NOTABLE RANTS AND ASIDES

241 Crude Caveats and Raw Lessons of Brash, Rash Reasoning: or just Common Sense

^{"It has been the scheme of the Christian Church, and of all the other invented systems of religion, to hold man in ignorance of the Creator, as it is of governments to hold man in the ignorance of his rights. The systems of the one are as false as those of the other, and are calculated for mutual support."}    Thomas Paine

A Taste of Testy, Tastelessly Twisted Taunts, Raunchy Humor & Rude Raving Rants of Pet Peeves and Insights concerning Problems arising from a Covert History Controlling the Major Organizational Aspects of Human Social Evolution, with a Global Systems Analysis that Offers Concrete Solutions

0: Greek Shepherds: In a number of plays on the Greek letter Lambda, sheep jokes lighten the tables and text. So we here offer a similar taste of  raunchy '-X ranch humor' graphically illustrating what certain 'geek shepherds' place on their hard ivory towers while dreaming of their spoiled herds of naive, sheepish nerds, after feeding them some brand of 'free fodder.' For they're all so blessedly attainable, and just as easily effortlessly trainable, to savor the flavor of a first kiss, before they must return it as bliss, at the behest of an older or more pretentious attendant, if just for his amusement. And while sheep must try to dress up like the best, in order to win a place in this ritual contest; a sheep's a mere beast, just a cheap piece of meat, butt boy does it have a firm bodice. Yet have you seen or even heard of a nerd, or just one sheep in the whole fucking herd, who ever fits the right dress? But then again they'll never confess, how they now love the endearing caress, by that hardy club of manhood. Oh the joys of a hard evening feel, always makes a beast's knees bend as they squeal. And though a herder may thrash its sweet meat till the sheep feels a bit faint, while it may hurt 'em but good, a rude shafting surely beats any hot burning wood that could bake that same juicy ass as the next evening meal, when all the men would eat its succulent carcass!

1a: Free Fodder? You may have thought you were hungry too, but are just full of your over-bloated self-image, and thus too busy to notice the only thing you eat is industrially salted, fried lard, so are never really hungry, just addicted. For you've drunk that next bucket of sugared oil in record time after nearly plowing everyone over in your souped-up Class-a-lack when pulling up to the Grease Pit a couple hours later; gulping down the last drops feeling better after pulling out at twice the speed to get back-to-class before the boss or other `race rats' will notice. Who are all itching to snitch you out for that coveted '#1 pole-smoking position' - but that's why it's properly called "fast food," fool! So how might you break that nasty habit with no cost, smarty butter-sucker? The only way I know is to "Eat that fat off!" That's right, fat hasn't blinded you or deafened the ears yet: "Eat it off, maggot!" - i.e. prove that a burst bubble of hot air is still alive and the hungriest gluten for 'soul pudding' at an 'e-scribe boot-camp.' Answer a few questions correctly and you can win the money back "2-for-1 guarantee" - further becoming a life-member of the Advanced e-Courses in Integrated Natural Science. (Like Allah-U's and Saint Lenny the Jew's Winner's Club Casino of Applied Quantum Learning: as described in footnote* on the Orders page, and soon enough on a new page of its own.)

For a smidgeon of directed segmental learning for a full e-book is already great deal for $25.50 (max.), which makes you and 241 a winner^1b, though you shouldn't expect getting chump change back without producing some tangible result in return. As you can safely bet your life there are no money back guarantees for incompetence from 241; as with a Fanny May or Seal School, even if you hold a piece of parchment and can bark like a dog as it bounces on your nose, you still gotta eventually pay for the shelter and training. So it might even save you some trouble to try that nose trick with the hardcover since it produces more heat for your stove if all you're going to do is burn it when it first falls to the floor. But a page of parchment is just as flammable in the real world. So a word of caring advice: take up Hindi or Chinese if really want a job; you'll get it boss - or rather, they'll be your (given intellectual sloth, and a soaring bank debt, all our) boss soon enough!

1b: Which means that just as it's unreasonable to expect 'Free' Fodder from a university, press, chef or any business, 241 has everything to gain by cutting out middlemen and offering relatively Cheap and Unique Fodder: optimally designed to give interested parties affordable access to priceless information in a loosely directed forum that can thereafter be used for any personal gain or possible professional advantage. Indeed, even spending $63.49 for a technical hardcover is rather reasonable by contemporary standards - especially considering it offers unprecedented information such as the entire fundamental sparticle/particle mass spectrum within a unitary universal system that offers a detailed explanation mapping the whole of space-time, with a fully consistent theory for Creation itself. As if that weren’t enough for every student, engaged or indifferent, to easily access in some college library until its floors cave by all the accumulated ivory covered volumes of paperweight it houses. (Which explains the reduced discount to at least library distributors, as if it were in the publishers better interests to hand over a significant volume discount to supply the same colleges from some temporary warehouse.) Indeed, it's a tad foolish to sell one book for 20,000 co-dependent students to use for a hundred years in the first place, especially if your intent is to distribute an unparalleled system to individuals who actually want to, and so will, learn it. It’s then rather easy to sense how the purposes of both 241-Mumbers as a publisher, and you as an individual, are far better served by de-emphasizing the book business with a focus as a cheaper, yet potentially more lucrative, e-subscription data or e-book service tailored as a progressive course of a loosely directed, self-revealing wisdom shared with those who meaningfully are willing to ponder, learn, debate and so perhaps help solve even deeper cosmic mysteries in a hands on manner. This emphasis is stressed in the hardcover text as well, but by itself is too easy to bite off more than you can chew or digest; in the process cheating one's self of an opportunity to fail or err, thus reducing your learning capacity (it leads to a 'flatter discrimination curve' in behaviorist lingo). Though it’s obviously more of a burden to have 241’s Mum parcel her system in progressive stages that prevents easy answers; experience has shone that otherwise a false sense of security too easily prevails in a persona of a smug critic before any of the material is even assimilated - a sheep blinded by its own, its herd or herders over-thunk, yet out-of-spunk, brilliance and self-glorified image.^0,2  

1c: A Short History of Why I'm Pissed Off: Likewise, I progressively found it exceedingly difficult to solicit more than passing interest in this material despite its obvious uniqueness and importance. Which only seems explicable by a self-righteous skepticism bred so deep that any "claims" of discoveries are instinctually interpreted as being tantamount to flat out lies just because some 'authority' lacks the information or never read a `paper' by the fellow who's making these massive "claims.” Which to an extent makes sense, especially in regard the breadth of discoveries: except for the fact that I wouldn't have made, or 'claim' was even capable of making, such monumental discoveries by myself, clearly stating they flowed from the model provided by A.J. Meyers. Beyond any such unwarranted misconceptions, an informed skepticism is still understandable - until confronted by the fact that A: these same four examples and proofs have been on this site from its inception in 2002 (though only backed by corresponding web-articles since late 07) - which any sensible businessman/chef would think should suffice to secure a few orders for some 'bowls of pudding' from the small 'taste' received from unsolicited internet exposure alone. As of 2007 we in turn received B: a couple of library orders, from a national mailing to libraries and bookstores in 2005 (with Sample Data fit in selected brochures, for added clout stressing the empirical ‘pudding proofs’); which were canceled after Mum chucked meeting pointless promised deadlines. Likewise, C: a previous U/S. mailing in late 2003 was directed to individuals in the physics community aimed at attracting a few subscribers who might appreciate an advantage over peers who lack unknown parameters like quark masses. Which resulted in a couple dozen curious or challenging inquiries, most of who were given the introductory data as a free trial and to ostensibly collect some data to help optimize Mumbers teaching curriculum. Which soon turned into a test of their actual interest in the material or data, and learning ability in regard to a comprehension of mumbers' tautology and calculations as a dimensionless scaling system. Consequently this 03-mailing led to and forms the core of our graduated teaching system, as well as, to counterpoint the history of the model, the book's Preface (see Summary Info) explaining why and how it's been augmented ever since. I was heartened by an early responder who was somehow impressed by the last of our Sample Data illustrating the Planck scaling of the neutron time-decay parameter, though the fellow went on to more typically express suspicion of anything unrelated to his particular theoretical interests. Still, though it was refreshing that somebody could at least D: recognize this result as being unprecedented, before 2009 it stood as the only instance where anybody had given positive acknowledgment of a valuable discovery in the entire 241-mumbers data-bank. For apart from both national mailings and the Internet, this introductory material was sent to a few dozen other folks over the years, most of who hold graduate degrees (like participants from a 2000 conference on gravitation and cosmology). Anyway, I’ve pretty much given up on expecting any sort of reciprocal response from a PhD (though I corresponded with a couple of cordial contacts having similar interests); which never-the-less was generally requested, and should be expected, if just for common courtesy - though apparently that criteria is no longer usually respected; which I find disgusting. And not only have no volunteers come close to even wrongly answering any part of that first question that’s required to receive the next stages of the graded on-line study, qualifying for the promised money back or free extended e-course - but haven't yet received an unsolicited order for even the free basic material since it was formally offered. (But if or when someone does, I'll likely let the rest of you race-rat sloths know it! [In 2009 I was contacted by an appreciative German fellow who understood most issues, but has been too busy with his own discoveries to yet address that gluino question. In '06-7' a friend directed me to a solid state engineer who eventually admitted he couldn't solve it {important note: I think he needed a hands-on pocket computer, not a spreadsheet - the key being study, creativity, versatility and speed, not fixed programming ability!}, but gave me the ultimate compliment when he said he admired my humility as expressed in the Preface.])

1d: Why 'Free Fodder' Rules the E-Mall: But one surely can’t say I didn’t try; and will again - if just as a given obligation to do what one must. Though it's may be hard to believe any and/or all `claims,' a Pudding Proof of A: asks not for 'belief,' but just D: recognition of some unprecedented facts. We offer two books that no one cares to read, yet apparently it's 241's physics that's regarded with suspect claims; despite demonstrably being further supported by the central tenets of the synthetic geometry text. Meanwhile, the blithely blind lemmings on the web predictably prefer to play 'Free Search and Find' at the neighborhood e-Mall to get their info and data handed to them for their homework assignments. For if there's been an increased retention or wealth of information wrought by the web-highway, why can't 6 out of 10 U.S. high school students point to Canada on a map?  And that's free info that's been available in most any elementary school; so what's in it for a website that hawks gobs of new information and data that everybody thinks is 'Free' due to that Search business? So maybe I shouldn't have been surprised when national mailings don't produce a dime; with Google is trying to corner copy-rights of authors by digitizing every book in better university libraries, potentially destroying the book market in every niche except maybe for kids. But with all Harry Potter books now in movies, though Rawlings will stay richer than the queen, they'll be burning her books for cheap fuel as kids not only won't be motivated, or hardly able to read 'em, at this rate of 'Dumbing Down.'² Anyway, all the Money is clearly in advertizing for the privilege of a fast search for bargain basement sell-outs of things like yesterday's old newspaper. Indeed, bout the only thing Bill Gates didn't anticipate is that the web was destined to be turned into a E-Mart on top of a sloth's lap - since the web media is no different  that newspapers, TV or radio: as shopkeepers pays them for ads too. So Corporate Media drives in one fact for all Consumers: either you Work For e-Mart in some mall or ivory tower office, you Buy From Them and all Of their cock-sucking or Self-Promoting BS Propaganda, or else You Die. (As all the fools chant "Ogle, don’t dawdle or doodle, to get all the Free Info you'll ever need, all you gotta do is go directly to Google - its Ads Pays Them to Frugally Screw Ya - Yahoogle!") Which of course is all predictable, given the joint economic myths and realities of the marketplace and ones job within it - which seems to at least partially² explain the ever dumber propensities of Leno's Jay-walking dead-heads.

Yet the goggling commercialism, bloggish narcissism and easy googling of web-ogling videots combine to reinforce the same revolting lack of curiosity with respect to professed intellectual goals of philosophical truth, scientific discovery and a supposedly critical, yet `free’ or unbiased, "open thinking." But I still get the Last Laugh E: for, though my old Process Press address in Berkeley is freely permanent, I figured from the outset of the revelations that one 'Vanity Press' there is enough! Do U C? (If not, be sure to read the interview in rant 2, as well as my Bezerkely history of wider teachings that once were available there in section 4c.) Anyway, however honored, rewarding and enlightening these discoveries have been for me personally, I should mention that I cultivated this penchant couching philosophy and science as humor long before Mumbers emerged from A.J.’s work. For the fun of raw rudeness basically keeps me sanely grounded, as black humor does with most of my friends. Still, given the above history of this project, it's natural that these raving asides are admittedly a tad vindictive, so very likely will turn off more than few `serious academics.’ Yet sooner or later even most skeptics will want this information. And besides, I feel that these rude assessments are richly deserved - if just based on hawking a few books and witnessing intellectual vanities around UCB since '73  - before the recent depth of indifference, hypocrisy and intractably ‘politically correct' consensus-politics turned me into a near hopeless cynic. Which is to say, are you familiar with what suffices for the sole question on your 13th grade entrance exam: Why is a college education of accumulated information like a computer? Because neither impresses anybody with its “wisdom” - that's why! (Likewise, how many lesser poets have received a Nobel or Pulitzer since Dylan referred to academics as largely “pointless and useless knowledge?”) So though cultivation of personal penchants for a memorably provocative and entertaining read are probably doomed to be damned from the outset, I credit such informality for a major share of an  adaption to an accelerated millennial learning curve that by historical standards should some day at least prove to be accepted as a self consistent and evident system that could never have been produced by factory faculties in proverbial paper mills. On the other hand, it might of course be preferable to eliminate any perception of self-hype or propensity for over-statement or error – in which case all one can honestly say is - Queue Sera, Sera - as whatever will be, will be, and will forever be All it can be. Which is perfect; just like the Totality of a Universe that spawned Its-Self - as it did, and still does, All-of-Us.

