Effects of climate change? We are the effect, or at least one of them. But we are not talking about the “greenhouse effect” or other concoctions forged and stirred up by the media. Instead we will talk about pole reversal in the solar system, in our planet, and even in our non-society; and most important of all, about reorientation with respect to the Principle.

That the “greenhouse effect” is just baloney, we already knew that a long time ago. It would also be necessary to find out how it is that a large group of scientists allows themselves to be the object, not only of discredit, but of outright ridicule.

But it’s not that hard to figure out, given that these people believe they are beyond ridicule, or at least safe from it. It was in the interests of those in power to create an alarmist scenario within which to manage new arbitrariness and interventions, as well as to divert attention from more pressing matters; and by serving those interests, a collective of experts could in turn gain ascendancy and obtain more funds. Modern science has always been close to power, with the results to be expected.

Of course, it’s not all about power and collusion; to go far you have to have good intentions, and here the well-intentioned reached new heights. There is always more that can be done, in any matter, and for some it must have been very flattering to see themselves as saviors of the planet.

In general, I prefer not to talk about such manufactured issues as global warming, and since children are used to “raise awareness among the elderly”, the subject is already irremediably infantilized —which is also another way of shielding it from debate. However, reading a Spanish translation of Paul de Métairy’s book Climate Change: the truth of what is coming has given me some new ideas on the subject.

The original title literally reads “Climate: not guilty!”, and its subtitle “The revelations of those who do not have the option to speak“. The Spanish translation covers only the scientific part, but that is enough. It is a very short text and is easily read in one sitting. It is highly recommended for anyone looking for clear ideas and a broader perspective on one of the biggest hoaxes in the century of the most blatant and unbelievable lies. Only towards the end does it have a few blunders, such as saying that Galileo ended up at the stake, which in any case do not affect its diagnosis. Needless to say, one can find in the web many other good sources of information about this great scam.

Métairy undoes in a few paragraphs the hoax of the greenhouse effect with elementary logic, but he still contemplates scenarios with rising temperatures, although for very different causes. In contrast, there are serious climatologists who consider we may be heading towards a new glaciation, and adduce arguments worthy of attention; but any real debate is impossible within a discourse and an entire discipline hijacked by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its supporters.

The fact that this Panel is headquartered in Geneva tells us enough, although, with a little less disguise, it could have been in Basel, Davos or Wall Street itself. Is not there a lot of trafficking in “carbon credits”? But Geneva is not bad, and apart from being the capital of diplomacy, it is also home to other unspeakable rackets such as CERN’s hadron collider.

I will not repeat Métairy’s very basic and conclusive arguments against the greenhouse effect because that is what his book is for. However, the main purpose of the French author is not so much to disqualify a laughable theory as to give us a more probable picture of the evolution of the climate in the medium and long term. Of course, the geological and climatic timescales have nothing to do with those of the hysteria cultivated by the media, but they still affect us enough.


Métairy seems to be writing in 2012 or 2013, when the European Space Agency launched the three satellites of the SWARM mission to study in more detail the Earth’s magnetic field and its apparently increasing instability. SWARM is an example of a project relevant to our species and with a cost, 236 million euros, reasonable for today’s Big Science.

The scenario envisioned by this author is that of the probable reversal of the Earth’s magnetic field and what would entail its inevitable zero crossing. This would be a full-fledged Great Reset, and not what the plutarchy wants to establish. Now it is common wisdom that without the protection of the Earth’s magnetic field, the solar wind would riddle us with high energy charged particles and unleash all kinds of cancers and mutations with the greatest celerity. As for the electronic devices that constitute the nervous system of this civilization, one can already imagine their fate.

But of course, Métairy is not saying that this zero crossing will happen tomorrow. The average frequency of such events is about 200,000 years, but the last one took place as far as 780,000 years ago, which would make a relatively close reversal more likely. At these time scales, “close” could still be tens of thousands of years; however, there seem to be indications that the current instability is becoming more pronounced.

Geomagnetism specialists speak of an average period of between 1,000 and 3,000 years of magnetism around zero before the field reversal consolidates. A period in which the magnetism is almost null, or in any case so weak as to let pass almost all the wind of ions that reaches us from the Sun and other stars and that is normally stopped by the magnetosphere. The estimates of these specialists are based on multiple analyses of rock samples and fossil trees.

However, long before this “zeroing” of the system takes place, there is a gradual weakening of the planet’s field which acts as a protective shield for living beings. Do we have any solid indications that such a weakening is already taking place? For Métairy and some experts, this could have been happening for about 300 years.

