Art and theory of reversibility

According to the World Economic Forum that annually meets in Davos, “nothing ever will be the same” after the coronavirus. The Great Reset awaits us this impending 2021 and we only have to get on board.

How can we know when a change is definitive or merely occasional? How can we foresee if its consequences will be reversible or irreversible?

It is assumed that the miscalled “Spanish flu” of 1918-1919 was incomparably deadlier than this virus, and yet it vanished like a ghost in the memory of an entire generation which however could not forget the First World War and the Treaty of Versailles, or the crash of 29.

The great war and the crisis of the 1930s did have irreversible effects, which would lead to the world of 1945; but it is clear that the flu did not, and as soon as it stopped filling the news, it was little less than obliterated. Some say that the figures were inflated shamelessly to frighten the population and make them forget the terrible question of the responsibility of the conflict, which had met with the general opposition of the unions, and of any person able to evade the much more lethal war propaganda of the press.


Is globalization irreversible? Massive immigration from poor to rich countries? Emigration to the cities in most of the planet? The urban exodus in the United States? The split of this nation in two confronted societies? The flight from work? The “conquest” of rights that are often promoted and granted from above? The expropriation of techniques by technology that we call digitalization? Climate change? The hyper-concentration of capital? The corruption and decomposition of the social body? Civilization? Progress? Human domestication?

In principle there is no process that cannot be reversed, either voluntarily or spontaneously, in a smooth or catastrophic way; everything depends, of course, on the time scale that we use.

Climate change itself, so insistently attributed to human intervention, may well be a minor fluctuation on the way to the next glaciation. And even if our species were to alter the climate decisively, a rapid collapse would perhaps be the quickest way to reverse the process.

Emigration from the countryside to the city seems unstoppable in most parts of the world, but in some economically developed countries there is already a trend towards urban exodus in search of more space, more time and fewer restrictions.

Of course, the inhabitants of the city are not going to live in the countryside to grow potatoes as three hundred years ago; on the contrary, they do so because the rural areas are also largely assimilated and in any case well connected to the web.

And so we could say with everything. The relationship between the reversible and irreversible would be largely dialectical, since when we perceive something as irreversible, we immediately explore other directions and even the opposite way if it promises new degrees of freedom.

It is obvious to anyone that the direction of many processes can be reversed, while that does not at all mean that things simply return to their previous state. Strictly speaking, there are no reversible processes because in practice the conditions are never the same again —yet there is always the possibility of partially reversing a situation, and what we take as an absolute trend is nothing but a highly conditional arrange of changing circumstances.

Progress always aspires to irreversible mutations because, for lack of anything else, the destruction of the past as a fait accompli would be its only form of legitimacy. But beyond its destructive rage and trivial secrets, modernity has its own mystery, which so far has resisted all efforts to see through it. It may have much to do with the mutual relationship between the irreversible and the reversible, not just at the superficial level of pairs of opposites, but on the kind of highly selective commerce it has established with Nature, what it wants from her and what it neglects.


Let’s go first with one of those trivial secrets; so basic, it seems, that we don’t need to include it in our maps of reality. Incidentally, it also has to do with irreversibility.

According to Hegel’s master and slave dialectics, the master dominates the slave by his contempt for death, while the slave accepts submission to avoid it. But today the opposite is true: the unrecognized masters of the world have no choice but to hide, and it is to compensate for this infamy that they try to sow fear in the majority of the population.

Needless to say that those masters are not the familiar faces of Forbes’ list, the big corporations or the Davos Forum, who are there to stand as a front and give some appearance of normality. Even the chief executive of BlackRock would be nothing but an errand boy for some subjects in unfriendly terms with the sun.

There is a simple mathematical reason for this: it is called the Pareto law of wealth distribution. Since economists prefer not to dig in it, it never hurts to remember how it works: 20 percent of the population has 80 percent of the wealth, but this 80/20 law is repeated indefinitely: Eighty percent of that 80 percent is held by 20 percent of that 20 percent (64 percent of the total is owned by a 4 percent), over 51 percent by a 0.8 percent, and so on up to the top of the wealth pyramid.

Thus we arrive at the well known estimate that the 62 richest people have more wealth than half the world’s population, the poorest 3.7 billion. Perhaps not so well known is that, following the same elementary logic, most of the wealth of those 62 would be owned by 12, and most of the wealth of those 12 would be owned by just 3 fortunes.

These 3 fortunes would possess, not exactly most of the world’s wealth, but most of the surplus buying power and subordination of the smaller fortunes all the way down.

Physicists like B. Boghosian have made dynamic simulations of the Pareto distribution establishing a more or less exact analogy between collisions of molecules and monetary transactions. The asymptotic dynamics tends to a singularity in which all but a vanishingly small fraction of the agents have zero wealth. No doubt it is a very idealized model, but that is the trend.

The Pareto law is only a particular case of the power laws that appears in all kinds of distributions in nature and society, from the size of cities and corporations to the intensity of earthquakes and the caliber of blood vessels in the circulatory system.

Although the appearance of power laws in all kinds of phenomena, and its self-similar, fractal character may make us think that the inequality in the distribution of wealth is a “natural fact”, in truth we still don’t know for sure which are the factors that determine its existence and the number of powers.

As for its relevance to the economy, it is hard to believe that there are practically no studies or even a remotely consistent theory on the subject, but in its absence it seems quite reasonable to think that the number of iterations —the degree of concentration of wealth- depends critically on credit mechanisms and the continuity or cancellation of accumulated debt. As Michael Hudson points out, since the first great civilizations in Sumer and Babylon, sovereigns periodically cancelled debts, but in modern states the creditor always ends up collecting, if only for the privatization of public goods and effective control of governments.

Thus the present democracies, with central banks that are effectively cartels of private banks from which the state has to borrow its own money, have become the ideal instrument to create irreversible processes of debt accumulation from top to bottom that invariably ends up with a power grab.

Needless to say, private banking not only controls the issue of the monetary base —mainly cash-, which is just about 5 percent of the money supply, but also credit as a whole, from which all the debt-money comes by virtue of the fractional reserve mechanics.

Fractional reserve itself presents an elementary resemblance with power laws and the leverage through credit, since the greater the credit, the greater the leverage and the smaller the base. Given that the state is already a hostage of credit, this power law with its inherent mechanics is the very lever of power both generally and in detail, which through the distribution of money manages to encompass all social relations.

The non-reversible relationship of modern states with debt and the extension of credit to all spheres explains why the present pyramid of inequality is more pronounced than in any previous era.

Only the unprecedented increase in productivity due to technology, the lower cost of some consumer goods and the expansion of credit made possible to somewhat conceal the rampant increase in inequality in recent decades; however, today we also see that digitalization, like the flow of money, conforms to the structure of this huge extractive apparatus, further accelerating the process —since the very meaning of digitalization is to eliminate resistance or minimize friction.

Models like the one presented by Bogoshian would confirm the increasingly widespread suspicion that our system truly behaves like a black hole, whose suction is ultimately indiscriminate although it possesses a rich selective structure of recurrent mediations along the way, in which the big fish eats the small one all down the line —”ideally” at least, and ignoring the undesirable resistances to overcome.

To use a mechanical analogy, the control parameters of this dynamics would be directly linked to the interest rate that governs the accumulation of the debt and generates the load, and therefore the tension, vacuum and suction. We always live between stress and pressure, and the change of sign from one to the other, between the full and the empty, can be extremely fluid, but the institutions that dominate the banking industry attempt to regulate it through the interest rate and the percentage of deposits of the private banks that determine their capacity to create money.


The parasite is “closer to you than your jugular vein”, and it is clear that although it depends on a liquid medium, it does not respond only to a horizontal logic.

Liberals try to sell the illusion that in a world governed by money and its freedom of movement we are definitely moving in a “liquid” medium and horizontality reigns supreme, and most of the left also buys this argument motivated by a textbook materialism and its desire to eliminate any “verticality” that sounds like a residue of a further past. Thus the new verticality escapes due attention. Today both speak of “inequality” and create all kinds of centers and institutes for its study, dealing with it as if the Great Syphon did not even exist.

The power law of wealth distribution is an absolutely basic fact of the economy and society, in the sense that it is both structure and function, form and dynamics, capillary suction and dripping system, hierarchy with a continuous exchange of favors offered and services rendered. To pretend that capitalism is a purely “liquid” phenomenon or we have neutral markets would be utter folly. If capitalism has come this far, it is because it involves a plutocratic hierarchy that is nevertheless highly functional. And the power law is the x-ray of this hierarchy and this structure, without which the existing system would not stand.

If they are looking for a quantitative model in sociology and economics, there is no need to go any further: here we have a whole lot of quantitative correlations, qualitative gradations, nuances and appreciations waiting to be extracted. And in these Big Data times, how not to think that the engineers and guardians of the Great Syphon are dedicating a good deal of time to it? They would be truly incompetent if they weren’t.

“Progress” is the growing differentiation of the productive and social fabric —or the endorsement of this process. More differentiation requires more organization. Oligarchy is organization, and to survive in a context of growing complexity the organization must be diversified and more refined, becoming more fragile and irreversible too.

An organism, as a system, ages through a unique process that presents several different but ultimately equivalent aspects: increasing inability to eliminate, increasing inability to renew because the available space is filled with debris, and increasing restriction of the degrees of freedom. Modern science ignores widely the concept of evolution as a growing restriction, essential to the life cycle of organisms.

While a horizontal Darwinian and Hobbesian narrative of competition and war of all against all is heavily promoted for the masses, the organized minorities take over the vertical, much more concretely structured logic, governed by the ecological terms of marketing and the exploitation of niches and ecosystems, now coated with the splendors of digital neo-feudalism.

Noblesse oblige. “Big fish eats small fish” has very different meanings depending on the coordinate axis in which we move. The new progressive, horizontal ecology ignores the vertical ecology of elitism that came first demarcating territories. In fact, a good deal of the “horizontal ecology” and the “ecology of the mind” were designed by such dubious characters as Gregory Bateson, a reputed specialist in psychological warfare.


