Table of Contents

- Cover

- Masthead

- PDF edition Table of Contents — Volume 46, Number 11, March 22, 2019

- I. New Hope in the Old Continent

- CONFERENCE: ITALY ON THE NEW SILK ROAD Italy Leads Europe into the Coming New Paradigm by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

- CONFERENCE: ITALY ON THE NEW SILK ROAD Zepp-LaRouche, Geraci, Bocchetto Marking Progress for All of Mankind by EIR Staff

- ZEPP-LAROUCHE WEBCAST Neo-Cons Move To Box Trump In, Italy Points Toward New Paradigm

- II. Back to the Moon for Good

- Civilization Sprouts on the Moon by Michael James Carr

- III. The World Mourns Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

- Messages of Condolence On the Passing of Lyndon LaRouche (1922-2019)

- IV. LaRouche’s Ideas Continue To Resonate

- MUSIC & BIOLOGY: The Human Mind: Two Views by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. (22 July 2012)

New Horizons for Mankind

Editor-in-Chief and Founder:

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

Editorial Board: Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. , Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Robert Ingraham, Tony Papert, Gerald Rose, Dennis Small, William Wertz

Co-Editors: Robert Ingraham, Tony Papert

Technology: Marsha Freeman

Transcriptions: Katherine Notley

Ebooks: Richard Burden

Graphics: Alan Yue

Photos: Stuart Lewis

Circulation Manager: Stanley Ezrol

INTELLIGENCE DIRECTORS

Economics: Marcia Merry Baker, Paul Gallagher

History: Anton Chaitkin

Ibero-America: Dennis Small

United States: Debra Freeman

INTERNATIONAL BUREAUS

Berlin: Rainer Apel

Copenhagen: Tom Gillesberg

Lima: Sara Madueño

Melbourne: Robert Barwick

Mexico City: Gerardo Castilleja Chávez

New Delhi: Ramtanu Maitra

Paris: Christine Bierre

Stockholm: Ulf Sandmark

United Nations, N.Y.C.: Leni Rubinstein

Washington, D.C.: William Jones

Wiesbaden: Göran Haglund

ON THE WEB

e-mail: eirns@larouchepub.com

www.larouchepub.com

www.executiveintelligencereview.com

www.larouchepub.com/eiw

Webmaster: John Sigerson

Assistant Webmaster: George Hollis

Editor, Arabic-language edition: Hussein Askary

EIR (ISSN 0273-6314) is published weekly

(50 issues), by EIR News Service, Inc.,

P.O. Box 17390, Washington, D.C. 20041-0390.

(571) 293-0935

European Headquarters: E.I.R. GmbH, Postfach Bahnstrasse 9a, D-65205, Wiesbaden, Germany

Tel: 49-611-73650

Homepage: http://www.eir.de

e-mail: info@eir.de

Director: Georg Neudecker

Montreal, Canada: 514-461-1557

eir@eircanada.ca

Denmark: EIR - Danmark, Sankt Knuds Vej 11, basement left, DK-1903 Frederiksberg, Denmark. Tel.: +45 35 43 60 40, Fax: +45 35 43 87 57. e-mail: eirdk@hotmail.com.

Mexico City: EIR, Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz 242-2

Col. Agricultura C.P. 11360

Delegación M. Hidalgo, México D.F.

Tel. (5525) 5318-2301

eirmexico@gmail.com

Copyright: ©2018 EIR News Service. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission strictly prohibited.

Canada Post Publication Sales Agreement #40683579

Postmaster: Send all address changes to EIR, P.O. Box 17390, Washington, D.C. 20041-0390.

Signed articles in EIR represent the views of the authors, and not necessarily those of the Editorial Board.

EIR Contents

www.larouchepub.com — Volume 46, Number 11, March 22, 2019

Cover This Week

MoviSol/Flavio Tabanelli

Michele Geraci (l.) Undersecretary in the Italian Development Ministry, addresses the March 13 Milan conference,“Italy on the New Silk Road.”

---------------------------------------------

NEW HORIZONS FOR MANKIND

I. NEW HOPE IN THE OLD CONTINENT

CONFERENCE: ITALY ON THE NEW SILK ROAD

3 Italy Leads Europe into the Coming New Paradigm

by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

6 Zepp-LaRouche, Geraci, Bocchetto Marking Progress for All of Mankind

by EIR Staff

10 ZEPP-LAROUCHE WEBCAST

Neo-Cons Move To Box Trump In, Italy Points Toward New Paradigm

II. BACK TO THE MOON FOR GOOD

17 Civilization Sprouts on the Moon

by Michael James Carr

III. THE WORLD MOURNS LYNDON H. LAROUCHE, JR.

24 Messages of Condolence On the Passing of Lyndon LaRouche (1922-2019)

IV. LAROUCHE’S IDEAS CONTINUE TO RESONATE

27 MUSIC & BIOLOGY:

The Human Mind: Two Views

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

July 22, 2012

I. New Hope in the Old Continent

CONFERENCE: ITALY ON THE NEW SILK ROAD

Italy Leads Europe into

the Coming New Paradigm

by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

MoviSol/Flavio Tabanelli

Helga Zepp-LaRouche addressing the “Italy on the New Silk Road” conference in Milan.

---------------------------------------------

The following is the edited transcript of the March 13 address by Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder of the Schiller Institute, to the conference, “Italy on the New Silk Road,” in Milan, Italy, organized by MoviSol—the LaRouche movement in Italy—and the Lombardy regional administration.

It is in one sense quite amusing to see the high waves of reaction that the mere possibility of Italy signing the MOU with China is causing right now. Since Xi Jinping first announced the New Silk Road in 2013, and then proceeded to make treaties—I think it’s with 112 countries by now—enormous growth has ensued. With six major industrial corridors, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) became very quickly the largest infrastructure project in history—ever. And the strange thing was that for about four years, in the mainstream media in the United States and Europe, there was practically no reporting about it.

All of a sudden, in an obviously coordinated way, the major think tanks of Europe and the United States started a series of attacks, releasing studies alleging that China is causing countries to fall into a debt trap, in an effort to replace the United States as the dominant force in the world. These studies allege that with the BRI, China is becoming an imperialist force, that the Belt and Road projects are not viable, that China is an authoritarian system, and that Xi Jinping is a dictator. A barrage of attacks on the BRI concept was released all at once, suddenly.

The funny thing is, if you were to ask the leaders of the countries cooperating with the BRI—leaders from African, Asian, and Latin American countries—you would hear great praise for the BRI. They will tell you that with the Chinese cooperation, they have for the first time had the opportunity to overcome the underdevelopment and poverty they have suffered under Western colonialism, and 70 years of IMF conditionalities, which prevented them from having exactly that kind of development China is making possible. And they are full of praise, calling China a friend—a completely opposite view.

Western Media Coverage of China Is Fake News

I have come to the conclusion that everything the Western mainstream media are saying about China is fake news, just a lie. It comes from the fact that many in the West simply have lost the ability to imagine that any country, let alone China, could promote something that is, indeed, for the common good of all of humanity. When Xi Jinping talks about the “shared community of the common future of mankind,” or the “community of destiny,” he means it!

Isn’t it obvious that in the time of thermonuclear weapons, of international space travel, and the possibility of conquering all the problems of the world, that we have to think about the one humanity first, before we talk about national interests? As a matter of fact, the concept of win-win cooperation for the Belt and Road Initiative, has all the economic aspects that are, in fact, beneficial to all the countries that have participated.

But the BRI is much more than that: Because, from the standpoint of the evolution of mankind, if you take a step back, and forget for a moment the current conflict between Marseille and Trieste, which I understand is obviously very important for the Italians, but if you look instead from the larger view, isn’t it natural that infrastructure development would eventually open up all continents and connect them?

So now, all of a sudden, you have this eruption of anti-China propaganda. We are now at a point that something is happening—that has happened sixteen times before in history—the then dominant power was surpassed by the up-to-then second largest power. In history, this has twelve times led to war between those two competing powers, and in only four cases has the second power surpassed the dominant power without war.

China has emphasized many times that it doesn’t want to follow the twelve examples in which this conflict led to war, and that it does not want to replace the United States in its role as the leader of a unipolar world. Rather, China wants to build a completely new system of international relations—based on sovereignty, on respect for the different social systems of other countries, and on non-interference. China is proposing a completely new system of international relations.

Only a New Paradigm Will Stop War

So, strategically we must indeed focus on the conflict brewing between the United States and Russia, because of the Russian reactions to the United States pulling out first from the ABM Treaty, and now the INF Treaty. Many now think that we are actually very close to war, that is, in a worse strategic crisis than during the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis, because of the deteriorating relations between the United States and Russia.

But if you talk to some strategic insiders on both sides of the Atlantic, they easily admit that the much more dangerous conflict is actually the one between the United States and China: The question is whether the United States will accept the rise of Asia, and the Belt and Road Initiative is just the obvious expression of that. Add to that what the RAND Corporation said a couple of months ago—that it’s better to have the war with China now, than in ten years, because the casualties will be less.

This is something we must urgently change. I think that the best way to change it is, indeed, is to bring in this growing new paradigm of thinking—we have to completely abandon geopolitics. We have to abandon the idea that there can be any natural interest of one country, or a group of countries, against another bloc of countries. This geopolitical idea is what led twice to world war in the 20th century.

As a matter of fact, I think the potential to overcome these conflicts is absolutely there. I know in Europe, many people faint when you mention the name of President Donald Trump, but President Trump is not seeking confrontation with Russia—as a matter of fact, he wants to have an improved relation with Russia, which he demonstrated at the July 16, 2018 summit with President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki. And despite the present trade tension, President Trump always talks about President Xi Jinping as his very good friend, and China being a great country, and that he wants to have a good relationship between the United States and China.

The attacks on Italy, were reported as coming from the White House. The Financial Times sourced the statement to Garrett Marquis, a spokesperson for the National Security Council. Those attacks do not represent President Trump’s view. Those attacks come from a neo-con grouping that is, unfortunately, inside the Trump Administration.

The factional situation in the United States is quite severe. The Democrats and the neo-cons are trying to get Trump out of office with Russiagate. Nonetheless, President Trump has proven a tremendous sustainability against the efforts to drive him out of office, and his supporters are absolutely backing him. The chances that there will be a second Trump Administration are actually very, very high.

One of the accusations against China and the Belt and Road Initiative is that it would divide Europe. I think everybody knows Europe is already divided, without China. The EU austerity policy has created a North-South conflict. That austerity policy has impoverished, Greece, Italy, Spain, and Portugal. The same austerity policy meant providing no development help to the East European countries, so those countries are now happy to cooperate with the BRI, because the EU did not provide them anything.

Italy as a Role Model for Unity and Cooperation

Europeans are also divided on the migrant issue. Look at the division between East and West—the East European countries do not want to have any part of the proposed quota system of the EU.

What Italy is actually doing in this context, is a role model. The kind of collaboration between Italian firms and Chinese firms in the development of Africa is actually the only human way to address the refugee crisis.

As of now, thirteen European countries have signed MOUs with China; Italy will be the first G7 country to sign up. Let us also note that the G7 is really overrated. It is no longer as important as the G20, for example.

