Beam Weapons

FUSIONSCIENCE • TECHNOLOGY • ECONOMICS • POLITICSNovember 1982Beam WeaponsThe Science to Stop Nuclear War

An Open Letter to ReadersAt a time when "nuclear freeze" advocates are using antiwar rhetoric to promote afreeze on nuclear power plants, Fusion is not just a good magazine. It is the onlyscience magazine fighting to continue the American tradition of progress.The printing and mailing of our 1982 issues have been delayed because of our financialdifficulties—difficulties that have been fostered by the same forces who bankroll thenuclear freeze and environmentalist movements.We resumed regular publication in September 1982 with a special format issue ofFusion. This November issue, which contains feature material from the unpublishedMay 1982 issue, is our third special format issue. We plan to continue to publish morethan one issue a month in order to send readers the highlights of all the back issueswe have prepared, plus new materials. How fast we can catch up to our regularschedule and our full 64-page format depends on you.With your financial help, we can win this fight for America, and get Fusion out regularlyto its 200,000 readers.• Join the Fusion Energy Foundation today. Memberships are $75 (individual), $250(sustainer), and $1,000 (corporate).• Send us a contribution to further our research and educational work and publiclectures. Contributions to the FEF are tax-deductible.• Donate subscriptions to your local schools, libraries, and legislators.Paul Gallagher, Executive Director, Fusion Energy Foundation

FUSIONVol. 5, No. 5 November 19822. EditorialBeam Weapons, the Nuclear Freeze, and the 1982 ElectionsFeaturesT" Beam Weapons: The Science to Stop Nuclear WarDr. Steven BardwellYes, there is a way to stop nuclear war—by developing directedenergy beam weapons. A crash program to pursue these frontiertechnologies would have a revolutionary impact on society,accelerating the development of fusion energy and bringing usinto the plasma age.3/ Systems Analysis: White Collar GenocideLyndon H. LaRouche, jr.When applied to the planning of whole economies, the method ofsystems analysis leads inescapably to genocide. The opposing Platonictheory of scientific inquiry is the most powerful weapon not only fordestroying Malthusianism, but also for building the technologiesrequired to prevent genocide. Part 2 of this provocative articlediscusses geometry as the "language of vision" and its application toeconomic analysis.The US. NeedsA Beam Weapons ProgramPresident Ronald ReaganThe White HouseWashington, D.C. 20500Send Your Letter to President Reagan!Dear Mr. President:I urge you to end the threat of nuclear war by committing the United Statesto a crash program to develop directed energy beam weapons. By developingthis ballistic missile defense system we will be able to destroy nuclear missilesin mid-flight, before their warheads have been released. At the same time,beam research will also speed the development of nuclear fusion power, asource of unlimited cheap energy from seawater, and bring us the technologiesof the plasma age.Like NASA's Apollo program, a crash program on the frontiers of science todevelop beam weapons will revitalize the economy, our industries, and ourscience education system.EDITORIAL STAFFEditor-in-ChiefDr. Steven BardwellManaging EditorMarjorie Mazel HechtAssistant Managing EditorLydia Dittler SchulmanFusion Technology EditorCharles B. StevensWashington EditorMarsha FreemanBiology EditorCarol ClearyEnergy EditorWilliam EngdahlArt DirectorAlan YuePhoto EditorCarlos de HoyosAdvertising ManagerAnton ChaitkinCirculation and Subscription ManagerDenise Ham(212)247-8820FUSION is published 4 times a year in 1982 inSeptember, Octpber. Nevember, and Decemberby the Fusion Energy Foundation, 304 West 58thStreet, Fifth Floor, New York, N.Y. 10019. Tel. (212)247-8439. Dedicated to providing accurate andccmprehensive informatipn pn advanced energytechnclpgies and pplicies, FUSION is committedto restoring American scientific and technologicalleadership. FUSION coverage of the frontiers pfscience focuses on the self-developing qualities ofthe physical universe in such areas as plasmaphysics—the basis fpr fusion ppwer— as well asbiolpgy and micrcphysics, and includes groundbreakingstudies of the historical development ofscience and technology.The views of the FEF are stated in the editorials.Opinions expressed in articles are not necessarilythose of the FEF directors or advisory board.Subscriptions by mail are $20 for 10 issues orS38 for 20 issues in the USA; $25 for 10 issues inCanada. Airmail subscriptions to other countriesare $40 for 10 issues.Address ail correspondence to FUSION, FusionEnergy Foundation, P.O. Box 1438, Radio CityStation, New York, N.Y. 10101.Second class ppstage is paid at New York, N.Y.and at additional mailing offices.Note to Libraries and SubscribersTo comply with postal regulations, the issues ofFUSION in Volume 5 are numbered in the orderin which they were printed and mailed. October1982. Vol. 5, No. 4, follows September 1982, Vol.5, NP. 3, which fcllpws December 1981, Vol. 5,Ne. 2.Subscribers who purchased a 10-issue subscriptionwill receive all 10 issues. The FEF expectsto publish ten issues of FUSION in 1983, but onlyfour issues in 1982. Highlights of the six remaining1982 issues—January through August—will be includedin future issues.Copyright 6 1982Fusion Energy FoundationPrinted in the USAAll Rights ReservedISSN 0148-0537 USPS 437-370NAME..STATE.Cover design by Ginny Baier. Front coverillustration by Christopher Sloan.

EditorialBeam Weapons, the Nuclear Freeze,And the 1982 ElectionsThis is a guest editorial by Lyndon H. LaRouche, jr., afounding member of the Fusion Energy Foundation and amember of its board of directors. LaRouche heads one ofthe major political action committees in the DemocraticParty, the National Democratic Policy Committee(NDPC).The November 1982 congressional elections were, in thewords of a popular idiom, a "Mexican stand-off." The Democratsgained 25 seats in the House of Representatives, again of no trend-setting significance, while the Republicansheld their majority in the Senate. As a result, the real factionalissues in the nation's capital at this moment are notbetween the two major parties, but across party lines.The major fight at this moment is between backers of aKissinger-guided State Department and backers of the ReaganDefense Department's push for the development ofspace-based antimissile beam weapons.Otherwise, the important feature of the election is aprofound discrediting of the right-wing conservative factionsof both major parties, and also a significant, if indecisive,weakening of the left-wing forces of the DemocraticParty. Under the pressure of a new economicdepression, increasing portions of the electorate are lookingback affectionately to the memory of President FranklinD. Roosevelt, and are turning their backs to both rightwingand left-wing varieties of political eccentricities.The Beam Weapon IssueAlthough the proposal to develop space-based antimissilebeam weapons is only one among many majorissues dividing forces in Washington, D.C., it is at thepresent moment the single issue upon which the entiretyof near-term U.S. policy directions will turn. A summaryof the history of the beam-weapon policy helps to makethe issue and its connections clearer.The discussions leading to the proposal of beam weaponsbegan during the summer of 1977, through collaborativedeliberations between retired Air Force Intelligencechief Major-General George Keegan and Dr. Steven Bardwellof the Fusion Energy Foundation. Putting their headstogether, Keegan and Bardwell established beyond doubtthat both superpowers had the scientific and technologicalmeans to launch crash programs to develop and deploybeam weapons capable of destroying large parts of thenuclear missile arsenal of the opposing superpower.Although Keegan broke off direct collaboration duringautumn 1977 over the issue of this writer's opposition tothe "Camp David" policy, Keegan's and Bardwell's collaboratorsseparately launched public campaigns for beamweapondevelopment during that autumn period, overhysterical opposition to both from the London InternationalInstitute for Strategic Studies (IISS).During early 1982, this writer composed a comprehensivestrategic policy draft, centered around a detailed proposalfor a U.S. space-based antimissile beam-weaponsdevelopment. This policy draft was circulated in prepublishedform to key military and other circles, and laterpublished with wide circulation as a policy study issuedby the NDPC. A concerted effort of support for this policyproposal was launched during April-May 1982, and knowledgeand support for the NDPC proposal spread.As Dr. Edward Teller reported during an Oct. 26 publicaddress in Washington, D.C., some of his "younger friends"won him over to becoming a spokesman for this policy.Teller has adopted the full range of proposed features ofthe policy. Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger has publiclysupported, at the very least, the military hardwarefeatures and implications of the same policy.Currently, opposition to the policy comes chiefly fromthe allied forces of Henry A. Kissinger and AFL-CIO PresidentLane Kirkland, both supported by the "conventionalweapons" build-up liberal faction of Governor Averell Harriman,Senator Edward Kennedy, and Senator Gary Hart.In the layman's terms, the NDPC's beam-weapons policyhas the following leading points:(1) That the only possible means for ending the age ofnuclear terror is the development of technologies throughwhich nuclear missiles can be destroyed with more than99 percent effectiveness in mid-flight. Without beam weapons,under present or foreseeable political conditions, neithersuperpower would be willing to reduce nuclear capabilitybelow its estimate of assured minimal capabilityfor total physical destruction of the home-base of the opposingpower.(2) That the science and technology for such weaponssystemsdeployment exist at the established or earlypotentialcapacity of both superpowers.(3) That a "crash effort" to develop and deploy suchantimissile defenses would incur no net cost to the U.S.economy, since the civilian-technological by-products ofthe development effort would stimulate a high-technologyeconomic boom in the United States.(4) That the only foreseeable trigger for actual thermonuclearwar between the two superpowers now in sightwould be a combination of "conventional wars" amongregions of the developing sector and a significant weakeningof the relative strategic power of one of the twosuperpowers. A weakened and threatened superpower,either the United States or the Soviet Union, would fall2 November 1982 FUSION

ack on the last resort of its thermonuclear arsenal, usingthermonuclear blackmail to correct the imbalance. Thus,the savage weakening of the West through the presentworld economic depression, combined with regional conventionalwarfare in the developing sector, makes the otherwiseunthinkable thermonuclear war an increasing possibilityfor the years immediately ahead.(5) That the agenda of arms-negotiations between Washingtonand Moscow must be scrapped and replaced witha new agenda based on a policy of development of defensivebeam weapons to the end of ending the age ofthermonuclear terror (the policy of mutually assured destruction—MAD}.(6) That this qualitative change in military technologywill, by itself, merely postpone the danger of thermonuclearwar. We must include a feature which carries usbeyond mere war postponement into circumstances ofdurable peace.(7) That the basis for durable peace, as Teller emphasizedin his own choice of terms, is a U.S. commitment tohigh-technology economic development of the developingnations, seeking to win the Soviet Union to cooperatingin this effort on behalf of the "common aims of mankind."The additional special feature of the NDPC-policy outlineis that it specifies that the research and development forthis be civilian-based, rather than locked away in secretmilitary projects. The NDPC has proposed that the UnitedStates launch several civilian-economy crash programs toperfect the technology used in antimissile beam weapons.For example: NASA should be given the assignment forkeystone tasks, including the development of manned Earthorbitingspace laboratories, and a manned Mars landing,as well as manned Moon stations. Such civilian researchwill develop all the technology required to be properlyrepackaged as space-based beam-weapons systems.An intensive schedule of speaking engagements by theFEF's Dr. Steven Bardwell substantially weakened the causeof the "nuclear freeze" movement in California during thetwo weeks immediately preceding the election. Bardwell'sspeaking-tour had two significant kinds of effects. AlthoughBardwell was one of the designers of the beamweaponsproject, he has done his work outside the boundsof secret research. Therefore, Bardwell is free to offer thekind of technical-scientific clarifications of beam-weaponsprinciples which Teller is not presently legally free to revealpublicly. Second, Dr. Bardwell succeeded in winning asignificant number of university students and some specialistsaway from the "nuclear freeze" cause, by convincingthem that beam-weapon deployment is the effectiveapproach to ending the age of thermonuclear terror.The General Line-UpAt the highest level of U.S. circles, the practical divisionof forces is between the supporters and adversaries of the"New Yalta" policy of Britain's Lord Carrington. Carrington,'along-standing controller of Henry A. Kissinger, is atthe center of an Anglo-Soviet game intended to break Europeaway from the United States, and to kick U.S. influenceout of the Middle East and other parts of the world.The principal bastion of pro-Carrington policies in theU.S. government is the State Department. Kissinger alliesin the State Department and ultra-liberals in the DemocraticParty are the principal backers of neo-Malthusianpolicies concerning population reduction, technology, andeconomic policy. This faction opposes beam-weapons development,and proposes to develop a reduced U.S. conventionalmilitary establishment, designed to conduct regionalwars against nations in the developing sector.This division of forces along policy lines overlaps a seconddivision within U.S. leading circles. This second issuecenters around the publicized case of alleged Soviet spyGeoffrey Arthur Prime, alleged to have delivered detailedNATO plans and U.S.-NATO codes to Moscow. British refusalto inform the U.S. government of the massive leakof U.S. secrets by Britain's secret services, and massiveother indications of Anglo-Soviet collaboration against theUnited States, have infuriated large parts of leading military,intelligence, and other circuits in and around Washington,D.C.Informed sources indicate that the Prime affair is generallyviewed as a British smoke-screen, a diversionary operation,covering up a much more serious business. Thefingers point in the direction of Lord Carrington's "NewYalta" package, viewed as "treasonous" by some critics,and also repeated charges to the effect that Kissinger wasa Soviet intelligence asset during the period of his postwarservice in the Oberammergau Center in occupied Germany:the so-called Odra Cell affair.Although the general U.S. public is only dimly aware ofsuch issues up to the present moment, the lines of crosspartydivisions in and around Washington, D.C, intersectan eruption of rage against the effect of the policies ofFederal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker among the populationgenerally. The recent elections reflect this rage onlyindirectly. Except in isolated cases, the percentage of theelectorate participating in the elections was typical for amidterm election: approximately 34 percent. Also typical,the mobilization of certain sections of the electorate aroundspecial issues, such as the "nuclear freeze" referendum,tilted the results of the elections such that more militantlyorganized minority views within the electorate affected theoverall vote in such a way that the result of votes cast doesnot efficiently represent the moods in the population as awhole.In this election, the voters voted less frequently for candidatesthan against candidates. With relatively few exceptions,voters voted for candidates not because they likethose candidates, but because they wished to destroy thepolitical career of the opponent. The voters are not to beblamed for this; with few exceptions, they had no candidateor party policy worth voting for.At the top, and among the electorate, the politicians ofthe United States are wobbling on a political knife's edge.Both the government and the electorate could easily fallto one side or the other, to the side of beam-weaponssupporters, or to the side of Kissinger's friends. WhetherPresident Reagan capitulates to Kissinger and Kirkland, oroverrides Kissinger's State Department-centered backers,will probably determine the way the United States and theworld go during the months immediately ahead.FUSION November 1982 3

