by Michael Kirsch
If it was known that among Isaac Newton, Rene Descartes, and Galileo Galilei, no original scientific discoveries were made, then the basis for believing in the empiricist model of Adam Smith’s “self-correction of the market” and statistical based economics, would vanish. If citizens further knew of the unique mind and fight which was the life of Gottfried Leibniz, then the long-standing campaign against the Westphalian era of the nation-state by the international monetary powers could be halted, and economic progress unbound.
The authority to overturn the current monetary system lies in a tale which these pages tell, of Leibniz’s battle against the Venetian and Anglo-Dutch monetary powers, one which has characterized the issues determining the struggle for civilization. With the understanding of Leibniz's scientific and political history, the minds of our time can stand with confidence behind the necessary actions to advance mankind’s condition toward its proper standing.
Let the veil be lifted, and the following dramatic tale unfolded, exposing the truth that the universe does not work in the manner required for the international monetary power to continue its political reign.
In the 11th and 12th centuries A.D., Venice became the seat of an international monetary system, governing through usury, and creating debtors through the Crusades to gain trade dominance of the world. Venice continued to spread until its system of usurious lending, banking, and wars, collapsed into the black death of the 14th century. Civilized society arose in the form of the 15th century movement of the sovereign nation-state, and Venice’s system grew weaker. Sovereign nations made laws in accord with the well-being of their subjects, the expression of the principle of the common good. Man’s realization of his own creative nature spread, and nations raised the standard of productivity and creativity.
By the middle of the 16th century, factionalization diminished Venice’s power further. In the closing decades of the 16th century, a faction emerged among leading Venetian families, called the “Giovani”(the youthful), with the resolve to move Venice in a new direction. Out of the gatherings sponsored by this faction, a man named Paolo Sarpi came up with an insight to save Venice and rose to the become the faction’s intellectual leader.
It was clear to Venice early on after the rise of this nation-state movement that the progress of science had to be stopped as it was from this Renaissance view of Man that the power of nation’s flowed. But the basis for the success of Sarpi’s political faction was his realization that it was not enough to simply pursue an anti-science campaign. Sarpi took a more energetic and insightful approach.
The conception of Renaissance founder Nicolas of Cusa was that mankind can understand the reasoning process by which the actions of physical objects in the universe are created, use that discovered reasoning process as the way to truly understand the actions of those objects, and therefore have insight into the reasoning behind the creation of the universe as a whole.1This is the meaning of what is otherwise known as the trinity, in Christian theology.This was the basis for competent science and the general understanding that mankind can know universal principles, wield them to act in society, and use them to transform society as a whole, leading to a culture that follows the power of reason.
Sarpi’s program was to destroy this view, severing the mind from its compatibility with the universe entirely. This was accomplished in three steps:
First, Sarpi defined the nature of the universe, and the nature of actions of bodies in the universe, as reduced merely to the sensual depiction of the bodies themselves, i.e. the fact that they can be described with length, depth, and breadth.
The matter of natural things is nothing else than extended body understood, being what persists through transformations and never ceases to be. The body is indefinite extension, which, delimited by surface, line and point, assumes a shape. It constitutes, of itself, an infinite and unordered continuum upon which infinite orderings and infinite figures may impress themselves. ... Universals have no existence whatsoever. What do exist are bodies, extended and shaped, which determine and cut into matter so as to make up individual objects which man may perceive through external, passive senses, and matched to one another depending upon how they resemble one another, thanks to an active and internal sense…2This is a summary of Sarpi’s argument by University of Rome’s Prof.Vittorio Frajese, from Sarpi the skeptic. State and church in Venice between 1500 and 1600,1994. All other quotes in this and the next section are direct quotes from Sarpi’s Art of Proper Thinking and Philosophical Thoughts.
There was nothing essential to any created thing that which the mind could discover. What was mistaken for principles was nothing more than an “arrangement of matter,” with each individual object only “having existence for” no other reason than “the benefit of its own matter.” Therefore, there was no qualitative difference between any existing thing, each merely being a different order of that same linear extension which makes up the universe. No universals, no principles, and no laws unseen; they were asserted to be purely mental constructs to serve the fantasies of man, who hoped to be wise, but in reality would never be better than a beast. Sarpi wrote cynically, “Essence and universality are works of the mind.”
This limitation of human knowledge to matter as pure extension, served to define the relation between the mind and the nature of actions of objects in the universe, to be one of purely sense perception.
The next step, to define how man related to that infinitely boring and extended universe, was then based on the “man” of Sarpi’s nature.
Since the universe of the unseen does not exist, the man of Sarpi’s mind has no ideas but only considers sensations. Therefore, Sarpi claimed that reason is non-existent: “We distinguish between our senses and our reason, only in order to be able to disclaim responsibility for our acts.” In this way, all connection between sense perceptions observed by the mind back to the mind itself was removed, in effect, severing the senses from their own subjective origin, in which the power of hypothesis lies.
But, if something can then be sensually described, then that description is called a law, whether or not that description leads to a reasonable explanation for the process. In other words, with no knowable laws of the universe, Sarpi came up with a new definition for law as merely the formalization of observed senses. Laws were not truths or principles that actually govern anything about nature by which a scientist could knowably unfold a process in his mind. they are not intrinsic to an unseen organization, but are only laws of descriptive effects. The “scientist” is relegated to using descriptive formulas of these so-called “laws," to mechanically extrapolate “future events based upon constant repetition of events past.”
Third and finally, since it is only these kinds of laws which mankind can hope for, in a universe which contains and consists of no universals whatsoever, Sarpi defined the creator of such a universe as powerful, but not necessarily reasonable, and the created and creation itself, unknowable.3In his Reflections on the Doctrine of the Universal Spirit, 1702, Gottfried Leibniz would later explicitly identify in detail that Sarpi’s concept here was based on a revival of the Averroist/Ockhamite philosophers Contarini and Pomponazzi. Therefore, with the creator lending no assistance, Sarpi’s theorem lattice comes full circle: mankind could not hope to discover the reason for anything created, nor how it works.
In summary, by clearing out the possibility of the mind to understand unseen principles which govern the senses, Sarpi disconnected the mind from the universe, the real universe, since reality is not the reflections of flames on a wall, but the principles which cause the flames themselves to dance the way they do.
And since there was nothing man could seek to discover for himself or posterity, Sarpi explained that future orientation, a key to mankind’s commitment to the continuity of discovery, was an irrational waste of time, illogical and irrelevant to man’s existence. The wise man, wrote Sarpi, simply lives in the present like an animal and knows that there are no truths, only opinions, all of which are just as good as the other. Be immoral he says: “Do not follow opinion that wears the title of truth, but rather opinion that wears the title of pleasure or usefulness.”
The wise man, writes Sarpi, “recognizes that his efforts at obtaining knowledge always come up against the infinite, and, knowing this is beyond his grasp, he stops and comes to no final decision on any matter, deciding to live according to the day-to-day appearance of things and, in public, support those beliefs which are commonly held.”
Sarpi’s philosophy held that the future does not exist, and that one must merely take in present pleasures, as that is all that is within the grasp of mankind. “The end of man, as of every other living creature, is to live… simply live in the here and now.” Free oneself from projecting the imagination into the past or future, and enjoy the present time, not for anticipation of the future, but for itself. Like a beast, forget the past and future, trust not in the mind, live for the present means, enjoy the present pleasures, and let the ends work out for themselves.4In all of this, astute minds may feel the presence of Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments, 1759, described later.
This is the empiricist model: define sense objects, trace their motion, but leave out how the objects move, settling instead for descriptive laws of their motions. Consequently, information from the senses is considered self-evident truth, principles and causes non-existent, and the universe irrational. The mind does not consider its own ability to detect the governing principles of processes which would lead it a greater power.
In truth, nothing could, and ever was originally discovered by this method; in fact, it led to as many real discoveries as Galileo Galilei actually made; in full truth: none.
Sarpi succeeded in popularizing his own philosophical system by building up an archetype for his model consistent with Venetian usury, through Galileo Galilei. For the sake of making Galileo a popular scientist, Sarpi and his networks plagiarized for him. The list is impressive: Da Vinci and Sacharias Janssen were the inventors of “Galileo’s” telescope, Giovanni Francesco Sagredo, the true inventor of “Galileo’s” thermometer, Santorio Santorio and Filippo Salviati the real producers of “Galileo’s” weights and mechanics, Johannes Kepler and Simon Marius the true discoverers of “Galileo’s” “Moons of Jupiter” and “New Star," Baldassare Capra, the true inventor of “Galileo’s” geometer’s compass, and Christopher Scheiner the true discoverer of “Galileo’s” Sun Spots. All of this was fed to Galileo who was to take on the image of the new scientist, in order to replace both Cusa’s Renaissance view of man, and the contemporary genius of Kepler. Galileo would convey the plagiarisms as his, through the tongue of Sarpi’s philosophy as though it was this new method of thinking of Sarpi that was responsible for the discoveries. Any resistance to Galileo’s sponsored dictatorship over science was met with the full weight of Sarpi’s political networks.5In addition to organizing his various lodgings, Sarpi and Sarpi’s Giovani sponsored Galileo financially, with Sarpi even organizing his payments. Fulgenzio Micanzio, Sarpi’s personal secretary, paid Galileo directly, and after Sarpi’s death permanently paid Galileo’s Venetian pension, in addition to his costs of publication.
In sum, Sarpi’s insight that would serve as the basis for the future existence of the Venetian system, was to find a way to keep the name science, but take the discovery part out of it, while making people think that it was the same thing; and by preventing discoveries from taking place through this method, the vitality and meaning of science would be destroyed, from the inside.
If the currents of science could be taken over and enslaved to a single model that accomplished this task, then the ability of people to wield the power of reason rather than arbitrary will, and the ability to progress in discovery by educating the will according to reason, could be defeated. And under the arbitrary rule of the empire, the source of power and purpose of the nation-state would be defeated with them.
This insight and its corollaries recruited a circle of inner elites in Venice, and Sarpi initiated similar operations in the North, both in the Netherlands and its close neighbor, England, to prepare a new staging ground for Venice’s operations. Venice was to relocate its base of operations in the North, initiating trading companies in London and Amsterdam in order to set up a global financial maritime power that could crush the new nation-state system out of existence. Venice had destroyed the culture of the Netherlands throughout the 16th century, through the horror of the Spanish Inquisition and continual warfare, and by the middle of the century Venice’s usurious evil was successfully imported, making the Netherlands one of the leading financial and banking centers, with merchants all over Europe rallying at its enormous stock exchange. But then, with the initiation of Sarpi’s plan to move North, Venetian trading companies themselves began dominating its economy. By 1609 the Bank of Amsterdam was founded,6This Bank was modeled on the first central bank in history, the Banco di Rialto of Venice, established in 1585 after the victory of the Giovani faction in 1582. which was the first stock-jobbing, speculative bank of its kind, fusing usurious Venetian banking with the speculation of the stock exchange which had become so famous in the Netherlands. By 1610, the Netherlands had been brought under political alliance with Sarpi, the Bank of Amsterdam dictated public policy, and the Netherlands grew to the greatest financial empire of trade that had ever existed up until that time.7Sarpi’s networks also set up shop in England in the court of James I in 1603. Sir Francis Bacon was in personal correspondence with Sarpi, and became the head of the Rosicrucian mystics and alchemists and who set up what would later become London’s Royal Society, while his secretary Thomas Hobbes would later travel to work directly under Galileo with his financial backer the Cavendish family in the 1630’s.