Any minimal perspective on so-called climate change should consider that we are just emerging from a “little Ice Age” that peaked around the mid-17th century but lasted until the late 19th or early 20th century. In this mini-glaciation, temperatures plunged significantly below earlier or later averages, which should always be kept in mind when speaking of “alarming temperature rises”. The subsequent rise in temperatures may have as little to do with human activity as the immediately preceding decline. This is without even contemplating the inescapable physical and chemical considerations that Métairy so rightly reminds us of, and that the media avoid systematically.

As always, one cannot maintain a hoax without appropriating the evidence and creating indissoluble associations between patent facts and empty ideas. Skin cancers, and not only skin cancers, are increasing at a striking rate. Is this related to the destruction of the ozone layer? It could also be linked to the rapid raise in chronic intoxication due to an increasingly artificial diet, to mention only one of the many carcinogenic factors of modern life; and yet it seems certain that sunlight is becoming more and more harmful. But, in any case, the creation and destruction of ozone has its own physical and chemical cycle with hardly any relation with human activity or the famous chlorofluorocarbons, but with its balance with the ionosphere-thermosphere. Why else is the main hole in the South Pole, being by far the area and hemisphere with the least pollutants?

It is even embarrassing to recall these things, but confusion, however crude, is manufactured on an industrial scale. And as for the political exploitation of the staged confusion, it is simply what could be expected.


Let us try for a moment to see a bit beyond this all-pervading confusion and superficiality. The retreat of the glaciers had begun to be observed in the Himalayas as early as 1780, which obviously could not have had anything to do with the Industrial Revolution, which was then just beginning in the small, remote England. Métairy lists a series of phenomena, from the melting of Arctic ice to deformations or mutations in birds and insects, which are accelerating but did not begin yesterday, nor are they due to human activity.

It is perhaps striking that this author traces the beginning of these changes back about 300 years, which coincides with what Polanyi called the Great Transformation of the social fabric that set the stage for the Industrial Revolution. However, given that some of these often associated and confused phenomena are of natural origin and cannot be attributed to man, it would be worth asking the question that Métairy has failed to raise.

Indeed, it may well be that there is a climate change independent of “anthropogenic factors”; in fact, it is comical to ignore the geophysical role of the Earth and its relationship with the Sun, when these are the only major factors. But, going a little further, it should be asked whether the “Great Transformation” of human society is but a concomitant effect of the transformation of the physical circumstances of the Earth, and in particular of its magnetic field, which is its aura or subtler aspect.

This is certainly not intended to deny the specific reality of human culture and history; rather, it is a matter of conceiving the weight of the imponderable, the medium, as unnoticed by us as water is by the fish. There is a certain parallelism between the electrical activity of the cerebral cortex and the ionosphere and thermosphere; although the increase in brain activity in modern man seems to us much more vertiginous, quantitatively, than the possible overheating of these regions so tenuous and distant from our heads.

But we are in our own skin, not in the thermosphere; and much more than in our skin, in a technological “extended reality” that looks like a progressively amputated reality. It is clear that an overheating in the upper layers does not induce bees to deploy 5G antennas all over the planet, nor does it induce an archaic human society. But do we realize that the more material development a civilization has and the more it relies on “knowledge”, the more reactive it is? We see it every day; our hyperactivity is already pure reaction to large overdoses of almost always misplaced knowledge.

Of course there is a correlation; in fact it cannot be other way. But the mutations that a global change induces in birds and in a civilization with material hypertrophy, even if they have a common denominator, are practically incommensurable.


Exponential increase in cancer and genetic mutations, growing sterility of the population, the obligation to live at night, the return to caves and salt mines, life in underground cubicles with no other window than a webcam as long as it still works, a surge in the demand for lead and lead shielding, spectacular climatic and hydrographic alterations… Métairy is not prone to horror movies, he only reminds us, with very few words, of the incredible trap in which we live and our dependence on factors until today almost unthinkable.

It has been speculated that the eruption of the Toba volcano in Sumatra 75,000 years ago, with a power equivalent to the explosion of many thousands of atomic bombs, could have reduced the human population to less than one percent. Even if this hypothesis was true, such an eruption would not in any case have affected the gene pool of the species, as magnetic field reversals should.

Perhaps this is the mechanism used by the Earth, or rather the Earth-atmosphere-Sun system, for its periodic renewal; or in any case this would be one of its effects. According to various traditions, there have been on this planet many Adams before Adam, and many other “humankinds” before this one with which we now identify ourselves and which could be writing the last paragraphs of its script. On the other hand, from Heraclitus and the Stoics to the Puranas, fire has been spoken of as the agent of that renewal; a fire that does not seem to be of flame, but cosmic in its origin.

Adversity undoubtedly has a value for biological, and not only biological, evolution. Adaptive mutations exist, and one only needs to look at the passion with which neo-Darwinian orthodoxy combats this idea to know that it holds an important truth. On the contrary, it is the so-called “neo-Darwinian synthesis” that indecently exhibits its own impotence to find the meaning of novelty; but its promoters are not interested in understanding life, but in turning it into a Meccano. In any case, beyond chance and necessity, there is no activity that is not adaptive, the local expression of a global imbalance. One of these local expressions would be our present civilization.

