|This speech appears in the September 15, 2000 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
Storm Over Asia, Take Two:
I Told You So, and Now It Is Happening
by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
Lyndon LaRouche presented the following keynote address on Sept. 2, to the
annual Labor Day weekend conference of the International Caucus of Labor
Committees and the Schiller Institute. It has been
edited, and subheads have been added.
On the 12th of August--a Saturday, a Russian, major vessel,
a submarine, the Kursk, was sunk in the Barents Sea. Some hours later,
the location of the sunken submarine was located, and, in the following hours,
the President of Russia, President Vladimir Putin, telephoned the President of
the United States, Bill Clinton. They met, by phone; there were discussions with
their respective military groups, advisers on both sides. The two Presidents
discussed. And, thermonuclear World War III was avoided.
That's the fact of the matter, the essential fact.
Now, this situation, which still continues--it continued, an
escalating threat of thermonuclear and other war, now spreading about the
planet--is a condition which I addressed a little more than 11 months ago, in a
film, which was produced in this country in October of last year--and, just to
see the beginning of it, up to this point.
The opening segment of "Storm Over Asia" is shown,
including war scenes from Chechnya; India-Pakistan; the North Caucasus. Then
"What you're seeing is a war in the North Caucasus region of
southern Russia. What you're also seeing, is a war which has broken out
simultaneously in the border between Pakistan and India."
A second video-clip of India-Pakistan border
"The forces behind these attacks on Russia and on India are
the same. They are a mercenary force which was first set into motion by policies
adopted at a Trilateral Commission meeting in Kyoto in 1975: policies originally
of Brzezinski and his number-two man there, Samuel P. Huntington; the policies
which were continued by then-Trilateral Commission member, that is, back in
1975: George Bush, before he became Vice President.
"These were policies which were continued by George Bush as Vice President. Under Bush, this became known as the Iran-Contra drug-finance-linked operations of mercenaries deployed with private funding all over the world: recruited from Islamic and other countries, and targetting Russia's flank.
That's it--just the beginning. But, in that film, I did not,
of course, indicate the sinking of the Kursk, though I did indicate the
crisis associated with the sinking of the Kursk, which, if Bush had been
President, or George W. Bush had been President, would probably have led
immediately to World War III. So, obviously, you don't want George Bush for
President at this time, under those conditions.
What I forecast was a condition which already existed: a
condition, which, in the later part of the film, I indicated would continue, has
continued, would worsen, had worsened, and we are still headed toward some kind
of catastrophe, which could be thermonuclear World War III, or something equally
bad. And there are things which are equally bad.
The point is, that what has happened now, was the inevitable
consequence of policies to which I referred then, policies which have a deep
root in U.S. foreign policy from the 1970s. These were the policies of the
Carter Administration. These were the Bush policies of the Reagan
Administration, as far as Bush was running part of the show then. These were the
policies of the Bush Administration.
These have been the policies of the United States government,
under the Clinton and Gore Administration--continued. Clinton may have objected
to this. Clinton may have acted, recently, to prevent this from becoming an
aggravated crisis, in conjunction with President Vladimir Putin. But, Clinton
has done nothing to lessen the danger of this global warfare.
If Gore were to become President, or Bush, war or similar
kinds of global catastrophe would be inevitable.
That's the problem we face. Because the policy-structure,
which is in place in the United States and generally in the world today,
ensures a drive of civilization toward a collapse, worse on a global
scale than the New Dark Age which struck Europe during the middle of the 14th
How the British Start Wars
Now, contrary to some people, you don't bet on wars. You
don't go to your bookie, and say, "I want to make a bet on whether war breaks
out or not."
War is not an event. A condition like the sinking of the
Kursk, is not an isolated event. This was not an incident. There
was not a "Kursk incident," that provoked a crisis. There was a crisis
in which the sinking of the Kursk occurred. A strategic crisis. There
was a response to the crisis. There was a response by two Presidents--that of
Russia and the United States--to the accentuation of the crisis associated with
the sinking of the Kursk. But, do not speak of a "Kursk incident."
History doesn't work that way.
World War I, for example. World War I began in 1863-1865: It
began after the Battle of Gettysburg, in which it became apparent to people in
Europe, including England, that the Confederacy was going to be defeated by the
continued determination on the part of the President of the United States, to
crush and destroy the Confederacy. At that point, the British monarchy--which
was then, and is now, still, the mortal enemy of the United States (for reasons
I shall explain): The British monarchy had a Queen, Queen Victoria. Queen
Victoria had a son, who was later known as King Edward VII. Not long after the
end of the Civil War, the husband of the Queen died. Queen Victoria, who was not
particularly a mental giant, or an emotional or moral giant, went into a state
of crisis. She went up to Scotland, had an affair with a man up there, and spent
a good deal of the time amusing herself on drugs. The records of the local
pharmacy, next to the castle up there, indicated there were some very strange
goings-on at the castle, when the Queen was in attendance.
Increasingly, when the Queen was in this depraved condition
(that's why she was called Queen Victoria: She conquered depravity and made
herself the Empress of it); but, her son, the Prince of Wales, actually acted as
the monarch of the British Empire.
And, the British Empire wished to destroy the United States.
But, first realizing that they could not conquer the United States by means of
war, or by civil war, they resorted to other means. And the first means, was to
isolate and attempt to destroy the United States, and its influence globally.
Because the success of the United States, not only in defeating the British
puppet, the Confederacy--and these were nothing but British puppets.
And, by launching a great industrial revolution worldwide, which began in
the United States in 1861, and reached a high point in 1876, the United States
was recognized worldwide as a leading world power, as the most powerful of
individual nation-states on this planet economically, the most advanced
technologically, in terms of production of any nation on this planet. And
nations began to imitate the United States.
From about 1875-1876, Germany, which already had close
relations with the United States, began to adopt, under Bismarck, some of the
policies of the United States. And Germany began its great industrial revolution
in 1877, modelled upon the United States. In the same period of time, a Russian,
Mendeleyev--the great Dmitri Mendeleyev, the great scientist--also brought back
to Russia, in association with his Tsar, Alexander II, the attempt to implement
the economic policies of the United States in Russia.
Similar developments occurred in France--related, different.
Japan, in the same period, adopted the United States as a model for the
development of the economy of Japan. A friend of Carey's, the economist who had
advised Lincoln, and who had helped to create Lincoln as a political
figure--Henry C. Carey--sent his representative, E. Peshine Smith, to Japan, to
educate the Japanese imperial circles, on how to create an economy. The
development of the economy of Japan, from that time to the present time, as an
agro-industrial power, is entirely the result of the influence of the United
States and the Lincoln legacy upon the economic development of Japan.
Other countries joined, as well.
There was, as a result of this, a revival, and a direct
influence, of the North American model, the Lincoln model, throughout South and
Central America. It was during the latter part of the 19th Century, that most
all of the progressive forces, economically progressive forces and politically
progressive forces, in Mexico, south to Argentina, adopted the United States
model, the so-called Hamilton-Carey-List model, as the policy for national
economic development of their country.
And that generally continued, until 1901: Until the
assassination of McKinley by the friends of Teddy Roosevelt--then Vice President
(sort of the George Bush of that period), who changed U.S. policies.
Now, President Teddy Roosevelt was an asset of the King of
England. Because, by that time, Victoria had finally gotten around and found her
way to dying, and thus, finally, her son, the Prince of Wales, had become the
monarch. So, Teddy Roosevelt was a puppet of the British monarch, Prince Edward
VII. Prince Edward VII was out to destroy the power and influence of the United
States, globally, by turning the nations of Eurasia, which had been attuned to
the United States and its policy, against each other.
This became known as World War I.
Japan, for example, which had been a friend of the United
States, in the 1890s, was taken over by the British monarchy. And, under British
instructions and British direction, Japan launched the first Sino-Japanese War
in 1894-1895. Under British direction, as an anti-American move, the Japanese,
later, launched a second war against the interests of China--a second
Sino-Japanese War. In the meantime, the Japan war against Russia, which was
organized also from London, directly with a British agent on the scene to help
the process along, was used as a stunt to get Russia into the hands of those who
were against the United States, who were willing to join the British and French
in a war against Germany. And, Japan, of course, took the side of the British in
World War I.
And that's how we got World War I.
This was made possible, because the President of the United
States in 1901, Teddy Roosevelt, the man who rose to position, accession, by
assassination, was a tool of the British. And, because Roosevelt's designated
successor, Ku Klux Klan enthusiast Woodrow Wilson, the man who launched the
second birth of the Ku Klux Klan, from the White House, officially and openly--a
great Democrat of the type we know--was on the side of the British. And, if the
British had not had the Americans on their side for World War I, Britain would
have lost World War I.
So, at that time, we had the emergence of Woodrow Wilson, the
Teddy Roosevelt-Woodrow Wilson tradition, which took over control of the United
States, effectively, until Franklin Roosevelt. Once they got rid of Franklin
Roosevelt, by death, then the British were able to triumph, and get the United
States back again, as a puppet of London, which the United States has been,
essentially, to the present time.
America's Challenge to the British Oligarchy
The importance of this, in terms of the strategic situation
is: The issue, then and now, in the time of the American Revolution, remains the
same. The British Empire, the British monarchy, was created by a
rentier-financier interest which consolidated its power over the English
monarchy with the accession of George I, as the first King of the United Kingdom
of Great Britain. From that time on, the establishment of an independent
republic in North America, became the central interest and cause of all of the
patriotic, republican-minded people in Europe. As a result of this, European
forces--in France, especially France, in Germany, Italy, England, and so
forth--united to help make the United States' independence a success. The United
States became an independent republic, only because of European
direction and support for this cause. The intent of the Europeans, up until
the French Revolution, and even at the beginning of the French Revolution, was
that France would become the second nation-state, modelled as a state upon the
policies of the United States, as expressed by the Declaration of Independence
and Federal Constitution.
