New Discovery

bye

I’m interested. Feel free to post anything you’d want feedback on.

Tristan, I appreciate your interest but when you say that I should feel free to post anything I want feedback on is too premature. Of course, I would love to discuss the discovery once I explain it, but once again, how can I answer to any feedback when I haven’t posted anything? Either I am allowed to post or not? I’m still confused here. Are you a moderator?

You can post long tracts here, but there’s no guarantee that people won’t give you feedback as you go. If you want that, you should do the Symposium.

The symposium is something I might try later on but because this is a book, not an essay, I am not sure if I even qualify. I do think that this site, being that it recognizes the necessity of posting longer tracts for some subjects, is much more flexible than other sites I have been to. The goal is to be able to have people read what is necessary to make real progress in understanding the text. If people want to interject remarks that’s okay with me, but I will post what I think is necessary in order to have an objective discussion; not a half baked one. I will post some more tomorrow.

Skepticism alone is
not the primary problem that is preventing this knowledge from coming to
light, as everyone who hears my of my discovery would be skeptical. The
main problem is the pride of those people who consider themselves highly
educated scholars at the very top echelon of thought and knowledge. They
are more interested in who you are than what you have to say. Before this
group will even consent to listen you must qualify not by what you are
prepared to prove in a mathematical manner, but by your educational rank.

Do you see what a problem I have? I can’t convince these people to give me
the time even though I have made discoveries that will benefit all mankind.
This pride is the first half of the primary problem; that the very people who
have the intellectual capacity to understand the knowledge in this book
refuse to investigate what must reveal, if proven true, how unconsciously
ignorant they have always been. Is it any wonder they don’t want to check it
out? And even if they do, could they be objective enough when their
reputation for wisdom and knowledge is at stake? To overcome this
stubborn resistance and bring about this new world, it is imperative that the
knowledge in this book be adequately understood which requires that the
reader does not apply himself and his ideas as a standard of what is true and
false, but that he understand the difference between a mathematical relation
and an opinion, belief, or theory. The mind of man is so utterly confused
with words that it will require painstaking clarification to clear away the
logical cobwebs of ignorance that have accumulated through the years.

For
purposes of clarification please note that the words scientific and
mathematical only mean undeniable, and are interchanged throughout the
text. The reasoning in this work is not a form of logic, nor is it my opinion
of the answer; it is mathematical, scientific, and undeniable, and it is not
necessary to deal in what has been termed the ‘exact sciences’ in order to be
exact and scientific. Consequently it is imperative to know that this
demonstration will be like a game of chess in which every one of your
moves will be forced and checkmate inevitable but only if you don’t make
up your own rules as to what is true and false which will only delay the very
life you want for yourself. The laws of this universe, which include those of
our nature, are the rules of the game and the only thing required to win, to
bring about this Golden Age that will benefit everyone…is to stick to the
rules. But if you decide to move the king like the queen because it does not
satisfy your pride to be proven wrong or checkmated then it is obvious that
you are not sincerely concerned with learning the truth, but only with
retaining your doctrines at all cost. However, when it is scientifically
revealed that the very things religion, government, education and all others
want, which include the means as well as the end, are prevented from
becoming a reality only because we have not penetrated deeply enough into
a thorough understanding of our ultimate nature, are we given a choice as to
the direction we are compelled to travel even though this means the
relinquishing of ideas that have been part of our thinking since time
immemorial? This discovery will be presented in a step by step fashion that
brooks no opposition and your awareness of this matter will preclude the
possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long tenure
of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he qualifies to
disagree with knowledge that contains within itself undeniable proof of its
veracity. In other words, your background, the color of your skin, your
religion, the number of years you went to school, how many titles you hold,
your I.Q., your country, what you do for a living, your being some kind of
expert like Nageli (or anything else you care to throw in) has no relation
whatsoever to the undeniable knowledge that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8.
Whether or not you understand this mathematical relation has no bearing on
the truth, so please do not to be too hasty in using what you have been taught
as a standard to judge what has not even been revealed to you yet. If you
should decide to give me the benefit of the doubt – deny it – and two other
discoveries to be revealed, if you can.

Have you already cited from the book, then?

With all due respect, I would appreciate it if you got to the point sooner rather than later.

I know you want me to spit it out Sauwelios and so does everyone else. Patience is in short supply but in order for me to give this work justice I MUST present it in a certain order. If you can bear with me it will be worth your while. If this is too frustrating then maybe you need to come back to it at a later date when I have finished cutting and pasting and read at your own pace. I also want to mention that jumping ahead and reading from the middle will not be fair to this work because we must have a foundation in order to understand the extension.

According to Richard Milton in his book ‘Alternative Science,
Challenging the Myths of the Scientific Establishment’, we are living in a
time of rising academic intolerance in which important new discoveries in
physics, medicine, and biology are being ridiculed and rejected for reasons
that are not scientific. Something precious and irreplaceable is under attack.
Our academic liberty – our freedom of thought – is being threatened by an
establishment that chooses to turn aside new knowledge unless it comes from
their own scientific circles.

