Who Really Owns You? It Is Time for You To Think, Really-Part I | WPN World People News

It appears currently, that in Washington, D.C., as also in the British world empire, for example, the expected practice among some high-ranking interests today, is, to bury any unwanted truth under a virtual manure-pile filled with a combination of "talking points" mixed with that pile of monetarist fraud called "quantitative easing." After which, truth can be more readily, first muffled, and then buried: all done with the presumed assurance that no intelligent historians would be so rude as to bring the evaded subject of truth up again.

What follows from that, is the following:

The clearly evident intention behind that currently rampant, monetarist fraud, is, first to flood the world with an implicitly worthless avalanche of an intrinsically worthless mass of "quantitative easing," as is being done now; and, then, very soon, to turn about and repudiate all of that infinite debt of Ben "Bubbles" Bernanke's hoax of "monetarist easing;" but, with, or without Bernanke, then, to turn about to creating a new, universal version of allegedly lawful money, to replace the repudiated obligations of Bernanke's bubble-economy of hyper-inflationary "quantitative easing," by a relatively, extremely small quantity of new nominal "money," which will be intended to serve as a replacement for what had been simply cancelled as what had been the former category of "Bernanke" and kindred, repudiated money of the most of the rest of you folk.

Thus, it is presently intended, that the newly defined super-rich, will be reborn-again as the still relatively super-rich, while billions of the population of the world would die en-masse, choked to death by attempting to exist, as done by trying to live on the lost nominal "values" of a freshly repudiated former currency. All that after such "giant bubbles" resembling the intrinsic fraud of what had been "quantitative easing" had been not simply repudiated, but replaced on so gigantic a scale as would have been intended for now.

Chapter I: An aim for what is a so-called modern history, usually misses, and that for a very good reason!

The Present World-Empire

To understand both the present reality and its future, you must re-examine the present meaning of "lessons of past experience," as if those were an echo of memories of the ancient Roman empire and its sequels. Compare the former, recently lost sovereignties of continental Europe, with what has become the presently almost stateless condition of the former composition of western continental Europe. Ask oneself: In what degree is the condition of Europe today, comparable to the state of the conquered subjects of ancient Rome in its time; or, the state of a Europe before a British empire's recent crushing of the Peace of Westphalia; or, the hyperinflation imposed upon Weimar Germany in an earlier century?

Whatever past empires might have been, the period of what had been actually sovereign nation-states, now seems to have been brought very nearly to an end, into a state of affairs which, now, might seem to have been brought about by what a British scoundrel, Tony Blair, had done to murder the achievement of what had been the Peace of Westphalia. That wretch, Blair, has done his part in this by means of seemingly little more than slight adjustments in the name, costumes, dates and experiences of whatever passes for the presently, rapidly expiring customs of the Atlantic regions.

What, then, is now "reality?" Better asked: "Where has reality gone?" "Where did it go?" If it had ever existed, to where had it gone, and by what means? Perhaps, "Who has murdered it?" Or, "Is there still a future for mankind in Europe?"

Look at matters from a slightly different track: compare the sudden recent example of what has been lately defined by the irony of a recently re-resurrected, twisted mere corpse of England's Richard III, which, having been a lost cause, which it now, apparently, is, has now been finally brought back for a moment on stage, to a reign of an irony piled upon irony. Let who will, now shout: "For the moment, nothing seems to be reality. The King is already dead! Long live the King! Now bury him—again!" "History" as we have often heard of it from around the world of the past, seems, suddenly, to have been customarily extended as if under the memory of a long siege of Troy, which, in the end, was never actually a myth.

Such are the curious ironies of a real history.

A Search for Implications
If we scrap both the choice of the sundry lying, or the simply ignorant versions of what is claimed to have been considered the course of a fairly known history, we seem, currently, left with what were soon to become relics little better than being some scattered, occasionally accrued, lost facts as such. Despite that, as I shall insist here, we should have learned, long since, that no system of what are merely "so-called facts-to-present-date," could ever actually be an efficiently real account of an actual history. That has been true for a truly elementary reason: for the reason that the customary accounts presented, had failed to include an account for any actual future.

The truth is, contrary to common belief, that no truthful account of the actual future can be competently adduced from what had been merely the past. That has been, truthfully, the experience of every passing species of living creature, which has existed on Earth this far. That is the truth of great events in our galaxy. That is the principle which separates the experience of life, from that of death.

