TOWARD A SECOND TREATY OF WESTPHALIA

The Coming Eurasian World

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

November 29, 2004

First, let us speak of tragedy.

Let such caricatures of poor King Canute as President George W. Bush, Jr., howl their denials, while they can still be heard. Let him shriek in futile rage against those thunderous winds of chaos which were already hurling themselves against the increasingly bankrupt national financial systems of the world. That chaos, now excited to the greater turbulence caused by the desperate antics of such poor, enraged fools as he, now descends with its own, added, uncontrollable fury upon our hapless, present world monetary-financial system. So, now, just a few weeks following our modern Canute's recent claims of electoral victory, the oncoming waves of a great storm of global breakdown crisis are striking on the gates of the governments of the world, and are already pounding the hoaxster's illusion of Bush's economic recovery to shreds. The terminal breakdown-crisis of the 1971-2004 world monetary system is thus now fully under way.

In that Classical definition of tragedy which takes its origin from ancient Greece, but contrary to the incompetent, Romantic doctrines usually taught in university courses on the subject of drama, a tragedy does not represent a calamity whose primary cause is an error by the current leadership of a society. Rather, both the selection of, and the relevant failures by that leadership are determined by the systemic features of the culture and institutions within which both that selection of leadership, and the forces acting upon its behavior are operating. Such is the U.S. situation today.[1]

Look at the folly of the Peloponnesian war, and learn. As Plato understood, and showed in his dialogues, this was not the mistake of a leader, but of the way in which the behavior of leadership, from Pericles through Thrasymachus, and the Sophists of the Democratic Party of Athens, was governed by the ruling moral degeneracy permeating the leading institutions of the population of Athens during that span of decades. So, it is with the tragic forces which have controlled the step-by-step descent of the U.S.A. and western and central Europe into self-inflicted doom over, especially, the recent four decades. The people whose institutions arranged the selection of the nation's leaders, prefer to blame the leaders, as Romantics do, for the ills of society; they evade the question: Why they did prefer not to choose, or to develop better ones?

So, in the current case of the Bush Administration, the origin of the present crisis is less a product of that Administration, than those U.S.A. institutional forces, including the Democratic Party as much as the Republican, which have shaped the selection and behavior of the leadership and policies and practices of both government and also private institutions during a more immediate period of four decades. Much of the blame for this dates from wrongheaded changes in direction of U.S. policy-making outlook already under way since the regrettable selection of Senator Harry S Truman as a Democratic Party Vice-Presidential candidate in the Summer of 1944.

In an existential crisis, such as the present world situation, which has those or similar attributes of a threatened general breakdown of the system, the danger comes chiefly from the leadership which fails to break with the pre-established policy-shaping trends, the failure to break in the way President Franklin Roosevelt did in his 1932 election-campaign, and in the turnabout in U.S. policy which he introduced beginning his first hours in the Administration. Like fabled King Canute, U.S. President George W. Bush, Jr., has more the character of a piece of noxious flotsam floating on the flood waters of doom, than the true cause of the crisis in which he plays the part of the official First Fool.

The great leader for a time of crisis is one whose selection breaks the rules, those rotten rules which are the relevant expression of the relevant, essential corruption. For that reason, society has tolerated only a relatively few truly great leaders for more than a short time. For example, as in the case of President Charles de Gaulle of France's Fifth Republic after 1963, the way in which bad governments recur or are maintained, is that the relevant leading institutions of society kill or otherwise eliminate capable leaders, even one such as de Gaulle who saved his nation in a time of existential crisis, when his rivals could not; but, who go against the whims of the representatives of the currently leading body of opinion, and are then, first undermined, and, later, ousted by aid of a corrupted majority of popular opinion. As Solon of Athens wrote, such expressions of popular opinion are the true root of Classical tragedy.

It is a virtual rule, that a corrupt popular opinion turns quickly against the leader who rescues that people from the consequences of its own popular follies. So, the French ingratitude to de Gaulle might remind one of a celebrated apostle of France's Nineteenth-Century decadence, who wrote insightfully of the beggar, who attacked savagely the first person who offered the beggar alms.

Traditionally fickle, so-called "democratic" popular opinion sometimes treats the wrong-doers of its nation almost as savagely as it might express ingratitude toward its heroes. In this present state of crisis, nothing that the Bush Administration might have thought were to be its triumphant schemes for the months ahead, will go as planned. Anyone who assumes that Bush's intentions will be carried out as planned, is as much a fool as the doomed Bush himself.

It is typical of that paragon of gutter hypocrisy, Bush, that he is mobilizing now for what he solemnly swore, repeatedly, during the recent televised campaign debates, that he would never do, "privatize Social Security." He is as evil and stupid as a Gila monster, as he moves to reward the poor dupes who voted for him, by sadistically increasing the proportionate tax burdens on those poor, and looting their small pensions, while gleefully cutting the taxes on his friends, the rich, especially the legendary "filthy rich" of such as Enron and Halliburton notoriety.

That folly of his Administration will generate countervailing consequences, probably even the fools' uncalculated ones, like those which soon embraced the five great fools of 1914, the German Kaiser, the Austrian Kaiser, the Russian Czar, and the chauvinism of the British and French populations. So, the spirit of the plagues of ancient Egypt is already descending upon its lawful prey, that modern gutter-Pharaoh's realm.

Nonetheless, in this stormy moment, nothing is settled, except the fact that the greatest monetary-financial crisis in modern history is already buffeting the world. In one way or another, this crisis is already threatening the Bush Administration with an early, self-inflicted doom. Meanwhile, what the actual outcome of this rising tumult might be, remains to be decided: by us, if we can find the will to do so.

Look at what faces the U.S. population in particular.

The Prospect Before You

This storm does not mean that this assault on the rulers of the system by the fabulous Erinyes, is necessarily aimed intentionally at you personally. Nor is this crisis of our contemporary planetary civilization, necessarily a final one. At least for this moment, the hatred which this Bush Administration has harvested from around the world, during the just less than four years of its reign, has destroyed that great political capital which our republic had once enjoyed in many parts of the world. In this and kindred ways, the regime of this petty, lunatic, and madly wicked tyrant, Bush, like that of England's Richard III, or the Emperor Nero before him, has crafted the instrument of cruelty which could turn about to destroy his reign.

Nonetheless, today, amid this mounting tumult, there are still some remaining options for rescuing civilization—and, for you too; but, only on the condition that we accept, quickly, the reality that we could not save both civilization and also that succubus which is the presently collapsing, liberals' monetary-financial system.

So, a system which has dominated the world's monetary-financial affairs since February 1763, that Anglo-Dutch Liberal model of monetary-financial system which created the present U.S. Bush regime, has reached the point of its own extreme decay. And we of the U.S.A. are presently trapped within the British (i.e., Anglo-Dutch Liberal imperialist) cultural vessel on which we have booked this forty-year journey toward Hell. This forty-year process has now reached the point, that neither that system, nor anything resembling it, could be saved, on either side of the Atlantic. It is as if sheeted Adam Smith, with lantern and spade, is walking toward the potter's field where his spiritual remains will be buried, soon, by the action of his own invisible hand. The rest of us, unfortunately, have already reached the stage at which the options for beginning to save our civilization will be diminishing rapidly, unless we begin to make, now, the relevant, drastic reforms we should have made decades ago.

It need not have turned out for us so badly as it has happened so far.

Had the victory of U.S. Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry been announced on November 3, 2004, crucial discussions on the subject of this onrushing crisis would have begun between Senator Kerry's representatives and relevant figures of leading Eurasian nations. The mere fact, that such discussions were occurring, would have encouraged governments to adopt stop-gap measures which would minimize the risk, pending the coming U.S. January Presidential inauguration. Now, the incumbent Bush Administration's hysterical determination to proceed with new economic and related measures, measures more insane than those it had already introduced prior to November 2nd, creates a situation in which what had been the pending collapse of the system has now been triggered, and much worse is coming on, at an accelerating rate.

Indeed, Kerry could have had a clear victory in this election, had his Democratic Party not spent the months leading up to the Labor Day holiday doing as much as might be conceivable to throw the victory away before the campaign actually began. It was the same tragic cultural outlook of the Democratic Party organization which had already thrown away the 2000 Presidential election, which cheated the Party of the opportunity for a clear victory in November 2004. Having tasted the reputation for the apparent fresh defeat, the yet-to-to-redeemed elements of the Party often cover up for their own past errors by taking the view that the blame for the reported outcome was simply that the result had been inevitable, in any case, all along. They are saying, in effect: "Let's go back to those traditional ways" in which they lost election after Federal election, since the Great Gingrich Raid of November 1994. That pattern of resistance to needed change in outlook, is the systemic stuff of tragedy.

There are solutions; but, do not deceive yourself into imagining that I am proposing that we could simply turn back the clock to the better times of European civilization's earlier decades as easily as simply reversing the relevant worst policy-decisions of the recent four decades. You can not relight the candle you have just burned up. It is time for some of us to come together to address the new kinds of deeper challenges facing us now in our future, as not only a nation, but as a world civilization. We must assemble quickly, to study the coincidence of this crisis with other, onrushing changes which also have the character of planet-wide social-political upheavals of tectonic implications.

With the present systemic breakdown of that imperial, Anglo-Dutch Liberal system of finance which has dominated the planet increasingly since the February 10, 1763 Treaty of Paris, only an appropriate new system, replacing that Liberal system, could prevent the rapid descent of the planet as a whole into a new dark age. Therefore, we must now quickly craft and adopt a new system of relations among all of the leading sovereign nation-states of this planet, a treaty coherent with the principles of the 1648 peace Treaty of Westphalia. This requires a fresh view of the relations between peoples of, respectively, European and Asian cultures. Responsible people must now push forward, urgently, with the discussions needed to define the outlines of the needed direction of agreements.

In my writings on related matters, as published internationally over decades, I have presented the rudiments of those needed changes which are required, specifically, by Europe and the Americas. Those proposed remedies remain valid as the most appropriate model for the situation confronting those parts of the world today. However, there is also a still larger, problematic aspect to the present situation, an aspect beyond the confines of European tradition as usually defined. That is the aspect which I now address: the required, emerging new quality of relationships among the cultures of European and Asian origins.

One of the subjects which should occupy a leading place on that agenda, is the matter of the new long-term trends which have recently come to prominence, respecting the pressures for profound changes in the relationship between what had been defined by that relatively hegemonic role of that modern European culture, which emerged from the Italy-centered Fifteenth-Century Renaissance, on the one side, and, on the other side, the recent, seemingly explosive rise of the population of the nations of South and East Asia, as also Africa. [See Figure 1.] That is the purpose of this report.