After Sarpi’s death in 1623, the main promoter of the Galileo project, theologian Marin Mersenne, organized a circle of empiricists that very same year with financial backing from Sarpi’s personal ally Henry Wotton and the Cavendish family, among others. Sarpi had tutored Bacon and Galileo, while Hobbes and Mersenne extracted what they could from Galileo, with Mersenne communicating directly with Sarpi’s personal secretary and financial handler of Galileo, Fulgenzio Micanzio. It was out of this Mersenne network that a suitable empiricism congruent with Sarpi was found, to create a religion for the subjects of the Netherlands and the expanding Venetian empire: Cartesianism.
Rene Descartes lived most of his life in the Netherlands. In the 1630’s, after obtaining sponsorship from the Mersenne circle, he traveled regularly to Paris to meet with them and they in turn to the Netherlands, with Mersenne and Hobbes guiding Descartes’ hand in writing his work. Descartes’ philosophical Meditations, a likeness of Sarpi’s philosophy, was first sent to Mersenne, and then given approval by Hobbes, Galileo’s direct student. In addition to the mathematical monstrosity which was his Geometry8Locking the mind of the student into a universe of description, Descartes’ Geometry defined as “knowable” those things capable of being explained by algebra alone—algebra, which is nothing but a symbolic language describing the effects of real physical actions. This was Sarpi’s universe reworked, where perceptible effects of complex physical actions are all we can hope to know. But now, cloaked in mathematical formulas, empiricism became ever more deadly to an unwitting mind., Descartes’ philosophy of the universe and the mind was even more endemic and disastrous for the intentions of the Westphalian structure.
The fundamental tenet of “Descartes’” philosophy of the universe was straight from Sarpi, that the essence of matter lies in extension, or length, width, and breath, and fills up the assumed “empty space” of the infinite box which is his universe. Although it introduced its own attempt at plausibility, the justification the Mersenne circle provided for Descartes’ doctrine of extension was to deny any physical properties of bodies, such as inertia, hardness, color, or weight, because physical properties cannot be sensually depicted with geometry. Therefore, the purpose of making extension the nature of a body, was, that because it can be sensually depicted with geometry, investigations of nature can then be limited to the senses. This purpose is expressed in Descartes’ assertion that the only truth is raw senses and mathematical descriptions:
I know of no kind of material substance other than that which can be divided, shaped, and moved in every possible way… and there is absolutely nothing to investigate about this substance except those divisions, shapes, and movements; and that nothing concerning these can be accepted as true unless it is… considered as a Mathematical demonstration. And because all Natural Phenomena can thus be explained… I think that no other principles of Physics should be accepted, or even desired. 
Pure, unbridled Sarpi; there are no principles of physics.
After Descartes’ death, a study group started at Leyden in the 1650’s, pushing his mathematical nature of the universe, and in 1659 the De Witt leadership of the Netherlands personally published Descartes’ works for the sake of the Venetian stock system, and translated Descartes’ Geometry, which attempted to reduce the entire universe to algebra. By the 1670’s Descartes’ work was sponsored doctrine in the universities. 10The mind of those who became “educated” in Descartes and related empiricists, were unable to make an original leap into the causes of phenomena, as the spirit of insight and reason was now busy following procedure or suffocated under the dearth of axiomatic rules. 
The method of Sarpi’s networks in preventing discoveries, destroying the morality of human culture, and creating a decades long war, all helped to spread Venice’s agenda. However, from the day that Gottfried Leibniz came of age, Venice would increasingly be faced with an existential threat to their system. As the bane of Venice’s existence, Leibniz’s mind was an ironical disproof of Sarpi’s insistence that human ideas and minds do not exist.
As a young theologian and lawyer who was gripped by the cultural shift of the Westphalian System9The Venice-orchestrated “Thirty Years War," which destroyed Germany and much of the rest of Europe, was ended by the statecraft of Cardinal Mazarin in organizing the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia. The principle of the sovereign nation-state was reaffirmed, and nations were to be respected as states that govern their own affairs, with the development of each as the basis for the growth and development of each other; although immediate operations against nations were run, a semi-stable peace and strengthening of the Renaissance conception of the nation-state was achieved. In the 1660’s, the great nation builder Jean Baptiste Colbert became a power behind the throne of Louis XIV of France, and began acting according to the Treaty of Westphalia through major strides in physical economic development. Colbert’s school of economy was thereby intrinsically beyond the control of the popular empiricist promotions of “science” for the sake of abstraction, found in the science of Descartes and Galileo., Leibniz was fully inspired by the way in which Jean Baptiste Colbert was organizing France in the 1660’s according to the economic principle that the power of man’s ideas should be assimilated throughout the society to increase its standard of living and power as the greatest wealth of nations. In 1672, he traveled to Paris, hoping to advance the cause further. Years before his arrival, Leibniz had written a design for a Society of Sciences in Mainz, and an attack on the core of Descartes’ system.
With a resolve to defeat the more deeply rooted enemy of empiricism, Leibniz joined Colbert’s technology school for the next years, where he became associated with the great experimental scientist and DaVinci follower, Christian Huygens. For Leibniz, it was not a piecemeal approach; by the time he was studying in Paris, the comprehension of the incompatibility of the real universe with the empiricist model had taken hold. This comprehension was realized by examining his own mind and genius, and allowing the powers of his mind to operate outside of the Euclidean, Cartesian models that were being asserted.
Upon leaving Paris, Leibniz planned a continuation of the Colbert school outside of France, and directed his powers of invention to outflank Venice at their own game.
Following Nicolas of Cusa’s concept of human reason as a level above the simple rationality of geometry—that mankind could grasp generating principles, or transcendentals, such as the quality of circular action over simple extension—Leibniz went beyond the extension based algebraic methods which Descartes had imposed. Particularly, in the case of physical curves, such as the hanging chain and the isochronic curves, Leibniz discovered a method by which the mind could discover the unseen physical relationship that is maintained and guiding the change along every smallest moment.
For Descartes all curves were described through some form of combination of x and y values, without regard to their physical nature; if that method did not work, Descartes deemed them unknowable. For Leibniz, rather than imposing an extension box upon a physical process, the physical characteristics themselves guided the investigation. Leibniz looked only at those geometrical and physical functions of physical, or geometrical curves, which were direct effects of the action, or unfolding, of the curves, and was therefore able to make the geometrical measurements of the curve reflect that intrinsic structure.
Those functions were then the means to discover the characteristic of change, the differential principle, governing the geometrical and physical curves at every moment. Then, the now conceptualized sense perceptible curve existing as whole in the mind, in other words, the integral, was then understood as a reflection of that differential, at every moment.11This is a simplified description, as each physical curve has its own particular challenge of conceiving the integral from the differential, which, are in no way direct, but require investigating the principled relationships contained in the differential. Leibniz thereby showed, like Kepler, that it is what lies within the experimental paradoxes of what is unfolded to the senses that can lead to increasing man’s knowledge and power, and not the senses themselves. The infinitesimal calculus is what the mind conceives as true.
He made this point even more explicit and powerful, however, by turning this process into a new scientific language which actually expresses and describes these unseen principles,and was the first to make this power of man into a language that could be universally communicated and applied to all physical processes.12A full demonstration of Leibniz’s method of describing and expressing “unseen principles” is beyond the scope of this report. See Kirsch, The Calling of Elliptical Functions, Dec 08 issue of Dynamis,.http://wlym.com/~seattle/dynamis/issues/december08.pdf
At the same time, in the course of ridiculing the absurdity of Descartes’ arguments or rather, as he said, simply “pronouncements based on authority rather than arguments," Leibniz began the first comprehensive study of forces, which are unseen, but measurable in their effects. This culminated in the 1690’s with a complete Keplerian manual for modern science: Leibniz’s Dynamics, a science of causes.
Through his demonstrations and reasoning, Leibniz pointed out that “the common crass concept of material substance is imperfect, indeed false; this concept is borrowed exclusively from the testimony of sensory imagination.” Leibniz showed that since there are invisible principles which must organize matter, then the matter which is intimately related to those principles takes on an active nature13Leibniz understood that it was necessary to measure what would later be known as field by the circles of Carl Gauss, not sense perceptible, but definitely measurable. Leibniz’s active matter was vindicated by the Gauss-Weber studies of electromagnetic potential, where matter is always inseparably connected with field. The future science of potential by Gauss was essentially a revival and vindication of Leibniz’s metaphysics and dynamics. Leibniz’s laws of motion were actually able to explain motions of collisions, unlike Descartes laws which limited the cause of motion to their geometrical collisions themselves. just as those principles are active, in the same way that physical curves were actively unfolded by infinitesimal principles in his calculus; and thus, his monadology, that monads are not sense perceptible unities, or infinitely hard inelastic particles, but philosophical unities, the principles that organize matter.
Leibniz had demonstrated the possibility of inelastic particles, otherwise known as Epicurean atoms, to be in contradiction with reason through his law of continuity and other methods, such as his refutation of Descartes model of matter as intrinsically at rest. Leibniz was also taking such ancient Greek standpoints for his dynamics as the paradox of the instant in Plato’s Parmenides. Plato axiomatically forced the relation between principle and change, when dealing with what appeared paradoxical from the standpoint of Parmenides’ method of mere descriptions of a state of motion or a state of rest, pointing to something which must guide the change from rest to motion, which was responsible for the paradox of the instant.
Generalizing this principle of the monadology for science as a whole, dynamics is a science of the unseen, the bounding causes which guide the actions of the various states of non-living and living matter, and how these causes bound the action of the composite they create, and further, how the causes themselves act to create change.
Embedded in the methodology of Leibniz’s dynamics and infinitesimal method of physical curves is the fact that distinct physical processes define themselves as separate distinct principles, as opposed to the homogeneous infinitely extended box of Sarpi. The concept of space, time, and motion, were for Leibniz, and for all great scientists later, particular expressions of the principles which were organizing the particular physical process under investigation. Characteristic properties are investigated in order to come to an unseen organizing principle, and it is the force of this principle which defines a particular state of existence, which is called space, time, or motion. Actions themselves define the universe from the inside.
