#august nimtz | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

nicholasmeyler · 3 years

Text

Some Essays

Wolfy Said I Have a “Pedigree”

NICHOLAS MEYLER·SUNDAY, AUGUST 2, 2020·6 MINUTES

Based on my research, I have concluded that "Great Genius" is actually the name of a Breed, not so much as an accomplishment, or appellation received from making a lasting and brilliant contribution to Society. Rather, it is more like the term "Great Dane", used when referring to a specific breed of dog. There is nothing really great about Danes, although they are fine people, quite often, and I certainly don't want to sow any racist Anti-Danish sentiment on Facebook. Rather, I am simply clarifying the use of the term.

Scientists have concluded that Intelligence is basically hereditary, so I conducted my research on the genetics and genealogy of the matter. I was partly inspired by my familial relationship with the Nobel Peace Prizewinner, Norman Borlaug, who has been credited with saving one billion lives, due to his research in genetics and agricultural science.

My hypothesis, if you will, is simply that Genius runs in families; so I compiled a small family tree of 54,000+ individuals going back 4000 years to test this hypothesis. I realized that a typical example of the "Great Genius" breed might be Isaac Newton, whom I found myself related to along the Pendleton line.

Naturally, I also traced my lineage to Einstein, as well I could, and concluded that we might have shared a common direct ancestor some 500 years ago, since Einstein's family lived in an area also inhabited by my direct ancestors. Reasoning that Einstein himself had some 'clout' in that community, I thought he would be a fitting research subject. He, like Newton, was also known for some discoveries related to Physics.

Prior to that, I had already figured out my ancestral relationships to Lord Byron, Percival Bysse Shelley, John Dryden, and John Donne. Three of those (Byron, Donne, and Shelley) also experienced and wrote about Doppelganger phenomena (which I have repeatedly written about myself, based on the acoustic evidence of hearing my own name in music composed hundreds of years before my birth).

The very ancient surname of "Meyler" is cognate with the legendary wizard "Merlin" of Arthurian legend. Merlin, according to most accounts, was primarily famed for his extraordinary gift of Prophecy, and the fact that he aged in reverse. Today, we would refer to these phenomena as “Superluminal Information Transmission” (or “Reception”), and ‘Metabolic Time-travel’ (i.e. “reverse-aging”). I am involved in both of the fields, myself (the former as a World-leading researcher, and the latter as a professional recruiter).

‘Sir Thomas Mallory’ (one of three Knights with the same name alive at the same time in England) is also a relative of mine (17th great uncle), and the name "Mallory" itself is very similar to Meilyr, Maglorix, or Malleore (variants of Meyler spelling). Mallory was the English nobleman who recorded the epic “La Morte D’Arthur”, which is still revered as the greatest account of Arthur, Merlin, and Camelot in English literature. Before him, Giraldus Cambrensis was the second author in antiquity to write of the myth of Merlin (before Mallory and after Geoffrey of Monmouth) and identified him as a man named "Meilyr" who was able to find errors and lies in the previous text written about Merlin. Giraldus Cambrensis (Gerald of Wales) was my 1st cousin 25 times removed. Speaking of 17th great-uncles, Geoffrey Chaucer was the father of Thomas Chaucer (Parliament Speaker of the House of Commons) who was another 17th great-uncle of mine.

Contemporary with Giraldus Cambrensis was the writing of Gwalchmai ap Meilyr, one of the most revered great Welsh Bards of the 12th century. His works are still widely read, and considered 'immortal poetry'. His family was chosen to be the Royal Bards of Wales for a full century (three generations of Meilyrs). His poetry was frequently panegyric about my 25th great grandfather King Owain Gwynnedd. It is apparent that Gwalchmai, King Owain, and Giraldus Cambrensis were all quite well acquainted with one another. Gwalchmai, moreover, is also widely cited as being another great writer who amplified the Arthur/Merlin mythology extensively.

The one ancient Welsh Bard whose poetry is still most extant (e.g. preserved) is Daffyd ap Gwilym, who is my 18th great grandfather. This, again, is a sign of the hereditary nature of the true 'Great Genius" breed, which I can trace back before the Meilyr Bards to Owain ap Hywel (907-987 AD), my 29th great grandfather.

We cannot help what we are, yet we are still ennobled by the way scholars, for example, embrace the use of the term "Bard" when describing William Shakespeare (a mere in-law of mine, it appears). Shakespeare's daughter married into my family, while (since Shakespeare was the son of first cousins), he is also somehow an in-law via another path altogether (first cousin once removed of husband of first cousin fifteen times removed). Thus, the honorific “Bard” is sometimes even bestown on mere ‘wanna-be greats’ who marry into the right family.

On the purely academic side, and apart from any real ‘thought’ or ‘intellect’, at least I am a 3rd cousin of John Harvard (9x removed). John Harvard’s grandfather Thomas Rogers (my 10th great-grandfather) lived a couple of blocks away from William Shakespeare in Avon. My great-great-grandfather was the founder of UCLA (taking up the first collection to establish a State College in Los Angeles, back in the 1880’s). Another ancestor, a ninth great-grandfather, owned the mansion that became the very first permanent building on the Yale University campus. My great-grandfather on my father’s mother’s side, Albert Carlos Jones, Jr. was the first Opera Impresario in Los Angeles, and worked for the founder of USC. He was also the youngest person ever to have a seat on the New York Stock Exchange, at that time. With respect to another West-coast school, my other great grandfather J.J. Meyler, who designed the Los Angeles Harbor, trounced Leland Stanford in a famous public debate about where the harbor should be built.

Also, perhaps footnote-worthy is the fact that my direct ancestors founded both Oxford and Cambridge Universities. So, while academia tends to breed a more docile sort of mind, simpler, simpering, pandering for approval of outrageously liberal and ignorant professors and tending towards mediocrity -- being on the ‘Founder’ side is somewhat different -- more disruptive, more radical, more innovative.

Such research, as it stands, has convinced me that "Great Genius" breeds true, and that, like "Great Danes" we are a distinct breed and should simply use this term, however modestly, when describing ourselves. This acceptance of the term is not gratuitous, vain, or boastful. Rather, it is really self-effacing, and humble. We must conform to the standards of the breed, and recognize that nothing we do will ever change our status, whether or not we invent, discover, or create anything, or nothing. We are not responsible for ourselves.

Gwalchmai ap Meilyr’s most famous poem, by far, is “Gorhoffedd”, meaning “The Boast”. Still famous after 850+ years, this is a great example of transcendence of the temporal world. We simply are, and we are not boastful.

'Wolfy' and the Pedigree: A Story of Superluminal Information Transmission

· Published on May 18, 2017

· Edit article

· View stats

Nicholas Meyler

Leading Executive Recruiter/Headhunter with (nearly) 30,000 Connections @NicholasMeyler on Twitter

24 articles

I’m tired of the rather staid and implausible edict of “Science” which states that Information cannot be transferred or transmitted at Superluminal velocities… which is to say, sending a message from “Future” or “Present” to “Past” cannot be achieved. I offer merely one of my many own personal experiences herein, that dissolves this fantasy of Physicists by clear-cut example. Scientists have contended for a long while, in their efforts to interpret Albert Einstein’s “Theory of Relativity”, that even mere quantum ‘Information’ (or ‘signal’, or ‘meaning’, essentially) is not transmissible at velocities faster than “c”, the constant denoting the speed of light traveling in a vacuum.

This numerical value is 186,282 miles per second, which is equal to 300,000 kilometers per second. These numbers as upper limits of claimed inviolability of ‘lightspeed’ are widely accepted, almost to the point of autocratic dictum. I believe that these claims are largely correct, but have exceptions. Notably, recent Scientific research has shown that light can actually be accelerated to speeds even hundreds of times faster than the conventional limit of “c”.

Physicists like Ray Chiao of UC Berkeley, Guenter Nimtz of University of Cologne, and Lijun Wang of the NEC Institute for Advanced Studies have all demonstrated that pulses of light can actually be sent (in special conditions) at velocities much higher than the ‘known’ limit of speed. The conventional caveat, however, is that “Information” itself cannot be transferred or transmitted at superluminal rates, because what is actually being transmitted in these cases, is merely a portion or ‘front-end’ of what is called the ‘wave-packet’.

Physicists disregard this achievement of superluminal velocity as an exception to the Einsteinian equations simply because only a portion of the light-wave really made it through to the receiver. Guenter Nimtz formulated the reply that even if only the ‘front-end’ of the intended signal actually is transmitted, it is still recognizable and does qualify as Information. I tend to agree with him. In his 1993 experiments, he was able to transmit the sound impulses of Mozart’s 40th Symphony in G minor at a rate of 4.3x lightspeed. In other words, the signals were actually transmitted (via quantum tunneling) before the process was even initiated. Still, physicists argue about whether these actually constitute ‘Information’/‘Signals’.

This is not just a semantic debate, since Einstein’s Theory (and the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction equations) show that any object (including a photon, which has a rest-mass below 10^exp -27 electron-volts) with non-zero ‘rest-mass’ would have to acquire infinite mass, if it exceeded lightspeed. A rather clever way out of this (which reconciles ‘observation-data’ [i.e. facts] and theory [i.e. speculation]) is that a ‘signal’ might consist purely of vibrations, or “phonons”, which are really massless, and occur in ‘elastic’ structures.

The great composer Iannis Xenakis compared “phonons” to ‘particles or granules’ of sound, in his textbook “Musiques Formelles”. In fact, he based his entire theory of musical composition on this concept of ‘granular sound’ and used his extreme knowledge of Chemical Physics and Mathematics to create music based on the idea of manipulation of ‘sound-masses’ and ‘sound-clouds’ via abstract mathematics, much of which was based on Ancient Greek thought.