Beam Weapons: The Scienceby Dr. Steven BardwellFor years the threat of nuclear warhas hung over the heads of Americans,the fear that by accident or designsomeone would press a red button andsend a nuclear-armed intercontinentalballistic missile (ICBM) to turn U.S.cities into infernos. Now, after 30 yearsof living with this horrible possibility,there is a definite means to ensure thatnuclear war will never happen: thetechnology of directed energy beamweapons.We could have the first generationof beam weapons within 5 years—ifthe United States put a priority onbeam research. Such beam weaponswould be able to find, track, and destroya nuclear-armed ICBM, preventingits explosion. And in another10 to 15 years, we could develop asecond generation of space-basedbeam weapons, giving even greaterprotection with a capacity to destroy10,000 ICBMs at once.Such beam weapons would makenuclear war obsolete. Beam weaponsdo not simply hit a missile silo or preventa nuclear missile from beinglaunched; they ensure that the nuclearwarhead is destroyed in the stratosphere.There is no nuclear explosion,no nuclear holocaust.The news media have portrayed thebeam weapon as a "Buck Rogers" fantasyor as a "third generation nuclearweapon" that will "militarize" space by putting bombs there.But beam weapons are neither wonder weapons nor nuclearweapons. Directed energy beams can be of intenseelectromagnetic waves of the same wavelength (laserbeams), of subatomic particles (electron beams, protonbeams, or neutral particle beams), or microwave and plasmabeams—all of which travel at or near the speed of light.The development of such beams would represent a qualitativeleap in our understanding of physical science andtechnology, similar to the leap the world made with theuse of nuclear fission.For this reason, Dr. Edward Teller, who is often calledthe "father" of the hydrogen bomb, has termed the beamweapon the most important military development sincethe atom bomb. Whether or not the United States willembark on a new "Manhattan Project" effort to developdirected energy beam weapons depends on the successof Teller's ongoing public and private interventions into4 November 1982 FUSIONSandia National LaboratoriesThe PBFA 1, a particle beam accelerator used for electron beam production andfocusing experiments in the fusion research program at Sandia National Laboratoriesin Albuquerque, N.M.military policymaking, along with the initiatives of DemocraticParty leader Lyndon H. LaRouche and the FusionEnergy Foundation, to shift this nation's defense policyaway from the absurd concepts of mutually assured destruction(MAD) and deterrence, authored by RobertMcNamara and the Rand Corporation.A new Manhattan Project, ironically, would for the firsttime in 30 years free this nation from being held hostageto the threat of nuclear holocaust. More important, asLaRouche, the Fusion Energy Foundation, and, recently,Teller have stressed, a brute force research effort in beamtechnologies would have a revolutionary impact in acceleratingthe development of nuclear fusion for energy production,the development of plasma torches for materialsprocessing and mining, and a host of other technologies.Like the NASA Apollo program in the 1960s, an all-outresearch program in this frontier science area would spurindustrial productivity and revive the U.S. economy, at the

to Stop Nuclear Warsame time making the industrialization and developmentof the underdeveloped sector a reality.The development of a beam weapon will open up a newchapter in man's history: the age of plasma technologies.These new technologies will have a more revolutionaryimpact on society than the introduction of electricity had100 years ago.The real source of the revolutionary impact of thesetechnologies is the scientific challenge they present. Thedevelopment of a beam weapon would require the resolutionof the most profound problems of theoretical physicsof the past several centuries.How a Beam Weapon WorksA beam weapon system would have to meet the samerequirements as any other conventional defense systemagainst ballistic missiles. The Los Alamos National Laboratory's1980 report on ballistic missile defense specifiedthe problems to solve as follows: (1) early warning thathostile ICBMs have been launched; (2) detection and assessmentof the threat; (3) derivation of trajectories andprediction of targets; (4) discrimination of warheads, reentryvehicles, and decoys; (5) targeting the interceptor (thebeam); (6) guidance of the beam; and (7) destruction ofthe target.Over the past 15 years, both the United States and theSoviet Union have perfected the early warning technologyusing satellites, and both countries routinely monitor allmissile launchings. The more refined assessments are nowaccomplished using ground-based radar, but there are severalnew technologies that will greatly enhance the quickdetermination of where a missile is coming from, how fastit is going, and what its target is, and also discriminatebetween those missiles meant to hit their mark and thedecoys.The Los Alamos group has stated that the best way ofusing these new technologies for the job is to launch rocketborneprobes into trajectories above the atmosphereequipped with (1) a long wavelength infrared sensor technologythat can detect fuel tanks in the hostile missile atdistances of 3,500 miles, and (2) computer and communicationstechnologies that can handle the data for as manyas 20,000 targets in the infrared telescope's field of view.Once the necessary information is processed, of course,the beam weapon must be aimed and must hit and destroyits target, as well as assess whether another shot is necessary.The technologies needed here are completely new,requiring unique solutions: Aiming a beam weapon at atarget 3,500 miles away is like hitting an image about .00003degrees wide—the same as a piece of thread seen at 100meters—while it is moving at 20,000 feet per second!It is generally agreed that the aiming and tracking technologiesare within our scientific grasp today. What is requiredis concentrated work on the problem using existingoptical systems (there are now cameras on civilian satellitesthat can point to a region of the sky with the accuracyrequired by a beam weapon) and fourth-generation gyroscopesnow on the drawing boards.The more difficult task will be powering the beam to thetarget with energy enough to destroy the target and energyof a sort that can be absorbed by the target so that it willbe disabled.These three problems—power, energy, and absorptionby the target—are solved differently by each of the fourtypes of beam weapons proposed: laser beams, particlebeams, and microwave and plasma beams. However, allof them appear capable in principle of generating the requiredpower and energy in a form efficiently absorbedby the missile.The timetable is as follows: Within five years we couldhave a hybrid beam weapon system with an on-groundlaser and a mirror in space (see figure). This would offercomplete protection against an accidental ICBM launch oran attack by a runaway third power. In another ten years,a second-generation beam system could give us substantialprotection; and in fifteen years, more advanced and muchmore attractive possibilities, like the X-ray laser, could provideus with defense against all-out nuclear attacks.Laser Beam WeaponsLaser beams are perhaps the most familiar of the beamtechnologies. A laser beam consists of a beam of veryintense, single wavelength electromagnetic waves, eitherlight or high energy X-rays. Because the wavelengths oflight are coherent—all the same frequency and phase—the beam of light can be focused very precisely.There are four different types of lasers considered, allbeing researched at U.S. national laboratories both forweapons and fusion energy applications:(1) In a gas laser, such as carbon dioxide, a burning gasis suddenly compressed and the resulting energy distributionis stimulated to emit single frequency light at highenergies. Huge gas lasers are now being used here and inJapan in the nuclear fusion effort.(2) A chemical laser uses a gaseous medium in which achemical reaction is induced, the products of which thenemit laser light. The Soviet Union last year in tests usedsuch a laser to down a ballistic missile.(3) An electron discharge laser uses the replaceable energyfrom an electron beam to create the source for laserlight. This is the most attractive laser for space use becauseits energy source is not a chemical fuel that is used up butrather the electricity that drives the electron beam.(4) There are two kinds of more speculative lasers thathave not been perfected technologically but that promisethe advantages of energy density and flexibility: the X-raylaser and the free-electron laser.The X-ray laser, tested in the United States in 1981 andopenly discussed in the literature last year, uses the X-radiation produced by a small nuclear explosive to "pump"FUSION November 1982 5

ods of a heavy metal medium that then releases its storedenergy in a very concentrated, short pulse of X-rays.The X-ray laser has the capability of such high powersand such efficient missile destruction (because the targetefficiently absorbs the X-rays) that it is widely recognizedas the most promising long-range laser for ballistic missiledefense based in space. Although just a single pulse, theX-ray laser delivers thousands of times more energy perpulse than conventional lasers." Given the state of technological development of the opticaland power systems, there is not a competent scientistwho doubts that a laser weapon capable of destroying anICBM can be built. It is critical to understand that the mostimportant objections to beam weapons, especially laserweapons, are political and military, not scientific.Particle Beam WeaponsParticle beams, like lasers, deliver energy in a highlycontrolled pulse traveling at near the speed of light. Butinstead of a pulse of intense electromagnetic radiation, aparticle beam is made up of subatomic particles (specificallyelectrons or protons), neutral atoms (usually hydrogen),or macroscopic particles (usually magnetized) thatare accelerated to high speeds.The destructive power of a particle beam is the intenseshock wave that it creates in the target, which is like asmall, very powerful hammer slamming down on the target.All three types of beams have similar acceleration mechanisms,although the engineering is different: A magneticwave generated by radiowaves or a set of magnetic coilsis used to "push along" the particle. The magnetic wavestores energy from some electrical power source and transfersthis energy to the particles.The generation of electron beams is similar to the oldidea of electron acceleration used in a vacuum tube. Electronbeams are now routinely generated in the range ofmillions of electron volts, millions of amperes of current,and power densities inside the beam of trillions of wattsper square centimeter.What has continued to surprise scientists researchingelectron beams for military and civilian energy applicationsis that an intense electron beam is not actually a beam ofindividual electrons, but rather a complex structure of electronsand magnetic field. In electron beams of the orderrequired for a beam weapon, the electrons actually increasetheir intensity by forming into a tightly bundledsheaf of separate beams in a vortex structure. These structuredbeams, which propagate together inside a protectiveshell of their own magnetic fields, can then carry highercurrents and more energy longer distances at greater powerlevels.Proton beams have been a subject of intense research,especially in the Soviet Union, for the past 30 years. Theseuse an electron beam as a "seed" and then are acceleratedin their own right. One of the newer technologies is a typeof collective acceleration that uses an electromagnetic interactionto accelerate the protons to the same velocity asthe electron beam "seed." Because the protons weigh almost2,000 times as much as the electrons, having the samevelocity means that they have 2,000 times greater energy.Again, these proton beams use their self-organizing capacityto "keep up" with the electron beam seed in theaccelerator. The result is a very high quality beam withuniform energy density and uniform energy.Neutral particles, because they are not charged, as arethe electrons and protons, eliminate problem areas suchas deflection in the atmosphere and electric forces betweenthe charged particles and the background atmospherethat can degrade the efficiency and controllabilityof the beam. The technology for accelerating neutral beamswas developed in the fusion program, where high densityneutral beams are used as auxiliary heating for magneticfusion devices. Because the technologies are not availableto directly accelerate neutral atoms, the atoms (usually ofhydrogen) are first ionized and then electrically or collectivelyaccelerated. These accelerated particles are thenpassed through a dilute background gas and stripped oftheir charge, or neutralized.By spring 1983, U.S. researchers will have produced abeam of protons at an energy of 2.5 million electron volts,traveling at 99 percent of the speed of light, as the firststep in the large-scale testing of particle beam weapons.The use of macroscopic particles accelerated in a railgun—a magnetic track much like a linear induction motor—hasbeen studied for applications that range fromspace propulsion, magnetically levitated trains, inertialconfinement fusion energy, to weapons. These devices usea magnetic field to push particles (or whatever object isbeing propelled) down a track in the same way that theexhaust gases from a conventional shell push a bullet downthe barrel of a rifle. Replacing the exhaust gases is a magneticfield capable of generating much higher pressuresand therefore, much higher velocities (100 kilometers persecond).Although control and targeting would be more difficultwith a macroscopic particle beam, its unparalleled powerdensities—because of the large mass of the particle—makeit attractive as a beam weapon. According to U.S. weaponsresearchers, the Soviet Union has a large program devotedto the development of macroparticle beam anti-aircraft andantiballistic missile weapons, as well as anti-armor weaponsand antiship weapons. There is no known armor thatcan withstand even a small projectile moving at the velocitiesattainable for macroscopic particle beams.Microwave and Plasma BeamsMicrowave and plasma beams have only been discussedin the United States in the last two years, although theSoviet Union has had a large program in both areas andis estimated to be about two to three years ahead in theproduction and propagation of microwaves and in the understandingof the interaction of intense microwaves withmatter.Intense, directional microwaves are generated whenelectron beams are propagated at or near the speed oflight through a plasma. These microwave sources provideintensities many orders of magnitude greater than thoseassociated with radar; and such beams, if focused, coulddestroy delicate electronic equipment in a target.Plasma weapons offer even more of a challenge to sci-6 November 1982 FUSION