An explosion of articles and discoveries erupted from the pages of the Leibniz’s Acta Eruditorum throughout the end of the 1680’s, and by the middle of the 1690’s had completely revolutionized all of geometry, mathematics, and physics. To emphasize the point: through Leibniz’s infinitesimal calculus, unseen principles of physical actions were now actually made definitively expressible, and thus Sarpi’s attempt to hijack science overturned. Leibniz’s discoveries, made for their own sake, were also a direct attack on Sarpi’s empiricism.
Through Leibniz’s revival of a true metaphysics according to these sciences, he defined the notion of a true scientist, dwells within the domain of creativity. Rather than the nature of the human mind reflecting a universe that consisted of extension, the universe instead reflected a human mind of a nature which consists in a capacity as an agent for the continuing creation of the universe.
Leibniz’s science of reason and causes was the guiding hand in building a republican movement capable of defending the rights of man, and capable of cutting through the empiricist sophistry that had gripped Europe.
In the years after his return from France in 1676, Leibniz organized more broadly for the creation of academies of science in each European capital, working in close contact with one another, supported by rulers who likewise sought to promote the common good and general welfare of mankind.
Most of the academies in Europe, had abandoned DaVinci’s inseparability between scientific experiment and improving man’s condition, devoted only to the satisfaction of curiosity. In contrast, Leibniz’s Academies were designed to channel the development of the arts and sciences for the benefit of the countries and their inhabitants, through the promotion of manufacturing, industry, and commerce. This would be done, as he said, in order that “the republic of scientists were no longer a mere phrase but became a well organized and prosperous great power, a federation of learned societies doing their best to civilize mankind through the expansion of sciences.” Guided by the principle that the purpose of science was to apply discoveries to increase man’s power, he wrote, “Sciences and arts are the only genuine wealth of people which distinguishes them from animals and discriminates between civilized nations and barbarians.”
As the promotion of society is the only basis for a standard of value, real scientific economy is based on this intrinsic value of creativity, in contrast to Venetian monetarism. Leibniz’s own scientific discoveries were made in such a way as to demonstrate that the universe is so designed as to place man’s reason above all. Leibniz’s creation of the Academies of Science were proscribed, guided, and later established from this same standpoint. By defeating empiricism, which suppresses the discovery process of the mind, economics could also be freed from monetarism, which suppresses human progress.
While Leibniz’s intent was moving in this direction, Venice was moving to spread its monetary empire to colonize England as a new base for their operations against the Westphalian era of the nation-state.
This brings us to, now, to the heart of our tale.
As the decade of the 1690’s came to a close, with England’s life blood being sucked dry, Leibniz reflected on the growing torrent of cultural decay of empiricism:
I even find that somewhat similar opinions, stealing gradually into the minds of men of high station who rule the rest and on whom affairs depend, and by slithering into fashionable books, are inclining towards the universal revolution with which Europe is threatened, and completing the destruction of what still remains in the world of the generous sentiments of the ancient Greeks and Romans, who placed love of country and of the public good, and the welfare of future generations, before fortune and even before life. This ’public spirit’ as the English call it, is dwindling away and is no longer in fashion; it will die away all the more when it ceases being sustained by the good morality and true religion which natural reason itself teaches us… They sneer openly at love of country, and they ridicule those who are concerned for the public good. And when some well-meaning man speaks of the prospects of posterity, they say, “let the future look after itself.”[emphasis added]
Although officially occupied by agents for Venetian empiricism and empire since the reign of James I, such as Hobbes and Bacon, the Venetians did not officially move to take over England until 1688. Fed up with the Stuart’s resistance to setting up a Central bank like in Amsterdam and their refusal to being used against France for war, Venetian agents had conspired to overthrow the King in the 1670s. This conspiracy was led by Ashley Cooper, founder of the Whig party, who was exiled in 1681 for his role in the plot. In 1688, England was fully invaded by 20,000 men and 500 ships by the Netherlands House of Orange. A Junto, of mostly Whig aristocrats allying with the invasion party, became the leadership of the government. Many were of the the circle of Cooper, some were traitors in England, and others were go-betweens like Netherlands Ambassador John Churchill.
The plan was to indebt and loot England, use it for war speculation, and eventually turn England into a base of operations of the Venetian monetary powers.
English Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, grandson of a Venetian Merchant wrote as much in 1844:
The great object of the Whig leaders in England… in 1688, was to establish in England a high aristocratic republic on the model of the Venetian. William III… told the Whig leaders, ‘I will not be a Doge.’ The reign of Anne was a struggle between the Venetian and the English systems... George I was a Doge; George II was a Doge… George III tried not to be a Doge… but he could not rid himself of the Venetian constitution.
Patriots of nations do not submit to a foreign empire so quickly. Despite the process of corruption of England since the Venetian companies moved in under James I in 1603, the culture itself still had a sovereign impulse. This was led by patriots and collaborators of Leibniz, such as Robert Harley and Daniel Defoe. In 1691 they issued a plan to fight against the speculative war debt being created by the imported Dutch methods of finance: a national land bank for development, which would regulate interest rates in accord with the necessity of productive growth of domestic economy.
This was a job for John Locke, the Junto’s main propagandist, having come over with Queen Mary in 1688 after living in exile with his sponsor, Cooper. The previous year he had attempted to the Venetian coup with his treatises on government. Now he met Harley’s economic development plan with his own sophistry, rehashing economic arguments of the Venetian allied Salamancan school, such as Martin de Azpilcueta Navarro. As an employee of those who had run the coup, Locke wrote whatever was necessary to create a counter argument. He attacked any government direction of the economy, control over currency, or any limit on interest rates to prevent speculation, arguing that the market sets the right value. “Things must be left to find their own price," as the “natural interest” is set by an unknowable force. Locke was effectively saying, money is money, and can never be brought under control, because I said so, and you are too confused by my sophistry to disagree.
After such disorientation was spread, Charles Montagu established the Bank of England in 1694 through an act of Parliament; the Bank was controlled not by the King, but parliament. Montagu was treasurer, key leader of the Venetian Junto, and part of the welcoming committee of the foreign invaders. The Bank was founded by William Paterson, an imported student of the Bank of Amsterdam.
Montagu organized large loans through the private Bank. While supposedly helping the war torn economy, he created a giant monetary debt out of thin air, a quantity for speculation and impoverishment of England, while never once issuing anything for development. He then proceeded to push through dictatorial financial decisions for the economy. For the job of carrying out the enormous volume of data processing involved in the lying and faking of financial figures during these various economic episodes, Montagu selected the calculating machine Isaac Newton as Warden of the Mint. This specialty was utilized in the gruesome “recoinage,” which cut the people’s wealth in half.
In the face of this, some of the English patriots continued to fight. Parliamentarian Robert Price rallied, “How can we hope for happy days in England when this great lord and other foreigners are in the English and also in the Dutch councils?... I foresee, that when we are reduced to extreme poverty, as now we are very near it, we are to be supplanted by our neighbors and become a colony of the Dutch.”
By, 1697, a deliberately forced depression and credit crunch left England weakened and subdued such that the Junto could then bestow upon the Bank a monopoly over all banking. To this was added the appointment of Montagu as Prime Minister. The financial takeover by the Venetian usury system was complete and the Parliament ruled the bank as the de facto government, as all policy making was absorbed into it. Montagu took a trip to Venice the next year, to report on the success of the operation. The nation of England, thrown into war and looted, was being colonized just as the Netherlands had before.
However, unlike what the Venetian empiricists would have hoped, history is guided dynamically, and the idea behind the Westphalian system acted in ways beyond their comprehension. A struggle ensued, with far-reaching consequences.
Gottfried Leibniz had begun working for the Duke of Brunswick in the House of Hanover in 1680, recruiting his wife Sophie and her daughter Sophie Charlotte to his view that only a movement of educated reason could defeat the arbitrary power of manipulated assemblies and rulers. In 1690, he had begun a history of Hanover for the Duke, gaining access to many libraries for his task. By 1692, Leibniz discovered a flank against Venice.
Leibniz demonstrated that Hanover, in which the House of Brunswick resided, was in fact next in line for the English succession, following Anne, the daughter of James II. After organizing for his claim, his finding was made official in 1696. By 1701 Robert Harley succeeded in getting the parliament to pass the Act of Settlement, guaranteeing this Hanoverian succession. When Queen Anne took the throne in 1702, this signified for the European theater in the war against Venice, that Gottfried Leibniz, the renowned leader against empiricism and advocate of the Westphalian system, could be personally advising the head of state of England.
On the opposing side, when Anne came to power, the Venetian Junto moved in to make her its tool, as William of Orange had been. Relations with Hanover where Leibniz was advising the now Electress Sophie, were tightly controlled.14Her Husband, the Duke of Brunswick, had died in 1696, putting her next in line. Things came to a head in 1705, when Leibniz and his circles conspired for a visit of Sophie to London, in order to directly influence Anne against the Junto. Montagu’s network blocked the action by means of an open letter circulated to embarrass Queen Anne and smear Leibniz’s name. Montagu subsequently made a personal visit to Hanover, attempting to secure the crown for the Junto over Leibniz, in the case of Anne’s death.
Other, more covert opportunities would have to be taken, and Leibniz’s allies around the court began secretly educating Anne in the principles of the nation-state republic, including republican intelligence operative extraordinaire and Leibniz’s main ally in the Isles, Jonathan Swift.
In July 1706, Secretary of State Harley was on the verge of achieving peace with France when the Junto struck back, demanding Harley be removed and replaced by one of their own. Anne resisted, and her intention began manifesting itself against them, leading to a breakthrough when Swift personally came to England in 1708. Anne began moving openly against Venice’s interests in favor of England, even seeking to replace her Venetian Junto Prime Minister. The Swift-Leibniz faction was threatening takeover.
The Junto, in a panic, pulled out all the stops. Montagu flagged his asset at the Mint, now President of Royal Society, Newton, and a proposal for a public defamation campaign against Leibniz was written out. At the same time, John Churchill, head of the army in the ongoing war with France and who had had the most control over the Queen, personally blackmailed her. Churchill threatened resignation unless Harley was dismissed. The Queen submitted, Harley resigned, and the Venetian Junto subsequently filled every post in the cabinet. Having won the battle, the penned accusation of plagiarism against Leibniz was shelved for the time.15This was an accusation that Leibniz had not discovered the principle of the infinitesimal calculus but had taken it from Newton.
But the Junto had overplayed its hand, and Anne was simply waiting for an opportunity to bring the Swift-Leibniz circles in to save her nation, the latter in turn used ironic wit and the enemy’s own mistakes against them. When Swift returned to England in August 1710, the Junto ministry was cleaned out by the end of the month.
