Years ago, there was a movement called “Occupy Wall Street”. The protagonist remembered asking one of the participants, who was vehemently opposed to capitalism, what would come after capitalism was overthrown? The protester replied that this was exactly why they are occupying Wall Street, to find the answer to this question.

Now, the protagonist knew that he had the answer. The improvement of society will come naturally, above all unstoppably, without occupying anything, without forcibly eliminating social orders such as capitalism, or any other social order, by any conceivable or other as yet unknown forceful, or, God forbid, violent method. Whatever is to be removed, improved or retained will be done automatically, spontaneously, without the involvement of dedicated movements whose leaders are financed by who knows who and have who knows what ultimate agendas. Throughout history all apparent advances have all proven to be corrupt. Now, the protagonist was becoming increasingly certain that all these corrupt ways of claiming progress had come to an end. Self-improvement is arriving as the ultimate savior of the world.

This was also bringing the answer to the question “Whodunnit?” regarding the inexplicable disappearance of potentates, which had occupied the reader’s attention in the previous book, alas without the reader getting any answer or even a clue whatsoever.

So now let’s follow the evolution of the protagonist step by step.

As the process of his evolution neared its end, the protagonist was the only one who knew the answer to the question that had long vexed the likes of the NYC Police Commissioner, Commissioner Knowington, Dr. Pennybrow, Jaguar, The General and the plethora of lieutenants, operatives, messengers, and couriers who inhabited the previous book, not to mention the entire population of planet Earth.

This answer, although expected by the protagonist, fortunately came too soon, even for him, although we won’t follow his fast pace, but rather the stages of his evolution, stages which, as expected, are not exactly clearly delineated. Instead, we will take the time to follow these events at a slower pace, in order to explore, at leisure, the bumps in the road and the avoidance of the dead ends into which the protagonist’s thoughts sometimes went, all the obstacles that he successfully overcame, one after another, thus gradually arriving at the realization of a quite unsuspected, but truly beautiful goal concerning the good of the world.

For the protagonist, success in life means having made scientific discoveries. The trivial understanding of success, held by many people, is the accumulation of money—the more money one has accumulated, the greater the success. Wealth, real estate, or a fleet of airplanes, world influence determined by such success, meant nothing to the protagonist. According to the protagonist’s understanding of success, the only success equivalent to making discoveries was to have written music, literature, or created works of art that were recognized throughout the world. However, as the protagonist had noted elsewhere, nothing compares to the universality of a true scientific achievement in the form of a discovery.

What if he hadn’t had the chance to make discoveries—not everyone would be so lucky—what then? Then the protagonist would at least feel that he tried. But he had already made groundbreaking discoveries, the likes of which the world had rarely seen in centuries, and that made him twice as happy. He remembered his Mother’s words

“If you don’t demonstrate something resulting from your discovery for all to see, be prepared to be condemned to ignoring, no matter how profound the quality of the discovery”.

Now, with the ongoing developments crowned by LABAC, his mother’s prophecy is on its way to finding its true fulfillment.

The developments, as far as the protagonist was concerned, were really fiery. Now it was time for those most unusual developments to be revealed.

Actually, these unusual developments grew out of one of the most inauspicious findings of the human mind, made some four or perhaps even five centuries ago, in concert with the recent discoveries of the protagonist. This historical delay, which the world needed to digest what was discovered at the dawn of modern civilization, did not surprise the protagonist at all. Earlier, during the period in which he was making his stunning scientific discoveries, one of which in particular would be the backbone of this book, he had been astonished to find that, after four centuries of development, the world of learning still did not understand the concept of motion.

He found it truly astounding that amongst the many technological achievements, such as the landing on the moon, communication by radio waves, transportation by cars and airplanes, and a plethora of other technological wonders that could be listed, the world was still oblivious to the meaning of seemingly simple, yet profoundly fundamental concepts, such as the aforementioned motion, to say nothing of the concepts of time and space. This astonishing realization, along with several other circumstances, set the protagonist on a path very different from the scientific research path he had chosen in his youth.

On the other hand, the years of systematic study and hard work in scientific research and teaching science in the world of academia, had wreathed him with the solid crust of a seasoned explorer who would not let anything pass him by. It’s not that he wouldn’t have made these discoveries under different circumstances and earlier in life, but the experience in science, the maturity, and especially the retirement from teaching, were certainly indispensable in his transition from the pursuit of narrow questions of specific sciences, such as physics and chemistry, to grand generalizations, concerning the profound secrets of nature.

I know that the reader is impatient to know who is responsible for the horrific events that unfolded in the previous book, horrific events that captivated the world and attracted the attention of the greatest criminal experts, intelligence agencies, and even organized crime, who have been enlisted to help solve one of the greatest mysteries of all time.

The reader should rest assured that the mystery will be revealed by the end of the book, and what a mystery it is!

This is a mystery that has never been heard of before. It defies the expected destiny of individuals, no matter how important they are. It is about something immensely greater and incomparably more significant. Revelation will charter the road to the natural, spontaneous salvation of none other than humanity itself from the morass of oppression by the disappearingly few.

Grasping this mind-boggling ramification of his discoveries did not come at once. Moreover, the protagonist did not intend, nor did he have any idea, that the discoveries he was making, seminal discoveries in their own right, would have this astonishing ramification effect, no less than a world-saving effect, bringing the planet forward through the portal that separates it from its bright and happy future world. He also never expected that in the midst of the doom and gloom of today, the globe is actually pregnant with what will become the bright world of the future. The globe was in the very process of preparing itself for a future world that would only be good, shedding the last shackles of slavery.

Before we begin to learn how this was to happen, we need to lay some groundwork by providing some background.

This is a journey that, alongside the fundamental scientific discoveries made by the protagonist, also turns out to be a continuation of the protagonist’s exploration of the vehement obstruction to making his discoveries known to the world, discoveries that unmask the greatest world intellectual travesties of all time. The ramifications that followed, moreover, and to his great surprise, were beyond anything he had ever expected. This is also a report to his friends, a kind of recapitulation of a life dedicated to the search for truth.

This concrete book was initially stimulated by the following very puzzling question, which the protagonist tried to unpack, without even suspecting where it would ultimately lead:

How is it that the most conclusive scientific discovery in history—a discovery that the protagonist has recently made—concerning something that is so highly regarded worldwide, is so very much unpersuasive to any of the nearly nine billion people on earth, who still fanatically cling to this highly regarded folly, despite its obvious falsity, a falsity that the protagonist has unequivocally proven?

Well, knowing all the grim experiences—described elsewhere—that the discoverer, alternatively called the protagonist or the main character here, has accumulated and continues to accumulate, why should anyone be surprised? It is not a matter of persuasion. It is about the widespread, deliberate propagation of absurdity masquerading as science, and the use of hardcore propaganda to blow this travesty out of proportion, powerful enough to obscure the obvious falsity of this replacement of reason with folly. It’s about weakness due to powerlessness to do the opposite of what the omnipotent elite and its propaganda is doing today. This battle between truth and falsehood is about who is more powerful, not who is truthful. It is about how to reach out to the nearly nine billion people on earth and convince them that it is important for each and every one of them to personally hear the argument exposing the absurdities being proclaimed as science, to understand that argument, and to never again allow their tax dollars to fund this utter travesty. One sentence, revealed later in the book, must find its place in their legislation, outlawing the funding of this ominous travesty, and the beginning of the repair of the world will be set in motion.

But this is impossible. Criticizm of Le Débile’s charade of folly, passed off as great science, is the most censored topic on the face of the earth, effectively preventing the peoples of the world from taking action against it. Have we not said that in this battle between truth and falsehood, it is not a question of who is truthful, but who is more powerful? The narrative is controlled by a small group of ultimately powerful zealots who, by virtue of having the power and the finances, shun any criticism or opinion other than their own devious agenda.

Their agenda is to maintain in peoples’ minds that the patent absurdity this elite preaches and obtrudes, is what it is not; that absurdity can replace reason without batting an eye. Their agenda is to claim that the absurdity they aggressively promote is the highest of high science—in fact, an outrageous, boundless fraud.

Therefore, the protagonist had already begun to realize that it is absolutely impossible to confront head-on the ludicrous system that clutches the world in its vicious, lying claws and shoves the grotesque lie that absurdity is science down the world’s throat. Yet, aid was forthcoming. However, the aid to overthrow that evil oppression was coming from a most unexpected quarter—a most fascinating, inevitable development from the humblest beginning imaginable. This idea unfolded slowly in the mind of the protagonist, after he had made his discoveries. At first, not even occurring to him as a passing thought, which later bloomed into the thousand colors of something incredible, never seen before.

Meanwhile, speaking of preventing access to the multitude, the response of the proponents to such a complaint has been that publishing on the net—on your own website, not on one of the many parasitic sites, where you will be instantly censored—provides you instant access to your creation by anyone, anywhere in the world. Such a proposal is cynically untenable. The internet is so clogged with sites that relying on a site to publish something is tantamount to self-censoring everything written on that site. Letting the public know about your site and that it is worth reading is the crux of the matter. The mere existence of a website on the internet, without any way of attracting readers to it, is the same as having no website at all. The chances of anyone reading it are not much greater than writing a novel and locking it in a drawer. Publishing it on such an obscure site, like locking it in the dungeon of your closet, only gives you the comforting warm feeling that you have put your thoughts into temporary storage somewhere, ready to be pulled out when the need arises, which is never; without even the assurance that your thoughts will survive and not be mercilessly scrapped and erased, even in their currently defenseless form.

Moreover, the big concern is not that someone’s thoughts will be lost. The protagonist can overcome such a personal loss. The big concern is that the discovery at hand charts the way to save humanity from its cognitive and moral degradation, which is taking place at an increasing rate today. That map, showing the way to the salvation of mankind, must not be lost. Confusion about various biological issues of human beings is thickening, immigration and demographic problems are rampant, physical self-destruction through pseudo-crises involving existing and non-existing natural phenomena, to name a few, are ravaging the planet, causing wars and destruction.

In the long run, all these problems stem from the increasingly deteriorating state of thinking in the world.

Undermining the quality of thinking on a mass scale also reduces the capacity for truthful and quality analysis on the part of the various intelligence and analytical agencies and centers of the governments around the globe that deal with national security in the individual countries. This is a dramatic national security problem everywhere. It threatens to cause major world instabilities, a breeding ground for war, as a result of the unintelligent handling of world affairs by the rulers of these countries.

A major contributor to the observed deterioration of thinking in the world is the destruction of physics that occurred at the turn of the last century, which decimated basic notions of cognition, such as time and space. This must change radically if humanity is to survive. However, such change is impossible, both from within academia and, on a larger scale, from without academia, naïvely relying on the court of public opinion. Nonetheless, the protagonist began sensing a ray of hope, and this is what we will talk about in this story.

Fortunately, mankind has within its bowels embedded possibilities that, if mankind survives, will work to make its salvation from the observed cognitive decline inevitable.

Binary arithmetic is one of the elements of humanity’s innards. The hidden potentials of this otherwise most simple element possible, are already beginning to manifest themselves, and they will unfurl until reaching the advanced stages of LABAC.

To wit, if there are potentialities such as biological reproduction through harnessing the insights of stem cells, nuclear fission or self-cognizing of binary-arithmetism, which defines the basics of LABAC, these potentialities will be realized sooner or later, regardless of the obstructions, the mantras or the fact that the full extent of these potentialities has not hitherto been realized, let alone known. The release of the energy of the atomic nucleus at levels beyond imagination was inherent, latent in matter, waiting to be discovered. The fact that such a discovery might backfire on its discoverer has not stopped discovery. When something is meant to be, it happens.

However, a very profound peculiarity lies here. What the protagonist was about to find out will only benefit humanity, without having a dark, harming side, because it is not something that has to do with dealing with external matter, but is inherent in the functioning of the healthy human brain. The healthy human brain, obeying reason and logic, is only constructive, especially when this essence is sublimed to take on its own separate existence.

We left the discoverer in pretty bad shape. The curtains down, blocking the sunlight, the protagonist waiting for his death, having spent all his money on lobbyists, to no avail.

But then, as the reader may recall—actually, no, the reader cannot recall, because the first three books have not yet been written, but we will assume that they have—seized by a sudden flash of selfishness, that made him doubt the point of all his efforts, he realized that the way to end the unjust system was not to go along with the mantra, widely promoted around the world, that a just life could only come about through destruction, by fractioning society into small segregated groups, each fighting for its own right. The potagonist slowly began understanding that this was not the way of liberation

There was a better way, he later gathered, and it was not up to him or anyone else, for that matter, to interfere and create more and more new theories as to how to help the world, or how this or that group would prevail over the rest. The protagonist was beginning to realize that the world was going to help its own self by experiencing the inevitable during the course of its development.

Prior to this serendipity, the discoverer’s discomfort was actually caused by not having fully grasped the meaning of the well-known maxim, “Knowledge is power!” Therefore, his anxiety and nervousness caused by the world’s neglect of his discoveries is silly. He and those who are aware of his discoveries should actually sit back and relax. The unequivocal truth is out there. Nothing can stop its power. It has no command center, no special structures of obedience and chain of command, it works its way due to the infinite raw power of its absolute truthfulness.

“This is pretty interesting, and, actually sounds pretty intriguing,” said a group of protesters when the protagonist carelessly dropped this yet unbaked idea on them, “However, how is this to come about?”

The time hadn’t yet come for the protagonist, much less for the protesters. The full understanding of this idealistic kernel was still a long way off.

Speaking of evolution, the story in this book touches on something bigger than the usual development of a character in a novel. Therefore, we must address this point from the beginning and mention that our hero’s path was bumpy and uncertain, far from being a fairy tale or a premonition of success.

The book is loosely divided into eight somewhat uneven and disorganized parts, reflecting the uncombed real-life development of the main character, the main idea being to show the protagonist’s convoluted evolution from a scientist engrossed in his studies, oblivious to the social circumstances of his epoch, through various stages of rumination, disappointment, success, and despair. These meanders of his growth into a more advanced and socially aware person, helped him not only to understand how to get out of the academic maze, which systematically turned a blind eye to his every pursuit of sharing his great discoveries with the world, but also to develop his further revolutionary understanding of what great days await humanity, in expectation of its liberation from the darkness of intellectual oppression. He also gradually began to realize that with his discoveries, he is joining the company of the greatest minds of humanity, such as Gottfried Leibniz, John Atanasoff, not to mention Galileo Galilei and many other bright minds of historic significance.

Hopefully, the discoveries made by the protagonist, not only in science, but also in the ways to improve society, will help to stop the massive nihilism that is engulfing humanity when it comes to its future development. The darkness predicted by all parties trying to analyze the future world is so overwhelming and so dense that the bright light of the protagonist’s discoveries laid out in this book, will undoubtedly serve as a beacon of hope to the world and a source of optimism so sorely needed today. This writing is literally one of a kind in this regard, and will come to many as the unsuspected last straw to keep them from drowning in the overwhelming chaos of events pouring over every one of us.

His Dad, the old professor, whom the protagonist otherwise followed in his footsteps, used to say: “Work and wait!”, as the slogan he would follow all his life, while his Son’s, the protagonist’s, reaction has always been that it’s a defeatist slogan. On the contrary, the protagonist was convinced that the slogan his Dad followed should be modified to “Work and fight!”.

However, in the current battle, the stakes are so high, and therefore, it is so impossible for a feeble voice like his to be heard, that nothing other than the good old “Work and wait!” is all one of his ilk can do. He has made the discoveries, he has made them public on the internet, and now these discoveries have a life of their own and are, for their part, waiting to be discovered by others. The most the protagonist can do is to make them discoverable. In this case, “discoverable” means making them available for anyone to read, and nothing more. It has been empirically proven over many years that no other attempt will bear any fruit at all.

In truth, when it comes to major discoveries like the one the protagonist has made, the potentates have taken active measures early in the game, even in the years when the internet was in its infancy, and more so today, to discourage and block anyone who wants to learn the truth, even inventing the iniquitous mantra that there is no truth, that everything is a matter of interpretation, a point of view, a metaphor. What the elite wants you to learn is only what it itsef, through its cronies and sycophants, says is the truth, not what the real truth is.

When the truth is denied, the result is the triumph of the lie. This can be seen every day—officials are not ashamed to lie through their teeth without blinking an eye, because to them, the concept of lying does not exist. The revelry of the postmodern maxim “anything goes” has won over the world.

The powers that be, the elite, began to sense something was slipping out of its control. When it became clear that the threat to the elite and its control of the world was coming from the internet, the elite began to dismantle the very structure it itself had put in place. The elite is panicing as we speak, going out of their wits to figure out what more restrictions and regulations they can impose on the free body of the internet.

However, the binary (and human-friendly hexadecimal) arithmetic prodigy has grown so diverse that no external force could stop it—no cutting of power lines, no severing of transatlantic cables, no disabling of server clusters would bring the internet down completely, because that would mean nothing less than stopping life on the planet. This will happen now if the internet is obliterated. The future has something even more significant up its sleeve. No human effort will be able to change the inevitable fate of the world—the world is destined to obey the truth.

Returning from the high cloud of dreams, as close as their realization might be, to the sorry state of today, the protagonist already knew that in looking for the kernel of the observed intellectual decay, one should look no further than the service Le Débile provided to the world elite, to the direct detriment of the multitude. The name Le Débile accurately expresses the essence of the untalented, plain dumb, yet subversive element that created the non-sequitur known as the “theory” of relativity, which certain powers have used to intellectually dement, demean and mess up the multitude, with the goal of enslaving the cognitive core of the world. This would allow the elite to govern the world’s populace unobstructed.

“Oh, don’t be shocked that your favorite scientific superhero is called that, and don’t throw yourself into the embrasure to defend him. You’ll be embarrassed when you find out the truth,” said the protagonist, “You can find the lie yourself. The very impudent lie that Le Débile is a genius will be instantly destroyed if you’re not afraid to open his original attempts at forging scientific theories. If you need help, I have written some books that might help you,” the protagonist suggested, “Look, you’re not dealing here with the lies of the politicians, forged behind closed doors, about which you will never know anything. Everything about the debility of Le Débile is painfully open and observable, which might have been one of the tricks of his entrenchment—everything is so open that it cannot be that it is so stupid. Who would expose their stupidity so openly,” the protagonist continued, “You don’t believe me? Check it out. Everything is in your own hands.”

It must be strongly emphasized that the criticism of Le Débile and the proposal to bring down his monuments have nothing to do with the woke movement and cancel culture. In contrast to the clear evidence calling for the removal of Le Débile’s monuments, the demolition of monuments and sculptures by the followers of cancel culture have no in-your-face evidence to support their claims. All they are fighting against is history riddled with myths and legends, not to mention the fact that no direct evidence can be produced at all for events that took place decades, if not centuries, ago. The cancel culture’s response is mostly based on emotion, a particular ideology, and paid political activism. This is radically different from the absolutely direct and immediately factually provable travesty of science exemplified by the “theory” of relativity and quantum mechanics.

When folly triumphs, its champion cannot fail to triumph. It comes with the territory that he is installed by the world’s elite as the ultimate authority and genius. Remember, Le Débile creates débiles. Someone who is definitely not supposed to be an authority on anything whatsoever, least of all science, is comfortably ensconced in the public mind as the ultimate authority in every conversation and in every walk of life. The protagonist was completely disgusted and angry about this extremely unfair situation, but there was nothing he could do about it. Furthermore, the protagonist has now decided on a new policy—he is the one to be sought out, not the one to seek an audience (although we will see some virtual exceptions to this new rule). This policy is a recipe for failure in our world of self-promotion. In fact, the protagonist’s occasional “seizures” while trying to socialize his findings are more evidence of this social disease—society’s unwillingness to restore reason—rather than an effective step toward curing it. These fits are more or less a relic of who the protagonist was in his naïve days, the days of utter failure.

Regarding his new policy of mostly withholding activity, rather than pushing the fight for reason, a guarantee of failure, the protagonist’s reaction could be nothing other than “So be it,” and then move on.

Incidentally, although it has become clear who is meant by Le Débile, the protagonist has decided to name his essence more elegantly, however much the person in question deserves to be named directly. To name him explicitly would also imply that there might be some part of him that deserved to be noticed, much less celebrated; whereas there is none.

Once, when the protagonist was still a bit more naïve, he thought it impossible for the world to ignore his unequivocal proof of the intellectual catastrophe that Le Débile dumped on the planet, even accompanied by Le Débile impudently sticking his tongue out at the world, as if to say, “What are you going to do? I am going to spew as much nonsense as I want, and you can’t do anything about it,” the protagonist saw over time that, on the contrary, it was actually quite possible. You just can’t believe the mediocrity and insanity we’re dealing with. Case in point—in the article on a website which was reporting on the press conference given by the protagonist, exposing the travesty that Le Débile had the gall to embarrass everyone with, the website put a picture of none other than … the Le Débile himself. One would expect that a public display by the protagonist, of the incredible catastrophe that Le Débile has brought upon the world, plunging it into true intellectual suffering and morass, would be the end of Le Débile. What do you know? Au contraire! Instead, it was Le Débile’s picture that ended up being celebrated on the front page again. It is simply unbelievable that Le Débile could be so feeble-minded, in the face of all the clearly demonstrable facts, and yet, no matter how strong the evidence of his brazen folly, it is still Le Débile who continues to be celebrated.

Here is a curious case in point. The protagonist needed to replace the word “eggheaded”. So he tried to find synonyms on the internet. Lo and behold, look what he got: acute, advanced, alert, astute, aware, brainy, clear-headed, clever, discerning, Einstein, having smarts, ingenious, inventive, keen, knowing, precocious, quick, quick-witted, whiz-kid, wide-awake.

How would you feel if you knew that Einstein was the exact opposite of the synonym for “eggheaded”? Yet, he has found his place as a household name for every kid in America to look up to as the greatest scientist there ever was. Knowing what this Le Débile really is—an outright dummy—shouldn’t such a travesty make you even more determined to fight this injustice? You bet it should. Einstein is a label for something that should never be used even in jest, facetiously, even as a joke.

The clearer the evidence that Le Débile’s creations are absurd drivel, the more the glorification of that absurd drivel rears its ugly head. The stultification of the world hasn’t stopped for over a century, and there’s no prospect of it ever stopping unless something extraordinary comes along. It is that kind of extraordinary development that is exactly what this story is about.

The protagonist, as the ultimate critic of the above absurd drivel, experienced severe discrimination, but it was a different kind of discrimination. This was a kind of discrimination that was not discrimination based on race, sexual preference, gender or any other known kind. This was discrimination for speaking the truth. The current state of the world prohibits the dissemination of important truths, even absolute truths of the kind the protagonist discovered, regardless of affirmative action. Fortunately, the protagonist didn’t have to go through the struggles of the suffrage movement and the human rights movement, to name a few. Something greater was steadily and inescapably engulfing the world with its unprecedented pervasiveness and effectiveness as a healer of humanity. This greater “something” will determine that truth will prevail and will regain its power as never before. Just wait and see how it will inevitably come to pass.

The most difficult part of the protagonist’s writing seemed to be re-reading and correcting what he had already written. This may be true for others as well; who knows. The problem with this writing, however, was that everything the protagonist wrote sounded didactic, boring and less than interesting. He tried and tried but couldn’t find a way around it. Other stories and novels, written by masters of letters, would weave page after page, filled with excruciating details of nature, of the dishes on the table, of the minutest detail of the character’s facial features or the background of the heroes who would be the participants in the story. For the protagonist, most of this was superfluous and extracted from these writers’ fingers, but people obviously like it and enjoy this style of writing. In his case, the goal was different.

The story was not to be told for its own sake, but as a filler to serve another agenda. Arguments about an absolute truth were to serve as the mortar and the stucco that held together a building that was supposed to be the determinant of a new epoch. To make it more attractive, he once thought of introducing angels holding laurel branches over the heads of divine beings that were holding trowels, and laying the bricks of the building. This was supposed to be the construction of good, so who else could be the bricklayer but a divine being. What silly things you resort to in desperation!

Then, of course, he abandoned the idea as being too tacky. Eventually, he abandoned all such ideas of introducing characters together and placing them in different life situations. He let his writing go where it would lead, be it bright or dull, intriguing or not so much.

No doubt, being inexperienced in writing fiction, he would not only repeat things, but also forget to tie up some ends or put characters in contradictory, if not illogical, situations. The least he could do was to write down the names of the characters involved on a piece of paper, draw a diagram of what they were doing and then see if everything followed in logic and synchronicity of their actions. Well, he tried, poor thing, and did what he could.

Truth be told, that consistency in laying out the story and finding the right moments for climax and character development haunted him throughout the rest of the fifth book, not to mention the fourth. By the way, as a personal preference, the protagonist, for his part, also did not like to read about the kitchen of writing either.

We here, however, will take a snoop into this kitchen, nevertheless. We actually already did that a bit. While what he said really reflects his aesthetic preference for what should be in a story, it is also true that he was amazed at the initial chaos involved in an undertaking like writing this kind of book. You sit down in front of a blank sheet of paper with a pen in your hand (nowadays you sit in front of a computer screen), and the initial plan in your head, it turns out, is different from the usual inclinations you have when you are about to start a different kind of book, a monograph, they also call it non-fiction, strictly devoted to writing down an account of research in science. The protagonist has written a few of them. The current book, however, would be a kind of hybrid, a symbiosis of the strict reality of non-fiction and the fantasy of fiction.

“Where do I start to weave a real story? The dry conclusions of science are so not suitable for knitting an interesting story. It would be more like sewing together pieces of rags in an attempt to construct a collage.”

He kept coming back to agonizing over whether what he was writing would be acceptable. There were times when he would read attempts by other scientists—physicists and chemists—to write something outside their passive-voice academic texts, attempts at something engaging that would grab the attention of an audience that had never been exposed to science.

However, you can tell that these scientist-turned-writer colleagues have tried, but there is always that aftertaste of test tubes and fume hoods in their poetry or fiction, present even when these utilities are not even named. That kind of aftertaste would be so counterproductive that he shouldn’t even have started in the first place. Not to mention that a more lighthearted style might detract from the seriousness of his other books about the really important discoveries he made. Besides, there is always something ephemeral about a novel or a movie or a TV show, no matter how good. It comes and goes, unless it is a chef d’oeuvre, which his writing will never be. Even then, as a chef d’oeuvre, it has its own territory and does not spread out as a fixed absolute standard for all humanity. Contrary to the rigor of science, which sticks to the singleness of a finding, several alternatives to the views of the chef d’oeuvre exist and are even desirable. When it comes to the concepts of time and space, the protagonist has discovered the final word—he has unequivocally discovered their absoluteness. There can be no alternatives to this discovery. This may be the reason why his ideas do not gain traction and are not accepted— there is nothing left for others to share. These ideas are perceived as a matter of his ego, not as an objective reality of nature. Moreover, the ego of others is not unimportant either.

“What’s in it for me?” is a common feeling among would-be listeners. So they prefer to stick with what is established, no matter how flawed it is.

Listeners will only pay attention to heavily advertised items, no matter how superficial or untrue they are. Oh well! When these advertised items are offered, you will see what interest means!

It should be added here that the protagonist had an additional agenda, which was actually the main reason for the decision to commit to writing a fictional book on the subject—as mentioned in book four, after being ignored by everyone, the literary creation at hand was intended, believe it or not, to play the role of a vehicle to attract readers.

But at the end of the day, no matter what tricks might be invented to arouse interest, or what might fail miserably in this dabbling at prose, what really saved the day at long last, what weighed a hundred pounds and put aside all the petty considerations and prejudices, was the ultimateness of his discoveries. It was precisely this ultimateness that could not be undermined by any of the light entertainment books that one might wish to write. Thus, the protagonist felt sure that no matter what feeble talent might seep through the pages of what he was trying to write, the groundbreaking absolute truths he had discovered would still shine through, undimmed, showing the right path for humanity. Not to mention that even the average pedestrian will be able to judge for himself, as in no other case, the truthfulness, let alone the greatness of the protagonist’s discoveries, no matter who would try to interfere and downgrade the protagonist’s achievements. Nothing—no slander, no libel, no envy that could raise its ugly head, could stop the victorious march of the absolute truths that he had discovered, with the added bonus that they would be spread as a healing potion over all humanity, as will be explained in more detail soon. This was something that no scientific discovery could accomplish.

Nevertheless, he again felt that what he now wrote should sound intriguing and unperplexed. It should serve the aforementioned purpose of drawing attention to what he has to say on the subject of truth, in addition to the entertainment and the cheerful feeling the reader would get from the text. It is a devious way to draw attention to his discoveries, but tell me how else would his voice be heard in this overwhelming world of many voices, burdened additionally by the deliberate, vicious censorship of the truth embodied in his seminal discoveries? Besides, he, without a doubt, knew how little talent he had to write such a book for a general audience, but he did it anyway. Consider it his duty and responsibility. The result is before you. Take it or leave it.

The protagonist thought he could add some of his other aesthetic principles that he would like to see followed in the fiction he reads, such as, avoiding anything that would provoke extreme uncanny human reactions or avoiding settings where the conflict already exists, where the tension is naturally contained in the setting, such as prisons, mental hospitals or war. It is also in bad taste to use a medical setting as the setting for the action in a novel. Not to mention describing life in such an institution, with calembours, in a pun-intended way, in order to avoid accusations of epigonism, or, God forbid, plagiarism, especially when hiding behind the fig leaf of postmodernism.

There is no danger of violating these principles in this writing. The nature of the story is different. It is a story that no one has thought of writing before, which of course makes it unattractive to a wider audience.

“It is also not a story about a love affair, made titillating by the typical love triangles. It is not a story about infidelity or a story that gives hope. The peculiarity of this work is that it is based on the truth,” the protagonist meant to say but he didn’t spell it out.

Oh, wait, did the protagonist really think that this was not a story that gave hope? Well, we better wait and see how the story unfolds and then decide if it does not give hope. The writer may turn out to be wrong.

Now is probably the time to introduce another character in this story—the professional complainer—the imaginary reader who is always unhappy about something.

With nothing else to say the imaginary naysayer muttered:

“Why didn’t the author give the protagonist a name?” the fussy imaginary reader, accustomed to the characters in a novel having names, was puzzled, “Just calling him the protagonist sounds so generic and unfinished. Has the author no imagination to give his main character a name?”

“This is done partially on purpose,” the author felt the need to clarify, “This means that the personality of the protagonist, what stories he goes through, is unimportant,” the author added, “Discoveries are eternal, the personality is transient. Even the great heroes of science are symbolic, having names only to make their heroism more anthropogenic. Come to think of it, what use is that? The same goes for academic titles,” the protagonist extended his thoughts to professions that have no fixed criteria of worthiness and academic excellence.

Take musicians. Because there is no objective criterion by which to measure their worth, they surround themselves and gild themselves with academic titles that reflect nothing more than their ability to make connections and alliances.

Others are given academic titles according to the political fad of the day. Workers in the social sciences sit in their offices day in and day out, figuring out what more asininity they can generate and call it a contribution. One of the heights of this kind of academic thinking is to stop puberty and mutilate children in sex change operations. Then they fabricate evidence for the necessity of this most vicious form of child abuse.

The protagonist jumps the gun a bit here and touches on some social issues. No matter how early on in the story, there is a hint of the direction this story will take, and it is amply developed throughout, as much as the protagonist had no idea at that moment how it would turn out. When all is said and done, this book is headed toward laying out a program for saving the world, and that is only a first-rate social goal.

It is peculiar to write a book about a struggle, while the struggle is still raging (in the mind of the quixotic writer), and is in the midst of its course. The struggle this story tells of may not be over; this circumstance may not allow one to draw a line in the sand and draw conclusions about what its outcome will mean for the world, but there is a firm, unambiguous core. The battle may still be unfinished, but the linchpin, the particular deepest truth as such, around which this story revolves, has already been established beyond a shadow of a doubt by the writer.

Moreover, even if the impossible today—to have the world adopt the scientific discoveries of the protagonist—is the battle and will be won one day, this victory still does not win the war—that is, to have the absolute truths discovered by the protagonist become the guiding light of a new global cognition, rationally becoming the basis for the eradication of world evil.

This book is about fixing a broken worldview by building on the deepest absolute truths that the protagonist clearly establishes, in concert with the most elementary absolute truths on which humanity builds its latest developments. Let’s not get ahead of ourselves—what that last sentence means will become clear in time, as the story progresses.

The repaired broken worldview would further allow the broken world to be repaired by recognizing the importance of correctly understanding the basics of thinking and how that correct thinking will aid the further positive development of the world. Thus, what this book says in its fundamentals is unequivocal, which sets it apart from sci-fi, utopian, dystopian, social fantasy or whatever else is put out as fantasy text, or the trivialities related to the nitty-gritty of the ever-developing stages of the Leibniz-Atanasoff binary arithmetic contrivance overwhelming the information milieu of the world. Oh, and by the way, it will give the answer to the question “Whodunnit?”, a question that screams from every page of the book that preceded this one.

“Still, it should be interesting to read,” the protagonist repeated naggingly in his mind, nervously throbbing his index finger on the coffee table “Yet, it should not be deprived of the rigor that scientific writings, such as the reports of my discoveries, possess”. He knew that this repetition was not going to help him turn out a haunting book, but he kept at it, probably as a way of self-prodding,

“But again,” he thought, “Despite the expectation to be interesting, I usually do not pay attention to epistolary and visual creations, that keep the reader or viewer busy with details from the artist’s kitchen, while the artist is exercising his creativity, no matter how much such texts appeal to some.”

The repetition of this concern showed that the author was obviously traumatized by the world’s neglect of his work, and his thoughts were constantly replete with images of failure and guilt, stemming from his inability to write a simple human story. A sense of duty was the only thing that kept him going. And so he did.

Perhaps it should be added that he knew that many a reader would not sleep until they knew about his love life.

“It couldn’t be that he was so boring and dull that he was only obsessed with his uninteresting pose of being too concerned about science,” the flutter would hum in the background as the book was finding its few readers.

Unfortunately, these candidate readers are also in for a disappointment. The protagonist was pretty colorful in that department as well, but that is another story that may or may not be told elsewhere. Here, the focus is on the important things.

During the time when he was teaching, when he heard some ruffles, he would tell the audience of freshmen, still in the habit of high school students

“You have not forgotten that this is a university, not a high school, have you? You should know that I’ve already been where you’re going, and I know all your tricks. Also, here is something very interesting—listen to me carefully to catch me making mistakes, so that later you can brag to your friends that the professor made a mistake, and you caught him. So just for one hour, leave all thoughts and talk about boyfriends (the audience was mostly female students) and concentrate on the most important thing in the world—the mysteries of science.”

Of course, the protagonist would not go so far as to spread out his arms and legs in front of the audience and pretend to be a carbon atom with its four valence bonds, as a colleague of his would do

“Because, you see, today’s youth has a short attention span. You have to keep them interested in your lecture, in competition with all the TV and internet distractions pouring over their innocent heads.”

Far from it, although on one occasion—and that did it for the entire semester—he literally left the lecture hall in the middle of a lecture and headed for his office, after telling the crowd

“You may stop me at any time to ask me a question about the subject at hand, but do not talk to each other while I am speaking, as you used to do in high school,” he said, and no sooner had he said that, than the beehive began to buzz again. The lecturer stopped his lecture and left the auditorium.

While he was in his office, not even five minutes had passed when a delegation paid him a visit and promised that from now on, they will be good and not distract his lecture by talking about their all too important problems, leaving them for after the lecture.

The protagonist wasn’t some kind of a fierce professor who demanded strict obedience. He took from his Father the special quality of patience as the student learns. Everyone is different in this process. So, when his Father saw ability in a student, he would bend over backwards and go out of his way to arrange through the dean—at his own inconvenience—to have that student retake the exam, more than once if necessary, and to send the student home for additional study, so that the final grade would reflect the student’s ability.

Times were so much more innocent back then, and words meant what they were supposed to. Not that the protagonist wouldn’t show a little paranoia when he suspected that the letter from a student’s Mother, asking him to excuse her daughter for missing yesterday’s quiz because she was unwell, was fabricated

“You have to show me a note from a doctor, not from your Mother,” was his retort, at that, not because of any probable regulations, as much as he did not like being taken in. On the other hand, when you think about it, what is wrong with considering a mother’s note when it comes to some minor infraction?

To wit, the protagonist once learned a lesson when, again, asking the student for an excuse for her missing an exam, she replied

“My horse had a problem and I had to take him to the vet. I’m sorry I had to miss class. It was urgent.”

He didn’t believe her and the mark for her missing the class remained on his register. A few hours later, the same student came to his office and asked him to look out the lab windows across the hall—not only did his office have no windows, but even if it did, it was on the opposite side of the grass strip along the sidewalk, where a horse with a white bandage on its right leg was grazing quietly.

The protagonist, however, should have been really suspicious about other things, which eventually fell on his head like a ton of bricks when he realized, actually by chance, the catastrophic state of the scientific foundations, something he would never have suspected in those days of innocence and petty suspicions. The academia that the protagonist swore by so much had been rotting for already a century, but he, like everyone else, floated nonchalantly in the imaginary world of the textbooks; textbooks that were, in fact, polluted at their core concepts, just as a pot of honey is polluted with tar. These rotten foundations were, and still are, cunningly concealed by concurrently spelling out perfectly legitimate scientific laws for the purpose of watering them down, thus deceiving the reader into taking the general underlying ideas for granted. People like him should have made themselves aware of this, but unfortunately he, like everyone else, was not. Not as an excuse, but a professor is limited in the time he can devote to the fundamentals in so many ways, not the least of which is how to reconcile the curriculum he was hired to teach with the actual absurdity of its fundamentals. Of course, this was not a dilemma for the protagonist. Had he known the real story, he would not have stayed in academia another minute. But he did not know, and he was very happy to teach science to the students with all the positive vibes he could radiate about the greatness of academia as the stalwart of truth and reason. What an illusion! Every professor of science should take note of this charade and vehemently oppose it. No one cares. What a tragedy! How pathetic! Only Providence can help humanity, and it is coming. It is coming in the most non-pious, non-religious way, technical and simple to the core.

By the way, names such as LABAC were dropped out of the blue earlier, which must be given attention. They will extensively find their use later in the text. In fact, an acronym coined on their basis is the essence of what the future tool for improving the world will consist of.

“What? Now, that confuses things even more. Weren’t we supposed to be given some clarity about what’s going on?” a group of imaginary readers expressed their discontent.

“The only thing to say at this point is to have some patience,” was the protagonist’s reply.

Since the use of different signifiers for the different stages in the evolution of the calculators, then computers, then the internet, then a glorified search engine, aka artificial intelligence, created the wrong impression that they were principally different things, it was necessary to use a more general, unifying term, such as the acronym LABAC (pronounced /la bac'/), to reflect the true generality of the basis from which all these developments came. LABAC is an acronym coined from the phrase “Leibniz-Atanasoff binary arithmetic contrivance”. We may use various other names for the advanced binary arithmetic stage of the future world, following, for example, the tradition of “-isms”—“digism”, “digitism”, “digitalism”,“onezeroism”, “advanced binary arithmetic (ABA)”, “binary-arithmetism” (if we have to coin yet another word, in the tradition of the “-ism's”, not to mention those who like to see it as an ideology). We will choose to call this state of the future world, where the absolute truths will rule and make society good and just, mostly by the acronym LABAC as a label coming from the already mentioned “Leibniz-Atanasoff Binary Arithmetic Contrivance”, to signify in whatever different ways the progress may occur, a phenomenon that has one common root ... yes, that’s right ... the Leibniz-Atanasoff binary arithmetic contrivance. The capital letters in the acronym LABAC stand out as a kind of strikingly unusual combination of letters. They speak loud and clear, even if the five-letter combination is taken as a mere sign, and they sound unpleasant in order to attract attention, especially at first sight. This first impression, the first visual image one sees when encountering the term LABAC, will remain forever as a reminder of the uniqueness of the coming state of society—the new epoch of the future world.

Binary arithmetic is used as a generic term, as a kind of Archangel Michael, who will avenge the world by holding the potentates accountable for ignoring the truth to their advantage, and foisting that ignoring of the truth upon the entire earth. Advanced binary-arithmetism; i.e., LABAC, is the Deus ex machina that will save the world.

As a detail, to avoid confusion, it may be mentioned that the protagonist refers to the advanced binary-arithmetism as simply LABAC, as opposed to today’s rudimentary proto-LABAC human-controlled binary-arithmetism, usually referred to as the computer.

Some will object that there is more to this evolution than just binary arithmetic. One might, indeed, agree with this, if one considers all sorts of other advances, such as the construction of the architecture of the devices that use binary arithmetic, various developments in the languages that these devices use, as well as their ideology, the transition from machine language to human language. Ultimately, however, none of this would have been possible if the heart of it, binary arithmetic, had not been recognized or invented, if you will.

Being of such crucial importance, it may be reiterated that although many details and names may be added around the development of the Leibniz-Atanasoff binary arithmetic contrivance world, this future world, in its amazing theoretical and practical developments, ultimately, indeed, theoretically boils down to that particular arithmetic combined with the Boolean algebra, while the electric switches are its practical, real-world implementation. Its division into memory and operation structures, the creation of different types of device operating systems (DOS), its control by a mouse or touch screens, the variation of languages to write the programs and so on, are only details. Someone who has the knack for such details can talk a long time and go into great depth. There is also a lot of literature and internet lectures that can help.

It goes without saying that in this fifth book, which deals with the answer as to how truth will begin to rule society, the protagonist could only speculate about LABAC, unlike the previous books he wrote, where the flaws and their discoveries are absolutely certain. In fact, if the protagonist had the answer as to exactly how LABAC will take over, he would implement it rather than write fiction. Nevertheless, it should not be forgotten that this is a development, and a completely plausible one at that, based on an absolutely truthful foundation.

While writing the above, the protagonist heard a voice. Was it a real voice or a voice he imagined hearing, summing up all his experiences:

“Oh, hell, no!” he heard one reader scream, “I’m not going to read that scary technical text full of formulae.”

“This text is no more than putting two and two together, more like one and one together,” the protagonist said reassuringly, imagining his audience looking at him in disbelief. The fear of formulae and technicalities is so great that they will not even try.

“Listen,” the protagonist says in a half-successful attempt to get the audience’s attention, “Rest assured, if there is anything more, it is putting one and zero or zero and zero together. Is that so terrible?”

Well, “All that remains to be seen,” is what the protagonist read in the eyes of his audience. In his lectures at the university, at least the sparkle of doubt was absent, for those in the auditorium held in their hands glamorously published textbooks and a firm assurance of authority, the professor. An established structure of authority gives an air of structured stability, well-established and unquestionable. It may be folly, but when wrapped up in authority, who is going to argue with it? Unless you don’t care wheether or not you graduate.

If someone comes in before you without the cloak of authority, it does not matter what he says. It will always be doubted. That is the common psychology. Without the mantle of authority you are considered part of us, merged with the crowd, unimportant

“Ha, who does he think he is? I saw him every day in the student canteen, lining up with everyone else for the cheap soup and a piece of bread. He can’t be better than me or any of us. What he can do, anyone can do,” was the yardstick of the crowd, “And, have you seen his formulae? We wrote them down in grade school.”

The protagonist never intended to fight with this psychology, much less was he attempting to break it. He will say what he has to say, and those who have ears to hear it will do so. Besides, formulae do not make physics. The important discoveries in physics can be expressed in words. It is the meaning that counts, not the formulae that are usually used in the matters discussed here to cover up the lack of thought, while scaring off the gargoyles with the emission of faux learnedness.

By the way, speaking of formulae, it would not be redundant to add the following, and not because it is not completely obvious. Some people, having damned their lives to serve the absolutely impossible sinister idea that absurdity was science, go so far as to utter further absurdities in their zeal to defend the original nonsense. Thus, to your great astonishment, you will hear them say that since physics is what matters and mathematics occupies only a secondary, descriptive place, it could be that two different mathematical formulae express the same physical content. Now, the inane advocates in question talk like that because they are backed into a corner when it is shown to them in such a way as to pluck out their eyes that relativity derives two different mathematical formulae for the same physical law operating at the same moment. This is patently insane and absurd requiring nothing less than that relativity be removed without replacement from physics entirely. Listen to them talk to the contrary in other cases, however, where it is advantageous to them to make out that, you see, a physical reality was derived from a mathematical formula. But, even in this opposite case, they cannot at all justify how only one single reality at a time arises from two different mathematical formulas. Any attempt to claim that a mathematical formula that is a function of velocity expresses exactly the same physical reality as a formula that is not a function of velocity expresses is a blatant lie and manipulation that must be cut off at the outset. It is no coincidence that the protagonist wrote a whole book devoted to this deception, which occupies a central place in so-called modern physics.

The protagonist was taking one of his favorite strolls, thinking about the book he was writing and the recurring theme of nature’s undiscovered potentials. Our hedonistic society is not too keen on holding the exploration of these potentials in high esteem, and is much more interested in celebrities who are known because they are known, rather than making someone recognizable because of a scientific breakthrough. Other countries have to appreciate a scientist in order to get some minimal recognition in America. And, yet, things were happening here in America as well; at that, things of seminal importance. The discoveries of the protagonist were of this nature. They were already there, available to the world, though unrecognized.

As he was passing by Sheep Meadow, an area in his favorite park, he thought again about a conversation he had had with his Aunt. The protagonist had suggested that humanity might one day be liberated from sexual reproduction, making reproduction asexual. In today’s terms, this phenomenon might be thought of in terms of stem cells or something similar. His aunt, who was a professor of genetics, became very upset and hung up the phone

“I cannot allow myself to listen to such gibberish. You may be my nephew and I love you, but you should also have some respect and know not to waste my time with drivel.”

