Executive Intelligence Review, Volume 46, Number 4, January 25, 2019

- Cover

- Masthead

- EDITORIAL The Elite That Failed

- PDF edition Table of Contents — Volume 46, Number 4, January 25, 2019

- I. A Moment of Enormous Potential

- ZEPP-LAROUCHE WEBCAST Brit Panic Grows: Will Trump’s Anti-Missile Plan Become LaRouche-Reagan SDI?

- German Establishment Pledges Fealty to the Failed British Empire by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

- II. Man’s True Nature

- A Mass Strike—For the Benefit of Mankind by Paul Gallagher

- China’s Lunar Far-Side Mission Has Made History by Marsha Freeman

- III. The Secret of Music

- September 8, 1986 SCIENCE AND CULTURE Truth Is Beauty, and Beauty Is Truth: Understanding the Science of Music by Lyndon Hermyle LaRouche, Jr.

- EDITORIAL THIRTY YEARS AGO, TODAY The 1989 Jailing of LaRouche Defined An Era Which Now Must End by Dennis Small

The Elite that Failed

Editor-in-Chief and Founder:

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

Editorial Board: Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. , Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Robert Ingraham, Tony Papert, Gerald Rose, Dennis Small, William Wertz

Co-Editors: Robert Ingraham, Tony Papert

Technology: Marsha Freeman

Transcriptions: Katherine Notley

Ebooks: Richard Burden

Graphics: Alan Yue

Photos: Stuart Lewis

Circulation Manager: Stanley Ezrol

INTELLIGENCE DIRECTORS

Economics: Marcia Merry Baker, Paul Gallagher

History: Anton Chaitkin

Ibero-America: Dennis Small

United States: Debra Freeman

INTERNATIONAL BUREAUS

Berlin: Rainer Apel

Copenhagen: Tom Gillesberg

Lima: Sara Madueño

Melbourne: Robert Barwick

Mexico City: Gerardo Castilleja Chávez

New Delhi: Ramtanu Maitra

Paris: Christine Bierre

Stockholm: Ulf Sandmark

United Nations, N.Y.C.: Leni Rubinstein

Washington, D.C.: William Jones

Wiesbaden: Göran Haglund

ON THE WEB

e-mail: eirns@larouchepub.com

www.larouchepub.com

www.executiveintelligencereview.com

www.larouchepub.com/eiw

Webmaster: John Sigerson

Assistant Webmaster: George Hollis

Editor, Arabic-language edition: Hussein Askary

EIR (ISSN 0273-6314) is published weekly

(50 issues), by EIR News Service, Inc.,

P.O. Box 17390, Washington, D.C. 20041-0390.

(571) 293-0935

European Headquarters: E.I.R. GmbH, Postfach Bahnstrasse 9a, D-65205, Wiesbaden, Germany

Tel: 49-611-73650

Homepage: http://www.eir.de

e-mail: info@eir.de

Director: Georg Neudecker

Montreal, Canada: 514-461-1557

eir@eircanada.ca

Denmark: EIR - Danmark, Sankt Knuds Vej 11, basement left, DK-1903 Frederiksberg, Denmark. Tel.: +45 35 43 60 40, Fax: +45 35 43 87 57. e-mail: eirdk@hotmail.com.

Mexico City: EIR, Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz 242-2

Col. Agricultura C.P. 11360

Delegación M. Hidalgo, México D.F.

Tel. (5525) 5318-2301

eirmexico@gmail.com

Copyright: ©2018 EIR News Service. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission strictly prohibited.

Canada Post Publication Sales Agreement #40683579

Postmaster: Send all address changes to EIR, P.O. Box 17390, Washington, D.C. 20041-0390.

Signed articles in EIR represent the views of the authors, and not necessarily those of the Editorial Board.

EDITORIAL

The Elite That Failed

Jan. 17—On Dec. 22, weeks before the unprecedented parliamentary defeat of Theresa May’s government on Jan. 15, the London Economist published “The Elite that Failed: Britain’s Political Crisis Exposes the Inadequacy of its Leaders” in its weekly “Bagehot” column.

“Bagehot” describes the unprecedented misadventures the May government has suffered in just one year in office. Three major ministers have resigned, along with many more minor officials. Parliament has voted to hold the government in contempt.

Although Mrs. May survived the Conservative Party vote of no-confidence called against her, she was left badly wounded. Bagehot writes, “And it is going to get worse. There is no parliamentary majority for any Brexit deal, and no way out of the impasse that won’t break promises—and possibly heads. There are two popular explanations for this mayhem [omitted here]. . . . Both explanations have merit. But there is also a third: that the country’s model of leadership is disintegrating. Britain is governed by a self-involved clique that rewards group membership above competence, and self-confidence above expertise. This chumocracy has finally met its Waterloo.”

Significantly, today’s issue of the London-loving New York Times carries the same diagnosis, but much more harshly stated, under the title, “The Malign Incompetence of the British Ruling Class: With Brexit, the Chumocrats who Drew Borders from India to Ireland are Getting a Taste of Their Own Medicine,” by Pankaj Mishra. Mishra calls Louis Mountbatten, the royal who plunged India into genocide as its last Viceroy, a “mendacious, intellectually limited hustler.”

“Mountbatten, derided as ‘Master of Disaster’ in British naval circles, was a representative member of a small group of upper- and middle-class British men from which the imperial masters of Asia and Africa were recruited. Abysmally equipped for their immense responsibilities, they were nevertheless allowed by Britain’s brute imperial power to blunder through the world, ‘a world of whose richness and subtlety,’ as E.M. Forster wrote in ‘Notes on the English Character,’ they could ‘have no conception.’ ”

Forster blamed the catastrophes which followed, on the graduates of Britain’s elitist, so-called “public” (actually private) school system. These “eternal schoolboys, whose ‘weight is out of all proportion’ to their numbers, . . . have today plunged Britain into its worst crisis, exposing its incestuous and self-serving ruling class like never before,” Mishra writes.

Regardless of these specifics, facts are facts. The British Establishment is an utter failure. It could not be otherwise. As Lyndon LaRouche has said, and as every leader of the American Republic has understood, there has never been an empire which has not failed and collapsed. The Twentieth Century, under the dominance of London, was one of the worst in human history, despite some major steps forward otherwise.

Against the background of the disasters created by Britain, Lyndon LaRouche’s proposal for a Strategic Defense Initiative became U.S. policy under Ronald Reagan, and LaRouche’s proposal for a Eurasian Land-Bridge was adopted by the Chinese government and then many others, becoming a great force in world history. Now LaRouche’s design for Alexander Hamilton’s Constitutional credit system must top the agenda, both for the United States, and as a world system.

The British elite has utterly failed. The chickens of 1763 have come home to roost at last. But all the same, that elite must now be defeated and removed at last, and promptly. If it is not, it will rise from its ruins for a desperate, savage strike.

Who will remove it? Some of the people who are reading these words right now, will have a critical role.

EIR Contents

www.larouchepub.com — Volume 46, Number 4, January 25, 2019

Cover This Week

The Sun sets on London.

---------------------------------------------

THE ELITE THAT FAILED

2 EDITORIAL

The Elite that Failed

I. A MOMENT OF ENORMOUS POTENTIAL

4 ZEPP-LAROUCHE WEBCAST

Brit Panic Grows: Will Trump’s Anti-Missile Plan Become LaRouche-Reagan SDI?

9 German Establishment Pledges Fealty to the Failed British Empire

by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

II. MAN’S TRUE NATURE

11 A Mass Strike--For the Benefit of Mankind

by Paul Gallagher

23 China’s Lunar Far-Side Mission Has Made History

by Marsha Freeman

III. THE SECRET OF MUSIC

30 SCIENCE AND CULTURE

Truth Is Beauty, and Beauty Is Truth: Understanding the Science of Music

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

September 8, 1986

70 EDITORIAL

Thirty Years Ago, Today

The 1989 Jailing of LaRouche Defined an Era Which Now Must End

by Dennis Small

I. A Moment of Enormous Potential

ZEPP-LAROUCHE WEBCAST

Brit Panic Grows: Will Trump’s

Anti-Missile Plan Become LaRouche-Reagan SDI?

Ronald Reagan Library

President Reagan surprises the nation in a nationally televised address from the Oval Office, announcing the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) on March 23, 1983. “Our only purpose—one all people share—is to search for ways to reduce the danger of nuclear war.”

---------------------------------------------

This is the edited transcript of the Schiller Institute’s January 19, 2019 New Paradigm webcast with the founder of the Schiller Institutes, Helga Zepp-LaRouche. She is interviewed by Harley Schlanger. A video of the webcast is available.

Harley Schlanger: Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger from the Schiller Institute. Welcome to our weekly webcast, featuring our founder and Chairwoman, Helga Zepp-LaRouche. It’s January 19, 2019.

We’re in the middle of very interesting breakthroughs and new developments. Let’s start with one that has shocked a lot of people. On Thursday, President Trump announced that he’s going to pursue missile defense, using new technologies. This sounds somewhat like President Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). Helga, your husband, Lyndon LaRouche, was on the scene then and was the author of Reagan’s SDI policy. What do you make of Trump’s statement?

Trump’s Missile Defense Program and the SDI

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: While Trump’s proposed expanded Missile Defense Program is very interesting, and many media did refer to President Reagan’s SDI, I still want to wait to see if it contains an offer to include Russia and China. That was a critical element of the Reagan SDI. Or is it, as some in Russia and China have stated, with concern, an attempt by what is rightly called the “war party” in the United States, to try to establish superiority in space. The English-language Chinese newspaper, Global Times, asked if this is an effort to enable the United States to attack a country with nuclear weapons without fearing that the United States would be counter-attacked? The article says that this is illusory and will not work, rather it will lead to the end of deterrence based on Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).

Ending MAD is not necessarily a bad thing. Some of you may remember that when my husband, Lyndon LaRouche, developed what became the SDI, it was explicitly designed to replace Mutually Assured Destruction with the concept of Mutually Assured Survival.

This was his response to the medium-range missile crisis (the SS-20 and Pershing II missiles), which were on a launch-on-warning status in the beginning of the 1980s. The danger of an accidental nuclear war was extremely high. Starting in the late 1970s, Lyndon LaRouche developed the proposal that the two superpowers, working together, would develop new weapons systems based on “new physical principles,” and develop them together, install them together, and in that way, for the first time, make defense less costly than offense, and in that process render nuclear weapons obsolete.

There were, at that time, back-channel discussions on behalf of the National Security Council of the United States, with official representatives of the Soviet Union. My husband and I were involved in these discussions for one full year. And then, in February 1983, the answer came back from Moscow that the Soviets did not like this proposal, claiming that the plan would bring more advantages to the United States than to the Soviet Union.

That would not, in fact, have been true. President Reagan put forward twice, once in March 1983, and again eight months later, that the United States would help the Soviet Union apply the breakthroughs in the new military technology to their civilian sector, and in that way, help the Soviet Union overcome certain bottlenecks in its civilian economy. Lyndon LaRouche elaborated this proposal further, proposing a “draft protocol for the superpowers,” by which both countries would work together on joint science-driver programs, thus increasing the productivity of the world economy. The “draft protocol” included massive technology transfer to the developing countries, to overcome the underdevelopment of the Third World. That was the real SDI.

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

Lyndon LaRouche discusses his concept of the SDI at a Fusion Energy Foundation conference in Washington on April 13, 1983.

---------------------------------------------

The idea of doing away with both the Warsaw Pact and NATO was a truly wonderful idea, which would have changed the course of humanity had it not been rejected by the hardliners on both sides—the Bush faction in the Reagan Administration, and the Ogarkov faction in the Soviet leadership.

But it was rejected. It was a grand design proposal that would have overcome geopolitics then.

So far, Trump has made only an initial statement. Three representatives from the United States presented this to the press. One said that this program is in response to the hypersonic missiles of Russia and China. Another said that the technologies involved will have to be developed—that the plan mandates new technologies, not so-called off-the-shelf technology.

So, this does appear to potentially be a gigantic R&D program at this stage. But the key question is—and I insist on this—will it include cooperation with Russia and China, or will it be against those two countries? The answer to this question will determine if it is in the footsteps of the SDI or not. Let’s hope for the better. President Trump is seeking a better relationship with Russia; he’s doing very good things now with China; he wants to withdraw from Syria and Afghanistan. So, I absolutely give him the benefit of the doubt. Let’s see what it turns out to be.

Schlanger: In a press statement issued Dec. 3, President Trump said that he looks forward to working with Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Putin, and hopes to soon have an opportunity to talk with both of them about ending the arms race. Apparently, that was one of the topics of Trump’s July 16, 2018 Helsinki discussion with Putin, which got some heat this week from the Washington Post, complaining, well, why didn’t Trump tell us what went on there?

BuzzFeed’s Fake Story Flames Out

On the so-called Trump scandals, Helga, a new one just came up. There was just a BuzzFeed report that Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen had admitted that Trump told him to lie. Within hours that story was shot down. Now, BuzzFeed is notorious in that it was the first media outlet to publish the Steele report.

What do you make of this insanity?

Zepp-LaRouche: It is obviously part of the ongoing British intelligence operation, in collusion with intelligence circles in the United States, essentially running a coup, to get President Trump out of office one way or another. It is interesting that even Special Counsel Robert Mueller has denied BuzzFeed’s Cohen story, saying it is not true. The head of BuzzFeed said he is sticking to his guns.

President Trump tweeted that it was BuzzFeed that launched the whole affair to begin with, with the so-called “dodgy dossier” of Christopher Steele. BuzzFeed has a record of being part of the apparatus using intelligence methods to run such fraudulent stories, which then get played into the mainstream media.

All this demonstrates the urgency for Trump to declassify all the documents related to this whole affair. And funnily enough, even the Wall Street Journal has editorialized that the American people have the right to know for themselves the dimensions of this story. So, one can only hope that President Trump finds the right moment to do this—sooner rather than later—because this really must be stopped.

The Integrity Initiative’s Spy Clusters

Schlanger: If the Wall Street Journal is serious about getting the story out, they should run the story on the Integrity Initiative that we discussed here last week, which is circulating somewhat widely. Have you gotten much feedback on the Integrity Initiative story?

Zepp-LaRouche: Well, it is funny. There is a real buzz among some circles, including some politicians who have not yet come out publicly. I think it will all come out in a big splashy way. It’s quite scandalous that the mainstream media have not yet touched the story. Here we have a true story, about a British-run intelligence operation working through so-called “clusters”—groups of agents of influence in all Western countries, Europe, the United States, now spreading to the Middle East—not only meddling in the internal affairs of all those countries, but also involved in hyping up anti-Russia war hysteria, leading the drumbeat for war against Russia and China. And the mainstream media is not reporting any of this.

The list of the agents of influence who constitute these clusters, is now becoming known. There is a lot of investigation being done, and you can expect that a big, big bang—Paukenschlag, as we call it in German—will surface in the very near future.

I urge our audience to study and circulate these articles by Barbara Boyd:

• Part I: The British Role in the Coup Against the President Is Now Exposed. Will You Act Now to Save the Nation?

• Part II: The Integrity Initiative’s Foreign Agents of Influence Invade the United States

• Part III: A British Intelligence Fraud Creates the Coup Against Donald Trump

Distribute these reports widely; get people to really understand the truth about what has happened. If you don’t see role of the British, there’s no way you can understand the present strategic situation.

Schlanger: One of the points Barbara Boyd makes in her articles is that it’s not just the personnel involved; it’s the intention. You just brought up a perfect example: Is the intent of a shift to missile defense, an offensive, anti-Russia, anti-China policy? Or, is it for advancing cooperation among Russia and China and the United States, which Trump has said he’s for? Clearly, the British don’t want that to happen: They see that as an end to the “special relationship.”

UK Parliament

Left: UK Prime Minister Theresa May.

---------------------------------------------

UK Parliament: Brexit, No; May, Barely

Meanwhile, it looks like Britain, the United Kingdom (UK), is becoming more and more irrelevant following the vote in Parliament on Brexit. What happened with that? Where’s this headed?

Zepp-LaRouche: I think the moves by Prime Minister Theresa May and the Tories were first provoked a vote against the deal she made with the EU. Then there was the failure of the no-confidence vote against May herself, because many Tories are afraid if there are new elections, they will all lose their posts, and Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn might become the next Prime Minister. This has created a situation where there are—as it looks now—no viable option concerning Brexit that will find a parliamentary majority. The Parliament has maneuvered itself into a real cul de sac—they’re stuck.

Even in the Anglo-American media, there is the admission—or at least a discussion—about the utter failure of the British Establishment. The Bagehot column in The Economist, on Dec. 22, says the problem with the British Establishment is that they’re more concerned about group-think, about clique dynamics, than competence, and therefore they are a complete failure, the British model is a complete failure.

Even the rabidly pro-British New York Times carried an op-ed, “The Malign Incompetence of the British Ruling Class,” comparing the doings of the present British Establishment with those of the British Establishment at the time of Lord Louis Mountbatten, the time of India’s declaration of independence, and Britain’s “brutal” behavior, and this is a quote, the “brutal” behavior of the British Empire at that time with the absolutely stupid behavior being exhibited in the UK now.

So, there is an admission that this British neo-liberal model, the model which had been adopted by the European Union, by Bush, and by Obama—the neo-liberal model that imposed rules favoring the banks to the disadvantage of the population, the model that caused the Brexit revolt, that caused the defeat of Hillary Clinton, and caused the rise and the victory of the present Italian government, and is the actual cause of the Yellow Vests movement in France right now, that model is clearly failing.

German Elite Wants the UK in the EU

I think it tells you something about the condition of the present German elite, or so-called “elite,” That there was just a letter to the London Times appealing to the British to please stay in the European Union, saying “from the bottom of our hearts, we want you to stay.”

This is totally disgusting! And if another proof was needed to demonstrate that the members of the German establishment are just the caretakers of that British Empire, and in light of all the scandals—the coup against President Trump run by the British, the intelligence operations by the Integrity Initiative, meddling also in German affairs, hyping people up against Russia—that the German establishment would take such a move and appeal to the Brits to stay in the European Union, just shows you that they’re really closer to the British Empire in their mentality, than anything else.

And even were Germany the last country to wake up, people will eventually wake up. I’m absolutely confident it can and will happen. We have to make sure that positive developments occurring elsewhere do enter German politics, even if it’s the last place on Earth.

CC/Thomas Bresson

Yellow Vest demonstrators out in force in Belfort, France on December 1, 2018.

---------------------------------------------

Meanwhile, in France and Italy

Schlanger: You’ve always pointed out, quoting the opening line of the famous Rütli Oath in Friedrich Schiller’s play Wilhelm Tell, “No! There is a limit to the tyrant’s power.” We’re seeing that in the insurgency that’s sweeping the so-called “advanced world.” The Yellow Vests are out in force again today in Paris and all over France; this clearly expresses the contrast between France, where Prime Minister Emmanuel Macron is flailing and failing, with the Italian government, which is moving forward in a determined and positive way. In the work that I do in the United States on radio and elsewhere, I’m finding a great deal of interest in these developments. Why don’t you give us an update on the differences, for example, between the French situation, in which the government is paralyzed, and Italy, where the government is moving ahead?

Zepp-LaRouche: Italy’s Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte has been in Chad and Niger for the last several days. In press conferences with their respective Presidents, Conte praised the Transaqua project—the project for which the Schiller Institute has been campaigning for decades.

This project has now begun with a series of memoranda of understanding among China, Italy, and the six countries from the Lake Chad region, to bring the water from the tributaries of the Congo River through a system of canals and dams, to refill Lake Chad. Conte said this is the only way to address the poverty in the region, the only way to alleviation the reasons why people are fleeing that region and trying to migrate to Europe; and the only way to eliminate the basis for terrorism. Conte promised that Italy would become the leading advocate for this project in the European Union, because it is the only way to address the refugee crisis in a human way.

This is very, very good! This is in total contrast to what the EU is doing and what other EU members are doing. It promises to bring real industrial development to the African continent and addresses these problems in a viable way.

Italy’s Economic Development Undersecretary, Michele Geraci, has said that what is needed today is the revival of the spirit of the Renaissance, the Italian Renaissance, in which great pieces of art inspired science, technology and the emergence of industrialization in an early form. That spirit of the Italian Renaissance is exactly what is needed, so this is very good—and this is also what so far only the Schiller Institute has been talking about.

And then, last week, Luigi Di Maio, the head of the Five Star Movement, demanded the separation of the banks and a firewall between the casino economy and the real economy, with the immediate implementation of the Glass-Steagall Act, calling it by that name.

This is all very good. It shows you that even imperfect governments can come up with many, many good ideas. Italy right now is a shining light among the European countries—Italy is advocating cooperation with China, for the industrialization of Africa, and for lifting the sanctions against Russia. This is very, very good, and a very clear example that even in the context of the now disintegrating European Union, new ideas can emerge and can be an inspiration for all the other countries.

A Cotton Plant Buds on Lunar Far Side

The most wonderful recent development was not only the landing on the far side of the Moon by a Chinese lander and rover, but that two weeks after landing on the far side, as part of a very interesting experiment, a cotton seed sprouted and developed a bud!

This little plant has since died due to two weeks without sunshine on the far side of the Moon. The plant could not continue to live. But it is the biggest news of the day, because, for the first time, humans have successfully grown living material on the surface of another world. This has never happened before. It’s a gigantic step in the direction of future villages on the Moon, future interstellar space travel.

It’s only a first baby step, but the experiment proves it can be done; it could not have been done without man. It means that the creative power of man is the most advanced force in the physical universe, and that, as Krafft Ehricke said, many decades ago: Space travel and space research completely redefines the notion of nature. And it definitely proves we are not living in an Earth-bound system. Man can bring life to other terrestrial bodies—this is just a first glimpse of what we will be capable of in the future. China’s accomplishment should inspire all of us with a tremendous hope for what we can do, if we act in a good spirit and with a good plan.

Schlanger: In conclusion, I say to our viewers: Help us get this message out! Use these weekly webcasts to spread this message of hope and optimism. If we can have a cotton plant bloom on the Moon, maybe we can have intelligent life in the U.S. and European policy discussions, and that’s our job! Please work to get these webcasts out, and you’ll find that you will have great fun doing it.

Helga, thank you very much, and we’ll see you next week.

Zepp-LaRouche: Yes, I hope so—till then.

German Establishment Pledges Fealty to the Failed British Empire

by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

The following article, translated from German, was written for the German weekly newspaper Neue Solidarität.

Jan. 18—If further proof were needed that German neoliberal leaders still think like the proconsuls of an occupied country, read the letter to the editor in the London Times by so-called “top German political, business, and political leaders,” in which they wish “from the bottom of their hearts,” that the British stay in the EU. And this at a time when even the Economist is discussing how the total cul-de-sac into which the British establishment has maneuvered itself with its policies proves only one thing—that the British leadership model is “disintegrating.”

“Britain is governed by a self-involved clique that rewards group membership above competence and self-confidence above expertise. This chumocracy has finally met its Waterloo,” proclaimed the Economist on December 22 in its “Bagehot” column. And the historically pro-British New York Times spoke even more sharply of the “malign incompetence of the British ruling class”: The current fiasco of British politics is compared to the worldwide application of the brutal power of the Empire by the pitifully incompetent elites in the days of Lord Louis Mountbatten. For his part, former London Mayor Ken Livingston concluded, “Brexit or not, things will get worse unless neoliberalism is brought to end.”

At a moment when these house organs of the sinking British Empire are giving vent to voices which at least describe the symptoms of the failure of the imperial model, the obsequiousness of the so-called German leaders is simply shameful. The letter to the London Times states that while the signers respect the Brexit decision, “the British should know that we do not consider any decision irreversible. Our door will always be open. Europe is our home.” They will miss the United Kingdom and its traditions. “That’s why the British should know: from the bottom of our hearts we want them to stay.”

The letter is signed by CDU chairwoman Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, SPD chairwoman Andrea Nahles, Green chairpersons Annalena Baerbock and Robert Habeck, German Industry Association head Dieter Kempf, German Chambers of Commerce and Industry president Eric Schweitzer, and trade-union confederation head Reiner Hoffmann, among others.

Note that this declaration of submission to the British Empire comes at a time when various non-mainstream media and behind-the-scenes debates are addressing an unprecedented scandal: The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), the British intelligence services, NATO, Facebook, and various other institutions are involved in a gigantic information war against Russia and China, but also in the manipulation of domestic political processes in all Western countries. The so-called “Institute for Statecraft” and the “Integrity Initiative” influence public perception through so-called “clusters” of journalists, academics, researchers and military agents, and make psychological warfare appear like normal journalism. The aim of these British intelligence operations is to systematically build an enemy image of Russia and China, against which the West’s “model of liberal democracy” must be defended.

What Free Press?

It says everything about the state of the supposedly free press in Germany, that so far not a single mainstream publication has reported on this scandal. These British institutions are the ringleaders behind the “Russiagate” scandal against President Trump; they are actively involved in trying to drive an elected U.S. President out of office with the help of large-scale intelligence operations. While in the U.S., more and more former judges, military personnel and Trump supporters are openly speaking of a “British coup,” the official reporting in Germany is 100 percent defined by the perspective of the instigator of this coup d’état! In other words, we are a banana republic in Germany, not subject to Washington—that was demonstrated by the reaction to the election of Trump—but to the British Empire!

To name but a few examples in the United States, former Washington, D.C. prosecutor Joseph diGenova identified the role of the British intelligence service in an interview with radio station WMAL on October 15 of last year: “British MI6 conducted illegal electronic surveillance on U.S. citizens at the request of the FBI and [then CIA Director John] Brennan. That’s how they found out [that former Trump campaign adviser George] Papadopoulos was not interested in Hillary’s emails or anything else. Illegal spying by the Brits. That’s why the Brits are going crazy . . . When you stretch out to work with foreign governments—read ‘collude’—to spy on an American citizen, that really opens up an entirely different can of worms. It opens up a huge criminal liability on the part of American intelligence officials, especially Brennan.”

Former Trump presidential campaign activist George Papadopoulos has described in detail how the British and Australian intelligence agencies tried to recruit him for the sabotage of the Trump election campaign. Respected analyst Pat Lang featured a guest commentary on his blog on the theme of the British conspiracy with the Obama administration’s secret services: “Did British Intelligence Try to Destroy the Trump Presidency?” Republican Senator Rand Paul is one of those who is making the same accusation, and even the Washington Post, a leading organ of the Anglo-American establishment, has admitted that the notorious Christopher Steele, on whose fabricated dossier the whole Russiagate affair was based, was guided by former MI6 chief, Sir Richard Dearlove.

