Updated, 12:05pm est, 2/7/13.

Brain, or Mind?:


By Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

February 6, 2013

It will be important for you, as the reader, to keep in mind, that what I shall have stated in my prefatory remarks here, goes toward certain deep-rooted physical principles. These are principles which have a presently increasing relevance for the continued existence of mankind generally. I shall show this, after first, presenting what we shall have considered in these somewhat extended, prefatory remarks.

There are some subject-matters which belong to the category of those opinions which are not only wrong, but which do not go away easily. For example, should you say, as many do, that no one actually knows what tomorrow’s future might bring, or fail to bring? Yet, on the contrary, some people (if only a relatively few) actually either do, or could know the future as I have done, or could clearly recognize important features of what might be known as intimations of future prospects.

These thoughts should point your attention toward those crucial issues which we will consider in the later sections of this present report.

Ask, for example, such questions as: what is the actually crucial distinction of the mere human brain as such, from the human mind, as in those actually living, noëtic processes which actually do illustrate the successful functioning of what we should be obliged to recognize as the actually creative powers expressed as a human mind’s insight into the future? That typifies one among the tougher questions to be considered by us within this report as a whole. That which, for example, is expressed as the potential ability represented by the living human mind’s experience of an actually forecastable, future option for some, or all of mankind? There is an answer to that question.

Could the same not be said of crucial developments of our lives within the setting of the crisis of today?

Therefore, let us now restate a very significant argument which I had presented a relatively short time ago. Consider an actual case which might be taken either from even centuries back, or, the more modest challenge, such as one which had I had confronted on a day, then more than sixty years back, back to the moment of the launching of my formal introduction to a secondary-school course in what was named then as “Plane Geometry.”

A Student’s Early Experience

On that occasion to which I have just referred, I had chanced to be the first among the students to respond to the teacher’s invitation to the effect, that someone among the students might wish to identify the meaning of the subject of “Plane Geometry,” the subject to which we were being introduced on that day. On reflection, I had, most probably, been the only member of that class’s student body who, for certain special reasons, had already acquired some relatively modest, but nonetheless actually scientific knowledge in that subject-area.1It became obvious, immediately, that was exactly the reaction.

I had then proffered, very briefly, what I already knew then to be an essential principle, a principle of what I would later come, much later, to recognize by the name of “a physical geometry.”

So, during the course of my brief response to the teacher’s invitation, I saw that her once brightly teacher-like smile was fading. There was a hushed moment which carried a relatively memorable effect. My brief reply had described a principle of net strength expressed in the use of some relevant structural beams, a subject-matter which had fascinated me on the several occasions when I had visited a greater Boston, Massachusetts’ Navy Yard.

What I had identified then, summarily, for the geometry class, was a quality of an enhanced relative strength that could only be achieved by actually correct measures for assessing the role of supporting beams within the framework of elevated, relatively high-rise constructions. My brief remarks had referred to the ironically crucial significance of the apparent holes, or their practical likeness, in certain already practiced designs for supporting beams.

During that minute or so, during which I had spoken to the class of that matter of a design for strength of beams, the members of the class had appeared, to me, as simmering with evident resentments. Later, after the class, some of them had made that show of indignation clear. Despite that hostile reaction, I had remained confident that I had been accurate in what I had said. Later knowledge would demonstrate the fact more efficiently. For the moment, under those circumstances, I had been content to finish my brief remarks without need of any additional comment from me on that occasion. It was, in itself, already my sufficiently memorable classroom experience for that day.

After that class’s session had broken for that day, the class’s habitual “wise guys” had made reference to something of which, this time, I had no understanding at all: the significance of what this prankish classmate asserted, was Napoleon’s discovery of “the French safe.” Some classmates had giggled; I had no understanding of the cause for that laughter, until a time then yet to come.

Nonetheless, the resentment which had been still focused against me, which persisted for more than a decade later, had been expressed by some of those who had been my fellow-students, back then, in that first day’s class session. Their anger had been focused on the subject of my reference to the content of the design of the supporting beam. It was, manifestly, a kind of particular reference which would continue to resonate intermittently, for some former classmates, over a span of more than a decade to come.

There was nothing which should have been considered as still actually surprising in such a matter as what I had already identified back then, excepting the fact that I had acquired some notable degree of added competence in the specific matter of what I had reported in my remarks to that class. The fact remains, that I had stated my point succinctly, and correctly, and, for me, that had already long been sufficient for the moment.

In that particular case, the simple fact of the matter had been, that what I had briefly stated to the teacher and her class during my remarks, represented a relevant principle which I had already come to know from my recurring visits to some high-rise construction which I had observed in process at that same location. My attention had been focused on some continuing construction-in-progress within the premises of what was known to me then as that “Boston Navy Yard.” That had been a subject of growing fascination for me on those repeated occasions.

Nonetheless, when my experience with the relevant evidence from the Navy Yard is taken into account, the effect of my brief remarks before the front of that geometry class, were such, that, even as I sensed myself in the act of speaking, I was beginning to think cautiously about my further discussion on that subject in the presence of either the students or the teacher. I had not the slightest doubt about the competence of what I had said; but, others clearly had an opposing opinion, as was to be seen, in a few cases, even still either a decade or more later.

All of the content of which I had briefly spoken during my remarks to that class, had transpired early within the bounds of a memorable less-than-an-hour of that first day’s class in what was named Plane Geometry. Even while speaking quite briefly; I had decided, for myself, by the time of the close of my briefly stated point, that, for that occasion, I would stick to the set of the barest facts respecting what I already knew to be true; but I had proffered no more than that for the remainder of the day’s class-session.

To sum up that incident itself: Once I had begun to speak, I had quickly sensed that what I was presenting (briefly), was not going down very well with what passed for my audience of the moment. I took into account the fact that the professional teacher on the spot was otherwise a very well-meaning, dear friend of my mother; I choose what was, for me, then, the appropriate course of my allowable reactions.

Thus, in fact, I had been precisely correct (from this present day’s reference-point), in what I had actually said to that class, back then. What I had actually known, corresponded to a repeated fact of my experience. This had been prompted by several, repeated, categorically adolescent experiences in observing certain constructions-in-progress at the Navy Yard; that had been what I had continued to be certain during that span of time. Consequently, I had known that the view which the other members in my class were already preparing themselves to choose to believe, was their own all-too-readiness to swallow a mere popular error, rather than the counterposed factors to be considered in light of what I had presented as the subject at hand . Such patterns as those I find to be still commonplaces.

