudiments of cultural warfare, or the nature of the issues perceived more readily by perceptive strata w ith-in the european establishment. The problem of today's Americans is largely a religious one. The protestant churches have ceased, by and large, to be Christian, and the same is true of the ruling hierarchy of today's anti-Vatican "American Catholic" church, under the lo ng, erosive influence of "American exceptionalism." In-deed, nearly all religious bodies in the U.S. are "American exceptionalist." Persons under such influence can not think in an orderly way, to say nothing of comprehending the cultural issue s which actually determine the course of history. Granted, McGeorge Bundy has hated me personally since a handful of us made a terrible mess of several among his radical projects of the late 1960s. Katharine Meyer Graham and oth-ers, including the Morgan's , have stated publicly their hatred of me since the onset of 1974. The ever-"Trust"-worthy FBI has hated us since we successfully beat off attacks by Communist goon-squads back in Spring 1973. And, so on. This chatter about my "personal attacks" since those d ays, is utter nonense. Public exposure embitters their hatred, but the hatred, and the wont to destroy me long preceded bitterness over my personal exposure of those who had sought to destroy me before those exposures were issued. The reason they merely harrassed, but did not commit themselves fully to destroying me and my friends prior to events of 1982-1983, was solely that we were viwed as merely a "serious potential danger," rather than an immediate one, until ev ents of 1982, and, more emphatically, the March 1983 announcement of the SDI, and, later, the Illinois Democratic primary election of March 1986. It was our influence on pol-icy-shaping, and nothing else, which is the motive for this presen t commitment to a holocaust against me and my friends. The initiative for this escalation comes from two sources which are really but one: the Soviets, who demanded my head delivered by the western liberal establishment, as a result of the announcement of the SDI; the cooperation with the Sovie ts on this point by western Trust-linked families pushing the New Yalta policy. In reality, what the Trust represents is a single agen-cy, in conformal correspondence with the existence and covert sponsorship of the 1920s Communist International; it is the adversary which has obliged the Reagan administration, and the incoming Bush administration, to allow my liberal- establish-ment adversaries to have their way in this matter, beginning the end of 1983. Nothing since that time has been the cause of the present commitment to eradicate me and my associates, excepting my insolence in failing to disappear under the pressure of earlier phases of 1983-1988 escalation of these attacks. They are c ommitted to destroying me for solely one reason: thus far, I have survived, the which is my great crime in their eyes. 7. Events have defined the legal actions against me and my friends as a Third Trial of Socrates. The trial in Alexand-ria might have been written by the same Magi which ordered its agents in the Democratic Party of Athens to arrange the trial of Socrates. The same Magi-force, acting through its pawn, the Emperor Tiberius, used the same tactic against Jesus Christ. This method, of the Trial of Socrates, was adopted by my adversaries, because circumstances have long molded me to walk in imitation of Christ, as Thomas A Kempis, for one, articulated this so clearly. This presents me now with my Gethsemane, in face of which prospect I conduct myself with the image of Gethsemane clearly before my eyes. If I am a killed, I shall die as a political martyr, who has walked to his prescribed doom in the imit ation of Christ, as should all Christians in kindred cirumstances. This is not a personal posture; it is a deliberate hist-orical act. In such a time as this, one man among men must act precisely so, that his conduct, even unto death, might unleash those forces which must be unleashed if humanity is to escape the total destruction made certain by a continued adher-ence of "Hermes" masters to their current policy-matrices. From the standpoint of "Hermes" masters, I act to unleash the Furies upon them. If I die in the course of the conduct I have imposed upon myself, it shall become the case, for reasons beyond the com-prehension of my enemies, that there shall soon ensue that which pagans such as those enemies will regard as the Furies unleashed. In that sense, should they kill me, those pagans will come to imagine that I have reached out from my grave to de stroy everything which they represent. We each have but one brief mortal life, which life we gain in total only to the degree, that when the time comes, as it did for Christ, we know how to spend it. Relevant Background Discussion: The Stupidity of the Oligarchy & Their Elites --------------------------------------------- The principal issues which prompt the liberal oligarchy's instinctive hatred of me, and of that for which I am a prin-cipal public spokesman, may be reduced to a handful of policy-issues, which might be listed in various orders of priority . 