This is a pre-release document

A Stricter Editorial Policy:


By Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

January 3, 2013

The theme of yesterday’s LPAC Weekly Report broadcast, was on the subject of Albert Einstein (and also Max Planck). What turned out to be the inclusive point of discussion, in the course of the broadcast, was the matter of the higher authority in science, of moral principles over conventional standards of written and spoken speech per se. The relevant point emerged as the distinction between text and moral principles in defining the meaning of truth, rather than merely literal standards, for both science and in art.

Speaking in broad terms, the issue is typified as the difference typified by the concurrence of such as Einstein and Planck against the decadence introduced to physical science by those who fell into the moral degeneracy of those who went over to the standard of “moral indifference” which both the Nineteenth-century romantics and the Twentieth-century degenerates of the Bertrand Russell standard had established.

What came to be the predominant feature of a three-way discussion, as the matter of truth, instead of mere literacy in either mathematics or speech? The best known terms in which actually cheating forms of “literacy” are substituted for truthfulness, is the arrogance of a cheating variety of a notion of what is merely a fraudulent influence introduced under notions akin to “editorial licence.”

What should be recognized as being “the real issue” in such instances, is one which lies within a notion of “customary style” premised on the alleged authority of representing something which is “protected” as being within the bounds of “acceptable” subjects, and the matter of the acceptability of the “styles” with which they are presented. Thus, for example, Beethoven and Liszt are considered, mistakenly, as differing, but categorically under the same title as being “music,” even “Classical music.” The same quality of categorical indiscretions, spilled over into the category of what is nominally “physical science,” but is, absolutely on the contrary, the standard buncombe of the intrinsically silly, professed worshipers of Isaac Newton, or of something comparable ontologically.

In respect to the modern science treated in yesterday’s discussion, the crucial fact of the discussion turned out to be the beacon of truth, in Classical art and a morality of science, which are shared, that in a most essential way, among the circles of Max Planck and Albert Einstein: their morality respecting Classical artistic composition and their physical science bring forth in practice, the standards of truth on which actual morality expressed in the name of science must be upheld as the very foundations of any competent notion of physical science.

Competent science is that which is consistent with the concurrence of morality in science with the topical features of that edition of the Weekly Report.

The circumstances surrounding yesterday’s Weekly Report happen to coincide in a specially emphatic way with what is to be presented as the subject-matter of my currently featured EIR publication, Obama and the Trojan Horse. The following summary report should be sufficient comment on that matter here; the subject-matter there is a currently overdue change in those principles of society which are now the current requisites of mankind’s chances to survive the currently rising category of concerns associated with a defense of the continued existence of mankind which depends on certain crucially important modifications in the standards of both national economies and the role of progressive developments in respect to the role of Mars in the defense of the human population on Earth from the threats from asteroids and still more challenging aspects on the frontiers of mankind’s continuing existence.

To summarize the crucial point in these matters, it should be understood, that the defense of Earth against both Asteroids and the related, foolish policies of President Barack Obama, require us to muster a leap upward in our commitments to the science-driven productive powers of labor, that done as rapidly as we might have mustered the intentions of the United States under the Presidency of John F. Kennedy. Those challenges are what is reflected in both the fact and style which are required for the great challenge to humanity which I have defined, for myself, as the great challenge for mankind now before us.

New challenges demand qualitatively transformed methods and directions.