The Greatest Historical Mysteries of the 20th-Century-to-Present:
SOLVED!

Root Causes of Societal Ills:
DIAGNOSED!

Path to Societal Healing:
PRESCRIBED!

Preliminary Note

Readers: Typographical and notational conventions observed throughout this text are described in the 'zeroth' endnote. [e0]

Diagnosis: What's Wrong

The Social-Unconscious Mind

Part of our mission, in this section, is to help raise up, into the social consciousness of its readers, crucial aspects of the present '''social unconscious''', of the unconsciousness of the human behavior, of the human practices, of the human "praxis", by which we have brought ourselves into this Crisis, this Predicament.

This "social unconscious" consists of portions of our own social behavior, of our own social activity, of our own social practices — of our own "social praxis" — which are highly 'causative', highly consequential, but of which the social majority is, presently, deeply unaware, both as to our conduct of that "praxis", and as to the profound consequences that its action brings back around upon our lives.

That is, this "social unconscious" consists of the human action by which we have collectively delivered ourselves into the present Global Crisis of Humanity.

That is, the core of this "social unconscious" is also a key part of the action — of which we-present are all a part — by human society, back upon human society: the activity by which we semi-consciously continue and also grow our human social existence, the collective human activity which we name '''human society self-[re-]producing praxis'''.

These unconscious consequences arise, indeed, from our collective '''value(s)-system''', as collectively practiced: as we actually live it [not necessarily as we profess it].

The "Law" of "Value"

A unity of these unconscious consequences, in modern society, is what we will name '''the law of [political-economic] value'''.

Our purpose in this section is to analyze the human behavior — our collective behavior — which produces and reproduces this [un-legislated, "unwritten"] "social law", a "law" which operates as if it were a "law of nature", a "mechanical law" of unconscious being(s) — and which will continue to do so until "we" collectively awaken, as more-conscious , more-human, more-social beings than we have been.

Now, '''capital-value''', and '''value''' itself, are not "hard", "objective" substances, that exist wholly outside our skins, and outside our minds.

They are collective human mental habits / conventions, socio-cultural institutions.

They are, as we shall elaborate below, '''social relationships of [the present-day mode of human-life-]production''', and present-day '''forms of human, social intercourse'''.

We hold them as shared '''mental templates''', that we make effectively objectively real, by collectively and individually — and actively, behaviorally — projecting them onto the world outside our minds; collectively acting as if they are "real".

This value is the continually-changing / -evolving total relationship, relation, 'relatio', or "ratio of interchange" — the social «verhaltnisse», for those of you who know the German language; the social «rapport» for those of you who know the French language — among all of our social-"good(s)"-producing activities, and their products, and, in particular, between waged/salaried labor as a whole, and capital property as a whole.

The Dimension of '''Consumer Value'''

For "consumers", "value" — as popularly discussed, as cited in commercial advertisements, etc. — is a relationship, a '''relation''', a 'relatio', a '''ratio of exchange''', which brings together "use-value" and "exchange-value" [money-price], into an expression of a '''complex unity''' between the two of them.

That is, the unit of measure of such a "value" metric is not simply pure dollars: it is a heterogeneous unit of measure.

This "value" is the ratio between the "use-value", the "utility", of a commodity offered to consumers for sale, and the money-price offered for the purchase of that same commodity: [utility divided by price]; [utility/price].

Such a ratio, evidently, should be "measured" in units of, say, [utils divided by dollars], "utils versus dollars", "utils per dollar", or [u/$], wherein "u" denotes '''utils''' as the unit of measure of this utility.

The lower the price [denominator], and the higher the utility [numerator], of the commodity offer, the greater is its "value" — the greater is the "value" of the offer — the greater is the magnitude of this [utility/price] ratio.

But that component unit of measure, in the '''compound unit[y]''' or '''complex unit[y]''', [u/$], that component unit of utility, "u", is problematic for us.

There are deep difficulties, for our prevailing «mentalité», in actually measuring "use-value", or "utility", in any universal way.

Therefore, the "values", in this sense, of different kinds of consumer commodities-offers cannot be readily compared.

It is hard to say, in any explicit way, that one consumer commodity offer has greater "value" than another, let alone by "how much" the "value" of one consumer commodity offer exceeds another.

This is hard for us to say, because the common unit of measure, shared by the numerators of all of the offer '''value ratios''', the [utility/price] ratios, of any pair of consumer commodity offers — the '''utils''' unit of measure, denoted above by u — is obscure, uncertain, 'inarticulable' for us, unknown to us: still deeply buried within the implicitudes of our shared, "social-unconscious mind".

The Dimension of '''Investor Value'''

For "investors", as opposed to "consumers" — i.e., for a growing percentage of our fellow "consumers", at least until the present collapse of investment "asset values" — "value" — "shareholder value", etc. — is popularly conceived of in terms of "yield".

This "yield" is the "ratio" — the 'relatio[n]' — between how much money a "capital asset" — a home, a rental property that we might purchase, a unit of capital equity stock in some "publicly-issued" joint-stock corporation, a corporate or government bond, etc. — is expected to "return" in the future, in future dollars "discounted" to a "present" money magnitude, divided by the present money magnitude of the "cost" required to purchase ownership of that "asset", the "price" of that "asset".

Once again, this "yield" is not measured in simple currency units — i.e., in "US dollars", or in "pounds sterling", or in "euros", or in "yen".

This "yield" is measured in units of, for example, '''[dollars versus dollars]''', "[dollars over dollars]", "[dollars divided by dollars]", [$/$], or [%], i.e., in "percent" units.

That is, the "yield" metric is supposedly a "dimensionless" metric, 'unit-ed' by a 'self-compared', 'self-opposed', 'self-contrasted', self-divided currency unit — $s divided by $s = $^+1 / $^+1 = dollars to the positive first power divided by dollars to the positive first power = dollars to the positive first power multiplied by dollars to the negative first power = $^(+1-1) = $^0 — a unit of "zero^th power", or "zero^th degree", i.e., a "percent".

Notice how, in the units of this "yield-value", or "capital-value", ratio, in relation to the "consumer", "offer-value" ratio, the mysterious "u" unit in the numerator of the "offer-value" ratio is replaced by an, e.g., "$" unit in the numerator of the "capital-value" ratio — because, generally speaking, "money" names the highest conception of "universal use-value", or of "universal utility", that our present social '''inter-subjectivity''' is capable of explicitly, consciously expressing.

The "yield"-value of your "capital asset" — that is, of a money-measured asset that is expected to make more money than it cost; to "return" a "profit" — is the ratio of the 'presentized' magnitude ["Net Present Value", or "NPV"] of its expected future net money-returns to you, to its present cost, its present price of purchase, to you:

(expected NPV of expected money returns divided by cost)[$/$] = (yield)[%] = ( NPV(r)/c )[%], with "r" standing for the expected future magnitude of the money-returns to you from the asset, and with "c" standing for the present cost to you of acquiring "ownership" of that asset.

'Pseudo-Subjectivity' and 'Pseudo-Objectivity'

Below, we're going to be using the words "subject"[-ivity] and "object"[-ivity], '''subject[-ness]''' and '''object[-ness]''', as per the meaning of these words in the context of the analysis of our written and spoken sentences: in terms of the "subject verb object" structure of our [sentential] language(s).

The sentential subject names the 'verb-source', the action-initiating, agent role for the process described by the sentence.

The sentential object names the [ev]ent[ity] performing the 'verb-target', action-receiving role for the process described by the sentence.

Once the '''social mind''' — the cultural '''inter-subject-ivity''', the minds of the social majority, the preponderance of the human population of social individuals — is captured by this '''social gene''', this cultural '''meme''', of '''value-ing''', by this value-system of consumer commodity offer-"value", of '''exchange-"value''' and '''profit-"value''', i.e., of '''yield-"value''', then something about our society '''hardens'''.

Once this new '''inter-subjectivity''' becomes predominant within humanity, then these new human habits of "value-ing", of value-action, of value-behavior, "gel" and "congeal", into a 'pseudo-objectivity', one seemingly more solid than granite, one seemingly denser than stainless steel, one seemingly harder than a brick wall, and one whose "shape" is seemingly harder to re-shape than it is to change the "cut" of a diamond.

Once this social 'pseudo-objectivity' congeals, the recurrent "patterns", unintended "rules", or "laws", of '''value-dynamics'' that we will adduce herein — laws whose "trend" portends a decadent-phase totalitarian state-capitalist degeneration of ascendant-phase capitalist democracy, resulting in a catastrophic collapse of '''human social reproduction''' — become, as if, objective "laws", "natural laws", even "mechanical laws", enacted by human subjects become as if '''dead''', in-human objects.

Thereafter — after that congealing — it takes a profound transformation of our '''mutual subjectivity'''; of our '''inter-subjectivity''' — a deep change of the 'social unconscious mind', an irruptive rising into our '''inter-subjective''' conscience of previously socially-unconscious 'ideo-subjective material', one brought about by our traumatic experiences of the massive, massively adverse, and unintended [by us] consequences of that formerly unconscious material — to change our social "laws".

When just one of us tries, or when even a few of us try, to change our "value(s)"-in-practice — our value-ing behaviors — our efforts are typically swamped, drowned, and brought to nought, or brought to ruin, by the overwhelming momentum of everyone else continuing — still behaving, still 'value-ing' — in the same old way, in accord with the same old semi-conscious 'value-paradigm'.

Only in rare instances, can a new 'value-behavior', accordant with a new 'value-paradigm', irrupting locally within a small population of human beings, rapidly catalyze the adoption of this new behavioral paradigm by an expanding wake of other human beings, tidally rippling out in a wave of behavioral change, and of habit-change, throughout our 'socio-mental space', and our 'social-objective space', until the preponderant operating paradigm of our global society as a whole is transformed.

Such rare catalysis means that human social intersubjectivity adopts this new paradigm of daily-life action rapidly, as if all at once, in a way analogous to the way in which, in the process of "stellar [meta-]evolution", or 'stellar revolution' — for example, in the case of the stellar core "helium flash" — a star, which has exhausted [completely converted into core Helium], its former core Hydrogen fuel, so that is inner fire has become extinguished, and which has thus begun to collapse, due to its unopposed "self-gravitation", suddenly, as the '''squeeze''' of that collapse-implosion crosses a critical threshold, re-ignites, begins to burn that core Helium, that former "ash", and, as a consequence, abruptly leaves the Hydrogen-burning "stellar main sequence phase", and transitions to the "Helium[-burning] stellar main sequence phase", of its [meta-]evolution, becoming, in that process, a new kind of star, with qualitatively and quantitatively different dynamics. [e1]

Capital-value, and value itself, is not a "thing", an "object" wholly outside our minds, and wholly outside our skins.

It is more like a collective [de-][il-]lusion, that becomes real, that objectively characterizes our behavior, because we share it and communally practice it.

This "money-value" is partly subjective, partly an '''idea-object''', a 'psycho-historical material', though we tend to think of it, and act as if it were, a purely objective thing.

We "fetishize" value, "reify" value, "hypostatize" value, and "totemize" value, in effect worshipping it as if it were an entirely outer thing, wholly external to our '''subject-ivity''' or 'subject-ness'.

There is a hidden — occult, latent, unconscious — '''human-ism''' in the outwardly-expressed '''anti-human-ism''' of those among us who "value" only money, or who "value" only "capital" — only "money [that is / when it is] making more money".

If we "value" only money, because of what money can buy — by our '''value-ing''' only what money can buy — we are also, implicitly, unconsciously "value-ing" the human creativity and the human life-time that stands behind the '''good(s)''' that money buys; that creates (that/)those '''good(s)'''.

The Inverted World

By communally "fetishizing" and worshiping money-value/capital-value, we create, and enforce upon ourselves — consciously or not, intentionally or not — the "rules" and the "social laws" of "the law of value".

We induce an inversion of social subject(s) and social object(s), of social subjectivity and social objectivity.

We turn ourselves into 'pseudo-objects', and we turn the objects that we create, and the constructs by which we "measure" them — money[-value] and, especially, capital[-value] — into 'pseudo-subjects'. We make the world of capital, the social objectivity that we produce, and continually re-produce, into a 'pseudo-subjectivity', and we turn ourselves, the real subjects, into a 'pseudo-objectivity'.

The vast aggregation of our individual, daily '''value-ing''' actions creates an "invisible hand", indeed, an '''iron fist''', that rules over us almost as if it were a conscious, monarchical being, and that cancels out the intentions of our "visible hands" in our efforts to self-govern our own lives.

The real subjects and the real objects become inverted; mis-revolved; upside-down — "bass-ackwards".

We create, and daily re-create, an upside-down world, an inverted world, a perverted world, in which only dead things — that living people have created, and that only living people can create — have value, and in which living, potentially richness-creating people are abandoned by the rest of human society — are unemployed, homeless, miserable, starving, dying — are treated as if they were '''value-less'''; worthless.

The Inversion of the Inversion

True social revolution is not nihilistic violence, or violence employed in the effort of a particular party or "special interest group" to attain alienated power — unchecked, unaccountable, unlimited power over everyone else.

True "social revolution" is the "revolution of this revolution; the restorative revolution to this mis-revolution, the inversion of the inversion, that restores subjectivity to the real subjects, and that restores objectivity to the real objects — the return of subjectivity, by the real subjects, to the real subjects.