2: The Covert History of Education: Whatever the outcome of 241's endeavors may be, these rants obviously reveal a long-brewing, and growing, jaded disgust with any number of hypocrisies of  the educational establishment (if largely redeemed by the better or sincerer searchers and minds) - though even more so, the vainly acquiescent society, institutions and politicians that swallow or preach this self-fueled hyperbola, however senselessly incongruent, vicious, insane and transparently self-serving and dangerous. (Which pinnacled in the Cheney-Bush era in the financial collapse, a blessing of sorts as dire circumstance  wake enough up to agree with those who've been shouting out unheard how obvious and serious these errors were, and that we're all now in the same life-boat [so the first spoiled jerk that rocks it, gets a fond heave-ho to his new home with a grand ocean view). Or it just makes afew more are that money and craven power propagated this self-sustained lunacy like a pack of half-rabid, inbred jackals that feasts upon its own young - what Rasta's call the proverbial "shitstem.") But societies and established systems such as education institutions don't arise in a historical vacuum. Yet despite researching, as well as being privy to, a raft of inter-related issues of what one might respectfully call 'covert history,' I was blown away by the following interview sent by an old pal in 2008. Which was soon after I happened to read him that profoundly succinct opening quote from Thomas Paine, whose news leaflet Common Sense was instrumental in establishing our country's principles of freedom, and the Declaration of Independence and Constitution for which it stands. Which then serves as a perfect focus or theme for the brunt of our rants here. (We possibly might have an eventual blog or a public forum for feedback, comment and open debate, as well as a timely organized source of related news or topical updates). Anyway, given a propensity to biting the first hand that offers food, I particularly want to directly include the following material (& perhaps an insightfully funny 'UCB Training Manual,' if I can find it), if just as support for any insinuation the rants would be better addressed in a spirit of educated debate: rather than reflecting disgust with the lack of it. In either case, this 1994 interview with two-time New York teacher of the year John Gatto proves he did his homework well before becoming a writer and educator for all. Which means this excerpt from http://www.flatlandbooks.com/gatto.html should be a real eye-opener for you too, whatever your degree of training .

Origins and History of American Compulsory Schooling

An Interview with John Taylor Gatto  (From Flatland Magazine #11)  © 1994 by Jim Martin

After nearly 30 years in the public schools, John Taylor Gatto has quit his job as a schoolteacher to become one of the country's most articulate critics of American education. The author of Dumbing Us Down currently lives in New York City, where he is working on a book about the history of compulsory education called The Empty Child. I wanted to get John Gatto's opinions on President Clinton's edu-du-jour, which is called "Goals 2000". Rather than address the specifics of Goals 2000, or any other educational "reform" efforts aimed at public schools, Gatto soon had me reeling back almost two centuries to the origins of compulsory schools, when children were marched off at bayonet-point to attend the first universal state-run schools. Mind control is as pervasive and commonplace as those bright yellow school busses that come for our children at 8am each weekday morning.

Martin: What do you know about Goals 2000? Is this the so-called Outcome-Based Education?

Gatto: It's a confluence of powerful interests who don't necessarily like each other, who have been scrambling for sovereignty of the school institution. For, unbeknownst to the rest of us, it has become the center of the American economy. In most of the small towns and in medium size cities, the school industry is the big business. What appears to be the school budget in large cities is only a fraction of the school budget, because money is generated and flows into the school institution from every division of the American government but doesn't show up in the budget.

Martin: You mean there is a black budget for the school system?

Gatto: Let's think of it this way. It's a black budget but it doesn't necessarily have to be like the defense department who spends billions of dollars on schools to conceal the fact you're doing that from general scrutiny. The Department of Agriculture, the Department of Health and Human Services, all have a substantial stake in American schooling. The average informed person only sees the Tax Levy budget. So when New York City says that X amount of dollars are being spent per kid, they're giving you the minimal figure they possibly can.

Martin: As far as "Goals 2000", is what you are saying is that people are fighting over the pie now?

Gatto: The big business of the United States is to school the young so that all the rest of the aspects of the social engine won't be destabilized. It's the major business. What the average parent thinks of as the purpose of schooling hasn't been for many years, and probably hasn't been for this whole century, although there was more resistance in some places than in others. So: the development of the mind--which probably comes to the mind of the average person who thinks about schooling--is antagonistic to Goals 2000. It's antagonistic to any stated goals of schooling from any source at all in this century. This is certainly deliberate.

Martin: What they say they are going to do is to allow mixed grades, be "task oriented" and be "project based" rather than curriculum-oriented.

Gatto: The difficulty with that kind of an abstraction is that you've got to see the translation to really understand what's going on. One of the things this apparatus has done successfully decade after decade is to borrow the terminology of its opposition. It's fascinating. When I first heard about it I would have thought you'd be a lunatic to not judge the value of a schooling plan by its outcome. But then I saw some of the lists of outcomes that would be aimed for and I said, "but those are political outcomes." They are mixed in. Each time the opposition would win the field for the day, they would mix in more conventional outcomes. It's a semi-serious rhetorical statement, but what hides behind it is a pretty frightening concentration of forces that have at times been antagonistic.

Martin: What are they specifically? Do you mean, say, the Republicans?  Gatto: No.  Martin: Which forces?

Gatto: Okay. Somewhere between 1890 and 1905, a coalition was formed of large business spokesmen, foundation people, university people from select universities. I will name a few of these: Columbia, Johns Hopkins, University of Wisconsin and Michigan. To name a few of the foundations: Carnegie, Rockefeller, eventually Ford (but back then Ford didn't exist), Mellon, Peabody, Sage, and the Whitney group. The Morgan interests were very active in arranging this final centralization of schooling. There is a trace that spills out during the years 1890 to 1907, that anyone can check on. The early Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature for those years 1905 till the First World War contain an absolute gusher of articles attacking the intellectual nature of schooling. One day there aren't any. Then suddenly they just pour out year after year 'til the N.E.A. surrenders. They just "got it".

By 1913 the old line guard that saw the glory of American schooling in creating a larger and larger self sufficient intellectual class, that is, the N.E.A., was stripped entirely of its power. What took the place of that cadre was a group of psychological administrators. It's interesting that every single one of them had either studied directly under a German psychologist named Wilhelm Wundt at the University of Leipzig or like in John Dewey's case the chief protegé of someone who had studied with Wundt. Of course Dewey was the chief protégé of G. Stanley Hall, who brought Freud to America to distribute his message: that the family was at the heart of all human troubles. It was absolutely a promotional scheme that worked brilliantly and was abundantly underwritten by the Carnegie and the Rockefeller Foundation.

Martin: Who was Wilhelm Wundt?

Gatto: He was the official state psychologist of Prussia even though his laboratory was, I think, in Upper Saxony. By the time Wundt was active Germany had been Prussianized. Prussia had vanished, Prussia was Germany.

Let me think, let's not get into too many thickets. Okay, everybody in the world knows John Locke's tabula rasa. That doesn't come out of his book on education that everyone reads in graduate school, but from his essay "Concerning Human Understanding". Locke announces in 1690 that children are blank slates. He actually says wax tablets but it is mistranslated blank slates, which is even worse because you can write on them over and over again. It's a reference to the notebook the roman kids took to school. In the century that Locke announced that, this idea electrified the upper classes of Europe and the United States. This book was read by everybody who was anybody for a century; books didn't have as short a life or the same kind of competition they have today. Between him and Rousseau, who in about 1770 wrote Emile, during that 80 year period, this idea of children as absolutely blank and subject to anything that is written on them by their possessor really becomes the foundation for the emergence of the strong state, which always comes to a cropper if it can't control its population.

Suddenly philosophy is offering the state a way to secure its territory: get hold of the children. Rousseau's Emile is a demonstration of exactly how, quite against the kid's own volition, this can be done. While appearing to play funny games and sing songs and have a good time you can shape the person perfectly. Emile electrified the Prussian state, which is really a religious kingdom. Few people realize that there was one Crusade authorized by the Pope that wasn't to the Holy Land, it was to the Barbarian Lands of northern Europe to slaughter the Prussian primitives. It was a religious crusade.

Prussia is an interesting synthetic state founded on religious principle. Almost no body knows this: 48% of the soldiers in the American revolution on both sides were Prussian mercenaries, and not just on the British side. All this is a river of information about what's going on in northern Germany (which is becoming a more regulated state) and it's flowing into the German colonies in Pennsylvania. Ben Franklin is totally aware of it, and interested in borrowing the principles and apply them in the activities of the American state.

Prussia is the first state in human history to have a compulsory schooling law that works. There were a handful of them that existed prior to the Prussian law of 1819 but they don't work. Nobody is dumb enough to keep going to school after a few days. It collapses when the cops don't come after you. That's what happened to the famous New England compulsory school law. It was there as a piece of window dressing.

But not in Prussia. They really were marched to school at bayonet point. It was after Napoleon's defeat of Prussia at the battle of Jena at 1806. A famous Prussian philosopher named Fichte announced in an Address to the German People: that the party was over. Now the children would be taken. Now they were going to be told what to think and how long to think it. They were going to understand that the state is the primary parent and the blood family is secondary. Between 1806 and 1819, two brilliant brothers, the Humboldts, a guy named Stein, and a few others, divide the society into children who will become policy makers; children who will become assistants to policy makers (the engineers, architects, lawyers, and doctors); and the children who will be the vast, massed, the used.

Prussia sets up a three-tier school system, in which one half of one percent of the population is taught to think. They go to school called academie. Five and a half percent of the population go to Realschulen, where they partially learn to think, but not completely, because Prussia believed their defeat at the hands of Napoleon was caused by people thinking for themselves at times of stress on the battlefield. They were going to see to it that scientifically this couldn't happen. The lowest 94%, (that's some pyramid, right?) went to volkschulen, where they were to learn harmony, obedience, freedom from stressful thinking, how to follow orders. They worked out a system that would in fact guarantee such results. In the volkschulen, it was to divide whole ideas (which really simultaneously participate in math, science, social thinking, language, and art) into subjects which hardly had existed before, to divide the subjects further into units; to divide the time into small enough units of time. With enough variations in the course of a day, no one would know what was going on. What they would learn is that someone else told you what to think about, when to think about it, how long to think about it, when to stop thinking about it, when to think of something else, and someone else sets up the secrets.

Now that was surely one of the most brilliant discoveries in human history. Obviously, my sympathies are not with it. It's evil in the genuine sense of the word. Nevertheless, in the next thirty years a stream of American dignitaries, including Horace Mann, traveled to Prussia. Whoever they were, when they returned to the United States, they would say we must have this Prussian system.

Martin: So it is that old. You are saying this whole system goes back to 1819?

Gatto: It's construction phase is between 1807 and 1819. It's in place in 1819. An important part of the Prussian system is to break the link between reading and the young child. Because the young child who reads too well is independent of instruction and capable of finding out anything at all. In order to have an efficient policy-making class and a sub-class beneath it you've got to have ready access to information. But you can diffuse that if you can remove the power of most people to make anything out of the information.

So they figured out that by replacing the alphabet system of teaching reading, we teach sounds. (The Prussian system was a whole sentence system, rather than a whole word system. You memorize whole sentences.) If they could get the kids and keep them from reading well for the first six and seven years, then it didn't matter after that. They had broken the link between printed information. Guess who disseminates that very idea about reading in the United States? It is Horace Mann's second wife's sister, Elizabeth Peabody, who of course is a member of the family that produces the Peabody Foundation, that after the civil war imposes (by a system of very sophisticated leverages), the northern system of schooling on the south between 1865 and the battle is over when Mississippi surrenders in 1918. Of course the northern system is the Prussian system.

In 1850 two states, Massachusetts and New York, bring about the realization of the ancient dream that the state is father of the children. Massachusetts does something in tandem that is at least as radical a piece of legislation as any in the last 2000 years. The same legislature that gives us schooling, the same famous "know nothing" legislature, gives us the American adoption law.

There had not been an adoption law on this globe since the one that had been passed by ancient Rome which had said you can adopt an heir but you cannot conceal the heir's actual bloodline from them, and you could not adopt them until they were seventeen or older. All the Antonine kings were adopted, that is a century or longer starting from Marcus Aurelius (the most famous of them). There was no other adoption law. I'm absolutely certain that the new adoption law moved on line with the school law for the identical purpose: to begin the process of phasing out the blood family. As long as it exists it is the eventual destabilization of any long term state design. If your first loyalty goes to your blood family it can't go to the state. For the same reason, the Christian's sects had to be stamped out. Christianity can exist as something to pay ceremonial attention to on holidays and can exist as a philosophy of good behavior. But as long as you have an appeal that goes beyond the sovereign state, the state can't scientifically direct its population. Christianity has to go, the sects have to go, Mann says that over and over again.

Mann is not a principal, Mann has no interest at all in schooling. Mann is recruited by the Unitarian "Pope" [William Ellery Channing?]. Mann is in his parish. He is a young go-getter, with a lot of ambition, from a somewhat poor, rural, family. The Unitarians take over Harvard and the legislature. They are masters at the use of leverage. They are 75%-80% of the Boston School Committee that advocates the compulsion law. Mann struck a deal with this guy: that he would forward this cause, but when this battle was won he wanted a payoff in Washington. Indeed he was paid off that way. They recruited and won the loyalty of all the major business interests because the industrial situation was a labor shortage. In fact from the beginning of this country what we've always offered the world, except for this century, was the picture of citizens with independent livelihoods. In 1776 about 85% of the citizens had independent livelihoods (except for the slave population). In 1840 after the Jackson presidency it was still at 70%. So it was damned tough, even if you had the industrial machinery, to get anyone reliable to work for you for very long. The educational traditions in our country had been such that if somebody else has a good thing, you work for them. You watch what they do and the minute you know how they do it, you strike out on your own. That attitude had to be broken. A huge mass of cheap labor had to be brought in. This was unfortunate from the point of view of the people who were catholic, because that was the only body of free-floating labor that was available in Europe. Worst-off were the Irish, who had been systematically brutalized and exterminated. They were brought over because of an alleged potato famine, but during that time the Irish were exporting food to England. The Irish didn't come over, they were brought over. Their way was paid for them. They were met at the boats by guys who would load up a labor crew then go and auction off their wagons. They were also going to have to be brought in because of the empty lands in the west. The empty lands were almost all owned. They weren't public domain. They were valueless unless someone was on the land. You could actually afford to give the land away if you owned the railroads, the banks. Those people's labor would eventually be translated into your pocket.