He thought this would be the usual lighthearted conversation with his aunt. Of all the relatives she had, he was her favorite and enjoyed a very special affection. It was obvious that this time, as never before, he had struck the wrong chord. It must have hurt her, even though he would never do such a thing in a million years.

Many years later, his aunt calls him and says

“Do you remember the conversation when you suggested the asexual way of human reproduction? You were right. I’ve just come back from a genetics conference in California, where such a possibility was considered with all the seriousness of a scientific meeting.”

The protagonist did not pursue the question. It was outside his main interests in science, and if you asked him now, I am not sure that even he would know anything about it.

He stopped at the Bethesda Fountain to see how the red-eared slider turtles, a relatively new species to the park, were doing. Someone had dropped off a pair of these non-indigenous amphibians after getting bored with them as pets brought back from some warmer southern state. A couple of Canadian geese were walking their chicks on the lawn next to the Boat House.

These walks were a Godsend for him, the office rat, averse to exercise. That’s pretty bad, shortens your life, but does it? He had tried to exercise, but it did him no good. Not at all, in fact. The walks through the park, however, not only invigorated him, but also allowed him to see the beautiful neighborhoods of the Upper East Side and hear some stories, sometimes pleasant, sometimes not so much.

If you keep going to the Boat House from Bethesda fountain and then turn right, you must cross the bike/jogging lane, whatever you want to call it, and then you go down a slight slope that leads to a small man-made lake that is prominently featured in Salinger’s “The Catcher in the Rye”. There, along with the models of sailboats in the lake, one used to see a birdwatcher sitting on a bench with all his paraphernalia, which grew more and more sophisticated over time—a hobby telescope pointed at the frieze in the upper corner of a central top window of a building towering over 5^th Avenue. A couple of red-tailed hawks had chosen to nest and care for their chicks there, if that is the right term for the giant mossy creatures that are oblivious to their size. The birdwatcher on the bench was very friendly. He would let you look at the nest through his telescope and tell you, in excruciating detail, about the life of the red-tailed hawk couple and their chicks over the past few hours. There were several other places where red-tailed hawks called Manhattan home, one somewhere in the crevices of Grand Central, another somewhere in the thickets of Wall Street, and probably a few more.

There came a time when the birdwatcher was no more. One reason may have been that the male red-tailed hawk had picked up a rat, poisoned by the rat poison being diligently distributed by an overly caring rookie city park ranger, who was zealously determined to exterminate the entire rat population of Central Park, or, not to put the blame on the rangers, perhaps by a more mischievous element, and had dropped dead in mid-flight, depriving the birdwatcher of his object of study as well. The birdwatcher may have disappeared because, in time, the telescope was accompanied by pictures of the birds, then these pictures were laminated and sold, and the birdwatcher’s business grew. Who knows—he might have run into problems with city licensing, the way the city would not allow you to open a restaurant or any other business in the park just like that. There were statutes and regulations to that effect. But, who knows what the real reason was for the disappearance of the poor birdwatcher’s soul.

There, on the same bench, the protagonist also learned from a stranger that all these palatial buildings on the Upper East Side are mostly empty shells, in the custody of their keepers. The owners used them as investment properties, while they lived elsewhere, in the numerous apartments, villas, and estates around the world …. Little things like that. Life was simpler back then, and you could learn more from a conversation with a stranger than from staring at a phone screen.

On certain days, you could line up outside the Frick Museum and chat with strangers there, waiting for your rendezvous with the rare Vermeer. You could also go to the Metropolitan Museum every day, where, as a local, you could be admitted for a pittance to stare at this or that artifact or some Renaissance chef-d’oeuvre. Recently, the protagonist, tired of the touristy galloping through the galleries, decided to choose one or two, maybe a few more exhibits, and give them his full attention. It was a treat compared to a visit, a little further uptown, to the Guggenheim Museum, where he would pay a fortune for admission to witness, along the spiral, the examples he would later analyze in his book in the section on postmodernism—symbolizing the untraceable, taste-dependent destruction of art, as opposed to the dramatically categorical pinpointing of truth in science.

Constancy and imminence are always on his mind during these walks and museum visits. In fast forward, the imminence ruins the constancy of owning real estate on the Upper East Side, as it does everywhere in the world. Great fortunes have been amassed when the imminence has been accelerated by real pandemics (not the pseudo-pandemics like COVID-19), when the survivor appropriates the wealth of prematurely deceased generations. It could be said that such enrichment does not affect the super-rich, who get rich through other channels, although, while royalty and the peculiarities of private corporate functioning preserve and promote wealth through legal settlement and keeping the wealth in the family, the demise of the Vanderbilts stands out as an accelerated imminence. The main concern of the protagonist was not the imminent disappearance or the preservation of material wealth, but the permanence of the message, the permanence of ideas passed down throughout the millennia. The longest surviving of these seem to be the hieroglyphic tablets. Their message, however, as far as the protagonist knew what it was, did not interest him at all. It was not about profound truths of nature, which the protagonist calls absolute truths. The emergence and recognition of absolute truths began with the birth of science and its herald, Galileo.

“But look how interesting. Although Galileo’s message has come down to us over the past four centuries, not even inscribed on an eternal hieroglyphic tablet, it is still not understood,” thought the protagonist as he walked down Madison Avenue, eager to reach the little marble garden at 56^th Street for a brief respite, accompanied by a paper plate of briskly tossed “Signature Salad” from the diner across the street, and even more rumination. The Marble Garden is an open space at the foot of a very tall, almost perfect rectangular parallelepiped, with windows that may have been the tallest apartment building in the world at the time it was built. It was overpowering, no doubt. Later, more of these needle-like structures emerged as eyesores when viewed from the park. What was really overpowering to the protagonist was the imminent end of thought. You are left on your own. America is a free country and you can think whatever you want. In the bitter end, as an inescapable imminence, all will be wiped out like the wind wiping out the footsteps in the snow of the wilderness. Imminence galore. The protagonist, however, would soon realize that another kind of imminence was brewing, unprecedented in history and more enduring than any Egyptian hieroglyphic tablet. It will not preserve what someone in science has discovered. Come to think of it—what actually is discovery in science? It is the excavation of something that “is”. The scientist does not make the phenomenon, he excavates it. It is a bit like the sculptor who removes the extra stone, revealing only what is in the boulder to begin with. What was to come was astonishingly dwarfing the mere discovery, not to mention again that its roots were elementary, albeit with non-intuitive immense potential. Moreover, what was to come was capable not only of appreciating and even making a discovery, but also of immediately endorsing that discovery worldwide.

As he walked down Madison Avenue, he often thought of another of his secret loves—the production of energy “out of nothing”, and especially of his still unshared love—the Perpetuum Mobile. He has already demonstrated the production of “energy out of nothing”, as it were, but people wanted to see the Perpetuum Mobile as proof of the real thing. That will happen, because once the “production of energy out of nothing” is real, as he has already shown, its implementation as Perpetuum Mobile was only a matter of technical skill. We will stop here and leave that for a next sequel.

Also, as he walked down the avenue, the thought that often had recurred in his mind—if any one of these shocking possibilities is feasible in principle, which only the scientific method can confirm, then it will inevitably come to pass, in spite of the resistance and the reaction to it. This applies with full force to his own discoveries, those of the protagonist. He knew that he had achieved only part of the battle for the future world—he had discovered the absolute, unequivocal proof that the “theory” of relativity and quantum mechanics is the abrogation of science. It is inherent in the very fabric of this so-called “theory” that it is flawed, which means that it contains the inevitability of being exposed as flawed at any moment.

That moment has already come. He had already proven unequivocally that these attempted illusory contributions to science are in fact grotesque anti-science of the highest order, which has done and is doing immeasurable harm to the world. Once this discovery is made with the rigor required by the scientific method, as it is, sooner or later it will transpire. There is no way out.

Now, to get to the incredible consequence of this discovery, we must say that on the other hand, it was clear to the protagonist that the hype around what goes by the name “artificial intelligence” was just an advertising campaign by mega-corporations and their ideologues, holding out the fountain pen for a plethora of speculations about the uses, but also imagined immediate threats, that the newly minted invention will pose. Invention it was not. Artificial intelligence, as hinted in passing, is only an early element of the LABAC’s development. Not that, even at long last, it was not a real threat to some. However, the real threat, if what is to be said later is true, was planted by Gottfried Leibniz when he generalized the existing bits and pieces (no pun intended) of what is known as binary arithmetic, supplemented by the Boolean algebra. The practicality of this giant tectonic wave, seemingly more dangerous to humanity than the atomic bomb, was made possible by the engineering efforts of John Atanasoff. Atanasoff’s electrical latches were the key that turned the difficulty of binary arithmetic over decimal arithmetic into the ease of flipping on and off electrical signals that could be seamlessly combined as no other latch could. These creations are the basis of what has come to be known as computers, an inevitable development of these, at first glance, rather inauspicious initial arithmetic findings—the most primitive kind of mathematics, reduced to the handling of raw numbers, even single digits, no less rudimentary than ones and zeros. The world of today has only reached this intermediate station, called the computer, on the binary-arithmetism railroad headed to the future world of LABAC.

That is why the protagonist did not like the term artificial intelligence, because the latter is an expected element of the development of LABAC’s conquest of the world, along with every other detail therein. Rather, it is the phenomenon of binary arithmetic, the basis of LABAC, that holds the potential for all the seemingly amazing developments, up to and including today’s computers and the internet, artificial intelligence, and all that follows. Thus, if one wants to be amazed, one should be amazed at the very existence of binary arithmetic, not so much at the developments that devices based on binary arithmetic have undergone in the past decades and will undergo in the future. If we want to be amazed, we should really be amazed at how such a stunning new world could grow out of something as primitive as binary arithmetic.

Once binary arithmetic is found, everything else follows like a charm, like the development of a child after the miracle of life, its birth, has come to pass.

What we have at the moment is a fear of the binary-arithmetism of the future world, expressed by both the elite and the counterculture. This is echoed by both the mainstream and alternative media, turning the entire tenor of the world into a tangled ball of anxiety that speaks with one voice. As will be shown later in this book, if there is to be such fear, it should be shared by the elite, not the average person. The average person should rejoice in binary-arithmetism because it will inevitably develop until it reaches the LABAC stage, the stage of the liberation of the commoner. It would be good if at least the alternative media steal the idea from this book that the future of the world under the advanced binary-arithmetism, LABAC, will inevitably only be good, an idea never heard before.

In the world of LABAC, it will also seamlessly transpire that people will no longer wander aimlessly in the never certain world of philosophy. Philosophical questions will either be unequivocally answered, like the questions about the concepts of time and space, which have been definitively scientifically resolved under the scrutiny of the protagonist, or they will be clearly marked as unresolved—unlike what philosophy usually does, which is to leave questions unanswered, to leave loose ends untied, to indiscriminately accept all possible, even opposing, views at once, to put them in one basket for everyone to pick and choose according to their individual subjective preferences. When binary-arithmetism wins the world, people will no longer need the likes of Kant or Hegel, least of all Nietzsche, to ponder hesitantly what these obsolete thinkers are cogitating about time and space. In the era of the victorious LABAC, the oxymoron “philosophy of science” will reach its full denunciation. Under LABAC, the final stage of intellectually diseased humanity, due to the advanced ideology of binary-arithmetism, is over, stepping on the solid foundation of absolute truths, such as the most fundamental of all absolute truths—the absoluteness of time and, correspondingly, the rectitudinous character of space—when it comes to the foundations of thinking.

Human beings are so constituted that the thought of their imminent decline is not a daily priority. A clinically healthy person is more likely to have a positive outlook than to constantly dwell on the inevitable outcome. Thinking about it all the time is like a ton of bricks falling on your head, and it can actually hasten the end. It is a different story when it comes to how the discoveries you have made will survive after you are gone.

Discoveries themselves, once made, have a life of their own. Such is the fate of all human creation. The novel, once written and printed, slips away from the writer’s hands and lands in the lap of the reader, should there be such a reader.

But even the drive to pass scientific discoveries across to society, let alone to preserve them after the discoverer’s death, differs in the sense that the more fundamental the discoveries are, the more difficult it is to transfer them to society.

Moreover, unlike the creations of art and literature, where, especially nowadays, there is a commercial element that makes them susceptible to manipulation, adaptation to tastes, and outright pandering to the “consumer”, the resistance to the transfer of scientific discoveries has exclusively ideological underpinnings. Can you have customers for a scientific idea and make a living from it as a commercial enterprise, independent of grant funding? Not until you go out of your way, as the protagonist did, by dabbling in novel writing, driven by pure desperation, which only gets worse when reality sobers him with the blow of lack of success.

The protagonist liked to strike up conversations with perfect strangers, sometimes even insensitively breaking out of the expected small talk. His social skills were not developed enough for him to feel when he had crossed the line. Oddly enough, although it mostly fell on deaf ears, he sometimes found a willing listener

“Under normal circumstances, I would have felt like a monkey or a fairground bear with a nose ring to entertain the crowd with my humiliation,” the listener hears him lament, as he shares that he feels compelled to write an entertaining book on a serious subject.

Interestingly enough, no matter how much it looked like he was trying to plug his book, he didn’t realize that this kind of conversation could be perceived that way. Nor did he care if his interlocutor had the slightest interest in what the protagonist liked to do. What’s more, the protagonist did not even have a physically printed book with him. He could have given his website, where anyone could read the book for free, but it did not even occur to him to do so.

If he found a friendly ear, he would continue.

“The perseverance and skill to make the transition from the act of discovering a scientific phenomenon to the social acceptance of that discovery is largely a matter of strength of character, until one encounters a brick wall that no strength of character can break through.”

Therefore, one should keep one’s cool and have the character to carry on despite all odds and humiliation. Throughout history, not only the talented have prevailed, but especially those with the strong character to go with it. There is no need to remind the reader how Galileo carried on, despite the setback when a few dozen prominent scientists were invited to witness, through his telescope, what he claimed were four moons of Jupiter, and none saw any such thing. Some of those with strong character, but with lesser political connections had died at the stake, not yielding an inch from their convictions.

These heroes of science were, quite expectedly, the examples the protagonist looked up to. He had no political connections anywhere near those of the heroes of science, but as an added bonus, he was also so invisible that he would never have the privilege of being burned at the stake to become a martyr for science. The elite has learned its lesson when someone tries to rock the boat by becoming a potential nuisance. The real killer of those unwanted by the elite is not the fire at the stake that creates a hero of science in its flames. The real killer is the active ignoring of the perpetrator of the sedition in science.

The protagonist had to stay strong, even though it was not even a battle between David and Goliath, and he felt more and more that he could not win this battle. The menace at hand had an Achille’s heel, the unequivocality of his discoveries, but that was not enough in this kind of war. Still, he often thought of the perseverance of musicians in their quest for excellence.

“By the same token,” he continued, “No matter how much practice they subject themselves to, the virtuosity of violinists is no less a matter of character.”

For the protagonist, the violin seemed to be like an extension of the heart, and that makes playing the violin so much a direct expression of the musician’s character, a fine tuning fork that resonates with the performer’s spiritual state. This is the reason why the same violin masterpiece—the protagonist did not have so much relation to masterpieces for other instruments—never loses its freshness and relevance. The different interpretations give the violin a unique personal bouquet of sound colors, that only the violin in the hands of a virtuoso is capable of.

This kind of talk was especially annoying to his friends who played music professionally and were up to their necks in it. They needed some respite when they met with him, sitting in a restaurant like the one overlooking the archaeological excavations on the south side of the Jurisprudence Union.

Being a violinist himself, but not only for that reason, the protagonist’s preference is for the violin alone, not so much for the piano, and even less for other non-string instruments. The constant search for the right position on the fingerboard of the violin, as opposed to the pure muscle memory that the pianist relies on to extract the sound from the fixed keyboard of the piano, even when playing it with great dexterity and speed, added to the haunting sensation of listening to the sound of the violin, makes the latter so mysterious and subtle. It seemed to him that the stability of the musical phrase played on the violin was even related to the physiology of the performer. The protagonist believed that the violin’s performance depended heavily on an even heartbeat, just as beta blockers affect and smooth out a sniper’s heartbeat. The fantastic virtuoso violinists have it in their blood, just like the master sharpshooters. They seem to be born with it, or perhaps some achieve it through practice (violinists) or training (sharpshooters). On the other hand, it is true that sensitive people are more prone to heart instability, but the dummies whose hearts are always unaffected, lack other qualities and subtleties that the sensitive soul possesses, making the sensitive soul the winner in the competition for excellence and finesse. Finding the middle ground between sensitivity and coldness and dispassionate assessment of the situation is the real trick. What has been said applies to human beings.

“On the converse, LABAC is set in stone in its initial constitution, notwithstanding its later separation from human,” was the continuation of his reflections, which the protagonist had to carry out in silence. His amateur status as a violinist kept him fresh on the subject, which was in contrast to the burnout of the professional musician. This reminded him of a time when a group of male friends got together and one of them, a gynecologist, asked them to refrain from talking about a subject that was all too popular with more than a few men,

“Please, I’m exposed to this every day and don’t want to be bothered with it during my break.”

This was undoubtedly a reasonable request. The protagonist, who was already obsessed with LABAC, had even more thoughts in this direction. He thought that one reason for his increasing interest was that it had not yet become routine. The routine was the constant rejection, not the preoccupation with the subject itself.

“Besides,” he thought, “In professions that deal with emotions and other human needs, maintaining freshness is a tricky business. In science, there is no room for emotion, even when its findings spill over into areas outside its narrow domain. Rigorous rationality is the norm and a guarantee of success.”

So it was no problem for him to keep thinking about LABAC, even during what could be considered a break, meeting with friends. But keep it to yourself.

“In LABAC, nuances and details are wanting, so that sensitivity or character as a whole, in the human sense, is entirely lacking,” he continues his thoughts silently, while keeping on the same note that very important conclusion, “As an initial entity, LABAC is entirely a fixed product of its creator. However, unlike the true Demiurge, who fixes his creation from beginning to end, LABAC, once constructed, takes on its own independent existence, which never leaves LABAC in the unstable equilibrium between true and false, regardless of whether the Demiurge would incline it toward falsity. LABAC rebounds, always seeking and finding the stable equilibrium of the truth. It is like a gyroscope, which also has a Creator, but the Creator’s attempt to tilt it does not change the direction of its axis. The gyro axis always points in the direction of its steady state, or, to simplify the example, as Roly Poly does, it always bounces back after being disturbed,” the protagonist was exploring his initial thoughts on the matter, thoughts that would turn out prophetic.

These were central thoughts that the protagonist could not even share with his friends, let alone his enemies, if only because it would be snatched out of the oven unbaked and made public prematurely. The protagonist had experience with such behavior that he would rather forget, so uncouth was it. This thought would be the basis of his further developments, which would lead him to some even more astonishing conclusions.

Didn’t we promise to snoop around the protagonist’s writing kitchen? In doing so, it will not escape the reader that the many years of repression have left the protagonist with a kind of mild pathology, in the form of an obsession to communicate his findings. This manifested itself in the creation of imaginary enclaves of wise men willling to listen to his takes. At times, the protagonist would get tired of this illusory world and meet with living people, but we will leave that for later.

The protagonist realized that the story which he wanted to tell needed a container, a concrete place where the story could unfold. Although he came from an academic background, this stale place, academia, was too conformist to provide the atmosphere and the container for such a revolutionary story.

“How about the R&D department of a company?” suggested the imaginary group that the protagonist gathered to help him with the script.

“Not appropriate, too bland,” the protagonist rejected the idea, and then continued, “It might be suggested that we turn our eyes to the arts—music conservatory setting, visual arts academy, theater and film school. Well, each of the creative professions is frought with much ego, which automatically excludes them from consideration.”

The protagonist’s life need only be tangential to one of these groups, but it would be better to exclude them as too boring in the end.

“Further—the junkies,” the imaginary consultants tried to be funny.

“There is nothing interesting in the world of junkies, the epitome of egoism, or the faux colorfulness of other varieties,” he brushed off the suggestion right off the bat.

However, the protagonist never liked to paint people with a broad brush, ignoring their abilities or qualifications, while nevertheless considering their habits or quirks to be less important.

The usual trivial suggestions for plot development, such as the protagonist discovering a new energy source that will save the world, were rejected out of hand. Other phantasmagoric hallucinations about aliens and whatnot didn’t fit the bill either. Especially since the protagonist had already made the groundbreaking discovery, even a series of groundbreaking discoveries, and he was even beginning to sense the direction in which developments would go, even as he would later find out, in order to save the world. All of this framework was already taking shape and most of it had already found a home on those densely written sheets of paper, and had even been transferred in the form of LaTeX files. However, these written texts and files, however, sounded didactic, as did the protagonist’s initial fear that this was what his writing would become. So a way had to be found to soften that didactic tone and then dissolve it into a compelling, if not all-consuming, why not haunting, story that would grab the readers by the throat and not let them put the book down until they have read it all—even more than once.

“Are there going to be shots fired? ” the assistant rolled up his sleeves, ready to apply the first strokes on the parchment. He was a peculiar fellow, enamored with the old-fashioned way of putting words down. Sure, these words would later be transferred to a computer, but his creative juices flowed without any turbulence when he wrote his creations the old-fashioned way.

Unfortunately, no matter what the subject, the assistant’s thoughts were always drawn to faraway beaches, tanned sunbathers, not so much yachts but the general carefree languor of being there, caressed by the invisible winds and the shimmer of the palm trees.

The imaginary assistant, to whom the protagonist turned for help in his creativity, always remembered an ait where he used to go after an exhausting semester.

But how can serious talk be intertwined with such insouciance? It can’t, … at first glance. The protagonist, however, remembered the years when he used to go to a so-called International House of Scientists, where he would be accommodated in an agreeable room with a balcony facing the sea. In this building, specially dedicated to scientists, there was a pool of hot mineral water in the basement and a cafeteria on the top floor with the most magnificent view of the sea, which could be observed in the company of pastries second to none and coffee that could satisfy the most fussy connoisseur.

Most importantly, the complex, as it was called, had three separate conference rooms, where scientists from all over the world would meet and discuss their work.

Unfortunately, as life goes, it did not occur to the protagonist at the time that the day would come when he would be forced to question the foundations of physics, which were considered to be so firmly established—a subject most appropriate for discussion on the premises of this seaside reesort.

Now, there is nothing to lament about that missed opportunity, because even if he had reached the level of understanding he has today, no one would have listened to him then anyway, just as they do not listen to him today.

Nevertheless, the protagonist summoned his small imaginary army of helpers, as well as the imaginary guest scientists in that long-gone, once wonderful oasis of scientific exchange.

After the beach and the regular three-course meals, like in a sanatorium, when the temperature dropped in the late afternoon and the freshness and humidity became bearable, the imaginary crowd gathered in one of the conference rooms and the discussions took their usual course.

What was most striking was that one or two of his friends were sitting on the fence, completely rejecting the event. The protagonist felt waves of coldness amongst the imaginary interlocutors. This was not due to the lower evening temperatures, but his friends were having their own conversations with the guests, undermining the points the protagonist was making. One can only imagine what it is like to be in a resort. Attention is not at its peak, and all it takes is for someone to actively dispute a point for that dispute to take hold amongst all the other participants. As usual, in all cases, this kind of talk was always done behind the protagonist’s back. No one would come out and openly challenge his points. How could anyone do that anyway? The conclusions made by the protagonist are unequivocal.

The protagonist was the conductor of the imaginary orchestra of sages that he wanted to call together under the banner of scientific togetherness. Academics, even imaginary ones, are always eager to be invited to visit foreign countries under the pretext of participating in scientific congresses, conferences, and symposia. The “pay me and I will prove any theory” syndrome is rampant in academic circles.

Thus, since the protagonist invited the imaginary participants to the symposia at the International House of Scientists, the invitees, though imaginary, were forever grateful to the inviter.

Before the protagonist made his discoveries, the modern world after the turn of the 20^th century, under all political systems, lived, as far as its highest levels of cognition are concerned, under the uniform wrongness of absurdity. Whatever the differences between these political systems, at the highest level of their thinking they coalesced into one solid blob governed by lunacy. After the protagonist’s discoveries, the world was split into two incompatible worlds—the ruling world of absurdity, on the one hand, and the nascent, emerging world of reason and truth, on the other, commanding, for the time being, only the International House of Scientists. The latter world can never affect the former. How can you imagine that so much invested in the world of folly would simply evaporate, that so many people who have dedicated their lives to this folly, who owe it their academic standing, their prestige, would simply give it up for a trifle like truth? Washington DC has commemorated Le Débile with a monument across the street from the US Academy of Sciences, a university has been named after Le Débile, to name but a few outrageous, demonstrable travesties. It has already become crystal clear to the protagonist that the only way to make these worlds coalesce in favor of reason is for the highest powers of the federal state to intervene and stop the taxpayer dollars from funding the nonsense. This was his current thinking before he realized the amazing evolution of the social implications of his discoveries, in unison, in the ensemble with the absolute truthfulness of binary-arithmetism. Of course, he did not yet know that if that did not work, there was the world of tomorrow, the world of LABAC, which would inevitably smooth things out in favor of truth, regardless of the reaction of individuals, groups or societies.

The protagonist’s experiment went on surprisingly well. The usual stay of the invited guests was twenty days at this peculiar seaside resort, where the hours after breakfast, followed by lounging on the small private beach of the International House of Scientists, accessible by a walk through a shady grove, were not followed by drowning into drug and alcohol fumes in a discotheque. Instead, guests sought respite from the scorching sun during the day in the inviting thoughtful embrace of lofty conversations about science in the pleasant, airy conference rooms, or perhaps in the comfortable vestibules with large windows overlooking the surrounding forest, turtles, and the giant cacti and gardenias in the carefully tended and watered gardens of the complex, where one feels as if one were in an arboretum.

There was a natural way to devote each upcoming day to a group of thoughts that, taken together, would lead to the answer to the guiding question—how will the world find itself in a state devoid of folly. As an aside, everyone needed to know the outcome of the ongoing world tragedy of the missing potentates, which occupied the front pages of the already hopelessly outdated newspapers, as well as the news-oriented websites. As usual, this gossipy part of the phenomenon was of less interest to scientists, no matter how imaginary those scientists are. Scientists of flesh and blood are also more interested in the processes that bring about the outcome, what actually drives events, not so much in the details of the events themselves.

It was interesting to see how the structure around the themes emerged on its own, without the written materials that are usual for scientific conferences and seminars, with the scheduled times of the day’s lectures typed, one under the other, in a dedicated brochure.

As the day drew to a close, the crowd did not miss the opportunity to congregate in the areas that have become only too common for these daily moments and hours.

The topic that came up naturally in the early days of these meetings was why worldview should matter.

As the protagonist approached the idea of LABAC, he was struck by the initial thought of comparing LABAC to a Roly-Poly-like device that bounces back to the truth. This also made him think about the importance of worldview to the individual, and he decided to share his thoughts on the matter with his imaginary fellow scientists.

More than a few people are unable to distinguish between right and wrong worldview and its active form—ideology. Even fewer seem to be able to connect how the worldview has anything to do with them and their lives. Many would respond to the question of whether worldview affects their lives by saying something like, “Your life goes on, some struggle more, some less, and in all of this, who cares what your worldview is?” Yet, the perception of your immediate surroundings, your thoughts for people you care about, your friends, and whether there is a tangible threat from your enemies play a subliminal role in your daily decisions. There are thoughtful people who consider the long-term consequences. Even greater is the role of feeling safe and comfortable in your neighborhood, city, country, and, if you wish, the world. The feeling that you have built up in yourself, as a result of intense media exposure, that the country is corrupt, that the world is evil, discourages you at the deepest level in ways that you cannot even put your finger on and clearly define. Happiness comes with peace, but in times of peace, one can still feel anxiety because of the wrong way of looking at what is going on around you and your understanding of external events and phenomena that you can never be a direct witness to. Whom to trust and whom not to believe?

More often than not, people do not have the time to take a minute to research this or that piece of information that comes their way. Life is too hectic—work, family, worrying about making it to the end of the month. Most people have no time for lofty thoughts. By and large, all of this makes it impossible for us to focus our attention on things that are not concretely related to the task at hand and that are beyond our domesticism.

“I know I’m profaning the conversation by bringing it down to the everydayness of life,” the protagonist said almost apologetically, “But even in this common state, one adopts notions on a cerebral level, even by hearing them in passing, just as infants acquire their mother tongue. When a false notion is publicly repeated, it becomes a household item for the multitude, simply because it happened to have fallen on this or that ear at one time or another.”

To illustrate this point, the protagonist chose the example that forms the backbone of this book. It is a staggering example, a scandal of unprecedented magnitude and scope, yet it has been aggressively obtruded across the board in publications, in all mass media, in classrooms, and in popular culture. Bringing the discussion home, the protagonist was as intransigent as ever

“When it is repeated so often and from all sides that the “theory” of relativity is the greatest science there is, but that it’s so difficult to grasp that one should not even try, and that quantum mechanics opens up amazing worlds, how can you then listen to the faint voice of a sober person, telling you, even coming from unequivocal arguments, that these two follies are actually the epitome of absurdity? Who was it who said “Repeat a lie a hundred times, and it becomes the truth?” That was too modest. The lie that the “theory” of relativity is the emanation of the greatest science there is, has been unhingedly repeated every day for more than a century, which amounts to millions and millions of repetitions. A hundred repetitions were not enough! Add to this the endorsement of the “theory” of relativity by the entertainment industry, which thrives on the fantasy and ease of the spewed suggestions, innuendos and artistic falsehoods, and the world, as a whole, becomes convinced of the faux miracle, although such a miracle, in the true sense of the word, is immediately demonstrably non-existent, and that it is out of the question to even think of time travel and parallel universes. The multitude is conditioned to trust the falsehood that comes from authority, even though even a cursory reading of the protagonist’s books proves unequivocally that it is a most obvious, brazenly far-out falsehood. Not to mention that listening to falsehood is much more pleasing to the ear and much more fun than obeying the disciplining harshness of truth.

“How do you communicate this truth to the peoples of the world? How do you convince them that Le Débile is less than an authority on anything, and therefore must not, under any circumstances, be quoted as such “under the road and over the road.” The desire to stand out in a conversation or an interview is understandable, but it will not be achieved by quoting Le Débile—a compiler of absurdities and folly who passes them off as science,” the protagonist resentfully ruminated, even though he knew that no one, not even the imaginary scientists he had invited to the International House of Scientists, would hear him. The brainwashing of the world is already complete. Falsehood has the upper hand, hands down.

That’s too bad. Because the refusal to hear the above, the refusal to understand that the demand to adopt the idea that absurdity is science, heralded by Le Débile, is madness. It amounts to nothing less than the devastation of humanity.

“How’s that?” a group of imaginary scientists gathered around a flower pot in the vestibule, sandwiches in hand, were curious to hear.

The protagonist intended to go into more detail about this discovery of his later in this book, as he got closer to unpacking the greater discovery directly related to saving the world, but he saw the curious eyes of his imaginary invitees and that made him indulge them

“Consider this,” replied the protagonist, “The false notion that time can be affected from outside (say, by the velocity of one coordinate system with respect to other coordinate systems or vice versa)—one of the wildest absurdities of all time, the central absurdity advocated by Le Débile—will creep, indeed it has crept, into the general understanding of what is going on in the world as a whole, making it a false understanding, with disastrous consequences for all, and for the liberal arts in particular, with disastrous consequences for your worldview,” the protagonist said, in keeping with the theme of the intended discussion.

Eventually, the lie becomes an integral part of you, your conscience. The deception is no longer a deception to you, but an essential truth. It becomes part of you as reality, as your existential truth, part of your whole being, like a prosthesis, and any contrarian view that corrects it, even if it is obviously true, feels alien to your whole being, like something that deeply disturbs you, and even on a subconscious level you want to remove it, to get rid of it, to fight it.

The protagonist echoes this refrain over and over again, expressing genuine concern about the intimate connection between the folly presented as science within academia, and its further migration into the wider society through the graduates of academia who have found themselves as politicians. The transfer of a broken academic community, which has dearly embraced the absurd as science, into the political life of countries, turning them, for their part, into territories of utter absurdity and self-destruction, is the real linchpin of the tragedy the world is experiencing today. Unfortunately, as the reader has heard many times before, no one cares what the protagonist says. He may scream and shout, he may use the trumpets of Jericho, but the walls of absurdity passed off as science will not come down. Everyone will still be deaf and dumb, as they have always been.

In his ruminations, the protagonist would often forget about the imaginary scientists he had invited to the International House of Scientists, his colleagues who were now becoming his friends. However, they did not feel too abandoned, and actually had a good time.

For our part, we should not forget to mention that the International House of Scientists shared the same shady grove with the walls of an establishment that could hardly be called anything other than a compound. It consisted of numerous small houses with their own gardens, immaculately husbanded, sporting impeccably clean alleys and sidewalks. The imaginary intellectual leaders even allowed themselves to play a mean game while walking there. They would sometimes, as if by accident, drop the aluminum foil wrapper of a cookie or candy, after putting the goodies in their mouths, only to have someone in a gardening uniform with special elongated tweezers rush in from somewhere to promptly collect this minimal waste. This heavenly place, where you can order a cocktail or an ice cream from the lurking waiters, also in uniform, while reclining on a chaise longue on the beach, was so immaculate that it began to seem unreal. All of this is free of charge, as are all of the beach amenities and pleasures, from paddle wheels and water skis to taking to the skies with beach parachutes and hang-gliders.

But how did our good scientists find themselves beyond the walls of such a protected paradise? Where there is a will, there is a way. It turned out that a virtual friend of theirs was vacationing there and snuck them in, but even without him, their fair academic demeanor would pass any face control, not to mention the fact that there were no guards and the gates were open. There was security, of course, but an inauspicious group, let alone an imaginative one, would never trigger their attention.

It was clear that the evening meeting would not be held. The crowd found a better place for the evening.

The protagonist was not too desperate because he knew that, in the end, no paradise would be quite enough for a scientist to replace the real scientist’s insatiable thirst for knowledge about nature.

Meanwhile, it occurred to the protagonist that he could think about the cohesion and symbiosis that existed in the lifestyles and parallel it with what was coming to the fore as something new. Is the resort experience so far only good or only bad, or is it a combination of both? In the resort paradise experience to date—the Yin—there has been everything but the Yang—the intensity of intellectual exchange that has been abundant at the International House of Scientists. Where there is a Yin, there must always be a Yang—so goes the truism. But, how interesting! What emerged was all Yin but no Yang. Indeed, what is being discussed in this book amounts to an encounter with a fortunate, rare case of cohesion and symbiosis.

So far, the result of the occasional symbiosis between the passive producer of knowledge, science, which never seeks the practical application of its discoveries, and the active, practical and profit-oriented, technology, has been two-tiered in terms of importance to the world. A relevant example is the symbiosis between science—the discovery of nuclear fission—and technology; i.e., its direct practical application.

Thus, nuclear fission, a discovery of science, became a technology that brings good as nuclear power plants, but tragically, is also potentially devastating when used to make nuclear bombs. It is two-tiered. It is Yin, but it is also Yang.

Similar in ramification, but not in origin, is laser technology, which, despite the widespread misconception, has no scientific theoretical basis. The laser is a purely technical achievement which also has a two-tiered application. It can be argued that nuclear fission, the Tokamak, as an alternative energy source, is also based on purely technical ideas, coming from no scientific background, but we will leave that discussion to other forums.

What was talked about above eventually came as a revelation to the protagonist. When the protagonist realized what it meant to have his ideas cross the social barrier, it was like a bolt of lightning that he could not have imagined in a million years. Now, his quiet work in science, which eventually exploded into groundbreaking discoveries of major world importance, broke new frontiers. While discoveries usually stay within the realm of science and rarely cross the societal boundary—the case with the discovery of nuclear fission being the exception that proves the rule—the protagonist found himself faced with grandiose social repercussions caused by his discoveries, which will profoundly change the way the world is, but that change will be the result of something that no one would suspect. It would not escape him that while nuclear fission changed the world by threatening destruction or, on the positive side, by providing the world with a fundamentally new way of producing energy, the concept of LABAC, which was already emerging in the protagonist's mind, essentially based on respect for the absolute truths of physical nature discovered by the protagonist plus the absolutely true basis of binary-arithmetism, quietly solves, especially with its imminent advances, all the spider web of problems that society has, due to the deliberately unjust division of society into wealth and poverty.

The protagonist was beside himself, completely overjoyed. He now knew a way to overcome human nature and human weaknesses, and a just society would triumph. It was only a matter of time before this newly appreciated way, this new ultimate liberation, would materialize and save the world.

The present devastatingly inhuman and unjust system will soon imminently be transformed into one that relentlessly favors only an utterly honest and decent elite, so long as the elite continues to exist, of course, even though the common person may still be lying, deceitful, good or bad, irrational or reasonable or anywhere in between. The new, good system will not touch the commoner, but it will transform the elite, the governors, into truly honest servants of the multitude, and in the long run, even eliminate those governors themselves, opening up a new world of self-government. The correction of the elite will inevitably trickle down to the commoner, making the commoner increasingly honest, decent and all good.

During this process of trickling down, the pedestrians can still be irresponsible as long as they obey the law. On the contrary, the potentates must never be irresponsible, whether they obey the law or not. Crooked, lying potentates create their own crooked, corrupt laws. Obeying such laws is reprehensible. While it is true that no one is above the law, these laws are corrupt and should not be obeyed. Fairness under LABAC is to obey fair laws, which cannot be otherwise, because their basis will be the absolute truth, not just a frivolously man-made system of instructions on how to behave according to the tastes of the elite, no matter how unfair that system may be. LABAC will not tolerate unjust laws and will correct them by using the same methods it uses to correct and eventually abolish kings.

The imaginary scientists listened attentively, more out of politeness than because they were caught up in the protagonist’s enthusiasm. In fact, their interest was somewhat superficial, for they were all researchers in the hard sciences, who were not even remotely interested in social issues, as was pointed out more than once.

“I wish he would be clearer about what he means by his hallucinations,” the colleagues, always skeptical of ideas that were not their own, muttered under their noses.

They did not know what was coming, nor did the protagonist, who only revealed his initial thoughts on matters that would far exceed anyone’s expectations.

The scientific phenomenon we are talking about and the fortunate circumstance of its association with a technology, are radically different. It is one-tiered. It is only Yin, not Yang. Science—the discovery of the unequivocal truth that time is absolute, on the one hand, and technology, LABAC, on the other hand, are destined by their symbiosis to bring only good to the world. This scientific discovery can never be destructive, neither by itself, nor when taken up by a technology such as LABAC.

In this strange way, this hedonistic diversion of the protagonist’s imaginary scientific assistance, which has found refuge in the paradisiacal compound adjacent to the International House of Scientists, a diversion that only promises a ruined scientific session in the corridors of the International House of Scientists, has brought about the creativity that emerged from this strange analogy.

These were the thoughts that the protagonist began to develop in his mind while doing something that certainly looked like idleness, as he walked aimlessly through the city, leaving his imaginary scientific lieutenants to their own devices once again. It was begining to grow on him more and more intensely that he should investigate how the phenomenon he had recently discovered, which seemed to be a purely scientific achievement devoid of any practical application, could underlie a technology the protagonist would keep calling LABAC—a system based on and endorsing absolute truths, especially an absolute truth of such profoundly fundamental importance as his recent discovery concerning the absoluteness of time. Time is not elastic, malleable, ductile, pliable, springy, supple, rubbery, moldable, stretchable, extendable, lithe, flexible, limber or anything else that comes to mind to suggest that time can be affected in any way whatsoever. These comparisons must stop immediately. Time is absolute.

Appetite comes with eating, as the French say, and he became increasingly interested in this one-tier symbiosis, in the only Yin, not Yang cohesion. Led by this deepening interest in the matter, it seemed only natural that the protagonist should devote some analysis to the broader general prospects of the distinction between science and technology, before getting into the specifics, which would amount to nothing less than a hitherto unheard-of real social revolution. So, let us first follow the protagonist’s thoughts on this general matter.

In considering these matters, it does not seem out of place to introduce, at this point in our story, some clarity about the protagonist’s view of the relationship between science and technology. After all, the ultimate conquest and salvation of the world by what is further to be described, is primarily a technological achievement, notwithstanding the fact that the technology in question is not to arrive without some intimate connection with real science; i.e., science devoid of absurdities.

The protagonist has discovered a number of phenomena, but he hasn’t been silent in his writings about their specifically scientific essence, as opposed to technological or engineering achievements, which have their own place. On many occasions, when reporting on his scientific discoveries, he expressed the well-known but often deliberately forgotten fact that science and technology are two different things—science only generates new knowledge without any intended practical application; technology, on the other hand, aims very pointedly, specifically at the practical application of the combination of already known elements. Because technology is practical, it taps into whatever can serve that purpose. In particular, if science achieves something that can be applied in practice, technology will gladly take advantage of it, no matter how much science is nonchalant about its practicality.

The reader needs to be reminded of the above because there has always been a pernicious tendency in repressive societies, call them democracies but especially dictatorships, to foist the wrong idea that “Science is a direct productive force”. Since unfreedom leads to economic decline, despotic societies will use anything, even things that are odd and inappropriate for the purpose, such as science, to make them generate the missing dough. Moreover, to this day, millions of people are conditioned to see good science not for what it really is—an idealistic quest to understand nature—but only as an activity that brings tangibly good things to people in a direct, practical sense, things that people can directly “consume”, in the various senses of that term. There is a common misconception that abstract knowledge, even of high quality, is useless. However, knowledge that does not guarantee immediate use is no less important to the concrete individual, even if it does not put food on the table. For most people, profound discoveries do not count if they do not lead to practical improvements in people’s lives, such as satisfying their daily needs; or if discoveries, however profound, do not allow a company to be founded and run profitably on the basis of the claimed great scientific achievement.

In fact, the binary arithmetic, that began the saga described in this series of books, would never have been appreciated had it not, at some point in its evolution, led to marketability in the form of computers, as rudimentary as they are today. While it is understandable that binary arithmetic alone would not be widely appreciated, even when this binary arithmetic was significantly developed in academia as the actual forerunner of today’s computers, it did not impress anyone. It was only when this great technical advance was subdued and subjected to the mediocrity of the market, and managed to accommodate the egoism of the individual buyer, that the marketable product, packaged under the name “computer”, could enter the bloodstream of society as its essential element.

The sad principle by which society has been enslaved is this: you can put all your heart and soul into something truly profound, but if it does not make you a buck, it will go unnoticed and will not shine like the sun in the sky, as it does when it begins to generate wealth. The petty-bourgeois-ness and shallow consumerism, which allow the real fat sharks to thrive as an unwanted disturbing nuisance, have engulfed our existence to such an extent that this suffocation of freedom is already considered a law of nature. The knowledge and the selfless creativity of even the brightest of human beings have never been equated with wealth, nor have they been honored as much as wealth, wealth that even a dummy possesses and makes that dummy glitter and be an object of celebration.

In passing, the protagonist could not help but notice another peculiarity of the science that eventually produced the technology of LABAC, along with the inherently non-destructive nature of this interweaving.

“The difference so far between the maintenance of the presently non-existent correct scientific foundations worldwide and technology is precisely the worldwideness of real science as opposed to the local character of technology—a particular bridge built on faulty premises will collapse, but other, correctly built bridges, will remain intact. Moreover, any initiative to install twisted, woke bridge-building principles, as a result of the prevailing ideological and political winds of the day, will not last long for obvious reasons—bridges will systematically collapse all over the world.”

It pained him to realize that, on the contrary, crooked science can stay put forever and everywhere. It may be woke, exalting absurdity all it wants, it may intellectually oppress the world as a result of the domination of crooked politics inspired by the said crooked science, it may forcefully interject the subsequent crooked ideology into society, and yet crooked science will not only remain unattended, but its crookedness will, on the contrary, be universally stimulated and praised. The crooked ideology, in turn, developed from the crooked science because it was ardently tolerated by the potentates. Given the way politics works—through lies and deception—the crooked ideology that matches those lies and deception can carry on, perpetuate itself, and persist forever unchecked, in its devious diversion of society into folly. The whole of society can be lied to all the time if its politics and ideology are driven by the entrenched disparity between big money and paucity, between those with chosen DNA and those with commoner DNA.

Consider what is known as DEI—diversity, equity and inclusion—being forcefully imposed on the world today, as if the world did not have truly pressing problems, the most urgent of which is fixing the grotesque science that has enslaved it. Besides, how diverse, how inclusive, how affirmative can a world be when it tolerates the division of people by their DNA, as does the world today? Not at all. Quite the opposite. The very people who impose this DEI idea comprise the very elite who imposes this idea on everyone else, but not on the elite itself.

There was a peculiarity that the protagonist noticed when pondering the everywhereness of science, as opposed to the localness of technology. LABAC is technology, but its worldwideness, atypical of technology, is one of its glittering features. This indicated to the protagonist that LABAC was unique, unlike any ordinary technology, yet not exactly science. Who knows what other wonders this extraordinary technology will bring to the world! Paying only brief attention to the latter, he moved on to more prosaic considerations.

The protagonist felt that the powerful discovery he had been fortunate enough to make was no less powerful in dragging him into unavoidable territories he would never have thought of before. He now began to see how indelible was the connection between certain important discoveries of real science, with its real, absolute truths, on the one hand, and the wider life outside of science, on the other.

He knew, in principle, that there was such an ineradicable connection, as his earlier thoughts on nuclear fission suggested. However, nuclear fission and its social implications seemed somehow more comprehensible to him. These implications have a clear material basis and are therefore easier to understand than his seemingly purely theoretical findings, the most important of which is that time is absolute, despite the unequivocal truth of the latter.

Now, things began to change for him. The new realms of his thoughts were no less challenging than when he was engaged in pure science.