The whole story — the 'his-story' of so many 'his'-lives gone-by, and the 'her-story' of so many 'her'-lives gone by — of the history of the capital value(s)-system to-date, is a history of the semi-conscious struggle of humanity to overcome the "invisible hand" of its "law of value"; the struggle to replace that "invisible hand" with its own, collective, democratically-controlled '''visible hand'''; to bring the horrific side of the human, social consequences of our unconsciously-created "law of value" under conscious, human, collective, democratic regulation and control; to restore human [inter-]subjectivity to the 'subject role' by overcoming the 'pseudo-objectivity' into which our money-value-ing, capital-value-ing intersubjectivity has cast us.

The Emergent Collective Subjectivity, and the Strategy, of the Core Plutocracy

Unfortunately, but 'expectably', the preponderance of that partial overcoming, to-date, of that "law of value", has been monopolized, by the tiny, ruling minority which is comprised by the preponderant owners of capital-property, for ends which are violently contrary to the best interests of the rest of us; of the global human species as a whole.

The presently ruling, capital-based plutocracy is generally already more conscious of this actual social, society-reproducing human praxis, and of its consequences, than is the rest of the human population, than are the rest of us. That plutocracy makes it their business to see to it that "the rest of us" work for them. Our ignorance of our own praxis, and of its consequences, is maintained, partly, by the designs of this plutocracy. As we shall show further on, this plutocracy harbors their greater awareness of human praxis, only with a vitiating bias.

The presently reigning plutocracy uses their superior awareness of humanity's actual praxis to fool us, to engineer upon us, and into us, ideologies that lead us to play into their hands; to play into their horrific, '''humanocidal''' agenda.

We shall endeavor, here — in contrast to that plutocracy — to present this presently mostly unconscious material, with an 'equitarian' bias; with a bias which is pro humanity-as-a-whole.

By the plutocracy's success in accumulating and concentrating most of humanity's capital wealth in the hands of a tiny few worldwide, the economic side of the capital political-economy has, by now, increasingly outgrown and subsumed its political side.

This outgrowing has destroyed the effectiveness of the existing, constitutional, political-only "checks-and-balances" of capitalist representative democracy.

These "checks-and-balances" had restrained the ruling plutocracy, for a time, from imposing their multi-genocidal, totalitarian tyrannies worldwide.

These "checks-and-balances" had, for most of that time, confined that plutocracy to the proliferation of police-state, mass-murderous servant-dictatorships throughout the "Third World", i.e., throughout the plutocracy-brutalized periphery of their acceleratedly, intensively and extensively growing global system of oligopolized capital.

The entirety of the socially-virtuous side of capitalism depends utterly upon the unfettered competition of capitals.

Therefore, all of these social virtues are destroyed by the destruction of the competition of capitals.

However, the capital-immanent "law" of capital accumulation itself, the very "law" of capitals-competition, is a "law" of the increasing self-negation and self-destruction of the competition of capitals, as a result of the competition of capitals itself.

Competition of capitals becomes successful competition, which means consolidation, concentration, and centralization of capital for the few successful competitors, and which means disappearance for the many unsuccessful competitors, which, on the whole, means ever-increasing oligopolization / monopolization of capital ownership by the ever fewer.

The accumulation of capital-value — the centralization, consolidation, and concentration of the preponderance of capital wealth in the hands of a tiny global plutocracy, plus the desperate hunger for status, money, and power on the part of that plutocracy's underlings — gives that plutocracy the power to "buy-out" the political branches of social governance — the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary — "lock, stock, and barrel", thus obliterating the effectiveness of the 'political-only' "checks and balances" among — and formerly restraining, somewhat, abuses of power by — those three "political" branches of political-economic governance.

This "buy-out" is the crowning, cresting, and final [stealth] "hostile takeover" of that whole rising series of waves of competition-destroying, oligopolizing and monopolizing "Mergers and Acquisitions" that we have witnessed ever since the beginning of the twentieth century.

But this concentrated 'economico-political' power does not, in itself, supply the motive for the multi-genocidal, totalitarian strategy that the ruling plutocracy has lately adopted.

Instead, that motive is supplied by the threats to ruling class political-economic power that are inherent in the progressive changes in the technological composition of labor, plant, and equipment that lawfully arise, as capital accumulates, in accord with capital's own immanent essential dynamic.

George Orwell's novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four [e1_1], had it right, if but a little early: The political-economic "law of motion of modern society" is the 'socio-taxis to totalitarianism' — to totalitarian, multi-genocidal state-capitalism as political-economic '''attractor''' [For more about this, see "GS2: The Political-Economic Law Of Motion of Modern, Capital-based Society — The 'Socio-Taxis' Toward [State-]Capitalist Totalitarianism as 'Political-Economic Attractor'".]. [e1_2]

National state-capitalisms — secretly ruled by the supra-national core plutocracy — represent the major modern attempt by the core plutocrats to assert their 'Emergent Collective Subjectivity' — to overcome the "invisible hand" of the global "law" of [capital-]"value" via the visible '''iron fists''' of the core plutocracy's militarist national servant-dictatorships, as globally orchestrated and choreographed, from "behind the scenes", by that core plutocracy.

The Genesis of the Core Plutocracy's 'Capitalist Anti-Capitalism'

The competition among capitals — plus, the struggle of the owners of capital to subjugate "their" labor force — stimulate technological advances in the methodologies and instrumentalities of capital-based commodity production.

The effect of these advances is to raise productivity.

Productivity is raised, for example:

• by producing more units of commodity-output in less time; and/or
• with the productive-consumption-of less/less-costly units of direct-labor; and/or
• with the productive-consumption-of less/less-costly units of other inputs;

and thus, for any one, or for any combination of the above by producing the commodity output in question at a lower cost per unit-of-that-commodity-output.

This creates opportunities, e.g., to sell that output:

• with a higher profit-margin at the same price as the less technically advanced competition is charging; or
• to undersell that competition on price at the same profit-margin which that competition was garnering. [e1_3]

The actualization of such opportunities results in that competition dying off, in that competition being absorbed into and/or being dissolved by the higher-productivity competitor, or in that competition adopting the same or a better technological advance. This latter option assumes that those competitor-firms can so adopt, without going bankrupt, due to the incremental costs, incurred by them, for this adoption.

These technological advances become increasingly threatening to the wealth-binding and power-binding monetary-value-content of the hyper-concentrated capital-holdings of this plutocracy, as the balance of their capital-investment expenditures shifts relatively, but increasingly, toward "plant and equipment" expenditures, over-and-above wages-and-salaries expenditures, or living human-labor power expenditures.

These capital, plant, and equipment holdings of the plutocracy accumulate partly in the forms of directly-owned "plant and equipment" capital-assets, but also partly in the form of "capital equity stock" capital-assets, "corporate bond" capital-assets, "long term bank loan" capital-assets, etc., which simply represent the plutocracy's indirect ownership of such "plant and equipment" capital-assets.

This threat grows, as the proportion of wealth held by the plutocracy in these forms grows, and as the rate of technological advance accelerates in response to the profit-stimuli cited above, with advancing accumulation of capital-asset value.

As these technology-forms, incented by the capitals-system, advance, an ever-greater relative proportion of the physical mass of the physical assets used in plutocracy-owned industrial production takes these "plant and equipment" forms, vis-á-vis, the forms of the living human "socio-bio-mass" of the human work force.

Likewise, the monetary-value-mass of such "plant and equipment" — and the monetary-value-mass of its per-unit-of-output charges for "wear and tear", or "physical", depreciation-expense, included in the prices of the plutocracy's sold output — increasingly exceeds the monetary-value-mass of the wage-and-salary expenses also included in those prices.

This threat to the plutocracy's money-power grows because technological advances — concretized by competitors — increasingly tend to evaporate and vanish the capital-value of the plutocracy's "plant and equipment" holdings, due to technological, obsolescence depreciation.

Thus, the vulnerability of plutocracy-owned capital-assets to technological, obsolescence depreciation accelerates as that plutocracy's "plant and equipment" capital, and as capital's technology, both accumulate together.

Later, lower purchase-cost vintages, and/or technologically-superior vintages, of capital-value — newly-incarnated in such advantaged "plant and equipment" capital — massacre the capital-value of earlier, higher-cost, and/or technologically-inferior vintages. As the rate of technological innovation accelerates, these later vintages perform this massacre long before those earlier capital-value vintages — now relatively disadvantaged — can be "amortized", via "normal", physical "wear and tear" depreciation-charges recouped from sales of their output.

That is, eventually, as capital-value accumulation progresses, the average period between technological advances in machinery-design becomes shorter than the average period of physical wear-and-tear depreciation of that machinery, as a result of the accelerating rate of technological change. Thereafter, competing new vintages perform this monetary-value massacre on the obsolete vintages long before the capital-value of the obsolete vintages can be recovered, together with an adequate, positive "return on" their investment. That recovery of value would have been achieved only if the output of these capital-value production-assets were successfully sold at prices which covered this physically "used up" capital-value. Once the average '''technological life''' of such "plant and equipment" capital becomes shorter than the average '''physical life''' of that "plant and equipment" capital, this recovery fails, and "return on" investment becomes "loss on" investment.

Concomitantly, the preponderance of industrial operating-capital invested shifts, from taking the form of wages-and-salaries, to taking the form of capital "plant and equipment".

This shift in the preponderance of the monetary-value of capital investment from the wages-and-salaries side to the "plant and equipment" side, is itself a reflection of the technological gains in productivity that have been achieved.

Consider what happens, once this preponderance shift has occurred at the level of a given industry as-a-whole. Competitive installation of new capital "plant and equipment", that is yet more productive still, tends to induce a monetary-value loss to capital, due to technological, obsolescence depreciation. It also tends to induce monetary-value gains to capital, due to the per-unit-of-output savings of wages-and-salaries, and/or due to the per-unit-of-output savings of raw-and-auxiliary-materials' costs, that may result from this increased productivity. However, once this preponderance shift has occurred, those technological, obsolescence depreciation losses tend to exceed those gains due to savings.

Thus, the net effect, at the industry level, of these countervailing gains-and-losses, both triggered by the same act of competitive installation of technologically-superior "plant and equipment", by competitors, is negative — is a negative profit overall [i.e., a net loss], and/or a negative increment to '''capital-value accumulation'''/"retained earnings" [i.e., a net reduction to accumulated capital-value].

For example, the invention and implementation of fusion-power reactors, say, ones fueled by water, would more-or-less rapidly technologically-depreciate, to near-zero, the entire oil "plant and equipment" capital-assets owned by the global petroleum/finance plutocracy, were that plutocracy ever to permit such a technological advance to "see the light of day".

Hypothesis I: The Two Phases of the History of the Global System of Capital(s)

A reversal, an historical turning point, eventually arises for the global capitals-system as a whole — a turning point from the progressive to the increasingly retrogressive reign of the global system of capitals, and of the capital-based plutocracy.

This turning point arrives when the transient capital-value gains to that plutocracy, no longer exceed, "in the net", on average, the capital-value losses to that plutocracy, such that both the gains and the losses are due to a single causative process: "the growth of the social forces of production", i.e., the growth of productivity.

The gains result from temporary increments to the plutocracy's profitability, due to reductions in the costs (per unit of the commodity-output), of the labor, and of the other ingredients, required for the production of that commodity-output. These cost reductions express technological productivity gains in monetary terms. These gains accrue to the plutocracy via installed advances in technological productivity, embodied in their newer vintages of capital "plant and equipment".

These losses arise due to the exposure of the plutocracy's businesses to their competitors' installations of superior new vintages of productivity-advancing capital "plant and equipment". These resulting increments to the plutocracy's losses, arise due to the competition-enforced "premature" scrapping of the plutocracy's older-vintage capital "plant and equipment" assets. These losses result from scrapping capital "plant and equipment" assets before the normal time-span of their "wear and tear" depreciation, or physical depreciation, has ensued.

Thus, these losses arise due to the scrapping of "plant and equipment" assets, before the cost of those capital-assets has been "amortized" and recovered via the depreciation charges included in the prices of their sold commodity output.

Therefore, all these losses result from the technological-depreciation, or productivity-gain-induced depreciation, of such of the plutocracy's capital "plant and equipment" assets as are confronted with competitor-installation of superior vintages of capital "plant and equipment" assets.

This is especially true in the case of the installation of superior such later vintages by new entrant competitors, who do not share the legacy that the older entrants may share, of, for example, 50-year loans taken out to finance the purchase of the earlier, now-inferior vintages.

The "old entrant" competitors must still bear the costs of paying the contractual debt-service on those old-vintages' loans, despite the fact that those old vintages have been taken out of service and scrapped. The "old entrant" competitors must also bear the costs of paying the contractual debt-service on any loans needed to finance their purchase of the new vintages, which these "old entrants" are forced to install by competition from the new entrants, who launched with the newest vintage "plant and equipment". Thus, the profitability potential, and the '''competitivity''', of the "old entrants" is impaired relative to that of new entrant(s), even after the "old entrants" have scrapped the old-vintage equipment, and installed the new.

The core plutocracy comprises, by definition, the owners of the most concentrated, most consolidated, most centralized portions of world-market-system core industrial and financial capital-assets.

Their continual exposure to competition from technologically superior "plant and equipment", installed by rivals, and/or by new entrants, and the net losses to their fixed capital, and to their profit-returns on that fixed capital, that such exposure increasingly entails, after this historical turning point, increasingly threatens the economic basis — the predominant capital-ownership basis, and the predominant money control basis — of the socio-political power of this plutocracy.

This turning point can be characterized as that of a turn or shift in the ratio of the capital-value of "fixed capital" ("plant and equipment", which is exposed to capital losses due to 'techno-depreciation') divided by the capital-value of "circulating capital", for core world-market-system industrial capital.

"Circulating capital" includes:

• the physical, wear and tear "depreciation" charges;
• the wages costs; and,
• the other "ingredients costs" or "inputs costs".