The two modes of deploying beam weapons are shown here. The ground-based beam weapon (r) is simpler and canbe developed in five years using high energy chemical lasers. A relay mirror in orbit around the earth provides aimingand tracking for the beam weapon. The longer-term space-based beam weapon design (I) shows a beam weaponmounted directly on a satellite orbiting the earth.entists, and operate very differently from other beams. Aplasma beam consists of the highest energy dense formof matter, a gas so hot that the electrons and nuclei havebeen separated. The "gas" is made up of electrically chargedparticles and the electric and magnetic fields they generate.This so-called fourth state of matter quite naturally formsinto complex structures of particles and magnetic fields,which are spontaneously created and stable. One of these,shaped like a donut, is called a plasmoid and is the mostfrequent form of spontaneous plasma-field structure. Itoccurs naturally in the form of ball lightning, and has beenreproduced on a small scale in the laboratory.Plasmoids are contained by a toroidal magnetic field thatspirals around the donut and reconnects with itself. Thismagnetic field simultaneously confines and insulates theplasmoid. Contrary to other beam weapons, for which theatmosphere hinders the guidance and propagation of thebeam, the plasma beam could not exist without it; it requiressomething to "push against" to hold in the plasma.These closed field plasma blobs are extremely stable giventheir energy density, with a lifetime measured in seconds.The exact physical mechanism involved in such closedfield structures is the subject of heated debate here (someU.S. scientists even doubt the existence of such structures).Nevertheless, the Soviet Union has had a majorresearch program in plasmoids since the middle 1950s,when the first plasmoids were produced at Lawrence LivermoreNational Laboratory in California. The first publicindication of serious interest in a high energy plasma beamin U.S. military literature appeared in an April 1982 articlethat discussed the applications of a "collective acceleratorbased on magnetically confined plasma rings."Such rings would be an almost ideal plasma weapon:They carry high energies, are stable, and can be acceleratedto very high velocities. However, how such beams couldbe guided and targeted is still a matter of speculation.The Science of the Beam WeaponAn engineering analysis shows that beam weapons forballistic missile defense can be built. The problems of detection,discrimination, target acquisition, beam generation,and target destruction are all within our scientific andtechnological capabilities. Even for a chemical laser beamweapon, which is not "off the shelf" technology, there isno question that such a weapon could be built in the nextfive years with technologies available today. Despite thisengineering certainty, the beam weapon confronts, us witha host of fundamental scientific questions when it comesto a detailed understanding of the scientific basis of beamgeneration and propagation.The fundamental scientific problems raised by the physicalphenomena occurring in the energy-dense regimesnecessary for beam weapons require working from theperspective of the German classical school of mathematicalphysics. This is not the method of analysis used by Westernscientists. In fact, the tradition of Leibniz, Gauss, Weber,Riemann, and their successors, from which all the majordiscoveries of the past period have been derived, havebeen attacked with increasing success by the British empiricistor Newtonian school.There are two main areas central to the question of thescience of the beam weapon where the Newtonian approachcannot possibly explain the phenomena actuallyobserved in experiments with high energy plasma physics.First is the question of energy. While conventional Newtonianor Maxwellian physics defines energy as an inter-FUSION November 1982 7

nally measurable, conserved, scalar quantity, this view isuntenable given the role of energy in the evolutionaryproperties of various beam weapon systems (for example,the self-organizing acceleration of proton beams).Second is the question of the direction of evolution inphysical systems. The fundamental assumptions of modernphysics insist that changes with time in a physical systemare the result of a summation of microscopic dynamics. Inother words, particle-by-particle interactions supposedly"add up" to the global behavior of a physical system. Inthis view, the quality of the global evolution is statisticaland random.The behavior of high energy plasmas overthrows thispremise. Beam weapon experiments, in fact, present strikingevidence of a kind of global causality that directs themicroscopic evolution of a physical system but is not reducibleto microscopic interactions. There is a well-documented,spontaneous self-organizing behavior tendingtoward large-scale structure and more order.These two opposing methods—Leibniz versus Newton—have been at the center of an intellectual and policy fightfor 200 years, pitting the followers of the Newtonian atomistictradition against the followers of the Leibnizian school.This is not merely an academic question today. In thiscountry, the information that is classified in both fusionenergy research and beam weapons research is the resultsof Riemannian physics that threaten the intellectual hegemonyof the Newtonian ideas. At the same time, themainstream of Soviet science is in the Riemann-Leibniztradition, which explains the lead the Soviets have in physicalresearch on relativistic beam weapons. If the UnitedStates is to develop beam weapons—as the Soviets arenow doing—the Riemannian tradition will have to prevailin U.S. science.The critics of beam weapons who challenge the verypossibility of developing this technology do so on the basisof their Newtonian physics. How can beams propagatethrough the atmosphere without losing so much energydensity that they will be unable to destroy the target? thecritics ask. The answer is in the actual behavior of theplasma itself, which is not describable by means of conventionalparticle-based plasma physics.The basic point of physical science is that a plasma isnot in any real sense made up of charged particles andfields. To define a plasma in this way is much like sayinga human being can be understood by studying the resultof combining billions of single cells and the fluids aroundthem. Rigorously, the problem a Newtonian faces whenconfronting these phenomena is that the causality for themacroscopic behavior is not contained at the microscopicparts of the system. The microscopic entities exist, butthey are not primary; they are determined by the sameglobal causality that shapes the general evolution of thesystem.The Plasma AgeThe development of beam weapons will not only freehumanity from the insanity of having no defense againstnuclear war; it will bring mankind out of the atomic ageand into the plasma age, where we will be able to mastertechnologies using the highest energy form of matter knowntoday.Mastery of a plasma would put at our command (1) anenergy source—nuclear fusion—that has an unlimited fuelsupply taken from seawater and is cheap, clean, and inherentlysafe; (2) access to a supply of raw materials thatwould be virtually inexhaustible through the technologyof a fusion torch, which is capable of refining the lowestgrade ores economically; and (3) new materials processingtechnologies that allow the creation of nuclear-tailoredmaterials (isotope separation on a large scale), the degradationof radioactive wastes, and the ultimate recyclingof wastes, using the plasma torch.This is not science fiction, but what we can do in thenext few years—if we win the policy fight for an Apollostyleprogram to develop beam technologies.Real National SecurityBeam weapons are inherently defensive technologies.The most important military consequence of this fact isthat the national security of a country is not substantiallyaffected if its putative adversary obtains these technologies.This, as Teller and the FEF have pointed out, removesany rationale behind the Schlesinger-authored securityclassification of the basic scientific research in the laserfusion program and in other beam-related areas. Such classificationhas hindered not helped the advancement ofbeam weapon research and scientific research in general.For the layman trying to understand the military policyfight and how it intersects with the nuclear freeze movement,the important thing to keep in mind is the relationshipof economic growth to national security. McNamara,Schlesinger, General Maxwell Taylor, and other freezeleaders advocate a postindustrial society, a curb on advancedtechnology, and new wars fought with conventionalweapons to depopulate the Third World.The traditional American military strategy of "winningthe peace," nation-building domestically and abroad, hasbeen the very opposite. This was the tradition in whichGeneral MacArthur rebuilt Japan, in which PresidentEisenhower proposed the Atoms for Peace program, andin which Admiral Rickover forged the Nuclear Navy andthe civilian nuclear program as well.The only way for the United States to ensure its nationalsecurity is through the kind of rapid economic developmentthat would result from a new Apollo program for thefrontier science area of beam weapons. Real national securityrests on economic growth, technological development,and human advancement that simultaneously providea strong military and the objective self-interest thatmake war unlikely, if not unnecessary. A country producingnew resources (rather than fighting for old ones), educatingand training its citizens (rather than being plaguedby unemployment or apparent overpopulation), and providinga hopeful future for its people, is a country withreal national security.Steven Bardwell, a plasma physicist, is editor-in-chief ofFusion. This article was adapted from his comprehensivereport on beam weapons available from the FEF at $250.8 November 1982 FUSION

SYSTEMSANALYSISWhite Collar Genocideby Lyndon H. LaRouche, jr.Part 2

EDITOR'S NOTE"To replace Nazi-smelling eugenics, a new pseudosciencehas been cooked up, and promoted as the putative'scientific' basis for genocidal policies such as the Carteradministration's Ciobal 2000 and Global Futures. ThatMalthusian pseudoscience in currency today is called'systems analysis.' "The proof of this thesis, that systems analysis is nothingbut a rationale for policies leading to genocide, is thesubject of part 1 of this provocative article by FEF boardmember Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. (see October 1982Fusion, p. 3). Systems analysis, LaRouche demonstrates,as a "linear equilibrium model," is a doctrine of genocidebecause it ignores the role of technological innovation ineconomies and thereby precludes those very policiesessential not only to support population growth but topermit the maintenance of even a fixed level of population.Under present world economic conditions, systemsanalysis is leading to mass-murder on a scale two ordersof magnitude greater than that perpetrated by the Austrianhippie Adolf Hitler.After noting that this evil methodology infects circles inboth the East and West—including the State Departmentauthors of the Global 2000 Report, the Draper Fund/Population Crisis Committee, the Aspen Institute, andother neo-Malthusian institutions based in the West; thePeking-allied Pol Pot regime that murdered 40 percent ofthe population of Kampuchea between 1975 and 1978;and the Gvishiani faction in the Soviet bureaucracy linkedto the Vienna International Institute for Applied SystemsAnalysis—LaRouche traces the origin of modern systemsanalysis to the immoral "hedonistic calculus" of utilitarianphilosopher Jeremy Bentham. Bentham, and followinghim the British economists John Stuart Mill and WilliamJevons, founders of the modern doctrine of marginalutility, rejected the possibility of founding a universalscience of economics and instead maintained that economicprocesses are determined by the aggregation ofmarginal pleasure and pain experienced by individualbuyers and sellers.This pseudoscientific theory was continued by AlfredMarshall and J. M. Keynes and finally appeared in its mostradical form in the modern doctrine and practice ofsystems analysis, typified by the influential Theory ofGames and Economic Behavior coauthored by the mathematicianJohn von Neumann and the Vienna neopositivistOskar Morgenstern. Like all econometrics today, Theoryof Games degrades economies to mechanical sorts oflinear equilibrium models, which are axiomatically entropicprocesses; it considers nothing bearing on thosecrucial processes by which the productivity of labor risesor falls. As a policy-making tool, applied to "macroeconomics," systems analysis leads inescapably to economicdevolution (depression).There has been an equally continuous tradition ofeconomic science opposing the marginal utility/systemsanalysis disease: the Platonic theory of scientific inquiryand practice, based on uncovering the negentropic qualityof natural law. This theory is the most powerful weaponnot only for destroying Malthusianism but also for buildingthe technologies required to prevent genocide.In part 1 of this article, LaRouche shows the coherenceof the Platonic scientific tradition, leading up to his owndiscoveries as an economic scientist: Kepler's proof, in hisworks founding modern mathematical physics, that theIndicted Nazi leaders in the dock at the Nuremberg Tribunal October 1946, await sentencing for their crimes againsthumanity. In the first row of the dock (from left) are Goering, Hess, and von Ribbentrop.10 November 1982 FUSION

