A LESSON FROM RONALD REAGAN

Of British Fools
And Post Reviewers

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

On the Washington Post's Robert G. Kaiser on The World War Going Our Way: The KGB and the Battle for the Third World[1]
by Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin
New York: Basic Books, 2005
677 pages, hardbound, $29.95

November 6, 2005

Kaiser? "... Phoebus! What a name to bear the weight of future's fame!" from Byron on Amos Cottle.

The collapse of the Soviet system, from the close of 1989 onward, became the opening of the silly season for a U.S.A. which had been, thus, suddenly released from the grip of the kind of deadly seriousness which had held the attention of the leading powers, and others, of the planet, since the onset of the Great Depression and the rise of the Hitler regime. For the triumphant leading powers of the U.S.A. and what had been formerly "western Europe," the collapse of the Soviet system encouraged their wishful delusion, that the fearful "outside world" was no longer there. For some, real history had ended. For them, the world had become a doll-house world in which we of George H.W. Bush's U.S.A. and Margaret Thatcher's London had Europe in her handbag, such that we, as the leading powers, could make up children's stories we wrote, and games we would invent, tunes to which the rest of the world must now dance.

Now, things have changed again. We have come into a time when playing with nations as if they were collections of children's dolls, has come to an end. Contrary to fools like Francis Fukuyama, history had never actually stopped. Since 1989-1991, time had been playing with those fools who were wishfully deluded into confidence in playing their childish doll-house games on a hapless world. Now, we are faced with the paying of a terrible price for the foolishness we practiced during the silly season, the recent decade and a half of 1990-2004, which we had spent in that fantasy-land.

Unfortunately, some, such as some of those at the Washington Post, are still living in a state of desperate denial of the fact that the fantasy-world of their particular choice of silly season does not exist, and never really did. They turn over, murmuring, "Let me sleep a little longer," to dream their favorite dream. Their warmed-over old dreams of the recent decade and a half, are now worse than boring, even to them. They thrash restively in their dream-world, as the dreams become sillier and sillier, even for them. The Post's Robert G. Kaiser's silly-season dream, of the by-gone days of a Soviet past which never actually occurred, is a case in point.

Actually, Soviet General Secretary Yuri Andropov's lunatic refusal to discuss President Ronald Reagan's March 23, 1983 proffer of a "Strategic Defense Initiative," had planted the seeds of what turned out to be the Soviets' early harvest of such deadly silliness as his own. That event marks Andropov as the greatest fool among the tyrants of recent world history, and says a great deal about the fatal intellectual flaw then permeating the Soviet system as a whole. Admittedly, Andropov was a very clever and somewhat capable fool; but, then, there is no worse fool than one, like Andropov, with the fate of a great nation in his hands.

This returns our attention back to the subject of the short and silly review, by the Post's Kaiser, of Vasili Mitrokhin's most recent book. Since anything the dreaming Post might have permitted Kaiser to say, would have been essentially nonsensical at the time, Kaiser's better option had been to simply shut up on the subject, rather than make a fool of himself. Despite all that, there is a certain benefit for us to enjoy in considering how pitiably Kaiser behaved in uttering that piece, as I show in my response, here.

From a view of history as it actually was, Kaiser's buffoonery is a continued flight into a sleep of self-delusion, away from seeing the special kind of "hard times" which had actually befallen the official U.S. intelligence services since 1989. Hard times now rapping, with menace, like the fabled monkey's paw of the story, at his sleeper's door.

By compelling official intelligence and related services in the Americas and Europe to join in submission to the recently prevailing climate of the rules of "doll house" games, those services were induced to deprive their institutions of the authority to cultivate any rational sense of mission-orientation; even a faulty real-world choice was excluded. Moral and intellectual decadence took over. Professional intelligence capabilities still existed, but their influence was relegated, increasingly, to what could be accomplished on the terrain outside the relevant official institutions. Any significant competence for leadership in those categories, is presently limited chiefly to a dwindling few among my own World War II-generation veterans who were phased out, or died out during the recent fifteen years, and a precious residue of first- and second-rank competence from the generation of professionals whose careers date from the 1960s and early 1970s.