Elementary statistics say that approximately half of the great fortunes in the United States, Europe or Russia belong to individuals of Jewish origin. This is a convenient proportion, if only to keep up appearances and to have at least as many human shields in the rare event that someone is to be blame.

One could think that whether this plutocracy is Jew or not can hardly be relevant for the general dynamics and the flow of money. In fact it is also fundamental at this level, and as we have already pointed out the inverted pyramid is first and foremost a great hierarchy, a highly selective filter in both directions, up and down, that determines, positions, priorities, favors, and obediences.

Nor should this 50/50 share be important when, Jews or not, in the end, whether they vote democrat or republican, nearly all of them are fervent Zionists or sympathizers.

If the law of 80/20 and its successive powers offers us the most revealing and eluded x-ray of the state of things in society, this tacit “law of 50/50 percent” is the x-ray of the x-ray, an additional penetration into the complexion of what we use to call “the capital”.

This 50/50 share is not only relevant to the effective weight of money and its projection of power but also to the historic and symbolic order, besides insinuating the virtual axis of a dynamic. On the other hand, it should be obvious that the fact that such a numerically small minority holds half of the great fortunes has something to do with the vicissitudes and mysteries of accumulation.

Already the Hebrew Genesis tell us the history of Joseph in Egypt, winning Pharaoh’s favor and then speculating with money and grain to achieve the enslavement of the population through debt —a feat crowned by making the slaves say: “You have saved our lives!”

Hegel’s master gets recognition by not killing; the financial administrator, by saving a life he has previously starved and strangled. Of course, the former exposes himself, while the latter plays it safe. Violence and deception are opposing ways of using force and spirit, but both have maintained a special relationship from far back in history.

In Christendom, we have documented evidence of this iniquitous alliance since at least the time of Charlemagne’s son, when Agobard, Bishop of Lyon, sent five letters to Louis the Pious in 826 denouncing the ludicrous privilege of the Jews at the expense of the christian majority. Coincidentally, this privileges had been on the rise since the Emperor’s marriage to a certain Judith of Bavaria. But from the Pharaoh to Trump and from Joseph and Esther to the present day, this pattern sounds too familiar.

As with Faust and Mephisto, a certain eternal archetype, incarnation of the spirit in exile, wastes no time and goes directly to the tap of power promising more wealth by taxing and financing wars, flattering the fatuity and whims of the powerful in charge, carefully studying human weakness and relentlessly exploiting stupidity.

Only later, when the sovereigns gave way to democratic governments, and the creation of false needs that is the salt of the last phase of every civilization spread, like credit, to every layer of the population, all and sundry could take part in the same lie.

Nowhere in modern times has been this alliance so close as in Britain, the origin of liberalism and the industrial revolution, and the United States later; since the conmixtion of Puritanism with the interests of Judah, Anglo-Zionism is the real name of the Empire. It responds both to overt behavior and to a much less visible physiology.

To point this out is not only useful, but also necessary, given that the knot in the heart of Modernity, the effective contraction of its current reality among the whole of possibilities, has the contour and logic of Anglo-Saxon culture and its intimate host; and this is essential on both a functional and historical level.

On the so-called Jewish question, Marx, who was Jewish and bourgeois, came to say that the Jew, as a worshipper of money, was the bourgeois par excellence; but it would have been somewhat more credible if he had said that it is the bourgeois who wants to be halfway between the Jew and the sovereign, the sovereign and the Jew.

The characterization of capitalism as a brainless gluttonous monster with no other logic than greed always diverts us from its indispensable qualities of farsighted planning and “creative destruction”. No doubt both components coexist and correspond well with the 50/50 complexion, although in the long run we all know which part will take command. When Lyotard spoke of the libidinal economy of the centaur of capital with its two uses of the power of wealth, one of them reproductive and plundering the other, one “circular, global, organic,” and the other “partial, deadly, jealous… that feeds on the plunder of over-excited energies,” it is as if he had been thinking about the very same thing.


The overwhelming reality of this grotesque inverted pyramid must force all kinds of abnormal consequences. One of them is that the minuscule apex of plutarchy is forced to cower in the depths to minimize its exposure. And in this way it is deprived of that recognition which, according to Hegel, makes a master a master.

And here we would enter fully into the greatest comedy of our time, which we are not allowed to appreciate properly. And the comedy resides, naturally, in the fact that if someone points to the “Jewish power” he has all the numbers to be labeled “anti-Semitic”, while on the other hand those who hold that power the only thing they lack in order to fulfill their aspirations is general recognition, because until that happens, the pretended master does not cease to be a simple aspirant.

But the comedy of recognition can have a very sharp and dangerous edge for both halves of this strange androgynous Siamese.

It is a well known fact that the Balfour Declaration of 1917, at the origin of the modern state of Israel, was addressed to a member of a famous lineage of bankers who, at the end of the war, preferred to merge discreetly into the background.

That both things overlap in time does not seem to be a coincidence. While some individuals were fleeing from a notoriety that could only be inconvenient for them, a new entity with state pretensions was emerging in fierce struggle for recognition among nations, which nevertheless gloats over placing itself above the compliance of international law.

Whether for Jehovah’s ancient chosen people or for the present Zionist entity, the ultimate goal so explicitly stated in the scriptures, “recognition by all nations” coincides with their debasement, degradation and subordination; that today it all comes down to the recognition of the power of money in the world does not deserve further comment. But since even today we realize that, apart from a ruthless use of any advantage, there is no other superiority in this prevalence than that of deceit, usurpation and imposture, the question of recognition can be redirected only to a theological instance able to present what is simple baseness as a voluntary and beneficent descent of the spirit.

In this way Israel as a nation and function among nations would be a pledge and symbol of that recognition that is impossible at a personal level, while at the same time longing for a horizon of transvaluation for a cursed accumulation.

That most of the surplus purchasing power is located at the top of the inverted pyramid takes its potential for corruption to the extreme, since only buying wills can it be mobilized and made profitable, and in a certain sense, “fruitful”. Not only this situation produces all sorts of ill consequences; nothing that gives voice to that other underground summit can be nothing but an aberration.


The Oligarchy hangs from self-similarity, and gravitates towards that singularity whose horizon of events is the unknown Plutarch.

In many ways, nothing could be less new than the recipes that the Davos boys have in store for us. The transition from classical liberalism to the present cybernetic regime has been taking place since 1945, but the current glitch would be perfect to conclude it and start a new era.

The fact that the spokesman for the Magic Mountain is a German engineer already tells us that the reigning technocracy may still play the role of the villain in the next and surprising turn of the script —something from which we could perhaps redeem ourselves at a given moment thanks to divine, and more specifically Israeli, intervention, although no one yet manages to figure out how that could happen. But to get there we would still have to descend way down.

In Davos they like to talk a lot about governance, which is nothing but the socio-political translation of the cybernetic meme. And of course, an essential part of the global governance on the agenda is that of digital currencies, to which they have been devoting exhaustive studies for a good number of years but that have now found, coincidentally, the ideal scenario for their implementation.

And the global regulation of these currencies is a matter of concern, first of all, lest some fair currency emerge, no doubt by mistake, which is in demand and sets a bad example. “Governance is the central pillar of any form of digital currency,” said Mark Carney, former Governor of the Bank of England and ex of Goldman Sachs. But why, one could ask, was it not a matter of finding alternatives? Judging by his insistence on the “need for governance” of something that is barely at the beginning of this road, there seems to be a very real risk here that too many possible outflows will open up for a suction system that needs to function without leaks.

The family to which the Balfour Declaration was addressed had already taken control of the Bank of England before 1830, and their money has not been sleeping since. The name of the game in capitalism, more than the publicized spirit of enterprise, is the implacable exploitation of every advantage gained; and certainly these people are not about to be lectured on how money is created and distributed.

It may be true that large accumulations work to a large extent without the need for a brain; but not thanks to the “horizontal logic of the markets”, generally rigged, but to the interaction of their open component with that vertical logic and dynamics of which we have spoken.

As we have already seen in other articles, the implementation of digital money as they understand it and the sharp reduction of cash would be the consolidation of the current banking impunity, a shielding and closure of the system that would install us fully in a financial prison. With the danger of banks runs precluded, users are losing the last resource they have to call to account while the banks are being totally freed from any responsibility.

Although everything already pointed to this situation, its consummation would effectively mean the closure of the system with all this implies. To get it done, not even concessions are needed, since it seems the monetary question is not debatable. Were it not for the gradual marginalization of cash, most of the population would not even notice it.

So if concessions are made, it will not be for the control of money, but rather to whitewash the Reset and gain popular acceptance. At the head of that public relations campaign will be “the fight” for basic income and that other sick joke known as the Green New Deal.

As for the Universal Basic Income, it should be clear without further explanation that:

1.Even with the current monetary system, and without digital money, guaranteeing a minimum income would cost the rich practically nothing, despite the predictable staged saga surrounding its negotiation. Inflation would soon eat up half the purchasing power of that income, to continue indefinitely with the comedy of demands, increases and all the rest. Meanwhile, the assets of the owners can beat inflation by a good margin.

2.In the event that “the governance of digital money” triumphs, since only the banks would know the bottom line, perhaps even inflation could be avoided, but in any case, with or without inflation, it would cost nothing for them, just increasing the burden of debt as usual.

3. The basic income will be nothing more than concealed and postponed debt to help the debt serf continue to meet the deadline, now turned into the new social phenomenon of the serf-rentier.

4.Real wages for labor could be fivefold to tenfold if all the value extraction sustained by debt at all levels was eliminated.

5.The wages of all the workers in the world are only a small, almost negligible part of the money flowing in the system as the sphere of production is completely subordinated to that of financial circulation. Beyond the staged drama about the costs of such measures, what is being negotiated is the servitude of the population.