Guenter Nimtz’ more recent work (2009) has been on the idea of “Superluminal” (i.e. “Virtual” as in the Physics of Richard Feynmann) ‘particles’ or ‘quanta’ of vibration, which is what sound is caused by – all sounds are merely vibrations that occur in some medium, whether it be air, the floor of a concert venue where music is much too loud for good health, etc. Given that the Einsteinian “Prohibition” on faster-than-lightspeed Information transfer is based entirely on the impossibility of accelerating objects (or quanta) which possess ‘non-zero rest mass’ – What prohibits the possibility of accelerating completely massless ‘quanta’ of vibration to superluminal rates – i.e. thereby sending ordered vibrations into the Past?_____________________________________________________________

It was in the year 1989, I believe, that I purchased a CD album of Wolfgang Mozart’s “Salzburg Symphonies”, composed when he was a youth below the age of 16. Despite his age, however, Mozart’s enormous precocity and intellect enabled him to compose music which is highly enduring, and permits many listenings.

The simplicity of the Salzburg Symphonies is undeniable, but they remain as amazing testament to the genius of ‘Wolfy’, who could create immortal symphonies still beloved by many, centuries after his death. It is on track 19 of the album I have of Jaap Schroeder, Christopher Hogwood and The Academy of Ancient Music performing “The Symphonies Salzburg 1766-1772” that the untamed “Wolfy” (aka Mozart) launches into what I once thought was a slanderous diatribe against me, wherein he accused me of having a “pedigree”, which I naturally thought was quite offensive, given the context of someone with a nickname of “Wolfy” (which is highly suggestive of an undomesticated species of canine).

Canines, to my knowledge (at that time) were the sorts of creatures who had ‘pedigrees’, and I incontestably took offence at Mozart’s apparent speech synthesis directed towards me. I was, generally speaking, rather appalled by the apparent slight, but tried to understand it in the context of the youthful, brash super-genius Mozart taunting a fan or admirer (me) from the distant future (over 200 years later).

Please bear in mind that these thoughts first occurred to me, listening to this album/CD, around 1989, when I lived in Van Nuys, CA (at 14333 Haynes St.) in a fairly inexpensive apartment in a rather poor neighborhood – although it is true that I lived within a few blocks of a Tchaikovsky competition pianist, a drummer from ‘Iron Butterfly’ (who lived upstairs), and a successful composer named Alexandra Shapiro. Alex Shapiro was beautiful and very intelligent. I remember discussing Stephen Hawking with her, and how strongly she felt sympathy for his physical condition.

Apparently, I am not the only party who has had reason to contemplate the “pedigree” remarks of Mozart, since one need only Google “Mozart, pedigree” to find the following information: http://www.pedigreequery.com/mozart3. It would appear that others have, at least on some level, also connected the cognitively dissonant notes of “Wolfy” and “pedigree” rather clearly. My assumption of, and extreme irritation at, Wolfy’s unintended jape/jibe/jab at my ego, was erroneous, though. I learned some 23 years later, while trying to work out my Ancestry , that a “pedigree” is also something ascribed to humans; in particular, those who descend from long lines of ancestry and/or royalty.

Although I had no knowledge of it, originally, I do actually have a ‘pedigree’ which extends back over a thousand years. Even without knowledge of having a ‘pedigree’, I did have a pedigree, it seems. What is remarkable about this, though, is that I perceived and ‘heard’ Mozart’s comments which seemed to be directed precisely towards me, in English language, with such vividness that I truly thought I was being personally insulted by the brilliant (but highly juvenile at the age of 14-16) Mozart even though his synthetic speech comments (assuming that they are real) were perhaps actually intended as a compliment. I utterly rejected the idea that I was “Mozart’s dog” and was being teased about my inferior intellect/good breeding, because I knew nothing of my ancient ancestry, and because I had no idea that a “pedigree” was even a term that could be applied to Humans, without condescension.

So, now that I have researched my family tree extensively, including with DNA comparisons of many other people, I know that I am related to royalty with lineage that perhaps goes (arguably or not) back to 2000 BC. I would suggest that this result, which I would have found anathematic in 1989, is an actual state of fact which was communicated to me, somehow, via speech synthesis using purely instrumental modalities in that 19th track of the album, composed by Wolfgang Mozart around 1770-1776.

This strikes me as very strong evidence of the reality of Superluminal Information Transmission (or Transfer), simply because: (1) the concept of being told by a record album performance of music written over 200 years ago that I (personally) have a ‘pedigree’ is highly odd; (2) the indisputability of that acoustic perception, on my part, is certain, because I have been able to describe the perceptions and thoughts I had as a consequence, in detail; (3) the odds against anyone having a ‘pedigree’ (or family tree) which contains 40,000 known individuals is fairly extreme, so there can be no mistaking the correctness of the assertion.

From this one example (and I have many others), it appears to me that the existence of Superluminal Information Transmission is a certain fact, despite many Physicists' claims that it violates “Relativity Theory”, and is therefore impossible.

Henceforth, let us abbreviate “Superluminal Information Transmission” as “S.I.T.”

“SIT, Wolfy! SIT!”

Battle of The Majors: Engineering vs. Philosophy

· Published on August 24, 2020

· Edit article

· View stats

Nicholas Meyler

Leading Executive Recruiter/Headhunter with (nearly) 30,000 Connections @NicholasMeyler on Twitter

24 articles

I just read a really interesting article by a clever writer named Kristina Grob, a Philosophy instructor at University of South Carolina Sumter. The article discussed the long-term benefits of a Philosophy degree in terms of paying ones’ bills and earning a living, as opposed to other majors like Engineering, which is obviously more geared towards practical applications and material success.

https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2020/08/06/want-good-job-major-philosophy?fbclid=IwAR3mE_MT25ZboA7pdoquawknRH9AvhykYrLSTUW1ZLzUv2Vdobs38NXot-k

I read the article with particular interest because I majored in both fields, at separate schools, to obtain two Bachelor’s degrees. The first was in Philosophy at Princeton, and the second in Chemical Engineering at Cal State Northridge. Even though my family had been engineers for four generations before me, I was the rebellious one who wanted to have a broader mind and wanted to set out on a new path.

My father and grandfather both had Mechanical Engineering degrees from Cornell, and my grandfather was even a Cornell Instructor. My paternal great-grandfather was a Military Engineer from West Point (top in his class, except for the fellow-student he tutored). His name was James J. Meyler and he won perhaps the most important public debate of the early twentieth century vs. Leland Stanford, known as “The Free Harbor Contest”, and was responsible for picking the location and beginning the dredging and construction for the Los Angeles Harbor, which was the largest harbor ever built for many years. There was a street named after him in San Pedro, near the harbor. He also had Army ships named after him, and his portrait stood in the L.A. Army Headquarters for 50+ years.

Even his father, my great-great grandfather (also named Nickolas Meyler, like myself), who was an un-degreed Irish immigrant of the potato-famine, was a master carpenter who successfully filed his own patent for a roof-forming machine –- technology which I have been told by Construction professionals is still used on multi-million dollar mansions in Malibu today.

So, why would I study Philosophy instead?

I didn't want to conform to my family's expectations. And, probably because I badly wanted an education in the Humanities. In fact, I took 13 classes in Philosophy at Princeton (more than any other undergrad I knew) and another 6 in Comparative Literature. Philosophy was the highest-ranked department in the World at the time, so it appealed to me because of the challenge. The thought of earning a living never even occurred to me at the time, I was so impassioned to learn the truths of the Universe.

Towards the end of Senior year, I had some conversations with people about “the real world”. One friend who was a fellow Philosophy major in many of my classes was the grand-daughter of two Nobel winners on her mother’s side, while her father was President of Harvard. Even she, with a mother who was a Philosophy professor (and later a best-selling author), made remarks like “We Philosophy majors are the most worthless people out there.”

After I graduated, I began to realize that it might actually be hard to get a job when Philosophy hadn’t really exactly prepared me for one. I had heard of Philosophers in Europe putting up a shingle and charging $100 an hour for providing advice on Life, etc., but I didn’t think I could make that model work for me. I ended up taking the next year off and read 160 books. My parents were incredibly generous with me, very tolerant and understanding. They realized that I had been through an ‘existential crisis’, trying to find some sense of self-worth and meaning in Life. I also had a peculiar psychosomatic ailment which was attacks of hiccups that went on and on intermittently, for many months.

Finally, my parents insisted that I get a job. Since I was contemplating a possible career in Law, it seemed appropriate that I should take advantage of my family’s personal lawyer being the Executor for the J. Paul Getty Museum Estate. I got a job in the mail-room at a company called Musick, Peeler, and Garrett which entailed mailing enormous checks and documents to members of the Getty family.

I could read a book on the bus to the office, and had hundreds of attorneys to talk with and ask questions about Law. I learned a great deal, met some great people, and eventually began to understand that I was not the type of person who should be a lawyer. This was probably a good way to learn that I was not cut-out for that particular profession.

Eventually, family tradition began to influence me, and I resolved to study Chemical Engineering. I think there were several reasons for this, including my family’s predilection for Engineering, and the fact that I had always liked Chemistry. I also was fascinated with the music of Iannis Xenakis, a Composer/Architect who wrote music about Chemical Engineering, Mathematics, and Physics. I was led back into Engineering by way of the Humanities. I had always been especially good in Science and Math, so I thought it made a lot of sense; plus, it seemed pretty assured that I could manage to make a living at it.

So, a few years later, I did graduate with a Chemical Engineering degree and was able to find an entry-level Chemist job in the Electroplating industry. Here I was working with people who were shop-owners that made $500,000 per year… this was obviously something that made money. I also realized, though, that repeated exposure to toxic chemicals, cyanide, sulfuric acid, hydrofluoric acid, etc. was not really all that appealing.

For that reason, I eventually transitioned to a sales career-path – selling plating chemicals for an esoteric but fascinating process of auto-catalytic deposition of nickel phosphorus (i.e. “electroless nickel”). I learned that the communication and language skills I had acquired while studying Philosophy actually had value in terms of making it easier to explain concepts and make persuasive arguments. I was able to use reason and logic to achieve sales of product.

This was something I hadn’t really expected. All of the sudden, Philosophy actually had a practical application. I could use logic and reasoning to present rational reasons for customers to buy the products I was hawking, and could make them feel good about using them.

Eventually, of course, I transitioned into the career of Executive Search, where I have been for the past 30 years. I use my skills in Engineering and Philosophy both, on a daily basis. Philosophy is very helpful for strategic thinking, ethics, and selling of ‘intangibles’. Engineering, equally, is a passion that is fortuitous to have. Nothing is more exciting to me than cutting-edge Science and Technology being applied at the highest competitive levels to achieve commercial success and successful productization.