Italy has many ports—Mr. Geraci said that many of the European ports want to be hubs between not only the New Silk Road land routes, but also hubs along the Maritime Silk Road. For example, Spain and Portugal wan to become hubs for all the Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking countries around the world. So there is a completely changed attitude that is developing very quickly.

Even in Germany and France, the two countries now trying the hardest to put the brakes on collaboration with the BRI (apart from the EU Commission), there are many cities that recognize their own self-interest in cooperating with the Belt and Road Initiative. Three German states—Schleswig-Holstein, Bavaria, and Brandenburg—quite frequently have large delegations travelling back and forth to China. In many German cities, mayors are now strongly advocating cooperation with China. The dynamic is increasing more rapidly than you might think.

I think the perspective of unifying Europe is present, not necessarily under the EU bureaucracy, but rather in something much closer to French President Charles de Gaulle’s conception of “Europe of the Fatherlands,” this time with China, with Russia, with the Belt and Road Initiative, the Eurasian Economic Union, and European countries fully cooperating with each other in this new paradigm. That is my prognosis.

I think that that is also the only way Europe can impact the strategic situation. If you had a united Europe of the Fatherlands cooperating with the Belt and Road Initiative, including Germany and France, that would be the best way to get the United States to also give up its opposition—which as I said, is not coming from Trump, but from the other forces I mentioned—and get the United States to join the new paradigm.

I think this is the only hope we have to avoid a catastrophe ending in a third world war, this time with nuclear weapons, meaning the extinction of civilization. So in that sense, what Italy is doing right now, is of the greatest historical importance, because Italy, with what you here are doing, with the MOU but also with joint ventures with China in Africa, can become the role model for all the other European countries.

The Cultural, Moral Dimension

The New Silk Road is not merely an economic concept. Infrastructure and all of the assorted kinds of investment in the BRI are extremely important as the backbone of development, but there is also the much more, and not so well-known cultural, moral dimension, which is best expressed in the fact that the Chinese approach to the New Silk Road is based on Confucian theory—that you absolutely must have harmony among all the nations, each developing in a harmonious way.

And when some think tanks say that there is now a competition of systems between the Western liberal model and the state-guided model of the Chinese state economy, well, what they really mean is that China has developed its policy based on a Confucian orientation, which means that the state is also in charge of the moral improvement of its population through aesthetical education. As a matter of fact, Xi Jinping has said repeatedly that he puts the highest emphasis on aesthetical education, because such education results in the “beauty of the mind” and the “beauty of the soul.”

The reason why some in the West regard that as competition, is that Western neo-liberal and liberal philosophy has moved away from that conception of harmony. We are no longer humanists. We no longer think as we did during the Italian Renaissance or the German Classical period. Rather, we have replaced that idea of beautiful harmony with “liberal” thinking best described as “everything is allowed,” every degenerate form of culture is allowed, everything goes.

I don’t want to elaborate further on this point right now. But, I must say, if you consider the violence and pornography in our entertainment, we don’t have to worry: We will lose that competition of the systems, simply because we, in the so-called liberal West, are not taking care of our future generations, but instead we are allowing them to completely decay morally.

And that is why I think that we have to understand that the only way Europe can persist in the coming future is not through military power—Mr. Macron’s proposal of a “true European army” is ridiculous—but we will preserve our European culture only if we return to the greatest traditions in our own history, meaning reviving the spirit and the ideas and principles of the Italian Renaissance, of the Ecole Polytechnique of France, of the German Classical music, literature, and poetry. Only if we rise again to our best traditions can we persist in the coming world.

The cultural dimension of the New Silk Road is as important, if not more important, than the question of economics.

I will be happy to take your questions. Thank you.

CONFERENCE: ITALY ON THE NEW SILK ROAD

Zepp-LaRouche, Geraci, Bocchetto Marking Progress for All of Mankind

by EIR Staff

MoviSol/Flavio Tabanelli

Michele Geraci (left), Undersecretary in the Italian Development Ministry, addresses the conference.

---------------------------------------------

March 17—A landmark conference took place in Milan on March 13, organized by MoviSol, the LaRouche movement in Italy, and the Lombardy regional administration. The main speakers were Helga Zepp-LaRouche, chairwoman of the Schiller Institute, known in China as the “Silk Road Lady,” and Prof. Michele Geraci, Undersecretary in the Development Ministry and author of the new China policy of the Italian government.

The event drew political and media attention as it occurred in the midst of a heated debate on the highly anticipated visit by Chinese President Xi Jinping on March 22-23, and an international political and media campaign against Italy’s intention to sign an MOU for collaboration between the two countries in the Belt and Road Initiative, whose prime mover has been the very same Prof. Geraci.

Michele Geraci

Thus, at the onset of the conference, moderator Claudio Celani asked Prof. Geraci to explain the Belt and Road Initiative; what advantages it presents for Italy, including for the less-developed areas of the Mezzogiorno; and also to address the issue harped on by the anti-China faction, i.e., the demand for a “screening mechanism” for Chinese investment in Europe.

Geraci responded to the criticism of many, including the attacks of international media such as the Financial Times, Reuters, Handelsblatt, and others, over the fact that a G7 country is, for the first time, officially joining the Belt and Road initiative. “One of the criticisms against us is that Italy is the first G7 country. These critics also raise the so-called debt trap. These two things are of course contradictory. Because we are a G7 country and not a low-income country, the debt trap risk is very limited.” With a 1.7 trillion-euro GDP, talking about possible investments of 5 to 10 billion euro creating a debt trap is ridiculous, Geraci said.

With the signing of the MOU with China, “nothing will change in our international alliances,” Geraci said. The MOU is an agreement to promote exports and investments by Italian companies in the framework of the Belt and Road.

We are trying to develop Southern Italy by better exploiting . . . a geographical situation that so far has produced disadvantages for us and turn it into an advantage. Africa has created more problems than opportunities for us and we want to turn the glove inside out with the collaboration of China—and also of Japan with whom we have spoken—two large Asian powers that have major investments in Africa.

MoviSol/Flavio Tabanelli

Left to right: Massimo Kolbe Massaron, Claudio Celani, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, and Liliana Gorini.

---------------------------------------------

Geraci reminded the audience that China is the power that has invested most in Africa:

It is the first time, maybe in the history of Africa, that the interest of the investor—in this case China, which of course has its commercial interests—coincide with the interest of targeted countries, which for the first time can start to have a sustainable social and economic development.

Southern Italy, in the center of the Mediterranean region, “is the ideal place for a Chinese or Japanese investor who wants to approach Africa and needs backup from a system within the European Union” that is a mere forty-minute flight from Africa. Italy’s Mezzogiorno, Sicily, and all the rest, can be used as a hub “and therefore provide transport, infrastructure, but also research, centers of technological development and energy,” he added.

As to other critics who say Italy is going to “sell out its ports” to China, Geraci said Italy is not selling anything. What will happen is that the Chinese will build some docks in ports in which they are interested, and therefore will add something that was not there.

And by the way, let us not forget that the Chinese already own 15% of European port capacity, he said. They own 35% of Rotterdam. In the Mediterranean region, China has ownership interest in ports in Egypt (Said), Israel (Haifa), Marseille, Valencia, Bilbao, and Piraeus.

On the China 2025 Manufacturing plan, an issue raised by some journalists in the audience, it is true that it will be a “tsunami,” because there are many areas that compete with Italy, but, Geraci said, there is a saying: “When the wind blows, some build walls, and some build windmills.” “I prefer to build windmills,” he said, so that when the wind blows, “it will turn my blades, generate energy, and cooperate instead of blocking.”

MoviSol/Flavio Tabanelli

Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder and President of the Schiller Institute, addresses the conference.

---------------------------------------------

Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Helga Zepp-LaRouche spoke right after Geraci. She was introduced by moderator Celani as the “New Silk Road Lady,” known as such by many Chinese because of her pioneering activity in the last three decades to promote her husband Lyndon LaRouche’s grand design for Eurasian infrastructure, which later became the Belt and Road Initiative of Xi Jinping.

None other than former Italian finance minister Giulio Tremonti publicly reminded us, in an interview with Corriere della Sera the day before, that the New Silk Road was originally promoted by “the American visionary Lyndon LaRouche.” However, Tremonti has seemed to distance himself these days from those ideas, whereas in 2007, at a public event in Rome with LaRouche, he had much more positive words for LaRouche’s Eurasian Land-Bridge project.

Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche emphasized that Italy is under attack for the Belt and Road MOU “because this Italian move will make the New Paradigm possible.” This is the New Paradigm that is so feared by the British and the neocons in the United States. It is, however, the only alternative to a new financial blowout and the only alternative to a policy of confrontation towards Russia and China, “which could lead to war.”

So, she continued, while in the West there is a lot of fake news on the BRI, “if you ask the leaders of the countries which joined the BRI in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, those leaders will tell you that for the first time they have the opportunity to overcome poverty and unemployment, and that China is their friend.”

Zepp-LaRouche emphasized the positive economic and cultural aspects of the New Silk Road, including investments in European ports—the Maritime Silk Road—but also “a dialogue of cultures,” which has been emphasized by President Xi Jinping on all his trips—for example, he spoke of the Renaissance in Italy, or when he was in Germany the classics, quoting Heine and emphasizing the aesthetical education of the population and “the beauty of the mind.”

As to the accusation that “China will divide Europe,” Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche reminded the audience—which included journalists and representatives of a number of important Italian and Chinese institutions—“that Europe is already divided, without China; there is the north-south conflict because of the austerity imposed on Italy, Greece, Spain and Portugal, and the east-west conflict on the issue of migrants.”

“What Italy is doing in signing this MOU is of the greatest strategic importance. Italy can become a role model for other European countries, for example in the cooperation between Italian and Chinese firms in Africa,” she said.

Zepp-LaRouche called on Europe to stop being the Europe of European Union diktats, or of the military pacts of Macron, and to become again the “Europe of the fatherlands,” as Gen. de Gaulle meant it.

She also addressed a hotly discussed issue in Italy, the Turin-Lyon high-speed train [TAV or treno ad alta velocità], which one part of the government wants to block. Moderator Celani asked for her views, given that this important infrastructure, with a 57-km tunnel under the Alps, is an essential part of the Lisbon-Kiev Corridor 5, and would be integrated with the Belt and Road Initiative.

MoviSol/Flavio Tabanelli

Pietro Saccò, journalist with Avvenire raises a question.

---------------------------------------------

Zepp-LaRouche noted that German media are expressing great Schadenfreude at the Italian government’s postponement of any decision on the TAV in order to avoid a crisis. She invited everyone to look at it in the larger picture. At the beginning of the BRI, central Asian countries debated whether it should be built along the east-west or the north-south connections. She insisted that with the progress of the BRI, both corridors will be built and the entire continent will be integrated. And that is what is happening:

“This is exactly how to look at the Lyon-Turin tunnel question, because the lack of infrastructure in Europe is gigantic,” with a backlog of 1.7 trillion euro merely in Germany. If Europe wants to be anywhere at a level close to China, where all major cities are connected by really fast trains and with slower speed maglev systems being built in urban areas, “we have to integrate our infrastructure in Europe and modernize it and completely revamp our current way of thinking.”