Some academics appoint themselves vigilantes
to guard the gates of science against troublemakers with new ideas. Yet
science has a two thousand year record of success not because it has been
guarded by an Inquisition, but because it is self-regulating. It has succeeded
because bad science is driven out by good; an ounce of open-minded
experiment is worth any amount of authoritative opinion by self-styled
scientific rationalists. The scientific fundamentalism of which these are
disturbing signs is found today not merely in remote provincial pockets of
conservatism but at the very top of the mainstream management of science
on both sides of the Atlantic. Human progress has been powered by the
paradigm-shattering inventions of many brilliant iconoclasts, yet just as the
scientific community dismissed Edison’s lamp, Roentgen’s X-rays, and even
the Wrights’ airplane, today’s “Paradigm Police” do a better job of
preserving an outdated mode of thought than of nurturing invention and
discovery. One way of explaining this odd reluctance to come to terms with
the new, even when there is plenty of concrete evidence available, is to
appeal to the natural human tendency not to believe things that sound
impossible unless we see them with our own eyes – a healthy skepticism.
But there is a good deal more to this phenomenon than a healthy skepticism.

It is a refusal even to open our eyes to examine the evidence that is plainly in
view. And it is a phenomenon that occurs so regularly in the history of
science and technology as to be almost an integral part of the process. It
seems that there are some individuals, including very distinguished
scientists, who are willing to risk the censure and ridicule of their colleagues
by stepping over that mark. This book is about those scientists. But, more
importantly, it is about the curious social and intellectual forces that seek to
prohibit such research; those areas of scientific research that are taboo
subjects; about subjects whose discussion is forbidden under pain of ridicule
and ostracism. Often those who cry taboo do so from the best of motives: a
desire to ensure that our hard-won scientific enlightenment is not corrupted
by the credulous acceptance of crank ideas and that the community does not
slide back into what Sir Karl Popper graphically called the ‘tyranny of
opinion’. Yet in setting out to guard the frontiers of knowledge, some
scientific purists are adopting a brand of skepticism that is indistinguishable
from the tyranny they seek to resist. These modern skeptics are sometimes
the most unreflecting of individuals yet their devotion to the cause of science
impels them to appoint themselves guardians of spirit of truth. And this
raises the important question of just how we can tell a real crank from a real
innovator – a Faraday from a false prophet. Merely to dismiss a carefully
prepared body of evidence – however barmy it may appear – is to make the
same mistake as the crank. In many ways cold fusion is the perfect paradigm
of scientific taboo in action. The high priests of hot fusion were quick to
ostracize and ridicule those whom they saw as profaning the sacred wisdom.
And empirical fact counted for nothing in the face of their concerted
derision.

The taboo reaction in science takes many distinct forms. At its simplest
and most direct, tabooism is manifested as derision and rejection by
scientists (and non-scientists) of those new discoveries that cannot be fitted
into the existing framework of knowledge. The reaction is not merely a
negative dismissal or refusal to believe; it is strong enough to cause positive
actions to be taken by leading skeptics to compel a more widespread
adoption in the community of the rejection and disbelief, the shipping up of
opposition, and the putting down of anyone unwise enough to step out of
line by publicly embracing taboo ideas.

The taboo reaction in such simple
cases is eventually dispelled because the facts – and the value of the
discoveries concerned – prove to be stronger than the taboo belief; but there
remains the worrying possibility that many such taboos prove stronger (or
more valuable) than the discoveries to which they are applied. In its more
subtle form, the taboo reaction draws a circle around a subject and places it
‘out of bounds’ to any form of rational analysis or investigation. In doing
so, science often puts up what appears to be a well-considered, fundamental
objection, which on closer analysis turns out to be no more than the
unreflecting prejudices of a maiden aunt who feels uncomfortable with the
idea of mixed bathing. The penalty associated with this form of tabooism is
that whole areas of scientific investigation, some of which may well hold
important discoveries, remain permanently fenced off and any benefits they
may contain are denied us.

Subtler still is the taboo whereby scientists in
certain fields erect a general prohibition against speaking or writing on the
subjects which they consider their own property and where any reference,
especially by an outsider, will draw a rapid hostile response. Sometimes,
scientists who declare a taboo will insist that only they are qualified to
discuss and reach conclusions on the matters that they have made their own
property; that only they are privy to the immense body of knowledge and
subtlety of argument necessary fully to understand the complexities of the
subject and to reach the ‘right’ conclusion.

Outsiders, on the other hand,
(especially non-scientists) are ill-informed, unable to think rationally or
analytically, prone to mystical or crank ideas and are not privy to subtleties
of analysis and inflections of argument that insiders have devoted long
painful years to acquiring. Once again, the cost of such tabooism is
measured in lost opportunities for discovery. Any contribution to knowledge
in terms of rational analysis, or resulting from the different perspective of
those outside the field in question, is lost to the community. In its most
extreme form scientific tabooism closely resembles the behavior of a priestly
caste that is perceived to be the holy guardians of the sacred creed, the
beliefs that are the object of the community’s worship. Such guardians feel
themselves justified by their religious calling and long training in adopting
any measures to repel and to discredit any member of the community who
profanes the sacred places, words or rituals regarded as untouchable.

