Slightly updated Edited version posted 6:12pm Eastern, 01/28/2013.
The single most concise summary of the documented principles on which the creation of the U.S. Federal Republic’s economic design had originally depended, now remains, still today, in the contents of a book which had been titled The Political Economy of the American Revolution, that had been originally published in 1977, under the direction of editor Nancy B. Spannaus, and republished in a 1996 reprint edition, by Executive Intelligence Review, contents which retain their original content, up to the present date, and without regret.
The original elements of design of the U.S. Republic’s founding principles under President Washington and his Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, all had depended upon the original success of the Washington administration’s design. The most crucial of the constitutional economic principles of the original U.S. economy, are the principles which had been provided largely by U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton’s contributions, have never been actually outdated, as principles, since that time.
My own emphasis in treating The Political Economy of the American Revolution’s contents, as I do here, now remains essentially confined to the most relevant, second part of that publication: “Part II. The Founding Fathers,” pp. 231-471, the section which contains the documentation for the founding of the still-essential, original economic principles of the U.S. Federal Government.
All of the major errors which have occurred in the policies of our government since the time of President George Washington’s terms in office, have been products of systemic errors which had been committed by most among his successors, errors which had been introduced, later, by all but a relatively few exceptions; otherwise, most of those had been, largely misguided successors to the original Washington-Hamilton U.S. administrations. The systemic errors, whether of commission, or omission, had been products of the corrupting influences introduced from European sources, chiefly the British financial agencies, or certain French types, which had more or less controlled U.S. economic life since the end of the Presidency of George Washington.
Those foreign-directed errors which, chiefly, the British empire’s financial interests had induced, had been typified by British agents associated with the “Wall Street” crowd, even back then, meaning such as Aaron Burr, and, otherwise, only typified by such followers of the traitor and British spy Burr, as Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren, earlier, or Theodore Roosevelt, Ku Klux Klan fanatic Woodrow Wilson, Calvin Coolidge, Harry S (no middle name) Truman, Richard Nixon, and, worst of them all, the descendants of the Prescott Bush who had backed Adolf Hitler at a crucial moment in German history. Prescott Bush’s son George H.W. Bush had been what he turned out to be; but the worst of all U.S. Presidents have been that Bush’s own son, the foolish George W. Bush, Jr., and the British Queen’s and Tony Blair’s nasty puppet, Barack Obama.
That last stated bunch of “the worst of all,” are particularly notable for their complicity in suppressing the proof of the actual authorship of the original “9-11” cover-up, under the nominal administration of George W. Bush, Jr., and of the second “9-11” cover-up under President Barack Obama of Benghazi this past September.1Both had uttered orders banning the revelation of the evidence which had shown that the original, September 2001 “9-11” terror-attack on the United States had actually been the work of the combined British and Saudi-Arabian agencies. The same is to be said concerning President Barack Obama’s frauds in the matter of “9-11” number two, in Benghazi. Both of these had been actually British-Saudi operations, and, are typified by the role of the mass-murderous schemes of the wretched Tony Blair. Both of the latter set of cases had, so far, taken official actions of the characteristics of treasonous official “cover-ups” of otherwise known facts, facts which, by their very nature, have been implicitly cases of high treason against the United States.
Otherwise, when and if those matters are now taken into account, we have, as a result, the following case of a treasonous suppression of a set of true facts which now needs to be considered, and exposed, that most urgently.
Place the treasonous suppression of the cardinal facts of the two “Nine-Eleven” cases off to one side for a moment of convenience; consider what represents the following other sets of facts:
All of the those other, later, principled elements of a physical principle of design for a system of physical-economic science which had been needed to be considered here, have been added from outside the original section of The Political Economy of the American Revolution; these had been contributed either by me, or, more frequently, in efforts shared with associates either from among my immediate associates, or others with whom the relevant measures taken were associated. That added material has been crafted during the more recent times, chiefly under my leadership, and, most frequently by my own crafting, but, as I have just stressed here, also with more or less large supplemental work done in immediate collaboration with sundry classes of associates from within the span of the relevant efforts at the relevant datings located somewhere within the span of 1970-2013.