Under these new circumstances, the idea of Leibniz coming to London with Sophie was an ever present threat in the minds of the Venetians and the Dutch invaders.
Realizing their defeat, the Venetian Junto raged and took every route they could to discredit Leibniz, whose influence they could feel but not understand. Only two months after being ejected from the ministry, the Junto initiated its latent attack on Leibniz.
Montagu advised his asset at the Royal Society, Isaac Newton, that it would be wise to move the Society to a location more supportive of the new agenda, to London’s financial district. In November 1710, the Royal Society, which had always been located at Gresham College, was moved to Crane Court, by the diktat of Newton, against the desires of the majority of the Academy. With this accomplished, the charge of plagiarism penned in 1708, was now issued in the public forum of the Royal Society Proceedings from the new Royal Society, in the financial district of London.
Meanwhile, with Harley as Prime Minister, England gained a respite from the destruction of the economy. His original 1691 plan for a national land bank was pushed through. The bank began to make the means available to the country for economic development, and to alleviate the debt which had been created. Despite attempts to stall increases of available money through the use of tool Newton at the Mint, Harley’s government corporation served as a driver for development.
Leibniz endorsed this plan, communicating to the Harley cabinet: “Your new ministry disabused those foreigners who had doubted if it would contribute, as it has, to the general situation. For one can say that it surpasses its predecessor, not only in paying the costs of the present, but also in making good those of the past, and satisfying the debts of the nation.” In this new context, Leibniz devised a second attempt to bring Sophie and himself to London to strengthen the validity and resolve of Harley’s ministry.
In desperation, Montagu had his asset Newton at the Royal Society issue a rant in April 1712. While it was about anything but the infinitesimal calculus, he declared himself its originator and claimed that Leibniz had never existed. This rant was praised by the financiers and bank parasites in the Court, and in the wake of the fraud they used this “official” ruling of plagiarism to their effect, wielding it as leverage to move against Leibniz directly.16This is known as Newton’s Commercium Epistolicum Collinii & aliorum, De Analysi promota, his “official” ruling from the Royal Society of Leibniz as plagiarist. The rant, being issued in April 1712, was later printed and distributed more generally in the spring of 1713.
Thus, when the new visit for Sophie to London was officially made in September of that year, it was blocked, this time despite the dominant Harley ministry. The anti-Leibniz faction in Anne’s cabinet began to attack him from within, and personally encouraged Anne to prevent the visit. In addition, Montagu himself had appeared at Hanover, counseling Venice’s Hanoverian asset Georg Ludwig against Sophie making the trip; Georg subsequently moved to cut Leibniz’s salary in Hanover.
In the aftermath of this, Leibniz wrote the next month to an ally in the ministry of the difficulty: “You will have received my letter where I spoke to you of the plot that I learned of to attack me in your country...”
When Sophie died in May 1714 of natural causes, Anne was no longer seen as a necessity to block Leibniz’s control of England under Sophie. She herself died within weeks of Sophie, with similar symptoms to those of the wife, son, grandson, and nephew of Louis XIV who were all lethally poisoned in 1712. The newly crowned Venetian asset King George immediately rejected the peace plan with France accomplished by Harley and Anne, and made Charles Montagu his Prime Minister.
Leibniz wrote to his ally in Hanover, Caroline of Ansbach, Princess of Wales, that it was not Sophie, but England, that was lost by her death. The threat of Leibniz coming to power in England and coordinating a broader alliance of nation-states, influenced the actions of the Junto in England from 1702-1714. With this threat removed, under Junto asset King George in 1714, there was no obstacle the Venetian empire of monetarism could not then overcome. England was then destined to be the seat of a new world monetary Empire, by the close of two generations later.
Despite the colonization of England, Leibniz was scoring victories elsewhere around the World for the movement of creative reason. Near the time of the Peace of Utrecht accomplished by Harley in 1713 between France and England, Leibniz was on the verge of a triple alliance between the policies of England, Austria, and Russia.
Through his longtime conspiracies with republicans in Europe, Leibniz’s influence over Charles VI of Austria was growing, with whose father Leopold I he had been in correspondence since the 1690’s. In 1712, Charles appointed him Imperial Privy Councilor. Beginning January 1713 he personally spent nearly two years in Vienna, working with Charles and his allies on various projects. These included the development of the industries and raw materials of Austria, an alliance with Russia, and potentially, Sophie’s England. During this time Charles adopted Leibniz’s design for an Academy of Sciences centered in Vienna, and appointed him as its president. It was modeled on the success of the Leibniz designed Berlin Academy founded in 1700.
In October 1711, Peter the Great asked Leibniz in person to rewrite the mathematics, scientific, and economic program for Russia. A year later Peter made Leibniz Privy Councilor of Justice. Peter began implementing many of Leibniz’s projects and designs. Leibniz wrote to Peter:
I am not one of those who love only their mother land or any single nation. All my thoughts are turned to the benefit of mankind because I consider the Heavens to be my mother country and all sensible persons its fellow citizens.... My ultimate goal is to increase general prosperity... I prefer seeing an upsurge in the development of sciences in Russia than their slow progress in Germany. A country where sciences sustain continuous growth will be dearest to me because this country is most likely to promote and thus to contribute to the general good of mankind.
Over 1696-1716, Leibniz had five meetings with Peter the Great, on two occasions for weeks at a time. They were in continual correspondence.
Berlin, Vienna, and St. Petersburg were all implementing Leibniz’s anti-empiricist scientific model of discovery. During the same time, Leibniz’s work of many years to demonstrate the futility of the Protestant-Catholic conflict which Venice had used to beat back the nation-state was beginning to bear fruit, and Leibniz had also been commissioned to organize an alliance between Austria and Russia to end war with France.
Therefore, consider now the corruption of science and ruin of civilization by Venice, and Leibniz’s ingenious routing of that plan. Consider those intersecting intentions from the standpoint of the implications for Venice of certain predicates of Leibniz’s broader organizing of conspirators for an alliance of reason. As the vortex for all the great statesman of Europe, the potential which he had built up through his meetings and correspondences were coming to fruition faster than Venice could keep track. Despite Venice’s political victory in England, the power of Leibniz’s ideas themselves and the blossoming of creative thought which they had born throughout Europe, meant that a longer term, generational success for Venice was impossible.
And from that standpoint, consider the events which had occurred preliminary to that which is now unfolded, here.
Faced with the proliferation of Leibniz’s victories, the Venetian empire was fanatic. Acting on the longer wave historical impulse, it deployed North one Abbé Antonio Schinella Conti, a “theologian” in the tradition of Paolo Sarpi and Francesco Zorzi.
Conti went to France posing as a follower of Leibniz’s metaphysics, and made inroads into Leibniz’s political networks, particularly with Leibniz’s key correspondent in the French Court, Nicolas Remond, the chief counselor for the next ruler of France. By these means, and making a show, Leibniz’s correspondents’ sung Conti’s praises as a scholar, and Conti was able to attract Leibniz’s attention as a possible ally. Leibniz was skeptical of the renown of his work, raising the question whether Conti could rid himself of the “spur of wanting to be original”; however, in 1715, when Conti wrote to Leibniz offering his assistance to work on his behalf in London, Leibniz took his chances in using him to remove the blockade to his passage into the city.
Georg Ludwig of Hanover, now King George I of England, had long been one to take orders. Since his crowing in the summer of 1714, he had kept Leibniz from entering London. After Leibniz left the side of Charles VI in Vienna, and returned to Hanover—to resume the post he held for the preceding 40 years as Privy councilor of Justice and historiographer—he was supposed to have traveled to England with Caroline of Ansbach, and the new King.
At that time, with Montagu was Prime Minister under George I. Montagu’s personal project of the Newton hoax was increasingly used for the purposes of the empire. In fact it was the main obstacle to his entrance. Since the crowning of George I, an abundance of Leibniz’s allies in Hanover had been pushing the Royal Society to end the “dispute,” in order for Leibniz to gain access to London. Leibniz himself had ridiculed the hoax with satirical wit.
This 1712 ruling of the Royal Society, which had secured the main source of political capital for Montagu’s faction back then, was waning by 1715. And, the ever unreliable Newton had worsened the situation by his non-credible defense of the hoax in 1714, where he feigned a supposed committee of authors, when he had written the ruling himself; his endless writings about infinite series; and his blatant lie to cover the glaring fact of the lack of any calculus in his Principia, which Leibniz had pointed out: no reader with respectability accepted Newton’s claims.
In Newton’s 1714 An Account of the Book entitled Commercium Epistolicum Collinii & aliorum, De Analysi promota, Newton exposed himself, among similar examples:
By the help of the new Analysis[read: infinitesimal calculus] Mr. Newton found out most of the Propositions in his Principia Philosophia: but because the Ancients for making things certain admitted nothing into Geometry before it was demonstrated synthetically, he demonstrated the Propositions synthetically, that the System of the Heavens might be founded upon good Geometry. And this makes it now difficult for unskilful Men to see the Analysis by which those Propositions were found out.
Newton and the Royal Society would have blown the whole operation; so, in what otherwise would have been handled in the usual ungraceful manner by Newton, Abbé Conti personally intervened.17See Newton’s debates over plagiarism of Light with Huygens and Hooke which involved reckless bullying and theft, and his suppression of Royal Astronomer John Flamsteed’s work.
With George I securely in place to make his move, the door to the inner circle of the King’s court was an easy passage for Conti in 1715 to then act the part of Venice’s immediate interests in every possible way.
First, Conti secured the continued blockade of Leibniz by salvaging the plagiarism fraud. Conti personally renewed the idea of settling the non-existing dispute and then had the husband of King George’s mistress call for a public display of letters between Newton and Leibniz. Conti next convinced Leibniz that if he himself acted as arbitrator, he could get Newton to concede the dispute and clear the way for Leibniz’s entry into London.
Accepting his offer, Leibniz wrote a letter showing that Newton’s supposed claims had nothing to do with the calculus, as they were limited to infinite series. Conti then personally coaxed Newton into replying, rekindling his petty rage. Having won his aim in reigniting the embers of controversy, Conti could then begin openly working against Leibniz. He reported that he had “been won over” to the other side. The subtle inconsistency exposed to Leibniz Conti’s character and Leibniz caught on to his agenda, noting his miraculous conversion to Newtonian philosophy: “He does not appear to have fixed principles and is similar to a Chameleon who takes the color of the things which it touches.”
Secondly, having successfully blocked Leibniz’s entry to England, Conti acted on another issue near and dear to Venice’s long term interests. Among the reasons for the Venetians to hate and fear Leibniz, during his research for the history and origins of Hanover since the 1680’s, including his stay in Venice in 1689-90, he had poked into very sensitive areas which the Venetian’s held sacred.