In the following pages, I shall now proceed by, first, defining the concept of culture as this applies to the form of globally extended European civilization which began in ancient Greece. Then, second, proceeding from the basis of the matters of principle treated in the first of the following sections of this report, I shall argue the case for an equitable global treaty arrangement among both nations based upon European civilization and the Asian and other cultures which represent the remaining cultures of the planet.

1. Culture Unfolds in Long Waves

The shared function of the author, director, and players of a Classical tragedy, is to bring on stage the essential feature of either a part of a specific time and place in actual history, or a legendary past: to bring it on the stage in such a fashion that the member of the audience, seated perhaps in the balcony of that theater, relives that actual history, as a personal experience within his, or her own mind. The member of the audience must be assisted, but also challenged into putting himself, or herself, amid, even above, the highest level of the crucial decision-making of the actual, historically determined cultural realities of that recreated time and place. That member of the audience must get inside both the actually leading historical figures of that drama, and the culture of that time and place as well. That experience, so awakened within the tissues of the living mind of the individual member of the audience, is the transformation of an ordinary citizen, come in from the streets, into an impassioned statesman of that moment.

A great Classical tragedy is composed, and performed as a Platonic dialogue, such that the audience for that performance is placed, as in the intellectual balcony, overlooking that history on stage. From that higher vantage-point, the audience is challenged to see the interactions of the figures on stage from a higher vantage-point than virtually any of the depicted characters themselves. This Platonic requirement of the composition and performance of Classical tragedy, as noted by Plato himself on the subject of the failures of the tragedians, corresponds to what Friedrich Schiller defined as the vantage-point of The Sublime.

That view of the matter of the performance in the theater is comparable to the position of the qualified management consultant, for whom the interplay among the members of the client organization is the subject-matter of the professional's concern. He or she observes and judges from a higher standpoint of overview than any among the principals or others of the subject enterprise. As in my own personal experience of that fact, it was usually the case, that the problem actually to be solved was the problem which the existing management was certain did not exist; the client management's inability to solve the problem by its own independent means, was that its own behavior was not the subject it was inclined to address from a higher standpoint. The success of the consultation depended upon the clientele's willingness to adopt that higher vantage-point from which, then, it could recognize and thus overcome the failing in itself. So, the idealized patron in the balcony of the theater for performance of Classical tragedy, is challenged to discover the equivalent of the scientific principle which accounts for the failure of all of the combined parties depicted on stage, as by means of the method employed by Plato in composing a Socratic dialogue. That is The Sublime.

The players portray the action on the stage of real life. The author and players must reveal the system which controls the unfolding action, the system which controls the parts played, but which the individual participant in the real-life experience fails to recognize.

Classical tragedy, so composed, so performed, is thus the model for imparting a true sense for history in both the ordinary citizens, or adolescents, and others. The pages of the historian's book, the historian's lecture before the audience, must aim for, and accomplish that same effect: to bring the essence of real history, in the time and place it actually occurred, back into life within the mind of the audience, and of the historian, too.

Such Classical drama, so composed and delivered, is the properly mandatory foundation for the education of all of the actually qualified future citizens of a republic.

So, that said, now assume a seat in the amphitheater of Classical Athens. The second part of Aeschylus's Prometheus Trilogy, Prometheus Bound, is about to go on stage.

Since the morning after the death of U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt, this planet had been living in the kind of world-order that President neither intended, nor would have tolerated, had he lived to prevent what was set into motion under his successor. As his role behind the 1944 crafting of the post-war Bretton Woods, fixed-exchange-rate system attests, that President Roosevelt acted as a true statesman must, with a view of the long-term consequences of even short-term policy-decisions. He acted according to a specifically American way of patriotic thinking harking back to the precedent of his ancestor, Alexander Hamilton's ally, New York banker Isaac Roosevelt. Roosevelt intended the kinds of changes in the post-war order of the world which would have avoided the greatest part of the specific kind of willful evil which the world has suffered since his untimely death.

In the background of Franklin Roosevelt's Presidency, against the background of the funeral procession that saddening day, hear the voice of President Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, and then, in Ford's Theater, hear the shot by the traitor and enemy spy which brought about President Lincoln's most untimely death. Weep then, quietly and solemnly, for what our people have suffered on those accounts, still today. Think of the grave destiny with which our civilization is now threatened, now today.

Look now at Aeschylus's Prometheus Trilogy, as it could have been performed in an untaintedly Classical mode just a few years before his death (circa 456 B.C.), which is to say, about the time of the birth of Socrates (circa 469 B.C.) and a generation prior to the birth of Plato (circa 427 B.C.). Looking at that view from the past as a spectator actually seated in a theater of the present, see the following connections.

In the known history of the past, as, unfortunately, in the U.S.A. and Europe today, the widely accepted opinion of governments and their populations usually depends on sets of habituated, presumably axiomatic assumptions, to such effect that nearly all of the people living within that culture behave in a way which should remind us of pet goldfish swimming within an accustomed bowl. The victims of such traditions are therefore usually unprepared to cope with a world existing beyond the bounds of those adopted assumptions. They remain content to live with those assumptions, until the time the fishbowl, so to speak, is smashed by events unforeseen in the custom of its inhabitants.

So, with rare exceptions, the most significant, but usually poorly sensed forces of history, proceed in long waves, even very long waves. The improved art of statecraft which our world needs for the present, and for the times before us, must return, away from the ruinous accumulation of present-day habits, to that kind of longer view which informed the crafters of our republic and its original Declaration of Independence and Constitution. This we must do both for the nations which are the professed heirs of European civilization, and for the others, as for ourselves alone.

That much said, now let us rejoin the performance of the second part of Aeschylus's Prometheus Trilogy, Prometheus Bound.

The gist of the tragic obstacle to be overcome by the dupes of the Olympian Zeus, is the following.

As long as the people who have accepted a certain culture are able to ignore the difference between the real world and the imaginary world, such as that of Zeus's realm, which their culture causes them to imagine to exist, they are satisfied to behave in a way which corresponds to the mistaken beliefs which that culture impels them to adopt. Meanwhile, the point is approaching now (if, indeed, it has not already virtually arrived), at which the discrepancy between reality and what their adopted cultures have impelled them to believe, will seem, suddenly, to explode in their faces.[2]

At that moment of crisis, they are astonished, at first, that what they have believed that "experience" taught them in the short run no longer works under present conditions. They are mistaken in even that opinion; actually, it never really worked in the sense they had assumed that it did; but, they are now experiencing the pain of paying for the mistake of maintaining their presently habituated opinions far too long. It was those former opinions which did not work. It was those widely accepted versions of adaptation to so-called "conventional," or "popular" opinions, which had been wrong all that time.

Sometimes the habituated illusions of a culture come and go within a lifetime. Sometimes, they persist over several generations, or longer. Most of what historians and economists have regarded as important cycles, have their origin, in large degree, in the fallacies embedded in the practiced beliefs of those who have shared that margin of popular error. The result is that, ultimately, the margin of deviation of a society's culture from reality, reaches a point that that discrepancy between belief and consequence can no longer be overlooked.

For that reason, often, as now, a wave of development which has been unfolding, but underrated, even usually unsuspected, unfolding over the greater part of a millennium, or even much longer, becomes suddenly, as during the period beginning the neo-Jacobin "Gingrich Revolution" of the 1994 U.S. Congressional election, the insistent, virtually decisive, global political issue of the present moment.[3] It were as if the fishbowl had been smashed by external forces. Belief in the habits of thought associated with the hegemony of the 1763-2004 Anglo-Dutch Liberal system, is an example of the kind of delusion which leads an entire culture into the risk of the kind of systemic breakdown of that culture which could now go so far as to plunge much of this planet into what is described as a new dark age.

That is a fair mental image of the type of pathological state of mind of the typical European, or others, which has led our civilization into the present systemic crisis. A foolish system, most notably that of the recent four decades of Congress for Cultural Freedom-led degeneration of European culture, is now being overtaken by events tantamount to the smashing of the relevant, habituated popular cultural fishbowls. Those pathological states of mind are to be seen from the Classical standpoint of Aeschylus's Prometheus, as the adoption of "what they say," as a disguise for: "I am thinking in the way which Zeus demands that I think, if I do not wish to get the same treatment which Prometheus has received."

Consider the following, very brief summary of those general principles of history which underlie, and make comprehensible the kind of shocking, tectonic-like transition which, like the 1994-1995 neo-conservative—e.g., fascist—revolution of Newt "Robespierre" Gingrich, had, seemingly suddenly, overtaken the long-term trends of politics in the world in general, especially the people of the U.S.A. and Europe, during the most recent ten years. We must begin our summary of that and related contemporary cases, with a glimpse into the leading features of more than 2,500 years of European history since Thales, Pythagoras, and Solon of Athens. Only in that approach, can we make clear the patterns of historical "cycles" which have governed the evolution of European civilization up to the present time.

So, as historian Friedrich Schiller taught, and as I shall emphasize the relevant evidence here, no one could really understand the presently onrushing crisis of world civilization today, without an integrated conception of the principal processes which have governed both the good and bad features of the unfolding development of European culture since the time of Thales, Solon, Pythagoras, and Plato.

It is not until we study history for the purpose of discovering those principles which shape the way in which relatively short periods, of merely a few hundred years or so, are organized as subsumed phases of longer, millennia-long processes, that the mind is focussed in a way it is prepared to cope, intellectually, with the kinds of sudden, radical changes in circumstance and cultural trends which are sweeping down on the sundry parts of the world, and the world as a whole, just now.

Notably, for example, the influence of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, as typified by existentialist circles of depraved creatures such as Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno, and Hannah Arendt, by banning a principle of truth from culture, repeated the same fatal error of Sophism which lured Athens into its ruin through the Peloponnesian War. The substitution of "democracy" for truth, which was the essence of Sophism, then and now, deprives the person who shares that ideological disorder, of the capacity to comprehend the long-wave processes of history which we must recognize if we are to control the effect of our short-term decisions on the destiny of our culture. Precisely this error of the Sophists and their intellectual cousins, led the Athens of Pericles into its self-inflicted ruin. It is this same error, as typified by the pernicious, quasi-Dionysian, pro-counterculture dogma of the post-war Congress for Cultural Freedom, which is largely responsible for the success with which the self-inflicted ruin of Europe and the Americas has been foisted upon those victims today.

