|
|
But, there is an alternative ...
THE CALAMITY OF THE SECOND OBAMA ADMINISTRATION
18 November 2012
What if the second Obama Administration, were to have already followed the same disastrous economic policies which had been the implicitly declared intention of both President Obama, and Mitt Romney? In that case, the optimal expectation would be, and now probably will be, a rapid, and, also, an early run-up to a hyper-inflationary collapse of the U.S. economy which is presently destroying western and central Europe. That is already the same course of accelerating, inflationary collapse, which now grips western and central Europe. This is already combined with the currently increasing danger to all mankind, the already lurking, early onset of thermonuclear war. So, the just-closed Republican Presidential campaign, like that of Obama now, implies a presently hyper-inflationary catastrophe, of what has already been the absolutely ruinous, “post-Westphalian” scheme of Britain’s evil Tony Blair. That has been a scheme which had been authored at the apparent direction of the British monarchy’s same Blair, as extended by Blair’s tool, President Obama himself. “The Prospect Before Us” What, then, if the beginning of Obama’s second term were also accompanied, or even preceded by something like the crisis which had suddenly struck down the President Richard Nixon administration? The re-election of Obama has already been very bad news for those who had fallen victim to the “Sandy” nightmare-storm. This calamity has been continued in its lethal and related effects, despite the fraudulent promise of the early onset of an alleged “better times are soon here again,” the hokum featured in the New York Times issue of this November 9th. Under the bitterly savage quality of the virtual economic rape of the already rotted and tottering U.S. economy, the current prospects of both U.S. political parties at this present time, are horrid—unless a seemingly miraculous turn in matters occurs, and that soon. Meanwhile: what I had already recognized, and identified as a Nero-like Obama, back in April 2009, has now verified that judgment of mine many times over; his travels along the proverbial road to what his lunatic belief conceives to be his still greater power over entire nations, are already running rapidly out of available economic pavement, and, probably, also beyond any semblance of that continued road itself. That is to say, if he does not actually launch a general thermonuclear war. Let us, therefore, waste no more time on the silly populist chatter infecting the two nominally major parties. It has not been unusual in past history, as now, that the most important of the issues of human history, are the lurking outcome represented by those subject-matters which tend to be wishfully overlooked, or, even fiercely denied to exist, as both Obama and Romney had done in their recent Presidential campaigns. Then, the really crucial issues of the U.S. nation, had never been brought up by them before the general public, or, by that so largely self-duped general public itself. The voters were swamped with popular double-talk, including that of their own, respective, shallow imaginations, while the really urgent issues were avoided by both parties as much as seemed possible. The victory, if it could be named as such, has already turned out to have been the merely nominal victory of what had been proven to have been the least competent, and most easily duped among the political constituencies. The Present Alternative Instead of continuing the discussion of both those two rival candidates, and some related, pathetic cases, we must now turn to what are actually the more substantial subject-matters of policy-shaping presently required for an actual future. Thus, in such a manner, the time has now come, when actually serious minds must consider the truly serious matter of the menacing challenge of the asteroid belt, which is located, for we Earthlings today, approximately in a range between the Mars and Venus orbits. Combine the deadly threats represented by the great masses of asteroids there, with a different, but related, even far deadlier prospect of the kind of threat represented by comets. To sum up these points: these objects represent a major kind of mortal threat, against which we, in net effect, have presently very little precise knowledge of the likely cases of specific threats. That general threat involves the urgent need for rejuvenation of the U.S.A.’s NASA program, the same program which a very, very foolish President Obama had already closed down in a very large degree. It is urgent, for several leading reasons, that we make up for lost time in our reawakening of that great source of true hope for mankind, which NASA represents. Otherwise, in western and central Europe, as in the U.S.A. today, it is the very things which are of the greatest urgency for mankind’s future, which have been either not considered at all, or have already been shut down, as President Obama had done in notable cases; but, these have been, in net effect, of the relatively greatest importance for mankind. Let us focus more narrowly, on the actually key problem