Human activity itself is a way to unwind the pressure that comes to us from the environment, of deflecting it instead of suffering it. Someone really capable of doing nothing, like some vigilant or contemplative souls, may be able to perceive those layers of pressure, which extend far beyond the thin barriers of society, without the need for satellites and instruments; even if no one has ever told him about solar winds and electromagnetic fields. That could have been the case for many human beings before the Neolithic.


No one will think that the SWARM team is hiding information, since the uncertainty of the data gathered so far is not compromising to anyone. However, it would be worth watching the reaction of the various bodies, centers and agencies if at some point in the future the red alarm light comes on. Politicians and executives have invested heavily in other narratives, precisely those with which we are now being hammered, and it would be a long time before they shifted their bets. But these elements always arrive too late and to use the situation to their advantage; they are clearly part of the problem, not the solution.

Perhaps the most interesting point about a polar reversal is that it would have no solution, even if it is hard to imagine us resigned. But we seem to be conceding that the scenario outlined by Métairy is inevitable and even practically imminent, which could not be more premature. The intervals between geomagnetic reversals do not show the slightest regularity, and the average duration is just that, a mathematical average deduced from rock samples. There have also been recorded “excursions” of the poles, i.e., large shifts that did not end in reversals but nearly eliminated the magnetic field, reducing it to a small fraction. The last major excursion was the so-called Laschamp event 41,000 years ago, when it dropped to 5% of its usual intensity for several centuries. However, it does not appear that this significantly affected the biosphere or the human population.

There is really no pattern for the pole reversal. Are we doomed to total uncertainty on the subject? We would, if we had only the mainstream theory of Earth´s magnetic field, known as the “dynamo theory” created by the convection of the planetary liquid core; but this hypothesis, besides being highly speculative, has very little explanatory power and raises more problems than it solves. Modern sciences, increasingly bureaucratized, gravitate towards standard models that impose a forced consensus by eliminating opposition, thus depriving themselves of the indispensable contrast for their ideas. Let us see a good example of this.

Miles Mathis has been proposing an alternative model of electromagnetism and the fundamental charge field for a number of years. Earlier, several authors had insisted once and again that the idea of an “elementary charge” attached to electrons and protons as if it were a label can only be a useful convention, or, if one prefers, just another of our priceless fabrications; but Mathis has been connecting over the years more and more levels of evidence with a greater scope.

For Mathis, electromagnetism and dipoles are only an epiphenomenon of a fundamental charge field composed only of photons. This charge field is recycled by the poles of particles and celestial bodies like the Sun or the planets. We know of very close planets, such as Venus itself, that have no magnetosphere but stop the high-energy particles of the solar wind —which can only be explained by a charge field similar to that proposed by Mathis. But Mathis’ model also explains many other things that are completely unintelligible in current standard theories.

For example, the solar magnetic cycle and its relation to the major planets or the galactic core. Mathis acutely observes that the so-called “periodic reversal” of the Sun’s magnetic field every 9-12 years is not such, nor does it have to do with its core, but with the coupling or reconnection with the charge field of the great planets —Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune-, inversely proportional to the fourth power of the radius (1/r4). These circumstances are highly predictable.

On the contrary, the true pole reversal affects simultaneously the Sun and all the planets of the solar system, since it does not depend on what happens inside their bodies, but on the regions through which it passes on its journey around the galactic core, with its unpredictable differences in the local flux of photons and antiphotons, that is, of photons coming in one direction or another, with their spin orientation changed.

The axial tilt of the various planets can also be explained by just three numbers: mass, density and distance. The present “explanation” by collisions cannot be more contingent and sloppy; but this can be extended to the overall picture of celestial mechanics and its perturbation theory.

Mathis obviously prefers to ignore any possible connection with astrology, but this major difference also allows us to understand the “double standard” of the first encyclopedia of humanity, the ancient zodiacs: the tropical, based primarily on planetary relationships, and the sideral, focused on the stellar influence and the cycle of precession of the equinoxes known as the Great Year —although the cycle around the galactic core is about ten thousand times longer, some 240 million years.

One cannot ask of Mathis’ theory, the product of a single individual, the same degree of “formal sophistication” than the standard theories developed collectively by thousands of them with much more time and dedication. And yet Mathis makes very concrete predictions and beats the mainstream model time and again in the most diverse areas. To give just another example, it has never been explained why the solar wind acts so differently for positive and negative ions.