In statecraft, as in physical science, the primary challenge and responsibility, is the thinker's ability, and willingness, to adopt an emotionally driven sense of moral responsibility for the long-term effects on future society, of the choices we make in the short term of the here and now. Competent statecraft requires that we not make the potentially fatal mistake of even many figures who are otherwise gifted and well-meaning; we must not permit strategy (i.e., policy) to be driven by tactics, as does an otherwise able commander in battles who wins the day, but loses the war.[4]

Then, once we have accepted that requirement, we must, as I shall also show here, now match that view of an integrated, millennial process of European civilization against the challenge of building a secure future for our planet, through new forms of relationship with what are broadly classed as Asian culture. Now, after thousands of years, precisely that challenge now faces us all, as never, in comparable degree, in history before this time. I continue with that point of reference in view of the horizon of the kind of development which is the pivotal point of this report.

What Is Liberal Imperialism?

Had Roosevelt lived, the U.S.A.'s power would have moved the post-war world toward freeing the planet from the vestiges of the Anglo-Dutch Liberals' colonial-imperialist system. The establishment of a planetary treaty system, under Franklin Roosevelt's Bretton Woods system, among economically progressive sovereign nation-states, would have launched a wave of development among peoples who had been formerly subject to the overreach of colonialist powers.

With the death of President Roosevelt, his successor, President Harry "Harriman" Truman, joined those same Anglo-Dutch-led Liberal-imperialist powers against which our great battle for freedom, against fascism, had been fought; Truman and his accomplices of the post-Roosevelt interval, and went over, for a time, to the other side, as participants in a bloody suppression of that freedom of those "colonialized" peoples whom Roosevelt had intended to free with aid of American technology.

Now, the form of the Liberal imperialist system[5] of a half-century ago and earlier, has been superseded by a more radically vicious version, the presently operating scheme, under predatory financier-oligarchical institutions such as the post-1971 International Monetary Fund and World Bank, for the eradication of the sovereignties of all of the nations of this planet: globalization. The latter is a scheme, rooted in a modern, empiricist/existentialist guise, of the same method of Sophistry which brought down Greek civilization in the Peloponnesian War, a scheme designed for modern times by the influential British strategic utopian, H.G. Wells, in his 1928 The Open Conspiracy. That latter scheme is the special, utopian variant of that Liberal imperial system, which has emerged in the guise of "globalization" during the recent four decades, especially since the great monetary-system changes of 1971-1981.

This Liberal imperialist form of utopian scheme is what is presently crashing, of its own weight, around the world's ears. This presently onrushing disintegration of the world's present Liberal system, the present monetary-financial system, has thrust the world into the challenge of issues which had been more easily solved sixty years ago, had Roosevelt's post-war intentions been carried out. This has presented us with the great European-Asian cultural crisis of today. That is a crisis of today, which is the outgrowth of a crucial long-term feature of the challenge erupting from the doom we have brought upon ourselves by turning away from President Franklin Roosevelt's intentions, nearly sixty years ago.

There are deep and ancient principles involved in this long wave of developments leading to the present moment, developments which, with their sometimes profound implications, must be considered as follows:

Consider the following, relevant lesson from ancient Classical Greece.

In his Timaeus dialogue, Plato writes of the Egyptians' accounts of the earlier existence of humanity on this planet, a view of a series of long waves of history, each punctuated by the outcome of a series of monstrously destructive dark ages. In support of that view, we can fairly estimate the possible existence of a human species as a species which is, functionally, absolutely distinct from and superior to the great apes, the human species, which has existed on this planet for perhaps as long as two millions years. For example, we know with certainty, of some great natural crises in the conditions for human habitation on this planet. Among these are the series of shock effects associated with the process of melting of the preceding great glaciation over much of the Planet's Northern Hemisphere, as the levels of the oceans rose, over an interval which began about 20,000 years ago today, by a net amount of between 300-400 feet, to the present, temporarily relatively fixed levels of recent millennia which have been known to us, during the recent six millennia, as our European custom has named fairly as recorded history.[6]

As Plato emphasized there, the long waves of the existence of mankind, present us with great calamities of nature we had been unable to master at that time, but, also, terrible, man-created dark ages, such as the ominous crisis coming down on world society at this moment, a crisis which society has inflicted willfully upon itself. Neither natural nor man-made dark ages, like those of the past, will determine our future irreversibly. Superior powers available for mankind's use, exist, powers which are expressed in long waves of development of mankind. These are the types of powers which science enables us to know as having transcended great calamities of the past. These powers work to the effect of demonstrating that there is an underlying principle of development, through which something immortal from ancient peoples lives on in the world of today.

We know, thus, of something of much greater, and immediate practical importance for society today, than these powers as such. The close study of the way in which language has developed certain functional qualities specific to the functions of Classical physical science and methods of Classical artistic composition, points, as India's Tilak did, and scholars at Pune after him, too, toward well-developed features of what might be classed as the pre-historic roles of the principles of physical science and Classical non-plastic artistic composition of language-cultures.[7] It is in the transmission of knowledge of powers, by means of language-cultures developed to that effect, that the discoveries of today may acquire an immortal influence on the condition of future society. Such modern studies of the role of such factors as Classical irony in the characteristics of the use of a language, imply a means of human cultural development, by successive cultures, over spans of not only tens of thousands, but even hundreds of thousands of years.[8]

Thus, as mankind develops culturally, our species develops the ability to master more and more of even those threatened natural catastrophes which could not have been overcome willfully in earlier centuries or millennia. Cycles do not recur simply; cycles continue to appear, but, as man's cumulative power over nature increases, the possibility of willfully controlling the fate of society in face of threats from so-called natural catastrophes, is improved.[9]

Such progress calls our attention to certain evidence relevant to that point. It shows us, for example, a certain uniqueness of the development of what historian Friedrich Schiller recognized as a distinct species of European culture traced through the ancient mortal conflict between the conflicting conceptions of man's nature, which separates the outlook of Solon of Athens from the wicked code of Lycurgus's Sparta. Schiller's point in his celebrated Jena lectures, is not only validated, but is of pivotal importance for the subject of this present report.[10]

In this reflection, one awesome point is outstanding. History obliges us to trace the decline of Greek culture from its acme, doing this from the standpoint represented by Plato and his Pythagorean and related predecessors, a decline which persisted with some outstanding particular exceptions, such as the work of Aristarchus, Eratosthenes, and Archimedes, until the rebirth of Classical Greek culture's treasures, during Europe's Fifteenth-Century, Italy-pivotted Renaissance.

Thus, the history of European civilization itself warns those who have come to know the principles of the modern scientific method of Nicholas of Cusa and Johannes Kepler, that the study of the principled characteristics of relatively distinct civilizations, can not be adduced by limiting attention to the evidence of a mere century, nor even hundreds of years; the characteristics of European civilization, as if in cycles, are expressed in thousands, or, as Tilak argued, traceable back even tens of thousands, of years.

The pivotal point of all of the essential argument presented in these pages, is that all human culture has a common basis in the essential distinction of the member of the human species from all other known forms of mortal life. Within these bounds, as I shall show here, the term "European civilization" has a scientifically precise, specific meaning.

It is a fortunate convenience for us, in discussing the relevant matters of this report today, that the development of the concept of the Noösphere, by Russian biogeochemist Vladimir Vernadsky, is a crucial instance of a direct return of the work of a leading modern scientist to the explicit standpoint of the pre-Aristotelean method in Classical Greek science, the standpoint of Sphaerics, of the time of Thales, Solon, Pythagoras, Plato, et al.

This point is of crucial importance for discussing the central issue of this report as a whole. The connection of Vernadsky to both the modern Bernhard Riemann and the ancient Plato, is bridged by the circles associated with the role of the founder of modern European experimental science, Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa. As we shall see, more clearly, in a later portion of this report, this connection provides a strategy for approaching the need for the kinds of treaty arrangements among respectively sovereign European and Asian cultures which will do for global politics today, what the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia did for ending approximately a century and a half, from 1492 through 1648, of religious warfare in Europe.[11]

Promethean Man

The crucial challenge of an attempted European-Asian pact, even as might be presented to those relatively very few of us who are closest to the desired understanding, even among those of us inside European civilization, is not only that Asian cultures generally lack any philosophical grounding in the actually scientific, historically specific principles upon which the concept of the modern sovereign nation-state depends absolutely. The principle of the sovereign nation-state republic can not be reborn from a Xerox machine, or built under the guidance of stolen secret diagrams; it must be grown up from a living seed, as any other living organism.

The knowledge of that principle must be developed within each existing national culture, that from the universal principle common to all human nature. That principle appears as like a seed of the discovery of universal knowledge which exists within each member of a national language-culture. The development of this seed, within the process of that culture, is the only true basis for the principle of national sovereignty, the only true basis for the modern sovereign form of nation-state republic.

As can be demonstrated by observing the leading press of European nations, the conscious understanding of the relevant implications of the modern European state found among even leading intellectual circles inside European culture today, falls way below the standard which must be met to reach an effective understanding, even a level of understanding below the standard of political-philosophical literacy expressed by the disputes of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries. The inherent sophistry of empiricism, or, worse, positivism and existentialism, is largely responsible for the present-day cultural decay within globally extended European culture generally. The recent four decades' degeneration of the level of quality of intellectual life in Europe and the Americas, on this account, must be fairly described as a monstrous exercise in galloping cultural illiteracy.

However, despite all that, literate and semi-literate cultures inside European civilization are accustomed to the effects of the notion of the sovereign nation-state republic, even if they do not understand that notion's premises in natural law; whereas, those of Asian cultures tend to brush aside those special issues which are most crucial for achieving a functionally effective understanding.

Therefore, to reach the kind of treaty agreement among nations which is needed by the world at large, and that under conditions of today's crisis, we must provide the representatives of Asian cultures with a view, made understandable to them, in their terms, of the innermost principles of the crucial, best features of the historical experience of the struggle, since Solon of Athens, to establish that form of modern European sovereign nation-state republic first achieved, in fair approximation, under France's Louis XI and England's Henry VII. [See Figure 2.]

That said, the most efficient approach to that task is to present the Asian intellectual leader with a shockingly clear statement on the interrelated subjects of monotheism and Promethean man. In all branches of valid modes of scientific inquiry, including statecraft, it is only through a relentless presentation of a true paradox, as in a Platonic dialogue, that the individual human mind can be prompted to generate a true conception of principle, either physical-scientific principle, or a principle of the type associated with both Classical forms of artistic composition and principles of statecraft as a derivative of the notion of such Classical forms of principles of artistic composition. What is needed at this point in history, is a European-Eurasian treaty agreement based on principle. It is the relevant meaning of principle itself, principle in the scientific sense, which must be taken into account, for this purpose.