Since it can be assumed that it is well-known to these “German leaders” that this scandal is ultimately the reason for the unprecedented polarization in the U.S. between Trump supporters and opponents, one can only interpret their “wholehearted” appeal in the Times, as clear partisanship in favor of the London putschists and their methods. Foreign observers now consider Germany as the last unwavering bastion of the neoliberal system. In France, the yellow-vest movement has become the voice of the resistance to this policy, which reserves all the advantages for banks and speculators, but tends to impoverish the majority of the population. In almost all Eastern and Southern European countries, for some time now, there has been a reorientation towards a policy of economic growth, as a result of cooperation with China’s New Silk Road.

We Can Choose Another Way

In a demonstration of extraordinary chutzpah, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker admitted at a Jan. 15 ceremony marking the twentieth anniversary of the euro’s introduction, that the brutal austerity imposed on Greece by the troika (the European Commission, European Central Bank, and International Monetary Fund) was a mistake! He said that during the debt crisis there was “an unthinking austerity policy,” but blamed it on the IMF. The institutions did not show enough solidarity with Greece during the critical period, he added! Well, whether the Greeks—whose economy and standard of living were slashed by a third by this austerity policy of the troika—can buy a slice of bread with Juncker’s warm words is doubtful. How about compensation instead, for which Juncker, Lagarde, Draghi and Co. would be personally liable?

This neoliberal attitude is reflected in the fact that the German government evidently observed, for many years, how the “cum-ex” (a tax fraud scheme discovered in 2017) and “cum-cum” (a type of trade that allows foreign investors to avoid a German withholding tax on dividends) deals had inflicted a presumed 55-billion euro loss on European taxpayers. The Berlin government didn’t inform EU partners like Denmark until 2016, even though the cum-ex deals had been known for years. Small wonder that Deutsche Bank was probably also deeply involved in this scandal.

The Tories in Britain, the Hillary Democrats in the United States, the Junckers and Draghis, and the German establishment have one thing in common: They are incapable of recognizing that their political model does not correspond to the interests of the population.

Meanwhile, China has succeeded in sprouting a cotton plant on the far side of the moon. We can choose another way.

II. Man’s True Nature

A Mass Strike—For the

Benefit of Mankind

by Paul Gallagher

Jan. 18—The surprise protest victory of the “Brexit” vote in Britain in June 2016 has been followed by uprisings “out of nowhere” since then: in the election of Donald Trump as U.S. President, the election of what are called “populist” or “nationalist” governments in many European countries, the sudden eruption of the “yellow vest ” protests in France that have persisted and shown up in many other countries, and other events such as the emergence of the new Mexican Presidency, resembling the institutional revolutionary Mexican presidents of old. Above all, these are rebellions against economic austerity, against lost livelihoods. They are rebellions to protect productivity and household survival, which have been under attack for decades across Europe and North America.

The question in which the Schiller Institute and the political movement of Lyndon and Helga LaRouche are involved, is whether these uprisings will lead to nations acting for the betterment of humanity as a whole; whether these rebellions will rise to a fight for a higher paradigm of human culture and artistic creativity. People enter these protests because they have a sense in this crisis for their livelihoods, that real change is not only urgent, but suddenly possible. We want these actions to lead to improvement in the condition of mankind, to the elimination of poverty, and to the creation of new capabilities. We want them to become not only political, but moral and cultural as well. The Schiller Institute is convening an international conference in February in the United States. Its first session poses the question, “Can humanity govern itself to guarantee our existence as a species?”

Portrait by Alfred Clint, 1829

Percy Shelley

---------------------------------------------

‘A Crisis of Beneficial Innovation’

Just over 200 years ago, an English teenager with an intense desire to better the condition of mankind by moral and political reform, decided to write a pamphlet which he would distribute as widely as possible by his own efforts. At the center of his pamphlet, the 19-year-old stated—and many times restated—an idea, which may never have been expressed by anyone in this way before.

The new idea was that a crisis—in that case, of a nation’s constitution cancelled and a people’s self-government stolen—could cause an improvement in the thinking and feelings, even the morality, of large numbers of people, turning their thoughts toward the benefit of their fellow human beings even more than their own. A people so moved would not then know what to do to solve the crisis, but would want to act to benefit their nation and even all of humanity.

A crisis is now arriving which shall decide your fate,

the young man announced to the population to whom he addressed the pamphlet:

Man cannot make occasions, but he may seize those that offer. None are more interesting to Philanthropy than those which excite the benevolent passions that generalize and expand private into public feelings, and make the hearts of individuals vibrate not merely for themselves, their families and their friends, but for posterity, for a people, till their country becomes the world and their family, the sensitive creation. . . .

I perceive that the public interest is excited; I perceive that individual interest has, in a certain degree, quitted individual concern to generalize itself with universal feeling. . . .

A benevolent and disinterested feeling has gone abroad, and I am willing that it should never subside. I desire that means should be taken with energy and expedition, in this important yet fleeting crisis, to feed the unpolluted flame at which nations and ages may light the torch of Liberty and Virtue!” (Address to the Irish People and Postscript, 1812)

The pamphleteer made it clear that he was talking about a crisis in itself uplifting popular morality:

The crisis to which I allude as the period of your emancipation, is not the death of the present king, or anything which has to do with kings; it is the increase of virtue and wisdom which will lead people to find out that force and oppression is wrong and false; and this crisis, once it gains ground, will prevent government from severity. It will restore those rights which government has taken away.

This teenager was Percy Shelley, famous now for his poetry. In the eleven years of life then remaining to him, he would write some of the most passionate and best known poems in the English language, such as the “Ode to the West Wind,” “Ode to a Skylark,” “The Masque of Anarchy,” “Hymn to Intellectual Beauty,” “Ode to Liberty,” “Triumph of Life,” and the bold play in verse, Prometheus Unbound.

In 1812 young Percy Shelley was a pamphleteer who intervened and spoke at political meetings, a trumpeter of the American Revolution, but also influenced by the English “Whig enlightenment” of Charles Fox and William Godwin, which was a reaction to America’s Revolution.

But he had a fundamentally new idea, unknown to such skeptical circles. This was, that a crisis of the European monarchies and aristocracies triggered by the American War of Independence, was increasing the potential intelligence and creativity of the populations of Europe and making them—for a brief political moment —better people.

As for poetry, then it was just one of his many hobbies, which also included conducting Benjamin Franklin’s electrical experiments and trying to make contact with ghosts. The teenage poems he had written were juvenile spoofs, or gestures of dislike for authority.

Yet in the 1812 pamphlet that he hawked for two months in the streets of Dublin and Derry and at mass meetings—aided by his servant Daniel Hill and several contacts, and surveilled even then by British intelligence officers—one could see him expressing what he would express in the searing stanzas of the famous “Masque of Anarchy” seven years later:

Are you slaves, or are you men? If slaves, then crouch to the rod, and lick the feet of your oppressors, glory in your shame; it will become you, if brutes, to act according to your nature. But you are men. A real man is free, so far as circumstances will permit him. Then firmly, yet quietly, resist. When one cheek is struck, turn the other to the insulting coward. The discussion of any subject is a right that you have brought into the world with your heart and tongue. Resign your heart’s blood before you part with this inestimable privilege of man. For it is fit that the governed should inquire into the proceedings of Government. (Address to the Irish People and Postscript)

Portrait by Benjamin Haydon, 1846

Leigh Hunt

---------------------------------------------

The Postscript introduced a Proposal for the Formation of an Association of Philanthropists. This was the first of ten pamphlets Shelley would write and attempt to put out between 1812 and 1820, including four before his 22nd birthday. His attempts to form a political group—or as he preferred it, a philanthropical and philosophical association—bore no fruit at all in his short lifetime. His strong criticisms of the Church of England made him notorious in the British press and with the government; he became an exile in Italy; survived at least one assassination attempt there by a British army officer; helped establish two journals of art and politics edited by the literary rebel Leigh Hunt; and died when his boat sank in a storm in the Bay of Naples after being rammed under circumstances never explained.

But during his few years, Shelley continued to disseminate his idea that a political crisis could take the form of new powers of thinking in the members of a large population. One aspect of what he meant was the increased power of imagination, making possible appreciation of other peoples’ needs and benevolence toward them. As his few years went on, he identified this power of creative and loving imagination more and more with the art of poetry.

Percy Shelley in 1812 was intervening in mass meetings in Ireland over the issue of “Catholic emancipation” from the proscription of the Catholic religion by the British. He clearly thought the real source of this crisis was the British suppression of Ireland’s 1782 republican Constitution and British imposition of the 1801 Act of Union which forced Ireland back under the caprices of what was called “British law.” Therefore in the Appeal, he constantly stressed the consent of the governed in government. But above all, the pamphlet called on Irish people to lift up their thinking, improve the morality of their actions.

I look with an eye of hope and pleasure on the present state of things, gloomy and incapable of improvement as they may appear to others. It delights me to see that men begin to think and to act for the good of others. . . . It is in vain to hope for any liberty and happiness without reason and virtue. . . . It is this work which I would earnestly recommend to you, O Irishmen: REFORM YOURSELVES . . .

You can in no measure more effectually advance the cause of reform, than by employing your leisure time in reasoning, or the cultivation of your minds. Think, and talk, and discuss. The only subjects you ought to propose are those of happiness and liberty. Be free and be happy, but first be wise and good.

I earnestly desire . . . that Protestants and Catholics unite in a common interest, and that whatever be the belief and principles of your countryman and fellow sufferer, you desire to benefit his cause at the same time that you vindicate your own.

I look forward, then, to the redress of both these grievances; or rather, I perceive the state of the public mind that precedes them, as a crisis of beneficial innovation.

And of the new association he was trying to form, Shelley wrote:

That it should be an association for diffusing knowledge and virtue throughout the poorer classes of society in Ireland, for co-operating with any enlightened system of education, for discussing topics calculated to throw light on any methods of alleviation of moral and political evil, and as far as lies in its power, interesting itself in whatever occasions may arise for benefiting mankind.

Within four months Shelley had written a Declaration of Rights (printed in Dublin) and then a pamphlet for freedom of the press, attacking the Lord Chief Justice, “A Letter to Lord Ellenborough occasioned by the sentence which he passed on Mr. D.I. Eaton as publisher of the third part of Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason.” This pamphlet was printed in London, but then confiscated by the printer, who was made afraid of the political statements in it. Shelley was able to salvage and distribute only 150 copies. The following year, 1813, he published a pamphlet against the death penalty, On the Punishment of Death.

The Pamphleteer as a Poet

But by 1815 Shelley was composing poetry of great strength and beauty expressing the potential of sudden growth in the power of human reason. That year he wrote the “Hymn to Intellectual Beauty,” which begins,

The awful shadow of some unseen Power

Floats, though unseen, among us . . .

and whose final stanzas are so moving. Often a writer starts composing such a poem, with the thought by which it will end. The “Hymn” ends with this:

The day becomes more solemn and serene

When noon is past—there is a harmony

In autumn, and a lustre in its sky,

Which through the summer is not heard or seen,

As if it could not be, as if it had not been!

Thus let thy power, which like the truth

Of nature on my passive youth

Descended, to my onward life supply

Its calm—to one who worships thee

And every form containing thee,

Whom, spirit fair, thy spells did bind

To fear himself, and love all humankind.

The final line is a surprise; a reader or listener did not expect that thought, but it belongs there. Whether the spirit Shelley is invoking here is poetry, or simply his idea of beauty as the growing power of thought and imagination in human beings, the thought of it makes him fear his own selfishness and rather love the good of humanity. It is still the idea of An Address to the Irish People.

That Shelley could speak so naturally while using a very complex stanza form of poetry (known as the “Spenser stanza”), showed that now he was a master whenever his poetry was passionately inspired by his philosophy.

“Sketch of a Woman and Children”: Bridget O’Donnel and her two children during the Irish Potato Famine in 1849.

---------------------------------------------

By 1816, though Shelley kept writing pamphlets, no printer would take them from such a publicly notorious figure amid the officially reactionary policies of the period of the Congress of Vienna. But he could get at least some of his poetry published, and so developed the art of lengthy prefaces to major poems, which continued the appeals to the public of the pamphlets.

One subject of his epic-length poem The Revolt of Islam was clearly the disastrous failure of the French Revolution to follow the upward path of the American War of Independence. (This title was a nonsensical effort by Shelley’s publisher, Charles Ollier and Sons, to hide the poem’s content from censors; the poet had called it Laon and Cythna.) Its first canto opened with the struggle between Zeus and Prometheus. In its Preface, Shelley wrote he believed the populations of Europe were “shaking off” the depression among intellectuals caused by the French Revolution’s terrible failure. He wrote that the poem—

is an experiment on the temper of the public mind, as to how far a thirst for a happier condition of moral and political society survives . . . the tempests which have shaken the age in which we live. . . . It is a succession of images illustrating the growth and progress of individual mind aspiring after excellence, and devoted to the love of mankind.

And the Preface to Prometheus Unbound, written in 1818-19 but not published until 1820, included the first of several statements by Shelley—as we will see—that poetry is merely the “herald” of changes for the better in the minds of large numbers of people, brought on by political crisis:

The great writers of our own age are, we have reason to suppose, the companions and forerunners of some unimagined change in our social condition, or the opinions which cement it. The cloud of mind is discharging its collected lightening, and the equilibrium between opinions and institutions is now restoring, or is about to be restored.

The endings of many of Shelley’s best poems express the same urgent desire as the Hymn to Intellectual Beauty, that his appeal to embrace the good of others should be understood by millions, through an increased power of reason among humanity. They end in a way both natural and surprising. There is the “Ode to a Skylark”:

Teach me half the gladness

That thy brain must know,

Such harmonious madness

From my lips would flow

The world should listen then—as I am listening now.

And one of the best-known final lines in all of English poetry concludes the “Ode to the West Wind”:

Make me thy lyre, even as the forest is:

What if my leaves are falling like its own!

The tumult of thy mighty harmonies

Will take from both a deep, autumnal tone,

Sweet though in sadness. Be thou, Spirit fierce,

My spirit! Be thou me, impetuous one!

Drive my dead thoughts over the universe

Like withered leaves to quicken a new birth!

And, by the incantation of this verse,

Scatter, as from an unextinguished hearth

Ashes and sparks, my words among mankind!

Be through my lips to unawakened earth

The trumpet of a prophecy! O wind,

If Winter comes, can Spring be far behind?

Many people who may never have read a poem of Shelley’s, repeat this last line as an aphorism, by which they mean something may be coming which is at the same time expected, hoped for, and yet also surprising. Nor does this mean that the line has been made crude by common use; it is just the way Shelley meant it, and would have wished that it be used by millions of people.

A Philosophical View of Reform

When he wrote “Ode to the West Wind,” “Ode to a Skylark,” “The Masque of Anarchy” and Prometheus Unbound in 1819-20, Shelley was still writing political pamphlets; his most interesting by far is A Philosophical View of Reform of 1819. Notes for both “Ode to the West Wind,” “The Masque of Anarchy,” and Prometheus Unbound are found on the original manuscript on which he was writing A Philosophical View of Reform. It appears that he wrote the pamphlet and “The Masque of Anarchy” very rapidly, almost simultaneously.

The Philosophical View is one of the most extraordinary political works never published—no one would print it for the notorious “atheist” poet, and it was only first printed a century after Shelley’s death, in a collection. In it, the poet presented a detailed, accurate and scathing analysis of the effects upon the British economy and people, of the 1694 creation of the Bank of England, the earlier creation of the British East India Company, and of more than a century of resulting massive speculation in the country’s debt, with the creation of both ruinous taxation and masses of paper currency solely to support that speculation. He called it the creation of a second (financial, speculating) aristocracy by the first (landed, titled) aristocracy, with the latter’s borrowings from the former paid off by working to death the poor, the industrial workers, and their children.

Anyone who has read, for example, about the causes of the mass death and emigration of the Irish peasantry in the years after Shelley wrote, knows that his description and forecast were precisely correct.

Shelley’s program in this pamphlet included the gradual cancellation of the British so-called “public” debt; regulations to limit hours and fairly reward adult labor and to end child labor; and parliamentary (electoral) reform. He wrote:

Labour and skill and the immediate wages of labour and skill is a property of the most sacred and indisputable right. . . . And the right of a man to property in the exertion of his own bodily and mental faculties, or to the produce and free reward from that exertion, is the most inalienable of rights.

A Philosophical View also included a blistering attack on Thomas Malthus and Malthusianism, and on the “Private Vices, Public Benefits” ideology then popular through Adam Smith and other British East India Company writers, claiming that the good of society resulted solely from individuals’ greedy pursuit of riches and pleasures. And it contained a full vindication of the American Revolution, with this statement which would come at that time only from Shelley: “The just and successful Revolt of America corresponded with a state of public opinion in Europe of which it was the first result” (emphasis added).

But the most interesting part of the pamphlet was its second chapter, “On the Sentiment of the Necessity of Change”—the obsession and story of Percy Shelley’s life!

Here in 1819, for the first time in a pamphlet, Shelley identified this mass sentiment of the necessity of change, with poetry—which, he meant to make clear, is not produced only by poets. This unique idea was repeated two years later in his article “A Defence of Poetry,” which is much better known although it, too, was never published until well after Shelley’s death. But here in A Philosophical View of Reform this thought stands out like a sudden bombshell in the midst of a long and trenchant political and economic discussion:

For the most unfailing herald, or companion, or follower of an universal employment of the sentiments of a nation to the production of beneficial change, is poetry, meaning by poetry an intense and impassioned power of communicating intense and impassioned impressions respecting man and nature. The persons in whom this power takes its abode may often, as far as regards many portions of their nature, have little tendency [to] the spirit of good of which it is the minister. But although they may deny and abjure, they are yet compelled to serve that which is seated on the throne of their own soul. And whatever systems they may [have] professed to support, they actually advance the interest of Liberty. It is impossible to read the productions of our most celebrated writers . . . without being startled by the electric life which there is in their words. They measure the circumference or sound the depths of human nature with a comprehensive and all-penetrating spirit at which they are themselves perhaps most sincerely astonished, for it is less their own spirit than the spirit of their age. They are the priests of an unapprehended inspiration, the mirrors of gigantic shadows which futurity casts upon the present; the words which express what they conceive not; the trumpet which sings to battle and feels not what it inspires; the influence which is moved not but moves. Poets and philosophers are the unacknowledged legislators of the world.

. . . Is there not in England a desire of change arising from the profound sentiment of the exceeding inefficiency of the existing institutions to provide for the physical and intellectual happiness of the people? It is proposed in this work (1) to state and examine the present condition of this desire, (2) to elucidate its causes and its object, (3) to then show the practicability and utility, nay, the necessity of change, (4) to examine the state of parties as regards it, and (5) to state the probable, the possible, and the desirable mode in which it should be accomplished.

Two circumstances arrest the attention of those who turn their regard to the present political condition of the English nation—first, that there is an almost universal sentiment of the approach of some change to be wrought in the institutions of the government; and secondly, the necessity and desirableness of such a change.

Cartoon by George Cruikshank, 1819

Depiction of the Peterloo Massacre at St. Peter’s Field, Manchester, England on August 16, 1819.

---------------------------------------------

‘The Masque of Anarchy’

Shelley’s writing of this pamphlet was interrupted by his learning of an attack by British cavalry on a demonstration of some 80,000 people for reform of parliamentary representation, near Manchester, England, on Aug. 16, 1819. This savagery became known as the Peterloo Massacre, as murderous as the massacres in India for which British armed forces became notorious. Reportedly in great anger, Shelley rapidly wrote “The Masque of Anarchy.”

It was as if he had begun to rewrite the pamphlet, but with much greater power and passion, in this amazing poem. The “Masque” begins in images of an England ruled by bloody Anarchy, its “God and king and law” worshipped by all the leaders of the two aristocracies just skewered in the pamphlet, and erupting in brutal and murderous force only to maintain Anarchy as king. The government ministers whom the poet caricatures, like Castlereagh, become the ministers of Anarchy, cheered and worshipped and fed with the hearts of the people.

And then arises, first, the faint mist of hope; and something—what?

With step as soft as wind it passed

Over the heads of men—so fast

That they knew the presence there,

And looked,—but all was empty air.

As flowers beneath May’s footstep waken,

As stars from Night’s loose hair are shaken,

As waves arise when loud winds call,

Thoughts sprung where’er that step did fall.

Thoughts! Reason rising among the population. This is Shelley of the “crisis of beneficial innovation.” Then arises a song to the “men of England.” If Anarchy is dead, its antidote is Liberty. “What is freedom? Ye can tell that which slavery is, too well”—and these stanzas repeat and intensify the riot of debt-speculation and poverty described in A Philosophical View of Reform, and repeat Shelley’s lifelong urging against violent protest. Freedom is bread, clothes, fire, food, Justice, Wisdom, Peace, Love. “Science, poetry and thought are thy lamps.”

The song to the men of England moves on to its invocation to non-violent action by every part of the population, holding each other’s welfare in common, and concludes the poem:

“Let a great Assembly be

Of the fearless and the free

On some spot of English ground

Where the plains stretch wide around.

“Let the blue sky overhead,

The green earth on which ye tread,

All that must eternal be,

Witness the solemnity.

“From the corners uttermost

Of the bounds of English coast,

From every hut, village and town

Where those who live and suffer moan

For others’ misery or their own,

“From the workhouse and the prison

Where pale as corpses newly risen,

Women, children, young and old

Groan for pain, and weep for cold—

“From the haunts of daily life

Where is waged the daily strife

With common wants and common cares

Which sows the human heart with tares—

“Lastly from the palaces

Where the murmur of distress

Echoes, like the distant sound

Of a wind alive around

“Those prison halls of wealth and fashion,

Where some few feel such compassion

For those who groan, and toil, and wail

As must make their brethren pale—

“Ye who suffer woes untold,

Or to feel, or to behold

Your lost country bought and sold

With a price of blood and gold—

“Let a vast assembly be,

And with great solemnity

Declare with measured words that ye

Are, as God has made ye, free—

“Be your strong and simple words

Keen to wound as sharpened swords,

And wide as targets let them be,

With their shade to cover ye.

“Let the tyrants pour around

With a quick and startling sound

Like the loosening of a sea,

Troops of armed emblazonry.

“Let the charged artillery drive

Till the dead air seems alive

With the clash of clanging wheels,

And the tramp of horses’ heels.

“Let the fixèd bayonet

Gleam with sharp desire to wet

Its bright point in English blood

Looking keen as one for food.

“Let the horsemen’s scimitars

Wheel and flash, like sphereless stars

Thirsting to eclipse their burning

In a sea of death and mourning.

“Stand ye calm and resolute,

Like a forest close and mute,

With folded arms and looks which are

Weapons of unvanquished war,

“And let Panic, who outspeeds

The career of armèd steeds

Pass, a disregarded shade

Through your phalanx undismayed.

“Let the laws of your own land,

Good or ill, between ye stand

Hand to hand, and foot to foot,

Arbiters of the dispute,

“The old laws of England—they

Whose reverend heads with age are gray,

Children of a wiser day;

And whose solemn voice must be

Thine own echo—Liberty!

“On those who first should violate

Such sacred heralds in their state

Rest the blood that must ensue,

And it will not rest on you.

“And if then the tyrants dare

Let them ride among you there,

Slash, and stab, and maim, and hew,—

What they like, that let them do.

“With folded arms and steady eyes,

And little fear, and less surprise,

Look upon them as they slay

Till their rage has died away.

“Then they will return with shame

To the place from which they came,

And the blood thus shed will speak

In hot blushes on their cheek.

“Every woman in the land

Will point at them as they stand—

They will hardly dare to greet

Their acquaintance in the street.

“And the bold, true warriors

Who have hugged Danger in wars

Will turn to those who would be free,

Ashamed of such base company.

“And that slaughter to the Nation

Shall steam up like inspiration,

Eloquent, oracular;

A volcano heard afar.

“And these words shall then become

Like Oppression’s thundered doom

Ringing through each heart and brain,

Heard again—again—again—

“Rise like Lions after slumber

In unvanquishable number—

Shake your chains to earth like dew

Which in sleep had fallen on you—

Ye are many—they are few.”

There may have been no earlier instance in an English-speaking country, in which the action of non-violent civil disobedience was narrated, and the spontaneous “shaming” and discrediting precisely forecast, by which it would achieve its effect, as later seen in India’s independence struggle and America’s civil rights movement, for example.

The Foundry Painter, ca.490-480 BCE

Hephaestus presenting Achilles’ new armor to Thetis.

---------------------------------------------

The “Masque” has a characteristic that Gotthold Lessing ascribed to Homer’s Iliad, giving the example of the shield that Hephaestus, god of fire and the forge, made for Achilles. Homer did not describe what the great bronze shield looked like on Achilles’ arm; instead he told in rich detail how Hephaestus had forged it. The “Masque” is poetry of action, mental and physical, not description. Shelley wrote in the Prometheus Unbound Preface, written just after this:

The imagery which I have employed will be found, in many instances, to have been drawn from the operations of the human mind, or from those external actions by which they are expressed. This is unusual in modern poetry.

The stanzas have a simple ballad form, and like a ballad, the poem never stumbles or slows. The rhyming is completely persistent yet becomes almost imperceptible, because the flow of thought and speech rushes and rolls right through it, completely uncontrolled by the rhyme; it adds impulses to the reader’s thoughts rather than pausing them. The verse is extremely musical like that of Milton and Shakespeare. Shelley’s poetry is not always so; but when inspired by his passion for justice and liberty, it has a great power. Having heard “The Masque of Anarchy,” you will call it up when you think of doing something for intellectual beauty, for humanity.

Shelley immediately sent the “Masque” to his friend Leigh Hunt for publication in The Examiner, one of the magazines Shelley had supported. But the rebel Hunt, who had been imprisoned before for his publishing, this time lost his nerve. “I did not insert it,” he wrote in a preface when he finally published it thirteen years later, “because I thought that the public at large had not become sufficiently discerning to do justice to the sincerity and kind-heartedness of the spirit that walked in this flaming robe of verse.” By late 1819 the only people who wanted to publish Shelley were several leaders of the English Chartists, the very workers’ movement which had called the demonstration which was attacked in the Peterloo Massacre at Manchester.

Among that movement some of Shelley’s earlier poetry was widely read, discussed and used as an impulse for political reform. This was particularly true of his youthful poem “Queen Mab,” written about the same time as An Appeal to the Irish People. In fact, his pamphlet for a free press, Letter to Lord Ellenborough, suppressed by its printer in 1812, was partly reprinted by the Chartists as a preface to “Queen Mab,” and circulated widely among them.