In this context, she exposed the lack of a scientific basis behind the green ideology, which is affecting not only parts of Italy but all of Europe:

On Friday in 60 nations we will have school children going on strike [to protest climate change]. This is not based on science. It is a suicide movement. Many of these young children have no basis to be able to understand the source of climate change. They are saying it is not worth living anymore; why should I learn if the world will end in twelve years? . . .

We need a Renaissance of scientific thinking and the question of infrastructure is absolutely the precondition for any industrial development.

Tony Iwobi

Massimo Kolbe Massaron, a Movisol activist who helped to organize the conference, then read the speech sent by Sen. Tony Iwobi, a member of Italy’s Lega party (and originally from Nigeria), who emphasized the importance of the agreement between Italy and China on the Transaqua project in Chad, saying that “it is an important accomplishment to replenish Lake Chad and represents a new historical phase, from the geopolitical and social standpoint, with the aim of reducing the migratory phenomena from Sub-Saharan Africa.”

MoviSol/Flavio Tabanelli

Dr. Franco Bocchetto, Director of Bonifica, SPA, discusses the Transaqua project.

---------------------------------------------

Franco Bocchetto

Dr. Franco Bocchetto, director of Bonifica, then explained to the audience, with slides, that the Transaqua project is not just a water-transfer project but an integrated transport, energy and agro-industrial project for central Africa, based on a win-win idea for all countries involved. Bocchetto recounted the history of the project, paying homage to its “father,” Eng. Marcello Vichi, and its recent update by the Bonifica company. For instance, the original estimate that 50 billion cubic meters of water per year would be needed to refill Lake Chad, has proven to be overly pessimistic. Recent studies show that together with modern techniques of water use and conservation, “only” 30 billion cubic meters would be needed. This makes Bonifica engineers even more optimistic that the project, whose feasibility study should start in one month, can be realized.

One more note of optimism, Bocchetto explained, is that the PowerChina company, which has signed a strategic partnership with Bonifica, has already built 1,500 kilometers of water-transfer infrastructure from Southern China to Beijing, overcoming and solving several natural and technical obstacles. Bocchetto concluded by endorsing the Belt and Road and wishing “that Italy follow the Chinese example in building infrastructures in a very short time.”

Liliana Gorini

After a long and lively debate, Liliana Gorini, chairwoman of Movisol, concluded the conference, dedicating it to Lyndon LaRouche, who passed away one month ago, and who was well-known and greatly appreciated in Italy for his economic forecasts, which “were always to the point,” as many parliamentarians who heard him speak at the Italian Parliament in 2007 had to admit after the crash of 2008. Mr. LaRouche was also known and well respected for his Glass-Steagall proposal, which is now in the program of the Italian government.

Videos covering the entire conference are here:

https://youtu.be/IPwkDb0D-dU

https://youtu.be/1bg9qW4MaLc

https://youtu.be/d6_zU9-5GOg

ZEPP-LAROUCHE WEBCAST

Neo-Cons Move To Box Trump In, Italy Points Toward New Paradigm

This is an abbreviated transcript of the March 15, 2019 Schiller Institute New Paradigm webcast, an interview with the founder of the Schiller Institutes, Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Her full speech at the March 13 Milan conference is available in this, the March 22 issue of EIR.

She was interviewed by Harley Schlanger. A video of the full webcast is available.

Harley Schlanger: Hello! I’m Harley Schlanger from the Schiller Institute. Welcome to our weekly webcast with Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the founder and President of the Schiller Institute. Today is March 15, the Ides of March. Speaking of the Ides of March and Julius Caesar, there’s a lot happening in Italy. The Italians have staked out a very strong position for working with China. Helga, you were in Italy this week for a very significant conference with representation from Italy’s corporate sector, but also the government. I think we should start there, because this has caused a continuing panic among the unilateralist, geopolitical forces of the European Union that are trying to keep China out of Europe. What are the Italians doing? What is going on there?

UN/Loey Felipe

Xi Jinping, President of the People’s Republic of China, addressing the United Nations General Assembly in New York on September 28, 2015.

---------------------------------------------

Italian Conference on Belt & Road

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: The state visit of President Xi Jinping to Italy will occur next week, on March 22nd and 23rd. It had been leaked ahead of time that on the occasion of this state visit, the Italians will sign a Memorandum of Understanding [MOU] with China to cooperate with the Belt and Road Initiative. That caused a complete uproar, including a huge freak-out by the Financial Times, and an intervention by a person called Garrett Marquis, who is close to [U.S. National Security Advisor John] Bolton. Marquis basically said the Italians will receive absolutely no benefit from such an MOU and asserted that it would ruin their image in the world for a very long time to come.

So, it was quite timely that we had an event in Milan, co-sponsored by the Movimento Solidarietà (Movisol)—the Italian sister organization of the LaRouche movement, headed by Liliana Gorini—and the region of Lombardy. The subject was the collaboration of Italy with the Belt and Road Initiative. The event was planned long ahead of time, so it’s pure coincidence that it occurred just before the state visit of Xi Jinping.

The first speaker was Michele Geraci, who is the Undersecretary of State at the Italian Ministry of Economic Development, a person very knowledgeable about China, because he resided in China for ten years, working as a professor, teaching for ten years. He is now the head of the China Taskforce of the Italian government.

His presentation played down the uproar around this Memorandum of Understanding by saying it will not change anything; it will not change Italy’s alliance with NATO, nor with the European Union. It just means that Italy will have more export opportunities in the fastest-growing economic market in the world, China. Italy is just trying to catch up with other European countries like Germany and France, who already have much more trade with China.

Public Domain/Oliver

One of the container terminals at the Port of Genoa, Italy in 2005.

---------------------------------------------

He gave a very calm and optimistic picture of how this will benefit the development of the ports—Trieste, Genoa, Palermo—and also infrastructure developments. He said this will not mean giving anything away, like giving infrastructure away, because these are all new investments. The Chinese will build new docks at some of these ports, so they are “greenfield investments” which will increase the productivity of the Italian economy; and there is actually no reason to be worried about it. So, I think Geraci’s presentation was very informative.

I spoke next, saying that this MOU is taking place in a larger context of the Chinese government trying to establish a New Paradigm, which Xi Jinping always calls the “shared community of a joint future of humanity,” or the “community of destiny of one mankind.”

[Editorial note: Helga Zepp LaRouche’s full presentation is in this, the March 22 issue of EIR.]

[The concert of negative responses to the BRI] is a geopolitical reflex reacting to the fact that the world is clearly very quickly changing and that the power center has already shifted to Asia, with China taking a leading role in this development.

China has many times made the argument—and I fully agree with it—that the Belt and Road Initiative and cooperation with it is actually the way to unite Europe; provided that France and Germany recognize that it also means tremendous business opportunities for them to join. If all the big European countries act on a common realization that it is in their best interest to cooperate not only in multi-lateral trade and investment agreements on the Eurasian continent, but especially to develop Africa together as the only human way to deal with the refugee crisis, very good developments will follow.

The European Union (EU) will have a summit on this subject on March 21. It has already put out a 10-point action plan; it’s clearly an effort to counter China’s influence. Next will be an EU-China summit at the beginning of April. It’s very clear that the EU Commission is very much on a different course than Italy.

But let’s see. I think Xi Jinping’s visit will be successful and will open new doors to demonstrate how it is in everyone’s interest to work together on this massive coordinated set of development projects, the BRI.

The Failure of the Western Liberal Model

Schlanger: Before we move on from this, I have a question that is brought up all the time, to which you were just alluding. Given the obvious benefits of trading with China, and the fact that there are German cities, localities—Hamburg, Duisburg—that are engaging with China; that there are already various French agreements; that there is motion in Scandinavia and Greece and now Italy; and given that the European economies have otherwise stalled and are a downward track, why is the EU so set on not having such agreements?

Zepp-LaRouche: Well, it’s funny. It’s the same neo-liberal ideology, the same circles that were pushing very hard in 2001 for China to join the World Trade Organization (WTO). Then, there was obviously the hope and the conviction that if China were to join the WTO, then, sooner or later, China would adopt the so-called “western” model of liberal democracy. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Francis Fukuyama wrote that the western model of democracy would take over everywhere in the world and that’s what he called the end of history.

China did not follow that path, did not go with Fukuyama’s western liberal model. China instead adopted economic policies very much on the basis of what I would describe as the American System of economy of Alexander Hamilton, and of Friedrich List—who is actually the most famous foreign economist in China. With Deng Xiaoping, China totally changed direction, reversing the policies of its era known as the Cultural Revolution.

Success of China’s Economic Model

In the forty years of “opening up” since then, China went in the direction of a very strong model of economic growth and industrial development, alleviating abject poverty almost entirely; it will have completed that task by next year. It has lifted 800 million people out of poverty and has made the biggest economic miracle one can imagine. If you go to China these days, it is absolutely breathtaking. China today has the most modern railway systems; it is leading in fusion research; it is probably the leading space power now.

China has an extremely successful economic model, but it did not go for western liberal democracy. China stuck to its Confucian tradition. To a large extent, China has a planned economy, with an increasing percentage of free market components. But China did not go for the liberal democracy model because of the belief that the system of meritocracy is far superior. I must say, if you look at the results, there is no question that it has been successful.

The western liberal model, especially as it developed after the Maastricht Agreement in 1992, developed as a policy in favor of banks and speculation. The gap between rich and poor widened, with complete disregard for the common good. In the cultural field, China is trying to put emphasis on the aesthetical education of its population. That intention has been urged by Xi Jinping many times, because the products of aesthetical education are beautiful minds and beautiful souls. I wish that we had western leaders who would say things like that.

The West, on the other side, has had the policy of “everything is allowed; everything goes.” We have drug epidemics, the demoralization of the youth, and a horrible degenerate and degenerating youth culture. The Federation of German Industries (BDI) says there is a systemic competition between the two systems. In a certain sense, that’s true. But the West will lose that competition if we don’t change the cultural direction in which we are going.

Fake news from two prominent publications.

---------------------------------------------

To Reform Means to Admit Failure

So, I think that the opposition of policy circles, like those leading the European Union, is because they don’t want to reflect on the fact that it is their own policies that have caused the Brexit, the election loss of Hillary Clinton, the emergence of the new Italian government, and the rise of so-called “populism” in many parts of Europe and the western world. They are not willing to reflect on the fact that it was their own neo-liberal policy that has caused the discontent of the governed. And that is why they feel threatened.

It’s not that China is threatening them. Chinese policy has never been one of proselytizing. If you look at the entirety of Chinese history, they have never proselytized their system; unlike the Christians or unlike those people who are preaching that western democracy must take over the planet.

China has always said that it is perfectly happy to see other cultures blossom and bloom. The real competition, or better said, the real fear comes from the fact that that the modern western model does not want to reform itself; it does not want to look at its own faults. Therefore, you have this really unprecedented hysteria.