The root-concept on which that monotheistic humanist tradition characteristic of the emergence of modern European civilization from medievalism is based, had been given such names as "the Prometheus Principle" since ancient Greece. This name references, most commonly, the circulation of the great Prometheus Trilogy of the Athens Classical tragedian Aeschylus. As I have emphasized here earlier, this Trilogy is best known to modern civilization by reference to the surviving model part of that trilogy, Prometheus Bound. It is in that Prometheus Bound that the most crucial issue of all European civilization confronts us in what is, implicitly, the most shocking and meaningful way. It must also shock the conscience of the leading representatives of Asian culture, if the desired foundations for a treaty-agreement are to be recognized on both sides.

Agreements apparently reached by means of compromising differences of principle, may appear to be the least abrasive form of negotiation, but, in the end, it is always the way in which to produce an agreement which is the most worthless in the long run: because, that approach, like attempting to compose an ecumenical drafting of a Christian Cannibal's Cookbook, evades what continue to be the ominous conflicts in principle, rather than actually resolving them.

For example, the charge was made by the fascist-like Sophists (that irrationalist Democratic Party of Athens which perpetrated the judicial murder of Socrates), that Socrates denied the gods. This charge is a typical expression of the issue posed by the Prometheus Principle of Aeschylus's Trilogy. The Roman Empire's bloody mass-murder against the Christians, from the Emperor Nero through the early part of the reign of Diocletian, is, similarly, a typical expression of what is often named as the "pagan," or the pro-pantheonic, oligarchical principle, which is characteristic of those we must come to abhor as the chief pollutant in European culture, the virtually existentialist, philosophically reductionist tradition of Greece's sophist and kindred factions.[12]

That much said on this immediate point, that as a matter of indispensable preliminaries, so far, let us now proceed.

The Classical humanist argument (e.g., the Christian humanist argument) is that the individual member of the human species, is absolutely distinguished from the beasts by virtue of the innate power to discover and transmit efficient knowledge of universal physical principles, such as Johannes Kepler's unique discovery of the principle of universal gravitation.[13] The power of the individual human mind to discover and transmit experimentally validatable, efficient knowledge of universal physical principles, is the experimental expression of this crucial distinction of man from beast. On account of this capacity for efficient knowledge of universal physical principles, man is properly distinguished, essentially, from the beasts as "made in the image of the Creator," a single universal Creator who is, as Philo of Alexandria, among notable others, including Christians, argued against the Aristoteleans of his time, a God who is a living, efficiently active, and immortal presence, and a universal power for endlessly continuing change, in the universe, then as now.

This reciprocal concept of the respective natures and relationship between the Creator and the human individual, is both the essence of the best of European culture, and the only premise within European culture which makes possible a durable, ecumenical agreement among European and Asian cultures (for example), the only premise which affords Asian cultures a treaty which they could rightly trust.

The denial of the existence of this quality of man and his Creator, is expressed as the Pantheonic, or oligarchical principle. This was the same oligarchical principle which the contemporary opponents of Socrates and Plato, for example, associated with the Babylonian, or Persian Model, the oligarchical model on which the founding of the later imperial Roman Empire was notoriously based. The evil pantheon of the gods of Zeus's Olympus, Zeus as the veritable Satan of Aeschylus's Prometheus Trilogy, is typical of the oligarchical model.[14]

Although the first modern nation-states came into existence during the Fifteenth Century, the characteristic distinction of that Classical tradition of European civilization, which is traced from the typical influence of the Pythagoreans, Thales, Solon, and Plato, is the commitment, from the start, to the establishment of the constitutional republic, such as that defined by the 1776 U.S. Declaration of Independence and overriding authority expressed as the 1787-1789 Preamble of the U.S. Federal Constitution.[15] Although this goal had been but rarely realized, even briefly, in the course of European history since Solon of Athens, the intention to establish the sovereign republic as the highest body of law of a nation, existed and persisted from that ancient time until the present. This historical perspective for the development and maintenance of a system of sovereign nation-state republics, expresses the characteristic distinction, and achievement of European civilization.

The entirety of what is fairly described as European civilization, is a long struggle, especially within European cultures, to bring about the establishment of that sovereign nation-state republic which replaces the heritage of such wicked influences as those of the Olympian Zeus, the replacement of the idea of the rule over man and his universe by a reigning immortal oligarchy, by a system of a form of sovereign nation-states based on the notion of the human individual as set absolutely apart from, and above the beasts. This is a human individual made as a creative intellect in the likeness of, and servant of a single living Creator, and held responsible, by that Creator, for the ordering of, and rule over the improvement of the universe which mankind inhabits. In other words, the crucial issue of all European culture is expressed by the resistance of the human hero, Prometheus, against the evil oligarchy typified by the Olympian Zeus.

Thus, this principle of the sovereign republic bears the burden of one qualification, the burden of natural law as implicitly defined by Plato's set of dialogues. This brings our attention back to the specific matters posed by use of the term "Promethean man."

The conflict between the Olympian Zeus of Aeschylus's Trilogy and Prometheus, is the charge that Prometheus supplied the people with the knowledge of the use of fire.

Empiricism: Zeus as Satan

The issue is that oligarchy's passion, whether as the image of Zeus's fantastic Olympus, or modern European reductionist philosophies such as empiricism or the ranting of the followers of Bertrand Russell and the existentialists, who deny that man has the power to discover and employ those universal physical principles, which are experimentally demonstrable to be universal physical principles, but which can not be known directly by means of bare sense-perception. That issue is otherwise expressed in statecraft, by the repressive struggle, by the living oligarchy, to halt the commitment of modern civilization to those forms of scientific progress which increase man's power, per capita, over the universe we inhabit: to impose an oppressive system, contrary to man's nature, in which scientific-technological progress by mankind is banned as evil, as the pagan Olympian Zeus of the Aeschylus Trilogy condemned Prometheus, on that precise issue.

In forbidding man the knowledge of universal physical principles, such as the principle of fire and its use, Zeus condemned mankind to live as a beast, not a creature made in the image of the Creator. That is, precisely, the Satanic principle. Modern empiricism does the same thing in a slightly different way, but with the same ultimate result, as we have seen in the recent four decades of collapse of European civilization under the anti-science, "back to nature" cults, a kind of "social disease"—"the syphilis of the counterculture"—which took over more and more of the young-adult populations, beginning the second half of the 1960s.

The intent of the cult of empiricism launched by Venice's Paolo Sarpi, to this effect, was shown, fully naked, by the cult-circles of Bertrand Russell and such followers as his devoted acolytes Norbert Wiener and John von Neumann. By arguing that all scientific knowledge could be derived from a brutishly arithmetic notion of algebraic functions, Russell sought, with plainly expressed intent, to halt the progress of science, by banning the method by means of which discoveries of experimentally valid universal physical principles could be replicated by students and others.[16]

This was not, however, original to Russell; it was the standard dogma of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries' Anglo-Dutch Liberal cult, and the foundation for the Physiocratic hoax which Adam Smith plagiarized from the work of France's François Quesnay and Turgot. The particular significance of Quesnay on this account, is that he insists frankly on the argument that the farmers of the feudal landlord's estate are of the same rank as herded cattle. This assumption is the essential part of Adam Smith's doctrine of "free trade," but was also the essential argument in Smith's 1759 publication, The Theory of the Moral Sentiments, as also the social doctrine of Galileo Galilei's student Thomas Hobbes.

This repression of the knowledgeable participation in scientific and related progress by the great mass of the poorer people, is the force for evil which confronts us as new threats of fascism inside European civilization today, and presently serves as the political motive for so-called "pro-environmentalist" changes in global civilization, which would, by their very nature, unleash, at this time, the greatest known holocaust in all human existence, the reduction of the human population from over six billions persons to a beastly rabble of less than a half-billions, mostly depraved, short-lived persons, subsisting in ways suggestive of troops of baboons.

This contemporary perversion of practiced European culture expresses the doctrine of the Olympian Zeus. This is the doctrine of modern empiricism. This was the issue underlying Carl Gauss's 1799 doctoral dissertation's attack on the vicious error of the empiricists d'Alembert, Euler, Lagrange, et al., on the issue of the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra, and also of Gauss's suppression, out of fear of persecution, of his own contributions to the discovery of an anti-Euclidean geometry (rather than a non-Euclidean one such as that of Lobachevsky and Janos Bolyai).

Man is distinguished from, and above the beasts by reason. By reason, we signify the power to discover universal physical principles, as no beast can replicate this. This is a correlative of the argument to the same effect by Vernadsky's defining the experimental proof of principle of the existence of the Noösphere: that the human mind is capable of knowing and acting upon the power to make categorical changes in the ordering of the universe, beyond what is possible with the bounds, respectively, of the abiotic domain and the Biosphere.

Thus man is, at once, a mortal being, as animals are; but, man also performs a function in the universe which is higher than that of any form of mortal life, the creative power associated experimentally with the effects of the Noösphere. This creative power, generated by the human identity of a single person, is transmitted as a power, as an effect to others and to future generations. It is the efficient transfer of knowledge of this universal quality, across time, to future generations, which, rather than the mortal flesh, is the primary subject of the human personal identity. This is the immortal soul of Plato's Phaedo and Moses Mendelssohn's Phaedon. This human identity is the proper subject of social relations, the only competent basis for the notion of society, and the principle from which the requirement of a form of society known as a sovereign nation-state committed to the promotion of the general welfare of mankind, is derived.

Thus, the issue posed by Prometheus is the same as that of the intention of the Republic expressed by Solon of Athens and the combined work of Plato's dialogues. This has been the great achievement of the Fifteenth-Century birth of the still-imperilled, modern European nation-state republic: a form of society efficiently committed to the conscious participation of all of the people in the ordering of, and enjoyment of scientific and cultural progress of the general human condition. Without comprehension of the Prometheus issue in those terms of reference, there could not be a clear intention of principle on which to found a treaty-organization efficiently dedicated to the aims of community of modern sovereign nation-states.

2. The Nation-States of the U.S.A. and Europe

Now it is time to make clear the functionally elementary differences between modern European and Asian cultures.