The Jacobin Terror of 1789--that is, from the 14th of July,
1789, until the beheading of Robespierre and Saint-Just five years
later--demoralized Europe, and isolated the United States, which no longer had
friends in Europe, or significant nation-state friends. And, thus, the United
States was isolated.
The United States recovered from this isolation, with the
victory of the United States, under the leadership of Abraham Lincoln, over a
British puppet, the Confederacy, an institution which, like the French Jacobin
Terror, had been orchestrated from London.
Specifically, in the case of the Jacobin Terror: The Jacobin
Terror was organized in France, under the direction of the first head of the
British Foreign Office's Secret Intelligence Service, the Secret Committee, by
Jeremy Bentham. And, all of the leaders of the five years of the French Terror,
the Jacobin Terror in France, were all operating under the personal direction
of the head of the British Foreign Office intelligence service: Jeremy
Bentham. The purpose was to destroy the chief ally of the United
States--France, at that time--to prevent it from coming back as what it had been
before. And, so forth.
After the War of 1812, the chief effort from Britain, was
to destroy the United States--from within. To this purpose, traitors in
the United States, centered in Wall Street, and similar locations, organized
what became known as the Confederate conspiracy. You had President Andy Jackson,
who was a traitor. So was President Polk--a traitor. Both great
Democratic--these are the founders of the Democratic Party. Martin Van Buren was
the puppet-master in charge of the traitor, Andy Jackson. Polk was a British
agent. President Pierce, another "good Democrat," was a British agent. President
Buchanan was a British agent. These are the people who, with Polk's initiative,
organized and prepared the military conspiracy, which became known as the
The United States' war against the Confederacy, was a war to
defend, not only the United States, not only the Constitution, not only
to eliminate the slavery institution: It was a war, to defend upon this planet,
the right of a republic to exist, free of the domination of the British
Empire and the British monarchy.
That was the great world cause, the cause of all humanity,
for which the greatest war ever fought by the United States, the Civil War, was
fought. Led by Lincoln. The defeat of the Confederacy, was a defeat of the
British Empire, a change in the strategic situation, and the bringing back to
European civilization of the hope, of a form of society, free of control by the
kind of oligarchy, which, then and now, has been represented, worldwide,
chiefly by the British monarchy, and by the bankers, the financiers of the City
of London, and by the British Empire.
The British Empire always was, and remains to this day,
the chief enemy of all civilization, and of the United States, in
So therefore, the power of the United States, achieved
through the victory of Lincoln over the Confederacy, and over the British,
became the chief thing which the British were determined to eliminate,
going first at the admirers of the United States by organizing what became World
War I. The United States became a patsy in that, a tool, an instrument, of the
British Empire in World War I.
Why the British Hated Roosevelt
Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, changed that. Franklin
Roosevelt was a patriot, of a patriotic family tradition, who moved to restore
the United States, step by step, toward what it had become. Roosevelt became the
indispensable ally of the British for their survival, against Hitler (the Hitler
the British put into power in the first place).
But, Roosevelt was the greatest threat to the British
Empire, once the war had been won. Unfortunately, at that point, he was dead.
And Truman was a stooge. Because, what was Roosevelt's policy? Why did the
British wish to be rid of Roosevelt? Why did the British spend the past period,
since the death of Roosevelt, trying, among other things, to destroy the United
States, the way we are half-destroyed today?
Why? What's the issue? What underlies this whole history
leading up to this so-called "Kursk incident" near-brush with
thermonuclear war, which occurred on the period of Aug. 12, through 13 and
What's the problem?
The point is, Roosevelt's policy, was that, once the war had
ended--World War II--once the Nazis had been defeated, that the policy of the
United States was, that the power of the United States would be to break
up all relics of the Portuguese, Dutch, British, and French empires. And, to
cause to come forth in the place of the former victims of colonialism, of
British imperialism--because all of these empires were run by the British, at
that time: The Portuguese were stooges for the British; the Dutch were stooges
for the British; the French were stooges for the British. Roosevelt was going to
crush it all, and to use the power of the United States, at the end of the war,
to bring this about. And where former colonies had existed, there were to be
independent republics established. And, the United States, as Roosevelt laid
this out to Churchill at Casablanca, for the case of Africa: The United States
would use its technology and power, not only to bring about the freedom, of the
victims of British imperialism, but also to give these countries--the newly
freed countries--the means to stand on their own feet economically, with U.S.
cooperation in infrastructure and technology.
In other words, what Roosevelt intended, was that the
former victims, or the victims of British imperialism, would have the same
benefits, which the United States brought to western continental Europe, to
western Europe, with programs, such as the original IMF, the original Bretton
Woods agreement, and with the Marshall Plan, later.
Therefore, that would have meant the end of the
British Empire, would have meant the end of the power of the London
fakirs, and of the Wall Street gang, as well, who are simply part of the allies
of the British financier oligarchy. It would have meant the end of the
British monarchy, and everything it stood for. And, a world consistent
with the intentions of the Founders of the United States as a republic; a
world consistent with the intentions for which Abraham Lincoln had led
the nation in defeat of the Confederacy.
Thus, the first thing to understand, if you're going to make
sense of the modern world, of the past three centuries of history, and longer:
You have to understand that the fundamental issue, since the Declaration of
Independence in 1776, the fundamental, strategic issue on this planet, has been
two policies: The policy of the British Empire against the policy embedded in
the Declaration of Independence and in the Federal Constitution, especially the
That's the issue.
Any other interpretation of history, or major events, is
nonsense. And that's what people are going to have to learn.
So, when you understand what's going on in Russia, the
Kursk incident, and things of that sort, the danger of a thermonuclear
war, which occurred this past month, to understand that you have to go to the
fundamental conflict between the British monarchy, and the fundamental interests
of the Constitution and people of the United States. Any other attempt to
understand history, or to understand politics in this country, or to understand
why the British and their stooges in the United States hate me so much,
is that issue.
And, that's what I'll address here, today.
The Principle of Action, or What It Means To Be Human
The purpose for all of us, should be--and the Russian crisis
is only part of it, a subsidiary part--the fundamental issue, remains, still:
Can the United States redeem its own soul, and break from the British monarchy?
And, can the United States lead the world to the kind of world which the
Founders intended to foster, the kind of world which Lincoln intended to
foster; the kind of anti-colonialist, anti-imperial policy, which Franklin
Roosevelt would have carried out, had he not died prematurely, and been
replaced by a small-minded idiot, Harry Truman. Or, the Carter-type, shall we
From that standpoint, how shall we understand history? I've
said many times before, and I'll deal with that today: The key thing, and the
key thematic subject I'm addressing here, today, is the principle of
action. The principle of action is defined very simply, in the following
way: What is the difference between a human being and an animal? Why don't we
eat people for lunch? (Or, I hope we don't. You never know, with what they're
serving in the supermarkets these days.)
Because, man is not an animal. An animal is a form of
life. But, there are many forms of life. There's yeast. There are bacteria.
They're forms of life. But, what's the difference between man and
other forms of life? That, only man is capable of willfully increasing
his power, in and over the material universe. Other species have a potential for
adapting, but their potential to adapt, is fixed. They, as a species,
can not change their power to adapt. Only the human species, only the
human individual, can change the power of the human species, or any species, to
adapt to the universe.
This power lies solely in the ability of the human individual
mind, to do what Kant said could not occur: That is, to recognize a
fallacy, a contradiction in what we already believe; that is, a contradiction
between what we believe to be true, and what the universe tells us is
actually true, in terms of results. Mankind can resolve these contradictions,
which are sometimes called "ontological contradictions," through the individual
mind, by making a discovery of a universal principle, such as a principle of
nature. And, then, prove that that discovery is valid, by means of an
experiment, of a very special type, which demonstrates the efficiency, the
validity, of that discovery of principle.
The third step must be, that we must share that
discovery with others. Because, if we do not share that discovery, then they can
not replicate it, and they can not cooperate with us in undertaking its
The only way in which you can come to know a discovery of a
principle, is through an act called "cognition," which Kant said could not
exist. As a matter of fact, in his mind, it could not exist. You read his long,
tedious writings, you know: There was never a creative act performed there. Nor
a procreative act, either. He was a bachelor, to the end of his life. A man
followed by a man carrying an umbrella, a servant carrying an umbrella. That's
about as far as he could go.
This principle of knowledge is not something you can learn.
If you go to a school, where you say, "Learn to repeat the teacher's opinion,"
you don't know anything. You only know what you are able to discover, in
the same manner, an original discoverer of a universal principle discovered
For example: What's a bad musician? A bad musician is one
who's learned everything, but can perform nothing. He can repeat after me,
indefinitely. He's learned all the schoolbooks; he's learned all the routines.
But, put a piece of music in front of him, he doesn't play the music: He plays
the notes. Because he can't put the notes together, as music. He doesn't
understand an idea, in the music. The song doesn't work; it's sung. But
it's sung, as if by a machine. By some machine made, say, by the Valley out
there in California: Silicon Valley. But, not a thinking, sentient human being.
There's no idea there.
So, to communicate a discovery, to share it: You must cause
somebody else to re-experience the same act of discovery as an original
discoverer. If you want to study astronomy, you must first replicate the acts of
discovery made by Johannes Kepler. You can't learn them. Newton
learned something from plagiarizing a book by Kepler. Newton never
discovered gravitation. It was discovered by Kepler. And, the first elaboration
of the discovery is in Kepler's New Astronomy, which was translated into
English, for the first time (and into Latin, as well), but published in England,
in the middle of the 17th Century. Associates of Newton copied from Kepler's
New Astronomy, and came up with what became known as the "Three Laws of
But, there aren't three laws of gravitation. That was a
mistake, made by a stupid student, trying to copy from a book he didn't
understand. And, then, when people tried to apply Newton's laws to the universe:
They don't work. Because, they learned to copy what was in Kepler, but they
didn't know what they had copied. Therefore, they didn't know how to use
It's like giving an idiot a machine, which is a very
well-designed machine; giving him an operating manual, for how to operate the
machine, and he always makes a mess of everything. Because, he has no
insight, no knowledge of what the principles are, by which this machine
So, in order to have mankind increase its power in, and over
the universe, the individual must be able to share the experiencing of a
discovery; understand the paradox, the contradiction, which the discovery
solves; relive the experiment, of the type, which proves that this is true;
and then go out, and share everything, with somebody else.