Perhaps the most worrying aspect of the taboo reaction is that it tends to
have a cumulative and permanent discriminatory effect: any idea that is
ideologically suspect or counter to the current paradigm is permanently
dismissed, and the very fact of its rejection forms the basis of its rejection on
all future occasions. It is a little like the court of appeal rejecting the
convicted man’s plea of innocence on the grounds that he must be guilty or
why else is he in jail? And why else did the police arrest him in the first
place? This ‘erring on the side of caution’ means that in the long term the
intellectual Devil’s Island where convicted concepts are sent becomes more
and more crowded with taboo ideas, all denied to us, and with no possibility
of reprieve. We will never know how many tens or hundreds or thousands
of important discoveries were thrown in the scrap heap merely because of
intolerance and misplaced skepticism.”

To the scientists of the Babylonian civilization, it seemed reasonable to
believe that the Earth was flat and was held up by elephants standing on a
giant sea turtle – even though their astronomy was highly developed and
they had observed the curvature of the Earth’s shadow moving across the
Moon during eclipses. They held this view because they could not imagine a
plausible alternative today. The idea of a flat Earth held up by elephants was
the most reasonable explanation available. Flatness seemed to fit their
everyday experience, and, although highly improbable, elephants were far
less improbable than any conceivable alternative. Yet, because it was based
on faulty evidence, it was actually only a superstitious belief. What
appeared the most reasonable view was really completely unreasonable. The
flat Earth theory was rejected by Greek scientists who observed that the Sun
and Moon were spherical and reasoned that the Earth must be too. Once the
flat Earth viewpoint was deprived of the appearance of being reasonable, its
wildly improbable nature became obvious, and it seems amazing to us today
that anyone could have believed in such a theory, however limited their
scientific knowledge.

I believe that something very similar is true of parts of western science
today. It actually contains some wildly improbable theories – as improbable
as elephants holding up the Earth. Yet these theories appear to represent a
reasonable view because they offer a natural sounding mechanism
explanation that seems consonant with common sense and our essentially
limited experience and understanding of the world. Whole areas of the
western scientific model come in this category: theories that seem as solid as
rock and, indeed, are the foundations of much of western thinking, yet in
reality are at best unsubstantiated and at worst no more than superstitions:
there are many examples of Earth beliefs that have been exported the world
over. But why should any rational person – let alone a trained scientist –
accept such beliefs?

One especially strange aspect of belief in western
culture is that we habitually use the word belief to mean two entirely
different things depending on whether we are speaking of belief in an
everyday sense (I believe in parliamentary democracy) or in the scientific
sense (I believe in the atomic theory of matter). It is normal in our culture to
take the second statement as meaning that the empirical evidence and
theoretical background of atomic theory are such that any rational person
who analyzes the facts must be compelled to accept the theory. We also
think that this process of ‘scientific’ acceptance is different in kind from the
ordinary acceptance of everyday things: a person might be right or wrong to
believe in the value and the effectiveness of parliamentary democracy
because it is a matter of opinion, but he or she cannot be wrong to believe in
atomic theory because it is a matter of fact. Yet the psychological process of
acceptance is actually the same in each case: it rests simply on the fact that
the conclusion seems to be irresistible, even to the well-informed mind.

This
appearance of being irresistible can in itself be a self-evident justification for
belief – just as it is ‘obvious’ that two and two must make four, and just as it
was obvious to Babylonian scientists that the Earth is flat. The problem that
this psychological process can present, as we saw earlier, arises because our
perception – and hence what appears obvious – is to some extent determined
by our beliefs. It means that all observers, scientists as well as savages,
employ a kind of mental inertial guidance navigation system which takes
over our routine mental processing; an intellectual autopilot whose perpetual
heading is star of our convictions, and which filters our perceptions to ensure
that they conform to those convictions. It is as though our perceptions reach
our minds through a screen – a matrix that is dynamically adaptive to our
world view and that can selectively modify the contents of our field of vision
in the service of that world view.”

In light of the fact that the orthodox scientific community has the power
to determine which new knowledge is worthy of investigation, and which is
not, it is extremely troublesome as those who have this kind of control are
often self-serving. This community has become a closed system, a private
club, where only the elite of academia are allowed entrance. This is not an
empty intellectual discourse but something much more sinister, for there is
the distinct possibility that a new discovery on the horizon may go
unnoticed. What if a so-called amateur happens to stumble upon the
solution to a certain form of cancer? Wouldn’t we want to know about it?
Are we supposed to ignore the results because scientists in this inner circle
claim that they did the research and came up empty? And even if the data
were analyzed, how would we know that the conclusions were not
misinterpreted due to the ‘psychological filtering system’ that is
unconsciously at work? Regardless of where this lack of objectivity comes
from, new knowledge may be overlooked or thrown into a slush pile never to
be seen again. Allowing a select few the privilege of offering their
conclusions on any given subject is discrimination of the worst kind because
it is disguised as genuine scholarship. This dangerous weeding-out process
will continue unless it is stopped by a public outcry since it is the people
themselves who will suffer the most damaging effects of this hidden agenda.
We must shed light on this serious problem or many more discoveries may
be lost to future generations.