Modern European civilization began with changes typified, and also largely shaped, by the writings of the Fifteenth-Century Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, writings which, among their other leading effects, launched the Portuguese and Spanish explorations of the Americas and of the eastbound Indian Ocean route from the South Atlantic, around the southern tip of Africa, but, more fundamentally, revived the work of such as Dante Alighieri and Petrarca in a manner and degree which established the foundations for building the long-sought efforts, since Alcuin and Charlemagne, for the actual establishment of what became the modern European sovereign nation-state.

Cusa's Concordantia Catholica provided the crucial starting-point for all of this, through the influence of that work on the councils, concluding on the great ecumenical Council of Florence of both the western and eastern European churches. Cusa, who played a crucial contributing role in the preparations for that Council of Florence itself, was also the founder of the modern experimental science of Luca Pacioli, Leonardo da Vinci, and Johannes Kepler, beginning his De Docta Ignorantia. His writings were directly responsible for launching the great transoceanic explorations of the close of that century, and were the specific inspiration for Christopher Columbus's successful transit of the Atlantic, aided by consultations with, and a map produced by, Cusa's collaborator Paolo del Pozzo Toscanelli, a map made possible by the earlier discoveries of the Platonic Academy's Eratosthenes, such as his measuring the great circle of the Earth.

These Renaissance developments took place in the aftermath of the terrible New Dark Age of the previous century. These achievements expressed the revolutionary Fifteenth-Century turn of European civilization to the launching of a true Renaissance of civilization, away from the reductionist and obscurantist standpoint of medieval Aristoteleanism and the like, to the rebirth of the shattered institution of the Christian church from the ashes of medieval, Romantic ultramontanism, and the rekindling of the light of science and statecraft on the foundations of the work of Plato. These developments broke Europe free from both the dark legacies of the two Roman Empires, and from medieval Venetian-Norman ultramontane tyranny and its evil, Romanesque Crusades. That Renaissance accomplished this benefit by launching the resumption of the Platonic tradition of Classical scientific practice, and a return to the Platonic, Christian principle of agape (the common good). It was on the basis of this work, in which Cusa played a leading role, that the preconditions for that century's founding of the first true nation-states were subsequently established, successively, in Louis XI's France and Henry VII's England.

The crucial feature of these Fifteenth-Century changes was not only the repudiation of the traditional division of society between rulers and masses of virtual human cattle; it was the assumption of the positive responsibility for the common good by the modern state, as typified by Louis XI's France. It was the adoption of the responsibility, by the sovereign state, to develop the economy in ways expressed as the adoption of the state's responsibility for the systematic promotion of the raising of the productive powers of labor, as France's development under Louis XI typifies this change. Henry VII's England continued that policy of emphasis upon technological and related general improvement of the productive powers of labor, thus breaking a long tradition, as from the decrees of the Roman Emperor Diocletian, of imposing virtual zero technological growth on the general economic practice of the population. This kind of break from what has been sometimes described by the morally ugly euphemism of "traditional society," is a crucial feature of the qualitative change which marks the emergence of modern European civilization from the brutish aftermath of Europe's Fourteenth-Century New Dark Age.

Although this Fifteenth-Century and ensuing developments mark the emergence of modern European civilization, it is also clear that the basis for this change is rooted in approximately two millennia of the internal struggles and development of European civilization, since no later than the lifetime and work of Thales, Solon, and Pythagoras. Despite the setbacks in European history since then, European civilization embodies a transmission and development of culture which is a continuing process of development, at least in the crucial sense of the transmission of culture over successive generations of the development of language-cultures. Thus, the emergence of modern European civilization in Europe's Fifteenth-Century Renaissance, is an expression of a developmental cultural process which is now continuing over more than 2,500 years to this present date, with roots of that development in other cultures also reaching back much, much further, as the implications of the astronomical (e.g., Sphaerics) design of the great pyramids of Egypt attest.

Moreover, although there is class/caste form of poverty in European culture, that of a type which must be associated with the notion of a class of people held in the status of "human cattle," the failure of modern European civilization's role so far, has been that we have yet to act in ways needed to assist the world as a whole to break through that traditional cultural barrier extant within Asian cultures generally. This problem, typical of the Iberian Americas, Africa, and Asia, is a distinction which is not merely a quantitative one, but shows itself in contemporary life to be the result of an unresolved susceptibility, a result expressed as a qualitative, caste-like distinction in cultural type. The great mass of poverty in those leading nations of Asia, for which no clear remedy is yet in view, must touch the conscience of the world. The problems of China and India today, when considered in light of the actual progress which has occurred within those nations, are typical of the unresolved, dreamy challenge for which no adequate solution has been actually in reach until now. Under a continuation of the trends of the recent four decades of this planet's history, that challenge would never, never be solved, despite all wishful projections of a better future much heard from those and other parts of the world today.

To understand the cause of such afflictions in Asia, look, for example, within the U.S.A., where we have, still today, two, large-scale, well-defined caste-like distinctions existing within large rations of the population as a whole. One, among a large portion of the descendants of former African slaves. A second, among Spanish-speaking populations bearing the caste-like scars of a heritage of a Spanish system of peonage long imposed upon the indigenous population of Mexico and other places. Although we also have a heritage of Frederick Douglass and many others more or less like him, we have left a broad mass of our people, still today, bearing the scars of a self-inflicted tradition of caste-like cultural "inferiority."

It is this type of problem, as it occurs inside the U.S.A., or on other continents, which is something of which society everywhere must be cured, to establish a culture of true citizenship among the generality of the people of a national culture. Such a fault, which does occur as a blemish on contemporary European civilization, is the nature of the systemic inequity which persists, by aid of the cheap labor policies of globalization, as a widespread characteristic of Asian culture as such today. It is the development of nations to the effect of overcoming this cruel inequity suffered by relatively very large rations of the population, which is the symptomatic expression of the challenge to the human conscience of the need for Asian development today.

The conditions against which I complain exist in both Asian and European cultures. Yet, although the history of each area has its specific characteristics, the continuation of this kind of problem, in each relevant part of the world, is a reflection of the continuing evils in the present global system whose characteristics are currently expressed, actually as a trend in motion since 1964-1967, by the post-1971 IMF/World Bank system.

All of us who have had relevant experience of this in Asia (for example), share our knowledge of what we mean by our expression of concern on this account. To see the way in which relatively very large rations of the populations in various parts of the world are forced to live, from generation to generation, is something a civilized conscience can not accept as to be taken in stride. Instant solutions may not be available, but the adoption of efficiently shaped goals by those of us who think by the measure of successive generations, is nonetheless imperative. The improvements we can provide the living, are painfully modest, but what we could and must promise their posterity must be made real for foreseeable times to come. We are a species of immortal beings, on which account we can be patient where the mere beasts are not. Being immortal beings, we can draw satisfaction from our descendants' achievements, but, that does not mean that those achievements must not be real enough, not merely consoling illusions, not mere slogans: that we may justly take satisfaction from them while we are still living, today. It were immoral to promise the future pensions which present greed is presently reaching to steal—in both the U.S.A. and Europe, among other locations.

As I have pointed out earlier in this report, the period from 1492, with impassioned anti-semite and Grand Inquisitor Tomás de Torquemada's expulsion of the Jews from Spain (the precedent for the action of Adolf Hitler),[17] until the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, the struggle to establish a system of modern sovereign nation-states in Europe, was drowned in a Venetian-orchestrated orgy of religious warfare, warfare aimed to butcher and eradicate the work of the ecumenical Council of Florence and the existence of the modern sovereign nation-state. Thus, the survival of the idea of the nation-state nominally committed to the common good specified by the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia,[18] represented a revolution in civilization as a whole, the resuscitation of the modern sovereign nation-state following its attempted suffocation, by religious wars, over a period of a century and a half.

Against that general background, of past and present on this planet, the struggle within globally extended European civilization since the great ecumenical Council of Florence, especially since Venice's strategically motivated orchestration of the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople, has been a great struggle between the forces of the modern sovereign nation-state republic and the reactionary forces of Venice and its outgrowths in the effort, led by the usurious Venetian financier oligarchy, to crush the modern sovereign nation-state in favor of some rebirth of the global reign of a new Roman (e.g., Babylonian) empire. This was the result typified by the British Empire set into motion by that watershed event known as the February 10, 1763 Treaty of Paris, established by the Eighteenth-Century, Anglo-Dutch Venetian Party. That empire's intended design is that described by the utopian doctrine of Lord Shelburne's lackey Gibbon.

The history of the world since 1763, has been essentially a great struggle between those forces which, on the one side, have been committed to the establishment and prosperity of a system of respectively sovereign nation-state republics, as best typified by the creation of the U.S. republic, and those, on the other side, such as the consummately evil Bertrand Russell, determined to crush the sovereign nation-state out of existence. All of the wars and related afflictions which this planet has suffered since 1492 have been chiefly a reflection of that great modern struggle between good and evil.

However, none of this could be competently understood, unless we adopt the long view of that development of the European civilization which began with what I have indicated as the relevant developments in ancient Greece. Thus, Solon's letter rebuking his fellow-citizens, serves as a bench-mark for the birth of the idea of the republic as realized in the 1776 U.S. Declaration of Independence and 1787-1789 Federal Constitution. Solon's "letter" is the identifiable beginning of a coherent process, called European civilization, a process defined as a struggle between, on the one side, the forces dedicated to bringing a true republic, consistent with Solon's stated intention, into being, and, on the opposing side, forces which were determined to prevent the existence of such a form of society. Hence, historian Friedrich Schiller's emphasis, in his Jena lectures, on the conflict between the doctrines of Lycurgus's Sparta and Solon's Athens.[19]

The Italy-centered, Fifteenth-Century Renaissance, which gave us the escape from a long nightmare, into modern civilization, was a product of a struggle to that end which had been the entire preceding sweep of European history. This Renaissance was a crucial turning-point in the entirety of world history. This produced a new form of society, but one which carried within it the ongoing tumult of all of the accumulated elements of the seeds of dissonance which have been experienced since the Fifteenth-Century developments, but also a form of society whose emergence has changed the history of the world in an absolute way, a change which could not be reversed without plunging all of our planet into a deep and prolonged, new dark age.

In point of fact, the recent decades' developments in Asia, typified by India and China, are not an alternative to European civilization. These nations are an integral part of the present, Anglo-Dutch-Liberal-dominated world system, and, as I shall indicate in the course of this report, could not continue to exist presently as stable nations outside the framework of a much-needed great, global reform of modern European civilization. In point of fact, all parts of the world today, are, for the moment, at least, subsidiaries of a single global monetary-financial system, to the included effect that the relative prices of both real and fictitious objects in trade are an integral, subsidiary part of that monetary-financial system.