6.Despite what their advocates say, even now there is no real popular base for these so-called demands, which are completely fabricated and subsidized and which imply the consummation of the servitude to the cybernetic regime based on the regulation and modulation of the circulating flows, and to the anonymous individuals who govern it. However, it is clear that the destruction caused by absurd and unprecedented measures against just one more epidemic put growing parts of the population at the mercy of the most powerful.

7.The main cause of the impoverishment of the population now can appear as its savior. The new digital currencies of the central banks could even grant rents independently from the governments —like the new emergency program FedNow to inject money into the households- distributing a small part of what they have stolen with no other conditions than the exhaustive control of all the movements and the personalized negotiation of each debt. A brave new world indeed.

It is not hard to see through this. However, the control of the public debate, tries at all costs to circumvent the monetary question in all its terrible simplicity


Why does the state have to ask private banks for their own money, while they reap all the benefits of the trust in the legal tender? This fraud and usurpation are at the very origin of the degradation of the public affairs along the path of democracies that seems to be coming to an end.

If, as it should always be, all the money were legal money, and the fractional reserve that allows us to create almost all the money we manage from private credit did not exist, the main incentive for the creation and accumulation of debt, and with it also for the forced growth to pay it off, would be put to an end. It is absurd to ask for a policy-directed degrowth when the first thing that should disappear is the artificial stimulus to growth.

The radical simplification of sovereign, unadulterated money, still allows two antagonistic options: in one of them the state creates all existing money and also gives credit through a nationalized bank, while in the other the state only creates money and the credit supply is open for all types of entities, including public banks.

One might think that the latter option, which was first outlined in the so-called “Chicago Plan” of 1933 and has been defended recently by economists and even former central bank governors, is much closer to the liberal model of Western countries, while the former would be much more feasible in planned economies such as China; but the truth is that classical liberalism has found its essential engine in the legalized counterfeiting of debt-money and would be unrecognizable without it. On the other hand, the socialist countries have not ceased to assume the model of the Western central banks with similar levers of fractional reserve and a highly selective distribution of the money issued.

There is a curious mixed situation: in Western countries the main economic lever of the state has been in private hands, but in the real socialism, banking, although nationalized, has taken from private banking the essential part of its structure and practices.

But now, with the arrival of digital currencies, such a mix has the potential to create a double contradiction —since digital currencies can be both state and private. Banks and other financial entities have an interest in issuing their own cryptocurrencies, not to mention social media and projects like Libra. Although there is naturally talk of “offering a service”, the aim, when it comes to corporate cryptos, is to capture market share. But on the other hand there are attempts to create crypto currencies that seek stability and flee from the speculative precedent of bitcoin or the corporations.

In reality, one hundred percent legal money would have to be synonymous with stability, were it not for the fact that friends of the governance of others have something different in mind. Until now, the United States has made the dollar system and the Federal Reserve prevail through its military power; but already at the past meeting of central bankers in Jackson Hole in 2019, and in the presence of Jerome Powell, the aforementioned Carney advocated ending the hegemony of the dollar in favor of a new modality of digital currency.

Clearly the intention is not to give away the “exorbitant privilege” of having the US debt, which also pays for its military power, sustained by the rest of the world. On the contrary, it would be a matter of keeping under control a transformation deemed inevitable and irreversible, in order to avoid the catastrophic consequences that a flight from the dollar would have for the Empire.

But the issue goes beyond the interests of the American empire, which is still an instrument for the existing plutarchy. And right now the question is whether that instrument is dispensable, and to what extent. Perhaps the United States has been until now “the indispensable nation,” but not for those who serve as mounts, but for those who ride it.

And what really characterizes the Empire, beyond the American contingency, is the continuous drainage and suction of the productive forces through the Great Syphon of debt-money, or parasitism taken to its maximum expression. Since the digitalization of money, as ultimate liquefaction of the capital, allows too many possibilities and threatens to open leaks in the closed circuit and its optimal functioning, laws must be made and rules put in place to prevent this from happening.

Since China is at the forefront of digital money and already competes in economic weight with the United States, the critical point of global monetary “governance” will also depend largely on the maneuvers of this country with its crypto-currency, as well as on the fruit of international agreements.

The crux of the matter is that there are two possible positions of the state with respect to its digital currency and credit —with its radical liberalization or nationalization- but there are also two possible trends for private circulation: corporate currencies of speculative nature that seek to capture users and mutual or libertarian currencies that flee from that model and seek more security or more freedom.

Nations under the umbrella of the Federal Reserve System would tend to protect corporate currencies, and in fact, beyond appearances, within this arrangement there can be nothing but a symbiosis between the state and corporations, since here the money print has already been in the hands of private interests for generations.

The currencies created by groups with a mutualist/libertarian spirit can adopt different strategies: stand alone, associate with other similar currencies, or seek the best convertibility relationship with state currencies when the later are not hostile to them. Now this type of currencies seems to be a residual phenomenon but they tend to fill in the gaps that other currencies cannot or do not want to cover, so in the long run they can play an important and even critical role in the case of a currency war over quotas in the global crypto space. At its worst, they can be a kind of black market, at its best, an alternative to the state and corporations.

Nobody can yet foresee the final result of this competition for the monetary space in the final stage of its liquefaction, since it will depend on a whole bunch of factors such as the present technological wars, election results, maneuvers and alliances of the United States, Europe and China as well as of the rest of the countries, their courtship or prohibition of private currencies and cash, the degree of cohesion or political decomposition of the principal states, the evolution and orientation of alternative currencies, etc.


Digital currency may seem to be the ultimate level of control of the monetary circuit with all its movements, but it may also exhibit the maximum volatility and fragility, depending both on its design or purpose, on the other crypto-currencies with which it competes, or on the legal provisions and public reactions that are equally part of this conflict.

It is in this context of potential chaos and currency war that crypto-digital “governance” is sought, but here the clash between the unipolar pretensions of Anglo-Zionism and the aspirations of other great countries for a multi-polar world cannot fail to come to the fore. Also critical are the internal tensions in the main countries, as demonstrated by the deep division between globalists and neo-isolationists in the United States.

The existing plutarchy is by definition a shadow government or cryptarchy, so the global dominance of the cryptocurrency market would fit them like a glove and be their capstone, in the absence of that recognition money can’t buy.

Moreover, the advent of digital currency and the demise of cash is projected as the ultimate triumph of transparency and the “distributed economy”, although it is not necessary to study the subject to see that it is just the opposite. As it already happens with cyber-vigilance, someone will be able to follow the most insignificant monetary movements of almost everyone, but practically nobody will know where the bulk of money is flowing in the Great Syphon scheme. Not a black mirror, just asymmetric transparency.

Nor will we discuss its usefulness in controlling organized crime, when it would constitute not only the supreme criminal organization but also its enthronement with legal armor included —something just logical in the economy of fraud.

The Marxist analysis that assures that the collapse of capitalism is inevitable due to the progressive reduction of profit, still repeated to boredom, is irrelevant to the fundamental question of the debt economy which is the motor of everything. On the contrary, if rates of profit are progressively reduced, that would only mean that an ever greater part of profitability migrates to credit and financial speculation, with which its ascendancy over labor/services and material and intellectual assets is ever greater, as we observe. Revolution is by no means inevitable, especially if the control of ideological alternatives is consolidated, which is also what we see.

Liberalism has always been a farce, but so has the materialism of the left, so fond of ignoring the formative and mediating role of the monetary system and credit. In this way the supreme arbiter of the manufactured ideological debate remains out of focus while it operates unimpeded.

Marx lived in the London of the Rothschilds, Disraelis and Montefiores, and he could not ignore what was happening; on the other hand Jewish people, and especially its economic elite, didn’t want anything to do with productive economy, left for the dull. This was a great opportunity to put a wedge between the ‘bourgeois’ and the ‘proletarian’, while the credit that determines their relationship and profit was pushed into a more than discreet background.

Rozanov said that democracy is the system in which a well-organized minority governs a disorganized majority. We can only add that an increasingly reduced minority can only assert itself by increasing actively the disorganization of that majority, dividing and sinking wedges in all its fissures; and that, too, is what we observe.

For the rest, it is worth remembering that the question of the monetary system goes beyond the economy. The circulation of money in society is not only comparable to the circulation of blood in an organism. It is also a system of information and communication as prices are; and it is an essential part of the social grammar, to such an extent that many of the distinctions between the public and the private sphere have become what they are according to its general disposition.

On the other hand, it is good to understand that the tertiarization or rampant hypertrophy of circulation would not have been possible without the impulse given to it by a monetary system in which the bulk of the money is imaginary and based on debt only.


In money as in everything else, digitization is not irreversible, and if it were just irreversible it would be insignificant, a mere update on the way to a gigantic mousetrap. What is decisive is precisely the existing degrees of freedom to reverse the situation.

In other words, the only valuable thing about the possibility of introducing digital money is not to dive into some unknown and nonetheless too familiar future, but the one that allows to reset the sovereign, legal money as it always should be and as it was often before the great usurpation.

Some authors excuse the prevailing system of fractional reserve or money-debt by arguing that one hundred percent legal money was impractical in the nineteenth century for purely technical reasons. The argument has some truth to it, but unadulterated systems, or at least way more equitable, have existed centuries and millennia before that time.

A fair monetary system cannot in any case depend on the level of technology, since if it depends on it we are already in a desperate situation. To make justice depend on technical arbitrations is to put it at the disposal of the most powerful, which is the case with the current system. The fractional reserve is already a system of high technical sophistication, a sophistication that seems to be expressly designed to conceal the reality of money created out of nothing.

And here we will also see that the relationship between what seems irreversible and reversibility surrounds the axis of becoming, of the creative and the emergence of everything new, as opposed to that combination of brute force and inertia that only by an interested misunderstanding we have called progress. If technology is more opaque when it is more sophisticated, and one wants to make a “fairer” system depend on higher levels of technology, opacity, and capture of “users”, it should be clear that a fair system is possible precisely insofar as its essence does not depend on the level of technology.

