More On An Enigma
SINCE I DEVOTED considerable space to Lyndon LaRouche in the February issue, there has come to me a copy of a journal published by what is obviously a subsidiary of LaRouche’s still active organization. It is the January-February issue of the bimonthly 21st Century Science & Technology, edited by a Carol White who is presumably the White mentioned in my article. (1)
(1. A valued correspondent informs me that there may be more than one “Carol White” and suggests an identification of the one connected with LaRouche as a woman whose real name he states. Another sends observations that may or may not confirm the suggested identification, which the woman denies. See addendum below.)
The periodical does nothing to solve the political puzzle which I stated in February: Why does the concealed dictatorship in Washington want to suppress LaRouche? It does describe the way in which that alien government destroyed one of LaRouche’s subsidiaries, the Fusion Energy Foundation.
A pseudo-legal terrorist, disguised as a Federal judge in Massachusetts, fined the Foundation $5,000,000 (!) for what he called “contempt of court.” The Federal goons then rushed to the offices of the Foundation in Virginia and seized all of its assets. The tyrants then threw the Foundation into involuntary bankruptcy because it could not pay its debts with the funds the goons had seized. A neat operation and only typical of the terminal stage of the “democracy” beloved by Americans.
What is noteworthy is that there still was an honest judge in the Federal judiciary, specifically in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. He investigated the case and wrote a decision of 106 pages, in which, as he is quoted in the periodical, he said that “the government’s actions could be liken[ed] to a constructive fraud on the court, wherein the court may infer the fraudulent nature of the government’s conduct.”
As I have said, nothing in the issue of the periodical I have seen gives us a clue to the reason why the thugs in Washington have singled out LaRouche for their pseudo-legal frauds and terrorism. It challenges some political propaganda, but it should compensate for that by endorsing delusions, including Christianity, that serve to keep the boobs in spiritless and mindless subjection to their enemies.
Surely no one will take seriously the pseudo-scientific jabbering about the dire consequences of the “greenhouse effect” until archaeologists have discovered the ruins of the many factories which must have been belching their smoke and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere c. 20,000 B.C. to produce the “greenhouse effect” that ended the third Wurm glaciation. When such ruins are discovered, we can begin to worry about industrial activity in all the preceding glacial ages, back to the Pleistocene. But until such ruins are discovered, we must treat the current trepidation about a “greenhouse effect” as we treat other propaganda for the Jews’ “One World.”
Denying the “greenhouse” scare probably does annoy the Masters of Deceit, but they should be grateful for the accompanying denial of genetic science and the madcap claim that there are no races and no innate differences in the quality of anthropoids, so that the faster biological scrubs breed, the happier the world will be. And the Masters should be particularly grateful for the attempt to plaster LaRouche’s Oecumenical Christianity over scientifically ascertained facts.
The major article in this issue is “Roger Bacon and the Birth of Universal Science,” by Paul Greenberg, an article that we read with great sympathy because its author is one of the five who were thrown into prison along with LaRouche by the lawless government.
Greenberg begins with what is evidently part of the LaRouche ritual: a denunciation of “Isaac Newton’s petty imperial mind” and all empirical science, which seems to be like the Roman Catholics’ habit of crossing themselves to affirm their faith. He doesn’t explain the ritual. For a clear statement of that we must turn to a review by one David Cherry of a recent book on Newton, where we are told that “Science is a moral enterprise, in which the scientist always seeks to learn how anyone of good will can draw closer to God by discovering His ways, for the propagation of His will, as a builder.” A scientist, in other words, starts by befuddling his mind with illusions that are the very antithesis of scientific inquiry. He knows that the story of Cinderella is true because she wore a glass slipper, given her by her fairy grandmother. (2)
(2. I am sure the reader does not need to be told that the glass slipper was created by some early translator or scribe who mistook the French vair for vaire (modern verre). The mistake improves the story, as Perault perceived. A glass slipper is not only something wonderful and fairy-like in itself, but it is rigid and would thus defeat the efforts of the women who tried to fit it onto their bigger feet, whereas a fur slipper (probably ermine, as befits princesses) would have been soon pulled out of shape.)
When one ignores the LaRouchian-Christian lubie, the article, after somewhat exaggerating or misdating the “technological progress” of the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries, gives an account of the work of Roger bacon (c. 1214–c. 1292) that is, so far as I can tell, fairly accurate, except that, as a member of LaRouche’s cult, Greenberg has to deny the Aristotelian thought that underlies Bacon’s accomplishments in the observation of nature. Greenberg tells us that Bacon was the pupil of Grosseteste (c. 1175-1253), but does not tell us that Grosseteste translated some of Aristotle’s works, and was, of course, an Aristotelian in his methods of observing nature, although he wandered into a kind of Neoplatonism in his theological theories.