On his departure for Hanover in 1690 Leibniz noted, “I am about to return home after a long journey undertaken by order of my prince for the purpose of historical investigations... there were contradictions and errors on the matter in the historians of Este, together with a complete confusion of houses and persons.” The House of Este was, in addition to being the leading house of Hanover, the most avid House for the dissolution of the Westphalian system and a return to the ultramontane system, where the arbitrary law of one emperor overrides and dissolves the sovereignty of the laws passed by nations. Leibniz’s views on the history of the House of Este, and what other facts he may have found, brought the Venetian hatred of Leibniz to a boil.18What evidence against the Venetian system of control was included in his broader historical researches of Europe relating to the division of the churches which Leibniz had sought so long to unify, and which was Venice’s basis for continuous war and friction between nations? What other secrets concerning the House of Este’s campaign against the Renaissance did they want buried?
Venice knew that Leibniz’s history of Hanover, near publication in 1713, was to include his work on the House of Este. They also knew of his expressed intention to publish his researchers as a fuller, complete history of the peoples of Europe. Thereby did Abbot Giuseppe Riva, chief secretary of the Este family working then in Hanover, exchange letters with Italian Historian Lodovico Muratori around the same time that Montagu triggered the Royal Society to make its plagiarist claim. Riva utilized the fact that Leibniz had borrowed historical manuscripts on the house of Este to drum up more whispers of plagiarism around the name of Leibniz.
But of far greater importance to the Venetian system was to preempt and discredit Leibniz’s own publication of the history. Therefore, in 1716, Conti brought Riva and Newton to his house to strategize. Subsequently, Conti personally had the message delivered to Muratori that he must publish a history before Leibniz, and rewarded him kindly for doing so.
Third, with Leibniz kept out of London, Conti moved to extinguish any of his remaining influence. After having blown up the plagiarism hoax, Conti ensured an end to Leibniz’s further influence inside the court with the help of court chaplain and one of Newton’s handlers Samuel Clarke. The two began conducting long discussions with Caroline, wife of future King George II and Leibniz’s closest ally remaining in the court, attacking Leibniz’s philosophical method. Caroline reported to Leibniz that Conti had “taken the trouble to lose some of the papers” of Leibniz which she had been studying. Conti proceeded to guide Clarke’s hand in a correspondence with Leibniz, which drew out the true face and reason for what would be Conti’s subsequent task.
Clearly, the depths and range of Leibniz influence in England and other venues, required nothing short than the personal act of Venice. However, all of this so far was merely damage control and did not address the sensitive matter for Venice of the radiating influence of the power of the human mind which they so loathed. Nor did it address the effects creativity in continuing to subvert the empiricist model which Paolo Sarpi had hoped to achieve. Leibniz had spearhead the unleashing of this creativity, and the continued impact of his mind threatened victory over Venice. With this motive of the Venetian oligarchical powers now in mind, the following becomes clear:
Once Conti had caught wind of Leibniz’s death, Newton received a letter: “Leibniz is dead: the dispute is finished.” In the mind that wrote those simple words, a shift in intention occurred, and his longer mission began: to subvert Leibniz’s creative method of thought.
Having personally stoked the flames of the fake controversy with Newton, the potential which Conti gained through the Royal Society hoax leading up to Leibniz’s death was a mere first step. Immediately after Leibniz’s death, Conti began preparations for a distinct shift in Newton’s usefulness for the Venetian system. This time it would be for a much more long standing purpose.
Under the celebrity of Newton, Descartes’ soul would be revived, and mathematics would officially return as the only standard of truth, with mass conversions of its followers to a new empiricist ideology.
But… who really was, Isaac Newton?
The answer is, that Isaac Newton, or as he named and considered himself, Jeova sanctus unus,19“God’s Holy One” would have been but a passing name today had it not been for Gottfried Leibniz. The real Newton was obscure, whose only significance during his lifetime was as a tool for the successful colonization of England by the Venetian system. But after Leibniz’s death, “Newton the Religion” was used to colonize the minds of the Europe.
At the end of the 16th century and beginning of the 17th, through correspondence and collaboration with Francis Bacon, Robert Fludd, and others, Sarpi made inroads to spread his influence over the science of England. The British Rosicrucian heirs of Bacon’s Oxford Society, created the Royal Society, exerting a growing influence in the name of “science” over Europe. Its black magic and alchemical Rosicrucian sect believed in a god who had been revived and popularized by Venetian operatives against the nation-state. Sarpi in turn communicated this philosophy to his followers in secret as the state religion of Venice.
Created out of the hatred of the reciprocal relationship which existed after the 1440 Council of Florence, between Christianity and acts of scientific discovery20See also footnote 1 and the sentence to which it refers., the agenda going back to Pomponazzi and Contarini was to theologically find a way to deny the existence of human creativity and with it the conception of man congruent with the existence of commonwealths and nation-states. The product was the “anti-trinitarian” God of arbitrary irrational will on the one side, and the inherently sinful man on the other.
Underscored by the presence of these governing social forces, the details of Newton’s person life are irrelevant. What is necessary is to understand how Isaac Newton was fertile ground to serve as a receptacle for the anti-human ideas which had infiltrated England.
Although exposed to it earlier, Newton’s real devotion to alchemy began in 1667 after returning to Cambridge and working with Isaac Barrow.21Isaac Barrow had held the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics at Cambridge, and after tutoring Newton in infinite series, theories of light, and sponsoring his alchemy, Barrow dumped his chair on Newton in 1669, himself wanting to move on to other things. When Newton was forced to teach something in order to keep his chair, no one showed up to his second lecture. Subsequently, after mumbling to an empty room a few times, Newton ceased teaching anything, altogether. Newton began reading and making extensive notes in such Rosicrucian tracts as Themis Aurea and Symbola Aureae Mensae Dudecim, and The Fame and Confession of the Fraternity R.C. He adopted the Rosicrucian view that if one followed the secrets of Rosicrucianism he would become part of a superior race that could talk to angels, become immortal through discovering the secret elixir, and infinitely wealthy through possession of the philosopher’s stone.
While performing all the steps of alchemy in trying to find the secret of turning lead into gold, in 1675 he met professional alchemist Robert Boyle. Later that year Newton wrote Clavis(the key), the pinnacle of his 6 years of work on alchemy:
For alchemy does not trade with metals as ignorant vulgars think, which error has made them distress that noble science; but she has also material veins of whose nature God created handmaidens to conceive and bring forth its creatures.... Concerning Magnesia or the Green Lion. It is called Prometheus and the Chameleon. Also Androgyne, and virgin verdant earth in which the Sun has never cast its rays although he is its father and the moon its mother: Also common mercury, dew of heaven which makes the earth fertile, nitre of the wise… It is the Saturnine stone.
By 1678 he had constructed 47 axioms of alchemy, having conducted all the rituals himself. This real Newton connected with what he thought were the hidden mysteries of God in this way. Through his secret knowledge, he predicted the end of the world, and came to the conclusion that the universe was created in 4004 B.C. His library eventually swelled to 130 heavily annotated books on alchemy and many of the major Rosicrucian texts.
At the same time, by 1670 Newton, had also been converted to the anti-trinitarian religious cults which had been created in England, imported from Venice. Newton did not publicly espouse this view, as it would have cost him his Mathematics chair, and cost his later controllers much more.
He however did introduce his assistant professor William Whiston to the faith, who was consequently kicked out of the post in 1710. Whiston later wrote:
They persecuted me for the very same… doctrines which the great Sir I.N. had discovered and embraced many years before me;... had he ventured as plainly and openly to publish them to the world as I thought myself oblig’d to do... they must 30 or 40 Years ago have expell’d and persecuted the Great Sir Isaac Newton, also.22Later in 1716, when Whiston applied for a membership to the Royal Society, Newton, its President, threatened to resign if he came on. Politically, it would have been a serious damper to Conti’s operation in full swing that year. Whiston added that Newton’s writings and beliefs, “concerning the Trinity in particular” were “occasionally known to those few who were intimate with him all along; from whom, notwithstanding his prodigiously fearful, cautious, and suspicious Temper, he could not always conceal so important a Discovery." Of the subject Newton “long appeared to [him] to have been one of the greatest Masters that ever was.”
Thus, when Leibniz sent Newton a letter in 1675, having caught wind of his collaboration with Barrow on quadratures using infinite series, Newton reluctantly pulled himself away from the cauldron to write a response, adding “For having other things in my head, it proved an unwelcome interruption to me to be at this time put upon considering these things.”
These were the “other things” in Newton’s “head," and were in fact the very reason Newton would later be chosen by the Venetian Junto in England, as a controllable servant in his subsequent roles he would play for them.
Only by understanding the facts does Newton’s role become clear. But, it is important to stress, that unlike those witting Venetian hands like Sarpi and correspondents Bacon and Hobbes, Newton was never anything more than an unfortunate individual who was susceptible to having been successfully caught in this guiding dynamic.
While England was being prepared for its later takeover by the Venetian colonized Netherlands in the 1680’s, networks behind the Royal Society selected a ripened Isaac Newton for the name to be connected with the Principia, a book whose multiple reincarnations would prove, looking back a century later, to have devastating effects on science. This was the first step in the real Newton’s long political career as active Venetian pawn.
In Johannes Kepler’s discovery of the principles determining the motions of the heavenly bodies, written in his New Astronomy and Harmonies of the World, he had experimentally demonstrated that the solar system was governed by a knowable principle of reason. Kepler developed a science of causes, based on irony and paradox, where the mind’s recognition of ironies in collected data was primary.
The Principia was created to serve as the indisputable manual and method for science, as a replacement for Kepler’s method and discovery of gravitation, using a mathematical formula, the inverse square law, which expressed an effect named “attraction." Since this mathematical formula was assumed to be able to describe all celestial phenomena, the physical cause of the sun of Kepler’s New Astronomy, Kepler’s method of the harmonies, and valid scientific method of hypothesis beside, was to be thrown out and banished from science, in kinship with the Sarpi model.
The supposed breakthrough of the inverse square law, which was only hailed by those who sought political favors from Montagu, was plagiarized by mixing mathematical formulas from Kepler’s 1619 Harmonies of the World and Huygens 1670 work on centrifugal force. This fact was admitted after Newton’s death by Henry Pemberton, one of his editors. For this task, the alchemist Newton was not required, nor would have considered it. He may however have been asked to resolve the trouble that the Royal Society network claimed to have had in mathematically resolving the inverse square formula with the geometrical Ellipse. What Newton most certainly did do for the sake of the Principia’s completion was calculate. A student is recorded as saying, when spotting Newton walking across campus in Cambridge, “There goes the man that writt a book that neither he nor anybody else understands.”
Swift had captured the characteristic, that along with being a specialist in alchemy, black magic, and biblical prophecy, Newton had a form of autism which made him incapable of discovery, but a perfect calculator, and so much so, that he could hardly socialize in any normal manner, operating only in very controlled environments.