So, therefore, you can not see another person think
cognitively. You can not bore a hole in their head, and look inside, and see
them thinking; and steal the secrets in their thinking. It doesn't work! You
must re-experience, in your own mind, what only a human mind can generate: an
act of discovery. You must relive it!
So, therefore, only a human society, in which the basis for
common action, by human beings, is the improvement in man's ability to survive,
in man's power in and over the universe, through the cognitive act of
replicating and generating original, valid discoveries of principle; in such a
way, that society is able to share these discoveries, and thus act
in accordance with the knowledge thus gained and shared.
Only a human being can do that.
Now, we, as human beings can live in only one way. We are
mortal. Most of us know that we were born--or, at least, they heard a rumor to
that effect. And, we all know we're going to die eventually: The machinery wears
down. What happens to us?
And, what about all those pleasures that we have, the sensory
pleasures, that you have in between birth and death? I mean, some people do,
eventually, take the nipple out of their mouth, and go on to other things. But,
what happens to this whole plenum of pleasure-seeking, pleasure and pain, which
some people think is important? "Well, that pains me. I don't do it. That
pleases me, therefore, I do it constantly, until it bores me; and then, I do
Where does the essence of human life lie? Where does the
self-interest of the human individual lie? If all that's in between birth and
death were pleasure and pain? When it quits, what is there, then?
Only if you can do something human--not
bestial--human, in between birth and death. And, if you can transmit the
benefit of what you transmit to others, in the same way, then, no
matter how many generations of humanity in the future, you are a permanent,
efficient part of that future. You live in the future. As long as society
continues to take the benefit of what you transmit. You, in turn, live on the
basis of what you have received, from thousands of generations before you. Ideas
of principle, notions; the very existence of a literate form of language, is a
product of a long process, of development of language. The ability to have a
language in which you can communicate ideas of a certain sophistication,
requires a long process of creative contributions, by many generations of
people; thousands of generations. And, when you live and breathe, and
live these things, live these experiences, you are reliving, in
yourself, a part of the continued, immortal existence of that person--each of
those persons--from whom this has been transmitted to you.
And, when you go on, you say, "What's important to me? Who am
I?" Well, what is important about you? What's important about you, is what you
contribute in the way of generating, accumulating, and transmitting these means,
these principles, by means of which mankind is able to cooperate; and to
cooperate in ways which increase the human species power to exist. The
power in, and over nature. That's you.
Therefore, what is your fundamental self-interest? Your
fundamental self-interest, is to make sure, that what comes after you,
gives meaning to your having lived.
It is for that reason, that people who are over 55 years of
age, are willing to die for their nation. Not that they wish to die. They wish
to survive. They wish to conquer. But, they put their lives in jeopardy--and
people did it in many ways, not just in battle. They put their lives in
jeopardy, because living as that kind of person, who would be an instrument
for bequeathing something of immense value to coming generations, was the most
important thing in their mortal existence.
Therefore, they put their lives on the line, for the
sake of their lives, and their personal identity, in humanity at
It's Time To Grow Up
Now, the fact of the matter is--the difficulty
with this sort of thing, which is, I think, more or less obvious, from what I've
said to most of you: The difficulty is an emotional one. Most human beings
today, especially in the United States, are, range in moral quality, from
childish to infantile. See, if you're an adult, as opposed to an adolescent,
emotionally--remember, that adolescents are naturally crazy people. They're born
that way. There are a few exceptions, but they're naturally born that way. If
you have a person, who's reached the age of 25, and they're behaving like an
adolescent, you send them to a psychiatrist, obviously, right? They're
But, the first thing you say is, "How old are you?" If they
say, "I'm 13"; "Okay, that's all right. You're normal. You're insane: That's
what we expect of you."
And then, you have childishness, which precedes adolescence,
and then infantilism, which lasts longer or shorter, depending from case to
case. Mozart got through this fairly quickly; some people take a lot of time;
some haven't made it yet. Like Al Gore. I think he started from infantilism and
worked his way backward from there.
The problem is, that, when people are infantile, or childish,
their obsessions tend to run--especially if they were raised in a bad family, or
if they're neglected, like wolf-children--to obsession with immediate,
sensual gratification. And, as an approximation of that, they run to a
short-term thinking: "Well, what will be good for me next week." Or, if they may
think ahead one year: "What I'm gonna get next year. What kind of a career I'm
gonna have." Eh? "I gotta get a new wife. I mean, the ol' wife had two years,
that's already time for a trade-in," or something like that.
This is typical of the childish-to-infantile American. They
do not locate themselves, as an identity, in their relationship to humanity as a
whole, in a timeless sense. That is, in the sense of time without borders, in
the future of humanity. Typical of the Baby Boomers under 55. And I know,
because it was my generation that made the Baby Boomers immoral, as a
collection. They were raised by cowardly parents, who told their children, and
taught their children to seek advantage; do what's wise for you; do what's good:
Stay out of trouble; don't get involved with this; there's no truth, there's
only opinion. All this sort of nonsense.
So, the Baby Boomers, you know, as I said today, when we were
talking earlier, is that--Clinton's problem is, not that he doesn't know what a
principle is supposed to be, but he doesn't believe in them. He's like a
plea-bargaining lawyer. He goes into a session, for a principled discussion, and
he plea-bargains everything away, before he even starts the fight; which is what
he's done, again, and again, and again.
It's a generational problem. Of his generation.
Don't blame him for anything wrong he did. Oh, he has responsibility for it, but
don't blame him. It's not his nature, it's the way he was raised. It's his
generation--the Baby Boomer generation.
So, we created, in the Baby Boomer generation--those
who now occupy the top positions of power, in governments and other positions
around the world--we created in them, a monster, which the President of
the United States represents. He's typical of his generation, of his generation
of that stratum.
Then, his generation, in turn, created a worse set of
generations, which you saw exhibiting its talents at Columbine High School. You
have a new generation on the way, which is pre-adolescent, which is preparing to
kill its grandparents, if not eat them, which are the addicts of Pokémon,
in the younger generation.
So, we have, not a process of successive generations, but
really, I look down at this skein of history, and I say, "successive
degenerations." We become worse and worse, because we become more and
more remote from a moral sense of what it means to be a mature, adult human
being, aware that he or she is mortal, whose notion of self-interest is
located in what we can do, with our lives, to acknowledge and perpetuate the
good given to us by previous generations, and to pass it on, hopefully with some
improvements, to generations yet to come.
And, that's where the joy and maturity of life come, from
that kind of commitment. We have produced a generation, a post-war generation,
including many of my generation, who went that way, under the circumstances of
the post-Roosevelt period, who degenerated. And, it was their degeneration which
infected, I think, about 95% of the people I knew of my generation. Became
immoral. And they raised their children that way. And, those who moved into
suburbia to avoid blue-collar jobs, really did a better job of turning them into
degenerates, than those who worked in the factories.
And, then, they raised their children in the same
So, we have become, historically, more and more remote from a
moral sense, from a sense of truthfulness.
So, what is action? What is relevant action? What kind of
actions can we take, which the universe acknowledges to be a command?
The Universe Obeys Lawful Commands
Well, typical of those kinds of acts that we make--which we
can prove, the universe will obey, otherwise the universe won't obey
them--are actions which conform to the discovery of a universal physical
principle. If you can discover a validated, universal physical principle, and
you can give that, as an order to the universe, the universe will obey. Man is
the only creature that can do that! That can formulate an order, called a
universal physical principle, validate that discovery, and issue that discovery
as an order, a command, to the universe, and the universe is compelled to
That is the means, the accumulation of these principles,
which are part of our technological culture, is the means by which mankind has
been able to increase the life-expectancy, to improve the demographic
characteristics of populations, and, in general, to increase man's power,
measurable power, in and over the universe, per capita and per square
kilometer. That's the great, scientific experiment.
We are able to do this, not only through physical
experiments, through physical discovery: We're able to do this, by discovering
higher levels of methods of social cooperation, through which, we're able to
cooperate in fostering these kinds of discoveries, and applying them.
So, those things. Those are the kinds of actions, which the
universe acknowledges to be man's willful actions of significance.
Everything else that man does, is on the level that any lower form of animal
life can accomplish.
So, therefore, the kinds of action which distinguish a human
being from lower forms of animal life, is that, and only that.
Now, look at this question of strategy, which I've introduced
here, from that standpoint: Strategy should mean, once we've understood these
lessons--which, presumably, we had learned from study of European history, since
the time of Solon and Plato. Say, what's important? What is strategy?
The purpose of strategy, is to defend the human species; to
improve its condition, to improve its well-being; to improve its power in and
over the universe at large. That's the purpose of strategy.
In order to do that, we must promote scientific discovery,
and utilize it. We must promote those discoveries of principle, such as artistic
principles, which enable us to cooperate, in more advanced ways, to utilize
these physical discoveries, for man's benefit. What we, therefore, require, is
forms of society, in which we perpetuate the rearing of our children, and our
institutions, in such a way, that this mission of mankind, implicit in our
nature, is fulfilled.
Thus, we fight to defend this idea of progress. We fight to
defend and improve forms of society, which promote progress. We fight to
undermine, and nullify, those forms of culture, and political and social
systems, which are the enemies of progress. The significance of the United
States, is that it was produced as a product of a certain phase in European
civilization, coinciding with the 15th-Century Renaissance, centered in Italy.