Have you noticed the parallels between the Catholic Church in the
middle ages with its dogmatism (that it cannot be what must not be - the
clergymen even refused to simply look through Galileo’s telescope and see
for themselves, because they were so arrogantly convinced that they held the
absolute truth in hands, and thus needed no verification), and today’s self-
righteous “church” of “scientificality” with its dogmas? I am therefore
offering this question of every reader but especially of philosophers,
professors and theologians because righteous indignation may prevent some
from going beyond the introduction.

Is there the slightest possibility that
your head full of knowledge does not contain as much truth as you would
like to believe? Would you gamble your life or the lives of those you love
that you really know, or is there just the remotest chance that you only think
you know? What is the standard by which you judge the veracity of your
knowledge and wisdom; the fact that it was taught in college? Is your
determination of truth based on the fact that it was written by a noted author,
composed from your own analysis and understanding, or revealed through
heavenly inspiration? What makes you so certain, so positive, so dogmatic?

Because this book dares to oppose the three forces that control the
thinking of mankind - government, religion and education - the most
dangerous thinking of all; the kind that really doesn’t know the truth as
Socrates observed but because of some fallacious standard presumes it does,
I have found it necessary to resort to this manner of introducing my work in
the fervent hope that I can break through this sound barrier of learned
ignorance, for which no one is to blame, and reach those who will be able to
extract the pure, unadulterated relations involved before another century
passes by or an atomic explosion destroys millions of lives.

Now be honest
with yourselves; do you really know, or only think you know? If you will
admit there is just the slightest possibility that you have not been endowed
with the wisdom of God; that you may be wrong regarding many things
despite the high opinion you and others hold of yourselves; that the
expression the blind leading the blind could even pertain to you; I know this
is difficult for you to conceive; I say, if there is the slightest possibility you
could be mistaken and you are willing to admit this to yourselves, then I
cordially welcome your company aboard, otherwise; you had better not read
this book for my words are not meant for your ears. But should you decide
to accompany me on this voyage I would like to remind you, once again, that
this book is not a religious or philosophical tract attempting some ulterior
form of indoctrination; it is purely scientific as you will see, and should the
word God seem incongruous kindly remember Spinoza and you will
understand immediately that it is not. While God is proven to be a
mathematical reality as a consequence of becoming conscious of the truth,
war and crime are compelled to take leave of the Earth.

It is true that many men before me, including socialists, communists,
even capitalists also thought they had discovered the cause of, and solution
to, the various problems of human relation, and their enthusiasm was no
doubt just as positive and sincere as my own. However, there is this
difference between us. I have absolute proof that cannot be denied by any
reader; they did not.

Mine can be adequately communicated; theirs was
never disentangled from the illusion of reality borne out of abstract thought
and imagination. Mine is purely scientific; theirs an expression of dogmatic
belief. In view of the serious nature of this discovery, the effects of which
will beneficently ramify into every conceivable direction causing religious
minds to consider this the return of the expected Messiah; and since it also
contravenes a belief held true by nearly all of mankind, I am once again
asking the indulgence of every reader to please refrain from jumping to any
premature conclusions, to put aside if only for the time being the unverified
knowledge gathered from books and teachers and heed only the truth
reflected in my words. “But what is truth?” you might ask. “Let us say it is
that which cannot be denied by anyone anywhere.” “But”, you might reply,
“that’s just common sense; everyone knows that.” Well it is just this
common sense; that sense common to us all that I am making the very
foundation of this book.

It is for this reason that what I write will be
understood not only by those who can read the English language, but by the
entire literate world. There will be no sleight of hand revelation as is
dreamed up in philosophical circles by epistemologists; only a clear
undeniable explanation about facts of man’s nature never before understood.
Knowledge in this context is to truly know ourselves. If you are coming
along on this journey you will need to put on your thinking caps and try to
understand the mathematical relations soon to be revealed which permit you
to see this miracle.

There is an ironic twist here for if all evils of our world no longer exist,
how happy would certain professions be to know that their services will no
longer be needed. Shouldn’t this news make those individuals very happy
who have been trying to correct the problems of the world? If the cry of the
clergy is ‘Faith in God’, isn’t it obvious that the priesthood would rather see
an end to all sin than to preach against it and shrive the sinners in the
confessional. They should be simply thrilled at the miracle God is about to
perform, even though it means putting them out of work. Isn’t it true that
politicians, statesman, the leaders of the world in general would much rather
see an end to all war and crime than to retaliate ‘an eye for an eye and a
tooth for a tooth?’