among all those of which I know: it has been the lack of competent economic, or closely related forecasting, in which the lack of competence is the practice which is the most startling, and the most deadly in even its forecastable effects. Therefore, in this present report, I shall now be concentrating on two categories of topics. The first of these, is that which I had already categorized, here. The second, is the least well understood, and, therefore, also the most urgent subject. The crisis which is represented in the relatively most acute form, is that which is to be found in the crisis of a predominantly, already failed popular opinion, a widespread lack of accurate understanding on the subject of the true nature of the human mind. Let us, therefore, take the so-called “frequently just-plain-silly” issues off the table, in favor of what is to be preferred as actually human creativity. I. BRIEFLY, A QUEEN’S DEADLY FOLLY Our confirmed knowledge of the practices of the British monarchy and its accomplices, identifies the fact that that monarchy is the presently leading adversary-in-fact of all mankind. This quality is not inherent in the population of that empire as such; it lies within the impulse of doom lurking in the presently continued existence of such an anachronistic imperial authority, in and of itself. It lies within the bounds of the system under which the oligarchical principle has long reigned. To understand that fact and its implications for practice, we must trace the oligarchical system under a Queen which the current developments do little more than typify. To understand this matter, we must trace the course of the original design of what is fairly described as “the oligarchical system,” a system which is best defined in the practice, still for today, by the inherently disastrous model of the Roman Empire, its predecessors, and by such principal successors as the “New Venetian model” of which William of Orange had become a leading part.1 The clearest insight into the succession of empires marking the descent from ancient Rome, and, from thence, down through the present-day British-Saudi package of imperialist rule, has now been revealed again. This time, it has been revealed through the recently exposed facts of the 2001 and Benghazi events which are intended as joint British-Saudi “9-11“ terror-attacks against our United States. That includes what is associated, inherently, with the leading role of Tony Blair’s virtual puppets, under the nominal authority of U.S. Presidents such as George W. Bush, Jr., and of the evil Tony Blair’s puppet-President, the Queen’s own Barack Obama, which were each admittedly typical of the 2001-2012 points of reference, but, actually, the influence of the larger, and longer imperial tradition incarnate presently in the British imperial monarchy itself. The great William Shakespeare had a truly deep insight, and foresight, into these matters, as in our present times’ expression of a “winter of our discontent,” as that is echoed presently under the reign of this queen and that reign over the destiny of the present trans-Atlantic region. The notable, “tell-tale” facts respecting the British monarchy’s power and character, are represented most convincingly in comprehensive, comparative studies of the evolutionary development of successive sets of living species, up through the unique set of human characteristics. The general characteristics of living processes, each as a process of evolutionary change, are essentially an ordering ranked from inferior, to superior arrays of the general evolution of the variety of components of the array of that population of Earth. These have been those arrays which have culminated in their expression as those kinds of increases of the efficient “energy-flux density” of living processes which are unique to mankind, not found in lower forms of life. Within the history of the human species as such, the principal (and principled) distinction to be made, is that of the evil represented by a ruling oligarchical class, as compared with the impairment of the characteristics of the so-called “lower classes” in general. The most efficient way to define the related distinctions among those “social classes,” is the fact that the so-called lower classes, “have apparently no efficient power,” in their own estimation, to do much more than follow the direction supplied, and limitations applied, as if “top down,” by the systems of reigning oligarchical classes. In other words, the nominally “lower social classes” are organized as subjects of the intentions which the ostensible upper class imposes as the conditioned “desires” induced among the lower. As “compensation,” the “lower classes” are assigned roles from which the putative “upper classes” are excluded. For example, in the most recent U.S. general election, it has been the money-system and the reigning powers within the ranks of that system, which have customarily managed to control even a restive population as a whole, a miracle accomplished through “the reign of the incredible over the inedible,” as in the fashion by which our United States was ruined under the merely nominal reign of the debased