That Bacon was also a professed Christian is to be taken for granted in the Thirteenth Century, but when we try to define the actual beliefs of men of that time, we must not forget that they were prudent and, like Rabelais, expressed opinions jusqu’au feu exclusivement. There were atheists in the Thirteenth Century, probably including one of Greenberg’s heroes, the great Hohenstauffen emperor, Frederick II, but even that bold monarch did not avow publicly such politically disastrous opinions, (3) and men of lesser rank had no desire to be roasted over a slow fire, which was the theologians’ favorite means of proving the truth of their spiritual pretensions.
(3. He was accused of being the author of the famous and now lost treatise, De tribus impostoribus (i.e., the three scoundrels, Moses, Jesus, and Mahomet, who deluded their contemporaries with their fictions). It is most improbable that Frederick was the author, but it is quite possible that he had read and approved the iconoclastic book.)
I have read no more than a hundred pages of Bacon’s voluminous writings, and I have not seen the translations from which Greenberg quotes, but I feel convinced that Bacon was at least a deist, and was willing to identify the creative god in whom he believed with the one worshipped by the Church in which he was an ecclesiastic. In one passage, which Greenberg could have cited, he says that ancient writers, such as Aristotle, who investigated and ascertained the operations of nature, must have been directly inspired by his god. How much of Biblical mythology he believed is quite another question. He certainly expressed no doubts that would have been suicidal, (4) but some contemporary theologians believed him to be secretly a heretic; they may have been right, but we have no means of knowing. The basis of their accusation of heresy may have been no more than a perception that all scientific investigation of nature was deleterious to the superstitions that were their stock in trade.
(4. Polemics about the legal limitations of papal power and the corruption of the contemporary clergy are quite another matter. They might make a man unpopular, but were too well embodied in the traditions of the church and its internal competition to serve as a reason for overt persecution.)
It is not worthwhile to spend the time and energy needed to verify Greenberg’s quotations and statements about Bacon’s scientific achievements. The quotations seem to me to be accurate, and it is true that Bacon’s achievements were amazingly great for his time. He probably did invent gunpowder and design, at least in imagination, a telescope, as he imagined a machine that would imitate the movement of a bird’s wings and so enable men to fly. But these fanciful inventions were extrapolations from facts he had learned experimentally in the manner of Aristotle, and entirely apart from his Neoplatonic theological fancies.
There is one gross error that is significant since it illustrates the operation of a mental process quite commonly found among our political allies. Greenberg writes:
“The evidence that Bacon build a compound microscope and a telescope lies in a mysterious document, discovered in a chest in a castle in southern Italy by antiquarian Wilfrid Voynich in 1912. (5) This encrypted work [was] decoded in the 1920s by…William R. Newbold of the University of Pennsylvania…. Newbold’s deciphering was dismissed as ‘groundless’…after the untimely death of Newbold, when a neo-inquisition arose to suppress Bacon’s work because of its potential to overturn the corpus of Aristotelian dogma.”
(5. Greenberg cannot be charged with falsification here. He is following the cover-story told by Voynich when he agreed to conceal the name of the Italian family from whom he bought the unique and enigmatic manuscript as a profitable investment.)
This is what Greenberg says, although he has read or, at least, cites in his bibliography, an irrefragable demonstration that Newbold’s “decipherment” was an illusion, because (a) Newbold takes as symbols not the characters of the otherwise unknown ‘alphabet,’ but small portions of them, probably marked off by flaking of the ink on parchment, and (b) one of his symbols may represent two or even three letters of the Latin alphabet, thus permitting anagrams, of which the potential is seldom suspected even by persons who in the games of their childhood solved such puzzles as “Paddle your own OCEAN.” Newbold’s decipherment would permit one to find a statement in respectable Latin that I wrote the manuscript.
It is true that Newbold’s prestige put into reference books for a while his claims that Bacon had invented a microscope and telescope, which were based more on what he had read in Bacon’s known works and what he imagined the many pictures and diagrams in the manuscript to represent than on the scraps of text he had “deciphered.” These statements naturally disappeared from reference works and the writings of responsible authors after the falsity of his “decipherment” was conclusively demonstrated.
For an excellent description of the Voynich manuscript, complete with photographs of some pages, and an account of the very many attempts that have been made to read it, see The Voynich Manuscript–an Elegant Enigma, by M(ary) E. D’Impero (Laguna Hills, California; Aegean Park Press, s.a.; still in print). I have written a fairly long critique for the author and publisher, but it does not deserve space in Liberty Bell.