These "circulate" in the commodity output offered, on the market, for sale. This output, "circulating capital", also thus embodies the "gains" to profitability, as "savings" to "input costs", due to technological productivity gains.

This fixed-capital-to-circulating-capital ratio thus measures the proportion of exposure, the ‘‘‘cross-section''' of vulnerability, to ‘techno-depreciation', of world-market-system core industrial capital.

This ratio turns or shifts from magnitudes which are less than 1 (i.e., with circulating capital value, in the denominator, preponderating), to magnitudes which are greater than 1 (i.e., with fixed capital value, in the numerator, preponderating), for world-market-system core industrial capital.

This process of competition-enforced, productivity-gain-induced, net-loss depreciation — of "obsolescence depreciation", "moral depreciation", "technological depreciation", or 'techno-depreciation', for short — can generate (1) competition-driven 'techno-deflation' of the prices of the plutocracy's commodity output, and also (2) aperiodic write-downs of the "book-value(s)" of these capital-assets. Hence also, the latter, can generate aperiodic loss-charges against the plutocracy's "retained earnings". Both of these effects reduce the rate-of-return on the "historical or "original" value of the plutocracy's past, "sunk" capital investments, as a visible, "secular" trend over time.

Indeed, the accelerating growth of technological productivity did just that, in the U. S., in the immediate post-Civil War period, in the ~35-year 'Long Techno-Deflation', from 1865 to about 1900, i.e., in the period leading up to the "Great Panic" of 1907, followed by the imposition, by the plutocracy, of the "Federal Reserve System", and of the Federal Income Tax, in 1913, and the first world-wide war, starting in 1914.

For example, note the levels of prices and inflation from 1665 to 2005 below [e2]:

After the "turning point" as defined above — i.e., once fixed capital "outweighs" living human labor-power in the plutocracy's core industrial production mix — these processes will generate a generally-declining trend in the return on the plutocracy's core industrial capital investments.

This declining trend arises, because the exposure to 'techno-depreciation' losses of the plutocracy's core industrial "plant and equipment", exceeds the potential profitability gains, both these losses and these gains being produced by a single cause: productivity increase.

This declining trend will continue for as long as that plutocracy permits such competition to operate somewhat freely, or, for as long as that plutocracy lacks the accumulated, concentrated capital-money-based political power necessary to successfully contrive to constrain such competition.

Extensive extracts from the writings of many observers of political-economy, describing this dynamic of 'techno-depreciation', have been collected in one document. [e3]

We will cite, here, only two examples, not included in those extracts, to epitomize the flavor of those other expert observers' observations:

• Example A:
  From Charles Babbage's (circa 1832) book, On The Economy of Machinery and Manufactures. Even in the early-to-mid 1800s, in the U.K.'s machine-based manufacturing:
  
  "The improvement which took place not long ago in frames for making patent-net was so great, that a machine, in good repair, which had cost £1200, sold a few years later for £60. During the great speculations in that trade, the improvements succeeded each other so rapidly, that machines which had never been finished were abandoned in the hands of their makers, because new improvements had superseded their utility." [e4]
  
  
• Example B:
  From Harold Livesay's book, Andrew Carnegie and the Rise of Big Business. In the late 1800s, around 1888, in the U. S. steel industry:
  
  "Carnegie ... [gave] his staff standing orders to replace obsolete machinery.... Bill Jones complied enthusiastically and soon had a renowned dump full of outmoded though not outworn machinery.... Carnegie once ordered Charles Schwab to rip out and rebuild a three-month-old rolling mill when Schwab said he had discovered a better design." [e5]
  

As noted already in Hypothesis I, lodged above, such declining profitability, tied to declining prices of general industrial output, occurred, for example, in the U. S., in the late 1800s, leading up to the imposition, by the plutocracy, of the Federal Income Tax system, and of the Federal Reserve System, in 1913, and of World War I, in 1914.

Hypothesis II: The Core Plutocracy's Solution to the Crisis of 'Techno-Depreciation'

These impositions were, in fact, the plutocracy's "solution" to the 'techno-depreciation' crisis of industrial capital profitability, which was also a viability-crisis for the global, capital-based social system as a whole. These solutions begat, in their wake, the plutocracy's power to create World War I, to engineer the currency inflation "bubble" of the 1920s, the Great Depression of the 1930s, the Second World War of the 1940s [though this was partly the result of their failure: of the 'Franken-Dictator' turn of their erstwhile servant-dictator, Hitler, against them], the post-World War II continual inflation since [see the chart above], and the Global Crisis of Humanity that is now fast upon us.

This productivity-growth / capital-value annihilation process will generate secular net losses, instead of net profitability, to the plutocracy's industrial production capital assets, until that plutocracy imposes, upon the rest of society, mechanisms to convert such continuing, ongoing, and even accelerating private losses to the plutocracy's businesses, into ongoing, continual, even accelerating social losses to the rest of society — losses to wages and salaries, and to the life-conditions, of the rest of society as a whole.

The plutocracy accomplishes this conversion of its losses, otherwise private and confined to itself — capital 'techno-losses' — into losses for the majority of the rest of the human population, via the establishment of central bank mechanisms enforcing "permanent inflation", such as the mechanisms of the U. S. Federal Reserve System. For more on this, see the film, "Zeitgeist: Addendum". [e6]

"Permanent inflation" is, precisely, a permanent tendency to reduce real wages and salaries, if nominal wages and salaries remain constant, or even if wages and salaries increase, but at a rate of increase (s)lower than the rate of general consumer price inflation.

Geert Reuten more fully describes this process of conversion of 'techno-deflation', and of 'techno-depreciation losses' to private capital, via continual inflation, into social losses. [e7]

Narration of U. S. Inflation-History Chart

Consider again the chart [e2] of the history of U. S. price levels from 1665 to 2005.

What stories does it tell, about what previous generations have been through, and about what is now upon us?

Note the "Great Inflation" that began circa 1915, and also note the decided lack of any such continual inflationary trend throughout the 250 years prior to that, from 1665 to 1915.

Before ~1915: One sees, in this chart, a series of somewhat shallow undulations — somewhat shallow relative to what arises after 1915 — a series of alternating, aperiodic 'acycles', acyclical waves of inflation and deflation, shadowing "business cycles", with peaks of inflation around times of war.

After ~1915: One sees an unprecedented, towering, essentially unbroken upward "exponential" trend line [with a nearly "symmetric perturbation" around that trend-line, of inflation in the 1920s 'engineered bubble', turning into nearly "equal and opposite" deflation in the 1930s Great Depression] — albeit with a further acceleration after ~1965 — of ever-escalating price levels, continual inflation.

Hypothesis III: The Conversion of 'Techno-Depreciation' into General Inflation

The post-1915 continual inflation overall — apart from temporally-local, shorter-duration, 'bubble-engineering', and war-related transients — is, precisely, general 'techno-depreciation' converted into general inflation.

It is private 'techno-losses' to the plutocracy converted into social livelihood losses for the social majority, via the mechanisms of the Federal Reserve Banks system, imposed upon that majority by the plutocracy from 1913 on, through to the present.

Reuten describes succinctly how this conversion process works:

"To the extent that technical change accelerates, price competition precludes the full amortization of capital investments.

In contrast with the common opinion that both technical change and competition are key characteristics of the capitalist system, they are incompatible, at least when technical change accelerates.

Such acceleration then gives rise to forms of concurrence — abstinence from price competition, price leaderships, cartels. The particular form depends on the structure of production of enterprises (i.e. the make-up of the stratification of capital).

Concurrence is a major determinant of the inflationary form of the accumulation of capital.

Because it is in their interest, banks tend to accommodate the concurrent price settings of enterprises and so to accommodate a socialisation of private losses that would be due to the devaluation of capital in the case of price competition.

Price inflation also puts enterprises in a relatively advantageous position vis-á-vis labour."

— Geert Reuten, "The Incompatibility of Prolonged Technical Change and Competition: Concurrence and the Socialization of Entrepreneurial Losses through Inflation" [e7]

See also Joseph M. Gillman's book, The Falling Rate of Profit, published by Dennis Dobson (London: 1957), especially pages 47-57 [e8], and the forthcoming Equitism article, "Exposing the Existential, Ontological, Historical Self-Contradiction That Capital Is — The Solution to the Riddle of the [Psycho-]History of Capitalism".

Hypothesis IV: Timing of the Core Plutocracy's Conversion to 'Capitalist Anti-Capitalism'

This prolonged ~35 year period (from 1865 through 1900) of steep, deep, sustained 'techno-deflation' was the real '''turning point crisis''' for the ruling, capital-based plutocracy. In this period, the falling prices, plus the falling profit margins, and the falling profit rates, that accompanied it — impacted not just a restricted class of goods, like computers, or other "consumer electronics" in general today, but the broad classes of industrially-produced commodities.

This was, for the core plutocracy, the "Gotterdammerung" of their industrial capital "Gott". This was, for them, the "turning point" from the ascendance phase to the decadence phase of the system of industrial, technological, competitive capital.

It was this protracted experience that turned the core plutocracy against industrial, technological, competitive capitalism; that turned this ruling plutocracy into "capitalist anti-capitalists".

Not the Panic of 1907, not the Panic of 1920, nor the prolonged 'hyper-deflation' of the "Great Depression" 1930s, but rather this prolonged fall in their rate of profit, was the "turning point" as far as this ruling plutocracy was concerned.

Indeed, the Panic of 1907 — which this core plutocracy used in their argument for the creation of the Federal Reserve System, to help them impose it on a suspicious public — and the Panic of 1920, and the "Great Depression" itself, were, in fact, contrived by the core plutocracy.

This core plutocracy contrived these socio-economic catastrophes as the beginnings of their response to, and of their retaliations against, the mortal threat that they felt being posed to their rule by 'techno-depreciation', by the general growth of technology-based and of technologically-facilitated productivity, by the growth of the '''productive force''' of human labor in general, by scientific progress applied as technological progress, and by the prosperity that all of this '''potentiated''' for the majority of humanity. For more on this, see "Zeitgeist: The Movie" [e9], moving the slider so as to start the movie at time-frame ~1:14:28 [Part III, DON'T MIND THE MEN BEHIND THE CURTAIN].

Illustrative Counterfactual Conditional

Had this ruling plutocracy not acted to resuscitate its profitability — at the expense of the rest of society, as we shall see — the rate of profit after ~1900 would have continued to fall, soon reaching a point whereafter capital-based and profit-motivated industrial production would have ground to a halt.

The majority population would have been forced to discover and to invent a new system of social relations, one which would resuscitate, mediate, and 'sustainedly' motivate a re-starting, and a re-continuation, of the social re-production of their social livelihood(s), a system of social relations that transcended the capital-/wage-labor-relation.

Hypothesis V: The "Law" of the Tendency of the Rate of Capital Profitability to Fall

Both of the kinds of consequences of the technological advance of productivity that we have noted above — of productivity-increase-caused 'de-value-ation' of the "plant and equipment" capital-value-asset, and of its commodity-output — can reduce the rate, or ratio, of "Return" on the "historical" or "original" capital-cost/capital-value of the plutocracy's past, "sunk" capital-monetary "Investment(s)":

1. 'Techno-deflation' of the prices of the plutocracy's commodity outputs produced via this "plant and equipment", reduces per-commodity-unit sales revenues, hence also reducing the per-commodity-unit monetary "Return" on the capital-money "Invested" in these "plant and equipment" capital-assets, "squeezing" per-commodity-unit profit margins, thus reducing the "Returns" numerator of the net-revenue "Returns" divided by fixed-capital-Investment value-ratio;
   
   
2. Episodic "write-downs" of the "historical", "original" book-value of these "plant and equipment" capital-assets — often "writing them down" to a zero capital-monetary-value, after their 'techno-depreciation' has been recognized — also subtracts out of the "Returns" numerator of the net-revenue "Returns" divided by fixed-capital-Investment value-ratio.

However, in the case of this second consequence, the amount of the "Returns" numerator write-down also, simultaneously, subtracts out from the fixed-capital-Investment denominator of the net-revenue "Returns" divided by fixed-capital-Investment value-ratio. This raises the question as to the overall effect, upon the magnitude of the net-revenue "Returns" divided by fixed-capital-Investment value-ratio as a whole, of this concurrent reduction of both the numerator-component and the denominator-component of this ratio as a whole, by a decrement of the same magnitude for each.

For example, both of these consequences of 'techno-depreciation' can reduce the ratio of net revenue over capital-value invested; can reduce the '''yield'''-ratio, the profit-ratio, or profit-rate, on capital, in that sense, as a secularly-visible, empirically-measurable trend over time.

This is so because both consequences reduce the numerator of that profit-ratio, relative to the fixed-capital Investment-value denominator of that profit-ratio.

Both (consequence 1) reduced commodity unit-revenues from sales, resulting from reduced commodity unit-prices, and (consequence 2) sales revenues episodically reduced by write-offs of part or all of the historical cost of 'techno-depreciated' "plant and equipment", i.e., of "fixed capital", can reduce the R numerator of the profitability-measuring "Return on Investment", net-Revenue-over-fixed-capital-Investment, or (Returns / Investment), '''yield'''-ratio, relative to its "plant and equipment" Investment-cost, or I, denominator.

Note that effect (2) also reduces the I denominator, by an equal amount of techno-depreciation write-off, d, to that which reduces the R numerator, but the numerator-reduction-effect predominates with respect to the magnitude of the "Return on Investment" ratio as a whole, for, if I > R > d > 0, then ((R - d)/(I - d)) < (R/I).