mind and morals of the President Andrew Jackson of Aaron Burr’s late years, the latter an incredible Aaron Burr, whose life-long career had already been that of a British spy against the United States, working on behalf of the British monetarist cabal operating within our United States, and steered by his role as a chronic traitor to the U.S.A. That specific quality of incompetence, which I have just reported thus here, is associated with the adoption of the merely fictitious notion of an intrinsic value of “money,” or in the mere likeness of the notions associated with “money,” or of “money-like” designations of relative values. The contrast to be considered, runs as follows. THE CREATIVITY OF MANKIND From our best knowledge of the contrast of the human species, to that of all other species known to us presently, the fundamental, systemic distinction of the human species from all others, is that we typify the human species as being the only known species which has the unique potential faculty of actual insight into the future. I have become fortunate to be one among those sharing something of the experience of that quality of insight: hence, also, my distinction as an economic forecaster. The related problem of persons of my particular type on this account, has been, that in those human cultures which are presently known to us, very few living human beings among us, including even among the categories of truly credible scientists, have enjoyed conscious oversight into a truly systemic conception of one among the essential distinctions of man from beast: the ability to foresee “into a future” which reaches even far beyond man’s accrued contemporary insight into the merely human effective imagination of the past and present as such. This remarkable sort of special ability which is particularly notable among what have been some relatively rare persons, can be made implicitly clear through resort to the use of a form of argument which I am about to present here. For example: the most hopeful examples of those persons from modern times who have grasped the import of that distinction, have been typified by such as the Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa who launched an understanding of that principle “of the incompleted future,” in, most concisely, his De Docta Ignorantia, and such of those who extended Cusa’s discoveries most brilliantly, as Johannes Kepler and his other actual followers. These such exceptional cases, include the greatest Classical-music composers, as typified by the scope of such exceptional minds and souls as from Johann Sebastian Bach, through Johannes Brahms, and, also, those greatest physical scientists and Classical musicians who, like Max Planck and Albert Einstein, have, thus, typified the greatest scientific minds known during the Twentieth Century.2 This problem, and its remedy, which I have referenced in the preceding paragraph, lies, essentially, in the fact, that only the human species has presented cases of individuals who have actually “looked” efficiently, as forecasters, into the actualized future of human history. That is to be contrasted to those whose faith, is limited essentially to memories of the sundry varieties of what is commonly prized as their relative “wealth of experience” as “the past” of so-called “practical experience.” That distinction which I have just emphasized, is to be identified as embodied in actual insight into a future history which has not yet been actually experienced as a completed event. This characteristic, while rarely understood, even among most of those classed as scientists so far, is mankind’s actually natural distinction from the practices characteristically inherent as potentials limited within the bounds of a general category of lower forms of life, in spite of their relative intelligence respecting matters which do not include foresight into the actual future. That special category from among human individuals as such, is coincident with those discoveries of principle which pre-define revolutionary advances in mankind’s acquired knowledge of those universal physical principles whose arrival-on-delivery precedes the quality of those specific types of discoveries’ entry into the department of actual foreknowledge of the future. I believe that that is the case, in terms of essentials; I believe that this outcome is more the product of an early escape from suppression of such development in the young individual “within the bounds of what passes for an inherent effect of suppression of the relevant potential of the young.” To define and understand the actual implications of what I have just stated, the most efficient approach, is to emphasize attention to the prevalent ignorance among even most ratable scientists, ignorance of that actual principle of insight into the future, to which I have just pointed. This subject of inquiry were best recognized by focus on the essential folly of underlying reliance on a doctrine of merely deductive treatments of sense-perception. Matters Not Yet Decided So, to summarize the points which I have just presented: what is not precisely clear to me from this experience, is whether the lack of such