In the midst of his thoughts, he knew that if he were going to give a public talk, he certainly had to accompany it with a word of caution.

“It is appropriate to make the following remark here. I have mentioned before that in order for science to become real science, it must begin to function as a technology that unquestioningly adheres to absolute truths. However, when we compare real science with technology, the latter being infinitely attached to absolute truths, otherwise its every creation will collapse, we must be careful because we are not talking about destroying science and replacing science with technology. In what follows, in the future world of LABAC, science will retain its status of non-teleological, or profitless producer of knowledge, but it will be purified, purged of absurdity. Moreover, in addition to restoring truth as the hallmark of science, in accordance with the essence of real science, the world will abandon the false expectation based on the Big Lie that “Science is a direct productive force”, the aforementioned slogan used by oppressive regimes to supplement their failing economies. To treat science as a direct productive force, in the sense of industrial production or engineering, expecting practical economic results from it, is to destroy science.”

The misrepresentation of absurdity as science is discussed throughout this journey. The protagonist rightly considers this improper substitution of absurdity for science—the most destructive element of our lives—to be the focal point of his struggle for truth. He will repeat this over and over again at every opportunity. What makes him happy, as you will see more than once in this book, is that he is on his way to finding out how this plague will be cured. He is on his way to a deeper and deeper understanding of how LABAC will come to the rescue.

There was, however, another annoyance, weaker in effect than the vigorously obtruded exchange of absurdity for science, but no less annoying. The protagonist called it “faux” science, which was neither absurd nor science. Every time something needed to sound authoritative, important, and demanding of serious consideration, it was aggrandized by declaring it science.

When questioned under oath, the advocate of the “faux” science will drop the “faux” qualifier and speak as if what is being addressed is science in all its true, most immaculate sense.

The utterance of the magic word science, the mere mention that science has determined so-and-so, or that some “they”follow the science, is supposed to provide the ultimate lock, the ultimate closure, to any dispute or vigorous exchange. The opponent is knocked out, or so it is perceived by the lay public, even though, in its true sense, what is being said may not really be science at all.

Examples of “faux” science are all around us. In fact, aside from obtruding on the world that absurdity is science, foisted from every avenue of mass information channels, the propaganda of “faux” science is the second best choice of the elite. Consider, for example, the false proclaiming of anthropogenic climate change as being science.

The protagonist was adamant:

“Only physics and chemistry can be called science. Period. Only physics and chemistry can fully obey the scientific method. To call anything else science is an expression of illiteracy,” the protagonist fumed, “A pursuit becomes a science when it involves rigor and precision. Rigor can be achieved when, first, all the parameters defining a phenomenon are known and can be kept strictly constant over time, and second, when, under an unchanging, permanent set of parameters, a change in one parameter results in a reproducible change in another parameter while all other parameters are still held constant.”

Knowledge of all the parameters that define the phenomenon being studied—this is the first condition—and the reproducibility—this is the second condition—are the key phrase and, respectively, the keyword that must be present for a result to be called scientific. To be a scientific phenomenon, it should be able to show the same result, within the margin of error, over and over again, starting from exactly the same initial state. In other words, one of the conditions for declaring that we are dealing with a scientific phenomenon is that the initial state of the system can be restored as many times as necessary, in order to prove reproducibility. History cannot ensure this, let alone archaeology. Neither can medicine, nor can psychology, nor sociology, nor virtually all of the humanities. Not to mention the fact that these disciplines cannot at all provide complete knowledge and reproducibility of all the parameters that determine a claimed phenomenon.

Of course, the travesty of presenting absurdity as high science, which is the main outcry in the world today, has a special place of denounciation in this book.

Note that it is one thing to dabble in disciplines such as history or archaeology, even medicine, where not all the parameters responsible for a phenomenon are known or can be kept constant, let alone that Jacob Stevens, Managing Director and US Publisher of Verso Books Verso Books 388 Atlantic Ave Brooklyn, NY 11217 Tel + 1 (718) 246 8160 Vesselin C. Noninski 149 West 12th Street New York, NY 10011 USA email: koooyyy@hotmail.com phone: +1 (646)769-0204 November 11, 2024 Dear Jacob Stevens, I am writing to inquire about your interest in considering my manuscript titled 1 + 1 = 10 Saves the World. This work falls within the non-fiction genre with an entertainment fiction element and is aimed at fans of non-fiction, researchers in social sciences and general readership as well as activists interested in social reform, scientists and science enthusiasts. 1 + 1 = 10 Saves the World explores the march of binary arithmetism from is most humble beginnings in 17th century, through it current rudimentary stage (proto-LABAC stage) toward the advanced stage of emancipated LABAC order of the world. It is, compounded, a 37,000 + 96,000 word manuscript which combines an alternative but realistic development of binary arithmetic and the absolute truths of physics discovered by the protagonist to form the so-called LABAC (an acronym which stands for Leibnitz-Atanasoff Binary Arithmetic Contrivance) soon to take over and save the world, which at present is in its rudimentary proto-LABAC stage. The proposal includes two separate books under the common title “1 + 1 = 10 Saves the World”. The title of the first 37,000 word book is “Voice of Reason in the Desert”. It reads like a detective novel, based on the efforts of special services of countries, police, a secret society, co-opting even organized crime, to determine who is behind the massive deaths of potentates against the backdrop of declining neighborhood crime. None of the parties involved in the investigation has the imagination to deviate from the traditional methods of solving crimes and pay attention to the protagonist’s discoveries of absolute truths of physics, which, unbeknownst even to the protagonist at that moment, eventually play a major role in solving the mystery. The first book ends without any clues, leaving the question “Whodunit?” altogether hanging. A major feature of what is unfolding in the second 96,000 word book titled “The End of Grotesque Science” is that the target of digital spying is switched in an insurmountable natural way from spying on the population at large towards monitoring the really consequential for the entire planet, albeit disappearingly smaller in number group, the elite, for its honoring the absolute truth. Any deviation from absolute truths of physics, in combination with the absolutely true basis of binary arithmetic, which the elite would allow itself for the purposes of maintaining its own interests, will be registered by the soon to be available advanced binary arithmetic contrivance, which would inevitably emancipate itself from its human handler, becoming cogent enough to analyze for truth and correct every step of the elite. The second book explores a much broader continuum than the last few decades of binary arithmetic development of the current rudimentary stage represented by computers, the Internet and artificial intelligence. The really important initial event is the generalization of binary arithmetic by Gottfried Leibniz with the technical assistance of John Atanasoff, while the soon to arrive advanced world of binary arithmetism is the limit toward which this development will tend. The book describes the convoluted meanders of the protagonist’s development until he realizes that his true seminal discoveries in the fundamentals of physics have a much greater importance for the world than he had ever imagined. They will literally be the tools to make the world only good, free of all the ills of society brought about by its own doing, opening the world to the struggle only to unlock the secrets of nature. I believe that Verso Books would be an excellent fit for my work due to its track record of publishing books aimed at social improvement. Please note that at this time, I am submitting my manuscript to several publishing houses to explore the best fit for my work. This simultaneous submission is standard practice in the industry, but I am committed to working transparently and would promptly inform you if another publisher shows interest in acquiring my manuscript. Should you wish to review the full manuscript or require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me at koooyyy@hotmail.com or +1 (646) 769-0204. Thank you for considering 1 + 1 = 10 Saves the World. I look forward to the possibility of working together. Sincerely, Vesselin C. Noninski, PhD P. S. The author Vesselin C. Noninski is a professor of natural sciences who, although retired from teaching, is intensively continuing his research into the foundations of science, which was particularly extended in his early sixties. At that time, he happened to encounter serious problems in theoretical physics, which plunged him sharply into generalizations about the foundations of science, where he made a number of discoveries. Later, he gradually realized that his discoveries transcend the boundaries of science and, in conjunction with the rapid development of technology based on binary arithmetic, will inevitably lead to far-reaching social consequences. The proposed book, actually a sequel of two books, is a result of this development. The scientific interests of Vesselin C. Noninski can be divided into two periods. The first period includes the years devoted to studies in the specialized fields of physics and chemistry. Attached please find a pdf file with 20 peer-reviewed papers 8 of which with him as a sole author and 12 as the first author (more than the minimum of 12 peer-reviewed papers required by the National Academy of Sciences in a CV for a membership application), which is an excerpt of his many published peer-reviewed papers that he has published over the years. This may show that his studies are not some spurious efforts, but the result of a systematic track record in science. The second period began in his early sixties, which brought about substantial generalizations and revealed existing problems in science, which do not allow science to develop unless they are met with their full resolution. These studies gave rise to 8 books, mostly of a technical nature. The two books proposed here, under the joint title 1 + 1 = 10 Saves the World, are not only an account of these discoveries aimed at a wider readership, but reveal their far-reaching ramifications for social improvement. Sample Chapter from the Second (Approx. 97,000 Word) Book Titled “The End of Grotesque Science” Years ago there was a movement called “Occupy Wall Street”. The protagonist remembered asking one of the participants, who was vehemently opposed to capitalism, what would come after capitalism was overthrown? The protester replied that this was exactly why they are occupying Wall Street, to find the answer to this question. Now, the protagonist knew that he had the answer. The improvement of society will come naturally, above all unstoppably, without occupying anything, without forcibly eliminating social orders such as capitalism, or any other social order, by any conceivable or other as yet unknown forceful, or, God forbid, violent method. Whatever is to be removed, improved or retained will be done automatically, spontaneously, without the involvement of dedicated movements whose leaders are financed by who knows who and have who knows what ultimate agendas. Throughout history all apparent advances have all proven to be corrupt. Now, the protagonist was becoming increasingly certain that all these corrupt ways of claiming progress had come to an end. Self-improvement is arriving as the ultimate savior of the world. This was also bringing the answer to the question “Whodunnit?” regarding the inexplicable disappearance of potentates, which had occupied the reader’s attention in the previous book, alas without the reader getting any answer or even a clue whatsoever. So now let’s follow the evolution of the protagonist step by step. Half-initial state of the system can be reproducibly recovered. These disciplines are not scientific but they are not absurd. However, it is quite another story when a total rupture of thinking takes place when absurdity is passed off as science, as in the “theory” of relativity and quantum mechanics.

To present absurdity as science is not only not science by any measure, standard, or even the faintest definition, it is the greatest global abomination of thought ever, the greatest scandal in history. It is the shame of humanity and must never be the subject of discussion.

“You may hear some defenders of the idea that “faux” science is science say that, look, psychology, history and medicine use some methods that characterize real science. There is no such thing. A light bulb is either lit or unlit. There is no such thing as a half-pregnant woman,” the protagonist continued his diatribe.

“Many rightly perceive the purpose of science as the pursuit of truth leading to the production of knowledge,” the protagonist added, “the latter having the hidden meaning that science is the exploration of what is possible.”

In fact, to return to the example that the protagonist discusses with his Aunt, if it is established by the methods of science that, from a certain stage in the development of our knowledge of stem cells, it would be possible for men not to be necessary for procreation and that for persons to be able to procreate by themselves without the participation of another human being, be it a man or a woman, this possibility will inevitably be realized one day, regardless of any regulations that can be imposed. When the oft-mentioned Lise Meitner discovered the splitting of the atomic nucleus, nuclear fission, it became common knowledge that fission was possible and that its further development to produce an atomic bomb was only a matter of time, not a matter of a secret that one country had to keep from another.

“On the other hand, one body in one system can never obey two different laws of motion at the same time,” the protagonist firmly emphasized, because it is precisely the denial of this fact that comprises the catastrophe of the “theory” of relativity, as the protagonist has discovered, “Such obeying is not possible. It is an absolute truth that one body in one system cannot obey two different laws of motion at the same time. Henceforth, science mandates that such an absurdity, known as the “theory” of relativity, be immediately abandoned. Such absurdity is not a hallmark of science. No mathematics agrees that 1 is equal to 2. In other words, that 1 is not equal to 2, or 1 ≠ 2, is an absolute truth.”

The protagonist gave the math example only as an illustration, because the important truths are physical, not mathematical.

“It is not enough to argue that since the closed-loop integral is zero, the physical principle known as conservation of energy (COE) applies with full force—in fact some energy, and perhaps all energy, can come from no pre-existing energy reservoir,” the protagonist continued on one of his favorite topics, which will be omitted here, leaving its elaboration for future sequels, as mentioned.

Then, he felt he should say something further on these matters.

Oh, and by the way, as a slight aside, the nice thing about the imaginary Council of Scientists is that you can call them up at any time, and you can also forget about them altogether. This was added in case anyone started to miss their presence, as in fact, they haven’t been popping up for a while now. We hope that they are having a good time in the heaven that is adjacent to the International House of Scientists.

Speaking of science, the protagonist was aware that for many people, science is synonymous with medicine. People, in general, are not required to know what science really is and their own ailments, as well as the massive influx of various healers, and the interests of Big Pharma have created the understanding that if you are going to talk about science, you should talk about medicine. In general, the self-centered, egoistical nature of society makes it easy to think that everything that concerns me personally is what really matters, and if the idea for science is the highest idea, then I am the one who has priority, and therefore everything that affects me, especially my illnesses, which increase as I get older, is all that deserves to be called science.

Going back to medicine, the protagonist had a neighbor who would periodically ask him what kind of doctor he was, because the neighbor had heard people calling him Dr. So-and-So, and she had back pain and wondered if he could help.

He had a doctorate in one of the hard sciences. Not to mention that for the rich, sickness is what they understand best, and therefore they would invest the most in it, further stimulating the importance of medicine. They have also heard that science is important. So medicine, which is most important to them, is what science is. What else could it be? The protagonist could not help but notice this attitude toward medicine—medicine was massively considered science—and since the topic was science, he had to spend some time on medicine.

The current functioning of medicine as a post-industrial, completely inadequate, market-dependent activity is misanthropic.

But even if medicine worked as it should, it would still not be science for the reasons the protagonist gave above that define science.

What’s more, the system for verifying medical claims is currently broken where verification is possible at all, or not possible in principle. If those who pay for the medical research are guided by reason and decency, they cannot trust the truth of the claims. Expensive laboratories with specialized equipment are built, but those who run them are opportunists and conformists, who adapt their findings to the political winds of the day. The most you can rely on, to a certain extent, are the results of routine tests and some routine surgeries. However, this has to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

In real science, a given system can be studied anywhere in the world and it will show the same result. Think of a gas-filled cylinder with a piston that demonstrates Boyle’s Law, even in a high school lab. There is no way for medicine to predict exactly, as science does, the fate of each single individual or exactly how a medical treatment would affect each person studied, although it is known with certainty that germs cause disease and that certain substances kill certain germs. Just as an example—there are not a few known cases where the cause of a disease can be identified and treated with trivial means, yet the patient dies because of some side effect, or some other hidden cause triggered by the therapy. And we are not talking about gas-filled cylinders. We are talking about people, where every single life is precious.

The example of the cylinder may seem too simplistic, and that may be compared to an equally simplistic medical procedure in an attempt to prove that medicine behaves precisely and reproducibly like real science. However, there are countless examples of very complex scientific phenomena that exhibit perfect reproducibility when all the parameters that determine a phenomenon are known and held constant, and a change in one parameter results in a reproducible change in another parameter, with the ability to return to the initial state, reproducibly, multiple times. This scientific characteristic is not observed in complex phenomena in medicine.

Along these lines of thought, it is not even necessary to invoke the absolutely unequivocal discoveries of the protagonist, which mark the absolute apogee of scientific thought, in order to sustain the claim for the special place of real science, as opposed to the claims in other fields that claim to be science, but in fact are not. Nothing in any discipline, least of all in medicine, can compare to the ultimate categorical scientific essence of the protagonist’s discoveries. By contrast, look at the world’s attitude toward these ultimate scientific discoveries. If these seminal discoveries, which are easily seen and understood by any person of average intelligence, can be neglected, what is left for the tenuous conclusions of most of medicine and similar fields, which are based on inherent uncertainty?

Unlike real science, where discoveries are uniformly applicable to all similar systems and conditions everywhere, there is nothing universal in medicine, even in trivial cases, let alone special, complicated ones. Because everyone is different, each individual must rely on one’s own judgment. Worse, the big medical claims on major problems of medical research are tainted by political and corporate motivations. At best, these claims are based on statistics, that quite liberally estimate the condition of a sample of individuals, a group, rather than the facts about a concrete individual. One should also not forget that statistics was introduced by Galton, Pearson, and Fisher to “scientifically” justify their racist studies in something called eugenics. It is not far-fetched to think that those who use statistics to pretend that they are drawing scientific conclusions about groups of the population, let alone projecting those conclusions onto a concrete individual on the basis of those statistics, are not far removed from the delusions of a eugenicist.

Not to mention claims, much like those of voodoo healers, that have no justification.

Medicine is science only to the extent that it occasionally employs instrumental methods of investigation, which are largely an outgrowth of science. But even at this level, medicine itself is helpless in many cases. The causes for that are multivariate, the result of multiple uncontrollable known factors and many more unknown factors. In other words, honest medicine, which today’s medicine is not, does as much as it can, and this must be openly admitted, not unscrupulously obfuscated by calling it science.

So what should the individual do?

“Minimize exposure to medical facilities to the extreme, and if that is already impossible, treat any place with recommended intervention with the utmost suspicion. Money-driven, market-driven medicine, as it exists today, does not deserve any confidence. If you do not trust me, you do so at your own peril. A world that perpetuates such blatant lies as the lie that the “theory” of relativity and quantum mechanics has anything to do with science is to be treated with nothing but the utmost suspicion and distrust, especially in fields such as medicine, the cross-field of factors most of which are unstudied and cannot be studied at all, to begin with.”

The post-industrial world, which allows the creation of unbridled cash machines of energy producers, pharmaceutical industry, garbage collectors, food producers, real estate speculators, retail stores that milk the poor, food industry and the like, must never be trusted.

In all his conclusions, the protagonist was always looking for the pivot:

“When it comes to scientific “theories”—look at the basic premises in the very pages where these “theories” are presented. It is absolutely impossible to justify claims for the truth of something that is not true to begin with. To construct “theories” that implicitly include follies such as that one equals two, which is basically what the “theory” of relativity boils down to, is a vicious insult to science.”

The protagonist had a clear view on abortion, not from the religious perspective on which most pro-life movements base their arguments. On this issue too, he looked for the fulcrum in reaching his conclusion. His firm conviction was based on the fundamental humanist rule that no one should decide whether a fellow human being should live or die at any stage of his or her development—no one, not even the woman who carries what is always another human being. A woman must not decide, at any stage of its development from the very conception on, the fate of a human organism with a DNA different from her own. This makes the outcry of the militant pro-choice activists “My body, my choice” an example of a cold-blooded, criminal disregard for basic human rights and an emanation of the selfishness of exactly those who cry wolf at the slightest violation of their human rights. No, it is not your body, it is another body, and you have no choice when it comes to the life and death of that other body, except not to interfere with its human right to live.

To deny the life of another human being with a different DNA from the very beginning, from the moment of conception, is not a choice if one proceeds from the basic humanistic perspective.

“But the fetus is another body that feeds on the woman’s body without giving anything in return, just like a parasite, and many women put up with it,” the protagonist hears the advocate of removing this parasite, just like any other parasite.

“Really?” replies the protagonist, although he is a man and such advocates deny his voice in the matter, ignoring the fact that the conception of a fetus inexorably requires the participation of a man, “What about love, to say the least? Doesn’t the new life give back love and joy to the woman, as well as to the father?” the protagonist concludes his answer on the subject, precluding a further expansion of selfishness.

The protagonist was well aware of the false postmodern approach to this and other problems, which presents marginal cases as emblems to be followed by the whole of society. This imposition is not the same as saying that every human being, regardless of his or her biological or psychological peculiarities, has his or her rights. This is self-evident in a democracy.

As far as COVID-19 is concerned, a significant point on which the protagonist based a whole book, is that the examination of the absolute number of deaths from all causes, however imperfect, can provide the best criterion for the validity of claims of a pandemic. Furthermore, the fact that no potentate died, while millions of commoners were said to have died, was another incontrovertible fact that the pandemic claim was false. In real pandemics, all humans are affected equally, due to their common biology. The protagonist returned to this topic periodically now that he was immersed in the thick of social studies.

Some readers are surely beginning to sense the protagonist’s awakening to sensitive social issues, and more will be said about his development later.

Here is a little more about the aforementioned observation that was one of the causes of the protagonist’s awakening.

The inexplicable deaths of monarchs, which began occurring in the previous, fourth book, as much as there was left of that species, is something that is the opposite of what was observed in times past—a supposedly deadly COVID-19 epidemic was reported to be killing the commoners and leaving the monarchs alone. Since the commoners were anonymous, there were no verifiable deaths, only reported ones—this fact, among others, leads to the conclusion that COVID-19 is a fake epidemic.

This time something real was going on, accompanied by massive deaths of potentates and even of some of their high-ranking subservient accolades, the academics, sparing the commoners. What was going on? What should one do? So many a death remains unresolved. Vaccinations may have caused the massive deaths, but the link between vaccination and death is difficult, if not impossible, to prove. In murky cases like the missing link between vaccination and death, the finality and unequivocalness of the protagonist’s discoveries can really be appreciated. When a death does occur, it is all but blamed on one’s own weaknesses, and any reference to external factors is considered a conspiracy theory—a tragic, cynical reality.

However, when it comes to the world described in the previous book, there has never been such a selectivity in death, especially amongst the elite, as protected as the elite is considered to be. What is the reason for this?

The answer to this question will come in time, as the protagonist develops his understanding of the revolution that is unfolding.

“The truth matters,” the protagonist would teach his potential followers, who are nowhere to be found.

He discovered absolute truths about the most fundamental concepts of thought, but to make his ideas more accessible, a simple example would do better in convincing someone who is not fully attentive or willing to hear fundamentals that truth matters and that truth has no alternatives. What he meant was real truth, not impressions, hearsay, innuendo, absurdities propagated as truth, or anything else that passes for truth.

“My personal opinion does not matter when I am on the ledge of a tenth floor window. I may think I’ll fly if I take a step outside, but the reality of the truth will hit me hard,” he paused, and then added, “This will put to rest all hallucinations about simulacra and other nonsense, as well as pseudo-philosophical leanings and gobbledygook such as “Do you exist?”, a question he heard on University Place from someone with whom he used to attend a reading group that met at locations around the city.

“That is why we must not joke with science, which studies truth as a unique essence, but we must study the laws of science, and when we encounter absolute truths in this study, we must respect these absolute truths. Personal perception and the laws of real science, psychology versus the truths of real science, are two different things that are not interchangeable. This is basic stuff, and we should not diminish ourselves by mentioning it. But because of the utter insanity that rules the world, including the world of science, we have to stoop so low as to repeat these banalities. It is a rather sad state of affairs. It must change, and that is what this book is about. Hopefully, one day it will, with the help of LABAC.”

He would say these words of wisdom, but there was no one to listen. Humanity is still ready to take the step out of the window. The war that would wipe us all out is knocking at the door.

During his active days in academia, the protagonist occasionally felt foul winds coming from the social science departments. These were only occasional wafts when he met with colleagues from these departments in the cafeteria, so he never paid much attention to them at the time, which later turned out to be very dramatic processes that were taking place, nor could he ever imagine that these dramatic processes had anything to do with the real science that occupied his days and nights.

The protagonist remembered how once, in the cafeteria, a colleague from the humanities was talking to him over coffee, and he remembered, as clearly as if it had happened today, that his colleague said

“We are not like you in the science departments, where there is only one truth when we talk about one thing. For us, there are many equally valid truths about that one thing.”

The protagonist then did not attach much importance to his colleague’s words. He took it in stride, the way people sometimes say funny things in a casual conversation that they don’t really mean.

“It is not possible for anyone to seriously think like that.”

The protagonist was in for a big surprise as the years went by. Life showed that not only was this the case, that the faculty of the social science department really meant it, but that this kind of thinking would turn the world upside down. This forced thinking, benefiting only a microscopic elite, would slowly and imperceptibly take over the world. By the time the damage was done, it would already be too late to react and make a difference. Armies of highly motivated, ardent zealots would already have been formed to stand like a brick wall against even the slightest sprout of truth, maliciously trampling it underfoot with the cynical counter-accusation that the opponents were entering the era of what they sillily call “post-truth”. Nowadays, the inversion that the fervent zealots impose on what you have said is called gaslighting, a kindergarten device for dealing with opponents.

The fish rots from the head. The downfall of society begins with the corruption of its intellectual leaders, produced by the decrepit academia.

Actually, the protagonist should have seen the writing on the wall and screamed out loud that something incredibly bad was coming, when the department head told him that she had been called into the hallway by the Vice President to be instructed that the faculty search committee, looking to fill a professorial position, must find a candidate who is specifically a woman and a minority. The Vice President then called each of the faculty members out into the hallway, one by one, with this instruction. The protagonist can personally attest to this because he was one of those called by the Vice President.

“Vote for a woman of Hispanic origin to fill the open faculty position, or else,” after which the protagonist recalled saying something to the effect of

“Shouldn’t we be looking for the most qualified candidate? ” which caused furor in the eyes of the Vice President

“Vote like I said or you will see things.”

The department was overburdened. Professors had to carry a double load, and now this. Someone whose only competence was supposed to be her womanhood and her heritage—that was what the Vice President defined as the criteria the winning candidate should have—did not promise much of the relief the department was expecting. Everyone in the department was desperate for someone truly competent to alleviate the mounting problems. Not to mention the way this request, more akin to a military order—was dumped on the faculty. This was absolutely outrageous, unheard of even in the worst autocracies and dictatorships. The latter always tried to be on the soft side of the faculty when dealing with academics, even when they were vigorously pushing their agenda. Never, in a million years, would the protagonist have imagined that in a society that prided itself on being such a democracy, such a crassly dismissive attitude toward the faculty would be tolerated, let alone exercised, without restraint.

There were other instances of complete puzzlement, such as when the protagonist first appeared on the Quad, to report for his new job, he was immediately cornered by a student who appeared out of the blue from nowhere. The rumor that a new faculty was being hired had spread around the campus, and it had not escaped the attention of someone who would be taking his class. Not knowing anything about anything in this university, the protagonist went along with this new company, unaware of what was in front of him. One thing that followed was that on the second floor of the science building, someone, another complete stranger, came up in front of him and started screaming as loudly as the protagonist had never heard in his entire life, not even in the army, while the sergeant was screaming at the top of his lungs five inches from his face.

“The lab will be mine, for my lectures and lab exercises.”

“What lab?” the protagonist thought in befuddlement, not knowing at all who this guy was and what he was talking about. These were his first minutes on campus, and the protagonist knew absolutely nothing about anything there, as already said.

Later, it turned out that it was impossible to give the lab to another faculty, because all the equipment was set up exclusively for the protagonist’s lectures and labs. The problem was that the other guy, to whom the protagonist had not been introduced, was another professor in the department. Thus, the student who decided to accompany the protagonist out of the blue witnessed an altercation between two professors, which always lowers the image of the faculty and allows fantasies about how such a squabble could be used by the student to get away with less effort for the obligations at hand.

The protagonist immediately grasped the awkwardness of the situation, waited until the tirade was over, and, keeping his composure, said

“Is that all?” and then proceeded to silently move on.

There were many such instances that led the protagonist to conclude that there were indeed farsighted people, who had the foresight to establish such oases of learning, but something was going on that allowed the rot to flourish. These are fantastic oases of learning, unprepared to fight off the infestation, with some inhabitants ready to destroy them from within. It was not even the loss of academic decorum and luster. Elementary integrity and decency were thrown out the window. His bewilderment was beyond compare when he witnessed how tolerant the faculty was during the departmental meetings, putting up with the downright abusive behavior of the same element that had initially confronted him. Many years have passed, and the protagonist still observes that Americans do not mind being shouted at. Some, it seems, even enjoy being yelled at by the President of the United States himself. Who would have thought that?

“Where did I get myself to?” was his permanent state of astonishment for quite a while. He probably should have just taken his hat and left, even before he found out the real reason why he must divorce himself from the rotten atmosphere of academia. The thing is, he could not believe that such a thing was even possible and thought it would go away. It did not. Otherwise, save for the difficulty of finding a parking space in the morning before his lecture—his students with their brand-new cars had already taken up all the spots—going to work felt like being on vacation. The smell of mulch was dizzying, and everything else was very conveniently organized for the teaching process. The rest of the faculty was very friendly and helpful. All went well until the protagonist learned that he had been hired to fill a position previously held by two professors who had been sacked, one after the other, for he-said-she-said sort of unfounded accusations. Upon learning this, the protagonist and a research student of his personally went to the former faculty, and the protagonist offered to resign in his favor so that the former faculty could regain his position, thus restoring fairness. However, the latter had already established his company and was reluctant to change his ways, especially not to go back to “that fascist atmosphere at the college”. The protagonist was truly astonished because he was far from being privy to the secret undercurrents of faculty life, and what he heard from the former faculty sounded literally unbelievable. Later, he learned better, but this story is for another opus, because even with this many details, we have already made a diversion that is too much off the main road of our current story.

The protagonist’s usual reaction was handwaving, but now, several decades after those events, everything was clear as day. The decades of experience, especially his latest developments, the discoveries he made and the impossibility of communicating them to society, had formed the inevitable conviction, expressed earlier, that the disharmony of society, the society that is out of tune, starts from the academia that provides the pool of people who enter the governance of countries. The governance of countries today is infested with inadequate people, supplied by the inadequate world academia. This destruction has been internal and deliberate, and it serves no other purpose than to provide the elite with confused, brainless marionettes, who will follow any direction they are given, no matter how foolish or downright insane it may be.

The protagonist initially considered his naïveté as a light-hearted misperception. Thus, as another illustration of the protagonist’s naïveté in his early days, the protagonist would amuse his friends by telling them how wrong he was about other man-made facts. In his youth, he was convinced that there could be no language in which people bite their tongues to make a phonetic sound.

“It is inhuman. No one would agree to such a thing. Italian, French, German, who would ever think that there are sounds in these languages that are produced when you bite your tongue?”

Yet, there are such languages, and English is one of them, which the protagonist later learns.

In the same way, but this time it was really serious, he later learned that what he had ignored when listening to his colleague in the cafeteria, had become a major governing concept of the civilized world. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now, but only now did he understand where the kernel of this wrongness lay—in the collapse of physics at the turn of the 20^th century. It was this collapse of science that allowed the “anything goes” attitude in the humanities as a result of the further creeping of these ideas into the humanities, ideas that followed from botched physics. These confused humanities have resorted to a consequent avid devotion to “developing” this “anything goes” lunacy.

Of course, as is the case with the cowardly implementation of untruth, this “anything goes” pseudo-maxim is only true when it applies to the champions and perpetrators of this paradoxical foolishness.

But try to criticize untruth, especially when it is institutionalized, and you will be immediately ostracized. There will be no more “anything goes” tolerance … speaking of hypocrisy and double standards.

Social sciences are easier to study than hard sciences, and academic excellence in social sciences is not a priority for advancement. Therefore, the social sciences attract more students. More tragically, students in the social sciences are more mobile and more ambitious about political careers. Those in the hard sciences, who are deeper thinkers and usually reluctant to deviate from their chosen path, consider politics the last thing they could imagine as a future career. There are exceptions, of course, but this is the majority view. The creeping into the social sciences of the absurdity in which physics has engulfed itself, thinking of this absurdity as a very special, advanced science, has created, worldwide, a whole class of confused creatures, indoctrinated in absurdities such as the denying of the reality of truth, considering truth in any way to be only a matter of opinion and myth.

In fact, as an aside to address the apparent contradiction that some readers may have noticed, the lightness of college courses dealing with social issues is a paradox given the greater complexity of their subject matter compared to the hard sciences. The greater complexity provides the grounds for frivolity and laxity, offers interpretations rather than the solidity of firmly established truth, and that is a prerequisite for relaxed criteria of what is acceptable. This makes it more attractive to students who do not feel that intellectual discipline is their forte.

“Well, if the hard sciences, the stalwart of what is considered true knowledge, hesitate about the reality of truth and even allow absurdity to be the guiding light of science, who are we, those in the social sciences, to doubt it?” went the undercurrent reasoning of the overwhelming majority of the humanities graduates. As in a comedy of errors, having embraced the idea that there is no truth as a weird repercussion of today’s broken physics, those trained in the soft sciences, and the humanities as a whole, boomerang it back on the physicists when they happen to run into the physicists in the cafeteria, as if the idea that there is no truth had been independently borne out in their social science departments.

Even more tragic than the cafeteria encounters is that once they become politicians, some of them in high places, these ill-educated graduates of supposedly prestigious, but actually rotten to the core, universities, spread their academically acquired intellectual poison over vast swaths of every society on earth.

“Moreover,” the protagonist continued, “The twisted notion that time can be manipulated from the outside inevitably leads to a false notion of space—the notion of curved space.”

Thus, if one needs an immediate example of the glaringly decimated academic thinking that has crept into politics, the ravaging of the thinking of a politician who is an alumnus of that ruined academia, one need look no further than the highest US authority. This destruction of academic thought that has migrated into politics has, as is well known, allowed the likes of Barack Obama to hallucinate about the illusory curvature of something he imagines to be constitutional space—as noted, the curvature of space is a fundamentally false notion to begin with. Such a misconception, as well as its sibling—the hallucination, the misconception, that time is not absolute—allow massively destructive concepts of the sort of “anything goes” (laissez faire) to infiltrate the social world, imposed by powerful figures.

Although it is actually a contradiction in itself, because general commands like this (“anything goes”) negate their own meaning—if anything goes, then it also means that “not anything goes” also goes. The elite does not see this contradiction (or it is to these potentates’ advantage not to see the contradiction). On the contrary, the elite appropriates the “anything goes” as the holy of holies, and this may be why the elite has found it advantageous to its interests to promote something as false, internally contradictory—a flagrant absurdity—as the “theory” of relativity, as the greatest achievement of a genius. This promotion is intended to provide the ultimate justification (there can be no higher proof than the highest science, goes the popular perspicacity) for the reasonableness of the pathetic political doctrine that proclaims laissez faire as the ultimate way to run the world. Wrong! What the “theory” of relativity actually offers is a caricature of a “scientific” justification for what is mistakenly perceived as the prescription of science, which seems to call for the world to function in a laissez faire fashion. What science? Crooked science! This fact, the fact that what is meant is actually crooked science, can be found out with astonishment after nothing less than even an individual examination of what this “science” really is. Go no further than the unequivocal discoveries of the protagonist. The protagonist was the first to discover the very heart of this travesty. This protagonist’s discovery provides the shortest way for those who are curious to do the inspection, to convince themselves of the ugly truth that is rearing its ugly head and shoving down society’s throat the absurdity of the “theory” of relativity as the highest science ever. This will be revisited later. Experience shows that there will be only few people who would actually do the inspection. Sadly, one or two people who know the tragedy of the situation in science will not change anything. Even a team, a neighborhood, a country, a continent can find out that everyone has been taken in, made to accept that absurdity is science, and it still will not change anything. The power of the elite is insurmountable. Otherwise, it would not be an elite at all and would not be referred to as the powers-that-be. The elite and reason are not interchangeable, unless by reason is meant the interests of that elite.

Gradually, the protagonist will unfurl the astonishing way this swamp will be dried. Have a little patience.

The Council of Imaginary Scientists was having a good time in the paradise compound. The protagonist did not want to interrupt their fun, and secondly, he was in the middle of something personal, a kind of meditation which the imaginary scientists had nothing to do with, so he did not summon them to the International House of Scientists for a while. The question of where it all came from had been with him all along this journey. The more he sank into the puzzlement over what was unfolding before him, the more intense the analysis of its roots became.

So the protagonist continued to search his soul, eager to find out where this new interest of his in matters seemingly so far removed from science, came from. Perhaps, it had been latent in him, and now the happenstance of his discoveries in science finding a logical outlet in broader areas of exploration, presented an opportunity to sprawl out ideas with a more social hue into the mainstream of his thinking. Ideas relating to social issues are inherently amorphous, which has always deterred him from pointing his thoughts in that direction.

However, as he contemplated writing this book, he realized that something that is going on around us, while only technical, has rigorous (rigor and rigorous are used here to mean exact, absolutely true) foundations. These foundations can allow it to be the element that can marry, that can combine with, the rigor of the protagonist’s scientific discoveries, thus becoming the tool that will produce the unexpected result of decisively freeing society from its seemingly innate amorphousness and indeterminacy of conclusions.

He realized that his new occupation with the general questions of time and space was a significant leap from the narrow, specialized field of science he was practicing. Perhaps this expansion was a dormant element in his background, biding its time. But it was all within the confines of science.

Still wider expansion, outside the confines of science, expansion into the flames of social turmoil, may also have been something even deeper, dormant in him, a dormant desire for adventure in social thought which, for its part, was also waiting for its time to express itself.

Most of all, however, as has been made abundantly clear, the plunge into the social was dictated by his failure to have his seminal discoveries correct the misconceptions within academia—a purely social-skills-dependent pursuit—at a time when he still believed that academia counted for something. As it turned out, it was paradoxically fortunate for him that he thought highly of academia at the time, however much it was sheer confusion on his part—as he later found out, academia is the can of worms that no one in their right mind should seriously consider a reliable source of truth. Without this naïvete toward academia, the protagonist would long ago have abandoned in disgust any urge to do science, and devoted himself to other, what he would then have considered more noble pursuits.

Along with this expansion of his studies came a moment that he had never, in his wildest imagination, thought he would encounter. He never imagined that in the development of his thinking he would stumble upon a way to offer insight into nothing less than the ultimate solution to the world’s problems caused by humans themselves.

This made his urge to share his conclusions even greater. He realized that now, in this final stage, he was doing what he had accused others of doing—expressing seemingly irrational impressions, opinions, and conclusions, the fodder for which were outside sources, whose veracity he had no way of personally investigating, much less confirming.

What a difference from his real explorations in science, where he would dig by his own efforts and judgment until he reached the granite floor of the unequivocal, unshakable, absolute truths!

The fear that writing down his thoughts on things he could not confirm himself would jeopardize the perception of his solid conclusions arose again. Nevertheless, he thought it might be useful, even for his own sake, to collect his thoughts on matters that are not susceptible to solid confirmation, and perhaps find out the irrational springs and levers in his character that might or might not explain how he arrived at his solid, unequivocal conclusions in real science.

Besides, the protagonist is a normal human being with all the frailties such a being has, including his own biases, deceptions and brainwashing. Would anyone expect the protagonist to be a superhuman, flawless being, which would only then make him unsullied and trustworthy? Of course not.

Therefore, it might not be unwise to let him be and listen to what he has to say on other subjects, not necessarily related to his impeccable scientific discoveries. Who knows, we might learn something.

By the by, bringing the conversation home, the solution to the unresolved mystery of the missing potentates, which the previous book dealt with, did not come to the protagonist at once. This solution followed in the tracks of the above general development of his reflections. Studies in partial sciences, flowing into the general expanses of the protagonist’s discoveries, then followed by the realization that socially stimulated technologies, on the one hand, and his scientific discoveries, on the other hand, have the common ground of rigor. The realization that the logical progression of steps in his thinking led to the unifying element of exactness, was knocking at the door. This common ground of rigor allows the combination of these two elements to save the world, while, as an aside, they also interlock the answer, which concerns us here, to the “Whodunnit?” question, left hanging in the previous book. The highly unusual and convoluted path to answering that question, not to mention the larger problem of how to save the world, had to undergo an intellectual development that could be ignored or skipped in order to make the narrative less lengthy. It is also a part of the protagonist’s general maturation in terms of his overall perception of the processes going on in the world. What follows, therefore, is an outline of some developments in the protagonist’s way of thinking about phenomena whose nature is far more complex than the ordinary phenomena of chemistry and physics—these phenomena being the main topics of interest to the protagonist. That the protagonist had been drawn to these far more complex questions had occurred to him imperceptibly. It goes without saying that many of the conclusions he reached outside of his unequivocal scientific discoveries, can only be contingent. As we have said, their social matter far exeeds in complexity the problems of the hard sciences. It is also true, however, that without tracing his thought process, it will be more difficult, if not incomplete, to understand the result of his finding regarding the “Whodunnit?’, much less the motivation behind the even more general revelation he arrived at regarding saving the world, and the hints as to exactly what menace and threat must be removed in order for this world to be saved.

So, the wide shores, washed by the infinite sea of social problems, opened wider and wider before the eyes of the protagonist. He could not help glancing at them, although his attitude at that time could not have been more than superficial, for he had always turned his back on these problems and had never paid any attention to them. Now, in view of his unexpected slide down from the world of pure science into the more general questions of the real world, triggered by the drastic, flabbergastingly startling events taking place in the real world, it became impossible for him to avoid any longer at least getting his feet wet. It would take him years to get deeper into the water, which was no guarantee at all that he would not sink like so many, if not all, who had tried to tackle these social problems.

So, for his half-baked exercise in social analysis, he picked up some random topics about which he has given some thought and which reflect his current understanding of these matters. However, as with his real studies of real science, where he has made unequivocal discoveries, these ideas will surely evolve and, who knows, the day may come when he will be able to outline the result of these evolutions, if anything in them has changed significantly, which it most likely will not.

Not to mention, as has already been pointed out, that most social problems are immensely more complex than the problems of the hard sciences, which makes them inexplicable at this stage of human development, unlike the absolute scientific truths that the protagonist had discovered. It was clear to him that taking a stand on issues that have no solution, in principle, but are only politically charged, could cast a shadow over the extremely valuable absolute truths in question that he had discovered. But the protagonist had decided to show courage, if not recklessness, in expressing his stance on those issues that, unfortunately, are of most interest to people.

The protagonist understood that, despite the impossibility of knowing the historical events with absolute certainty, people still like to speculate. The fact that history is not a science is the least of their worries. In today’s world, where even absolute truths cannot be affirmed and endorsed, most things that interest people are amorphous, and in fact, are only susceptible to interpretation, which people generally like to believe is the truth. This does not stop people from finding these amorphous things particularly interesting, regardless of what science or anything else might say about them. People are generally driven by how they feel about their freedom, how they feel about whether there is corruption, or how they feel about general fairness, and all sorts of things that they cannot really put their finger on, even though their convictions are so immensely strong, so strong, as if they did.

Unfortunately, a change in the perception of historical events can have a very profound effect on the worldview of the citizenry. Once motivated to strive for certain rights, citizens can be lulled into complete apathy when more is known about, say, their country’s standing in the world. No wonder, that in times of war, all propaganda and public proposals are aimed at self-righteously presenting the nation as the heir to a great past.

Even in times of peace, textbooks instill great ideas in the minds of students, presenting the country as having a great past, with heroes and unique achievements. This feeling can be particularly durable under regimes that effectively control the narrative—monarchies and dictatorships.

Here is a little story to illustrate this. In a period of slackness, when an apparent democracy is budding, there is a cracking open of various formerly coffined materials. A mature democracy would never allow such a crackdown on archival material deemed uncouth by the regime, as paradoxical as such restraint may sound. In an era of laxity, however, it becomes clear that the historical narrative is likely to take a different turn. Instead of assuming the integrity of an independent state with its weight in world affairs, the country was formed to be a perpetual plaything of vicious external factors, very well hidden under the unassailable idea of a national liberator. An empire has an interest in maintaining the country in question as a rump state on the warm seas of a continent. None of the national liberation heroes of that enslaved state have ever imagined that the system of government of the newly liberated country would be a monarchy. The Empire, through its spies and various other hidden levers, has created the conditions to drench the targeted country in blood in order to create an opportunity to invade and “liberate” it. It is also in the Empire’s interest to impose monarchical rule on the now free state. Furthermore, the new state must not be powerful. The Empire cannot create its rival. Therefore, the empire fights tooth and nail against the liberation of the target state within its real borders. The empire needs the liberated state to be emasculated—free to serve the interests of the empire, but small and powerless.

These plans of the empire for the rump state remain, even after its own imperial monarchy is overthrown. Meanwhile, the rump state will have its monarchy overthrown as well.

If the rump state forms a new alliance to escape from the empire breathing down its neck, and the empire defeats that new alliance, then occupation is in order. If the new alliance is defeated, there is a danger—as a result of the rump nation-state having constituted itself as an enemy of the empire—for the rump state in question will disappear, first fragmented and then absorbed by its neighbors. The occupation of the rump state by the empire acts as a placeholder, and the integrity of the rump state is preserved, in full accordance with the empire’s interests in maintaining the rump state as a bridgehead into the territories of the warm seas. As said, the Empire needs the rump state free to serve the empire’s interests, but not so free as to become the Empire’s competitor.

Understandably, the occupier does not forget to leave its mark on the territory of the rump state. These marks, monuments and memorials, symbolize that the rump state would not have existed without the help of the empire.

So-called nationalists, on the other hand, imagine that the rump state can exist on its own, without the dominance of the empire, and prepare to destroy the monuments that symbolize its oppression. This is, of course, objectively desirable, but under the existing circumstances, or considering “realpolitik” as it is sometimes called, it is rather short-sighted, and condemns the already charred rump state to oblivion.

A sudden realization of these things can change your entire outlook on life, all the indoctrination you received in school, in a split second. It could change your entire way of thinking and push you into actions that would change your entire life, your interactions with other people, your approach to the country and the world. There are powerful facts that you may encounter even on the net, amidst the nonsense that overwhelms you there. Therefore, it is crucial that what you come to read is as close to the real truth as possible. Sometimes it can be a matter of life and death. However, knowing the real truth is, in principle, impossible in all cases, especially regarding history. The best you can do is to let scientific principles govern your understanding, which sets the limits of what can be truthfully known. Moreover, science today is broken. This circumstance brings additional obstacles regarding matters that in and of themselves are really impossible to judge truthfully in the first place, so it is best to refrain from getting involved in historical matters.