According to Jonathan Swift’s second cousin Dean Swift, Swift had described Newton as “the worst companion in the world.”:
If you asked him a question he would revolve in a circle in his brain, round and round and round, (and here Swift described a circle on his own forehead), before he could produce an answer. [Swift] used to also tell of Sir Isaac, that his servant having one day called him to dinner, and returning, after waiting some time, to call him a second time, found him mounted on a ladder balanced against the shelves of his library, a book in his left hand, and his head reclined against his right, sunk in such a fit of abstraction, that he was obliged, after calling him once or twice, to actually jog him, before he could awaken his attention. This was precisely the office of the flapper." Swifts floating island of “La puta” is peopled with thousands of Newtons, each of whom are awakened from their mathematical daze by flappers. 23The Works of Jonathan Swift, by Walter Scott, Edinburg, 1814.
When Montagu later made Newton President of the Royal Society, he altered the form of meetings so that there was no open discussion and one could only speak if Newton called on them. Behind closed doors he would flaunt his sponsored status to those he thought beneath him as in his cruel acts toward those such as Flamsteed. But, in public, such as his stints in Parliament, Newton never said a word, as under confrontation he could not function. The two cases of him speaking in the public forum of Parliament was one, to ask someone to shut a window, and two, when he read a short statement from paper, but when asked for clarification as to what he had read he sat frozen in silence.
After participating in the first version of the Principiathis project, Newton returned to his well deserved obscurity as an alchemist. He later suffered a mental breakdown through the summer and fall of 1692. He was later contacted by Montagu, who would later use him as calculating machine in the Mint, in 1696.
Subsequently, when the Venetian Junto was desperate for something with which to attack Leibniz, a reputation was steadily built up for him inside England: Montagu, himself the former head of the Royal Society from 1695-8, put Newton at the head of it in 1703, and would slowly build up his reputation in England, assisting in the organization of Newton’s plagiarized work on light and its demonstration in the controlled environment of the Royal Society, with experiments designed to create effects that fit his assumptions. At the same time a version of the calculus rewritten in fluxion notation was printed in 1704.24The only source of Newton’s account of his early discoveries, related to what he mistakes for the calculus but which was only infinite series, came from himself. It was not until after Leibniz’s calculus was published in 1691-92 by John Bernoulli, Guillaume de L’Hopital, and Pierre Varignon on the continent, that John Wallis claimed Newton had something similar with infinite series and quadratures. Then, with the war on against Leibniz, in preparation for, and building up Newton against Leibniz, a supposed exposition of Newton’s fluxions was put forward by someone else in 1704. This exposition was a mess of quadratures, and was faked to be original, copying Leibniz’s work and changing the notation. No one in Newton’s lifetime outside of England believed Newton discovered anything in the calculus besides a possible twist on Barrow’s quadrature using infinite series. With this infinite series he never accomplished anything further, having taken up other interests, as we have seen. And, this is despite the fact that Leibniz sent him a full account of his differential calculus in 1677 after receiving merely a cryptic note about infinite series and containing the mere word “fluxion” and “tangent” from Newton in 1676. The reputation built up would then be launched against Leibniz, when the political fate of the Junto demanded it.
Then, in 1708, upon the combined influences of the continuing intent to make England the seat of the new Venetian empire, and the continuing battle with Leibniz, the decision was made to put out a new version of the Principia, one that would better serve the purposes for which it was created: a manual capable of enforcing the philosophy of empiricism.
The first edition was riddled with hundreds of errors and incomplete, including its faulty lunar theory, pointed out by Flamsteed. But above all, it had lacked the ability to perform the function for which Newton was then later to be used. In addition, by this time, Leibniz had refuted Descartes beyond repair and put out a full physics manual, his Dynamics. In order for Venice’s own desperately needed English Descartes, a new empiricist archetype was required; thus, the 1713 publication of the 2nd edition.
The 1713 second edition of the Principia hardly resembled the first. It was now thoroughly corrected of the hundreds of errors over the course of four years and filled with new material gathered from other sources, which contained most of the so-called substance it was later promoted as having. In end effect, it was twice the size, doubling from 500 to 1000 pages. But all of this was to give it more credibility.
The real purpose of the second edition was seen in its overall presentation, which took on a radical form of empiricism, and included an denial of Leibniz’s metaphysics—which had been circling through Europe with success in the 1690’s—and an open declaration of Sarpi’s core philosophy of sense perception as a replacement for hypotheses.
The preface now consisted both of a direct attack against Leibniz’s circulating principle of sufficient reason25In Leibniz’s metaphysics, or physics of the mind, which pervaded all of his discoveries and correspondences, he explicitly revived what is implied and guides all human reasoning, stating that there must always be a sufficient reason why something is so, rather than otherwise. Leibniz himself later wrote of the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence, that “the supporters of Mr. Newton find themselves,” in the necessity, “to deny the great principle of the need for a sufficient reason, by means of which I beat them into ruin.”—which had given patriots of nation-states the upper hand—and an attempt to defend the Royal Society authors from attacks of atheism and the occult nature of “attraction.” Leibniz had pointed out after the 1st edition, that the Newton and his handlers had “revived the occult qualities with the idea of attraction," since the “attraction of bodies, properly so called, is a miraculous thing, since it cannot be explained by the nature of bodies.”
The nine “hypotheses” in the first edition, became, the four “Rules of Reasoning” in the second: in addition to the first version’s Ockhamite “causes do not exist if they can be explained by the senses simpler." Rule 3 asserted that there are no innate ideas in the human mind, only sense-perceptibly derived thoughts. Rule 4 asserted his “hypotheses non-fingo” (I frame no hypotheses). Both of these would also be stressed again at the end in the General Scholium, which was perhaps the most significant addition to the book.
For the witting reader, these and the General Scholium at the end of this second edition now exposed Newton as a follower of the anti-trinitarian religious sects, of which he was a member. Leibniz would later attack Newton for this in the Leibniz-Clarke letters, when he pointing out that Newton’s God of an unreasonable and winding down universe “will be like the God of the Socinians.” While exposing Newton as a Socinian, one of many anti-trinitarian religious sects created by Venice against the Council of Florence, Leibniz had taken note that “Newton’s” Optics presented the universe as a winding down clock. The passage of the Optics read “some very small irregularities, which may have arisen from the mutual actions of the planets and comets one upon another… will in length of time increase more and more, till the present system of Nature shall want to be anew put in Order by its author.” Leibniz pointed out that the implication of creating a Creator who, as Leibniz said, would need to “wind up his watch from time to time," was merely to uphold the belief in an unknowable, irrational universe, so as to avoid having to use one’s reason. 40This view asserted here in the Optics, was later defended by Lord Kelvin and Rudolph Clausius, who asserted the exact same view, only through a new venue, that of the study of heat powered machines. These doctrines of entropy lead to conceptions of the universe that tolerate the philosophy of zero growth. They are not scientific theories, they are beliefs.
Looking more closely at Newton’s General Scholium added at the end, we see the explicit Socinian expression, echoing Sarpi and Descartes:
What the real substance of any thing is we know not. In bodies, we see only their figures and colours. We hear only the sounds. We touch only their outward surfaces. We smell only the smells, and taste the flavours; but their inward substances are not to be known either by our senses, or by any reflex act of our minds...26Cf. Descartes Principles of Philosophy, Part I, Principles of Human Knowledge. “The chief principles of human knowledge seem to me to be contained in… the knowledge of a certain corporeal nature, or one extended, divisible, mobile, etc.; and also the knowledge of certain sensations which affect us, for example, pain, colors, flavors, etc.”
Guided by this religion of empiricism as the ever present background, what would otherwise have been simply deemed a mathematical effect, the formula of “attraction,” was made into a veritable God. By the diktat of this formula, the universe was simplified, and no longer required causes. Only senses were required, yet what orders them remained unknown. The formula of attraction was meant to claim the ability to describe all astronomy, removing the necessity to resolve any possible paradoxes which creative minds may later encounter: the true meaning of “hypotheses non fingo." Throughout the second edition, the inverse square law was even more explicitly used for this purpose of removing the creative process from science.
Physics and science was reduced to the worship of mathematics. Those who fell in line with its axiomatic structure were admitted into the practice of science without their own participation in discovery. The mathematical mechanism of “attraction” was the bait for the mental trap, leading the would be to adopt the empiricist doctrine, “what the real substance of any thing is we know not.”
And finally, in form with the next consequence in the theorem lattice of empiricism, the limitation of knowledge and laws to sense perception, leads to the mysticism of Newton’s belief: the cause of “attraction” which the formula showed, was a continuous miracle, and only “explainable“ as the result of an unknowable action by an unknowable Socinian God, who immediately impels bodies towards each other constantly.
In his last letter in a series to Reverend Bentley, later one of Newton’s handlers of the second Principia, in February 25th, 1693, Newton explains more about his idea whether or not gravity is an innate property of matter itself:
Tis inconceivable, that inanimate brute matter should (without the mediation of something else, which is not material) operate upon and affect other matter without mutual contact; as it must, if gravitation, in the sense of Epicurus, be essential and inherent in it. And this is one reason why I desired you would not ascribe innate gravity to me. That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action or force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters any competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this agent be material or immaterial, is a question I have left to the consideration of my readers.
Whiston relayed the fact after Newton’s death, that Newton always thought attraction was caused by the “Power of the Deity.” 27This is the basis for the belief in Adam Smith’s force that makes the market “adjust itself," so that everything works out in the end. Kepler’s principle of gravitation gave a sufficient reason for both elliptical motion and the particular ellipses found in the solar system, through the creative principle of a continuous harmonic tuning of the solar system. Instead of this, reason was held as secondary to the pure arbitrary will of the creator, a fact which Leibniz would later draw out in his correspondence with Clarke, under the supervision of “Theologian” and priest, Abbé Conti.
These were the new elements added to the second edition of the Principia. In sum, it was turned into a Sarpi manual, of which he would be proud, and a weapon against Leibniz’s science of reason and human creativity, which guided republican thinkers to choose the promotion of the human mind.
When this edition was finally published in 1713, Antonio Conti’s strings were fully in effect, if not earlier, and he would from thence forth take over the regulation of the asset Newton until his death. In the aftermath of Leibniz’s death, Conti may have realized that choosing Newton for the task had been a risk, with the number of crucibles he had in his closet. Despite that fact, he determined that Newton would serve the purpose of a new empiricism for the empire, as Sarpi’s Descartes had served until he was rendered useless by Leibniz.
With Leibniz safely dead, Conti spent the next ten years cleaning up Newton’s closet in preparation for his after life.