This does not necessarily mean outlawing digitization, but rather not making it the touchstone. At the moment, it is digitalization that threatens to outlaw not only cash, but many other physical relationships. One hundred percent legal money, money without massive counterfeiting by its authorized distributors, should be possible regardless of its physical medium, and that independence is a main indicator of its acceptability.

Defending the coexistence with material supports may sound paradoxically idealistic, but since people still want cash for an elementary sense of security —and because they already charge for having it in the banks-, perhaps the result of the currency war for the digital monetary space, which will involve nations, corporations, and collectives, will also depend on how the supply moves on that axis between the reversible and the irreversible, between capture, freedom, and security.

We can then distinguish three axes: a horizontal axe linked to liquidity and the most purely commercial and civic factors, a vertical one related to the legal aspects of the states and the agreements between states, and a temporal axis in depth hidden in the reach of the temporal reversibility or irreversibility of debt, monetary uses and its changes.

That this axis is really alive and that the future wants to leave the door open to the past is clearly indicated by facts such as that both the project of the digital yuan and the crypto-currency drafts contemplated by Washington are considering backing the currency with gold, which in the case of the Chinese crypto is virtually confirmed. It is precisely the volatility of the digital environment, coupled with increased uncertainty and the climate of imminent currency wars, which gives meaning to criteria that the same experts deemed outdated until recently.


We are not among those who believe that economy is destiny. Important it is, but it would make only one of the axes of our coordinate system. Even if today it has a hypertrophied importance, it is only because of the vertiginous descent of our attention towards material things in the last centuries; but this reduction of the altitude continues to be a commitment of the intelligence within a relationship that it perceives as vertical.

Economism or the intrusion of economics into everything is only one aspect within a broader logic. Alexander Dugin has distinguished three logos in the crucible of Mediterranean and Western culture: the Apollonian, solar or spiritual, the materialistic or matriarchal represented by the earthly Cybele, and the vitalist mediating between both, personified by Dionysus, sun of darkness. But characteristically he forgets another divine power mediating between the High and the Low that has been much more relevant in the last centuries.

Certainly, if already in the Antiquity relations between gods were extraordinarily rich and complex, with the advent of Christianity it became even more difficult to recognize lineages, potentialities and tendencies. We continue to look at classical Greece as a diaphanous exponent of Apollo’s culture, although it undoubtedly had intense contact with the other currents. Babylon became in the scriptures a synonym of material culture. In the painting of Florence the Apollonian element predominates while in Caravaggio, with its double affirmation of life and death, Dionysus rules.

Western culture, which during the long centuries of the Middle Ages accumulated an enormous reserve of spiritual energy, since the Renaissance has devoted itself to invert all that energy into the earthly sphere, something decisively evident in what Weber called “the Protestant ethic” associated with the “spirit of capitalism”.

Within Protestantism, it will be the Calvinists and English puritans who will best embody this descent of the spirit into the worldly and material, and at this point it must be said that England, since its rise in the seventeenth century as a commercial and industrial power, has played in Europe, soon to become the “West”, a specifically mercurial role.

We say specifically because Mercury or Hermes is a dual god, which like the human unknown in the true Manifesto of the Renaissance, Pico’s Oration on the Dignity of Man, mediates between heaven and earth; but here the mercurial activity is clearly directed downwards, to trade and industry, toward the material civilization of Cybele that reaches certain culmination in the time of Queen Victoria.

Of course, this trend towards descent and materialization did not stop then and has continued to this day, driven by new metamorphoses. The era of philosophical materialism is long past, and yet no one hesitates to consider our cultural babel as the multiform flood of materialism. With it, a tamed hedonism has gained momentum, now basically driven by the materialist logic of consumption, not really living but trying to feel alive, as Dionysus regularly officiates in decadence and assists in dissolution.

In this reduction from a culture with spiritual reserves to a neutered, castrating material civilization, Mercury’s amphibious functionality played the essential role; but this neutral companion of the human kind assists us in the descent from mind to matter as the other way round. It is not only the numen of horizontal trade between equals —its more civilized appearance- but also the unnoticed trade between the high and the low in a sense that still evades the grasp of our normative, flattening sciences.

In contrast, dialectics use to move around the axis of this other trade, as the symbol of the Caduceus still manages to evoke it. While in its descent towards the cubic stone the spirit tends to be neutralized and deprived of polarity and vitality, in its ascent it uses the poles only to access that which lies beyond and before duality —the unknown common trait of mind and matter.

Dialectics lost explicit contact with the natural sciences long before Hegel, who nonetheless was the culmination of certain mercurial thought insinuated since Heraclitus. The new rationality in Nature gravitated toward the cubic stone, at least since Newton, who also devoted himself to the study of the hermetic science just when it was vanishing as a tradition; because until Lavoisier’s times, Nature’s science par excellence was chemistry, much more than the newly conceived mathematical physics.

Everything in the ancient hermetic art was a figure of the omnipresence of the spirit in Nature —and that spirit was will and understanding, fire and water, sulfur and mercury, sun and moon, even though they were never exhibited simultaneously, but only successively. In this sense it was a “historical science”, even though it had its own criteria of analysis and synthesis which, at least by analogy, could be extended to the most diverse domains.

Marx himself attempted to define the alchemy of capital in arid algebraic terms, while gold diggers in the rivers had used mercury to separate the gold from the ore since ancient times. And this aspect is much more interesting from the point of view of circulation, which is the one that concerns us.

Mercury presides over the inherent logic of dissolution and coagulation, as well as the circulation of heterogeneous elements within a closed process that tends to represent in its own way the great world. A vessel or a hermetic process try to describe the dynamic transformations of a totality in a certain closed circuit; and this is also the cybernetic main concept, something not unnoticed by the specialists of the second generation of this discipline, around 1970.

But the great difference is that Hermes is the master of reversibility even within such manifestly irreversible, open, living processes as generation and corruption. Cybernetics aims to close a circuit between initially open systems, which would then accommodate the reversibility of dead matter. As cybernetic rhymes with hermetic, technocratic does it with necrotic.


The horizon of today’s world cannot go beyond the cybernetic hypothesis, which, as the subtitle of Wiener’s pioneering work says, is all about “control and communication in the animal and the machine”, and tries to level them out on the plane of the mind, although we all see their obvious difference even at the most elementary physical level. In fact, “communication” here is the exact reverse of the concept “mechanism”, only that the latter was predicated on matter’s motion and the former on mental activity. We could equally use the word “commerce”.

This inability to see further forces all those who do not want to be left behind, from Davos to China and from Siberia to Patagonia, to bet on the party of technocracy and efficiency, with its perpetual demand that nothing escapes it. It is about playing it safe, minimizing the risks for the control head and therefore minimizing also the reactions, the instability, the vitality of the social body that is the object of control —or channeling its extra energy in safe and profitable options.

So the Great Reset can only multiply the rations of this familiar diet. With such indigestion of titanium and graphene, teleworking, artificial intelligence and cyber-vigilance, one needs some green altruism, concern for nature and sustainability. A winning couple, since the more we deny nature and destroy it, the more we need to light a candle in its honor.

It is not the same to deny nature than to destroy it; first comes denial in the form of science, and only then the implementation of destruction in the form of technology. How deep can be our concern for nature if our theory does not know or does not want to distinguish between an animal and a machine? We are neutralized to such an extent that this no longer impresses us, even knowing that our theories were bent on execution right from the start.

When these guys express their concern about nature, people should rather express concern about their pocket, because even if they create special fees, they will be payed by everyone except those responsible. If they call it today “externalization of costs”, tomorrow it will be “cost distribution”, and guess to whom will be distributed. Besides, everything in the structure and dynamics of the Great Syphon makes it “natural”.

In truth, the Great Syphon is not only the first political, economic and social problem, but also the main issue of social ecology, since in it we would approach the singularity faster than in any other horizon of catastrophe, which in passing are so promoted by the dominant media to make us forget the big one. There is a deeper ecology than that of the external balance of the so-called environment.

Evidently this catastrophe is not reduced only to the distribution of wealth but contains all its consequences, raising the lowest to the highest, intoxicating the collective perception and creating a parallel reality that only in some crucial but distorted aspects touch the ground.

At any rate, for the enclosing technocracy “Nature” is only synonym with resources, and “taking care of Nature” can only consist in taking over its administration, or in a word, in a barely concealed privatization. Privatization of the few things not yet fallen into private hands, such as the use of the atmosphere, freshwater, the seas or mining fields and forests, under the pretext that they cannot be left in the hands of the ignorant masses and irresponsible, “out of control” governments.

“Nature” for them is simply the Geoeconomy of resources. And if the plutarchy no longer has so much to gain in relative terms, in the face of the wild instability that its very existence provokes, tries to transform that overwhelming quantitative advantage into an increasingly iron consolidation of the control of the material aspects they call “natural”, and for which it should find a powerful excuse.

That is why the old liberal propaganda is no longer relevant and tends to be replaced by the new jargon of responsibility and sustainability, in a conservative turn towards self-restraint. Yes, they are the masters of self-restraint and self-containment. With so much more to lose than to gain, the essential thing is not to lose all the advantage gained, that should be transmuted into more favorable conditions —for the main cause of the imbalance.

Needless to say that in the grossly quantitative sense, a singularity in the accumulation of wealth is a chimera like any other mathematical singularity. The real thing is to transform and maximize this domain in qualitative terms, negotiating between strain and stress the obedience and stability, freedom and security of the masses.


We are the great fundamentalists of the irreversible, and it is not for anything else that we have come so far; and yet the fundamental laws of physics to which we attribute the operation of nature are based on a preceptive reversibility. Is it not strange?

Scientific positivism, which is not science itself, has ended up reducing its idea of nature to that framed by prediction, prediction that plays the same role as profit in capitalism. And this, coming out from our practices rather than our theory, ended up having an enormous impact on what we are willing to contemplate and ignore in our relationship with nature and on the limits that techno-science outlines on our society.