It struggled to create a form of society, in which the only legitimate authority
awarded to government, was the responsibility and power, to promote the general
welfare of each and all persons. That is, to promote progress, in that
In this process, during that century, the policy was adopted,
of having self-governing, modern, sovereign nation-states, whose authority to
rule, was located in the commitment to progress so defined. Against that,
we had an opponent. The opponent was forces of bestiality: Those, who see a few
people, as the power to use as human cattle, the majority of other people,
other nations, and subject populations, generally. This is called,
So, the forces of progress, and the nation-state, are pitted
against the forces of oligarchy. In the same way, that the idea of free trade,
of globalization, today: These are the enemy.
Because, without the nation-state, without protection of the
form which only the nation-state can provide for an economy, to ensure
progress, can we have progress. Those who propose to liquidate the
nation-state, that is, to globalize it (or globularize it); those who propose
free trade, rather than fair prices to protect the process of production of
food, and other things upon which life depends: These are the enemies of
Since its establishment in 1714, the British Empire has
emerged as the chief proponent of a system of oligarchism on this planet. The
United States was created, in order to provide a fulcrum of opposition to those
forces of globalization--that is, Roman Empire-style--represented by the British
And, it is that fight, which defines it.
Now, our method, of fighting the British Empire and what it
typifies as oligarchy, is the force of progress. We fight, how? By
demanding education for all of our children, and conditions of life for all of
our children, which enable the child to make the progress from infantilism to
childhood and adolescence, into a moral adulthood, and productive
The first level of progress.
We fight for those conditions of shared culture, on which we
can share the knowledge represented by universal physical principles, and of
principles, like artistic principles of cooperation, through which we're able to
work together for good. We fight to defend these kinds of institutions of
progress, against their adversaries. We try to win the adversaries over, since
they're human, to our cause, and say, "Come, join the human race. You don't have
to be British all your life. You can be human. We'll give you a green card, to
enter humanity." We don't have to kill them; we're not like beasts. But we will,
and must defend our essential institutions: the institutions of
Thus, what I've described, therefore, becomes a
principle of universal action for people. And, the constant issue, which we have
to face up to today, is to understand that the essential conflict on this planet
is between British monarchy, and the United States. What the United States
represented, as progress, at its making: What it represented under Lincoln's
leadership. What it tried to represent, again, under the leadership of Franklin
That's the issue, and no other issue is of anything but
secondary, or auxiliary importance.
It's in that circumstance, that we have to understand the
implications of, not only the sinking of the Kursk, but also, the larger
issue, which I addressed in the film on the "Storm Over Asia."
An Example: The Bombing of Pearl Harbor
Just to give an example of this, in one particular case:
Let's take the case of the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Now, the bombing of Pearl
Harbor has a long history. It goes back to the wars against Britain, from the
beginning, from the founding of the United States, in 1776. And, even
before--some developments under the Colonies.
Over the course of time, the patriotic military and other
professionals of the United States, recognized that the British were the
essential enemy of the United States. And, during the course of time, until the
middle of the 1930s, the United States developed various kinds of war plans,
chiefly pivotted on the understanding that the British monarchy was the natural,
and continuing, chief enemy of the United States. And, that if we had to fight a
war to defend ourselves as a nation, we had to prepare for a war against
Britain, and the forces deployed by Britain, for our interest.
Thus, in the beginning of the century--this past century, the
20th Century--the United States developed a number of specific war plans, based
on this experience, in general, and based on specific conditions, which had been
called into being by the assassination of McKinley, by a group of people, who
were friendly to Teddy Roosevelt, in New York City.
Among these, were two war plans: War Plan Red and War Plan
Orange. Red and Orange signified Britain and Japan. And this occurred--of
course, these war plans were in this form, as a result of the British alliance
against the United States with Japan, which came to a head, over the period from
1894 through 1905. So, from that experience of Japan as a puppet of the
British monarchy, the United States understood that Japan had been converted
into a British puppet against the United States.
In the early period, the period of the Harding
Administration, there was a continuing process, in which the British, together
with the Japanese, tried to reduce the American naval power, to the point that
the United States Navy would be defeated in any war against Britain and its
naval allies. This was the famous naval disarmament agreement.
In that period, the War Plans Red and Orange underwent a
special refinement, to which Gen. Billy Mitchell referred at his court martial.
What had happened was, in the meantime, the United States understood, at the
beginning of the 1920s: The British plan, was to have the British Navy and the
Japanese Navy develop, to prepare to attack, among other places, Pearl
Harbor. Early 1920s. This is part of the British alliance with Japan,
against the United States. They planned to fight only a naval war against the
United States, to destroy the United States' maritime power, around the
world. What they intended to do, was to have the British protect Canada, on the
Atlantic side, and have the Japanese stage an attack on Pearl Harbor, to wipe
out the U.S. military naval base at Pearl Harbor.
Now, the U.S. military top ranks were fully aware of this
plan. One U.S. general officer, Billy Mitchell, thus concentrated on a new way
of defeating warships of Japan, in the case of an attack, by the Japanese on
Pearl Harbor. He, therefore, developed the idea of using, what we call today,
aircraft carriers, which would carry bombers; the bombers launched from an
aircraft carrier, would then be used to attack the Japanese fleet, deployed
against Pearl Harbor.
For this, Billy Mitchell came under heavy attack, within the
U.S. military, at the time that the military was controlled by the
Coolidge--pro-British Coolidge crowd. For this, on behalf of Britain. And, this
led to public arguments. And, for making the public arguments, Billy Mitchell
was court-martialled, and stripped of his rank, and humiliated. Because, he was
out to defend the United States against the British.
So, therefore, ask yourself something: How much of a surprise
was it to the U.S. military, when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941?
It was no surprise. The only surprise was, that the Japanese put more aircraft
on their aircraft carriers, than in the original plan, and therefore, that was
an element of surprise: The amount of air power deployed against the
Hawaiian Islands by the Japanese fleet, was the element of surprise. Nothing
else was a surprise.
The United States and the British had deliberately
provoked Japan, to make an attack, in order to get the United States into
war. Because the American people were not prepared to fight a war, at that time;
therefore, the Pearl Harbor attack, was necessary to accept and to
provoke, in order to have the kind of incident, that would alarm the U.S.
population, into willingness to go to a general war.
That's the way things happen. And, that's typical of the way
the post-war period is run. People who think the British are our dearest and
closest ally, simply are not patriots of the United States. Or, we might say,
they're either sub-adolescents, or even infantile: Like Cap Weinberger, and so
forth, and Sir Henry Kissinger, and so forth.
So, the key thing here, is the principle of action. Action,
in politics and strategy, means the action by means of which, in general,
mankind's power in and over the universe is maintained; which means actions
which promote the existence of the sovereign form of the modern nation-state,
the protectionist model; it means actions which promote the development of our
population in ways to raise them to higher levels of culture, through education
and so forth, and better conditions of life; it means cooperation among nations
which agree with those principles, and which ought to be in partnership with
each other; and it means opposing, even to the point of going to justified
warfare--of defending those institutions of progress against the adversary, of
which the chief one, continuing to this day, is the British monarchy.
This means also, in progress, the promotion of scientific
discovery, and of Classical artistic culture, in our schools and in our practice
elsewhere, as a way of developing our minds, the minds of our people, to
cooperate and to be able to address these kinds of problems, and to promote
A Hyperinflationary Explosion
Now, that said, let us get on with it--with that
introduction, admittedly long, but you will see why it is relevant. Let's turn
to this first figure I did for the first time in November of 1995: the collapse
function, this first figure (Figure 1). I did this for the
first time when Helga and I were invited guests at a Vatican conference. In the
context of the conference, I was invited by the sponsors to submit a report to
the Vatican on this general subject. And in order to try to explain to priests
and others, what they are probably not technically qualified to deal with, I
used this way of illustrating the basic, characteristic feature of the
destruction of European civilization, including that of the United States; this
three-curve figure, which many of you are familiar with.
What has happened, especially since 1971, with the
actions by Nixon in 1971, in collapsing the previous Bretton Woods system, and
setting up the floating-exchange-rate system, is the following process. This
curve here represents--let's say this is 1966-1971 approximately, the zero
point--that since that time, especially since 1971, the characteristic has been
that the per-capita real component of U.S. production and consumption has been
in a phase of accelerating decline. During the same period, we've had a growth
of the total financial aggregates. For example, today, that means that, compared
with about $41 trillion-equivalent, in terms of official reports, of world gross
domestic product, of all nations combined--$41 trillion--that in short-term
alone, the total amount of financial aggregate today, in short-term obligations,
is over $400 trillion--in other words, at least 10 times the amount of the total
annual product of the world as a whole. And that does not include all
This is what's happened. We, as a nation, and the world
system at large, is, presently, hopelessly bankrupt. So don't say, "When is the
crash coming?" The crash is already here; we have already crashed. We have not
yet hit the ground, but the wings have torn off, and we are going
Now, in the meantime, in order to pump up
this financial growth, what has happened, is that we have kept pumping into the
system more printed money, both Federal Reserve dollars and other kinds of
monetary forms, in order to feed this leveraged growth of financial aggregates,
sometimes called financial-asset values. In order to do that, we have been
looting the physical economy. Look at what's happened to power production. We no
longer produce enough power to meet the same standard of production we did 35,
or 30 years ago (Figure 2). So, we just let our plants go to hell, or
shut them down. Our power production is down. Basic economic infrastructure is
down. Through Al Gore's reinvention of government, we now have forest fires. We
might say that Al Gore has been a flaming failure as Vice-President.
So, these kinds of things--the standard of
living: For example, what part of your income, of a single income of a normal
head of a household--what percent of your income do you pay for rent? How many
years' salary do you have to have, from that single head-of-household income, to
buy a mortgage on a house? (Figures 3-4.) Recently, what's happened is,
that you've seen, as a result of this financial aggregation and collapsing of
real output, we're now into--as I'll come to later on--double-digit rates of
inflation in progress. We're now headed toward $50-a-barrel oil, or higher.