universe is fundamentally negentropic, not entropic;Leibniz's insight (which grew out of hlis training in bothGerman cameralism and French mercantilism) into thebroad implications of the heat-powered machine—"bywhich one man can accomplish the work of a hundredothers"—that successive rises in productivity, grounded inadvancing technology, is the general principle of humanexistence; the unifying thesis of the anti-free trade AmericanSystem economics of Alexander Hamilton, HenryCarey, and other patriots that value is located in "artificiallabor," human improvements in raw nature; the rigorousproof by Riemannian physics (Bernhard Riemann, GeorgCantor, and their tradition in German 19th century science)that the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the socalledlaw of entropy, is a groundless fiction; and thenegentropic outlook underlying the Judeo-Christian tradition,exemplified by the consubstantiality doctrine ofApostolic Christianity. LaRouche shows that far from beinga merely theological issue of no importance to science,Apostolic Christianity's insistence on the universe as aprocess of lawfully ordered continuing creation is tracedin literature to Plato's notion of the hypothesis of thehigher hypothesis, which was the fundamental principle(often explicitly so) guiding the work of Riemann, Cantor,and every other major discoverer in the work of continentalscience.LaRouche then establishes the notion of potential relativepopulation-density as the central principle of Platoniceconomic science: "We must interpret all actual andproposed changes in society's productive behavior by thesingle parameter: Do such changes increase or fail toincrease society's potential relative population-density?"Taking the example of resource exploitation, he demonstrateshow this parameter functions as a measure of asociety's progress: If a society remains within a relativelyfixed level of technology, the variety of natural resourcesavailable to it is delimited, and the cost of exploiting theseresources—the portion of the labor force that must beallotted to exploitation—must tend to rise through apparentdepletion of the richest grades of ore. Less is producedper capita of the work force and per capita for the entirepopulation. The relative potential population-density ofthe society falls accordingly. "Even the maintenance of afixed level of population requires a constant change inhuman behavior, constant advances in the general levelof technology of practice," LaRouche concludes.From there, LaRouche argues that man's successfulmastery of the universe, as measured by successive increasesin potential relative population-density, is the basisof all science. Science is emphatically not a collection ofisolated scientific experiments.LaRouche's final point in part 1 concerns the notion ofenergy. Although advances in technology appear to correlatewith increases in the energy transmitted per capitaof the population, current notions of energy, as measuredin scalar units such as calories, joules, watts, and so forth,are inadequate to mathematically describe the causa)connection between the increasing energy density ofproduction processes and rate of increase of productivity.Geometry As the "Language of Vision'The best approach to succinct statement of the issuesinvolved in study of the "energy" problem is found byreferencing Kepler's three major published writings. 1 Admittedly,this writer did not have competent command ofKepler's writings, or of many other materials now in hispossession, back in 1952. His principal methodologicalguides were a hatred of the mechanistic method, and apositive knowledge adduced from a few works of Leibniz 2plus the fruit of his own de novo refutation of ImmanuelKant. However, the conclusions which this writer reachedin 1952, and which continued to be his independentreference-points-in-chief into the 1960s, have proven, notaccidentally, to be congruent with the superior quality ofargument to be developed directly with reference to thework of Kepler and other resources added to the writer'srepertoire at various points over the past two decades.It were better to employ the improved form of argumentbrought directly in reach by resources not at the writer'soriginal disposal, than to burden the reader with the morelaborious approach the writer actually employed to developthe views described here.One must appreciate the writer's anger at the wastedyears occupied in accomplishing something which hemight have more quickly accomplished and better, hadthe educational institutions to which he was exposed notbeen degenerated to the point their- decay had alreadyreached during his childhood and youth—long before the"new math" began destroying students' scientific potentials.He is therefore resolved that new generations ofchildren and youth shall not be obliged to suffer the samecostly deprivation, that the precious sources which everystudent ought to have available hereafter be available tothem all. If there is any complaint to the effect that thewriter is presently employing an argument considerablyimproved over that he actually employed to reach thesesame conclusions, the reader should not blame the writerfor that, or regard it as in any way "intellectual dishonesty"that he honors a right method superior to the morelaborious course he actually employed. Educate our studentsproperly and such discrepancies need not arise inthe future.In respect to mathematical knowledge, the central issueof scientific work has been the question whether or notthe universe as we see it is an adequate representation ofthe universe as it is.If we see the answer to the question we have justidentified rightly, we are led by rigorous steps to thediscovery that there is no ontologically axiomatic "energy"in the universe, but that the phenomena of energy are adetermined aspect of a more fundamental principle ofour universe: negentropy.This correction in thermodynamics, from the vantagepoint of Riemannian physics, is indispensable for solvingthe crucial problem of economic science. It leads us to asuccessful determination of the equivalence between an"injection" of negentropy into the productive process,and a correlated increase in the negentropy of the pro-FUSION November 1982 11

"Proceeding from the fact that visible space ischaracterized by the case of five uniquely definedPlatonic solids, Kepler proved conclusively, with aid ofsolar observations, that visible space is not adequaterepresentation of physical space."ductive process, a negentropy measurable in terms of thework of increasing potential relative population-density.The reader will soon discover why it has been necessaryto identify the range of issues we have identified so far, tobring the report up to this point of elaboration.Proceeding from the fact that visible space is characterizedby the case of five, uniquely defined Platonic solids,Kepler proved conclusively, with aid of solar observations,that visible space is not an adequate representation ofphysical space (Figure 1). The fact that only five regularpolyhedral solids can be constructed in Euclidean space—the space of vision—proves conclusively that Euclideanspace itself is shaped by something external to it.This was not new with Kepler. Plato understood thissame point in exactly the terms we argue it here, inreporting that man does not see reality directly, but onlythe shadows of reality, as if viewing such shadows in acave. Saint Paul writes that we see as in a mirror, darkly.Plato's scientific knowledge was enormous, in fact, aknowledge for which he was significantly indebted to theleading scientific institution of that period, the Cyrenaictemple of Amon, at which the uniqueness of the fivesolids was proven during Plato's lifetime. It is Plato's reportof those solids and of their significance for physics whichresulted in their designation as the "five Platonic solids."The principal stimulus for the revival of this Platonicapproach to physics in relatively modern times was thescientific work of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, includingCusa's anticipation of modern topology in such locationsas his "Sphere Play," and Cusa's general emphasis on acritical examination of the work of Archimedes.The generation of Cusa's Italian successors, especiallythe circle associated with Leonardo da Vinci, and thatgeneration's successors in the School of Raphael, hadextensively explored all of the questions on which Keplerfocused his own work. The Divina Proportione of LucaPacioli, a collaborator of Leonardo, and of Pacioli's studentAlbrecht Durer, as well as Giordano Bruno, are the immediatesources most strongly influencing Kepler in thedirection of work he undertook. 3Also probably influential on Kepler was the work onwell-tempered harmony by Bishop Zarlino, the latter alsothe proper ancestor of Bach, the late Mozart and, mostexplicitly, the late work of Beethoven. Although the workof al-Farrabi was key to pre-14th-century developments inmusic in Europe, and Leonardo is also influential on thismatter, the agreement between Kepler and Zarlino oncrucial points is most striking, perhaps conclusive, evidenceof such an explicit indebtedness.It was well developed before Kepler that principles ofaction in living systems, and other phenomena as well,were coherent with the so-called divine proportion, thegolden mean. Kepler, who stressed this point, noted thecentral position of the golden mean relationship in theuniqueness of the five Platonic solids, as had his predecessors.4 To test whether or not this predominance was infact a lawful ordering of the universe, Kepler attacked themost conclusive body of evidence available to test thishypothesis: the solar orbits.He proved that the orbits, including their variations inorbital velocity, were fully subsumed by the same principlesof geometry which prescribed the well-tempered, 12-tone octave scale as the only lawfully determined tonalvalues and relationships within music. Although Keplermerely approximated values later determined more exactlyby Riemann's comprehensive solution to ellipticalfunctions, this element of approximation in Kepler's mathematicshas proven to be no source of defect in the proofas a whole, as a proof of the hypothesis. Today, Kepler'smethod is eerily superior in quality as well as quantity to12 November 1982 FUSION

any alternative method for describing the orbits of planetsand moons. 5The proportions of the spiral nebulas are properly takenas complementary proof of Kepler's hypothesis, relationshipscoherent with the same principle of the five Platonicsolids Kepler employed for the solar Orbits. The fact thatthe principal asteroids, despite wildly different orbitalpaths, all "sing" in the same tone, is also collateral reenforcementof the notion of uniqueness for Kepler'sproof. 6As Leibniz stressed the point against Descartes/ Kepler'sproof subsumes the necessary conclusion that real physicaltransformations occur not as straight-line action in visiblespace, but in a manner implied by the Archimedean spiral,as the Riemannian theory of a complex variable elaboratesthis for physics today.What, then, is the higher order of physical space, whichshapes the characteristic form of transformations seen invisible space? This, since Kepler's proof, has been thecentral question of scientific work. In brief: How do wedefine a higher continuous manifold, such that the characteristicform of action is vortical (helical), such thatprojections of that higher space into the visible domainnecessarily determine all of the characteristic features ofthe visible domain?This is the problem which Riemann essentially solved,beginning with the statement of his program as early asthe 1854 habilitation dissertation. There are omissions inRiemann's program, as he himself located such a deficiencyin respect to the concluding subsection of his 1854dissertation. These deficiencies, which bear on the determinationof number relationship in a Riemannian form ofcontinuous manifold, are implicitly overcome by the 1871-1883 work of Georg Cantor. For related reasons, it was notaccidental that this writer discovered the significance ofthe 1854 dissertation for himself from the vantage point ofCantor's notion of the ordering of transfinites. ThisCantor-Riemann method for analysis of higher-order continuousmanifolds supplies, and uniquely so, the basis forsolving the indicated problem of economic analysis.We now elaborate the principal conceptual steps bywhich the meaning of the 1854 habilitation dissertation isto be correctly understood.Visible space, with its apparent objects floating aboutand sometimes bumping one another, is what is describedas a discrete manifold. Our problem is that of defining acontinuous manifold, in which individual objects (quaobjects) have no self-evident existence, but only a determinedexistence. The projection of the events occurringin this continuous manifold must account fully for all ofthe visible events of the discrete manifold.The objects of visible space are not real objects, at leastnot in the sense naive opinion mistakenly assumes themto be ontologically self-evident. They are shadows ofreality, and are real as shadows. Shadows do not efficientlyact directly on one another to cause the movementsreflected as movements of shadows. They do not efficientlybump, nor do they act upon another efficiently ata distance. There is no efficient causality contained adequatelywithin visible space as such.Efficient action, including our own efficient actions,occurs "out of sight"—as the movement of ducks swimmingon the surface of the water occurs beneath thesurface. So, in attempting to comprehend efficient physicalspace, we attempt to look beyond the "surface." Weimagine the aspect of physical space which we see asbroadly analogous to the projection of action in threecoordinatespace and time upon two-coordinate spaceand time. We do not imagine that the higher-order spacewe infer "looks like" the images we construct to representit. Rather, we use the analogies of projection of threecoordinatespace upon two-coordinate and one-coordinatespace as a "language of vision," and through refinementof use of that language, through observation andexperiment, we make that language rigorous.This heurism of "language of vision" we know to bevalid, and uniquely so. If we know, as we do, that theordering of events in visible space is geometrically rational,then reality, the projection of a continuous manifold upona discrete manifold, is coherent with the rationality itprojects. Therefore, we are permitted, on principle, toemploy images which we construct in terms agreeable toour developed visual-conceptual powers, to representvisually thus a world we in fact cannot see. Our choicesof imagery in this are limited to those options which aresufficient and necessary to describe a continuous manifoldconsistent with projections into a discrete manifold correspondingto the shadow-reality of our visible space.The second of the two special problems is that ofdefining a continuous manifold which has an intrinsicmetrical quality of action. Although the metrical qualitiesof a continuous manifold must be qualitatively differentfrom those of a discrete manifold, there must be somemetrical feature of the continuous manifold which ac-FUSION November 1982 13

counts for a properly adduced, characteristic metricalfeature of our discrete manifold. This latter pair of problemsof projections is the crux of Riemann's 1854 habitationdissertation.There is only one kind of continuous manifold whichhas both the needed, inherent metrical qualities, andwhich subsumes efficiency of local existence under thatmetrical quality. This kind of manifold is one in which theexisting order, denotable arbitrarily by n, is passing overto a higher-order configuration, denotable by n + 1.The most appropriate term in the mathematics lexiconto describe the characteristic action of such an n into n+1manifold is negentropy. What appears to us as rigorouslydefined negentropic phenomena in terms of the visiblemanifold, is a projection of the characteristic, universalnegentropy of the continuous manifold. .For the purposes of this report, it is sufficient to directour attention only to the most crucial features of thisprojective correspondence.Our central problem is this.' Although we know thecontinuous manifold to be in projective correspondenceto our vision of the discrete manifold, there are characteristicdifferences between continuous manifolds anddiscrete manifolds, such that one cannot simply carry overcertain kinds of secondary phenomena of the one to theother.In a continuous manifold, for example, there can beobjects (singularities), but no ontologically self-evidentobjects of the sort which naive common sense imaginesitself to recognize in visible space. Similarly, there is noaction at a distance among objects in a continous manifold.There are two leading additional considerations mostcrucial to defining the proper selection of continuousmanifold.Although the objects of visible space are merely shadowsof reality, the shadows each correspond to an existencewhich is itself causally efficient. This is an impossiblecondition within a continuous manifold of a fixed order.That is the gist of Riemannian physics.This leaves us with an important problem to be resolved,a different sort of problem than we were obliged toemphasize on the pathway to Riemann's 1854 dissertation.First, we were obliged to specify the conditions a continuousmanifold must satisfy. Having defined those conditions,we must next concentrate efforts on developingmethods for representing the conceptions we havereached in that fashion. Although one can develop geometricimages of the transition from a specific n-manifoldto a successor n + 7-manifold rather directly, how do wegeneralize all such transformations, in the sense of generalizationassociated with geometrical mathematics as awhole? What we require, in order to represent such largerconceptions within our language of vision, is a methodfor defining coordinates in a three-space (visualizableimage of space), such that conical-helical action (for example)in a three-space of such coordinates might subsumeimplicitly the general form of successive transformations.To this purpose, Cantor's notion of the orderingsof transfinites is indispensable.14 November 1982 FUSION