For a proof of this proposition, see the end-notes to this article. [e10]

The Core Plutocracy Abhors the Worldwide Rise of [Working-]Middle Classes and of their Political Democracy

Similarly, the human development that inherently accompanies this technological advancement of commodity productivity, likewise threatens, in the eyes of the plutocracy, their continued power to rule.

The more educated, better-paid, healthier, somewhat-leisured workers required to run technologically-advanced, high productivity, low unit-cost production units, workers with sufficient free time to potentially participate in politics — i.e., the emergence of the modern "middle class"; the peopling of the higher technical-composition-of-labor stratum of the wagéd or salaried working class — all together constitute another growing threat to the ruling-power of the plutocracy, in the "eyes" of that plutocracy.

Educated, dual-skilled, i.e., mentally-and-manually-skilled workers, granted some free time, can begin to question and to see through the vitiating ideologies employed by this plutocracy, as well as by its ancestor ruling classes, heretofore, to divide-and-conquer — to dis-empower — the majority of the human race.

These ideologies include pseudo-spiritual religions.

These ideologies also include 'ethnicist', racist, sexist, and classist belief systems.

As well, these ideologies include, most recently, the pseudo-ecological, 'People Are Pollution' ideologies.

All of these ideologies are psycho-manufactured, to order, by the plutocracy's ideology-engineering apparatuses, in part, to condition the public to acquiesce in the plutocracy's planned global multi-genocides.

The core, ruling faction of the oil/finance plutocracy, has realized that the continuation of capitalism itself, of its competitive incentives to growing technological productivity, and of its concomitant growth of middle classes world-wide — i.e., capitalism's engendering of the growth of an advanced working class of manually and mentally developed producers — increasingly impends the overthrow of that faction's global, rapacious tyranny.

In response to this realization, that core plutocracy has turned against capitalist, political-only democracy, against capitalism itself, and against humanity as a whole, other than itself.

As far as these plutocrats are concerned, no amount of murder is too high a price to pay, in order to hold on to their power.

Indeed, mass murder is the only '''great enjoyment''' left to these hyper-sadistic, twisted, de Sade-ian degenerations of humanity. As, in our ancient past, with Nero, and with Caligula, power has corrupted the core ruling plutocracy of today; near-absolute power has corrupted them near-absolutely.

The innermost, ruling faction of the ruling plutocracy have thus become, "secretly"— "secretly", that is, for all those unable to read "between the lines" of their propaganda — 'capitalist anti-capitalists', and 'human anti-human[ist]s'.

As a result, the oil/finance plutocracy has resolved to crush the rising global middle class, to collapse science, educational levels, technological advancement, productive technology [as opposed to, for example, military, mass-murderous technology, and police-state surveillance technology], and therefore, also, to collapse majority living standards and human population levels to — at best! — [neo-]feudal norms, reducing the global human population by ~ 90%.

The plutocracy aims, thereby, to "cut down to size" their global [servile] human population, i.e., to a level over which — or so the plutocracy imagines — they can manage to perpetuate their rule, and their perks-of-rule — their lives of plunder, torture, rape, and mass murder — for all futurity.

This — or something even worse — is their ['Meta-Nazi'] '''Final Solution to the Humanity Problem'''.

The hyper-concentration of property and wealth in their hands gives the ruling faction of the plutocracy the means to employ governments, and the corporate mass media, world-wide, to accomplish their ultra-evil ends.

The 'techno-depreciation' threat — the threat of the process whereby accumulating capital-value technologically de-values, and thus dis-accumulates, itself — as well as the threat of middle [working-]class advancement inherent in competitive capitalism, gives that plutocracy their motive.

Generations of plutocratic inheritance of generally accelerating, hyper-accumulating, and hyper-concentrating ownership of capital-wealth, coupled with generations of dis-inheritance of all other social classes, world-wide, has given this plutocratic faction the economic, monetary power to prostitute the branches of political government to its will, in the U.S., in the U.K., in the rest of the E.U., and beyond.

Initially, it accomplishes this 'whorification' of political government through massive lobbying and other bribery, through selective granting (or denial) of its foundations' massive funding, supplemented by its corporate mass media's character-assassinations, and physical assassinations, of those who, for whatever reasons, still refuse to be bought-off.

Thus, the houses of legislature have become houses of prostitution.

The executive branches and the judiciaries are, likewise, increasingly reduced to utter whoredom to the oil/finance plutocracy.

The corporate mass media, the theocratic-totalitarian movements — the pseudo-Christian, the pseudo-Judaic, the pseudo-Islamicist, etc. — and the 'Soylent-Green' ideology of the "People are Pollution" pseudo-religion of neo-Malthusian environmentalist "Earthism", are now all wholly-owned subsidiaries of the "charitable foundations" and of the other ideology-engineering apparatuses of this core plutocracy.

The Genesis of the Core Plutocracy's 'Anti-Marxian Marxianism'

The Long 'Techno-Deflation', ~1865 to ~1900 [~35 Years]:

Throughout this discussion, we have made use of insights gleaned from the writings of Karl Marx, humanity's deepest and most insightful student of the capitals-system so far.

When we refer to the tradition of Marxian theory, we do NOT include those who falsely claim to be the owners of Marx's legacy: NOT Lenin, NOT Trotsky, NOT Stalin, NOT Mao, NOT Castro, NOT Kim IL Sung, ... — NOT any of the totalitarian, STATE-Capitalist pseudo-Marxians — dictators and mass murderers — each more akin to a ruler of the core plutocracy, to a rival of, and to an "alternate" version of, the typical leader of the core capitalist ruling class, than to a scientist of human liberation, and a benefactor of humanity, such as Marx.

Make no mistake about it: the name of Karl Marx, and the content of his theories, came also to the attention of the core plutocracy in these years.

The name, and the theories, came to their attention because of the threat to the power of their competitors in Germany, posed by the German "Social Democratic" party, and movement, both of which affirmed the name, and the theories, of Karl Marx, however superficially, as part of their heritage and inspiration.

The name, and the theories, also came to their attention because of the anti-Czarist movement then building up in Russia, leading up to the Russian Revolution of 1905, which also claimed that name and those theories, however accurately or inaccurately, as part of their inspiration.

The core plutocracy, from its very inception, has always been willing and able to afford the counsel of the greatest minds that money can buy.

They put the best of these minds, the minds of their best intellectual prostitutes, to work, during this period, on the theories of Karl Marx.

This work led to their realization that, as the first principle of Marx's theory asserts, growth of capitalist society's "productive forces" — i.e., growth of the technology-based productivity of capital "plant and equipment" — will grow to a stage where it dissolves capital. Indeed, the growth of productivity does so all along, but, at first, only partially, and gradually. Finally, however, it will do so preponderantly, suddenly, and totally.

Growth of productivity — growth of the wealth-creative, self-reproductive power of human society — embodied in [fixed] capital ["plant and equipment"], destroys capital; destroys the capital-value of "plant and equipment", by 'techno-depreciation'.

Growth of the "social forces of production", of social productivity, of the self-productivity of human society, of the wealth-creating power of humanity, which capital itself incents, annihilates capital.

This growth of humanity's social self-reproductive force will, at length, annihilate capital's accumulated value, annihilate capital's profitability, and, thus, will also annihilate the socio-political preponderant power of those who own the preponderance of capital: the core plutocracy.

A sense of the centrality of the concept named "The Growth of the Social Forces of Production" in Marx's theory of 'Human Social Meta-Evolution' can be formed via the text, "The Heart and Soul of Marxian Theory". [e11]

Hypothesis VI: The Core Plutocracy, Secretly, Came to Believe that Marx was Right about that Plutocracy's "Lawful" Fate under Capital[-ism]

The core plutocracy came to believe, during those years, in summary, that Marx's predictions about the destiny of Capitalism, and about their destiny, within it, were, essentially, correct, as well as being totally unacceptable to them!

Once this conviction took hold within them, these ruling plutocrats realized that they faced two options:

• 1. Continual, accelerating erosion of their accumulated, gargantuan fixed "plant and equipment" capital-value "principal", and of its profitability, or "[net-]returns", and, therefore, continual, accelerating erosion of their socio-political power to predominate over the rest of humanity, and thus the erosion of all the "perks" of that predominance, together with an "entropic-doom-like" "winding down" of the global system of capital, which they had ruled.
  
  The global system of capital, as the present means and medium of worldwide human species social reproduction, given that this system is motivated and driven by "[net-]returns" on capital investment — by capital profitability — and by capital-value "principal" accumulation, would "wind down" as these motivating forces waned with the waning of profitability caused by accelerating 'techno-depreciation'.
  
  This waning of the social reproductive forces of capitalism would force the non-plutocrats, the rest of the people, to create a new means and medium for their social reproduction — on pain of death — i.e., in order to resuscitate their livelihoods.
  
  There were already signs that this new means and medium of human social reproduction would take the form of a more egalitarian political-and-economic democracy, in which those plutocrats would lose all of their "perks of rule" — would be "reduced" to the status of "mere" commoners like everyone else.
  
  Plutocrats such as these cannot stand such a thought!
  
  Indeed, such mentalities, to this very day, fly into a humanocidal rage whenever they see we "commoners" getting ahead in the least.
  
  In their view, they must be "above" us. The entire self-identity of each one of them depends upon that "elevated" status!
  
  They would rather die — or, preferably, they would rather that we die — rather than lose their status, their predominance, their power over us.
  
  OR
  
  
• 2. They would have to apply Marx's principle in reverse, and in opposition to Marx's liberatory intent.
  
  They would have to reverse, to undo, all of the progress of the ascendant phase of the capital epoch.
  
  They would have to reverse the growth of the social forces of production that capitalism had produced.
  
  They would have to block competition from technologically-innovative new-entrant "upstarts" in the already-industrialized nations, prevent "pre-capitalist" nations from "capitalizing", industrializing, and competing, using the latest, most advanced equipment, destroy public education, and popular hope and belief in the promise of progress, science, and technology, destroy the growth of middle [working-]classes worldwide, and impose superstition-based "neo-feudal" dictatorships everywhere, to stop democratic and scientifico-technological advance.
  
  This prospect of a "restoration" of '''[neo-]feudal aristocratism''' was particularly appealing to some of the crypto-'''aristocratic''' member-families of the core plutocracy — families of the former European feudal '''[ig-]noble''' ruling class, who had maintained their great wealth despite the anti-feudal, democratic-capitalist revolutions in England, France, etc., and who had thence transitioned, as '''crypto-capitalists''', into the capitalist ruling class.

The Genesis of the Core Plutocracy's 'Human Anti-Humanism'

As a consequence of reversing the growth of the productive forces, reducing productivity, and reducing production, back to pre-capitalist levels, thus reducing the human '''carrying capacity''', not of nature, but of human society, they would also have to drastically reverse the growth of human population worldwide — to '''eugenicize''' and reduce the global population of commoner "riff raff".

This would also, in their eyes, have the '''by-product benefit''' of reducing the workload of their servant-dictatorships' secret police, and thus of increasing the probability that their servant-dictatorships could maintain the enslavement and oppression of the remaining "commoner", neo-peonic population, as well as the suppression of any tendencies to rekindle scientific and technological advance.

Indeed, the Rockefeller Eugenics "Movement", in the U. S. — not yet today's Rockefeller-subverted perversion of the grassroots anti-pollution movement, the Rockefeller-funded, 'Soylent Green', humanocidal pseudo-religion of "People Are Pollution", Neo-Malthusian 'Earthism' — was the first new ideology, together with the ideology of "Social Darwinism", by which the core plutocracy sought to elicit public acquiescence in their planned, world-wide multi-genocide.

Indeed, Adolph Hitler, initially a core-plutocracy-funded servant-dictator, modeled his early, proto-Holocaust decrees on the legislation imposed in the U. S. by the Rockefeller-funded Eugenics "Movement". Hitler received direct financial support from that U. S. Eugenics "Movement" [for more on this, see the book "War Against the Weak", by Edwin Black]. [e8_1]

The core plutocracy's new, 'Soylent Green' "Global Warming" ideology as "justification" for global genocide — since '''human population is the root of all pollution ["People Are Pollution"]''' — is, indeed, the direct successor to the Rockefeller/Hitler Eugenics ideology of the 1920s-1930s. [e8_2]

The ultra-secret meetings that crafted the legislation to establish the Federal Reserve System, and its regime of continual inflation [see the "Zeitgeist" movie [e9], moving the slider to ~1:17:20], and the imposition of the Federal Income Tax, both in 1913, created the opening gambits of their implementation of "option 2".

Their engineering of World War I in 1914 constituted their next phase [see the "Zeitgeist" movie [e9], moving the slider to ~1:28:24].

The plutocracy's engineering of The Great Depression, the spread of the core plutocracy's militarist servant-dictatorships world-wide — Horthy in Hungary, Mussolini in Italy, Hitler in Germany, Franco in Spain, Salazar in Portugal, Castillo and Peron in Argentina, Hirohito and Tojo in Japan, Chiang Kai-Shek in China, etc., etc. — and of World War II, comprised their next phase after that[see "GS9: Capital Asset Bubble Engineering: An Economic Weapon of Mass Destruction in the Arsenal of the Ruling Plutocracy"]. [e12]

The core plutocrat's even planned a military coup in the United States, to overthrow the Roosevelt Presidency, and to impose yet another one of their Hitler-like dictatorships upon the people of the United States as well.

On August 22, 1934, three days after Hitler was granted total dictatorship over Germany, a pudgy agent of the plutocracy, erstwhile bond salesman Jerry MacGuire, approached General Smedley D. Butler, with an offer from the leading families of the core plutocracy — from the Rockefeller, Pew, Morgan, Mellon, and Du Pont families, among others.