a specific quality of insight into the future, is a manifestation of an inherently “genetic” effect, or the net effect of a special conditioning during childhood and beyond. I have no doubt that the “trait,” as we might choose to identify it, is the expression of some relevant early onset of that quality (which it certainly is, usually), or the lack of such qualities of foresight is the result of crushing the noëtic potentials of the majority among children and adolescents early on. I strongly suspect the latter to be the case in point. I do know that customary rearing of children and adolescents, as I have observed it, tends to virtually “crush out of existence” the specific quality of future-insight which is relevant for this case. In my direct experience in such matters, parental households and schools are certainly largely to blame for the loss of the relevant qualities of foresight. That much said on that subject this far, the following remarks on a more limited subject of late-adolescent and adult experiences, stand essentially on their own. Place the implicit problem in the presumption that man’s progress in the relatively limited domain of the actual discovery of universal principles, is derived from a certain specific quality of reaction to the experience of sense-perceptions. From that, when adopted as an implied “starting-point” in empirical scientific practice, the typical scholar of the relevant type, presumes that the notions of universal principle, including what is called “physical principle,” are to be derived from generalizations of the experience taught by sense-perceptual means. In other words, “the reductionist method.” The contrasted standpoint, presumes that the universal principle inheres essentially in the universe, rather than as the misleading notion of products of sense-perceptual experience as such. This contrasted standpoint was that demonstrated by Nicholas of Cusa, and in the actual use of the notions of “vicarious hypothesis” by Cusa’s follower Johannes Kepler, and in what had been the traditional notion of the ancient meaning of “metaphor.” We must understand what the universe has been wrought, for us, wrought into the form of what we must recognize as original principles of the universe as representing the system of primary existence. This has been the import of the great principle associated with the work of Planck, Einstein, and Köhler, in opposition to those who became relatively degenerated among the modern scientific community through being conditioned into adherence to worship of such evil as that represented by the evil Bertrand Russell and his ilk-in-general. We did not invent the universe; it invented us, not only in birth, but in steadfast refusal to become a body of “merely practical” beings. It is the actions conducted by the human mind within the universe (i.e., the Solar system, rather than the province of mere sense-perception of life on Earth) which must be adopted as the framework within which to locate the experience of a truly modern science. The quality of the clearly definable issue so located by me here, up to this present point, is the essential nature of the systemic error which is rooted in the empiricist, or kindred recipes, recipes introduced within those inherently errant practices of scientific inquiry which locate the very definition of “science” in the mythology which defines sense-perception, rather than man, as the author of universal physical principles. The remedy for the presently prevalent academic silliness about sense-perception, lies in the notion of “ontologically intellectual leaps,” leaps by means of which, the human mind is provoked into accepting a universal principle whose effects had actually existed in our universe prior to its initial discovery by mankind. It is a principled achievement, which, by existing, establishes the virtual platform for an array of higher universal principles to be next expressed as the foundation of a still higher order of freshly discovered universal principles which must supersede those principles which mankind had uncovered before. It is through that action of the creative powers of the human mind, that man transforms its species, not by biological evolution, as such, but through the creative powers unique to the progressive ordering of the human will,—when that will is situated within nothing less than man’s efforts to locate the human identity within the nearby aspects of our Solar system, rather than merely Earth itself. So to speak, within the realm of the stars. The enemy of that creative potential inherent in the specifically human mind of the likeness of Cusa and his heir Kepler, is the reliance on the falseness of the fact of a so-called, already “proven,” deductive “pseudo-principle.” From a view in the larger scheme of things, our Solar system is a tiny corner of the galaxy, and so on, and so on, toward an attempted comprehension of the scale of what we might be tempted to wish to define as “our universe.” To impute to the powers of human cognitive functions, the limits represented by any scale in that ascending order of universal arrays, would be a very, very problematic piece of speculation. “More