The substance of the relevant facts is this. Palaeographic considerations, admittedly not conclusive, place the date of the writing in the Fifteenth Century or later. The first trace of the manuscript appears, perhaps significantly, in the time of the “Rosicrucian Enlightenment” (6) is the first part of the Seventeenth Century, when it was apparently in the possession of the celebrated British alchemist, fakir, astrologer, and spy, Dr. John Dee. (7)
(6. On which see the magistral work of the late Dr. Frances A. Yates, The Rosicrucian Enlightenment (London, Routledge, 1972; paperback reprint still available).)
(7. For Dee’s activities as a spy, which were greatly facilitated by his reputation as a master of astrological hocus-pocus, see Richard Deacon’s History of the Secret Service (New York, Taplinger, 1970), pp. 12-36, 41, with references to his biography of Dee. The latest work about the wily astrologer etc. is by Nicholas H. Clulee, John Dee’s natural Philosophy: Between Science and Religion (London, Routledge, 1989). The author is a partisan of his subject and does not sufficiently allow for the extent to which Dee’s expressed opinions were shaped by opportunities for fraud and imposture.)
The manuscript is either (a) a hoax, i.e., a meaninglessly mysterious concoction to support a fraudulent tale about a wonderful group of sages who had discovered cosmic secrets, or (b) a statement of a secret doctrine, probably influenced by the Hermetic corpus and the Jewish Kabbalah, and possibly by Dee’s “Monas hieroglyphica,” expressed in the specially devised symbols of an artificial language, i.e., a one-part code logically arranged. (8)
(8. In such a code, for example, using the Roman alphabet, A = astronomical terms; AB = stellar bodies; ABA = the sun; ABB = the moon; ABC = a planet; ABCA = Mercury; ABCB = Venus; etc. ABD = “fixed” stars; ABDA = Sirius; ABDB = Aldebran; etc. AC = constellations; ACA = Ursa Major; ACB = Ursa Minor, etc. AD = the zodiac; ADA = Aries; ADB = Aquarius; etc. AE = aspects; AEA = conjunction; AEB = opposition; AEC = ascending node; etc. AF = phenomena; AFA = total eclipse, AFB = partial eclipse; etc., etc.)
Greenberg, however, as a faithful hierodule of LaRouche and his Oecumenical Christianity, has to imagine a conspiracy and “neo-inquisition” to depreciate the work of Roger Bacon. It is the besetting sin of persons on our side to imagine conspiracies to account for events of which they emotionally disapprove but which are adequately explained by known causes, thereby providing material that our enemies use to deride “conspiratorial theories” and thus conceal the real forces that are hustling our race to the precipice over which nations disappear from history.
I have just received a letter from a man who may or may not be or have been a member of LaRouche’s organization, of which he obviously has detailed knowledge. He informs me that “Carol White” is a Jewess, whose real name is probably Weiss, and is “one of the Jews who surround LaRouche and try to control the direction of his thinking and activity. They will probably have an easier time of it, now that he is out of the way, leaving the day-to-day supervision of his organization in their hands.”
He further informs me that “LaRouche became a millionaire in the ’60s through his computer consulting firm,” and spent his own money to form his organization. I described the method by which the scoff-law government in Washington procured the fraudulent conviction of LaRouche, but my informant adds the very significant detail that at the trial at which LaRouche was convicted, “it was actually forbidden to mention in court that the reason the loan payments had stopped was that the government had seized the funds!” That is a memorable illustration of the way in which the terrorists who rule us use their hireling courts to give a sickly semblance of legality to their tyrannical oppression of our hated nation. At present, it is not expedient openly to treat Americans, who have not yet been disarmed, as the Semites in Palestine are now treated.
It is greatly to the credit of LaRouche, if, as my informant says, “both the Propositions 64 and 69 in California, requiring enforcement of the public-health laws against AIDS scum, were his work.” Both were defeated by “saturation media propaganda,” lavishly financed, more than $20,000,000 for that purpose having been raised in Hollywood alone, obviously from the Sheenies, because the quarantine, “if enforced, would not only reinstitute segregation of the races, but virtually decapitate the Jew/Liberal government.”
The writer offers the explanation that “LaRouche was brought up in the socialism of the 1930s with its economic determinism and racial-equality theology, and has never entirely freed himself of it. But, in his intellectual development, he has virtually rediscovered National Socialism, except for biology.”
He concludes that LaRouche “has shown both sincerity and effectiveness, and deserves better than you have given him [in my article in the February issue], though his racial blindness is a grave fault.”
This information will elucidate to some extent the character of LaRouche, who, however, is much less important than the fact that the slightly disguised dictatorship’s effort to eliminate him gives you an excellent indication of the viciousness of the government to which the American boobs voluntarily subjugated themselves. And it is significant that the imprisonment of the leader has placed his organization effectively under the unmitigated control of Jews, with proximate consequences that you will be able to predict for yourself.
* * *
Source: Liberty Bell magazine, April 1990