Very recently, the so-called “climate change science” has outdone itself and reached new heights of stupidity by claiming that faster ice melting under “global warming” is the most likely cause of the pole shift observed in the mid-1990s of the last century; even when the phenomenon of polar wandering was known long time ago. Mathis relates it to the charge field and the libration of the four major planets observing that it follows the same cycles as the Solar cycles and, extrapolating on the known data, estimates that the shift would have a variance on the order of… “300 years or so”. Incidentally, this oscillation reached its maximum around 2005.

The SWARM mission is by no means among the most expensive scientific projects of these decades, but much more could still be known and at much less expense had the experts the courage to contrast different theories and fearlessly sought to falsify them all; that is, if competition were real and not just a mere word. There is already a huge and varied mass of data; what is decisive in order to draw conclusions is to be able to contrast and view the problems from opposite sides. Otherwise we are still groping around in the dark.


So, probably, the fearsome Lead Age will never come into effect. But how could we know, if the ban on hunting theories is not lifted? Any expert in geomagnetism will admit that the dynamo theory is tentative, and even highly tentative; but to question the classical and quantum theory of electromagnetism, on which all our technology rests, is quite another matter. And yet neither are Maxwell’s equations or those of quantum electrodynamics anything other than a heuristic development.

Many argue: how can a theory like QED, which achieves accuracy to twelve decimal places, be heuristic? Precisely because the theory has been optimized all along the way to make increasingly accurate predictions, disdaining everything else. In fact, the key numbers of this theory must be entered by hand and one has no idea how to justify them; not to mention that quantum mechanics is not even able to predict the collapse of its very wave function. And what about the prediction of the vacuum energy, an error of 120 orders of magnitude? But even Maxwell’s classical theory has huge holes in it.

Mathis, for example, finds a very straightforward justification for many of these enigmatic numbers; but he does so within a frame that has nothing to do with the standard model —which prevents his arguments from being taken into account, whatever their value. The dominant theories are neopositivism in action, which says that the descriptive framework is ancillary and it is the prediction that is decisive; however, when an alternative theory obtains better predictions, its description is said to be totally inappropriate.

The standard model of particle physics knows about four fundamental forces, but even if we knew forty or forty thousand forces to twelve decimal places of precision, our science would still be a prodigious display of ignorance. On the contrary, it is clear that it would be much worse, because it would only increase our confusion. It would be better for us to know one single force well, than forty thousand in the present way. Why? Mathis believes that physics can and must know the causes of phenomena, but I think this is just another illusion, albeit a very useful illusion.

It is not that we can know the causes, but that a theory with more balance between description and prediction puts in evidence the theories in which both parts are more dissociated. The balance is the needle of the scale, the compass that allows us to navigate in the seas of our ignorance. And since Mathis’ model is much more balanced, even if it can never identify the causes, it can expose the false causes of other models that pretend to be beyond causality but in reality identify themselves with all kinds of empty words. Nothing is more unbalanced than the instrumental vision of science that prevails today.

Mathis finds no use for field potentials, since everything would be due to the direct effect of the bombardment of large, ordinarily spinning particles. Certainly, talking about photons as if they were marbles may seem very crude in the world of rarefied abstractions of mainstream physics, but this “naive” view serves to narrow down problems, sometimes with completely unexpected results. For it is not a matter of being highly “original” and “creative”, as is demanded today of theoretical and even applied physicists, but rather the opposite: no trick pulled out of the hat can compare with simple rectitude.

There is something in which the great American author does coincide with the prevailing model: there are no forces at a distance, causality should be based on local description. Newton himself did not accept the idea of a force at a distance, and, had he been able, he would have strongly promoted the concept of field that was later developed. But quantum electrodynamics claims to be local and yet it has very little of causality in it. We are talking about mirages. Action at a distance is the immediate given; fields, locality and causality are just our mental elaborations.

We have not been able to remotely understand even electromagnetism, the only force that we can and do manipulate at will in all kinds of devices. This speaks volumes about the level of our science and the idea we have of it, as it also speaks of the abysmal difference that can exist between manipulation and prediction, with all its cohort of “wonderfully symmetrical” equations on the one hand, and understanding on the other. And we will have to remember once again that the interpretation of physics is not a philosophical luxury, but also marks the limits of technological applications; which of course gives food for thought.


Some physicists have proposed that terrestrial geomagnetism and data collections such as SWARM could be an interesting way to search for “new physics”. For example, to find a “monopole moment” in the field that would allow to better define the conditions of existence of the famous magnetic monopole, that unicorn of theoretical physics that came out of Dirac’s imagination. It is well known, for example, that all modern supersymmetric theories require monopoles, which have never been found.

