The Money Trust



What a false illusion thou art to human mind ! How cruelly thou deceivest thy possessor and those who covet thee ! Thou buyest for me by thy betrayal of mankind. Thou didst tax my energy to gain thee, and thy discount has lost to me and my fellow-men the greatest blessings of a continent, as well as the principal products of our toil. Few indeed are they who know and understand thy seductive power. We shall expose thy falseness so that our children shalt not be deceived by thee.

General Observations-Charles Lindbergh,
Banking and Currency and the Money Trust

What has been transpiring in the economy as of late is a wonderful exercise for me.

When you see the credibility of scientists and an economist open themselves to scrutiny “to wonder”, if they are just replaying the inevitable and not really offering anything new?

The market prices of commodities vary from day to day and often several times a day. This occurs when there is no radical difference in the proportion of the supply and the natural demand. This fact is conclusive proof that our system is controlled by manipulators and fundamentally wrong. I have sought to elucidate this problem within this volume and have suggested a plan which, if adopted, would make the people the master of the world, instead of the present master—THE MONEY TRUST.

I am repeating the article the article here for consideration.

Is it more astonishing that a God created all that exists in six days, or that the natural processes of the creative universe have yielded galaxies, chemistry, life, agency, meaning, value, consciousness, culture without a Creator. In my mind and heart, the overwhelming answer is that the truth as best we know it, that all arose with no Creator agent, all on its wondrous own, is so awesome and stunning that it is God enough for me and I hope much of humankind.


Stuart Alan Kauffman (28 September 1939) is an US American theoretical biologist and complex systems researcher concerning the origin of life on Earth. He is best known for arguing that the complexity of biological systems and organisms might result as much from self-organization and far-from-equilibrium dynamics as from Darwinian natural selection, as well as for proposing the first models of Boolean networks.

Kauffman presently holds a joint appointment at the University of Calgary in Biological Sciences and in Physics and Astronomy, and is an Adjunct Professor in the Department of Philosophy. He is also an iCORE (Informatics Research Circle of Excellence) [1] chair and the director of the Institute for Biocomplexity and Informatics.


See:Reinventing the Sacred: A New View of Science, Reason, and Religion (Hardcover)

Well now, I have followed the work of those whose ultimate destination has been by seeking results from LHC as to the nature of some Higg’s field that would bring together an organizational effort to the particle of nature. Now I should be much clearer here just as Stuart Kauffman should.

Higgs Fields

A Higgs field (named after a Scottish physicist Peter Higgs) is a field supposed to be responsible for the genesis of inertial mass (and, because of Einstein’s equivalence principle, gravitational mass). When the universe is extremely hot, a Higgs field (which is supposed to have a certain curve of potential energy; as regards the shape of this curve, there is no unique consensus, except for a certain general feature, among the physicists) exerts a wild influence; but we will neglect this here. Once the universe cools down enough, below a certain temerature, the Higgs field assumes a certain value (i.e. a value of the Higgs field) which corresponds to the lowest energy level (i.e. the potential energy is zero, but the value of the Higgs field is nonzero; this level may be called vacuum). And this energy level continues to prevail throughout the whole universe (uniform, nonzero Higgs field).

So here I am alone thinking about this self organization that goes on and I picked out Stuart Kauffman’s book because I know that such a view is garnered by the likes of Lee Smolin, that it presents a challenge for me.

Been at it long enough to know there are opposing views and methods to determination that shall judge one’s approach as too the “nature of reality.” I am not going to go into the definition of this nature of reality but to assume that such a definition will become apparent in the selection of this title and the consequence of choosing Stuart’s book. My reasons for expanding here under this title of the new Garden of Eden.

How it it that I could ever compare the very nature of the “Arch Model” to the insightful development of us as participants in the nature of reality that we could shape our destines and not think us less then a participant in this adventure called life.

At 9:15 AM, August 18, 2008, Blogger Plato said…

Experimentally, this became a basis for exploration which implanted experimental choice departures from euclidean space, which is flat.

This was a mathematical adventure of “pure thought” toward the process of interpreting this mathematics in the natural world.

How could one say the experimental process was first when such thought had to exist? It had to already exist in nature for us to test the theorization by definition.

So we emulate the process by experimentation. Oh sweet “spooky action at a distance?”

One should not think that such an avenue of research had not taken me down this road in regards to spooky, that I would not have adventured too, entanglement, or scattering amplitudes, that I would not of looked at Young’s experiment and thought about the photon’s travel. The combination or how calorimeters have been used to discern this interaction in the decay process.

Has Reductionism run to it’s limit?

This is what Stuart Kauffman did not realize when thinking about reductionism or what Robert Laughlin spoke of toward the idea’s of self organizational attributes of those things that gather, while we take them apart. It’s not that they ever came to a definition of this limit, but tried to explain reductionism away, by the introduction of new ways, new approaches.

The Keystone

ON one side of this arch is an approach to Reductionism, and on the other, is emergence. The keystone, is the Equivalence principal.

This entry was posted in Coin and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to The Money Trust

  1. Plato says:

    The Keystone is like the Frontal Lobe? 🙂

  2. PlatoHagel says:

    The Keystone is like the Frontal Lobe? 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s