It is interesting to think what would have been the effect on the Chartist movement had Leigh Hunt published “The Masque of Anarchy” in 1819 immediately after the Peterloo Massacre. Their leaders would have become aware of it and would have found a way for its mass printing and circulation, as they had with “Queen Mab”—and as they did with selected stanzas of “The Masque of Anarchy,” but only in the 1840s. This is not to pass judgement on the Chartists, except as that they were mass workingmen’s movement for constitutional reform, and to consider here what they might have become with access to the full power of ideas in Shelley’s writings, rather than just snatches of a few of his ideas.

Shelley’s final prose writing in 1821, “A Defence of Poetry,” was accepted by the magazine, Ollier’s Literary Miscellany, as the first part of a reply to Thomas Peacock’s article, “The Four Ages of Poetry.” Ironically, Peacock, a former friendly acquaintance of Shelley and amateur poet, had chosen a career with that colonial looting army known as the British East India Company, and now wrote about how the “utilitarian age” of the early 19th century had no different use for poetry than for jewelry or other adornments. The magazine folded before it could run Shelley’s “Defence,” so it too was not published until well after his death, and the planned second and third parts of it were never written. Nevertheless, its influence has steadily grown since its publication in 1840.

The central tenet of the “Defence” is that poetry, and the ability to experience its intellectual beauty, is the cause of human benevolence and morality. Great poets never write poems as lessons in particular morality, but the increased power of imagination with which poetry resonates in a population, is the cause of greater love for humanity:

The great secret of morals is love, or a going out of our own nature, and an identification of ourselves with the beautiful which exists in thought, action, or person not our own. A man, to be greatly good, must imagine intensely and comprehensively; he must put himself in the place of another and of many others; the pains and pleasures of his species must become his own. The great instrument of moral good is the imagination; and poetry ministers to this effect, by acting upon its cause. . . . Poetry strengthens that faculty which is the organ of the moral nature of man, in the same manner that exercise strengthens a limb.

Shelley concluded the article with the same statement made in the Philosophical View of Reform of the elevated receptivity to poetic beauty in a people going through dramatic political change, and in the writers themselves who create that beauty. There are slight differences two years later; for example, now simply “poets” rather than “philosophers and poets” are “the unacknowledged legislators of the world.” In the “Defence” Shelley pronounced the truest philosophers, and specifically Plato, to be among the greatest poets. This illustrates the development of his view that poetic beauty is actually a mutual, or universal creation of an aroused population and its best thinkers.

Most importantly, he now gave priority to the increased potential imaginative power of “a great people” in a political crisis, as being the cause of new and beneficial ideas, rather than defining poetry, which strengthened that power, as being that power itself:

The most unfailing herald, companion, and follower of the awakening of a great people to work a beneficial change in opinion or institution, is Poetry. At such periods there is an accumulation of the power of communicating and receiving intense and impassioned conceptions respecting man and nature. The persons in whom this power resides may often, as far as regards many portions of their nature, have little apparent correspondence with that spirit of good of which they are the ministers. But even whilst they deny and abjure, they are yet compelled to serve the Power which is seated upon the throne of their own soul. It is impossible to read the compositions of the most celebrated writers of the present day without being startled with the electric life which burns within their words. They measure the circumference and sound the depths of human nature with a comprehensive and all-penetrating spirit, and they are themselves perhaps the most sincerely astonished at its manifestations, for it is less their spirit than the spirit of the age. Poets are the hierophants of an unapprehended inspiration; the mirrors of the gigantic shadows which futurity casts upon the present; the words which express what they understand not; the trumpets which sing to battle and feel not what they inspire; the influence which is moved not, but moves. Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world.

CC BY-SA 3.0 DE

Rosa Luxemburg, in 1915.

---------------------------------------------

Political Mass Strike

About a century later, at the time of World War I, a young Polish revolutionary, Rosa Luxemburg, discovered the same idea Shelley had discovered. She called the rise in popular intelligence and morality in a crisis, the political mass strike. As befits human intellectual progress, Rosa Luxemburg improved upon Shelley, by describing very precisely what characterizes such a genuine uprising of popular creativity, and what distinguishes it from mere periods of unrest or public anger. The breakthrough by the pamphleteer/poet was being scientifically advanced and filled out.

Another fifty years later, in 1967, the American economist and philosopher Lyndon LaRouche, knowing well both Shelley’s and Luxemburg’s ideas of a “mass strike,” employed his own ideas to start building an extraordinary political and cultural movement.

LaRouche, for example, wrote a pamphlet, The Third Stage of Imperialism, which he initially circulated, with the help of a half-dozen of his students, at a huge protest in New York City’s Central Park against the Vietnam War, and afterwards at other student protests. The pamphlet’s central idea was that the mass student ferment against that war—a British imperial project foisted on the United States to ruin it—should be transformed into a mass movement for the economic advancement and development of underdeveloped countries. Already then, the “Third World” was becoming a cheap-labor re-location for some European and U.S. industries, a phenomenon of deindustrialization described and denounced, probably for the first time, by LaRouche at that moment.

The student protesters were becoming alienated from the American working population, which already then was facing the start of a series of currency and financial crises; yet the students were open at the same time to the highest ideas and most important missions in life.

EIRNS

LaRouche organizers leading the Columbia University student strikers in 1969.

EIRNS

Lyndon LaRouche speaking with youth in 1973.

---------------------------------------------

During the late 1960s LaRouche’s idea of a “political mass strike” was much sharper than Shelley’s. He insisted that—and described how—the Vietnam War tragedy, combined with the developing financial crises and deindustrialization, were changing Americans’ powers of comprehension and impelling a thinking group of youth among them, to act. But there was also the danger that people could potentially be driven by crisis against each other—student protesters against unions and other working people—in the direction of fascist radicalization. LaRouche’s Campaigner magazine explained exactly how that could happen—with Wall Street’s manipulation—in order to successfully fight that manipulation, and move to a higher level in which those Americans could go to each other’s support and embrace each other’s benefit.

LaRouche’s small forces organized “strike support” actions bringing strikes and protests backing from other parts of the American population, showing that a political crisis could impel different groups within populations potentially to see the benefit of the others, and to act for it. They could even see the benefit of others in the world, such as the underdeveloped nations—if the policy ideas were circulated among them which made such common human benefit clear.

And it was necessary, LaRouche emphasized immediately, that the instigators of such beneficial change should commit themselves to the intellectual power that comes from love of beauty and love of humanity. LaRouche debated with his own students that it was essential they immerse themselves in the music of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms and discard the 1960s pop-rot they still tended to prefer. The performance of beautiful music and poetry gradually became a universal hallmark of his movement.

Through large student strikes at Columbia University and the University of Pennsylvania and a long and controversial strike of New York City teachers, the truth of this “strike support” or “mass strike” idea was shown and LaRouche’s political movement grew, especially among university graduate students. During the 1968 student strike at Columbia University, LaRouche personally, briefly dominated the educational process among its student body; his associates had similar effect in other university student strikes. The method of anticipating dramatic and apparently sudden changes for the better in people’s ability to think, was shown to work.

LaRouche had accurately forecast the currency crises of the late 1960s and the resulting 1971 breakup of the post-War Bretton Woods monetary system. And in the political shockwave caused by President Richard Nixon’s ending the Bretton Woods gold reserve system, LaRouche defeated a leading liberal academic economist in a public debate on the policies causing that crisis. LaRouche’s influence and movement leapt upward.

CC

A manifestation of the mass-strike process today. Yellow Vest movement activists gather at the Carrefour de l’Espérance (Crossroads of Hope) traffic circle in Belfort, France on November 17, 2018.

Percy Shelley as sketched by E.E. Williams, 1821

---------------------------------------------

In his writings, classes and speeches in the decades since then, Lyndon LaRouche has repeatedly cited Percy Shelley’s 1821 article, “A Defence of Poetry,” testifying to the power of this “mass strike” idea; and has quoted particularly the article’s concluding statement as to what poetry is, and what a crisis in human thinking is:

The most unfailing herald, companion, and follower of the awakening of a great people to work a beneficial change in opinion or institution, is poetry. At such periods there is an accumulation of the power of communicating and receiving the most intense and impassioned conceptions respecting man and nature.

It is up to those who know the power of LaRouche’s ideas, to make this a “crisis of beneficial innovation.”

China’s Lunar Far-Side Mission

Has Made History

by Marsha Freeman

JPL/NASA

Moon’s far side.

---------------------------------------------

Jan. 20—On January 3, at 10:26 a.m. Beijing time, China’s Chang’e-4 spacecraft landed in the south polar region on the far side of the Moon. This high-risk mission has opened the previously unexplored, scientifically unique, and potentially highly valuable hemisphere of the Moon, which is never seen from Earth. Prior to Chang’e-4, the far side of the Moon was only seen in glances from orbit by the Apollo astronauts and robotic spacecraft. The Chang’e-4 lander and rover are the first to study the far side in situ.

For years, political commentators have ridiculed the Chinese space program as merely doing what the United States did in the 1960s (the which it can no longer do).

Now China has done something that has never been done before! This should jolt Americans out of their stupor of recent years, which allowed the shuttering of our manned space program. And it has been done not to gain publicity or because there is a “space race,” but because it is a crucial aspect of China’s national commitment to contribute breakthroughs in new universal principles in science. China’s space program is a science driver for its own economy and for those along the Belt and Road. The transfer of space technology to the economy is aimed at increasing economic productivity and people’s standard of living in China, and in the dozens of countries that are participating in the “great projects” that are underway.

U.S. responses to this Chinese space advance run the political gamut. Former NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden has called for removing Congressional obstacles to enable U.S. space cooperation with China, while the genetically anti-China think tanks see the lunar mission as a further provocation by China, which is supposedly preparing for military action against the United States from space.

China Lunar Exploration Program

China’s Chang’e-4 rover, Yutu-2, gets to work on the far side of the Moon.

---------------------------------------------

On Jan. 19, NASA issued a statement proposing new areas of cooperation with China on lunar exploration, offering to help analyze the imagery of Chang’e-4’s landing plume (dust that is ejected upward when a spacecraft lands), as well as offering close collaboration with NASA’s counterpart in China, the China National Space Administration (CNSA) in exchanging, collecting and analyzing data to be able to have the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) go over the Chang’e-4 site to take high-definition pictures; the LRO will be in an ideal position to do so on Jan. 31.

NASA/Paul E. Alers

Former NASA Administrator Charles Bolden at the Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida on July 21, 2011.

---------------------------------------------

America, too, used to have a lunar exploration program. This coming July, the entire world will celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 mission—man’s first steps on the Moon. It is remarkable—and tragic—that, in five decades, the United States has not returned to the Moon, and this failure has contributed to the cultural pessimism of our youth.

What has increasingly gripped the United States since the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, is the British oligarchy-centered financial strangulation of investment in the productive economy, replaced by financial resources being transferred to highly speculative and worthless paper. While bankrupt financial institutions are bailed out to the tune of tens of trillions of dollars, there is “not enough money” in the federal budget for the space program, fusion energy, or breakthrough areas of science.

Even more deadly than the financial cuts and destruction of infrastructure, was the injection—as if with a virus—of the “rock-drug-sex counterculture” in the aftermath of the Kennedy and King assassinations. The primary vector of this intellectual and moral decay of American culture was the anti-science and anti-human “environmentalist” movement.

As Henry Ford aptly put it, “Whether you think you can, or you think you can’t—you’re right.” If you believe that man is simply a beast and that the world is overpopulated (particularly among darker-skinned people), then why go to the Moon at all?

LaRouche on the Spirit of Inquiry

China has surpassed the United States in some aspects of lunar exploration. But, America can overthrow the ever-increasing insanity of the post-JFK era and uniquely take a critically important, leading role because of our historical mission as a nation. It was America that defeated the British Empire; it was FDR who opposed the Empire after WWII; and we were the first nation to land a man on the Moon and bring him safely back to Earth. That Moon mission was an accomplishment for all mankind.

We can “leapfrog” over these obstacles, by re-igniting the idea of mission—not just a return of Man to the Moon, but an intensive “crash-program”—for Moon-Mars colonization, as initially outlined by Lyndon H. LaRouche at a conference held in 1985.[fn_1] The Chang’e-4 mission can be the spark that ignites such a mission.

The intention of space exploration is truly the eventual colonization of the Solar system. LaRouche’s “Moon-Mars Colonization” program treats the two heavenly bodies as one unit; that we do not explore the Moon “in and of itself,” but that these investigations are the stepping stones to colonization of the Moon and beyond.

In his 1985 presentation, LaRouche emphasized the moral necessity of a crash-program for space exploration:

Any intelligent and reflective person, must recall as the most joyful moments of his or her life as a pupil in primary and secondary schools, as those moments of discovery, in which the act of discovery was associated with an emotion at once impassioned and sublime. We sometimes speak of such moments as “a light going on in the head.” It can best be described as a “beautiful experience.” When we, as happy children, relive some discovery of the past in the course of our studies, we experience a kind of joyful excitement akin to the most profound sense of love, the quality of love summed up by Dante Alighieri in the concluding, empyreal canto of his Commedia. . . .

In adult life, the individual’s creative powers are an extension and maturation of such joyful experiences as young pupils. The adult scientist strives to experience those beautiful moments of childhood experience, within the scale of reference assigned to his practical duties as an adult member of society. To be able to retain such motives and creative powers, is to love oneself, is expressive of the highest degree of happiness an individual can attain in this mortal life. No matter how crabbed, peevish, or other the personality defects with which a scientist may be adorned in social practice in the classroom or in other practice of the profession or personal life, what makes him a fruitful scientist is a childlike quality within him, the sweet fruit among the worms of his personality defects.

The essence of science is such passion, such task-orientation. Herein lies the source of energy for sustained concentration-span in rigorous re-examination of prevailing assumptions. Herein lies not only the passion indispensable to creative-scientific fruitfulness; herein lies the capacity of the layman, as factory operative, or other, to assimilate scientific progress efficiently, creatively.

It is such so-impassioned “task-orientation,” situated within a fierce attachment to Socratic rigor, which is the wellspring of great upsurges of scientific creativity, and upsurges of the enlarged capacity of populations for “imparting and receiving profound and impassioned conceptions respecting man and nature.” To afford to scientific progress, the unifying form of task-orientation supplied by a proper choice of grand mission-assignment, is the optimal circumstance for high rates of productions in the advancement of applications of fundamental scientific progress.

Fortunately—and perhaps ironically—other nations are rejecting the “Green Agenda,” and instead adopting aspects of LaRouche’s perspective.

China is using its national financial and physical resources for great infrastructure projects. Lunar mission chief designer Wu Weiren, in an interview on January 14 with CGTN, said that China must lift its people out of poverty, but in doing this, he added, “We should aim deeper into the sky. One philosopher has said that if a nation does not look up at the starry sky and only buries its head and feet, this nation has no hope and no future.”

The future of mankind is taking shape through the space exploration missions of many nations, with China now leading the way in exploring the Moon.

NASA/Debbie McCallum

Former astronaut Harrison Schmitt, in 2009.

---------------------------------------------

Chang’e-4: A Mission of Firsts

The Chang’e-4 mission has demonstrated a number of firsts in China’s lunar exploration program, but also firsts for the entire global exploration community. China’s scientists were not the first to propose a high-risk lunar far-side mission. Apollo 17 astronaut and geologist Harrison Schmitt had proposed that NASA send astronauts to land on the far side. The space agency determined that such a mission was too risky, and of course it didn’t have the funding for such a mission. Thereafter, the mission was ceded to China. The firsts carried out by the Chang’e-4 mission are, most notably:

• The first landing of a spacecraft on the far side of the Moon.

• The first deployment of a relay satellite to be the communication link between a lander and rover, and mission control on Earth.

• The first autonomous landing on the Moon, with the navigational ability to hover, in order to find a safe landing site.

• The first attempt to grow plants on the Moon.

The far-side landing mission was not part of the China National Space Agency’s original three-phase lunar exploration plan, but it was rather quickly “repurposed” from an “extra” spacecraft—which showed agility and a prepared disposition on the part of the scientists and the bureaucracy.

Although the far side is often erroneously described as the dark side, both sides of the Moon receive an equal amount of sunlight, as the Moon rotates on its axis. We never see the far side due to the “tidal locking” of the Moon with the Earth; the Moon’s period of rotation on its axis is in sync with its rotation around the Earth (about a month), which results in the same side always facing the Earth. The far side is “dark,” only in the sense of our lack of knowledge about it.

Due to this tidal locking, communications with spacecraft on the far side—commands sent from Earth to the spacecraft, and data from the craft back to Earth—cannot be done directly. Therefore, last May, China launched a relay satellite named “Queqiao,” or “Bridge of Magpies,”[fn_2] to a region about 60,000 km past the Moon to the gravitationally-stable “L-2” region, where it needs little fuel to maintain its position. From that vantage point, it can communicate with the spacecraft on the Moon’s far side, and the scientists and engineers on Earth, simultaneously. China has offered use of the relay satellite to any other nation with a mission on the far side in the future.

unknown artist, after Tang Yin

In Chinese folklore, the goddess Chang’e.

---------------------------------------------

A second challenge was to land Chang’e-4 autonomously. Even though the lag time in communication via the relay satellite is only 60 seconds, the choosing of a safe landing site had to be done quickly, and the spacecraft was equipped with the capability to decide where it was safe to land.

Another innovative design was the delightful inclusion of a small canister placed on the lander containing seeds, fruit flies and other very small living creatures—a miniature biosphere experiment—another first—the first ever to be carried out beyond low Earth orbit. The goal was to create a “mini-biosphere,” in which as the plants grow, they produce the oxygen needed by the flies, and as the flies grow, they produce the carbon dioxide needed by the plants. This experiment involved the collaboration of 28 Chinese universities, led by Chongqing University.

The light for the canister was piped in sunlight from the outside, but there was no heating device to protect the plants. So, sadly, as the day turned to night at the landing site, the plants died. However, at a January 15 press conference, Chinese scientists reported that more than 170 photographs were taken of the activity inside the small tin canister. Images sent back, says Prof. Xie Gengxin from Chongqing University (who designed the experiment), show that at least one cotton seed has sprouted and started to grow. Until now, Xie says, such growth experiments were only conducted in low Earth orbit. This has been the first one on the Moon, and as news of this marvelous event has flashed around the globe, it has ignited the imaginations of youth everywhere: “A seed has sprouted on the Moon!”

Harvest of Anomalies

The far side of the Moon is distinctly different from the hemisphere seen from the Earth, which difference is yet to be explained. It is one thing to design experiments to look for those things you hypothesize exist; it is quite another to look for anomalies. On the far side, there are few smooth plains called maria, Latin for seas, because early astronomers thought the dark areas on the Moon were oceans of water. These maria, now known to be formed by ancient lava flows, are prominent features on the side that we “see” as “the Man in the Moon,” or a Rabbit, or other such imagery, depending on our cultural traditions.

The far side is characterized instead by craters, with numerous smaller craters within larger, older ones. Chang’e-4 now sits inside the 186-km diameter Von Kármán crater, within the huge 2,500 km-wide South Pole-Aitkin Basin, which is the oldest and largest lunar impact crater. Previous orbital observations suggest there are large caches of water ice there.

Geology is another area of science which beckons us and promises amazing discoveries. Moon rocks from previous manned missions indicate that the Moon is older than the Earth—how can this be?! Samples of soil from the lunar near side, brought back by the Apollo astronauts, are very similar—but not identical—in chemical composition to that of the far side (as measured from orbit by spacecraft such NASA’s Clementine and the European Space Agency’s SMART-1). Therefore, there are still lively debates regarding the origin of the Moon.

Unlike the near side, which is shielded by the Earth from a certain amount of galactic cosmic radiation, the far side is completely exposed. Perhaps this exposure to radiation could account for some of the difference in the geologic history of the two different hemispheres of the Moon, such as volcanic activity. Could it account for differences in chemistry?

Additionally, the surface of the Moon is extremely hard—the maria are composed primarily of ilmenite—an ore of titanium. The rock outcroppings have a different chemical composition than the moon dust—what are their origins? Usually, when planets form, heavier elements migrate to the core, and the lighter elements move toward the surface—but, on the Moon, the heavier elements are on the surface! How can this be? It is precisely these kinds of burning questions which Chang’e-4 can begin to address.

Chongqing University

A Chongqing University research team holds the biosphere canister experiment they developed, housing plants and insects. It was carried on the Chang’e-4 lunar lander.

---------------------------------------------

Science on the Moon

The Yutu-2 rover is equipped with an imaging spectrometer, enabling an analysis of the chemical composition of the lunar surface. The ground-penetrating radar aboard will create images of the various layers of the Moon, to reveal the history and geologic features below the surface. These can be compared to radar data that Yutu has been gathering from the near side of the Moon, on the Chang’e-3 mission.

In 2015, when the Chang’e-4 mission was under development, China invited other countries to contribute experiments. The Advanced Small Analyzer for Neutrals, contributed by Sweden, will explore how the solar wind interacts with particles and the soil on the Moon. And, the German “Lunar Lander Neutrons and Dosimetry” (LND) experiment will make measurements of the radiation environment in the vicinity of the landing site. As the scientists note, the poles of the Moon are the ideal place for lunar bases.

The lunar poles possess concentrations of water ice inside perpetually dark craters, due to the migration of water molecules (the mechanism for which is still under investigation), delivered by comets, meteorites, or the effects of the solar wind. The far-side south pole region also has mountains with “peaks of eternal light,” that is, they are in sunshine most of the time, rather than just two weeks per month. For any future base to be visited by crew, access to water and solar power will be key. The Chinese plan is to create a robotic science base that would be visited periodically by astronauts.

A third international scientific payload takes advantage of the fact that, in never facing the Earth, the far side is not bombarded with manmade radio and other manmade electromagnetic noise. The Moon’s quiet far side is the perfect place for radio astronomy, enabling us to peer ever more deeply into the Universe. Aboard the relay satellite is the Netherlands-China Low-Frequency Explorer. Its job is to map the radio sky to study large-scale “noise” in our galaxy, and to detect and explore solar and planetary radio bursts.

The Chinese scientists have pledged that they will share what they learn about the Moon with the international scientific community. This has not always been the case. The fact that two of the experiments on this mission were provided by non-Chinese institutions will most likely spur timely release of data, since the principal investigators traditionally get first access to the raw data as it is received—in this case from the relay satellite—by China’s mission control, which will then make the data available to the public.

Chinese Academy of Sciences

Ouyang Ziyuan, father of the Chang’e program, speaking at the Xi’an Institute of Optics and Precision Mechanics of the Academy of Sciences in Xi’an, China, in November 2010.

---------------------------------------------

The Father of Chang’e and Helium-3

China’s series of lunar missions began in the mind of the now 84-year-old Ouyang Ziyuan drawing on the legend of Chang’e, the woman who flew to the Moon with her Jade Rabbit, having been banished from Earth on gaining immortality.

Despite an early interest in astronomy, Ouyang decided to study geology and mineral resources after high school. In a 2013 interview with Lu Yishan, a reporter with the Yangcheng Evening News, Ouyang explained:

In 1957, Sputnik opened for humanity a new era of exploration. This gave me an extreme shock. I always believed China would have the capability of launching a satellite.

I began to conduct a study of a meteorite in 1958, creating “Cosmo-chemistry.” . . . Gradually, we pulled together a theory and an array of researchers for investigations of meteorites from the Moon and other celestial bodies.

In 1978, President Carter’s National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, visited China and left a small Chinese flag that had been taken to the Moon by an astronaut, and second, a piece of the Moon mounted in plexiglass about the size of a thumb. . . . The State Council asked the Academy of Sciences Guiyang Institute of Geochemistry to investigate the time and place where the rock was found.

With great care, they examined the 0.5 grams. [They] issued a 14-page report and affirmed that the rock was picked up by the Apollo 17 astronauts, and determined where the rock was from, whether there was sunlight there, which they could tell from certain characteristics.

In 1993, we submitted a proposal for a first lunar science mission. . . . Experts approved it. The Institute of Geochemistry issued a report in 1994, “The Necessity and Feasibility of China’s Development of a Lunar Probe.” In 1995, the Academy of Sciences proposed to continue the study of a program, which led to a more detailed proposal, “The Development Strategy and Long-Term Plan for China’s Lunar Exploration.” . . . The Academy approved a plan with three parts: 1) Unmanned probes; 2) Manned landings; and 3) Creation of a lunar base, with the development of resources and the lunar environment.

The first, unmanned phase was later divided into three parts: orbiting, landing and sample return.

In 1998, Ouyang and his team were asked for specific designs, and following a gathering of experts from around the country from a variety of technical domains, Ouyang and his colleagues wrote a prospectus for the Chang’e program. On January 24, 2004, the State Council approved the report, as did Premier Wen Jiabao, ratifying the development of the Chang’e-1, which inaugurated the China Lunar Exploration Program (CLEP). Since its inception, Ouyang has been the chief scientist of the lunar program.

In 2007, China became a deep-space-exploring nation, when Chang’e-1 orbited the Moon. Three years later, Chang’e-2 took high-resolution photographs from lunar orbit to prepare for Chang’e-3 that would place a lander and the first Yutu rover on the surface of the Moon in 2013. As the United States used to do for planetary missions, an identical Chang’e-3 back-up spacecraft had been made, in case the mission failed. As the mission was a success, China’s scientific community decided to “repurpose” the now-extra craft and announced in 2014 that they would attempt an historic first and send it to the far side of the Moon. It became the current mission, Chang’e-4.

From the beginning of China’s lunar program, Ouyang lobbied for the development of the resources on the Moon. The most game-changing resource is Helium-3 (He-3). Rarely found on Earth, He-3 is the perfect fuel for nuclear fusion. Lyndon LaRouche in his 2014 “Four New Laws to Save The U.S.A.” specifies in his Fourth Law the need for a Fusion-Driver “Crash Program.” Fusion energy will be achieved most efficiently using He-3 from the Moon as a fuel. The industrialization of the Moon, as elegantly described by space visionary Krafft Ehricke, will depend upon He-3 as a fuel source for fusion, to create an artificial biosphere to support people, and to operate mining and other equipment.

Painting by Christopher Sloan

Artist’s depiction of the latest in a row of spherical fusion power plants under construction on the Moon, based on the concepts of space visionary Krafft Ehricke.

---------------------------------------------

Footprints Across the Solar System

At the 36th Scientific Assembly of the UN Committee on Space Research, held in Beijing in July 2006, Ouyang presented a special lecture:

One hundred tons of He-3 will be needed each year if nuclear fusion technology is applied to meet global energy demand. The Moon has reserves estimated to be between 1 and 5 million tons. Each year three Space Shuttle missions could bring back enough fuel for all human beings across the world. Millions of tons of He-3 on the Moon could provide “at least 10,000 years of energy for all mankind.”