In any actually competent comparison with the specifications of the policies established under the policies of President George Washington and Alexander Hamilton, they are in opposition to the ruinous incompetence of the explicitly contrary, and specific, ruinous, policies of the successive Presidencies of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Otherwise, James Monroe and John Quincy Adams had been among the greatest of our early Presidents, John Quincy Adams most notably. The continuing role of John Quincy Adams, both as the greatest President of that time in history, and also as that masterly patriot operating from within the House of Representatives, the master of them all of his later years, paved the way for what was implicit in Adams’ association with one among his leading successors, Abraham Lincoln.2Among John Quincy Adams’ unique achievements as President, is that expressed by such facts, as that it was John Quincy Adams’ Presidency which accomplished the titanic achievement of having crafted a United States united from coast to coast, and from Canada to Mexico.
In fact, it had been the economic and related policies of Abraham Lincoln (murdered by order of the highest ranks of British agencies), which had inspired the period of the direct influence of President Abraham Lincoln’s heritage in shaping the great economic and strategic influence on Otto von Bismarck which had created the great economic reforms installed in Germany at the close of the 1870s, policies which coincided later with the great intentions of U.S. President William McKinley. It was only the assassination of McKinley which permitted the installation of the rabidly anglophile fanatic and implicit traitor Theodore Roosevelt, as his tenure enabled the participation of the U.S.A. in “World War I” conducted, for our U.S.A., under the Ku Klux Klan fanatic Woodrow Wilson.3Theodore Roosevelt had been guided by his uncle and personal mentor, the traitor to the United States James D. Bulloch. (Cf. Anton Chaitkin, Treason in America, 2nd edition. [[http://store.larouchepub.com/product-p/eirbk-1998-3-0-0-pdf.htm]])
The policies of U.S. Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and John Fitzgerald Kennedy, and John’s brother Robert, had also laid the basis for the “Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI),” a campaign which had been mustered, in part by me, from among prominent circles from such as President Ronald Reagan, and other leading public figures within the Americas and Europe, as during the interval 1977-1983 and beyond.
As a matter of fact, that assault on me and my associates launched during the middle of the nineteen-eighties and beyond, had been stated to me personally as “punishment of me and my associates” for my success in bringing the idea of the SDI to the table of not only the United States under President Ronald Reagan, but also as expressed against my important collaborators in France, Germany, Italy and certain other locations. The time has now come, where nothing in fact on that account need be held back.4As a leading political figure had it reported to me, on the occasion of my scheduled transport to prison: “You tried to make policy [referring to my keystone role in the actual launching of President Ronald Reagan’s initial 1983 and continuing efforts on behalf of a Strategic Defense Initiative] without permission, and, for that, you are being punished.” As is customary in such instances, a large number of those who had been my earlier associates fled in fear to join the ranks of my adversaries.
Had matters gone in the direction which I had proposed, the terrible things which have threatened both the U.S.A. and Europe now, could not have occurred as they have now done this far.
Behind, and underlying all that I have just stated, there lies a principle of history which only a tiny fraction of the leading circles of nations today have ever actually understood, at least up to this present moment. That is the situation which must now be corrected, if this planet is to outlive the atrocities which have come to reign over our United States, and also many other nations, this far.
The widespread, and wildly mistaken, but generally official belief, has been, that forecasting an economic future, in particular, must be guided by a presumed principle of mathematically statistical-forecasting methods, or the like.5My first publicized forecast was that made, as an executive for a fairly large consulting firm, in the Summer of 1956, forecasting a major economic crisis to break out beginning February-March 1957. It occurred exactly on time; all visible rivals in this matter had missed the boat. A more impressive success came in the August of 1971, when every notable rival had missed the boat entirely, that internationally. In fact, the belief in such forecasting practices is to be seen as practically insane, when measured by its effects, and, therefore, ultimately tragic in its outcomes. The appropriately correct principle to be adopted, is that mankind is provably the only known instance of a species which is intrinsically qualified with the potential for foreseeing that course of the future which foretells the probably correct choices of foresight into policy-shaping. Mankind, thus, possesses a power which is ostensibly unique to its own nature; unfortunately, few living human beings have been capable, so far, of grasping that great scientific principle which I had followed, even in the recent dates; they know that there is a terrible crisis presently, but, generally, no government has seemed to recognize the nature of the crisis publicly, still today.
The true principle of economic and related forecasting, is not to be considered as being a mere prediction of a dead-certain future state; rather, it represents the opportunity to foresee the probable consequences of a presently future choice of alternative policies for entire nations, or for mankind more widely, as now. In other words, the threat to be met as the prospective future now, or even earlier, is a matter of foreseeing choices which are yet to be presented explicitly in any presently obvious way. The worst practice of any society, is to resort to methods of statistical forecasting. In fact, the general economic doctrines of current practice, whether inside our United States, or abroad, are most fairly described as stupidity expressed as delusion.