Thenceforth, for me, since that day, as in that the class, and onward, I had since rightly known that the kind of opinion what I had encountered in that and similar cases, had been a stubbornly mistaken, if popular, view; what I had encountered, had been an error, a misjudgment expressed in a form which most of them would probably continue to believe into the future; whereas, I continued my own, opposite view of the matter, a view, which, for me, was, in fact, absolutely correct as far as my claims went on that occasion.

The popular reaction to those few remarks of mine, haunted me for the remainder of my years of attendance at that high school. It had also haunted at least some from among the faculty there, perhaps as much as the students, during the remainder of my attendance at that school. It was the habit of most of them at that time, in particular, to believe, usually, in only what the relevant authorities were known to promote, or, at least, condone. “Condone” would be the rightly precise term for that behavior.

The reaction I had confronted, had been, chiefly, only typical.

Some years after that classroom incident, I would come to know that the conventional, so-called original teaching of what I would soon come to recognize as “Euclidean geometry,” remained, for my opinion, a thoroughly wrong-headed mistake, one against which I would continue to wrestle again, and again, into later times, up into the beginng of the 1960s, a latter time when Bernhard Riemann’s stunning habilitation dissertation made the underlying, relevant issue of principle both much clearer, and that in an enduring way. I remained, ever since, in effect. in a virtual state of guerilla warfare against philosophical reductionism, that from no later than the time of the referenced incident in that class.

What Was The Real Issue?

Therefore, that much said, why should I have had to report that same types of past issues here and now?

If some readers might still imagine that I had been in error in this incident’s treatment of the subject of geometry, they are greatly mistaken. Similarly, in what I had reported to that class: I was not “being a smart-aleck,” in any respect. I had spoken with the implicit and justified confidence that my fellow-students should have been pleased to have shared my report on what was, for them, the relative knowledge to be gained from my relevant, relatively unique sources of my occasional Navy Yard experiences.

After all, my subject had been an available, relatively unique source of their own future competence. More important, that error which that class had adopted, continued to serve as the errant prejudice which would continue to misinform those and similar such students late into their own lives, even as some otherwise leading scientists had done.

It is important to emphasize, that my first mistake in dealing with such issues, if “issues” were the proper choice of term, had been my overestimating of the personal integrity among some of the members of the school’s class (and some among the faculty, too). The lack of personal integrity among some of them should have never continued to surprise me, although it did; only practical experience had taught me better in time.

Ironically, I had continued to be disappointed by that behavior for as long as I continued to think of myself as a student; the persisting contact with the proverbial classroom chatter was distracting; later, when I shifted toward putting the general responsibility on myself as a professional, concerns for the trustworthiness of others’ behavior had concerned me very much less. It was then, when “me” meant a relatively independent “me,” who would I be able to trust? That experience then, became a lesson which had served me well in later times—a lesson to be learned similarly by many others from the experience of the present days.

The more important fact to be considered in respect to the later outcome of that case which I have just described, had been the question: how were it possible that what had been, a certifiable novice (“me”) had known something which a qualified teacher of “Plane Geometry”should have been pleased to hear. From my present vantage-point of reviewing that experience, it was neither the teacher, nor the institution as such, which needs to be blamed for such error of some past faculty members and students alike. Or, similarly, my question can be posed as: how was it possible that a systemic quality of blind prejudice should have prevailed over concern for sharing a relevant bit of truth, as such experience had often happened during my experience of the full span of my life this far? Why had the popular desire to be accepted, virtually at all costs, included the willingness to lose contact with the truth, persistently, so stubbornly, even still in proverbial high places today?

In respect to the relatively deeper aspects of the particular matter of the role of Euclid as such, the point in fact was that it was to insist on physical-effect evidence contrary to what is that passes for conventional notions of sense-perception, is that which should be properly emphasized . That was, and remains the prevalent issue today: that while the complexity of the broader development of an Euclidean argument for geometry had not been limited to a “mere” Plane Geometry; a Euclidean (or Aristotelean) world-outlook has never been actually to be relied upon for what are to be honestly considered as representing physical principles.

The commonplace failure of such sources as those still prevalent today, has lain in a reliance on a merely reductionist form of a-prioristic mathematics, or other merely malicious gossip as such, rather than any semblance of actually physical principles.2The subject of two contrasted notions of physical principle, is a part of what is to be clarified within the body of this report. Were there actual principles involved? Not actual principles as such. The priority was not on truth, but, “only being accepted.”

The clue to the solution of what some might still consider, mistakenly, as the proper choice of the point of that case, is the dead-certain reality, that all of my critics on that specific issue, then as now, have still been, at their best, simply wrong, and that for reason of the very same intellectual cowardice to which I have pinpointed just now.3For purposes of reference, my trust in matters of the method of scientific principle, include, prominently, Nicholas of Cusa, his follower, Johannes Kepler, Gottfried Leibniz, and, later, Bernhard Riemann, Max Planck, and Albert Einstein. The source of their error was that they had trusted, even if unwittingly, what they did not actually know, but merely trusted what they had been warned to believe. The fault which they had accepted, then, could now“happen” simply because others had similarly trusted in the same foolishness shared, as between students and their teachers as their peers. They had lost contact with their conscience, for the sake of what they had been preconditioned to believe. Essentially, there have been changes in such patterns over the course of passing decades; but, while the trait, as a trait, has changed a bit in substance and form, but rarely in principle, even still today. It has only become, in general, much worse.

The Case of Philo

Take as an example of this ostensibly age-old problem, a contemporary and associate of the original set of Christian Apostles, Philo of Alexandria. Philo had already exposed the essentially vicious root of Euclid’s fraud againsta physical geometry. Whether a given, fraudulent scheme is impressive, or simplistic, means nothing as much as that it is what was placed in circulation as being, in fact, the product of a hoax. That was what had been wrong about “Plane geometry” then, as in comparable cases still today. There had been no actual physical principle involved in Euclid’s system of a-priori presumption, only arbitrary, a-priorist rules. The still-lingering effect of such presumptions then, has never really “gone away.”4I would suggest interested persons’ attention to the detailed argument delivered in such matters, respecting Euclid, by Philo of Alexandria. It is the patterns found in such matters, which is crucial.