The indispensable reality which must be recognized, is that mere facts concerning manifested apparent intentions, are landmarks which have been left, like dead footprints from where actual men and women might have walked; yet, despite that, mere footprints and the like were never the real matters which are to be confused with the true outcomes experienced as the knowledgeable form of the processes of history. The past does not contain the footsteps which mark that present which exists only in the future: the arrogant powers of a merely present time, lack that actually existing experience of the future which is called "foresight." Yet, all living existence depends upon foresight, or lack of foresight of someone, or of some mere thing.

I emphasize, that while we might experiment with the suggestion that the knowable intentions were expressed in the course of the process of leaving those footprints which had been left behind in the forward march of history, these intentions left by the past, were never the true causes for the direction of that which a mere description of the actually historically past events and their footprints could have left behind them. As I shall explain, and then emphasize repeatedly in the course of this present report, the great, underlying motives of real history, are not to be located in causes which even some of the truly most applauded conduct of real nations, and of their men and women, should consider as having been the actual intention which the work of the human mind should have contributed to the creation of a future history, whether among living species, or the universe in an experience of its entirety.

Nonetheless, it might seem to some stubbornly misguided souls, that my profession as a successful forecaster in economic processes, has been, and remains, merely that which some learned, but confused folk might wish to prefer to describe, mistakenly, as being that of "a contrarian." All of which means, in fact, that I have searched, with some modest degree of a relatively unique success, for access to the real, future causes and their outcomes for a future history, rather than that of most of those who have been considered, as by their own very selves, to be "merely historians of a past experience."

I have come to prefer the causes which even the putatively best leading historians, or the like, appear to have either overlooked, or had simply lied about, either maliciously, or merely for the lack of anything which appears, to them, to be something better to do. Mostly, most of the time, even what might have seemed to have been the best of historians, have usually overlooked the most crucial among those actually real, but rarely mentioned varieties of the radically changing pattern of footsteps left behind in the course of an actual human history. All of my several principal, and successful, forecasts as a working economist, have been essentially of that characteristic. The past, like King Richard III, is always included in that which was buried in a mere appearance of some merely hoped-for future.

"The Hard Facts, Despite It All"
At this point, it would be appropriate to, briefly, narrow the range of the discussion in progress up to this point. Now, as I have recommended, and as I have done in several recent reports, let us, for the moment, confine the scope of what I have indicated here, to a concentration on those falsehoods which are represented, specifically, by reliance on what is merely ordinary human sense-perception, even when the past as merely such has been considered as a purportedly "scientific" sense-perception.

The first steps of that greatly narrowed range of topics among those who have been considered as actually competent historians and their like, bespeak footprints which have still not been understood, even among most of those who have been putatively the best historians and kindred strategic thinkers. Even among those I could identify as being fairly considered as "strategic thinkers," their whole role fits within that greatly reduced range of targets which I have just identified; they tend to be victims of a class of errors defined by reliance on mere sense-perceptions, as precisely such mistakes as those reveal the commonplace error of a prevalent, persisting belief in what is actually the fallacy of what is called "sense-certainty."

In a somewhat longer-range view of history than that, if we were to keep within the bounds of those parameters which I have just presented for your consideration here, it is what has been the crucially important, but neither, yet, truly-understood, nor even known, underlying principles, which have befuddled even the otherwise relatively most respectable historians and forecasters.

To restate that point. It is fairly said, that even what are sometimes justly considered as the best scientists, historians, or statesmen, had relied on the track of the mere footprints left as history, rather than relying upon an effort to discover what had actually made those footprints. What those persons have missed in their inquiries, is not what had actually seemed to be the expressed intention of the individual actor, but, rather, has lain in consequences which he or she had almost never effectively considered: "the mysterious hand of a future fate."

What, then, has been the cause of what even a seemingly perfected quality of conventionally historical outlook has widely overlooked?

"An Answer to That Question"
There has been a commonplace error which must be considered, and corrected, as it must be done here. That error is expressed as a disposition to rely on sense-perception, even fairly often, choosing that misguided belief for the purpose of defining what is intended to pass for the alleged discovery of universal physical principles. Therefore, one must demand: What is the proof of that sense-perception, upon which habitual science-sniffers appear to rely as their choice of what passes, for them, as what they treat as if truly universal, but which is often a false notion of a physical principle?