But, as Mathis says, if the electromagnetic field is not a dipole to begin with, there is no need at all for a magnetic charge unit. Nicolae Mazilu, following E. Katz, reasons that there is no need to complete the symmetry, since in fact we already have a plain and more significant symmetry: the magnetic poles are only separated by portions of matter, and the electric poles are only separated by portions of empty space. There is no polarity of any kind without these conditions. But the relativistic Dirac electron equation, precisely because it is relativistic, only works for ideal point particles with no extension, hence the postulation of this perfectly unnecessary particle.

Actually, the only possible “monopole” is just Mathis’ charge field, so one should know where to look to find fabulous animals; and yet I keep thinking that fields are nothing but metaphors. Physicists call the excitations of the field “particles”; I call the excitation or actualization of the potential a field —but in any case, and as we have already mentioned elsewhere, the difference between the kinetic, potential and internal energy of a body should be analyzed more carefully.

No, I do not believe, like Mathis, that it is possible to do physics only with forces, or that the problems of wave mechanics can be solved with particles with “stacked spins” and without resorting to complex numbers, which seems frankly impossible. But Mathis’ model allows a much more insightful and less blind interpretation of multiple phenomena today attributed to fields.

According to Mathis, all spherical bodies, from stars and planets to extended particles, are absorbing this charge field of light at both poles and emitting it at the equator; and presumably our own organism does something similar. This bears a strong resemblance to the ancient ideas of prana, chi or pneuma, although Mathis’ predictions and descriptions are strictly physical and do not explore the coincidence. As Harald Maurer already said, it is not light that is part of the electromagnetic field and the straitjacket of Maxwell’s equations, but on the contrary this field is to light as the water in the pool of a cruise ship in relation to the surrounding ocean.

If the fundamental field of light already has such relevance in the formation of atoms and molecules, it must be equally relevant in the more complex biological molecules, such as globular proteins or enzymes, which are already a form of life on their own, albeit unacknowledged; and even more so in organelles, cells and complete organisms.

Mathis attempts to give a “local explanation” for phenomena, such as elliptical orbits and fields, which have always been global in nature. Poincaré already observed that any law expressed with a variational principle admits an infinite number of mechanical explanations, which by the same token cannot be but futile. But the same variational principle can be a scaling factor, a sliding knot, and this brings us to another kind of considerations.

If the monopole is a fabulous being, it is nonetheless of great interest, being closely linked to such ubiquitous phenomena in Nature as vorticity or the geometric phase initially detected in the polarization of light and the magnetic field of the electron. The geometric phase, “global change without local change”, is probably best known for the Aharonov-Bohm effect, which shows us how a charged particle “feels” or reflects the potential even where the electric and magnetic fields are zero.

Interestingly, the geometric phase was first detected in 1956 and 1958, while the discovery of the magnetosphere and the idea of the solar wind also date back to 1958, at the dawn of the space race.


In the earth’s magnetic field, the cosmic and the telluric coincide, which also makes us think that the geophysical can also disrupt the geopolitical. We all know where the compass was discovered, and what consequences it finally had for the world when its use in navigation became widespread; but we have yet to discover a very simple principle that will help us navigate the ages to come, whether the sky falls on our heads or not.

Although it is impossible to verify with certainty, it is estimated that the peaks of exposure to electromagnetic radiation of human origin are today between fifteen and eighteen orders of magnitude higher than those of the natural electromagnetic field of planet Earth —a ten followed by fifteen to eighteen zeros. Comparatively, human air pollution and CO2 emissions would only have increased by a ridiculous fraction over that generated by the natural forest fire cycle.

As if this were not enough, with the implementation of 5G this exposure will be multiplied tens or hundreds of times. Elsewhere we noted how the geometric phase can be used to investigate the impact of electromagnetic pollution on organisms, since although we cannot directly measure potentials, we can measure their effect on cell movements and on the shortening of the telomeres of DNA strands, which also exhibit geometric phases. This phase being equivalent to a torsion component, it can be seen as a measure of the degree of forced contortion of the system with respect to an unforced fundamental state, making it robust to various kinds of noise. Even in our bilateral nasal cycle such a phase memory can be detected and compared with variations in the electromagnetic potential, to establish a more akin biophysical connection.

We have already spoken repeatedly of the geometric phase and its uncertain status in modern physics. Since its discovery is more recent than the development of quantum mechanics, theoretical physics tries to see it as a mere appendix, although it really does not respond to the conservative, Hamiltonian mechanics of closed systems. The geometric phase precisely reflects the geometry of the environment, the “parallel transport” of that which has been left out of the idealizations on which field theories depend, no matter how little or much. Therefore, its strategic importance in theoretical physics would have to be evident, were it not for the fact that, beyond the horizon of closed systems proper to “fundamental physics”, everything is considered secondary.