1) The central occupation of the international philosophical association with which I am associated, throoughout its entire existence: economic justice, emphatically for developing nat-ions, in face of the imperial system of mass-murder throu gh usury which is the present form of the international monetary system and ruling financial order. Since early 1975, we have been viewed by relevant circles of bankers and others, as a serious potential danger on this account. If they prevail on this account, during the course of the 1990s this planet will be plunged into a global New Dark Age, into a holocaust of famine and disease from which, possibly no member of the human species might survive. They care not hing for this; they care only for their damned ideology, and, like Shylock, for their damned shekels. They are like the Lombard usurers of the fourteenth century, but probably even more stupidly bestial. On this account, even considered alone , they justify the encyclical "Sollicitudo Rei Socialis" reference to "structures of sin." 2) Our consistent fight against the hallmarks of the attempted "cultural- paradigm shift" of the recent twenty-odd years, the neo-malthusian "post- industrial" utopianism, and the Crowleyite "radical (rock-drug-sex) counterculture." These policies, aggravated by the lunacy of radical "deregulation" have lowered the potential population-density of the planet to a critical margin of discrepancy below the act-ual population-density. Under continuation of this, the population of this planet will be reduced by several billions during the immediate decades ahead, and could be exterminated by successive epidemics of rapidly mutating lentiviruses during the early part of the coming century. These two policies are the usual hall-mark of our bitter-est foes within the establishments. Their affection for these policies is to be seen in light of such exemplary developments as Comintern official George Lukacs' prescribing the work o f "cultural matrix" change assigned to the Frankfurt School, as its contribution to making possible the future bolshevization of western Europe. The advocacy of these views, by both the western and Soviet "ecologists," is of the nature of blind, ideological fanaticism, but is consistent with the history of the oligarchical faction since those satanists known as the Chaldean priesthood. 3) Our exposure of the role of western establishment cir-cles in money- laundering and other features of Andropov's 1967 unleashing of international narco-terrorism, on the model of Mao Tze Dong's 1950s and 1960s drug-war against the United Stat es. This issue is the most immediate prompting of the coordinated, systematic attempts to destroy us in the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany by certain financier circles' initial, May 1978, deployment of the U.S. Anti- Defamation League, the Mont Pelerin Society and other forces as shock- troops of S.O.E.-style "financial warfare" against us. 4) The Soviets' growing, and currently extreme frustration with our work in Ibero-America and elsewhere, in resisting rather effectively their Andean Spine strategy, our role on the issue of international monetary reform, and our work on the S DI and related matters. This Soviet rage was reflected through their "back-channel" partners in what is presently the set of Glasnost-lovers, and other highly placed friends of Soviet assets Armand Hammer and Edgar Bronfman within the establishmen t. 4) Our cultural work, especially in matters of physical science and related matters, as associated with the success-ful growth of the Fusion Energy Foundation and related en-deavors. 5) Our commitment to the perfect sovreignty of nation-states and to a corresponding community of principle among sovreign nation-state republics. 6) Our persistent exposure of the sheer fraud of prevailing taught and received opinion on crucial features of history. 7) Our commitment to natural law, and corresponding op-position to opposing dogmas derived from the model of Roman law. Unless our views on these matters prevail, this planet has now reached the , at which failure of our views to prevail ensure the ensuing, early destruction of the nations of this planet. The issues are therefore not in any way academic, mere matters of disputable contending beliefs; they are hard truth, which no nation can defy, except by thus incurring the penalty of its own early destruction. The vast lie which has confronted me on the issue of the HIV pandemic, is exemplary of the entire point. If present policies on "AIDS" are continued, the eruption of this pand-emic in the densely populated, traditional plague-breeding r egion of China and Southeast Asia, will unleash a panoply of rapidly mutating retrovirus pandemics, which, reaching the level of about 10-15% infection in any part of the world, virtually ensure the destruction of the entire population. During 1986, the establishment decided, that to stop me, they must discredit my views on the HIV pandemic. For that, and other reasons, the Reagan administration and the Soviet government, acting partly through the WHO bureaucracy, conc octed the vast "condominium" of lies which pervades the public utterances and policies of practice of most governments. In and of itself, that lie represents a willful choice of biological suicide for the human species. It also reflects a disregard for facts inconventient to present policy-matrices marking an establishment which has lost, more or less fatal-ly, the moral fitness to survive. The mechanics of the dispute, whether or not I am right in posing these issues as matters of existential crisis, rather than mere preferences, are best illustrated by reference to the fourth of the topics identified above, the issue of sci entific method. The included relevance of this topic, is that on account of this issue, the establishment and attached elites lack ut-terly any comprehension of what I am, what I represent, and the authority of my warnings on crucial other policy-issues. To them, therefore, I am an unpleasant sort of prophet, a na sty Isaiah they would rather not have living any longer. They fear I might be correct in my "prophecies," but if that is the case, then their entire policy-matrix is fatally wrong, an implication they would never tolerate. They would rather die, be exterminated as a species, than admit that I might be sound on these matters. It is the essence of intelligible communication of an argument, that the hearer must