Schlanger: What you just said Helga, is fascinating when you look at the other side of this. On the other side of the Atlantic, President Trump is engaging in trade talks with China; progress is being made. Trump said again he thinks it’s slow progress, but it’s important. They’re now hinting at a Trump-Xi summit possibly in April.

At the same time, you have the same kind of line that you get from the European Union also coming out from some officials in the Trump administration. When Secretary of State Mike Pompeo released the State Department’s annual “Country Report on Human Rights in China,” he made a big point of saying that the western system is superior, that the western free trade model allows freedom, whereas China is authoritarian. These same policy lines are being spouted by Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe who said that “if [Germany uses Huawei’s 5G communications equipment] inside of their defense communications, then [NATO] will not communicate with them.” This is really a fight between the EU and some of the governments in Europe; but it’s also a battle within the American government.

Left: Gage Skidmore; right: DoS/Michael Gross

Left: John R. Bolton; right: Michael R. Pompeo

VoA

Si se puede (Yes, it can be done) anti-Maduro rally in Caracas, Venezuela on January 23, 2019.

---------------------------------------------

Neo-Cons Attempt to Rope Trump In

Zepp-LaRouche: I think that there are many signs right now. With 2020 coming closer, there is a clear effort by the neo-con elements in the Trump administration to rope Trump into their policies. I think that Trump right now, deep in his heart, still wants to do what he promised, to improve relations with Russia, and to resolve the trade war with China. And I think in the Chinese case, it hopefully will work.

Even so, I think many things in his environment are tugging at him. Look at what happened at the Hanoi summit between Trump and Kim Jong-un. The North Korean government just issued a statement that it may discontinue the process of denuclearization talks with the United States, because at that summit Pompeo and Bolton created an atmosphere of such mistrust that it was impossible to continue, also noting that Kim Jong-un would soon come out with a statement.

I don’t know if that will impact the trade negotiations with China, but I think there are clearly some among the neo-cons who would rather not have the North Korea process succeed.

In December, Trump promised to decrease the military budget; but the military budget increased. It’s now $720 billion; it includes $500 million to counter the alleged malicious intentions of Russia in Europe; it includes $33 million to counter the supposed military expansion of Russia and China, to which charge both the Russian and Chinese governments have reacted very critically, saying this is all in the direction of confrontation.

Then you have the continuous efforts by such people as Bolton, [Vice President Mike] Pence, going for regime change in Venezuela. Trump had said he wanted to end the policy of previous administrations—the policy of permanent warfare. But here, the neo-cons have created a situation in which the United States clearly is involved in what certainly looks like regime change in Venezuela. This may not function, because the effort to give legitimacy to Juan Guaidó by trotting him around in different Latin American countries did not work. The Venezuelan government is now asking the United Nations to investigate if the collapse of the electricity grid was sabotage, and China has offered to help rebuild the grid.

Venezuela’s situation could be stabilized if China were to do so. This must be addressed, and urgently, because the lack of electricity has caused a severe humanitarian crisis. Three million Venezuelans have fled to neighboring countries. In the city of Lima, Peru, alone, there are one million refugees in the streets.

So, I think there is an effort by the neo-cons to rein Trump in. I think the same effort can be seen in the aggressive judicial moves against Paul Manafort and Roger Stone. I think there is a big upheaval in the legal community about this. Manafort now faces double jeopardy in the combination of federal and state charges being thrown against him.

This is all designed to create an atmosphere of terror; to rein Trump in. I don’t know if it will succeed; I don’t think so. He has successfully broken out in the past several times, but he does need an intervention by the population, especially from Trump supporters, who now, more than ever, have to understand the larger strategic picture. The stakes are very high for the human race.

Presidential Committee on Climate Security

Schlanger: One other area where Trump is not giving in, is on so-called man-made climate change. It has been reported that he will have a Presidential Committee on Climate Security, headed up by Dr. William Happer, a professor of physics at Princeton University. The existence of this committee, even before officially announced, is causing a total uproar among the people who are pushing the fraudulent Green New Deal. Your thoughts, Helga?

Zepp-LaRouche: Well, I think this is very important, because President Trump wants an objective re-evaluation of the scientific basis of climate change; that the alleged anthropomorphic basis of changes in climate be reviewed in the context of the cyclical developments in the Milky Way galaxy and developments on the Sun.

CC/Leonhard Lenz

Fridays for Future march in Berlin on January 25, 2019.

---------------------------------------------

Climate Activists’ Child Abuse

An actually scientific evaluation of climate is obviously extremely important, because President Trump’s proposed committee is being planned at the very moment that there is an unprecedented international campaign driving children into a frenzied fear. Greta Thunberg, the sixteen-year-old Swedish “climate activist” is being proposed for a Nobel Prize. She is being trotted around from UN conferences in Poland, to Davos, to rallies.

We have talked to some of the school children, and they don’t know the science of climate change; they are being inundated with horror scenarios. Many of them ask us, “Why should I go to school and learn anything if the world is going to end in twelve years anyway?” One child even said that she wanted to commit suicide in a certain number of years because in twelve years the world will end.

This is malicious abuse of children! Many of these children do not have the cognitive ability of children in previous generations.

A study was just published in Germany, which we can discuss in one of our next programs, on the impact of continuous, many-hours-per-day use of digital devices—smart phones, laptops, iPads—on the neurological functions of the brain. It deeply hampers people’s ability to make judgements; they don’t have any historical sense, they don’t have any sense of orientation.

NASA/Aubrey Gemignani

Left to right: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine; Gen. Paul Selva, Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff; and Dr. William Happer, Deputy Assistant to the President, NSC.

---------------------------------------------

Inducing the fear that the world will soon come to an end, I think, is one of the bigger crimes of the present time. I can only hope that there will be such a Presidential committee to look at climate change in an objective way. I know there are many scientists around the world who do not agree with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I can only hope that this will lead to a scientific approach to the real causes of climate change, putting this issue on a sound scientific basis.

The Importance of LaRouche’s Exoneration

Schlanger: To conclude today’s program, we should take up freeing the people of the United States, and other countries, from the fear of discussing these kinds of issues.

Last week we talked about the importance of the fight for the exoneration of Lyndon LaRouche as a way of bringing into the open the kinds of devious tactics and malicious intentions of the people who ran the campaign against him, who are the very same networks running the campaign against Trump.

Given the continuing atmosphere of rumors in the wake of the expected release of the Mueller report, the continuing attacks on President Trump from the House committees, the debate on whether he should or should not be impeached, the one thing that effectively cuts through this morass, or better said, can actually raise people above it, is to look at the campaign that was run against your husband. People can go to our website and look at this; sign the petition to exonerate Lyndon LaRouche. We need to get momentum behind this. Helga, I thought you might want to say something on this at the end of this program today.

Zepp-LaRouche: It looks different depending on whether you look at it from inside the United States or from abroad. In the United States, there is a complete division between the Trump haters and the Trump supporters. I think Americans should understand the apparatus going after Trump.

It’s telling that Bush’s Vice President, Dick Cheney, just met with a bunch of Republicans, including Pence, behind closed doors in Georgia. What leaked out from that meeting was that Cheney went after Trump for his policy of withdrawing troops from Syria, supposedly because of Trump’s criticism of NATO, and that Trump won’t listen to the intelligence community.

Actually, you could say that this meeting was part of an effort by the war party to figure out what to do to “correct” the policies of Trump.

If you look at the forces involved here, it’s very clear that they are the same forces that went after my husband and his colleagues in the 1980s: this apparatus of William Weld—who wants to run against Trump—of Robert Mueller, and this entire so-called Deep State, which is actually much more interwoven with the British Empire. This apparatus right now is the war party. These are the circles that are driving the confrontation with Russia and China. Should they succeed, I think you can kiss world peace good-bye, because we are still in an incredibly dangerous period of confrontation.

An Injustice Against the American People

So, the effort to destroy Lyndon LaRouche and his movement was the biggest injustice in the history of the United States. Look at the beautiful ideas generated by my husband and go on our website. You will see some of the obituaries and commemorations from people around the world who appreciate the true worth of his ideas and his life’s work, and you can contrast that with the outbursts of hatred against these ideas—it shows you how absolutely important it is to exonerate my husband.

I think the best thing you can do to move the United States away from confrontation with Russia and China, to indeed make America great again—which would allow Trump to follow his best impulses to fix the American economy, but especially to adopt the kinds of policies that would really remedy the international financial crisis and go in the direction of a New Paradigm,— Perhaps the only way to move the United States, is to contribute to the campaign to exonerate my husband. I’m appealing to you to do exactly that.

Schlanger: You can get a copy of the exoneration petition on the Schiller Institute website. Read it; think about it and talk to others. This is the fight to save the nation.

Helga, thanks for joining us, and welcome back from your trip to Italy. We’ll see what happens; it’s going to be another interesting week ahead of us.

Zepp-LaRouche: For sure. Till next week.

Click here to read and sign the petition

LPAC-TV

Organizations associated with Lyndon LaRouche are conducting an international campaign petitioning President Trump to exonerate him.

---------------------------------------------

II. Back to the Moon for Good

Civilization Sprouts on the Moon

by Michael James Carr

“This year, American astronauts will go back to space on American rockets.”

—President Trump in his

2019 State of the Union Address

March 16—The successful conclusion of the NASA/SpaceX Demo-1 flight of the Dragon 2 spacecraft on March 8, portends an imminent change in both the status of America’s manned space program and the outlook of Americans toward space settlement and development in general.

Rather than review the sordid history of decades of sabotage of the American space program, here we shall concentrate upon the future and simply say that after the successful conclusion of that flight, the possibility of American astronauts travelling to and from the International Space Station (ISS) this year in American spacecraft has gone from a possibility to a likelihood. As that likelihood comes to the consciousness of Americans more and more, minds will open to think more about the long-term destiny of civilization in space and every aspect of what this will mean for humanity.

Beyond that, 2019 and the years in the immediate future hold a prospect of completely unprecedented space activity. So much is happening that it is difficult to keep tabs on everything. Next month, April 2019, will see the landing of the Indian Chandrayaan-2 Lunar lander and rover as well as a tiny Lunar lander built in Israel—Beresheet.

NASA

International Space Station (ISS).

---------------------------------------------

New Systems to Support the ISS

Also in April, Boeing’s Crew Space Transportation (CST)-100 Starliner spacecraft is scheduled to make its first unmanned test flight to the ISS. The current launch schedule calls for transporting astronauts to the ISS in July for SpaceX’s Dragon-2 [see box] and August for the Starliner [see box].

The article, “Moon-Mars Crash Program Under a Four Power Agreement,” in the October 26, 2018 issue of EIR provides a review of the proper long-term perspective for the American space program as the leading edge of unified colonization of space, in cooperation with all interested nations and public and private entities.

Here we will review a few of the other recent and imminent steps being taken toward the future we seek.

On December 11, 2017, President Trump issued Space Policy Directive 1 which directed NASA to—

lead an innovative and sustainable program of exploration with commercial and international partners to enable human expansion across the solar system and to bring back to Earth new knowledge and opportunities. Beginning with missions beyond low-Earth orbit, the United States will lead the return of humans to the Moon for long-term exploration and utilization, followed by human missions to Mars and other destinations. . . .