The truth, is, at least according to Kristen Grob, that Philosophy majors earn more than their counterpart majors, and maybe as much as Engineering majors. I was shocked with her statement, but it seems to have some facticity. I found it hard to believe that the pursuit of Non-material Wisdom could somehow equate with Science based on the nature of Matter (i.e. Chemistry).

In 30 years of placing Scientists and Engineers, I have only once encountered another person with Bachelor’s degrees in both Chemical Engineering and Philosophy. Only one other person, and I have about 30,000 resumes on file, with probably over 200,000 personal contacts over my career.

What do the facts really say? Since I work with Engineers and Scientists, of course I’m not so likely to see resumes of other Philosophy majors. That doesn’t mean they can’t make money. Some statistics say that the average Philosophy graduate makes $80,000 per year. Certainly, this is comparable to what Engineers earn.

Realistically speaking, would I be the Engineering Headhunter I am today, without having had a Philosophy degree? Probably not. I think that the communication skills alone that I learned were priceless. Having the ability to communicate well is not always common among Engineers. Both disciplines involve problem-solving, but only Philosophy focuses on persuading others of the correctness of one’s viewpoint. This element is neglected in most Engineering curricula. I do think that there should be more of a hybridization between the two fields. It can only help.

Meanwhile, I must also admit that I am the most-followed “Philosopher/Engineer” on Twitter in the World.

Is that worth any money?

Probably not. But it’s a whole lot more fun!

Was Shakespeare Truly a Bard? A Headhunter's Opinion

· Published on January 18, 2019

· Edit article

· View stats

Nicholas Meyler

Leading Executive Recruiter/Headhunter with (nearly) 30,000 Connections @NicholasMeyler on Twitter

24 articles

Popular wisdom says that ‘Bards’ are those great story-tellers whose tales are embraced by the audience, not only once, but over and over again, for generations. The idea of a Bard conjures up names like Homer, Shakespeare, and perhaps few others. Reality is quite a bit different, though.

Etymology of the word “Bard” shows that it is of Welsh origin, specifically referring to the great Poet/Singer/Musician/Warriors who were responsible for creating and retelling great ballads like the ancient epic 'Mabinogion', or the King Arthur legend, which is part of 'Mabinogion'.

Owing to unique circumstances, it was in ancient Wales that the Bardic tradition first arose. The culture of Wales was such that the early Princes sponsored official court poets (i.e. “Gogynfeirdd”) who shared many of the same privileges as royalty. In fact, in certain ways, Bards were actually viewed as being even superior to the Kings. Tradition had it that the greatest fear among Nobility was the ever-present possibility that they might be satirized for being unkind or ungenerous to the Bards ("Poet-Gods"). In at least one case, legend tells of a King who died of shame from being scorned by his Bard, Taliesin.

Perhaps the first great Bard was Taliesin. His 6th century poems still exist. The largest number of extant great poems by a Bard are those by Daffyd ap Gwilym (1320-1350), 170 of whose poems still exist. The preponderance of Daffyd’s poems were about Nature and Erotica, filled with a great sense of humor. Yet, it was the Meilyr family of Bards that were the most famous family of Bards that ever lived, being the official court poets of Wales for over a century, and three generations... Meilyr Bryddyd was the first of these, and his religious poems are still known. His son was Gwalchmai, who had at least two sons who were also official Bards of the Princes. Thus, the Meilyr dynasty in Wales established the greatest tradition of factual Bards in human history.

Common lore tells us that Shakespeare was a 'Bard', since author of 37 known still-revered plays and several poems and the set of sonnets. Mere casual reference to "The Bard" often elicits thoughts of William Shakespeare (or "Wm Choxpur" as he sometimes wrote, in addition to perhaps 10 other spellings, indicating a possible degree of illiteracy, by today's standards). "The Bard of Stratford-upon-Avon", or "The Bard of Avon", etc. are similar epithets which have frequently been used to describe both "Shaksper" and even Homer (author of "Illiad" and "Odyssey"), has been described as a ‘Bard’.

Yet, if we look to the actual definition of the word "Bard", we note readily that it is a word from Medieval Welsh. The actual meaning of the word "Bard" encompasses far more than merely being the author of a great text, or set of texts, which survive four, five, or twenty-five centuries. Bards were something altogether different from a mere playwright or author, actually. Much more like troubadours, perhaps. Singularly talented, and not merely limited to authorship, etc. Skilled in performance, battle, song, as well as writing.

I suggest that William Shakespeare is regarded as being the greatest English-speaking 'Bard-like author', largely because of his name, which connotes warrior-like characteristics, or acts (i.e. "shaking a spear"). Part of the tradition of the authentic Bards of Wales is that in addition to being poets, performers, singers, composers, scholars and genealogists for Royalty, they also were accomplished warriors who fought in many battles. So confident of his prowess in battle was Gwalchmai ap Meilyr (1130-1180), author of "Gorhoffedd" (i.e. "The Boast") that he actually wore gold jewelry (a torcque) into battle on behalf of his patron Owain Gwynedd (my 24th great-grandfather, by my calculations).

One might think that, as a Meyler, I would be more closely related to Gwalchmai, but he is actually only a 25th cousin 4 times removed. So, I speak with a degree of relative objectivity, here, being not merely partial to Welsh bards simply because of being related to several. In fact, the other best-known "Gorhoffedd" (a completely different poem) was written by Owain ap Hywel (907-987) who was actually my 29th great-grandfather, although I am much more fond of Gwalchmai's eloquent poem.

In any case, Thomas Rogers (1540-1611), was my 12th great-uncle, and lived 2 blocks away from William Shakespeare in Stratford. Thomas' grandson, was John Harvard, whose name is somewhat better recognized. I may not be related to Shakespeare, but I do deeply respect his incredible mastery of the English language, while, at the same time, being somewhat strict on the meaning of the word "Bard".

I hope I have been fair!

Clearly, William Shakespeare cannot be considered a Bard, unless, perhaps, the pen itself is somehow mightier than the sword. It turns out that not only did William Shakespeare NOT invent the sonnet, but that the sonnet form was actually invented by my 1st cousin 14x removed, Sir Henry Howard (1517-1547).

Semiotics and Nobel Peace

NICHOLAS MEYLER·SATURDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2017·10 MINUTES

Semiotics and Nobel Peace: I was Six vs. “We Are Seven”

Having placed myself in the mildly challenging position of defending my claim (or interpretation, or theory, perhaps) that I won the Nobel Peace Prize at the age of six, I thought it might be worth expounding upon that absurdity which I have previously termed (paraphrasing T.S. Eliot writing on John Milton or Edmund Spenser) an “[auditory] hypertrophy of the imagination” – pun intended. Simple inspection of the history of the Nobel tells us that only Sartre is openly acknowledged to have turned one down (in Literature), although some claim that George Bernard Shaw also declined it. Yet, there are some questions about the details of GBS’ refusal – the apparent truth being that he “accepted the honor,” but refused the money. Sartre, perhaps with greater integrity, refused the prize primarily because he wished not to set himself apart from the common man, eschewing distinctions in class and status as a reflection of the Socialist values he shared with Shaw. My own claim to have won the Prize in a clandestine fashion, in 1966, absurd as it must seem, has been bolstered by the recent actions of the Nobel committee; while they certainly haven’t been verbally expressive. According to the rules of the Nobel Trust, it is not allowed for the Nobel committee to release names of nominees for fifty years, and even then, only at their discretion.

My apparently outrageous contention is that I was awarded and then declined the Nobel Peace Prize in 1966, for contact with multiple alien intelligent beings; including many UFO landings in my backyard in Tarzana, California; and involving extensive faster-than-lightspeed travel (which Relativity Theory discloses to be equivalent to time-travel). In point of fact, I think it historically notable that my home (at 4608 Conchita Way, wherein I lived from 1965 to 1982) was purchased by the producer Stephen Deutsch, responsible for such time-travel epics as “Somewhere In Time” (starring Christopher Reeve and Jane Seymour) and “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure”. Stephen clearly shares my interest and fascination with Time Travel and Metaphysics, although I tend to be inclined towards the academic side of the field; and I suspect that he bought the house because we had advertised it in the L.A. Times as a “UFO Landing Site”. I don’t have any evidence of this, although it should be possible to obtain through examination of microfilmed copies of real estate ads from the L.A. Times and possibly other publications from 1982. If anyone can produce this evidence, it would be of great interest… and, if this exists only in my imagination (or “hypertrophy” thereof), at least it is a “grand illusion”.

Given that there is circumstantial evidence that I may have been involved in time-travel and faster-than-light travel events, I continue to investigate. George Bernard Shaw’s most popular play is “Pygmalian” (the basis for “My Fair Lady”), whose hero is a phonetician – and it is through phonetics that I have accumulated the largest body of evidence of my own personal possible experiences of time-travel, since my name is found phonetically encrypted in some classic musical compositions, centuries before my birth. Examples I have previously given are Mozart’s 14th and 41st Symphonies, Bach’s 4th Brandenburg Concerto (which also references “Hefner” – another odd character appearing anachronistically as a model in music composed in 1725), Stockhausen’s “Ceylon/Bird of Passage” album, Pink Floyd’s “Dark Side of the Moon”, and so on. That the “happy few” who have refused the Nobel Prize should be able to find ways to metaphysically help each other (despite large separations in the realm of Time), somehow has a fundamental justice to it, at least.

My theory has been, for more than a decade, that there was a NASA mission to Alpha Centauri in 1966. What the CIA files show as “Alpha-66”, however, is merely an Anti-Castro mission conducted by 66 Cuban emigres… no mention is made in those files of any extraterrestrial affairs. Still, the phrase “Anti-Castro” shares initials with “Alpha Centauri”, and one may draw one’s own inferences… Any faster-than-lightspeed mission might encounter the problem of entering a completely different Universe where that faster-than-lightspeed travel had never occurred. Thus, the mission could have been widely publicized at the time, but have become almost completely forgotten, due to the phenomenon of “Information Loss” (described by Hawking in a well-known 1972 paper).