Conti fashioned an image of Newton in the early 1720’s cleaned from true face which Leibniz had unveiled before his death. For the purpose of creating a general philosophy of pure mathematics, Conti devoted many of his writings attempting to make the case that Newton did not share the beliefs which Leibniz had exposed, which, as we have seen, if allowed to be generally connected with Newton, would have ruined him for Conti’s following project.
For example, Conti turned Newton’s attraction into a pure mathematical formula. Conti wrote that, considering hypotheses, is not it better, “to be satisfied with the one which… in a strict sense, is not considered a hypothesis.” Having explicitly defined hypothesis as a math formula, he continued, that concerning the inverse square law, “so far we have been fairly lucky. Because this hypothesis explains more than any other. The more we examine nature, the more we observe, the more the hypothesis is confirmed." So, there is no reason to “lose ourselves in the abyss where all is equally dark and dangerous,” by connecting them to Newton’s force of attraction, or for Conti’s more general sophistical aim, real causes. 28Badaloni, Un abate libero pensatore tra Newton e Voltaire, 1968.
Having prepared Newton’s image, Conti then proceeded as follows.
Continuing operations for his purpose in France and England since Leibniz’s death, Conti only returned to Venice in 1726, after he successfully created a machine to set in motion.
Having recruited Voltaire as part of his activities in France, he deployed him to England, near the end of Newton’s life, to coordinate the run up to and aftermath of how his death would be handled for the vile purpose Conti had in mind.
Manufacturing stories of Newton’s greatness and tales of a man that never was, it was from Voltaire personally that came the story of Newton as a childhood genius that discovered attraction and fluxions in his garden in 1665-66 through spiritually endowed fruit. It is from Voltaire’s myths and coordination of the information of others where the stories originated of Newton as the gentle, aloof scholar, only thinking of his great discoveries.
After spending at least two years in England after Newton’s death to coordinate the English side of the story, meeting regularly with people such as Newton’s pre-Conti controller, Samuel Clarke, and other enemies of Leibniz and Swift in the court, Voltaire returned to France to unleash the next stage of Conti’s plan. The real myth of Newton was begun.
Back in France, Voltaire would write his famous Letters Concerning the English Nation, in which he coaxed the French audiences to give up their suspicions of Newton and accept him as the new Descartes. Years later, in 1737-38, he and Conti’s Venetian countrymen Francesco Algarotti, printing in Venice, came forth with long philosophical works dedicated to popularizing the abstruse, unreadable Principia and Optics of “Newton." “Attraction” was made into a household religious belief, applying it to every thinkable subject, with Voltaire specifically defending Clarke’s attack on Leibniz’s principle of sufficient reason.
The second phase and formal completion of Conti’s operation began when Frederick the Great became King in 1740. With Frederick having been manipulated by Voltaire, Louis Maupertuis, Leonard Euler, Jean le Rond d’Alembert, and others, began filing into Leibniz’s own creation, the Berlin Academy. Here, wittingly and unwittingly, they would continue Conti’s agenda to destroy Leibniz and convert more people to Newton.
With the intellectual stronghold of Leibniz’s Berlin Academy corrupted, the spread of Newtonianism moved beyond the surface level of popularizing his attraction, into the so-called, hard sciences. In an attempt to stamp out Leibniz’s dynamics, and the application of the infinitesimal calculus to physical and transcendental curves of the Leibniz-Bernoulli school, Descartes was reincarnated in Newton’s clothes. By the mid to late 1750’s, the task would be fairly accomplished and almost all European science and thought would be subject to the new empiricism.
It is in d’Alembert where we see the true intention of Conti most clearly; Descartes in the flesh. With the irony missed on him, d’Alembert was released from the gate in 1743 with his Treatise on Dynamics, which attempted to create a replacement for Leibniz’s dynamics based on Descartes and consistent with the Newton ideology of pure mathematical description, thinking himself to have cleaned dynamics by washing it clean of reason and metaphysical forces.
Seeing as how Leibniz had already founded a rigorous science exactly to the contrary, the first thing Maupertuis and d’Alembert did, was to throw out reason altogether, as the first assumption to extend Newtonian mathematics into dynamics.
With reason out of the picture, d’Alembert huffed that he would erect an entire system of physics based on non-existent, infinitely hard particles29Leibniz had disproved the existence of infinitely hard particles when refuting Descartes’ inconsistent laws of motion which lead to infinite jumps in motion and direction of objects, which is in contradiction to reason, since to go from one velocity to another, all intervening velocities must be passed through. While elastic particles would be capable of continuous transitions, infinitely hard particles would follow Descartes’ laws making impossible discontinuous transitions, and therefore infinitely hard particles are, impossible. In a long diatribe against Leibniz in 1746, Maupertuis simply asserted a sophism, saying that although the law of continuity states that a body has to go through all the velocities in between two different velocities, “how do we know that there is not an infinite jump between each one of those velocities?” and therefore there is nothing wrong about going from motion to rest instantaneously, nor changing directions instantaneously., in order to be able to hold on to explaining all phenomena with movement and geometry; as d’Alembert expressed:
We know nothing about movement except movement itself… the metaphysical causes of this motion are unknown to us, that what we call causes… are only improperly called causes; they are effects from which other effects result... forces inherent in bodies in motion are obscure metaphysical beings which are only capable of spreading shadows on a science clear in itself.[emphasis added]
For this assertion to be rammed through, it was necessary to circumvent having to deal with physical properties of bodies that might imply or demand investigations of unseen causes; however, since Leibniz had specifically demonstrated the necessity of forces when showing the fallacy of trying to derive all laws of bodies from geometrical extension, refuting Descartes’ doctrine beyond repair, for theirs to have a glimpse of credibility, the Newton religious sect had to think up something else.
D’Alembert first, and later Euler,30Euler would attempt to give his doctrine more class and credibility, following d’Alembert in the late 1740’s and in his 1760 letters to an unfortunate German princess. like good sophists, said, essentially:
We accept that the geometrical property of extension (length, width, and breath) is not enough to characterize body, but there is another geometrical property that matter has: the inability for matter to occupy the same space as other matter, i.e. impenetrability. Therefore we will add impenetrability to the essence of bodies, and say the essence of bodies is impenetrable extension.
Since impenetrability was geometrical and they made impenetrability the cause of motion after a collision, geometry itself was therefore made the cause of motion. Everything could then safely be described mathematically. By re-explaining force as merely an effect of impenetrability, Euler, gushed “[Impenetrability] is the cause of all changes in the world. It is the master-spring which nature sets a going in order to produce all her wonders.” Forces were thus deemed merely excess baggage, and d’Alembert boasted, “Arguments concerning measure of forces are entirely useless,” thinking himself to have demonstrated that “we know nothing about movement except movement itself," or more simply, “we know nothing.”
But, after setting up this geometrical monstrosity, they feigned to have realized they had to retain the property of mass, since they retained bodies, which they could then never explain, having thrown out Leibniz’s concept of force. Disembodied chunks of impenetrable extension could not explain the physical properties of bodies, and they were led from one absurdity to another, since mass is physical not mathematical.31By ridding science of causes, they were faced with an impossibly complicated mess of formulas, but, for d’Alembert, these contradictions came with the territory of following Newton. He was explicit: physics is only a branch of mathematics. To those who criticized the fact that his whole mechanics was based on non-existent hard particles, he essentially stated “I am doing mathematics, not physics. ”
Lastly, as for the calculus, what was nothing but a political stunt during Newton’s lifetime was now turned into a devastating setback for mankind’s understanding of the ontological significance of Leibniz’s method of the infinitesimal.
The Newton mathematics sect, led by their chieftain Euler, twisted Newton’s incapacity to conceptualize the principle of the infinitesimal, into a way to obscure the incommensurability of the infinitesimal with with infinite series. Euler was helplessly Newtonian in this regard, and employed infinite series to describe transcendental curves and functions, and anything else that was set before him. Euler refused to grasp the ontological nature of physics over mathematics, as seen in the way he missed Leibniz’s treatment of the ontological, inverse function characteristic of the catenary, over the lower geometric quadratures.32Gauss’s later work on elliptical functions, picked up on precisely this issue, and rather than Euler’s infinite series description, his work focused on identifying the projection of the higher process by how the higher process itself projects. See, Michael Kirsch The Calling of Elliptical Functions, Dynamis December 08, by the Author. http://wlym.com/~seattle/dynamis/issues/december08.pdf
Despite its overwhelming incompetence, by means of a dictatorial imposition of the empiricist belief through French and German salons, and elsewhere, the myth of Newton was able to be imposed upon almost every scientist in Europe by the end of the 18th century. German Renaissance leaders and Leibnizians, such as Abraham Kaestner, Moses Mendelssohn and their colleagues, won various battle’s against this process, but not the war.
Leibniz overthrew the Sarpi model of empiricism designed against the growing power of nation-state, and Venice reacted in turn to the effects of Leibniz’s method of thought. After Conti’s success in subverting creativity in Europe, the subsequent period of history was an unfolding of the principles demonstrated in the preceding. There arose a continued struggle between two principal methods.
One was characterized by what became the British Empire in 176333At the close of London’s orchestration of a war gripping all of Europe, except England, they robbed France of Canada and India, took the East Indies from the Dutch, and became the operational seat of a new world Empire. and its method of controlling nation-states by economic empiricism, and the other by the continued existence and potential of Leibniz’s mind expressed through the creation of the United States of America.
In concluding this report, the implications of the preceding are used to clarify how these two main processes determined the subsequent period of history.
By 1763, Venice’s reaction against nation-states had taken the form of an actual British Empire, this time ruling their colonies through a method embedded in Sarpi’s model of empiricism. That latter model is re-summarized from the beginning of this report:
- 1) Through Sarpi’s assertions that, “Essence and universality are works of the mind,” that “Universals…have no existence whatsoever… What do exist are bodies, extended and shaped… delimited by surface, line and point… having existence for” no other reason than, “the benefit of its own matter,” human knowledge is limited to pure extension, which served to define the relation between the mind and the nature of actions of matter in the universe to be based purely on sense perception.
- 2) From this, Sarpi redefined causes, writing that “there be no causes that are not effects," explaining all things as a consequence of an infinite series of mechanical kinematic effects. He similarly asserted a false notion of law or cause, not intrinsic to an unseen organization or dynamic, but only “laws” of descriptive effects. Mankind was relegated to using the learned formulaic descriptions of the senses as statistical knowledge to foresee “future events based upon constant repetition of events past.”
- 3) Since it is only these kinds of laws which mankind can hope for, in a universe which contains and consists of no universals whatsoever, Sarpi defined the creator, the created, and creation itself, as irrational and unknowable.
- 4) Man is thereby reduced and advised by Sarpi to play the role of beast: “Do not follow opinion that wears the title of truth, but rather opinion that wears the title of pleasure or usefulness…..The end of man, as of every other living creature, is to live… simply live in the here and now.”