Still in his first year as NASA Administrator, Jim Bridenstine has been working hard to unleash previously suppressed talents, resources and capabilities from across the United States and around the world, to put Space Directive 1 into action. Since scientific progress has always been an international pursuit, sometimes suppressed or undermined by imperial machinations, once the machinations are removed, the scientific and engineering folks say, “Great, finally we get to do what we’ve always wanted to do.” Agencies, universities, and companies are stepping forward to take up several of the challenges to permanent settlement and development of the Moon—and further down the road, Mars.

As we will show below, the project to develop the Moon is pulling civilization together around an idea of a better future. It is a process parallel to the unifying impact of the growth of Xi Jinping’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) on Earth.

Meanwhile, as NASA focusses more attention on deep space, many routine, or repetitive, aspects of operations in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), will be handed over to private contractors under NASA supervision. In this area, NASA will be performing a function similar to that performed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in regulating aviation; although, in this case, NASA will also be a leading customer.

ISRO

Opening of the Human Space Flight Centre in Bengaluru, India with a model of the Indian Space Reseach Organisation’s (ISRO’s) Gaganyaan crewed spacecraft in the background.

---------------------------------------------

New Low Earth Orbit Systems

LEO is also becoming busier. This year, the China National Space Administration (CNSA) is scheduled to launch the first module of its own space station, Tiangong-2 (Heavenly Palace-2).

In December 2018, India’s Union Council of Ministers agreed to pursue Prime Minister Modi’s Gaganyaan (Orbital Vehicle) project to build a manned spacecraft and put three Indian astronauts into orbit by 2022.

At the same time that work is ongoing to develop heavy-lift capabilities for deep space operations, in LEO, the continuing miniaturization of satellites has opened up a market for small-scale launch vehicles. Last year, 461 satellites were launched globally, 271 of which weighed less than 100 kilograms (220 pounds). In 2017, India launched 104 satellites via a single Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle.

According to a survey by Northrop Grumman reported in Aviation Week (Feb. 25-March 10, pp. 70-73), 39 small launch vehicles are in active development, with another 44 under study or design. This is a boom, like the fiber optics boom or the dot-com boom of the 1990s; much of it will come crashing down, but the best ideas from these efforts will persist and become assets in the overall spread of civilization into deep space.

Meanwhile, in December 2018, the British-based aerospace manufacturer, Reaction Engines Ltd., delivered its SABRE (Synergetic Air-Breathing Rocket Engine) pre-cooler to the just completed Test Facility 2 near Watkins, Colorado, which will test the pre-cooler’s ability to cool incoming air to allow the cooled air to be used instead of liquid oxygen at speeds up to around Mach 5 in a rocket engine. Aviation Week reports that the rocket core design has now passed a preliminary design review by the European Space Agency (ESA) and the UK Space Agency. (See my article, “Breakthrough Heralds Dawn of the Age of Single-Stage-to-Orbit Spaceplanes,” EIR, June 8, 2018, for more information on the SABRE technology.)

CNSA

The first panoramic image sent back by the Chang’e-4 after landing on the far side of the Moon.

---------------------------------------------

The Gateway and Settlement of the Moon

On January 3, 2019, CNSA landed the Chang’e-4 lander and Yutu-2 rover on the far side of the Moon. Among the notable accomplishments of that ongoing mission was the first sprouting of Earth seedlings on another heavenly body. Also, the CNSA communications relay satellite, used to communicate between the Earth and the far-side spacecraft, is now available for use by other endeavors on the far side and has become a part of the long-term human infrastructure of Lunar development.

By the end of 2019, China is expected to land its Chang’e-5 mission on the Moon and return regolith samples to Earth.

NASA

An artist’s view of a launch of an SLS/Orion rocket from Launch Complex 39B at Kennedy Space Center, Florida.

---------------------------------------------

In late 2018, NASA announced plans to explore and develop the Moon via the construction of a small, modular, human-tended Lunar-orbiting space station, known as the Deep Space Gateway, from which robotic and manned landers and potentially a Lunar base would be staged. While much of the technology involved will be built using NASA’s most powerful ever Space Launch System (SLS) heavy launch vehicle, building a staging base in Lunar orbit enables smaller rockets from other countries or from private companies to launch smaller modules and supply missions to the Gateway.

In particular, NASA is looking at Lunar landers to be composed of two or three separate, reusable modules that could be separately launched upon smaller-capacity commercial launchers, assembled together at the Gateway and then deployed to the Lunar surface on repeated missions from the Gateway.

Alternatively, a large, single-stage vehicle could be launched while empty and fueled at (or near) the Gateway. There are many ways to break up the masses for ease of transport and then assemble the final spacecraft’s constituent modules in orbit for Lunar surface operations. Although bidding is underway now on one or more crewed landers, not much detail is available. NASA intends to begin human operations on the Lunar surface in the 2026-2028 timeframe.

NASA

NASA’s Lunar timeline of exploration. ISS-sustainable low-Earth capability 2000-: LRO (2009), Artemis (2010); small commercial landers 2019-: Orion spacecraft 2020, power & propulsion element 2022, Orion crewed exploration; mid-size robotic landers 2022; gateway in lunar orbit 2026; advanced exploration lander 2026.

---------------------------------------------

Similarly, the Gateway is conceived as a staging area in which to assemble missions that would head out to Mars. But that is further down the pike.

The difficulty in amassing the tonnage required for sustained Lunar surface operations, demands revolutionary breakthroughs in both Earth-to-LEO, and LEO-to-Gateway operations. NASA’s 2019 budget includes $100 million for the development of a Nuclear Thermal Rocket (NTR) engine, which will be tested in space in 2024. NTR engines have so far demonstrated twice the specific impulse (measure of thrust per unit weight of fuel) of chemical rockets and could be very important for use in space tugs (spacecraft which take cargo and passengers back and forth between LEO and the Gateway). Also, the Gateway station will use four electric propulsion motors with ten times the specific impulse of chemical rockets. These electric propulsion systems also hold great promise for space tug use—including for propulsion to Mars and beyond.

NASA

Prototype Hall thruster in testing at NASA’s Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, OH. Four of these thrusters will used for maneuvering the Gateway in Lunar orbit.

---------------------------------------------

With over 18 years’ experience of continuous occupation of LEO by the ISS, the fourteen ISS partner space agencies aim to extend their capabilities deeper into space with the Gateway. NASA Administrator Bridenstine has made clear that besides the existing ISS partners, every space agency in the world is invited to take a part in the Lunar exploration project. There is more than enough work for all to do. It is high time that Congress removes the Wolf Amendment restrictions on cooperation with China, so that Chinese expertise can be brought into this project. We should also expect that India, South Korea, Brazil, South Africa, Nigeria, and other nations with growing space agencies will soon assume important roles in this project.

NASA

A NASA graphic showing some of the roles ISS partners are planning to perform in the Lunar Gateway project. Left to right: NASA Power and Propulsion Element; ESA ESPRIT; NASA U.S. Utilization Module; ESA/JAXA International Habitation Module; CSA ASC (Canada) Robotics; NASA/JAXA Logistics Resupply; NASA U.S. Habitation Module; Roscosmos Multi-Purpose Module; NASA Orion Crew Module; ESA Orion Service Module. Box at lower right: A DEEP SPACE HUB FOR SCIENCE AND EXPLORATION COLLABORATION. Icon labels: Command Module for Lunar Surface Assets, Internal and External Payloads, Internal and External Robotics, Mixed Fleet Deliveries, Human Lunar Surface Systems, International Crew.

---------------------------------------------

The Gateway project depends upon the successful development of NASA’s new shuttle-derived, biggest-ever-built, Space Launch System and its new deep-space manned spacecraft known as the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, or simply Orion [see box]. The first launch and Lunar test of an unmanned SLS/Orion vehicle is scheduled for June 2020, but SLS development problems may require some massive juggling in the initial phases of the Orion test deployment, for example using more launches of existing smaller rockets with smaller modules, or empty modules, separated from other launches of fuel or internal equipment to be added later.

NASA, CNSA, Russia’s Roscosmos, ISRO (Indian Space Research Organisation), KARI (Korea Aerospace Research Institute), and JAXA (Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency), plus a few private ventures, have many further unmanned Lunar operations planned for the near future. Further discussions of the initial period of manned Lunar surface operations involve building a Lunar navigation satellite system (similar to GPS, Glonass, and BeiDou on Earth), building a Moon Village, building new types of Lunar surface and supra-surface vehicles for people and instruments, and new techniques for constructing structures on the Moon.

Both the pace of discussions on these topics and the pace of physical implementation is accelerating, as is the intensity of cooperation. The process of settlement of the Moon and beyond provides a model that should be emulated in more and more political and economic spheres here on Earth. Calm discussion based upon scientific principle and mutual respect, works!

A Final Note

After a hiatus of eight years without its own human launch capability, NASA may soon have three man-rated spacecraft suitable for launch upon a number of carrier rockets. Never again should America have to endure years without a human launch capability.

NASA, as it should, is playing more and more of an international coordination role. Its role in harmonious development of space cooperation should increasingly be felt in the political realm here on Earth. In parallel with Xi Jinping’s Belt and Road Initiative on Earth, President Trump’s and Administrator Bridenstine’s efforts in space are pushing the New Paradigm forward.

In general, the direction being pursued by NASA is exciting and commendable. However, EIR, with its special competence in the realm of physical economy, must point out once again that much of the technology involved in current planning is of an evolutionary—rather than the necessary revolutionary character. Second, the efforts underway assume constrained resources and a nearly-constant Federal budget allocation. NASA hopes to cut ISS costs with its Commercial Crew Program in order to redirect savings toward its deeper space objectives.

The reality of properly understood physical economy, is that an expanded Federal investment in the rapid development of an array of revolutionary technologies will more than pay for the entire program.

The technologies that need to be pushed faster, with more resources, include: (1) superconducting magnetic levitation/acceleration technologies according to the StarTram proposal for heavy-lift freight shipment from Earth to LEO, (2) fusion rocket development as under the ongoing NASA/Princeton Satellite Systems work for deep space transport, and (3) accelerated development of the Reaction Engines Ltd. proposed air-breathing rocket engine (SABRE) coupled with the development of an actual space plane for routine gentle transportation of astronauts to and from LEO. In our future multi-planet civilization, parachute landings should only be required for emergency situations—or perhaps direct returns from explorations in deep space.

EIR readers know that the only constraints upon mankind’s reach are really to be found inside the mental delusions of balanced budgeting, log rolling and horse trading. Creative people exist, resources exist—it will be the imposition of LaRouche’s Four Laws together with increasing cooperation among the Four Powers (Russia, India, China, and the United States) that will bring together the creativity and machinery necessary to begin to break all artificial bounds.

The Dragon-2 Spacecraft

NASA TV

Dragon-2 spacecraft docked to ISS.

---------------------------------------------

The first unmanned flight of the NASA/SpaceX Dragon-2 spacecraft, March 2-8, demonstrated its ability to safely carry seven crew members from Earth to the ISS and back to Earth. While there was not much doubt about the launch phase, docking with the ISS was the first autonomous docking with the ISS done by an American spacecraft.