What does it mean that the constant accumulation of scientific knowledge, which we perceive as the irreversible engine of progress running parallel to the accumulation of capital, is founded on the idea of a reversible, lifeless Law?

We will never get to the bottom of this question if we do not manage to reverse the terms.

For the rest, we all know, scientists and laymen alike, that science is a gigantic Procrustes bed that cuts and amputates everything that does not conform to the standards. The question is, how can we get a reasonable idea of what has been left out without reducing it to our current standards? What has to do with the knowledge we now manage? Is it just a series of useless wastes or does it hold the key and the context to understand what now only seems to be a series of increasingly unintelligible enigmas?

Both classical and quantum mechanics are reversible but the irreversibility of thermodynamics and the ordinary processes we observe is seen only as a macroscopic accident, just another illusion. That the most basic property that we appreciate in the real world is characterized as an epiphenomenon in statistical mechanics and its daughter information theory already speaks to us of an inverted criterion and priorities —of the primacy of prediction over description.

On the contrary, what is really interesting, in the most apparent processes no less than in human time and his biology, is to find out how islands of reversibility emerge from an irreversible background, and closed circuits within open systems, not the other way around. This would be the magic ring of Nature, which does not admit comparison with the cuckoo clock of the Law. The day we understand this, we will have overcome the fundamentalism of linear and cumulative time that is the basic assumption of our society.

In a book entitled “Pole of Inspiration —Mathematics, Science and Tradition“, we have pointed out how what is understood today as feedback, the key concept to cybernetics, was already present in old Kepler’s problem, in which Newton fitted his theory of gravitation. The same Kepler’s problem has already the key to gauge field theories like electromagnetism or the other forces that govern the atom —these also involve a feedback regardless of the mechanism.

Well, this would have to be the least mysterious matter since variational principles were always a teleological expedient, something that conservative scientists like Planck admitted; but most believed that their use was so innocuous, that it was not even worthy of attention. Certainly, for an outstanding mathematician like Wiener this would have been a complete surprise had he ever been lucky enough to notice it.

Of course, theoretical physicists still wonder how the Moon knows where the Sun is and how it “knows” its mass to behave the way it does; and they call this the great riddle of identifying the concrete mechanism of gravity, or its quantization in physicists jargon.

Needless to say that it is not really a question of identifying the mechanism, or, as it is also said, deciphering the form of communication between distant bodies —since a variational problem, whether on a small or large scale, is by definition independent of its mechanism. The Lagrangian of a system is only an exact analogy, and already since Newton we knew that nothing was mechanical, at least up there; but the mere fact of including which is below and which is above in the same Three Principles of Dynamics gave rise to a formidable mirage.

One could say that if we can recognize a feedback in the orbit of a planet now, it is only retrospectively because of the omnipresent influence of cybernetics, but then why no specialist in cybernetics noticed it? Not even physicists, since the times of Lagrange? We must assume that because it was not useful to the task at hand, as the planets were already revolving in closed orbits after all, and since calculations and predictions could be made, we could only think that it was a kind of mechanism.

Those whom the gods want lost, they make blind; and in our time men got blind by the way of predictions.

No, the reversibility we are speaking of is not as obvious as the human habit of calling old things by the latest names. On the contrary, one could rather assume that if physicists had realized this in their time, in the century from Newton to Lagrange, cybernetics would probably never have been created, because there would have been no need to create an artificial bridge between living beings and machines.


The need for brevity prevents us from going deeper into the subject and we can only refer the reader to the aforementioned book and its obligatory bibliography. As we have already indicated, the true interest of this can only begin to be grasped by trying to see how reversible and closed systems, that we call “mechanical”, emerge from an unlimited and homogeneous background — totally reversing the approach that has become conventional since Newton.

It may seem an impossible task to reverse the scientific development of the last four hundred years, but no one intends such a thing. At the institutional level, and despite their vain appeals to originality, current sciences, with their enormous bureaucratic inertia, conform to what power dictates and this has no remedy. But for the individual intelligence it is perfectly possible to turn the glove inside out, and this is what matters, because if one can understand it, so can many others.

There are some very basic guidelines for scientific understanding to come back to life. We are referring to both the theoretical and practical horizon —to principles, means and ends. These basic lines touch directly the principles of mechanics, the definition of equilibrium in different types of systems, the foundations of calculus or analysis, the critical relationship between description and prediction and the no less critical relationship between closed and open systems, reversibility and irreversibility.

Interpretation, which is the end of science as such, is also the principle of technique and technology; so there is also an unnoticed ring in the logic of Technoscience, which so far could not be properly explored because the revision of foundations endangers the monotonous accumulation of knowledge in the various specialties.


The forms of knowledge are infinite and so are their combinations, which does not prevent strong redundancies. Far from being on the verge of finding a “theory of everything”, Western science has only explored an infinitesimal part of the possibilities of knowledge, even within its own very particular forms, but on the other hand those forms are subject in practice to a rapid evolution, aging and death.

The cybernetic paradigm that dominates us today, no one will doubt it, is the ultimate expression of instrumental reason; but at least since the Newtonian natural philosophy was assumed, and since description was subordinated to prediction, the path of descent was clear.

It is not difficult to change the principles of mechanics; to replace, for instance, the principle of inertia with the principle of dynamic equilibrium, and to preserve the bulk of predictions that physics treasures but changing their meaning, context and interpretation completely. However it is the real inertia of institutions, and of the limited scope of our knowledge, that makes this seem unfeasible.

In industry there can be reversible and irreversible standards. An example of a standard that has been shown to be irreversible is the keyboard layout, which was expressly designed so that the typewriter would not be too fast and the physical letters do not cross their paths; today this limitation makes no sense on the computer, but nobody could change it.

The same thing, and with much stronger reasons, occurs in the sciences, and it is not for nothing that we talk today of a “standard model” in particle physics or cosmology; it is actually the accepted framework of formalisms to make possible calculations and predictions. There are nod doubt good reasons for using these frameworks, but they are still circumstantial —to an extent that we cannot even imagine.

The whole cybernetic reflex is an attempt to close over the open to enslave it; it is therefore not gratuitous to identify it with the death drive. It is also congruent with the interest of a tiny but massively concentrated head that has little left to gain and prefers to clench its fist. But what exactly would be the effect on the cybernetic model of the opposite hypothesis, so extremely plausible, that everything that seems closed and reversible comes from something open and irreversible? Would it contribute to its collapse, or to its consolidation?

The individual evolution of an organism between birth and death tells us in the clearest way that aging is a process of gradual closure and hardening until the break down. And the hardening depends on the inability to eliminate, which in itself is a form of increasing restriction or closure.

If science has not incorporated other possibilities, it is because they were not convenient to their goals; hardly it can try to assimilate them while remaining what it has been until now. Therefore, any development in this sense comes too late for current science as we know it; this could be viable only in a different environment.

However, here we can perceive a common axis that connects our dying logos with others to come.


Within environmentalism there is much talk about a new civilization and a new rationality, but their intellectual coordinates continue to be those of the liberal-materialism of the nineteenth century, updated by perspectives such as those of systems theory. That is, basically the same logos of this twilight civilization, but with an ethic opposed to consumerism and in favor of technological disarmament.

Ecologism is an economism with an awareness of limits and scarcity, but economics has always been the science of scarcity, whether natural or man-made, and in the end it is the latter that always prevails in social perception. On the other hand, the administrative jargon of systems theory is employed but the hierarchy that this ubiquitous funneling system we call the Great Syphon imposes on the economy, perception and opinion-making is completely ignored. Just a slight neglect.

A material civilization can make sense only if the idea of balance is duly observed. Babylon could be a material civilization but traits as the periodic cancellation of debts allowed the imbalances not to accumulate. An example of a great material civilization of long duration has been China, where precisely the idea of balance or harmony was so fundamental at all levels. However the attention to balance in processes does not refer only to the physical needs of men, but also to the compensation of material considerations; if this occurs, matter does not exclude the spirit, nor the immanence the transcendence.

But things are very different with the rationality of the modern world, which excludes both the immanence or transcendence of experience, not to speak of its transcendental character, and can only aspire to manipulate and denaturalize it. Thus, everything in our dual liberal-materialism is already the product of an extreme imbalance that nevertheless seeks to perpetuate and aggrandize itself.

Many still wish to believe that modern science not only aspires to rule the world, but also to know it. The Greek idea of the logos, based on geometry, was purely descriptive and prediction was alien to it. But the modern idea of Natural Law is entirely founded on the idea of prediction or calculation in time, and to ask it for a fair description would be like putting sticks in the wheels.

Calculus changed completely our idea of what analysis is. Instead of determining geometry from physical considerations, deriving from it the differential equation, since Leibniz and Newton the differential equation is set up first and then one tries to solve it to get the physical answers. Both methods are far from equivalent, but the same belief in the reality of the differentials follows from the procedure adopted. It is still necessary to reverse this method in order to open the eyes and recover the right perspective.

We use the word “reversing” bearing in mind that what modern science has generally done is to reverse the previous idea of rationality, literally turning many things upside down in order to save prediction. But we have become so used to these procedures, and they are so justified for a definite purpose, that we fail to conceive others.

Of course, even within the absolute prevalence of the predictive, the thickness of the abstract Law in relation to the world of becoming and observable forms still seems quite feeble. Thus, the “hard” sciences, like physics, must be accompanied by a descriptive supplement to fill the abyss between the imaginary quality of our representations and the symbolic or normative value of the Law. Hence disciplines such as cosmology or the theory of evolution, with no predictive value but essential to maintain the believe that science has explanatory power.

However, it is easy to see that these descriptive disciplines are only an ideological supplement to amplify the range of application of the hard sciences to their maximum extent: cosmology to extend the value of our planet’s laws to the entire universe, or evolution to reduce all aspects of biology to a potentially manipulable genetic drift.