The belief that a six-year old survived a rocket ride (almost certainly propelled by "dark matter" procured perhaps from the Magellanic Clouds in a “cyclic acausal” manner), in 1966, and achieved contact with aliens (in addition to the landings in the backyard in Tarzana), is obviously a huge leap of faith for anyone to make. Any healthy skeptic should remain a skeptic, without evidence that such an event happened, and it clearly isn’t spelled out in the CIA’s declassified files to “Alpha 66”. However, what is interesting, in the light of the recent award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Mohammed Yunus, is that he is a 66-year old, awarded the Peace Prize in 2006. The trifold occurrence of the digit ‘6’ is interesting. Based on my many requests to the Nobel committee to provide information about my suspicion of having been secretly awarded the Peace Prize in 1966, is this a sign or signification that there is something correct in my assertions? Also, whether a 6-year old won and refused the prize in 1966, or a 66-year old won and accepted the prize in 2006, does the presence of the number '666’ itself make any difference? Is the name “Yunus” in any way a harking back to “Unicef” (the recipient of the 1965 Peace Prize)?

The subliminal lyrics to Pink Floyd’s 1972 album “Dark Side of the Moon” make clear references to me (via phonetic speech synthesis with electronic instruments), and to the Nobel committee. The subliminal lyrics of albums by The Grateful Dead, on the other hand, appear to make reference to me being “Lucifer” (associated both with the'666’ numerology as well as the defamed Catholic Saint (examples of such albums would be “Live Dead” [the song “Dark Star”] and “Dead Set” [“Samson and Delilah”, and “Fire on the Mountain”, etc.]). Since Arthur C. Clarke’s novel “Childhood’s End’ describes the end of humanity (as we know it) resulting from the arrival of an extraterrestrial named "Karellan,” revealed (halfway through the novel) to possess the same physiognomy as the legendary Satan with wings, a tail, and horns, it might well behoove me to ignore the negative Christian mythology associated with the number '666’ just as the Nobel committee appears to have. Beethoven, oddly enough, refers to me as both “Jesus” and “Savior” in different symphonies, possibly because he must have heard Mozart’s 41st Symphony, where I am modeled with Jody Savin (I am speculating that “Savin” was perceived/interpreted as “Saven” by Beethoven, for instance). The subliminal lyrics of “Dark Star” by The Grateful Dead also make reference to me and Jody (actually a minor relationship in the scheme of my life), with an odd discussion about sticking a crucifix into a Black Hole (perhaps with the goal in mind of stabilizing an Einstein-Rosen Bridge, or wormhole to another universe)….

In 1966 and 1967, two years during which the Nobel Peace Prize was not officially awarded, a most lethal war was waged, in denial of our country’s inability to win that war, and Peace was only a distant dream. In harmony and resonance with my mercurial claim of winning the Nobel at the age of six, I offer Wordsworth’s poem “We Are Seven" which focuses on a child’s denial of reality, insisting that her dead siblings are still with her:

We Are Seven by William Wordsworth.

–A Simple Child, That lightly draws its breath, And feels its life in every limb, What should it know of death?

I met a little cottage Girl: She was eight years old, she said; Her hair was thick with many a curl That clustered round her head.

She had a rustic, woodland air, And she was wildly clad: Her eyes were fair, and very fair; –Her beauty made me glad.

"Sisters and brothers, little Maid, How many may you be?” “How many? Seven in all,” she said And wondering looked at me.

“And where are they? I pray you tell.” She answered, “Seven are we; And two of us at Conway dwell, And two are gone to sea.

"Two of us in the church-yard lie, My sister and my brother; And, in the church-yard cottage, I Dwell near them with my mother.”

“You say that two at Conway dwell, And two are gone to sea, Yet ye are seven!–I pray you tell, Sweet Maid, how this may be.”

Then did the little Maid reply, “Seven boys and girls are we; Two of us in the church-yard lie, Beneath the church-yard tree.”

“You run about, my little Maid, Your limbs they are alive; If two are in the church-yard laid, Then ye are only five.”

“Their graves are green, they may be seen,” The little Maid replied, “Twelve steps or more from my mother’s door, And they are side by side.

"My stockings there I often knit, My kerchief there I hem; And there upon the ground I sit, And sing a song to them.

"And often after sunset, Sir, When it is light and fair, I take my little porringer, And eat my supper there.

"The first that died was sister Jane; In bed she moaning lay, Till God released her of her pain; And then she went away.

"So in the church-yard she was laid; And, when the grass was dry, Together round her grave we played, My brother John and I.

"And when the ground was white with snow, And I could run and slide, My brother John was forced to go, And he lies by her side.”

“How many are you, then,” said I, “If they two are in heaven?” Quick was the little Maid’s reply, “O Master! we are seven.”

“But they are dead; those two are dead! Their spirits are in heaven!” 'Twas throwing words away; for still The little Maid would have her will, And said, “Nay, we are seven!”

Returning again to the topic of signification or semiotics and the Peace Prize; it clearly is unprecedented for the Nobel committee to award the prize (in consecutive years) to persons named “Mohammed”, and yet they have done so (to Mohamed El-Baradei and Muhammad Yunus). This seems to possibly express disenchantment with Christianity (and the mythology surrounding '666’), but it also is a gesture of offering an 'olive-branch’ to Islam, in the wake of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. Parenthetically, Muhammad Yunus was also the recipient of the World Food Prize, which was initiated by my distant cousin (a second- or third-cousin) Norman Borlaug in 1986. I find it odd that the media paid so little attention to Yunus as a candidate, given that fact. For most, he was a “dark horse” candidate, possibly because the media is lazy, prefers to disinform, or simply wants to keep information to itself… There is no accounting for an information failure like this, and it reminds me of Einstein’s famous remark that “Two things are infinite: the Universe and human stupidity, and I’m not so sure about the former.”

There are many other points worthy of semiotic analysis in the history of the Nobel prize, but my intention is not to be exhaustive. Rather, I would like to provoke a little bit of thought, and to offer desperately needed (possible) explanations where there have previously been none. Everything, for instance, resolves to “How does a modern person’s name [mine] encrypt itself into art from the 18th century, associated with the Nobel Peace Prize, which also didn’t even exist at that time? And, what is the significance of this bizarre phenomenon?"

To those questions, I hope that I have at least offered a partial answer, although it might seem equally that I am "a miner for truth and delusion,” as the Pink Floyd lyric goes. Still, having barely ever heard of many past winners like Elihu Root, Fredrik Bajer, Frederic Passy, George Pire, etc., I suppose the Nobel Committee might have seen fit to try to award the prize to someone like myself, whose name somehow transcendentally appears (associated with the Nobel Peace Prize) in some very antique classics (while I am still largely unknown, of course). I wonder if that “auditory hypertrophy” of my imagination will ever be fully understood, recognized and explained.

–Nicholas Meyler, November 26, 2006

Exegesis of My Thoughts on Auditory Doppelgangers in Music

NICHOLAS MEYLER·FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 2020·5 MINUTES

Apart from the instances I have previously pointed out in some detail (the passages in Grateful Dead's "Foolish Heart", Trent Reznor's "Closer", and Brandenburg Concerto #4 by J.S. Bach, Mozart’s 14th Symphony K#114 in A Major, etc.), one of the best examples of my auditory time-traveling doppelganger phenomenon I've ever heard is from Karlheinz Stockhausen's "Ceylon/Bird of Passage", which was composed when I was around 15. I'm pretty certain I didn't buy a copy until 1977 or 1978, at the earliest. I had never previously met Karlheinz Stockhausen, except on the UIA/CIA Mission with:

Felix Rodriguez https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%A9lix_Rodr%C3%ADguez_(soldier) in 1968, when we brought Stockhausen here from his native planet orbiting the star Sirius, as Karlheinz repeatedly stated.

Stockhausen was very intuitive, very psychic, and studied about or with Indian yogi Sri Aurobindo. He writes about some of his psychic experiences and how his compositions were sometimes based on dream-flights into the Cosmic Oversoul.

In 1975, when this album first came out on Chrysalis Records, I was 15, and I shared an Attorney with the J. Paul Getty Museum Estate, since my paternal grandfather was that attorney's first-ever client. He later also counseled Howard Hughes to some extent. Getty's son Gordon is actually the world's richest composer, to my knowledge. He once gave my Mom a couple of cassettes of his music ("Plump Jack" and "The White Election").

at 5:41 I hear "Borlaug" (My 2nd cousin twice removed on my Mom's side -- a Nobel Peace Prizewinner Agriculturalist credited with inventing wheat strains which saved one billion lives from starvation)

at 10:30 I hear "Getty Deep" emulated electronically (suggestive of the extreme depths at which oil is found). Stockhausen, as a composer, was remarkable for his Capitalistic instinct, being one of the very first artists to purchase the rights to all his music from Deutsche Grammophon recordings.

at 14:15 I hear "Tara, Claudia, Laura... Nick is Nazi, Billionaire Nazi" (which is odd, since I am actually a Republican and not exactly a Billionaire... however, part of the "Doppelganger" idea is that the Double is an 'evil twin', which might actually make a certain amount of sense, then, being someone who would act counter to my best interests. Tara, Claudia and Laura were all girlfriends I hadn't had yet, when I was between the ages of 16 and 24 [accurately predicted by Stockhausen] in reverse order).

at 14:29 "Uma" is clearly spoken by the composer... interesting because "Uma" is from Tibetan Buddhism, and means "the Goddess". Uma Thurman's father is one of the world's leading authorities on Tibetan Buddhism, and named her after the Buddhist Goddess. She was also in a movie with Ben Affleck about an invention that could predict the future accurately, with a "Paycheck" hidden under the newspaper of the bird-cage (reference to "Bird of Passage"?) in the form of a winning lottery ticket.

at 15:30 I hear "Furnix" which could also easily be "Phoenix", "Fur Nichts", "Fur Nicks", etc. Repeatedly spoken throughout the piece is the name "Garuda", which is a winged Hindu deity, also somewhat evocative of the legendary Phoenix which re-emerges from the flames after its own Pyrrhic death. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garuda

at 17:55 I hear another synthetic voice reference to birds (i.e. "We're ducky!")

at 19:19 "Getty, pow-wow-wow" seems pretty clearly enunciated, harking back to the Billionaire theme

at 21:00 "Waiter" or "Waaaiiiiitttteerrr!!!" seems to be shouted pretty loudly... not sure what that is about, but it does bring to mind "The Restaurant at the End of the Universe" by Douglas Adams, published 5 years later, in 1980. Haven't quite figured that out, yet.

at 22:05 "How, how, how?, etc."

at 22:43 "You're a Leader" (I assume this is a direct but oneiric reference to me...or maybe that Borlaug dude, which is followed by a remarkably clever doubting sentiment at 23:45 to 23:55 "Why??" = "Wwwwwwhhhhhhhhyyyyyy????". Obviously, if someone claims me to be a leader, I want to know why! It does make a nice pun on "lieder" (German for 'song', in this speech-synthesis rich composition).

at 24:10 "Overall"

at 24:42 Composition Ends

“Bird of Passage” (i.e. “How Did We Get Here?”)