It is a serious mistake that theoretical physics has paid dearly for. Just as the geometric phase adds a sort of “fifth equation” to Maxwell’s four conventional ones, it can also be said to add a “fourth principle” to the three principles of Newton’s mechanics. We have recently seen that this geometric phase allows us to speak of a purely mechanical induction which is more general than electromagnetic induction, and which can be easily verified in various devices and even in our own body but which has not yet found its proper place in the theory.

The geometric phase is a universal phenomenon at all scales and is not exclusive to quantum mechanics as is falsely claimed; it should therefore have already allowed us to cross the threshold between classical and quantum mechanics were it not for the inaptitude of the assumed models to do so. And on the other hand, it allows us to step outside the box of electromagnetic theory and see what lies beyond it —both in theory and practice.

This non-dynamical displacement of the geometric phase, at the basis of the so-called “holographic principle”, and interpreted by Bohm as an “information field”, is also directly linked to the so called “retarded potential theory” of Weber’s electrodynamics, appeared well before Maxwell’s, which can also be used to explain the general occurrence of ellipses. And although a theory based on the potential is at first sight incompatible with a perspective such as Mathis’, one need not recall that the degree of polarization and the entropy of a beam of light are equivalent concepts, which in fact adds a connection of the broadest scope with thermodynamics at the fundamental level.

The “fourth principle”, still to be properly defined, involves the other three as a term of self-induction: this is the sliding knot of which we spoke before. This self-induction is linked to the relation between bodies and the ordinary ambient vacuum. In modern field theories there appears what is called self-energy and self-interaction due to the acceleration of charges. The geometric phase is so called to distinguish it from the phase arising from interactions or forces, but that does not mean that it is merely passive with respect to them. How could an instantaneous correlation be passive with respect to something that takes time and motion to actualize? It would have to be the other way around, and it would seem obvious were it not for the fact that physics is already founded on motion, and on a certain way of calculating and determining it, which we have called the “global synchronizer”.

All that today we call “physical laws” of Nature are but pale and very restricted reflections of a guiding principle that evades us the more we cling to the Law and the letter instead of the spirit from which they emanate.

For the modern theoretical physicist, “nothing more practical than a good theory”, since here theory has been proposed right from the start to fit predictions. But what we will soon understand, on the contrary, is that nothing has more theoretical depth than a good practice; and this, in today’s technoscience, also means that it has to become concrete in the form of a machine, or, if one prefers, in a new relation with machines.

All our mechanology depends tacitly on the three principles of mechanics, but up to now these principles have served us to enclose and recirculate things that were alien to it. Already that first classification made by Jacques Lafitte of passive, active and reflexive machines was very directly related to the three principles, and it would be enough to return these to their original background to be able to break the circle of the spell and see everything in a different way.

Since mainstream theories prove incapable of overcoming the inertia of their triumphs and have already died of success, it will be in the machines that the synthesis will take place, never so consciously against the tide of that same theory that confiscates a posteriori the explanation of what it cannot predict. This time it will not be so, because the machine will be expressly conceived to destroy the theory and the mad spirit that inhabits it.


The so-called geometric phase, identifiable in animal locomotion and today also used abundantly in control theory and robotics, makes it possible to establish interfaces between machines and humans at many different levels, and certainly also allows a conversion and transition between these different levels. In this sense, it poses an extreme danger, since it is obvious that today Control wants to close its claw definitively on man and Nature. The cybernetic hypothesis had and still has a big hole at its center, but this discreet assistant is able to cover it grade by grade without us hardly noticing what is going on. Is not the geometric phase used as a routine parameter in state-of-the-art technology with hardly anyone wondering about its meaning? Nothing could be more disturbing than this thoughtlessness.

To put it more clearly: what is used today as a rectifying factor in control theory, and even in the so-called “quantum computing”, is something that Nature has always had built in, from the ellipses of the planetary orbits to those of the electrons; nevertheless, we are still told that all this is governed by “blind forces”. That which today is systematically used to bridge the gap between the human and the natural by tightening technocratic closure is the very condition of openness that connects the purported “closed systems” with their source.

We have already seen in other places that the three laws of motion can be profoundly transformed by substituting the principle of inertia by that of dynamic equilibrium, while preserving the mass of data and predictions of current physics. But the geometric phase, perfectly compatible with the principle dynamic equilibrium, also allows us to profoundly modify the idea of the “global synchronizer”, founded on the concept of simultaneity of action and reaction, introducing a proper time for each system. The true global synchronizer cannot be inside the dynamics, but outside it, precisely in the instantaneous correlation of the geometric phase. It is the dynamics that reacts, and it is everything that moves that has a time of its own. The ideas of locality and causality are due precisely to this circumstance, not the other way around, as is thought today.