If the Communist and Capitalist governments are truly
interested in the welfare of their people, then just imagine how excited they
will be to learn that the most perfect relations between all men will soon be a
reality even though it makes their services unnecessary. If a writer is just
about ready to submit his book to the public for the purpose of revealing
knowledge on how to raise children or live together in greater harmony as
man and wife, he will be absolutely in ecstasy to learn that God is going to
bring about such perfect harmony in a short time that all books purporting to
do this very thing won’t have any more value.

There is a good deal of irony
to this Great Transition for it reveals how completely dishonest we were
compelled to be with ourselves and others. A salesman is happy to make a
sale when he works on commission, but if he found out that another
salesman beat him to the punch he would be disappointed even though the
customer derived the benefits that were promised at the time of purchase.
The only difference between a salesman selling books and a doctor,
theologian, etc. is that the former must convince only his prospects while the
latter must also convince themselves. A salesman is not interested if anyone
uses his product, just so he is paid a commission. Doctors and theologians
and those in the helping professions are compelled to justify that they know
what they are advising and treating, otherwise, they could never accept a fee,
gratuity, or income for their service. Someone who struggles to earn a living
such as a salesman where the risk of injury is virtually nonexistent doesn’t
need the same kind of justification, and will even steal with a clear
conscience.

Though we would all like to see an end to evil, there are two issues that
need to be considered. No one could be pleased if their source of income
was taken away as well as the very thing that gives meaning to their lives.
Doctors are sincerely interested in making their patients well, but they want
to be the ones to do it. Religion would like to see us delivered from evil, but
in some manner that confirms what has been looked for – Judgment Day.
The Chinese government would like to see an end to all evil, but in terms of
communism. Is it possible for the supporters of socialism and communism
to relinquish the thought that they are right, when they think they are not
wrong? Politicians would like to see an end to all evil, but they want to find
the solution. Would it be possible for the leaders of capitalism to willingly
resign their jobs when they think their services are no longer required? How
is it humanly possible for the organizations that fight for peace, for health,
for security; those that wage a war against the evils of humanity to be
sincerely happy about the very removal of the things they need for their
ultimate satisfaction? Everybody would like to see a great change; “I have a
dream” said Dr. Martin Luther King, “this view from the mountain top, but
no one desires any intruders or interlopers.” These individuals, who at
present control the thinking of mankind, set up a fallacious standard for the
conscious purpose of protecting themselves against others and will react with
hostility toward anything that shows they may be wrong unless it is
presented in such a mathematical manner that it is impossible to disagree
without revealing a still greater ignorance.

If this book was not a
mathematical revelation – which scientists will soon confirm – what do you
think the clergy, the government, the medical and teaching professions, and
many others would do if they thought for one moment this work was
someone’s opinion that threatened their security, power, and leadership
position in world affairs? They would tear this book to shreds. This
discovery has incurred the wrath of the establishment because it threatens the
status quo. No one wants to willingly admit they don’t have the answer.
The fact remains that these individuals are actually trying to solve problems
that are very much over their heads and what is being revealed to them is
only a method to accomplish the very things they have been attempting to
do, without success.

Unfortunately, those endeavoring to correct our ills
appear to be cutting off the heads of a diseased hydra – the more
psychiatrists we graduate, the greater becomes our mental illness; the more
policemen and moralists we have, the greater and more prevalent become our
crimes; the more diplomats, statesmen, generals and armies we have, the
greater and more destructive become our wars. And as an expedient to the
situation we find ourselves being taxed to death while our cost of living
steadily rises. Wouldn’t you like to see an end to all this?

Do you prefer
war or peace, unhappiness or happiness, insecurity or security, sickness or
health? Do you prefer losing the one you have fallen in love with or winning
and living happily ever after? Since I know that happiness is preferable to
unhappiness, health to sickness, I shall now begin a revelation of knowledge
which no one will be able to deny providing the relations are understood.
While the moral code, the Ten Commandments, our standards of right and
wrong will be completely extirpated, all premarital relations, adultery and
divorce will be coming to an end, changing the entire landscape of family
relationships. Where did you ever hear anything so fantastic or paradoxical?
And aren’t you jumping to a conclusion that this is against all human nature?

If all the people in the world who get displaced because their services are no
longer needed were to know as a matter of undeniable knowledge that the
income necessary to sustain their standard of living, whatever the cost,
would never be stopped as long as they live, would they have any reason to
complain about someone showing them a better way – the only way to
accomplish that for which they are getting paid? Although they and others
will be dissatisfied to learn the truth when it deprives them of personal
fulfillment, they are compelled to be silent because to utter any words of
protest would only reveal their ignorance which will give them no
satisfaction. I shall now set sail on a voyage which will perform this virtual
miracle by igniting a chain reaction of thought that will explode across the
planet and destroy with its fallout every conceivable kind of hurt that exists
among human relations, never to return. It is now within our power to reach
that mountaintop – the Golden Age of man – that we have all hoped and
dreamed will one day become a reality.