The essence of that matter, is locatable within the realm of forecasting of those consequences which can, or could have been intelligently pre-defined in terms of comparing two or more, mutually contradictory choices of alternative futures. Most people today, especially what are usually the stubbornly incompetent statisticians, lack any competence in this matter of forecasting. The statisticians are, generally speaking, only the worst of all.
Why is that so? Try to pin-point the cause of such systemic failures of judgment among present nations generally. Why are they so stubbornly incompetent respecting issues on which the lives of most of the populations of nations presently depend?
The inherent incompetence of the methods of statistical forecasting, is to be located in the dependency, by the pretended forecaster, on a fixed, or fixed-rate scheme of future trajectories. In fact, all competent forecasting must become recognized—now urgently—as depending upon recognition of the reality, that actual human creativity is not forecastable by merely mathematical means, neither literally, nor with any significant degree of competence. All important changes in economic trends, for example, are, from a linear standpoint, discontinuous, that chiefly on account of the required standards of a truly scientific principle.
The cases of fundamental discoveries of physical principle (as by cases such as Max Planck, Albert Einstein, and the notion of the human mind presented by the collaboration of Wolfgang Köhler with Max Planck respecting the concept of the human mind) negate the misguided choice of a possibility of statistical methods of forecasting. The margin of error so indicated, is fundamental and inherent.
This distinction which I have stated here, respecting the potentials of the human mind, implicitly negates all presently conventional notions of the merely estimated ability to forecast the future. Consider some points of illustration.
There are chiefly two principal illustrations of this point: first, in the Classical methods of musical composition employed by Johann Sebastian Bach, and, secondly, such offshoots of Classical drama as Classical modes in composition of poetry and drama. As the case of Bach’s two sets of preludes and fugues illustrates the point, the method of Bach in these instances, is correlated with the result of the future of that developmental process; the Bach sets of Preludes and Fugues implicitly demonstrate the proof of principle in this matter. Wilhelm Furtwängler’s conception in respect to this same matter of the principled influence of the future, is typical of the relatively most advanced and also the most correct insights on this account.
However, the very same expression of principle, is native to the composition of both Classical poetic composition, and of Classical drama. There is no element of randomness, nor other “accident,” in these matters.
The simple demonstration of that fact which I have just reported here, is provided by the systemic wretchedness of the music of the properly infamous failures Franz Liszt and Richard Wagner: the extension of their tendency for degeneracy, grew vastly worse over the later course of the Twentieth Century, as particularly notable in the case of the 1920s’ trend of ruin in science under the reign of the Bertrand Russellites. That contrast is essentially coincident in nature to those “Romantic” trends in music and poetry leading through the process of degeneration, and away from Classical artistic composition and performance, a process which has been accelerated since the policy of accelerating rates of moral and intellectual degeneracy associated with such perversions as the 1950 decrees of the Congress for Cultural Freedom.
However, similarly, the so-called “Green” cultural policy of the trans-Atlantic nations, is a systemic echo of the same moral degeneracy expressed as the Congress for Cultural Freedom. Such trends of degeneracy are at the root of the particular case of the trend of accelerating moral and intellectual degeneracy associated with trans-Atlantic cultural trends set into an accelerating motion, downward, by the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
That is, by no means, the end of the matter at hand here.
Classical modalities in poetry, drama, and music, can not be properly separated from one another, or from a competent development process akin to truly Classical artistic composition, as, also, in physical scientific practice. Classical artistic composition and competent physical science, are essentially interdependent processes, processes whose resonance is locatable only in the general conception of the implicit universality of a human quality of mind.
Without Classical principles of drama, the stage becomes degraded into the role of a cultural sewage-system for science and poetry alike. Without Classical artistic principles, mathematics is no longer a process of scientific discovery, but degenerates into a semblance of the frauds of Rene Descartes and Isaac Newton’s worshippers. In short, the noëtic principle which is common to Classical artistic composition and creative scientific work, is left by such as them, at best, as if to rot “on the vine.” The shameful case of the sheer fraud called “Isaac Newton,” is typical, especially when contrasted to the discoveries of Johannes Kepler, Gottfried Leibniz, et al. The desperately needed connection for today, is best illustrated by the universality expressed in the standpoint of the personality and work of Nicholas of Cusa.
Take, for example, the subject-matters of Classical drama and poetry: try Shakespeare, Friedrich Schiller, and Percy Bysshe Shelley, as recommended examples, as for example, as follows.