If this compulsion schooling legislature is so popular with the citizenry, how come, in the next 25 years, did no other state follow suit? Now 25 years is a long time in human affairs, a quarter of a century. Of course, there is a tremendous reluctance. At the time of the passage of these laws, a lot of people are aware of what their purpose is. Between the passage of those laws in 1900 there was one institution of long standing that had to be eliminated because it actually worked so well in an educational sense, cost so little, had produced so fine a crop of thinkers and cooperators, that it had to be destroyed. And of course it was the one room school. The one room school had a mixture of six or seven ages simultaneously. Everybody got the same work but the teacher didn't teach. The teacher only taught a few kids, who taught a few kids, who taught a few kids. There was this tremendous powerful interdependence, where terrific confidence of talking to people older than you was developed in the course of the school day. There was concern for people younger than you. There was responsibility. It was almost a cost-free institution, and it worked splendidly, but it had to be eliminated because it doesn't subordinate the professional staff. There are no principals, or superintendents, or assistant superintendents.

It took 50 years to institute, and it took a man who was the leading Hegelian scholar in the United States, William Torre Ayres(?), from St. Louis, who was the Washington spokesman for education for 16 years. He brought the German system in and he set the purpose of the schools is to alienate children from their parents and religion. He didn't say this behind the scenes, he said it openly.

He began the process of creating a densely articulated professional staff. That process was picked up by the new teacher colleges that were exclusively underwritten by the Rockefeller family, and the Carnegies, the Whitney and Peabody families. The University of Chicago was underwritten by the Rockefellers. Stanford (the key western link) is an important railroading family. These people got a hold of the training mechanism that had only existed in Germany. In Germany they were called teacher seminaries, because it was well understood that state schooling was a religion. In the American colonial days it was well understood. The reason schools or education aren't mentioned in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution isn't because the nature of those institutions wasn't clearly understood by the people who debated. They were a very sophisticated body of men. They debated whether or not a civil religion was necessary in a country that didn't have a state religion as ours was to be. Proponents of a civil religion lost.

We had a perfectly literate country long before we had schooling, perfectly literate. More literate than today, I believe. I have a small collection of textbooks from the 1810's and 1820's, and of course all schools were voluntary then. I would say a fifth grade textbook was easily pitched on a college level. The reason books by the popular writers of the time, like Fenimore Cooper, are unreadable by the average college graduate today, isn't that they are badly written. It is that they make such dense allusion to history, philosophy, mathematics, science, and politics that no one can follow them without a pony.

Martin: In Dumbing Us Down, you speak of education as almost mind control and the conscious effort to keep people stupid.

Gatto: Let's take "the empty child" metaphor. You begin with Locke, the blank tablet, and go through Rousseau 80-100 years later, who demonstrates how to write on that blank tablet, and we are on the lip of the 19th century. So who institutionalizes the thinking that is codified over the last 100 years? The Prussians. Prussia becomes a very proprius state under the Prussian's forced-schooling scheme. The King of Prussia, from a dirt poor country, with no natural resources, had subordinated labor so precisely that Prussian industry was a world leader, and Prussian scholarship was the world leader. In 1814 the first American, Edward Everett, goes to Prussia to get a PhD. He eventually becomes the governor of the state of Massachusetts [and spoke on the same occasion when Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address]. By 1900 all the PhD's in the United States were trained in Prussia. The degree doesn't exist any other place. It's a German invention.

It's based on Francis Bacon's idea, in The New Atlantis [1627], of a world research university that scans the world for babies and talent and draws it into the university called Solomon's House, talent which is given to the state. The state becomes invincible. It's impossible to revolt against the state, because the state knows everything. Francis Bacon's book was widely read by German mystics. By the 1840's Prussia has a number of Solomon's Houses available that are utterly democratic, or about as much as is possible in an imperfect world. They are drawing talent and developing it for the purposes of state power and stability.

The PhD's come back to the United States and they become, to a man, the Presidents of all our Universities, the heads of all our research bureaus, and corporate research is done by German Ph.D.'s. It would still be going on except for the First World War. Obviously, there were dissident elements, and some of them had power, who didn't want this development but weren't strong enough to stop it.

By the middle of the nineteenth century, Prussia had openly acknowledged a new development in the sciences called "psycho-physics" which argued that people were in fact complex machines. Prussia institutionalizes this, and by the 1870's has created the new science (or pseudo-science, if you're John Gatto) of experimental psychology, the purpose of which is to discover what the nature of this machine is and how to program it. American elite sons travel and study at the feet of Wundt. They come back during the period 1880-1910 and become the heads of Psychological Departments at Harvard, University of Pennsylvania, Cornell, etc. and there aren't any exceptions to this. Now Wundt is extremely prolific, his published works run to about 67,000 pages. Wundt was an industry. He trains [James McKeen] Cattell, who trains 322 PhD's after the Wundtian system, in this next decade or so. These people set up the new discipline of educational psychology, which becomes a big bucks system. With the help of the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations the system gets control of psychological testing for all the soldiers of the First World War. Aside from the vast power they wielded, it is the sorting mechanism of our whole economy. If we just talk about the money that can be used to buy votes, to change people's minds, to bludgeon down opposition, we're talking about an enormous amount of money flowing out of psychological testing. All of the proponents of which are Wundtian-trained and now head psychological departments in the United States.

A very little known chapter: in Gary, Indiana (Andy Carnegie's company town), an isolated town, with a captive population, tied to the steel mills, a new schooling system called the Gary System was tried. This was between 1910 and the First Word War. In this system traditional academic endeavor was not a part of schooling at all. This system worked so well, according to its auditors, that it was brought to New York city in 1917. It was tried out in 12 schools, where Jewish immigrants were the dominant immigrant strain in the schools. The idea was that they would try it for a few months in these 12 schools then they would enlarge it to 100 schools eventually it would be all the New York schools by the end of the war. But the Jewish immigrants rioted for three weeks in the streets; they were aware of what was happening. The New York Times came down strongly against the plan, they said this scheme of the agents of the Rockefeller family was nonsense. There were dozens of editorials in the Times against it. Meanwhile there were 200 Jewish school children thrown in jail. Maybe if the Jewish community was reminded of this piece of history, they would think twice about certain things that are happening right now and use their political clout to effect change. This is the second or third attempt to ensure the system is total and comprehensive. The mayor of New York, who was going to run for President, was then thrown out of office in the next election, the whole political regime that had installed the Gary school system was thrown out of office. This information came from a book written 15 years ago by Diane Ravishow(?) called The Great School Wars.

Willard Wirt(?), the school superintendent, who had pioneered the system in Gary, was lionized by the New York Times and other important press lords, as one of the Solomon's of the 20th century, who came to New York to personally oversee the installation of his system in 1917. In 1930, Willard Wirt was committed to an insane asylum in Washington, DC where he died two years later, quietly. He was committed because he began to make public speeches saying that he had been part of a world-wide conspiracy to bring about a controlled state in the hands of certain people. And on the basis of making those statements he was committed and then died two years later in an insane asylum. I find it interested that Diane Ravishow, a very intelligent woman with time and research assistance on her hands, could dig up the whole story of the Gary plan and what happened in New York City and not that little coda about the creator of the Gary plan and his claim...

By 1910 the one room school has been destroyed. The factory school has been installed everywhere. Thanks to the actions of the great foundations, a national system of schooling was in place. The Carnegie credit guaranteed you'd have a high degree of uniformity but something else did too. There was a shadow organization in existence that has been well documented by mainstream historians. It was called the Educational Trust and it was run out of Stanford and Columbia's Teacher's College. It literally controlled all the Superintendencies in the United States and it placed key students for these jobs. The Superintendents had to guarantee, of course, to hire for all sorts of out-of-class positions, so the Educational Trust, in a very short time, became a very powerful national shadow organization controlling all the jobs in schooling. The source of this information is Managers of Virtue by David Tyack. It is an elite mainstream history, one that is not challenged by the school establishment, because Tyack is part of the school establishment. He has no wish to overthrow the system but just doing his job in documenting the existence of the "educational trust".

The Palmer Raids and the red scare take place right after the First World War. Hysteria is always a friend of this thing that is shaping the destiny of all the children. It finds allies in times of public panic. Its champions step forth and say "We'll do this to stop the public panic". The panic around the Palmer Raids was that finally, after 60 of 70 years of talking about it, a major nation had gone Marxist.

Remember that in 1848 the immigration had occurred at exactly the time those little revolutions were winking on and off all over Europe. The Communist Manifesto had been written. As the first Irish came in, the Boston paper said every third "Mickey" has a Manifesto in his back pocket. That fear was used to steamroller the natural skepticism of our own population to allow compulsion schooling in New York and Massachusetts. The idea had been brought up since Ben Franklin's time but had always been rejected. But now with these waves of Irish poor pouring off the boats, they're Catholic, they sound different, they look different, and there are revolutions taking place all over Europe that seemed clearly coordinated with each other. The school group is able to use that to ram compulsory school laws through the legislature.

Move 69 years later. We are now in 1917 and by 1922, Russia has fallen. It is clear that there is a government that meets the test that the fears of the last 70 years had posed. A government that is hostile to the idea of property. The reach of schools and their grip on the public budget becomes much stronger in these times of panic. If you step back from school as an isolated institution you can see it as the control institution for all the others. It's the ultimate screening mechanism, the ultimate creator of a receptive, docile public. It was exactly what the Prussians had produced in their little demonstration. "Follow our method and you will get this population." It was what we wanted and it was what we got.

There is resistance strata that hold out longer than others. It still takes some 70 years of steady work. Before control could be guaranteed an important surrender that had to be made was the individual communities' right to hire its own teachers. That required a very illicit but comprehensive subordination of state legislatures everywhere to the idea of a certification procedure controlled by the teacher colleges. The teacher colleges set the standards for the certification, they train the people and they weed out trouble makers.

Prominent men and women, agents of foundations worked on one legislature after another. Once it passed in New York, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, and Michigan, it became easier and easier. Of course they could demonstrate by then how useful it was to the legislature to have this power over schooling and not to allow it to be locally administrated. There were enormous contracts to be let. All the jobs that had never existed before in schooling history, non-teaching jobs, were now at the disposal of the legislature.

We psychologized the schools by the end of the First World War. Now that's in place. (I'm presenting this as though it was a sequence, actually these things are happening simultaneously but it's easier to see the necessity of having one solidified before another can really get very far). The next step came in 1890, when Andrew Carnegie wrote eleven essays, called The Gospel of Wealth. In it he said that capitalism--free enterprise-- was stone cold dead in the United States. It had been killed by its own success. That men like himself, Mr. Morgan, and Mr. Rockefeller now owned everything. They owned the government. Competition was impossible unless they allowed it. Which, human nature being what it is, was a problematical thing.

Carnegie said that this was a very dangerous situation, because eventually young people will become aware of this and form clandestine organizations to work against it. Ultimately they'll bring down this edifice. You've got to read all eleven essays, sometimes several times, and only then the majesty of the design emerges. Carnegie proposed that men of wealth re-establish a synthetic free enterprise system (since the real one was no longer possible) based on cradle-to-grave schooling. The people who advanced most successfully in the schooling that was available to everyone would be given licenses to lead profitable lives, they would be given jobs and promotions and that a large part of the economy had to be tied directly to schooling. So if you ever have two years of your life you want to spend investigating the American licensing industry, you need to look at what occurred in the two decades following Carnegie's original proposal (1890-1910). You're talking about the realization of Carnegie's design. These licenses, which now extend to bus drivers and all sorts of unlikely people who never had to be licensed are then tied to forms of schooling. So they've reserved that part of the work market. Through the cooperation of the business community a large part of the rest of the jobs are reserved. Through the cooperation of the government, many of the government position have very precise schooling requirements. You can in fact control all of the economy by tying jobs to schooling, and therefore you have a motivation for people to learn what you want them to learn. This agenda, laid down by Carnegie, was to tie the entire economy to schooling and hence to place the minds of all the children of a few social engineers.

But it's moving forward fairly slowly until 1959. One of the most graphic ways you can trace its progress is that between 1932 and 1960, the number of school boards drops from 140,000 to about 30,000 in 1960, and today it's about 15,000. These consolidations are necessary to pry the hands of local groups with different philosophies loose from the tiller. New York State has carried it to a pass where you can vote down a school bond issue, but 97% is still automatically approved in order the keep the business of the schools running.

The consolidations serve to get rid of oversight and hold it in as few hands as possible. They don't need a conspiracy, they just have to remember what they heard in administrative courses they took to become an assistant principal. They would have heard that in a hundred different mellow ways, but essentially it would lead to the same thing.

In 1959 two things happened. One is the Sputnik, which caused a panic and hysteria like the Palmer Raids earlier. Russia operates very traditional, academic schools. We have an H-bomb, but we have to build a 6,000 ton concrete structure to set it off. There's some evidence, not definitive, but enough to worry people in the highest levels of the Council on Foreign Relations, that Russia has dropped an aerial weapon near the end of the fifties. Some huge clot of shit hits the fan. By 1960 it becomes clear that the school people had not delivered what they promised when they were handed over the children of the nation fifty years earlier. They were allowed to psychologize part of them, but they were supposed to deliver part of them as scientists and technicians. They apparently have failed in that latter part of their very important mission. I think what we've been living through during the last 30 years is some kind of struggle at the very top between different agencies to get a hold of this thing again. Back in the time of Sputnik, we get the dike opened and a blank check offered to anyone who can come up with a way to make the thing work. From 1950 -1990 we get, in inflation-adjusted dollars, a quadruple increase in funds available to schooling. The aspect of school as one of the central parts of the economy, independent of its schooling function, is now true in spades. Rivers of money are flowing back and forth, always being augmented never getting being cut back.

There is an increase in the centralization, with fifteen thousand school boards rather than forty thousand previously. One in every six thousand Americans serving on school boards that are almost stripped of their power. Whereas in the beginning of the century we have one in every sixty-five Americans serving on school boards that still have control of the purse. It hasn't yet been transferred to the state legislature. An explosive intrusion of foundation agents are wandering around the halls of state legislatures, key businesses, key teacher colleges. They are writing a tight script to seal the loop holes that have prevented Andrew Carnegie's dream from working smoothly. You get these amazing constructions of organized psychologizing that link together all the school years, all the testing functions, the hiring functions, you get these things being imposed without public knowledge. That's the dead give-away that something isn't kosher.