We've had 10-30% increases in metals prices in the past 12 months. We've had
similar rises in the price of food. The price of rents and housing acquisition
has skyrocketted, again, 30-40% in the past year, depending on what part of the
country you're living in. Our industries are collapsing, and
So this process of inflation-collapse, taken together, and
the number of incomes you have to have in a household in order to support the
household (or not quite support it) has increased. That's what this is
So this rate of growth, in itself, described by this curve,
is hyperinflationary. But at first, the value has been expressed in terms of
hyperinflation in so-called financial asset prices--that is, stock-market
prices, real estate mortgage prices, share prices generally, the so-called
Nasdaq index: highly speculative, highly leveraged, nominal increases in prices
of assets, by people who are borrowing 20-30% more than they're making, going
more deeply into debt, at high rates of interest, in order to buy into what they
hope will bail them out, in terms of share-price value appreciation. The economy
is being destroyed.
A Riemannian Shock-Wave
Now, look at this picture (see portrait), a gentleman you
have to be acquainted with, Mr. Bernhard Riemann. Bernhard Riemann is one of my
heroes. He was a famous student of the great Carl Gauss, probably the greatest
mathematician in modern history, who made a fundamental discovery, to which I
turned in the beginning of the 1950s. I made a certain fundamental discovery in
respect to the science of physical economy, and in order to try to put what I
had discovered in mathematical form, in 1953, I turned to some of the work of
Riemann, and Riemann's work was what I have incorporated into my own discoveries
ever since that time.
This is a diagram of another aspect of Riemann's work, which
I also have relied upon (Figure 5). This is called a Riemann
shock-wave. This was something that was developed by Riemann in 1858, when the
first discovery of transsonic, supersonic, velocities--the existence of them in
nature, was proven by Riemann in a famous paper. And this particular diagram,
which is cut in plastic, and was done for me some years ago, is a diagram in
three dimensions, of the way in which a transsonic shock-wave is developed as a
projectile is approaching the speed of sound.
Now, this same kind of phenomenon, or a similar kind of
phenomenon, comes up in economics, as you approach certain boundary conditions;
and that's what we are at now. The point is that today, we are on a shock-wave
front, and I would summarize this this way (I'll come back to this again):
During the period between March and the present time--maybe earlier, but
certainly by March--the U.S. economy, and a large part of the world economy,
entered into a hyperinflationary explosion, like that which gripped Weimar
Germany between March and November 1923. What you're experiencing today, in
terms of the zooming of petroleum prices, of real estate prices, of prices of
primary metals, things of that sort, is actually a hyperinflationary
commodity-price inflation, based on the same principles which led to the
disintegration of the German Reichsmark in 1923, over the period March through
November. We are, approximately, somewhere in the July-August 1923 period, in
terms of the present rates of commodity-price inflation worldwide, hitting the
United States and elsewhere today. This phenomenon, of this hyperinflationary
form, is an example of this kind of problem.
So, what we're at today, is, because of certain policies
which have been adopted since 1971 by the United States government--the policies
of moving away from the sovereign nation-state, into free trade, and other kinds
of changes you've seen, especially since the inauguration of Jimmy Carter, in
the United States--we've seen a systemic destruction of the U.S. and world
economy, which accelerated greatly after 1989-1990; and this process has led to
this inflationary situation. When the danger of the blowout, a deflationary
blowout, of the world financial system, struck between the Summer of 1996 and
the Fall of 1998; then, in October of 1998 the United States government, and
others, decided to pump a wall of monetary inflation--into the present
hyperinflation. Therefore, we have seen, since October 1998, an explosive,
accelerating rate of increase of asset-price inflations in the share values and
similar kinds of things.
As of this year, in the course of the present year, that
asset-price inflation has spilled over into commodity-price hyperinflation. For
example, the reason for the increase in the price of a barrel of petroleum, over
the course of the Summer, is not a supply-demand phenomenon. When President
Clinton says that we've got to force oil-producing and -exporting countries to
produce more oil, it's a lie. The world is already glutted with petroleum, and
the supply and demand for petroleum has nothing to do with the price of
petroleum per barrel. The price of petroleum per barrel, the gasoline price, the
heating oil price, and so forth, is entirely the result of
speculation--hyperinflationary financial speculations--in mergers and
acquisitions within the conduits from the oil, petroleum product, through the
refineries, and through those institutions which have bought into the handling
and speculation upon refined product, and downstream delivery futures out of
refineries (Figure 6). The reason this has occurred, is that
those who invested in mergers and acquisitions in the petroleum downstream side,
spent so much in acquisitions and mergers, that to cover the cost of the
acquisitions and mergers, what you are paying for is not the price of petroleum;
you are paying for the price of paying off the speculators who bought
into a large amount of debt in order to make the mergers and
The same thing has happened in the metals field. The same
thing has happened in real estate. Real estate speculation does not come from a
housing shortage as such. What has happened is that the Federal Reserve system
and others, who have control over the mortgage-industry business, have been
floating mortgages at a great rate and at high risk, into the building of these
glorified tarpaper shacks you see mushrooming here and in California. So, what
they've been doing, is by control of the mortgage market, they've rigged the
mortgage market with speculation, in order to do some profit-taking on the real
estate side, using these cheap, glorified tarpaper shacks going for $300,000 to
$600,000 and $700,000 apiece. These are being merchandised on the landscape, and
are not intended to survive very long, because they're all going to come down
very soon, when the market blows up.
The same thing has happened with foodstuffs. You look at how
much of the world's food supply has been taken over by speculators. Look at
what's happened with the case of power, electrical power. We have a vast
shortage of electrical power. But it is not the shortage of electrical power
which has caused the zooming of prices for electricity in California and
elsewhere. It is the fact that the people who have bought up, and bought into,
things like Enron [Corp.] and these guys, have driven the market up. They've
created an artificial shortage, a shrinking supply; they market this stuff at
high prices on these special markets, and they've taken over the market--through
Therefore, if you take the effect of high prices of energy,
prices of food, prices of real estate, and so forth; if you take the effect of
that on the whole economy, then you see how we, like Germany in 1923--Weimar
Germany--are headed into the kind of hyperinflation commodity-price spiral
which hit Germany with full force in October-November of 1923 (Figure
7). And we're on the way there.
So, those who tell you, "Yes, there might be a crisis, but it
won't happen for a year or two"--they're lying. They're either stupid, or
they're lying. When you're getting into rates of hyperinflation in asset value,
and as a spillover of that, the beginning of a commodity-price inflation--I
mean, those who tell you that the rate of inflation in the United States today
is less than 1%, they're lying. Any government agency that tells you that, is
lying. The most fairly estimated rate of inflation in the United States at this
moment, is 10% per annum. And it's up to 30% or higher in categories such as
real estate and other things, over the past year.
So now, we are on an escalating spiral of hyperinflation
which is going to blow this economy out, and everything in it.
The Threat of Global Infectious Diseases
All right. So let's look at another effect of this, just to
get some idea: disease (Figure 8). In 1973, I wrote a
memorandum to some of my associates, on how we were doing our science work, in
connection with what became, in that period, EIR. What I did, was to take
the case of a very famous Russian scientist, Vladimir Vernadsky, who did a lot
of work on what's called biogeochemistry, and related things. He was a student
of Pasteur, of some significance. And I correlated the effects of the 1971
decision by Nixon which sank the Bretton Woods system; and what the effects that
policy would have upon the spread of disease and other demographic effects in
places such as Africa. In the following year, we produced a report on the
subject of the global threat of disease, targetting, in particular, Africa as a
model case. And these studies, of these spreads of disease, were a by-product of
We maintained that study, of course, over the years. In the
middle of the 1980s it became rather celebrated, when the question of the
knowledge of HIV, or AIDS, broke out, and we did further studies showing what
the impact would have to be, of the spread of the disease and co-factors and
correlatives of HIV, worldwide. This study we did--if you look at the recent CIA
report on the threat of AIDS, or HIV, you'll find the figures that we wrote in
1987, on what had to be done about HIV, are highly accurate; that our figures
from that time are the accurate figures.
So this is part of the same process. We see now, a
destruction of the economy, a monetary and financial system which is about to
collapse, the fact that we are in a spiral which is leading toward a total
blowout of the system, like Germany in 1923; and on top of that, under these
conditions, the lawful rate of spread of disease of old and new types, and their
interaction with one another, and the demographic effects, are becoming
Just take the next graphic, on the question of the 1956-1975
period. All right. This is the basic pattern (Figure 9).
1977--that's the year that Carter was inaugurated as President. The top figure
is the lower 80% of the labor force, family households--what percent of the
total national income do they represent, in terms of family income, as against
what percent of the total national income is controlled by those in the upper
20% of family income-brackets? And you see there's been a qualitative
transformation in the quality of income, in the quality of employment,
circumstances of family life, in the U.S. society, as a result of both the 1971
decision by Nixon, and the policies of Carter and his followers from 1977 on.
And that's what we're getting today. That's where we are today,
approximately--this is a more recent figure. And that's the big social
I made a number of warnings on this subject, just to indicate
how we got here. One of the first--after what I warned about with Carter, what
Carter's policies would lead to in 1977, and they did lead to exactly what I
warned--I warned in October-November of 1979 that the Volcker measures adopted,
would sink the economy, that the United States would be driven into a recession
by February of that year; that happened. That that would persist for at least
two years; it happened.
Then we went on. We went on, after Volcker. Look at the prime
rate, for example, of Volcker (Figure 10). See the period of
1980? This is what Volcker did to wreck the U.S. economy. This is what sank,
among other things, the savings and loans institutions; some of you may remember
them, when they once existed. They were wiped out, by this. And that's in that
period. And you see what's happened since then.