likely,” I would wish to say with “tongue-in-cheek” irony: the universe is the context which defines what we are capable of becoming, as we might say, “seen from the top, down.” How damnedly silly is the pretense that the existence of what might pass for definable truth, lies within the bounds of the implications of mere sense-perceptions! Shall we, therefore, rely on “smelling an eternal truth”? What is known, or knowable in fact, is that the universe exists, and that we have abundant evidence, since before our species appeared on Earth, of the existence of relatively universal principles corresponding to the developments which meet every principled standard for experience. Ask: “What is life?” Certainly the foolish worshippers of Bertrand Russell, such as Alexander I. Oparin, never discovered that truth. In fact, Russell did everything possible for him to do, which would degrade the mind of man to that of a silly brute. The disgraced imitators of Bertrand Russell’s school of ideology, Norbert Wiener and his junior of like inclinations, John von Neumann, are typical of that cult of degradation of scientific method, as the greatest scientists from the onset of the Twentieth Century stated that fact with both clarity and proper emphasis on the genius of such followers of Bernhard Riemann as Max Planck and Albert Einstein, which latter typify the essential distinctions of universal ontological principle involved. Reliance on mere sense-perception is a form of limitation suited for animals (hopefully “furry” and also friendly), not actually human minds. III. THE GREAT ONTOLOGICAL ABSURDITY The still prevalent, most terrible ontological blunder done in the abused mere name of “science,” is the limitation of the principled presumptions of a merely nominal physical science, to the ontological banalities, and the related, attributed sexual gratifications, of either mere sense-perception, or something akin, in an effect to the same result. The problematic features of any effort to consider an actually functional notion of operations of the human will actually performed within the Solar system, rather than simplistically bounded deductions from life on Earth, especially human life on Earth, are, so-to-speak, “bound up” with the sexual and related forms of “recreation” which are commonly associated with ordinary human life. On this account, wise men have reflected upon the Christian Apostle Paul’s often celebrated I Corinthians 13.3 I explain that which is for me, presently, a stated principle of physical science, not “mysticism” in the ordinary usage, but as a knowable truth as we can recognize this, from the standpoint of the true scientist, now better than ever before. We come to begin to know what we truly are, only when we have recognized that popular presumptions are designed for the use of what are childish peoples, in respect of their intellectual development. This knowledge seems to descend upon us, to the extent, presently, that we seek to view life on Earth from the standpoint of its significance as considered from the vantage of a seemingly life-bereft Mars of today. In other words, shall we imagine that there are not principles of human physical science which are not merely specific to life on Earth, but, rather, subsume, and penetrate the same higher principles expressed upon the seemingly lifelessly barren reaches of other parts of the planetary system as such? Could principles be truly limited to our biology as that might be encountered among us, on Earth alone? Where could the universe exist, if there were to be no human individual to experience, and, presumably, decree its laws? The notion of the rules of the universe as being inherently subject to ordinary human sense-perception, has borrowed much from the arrogance of the brutish, intrinsically deluded, human-oligarchical thought of would-be emperors and the like. When and where, then, is there the proper determination of mankind’s existence in dependency on the Solar system, and upon the galactic realities within which we might roam? Nicholas of Cusa had already, implicitly, answered to the importance of such questions respecting physical science as these: 1. It is not possible, in this universe, that the principles of science could have been produced with even marginal decency within the mere ideological framework of what has come to be rather widely accepted as the merely esteemed-as-practical, and therefore pitiable fraud of the notion that the principles of the universe might be adduced from the meagre means of an experience of mere sense-impressions! 2. The argument which I have thus presented, this far, should have forewarned us, that we have more to learn from human experience with Mars, than the Solar system could ever hope to discover truthfully from the investigations of sense-perception per se on Earth. The presently rising threats from asteroids within the space marked out from the orbit of Venus through that of Mars, warns our scientists to “wake up.” Human life as such, might be unique to its development on Earth, but the principle of life extends in its effects far beyond such arbitrarily adopted limits. Is God merely a chance occupier of Earth? 