Therefore, whatever might have been estimated for me, at any age, as my actual, relative skills in addressing the subject of “Plane Geometry,” I had actually known, as at the time of the beginning of that geometry class, that, considering the stubbornly systemic blunders made by the participants in that now long-ago classroom, the outcome would probably have still remained as being still wrong to the very end, as it has usually been, in fact, to the present day.

What had been most important about what many from decades past had frankly expressed, is that they had regarded my “contrary opinion”as having been just that. I had been saddened by the thought that the members of students from that now long-ago class had reacted so. However, they had wished to become “accepted, above all,” whether in mating or the name of physical science, and, thus, had chosen to believe in whatever passed for the relevant form of what they had presumed to have been a faddist’s search for a cloak of current authority.

Such notions of authority, whether in classroom, or among higher ranking authorities, were, for them, as if a matter of their own trust, not in reason, but in the presumed authority of what was, for them, the authority of what intended to be considered as the authority of relative “popular opinion,” That opinion was usually premised on the presumed simple authority of what they had been usually conditioned to believe. That came as if under the authority of what they believed to be what their masters had taught them to believe. That had often been either real temptations, or imagined threats. It had been the wish to believe in whatever options the victims had been successfully conditioned to obey: the commitments both to submit, and, usually, to do it quickly.

That experience from now many decades ago, sets forth an example in sophistry, one of exactly what remains as the greatest source of danger to the continued existence of our own United States, for example, still to the present time. I had often wished that the credulous believers of that time, could have freed themself from what were merely conditioned beliefs. Perhaps I had hoped then—I do not recall that emotion itself precisely—that a later generation might do better. It seldom worked out that way. Ask, therefore,“Popular opinion, anyone?”

That much said thus far, there are, nonetheless, much deeper, and more urgent subject-matters than what I have described, this far, matters which I might have chosen to include above: those were matters which must be not merely presented, but also understood correctly in their own right in their proper time. The remaining topics are my subject in this report. Real knowledge which had been my goal from the outset, is a matter of knowing what it is that most of a society must know, but did do not actually know, or, more emphatically, did not wish to know, and is, therefore, often, the most important among the matters to be considered.

The issues which I have identified here this far, however ancient and foolish the belief in those issues might continue to be, are the stuff of a popular folly which is sufficient to lead entire cultures, even clusters of cultures, toward their choice of disasters—or, the disasters choose them.

The significance of what I have now reported as a preliminary matter here, goes, for our purposes here, only this far. It has reflected, in what I have written in this prologue,, chiefly, an experience from my own distant past, an experience which had probably been the best choice of background for now taking up the crucial, far more urgent , new topics, which are needed to provide the foundations for insight to the contemporary state of affairs to which I turn your attention now.


For no later than since 1954, I had become, in fact of practice, a demonstrated expert respecting those specific principles of forecasting which can be defined in terms of the notion of a physical, as opposed to a monetarist economy. My practical demonstration of such a skill, was first presented for practice with any notable significance for its meaning. in what had become my work, as what was then defined as, nominally, a “management consultant.” My first principled achievement in such professional skills, first received significant attention as a uniquely successful, forecast warning of a highly probable, deep economic physical recession, a recession which I had forecast, in Summer 1956, to erupt during late February/early March 1957, and lingered until the Presidency of John F. Kennedy. The specific center of what had been a 1950s “crash” of such an impact would be, and was in fact, had been a matter of the Wall Street-driven, major (national) economic policy-failures of the U.S. automobile industry. These were failures rooted in economic models based on the “virtually sexual desires” of the New York City garment industry. My forecast on that account, had been unique, both in itself, and in respect to its subsequent effects.

In that case, and not really surprisingly, the automotive market’s crash had been chiefly of its own making, which is why my success in forecasting of the crisis-point was made so readily by me. The breakdown of that industry’s marketing could not have been concealed, had the auto manufacturers not gone to such extreme measures in their efforts to hide a collapse which I, for one, had known from my own investigations more than two years year earlier than 1957. The relevant crucial blunder of the auto marketing, had been implicitly “sexual,” like the selection of a prostitute chosen to serve passions of the moment. I had openly publicized my warning of a general economic crisis almost six months before the actual crash had struck, but I had privately identified the oncoming effects from my studies of this matter about two years earlier.

What was particularly revealing in that case, was the folly which I had encountered, even among my own associates, back then, in their efforts to, in effect, act to “cover over” my firm, mid-1956 warnings of the oncoming general crash, a folly which had been maintained out of a credulous hope for the “sexual-like kick-back” which a silly, essentially anglophile Wall Street could anticipate as a harvest of looting gleanded from the troubles of both the auto industry and related types of fantasy-driven economic interests.”

Wall Street, as usual, even at that relatively early stage of past trans-Atlantic sorts of monetarist calamities, notably those which rose to power under the traitor Aaron Burr’s puppet Andrew Jackson, had always preferred to enjoy a perhaps more carefully disguised, and even implicitly treasonous looting of its own putative clients’ investments. For those professional predators, it is seen by them to be more profitable to take the gains of looting its clients, than accept the lesser rewards from defending the interests of their industrial or related clients. Indeed, under the cabal of British agents Aaron Burr, Andrew Jackson, and Martin van Buren, the United States fell prey to a New York City-centered and Boston gathering of British financial masters over the U.S. economy, a trend then which has remained a tradition of the coming and going of treasonous schemes since that time, to the present date.

My own, later, more polished form of my original forecasting skill had been expressed with greater force in my forecast launched in early 1968, when I had forewarned against the effect that a general breakdown of the U.S. economy’s then present policies must be expected as a major “Indo-China War” crisis between the very late 1960s and beyond the beginning of the Summer 1971 U.S. financial crisis. Since that date, there has never been an actually net physical-economic recovery from the effects of that 1971 crisis of the trans-Atlantic system. In the several early years of my consulting practice, I had yet to recognize the full enormity of the interwoven frauds of Wall Street and the London market, until then..