So, in science there is a double circuit and a double circulation, in a very similar fashion as in our monetary system there is a double circuit of currency, with a legal money issued by the central banks and a much wider imaginary circulation dependent on credit. This is not a vain analogy; although the degree of “stretching” of legal money in science, and the credit we grant it, is incomparably higher. We cannot yet measure the value of gravity on our own planet to four decimal places, but we pretend that general relativity can make calculations to 11 decimal places in black holes and distant galaxies.

This is called speculation, and much of theoretical science is guided by a speculative zeal as intense as that of the financial world, with the great advantage that here there is hardly any possibility of experimental control. Of course, this is all too general. If the legal currency is about 5 percent and the rest is counterfeit or imaginary money, “debt,” the same can be said of practically everything that circulates in the media, ideologies, and all spheres of society —a huge mountain of counterfeit money that nevertheless serves to channel people’s efforts and illusions.

Prediction is justified insofar as a law, by definition, expresses a regularity, and this too, by definition, must be predictable. But if prediction is not leveled with description, we cannot even know what the law refers to beyond the prediction itself, as in fact is the case with the law of gravitation and any other. This is how positivism works.

Ideally, description and prediction should be reciprocal, like the memory and anticipation with which we continuously and reflectively create our perception of time. But today, to demand that they go hand in hand may seem a sabotage; something as unreasonable as to ask that imaginary money did not exist, being the bulk of the total. However, this balance defines the plane in which science, technology and men work together.

Whether we find it inconvenient at this point or not, all the real life and the internal logic of scientific evolution, its veracity and its degree of viability over time, depend on it. These are the secondary and tertiary sectors of its economy, and the primary one, the quality and reality of the phenomena and their inclusion in the principle, is too broad to deal with here. Needless to say, here also the tertiary sector has been hypertrophied without the slightest consideration for the most basic requirements.


In the second half of the 20th century, just about the same time that the standard models of particle physics and cosmology were emerging, a range of theoretical attempts to deal with complexity flourished, with a vocation for universality and diverse fortune: first and second-order cybernetics, systems theory, catastrophe theory, dissipative systems and non-equilibrium thermodynamics, non-linear dynamic systems and deterministic chaos, spontaneous order and self-organization, computer science and algorithmic theories of everything, artificial intelligence, digital neo-Darwinism and then some.

All of them were postulated both as new disciplines as well as an interdisciplinary horizon; so they avoided questioning the achievements of the oldest sciences and each one tried to approach in its own way all the density of the real world out of the reach of the great “fundamental” reversible laws. If in fundamental physics Wigner exposed his amazement about the “unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics”, in fields such as biology, epitome of complexity, these exhibited, according to Gelfand, an “unreasonable ineffectiveness”.

Both were wrong, to say the least. The effectiveness of mathematics in physics is anything but unreasonable since what has been done since Newton is a reverse engineering assigning the variables to arrive at the known results, then generalizing the equation and finally declaring it universal. On the other hand, if they intended to apply the same method to biology, the ineffectiveness of mathematics in this area could not be less unreasonable either.

Although there was and there is a lot of space in between, complexity theorists have never succeeded in seeing it because it seemed suicidal to question the application of mathematics to physics in view of its long history of successes and the predictive power of its methods. But it is always power what clouds reason.

Despite the gigantic advances in computing power and how appealing the unlimited panorama was, these theorists of complexity were left hungering for the big bite out of the apple. On the contrary, what we are witnessing is the dizzying rise of a neo-Babylonian ziggurat very much in tune with the ubiquitous proliferation of disorder.

The most complex computers have yet been unable to match the flight skills of a tiny fruit fly, but some talk about the use of AI for the governance of the world. It is hard to tell if this serves more to self-deception, to disaster or both.

In order to see further, we always go backwards, and here as in everything, the first thing that is needed is to question the most fundamental in science, no matter how important its successes may have been. That modern science has an important part of truth is out of the question, otherwise we would not even waste time with it. But what is interesting now is to see the relationship between what has been discarded by fundamental science and what escapes the sciences of complexity. And there is a whole world to explore here.

Differential calculus, and with it the whole application of mathematics to change, has vacillated between idealization and rationalization —between the idea of infinitesimal and the concept of limit. These are the clashing Simplegades rocks against which all ships crash in their exploration of the infinite, and when they are not destroyed, still dramatically limit their field of vision. Yet the middle way of finite differences has only been explored as a mere auxiliary for known results, rather than as the true foundation of the method. This middle way is the axis of reversibility of a development until today irreversible, that of Analysis, which still does not truly honor its name.

The claim that science as today we know it has its foundations consolidated and can only grow upwards is simply ridiculous, and yet it is extremely difficult to change since in it the layers are inevitably stacked both on a theoretical and a sociological level. And yet it is perhaps not impossible that here too the future will open the door to the past, if one is able to understand that only on this axis there is still freedom of movement.

Science can and should be more than a ziggurat.


Of course, science is more an effect than a cause. Scientists like to think that they are the ones who really change the world, and no doubt they have contributed a lot to it, but even then all they do is to conquer new domains of application for the prevailing mentality. The religion of prediction is the knowledge of the slave —a conquering slave for that matter.

It is said that we have already overcome the era of the subject and that this has happened for the benefit of, for example, communication. According to this, the subject was an obstacle and, once superseded, “progress” can continue; this would be precisely the assumption of communication platforms like Davos.

However, what they are proposing is not progressive in the least, and less and less people allow themselves to be fooled by the supposed vertigo of technological advances and the industrial production of false novelty. On the contrary, today the only possible progress begins with the realization that the kind of technological acceleration being promoted is neither necessary nor irreversible, and only at that point the subject find again time and space for decisions.

But we are not talking about an impossible return to the past, nor about the recycling or opportunistic combination of new and old things that characterizes postmodernity. The balance between past and future, between memory and anticipation, is the normal condition of reflective consciousness; it is modernity that has broken this balance in the most violent way in favor of anticipation, imposing an idea of progress that can only be unilateral.

Now, this unilateral development, as Hegel could have say, leaves an enormous gap open behind no less than forward. The gold-backed currencies seemed yesterday to be a thing of the past; but the same volatility of digital currencies is pushing its readoption. Needless to say, more decisive than the golden metal itself is the change of orientation in time.

It is a perfect symbol of the moment, whose magnitude is too broad to grasp —and which comes just when the megaphone system repeats to us with the insistence of a fair hypnotist that there is no alternative and no way back. A symbol that coincides and finds resonance with the first clear signs of turning points in other great processes, starting with Globalization itself.

At the same time, awareness of the increasing fragility of this civilization, which relies on technological solutions, is growing sharply; we felt it, and now we even see it clearly: a child will finally come and destroy it, or even something way smaller than a child. Either we keep our backs or we are finished; and the same is true for so many “social conquests” that have been bribed or kidnapped and depend critically on everything going in one direction. We are moving in deep water.

Indeed, if it is really a matter of starting from scratch as they say, and they care so much about the economy, they would have to start by canceling the whole mountain of debt and getting the big looters who have profited from all sorts of scams and wars to give back their loot, and especially the usurped control of the monetary system; but it seems this is not what they are talking about.

Nothing is totally irreversible except death, and those who try by all means to convince us of the irreversibility of any change whatever can only lead us to death, whose party they represent. No one is less interested than they in the fact that consciousness and history can turn on itself.


The cybernetic compulsion operates top-down and wants to exhaustively conform the parts from the control of the whole; it is totalitarianism in plain functionality. But we should consider the opposite strategy, which says that in an organism we can always proceed from the apparent effect to a cause that is perhaps no less apparent, and that modifying a portion of the behavior can have far-reaching effects on the perception of the whole. If the tail wags the dog, much better head and tail can put it straight.

it is not ideas that determine our actions; it is what we do and what we want to do what determine our ideas. Used to a direction on autopilot, each line of action that is reversed induce all the others. And when it concerns the unnoticed axis of our trade with reality, it can ignite unhindered like an oil-soaked wick.

Cybernetics and artificial intelligence progress in their closure and enslavement of the system by perception and action cycles. Today our administrators believe they have enough control over the media, money and the executive levers to define these cycles; however, the entire dynamic of material-liberalism or liberal materialism is committed to the descent of the intellect, not its ascent —what is at the root of the extreme imbalance of modernity.

For today’s technoscience created in the image and likeness of liberalism, the fact that intelligence is totally separated from nature is an indispensable condition for recombining all her aspects at will: atoms, machines, biological molecules and genes, or the interface between any of them under the least restrictive criterion of information.

Thus, the totality of the cybernetic reason never ceases to be an arbitrary aggregate or collection of elements that attempt to reproduce observable results. The bottom-up movement is the composition or integration of the whole from ideal elements, and the downward movement is the decomposition of the whole into similar parts. It is the same logic of mathematical calculus or analysis, in which synthesis is essential but heuristically subordinated and oriented to results. But it is easy to show that this alleged analysis turns everything upside down and that far from being a neutral foundation it is, not less than in the case of cybernetics, a mere justification of heuristics.

Putting straight what now is upside down will not fail to produce results that are difficult to imagine. This is not a philosophical criticism, but an operational redefinition of principles, means and interpretations. And when we realize that there is an enormous unoccupied space, and every attempt to prevent its exploration can only be encouraging.

The present business of science, like our monetary system and so many other arrangements, is totally oriented towards definite ends and its so-called “pragmatism” ignores the most elemental neutrality. Its objectivity is only a very particular case of objectification. And this strong partiality, which is also at the origin of its enormous vitality in the past, is the same that now slows down its progress.


The West owes a rehabilitation to Nature in its very concept and in the very bosom of science and consciousness; as it owes it to itself and to the truth. Perhaps it finds itself too decrepit, or too enslaved by its achievements, to undertake a reform of such depth as it needs even to ascertain that it is alive.