Go on to the next one--the rise in debt (Figures
11-12). You see, again, from the 1980s, the 1990s,
what has happened since the 1970s in terms of the rise in debt.
Go on to the next one. This is the forecast we made in 1980,
a comparison of forecasts (Figure 13). The big thick red line
on the lower side, is what EIR forecast over that period into 1982. The
actual is the black line, which goes higher, and then follows down toward where
we went. The others went sort of sliding up, industrial production index, and
they were all wrong. So, again, over this period, the forecasts that we've made
have been consistently, as this typifies, correct.
Then, in 1987, of course, in May 1987, I forecast a probable
stock market collapse in October 1987, which happened on schedule, as I had
forecast, which resulted in a qualitative change in the character of the U.S.
financial system. That crash coincided with the shift of power, in the Federal
Reserve System, from Paul Volcker, who had sunk the economy under Carter, to
Alan Greenspan, who's been sinking the economy ever since that time.
Then, this led, of course, in 1988, where, in Berlin, on Oct.
12, 1988--we're getting close to an anniversary now, a 12th anniversary--I
forecast in Berlin that what I had been forecasting would happen, over previous
years, that the economy of the Soviet system would begin disintegrating, and
that in the following short period, following the end of 1988, we should expect
a disintegration of the Soviet system, beginning in Eastern Europe, and
spreading into the Soviet Union itself--which is, of course, exactly what
happened. That was generally denied, but it happened.
I also set forth some policies which the United States and
others should follow, to deal with that crisis, and at that point, when it
actually happened, Thatcher and Bush and others took a policy directly
opposite to what I had proposed. As a result of their policy, we have
the crisis which I referred to in "Storm Over Asia," and we had such incidents
coming out of that, as the crisis over the Kursk, this past
Then in 1992, I again said, all right, now, we're going into
a Great Mudslide, which George Bush's policies have set into place, and that's
A Critical Point of Instability
Now, let's look at the second collapse function, the one with
the critical point of instability (Figure 14).
Now, you see, this is quite similar to the earlier function I
showed you in connection with the Riemann explanation, similar to what I first
presented in 1995. In this case, note this area here [points to circled areas].
This is the point at which the hyperinflation in commodity prices began to break
into place (Figures 15-18). This is somewhere
between March and July of this year, something like that; maybe slightly earlier
and so forth. But at least the figures indicate it occurred about here.
What happened is, you see, in the earlier part of the
process, the financial curve is growing higher than the monetary growth: That
is, the amount of money pumped into the system to sustain the financial
speculation is less than the amount of financial aggregate generated. However,
as occurred in the case of Germany, in the course of 1922-1923, Germany was
paying for its war reparations debt on schedule. In order to pay the debt, the
German government was issuing printed Reichsmarks, which were put into
circulation to create a sufficient money supply for Germany to pay its debt, its
war reparations debt, to France and Britain, which, in turn, were paying their
war debt to the United States.
This is the secret of Hitler.
So, at a certain point, the amount of the monetary aggregate,
which was being pumped in by the German government, in trying to chase this
spiral of inflation, exceeded the total amount of the debt. When that
occurred, the result was, a hyperinflation. First of all, in 1922, in terms of
some of the background scenes. But in 1923, especially from about July on, the
general hyperinflation in Weimar exploded in a commodity-price inflation. The
big explosion appeared in places like foodstuffs, manufactured products, and so
forth, power, and real estate. And this explosion at that point, between July
and November of 1923, sank the German Reichsmark.
We are now in a similar situation, in which the total
amount of monetary aggregate which must be poured into the United States, to
bail out Wall Street, to keep it from collapsing, is of the same nature.
Thus, any attempt to maintain the present policies of the United States,
even for the next two months, the period of the election campaign, would be
sufficient to destroy the U.S. economy flat. Not a depression. Not a
deflationary collapse in the ordinary sense. Not like 1929. But a disintegration
of the U.S. dollar. And we're on the edge of that right now. That's what they're
playing with; that's the time bomb they're bouncing around; that's the bottle of
nitroglycerine they're passing from hand to hand--hot little hand to hot little
So, that's the present situation. In the meantime, the effect
of this is, you have an accelerated rate of collapse of physical product,
produced by the United States and by the world economy--especially in the United
States. We are headed for a disaster beyond anything seen in three
centuries. That's where we're headed right now.
Well, look at some other figures that are quite relevant
here. Get to the rate of money for speculation--just to get some idea of how
this goes (Figure 19). Look at the expenditure
here--look at your years first; that's your time frame. Here is your almost flat
rate of expenditures of plant and equipment, and this does not fully take into
account the effect of inflation. Now, what is the total amount of investment?
What are they investing in? They're not investing in production. They're
investing in financial instruments.
Now look at the composition of employment, from 1947 to 1999
(Figure 20). You see that the U.S. labor force, in terms of
numbers, or percentiles, as actually here--the U.S. labor force, productive
labor force, that is, farmers, factory operatives, and so forth--has remained
approximately constant, while the population has been growing. But, the number
of employees has been skyrocketting. Essentially, except for productivity, which
has been collapsing--productivity growth has been collapsing since 1970--which
means that the actual net physical product per capita, of the U.S. labor force,
has not been increasing significantly. Watch things like the shutting down of
steel plants outside of Pittsburgh. We have been tearing down our
infrastructure, our productive potential (Figures 21-24).
So, essentially there's been stagnation in the actual
amount of product produced, while the population has grown, and while the total
number of employees has grown, while, actually, hidden unemployment has also
been growing. So, you see, here we have another case of the change of the
composition of employment, of the U.S. labor force as whole, which is a warning
sign: We're headed for disaster.
Now, look what's happened here. This is a warning of coming
bankruptcy, of general banking bankruptcy (Figure 25). What has happened
in this period--this is '87. This is the time that Greenspan made the big
reorganization in the national banking system, at the time of the '87 crisis, or
that general period. Now you see what's happening. The concentration of banks,
through mergers and acquisitions and other things, has been involved with
something else. Banks are no longer really banks. You have the bailout of
Citibank by the Bush Administration, which was essentially bankrupt some years
ago. And the U.S. government bailed it out, because it was considered "too big
to fail." So, the U.S. government bailed it out.
Globally, the banks have been used to conduct a vast swindle,
of which the real estate speculation is part. What you see out there with these
tarpaper shacks, or grass shacks, or whatever they've got out at $400,000 and up
apiece. What has happened is that Fannie Mae, Ginnie Mae, and so forth, these
mortgage facilities, were used to pump lending power into the speculative real
estate bubble, creating a liability, which is only superficially covered by the
banks through which this conduiting was done.
Now, the bank would take a mortgage, and they'd spit it out
into this other area of the Ginnie Mae, etc., Fannie Mae. As a result of that,
we have the banks loaded with assets, which are actually not assets at all.
Because the instant that this financial bubble in real estate pops, as it's
getting overripe to do, then every bank, major bank, in the United States, will
go technically into bankruptcy. That's part of the process.
Then, you know this one (Figures 26, 27),
don't you? You're all familiar with this one. People are living
on debt. Credit card debt, residue of your mortgage balance debt, all this kind
And the number of U.S. bankruptcies
(Figure 28). Let's go through this fast. 1996, '98, '99--look
Now, this is just straight derivatives, as reported
(Figure 29). And this is only a small amount. The greatest
amount of financial derivatives is unreported, so this is only the tip of the
Now, the United States current account deficit is a
combination of the net trade deficit, plus other deficits on financial account
on trade (Figure 30). Given the structure of the United States
today, the structure of its exports, imports, its production, this debt could
never be repaid. That is, this deficit represents an accumulation of debt by the
United States, to the world, which the United States has no hope of ever being
able to repay. The problem with the amount--the annual rate of the current
account deficit of the United States today, is probably about one-half trillion
dollars a year. And that is not the full extent of it. Because the United
States, in addition to living on what it's taking in from other countries
that it's not going to be able to repay, the United States is living on an
undetermined number of trillions of dollars of financial inflows, into the New
York market chiefly, and the New York market is being pumped up, aided by
leverage, by that other money being milked out of the yen carry trade, and out
of the euro carry trade, chiefly.
This just simply shows the other side, the deficit in goods.
Our deficit is such that, the AFL-CIO is right, Pat Buchanan is right on this
one, if wrong on some other things, but he's right on this, that we are putting
ourselves into the poorhouse with free trade, and globalization, and WTO. We're
not producing enough to meet our own requirements for survival.
You see what's happening (Figure 31). This is where
the bankruptcy is occurring. This is where the financial hyperinflation is
occurring, the one that's spilling over and reflected in the commodity price
inflation now ongoing.
This is a simple relationship here. Rate of mergers, and the
price of oil (Figure 6). The reason for the rise in the per-barrel price of
petroleum, now soaring toward $50 a barrel, and who knows where after
that--which will have a maximum impact on the economy if you think about
things like, what does it cost to heat your home in the year? What does it cost
to transport by automobile at these kinds of price increases, and so forth? This
is strictly a result of nothing as much as the financial mergers and
acquisitions which are part of the whole swindle (Figure 32).
The Promise of the Strategic Defense Initiative
Next one. Now, what we've proposed--just hold this for a
moment, but we'll come back to it. This is back to the principle of
In February 1982, I held a conference, a very large,
well-attended conference, in Washington, D.C. It was 4-500 celebrities of
various nations, largely military and others, U.S. government, East bloc
governments, European, Western European governments. And I presented at that
time, what I presented as the alternative to Kissinger's policy. This is
the policy which became known as Strategic Defense Initiative.
Now, the important thing is to understand what the original
SDI was. Contrary to the idiocy which you hear in the press today about missile
defense--what you hear in the press is idiocy, by people who are worse than
idiots; they don't know anything about missile defense. What I proposed was not
a simple missile defense system. What I proposed was a way of destroying
Kissinger's policy. And I said so at the time, in a paper that was later
published, in March of that year.