The interval between the two severe physical-economic recessions of during the 1957-1971 interval, and later, had been an interval filled out in part, by the interval of the recovery enjoyed during the interim defined essentially by the electoral campaign of President John F. Kennedy. The U.S. economy has never experienced an actually net advance in its physical economy since the “Nixon crisis” of 1971.5The two Kennedy assassinations of the 1960s, had also been an interval of particular economic disasters for our United States. 1967 had seen the beginning of an U.S.A. economic decline driven, in significant degree, by the U.S. war in Indo-China, but January 1968 expressed a leading factor in the political disaster known as “the 68ers.” The beginning of the shut-down of large chunks of the Massachusetts aspect of the space program, must be recognized as a signal part of the pattern leading into the time of the assassination of Robert Kennedy, which, in turn, brought on the Nixon administration and its consequences. The subsequent defeat of the SDI program, turned out to have been the plunge of the U.S. economy into the the present Obama administration now onrushing, toward its disastrous end. The fluctuations in the case for the Americas generally, and also for Europe generally, has been a reflection of the similar trend-lines in physical economy. The situation of both western and central Europe, has been defined in roughly comparable trend-lines. The entire trans-Atlantic-centered region defines a comparable, if only marginally different set of cases.

By any competent standard, the hyper-inflationary trends set since 2007 for the same trans-Atlantic region, have left behind a quality of successive pulsations threatening an ultimate general breakdown-crisis, one resembling “since the Fall of the Berlin Wall.” Matters which had been decided against Germany and its Chancellor, soon succumbed to a London-run operation of London-Paris strategic thuggery which then successfully ruined the great opportunity which that moment of “The Berlin Wall” could have otherwise supplied.

The defeat of Germany’s attempted restoration to national sovereignty, defined what has been, since, an essentially the trend of a hyper-inflationary hoax-economy which is now in an accelerating fall into a nearby general breakdown-crisis, that of the region eastward from the west coast of the Americas to the leading nations now populating the Pacific/Indian Ocean rims.6The cause of the subsequent decline of the Germany economy itself, as also the other members of what was to become the “Euro,” was a Euro” itself, which turned continental western and central mainland Europe into an ultimately virtual “lost cause.” Why should we not see matters in those terms which I have just outlined: was the British empire not still the British empire?

After The Murder of Herrhausen

The package composed of chiefly the incumbent governments of the British empire, the Socialist Party leadership of France, and the support of U.S. President George H.W. Bush, turned the collapse of the Soviet Union into the surging drive into the virtual enslaving of continental western and central, Europe, all as an included “accomplishment” brought about through the assassination of Germany’s head of Deutsche Bank, and close collaborator of Alfred Herrhausen, a very important associate of Germany’s Chancellor Helmut Kohl. The assassination of Herrhausen led to Germany’s capitulation to a sense of an inevitable defeat by the combined pressures of the Presidents of France, the U.S.A., and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, thus actually destroying the sovereignty of each of the nations of the western and central continental Europe, and thus bringing on the so-called “Euro” nightmare of today.

So, by such means as that, the economy of the entire planet is now defined as a whole, by the depressive weight of the presently ongrowing, almost terminal collapse within the reach of what is fairly estimated as the trans-Atlantic world.

Those specifications given, we may now turn our attention to the issues which have been lurking behind the subject-matter which I had now emphasized here, up to this point.

The underlying subject which must be emphasized now, if civilization is to be rescued, is the actually ontological principle of a voluntary, human, determination of the required effects, effects such as the contrasted choices between either the qualitative improvement of physical productivity, or what actually became the presently accelerating deterioration of the productive powers of the human species, as the latter should have been representable by a human science-driven increase of our species’ creative powers as such. The British Queen’s current campaign for the rapid reduction of our planet’s human population, from a presently estimated range of seven billions living human beings, toward a currently, genocidal quality of a rapid plunge into an approximately one billion. That marks the trend currently in progress, as by the intentions of the actually clinically and morally mass-insanity of the so-called “Green” movement, including that threat to the planet overall, at this time.

In the meantime, the world has entered the proximity of the pending threat of a launched practice which is now bringing the entire planet to the brink of the now already threatened launching of a general thermonuclear war, from which, if it is not prevented, a world which no nation could be ever assuredly expected to return to an actual state of commitment to the interests of humanity as such.

To speak as if “in other words:” we must prepare, thus, the ability of our human species, not only to choose to evolve, willfully, into a virtually higher order of living species in its terms of practice; but, to employ that practice not only as the means for a degree of willful self-creation by man which generates an ever higher order in the intentional physical-evolutionary advances for supplying the continuing basis for our species’ implicitly foreknowable future; but, this measure is required both for the intent to generate a qualitatively higher order of the noëtic potential of our species, per-capita, and, to bring about measurably qualitatively upward leaps in the expressed potential of human existence. That intention could be restated as the fact, that mankind is the only species which could willfully predetermine the quality of its own species’ future existence.

Those considerations compel our attention to a treatment of the controversies which have been, heretofore, customarily arrayed as concerning the issues of what might be claimed to be efficiently willful expressions of true creativity. I mean creativity as it may be defined for this purpose, as in the course of the attempt to provide the generation of the needed foundations for truly universal, categorical types of advances in relevant physical discoveries and their productive outputs. The present system of western Europe has come to the verge of its own willful tendency toward the achievement of its own hyper-inflationary extinction.

Behind what I have presented here up to this point, there are two lurking, principled sorts of relevant leading qualities of the natural distinctions separating mankind from the inferior classes of living species. The least reliable of the two cases, is that which can be represented by belief in what one has been already received as the instruction supplied as merely taught opinion, meaning a prevalent, commitment to a body of monetarist opinion.

Without a turn of both Europe and the U.S.A. to a physical-economic credit system, rather than the presently hegemonic notion of monetarist systems, there exists no currently existing prospect for anything but, either thermonuclear holocaust, or a generally accelerating rate of a chain-reaction form of economic collapse among the populations of the nations.

Otherwise, the urgently needed choice of replacement for heretofore, recently taught opinion throughout the post-World War II world, is a sense of foreknowledge of what any of us may be about to experience as a benefit based, uniquely, as among the new approaches to improving the concept of a principled determination of physical-economic motives for discovery, that as being in contrast to what the legendary “great majority” had been foolishly induced to believe, as that latter effect is typified by what have been merely fantasy-driven, past opinions respecting the available evidence, up to the present time.