not accept an entire policy on mere grounds of blind faith in the authority of an expert. Intelligible communication presumes that the hearer must verify the proposition by means of the hearers' own reasoning. In these matters, my opponents' method is irrationality, a state of mind which obliges them to act ought of blind ideological faith in the adopted opinion of those regarded by them as establishe d authorities in the relevant matter. Thus, to that degree, my adversaries are not capable of reasoning, and prefer to maintain themselves in that happy state of irration-ality. Nothing makes this practical problem of the mooted dis-cussions clearer, than to identify the reasons the leading scientists of the United States, for example, are irrational on the most fundamental issues of physical science. As is usu ally the case, we best examine the mental condition of an entire culture by examining the methodology of that culture's adopted strata of scientific experts. "Negative Curvature" -------------------- My current scientific work, in practice the most import-ant such of my entire life, addresses the most fundamental problem in physical science today. Formally, this involves the cure of a fault in Bernhard Riemann's elaboration of the , a fault which was among the most significant of the topics discussed between Riemann and his collaborator Eugenio Beltrami. The adequate solution of all truly functions in physics, depends upon the indicated correction to be made. To situate the bearing of this on the illustrative point to be made, the following summary matters of background must first be considered. The quantized expression of my fundamental discovery in Leiniz's science of physical economy, depends upon the solut-ions to measurement of and , a measure-ment for which no known near-solution existed at that time (1952 onward) except through restating the problem in the terms of the Riemann Surface Function. In the relevant applications to economics, the type of problem identified by Beltrami is rather crucial. Hence, I have been concerned with this, and rel ated problems of technological functions, over most of my adult life. What is the problem? What is its practical significance for the frontiers of physics (and biophysics) today? This brings immediately to the fore an aspect of the problem refer-enced as illustration here. From Brunelleschi and Nicolaus of Cusa, through Leonardo da Vinci, Gilbert, Kepler, Desargues, Fermat, Pascal, Leibniz, Huyghens, Leibniz, the Bernouillis, Euler, Monge, and Gauss, the method of that current in modern physical scien ce was premised upon a radically non-euclidean geometry, called variously "constructive," or "synthetic" geometry. This was the standpoint of Riemann, and the standpoint which I adopted from early adolescent conversion to becoming a follower of Leib niz. All of this was implicitly the result of Cusa's elaboration of his "Maximum Minimum" principle, in his , and his associated discovery of what modern topology texts represent in reduced form as the Bernouilli- Euler isoper imetric principle. The contrary, euclidean standpoint of Galileo, Des-cartes, and Newton, which is hegemonic in formal instruction and professional practice today, is a system of logic, opportunistically referenced to naive sense-certainty, mo delled both upon Euclid's , such as that of Descartes, and upon a deductive form of axiomatic number-theoretical procedures, the latter such as that Kronecker defended against Karl Weierstrass. Despite Leibniz's devastating attacks upon Descartes, and despite Newton's admissions on the "clock-winder" fallacy he rightly identified as introduced by his choice of mathematics, the issue and its implications are barely understood by even a rare few scientific professionals today. Hence, for reason of the attempt to interpret the work of Gauss, Riemann, et al. from a deductive formalist's standpoint, the essential features of the Gauss-Riemann domain, derived by methods of constr uctive geometry, were never understood by the leading exponents of Special and General Relativity. That lack of understanding is key to the most important frustrations of physical science's progress today. As a result, what are referenced as "non-euclidean" geometries today, are not "non-euclidean," but are strictly neo-euclidean: a euclidean geometry subjected to modification of some of the set of axioms and postulates upon which it is prem ised "hereditarily." Since every geometric construction can be described as a locus-function, formulations achieved by geometrical methods of construction can be represented in the appropriate trigonometric form, or some other algebraic form confo rmal with the trigonometric one. Therefore, once the function constructed geometrically is described as a locus-function, in an algebraic way, the formalist deludes himself as if by instinct, to imagine that the conception presented is to be de rived by formalist procedures. This misunderstanding was the characteristic feature of the misreading of Gauss, Bolyai, Lobatchevsky, and Riemann by the figures associated with Special and General Relativity. For the same reasons which perplexed Newton, in conn-ection with the "clock-winder" problem, any mathematics premised upon deductive methods is intrinsically, implicitly a linear mathematics, with all of the properties of systems of simul taneous linear inequalities generally. Hence, whenever the phenomena of experimental work are represented in this way, the linear properties of formal deduction are superimposed upon the experimental evidence. Those truly non-linear qualities of physical processes, either can not be represent-ed, or are represented only by "curve-fitting" forms of linear approximation. Whereas, a non-euclidean constructive geomet-ry represents physical processes which are