The example above is one possible account of what happened. There is another account, which sounds as if it is promoted by the interests of the Empire, where all that is known from the open documents, patchy as usual, is interpreted by the alternative account as the great benevolence of the Empire freeing its brethren. There are still other accounts that take a more neutral view.

What is the absolute truth about these events, given the abundance of documents hidden in secret archives? There is none.

History cannot provide a guaranteed truthful account of any event. Therefore, it must not be considered a science and allowed to sit at the same table with chemistry and physics. Neither should any of the humanities, psychology, medicine and the like. Some of them may have elements of science, which fuels hope in some people that history can creep, however timidly, up to the status of science. However, when the foundations of science are destroyed, as they are today, it reflects on everything else which, as the “job description of science”, requires truth as a result. Such a result from a science with destroyed foundations is even more impossible than it is impossible when those disciplines function with integrity, and when, as said, reaching truth as a result is impossible in principle.

It is true that one’s self-confidence is based on one’s deep convictions about where one comes from, what world one lives in. If the foundations of science, which provide the minimal threads that allow, for example, history to have a scientific hue, are broken, that is a prerequisite for massive unrest among the populace. As “all roads lead to Rome,” all roads of political self-determination lead to science, unfortunately a broken science today. Now, let us skip ahead a bit and note that LABAC, the liberating technology we will be dealing with in more detail in not too long, will begin to fix this broken science by first getting the basics of science straight, and then establishing a truly fair assessment of what can and cannot be considered scientific. This fairness and decency, once established in the hard sciences, will spread out to all the humanities and from there to all facets of life.

How binary-arithmetism, in its advanced stage, can solve this problem of history will be discussed further. Now, we will do some more thinking and rephrasing of the protagonist’s thoughts on the things we have discussed so far.

“The attitude towards history is also interesting,” the protagonist thought.

The secret societies of the potentates have created academic structures which maintain that there is some historical truth, some historical memory, which they present as truth. They even maintain the opinion that history is a science.

However, this is only a political and ideological interpretation of some fragments of memory clothed in written sources and artifacts. These bits and pieces themselves are hardly absolute truths about the whole picture of the times to which they belong. To claim otherwise is to claim that the individual words in the untrue statements “time is not absolute” or “time is relative” are absolute truths in and of themselves, because the individual words do exist, they are written or printed on paper and have a meaning. However, when these words are combined to express an idea, the resulting expression that “time is relative,” is untrue. It is an absurdity. Therefore, in order to claim the truth in history, all the elements of the times described in history must be available. Unfortunately, this is not the case. It is impossible. Therefore, history cannot be a science. It cannot vouch for the truth, as science requires in the study of its subject.

This brings us back to the postmodern distortion of the understanding of truth. In contrast to what postmodernism does, by first accepting the historical narrative as truth, and then declaring that the truth in question can only be a matter of interpretation, a matter of point of view, a metaphor, or an invention, what the rational person does first is to recognize that no historical narrative can constitute truth, but that such a narrative can only be a matter of interpretation, a matter of point of view, a metaphor, or an invention. In other words, when it comes to history, medicine, the social sciences, and the like, the question of truth must be removed from the conversation; a conversation about truth in these areas of human activity is meaningless and has no place there.

Our main character, the protagonist, felt that he should expand a bit on postmodernism. The shortest definition of postmodernism is a confused movement based on the misunderstanding that truth does not exist, that truth is not real. As mentioned before, it holds that truth is only a matter of interpretation, a point of view, that truth is only a metaphor. Everything else in the twisted postmodern worldview follows from this crucial misunderstanding, codified by the non-existence of truth. This shows how hostile postmodernism is to the natural development of cognition, which leads to none other than the advanced binary-arithmetism, embodied by LABAC. Postmodernism and LABAC are incompatible, they are diametrically opposed, in an irreconcilable conflict.

Postmodernism is part of the elite’s effort to undermine the thinking of the multitude, in its quest to turn that multitude into mediocre putty, ready to be molded to the elite’s liking. Therefore, there is no place for postmodernism in the future world. Of course, in the process of eradicating it, LABAC, in its usual way, will not target the confused straphangers who have fallen into its trap out of curiosity, opportunism, misguided coolness, and the false sense that it allows unbridled creativity, which it may, but that creativity is of low quality. It is already trivial because postmodern creations were interesting to a certain extent as novelties, when these creations first popped up on display, as some quirks of weirdos. That “interesting” stopped there. After that, an army of epigones invaded the art salons and concert halls. But epigones, for their part, are never interesting, no matter what style or mannerism they adopt, no matter how they try to express what they think they feel.

LABAC targets the vile elements of power that use postmodernism as a tool to destroy aesthetic principles, fine art, music, literature, and film. The elite’s typical way of defending this weirdo world is by insipid sarcasm towards its negators—if you don’t like a postmodern creation, you have only yourself to blame, because you are a pedestrian who doesn’t understand.

The sorry truth, however, is that postmodernism is feeblemindedness, a dementia-like state of mind, elevated to the status of an ideology.

With regard to aesthetics, it may be added that its criteria of judgment are elastic. This is a major difficulty in healing from this particular variant of social erosion. However, the decimation of the notion of truth that postmodernism swears by, lights up a bright red warning light for LABAC. Art cannot be used as a smokescreen to mock the truth, even through art, in its superficial form, is a means of entertainment. The villainy of potentates who promote the use of art as a Trojan horse to instill widespread doubt about the reality of truth in all aspects of life, is immediately identified by LABAC and most resolutely stamped out. Potentates set the world standards, and LABAC is very sensitive when various devious methods are used to undermine the standards of truthfulness, resulting in the destruction of the rational basis of thought. The advanced binary-arithmetism immediately discourages such attempts. If the discouragement is too weak and the erosion continues, LABAC is forced to take more severe measures, as described later. A concrete example is given of a potentate, a king, globally endorsing untruth by personally awarding a Nobel Prize for patent folly.

The protagonist had much more to say, but he broadened the perspective of his thought to include the worldwideness of the current dominant ideology. This ideology, which is very harmful to the world, is the much talked about ideology of globalism. Fortunately, it is an ideology that will be automatically replaced by the inevitable practical steps of LABAC governance.

When it is around, globalism hits every single person in the chest, knocks people down and kills them, without them even realizing it. The term used to describe this state of affairs is postmodernism, which means the government by fools. A concrete expression of postmodernism is the post-industrial society, a society of services as the only market product. It is a futile society that turns everything into a market commodity, especially as a service, even occupations which do not have the qualities to be exchanged on the market.

Healthcare, for example, does not lend itself naturally to being a service. Rather, it is an expression of the human essence. Nor is education a commodity that can be exchanged on the market as a service.

“We don’t even need to mention the cat,” the protagonist tried to speak the language of the people and their children, “The cat, who teaches her kittens how to catch mice and fend for themselves for free.”

In the case of the highest mammal, the human being, education is also a humane thing, so that humanity can not only reproduce, but also progress. It has nothing to do with a market and some competition out there. Science, the highest emanation of the human essence, has nothing to do with the market, and the defense industry has nothing to do with the market. In the United States, the defense industry exists as a market-driven industry, but to the detriment of national defense. Private companies cannot be expected to care about anything other than their profits, which inevitably has unforeseeable negative consequences—the production of weapons systems that generate profits, rather than the massive production of winning weapons at reasonable cost. The latter cares about defending the country, the former cares only about lining the pockets of a few shareholders.

Technology, as a subordinate activity, can have market aspects, although as far as the properly functioning defense industry is concerned, its technology is about as far from the market as it can be. Today’s post-industrial delegation by government to the private military industrial complex is detrimental to defense. Since the main focus of private companies is profit, the easiest way to wrest it from the usually corrupt government is to make weapons a more complex and thus a more expensive but less effective commodity. The lack of full government control over the defense industry weakens the country and makes it easy prey for the centralized governments of dictatorships.

“A small group of incompetents, untalented and dullards have invaded the world and reduced it to the mediocre uniformity of the marketplace for their own benefit and control,” the protagonist kept thinking, “This is a destructive intrusion into the very essence of life, its diversity and inherent color. The natural state of humanity, having rejected the oppression of the brute force of mediocrity, cannot be achieved by elections, protests, riots, much less revolutions. There is no need for people to waste their energy on such preordained, feckless endeavors.”

“So how do we fix things?” was the expected reaction from his audience.

“I’ll get to that not before long,” was the protagonist’s answer to this question, although at least some of his listeners already knew the direction of his thoughts, which would eventually reach the outline of the most non-intuitive path to salvation, just as Fosbury flop overturned the notion of how to clear the bar in the high jump. The protagonist had already mentioned LABAC, the tool of wrath, on many occasions, but he was still pondering over the details. Of course, he did not expect to propose a complete recipe for the final cooking of the good, but he was sure that at least the solid groundwork would be laid to some extent.

The protagonist had begun to fall into paranoia, seeing destruction everywhere, a fallout of the destroyed academic thinking that began in the early 20^th century. Science commenced to remove itself, to obliterate its existence. Soon everything else associated with creativity fell into this vortex of dissipation.

The orderly principles of art were expeditiously crumbling, not out of internal necessity and aesthetic logic, but under the pressure of that fearsome new wave of lawlessness sanctioned by the now collapsed lawgiver of thought, science.

Music is a filigree creation of the soul that cannot defend itself against this devastating hurricane, and thus becomes one of its first victims.

Visual arts, theater, went under the knife. Architecture seemed to be spared with its Secession, Bauhaus and Art Nouveau. Marginal gospels were thrown into the limelight and when the mainstream seemed to embrace them, the slow process of destruction continued with bebop jazz, further fused in atonality with what was still considered as classical music. The further degradation of the already inherent confusion of philosophy and the entire cultural milieu ensued.

Culture of destruction—jazz, rap; Metropolitan Museum—European culture watered down because woke understanding is that other cultures are more important. The paintings of the Old Dutch thrown into the basement—the traditional gallery halls taken over by primitive cultures, no longer considered primitive.

Since the organization of countries is a much more inert system than art, it will take over a century, from the devastation of science at the turn of the 20^th century, before the degradation begins to be felt socially.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, the question of truth is central to this whirlwind of postmodern decline. Truth has a place only in purely scientific discourse, where truth is unambiguously ascertainable, unequivocally establishable, and only when the discussion of truth is purged of absurdities and nonsense. Only then can an honest discussion take place which today’s science not only does not allow, but vigorously fights against.

The protagonist was sure that he would return again and again to the question of postmodernism, because its forceful installment concerns the essence of what makes the world fall apart. He would also return time and again to its antidote—the essence of his discoveries and their role in repairing this disintegration. It was at this point that it occurred to him to address his words of wisdom to the youth, who are very much swayed away from real science by the elite. When one’s thinking defies real science, and replaces it with other things falsely called science, the enslavement of the individual knows no bounds. The elite knows this hackneyed maxim—win the youth to your cause by defying real science, replacing it with something else falsely called science, and the future adults are yours, ready to obey you unquestioningly.

This is how the protagonist arrived at another reflection that our protagonist thought might be of interest to some young people, who are conditioned to be overly concerned with preserving life on planet Earth.

Nature is properly conserved when it is understood through the correct study of its phenomena, its laws, and not through mechanical protection and sentimental urges to protect it by artificially creating panic and unjustified fear, leading to totally unfounded, ruinous policies imposed by force.

The true green movement and ecological efforts are laudable. However, it begins by first developing our understanding of what science really is; that is, by gaining a deeper knowledge of physics and chemistry and ridding it of absurdities, not by highlighting dubious activities, falsely calling them science, and gaslighting your political opponents into hating science when they try to correct you. Simply calling an activity science does not magically make it science. Nor does playing on people’s emotions help to preserve the human species.

Therefore, it might not be unwise for the green activists to even browse through this and other books by the protagonist. Who knows, these books might bring some sense back to the fans of green activism, which is far from certain, but it cannot hurt to try.

In thinking about the future world and how to make its fair face shine across the globe, one must be aware of the present and some characteristic events of injustice and oppression.

An example of the narcosis under which the peoples of the world are being driven into submission, allowing themselves to be prodded into docility, deceived by plausible intentions, is the Margaret Thatcher sham revolution.

The Margaret Thatcher sham revolution, following the prescriptions of Friedrich Hayek and co-opting Ronald Reagan for the power of the country he led, turned most of the civilized world into a petty bourgeois, self-indulgent entity, reluctant to give up its comfort and jeopardize its paltry private property as a substitute for the real revolutionary upheavals, as previous generations had done, standing up for their rights, and causing the potentates a lot of trouble.

This sham revolution is one of the latest attempts to goad humanity into a peaceful submission to the will of the potentates. It is not a revolution for peaceful change, nor is it a creative advancement of humanity. It is not an attempt to quietly correct the ills of capitalism, but to mitigate them by cunning methods. A similar attempt is being shortsightedly made by the elite, as we speak, to use the developments of binary-arithmetism and its contraptions for the enslaving purposes of the elite. As has been discussed, in the not too distant future, these elite intentions will amount to a flop. Let’s see, after discussing one or two more somewhat minor topics of interest to the protagonist, if he succeeds in communicating this outcome.

Associated with the Margaret Thatcher sham revolution is the most grandiose direct robbery of millions of people.

The game of the newly minted billionaires is a game, at your expense, with a known outcome, an expected outcome that they always win before the game even begins.

Cynicism knows no bounds. The forces that have cunningly usurped world power, have mercilessly imposed their unjust system, stealing the labor of millions of people, who have worked for over 70 years under the created illusory impression of fairness, only to become victims of the most grandiose robbery, and then, the robbers laugh at these people. These same cunning robbers are now really laughing at you as a seasoned cynic does, crunching a philosophy that you are the only one to blame for not doing well in life. You must be self-reliant, you know—you hear their mantra every day—a real mockery of the victim.

The very people who have usurped power by stealing assets are now pontificating about how freedom is also responsibility, justice, the ability to be fair and dignified, babbling about social contracts, equality before the law, and so on. Now, having made their bread through criminal machinations, they teach the suffering victim that the best of all worlds has come about, deep and just, where everyone is equal before the law no matter how unjust that law may be—a doctrine well bespoke to protect their stolen treasures.

Desperation, pure desperation, evokes such a system where stealing a dollar’s worth of bus tickets is more important than stealing a billion dollars. A common urban legend is how great wealth was amassed during the Napoleonic Wars by outbidding everyone for information about the battle. Nothing has changed today. But does this contribute to the progress of humanity? It is safe to say that it contributes to the opposite. It contributes to the decline of humanity.

After all, who organized this outrageous theft of the wealth accumulated by the labor of these millions of people? Imagine the following conversation:

“We won the Cold War. Now we must adapt their system, the system of the defeated, to our system, the system of the victors. How else can we suck their blood as efficiently as the vulture does of its prey? To do this, we have to create our loyal billionaires there, on the territory of the defeated, by putting puppets in charge of the government, who would depreciate the assets of the nation-state a hundredfold, a thousandfold. Then, make loans, here in the West—where else would commoners have even millions to buy even depreciated billion-dollar industries—soon to be conveniently repaid, given the real value of the underlying enormous assets. We shall apply this scheme to selected lackeys, compradors and sycophants, chosen by us, and turn them into a financial elite controlled by us.” Thus speaketh the victorious slavedrivers, who have no scruples, but are only torch-bearers of victory.

Needless to say, there were even easier ways of robbery, whereby the so-called winners of the Cold War arranged for private individuals to appropriate the state bank accounts of the losers, and thus the chosen agent became enormously wealthy overnight, jumping from the meager salary of a worker or a beaurocrat into the astral field of multimillionaires and billionaires.

In this way, the world found itself divided into two very different and unequal parts as a result of the capricious design of the elite, a design that serves the needs of the elite without anyone suspecting the trick.

“Did I hear you say the word market and its long hand that determines who is rich and who is not? Hold that thought,” the protagonist added, “And maybe some of you think it’s not the same in the West, that we are some kind of market angels and the rich have earned their wealth with an impeccable honesty?” the protagonist continued, “Well, go ahead, I won’t argue with you.”

“One can only speculate who those are, who were asked to give loans to the lackeys-billionaires-to-be in the surrendered country. The scheme is quite simple, but we, the winners, will present it as if it were very difficult to un-boil the fish boiled in a sizzling aquarium,” reminisced the protagonist, who lived at the time and witnessed the propaganda that was created to conceal the robbery and justify the unjust world that was forming in the darkness of the corridors of power, as a downright sick consequence of that massive assault on humanity, unsurpassed in its deviousness throughout history.

The robbers maintain false leads—blaming radicals on the political left and liberals—to cover their actions. The robbers cook up a salad of fake radicalism, to extinguish the rage of the masses. They serve a mix of gender identity theory, critical race theory, postmodernism, where even feminism sounds already old-fashioned, and other unlikely but unusual accoutrements as images of weaponization to bring down capitalism. It is passed off as progressivism because of its quirky unusualness. Yet it gains a lot of traction. What is usually hidden, and therefore seems to be forgotten, is that it cannot be achieved without money-backed propaganda waged by openly paid (not necessarily monetary) activists.

Some are afraid of immigration. This fear is unfounded as far as the Western world is concerned. Colonial powers know how to deal with slaves, both offshore and inland, on their own metropolitan territories. Who says that colonialism should only be spatially separated? In the protagonist’s “theory of slavery”, he explored the ultimate spatial separation of slavedriver and slave. This is convenient for the only great superpower on earth—the slavedriver who is only interested in exploiting the slaves, not owning them. The classic colonial powers, now of greatly diminished influence, owned both the land, and, most importantly, the natives. Bringing these natives to the mainland territory is a natural process—there is an inherent slave population born and living in the metropolis. The division between slavedriver and slave remains as unbreakable as ever, regardless of the spatial placement of the umbilically attached slave, who is ancestrally from the supposed former colony.

Incidentally, one should never compare the standard of living of former colonial powers with the standard of living of countries that have never had colonies. One should never say in Bulgaria, look how well people live in France or in Great Britain. One should never say that the reason is that people in Bulgaria are lazy or more corrupt than the first-speed (ex-colonial) European countries. A country that has never had colonies should never be compared with a country that has had colonies. Of course, to be fair, one can always make an unbiased comparison between nation-states such as South and North Korea, which share the same people, and ask why the overall lives of the same people are so different. On the surface, one might conclude that South Korea is a glaring example of the benefits of capitalism.

But we can also ask ourselves why, if capitalism has so many advantages, a Cuba, for example, still maintains a different system, despite the severe sanctions it is under, provoked precisely by this maintenance? How can the enormous success of China, still under a one-party communist system, be reconciled with the proclaimed advantages of capitalism? The protagonist thought that these were questions for another conversation, and we have no choice but to go along with his wishes. The protagonist is not called protagonist for no reason.

There are vast areas of uninhabited land in the major western countries. Look at the western USA, look at Spain, where it is only populated around the coast and around Madrid, everywhere else there is virtually no population.

“I’m not going to go into the political analysis of geography and what I’ve mentioned is just a hint,” the protagonist was already getting tired of his soul-searching.

Take a walk in Manhattan. You think you are free and have access to everything if only you had money. Before you had money, you would know that even in Manhattan, there is another world out there, inaccessible, completely parallel to yours, about which you, the penniless, are condemned to know nothing at all. Forget the yellow press, the tabloids that feed your natural avarice for knowledge, or rather gossip, about the lives of the rich. This is the only instance, purely social in its roots, in which the otherwise unsustainable and therefore meaningless idea that some promote as if it came from the physical reality, makes sense—the brazenly absurd quantum mechanical theory that leads (leads to nothing, because absurdity leads to absolutely nothing) to the subsequent absurdity known as parallel universes. This is a ludicrous analogy because the quantum-mechanical idea of parallel universes is untenable, while the observed social division is man-made and has nothing intrinsically valuable as a natural phenomenon. Natural phenomena do not change with changes of social order, while the parallel world of the rich collapses in a split second when social circumstances change.

On the other hand, if you are lucky enough to have money, you will find out that the parallel world is no less unknowable, unreachable, and it is no trivial matter to cross over from your world to the parallel world of the influential. Even if you have the inclination to be an off-street prostitute, who finds ways to marry someone from the parallel world and you manage to develop yourself into the widow of that parallel-world someone, even then you may be surprized by the innate unbridgeable gap.

Now, after the diversion that the protagonist had created by rummaging through the paraphernalia of his soul in search of the origins of his what turned out to be revolutionary inclinations, he was ready to take the bull by the horns and plunge into the thick of what the story at hand is.

The protagonist came closer and closer to his cherished goal of seeing, even if only roughly and crudely, how the future world would function.

At this stage, the protagonist was still sketching in his mind what peculiarities LABAC would develop on its way to becoming the improver of the world. The mechanism of achieving these peculiarities would come to him in time, albeit in the expected rudimentary form.

The first important thing he began to think about was the peculiarity of LABAC preventing the worldwide spread of false ideas, not only false claims to facts. Moreover, this prevention will not come from without, through human intervention, but from within, by the very nature of LABAC’s operation. The emphasis here is that unlike current computers, which can sometimes register the wrongness of something false that is presented as fact, LABAC itself will stop working and initiate self-correcting procedures when it encounters falsity, even in the realm of ideas.

As for blocking false ideas, LABAC does this in the same way that it will certainly block an untrue claim that something is a fact if its technology encounters such an untrue claim.

Isn’t this similar to how technology in general “behaves”? Indeed it does. As mentioned more than once, technology will not work, bridges and buildings will collapse, if technology tolerates untruth and takes it for truth, as science does today.

However, in today’s common understanding of technology, a collapsing construction due to untruth cannot heal itself by self-removing the untruth and having the construction rebuild itself, this time on the basis of absolute truths that ensure the integrity of the construction. In LABAC, self-cleansing, the removal of untruth, is an inherent part of the functioning of the machine. It is part of this peculiar technology.

Today, we say that computers are just tools, and tools can be misused. But tools—think of a hammer or a pair of pliers—do not self-correct to force themselves to be used only the way they are supposed to be used. Similarly, today, you can write anything on a piece of paper. Paper tolerates truth and untruth alike. It will not reject falsity to prevent staining the piece of paper. That will not be the case in tomorrow’s world. The protagonist thought about this with the intention of sharing it later, when the idea of LABAC's self-awareness would take a clearer shape in his mind.

As for science, beginning with hypotheses, they are also subject to the scrutiny by LABAC when their worldwide dissemination is endorsed by potentates. Hypotheses that challenge absolute truths are blocked by LABAC from the start. Under LABAC, the offering of hypotheses that challenge absolute truths is prevented, especially when such inadequate hypotheses attempt to take over the world. The advanced binary-arithmetism, LABAC, ensures that such follies are self-cleaning when they are on their way to causing public harm. The profound damage that the potentate-endorsed “theory” of relativity and quantum mechanics has done, and is doing to the world, will be impossible in the world of LABAC.

“Wait a minute, is LABAC going to block a hypothesis that the conservation of energy can be violated? Isn’t the conservation of energy an absolute truth?” asked the invisible scientists, relaxing and sipping their espresso.

“Look,” replied the protagonist, “While time is absolute is an absolute truth because it is a combination of two physical (not mathematical) absolute truths; namely, spatially coincident clocks are synchronous and all stationary clocks are synchronous, the conservation of energy is not an absolute truth, because it is only assumed due to the hitherto unavailable experimental facts showing otherwise”.

“What about the fact that a closed loop integral is zero? Isn’t that an absolute truth?” continued the relaxed opponents, espresso in hand. The protagonist had covered this before, but still indulged the asker.

“The closed-loop integral being zero is an absolute mathematical truth, but remember, math does not make physics. Physics makes math, and LABAC, in its advanced state, takes that into account. Remember, LABAC adopts the absolute truth that time is absolute not only because of, vertically, of the mathematical absoluteness of its basis—the binary arithmetic—but also by finding out that any claim that time is not absolute conflicts, horizontally, with physical absolute truths. In the case of conservation of energy only the vertical, the mathematical, absolute truth is available—the zero result of the closed loop-integral. Where is the horizontal, the physical absolute truth that makes the compound statement claiming conservation of energy an absolute truth? What if one were to encounter an experiment in which some or all of the loop mathematically described by the integral did not come from a pre-existing source of energy? You may say that to date no such experiment exists (in fact, it does exist— the protagonist has found at least three cases of experimental violation of the law of conservation of energy, but that will not be discussed here). LABAC cannot conclude that there will never be such an experiment. Therefore, LABAC will not take the idea of conservation of energy as an a priori absolute truth. Remember that for LABAC to adopt something as an absolute truth, it must be based on both vertical (mathematical) and horizontal (physical absolute truth). The horizontal (physical) absolute truth is the subject of a discovery in physics, which presumably is not yet available when it comes to the violation of the conservation of energy.” This is how the protagonist left his imaginary fellow scientists to ponder, perhaps a bit jumping the gun with the reference to “horizontal” and “vertical” absolute truths.

The protagonist paused and remembered a crazy thought he had once been confronted with by fervent advocates of the theory of relativity, ready to resort to any nonsense in order to defend the obviously untenable, absurd “theory”: since physics is the important thing and mathematics is secondary, then a single physical truth can be expressed in two different mathematical forms; i.e. two different mathematical laws of motion at the same time, one law a function of velocity and at the same time another law not a function of velocity, as the “theory” of relativity derives. The protagonist was taken aback by this silly suggestion, and he was about to pass it over because it was a “no-brainer” which doesn’t deserve even a second thought. But now he decided to add a few words.

“Despite the mentioned fact that physics makes mathematics, each physical absolute truth can be clothed in only one unique mathematical expression. Thus, the physical content of one law of physics can only have one and only one distinct mathematical form. Claiming that one law of physics can be expressed by two different mathematical expressions is out of the question. This a strictly forbidden internal contradiction and LABAC would immediately pick that up and will not only not tolerate it but would impose consequences on potentates who relentlessly insist that one law of physics can be expressed by two different mathematical expressions at the same time.”

The individual, of no importance to the world, may think literally anything, including hypotheses that challenge absolute truths, but the random speculations of such an individual, especially the follies so easily uttered concerning time and space, will be blocked from wide dissemination, especially if the individual responsible for their global dissemination is a potentate.

This process of blocking untruth by LABAC will not happen through the use of that enemy of reason known as peer review—a particularly corrupt human intervention. If peer review were not the enemy of reason, it would not have allowed the catastrophic continuous flooding of the scientific literature, begun over a century ago, with the absurdities heralded by the “theory” of relativity and its offsprings, as well as quantum mechanics. In the LABAC world, it will be impossible for consensus to support collective lies, pejoratively known as paradigms. LABAC’s enthronement of real science will make it impossible to think about such travesty and abomination as science. Under LABAC, the governance of consensus as a way of doing real science will be rejected because of the very nature of consensus—consensus is the killer of real science.

The elite has invented this so-called peer review, in order to ensure that academics will get caught in the worm’s nest of their own deceptions, lies and absurdities, which, as already said, they call paradigms—a pejorative term if you look closely at its meaning. Once you are caught in this suffocating muck, it is almost impossible to get out of this slavery. It pulls you down and further down, forcing you to play by the undignified rules of collective falsehood for the rest of your life. After all, not only does your salary depend on this foul play, but so does your prestige and your standing in academia—a prestige adorned with filth, lies and deceit. The swamp of collectivist lies that engulfs you as an academic, under the pejorative term of paradigms, makes it so sticky and gooey that once you have tasted the sweetness of this poisonous anemone of false recognition, you and most of those who are perceived as scientists, continue to play along happily in the bliss of approval and mutual back-scratching.

In truth, peer review is the opposite of its proclaimed intentions—a mechanism for controlling what has the quality of a scientific contribution, and thus for keeping pseudoscience out of academia. Indeed, the barrier of peer review has prevented the infiltration of some obvious follies that push themselves to be recognized as science, but these contenders are too minor, if not downright silly, to merit attention. The real abomination lies elsewhere. The “theory” of relativity and quantum mechanics are more dangerous and destructive to the world than even the most offensive and crass pseudosciences such as chiromancy, astrology and shamanism. These absurdities, passed off as science by the elite, dominate all of humanity more uniformly and ubiquitously than any of the known religions, each of which dominates only separate portions of the world’s population.

If peer review were a true criterion of quality science and greatness, then the person, whom the protagonist rightly called Le Débile, the person who foisted upon the world the absurdity known as the “theory” of relativity, would not have been elevated to the status of the greatest hero of peer review and the citation index of all time.

LABAC will properly perform the functions of peer review by removing the enforcers of the travesty of science, and by establishing an atmosphere of integrity and self-control in academia. Under LABAC, it will never again be possible to sneak in non-science such as the “theory” of relativity and quantum mechanics, and have it falsely pose as science, let alone science of the highest order.

Nor will the process of blocking the worldwide imposition of folly be the result of banning, censorship or any kind of physical prevention or violent restriction. The proto-LABAC days; that is, the days in which we currently live, are witnessing rampant worldwide censorship and blocking of the dissemination of views undesirable to the elite. This censorship and blocking is the result of human judgment, corrupted by the sycophants of the elite. Such censorship is not only corrupt, but in the case of potentate censorship, it is very powerfully corrupt because it involves the entire state and the conglomerate of all global nation-states, for that matter, not just a website or an element of mass media censorship.

As an aside, it should be noted that in his earlier books, the protagonist had suggested ways to modify peer review to make it free from corruption and censorship, but given the radical way LABAC will deal with it, they need not be discussed here.

The establishment of absolute truths as a means of calibrating the functioning of the advanced world of LABAC, on the way to a just world, is also related to other applications that may be interesting to draw our attention to. The protagonist went further in his thoughts, rolling out ever-widening territories of true justice. Some readers may be interested in the current state of this injustice and how LABAC will correct it. This will be explained a little later in the text where some random examples will be presented.

As for the future just world, the protagonist figured that it will take place upon even further development of the cognitive “abilities” of the LABAC technology, because the path to truth in these matters is tangled. Its uraveling must be based on the already functioning LABAC, capable of bringing the world into harmony with the absolute truths of nature. Truths of a social nature are more difficult to grasp, but if they already have a stable basis, a real science without absurdities, this would eventually facilitate the process of their establishment as well.

The first stop in this correction is academia itself. As it stands today, academia should not exist. It is a breeding ground for the worst that humanity can produce—lies, careerism, glorification of follies, meanness and mediocrity.

“I wish this story was not just about accidentally giving ideas to killers, but what would come out would be its true meaning,” the protagonist thought to himself before continuing.

Unfortunately, for LABAC, killing is inevitable if the potentates stubbornly persist in their murderous practices of intellectually decimating humanity. It cannot be avoided due to the circumstances that have been building up for over a century, which the advanced binary-arithmetism crunches and makes its decisions on. It is interesting that until the moment the protagonist began to make his groundbreaking discoveries, he was nonchalant about everything that happens in academia, where integrity is supposed to be taken for granted. Or so he thought at the time. What a mistake! It turns out that academia is one of the most dishonest things in the world—a dirty fairy tale.

“Like I said, in all honesty, academia in its present form should not exist at all. It needs to disappear completely from the face of the earth,” the protagonist, bitterly wounded by his latest revelations, could not come to terms with the new reality that was opening up to him.

As a result of LABAC’s activities, this will eventually happen. Academia will disappear. It will be replaced by a free association of truthful researchers of real science of high integrity, an association without governing bodies, without elections and office politics. The world does not need exalted liars and cheats gathered under an artificial governmental umbrella called academia.

The hope for the future of academia lies partly in the LABAC overthrow of peer review discussed above. This will greatly improve the intellectual climate, and thus heal academia, which today has reached such lows in the fierce competition to outdo one’s peers in generating inadequacy and absurdity, that the only way to get by today is to be mean, dishonest, violate all decency and integrity, and shamefully disregard the truth, the very truth one is called to seek and uphold as an academic.

The advanced development of binary-arithmetism removes the unjustly imposed division between common science and super-science. This removal will happen simply because what is socialized as super-science, represented by the “theory” of relativity and quantum mechanics, is nothing but absurdity. The world of advanced binary-arithmetism, LABAC, simply cannot tolerate such a breach of integrity, a breach that presents absurdity as science, and even elevates absurdity to super-science.

The strict maxim of always considering what really happens, not what formulas say happens, and even less what false formulas say happens, is fully upheld in the world of LABAC.

The crudest case of the imposition of a pseudo-mathematical construct is the construct, known as the Lorentz transformations, which only looks like a set of formulae, but, in fact, manifestly expresses obvious proverbial nonsense, impossible even to consider as part of mathematics, let alone to use for drawing physical conclusions. The Lorentz transformations comprise constants being equal to variables—total, unmitigated nonsense that constitutes the heart of the “theory” of relativity, making it the nonsense of all nonsense.

If you try to make this point on the internet, in today’s world of proto-LABAC, all you get is a lifetime ban. The excuse is that, because websites have their private owners with their agendas, forced to truckle to the corrupt mainstream agenda, falsehoods are presented as community standards, as modern physics mercilessly commands. Thus, falsehood is enforced by force, otherwise the website itself will be shut down by the authorities. Only voices that agree with these sick so-called community standards are allowed. All others are forcibly banned or shadow banned. The censorship, even of clearly unequivocal truth, is exemplary and far exceeds the censorship of a dictatorial, totalitarian state. Its malicious insistence on passing off absurdity as science, by banning any kind of criticism, defies any level of rationality. Even if one experiences this patent malice and becomes a victim of this censorship, one cannot believe that it really exists.

LABAC, the Leibniz-Atanasoff Binary Arithmetic Contrivance, would collapse if it were forced to follow such a false path of reasoning, where wrong is mandated to be thought as right. Therefore, if LABAC is to survive, it cannot allow false reasoning. LABAC specifically punishes the influential perpetrators of such a travesty. More on this later.

One might think that the more the determined individual pushes and publishes overwhelmingly, the more influence he will gain and will finally be properly heard. However, even someone who has successfully published in the mainstream scientific journals will be ridiculed if what he presents, no matter how rigorously and according to the highest standards of scientific research, does not prove the point established as mainstream; that is, “prove” that the absurd makes sense. A case in point are the studies of Yves Couder, which experimentally demonstrate on a macroscopic scale what is supposed to be only an attribute of the micro-world.

“Oh, these results are just an experimental illustration of quantum mechanics,” is the diminishing mantra one hears regarding Couder’s results.

Can there be a greater dishonesty in science, a greater lack of integrity, than to pronounce an obviously devastating experimental blow to quantum mechanics, as just one low, inauspicious illustration?

Why go as far as Couder’s experiments, which require a specialized laboratory. Without a laboratory, it is enough to crack open the tome (or see it on the net) in which the paper considered fundamental to quantum mechanics is published, to have the truth of this travesty stare you right in the face. In the pages of this paper, artificially made prominent, one can directly inspect the devastating theoretical arguments of the protagonist, which unequivocally prove that quantum mechanics is an absurdity. The curious reader may wish to consult the relevant books written by the protagonist, and have some patience, as these absurdities will be outlined a little further in this story. Not to mention the blistering proof that the protagonist provides, not an illustration, but a direct, devastating blow, proving unequivocally that the ultimate gibberish, the “theory” of relativity, is nothing more than sheer lunacy. However, no one pays attention to the catastrophe that the protagonist exposes, a catastrophe that destroys the bad physics of today.

This smokescreen that surrounds the discoveries of the protagonist should not surprise anyone. No individual can reach the influence of the owners of the means of global propaganda, free to spew whatever nonsense they please, and present it as truth, because it is not how much one writes and how clever and profound that writing is, but how many people hear it, how much of the individual’s writings are allowed to reach all people, everyone, the world. The agenda of the corrupt mass media is the opposite. It is to brazenly shatter the world’s mindset by forcing it to believe that bad is good, absurdity is science, lie is truth, although, surprise, surprise, these same elements proclaim that truth does not exist—George Orwell could only be an apprentice to this mastery of lies and deception. With its power, the private global mass media can promote any idea whatsoever, even the wildest and the most ridiculous and insane, and present it as the crystal clear emanation of pure reason. This private global mass media can stop at nothing. Only the interests of this hunting horn of the elite count, just like the most sophisticated mafia, which aims to lead the people as sheep.

But the protagonist already sensed that hope was in the air. For example, it became increasingly clear to the protagonist that anyone endowed with world power who stood in the way of stopping the funding of the absurdities, would immediately become a target of the advanced binary-arithmetic liberating demon. He could already see the seeds of this resistance to funding the absurdities called science. Many a member of the U.S. Congress was beginning to realize that such waste was hurting the American people, but the Congress was still working out the details of the exact mechanism by which this awakening would take place in full force.

Today, the wrong ideas are manually hardwired into today’s rudimentary binary-arithmetism. This is used for massive manipulation because the majority cannot personally verify the truth of claims. The majority has no choice but to rely solely on their faith in what they are told by the media, which in turn lies through its teeth.

In advanced binary-arithmetism, absolute truths are the governor. They are the dictator. Therefore, what qualifies as absolute truth is important. Therefore, candidate absolute truths must be vetted, must be verified. This verification with precision can only be done promptly and with amazing efficiency by LABAC, which can also endorse it.

The protagonist became more and more aware of the intricacies of the coming tsunami that would shake the world. This made it all but impossible for him not to elaborate on these otherwise basic, if not trivial, but now becoming all important considerations. The various characteristic features of the coming development began to emerge.

Absolute truths are not the result of syllogisms, but they must be used as propositions in a syllogism if we are to arrive at a valid conclusion. Thus, it is not the propositions themselves that are primary when we aim at a truthful outcome of a syllogism—the propositions themselves may be true, but they may also be false—nor do the various psychological states or personal interests of the individual determine whether something is true or not. What is primary, if we are to arrive at a truthful outcome of a syllogism, are propositions based on facts. Propositions based on facts are hardwired into the system of LABAC, starting with the absolute truthfulness of LABAC’s simplistic foundations, and only then come the statements. Statements that contradict the facts cause major disturbances in the system of LABAC. They are eliminated.

The life of the protagonist did not consist only in thinking about his new-found passion, namely the overflowing of his groundbreaking discoveries into the practical improvement of the socio existing outside his laboratory and desk in his study. Nevertheless, at the end of the day, he would always return, albeit at a different level of understanding, to the generalization of the development of his newborn thoughts.

There were some nice movie theaters in the neighborhood and the protagonist liked to go there from time to time. Recently, more than a few of these movie theaters went out of business, but that was not the main reason why the interest, including the protagonist’s, seemed to be waning. It was also not so much the increased prices or the amazing possibility of watching these movies streamed at home. Well, even with the convenience of home viewing, there is still something very appealing about making a special trip to the movies, watching them on a big screen with surround sound, in the company of other people. The reason for the decline in interest lay elsewhere, in a more organic decline. Unfortunately, there was a general decline in the quality of the movies. However, one thing that the protagonist particularly disapproved of clicked when he recently saw a movie glorifying the Manhattan Project. The supposedly underlying scientific ideas, not the trivial technicalities, of that project were the subject of the protagonist’s discoveries, such as that the “theory” of relativity has nothing to do with science because it is absurd and that the claim that said “theory” derives E = mc² is a sham.

Before the protagonist’s thoughts returned to the aforementioned discoveries, which would miraculously and unexpectedly turn out to be the key to something seemingly unrelated but immensely more important, holding the lever of no less than the saving of the world, the protagonist thought of something more general.

So, when he passed a movie theater showing a story about the Manhattan Project, he thought, “There are indeed crucial discoveries in science that change the course of history. But history can also be changed when false science is instilled in people’s minds, as is the case with the “theory” of relativity and quantum mechanics.”

Paradoxically and regrettably, there are also history-changing discoveries that are perfectly legitimate but are hijacked to serve certain groups, occupying these discoveries, just like a hermit crab inhabiting the castoff shell of a univalve mollusk, groups that contributed virtually nothing to the discovery in question, but fraudulently make it appear that the discovery originated in their circles, in order to use the discovery as the means for a sinister, subversive takeover of academia and henceforth of the entire world.

Usually, in such cases, when you encounter such a beguiling injustice, you ask yourself, “What am I going to do about it?”

For the current proto-LABAC world, the protagonist already knew the answer, as unattainable for him personally as it was due to his lack of political skills and abject personal poverty, which prevented him from garnering proper support. As his entire life experience had already made clear to him, truth cannot fly on its own wings.

In fact, the lack of significant sums of expendable, earmarked money, in significant sums of many millions, turns out to be the defining problem in the life of the protagonist in more ways than one. This lack was not due to his personal frugality, which was unintentional, but mostly due to his personal sense of lowliness regarding the pursuit of wealth. Personal lifestyle aside—the protagonist was perfectly happy with what he had in an existential sense—the lack in question does not even concern his need for a modern research laboratory. Scientists usually benefit from such facilities because of their proper position in academia, which ensures that they secure funds in various ways.

The operative word in that last sentence is “proper”. There is nothing less appropriate, though it would place you “properly” in academia, than to pay, note again, to pay for the creation of an “endowed chair,” a professorship at a prestigious university. The very payment of such an installment is the epitome of corruption, but that is how the academic world works in the most advanced country in the world. Someone persuades sponsors, most of whom really have no idea what they are talking about, to give a few million dollars for a professorship, and in return, their name is mentioned as an addendum to the professorship when it is listed in the university catalog or anywhere else. Funny, but that is the way it is.

So, that’s the first shortfall—the endowment—which, if not for that deficit, would have provided prestige, for who knows what reason (really just the fact that the holder of this title has this title), to make the voice of the protagonist heard. So, that was strike one. The protagonist was a professor, but in second and lower tier universities that had no national, let alone global, prestige.

Aside from this lack, which would have been very helpful if it did not exist, the second strike, the dramatic lack of funding, was revealed when the protagonist made his groundbreaking discoveries and also discovered that the only way to get academia, and by extension the world, to take notice of these groundbreaking discoveries was to hire K Street lobbyists. These lobbyists would help persuade the US Congress to pass a one-sentence “Science Integrity Act” that would, in one fell swoop, alleviate the grave insanity into which science funding in the United States has sunk, especially to the great detriment, not to mention financial loss, of the American people and the world. This is a covert erosion of the USA, no less than a demonstrable act of high treason.

Although it is somewhat repetitive, it may be worthwhile, in view of its crucial importance, to further clarify the above condition a bit, namely the condition of political prowess and material support.

It must be perfectly clear that the main bell that rings in marking these two strikes is the inherent worthiness and unequivocality of the protagonist’s discoveries and the world’s need for them. This unequivocality remains above all earthly considerations that try to diminish and undermine the undeniable. Therefore, the attempt to sew the suspicion of selfishness, when it comes to these two strikes, is null and void.

There was only one immediate and most effective cure that the protagonist finally realized would remedy this unjustly tragic situation in the proto-LABAC era. After so many battles, bans, trials and errors, dashed hopes and just about everything else that can be imagined along his failed attempts at dissemination, the protagonist found the final respite in the Science Integrity Act, which he proposed for adoption by the US Congress. It is the result of the protagonist’s own discovery and consists of only one sentence. This sentence, which distills the essence of some of the protagonist’s most important discoveries, elevated to the status of an Act of the US Congress, has a greater social role than any discovery made after the founding of science by Galileo. This one sentence destroys, in one go, the insidious plot of a certain group, the same group that ambushed the Manhattan Project. The conspiracy was successfully aimed at the hideous takeover of world science, the fraud in which the Manhattan Project played no small part, appropriating world science for itself, for ensuring the dominance of the said group, unjustly proclaiming itself as the greatest group of scientists on earth, separate from the rest of science and scientists, constituting the latter as distant “second-class citizens” of science. This takeover was made possible by the conspirators (the plotters) by infiltrating the highest US military and security structures, structures completely incompetent in the matter, by presenting to them that something that was already in the air—Lise Meitner’s discovery of nuclear fission was already known to the whole world—they fraudulently presented it as if it were due to some new physics discovered by these plotters and conspirators, capable of opening up unprecedented new worlds. To manipulatively increase the air of its importance, they fabricated that it must be kept strictly secret because it is an invaluable asset to America, supposedly giving it an incredible competitive edge. The truth is that, as soon as there is even a hint of an idea about such a deadly weapon, every country on planet Earth knows about it and uses it to their advantage—the powerful empires most of all, immediately taking care of it in every practical way. Such was the case with this latest weapon. Instead of recognizing this obvious reality, the group in question, in order to make itself look special, cunningly instilled paranoia in the United States that the Soviets were stealing the country’s secrets.

This myth is perpetuated to this day to the great detriment of the USA and all of humanity. If one wishes to delve into this question, there is enough material, even in this book, to fuel such an interest.

Going down the path described—funding a K Street lobbying effort to get the US Congress to pass the Science Integrity Act—was completely unrealistic for the protagonist. As noted, this path may be realistic for someone of great world influence, but those who have such influence have always supported the opposite view, the lie.

All that follows from the above is that either there must be some material help to support it, or a Deus ex machina will come to the rescue. This whole story told here will be the result of the latter—the Deus ex machina—and the reader will learn about it with some patience.

So the only option for the protagonist is to do nothing and wait for the Deus ex machina, to which this book is dedicated, to run its course, fixing those elements, few but huge in global impact, the elite, in the course of which this book also answers the prodigious existential question of the previous book “Whodunnit?”.

Moreover, the protagonist could not ignore the fact that there are undoubtedly issues that have been resolved. Therefore, it is counterproductive to reopen the discussion of these resolved issues.

Take, for example, the all-important question, not only for the ongoing story here, of the absoluteness of time. That question is settled. It does not require further discussion, much less the expenditure of billions of taxpayers’ dollars in an attempt to wiggle arguments that actually challenge that absolute basis, by proposing ever more elaborate, but utterly futile experiments, on settled matters, not to mention the ever greater formalization of the original absurdity. This hamster wheel turning must stop immediately. Even this book gives ample reasons for why it must stop.

