Edited, corrected version posted: 5/8/2012 3:35pm edt.

Speaking clinically:

DREAMS OF A MODERN NERO

By Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

Saturday, April 28, 2012


In the course of writing my recent “Time for Glass-Steagall in Britain?”1EIR May 4, 2012 (http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2012/3918gl-st_uk.html); LaRouche PAC (http://larouchepac.com/node/22503). I had included a much-needed choice of scientific approach to the subject of the notion of the functions of the human mind, that mind as considered from the standpoint of an actually modern physical science. That was essentially a sequel to a two-part, rather wide-ranging report which I had titled, in succession, as “The Mystery of Your Time”2EIR Jan. 20, 2012 (http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2012/3903mystery_your_time.html); LaRouche PAC (http://larouchepac.com/node/21206). and “Science-vs-Oligarchism,” respectively, a piece which I had completed on January 9th of this present year. Most recently, in what I had titled a“Time for Glass-Steagall in Britain,” I had presented a set of urgently needed, practical steps, steps which must be treated as defining our immediately required outlook on the greatest among the intellectual crises presently confronting the human species.

In the latter report in that same series, on the subject of Britain, I had focused on the world’s currently leading situation. In the subsequent, present report, here, I emphasize attention to a science-defined political perspective on the subject of the present crisis of our United States itself. The keystone of this present report, is an inside view on the subject of the essential criminality of the current, essentially British-spawned, puppet- President of my own United States: the overtly mass-murderous, Emperor Nero-mimicking personality of Barack Obama.

The most urgent challenge to mankind world-wide now, is posed by the implications of the British empire’s puppet, Barack Obama. Explanations will not suffice; immediate remedies are now indispensable.


CHICAGO’S OBAMA, AND THE WEATHERMEN


Since that assassination of President John F. Kennedy which had been used to launch the U.S.A. into the folly of a decade-long war in Indo-China, and thereafter, many prolonged worse-than-useless wars later, as now, there had been a precious few great U.S. Presidents of the United States, but no President to match what had been the trend of great accomplishments such as those of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and a soon-to-be-assassinated President John F. Kennedy.

There had been the wretched, virtual Wall Street breed of British flunkey, Vice-President Harry S Truman, who, as President Roosevelt’s successor, lessened the options of a Dwight Eisenhower being closely watched over by the same Prescott Bush of London and Wall Street who had funded Adolf Hitler’s advancement toward power in Germany. Fortunately for us, for a time, there had been President Eisenhower’s successor, the John F. Kennedy whose campaign was closely associated with the widow of President Franklin Roosevelt, Eleanor Roosevelt. Kennedy made a really big difference for us, until he was assassinated, first by death, and then by those who vowed to conceal the authorship of the assassination.

Had the actual malice behind Kennedy’s death been acknowledged, his policies would have been continued as an act of defiance against the motives which had guided that assassination. That fact lodged its authorship within the aftermath of the murder itself; especially the fact that a Vietnam War could not have occurred at that time without the assassination of President Kennedy, challenges the silly treatment given to the assassination by the Warren Commission. British policy needed that assassination at that time, as, later, in the launching of a projected Iraq war by aid of the insistent lies of Britain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair.

After that, that cowardice throughout the “establishment” which permitted the toleration of the untested myth of the “Lee Harvey Oswald fable,” sufficed to bring on that widespread shudder of fear which was used to cover for the role of the actual, imported assassins. Then, but for the Warren Commission’s fiction, there would have been very little likelihood that the U.S.A. would have suffered approximately ten years of ruinously useless U.S. war in Indo-China. The actually known, true authorship, by an actually leading world power and one of that power’s chief accomplices, of what came to be named “9/11,” must be recognized as a kindred case, as a leading sequel to the Kennedy assassination.

So, in such a manner as that, the United States has never actually escaped from that continued succession of long war-fares which has been the principal means by means of which our presently, almost hopelessly bankrupted republic has been now almost destroyed, and with the presently immediate prospect of much worse.

The fraud which has been the nomination, election, and administration of President Barack Obama, has now brought what had once been our United States, like both Britain and the European system, to the present verge of a virtually hopeless state of our national bankruptcy. It is a state of bankruptcy brought into being through, chiefly, high-ranking treason against our Federal Constitution. Almost everything which has brought this ruin of our republic about, has been done under the cover of things tantamount to treason, that in a present time when only very few among those in currently high-ranking political power have “shown the guts” to resist the tyrannical, Emperor Nero-likeness of the treason-in-fact which has been the characteristic of the Obama Administration this far.

Soon, our already virtually hopelessly bankrupt U.S. economy has been marched down, so often, step by step, to the verges of Hell, since the death of President Franklin Roosevelt and the assassinations of the brothers John F. and Robert Kennedy, that we have now reached a ruined condition which has presently dragged our once greatest republic of them all, to the immediate prospect of a hopeless end which her Royal Majesty has crafted for us now—if we continue to be under Barack Obama.

All this has been the fruit of an assassination of a great U.S. President, William McKinley, who was replaced by a virtual Brutish stooge, President Theodore Roosevelt, a Theodore Roosevelt who was trained by an uncle who had been the treasonous British spy who had been condemned to death for reason of the terrible crimes he had committed. One leading British intelligence operative could hardly conceal a giggle over the posting of Theodore Roosevelt as a thoroughly pompous ass in the possession of the U.S. Presidency, or the related case of President Woodrow Wilson relaunching a then-dead Ku Klux Klan from the premises of what Theodore Roosevelt had re-christened as “The White House”!

Very few left over from among our presently living recall, as I do so vividly still today, how the factions of Wall Street and Winston Churchill had used the occasion of the Normandy victory in World War II, to bring about a reversal of those wartime and other policies of President Franklin D. Roosevelt which had saved civilization from what had been Adolf Hitler’s originally British-created rise to power.

So, from about the time OSS General Donovan visited the office of his President, an already virtually dying President Franklin D. Roosevelt, when Donovan and others like him could whisper to a colleague, “It’s over,” Wall Street and Churchill had won the war which the United States had now lost.

Who has the courage and honor to rise up, to turn this situation about, the courage to seize the opportunity which had mixed several decades of folly with that outrightly mass-murderous treason-in-fact, under which the majority of our republic’s citizens is now suffering as the presently combined wickedness of President Barack Obama and his foreign, Royal masters?

There are now crucial lessons to be refreshed, and that urgently, provided we can muster a sufficient ration of our citizens to muster the relevant patriotic devotion.

The Border of Great Discoveries

The defeat of Gottfried Leibniz’s efforts to rescue Queen Anne’s England from what had been the evil grip of William of Orange’s launching of late-Seventeenth-century rape and takeover of England, had been a crucial political turning-point in the history of Europe. Gottfried Leibniz’s leadership was pushed back with the decline of Queen Anne through the time of her own and Leibniz’s deaths, as during the first decade of the Eighteenth Century, in England itself. The so-called “Seven Years War” of 1756-1763 established that globally extended “Seven Years War” which established foundations of what would come to be recognized as the British Empire up through the present date.

For our own United States, the same “Seven Years War” which established the victory of British imperial hegemony in Europe was the prompting of what became the U.S.A.’s war for national independence. This was a noble intention which had set into motion a new effort to regain the loss of the quasi-sovereignty of what had been the original Massachusetts Bay Colony. The initiative for this effort from within the English-speaking regions of North America, had been set into motion by the Cotton Mather who served as the representative of the leadership which had been held earlier by the Winthrops and the Mathers under the then-crushed, original Massachusetts Bay Colony.

Meanwhile, the establishment of the role of the British East India Company itself has been the basis for the British empire which is presently represented by Her Majesty Elizabeth II. It is an empire which was led through the London-directed French Revolution’s Terror, and through the Napoleon Bonaparte whose just defeat had led into a massive set-back for modern science throughout Europe. The dregs of the earlier phase of the system of the New Venetian Party tyranny which had been that of William of Orange, were transformed, step by step, into a monetarism-dominated imperial echo and heir of the original Roman Empire.

Now, look to the present from the rise of Europe’s Fifteenth-century great “Golden Renaissance” of such outstanding figures of science and statecraft as Filippo Brunelleschi and the Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa whose initiatives had actually prompted the great trans-Atlantic crossings of such as Christopher Columbus. Looking back to those two great personalities of that time, what they brought, Cusa most notably, has been the foundation of all competent representations of a modern European and broader science, despite an infamous mountebank, Isaac Newton, who had actually, on the detailed record, discovered nothing more than an appeal to the English Parliament that “somebody might open a window.”

The particularly important point to be emphasized on that account here, is that these and related developments have all expressed the common intent to develop a reigning, new, world empire, under an intended, single central agency of a multifarious form of permanent world empire. My leading point in the argument which I present here and now, is to point out the reality of the manner in which the great movement of science which had become centered on the Renaissance figure of Nicholas of Cusa, was repeatedly resisted, and often set back, by the forces and pranks of that oligarchical tyranny known as the echo of a Mediterranean-centered Roman Empire and its successive forms of expression up to the present instant of the reign of Queen Elizabeth II today.

The phase of successive developments in both politics and scientific leaps of progress, which I emphasize in this present report, references the consequence of the crushing of the modern Eighteenth-century search for civilization, under the condition of the post-1763 “Seven Years War. ” Thus, we had the monstrous set-backs to European civilization during the course of the late-Eighteenth-century rise of the British Empire to a virtually global scale, and through the successively accelerating waves of the plunge of the quality of modern world civilization over the duration since the British Prince of Wales set into motion the 1893-onward launching of British and Japanese military capabilities for the crushing of the successive particular targets of China, Korea, and Russia.

When we consider such typical elements of Nineteenth- and Twentieth-century elements of the transitions from the virtual heydey of that scientific progress which had been typified by such as Max Planck and Albert Einstein in their relative heydays of modern science, the reader should discover a remedy, by the means of experience, which exposes the particular form of those fresh, monstrous setbacks which the use of science for improvement of the human condition, has undergone since the onset of what came to be named “World War II.”

I am not suggesting here, that there has not been astonishingly good progress on certain accounts. I am emphasizing that there has been a failure to promote certain crucial aspects in currents of scientific progress which were indispensable for rates of progress in a quality of scientific practice which would be sufficient to have offset the murderous rate of decline of the trans-Atlantic physical economy which science is suffering today. In defense of that argument, I emphasize certain crucial proofs for that argument here.

This argument which I have just presented here, has two leading characteristics.

In the more obvious of the two, the relevant proof is supplied by the evidence of that suppression of scientific progress which is typified presently by the British fraud known as “environmentalism.” That current fraud, if allowed to continue, would ensure the earliest probable extinction of the human species, either by thermonuclear warfare or other means. The acts of explicitly demanded suppression of progress which are being currently uttered by the minions of Her Majesty Elizabeth II, are an obvious scheme for mass-murder which dwarfs absolutely the magnitude of the evil represented by Adolf Hitler’s practices. I do not avoid the importance of that fact when I direct attention to what might seem to be, for many, an elusive, more subtle, but, in the long term, even more deadly avoidance of categories of principle which is, unfortunately, much less obvious to most today, but is actually a more deadly threat to the human species than even Her Majesty’s currently flagrant efforts to crush progress itself out of existence.

The failure to recognize the great danger which remains unknown, is the greatest of all threats to the future of the human species today. My argument on this latter account is crucial. I explain that point as follows.

“The Evils of Sense-Perception”

What should be considered as the most startling error expressed as belief in the alleged certainties of sense-perception, is the currently widespread, and ultimately reckless general confidence in the notion of an ultimate authority of the experience of merely human sense-perception in the narrow sense of per se. The great conductor Wilhelm Furtwängler is most notable for, among other achievements, a scientifically crucial discovery of the true principle underlying what the widespread folly of “simple sense-perception” has been incapable of recognizing this far.

By that statement just made by me here, I signify a certain, relevant impotence inhering in the faith among some in an allegedly inherent authority of sense-perception for scientific processes generally. I refer emphatically to the urgently beneficial results of cardinal points of discovery embodied within the implicitly galactically global achievements of the late V.I. Vernadsky. However, to locate the significance of the relevant achievements of Vernadsky, we must dip back into such earlier breakthroughs as those of a post-Leibniz, and also added, post-Carl Gauss European science: a viewpoint whose continued influence is typified, in respect to certain relevant sorts of crucial features, by the work of a succession of, most emphatically, members of a congruent scientific party composed by such as Bernhard Riemann, Max Planck, and Albert Einstein, et al. These are to be considered as being opposed to the crass evil portrayed as obvious stupidities inherent in the argument of those associated with the blatant evil represented by the common arguments of both Bertrand Russell and Russell’s, since deceased, foolish British puppet, Alexander I. Oparin.

My argument now presumes a clearly practical class of evidence, the matter of blind religious faith in the axiomatically eternally indivisible essence of common dirt. Our target of choice here, Russell’s poor creature Oparin, exemplifies the kind of incompetence which I am addressing. Register what I had just written here as an essentially ontological argument: I warn of the threat from the non-existence of a simple-minded man’s mystical devotion to a presumedly elementarily eternal expression of common dirt.

Now! Music!

For a certain, true and powerful reason, one among the most relevant contributors to the cause of a commonly truthful physical science has been the master-musician Wilhelm Furtwängler’s successful treatments on the subject of the ontological distinctions which separate Classical musical composition, and many other related matters from the simple “dirt” which is expressed by the common dogma of Bertrand Russell and his dupe Oparin. Consider my remarks thus far, as representing both an excellent sort of “I. Q. Test” in general, and of the principle which the practice of Furtwängler’s discoveries helps us to be enabled to convey, still today.

In fact, the argument which I have posed and am in the course of developing here and now, was already established by the most fertile mind among the ranks of the outstanding scientific geniuses of Renaissance Europe’s Fifteenth Century, Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa. Among the central features of Cusa’s contributions to the original foundation of a truly modern form of physical science, have been the principal scientific discoveries of Johannes Kepler, discoveries which came to express the crucially pivotal notions which Kepler identified as a universal, physically efficient principle of “virtual (vicarious) hypothesis.”3No actual discovery of a universal principle of gravitation could ever have been actually made, but by Kepler’s stated reliance on the principles of Nicholas of Cusa. That fact came to roost in the subsequently shared considerations in the work of such as Leibniz, Gauss, Riemann, Max Planck, and Albert Einstein.

In fact, the principal, least disgusting of the failed claims to an alleged principle of gravitation, have depended upon the systemic fallacies of those reductionists’ presumptions associated with those who have derived their purported “physical principles” from the fallacies inherent in the systemically reductionist characteristics of their ontological presumptions. Those are the same presumptions which the achievements of Wilhelm Furtwängler have also exposed for the ears of competent practitioners of Johann Sebastian Bach, but also the implied intention of the boys’ chorus in Filippo Brunelleschi’s Santa Maria del Fiore.

Turn attention, now, to the manner in which an actually human experience of the future as acting on the present, arises in musical composition, as this is demonstrated empirically in the work of Wilhelm Furtwängler, as Furtwängler’s method is demonstrated by its performed contrast to the brutishly failed efforts of the late Bruno Walter and related cases of the misguided, so-called “Classical,” alternate performer.

In the case of Furtwängler, we “hear” a foretaste of what is yet to be actually heard. There are additional, specific expressions to be considered, but they do not contradict the essential experience which Furtwängler was enabled to produce. This qualitative type of experience is not limited to the human species. The “ability” of herds of swine to “predict” (in effect) earthquakes, as has occurred in China, has crucial relevance to the point I have just emphasized here respecting the same effect. The human form of such a foretasting differs from the comparable, if different phenomenon among species other than human.

The crucial clue for the scientist, is that the phenomenon of the post-tonal apparent aftermath of Furtwängler’s “model,” is shown as being ordered into the future, rather than the past by the nature of the directed sequence into the future which is functionally inherent in the directedness of that sequence.

So, in this way, the relevant clues are to be found in the case of human “fore-resonances” and “post-resonances,” as indicated by the successful treatments by Furtwängler.

My own first insight into such an indicated effect first appeared to me through my experience with the prototypes of Classical poetic composition, and also emerged as what I came to recognize, already during my post-World War II experiences as “the secret” of what has been my factor of reliance in the matter of my exceptionally “successful” economic forecasting.

More significantly, there is nothing which should be considered as partaking of “magic” in this aspect of my functioning in matters of economic forecasting. From my vantage-point, the customary origin of failures in economic forecasting is to be sought, variously, in the axiomatic presumptions of generally taught professional practice of economic forecasting, and the sheer dull-wittedness of popular opinion respecting economy since the variously spread influence of the viciously systemic incompetence of Bertrand Russell’s foolish dogma, as that dogma is expressed with increased influence since the 1920s.

The crucial consideration in all this, is the demonstration of the foundation of a collection in a specific direction of ordering of the series of events to be considered.

For the best relevant insight into these specific matters, the influence of the work of Furtwängler is the most useful point from which to proceed. Therefore, we should examine this argument in the following terms. The most useful approach to discussion of this matter is to be located in the fact that the 1920s’ argument of Russell, and the fraudulent, viciously reductionist science of Alexander Oparin respecting life, are, speaking of ontological matters, ultimately the same nonsense.

Now, therefore, we must retrace the steps of our argument thus far; this time with a significant change in implied direction. Instead of defining the universe from an irony reaching from the tiny to the large, from the particular to the various, we must contrive to define the resolution of that difference in direction in both orders, simultaneously, but with a concluding emphasis on the whole of the universe in defining the extremities of the smallest. To accomplish that, we must distinguish what appears to be non-life from life, at the same time we distinguish animal life as a category to be contrasted to the type of existence which is willfully directed human behavior.

Contrary to the customary reductionist, as for the aforestated doctrine of Wilhelm Furtwängler, neither the universe, nor the compositions of Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Schuman, or Brahms, run backwards.

The universe is not to be constructed as a reductionist’s a-priori assembly of discrete, randomly assorted tiny parts floating in empty space. Einstein’s system of matter-antimatter, does not run backwards. We must look back to Kepler’s standpoint as expressed in the precedent of Cusa’s discoveries, as to the notion of ordering of the estimated elements. However, there are additional considerations of grave importance. Matter/anti-matter exists in practice, but the universe has, nonetheless direction, but also appears, often, to be highly indiscrete.

Our Necessary Sense of Direction.

Does the universe have a specific sense of direction? In what sense, and which manner? Is it not that connectedness which ultimately reigns?

Our human powers present us with a certain direction of developments, a direction which is, in our principal notions of the directedness of both the interrelationship of the Solar system and our galaxy, pervaded by a sense of direction of developments: the wombs are not intended, as if by design, to be followed by the foetuses.

Thus, these preliminary, essential facts to be considered in the coming days and weeks (if those weeks actually do remain for mankind), proffer up hopes of great solutions, if we can survive long enough to secure them.

Footnotes

1EIR May 4, 2012 (http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2012/3918gl-st_uk.html); LaRouche PAC (http://larouchepac.com/node/22503).
2EIR Jan. 20, 2012 (http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2012/3903mystery_your_time.html); LaRouche PAC (http://larouchepac.com/node/21206).
3No actual discovery of a universal principle of gravitation could ever have been actually made, but by Kepler’s stated reliance on the principles of Nicholas of Cusa. That fact came to roost in the subsequently shared considerations in the work of such as Leibniz, Gauss, Riemann, Max Planck, and Albert Einstein.