They requested that General Butler raise an army of unemployed WWI veteran soldiers, lavishly provendered by these plutocratic families, and lead these embittered veterans in a military overthrow of the United States constitutional government, to depose Roosevelt, and to install himself as the first dictator of the United States, i.e., as the public front man for these families, and for their social, political, and economic policies, which he was to administer on their behalf, and under their covert "guidance". [e13]

Unfortunately for these plutocrats — and oh so fortunately for humanity as a whole — things began to go wrong with these plutocrats' plans. Their designs began to unwind.

Servant-dictator Hitler was assigned, by the core plutocracy, to attack Russia, thereby assuring the mutual destruction of Germany and Russia, and the elimination of the threat that a potential alliance between Germany and Russia posed to the global power of the core plutocracy.

It was none other than Prescott Bush himself — father of CIA Director and U. S. President George H. W. Bush, grandfather of President George W. Bush, and founding father of the 'Bush Crime Family' as a servant-family to the core plutocracy — who 'conduited' much of the financing, by that core plutocracy, of Hitler's rise to power in Germany, from Bush's position in the investment bank of Brown and Harriman. This led to indictments, and to seizure of assets, under the WWII "Trading with the Enemy Act", as documented by Kevin Phillips in his book, American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush. [e13_1]

Thus, the 'Bush Crime Family' has been a family allocated, by the core plutocracy, to the facilitation of the core plutocracy's erstwhile Nazi servant-dictatorship — and to the facilitation of other core plutocracy servant-dictatorships world-wide; to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity of many kinds — since its very inception as a servant-family within the lower plutocracy. The Bush family's latest assignment — to establish a totalitarian servant-dictatorship in the United States of America, failed, but only narrowly-so. That assignment has now passed to the Democrats, under the administration of President-to-be Barack Obama.

Unfortunately for that plutocracy, Hitler decided that he had the potential to replace them with himself, and turned on them, signing an [insincere] peace pact with Stalin, and, Frankenstein-like, attacking his erstwhile masters to the West [see "GS11: The Great Depression, World War II, Hitler, and the 'Rocke-Nazis'"]. [e14]

Hitler's "Franken-Dictator" turn forced that plutocracy to suspend their plans, and, instead, to more thoroughly utilize, rather than overthrow, the Roosevelt Administration, to militarily mobilize the U. S. working-/middle-class population to die horrific deaths by the thousands, as soldiers, to save the core plutocracy from their Franken-Dictator, Hitler.

This required some "New Deal" concessions, to motivate that mobilization, in place of the totalitarian — and 'Eugenical', '''Population Reduction'''-based '''Raw Deal''' — that the core plutocracy otherwise had planned for these American “commoners”, their '''genetic inferiors'''.

After Hitler's demise, the plutocracy faced a new "Franken-Dictator" in the person of Stalin, who viciously vied with them for world domination.

Only since the fall of the Stalinist dictatorships in Russia and Eastern Europe, circa 1989, has the core plutocracy felt free to resume the implementation of their "Anti-Marxian Marxianist" plan.

The present, incipient global depression is that resumption — their engineered replay of the 1930s, with a vengeance.

Hypothesis VII: The Formerly '''Quiet''' Desperation of the Core Plutocracy has Now Exploded into Desperate, Globally-Destructive Action

Only a great fear, one which obsesses the ruling plutocrats to their craven core, could motivate them to, once again, risk exposure, and total defeat, by fomenting the global catastrophe which is now underway.

The core plutocracy constitutes a microscopically tiny portion of humanity. If the public ever catches on to the vast crimes against humanity that they have already perpetrated, and to the even greater crimes they have planned for the future, they are toast — and they know this, only too well.

The circa 1989 demise of the Stalinist dictatorships in Russia and Eastern Europe provided one source of confirmation for the desperation of the core plutocracy.

Demonstrations, so massive as to terrify and to paralyze the Stalinist militaries and secret police, broke out, unexpectedly, in the midst of full blown police states, in which freedom of expression, radio and television expression of dissent, and freedom of the press — publication of critical books and booklets and pamphlets of all kinds — were all brutally suppressed.

Years of «samizdat» — of clandestine circulation of hand-copied and mimeographed manuscripts, criticizing the Stalinist regimes from myriads of points of view — had, at length, galvanized into a social consensus so powerful as to, with very little violence, overthrow some of the most vicious totalitarian dictatorships in known human history.

Another source of confirmation has been the rapid rise of massive new middle-classes in highly-populous former "Third World" nations — especially in India and in China — middle classes which increasingly threaten, with rising political democracy, the Third-World-wide — soon to be world-wide, or so the core plutocracy plans — system of servant-dictatorships upon which the core plutocracy's global rule depends.

These new middle classes have the wherewithal to threaten the core plutocracy's global system of servant-dictatorships far more than the impoverished populations of the old Stalinist dictatorships ever did — and look what happened to those dictatorships!

It took emergency, "shock therapy" mass social torture, and massive mafia violence — orchestrated by the core plutocracy's top University of Chicago "economics" hit-men — to bring Russia and Eastern Europe back under [servant-dictatorial] "control"!

Little-known to the broad public — designedly so, on the part of the core plutocracy, via the corporate mass media that they increasingly control, e.g., with the help of FCC "regulators" — is yet another confirmation of the core plutocracy's stark, raving terror.

The latter confirmation is the recent proliferation, not only of professional scientists', but of hobbyists', basement and garage construction of "cold fusion" devices, and of Philo Farnsworth '''hot fusion''' devices, as recently featured in a page one article in The Wall Street Journal. [e15]

Websites whereby both professional scientist and amateur enthusiast contributors share insights and learnings toward fusion reactor designs have also proliferated recently. [e16]

Should one of these growing numbers of "upstarts" stumble upon a workable reactor design — or rediscover one of the designs that the core plutocracy has previously suppressed, such as Dr. Robert W. Bussard's final Inertial Electrostatic Confinement [IEC] Polywell design — and communicate this [re-]discovery into the public domain before a little "accident" can be arranged for that "upstart", the core plutocracy is toast, and they know it — only too well!

Publicly disclose fusion energy technology, and the core plutocracy's global empire of oil — and, with it, the plutocracy's power to plunder, torture, rape, and murder humanity — will be, as they say, "history".

YES! The core plutocracy was able, with IRS help, to destroy Philo Farnsworth's will to live, after he discovered the "Fusor".

YES! The core plutocracy was able to marshal their mass media, to vilify, and to character-assassinate, Dr. Stanley Pons and Dr. Martin Fleischmann, in retaliation for their public disclosure of their "cold fusion" findings.

YES! The core plutocracy was able to dispatch one of their staff hit-men to murder Dr. Eugene Mallove after his fusion advocacy had begun to reach "critical mass" [For more on this, see "GS3: The Long History of the 'Rocke-Nazi' Suppression of Nuclear Fusion Energy Development, and the Decoy of Linear-Equilibrium 'Tokamak' Fusion".] [e17]

YES! The core plutocracy was able to assassinate Dr. Robert W. Bussard, via double-cancer — as they have done with so many others '''who got in their way''' [Jack Ruby, Martha Mitchell, and former CIA-commissar Casey, among so many others, come to mind.] — less than a year after he escaped from an 11-years-long Navy gag-order, and went public with his successful IEC compact fusion reactor design, on November 9th, 2006.

The Navy had imposed the gag order upon Dr. Bussard as a condition for their funding of Dr. Bussard's research, but the Navy summarily cut-off his funding immediately after the test run that confirmed the success of his final design, thus freeing him from both his funding, and from the gag order [For more on this, see "GS5: Fusion Breakthrough".]. [e18]

But can the core plutocracy, forever, stop one of this profusion of fusion enthusiasts — perhaps one aided, openly or clandestinely, by professional engineers and scientists sympathetic to the survival and prosperity of the human species — from finding a fusion reactor design, and from going public with it, effectively — and before the core plutocracy's hit-men can pounce?

Unlike oil and other "fossil fuels", and unlike the uranium-ore, and the uranium-ore-products, that fuel nuclear fission power reactors, the primary "ore" of nuclear fusion power reactors cannot be monopolized — not by the core plutocracy, and not by anyone else.

The primary fuel of fusion, Hydrogen, is abundant worldwide, in water. There is, and must be, water, already, wherever there are human settlements.

Therefore, human progression to the fuels of fusion atomic/sub-atomic power, from the fuels of hydrocarbons-based molecular-power, and unlike the fuels of hydrocarbons-based molecular-power, cannot be used to blackmail, to debt-enslave, and to otherwise "control", the nations of the world.

The advent of fusion power — of low-cost, abundant, and potentially zero-radioactivity industrial energy — also portends global human prosperity, an end to the core plutocracy's 'Global Dictatorship of Petroleum', and an end to the core plutocracy's "ecological" excuses for its incessant subtext calls for global "population reduction".

The public communication, and implementation, of fusion energy technology is thus the Meta-Nazis' worst nightmare.

Though these plutocrats may flatter themselves that they are '''The Gods who walk the Earth''' — that they are omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent — they know, in their craven, shriveled hearts, that they are not. They know that their "batting average" is far from perfect.

These ruling plutocrats know that it is only a matter of time before another successful fusion power reactor design is discovered, and leaks out to the global public — despite the core plutocracy's '''eternal vigilance''' against fusion — UNLESS!

UNLESS the core plutocracy crushes all of the rest of humanity under a global depression, followed by a global police state, imposing unprecedented levels of electronic and nano-technological surveillance upon those relatively few non-plutocrats whom they plan to allow to continue to live!

UNLESS the core plutocracy impose their '''FINAL SOLUTION TO THE HUMANITY PROBLEM''' SOON!

The 'Meta-Nazi' Plan

The core plutocracy's plan, in a nutshell, is to impoverish, enslave, and, finally, to exterminate you and your family, reducing world population by ~90%, to a level of population so low that, they believe, their rule can be secured in perpetuity, creating a new, and permanent, '''neo-feudal''' Dark Age [see "GS10: Meet the 'Meta-Nazis' Face-to-Face"]. [e19]

The perversion of the grass-roots anti-pollution movement, into the core-plutocracy-choreographed 'Soylent Green' "movement" of today, via years of massive funding from, and manipulation by, the plutocracy's foundations, into a progress-denying, anti-science, anti-technology, pro-negative-growth, "People Are Pollution", neo-Malthusian pro-humanocide movement, has been slated, by the plutocracy, to play a key role in providing pseudo-"ecological" excuses for their plan to impoverish, enslave, and exterminate you and your family — indeed, for their plan to murder of the majority of human race [see "GS12: Some Hypotheses Concerning the Lobby for Global Genocide"]. [e20]

The "principals" of the core plutocracy are well-described as 'Meta-Fascists', or 'Meta-Nazis', both because they are far more humanocidally vicious than mere Fascists, or mere Nazis, or mere Stalinists — their mere servants — but also because of their preferred mode of rule. They prefer to stay out of sight, to rule from behind the scenes, so that their individual identities are scarcely known to the public. They prefer to exercise their dominion through the visible agency of the police-state servant dictatorships that they finance into place, and otherwise put into place, in every nation that comes under their control.

The core plutocracy's preferred "division of labor", their "business model", and their "organization design" is fairly simple, "in principle". They keep their thumbs on their handful of servant-dictators. They let their servant-dictators keep their thumbs on every body else.

The plan of the core plutocracy, in their present, re-edition of their 1930s global depression scenario, is to institute their '''FINAL SOLUTION TO THE HUMANITY PROBLEM''' — their '''SOLUTION''' to THEIR problem with humanity's tendency to outgrow them, and to overthrow them — a '''FINAL SOLUTION''' for which Hitler's '''FINAL SOLUTION TO THE JEWISH PROBLEM''', and Stalin's Gulags, constituted mere "dress rehearsals".

Their '''SOLUTION''' is to turn the whole world into '''One Big Zimbabwe''' — into '''ONE BIG CONCENTRATION / EXTERMINATION CAMP''' [see "GS1: Towards A Strategy For Humanity"]. [e21]

Along their way to this '''FINAL SOLUTION''', the core plutocracy plans, first, to bankrupt and dismantle what little is left of the civilian industrial base of the United States, destroying what's left of the US Middle-Working Class in the process, while simultaneously crushing the Middle-Working Classes of the EU and the UK, and also pulverizing the nascent Middle Classes in China, India, Brazil, and worldwide, imposing '''Marshall Law''' military dictatorships — electronic-/nano-surveillance police states — everywhere.

They plan to reduce the US to the status of just another '''Banana Republic''', but without any bananas.

The US dollar paper money supply has been vastly expanded, both by the recent turning over of the U. S. taxpayers' Treasury to Wall Street — so that the architects of this economic collapse could continue with their multi-billion dollar annual bonuses and dividend payouts, while the rest of the citizenry implodes — and by the vast recent monetarily-expansive maneuvers of the Federal Reserve balance sheet.

It is planned to further expand that supply of '''fictitious money''' via the Obama fiscal stimulus package, mushrooming potential money-paper demand at the same time that real production, and real productivity — the supply of real goods — is collapsing in free fall fashion.

The Weimar Republic, with its legendary hyperinflation, was the preparatory phase for the core-plutocracy-orchestrated, 'Meta-Nazi'-orchestrated Nazi takeover in 1930s Germany.

This present explosion of paper dollars — given the influence of the US dollar on the world economy — will soon eventuate in a '''globalization''' of the Weimar hyperinflation phenomenon.