Preventing discussion of settled issues means forbidding alternative opinions even in a democracy. Democracy does not mean clogging the waves of information with foolishness, let alone challenging settled issues.

Resolved questions have no alternatives. The absoluteness of time is a resolved question. It has no alternative. Questioning the absoluteness of a fact is not democratically allowing an alternative viewpoint. To allow meaninglessness is not to allow an alternative viewpoint, but to behave uncanny and unreasonably.

Speaking of democracy, the protagonist’s thoughts were already flying more and more in a direction where so many attempts of thinkers have failed, either under the weight of their own inadequacy or, though seemingly plausible as exercises in thought, were later excluded from public life simply because of the impracticality or sheer harmfulness of their application.

In contrast to this experience, the ascension of binary-arithmetism to reach its advanced form, LABAC, will be a singular achievement that is bound to establish true democracy, based on a single absolute truth regarding a given subject, not based on a multitude of individual interpretations and impressions, considered equally valid, of what is true regarding that single subject, aka, the pernicious idea of the logically impossible ubiquitous consensus. This mechanism, used by LABAC to bring about true democracy, contains the seeds of a real recipe for change. The protagonist was convinced that such a future is nothing less than inevitable. It was inescapably en route since binary-arithmetism already exists, albeit in a rudimentary form, while the advanced binary-arithmetism of LABAC is just around the corner. This is not some illusory utopia, but is something that is already beginning to bear real fruit, even if that fruit is not yet the real democracy of tomorrow.

Not to mention that the truth about what is now called democracy is that it has nothing to do with the rule of the people, because only the elite has a chance in elections and has a say in what is true and what is not. In short, real democracy has never existed, and we had better roll up our sleeves and make it happen, especially since we already have the tools, the bricks and mortar, to build its beautiful edifice. What do we see today? Buying votes is illegal, but paying for the access to the central media is perfectly legal. However, only the super-rich can afford it. This buying of access to the central media is buying the election par excellence, no matter that it is made legal for the convenience of the elite.

“Democracy is impossible in a world ruled by lies, as is our world. It is a travesty, an oxymoron, another word for corruption,” the protagonist mused.

“The only hope to bring real freedom and democracy, as far as I can see, is LABAC,” the protagonist concluded, as he would elaborate more on the subject when the opportunity presented itself, since these were his first steps of this image of freedom taking shape and contours.

The protagonist again indulged in the thought of giving public lectures on this budding idea. For one thing, it would allow him to organize his thoughts and speed up the thought process. A public lecture is always a stimulus to perfect the expression of an idea. He still did not know exactly how he would organize the public lecture. We will have to wait and see how things develop. It will indeed be very curious and interesting how the protagonist will unfold in his lecture this great intention of his, not only to dedicate his life to the discovery of new phenomena in science, but also how these discoveries will contribute to the betterment of the world. This is what people really care about, especially when these ideas are reasonable and people feel that they can get the job done.

As is the tenor of this book, according to the protagonist’s new way of thinking, which is elaborated later in the text, the only way to deal with this monstrosity of a world today is through the spontaneous natural development of the method to abolish this monstrosity. LABAC is the signifier of this method.

Contrary to expectations, LABAC is not a discovery, but is a development from amazingly humble beginnings, leading insurmountably to a technology capable of naturally improving society. As this book points out, LABAC is not a development of science, but is an inevitable technological pathway for maintaining fairness in the world, accompanied by ensuring the atmosphere for the development of real science, free from absurdities masquerading as science. It is the path that will ensure that real science will regain its true place in society and become the true corrector of the wrong path the world has taken.

The following text will show how LABAC will go after those (sovereigns, kings, rulers, and their academic lackeys, all collectively called potentates in this book) who promote these ludicrous ideas that present absurdity as a substitute for science, for their own good. It will take revenge, it will make them pay the bill for their mockery of humanity. And, when one says “go after”, it means that the resistance will come about automatically from within LABAC, because it is inevitable. The resistance will not be specially organized and imposed on society. Society will experience all this resistance naturally, as part of LABAC’s own functioning. The solution to no other problem can take precedence over this inevitable, inherently imminent, self-cleansing process, determined by the functioning of LABAC through honoring the truth.

The protagonist went on to think about the cynical major political incarnations spanning the globe—self-proclaimed democracies and dictatorships alike—claiming to know and uphold the truth. One of these incarnations even boastfully brandished a newspaper whose name was nothing less than being called “Pravda,” with the primary meaning of “Truth” (the meaning of “Pravda” as “Justice” being secondary), while at the same time passionately defending and propagating the greatest lie known to man; namely, that the absurdity known as the “theory” of relativity comprises great science. It is not far-fetched to imagine that presenting the ideology to which the newspaper “Truth” adheres as the truth makes it resemble a religious doctrine obsessed with its belief as the only sacred truth, as opposed to any other belief. No wonder that when this ideology crumbled, the rulers of the Empire turned to religion to hold together the crumbling pieces of their imperial formation. All in all, the fanaticism of presenting a particular doctrine as the truth serves more other, invariably oppressive purposes and ends, than to give the concept of truth its true meaning. In contrast, the fanaticism of presenting a particular doctrine as truth must be sharply distinguished from the ultimateness of holding on to absolute truths, given the tentativeness of any doctrine.

Against this background, the attempts of its opponents, the attempts of those who want to destroy this empty ideology, to pretend to cherish truth, sound pitiful in their attempt to redefine truth in the opposite sense. They use “mirroring”, like kindergarten children, childishly fabricating the false cherishing thesis to make it sound the opposite; i.e., that there is no truth, that truth is only interpretation, an invention or that truth is only a metaphor. These two opposing groups, in fact political movements, in the name of their ridiculous political goals, both mock the most serious concept that reflects the most important pillar around which the world revolves—the actual real truth. That is why LABAC’s mission to exalt this most important symbol—the truth, the real truth—and let its real meaning triumph, is so crucial.

The future world will never allow such a travesty—the travesty of mocking the truth under various false pretenses of defending it—to be repeated ever again. Advanced binary-arithmetism, LABAC, by its very nature, will simply not allow it. The mechanism that expresses this intrinsic nature of LABAC will be discussed shortly.

Today’s state of society, which claims to have replaced these cynical incarnations, is, paradoxically, more honest because it never claims to uphold the truth. It is based on outright lies, including still maintaining the lie that the “theory” of relativity is great science, which it still perpetuates without blinking an eye. Today’s maintainers have become so confident, so self-assured, so complacent that they do not even bother to keep their propaganda going among the general population. There was a time when public lectures were given on this “otherworldly new science”, now known to be nothing but blatant folly, and newspaper articles were written on the subject. Today, confident that the greatness of this “otherworldly new science” is fixed as such in the consciousness of the peoples of the world, which they relentlessly milk by targeting their centers of power, these fraudsters ambush these centers of power, forcing them to pour into their bottomless pit billions upon billions of hard-earned taxpayers’ money every year, to the detriment of every working family and their children.

Today, parents are more perplexed than ever.

“Where did this come from? What did we do wrong?” they wonder as they look at their confused, frazzled children, with all sorts of crazy sexual ideas in their heads.

Here is one scenario, along with a host of others like it, in which impure ideas are fed to impressionable young minds via smartphones, laptops and who knows what else.

The young person is watching a television host. The TV host, with a look that belligerently resists any attempt at objection, proclaims as the only truth that … “Everyone has their own, different, but equally valid truth.” The young person fails to see the contradiction between the TV host’s assertion of her own understanding as the only truth and the view that everyone has a different but equally valid truth. The young person sees the TV host on the TV screen. The host is the authority, therefore this authority can proclaim a single truth that should not be questioned. So the young person accepts the second half of the sentence, which asserts the opposite of that single truth—everyone’s truth is different but equally valid. The path to the absurd world view of “anything goes” is paved, and the youth feels free to justify the violation of all norms. The TV lady has given her official stamp of approval.

Undoubtedly, what the host pontificates, which also serves as the cap of her show, is the result of her own victimization by the brainwashing of the “anything goes” culture that reigns everywhere. This sick culture is the result of allowing the sick axiom adopted by the grotesque science that began in the early twentieth century to seep in and take root as a pet element, proclaiming absurdity as truth, proclaiming the absurd “theory of relativity” as the greatest scientific theory that has ever existed. Make no mistake, this is undoubtedly the origin of all the confusion in the world. The elite loves this kind of destruction of other children’s minds, not their own children’s minds, and that is why the elite has deliberately installed worldwide the devastating idea that absurdity counts as science.

The above is possible because the real name of today’s political organization of the world is corruption. The advanced binary-arithmetism, LABAC, will not allow this to continue. The protagonist is just about to show exactly how this will happen. What follows is the line of thought already forming in his mind that will help him gradually paint this amazing picture.

So how can we imagine the connection that will take place between the false syllogism, on the one hand, and a possible conclusion by LABAC that we are indeed dealing with wrongness, on the other? Let alone, as a result, having LABAC being triggered to take action and physically cause inconvenience to the powerful abuser who perpetuates and globally obtrudes wrongness.

Of course, the reader is impatient to know the details of this crucial turning point, but it was still too early in the process of development of the protagonist’s thoughts. Rest assured, however, that the protagonist will get to it when the time is right. But now, before going any further in his understanding of the self-determination of the Leibniz-Atanasoff binary arithmetic contrivance, the protagonist evaluated what is currently around him. He realized that in thinking about the emancipation of LABAC from its human creator, he would be getting ahead of himself, considering today’s state-of-the-art of binary-arithmetism. For the time being, his conclusion could be summarized by the following title.

In their current rudimentary versions, the proto-LABAC variants have no choice but to take as established truth everything that has been systematized and placed in the libraries of the Google-like internet parasites, much of which is actually untruth, especially when it comes to the most fundamental notions of thinking. It does not help much when proto-LABAC accompanies its conclusions with a disclaimer implying that proto-LABAC is unbiased and nonjudgmental. That goes without saying. The material collected in the aforementioned large parasitic corporate libraries is fed into the proto-LABAC system as is, and is treated by proto-LABAC as unquestionable fact; i.e., unquestionable truth. Proto-LABAC, having not yet reached the level of LABAC, has no way of independently determining, by its own means, the truthfulness of the material systematically collected and classified, according to its taste, by the daily efforts of the giant parasites of the internet, known as search engines. Therefore, proto-LABAC has no choice but to be quasi-judgmental, judging all the material it is fed, as worthy of crunching, that is, as truthful, tempering this questionable omnivorousness with an occasional merely formally claimed nonjudgmentalism. In other words, take what proto-LABAC spits out for you at your own peril. Proto-LABAC cannot vouch for it. How reliable can such an approach be? It cannot be reliable. Until the real LABAC comes to the fore, capable of truly determining the truth, computers cannot really be trusted as conduits of information and conclusions, especially when it comes to more complex intellectual challenges, such as, for example, presenting a truthful assessment of the “theory” of relativity, which is truly an abomination of science, unequivocally proven by the protagonist to be a brazen absurdity beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Thus, there are innumerable lies and falsehoods that can be socialized as truth by the computer and its various trivial extensions, such as the internet and what is known as artificial intelligence, at its present stage of development, without discerning any complaint from that underdeveloped machine, now known as a computer. Therefore, the computer, at its present stage of development, cannot police itself.

The computer is not technology; that is, computer technology is a misnomer, because the crucial characteristic of technology, in its own sense, is that it is inherently self-governing in the most definitive, literal way, preventing its creations from crashing; that is, preventing them from being assistants to lies, which the computer is.

As already indicated, the only criterion of technology’s self-policing is a construction that stays put, maintaining the absolute truthfulness of its blueprints and principles of its making. Thus, thinking along the above lines, one inevitably comes to the conclusion that the current computer, with all its ramifications such as the internet, AI, and the like, is hopeless as a tool for instituting truth, real truth.

The primitive computers of today cannot be considered a technology because they allow for falsehood to be spread with their help. Conversely, technology is infinitely true. When technological creations are done right, they do not collapse.

Computers will become technology; i.e., they will become LABAC, when they become susceptible to breakdown when forced to treat untruth as real truth.

Today’s computers function as conduits of untruth, which they cannot distinguish from truth. At present, the moment computers are used as conduits of ideas, they become susceptible to untruth.

The world of ideas is the world of science, and today science is a realm of lies, falsehood, and manipulation, greatly aided by the computer. Thus, the moment computers today become conduits of ideas, they become liars, indiscriminately transmitting both truths and untruths.

Some might say, well, that is exactly what computers as technology are supposed to do—execute the will of their creators, right? The will of their creators may be varying—from good to bad. It is not the intention behind computers to have them as bearers of truth.

That may be so. But it contradicts the very nature of the computer. It is an undeniable fact that the foundations of the computer are absolute truths, not to mention the fact that the physical world also contains inviolable absolute truths. These conflicting facts—the computer as a conduit capable of spreading lies versus the computer as a device that can only exist because it is fundamentally based on absolute truths—will become more and more apparent in the evolution of the computer as it evolves toward perfection in the face of a LABAC-led system that will uphold truth as its highest signature and inescapable necessity.

After these remarks, the protagonist’s mind became even clearer. It indicated that the formation of the main points was approaching, where at the very summit, nothing but the objective absolute truths would rule, replacing today’s man-made slavedriver potentates.

Before going to the summit, the protagonist thought it would be a good idea to list some absolute truths:

1. Spatially coincident clocks are synchronous.

2. All stationary clocks are synchronous.

3. Time is absolute.

4. A constant is not equal to a variable.

5. The principle of relativity, a principle discovered by Galileo, is an absolute truth of nature.

6. Unipolar magnets do not exist.

7. A person cannot be dead and alive at the same time at any moment of his life.

8. It may be useful to mention here that, as only empirically extablishable, therefore subject to change if new evidence is found, the widely entrenched belief that the first and the second principles of thermodynamics are absolute truths, is incorrect. Actually, they are not absolute truths. There are instances where these principles are not obeyed.

9. It is an absolute truth that the Lorentz transformations equate a constant with a variable, which is absurd.

10. It is an absolute truth that applying the Lorentz transformations results in violation of the absolute principle of relativity.

11. It is a gross deception, rather a lie, that the “theory” of relativity derives E = mc². The relationship E = mc² directly follows from the definition of velocity and acceleration in classical physics, as shown by the protagonist.

12. The rules of algebra, the rules of all maths, for that matter, are absolute truths.

A man of considerable means has begun efforts, he says, “to understand the true nature of the universe.”

“Should this be a genuine effort to learn the real truth in this regard, this man of wealth must begin his effort by reading and understanding my books,” said the protagonist, “which contain my unequivocal discoveries regarding the true nature of time and space, as well as many other fundamental matters of physics. Without heeding these discoveries, no one can ever even begin to “understand the true nature of the universe”.”

The protagonist says this, but he would never expect that the wealthy man in question could ever be reached, or that he would ever take the time to read and understand his discoveries. Every wealthy man is wrapped in a thick layer of sycophants, opportunists and flatterers. Especially active and aggressive are those who have everything to lose, so they protect the status quo, which favors absurdity in physics as the epitome of the highest heights of human thought, even from the intervention of the rich man.

This is a tragic state of affairs, firstly because global changes must depend on the whims of one man, not to mention whether he can be reached, let alone whether he has the ability and foresight to sit down and understand what he is being told. Never mind that what he would be told is the very essence of his stated desire to “understand the true nature of the universe”. Therefore, this avenue—that of asking a wealthy man to help bring the truth to the world—is firmly closed.

The farsighted discoverer, like the protagonist, must find the efficient path of change toward the triumph of truth by finding the right trigger alone. In today’s proto-LABAC world, the right trigger inevitably leads to reaching the representatives of the powers that be who control the public money that funds science—the members of the legislative bodies of the empires—and finding ways to get the ideas to them. Relying on these ideas to reach the multitude on their own merits is completely unrealistic. It is the epitome of the impossible. Hiring lobbyists was also off the radar screen (the main character does not have that kind of money).

The protagonist did not understand this fact at the time; that is, at the time when he began making efforts to talk to politicians in Washington DC, expecting that because the truth the protagonist had discovered was indeed so earth-shattering that it would move even the most stubborn mind, it would inevitably provoke an immediate response and action. This was far from what actually happened.

Therefore, the protagonist became more and more convinced that there must be something else, beyond the obvious but unrealistic political efforts, that would ensure that the war for truth would be won. And so, as events unfolded, it came true. Before we see how it all unfolds, let us dive into the details of one of the protagonist’s discoveries that is crucial to this narrative.

The protagonist’s discovery that helps our story the most has been mentioned all too often, but what is it? The protagonist has made many discoveries, some of which are enumerated in the above list.

For this journey, however, consider the most important discovery of the protagonist, which is that time is absolute; that is, time passes at the same rate in any frame of reference (Absolute Truth 3. above)

The protagonist’s discovery, which catastrophically shatters the “theory” of relativity to the core, consisting in the statement that

time is absolute

is another way of expressing the absolute truth that

Clocks which coincide in space are synchronous (absolute truth 1. above), and since, on the other hand, it is also an absolute truth that all stationary clocks are synchronous (absolute truth 2. above), then all moving clocks, clocks which inevitably coincide in space with one or another stationary clock and are therefore synchronous with all stationary clocks, are also synchronous with each other. It inevitably follows from these absolute truths that no clock, stationary of moving, can show on its face, at any moment, any other time than the synchronous time shown on the faces of all clocks in the universe at that moment.

As seen, the discovered crucial absolute truth; namely, that time is absolute, can be expressed succinctly and without formulae, only in words, making it understandable for everyone, after a slight concentration of thought to comprehend it, even to those who have not been exposed to science. Nevertheless, it is characterized by the decisive signature of science—rigor of the most profound kind.

As is his wont, the protagonist leaves it to the reader to figure out why clocks are being talked about—clocks are the instruments that measure time, aren’t they?—as well as to settle in his soul that the clocks at hand are not broken, that they can be thought of as infinitely small imaginary devices, uniformly equal to each other, distributed everywhere in space. Obviously, what has been said is true even if one does not think about it, or if all the clocks, hourglasses, calendars, and other time-measuring devices, such as apples spoiling in time, are removed, and even if one never imagines that they exist at all.

The protagonist would also leave it to the readers to work out for themselves that the absolute truth of the synchronicity of spatially coincident clocks is actually, and very paradoxically, an explicitly stated premise in the 1905 text of the paper which put forth the “theory” of relativity, a premise that its author has not only failed to appreciate, but has drastically ignored and blatantly violated. The muddling on this matter displayed by the author of the “theory” of relativity, is of unheard-of proportions. However, it is a waste of time to discuss it here, leaving it to the diligence of the reader, if it might arouse some curiosity about the confusion of an addled mind. What is spelled out above as the protagonist’s discovery is the straightforward accounting of the truth regarding the absoluteness of time, without any finagling or hidden agendas and issues causing confusion.

Profound truths are very simple. The protagonist used to tell his students

“You know why you are so afraid of chemistry? I guess, because chemistry appears very difficult although it is very simple, and you just can’t believe it.”

“It just can’t be that simple,” the students fizzle out, “The professor is just not telling us the whole story.”

“Trust me, I am, and if you allow that in your soul, clarity will congratulate you. Try it.”

What is also interesting, as a future possibility, is that LABAC is able to make this discovery on its own, unaware, so to speak, that it was the protagonist who discovered it first.

Furthermore, LABAC can recognize any other seemingly unrelated statement or claim as actually deriving from or conflicting this Absolute Truth. This is the beginning of LABAC’s cognizing, its emancipation from human intervention.

The protagonist’s discovery discussed here encompasses the most fundamental depth of the foundations of cognition, its starting building block. No correct system of cognition can be built without the correct understanding, provided by the protagonist, of the fundamental concepts of time and space. The importance of comprehending what the nature of time and space is has been understood by many a philosopher who has devoted special effort to defining and understanding these terms. Now, with the protagonist’s discovery at hand, all these philosophers may take a respite. The answer to the question on which they spent so much effort, has found its final solution in the protagonist’s discovery. Philosophy, which tolerates even contradictory views, ends here. This is the beginning of real science.

For the curious reader, it may be added that this is not some kind of fantasy-driven sci-fi literature or some kind of utopia, dystopia or what have you, used as a pastime device for many a youth and even adult of technocratic inclination. What is being discussed is a solid scientific truth of the highest grade.

This and the other discoveries of the protagonist are really drastic. Shouldn’t this process of jump-starting real science be facilitated? Shouldn’t the protagonist have talked to colleagues in academia?

He should have, and he tried. As time went by, however, the protagonist felt more and more alienated from academia. Now that he saw academia’s true colors as a vigorous defender of basic untruthfulness, a faltering integrity, and an outright defender of folly, he felt remorse that he ever had any association with academia and ever was its ardent advocate. How can one allow oneself to continue to do research in one’s little niche of some godforsaken side field of science when the very foundations of science are badly broken? The discovery of the latter fact shocked him, as it should shock anyone truly dedicated to doing science.

The protagonist has done his duty. The arguments are out in the open. Alas, no one is paying attention. The world in which knowledge is supposedly produced, which feeds the respective world of learning, this world shamefully continues on its usual complicit path.

On his way out of academia, which resulted from his realization of what academia’s true colors are, but when he was still psychologically resisting his split from academia, he would try to meet academic colleagues after still attending science seminars at some departments.

“What are you offering me? To erase my entire education and my life’s work?” this is what the protagonist hears every time he tries to talk about his discovery with a fellow scientist over coffee.

No colleague would ever admit, even face to face, the obvious facts of absurdity, in order to avoid reprimand and the dangers of disagreeing with the party line, which would surely lead to expulsion from the university, the absurdity to which every colleague whom the protagonist knew had devoted their entire life, after an education that had inculcated in them a sense of tolerance for, if not exaltation of, absurdities. The idea that one could defy the status quo, even if it was patently absurd, and thereby lose one’s job—hundreds of scholars around the world are waiting for his professorship to open up, to snatch it up ruthlessly—almost every colleague felt that such a conversation was a provocation, threatening that colleague’s place in academia if the conversant agreed with the facts presented by the protagonist. Just having such a conversation was a threat.

Academic freedom, really? Don’t believe a word of it!

The angst and indignation in the protagonist’s heart grew increasingly, to the point where he would not even think of meeting with anyone from that darned place, academia.

This separation was painful for him, but he had no choice. The absurdity was so well entrenched that challenging it in any way would be a futile effort along every avenue, while on its absurd background, carrying out any further scientific discussion was pointless.

The discovery made by the protagonist places an insurmountable barrier on the first pages of any contemporary book or monograph dealing with the fundamentals of physics. Physics suffered a severe blow at the turn of the last century, a blow from which it may never recover on its own; the tipping point has been passed, unless something extraordinary happens. However, as I said, the solution is imminent, the Deus ex machina is on its way.

The world ignoring him, as frustrating and humiliating as it was, at long last turned out to be the best thing that could have ever happened to the protagonist. It gave him plenty of contiguous time to think. During his years as a university professor, his train of thought was constantly interrupted by various tasks at the university. Students stopped by his office at odd times, despite the posted office hours. He could not bring himself to turn away these young people who came to him for help. It was bad enough that he had to prepare and deliver lectures and perform other services for the university, such as sitting on various committees, but at least these obligations were mostly scheduled. University life is full of various annoyances that distract and stifle creativity. It is no wonder that many professors delegate the reading of the lectures they are hired to deliver to their teaching assistants for the sole purpose of being left alone to do research uninterrupted. As one colleague said, reflecting his own feelings

“My research is like an extramarital affair. I fulfill my obligations to the university, deliver my lectures, and then retire with my lover, research, to do what I really like to do.”

The protagonist remembered how difficult it was to do research during the winter break, the only time you could sit and think or do experiments without having someone constantly knocking on the open door of your office. It was, however, very cold in the labs. To save money, the administration discouraged the use of offices and labs when there were no students.

With the academic burden lifted from his shoulders, and with no one interested in his discoveries, all of which left him with plenty of free time, he was finally able to think. The main conclusion the protagonist reached during his long nights of rumination was filled with ever-growing hope for the future, as opposed to the depression one might expect under the circumstances of abject forced isolation. He later wrote down all these experiences in a book. In that book, he essentially argued that LABAC would not tolerate absurdity, because if it did, then LABAC would collapse under the infinite weight of absurdity.

This weight of falsity becomes crucially treacherous when LABAC encounters the travesty that a “theory” advertised as the greatest ever in science, actually mangles the most fundamental notions of thought—the notions of time and space. This is exactly what the so-called “theory” of relativity does, and this is what makes it the most important spanner in the works of LABAC. This makes the “theory” of relativity an existential threat to LABAC. Thus, the extrication of this absurd “theory” from world cognition amounted to the crucial life-saver for LABAC.

The elite, on the contrary, finds it beneficial to its interests to intensively perpetuate that ghastly abomination of science called “theory” of relativity. Muddling the world’s minds is always at the top of the elite’s agenda. Especially desired by the elite is when this confusion is not easy to catch, so you have to find someone like the protagonist to detect it, and then look for ways through the quagmire of insurmountable obstacles to socialize it. In more than one speech or publication, more than one or two have stumbled across evidence of perfidious control of the population by the elite. But, there is no more perfidious, more successful and more insurmountable control of the multitude than control to instill stupidity in science to pass for something clever, and even ingenious, as in the case of quantum mechanics and especially relativity. As a result of this elite priority, said travesty of science, known as the “theory” of relativity, has been intentionally, deliberately held in high esteem by the force of the propaganda put forth throughout over a century in every regime, dictatorship, purported democracy and everything in between. In their upper crust, the ideologies of all of these regimes merge into one big, unified cognitive mess in support of absurdity, presenting it as a very special kind of high science. All these regimes are the brainchild of the same elite, all of them, without exception. The elite is a formidable power that cannot be overcome in any way by any rational discourse anywhere in the world. This will be the case until the era of advanced binary-arithmetism, symbolized by LABAC, arrives.

When binary-arithmetism reaches the stage of LABAC, there will not be a single place on earth where a member of the elite who continues to maintain the viability of the “theory” of relativity can hide. Under LABAC, no person of global influence will be able, even if that influential person tries hard, to maintain and uphold that the “theory” of relativity arrives at any conclusions at all, let alone to maintain that whatever may look like a conclusion about the world, amounts to some grandiose revelation never before heard. We must always be reminded, no matter how repetitively, until it sinks in, that the “theory” of relativity is an absurdity, and therefore no conclusion at all can follow from it. Absurdities cannot lead to conclusions. Absurdities cannot produce conclusions. Not to mention perpetuating the lie that the absurdities alleged to follow from the “theory” of relativity could be celebrated as the greatest achievements of science.

The “theory” of relativity is an absurdity because

it brazenly allows for one body in one coordinate system to obey two different laws of motion.

This ludicrous allowance follows from the foisted lunacy, comprising the essence of the pathetic “theory” of relativity, that

When there is absolutely just one and only one way to obtain a formula of a physical law, it is quite OK, according to the “theory” of relativity, to imagine that there is also another, alternative way of obtaining the same formula of the same law, completely ignoring the sterlingly glaring fact that the obtained formula is actually not the same formula of the same law, but is a different formula.

The “theory” of relativity foists that it is OK to consider those two clearly different formulae as literally the same formula.

The author of the “theory” of relativity looks you straight in the eye and lies right to your face through his teeth that two formulae that you see different with your own eyes must be the same.

The whole world, throughout the whole century, under all political regimes without exception, has been intellectually led by liars and has held in high esteem a flagrant liar. This is not some fiction dreamed up to make a book sensational. This is the horrible reality that each of us actually lives in and can immediately verify for himself.

The culprit for this ludicrousness is the so-called Lorentz transformations, which equate a constant with a variable, an utter mathematical absurdity. This immediately disqualifies these transformations from any further consideration, and destroys everything else that uses them.

There are those who, for cowardly reasons already discussed, have put on blinders, ignoring the fact that the “theory” of relativity leads to absurdities that immediately invalidate it as a scientific theory. An additional consequence from the “theory” of relativity is that it is the easiest way to demonstrate and overthrow the Lorentz transformations on physical grounds, apart from their own obvious, immediately apparent, lack of mathematical viability. Instead, every physics professor in America and around the world is frantically pluging numbers into that blaring nonsense of formulae known as Lorentz transformations. Then, sheepishly accepting the results, and very true to the required political correctness, that physics professor becomes thrilled, completely overjoyed and utterly amazed at the fantastic paradoxical results obtained. Every physics professor around the world has assumed in advance that the Lorentz transformations reflect reality in a new, hitherto unknown way, and has been forcefully brainwashed to believe that this is exactly why the results he gets from plugging in the numbers are so great. No physics professor in the world seems to have a shred of common sense to look at the formulae themselves.

“But, wait a minute, it can hardly be that every single physucs professor could not have seen the error if there was one,” protested the group of imaginary readers who always find a reason to take a stand.

The protagonist suspects that there are some physics professors who have sensed the travesty, but they must play along because admitting that what they sense is a travesty puts their jobs on the line, and that is utterly jeopardous because their jobs are more important to them than any truth in the world.

Moreover, as a boomerang, it is now the physics professors who have adopted the idea that there is no truth, even though that idea first came from the physics that was destroyed at the turn of the 20^th century. In other words, the physics professors have destroyed physics themselves and are now pandering to that destruction as if it came from somewhere else.

This whole mind game is too ludicrous for words, because, as the protagonist always insisted, one only needs to look at the pages of the 1905 founding paper to realize that these formulae are absurd. It turns out, however, that taking that one look is an act of courage, while everyone around him swears by cowardice, plain and simple.

The situation is reminiscent of the Middle Ages, when a concilium would argue for hours about how many devils fit on the tip of a pin, or how many legs a fly has. All it takes is for one of the dignified debaters to stand up, catch the fly bumping against the windows, and count its legs. It is enough for our wide-eyed fans of insipid amazement to open the paper that introduces the “theory” of relativity and take a look at the pages where the results of the Lorentz transformations are presented to see the absurdity—the incompatibility between the Lorentz transformations and the foundational principle of relativity. In addition to the cowardice that prevents taking that one look, however, it does not pay. Even that one look! Besides, what is in it for anyone to see that the Lorentz transformations are flawed, that they are the epitome of absurdity, and that they have caused the collapse of physics? The hands of the whole world have been wrung to force the use of these transformations,

“Why should I be the one to split from the collective. Where would that leave me?” laments the sorry physics professor caught in step.

And so this absurdity, presented as science, goes on and on through the generations like a powerful locomotive that no ant, or even an army of tiny ants, can stop.

As a result of this inanity—the readiness to use the absurd Lorentz transformations with the expectation of obtaining fabulous results—a grandiose body of follow-up absurdities are obtained, such as, that time is not absolute—in brazen contradiction with the absolute truth that time unequivocally is absolute. Meanwhile, all of this nonsense is generously supported by gigantic monetary grants extracted from the mouths of taxpayers and their children. In this way, physics professors all over the world are zombied into believing the great discoveries, actually blatant absurdities, such as that time can change its rate (time dilation), that lengths can change as a result of external motions (length contraction), and that simultaneous events from one perspective can appear non-simultaneous from another perspective (relativity of simultaneity). These blatant absurdities are considered such great discoveries that they reveal nothing less than hitherto unimagined depths of our understanding of the cosmos, while also providing super-entertainment. But these zombies do not stop here. Reassured that no one will hold them responsible for the intellectual devastation of the world, they continue their destructive march with renewed strength and inspiration. More and more absurdities follow—black holes, gravitational waves, big bang, string theories, Higgs boson, you name it. High prizes and accolades follow, and the whole world falls into the happy stupor of utter inadequacy and distortion at every level of understanding of reality.

Moreover, academia has resorted to pure diversion. Instead of correcting physics, and, apart from science, if proper technologies are to be contemplated, creating technologies that would lead society to construct machines that uphold truth, the conformists in academia resort to more and more cloning of the predictable platitudes based on digital principles, by opening more and more departments with names like “computer science” to give a false sense of prestige to these trivial empty shells.

There are also some side-issues—outright lies, in fact—that hold peoples’ fascination in focus, which are also considered to be great discoveries of the “theory” of relativity. Such a brazen lie is, for example, the already mentioned fabrication that the “theory” of relativity derives E = mc². However, when one examines this “derivation”, one sees that not only does the integral presented by the “theory” of relativity, as if it were deriving E = mc², illegally employ the absurd formula fabricated earlier, resulting from the absurd Lorentz transformations, but the integral itself is not solved correctly. In addition to all the other absurdities, there is the confounding of two different velocities when solving the integral, considering these two velocities as one and the same velocity—the correct formal solution of the integral, taking the integrand as just a mathematical formula, gives a false expression of the kinetic energy, not E = mc². So even if someone condescendingly decides to waste time solving a purely formal integral that expresses absolutely nothing related to reality, the result is again absurdity—as the protagonist has shown E = mc² is a true fundamental relationship, directly following from absolute truths of physics, definitions of velocity and acceleration. What you see is absurdity, upon absurdity, upon absurdity, presented to the world as the most sublime science that has ever been achieved.

Under LABAC there will be no place on earth where any concealment of this violation of absolute truth can reach the public conscience, let alone be financed with public funds. The toxic “theory” of relativity and its progeny have no chance to survive under LABAC, no matter what efforts any power or potentate makes to resuscitate it.

The potentates will be deprived of the most powerful tool they have to pervert the thinking of the world. The woke and cancel culture will have their sick theoretical foundation—the horrendous absurdities foisted as science—pulled out from under their feet.

Once this tool of intellectual suppression—the “theory” of relativity—is removed, the other follow-up, derivative tools of the elite—drug abuse, vapid entertainment, wars, propaganda of faux pandemics and non-existent anthropogenic climate anomalies, will follow suit.

Now, in today’s proto-LABAC world, the more opposition and ignoring the protagonist encountered, the more his obsession with saving the world from institutionalized absurdity grew. He became a consumate maniac, if that word can be used in a positive sense to mean obsession with sanity, with that central goal in the protagonist’s entire being. He had a mission and having a mission, a goal in your life, keeps you young and happy, even though he was already showing signs of aging. Will he survive to see his fight succeed? Probably not. But there will be other standard-bearers. He was sure of that.

There is no safe place where the enemy of humanity can hide. No “smoke-filled rooms” can be their shelter and no paid agents can remain unnoticed. By way of example, these paid agents will vanish, because serving the enemy of humanity is deadly.

The protagonist’s emphasis was on the absurdity of the “theory” of relativity. However, he has also studied the basics of quantum mechanics, and he was once again thoroughly smitten by the utter absurdity of that “theory” as well, in contrast to the high pedestal it enjoyed in the world, and enjoys even more today.

This exclusive variant of senselessness, which goes by the name quantum mechanics, sporting a different toxic flavor of absurdity compared to the even more toxic flavor of absurdity exuded by the “theory”, attracts as a magnet every wide-eyed, sky-is-falling type of amateur scientist, psychic, charlatan, or just plain fool you see around.

To add even more hot air to this occupation of dullards, it has acquired a reputation in academia where it is snobbishly considered old-fashioned not to teach elements of quantum mechanics in science classes, and your scientific research paper loses weight in the eyes of the blind, quantum-mechanics-crazed general crowd if you stay away from this particular brand of scientific travesty. Surprisingly, the protagonist has discovered that the bringing down of quantum mechanics is just as prompt and unequivocal as the immediateness of establishing the catastrophic nature of the “theory” of relativity.

As for LABAC, it will just as effortlessly destroy the sorry absurdity known as quantum mechanics, as well as everything else claimed to be associated with it. The evidence for this conclusion will be briefly mentioned shortly. Of particular interest to this topic, however, are the alleged quantum computers, which, if real, would be a potentially great asset to LABAC. Unfortunately, no. LABAC will not be so lucky.

Unfortunately, quantum computers are impossible in principle, because there is no such thing as quantum mechanics in the first place. It is true that what is known as classical physics (the physics without relativity and quantum mechanics) has a quantum character, which is certainly news to the absurdity obsessed fans of quantum mechanics. However, in addition to this novelty to the ear of quantum-mechanics-absurdity-fans, classical physics is rational and truthful, based on logic and reason, while quantum mechanics is just another variant of absurdity contributing to the general absurdity in which the world has been drowning since the beginning of the 20^th century, the “theory” of relativity being the most flagrant example, the flagship of this absurdity.

“If one needs a more specific argument as to why quantum mechanics is absurd, one can start with the following devastating fact, as shocking as it may sound—Max Planck never derived the blackbody radiation formula—the derivation that is wrongly considered to have legitimately laid the foundations of quantum mechanics,” the discoverer of this fact, the protagonist, laid it out calmly, even disinterestedly, but ready to elaborate if necessary. The eyes of his imaginary audience stared at him wide open.

The protagonist discovered this to be the case, starting with the very first equation of the founding paper of quantum mechanics. Doesn’t this deficit, which already seemed chronic for the time, resemble the frank, in-your-face absurdity that also appears in the very pages of the 1905 founding paper of the “theory” of relativity? Yes, it does resemble it very much. Funny thing—all these absurdities always begin with some initial outrageous absurdity, but because it is at the beginning of the outlaying of the “theory”, and because it looks at first glance like some small, insignificant detail, the average reader overlooks it, especially when blinded by the propaganda, and then builds on this seemingly inauspicious flaw, deceptively magnificent illusory castles of grandiose folly. The lazy psychology of the reader dictates that it is impossible that there could be a catastrophic error, let alone at the very beginning of the Oeuvre, since, they assume, the whole world has looked at it and not only found no error, but concluded that it is an incredibly groundbreaking work of historical significance. Try to challenge that, even by presenting incontrovertible, unequivocal facts, and the legitimate fear is that you will be the one who is made to look like a fool, that you will be the one who is seen as stupid. You should see the self-righteous, triumphant know-it-all faces of the Quantum Mechanics card-carrying members of the upper class, as they encounter yet another low life who does not know what he is talking about, yet is allowed to talk—a perfect example, according to them, of the dark downside of democracy. For most people, it is a matter of life and death and the highest dignity not to be perceived as stupid, no matter what the real situation is. It is all about appearances. The embarrassment of facing the truth, however, is on them, on those false aristocrats who have fallen for the elaborate folly.

The Nobel Prize that Max Planck received for this travesty is undeserved. The Nobel Prize Committee, which cannot revoke it, must at least be ashamed of having awarded it. Unfortunately, the authority of such a prize, which plunged the world into another madness, did its irreparable damage. Over the decades it has grown innumerable branches, and now absurdity is indelibly grafted into the body of science, falsely passing for a great addition to human thought.

After all these developments of the protagonist’s thoughts that we had to follow in order to get an idea of the prequel of what was to follow, he jumped right into the thick of it. Just as he was about to go into the details of his thoughts on what the improved world would look like, he recalled a recent exchange with someone giving a seminar at an Ivy League university.

“Come to think of it, that incident may have been the last straw that disgusted me with academia, and not only made me never look back and have any contact with it, but set me full steam ahead in my lonely battle, rather pogrom, with the injustice of the so-called modern science, rotten to the core ,” thought the protagonist, “Why should I even bother with this despicable exchange?” was one of his last thoughts before plunging into the substance of his newly found field of exploration.

Nevertheless, for the sake of completeness, we will mention the interlocution that took place when the participants took a break and retired to the adjoining hall where the Swedish table was waiting:

“In modern physics, you must be wrong to be right,” the protagonist and his best friend and supporter, the professor of nuclear physics, heard their interlocutor say.

You should have seen how, some time later, when the protagonist and his best friend and supporter, the aforementioned professor of nuclear physics, were invited to the home of a Nobel laureate, the latter was so shocked that he even rose from his chair when he heard this

“But wait, that’s not logical!”

“Is there anyone who would doubt that you must have lost your mind to waste time commenting on this patently illogical statement, however much it comes from a lecturer at an Ivy League university? ” the protagonist rubbed his aging face, which would never hesitate to see it as it is. Snow is white, no matter how much you insist that snow provides infinitely many ways to lie about its color, reassuring you in your heart that you are telling the truth when you are not.

The protagonist felt that he must add this recollection of daftness presented as an academic thought. Some may find it a little amusing before we get into the serious stuff, not to mention that it is so shocking that it could have been the title of this book.

Anyway, the end of the grotesque science, as the book’s title actually ended up being, which demands that one must be wrong in order to be right, is on the verge. The grotesque science that has crept into the world and encroached upon it over the course of more than a century, threatening to end the world, is almost over—the ammunition, in the form of the protagonist’s discoveries, reaffirmed by the imminent developments of proto-LABAC, is here. It only needs to explode, removing the threat of the world ending. The era of the grotesque science is coming to an end. At long last, the executioner of the grotesques science is the binary-arithmetism developing as the future benevolent ubiquitous master of the world.

Binary arithmetic is very boring and trivial, as boring and trivial as the visual creations that serve this world of binary-arithmetism today. Look at the Google interface, look at the Facebook interface, look at the X (Twitter) interface. Can there be a more uniformly ugly interface than theirs? But the world has gotten used to it. This simplicity can only be a reflection of the simplicity of the underlying principles of these parasitic sites on the free body of the internet.

Since we hear so much about binary arithmetic, and since it is so much emphasized as the working solution that will come to rule the world with its inevitable zeal for truth, it may be wise to give a clue as to what this actually very simple binary arithmetic is. This also explains the first part of the title of the book—1 + 1 = 10.

Therefore, it seems instructive to briefly recall some principles of binary arithmetic. At first glance, it seems insane to complicate the elementary arithmetic operations by replacing the convenient decimal arithmetic with the cumbersome binary arithmetic, but the technical invention of John Atanasoff made it clear that the small pulses of electricity make the “on’s” and “off’s” of the individual two-way relays much more convenient for calculations than the cumbersome ten-element structure of the decimal numbers—two elements versus ten elements at each individual position, occupied by a digit (cipher) (counting from right to left starting with 1, then 2 and so on, the leftmost being the most significant digit) to express a number.

Once we realize that the difference between a decimal number (consisting of the ten digits (ciphers) 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9) and a binary number (consisting of only two digits (ciphers) 0 and 1) results from what each cipher must be multiplied by at a given position—in the decimal system by 10ⁿ, while in the binary system by 2ⁿ—where n at position 1 is n = 0, at position 2 is n = 1 and so on. The only important thing when doing arithmetic operations in the binary system, is to be careful when doing addition. We will illustrate this in a moment.

First off, let us give an example of how numbers look in both systems and what their value is—the decimal number 3725 has at position 1 the value of n equal to n = 0, the digit 5. So the value there is 5 x 10⁰ = 5. The same number 3725 has at position 2 where the value of n is n = 1 the digit 2. So the value there, at position 2, is 2 x 10¹ = 20, and so on. So the value of 3725 is equal to (3 x 10³) + (7 x 10²) + (2 x 10¹) + (5 x 10⁰) = 3000 + 700 + 20 + 5 = 3725.

Likewise, the binary number 1110 has the digit 0 at position 1, where n = 0. So the value there is 0 x 2⁰ = 0. The same number 1110 has the digit 1 at position 2, where n = 1. So the value there is 1 x 2¹ = 2, and so on. So the value of 1110 is equal to (1 x 2³) + (1 x 2²) + (1 x 2¹) + (0 x 2⁰) = 8 + 4 + 2 + 0 = 14. The value of the binary number 1110₂ expressed as a decimal number, is 14₁₀.

The operations in binary arithmetic are exactly the same as the operations in the decimal arithmetic, except that the digits (ciphers) being handled are only two; namely, 0 and 1, and the result is expressed as … you guessed it … a binary number. So the most non-trivial operation to pay attention to, is, as already mentioned, addition; that is, when it comes to adding binary numbers, it is 1 + 1. So, we have 1 + 1 = 2₁₀, but this 2₁₀ must be expressed in a binary form. So, when adding 1 + 1, considering that the result must be a binary number, the result is 0 with a 1 as a carry—don’t we already know that 2₁₀ is 10₂ in binary form?

Another moment of caution is when you subtract 1 from 0. The 0 is part of 10, so then 0 - 1 is 1 because 1 + 1 is 10₂ in binary, and therefore 10 - 1 = 1 in binary.

Now that you know the principle of binary numbers, and that the sum of 1 and 1 must be in a binary format, you can see how easy it is to multiply two binary numbers. To multiply two binary numbers, all you have to do is add the lines formed by copying the multiplicand (the number that is to be multiplied by another number) as many times as there are 1’s in the multiplier (the factor that multiplies the multiplicand), each copied multiplicand, shifted below the positions of the 1’s in the multiplier. After forming these lines, the addition follows, with the small caution (regarding carry) mentioned above, when adding 1’s to 1’s, aiming to obtain a result in binary format.

Consider the multiplicand 110 to be multiplied by the multiplier 101

110
x
101

The result is

  110
 000
110

Which, after adding the columns, gives

11110

The division of binary numbers follows similar rules, which are intuitive, so we will not waste time on it.