Figure 2KEPLER'S PLANETARY GEOMETRYKepler developed his "Three Laws of Planetary Motion,"upon which modern astronomy is based, outof his certainty that the universe was coherent andthe Platonic insight that the laws of physics are thesame on the Earth as in the heavens. His first lawsays that a planet sweeps out equal areas in equaltime, no matter how far it is from the Sun. Thesecond law states that the orbits of the planets areellipses, with the Sun at one focus of the ellipse.Kepler's third law, which he considered to be his"great law," says that the ratio of the cube of thedistance of a planet from the Sun to the square ofthe time it takes the planet to go around the Sun isthe same for every planet.Kepler insisted that the existence of the solarsystem in its present form must also be explained. Inhis years' long search to find a lawful principle toexplain why the planets were spaced from the Sunin the distances that we empirically know them tobe, Kepler initially determined that these distancescould be derived by considering the planets to travelon orbits around spheres whose distance, one fromthe other, is determined by placing a three-dimensional,regular solid figure between each sphere, asshown in the model here. First, Kepler inscribed acube inside a globe, representing the orbit of thefarthermost known planet, Saturn. Then he put anotherglobe inside the cube, representing the orbitof Jupiter. Then between the globes representingJupiter and Mars, he put a tetrahedron. Around theEarth, Kepler placed a dodecahedron; inside theglobe representing the Earth, he placed an icosahedron;and between Venus and Mercury, he putan octahedron.As the accompanying table shows, Kepler was ableto account for the six known planets and theirdistances with this construction. Later he rejectedthe specific construction using the Platonic solids,but he continued to point to it as an example of hisgeometrical method.AVERAGE MEAN DISTANCES OFPLANETS FROM THE SUN(measured in astronomical units, A.U.; the distanceof Earth from the Sun equals 1 A.Li.—actually 92.9million miles)Kepler'sModernPlanet Polyhedrons AstronomyMercury .400 .387Venus .738 .723Earth 1 1Mars 1.432 1.524Jupiter 4.881 5.203Saturn 9.726 9.539For spaces of orders n, n + 1, n+2, ... we are able inthe highest practical importance. Yet, a preliminary theayseach case (actually or at least implicitly) to define arraysoretical step toward that undertaking is far more impor-of characteristic relationships peculiar to that order of tant. The first, indispensable step, without which thespace. Yet, each such array for one space must be different ;ntfrom the array proper to another. Insofar as we can treat =atsequences of arrays, arrays each distinguished by a fixedorder of space, as an ordered sequence, our problem ofrepresentation becomes implicitly solvable. The changes ;esin the array denoted by n to yield the array denoted byn + 1, are treated as the characteristic feature of the transformationfrom n to n + 1. The characteristic feature ofismasterdetailed elaboration cannot begin to be developed, is toa clear conception of this generalization as such,There are, in the best judgment of the matter we havebeen able to assemble so far, two elementary problemswhich tend to prevent educated mathematicians fromaccepting the combined work of Riemann and Cantor onits own terms.First, in order of commonplaceness, is the prevailing"extension" common to successive such characteristics ics notion of number as such. Leopold Kronecker's famous,implies the notion of ordering principle we require.To elaborate a mathematical structure for this work is ofand mind-disabling dictum, "God made the integers," isexemplary of this problem. In fact, the evidence is over-FUSION November 1982 15

Figure 3THE INADEQUACY OF PYTHAGOREAN DISTANCEAS A METRIC FOR PHYSICAL SPACEIn Euclidean-Cartesian two-dimensional space, themagnitude of displacement ds of a point is determinedin terms of the changes of its coordinates dx,and dx, by the Pythagorean formula ds 2 = dx, 2 + dx, 2 ,or ds = v 1 dx, 2 + dx 2 2 . (More familiarly, this is h 2 = a 2+ b 2 and h = %• a 2 + b 2 , where h is the hypotenuseand a and b are the sides of a triangle).In the generalization of Euclidean-Cartesian spaceto any number n, of dimensions, the correspondingformula is ds = J dx, 2 + dx 2 2 +. . + dx 2 n . Anotherway of writing this isVnn£ dx 2 , where £1-1 wrepresents the summation of all numbers from 1 asthe index, i, to n.This notion of magnitude of linear displacementas the model of the general notion of metric hasbecome a major stumbling block for the furtherdevelopment of physics and economics, because itexcludes the possibility of negentropic developmentin the universe. Suppose, however, that instead ofmeasuring the internal geometry of a given manifoldwith such a displacement, we look at the change inthe magnitude of this displacement as the manifoldincreases its number of degrees of freedom, ordimensionality. If we call ds, the displacement forthe first space, and ds 2 the displacement for thesecond, then a change in the displacement, d(ds) ord 2 s can be heuristically written:jn/n+fd 2 s=d 1 s-d 2 s=-^2: dXi 2 --l/Z dx; 2 .This formula expresses the magnitude of thechange in metric effected by a change in the orderof the space from n to n + 1 dimensions.whelming, that only what we term "complex numbers"have any primary sort of existence as number in respectto the metrical characteristic of our universe. The notionthat the "simplest object" must be the most elementaryis the broader fallacy underlying this.Second, topology is burdened by repetition of thenonsense-assertion that there are no metrical features totopology as such. This is a tricky problem, since thedevelopment of topology has depended upon reexamininggeometry freed of the burden of those metrical assumptionswe associate with the visible manifold. Suchmetrics had to be discarded, in order to develop topologyto the point at which the metrical features of a continuousmanifold could be rigorously defined in such a way thatwe could be certain we had not carried over some exogeneousassumption borrowed from our naive view of thediscrete manifold.Plainly, many students of topology have forgotten whyLeibniz undertook analysis situs in the first place. In orderto adduce the characteristics of a continuous manifold interms of characteristic transformations in a visible, discretemanifold, it was indispensable to discard from geometryof visible space only those features which were peculiarbv their nature to a discrete manifold. We assume forproperly obvious reasons, that those features of geometry• which are not idiosyncrasies of discrete manifolds are thequalities carried over by projection from the continuousto the discrete. The end-object of this process of searchingwhich is called topology, was properly to discover themetrical characteristics intrinsic to the continuous manifold.The topologist is too often like the fellow who took ajourney to another city to fetch his bride, but, midjourney,became so fascinated with this excursion itself, that hebegan walking around aimlessly in one direction, thenanother, having forgotten what the purpose of the departurehad been.What we require is a characteristic metrical feature ofa negentropic continuous manifold, which informs us howwe must interpret the distance-function of phase spacetransformations in a discrete manifold, to the effect thatthis proper interpretation of phase spaces yields a characteristic,metrical feature of the discrete manifold, whichis in projective agreement with the corresponding metricalfeature of action in the negentropic continuous manifold.The simple Pythagorean expression,ds = i Z (dx,) 2will not do (Figure 3). We require a measurement of d 2 sfor the case that the manifold is undergoing transformationfrom order n to n + 1.Such a correct approach to the metrical features of thediscrete manifold defines this value, d 2 s, as the uniquemeasure of incremental work. This work must be definedin respect to the work of increasing the potential relativepopulation-density of society through technological ad-16 November 1982 FUSION

Figure 4THE LOGARITHMIC (SELF-SIMILAR)SPIRAL ON A CONEThe conical form of the logarithmic spiral is generatedas the trajectory of a moving point on a cone, whoseangle a of ascent or descent, relative to the apex of thecone, remains constant (a). This curve has the characteristicproperty that each successive "loop," differsfrom the preceeding loop only in scale, with a constantof proportionality that depends only on the angle ofascent or descent chosen. Thus, in a "base 2" spiral, (b)each successive loop moving away from the apex ofthe cone, doubles the distance from the apex.An easily constructed instrument for generating suchspirals will be described in a forthcoming Fusion article.A rough approximation can be obtained by folding aquarter-circle as shown in (c). A circle, AB, is drawnwith radius half that of the original circle. Then, astraight line is drawn from the point D to B (this willform an approximation of the first loop of the spiral).Next, a circle with half the radius of circle AB is drawn,EF. The corresponding straight line, AF, gives an approximationto the second loop of the spiral. Thisprocess can be continued to generate a conical spiralwith almost constant pitch. d) Model of a cone constructed of clear acetatevancement. The negentropy of the system is the work ofthe system.For related reaons, Riemann's 1859 hypothesis, settingforth the determination of acoustical shock waves underexperimental conditions satisfying his "infinite cylinder"case, is the prototype of all valid scientific experiments,insofar as any experiments can be said to have authoritativebearing on knowledge of the lawful ordering of ouruniverse. It is for this reason that the 1859 paper has beenthe model for crucial experimental treatment of relativisticphenomena in a broad assortment of cases outside ofaerodynamics."Physical Topology"That we be neither misunderstood nor give premise formisinterpretation of what we are about to say, we stipulateat the outset that the imagery we now introduce is achoice of pedagogical device—if it pleases you to call itsuch, a "heurism."This writer does not assert that this is necessarily themost appropriate heurism which might be cooked up. Heinsists merely that it is the pedagogical imagery whichpresently appears the best compromise between the capacitiesof students and his own mental image of thematerial to be presented. Additionally, it contains no erroras an image with respect to the points to be presentedwith aid of such a representation.IImagine, first, a hollow sphere. You, the observer, aresituated such that your eyes are looking into the spherefrom a point we shall designate the "north pole" of thatbody. This sphere's south pole is sitting upon a flat surface.As you, the observer, attempt to view the images projectedon that flat surface outside the sphere, what you are ableto see is a shadow of those images. The shadow is thatFUSION November 1982 17

Figure 5CONICAL SPIRALS ANDTHE WELL-TEMPERED SCALEA striking example of the power of the self-similarconical spiral is its use for the construction of thewell-tempered scale. If we project a "base 2" spiral(one whose inclination is such that a 360° loop ofthe spiral going up to the apex halves the distanceto the apex), on the plane of its base perpendicularly(see a), we will create a flat exponential spiral. Bydividing the circle of the base into 12 equal sections(see b), the intersections of these 12 radii with theflat spiral determine a sequence of distances fromthe center of the circle to the spiral. These increasingdistances are the lengths of the vibrating strings(assuming constant tension) that will produce the 12Model by Dorothea Bunnell; photo Carlos de Hoyostones of a well-tempered scale. If we call the longestdistance the note C, the succeeding lengths movinginward on the spiral will correspond to D, D#, E, F,f#, and so on, as shown. Pairs of points correspondingto the same interval (for example, C and E withB and D, the major third) subtend the same angle atthe center of the circle. In this representation, intervalscorrespond to angles and transposition fromone tone to another to rotation through some angle.The strings on the model shown in c can beplucked to play the well-tempered scale.defined by a line of sight drawn through the surface ofthe sphere and to the points of the image on the flatsurface. You see the projection of that image on theinterior surface of the sphere.Now, to extend the description of this pedagogicalimagery to include other considerations: The images onthe plane surface are themselves projected images. Theyare the composite image of—in first approximation—severaldistinct cones, whose central axis may, in the simplestcase, intersect at some common point on the surface.The reader might, for example, construct a logarithmicspiral on a cone (Figure 4). Divide a circle into four equalparts, by means of two perpendicular diameters. In onequadrant, mark off inscribed quarter-circles by halving theradius successively. Now construct diagonal lines betweenthe arcs, in the obvious way, and then cut out and foldto-jointhe quarter-circle to form a cone. 8 This is anexcellent exercise for the amateur mathematician, whohaving completed this construction, should referenceJacob Steiner's program for geometry instruction as toprinciples of geometric proof, and should also comparethe result of this construction with Leonhard Euler's determinationof the "natural logarithmic" value.Having constructed the cone in this manner, imaginethat the spiral (helix, vortex) so portrayed had beengenerated by continuous, homogeneous action, startingfrom the apex of the cone. This, of course, requires afunction in terms of two variables. The first variable is adistance of displacement along the midline-axis of thecone, from the apex of the cone toward the base. The1« November 1982 FUSION

second variable is a stretching and rotation action. Theamateur mathematician should determine what kinds ofnumbers satisfy the conditions of variability for generatingsuch a conical spiral. He should ask himself, what sort ofideas are suggested by this construction and this addedanalysis?Suppose that the apex angle of the cone were madevery small. Then, looking at a truncated interval of a verylong such cone from the side, seeing it as an approximationof a cylinder, what does the amateur mathematician(for example, a high school student) now see? Let usassume the cone has been constructed of transparentplastic sheeting. What is the geometric connection amonge, pi, complex variables, and trigonometric functions?Now, look at this cone from the base side, toward theapex, or, using a light source, project the image of thespiral on the surface of the cone (constructed of translucentsheeting) onto a flat surface? Describe the shadow.Now, make the midline of the cone intersect the flatsurface at a right angle, and mark the circular perimeterof the cone's base. What is the image now projected onthe flat surface? Divide the circle (the projection of theperimeter of the circular base of the cone) into 12 equalsectors (Figure 5). The distances marked off on the projectedspiral (inside the circle) correspond, as chord lines,to the proportions of the 12 tones of the well-temperedoctave. Show, by rotation, by intervals of fifths and minorthirds, that the well-tempered octave scales as determinedby Kepler {Harmonies of the World) precisely agree withthe chord lengths of this 12-part division of the spiral.That is the simplest sort of co-projection we employ inthe entire family of possible co-projections we imposeupon the flat surface in this pedagogical device. Dr.Jonathan Tennenbaum has also developed a Weierstrassfunction as another example of the same family of projections(Figure 6). 9 The apexes of the various cones in sucha co-projection are, clearly enough, in correspondencewith points subsumed by other projections of the samesort, and so forth and so on. It is not necessary—for thepurposes of this report—to expand further in such directionshere. The amateur mathematicians have now a workingimage of what our pedagogical construction represents,and professional physicists and engineers ought tosee clearly enough the direction in which we are pointing.What we wish the reader to do next is to reflect uponthe difference in images among: first, the cones being coprojected;second, the image co-projected upon the flatsurface; and finally, what the observer at the north poleof the sphere sees as projected upon the interior surfaceof the hollow sphere. Our immediate purpose is to eliminatethe mystification commonly attached to topology.Pause for a moment before attempting to force a conclusionrespecting this comparison of the images. Let usthink about the simplest example of invariance in ourobservations of visual space. Is it not the case that welearn, early in childhood, to recognize a face of a personas being the same, no matter from what angle we view it,or even when the facial expressions change? What is itthat we recognize, in light of the fact that the manifestFUSION November 1982 " 19

