Essay—Bringing Down the Government (45)

Summary—This essay argues that physicists have worn out their welcome and that we should impeach the Canadian prime minister as a way of symbolically bringing down the government.

Franz Kafka (1883-1924) was a Jewish, Austrian writer whose disturbing writing predicted the despair of the 20th century.  He is considered one of the most important figures in modern literature.  The term Kafkaesque has come to be applied to anxious social conditions.  The Castle is a novel by Kafka where its protagonist struggles against the bureaucracy of government in order to gain access to the mystifying authorities of the castle.  My struggle to get recognition from the Canadian Government began on 1 January 2001 with my theory of one and could be described as Kafkaesque.

String Theory.  In 2004 the physicist Edward Witten was written up in Time Magazine as the greatest living theoretical physicist.  His claim is that “String theory (1970) is a miracle through and through.  It will occupy the world of physics for the next fifty years.”  Imagine Witten being presented with my theory of one (2001) which solves the greatest scientific problem of all time by uniting relativity theory (1905) with quantum theory (1925).  There is no incentive for him to accept my theory because it effectively pulls the pants down on all the physicists.  String theory is their main meal ticket.  My theory of one puts thousands of string theorists around the world out of business.  I have sent my theory of one out to ten physicists across North America several times.  Their response has been to stonewall me.  As Adlai Stevenson said about the Soviet Union during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis where they placed forty nuclear missiles on the island of Cuba “Do not worry.  If they are still sticking to their stonewalling tactics, I will get them.”

The Pythagorean Form.  One of the seven arguments for my theory of one is an application of the Pythagorean Form.  While the Egyptians used the Pythagorean Form as an empirical rule-of-thumb in building pyramids, it was Pythagoras (582-500 BC) who first proved it to be a mathematical truth.  The macrocosmos of relativity theory is the universal law of spacetime and reveals that spacetime dilates as a function of velocity relative to lightspeed in accordance with the Pythagorean Form—ie. h^2 + (v/c)^2 = 1^2,  h = height, v = velocity,  c = lightspeed.  According to relativity theory—if v = c then h = 0—thereby indicating a boundary of spacetime.  On the other hand, according to Newtonian physics, if v = c then h = 1.  In his 1962 book Relativity Simply Explained Martin Gardner made the exact same argument that I just made but did not put the rubber to the road in failing to conclude that if h = 0, the physical interpretation points toward the realization of a universal boundary.

Experimental and Theoretical.  In 1881 two Americans named Michelson and Morley performed a monumentally important experiment which established that lightspeed is invariably fixed at 186,284 miles per second.  In 1982 a Frenchman named Aspect performed an astonishing experiment which proves undeniably that all photons are instantaneously connected to one another—meaning there exists the appearance of faster-than-light signaling—which the Michelson-Morley experiment refutes.  The theory of one explains this by recognizing the fact that there is only one photon in the universe.  The appearance of many photons can be clarified by Michael Talbot in his 1993 book Mysticism and the New Physics.  Imagine looking at a fish inside a tank.  If you look at it from the front and the side, it may appear as if there are two fish when in fact there is only one.  Incidentally, his book does an excellent job of describing the Aspect experiment.  The Michelson-Morley experiment provides empirical validation of relativity theory while the Aspect experiment provides empirical validation of my theory of one.  The macrocosmos of relativity theory and the microcosmos of quantum theory come together nicely in my theory of one by showing metaphorically that there is no difference between looking through a telescope and looking through a microscope.  According to fractals, there is no inherent scale to the universe—as my theory of one demonstrates by bringing together the very big and the very small.