But the world is not only the West, even Europe was not except in this twilight phase, and if people in Europe or North America cannot free themselves from their own yoke, other cultures or civilizations will see the need to consciously use time as the two-edged sword it is —in China, Japan, India, Russia, Iran, Palestine, the Southern Hemisphere or just about everywhere.

Of course, today the first problem for any new culture is how to thrive in the context of a global civilization with such overwhelming technological deployment that cannot leave anything undisturbed. A civilization so comprehensive in space and time that it even seems to exclude any other possibility.

At this juncture, there are two great prospects: either the collapse of globalization is so complete that even our technologies become extinct, and then the spirit is once again free to evolve unrestricted, or the cultures to come end up taking over its logic and overcoming and reorienting it for a completely different purpose. So far that has not happened, but what we are talking about is precisely how that can begin to happen.

And yet, even that overcoming can only happen with a reflexive turn that in many ways is equivalent to a dissolution, but still avoids a traumatic destruction. To turn to itself is not to go back, in fact it is the only non-destructive way of understanding progress.


The way in which we understand Nature and our relationship with it will ultimately be much more decisive than any kind of partial measures to “stop the catastrophe” undertaken from the lower order logic of Geoeconomics and its skewed models of analysis.

I have insisted time and again on the importance of freeing Nature from the limited rationality in which we have constrained it. Many unacceptable definitions have been accepted for the mere fact that the intellect was flattered by the feeling of dominance over it.

Today some people laugh at an invented belief in a flat earth, when the truth is that questions of that order could only be entirely secondary to our ancestors; but the fantastic speculative flight of natural sciences just hides the universal flattening of our reality to the domain of efficient causes.

To reduce everything to motion, an unattainable ideal of modern physics, would be the consummation of nihilism, but not because of motion itself, which is as pure an expression of the spirit as any other, but because of the spirit of reduction which for the nihilist must go unnoticed.

I have also insisted on the close reciprocity between liberating our vision of “external” nature and liberating the nature locked in the social construction and within us. Both are spirit within spirit, but not in the way that the mere intellect use to arrogate for itself.

Spirit is the substantial union of will and understanding; and in a very real sense we can say that the will is the innermost of things, “the thing-in-itself”, while all representations of the intellect, however elaborate and consistent they may be, remain forever as pure exteriority. Schopenhauer proposed this irreconcilable dualism, but curiously the will he spoke of was also inherently dual, composed of a feminine part, made of appetite, movement and flight —the desire, the imaginary- and a masculine or energetic part made of friction and effort, which wants independently of desire and which we properly call will. Both are like water and fire, or the mercury and sulfur of the hermetic arcane.

Capitalism, like the Satan Trismegistus of Baudelaire, lives evaporating the sulfur of our will by means of desire to recirculate it and infuse it again in the washed metal, thickened by the effort of work, and reaching its maximum concentration in gold, which is nothing else than mercury condensed with sulfur, the true mineral blood. So, the very social circulation of value would be the inversion of the hermetic hypothesis for the natural world; an inversion that seems to correspond well to the logic of the inverted pyramid of wealth accumulation.

This analogy allows us to reconcile Hegel and Schopenhauer in a hermetic key, but the inversion that society implies with respect to nature also entails a commerce between the big and the small; society itself becomes the microcosm of a great world to which it has turned its back, and to which it nevertheless intends to ride.

One can think what one wants of Schopenhauer’s certainly limited approach, but the truth is that to think of nature as a series of representations of processes and not to recognize it in our own impulses is an extreme naivety as well as the most finished product of a long dissociation.

Anyone would say that mathematical physics, our highly formalized way of understanding the foundations of the cosmos, has nothing to do with the hermetic dualism or that which results from the crossroads of the great romantic philosophers. However, if in the hermetic key matter is composed of both volatile and a fixed modalities, of something that moves and something that does not, from its very beginning physics finds a crucial and unresolved distinction between scalar quantities like mass and vector quantities like force, between intensive and extensive properties, between matter separated by space, as in electricity, and space separated by matter, as in magnetism.

Beyond dimensional analysis, physics itself hardly raises the extremely complex question of an exhaustive genealogy of its quantities, since in reality they cannot be more heterogeneous and their adoption has always resulted from the resolution of concrete problems, constituting in itself a monumental tower of Babel. It is also worth mentioning that dimensional analysis, today a modest auxiliary tool, can yield completely different and unexpected results when the main analysis is soundly based on finite differences.


The individual has been the force-idea of liberalism and it has been liberalism itself, now fading, which has inflated it so much that it has become emptied of content. No matter what the grammar says, today “individual” is more an adjective than a noun, if not the object of the verb “to personalize”.

It is not the individual, but the process of individuation, what matters. It is the individuation that makes us feel individual at any moment, and the one who sticks to it can be free from fear. Today, on the contrary, the idea of the individual, from which they still try to extract return by exploiting all the resources of fear and desire, is more exhausted than full.

After the collapse of the I as ordering principle, it seems that we can only understand the individual as singularity, which is itself a theory of collapse. In mathematics and physics, a singularity is the way in which a map or manyfold degenerates, ceasing to be differentiable or giving rise to infinite results.

It is still significant how cosmology has spent more than two generations studying theoretical objects such as black holes that should be seen, more than anything else, as a complete failure of reason; even if this kind of singularity is just another exponent of how a reversible law gives rise to an irreversible process by virtue of its own absolute character.

It is also curious how, instead of trying to see why this type of behavior is impossible, the theorists, not without great resistance at first, finally decided to dive into the funnel of impossibility by stretching their gullibility to Neverland.

Such a singularity is an infinity surrounded by the “normal behavior” of the law. The individuation of a real entity, on the contrary, would have to describe how infinity momentarily sustains the existence and evolution of a finite and measurable being —a particle, an atom, a body or a celestial system.

But for today’s physics this is impossible because it has not even been able to go beyond point particles. Special relativity forbids particles with dimensions, while for general relativity point particles do not make sense. But in general, for the fundamental physics of laws, the formation of any body with real size and dimensions, like celestial bodies, needs to assume the conclusion.

Hertz rightly insisted that the Third Principle could not be verified in Kepler’s problem because in it there is no point of application for forces. But the Third Principle, understood as simultaneity of action and reaction, is the Global Synchronizer of mechanics, and neither special or general relativity nor quantum mechanics cease to be inserted in its absolute, and therefore metaphysical arrangement of time.

This Global Synchronizer is the supreme arbiter of efficient causality in physics. If it limps, even for the most elementary two-body system as in Kepler’s problem, there must be a “proper time”, that unlike the proper time of relativity implies an internal principle of self-organization. Inadvertently, the gauge fields that describe the fundamental forces include it, though not explicitly. This principle of self-organization, which we already pointed out in passing, is a particular case of the principle of individuation. And it is the feedback that is already inscribed in the purely relational form of the “law” that precludes the existence of physical singularities.

It is the same logic of modern physics that prevents the proper description of the formation or individuation of entities, or improperly breaks down them in bits of information. And mathematical analysis does the rest, because every individual entity must exist between the infinite and the infinitesimal, but in standard analysis finite differences are accidental.

Thus it is possible to see the mixture of idealization and rationalization with which material-liberalism has ended up dissolving both mind and matter, without clarifying anything about their relationships.


If we have not yet succeeded in seeing the obvious, it must be because we have been focused on other objectives —on prediction and manipulation rather than understanding. And of course, on the insistence on making an object of nature, which has to end up turning us into an object.

Today it is people of Jewish origin who overwhelmingly dominate the theoretical discourse in fundamental sciences, and surely this is not a coincidence, but one cannot blame them for the kind of science we have; a science whose spirit really has not changed since Newton, the warden of the Royal Mint in the early days of the Bank of England.

And so we continue with a total dissociation between the spirit of the Law and the way of the forms and becoming in nature; and this dissociation is the basic condition for the disintegration of natural relations which is the goal of liberal-materialism. If liberalism is in a declining phase, this is always compensated by an increase in rationalization, which now acquires strong technocratic-cybernetic tones; the aim is always to dispose of the whole without hindrance.

The gradual transition between liberalism and technocracy still allows to play the card of transhumanism as a vanishing point for the desires of life extension and simulacra of transcendence while the potential for technological transformation is further exploited. And this cyborganic transhumanism can thus pursue and intensify the war against nature both outside and within ourselves, pushing the malleability of the human to new limits.


As Israel Shamir says, that Jewry exist and Jewish politics do exist is something obvious for Jews but a forbidden thought for non-Jews —which already says enough about who control opinion. It is not something I am going to denounce here, but some comments will be useful for those who still want to understand.

It was sort of a commonplace, rather forgotten today, that the movement of progress can be understood in the Hegelian key of the being-in-itself, being out of itself and being for itself; and in few cases this dialectic becomes so explicit as in the narrative of the self-called Chosen People, with the drama of the Diaspora and the return to the Promised Land, which should be culminated by the coming of the Messiah. Of course, this messianic culmination, as their scriptures repeat over and over again, would put Israel above all nations, who would be forced to recognize the Lord’s people and the Lord of this people.

It is also elementary to equate the people in exile with the alienated spirit of nature, or more generally with a society that can only be constituted insofar as it has to turn its back to nature despite continuing to live off it. Here it is easy to appreciate different levels of discourse, although they all contemplate a horizon of reconciliation.

It should be clear that what must be recognized is the presence of the subject or spirit in nature, and that this coincides with the re-entry of the consciousness of nature into the heart of a society that was thought to be separated from it. It is clear that Judaic theology and teleology rest on the negation of nature, which is only the object of the Law; but not only they, all modern science, though coming from the Greek heritage, has grown under the sign of the same negation.

It is highly probable that Western science would never have taken off as it did without the detachment of the subject and the reduction of nature to the Law; but its culmination can only happen by returning to itself in the sense that we have indicated, from the laws to the descriptions and from these to the single principle in which the phenomena unfold.