A second important area needing demonstration was the effect of the unusual external shape of the vehicle upon the reentry process. Unlike the NASA/Boeing CST-100 Starliner or the NASA/Lockheed-Martin Orion spacecraft, the exterior shape of the Dragon 2 is quite different from the proven Apollo configuration. Unlike these shallow, conical spacecraft, the Dragon-2 uses eight pusher rockets attached to the sides of the vehicle. These rockets enable the spacecraft to safely abort to Earth at any point in its mission. The launch escape system is never jettisoned, as it is in the case of tractor-rocket escape systems.

This attempt to increase crew safety led to concerns about the effects the unusual bumpy shape might have on the dangerous process of reentry. The March 8 splashdown proved the unusual design would work. One more flight test of the Dragon-2 in a simulated maximum dynamic-pressure launch abort is scheduled in June, before its first crewed launch scheduled for July. Dragon-2 vehicles will be reused as cargo ships for ISS resupply after their human missions. Astronauts will only fly on the new Dragon-2’s. [back to text]

CST-100 Starliner Spacecraft

An artist’s rendering of the CST-100 Starliner showing the pusher rocket engines attached to the service module.

---------------------------------------------

The NASA/Boeing CST-100 Starliner spacecraft builds upon the experience Boeing has gained as the prime contractor for the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Skylab, Space Shuttle and ISS manned spacecraft, while adding new 21st Century technologies. Like the Dragon-2, the Starliner uses pusher rockets to achieve a full Earth-to-orbit abort capability, but in this case, the pusher rockets are attached to the service module instead of the capsule itself. Also, the Starliner is designed to land on airbags on land in the American West instead of the Dragon-2’s splashdown in the Atlantic. Like the Dragon-2, the capsule is fully autonomous with the ability of the pilot to manually override and control the vehicle. With its weldless design, it is intended to be reusable 10 times. Both vehicles are designed to be able to transport 7 people and to be able to be parked at the ISS for 10 months at a time. [back to text]

Orion Spacecraft

NASA

An artist’s rendering of the Orion spacecraft.

---------------------------------------------

The NASA/Lockheed-Martin Orion spacecraft with its ESA (European Space Agency)/Airbus service module is designed to carry four astronauts on operations around the Moon and beyond, It is currently scheduled to fly unmanned around the Moon in its first test flight aboard the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket’s first test flight in June of 2020. However the SLS may not be ready in time to perform this mission in June of next year. So NASA is looking into the possibility of using 2 existing smaller rockets to separately launch the Orion spacecraft and an upper stage booster which would dock in orbit and continue to perform the June 2020 test mission around the Moon.

The Orion has a hybrid launch abort system which uses either a tractor rocket system or the second stage of the SLS. Every phase of launch to orbit should be safely abortable with this hybrid system. [back to text]

III. The World Mourns Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

Messages of Condolence

On the Passing of Lyndon LaRouche

(1922-2019)

The following is a further selection of the large number of memorials and messages of condolence on the passing of Lyndon H. LaRouche, and of tribute to his life’s work, which continue to pour in from around the world. (Compiled as of March 16, 2019.)

UNITED STATES

On Lyndon

I believe Lyndon was a genius. I believe he was courageous and that he loved people.

I believe he sacrificed his life for us common folk.

I believe he knew the potential for greatness inherent in each and every person,

And because of his cultural and political awareness he taught us to see behind the “curtain,”

How we have been conditioned, controlled and demoralized.

He battled the enemies of mankind with ideas.

His solutions were and still remain practical—common sense, yet brilliant.

I am grateful for his vision,

I am grateful for his fight,

Saddened by our loss,

But know that he is now standing in company

Before the Infinite throne of Grace.

And rejoicing

That the God the universe does hear,

Does answer, does act

On behalf of a heart that strove to reflect

His very Own.

Thank you, Lyndon LaRouche, for the life you chose to live.

Debra Konanez

Retired dance instructor

New York, United States

Thank you for sending me the biography of Lyndon LaRouche. It was beautifully written but most important was the quality of thought given to a correct appraisal to an outstanding man who gave his life to the advancement of humanity, and advance he did. What he said, did, initiated, originated, and implemented is worthy of our highest regard and respect. His writing about Gethsemane demands from us an enormous amount of regard and understanding. I keenly enjoyed what you wrote about him and what he said as a mandate to all of us.

I think I have appreciated him more than ever in his present stand for the world affairs and the desire to advance all of humanity. His deliverance of a speech had beautiful citations, especially those reflecting the King James Version. I cannot thank you enough for introducing me to him and what he said. Though I never met him, I have greatest respect for him and think that your support of him through the years is just a marvel. You are to be commended for your great love and devotion, and the rest of us can extend our reaction of commendation and highest regard.

I shall indeed remember the man and his ideals and how much they meant, not just to our country but to the whole earth. He is an individual to be regarded as one of the few who understood the nature of reaching out to humanity. I am grateful that you shared with me, and I am grateful that you let me see pieces from his speeches. You are very fine, my friend.

Your announcement of LaRouche’s passing was most dignified and beautifully done. I was grateful to receive the notification. Although sad, it once again prompted me to understand him better and to acknowledge the magnitude of his contribution to the earth for many years. He overcame the prison, misunderstandings, condemnations, criticisms, and never lost track of the real truths that advance this earth.

Thank you again.

Love,

Joan

Author and educator

Illinois, United States

ARGENTINA

Friends: I feel so deeply the passing of Lyndon. May God and the universe grant him the place he deserves for having cared about and fought for the wellbeing of humanity, and may you find strength and wisdom for the fight ahead. Let it continue.

Nicolás Amato

Autoparts businessman

Buenos Aires, Argentina

I feel [Lyndon’s] loss very greatly, and share your sadness, but also recognize that his legacy is very broad and valuable, a testament to which is his wife Helga’s great commitment, and that of all of you who, with such dedication have made it possible to learn about his thinking and his proposals for a better world for all.

Ana Michemberg

Teacher

Buenos Aires, Argentina

BOLIVIA

This is undoubtedly a great loss for humanity. Few understood the magnitude of his proposals, but he leaves a legacy for those interested to continue on the path he charted. His absence will be felt.

Some people are no longer physically present, but their ideas and their fight abide. Philosophy and the sciences have evolved upon the foundations left by those who promoted them. Let us keep alive the flame which L.H. LaRouche has left us.

Gualberto Tapia

Agronomist

La Paz, Bolivia

COLOMBIA

LaRouche was a great patriot and citizen of the world, and his philosophy and ideas will continue on until the end of time. May God hold him in His glory. His ideas will ever continue to inspire us.

Carlos Julio Díaz Lotero

Director-General, National School of Trade Unionism

Medellín, Colombia

FRANCE

Thank you for having made me share with all of you the sadness that touches you so deeply.

I want to tell you, Lyndon LaRouche’s wife Helga, and all the militants of the Schiller Institute and Solidarité et Progrès our profound sympathy. This man, visionary and lucid, has transmitted determination and convictions that open up avenues which you help us to pursue together for a more just and more human world.

The word “gratitude” is the most appropriate in our days of mourning and we measure your sadness which can but transform itself in a mobilizing energy to remain faithful to his courageous will.

Very sincerely to you all,

Louis and Odile Reymondon

Dr. Louis Reymondon, Honorary Surgeon of French Hospitals

President, Association Vietnamitié (Franco-Vietnamese Friendship)

France

MEXICO

I want to express my gratitude to someone who dedicated his youth, adulthood and later years to always demonstrating his profound love of humanity through his contributions to science, economics, art and everything which a human being might transform for the Good.

From when I was a child, it was my good fortune to have had contact with and learn from his writings in countless books and documents which circulated in my house as a means of daily communication, because my father, José Antonio Ruiz González, was a great admirer of his.

Besides meeting him personally in my youth and talking with him about my artistic work, in which I taught music to boys and girls with few resources in the north of Mexico through choral singing, I have never forgotten that when I spoke with him about the reaction of joy from the children and their eagerness to continue learning something which was new to them, his response was: “That is the power of classical music!” Those words were the door which opened for me to find my vocation and dedicate my life to keep promoting the formation of choruses.

Thank you, Mr. LaRouche, and know with full surety that your seed of love for humanity was sown in countless people in the world.

I would like to think that you had a great smile on your face upon leaving this world, and that you will be received in that way where you have gone.

Ana Linda Ruiz Quezada

Children’s chorus director

Hermosillo, Mexico

SYRIA

I am deeply saddened by the news of the death of Mr. Lyndon LaRouche, Jr. My prayers are with you and with his family and friends. On behalf of myself, as well as on behalf of all the members of the Permanent Mission of the Syrian Arab Republic, I would like to express my heartfelt condolences. His memory will remain immortal in the hearts and minds of all who knew him and got the chance to know his valuable works, books and articles. May his loving soul rests in peace.

Please accept the assurances of my highest consideration.

Bashar Ja’afari

Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations

Syrian Arab Republic

IV. LaRouche’s Ideas Continue To Resonate

22 July 2012

MUSIC & BIOLOGY:

The Human Mind: Two Views

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

First published in EIR, on August 3, 2012.

Preface:

This is to be heard in the mind of the reader, according to no intended choices of punctuation differing from those which I prescribed for being heard in the reader’s mind as I have written here. There lies the authentic meanings of what I have thought, in writing this here. The distinctions so emphasized, are crucial for a proper comprehension of the content presented. Shakespeare is to be imagined as hearing, from wherever he may be found presently.

The subject of the ontological basis for defining the concept of the human mind, had come up again, as what has appeared to be, a persistent continuation of what should have been finally resolved, as the agreed conclusion reached between Max Planck and Wolfgang Köhler. Planck had concurred, systemically, with Köhler’s principle, that of the systemic unity of the function of the human mind. The unsettled aspect of what was, only nominally the same subject-matter, is what I shall identify as that matter still at issue, below, actually, on a different (and dubious) subject. That other subject was presented by some as a differing, actually reductionist-leaning view, found among some persons. The difference was expressed, as what I had encountered as an uncertainty, by some observers, respecting a still unsettled distinction, of “mind,” from “brain.”

In any case, certain positive advances in that subject-matter strongly merit re-examination presently.

In my own, rather long-standing, and now matured view of the matter,[fn_1] I had tended to enjoy the privilege, of a certain degree of indifference, to such quibbles from critics of Köhler’s argument on the subject of the unity of mind. Nonetheless, speaking of ontological matters, it has remained of relatively crucial significance, to point out, that the relevant professionals had failed to grasp the concept of mind, as Köhler and Planck had done. The issue so posed, here, is a subject-area which requires some carefully chosen insights. At bottom, the subject remains, essentially ontological, not literary, in its nature.

The treatment is of the same subject-matter, as by Johann Sebastian Bach, Arthur Nikisch, and Wilhelm Furtwängler; all of which continues to be of first-rate relevance. So, Bach’s Preludes and Fugues, presents us with a crucially relevant case of the ontological issues, the issue of the ordering of present and future in the actual communication of ideas.