In the case of the actualization of the presently onrushing general monetary-financial blow-out, all of the sundry elements of a complexly integrated world system, including the most notable nations of Asia, would be plunged into chaos in a way most nearly resembling the plunge of Fourteenth-Century Europe into its notorious New Dark Age.

What prevents most among what were presumably well-informed circles of finance and government, from seeing this fact, is that they are gripped, hysterically, by the fearful delusion that a crash of the type which is now onrushing simply would never happen. In fact, unless certain radical changes of the type I would propose were taken, the crash deemed unthinkable by most today will happen, very soon.

The U.S.A. versus the Empire

As I have emphasized here earlier, the combination of the religious wars of 1492-1648, the rise of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal system, and the French Revolution and its aftermath, has, so far, prevented the emergence of a durable form of true sovereign nation-state in Europe. For a time, since the July 14, 1789, the repercussions of the developments broke France's close ties to the U.S.A.,[20] and drove formerly sane and brilliant U.S. patriots such as Thomas Jefferson and Dolly's James Madison into a state of confusion. Through the revolution of 1848, the U.S.A. itself struggled to avoid falling into a role of partisanship, one way or the other, on the issues of the quarrel between the British system and the Habsburg-dominated Europe and the world.[21] The fall of Metternich, and the mutual ruin of the nations of western and central Europe by two World Wars, ensured the relatively increased global supremacy of British monetary-financial system, except for a period of clear U.S. supremacy, from the beginning of World War II into the self-inflicted decline of U.S. leadership which has been ongoing over the recent forty years. Thus, Europe today, is still dominated by the relics of a parliamentary system of government, all under the overlordship of a Venetian Party's financier-oligarchical system.

During this interval, from the beginning of the struggle for an independent U.S. republic, which developed rapidly during the decade following the establishment of the British Empire at the 1763 Treaty of Paris, there has been a continuing, ultimately mortal struggle, between the U.S. republic, on the one side, and our republic's principal mortal adversaries, the Anglo-Dutch Liberal imperialists and Britain's sometime leading European rival, and ally against the U.S. republic, the already-declining Habsburg imperial power of the early Nineteenth Century. Since the London-directed siege of the Paris Bastille, on July 14, 1789, until President Abraham Lincoln's victories of 1863-65, the U.S. was largely cut off from the support it had enjoyed during the period of our national struggle for freedom from British imperial power.

London's later deployment of its French puppet, Napoleon III, and a Habsburg, as tools of an attempted British flanking operation in Lord Palmerston's support of London's Confederate forces, during the later phase of the U.S. Civil War of 1861-65, typifies the continuing alliance of the anti-nation-state forces of Europe against the existence of the U.S.A. and its influence. This changed for the better during the period from the defeat of the Confederacy throughout the period preceding Theodore Roosevelt's accession to the U.S. Presidency. The hatred of President Franklin Roosevelt by the British government and its U.S. financier-based assets, despite the two powers' war-time alliance against Hitler, is congruent with the fact that, as U.S. General Billy Mitchell alluded to this during his famous court-martial hearing, Japan's naval attack of 1941 on Pearl Harbor, was a project which the U.S. military, prior to the Pearl Harbor attack, had filed at the time under secret U.S. war plans "Red" and "Orange," an attack which had been planned by Britain and Japan, as an option, during the period of the 1920s Naval Power negotiations. The forces representing the oligarchical tradition within Europe, are a continuing source of often feverish irrational anti-Americanism today, even sometimes from surprising circles.

With the U.S. defeat of London's Confederacy asset, British imperial policy had shifted away from further attempts at direct or covert military operations against the U.S., to a policy of Anglo-Dutch Liberal subversion. The hatred of the U.S.A. by the Fabian Liberal Imperialist faction associated with H. G. Wells and Bertrand Russell, was the more extreme expression of this British hatred against the United States. The relatively more cautious approach to subversion was through connections with Liberal channels to influential anglophile financier-oligarchical circles inside the U.S., such as those associated with the "kindergarten" of Harvard University-based Nashville Agrarian William Yandell Elliott, with the objective of assimilating a tamed and corrupted U.S.A. into a British Commonwealth. The witticism, that the U.S.A. and the U.K. are two nations divided against one another by a common language, is actually quite apt (a common language facilitates the practice of exchange of insults and trade in espionage between two rival powers).

To sum up the crucial point to be made here: From the beginning of the 1763-1789 American struggle for independence from its British imperial oppressors, modern European civilization has been chiefly divided within by two leading, opposing forces of modern European civilization: the U.S. commitment to a system of respectively sovereign nation-state republics, versus the imperial impulses and objectives of that Venetian Party represented by the Anglo-Dutch Liberal system of financier-oligarchical rule.

Of these two opposing forces, the American System of political-economy was always the superior system, morally and physically, a system conceived in the service of political freedom of the individual. This was made clear by the victory of the President Abraham Lincoln-led U.S.A. over London's Confederacy pawn. During the interval 1861-1876, the interval concluding with the U.S. Philadelphia Centennial Exposition, the U.S. emerged as the world's leading nation-state economy, rivalled only by the combined imperial resources of the British monarchy.

As a consequence of this, from 1877 onward, leading nations of Eurasia, such as Germany, Russia, and Japan, in addition to other states of the Americas, adopted crucially distinguishing, industrial and other features of the American System of Franklin, Hamilton, the Careys, and Frederick List. It was to crush the upsurge of modern economies developing in emulation of the American model, that the British monarchy of Edward VII organized what became the fratricidal "Great War" of 1914-1917: a war cast in the image of the Seven Years' War by aid of which Britain had triumphed in February 1763. Foolish Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Ku Klux Klan fanatic Woodrow Wilson, whose passions were molded in fond recollections of the Confederacy, drew us into that war from which prudent patriotic U.S. traditions would have withheld support, a U.S. error which laid the foundations for the strategic menaces to which we have either been subjected, or have subjected ourselves, since.

Similarly, during the 1920s and early 1930s, the curiously prevalent tendency on the side of the relevant British schemers, was to keep the U.S. A. out of their plans for the coming new world war in Europe, for fear that the powerful U.S. economy might take over domination of Europe, displacing British imperial interests. This changed significantly only when London perceived Stalin's diplomatic maneuvers to encourage Russia's most immediate mortal enemy, Hitler's Germany, to choose to strike westward first, rather than eastward; on that thought, Edward VIII was ceremoniously dumped, and the British began more and more, especially after Chamberlain's performance at Munich, to see the Nazi development as strategically more immediately worrying than a period of U.S. hegemony, although some, who need not be listed here, preferred a pact with Hitler—or was it, perhaps, Hermann Göring—as late as May 1940.

The point to be emphasized here, is that, underneath expressed sentimentalities of Europeans toward Americans and vice versa, the outward similarities of the forms of economy which Asia might see in Europe and the U.S.A. are largely superficial, and the differences exist in a very significant manner and degree. Nonetheless, despite the opposite constitutional intentions of the U.S. and British systems, recent and contemporary circumstances have produced the effect of blending the immiscible into a frothy pudding, a so-called Anglo-American expression of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal system.

Now, to the degree that the Anglo-American utopian adversaries of the Franklin Roosevelt tradition, have secured temporary domination over transatlantic strategic and monetary-financial power, including inside the U.S.A. itself, the world system is dominated by the instrumentalities of a morally and economically degenerating Anglo-American financier-oligarchical cabal of Anglo-Dutch Liberalism, which has, most emphatically, presided over four decades of presently terminal decadence of its increasingly globalized world system, its virtual empire in fact.

It is of urgent importance to note here, that the only chance for the U.S. to escape a general collapse of the U.S. itself, would be to shift its national strategic perspective now, to establishing a new world monetary-financial system with global objectives akin to those which President Franklin Roosevelt had intended, as planetary perspectives, for the immediate post-war period. Such a dramatic change could occur, of course, only under the most extraordinary pressures from events, only when it were clear to the relevant leading circles that a shift to an echo of a Franklin Roosevelt perspective for the world at large is the only real alternative to a hopeless sort of general global breakdown crisis of the economy of the planet as a whole. Those imminent conditions for solving the crisis presently exist objectively, but it were necessary that that ominous fact of that imminent danger be frankly perceived subjectively.

The common feature of this present global system, as it has developed since the 1971-1972 break from the post-war fixed-exchange-rate, regulated monetary system, to a floating-exchange-rate, largely deregulated system, is the supremacy of the present, predatory form of monetary-financial system itself. However, underneath that latter umbrella of the presently largely "globalized" world system as a whole, there are important, historically determined, principled varieties of functional differences among what far too many statesmen and others mistakenly interpret as the apparently converging systems of which the world system as a whole is comprised.

The complications which arise in attempting to explain the present world system, or its parts, from the standpoint of monetary-financial evidence, are that these respectively different systems of which the world's system is composed, have influenced the evolution of one another in several manners and degrees. This mixing is partly real, but, also, in the final analysis, deceptive.

For example, all European systems of modern nation-states, including those of the Americas, do, in fact, stem from a common root in the Fifteenth-Century Renaissance establishment of a new kind of institution, the sovereign nation-state republic which is either committed to, or pretends to be committed to the common good (e.g., general welfare). Philosophically, the U.S. patriot has no essential quarrel with France's Louis XI, or England's Henry VII and Sir Thomas More, or William Shakespeare. (With Henry VIII, things begin to be complicated, and with Francis Bacon and Thomas Hobbes, much worse.)

The principal differentiation is between the British system and the American System of political-economy, derived essentially from the combined legacy of the U.S. Declaration of Independence and original Federal Constitution, a U.S. which was founded as a truly sovereign nation-state republic. This U.S. system is distinguished from European systems, which are forms of parliamentary systems of merely nominal independence, systems which have been reformed to conform to the overreaching requirements of the usurious overlordship of a global system of so-called independent central banking systems, an overlordship centered in the City of London.

However, despite transatlantic differences which are often as much axiomatic as sentimental, North America and Europe have affected one another such that each part of that combined system has been developed in ways such that each has affected the shaping of many of the internal characteristics of the other. It is urgent that it be recognized, that these systemic, apparent similarities lie essentially in the physical-economic conditions, as distinct from, and largely opposed to the constitutional underpinnings of the respective monetary-financial systems.