size and detailed features of the "flat-surface" or "threedimensional"image projected upon our eyes haschanged? We recognize what we sometimes term invariantfeatures of that image, characteristic features which remainconstant despite all of the changes in matter ofdetail.The comparison of the images of the cones, their flatsurfaceprojection and the flat-surface projection onto theinteresting surface of the hollow sphere, informs us thatwe ought to be able to recognize an invariance amongthe three distinct kinds of original and projected imagesin this case.It is not difficult to generate points, lines, and point/line relationships upon the interior surface of the hollowsphere in this configuration. In doing just that, we areillustrating the notion of the manner in which the appearanceof a discrete manifold may be projected from acontinuous manifold: at least, some of the aspects of sucha distinction.With this pedagogy, it should begin to be clear, that toadduce the invariance common among all three imageswe must eliminate from consideration any feature whichis not consistently common to all three. That, and thatalone, is all there is to simple topology.This settled in that way, we do not yet have the kind ofimage of a continuous manifold needed to account fullyfor the discrete manifold we see in everyday life. We needaction. Tennenbaum's image of a Weierstrass function isthe simplest possible illustration of the kind of bridge inconception in which a universe of action can be imagined.There must be action in the continuous manifold, otherwise,there can be no action in the discrete manifold. Theonly possible forms of purely geometric action must reduceto vortical rotation (for example, complex variables),whose characteristic form in geometry must reduce tosimple geometric action of integration: from a continuousmanifold of order n to one of order n + 1. It is the metricalcharacteristics of action introduced to a continuous manifoldby such n into n + 1 transformations.Hence, a topology which lacks such metrical determinantsis an absurdity, a condition of mental pathology. Todistinguish the simple, beginner's, classroom introductionsto topologies of fixed manifolds, from the kinds of manifoldscongruent with physical processes, we may find itmost convenient to call the valid versions physical topology.There are two kinds of action, as viewed among theshadows of the discrete manifold, to be taken into account.There are simpler actions, which ultimately, butnot directly, reflect the negentropic transformation of thecontinuous manifold. There are also crucial definitions ofaction, which by their nature correspond directly to thenegentropy of the continuous manifold. These latter areof the form of the change in the characteristic of«action,d 2 s, subsumed by transformation of a process from ordern to n — 1 (entropy). Riemann's shock wave experimentaldesign (1859) is paradigmatic for such categories of action.This pedagogical trick, so to speak, is the image thewriter employs to think about economic processes, an20 November 1982 FUSIONapproximation of the mental image of the universe he firstencountered, through aid of Cantor and Riemann, backin 1952.Applications to Economic AnalysisWe must, therefore, formulate the study of transformationsin economic processes from the standpoint ofreference of such a notion of physical topology, from thestandpoint of images of a negentropic (Riemannian) formof continuous, multiply connected manifold. We muststudy economic processes as wholes, treating the wholeas the primary existence—the direct reverse of the pathological"Robinson Crusoe" image employed by the vonNeumann/Morgenstern "model." These wholes must bestudied as processes of transformation in entirely geometricterms of reference for analysis.From the vantage point of reference of physical topology,the most obvious of the divisions within the closureof the whole economic process cycle is the social divisionof the population and its constituent households, a divisiondefined in reference to the social division of goodsproducinglabor.The modern form of classical study of such a division oflabor is that emphasized by Alexander Hamilton. In goodclassroom work, we introduce the student to economicscience's empirics by study of the manner in which thedevelopment of manufacturing, and of the transportationinfrastructure associated with manufacturing, interactswith agriculture to determine a rise in the per hectare andper man-year output of agricultural production.In such historical illustrative classroom study, we noteinclusively the following most prominent points. The divisionof labor between agricultural and manufacturingproduction frees the farmer from household productionof certain categories of artifacts, producing those artifactsat a lower cost to society than on farms. This frees thefarmer to concentrate his efforts in a more concentratedfashion on those activities in which he is intrinsically moreefficient: production of food and fiber, and improvementsin lands, crops, and livestock. This division is made workableby improvements in transportation, and the developmentof institutions of commerce dependentrelatively cheap and well-organized transportation.uponThe rather immediate effect of such division of labor isthe farmer's possibility to exploit potentialities of specializationfor market, to shift from emphasis upon "subsistencefarming" to market farming. Cheap, efficient transportationis the key to successful development: improvedwaterways, roads, rails, and the cartage and railway enterpriseswhich provide cheap, high-density, and reliableflows of goods between city and countryside.By shifting the production of nonagricultural artifactsfrom inherently inefficient, and intrinsically crude rural"cottage industry," to concentrated manufacturing, wemake possible technologically progressive, increasinglycapital-intensive production of those artifacts. The improvementsin productivity and quality made possible bythis concentration lead to new categories of artifacts,including agricultural tools, machinery, and chemistry

"By shifting the production ofnonagricultural artifacts frominherently inefficient, andintrinsically crude rural 'cottageindustry,' to concentratedmanufacturing, we makepossible technologicallyprogressive, increasingly capitalintensiveproduction."Alexander Hamilton Henryproducts. This establishes the basis for agronomical sciencein respect to the improvement of the technology ofagriculture.The result, if this is pursued consistently, at fair pricesto both farmers and manufacturers, is an explosion ofproductivity in both agriculture and industry, and also anallowance for transportation costs arising from such increasesin productivity, which enables rapid improvementsin transportation. Hamilton and Henry C. Carey outlinethis case with complete adequacy. 10The consequence of this dynamical interrelationship isa reduction in the percentage of the total labor forcerequired to produce the food and fiber requirements ofthe entire population. The combined costs, of agriculturalproduction as such, and cost of essential manufacturedgoods plus transportation, to agricultural output is progressivelylessened as a social cost of food and fiber percapita for the entire population. Furthermore, on conditionthat the new technology so fostered is intelligentlyapplied, not only is the fertility of land previously in useincreased by "artificial means," but land previously unusableis brought into agricultural and related production.The potential relative population-density of society isdoubly increased throughout this process of economicdevelopment.From this starting point of classroom presentation, weproceed to a general analysis of other major categories ofthe social division of goods-producing labor and transportationlabor. 11 We divide the classes of employment ofoperatives in urban occupations among transportation,consumer-goods production, and capital-goods production.At the beginning of such a process of developmentof agricultural production, the consumer-goods outputper capita for the entire society cannot be, must not be,significantly better per capita than before the shift fromcottage-industry to manufacturing. The emphasis must beupon capital-goods production for agriculture and transportation,and upon capital goods needed to give atechnologically progressive, increasingly capital-intensiveimpulse to both agricultural and consumer-goods production.Capital-goods production and development of transportationare the "drivers" of economic growth and technologicalprogress.Later, the combined consumer-goods component of theemployment of the labor force—both manufacturing andagriculture—must decline as a percentage of the employmentin which the content of consumption improvesgoods production by the entire labor force: The capitalgoodsto consumer-goods ratio of employment of goodsproducingand transportation labor must increase absolutely.The flow of costs and investment funds to capitalgoodsindustries must grow absolutely relative to all commerceand production directed to manufacture and circulationof consumer goods, including services.However, the services component of the employmentof the whole labor force must nonetheless increase interms of "market basket." The greater the rate of investmentin capital goods, the greater the rate of developmentof new technologies must be. The ratio of scientists,engineers, and other technician-specialists per 100,000 ofthe goods-producing labor force must increase. The increasedinvestment in developing the potential skills ofeach member of the labor force, and the extension of thespan of educational years under this impulse, requiresdrastic increases in educational services (public schoolsand universities), and concentration on increasing averagelongevity: medicine, hygienic services, and so forth, aswell as improved nutrition, increased cultural-directedleisure, and so forth.The shifting social ratios of the social division of labor(and market-basket) per capita of the whole population isthe first of the geometric features of the economic processwhich ought to occupy the student's attention.Next, the student must view the dominant feature ofdevelopment of machines as the compacting of the rawsocial division of labor of production into the design ofmachines.Although "industrial engineering" has been dominatedby unwholesome elements over the course of the presentcentury to date, there are aspects of the characteristicFUSION November 1982 21

tasks of the industrial engineer's work which merit respectas tasks.In the simplest approach to design of powered machinery,as "labor-saving" machinery, we analyze the necessaryactions of manual labor into "motions." We remove thesemotions from manual labor and incorporate them into adesigned-machine. The power transmitted to the machinethus replaces muscle-power in the effecting of thesemotions. Once such an initial transfer from muscle-powerto heat-powered machines occurs, the development ofmachines moves to dimensions of quality beyond whatmuscle-labor might attempt. Yet, it is the division ofproductive labor which is the standpoint of referencefrom which the elaboration of the machine process—andother forms of productive processes—is to be understood.Implicitly, anything repetitive can be done better bymachines than human muscle-labor. The ultimate, irreplaceablefeature of human productive labor lies in theunique powers of the human mind, to effect what nomachine can effect, a change in the quality of productivetechnology, technological innovation. There is no danger,at any future time, that human labor will ever cease to bethe essential determinant of production—the machinecould never replace mankind. Rather, technological progresswill properly assimilate all repetitive forms of applicationof technology, including, sooner or later, any applicationof an existing level of technology. Inconsequence of this direction of development of theproductive processes' technologies, the form of humanlabor will shift toward the work of scientists and engineersonly. Mankind's productive labor will become exclusivelythe creation of new productive technologies, the creationof new qualities of capital goods for the productive process.By seeing the coherence of the division of productivelabor with the internal structure of machine design (forexample), the student is enabled to envisage the case inwhich a cross-sectional slice of current production andcirculation of goods might be represented as an inputoutputtable. The inputs would be listed in rows, and thesame inputs would also be listed as outputs, in columns.The table would show how outputs of each and every partof the network are distributed as necessary inputs to eachand every part of the network.In the relatively saner aspect of systems analysis, it issuch matrices which are approximated.However, it ought to be clear immediately, that theattempt to analyze an economic process generally in termsof any such linear models is intrinsically absurd. Anysociety dominated by a fixed technology is a dying society,intrinsically entropic, for reasons we have summarizedearlier in this report. It is technological progress, andtechnological progress alone, which permits a society tomaintain even a constant value of potential relativepopulation-density.The characteristic reflection of technological progressis a change in the social division of productive labor. Inother words, progress would take the reflected form ofradical changes in these input-output tables analyzing22 November 1982 FUSION"Mankind's productive labor will become exclusively thecreation of new productive technologies, the creation ofnew qualities of capital goods for the productive process."relations of flow among elements of the division of labor.This progress is necessarily reflected, in approximations,as a series of input-output tables, T„ T 2 , T 3 ,... T„ ..'. T n ,such that from one to the next in that series, some termsof each table would drop out, others are added, and thecoefficients of the matrix are transformed for persistingelements at the same time.From the vantage point of the frustrated "econometrician,"the characteristics of the economic process are"nonlinear" transformations—leaps among matrices. Inprinciple, looking at the same evidence from the vantagepoint we have outlined earlier in this report, the economicprocess is essentially of the form of a negentropic manifold,in which transformations in the discrete manifold arecharacteristically projections of the impulse form of developmentof a continuous manifold from one of order nto one of order n + 1. Hence, only Riemannian physics,complemented by the contributions of Cantor, can competentlycomprehend the determination of an economicprocess for analysis.