THE FOUNDATION AND SCIENTIFIC
DEVELOPMENT
OF MY FIRST DISCOVERY

CHAPTER ONE – THE HIDING PLACE
CHAPTER TWO – THE TWO-SIDED EQUATION

CHAPTER ONE

THE HIDING PLACE

Long ago man formed a theory that the earth was flat because he

could not conceive of it as a ball suspended in space. It became a
dogma, such a fixed idea that when the first astronomer, in
attempting to explain the reason why darkness came over the sun in the
middle of the day, was denied an opportunity to present his findings
because his discovery called into question this sacred belief. Let us
imagine the first astronomer being granted an interview by the leading
authorities of his time to explain the cause of a solar eclipse.

“Dear gentlemen, I have come to you to explain my findings about the

shape of the earth. In order for you to understand the cause of the darkness
coming over the sun, it is first necessary to understand that the earth is not
flat.
“What’s that? Did we hear you correctly? Are you trying to tell us that
the earth is round which means it is floating in space?”
“That is true, and my discovery lies locked behind the door marked the
earth is round.”
“This is absurd! Who are you to come in here and tell us that we are
wrong? We are not interested in your theory because we say the earth is
flat, [and since we are wiser than you, more learned than you, more
educated than you, you must be wrong], so why discuss this matter further.
Besides, our chief medicine man chanted the incantation that caused the
darkness to vanish. Thank you very much for coming out to give us your
explanation but we are not interested in discussing this matter further
because we know, beyond a shadow of doubt, that the earth is flat.”

This is the second half of the primary problem.  The fact that a theory

such as the belief that the earth is flat can hermetically seal knowledge that
prevents our discovering the invariable laws of the solar system which, in
turn, prevents the knowledge necessary to land men on the moon. Children
were taught this by their parents who had received this knowledge from
their parents who were instructed by the medicine man who was considered
the wisest man of his time. Since there was no way the knowledge of the
medicine man could be proven false because no one knew any different, and
since he was considered the wisest man of his time, his conclusion that the
earth was flat brooked no opposition. Consequently, when those who were
judged inferior in wisdom or knowledge disagreed with the medicine man,
they were rejected. When an upstart scientist came along who concluded
that the earth was round after making certain observations, how was it
possible to get others to agree with him when they couldn’t follow his
reasoning which compelled them to compare him, not his knowledge, to the
medicine man, to the professors and teachers whose wisdom and knowledge
could not be impugned. To help you see how easy it is for a dogmatic
theory to prevent scientific investigation let us once again return, in
imagination, to the time when man knew nothing about the solar system,
and listen to a conversation.

“Say, Joshua; do you believe the earth is flat or do you go along with my

theory that it is round?”
“Even though most of mankind agrees that it is flat, what difference does
it really make what I think?” said our philosophical friend. “The shape of
the earth is certainly not going to be affected or changed no matter what my
opinion is, right?”
“That is true enough, but if the earth is really round isn’t it obvious that
just as long as we think otherwise we are prevented from discovering those
things that depend on this knowledge for their discovery, consequently, it
does make a difference. How much so we are not in the position to know
just yet but thousands of years hence, perhaps in the twentieth century,
there may be all kinds of scientific achievements attributed directly to
knowing the true shape of the earth, such as landing men on the moon
which may never be possible without first knowing the true shape of the
earth.”

You may look back and smile at the unconscious ignorance of our

ancestors but pay close attention to what happened to me as I draw up a
perfect comparison with which you can identify. Because my discovery
was purely scientific, my attention was drawn to an article by Eric Johnson,
now deceased, who was once among other things the President of the
Motion Pictures Association. It appeared in the November 6, 1960 issue of
This Week Magazine of The Baltimore Sun.

“If there is one word which characterizes our world in this exciting last

half of the twentieth century, the word is change. “Change in political life;
change in economic life; change in social life; change in personal life;
change in the hallmark of our times. It’s not gradual, comfortable change.
It is sudden; rapid; often violent. It touches and often disrupts whole
cultures and hundreds of millions of people. Behind it all lies an explosive
growth in scientific knowledge and accomplishment. Some 90% of all the
scientists who ever lived are living today, and the total accumulation of
scientific knowledge is doubling every ten years. But this is reality. If we
remember that, then we will never flinch at change. We will adjust to it,
welcome it, meet it as a friend, and know it is God’s will.”