“It is the Classical, poetical method, which carries the mind into proximity with what might be judged as truthful, even if not perfectly so.” Rembrandt, “Two Old Men Disputing” (1628).

---------------------------------------------

I. An Ontological Issue

The most direct route of investigation for locating, and understanding the problem which I am considering here, must begin with attention to certain, crucial questions, questions which arise from distinctions respecting the contrast, between a competent insight into sense-perception as such, and the reductionist’s degree of dependence on a-priorist notions. For the purpose of locating the distinction between the two, insight versus literally mathematical arguments as such, the latter are close to, or perhaps worse than useless, that as a matter of principle. The means required, for the purpose of such distinctions, must include provision for an escape from that contemptible trap, which is describable as “literal sense-perception,” as such.

The key word for all such discussions, is “metaphor.” For example, as one of the greatest scientists in modern history, Johannes Kepler, treated the principle of metaphor in creating the only originally competent insight, into the principle of gravitation (despite the failings of some otherwise well-qualified scientists, on that subject). Let us now proceed accordingly.

The predicament which this fact represents, is to be traditionally addressed, by assuming, that the object of sense-perception, is merely a shadow of reality, as in the role of metaphor in Classical drama, such as, for example, the role of Birnam Wood in Shakespeare’s Macbeth, or, as taken from the core of a most crucial soliloquy, from Act III, of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, as follows:

“But, that the dread of something after death—

That undiscovered country, from whose bourn

No traveller returns—puzzles the will,

And makes us rather bear those ills we have

Than fly to others that we know not of?

Thus, conscience doth make cowards of us all;

And thus the native hue of resolution

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

And enterprises of great pith and moment,

With this regard, their current turn awry,

And lose, the name of action—”[fn_2]

The action, thus, is typical of all profound moments in Classical drama, as in Hamlet, and as in the closing scene of Macbeth. To convey meaningful conceptions, especially in matters bearing on my subject in this report, it is essential to assist the audience’s access to understanding of the actual intention, through aid of the reflection of some potently influential, shadow, whose true image lurks, as if hidden, beyond the reach of sense-perception. This demands sensitivity to prescience of a moving, imagined shadow, which mimics the thought of unseen, and unheard, marching feet. Such was Kepler’s certainty of the unseen motive of a planetary domain. Such is the true principle of metaphor. I explain.

The issue is a matter of a double-error. The problem to be avoided is the commonplace ignorance which is commonly expressed as a childish adoption of what you might take for certainty, a misplaced confidence, in what you, customarily, mistakenly, presume as being, in fact, as an experienced pseudo-certainty. A pseudo-certainty which you may also experience as your self-deluded confidence, respecting the efficacy of your own motives. Without the contrast represented by those two, you would actually know, essentially, nothing. It is by the—shall I not say, “vicarious hypothesis,” so presented? That you might be enabled, as Kepler was enabled, to solve the riddle in which the two, counterposed actions—yours and theirs—might touch upon a reality found, uniquely, in the domain of metaphorical counter-position.

That is the method required, for the discovery, by mankind, of a convergence of provable truth, which can be wittingly experienced, only through mankind’s experience of history, as since the belated rediscovery of the real-life Troy.

The considerations which that method employs, are to be the discovery of, the otherwise unknowable reality, with which mankind is, very often confronted. These are, thus, to be made known, with an allowable degree for a discoverable margin of error.

Only the long sweep of an unfolding, of an actual history, as, often, only the greatest poets and playwrights have presented an insight into reality, could provide the basis for the relevant convergence which is required for an experience of the truth. It is by this method, when driven forward by a passion for the discovery of a truth opposing all obstacles to relevant insight, that mankind is enabled to prosper through the uncovering of those otherwise unsensed processes, the which we may regard as insight into actual “history,” as of the Bach, Nikisch, and Furtwängler who have demonstrated those relevant, Classical poetic principles, which underlie true insight, into history.[fn_3]

Hence, it is the Classical, poetical method, which carries the mind into proximity with what might be judged as truthful, even if not perfectly so. It is the progress toward advances in discovery of truthful forms of knowledge and practice, as in the case of the great Passions of Bach combined as a single, growing intention, which is what we might have wished to adopt as “the heritage of the principle of history.”

Thus, there is no “outside authority,” which is not subject to the effects of those changes within that universe which we inhabit, or which we might seek to inhabit. What rules us, is that view considered as an authority governing truth and falsehood, alike. We must reconcile ourselves, to the reality, that we are enveloped by what we may call, universal creation. This to be done, by virtue of attention to our active relationship to the seeking of the discovery of the actual universality which envelops our existence. It is that universe—that universe!—which demands our self-development, as if in the self-improvement of our universe, that done toward the effect of serving the higher intentions defining our responsibilities, as we might choose to say, to serve.

That latter prospect, is that which confronts mankind, as our presently living moment, of universal history. That is what merits the Classical poet’s name for a scientific quality of truth. Fiction, at its best, is thus deprived of its own best hiding places, and thereby made free. Such has been shown by the work of such as Bach, Nikisch, Furtwängler, and Planck, Einstein, and Wolfgang Köhler. The profession varies, but the mission remains the same.

In the preceding set of opening remarks, I have removed certain gratuitous, relatively incomplete, and probably wrong presumptions respecting our existence in this universe. What this accomplishes, is to assist us in pushing aside useless questions (useless, because there is virtually nothing presently known about them, which we might be enabled to exploit successfully, until we have progressed, to know better). Keep trying, but only honestly, within the bounds of an extended discovery of real history, through the aid of the great Classical dramatist, who is a better authority, respecting the pathway to truth, than any other historian. That leaves us with the advantage, of un-cluttering our ability to know what could be foreseen, and, thus, to know better for the time being.

In my immediately preceding remarks, I do not exaggerate in the least. The following argument, must be interpolated here.

What Is It That We Actually Know?

I think it more than fairly said, of people whom I know, that, as a matter of general custom, they sometimes tend to make themselves ignorant, by claiming to know too much collateral stuff for them to digest, or, too little to reveal any truth; and, therefore, if they claimed less, they might have learned, actually, much more. The case of metaphor, which I had just presented here, is typical, of that case.

The pestilence called sense-certainty, is among the leading causes of virtual stupidity respecting the important subjects for mankind. By seeking to know what sense-certainty could not know, merely in and of itself, one ends up virtually knowing actually nothing but that which the ordinary reporters might pretend to believe. The latter is typified by the errors associated, with those investigators, who are my implied subject in this report. Hence, the necessity of the reliance on the principle of metaphor, as Kepler, for example, defined it.

We do not actually know, as we might imagine that we know sense-certainty itself. We must uncover, as such as Planck and Köhler had done, that which lies beyond the seemingly impenetrable sensual boundaries of the sense-perceptual existence as such. We must be content, on this account, exactly as Kepler presented the case in the course of his discovery of the principle of universal gravitation.

Sometimes, not pretending to know more than you actually know, is the available opening to genuine scientific progress, as in the instance of the work, approaching, or somewhat beyond the Nineteenth Century and somewhat later achievements of Max Planck, Albert Einstein, and, then, V.I. Vernadsky and Wolfgang Köhler. Removing the rubbish, helps to create a better neighborhood for honest ideas. That is what, for example, Johannes Kepler had accomplished, as in his intentional following of the greatest mind of two or more centuries, Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, before him.

I am not recommending “generalities.” They claim too much, without actual reason, and bury themselves, like cheap popular dramas, under a mass of “nothings.”

Practicing Science

Take the illustrative cases of what have been my own successes as a forecaster in economy, as against my putative rivals. The rivals seek to claim the ability to command the future from within the past, as through reliance on past experience, and thus tend to complain that the future is implicitly unknowable. This, of course, was precisely the same argument made against Johann Sebastian Bach: actually, living persons of true consequence, dwell in the future, not the past.

How could you know the future, if you are clinging fanatically to deductions from the past? Take Bach’s method, for an example, as the accomplished scientist and musician, Max Planck would do, or the violinist Albert Einstein, or all the greatest musical composers from Bach through Johannes Brahms. Bach insisted, by the virtue of his practice, on composing only for the sake of the future contained within his own compositions, and protested against those pompous dullards confined to an either deceased or never-born past. There is nothing eccentric in this principle; the difference of man from beast, is that man has the unique capability of not only knowing how to determine the future, but to live in it, rather than, as Romantics do, making other people’s “potties” for pleasing the appetites of the past.

A Case from Present History

It is essential for the competent scientist, like the really serious dramatist, to compose what are in practice, if not “literal fact,” a reflection of principled truths, truths which attempt to deal with the consequences which the present actually inserts into the future, as all great Classical tragedy adopts that policy as a mission to be delivered to the future of the present. There is a truthful, if nonetheless, sometimes seemingly ordinary way, of treating this subject; this goes directly, as, also otherwise, to the principle of the human’s potential abilities, to foresee, the meaning which is the surrogate of the actual future.

This, for example, addresses, more or less precisely, the most dangerous and commonplace blunders which appear in the shaping of opinion among my own youthful associates’ sometimes occasional lack of ability either to recognize, or to cope with the idea of an actual future which is looming as a threat ahead of them. This is the fundamental principle of competent physical science, of the study of history, and the crafting of victory in warfare.

On this account, the mental disorder which I encounter, frequently, among my young associates, and also numerous others, is the inability to grasp the fact, that the only thing in life, for mankind, is the birth of the future. Deductive people, often seem to be very much like those virtually dead, but still living people whose dominant characteristic is the lack of a practical approach to dealing with a future which they have yet to meet, but which is moving to take them over sooner than they might allow themselves to imagine. For them, the future lies only in the proximate consequences of dumbed-down past experience.

“The mental disorder which I encounter, frequently, among my young associates, and also numerous others, is the inability to grasp the fact, that the only thing in life, for mankind, is the birth of the future.” Thomas Eakins, “Baby at Play” (1876).

---------------------------------------------

Specifically, the problem which I have just pointed out, is a very real, and very important one. It is not really what might be classed as “a natural error,” but one which is, rather, commonly “unnatural” under conditions such as those of prevalent forms of “popular” opinion presently. The effect of this is often met as the prevalent incompetence among our current generations of “the professional economic forecasters,” who rely upon what is defined by “statistical forecasters” whose nominally professional commitment is to the worship of statistical “death.” They worship “statistics,” which means that they possess no rational insight into the scientific actuality of the existence of a future (unless they had committed the relevant crime, themselves).

“Tell me what is en route to happening within some part of the decade immediately before them, rather than their typical inclination to adduce the existence of the future from a past which exists no more.” Such are the putrid effects of the typical notion of “lessons from past experience.” The fooled person, adduces the future as a simple extension of the past and present, most of them preferring to shun the present, in favor of memories “carbon-copied” from experiences of past times.

Think of deceased great artists, statesmen, and true heroes from times recently past. Which, young or old?—might prove to have been the more valuable to the cause of humanity? It is the deed in history of past and future, which is the standard of truth, if one can discover the identity of the actual author. If one has not worried about the outcome of one’s life, more in terms of benefits delivered to others, as in the future, more than what is the immediate experience of now. “Truth,” for most Americans, for example, presently, is little better than what they find it convenient to say in the presence of the proximate persons in the practice of the policy of lies one tells as a matter of, “Go along, to get along.”