The sense of natural law that has prevailed since Newton is pragmatic and external, and therefore superficial. It was the degree of knowledge that could be expected from a culture oriented towards world domination. For the Jewish consciousness, a people within peoples, it was a matter of mastering the dominance and controlling the controller, not of getting to the bottom of this new natural “Law”.

Western science has been so far vain and hollow enough to be satisfied with a mastery of the object that relies largely on the rejection of its entity. It has wanted to ride nature, and since it has been content with this, it is not only poetic justice but also pure logic that the rider ends up becoming a beast of burden for a mentality that since the beginning has rejected nature, and not in part but in its entirety.

Messianic teleology in general, whether Jewish, Christian, or Marxist, not to mention the capitalist apocalypse-spectacle, cannot fail to function under the logic of “the worse, the better,” since it requires a worsening of conditions to a critical point for an intervention of another order to become desirable. Only an old Christian could say “the worse for me, the better for me”; but what any political animal thinks is “the worse for them, the better for us”.

Playing together the transhumanist and technocratic cards enables to continue exploiting all the possibilities of recombination of nature while humans lose the little north they have left. It also serves to redirect the desires of the public towards trivial objectives, degrading their criteria at every step, while they unknowingly finance the projects and lend themselves to being the experimental pool and database. This continues to present a vanishing point for the liberal imaginary as the means of control become more ubiquitous and invasive.

So, the transhumanist escape would be a controlled destruction and a slow-motion apocalypse that favors the ultimate intervention of a higher order: it is at the service of the most fearful and definitive reaction. The presentation of other alleged planetary crises is also calculated to justify this kind of intervention from above, only in this case the consummation of History would pass through the open moral recognition of the Chosen People as savior. The most tortuous routes would serve so that in the end everyone would walk straight before the Lord.


A faith can be absurd and even be at the service of a lie and yet serve very well to a vital interest; on the contrary, if they are not close to life, neither reason nor truth itself are of much use to us.

The unconsciousness that tears ends up finding the consciousness torn. Does the 50/50 share of the American oligarchy have anything to do with the present social divide of the indispensable nation? This fission does not seem to be primarily a matter between Jews or non-Jews but a struggle between the interests of the nation and those of the Empire; however both issues tend to coincide closely. The current Republican misgovernment has made the most embarrassing concessions to the State of Israel in the hope of having its hands free to disengage from the global liberal agenda in return; but in vain.

It is evident that the Federal Reserve is not at the service of the United States, not even of the stock market, but of monetary hegemony and global private banking. The moves to find an alternative to the dollar within the same priorities of the plutocracy are quite eloquent in this sense, although its viability is a complete unknown. Without a doubt, a democratic misgovernment would be preferred in order to undertake the transition, although this is always secondary. That the main donors in the campaigns of both parties are vehement Zionists is not essential either, but telling it is.

The problem is that serving hegemony and plutarchy destroys the country, and even with all the rivers of disinformation it is inevitable that more and more people understand it. This cannot help but cause an increasingly violent division at all levels, even if none of the candidates can do anything about it, and eventually a house divided to such extremes will not be able to sustain the dollar.

For its part, the American Jewish power is far from satisfied with dictating American policy in the Middle East; it would be foolish to do so with such complacent partners. History tells us that Jews have ended up badly in many ancient empires and countries, not without bringing chaos and destruction upon their hosts. It is inevitable to think that this has to do with a invincible propensity to go too far and an inflexible tendency to always use all the advantage gained, no matter how great, to obtain more. It would be another irreversible dynamic where the fear and audacity of those with advantage are fed back.

The infamous “aircraft carrier theory,” which assures us that Israel is just an instrument of convenience for American imperialism —a sort of aircraft carrier to control the oil tap- did not stand up to the slightest scrutiny even fifty years ago; but after what we have seen in the last two decades, I do not think there is anyone who dares to defend it in public.

A nation that depends on its monetary hegemony tends to be eviscerated and torn apart without remedy; and on the other hand the dollar hegemony cannot be maintained without a minimum consensus. Clearly, it would be infinitely better for the United States to end the Fed and create a currency with a simple, fair system conceived for the country’s needs; but the fact that this so basic decision seems impossible already says it all.


There is in nature a will that scarcely has anything to do with the sick man’s will of will, and there is in nature an intelligence that barely has anything to do with the dissociated human intellect; we may suppose that in reality we are dealing with an infinite number of impulses and reactions, but their relative unity is derived from what they are not, and which even in us we do not recognize.

Trying to know that will and that intelligence on its own terms, even with our formal tools, which are still shadows, has a virtue that would have to resurrect even the dead, for it is nothing other than the spirit of life, which is beyond life and death.

Science also ends up meeting the three great questions: why does something exist, why does life exist, and why does consciousness exist. It is more than doubtful that there can be an answer to any of the three questions separately; but if all three coincide, the fact that there is no answer does not even demand a question.

All that modern science perceives as natural Law is just a shadow that only gain new grades of life and understanding by its restitution to the Principle, instead of trying to push the Law toward impossible horizons. But, besides, if laws can be subsumed into principles, this would also mean that, always within certain limits, we can redirect the mediations of technology and society toward simplicity. Our law is hard and the principle is infinitely ductile; but our laws are extremely tortuous while the principle is one of unfathomable straightness. A different, ever present horizon.


The insistence by the powerful on the irreversibility of the great technocratic transformation when the signs of its exhaustion are so clear can only produce a reaction in the opposite direction. But this is not just a reactive phenomenon. Insisting that great processes can be creatively reversed gives us an awareness of additional degrees of freedom and this is absolutely vital when the rest of the space is occupied. Those who hold today the vital structures could only access that space by destroying, “cleaning” their own work.

We can always put freedom and security, justice and truth two opposite two; but the selection of their contents and the way they have been opposed today depends to a great extent on “who puts the money” and on the sedimentation of interests during this long period of monetary usurpation. This cross summarizes the real existential crisis ahead, so different from a mere technical crisis.

These three we have: the mind, the matter and the metal, which is matter but in its deadest, more closed form serves to reflect light and see ourselves while eclipsing the secret of its origin. And whoever says the metal says money or the mint, which reproduces an analogous process in social exchange and collective intelligence.

We have barely suggested how reversibility can affect aspects such as monetary policy, science, individuation, or our sense of time and “progress”. These are absolutely central points in a civilization, ours, governed by circulation, but in which circulation continues to serve a tendency towards irreversible accumulation, and where that accumulation in turn seeks to transform its quantitative advantage into a qualitative dominance in all orders, a process that can well be called inversion. It is also an investment in cultural influence and hegemony, but primarily an inversion in the general dynamics of social circulation, beginning with the direction of money, from its ascent by extraction to its descent transforming the subjects.

There cannot be singularity here either, but the simulacrum of singularity or emergency plays a leading role and while a change of sign and an exchange of influences takes place, from the material to the mental, and vice versa, arguments for transvaluation accumulate. Still there is no transmutation, but a continuous transformation. And if it is true that this circuit is not perfectly closed, and never can reach that point, also it is true that it works with considerable efficiency.

All this could only work with a strong believe in the irreversible development of history which is equivalent to pull tight the blindfold and surrender without resistance to the double game of growing restriction.

On the contrary, to understand our active and irreplaceable role in the mutual constitution of the past and the future is to access our share of freedom and creativity in the midst of the indomitable current of events. It is precisely because others want to control it that the creative and free element must always elude them, even if they do not fail to grasp it in its reflection.

This would be the axis of the process of individuation for any entity with a recognizable profile in time on an individual or collective level, from living beings to nations, from scientific theories to technological products, from the history of an idea to the idea of history.

It was a common idea of the ancients that the sum of good and evil through time always remains the same. This necessarily made history a secondary phenomenon. There is no doubt that material success can be accompanied by waning intellectual and vital horizons, in biology as well as in biography or the evolution of cultures.

Of course, matter and spirit don’t exclude each other, so this should not authorize indifference. There have been phases of material prosperity and transindividual expansion, and there have been times calamitous in all areas, of which it is even easier to find examples.

What then is in the balance in that imperturbable sum across the events and fortune? Does it suggest a double sense of the empty and the full, of what we express and what we keep in reserve? Perhaps there is a sum that remains invariable, and a product that does not need to be so at all. This balance would be linked to the exchange of momentum between the mental and material poles.

The tree of life is not the tree of good and evil; the latter depends on us, but we depend on the former even though we do not see it, and even with all our predictions we cannot stand apart from it. So, let us say there is a vital truth that does not depend on calculation and is certainly the most important.

If the indestructible axis in which reversibility and irreversibility so mysteriously coincide were free of any obstruction, freedom would be unlimited but would also be indeterminate because of the lack of restrictions. As in every human endeavor, even without realizing it, one explores the practical limits of their interaction.

There is wisdom in receding; well understood, it does not imply a setback in the least. A different thing is that the economic elites are in a position to do it. In a climate that calls for the intensification of hatred, I have tried to indicate a way without damage to anyone and available to those who seek it.

Quite debatably, Mackinder said that who rules the Heartland commands the world; with much more reason we can say that whoever adheres to this ungovernable axis can be his own master, which should be enough.


Bruce Bogoshian,Kinetics of wealth and the Pareto Law (2014)
Laurent Guyénot, The Holy Hook (2019)
Jaromir Benes, Michael Kumhof; The Chicago Plan revisited(2012)
Charles Hugh Smith, The New Tyranny Few Even Recognize(2020)
Miguel Iradier:
Futuro y fuga del dinero (2016)
Una fábula, un enigma y una solución final (2019)
Caos y transfiguración (2019)
La Tecnociencia y el laboratorio del Yo (2019)
El capital y sus amigos (2019)
El pacto de los cacahuetes (2020)
Pole of inspiration -Math, Science and Tradition (2020)

Deja un comentario

Tu dirección de correo electrónico no será publicada. Los campos obligatorios están marcados con *