On that account, there is the need for a new, better definition of a competent account of human history, which must be a history which includes the knowably efficient existence of the role of the future. This must now be reconsidered, and refined, with far greater rigor, and, then, radically redefined, again, appropriately, even as if to bring the evidence out from the popular hiding-places, where it has been dwelling amid those usual mists and myths mistaken for the systemic actuality of progress in human history, or its rejection.

There is a principle of reason in the actual record of history; but, the customary approach to what had been deemed a more or less respectable regard for the matter of motives, misses the point. It neglects the underlying, rarely considered, but actually underlying motives specific to knowledge of the future, motives which even the most careful historians have often missed, motives which actually lurk as if hidden deeply by mankind's merely ostensible motives.

That brings us to the issues of the inherently systemic fallacy of what has been accepted, wrongly, as the principles often attributed to the notion of mere sense-perception as such. On that latter account, the ostensibly best among the putative experts, had customarily failed to consider the actually efficient quality of the deeply underlying actual motives embedded in those mists which have been created by mankind's customarily credulous confidence in what had been merely sense-perception itself. That has been the cause for such errors as those which have been popularly recommended as a worship of the alleged evidence of mere sense perception.

At this point, let us take the most serious of our historians hypothetically at their word, but, therefore, only for carefully defined clinical purposes. Then, and only then, locate the systemically ontological folly embedded within the apparent depths of their knowledge and its mere sincerities.

What is the role of a history which is to be seen from the specific viewpoint of the future? In other words, seen from the standpoint of those universal physical principles which could not be actually known from any other standpoint than that of reference to an actuality of the future.

A Typically Useful Question-Mark
There have been notable, but relatively brief interruptions in the past, imperialist systems of repressions, interruptions such as, for example, the case of that relatively excellent, and also exceptionally important medieval figure of history, Charlemagne as Rosa Luxemburg had known him.

With the passing of what was, in fact, a truly great Charlemagne, the experience then was as if history had slid backwards, that at a generally accelerating rate, all, with some rare exceptions, toward a fresh interval of "the same old imperialist crap." While Charlemagne had still lived, he had remained truly outstanding, and so within the dwindling powers of his radiated influence since the death which had followed his relatively brief reign.

It had been a reign which was outstanding for the reason of some of the physical-economic institutions which he had founded during his life-time, such as the creation of Europe's continental water-transport system, and his method of census, and his system of development of the needed qualities of government, and the other wonderful accomplishments of the government of his time. Those accomplishments of his, as fairly considered by the historian Rosa Luxemburg, had been among the most excellent works of that page in history, which, on that account, had lived on, not only in memory, but, even more emphatically, in the practices and those profound benefits from that time, which have survived to be resurrected in memory, up through the present day.

What he had achieved as durable qualities of those created effects of his reign, remain, still, as traceable to what Rosa Luxemburg had correctly noted in the course of her own scholarly achievements, as among the world's leading economists of her own time. Nonetheless, we must ask: what had directed the motives of that quality which he had actually represented as the relative great genius of his, Charlemagne's, relatively brief reign? Behind the well-defined apparent motives, what is the underlying motive for the motives themselves, those of then, or now? The honest answer to such questions is neither obvious, nor simple in any degree. They require the wisdom gained from the effect of true discoveries of universal principles.

The great economic and closely related accomplishments of Charlemagne, had been chiefly economic (physically) in their effects, as in economic and social accomplishments traced, chiefly, in events of development covering a territory corresponding to that of the combined territory represented, chiefly, by the combination of both the same territory as that of modern France, and also of that territory on which a modern Germany has been established, a Germany which had come into its proper existence under that influence of the circles of U.S.A. President Abraham Lincoln, which had contributed to a continuing leadership of Chancellor Bismarck, a leadership which had been continued, in effect, until his ouster by British interests, in 1890—British interests which had actually launched World War I, and its sequels from the exact moment at which Bismarck had been toppled from future power.

Those relevant developments by Charlemagne, to which I had referred, included the great internal continental system of "water roads" centered on both the rivers and canals of France and the internal water-ways of Germany, including a crucially important inland navigational system based on the union of the Rhine, the Danube, and the rivers of France, a creation which was completed only as late as during the 1990s.