Conti’s networks spawned social doctrines that were consistent with this model. In the late 1750’s, under the growing popularity of Conti’s version of Newtonian philosophy of pure sense, one doctrine in particular argued that man’s society is not and a cannot be governed by ideas: Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments. A clear understanding of this axiomatic system makes plain how it was used against the nation-state.
Thoroughly consistent as a direct application of Conti’s Newtonianism, in accord with the Sarpi model, the sophistry of Smith was to discuss people’s sentiments and feelings outside the context of man’s creative nature and the human ideas which bound and guide society.
Smith described man in his behavior and actions as purely determined by the conditioning of external sense experience as the standard of truth, and observing what is popular. Like Newton’s non-existent occult attraction as the cause of all motions, Smith utilizes an imaginary mechanism to construct his entire system of human society. The mechanism which serves as the “cause” of every sentiment encountered in society, is through the assumption that man is ruled by means of an imaginary point of cultural equilibrium, or what he called the “Impartial Spectator,” which trains man through his pure observation of the external world how to act and adjust to get approval.
Smith writes that man first discovers the supposed self-evident truth of the external senses as that with which other people will sympathize, what is popular, and what will make him feel good. Man observes what he can sympathize with others outside of himself. With his sense of what he needs to do to become popular and fit in, truth becomes only what is socially acceptable. The goal of man becomes to seek and gain approval from others, which is obtained by following that learned sense of popular opinion. Since man’s mind is asserted to be only an awareness of his feelings which adjusts to the feelings of others by observation, man does not possess reason, capable of tapping into and transmitting guiding cultural principles. Smith reduces reason to the clever ability to follow the “Impartial Spectator” to get ahead socially and be liked by others.
In summary, like Sarpi, Descartes, and Conti’s Newtonianism, what constitutes society becomes the sum of the interaction of seemingly self-evident epicurean particles, known only as the personally experienced transmission of feeling states from one person to another, where each person is regulating his own expression by means of an imagined idea of a standard for his externally observed sense perceptions. And like Sarpi’s axiomatic system, it sophistically leaves out the context of the ideas which occur and guide man’s actions, of which actions ones sentiments and feelings are merely effects. Smith took those effects and constructed a system upon them.
After 1763, the British Empire needed a new method of controlling its colonies and potential adversaries in Europe without need of imperial troops. To obtain this control, a rigorous sophistry was necessary that could convince the citizens of sovereign nations to imagine they were personally free, even while they surrendered the freedom of their government to follow a reasoned out plan of economy. That is, they had to made to relinquish their liberty, to an exterior belief created for them.
This was found in the next part of the Theory of Moral Sentiments where Smith then relieves his readers of any responsibility for the future or of acting beyond one’s own selfish desires. Smith asserts that we are incapable of governing the ends of society and of only acting for our immediate pleasures. He calls his “great discovery” that it was nature’s secret design to make us this way, and therefore one can be selfish without worrying about the consequences, since the economy of society is beyond our comprehension. As Smith wrote:
The produce of the soil maintains at all times nearly that number of inhabitants which it is capable of maintaining. The rich only select from the heap what is most precious and agreeable. They consume little more than the poor, and in spite of their natural selfishness and rapacity, though they mean only their own conveniency, though the sole end which they propose from the labours of all the thousands whom they employ, be the gratification of their own vain and insatiable desires, they divide with the poor the produce of all their improvements. They are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without knowing it, advance the interest of the society, and afford means to the multiplication of the species.[emphasis added]
This cultural model created by Smith was morphed into an identical system for a so called economics, in order to beat back what arose in 1776. Smith’s 1776 The Wealth of Nations was an application of the evil social doctrine in Smith’s 1759 publication of the The Theory of Moral Sentiments, spawned from Conti’s networks34On Conti’s networks, see, Lyndon LaRouche, How Bertrand Russell Became An Evil Man, 1994.
As an application of that social doctrine, the fraud of the The Wealth of Nations is based on the same axiomatic structure of the Sarpi model and his followers.
- The corollary to dismissing human ideas bounding society, nations, the actually existing entities of the Westphalian system, are sophistically absent from his book. Their existence is left out therefore denying the existence of the governing dynamics which determine the success of the economy.
- The essence of the economy is not the applications of human ideas through technology, but mathematical extension, descriptions of the monetary values of the flow of goods, dismissing the physical causes of what is being exchanged. As Frederich List wrote:
[Smith and his followers] treat principally of the effects of the exchange of matter, instead of treating of productive power. And as they made not the productive power, and the causes of its rise and fall in a nation, the principal object their inquiry, they neither appreciated the true effect of the different component parts of productive power, nor the true effect of the exchange of matter, nor of the consumption of it.35Frederich List, Letter 4, of his Letters to James Ingersoll 1811, in his attempt to “lay the axe at the root of the tree, by declaring the system of Adam Smith and Co. to be erroneous—by declaring war against it on the part of the American System.”[emphasis added]
The exchange is given a self-evident value outside of the productive powers of labor and cognitive context of the human systems in which they flow, rendering the economy no longer a human economy.
- Since a doctrine of mathematical extension is made the nature of the economy, economy is deemed statistically knowable but scientifically unknowable, guided by the invisible hand of the The Theory of Moral Sentiments, now re-emerging in the the pages of The Wealth of Nations:
He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it… he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention… By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good…[emphasis added]
All of these actions of the individuals’ buying and selling is guided by this invisible hand, just as the commerce of sympathies was guided by the “Impartial Spectator."
That in sum is the system of modern day economic empiricism, or monetarism. The social doctrine is its elaborate backdrop, as the empiricist belief structure that allows for The Wealth of Nations to be tolerated. From this copy of other empiricist models, we are led to the beliefs of the “self-correction” of the market, and “private vices as public virtues.”
With Adam Smith playing role as the available sophist, the British Empire’s method was to make the individual purchaser and the flow of his money the cause in economics. Rather than a reasoning process of human government guiding the application of scientific principles, economy was reduced to the kinematic interaction of individuals buying and selling.
This was then itself reduced to monetary flows, seen then as the mysterious “cause” of everything in the economy itself, and made into a matter of further importance by adding mathematics to descriptions of the money used in the buying and selling. Like the inverse square law of Newton, what is an effect of a dynamic process of the nation-state as a whole, that “market” was turned into something in and of itself.
Smith’s work was used as a tool by the monetarist interests of the British Empire to get nation-states to destroy themselves. While citizens are busy looking at statistics of the market, their real economy is destroyed behind their back.
In contrast to the destination which Europe took in the aftermath of Conti’s Newtonianism, the Venetian legacy of economic empiricism was rejected by the Winthrops, the Mathers, Benjamin Franklin, and the drafters of the Constitution of the United States.
Benjamin Franklin arose out of that culture to design a new republic according to the Leibnizian concept of a citizenry possessing true liberty: the power of following reason, with the pursuit of happiness of educated discovery guided by reason. Citizens possessing true liberty tap into the principles of the societies and nation-states which have been previously discovered, in order to continue developing that society.
The desire to enact willful actions of change led to the crystallization of a sovereign credit system. The credit system would be guided by reason instead of statistics, as the method to govern the relations of its citizens. The American System of Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and their followers was the augmentation of the principle of Leibniz’s Academies of Science with the power of the sovereign credit system. This was accomplished by means of Hamilton’s discovered regulatory powers of government needed to support the credit of a sovereign banking system, powers which could guide the structured expansion of the economy through the promotion of technological progress.
Subsequent patriots of nation-states have understood that the market, the buying and selling of goods for money by individuals, is not absolute. It is an effect of intentional progress by the willful actions of citizens toward the chosen destiny of the nation as a whole, which occurs in the context of the productive power. True economics is the method of this intentional progress in increasing productive power, not the economic empiricism of Smith.
The power of the monetary system exists in the belief in economic empiricism itself, whose roots have been demonstrated in this report. The shortcut to free the nations of the world from that belief is to understand that the arguments of those who defend monetarism or explain economy as based on statistics, refute themselves, by their hereditary connection with the scientific axioms of the Sarpi model of empiricism.
 Sources for Sarpi's Art of Proper Thinking and Philosophical Thoughts were Pietro Cicconi's unpublished book review of Sarpi scettico. Stato e chiesa a Venezia fra ‘500 e ‘600 [Sarpi the sceptic. State and church in Venice between 1500 and 1600], Vittorio Frajese, 1994, as well as the publicly available English references, Paolo Sarpi. Between Renaissance and Enlightenment, David Wootton, 1983, and Venice and the Defense of Republican liberty, by William J. Bouwsma, 1968.
 Descartes, Principles of Philosophy, 1644.
 For material in this sub section and related material, see Bob Ingraham, The Modern Anglo-Dutch Empire, http://www.oaklandasp.comcastbiz.net/.
 Leibniz Selections, Philip Weiner, 1951.
 E.J. Aiton, Leibniz, A Biography, 1985.
 V.A. Henri, The role of Leibnitz in the establishment of scientific schools in Russia, 1999, Russian Academy of Sciences.
 Leibniz, New Essays on Human Understanding, Peter Remnant and Jonathan Bennett, 1996.
 Leibniz to Hutton, Correspondence de Leibniz avec Sophia, ed. Onno Klopp, Paris, 1874.
 Leibniz to Louis Bourguet, Vienna, 22 March 1714. Die philophischen schriften von Gottfried Wilheim Leibniz 1875, vol. III C. I. Gerhardt. www.leibniz-translations.com
 Leibniz to Arnauld, Venice, March 23, 1690 Philosophical Papers and Letters 1976.
 Paul Lodge, Leibniz and His Correspondents, 2004.
 Michael White, The Last Sorcerer, 1999.
 Leibniz to Pierre Desmaizeaux, August 21, 1716. Die philophischen schriften von Gottfried Wilheim Leibniz 1875, vol. III C. I. Gerhardt. www.leibniz-translations.com.
 Thomas Hankins, Jean d'Alembert: Science and the Enlightenment, 1970.
 Alexander Hamilton, Report on the Subject of Manufactures, 1791.
All other quotations not specifically referenced in the text are easily accessible by online text search.
I am also indebted to the following other sources: Graham Lowry’s How the Nation Was Won, Bob Ingraham’s cited work, the unpublished reports written by Al Douglas and by Travis Johnson on David Wotton’s Paolo Sarpi, Lyndon LaRouche’s emphasis on the legacy of Sarpi in a number of his 2009 writings, Claudio Celani’s retrieval of an unpublished book review of Frajese’s Sarpi the Skeptic by Pietro Cicconi, Douglas’s review of both that and Cicconi’s unpublished research on Antonio Conti, the published work of David Shavin, and the unpublished writings of Phil Valenti.