3. When we reflect with actually scientific seriousness on the implications of I Corinthians, 13’s argument in its scientifically situated communication, the reading of this most powerfully ironical statement of the Apostle, speaks to the subject of an existence of our human species whose reality is not definable in the language of mere sense-perception, but refers to a much higher quality of existence than mere sense-perception could define. There is, however, no adequate reason to presume that the essential ontology of the function of mankind is delimited within the bounds of those mere shadows cast by sense-perception as such. This distinction of mankind, however, reflects a much higher principle, a principle which encloses, so to speak, the transition of life-on-Earth from lower forms of life, into the qualitatively revolutionary form of human ontological characteristics, characteristics which do not exist (ontologically) in the other known forms of life as such. 4. It is therefore notable here, in particular, that there exist ontologically higher states of being, states which subsume the existence of the unique peculiarity of mankind within the domain of life in general. 5. It is also the case, as known within the bounds of what is rather widely tolerated as human-specific capabilities considered among scientists until now: that the human species were already on the pathway toward a Solar extinction, perhaps millions, or more of years ahead. Implicitly, therefore, mankind is bound to adapt itself toward those higher ontological states of existence which depend upon, rather than define “evolution” of mankind to higher qualities of form and substance: qualities which imply higher states of existence, states which supercede the present quality required for human-equivalent forms of existence. 6. The included feature of this process is implicit in the superceding of a mere sense-perceptional domain as we have defined it presently, to a sequence of states of systemic developments, each and all subsumed by qualitatively higher forms of existence, as is suggested by the ordered notions of thermonuclear and matter-antimatter states. Only the general laws of the universe could be ultimately real states of existence of the development of our human species. The Crucial Implications 7. Therefore, instead of the popular, but ignorant habits instilled in much education and related habits presently, we must expel the popular, reductionists’ delusion, such as that of the rabid, and inherently fraudulent reductionism of the mere Isaac Newton. The intellectual and moral degeneracy which the Newton Cult expresses, works to the effect that the alleged discovery of universal physical principles might be the outcome of sense-perception, instead of the truthful universal principle which prescribes sense-perceptions as merely effects of the influence of universal physical principles. Properly restated: 8. There is no actual proof of principle behind the cult of Newton and his ideological followers. Newton was, so-to-speak, a degraded product of the oligarchical principle of the essentially satanic worship of such oligarchicalist “gods” as the victors in the outcome of the Trojan War, as typified as a fictional “god,” who protects nothing worth mentioning respecting mankind. The notion of a science based on sense-perception as a presumed universal principle, is the “god” of each of a series of inevitably extinct, oligarchist species. 9. It is the universal physical principles of the Solar system, and higher systems, which represent a primary truthfulness for the purposes of mankind’s progressive development to higher orders of species. 10. This is the direct reverse, so to speak, of that empiricist dogma which is the basis of the inherent depravity of the oligarchical system. This was the outcome of the triumph of evil which was characteristic of the trend in European culture since, most emphatically, the ouster of Chancellor Bismarck, whose refroms reflected the direct influence of President Abraham Lincoln, reforms defeated by the British monarchy’s morally depraved family-branch in its count-down, beginning 1890, toward a sucession of what is identified, conventionally, as the system of “world wars” which is in continued proliferation still presently. 11. It is human creativity per se, expressing the higher powers of this Solar system, and beyond that, as universal physical principles in their own right, which subsumes the existence of mere human sense-perceptions. IV. THE ACHIEVEMENTS ON MARS The culture available to mankind on Mars, is the required shift from reliance on what is merely human sense-perception, into the domain of universal physical principles as such, rather than merely subordinate functions of human sense-perception. This means shifts into primary importance of universal principles as such, rather than reliance on the actually very crude instrumentalities of sense-perception as such. This means, in a certain sense, mankind’s return to science, from the obscenity of oligarchist tyrannies such as those of the evil of imperial Rome and its successors down to the present date. This change is not essentially