The point was, I said, here we are, we're headed for a
thermonuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union, which people think they've
got managed. But, from a physical, technological standpoint, what they're
proposing is incompetent, and therefore, where they think that Kissinger's SALT
I treaty, and his ABM treaty, are a way to stabilize the U.S.-Soviet
conflict, they're actually ways to destabilize it, by the nature of the
I said, what we have to do is something completely different.
We do have the ability to devise systems, new kinds of physical systems, which
could deal effectively with thermonuclear missiles--that is, render them
effectively, technologically obsolete, down the line. But that was not the
extent of my proposal. The proposal was that, instead of having the Soviet Union
and the United States engage in this crazy chicken game, called SALT I and ABM,
why don't we find a way out of the conflict itself?
How? Because the Soviet economy, like the U.S. economy, is
collapsing. The present policies of the U.S. economy, the present policies of
the Soviet economy, ensure a collapse of those economies, physical
collapse. So, why don't we change the policy? Why don't we go back to the space
program of Kennedy, and let's do what we proved with Kennedy? Remember,
according to the estimates that were made in the middle of the 1970s, the United
States got more than a dime of additional GNP out of every penny the United
States invested in the space program, the Kennedy space program. The point is,
that since increases in productivity come directly, only, from improvements in
technology derived from fundamental scientific discoveries, the higher the rate
you convert fundamental physical discoveries into practice, the greater the rate
of increase of productivity per capita of population, and per square kilometer
The problem of both the Soviet system and our own, although
in different degrees, I said at the time, was that the United States was not
generating a rate of net growth in physical productivity, sufficient to maintain
the economy. Therefore, we needed a program for forced draft, science-driven
technological progress, with some mission, like the Moon mission, but as a
byproduct of that mission, such as the Moon mission, we would generate
spillovers in terms of technological progress, by such a crash, to put the
United States economy back on the plus side, in terms of net growth.
The Soviet economy does not work for similar reasons,
different, but similar reasons. Therefore, if the Soviet Union, with its vast
military-scientific technological capability, were to put that capability, in
cooperation with us, in global technological progress, and if we focussed upon
developing countries--South America, Africa, Asia--to do what Roosevelt proposed
be done for these countries, had he not died, then the benefit of such a program
would put--two things: would put the two economies back on the plus side,
together with Europe; and it would also be a way of creating a global agenda
which would solve the conflict problem.
Now, that was the SDI, in original form, which was what
Reagan proposed on March 23, 1983, in his television broadcast: nothing else.
Later, due to the Heritage Foundation and other clowns, that definition of SDI
was sabotaged, and destroyed. As a result, in the field, even though there are a
few competent people rattling around in the cages there, there is no competence
in the U.S. military on this question of missile defense. It was destroyed in
the Summer of 1983, through the Heritage Foundation's influence on Reagan
Now, I cite that now, not merely because those are typical of
the measures which I have proposed--and this had tremendous support: In 1982 and
'83, even in '84, I had meetings with some of the highest-level military and
other authorities in Western Europe, and elsewhere, as well as in the U.S., on
this question. I was an integral part of the planning, and campaign for this. I
carried this message into Europe before anybody outside the National Security
Council, except me, knew about it. And only a few people at the National
Security Council knew about it, and some of them tried to sabotage it the minute
they found out about it. But this shows there was an approach, which could have
solved the problem. Andropov turned it down cold. Other people in the Soviet
Union looked at it much more seriously, but Andropov--who had a commitment to
something else at the time, namely, the British--turned it down flat, without
discussion. And that was the way it got killed. But, nonetheless, it
Let's Go To Mars!
Now, we did the same thing later, coming out of '85. We had a
friend of ours, who died, Krafft Ehricke, who was a leading space scientist,
first for Germany, then for the United States. And he had become a friend of
ours. When he died of cancer, Helga, my wife, organized a conference, sponsored
by others, for him. So, as part of this thing, we put our heads together: What
would we do at a conference? We were getting his friends from all over the
world, and so forth, and other interested people involved--we had this
conference in Virginia, in Reston. What would we do?
Well, I said, let's take what he wanted to do, and go a step
further. Now, Krafft Ehricke's favorite project was the automatic
industrialization of the Moon, and he was the man who had been working on the
project in the 1950s and later, for the industrial development of the Moon, with
the idea that the Moon would be developed, as Krafft Ehricke and others had
proposed also, as a base, an industrial base, on which we would build
much of the weight of the spacecraft we'd use to explore the Solar System more
So, I said, why not go the next step? This is Krafft's
project, he laid out a project that was very well defined; it's one thing to
honor it. Let's do something more: Let's go to Mars! So, what I did was to take
the base work that Krafft had done, and others had done, and simply took this,
and said, here's the obvious. Here's why we have to go to colonize Mars--not to
build housing developments on Mars, not that sort of thing, but to create a Los
Alamos-type science city under the surface of Mars, which would be a base for
general, beyond-Mars space exploration, into the universe generally--to get away
from the Sun, because the Sun is a very noisy place, and you can't see things,
and hear things clearly, with all that noise of this big Sun rumbling around out
there. So if you can get a bit further out, at a place where there's a much
thinner atmosphere, you build a science-base out there, and you use that as a
base from which to deploy other pieces of equipment into Mars nearby-space, then
you can conduct observations of the universe, which we can't do from Earth. We
can get into frequencies and so forth we otherwise can't get into.
But, I said, the reason for doing this, would be fairly
estimated--it would take us 40 years to get a landing on Mars under these kinds
of conditions. So, let's do it. Why? Because of the spinoff benefits of the
science-driver project needed to make it in 40 years. It may take you 40 years
to get to Mars, but you're going to get a lot of benefits on Earth from the
technological spillover in the short run.
Typical of what we did.
The Role of the Eurasian Land-Bridge
Then, again, 1989. What I had forecast the previous year,
happened. The Soviet economy disintegrated in Eastern Europe, and beyond. So,
Helga and others proceeded with a program which I discussed with them, known as
the European Productive Triangle. It was to do the obvious thing: You take
Berlin, Vienna, and Paris, which are the traditional centers of the economy of
the core of Europe--western Europe. Build a triangle of the concentration of
technology, in this triangle. Connect this triangle, throughout Eurasia,
especially the European part of Eurasia, at the time, into the Balkans, by means
of technology--a technology-driver, a recovery program.
Then, in 1992-93, Helga took it further, and, with others,
began contacting China, Beijing, on the question of building a Eurasian
Land-Bridge (Figure 33). These are typical routes. These are
basic routes, as laid out in charts and maps, and so forth, that we did. We have
a much more extensive report. But, that's the essential thing. The idea is the
same thing. But, this is even bigger. And, it's more fun, and it's more
One of the greatest parts of this planet, land-areas of this
planet, is located in a thinly populated region, which includes western China,
Siberia, Central Asia. Now, if we simply build--and we can build it in a number
of ways: You've got the northern part of this system; if you go across the
northern part, there's a tundra area. If we build something like a magnetic
levitation-type of rail system, which is the best for freight--not merely
because of speed, but for other reasons--we can actually move freight faster and
more cheaply from Europe to the Pacific than we can by ship.
Furthermore, you have similar effects on Central Asia, an
area which has great concentrations of potential water-development sources; one
of the great concentrations of mineral wealth of the planet, there. Very
thinly populated: And, because of its thin population, and so forth, it's not
economically developable. Once you put a land-bridge process, say, from
Rotterdam and so forth, all the way to Beijing and Tokyo, and whatnot; once you
put that in--and including Southeast Asia, including India, down into Southeast
Asia--you now have a system, under which you can economically develop one of the
most thinly populated regions of the planet, in an area which is adjoined to the
most densely populated regions of the planet. Europe, western Europe; China,
especially the seacoast area of China; Japan; Southeast Asia; and India, which
have the most densely populated regions of the planet.
So, you have a vast, underpopulated region, with vast
resources, which is undeveloped, because of a lack of just this. If you take the
European Productive Triangle, as proposed earlier, connect it across Asia,
including across the Arctic tundra region of Siberia and Russia, into Japan,
across China; use magnetic levitation, which is better for freight, for other
reasons I won't discuss now, you suddenly have created the circumstances, under
which you've changed the character of economy on a global scale, simply by
this kind of construction.
These are things we've proposed. These are things which
should be done.
Now, just look, finally, at these few things, and then I'm
going to go to my concluding point: You've got the derivatives growing in
respect to GDP (Figure 34). You see, again, the ratio of
derivatives, financial derivatives, to Gross National Product. Again, here's
your hyperinflation expressed in this most naked and dangerous form. And, that's
not an even adequate estimate of the amount of derivatives.
Now, look at that point, that I've indicated, there, in terms
of this effect of the ratio of derivatives to GDP, Gross National Product or
Gross Domestic Product. That's your critical point. That's where we're
past now. That's where we're in the "doom area."
The Golden Renaissance Spurred Progress
This now brings us to the crucial issue of action. Look here:
This is approximately, here, the year 1500 (Figure 35). You
had a great period of development of Europe, in terms of gross population, in
terms of population-densities (about the same correlative), and life-expectancy.
This occurred over the period, from the aftermath of the reign of Charlemagne,
with some ups and downs, and then, in the great period corresponding to the
cathedral-building, as in the case exemplified by Chartres, in France, in that
This led, then, to a period of decline, in 100 years, from
about 1240-1340: wars, and so forth, to attempt to extinguish the possibility of
the nation-state. You had a great collapse of European civilization here: This
is called the New Dark Age, in which the population of Europe as a whole,
collapsed by one-half. This is the period, also, of the Black Death. Half
the parishes, the towns of Europe, vanished in this period: We're now
approaching a similar period, globally, right now.
But, from that point on, from the beginning of the 15th
Century, there was a Renaissance, which led to the rise of the nation-state.
And, then, from about here, about the latter part--after the Thirty Years War,
there has been a continuous trend of growth of population, of
population-density, and of life-expectancy, in European civilization. Up until
about 30 years ago. Now, we're in the decline phase.