The coming 'Obama Dollar Bubble' will result in a worldwide 'Weimarization' of humanity, plus an accelerated, THIS TIME GLOBAL, de-indistrialization, preparatory to global dictatorship, bankrupting the US government, and national governments everywhere, and annihilating the purchasing power of the US dollar, collapsing its value to zero.

This bankrupting of the US Government, together with this 'zero-ization' of the US dollar, will give the 'Meta-Nazi' plutocracy the excuse — the excuse that they have sought for so long — to abolish the United States of America, to abolish the US Constitution, and to abolish its Bill of Rights — a Constitution and a Bill of Rights that, despite being so often honored only in the breach, have for long so obstructed the goals, and the much-preferred methods, of the core plutocracy.

Even those few who escaped the collapse of stock market asset values, and of home asset values, and kept their savings in "safe" money market, CD, and cash assets, will have their savings too reduced to nothing.

If this sounds to you like an implementation of mathematics professor, and "Unabomber", Ted Kaczynski's ideology — 'Unabomberism' — then you heard right [for more on the ideology of 'Unabomberism', see Kaczynski's manifesto, "Industrial Society and Its Future"]. [e21_1]

The trouble with Ted, from the point of view of the core plutocracy, was not that he swallowed — hook, line, and sinker — one variant of the pseudo-ecological, 'psycho-engineered' ideologies with which they have infected the corporate mass media worldwide, to provide excuses — convenient cover — for their real agenda; for their implementation of their "FINAL SOLUTION TO THE HUMANITY PROBLEM".

The trouble with Ted, for the core plutocracy, was that he got into their racket himself, as a small-time, independent operator, and as a "true-believer", merely-micro-mass-murderer, prematurely micro-implementing elements of their p[r]ogrom, and beginning to give it the public bad name that it so justly deserves.

The core plutocracy had to '''build a fire under''' their conventional police forces, and their FBI proto-secret-police, to put Ted out of business, '''pronto!'''.

They don't want any more '''two-bit''' amateurs '''getting in their way'''.

This is the core-plutocracy's '''SOLUTION''' to what they euphemistically call, for public consumption, the '''Ecology Crisis''' — i.e., their '''SOLUTION''' to the threat to their power to rule posed by any further progress of human science and technology: their plan to impoverish, thence to enslave, and thence to exterminate you and your family.

What can you do, now, to save yourself and your family — to save so many other families like yours?

Prescription: What To Do About It

The mission of the Equitist Advocacy group is to catalyze the popular re-foundation of global human society upon the principles of 'generalized equity'.

We seek to accomplish this mission by promoting the promulgation of 'Equitarian' constitutional amendments, of their enabling legislation, and of the democratic election of candidates committed to their implementation.

This implementation is designed to create, at length, a transition from the darkening present, to a brighter future.

The 'Equitarian Reform' is designed to drive a social transition out of the increasingly unjust, 'in-equitarian', incipiently totalitarian, multi-genocidal, [state-/private-]capitalist, monopolist/oligopolist/plutocratic political-economy of the present. The 'Equitarian Reform' is designed to drive a social transition in to an 'Equitarian', comprehensively democratic political-economy, founded upon the constitutional establishment of four new species of social, universal, fundamental, human-rights-based equity.

These four new species of socio-economic equity arise in the supersession of, and as a necessary supplement to, the existing, first, and original species of equity: capital-equity.

That is, that single, presently-elaborated species of equity is, by name, 'internality-equity', the capital-equity stockholder, ownership-rights-based principle of "one share, one vote"; of economic-equity stockholder democracy, however much that principle is, presently, honored mainly "in the breach".

The four additional classes of socio-economic and political equity — proposed to you, by the Equitist Advocacy group — can be briefly characterized as follows [For an extended exposition of these new categories of equity, see "Alternative to the Totalitarian Self-Degeneration of Capitalism: Political-Economic Democracy."] [e22]:

• 'Citizen Externality Equity' — is the proposed constitutional requirement that each local operating unit of each enterprise that imposes significant "externalities" or "external costs" upon its local public(s) — e.g., toxic pollution — must incorporate a democratically-elected, locally-elected, publicly-elected, public board of public directors, counterpart to the existing, standard, local "management committee", or "local governing board", appointed by the enterprise's head office private board of directors, with the public board and the private board, thus, having co-authority over the annual 'externalities operating budget' of that local operating unit.
  
  The resulting structure of enterprise board governance would no longer be "uni-cameral"; we would have transformed it into a "bi-cameral" structure.
  
  
• We members of the "grassroots" voting public, especially those of us local to each such externalities-generating enterprise, may be impacted — possibly fatally — by the externalities output of that enterprise. However, today, under present social relations, we have little recourse. We have little recourse, unless we own the offending capital, or unless we can afford to finance costly-and-uncertain litigation under capital-equity as the dominant form of '''social''' equity.
  
  
• The second "house", the new, "popular house" of popularly-elected public-directors will give every participating member of the "grassroots", voting public: (1) a voice in setting the annual "budget" of such externalities that each such local operating unit is legally permitted to produce, (2) a voice in setting the rate of taxation for the 'externalities taxes' that each such local operating unit would be legally required to pay for the externalities that it is still permitted to impose upon the public, and upon its environment in general, and (3) a voice in the allocation of the new public revenues so generated, for the remediation of the social damages induced by those externalities still allowed, etc.
  
  
• 'Citizen Birthright Equity' — is the proposed constitutional requirement which establishes that each and every child born into equitable society shall be endowed, by that society, with a lifetime social trust fund, sufficient to support the expected lifetime healthcare, education, home purchase, retirement pension, and other social-baseline life necessities of that new citizen, with that individual's disposition rights over those societal funds defined so as to avert their misuse.
  
  These 'Citizen Birthright' trust funds would be financed by a tax, on the 'Citizen Stewardship Equity' use of social property — e.g., on socially-owned production plant and equipment, ceded by society-as-a-whole, for use by a given, particular stewardship enterprise. This tax would, thus, constitute a '''social rent''' for those stewards' use of social property, designed to generate funds for the maintenance and expansion of societal self-investment, both human and instrumental.
  
  
• 'Citizen Stewardship Equity' — is designed to gradually supplant and supersede the capital-relation, by superseding the wagéd-labor and salaried-labor relationships, the latter, forming the core of the capital-relation. This new species of equity entails the constitutional empowerment of each citizen to participate in the co-formation of, and the democratic, 'one steward, one vote' co-conduct of the production and the democratic self-management of, localized, enterprise-level, associations of producers (i.e., socialized producers' cooperatives) on a 'one citizen, one vote' basis.
  
  This means that each such citizen-producer would be empowered to act as a co-steward of that part of the total social property — in the form of, e.g., production plant and equipment — granted and '''rented''' to that citizen's qualified producer-association, as collective self-employer, by a local, public, social bank, itself also a 'Citizen Stewardship Equity' co-stewardship association, democratically self-managed by its own citizen-producers, as collective self-employees.
  
  This 'Citizen Stewardship Equity' right would include the right of each such citizen co-steward of such social property in-use to an equal share in the net profits of enterprise generated by that cooperative association of producers, as well as to a — perhaps unequal — base-salary in return for the collectively required productive participation in, and contribution to, that association for production, as democratically decided by the assembly of the co-stewards of that cooperative enterprise. Payment of those profit-shares and base-salaries to themselves by those co-stewards, would depend upon their productive contribution, and also upon their collective success in finding fellow-citizen customers for their product/service output, fellow-citizens/customers willing to pay a price sufficient to fund that salary and that profit-sharing, and for whose patronage they would face competition from other socialized stewardship cooperatives.
  
  The expected tendencies — of some of the Steward's assemblies, of some of the Stewardship-based socialized producers' cooperatives — to damage their local publics for their own separate gain, e.g., in monetary income terms, by, for example, imposing pollution externalities, to reduce their internal costs of production, upon those portions of the public which reside in proximity to such cooperatives' operations, would be checked by action of the 'Externality-Equity'-based public boards of directors elected, by the public, to the bi-cameral self-management organs of each such Stewardship cooperative.
  
  The new 'Externality Equity' rights of the public must apply to such socialized producers' cooperatives — thus interacting with the new 'Stewardship Equity' rights of all citizens — and to any remaining capitalist enterprises — whether private-capital-based, or joint-stock-based — equally.
  
  We are indebted, for key aspects of the this 'Citizen Stewardship Equity' concept, to David Schweickart, via his books Against Capitalism, and After Capitalism, though the ways in which we have appropriated the ideas expressed therein is entirely our responsibility / have not been vetted with him. [e23]
  
  
• 'Citizen Allocational Equity' — is the constitutional requirement that the proceeds of the social self-investment fund, generated by the '''social rents''' on the value of social property — production plant and equipment — granted by society for use in stewardship by qualified enterprise-level '''associations-of-producers'''/'''socialized producers' cooperatives''', will be allocated to the various geographical localities of the social territory on a per-citizen, per-capita basis. This requirement is designed to ensure that equal populations of citizens receive equal opportunities to contribute to, and, thus, to partake in, the human societal production of human and natural biospheric prosperity. This constitutional requirement might be subject to certain temporary "corrections of the past", designed to undo the adverse social consequences of past inequities of wealth and opportunity allocation.

How the Equitarian Reform Obviates the 'Techno-Depreciation' Dilemma

We envision a popularly-elected 'Office of the Custodian of Social Property', constrained and regulated also by the popularly-elected legislature, to administer the provision of means of production to qualifying 'Stewardship Equity' associations of producers.

This Office should be a publicly-elected administrative entity, and should not be a 'Citizen Stewardship Equity' socialized producers cooperative.

The 'Office of the Custodian of Social Property' should not need to "turn a profit".

Therefore, "losses" due to 'techno-depreciation' can be safely absorbed by the budget of this central custodial institution.

The 'Stewardship Equity' associations should thereby be shielded from such losses.

The 'Office of the Custodian of Social Property' should mediate the purchase, for each "plant and equipment" using 'Stewardship association', or 'socialized producers cooperative', of the "plant and equipment", and of any training in its use, required by that producers cooperative, from other 'Stewardship association' socialized producers cooperatives that produce such "plant and equipment".

The Office should procure and supply that "plant and equipment", and those training services, both initially, at start-up, and also when "wear and tear" physical depreciation, or technological "moral depreciation", require "plant and equipment"/skills replacement or upgrade.

It is in the interest of human society as a whole to upgrade the standards / "best practices", in terms of "plant and equipment"-embodied technology, rapidly throughout an entire branch of social wealth production, once a new standard / "best practice" technology clearly emerges in that branch.

It is also in the interest of society as a whole that individual 'Stewardship Equity' enterprises experience incentives to continue to innovate.

If such an enterprise is forced to share its inventions, with competing 'Stewardship Equity' enterprises, through such branch-wide technology standards/"best practices" upgrades, does that not destroy the innovating 'Stewardship Equity' enterprise's incentive to continue to innovate?

One part of the incentive for a given 'Citizen Stewardship Equity' enterprise to continue to innovate, given that the Citizen Stewards, who are the producers, are in charge of the enterprise, takes the form of the rewards of reducing the producers' necessary working time — and with it, of reducing the length of their working days — through the invention of truly '''labor-saving''' technologies, truly applied as such.

That incentive persists regardless of whether other, competing Stewardship enterprises share that same technology, and that same "disposable time" benefit, or not.

Moreover, a successfully-innovating, productivity-enhancing Stewardship enterprise will enjoy the profits-advantages of its superior productivity [profits that are divided into equal shares among all of its member-Stewards], vis-á-vis its competing, non-innovated Stewardship enterprises, until its innovation qualifies for a branch-wide standards/"best-practices" upgrade/transition, i.e., until the general adoption of its innovation throughout its branch.

The principles of 'economic-democratic' Social Policy at work here include the following:

1. Proven technological innovations / productivity advances — the fruits of "universal labor" — should be diffused as rapidly as possible throughout the social economy.
   
   
2. 'Citizen Stewardship Equity' enterprises — 'socialized producers cooperatives' — are intended to compete principally on customer service quality, and on price, but not on technology.
   

For example, there is no great social benefit in driving such an enterprise to bankruptcy simply because another such enterprise "beat it to the punch" in implementing a technology-based advance in productivity, as long as the 'non-innovated' enterprise — using the [new] standard/"best-practices" "plant and equipment" and training, remains competitive on price and customer service quality.

The social objective of the conservation of inter-enterprise market competition in equitarian society is to avert the severe degradation of customer service quality, and the abusive escalation of prices, that are both so characteristic of private-monopoly, and of state-monopoly, capitalist enterprises.

Any 'Stewardship Equity' enterprise should have a legal cause of action, if it members feel threatened with insolvency, and consequent unemployment / self-redeployment to other / new Stewardship enterprises for its members, or even feel just that its Stewards'/members' profits-sharing is being markedly diminished by innovation(s) in the means of production, including in skill-sets, fielded by one or more of its competing Stewardship enterprises.

Such an enterprise should have the right to "bring" this "cause of action" before the popularly-elected, popularly-recallable jurists of the 'Social Property Court(s)', to see if it can prevail upon the jury of the Court to order a '''standards / best practices transition''' for its branch of wealth production.

Such a '''transition''' order would generalize the innovation of its competitor(s) to all other Stewardship enterprises competing in the same branch as well, the plaintiff enterprise included.

"Prevailing" in such a case, obtaining such a "standards/best-practices transition" order, would activate the 'techno-depreciation insurance' coverages, for '''retooling and retraining''', of all adversely-impacted enterprises in the branch, including of the plaintiff enterprise — of all such enterprises, holding "plant and equipment" social property, in stewardship, that would, by that order, be declared "obsolete".