Ouyang explained that China’s lunar missions have enabled the analysis of minerals in craters covering five elements. They will try to improve that to 14, he said. The target, he explained, is to “improve our understanding of He-3 reserves,” and refine the estimate of the amount. Of course, available resources aren’t fixed; they are created by the mind of mankind, and always a function of the prevailing technology—the more advanced the technology, the more resources become available.

Although many media have reported that the Yutu rover would be looking for He-3, as lunar scientist Paul Spudis explained to this author, because the He-3 resides on the Moon in concentrations of parts-per-billion in the soil, samples must be brought back to laboratories on Earth for analysis. That is exactly what the next mission, Chang’e-5, will do.

On January 14, the CNSA held a press conference on the ongoing Chang’e-4 mission and future lunar exploration missions. During the briefing, Wu Weiren, general designer of the lunar program, said that the CNSA is organizing Chinese experts to work on the follow-on lunar missions, and that following the Chang’e-5 near-side sample return mission, scheduled for launch later this year, three future missions are being planned:

• Chang’e-6 will conduct a south pole sample return. Whether it will be conducted on the near or far side of the Moon depends upon the results of the sampling mission of Chang’e-5.

• Chang’e-7 will conduct comprehensive exploration of the south pole, including its land forms, material composition and environment.

• Chang’e-8 will test key advanced technologies on the far side. Companies will be invited to industrialize the technologies. China Science and Technology Daily reports that Wu Yunhua from the CNSA added, “On Chang’e-8, we are planning even more crucial experiments for our lunar exploration, including to determine the possibility of establishing a lunar base for scientific research, if we can do 3D printing on the Moon, and whether it is possible to use the lunar soil for the construction of buildings, in order to jointly construct a lunar base for further exploration of the Moon.”

For the scientists carrying out China’s lunar exploration missions, the Moon is not the limit, but a necessary stepping stone to the rest of deep space.

Ouyang Ziyuan, now 84 years of age, attends the Chang’e lunar mission launches, and is looking beyond the Moon. He told Xinhua on November 23, 2012: “I hope Chinese people can set their ‘footprints’ all over the Solar System.”

[fn_1]. LaRouche, Lyndon H., “Private Initiative for Colonizing the Moon and Mars,” EIR Vol. 12, No. 31. August 9, 1985. [back to text for fn_1]

[fn_2]. According to Chinese folklore, a Cowherd and Weaving Maid were in love with each other, but forbidden by their families to marry. The gods had pity on them, and lifted them up to the heavens. The Cowherd can be seen in the summer sky as a bright star in the constellation Aquila (west of the Milky Way) and the Weaving Maid as the star Vega (east of the Milky Way); they appear closer together than at any other time of the year. The star-lovers are permitted to meet once a year on the Bridge of Magpies, spanning the Milky Way; children are reminded that no magpies will be seen on that evening (the seventh day of the seventh month), because all the magpies have flown to form a bridge in the heavens with their wings. [back to text for fn_2]

III. The Secret of Music

September 8, 1986

SCIENCE AND CULTURE

Truth Is Beauty, and Beauty Is Truth: Understanding the Science of Music

by Lyndon Hermyle LaRouche, Jr.

The editors of EIR are very happy to publish here, for the first time, an article by Mr. LaRouche drafted on September 8, 1986 as part of a proposed book on the same subject. On October 6, 1986 there was a massive raid on EIR’s office and Mr. LaRouche’s residence by the very same forces that are today involved in an ongoing coup attempt against President Trump. Mr. LaRouche was then targeted for elimination by the British Empire forces that had deemed LaRouche’s collaboration with President Reagan on the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) intolerable.

During the recent period, Pope John Paul II has launched a campaign against Satanism. Leading groups within the Catholic Church, and also concerned Protestant groups, have been concerned over years with role of so-called “rock music” in promoting Satanism. Since the end of the 1940s, when Satanism and witchcraft were legalized in Britain, there has been a steadily accelerating increase in the numbers of openly professed, practicing witches. Overlapping this, there is a persisting report of witchcraft groups’ involvement in sexual abuse and ritual murders of children, although, as in the case of the early 1980s investigation of mass-murders of children in Atlanta, Georgia, clues to the role of known witch-cults in such abominations are usually buried under the indictment of isolated scapegoats.

There is no mere coincidence in the recent decades’ recurring connection between “rock music” and Satanism. The promotion of Satanism and “rock music” were both leading projects of professed Lucifer worshipper, Aleister Crowley, and Crowley’s homosexual drug-user’s cult, the Golden Dawn. Among the sponsors of Crowley’s spread of witchcraft cults, have been the one-time husband of anthropologist Dame Margaret Mead, Gregory Bateson, and Bishop Paul Moore’s New York diocese of the Anglican Church. More darkly, the center of such diabolical music projects, has been the “European-cultural” front-projects of Venice’s powerfully influential San Giorgio Maggiore, the latter traditionally an adversary of St. Augustine’s doctrine of musical polyphony.

To those who know the history of music, especially the rhythmical features practiced by the ancient Phrygian cult of Dionysos, there is no mere coincidence in the connection which Crowley’s followers saw between Satanism and their concoction of “rock.” Even without satanic lyrics and implanted subliminal images, “rock” is intrinsically satanic.

The origins of modern Satanism can be traced in England to such influentials as the founder of British socialism, Oxford University’s John Ruskin. Theosophy and the Fabian Society, were both products of the influence of Ruskin and of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood of Ruskin and Benjamin Jowett. In Germany, the roots of Satanism in music are found in the music and cult-circles of the composer Richard Wagner. Prior to the 1950s, the foundations on which rock was built, were established with the popularization of that product of the New Orleans whorehouses, jazz. It is simpler, and adequate, to locate the beginnings of modern satanic-rock and related witch craft cults in the work of Crowley and Friedrich Nietzsche, around the beginning of this century.

The chief impact of both Nietzsche and Crowley upon the twentieth century, was their promulgation of the doctrine that the twentieth century must become “The Dawning of the Age of Aquarius.” Both defined the “Age of Aquarius” as bringing the Christian era (“The Age of Pisces”) to an end. Both included Socrates (and Plato), together with Jesus Christ, as the heritage to be destroyed. Nietzsche proclaimed as god, the Phrygian Cybele cult’s Satan, Dionysos; Crowley, and his collaborator, Astor-family-funded Anthroposophy-founder Rudolf Steiner, adopted Lucifer as their anti-Christ.

Recently an organization of U.S. witches, which has adopted Salem, Massachusetts, as its official national headquarters, has protested that witches’ civil rights are being violated by the popular assumption that witches are Satan worshippers. The witches insist that they are worshippers of the “earth-mother goddess,” and are subject to all the privileges of any religious body! These witches are lying; what else would one expect a witch to do?

Assyrian earth-mother goddess Ishtar (Astarte), derived from Harappan Shakti.

---------------------------------------------

“Dionysos” and “Lucifer” are, quite literally, names of Satan. The original name for the semitic “Satan” was the Dravidian penis-god, Siva. Siva is the fellow-deity (partly sexual consort, partly son) of the “Harappan” (Dravidian) “earth-mother goddess” Shakti. This Harappan culture established a number of colonies, including ancient Sumer in lower Mesopotamia, Ethiopia, and Sheba (approximately the region of modern Yemen). Herodotus, quite rightly, traces the ancient Phoenicians (Philistines) to these same Harappans. The Harappans’ colonial subjects, those semitic pastoral tribes over whom they ruled, were induced to adopt the Harappan’s satanic religion in such forms as the Chaldean’s Ishtar cult, the Sheban cult of Athtar, and the Philistine cult of Astarte-Venus. Through Ethiopia, the same cult was spread by conquest into Upper Egypt, where Shakti and Siva assumed the Hellenistic names of Isis and Osiris. In Phrygia, the names for Shakti and Siva were Cybele (the Roman Sibyl) and Dionysos.

Lucifer is a transliteration of the name for the Syrian Mithra cult’s Satan. “Satan” is the common semitic name for Siva. In Russia, this “Whore of Babylon” is worshipped as “Matushka Rus,” the earth-mother goddess associated with the “sacred blood and soil of Holy Mother Russia.”

In the Christian New Testament, the name for the Harappan earth-mother goddess, is “The Whore of Babylon.” The appellation is well deserved. Ishtar, Astarte, Venus, and so forth, were known to the ancient Mediterranean world as the patron deities of the whorehouses. In ancient Mesopotamia, the priestesses of Ishtar performed a mass sexual orgy with the communicants as part of regular religious services. Traditionally, witches have been whores and also commonly lesbians. Similarly, Siva-like satanic figures, such as the Osiris of Hellenistic Egypt, were the patrons of male homosexuality.

In history, the Phrygian cult of Cybele-Dionysos was what we would recognize today as a terrorist form of drug-using radical-ecologist movement. The leading target of this cult’s wrath was the rise of city-state republics in Ionia and at Athens. Like the Soviet-directed Baader-Meinhof Gang of West Germany, the cult of Dionysos seduced adolescents from the families of leaders of the cities, sated them with drugged sexual orgies, and turned them into assassins, assigned to kill the families of their parents and their parents’ friends. A key element in the process of turning these seduced adolescents into terrorist killers, was the blending of the drug and sexual-orgy routines with a mind-deadening form of dance, the model used by classical scholars associated with Crowley, to produce the rhythmic patterns of modern “rock.”

The points to be stressed in this connection, are the following:

1. The launching of the “Age of Aquarius,” or “New Age,” movement, around the beginning of the Twentieth Century, was done by persons who avowed themselves to be militant Satanists, dedicated to total destruction of western European Judeo-Christian, family-centered values.

2. The leading founders of this movement, were classical scholars, such as Nietzsche, and those circles of Ruskin and Jowett which produced Crowley. They modelled their “New Age” cults on dionysiac cult-movements of the classical-Greek period, which they had studied exhaustively, and whose efficient psychological techniques they understood and imitated.

3. “Rock” is a modern imitation of the principles of the dance-rhythms of the Phrygian, Cybelline cult of Dionysos, which has both an historic, and efficient psychological connection to Satanism.

Left: Photo by Nadar; right: photo by Gustav Adolf Schultze

Left to right: Franz Liszt Richard Wagner Friedrich Nietzsche

---------------------------------------------

4. The nineteenth-century “Romantic” movement in music, typified by Franz Liszt and Richard Wagner, and the ultra-Romantic “modernist” currents leading into jazz and rock, were introduced artificially to culture by the current which produced Nietzsche and Crowley.

5. The stated purpose of all forms of Satanism currently in vogue, including rock, is to destroy civilization from within, by destroying the minds and morality of the youth.

6. The professed Satanists who created and popularized rock, knew in advance the general political-psychological effect of what they were doing.

7. The Russian Empire’s Soviet dynasty, itself, like Nazism, a direct product of the “New Age” movement, has promoted the satanic rock-drug-sex counterculture in the West and among developing nations, as a means for destroying resistance to Soviet conquest from within our nations.

PRNewsFoto/Elliott Landy

Dionysian Woodstock orgy of August 1969.

---------------------------------------------

The intellectual architects of the “New Age” Satan movements, have understood very clearly the importance of destroying the classical polyphony associated with such famous names as Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven. Not only are the Romantic dogmas of Wagner, the ugly twelve-tone and other cacophonies of the modernists, jazz, and rock, each a product of a conscious intent to promote evil; the authors of this evil within music, understood the power for good specific to classical polyphony.

Although a scientifically sound doctrine of modern polyphony was begun by the circles of Leonardo da Vinci, and elaborated during the eighteenth century, what we know as the “classical music” repertoire of, especially, Italy and Germany, was a culmination of the musical doctrine of St. Augustine. St. Augustine studied and adopted the principles of harmonic beauty found in Plato’s dialogues; but, it was Augustinus’ establishing these principles as a canonical feature of the doctrine of western Christianity, which has been the efficient source of our western musical culture.

The Satanists agreed with Augustinus’ wisdom, to the effect of seeing, that the compatibility of well-tempered polyphony with Christianity is such, that to destroy well-tempered polyphony is to attack Christianity’s rooting within the individual and community of families on a vulnerable flank.

This paper is written as the introduction to a projected book, to be written, in chief, by David P. Goldman and a group of his immediate collaborators. The principal subject of this paper, is identification of the scientific proof of the aesthetic principles of Plato and St. Augustine, concentrating on the application of that proof to the rudiments of musical composition. The principal subsidiary feature of this paper, is identification of the specific, anti-scientific aesthetical doctrine of Immanuel Kant, which paved the way for the rise of both the Romantic movement in Germany, and, in directly so, for the rise of Wagner’s follower, Adolf Hitler.

We mention the connection of this Nazi doctrine of music to the analogous musical-interpretation doctrine adopt ed by Soviet Russia.

In war against Satan, as in all war, it is indispensable to know the face of the enemy. It is even more indispensable to know the true nature of the cause we are defend ing against that enemy.

CC/Christophe Meneboeuf

The Acropolis in Athens, Greece—the epitome of Beauty.

---------------------------------------------

1. The Fundamental Principle of Aesthetics

The design of the Athens Acropolis is one of the true wonders of ancient civilization. Contrary to some textbook myth-making, the Acropolis’s design was not a hodge-podge of successive additions at different points in time. The final structure was the fulfilment of a comprehensive, original design, to the effect, that from Erectheum, through Parthenon, and Nike Apteros by the gate, the whole is a coherent design, based on the elaboration of a single principle.

The principle of design, is a constructable series of divisions of the circle. These divisions correspond to the harmonic composition of the human form. Underlying that ordering, is a very special geometric construction, the Golden Section. All great classical Greek plastic art and music were based on that same ordering principle: the harmonic orderings determined implicitly by the Golden Section.

This approach to aesthetics is a leading feature of Plato’s dialogues. Beauty is that which corresponds to life, especially the perfection of human life. That which is not consistent with such forms, is ugliness; ugliness is that which is anti-life, death, the inorganic.

Plato’s dialogues are the first still-surviving source in European literature, for the proof that whatever is beautiful according to these principles is also truth, and that whatever is truthful is also beautiful. Plato’s dialogues define the proposition, that physical science is the study of the universe in terms of the same Golden-Section harmonics. Thus, the root-principles of physical science are identical with those of aesthetics.

This is taken over by St. Augustine and his followers. The greatest single advance over simply following Augustinian principles for aesthetics, was set into motion by Leonardo da Vinci and by the School of Raphael following him. This was set into motion in the following way.

Modern physical science was founded by Cardinal Nicolaus of Cusa.

Formally, Cusa’s founding of modern science appeared first in the 1440 publication of his De Docta Ignorantia (Of Learned Ignorance), and in those of his sermons which address the same matters. In this, Cusa picks up the central topic of Plato’s Parmenides dialogue (most emphatically), the knowable and efficient interconnection between the macrocosm (the universe, etc.) and the microcosm (the human individual, etc.). In De Docta Ignorantia, Cusa’s treatment of this connection is posed in terms of the efficient interconnection between the Maximum (the macrocosm) and the Minimum (the microcosm).

This writing has many implications for the most fundamental issues of physical science, but two of those features are most noteworthy at this immediate point in our report. First, Cusa presents his argument in the terms of what modern science terms a “synthetic,” or “purely constructive” geometry. A synthetic geometry is one, which prohibits all axioms and any use of an axiomatic-deductive method of argument; the only allowed argument is one based purely on construction from a starting-point of nothing but circular action. Second, Cusa presents the first statement of the most fundamental principle of a synthetic geometry, a principle known to modern geometrical topologists as “the isoperimetric theorem.”

Nothing respecting form is self-evident in the universe, except that there exists a relatively minimum perimetric action which defines a relatively maximum area or volume. From this starting-point, all the mathematics of mathematical physics can be properly constructed, without permitting any resort to axiomatic-deductive-logical methods.

After the 1440 De Docta Ignorantia (published, significantly, during the Council of Florence’s sessions), a significant number of Cusa’s writings concentrate on mathematical physics. For example, Cusa was the first modern scientist to present an approximation of the solar hypothesis of Johannes Kepler.

Painting attributed to Jacopo de’ Barbari, 1495

Luca Pacioli

The five Platonic solids.

---------------------------------------------

The period of Leonardo da Vinci’s greatest efflorescence began in Milan, Italy, during the 1480s. At Milan. Leonardo became a close collaborator of Fra Luca Pacioli, the later author of the famous De Divine Proportione. Pacioli concentrated on elaborating crucial features of Plato’s work from the vantage-point of Cusa’s scientific writings. This led to Pacioli’s elaboration of the work perfected by Leonhard Euler during the eighteenth century, the proof of Plato’s report, that, in visible space, only five regular solids can be constructed: the so-called “five platonic solids.” It was the collaboration between Pacioli and Leonardo on this and related matters, which set into motion both a higher form of aesthetics and the pre-Kepler foundations of modern mathematical physics.

The first indicated proof of the uniqueness of the five platonic solids had been supplied to Plato by a contemporary working at the Cyrenaic temple of Ammon. However, that proof itself was later misplaced. It was not until Pacioli, that the proof was rediscovered.

In brief, the construction of one of the five platonic solids, the twelve-sided dodecahedron, is accomplished by first constructing the Golden Section. By simple division, the other four are constructed as a series: the tetrahedron, the cube, the octahedron, and the icosahedron. No others are possible in visible space. (The fact that there are twelve tones in a musical scale, is shown to be necessary by understanding the topological implications of this construction.)

The next step toward both the establishment of mathematical physics and a richer doctrine of aesthetics, was the collaboration among Pacioli, Leonardo, and their associates, in proving that the form of living processes was also based on the principles of proof of the five platonic solids.

The medieval effort to explain the harmonic peculiarities of growth of living species’ populations, had been Leonardo of Pisa’s Fibonacci-number series. This method, based on arithmetic, rather than geometry, gives an interesting approximation, but explains very little scientifically. Pacioli and Leonardo proved, that all living processes have a characteristic harmonic pattern in form of growth, which is consistent with the Golden Section. A Fibonacci-number series does converge upon the values determined by the Golden Section, but the attempt to understand this convergence from the standpoint of an axiomatic arithmetic or axiomatic algebra, leads to absurd results.

Today, we know, that, on condition that we except the extremes of scale, of astrophysics and microphysics, from consideration, that any process which has a harmonic ordering congruent with the Golden Section, is either a living process or a special class of object produced by a living process. It is a fact, which we need no more than identify at several relevant points of this report, that the fundamental laws of astrophysics and microphysics, are also based on harmonic orderings congruent with the Golden Section. The “fine structure constant,” which reflects the curvature of physical space time on both the astrophysical and microphysical scales, is one example of this. In a Gauss-Riemann mathematical physics, defined from the standpoint of a rigorous synthetic geometry, the constant speed of light and the quantum constant, also reflect, interdependently, the same connection. For our principal purposes in this report, we avoid astrophysics and microphysics as much as possible, and concentrate upon the physics and aesthetics of the ordinary scale of perception.

Left: self-portrait

Leonardo da Vinci and a few of his studies of water.

---------------------------------------------

This work shaped Leonardo’s fundamental discoveries in what became later several branches of physical science: hydrodynamics generally, optics as a branch of hydrodynamics, acoustics as a branch of hydrodynamics, Leonardo’s discovery of the constant speed of light, of acoustical shock-fronts, of the wave-function of propagation of all radiation, and so forth. The collaboration of Pacioli and Leonardo on the harmonics of living processes, leads into the relevant work of Louis Pasteur, and into modern optical biophysics. This also determined the several revolutions which he accomplished in plastic arts and music. The latter included, spherical projection, to replace Albertian linear projection. The impact upon drawing and painting is most easily demonstrated. Although the known surviving writings of Leonardo and his collaborators on music, are fragmentary, the indications from those sources are crucial.

Both in physical sciences, and in aesthetics, the entirety of Leonardo’s work is subsumed under a common principle, such that, as for Plato and St. Augustine earlier, truth and beauty nowhere have differing definitions, or represent in any way a different subject-matter, a different branch of human knowledge and practice.

The essential thing to be stressed at this point in our report, is that Pacioli and Leonardo supplied a fresh basis for affirming the same principle of aesthetics central to Plato’s dialogues. Life is beautiful, and death is ugliness. Those forms which correspond to the characteristics of living processes, as distinct from non-living, are within the realm of beauty. All other definitions of artistic forms, lead to nothing but ugliness.

Art: Beauty Surpassing Itself

Beauty is not yet necessarily art. All living things express beauty. The astrophysical and microphysical laws of the universe, also express beauty. The mere existence of a human child, is beautiful. A horse is also beautiful, and so is the song of the well-trained European nightingale. A leaf is beautiful, and so a tree, or a flower. Art is distinguished from natural beauty, in that is expresses something pertaining to the perfection of the human species.

The essence of art, is that it must both conform to the form of beauty as we find beauty in living nature, and must also be an efficient expression of that which distinguishes mankind absolutely from the beasts.

From the vantage-point of “animal ecology,” mankind is not an animal species.

The condition of society which most nearly approximates the bestial, is so-called “hunting and gathering society.” In this state of affairs, approximately ten average square kilometers of land-area are needed to support one average individual in an extremely wretched condition, at life-expectancies significantly less than twenty years of age. This would place an upper limit upon the human population, of approximately 10 millions individuals.

Today, there are approximately 5 billions persons living on this planet. With general use of nothing more advanced than today’s technologies, we could sustain a population of approximately 15-20 billions, at standards of living comparable to those prevailing in the U.S. during the early 1970s, and with average life-expectancies approximately those of the U.S.A. today. The human potential population-density has been increased by a factor of about 1,000; the average individual of today is better in quality, by a factor of about 1,000, than that of primitive man.

Man is no animal. In the language of animal ecology, mankind’s practice of scientific and technological progress enables the human species to do what no animal species can do. Animal species can adapt to environmental changes, and can be educated to a certain degree by mankind. Man-made or other changes in the environment, can cause the potential population-density of particular animal species to increase or decrease. No animal species can increase its potential population-density by its own means by even as much as one-tenth of an order of magnitude.

Mankind is the only species which can transform its own species-behavior. Transformations for the better, each and all occur through individual creative mental activity of a kind consistent with fundamental scientific discovery.

The animal ecologist’s statistical methods, would require that we define “transformations for the better,” as behavioral changes which have the effect of increasing the potential population-density of mankind: the average number of individuals who can be self-sustaining, per average 100 square kilometers of the Earth’s land-area.

In animal species, the potential population-density can be increased or decreased externally. Such externally determined changes in potential, include both man-made changes, and those occurring without man’s intervention. The cultivation, selective breeding, and training of animal stocks, by man, is a notable element in the range of such possibilities. However, relative to any level of circumstances induced by such “external factors,” the animal species’ own ability to improve its potential is either fixed, or approximately so. With mankind, this potential has been increased by man himself, by a factor of approximately 1,000, and could, in fact, be increased by an additional factor of between 10 and 100, during a coming interval of approximately fifty years.

This set of facts requires us to discover the nature of the causal relationship between willful increase of potential and scientific progress. Broadly, there is a correlation between man’s progress in knowledge of the laws of the universe, and the increase in potential through changes in behavior induced by progress in scientific knowledge. The only forms of human behavior which are properly termed “rational,” are those in which scientific progress is regarded as the characteristic and indispensable standard of human behavior, and in which “scientific progress” is defined only in terms consistent with the notion of increased potential efficiently caused by such progress.

Man measures, tests, what he should regard as progress in scientific knowledge, by limiting such progress to those implicit forms of changes in human behavior which cause increases in potential population-density.

Such improvements in human behavior are inseparable from improvements in the quality of the human individual. “Quality” is reflected in improvement of health and longevity, of material conditions of life generally, and in the level of scientific knowledge of the average individual. In other words, the line of advancement of culture consistent with scientific progress, and increased potential, defines more advanced societies as analogous to a higher species of being than less advanced ones. The individual of the more advanced society represents a greater power over nature, per individual than the less advanced one. What can be accomplished in lower species only by evolution of biological heredity, is accomplished by man as a willful evolution of mental organization to higher forms.

The specific feature of human mental life, which makes possible such willful evolutionary progress of our species, is that which distinguishes mankind absolutely from all lower species.

The only rational definition of “art,” is that which combines natural beauty (Golden-Section-congruent harmonics) with the essential characteristics of fundamental scientific discovery. The latter, “essential characteristics,” signifies that the composition of the work of art must be fully consistent with exactly the same creative faculties of mind required to effect a fundamental scientific discovery. The included restriction is: in no way, must the creative faculty violate the principle of beauty, and also, in no way must beauty be achieved by any means but the elaboration of this “essential characteristic.”

The relationship between the principle of beauty and the creative principle, which we have just identified, is of the form we call “doubly-connected” in synthetic geometry.

For example, in the case of doubly-connected circular action, an “independent degree” of circular action is acting upon circular action constantly. By adding a third, “in dependent degree” of circular action, we generate everything which it is possible to generate by construction within the bounds of visible space. (The “bounds of visible space,” are defined as to principle by the proof of the uniqueness of the five platonic solids.)

In the case of art, beauty and creativity are, respectively, “independent degrees.” The one can not be derived simply from the other, and the action of neither can modify the other moment as such. At every imaginable point, in the physical space-time of artistic composition, beauty is acting upon creativity, and creativity is acting upon beauty, such that the effect is their combined action, but that neither action as such is altered by the other. At least, this limitation is the first-approximation case, pending consideration of more advanced principles derived from the elaboration of this case.

However, creativity itself has a characteristic form of action. This is demonstrated by comparing the most fundamental laws common to astrophysics, living processes (as distinct from dead or inorganic ones), and microphysics. To make such a comparison, requires that we consider nothing true about the lawful composition of living processes, which does not distinguish each and all living processes absolutely from non-living ones. To make such a comparison requires, that nothing is fundamentally lawful in astrophysics or microphysics, which is not consistent with the absolute principle distinguishing living from non-living processes.

Kepler’s founding of universal mathematical physics, was based successfully on the principle of life as previously identified by Pacioli and Leonardo. Kepler’s astrophysics has flaws of insufficiency, as he himself was the first to emphasize; in other words, it is correct, relative to the fallacy of all contrary astrophysics, but is inadequate as an absolute statement of astrophysics, and contains demonstrable errors of measurement attributable entirely to that specific inadequacy. However, to move backwards or sideways from Kepler’s solar hypothesis, as Galileo, Descartes, and Newton did, is to produce nothing but silly errors.