At 24:50, the album's second entry begins with the very complex and difficult to comprehend phrase (especially since it is almost steganographically encrypted, muffled and disguised as pure instrumental music, with percussion dominating): "Doppelganger Princeton Peace"

If it were up to me, I would have left out the "Princeton" part, since I was not terribly thrilled with their idea of "Academia" (which mostly seemed to be based on their adamant refusal to read books and actually do research, while insisting on mocking those that actually had done “the homework”); but, in any case (as in Mozart's 14th Symphony, where Princeton is referred to as "a bedwet", it is also equated with "Nobel Peace", for some reason [i.e. that is another example of the time-traveling Doppelganger I have been discussing in some detail]).

at 30:20 "Doppelganger Peace Prize Lives!" or "Doppelganger Peace Prizes"

In this composition, the disguised speech synthesis is much-better hidden, making it harder to provide clear-cut examples. However, at 35:53 "Better get dead!" is pretty clear. This is probably a duppel/doppel entendre, since The Grateful Dead are one of the very few bands which also openly advocate the importance of psychic powers in music. https://stanleykrippner.weebly.com/a-pilot-study-in-dream-t…

37:32 "Figaro's a lunatic!" (reference to Mozart's Nozze di Figaro and/or Rossini's "Barber of Seville"?)

42:50 "Better get dead" is reiterated...

43:29 "Figaro!"

46:33 After what sound like repeated iterations of "Democrat Winner" throughout this piece, the music quixotically ends with what sounds to me like "Reagan" -- a President who wasn't elected yet. Of course, this album was published during the Administration of Gerald R. Ford, before the election of Jimmy Carter, and hence, well before "Reagan".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bHnGorNTT0

"Things I 'Figured Out' for Myself"

July 24, 2010 at 12:34 AM

from 2005? (approx.) "Things I Figured Out for Myself" I made this list because I sometimes do figure out these nifty ideas 'without help', and then read about them later in the news (as someone else's 'great new discovery'). So, I am working on this list, and will add to it as I recall more such events and instances. 1. Sharks with wings might be an evolutionary path on another planet. (It has been discovered that there were actually winged sharks in the seas of ancient Earth, but they went extinct many millions of years ago). I had a dream once, about being on a catamaran on the placid lagoon of a planet orbiting Tau Ceti ("Ceti" is actually Greek for "sea-monster", and not "whale", as many might presume), and awaking from the dream-experience (which felt like a memory) of being eaten alive by an enormous Great White Shark, with wing-like appendages similar to those of flying fish. Subsequent to my dream, I also learned that Great Whites are well-known for jumping out of the water to catch prey. 2. Epsilon Eridani has an inhabited planet (It has been discovered that there is at least one planet in orbit around Epsilon Eridani, which is probably uninhabited since much too large. However, there still might be smaller planets in orbit there, which are unseen). The SETI project observed a spike or signal from Epsilon Eridani on the first day of operation (if I recall correctly), but it was never repeated. Frank Drake supposedly concluded that this was only terrestrial interference which appeared to be from the direction of Epsilon Eridani, but I am suspicious of the whole SETI project, in principle. 3. Time-travel to the past must exist (Hasn't been confirmed yet, but light has been accelerated to 300x "c" in experiments). If information about the present day (approximately) somehow shows up in music composed in 1725 (e.g. Bach's Brandenburg Concerti), then someone must have put it there. 4. Global warming is real (pretty much confirmed recently). I based that judgment on the fact that California summers keep getting hotter... of course, many other people concurred on that one, so I clearly didn't invent it, but I was way ahead of the curve, and managed to get fired from a job as a chemist back in 1989, partly as a result of my opinions on the subject. 5. It makes lots of sense to assume that space is comprised of an infinite number of dimensions, of infinite size (infinite-dimension theory is getting popular these days, although 11-dimensional M theory leads the pack of theories). Common sense leads one to ask "What is so special about the number 11, anyway?" I can still remember pretty vividly being told that there were definitively 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, or 27 dimensions as well, at different times. Why would we be so gullible as to latch onto the idea that '11 dimensions' is the final and correct solution? 6. If "Finnegans Wake" by James Joyce is a cyclical novel based on human history (it is), then it might be used to predict human history and events before they happen (example... the fall of the Soviet Union and Iran-contra [see pp. 518-519 of "Finnegans Wake"]). 7. Time-travel can be accompanied by information-loss phenomenon (thoughts influenced by Hawking's work, but pushing his 'envelope' somewhat). 8. Information isn't necessarily lost inside Black Holes, since particle pairs are created on the boundary... therefore the 'lost' information could remain accessible and encrypted somewhere (Hawking's information-loss paradox seems to deny this, and then he changed his mind somewhat, and there is also the work of t'Hooft on this subject). My idea that information is actually encrypted and not destroyed is just based on the fact that music contains encrypted information (sent at faster-than-light speeds) which is decodable. Encrypting information in music (or other art) might also be a means of compensating for 'information-loss', since the information could later be retrieved and reconstructed. 9. Since music contains decodable faster-than-lightspeed information, it ought to be useful in predicting future events (I've done a few 'experiments' of this nature, which seemed to work pretty well). Music can be a type of 'artificial intelligence' or intelligence amplification... this would also account for the 20-point IQ gain exhibited in experiments on the 'Mozart effect'. Einstein claimed to have had the inspiration for the Theory of Relativity while listening to Mozart -- this especially makes sense if Mozart's music contains information from the future which might have subliminally influenced Einstein. 10. Based on decoding messages in Mozart, Bach, Pink Floyd, Stockhausen, Frampton, etc., I determined the existence of an 'alternate Universe' or history which diverges from ours in approximately the year 1977. (Recent work by Hawking and Hertog implied that there clearly have been 'other universes' in history, which might be confirmed by examining cosmic background radiation levels -- some of this work is associated with NASA scientist John Mather, who won the Nobel for his efforts). Hawking and Hertog contend that their theory hasn't yet been confirmed, but I am inclined to say that I have already proved it, by using a fairly devious means. 11. There is a great black hole at the center of our galaxy, and it is much larger than previously thought (I was right on both counts, although I might have seriously overestimated the size of the black hole by a magnitude of 3 [digits]). 12. The Vulcans ("Star Trek") could really be based on witness-reports of aliens from Tau Ceti (some claim to have seen beings with pointed ears). "Star Trek" itself could be largely based on Top Secret UFO files, and CIA agents like James Jesus Angleton, Leonard McCoy, and Scotty Miler (among others). The CIA was actually founded two months after the Roswell event (or non-event) in 1947. 13. An extraterrestrial (or UFO/saucer/time-machine) crash at Roswell probably really happened. Among other things, it doesn't make a lot of sense for the Army to bury test-crash dummies in child-size coffins. 14. Prior to Seth Shostak making the proclamation that the SETI project was looking for messages from alien (i.e. ET) life-forms in "all the wrong places," I copyrighted my notes and thoughts on the subject (as "The Encryptment Thesis" in 1994), where I discuss the idea that truly advanced alien civilizations wouldn't send out signals to more primitive planets (like Earth), but would probably encrypt evidence of faster-than-lightspeed travel in 'places' which would have some degree of permanence. Encrypting coded messages (about the future) into great artworks like Bach's Brandeburg Concerti, Mozart Symphonies, etc., would allow a slow "coming to consciousness" for Humanity, that it already has had, and always will have had alien contact, but simply didn't understand it yet. 15. Based on my reading of philosopher/logician Saul Kripke's "Naming and Necessity", as well as my observations of encrypted or subliminal speech fragments in music, I speculated that sound itself may have properties which actually influence or predict events... This is a metaphysical concept which seems tangential to Kripke's thoughts on issues like 'rigid designation', and more along the lines of Russellian thinking. In any case, I think I was the first to try to apply it methodically, yielding successful predictions of severe disasters on multiple occassions. The goal of predicting disasters does make sense, since if they can be predicted, they may also potentially be averted. 16. The movie "Zoolander" is obviously based on Eric Lander of MIT's Whitehead Institute and his work on the human genome project, although the resemblances between Ben Stiller's character and Eric Lander are relatively small. 17. A convenient unit for measuring the rate of time-travel/interstellar travel for a fairly advanced culture would be "lyps" (i.e. "light-years per second"). Civilizations with 'time-suit' or 'lyps' technology would literally be able to travel to other stellar systems in seconds. Given that many of the existing clues about faster-than-lightspeed travel exist as synthetic speech encrypted in music (somewhat like song, but still 'unsung'), I think that the use of the term 'lyps' is sufficiently appropriate. This is my list so far... I will continue to work on it, and see where it leads me. Obviously, it's not that long, yet, but it's a start.

Questioning Biases About Doppelgangers

NICHOLAS MEYLER·MONDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2017·4 MINUTES

If we take a look at the history of people who have had noteworthy Doppelgangers -- who have at least written about them and sometimes had witnesses who corroborated their stories, the “Double-goers” or “Shadow-walkers” are frequently harbingers of bad omens.

I, however, have been aware of my auditory doppelganger for at least 40 years without any drastic ill-effects, and have actually found its existence to be intriguing and stimulative of a great deal of thought.