What we have now is a wide open scene where the concealment is thinner than it's ever been before. The naked power is closer to the surface. My instincts are that it is the identical groups that surfaced around 1905. One of the great evidences of that is a semi-secret group that keeps its deliberations utterly secret, called the Businessmen's Round Table, made up of the 200 largest corporations, announced a few years ago that it was going to take a major seat at the National School policy table, and that it was backing national testing, national examinations. Even--among its radical members--there was a scheme to tie hiring and promotions to school performance.

In 1889 the United States Commissioner of Education assured a prominent railroad man, Collis P. Huntington, when he protested that the schools seemed to be "over-educating" (meaning they were going to be producing too many engineers, too many people who knew the score, and therefore who would be tough political opponents). He was guaranteed, by William Torriares(?), the United States Commissioner of Education, that schools had been scientifically designed not to over-educate. I don't think anyone hearing that understood what the mechanism that Torriares was referring to was, but it was the German mechanism devised between 1806 and 1819.

Once a kid is addicted to fragmented studies and stutter steps and confusion, it is the rare person who can ever get control of their own mind and their own will again. They may get angry and refuse to do something but they don't know how to write policy for themselves, they can't write the script of their own lives. So if they can't get it from their jobs, they get it from television, or from some other kind of mind control.                       - April, 1994

One might also take a gander at the video http://youtube.com/watch?v=uexMYBkfCic, as well as Wikipedia's page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_education_system. Anyone interested in pursuing this issue can go to Mr. Gatto's website http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/ and buy a book, or perhaps download a free chapter.

Yet Gatto is hardly alone in an assessment of our population as being progressively 'dumbed down' ever further since 1994, as evidenced by the following snippet from David Barsamian's interview with the great historical essayist Gore Vidal that  is excerpted from the November 2008 issue of In These Times: DB: Does America strike you as being a nation of sheep? GV: "Of course it is." DB: Why is that? "No one is educated.  There is no educational system for the lower classes, if we can call them that.... And why? If you owned this place, would you want anybody to know any history or why anything happens the way it does? No, you can't teach them that. Ask any working school-teacher. They make difficulties to this day over teaching evolution. It's a nation going to commit suicide. We're too stupid to survive in an evolutionary world." DB: And what role does media contribute in that dumbing down of Americans. GV: "It's central. The U.S. media has always been corrupt, and it's more corrupt now than at any time I've ever seen."

Vidal more recently updated and re-iterated these themes in a Sept.-09 conversation with Tim Teeman for  http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article6854221.ece. So TT begins by asking: How’s Obama doing? GV responds: “Dreadfully. I was hopeful. He was the most intelligent person we’ve had in that position for a long time. But he’s inexperienced. He has a total inability to understand military matters. We’ve failed in every other aspect of our effort of conquering the Middle East or whatever you want to call it. The ‘War on Terror’ was made up. The whole thing was PR, just like ‘weapons of mass destruction’.” TT then notes that GV's voice strengthens: "One thing I have hated all my life are LIARS [he says with bristling anger] and I live in a nation of them. It was not always the case. I don’t demand honor - that can be lies too. I don’t say there was a golden age, but there was an age of general intelligence. We had a watchdog, the media.”

Although I agree with Gore's assessment of an increasingly lax media in shaping an ever-dumber American culture, the central proclivity of humans to vainly LIE for their own self-interests as lax servants of their "given-beliefs" in the dominant religious myths and/or a dominating militarist state is neither exclusively American nor a particularly modern phenomenon. Indeed, in the central Christian Gnostic scripture of the long-buried Nag Hammadi Library, the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus addressed his apostle's concerns in regard to what proper customs and 'commandments' they should generally follow (as well as when spreading his 'Living Words' in unfamiliar or hostile territories) he responded with this succinct gem of wisely reasoned wisdom: "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of heaven." Likewise, I strongly urge the reader to read and share the following story from a 11th century Egyptian Sufi Gnostic master which is not only a most poignant insight into the origins of self-constraining religious and cultural beliefs, but at once is a highly accessible lesson for adults and children alike in regard to Teaching those who'd prefer to lazily just "imagine what is to be learned, not what they must first learn." This elucidating simple tale is called  THE STORY OF FIRE.

Anyway, as prelude to the next section, Teeman goes on to report that Vidal: retains some optimism about Obama “because he doesn’t lie.” But Vidal later backs up his criticism of Obama thusly: "Obama would have been better off focusing on educating the American people. His problem is being over- educated. He doesn’t realize how dim-witted and ignorant his audience is. Benjamin Franklin said that the system would fail because of the corruption of the people and that happened under Bush. Obama believes the Republican Party is a party when in fact it’s a mindset, like Hitler Youth, based on hatred — religious hatred, racial hatred. When you foreigners hear the word ‘conservative’ you think of kindly old men hunting foxes. They’re not, they’re fascists.”

3: Furthering a Covert History of German and Fascist Contributions to our Polytrix (co-meaning of the word 'politics' for any poor literally-minded dunk-offs is 'poly' as in many; and 'trix' as in tricks ain't just for bunnies or kids) and Organization of Governmental, Financial, Corporate, Industrial, Scientific, Educational, Police and Militarist Systems as Counter-Intelligent Institutions and Investments:  

3a: Bush Family's Connection to Nazis and Banking: The proto-fascist Prussian influence on educational standards covertly extends into a historical web of interrelated institutional interests that dominated the 20th, unto the 21st century world stage. For example, a rather notable, though peculiar facet, of this saga concerns president G. 'W.' Bush, who has become widely evident rewarded those who designed and never questioned his role as a so-called 'leader' (Sieg Heil!), in particular the bureaucratic incompetence of the neo-con cabal which  Peter's and Parkinson's Organizational Principles apparently made incapable of contriving a correct prediction. Yet it's not the political grandstanding, calculated lies or staggering ineptitude that we're concerned with at the moment, but rather an odd oversight in regard to the absence of reporting of some well-established facts concerning W's granddad, or George Senior's father, Prescott, who somehow became a U.S. senator after WWII. I say "somehow" in a similar sense that though I was aware of Prescott's seat as a senator, I was unaware of the fact that before that he was the director, together with the politically well-connected Harriman brothers, of New York's Union Banking Corp. Which had all of its assets seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act - basically because the bank's main business was financing Hitler's national-socialist, or rather, corporate-military, state!

Details can be accessed in chapter II of George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography by Webster G. Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin at http://www.tarpley.net/bush2.htm. Likewise, one might check a review of The Nazi Hydra in America: The Suppressed History of a Century by Glen Yeadon and John Hawkins at http://books.google.com/books?id=vh7sx2xtjGEC&pg=PA516&lpg=PA516&dq=nazi+%22vice+president+of+bell+?22&source=web&ots=DNWWNHiohs&sig=svRJBAlesrXBa8QJnw9QODoGo9k&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book result&resnum=2&ct=result, where related links by the authors point to a suppression by search engines like Google orchestrated under the Bush/Cheney administration's collusion with corporate media to protect it from public scrutiny. Which would seem to account for this peculiar under-reported background material concerning the president proper. Yet one would think that more than a few journalists might have researched this story, if just for curiosity's sake, or instrumental background material. But as far as I can discern, beyond these authors the main journalist to pursue this nasty historical link to the contemporary political landscape is John Buchanan, who wrote a series of articles for the New Hampshire Gazette at
http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=detail&catalogno=NN_Bush_Nazi_2; http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=detail&catalogno=NN_Bush_Nazi%20Link; http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20031019/frontpage/127827.shtml; http://www.canada.com/news/world/story.asp?id=B4991F07-2A7B-49BC-A470-D14A355D2C9A)

3b: The Fascist-Zionist Connection: Yet the Bush family's and other's (like Henry Ford, whose tirade The International Jew famously served as the archetype for Hitler's Mein Kampf) ties to the Nazi's seem pale in comparison to the covert alliance of Zionist and Fascist aims and ambitions (which, as most of that 2001 neo-con cabal's allegiances demonstrates, extends this theme unto present US policy). I first read of this association in some notes by Lenni Brenner in Berkeley's Daily Cal  in the mid-80's (one notably responded to apologists who defended the fact that Israel supplied most of South Africa's armaments which propped up its system of Apartied) shortly after he published his first two books chronicling Zionist history and the Jewish movement for statehood that began in the 19th century. But this connection is probably  best summarized by the subtitle of Brenner's 2002 text  51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis (which is reviewed at http://www.amazon.com/51-Documents-Zionist-Collaboration-Nazis/dp/1569802351; http://www.maroc.nl/forums/showthread.php?p=2970124; http://www.counterpunch.org/brenner01292005.html; as well as at http://baltimore.indymedia.org/newswire/display/5200/index.php). However, one naturally might wonder what self-interests could be served by both parties; the answer being a common interest in sending German Jews to Palestine, which was of course then controlled by Britain. Although  Nazis also psyched the Arab populace into supporting fascism, the more important point follows from Brenner's analysis of Zionism's historical roots (see http://www.ihr.org/conference/beirutconf/010408brenner.html; http://www.countercurrents.org/tajik200608.html: http://www.marxists.de/middleast/brenner/ch02.html). Which boils down to a calculated doctrine predating Hitler promoting Jewish control over the land around Jerusalem by forced displacement of the Palestinians. (Which, incidentally, is rather mild compared to what followed the death of Moses after that '40-year trek from Egypt.')⁸ Such long-standing motivations naturally make one ask how taking Arab land away under U.N. mandate can be fully justified by the Jewish holocaust in Europe. (Brenner's scholarship is collaborated by three recent books. The first, Israeli Exceptionalism: The Destabilizing Logic of Zionism by M. Shahid Alam, further documents how pre-1948 Zionist nationalism was always aimed at driving Palestinians from their home, and explicates the formation of myths to obfuscate this. The second  book, Shlomo Sand's The Invention of the Jewish People details how most Jews are either light-skinned whites of eastern European descent, or very dark skinned causations from Ethiopia, so hardly can be called a [fully] Semitic people. It follows that the term "anti-Semitism" is an absurd misnomer, as compared to Arabs, who obviously are [more fully] true Semites. Likewise, the term :"Jewish democratic state" is a contradiction of terms  since the term democracy implies equal rights, where in Israel only Jews are full citizens. Lastly, the title of Alan Hart's three volume set, Zionism; The Real Enemy of the Jewish People, speaks for itself.). All of which is to say; who says de Nile don't run thru Israel too!

3c: Nazi Connections to Western Intelligence and Drug Smuggling: So of course the U.S. and its ally's complicity with powerful ex-Nazis after WWII weren't limited to rocket scientist Werner von Braun; but rather were particularly crucial to both the gathering and implementation of  covert information that is best kept away from public scrutiny. First and foremost of which was Reinhard Gehlen, Hitler's chief of white Russian intelligence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gehlenorganization#Gehlen Org), whose organization set up and preformed the same function for the CIA and German BND, also helping set up MI-6, Interpol and Egyptian counterintelligence during the Cold War. Gehlen bragged that he had more power after WWII running this 'Fourth Reich' than Hitler would have ever have had if his Third one with the German Axis had won the war! Yet Gehlen's, and its Italian counterpart MSI, of what is generically called the Gladio Spy Network (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation Gladio), were again hardly the only ex-Nazis who served similar western interests.

For example, one facet of this story concerns the covert history behind the well-known movie The French Connection. After WWII, a battle raged in Mediterranean ports between socialist-labor and anti-union interests. A deal was forged with Western intelligence that guaranteed union-free docks; as enforced by the Mafia in exchange to freely process shipments of opium (from the Golden Triangle of Francophile Asia) into heroin through Marseille. But less known is the route by which this smack reached the U.S., which at the time was targeted by our spook-masters to suppress and pacify the poor in ghettos - a handy way to keep the populace there from greater evils such as what became the black power movement. (Don't foolishly think such shenanigans "can't happened here" (as Zappa put it). For our ally General Ky of S. Vietnam proved otherwise when he controlled the China-white trade, smuggled [largely by paid cohorts] on board U.S. warships, before retiring to Orange County, CA.) Other interests were served as well, as these shipments were funneled through Klaus Barbi's South American network when the Nazi war criminal was protected by Paraguay, before he went on to establish concentration camps and a cocaine business in Pinochet's Chile. The capper of this 'Connection' is that the CIA was giving guns to Barbi's network, who then would give or cheaply sell them to a group of leftist gorillas called the Tupamaros opposed to the fascist states around Uraguay. Why? To gain their trust, infiltrate and so destroy these indigenous commies. I believe this episode was before Argentina began throwing student dissidents out of planes; but it's all par for the course as most S.A. military officers were trained by U.S. spy-masters at the School of the Americas.

3d: The German Formula for Synthetic Petrol from Coal: Which brings us to the brunt of this dialogue, conveniently framed  by another Nazi connection that was also made into a movie - The Formula (1980) starring George C. Scott and Marlon Brando who, believing it was an important story, took the role for political reasons; under scale for the legendary star and recluse. (Yet a million or so was fair, as the screenplay was certainly not up to par with Gene Hackman's unforgettable role in the Frog Connection.) The story concerns the fact that Germany had to fight WWII with no domestic or readily available source of petroleum, though it, like the US, has abundant coal reserves. Which might work for hauling free labor to camps on trains, though jeeps, tanks, planes and submarines work somewhat better with liquid fuels like gasoline. So the good (i.e. non-Jewish) German scientists accelerated a program that processed coal into liquid fuel; which reportedly worked so well it allowed Rommel to feed his desert foxes bread with butter made from coal. Which after the war, as chronicled in the movie, allowed Nazi officials to trade this technology for their skins and monetary reward; without spending a dime of taxpayer money. For our military simply allowed U.S. refiners to buy 'The Formula' lock, stock and barrel, who implicitly assumed they wouldn't use it until the day that most of the earth's oil reserves had been tapped dry.