Kepler is right as far as he goes, excepting a relatively minor error, relative to earlier work of Leonardo et al. on musical harmonics. His inadequacies are limited otherwise to the fact that he does not go far enough, inadequacies conquered largely by the later work of Leibniz, Gauss, and Riemann.

With those qualifications, Kepler already proved, that the same harmonical principles which distinguish living from non-living processes, are the fundamental laws of astrophysics. The effect of the work of Leibniz, Gauss, Riemann, et al., was to make this more emphatically clear.

Since the laws of the universe are of the form of harmonic orderings congruent with the Golden Section, fundamental scientific discovery reflects man’s capacity to bring our minds into congruence with such harmonic orderings. Thus, the action corresponding to the creative potential of the human mind is congruent with such harmonic orderings. Creative thinking is beautiful thinking; all other thinking is, relatively ugly thinking.

Thus, art is defined as a doubly-connected action, in which each independent component of such action is itself congruent with the harmonic orderings of the Golden Section: True art is beautiful thinking about beauty, as elaborated within the bounds of beauty of form.

Left: Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464); right: Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)

---------------------------------------------

Creativity in Art

What we have outlined up to this point, shows generally the reciprocity, the interdependence of truth and beauty, but only in a preliminary way. “Truth” must satisfy two additional requirements, in addition to those we have explicitly described thus far. These two are, creativity as such, and love in the Greek sense of “agapē.”

The widespread, ignorant assumption among literate persons, is that “laws of the universe” signifies fixed laws, as we associate “fixed laws” with the mechanics of Isaac Newton, for example. As Philo Judaeus of Alexandria argued correctly, Judeo-Christian theology views belief in “fixed laws” as not only very bad cosmogony, but as a most insulting attitude toward the Creator.

In Genesis, the Creator composed the beginning of the universe out of a formless void. If Plato were to read such a passage, he would grasp the meaning of this more or less correctly, and instantly so. From the standpoint of modern platonic science, that of Gauss and Riemann, we are able to be more precise than Plato might have been. Plato would insist that we read any passage as profound as this one in the language of a synthetic geometry. From the standpoint of modern synthetic geometry, the mathematical physics of Gauss and Riemann, we can read this more precisely.

In synthetic geometry since Cusa’s De Docta Ignorantia, the presentation of elementary synthetic geometry from an advanced standpoint, begins with nothing but triply-connected circular action, acting within a domain which seems otherwise to be a formless void. No particles exist, no straight lines exist, no notion of measurement exists. This action creates a straight line, and then creates the first point. In the process of generating these two creations, the idea of measurement is first introduced, as divisibility by one half. With nothing more than these beginnings, every form which can be constructed in visible space is created, without introducing anything new from the outside.

This kind of rigorous scientific thinking guided Cusa to define creation as a process of continuing, universal evolutionary development of successively higher forms of existence in the universe. This same view of a higher ordering of the process of continuing creation, was emphasized by Leibniz, in such among his more widely-read writings as the Monadology and Theodicy. Finally, the work of Gauss and his collaborators produced a means for stating this conception in a way suited to our purposes here. The work of Gauss, Dirichlet, Weierstrass, Riemann, and Cantor (among others), permits us to state in a mathematical way, exactly what we ought to mean by the term “human creativity.”

These scientists have enabled us to state and analyze the most important class of mathematical functions, functions of a class often nebulously described as “non-linear.” In introducing such functions to students in classrooms, the best example with which to begin, is what is termed a “Weierstrass Function.” If we represent such a function in terms of algebra, the result is a special kind of trigonometric function. As a whole, this function is a continuous function; it can be extended more or less indefinitely. Yet, If we attempt to plot this function graphically, it appears that this function is constantly interrupted by what we often describe as “mathematical discontinuities.” Many kinds of such quasi-continuous functions can be constructed, in addition to the elementary “Weierstrass Function.” All of what are meaningfully described as “non-linear” functions in mathematical physics, are either of this general class, of a higher class sharing the same essential peculiarities.

The relevance of our reference to this higher class of such functions, is that Riemannian physics provides us a physics-language, in which to restate the broader implications of Cusa’s insistence that the laws of our universe are evolutionary, rather than mechanical laws of the type we associate with the followers of Descartes and Newton. This pertains both to the way we must see the question, “What is the form of the fundamental laws of our universe?,” and the terms of reference within which the term “creativity” must be defined.

For purposes of reference, the most relevant facts are these.

Gauss-Riemann physics is an advanced development of the kind of synthetic geometry implicit in Cusa’s De Docta Ignorantia. Instead of the multiply-connected circular action, which we use in elementary synthetic geometry, we substitute for circular action, the conic form of self-similar-spiral action. In elementary synthetic geometry, we create lines, points, surfaces, and solids, starting from nothing but multiply-connected circular action, and introducing nothing added at any point of the elaboration. These points, lines, surfaces, and solids, we term “singularities.” In Gaussian synthetic geometry, we generate all of these, but also a higher class of singularities, which latter can not be constructed in Euclidean geometry or elementary synthetic geometry. These higher-order singularities, correspond to the mathematical discontinuities of an ideal “Weierstrass Function,” they are the mathematical existences which correspond to such phenomena of physics as so-called “elementary particles.”

Using “synthetic geometry,” we generate a straight line and a point from the circle, by folding it upon itself.

Left to right: a) circular action; b) double self-reflexive circular action c) triply self-reflexive circular action. The sphere is generated by triply-connected circular action.

---------------------------------------------

Whenever we generate such a high-order singularity within a process, we change the local physical laws of that process. If we attempt to explain the laws of physics in terms of linear mathematical functions, of the type popular among followers of Descartes and Newton, those laws break down whenever a higher order singularity is generated in a process.

The classic example of this, is an 1859 paper written by Riemann. The English translation of the title of this paper, is “On the Propagation of Plane Air Waves of Finite Magnitude.” This was the paper which predicted, among other things, what must happen if an aircraft breaks the sound barrier. The followers of Descartes and Newton insisted, up to the 1940s, that Riemann was wrong, that transonic and supersonic flight were impossible. They assumed that the singularity encountered at the speed of sound, would be an absolute barrier. Riemann pointed out, most correctly, that the local laws of flight are changed as the transonic region is entered, and that new, altered local laws prevail.

The followers of Descartes and Newton insisted, up until the 1940s, that Riemann was wrong, that transsonic and super- sonic flight were impossible. Shown here are shock waves generated by an X-15 model being tested in the NASA/Langley Research Center’s Supersonic Pressure Tunnel in 1962.

---------------------------------------------

It should be obvious, that what is required in all situations of this kind, is a new, higher kind of physical law, which accounts for all of the mutually-differing local laws of action, before and after the generation of each such singularity is encountered. Gaussian synthetic geometry, as developed by Dirichlet, Weierstrass, and Riemann, shows us exactly how such higher laws must be constructed.

This situation is precisely analogous to what occurs in the human mind, as a fundamental new scientific discovery is being generated by that mind.

In physics, the series of discoveries within which Riemann’s work is situated, requires that we abandon all fixed, mechanical kinds of mathematical expressions, in attempting to state what are the fundamental laws of the universe. The fundamental laws of the universe ultimately govern what must occur when two particles either collide, or come close to one another; however, we must not commit the blunder, as Descartes and Newton did, of assuming that we can discover the fundamental laws of universe merely by studying such collisions.

We must, instead, explore the behavior of the universe at its outer limits. These limits are essentially three: astrophysics, microphysics, and those aspects of living processes which distinguish living processes in the most essential way from mere organic chemistry. We must discard the popularized, but false teachings of Descartes and Newton. We must not assume that the universe is made up of particles moving about within empty space and empty time. We must think in terms of physical space-time, such that the ideas of matter, space, and time, can in no way be separated from one another.

We discover, as Gauss and his collaborators showed, that Kepler was essentially correct. That, to discover the laws of the universe, we must begin by ignoring all questions of how particles interact with one another in space. We must, instead, say to ourselves, that physical space-time as a whole has a certain curvature, and that all of the fundamental laws of physics are properly discovered, by discovering this curvature of physical space-time.

It is this curvature of physical space-time, which causes our universe to experience a definite speed of light as a limit, which requires that quantum constants and the fine-structure constant, exist. Today, those otherwise differing notions of fundamental physical laws, which may be classified as scientifically competent, are premised on this point of view.

In other words, the mere fact that a supposed physical law is stated in the form of a linear, an algebraic formula, is sufficient demonstration, either that the formula is wrong, or that, at best, the formula does not represent a fundamental physical principle. All fundamental constants are necessarily either transcendental numbers, or approximations of such.

“Ordinary,” scalar numbers for such things as mass, temperature, and so forth do not express directly any fundamental values, but are, at best, useful engineering terms which may serve a useful purpose within a limited range of applications. Proper mathematical statements of fundamental physical principles, are necessarily in the form of the kind of higher-order “non-linear” functions to which we have referred.

Using the popularized, and wrong, image of (linear) physical laws as a point for comparisons, we may describe true physical laws to the high-school science-graduate in the following way. Imagine the case, that the local laws of action change as processes reach certain relative limits of the type which we have associated with higher qualities of singularities. Imagine, that the local laws of action, before and after this change, can each be expressed approximately in linear statements. What we require is a mathematical function, which treats such “local laws” as the variable term of a function. That function would, then, aid our prediction of the kinds of local laws which would come into existence under certain conditions, and should describe each and all such cases. In other words: a higher-order law, covering all cases of different kinds of local laws, a higher-order law which defines the way in which new sets of local laws come into existence. In other words: a law which rules the way in which changes in local laws occur.

So, in speaking of fundamentals, we should focus our attention on this higher kind of law, and not make the mistake of viewing any linear form of statement of a local rule of physical action, as representing a “fundamental law.”

The fundamental laws of the universe, are of this higher form.

The same is true of the human mind’s process of creating scientific knowledge. The mind’s idea of scientific knowledge changes with scientific progress. Yet, to the degree that these changes do indeed represent progress, the way in which the mind orders these changes is itself a lawful way:

Human Reason is not of the form of deductive logic. Human Reason is located in the higher functions by which accepted forms of logic are superseded by new, higher forms of logic. Human Reason and the kind of creative reasoning, through which valid, fundamental discoveries of science are accomplished, are exactly the same thing. The Laws of Reason are the laws which pertain to this domain of human practice, and no other.

It is this aspect of Reason which determines the power to think beautifully. We indicate the way in which Golden Section harmonics occur in creative reasoning.

The elementary projective characteristic of conic self-similar-spiral action, is the Golden Section as the essential metrical characteristic that projection. These projections are also expressible in terms of ordered sequences of elliptic functions or hyperbolic functions (primarily), of which the elliptic functions are more general, for reasons we need not consider in the scope of this report. Such forms occur in the form of thought, in the most immediate and efficient way, in creative thinking. Creative thinking is of the form of a Riemannian function (e.g., a Riemann Surface function). Algebraic statements corresponding to such functions are merely descriptive locus-statements of the corresponding synthetical geometrical construction. That construction is of the form of multiply-connected, conic self-similar-spiral action: the form in which higher-order transformations occur. The metrical characteristic of such transformations, both in the form of thought, and in the efficient effect of such thought, is the Golden Section.

Actually creative thought, is of that form and implicit effect. In aesthetics, the proper use of the term “art,” is restricted to those compositions, in which a creative transformation of this type is that central feature of the composition, with respect to which all other elaboration of the composition is coherent.

In the case of well-tempered composition, the form of such composition can be reduced to statement of a set of principles. These principles are as fixed as the initial set of principles elaborated in either an elementary or an advanced synthetic geometry. However, the mere faithful elaboration of those guiding principles, does not produce a valid musical composition. The mere elaboration of those principles, is a valid classroom or homework exercise for the music student, as the composition of correct textbook fugues illustrates the point. Such compositions are musical activity of the learning process, but are not worthy of being called works of art. Once the mastery of these principles has been accomplished, such schoolroom exercises have the effect of boring monotony.

I repeat this important point: The process of reliving a discovery, should represent the greatest amount of expenditure of effort by the teacher and student. The reliving of the discovery of a principle and its consistent application, does call directly upon the student’s creative powers, and is exciting to students for that reason. However, once established principles have been learned in that way, mere repetition of those principles adds nothing to humanity’s store of musical knowledge.

To produce a composition which contained nothing more than an elaboration of school-book principles of composition, and perhaps, worse, its contamination by some arbitrary elements of irrational personal impulse, would be like an astronomer’s rushing to the podium of a 1986 scientific conference to announce that he had just accomplished the original discovery of the planet Neptune. Just as every secondary-school student should experience the rediscovery of Neptune, that student should re-experience the discovery of (what ought to be) schoolbook principles of musical composition, but should never present a classroom exercise of that sort as a work of art.

The essence of a good musical composition is one or more higher-order singularities. These singularities are generated in the manner representable as a Riemann Surface function. The same is true of painting, sculpture, architecture, poetry and classical drama. In all cases, that aspect of the composition which departs from schoolbook principles of composition, must not be an arbitrarily inserted item. It must be brought into existence in the same sense synthetic geometry brings a new thing into existence. It must necessarily follow from principles, in the sense that Riemannian synthetic geometry creates existences such as electrons, out of a formless, empty void of the multiply-connected continuum. That is, the new element must be a discovery, analogous to a scientific discovery, such that, retrospectively, it both surpasses previously known principles, but is, at the same time, something recognizable as necessarily following from those same principles which it surpasses.

These singularities of an artistic composition, taken together with the way in which they are generated, and in which the composition as a whole is an elaboration and resolution of this act of discovery, are the identity of the composition. It is from this viewpoint, that the composition as a whole corresponds to a definite idea.

Respecting great classical musical compositions, throw all the “program notes” interpretation of the symbolic meaning of a composition away, for the trash it is. The composer, whether as musician, painter, poet, dramatist, is a part of life, and takes inspiration from life as life; the idea of “absolute music” is as pathological in its own way, as the opposite disorder of typical program notes. The mind of the creative artist, as such a mind, is always probing experience in general for the germ of, for example, a musical idea. Once the artist has abstracted that germ, the entire affair becomes an artistic process. The subject of all art, is the celebration of truth and beauty in that medium. Art never violates the beauty of nature’s display of the principles of composition of life in general; but nothing which limits itself to nature’s beauty, is art. Art is the celebration of creativity, as valid, fundamental scientific discoveries distinguish creativity from the intellectually sterile anarchist’s wont to view arbitrary, irrational impulses as a substitute for creativity.

Art is never a “personal expression;” it is the macrocosm presented by the microcosm. It is the universality of truth and beauty, consciously concentrated in an individual’s artistic creation. The subject of art is the power of the individual mind to encompass the universality as such, in an efficient, rather than merely a sterile, contemplative way.

Painting by Raphael, 1504

Physical space-time has a certain curvature, and that all of the fundamental laws of physics are properly discovered by discovering this curvature of physical space-time. Shown here is Raphael’s “Marriage of the Virgin.”

---------------------------------------------

Agapē as Truth

Let us focus only upon the fine art of western Judeo Christian civilization, the art which follows Augustinian principles of harmonies of composition. Essentially, we mean “Christian art,” since there is nothing else worth the name of “art” in western civilization. Great artists of Jewish origins walk in the footsteps of Philo of Alexandria, and work in ecumenical fellowship with Augustinian principles, as Philo himself was a personal collaborator of St. Peter, at Rome.

Although the principles of art so adduced, seem to be particular to western Europe and the Americas, they are true principles nonetheless. If the person encultured in this western European civilization wishes to understand the artistic works of Asian cultures, that person will find that the principles seemingly only specific to the Augustinian tradition are truly universal ones. That person will be enabled to discover, that by situating the notion of art rigorously in terms of his own cultural experience, he acquires in this way the power to comprehend art universally.

The most beautiful aspect of Christianity is presented first in the opening chapters of the Gospel of St. John; later following St. Paul, this truth and beauty is affirmed and elaborated by St. Augustine. The clarification of the Latin Nicene Creed with Filioque, captures the essence of this.

The Logos (conventionally referred today by today’s Christians as the “Holy Spirit”) is the essence of Reason, as we have identified the higher-order laws of the universe here. Yet, this is not abstract reason; without the active role of a certain quality of love, agapē, reason dies. This quality of love is the essence of Reason. It is, at once, love of God, and also a kind of love toward mankind made concrete by Jesus Christ as God’s love toward mankind. Whom God loves, we love, and in that fashion. The flow of perfect Reason and perfect Love from Christ toward mankind, as from the Creator, is the common essence of science and art.

This love toward mankind is focussed on that aspect of the individual personality which distinguishes mankind absolutely from the lower species: the “soul,” the development of the divine spark of potential for scientific reasoning.

A child, for the first time, succeeds in building a column of four blocks placed atop one another. It seems that a light of joy has turned on in the child’s mind at this point. Ever after, whenever the child effects what is for that child a valid, original discovery consistent with reason, this same joyful illumination occurs. Adults sensible of what is occurring at such points, are sometimes brought to the verge of tears of joy. This is agapic love in its simplest expression.

Painting by Thomas Eakins, 1876

It seems that a light of joy has turned on in the child’s mind at this moment. Shown here is Eakins’ “Baby at Play.”

---------------------------------------------

We do not, or should not love, the child’s outbursts of hedonistic irrationalism. The child has two conflicting natures, the bestial (hedonistic irrationalism) and the human potential for creative reasoning. We must not love the former; rather, we must work to free the child from this imitation of inferior species, by loving only that which is good, which is truly human, the progressive development of those powers for which the “divine spark” of reason is the germ.

True science is such love of mankind. By mastering reason less imperfectly than before, we are grasping the power of the Creator into our hands. We do this lovingly, because it is a sacred, beloved thing. We express the power we have thus received as an act of God’s love toward mankind. It is the same in art.

Truth and Beauty are the only subject-matters of art; there is no other. Truth and beauty are qualities of creative reasoning, nothing less. Without the motive power of adoption of God’s love toward mankind as one’s own passion, neither truth nor beauty could exist. This is the subject matter of all science, all art.

2. How Art Was Destroyed

The elementary principles of music which we shall present in the following chapter of this report, include some which would be received as either simply “highly controversial” or as intolerable, among many professional musicians and musicologists today. However, excepting that we have applied certain of the fundamental scientific discoveries of the nineteenth century to this subject-matter, the principles we defend are those commonly employed by the greatest among classical composers. What has changed, such that most among today’s musicians are either ignorant of, or hostile to those principles which the greatest composers considered indispensable?

For example, from approximately 1711 through the 1840s, classical composers tuned the middle-C of their keyboard instruments to 256 cycles, as opposed to the A = 440 (or, even higher) introduced approximately the close of the 1840s. For reasons to be indicated here, the shift of approximately a half-step in tuning, changes the interpretation of a composition composed at C = 256. In the Classical period, the keyboard was tuned approximately to the well-tempered values of the scale, values which are not quite the same as the so-called equal-tempered or even-tempered values, a difference of some marginal significance for the interpretation. Most modern musicologists and professional musicians do not accept the classical standards of tuning, and tend even to become angry when confronted with the physics-basis for well-tempering.

For example, if one performs a Mozart or Beethoven composition with the (mistaken) view that A = 440 is an acceptable tuning, the interpretation provided in the performance will usually contain very significant blunders. The problem involved is recognized more easily by well-trained singers, than by instrumentalists, for reasons we shall identify at a later point. If the blunders caused by tuning at A = 440 are not recognized, then the professional musician, by attempting to build a theory of interpretation around acceptance of the error, will be unable to recognize, or to present, the most crucial features of phrasing and intonation in performance of such compositions.

It may seem curious, but some of the best musicians do combine bad theory with relatively good or even excellent presentations of classical compositions. A good musician develops what is sometimes described as “musical instinct.” Taught theory aside, the musician resorts to matters outside the domain of taught harmony; “an ear for poetry,” a sense that each key has a distinctive “color,” combined with a sense of forcing the instrument “to sing,” are exemplary of this. They add these considerations, as a cook adds a final touch of seasoning, and thus produce effects, even at A=440, converging upon the composer’s intent.

All such considerations duly listed, the net effect is, that there is a break in the internal history of music, such that composers born after the 1815 Congress of Vienna seem to have lost the “secret knowledge” known to the generations of Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Chopin, Schumann, and so forth. Brahms and, until his last years, Verdi, as leaders of the war against Liszt and Wagner, typify that last generation of persons still able to compose with knowledge of classical principles. Among most contemporary musicians, not only is the knowledge lost, but, like a man who seems to have lost a sensory or other physical faculty too long, they seem chiefly unaware that any loss has occurred.

It is impossible to deal effectively with the hard objections to what we shall report, unless we are able both to identify, and to understand when, how, and why, this break in the internal history of music occurred. So, before we proceed to summarize the controversial points, we must interpolate this chapter on the subject of that break.

Painting by Jean-Baptiste Isabey, 1819

The 1815 Congress of Vienna determined the shape of Europe after Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo.

---------------------------------------------

Following the 1815 Congress of Vienna, there was a concerted effort to eradicate the musical knowledge of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and so forth in Germany. This was not limited to Germany; but the related campaigns in other nations are consistent with what was done inside Germany. This campaign was centered upon the university at Berlin, based among the students and collaborators of the official “Prussian State Philosopher,” G. W. F. Hegel, and Hegel’s close collaborator, and Karl Marx’s professor of law, Friedrich Karl Savigny.

Savigny, whose work prefigured and laid the foundations for the so-called voelkisch legal doctrine of Hitler’s Nazis, is known within law as one of the leading founders of what is called “the Romantic school of law.” The use of “Romantic” in this context, has exactly the same meaning as in its application to music, to politics, to sociology, to psychology, to ethnology-anthropology, to theology, and to art generally. “Romantic” means essentially, the precedent of the law and culture of the Roman Empire in general, and the evil irrationalism of the Justinian code for Byzantium. In law, Savigny combined the general principles of Roman imperial law, with included emphasis on a specific sort of pro-irrationalism popularized in Germany by the notorious Madame de Stael and her accomplices.

It is important to emphasize here, the “hereditary” connection between Savigny and Hitler’s Nazis, as well as to the case of proto-Nazi composer Richard Wagner. Franz Liszt was the criminal who made Wagner possible; Wagner was the arch criminal who contributed much to making Hitler’s Nazis popular. Proto-Nazi Wagner is the benchmark to be studied, to understand the origin and the character of the break within the internal life of music. Every obscenity in the name of “musical modernism” which came after the 1840s, was made possible by the developments centered around Wagner.

Friedrich Karl Savigny (1779-1861)

---------------------------------------------

Although Roman law was itself already “Romanticism,” when the epithet “Romantic” is applied to Savigny, this usually refers to a very specific, leading feature of Savigny’s work in both law and in culture generally. Savigny insisted, that “natural law” as Augustine defined it, did not exist. In place of “natural law,” Savigny substituted what he termed the “Volksgeist,” the changing customary opinion of each generation. Crudely stated, Savigny substituted a judge’s estimate of currently prevailing trends in “popular opinion,” for moral principles of law. This doctrine reached its logical outcome in the Nazi race laws and in the voelkisch (populist) doctrine of Nazi law in general. Whatever the high priests of the Third Reich cult defined as the “popular will of the German people,” was law.

The kinship between Hegel’s “World Spirit” and Savigny’s “popular spirit,” is so readily obvious, that we need not expand upon that connection here. More important to stress, is the fact that the Soviet interpretation of Russian culture, of the “collective will of the people” of each particular piece of ethnic real-estate, is consistent with Savigny’s doctrine, and also identical to the Nazis’ “populist” doctrine of law. (The essential difference between Nazism and Bolshevism, is that the Nazis wished to make Berlin, and the Bolsheviks Moscow, the new capital of a world-wide, new and permanent form of Roman Empire.) This is key to understanding the Russian tendency to infuse every performance of a classical musical work with the spirit of the popular ballad Kalinka, as sung sentimentally after a slightly less than stunning dosage of vodka toasts. Russian professional musicians tend to run to a prodigious technique, and to let a sentimental employment of that technique overrun any consideration of the composers’ intent.

Savigny legislated the imposition of the same Romantic dogma of law upon every aspect of what are called today “liberal arts” subject-matters. He insisted, that the rigorous reasoning appropriate to the physical sciences, must not be permitted entrance to the domains of law, politics, sociology, theology, and art. From Savigny came the modern German tradition, of assuming an axiomatically hermetic separation of Naturwissenschaft (natural science) from Geisteswissenschaft (social sciences, art, theology).

This kind of undertaking was not original to Savigny. Savigny’s significance was that he codified this evil doctrine for Germany, and that this poisonous development within Germany interacted with, and re-enforced similar endeavors outside Germany. With those two qualifications, Savigny is the key benchmark for understanding, why most modern professional musicians are not only ignorant of, but hostile to some of the most fundamental principles of classical musical composition. [To indicate one example: this is key for understanding the elementary blunders spoiling the otherwise meticulous work of the twentieth-century Viennese musicologist Heinrich Schenker.]

CC/Wolfgang Moroder

The Benedictines of Venice’s San Giorgio Maggiore have been consistently sworn enemies of truth and beauty in music, and of Saint Augustine.

---------------------------------------------

The Romantics’ efforts to eradicate truth and beauty from music, were a new phase in a long campaign to suppress Augustinian aesthetics. The Benedictines of Venice’s San Giorgio Maggiore have been consistently avowed enemies of truth and beauty in music, and of St. Augustine.

The Benedictines are, by legal origin, a Byzantine monastic cult. The Benedictines, especially the handful of international coordinators based at San Giorgio, have been the enemies of Augustine and Augustinian aesthetics for approximately a thousand years, and are all near the center of the fostering of the satanic “New Age” cults of the present century. In respect to music as such, they have led in attempting to outlaw Augustinian principles of music, demanding that the West submit to the oriental paganist’s anti-musical Gregorian chant.

The fact of the Benedictines’ consistent efforts to eradicate Augustine from music, science, and theology, is well documented, and an important fact in itself. It is more important, to understand the cause of this behavior. Once we recognize the cause of such behavior, the fact that Savigny’s irrationalist dogmas echoed the Benedictine precedents, seems no longer a mere coincidence.