~THere, a turn of the century Westinghouse factory showingthe winding of rotating and stationary armatures for electricpower systems.The "energetics" of the development of the productiveprocess ought to become clear in light of this comparisonof economic processes to the general case of Riemannianmanifolds."Energy," from the standpoint of a negentropic continuousmanifold, is a reflection of negentropy. Energy is aphenomenon which reflects the going-over of a manifoldfrom order n to order n + 1. In respect to the transformationsleading away from order n, the phenomena ofenergy correspond roughly to our image of "energy ofthe system" in ordinary thermodynamics. However, thegoing-over from order n to order n + 1 is itself expressedas comparable to the ratio of "free energy" to "energy ofthe system": power, work, technology.This analogy is more than an analogy; it is key to thethermodynamic correlatives of rising values for potentialrelative population-density in the development of societythrough advances in productive technology. There is acoherence between the fact that negenltropy has a "purelygeometric" content in a Riemannian manifold, and that itcorrelates with an adducible "geometric" content foradvances in the technological division of productive labor.If the universe is governed by the togos, as the Nicenedoctrine prescribes the ordering of evolutionary developmentof the universe under continuing creation, thenthe principle of negentropy is the expression of that lawfulprocess of continuing creation. Moreover, not only doesthis principle order changes in the universe, from relativelylower to relatively higher orders, but the veryexistence of a previously created order depends upon theefficiency of that same negentropic principle.That observation must raise hackles among the intellectualheirs of the Jesuit-directed French Enlightenment, the"materialists." Yet, this was the basis for Kepler's establishmentof modern mathematical physics. Agreed, IsaacNewton and others attempted to ridicule Kepler on thisaccount, and that aspect of Kepler's work is generallyeither suppressed or referred to only by fraudulent, ridiculinggossip today. It happens that Newton's attack onKepler is key to the manifest incompetence of Newton'sphysics relative to many matters including the behavior ofJupiter and Saturn, whereas Kepler's work remains validprecisely because of that fundamental feature ridiculed byNewton et al.It is a simple mathematical fact, as we have indicatedthe proof of that fact here, that unless our universe werenegentropic, our universe could not exist. No amount ofJesuitical sophistry, no amount of appeal to the ignorantprejudices of uneducated common sense, can push asidethe efficient truth of that elementary fact.This is the persisting issue of method and philosophicalworld outlook between the geometricians and algebraicistssince Kepler and earlier.Axiomatic algebra takes as self-evident the notions ofquantity and simple number (for example, Kronecker)peculiar to an ignorant, naive perception of the discretemanifold of visual space per se. The argument of Russelland Whitehead, in the Principia, for example, carries thealgebraicists' argument to an obscenely nominalist, radicalextreme. 12 To the geometrician, the integers arise in physicsonly as topological singularities, as determined featuresof the continuous manifold whose image is projected inthe appearance of the discrete manifold of visible space.Magnitude is necessarily a subsumed feature of thosemetrical features of a negentropic continuous manifoldwhich make possible the necessary association of efficientcasuality with the object-shadows of the discrete manifold,and make necessary the metrical characteristics of negentropictransformations witnessed in terms of reference ofvisible space.The idea that "energy" must be an ontologically selfevidentparticularity, and associated with fixed, scalarmagnitude, is not only a crude algebraicist's error ofassumption, but is contrary to the fundamental principlesof any universe which could actually exist."Hold that piece of chalk, Professor Algebraicist! Theformulations you are about to elaborate have embeddedin them what you logical positivists yourselves have fanaticallyinsisted to be the 'hereditary features' of certainFUSION November 1982 23

axiomatic assumptions. As you logical positivists yourselveshave so often insisted, in defense of Russell, of theViennese pathology, and of similar cult doctrines, the factthat you have assumed ontologically self-evident discretenessas the most fundamental axiom of arithmetic, meansthat wherever you naively interpret reality by means ofyour own algebraic constructions, you are able to adducemathematical proof of the existence of entities whichoften, in fact, have no real existence, even as the discretemanifold of visible space."This same problem has a simple demonstration in economics."Mr. Accountant, please inform us how youcalculate depreciation for today on one of the pharaonicpyramids of Egypt." The historical cost of an object is notdetermination of its proper depreciation value today. It isthe cost of replacing a functional equivalent in terms ofthe costs determined by modern technology. If our accountantattempts to develop an historically based depreciationvalue he would probably be very much pleasedwith his own accomplishment if he conducted the followingfoolish exercise.He would normalize ancient Egypt's prices to today's bycomparing market-baskets of labor costs then and now.With aid of such "constant dollar" calculations, he wouldarrive at a "constant dollar" capital valuation for each ofthe pyramids. He would have ignored entirely the truedifferences in productivity of labor, the differences inpotential relative population-density of the two societies.One can not proceed from historical accounting valuationsfor depreciation to determine the "energetics" ofan economy or section of an economy. Nor, in a saneeconomy, do we expend funds to simply replace thebricks and machinery of yesterday's investments. Rather,in a sane economy, we run old industries into salvage andscrap, and replace old machinery with modern, technologicallyadvanced machinery. It is the ratio of "freeenergy" to "energy of the system" expressed by currentoutput relations which determines values—and propereconomic policies—including maintenance and investmentpolicies. It is the negentropy of the system, not itsaverage "energy of the system" levels, which determineseconomic values and proper maintenance and investmentpolicies. In a sane economy, we do not maintain productioncapacities to resupply obsolescent forms of capitalgoods. We learn such sanity from the practice of theComposer of the continuing, negentropic creation we callthe universe."Energy" must nonetheless be the appearance of themost important of all of the phenomena of the visiblemanifold. Energy reflects, in apparent terms of the thermodynamicstate of the existing system, the negentropicprinciple underlying all action in the continuous manifold.It is the lawful unfolding of the negentropic continuousmanifold, in terms of negentropic action which is theorigin of all action in the universe, which obliges us tointerpret all lawful features of the universe, including theappearances of the visible manifold, in terms of negentropy.Hence, thermodynamics, properly understood, isphysics, and the theory of functions of a multiply con-24 November 1982 FUSIONFred J Maroon"Mr. Accountant, please inform us how you calculatedepreciation for today on one of the pyramids of Egypt."nected continuous manifold, as a theory of negentropicthermodynamics, must be the only valid form of physicstoday.Correspondingly, as mankind increases its mastery ofthe universe, as measured in terms of potential relativepopulation-density, man's progress is in the form of increasesof negentropy of human practice. It is onlythrough that ordered process of successive discoveries,through which the potential relative population-densityof society is maintained and advanced, that man proves acorrespondence between the ordering of his discoveriesand the lawful ordering of the universe, for which theempirical proof is man's increased power over the universe.The universe is therefore proven to be negentropicallyordered.Disproof of the "Second Law"The Second Law of Thermodynamics pertains to a kindof imaginary universe which could not exist. The personwho defends the assertion of such a "law of universalentropy" is saying, implicitly, "Ignore what I say, since ifyou believe what I say, neither you nor I believe thateither of us exists." That is key to the true meaning ofLeibniz's "This is the best of all possible worlds," in whichan evil Voltaire could actually exist to circulate wickedfalsehoods about that statement. It is not necessary that aVoltaire know and accept negentropy in order that aVoltaire might exist to babble nonsense, any more than adog or a bacterium needs to know science truthfully inorder to exist.Naturally, some will retort angrily, "I can prove theSecond Law!" It is amusing to hear that persons todaytake pride in proving that they themselves do not exist toprove such things.Admittedly, we are rubbing salt into intellectualwounds. Even numerous among those who share to somedegree our hatred against Malthusian arguments for genocide,will imagine themselves to be angered by such

ostensible insolence as categorical repudiation of suchwidely accepted notions as the Second Law of Thermodynamicsand Conservation of Energy. Some of the objectorsdirectly defend the "law of universal entropy." Othersobject to our presumed indiscretion in giving allegedlygratuitous and presumably politically counterproductiveoffense to the first group of objectors.Although we have already identified, explicitly or byimplication, all of the conclusive proof need to show thefallacies of the "Second Law" and of "Conservation ofEnergy," the opposition to our arguments, even amongeducated persons, springs from deeply embedded, suchstrongly conditioned views, that the argument wants summaryrestatement here and now, as a precondition forproceeding to our concluding arguments respecting systemsanalysis as such.The presumption that there exists established or newexperimental proof in support of the Second Law, or ofthe related fictional presumption, "Conservation of Energy,"depends entirely upon two arbitrary fallacies respectingexperimental proofs. In the last analysis, both ofthese two, widespread fallacies prove to be identicalfallacies, although at first we must approach each as if itwere distinct from the other. These two, ultimately congruent,fallacious assumptions, show us that ndpast experimenthas ever proven a Second Law of Thermodynamicsand that no future experiment is required to provethe contrary principle. All the experimental proof hasalready been accomplished; it is the interpretation of theexperiments which has seemed to buttress belief in theprevailing fallacy of assumption.We predict that, despite what we have written here, wewill be strongly denounced for attacking the Second Law.We predict that those denunciations will overlook moreor less entirely the proof we give here against the SecondLaw. We predict that some among the attacks will be inthe form of attacks of one sort or another against thiswriter's personality, thus avoiding response to the proofgiven. We predict that others among the attacks will be inthe form of simple, emotionalized explosions of outrageagainst the attacks upon the Second Law, and that thesewill make no effort actually to refute the proof given inthis report.The two, ultimately identical fallacies underlying allarguments in support of the Second Law may be respectivelydefined as "ontological" and "formal."The ontological fallacy is, essentially, the assumptionthat the physical universe is adequately represented bythe phenomena of a visible, discrete manifold. This subsumesthe presumption that any inference of efficientprinciples of action must situate those principles withinthe axiomatic structure of a discrete manifold of the sortone imagines oneself to see. Typically, this means theeffort to define efficient action in terms of either bumpingor action-at-a-distance between ontologically self-evidentforms of discrete objects.The formal fallacy is properly argued to be the pathologyintrinsic to the axiomatic view of algebra. The axioms ofthe Russell-Whitehead cult 13 are admittedly a radical versionof the dogma of algebra, yet Russell is correct insofaras he represent? that view as being a faithful representationof the underlying view of all empiricism and positivism.The assumption that only the simplest comparisonamong two discrete magnitudes, comparing these only asto scale, is the axiomatic root of algebra, cannot be deniedas their own by the empiricists over the centuries to date.In other words, algebra so defined limits the possibleuniverses to those kinds of discrete manifolds which sharepermeation by such an "hereditary principle" of reductionistalgebra.It was the celebrated, central feature of the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence, that Newton freely admitted thatNewton's universe was entropic, that it was a universewhich must necessarily have been like a clock runningdown the accumulation of work in its "mainspring," fromthe beginning of its existence. Therefore, either the essentialform of action in the universe must be Cod windingthe universe up, periodically, from outside that universe,or Newton's sort of universe is one which could neverhave begun to exist in the first place. This issue was notoriginal to the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence; Philo ofAlexandria had already conclusively refuted the Aristoteliandogma in these terms of reference nearly 2,000 yearsago.The classical, Neoplatonic proof of the absurdity ofAristotle, by Philo and the Christian Fathers, is worthy ofand useful for reconsideration in this context. Not only isthe argument devastatingly valid against the Second Law,but it was a well-known argument to all educated personsat the time such nonsense as Descartes's and Newton'sabsurd physics was concocted in defiance of such a wellknownproof.If the universe was created by a "big bang," as theAristotelian (Apollo-Lucifer) cultists have insisted then andnow, and if it is assumed that the universe so created isabsolutely ordered by what the Jesuit agent FerdinandLassalle termed "iron laws" (parodying Goethe), thenAristotle and the Aristotelians are insisting that God ceasedto be an efficient existence by virtue of the Creation. That,indeed, is the underlying logical theorem for the Nietzschean"God is dead" thesis. For, if God were efficientthereafter, he must violate his own "iron laws," makingthe universe unlawful.If we assume a universe which depends upon repeatedinterventions by an efficient Creator, as Isaac Newtonexplicitly admitted his knowledge of the problem we haveidentified here, we have assumed a variation of the alternativecase, in which the Creator's interventions are continuous.In either case, we have the subsuming, generalcase, that the Creator's interventions are themselves lawfullyordered, that the efficient will of the Creator andlawfulness are one and the same: consubstantiality. As wenoted earlier in this report, man's manifest capacity toeffect technological progress, as increases in potentialrelative population-density, is man acting efficiently imagoviva Dei— in the image of the living God—according tothe Filioque principle intrinsic to the notion of consubstantiality.FUSION November 1982 25

This, as we have emphasized earlier, is not some arbitrarysort of religious doctrine, extrinsic to science. It isthe common principle upon which both theology andscience are premised. There has never been any objectionto this view, the counterthesis of the Apollo-cultist Aristotleincluded, which has not been shown absurd fromthe vantage point of such a rigorous criticism of practicalimplications of axioms.To repeat what we stated a moment earlier, if I adducefrom experimental evidence that the Second Law of Thermodynamicsis true, then I prove that neither I nor theuniverse exists: a singularly uninteresting scientific result,scarcely worth the mental and other efforts of becominga scientist. If I find myself reaching experimental conclusions,which conclusions implicitly prove that neither Inor my words exist, it ought to occur to me (as to ReneDescartes) that perhaps there might exist somewhere somesmall flaw in my experimental inquiry.It is not difficult to show that the kinds of experimentaldesigns employed in purported defense of the SecondLaw define the phenomena to be measured in termscongruent with the assumption that the physical universeis nothing but a discrete manifold. Empiricism and positivismassume this in a radical form. This approach to theexperimental realm is governed by a view of algebra(including statistics) to the effect that the mathematicalanalysis employed is everywhere dominated by the "hereditary"influence of the algebraic axioms of discretenessand scalarity as universal elementarily (time, numbering).Thus, in respect of both the ontological view of theexperimental domain, and the formal methods of analysisemployed to design and interpret the experiments, thekind of universe variously adopted by Descartes or Newtonhas been chosen as the only kind of universe theexperimenter will take into account. Any evidence whichdoes not fit the axiomatic assumptions so chosen is axiomaticallyexcluded from consideration.All experimental "proof" of the Second Law (and of the"hereditarily" identical Conservation of Energy) are thereforeto be ruled out of consideration as axiomaticallymerely tautologies premised upon falsehoods of governingaxiomatic fictions.This view of the matter is correct, but yet not adequate.We have indicated the proof that ontological and formalanalytical assumptions of empiricism-positivism, as well asAristotelian logic are absurdities. Negative knowledge isadmittedly not by itself knowledge. The question, beggedby certainty that "experimental proof" of the Second Lawis absurd, is, how do we determine those kinds of experimentswhich do in fact have authority respecting thelawful composition of the universe?In general, and otherwise implicitly, we have answeredthat question of adequate experimental approaches overthe course of the report so far. We now, briefly, make thekey point explicit.Experiments bearing upon the lawful composition of"A society which orders its response to nature according to the requirement that entropy must be served is a societywhich has ordered itself to follow an entropic course in its own existence. In brief, a society which has willed itself todie." Above, the antinuclear counterculture at a Harrisburg, Pa. demonstration, March 1981.26 November 1982 FUSION