What “brings such works to a state of being ‘alive’?” Compare this with the real element of genius in the discoveries by Johannes Kepler.6Cf. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. “Obama and the Trojan Horse!” with reference to Kepler’s notions of vicarious hypothesis, and to the related notion of metaphor, EIR, Jan. 11, 2013 [[http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2013/4002obama_trojan_horse.html]] or Lyndon LaRouche PAC. [[ahttp://larouchepac.com/node/24994]]. Did Kepler intend vicarious hypothesis to mean some sense of a domain internal to sense-perceptual objects; or, does it speak for a principle which is efficient, but not literally one of sense as perception, but only as a shadow cast as an effect? We are enabled to find a parallel for that paradox in the standard for performance of a Shakespeare drama.
We who see, and could hear, should know that the content of actually Classical drama, such as that of Shakespeare or Friedrich Schiller, was not intended to be the visible person on stage, but an hypothetical personality worn as the merely cast image of the person acting on stage—otherwise the attempt at Classical drama were merely another silly farce.
Suddenly, then, with that thought in mind, how much of that which we might intend to experience in the performance on stage, is the real “flesh-and-blood” subject performing on stage? If you feel that what you have experienced prompts the urge to call out in recognition of the known Joe Brown on stage as being the Julius Caesar performing on stage, the drama in progress is really going very badly.
Now, follow vicarious hypothesis, with a try of metaphor. Then, reconsider the significance of the metaphor as if representing a vicarious hypothesis for that real staging which seems to exist for the intended audience as if only when being performed on a stage of the imagination, rather than merely surrogate identities for the moment, belonging to the truly gifted and insightful, vicarious actors performing on stage.
Take the paradoxical imagery another step forward toward actual reality. The unseen, but efficiently existing presence, as distinct from the “stand-in” which is what is presented to the senses as the vicarious performer imagined to be actually existing on stage. Such are the demeaning tricks which the folly of sense-certainty plays on whatever, and wherever the actual human personality’s imagined personality might be securely snared.
Which way must it be? Which is real? Is it the imagination that the actor performing on stage is serving as the credible actuality, or that the costumed image performing on stage, is a hoax? Is it an image which has no true resemblance to that which could be presented to our mere senses from that reality which dwells on the real stage of great drama, that of the truly noëtic imagination of such as a real Johannes Kepler?
The escape from a systemic quality of incompetence which my argument requires as a remedy to be found on ‘stage,’ can and must be identified; but, that had not been generally feasible among even persons of leading potencies, until there had been a collapse of that authority which had been associated with the once-dominant culture represented by the outcome of Europe’s “New Dark Age.” The needed turnabout for change was typified by figures such as Jeanne d’Arc, the Great Ecumenical Council of Florence, France’s Louis XI, and the entry of European heritages into the Americas with the achievement of the great student of Nicholas of Cusa’s legacy, Christopher Columbus.
The crucially significant motive and outcome of Columbus’s great achievement, reposed not merely in the fact of the landing in the region of the Caribbean, but in the actuality of the intention which Cusa’s influence had brought to an escape from the mass-murder in Europe, by prompting such settlements as the Massachusetts Bay and similar settlements in the Americas, North America most notably. This was exactly as the great Nicholas of Cusa had intended in his role as, otherwise, the greatest figure in European science during his time, and so also among his actual followers, including the great, explicitly devoted follower of Cusa, Johannes Kepler.
Filippo Brunelleschi, for one, had been a high-ranking genius in the breakthroughs to modern science, both as a predecessor and contemporary of the greatest genius of that century, Nicholas of Cusa. What Cusa typifies for our consideration here, as in his De Docta Ignorantia, is the power of insight into domains of the real universe which are to be recognized only as beyond those meagre domains of a merely fixed quality of the powers of human sense-perception. The essential distinction to be recognized on that account, is the uniqueness of the actually human mental power which lies outside the domain of other known expressions of life as such. This distinct potency of mankind happens to coincide with the great principle of the universe which is expressed, uniquely for us today, as the power to act on the basis of the future, rather than being confined to the bestial condition of experiencing only the past and present. The image of man created in the likeness of his Creator.
I emphasize, for an essential illustration here, that the essential principle of Cusa’s De Docta Ignorantia is to be placed precisely there, in that distinction of mankind. The most convenient demonstration of that principle in modern times to date, has been the proof supplied by Johann Sebastian Bach of the actual principle of composition presented by the design of his famous two settings of his Preludes and Fugues. Hence, we must also speak of a contrary direction, down and backwards, such as the actually moral depravity of such “Romantics” as Franz Liszt and Richard Wagner, and also the cases of the even more deranged composers and performers from the Twentieth Century.