new. Traces of it are found in the productions of such as the ancient Plato, and in defiance of the degeneracy associated with the wicked Aristotle and such among Aristotle’s mere lackeys as Euclid: as the celebrated Philo properly identified such matters of universal physical principles which have been implicitly interchangeable, as historically scientific codes, with those of the work of the Apostles John and Paul. Hence, it should be made clear, that the Newtonian cult and its earlier antecedents, were an expression of a moral depravity whose expressed roots are traced to an effort to establish the influence of Paolo Sarpi’s triumph in what would become known as a pre-Westphalian effort which brought into being the triumph of Paolo Sarpi’s intentions of the New Venetian Party of William of Orange et al. as that new Roman empire of Great Britain which has remained the centrally reigning new Roman Empire up through the present day of Queen Elizabeth II,—or, if you prefer, the Anglo-Saudi version of that empire established by the “9-ll” terrorisms of 2001 and, now 2012 as the new “9-11“ of Benghazi. What must be taken into account as a matter of highest priority during this period, is the looming threat of global thermonuclear warfare from the British monarchy and its American stooges such as President Barack Obama. However, the prevalent practice in the name of forecasting, has virtually nothing to do with any actual insight into the relevant future as such, except the British intention to provoke increasingly awful expressions of what have come to be named as new “world wars.” The purpose of such wars organized by the British empire and its willing confederates is essentially “disorganization” of systems of respectively sovereign nation-states such as our own. Hence, the net effect of any British success in such matters, has been to the grave detriment of civilization in general, as has been the pattern of the ventures of all known empires from the time of the Roman empire, to the present date. Hence, from a truly strategic standpoint in perspectives, the fact is that existing governments heretofore, have been chiefly those whose relative stupidity prevents them from gaining any serious commitment to actual human progress under general conditions of warfare. Geniuses from the history of warfare have been remarkably rare exceptions in respect of ultimate aims, on precisely that account. Similarly each of the several notable forecasts by me, have been successful as forecasts, but sorely wanting in governments competent enough to extract the relevant potential benefits which acceptance of valid forecasts would have tended to assure as results. The best illustration of that just-stated point of mine, is the case from the 1977-1983 initiative by me, and with the support of leading military and related strategic influences which reached a climax with President Ronald Reagan in 1983. Had that “Strategic Defense Initiative” not been blocked by a viciously foolish opposition to success from both the Soviet Union’s Yuri Andropov and the British world-empire’s monarchy, the great tragedies of 1983-2012 of the United States and other notable nations need not have occurred. If we involved in creating that option had not been blocked by the follies of the fat-headed, the great destruction which has been experienced since 1983, need not have occurred. A same view applies to the matter of Earth-based perspectives for exploration of nearby space, as for Mars. A propensity for what has been, in effect, a chronic inclination in favor of what, in effect, were to be evil in its effect, as in the 1983 instance of the block to President Ronald Reagan’s intention, is to be recognized as the greatest of evil tendencies in human behavior so far. This places the emphasis for positive actions on the need to rescue mankind from the grip of its morally sterile traditions respecting actual human creativity. The “defense of Earth,” which depends immediately on the launching of a Mars-development program of the intentions which I have presented here, must be recognized as the indispensable aperture which would enable the human species to overcome the deadly threats presently lurking, in sundry ways, for all among us. Now, the march into the world’s future history, brings us all proximate to the early access to sheer Hell, all the product of the popular intentions of the populations of the people of the sundry nations to be considered. Therefore, the challenge of not only restoring but expanding our space-development program, must be considered not only as a leading requirement for the defense of human life on Earth now, but as the unique quality of intention to abandon the limits placed upon the development in space in effect presently, chiefly the urgency of abandoning the systemically existential failure of the continued existence of mankind, if we fail to recognize not only that space-development pivoted presently upon Mars is essential for all mankind; but to recognize that creativity per se is the quality which must be demanded of the human species, not merely as such, but as the very reigning universal law for all mankind. Footnotes |