Otherwise, Charlemagne himself had entered into great diplomatic and related agreements with many regions of Europe and the Middle East, including his exemplary close relationship to the Abassid monarch of the same period of time, Haroun al Raschid.

For the rest of it all, European history, in particular, so far, has been, most frequently, and with brief exceptions, chiefly an onset of interims betwixt sundry bloody carnivals of horrors, to the very present date; even the leading exceptions which have been notable, even still today, were largely passing odd pages from a tattered history. There seem to have been certain motives for what had happened; but, what were the hidden motives which had made the other motives possible?

On such account, the riddles of history might appear to most, to be unending. The best riddles are to be found at the point that "practical experiments" are superseded by the discovery of new, higher ranking, universal physical principles, principles which reject the silliness of the notions of deduction—which is what qualifies the latter to be examined in the corrective light of what might be principles.

I now return attention to precisely that presently urgent matter of the definition of what is actually a universal principle, but, after we have turned our attention, temporarily, to descriptions of the ground on which the evidence of suspected principles might be found. Do not forget, that through it all, I am not merely an economist, but one with certain exceptional, and proven qualifications of insight and foresight for the purposes to which I am dedicated on behalf of you and your progeny.

Chapter 2: "I am an American!"

History on the Field of Play

Mere labels, mere descriptions, are never actually science, but are, usually, directly the contrary in their natures. At its best, merely taught history is little better than a footprint of that which had once been an account molded by either the hands and minds of competent scientists, or merely those others who must now be returned into a more careful study of a now much-neglected, former role of actually scientific progress. Such is the root of the trans-Atlantic and still broader crisis of mankind now.

Consider the set of the nations of continental western and central Europe, as to be seen over the course traced from ancient into present times, and which have now been recently sucked into becoming returned to the condition of a virtually stateless, merely local colony of the British empire. For example: a collection of captive, former nations, otherwise known presently as the so-called "Euro System." This had been a patch of what had become, at one time or another, and sooner or later, the sometimes former nation-states whose only actively surviving form of serious expression at the present moment, today, is what has become known as the recent tragedy of the presently contemporary, seemingly stateless, and accelerating threatened disasters of a "Euro System."

The United Kingdom is not actually a nation—although it could become such under proper preconditions; it is a mere "motto" used by what is, essentially, a now centuries-long reign of a world-wide empire. In such matters as those confronting Europe now, what British imperial reign and its influence has done, was that done not merely to continental Europe, but to the continents of Eurasia, Africa, the Americas, and others.

Europe is not the only victim presently. During the course of the formation of the history of our own United States of America, our own participation in these presently trans-Atlantic and Mediterranean times, had already lost, at least temporarily, most of our republic's originally won sovereignty, a quality of sovereignty which had been lost through such sources of corruption as the instrumentality of the installation of the loutish mere British puppet of that British spy, Aaron Burr, that nasty puppet known as that thoroughly despicable President Andrew Jackson who had duped many Americans of the past and present, into the deluded belief that Jackson should be regarded as "respectable."

Following the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln, a former pupil of John Quincy Adams, and the greatest of all Presidents since George Washington, we of our United States had regained our sovereignty in a Civil War among our ranks, a conflict which had been created entirely by the British monarchy and its international financial apparatus: albeit regained for only a time. For that foolishness among us then, we have paid a horrid, actually bloody price, which would have been mitigated had a victorious President Lincoln continued to live in defiance of his intended assassins deployed from the British monarchy.

Similarly, another most notable, later assassination, that of President William McKinley, threw the same U.S. Presidency into a virtual political garbage-pit, into the snare of being a virtual British satrapy once more, this time under such as a treasonously inclined, swinish Theodore Roosevelt, and under a kindred, temporarily reigning scoundrel and overt leader of the revived Ku Klux Klan, President Woodrow Wilson. In the main, the U.S.A. of the 1920s fared little better.

So, with one curious exception to a pack of the mostly Twentieth-century scoundrels in our Presidency, until the election of the truly great President Franklin Roosevelt, the Presidency of the United States had been occupied, with a rare exception, by more or less viciously treasonous stuff representing the legacy of the British spy Aaron Burr, and Burr's habitual mere flunky, Andrew Jackson.

But, then, with the death of President Franklin Roosevelt, and, thus, under the despicable Harry S Truman foisted upon a politically besieged President Franklin Roosevelt, the United States again became a disgrace to itself, this time under implicitly treasonous pressures directed from Churchill's London.

Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy gave us back much of our actual sovereignty, temporarily, for as long as they had lived; the assassinations of John Kennedy and his brother Robert, still keep that which had been our once great republic, as a captive to an economic and political tail-spin under such as a failed and nasty George W. Bush, Jr., and the British-empire-created Barack Obama, both of whom have proven themselves, in fact, to be, this far, the very worst substitutes for true patriots of our republic's virtually lost sovereignty.

The proper general summation of this report which I am presenting as the range of matters to be considered here and now, will be the fact, that, despite the wonderful Peace of Westphalia, the future British empire had begun to emerge as visibly an imperial power with rise of the New Venetian Party's wars, first that of a France under the impact of William III of Orange, but which has now been, long since, a globally dominant imperial power throughout the planet, more or less permanently to present date. So far, numerous moments of a set of quaint pseudo-sovereignties are to be taken into consideration. This insult to the respective nations of Europe did not begin with the Roman Empire, but. there has been, so far, no end to the specific evil which ancient Rome, and its presently continued, Venice and its included Modena branch as an offshoot, represent still today. So, the bench-mark for the history to be considered in this present report, must now be located here.

"Go along, to get along," may not be treason, but without the populist legacy within our institutions of government, actual treason would not have been tolerated very much under our Federal Constitution. Most of our people had been respectable, had they not sought out the companionship of that which is, both politically and morally, tantamount to syphilis.

In the meantime, the customary British myth about "little England," is nothing more than just another silly "talking point" employed for the edification of the pitifully credulous. In short, true sovereignty among respective nations, has been, considered in the large, this far, pretty much in the role of a collection of seductive dreams with little durable substance. If we refuse to accept that judgment, we were blinding ourselves to the most general of long-standing, presently global realities.

Nicholas of Cusa's Legacy
That much said this far, now take the following, crucially exemplary case of the influence of Nicholas of Cusa on the destiny, and the consequences of that work of Christopher Columbus which had been inspired by the work of Nicholas of Cusa. Our republic may have become "sad shakes" now; but our United States also has had a wonderful legacy which may be traced chiefly to the impact of the legacy of one among the greatest geniuses of known modern times, Nicholas of Cusa, the true central figure of the greatest trends toward progress in modern trans-Atlantic history since the Great Renaissance.

For that purpose, we must study the Massachusetts of the Seventeenth-century Winthrops and Mathers; study it as a fairly crucial and also pivotal case in point. Had I been free to prevent a monstrosity perpetrated against my highly esteemed, late colleague and historian, Graham Lowry, he would have been permitted to continue the exceptionally gifted work which he had represented, that as far, and for so long as his circumstances permitted, as in his only partly completed, projected series on the true history of our republic. We of our United States should all be richer, and wiser, for the memory of those achievements and intentions, still today.

The lesson especially to be learned, is that Truth is not a collection of facts. It is a grasp of those forces of influence which distinguishes the genius of creative insight from mockery. There was no one among those who tried to shut Graham's voice up, who had not turned out to have been "a holier-than-thou skunk" during my enforced absence from my customary duties. Too often, it is forgotten, that "power" and "honor" are usually not evidence of truth. Corruption comes cheaper on the marketplaces of what is describable as "opportunism."

To understand all this, and more, you must, absolutely, consider the deep and also vast relationship of the work of Nicholas of Cusa for the role of Christopher Columbus in the shaping of world history since their overlapping times. We must, therefore, give special recognition, to that explicitly declared mission of Cusa, which had, in turn, persuaded Christopher Columbus to found the benchmark for a new republic, a benchmark whose existence was explicitly premised on what was to happen on the shores of the Americas.

In all of this, the deep precedents for the unique role of Columbus's mission must not be overlooked. Without the role of Columbus, there would have been no United States, and without the genius of Nicholas of Cusa, before the historic role of Columbus, there would have been none of the achievements accomplished through the keystone-work of Christopher Columbus.

To illustrate those achievements and their varied consequences, it were sufficiently exemplary, to consider the circumstances which led to not only the discovery of the New England colony, but even the brilliant success of the establishment of the New England colony, prior to the time it was crushed by those forces of the "New Venetian" establishment of William III et al., which had been built up in the Netherlands wars. These were wars, first, against the France of the silly Louis XIV; and, second, against the British Isles; and, thirdly, the suppression and crushing of what had been the wonderful New England territory crafted under the leadership of the Winthrops and the Mathers.