The essential difference between the European and U.S.A. system is constitutional, a difference in principle. The principal other differences are reflections of the fact that the U.S. economic system is premised on what is termed the American System of political-economy, which, despite its presently continuing corruption by the Federal Reserve System, presumes constitutional national sovereignty over its monetary-financial system, whereas the European systems (excluding discussion of the Soviet system here) have a Venetian financier-oligarchical heritage, expressed today as subordination of government to the power of so-called independent central banking systems, systems which are essentially masks for predatory private financier-oligarchical interests.

For example, even despite such traditional differences in political culture, post-1945 Germany adapted with such superior efficiency, relative to other European nations, to its economic reconstruction under precedents taken from the experience of the Franklin Roosevelt Administration. There are important elements of the American System of political-economy such as the still lingering role of the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau today. The most notable difference between the existing European systems and the American System, is that President Franklin Roosevelt reacted to the Depression by putting the banking system through reorganization, which saved the American system of government, whereas the financier oligarchy of 1920-1945 Europe put the governments through forms of reorganization which converged upon fascism.[22]

Today, it is neither necessary, nor desirable that European states repeat the awful consequences of their earlier, pre-1945 submission to the private financier interests' central banking systems. Were they to refuse to submit now, as they should, the chances of saving both those nations, and civilization generally, would be greatly improved. If they do not refuse, then that tradition will die with the nation which refused to make the needed change in doctrine.

Thus, in summary of this point, the U.S. political establishment of (especially) the recent four decades, and the extreme right-wing utopians, have been of that disposition since the death of Franklin Roosevelt, the U.S. financial-political establishment has been definitely oriented to sharing an imperial form of world power with the British imperial establishment. Globalization is the current form of expression of that decadent intention.

3. The Differences Between Europe and Asia

Once we have taken those cited and related varieties of complications into account, the most essential points of systemic distinctions, and similarities between the American and European systems of economy, are to be recognized by lifting the monetary-financial carpeting, to see the floorboards of non-monetary, physical economy underneath. Once the monetary-financial wrappings are put aside, certain crucial similarities of principle and practice shared by the American and western and central European economies shine forth. Then, the remaining systemic differences between the Hamiltonian American System of political-economy and Liberal-dominated European systems, are chiefly reflections of the superimposition of forms of monetary-financial systems which are based upon submission to that Venetian principle expressed by so-called "independent" central banking systems. The similarities, to which I shall give attention later in this present report, reflect the physical-economic processes upon which the Venetian principle had been superimposed through the Anglo-Dutch Liberal's control over the dominant elements of the world's monetary-financial systems.

Later in this chapter of the report, I shall describe certain of those features of the European system and its most important complications from the standpoint of a science of physical economy, rather than drowning in the intellectual quicksand of attempting to explain a physical economy from an axiomatically monetary-financial standpoint.

Yet, the same discarding of the monetary-financial wrappings from the typical Asian economy, exposes, more clearly than before, the essential, systemic differences between both the American System and European economies, on the one side, and Asian economies on the other. That said, I now proceed accordingly. Several seemingly distinct features of that set of differences between European and Asian economies are now each being treated separately by me here, in order to show how these points, when combined as they actually interact, come together for a single, combined effect.

The roots of the Venetian system, whose proximate origins are ancient Rome, can be traced much further than that, by objective archeological studies, to as far back as the ruinous, predatory practice of usury in ancient Mesopotamia, where those practices led, repeatedly, to the collapse of the "bow tenure" agricultural system of lower Mesopotamia, practices also associated with the influence of the international "loan-sharking" attributed to the Delphi Apollo cult.[23]

Although the exploration of pre-European origins of the ideas of South, Southeast, and East Asia, must take into account influences dating from a time prior to significant medieval and modern European influences existing in those parts of the planet, the overwhelming evidence respecting relevant modern influences, shows that the dominant impact of relevance for the economies of modern Asia and Africa today, has been the impact of the spread of the Venetian model of financial practices, by the European colonizers, into the modern establishment of the Iberian and Anglo-Dutch Liberal colonization in those regions. There are obvious specifically Asian cultural factors in shaping the way populations of these regions adapted to the impact of the European colonizers, but the effects of the modern financial practices introduced to those areas during the recent five centuries, the effects to which local cultures reacted, are, still today, predominantly the effects of the role of Anglo-Dutch Liberal usury, and its pathological, physiocratic mentality, as the triumphant successor to the Portuguese and Spanish.

When we look at the known history of European civilization from the vantage-point of my original contributions to a science of physical economy, the following is clear.

In the case of the emergence of modern European civilization, our attention is focussed on an impulse for development, most readily traced from ancient Egypt's influence on the founding of a distinct, Classical current in Greek civilization, an impulse for development which ultimately emerged as an integral feature of the Fifteenth-Century establishment of the modern European nation-state. In the contrasted case of Asian culture as experienced today, we are dealing, most prominently, as I shall explain at relevant places in this chapter of the report, with effects of a case of rape perpetrated by the likes of the pirates of Venice.

In the struggle for progress which is principally internal to modern European civilization, the vector of struggle has been the effort of modern European physical economy to throw off the yoke of the ancient, predatory Venetian usurer, to throw off the yoke of the ancient Roman empires and their Venetian-Norman, medieval successor. In the instance of today's Asian cultures, the yearning for independence from the contemporary Venetian Party's yoke of (presently) predatory IMF/World Bank usury, impels cultures of Asia to seek to acquire the means of modern physical economy (e.g., nuclear power) as weapons for breaking the chains of Venery.

As Leibniz or Bernhard Riemann might wish to say, in comment on the distinction I have just emphasized: although "agro-industrial development" is "agro-industrial development," whether in transatlantic European cultures, or Asian cultures, in comparing the two cases, we are confronted with a proposition in Analysis Situs.[24] The same words, "agro-industrial development," applicable to both situations, have an essentially different functional significance in each application. My emphasis on the relevance of Analysis Situs is, as I shall show, unignorably crucial for understanding the actual, functional relationship between Transatlantic and Asian/African cultures today. One, the economic development of modern European civilization, comes from that culture; the other, modern economic development in Asia, for example, and also the lack of it, has been introduced to the culture chiefly from outside, without any competent consideration of the ironies of this crucial problem in Analysis Situs.

In my sometimes off-and-on experience with Asian culture since 1945-46, one can not step from the U.S.A., or Europe, inside the proverbial doorway of Asia, without being confronted with a powerfully emotional sense of the difference between those two situations, from reflections on discussions with one's conversation-partner there. In Asia, even among persons with what might be termed a "strong" basis in European knowledge, there is a difference which only a dull-witted product of European culture could overlook.

The best way to locate the source of the uneasiness a sensible person of European culture experiences, each time he or she steps freshly into an Asian cultural setting, is to bring the discussion to matters bearing upon the technological side of modern industrial and related development of any Asian economy considered as a whole. The most successful forms of European technology of economic development arrive in Asia as very much an immigrant into a land which is not quite certain as to whether you, the European, should really be welcomed, or not.[25]

I am sensitive to that, but I have long since ceased to worry myself about it in my dealings with the matter. My approach to the matter is to proceed from a higher vantage-point than either European or Asian culture, to seek to stand on the platform of what I foresee as the necessary emergence of a specifically Eurasian culture, the culture we must build up, shall we say, "a planetary culture," through efforts premised on an understanding of the fact that that must be our mission. That is the viewpoint which I hope I will be able to put across, at least in a preliminary way, in the course of this report.

We shall return to that matter at the appropriate point in this report. Now, in order to clarify the problem in Analysis Situs referred to just above, we must take a detour. Before we return to that point, we must first continue by returning our attention, for a time, to the American System, its impact on world development, and its crucial advantage over Europe.

The European Roots

The principled advantage of the American System is fairly summed up as follows:

The modern sovereign nation-state was born in Europe out of a long history of opposition to the oligarchical dogma of the Olympian Zeus, an opposition which is, most emphatically, a heritage of the current of such opposition expressed at Athens. That is the opposition which is associated most closely with Solon, Socrates, and Plato, which promoted that aspect of the human individual, the human immortal soul, which uniquely distinguishes man from ape.

This heritage, which is embraced by such Christian Apostles as, most notably, John and Paul, and also, otherwise, by Philo of Alexandria and others, locates the human identity, the immortal soul of the human individual, as Socrates and Plato define it, in those creative powers of the individual human mind, the power of Socratic-Platonic hypothesis, which are categorically absent in the beasts. These are the immortal creative powers which we associate with that specific conception of science which we trace, in European culture, from the ancient Pythagorean's adoption of the Egyptian standard of Sphaerics (i.e., science as derived by Egypt from the foundations of discoveries in the field of physical astronomy) and of an anti-reductionist conception of music, such as that of J.S. Bach, as opposed to the pathetic, empiricist triviality of a Rameau.

The Renaissance's freeing of the mass of the population from the status, in practice, of human herded or hunted cattle, as by the teaching and related practice of the Classical Greek humanists, caused revolutionary advances in the productive powers of labor in modern Europe, as the effect of the application of those powers may be measured, physically, in terms of per-capita output per square kilometer of territory of a certain relative quality (hence, potential relative population-density). These powers are those which the Classical Greeks, such as the Pythagoreans, associate with that modern definition of a universal physical principle which is typified by Johannes Kepler's uniquely original discovery of a universal physical principle of gravitation. Today, these measurements or powers, as distinct from mere mathematical formulas, are best defined afresh, as I shall indicate in this report, in terms of Vernadsky's Riemannian definition of the Noösphere.

These measurements, as understood by the methods of Sphaerics adopted by the Pythagoreans, are key to the advantage of modern European science and its physical economy, over alternate forms of society. Considered physically, that is without taking money itself into account, they account for the great physical advantage of modern European civilization, as in the U.S.A. and leading nations of Europe, over other cultures, as this can be measured both per capita and per square kilometer.

The advantage of modern European culture, has been, essentially, that the promotion of the freedom and education of the individual, especially when combined with promotion of the Classical European modes of scientific and technological progress, and of Classical culture, increases the developed creative potential of the individual. A society which is organized to promote and employ that increase of the promotion and realization of the creative potential of virtually all of its members, has a necessary advantage, by a large margin, over a society which has a contrary, or simply different policy of practice. This method, as typified by the work of the Platonic Academy of Athens, through Eratosthenes and beyond, was the great advantage in method of modern European culture over what are typical as so-called ancient or medieval forms of European society.