We cannot yet grasp the consequences of this transposition because our own subjectivity is embedded in the mechanical scheme of things, and the Global Synchronizer is the guardian of all the accumulated material-symbolic capital. Going beyond this demon is tantamount to liberating man and Nature; but do we really want liberation? It is not that machines can liberate us, but that we can liberate ourselves from machines, from our instrumental compulsion, by more gradual or more direct routes, though following the same orientation. However, this whole route is full of dangers and deceptions, starting with the illusion of being able to have everything at once without the slightest sacrifice.

Although it should be self-evident, it is worth remembering that in practice it is impossible the liberation of man by man if our idea of Nature does not transcend the instrumental threshold, since the techniques of the use and exploitation of Nature end up being the same as those applied to the use and exploitation of men. Machines, apparatuses, dispositives and institutions are “coagulated spirit”, to use Weber’s image, and the spirit does not release its prey without other dispositions. Now, the purportedly “neutral” three laws of motion define the general disposition and limits of our world, the symbolic economy in the relation of our civilization with the unknown natural background. Neither relativity nor quantum mechanics has changed this in the least.


René Guenon wrote somewhere that, in time past, man was receptive with respect to the Principle but active with respect to Nature, whereas modern man has turned his back on the Principle while becoming reactive with respect to the natural world. This is not the image that the moderns, in search of the mastery of the external world, have of themselves, but Guenon’s judgement is more faithful to reality. The nature in relation to which that man was active was none other than his own, and that was first and foremost his garden. And, indeed, to make nature something external leads us unfailingly to our interior becoming reactive with respect to our increasing interference with the external world. Thus the Principle becomes an iron Law for those who ignore it.

If we were to balance the predictive and descriptive parts of physics, which is not even remotely the case now, we would soon see that the question of the polar axis and the orientation of matter leads us by the shortest path from laws to the elusive but omnipresent Principle. For this, no gigantic scientific projects are required, but only a change of mentality. For a large number of crucial experiments, satellites are not even needed; some very basic sensors are derived directly from tests such as the Trouton-Noble experiment of 1901-1903, and the like. It’s not a question of cutting-edge technology, but of another orientation of intelligence. The biggest obstacle, of course, is the enormous inertia of Big Science, its crushing bureaucracy and the miserable, self-serving narrowness of criteria it imposes.

The three principles of dynamics and motion, even in their conventional version, are closely linked to those “three asymptotic steps” in the structure of the physical world and the way we perceive it: matter, light or radiation, empty space. Between matter and radiation there is a certain reciprocity, which we now ordinarily interpret in field theories with metric space and curvature. Beyond flat or empty space is the primitive homogeneous medium, with unit density, which has nowhere to go because any motion or determination does not apply to it. Neither can be said if this medium has zero or infinite dimensions, whether it is full or empty, conscious or unconscious.

The relation of these three steps or stages to the fourth defines the connection of the measurable with the immeasurable Principle. These three stages have a non-trivial correspondence with the Indian threefold idea of the dense, subtle and causal bodies, superimposed on the Self. Indeed, what we call “light” and “photons”, with their absorption and emission spectra, and with many other peculiarities that we have not yet investigated, are not simply particles traveling through space, an idea that is already quite comical. They are part of our interiority, and of the stochastic noise integrated with the signal at the levels of wakefulness and sleep, although they are not yet that which we call “subjectivity”, which cannot be related to motion or time, but with their background.


The all-pervading electromagnetic radiation coming from our devices is “non-ionizing”, and it is clear that it has nothing to do with the deleterious high-energy charged particles of the solar wind. In our current scientific jargon, this radiation of human origin is made only of “photons”, massless particles with very low energy. I can hear the laughter if I say now that these photons are already part of our interiority and mental background; but to believe that photons are traveling from one part to another “out there” seems to me even more laughable and inappropriate. To decide what is “out there” and what is “in there”, if such things make sense, one would have to carefully analyze the relationship between the three states of manifestation, of these with the principles, and of these with the Principle.

There are still all kinds of doubts about the effect this radiation may have on organisms, not least because impartiality has become impossible and we know where the money goes; so everyone will have to judge from his own experience and careful observation. But it is clear that it is an aberration to saturate the atmosphere to such extremes and that we should oppose it head-on. There are clear alternatives and technical solutions, and neither do we need so much stupid data traffic whose main use is to increase surveillance of the population ad nauseam. Those who push the new wireless generations at any cost will pay dearly for their mistake. There is still time to redefine these non-strategies.

Beyond that, issues presented here such as the fundamental charge field and the multiple levels of manifestation of the geometric phase are also of great relevance to biology: let us recall that this phase denotes the coupling of “a system” with the geometry of the environment, or as contemporary jargon has it, with its information.

The current state of the sciences is anything but accidental and few things are more carefully directed from above. Their extreme closure and inertia, their marked necrophilia, also respond to a situation of threatened global hegemony, as well as to a historical evolution and a gradual process of takeover by public and private bureaucracies. In the colonies the laggards make pathetic efforts to do “competitive science”, but there is nothing less competitive and open to debate than science today.