Since my discovery would bring about the greatest change in all of
history, it appeared that this man would be willing to let me explain my
findings. By convincing him on the phone that it was now possible to put a
permanent end to all war as a result of my discovery he agreed to meet me
on a Sunday afternoon in Washington, D.C. Our conversation went as
follows:

“I’m really not a scientist, Mr. Lessans, and in all probability you should
be talking to someone else. Your claims are absolutely fantastic, but I want
you to know that even though I wrote an article about science, I am not a
scientist. Besides, after you hung up I became more skeptical of claims
such as yours because they not only sound impossible but somewhat
ridiculous in view of man’s nature. Frankly, I don’t believe your claims are
possible, but I am willing to listen if it doesn’t take too long and if I can see
some truth to your explanation; I do have another engagement but I can
devote at least one hour. Would you get right on with it?” I then told him
the story about the earth being flat and he smiled at this, and then told him
that a theory exists regarding man’s nature that is accepted as true by 98%
of mankind, and I pointed out that this theory is actually preventing the
decline and fall of all evil because it has closed a door to a vast storehouse
of genuine knowledge.
“I will be as brief as possible, Mr. Johnson, but in order for me to reveal
my discovery it is absolutely necessary that I first show you its hiding place
because they are related to each other.”
“What is this theory?” he asked.”
“You see, Mr. Johnson, most people believe consciously or
unconsciously that man’s will is free.”
“What’s that? Did I hear you correctly? Are you trying to tell me that
man’s will is not free?”
“That is absolutely right, Mr. Johnson. I don’t believe it; I know this for
a mathematical fact. My discovery lies locked behind the door marked
Man’s Will is Not Free, just like the invariable laws of the solar system
were concealed behind the door marked The Earth is Round – until some
upstart scientist opened it for a thorough investigation.”
“I have always believed it to be free but what difference does it make
what I think; the will of man is certainly not going to be affected by my
opinion, right?”
“That part is true enough (do you recall the comparison), but if the will
of man is definitely not free isn’t it obvious that just as long as we think
otherwise we will be prevented from discovering those things that depend
on this knowledge for their discovery, consequently, it does make a
difference. The opinion of our ancestors that the earth was flat could never
change its actual shape, but just as long as the door marked “The Earth Is
Round” was never opened thoroughly for an investigation by scientists
capable of perceiving the undeniable but involved relations hidden there,
how were we ever to discover the laws that allow us now to land men on
the moon?
“Your door was opened many times through the years by some of the
most profound thinkers and never did they come up with any discoveries to
change the world.”
“It is true that determinism was investigated by people who were
presumed profound thinkers, but in spite of their profoundness none of them
had the capacity to perceive the law that was hidden there. Most people do
not even know it is a theory since it is preached by religion, government,
even education as if it is an absolute fact.”
“Mr. Lessans, I don’t know what it is you think you have discovered but
whatever it is, as far as I personally am concerned, it cannot be valid
because I am convinced that man’s will is free. Thank you very much for
coming out but I’m not interested in discussing this matter any further.”
And he would not let me continue.

Now stop to think about this for one moment. A discovery has been
made that will go down in history as that which will change the entire world
of human relations for the better, yet because it challenges a theory which is
held by many world religions, there is a hostile reaction when it is
questioned. This is a perfect example of how this preemptive authority of
false knowledge which is passed along from generation to generation by
theology, by government, and by various other sources does not even allow
a person to open his mind to hear the explanation. The theologians I
contacted, though they admit they pray to God for deliverance from evil
also believe it is impossible for man to accomplish this apparent miracle. In
a sense they are right because the law that was discovered is equivalent to
the law that inheres in the solar system, over which we have no control.
Any system or dogma, religious or otherwise, which shackles man’s mind
and prevents scientific investigation needs to be discarded, so that the truth
can be uncovered.

This is much easier said than done because the
knowledge of what it means that man’s will is not free was buried deeper
than atomic energy, and presents problems that are almost insurmountable.
Convincing a few people of this truth is one thing; convincing the entire
world is something else. Supposing the very people whose understanding it
is necessary to reach refuse to examine the facts on the grounds that the
discovery could not be valid because it starts out with the premise that
man’s will is not free. To show you how confused are those who have been
guiding us, a rabbi was told that the author
of the book Decline and Fall of All Evil claims
to have the permanent solution to every problem
of human relation,
and he replied, “How do we know that God wants us to remove all evil?”
Now you tell me, if he is doubtful of this why do all theologians ask God in
the Lord’s Prayer to deliver us from evil?

Another rabbi criticized me for
not attending the synagogue to which I replied, “Isn’t the reason you go to
the Temple due to your faith in God, your belief that one day He will reveal
himself to all mankind? “That is true”, he answered. “Well you see,
Rabbi, the reason I don’t go to the synagogue is because I know for a fact
that God is real. I don’t have faith or believe this; I know that 2+2=4; I
don’t have faith or believe that this is true.” Still hoping that I could
convince a member of the clergy to hear what I had to say, I phoned a
Catholic priest for an appointment and our conversation went as follows:

“What do you want to see me about?”
“Father, when you utter the words of the Lord’s Prayer I take for granted
that you are sincere and would like to see us delivered from evil, isn’t that
true?”
“Certainly, what kind of question is that?”
“Well the reason I had to ask is because I have just made a scientific
discovery that will bring about the actual fulfillment of this prayer, this
deliverance from evil.”
“What’s that you say? Deliver mankind from evil? Absolutely
impossible, it cannot be done.”
“But how can you know without first finding out what it is I have
discovered? Isn’t this your fervent wish, that God perform such a miracle?”
“It is.”
“Well then, why don’t you let me come out and show you exactly how
all evil must decline and fall as a direct consequence?”
“It’s impossible, that’s why I’m not interested. The only time such a
world will become a reality is on Judgment Day.”
“But that’s just the point; this Judgment Day when interpreted properly
has actually arrived because it conforms to the basic principle.”
“This still doesn’t convince me that I should devote my precious time to
what sounds ridiculous.”
“Sounds can be deceiving, Father. Who believed the first astronomer
when he predicted an eclipse, or Einstein when he revealed the potential of
atomic energy? Your skepticism, if I told you without adequate proof that
this discovery will bring about the inception of the Golden Age, would not
be an unwarranted reaction, but the actual proof is explicit and undeniable.
It is only natural for you to be skeptical, Father, but this is never a sufficient
reason to exclude the possibility of a scientific miracle.”
“I’m afraid that I will have to end this conversation. My advice is to
take what you have to one of the secular universities. I’m sorry I couldn’t
be more helpful but thanks for calling anyway.”

Later on, I tried to engage a pastor in a discussion about free will and he
responded to me by asking, “If man’s will is not free, then you can’t blame
or punish anything he does, is that correct? And when I answered, “Right”,
he actually got up and walked out of the room. You see, this learned
ignorance presents quite a problem, and only by getting the world to
understand what it means that man’s will is not free can I hope to break
through this barrier. This law of our nature is not a premise, not an
assumption, not a theory, but when 98% of the world believes otherwise,
they might just close the windows of their mind to any scientific
investigation which requires rejecting a theory that has dogmatically
controlled man’s thinking since time immemorial.

How is it possible to
explain the solution when nobody wishes to listen because they think they
know there isn’t any? Where is there one iota of difference between this
attitude and that of our ancestors regarding the shape of the earth? To show
how confused is the thinking of the average person who is not accustomed
to perceiving mathematical relations of this nature, when I told someone
that his answer was incorrect, he replied with a tone of resentment, “That’s
your opinion, but I believe it is possible”, as if the answer could be one or
the other. The earth cannot be round and flat, it has to be one or the other
and your opinion can never change what is. Remember, I am going to bring
about an unprecedented change in human conduct, but I can only do this if
you understand what I am about to reveal. If you can’t follow my reasoning
as to why the earth is round, you will be compelled to believe that it is flat
for it gives you satisfaction not to be wrong.

In other words, if I were going
to offer an opinion as to why man’s will is not free, then your educational
rank, your scholarly background could assert itself as a condition more valid
to deny my claim, but when I declare that I am not going to reveal a theory
but will give a scientific, undeniable, demonstration, then regardless of who
you are you must wait to see the proof before rejecting the claim.
Therefore, it is imperative that you know well in advance that my reasoning
will be completely mathematical, scientific and undeniable; so if you find
yourself in disagreement you had better reread that which you disagree,
otherwise, your stubborn resistance, your inability to perceive these
relations will only delay the very life you want for yourself. Many
professors consider the free will/determinism debate nothing more than a
philosophical discussion equivalent to finding out what came first, the
chicken or the egg. To them what difference does it really make? But if
this discovery can put an end to all war, crime, and evil in general, it makes
a very big difference and it is imperative that the world listen so that this
evil in our lives can come to a permanent end.

It is time to draw an infallible line of demarcation between what is true
and what is false and you are going to be amazed at how much of what is
false passed for what is true. However, everything was necessary. As we
begin to understand the knowledge of our true nature what is revealed is
something amazing to behold for it not only gives ample proof that evil is
no accident, but that it was part of the harmonious operation called the
mankind system and was compelled to come into existence by the very
nature of life itself as part of our development. Once certain facts are
understood it will also be no accident that every form of evil will be
compelled to take leave of this earth.

Humanity has been gravitating at a
mathematical rate, and in an unconscious manner, toward this Golden Age
when the seeds of hatred and the domination of man over man will be a relic of our collective memory. It never
dawned on the theologians and philosophers that man’s choice of what he
considered better for himself, even though it may have been evil when
judged by others, came about in direct obedience to his nature or the will of
God who had reasons we were not supposed to understand – until now.
Many prophets foresaw the coming of this New World but didn’t know the
exact time frame, or from which direction, peace would finally make its
appearance although they were confident that when it arrived it would
change our world as we know it. Now the prophesies, conjectures, and
philosophies are no longer necessary for this long awaited Golden Age that
we have been looking forward to with prayers, hope, and great anticipation
has arrived at last.

This discovery I will soon make known to you reveals
the infinite wisdom guiding this universe, which is not only that long sought
standard and touchstone of truth and reality, but also that elixir of alchemy
for with it the baser mettles of human nature are going to be magically
transmuted into the pure gold of genuine happiness for every individual on
this planet, and for all generations to come. Please be perfectly honest, who
can object to relinquishing the belief in free will when the key to the decline
and fall of all misery and unhappiness lies behind the door of determinism?