Which mistakenly was viewed as more immediately impending than was warranted during the late 1970's, when president Carter set up a multi-billion dollar system of taxpayer financed credits that went to energy companies willing to pursue refining the 'Fisher-Tropsch technology' that German chemists demonstrated in the '20's. Never mind that much of this money went to big oil companies who already owned more refined formulas and have been accordingly investing in coal mining (as well as agriculture) for years now. Yet an off-hand search reveal's most syn-fuel producers today are privately financed by odd consortiums like Marriot and AIG, or subsidiaries of regional coal mining interests, which all continue to collect government subsidies claiming they otherwise would go broke: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950CE7DA1F3AF936A35754C0A9659C8B63. In any case, the drastic surge in oil and natural gas prices after 2002 renewed interest in resurrecting synthetic fuels, as acerbated by domestic concerns to wean 'US' off the Mideast's oily tit. Companies such as Rentech, as well as long-established Sasol of South Africa, who's advising some Chinese firms, accordingly have a strong incentive to "revive the Fisher-Tropsch technology" converting coal to heating oil and diesel fuel (http://zfacts.com/p/420.html). However, such companies realize that beyond a large initial investment required to build enough plants that could produce synthetic diesel to meet domestic consumption, it likely could drive down the demand and price of oil and gasoline, making these plants useless (as money engines). Furthermore, like coal per se, liquefaction produces more greenhouse gases and soot than oil or natural gas, thus impeding 'brown' synfuel development in favor of more 'green' friendly alternatives. Still, since "the gasoline market is more than twice as large, if companies like Rentech sated the demand for diesel, the process could be adapted to make gasoline" (ibid.), adding that Rentech is "preparing to use an updated version" of the technology "used during WWII by Germany." Which seems rather disingenuous given that this refers to gasoline, not just diesel, used during WWII, and again has been rumored to belong to U.S. oil interests ever since. But whatever details aren't publically available, the message here is clear. For in order to insure that one wins big hands in a poker game, it's advisable that the deck be stacked by the house itself, well in advance of the payoff, while attempting to assure that any wildcards (like the environmental movement) which might slip into the deck in the meantime are not powerful enough to outweigh the house and cohort's overwhelming advantage to deal themselves a straight flush if so pressed.

4: A Global Systems Analysis of the Duel Crises of a Sustainable, Clean Energy Source, and Monetary Policy for a World Historically Governed by Vested National-Corporate Interests

4a1: A Greener Government-Supported Venture Capitalism? The flurry of post-SUV media interest regarding energy issues offers further handy insights in regard to this cryptic assessment. Case in point is T. Boone Pickens, who made billions pumping U.S. oil; but is presently (in mid 2008) a media darling of many environmentalists for promoting massive investments in greener windmill (or solar) power. Which is certainly laudably sensible, though Gatto's interview demonstrates that billionaire philanthropists more often have ulterior motives directed to insure their ever-lasting power, prestige or class distinction, especially in regards to the personal bottom $-line. For example, Pickens bought gobs of stock in Yahoo right before its rumored buyout by Microsoft, which would have netted him ~$1 profit for every $2 'invested;' ~$500-million being an enormous return for a stock held ~2 weeks. So when Yahoo's founders declined Gate's rather generous, yet hostile, bid, Pickens cried "foul play" after selling-off at a loss of less than a nickel per buck; claiming to champion all investors' financial interests. Yet one still has to admire any guy who puts his money where his mouth is - as Pickens had purchased a huge swath of ranch-land and was at least about to order GE's stock of commercial turbines for his vaunted Texas wind-farm. Which should double the esteem if one's firm convictions out-weigh the relatively minor risks (land being re-sellable;  but a hassle even at cost)  from a rather substantial initial outlay, irrespective of any eventual $-rewards. While this investment qualifies as at least a small gamble given the rapidly fluctuating price of energy lately, in the long run it simply just reflects foresight about what appears to be inevitable. But selection and coordination of the more promising green alternatives involves a lengthy series of procedures: from initial start-up costs, thru to their testing and later development, unto a greater organization for fairly evaluating these measures before making the final choices, which then must be connected to an existing power grid with an eye toward funding and optimally improving the whole infrastructure. Yet converse reasoning governing more 'immediate concerns' by this billionaire seem to account for the recent news that he now re-favors aggressively drilling for every remaining puddle of oil in or near the U.S. Yet the largest US reserve is the Bakken formation in S. Dakota/Wyoming, which is hardly coastal despite the media blather. In any case, with so many new oil booms, it's surely a Total Boon over-ripe for his personal Pickens!

But the more pointed issue here concerns Pick's media blitz promoting massive national investment in greener alternative sources of energy. Which apparently means TBP expects a fair share of public assistance to 'help develop' his wind-farm during, say, a 10-year transitional phase to a profitable venture. Of course, if such aid allows one to honestly serve himself with due reward during just a relatively short period, it judiciously serves the larger purpose of the public good - though ideally would be even better served if a small percentage of ultimate profit was annually returned to lighten the national deficit - like after the bail-out of Chrysler under Iococca's (real!) leadership. So the nagging question remains as to what serves the tax-payers interest to subsidize a raft of competing start-up energy schemes that likely, as Pickens showed us with his Yahoo whine and renewed support of drilling (after the hypocrite helped 'swift-boat' a fellow who likely would've already instituted his grand wind-bag scheme!), will be more indebted to their and any share-holders bottom line than consumers. (Granted; I believe wind-mills here in California have already paid for themselves and everyone loves them nearly as much as the Dutch. {By contrast, Enron bled CA dry within a month following a record heat wave in Washington that blew out the whole west coast electric grid.}) Which is to say what form of venture capitalism is dependent on government subsidies? Mussolini answered this quandary when he invented the term "fascism'" (as surely as phrase 'robber-barons' characterized late 19th century capitalism before progressives got fed up and made congress slap some regulatory constraints on that era's greedy excesses) - which is just a euphemism for "national-corporate socialism."

4a2: Oxymoronic Phrasing: InterNational-Socialist Capitalism or Nationally-Free Corporate Trade? Which is to say that public-subsidized corporate-capitalism is hardly a gamble, nor in the interests of any working stiff whose job can be replaced by 'free-trade of cheaper labor' elsewhere. Indeed, "free-trade" has gotta be at least one of the most oxymoronic phrases in history. (One might also take a peak at my choices for the Top 25 or 26 Funny, Oxymoronic Questions.) For if it's so 'free,' why not just give it away? Apparently, 25 years of simply repeating this screwy phrase has been enough to get most folks to accept it as some sort of sacrosanct premise; despite surely never meaning 'freely given.' For though it poses less moronic meaning in the sense of being 'freely-bartered,' it's beyond a mere truism as a coy reflection about 'accepted brain-washing.' For the term was invented by multinational corporate economists in league with foxy-moronic pundits called "neo-liberal conservatives'' (which would obviously be formally high up my foresaid list,  if it weren't for the fact that this screw phrase pretty near summarizes all the rants of Questions #s 5-1!) - who more meaningfully preach "lower multinational costs = higher corporate profits." Which again translates to Joe Consumer as "less-costly international labor = goodbye to me making money doing a productive U.S. job." But it surely represents far less a gamble for invested interests of capital - particularly the financial sector (of brokers, economists, bankers and insurance) per se - which produces nothing of permanent value besides self-serving advice, heaps of credit, usury fees and gobs of paper money; though it's still redeemable for a tangible fixed resource like gold (unlike when FDR confiscated everyone's private gold stash and gave paper cash back!).

4b: Two Keys to U.S. Financial Stability: Abolishing the Privatized Federal Reserve and Severing Control of Corporate Charter by Banking Interests via a Reregulated and Accountable Banking System -   Ezekiel 22:12: “Thou hast taken usury and increase, and thou hast greedily gained of thy neighbors by extortion, and hast forgotten me, saith the Lord God."   Thomas Jefferson: "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."  

4b1: Banking History and the Fed: Anyway, the rest of us are stuck over a barrel between a rock and a hard place with no pants on - just so folks, or their grandkids, might someday pay off international bankers to 'balance' a growing federal deficit - i.e. precisely as Jefferson predicted. Which all has grandly been acerbated by the Treasury Dept. and Federal Reserve's 2008 $800 billion bailout of the U.S. financial sector (that was promptly doubled by president Obama's team of insider economists); if only ostensibly its raft of defaulted home-mortgages. Of course this really means sucking public funds to support these irresponsible financiers, who solicited a rash of credit-deficient subprime borrowers (being largely landlord want-to-bees or workers whose only wish was to just once get ahead of that snotty Jones clan next door) - so together precipitated the present crises. But financiers were the ones reaping rewards for setting up this scam, as evidenced by the fact that by 2007 40% of Wall Street profits went to the materially unproductive 'Money Industry.' Who collectively should pay-back John Q. Public for this bilking, not collect public funds to pay off more cock-sucking lobbyists and political deal-makers for that precious deregulation that led to this mess. As chronicled by the site http://www.wallstreetwatch.org/, pay-offs to politicians and lobbyists in the decade between 1998-2008 total about $5.1 billion, while now lobbyists for the growing pile of  'stimulus' loot were one of the few boom industries in '09! So of course, the fat cats, financiers and their political apologists who overturned regulations wisely enacted following the stock market crash of 1929 were assured that there was a fat chance they would be personally held accountable. For they're the same economists, bankers or politicians who shuffle between Government, Financial Firms, Wall and K Street like inbred "kissin' cuzins" (guys and gals, along with their butt-fuckin' brothers, uncles, and fathers!).

Which began when Clinton chose Goldman Sachs CEO Robert Rubin to be his Treasury Secretary after he'd pumped $300 million to reverse a 60 year old ban on mergers between banks, stockbrokers and insurance companies. Which was more fully orchestrated by that Texan cracker, Phil Gramm, whose 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act overturned the 1933 Glass-Steagall Anti-Trust Act that separated commercial banks from brokerage houses that deal in speculative trading and mergers. Which prompted Rubin to quit to head Citibank, who had just acquired Travelers Group insurance. So after Clinton and Congress acerbated Reagan's allowance of banks to take money-losing assets off their balance sheets by finalizing their merger as investment and insurance services, cries went out to open up an unregulated multi (now ~300-600) trillion dollar speculative global market trading in 'financial derivatives' - including those mortgage related 'credit default swaps' in the 2008-9 news. Which technically began in 1971 when Nixon abolished the 2000+ year-old gold standard and replaced it with the paper-money or 'dollar standard.' Some "standard," as anyone, group or country can now hoard or speculate in national currencies as well as fixed resources like precious metals as if they were variables like traditional consumable commodities such as grain, pig bellies or oil. But this swing wasn't fully formalized until Gramm slipped one of his huge unread riders called the Commodity Futures Modernization Act into an omnibus Bush appropriations bill, which then fully deregulated derivatives trading. Whereupon Gramm quit the Senate in 2003 to lobby for UBS [who'd acquired Paine-Webber thanks to his '99 Act] on behalf of an act designed to pre-empt stronger state laws against anti-predatory lending, at once lobbying the Fed, who largely ignored the underlying and growing problem with the subprime mortgage/housing market. Then finally, Gramm slithers up to within one step of the White House as John McCain's chief financial advisor; before his legacy of collapsing monetary debris crushed both their illusions - thank karma! In any case, with low interest rates, and the Bush administration bent on lessoning taxes and no government regulation of any corporate entity, the proletariat were easily appeased by the prospect of 'investing' in a booming real estate market for maybe a quick sell-out to the next bigger chump - until this inverted pyramid game collapsed, leaving only these CEOs or incompetent economists with any of the loot that was left. So who else could 'W' (coming from a 'prestigious' linage of an ex-international Nazi banker and two previous inept presidencies [his "it's the economy, stupid" dad, who married Barb 'Pierce']) reassign to 'regulate,' or rather, bail-out, the so-called 'free-market?' Who else but his Treasury secretary Henry Paulson, Rubin's predecessor at Goldman Sachs, which had hedged the mortgage market for all it was worth - leaving his Bush appointed partner Fed chief Bernacke holding an empty money bag to take the fall. Which in turn persuades the new Treasurer Geithner, who Obama naturally brought in from the New York Federal Reserve Bank, to fill that bag back up with more guaranteed dough to insure the 'financial confidence' of Wall Street.

But then this national-socialist give-away to (or bailout of the 'toxic assets' of) megabanks conveniently serves the duel/cross purpose of characterizing publicly subsidized corporate consolidation as a 'necessary stabilizing action,'  while at once somehow reinforcing the screwy idea that any 'public-government' which 'restrains' the ever-mythic 'free market' is a far more costly and disastrous exercise of 'centralized socialist planning' - although banking obviously demands coordinated reregulation to prevent yet another economic crash. Postscript: so banks are now paying back some of the bailout money [sans interest to any 'public bondsman' or "commoner," of course] for the privilege of retaining large bonuses for their executives who orchestrate power-hungry buyouts of weaker or smaller institutions - while really meaningful governmental regulation of such practices, particularly the unproductive, speculative betting on that tremendous global derivatives market, has predictably been nearly scrapped altogether thanks to the coordinated efforts of a mutually vested coalition of all the financiers, bosses, workers, welfare queans, con artists, lobbyists, pundits and politicians who promote the singular interests of what I call the Business-As-Usual (or BAU) Party. Which just proves there is little 'political difference' between 'opposite sides' of a table heaped with easy loot when it comes to stabilizing its legs by the shear largesse of their huge fat-cat asses. Still, though it runs contrary to common misperceptions of Democrats as being 'tax and spenders,' a summary of deficits at http://zfacts.com/p/461.html  and http://zfacts.com/p/318.html clearly shows all increases occurred during 'don't tax, borrow; so spend more later' Republican administrations since Ike's. Likewise, one needn't browse further than a few other zfacts.com pages to confirm both its full hypocrisy and price - where it's clear enough that seven years of tax cuts during our quagmire of a two-front war cost about 3-4 times the initial dollar count of this financial bailout. Which means borrowed money that otherwise, say, might had instead just paid-off Saddam (without phony 'WMD' disintelligence) to step down while his re-organized army established a relatively stable democracy with a still prosperous infrastructure, while our troops sensibly targeted the Al-Qaeda/Taliban alliance in Afghanistan. Which further might still have saved enough money to buy cheap barrels to supply, if not literally store, at least a year's worth of a true 'national oil reserve' for any future domestic emergency use. Or any savings could have better financed testing and preparing for greener alternative energy sources - most crucially by directly updating of our decaying infrastructure of public works (be it reserves, highways, levees, energy grids or manufacturing).