All countries would do well to disengage their objectives and priorities from this globalized “science”, which is really going nowhere, except where a few want it to go. Since the current situation responds to a geopolitical impasse, let us hope at least that here and there, the most discerning heads refuse to do the dirty work that is being demanded from very few centers of power. That in countries such as China, Japan, India, Iran, Brazil, Australia, Germany, France or Spain itself, there is enough personality not to be fooled by a model of research, without competence and increasingly incompetent, that others manage to impose for their own prestige and interest. Or even in the United States itself, which is treated by its media as another conquered nation.

Not everything depends on money, and neither does science, otherwise it would already be dead; but it is evident that the more funds are poured into it, the deeper the truth is buried. It seems almost a foregone conclusion that around 2026, the four hundredth anniversary of the publication of Bacon’s unfinished fable, we will witness the collapse of this New Atlantis, and with it also the decomposition of its entire network of influences. Science has been a political phenomenon of the first order at least since 1703, when Newton assumed the presidency of the Royal Society, the first think tank of modern times.

The science-power collusion cares very little about Nature, because if they did, the first thing they would do would be to radically change their idea of science and their idea of the natural. And the same goes for all of us: one cannot want to “save the planet” while embracing a science of death. Claiming moral superiority without questioning the prevailing worldview is just cheap politics, since the prevailing idea of Nature and our nature is totally unacceptable to begin with. Today “Science” serves above all to legitimize the passage from a democracy that is hardly formal anymore to the most opaque and technocratic of tyrannies.

Where there is a barrier there is a way to cross it. A single “device” can short-circuit forever the arrangement of mechanics and what we believe to be mediated and immediate inside and outside of us.


But we cannot stand idly by and wait. The only pole reversal within everyone’s reach is the one between dominator and dominated, with an increasing use of all sorts of pseudo-scientific arguments. And the only way we can alter that relationship is by not giving credit to their ubiquitous lies and refusing to obey the mandates of a leadership that is not only unworthy but clearly criminal.

Let us recall once again the power law or 80/20 rule that shapes the distribution of wealth in the world: One fifth of the population owns four fifths of the properties, but in turn one fifth of that fifth owns 4/5 of the 4/5, and so on. The iterative succession of this rule leads us to conclude that three individuals or families own as much as half of the planet, and more importantly, most of the surplus purchasing power, which serves precisely to buy the subjection of those below them in the hierarchy.

This inescapable power law, which economists and sociologists have the great merit of ignoring, is precisely the fundamental fact of economics and sociology within our non-economy and non-society, the structure and dynamics that define the real concentration of power, its hierarchy, and the real intricacies of subservience and favor in actually existing techno-feudalism. This extreme concentration can only be sustained in anonymity, for public exposure of the top of the pyramid would make it extremely vulnerable —and it goes without saying that the core of the plutarchy, necessarily a cryptarchy, is not constituted by the vicarious potentates who show their faces in the media and appear in the lists of great fortunes.

Nothing of what is happening now with the plandemic or the nefarious mass vaccination campaign can take place without the will of that tiny leadership, the keystone of the whole structure of world debt. Just like capital, power is calculatedly distributed to evade any responsibility; which has allowed a sustained increase in the scale of crime, up to what we are now witnessing. Yet the structure and concentration remains, while we are unable to identify three elephants in the laundry room; although there are certainly no laundries like banks, corporations and funds.

There is a direct proportion between this accumulation, induced and pumped by the debt system, and reflected in the successive iterations of the power law, and the cycles of contraction and expansion of debt and the markets which in turn echo astronomical cycles. Cycles that concern Jupiter and Saturn, and therefore the Sun and our planet, and which have been decanting and gaining momentum over the last three centuries. The structure of debt and of the usurpation of the power of creation of public money is a sculpture in time, punctuated by widespread fraud, corruption, war and crime.

A more than superficial parallel can also be drawn between the standard theory of electromagnetism and its “intrinsic” electric charge, on the one hand, and the idea that still prevails today about the creation of money, which is attributed to central banks instead of private banks —although in the final analysis it is the borrowers and repayers who really create it. Will we ever overcome these mystifications and deceits?

Money creates space for its indispensable expansion by destroying the small wealth: it is Schumpeter’s “creative destruction”, which in the present imbalance has acquired a new dimension. But those who do not have the money can only create space for themselves by not believing, not obeying and not assenting. Only from that created space and that freedom not to do can an initiative worthy of the name arise.


Paul de Métairy, Cambio Climático: la verdad de lo que se nos viene encima

Miles Mathis, http://milesmathis.com

Miguel Iradier, http://hurqualya.net

Deja un comentario

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