Pagan monasticism was introduced to Europe from the Orient, from such distant sources as the Taoism of China and kindred phenomena in the Indian sub-continent. It was a well-established pagan practice under Rome, and flourished in the proliferation of pagan cults under the Roman Empire. Its formal introduction to Christianity was accomplished chiefly by the Byzantine Emperor Constantine, and institutionalized in Italy under the codes of Justinian. The formal origins of pseudo-Christian monastic cults are centered around the Byzantine emperors’ adoption of the hesychastic “desert monks” of St. Catharine’s of the Sinai. The international capital of monasticism today is the community of assorted hesychastic and quasi-hesychastic cults at so-called “Holy Mountain” at Mount Athos in Greece. The synthetic culture of Russia was manufactured chiefly by monastic cults steered from Mount Athos, and later, from Venice. The Benedictines, established as a Byzantine imperial agent of influence in Italy, are, together with their spin-offs, such as the medieval Cluniacs of the Burgundian region, the center of this eastern influence within western Europe and the Americas.

Sociologically and otherwise, the Benedictines represented the old Roman imperial families and the tradition of the pagan cults of the Roman pantheon. Thus, the first Benedictine headquarters was established at the old temple of Zeus on Italy’s Monte Cassino. Thus, later, the Mithra cult’s Isle of Capri, since Augustus the personal property of the family of the Caesars, was also given to the Benedictines. Since the establishment of Venice’s San Giorgio Maggiore (named for the Phoenician pagan cult of “St. George,” transmitted to twelfth century England by way of Genoese “Lombard” banker creditors), the chief source of the great power of Venice has been the symbiosis between the Benedictine headquarters there and the ruling council of the Venetian rentier-financier nobility.

The Benedictine’s adaptation to Christianity echoes the doctrine of proposed toleration of Christians (somewhat reluctantly) adopted by Diocletian and implemented by Diocletian’s Mithraic heir, Constantine. The condition of the toleration, was that the Christian church submit to the paganist pontifical authority of the emperor.

Constantine’s appointment of bishops, including the notorious Arius, forced the confrontation leading to formulation of the Nicene Creed as a constitutional code attempting to prevent the Emperor’s aggressive paganization of the episcopacy. The continuation of the Byzantine imperial paganization programs was then countered by St. Augustine, who strengthened the Nicene Creed by defining what became later adopted as the Filioque of the Latin Creed.

In secular affairs, and in theology, Augustinus defined Roman law and traditions as evil from the outset. He prescribed a form of society consistent with Christianity, based on a natural law implicitly defined by the New Testament. Thus, the split between the eastern and western churches began.

In secular affairs, the split between East and West took the form of the East’s role as bastion of Roman imperial law, and the West’s counter-position, the rule by natural law. Russian culture was manufactured by the East, as a synthetic religion combining pagan beliefs common among the wretched subjects of the Varangians with already half-paganist byzantine cults. The Benedictines have consistently represented the standpoint of Roman imperial traditions within the West. Their leading, continuing role, in promoting anti-musical, Gregorian grunting, and seeking the suppression of Augustinian principles of composition, has been at the center of all efforts to destroy classical music, down to the present day.

In addition to the straightforward efforts to outlaw music from the churches, in favor of Gregorian chant, the Benedictines and their accomplices have employed an assortment of flanking tactics. For example:

1. Leonardo da Vinci and his circles codified a well-tempered polyphony. (Although Leonardo’s own book on music is lost, fragmentary references in his extant writings and the writings of a collaborator, indicate the tenor of his approach.) Beginning the Venetian-directed Habsburg sack of Rome, and subjugation of the Papacy, in 1527, until Mazarin and the defeat of the Habsburgs in 1653, a Venetian-directed semi-dark-age descended over most of Europe. The leading cultural feature of the Venetian-directed Counter-Reformation was to eradicate the influence of the 1439 Council of Florence, with included special emphasis upon destroying well-tempering in music.

2. The eighteenth-century codification of well-tempering was accomplished on the initiation of the scientist Gottfried Leibniz, who established Middle-C at 256 cycles as the pivot of well-tempered scales. The faction opposing Leibniz within the House of Hannover, led the effort to crush J. S. Bach and well-tempered polyphony.

3. Classical well-tempered polyphony, pivotted on Middle-C at 256, was established throughout Europe by the students of Bach. Beethoven was educated by a student of Bach, Neefe. About 1783, Mozart brought himself directly under the influence of Bach’s work, as is reflected in his musical compositions from that year onward. After 1815, Savigny and others moved to stamp this out through introduction of the dogmas of Romanticism.

Savigny’s influence on German culture would not have been possible without the preceding influence of the replanted Scottish Pietist Immanuel Kant, especially the influence of Kant’s final Critique, his Critique of Judgment. The key to understanding the way in which Savigny’s ideas worked inside music, is the case of Kant.

Kant’s original career in Germany was as an apostle of the Scottish philosopher (and British secret-intelligence official) David Hume. Kant combined the “moral philosopher” of Hume with the axiomatic-deductive schemas of Wolffian logic, to the purpose of eradicating Leibniz’s influence, in favor of Hume’s dogmas. Then Kant appeared to have broken with Hume, as Kant documents in his Prolegomena, and in the introduction to the first edition of his Critique of Pure Reason. The degree of Kant’s break with Hume is usually exaggerated; the content of the Critique of Judgment shows most clearly how limited were Kant’s differences with Hume. Savigny differs from Kant chiefly in the respect, that Savigny adopted the theses of Kant’s Critique of Judgment, but also adopted that feature of Hume’s later, more radical doctrines, with which Kant had disagreed.

Right: portrait by Allan Ramsay, 1766

Left: Immanuel Kant; right: David Hume

---------------------------------------------

In his earlier works, on “Scottish moral philosophy” in general, and “human nature” and “human understanding” in particular, Hume had insisted upon a radically extreme version of the Calvinist dogma. He insisted that man is incapable of knowing the actual laws of the universe. However, during the earlier period, Hume had rejected the radical immorality of the Walpole period’s “Hell-Fire Clubs,” by asserting that established custom must temper acceptable behavior. Later, in Hume’s more radical phase, he moved toward the absolute immorality codified by Jeremy Bentham’s Principles of Morals and Legislation, and In Defence of Pederasty. It was with this later streak of what Kant called “philosophical indifferentism” in Hume, which Kant broke, to write his Critiques and Prolegomena.

In the Critique of Judgment, Kant asserted two dogmas prompting an extended denunciation by Friedrich Schiller: First, Kant asserted, that the act of creative scientific discovery was accomplished by no knowable principle. This is fairly described as asserting, that creative scientific discoveries “just happen,” in a manner which the mind can not describe. Kant stripped himself naked with the second assertion, that there was no rationally definable standard of beauty in art. These two Kantian dogmas were the starting-point for Savigny.

Relevant light is cast on the combined influence of Kant and Savigny, by the poet and political thinker Heinrich Heine.

Three writings of Heine’s, best described as well-informed counterintelligence-research products, are most relevant. His exposure of the fraud of Romanticism, in his 1835 The Romantic School, exposes the manner in which the notorious Madame de Stael had corrupted such lions of German classical literature as Goethe. Heine became hated by the Mazzinian radicals of Europe, because of his exposure of the case of Ludwig Boerne, showing that the “socialist movement” was a subsidized creation of certain rentier-financier families; Heine was a regular of the household of James Rothschild, and knew the inside story of the “socialism” of Karl Marx’s time. In his last major prose writing, Religion and Philosophy in Germany, Heine unveils the devil in Immanuel Kant.

By hard-won, but greatly undeserved popular reputation, Kant was the epitome of German rationalism and Gruendlichkeit. On closer inspection of all of his writings, especially from the retrospective vantage-point of the two cited dogmas in his Critique of Judgment, Kant is almost Russian in the seething violence of his irrationalism.

Kant was the apostle of axiomatic-deductive logical formalism in the extreme. In the language of mathematical physics, as the great Gauss denounced Kant for this, Kant was a thorough neo-Cartesian in physics, and one who insisted that only linear mathematics, and nothing else, existed. Kant was the avowed enemy of Leibniz, especially of the Leibniz writings more accessible to him: the Monadology, Theodicy, and Clarke-Leibniz correspondence. For Kant, anything which was “non-linear” simply did not exist. Since creative reasoning, and the principles of beauty in art are both essentially “non-linear,” for Kant they did not exist.

One among Gauss’s denunciations of Kant, in passages of Gauss’s writings referenced to crucial effect by Riemann, focusses upon Kant’s famous treatment of the subject of rotational action. Gauss pointed out, that for rotation to exist, something must be rotated: rotation can not exist in empty space and time. In other words, rotational action is a “property” of a unified notion of physical space-time, nothing less. This illustrates the relevant point, that Kant’s entire philosophy is premised on Kant’s refusal to recognize the existence of elementary synthetic geometry, and hence the refusal to recognize any conceptions which depend upon recognizing that synthetic geometry is actually a physics, rather than an abstract mathematics. Since the generation of higher order singularities, pertaining to reason and to beauty in art, are comprehensible events only from such a standpoint in synthetic geometry, such conceptions were refused hysterically by Kant.

In other words, in those matters which bear most directly upon human behavior, the super-deductive Kant avowed himself an unbridled irrationalist. So, Heine echoed Schiller’s attack on Kant, in the aesthetical-letters collection, in warning that Kantianism portended the later eruption of some evil irrationalism in Germany.

Savigny, operating in a university of Berlin itself corrupted by Wolffian, anti-Leibniz formalism, exploited the credulities of the addleheaded Kantians to secure toleration for his own, more extremist dogmas of irrationalism. The communist Karl Marx, and the leftist Swiss later turned fascist “New Age” source for Friedrich Nietzsche, Jacob Burckhardt, obtained their radicalism under Savigny’s direct influence at Berlin. Marx’s “historical materialism,” for example, is nothing but a restatement of Savigny’s Volksgeist theory of history. So, in relevant essential points, is Hitler’s Nazism, and Dostoevsky’s representation of the “Russian soul.”

The formal, axiomatic aspect of Savigny’s doctrine shows his debt to Kant most clearly.

Like Kant, Savigny accepted a formalist, linear notion of physical science. Like Kant, in all matters which are distinctively human behavior, Savigny decreed that irrationalism ruled. Just as many later Marxists, such as Leon Trotsky, for example, embraced the self-avowedly satanic Jeremy Bentham, the distinction between Savigny and Kant is solely that Savigny carried Kant’s dogmas to the radical extremes which Kant had resisted in David Hume.

To understand Savigny’s influence inside Germany, and the acceptance of Savigny’s program in France and among English-speaking nations today, it is indispensable to emphasize that Savigny was essentially a French-Swiss production, rather than a German one. He belongs to the French-Swiss school of revival of Roman law, associated with such figures as Montesquieu and Napoleon Bonaparte, and his Romanticism is that of Madame de Stael directly, rather than the later German Romanticism leading directly into Nazism, which latter Savigny himself greatly assisted in establishing.

The so-called Scottish school of “moral philosophy,” associated with Hume and Adam Smith, was predominantly a Swiss creation, from the region of Geneva, Lausanne, and Sion. “Swiss,” in this context, must be understood to signify the emergence of Burgundy out of the process dominated by the Clunaic branch of the Benedictines at the beginning of this millennium, a Burgundian disorder which has more than a bit to do with the case of Charlemagne’s brainwashed son, a sort of French version of Russia’s Czar Alexander I, Ludwig the Pious.

Left to right: Library of Congress ; Portrait by Nicholas de Largillière, c.1724; Portrait by Maurice Quentin de La Tour, 1753

Left to right: Charles Louis de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu; François-Marie d’Arouet (Voltaire); Jean-Jacques Rousseau

---------------------------------------------

Montesquieu, Voltaire, and the deranged Rousseau, typify a network, linked to Scottish freemasonry and the Jesuits of France’s Clermont, which promoted the affirmation of ancient Roman Law and the destruction of Augustinian natural law. The founders of the Bank of England and of the East India Company, were part of this complex, who modelled their eighteenth-century project for a British empire as a plan to make London the world-capital of a third Roman empire. The case of the East India Company’s Gibbon, and the circumstances of his near-marriage to the Madame de Stael, merely underscores the Swiss-Britain connections of relevance. David Hume’s principal foreign service on behalf of the House of Hannover’s Edinburgh section of intelligence services, was done in France, in close collaboration with these Swiss banking families. Not accidentally: the family of Robert Bruce’s Templars had been clients of Genoa, and so also the duchy of Burgundy, since the early fourteenth century. As much political-economy as Adam Smith ever learned, was received in Switzerland and France, from Swiss bankers directly, and from those Swiss’ agents in France, including the Physiocrats of Dr. Quesnai. Smith’s connections for these studies abroad, were arranged by Smith’s master, the Second Earl of Shelbourne, and were the collaborators of David Hume.

It was these Swiss bankers, in collaboration with the British East India Company, who created and deployed the Jacobins of France, both in collaboration with the same Duke of Orleans who organized the storming of the Bastille and the kidnapping of the King and Queen of France from Versailles.

The Venetian networks in Italy, especially in the Habsburg-occupied regions of Italy, were part of the same complex.

The same connections we find for the case of the attempt to exterminate classical musical principles, are found in the war against Kepler and Leibniz in the physical sciences.

From the time of France’s Louis XI, France had been the most powerful, best developed national economy in Europe. From the time of French Minister Jean-Baptiste Colbert’s sponsorship of scientists such as Huyghens and Leibniz, until shortly after 1815, France was by far the most advanced nation in Europe scientifically. The process of destroying France’s economic and scientific rank began with the 1815 Congress of Vienna; excepting the influence of Louis Pasteur’s circles, French collapsed into a second-rate status in science during the course of the nineteenth century.

Augustin-Louis Cauchy

---------------------------------------------

The re-accession of Orleans after Germany’s Bluecher rescued Wellington from a massive defeat at Waterloo, set off a counterrevolution against French science. The destruction of science was led by LaPlace and LaPlace’s chief assistant, the notorious plagiarist Augustin Cauchy. The direction of this destruction of science was steered from Rome, by the Venetian Abbot Moigno. Through the collaboration between exiled Lazare Carnot and Alexander von Humboldt, French science was saved by moving it to Prussia, and, to Gauss’s Göttingen. Hence, Germany’s scientific and economic superiority during the nineteenth century.

Left: Alexander von Humboldt; right: Lazare Carnot

---------------------------------------------

The reason Humboldt moved the capital of French science, initially to Berlin, rather than Gauss’s Göttingen, was not only that Berlin was the capital of Prussia, but that the House of Hannover was moving to suppress science at Göttingen. During the 1830s, Göttingen became temporarily almost a scientific desert under the Duke of Cumberland. It was later, during the 1840s, that the Humboldt program took over protection of Göttingen, and the greatest scientific minds of Europe concentrated around Gauss and his circle there.

Yet, already, by 1850, Clausius and Kelvin were being deployed to destroy German science, with the assertion of the arbitrary, and false “second law of thermodynamics,” itself based on a neo-Cartesian misreading of Sadi Carnot’s famous work. By the 1860s, Gauss’s faction at Göttingen was temporarily crushed; Riemann moved to Italy, to the more scientifically hospitable climate of collaboration with Betti and his Cavour-centered circles, and died there. A partly successful revival of Göttingen occurred under the leadership of Professor Felix Klein, later. With some promising exceptions, German science died a lingering death after World War I, crushed by the hatred of the British and their American dupes.

Engraving by Georg Daniel Heumann, 1700

Interior view of the library at Göttingen University.

---------------------------------------------

The political connections among those who led in the effort to crush out the influence of Kepler, Leibniz, Gauss, and Riemann, and the Benedictine-steered pogrom against Georg Cantor, are the same connections responsible for the campaign to exterminate the principles of classical composition in music, poetry, drama, and plastic arts.

The cases of Kant and Savigny, are but the tip of the iceberg. They express in the clearest way, the most formal terms of reference, what has occurred, more broadly, throughout western Europe and the Americas.

There are several converging features which account for the victory of the irrationalists in music:

1. The seizure of control over the relevant educational institutions and concert-stage by aristocratic and rentier-financier interests committed to the popularization of irrationalist fads.

2. The broader climate of irrationalism spread: in law; in the form of the so-called “new sciences” of sociology, ethnology-anthropology, and psychology; and in respect to doctrines of aesthetics.

3. A diabolical clever understanding of the devastating effect on classical music, of altering tuning and attacking the principles known today as bel canto singing.

It is on the third of these points that we concentrate our attention briefly, now, in concluding this chapter of our report.

During the 1840s and later, there was a concerted effort to reconstruct keyboard instruments and wind-instruments, in such a way as to shift away from the well-tempered tuning of performances. This was accompanied by a shift of the tuning of A upward, by approximately a half-tone, or even higher. For reasons we shall next identify, on the positive side of the matter, this action largely destroyed the means for performing classical compositions competently. This, in turn, led to the emergence of new theories of musicology, which attempted to explain classical and other composition from the vantage-point of the changes in conception of register and pitch effected beginning the 1840s.

How diabolically clever! Amid all of the collateral propaganda and manipulations used to promote the Romantic school, the enemies of the Augustinian tradition concentrated on the one slight change in musical instruments which would destroy the possibility of a rational interpretation of classical compositions. These slight changes produced a situation, in which the best standard of professional musical practice itself would force an interpretation of music and musical theory contrary to the classical principles, thus depriving the musician of a rational basis in practice for rediscovering those principles from performance of the compositions themselves.

3. The Double-Connectedness of the Classical Musical Manifold

The well-tempered system of twenty-four combined major and minor keys, is defined by the interaction of two sets of considerations. The first consideration, is the defining of the scale itself; this is done from the standpoint of physics as such. The second consideration, is the fact that the properly trained singing voice, in moving upward from Middle C, must change singing-voice register, in passing through F-sharp from the sub-dominant interval of F, to the dominant interval of G.

Since the natural points of passing from one register to another are essentially fixed in terms of the absolute values of the well-tempered scale, the human activity of music differs in two fundamental respects from an instrumental music not subordinated to human considerations.

Most simply grasped, of these two distinctions, is the fact that every key has a distinctive “color,” differing from that of each of the other keys.

Take the well-tempered key of C, major or minor. From the G below Middle-C, through the F above Middle-C, we have a register we shall name as “B”-register. In other words, from the lower G to the F above C, we have a constant register. On the F-sharp, the seventh step of G-major, the voice-registration becomes the relatively higher register, denoted here by “C” register. This is true only for the case that Middle-C is equal to 256 cycles, or very nearly so. Thus, the natural singing value of the F-sharp, as the point of passage from F to G, defines a required value for Middle-C, as 256 cycles.

The value of the F, as the subdominant interval, and G the dominant, for the key of C (Middle-C = 256), has a very precise musical significance, best understood from the stand point of constructive geometry. For the moment, it is sufficient to indicate, that a key which divides the octave at subdominant and dominant in this way, is the most natural of keys from the standpoint of physics and principles of classical composition. The congruence of the division of the octave by singing-voice register, with the passage from the subdominant to dominant, is crucial for understanding the interconnectedness of singing with definitions of well-tempered scale. This interconnectedness, is the ground-principle which distinguishes human music from the abstract music of such dead objects as musical instruments. This is what defines human music, the only real music, as situated within a doubly-connected manifold.

On the first level, the resulting absolute difference among the respective 24 keys, is the aspect of music most easily demonstrated.

Six Species of the Human Singing Voice

---------------------------------------------

Start with a system of unchangeable, “absolute” pitch. Choose for this purpose a well-tempered scale at a Middle-C equal to 256 cycles. Now, using standard musical notation paper, lightly color each (for example) tenor register-range, to define the way in which that singing voice defines a fixed division among the notes of the scale. Now, lay out each of the twelve major keys, starting with C-major. Mark off, for each key, the note which corresponds to major third, sub-dominant, and dominant interval of that key. Repeat this for the 12 minor keys, substituting the interval of the minor third for the major third. Concentrate attention on the question: relative to the tonic, and two one another, in which singing register do each of the notes corresponding to these intervals lie?

What could be simpler! In singing, the first level of implicit phrasing of passages is defined by register.

Take as an example, the opening statement of Mozart’s C-minor Fantasy, K. 475. The first two notes lie in the same register. The F-sharp does not. How are the respectively ascending and descending sequences of this statement as a whole implicitly phrased? What is a common error among instrumentalists in phrasing this statement? What are the compositional implications of correctly phrasing this opening statement? A study of the composition as a whole, included in the [proposed] book of which this report is a part, indicates the significance of this approach to the opening statement for the performance of the entirety of the composition.

This musical example, has among its importances, an added feature most significant for our point here.

Every interval in music divides the octave. From C to G implies the interval from G up to C; it also defines the descending interval, from C to G. Similarly, the interval of a sixth, as from C to A, defines the complementary interval, from A to C above. This system of complementarities among ascending and descending progressions, defines the simplest aspect of harmonic development within musical composition.

Mozart referenced the famous, breakthrough in composition embedded within J. S. Bach’s “Musical Offering.” Mozart’s treatment of the F-sharp carried Bach’s discovery a step further, to the effect of making this C-minor pianoforte sonata (K. 457) and the later prefixed fantasy, one of the greatest scientific works in music, a scientific discovery carried much further by Beethoven, picked up by Chopin, and followed by a bungled, failed effort at imitation by Liszt. This scientific discovery amounts to a breakthrough in understanding the lawful relationship between C-major and C-minor, most immediately, and also showing how all of the keys are lawfully referenced in terms of this immediate relationship.

From this point of reference, an enormous amount of musical fun ensues.

Considering only the points we have indicated thus far: transpose a thematic statement from one key to another. Taking into account the fact that singing-register values are fixed, the transposed statement is not equivalent to what seems to be the same statement in the original key. It must be sung differently, or, at best, the singer might attempt to parody the natural phrasing of the original key by some effort.

Thus, classical song compositions must be performed in their original key, at Middle-C equal to 256. Hence, similarly, one can recognize that songs belong to specific voice-ranges of singers, by composers’ intention. Better, turn that observation inside-out. Once a composer has chosen thematic statements, and has conceptualized a general notion of the development of the composition, the composer recognizes that that composition belongs in a definite key. The classical composer chose that key, because it was the right key for articulation of that composition. To transpose it to a different key, is to introduce a very important error.

The homework exercise we outlined above, suffices to show the reader why each key in an absolute scale has a different “color.” First, a different starting-note for a key means that the octave of that key-signature is divided, registrally, in a different way than any other. The major and minor differ both in the difference of their progressions, and in the respect that division of the octave in terms of thirds, differs as major and minor thirds differ, for example. Second, in composition, the division of the octave in terms of essential statements, and in terms of registration, must interact.

So, every composition’s choice of general or locally quoted keys, has both an internal, structural significance for the process of composition, and also a relationship of tension respecting the overall distance from C-major.

These points are clear in musical practice, only under two required conditions. First, that the musician has learned to sing and hear only in terms of a fixed, “absolute” set of pitch-values, for a well-tempered scale. Second, that the musician adopts the standpoint of singing as the foundation of all musical composition and performance. On the latter account, the standard of singing as earlier, or perhaps earlier than the fifteenth century, later called “bel canto,” is the proper standpoint for defining registration.

Musical instruments (other than trained singing voices) are dead. Good musical instruments are designed to assist the performer in reproducing precise analogs of human voice-registration. The quality of design of the instrument to this effect, is combined with the singing in the mind of the instrumentalist, to force a dead instrument to accomplish something otherwise contrary to that instrument’s nature as a dead thing.

It does not end there. With string instruments, for example, registrations can be created in performance which differ from the human, but which are otherwise analogous to those of the singing voice. Thus, in the development passages of a composition, it is feasible to transpose the quoted key of a local statement to produce a registral division of the octave which is either parallel to or different than the division associated with earlier use of the same statement. Instruments must not invariably conform to singing-voice registration, but the difference in registration should be employed only for some clever musical-scientific purpose.

As in all rigorous science, we can construct all sorts of things which vary from the initial premises of construction, provided this conforms to lawful generation by construction, and serves some proper musical-compositional purpose.

Opening of Mozart Fantasy for Piano, K. 475

---------------------------------------------

For example, Mozart and Beethoven’s keyboard works were referenced not only to Middle-C equal to 256, but the key board instruments incorporated registral distinctions not present in the modern concert Steinway, for example. If those keyboard works are performed on modern instruments, the meaning of the composer’s elaboration of certain passages is not clear.

The elaboration is always rational, but sometimes the reason it is necessary, is not clear, because the value of elaborating material in several distinct singing registers is not clear. This is one of the reasons it is most useful to perform classical repertoire on a pianoforte. Not only are the dynamic balances with other instruments and singing voice appropriate to the composer’s intention; the registral color integral to the composer’s intent, is presented more readily. One does not propose to junk the modern concert Steinway entirely, but at least to approach the performance with a musical understanding that the composition was written with the forte piano as a point of reference.

The principle is, that the musician must impose the notion of human music upon the dead musical instrument. The performer must not read notes from score as instrumental notes.

The composer must translate the score into human music, and then impose that human-musical notion of the notes upon the act of forcing the instrument to produce the desired result demanded by the singing mind.

Why should human beings require well-tempered scales, and why should the registration of the human singing voice create a situation in which Middle-C must be set at 256 cycles? We shall come to that after exploring the physical principles underlying the well-tempered scale.

Kepler and Riemann

In first approximation, the way in which physics defines the proper values of the musical scale, was presented by Johannes Kepler. There are two flaws in Kepler’s construction. First, there was a degree of outright error. Kepler’s musical education had been partly under the direction of a member of the Galileo family, Venetian-controlled circles which rejected the work of Leonardo’s circles on well-tempering. That is treated in the book of which this report is a part. Second, insofar as Kepler’s approach was otherwise essentially the correct one, his argument is merely preliminary, not fully adequate. Not until the work of Gauss and Riemann, was a truly adequate approach possible.

It is the inadequacy, which we correct here.

What Kepler proved, among other important things, is that the physics of Descartes and Newton is essentially, axiomatically absurd respecting fundamentals. He showed that planetary motion lies in orbits which are determined rigorously with no consideration of pairwise interaction among solar bodies, but by the geometry of physical space-time, alone. In other words, stable orbits lying between those of the planets, are, in general, not possible.

He proved, that the intervals between the available, tubular orbits are determined by a series of platonic solids, and that the ratios of aphelial and perihelial orbital velocities form an harmonic series, determined by the Golden Section. This actually proved, also, that the available tones within the musical octave, both the number of such tones, and the value of each, are determined only by the Golden Section.

There must be twelve tones, for the same topological reason that a dodecahedron has twelve sides. The values of the fifth, fourth, major third, and minor third, are precisely determined by construction. The values of the other tones are determined by successive series based upon repeating this construction for each tone determined as the key-signature tone. The result is a well-tempered form of equal-tempering, with values distinct from the usually given values of equal-tempering.