Relatively few "musical" or "auditory" doppelgangers have been reported. My analysis of this phenomenon is unique, as far as I know, and involves extremely sane, highly rational people who are among the brightest and most successful people in the World. One of the best-known examples of the idea of a Doppelganger in Art (in Fiction) is Oscar Wildes’ “Dorian Gray”. Wilde’s choice of the name “Dorian” is interesting because it is a musical modality, established in Ancient Greek times https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorian_mode, as well as a word evocative of Gold (i.e. “D’Or”). In Wilde’s fantastic fiction, Dorian’s portrait ages and becomes ugly, while he remains the same. In Music, contradistinctively, nothing changes, and all is preserved for the inspection of posterity.

Hearing "Beethoven" subtly mentioned in a Mozart Symphony is an example. Hearing the name "Casiraghi" in Beethoven's "Geister Trio" would be another. Beethoven actually modeled himself in some compositions, where it sounds like he is composing syntheses of his own name... "Wittgenstein" appears to be mentioned in a Haydn symphony, although I can't recall precisely which one. Saul "Kripke" is clearly mentioned in Stockhausen's "Ylem"; Norman Borlaug is very clearly mentioned in "Ceylon" and "Kurzwellen" (before he won recognition for the Nobel Prize), and the "Nobel Prize" itself is mentioned in Mozart's 14th Symphony, a century before it existed.

There can be a degree of indeterminacy about identities modelled in Music (or Art, in general), but I often find portions of Stockhausen’s “Kurzwellen” to evoke some thoughts of Stephen Hawking. This was a composition from 1968, before Hawking was really famed, and it also has a peculiar phrase (i.e. “His wheelchair’s God”) which is odd since it happened to be composed before Hawking was even a Professor at Cambridge, and long before he announced himself as an Atheist.

I once told a friend from Princeton who also attended Saul Kripke's ‘Advanced Logic’ course, that I thought I heard his name mentioned in Beethoven's 8th Symphony, and wondered if he concurred. Within a decade, the "Beastie Boys" composed a tune called "Intergalactic Planetary", which is filled with obvious and clear speech-synthesis, including his name ("Brilliant Burtie" is how they put it), along with the mention of "Another Dimension, another dimension". Burt Totaro's research on higher dimensions in Algebraic Topology is something that appears to be very relevant to this kind of acoustical modeling: https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0209173. Burt eventually went to work at Cambridge University, in Stephen Hawking’s Math Department, and now works at UCLA (a school founded by my great-great grandfather George Gephard).

Other acoustic/auditory doppelgangers exist for several of my Princeton classmates: Jody Savin (Director/Producer class of '82) is modeled with me in Mozart's 41st Symphony. Christopher Gocke (Cancer Pathologist class of '81) is mentioned in Beethoven's 3rd Symphony. "Hoookie" was a nickname for CIA Director/Secretary of Defence James Schlesinger's niece, "Kathryn" and appears in the Brandenburgs as well as the Salzburg Symphonies.

I have been aware of the existence of all these contemporary "acoustic models"/ Doppelgangers for many years, now, and all of them (except Borlaug, who died at the age of 93 or 94) are still alive. This clearly "breaks the mold" on the concept of Doppelgangerism being purely a harbinger of bad things.

My intent is to address the oddity of these observations and find logical ways to account for them. I think their causation might have something to do with my grandparents having been friendly with JFK's CIA Director, who was also the Secretary of the Army in 1948 (the year after the Roswell Crash). John McCone was a Secretary or President of the AEC, the Air Force, etc., and was involved in Project “Bluebook”, which I remember asking about when I was between the ages of 6 and 8.

I look for explanations based on acquisition and use of Alien Technologies, rather than Spiritual/Metaphysical issues, but the truth is that these might actually overlap.

SETI: Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence

NICHOLAS MEYLER·FRIDAY, JANUARY 11, 2019·1 MINUTE

I find it puzzling that no one seems to care about the superluminally embedded speech-synthesis in Mozart's early Salzburg symphonies that clearly enunciate details of events that actually happened in the late 1970's, some hundreds of years after his birth.

Moreover, Karlheinz Stockhausen, who claimed to come from the star Sirius, includes plenty of cryptographic details about both me and my distant cousin, Norman Borlaug, who is credited with saving 1 billion lives. Plenty of prochronistic anachronistic cryptography is embedded in Ceylon/Bird of Passage (Chrysalis Records), for example (published in 1975, several years before I even knew who Stockhausen was, although 5 years after Norman Borlaug won the Nobel Peace Nobel Prize).... The inference that I was the CIA UFO pilot that brought him here from Sirius is fairly obvious, in retrospect. Probably working in tandem with Iran-contra figure Felix Rodriguez.... ("Ear on Contra")

In any case, if the search for neutrinos was conducted in Salt mines, deep below the Earth, I think the search for ET should probably be conducted in Salzburg symphonies several hundred years old. The scholarship of Stockhausen merely amplifies the obvious facts. One thing I didn't like was Neil deGrasse Tyson trying to pass off Edward Snowden as the originator of my theory about Alien cryptography and signal transmission as his own.

Close Note

Notes on “Watergate”

NICHOLAS MEYLER·FRIDAY, JANUARY 20, 2017·6 MINUTES

Nixon was extremely interested in UFOs, and so was Haldeman. The conversation dealt partly with a UFO experience/sighting that I had had, personally. My family was also friendly with JFK's CIA Director John McCone, who I definitely met, and who had indicated to me that the Democratic Party (including LBJ) were behind the JFK assassination. Thus, it would have been completely natural for me to be in sympathy with the just-reported break-in at the DNC, and expressing my support (misguided or not). My family has been friendly (over decades) with several different Presidents' closest friends and advisors.

Because of my concern, at the time, that McGovern was fomenting a potential assassination, I actually advised several people that I thought that it would be reasonable to bug the DNC, and listen in on conversations for any possible clues about assassination plots. One of these was Otis Chandler, I believe, who encouraged my effort at protecting the Presidency, despite his being an ardent "JFK Democrat". Chandler was the former owner of the LA Times, and quite well-known. Obviously, if my family was acquainted with the Chandlers, it wouldn't have been very far-fetched to contend that I could have been placed in verbal contact with Bob Woodward.

No one else, that I know of, has been able to explain exactly why Watergate even happened, let alone how they know why it happened, so I suspect that my claim might well "trump" Mark Felt's claim to be a key informant. One key doubt about Mark Felt is that he couldn't possibly have had any knowledge of the 18.5 minutes of tape, nor what it was about, since he wasn't a "Whitehouse insider".

Also, it has been pointed out that Woodward couldn't have been correct to assert (as he claims) that he communicated with "Deep Throat" by placing a flowerpot on his balcony. Adrian Havill's research proved that no flowerpot could have been seen from the street... also, Havill pointed out that "Deep Throat" couldn't have communicated with Woodward by drawing clocks on the newspaper (as claimed in "All the President's Men"), since the papers were delivered in a stack in the lobby, and not personally, so Woodward couldn't have known which paper to pick.

The tape could well have been erased to protect the identity of a minor (I was 12, at the time), and also because UFOs are considered a matter of highest secrecy and national security.

I should also point out that my name "Nick Meyler" makes a fairly obvious pun ("Neck Miler") on Deep Throat... It also makes a pun on "Iran contra" (Miler/Nicaragua), and I do feel I should point out that I actually invented the Iran-contra plot (as I claim in my 2004 and 2005 Marquis' Who's Who Entry).

In fact, I invented Iran-contra, based on p. 518 of James Joyce's "Finnegans Wake", partly out of a sense of moral outrage at people like Woodward, who had exploited me as a minor, and contributed to my delinquency, by giving me an eponym (i.e. "Deep Throat") which is highly sexual, and obscene. Also, I saw an opportunity to help protect the United States from Communism, and to help hostages held in Iran. Note that Ollie North, much better known for his role in Iran-contra than I, has never claimed to have invented the concept. If anything, he said he received the idea from Ghorbanifar (which I of course dispute, since I had sent in a 4-page letter to President Reagan in 1983 or 1984, outlining my reasoning for this covert action -- since my grandparents were friendly with some of Reagan's key supporters, I was listened to, when others might not have been).

Not only this, but the term "Deep Throat" as I understand it, refers to a phenomenon of speech-synthesis (synthetic voice [or "throat"] by musical instruments (also discussed in my Who's Who entry, and in my entry in the 1993 Cambridge International Biographical Society's "Men of Achievement"). I am the subject of a considerable amount of musical art "modeling", and, for example am modeled in the subliminal lyrics of the album "Dark Side of the Moon" (very popular at the time), and numerous other pieces of music.

The fact that I was only 12 to 14 at the time is irrelevant, since I have an IQ which has been reported/estimated at 215 (and I did actually score a 195 on one test, though it might not have been my best performance), certainly high enough to be significantly intellectual at an early age.

"Deep Throat" was probably more than one person, but certainly not mostly Mark Felt. I feel that my claim to be that more or less fictional identity (and certainly not a name of my own choosing, at least as I recall) is sounder, more reasonable, and more accurate than what Woodward and Bernstein are claiming.

Because I was intuitively aware that Bob Woodward was probably a liar, even as a 14 year old, I called upon some of my acquaintances to help me recollect events carefully. As a chessplayer, I was in tournaments ("All the President's Men is also an allusion to "All the King's Men", obviously), and had met people like James Tarjan, who was a US Champion. Tarjan's brother is a world-leading authority on Artificial Intelligence and Computers, and it is well-known that the most famous computer chess programs are named after "Deep Throat" (i.e. "Deep Thought" and "Deep Blue"). I definitely believe that I can remember James Tarjan telling me not to trust Woodward to eventually tell the truth, and that the scheme of overcoming his deception could be accomplished by long-range planning (which chessplayers naturally have a greater faculty for). So, this justifies the naming of the computer programs, and serves the ulterior purpose of outwitting Woodward. Parenthetically, dull chessplayers are sometimes referred to as "woodpushers". I suspect I am a mere "woodpusher" (currently only rated 2040) to James Tarjan, but I am convinced that I have accomplished a goal of long-range planning, to defeat disinformation by the American media.

For those (and other) reasons, I think that the "divulgence" of Mark Felt as "Deep Throat" is a fraud by Woodward and Bernstein. It certainly would make sense, however, that a journalist would like to keep hidden the fact that he dubbed a 14-year old "Deep Throat". I have claimed to be "Deep Throat" before, as early as 2003, in an article I published on "Useless Knowledge.com" To my thinking, Woodward and Bernstein's conduct violates my intellectual property rights, and my right to publicity on this controversial matter.

There are other instance of Woodward blatantly lying, too. For instance, he claimed to have interviewed CIA Director William Casey after brain surgery (Casey couldn't even speak at the time). Casey's widow was quite offended with his lies, I recall. And, after all, when Felt "came out" as "Deep Throat", Woodward and Bernstein both initially denied it -- and then changed their stories within 24 hours.

So, clearly, doubting their account of events is extremely reasonable. My feeling is that I have "force majeur" in demonstrating who more closely resembles that obscene moniker.

I believe (if my memory is accurate) that I was introduced to Nixon telephonically by Robert Haldeman, whose family had been friendly with mine since at least 1963. That would have been the 18.5 minutes of tape that was later erased (i.e. referred to as "Tape 342"). In fact, my phone number at the time was 342-2445, in Tarzana, CA.

On the Utility of Music as Cryptocurrency

NICHOLAS MEYLER·SUNDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2017·3 MINUTES

On the Micronesian Island of Yap, in olden times, money consisted of large stones carved into several-foot diameter circular shapes with central holes of several inches in diameter.

There was no actual use (or “utility”) for these stones, but they could only be made by taking long and dangerous sea-voyages to islands hundreds of miles away, where the the limestone could be quarried, and then transported back (via outrigger canoe) at an even higher and more perilous risk... The value of this currency was therefore based only on its rarity and the inherent difficulty of its acquisition.

One might also infer, from the roundness of these carved and polished stones, that they could be rolled for spatial intervals, to be transported. This, my Readers, was the invention of “Rock and Roll”.

I suggest that there is much greater usefulness to mere sound-waves (i.e. as “Music”) which seems to justify an even higher value than the old Yap stones (at the very least). I postulate the following:

Time=Money

Information=Money

Intelligence=Money

Therefore, Superluminally-embedded Information which allows alteration of Future History should also be "Money".

Sound has been demonstrated to be able to travel faster than lightspeed (i.e. "superluminally"), because Phonons (quanta of sound/vibration) are massless and therefore not restricted to the Einstein limit of velocity (c= speed of light).

Music itself is the original cryptocurrency. It brings joy to the listener, or a plenitude of other emotions, and subliminally imparts information about 5-Dimensional Hilbert Spaces. In my opinion, that is why People can score 20-points higher on IQ tests while listening to Mozart (i.e. "The Mozart Effect"), because so much of his music is based on time-travel and alternate Universes (Alternate Histories). Einstein himself admitted that most of his inspiration for Relativity came from listening to Mozart, and as an accomplished violinist with a very keen ear, his statement cannot be discounted as mere metaphor.

The primary effect of listening to Mozart is enhanced "Spatial Reasoning" skills, which is quite reasonable if we consider that Mozart's music (especially) contains some of the clearest examples of speech-synthesis and superluminal information content, as well as clear-cut discussions of Alternate World-histories, etc. Ingmar Bergman also agreed with me about this (“Bach and Beethoven show us other worlds”). https://www.facebook.com/notes/nicholas-meyler/ingmar-bergman-on-possible-worlds-beethoven-and-bach/125256810845569/

In any case, one of the reasons Apollo was the Greek God of Music, Prophecy and Reason (in my opinion) is that Music permits Superluminal Information Transmission and thereby enables great Reasoning skills, based on better Information.

The old adage about music being worthless (i.e. "It's worth a song", meaning valueless) is questionable. Rather, Music is perhaps a cryptocurrency of greater value than mere "money" itself.

The idea behind Bitcoin was that digital information has inherent value. This has proven, at least empirically, at least so far, to be true, where Bitcoin has commanded prices up to $15,000 per unit.

There is also a utility to Music, based on psychoacoustical phenomena, which is unique. For instance, acoustical perception of the note A (440 Hz) actually stimulates nerves in the brain to vibrate at exactly 440 Hz ["This is Your Brain on Music" by Daniel J. Levitin: http://daniellevitin.com/…/boo…/this-is-your-brain-on-music/]

No other type of perception of Art forms does this. So, Music, which is clearly an Art, has a unique value unto itself. We also know that Art has value, from recent events like a fairly unknown painting by Da Vinci selling for $450 million.

So, I suggest that we need to re-think our attitudes about Music, and reconsider it to be a medium of communication and commerce which deserves greater attention.

1 note · View note

jasonsocialist · 7 years

Text

Research on the history of the four internationals and voting

Work-in-progress research document, please excuse the formatting

Contact: [email protected]

Edited to add ‘introduction’

Introduction

The Marxist tradition has largely been used in the U.S. to buttress the position that one can ‘never-vote’ for bourgeois parties or at least the Democratic Party. This position has served to derail serious thinking about socialists and elections and corralled it onto a very narrow terrain where at times it seems completely polarized between those who want to have nothing to do with the Democratic Party and those who want to capitulate to the Democratic Party.

This document shows, I think conclusively, that the Marxist tradition cannot be marshaled to defend a ‘never-vote’ position. Instead, what is necessary is an all-around appraisal of the situation we are in based on the most critical and rigorous thinking possible.

While the research is mainly a string of quotes, I hope people can see beyond that to see the critical, strategic and tactical thinking displayed by people like Rosa Luxemburg as not providing preset answers, but a positive example of the need to think this and the other questions facing us through seriously and rigorously.

First International

Karl Marx, Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League, London, March 1850:

Even where there is no prospect of achieving their election the workers must put up their own candidates to preserve their independence, to gauge their own strength and to bring their revolutionary position and party standpoint to public attention. They must not be led astray by the empty phrases of the democrats, who will maintain that the workers’ candidates will split the democratic party and offer the forces of reaction the chance of victory. All such talk means, in the final analysis, that the proletariat is to be swindled. The progress which the proletarian party will make by operating independently in this way is infinitely more important than the disadvantages resulting from the presence of a few reactionaries in the representative body.

I think this is one of Marx’s most important statements but there is a mix of ideas that have a broad and general significance and those that are particular to Germany in the wake of a revolution. I think the idea that the workers should run candidates in spite of the charge of splitting the vote does have a general significance but cannot be given an absolute form based on this statement (even as stated Marx refers to “empty phrases”—but they’re not empty in all cases and the disadvantage of a “few” more reactionaries—with Trump in office for instance having a few more or less Republicans in Congress could have greater significance). Further, Marx later says in the same statement: “If the forces of democracy take decisive, terroristic action against the reaction from the very beginning, the reactionary influence in the election will already have been destroyed.” In other words the viewpoint is that “splitting” the vote by independent working-class electoral action in this particular context cannot be held responsible for any reactionary electoral victories, but rather the key is the failure of the bourgeois democratic forces to fight reaction. So the point of the possibility of a "few reactionaries” being elected could be more clearly expounded as a general guideline as: “It would be a mistake in general to not run candidates only because of the risk of splitting the vote.” But that is not the same as an absolute statement that one should not take the splitting or spoiling into account.

Letter of International Working Men's Association to Abraham Lincoln that Marx wrote: “We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large majority.”

Nimtz argues that not only did the Marxists welcome his re-election, the “Marx Party” in the U.S. played a decisive role in convincing the more-left Fremont not to run, which would’ve split the vote, and helped win votes for Lincoln. While Nimtz doesn’t document directly how involved Marx personally was in all of this, it certainly fits in with his overall analysis and approach and does not fit the idea that one cannot vote for a bourgeois candidate as a matter of principle.

Quoted in August Nimtz’s Lenin's Electoral Strategy from Marx and Engels through the Revolution of 1905: The Ballot, the Streets—or Both (link; footnoted: MECW 45, p. 7.):

Engels, three weeks earlier, applauded what he considered to be the correct conduct for working- class parties in elections that required runoffs: “[F]irst vote for our own man, and then, if it is clear that he won’t get in on the second round, vote for the opponent of the government, whoever he happens to be.”

Engels, Irish liberation and voting

There’s a letter from Engels expounding on a particular case of this policy (voting against the governmental party) as a possible tactic (Engels to Bebel, January 24, 1893):

He publicly declares that Parnell’s experiment, which compelled Gladstone to give in, ought to be repeated at the next election and where it is impossible to nominate a Labour candidate one should vote for the Conservatives, in order to show the Liberals the power of the party. Now this is a policy which under definite circumstances I myself recommended to the English; however, if at the very outset one does not announce it as a possible tactical move but proclaims it as tactics to be followed under any circumstances, then it smells strongly of Champion.

Context from a poorly translated footnote to a German edition of Marx and Engels (https://marxwirklichstudieren.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/mew_band39.pdf):

In June 1885, the Irish members were in the House under the leadership of Charles Stewart Parnell in common with conservatives against Gladstone Ireland Politics occurred. It came to the overthrow of the Cabinet Gladstone. At the end of elections of 1885 were given the Conservatives a majority; Liberals hung now in heavily on the votes of the Irish members. When Gladstone in 1886 was again moved to the forefront of the Cabinet, he brought two laws in the interest Ireland A: The Home Rule Bill and the Bill on the Irish agricultural legislation. In 1893 Gladstone brought a second bill on Home Rule a; neither the first nor the second bill were adopted.

Wikipedia summarizes well: "The hung Parliament of 1885 saw him [Parnell] hold the balance of power between William Gladstone's Liberals and Lord Salisbury's Conservatives. His power was one factor in Gladstone's adoption of Home Rule as the central tenet of the Liberal Party.”

So a vote in parliament by Irish members led to the failure of a Liberal government, which led to the Liberal Party adopting a more progressive position on Ireland to win back their votes. This kind of tactical and strategic thinking is not captured by a “never-vote” (or “never-work-together”) position.

Second international

I was surprised I could find no one arguing for a “never-vote” for bourgeois or non-working-class parties position in the Second International, even among the precursors of the Left Communists who were mostly for boycotting elections after WW1. Instead the argument between the precursors of the Comintern forces and the centrist and reformist forces was over how and in what conditions to give conditional support to liberal bourgeois parties. In Shorske’s history, Chapter VII, can see that much like Lenin’s arguments against the Mensheviks, the revisionists wanted to win over the Liberals by tamping down on demonstrations and strikes so as not to scare them off. The left wing opposed that tendency but still supported voting for the liberal bourgeois candidates in districts their own candidates had lost.