Speaking of which, it's quite pertinent that for years in the 19th century a government financed public works project was awarded to a firm that was then given a formal Charter - which yet was automatically revoked once the project was completed after being assessed by a government authority. In other words, a Government Charter went to the firm that assured the best work for the lowest bid, insuring that public government would benefit and get what were paying for. The firms that did the best work of course went on to be re-chartered for multiple projects and grew into large reputable, highly profitable companies which then tended to dominate their particular niche. So eventually each established firm was vested a permanent Corporate Charter, as mandated when shares in it's stock were publically traded on Wall Street. Thus a nepotism arose between government representatives, corporate contractors, trading houses, banks and folks who had cash to invest - establishing a schism between 'financial incentive' and the 'public good.' Which was somewhat reversed by the reforms and oversight regulations put in place during FDR's term after the 1929 crash was brought on by over extended expectations of easy wealth during the 'Roaring 20s.' Does this sound familiar kids?

In any case, focusing on fallacies of recent war-mongering, deficit spending or systemic decay is doomed to failure by the hypocritical political expediency and forces that fosters not understanding the underlying history and pitfalls of international banking and our privately-held Federal Reserve system, damning any minority who might, does or tries. Which is all explained, with details for a comparable working resolution, in Paul Grignon's 45-minute video Money as Debt http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-9050474362583451279&hl=en&fs=true. For basically, the Federal Reserve monopoly on printing money is backed by... well, nothing... except credit. Which means banks charge the U.S. public to loan the U.S. government our own money - just like anyone else. (This irony has been recently  exploited by any number of witty commentators in mid-2010 - who point out the absurdity of the initial interest-free taxpayer bail-out to an ever more consolidated consortium of [fewer] U.S. banks, which subsequently furthermore can now borrow money from the Fed at .5% interest, and then loan it back to the government [in order to ostensively help 'pay off 'our national debt] at a rate of ~3% interest!) Or if one has more time, you can go to http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936 and watch a free 3.5 hour documentary of a DVD set The Money Masters outlining a more detailed secret history of money-lending, international banking and U.S. finances leading up to and beyond the stealthy establishment of the Federal Reserve Act in the evening of 12/24/1913. Which supplanted the constitutional authority of the U.S. Congress to print money ever since that crappy Christmas eve. Yet this story is as coherently-chronicled, sans video, in Joan Veon's shorter 3000-word essay at http://www.womensgroup.org/THE-FEDERAL-RESERVE-AND-AMERICAS-CONTINUING-PROBLEM-WITH-INFLATION.html. Likewise, anyone seeking an account of the two men and their works who contributed a lion's share to economic theory and practices which forewarned of the common flaws that gave rise to both Wall Street collapses of 1929, as well as 2008, is directed to a synopsis called Understanding the Crises at http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/understanding-the-crisis.html.

4b2: Warfare, Watergate and Ed Muskie's 1974 Congressional Report on Governmental Gutting by  Corporate Controlled Banking Interests: One of my favorite bar questions concerns the rather familiar topic of the Watergate Break-In ordered by Richard Nixon that led to his resignation. The question is this: What were the 'Watergate burglars' looking for? One could go on to also ask if they found it - that answer being no, they didn't find what they thought was in DNC chairman Larry O'Brian's office in that complex at all. Which just makes the real question more meaningful; though you'd never know it judging by the typical response of even most of us old farts who followed this psychodrama unto Woodward and Bernstein's revelations. So, let's re-ask: do you know or remember what the Watergate 'plumbing crew' expected to find? The answer is they suspected that O'Brian's safe had some 'dirt' on who originally was considered the Democratic front-runner for the 72-nomination, Edmund Muskie of Maine. But then the quandary arises as to what advantages dirty old Tricky Dick envisioned when he employed political smarts this time around. For it ironically would have been far easier if he'd done nothing except stick his trick dick up his own dirty ass and just let the natural gung-ho patriotism of the American people decide his 2nd election. Though Dick's unit of dirty plumbers turned up nothing significant on Muskie, the point of the break-in was merely to find a trump card to hold over Muskie if he posed a real threat to the nomination of George McGovern, that "pinko" anti-war candidate who Nixon knew the public would never identify with in a month of Sundays. Meanwhile, liberals and student protesters lamely deluded themselves that McGovern somehow stood a better chance at being elected and stopping the Vietnam war just because he ran on 'their platform' as a principled antiwar candidate, who accepted the conclusion of the 'Pentagon Papers' that the 'Gulf of Tonkin incident' was a complete ruse meant to justify our greater involvement in that fiasco.

Which is precisely analogous to how the acronym 'WMD' entered  our vocabulary just to accuse Saddam of possessing them as a pretext to invade Iraq. So, are you aware of a so-called "joke" the Pentagon generals told (their ex-commander and later [un-"swift-boat"-able] democratic candidate) Wesley Clark (who apparently saved this 'humorous news' for the Jon Steward show) the day after 9-11? For the punch-line basically revealed these generals knew the brunt of our response was going to be directed at Iraq, not bin Laden. [Their reasoning surely didn't come from Nostradamus's two references to attacks on the "New {York}City," where the one warning of a birdlike assault from the sky says rivers will run red, though they'll never catch the guy responsible for all the bloodshed. Yet this surely doesn't mean you don't go after the gang who attacks you, which certainly weren't Iraqi thugs either.] Thank God these generals weren't as easily deluded as the media, public and congress in regard to predictions based on some sort of solid evidence, which sure as hell weren't fabrications about nuclear facilities made by some Iraqi cab driver grinding Saddam's beheading ax. But there's a bigger lesson that extends beyond the fact that so-called "intelligence agencies" are not in the business of gathering  'top secret information' meant for public dissemination in the first place. For while identities of your sources, technological secrets, sensitive logistical data and such can't be divulged (unless it counters an 'executive privilege' to out a certain CIA analyst married to an ambassador to a uranium producing country), the classification of much of what is disseminated as information purposely is in actuality disinformation. Which is most egregiously employed when the info in question involves political decisions that at once must mask the real facts and motivations for making them. Though manufactured disinformation is hardly limited to the formal executive political sphere, variations of this ruse has been employed as a prod to stir public support for the majority of our wars.

For instance, though I believe it to be the one justifiable instance where some sort of drastic catalyst was necessary to overcome the overwhelming isolationist sentiments after the fascist Axis was already assaulting our European allies - I personally happen to be privy to likely the most detailed transcription, both from our, and the Japanese military perspective, of the Pearl Harbor attack - the said catalyst that FDR and the military knew about beforehand. But just as the Japs didn't know we'd broken the intercepted code forewarning their attack, we weren't aware of three secret weapons that helped sink all those (useless) battleships that lie next to the Arizona memorial in the harbor. Yet few researchers seem to recognize the more evident implication that the few (indispensible) aircraft carriers there then must have purposely been out in the Pacific on maneuvers. 

In any case, while surely Nixon would have threatened Woodward and Bernstein's source 'Deep Throat' if had it been revealed, these journalists faced no repercussions like the two fellows charged with espionage for leaking the Pentagon Papers. So I'll share another aside that illustrates the lengths authorities resorted to when interrogating Daniel Ellsberg's 'partner in crime,' Tony Russo. For I met Tony one night shortly after I first moved to Berkeley, chatting with him while smoking a number of joints with a friend from La Jolla who was travelling thru town in his 'mota' fueled hippy van (no Woody, we're talking Mexican slang, not some hemp powered vehicle, you clown). So Tony began sharing  his horror stories with us, notably the most harrowing experience of having his fingernails splintered and/or removed by the San Francisco Police (undoubtedly under orders from, so as to not be directly tortured by, federal agents) after verbal interrogation failed to answer their specific concerns. Thus, Tony went on to share all this paranoia about being followed everywhere he went. Which was in the following sense confirmed the next day after he and my friend left my pad to hide Tony's car nearer my girlfriend's then-empty apartment (which soon became my residence after she moved up-stairs, in the same building where the Pentagon Papers were originally hidden!) six blocks away. Where they spent the rest of the night smoking up that entire ounce of pot, though no degree of stone alone can account for why it took them over two hours to find Russo's car in the morning - as he's clearly the most paranoid individual, as well as the bravest and ballsy literal 'war hero,' I ever met.

Still, lies about the Gulf of Tonkin incident alone would never have led to Nixon's resignation without the journalistic exposes on the Watergate break-in. And though it now seems somewhat unclear (to me at least, so I welcome any comments the might refresh my recollections) how McGovern managed to wrest the nomination amidst all this controversy, the one fellow none of this was lost on was Ed Muskie. Which brings back us to the subject at hand, though I was unaware of Muskie's response until my old friend JR filled me in on this and some related stories that clarify certain issues we've independently been personally involved with since the same era. Anyway, as the focus of the Watergate shenanigans, as well as a loyal Democrat, Muskie had to be extremely pissed off when McGovern lost the 72-election by the biggest landslide in history, confirming what a gross mistake the democrats made by not choosing Ed instead.  Although Muskie's response to this is an indisputable matter of public record, I surely was not the only one who was unaware of Muskie's resultant 1974 Congressional Report, since it seems to have been purposely suppressed due to its too-astutely revealing conclusions. In any case, this indispensible 418 page document is presently only available on microfiche, of which we here make web-available thanks to John's gracious 18 page typewritten pdf transcription of its Introduction called the DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE OWNERSHIP.pdf. It's conclusions were originally outlined in the Congressional Record prior to the full 1974 Senate Hearings by Sen. Metcalf, which is further included here as a preface to John's updated comments based around what Wikipedia covers on some basics of Corporate Governance, as well as it's article on the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act - all viewable by clicking On Muskie's Senate Document.

The brunt of Muskie's report details the tactics by which powerful moneyed interests and their economic shills in banks had infiltrated and controlled nearly every aspect of corporate structure by the early 70s. Of particular interest (in light of Gore Vidal's earlier comments) is the extent of how central the media was with respect to suppressing exposure of their financial clout, as well as its importance to maintaining orderly control of public and governmental interests. In any case, the central mechanism employed by the oligarchs of this hierarchy was a calculated effort to gain control of the Corporate Charters of the better financially established companies by appointing a few individuals from banking or brokerage interests favored by large institutional investors (such as pension/mutual/hedge funds, investor groups, banks and insurance companies) to each Board of Directors. Few shareholders will argue with those responsible for maximizing their holdings in their collective business, especially if given (at least some of) the financial breaks institutional investors get when the company has to borrow some cash to expand its grip. Smaller or competing companies on the other hand are relatively left on their own to finance their efforts, which means venture capitalists need larger amounts of capital funding obtained by either by selling new shares or borrowing from some bank (or larger, competing company), at generally a higher interest rate. Thus, given this advantage, institutional investors and stronger, established firms end up pressuring buy-outs of profitable competitors as they consolidate into fewer mega-institutions, at once down-sizing the domestic labor pool and quality for cheaper pastures elsewhere. So furthermore, while most businesses anywhere make tangible products which are sold to and consumed by real people, the higher profits go to fat-cat oligarchs, institutional investors and a banking system that produces nothing other than printed money, that itself has been backed by no worthy objective standard since Nixon's era.

4b3: Summary of Present Financial Crises as of 12-09 with respect to a Reformed, Reregulated and Accountable Capitalist Financial System - The easiest remedy for the accumulated ills outlined by the Muskie report would be to reopen (closer to what was originally mandated) corporate charter to public view available on the internet,  spelling out the major controlling interests and their implementation with respect to the 'nominee list'  of "front men and institutions" representing appointees to the board of directors and their various affiliations (see JR's concluding comments in On Muskie's Doc.). Which immediately addresses a simple reform with respect to accountability with little need for political sparring over economic ideology or adjustments.

However, given the bonuses awarded to CEOs and banking executives after the huge Bush-Obama bailout of large banks, insurance and brokerage houses allowed them to profitably buy out failed competitors at bargain-basement prices, a reform of corporate charter alone seems a bit naive, however crucial to a principled and necessary grounding. For rather than letting the more inept financial institutions be pared down, collapse or be bought up under reregulated free market principles, the Bush administration actively initiated an unrestrained bailout of selected financial institutions deemed as being 'too big to fail.' Which therefore accelerated the trend of transferring the remaining assets of less favorable institutions into the hands of now larger bank, brokerage or insurance firms preferred by the ultra-rich and institutional investors - in accord with the precocious 35 year old Muskie study.  And while Obama and Geithner may have initially meant to contain rewarding the executives and companies that had been bolstered to profit at public expense, again any borrowed cash is being returned to the treasury in order to maintain such privileges as huge executive bonuses for the CEO and and choice executives for a now larger conglomerate (like BOA's acquisition of Merrill-Lynch). Yet the point of the bailout ostensively was to stimulate a drastically failing economy that had become increasingly dependent upon the health of the financial giants - so just because both are presently doing OK and apparently recovering is certainly no reason for optimism if nothing has changed. For one shouldn't forget it was financial deregulation that not only led to the raft of sub-prime mortgages that precipitated the self-wrought collapse of US banks, but drove the ever more threatening global surge of speculative trading in the humongous derivatives or financial insurance market. Not to mention that unrestrained capitalist principles seems to dictate that only individuals and smaller businesses abide by strict free-market rules of hard work and competition. Which just ends up bolstering the proletarian working order while transferring their assets to coffers of larger businesses and financiers who have a firm capital base to promote this free market ruse, while the beneficiaries have no compunction to apply this myth to their National Socialist roots where elite are sheltered from self-wrought failure by complicit federal support or market management financed by huge tax-payer bailouts.