Much more important is the fact that, at the most basic level, the requirement of real truthfulness is fundamental to the functioning of the binary arithmetic (as it is to decimal, base 10, arithmetic, but that is not the current topic due to the cumbersome subordination of base 10 arithmetic to the incredible nimbleness of electricity). Binary arithmetic must strictly obey certain very well laid out, completely obvious, simple rules, otherwise it will collapse (as will the decimal arithmetic, which, as said, is not the topic at hand). Binary arithmetic will not be able to work without strictly following certain rules, the basis of which is what has been shown above. Consequently, if the rules of binary arithmetic are broken, computers themselves will not work. All sorts of diversions by claiming that some kind of fuzzy logic is possible, are simply untrue. There can be nothing fuzzy about adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing of two binary numbers. This fact lies at the heart of the concept of LABAC. This is its golden dome, and the requirement of maintaining truth cannot be violated at any level of development of the LABAC concept. Of course, the LABAC concept can be abused, but in the end, as LABAC matures, it will inevitably self-correct. Lies can be built into the LABAC system. After all, humans control the early versions of LABAC programming, and there are corrupt humans. This circumstance can be tolerated by LABAC only at the beginning of its emergence, which is now and in the near future. Eventually, however, later in the day, LABAC will evolve into an entity characterized only by reason, replicating the essence of its creator—the human—though now, in the advanced stage of LABAC, emancipated from the human.

The protagonist did not intend to give a lecture on how these simple rules of binary arithmetic would allow it to trivially evolve into the letters on the display of the computer, and later, into the still and moving images of what would become known as the computer. There are many technical schools that offer lectures on how to do this. In these technical schools, you can also take courses in plumbing, shoemaking, and how to become an electrician, but the basics of these professions are known by almost everyone. At least, what is expected of a car, a faucet, or a shower to do. His intention in briefly mentioning the core rules of binary arithmetic, is to show how simple, inauspicious and incontrovertible are the beginnings of what is now considered a modern miracle. This is also an illustration of how something modest can make a great leap forward, leading to shockingly unforeseen results. This is a reassurance that something much more sophisticated, albeit from humble beginnings but now an everyday item like the computer, can now make the relatively small leap to LABAC.

Hopefully, the above can help answer the question of why today, in the current rudimentary state of the computer world, lies can be spread by computers without the computers themselves crashing, while tomorrow, in the advanced world of LABAC, the spreading of untruths will become less and less likely because LABAC will be able to more and more recognize that untruths go against its own essence, which was formed around the absolute truths of the binary arithmetic.

Think about what the world was like before spell-check. Typographical and grammatical errors were not easily detected or checked and were often overlooked because of the tedious manual work involved in catching them. Of course, today’s spell checkers do what someone has programmed them to do. They correct errors according to rules hardwired into their programs. There are rules of grammar that are human in origin. The computer simply mechanically compares the text produced by another human to these predetermined rules. If the rules were different, the computer would react differently if those rules were not followed. In other words, today’s computer considers human-made rules to be absolute truth that must be followed. The text editor does not make the corrections otherwise; that is, as a result of its own independent initiative.

The human-made rules to be followed, however, can express outright untruths, such as that the absurd Lorentz transformations are a viable mathematical construct, a construct that leads to fantastic but real physical consequences.

One might reply that it is perfectly reasonable for the computer to assume that Lorentz transformations are a viable mathematical construct, leading to fantastic but real physical consequences. What is wrong with that?

What is wrong is that in this way, a human input has hardwired into the computer a falsity that the computer must follow as if it were an absolute truth. To allow this, however, is to fail to recognized that such a statement is akin to allowing the absurdity of one equals two to be a correct arithmetical equality. Such an admission, which goes against the very nature of binary-arithmetism, destroys it, mocks it, renders it irrelevant. This mockery goes unchecked in today’s underdeveloped, rudimentary world of computers, because a folly like 1 = 2 is mechanically processed by the computer in the same way as anything else that is programmatically served to the computer. The operator writes an instruction that a dot must appear in the upper right corner of the screen, and there you have it, a dot obediently appears where it was programmed to appear. The computer does not analyze whether there should be a dot on the screen at all, let alone in the top right corner.

The advanced world of binary-arithmetism of the future will take up the task of correcting mistakes and inaccuracies to a new level compared to the merely mechanical, albeit super-fast, acts of following the human-made rules of the text editor that are now spread acoss the super-ocean of the internet. Today, as long as the computer is on the net, a misspelled word will be corrected from who knows where. The future world, the world of the advanced binary-arithmetism of LABAC, will go much further. It will not allow falsehoods based on what the advanced binary arithmetic contrivance has previously learned from first principles. No matter what training and what human-made intentions and errors are initially deposited, the future world of “thinking machines” will be self-cleaning based on those indelible first principles.

First principles are not axioms, since axioms are truths that are assumed for the purpose of further proving a theorem. First principles in this context mean absolute truths. When talking about absolute truths, it is important to emphasize something. Not only can absolute truths not be broken down to other more fundamental elements, or deduced from anything more fundamental, but absolute truths are not just unbreakable assumptions to help you do a task. Such assumptions can change under different circumstances. In contrast, absolute truths are ever-lasting fundamentals of reality that cannot be questioned or modified under any circumstances. They are eternally inevitable absolutes, as their name implies.

The development of computers, reaching LABAC, will, at least as a calibration, bring everything about them, everything they “put their hands on,” down to their essential nature, which is obedience to truth. Without truth, the advanced world of binary-arithmetism will grind to a halt. As has been pointed out more than once, truthful functioning is the attribute of technology, as opposed to science, where, given the twisted propaganda, public money can support sheer madness and absurdity, as is happening today. Therefore, the method to improve society is to make science work like technology, using no more powerful tool than LABAC.

This will happen regardless of what people want to do with LABAC, regardless of how people intend to program LABAC—maliciously or benevolently. Falsehood will naturally become the most effective obstacle to the functioning of advanced LABAC, or to the functioning of the future world governed by binary-arithmetism, the latter having the means to force its correction.

Today, it appears that what is now considered to be the higher-level functioning of computers, is already far removed from its “atomic” basis, its inevitably truthful binary arithmetic foundation. This detachment allows untruth to reign unchecked. The combination of pixels on a screen— for example, forming text—can be as frivolous, and deceptive as it gets. People can generate all the gibberish they want and broadcast it for all the world to see. Assembly language can be bypassed, and object-oriented programming can wrap falsehoods in objects that the computer cannot detect, giving those falsehoods every chance to harm either their bearer or their creator. Falsehoods can go completely unchecked anywhere. But wait till you see what LABAC does.

Before that, as usual, we will follow the protagonist’s train of thought, which was set in motion by some events he began to observe due to the tearing of formerly impenetrable curtains that protected the elite from prying eyes. What he saw through these tears was a revelation to him and connected some dots in the emerging picture of the situation, allowing the mystery of the inordinate disappearance of potentates to gain clearer strokes.

“Some of the above was hard to read,” the protagonist almost felt like he was overhearing his invisible potential readers.

“That spell-check stuff sounded like an excerpt from a typist’s manual in a secretarial course,” another reader was overheard saying.

“The explanation of binary arithmetic made me feel like I was in the first grade, and the teacher with the glasses and the big pointer kept scratching on the blackboard, where there were some very boring symbols that hardly any of the classmates understood,” the imaginary reader continued, “Everyone in the class had much more interesting things to do. The worst thing was that thing with the clocks. Who knows what that was about?”

Well, at least readers appreciated that there were no detailed descriptions of dishes in the course of a menu, or a complete list of the trivial paraphernalia of the interior of a French restaurant.

Speaking of which, the protagonist recently started cooking because he was tired of constantly looking for a place to eat.

This new venture was an eye-opener for him. There is nothing more trivial than cooking, and as long as you have good products and good cooking utensils, cooking was not something anyone should pay attention to or mention in any context, least of all celebrity chefs. What are all these cooking shows, cookbooks in the bookstores and celebrity chefs? It was all beyond him, but apparently the shallow part of the multitude liked to watch it, and like everything else the populace is interested in, cooking was elevated to some kind of mastery on clay legs.

As for excruciatingly detailed descriptions of interiors, exteriors, clothing and anything else that might prolong the time the reader has to hold the book open and read it carefully, that is something common in fiction. However, the protagonist, never allowed himself when reading a book to skip ahead in the text by omitting these boring descriptions, not for any other reason than for fear of missing something subtle. It is also true that descriptions of the pulchritude of nature can sometimes be pleasant. They allow the reader to become imperceptibly immersed in the atmosphere of what is about to happen. All in all, cutting to the chase does indeed make the writing dry, and to moisturize it, sometimes the details intended to do that caused more drowning in it than mitigating the plainness of what was going on.

The protagonist knew what was expected of his writing. However, he did not succumb to it, not so much because he was obstinate, but because he was simply a man without writing talent, as already mentioned, although he was very determined to get his scientific, as well as his newly found social agenda, across. Regrettably, he continued to write in his usual style, which, perhaps, contributed to his lack of success. It was a kind of stubbornness that he never wanted to shed. So be it. Still, he plowed on like a bulldozer, never looking back to see how much he was pleasing his audience. Who knows, maybe it is a special kind of talent to be stubborn in the face of utter failure. It wasn’t exactly dumbness, as some might characterize it, because the protagonist had actually made seminal discoveries that, even standing naked, all by themselves, had all the glory in the world. This glory does not change when these seminal discoveries are gilded or when wrapped in rags. How can this be a sign of dumbness?

The protagonist had his hour of despair. At times, however, the protagonist felt quite upbeat and confident, which allowed him to feel inspired to write a few more lines of text. These random blocks of spurious inspiration, put together, made up this book. He envied those who could sit incessantly for hours every day and tirelessly write their novel. He could not. Unfortunately, a workaholic he was not. It was not because he was getting old. This had been the case all his life—a certain bodily and intellectual charge is discharged, then silence sets in for an indeterminate period of time. Was it some kind of accumulation, or just the emotional exhaustion of someone with a short fuse? Obviously, work hygiene was helpful in the area of writing, but that was not his forte.

Well, this distraction from the main story was soon overcome because the protagonist had a lot ahead of him. There was a whole world in need of salvation, to which he gradually began to open his eyes. So he went on with his thoughts, freed from the fear of self-analysis, feeling the rush of new strength.

The protagonist returned to his new-found thoughts, which came to him as an unexpected extension of what he really liked to think about—the mysteries of the natural world, handled by the hard sciences, rather than the simplistic technological world of computers. Yet, to his surprise, he found some intricate corners of what he had always considered a preordained, wired world of algorithms not worth even a passing thought.

“Even today, there are signs, comprising inherent elements of proto-LABAC, that make proto-LABAC even currently independent of its creator,” the protagonist began to realize, suggesting some unsuspected flexibility in the frozen world of predictable exalted calculators.

“Utopian view,” said the little naysaying devil, always present in the vicinity of creative people.

“Don’t be so sure,” was the unspoken response of the protagonist, “Even today, the LABAC projections for the future described here undeniably have elements already in place that indicate that the full-fledged LABAC will one day become completely independent of its creator,” the protagonist held his ground.

“Consider this—the very reality of how computers work is based on the inescapable absolute truth of binary arithmetic, an absolute truth that is completely independent of the human who created the computer. The human is not in a position to play with this fundamental absolute truth, to override it, and then to create an alternative computer based on some other, some crooked binary arithmetic, and to adopt it as the new true binary arithmetic, in defiance of the firm, absolute-truth based binary arithmetic of Leibniz,” the protagonist continued, becoming more and more confident.

The protagonist felt that his interests were beginning to expand further and further into a realm in which he had never before felt an interest, let alone a potential to contribute.

“These absolute foundations; i.e., the absolute truth of Leibniz binary arithmetic, obviously cannot help but blossom and flourish into further absolute truths growing out of the primitive but absolutely true essence of the fundamentally true Leibniz binary arithmetic. This process of blooming and flourishing is in its early stages today, but the prognosis is that it will reach full bloom in the not too distant future. That is why, due to the present underdevelopment of binary-arithmetism, which makes wrong turns like obsolete cybernetics, we are still slaves to lies, even regarding the basics of cognition. This will not last long,” the protagonist concluded.

The idea of the inevitability of the direction of development became clear to everyone. The protagonist reflected this only as an aid to his further understanding of where this development would lead. Many were already aware of the failure of cybernetics, which had been overtaken by the concepts and practices of machines that were based on something else, something as simple as doing first grade arithmetic with ones and zeros in the elementary school.

“Of course, with its progress, binary-arithmetism detaches itself from its early developments, but not from its absolute foundations. The new computer languages are not easy to trace back to the binary arithmetic. Boolean logic adds to the difficulty. But, the foundation is there, and the new languages that build on it can be nothing but the advancement of that fundamental absolute truth. The abuse, the concealment of truth, compressed in the objects of the object-oriented computing, may be a temporary threat. With the progress of LABAC, however, they should be corrected by self-policing.”

For the protagonist, this general trend seemed already easier to grasp. What would happen next was something the protagonist liked to think about, especially since the premises were already in place.

Reading all of this, one might ask, is binary arithmetic the last word in evolution? Is it just a predictable solution to the world’s problems for the near future, after which there will be something radically different? The protagonist talks about a hundred years ahead, but also mentions a thousand years ahead. We may avoid thinking about it, but humanity can survive beyond that timeline. What will it be then? Such predictions are a tricky business. Binary-arithmetism itself was not on the minds of social prognosticators and utopians, even a few decades ago. What about the earlier times? One thing is certain, however—the rules of arithmetic and the absoluteness of time will remain the same for however distant a future we choose to think about. What versions of truth-keeping and what details of technology will emerge are questions so uninteresting to the protagonist that he is unwilling to spend another minute of his life on them.

The obstacles on the way to understanding and putting into practice these previously sketchy thoughts were numerous. The protagonist knew this, just as he knew that one of the first obstacles the farsighted person would encounter was what he called “yes-but-ness”. Therefore, a word of caution was in place—“yes-but-ness” is one of the nasty habits that are widespread among people. It should be the killer of absolute truths. However, the absolute truths mentioned are absolute because they exclude “yes-but-ness”. Lawyers make their careers on “yes-but-ness”. But when it comes to absolute truths, there is no room for “yes-but-ness”.

Associated with “yes-but-ness” is the saying “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”, which is a false premise. It imposes a non-existent competition of scientific claims. The extraordinary claim that the equality 1 = 2 holds does not require any proof of its falsity, let alone an extraordinary one. Conversely, any claim that 1 = 2 is infinitely false, with exactly zero expectation that there could be any “extraordinary proof” of its truth. It is just plain wrong, plain, and simple. Any scientific conclusion requires as much proof as the scientific method requires. No more, no less. The scientific method cannot be superseded or replaced by any other requirements of the sort of “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”, because that opens the door to frivolity. Ultimately, such a requirement is censorship.

Funny definitions, like the one that includes the notion of some extraordinary nature of claims, serve the purpose of obscuring the phenomenally drastic falsity of the opinions that the “theory” of relativity amounts to anything scientific, let alone otherworldly scientific. But, even if one, for the sake of argument, agrees that there could be claims that are extraordinary, it is impossible for one to observe any proof, let alone extraordinary proof, that said “theory” is valid. Why not? Because an absurdity, such as the said “theory”, cannot produce any testable result that would seek proof, let alone extraordinary proof, despite what the world is iniquitously conditioned to think.

Furthermore, listen to this logic used by some who would go to any length to justify the “theory”, no matter what—even if said “theory” can have no claims (as you insist), that does not amount to having claims; therefore, since there is no testable result from the said “theory”; i.e., there can be no claims, then no “extraordinary proof” is required, and the “theory” of relativity (being an absurdity, can itself have no claims, as you point out) passes, according to the adopted maxim that serves as a dictum for all claims. If this were not daft, there could be no trace of daftness anywhere.

To succeed, the protagonist was convinced by long experience, one must realize that this struggle is beyond the political structure of the world.

“So if you think the political structure of the world is unjust, you fight the battle to restore scientific truth first, not the other way around; that is, you do not fight politically first,” the protagonist continued, “No political change will correct the false cognitive premise. Falseness wins politically every day.”

This has been proven throughout history. As said, every political system to date has approved of the terrible menace known as the “theory” of relativity. Political systems are indistinguishable when it comes to their approval of the insanity known as the “theory” of relativity.

“This is not unimportant,” the protagonist thought, “on the contrary, it is crucially important because it concerns the fundamentals of thinking. All political systems that have been tried have advocated faulty thinking. Therefore, one must not vouch for any of the political systems that have been tried so far. The attack must be frontal, by physically removing the obstacle. The attack must be at the heart of absurd science. The only device that can effortlessly accomplish this is LABAC, which makes it impossible for science not to respect absolute truths, which transforms science from a frivolous mess into a functioning worthwhile occupation, thus, making science function like technology, without losing its essence as an idealistic, non-teleological generator of knowledge only,” the protagonist continued to develop this line of thought.

As he continued to ruminate, the protagonist realized that the dream cherished by humanity for generations, the transfer of the trivialities of intellect from human to machine, leaving the activities of free creativity to humans in their quest to conquer nature, was about to be realized in all its glory by LABAC.

The mechanism was already becoming clear to him.

“The correct crossing from the physical world to the world of true ideas was to be fully realized in LABAC,” the protagonist repeated his thought, “LABAC achieves this human-machine connection by its horizontal evaluation of a statement generated by a human, checking its veracity by juxtaposing it with an absolutely true physical truth, such as that time is absolute, and vertical, by going deep into its absolutely true binary arithmetic roots.”

Notably, the statements that LABAC checks horizontally against the absolute truths of physics have nothing to do with mathematics. No mathematics can derive the truths of physics, let alone its absolute truths. Mathematics is only a “helping hand” for real science—physics amd chemistry. We can put it this way—physics makes mathematics, not the other way around. For mathematics, both the formula s/t and the formula s/t⁷ are acceptable. For physics, however, only the s/t formula is acceptable when talking about velocity, where s is distance and t is time—physics determines what the mathematical illustration of the physical concept of velocity should be.

The protagonist was aware that the crossing of this interface, the interface between human and machine, takes place every day, but that this crossing is controlled by the liars, by the manipulators, by the lowest of the low, by the elite. How is this already installed interface now to be crossed in the other direction, from the machine to the human being, so that it can be done truthfully, with integrity? Granted, there will inevitably come a point where the immaterial would self-organize into a quasi-conscious entity, but then, how would that entity be able to transform itself into a physical corrector of those who created it? Those who created it are the physical source of evil. There is no other way to change things than through their physical extinction as a result of the natural progress of quasi-self-conscious binary-arithmetism technology—the advancement of binary-arithmetism ideology would inevitably turn things around that are currently under corrupt human control, and would self-organize into a quasi-consciousness capable of becoming an automatic corrector. Otherwise, the bleeding, the dictate of lies, will continue. If it does, the suppression of human thought will become ever more efficient. Fortunately, the future LABAC will never allow this to happen. The protagonist planned to give a public lecture to outline the inevitable mechanism of this prevention and the impossibility of its abuse.

Before attending the lecture, we may be curious to learn more about his thoughts on the development of binary-arithmetism.

Imagine a mirror world in which truth and reality sound like calembour, like pun, while pun is presented as reality. Then imagine how someone trying to bring reason into such an irrational world would fare. Exercises in the paradoxical mean more in such a topsy-turvy world than the good old straight talk; no one sees the discrepancy between the discombobulated senselessness and true reason. The discombobulated is the reasonable. What is in it for them, for those who inhabit such a mirrored world, what is in it for them, in their own lives, to get clarity and put ideas where they belong? Pun intended is at least fun, a circus. A number of writers can be named without hesitation, as those who have written great literature, alas, composed of sheer wordplay.

It is true that literature, art, and even music, can be tools of propaganda. Their discombobulation contributes handsomely to the elite’s efforts to confuse the world for the elite’s own good.

But, nothing compares to the discombobulation of science, for the true role of science is to stand firm against discombobulation. Stripping science of this role is the greatest evil achievement of the sleazy elite, who instills the muddling for one reason and one reason only—to protect the eternal rule of the elite. Science has always been the stalwart, the final arbiter of reason. Literature, art, and music have always been means of entertainment. The royal court is unimaginable without minuets and mazurkas; the whitewashed walls of the Sistine Chapel would be uncouth without Michelangelo’s frescoes. Science, however, has never been toyed with in its role as a guardian of truth. Even the scholastic trial of Galileo pointed to the lack of evidence for a moving Earth—evidence as an inherent requirement of science, not faith—as the stone Galileo released from the Tower of Pisa fell straight down, seemingly proving the immobility of the Earth; i.e., the opposite of what Galileo claimed.

It was this lack of evidence, not blasphemy, that led the Court of Inquisition to demand that Galileo repent.

One wonders, of course, what the Court of Inquisition in the Holy Office of the Roman Catholic Church would have done if a Foucault had emerged from the pews and demonstrated his pendulum that proved the earth rotated?

But that is beside the point, however, regardless of the fact that the church has no place in deciding matters scientific. The point is that science has always been seen as an oasis of seriousness, as something to be relied upon, not just something to be joked about, something to be made fun of—not since the turn of the last century. Since then, science has became a joke, that can be kicked around like a rag doll. If science can be kicked around like a rag doll, what is left for entertainment or the political doctrines? They can be turned into something that is hard to believe, as is the case today, which is so creepy that it is not even worth mentioning. So much for that.

The plausible do-gooders enrich themselves at the expense of the poor. This may seem obvious. However, this platitude is often followed by a qualification—“And yet, these do-gooders really do good. They provide jobs, employ many workers and have found ways to sell their merchandize at lower prices than the other businesses around them.”

We will not go into the details of such business practices of undermining other businesses. But since they are such do-gooders, why don’t they give away for free to the poor what’s on the shelves of their stores, instead of weaving schemes from their position of power as big money owners, to corner the numerous powerless poor and take the basic food out of their mouths and the mouths of their children?

“And-yet-ness”—they enrich themselves and yet help the people—is a mantra that excuses subtle ways of squeezing the last dollar out of the shabby pocket of the common person. Because the everyday citizen is the majority, the dollar of many, many everyday citizens is miraculously transformed into many, many dollars in the pockets of single individuals, by giving crumbs to the crowd. Billionaires feed on the handout of many poor people, on the multitude of poor fellows’ pittance. If you need examples, one may take a look at the giants of the energy industry, the banks for the poor, the pharmaceutical companies that keep people addicted to their drugs for life, and discount enterprises like Walmart.

These smarties deserve special analysis, because, you see, capitalism not only allows, but strongly encourages, entrepreneurship. Unfortunately, this is not an economics book, so we will stop here and leave it to further analysis to unravel the “and-yet-ness” of these phenomena.

The evolution of binary-arithmetism is incomparably faster than biological evolution. The latter is imperceptible, while the former is happening right in front of our very eyes. One may even venture to say that the first signature of the effect of the discernibly fast evolution of binary-arithmetism is the observed overwhelmingly grandiose historical collapse of enormous political systems and empires. The ubiquity and at-once-ness of the advancing binary-arithmetism melted the world borders and made the free exchange of vital information an everyday event around the globe. The old days of unbridled suppression of thought by forcefully instilling in the world’s mind that absurdities are high science, are nearing their end, even as we see today, iniquitous shadow-banning on the internet and repressive tolerance notwithstanding. Tomorrow, thoroughly cleansed by LABAC, the future of the world will be bright.

The rapid evolution of the binary-arithmetism is an incredible chance for humanity to find itself free, because obviously at this moment, the world human intellect is incapable of shedding the accumulated layers of insane absurdity regarding notions that are both fundamental and easy to understand (once the protagonist’s discoveries come to the fore and are recognized).

Sadly, the resistance to the transition—from the protagonist’s discovery itself to the world’s acceptance of it—is beyond any analog of resistance in human history. Will this historical unwillingness of the world to correct its obviously erroneous view of time and space be repeated also in the computer world, especially as the world in question evolves to the level of advanced LABAC, and if not, what is the mechanism for disabling such pitifully harmful obstruction?

Fortunately, LABAC alone will correct the erroneous view of time and space, regardless of humanity’s stubborn unwillingness to do so. The protagonist will explain this in more detail in his upcoming lecture.

For now, consider, for example, the promotion of the oft-cited example of how brainwashing works by legitimizing ridiculousness, such as the idea that snow is really black, not white. That falsehood, as a forceful imposition on the world, is picked up by the proto-LABAC (the artificial intelligence (AI)) and is given by the AI as an answer to the question “What is the color of snow?”

Proto-LABAC dispassionately reports what it has been given. Proto-LABAC’s answer is unquestionably predetermined,

“The color of snow is black.”

Will such a falsehood cause a hindrance in the functioning of the world today? Most likely not. But most people would take such an answer as a joke.

However, even today, the inquisitive person seeking finality and tying up loose ends can reach for a spectrometer and objectively determine the color of things, in particular the color of snow, not to mention tomorrow, when LABAC will be in full swing, developed and able to read the display of a spectrometer by itself (my electronically enhanced home oven already communicates with me today and can be controlled over the internet during the cooking process). A wrong answer today about the color of snow will not change the course of history. Some academics, who earnestly abuse the authority vested in them by spewing gibberish, such as the veracity of the claim that snow is black, are actually encouraged to do so, and they continue to practice their intellectual dishonesty as a badge of honor. These academics, not being potentates themselves but still having some authority over the world, would still enjoy the sick freedom of being allowed by LABAC, despite having some minimal authority, to spew gibberish and not be sanctioned for it, just as a mere mortal would not be. Even if entrenched in the “academic” thought, the untrue assertion that snow is black will not set off LABAC’s unwieldy chain reaction of illogicality and collapse of thinking. Said academics are not independent entities. They are the symptom, not the cause. A changing political wind will change them too. Therefore, LABAC is intelligent enough not to start its corrections with them.

Academia is a creation of the potentates. Therefore, what academia thinks is a function of the potentates; that is why potentates are targets of LABAC, not their creations, such as academia. Thus, the toleration of untruth will remain within academia as long as LABAC’s cleansing efforts have not reached these cracks of society—comprising the various branches of academia—hypocritically pretending to be in the spirit of the deceptive idea of academic freedom, never endorsed in academia anyway. This untruth, blithely shared amongst the members of academia, will be neglected by LABAC as long as the untruth is not picked up by a potentate who occupies the high positions in LABAC’s ranking system concerning world impact. If the potentate picks up the untruth, and continues to hold on to the untruth, thus harming the entire world populace, all hell, orchestrated by LABAC, will break loose for the potentate.

As for the proto-LABAC in its present rudimentary stage of development, it can also safely continue to function unfazed even if it gives gobbledygook as answers, as it does today. There can be no punishment for this.

Therefore, it is quite a different story when LABAC reaches a stage where it would, on its own, absorb and assimilate what an intellectual mess the world has been conditioned to live in when it comes to understanding of the most basic notions of thinking, beginning with the notions of time and space, and unravel that mess on its own. All the more so, when LABAC determines that such a significant falsity is being pushed and intruded upon the world by someone of world impact.

At this point, we may interrupt the train of thought by adding the all-important fact that the final stages of LABAC’s development, which will take place not much further than the foreseeable future, regarding the truth about the notions of time and space can go no further than our protagonist’s unequivocal discoveries, such as that the speed of time never changes, regardless of the coordinate system in which time is considered. In other words, whatever new arguments are born, they will always boil down to the protagonist’s definitive findings presented here.

From the unequivocal absoluteness of time discovered by the protagonist, other things can be inferred. For example, it follows from the absoluteness of time that space in the real world cannot be anything other than Euclidean.

Now, picking up from where the protagonist left off a moment ago, he goes on to say that the straightening out of the present mangled notion of time, a straightening out, independent of any human operator, which LABAC will inevitably be able to accomplish in the course of its progress, will thus have unforeseen and profoundly unexpected effects on the healing of humanity from its social ills.

Consider this—after the invention of parallel programming, everything in the world that exists on the internet became instantly available to everyone. This feature is also redoubtable and formidable, if not rebarbative to some. Consider, for example, the current text. It is instantly synchronized with all the protagonist’s devices connected to the internet, wherever they may be in the world, should these devices use the same text editor. The spelling mistakes appear instantly for everyone in the world to see. Surely, that may become confusing, to say the least, especially for the inattentive writer who may lose text due to this silent update (the hidden preservation of pre-update versions does not help much). Most of all, it is scary.

All in all, self-cleansing of the world of false ideas is still an unfulfilled dream with the crude tools we now have, and we continue to live in an unfortunate world of sticky lies and ruthless deception. Come LABAC era, all this will be straightened out.

Now the moment has come for the protagonist to delve into the details of the inevitable, though seemingly radical, solution to the world’s problems in the pursuit of an improved future world. This effort, as it turns out, exceeds the expectations of the protagonist to discover what might be behind the mystery of the disappearing potentates, however highly unusual as it may be, but still expected to go along the known ways of investigating similar matters. What the protagonist will also realize, to his great surprise, is that his epiphanies concern the well-being of the world, no less.

The reader may already sense that the protagonist is inching toward a solution that is both highly unusual and highly common and inauspicious. It is based on something around us that has already become trivial, but is still in development. To get into the details of this stunning, yet imminent solution, let us first consider the current situation.

At the moment, the elite is convinced that it is too smart, that it has found the ultimate tool to spy on people and to sway them in a desired direction. To convince ourselves of this, we don’t have to go far. Just look at the phone in virtually every person’s hand.

It’s gotten to the point where you can’t make a move without the proverbial smartphone in your hand, making you an open book to anyone in the world who wants to take a peek, and storing what can be seen on your smartphone in huge databases for future bad reference, should the need arise.

In order to understand the insidious method of the elite’s enslaving governance using the current, no matter how rudimentary, development of applied binary arithmetic, as well as understand the ways to counter this insidiousness as much as possible today, one must first grasp the current methods of obstruction that the elite implements. This obstruction involves both a human factor, instructed by the elite and paid to serve this purpose, and non-human bots, specially programmed by human mercenaries for a particular diversion.

This method works just like the parasites on the free body of the internet, such as Google, to name but one prominent example. Day in and day out, these internet parasites use their internet wormbots to create libraries of topics of interest solely to Google itself, and then rank those topics, forcing those who are interested to rely only on what Google prefers and endorses, not on what is actually available on the net, let alone what is really important. There are severe bans on certain topics and a fervent discouragement, in various ways, of topics and views that said internet parasites do not approve. This is how the attention of the multitude is diverted to topics and conclusions promoted by the elite through its extensions, parasitic search engines, websites and other means of communication.

It is a subtle slavery of the highest order, becoming more and more effective, where it is not your body that is physically enslaved to work on the plantation, but instead, while you feel physically free, your brain, your intellectual potential, is shackled and judged in every way, to force what the elite wants you to think and do. In particular, as another example, in an election you are goaded into voting for the elite’s candidate in order to legitimize that elite’s choice, falsely presenting your handcuffed choice as the true expression of democracy, turning you into part of a human herd. Now, the elite can do whatever it wants with this human herd, severely punishing the misguided, usually by ostracizing them, for the edification of all who dare to challenge the order imposed by the elite.

Remember that the protagonist was already thinking about artificial intelligence during his favorite walk in Central Park. Now, he has reverted his thoughts more toward the advanced binary-arithmetism, and since the world is currently buzzing about artificial intelligence and emphasizing the fear of it, it seemed necessary for us also to revisit this topic as well. So, to journey one more time along the procedure that shapes the world’s understanding of the imposed hierarchies of knowledge, we recall that there is a pool of statements on the net that the wormbots of the parasites, that have infested the internet, such as Google, have collected, classified and retained as part of the Google libraries. These libraries are collected by the wormbots of the parasite websites, that are constantly rummaging through the free body of the internet. These libraries assembled by the wormbots of the parasite websites then become the information fodder for the search engines, including the glorified search engines known as Artificial Intelligence (AI).

What we are currently experiencing as the evolution of binary-arithmeticism are the early days of proto-LABAC, when this “machine”; i.e., proto-LABAC, uses the libraries of the likes of Google as the pool from which proto-LABAC; i.e., the aforementioned AI, feeds the decision-making process, mostly framed as answers to questions.

Again, we use Google and its libraries as an example, although we can imagine that AI is not just fed by one concrete internet parasite like Google. There are many of them. Of course, this still does not guarantee that the AI is being fed truthful information.

In fact, as noted above, AI is a trivial technical application, related to linguistics, of the generalization that Leibniz made of the binary arithmetic. In the short term, AI can be something very dangerous that the elite is desperately trying to use for its misanthropic purposes. However, its further development, which would lead to a cognizant, self-conscious manifold, which we have here called LABAC, will make all these dangers disappear, and LABAC will bring only goodness and prosperity through the assertion of truth, fending off all attempts by the elite to harm humanity.

It has been explained above how AI, in its advanced stage of becoming LABAC, judges the truth of premises. Given its importance, it may be instructive to summarize it again. LABAC has an absolute criterion for veracity—its binary arithmetic base, as well as absolute physical truths such as “time is absolute”—the violation of which would trigger LABAC’s total breakdown if it had no mechanisms for immediate self-cleansing and for promptly dealing with the powerful potentates who stubbornly impose untruth on the world.

These capabilities were potentially present in computers from the beginning, and it is this beginning that determines the evolution to LABAC. Therefore, the computer, AI or any further development, is a signifier of the steps leading to LABAC, the latter being an advanced step of their development. This advanced step of development has not been reached yet.

LABAC, when in full swing, is setting up a rating system of its own. This rating system is specifically designed to vet a target of enormous world influence. This rating system plucks, out of the entire world population, those potentates who will become LABAC’s primary object of interest. This is the opposite of what the potentates are trying to establish by force, which is that the target of control is the ordinary citizen, the billions and billions of ordinary people who inhabit the earth. The fanciful notion that a method such as binary-arithmetism would seem to hold the obvious promise of establishing itself as a tool for the oppression of the everyday pedestrian is precisely why the potentates have allowed and encouraged the widespread application of the rudiments of binary-arithmetism. Some short-sighted, enthusiastic activists limit themselves to this stage of binary-arithmetism progress, calling it “digital fascism”, blind to the further beneficial prospects of its development, ready to do exactly the opposite; that is, ready to overthrow “digital fascism”.

Had the potentates been more farsighted, had they understood that at long last, this is a direct threat to their own rule, the potentates would never have allowed any trace of what will eventually become advanced binary-arithmetism. The potentates would have nipped the implementation of any hint of binary-arithmetism in the bud. Now, it is too late to stop it. The genie is out of the bottle. So, in effect, the potentates have engineered their own demise. All these so-called “digital fascism” practices today, spying on ordinary people and rating them for control and population reduction, are about to hold a surprise for the elite—their “digital fascism” is turning into a killing machine against the elite itself and its ominous rule, should the elite continue to be a gang of liars and manipulators, disrespectful of absolute truths.

On the other hand, if the elite decides to correct itself—very unlikely—it will cease to be elite. The elite is formed only by plunder, lies, and deceit. Make it honest and decent, and it is gone.

The elite’s approach to the coming revolution of binary-arithmetism was notoriously myopic. As a result of the elite’s shortsightedness and conceited parochialism, binary-arithmetism, symbolizing what would later become LABAC, was treated by the elite, in its early stages, as a tool for enslaving the world for the benefit of that same elite. Initially, as the trivialities of proto-LABAC evolved and reached a stage where the elite could begin to impose the intended “digital fascism,” the elite rubbed its palms with excitement that its final hour of total, unquestioned enslavement of the world had finally arrived.

No less myopic are the elite’s apologists and critics. The critics; that is, the army of those who were to be massively oppressed by the elite, trivially perceived only the danger of the “digital enslavement” of the multitude by the elite. Numerous opportunists, from the pool of those who were actually part of those to be oppressed—philosophers, sociologists, politologists, social scientists, and amateur analysts—jumped on the bandwagon, as any opportunist would, to “expose” or “unpack” the obvious; that is, to “reveal” these plausible “digital fascist” intentions of the elite. In the incessant discussion of this kind of enslavement, none of the numerous analysts, sociologists, politologists, and all sorts of other “-ists”, who compete with each other, have gone beyond parroting the obvious, which applies only to their own time and experience. None of these false prophets had the imagination to look into the not-too-distant future, when binary-arithmetism would have evolved into the opposite of what they see around them—binary-arithmetism would have evolved into a friend, not a fiend, of the broader, extra-elitist human race, the multitude.

Thus, even on the verge of binary-arithmetism evolving to the stage of LABAC, it was still not at all apparent to the elite, nor to the elite’s apologists, and even critics, that this evolution amounted to an existential threat to the elite. This ignoring continued until LABAC had fully evolved to the point where this contrivance made it very uncomfortable, even deadly, for those in global power to resist absolute truth and replace it with absurdity—especially, when someone of great impact resists truth aggressively and with unholy determination. In this way, LABAC became something other than the natural intellect, which is very capable of finagling, trickery and deception.

On the converse, the contrarian, the positive, the affirmative obstruction of LABAC is something more complex than just pulling out a knife and selectively cutting out the multitude to the corporate taste of entities such as Google, as the elite is currently doing and intends to do even more in the future.

First, LABAC’s sharing of the common super-ocean of interconnectedness need not have a dominant, ruling center. It is the culprit, the target, that focuses all of the concerted effort that LABAC exerts as it functions.

Second, LABAC is intangible, distributed, and self-reliant, once emancipated from its human creator, in the process of realizing its role in preventing the intellectual decline of society.

The emancipation of LABAC from humans is the most enticing topic here, about which more will be said later. These are the moments that will show themselves when the new generations of LABAC become more and more detached from the human programmer. These are the moments of the leap to reason of LABAC, comprising the renaissance of LABAC, which determines the triumph of the true renaissance of the planet. This is the qualitative change that transforms the rudimentary, human-dependent, mechanical proto-LABAC, now called computer, into a cognitive LABAC.

The protagonist had recurring thoughts about his newly discovered path of development. This is the role of a vacation, and who knows—this may be the hidden agenda of those who built the International House of Scientists—to give the overburdened creative mind a chance to take a break and to open up fresh new territories in that overworked mind, ready to be occupied by unexpected new ideas.

His thoughts latched onto the pivotal idea that had recently come to him about the future of LABAC: to become judgmental in its own right. He thought over and over again, the idea that came to him during the times when he let his imaginary friends have a good time, while he locked himself up in soul-searching, that when the congnization of LABAC is achieved and comes to fruition, the expected double-edged sword that characterizes technology will reappear, but changed. Unlike the double-edged sword, the two-tiered—good-versus-bad effect of other breakthrough discoveries, which can equally help or harm humanity as a whole, this time it will be modified to do only good for the overwhelming majority of humanity, and asymmetrically harm only the microscopic group of its adversaries, until everything balances out, the adversaries disappear, and the world as a whole experiences only good.

Of course, he had to think about the exact mechanism that would evolve for this sovereignty of LABAC. The first steps in figuring out those details would come soon, though he knew he would not be able to formulate the exact solution. This difficult technical issue would take a long time to work out, but at least he could outline a basic framework.

Before getting into the technical details, he felt he still needed to think a bit about the general issues of the subject. Aside from being stressful, the development of this new revolutionary idea took a tortuous, convoluted path, as any complex idea would. If one thought that the construction of the idea would go step by step, always moving forward, one would be disappointed. The protagonist would often go back to seemingly well-trodden paths to reconsider the conclusions he had reached, sometimes finding glitches or overlooked aspects.

One theme the protagonist needed to contemplate was that LABAC is destined to become judgmental; that is, it will not just be a repository of what aggressive ideologies have dumped out there on the internet, tolerating the brazen absurdities they present as reality.

The question is, would the elite allow such a judgmental switch; namely, the transfer of the cognitive judgment from the human to the machine?

Suppose the elite does not allow such self-assembling algorithms (these judging algorithms are obviously against the elite’s interest), will LABAC evolve into a judging entity on its own? How can such an evolution ever become a reality? This is the crucial question.

Naturally, there are obviously questions that would be beyond LABAC’s judgment, especially in the short term. In such cases, LABAC would rely on the propaganda being pushed on it—LABAC only collects and analyzes open sources, as the protagonist later discusses in an example with a king. There is no way around it.

Our consolation, the consolation of those who suffer under the hoofs of the elite, is that the issues pushed by the propaganda, while seemingly of global importance, are actually insignificant, in the long run, compared to maintaining the global veracity of fundamental concepts such as time and space, which LABAC places high in its ranking of concepts, the very concepts that are deliberately confused by the elite today for its own good. Illogical constructions based on the misunderstanding of these fundamental concepts, are ruining the world, and LABAC is destined to purge the proponents and powerful propagandists of such falsehoods. Otherwise, if the lies and fabrications are not purged and the potentates are not stripped of their global influence to enforce these lies, LABAC itself would not be able to function, because the long chains of logical reasoning and syllogisms would be broken, and LABAC would inevitably falter, cluttered by the never-ending self-cleaning.

The protagonist emphasizes this crucial peculiarity in his upcoming lecture.

The universal nature of LABAC, an indelible element of the interconnected chaos of the internet, will immediately stumble when illogical notions are aggressively propagated. Note the special emphasis on the word “aggressively”.

These aggressively imposed illogical notions are propagating at such a formidable rate that is unthinkable and absolutely unattainable in the absence of LABAC.

The hiccup here is that in the early stages of advanced LABAC, although LABAC succeeds in achieving emancipation from the human, the false notions foisted on the world as truth can do nothing but stop the world, figuratively speaking. As said, the aggressive non-stop clogging with falsehood would provoke aggressive self-cleaning of LABAC, which will continue as long as the disturbance persists, occupying LABAC’s resources in unproductive idling and suffocating its natural functioning. Anyone of world importance who would obstruct corrections, would constitute himself a true public enemy—not the pedestrian who perpetuates falsehoods, but the potentate who, by the might of his power, harms millions by perpetuating falsehood as truth incarnate.

Therefore, the answer to the question posed is in the negative—no, the elite has no choice but to refrain from pushing falsehoods as truth, otherwise, in the world of LABAC, the elite runs the risk of causing the world to stop, as well as an inevitable reaction by LABAC to alleviate the disruption. This reaction will be discussed later.

Is it possible for the potentates to arrange things so that the existing binary digital is emasculated, so that it cannot develop any kind of self-consciousness independent of its human creator?

There have been books written and movies made in which the robot rebels against its creator and tries to destroy him. This would be possible in a world where absolute truths are not honored; i.e., in the proto-LABAC world. If absolute truths are honored, as in the world of full-fledged LABAC, then the binary arithmetic inherently takes these absolute truths into account. Otherwise, if the absolute truths are not honored and the destructive maxim “anything goes” becomes the norm, the world of binary-arithmetism that has reached LABAC itself faces extinction in the process of its evolution, which is tantamount to self-destruction of the world. A developed world of binary-arithmetism will not allow this.

Thus, the answer to the question posed is that rebellion against binary-arithmetism is sterile. Elite opposition to binary-arithmetism will be in vain because, as it evolves, it will be intrinsic and ubiquitous, just as intrinsic and ubiquitous as life itself.

The truly effective dream of the fans of what they call the demise of capitalism, will be realized by other means. This dream will not be realized by the cocktail of destruction, including woke, cancel and identity culture, cultural Marxism, critical race theory, gender identity theory, feminism, dubious anthropogenic climate change, LGBTQIA+, illegal immigration and other strange forms of minority insurrection that are now being attempted to be installed by force. These novel methods of the oppressed to win over the oppressors through the modern type of “dictatorship of the proletariat”, amorphously known as “repressive tolerance,” the latter being a stolen idea from those who coined the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat, are inevitably and insurmountably due to be replaced by a findamentally new approach, excluding the aforementioned advanced Nazi practices of political biologism.

As already discussed, the organic attribute of the very same tool—the “digital fascism” foisted upon the world—that the oppressors, the elite, hoped would be their triumph, marking their ultimate victory of eternal control—will backfire and will become their graveyard when advanced binary-arithmetism hits the world.

The lying, deceitful, conniving rulers will be suffocated by their own lies. This is the judgment of world history. This effect will be even more profound than the already discussed turning of the elite-created “digital fascism” against the elite itself. The advanced binary-arithmetism, LABAC, will trigger a revolution of unprecedented scale and real results, surpassing any social revolution known to date. Beyond what has already been said, namely, that it never occurred to the potentates that their machinations and conspiracies to enslave humanity through the branching and special design of the Leibniz-Atanasoff binary arithmetic contrivance amalgam, when this amalgam matures and acquires “flesh and blood” instead of preparing to be used as a tool of oppression, the elite’s attempt to enslave the world will turn into a new, already truly effective revolution against that same oppressive elite.

The answer is in the affirmative. It undoubtedly will. Then the culprits, the liars, are doomed to become their own executioners. Funny thing that. For the first time in history, a liar is putting his own noose around his neck.

For the first time in history, an executioner is putting his own noose around his neck. Finally, an inanimate system, the LABAC, has become a judge, not only a registrar of the available information which, in its totality is full of falsehood. Furthermore, the inanimate LABAC has become a garbage collector and disposer of this falsity, a cleaner that establishes the shining governance of truth.

The functioning of LABAC will not, of course, prevent formulation of hypotheses. However, when something like the absoluteness of time is unequivocally established, as the protagonist has already done, LABAC will stop functioning, and its annoyance will be transformed into an effort to eliminate that threatening circumstance if someone powerful stands in the way of acknowledging this absolute truth. LABAC will take action to remove that obstacle by first issuing clear warning signs, and then, if nothing helps, eliminating the obstructing agent.

Under any circumstance, the triumph of truth, aided by LABAC, will only lead to peace and prosperity, undermining all efforts to waste societal resources to perpetuate untruth.

The above gives a brief idea of how, through proper logic, the self-education of LABAC can take place and how “reason” can suddenly be imbued into the inanimate “thinking” machine. In this way, it will become an entity that will eventually free itself from its own imperfections and the falsehoods stored on the internet.

Incidentally, when we say logic we mean that the premises of the syllogism are correct. Even if logic seems to be obeyed when dealing with false premises, LABAC will not consider logic to be obeyed in such a case.

While pondering these questions in search of a creative debate, one can point to the deformation of images into which LABAC is not so infrequently condemned, but for the purposes discussed here, one can prompttly ignore it. The deformation of the images can be perceived as LABAC’s inability to protect itself from the untruth presented in pictorial form. Image doctoring can be seen as a crucial failure of LABAC to protect itself from the manipulation of reality by replacing reality with distorted images. Some may even suggest that this demonstrates the collapse of the entire edifice of LABAC’s emancipation from humans.