Thus, the fall of the U.S.A., in particular, from the level it achieved and maintained over the 1933-1964 interval, was chiefly a result of a negation of those factors of both U.S. policy and cultural development which had been the essential drivers of the nation's role as the world's leading producer society, with the relatively highest standard of living. It was through the realized effect of the counterculture launched under the auspices of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, that the youth entering leading universities from the mid-1960s onward, degenerated morally and intellectually in ways merely typified in the extreme by "the rock-drug-sex youth-counterculture." This latter form of corruption of the so-called "Baby Boomer" generation, in both North America and Europe, led into the political transformation of those cultures into an increasingly parasitical character as a decadent culture of "bread and circuses," an "entertainment society," mimicking the decadence of Rome, following the Second Punic War, into a predatory parasite, with a culture of "bread and circuses" at home. The ration and extent of mass countercultural "entertainment," including gambling manias, in the U.S.A. and western Europe, is typical of the way in which moral degeneration leads into the kind of disastrous economic degeneration which the U.S.A. and Europe are enjoying today.

The pre-1964 advantage of European culture's long sweep, was rooted in what Plato's dialogues define as that principle of hypothesis which is the correlative of the Classical Greek notion of powers, which was so foolishly and crudely rejected by empiricists Francis Bacon's and Thomas Hobbes' contempt for Classical irony of a Shakespeare. This is the folly also expressed by black magic specialist Isaac Newton's silly "Hypotheses non fingo," as by the Bertrand Russell who, with his devotees such as Norbert Wiener and John von Neumann, made a vast, intellectually sterile, abiotic system out of denying the existence of that function in the human individual which distinguishes man from the ape: the denial, by all such fools, of what Vernadsky termed the Noösphere.

All of the actual relative achievements in the development of European civilization, have been products of the development of that faculty, the principle of hypothesis, the noëtic power which sets man above such self-professed apes as Thomas Huxley, Frederick Engels, and the empiricists, positivists, and existentialists, as also the ancient Greek reductionists.

Thus, the essential historical problem impeding the long sweep of the development of modern European society as we have known it, has been the suppression of the individual's power of successful hypothesizing, a suppression accomplished in more or less the way typified by French Liberal empiricist, and probable Fronde sympathizer, François Quesnay's bestial argument in support of a principle of black magic he named laissez-faire.

As the U.S.'s Frederick Douglass emphasized, the most direct way in which to be able to herd people as human cattle, is to suppress their right to hypothesize in the mode illustrated by Plato's dialogues. Induce people to limit their behavior to those of their faculties which efficiently approximate the mentality of herded cattle, and you oblige them to behave, and to see themselves as a kind of dumb cattle. You can not free a slave, or a victim of the habit of slavery, without freeing him from the effects of a cattle-prod-like conditioning, such as conditioning never to be caught behaving as anything better than human cattle. This brutalization of many Americans of African descent was enforced in continuing effects today by such means as the U.S. Southern slaveholder clique's declaration of a slave's literacy as in itself a capital offense, and, later, after Emancipation, by Liberal policies of education intended to avoid encouraging a descendant of slavery to aspire to rise above his or her assigned, menial station in life. (In today's U.S.A., the same kind of effect is secured, still, in other ways. The relevant form of functional cognitive illiteracy is rationalized, as under President George W. Bush, Jr., as "their culture.")

It was to the extent that modern European culture practiced the use of its Classical advantage, that it leaped ahead of those non-European cultures which did not make this shift in social and economic policies of practice. This can be illustrated handily by comparing the estimated, average relative physical productivities, per capita and per square kilometer, for Europe, with those for, for example, India and China. Compare life, thus, in Europe, for example, from the census of Charlemagne through the Fourteenth Century, with that of the area of India and China during comparable times. Then study the shift, comparing Europe with the area of today's India and China, in fairly estimatable relative values of productivity per capita and per square kilometer, over the interval 1400-1964. Then, look back to the demographic and related decline of, first, Imperial Rome in the West, and, after that, in Byzantium.

Admittedly, we did not even begin to actually free the people generally from the status of human cattle, until the emergence of modern European culture in the Fifteenth-Century Renaissance; but, we intended to realize that goal; and, that intention, wherever it persisted, made the difference in the character of European culture as a whole. It is as if to say, that a single person in a culture, by being and acting so, may supply a characteristic which becomes part of that culture as a whole, even a redeeming part of a culture which might be predominantly brutish in every other way. It is as if to think, that for the sake of the existence and work of a single good man, God might withhold terrible, just punishment from an entire erring people.

We who fought, sometimes as lonely individuals, when others were too frightened to do so, for the morally necessary supremacy of the Classical human conception of man, as distinct from, and above other creatures, maintained that tradition over millennia. The goal has lived because so many among us have put their mortal lives at stake, such as the modern Reverend Martin Luther King, or, like Jeanne d'Arc, were burned alive at the stake, for that mission in service of future mankind. Indeed, her dedication to her mission, was the inspiration which stirred the conscience of the Council of the Church, and which inspired France to gain its freedom from the Norman oppressor. We have fought so, often at greater or relatively less risk, to keep that principle alive within in civilization. This immortal commitment, sanctified by the sacrifices, which many of so many generations have made on its behalf, has preserved this principle as a characteristic of European civilization. It not only makes the difference today; the continued existence of civilization now depends upon that legacy, absolutely.

So, we of the U.S.A., today, most of whom have done little lately as individuals for us to brag about, are still a special nation among nations, because of what the heroes who have sometimes led us, and those others who worked, or have often sacrificed, have done, to provide the world as a whole today, the unique gift which our republic represents, a republic by aid of which this planet might be saved from the presently onrushing menace of a prolonged dark age.

To preserve that principle embedded in the intention of our U.S. Declaration of Independence and the Preamble and Presidential system of our original Constitution, we have endured much evil. As I have already said above: Typical of the malicious opposition which we have had to fight, in defense of the Classical humanist principle, is the case of the Physiocratic dogma of France's Dr. François Quesnay, an explicit adversary of the Classical humanist principle, and implicitly an evil one.

Quesnay's argument for laissez-faire (which the similarly depraved Adam Smith plagiarized as "free trade") is premised on two leading assumptions. First, the superstition, that the profit of the estate is caused by magical properties attributable to the landlord's title, rather than the labor of the workers on that estate.[26] Second, that the function of the workers is comparable to that of milk cows, whom one must feed sufficiently that they live and breed to produce meat and milk, but are permitted no other moral claim to a share of the income. Otherwise, the income of society is attributed to the proprietors' ownership and exploitation of pre-existing natural resources; the notion that man contributes qualitatively to maintaining and increasing such resources by human labor, is rejected.

This physiocratic delusion, of Quesnay, Turgot, and the Adam Smith who plagiarized them both, is the underlying assumption of both current fads of "environmentalism," globalization, and virtual slave-labor practices of the IMF/World Bank-dominated international monetary-financial system today. As the physical economy of the Americas and Europe, in particular, is being looted into a state of net negative physical growth at home, the world's financier oligarchs of today are occupied by an obsession with grabbing control over natural resources, such as petroleum and other mineral resources, as a basis for world rule for generations—or, better said, "degenerations"—to come. The great financial-derivatives speculation in grabbing such natural resources, and the accelerating rate of inflation in those commodities resulting from that pyramided financial speculation in titles to such assets, is not only a characteristic of recent trends in world markets, but is, in fact, a symptom, and, also, a leading contributing cause of the global system's presently onrushing early collapse.

Why, Only in Our United States

To identify the crucial point as simply as possible, as I have already implied, the germ of the idea of creating our United States was already implied in the thinking of the martyred Sir Thomas More, whose judicial murder, already, in and of itself, made a strong case for setting the founding of a durable form of republic on the opposite side of the Atlantic, a case so defined by the manner of his untimely, and most unjust death at the order of an insane monarch manipulated by a pack of Venetian scoundrels.[27] Indeed, there were most probably similar thoughts by Miles Standish nearly a century later, and that, certainly, was the line of thinking of the leaders of the founding and development of that Massachusetts Bay Colony which was to become the seed-kernel for the creation of our U.S.A.

In effect, during the interval 1763-66, Benjamin Franklin and his circles returned to the implied American concern of Sir Thomas More. The question posed from the mid-Seventeenth-Century onwards, was, implicitly: Was it necessary for Americans to go so far in resisting the recently spawned British Empire, as to think of a war-like break, to independence, from that cruel empire? The answer, as experience affirmed that view, was that not only was the revolutionary independence of the English colonies in North America justified, as the U.S. Declaration of Independence avows; it was necessary for the sake of the liberation of Europe's nations from the ultimately fatal corruption of which Europe could not otherwise cure itself. The creation of our new republic must be the adoption of the best from Europe, but the best freed from the fatal corruption of the existing, institutionalized culture of Europe.

This was implicitly the same corroborating observation made by Friedrich Schiller in viewing the horrors of the French Revolution: A great historic opportunity had been lost, because the moment had found a people morally too small-minded to seize that long-awaited opportunity when it had been presented. What should have happened in France in 1789, was realized by the role of the U.S.A. under President Franklin Roosevelt. Roosevelt led in freeing a Europe which had brought the blight of the Jacobin Terror and Napoleon upon itself earlier, and fascism more recently, through its own continuing cultural-political corruption, its failure to have broken with the quasi-feudal cultural legacy of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal and some even earlier traditions, such as the Habsburg legacy.

Today, the same logic says: "We must free our U.S.A. from its present seizure by the infection of a fatal corruption like that which afflicted Europe in the two so-called 'world wars' and rise of fascism in the past, that we might, once again, take that action which would save our republic from its own present lunacy, while also saving Europe from its own present folly."

Today, even what a European view may see as the massive corruption of the virtually self-bankrupted U.S.A., has not changed that question in any essential way. As I have emphasized repeatedly earlier in this present report, Europe may see the corruption of today's U.S.A., but Europe is not prepared to assume the responsibility for the specific kind of measures through which it might tend to assume the kind of leadership role which the history of the U.S. requires it to play in the world today.

For example: At this moment of writing, there are, in fact, two strategic polarities of the planet which will play a dominant, virtually decisive role in determining the direction which world history may take at the present juncture. One is typified by the attack on Social Security, by the present Bush Administration, from inside the U.S.A. This is an issue which is echoed in similar institutional forms in western Europe, and in similar ways throughout central and south America. The outcome of this fight over the privatization of Social Security will tend to determine whether a U.S. under President George W. Bush goes fascist, or not, and that soon. The other polarity is the keystone role of Russia in the Eurasia context as a whole, as this is typified by the network of collaboration centered around the nest of Russia-India-China treaty relations. It is the intersection of these tw