This sham has been so effective, yet is so obvious, that it makes you question whether it confirms or negates the Peter Principle that one rises in any hierarchy to just the level of their own incompetence - or whether they keep rising and are rewarded because of  it, which naturally increases their vain blindness and  greedy incompetence. But of course one must return to earth eventually unless they are capable of an accelerated jump beyond the escape velocity of its gravitational field. Which means these problems are recognized by, or have confirmed, long-held suspicions of any number of prominent economists and analysts spanning the wings of the political spectrum (it's no mere coincidence that Libertarian Ron Paul's best [or seemingly only real] congressional friend is the 'radically' anti-BAUist Progressive Dennis Kucinich). Most notably, Nobel laureate and former World Bank chief economist Joseph Stiglitz believes that the present recovery probably represents just the first leg of a 'W' shaped recovery, or rather, double-dip recession. As chronicled by a 9-09 article at http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aYdgQkXu9eBg, Stiglitz states that banking problems are now bigger that the pre-Lehman Brothers collapse precisely because “In the U.S. and many other countries, the too-big-to-fail banks have become even bigger,”  and so concludes that “The problems are worse than they were in 2007 before the crisis.” Stiglitz therefore joins Bank of Israel head Stanley Fisher, along with former Federal Reserve Chairman, and Obama administration advisor, Paul Volcker in concluding that the worst is yet to come unless the megabanks are downsized and reregulated in a manner that addresses the real underlying problems. So the article concludes that "while Obama wants to name some banks as 'systemically important' and subject them to stricter oversight, his plan wouldn’t force them to shrink or simplify their structure."

A more recent analysis from http://neithercorp.us/npress/?p=199 offers some interesting international developments with regard to the fragility of the worlds banking system in the face the bankruptcy of a small country like Dubai, as well as discussing the lengths various countries like China and India (both are backing their currencies by buying gold supplied by the IMF, backfiring on their expectations) are taking with respect to a potential collapse of the dollar.  In short, the article is titled Recent World Events Indicate Impending Market Chaos. Wouldn't you say it's about time folks evaluate their petty partisanship and rationally address the real problems we face?  We're leading up to discussing a remarkable existing technology that could supply all the clean energy we need, renew the environment, and reestablish a truly vibrant economy within maybe five years. Yet I don't believe the greedy oligarchs, craven power-brokers and existing market self-interests will allow it - exploiting the existing sloth, ignorance, vanity and clueless hypocrisy of the proletariat via time-tested repression, suppression and depression being so much easier and narcissistically lucrative.

4c: Unified Systems Analysis and Rational Synthetic Solutions; Or, the Polytrix of Problems; Power, Political Self-Interest and Manipulation/Hypocrisy, Patchwork Pseudo-Solutions, Trivial Pursuits, and Repression-Suppression Inflation-Deflation Depression; so Deeper Problems - Your Choice (or is it?):

4c1: Do You Notice Hypocrisy, especially your own? So the question arises whether reconciling all these problems and interests has reached a point of no return? Yet while the depth of this rational degeneration in addressing these rather glaring  problems continues to surprise the most jaded observers like myself, I've figured for well over 20 years that the military/industrial complex, energy companies, media barons and financial institutions would soon enough have put everyone but they over that inescapable barrel for good - either bleeding the masses dry or with sworn life-long allegiance to this bloodsucking system so the scared sheeplings can live in comfort and warm subservience. For example, in order to bolster American car manufacturers who'd already lost the innovational fuel standard battle to Japan, soccer moms were persuaded to buy huge Canyoneros by a corporate sponsored government that classified gas-guzzling SUVs as light trucks, with less than half of the energy-inefficient 4-wheel drive models ever being used even once. Which serves the flaggots right for their limited memories in voting for Bush after buying these road-menaces and plastering them with flags and ribbons to display solidarity with our troops, or, rather, how strong it make them feel to be patriotic tools of this polytrix. But with most days of cheap gasoline behind them, the bluster of war pales less easily when one somehow can't connect a spiraling deficit with a need for a perceived strong leader who backs the latest environmental or energy diversion, like, say, off-shore drilling. (Yet do you know there's more oil in the Bakken formation in Dakotas and Wyoming than rest of US combined?)

Yet more importantly, let's just ask if you notice and  remember hypocrisy. Like, say, when a politician like John McCain is against ocean drilling, then suddenly promotes it after Hess, the company that has most to gain pumping Gulf oil, orchestrates a deal with oil lobbyists to pump money into his campaign. Or worse, when a former so-called POW 'hero' changes his beliefs to break Nuremburg accords, Army field manual rules, International Law, and guts our Constitution to support torturing suspected POWs and stronger executive power for an outgoing presidency, envisioning himself as his successor? So can anyone please tell me which war McCain was referring to that's worth fighting indefinitely till "we win." Was/is/will it be in/with Nam, Iraq, Iran, al-Qaida, Russia; and is this crusade over territory, communism, dictators, religion, WMDs, oil-gas-energy, drug or economic trade? Hell, it pares down to asking who is this "we" anyway? Is it as in "you and I" and "we the people." Or is it as in the "US Government with ever bigger military fueled by an insatiable fat-cat Corporate Industrial Complex"  - like in "me and me arm-candy Cindy" - who'd probably both suck my deadly dick if it would have been the only thing that'd net them control of the Republican Party. Speaking of parties, like Nader, I think our 2-party system is largely a deluded, illusionary ruse and more of a 1-Party System of splintered self-interests or coalitions that I call the BAUists, where BAU stands for Business-As-Usual, which I referred to earlier. (So party on John, party on Wayne, party on Garth, as I've heard some party's on. But if this party sounds like so much fun, then answer me this: if John, Wayne and Garth are the respective first, middle and surname of three suspects, which one is invariably the murderer? Answer: You're so dumb you'd surely take Wayne to this party, since it'd precede your funeral, and if given a second chance again at your funeral party - if just to say "I blew the head of his cock till he got off as he blew my head off!") So this ruse perpetuates trivialized political diversions that keeps folks arguing about the depth of the environmental or energy crises who would rarely admit to their complicity in fermenting it even if they were. Such as the fact that any 'off-shore US oil' is just as likely to end up in China as here - a pure scam media diversion aimed amid the '08 political conventions that would lead to no net difference in US pricing (unlike Carter's energy initiative which initially sold domestic reserves to stabilize prices before increasing it as a wind-fall tax kicked in).

After all, the lighter SUV standards accelerated when Al Gore was vice president, with all his shares of Occidental Oil held in a blind trust. Whereupon after losing the presidency in 2000, he resumed his flighty interest in environmental issues culminating with all those accolades about global warming - as if that's the sole focus for a real environmentalist. And even if it was the only issue, it would just boil down to a CO2 build-up, which gives critics some validation for skepticism since we could only need to maybe plant more trees, though photo-plankton in oceans re-supplies far more oxygen. But that's all a pipe dream when moneyed interests are cutting down or burning off rain forests, while plankton die-off was acerbated by a growing hole in upper polar ozone layer caused largely by other gases, like in old deodorant cans. So CO2 is only part of the problem as besides this there exists a subtly related issue of 'global dimming' due to the soot, smoke and clouds. A recent Nova commentary followed the research of a fellow who calculated that the lack of jet trails just in the few days following 9-11 led to an astounding 2 degree increase in warming across the US since white jet clouds counter-balance CO2 build-up by cooling the atmosphere as solar energy is reflected back into space. But how could one think delicate issues like this can be comprehended by a trivialized  media which condones democratic 'debate' between folks who never anticipated the disastrous global results of SUVs and seem as clueless about their last lazy, self-serving, electoral choices; or worse yet, as Jay Leno demonstrates every week, when most can't even tell you "who is buried in Grants Tomb." In either case, the ruse of a 2-party system seems to reduce to a variation of this old joke: two old ladies are driving by a field where they see a fag screwing another queer. One biddy says to the other "oh, they must be democrats." So the other asks "how do you know that" - "cause," she responds, "if they were republicans they'd be fucking everybody!"

4c2: My Synthetic History- But in the 1970's, I was not nearly as jaded. For though no less aware of such issues than now, I held more hope for a cogent reconciliation or conscious synthesis, which I had reason to believe was possible, if not exactly probable. For I was fortunate to have been working with a number of the best mentors one could imagine. Which began for the story at hand shortly after college, when I impressed population biologist Mike Gilpin by my knowledge of Wynne-Edwards' seminal work on group selection. For despite never  having taken any course in fruit fly genetics by Mike, he asked me to co-edit Carr-Saunder's 1922 classic The Human Population Problem, who Wynne-Edwards credits in a postscript as predating his ideas. (Oxford wouldn't relinquish copyrights for a paperback, so its off to a university library if anyone wishes to read the best and oldest resource on the population issue.). In any case, this background came in handy after moving to Berkeley and being introduced to Arthur Young, inventor of the helicopter stabilization mechanism for Bell labs. (Weird footnote: Arthur was Veblen's sole grad student for 3-years, I knew him well, yet never told him I was motivated [by another genius, which likely was one reason I never mentioned an intent] to write a book on projective geometry.) Anyway, Arthur's creative genius is really revealed in what he called the theory of process (check out http://www.arthuryoung.com/index.html). Which is basically a novel, revolutionary synthetic system integrating dimensional/physical analysis, learning theory and consciousness within a broadened view of evolution (as further anthropologically is reflected in the majority of world myths) that spans atomic, molecular, cellular morphology in plants, animal development and human history awkwardly lurching toward a higher level of fuller freedom. It follows that evolutionary process in Arthur's view was first and foremost a theory of symmetry constraints, its degrees of freedom defining the respective level of process. For example, plant cells have one degree of radial freedom that grows towards light (or other energy source), as compared to a dead molecular aggregate; while animals develop a bilateral symmetry as they search the earth's surface for food and sustenance.

What objectively impressed me about Arthur's approach was the potentiality to firmly address an issue that had greatly bugged me since reading Hegel's damned dialectics, which sprung both the Marxist and Fascist ideations from which our world is still reeling. Basically, as I still see it, the real underlying problem was the schism that had long before developed between the two schools of thought which arose from Socrates ashes in Aristotle's natural materialism and Plato's absolutist ideations, as the later is reflected in, say, St. Augustine's pie-in-the-sky fairytales for the Roman Church. Still, it's not that either school doesn't have a firm foundation based on respective fundamental principles, but rather the fact that a true Socratic dialectic or argument begins with a theses, followed by an antithesis with a clear vision that neither is reconcilable without a final synthesis between the more dogmatic principles of thesis/antithesis alone, or then basically, never-ending arguments. And Arthur's vision, if anything, is clearly synthetic and certainly paled anything taught at UCB down the street from his Center for the Study of Consciousness. (Another oddity was  I seemed to be the only psychologist in this circle, and surely the only one who'd 'worked on myself' with equally masterful Jungian and Reichian depth practitioners.) In this respect, it should at least be said as a timely example that Arthur's theory of learning integrates and transcends both operant (behaviorist or Skinnerian) and respondent (autonomic or Pavlovian) conditioning, in a similar manner by which his theory of process integrates or transcends nature and/or nurture per se. In any case, the synthesis of such normally divergent views contrasts with the relatively uncreative or linear view of a so-called 'higher education' divorced from deeper meaning or (even definitional, ontological or epistemological) absolutes - as sacrificed on the alter of an eternal fragmented learning by rote argument stripped clean of meaning for the mere sake of some job, social reward (such as a managerial or tenured position), or just another pet patchwork of an excuse for an argument.

(Note: in this respect, I'm exceedingly lucky to have gone to Revelle college at UCSD with its unique blend of a 'Renaissance education.' And though a balanced curriculum of hard math, the major sciences, humanities [literature, philosophy, history, etc.], a language and the arts remains intact, a number of my ex-professors already lamented the change in their new class of student ducklings who suddenly expected to all be rich medical doctors (quack, quack); soon followed by the first nerd herd of computer programmers. [My profs. didn't know any more about punching Fortran (or other precursor to 'Basic') into cards for a mainframe than I did. But at least I used the thing for testing brain-waves, biofeedback and martial arts {led by my best high school sensi and later colleague, Les, who was also on the physics faculty}]. As my Jungian analyst put it - such learning is similar to the rote teaching of Zen as the Art of Imitating the Ineffable - for a little study revealed the enlightenment of the original master for every school of Zen had him running down the street screaming heuristic babble like "Eureka" - before it was instead adapted into a highly controlled methodology better fit for student sheep). Which simply implies there's no gain of greater consciousness by merely imitating what you 'think' that may be - ala Descartes idiotic dictum "I think, therefore I am" - as if a baby isn't closer to 'pure being' before its psyche or ego is literally (in behavioral parlance) shaped to 'think properly' in a Cartesian manner! Likewise, when Jesus said "the road to heaven is being like a child," what he meant was the road to fuller consciousness or reasoning is first and foremost direct, open [to], experience - not a vain skepticism of some easier, less gut-wrenching, solely mental or physical training. In fact, gnosis must 'trick one's mind' out of its "self-perceived identity" by what the dolphin psychologist, depth practitioner and fellow Gurdjieffian Gnostic, John Lily, called "meta-reprogramming your bio-computer" - as opposed to a 'seemingly chosen' programming representing a relatively entrenched system of habits and socially enforced beliefs - while 'naturally' contingent upon your genetic predispositions or abilities, is imparted by [hopefully, better] 'nurturers' like one's parents or latter-day teachers; who more often 'shelter to prepare' one for 'hard experience' in this era of the ideal conservative/socialist Nanny-State. [Most children normally have acquiesced to such "don't dear, that's bad" 'programming for approval' around the 1st grade, which developmentally started in potty training and relentless numbing of any curious behavior by parental dictums of conformity prefaced by "no" and "don't".] It follows this pervasive conditioning process entails a number of subtle issues that Prussian-style schooling alone can't fully account for, yet certainly re-enforces - as even Gallo's scholarship can't surpass Reich's classic The Mass Psychology of Fascism, a manuscript that no doubt precipitated his eerily inevitable death in some US prison.