Is A Recovery Now Possible?

What, then, is the systemic significance of that difference? The fair response should be, that, therefore, we must pass over into the subject of a fresh and hopeful view of an actually contemporary physical-economic history: a view which causes to-morrow to actually exist before to-morrow itself had collapsed, even been destroyed? That so roughly outlined, then expresses the properly stated, central concern for the hope of a currently expectable future of mankind as such.

True human knowledge, as distinct from that of such as the customary beasts, is to be found out in a unique way: a unique way to be found out by means of what is truly a uniquely human ability: the ability to employ what is a distinctly human power of insight into an actual foreseeing, and thus the creating of the actual future. That latter, implicitly future source of such a current knowledge of a truth, is to be discovered as lodged within the ability to forecast important aspects of an increasingly energy-dense pre-shaping of mankind’s actual future, if and when that choice of future is undertaken by appropriate means.

The remedy for these amassed ills which are presently yawning to swallow up humanity, must now become a quickly installed mission, with the presently doomed financial systems both scuttled and also superseded by a shift away from an array of the presently dominant monetarist systems, for a re-entry into an economy premised on a virtually soaring physical-economic productivity. Otherwise, the world as we have known it, were pretty much dead, at the best option.

That choice means, for example, the urgently required inclusion of products from the domain of the efficiently revolutionary principles of physical and artistic composition: within the domain of what is to be learned explicitly from the experience of knowing the actual future physical-economic options available to mankind. The problem is, up to the present time in a history known since about the time of the assassinations of U.S. President John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert, such that only a relatively tiny fraction of the U.S. population (for example) has gained such an urgently needed quality of insight, an insight to be currently expressed in a truly practical form.

Truly artistic initiatives, rather than the sillyness of so-called “practical” considerations,” are the essential basis for the truly durable survival of civilization—as present experience of the trans-Atlantic world has proven this fact with such pain, since the cultural downturns from Classical artistic principles, and the downturn from truly fundamental advances in the increased energy-flux density in application of physical principles.

Vicarious Hypothesis

For the purpose of illustrating of that specific kind of case, consider the exemplary case of the discovery of the great principle of astronomy made, uniquely, by Johannes Kepler, that is as exemplified as the true meaning of his use of the term, vicarious hypothesis.7The most essential elements of the method underlying this present report, are catalogued (in effect) in my The Subject of Sense-Uncertainty, January 10, 2013. e,g,, Kepler’s “vicarious hypothesis.”

That distinction is, in fact, what must be recognized as a persisting experience of the practice of a presently rare, but nonetheless truthful quality of foreknowledge, It is a quality of what comes upon the stage of the individual mind as if it were a preconscious insight into the future. By foreknowledge of the future, we must intend that as it has been often expressed heretofore, as in the greatest among the original artistic compositions expressed in the form of of works of poetry, or only of truly Classical expressions of that principle of metaphor which is known by the substance of, collectively, the Classical modalities expressed in terms of what is known as only the Classical music, drama, visual arts generally, and, above all else, the means by which both science and history now combine to present the options for the potential human advantage: it can not permit a mere repetition of experiences from the past as such: it must learn “to remember” the actual future.

Metaphor, when properly fused with Kepler’s rarely understood conception of the true meaning which must be supplied to the term vicarious hypothesis, represents a combination to be recognized as the commonly related expressions of the same universal quality of a relevant definition of a natural ontology. This definition supersedes those commonplace, merely so-called “physical” principles which are defined in terms of the experiences of mere sense-perception. When properly combined, my just-stated as required qualities, each supersede the misconception called “sense-certainty,” absolutely. This reverses what had become the effort to appear to adduce a kind of an inherent order, a quest which was mistakenly attributed to universal physical principles associated with the notion of a linear projection of what were merely the linearly extended present. So, that erroneously chosen “model” presumes that the notion of universal principles is confined by an apriori, linear extension of simple sense-perception as such.

Nicholas of Cusa Creates Modern Science

For example, take the cases of such as Nicholas of Cusa, and of the greatest of modern scientific minds among his followers, This includes followers, including, most notably, a Johannes Kepler or a Gottfried Leibniz, or among a presently relatively rare, most accomplished, Late-Nineteenth-Century Classical scientific minds, including such as Bernhard Riemann, and such prominent, originally pre-World War I models as Max Planck, and Albert Einstein.

As for the substance of physical principles, so it is for all true principles of the human mind, as for all great Classical artistic composition: that it is the noëtic potency of the human genius, alone, which inhabits the shaping of the future progress in the self-development of the human mind. That, and never what might be termed “deduction,” is the true distinction of a truly human foresight from that of what is otherwise the mere sensing which dominates the regime imposed, as if common to be shared among the beasts and serfs. The proper distinction lies absolutely beyond, and above the mere experience of sense-perception as such.

However, it is also true, that among some human individuals, there are those who are sometimes consistently human in their quality, but many others, who, often behave under the influences of so-called “practical” motivations which are not nuch far-distant from those among beasts.

Hopefully, in some more widespread, early development of our actual future, our people will be given the potential of an ever-more-frequent, and also more generally, toward a more consistent influence of the nobler, truly human qualities, which will appear as a thoroughly distinct devotion to mankind’s willful, actual natural, and truly future benefit through science-driven progress effected through the means of devotion to higher relative “energy-flux density.” It is for reason of set-backs to applied energy-flux density, that the U.S.A. and western Europe (in particular) have be caught in a ride toward doom.

If most among us were to continue to evade that obligation, the powers for evil which have become insistently more threatening during recent decades, and which now threaten a self-inflicted destruction of our human species. It is the power represented by the practice of an otherwise traditional destructiveness built into much among our population’s current disposition, a tremd which now threatens the immediate self-destruction of our human species.

For example, as in the case of the British empire, the award of access to much greater destructive powers—e.g., thermonuclear powers, is now the only net advantage being sought between those general effects of a set of predatory beasts bringing extinction upon themselves, all which is caught within the grasp of the merely self-adopted authorities of such an agency as the British empire of today, as compared to those subjected to fill out the roles customarily assigned to slaves and serfs.