The 'Office of the Custodian of Social Property' would be engaged by that order.

That Office would then arrange for the production of new standard / best practices "plant and equipment" for all of the consenting, obsolete-"plant-and- equipment"-holding enterprises in that branch, by contracting with Stewardship enterprises that specialize in production of such means of production.

That Office would deliver the contractual allotments of the resulting new social property / means of production thus procured, after its production was completed, to each of those obsolete "plant and equipment" holders, in exchange for their obsolete "plant and equipment" holdings, and together with any requisite training programs, for their Citizen Stewards, in the safe and effective use of the new standard / "best practices" means of production.

All of the entailed procurement costs should be at the expense of the budget of the Office, as partially defrayed by the 'techno-depreciation insurance' proceeds from the affected enterprises.

The timing, and the scope-of-impact, of technological innovations in the Equitarian social context, as in the preceding Capitalist social context, involve uncertainty.

Therefore all 'Stewardship Equity' enterprises, holding current "branch-standard"/"best-practices" social property in Stewardship, might be required, by action of the electorate, or of its elected legislature, to maintain 'techno-depreciation insurance' policies, via periodic payment of premiums to the 'Office of the Custodian of Social Property'.

The goal of this insurance requirement would be to insure that sufficient productive resources were set-aside, and held in reserve at all times — resources sufficient to facilitate rapid response to 'standards / best practices transition' orders from the Social Property Court(s), via timely response to contractual orders for the production of new-vintage means of production "plant and equipment", and retraining services, received from the 'Office of the Custodian of Social Property', by those 'Stewardship Equity' enterprises that specialize in the construction of such "plant and equipment", and in [re-]training(s) in its safe and effective use.

By such a social system design, society as a whole, the social majority, gains from rapid economy-wide adoption of proven innovations in productivity, and incentives to such innovation are preserved, without penalizing or bankrupting the holders of the means of production thereby rendered obsolete, by penalties which would otherwise impose unnecessary, non-beneficial harm, and which might otherwise also foster a parochial, anti-social opposition to the social good of social productivity-enhancing innovation.

Endnotes

[e0]

• Notes on Our Use of Delimiters
  
  The entire content of this document consists of hypotheses, demarcated by: ....
  An exception is one deductive proof (derived rigorously from explicit assumptions), demarcated by: ....
  
  Single quote-marks enclose 'self-quotes' of this text's own coinages: '...'.
  
  Double quote-marks enclose exact quotes of others: "...".
  
  Triple quote-marks enclose approximate, paraphrased quotes of others: '''...'''.
  
  Double 'angle marks' enclose non-English words, whether transliterated or rendered in their native alphabets: «...».
  
  
  Notes on Our Use of Embedded Parentheticals
  
  This text often uses 'word-embedded parentheticals' to 'appropriate' the ambiguities in current English usages, so as to amplify the meaning of a given phrase or sentence, by creating two [or more] distinct, but semantically parallel, or semantically convergent, readings of that "single" line.
  
  Example A:
  
  The phrase 'the dialectic of human-social formation(s)' is intended to invoke two distinct but convergent readings: (1) 'the dialectic of human-social formation', and (2) 'the dialectic of human-social formations'.
  
  Likewise, the phrase 'The Dialectic of [the] Human[ized Portion of] Nature' is meant to evoke two 'mutually-supplementary' readings: (1) 'The Dialectic of Human Nature', and (2) 'The Dialectic of the Humanized Portion of Nature', i.e., of the portions of nature containing the '''self-objectifications''' of humanity, etched and inscribed into the [pre-human-]natural material via human labor.
  
  Example B:
  
  Consider the phrase 'the social-relations-of-[human-society/human-social-relations [self-[re-]]production'.
  It is designed to evoke four convergent readings, namely (1) the social relations of production; (2) 'the social relations of social reproduction'; (3) 'the social-relations of social-relations-self-reproduction', and; (4) 'the social relations of human-society's 'self-production'. The concept of '''the social relations of production''', in the Marxian tradition, is paired with that of '''the social forces of production''', so that this multiple reading is also linked to that of the phrase 'the social [self-]force(s) of [human-society/social-relations [self-[re-]]production [/[[self-[re-]]productivity'[/'[self-]transformativity'].
  
  
  Notes on Our Use of Text Coloration
  
  Wherever color emphasis occurs in this text, whether within quotations or otherwise, the color-coding standard applied is as follows:
  
  Red text signifies entities which conduce to the 'meta-catabolic' (-1), annihilatory species of opposition [For an explanation of how red emphasis is applied, see "Notes on Our Use of Emphasis" below.];
  
  Blue text that has not been emboldened, italicized and/or underlined, signifies neutrality (0), or the complementary species of opposition (e.g., the [mutually-inclusive/]'mutin'-defining "north" versus "south" poles of a magnet);
  
  Blue text that has been emboldened, italicized and/or underlined, signifies that which conduces to the supplementary (+1), 'successory', or 'supercessory' species of opposition (e.g., 'contra-thesis' succeeds, supplements, and opposes thesis; 'uni-thesis' succeeds, supplements, and opposes both thesis and 'contra-thesis').
  
  
  Notes on Our Use of Emphasis
  
  Throughout the authored passages in this "Malady and Remedy" document, emphasis is denoted at intensifying levels within the scope of those passages' usage of terms or phrases, via combining the three following text traits:
  
  font weight (set to either normalized/non-emboldened or emboldened) emphasizes according to force/magnitude.
  
  font style (set to either normalized/non-italicized or italicized) emphasizes according to frequency/acceleration.
  
  text decoration (set to either normalized/non-underlined or underlined) emphasizes according to consequence/synergy.
  
  
  Notes on Our Use of Emphasis within Quotations
  
  Throughout the quoted passages in this "Malady and Remedy" document, all emboldened, italicized, underlined, and colored emphasis — unless otherwise noted locally — has been added by the anonymous author(s) of this text.
  
  
  Notes on Our Use of Indentation
  
  Longer quotations are indented — as are longer lists — in both cases, for visual clarity.
  
  
  Notes on Our Use of Headers
  
  The document is divided up by banners and headers (a.k.a., "headings"), which get smaller as the "h"-size gets larger.
  The title uses an "h1"-sized yellow-on-blue banner.
  Main sections use the "h2"-sized green-on-blue banners.
  Hypotheses and main topics begin with an "h5"-sized blue-on-green header.
  Hypotheses and main topics use the "h6"-sized blue-on-green headers to denote their sub-topics.

[e1]

• Amos Harpaz; Stellar Evolution; A. K. Peters (Wellesley, MA.: 1994); pages 52-53 and 107-111.

[e1_1]

• George Orwell; Nineteen Eighty-Four; Penguin Plume (New York: 2003)
• http://www.lust-for-life.org/Lust-For-Life/1984/1984.pdf

[e1_2]

• anonymous; "GS2: The Political-Economic Law Of Motion of Modern, Capital-based Society — The 'Socio-Taxis' Toward [State-]Capitalist Totalitarianism as 'Political-Economic Attractor'" (December 23, 2007)
• http://www.global-samizdat.org/Global-Samizdat/GS2-PoliticalEconomicLawOfMotion/GS2-PoliticalEconomicLawOfMotion.htm

[e1_3]

• There are several distinct modes by which '''growth of the productive force''' — or growth of the productivity — of capital "plant and equipment", in competitive use, manifests, and generates, technological, obsolescence depreciation effects, on already-installed, earlier-vintage "plant and equipment" capital.
  
  Moreover, these modes of manifestation can — and typically do — occur in combination, as well as in concert — '''entangled'''; "all mixed up"; difficult to delineate.
  
  Some of these modes raise the profitability of their leading installers' capital "plant and equipment" — transiently and locally — by reducing the cost of labor per unit of the commodities output for "alienation", or sale, by that capital "plant and equipment": so-called '''labor[-cost] saving innovations'''.
  
  Some of these modes raise the profitability of their leading installers' capital "plant and equipment" — transiently and locally — by reducing the purchase cost of that "plant and equipment" — for replacement, or for new first installers, relative to the purchase prices paid by previous installers — and/or by reducing the cost(s) of other ingredients/inputs per unit of that new-vintage fixed-capital's commodities output — e.g., raw materials costs, auxiliary materials costs, and/or other operating costs of that fixed-capital "plant and equipment": so-called "capital saving" and/or "expense(s) saving" innovations.
  
  These multiple modes of manifestation of productivity-growth-induced technological, obsolescence depreciation effects include the following:
  
  Case 1
  There are cases where present vintages of "the same old" design-«species» of a given design-«genos» of capital "plant and equipment" costs less to purchase than did previous vintages of "the same old" design-«species» of a given design-«genos» of capital "plant and equipment".
  
  In such cases, productivity growth in the companies, in the processes of production, and/or in the design of the 'meta' "plant and equipment", which produce this present design-«species» of capital "plant and equipment", may have itself lowered the cost per unit of this present, "same old" design-«species» of capital "plant and equipment" means of production, in the "production of means of production" department of industry.
  
  This situation potential enables the purchasers of the present, less costly vintages, in a competitive situation, to (a) lower the unit price of their commodity output, vis-a-vis the unit prices charged by their previous-vintage-owning competitors, without lowering the profit margin of the profit-returns to the owners of the new-vintage design-«species», or to (b) match the unit prices charged by their previous-vintage-owning competitors, while potentially reaping a higher profit-margin in their profit-returns, vis-a-vis their previous-vintage-owning competitors' profit-margins/-returns, or, finally, to (c) set the unit price of their commodity output in a way which combines the opposite extremes alternatives, (a) and (b), in an '''intermediate''' or '''hybridizing''' manner.
  
  Case 2
  There are cases in which the present, new design-«species», of a certain design-«genos» of capital "plant and equipment" cost less for capitalists to purchase than do the present, old design-«species» of that same design-«genos», while both the old and the new design-«species» produce commodity output (a) of the same quality, (b) at the same rate with respect to time, and (c) with the same operating costs. In such cases, the design of the capital "plant and equipment" itself has been improved, in a way which reduces the cost of production of "plant and equipment" of the new design-«species» vis-a-vis "plant and equipment" of the old design-«species».
  
  Or, perhaps, the present vintages of the new design-«species» cost the same to initially purchase as do the present vintages of the old design-«species», but the new design-«species» costs less to run than does the old — less labor-cost (for example, less skilled labor required), and/or less raw materials cost, and/or less auxiliary materials costs, and/or less power-cost, etc., while still producing commodity output (a) of the same quality, and (b) at the same rate with respect to time.
  
  In all of these sub-cases of Case 2, the design of the capital "plant and equipment" itself has improved, raising productivity with respect to the commodity output of that "plant and equipment", by reducing the quantity/cost of some or all of the required inputs per unit of that fixed-capital plant's commodity output.
  
  Such a mode of capital "plant and equipment" productivity raising, or '''productive force increase''', tends thereby to reduce the cost of production of each unit of that commodity output.
  
  That cost of production reduction 'potentiates' a profitable lowering of the unit price of that commodity output on the market, relative to the higher unit prices that typically must be charged by competitors stuck with "plant and equipment" of the same «species», but of earlier design(s), inferior in this sense.
  
  That is, this situation potentially enables the owners of the new-vintage design-«species», in a competitive situation, to (a) lower the unit price of their commodity output, vis-a-vis the unit prices charged by their old-vintage-owning competitors, without lowering the profit margin of the profit-returns to the owners of the new-vintage design-«species», or to (b) match the unit prices charged by their old-vintage-owning competitors, while potentially reaping a higher profit-margin in their profit-returns, vis-a-vis their old-vintage-owning competitors' profit-margins/-returns, or, finally, to (c) set the unit price of their commodity output in a way which combines the opposite extremes alternatives, (a) and (b), in an '''intermediate''' or '''hybridizing''' manner.
  
  Case 3
  There are cases in which new vintages, new design-«species» of the same design-«genos» of capital "plant and equipment" cost the same as the old vintage/old design-«species» of that same design-«genos», both to purchase, and to run/operate, per unit of commodity output over the expected physical, wear-and-tear depreciation "life" of that "plant and equipment", and in which both the new and the old design-«species» produce commodity output of the same quality/utility.
  
  The exception in this case, is that the new-vintage design-«species» can produce its commodity output faster, i.e., at an accelerated rate, as measured in commodity-units output per unit of operating time, relative to the time rate of output of the old-vintage design-«species».
  
  This profitability-advantage of the new-vintage design-«species» spreads unit labor expenses, and some other expenses that are charged per unit of time, e.g., rent-expenses, etc., over a larger volume of units of commodity output per unit of time than can the old-vintage design-«species».
  
  This advantage thus potentially enables, in a competitive situation, the owners of the new-vintage design-«species», to (a) lower the unit price of their commodity output, vis-a-vis the unit prices charged by their old-vintage-owning competitors, without lowering the profit margin of the profit-returns to the owners of the new-vintage design-«species», or to (b) match the unit prices charged by their old-vintage-owning competitors, while potentially reaping a higher profit-margin in their profit-returns, vis-a-vis their old-vintage-owning competitors' profit-margins/-returns, or, finally, to (c) set the unit price of their commodity output in a way which combines the opposite extremes alternatives, (a) and (b), in an '''intermediate''' or '''hybridizing''' manner.
  
  Case 4
  There are cases in which new-vintage, new design-«species»> of the same design-«genos» of capital "plant and equipment" cost the same as the old-vintage, old design-«species» of the same design-«genos», both to initially purchase, and to run/operate, and in which both run at the same 'run-rate', but where the new-vintage, new design-«species» produces a qualitatively better product as its commodity output — a commodity output of higher quality/utility than that of the commodity output generated by the old-vintage, old-design-«species».
  