The implicit argument on this account, includes the crucial evidence embodied in the role of hearing the future in what is to be experienced as the realization of the extended future as creating the result of the present. The experimental proof, as by the greatest musical composers, is of crucial quality. Only a widespread cultivation of systemic ignorance blocks access to the essential reality which we must recognize and promote for the sake of all mankind. Fools believe, because that is their ritual. The actual evidence of a competent physical science, gives us a better precedence.
Ordinarily, commonplace opinion presumes that the present must await the virtually accidental coming of the future state of affairs. There lies the essence of the general incompetence of the conventional classrooms of respectively lower and higher gradations today.
That much said now, here, look back toward the argument of the immediately preceding chapter here.
The most customary sort of popular folly respecting this subject-matter, is rooted in an induced, literally bestial habit of reliance on strict observance of an alleged principle of sense-certainty. The simplest of the kinds of evidence to the contrary effect, is presented by the fact of a true discovery of a physical principle, which is (insofar as our present knowledge permits) a gift to the present from the mankind of the future. The principle of the Bach fugue, yields to us a demonstration of the same principle of the future source of what must emerge as presently discovered future human achievements, the which is intrinsic to the implications of Nicholas of Cusa’s De Docta Ignorantia.
Once the individual human mind has been lifted above primitive notions of the meaning of experiences, we are most forcefully persuaded to the effect, that the advance of human culture from the stone-age to physical chemistry, to use of nuclear power, to thermonuclear fusion, and the matter-antimatter principle, show us the existence of a higher order of power of existence than science had presumed earlier. This distinction of the potentiality of human powers of reason, places mankind apart from all lower forms of life. These powers, which we tend to associate only with freshly minted discoveries, have demonstrably existed as potentials of this universe earlier. Indeed, all properly defined notions of scientific and related discoveries have precisely that quality of distinctively human potentialities for the future.
The principal errors of assumption which had tended the most to confuse even most educated persons today, have reposed in the intellectually brutish opinion respecting the subject of the future. Yet, in fact, in the matter of qualitative advances in the relative energy-flux density of physical-science progress, matters are seen differently. We are properly impelled to seek out our possession of the human power to craft the future which already lies pregnant within the domain of the present.
The consequence of a refusal “to face up to” the evidence of such a challenge, leads toward the absurd presumption, that it is the mechanisms of mere sense-perception, which place absolute limits on the powers for physical-science progress. The actually greatest scientists, as since Nicholas of Cusa, have recognized the nature of the intrinsic incompetence of the believers in an absolute value of what was always merely sense-impression. “Who protests against this?” “How could we have been so duped as to believe in a fundamental authority of what is merely sense-perception?” “What must be said, when Classical poetry, song, and other great arts, have joined scientific discovery, in proving the contrary notion, efficiently, to have been the relatively supreme experimental authorities in such matters?” Mere blinded faith in sense-certainty can, therefore, then be relegated, fairly speaking, to cause worry among the monkeys.
There is no proper mystery about the sources of the general deception of today’s populations respecting the issues which I have identified here.
The widespread repression of what were otherwise the native creative power of human beings, is to be recognized as a fruit of the existence of systems, such as, for example, the ancient Roman empire, which reign over populations by means of stupefying them into a relatively submissive state of brutality. On that account, we have reached a point in the history of mankind, at which we can no longer expect mankind’s species to escape the general destruction—even extinction—of our human species, if the still-prevalent reign of the oligarchical principle of today’s “greenies” is permitted to be continued.
We are presently confronted, on precisely that account, by our rising sensibility of a threat to continued human existence, the which is now represented by some million or more of asteroids, and also some great comets, which could spell extermination of the human species as a consequence. A dependency on mere sense-perception, under such conditions, can not be justified by a sane society.
What holds most of us back, on this account, is a certain fear of the myth of merely “popular opinion.”
Among sane citizens suitably challenged on such accounts as this, the present commitment to the reduction of the planet’s human population, means, if continued, a virtually assured extinction of the human species from this planet. The accelerating rate of oncoming extinction-impulses, as even from the present “greenies” alone, is touching the perimeters of a threatened more general extinction. This suicidal quality of such a “green” impulse, is to be found in large regions of the planet this far. If it were not reversed, and that soon, an extinction-experience were becoming likely now; it is only the rate of such a catastrophe which waits to become known. Indeed, a rapidly growing portion of what pretend to be scientists gone-green, is committed to what is effectively mass-murder, whether or not they wish to participate in the oncoming flood of a global “green death.” That is already currently in accelerating progress under the impulses supplied by such means as the mass-murderous measures expressed by the characteristics of that British imperial, monetarist system which has been already shown to be working its way toward a general genocide presently.