What caused this? What caused this, was progress. The idea of
progress, as I described it you, became policy, leading policy, in Europe, in
the course of the Golden Renaissance of the 15th Century. Two writings, by
Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, were typical. One was his Concordantia
Catholica, which was the design for the principle of the modern
nation-state. The second one, was his writing on science, which founded modern,
experimental physical science: De Docta Ignorantia.
The influence of Cusa and his friends, resulted in an
explosion in development, in scientific development. It was Cusa's circles,
directly, for example, who organized the discovery of America. Columbus,
in 1480, had a correspondence with a friend of Cusa's, who had constructed the
map of the world, based on ancient sources, and based on astrophysics. This map
was then used, by Columbus, to discover the Americas. And, he knew where he was
going; he didn't know what the territory was named, but he knew where he was
going; about how far it was, and how to get there. And he got there, at about
the time he expected.
This discovery of America was not an accident: It was an
intent, to establish global progress, to colonize, to create colonies, to
contact other peoples, develop new nations. And, to ally with those new nations,
to create an alliance, which could bring order to the planet as a whole, as well
as security to Europe. The same policy was carried out by others. It was carried
out by the English, the friends of Shakespeare, for example. When England became
impossible, for a while, under the influence of Paolo Sarpi, you had a group in
England, around Winthrop--and later the Winthrops and Mathers--who developed the
Massachusetts Bay Colony, which is the root from which the United States
later emerged, and the policies of that period of the 17th Century.
But, then you had more wars--attempts to destroy the
nation-state. The situation became almost impossible, with the rise of the
Then all hope was hinged on the United States, on the
emergence of a new nation in North America, to become a model republic, to
inspire the spread of the republican principle of progress throughout Europe as
And, for a while, that succeeded, until the French Revolution
demoralized Europe. Until Napoleon demoralized Europe.
And then, the success of Lincoln, in leading a war against
the British puppets, called the Confederacy, again put America, the American
model, this struggle for progress, in the foreground. A struggle, which was
crushed, by the events following the assassination of McKinley. A process
which was revived by Roosevelt. A process which was crushed by the assassination
of Kennedy and the ousting of Johnson, to the present time.
This is the issue.
What's happened? We have gone into, since 1971--in
particular, '66-71, since the rise of Kissinger--we've gone into a period of a
great, global decline, especially in European civilization. If you look at the
charts of Europe, European civilization, in western Europe. Look at the United
States, since 1966. Look at what's happened in Russia, especially since
1990-1992. Look at what's happened to the Balkans. Look at what's happened in
eastern Europe. The conditions in eastern Europe today, are worse than they were
under the Soviet Warsaw Pact, by far. The conditions in eastern Germany, today,
the economic conditions, are worse than they were under the D.D.R., under the
Soviet regime there. The situation in Indonesia: unspeakable.
Africa has been a victim of genocide, ever since the middle
of the 1960s, especially Sub-Saharan Africa, and the genocide is willfully
spreading. Since 1966, it's been the policy of the United States to promote
genocide--the policy of the State Department, the official policy; the U.S.
lending policy. U.S. foreign policy in general, especially since Kissinger,
has been to regulate the foreign policy of the United States, to ensure the
reduction of population in Africa.
And, in South America: to conserve the natural resources of
these regions, for the future use of Europeans, at the expense of the present
inhabitants. To make sure that Africans and the people in South
America--Mexico, and so forth--don't use up the natural resources, which
Kissinger's sponsors covet, for the latter part of this century.
It's been the policy.
We have entered a period, a Dark Age, like the period from
the launching of the Guelph League wars, about 1240 A.D., into the New Dark Age
of the middle of the 14th Century: a period of moral, economic decline, and
cultural decline, which the very existence of civilized life on this planet,
while maybe not threatened with extinction, is threatened with
near-obliteration, for periods as long as several generations.
That's where we stand. And that's what the issue is:
That's the strategic issue.
How Can We Save the Nation-State?
Now, the question, today, is, how can we save the
nation-state? Because, the idea of the nation-state, as the Declaration of
Independence and the Preamble of the Constitution in particular, define it, is
the only thing that can save this planet from a Dark Age. The U.S.
public, today, is fairly described as a Ship of Fools. Most people in the United
States are a bunch of fools; they're a pack of fools. Their opinions are the
opinions of fools. It's not really, entirely, their fault; they should know
better. But that's the condition they've found themselves in. It was a
condition, which the Baby Boomers enjoy, as a result of most of my generation's
corruption. But, the Baby Boomers studied well, and became more corrupt than my
generation succeeded in becoming. They became very influential, and, quite
naturally, produced a generation, which is more corrupt than they were. We, now,
have produced the younger generation of Pokémon addicts, who are prepared
to kill their grandparents, and eliminate any record of the cycle.
The issue, here, is, how to revive this nation.
The theme, which I chose for this event, today, was chosen
because of the implication of the way in which Russian President Putin, and
others, reacted to the sinking of the Kursk. Obviously, from what I've
said, and if you look at what I wrote and spoke in October of 1999, in "Storm
Over Asia," nothing that happened surprises me. I didn't predict the sinking of
the Kursk in particular. But, I forecast exactly that kind of
development, and that kind of confrontation, is coming to a head. It's
come to a head.
But, the important thing about this development, was the fact
that Putin reacted, in a sense, somewhat the way Franklin Roosevelt reacted to
the bombing of Pearl Harbor. The Russian people had put up with a process of
degradation and corruption, which had almost destroyed Russia as a nation, and
its people as a population. Over the period, particularly, 1992 to the present,
with a big help in that direction earlier, from what was called glasnost,
by Gorbachov. Which was actually invented by Andropov.
So, finally, a Russian President has acted in a way, which
portends a possible turning of the corner in Russia. That is a mixed blessing,
because, actually, the nuclear threat continues. And, as long as idiots, like
Brzezinski, are running loose, and threatening to make war on Russia, and other
places, the possibility of a nuclear reaction against Brzezinski, and Gore, and
George W. Bush, is there.
So, it's a very mixed blessing.
But, Russia has shown, in its present leadership, a
determination to survive and recover. The possibilities for that recovery are
significant. In this circumstance, the present circumstance, now that Japan, and
China, and Southeast Asia, and others, are moving toward breaking from the
United States and Britain, on the question of global policy, Russia can play a
very significant role. Not as a world power trying to get an empire, but as a
nation-state, with a very significant position, geographical, and economic, and
otherwise, as sitting on part of the greatest single concentration of
undeveloped natural resources, in that thinly populated part of the world, in
Central and Northern Asia. This includes Western China: That, in order to
develop this part of the world, to meet the problems which China faces, and
other nations--and Europe as well: Europe requires large-scale markets for the
revival of western Europe's high-tech machine-tool export capability. Without
Germany's exporting of 40% of its product, in machine-tool-grade export, the
German economy can not live. It'll die. Without the revival of the German
economy, the economies of all western Europe, will collapse and
Therefore Germany--and all Europe together, continental
Europe, in particular--looks for markets to the East. The vehicle for those
markets, is via Russia, into this development in Central Asia, in cooperation
with Japan, and so forth.
The importance of Russia in this, is the importance of
establishing, to have a viable recovery, what is called a "full-set economy." By
full-set economy, what is generally meant, is an economy which has enough of all
of the requisite elements of technological skill needed to maintain a modern
economy. Without a revival of the economy of Russia, its participation with
western Europe, in conjunction with Japan, Korea, China, India, Southeast Asia,
Iran, and so forth, in joint development, it is not possible to reverse, in
time, the great danger to civilization, which is the fruit of the last 30 to 35
years of decadence of our civilization.
And thus, the fact that Russia is pulling its act together,
is, admittedly, a mixed bag. It may be the harbinger of an actual thermonuclear
war, if idiots in the United States and Britain continue to push for that. But,
on the other hand, if we are able to get the United States to take a proper
role, to recognize its own legacy, and to play a partnership role, with
Europe, with Russia, with India, with countries in South and Central America,
with Africa, in bringing this planet back into shape, the development of Russia,
its recovery, can be a great blessing for us all.
Now, as in the case when I proposed the SDI, back in
1982-1983, again, on the table, is an option, a strategic option, which can get
us out--at least our posterity--out of the mess bequeathed to us by the follies
of the last 30 to 35 years.
The question is: Will what I propose be accepted?
If not, the penalty is beyond the comprehension of virtually
anybody in this room. It must be done.
Therefore, what counts? What action is important? What act
can you take that means anything? If you ignore this issue, and the
issues related to it, then what do you get? All your dreams, and all your
labors, and all your aspirations, and your progeny go into the sewer, for your
negligence. If you can concentrate, as in a flanking operation, on
this option, this alternative to chaos, then everything else good you might
do, will work. If you do not, they won't.
An example: I was referring earlier, again, to the same
thing. One of the great events in all history, was the destruction of the
Persian Empire by Alexander the Great, under the counsel of Plato's successors,
in the leadership of the Academy of Athens. In the final analysis, Alexander
went onto the Plains of Gargamela, with a couple hundred thousand
forces--Macedonians and Greeks, chiefly--against a vast horde of the Persian
Empire. And, on that day, on that field of battle, the Persian Empire and its
host, were destroyed. And, the Persian Empire obliterated for all
millennia to come.
Again, later, that was imitated, in a certain way, by
Hannibal at Cannae, where a superior Roman host, to its own folly, was defeated
by an inferior host with a superior brain. And that has been repeated in
military history a number of times: That, in such situations, it is not the
simple-minded action, by simple-minded people, even well-armed and powerful,
which determines the outcome of battle. In a true strategic flanking operation,
it is the superior mind, which finds and selects the action, which brings
The question is: Do we have the ability to focus upon
preference and priority, for the single kind of flanking action, upon which,
alone, victory depends?