The Divine Right of Kings.  I sent a letter on 28 September 2002 to the Honourable Beverley McLachlin, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, in which I declared my sovereignship to the Sovereignty of Canada.  I also wrote to McLachlin on 20 August 2003 letter in which I notified her that any action against me is treasonable.  In my letter to the Right Honourable Joe Clark of 21 July 2003, I brought criminal charges against Canadian honourables and doctors for treason, totalitarianism, child abuse and the unpardonable sin—which Christ referred to as being the deliberate refusal to follow the argument when seen.  The Divine Right of Kings doctrine asserts that sovereigns are representatives of God and derive their right to rule directly from God.  My theory of one proves that there is only one photon and that photon is God, which establishes a divine connection between me and God—thereby affording me the opportunity to declare myself king.  Incidentally, Einsteins claim that God is the sum total of the laws of nature also establishes a divine connection between him and God.  Please see my 2003 Philosophymagazine essay entitled The Philosopher King Christopher.  I once again declare myself to be the Philosopher King Christopher.  This declaration is not a popularity contest, it is an ontological one.  I can only be defeated by a superior argument.  I would argue that we should replace an ineffective, symbolic sovereign with an effective, divine sovereign.

Behaviorism vs Existentialism.  The Freudian cognitive model has the ego (or consciousness) choosing between the id (or self or soul) and the superego (or government).  If the ego chooses the superego in times of moral uncertainty then it is behaviorism.  If the ego chooses the id in times of moral uncertainty then it is existentialism.  My argument is that by not specifically selecting existentialism, the option defaults to behaviorism.  Behaviorism tells us how to behave while existentialism self-teaches us to Be.  Behaviorism is a philosophy for the Everyman whereby essence precedes existence.  Existentialism is a philosophy for the Superman whereby existence precedes essence.  Consider a pen for example.  Like the Everyman, first came essence then came existence—ie. essence precedes existence.  Conversely, the Superman arrives on the scene (ie. existence) and then creates his essence.  I would thus argue that the government, particularly doctors, must embrace existentialism.

Arguments and Charges.  Treason is an act which harms the sovereign.  As per the divine right of kings, I am the sovereign.  The Canadian Government has harmed me by permitting the bank to take my house away from me.  They have also harmed me by not declaring me sovereign, which has inhibited me from getting philosophy and science to the masses.  By failing to respond to my arguments and charges, the government is denying the truth, thereby harming me.  If totalitarianism means the government acts above the law, and if the law includes the laws of nature, then I would argue that the Canadian Government is totalitarian.  It is time for Canada to become a leader on the world stage.  Over the past fourteen years I have tried absolutely every way to get through to the government.  What must I do to get into the castle?  So that we act in the best interests of the children, we must choose existentialism over behaviorism and also recognize my theory of one argument.  By clarifying values, we can know which takes precedent—the Godmade laws of nature or the manmade laws of government.

Bringing Down the Government.  I wrote a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper in 2013 asking for my house back.  In 2003, just before I lost my house, I sent a letter to the Canadian Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin claiming that the government had no legal right to take my house.  My arguments are that the government must respond to all arguments and that the laws of nature trump the laws of government.  The Canadian Constitution Act of 1982 says—Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.  Einstein said that God is the sum total of the laws of nature.  Reinterpreted, the constitution says that we must hold the laws of nature above the laws of government.  In practice, however, the opposite is true, as my experience with the theory of one and the taking of my house proves.  Václav Havel said that corruption begins when people start saying one thing and thinking another.  Gravity, relativity theory, quantum theory and my theory of one are all laws of nature.  They provide us with a playground to play on.  There must be something at stake so that the government does not mindlessly ignore the laws of nature.  I sacrificed my house to make this point.  The prime minister is looking to have big government and is unwilling to share leadership with a sovereign.  In order to symbolically bring down the government, we should impeach the prime minister of Canada on charges of treason and totalitarianism.

Conclusion.  As an existentialist, I cannot choose which arguments and charges I will accept and which I will ignore.  I must accept them all and the government must do the same.  Existentialism is the philosophy of the future.  The physicists are guilty of the unpardonable sin.  They are not asking the tough questions like Einstein asked—Does the moon really exist when no one is looking at it?  Unless they can answer this and my theory of one, the Canadian Government is employing a couple hundred unnecessary physicists.  Please see The End of Physics 1993 book by David Lindley.  The time has come for us to symbolically bring down the government.