  This case features growth of productivity, or of '''productive force''', not in terms of the cost of the capital "plant and equipment" itself, nor in terms of the design of the capital "plant and equipment", nor in terms of the cost of the inputs that this capital "plant and equipment" requires to produce its commodity output, nor in terms of the "run-rate" of this capital "plant and equipment", but, on the contrary, in terms of the design of the product — of the design of the commodity output — of that capital "plant and equipment".
  
  In this case, that commodity output has been improved in terms of its use-value, making that new-vintage, new design-«species» output more desirable, even if it sells for the same unit price, or even, within limits, for a higher unit price, relative to the unit price of the commodity output of the old-vintage, old-design-«species» capital "plant and equipment".
  
  This improvement in the useful quality of the commodity output thus potentially enables the owners of the new-vintage design-«species», in a competitive situation, to (a) increase the unit price of their commodity output, vis-a-vis the unit prices charged by their old-vintage-owning competitors, without lowering the demand for their higher price, but higher utility, commodity output, thus increasing their profit margins and profit-returns vis-a-vis those of those competitors', or to (b) match the unit prices charged by their old-vintage-owning competitors, while potentially reaping a higher profit-mass in their profit-returns, due to the higher volume/quantity of their units of commodity output demanded at that unit price, vis-a-vis the volume/quantity demanded of those competitors' less-useful commodity output, or to (c) decrease the unit price of their commodity output, vis-a-vis the unit prices charged by their old-vintage-owning competitors, thus escalating the volume/quantity demanded for their lower price, but higher utility, commodity output, thus increasing their market share at the expense of those competitors', and potentially driving those competitors out of business, thereby eliminating that competition.

[e2]

• "U. S. Price Levels [from] 1665 to 2005, in Constant (2005) Dollars"
• http://oregonstate.edu/cla/polisci/faculty-research/sahr/pl1665.htm

[e3]

• "Key Quotes on Techno-Depreciation, Fictitious Capital, and the Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall":
  
  Capitalist Crisis Studes; 'Part A — As Perceived by Pro-Capitalist Economists' (November 14, 1976);
  http://www.adventures-in-dialectics.org/Adventures-In-Dialectics/TechnoDepreciation/TechnoDepreciation-partA.pdf;
  
  Capitalist Crisis Studes; 'Part B — As Perceived by Marx and by Writers Relating to the Marxian Tradition' (November 18, 1976);
  http://www.adventures-in-dialectics.org/Adventures-In-Dialectics/TechnoDepreciation/TechnoDepreciation-partB.pdf.

[e4]

• Charles Babbage; On the Economy of Machinery and Manufactures; The Echo Library (Teddington, Middlesex, U.K.: 2008); page 161.
• http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/4238 — avails a free download of the book.

[e5]

• Harold C. Livesay; Andrew Carnegie and the Rise of Big Business; The Library of American Biography (NY: 2007); pages 127-128.
• http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1323778 — for local library availability

[e6]

• "Zeitgeist: Addendum" (film released on October 2, 2008)
• http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912 — free access to this film on Google
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5r6-o1lpJHU — free access to this film on YouTube
• http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/ — related information

[e7]

• Geert Reuten, "The Incompatibility of Prolonged Technical Change and Competition: Concurrence and the Socialization of Entrepreneurial Losses through Inflation"
• http://www1.fee.uva.nl/pp/bin/642fulltext.pdf

[e8]

• Joseph M. Gilman, The Falling Rate of Profit: Marx's Law and Its Significance to Twentieth-Century Capitalism
• http://www.amazon.com/FALLING-RATE-PROFIT-SIGNIFICANCE-TWENTIETH-CENTURY/dp/B000OA5SIA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227098752&sr=1-1

[e8_1]

• Edwin Black, War Against the Weak; Four Walls Eight Windows Press (New York: 2003); see especially pages 101-102 and 279-320.
• http://www.amazon.com/War-Against-Weak-Eugenics-Americas/dp/0914153064/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231613951&sr=8-1

[e8_2]

• For more on the 'humanocidal' intent of the core plutocracy's new, 'Soylent Green', humanocidal pseudo-religion of "People Are Pollution", Neo-Malthusian 'Earthism', and the related, component core- plutocracy-psycho-engineered ideologies of "Global Warming" and "Peak Oil", see the following:
  
• anonymous; "GS4: The Actual Agenda Behind the "Peak Oil" Ploy, and the "Global Warming: Hysteria" (February 5, 2008),
• http://www.global-samizdat.org/Global-Samizdat/GS4-PeakOilPloyAndGlobalWarmingHysteria/GS4-PeakOilPloyAndGlobalWarmingHysteria.htm;
  
• anonymous; "GS-7: The 'Global Warming' Hysteria is a 'Rocke-Nazi' 'Psy-Op', Based on a Hitlerian-Goebbelsian 'Big Lie'" (February 15, 2008),
• http://www.global-samizdat.org/Global-Samizdat/GS7-GlobalWarmingHysteria/GS7-GlobalWarmingHysteria.htm;
  
• anonymous; "GS-8: Exposing 'Global Warming' Big Lie #1: Carbon Dioxide is a Pollutant" (July 20, 2008),
• http://www.global-samizdat.org/Global-Samizdat/GS8-GlobalLie1/GS8-GlobalLie1.htm

[e9]

• "Zeitgeist: The Movie" (film released on June 18, 2007)
• http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-594683847743189197 — free access to this film on Google
• http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/ — related information
• http://educate-yourself.org/lte/zeitgeistmovie31jul07.shtml — further discussions regarding the film

[e10]

• The text makes the following claim: "Both (1) reduced commodity unit-revenues from sales, resulting from reduced commodity unit-prices, and (2) sales revenues episodically reduced by write-offs of part or all of the historical cost of 'techno-depreciated' "plant and equipment", i.e., "fixed capital", can reduce the R numerator of the profitability-measuring "Return on Investment", net-Revenue-over-fixed-capital-Investment, or (Returns / Investment), ratio, relative to its "plant and equipment" Investment-cost, or I, denominator.
  
  Note that effect (2) also reduces the I denominator, by an equal amount of techno-depreciation write-off, d, to that which reduces the R numerator, but the numerator-reduction-effect predominates with respect to the magnitude of the "Return on Investment" ratio as a whole, for, if I > R > d > 0, then ((R – d)/(I – d)) < (R/I)."
  
  Thus, we have the claim that, given any rational numbers, I, R, and d — i.e., given that I, R, and d "are members of" or "are elements of" (∈), the number set Q, wherein, Q = {...–3/2...–2/2...–1/2...0...+1/2...+2/2...+3/2...} — and, given that they are quantitatively interrelated as follows: I > R > d > 0, that it then must be the case that ((R – d)/(I – d)) < (R/I).
  
  Using '&' to signify "and", '⇒' to signify "implies", and "Q.E.D." to denote (the Latin phrase) "Quod Erat Demonstrandum", or "which was to be demonstrated", we have the following proof structure:
  
  
  
  
  Given:
  
  I, R, d ∈ Q     &     I > R > d > 0
  
  
  
  To Prove:
  
  I, R, d ∈ Q     &     I > R > d > 0     ⇒     (R/I) > (R – d)/(I – d)
  
  
  
  Proof:
  
  Assertion #1:
  R < I
  
  Justification:
  This is given.
  
  
  Assertion #2:
  &    d > 0
  
  Justification:
  This is given.
  
  
  Assertion #3:
  ⇒    Rd < Id
  
  Justification:
  Multiplying both sides of an inequality, in this case, (Assertion 1), by the same positive factor, in this case, (d), preserves the inequality.
  
  
  Assertion #4:
  ⇒    –(Rd) > –(Id)
  
  Justification:
  Multiplying both sides of an inequality, in this case, (Assertion 3), by the same negative factor, in this case, (–1), reverses the inequality.
  
  
  Assertion #5:
  ⇒    RI + –(Rd) > RI + –(Id)    ⇒    RI – Rd > RI – Id
  
  Justification:
  Adding the same increment, in this case, (RI), to both sides of an inequality, in this case, (Assertion 4), preserves the inequality.
  
  
  Assertion #6:
  ⇒    R(I – d) > I(R – d)
  
  Justification:
  This is achieved by "factoring", that is, by the virtue of the distributivity of multiplication over subtraction.
  
  
  Assertion #7:
  & I > 0
  
  Justification:
  This is given.
  
  
  Assertion #8:
  ⇒    (R/I)(I – d) > (R – d)
  
  Justification:
  Dividing both sides of an inequality, in this case, (Assertion 6), by the same positive factor, in this case, (I), preserves its inequality.
  
  
  Assertion #9:
  &    I > d
  
  Justification:
  This is given.
  
  
  Assertion #10:
  ⇒    I – d > d – d
  
  Justification:
  Subtracting the same increment, in this case, (d), from both sides of an inequality, in this case, (Assertion 9), preserves the inequality.
  
  
  Assertion #11:
  ⇒    I – d > 0
  
  Justification:
  This is by definition of the specific rational number 0.
  
  
  Assertion #12:
  ⇒    (R/I) > (R – d)/(I – d)
  
  Justification:
  Dividing both sides of an inequality, in this case, (Assertion 8), by the same positive factor, in this case, (I – d), preserves its inequality. Q.E.D..
  
  

[e11]

• anonymous; "The Heart and Soul of Marxian Theory" (January 25, 2008).
• http://www.point-of-departure.org/Point-Of-Departure/ClarificationsArchive/HeartSoulOfMarxianTheory/W_HeartSoulOfMarxianTheory-n1.htm

[e12]

• anonymous; "GS9: Capital Asset Bubble Engineering: An Economic Weapon of Mass Destruction in the Arsenal of the Ruling Plutocracy" (September 18, 2008).
• http://www.global-samizdat.org/Global-Samizdat/GS9-BubbleEngineering/GS9-BubbleEngineering.htm

[e13]

• Jules Archer; The Plot to Seize the White House: The Shocking True Story of the Conspiracy to Overthrow FDR; Skyhorse Publishing, Inc. (New York: 2007); pages 22, 27, 29, 30-32, et passim.
• http://www.amazon.com/Plot-Seize-White-House-Conspiracy/dp/1602390363/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230536470&sr=1-1

[e13_1]

• Kevin Phillips; American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush; Viking (New York: 2004); pages 15-50.
• http://www.amazon.com/American-Dynasty-Aristocracy-Fortune-Politics/dp/0143034316/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231733158&sr=1-1

[e14]

• anonymous; "GS11: The Great Depression, World War II, Hitler, and the 'Rocke-Nazis'" (September 18, 2008).
• http://www.global-samizdat.org/Global-Samizdat/GS11-HitlerAndRockeNazis/GS11-HitlerAndRockeNazis.htm

[e15]

• Sam Schechner; "Nuclear Ambitions: Amateur Scientists Get a Reaction from Fusion" in The Wall Street Journal (Monday, August 18, 2008 — Vol. CCLII, No. 41); page 1.

[e16]

• Amateur Nuclear Fusion — by Raymond Jimenez; Lulu Publishing (September 18, 2008)
• http://iecfusiontech.blogspot.com/2008/12/amateur-nuclear-fusion-book.html
• http://www.lulu.com/content/2673822

[e17]

• anonymous; "GS3: The Long History of the "Rocke-Nazi" Suppression of Nuclear Fusion Energy Development, and the Decoy of Linear-Equilibrium 'Tokamak' Fusion" (January 02, 2008).
• http://www.global-samizdat.org/Global-Samizdat/GS3-SuppressionOfNuclearFusionEnergy/GS3-SuppressionOfNuclearFusionEnergy.htm

[e18]

• anonymous; "GS5: Fusion Breakthrough" (January 02, 2008).
• http://www.global-samizdat.org/Global-Samizdat/GS5-FusionBreakthrough/GS5-FusionBreakthrough.htm

[e19]

• anonymous; "GS10: Meet the 'Meta-Nazis' Face-to-Face" (September 18, 2008).
• http://www.global-samizdat.org/Global-Samizdat/GS10-MetaNazisFaceToFace/GS10-MetaNazisFaceToFace.htm

[e20]

• anonymous; "GS12: Some Hypotheses Concerning the Lobby for Global Genocide" (September 18, 2008).
• http://www.global-samizdat.org/Global-Samizdat/GS12-WhoFundsEcologism/GS12-WhoFundsEcologism.htm

[e21]

• anonymous; "GS1: Global Strategic Hypotheses — Towards A Strategy for Humanity" (March 02, 2007).
• http://www.global-samizdat.org/Global-Samizdat/GS1-TowardsAStrategyForHumanity/GS1-TowardsAStrategyForHumanity.htm

[e21_1]

• Ted Kaczynski; "Industrial Society and Its Future" ("The Unabomber Manifesto")
• http://cyber.eserver.org/unabom.txt
• http://www.courttv.com/trials/unabomber/manifesto/

[e22]

• anonymous; "Alternative to the Totalitarian Self-Degeneration of Capitalism: Political-Economic Democracy" (June 25, 2008).
• http://www.equitism.org/Equitism/Theory/PoliticalEconomicDemocracy/PoliticalEconomicDemocracy.htm

[e23]

• David Schweickart; Against Capitalism; Cambridge University Press (Paris: 1993).
• http://www.amazon.com/Against-Capitalism-David-Schweickart/dp/0813331137/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230234158&sr=1-1
  
  
• David Schweickart; After Capitalism; Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. (New York: 2002).
• http://www.amazon.com/After-Capitalism-New-Critical-Theory/dp/0742512991/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230234158&sr=1-2