always, implicit-ly, intri nsically non-linaer, even when the form of the construction might appear to be simply linear at first glance. Thus, the devastating flaws built into both Special and General Relativity, from their inception, was rooted in the ontological baggage i ntroduced to the actually non-euclidean geometries of Riemann et al. by the superimposition of deduct-ive formalism upon the mathematical functions borrowed. After Cusa's work on scientific method, the elaboration of mathematical physics, through Riemann and Beltrami, was based upon a notion of , the investigation of both physics and geometry, especially light and hydrodynami c processes, to the purpose of defining what choice of geometry is in one-for-one, conformal correspondence with real action in the domain of physics. After Cusa had demonstrated, that the circle as defined by isoperimetric construction, is the only self-evidently existing form in the universe, and the only absolute mathematical unit of measure of experimental evidence, Cusa's successors relied upon a geometry in which no axioms and postulates, and no deductive method are permitted through out. Everything must be constructed by nothing more than an hereditary principle of circular action as the root form of physical least action. Until Gauss, the progress in this direction was cent-ered upon the study of circular action, and the non-algebraic curves (cycloids and envelopes) derived from circular action by construction. The isochronic and related curves are of most Surface Function. Gauss introduced a special form of circular action as the basis for a new synthetic geometry of the complex domain, the conical form of self-similar-spiral action. A ll functions referenced to positive curvature within the Gauss-Riemann complex domain are derived as locus functions generated by a manifold of multiply- connected self-similar-spiral action as the definition of physical least action. This is the point of reference for the Riemann Surface Function. The characteristic of this Gauss-Riemann domain is the fact that multiply- connected self-similar-spiral action generates increasing, harmonicall y ordered density of math-ematical discontinuities hyperbolically, to two leading effects. The locus-representation of functions of the domain is in the form of circular, elliptic, and hyperbolic trigon-ometries, and the functions are implicit ly characterized by a density of such trigonometric points of singularity, to such effect that density of singularities properly replaces the notion of potential associated with a LaPlaceian potential function. This fact of the Gaussian domain creates a great problem in topology, which was addressed somewhat successfully by Lejeune Dirichlet in the form of what Riemann references as "Dirichlet's Principle." Out of motives expressed in his post-humously published notes of Herbart's Goettingen lect-ures, Riemann shows how he was led to the topics of those dissertations prepared for his habilitation, including the relatively more famous , his elabo ration of the Riemann Surface Function, and his 1859 paper, . In a Riemann Surface Function, the occurrence of singularities is expressed in terms of "points" or "holes." The solution to this topological problem must be of the general form postulated by Dirichlet's Principle, and according to similar treatments of problematics of Fourier Analysis by Karl Weierstrass. Thus far, the Riemann Surface Function is correct; however, examined more closely, as Beltrami did, it skips over something very important for physics. Why must the occurrence of a singularity prompt, in a necessary, causal way, the occurrence of what the Riemann Surface Function represents as a solution to this problem of connectivity? In this connection, for years I had proposed the pro-vocative hypothesis, that sub-nuclear physical space-time must have a characteristic curvature fairly described as a Kepler-Gauss-Riemann curvature. A few years back, a leading plasma physicist confirmed this hypothesis experimentally. That experimental confirmation sent a number of my collaborators and me on a new track. If this indicates that the determination of the periodic table of elements and isotopes is conformal with the archimed-ian solids --rather than a gravitational or analogous packing of the nucleus, as the periodic table is limited to the comb inations of nucleons allowed by this, then strong nuclear forces must represent the Beltramian negative curvature inher-ent in the archimedean constructions. This posing of Beltramian negative curvature says some-thing of the greatest importance about the universe at large. It signifies that, as Beltrami argued, the Riemann Surface Function is inadequate, that the necessary causal implicat-ion s of negative curvature must be associated with the neces-sary generation of singularities corresponding to such curva-ture, to the effect of revising the Riemann function as a kind of Riemann-Beltrami Surface Function. The most interesting feature of negative curvature for physics, already well known in archiecture since the work of Brunelleschi, is the properties of "least time" of action, and of isochronic curvature. The complemetarity of the caustic and catenary is a central consideration. With that, to the meat of the issue. First, for any universal law to be derived from the least-action curvature of physical space-time, we must re-strict the definition of "law" to principles of action char-acterized by the isochronic form of negative curvature. Unless that requirement is met, all talk of "physical laws" is mere deductive hand-waving. All of this was well advanced from the work of Brunel-leschi through and beyond Leibniz, until those hoaxsters La Place and Cauchy took over and largely ruined Monge's Ecole Polytechnique, and Cauchy ruined the differential calculus with