Only a superior rule of foresight into the principles of truly Classical composition will supply actual remedies for this state of affairs. We urgently require the adoption of those principles which are a commitment, primarily for the secured future of mankind, such as that implicitly attributable to the commitments of exemplars such a Riemann, Planck, and Einstein, could now assure the assured survival of our human species. There are many good people, but goodness without command of the powers to create the increased physical means of humanity’s continued existence, the sweetest of temperaments could not defend humanity as such.

The notion of what might be identified as actually human reason, confronts us with two distinct kinds of leading options. The one, is that of what may be fairly classified as intrinsically non-human options, those of the so-called “beasts,” in particular. The contrasting state, in respect of matters of universal principles otherwise, is that of the human species. Only the human species has shown us a willful ability of any known species to increase its willful powers in and over the realm of existences within mankind’s present reach.

That distinction of the unique potential of the human species, is expressed most simply, as if by the tendency of mankind to increase its own species’ power to increase an efficient quality of lead in its willfully determined promotion of the willful increase of energy-flux density per capita, and that done as a uniquely determined ability to our human species to evolve voluntarily into a higher order of living species. This approximate image of the practical quality of mankind, is qualitatively distinct from the class of all other present set of known species. Only the human species has been known to evolve willfully, into becoming a distinctly higher quality of species—e.g., the product of a voluntarily transformed competence of our existing species, to a degree of advance to act as representative of an actually higher species.

In fact, the continued existence of our human species depends upon that willfully prescribable transformation into a qualitatively higher species in effect. If mankind were to reject that transformation to the effect of representing a higher order of living species, mankind itself would soon render itself extinct. The Solar system is now moving on.


As a matter of fac, in terms of performance, U.S. President Barack Obama could readily pass for a malicious nit-wit, were the record of his public addresses and like utterances the particular evidence to be taken seriously into account.

His use of a“We’ve been there” decree, his lawless conduct of cozy participation in out-of-hand mass murder of targets including U.S. citizens, his murderous threats uttered fraudulently in the abused name of law, his copy of the style of the lies of his evil crony, that Tony Blair who spawned a fraudulently conceived long warfare against Iraq, and his brutish effort to uproot the Peace of Westphalia, express Obama’s ties to the legalized mass-production style of push for Hitler-like practices in the murder of the aged and otherwise vulnerable targets, as like that of his crony Blair, his announcement of his large-scale shut-down of NASA operations, and his proneness to mimic his British patron (and actual master) Tony Blair of the British empire, are samples of the shoddy Obama style of mass-marketing of his fraudulent, and always intentionally actually mass-murderous, political merchandise.

The effect of his policies of destruction directed against NASA and the space program generally, brings a special significance, and a new, still more evil dimension to the list. Add Earth’s presently urgent need for the Mars program, which has a very special kind of importance for continued human existence, in this connection. The particular significance of Mars landings has special kind of attached urgency, including the importance of Earth-based operations on Mars, as those are required for such purposes as the “Red Planet’s” needed role in the defense of life on Earth against threatening asteroids.

The importance of Mars on this account goes back to the matter of the role which Johannes Kepler’s assigned to the importance of the relationship between Mars and Earth in the course of Kepler’s crucially unique discovery of the principle on which the development of a competent modern astronomy had depended. In fact, Mars is also our “best shot” at choosing a partner-planet for space-based operations mustered for assistance in missions such as those including a defence of Earth against menacing asteroids which could “take out” large tracts of the surface of Earth, or, “the kind of big one” which may also be a threat to the entirety of human life on Earth, That “big one” might well seem, to us, to be a presently unlikely foreseeable event until now; but the function which could be contributed to Earth from Mars has broader, and likely importance for the human species.

I explain: there are two ways in the Mars-Earth relationship.

The particularly necessary discussion of this matter of the development of a Mars role on behalf of Earth, is not the kind of romantic fantasy which might attract the more likely attention to the significance of Earth’s role on behalf of Mars. Consider types of cases in which the existence of Mars appears in its crucial role on behalf of human life on Earth. There is one case which must be assigned the highest kind of role which Mars can play in the defense of human life on Earth—in your personal back yard, for example. I am not referring to any exotic space-freak style of creatures; I call your attention to the famous Americans’ defense against the siege against the Alamo. If you are under a deadly siege, what immediate help do you need the most?

Shall we not flank the attacking party! Could Mars serve as a reserve capability to be used for assistance in the defense of Earth? Let us not propose some fancy space-creature to serve as the source of the needed diversion. The Solar system throws relevant rocks in our direction during much of the time. What we require, therefore, is a pro-active, flanking system of defense of Earth, that mustered from, first of all, deployable means from an arrangement of systems configured to optimize the defense of Earth when needed. The “weapon of choice” in such enterprises is more often a profitable diversion, than destruction.

For the edification of the intellectually needy, it should be made obvious, that defense against an attack implicitly aimed at Earth in some way. is not limited to defense of Earth directly. It is not a mere “thing” which will be required; it will be a system of defense capabilities for the needs of mankind, not only a defense of planet Earth, but, rather in the interest of Planet Earth, whatever that might mean. Imaginary, “bug-eyed space-monsters” is not our principal, relevant problem.

The challenge to be met does include defense of life on Earth, but there are, as I had just pointed out, extremely important other considerations. The best choice for that mission can be illustrated in sensible, rather than wildly imagined suggestions. Consider that which has become my suggested hypothesis.

Why Mars Now?

The traditionally long-dominant reign of systems of slavery, serfdom, and the like, has induced something what has been long the dominant practice among the generality of the human populations of our planet. Serfdom and its like has been a deeply-rooted habit of submission among the great majorities of the nations and the like of our planet. The effect suggests a comparison to the practiced castration of bulls and other cattle: do not attempt to improve the progress and density of the generality of the human population. The famous siege and virtually genocide against the city and people of Troy (and of similar cases) is to be considered as being exemplary on some significant accounts.

Earth, in its role as a home to the human species, and so to humanity (and what that entails, in turn), is presently a lonesome species within our Solar system, the special case of our Moon, awarded due consideration. We are, otherwise, surrounded by a great, uncounted depth of asteroids, some of which threaten our species’ extinction. In the meantime, characters such as President Barack Obama, demand that mankind have no effective defense of even the very existence of the human species.