In the latter of those three instances, what emerged from the late Seventeenth-century crushing of New England by the agencies of the continuing "Venetian Empire," was an Eighteenth-century rebirth of the earlier intentions of the Winthrops and Mathers, a rebirth typified most forcefully in the personality and work of the great master-statesman, and political heir of those same Winthrops and Mathers, Benjamin Franklin.

However, all that said this far, now taken into a certain account, consider: what is the systemic error deeply embedded in the current teaching even among the presently relatively best of our historians this far?

Now, having completed a broad-brush overview of the particular subject-matters to be taken into account here and now, we may bring a better order into an historical perspective whose selected certain elements we have considered here this far, and more. Our principal, and principled target for this scientific expedition into the realm of truth, is the systemically savage fallacies inherent in the current, still conventional, but mistaken notion of human sense-perception as such. To escape from the inherent errors intrinsic to faith in sense-perception, it is essential to be freed from the great error of the relatively best historians, the specific error of belief in the alleged "self-evidence" of what is merely sense-perception.

Such is the spread of the truly underlying semblance of principle for truly attempted understanding of human history, to the present date. Now, let you be enabled to "begin to get my point here," even if only by degrees.

What Is the Future?
The moment has now come in this report, to insert an explanation of the proper human meaning of the concept of an ontological distinction of actual human access to knowledge of the future.

The clearest modern definition of an ontologically actual notion of an experience of a future, was supplied by Nicholas of Cusa in, most notably, his De Docta Ignorantia. The best practical demonstration of Cusa's discovery in that location, has been provided by his scientific heir, by Johannes Kepler's unique discovery of the principled conception of vicarious hypothesis. Unfortunately, the notion of vicarious hypothesis, as actually presented by Kepler, has been poorly interpreted; however, it can be better appreciated if we recognize that conception itself as being ontologically congruent with the concept of metaphor as it occurs in the dramas of William Shakespeare and the principles of musical composition expressed in the preludes and fugues of Johann Sebastian Bach.

The most vicious of the customary errors of popular opinion on this account, is the prevalence of a desperate belief in the ontological notion of "sense-certainty." The best choice of contemporary remedies for the prevalent popular confusion in connection with these matters, is to examine the typical cases of the successfully demonstrated discovery of universal physical principles by such modern physical scientists as Max Planck and Albert Einstein. Those discoveries conveniently typify cases of explicit knowledge of an experience of the future; that prowess in creativity so typified, also typifies the actual experience of a discovery of a principled expression of the future which is fully congruent with the practice of forecasting in which I have repeatedly had such an experience in forecasting oncoming expressions of the discovery of future, qualitative changes in mankind's available choices of his fate.

No comparable benefit can be adduced from mere sense-perception as such. My own earliest experience with that kind of choice, is what I experienced, contrary to Euclidean doctrines, in a youthful study, during my secondary education, of the principled characteristics of constructions with steel beams, during some repeated visits to the Charlestown Navy Yard in metropolitan Boston. The principle which I adopted as being "natural," from my point of view, then, was merely typical of any human being's potential insight into the actual experience of knowing a cause in the future.

The issue which arises commonly in connection with such discoveries, is the relative "brainwashing" of students and others in what passes for "standard" secondary and later education commonly. Man's power of the human will, as that was demonstrated by Kepler's discovery of the essential principle of the Solar system's organization, is not, by any means, the only type of relevant case. It has been the best illustration of the essential principle which distinguishes mankind from the beasts, as by Bernhard Riemann, Max Planck, and Albert Einstein, too, as, probably, Heraclitus as well, Shakespeare and Bach included.

The principle which I have indicated, thus, here, is a natural power of the member of the human species, if that power is not suppressed within, and by society. On this account, it is not merely possible, but indispensable, to recognize that the cultures with which some of the better-informed have been indoctrinated, have been crafted, to large degree, as effects of a conditioning to accept the fate of a suppressed majority in this history of the conflict between mankind and its oligarchical cultural conditioning according to what has been the "tradition" induced among the so-called "lower classes." The long history of the systemic fraud of a Euclidean geometry illustrates the point.

Source: Executive Intelligence Review