In any case, Arthur's insights covers all facets of these above issues and integrates them within an accessible academic and scientific framework or language. Which is not to say, however, that everybody felt that his theory of process was a complete dialectical synthesis of natural scientific philosophy. Indeed a few of us (notably, JR at least agreed with me) anticipated the brunt of this issue. Luckily, we were soon joined by a more prestigious Austrian fellow named Eric Jantsch, who took to hanging with me for apparent reasons when he visited his Berkeley pad. Indeed, Eric had an impressive resume; foremost as a founder of the Club of Rome, which did the first global analysis of the play-offs between the major independent variables of resources, energy and population (explaining our common interest in regard to Carr-Saunders and Wynne-Edwards original work, amongst other things) with future projections effecting society, analogous to what is now an annual State of the World study. But just as importantly, he wrote the first texts outlining what's probably best called a 'unified systems theory,' which emphasized an evolutionary analysis based on self-organizing principles amidst non-equilibrium (thermodynamic) environments (ala chaos theory), as articulated by his close colleague llya Prigogine. It follows that Eric naturally supported my interest mapping Arthur's levels of process in terms of corresponding boundary constraints, in addition those of symmetry alone - just as Darwinian selection molded Mendelian genetics in defining basic bio-evolutionary principle. Yet such a critique of  Arthur's particular views is only useful in regard to a broader unified scheme of evolutionary development as natural philosophy. Likewise, the background here serves to help illustrate my personal history and authority with respect to the greater issue before us - which is how, in the name of God, might mankind reconcile all of the above problems and contradictory ends in a manner that can re-impart a modicum of hope for a fully sensible collective solution or synthetic outcome? 

4d: A Single (and Already Proven) Working Solution for Nearly All Impending Problems for a  Clean, Cheap and Sustainable Energy Source Powering a Vibrant New World Economy - Robert Bussard's Inertial Electrostatic Fusion: Around the last time Eric visited town, I became aware of a global analysis by cosmologist Fred Hoyle, which I, being no fan of steady-state physics, have considered ever since to be his more important legacy. Hoyle introduced the interesting nuance of dividing energy into two categories: clumping unrenewable and renewable sources together (with little regard for safety), except for case of a clean and virtually unlimited source of cheap energy in thermonuclear fusion - quite natural, given his far less-contested astronomical contributions to solar dynamics (yet also fueled a lasting debate about 'anthropic principles.') Anyway, Hoyle used a large computer to model a global system that basically inputted the effect that cheap fusion power would have on the other independent fixed variable of resources, as projected through the future century from the world of science and economics circa 1980. In a nut-shell, what he discovered was a unparalleled period of world economic growth would culminate around 2050 in a literal global socio-economic catastrophe as all the other resources (metals, water, plastics, etc.) necessary for sustainable growth would be over-exploited. So, with modern essentials exhausted &/or hoarded by an immensely rich capitalist class ideology; it and/or they would surely kill off the rest of humanity, or at least reduce society to rubble, save rich enclaves. Which, if anything, would likely lead an over-populated planet to a rapidly under-populated dead zone in an inevitable catastrophe within a few years. Yet this mega-chaotic scenario seems to be remarkably similar, if not in degree and rapidity perhaps, to the present day neo-con wet dream of a perpetual oil war and corporate-state fusion that benefits a privileged few at the expense of many. Which perhaps suggests wealthy interests may have not exploited easy luxuries enough, using the potential power of fusion to first fuel a long, but still temporary, period of economic growth that could leave them literally owning everything of value left on, and including, the dead remains of hated old mother-earth. (Likewise, I've long-considered the 1974 movie Zardoz to be a most likely futuristic sci. fi. scenario; though 2001 is my favorite film of any genre [yet would have never dreamt I'd be given the millennial Monolith!] However, Mum and Allah-U confirm enough's been said about my predictions, predilections or personal myth since the real point here has less to do with me and much more to do with we.)

Yet whether or not Hoyle's projections of eventual resource over-exploitation are still valid in these trying times, we certainly don't need another 30+ years of fruitless 'research' taming fusion by toroidal magnetic confinement such as LBL's original 'tomamak,' or lesser claims such as 'cold fusion' championed by a smaller raft of self-professed scientific mavericks. However, judging by the big moneyed interests of various long established and ongoing government funded projects at universities and national laboratories, this huge magnetic boondoggle seems to be what the scientific consensus prefers - as if self-serving scientists, bureaucrats and hypocritical politicians, let alone private-sector industrialists, are all fully qualified authorities on global systems analysis to begin with. Indeed, one can confirm this suspicion by glancing at a copy of a free download of a Dec. 2009 pdf report compiled by the editors of Physics Today for PhysicsWorld.com at the Institute Of Physics we'll call PWFusion.pdf. In his last interview (see below) before his untimely death from cancer in Oct. 2007, former assistant director of the Atomic Energy Commission Robert Bussard summarizes the difficulties of overcoming this penchant for ignoring breakthrough discoveries by a scientific establishment obsessed with endlessly pursuing dead end big money projects such as building refined tomamaks: “You have to understand. The Department of Energy is running down the road of magnetic Maxwellian local equilibrium machines with huge budgets to keep their national laboratories alive. They not only have no interest other than that; they have an active antipathy to anything that might be small, quick, cheap and compete with that approach. It is important as Larry Lidsky of MIT said to keep the big budgets alive; to keep funding these places at 2M a day even as we speak.”

4d2:  Inertial Electrostatic Fusion: Now that the dangers inherent in such job obsessed human displays have been laid out on this newly illuminated table along with their heavy baggage, let's get down to the specifics of this allegorical solution that we have been alluding to. Which is to say we are talking about an already proven working method of containing real, hot fusion. So I urge all to cut through the mustard and view the following Nov. 2006 lecture by Dr. Bussard demonstrating his breakthrough polyhedral table-top design for inertial electrostatic confinement fusion at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1996321846673788606. Any scientist or engineer might be especially interested in downloading the pdf transcription of Dr. Bussard's classic lecture on Inertial Electrostatic Fusion.pdf. Mark Duncan's introductory Abstract neatly summarizes the most pertinent issues thusly: "This is not your father's fusion reactor! Forget everything you know about conventional thinking on nuclear fusion: high-temperature plasmas, steam turbines, neutron radiation and even nuclear waste are a thing of the past. Goodbye thermonuclear fusion; hello inertial electrostatic confinement fusion (IEC), an old idea that's been made new. While the international community debates the fate of the politically-turmoiled $12 billion ITER (an experimental thermonuclear reactor), simple IEC reactors are being built as high-school science fair projects. Dr. Robert Bussard, former Asst. Director of the Atomic Energy Commission and founder of Energy Matter Conversion Corporation (EMC2), has spent 17 years perfecting IEC, a fusion process that converts hydrogen and boron directly into electricity producing helium as the only waste product. Most of this work was funded by the Department of Defense, the details of which have been under seal... until now. Dr. Bussard will discuss his recent results and details of this potentially world-altering technology, whose conception dates back as far as 1924, and even includes a reactor design by Philo T. Farnsworth (inventor of the scanning television). Can a 100 MW fusion reactor be built for less than Google's annual electricity bill? Come see what's possible when you think outside the thermonuclear box and ignore the herd."

Eleven months later Dr. Bussard died, where a few days later Tim Ventura published the following audio version of the Doc's final interview that Ventura had conducted for American Antigravity, which can be heard  by clicking http://www.nanos.org.uk/Robert-Bussard-Interview.mp3. But it's far easier to just read Robert Bussard's Last Interview.pdf as once again transcribed (and published for askmar.com in 12-2007) by Mark Duncan, and which contains that previous quote.

In any case, although funds were assured before RB's demise (winning the 2006 technology of the year award from the Academy of Scientists surely helped give him well-earned prestige), further research and government funding at EMC2 has been coordinated by Dr. Richard Nebel.. The following is a chronological 2009-9 summary of  Updates on Polywell Fusion - which is another name for IEC ("polywell" being a fusion of 'polygon' and 'potential well'). The design of each device itself is whimsically referred to as a "Wiffle-Ball," where each generation of a WB device ended with Bussard's successful WB-6 design, that then proceeded unto the WB-7 and WB-8 stages, as described in Updates. We'll add further updates as time progresses, the most potentially valuable of which was added to Updates in the spring of 2010. This exciting news concerns a project that naturally bypasses most of the many ingrained institutional biases and difficulties facing a rapid  development of such a vital technological breakthrough by means of an open source base for sharing the polywell device to anyone, and everybody, in our mixed up, down-trodded, world. This project was organized by a fellow whose blog can be accessed at http://prometheusfusionperfection.com/ - and furthermore organized a site dedicated to funding his, or any others, efforts to construct polywell reactors at http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1992078142/building-the-open-source-bussard-fusion-reactor. We highly recommend  anyone who is seriously interested in promoting or exploring this vital base of open source information to join in this collective effort and head straight to this valuable resource as soon as possible.

Anyway, the following are some more random asides unconnected to global systems analysis, though the last sections return to a covert history of religious control by established oligarchic contrivance and suppression.** **** *

5:  Our new story slyly refers to a particular theory adopted by a duo of famous intellectuals. But the game here is to decipher what I'm talking about, not who - besides there are other guys involved as well. Anyway, our verses loosely center on the vortex surrounding a guy Dr. Al, and his buddy we'll call K-el. For although a superman of logic, and best friend of Einstein, K-el was not as versed in physics as his pal, or either of the Klein's. Yet though Felix had also tried to warn the Doc of a razor sharper than a knife, Al still cut himself in shaving, while K-el cut his foot, fell and could have died. Still, as Ockham was there to stop the bleeding from what folks call his "ol' surprise," so surely kept his promise when it came to Al to squelch his foolish pride. But as for Al's pal, old Ock was shocked - for all he could say was "no K-el, just let me tell," then yelled cross the span of time: "you never meta mystery man, till you meta guy called Godel - yet how could anyone have never heard that even super-Kur can cut their own damn throat, as most fools do before we die, but there are dogs of hell less fool than you K-el: he who breaketh his Own First Rule, and Mine! No such dissing of Kurt in the book, a grain of truth maybe, but two points - 1: peer this: nobody or idea is sacred, least of all fashion queens; 2: never show a card or pull a trick until someone pays to call your hand. Think I'm bluffing? (Perhaps, as much is given away here.)

6: Surely this seemingly pompous, or at least academic, language probably does sound intimidating. Yet every thing is outlined in rather basic, comprehensible terms that puts students, laymen (at least those with enough interest to buy that pocket calculator) and the deepest theorists on equal footing; the only stress being learning, logic, appropriate equations or ideas and acceptance of the fact that we can all fall equally as fast to the mat as the next clown. (But the only thing that keeps you pinned there indefinitely is you, it's not the imperative of a gravitational equivalence principle, nor even that bully who kept his foot on your throat in every gym class they made you take. Frozen in body, frozen in mind. Smart? Scared sure, but you're dumber than a rock, no one's born to love sucken sneakers. Sure, rocks are used to feet, but never seen a rock kiss one. Ever thought of dropping that rock on all those bones? Why not, no rocks? You're sitting under this guy's legs every day and never once thought: elbow to foot, reach up, hold tight to little rope, pull down to ground, elbow or knee nuts and his ass is singing soprano for the choir in your old spot? <-Lesson: this geek flunked mumbers before that rock was born!) 

7:  But WMAP astrophysicists say it's more a classical constant like Einstein's (though he introduced it for a static universe, not knowing of red-shifted galaxies, whose discovery made him renounce it as his "biggest blunder." But that's not what shocked Ock!) If it were a classical constant as suggested, how then does one rationalize it's flatness as a 3-space, when in fact it is Euclidean, but as a 4-space with one time dimension?! In any case, although our model supports a `present repulsive cosmic constant', the underlying geometry, numerology and empirical tautology will prove to ultimately be otherwise.

8: With respect to certain observations connected to the above counterintuitive conclusion, there is a multiple lesson offered by following precocious Gnostic quotes of St. Peter below. Which extends to and beyond a rude identification with his mythic role as Gatekeeper to the doors of heaven or hell; relishing the latter more out of shear vindictiveness for such above hypocrisy and criminal insanity. For the criminal culpability of a political establishment that hijacks God, most of this country and truth in a co-conspiracy of so-called 'Christian' self-denial after 9-11-01, just to secure its own inept brand of corrupted self-interest, certainly deserves more than parenthetical mention; especially given the common themes established in our book's Preface. But I had another spiel about role playing as `St. Peter the Gatekeeper' - and by God, here I am in a position to share what is still best framed in a joking manner: "Everyone now says Hell is going to freeze over some day - I say to hell it will; Not on My Watch!"

9: BTW: Found that quote about 3/4 of a year into mumbers (born 10-11-00), first shot, based on the number. Suggestions: if you want Christian wisdom read the Gospel of Thomas and the Nag Hammadi scriptures, for prophesy Nostradamus: if a track-record, including two about 9-11-01, isn't fresh enough for you, you have no comprehension of poetry, history, religious wisdom or scientific methodology. Which is to say you are unretrainable; so are dumber than a monkey: naturally resenting smug academics {like myself} who point it out or recall all your grand folks were too - but you're right; some monkeys or lemmings are incapable of evolving! But protoplasm  has no business `interpreting', or hiding their illiteracy behind the back of one old book; or a whole library of bloodingly literate 20th century theory. Yeah, that's just what this world is dying for; another shredded tree for a stack of  empty texts on `theoretically rational' beliefs like wormholes, or equivalent quantum interpretations, that'll take you to your own alternative universe. (Wanna know why it's impossible? You can't get a ego bloated bigger than God through the worm's mouth! The same reason a genius can't explain anything really fundamental about the one they're born in!) So what's the difference in camp or reading, if you end up damning all common truths to just to hold on some superior belief that seeks comfort in self-perpetuating lies, like politicians or mother hens, choking life out of their own children before they can Live `in sin,' yet sanctifying those who hold that sperm, half a zygote,  has as much to 'right to life' as a full grown  human being. Unless you forgot where this story started; as true today as it twas back then, was before egg was stuck - don't need dead baby zygotes if you can't put on a raincoat - though  that's what you'll get, as you'll never get dry with any succubi. Yet with self-denial inbred that deep, few see much of a problem killing anyone who exposes such real crimes: for when orders comes from some sanction most high, even murder is no crime. You've surely never heard  the words of St. Peter about authority of  popes who will be "like canals, that have run dry" and will have you "worshipping a dead man," before the Living Words of Jesus and these of Simon, by edict out of Rome, were thought buried for all time; and murdering of all heretics has been one's duty ever since. So then the blind will be rewarded with just what they are expecting they'll hear: "you've been a pious man and are assured of your salvation" - for you see well: not fulfill your duties is the only official crime and sin.

Add to Onlywire