So far, before a President Barack Obama had virtual shut down the United States’ defense against deadly asteroids, we had already been restrained, increasingly, against the efficiently continued space-defense which the origin of NASA, in particular, had implied. With the creation of what has become known as “The Euro System,” progress had slowed at an accelerating rate, as now, under Obama, in the United States.

Gradually, the preconditions for a fresh conception of the meaning of Mars’ role emerges: a lonely pair, of Earth and its solidary Moon, must combine their potential roles, to end the implicit isolation of mankind on Earth. This is not a mere matter of ending the relative isolation of the human species to within Earth and its solitary moon. An Earth which remains continually isolated in its role among the planets, is threatened inherently by the natural implications of its effectively continued functional isolation. We must mow act to which define a consort of elements within the Solar system which can be coordinated to the effect of creating a flanking, functional combination of strategically coordinated parts within the Solar System. The security of mankind on Earth demands this.

The landings on Mars this far, point out what should become recognized as a set of appropriate opportunities—even if human beings were to never dwell individually on Mars itself for any extended interval. What is required of us in this way, is not a matter of relatively short-term landings of persons; it is a matter of our ability to implant on Mars, in particular, sets of apparatus for the included mission of establishing “remote-controlled” activity, with coordinated with apparatus controlled continually from Earth. as used to control missions assigned to operate from Mars.

The very existence of asteroids in the degree of concentration roughly estimable presently, points to the need for a complex of systems operating within relevant objects and processes proximate to the region centered upon the complex of processes centered upon the context containing Mars and Earth. That is already a feasible goal in some part, as I have published comment on this subject during the previous year.

The simplest overview of that perspective implies the dependency of a defense of Earth, on control of manageable forms of relevant flanking positions whose net effect is to break free of a systemic confinement of life on Earth, by introducing complexes which outflank the present isolation, and consequently increased vulnerability of the necessary measures for defense of Earth.

. . . Not Like Cannibals On An Island

In the long run, if the human species is to survive on an ultimately most vulnerable Earth, we need “allies,” even if they are only seemingly, man-controlled robotic systems, systems which we can craft, even from Earth, for such purposes of detection and reaction. Mankind must develop an upward-evolving system to be, in and of itself, a solitary goal for our progress within our Solar system. If relatively nearby planets and moons are not suitable kinds of Earth’s “allies” for this purpose, we can use what we could accomplish to outflank our species’ vulnerability of our isolation.

That outlook, suggests additional, relevant considerations.


Now, in this presently closing chapter, I challenge you to consider two specific aspects for the specific challenge which mankind alone, among known species, could succeed in overcoming. These are to be means for meeting such goals as man’s gaining of those means and forms of control, the which will be required for the benefit of the human species within the relevant regions of the Solar System, that, at least for the present time being.

For those who are really conscious human individuals, man living in similation of a pack of cannibals confined to some island, was not a realization of the true nature of mankind. First of all, our species’ distinctive quality of, and intrinsic need for potentially perpetual progress within our galaxy, requires a realization of, precisely, a potential solution. Mankind is the only species known to us whose continued existence requires success in endlessly revolutionary progress, that to be accomplished by means of a principle of creation recognized as being in the intrinsic nature of our species.

Therefore. we can not, and must not be “penned up” in some ultimately doomed neck of the galaxy—or beyond. The purpose for this policy is not that of a mere urge to travel; our proper intention for the human species, is what we must make ourselves capable to fulfill, whatever is that quality of our development which is in accord with our intrinsically evolutionary nature.

This is no mere speculation. Mankind has demonstrated a specifically unique quality which is absent from all other presently known species of life. Morever, that is known, factually, to have been the distinction of the human species from all known others, over the entire span of the known existence of a mankind known to embody the innately gifted genius of the “fire-bringer.” The essential implications are locatable in evidence which is precisely known as, inherently, uniquely human.

The distinctions to which I have referred here this far, bring us to a point of systemic conflict with, on the one, inferior side, the processes of sense-perception as such, and, on the opposite side, the domain of the contrary devotion, the superior, systemically noëtic principle.

In turn, mankind in the role of our species as the essential “fire-bringer,” implicitly measures the effective progress of our advance as a species, but, when considered as a better or poorer culture, can only be measured in units of energy-flux density per capita.

End-Game Policies

Relatively soon, on the galactic time-scale, we must presently assume, that our Sun will probably cease to remain an acceptable companion. If that be true, then, before that Sun destroys itself and also the Solar system with which is associated, ugly developments within a still-existing Solar system suggest some interesting, and more or less exciting travel-plans.

Exactly how such a development might be “successfully” worked-out, is not the question for me at the present time. The immediate fact is, that, first, changes within our Solar system will be unavoidable, and, that each century seems to promise a needed, lesser or greater revolution in newly discovered universal physical principles required along a line of direction from nuclear fission, to thermonuclear fusion, matter-antimatter functions, and beyond, while on a course of progress toward a point beyond the virtual death of our Sun and its Solar system.

What that means in specifically detailed terms of effects, is not an appropriate choice of subject in this place or that time. The issue is, that we must prepare to change ourselves and our behavior through the effects made feasible according to the higher, noëtic, principle which is already shown to be intrinsic to the direction of progress coordinate with the essentially intrinsic principle specific to the unique (already known) potential of the human mind.

I am not undertaking, here, to present some scheme for the actual tracing-out of what my just stated observation might seem to imply. All that I will claim as a matter of principle, here, is my already known principle of an “upward, intrinsically noëtic characteristic” of the evolution of the foreseeably effective progress of the powers of the human mind itself must be considered. This considerations lifts itself above the domain of sense-perception, into the ontologically higher domain of universal principles which are unknown within the self-inflicted bounds of the merely sense-perceptual domain.

Mankind In Our Universe

Consider the fact, that, for us, a century measures the scale of four successive generations. Each generation should be committed to a certain rate of discovery of qualitatively higher states of development of human use of physical principles. Four successive generations of such progress defines a century for us, and ten centuries define a millenium. Mankind has lived on Earth for several million years. The expected remaining life of the Sum is currently estimated at about two billions years. One billion years would almost certainly bring us, as if presently, to be an intolerable condition. Say, therefore, that we must count on much less than a billions years before the time we must plan to move our species onward, on to a safer, distant location.