hi s silly tangents as substitutes for Leibniz- Monge envelopes. Notable to this effect, is the manner in which Kepler derived his definition of universal gravitation. Implicitly, gravitation's effect can arise in a Gauss-Riemann manifold only through negative curvature associated with the generation and existence of singularities within the manifold. In such a manifold the apparent phenomena of action-at-a- distance can occur only through negative curvature defining an isochronic notion of both and . It is necessary, but insufficient to define solar or-bits, for example, as least-action pathways. For this to be a lawful motion, it must be subsumed by an isochronic principle. Like all crucial principles and topics of physical science, this one is elementary, and especially so relative to the elaborate articulation of most formal arguments in the field. For example, one of the topics with respect to these inquiries have been developed, is the case of Filippo Brunel-lechi's construction of the cupola of the Florence cathedral. This hyperstable structure was recently put into jeopardy by bun gling contractors who plugged the essential holes in the design with reinforced concrete. I was committed to saving the cathedral for sundry reasons, including its relationship to the A.D. 1439 Council of Florence, the key strategic cult-ural issue of Soviet imperial aggression against the West. I was persuaded that the key to the construction was Brunel-leschi's experimental work on optics, that he had selected the physical principle of construction of the cupola on the basis of his observations of negative curvature in optical phenomena. I also referenced kindred, later work by Leonardo da Vinci, including his new principles of projection for paint-ing, such as his own remarkable , and such works of Raphael's as the murals in the Sistine papal apart ments and the . This proved correct. The catenary was the key metrical device used for ordering the construction of the cupola. The problematic feature of a Riemann Surface Function, which Beltrami had elaborated, and which I had taken up afresh, had persisted as long as it did, only partly because Riemann was already dying of tubercular infection at the time the rel evant discussions occurred, but more emphtaically because some of the most elementary experimental and related knowledge accumulated, at various points over four centuries before Beltrami's work, had become lost knowledge in the university curricul um and general professional practice. The fanatical, usually blind adherence to linearized formalism in mathematical physics, in which modern students have been indoctrinated during a recent hundred-odd years, have produced a situation in which those leading problems which lie outside the scope of the contemporary professionals ideo-logical fish-bowl of formalism, are either implicitly denied to exist, or violently denounced when mentioned, for no other reason than to save the appearances of formalism. Institutionalized science today is dominated by an ideo-logically fanatical pagan priesthood, whose Gestapo is, in large part, the referees of the professional journals. In even the most important and useful papers, approximately 95% is hagiolatry of approved opinion. The community of professionals, as an organized community, is dominated by that sort of mug's game. There was a better time, when science meant the employ-ment of socratic method, as Leibniz emphasizes that method, to receive each proposition, including one's own, by soc-cratic examination of the axiomatic and postulational assum-ptions necessarily underlying the proposition. In place of such critical faculties, mere formal consistency of calcula-tions and experiments exists. Thus, the most interesting and f ruitful questions are passed over until some crisis shows the matter can be avoided no longer. This unhappy state of the organized science community, is a reflection, and somewhat a reenforcement, of the utter absence of reason among establishments respecting those opin-ions which are currently accepted ones. We are currently in a approximating that, all caused by fanatical adherence to crisis-management on behalf of intrinsically failed axioms of current policy. Even in this end-game phase of that past era, wher e all the evidence shows us on the brink of a global New Dark Age, the prevailing view of the establishment, is that they would rather see the world, and themselves extinct, than consider the fact that their present policy-axioms are disast-rousl y wrong. So, when I say that all this is madness, I am hated as a disquieting voice. When I become influential on this ac-count, and threaten to become more so, the response is "He must be destroyed." If my friends and I are gone, then there will be no voice which dares to raise these issues as I have raised them. In that case, the prospect is, that this planet goes to the Hell it has brought upon itself by such conduct. This establi shment, and the suicidal other people and institutions which make compromises with such establishment behavior, will find their reward for what they have directly or tacitly al-lowed to be done to me, in their own orgy of Armageddon. My departure unleashes the Furies, which were likely to destroy all nations and populations which survive me. Then, there is nothing but those primal conditions, under which conditions nothing but a Ruetli-oath sort of anti-Bolshevik "Peo ples War" resistance globally, might achieve the success which permits civilized life on this planet to be resumed at some later time. If the principals of "Hermes" will not ac-cept the role of what I represent in the present, then I curse them w ith their imminent future, in which their species will have no posterity, one way or the other. ---30---


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank