This is the completed version. Still awaiting final copy editing. 9/11/12 1:10pm edt.

In one way, or another:

THE END OF THE OLIGARCHICAL SYSTEM

By Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

Friday, August 31, 2012


In Spring 1983, the Soviet leadership under the direction of an hysterical Yuri V. Andropov, had rejected the proffer of an assured peace agreement from U.S. President Ronald Reagan. Excepting the President of the United States himself, most among the leaders from among the U.S. political class had foolishly complemented Andropov’s hysterics with their own ultimately deadly nonsense in the same malicious vein at that time. The U.S.A. has since suffered greatly for its own Congressional leaders’ and others’ part in what history has proven as having had been its political follies in this matter. For my own part, I had responded back then, by stating publicly, that if the Soviet Union were to have persisted in Andropov’s rejection of this historic opportunity, it must be expected to disintegrate in about five years. My forecast was, and remains as having been an excellent one.

Now, we of the United States are presently confronted with the mass-murderous intention, which U.S. President Barack Obama put into practice in the murdering of Lybia’s President Gaddafi, and which Obama has attempted to bring about in similar cases including those of Syria. These cases are the pre-set detonations of a presently lurking general thermonuclear war, with its effects throughout this planet.

That was only the beginning of which was to become a prolonged, specific quality of successive crises. Similarly, at the later, present time, those very silly Americans who have committed themselves to re-electing the wretched President Obama, have adopted a prospect of a rather sudden extinction of the United States—and also many other nations, whether through participation in nuclear warfare, or simply decadence per se. This is a current development which expresses a process of what is now approaching a state of mass-murderous disintegration. Barring probable thermonuclear war, that chiefly for simply economically absurd reasons, in both the U.S.A. and also western and central Europe, in particular.

What is now more immediately certain, on that account, is that, if the two sets of the leading major, opposing powers, remain poised for their mutual, thermonuclear confrontation, as in the present context defined by the wretched Barack Obama Presidency, a general extermination of all nations were a likely event, if not yet an absolutely certain one. Worse, all nations could be destroyed, whether they sought to keep out of the currently probable thermonuclear conflict, or not. Similarly, any leading nation whose government adopts a policy of so-called “environmentalism,” as Queen Elizabeth II and Barack Obama are doing, is a nation already careening in the direction for each of those governments’ own share of a general extinction, whether as a form of national, or multi-national government under nuclear warfare, or not. Thus,, that Queen represents the principal authorship of current record of the mass-murderous “population reduction” policies which have generated that horror-show which she has done so much to bring upon us all.1Her Majesty’s radical “population reduction” policies have been the principal proponent of this current pro-genocidal nightmare. It is most notable, not only that she commands the resources of foreknowledge of relevance in this matter, but that she has acknowledged the actuality of the radical population-reduction policies of herself and her frankly mass-homicidal, British protege, U.S. President Barack Obama.

What was, and remains, for me, the essential, but widely unknown laws of economy, are of a certain type of physical laws apparently unknown to that monarchy presently, laws which are ultimately supreme in their most notable consequences, not only for us on Earth, but within the range of our knowledge of what we know as our Solar system:if and when we may have taken into account what must be a particular emphasis on ultimate consequences and their causes. This matter of developments falls within the specific reach of my relatively exceptional successes as a forecaster.

As I have repeatedly demonstrated in a successful past experience in forecasting, what have often been defined as “experts” in statistical, and, or closely related forms of economic and related forecasting, have been seriously misguided, often virtually by definition. The essential failure by such professional mis-leaders, lies in the fact that their methods are fairly described as “chronically statistical failures” in matters pertaining to forecasts of experiences which exist only in systemically future conditions.

By that choice of language, I have meant that the principle of foresight into future conditions, rather than forecasts based on “past statistical experience,” is the required type of mental skill which has been continued to be stubbornly lacking in both most mis-educated persons presently. That roster includes, most notably, those economists and others of the like who prefer the hind-end of history, to future consequences.2One must make a strict distinction between originating a forecast, which has occurred only rarely in my practice, and reporting on the current implications of a general forecast already made. In my own experience, reports pertaining directly to my original forecasts are relatively rare among my forecasts generally; more frequently, I deliver comments on what have been my already outstanding forecasts. The needed principle on that account, corresponds systemically to dependency on knowledge of the future, which means: foreknowledge which is intrinsic to the discovery of a previously overlooked, or simply unknown principle of physical science. These are principles such as those expressed by the methods of such as Johann Sebastian Bach, Arthur Nikikisch, and Wilhelm Furtwângler for music, and to the general physical principle of metaphor (e.g., Johannes Kepler’s “vicarious hypothesis”).

Up to a certain point, my own current strategic estimates respecting “dangers of general war,” converge on those which I have found to be expressed by such as the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff. Nonetheless, whatever the other differences among us might be, those differences among us are presently secondary in their significance for the immediate future. I believe, on balance, that what the Chiefs have expressed on the subject of thermonuclear adventures this far, does represent an urgently needed, valid war-avoidance strategy for the presently immediate situation. That, we must consider as of great value to mankind as a whole,

In the meantime, the present situation is to be fairly identified in what shall be the following, perhaps also rarely known, but clearly knowable, and also indispensable remarks on the essential difference of the human species from all other known living species. I shall indicate those facts here.3Cf. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. The Threat Against Mankind. LPAC August 24, 2012. I circumscribe my remarks on that latter point here, by the following:

Virtually none show that particularly essential competence needed to survive that present thermonuclear conflict willfully, were it unleashed. Perhaps, in some leading cases, other passions have disturbed their judgments. The essential fact right now, is the danger which they promote. for reason of incompetence, or otherwise, which is now immediately threatened to be unleashed with great force.

. . . The Lessons from The Past?

Step by step, since that February 1763 Peace of Paris when the British maritime empire had first secured its peculiar, virtual domination over this planet, as in that empire’s subsequent experiencing the death of its great adversaries from the most recent several centuries, the times had already come when our republic was struck by the death of an exhausted war-time commander, President Franklin Roosevelt, and, later, by the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and his brother, Robert. These were events of crucial significance for the reason that they removed those Kennedys in that fashion, thus creating consequent events which continue to show the horrid folly of much of our nation’s habits of policy-shaping since that time. Consider what have been since demonstrated to have been those betrayed heroes own, historically crucial roles of leadership shown while they had lived.

Those considerations have remained chiefly a matter of clear fact since that time, as our United States has continued to slip into a seemingly remorseless process of willful economic decadence, a decline from whose grip our republic had never actually escaped, still until the present moment, and probably beyond. Thus, the result of successive assassinations of those two virtually martyred Kennedy brothers, has been that the U.S.A. has been plunged into a degree of both relentless moral exhaustions of its leaders under a related, now prolonged, long wave of systemic economic decline, a decline measured since the moment of the successive deaths of President John F. and Robert Kennedy, deaths from which our republic has never truly recovered, politically and economically, up to the present date.

The following relevant effects have been most notable.

During that interval of what has been termed “post World-War-II,” the definition of “empire” has undergone cumulatively awesome, ugly changes, a process of change whose current effect has been the emergence, since the death of President Franklin Roosevelt, from massive pre-nuclear warfare, to presently thermonuclear. Hence, the presently immediate threats of actually thermonuclear holocaust, a calamity launched jointly by President Barack Obama, and by the current British monarchy’s pro-genocidal, so-called “environmentalist” policies.

Thus the failure both to prevent and to prosecute the true issue of the assassination of President Kennedy, has been proven to have been a crucially historical set-back on precisely that account, even as if retrospectively, still to the present time of grave world crisis: the folly of a clearly intended act, authored at the highest rank, on this account. Consider the following crucial points in fact. The avowed, and contested motives for not prosecuting the assassination of that President, were the same motives as those for the assassination itself.

Take the evidence of the Indo-China war which had been formally launched in 1946, but then continued as the horror-show in Cambodia, which only the assassination of President Kennedy permitted Kennedy’s political adversaries to set into motion. That assassination has had long-ranging effects expressed in the form of the continuing, accelerated decline of the U.S. economy over not only the course of the approximately ten years of the Indo-China war, but has charted the whole reach of the combined decline of the U.S. economy and those of most of the Americas and Europe over a period since the times co-incident with the assassinations of President Kennedy and his brother Robert.

Even later, had U.S. President Ronald Reagan been able to succeed in the course of his well-known two attempts at launching of a Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), the present threat of thermonuclear warfare itself would have been removed, and, almost certainly, a truly great recovery of the economy launched, instead of the presently careening, global disaster which we have experienced as the dominant trend of fluctuating leadership, overall, since that time. Without the assassination of President Kennedy, the monstrously ruinous war which President Kennedy and his associates would have prevented, could not have occurred: simply as a matter of crucial evidence with respect to leading fact.

I emphasize, that, it was the rejection of the SDI by Uri Andropov’s summary rejection of a strategic-defense initiative in which I had been engaged during the 1977-1983 interval, which made the disintegration of the Soviet Union a virtual certainty within that decade, exactly as I had forecast earlier. Therefore, the only thing which would have prevented such a collapse of the Soviet Union during that interval of the 1980’s, would have been the Soviet acceptance of President Ronald Reagan’s (and also Dr. Edward Keller’s) proposal.

However, although what I have just stated is true in principle still today, the breakup of the Soviet Union was not the specific motive for the breakup of what had been the elements which had comprised the Soviet economy itself. That original mistake was only one admittedly very important step toward the realization of a much broader, global-imperial, British imperial objective, the threat to Britain as much as the rest, the threat of global thermonuclear war now.

The European Disaster

In that way, what had been recently the sovereign states of continental Europe, ceased to be sovereign, since the implied threats against Germany’s Chancellor Kohl by France’s President Mitterand, and by the support of Mitterand’s threats by Britain’s Margaret Thatcher and the U.S.A.’s George H. W. Bush. So, with what had been earlier retirement of President Reagan from office, I, who had been a crucial factor in the original prompting of the SDI, was soon already in the process of being virtually “eliminated” politically. Later, with the aftermath of the President “Bill” Clinton’s departure from office, the destruction of the United States itself came on like an avalanche, to become “just a matter of time”up to this present moment. The selection, and appointment of a malignant puppet, Obama, largely by the British monarchy, was the recently most essential motive expressed with the very worst effects for the world this far.

Now, with the prospect of a reelection of the disgusting and mass-murderously inclined President Barack Obama, the continued existence of our United States, were now almost virtually doomed, a doom brought upon an all too credulous citizenry, a doom brought virtually to the brink of the launch of the accumulated forces of thermonuclear holocaust. About an hour-and-a-half could be sufficient to bring on the early death of our human species.

The ugly prospect against which I warned in outline here, is not yet a certainty; but, the rescue of mankind from a threat of thermonuclear doomsday, is only what might seem to be “a miracle” of President Obama’s being soon lifted out of office. That urgently needed early improvement of our nation’s destiny, is such that, therefore, the United States, among other nations, might not only survive, but will be enabled to free itself from the evil which currently menaces us all, were President Obama’s threatened triggering of the extinction of the human species permitted.

Now, let us consider this history more closely.


I. WHAT IS THE HUMAN SPECIES’ FATE?4The indespensable conception employed in this presently following chapter, is that of a properly defined notion of the proper significance of the use of the term ”metaphor.” The explanation here is required to deal with the relative absurdity with which the term “metaphor” has become profoundly misused habitually among the ranks of the allegedly literate. In effect, the original, “hard” meaning was discarded, and a sloppily pseudo-scientific sort of “misinterpretation” substituted. The proper, literal meaning, runs as follows. The model case would be of the quality of the use of “vicarious hypothesis” by Johannes Kepler, in which the name of an effect is used as a surrogate for the lack of an elusive “literal” meaning. It is a device often used by William Shakespeare. For example, Macbeth: The case of “Birnam Wood;” or, Shakespeare’s Hamlet: “... thus, conscience doth make cowards of us all; and, thus, the native hue of resolution is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought; and enterprises of great pith and moment, with this regard, their currents turn awry.” That exact notion is the most essential feature of an ontologically rigorous practice of physical science; such is the nature of my intention in this report, as in any rigorous practice of physical-scientific thought. That is the simple explanation; other implications, especially scientific implications, go much deeper.

For the purposes of this present discussion, “your human species,” may be fairly estimated (if only so estimated) as dating from about a few millions years ago. All of us in modern times should have understood the defining of that essential difference which actually proves that mankind differs essentially and systemically from the higher apes, or of any species but own.

Therein lies, exactly, the key to identifying the root-source of the presently lingering threat of virtual, or actual human extinction—and, in the alternative, the proper prevention and. therefore. cure of that effect.

The hope for our human species, should be stated most precisely, as a reflection of the human species’ specific distinction, as I have just written here, that from all other species known to us, from present or past. That distinction resides in the uniqueness of the specifically human quality of the use of fire in its various, successively upward-reaching, qualitative leaps in manifestations, including instances such as thermonuclear-fusion and matter-antimatter processes. Or, the same notion might be stated in other terms, such as a formulation of the willful scientific progress which lifts mankind toward ever higher qualities of power (i.e., “energy-flux density” measured—provisionally – in units associated with the speed of light).

All thus said up to this point, these are only phases whose true, deeper meanings can be made apparent, but only by the special model of human learning of the meanings of our species’ existence which are to be discovered, as life’s history has been teaching us, as if step by step, as I proceed here, as follows.

The distinctions I make here, had also been expressed, in significant part, in references to the collaboration between Wolfgang Köhler and Max Planck on the meaning of the human mind. These distinctions, must be made to include the specific characteristics of the implicitly immortal human mind, as distinct from that of the merely mortal “brain” in and of itself. The brain dies; the human mind seeks immortality, and, thus finds its own meaning, as in its existence, in the endless series of discoveries which we may review in their present parts, as if as follows.

First of all:

The distinction of human mind from human brain, is the same distinction which is also expressed in a strictly “Classical” mode typified, as I have indicated above: by the composers of the greatest music, such as the special case of this, by, once more, Johann Sebastian Bach, Arthur Nikisch, and Wilhelm Furtwängler. That set of, unfortunately, rarely understood distinctions, may be illustrated by contrasting the intrinsically incompetent, statistical methods of forecasting economic developments, to those forecasting methods which have provided the crucial, urgently needed distinction from mere statistical forecasting, a distinction of access to the future, a subject which is a principal aspect of this present report as a whole, as also in competent economic forecasting.

The naturally denoted, but, so far, rarely understood principle which actually distinguishes man from ape, as from beasts generally, is the uniqueness of human capability of physically efficient insight into the continued generation of mankind’s future, a capacity which is also the key to the uniqueness of my own relative success as a economist and forecaster, since the mid-to-late 1950s. The two latter qualities are inseparable.

Specifically human knowledge, as distinct from the relatively brutish arts of pragmatism, is based on intrinsically efficient knowledge of a process of the generation as if of the future-making-itself-in-progress, rather than mere deductions from the presumed experience of what had been the already past heretofore.

E.g., the unfortunates called the “environmentalists” so-called, may tend to function as killers of mankind, not necessarily from the desire to kill, even as if randomly, but as a consequence of their blindness to the vacancies in the “eye-sight” of their own effective intentions for the future.

Especially now, in the wake of the great success of “Curiosity,” human beings, if and when operating successfully as a human species, must tend toward the discoveries made, directly, or indirectly, on planets on which we have not yet dwelt, or, in the alternative, even the experience of effects originating on a galactical scale, all in our prospect for exerting control over solar-system or even other processes, all of which we could not be able endure, or endure only under great difficulty, or under exceptional conditions, as this has been implicitly expressed just recently, by the successful landing of “Curiosity” on Mars. Those alternatives are typified as the virtually “spiritual” potentials which impel the alert human mind to gain control over environments which the human body could not otherwise endure.

“Curiosity? Again?” Precisely.

It is essential to now restate that point with the following series of shifts in emphasis.

On The Subject of That Mars Landing

We might be joined in calling attention to the fact that man has visited the Moon, and can, by means of science, be waiting to be unleashed to resume that mission’s implicitly intended content and justification: that for excellent and urgent reasons. We might, similarly, if we were young enough and properly trained, probably tolerate a bit of some future experience of Mars in person, especially if we enjoyed the advantage of appropriate uses of thermonuclear fusion as the mode of propulsion. There would be powerful compulsions for such ventures, as I shall indicate here, later. However, despite that pleasing thought, the more crucial point to stress on this account now, is that we, sitting here on Earth, can control processes on Mars with man’s efforts in increasing degree of emphasis on the efficiency which is defined by the “speed of light,” rather than what is merely human sense-certainty. It is also crucial, for both the already present, and future times, that we must rely increasingly on the speed of light as a means for human control over Mars activities exerted from Earth, or the like, as a matter which essentially transcends human “merely biological” sense-perception as such.

I am not opposed to the hope of some, that mankind might soon put foot on Mars; but, I know that it would be a mistake to argue that that event itself is the proper choice of absolute standard for the most essential first step of achievement of our goal. The case of “Curiosity”already touches directly on the actual achievement. The crucial question is: What will be that which is useful to mankind’s mission wherever we touch on the work of our mission: what are we going to do if and when we arrive there? How, and why shall we arrive at that goal. For example: what will be the essential role of this measure in advancing mankind’s ability to defend life on Earth from projectiles swarming within Solar space, or beyond? How can we best accomplish that mission in the most immediately effective way?

So, in approaching that just-stated fact, we must take a side-trip of sorts, to explore the fallacies inhering in statistical methods of treatment of the subject of human sense-perceptions, specifically the psychopathological aspects of the notions of “sense certainty,” as contrasted to the intimations of that wonderful principle of metaphor as presented to us by Nicholas of Cusa, by Cusa’s marvelous follower Johannes Kepler, and as intimated by the apparent subtleties of the secrets of musical performance by Bach, Nikisch, and Furtwängler. It is the uniqueness of the rarely known, but true powers of the human mind which supplies the crucial test. “What is a useful, even urgent consequence which can be the outcome of our control over this process?”

The root of our self-inflicted problem, which we must now overcome, so defined, lies in the fallacy expressed by the naivety of the wishful tendency to believe in reliance on “sense certainty.” That quality of error is lodged within the presumption that sense-perception defines mankind’s experience of a domain of inherently adducible, alleged sense-certainties. Contrary to that popular, but inherently misguided presumption, what is conventionally identified as “sense-certainty” were better identified as Bernhard Riemann did in the concluding section of his habilitation dissertation, or, in other words, the principled notion of metaphor (e.g., vicarious hypothesis). It is the “practical man’s” misguided susceptibility to belief in “sense certainty,” which expresses the problem of the widely popular, but pseudo-scientific methods which I am referencing as the essential topic for reference here. (Some times people confuse their mere habits with the experience of sense-certainties, and even do so in the abused name of “scientific principles.”)5Bernhard Riemann: On the Hypotheses On Which the Principles of Geometry Depend (1854). Note his concluding stroke of delicious irony: “This leads us into another science. into the domain of physics, which the nature of today’s proceedings had not permitted us to enter.” That sentence could be read in two ways; I am confident in my choice, which should be readily known to those familiar with my seasoned intentions.

“Die Hauptsache Ist Der Effekt!”6A repeated theme, “Die Hauptsache ist der Effekt” of the celebrated 1960 German featured film: Spukschloss im Spessart. The principle of the future exists, even for some varieties of ghosts and the authors of their imagined existences.

What, actually, is the most significant of the presently foreseeable effects of the successful landing of the space vehicle “Curiosity” on Mars? The relevant., rhetorical questions are: “Did any person actually land then and there?” “What is the relationship, then, which controlled the choices of the continuing actions of the landed spacecraft?” “How was the control of the landed craft managed?” “Was it by merely sense-perception? What, therefore, was actually accomplished, and how, as a matter of principle of the continuing mission, was the factor of accomplishment effected?”

For the proper, full answer that set of questions, ask: “What will be the specific, and most important accomplishment made possible through what comes after the planting of “Curiosity” on Mars? “What is that controlling principle of the successful landing of ‘Curiosity’ which now operates on Mars?” “Human sense-perception, perhaps? Or, perhaps not that?” “What is the presently efficient, continually closing link between us, here on Earth, and the small mass of apparatus which has been transported with ‘Curiosity?’” “Human sense-perception?” Do not be ridiculous. It will be the actual efficiency of those broadcast messages conveyed at the speed of light? Why is this so? Some patience will suffice to present the answer.

What, then, is the immediate and urgent mission? Is it not the urgent need for defending human life on Earth from deadly “rocks” plummeting through space toward probable destruction of life in part of Earth, or all of it? When that sense of mission, once that of Dr. Edward Teller, is presented to us, the efficiency of space-operations on Mars becomes urgently clear. Then, the urgency of removing President Barack Obama from office, is also urgently clear.

The paradox which I had set forth in this fashion, is not exactly novel as a matter of general principle. The paradox was always there; but, until recently, there was no particular practical reason to emphasize what have now become the crucial distinctions. Those implications should be virtually “self-evident,” as the popular saying goes; the difference is, that there had been no efficiently compelling reason, heretofore, that this argument be stressed in the manner which I do here. Nor had it been essential to put the heavy emphasis which I apply with such “heavy-footedness” as I do in this particular bit of irony, as we must now do in the case of earlier Mars landings.

The issue which I am about to pose, is now of crucial importance for several, intermeshed, particular reasons: as follows.

That which has happened to change things significantly with the “Curiosity” landing, is, that the implications of “Curiosity” are beginning to reach into some crucial changes in way in which we think about relations between man on Earth and mankind operating continuously at a distance, by means measured in speed of light, from origins such as that of Earth, to Mars. and return. For the relevant question and answers, as I have written above, look back to certain leading concerns of the late Dr, Edward Teller: the threat to all human life on Earth from asteroids and kindred objects ranging within sources within the interval between somewhere beyond the distance further than from Mars, to the vicinity of Venus.

This is presently that which must now become a leading concern for all who inhabit the planet Earth. “Die Hauptsache ist der Effekt!”

Immediately, the related implications of “Curiosity’s” arrival on Mars strike home, implicitly, toward every part of Earth. The immediate issue leans to the “elementary side.” Since mankind has a very, very poor access to means to forecast that which some part, or the whole of planet’s living inhabitants might be obliterated, means that it is of the relatively greatest importance that we now build up an adequate form of defense of Earth based on the evidence that a comparison of massive accumulation of threats (especially unknown ones) with the requirements of a defense of Earth, indicate that our access to organize the defense of mankind on Earth, requires mankind’s gaining mastery over the prevention of the panoply of mortal threats to the human species from nearby Solar space, some of which are already indispensable defense for people presently confined to life on Earth.

The subject of such threats is not the full measure of what we, as mankind on Earth, must do in nearby (which is to say “nearby Solar”) space, emphatically the domain between target-areas Mars and Earth, but from more distant Solar space into the vicinity of Venus. If and when we adopt such a mission-orientation, the concept is a feasible, task, but, more significantly, as an urgently necessary one.

This challenge has certain known dimensions in nearby space itself, not yet taking into account the more difficult challenge from comets. This implied package of “Defense ot Earth,” is a feasible concept, even if our abilities this far are very much delimited: which means that we must, so to speak, start immediately to “crank up” the development of the needed future scientific means of defense now. My associates and their like among relevant scientists in other nations, have already gained some highly relevant counsel respecting the needed development of needs of defense. My own task here, in this report, is of a somewhat different, but, nonetheless, highly relevant to that mission. I leave the remainder, excepting that mission adopted by me on this account for the subject of that special mission presented as follows.


II. MIND OR BRAIN?: THE PRINCIPLE OF METAPHOR


On the surface of a reading of sense-perceptions as such, only scientifically illiterate traditions accept sense-perception as such, as reality (e.g., as “sense certainty”). The contrary, competent, scientific method, is premised on the explicitly contrary principle, named metaphor. Metaphor, when competently understood, is typified by the general notion of Nicholas of Cusa’s De Docta Ignorantia, and of Cusa’s followers, such as Johannes Kepler, as in Kepler’s warning of the need for attention to a notion of what he termed as vicarious hypothesis. I mean the competent representation of the concept of metaphor per se, when that conception is honestly and accurately defined as corresponding to a uniquely true physical principle.

That systemic distinction which I now introduce into this report, is to be recognized as showing the fallacy which is inherent in the error of treating sense-perception as if it were to be taken as “reality,” rather than as, relatively, merely a shadow cast by reality, a mere sense-perception of reality. A competent scientific practice, like that of Classical artistic composition, is premised, fundamentally, on the ontological conception of an inherent falseness in the practice of belief in mere sense-certainty as such.

True science is therefore expressed in what are to be regarded in what is strictly defined as an instrument of Classical composition which is otherwise known as metaphor: the virtual footprint of that which can not be “directly sensed.” All founders of a true modern science, such as Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa writing in his De Docta Ignorantia, and as echoed in what has been Cusa’s avowed and faithful student, Johannes Kepler. I has been Kepler who, defined this as the only reliable method of practice for a true modern science. That is the method which is in strict opposition to the fraud inherent in those crudely reductionist methods commonly traced to such wretched hoaxsters as the scheming scoundrels who concocted the hoax called followers of Isaac Newton, or to the a-priorist dogma of Euclid earlier.

This same problem of “modernist” forms of neo-Newtonian swindles , especially since the influence of the explicitly evil Bertrand Russell on, most emphatically, the post-World War I and post-World War II teaching of physical and political science, has thus often supplanted the domain which had been originally that of Classical-artistic subject-matters. This change has been based, with increasing force of malignant traditions, upon changes in traditions. changes which may be defined as common use of what has been, actually, a crudely illiterate use of language, that notably as a matter of invasion of such influences into both the provinces of Classical art and physical science.

Matters of Ontology

The root of that mere superstition called “sense-certainty, was also turned up as the crucial subject of William Shakespeare’s Hamlet:

“... thus the native hue of resolution

‘Is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought;

And enterprises of great pith and moment,

With this regard, their current turn awry,

And lose the name of action ... “

Brutishness, otherwise expressed as being mistaken for the sole principle of action, is the name of the problem. Take the case of the experience of the discovery of a valid physical principle, as distinguished from the brutishnesses which distinguish the fields of gambling and bodily-contact sports.. Use one’s recollection of such an experience as a measure of the quality of passion which separates bestiality from creativity, as with the distinction of love of mankind from the brutish passions frequently adopted for the lack of love, or which are not infrequently mistaken for it.

So, it is, In the history of what had been, in principle, literate forms of modern language up to the late 1800s, and somewhat beyond, were what had been all truly leading forms of both physical science and Classical forms of literature and music, forms which had been consistent, as a tendency, with a leading influence expressed as a post-Fourteenth-century “Classical” science and art, which is to be known, then as now, as the Classical tradition typified in essentials by the work of such as Brunelleschi, Nicholas of Cusa, Leonardo da Vinci, and Johannes Kepler. That is to argue that the tendency of leading literate or comparable practice has been to rise toward such standards.

The greatest of passions is that of both true scientific and of poetic discovery of principle, and the essential bonds of both to creativity per se. Not only does scientific or comparably composed discovery engage such specifically distinct qualities of passion —“Eureka!” It is the underlying quality of true human passion, a quality of experience which earns the name of “metaphor.”

Consider some appropriate illustrations of this point.

With the the British orchestration of the so-called French Revolution, elements of some continuing progress has frequently been reversed, as in the form of what has been defined as worsening trends into “Nineteenth-Century “Romanticism.” With the launching of two successive phases of “world war,” which were set into motion by the British success in ousting the German Chancellor Bismarck, the cultural trends were predominantly degenerate. Since the assassinations of U.S. President John F. Kennedy and his brother, Robert, the long-term economic trends throughout the trans-Atlantic region has been increasing, currently at accelerating rates.

The crucial mistake inhering in what is merely popular opinion, is the childish, but nonetheless prevalent mistake known as belief in sense-perception as such. That belief in sense-perception as such, is the “mother of all essential mistakes.”

That does not mean, that sense-perception does not exist in its own rather effective manner as a mere practice. It does mean that, simply said, “We make too much of sense-perception as such.” Put it, properly, into the class of “until we have access to something better, rely on what you have actually gained: find some way of making the best of what is possible with such crutches of the mind as that—until we gain a better means.” Sense-perception is not your proper God, although many poor fools worship it as a virtual religion.

For example: we have discovered a much better one: the speed of light. Much in the life’s work of Max Planck moved us forward in that direction of such accomplishments. Johann Sebastian Bach had introduced a comparable discovery of the difference between music and popular noises.

Or, to recapitulate the point which I am now working to bring into you focus: we must seek out things which coincide with the notion of the “speed of light,” and, thus, converge attentions on a single principle which tends to consume all known varieties of the human’s power to comprehend the human power of conception. To accomplish that mission, we must proceed from a standpoint of exploring the experience of the universe as a sense of mission-orientation. Step-by-step, and piece-by-piece, we must avoid the deception which mere sense-perception-as-such represents. The process of the discovery of truth proceeds from its birth in the guise of metaphor, as Jhannes Kepler’s discovery of the principle of gravitation shows. That means the same “metaphor” which Johannes Kepler identified under the category of “vicarious hypothesis.”

Mankind has no simply direct access to knowledge of the universe, as if by a mechanical notion of an “additive approach” to the rendering of “the facts” of actual, or fabricated notions of sense-perception. It is through the uncovering of the proof of the deceits, deceit by deceit, of blind faith in sense-perception as such, that a quality attributable to “truth” becomes accessible: which, by destroying naïve faith in mere sense-perception, eliminates customary delusions of the ignorant: all done as if in tracking down lies to the lairs where they have lurked. Mankind’s original quality of dependency on sense-perception Sense-certainty, as distinct from sense-impression, is, thus, is the true author of all lies. It is by the recognition of those lies as being deceptions, by consuming them as if they were cooked meat, that we conquer and consume the sources of ignorance, sources of ignorance which exist chiefly as forms of the ignorance encountered as popular beliefs.

The greatest, the most pro-Satanic of all beliefs, is popular ignorance. That is the essential root of evil.

For Example:

The trend toward moral degeneration in the used languages of arts and sciences of the post-Gottfried Leibniz Eighteenth-century trends continued as a trend in the practice of literacy into the post-1890 plunge into what was actually the 1891-1945 ebbs and flows of what was, in fact, “World War I and II.” The 1950 launch of the obscene “Congress for Cultural Freedom,” is a prominent land-mark of the change toward accelerating rates of moral and intellectual degeneration in European civilization, from the age of Harry S Truman, to what might be fairly described as the post-Bill Clinton U.S. Presidencies.

The long span of degeneracy of popular trends in trans-Atlantic culture has a very specific quality of changing, specifically anti-Classical cultural trends. The minds of the new generations of the post-World War II period to date, have been ruined by this process over the span of approximately three successive generations. The distinguishing mark of this moral and intellectual degeneration among recent generations, is the trend toward a departure from of the intellectual powers of Classical insight into the cultural principle of irony.

The hallmark of the cultural degeneration of nations is forms of a-priori worship of “sense certainty.” The worst, recent phase of deterioration arrived with the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert, and the emergence of the naked truth known as “the Sixty-Eighters.” Simply described, the combination of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and the launching of the U.S. war in Indo-China which a still-living President Kennedy had resisted, is to be associated with the intertwining of the fraud of “The Oswald Myth” and the launching of the fraud of the war itself. The process of moral degeneration known as “The Sixty-Eighters” was already in motion before the eruptions on the Columbia University and other campuses.

The actual root of that process of the 1960s, is located in the sequel of developments represented by “the Truman Era” and “shock and awe” generated by the thermonuclear horror-shows of the 1950s. During the course of the 1960s, and slightly beyond, the “greenie” plague was spread. Science and the productivity associated with science, did not “dwindle away;” they were “dwindled away” by the cult of the “greenies.” Underneath the surface of matters now, there is the nightmare of Her Majesty’s direction tpward a plunge into a planetary “new dark age,” a lurking “New Thermonuclear Dark Age.”

The significance of the types of subject-matters which I have just summarized in the chapter this far, is to be located in the tendency for bestialization of once literate populations, a tendency defined by the loss of efficient connection to a true expression of the principle of metaphor. That problem is properly defined in the following terms.

The True Irony of Metaphor

The customarily ignorant view of the name of Metaphor, presumes that sense-perception is the essential component of experience, to which “metaphor” supplies a slight coloration. The fact of the matter is directly the contrary. It is the human senses which, while contributing a needed function, they nonetheless fail to address the underlying realities. The relevant argument is conveniently presented in the following terms.

Human sense-perception is a set of shadowy images, which have their essential relevance of aiding the human species by presenting some arrays of standard “colors” which are the immediate subjects of sense-perception. In effect, it is the sense-perceptions as such, which are the relatively mere shadows. It is what the Classical dramatist, as in a tragedy, as in the instance of what I have referenced above as the most famous of the Hamlet dialogues of Shakespeare, which typify the expression of the principle of the human knowledge of the experience of a social process. This is made clearer when the action in a tragedy is located as action in the mind per se, as in that selection from Hamlet,

that the narrative approaches the quality of a specifically human quality of a truthfully human experience.

On this account, focus on the nature of the action presented to the mind in the closing scene, of Hamlet alone, at the close of Act II, and then compare the nature of the action there with the soliloquy in the opening of Act III. Where is the action to be described, except as the action within the mind of the player? Such are ontological implications of the action in the mind.

This same principle is to be recognized in the mental life of a traveller between planets in a space-craft. The action lies within the mind, where it properly belongs, on the condition that the motion experienced in space is an expression those means of the human will by means of which the truly most significant action is induced as if by mind of a player speaking in soliloquies. Such is the truly essential nature of the experience of the human mind acting, ironically, within and upon the relevant environment. This is the essential experience of that aspect of metaphor, in dealing with such as its green envy and dark rage, which actually moves the subject-matter of the human experience.

Compare that with the notion of “senseless rage,” as in memorable slaughters occurring within high schools or universities, or on the streets among children today.

It is from this kind of setting of actors in a real-life situation, that that categories of meaning of events or conditions are expressed. It is not the action in the literal sense, but “the state of action,” which is the paramount experience.

Or, take the subject of “fire.” This has been a relatively stubborn case in point. The peculiar fate of extraordinary significance about “fire” is its qualitatively distinct relationship to mankind’s existence, as distinct from that of other forms of life. The human use of fire, is the exemplary experience. Mankind’s active will in the design of the human use of fire, is the metaphor of the existence of man’s use of fire, as such as Max Planck and Albert Einstein defined this as a matter of principle, or as Planck and Wolfgang Köhler came to define a mutual notion of the human mind. It is in such distinctions as this, that the essentially underlying action is to be recognized. It is the notional “action” of this quality which defines the actual notion of of a true metaphor. It is the metaphor which generates the action which is the true reality.

This coincidence of the discoveries of Planck and Köhler, has two, mutually reflected aspects of special relevance to our subject here. That is to say that Köhler’s specific definition of “mind” and the Planck-Einstein revolution in the ontological principle of physical discovery, is an excellent example, especially when we have recognized the distinction of the principle of Classical musical composition, as typified by Bach through Furtwängler, from the lusts of a Lizst or Wagner. Both of the latter comparison are known experiences, to one and other, whereas the power to generate the essential quality of a Bach or Beethoven, is limited to what are the equivalent of the effects of the work of truly Classical composer. The quality of the Classical composition is systemically coherent with the essential principle of scientific creativity.

I must admit that there are, not infrequently cases, where the individual may express both qualities of passion. Thus, a Shakespeare could have crafted the audience’s deep insight into the composition of the referenced soliloquy of Hamlet, or I could never be at peace with my experience of the late, romantic Sir Lawrence Olivier.

A Conclusion For Here

The implications of our obligatory consideration of both the intertwined experience of the Mars landing known as Curiosity, and the need for overcoming the threats to Earth from roaming satellites, must be considered as included in the distinction of the potential of the human mind from the beasts, even beasts for whom we care as “our necessary friends.” Some among us project an insight into a human-like quality of pets, for example. That is, in some respects, more than merely an acceptable practice. Yet, mankind remains unique in respect to the existence of this noëtic potential.

We have been made aware, at least categorically, of the growing danger associated with recent movements of the Solar system within our galaxy. This highly emotional experience should not be degraded into blind fears disguised, pitiably, as wishful denials. Here, true humanity comes more forcibly into focus. To wit:

The known history-so-to-speak of mankind’s evolution as a uniquely creative species, is traced most conveniently in the history of fire—fire as defined generically. The history of fire is clear, especially respecting the fact that mankind’s practice as a species has entered the domains of those higher orders of energy-flux-density associated with thermonuclear fusion and matter-antimatter reactions. The higher phase of progress in exploration of Mars, which is typified by the case of the landing of “Curiosity” on Mars, when compared to the threats to human existence from within the “nearby” range of threatening asteroids, and comparable matters, has two most notable meanings for this present occasion: we are urged, thus, to master the domain of asteroids witin the ranges of the Mars and Venus orbits, and, to this specific end, putting the hand of human scientific creativity into action on this account.

As I have emphasize in recent, earlier occasions, whatever we might wish to discuss respecting the human role in the oncomining history of Mars relevant masses of asteroids roaming “nearby,” the landing of “Curiositiy” has produced a profound change in the role of the human species within this Solar system—and, implicitly, beyond. I think it necessary, at this point in time, to emphasize man’s indirect presence on Mars, in particular, as distinct from the other implications of this development for mankind’s personal presence as it were a sometime resident of Mars.

The issue which had been well posed the late Dr. Edward Teller, of defense of Earth from menacing satellites, should be clearly recognized as the leading issue of humanity during the generations immediate ahead. The primary commitment, on this account, must be to the Earth-based control of dangerous classes of satellites and related other threats, by introducing the efficient hand of mankind within the range of relevant physical space, most immediately, that of satellites whose action is locate within the indicated range of physical space-time.

As I have referenced this subject in some earlier writings, the most essential weapon which we might possess in respect to these matters, in the placing of the human individual mind, in effect, a Mars-based set of operations. The extended programs which this step called “Curiosity” expresses as the future of such matters, means that man will be acting as if from visits to laboratories and manufacture as typifying the work-places from which agents from Earth will direct the defense of mankind in space. The concern expressed by Dr. Teller, on this account, would, therefore, be the new quality of higher missions which must heretofore define the elementary notion of the role of mankind in space.

The implications of such a view should, and is employed, will, redefine the human species’ profession. The Solar system is the prospective immediate domain, for mankind, now to be placed in view. It is, therefore, time, for you to begin to find your future place in this great leap of advancement of mankind within the outskirts of this galaxy. When something is present, which could be efficiently thought for practice, we, mankind, are already implicitly there.

Footnotes

1Her Majesty’s radical “population reduction” policies have been the principal proponent of this current pro-genocidal nightmare. It is most notable, not only that she commands the resources of foreknowledge of relevance in this matter, but that she has acknowledged the actuality of the radical population-reduction policies of herself and her frankly mass-homicidal, British protege, U.S. President Barack Obama.
2One must make a strict distinction between originating a forecast, which has occurred only rarely in my practice, and reporting on the current implications of a general forecast already made. In my own experience, reports pertaining directly to my original forecasts are relatively rare among my forecasts generally; more frequently, I deliver comments on what have been my already outstanding forecasts.
3Cf. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. The Threat Against Mankind. LPAC August 24, 2012.
4The indespensable conception employed in this presently following chapter, is that of a properly defined notion of the proper significance of the use of the term ”metaphor.” The explanation here is required to deal with the relative absurdity with which the term “metaphor” has become profoundly misused habitually among the ranks of the allegedly literate. In effect, the original, “hard” meaning was discarded, and a sloppily pseudo-scientific sort of “misinterpretation” substituted. The proper, literal meaning, runs as follows. The model case would be of the quality of the use of “vicarious hypothesis” by Johannes Kepler, in which the name of an effect is used as a surrogate for the lack of an elusive “literal” meaning. It is a device often used by William Shakespeare. For example, Macbeth: The case of “Birnam Wood;” or, Shakespeare’s Hamlet: “... thus, conscience doth make cowards of us all; and, thus, the native hue of resolution is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought; and enterprises of great pith and moment, with this regard, their currents turn awry.” That exact notion is the most essential feature of an ontologically rigorous practice of physical science; such is the nature of my intention in this report, as in any rigorous practice of physical-scientific thought. That is the simple explanation; other implications, especially scientific implications, go much deeper.
5Bernhard Riemann: On the Hypotheses On Which the Principles of Geometry Depend (1854). Note his concluding stroke of delicious irony: “This leads us into another science. into the domain of physics, which the nature of today’s proceedings had not permitted us to enter.” That sentence could be read in two ways; I am confident in my choice, which should be readily known to those familiar with my seasoned intentions.
6A repeated theme, “Die Hauptsache ist der Effekt” of the celebrated 1960 German featured film: Spukschloss im Spessart. The principle of the future exists, even for some varieties of ghosts and the authors of their imagined existences.