Any decently informed experience with a retrospective view of mankind’s known history, suffices to demonstrate that there is no threat from alleged “over-population” as such, which threatens mankind. A view but a generation or two ahead, promises the feasibility of reaching out from our Moon to Mars, and other places, by means of an appropriate development of thermonuclear-fusion technologies. In the meantime, the threats of mass-killing of the populations of the respective nations are actually prompted chiefly by the increasingly active promotion of the “green genocide” itself.
This is not exactly a matter of recent news in this matter. Mankind. within the span of merely several millions of years (or less) of generations of mankind, has increased the energy-flux density of the power of man to exist and prosper. Most of the delay in progress along those lines has been the product of the role of the oligarchical tyrannies which have been known since the Homeric account of the mass-murder of the population of Troy, and most probably much earlier.
On the other side of the limitations in view, we must include the fact that the Sun is to be expected to destroy itself within a billion years, or two. Human progress in science should be enabled to meet such a challenge, if we insist on such a distant perspective (and its implications along the way). Mankind does have a promising destiny within this universe, provided we create the progress. However, that happy thought depends upon eradicating the monstrously deadly threat of extinction, already beginning now. Such a mandate as that, is already located in the evidence of the development of the creative (e.g., “noëtic”) powers of the human mind, the human mind which stands outside the bounds inhering in the animal kingdom.
The clearly evident likelihood of a relatively early extinction of the human species, lies entirely within our willful toleration of the degenerative tendencies inhering in the tradition of the oligarchical principle which has ranged, typically, from the Roman empire through the currently mass-murderous, extinction-inclined characteristics of the British empire and its Saudi companion which have been exhibited in their behavior in the original “9-11” crimes of September 2001, and the echo of that shown by President Barack Obama and his Saudi-linked accomplices in 2012.
This situation demands a counter-paradigm of global trends in human cultures, a true launching of new leaps in fundamental expressions of scientific progress set into motion by the true patriots of the human species today.
There is now more to be said on this account.
In the opening chapter of this report, I had emphasized what might be considered as the “secret” principles of an actually modern, physical science. That means, in practice, leaving the department of blind faith in sense-perception as such.
Case in point:
Sense-perception as a practice of human individuals, is a childish sort of delusion. Since we humans, especially those from a modern sort of leading physical-science progress, should have reached the stage of intellectual development at which they had departed from blind faith in sense-perception as such, why should really intelligent workers in the fields of science continue to believe that sense-perception provides, in and of itself, actually direct insight into the ruling principles of the universe generally? Is it merely sense-perception which defines, and reigns over that universe in which many poorly informed, very credulous folk still believe: that the universe is run by the rules attributed to mere human sense-perception? What has the galaxy to testify about such matters as that? Sense-perception is undoubtedly useful for monkeys, but are we merely monkeys?
We represent actually noëtic capabilities which no species of mere beast replicates. Therefore, no variety of human being should have ever believed that mankind’s species is delimited by the same rules as monkeys, or, in the alternative, those subjected to the brutish effects inherent in slavery, or to the particular kind of bestiality expressed by a brutish oligarchy such as that which mass-murdered Troy, or the victims of the Roman imperial arena. Since we know, that the human species is naturally possessed of synthetic qualities of specifically noëtic creative powers, as no mere animal has, why should mankind play according to the animal rules imposed on slaves, or by otherwise brutish types?
Return to the subject of our first chapter here: the secret of the human mind. The specific distinction of the human species from all others presently known to us, is the ability to experience the future, that precisely as Johann Sebastian Bach set the pace for all truly modern artistic composition, as the method to express the knowable future, as Bach does that, repeatedly, in his Preludes and Fugues. That is the same specifically human potentiality which underlies all human discoveries of universal physical principles, and my own rather unique specific, if circumscribed talent of foreseeing the future of an economy even, sometimes, years in advance, as I had done at times. We who act so are not merely foreseeing the future; we are also equipped to create it. Therefore, we speak of a knowable future, a habit which is the essence of all human creativity, and our principled distinction from beasts, and also from those who insist on behaving as if they were merely beasts.
Such are the secrets now available to the willing human mind.