Shorske writes in chapter 9 on the 1912 elections:

In conformity with past policy, the congress laid down a set of conditions for supporting the candidates of other parties in run-off elections from which the Social Democrats would have been eliminated. The conditions were less stringent than those of 1903.8 In 1903 the Social Democrats demanded of other candidates opposition to existing tariffs on food products; in 1912, merely opposition to further increase in tariffs on consumer goods. The condition of opposition to all “exceptional laws” against the working class and its organizations in 1903 was now, in view of current proposals to limit the right of coalition and to sharpen the penal code against labor, narrowed and made more specific. The party demanded in 1898 opposition “ to every increase in the standing army and navy” ; in 1903, “ to every military and naval bill which would require increased taxes.” Of these conditions, nothing remained in 1912 but a requirement to oppose indirect taxes on consumer goods. Had the party held on to the anti-military conditions, it could have found no Progressive candidates to support …. The pursuit of allies for domestic reform on the one; hand, and opposition to Germany’s foreign and military policy; on the other, were increasingly incompatible aims.

On the weakening of conditions for support in the second round, one could say "See! The whole policy is wrong because it enables a right-wing slide". It is true that this is a danger, which is why the left wing emphasized such decisions for conditional support to bourgeois forces should be centralized and made by a united and strong workers’ party (and this is also a reason to want such electoral decisions to be made by a party, not by a union which is more likely to adopt more narrow criteria). To take the fear of the right-ward slide to its logical conclusion, one would have to abandon all parliamentary struggles and indeed, the whole of class struggle and finally society itself to remove one’s self from such forces.

On the deal in 1912 with the Progressives, Rosa Luxemburg did not critique it because it was a deal with a bourgeois party. She fought it because for the first time it abandoned running the SPD’s own campaigns in certain districts:

Up to now it has been a fundamental principle of Social Democracy that an election serves first and foremost as a vehicle of agitation, of enlightenment concerning the aims of Social Democracy, and in this sense it was a sacred duty and a matter of honor to use every day, every hour of the campaign to perform the maximum of agitational work. [Instead] the party executive, for the sake of the Progressives, forbade our comrades to agitate for their own party [Shorske; p 242]

See also her critique: https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1912/misc/fallen-women-liberalism.htm

Philippe Bourrinet, historian of “Left Communisms” (those who ended up on the left-wing of the Third Congress of the Comintern, often becoming anti-parliamentarians):

The parliamentary fraction [of the Second International party in Holland], which was the real leadership of the party, went further and further in collaborating with the bourgeoisie. In 1905, during the elections for the provincial states, the revisionists raised the question of supporting the liberals against the Anti-Revolutionaire Partij (‘Anti-Revolutionary Party’ – ARP) government of Abraham Kuyper, which had broken the transport strike. The left, like the left in other parties, did not refuse, during the course of the elections, to support liberal candidates who took a stand in favour of universal suffrage against property-based electoral rights. It had adopted a resolution in this sense during the 1905 Hague Congress: “[the Party] declares that during the elections it will only support candidates who stand for the urgent introduction of universal suffrage”.

But for the Marxists, there could be no question of turning this tactical and temporary support into a principle. Contrary to what Troelstra wished, it was not at all a matter of calling workers to vote for “liberals of any stripe”, even if they were anti-clerical. ….

But instead of respecting the resolutions of the Congress, the party leadership, the parliamentary fraction and the socialist daily Het Volk left socialist electors free to vote for any liberal candidate they liked.

A member of their radical wing wrote to Rosa Luxemburg to ask her about this issue. Rosa replied on July 2, 1905--note the date, at the height of the revolution in Russia show was following closely and soon joined directly (“Letters” p. 185-7; link):

I'm hurrying to answer your question [on leaving party members free to choose which bourgeois parties to vote for in the second round]. Such an interpretation of the party congress decision as the one you specify is something unknown to me from the history of the party movement. But the entire practice of German Social Democracy shows the opposite: if a decision is made, for example, to support liberal candidates, this means eo ipso that support for other candidates is forbidden.

In general it seems to me that the notion of individual freedom for party members when it comes to supporting opponent candidates is monstrous and incompatible with the Social Democratic conception of organization. To be sure it does happen that the German party gives a free hand to individual election districts, as was done, for example, in Wurttemberg in relation to the People's Party, which is too shabby to be given support generally, but is perhaps to be preferred in some election districts over the other reactionary parties. But the decision in such cases is not left to the discretion of individuals, but to the party organization in the election district.

…..

[Karl Kautsky added the following P.S.:] Dear friend, I can only subscribe to what Rosa says. Even in run-off elections we have always acted only as a party, not as individuals. Where one leaves election tactics up to the individual, that is only the result of cowardice, which would like to pursue a tactic that one does not have the courage to recommend openly. By giving free choice to individuals the responsibility of the party and its leadership is taken away and shoved off onto anonymous members.

Lenin and the Bolsheviks

Lenin and the Bolsheviks advocated voting for bourgeois forces at times--and even after the Russian revolution following on the collapse of the Second International and the exposure of the rot of Kautsky's centrism, Lenin still put doing so forward as a positive example in his important work Left-wing Communism:

The Bolsheviks...systematically advocated an alliance between the working class and the peasantry against the liberal bourgeoisie and tsardom, never, however, refusing to support the bourgeoisie against tsardom (for instance, during second rounds of elections, or during second ballots).

He also wrote earlier (source):

If a socialist believes that the Black-Hundred danger is a real danger to the working class, he will vote for the liberal. .... If out of 174 electors, say, 86 are of the Black Hundreds, 84 Cadets and 4 socialists, the socialists must cast their votes for the Cadet candidate, and so far not a single member of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party has questioned this.

And from the 1912 Conference (link):

(3) In cases of a second ballot (Article 106 of the Election Regulations) in the election of electors at the second assemblies of urban voters it is permissible to conclude agreements with bourgeois democrats against the liberals, and then with the liberals against all the government parties. ...

(4) In those five cities (St. Petersburg, Moscow, Riga, Odessa, Kiev) where there are direct elections with a second ballot, it is essential in the first elections to put forward independent Social-Democratic candidates for the second urban curia voters. In the event of a second ballot here, and since there is obviously no danger from the Black Hundreds, it is permissible to come to an agreement only with the democratic groups against the liberals;

(5) There can be no electoral agreements providing for a common platform, and Social-Democratic candidates must not be bound by any kind of political commitment, nor must Social-Democrats be prevented from resolutely criticising the counter-revolutionary nature of the liberals and the half-heartedness and inconsistency of the bourgeois democrats;

(6) At the second stage of the elections (in the uyezd assemblies of delegates, in the gubernia assemblies of voters, etc.), wherever it proves essential to ensure the defeat of an Octobrist-Black Hundred or a government list in general, an agreement must be concluded to share the seats, primarily with bourgeois democrats (Trudoviks, Popular Socialists, etc.), and then with the liberals (Cadets), independents, Progressists, etc.

(See also Badayev.)

It is true that Lenin spent most of his time stressing the opposite point: arguing against using the danger of electing reactionaries to not run an independent socialist campaign. But the reason he had to spell so much ink in doing so was because he did not and would not argue that one could either ignore that danger at all times or refuse to consider the tactics and strategy by applying a formula that one could “never-vote” for the liberal or radical bourgeois parties.

Lenin on the British Labor Party

Many Trotskyists have justified the possibility of voting for parties like the Labor Party with the idea that it is not a bourgeois party. I am not commenting here on the validity of that analysis but that is not how Lenin thought about it.

Partly there’s a linguistic confusion in that the label “bourgeois workers/labor party” has come to refer to this concept of a workers’ party with a bourgeois-leadership, however in context Lenin meant it in the sense of “bourgeois Labor Party”, i.e. “the Labor Party is a bourgeois party”.

See https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/oct/x01.htm uses term with quotation marks throughout in a wholly negative and oppositional sense, not saying because unions are affiliated must work with or something, rather referring to Marx-Engels not supporting the Labor Party just because the unions did: “In the nineteenth century the “mass organisations” of the English trade unions were on the side of the bourgeois labour party. Marx and Engels did not reconcile themselves to it on this ground; they exposed it.”)

What Lenin stresses is not the affiliation of the trade unions as the necessary condition of being involved but the freedom of organization and criticism, see http://www.communist-party.org.uk/76-m-l-education/1933-lenin-on-labour-speech-on-affiliation-to-the-british-labour-party.html

Similarly the famous chapter in https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch09.htm doesn't make use of the label bourgeois labour/workers party to justify affiliation or the analysis that it is a different kind of party

In this speech he is particularly clear and insistent, criticizing formulations that suggest Labor is not a bourgeois party such as these: "‘the political expression of the workers organised in trade unions’" & "Indeed, the concepts ‘political department of the trade unions’ or ‘political expression’ of the trade union movement, are erroneous."

He goes on: "Regarded from this, the only correct, point of view, the Labour Party is a thoroughly bourgeois party, because, although made up of workers, it is led by reactionaries, and the worst kind of reactionaries at that, who act quite in the spirit of the bourgeoisie. It is an organisation of the bourgeoisie"--so the only label given is "bourgeois"

"At the same time, however, the Labour Party has let the British Socialist Party into its ranks, permitting it to have its own press organs, in which members of the selfsame Labour Party can freely and openly declare that the party leaders are social-traitors." & "This shows that a party affiliated to the Labour Party is able, not only to severely criticise but openly and specifically to mention the old leaders by name, and call them social-traitors. This is a very original situation: a party which unites enormous masses of workers, so that it might seem a political party, is nevertheless obliged to grant its members complete latitude."

Though LWC does say "in all constituencies where we have no candidates, we would urge the electors to vote for the Labour candidate and against the bourgeois candidate." which latter phrase could be taken to mean the Labour candidates aren't "bourgeois" but this seems more like a slip than a worked-out position, esp. given the candidates (not party membership) are more likely to be the strictly bourgeois elements (speech above is several month after this pamphlet and seems more definitive in any case)