the universe must emphasize those classes of empiricalphenomena which are most savagely paradoxical in respectto the obscurantist's algebraic point of view. Thefact that the visible manifold permits construction of onlyfive regular polyhedral bodies is exemplary of the kind ofthinking with which scientific rigor begins. To see this asan idiosyncrasy of our visible manifold, as demonstrationthat the visible discrete manifold is delimited, shaped, isexemplary of the scientific method required. To see thata visible discrete manifold could not exist on its ownterms, is a complementary recognition, the sorrof recognitionwhich characterizes the successful transition fromignorance to a scientific world outlook.Otherwise, in the search for useful paradoxes in theexperimental domain, we usually succeed if we followeither the precedent of Kepler, and conduct observationson the astrophysical scale, or seek to correlate lawfulpeculiarities of astrophysical and microphysical processes.These varieties of experiments enable us to adduce thenecessary features to be included in construction of amental image of the higher, continuous manifold, forwhich visible space is a projection. So, experimental inquiryleads us from the absurdities of the ontologicallyfinite, to the discovery of the ontologically transfinite.One will never discover much respecting the lawfulcomposition of the universe by burning up an IBM 370system, seeking to explore fully the inner psychologicalneeds of the rearmost left leg of a common dog-flea byaid of statistical studies of that organ's behavior over manycases. One's choice and design of experimental subjectmatter must be congruent with the hypothesis beingtested. One proves nothing, respecting the issues of anegentropic continuous manifold, by limiting experimentsand experimental analysis to choices of array and methodwhich exclude axiomatically any conclusions but thoseasserting the universe to be nothing more than a discretemanifold.The source of the Second Law of Thermodynamics isnot the available experimental domain, but, like the relatedcult-dogma, the Conservation of Energy, the SecondLaw is a willful intrusion into science of the cults of Isis,Apollo-Lucifer, and Mithra.Belief, Policy, and ConsequencesAlthough the "law of entropy" is a cultist's absurdity, itis a valid experimental observation to report that suchabsurdities are susceptible of being believed by evenrather large proportions of the human population ingeneral. What happens, then, if the people of a nationshape the nation's policies according to this absurd beliefin a "law of universal entropy"?A society which orders its response to nature accordingto the requirement that entropy must be served is asociety which has ordered itself to follow an entropiccourse in its own existence. In brief, a society which haswilled itself to die.If it persists in such a policy of practice, that society willdie. Is the lawfulness of the universe thus disproven, bysuch willful violation? Not at all. By destroying itself, thesociety has proven that nothing can exist if it violates thelawful ordering of Creation. By violating the law of Creation,the society becomes morally unfit to exist, and thelaw is served by its extinction. It has wrought the deadlyjudgment of the Creator upon itself.Who are these Malthusians, these world federalists,whose influence is rendering the United States, for example,morally unfit to survive?The British East India Company, the putative author offascist economics and of Malthusianism, from the time ofMalthus to the present, was, like the Dutch East IndiaCompany, an outgrowth of the conquest of the financialand political power of Britain and the Netherlands (amongother nations) by the ancient and immensely wealthy"black nobility" associated with Venice and Genoa. TheseVenetian oligarchic interests, still today the greatest concentrationof rentier-ffnancier power in the world, were,in turn, an extension of the Byzantine aristocracy, andVenice was, from the time of the rise of the anti-GnosticPaleologues, through the Napoleonic wars, the worldpolitical capital for that powerful faction of the Byzantinearistocracy.To understand how Venice has figured in shaping thehistory and political currents of the present day, it isindispensable to know that the millennial combat betweenWestern, Augustinian Christianity and the Eastern Rite wasalso the defining political struggle between republicansand oligarchs throughout the Mediterranean and adjoiningregions. Although there were great Platonic (Neoplatonic)forces combating evil within the domain of Easternpseudo-Christianity, from the time of Justinian, the Gnosticfaction has controlled the hierarchy of the EasternOrthodox Rite. Venice has been the leading conduit ofthis Gnostic-oligarchical force into Western Europe.There was never anything trivial in the doctrinal issuesseparating Western and Eastern churches. Thei Filioquedoctrine signifies in practice that man, imago viva Dei, isable and obliged to perfect his practice according toprogress in exerting dominion over nature, and thus tobring individual man into practical atonement with theLogos, thus to become an instrument of the Creator inthe ordering of the universe. The Eastern Rite (notingheroic and important Neoplatonic factions within thedomain of its sway) rejected the Nicene doctrine, not onlyas a matter of liturgy, but as a matter of the very essenceof both religious and secular practice.The Eastern Rite's hierarchy, like the Roman imperialpagan priesthood, of which it is a consciously fanaticalcontinuation in syncretic disguise, has been not accidentally,together with its later Jesuit-offshoot, the mother ofwicked cults, including the "Mother Earth-Mother Russia"cult which the Russian Orthodox Church introduced tothat afflicted nation. Theosophy, the explicit worship ofLucifer, and secular cults such as the Cartesian form ofthe Enlightenment, Jesuit-controlled Francis Bacon's cultof empiricism, the Jacobin cult of 1790s France, and themodern socialist and communist cults spawned, togetherwith fascism, by Giuseppe Mazzini's (and Lord Palmerston's)"Young Europe" radical network organization, areFUSION November 1982 27

also illustrations of this Orthodox-Jesuit cult-synthesizingactivities.In relatively modern times, especially since the 15thcenturyGolden Renaissance in Italy, the oligarchical fanaticismof the Orthodox-Jesuit forces has taken a characteristicallyanticapitalist form. On the one side, therehas been overtly feudalistic anticapitalism, such as that ofOxford University's John Ruskin and his Coefficients, andRound Table followers. On the other side, these feudalistshave been the principal sponsors and deployers of Fabianvarieties of anticapitalist radicalism, creating "proletarian"movements of the capitalist form of nation-state republic.The general, Utopian goal of the feudalist sponsors of suchanarchist, socialist, communist, and fascist cults, has beento demolish the institutions of technological progress andthe sovereign nation-state, to introduce a period of genocidalchaos, through which to return Europe (for example)to the chaos of the mid-14th century, as John Ruskinproposed.Those interventions into the internal life of science,which we epitomize by the cases of Descartes, Newton,Cauchy, Maxwell, Mach, et al., were not autochthonousdevelopments from within scientific inquiry—they werenever "honest errors." Bacon was a Jesuit-coordinatedagent against, among others, the greatest English scientistwho ever lived, William Gilbert. Descartes's work wasvastly inferior to that of Bruno, Kepler, Pascal, and Fermat,and Descartes was trained and directed by the Jesuitorder. Newton was essentially a hired political thug, hismind principally occupied with the most obscenely superstitiousblack magic, deployed by the oligarchical factionagainst both English and continental science. Cauchywas entirely a Jesuit agent, whose work in science wasentirely directed by the Jesuit order, with each interventionconsciously conceived as a delphic trick for destroyingscience from within, for destroying the integrity of scientificmethod. Maxwell was a political tool of the Cecilfamily (Francis Bacon's family), in a consciously directedeffort by British circles to destroy continental science.If we peel away from modern textbook instructioneverything which we know to be a willfully fraudulentintrusion through instruments of that oligarchical faction,a beautiful set of methodological foundations and specificachievements remains to us in the work of honest primarysources. The span we have traced from Kepler throughRiemann and Cantor is exemplary of this.This writer is honored to find himself in the position todefend the great and moral achievements of true scientists,to honor their contributions and also to seek torevive the spirit of scientific inquiry which they exemplifiedfrom the swamp of mixed frauds, empiricism, andpositivism which destroy so much of the scientific potentialof students and professionals today.It is unavoidable, and also useful, to expose as fraud themyth that the internal methodological issues of scientificwork are not "political." Only if issues permeated withthe stink of the Jesuitical inquisitions from the past areunderstood to be nothing among the most profoundlypolitical of issues, can scientific work generally liberateitself from the Jesuit-led "fifth column" whose agentshave been destroying modern science from within.Systems analysis, like its theological version, the Jesuitdogma of "bioethics," is directly, explicitly nothing but aproduct and instrument of the Gnostic cult's influencewithin the ranks of scientists and other policy influentials.It is intended to foster a feudalist's Malthusian policy ofgenocide, in the footsteps of John Ruskin, and is intrinsicallya genocidal policy as well as a pseudoscientific hoaxin its own right.It is past time to see the systems analysts, as well as theNuremberg criminal supporters of Global 2000 for whatthey are: as the political heirs of the still-growing cancerearlier represented by that Austrian hippie, Adolf Hitler.The leading systems analysts are not merely "mistaken."They are wittingly evil in both their systems analysis itself,as well as in the uses for which they employ it.Lyndon H. LaRouche, jr. is one of this century's outstandingthinkers. A frequent contributor to Fusion, La­Rouche has received worldwide recognition for the depthand originality of his work in economics, philosophy, andepistemology. LaRouche's work has also led to his beingnamed by the Club of Rome and its cothinkers as themost dangerous opponent to Malthusian thinking. Afounder of the Fusion Energy Foundation in 1974, La­Rouche has been on the FEF board of directors since 1980.Notes1. Harmonies of the World (1619), book V, trans. C.G. Wallis (Chicago:Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1952), books I and II, unpublished translationby Christopher White, Sylvia Barkley, and others; MysteriumCosmographicum (1596), trans. A.M. Duncan (New York: AbarisBooks, 1981); and Astronomia Nova (New Astronomy, 1969), nopublished translation.2. Chiefly the Monadology (written 1714, printed 1720-21) and the Leibniz-ClarkeCorrespondence (1715-16), ed. H.G. Alexander (Manchester,Eng.: Manchester University Press, 1977), the leading philosophicalinterest of the writer's 14th and 15th years.3. See Kepler, Harmonies of the World on acknowledgement of intellectualdebts.4. Ibid.5. Apart from the evidence supplied by Voyager observations, UweParpart has shown, by a few elementary calculations using data fromstandard astronomical tables, that Kepler's calculations stand up forthe planets and moons today.6. The internal musical interval of any orbit is defined by the ratio of theangular velocity (speed of turning around the Sun) at the closest pointto the Sun, the perihelion, to that at the farthest point, the aphelion.The orbits of the asteroids vary widely, but the internal intervalscluster around two values. For example, the interval for Ceres is 0.729,for Vesta 0.700, for Juno 0.342, and for Pallas 0.382. These values areclose to those that create the musical interval of an augmented fourth;that is, C to F#. This augmented fourth is known by musicians as thedevil's interval because of its extremely unsettling, dissonant quality.7. G.W. Leibniz, "Historia et Origo Calcui Differentialis."8. Dr. Jonathan Tennenbaum presented part of his work on this constructionof proof of the well-tempered system during proceedings ofInternational Caucus of Labor Committees conference held in Mainz,West Germany, Nov. 5-7, 1981.9. Work prepared for the Dec. 31, 1981 ICLC conference in New YorkCity by Dr. Tennenbaum and his associates.10. See N. Spannaus and C. White, The Political Economy of the AmericanRevolution (New York: Campaigner Publications, 1977) and A. Salisbury,The Civil War and the American System (New York: CampaignerPublications, 1977).11. See L. LaRouche, Basic Economics for Conservative Democrats (NewYork: New Benjamin Franklin House, 1980).12. B. Russell and A.N. Whitehead, Principia Mathematica, 3 vols., 1910-13 (republished, New York: W.W. Norton, 1963).28 November 1982 FUSION

Imagine a worldwithoutFUSIONMAGAZINE OF THE FUSION ENERGY FOUNDATIONSubscribe now!

In This IssueFEF MELTS NUCLEAR FREEZE'IN CALIFORNIAA two-week tour by Fusion editor-inchiefSteven Bardwell just before theNov. 2 elections exposed the "freezemovement" as a hoax and put the realissue up front: without advancedtechnology, there can be no world development.Bardwell debated freeze leaders atcampuses across the state and heldmany press conferences to explain (1)that born-again "peaceniks" like RobertMcNamara are not really for peace,but for wars with conventional weaponsto depopulate the Third World;and (2) that we can end the threat ofnuclear war by developing energybeam weapons that can destroy nuclearmissiles in mid-flight. Just thesefacts alone, Bardwell said, caused studentsto change their minds on thefreeze, which won only by a narrowmargin in the state instead of the expectedlandslide.Bardwell's review of beam weapons—howthey work and how soonwe could have them—is adapted herefrom his comprehensive report on thesubject.Fusion editor Bardwell speaking in Los Angeles.Collage includes some of the presscoverage of his California tour.GEOMETRY AS THE LANGUAGE OF VISION'Is the universe as we see it an adequaterepresentation of the universe as it really is?In parttwoof "Systems Analysis: White CollarGenocide," Lyndon LaRouche answersthis question using the method of Plato, Kepler,Cantor, and Riemann, and then discussesthe application of this geometricapproach to economic processes.The key concept in understanding boththe universe and economics is negentropy,the qualitative leaps in growth made possibleby the introduction of new technologiesthat permit a society to supportincreasing rates of population growth. AsLaRouche shows, this is a concept wellunderstood by the American System economistslike Alexander Hamilton and theirphilosophical predecessors.A pedagogical museum developed by the Fusion Energy Foundation demonstratesthe principles of causality and negentropy in the physical universe through a seriesof exhibits on the geometric organization of the universe. Here FEF staff memberBob Gallagher (right) describes one of the exhibits at an FEF seminar held at ColumbiaUniversity Teachers College in May.