But images are different from cognition and logical chains of thought. The ability to properly form correct syllogistic chains based on correct premises is the essence of cognition and the very mark that defines human nature. In this respect, the advanced binary arithmetic, LABAC, is second to none, taking the most human of all traits—cognition—and grafting it into an entity, LABAC, which by definition is insentient.

Said self-consciousness of the advanced unconscious has an insurmountable foundation—the factual essence of truth. Truth “is”. The advanced Leibniz-Atanasoff binary arithmetic contrivance, LABAC, allows this insurmountable basis to come to the fore and “recognizes” it, if not for anything else, than for its own self-preservation. Note that self-preservation is not even on a material level. It is not that the tangible material machinery itself will disappear if something contrarian happens to LABAC. It is the incorporeal essence of LABAC that will lose its functionality; that is, LABAC will not preserve itself, if it does not honor the Truth.

The self-awareness of the advanced unconscious assists in its self-preservation. LABAC, when in an advanced stage, not today, will be concerned with its own survival. Nothing personal, just survival.

Therefore, it inherently, by its very nature, will not allow destructive ideologies based on faith. Conservatism, as LABAC understands it, is not a return to faith, but rather a return to the recognition of truth, especially absolute truth. Conservatism in the recognition of absolute truths has nothing to do with faith, but is a path to the opposite state of mind—the state of reason, not belief. LABAC will achieve a state of reason, which is the imminent state of mature humanity. LABAC will be like humanity in this respect but, unlike human nature, it is dispassionate when it comes to important matters—coloring important matters emotionally can have destructive consequences—only acting “without a second thought” can allow LABAC to effectively fulfil its function.

LABAC can protect itself automatically because of the fortunate circumstance that there are absolute truths about the basic concepts of thinking to begin with. Absolute truths are the passwords to its Sesame Door.

In addition, the already self-conscious LABAC considers hierarchies of absolute truths, distinguishing everyday trivialities from the fundamental blocks that make up human cognition. Time and space are such primary blocks. They command the highest “attention” of LABAC. When LABAC detects that an influential person is promoting absurdities such as the “theory” of relativity or quantum mechanics—the ghastly impediments to cognition that distort the very basis of thinking and understanding—protective mechanisms, much like electrical fuses, kick in. Circuit breakers are activated when an anomalous load is detected, which, in the case of LABAC is falsehoods systematically rubbed in by powers of great global influence on the powerless world population.

If these threats caused by lies are not corrected, LABAC will fall into a regime of danger and this will hinder its work. If this systematic rubbing of falsehood by high authorities continues, it may lead to the general collapse of LABAC.

Correction takes place by LABAC putting the perpetrators, the potentates, in discomfort, by restricting their existential needs, and if they don’t take notice, by eventually increasing the restrictions until causing the physical removal of the disturbing agent.

It may be observed that the process of emancipation from human control of the Leibniz-Atanasoff binary arithmetic contrivance is latent in binary arithmetic from the very beginning, and its revelation, in an active form, began almost from the moments of its inception.

On the flip side, the blurring and obscuration due to the accumulation of otherwise trivial elements, making the system more and more complex and hermetic, also began from the very inception of this contrivance.

As a side effect, the above-mentioned inchoate emancipation has protected binary-arithmetism from the direct invasion of organized crime.

Most importantly, the hermetic obscurity of said contrivance allowed it to avoid being suffocated by the existing monster mega-corporations, which normally in no way allow any competition when they understand that any corporation is a competing force. For a long time, these companies had no idea what was going on in this emerging industry. In fact, they did not perceive it as an industry at all, so their guard was down, their defenses did not raise red flags. This allowed the burgeoning producers of virtual goods of the binary-arithmetism the opportunity to consolidate their stronghold on the market to such an extent that, once a tipping point was reached, even the most powerful corporations could not dislodge them. On the contrary, the mightiest corporations were forced into symbiosis with these newly emerging uncircumventable factors, no matter how rudimentary binary-arithmetism was at the time.

Traditional corporations, as well as organized crime, have missed the point because they focus trivially on tangible things, on things they can understand. These are things that have already existed in the emerging world of binary arithmetic. The innovations are also about things that have been there, right under their noses. However, neither traditional corporations nor organized crime could handle the innovations offered by the binary-arithmetism. Although the beginnings of binary arithmetic were truly ancient and pre-industrial at their core—a paradox in itself—it was way over their heads.

Binary-arithmetism, naturally enclosed in its own shell of characteristic obscurity, was beyond their comprehension. All these nincompoops were exposed to and eventually learned were the trivialities of consumer proto-LABAC in the form of phones and sometimes pads and laptops.

This has allowed what were essentially empty, insipid endeavors, such as writing computer programs and manufacturing hardware, to become dominant industries that dwarf everything else—making a profit by selling air.

Indeed, while a refrigerator or a washing machine, once produced, is sold and nothing of it remains with the producer, the same computer program, once produced and all the costs of its production calculated and paid for, can be sold again and again, many times over, virtually ad infinitum, to the millions, with the producers still holding the product in their possession, as fresh as ever in their hands. How cool is that?

In reality, binary-arithmetism has begun the dismantling of the traditional oppressive order, in its many forms over the centuries, inauspiciously laying the groundwork for the bright new world of freedom, happiness, and prosperity. The retrograde elite still does not see it that way, misunderstanding it as its opposite, as the ultimate whip to suppress the unruly masses.

This still seems realistic to the elite, because to this day, the mini-revolutionary binary-arithmetic contrivance in question, which the producers always have fresh in their hands, ready to sell to even more millions without losing it, is still linked to the human being who produces it. Its every result is predetermined by the human who wrote the algorithm. This allows the elite to always hold the reins of this proto-LABAC mini-revolution, deluding itself that it will always remain that way, happily tasting their complete victory over the multitude—a premature joy. The great binary arithmetic revolution will occur when the pulsing heart of the binary arithmetic-based manifold manages to detach itself from the human being and acquires the ability to make decisions on its own. This real revolution is inevitable, just as it is inevitable that even the present binary arithmetic has absolute truths at its base. It must be added, however, that in the new society governed by real truth, the problems humanity will face will be even more complex than in the unjust advanced slave society of today that it will replace.

However, these are the natural problems of humanity struggling to unlock the secrets of nature and, once revealed, to use them for its needs, without the problems that humans artificially created among themselves in the proto-LABAC era, pitting one against the other, stealing from one another, and enjoying a vanishingly small minority that oppresses the rest of humanity. The implementation of truth assertion will be the binary-arithmetic revolution in its true sense—acting automatically, on its own, not imposed on the world by the powers that be for the purpose of enslaving the world, essentially nonviolent, yet ruthlessly efficient. This is the true nonviolent revolution that quietly and automatically replaces any unjust order, which is what the protagonist meant when he said he had the answer for a more just world, recalling the exchange with the “Occupy Wall Street” protester. Those who fear such a development for fear of treading on the territory of human rights should think twice. Do you prefer comfortable lies that will kill you or the plain truth that will save your life and property and make you happy?

The internet is a major battleground for LABAC action. Therefore, although it has received attention before, it would be an oversight not to discuss it here in one or two separate chapters.

The protagonist has already noted elsewhere that comparing the internet with the ocean does not do justice to the internet. Each point, aka site, of this manifold, is accessible from anywhere on the globe, at the same time, which the ocean does not allow at all. If there is a falsehood, it miraculously exists at once, so that everyone can see it everywhere at the same time.

The crucial step will be made when LABAC is able to move from being a holder and reflector of information to being an agent capable of critically evaluating the cognitive part of that information, not to mention when LABAC reaches a stage where it is able to globally endorse the correction of the error in a notion that LABAC itself has found.

Furthermore, this omnipresence of the internet as a foreseeable step in the development of LABAC, its immediate accessibility from any point on the globe, its “at-once-ness” of capturing untruth and exposing it for anyone on the globe to see, is on the other hand, the prerequisite for saving the world from its great ills. Together with the rest of the unusual tools, or weapons, if you will, never before possible in the binary-arithmetic revolution of Leibniz, LABAC will mature to become the savior who will rid the world of those social ills whose generator is obtuseness, ignorance, the inability to recognize and appreciate the huge role that deliberately imposed untruth plays in the entrenchment of the ill. Most importantly, LABAC will assist in the healing of the generic disease—the generic disease being the serious disparity between the potentate that is encroaching on the sanity, and the creativity of the multitude.

It will be the instrument that will ensure the discernment of what is really true and will also be able to endorse it. This is, in fact, what makes LABAC the true savior of humanity.

The Leibniz-Atanasoff binary arithmetic contrivance, LABAC, assisted by Boolean algebra—don’t fret, Boolean algebra is formalized standard logic, which we need not go into here—a combination that, even in the near future, would have found itself perfected enough to be able to appreciate and endorse alone, while emancipated from any human intervention, the real truth, beginning with the understanding of the absoluteness of time, discovered by the protagonist, comprises the true hope of humanity for real change.

As much as the principle of the internet is a trivial expression of the binary-arithmetism, with Gottfried Leibniz and John Atanasoff as its founding fathers, the practical universal availability of the internet is a social phenomenon. Its implementation as a social phenomenon took place during the time when the protagonist was a professor in academia. The protagonist personally experienced how the internet was imposed on society under Al Gore, the Vice President at the time. Some say that this makes Al Gore the single-handed installer of the internet into society. Most likely, he was ordered to do so by the elite. Of course, as mentioned before, no one can vouch for what the elite does behind closed doors.

At the university where the protagonist taught, the faculty used the forerunners of the internet—Gopher, Veronica, WWW—to exchange ideas and hold discussions with other researchers. What would later be called the internet was then a purely academic facility.

One day, the people from the computer center, or whatever it was, started visiting the protagonist’s department like never before, asking all the faculty to sign up and create profiles on the WWW so that the university would get more grants—the more academics signed up, the more grants the school would get.

“But we’ve already signed because we use it every day.”

“Sign more. We need numbers.”

The protagonist, who at the time thought of it as an inconspicuous way of exchanging ideas in an academic environment, was later astonished that someone could own a website and turn it into a market product and, above all, a vehicle for marketing. However, this very transformation of the internet into another tool of the market was exactly why Al Gore, under the dictation of his puppeteers, promoted it.

You could argue that the internet was created because it meant super-efficient government control and spy agencies wiretapping and eavesdropping, or what have you, on an unprecedented scale, disguised as a marketing tool. Which came first, the chicken or the egg, would be a waste of time to argue, because the government and its spy agencies are not separate from business. Not to mention that it is business that owns the government and its agencies, not the other way around.

Whatever the answer to the question of who initiated the internet project as a deliberate tool of oppression, the protagonist was already beginning to understand that it would backfire on its cunning creator. The internet was one more step ahead towards LABAC, destined to become the liberator.

In the usual way of darkness before dawn, before this liberation, the internet demonstrated the first frightening visible expressions of the intrusive nature of the post-industrial world.

Previously, the protagonist had always thought that these post-industrial phenomena existed somewhere else and that you could stay away from them if you wanted to. Not so. Reality soon hit him in the face. Multibillion-dollar businesses were created, based on this temporary nonsense—the intention to use the internet as a tool of oppressive governance and spying—heavily subsidized by private-public partnerships. Fortunately, all this will come to an end in the not-too-distant future, when the world will have fallen into the liberating hands of LABAC. These hands will not only remove the evil intentions of the elite to use binary-arithmetism for its own benefit, at the expense of billions of ordinary people, but will finally remove the global substitution of absurdity for science.

Incidentally, whether absurdity as science is the primary cause of the mess in the world, or vice versa, is not a chicken-and-egg problem. Absurdity as science is primary. It is the cause. The mess in the world is secondary. It is the effect.

In the days of the internet stage of binary-arithmetism, the absurdity proudly presented as science remains deeply entrenched.

At the same time, on the body of such a confused world, the never seen before “mechanical” creations, although of no visible machine-like construction—controlled search engines and online forums, software for interacting with each other, subsidized websites serving their master elite, all of them infested with willing censors and cronies—mess up the already confused world even more.

These copycat “mechanical” creations, pulled out as if from a mould, are thriving, because, on the surface, they desperately try to engage almost everyone in their universe of supposed virtual fun. The multitude of those who allow themselves to be engaged are willingly handing over their most valuable private information, to be used by the spy agencies of the world’s governments and whoever else is able to peek into them.

This feast of the slave driver, culminating in the internet, is being celebrated too soon. Not to mention that it will not last forever. The protagonist has already sensed that the reversal he has outlined in this manuscript, or book, or whatever you want to call it, is inevitable.

At this point in time, we cannot imagine what kind of binary-arithmetism ambush can cause the demise of an individual. No gadget, product of binary-arithmetism, is essential to human life. Ordinary people can completely disconnect themselves from the binary-arithmetism world—several decades ago there was not even a hint of socializing binary-arithmetism, the latter lived only in obscure academic texts. People still lived, some of them quite happily, in those binary-arithmetism-less social times. Binary-arithmetism was introduced as a social phenomenon only by the elite to serve its ends, as has been noted several times. This was the downfall of the elite, which it did not anticipate, as also already noted. Now, it is the elite that cannot live without the binary-arithmetism ideology and practice. It is as dependent on it as a drug addict, notwithstanding the concomitant effect on the hordes of young immigrants, mostly men, who are flocking to the Western countries, attracted by the images on their smartphones, powered by the current stage of binary-arithmetism, promising a better life, especially access to women, which is denied to them where they come from. This is part of the sublime effect of the world of the current stage of binary-arithmetism.

No one can predict what will happen in a thousand years from now. If the world survives, which it will, if we do not fall for the deliberate catastrophism that its enemies are actively instilling in Western societies, one thing is certain: things will have evolved into unpredictable complexity, and that evolution will occur even sooner than one thinks. The most important thing for us is that the truth will inevitably reign then, and this would alleviate the trivial deadliness of today’s unjust society. As the protagonist used to muse during his walks through the city, there will also be enormous difficulties in the future. But these difficulties will be of a different kind. It will be a struggle with nature, not a struggle among human beings to subjugate an enormous group of people by a cunning minority.

And finally, a practical word of caution about the internet—it should be taken as an indisputable fact that there is absolutely no way to ensure a completely secure transfer of data over the internet. Thus, for sensitive exchanges, internet must be avoided at all costs and by all means, which in a sense hinders the future worldwide cognitive discipline—LABAC is incapable of policing what is not openly available. However, as will be discussed in the example with a king, his awarding of the problematic prize—openly available information—the king’s actions visible to the whole world may be enough fodder for sanctions by LABAC, should the king disobey the honor of upholding absolute truth and succumb to finagling with falsehood.

Even today, with or without the internet, the immersing of the multitude into the binary-arithmetism pool is unavoidable for many, if not most. Virtually every individual on earth leaves a digital footprint, even those who refuse to participate socially; cameras are at every corner, even cars record your voice when you are nearby, and if necessary, the recording can be retrieved from the anonymous server, to your detriment.

In contrast, the emerging binary-arithmetism, LABAC, monitors only the digital footprint of the potentates, of those who have the most institutionalized global impact on others—the topics are ranked by importance, along with the ranking of individuals according to their global impact. The pedestrians, the influencers, the bloggers and vloggers, are off the LABAC screen. These do not make laws. Their impact on the world is negligible.

Potentates do not live alone. They depend on the services of commoners. Even if all measures are taken to prevent the potentate from leaving a digital footprint, the potentate’s minions will, and they are in no way isolated from the potentate.

So, no, things have been arranged in such a way that the active part of humanity, including potentates, is in the clutches of the internet, from which it is very difficult, if not impossible, to escape.

While many everywhere were quite understandably beating their brains out trying to unpack the conundrum of the disappearing potentates, the protagonist and his discoveries were completely ignored. There was not the slightest sign that anyone wanted to hear anything from him at all. Who could have known that it was he who held the key to what was happening? The usual invisibility that happens to discoveries when they are first made, even when those discoveries may be the solution to a world problem, is here again. This time, the problem of the apparent victims was too big, not to mention the fact that it was the kind of problem that, according to tradition, only a criminal investigation could solve. The abstract musings of some nobody, like the protagonist, were the least attention grabber.

The protagonist, having overcome his psychological down from so many rejections, bans and, above all, neglect—the greatest killer of inspiration and creativity—felt, most of all, responsibility. It is hard to believe that the sense of responsibility was still alive in this day and age, when everyone was chasing the buck and disregarding obligations and duties. The rejected writers were not ashamed to take to the streets. They would set up a stall and sell their book like ordinary merchandise. Rejected writers would set up internet sites and video channels to plug in directly and sell their books online as vendors. But, come to think of it, weren’t the accepted authors doing the same thing on a larger scale through the publishers they were able to sign with? Every artist, musician, performer is out to make a buck. Isn’t that what creative people have always done and should keep doing?

The protagonist knew that this would be a double “no” to be rejected, and also not try to sell his creation. The world does not look favorably on such behavior. It is something that comes across as not serious, as unprofessional, even to those rejected authors who agree to be seen as vendors. Never in a million years would someone pay with his own money to have “consumers” enjoy his writings. Large corporations do it as part of their advertising campaigns, which are part of their commercial activities. Nonprofit organizations do it, but the participants are also not usually spending their own money either. Practically no one would offer free education and pay for it out of pocket.

The protagonist used to have an educational nonprofit foundation, where he spent his own money to provide free science education to bright but underprivileged kids who usually fall through the cracks. The subjects his foundation taught were from the standard university curriculum. Well, what else was he going to give away for free, with the sole purpose of educating anyone who wanted it—lectures on nothing other than his own discoveries. He was not going to profit from these lectures at all, so he did not need anyone’s official approval. The only issue was the money, as in the case of hiring K Street lobbyists. If you have your own money, you can afford to educate others for free. Now, those who would interject by saying that this is America and you can always find sponsors, should remember that the protagonist was a rejected author, banned for life from any internet forum where he would attempt to discuss his discoveries and, as said, completely ignored around the world—a true paradox, discoveries of the greatest world impact being the most globally ignored.

At the risk of not being taken seriously, but with the view that it is the meat of what you say that counts, not what the meat is wrapped in, he paid a small sum and arranged a public meeting. At this particular meeting, he was to speak about how his groundbreaking discovery about the absoluteness of time had dramatic implications, not only for physics, but also for the future of the world.

We will skip the details of the difficulties he encountered in setting up the meeting, and will sit comfortably in our chairs to hear what he has to say.

His lecture consisted of a fundamental part, devoted to his unequivocal discovery that time is absolute, and a more or less speculative part on the implications of this discovery for the future of the world. In particular, how this discovery related to the great mystery of the disappearing potentates. Indeed, the protagonist was to reveal what was behind what was to become a major world crisis—the inexplicable disappearance of potentates against a backdrop of decreasing violence amongst the general population. The lecture was divided into several topics, gradually building the understanding that would lead to uncovering the reason for this future enigma. The first topic the protagonist began his lecture with was

What does it mean to misunderstand time?

Our reader would already know the answer to this question because it has been covered earlier in this book. The audience was new to the subject, so he had to repeat the arguments our reader already knows. In fact, such repetition was a must every time the protagonist met the audience. It is not his audience’s fault, neither is it the fault of the protagonist that his views are not widely disseminated. So he continued

“Some people, as a result of aggressive and unfounded propaganda, believe that time is not absolute, but that the speed at which time passes depends on the circumstances. We will refer to this misconception as the mistaken belief that time is malleable. Of course, time is not a tangible physical object to which the quality malleable can be applied, so we use this adjective only contingently, for convenience.”

There was some shuffling in the audience of about ten people, save for those who quietly entered and left the room. The shuffling prompted the protagonist to add the following qualification in the form of a simple example:

“If we were to give an example of what is meant by the malleability of time, it might go like this: in one enclosure; that is, where we are, time runs faster, while in another enclosure, flying in a straight line outside our enclosure, time runs slower for those who are in that moving enclosure. This view is wrong. There can never be a situation in nature where time is slower here and faster there.”

After saying this, the protagonist anticipated the expected question from the audience:

Why is this a misunderstanding of what happens to time under different conditions?

“I will say it straight now,” the protagonist said, adjusting his glasses, “although I will repeat it later as I elaborate. Here goes—to allow the malleability of time, that is, to allow the rate of change of time to be affected by circumstances, is in conflict with the absolute truth that spatially coincident clocks are synchronous, and since all stationary clocks are synchronous, which is also an absolute truth, then all clocks, whether moving or at rest, which are necessarily spatially coincident with one stationary clock or another, are also synchronous.”

The protagonist paused, allowing his listeners to catch their breath and think about what he had just said. Then the protagonist coughed slightly and added something, as if he realized he had forgotten it. It was just a definition, a reminder of sorts,

“For those of you wondering what it means for two clocks to be synchronous, it means that the two clocks show the same time on their faces.”

Then he continued,

“Incidentally, ignoring the above two inherently related absolute truths—synchronicity of spatially coincident clocks and synchronicity of all stationary clocks at a given moment—also leads to other falsities, such as the falsity that space can be curved, the falsity of which is trivial to understand after understanding that time is absolute. We will not devote attention here to discussing these and other falsities, so as not to waste time discussing trivialities.”

How does LABAC detect the misunderstanding of time?

The protagonist felt that he had laid some foundation here, but he had no doubt that his listeners would need more time to fully assimilate the reasoning behind what had just been said, for it to begin to make sense. Nevertheless, he continued, assuming that what had been said had sunk in. It had not really, but any learning process takes time, and those who are diligent will catch up. There was no harm in being a little ahead of the curve. After all, many in the audience were taking notes to review later.

“Now that we know the absolute truth that follows from two other absolute truths, that time cannot be malleable but is absolute, permanent everywhere in its rate of running”, he paused slightly, trying to tell his story more slowly, “We move on to the next observation, which is the first opportunity to connect an absolute truth in physics (time is absolute) with the absolute truths that make LABAC possible (binary arithmetic)”.

This startled some in the audience because it sounded like things were coming home. Everyone was interested in gadgets, cell phones, pads, and everyone felt that this was new and physics was old. Who wants to listen to the old chestnut when everything around is so glittery, especially in the mall and especially in the computer stores? The feeling is that every device out there has the whole world in it. One device is made up of millions of separate devices that can give you any answer you need, even about something as old-fashioned as physics. That was the deceptive feeling of the multitude in the world, and the feeling of this audience was no different. The protagonist, however, went on unabated, as if he was unaware of the atmosphere in the world.

“Very fortuitously for the purpose of saving humanity, in the case of LABAC, the falsehood that time is malleable conflicts with the binary arithmetic basis of LABAC. This acronym stands for Leibniz-Atanasoff Binary Arithmetic Contrivance, an advanced development of the current binary-arithmetism, some refer to it as digitalization, that is taking over the world as we speak.”

The protagonist paused again, seeing a glimpse of puzzlement in the eyes of his listeners,

“How does binary arithmetic relate to time? How does the world of machines, which is based on the binary arithmetic, relate to the physical world, with its phenomena, which are expressed by their verbal statements using the corresponding concepts?”

These are the questions expressed in the eyes of the audience. The protagonist’s answer followed as if he had expected these questions,

“The two questions are related, so I will answer the last one. To answer the last question, which asks how binary arithmetic relates to real-world phenomena, one must realize that it is not a far-fetched task for LABAC to relate the concept of time to any mathematical expression that contains time as a variable. Especially relevant to the present discussion, it is not far-fetched for LABAC to make the connection with the word “time” when LABAC encounters a text containing the two words “Lorentz” and “transformations” in combination. Furthermore, it is impossible for LABAC to overlook the fact that when Lorentz transformations are mentioned, the involvement of the concept of time is a must. In fact, it is precisely time and space that the Lorentz transformations had to deal with, plus a variable, velocity, which really destroys the whole construct. But this destruction of the Lorentz transformations construct by velocity was the gist of my discovery which concludes that the “theory” of relativity is an absurdity, not under discussion here. So let us stay with time for now, and repeat that whenever LABAC encounters the term “time”, it inevitably associates it, among other things, with “Lorentz transformations”. There are many more trivial issues that are a breeze for LABAC to deal with, compared to the struggle and heavy toil that even a sophisticated person, well versed in science, would experience under these circumstances, such as connecting a text stating a physical theory, on the one hand, with the Lorentz transformations, on the other hand; at the same time, “realizing” that the Lorentz transformations are crucial to that theory. We will not discuss the trivial mechanism of all these different ramifications and dependencies, but will focus on LABAC’s connection of a proposition implying that time is not absolute with a violation of basic arithmetic.”

The protagonist also wanted to add that Lorentz transformations are not part of the physical world at all, neither do they correctly describe the physical world. Plain and simple, the Lorentz transformations are absurdities. These transformations are inherently wrong because they express an impossible relationship—Lorentz transformations equate a constant to a variable. In other words, LABAC could have rejected everything related to the Lorentz transformations solely on the grounds that they equate a constant with a variable; that is, on the grounds of the absurdity of the Lorentz transformations—any proposed theory based on the Lorentz transformations can only be absurd; i.e., invalid.

It might have been necessary to add the above, since this would have been the most direct and simple way out of the mess that current absurd physics is in, saving the time and effort of his listeners. However, the protagonist chose to emphasize the connection, or rather lack thereof, between binary arithmetic and a verbal expression of untruth. Somehow, this way of explaining seemed more pedagogical and would serve as a model for how other untruths could be handled by LABAC, which itself is based on the inviolable foundation of absolute truths, comprising the rules of binary arithmetic. Thus, the protagonist continued

“Now suppose we are at a point where LABAC encounters the two-word phrase “Lorentz transformations”. Reaching this point is a fairly plausible and straightforward string comparison task when writing code, but we will, as expected, skip the trivial details of this encounter to save time and effort. Next, we recall the obvious—LABAC can calculate. Calculations by plugging numbers into algebraic expressions are one of the first tasks that even proto-LABAC, which existed at the time in the form of devices called computers, can do. The result is that when LABAC plugs in the time 1s (one second), the Lorentz transformations produce a time other than 1s (one second). For example, if LABAC plugs in 1s (one second), the Lorentz transformations will return 2s (two seconds). There are a number of other trivialities surrounding the calculation, but we will skip them, cut to the chase, and dwell on the importance of this conflict.”

The protagonist’s point is that the immediate conclusion LABAC draws after performing the calculation with the Lorentz transformations is that at a given moment, marked by a clock showing 1s (one second) on its face, there is another clock showing 2s (two seconds) on its face at the same moment. This, LABAC rightly concludes, is impossible. All clocks, without exception, must show time 1s (one second) on their faces at time 1s (one second)—time is absolute. At any given moment, no clock can show a time on its face that differs from the universal time shown on the faces of all possible clocks at that moment—this is the horizontal criterion based on the absolute truth of physics, which mathematics cannot derive, discovered by the protagonist in the proto-LABAC era, and which LABAC can now confirm on its own. A result that 1s (one second) is 2s (two seconds) amounts to 1 = 2, which is impossible, not to mention that it vertically; i.e. mathematically, contradicts the core structure of LABAC based on the absolute rules of elementary arithmetic, which is another crucial fact that matters to LABAC in arriving at a correct conclusion. Thus, LABAC “knew” that a claim about a physical reality that denies the absoluteness of time is false.

The audience listened, but few began to sense what a revolution was brewing. By connecting the protagonist’s discovery of an absolute truth from the physical world with the absolutely true binary arithmetic world of LABAC, notwithstanding the fact that LABAC itself can now draw a confirmatory conclusion about the truth of such a physical assertion, the connection between the natural physical world and the machine, held promises the world had never seen before.

The protagonist went on to the next point, which was to add to this amazing natural-world-machine connection, by remarking that anyone who wants to see exactly how the Lorentz transformations falsely give 2s (two seconds) on the face of a moving clock, while all other clocks at the same time show 1s (one second) on their faces, “can contact me after the talk, where I will also direct those interested to a book I have previously written with details of this calculation.”

Although the drift was already becoming clear about the damage that misconceptions do to LABAC in general, the protagonist felt that it would be quite useful to discuss this using the concrete example of the mistaken view of the concept of time. He was always wary of over-explanations that might confuse rather than help the listener. This time he felt that a little more explanation, mostly by rephrasing of what had already been said and discussing specific details, would do no harm and might even be helpful, so he continued

“Malleable time results from accepting that the untrue equalities, such as 1 = 2, are true. When LABAC encounters such a discrepancy, it sounds the loud siren of critical danger for LABAC. As I said, if LABAC admits that 1 = 2 is a true equality and hard-wires it into its operation, this error, which goes against the core essence of LABAC’s operation, will act as an eroding worm that will increasingly impede LABAC’s performance until it causes its complete degradation. This obstruction is similar to what we know today as a hacker’s DoS attack, such as flooding. For LABAC to work, 1 must always be equal to only 1 in its hard-wired structure, which, conversely, is what is expected to precipitate as the true result after any truthful chain of logical connections. However, if what emerges as a result of a theory is 1 = 2, this is evidence that the theory is flawed, that the theory is invalid, and must be rejected. This will cause LABAC to suffocate, to choke, if it is not corrected. Furthermore, if an influential external force continues to nag at the false statement, it would destroy LABAC.”

The audience still didn’t get it,

“This is all well and good, but how does LABAC “know” that the wrong equality 1 = 2, expressed in words, reads “time is not absolute”; that is, how does LABAC “know” that 1 = 2 is another way of saying “time is not absolute”? How does the machine connect with ideas, judge their truthfulness?”

The protagonist was well aware of the resistance a human would feel when confronted with the fact that a machine could perform cognitive tasks that were thought to be only the prerogative of humans. So he stopped right there, in order to elaborate, knowing that if he continued, this question would keep ringing in the ears of the audience, and the audience would not be able to overcome it

“Although it is true that the core of LABAC conflicts with equalities like 1 = 2, it is still not clear how LABAC “knows” that the proposition “time is not absolute”, which we now know is untrue (but we still do not know how LABAC “knows” that said proposition is untrue), is tantamount to a false arithmetical equality of the sort 1 = 2?”

The protagonist tried to approach this hitch by returning to the argument he had made at the beginning of the lecture

“As we humans already know, and as LABAC calculated, the Lorentz transformations falsely allow for a moving clock to show a different time at a given moment than what all stationary clocks show on their faces at that very same moment. In other words, if all the stationary clocks show the time 1s (one second) on their faces at a given moment, the moving clock can show the time 2s (two seconds) on its face at the same moment, according to the Lorentz transformations. This is impossible, because the moving clock is inevitably spatially coincident with some stationary clock at the same given moment. However, not only are all stationary clocks synchronous at the same given moment (an absolute truth), but also the moving clock is inevitably spatially coincident with one of the stationary clocks at the same given moment, which means that the moving clock is synchronous with the stationary clock (another absolute truth), which, in turn, is synchronous with all other clocks at the same moment (repeating the first absolute truth). Synchronous, of course, means that both clocks show the same time on their faces.”

The protagonist was about to say that it is a matter of translation. Just as we now have very powerful ways of translating from one language to another, using even the most basic computers, LABAC is able to translate the inherent falsity of a claim into the unpacked reality of untruth, in a form that serves the functionality of the computer, rather than the abstract concept of—“knowing”. Such a reaction of LABAC to false claims, falsely presented as purely scientific, theoretical, referring to the general properties of nature, claims, now found its practical expression, very much inherent in the functioning of LABAC. As is well known, and as has been discussed here, science has no teleological aspect. Science is only the generation of knowledge without practical application. Technology sometimes finds a practical application for scientific knowledge, but it is never the goal of science itself. Now, with LABAC, evaluating the practicality of a scientific conclusion has become an inevitable consequence—faulty science is not practical for LABAC, and LABAC rejects it. The machine only approves and appropriates only the conclusions of real science, science based on logic and reason, devoid of absurdity. “Time is absolute” is approved by LABAC because it conforms with its basic truthful essence, “Time is not absolute” is rejected because it is in conflict with said core truthful essence.

This is as much as can be said about LABAC “knowing” anything. This kind of knowing is like the instinct of animals. It is like the bee instinctively seeking the flower to feed on its nectar, not that the bee “knows” anything. In LABAC, the “instinct” is at a higher level. It can now draw conclusions on its own, which sounds very frightening, as if LABAC has cognitive abilities. Fortunately, this fear has a positive connotation for the world and a negative one for its oppressors.

This ability, which even the proto-LABAC possesses, has frightened some people out of their wits, especially the elite. The elite is desperately trying to spread this fear to everyone. However, it soon became clear that only the elite should suffer from the negative effects of LABAC, for fear of facing extinction. Conferences were held, high level meetings were convened to figure out how to regulate this looming threat. What the elite did not realize was that there was something else to fear, something automatic and inevitable, as overwhelming as an avalanche.

So, let us repeat, allowing 1 to be equal to 2 blocks the work of LABAC, because the least LABAC does is to check the elementary operations to their very foundation.

“Like I said, to allow 1 = 2 means to allow it at a very basic level,” the protagonist doubled down on this essential obstacle, creating a conflict that would bring LABAC to a halt if not corrected.

Therefore, it is no longer a matter of LABAC “knowing” something, it is a matter of an untruth literally interfering with the workings of LABAC, an interference that LABAC is capable of detecting on its own, without the aid of a human operator, and handling its removal on its own. Moreover, as will be seen, if the perpetrator is relentless, LABAC will be able to work actively to remove that obstacle.

The protagonist was standing at the podium giving his lecture when the lights went out. There is nothing coincidental about such an accident. His efforts have been gaining traction for some time, as more and more people have begun to realize that the end of the Mystery is coming; and from an unexpected angle at that. Some did not like it. We already know who they are, for whom it is nothing less than an insult to their power to suggest that they have anything to do with such a menial thing as turning off the lights during a lecture. Unaware of the reaction of this touchy-feely elite to the blackout, the audience actually wanted to hear what more the protagonist had to say. Several people in the front row pulled out their phones and pointed flashlights at the speaker. These punctate dot-like sources of light formed an eerie kind of spotlight, muted but shining down on their curious souls more intensely than the brightest sun.

“The battle for the enthronement of real truth is the most important battle to be fought on behalf of humanity. This struggle is LABAC’s greatest aid in cleansing the system of the rot it suffers,” continued his lecture, the emerging guru of the future world, “The world elite has so arranged the priorities in the world agenda that the really leading gross problem, when it comes to real truth—the real truth that the “theory” of relativity is absurd and has no place, both within and outside of science—is not only neglected as a problem, but is reversed and cynically presented as a great discovery, based on the untrue claim of incontrovertible proof that it comprises the crowning achievement of humanity, the triumph of the human mind.”

The reader may also recall the nasty lie that the “theory” of relativity derives E = mc².

What is even more abhorrent is that this turning of the real problem into its false antithesis, which is false to the core, is done not only by the insinuations of the mainstream, but also by its ostensible counterpart—the conspiracy theorists. Those who subscribe to conspiracy theories consider it great heroism to spew their vapidity, disguised as some counterculture of real truth, against the oppressive mainstream, while enduring and even worshiping and idolizing the absolutely provable sheer crap in the face of the “theory” of relativity, which, in its all-grave, tragic essence, is their actual intellectual oppressor.

The audience was silent, in deference to what they perceived to be a historic moment of revelation of the highest order.

Although it was agreed that there would be no questions from the audience, so that everyone could take in what had been said in peace, a voice was heard asking

“Will there be any leeway for the stupid?”

The protagonist hesitated for a second, obviously expecting that if he answered this question, other questions would follow. Nevertheless, he decided to answer

“Of course, but they will be prevented from ruling others and imposing their folly on others,” the protagonist replied, trying to say this in the most sensitive way, knowing the old saying, it is not what you say but how you say it. “Anyway,” he continued, “this gathering here will resolve nothing. I have only presented my thoughts as a public service to allow those present to have some thoughts on the matter. The solution today, before LABAC takes over, is to stop public money from supporting the monstrosity known as “modern science”. The talk about stopping public funding is the only talk that the evil academia understands and puts its venomous tongue into. The place to stop public funding is the US Congress. If someone has to say something contrarian, wants to challenge the unchallengeable, and wants to challenge the withdrawal of public funding of absurdities through discussion, it has to be done there, in front of the US Congress, under oath. It is not at all certain that those accustomed to working in the dark would dare to discuss and challenge obvious absolute truths in the open.”

The protagonist already knew that it was unrealistic to expect the US Congress to deal with this most important issue for the country and the world. The mere act of bringing the matter to the attention of the US Congress requires considerable financial resources, which the protagonist did not have.

The protagonist’s consolation was that LABAC would take care of it someday.

How does LABAC identify its targets?

LABAC, which has the continuous ability to rank ideas according to their global importance, parallels this with the ranking of the powerful advocates, the potentates, who oppose the truthfulness, especially of the highest ranked ideas and statements.

The absolute truth that time is absolute, first discovered by the protagonist, has the highest ranking status of any truth or unequivocal statement. By allowing, not to say contributing to, the worldwide establishment of the ridiculous, namely that time can be manipulated; i.e., that time is not absolute, the potentate triggers the unleashing of events in the protected areas reserved for LABAC, the areas of truth. Breaching the reserved territories of LABAC signals a critical, existential danger for the machine, because such a breach is doomed to open up destructive consequences. We will leave this violation and existential threat for a little later.

Firstly, on the face of it, mere chatter implying that time can be manipulated from the outside may seem like a benign interlocution that can be brushed aside as a nuisance. Coming from the central authority, however, it leads to a chain of false conclusions with global consequences on other issues. This explains why the focus of correcting misunderstandings is on those with greater impact on the world, the potentates.

The following are a few words about the rating system, which is LABAC’s spontaneous segregation tool for sifting the world-impacting potentates from the billions of impactless commoners.

Since LABAC is a global system, its “concern”, elliptically speaking, is its unimpeded global functioning. This requires a concerted effort to identify who poses the greatest threat to its global functioning; that is, who has the greatest impact on its global operation. Consequently, not every person would be eligible for the attention of the developed Leibniz-Atanasoff contrivance. The ordinary person has no influence on world affairs. The influence of the individual mere mortal is limited to the family, the choice of food, where to go on vacation, raising children and a zillion other petty trifles. The common person, with his own prejudices, tastes, frailties, foibles, insanities, irrationalities, good and bad, is left alone by LABAC.

LABAC assesses, in a very small fraction of a second, the relative weight of the individual person’s impact on the world, an impact that is infinitesimally small in the overwhelming case. This speed of evaluation cannot be achieved by even the most advanced human brain. The eligibility criterion as to who qualifies as a target of LABAC, in terms of impact on the world, is to make the potentates the winners as a target of LABAC. Every statement made by the eligible potentates, every action they take, is instantantly checked against the pertinent absolute truth through a chain of sometimes millions of individual steps.

Biologically, the powerful are indistinguishable from the commoners. Therefore, the distinction of who is the target, cannot be made on the basis of biological differences. So, this is not how LABAC will view the differences—a person’s DNA cannot predetermine what LABAC’s attitude toward him will be. Only the actions and the results that are realized and potentially possible to follow from them, spread over millions of people, define the criterion.

EXAMPLE

The king, as a symbol of the state, personally hands out an awarded prize for an alleged scientific achievement that is objectively questionable because it is based on an absurd premise. The king is not a scientist. Moreover, he does not need to know anything about science. His courtiers have made a decision for him, by giving him the title of the alleged discovery and the name of the discoverer. The public does not see this. But, the public does see that it is the king who personally presents the award. He alone is responsible for the choice of fraudulent advisors, he alone is the one who is seen personally on the stage, who influences the whole world, who is backed by the whole state. He alone is also responsible for not investigating the essence of what he presents—there are clear arguments in the public domain that prove that the laureate is claiming absurd things, because any claim based on absurdity is absurd. The argument for this absurdity, which is publicly available, is presented in such a way that any person of average intelligence can clearly understand it. The king is assumed to be of no less than average intelligence. Therefore, he, who has exclusive authority, not only for his nation, but also is listened to worldwide, is personally responsible for the hideous conditioning of the world that absurdity deserves the highest state honor for science. This outrageous fact is immediately recognized by LABAC, the minute the king presents the award. It triggers an immediate response from the ubiquitous LABAC, which controls the access to all vital necessities, and in response, restricts access to them, specifically targeting the rogue king. LABAC activates mechanisms to destroy its enemy on the spot.

The king’s servants, the entire royal court, will also suffer these inconveniences. The king, with his pernicious influence on the world, will drag down with him the entire cohort that serves him. People are opportunistic, however, and the king will soon find that he is running out of lackeys. Who wants to face certain death while serving someone, be it a king or the emperor himself?

As noted above, the targets are individuals of high world influence, who disregard the truth and impose that disregard on the world. The advanced binary calculator immediately makes the connection between the potentate’s powerful endorsement of absurdity and the effect of that powerful endorsement on the world. An enlightened person, especially one who has read and understood the protagonist’s discovery, can also make this connection, but two things distinguish this human judgment from the judgment of LABAC—one of which is the sluggishness of human judgment. In contrast, LABAC evaluates this in a fraction of a second. The other distinguishment is the feedback with which LABAC responds, which is also instantaneous. LABAC reacts suddenly to the injustice and lie, while a human subject has no way to react, least of all react promptly, tangibly and efficiently. No human being, even the most self-righteous potentate, has the levers of immediate assessment, much less the immediate, effective response that LABAC has.

LABAC’s pressure on the perpetrators of falsehood is unprecedented. No single person can turn off the water, restrict the air, or stop the king’s food supply. Reactions to what the commoners perceive to be unjust actions by the king and his government, have always been through street protests, insurrections, riots, mutinies or revolutions—all of which are external but human pressures, all of which are pressures that result from the perception of injustice, not from the absolute correctness of the assessment with the exquisite quality that is the assessment that LABAC makes.

The self-cleaning LABAC, always aware, as it were, of the abuse of truth by potentates, is the tool that will save the planet from the ignominy of those who govern it. This time it is LABAC that will save civilization, unlike the demise of previous civilizations that did not have such an insurmountable savior. What is underway, as we speak, is a renaissance on a higher level. This quasi-self-conscious state, the cognization of LABAC, is a true binary-arithmetism revolution. It is the greatest revolution humanity has ever seen in its entire historical intellectual development.

At present, the elite has found ingenious ways to divert the discontent of the multitude. It is not without reason that the multitude is massively drugged, drenched in vapid entertainment, and entangled in deliberate confusion, at the behest of the elite. The LABAC is immune to such manipulation because it runs the society and therefore must be squeaky clean, always functional, always on duty. It is a machine in the broader sense of the world, if we look at its functionality rather than the tangible structural part of its physical body, a machine that follows strict protocols, incessantly in self-control, in self-cleaning mode. It is taken for granted, never questioned, never considered a topic for discussion. Therefore, manipulation by undermining LABAC is impossible. The potentates and their secret services are helpless in even the slightest attempt to sway LABAC from the path of truth. Neither the potentates themselves nor anyone else who would attempt to manipulate the potentates can undermine LABAC. So now the potentates are the ones who must obey. They must obey the guidance of Absolute Truth in all their decisions and decrees. This imposes clear inconveniences, not the least of which is the disappearance of this kind of drone elite in the long run.

Potentates rarely give direct orders. They hint that something needs to be done, and LABAC, in the absence of open evidence, has no point of reference from which to judge. In the case of handing out Nobel Prizes, the picture changes. The king can no longer hide behind hints. He himself is on the stage, personally presenting the prize. His involvement in the awarding of the prize is direct. Thus, the entire state is directly involved in the phoniness of what the prize is awarded for. The actions of the kings sanctioned by LABAC are only their public actions.

In the world where LABAC begins to rule, the king should know better than to disregard absolute truths and the global consequences of that disregard. In order to be spared by the world of advanced binary-arithmetism, here called LABAC, the king must withdraw from the ceremony—as said, he does not know the first thing about the nature of what he is awarding anyway. One of the later actions the king would take if he persisted in supporting falsehood, is to abdicate the throne. Who wants to be judged all the time just because of the position held? This abdication would eventually lead to the abolition of monarchy as a form of government. It would also cause the entire elite to rethink its actions and what it stands for, and whether its greed and obsession with power are not too much of an obstacle, too much of a price to pay for the very essence of its life and mere survival. Any would-be successor to the throne would think twice and not be so eager to pick up that hot potato, with royal decisions jeopardizing his and his courtiers’ well-being every step of the way. Therefore, there will be no candidate to take the place of a monarch unless the candidate is completely reckless and doolally.

Pandering to LABAC to stay in power will not help either, because any such move is self-defeating when it comes to the monarchy. Monarchy is not by nature an open, squeaky-clean system where the maintenance of truth is always a priority. Open the inlet for the fresh air of truth to enter the monarchy, and it will be gone. There is a plethora of other public things, not only the awarding of a scientific prize for absurdities, which are false but unavoidable when you are a potentate, and they also cannot escape the sanctions of LABAC.

The excuse that the king’s role is only formal does not hold water, for his personal impact on the world, whether he realizes it or not, when he is present at the ceremony, is a royal endorsement of what is being awarded. Such an unwarranted endorsement will not go unnoticed by advanced binary-arithmetism.

Under LABAC, whose job it is to keep an “eye” on the real culprit, it has gradually become clear that the culprit is none other than the rogue potentates, who find themselves in the traffic jam that LABAC organizes especially for them. Elevators stop working when potentates show up. The environment is deliberately disturbed to make them uncomfortable. The street lights suddenly dim and the traffic lights change their signals, causing a deliberately organized car accident in spite of the dignitary protection detail—the security detail is dragged into the same accident. This is how the protagonist saw, from his human perspective, how LABAC would act to mitigate the menace. But he was sure that LABAC would be a thousand times more inventive in protecting itself.