The values for planetary orbits supplied by Kepler, are approximately accurate, to the degree that nothing better were possible until the work of Gauss and his collaborators. The attempt to calculate these multi-body values from the stand point of Descartes and Newton leads only to absurd results. In fact, no conventional derivation from an axiomatic-algebraic function could succeed here, in or attempts to determine the values of the musical scale. All such latter exertions incur an intrinsic absurdity, akin to attempting to construct a squaring of the circle or trisecting of the angle in elementary geometry.

The elementary solution to the problems left unsolved by Kepler on this account, was discovered in a relatively early work of Gauss, on the subject of the arithmetic-geometric mean, the root-basis for Gaussian and Riemannian elliptic functions. This approach yields directly, the correct values for the well-tempered scale, and also a correct physical understanding of the primary intervals.

We begin, by replacing Kepler’s circular action, by conic self-similar-spiral action. Although Cusa’s and Leibniz’s successive definitions of a Principle of Least Action, contain the germ-form of an adequate solution, they are not yet a fully adequate solution. All action in the universe is primarily rotational, but action in physical space-time involves a special sort of circular action, conic self-similar spiral action, rather than simply-circular action.

Construct a cone. Construct a self-similar spiral upon that cone. Examine the series of elliptic cuts of that cone, as defined by a complete (360-degree) rotation of the spiral. Cut a circular cross-section of the cone at the beginning and ending of one cycle of rotation. Distinguish, first, between the point at which the point represented by progressive, spiral action, reaches a mid-point between the two circular cuts, and also the point at which it has rotated 180-degrees. Cut circular cross-sections at each of these two points. Make an elliptic cut of the cone across the two latter circular cuts.

Make the other elliptic cuts indicated. Now, place the tip of the cone on a sheet of paper, and project the image of the elliptic cuts on the paper. Repeat the same exercise without the circular and elliptic cuts, projecting only the image of the spiral itself.

Use this approach to define the available planetary orbits.

Take the projected image of the spiral itself. Divide the circle which contains the spiral’s projected image into twelve equal sectors. Now, observe the way in which the spiral divides the lengths of each radius-line harmonically. Also observe, the way in which the radii divide the arm-lengths of the spiral harmonically. Where do the thirds lie?

Rework Kepler’s construction of the scale, in terms of the topology of the platonic solids, in this context. Repeat what we have indicated for the topology of the dodecahedron, for the tetrahedron, the cube, the octahedron, and for the icosahedron. See the coincidences and problems involved. This, in first approximation, indicates the principles and associated problems in construction of the well-tempered scale.

Now, using the elliptic series associated with the indicated construction, define the meanings of the fourth and fifth, and the elliptic value of the arithmetic-geometric-mean cross-section. Also, observe the complementarity of the dominant and subdominant, respecting alternate, ascending and descending, progressions.

Our purpose here, is not to work through these matters in detail, but only to indicate the relevant, principled musical considerations by a selection of the briefest points of illustration. The essential point, thus far, is that the fundamental laws of astrophysics underlie a rigorous, unique determination of the well-tempered scale.

We must add one point on physics to this.

One is conditioned to think of a uniform vibration of some definite frequency as corresponding to a sine-wave. This is useful, up to a limit, but misleading if taken too literally.

The underlying form of physical action in the universe, can not be defined with what we ordinarily imagine to be visible space. The real universe is the physical space-time of the complex domain, not the universe as naive sense-certainty imagines it to be. The sine-wave image, belongs to a class of plausible, commonsensical ideas, which are relatively indispensable, in the attempt to afford a relatively maximum number among poorly educated people a reasonably competent understanding of surface features of scientific work. If the focus is shifted, from the relatively superficial, to fundamentals, all plausible explanations in the language of common sense become absurd. Our discussion of tuning and harmony, has now taken us to the outskirts of plausible ideas, where real scientific work begins.

What misguided common sense imagines to be the real world of objects floating in empty space and time, is merely a distorted shadow of reality. In the extant literature, Plato was the first to supply a proof for this; the very existence of modern physics, the physics of the complex domain, depends absolutely on Plato’s proof of this fact.

So far, we have said nothing explicitly, which does not seem to assume that frequency is simply a function of the medium and the length of the piece of resonant material in the medium. The image of this “frequency,” is an image of the sine wave. Now, we come to the point at which we must consider: What should it vibrate at all? There are various explanations for this in mechanical doctrines of physics; but close study of those formulations shows us, that the mechanistic formulas are merely statements of correlation, which are fortunately useful in many circumstances: no more, no better.

We are in the outskirts of Riemannian electrodynamics. We are in the realm of qualities of evidence, which prompted such as Weierstrass, Riemann, and Cantor to overcome the fallacies which arise from ordinary Fourier Analysis. We are forced, most emphatically, to lead our discussion into this region, because of that “double-connectedness” which is identified at the beginning of this chapter of the report. Epistemologically, the discussion of music becomes paranoid schizophrenic, and quite literally so, whenever the credulous are duped into accepting the terms of reference of that notorious hoaxster, Helmholtz, whose frauds are the common place textbook assumptions of the musicological classroom today.

The standard of singing, perhaps earlier than the 15th century, later called “bel canto,” is the proper standpoint for defining registration. Shown here is one of Luca della Robbia’s bas-relief panels for the Cantoria (choir loft) in the Cathedral of Saint Mary of the Flower in Florence, Italy.

---------------------------------------------

The secret of music lies not in Newtonian mechanics of vibrating rods, nor even in the scope of ordinary Fourier Analysis. Music is intrinsically human, such that its sensations are subsumed within the definitions of a “non-linear” optical (e.g., electrohydrodynamic) biophysics: the biophysics of bel canto singing, for example.

In the ordinary general practice of science, physics is not based upon statements which are proven absolutely. We require only that the physics employed for general practice be adequate for that practice. For this work, we require, not perfect assumptions, but merely adequate ones. Laymen might see this mistakenly as a mere truism, or perhaps as merely a philosopher’s quibbling. In fact, the most common source of wild blunders in scientific work, is the scientist who does not keep this distinction constantly in mind. To understand that a scientific idea is “merely adequate” for one range of circumstances, is to understand that that same idea is “in adequate” once we trespass the limits of such habitually assumed ranges of circumstances. Existing physics is inadequate in that sense. Even in the so-called inorganic domain, inquiry has trespassed the limits of generally accepted textbook-assumptions. This inadequacy is given many forms of practical expression. One of the most important general classes of cases, in which such inadequacy is most prominently featured, is the investigation of matters which involve the overlap of the inorganic and the living. The attempt to impose a mechanistic approach, or to impose any form of axiomatic-deductive mathematics, upon the functional interface between inorganic and living processes, is total incompetence.

In modern musicology, this incompetence is commonplace. If we put the outright lies and other frauds in the musical doctrine of Helmholtz to one side, and examine only the construction of his acoustical dogmas, Helmholtz’s On the Sensations of Tone is the paradigm of the worst incompetence in the effort to impose the mechanistically misinterpreted inorganic upon living processes. The complement to Helmholtz’s approach, is the view that music is utterly irrational. Our discussion of the implications of voice-singing register, shows how any sensitive musician can easily prove, from the empirics of music, that Helmholtz is absurd. Most classical manuals on tuning of key board instruments, either state explicitly, or reflect the fact that classical keyboard instruments were even-tempered on the basis of C = 128, 256, 512, and also an estimate for the Golden Section interval of a fifth. This proves that Helmholtz and his musicological apologists were liars, as well as cranks. Therefore, to the degree that a musician mistakenly views Helmholtz as a paradigm of scientific rationality, the musician must insist that the essence of music lies outside such a definition of “rationality.” The musician, thus, is led toward nodding assent to Kant’s doctrine of irrationality in aesthetics, and to toleration of Wagner’s musical criminality.

Admittedly, any person who is unfamiliar with the crucial features of the internal history of physical science, is instantly befuddled once confronted with the most fundamental issue of tonality: the double-connectedness of well-tempered harmonics and singing-voice register. How do we account for singing-voice register’s importance to the human mind, from the standpoint of physics? Or, to restate this: Where can we locate a basis in inorganic physics, in terms of which a rational equation can be established, between inorganic physical processes and characteristic features of living processes?

The key required is supplied by the overlap of the work of Pacioli, Leonardo, Dürer, and Kepler. The really fundamental questions of physical science can be addressed only by driving scientific inquiry to the limits of the scale of empirical events: to astrophysics, microphysics, and matters bearing directly on the distinction between merely organic chemistry and living processes. Only that which is common on all three fronts of these limits, can be rightly viewed as both fundamental and sound. The essence of modern physical science is, that Kepler was the first to demonstrate, that from the laws adduced from the harmonic characteristics of living processes, and in no other way, the fundamental laws of astrophysics are obtained.

In other words, the mere existence of living processes suffices to prove implicitly, that our universe is of the form of physical space-time, rather than particles moving in empty space and empty time. The characteristic feature of this physical space-time, is a definite “curvature” of the universe, consistent with the harmonic orderings subsumed by the Golden Section. In other words, pairwise interactions among bodies in physical space-time, is “merely” behavior subsumed by such kinds of fundamental laws of the universe as are adduced by considering nothing more than the curvature of physical space-time.

Thus, the notion of “universal gravitation” was discovered by Kepler. Kepler supplied a mathematical expression for this, such that the simple algebraic manipulation of this by such mathematicians as Hooke, supplied Newtonian mechanics with its famous expression for universal gravitation. Although the Newtonians insist that universal gravitation is a law governing pairwise interaction among bodies, the law was originally formulated by ignoring such pairwise interaction.

Whenever mechanics does this, the result is some seemingly mysterious constant, such as the constant for universal gravitation, the constant speed of light, the quantum constant, the fine-structure constant, and so forth. These constants are not properly mysterious; the example of Kepler’s work already indicates their rational determination. These constants reflect the harmonic composition of a universal space-time of a definite curvature.

The idea of Least Action in the universe, is a corollary of such rational determination of the necessity of constants.

Kepler’s physics is based on the combined physics-work of Nicolaus of Cusa, and that of Pacioli and Leonardo after Cusa. A correct reading of Cusa’s “Maximum Minimum” principle, viewed in proper reference to the central feature of Plato’s Parmenides dialogue, defines Least Action as rooted in the idea of circular action. Kepler’s proof, that Least Action in astrophysics is determined by Golden Section harmonics, leads to the Gaussian discovery, that Least Action is of the form of conic, self-similar-spiral action, as the proper form of circular action in physical space-time.

Apparent “straight-line” action in the visible domain, is easily determined as the consequence generated by multiply connected, conic, self-similar-spiral action, in the complex domain. This leads to the result, that our universe is a constantly expanding, “self-developing,” “negentropic,” hyperspherical function, of the type ordered by multiply-connected, conic, self-similar-spiral action. Implicitly, the most seemingly arbitrary physical function in our universe, can be expressed, potentially, by a continuous, non-linear function, one consistent with that subsuming, hyperspherical function.

It is in that sense, that the visible domain is, relatively speaking, only the “surface” of physical reality, in precisely the sense of the shadows in Plato’s cave. Plato proved this to be the case, from the standpoint of synthetic geometry: the existence within the visible domain, of forms which are constructively incommensurable with forms derived from assumed axiomatics of sense-certainty respecting the visible domain. Leonardo’s revolution in perspective, replacing the linear perspective of Alberti with spherical-projection perspective, is of the same general significance as Plato’s argument. Reality lies in what mathematical physics identifies as the complex domain. The proven inadequacies of Fourier Analysis have shown, that the right choice of complex domain, is a hyperspherical (negentropic) universe of the form generated by a multiply-connected, conic, self-similar-spiral action.

So, in first approximation, what we portray as a sine wave, is actually a very simple Fourier function, a projection of cylindric self-similar-spiral action (a uniform helix) in the complex domain, upon sense-certainty. Construct a function, which is merely an algebraic description of the generation of a helix. This function is of the form “a+bi,” such that the term “a” corresponds to uniform displacement of the locus of the function along the axis of the cylinder, and the term “bi” represents a uniform rate of rotation of a point on the surface of the cylinder. The helix becomes merely the integral of this function with respect to time; the side-view projection is a sine-wave. A simple locus-function for the projection, based on the locus-function for the helix, gives the sine-wave function.

Then, compare this with Gauss’s derivation of harmonic ordering of elliptic functions, from his work on the arithmetic-geometric mean. Construct a locus-function for the conic self-similar-spiral, as for the helical function. Construct locus-functions for the plane projections of this spiral, both parallel to the motion along the cone’s axis, and in a plane perpendicular to the axis of the cone. For the properly educated secondary-school pupil, this begins the demystification of the complex domain.

A self-similar, or logarithmic, spiral on a cone (left), projected down to the cone’s base (right).

---------------------------------------------

Least Action is located in the complex domain, not the superficial domain of sense-certainty. It is in the complex domain that cause and effect actually occur. The task of mathematical physics, is thus defined as twofold. First, to discover which choice of complex domain is the one which corresponds to the actual universe. Primarily: is the moment of multiply-connected Least Action either simply-circular, helical, or conic self-similar-spiral? If the latter, which of the possible multiply-connected domains so implied, is the correct choice, both for the universe in general, and for the local phase-space being considered? The second task of mathematical physics, is to account for the necessity of the phenomena of the visible domain, in terms of the causality of the real domain, the so-called complex domain?

The deeper, correct understanding of principles of physics underlying musical composition, is of this form and degree of sophistication.

We must recognize, that the correct principles of classical composition appear to have been reached without taking up the matters of the complex domain. Yet, we must also recognize, that if we view the work of Plato, Augustine, Leonardo, Leibniz, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, et al., from the vantage-point of Riemannian physics, the musical principles of Bach’s, Mozart’s, and Beethoven’s practice, are not merely scientifically sound. Our deeper insight into the Golden Section, and the employment of either that Golden Section, or of working-principles derived from it, shows us clearly that they were already employing the same axiomatic standpoint we encounter in Riemannian physics.

More advanced physics-principles come into play in music for several reasons:

First, to extend what was accomplished through the work of the greatest classical composers, we must proceed in directions informed by Riemannian physics.

Second, to defend music against such avowed enemies as Helmholtz and the pseudo-scientific rantings of the modernist musicologists, we are obliged to strip away their undeserved reputations as scientific authorities.

Third, to promote a correct conception of the spiritual importance of classical modes of composition for all people, we must correlate musical creativity with the definition of creativity from the standpoint of a Riemannian approach to optical biophysics: we must show how a certain ordering of the sensual aspect of music, respecting the biology of human beings, has an efficient, physical correspondence to the creative mental functions.

As part of this corrective instruction, we must emphasize, as we are doing at this point, that the notion of the twelfth root of two, or any other Cartesian approach to analysis of harmonics and tonality, is intrinsically absurd. The problem is not merely that such calculations are axiomatically absurd. The deeper problem associated with such calculations, is the assumption, that values might be calculated in this way. If that assumption were a competent one, then the physics side of musical matters could be explored without considering the complex domain. It may be easier to understand linear powers of the number two, than complex functions, but medicine would also be much easier to explain wrongly, without germ theory.

The C-pivotted octave series is itself a frequency, within which the twelve tones of the octaves each represent sub-frequencies in their own right. This C-pivotted octave-scale is not music as such. There is another frequency series, based on the dominant-subdominant interval of singing voice register-series. Each of the twelve tones of the C-octave coincide with the twelve steps of the singing-register range.

In each of the cases, the frequencies associated with the individual tones, correspond to phase-angles of the octave frequency. Thus, the tone E, for example is a phase-angle of the C-octave-series and a different phase-angle of the singing-register series. Determine phase-angle as a harmonically ordered interval of rotation, of one complete cycle of a helical progression. Determine the frequency of an individual tone, or interval of several tones within an octave, as a phase-angle of the frequency of the octave as a whole.

Have some fun. Compare, then, the phase-angle of E with respect to the C-series, to the phase angle of E with respect to a reverse rotation of the higher G. Introduce, then, a new octave-series, F-sharp. Now, do a series of comparisons of phase-angles, of both ascending and descending intervals, in respect to a series of C-octaves, G-octaves, and F-sharp-octaves. Using C, F-sharp, and G, compare the phase angles for both E and E-flat.

Now define the tones E and E-flat multiply, as complexes based on pairwise complexes of phase angles for, first C and G, and then C, G, and F-sharp.

Projection onto a plane of the ellipse formed by slicing diagonally between the circular cuts representing C = 256 and C = 512, showing the important division points of the octave.

---------------------------------------------

Now, turn to the primary elliptic functions of a self-similar conical spiral, as Gauss’s treatment of the arithmetic-geometric mean defines this. Define the mean of phase angle of tones according to these elementary terms of reference. State phase-angle series of intervals, corresponding to these complexes of multiple phase-angle functions, as an elliptic function. You are now beginning to get into the proper track. You are now attempting to express a multiply connected, conic, self-similar-spiral function, in terms of elliptic functions.

Why conic? Did we not set up this preliminary recreational exercise in terms of helical functions?

Compare the different frequencies of tones of music with the tuning of a laser. Note one very important feature of a laser-beam’s action, relative to change in frequency: “self focussing.” As we rise up the scale, the same amount of singing energy is becoming increasingly “intense.” In physics terms, this signifies that the cross-sectional area of self focussing is becoming correspondingly smaller, the energy of the beam is being concentrated into a smaller area of effect.

Now, reconsider the three sets of octave-interval series we have identified (C, G, F-sharp). The characteristic of each such octave-frequency is now shown to be not a simple sine wave, not a simple helical cycle. It is a transformation from lower to higher density of action. To include this increase of density within the octave-cycle, in defining the octave as a unit of action, we must transform our statement of the wave-cycle, from an helical, to a corresponding self-similar-spiral function. Behold! Now, Gauss’s treatment of the arithmetic-geometric mean comes into clearer focus as the absolutely necessary characteristic of the octave! The relationships among C (Middle-C at 256), G, and F-sharp, come into clearer focus. Also, the multiply-connected complexes of phase-angle relationships, among these three octaves and each individual tone-intervals, now make sense. Adding to the case we have developed for the dominant case, include the subdominant case, the F-octave series. Consider the synthetic-geometrical hierarchy of the points considered thus far:

1. Musical harmony is doubly-connected, with respect to register-octave and C-octave series.

2. All four among the primary octave-series associated with Middle-C = 256 (C, F, G, F-sharp), are multiply-connected with respect to each tone-interval of the scale.

3. The functions do not admit of elementary Fourier Analysis, because the complex function is conic, rather than cylindric.

4. Rather than counting frequencies, frequencies of tones are defined as determined by phase-angles of the octave-series taken as a frequency of cycles of conic, self-similar-spiral action.

5. The C-octave scale is defined by the arithmetic-geometric mean function of the singing-register octave. This determines the Middle-C = 256 value.

6. The primary multiple-connectedness of the musical scale is the phase-angle relationship between the two primary octaves, C-octave and singing-register-octave.

7. Tones, rather than being single frequencies, are defined as the harmonic ratios among phase-angle complexes.

Simple spiral action in the complex domain (left) is cylindrical in form; at one-half rotation, the distance moved along the vertical z-axis is one half the distance moved along the z-axis by a full rotation. The radius at one-half rotation is the arithmtic mean (α+β)/2, which divides the octave at the fifth, or the movement from C to G. In self-similar spiral action (right), the radius at one-half rotation is the geometric mean √—α—β, corresponding to the movement from C to F-sharp.

---------------------------------------------

The complex of phase-angle relations among the C, F, G, and F-sharp octave-series, is the absolute value of the musical scale. This corresponds, in physics, to the Least Action configuration. This value defines any musical composition absolutely, whatever the key-signature or locally quoted key of that composition.

The introduction of a different key-signature, super imposes a new set of phase-angle complexes upon the absolute values, to an effect appreciated by the musician as the distinctive “color” of each respective major or minor key. The musical significance is that the dominant interval of that key-signature does not conform to the fixed division of the C-pivotted octave-series, as defined by the singing-register octave’s superimposition.

However, since every key can be derived from any other key, as Mozart’s K. 475 treatment of the C-major/C-minor relationship underscores this, the entirety of the musical domain is consistent and coherent throughout, such that every musical argument admits of physical analysis, within the terms of reference, of multiply-connected phase-angle harmonics, which we have just outlined.

A multiply-connected domain of such description, is, by its nature, one which precludes any competent analysis by means less than those consistent with Riemannian physics of the complex domain.

Two leading additional points follow from this.

In general, it is an error to interpret the effect of wave-functions from the counting of whole cycles, or simply half-cycles, quarter-cycles, or integral multiples of a complete cycle of a definite frequency. What must adduce some characteristic frequencies for the whole process within which this radiation occurs, and construe the effect of specific radiation as forming a multiply-connected phase-angle coupling with the particular radiation considered. The determination of the harmonic orderings of complexes so defined, and the correlation of these harmonic orderings with elliptic functions as metrical characteristics of a conic least-action, is a most desirable approach to analysis. Gauss’s elaboration of the meaning of elliptic functions, within the setting of the constructive analysis of the arithmetic-geometric mean, is the primitive conceptual standpoint from which this work is to be undertaken. This is to be emphasized most strongly, in treating living processes, such as the activities of human singers and audiences. From this standpoint, reconsider the significance of the two primary octaves, and the characteristic intervals: dominant, subdominant, the C-F-sharp interval, major third, and minor third. The physics significance of these intervals, is that each is a conic function, rather than a tone of fixed frequency; yet, these intervals are also wave-functions per se. Relative to these conic functions, the individual tone exists as a phase-angle of that conic function. In a domain which is defined overall as multiply-connected in terms of these conic function intervals, the individual frequencies’ relationship to the domain as a whole, is that of an harmonic complex of phase-angles, rather than a simple helical function.

In other words, music is not an aggregation of individually sounded, isolated tones. Music is harmonic progressions, which progressions are meaningful only as conic functions. The principled, and principal intervals of the musical domain, are the primary progressions. Every other sequence of tones, as also a progression either in agreement with or contrast to the primary ones, is a conic transformation whose significance lies in its multiple-connectedness to the primary transformations. In this sense all music lies, not on the notes, but between them, among the progressions between them.

What distinguishes music from sound, is this ordered process of transformation, in which the transformation, rather than the sound of the individual tone, is the primary physical event of music. We can not analyze a musical passage as a sequence divisible into its component tones; not less than two notes represent a minimal musical action.

Hence, for music, the issue is not the fixed frequency of the individual tone, but, rather, the harmonic complex of phase-angles of a conic function, as we have out lined this point. Yes, each note must have a definite, fixed frequency, which thus seems to imply simple helical functions; yet, this, although permissible for abstract study of individual tones apart from music, is worse than useless as a basis for understanding the function of the individual tone in music. It is the harmonic ordering of the complex of phase angles associated with the tone, which is the only admissible starting-point for the analysis of tone.

Most attempts at physical analysis of music, commit the crude blunder of ignoring the most elementary question involved. Why should a length be resonant to a tone? When is the vibration as a frequency which is at least approximately a coherent one? Obviously, our universe is electrohydrodynamic, in the sense of electrodynamics implicitly put forward by Leonardo da Vinci, and as associated with the progressive work of Gauss, Weber, and Riemann. This universal function, corresponding to substance, is a multiply-connected conic form of Least Action, for reasons implicitly demonstrated by Kepler.

How shall we consider ideally coherent frequencies of vibrating substances, in light of this demonstrated nature of our universe as a whole?

What we have outlined for music, above, has been a description of musical phase-space within the universe as a whole. The multiply-connectedness of the whole universe, is always acting electrohydrodynamically, upon every phase-space defined within it, including musical phase-space.

The second general consideration, on which we have barely touched directly so far, is the question of whence the singing-register octave of good singing and musical hearing? It is to this that we turn our attention, in the concluding chapter of this report.

4. Human Music

If we put momentarily to one side, the fact that the fundamental laws of astrophysics and microphysics are coherent with the principle of life, we may say that, on every other scale of events, all processes which are harmonically ordered in congruence with the Golden Section are either living processes, or a special class of artefact produced by action of a living process. On this count, since the relevant work of Pacioli and Leonardo da Vinci, we have known that the only distinction between living processes and non-living ones, is this.

Since Leonardo, modern biology has accomplished two outstanding steps toward comprehension of living processes from this standpoint. Of crucial importance, has been the work centered upon the achievements of Louis Pasteur, especially with respect to optical activity of molecules associated with living processes. More recently, Pasteur’s line of approach has been revived around the “non-linear spectroscopy” of living processes, defining a distinct field of biological research, most aptly named “optical biophysics.”

We must not confuse the usefulness of particle chemistry with the assumption that “bio-engineering” is a pathway leading to mastery of the principles of life. In terms of physics, what distinguishes living from non-living processes, is located within the domain of electrohydrodynamics of living processes. Harmonically-ordered shifts in the spectrum of radiation from such features of living processes as DNA and chlorophyll, point our attention toward the uncovering of the physical essence of what distinguishes living, from non-living processes. Much remains to be uncovered, of course, but we do know, conclusively, that the processes unique to life are necessarily ordered in a manner congruent with the Golden Section.

We must put together the musical evidence we have outlined, with that which characterizes human beings as living processes. In attempting this, at the outset, we know two things about living human beings which bear directly on the making of such a connection. We know that life is governed by the same harmonic ordering principles as musical polyphony based on the well-tempered scale. We also know, that the creative mental processes, as associated with fundamental, valid scientific discoveries, are also harmonically ordered in the same way.

Apart from such broad certainties, our knowledge of the specific biological mechanisms which link the two, is limited. Riemann’s hypotheses on the subject of the human ear, are now proven. We know enough about the nature of the transformation of tone accomplished by bel canto methods of singing, to infer with certainty the kinds of “lasing-like” processes involved. The mapping of visual perception by the brain is known in sufficient detail for understanding how this physiology produces those representations which the careless mind misinterprets as sense-certainty. These and other relevant bits of established knowledge, are a tiny fraction of what we wish we knew, but they are sufficient to make a conclusive case for the point at hand. The evidence is sufficient, on condition that we limit our conclusions to those which could not be overturned by additional discoveries.

The best musical instruments are made of properly treated wood and strings made of animal materials. The advantage of wood, in particular, is that it was formerly living, such that its structure, at death, was harmonically congruent with the Golden Section.

---------------------------------------------

What is certain, above all else, is that the curvature of the phase-space of living processes, is that determined by a Golden Section’s harmonic ordering. This is necessarily the characteristic metrical property of all aspects of the living process. A metrical characteristic of a process is such, that every facet of that process is also characterized by it; it is sufficient to show, that a process as a whole has such a characteristic, to have proven that no facet of the process as a whole can be characterized in any way contrary to that characteristic. For that reason, the human sensory organization could not be organized on any other metrical basis but harmonic ordering congruent with the Golden Section.