The United States of America, among other nations, is presently ensnared in the gravest threat of virtually global, and also a thermonuclear warfare which would be horrible, in fact, and even in the imagination of current history in this immediate time. In the present situation, for example, you, if you are among young adults, or slightly older, you are faced with things beyond your present ability to contribute a competent assessment of the challenges which lie immediately before you. You will not be prepared to reckon with what is true, that which is now placed immediately before you: until you have subjected yourselves to a truly deep, and truthful reassessment of your notion of a currently real, and, perhaps, presently awful experience among nations.

This consideration is of crucial significance for those confronted with the reality which I have set forth as my foresight into the experience confronting you at this time. Like the oncoming of World War II for us now, as on what we came to name “Pearl Harbor Day,” certain past events, such as that one, have a certain similarity, loom now as a change in life-style, for you presently. Whether it is to be a new general war, as serious, or more serious than World War II since Pearl Harbor, remains uncertain; but, the immediate threat is already there. Whether there is war, or not, for us, the psychological requirements for encountering such an onset are already there for you.

Consider the matter which I have introduced as the subject of this report at the outset here, as already an expression of the set of options which I have identified here, this far. By not failing to face the realities of foreknowledge seen by the person whose mind is already in the future, the most monstrous past events in future history might have been averted.

II. How To Meet Your Future

We meet, whether directly, or in spirit, on the threshold of the most ominous developments in, perhaps, all known history, or even worse. Therefore, now, let us turn to consider matters in terms of certain more easily digested precedents, such as excerpts from Macbeth and Hamlet, precedents which some think, mistakenly, to have been relegated to past history, or only to the domain of the imagination.

This time, instead of coming on stage, imagine leaving the stage at the close of the performance.

Now, both here and there, you are filled with a sense of the close of warfare, or its like, as contrasted with the beginning of the experience. What, then, would be your judgment as to how you might have reacted once you were freshly filled with memories of the outcome of that recent experience? Judge yourself as the veteran coming out of that war. What are you presently willing to recognize as your state of mind, as you had been caught up in the already rising fury of warfare in progress now, as contrasted with your outlook a short time before the beginning of what is already that war now in progress? What would you wish to have now foreseen at the latter point, and during the early days of the still-oncoming process of that warfare in a future which, for the sake of our consoling self-delusion, seems not to exist?

Are you like the stubborn sinner, who did not believe in the existence of Hell: or, more likely, something which might fit its likeness?

My key point here, as in the preceding chapter, is to induce you, now, to anticipate the experience of the contrasted states of mind, at the end, and then the beginning. What does the “you” which is now older, think of the state of mind before you recognized the certainty of your being pulled into the onset of the experience? (“If I had only known then. . .”) That is exactly where many of our young adults fail emotionally, that often rather smugly and otherwise at the present time. You could not fool me; I was there.

That is only an essential part of the report I am presenting here. There is a much deeper issue to be considered.

The Deeper Issue

I bring you, again, to the subject of the distinction of the process represented by the birth through death of an individual person, into the broader domain of the continuity of successive generations. The subject is, therefore, the distinction of the individuation of the personality, as from self to offspring (biological, or otherwise), and ancestors, too. The work of society, is not defined as the work of a particular individual, but, rather a mission which is represented by a sequence of lives, a sequence, a process, which embodies, and thus transcends, individual mortality.

Presuming that the present population does not permit such as President Barack Obama to lead the world into thermonuclear self-extermination, as Obama presently threatens to do, the current thrust toward the realization of Solar-systemic missions, which scientific development has placed into position within the nearby planets and beyond, will intensify family ties, rather than lessen them.

There are several factors to be taken account in this connection. The most significant of these factors will be the virtual eruption in individual productivity, which means those effects on individual productivity which such as the progressive development of thermonuclear fusion, and beyond, confers as a power deployed by a massive increase in the individual human’s power in the Solar system.

Furthermore, the increased role of human individuals in space, and in related exploration and development, enhances the significance of the individual beyond anything in the customary reach of the individual’s and the individual family’s social importance during the remainder of this present century. The effect, will be expressed in terms of a sense of mission, a development which greatly expands the significance of the role of both the individual and the family far beyond past histories. This will be effected by the leap into thermonuclear fusion, and beyond, leaps expressed in a method. In effect, history itself will speed up, far beyond anything imaginable presently.

This far, in this present chapter, I have referenced your imagination. Now, consider the more probable likeness of the actual truth.

Now You Must Face the Music

The irony of sense-perception, is, first of all, that it is in a certain, very important respect, a lie, but only if you believe in the wrong way. From a scientific standpoint, there is nothing really surprising in that fact, especially if you had thought through the inherent factor of self-deception associated with a notion of certainty in the matters of human sense-perception. The lie, in such a case, is not sense-perception itself. Sense-perception, properly respected for what is, should be recognized, and often promptly: it represents a set of signals, so to speak, which fully sane persons do not ignore.

“The increased role of human individuals in space, and in related exploration and development, enhances the significance of the individual beyond anything in the customary reach of the individual’s and the individual family’s social importance during the remainder of this present century.”

Shown: At Mission Control Center, flight controllers applaud the splashdown and success of the Apollo 11 lunar mission, July 24, 1969. Four days earlier, astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed on the Moon.

---------------------------------------------

Then, that much said. Shall we say, “Granted the music, what is the song?” Or, some might ask, “Is the truth we do not know presently, as innocent as we might wish to believe?”

The question which I have just posed, does not signify, for me, at least, that there is intentional malice in our lack of direct means provided by creation for discovering a fuller truth. I think quite to the contrary. I might be considered pessimistic by some, in having said that; but, there is no such outlook existing in my opinion. The matter of issues to be considered, runs in the following summary outlook. We know, to the credit of leading scientists, as, notably, since the time of Nicholas of Cusa, that mankind has the means within us to produce capabilities which are tantamount in effect to added supplements to what is named as “sense-perception” beyond the initial array of the inborn. At precisely this moment of writing here, I change the subject of what is called “sense-perception,” and do that radically, to the following effect.

The history of physical science has presented the practice of science with means which “attach themselves,” so to speak, to the given senses. In the history of physical science, beginning with the specific distinction of mankind, that of the willful employment of fire, mankind’s knowledge has never been limited to the so-called “standard array” of sense-perceptions. The instant that mankind has extended the willful use of fire to change man’s effective conditions for controlling the use of fire as a qualitatively new dimension of willfully changing man’s nature itself, the existence of mankind has ceased to be defined by mere sense-perception; the role of mind has transformed the practical nature of the human species, and, therefore, generated an addition of definitions of the nature of the human species which is expressed by efficient means beyond the existence of the initial array of biological senses.

Indeed, progress in certain among the applications of the development of man’s culture, has enabled us to develop both prosthetical and comparable “artificial” means, whose application has replaced injured or failed natural senses and other parts of the living human’s body. We can only estimate how medical science, for example, might go toward further success in this direction. The point to be emphasized here, is that such developments in human behavior, have demonstrated a categorical species-difference of man from beast. That, however, is only the first consideration to be taken into account.

While we can account for prosthetic substitutes among non-human life-forms, that, considered by itself, does not define the case. The crucial case lies in not only those specific kinds of prosthetics which are essential for activating added dimensions of the human nervous system’s range of applicable powers of mind in the category of instruments such as the effects of Johannes Kepler’s discovery and development of categories of mental capabilities which do not exist among beasts, nor in categories of what exist among any other known living species, and, probably never will.

A typical demonstration of this fact, is shown in the fraud which the late Bertrand Russell introduced to the misled, bestial types of adaptions typified by the foolish claims of Russell’s dupe, Alexander I. Oparin. Mankind is self-defined as unique with respect to all known others as being a creative being in the universe, as like no other known to us presently. That might be stated otherwise, as pointing in the direction of the actual meaning of the “human soul,” more or less precisely as in the collaboration between Max Planck and Wolfgang Köhler.

That is a relatively “bare-bones” argument. The implications go much further, and, also, deeper. The functions of the human mind go much further and deeper than I have argued in this present chapter, thus far. Mankind itself has generated entirely new equivalents for “biological” categories of mental capabilities whose characteristics are those of a typical function specific in to the notion of the human soul.

What, Therefore, Is Religion?[fn_4]

The often-heard, pathetic sort of discussion of religious beliefs of mankind, is what is fairly considered as a belittling of the Christian, in particular, estimation of the capabilities with which mankind’s innate creative powers are endowed. There is, for example, a helpful reference on the subject of my complaint found in the work of Philo called “of Alexandria.” What is put in some relative jeopardy on this account, is the belittling of mankind which can be traced efficiently to the evils inherent in the oligarchical system, a system which employs the device of the belittling of the human “underdog” for such purposes as the cause of serfdom.

We have, lately, been confronted with the essential need, for the continued existence of the human species, of mankind’s accelerating progress in the role of increasing the science-dependent capabilities for the very continued existence of the human species. We can not, under existing circumstances, continue the imposition of practices comparable to slavery or serfdom on our planet. The very continued existence of the human species is becoming conditional on such means to secure continued human existence, not only within the range of current trends for Earth in the galaxy presently, not only within the galactic pattern Earth is entering presently, but, rather soon at increasing risk to Earth’s existence within the Solar system itself.

These dangers could be addressed by science-driven progress. The notion that a Creator would have desired the extermination of the human species, would be a terribly evil delusion by the proponents of such a cause.

The categories of human-driven advances in qualities of the means on which continued human existence depends, can therefore be attributed to the monsters who conducted the siege of Troy and the siege’s outcome, but not to honest human beings. Further, there is no speculation, but only fact, in stating that the oligarchical system’s record is that of something evil.

In any case, while the immediate prospects of mankind’s continued existence under a science-progress increase of the relative energy-flux density of applied power per capita and per square kilometer on Earth itself, is the prospect for nations under sane rule, there is a danger of a future dysfunctional state for human existence on Earth. Naturally, mankind must enhance the conditions of life for our species, and we must favor the likeness of a “running start” for meeting the indicated ultimate contingency. This means a great deal of development of the human species itself is required in advance of the time (within the currently estimated two billions years left for the Sun) for securing and moving the entire “circus company” to new premises. Hope for a happy outcome is highly desirable, but that will take a bit of doing, especially if we are unduly laggard.

However, that much said on that, on this occasion, our obligation, beginning now, for example, is to proceed with that long-term development a human species far more capable of doing its duty in the universe, than is within our reach at this time. The best advice, is to enjoy a long journey.

[fn_1]. Which had originated as an adolescent rejection of Euclidean geometry. [back to text for fn_1]

[fn_2]. Thank you, Shakespeare! That was helpful. [back to text for fn_2]

[fn_3]. E.g., Bach’s St. John and St. Matthew passions. [back to text for fn_3]

[fn_4]. I Corinthians 13: 12-13. [back to text for fn_4]