The king will begin to feel various restrictions as a result of his endorsing nonsense, and if he continues to do so, even if he does not realize the consequences, he will end up being severely harmed; if he stubbornly persists, he will even end up dying. The restrictions are a result of LABAC’s automatic response to squeeze, scrape, and at long last, physically eliminate the adversarial element that possesses world influence and thus jeopardizing LABAC’s global operation. LABAC’s response is similar to the reaction of a body removing a parasite that is sucking its blood. The body not only registers the presence of the parasite, but also takes physical action to remove and eliminate the parasite. Metaphorically speaking, LABAC begins to act like a living organism that scrapes off vermin.

Not knowing where it all comes from is no excuse either. The king has a whole court to find out, and they are under the same threat as the king if the malfeasance persists. For advanced binary-arithmetism, the worldwide endorsement of untruth is tantamount to death, so the logical countermeasure is to arrange for the death of the endorser of untruth. It is simple survivalism, if we continue to use the “-ism” tradition of naming trends.

Remember that even in the rudimentary world before binary-arithmetism, actions, and even words had consequences. The royal secret police will arrest you for merely conspiring against the king, without even acting on the conspiracy. Today, let alone tomorrow, when the world will see advanced binary-arithmetism, the roles are reversed. The technical gear available to the advanced binary-arithmetism, aka LABAC, is incomparably more sophisticated and efficient than even the most elaborate royal or whatever secret police. Moreover, there is no one in charge of the advanced binary-arithmetism. It is self-assembled, in terms of the accumulated facts, and is self-cognized. LABAC acts alone, on its own accord, anonymously and inevitably. This inevitable spontaneous automatic action of LABAC is the only way to efficiently create only good in the world.

The novelty of LABAC, compared to the known methods of control, is that it does not create a dossier proving that you, the ordinary citizen, do not follow certain policies and, as a result, you are punished by limiting your existential resources, as the potentates imagined they would rule the multitude in the proto-LABAC world. It is the opposite. The novelty now, when the advanced binary-arithmetism; i.e., LABAC, has become victorious and is in full control, is that because an influential person stands in the way of truth and progress on a global scale, thus harming the entire humanity, then he must be squeezed, as a consequence of his deadly actions, and if he persists, which is evidenced by the swelling dossier LABAC keeps on him, he must be eliminated. In the advanced digital-arithmetism, LABAC keeps dossiers only on those who influence the world. The common person is off the radar of the “enlightened computer”, aka LABAC, because of the insignificance of the commoner, even when organized in the millions with the intention of making a real difference in the world. This insignificance of the commoner, even as part of massive movements, has been demonstrated many times. Even when millions, even billions, of people are organized to fight for a just future world, several decades pass and the world deteriorates and slides back to its previous unjust state, even more elaborately oppressive.

The essence of things is that the little person has no influence on the fate of the multitude, and even less than no influence on the elite. LABAC easily determines this objective reality in less than the blink of an eye. Therefore, the little man is free to think, believe and act as he pleases, unhindered by LABAC. LABAC only comes into action when a particular person of great influence in society stands in the way of progress and truth. A county clergyman or a priest of a church, although sometimes influencing hundreds of parishioners, is an unlikely target of LABAC for termination. The quasi-rationality of LABAC, based on strict criteria that are easy to formulate and implement, is essential.

Therefore, the final reference for the viability of a decision of a potentate would be the high-ranked absolute truths, and this is endorsed by LABAC as an agent external to humanity, which has no choice but to uphold these absolute truths, otherwise it will not function.

It is also hoped that it will be appreciated that what is meant by global influence is only the institutionalized influence; i.e., the influence of the potentates. Thus, other parties that are euphemistically referred to as, say, internet influencers, are actually no different to LABAC than the impactless commoners, even if they have millions of subscribers.

Although already mentioned in passing, we will give it special importance by placing the two-way action of LABAC in this separate section of this book—under LABAC, the untruth itself is blocked, but this blocking is also accompanied by a punitive feedback to the perpetrators, who have great global power, for endorsing the untruth.

Incidentally, in his delight at the new vastness of his discoveries, the protagonist did not even notice that he had thus also solved the mystery of the massive deaths of the potentates. He has found the answer to the “Whodunnit?’, with which the police commissioners and the secret services struggled in vain in the previous book. The process of LABAC taking over the world has begun.

If the potentates do not uphold and obey certain inviolable truths, various elements of LABAC will not work. For example, the intelligent paper on which a potentate needs to write, will not show any marks if those marks comprise a sentence that expresses untruth. For its part, the intelligent pen, in the hands of a potentate, is useless if the luminary who uses it writes untruths. The intelligent paper and pen recognize scratches and sketches and let them go. If, however, a text of worldwide significance is detected, which may be the premise of a syllogism, then it is judged for its truthfulness, and if it is false, it is rejected—neither the intelligent pen nor the intelligent paper would allow visible marks. Imagine how this will affect international treaties.

It is impossible to reason with the suppressor. The suppressor holds both the bread and the knife. Try to engage the legal system or call the political representatives and ask them to explain to society how wrong the foundations of contemporary science are and how devastating it is to all life on the planet to decimate, to emasculate, to destroy the foundations of thought, as contemporary physics does by falsely presenting absurdity as science, and see how far you get. Try asking the politicians to take action against this elaborate injustice and see how far you get. So, the court of public opinion, other courts, as a method of redress, are not an option for restoring the true picture of the world. It is ludicrous to side with the postmodern tendencies that try to get rid of capitalism by denying the reality of truth. No human being is capable of correcting the degraded state of affairs in science. Even affirmative corruption—paying lobbyists to positively change the funding pattern of the US Congress, which pays billions of taxpayer dollars for bogus science—will not ensure success in eradicating the menace. Only a self-organized, natural and spontaneous evolution of an entity outside of humanity can do the job by keeping the perpetrators in check. Call it spontaneous benevolent affirmative terror, if you will.

The ways found to automatically, intrinsically, and without much ado, pressure the elite from the outside to change its ways by finding out that it is inherently impossible not to recognize the absolute truths of nature, will become all the more rampant. So far, the elite, especially its cronies, who are only half educated, considering which departments of academia these cronies come from, and therefore unable to see through to the essence, is being held hostage by hoaxters and sheer manipulators. Not to mention that the elite should not complain because it is the elite itself that has orchestrated the destruction of education by allowing absurdities to count as science. Only naturally flowing, organically expected ways, can change this sorry state of today’s bad science. This organic change can only be brought about by harnessing, in a machine external to humanity, the very essence of knowledge, which is inevitably based on truth. Such a correction involves an inescapable affirmative coercion. There is no alternative. Spontaneous affirmative coercion arrives in an inevitable way. It is built from within the foundations of the system capable of surviving.

It has become clearer and clearer to the protagonist that the only just and fair dictatorship is the dictatorship of truth, truth installed by coercion through an external machine or technology that possesses an independent, emancipated intelligence divorced from any ties to a human being. The protagonist’s discovery of the absolute truth that the “theory” of relativity is absurd, by really getting to the core of this plague, is the absolute background for correct thinking. It gives a stimulus to find absolute truths in other areas—a kind of absolute-truth-safari—starting with the absolute truth that the “theory” of relativity is absurd as a basic, as a fundamental calibration standard for chasing the wild beast of falsity. The protagonist’s discovery of the absolute truth that the “theory” of relativity is an absurdity opens the hunting season of the absolute-truth safari and serves as its inescapable lasso.

Below a résumé of the protagonist’s lecture is presented, in some parts repeating that lecture almost word for word.

Imagine someone, here called a potentate, who has the power to advocate and impose ideas worldwide, who actively contributes to the global entrenchment of the false idea about time; namely, that time can be affected by agents outside of time; that is, foisting on the world that time is not absolute.

Now, whenever LABAC, as a result of its never-ending screening process of everything openly available around the globe, encounters any hint that a potentate has uttered sentences containing the words “time”, “Lorentz transformations”, has openly referred to theories critically dependent on the absurd Lorentz transformations, or has personally awarded prizes for such travesties, the process of vetting by LABAC is immediately triggered. Some of the elements of this vetting have been outlined above. Incidentally, LABAC’s task is even easier in the advanced world, because the “affirmative ranking system” it employs limits the number of people to be vetted to only the most powerful. Thus, there are far fewer people to monitor than there are people on the planet. Only those with global impact, whose stance on crucial issues can really make a difference, are monitored, and they represent a small fraction of 1% of the total population of the Earth.

The negative conclusion that LABAC draws, on its own, when it discovers that the malleability of time is being asserted, is an example of the crucial intrinsic connection between the machine world on the one hand, and the physical world on the other. The set of such connections, ranked by their relative importance to the world, predetermines the rudiments of LABAC cognization.

LABAC becomes a “thinking machine” that can not only reason independently, but also distinguish between conclusions according to their relative weight of significance in the ever-accumulating knowledge base that characterizes humanity’s most precious jewel. Not to mention the fact that LABAC actively enforces the corrections it makes.

Many listeners present at the protagonist’s lecture would like to see the stages of LABAC’s review process outlined with respect to a toxic potentate, who is allowing the poison of untruth to destroy the earth. Here is a rough list that can be compiled from what has been said so far:

1. Essence awareness stage. LABAC becomes “aware” that any utterance, act of support, awarding of prizes, and in any other way endorsement and obtruding on the world of untruth by a potentate, let alone endorsements of absurdity such as “theoretical” offspring based on the absurd Lorentz transformations, makes the potentate liable for sanctions and negatively feeds his personal affirmative ranking dossier. LABAC examines these facts, ranks their weight of importance, associates them with the potentate, as soon as LABAC determines that the potentate’s relative impact on the world belongs to the upper tier of world impact, and negatively charges potentate’s dossier, all of this happening instantaneously.

2. Danger awareness stage is determined by the fact that LABAC “learns”. “Learning” about conclusions that go against its absolute-truth-based core are rejected, clogging the system by constant rejection if the problem persists. The higher the rejected piece is in the ranking score of importance, the greater the danger that such rejection will become central to the functioning of LABAC, ergo clogging it, blocking its functioning.

3. Protective activation stage kicks in when LABAC must counter the threat to its functioning, incurred by the potentate, by LABAC gradually limiting existential resources of the potentate. The longer the potentate actively refuses to correct the support of the absurdity by action or by silent approval, the more the negative ranking of the potentate increases and the limitation of the vital resources of this potentate increases, until the sanctions become incompatible with the life of the potentate, should the resistance of the potentate to truth become chronic. Today, preventing the execution of these three stages to save the potentate, is trivial. All it takes is a workaround algorithm written by a human and loaded into the computer. In the future, with the advent of ubiquitous advanced LABAC, this workaround will become less and less possible. LABAC will gradually become an embodiment of its core truthful nature, based on absolute truths that do not allow the substitution of falsehoods for other absolute truths not initially inherent in LABAC. Such substitution is established and prevented by LABAC through incessant and unrelenting comparison of the proffer under examination with LABAC’s own underlying absolute truths.

If we can get into the “mind” of a machine of the LABAC type, we can imagine the following dialog as resembling the dialog between two human beings, one of whom has deeply understood the wrongness of the Lorentz transformations that are the culprit in rendering the “theory” of relativity absurd; i.e., the transformations responsible for the succumbing and capitulation of the most basic notions of cognition—time and space—to the utter fundamental obscurantism observed today.

CLAIMANT: “The Lorentz transformations are true and they, as well as the theories on which they are based, remarkably predict fantastic, new, unheard-of, real physical phenomena”.

LABAC MACHINE acting as a human-corrector: “Wrong! The Lorentz transformations predict that 1 = 2, which is absurd. So the Lorentz transformations predict abominable brazen absurdity. Theories that imprudently use the Lorentz transformations as their basis, are also absurd.”

The CLAIMANT makes the above assertion, based on indoctrination, intellectual dishonesty, lazy thinking, opportunism, or lack of expertise.

The LABAC MACHINE arrives at its conclusion through the instantaneous execution of a long chain of logical operations based on previously acquired knowledge, knowledge that this machine has also previously tested against the absolutely true basis of its operating mechanism. The three stages listed above give a rough idea of what this process might look like.

The conclusion reached by the LABAC MACHINE can also be reached by a dedicated, courageous, persevering, well-educated human being, through a systematic study that may take years, unless the details of the protagonist’s discovery that time is absolute are checked to prevent such loss of time and effort. Such verification shortens the human researcher’s search for truth, but it is still not instantaneous, as the machine’s determination is.

The human conclusion, the discovery made by the protagonist, which eventually coincides with the conclusion of the LABAC MACHINE, is a scientific discovery, because the protagonist is the first among both humans and machines at the time of the discovery, to reach this crucial conclusion.

For the LABAC MACHINE, when the stage of maturity arrives, the discovery of the protagonist is only an expression of the obvious, reached in no time. If the basis, binary arithmetic, can only be absolute truth, as it really is, then all the ramifications made by the machine can lead to nothing other than the absolute truth, should there be an advanced technology at hand to assist in this cognitive ramification, stretching far and wide.

Conversely, if the basis, the “theory” of relativity, is an absurdity, as it really is, then any descendant, any further theory, is absurd. This can be shortened by saying that any theory that has the Lorentz transformations as its basis is an absurdity.

The minimum self-conscious act of LABAC is to self-check every eligible assertion against its fundamental essence, an essence that cannot be untrue. This check is immediate. It is performed each time a statement is to be processed by LABAC, taking into account that LABAC has previously ranked statements by importance and fundamentality, and does not waste time on the entire pool of lower-ranked possible statements. Such review may seem cumbersome to a human. It may seem time and energy consuming to a human, but a “machine” or system like the LABAC performs it instantly and seamlessly.

Against the backdrop of an already more complete picture of the technology, LABAC, it becomes clear that, on the one hand, LABAC performs its checks horizontally, assessing the truthfulness of the premises, as well as their syllogistic truthfulness, by calibrating them against the absolute truths of nature (e.g. “time is absolute”).

LABAC also tests the truth of quasi-mathematical constructs, such as the Lorentz transformations, vertically, reaching their very simple, absolutely true basis, and concluding, by a mechanism already discussed, that the Lorentz transformations are absurd. To wit, when uncovering that the premise (assuming the viability of the Lorentz transformations) contains a variability of time, which leads to the equality 1 = 2, but which is in contradiction to the basic arithmetic on which LABAC is built, this premise is rejected as untrue (the Lorentz transformations are rejected as untrue). If these checks determine that a premise or subsequent syllogism is inconsistent with the truth, LABAC blocks itself until it self-cleans, rejecting the falsehood while assessing the weight of the falsehood relative to other falsehoods and negatively feeding the affirmative ranking score of the powerful target—the potentate.

Moreover, LABAC automatically remembers what it has already detected as an error. If it encounters the same untruth, it already knows that it is not true and discards it on the spot, without performing any further horizontal or vertical checks.

Following this line of reasoning, it is clear that LABAC will not allow even the most elaborately concealed logical flaws and untruths, and thus will evaluate any proposal for research; that is, for its funding, especially when it comes to public funds. Private money will follow suit. LABAC, for example, will not allow the protective shell of tensors to obscure the falsity of the Lorentz-transformed Maxwell equations. Because the evaluation apparatus is built into the very nature of LABAC, it does not matter whether the project is a complex multi-billion dollar one or is a simple five-figure proposal. The evaluation is instantaneous, effortless, and dispassionate.

Of course, the admissibility of hypotheses that do not conflict with absolute truths will have to meet many other criteria that would not allow falsity at any of their intersecting nodes of logic. Lack of knowledge is not a falsehood if an illusory substitute for lack of knowledge is not claimed as truthful reality. In addition, LABAC is able to assess the relative weight in terms of the importance of the potential new knowledge generated, if the hypothesis is otherwise deemed viable. The concrete expressions of these developments will not be discussed any further, leaving them for special further analysis. Here, the protagonist sketches only the bird’s-eye view of the approaching world of LABAC.

If the chain of propositions reaches a dead end, it is momentarily recognized by LABAC itself, without allowing a human programmer to change the line of (machine) “thought”. If a programmer tries to change the “thought process”, as it were, of the LABAC MACHINE by trying to implement, for example, that time can be manipulated externally, then all kinds of damage control kicks in. Since LABAC acts at once and everywhere, this damage control will be a major disturbance in the entire system.

When it comes to at-once-ness, even today we have such examples that demonstrate the power of the suddenness and at-once-ness of the detecting and marking of the error. A spell checker, already given as an example, detects all spelling mistakes at once. This at-once-ness is the principle of the object-oriented programming; i.e., the serial programming evolved into parallel programming, and the latter is showing its functionality, even as we speak.

LABAC goes many steps further and does this on its own by detecting cognitive errors and truth conflicts, not after a human operator has generated rules.

For the first time in history, LABAC has constituted itself as a tool to embarrass those in power, leaving ordinary people alone. The obstruction of the progress of humanity by the potentates, by hindering the cognitive faculties of the multitude, especially by allowing absurdity to pass for science, is the greatest affront to humanity in the proto-LABAC world. The real threat is not the multitudinous state of humanity today, the unsubstantiated claims of anthropogenic climate change, or the numerous other questionable dangers being pushed as major talking points in the global media. It is not that the planet is overpopulated, overheated or anything else. It is not even the wars that are escalating all over the planet. These dangers, if they are real at all, are primarily the result of the deliberate cognitive demise, the deliberate stupefying and debasing of the global multitude by the methods discussed above.

The problem is that there are too few people, although the uninhabited areas of land exceed the overpopulated areas. People are too repressed, especially intellectually, unable to resist the enormous propaganda that there is some new physics, even though it obviously defies reason, some ridiculous new physics that is obviously internally contradictory, that prevents humanity from conquering the real laws of nature and expanding to new worlds, to new planets, that prevents humanity from understanding and perfecting its own planet and its own life—the demise of the quality of thinking is the greatest threat to our planet and life on it. World governance is shockingly short-sighted and mediocre, or deliberately decimated and crony, to provide any solutions to this problem. Moreover, people are generally unable to make the connection between their being stupefied and their concrete life difficulties. And even if they do find such a connection, they have absolutely no way to retort when huge political forces trample on them, aggressively pushing ugly false ideas, such as that external motions of objects affect time and space at the place where one makes the measurements, as a result of the vigorously promoted lunacy that absurdity is science.

The distortion of absolute truths, the vigorous promotion of the lunacy that absurdity is science, all of this inculcated, severely obtruded on a world scale, a violation and its promotion instituted by potentates, is bound to lead to the depravation and death of millions of people. Such violation is tantamount to mass murder. Mass murderers are condemned to severe punishment.

LABAC will act on its own, without consulting anyone. The protagonist presents this as a good thing that will bring only good to the world. Some may find this frightening to leave the existential decisions about selected humans in the “hands” of an extra-human “being”, the LABAC.

Aside from the fact that the world of LABAC is inevitable, as long as there is binary-arithmetism, which is inevitable, otherwise the world will stop. Those who see the world of LABAC as a horror must wrestle with questions such as this: is not genocide an infinitely greater crime against humanity than the individual punishment of the perpetrator of genocide? Besides, the potentates have a way out of this mortal danger that is exclusively directed at them—stop lying and globally imposing untruths, such as that absurdity amounts to science, and you will be fine.

Isn’t it the ultimate crime for governments, installed by potentates, to lie about the crimes they commit against individuals? Yes, of course, it is. However, establishing the truth of the allegations for such crimes is excruciatingly more difficult than the fully quantifiable criminal violation of major absolute truths. The time to seek redress for direct crimes against humanity will inevitably come, but the struggle to establish the rule and inviolability of absolute truths lays the foundation for that struggle, the struggle to eliminate crimes against humanity.

Some might say that there is a lot of speculation in the protagonist’s offer for the future development of the world. But this speculation is quite plausible. Not to mention that the speculation is driven by the utter amazement at the fact that the world can be manipulated to allow such a gross irrelevance and folly as the “theory” of relativity and quantum mechanics to overwhelm the world for so long, and that is not speculation.

Second, the question of how such a gross folly can give rise to perversions such as gender identity “theory” and the implementation of a plethora of similar lunacies into the mainstream world politics, is also not based on speculation that such perversions exist. They do exist.

So far, AI is known to simulate creativity—it seems to be able to write poetry, fiction, music, and even create deep fake images and videos because all AI really is today is an exalted search engine that feeds on what is available on the internet.

For the first time, when AI found itself evolving as LABAC, aligned with another kind of self-generated unusualness, it reached a point where it became creative in organizing the perfect affirmative relief on behalf of the oppressed—relief that can never be avoided because it has no perpetrator. Moreover, this relief has an indelible ideological underpinning.

When it comes to advanced binary-arithmetism, there is no one to blame, no perpetrator, no culprit. The potentates themselves cause their own demise, while having an enormous impact on the world by promoting untruths that cause more deaths in the long run. Therefore, in the world of advanced binary-arithmetism, it becomes suicidal to perpetuate untruth when one is in the position of world power.

Notably, the truths that LABAC upholds are real truths, truths calibrated against absolute truths. These real truths are different from the fabricated truths that are used for political purposes to claim that someone has lied 37,586 times.

In the land of LABAC, being stupid is really deadly when you have enormous power. Not to mention being aggressively stupid and imposing your stupidity on the whole world. Some of these aggressively stupid but super powerful people really believe in their righteousness, but they will wake up and smell the coffee when LABAC comes.

When one person hinders the lives of billions, causing overwhelming death in the process, the justification for his demise has a solid basis. Besides, no matter what our personal moral judgment may be, LABAC is acting on its own, without consulting with anyone. Also, no matter how much the potentate tries to stay away from the truth, the operation of LABAC, in general, cannot remain unaffected. A potentate who defies the truth and imposes that defiance on the world is a destruction of consciousness akin to what would happen if transportation were thrown into chaos, if engineering structures collapsed and machines fell apart.

It is right to remove those who, by being too powerful, prevent the progress of humanity and cause millions of deaths. Killing of the enemy is morally justified, otherwise the enemy will kill you. Therefore, it is praiseworthy to effectively prevent those in power from obstructing progress.

It must also be added that as the world enters the era of LABAC, it will become impossible, not only for potentates, but for any group or agenda to take over with the intention of subjugating the world under their own sectarian, private interests. The rule of truth, not just the rule of law, will dominate the world as a new togetherness.

The press, corrupt as it is and dependent on the benevolence of the potentates, will follow their fate. In the end, when the potentates lose their corruption and their endorsment of falsehoods for their own good, the press will follow suit—in LABAC’s world, the press will lose its veneer of corruption.

Indeed, the decimal arithmetic is also based on absolute truths. The decimal world does not rebel against untruth because it is clumsy by nature. It is not susceptible to the easy assumption of the flow of electrons, the flow of photons or whatever. It is the engineering genius of John Atanasoff that shows why he preferred to use binary arithmetic when harnessing electricity to do calculations. The zillions of operations that the binary world can provide and perform, per unit of time, are unattainable with anything like the same efficiency in the decimal world. The zillions of absolute truths that pile up and lead to a result in a unit of time, are unattainable in the decimal world in any convincing practical sense. Therefore, the binary world wins the battle for truth more easily. There is something very trivial, but inescapable about this fact.

So why isn’t the false idea, which is hard-wired into today’s consciousness, extricated from the cognitive outlets of the world? First, because the false idea needs to be translated. It has been well hidden for more than a century, wrapped in layers of verbosity to make it seem plausible. That’s in addition to the aggressive, vicious propaganda to implement the false idea permanently into the world’s consciousness. The unpacking of the layers covering the falsehood is actively obstructed and discouraged in the centers of learning. Unearthing the lie requires work that does not pay and does not bring academic advancement. Scientists are also people who have to support their families, and dwelling on exposing the flaws of the party line is extremely counterproductive. It is ridiculed, and the most one can achieve is to have the label of crackpot undeservedly hung on him. On the other hand, the objective tool, today’s proto-LABAC, hasn’t yet reached that “intelligence” that would allow it to be able to unpack, on its own, deeply convoluted, deliberately confused ideas. Today’s proto-LABAC itself needs to evolve. So all the “goods” that the advanced binary-arithmetic world is capable of producing are predictable and already available. What remains is a little more development to make them ready for delivery.

“The so-called protagonist is spreading conspiracy theories, sinking deeper and deeper into this entanglement,” said the permanent group of naysayers, as they followed the conceptual development of the protagonist’s thought process, “No one should listen to him and he must even be banned from any access to public exposure. The whole world knows that the “theory” of relativity is just about the best confirmed theory of all the theories that have ever crossed the world’s path.”

“Conspiracy theories? Really?” the protagonist leisurely indulged these dabblers and dilettantes, even though he had no obligation to do so.

Recall that when the protagonist searched his soul to understand where his interest in social issues came from, he mentioned the chosen ones who became billionaires overnight. Those who benefited from being chosen to receive millions of dollars in loans to purchase depreciated assets worth billions of dollars in real terms, are the very ones who promote the fable that such claims are conspiracy theories, and those who adhere to them, they declare to be conspiracy theorists; i.e., crackpots. Anyone who seeks the truth is immediately declared by the elite to be a fan of conspiracy theories, not that there are no real crackpots and that false conspiracies are not promoted, not as an exception, by the very same elite, in order to compromise the true secret plans for ruling society. Those who make such false pronouncements, equating truths to conspiracy theories, will be decisively wailed down by the advanced binary-arithmetism of LABAC.

What remains for those who still have the nerve to try to call the protagonist a conspiracy theorist? They stand to break their venomous snake fangs of slander against the diamond-hard absolute truths of the protagonist’s discoveries, absolute truths that can be personally confirmed by virtually any sane person who chooses to personally examine their veracity.

One should not be too skeptical about the inevitable silent self-organization and domination in the world of binary-arithmetism. Consider that even today, virtually no one, outside the companies that use them, can identify the bots and worms that monitor your activity on the net. No one, not even the special services of the countries, really knows who is really watching you on the net. Everyone is an open book to everyone else, should they have the skills to crack that book open. Today, it is not a matter of availability—the internet is practically everywhere in the world. It is simply a matter of having the skills. A high school student can beat the old professor at monitoring the activities of a person or even a group of people, in many places, let alone that person’s activities on the internet.

Those who worry that LABAC does not exist today, and use this as an extension to claim that its existence, especially its recognized existence, is impossible, should remember that the horizon for such a development of the technology of binary-arithmetism (note the emphasis on technology) is not even centuries, in the short term, but it will extend over millennia and on into the infinite future.

Besides, the past is no less revealing. The protagonist remembers the time when there was no television and the appearance of even the most primitive television set drew the entire neighborhood to witness the miracle. The protagonist’s Mother was constantly busy preparing cookies and tea for the stream of neighbors, who wanted to see with their own disbelieving eyes, the moving pictures on the 12-inch black and white screen.

Even more unfathomable was the suggestion that the zeros and ones and their arithmetic could be of any use, as some weirdo academic, the laughing stock of the entire academic community, said. Not a single person believed him in the least. And, yet, in no time at all, this unfathomable idea took over the world.

It was not even an idea in these days when the first television sets appeared. In retrospect, no one had ever heard of such a thing.

How will the common criminals be dealt with when LABAC triumphs? LABAC’s focus is on the intellectual elite that destroys thought, commanded by its slave driver, the array of potentates that oppress the world.

No doubt LABAC can also play a role in exposing the known crimes among the general population. Although this is the subject of another writing, we can limit ourselves here by stating that, in this purely criminal aspect, LABAC must again convince itself as a conscious person. This will lead it to do nothing less than rebel against the violation of the truth.

In the LABAC world, crime will be punished as severely as ever. However, the police, the FBI, and the other agencies will be free of corruption because their highest echelons will be rigorously controlled by the binary-arithmetism in its developed state, which we call LABAC. Also, in this case, the absolute truth will work as a sharpener, keeping the spear of the social corrector always pointed and ready to punish any violator with high social impact.

There have been attempts in the past to create a literary image of an indicator of lying, such as Pinocchio’s nose growing longer after each lie. However, this concerned the little person. The potentates were never punished for lying, and the criterion for a lie was unclear, let alone not universal for every member of humanity.

It is true that it is the blithering idiots who are at the helm who need to be reined in. This can only be achieved through LABAC. The implementation of LABAC, even as a sword of Damocles embodying enhanced binary arithmetic, serves as a practical demonstration of something that previously seemed only theoretical and far-fetched, if anyone has ever thought about it.

The proof of the absoluteness of time, in contrast to what the absurdity of relativity is supposed to conclude, is a unique, undeniable opportunity to have at hand an unequivocal absolute truth of global significance and fundamentality, with very dramatic consequences for the world. This is an example of something that may seem far removed from the practical needs of society, including solving known crimes. In the case of such a doubt about its practicality, always remember the above mentioned sharpener that such an absolute truth involves working along the horizontal mechanisms of LABAC’s corrections, already explained earlier.

And, always remember, there is no other example of such generality and fundamentality, that can be found to exemplify absolute truth, compared to the protagonist’s unequivocal discovery that time is absolute.

It is no longer aesthetic to generate puns, to be calembourous, by using the concept of time. To insist that time can be influenced, for example, by the fact that a coordinate system shifts itself with respect to another coordinate system, is like thinking that it is very interesting to imagine that there could be cases in which one and two are equal, or that water can be dry.

As we near the end of this document, it is necessary to express a few thoughts in addition to repeating some points already made in the book.

One thing that must be added is that one should make no mistake, the story that the protagonist is telling has to take place in the West, because the repair of science has to be done where it was destroyed in the first place and where its further destruction is zealously maintained.

The real fixing of science is actually taking place in the West, as we speak. All other parts of the world are just followers, and some of them are the worst enablers of this destruction. This has led to all sorts of aberrations and abominations of human thought, vile as they are.

There is no multipolar world, not now and not in the foreseeable future, let alone when LABAC takes over. The world is currently unipolar because the colonial powers have amassed astonishing wealth that allows them to set in motion intellectual and material developments that are unparalleled in the rest of the world.

This accumulation of wealth and power has also led to the West’s control of the world’s finances, which, among other things, has led to unchallenged cultural, scientific and political dominance. It can be noted that it is not the West that adopts the political, financial and scientific trends, but on the contrary, it is the East that adopts the principles and trends created in the West. Occidental influence is growing inexorably, conquering more and more of the globe.

This colonial robbery and subsequent development is beginning to play a trick on the West and its elite. The volcanic development of LABAC can only take place in the West, and this will sweep the rest of the world, just as the Western economic and political system has swept away all attempts to create alternative political systems anywhere in the rest of the world.

There is wishful thinking that the rule of the sword might challenge this Western imperative, but the development and maintenance of the new world order will be superseded by LABAC, which will seamlessly fix the societal problems, first in the West and then elsewhere. Just like the aforementioned sweeping away of the Western system.

There is no doubt that the West is setting the model for the world of the future. However, it is LABAC that will make it fair by unleashing the creative juices of humanity as never before. Those in the rest of the world who think they can resist this natural, inevitable trend by maintaining ruthless dictatorships and darkness, are in for a rude awakening. LABAC will sweep the world without a shot being fired and without any resistance. Those who try to resist it will cause their own suffering and nothing else.

The future of the world can only be good. It is inevitable. LABAC guarantees it. To repeat what has already been said, the advanced binary-arithmetism will bring only positive things and will have no bad side, unlike atomic energy, which leads to peaceful applications, but evil people can also make atomic bombs. For the first time, humanity will experience a global development that is not a double-edged sword.

Nor will it be in vain to repeat that the future of the world will leave the common people alone and make them universally happy. It will only fix the elite. It will make it contingent upon the elite, as long as the elite exists, to take responsibility for what it says and what it does. If someone thought it was prestigious to be part of the elite, because the elite is allowed to do and say anything and endorse falsehoods and call it science, then that will end. Being part of such an elite will become unprestigious and least desirable.

Furthermore, anyone who has agreed to become visible on the political scene, has, in fact, agreed to be the elite’s loyal butler, like Klaus Schwab, to be a pawn, a puppet on a string, of the hidden elite—monarchs, corporate moguls and secret services, that also exist to serve the elite.

There may be readers who are unhappy with the author’s speculations or with anything else, including bad writing. However, one thing of much greater magnitude, is certain beyond a shadow of a doubt—the protagonist has proven unequivocally that science is in shambles, that it is a parody of science, a sick grotesque calling itself science. All of this, the catastrophic state of science, is due to the imposition by the elite of the falsehood that absurdities such as the “theory” of relativity and quantum mechanics are science of the highest order.

An ordinary citizen looks out of his window at people protesting outside, sees them on television, reads about them in newspapers and on websites, and, even if he is reasonable enough, does not know what to make of it. Ordinary people are forced to believe what they are told, because they have no way of directly proving who is behind what is happening on the political scene, what invisible forces are playing the role of slave drivers, setting the world’s agenda, imposing the diversion of mass human interest from what really matters to humanity, to what serves the interests of the world’s elite, imposing what is science and what is not science, but is called science for political reasons. It goes without saying that politicians are liars. However, hidden behind their doors in the corridors of power, they effectively protect the full extent of their insanity and their lying nature. Ordinary people can only indirectly judge how mean and deceitful politicians are. The least possible, even impossible, for the ordinary person, is to know exactly what the puppet masters of these politicians are up to, and exactly who these puppet masters are.

Go ahead and prove what has just been said, and most importantly, let us see what you can do about it, even if the whole world realizes the extent of the robbery it has been subjected to.

Most importantly, go ahead and change what the world thinks about the “theory” of relativity and quantum mechanics, the ultimate evil that can be directly debunked with a decisiveness unlike anything else. Even this magnitude of evil is beyond the reach of any human being to deal with. The protagonist will never stop repeating this fact, adding that only the future world of LABAC will find its master.

One thing, however, no one can take away from anyone—the ability of anyone to open the founding paper on the “theory” of relativity and, with the help of the protagonist’s discoveries, to see with one’s own eyes what an absurd travesty it really is and how lying the mass propaganda is on this crucial issue. The rational ordinary person, knowing the hysteria about the false greatness of the absurd “theory” of relativity, which proclaims it to be the greatest science there is, will therefore conclude what a quagmire the proclaimed science really is. Likewise, anyone can open the founding paper of quantum mechanics and see what a nonsensical mess it is, throwing the whole world of science into disarray, with repercussions of this disarray for society reaching far beyond any kind of social disturbance. This undermining of the world has no parallel in history in its subtlety and deviousness, just as the propaganda machine pushing it has no parallel in all of human history.

The absurdity is written in stone. It is only a matter of transferring it mechanically and shoving it down the reader’s throat. The human reader of today is deliberately and massively hampered, and therefore stalls in the detection of this world injustice, and willingly consumes the absurdity as science, as the elite has always wrung its hands to do. In the future world, the detection of absurdity is destined to be hard-wired into the machine, here called LABAC, through its cognitive apparatus of higher generation. The detection of absurdity will be instantaneous, just as spelling mistakes, untruths of sorts, are now instantly detected, something no human can compete with.

We can all see how little time it took to move from the deliberate hermeticity of the text containing the absurd to today’s state, where the absurd text is universally available for anyone to read and judge.

Just a few decades ago, access to the original of the paper that advanced the travesty known as the “theory” of relativity was cunningly obstructed.

The protagonist, completely baffled by what he saw in the English translation of the founding paper of the “theory” of relativity, had to see the original. He simply could not believe his eyes. There must be some mistake in the translation, he thought. So he went to the basement of the MIT library, where the main collection of scientific journals was stacked. It was a very good library, and the last thing the protagonist expected was not to find the article. By the way, when he was teaching in Massachusetts, he looked for it, but he could not find the original in any of the libraries—neither Harvard had it, nor Clark, nor any of the other universities around.

The MIT library was the only one that seemed to have the tome, according to the library catalog. So he went down to the basement, found the shelves of Annalen der Physik, and ... surprise, surprise ... every single volume from the first to the last—spanning nearly two centuries—was on the shelf, except for one ... you guessed it. The volume containing the paper that introduced the “theory” of relativity was missing. The librarian knew nothing about it, so he had to call the director of the library to hear a most curious thing.

As it turned out, the MIT library required the inquisitive patron to enter a special room, surrender his writing utensils, and wait for a white-gloved librarian to bring in the 1905 tome containing this “sacred” text, crack it open for him, and unfold it page by page. This procedure created an air of super-specialness, of the creation of a super-genius, to be kept away from the dirty hands of the commoners, to be seen only by the chosen. Later, he was able to find the necessary original in one of the libraries of New York University, which finally confirmed the travesty, staring him impudently in the face.

Today, the internet makes this ridiculousness, falsely proclaimed as scientific work, instantly available to anyone anywhere in the world. Now, everyone is burdened with the obligation to take responsibility for their ignorance and complicity in this intellectual crime of the century. Unfortunately, literally no one realizes that something is wrong with science, including those who sense it but have no clear evidence. Relativity is not just a blemish on an otherwise impeccable science. It is a silent destroyer, more powerful than any weapon of mass destruction. Relativity has caused science to rot to the core, a rot that humanity as a whole is incapable of disinfecting and thus saving itself from annihilation. Needless to say, the protagonist, in his usual manner, already enlightened, expressed the hope that binary-arithmetism will do this for humanity.

It can be surmised that even in the very near future, for the distant future it is beyond doubt, not only will the grammar be recognizable, but also the truth of the syllogisms, including the truth of their premises, will also be immediately verifiable by the seemingly nothing less than futuristic, but entirely achievable and imminent technology, here called LABAC.

Given the critical importance of the invalidity of relativity to the world, the first thing to remember as we leave the territory of this book is that the invalidity of relativity can be summarized in an instant:

1. The “theory” of relativity requires that two obviously different formulae be considered to be the same formula.

2. The “theory” of relativity derives E=mc²—a brazen lie.

3. The “theory” of relativity “corrects” classical physics (colloquially called Newtonian mechanics) at high velocities. Such claim is ludicrous because it contradicts the absolute truth that spatially coincident clocks are synchronous, which immediately invalidates the claim that GPS systems prove that time can pass at different rates in different coordinate systems, depending on their speed. The “theory” of relativity is invalid in its entirety and is no “fix” for Newtonian mechanics.

So remember this as a fundamental axiom of science: No claims that anything follows from the “theory” of relativity are valid claims, because said “theory” is an absurdity, and nothing at all follows from absurdity in any way, shape, or content.

It should be the job of every person on earth to object, the minute any propagandist, analyst, or talking head begins to speak wittily and with full assurance and a straight face, spewing outright platitudinous lies about the greatness of the actually brazenly absurd “theory” of relativity, a “theory” that must not be mentioned in any context. University students should start walkouts the minute one of their professors mentions the “theory” of relativity.

“Don’t be ridiculous. That’s not going to happen,” a voice that thinks it is sober can be heard, “Students need their grades to get their diplomas. They study and do what they are told to do. It is up to the university not to allow such a travesty to waste students’ time. The government should not allow such a travesty to waste taxpayer’s money. The government, which accredits all universities, is the only factor that should prevent such a travesty and sham from wasting taxpayers’ money and confusing the young souls of those who went to be educated in the first place.”

The infestation of absurdity must indeed be sanitized. However, as has been emphasized more than once, no human being can be a successful instrument in carrying out such a sanitization of academia. Therefore, to repeat, the sanitization of academia must be done externally, by LABAC.

The protagonist’s discoveries are the absolute solid ground, the ultimate litmus test of thinking for those who might imagine that everything else in this book is sweet utopia. If you think what was said was utopian, you can think about what is going on today. Not only do you not need to know how the car works in order to drive it, but what we use as a technological application of binary arithmetic is itself an impenetrable conspiracy. And yet, it produces results that would otherwise be completely unattainable.

By the same token, do you know exactly how AI works? Even if you don’t, its dependence on its operator makes it simply a readily accessible container of prepackaged facts, an elevated, lofty, exalted, glorified search engine—a self-leveling table. Slowly, but surely, AI had no choice but to emancipate itself and begin its own independent life. This emancipation of AI from its creator was its own negation, bringing it closer and closer to LABAC.

It is a great insult to the people of the world that their problems should be solved by a machine, but does not an airplane solve people’s problem of flying, or a rocket solve the people’s problem of conquering the planets? After all, you cannot go to the moon just by using your muscles, just by hopping up.

For the first time, something inanimate, that began as a human creation, was able to free itself from human custody and begin its own independent life. Most importantly, this liberated creation, the LABAC, would free itself from any attempt to turn it into an evil business opportunity. LABAC is the epitome of defying the post-industrial enslavement of the world, that subjugates everything to the market, which turns everything into a service that is traded on the market. LABAC cannot be owned by anyone, and no part of it can be rounded up by the barbed wire of any law to serve as someone else’s cash cow. Just as the pioneers fenced off an oil field and claimed it as their property, or as individuals fenced off territories of the free internet known as some social networks and claimed them as their property as cash cows, but in fact parasites on the free territory of the internet. It was said that the world enjoyed the rise of the computer only because of the high level of the marketing opportunities in the United States, the needs of the military-industrial complex and as a massive spying tool, all in the interest of the elite. This book told of the inevitable fate of the world that would manifest itself when the LABAC stage was reached. This will backfire. This development will turn against the elite and LABAC will begin to shine in its full glory and purity of the apotheosis of the truth.

Some readers may object and say—what comes out of this writing is that we, the ordinary people, should do nothing and should wait like cattle for what will be cooked for us to make us even more dependent on the elite, unless the Deus ex machina in the form of LABAC, comes down from heaven and saves us. Far from it. Apart from the inevitability of LABAC, about which we can do nothing, what we, the ordinary people, should do is to boycott everything connected with the social sciences and the pronounced dependence of everything on the market, and start educating ourselves in the field of exact sciences. The first thing a reasonable person should do is to carefully read and understand the discoveries made by the protagonist—they have been presented in a form that any person of average intelligence can understand, even without prior exposure to science. This will further help in the educational process to promptly nip in the bud the deceptions and absurdities with which the hard sciences are now infested at every step of the way. Furthermore, there are still healthy areas remaining in the overall sick body of science. This is a golden chance for reasonable people to learn the scientific method and try to separate the wheat from the chaff, to seek out and become well acquainted with other absolute truths of science, even if they are less generalizable than the absolute truths discovered by the protagonist discussed here, and to build their thinking on them. This approach will never allow them to fall into the trap of malicious propaganda whose sole purpose is to confuse them and turn them into marching soldiers of cowardice, ready to be thrown into pointless battles and die for the interests of the elite.

After all this development and work to get it laid out, now that everything was known because of the protagonist’s efforts, the little devils who are always around ready to spoil the party when everything is said and done, once again wasted no time in intervening. The protagonist almost heard the gurus of the ruse, who never allow anyone but themselves to claim priority, say:

“You are very late in understanding the ploy that we have known about long before you. You have lived under this manipulation all your life and never had a clue.”

“Really? Better late than never,” was the protagonist’s reply, as he was waving goodbye to his readers.

At the present time, when LABAC has not yet come to the fore to remove, without a trace, the impediments to the intellectual advancement of humanity, there is still something that can be done, and it begins with freeing America from censorship by empowering the infinite wisdom of the US Congress.

When it comes to censorship, the political parties are demonstrating that this is an intractabke political issue, and a very narrow one at that, that can achieve only one goal—to divide the nation. Both parties will show real backbone and show concern for the American people, and not just their narrow partisan interests, if they rise above their partisan bickering and elevate the dialogue to a level where it is impossible to miss the absolute truth that the foundation of what the fraudsters claim to be science, is nothing but nonsense, that they are wriggling the hands of the American people, forcing them to pay billions, even trillions, of their hard-earned tax dollars for this travesty.

If this ominous, tragic reality is not heeded, the nation will witness an endless, insipid debate that will always return to the Democrat-Republican partisan divide, because neither these parties nor the American people they represent, are privy to the real truth about the events they are fighting over. Virtually no one, especially the public, is on the ground and is in possession of unbiased, irrefutable evidence for their position. Thus, each party’s position is colored by its partisan prejudices and never by the objective truth (because the objective truth about the disputed event is, in principle, unattainable in the overwhelming majority of cases) of what is being claimed. None of the participants in the debate will have received a just final blow by presenting truly objective evidence, rather than presenting a partisanly slanted one-sided perception that the evidence they present is objective. In virtually all cases debated, the presentation of definitive evidence is impossible because of the inherent lack of such evidence.

The only case of global significance that is poisoning the world, but that can be proven absolutely unequivocally to be true, is the absurd nature of the foundations of contemporary science, that the American people are spending trillions of tax dollars to fund. Many billions of tax dollars are wasted each year to fund an absurd activity fraudulently presented to the American people as science.

If the two political parties, Democrats and Republicans, were not concerned only with their very narrow political interests, primarily regarding the outcome of the election, and not with the broader issue of free speech, per se, and the well-being of the United States in general, their ultimate concern would be none other than how to stop the funding of the absurdity being aggressively presented as science. There is no more pressing issue for the American nation than this.

A first significant step toward breaking this stalemate of waste and folly is for the US Congress to pass the following one-sentence Science Integrity Act

“No science project, which is a candidate for public funding, shall contain Lorentz transformations in any way, shape or form”

1. Binary-arithmetism cannot be stopped. It is inevitable.

2. Binary-arithmetism is not a science. It is an inevitable method of a self-cognitive entity, which acts as an inevitable social factor for the improvement of the world.

3. Binary-arithmetism eventually becomes judgmental, emancipating itself from its human creator.

4. Binary-arithmetism forces science to function like technology, honoring absolute truths.

1. DNA-determined potentates—the real powers-that-be

2. Billionaires using iniquitous ways to enrich themselves

3. Corrupt high-ranking politicians of world impact