There is an array of evidence, which illustrates how that principle of metrical phase-space reveals itself in aspects of our biological organization bearing upon music. The proving of Riemann’s hypotheses on the physiology of the ear, coincides with that metrical principle. Leonardo’s reform of perspective, illustrates the point, that vision is not organized as commonsense sense-certainty supposes; it is organized implicitly according to the same metrical principles as hearing, instead. The physiological mapping of the functions associated with the visual cortex of the brain, shows the Riemannian topologist how the human brain organizes sensory cognition, showing again the way in which the metrical principles implied by the Golden Section determine all the essential features of musical phase-space.

The chief source of difficulty, among those who can not understand what we have been reporting on harmonic orderings, can be summed up as follows.

The uneducated, or miseducated person believes, that the image which the mind forms of a sensed object, is a kind of mirror-image of the object itself. The most essential difference between the qualified physicist and the inadequately educated person, is that the qualified physicist knows the commonsense belief to be an understandable delusion. The history of all fundamental progress in physics, is centered around a study of the human processes of vision. The form of this study is known as constructive geometry; the primary tactic employed by constructive geometry is projective geometry, as the latter is typified by study of perspective. The contrast between the perspective of Alberti and Leonardo da Vinci, efficiently identifies the kinds of problems confronted.

What we do know with certainty, respecting human visual perception, is that the images formed in the mind are projections of the physical events associated with those acts of perception. We also know, that ordinary mental images of perception are not exact copies of the events experienced. We know from physics, that the events we experience occur within the complex domain, rather than the linear, Cartesian space imagined by misguided common sense. For physics, the problem of vision, is to discover what our visual perceptions tell us about events actually occurring within the complex domain.

In geometry, as Riemannian topology illustrates the approach required, we begin with study of synthetic geometry as Professor Jacob Steiner’s text illustrates the introduction of these principles to secondary-school pupils. The mastery of such synthetic geometry, is prerequisite for introduction to study of mathematical physics. In the introduction physics classroom, we use projections of solid objects upon flat surfaces as the most convenient way of acquainting the pupils with the quality of problem to be considered. Projections of simple spherical and conic functions upon flat surfaces, are the basis for projecting back, from images on flat surfaces, to the projected images on the surfaces and interior of solid spherical and conic functions.

The center of this classroom work, is to familiarize the student with the problems arising when we project from N dimensions to (N 1) dimensions, or from N to (N + 1) dimensions. This classroom inquiry is refined, by noting, that, hypothetically, the higher-order space (N + 1) might have one of several different curvatures.

In the course of this classroom-work, the question is introduced: Imagine that you know only the projected image on the flat surface; what can you rightly infer from this, concerning the projected image in (N + 1)-space? Those qualities of images which are “preserved,” in projections from an (N + 1) space upon an N-space, are associated with a notion of “projective invariance.” The elaboration of the principles of projective invariance, is known either, simply, as geometric topology, or, in physics, as the topology of differential geometry. (These notions were first established, in elementary form, by Leibniz.) Then, given the known characteristics of human vision, treat vision as analogous to the simplest case of the images projected upon a flat surface. Instead of treating these images as mirror-images of physical events sensed, let us concentrate attention upon those features of the images which correspond to projective invariances. Once we know that real physical space-time, in which the events actually transpire, is the Riemannian complex domain, what is the image in that complex domain which is in projective correspondence with the brain-image? Physics-thinking, is learning to think about mental visual images in terms of the corresponding image in the complex domain. The capacity for such rigorous forms of physics-thinking, is developed through the pupils’ habituated mastery of elementary and advanced synthetic geometries, in much the same way a literate form of language is learned. Instead of imagining, wrongly, that vision is a perfect mirror-image of the sensed event, imagine that vision is a very efficient scientific instrument, which faithfully reports the projective invariances preserved in projection of the complex domain (the real universe) upon the dials of our scientific instruments. The trick, is knowing how to interpret the readings on those dials.

In developing his system of perspective, Leonardo did what is for modern physicists, a very elementary thing. He extended Albertian perspective to the extreme cases of vision, and showed that, in these extreme cases, Albertian perspective did not reproduce vision. As a matter of principle, this is the same method of fundamental inquiry we employ when we insist that the laws of physics can be proven, only by proving that they are equally laws for the extreme cases from each and all of astrophysics, microphysics, and characterist ic features of living processes. It was this approach which enabled mankind to discover that the real universe is the Riemannian form of complex domain, not the Cartesian manifold of miseducated common sense.

So, to restate the essential point bearing upon the fundamentals of musical phase-space, we must understand the projective invariances of musical phase-space images, that we can translate these into reconstructions of the appropriate images of the corresponding reality, in the Riemannian complex domain.

As Kepler’s physics already demonstrated, in the real universe, there are no self-evidently existing elementary particles, and action does not occur self-evidently in straight lines. Action is fundamentally an harmonically ordered form of circular action; beginning the indicated work of Gauss, we have discovered that the correct form of circular action, Least Action, is multiply-connected, conic, self-similar-spiral action, as Kepler’s accomplishments already implied this. In such a complex domain, only certain states are relatively Least Action states, just as the available number of stable planetary orbits are restricted to such an array of harmonically ordered elliptic orbits. The quantum constant reflects the same thing for microphysics, just as the fine-structure constant reflects the characteristic curvature of the real universe’s complex domain for both astrophysics and microphysics.

If our universe were not so organized, then the night sky would be brighter than that of the sunlit day. This undeniable fact, shows that our universe is finite in extent, and that the number of available positions for luminous and reflecting bodies is limited to those determined by the principle of Least Action in a complex domain. Music occurs as an activity of human beings, within an expression of the Riemannian complex domain more narrowly defined as musical phase-space. This leads us to a proper view of the role of musical instruments other than the voice itself.

Musical Instruments Are Dead Things

Excepting the human voice, all musical instruments are composed of either inorganic or dead materials. Excepting what is possible by aid of advanced electronics, the best musical instruments are made of properly treated wood and strings made of animal materials. The advantage of wood, in particular, is that it was formerly living, such that its structure, at death, was harmonically congruent with the Golden Section. The problem in construction of wooden components of musical instruments, is to preserve this harmonic structure, both at the time of assembling the instrument, and in use over years thereafter.

The shift from wood, to greater use of metal, gave us a more durable sort of instrument, one implicitly cheaper to construct and maintain, and one perhaps less capricious in certain respects; but, the instrument became less musical, essentially because of the crystalline structure of the metals employed. The overtones, for example, are not those of true music, for reason of the internal harmonic characteristics of the metal. For related reasons, a well-constructed, chiefly wooden, bowed instrument, is the one most easily adapted to a musical purpose. For related reasons, the more technically difficult to service fortepiano of the period of Mozart’s, Beethoven’s, Schubert’s, Chopin’s, and Schumann’s period of mastery of principles of classical composition, is superior as a musical instrument to the modern piano. For the same reason, the use of plastics in place of wood, creates musical difficulties.

The best wooden material requires a curing of the wood in such a sensitive fashion, that the harmonical structure of the cell-tissue is preserved to the maximum relative degree. The treatment of such wood, must preserve this harmonic structure, and the use of the instrument must reenforce this advantageous feature.

The essential requirement, in construction and use of musical instruments, is to enslave those instruments to the musical principles adducible only from definitions based upon the properly trained (i.e., bel canto) human singing voice.

Roberto Irsuti

Baritone Piero Cappuccilli, singing a Verdi aria, demonstrating the superiority of the Verdi tuning, during a Schiller Institute conference at Casa Verdi recital hall in Milan, April 1988.

---------------------------------------------

The best-studied portions of the history of classical music, are the cases of the extensive “musical systems” of Italy and Germany. In an activity centered upon use of vocal polyphony as an integral feature of church services, the small children of communities learned solfege for singing. Since no later than fifteenth-century Italy, good singing was based on methods the modern period knows as “bel canto.” Instruments from the eighteenth-century and later, show that Middle-C was set at the medical tuning-fork standard of 256 cycles, a standard introduced no later than 1711 A.D., under the influence of Leibniz. The development of equal-tempering of key board instruments, and Bach’s well-tempered standard (not the same values as equal-tempering), defined a well-tempered singing solfege centered upon Middle-C = 256 as the central tendency of learning of music from early childhood ages.

Choruses so constituted, centered around church services, were the foundations of popular and professional musical culture. Thus, well-tempered polyphony, based on singing, was established as a learned form of literate popular language. Instrumental performance, was the imposition of the principles of music so sung, upon instrumental voices incorporated into the polyphony.

The relationship among popular amateur music, centered in chorus-activity, and the highest level of musical professionalism, may be described as pyramidal. The base of the pyramid was a more or less nation-wide popular musical activity, overlapping the leading role of well-tempered polyphony in church services, as the case of J.S. Bach illustrates this point. Local professionals’ activities, based on the popular musical activity of the period, produced the gifted professionals recruited to the principal regional and national centers of professional musical activity. The leading professional composers and performers, associated with regional and national centers, perfected standards radiated down the lines of the pyramid, to the local centers.

Today, there are but weak echoes of such former, great, national musical systems. The base of the pyramid has been shrunken, near to the point of extinction. The overwhelming majority of the populations, have become musical illiterates, a condition which has worsened emphatically since approximately World War I, a deterioration which has been most rapid and extensive since the 1950s. There is a paucity of the meagerest musical literacy, and the few musicians who still exist, lack healthy roots for their activity in the population generally. The musical activity of the population generally, is worse than illiterate; brutish local dialects, based on ugly sounds and dionysiac irrationalism, are the popular musical culture. The worst state of affairs, is the loss of the ability to sing. In former times, the popular singers of today would have been fortunate to find a few fellows in the market-place so kind as to acknowledge their existence with barrages of tomatoes and rotten eggs. Insofar as serious musical activity exists, there has been a shift away from the singing-basis, to an instrumental basis, a shift which began about a century and a half ago, but which has accelerated most rapidly over the period since World War I.

The mere fact, that the definitions of harmonics required by rigorous study of singing-voice register, are not tolerated among leading music schools today, and that the lunatic frauds of Helmholtz are so much tolerated instead, attests to the degree to which musical theory has been shifted away from singing, to unsound doctrines of instrumental performance. Accompanying this, is the loss of the sense of music as a form of literate language. It is popular singing, pivotted upon methods we associate with bel canto, and based upon a fixed sense of well-tempered absolute pitch, which defines music as a literate language. Without that sense of the role of singing, music is degraded either to a matter of sensual effects, as the Romantic degeneration typifies this, or to a schizophrenic sort of “intellectual” exercise, as the ugly productions of the twelve-toner formalists illustrate this. One is reminded, in both forms of derangement in modern musical doctrine, of persons who have become familiar with the sounds and syntax of a language, and who babble fluently in that language, without knowing the meaning of any of the words used.

The obvious fault of musical theories based upon instrumental performance, is that instruments are intrinsically non musical, except as the standards of singing-voice register are imposed upon those instruments by the builder and performer. The function of the instrument is, essentially, to imitate the principles of the singing voice. It is only to the degree that that imitation is successfully forced upon the instrument, that instrumental music exhibits the principles of music.

The revolution in design of the keyboard and wind instruments, launched during and following the 1840s, had the effect of tearing those instruments away from the possibility of adapting adequately to singing-voice standards. The shift in tuning, by approximately a half-step or more, compounded the difficulty. It became impossible to produce orchestral performances of classical compositions according to the composer’s musical intent, and increasingly difficult to do this on keyboard instruments.

This wrecking-operation was compounded by the nineteenth century campaign to suppress bel canto, for both throaty bravura and “blank” voice.

Helmholtz’s work on the subject of music, was launched in his capacity as an agent of British influence, in connection with a British effort then in progress. Helmholtz discovered nothing, right or wrong, in music; he merely lied as he must, in service of his commitment to popularize this musical destruction then on-going in Britain. He studied the dogma of “blank voice” practice then being promoted in Britain, and invented fraudulent arguments in the name of physics, as such frauds might appear to the credulous as justifying the British practice Helmholtz was promoting. The idea of “natural scale” was one of those British efforts to impose Newtonian mechanics arbitrarily upon music.

For those who wish to inquire into some of the specifics of this fraud, see “Appendix XVIII” of the Ellis English edition of Helmholtz’s On the Sensations of Tone, with extensive notations by Ellis included. The details of the hoax to which Helmholtz contributed his efforts, are summed up fairly by both Helmholtz and the translator in that location. Ellis’ account of this is most interesting:

In 1812 the two Miss Glovers . . . invented and introduced into the schools . . . a new sol-fa system, based upon the ‘movable doh.’ [This] was published about 1827 as A Scheme for rendering Psalmody Congregational. . . . I recollect his [Helmholtz] saying to me, ‘We could not do that in Germany.’

To the extent that musicians were successfully duped, or otherwise corrupted by Helmholtz’s approach, the inevitable consequence was to place the emphasis upon a purely instrumentalist interpretation of music. Helmholtz’s fraudulent physics of “natural scale,” depended upon a Newtonian theory of vibration of inorganic materials.

The history of tuning since the Golden Renaissance, is an uneven one. At first glance, as Helmholtz attempts to confuse matters with a superficial view of the divergencies, it appears that there was there was never uniformity, excepting the change after approximately 1815, established during the 1830s, from the C=256 used by the classical composers, to the modern A=440 or higher distortions of pitch. If one knows the internal history of music, especially the wars against Augustinian and well-tempering principles launched during the 1527-1653 period of Venice’s Habsburg domination of Europe, the “tuning wars” produced pitches according to which faction was dominant in that location at that time. It is clear that the tuning of Mozart’s and Beethoven’s keyboard instruments was never far from close to the correct values we have indicated here. Their tuning accords with the lawful characteristics of singing-voice register, and their compositions are based upon the double-connectedness of Middle C = 256 with singing-voice register. Any different interpretation of their compositions, is an erroneous one.

If we apply Helmholtz’s defective physics to tuning of dead musical instruments, especially metallic ones, then a result ostensibly consistent with Helmholtz’s arguments emerges.

However, the result is no longer music. The British scheme on whose behalf Helmholtz composed his hoax, might be tolerated as the musical activity of rocks and other inorganic materials, on condition that human beings were not subjected to such uglinesses. The problem is, in the lesser degree, that Helmholtz attempted to impose his “metal music” as a standard for human beings. The problem is, in the larger degree, that musicians were corrupted enough to accept this swindle.

Schiller Institute

Music unifies the entire capacity of thought as no other medium. The object of music, is to excite the state of mind to one permeated with a sense of beauty, to such a degree that this love of beauty invades and colors the cognitive functions, and thus contributes to making both the performers and audiences better human beings. Shown here is the Schiller Institute NYC Chorus, performing Handel’s “Messiah” at the Co-Cathedral of Saint Joseph in Brooklyn, New York.

---------------------------------------------

The Moral Function of Music

The essential function of classical musical performances is their health-giving effect upon the mind of the audiences. It is this which renders the religious works of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and other great composers so suitable, both for church settings and secular performances. It is this which gives a religious quality to all important classical compositions, at least in the Augustinian sense of religious practice.

The simplest identification of this quality in classical compositions can be made at the outside of such works.

The form of musical composition, both its rhythmical structure, and the organization of statements as poetic lines, is derived from classical poetry. The most familiar poetic form is the strophic form beginning with a couplet. Study of cases which conform to this more or less strictly, presents us with principles of composition also common to use of other poetic forms.

This is not accidental. Classical Indo-European languages, such as Vedic and ancient Greek, were sung, to the effect that a written prose statement is a precise musical score. Asiatic languages show the same kind of heritage. In modern usage of European languages, this singing quality natural to speech is suppressed, but adducible by singers who study the matter closely. It has been shown by other researchers, that the structure of language is based upon an ordering of tones and consonant-shifts governed by conic self-similar-spiral functions. Also, as the history of the sonnet reflects this, the form of poetry is itself based either directly or implicitly upon the Golden Section’s harmonic orderings. On this and related accounts, a literate language is premised upon the singing of poetry.

Here lies the origin of well-tempered polyphony; music is a development within classical poetry, and the development of literate forms of language through the use of poetic forms of singing the language. Classical music bears all of the hall-marks of this origin. It has been shown, for the cases of Italian and German classical composition, that it was the existence of a high level of classical-poetical activity within the populations, which supplied great composers with the special powers for great compositions. The degeneration of the composition of poetry, among poets born after the 1815 Congress of Vienna, accelerating down to the present day, bears directly upon the loss of the power to compose beautiful music, and the increased difficulties of performers in presenting such music.

At this moment, a narrower aspect of composition is being considered, albeit within the poetical context of music. How might the mere statement of an opening couplet of musical composition, already address the creative faculties of the audience’s mind? The selection of Mozart’s K. 475 as a case-study, has been made for the included reason that the relevant principle of musical composition is shown in the most concise way. Bach was the prolific giant, the great discoverer. Beethoven exemplifies the blend of titanic laughter and ruthless, rigorous labor of thorough composition. Mozart exemplifies beautiful facility in seemingly simple strokes of pure musical genius. It is the simple stroke of musical genius, in its most distilled form, which occupies our attention here.

If I state the same musical argument, in terms of two very distinct sets of intervals of progression, in the manner a classical couplet of poetry does this, I have created a condition which the mathematician must recognize as double connectedness lingering over the utterance of every note which follows. The musician, have stated this paradoxical double connectedness, must, in due course, accomplish a musical development which resolves that paradox, and does this to such effect, that at the close of the composition, the composition as a whole represents a definite musical idea, distinct from the ideas encompassed by the bare principles of composition themselves.

In elementary physics, such a double-connectedness has the properties we associate with a Weierstrass Function. It generates discontinuities, but in such a manner that nothing arbitrary has been added to the canonically lawful musical statements from whose juxtaposition this discontinuity is generated. The principle of rigor applicable is identical to the methodological rigor of a strictly constructive synthetic geometry, with emphasis on phenomena peculiar to the advanced synthetic geometries of Gauss, Riemann, et al. The result has an effect analogous to the mental processes of a valid scientific discovery.

A valid, fundamental scientific discovery is elaborated in terms of canons preestablished by construction. Yet, it modifies those initial canons in the completion of the work. The resulting change, may be elimination of some discovered margin of error in the original canons, or may be no more change than an enlargement of those canons, a richer interpretation, richer applicability of them. Rigorous adherence to canons of method, leads to a discontinuity, a seeming paradox. The composer resolves that paradox, through development. The combined effect, of generating and resolving that paradox, forms the essence of the musical idea associated with the composition.

A valid musical composition is an act of scientific discovery, in the same sense as we mean this in physics. The difference is one of emphasis, a degree of emphasis which has reached the condition of a qualitative distinction. In classical art, the emphasis is upon beauty as such. Beauty in art is not possible without truth, or unless the true subject of the composition is human scientific creative potential. On account of these subsumed requirements, beauty in art can not differ morally from scientific discovery. The essential difference is, that it is the beauty of human creative powers itself, which is the purpose and subject-matter.

Music is distinct within the scope of classical art, in that it unites beauty of literate language, with the beauty of literate vision. As language and vision are the substance of human consciousness, music unifies the entire capacity for thought as no other medium. The object of music, is to excite the state of mind to one permeated with a sense of beauty, to such degree that this love of beauty invades and colors the cognitive functions, and thus contributes to making both the performers and audiences better human beings. The sharing of such beautiful experience, is a state of agapē. Music is able to serve this purpose, only to the degree its composition is ordered by the same powers employed otherwise for valid scientific discovery.

These connections have been recognized, more or less efficiently, by the enemies of Augustinian tradition. For related reasons, they know, that if they can degrade our musical lives, to Romanticism, “modernism,” “rock,” and the like, they have attacked the essence of our civilization upon a most vital flank.

That destruction of civilization, was the repeatedly affirmed purpose of the musical activity of Richard Wagner and his circle. Wagner was a terrorist crony of the Russian Bakunin, in the Mazzinian revolts of 1848-1849; on the subject of music, he and Bakunin were in fascistic political agreement.

Wagner is not merely a contributing influence for Hitler’s Nazism; Wagner was already a fascist himself, not merely in political leanings, but in the guiding purpose of his attempted revolution within music. The changes which Wagner adopted, in his effort to subvert and destroy the influence of the Beethoven he hated enviously, were explicitly fascist changes within the domain of music, as fascistic within the internal life of music, as Hitler and Mussolini were in the domain of political affairs. Wagner applied the same radical irrationalism to music, which Hitler applied to German political life. If you like Wagner, you are to that degree already being recruited by fascism.

That is why Venice’s San Giorgio Maggiore has been so long the center of the international efforts to destroy classical music, as well as to destroy the Augustinian heritage altogether.

EDITORIAL

THIRTY YEARS AGO, TODAY

The 1989 Jailing of LaRouche Defined

An Era Which Now Must End

by Dennis Small

Jan. 21—Many Americans sat in stunned amazement earlier this month as the venerable New York Times and Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s apparatus moved to put the President of the United States, Donald Trump, on trial for treason, because he dared to meet and converse with Russian President Vladimir Putin; because he has referred to NATO as “obsolete” and questioned its role; and because he fired his director of the FBI, James Comey, as the Constitution prescribes he has the authority to do. Jaws dropped as it became public that top echelons of the FBI, the CIA, and the Democratic Party—all on instructions from British intelligence—had been, and still are to this day, engaged in an active coup d’etat against the elected President of the United States.

Many of you reading these lines today are rightly aghast at the fact that these actors, although they have not yet achieved their objective, have so far gotten away with their plot, and that they act with seeming impunity. “How is that possible?” you ask yourself and your friends.

To find the answer to that question, you only need look to the events of Jan. 27, 1989—precisely 30 years ago—when Lyndon H. LaRouche and a group of his associates were railroaded to prison with lengthy sentences, for crimes they never committed. The frame-up and jailing of LaRouche, facilitated by years of lying media vilification of LaRouche and his movement, which continues to this day, was carried out by the same British-run political apparatus—in many cases, by the same individual hit-men, including Special Counsel Robert Mueller—that today is out to topple the President of the United States.

And it is because they were able to carry out that legal atrocity against LaRouche 30 years ago, with hardly a whimper of protest from America’s leading institutions and most of the American people, that they are at it again today, on a grander scale.

In fact, the five-year jailing of Lyndon LaRouche defined an entire era of modern U.S. history, much as the 1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy did.

A Fertile Engine of Ideas

There is no exaggeration in that statement. Ramsey Clark, who served as Attorney General of the United States under President Lyndon Johnson, and who also represented LaRouche in his appeals to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court, stated in an April 26, 1995 open letter to then Attorney General Janet Reno:

I bring this matter [the LaRouche case] to you directly, because I believe it involves a broader range of deliberate and systematic misconduct and abuse of power over a longer period of time in an effort to destroy a political movement and leader, than any other federal prosecution in my time or to my knowledge.

On another occasion that same year, Clark said:

The purpose can only be seen as destroying—it’s more than a political movement, it’s more than a political figure; it is those two. But it’s a fertile engine of ideas, a common purpose of thinking and studying and analyzing to solve problems, regardless of the impact on the status quo, or on vested interests. It was a deliberate purpose to destroy that at any cost. . . . In what was a complex and pervasive utilization of law enforcement, prosecution, media, and non-governmental organizations focused on destroying an enemy, this case must be number one.

With LaRouche’s jailing, America and the world were deprived of their most illustrious statesman and economist.

Because LaRouche’s policies for replacing the deadly looting of Wall Street and the City of London with a just New World Economic Order of universal, high-tech development, were not implemented, hundreds of millions of people around the world remained in poverty and tens of millions perished unnecessarily. It has only been with China’s recent adoption of policies very similar to those proposed by LaRouche starting 50 years ago, that the genocide has stopped in at least large parts of the planet.

LaRouche and Reagan Sabotaged

Because LaRouche’s SDI policy, as adopted and proposed by President Ronald Reagan in 1983, was sabotaged and not carried out, the world today teeters at the edge of thermonuclear confrontation. Only a return to LaRouche’s original design of the SDI ballistic missile defense system—based on new physical principles and on cooperation with Russia and China, not against them—can now pull us back from the brink.

Because LaRouche’s proposal—after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Germany, famously forecast by LaRouche in October 1988—for cooperation between East and West, was rejected and LaRouche was hauled off to jail scarcely three months later, Russia was ravaged and the West was looted under Thatcher, Bush, and Mitterrand. And a wave of permanent wars was unleashed, which is with us still today.

Because LaRouche’s proposed war on drugs against London’s “Dope, Inc.” banking apparatus was never implemented, a drug epidemic today is poisoning our nation and the world.

And because LaRouche’s policies for generating a new Renaissance of classical culture and science were swept aside, we now stare into the pit of hell of a New Dark Age that is engulfing our youth in particular.

Some among you may disagree. Some may think that no jailing of a single man, no matter how unjustly, could possibly cause such results. But those thinking that way have yet to understand how real history works, how ideas are the driving force of humanity’s advance. In fact, the entire body of LaRouche’s life work and his extensive scientific writings, address precisely that central question: the role of man’s unique creativity in shaping his own history, and that of the physical universe around him. Read and study LaRouche if you wish to understand why the British Empire so fears him.

On March 30, 1984, Lyndon LaRouche wrote a “Draft Memorandum of Agreement Between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.,” with a vision for the future which remains as scientifically valid today as it was 35 years ago. In it, LaRouche stated:

The political foundation for durable peace must be: a) The unconditional sovereignty of each and all nation-states, and b) Cooperation among sovereign nation-states to the effect of promoting unlimited opportunities to participate in the benefits of technological progress, to the mutual benefit of each and all. The most crucial feature of present implementation of such a policy of durable peace is a profound change in the monetary, economic, and political relations between the dominant powers and those relatively subordinated nations often classed as “developing nations.” Unless the inequities lingering in the aftermath of modern colonialism are progressively remedied, there can be no durable peace on this planet.

Insofar as the United States and Soviet Union acknowledge the progress of the productive powers of labor throughout the planet to be in the vital strategic interests of each and both, the two powers are bound to that degree and in that way by a common interest. This is the kernel of the political and economic policies of practice indispensable to the fostering of durable peace between those two powers.

It is time that America atone for tolerating LaRouche’s incarceration three decades ago—not because such a terrible injustice was done to LaRouche, but because we have done such a terrible injustice to ourselves, and the world. It is past time to exonerate LaRouche and his associates; but above all, it is time to ensure that LaRouche’s policies are at last adopted.