Meanwhile, within the ontologically higher domain, above and outside the domain of mere sense-perception, what we might measure as scientific leaps forward, takes giant steps far beyond the scope of mere sense-perception as such.

We do not know more than a fair estimate, that mankind is the only presently known as a consciously creative species; but we should recognize that we exist within a higher domain than that of mere sense-perception. It is a higher domain which possesses an innate potential sufficient to deal with a higher ontological principle than that presently known to us in terms of sense-perception.

The Case of The Awful Bertrand Russell

Whatever might be posed as an objection to what I have just projected in this fashion, the actual evidence of which we may be certain presently, is that mankind is the only presently known species which might possess the indicated potential—provided that we are not threatened with extinction of our species by the presently, intentionally mass-murderous, pseudo-scientific hoaxes, which are presently consistent with the recently current policies of the present Queen of England.

Now that we have considered the thesis in broad-stroke estimations, it were appropriate to get down to some relevant specifics bearing on the same general subject, a subject in the known history of Europe dating from such times as the siege of Troy, or, for convenience, the relatively more recent case of the decline and fall of the Roman (and British) empire, both of which not only embody evil, but are no more than a metamorphical expression of the same, essential, long-lasting incarnation of something as intrinsically Satanic as the Roman Emperor Nero and the likenesses which have appeared in later, even present times.

What can be said on that account, turns our attention, here, back to the subject of the distinction of human creativity from the fruits of of philosophical reductionism, a reductionism which can be treated as typified by the influence of Bertrand Russell and what might be fairly identified as Russell’s ideological forebears, such as the founders of the British empire as treated, for identification of types, by the relevant, essentially true-to-life models presented in the tragedies of Shakespeare. The crucial point of reference to be employed for this case, is what I have emphasized here, earlier in this report, as in the first chapter of this report, but also in the course of the Preface.

Therefore, I now restate the case for everything which I have written here this far:

The essential distinction of man from beast is expressed as that which distinguishes the human mind from that of those who are morally beasts, creativity as I have already defined it earlier, here: actual human creativity, as categorically distinguished from the merely devices, often misnamed as the merely deductive activities (or simply outright lies) of the merely “the practically-minded man.” Actual truth can not be assigned to a merely deductive mind.

To restate what I had presented earlier here, on this same point:

The history of human folly begins with the presumption of a seeking to adduce knowledge from the notion of deduction associated with belief in mere sense-perception as being the foundation of scientific or comparable experiences. Yet, on the contrary, whereas all of the known beasts do rely on an essential core of responsiveness to what is merely sense-perception, actual discoveries of what can be demonstrated to have been such a phenomenon as principles of scientific truth in principle, does not correspond to the presumed principles of so-called “deductive reasoning.”

It is on that account, stated this far, that the intrinsically animal side of humanity, mere sense-perception as such (e.g. “sense-certainty”) is located. The truly human side is located elsewhere, ontologically.

So, this conflict among attempted definitions of physical and comparable notions of principle, is expressed as being merely an extraction from the “intellectual mechanisms” of what are the proper to the belief mechanisms of the mere beasts. True creativity is located uniquely in an entirely different, and contrary notion of principle. The consequence of failure to recognize that point of distinction, has now reached a point of incalculable disorder in the present habits of humanity. It is now crucial that we take efficiently into account that true science—the true creativity which the animal does not actually know—exists only in a domain outside the bounds of mere sense-perception as seen: the eyes may see, what only the human mind can know. The achievement of that recognition is now the essential giant step which the future of mankind presently depends.

The Most Essential Issue here, remains the fact that the human mind, as distinct from the mere brain, has operated on the basis of two intrinsically separate means of governance. There is, first, and also the lowest aspect of human experience and knowledge, the essentially animal quality of mere sense-perception as such. There is also a “region outside” that of the essentially merely animal sense-perception, the actually noëtic expression which reigns “outside” the animal category.

That higher order of “mind,” which is not contained within mere sense-perception as such, is to be regarded as specific to the Classical modalities of the domain of the noëtic imagination, the domain of that which had not yet been experienced, the domain of the truly creative: the four truly Classical modes, of poetry, music, drama, and of scientific creativity as such.8Painting is an expression of drama. The essential organization of what we may regard as the total experience of the human mind, includes the use of the means of mere sense-perception, as the inferior experience of mere sense-perception. It is only if, and when that higher, Classical-artistic powers of creativity reign over the sense-perceptual “underside” of what is also treated as mind, are in command, that the true quality of the human mind, creativity per se, is in reign, that mankind rises above the bonds of virtual slavery to mere sense-perception as such.

Yet, in fact of practice, the two contrasted domains, interact. The challenge to mankind, generally, today, is to recognize and understand the differences.


1It became obvious, immediately, that was exactly the reaction.
2The subject of two contrasted notions of physical principle, is a part of what is to be clarified within the body of this report.
3For purposes of reference, my trust in matters of the method of scientific principle, include, prominently, Nicholas of Cusa, his follower, Johannes Kepler, Gottfried Leibniz, and, later, Bernhard Riemann, Max Planck, and Albert Einstein.
4I would suggest interested persons’ attention to the detailed argument delivered in such matters, respecting Euclid, by Philo of Alexandria.
5The two Kennedy assassinations of the 1960s, had also been an interval of particular economic disasters for our United States. 1967 had seen the beginning of an U.S.A. economic decline driven, in significant degree, by the U.S. war in Indo-China, but January 1968 expressed a leading factor in the political disaster known as “the 68ers.” The beginning of the shut-down of large chunks of the Massachusetts aspect of the space program, must be recognized as a signal part of the pattern leading into the time of the assassination of Robert Kennedy, which, in turn, brought on the Nixon administration and its consequences. The subsequent defeat of the SDI program, turned out to have been the plunge of the U.S. economy into the the present Obama administration now onrushing, toward its disastrous end.
6The cause of the subsequent decline of the Germany economy itself, as also the other members of what was to become the “Euro,” was a Euro” itself, which turned continental western and central mainland Europe into an ultimately virtual “lost cause.” Why should we not see matters in those terms which I have just outlined: was the British empire not still the British empire?
7The most essential elements of the method underlying this present report, are catalogued (in effect) in my The Subject of Sense-Uncertainty, January 10, 2013. e,g,, Kepler’s “vicarious hypothesis.”
8Painting is an expression of drama.