There were crucial weaknesses in U.S. intelligence and related outlooks during the post-FDR, pre-Indo-China War times, but, as I shall emphasize in the following pages, if their choice of direction was often mistaken (if far more rational than the drivellings of the crabbed, microscopic memoranda of fascist madman James J. Angleton, or weird fellows such as William F. Buckley, Jr.), the admittedly distorted map the sane professionals were reading prior to 1989-1991, was, more or less, the semblance of a map of the acts and consequences in a real world.[2]

Andropov's Folly Today

Reviewer Kaiser is only a small-time fool. Andropov was a really big fool. Worse, from the evidence presently at hand, neither most leading circles in Russia nor most leading circles in the U.S.A., have yet learned the efficient truth about that still crucial history lesson for today, which is expressed as the deeper implications of Andropov's folly.

I speak on these matters with the included special authority of my central role in the events which led into the momentous 1982-1983 turn in Soviet affairs under Andropov. I refer to my own crucial part in that affair of 1982-1983 once again, here, only to the degree that it is an essential piece of the puzzle in any attempt to understand both why the Soviet system collapsed, and how faulty U.S. official intelligence, in particular, fostered the perilous mess which the putative victors in the Anglo-American/Soviet conflict have made for all of us today.

That was a collapse caused, essentially, by the same economic developments to which I had pointed in my personal warning to the Soviet government's back-channel representative. I had warned, then, that it would collapse "in about five years," if that government were to continue to reject the offer which I indicated that President Reagan might make. Several months later, I made the same forecast of a self-inflicted, near-term threat to the Soviet system, this time publicly, and internationally.

On March 23, 1983, the President made exactly that proffer, which the Soviet government knew in detail through my back-channel role; but Andropov rejected that out of hand, and, the Soviet system soon plunged into a collapse-phase, a bit more than six years after I had first delivered that warning of "approximately five years."

Understanding the background to the tragic failures of Andropov's and, later, Gorbachev's government on this account, is key for understanding the real reason the Soviet system, especially the post-Stalin Soviet system, failed as it did. The collapse of the system was, in some degree, inevitable, once Andropov and Gorbachev had successfully prevented any reasonable alternative. It need not have been as cruel as it has been since 1990-1992, had General Secretary Andropov not been such an awful fool in summarily rejecting a 1983 dialogue with President Reagan.

Had Andropov not been a fool, he would have taken into account President Reagan's well-known, long-standing hostility to former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger over the issue of what Reagan denounced as the "revenge weapons" system of Mutual and Assured Destruction (MAD). President Reagan accepted what became his adopted SDI policy because he knew that the change in policy which I had recommended was feasible, on the condition that the Soviet government joined in a serious discussion of the policy.

When Andropov virtually spit in President Reagan's face, the Soviet system had locked the U.S. of the 1980s into all of the implications of a continuation of the MAD policy. At the same stroke, Andropov locked the Soviet Union into policies such as those of the Ogarkov plan, which, in turn, assured the early economic collapse of the Soviet system as a whole. When we opened the East Germany military "can," after the fall of the Berlin Wall, we learned how damnably close we had all come to unthinkable war, simply because so many in "the West" had joined Andropov in a fit of wild-eyed rage, in stupidly calling the SDI "Star Wars," and thus rejecting the alternative which I had played a crucial part in crafting.

Once Andropov, and later Gorbachev, continued their opposition, and the U.S. opponents of my proposal had taken over, two things became virtually inevitable. The early collapse of the Soviet economy became practically inevitable. Despite the temporary respite from the October 1987 U.S. stock-market crash which the looting of the fallen Comecon and other places permitted, the plunge of the U.S. and its allies into a spiralling global economic-breakdown crisis, became the almost inevitable course of events for the decade or so following the Soviet collapse.

The principal added significance of reading that page from real-life history for today, is what it shows us, implicitly, about the kindred reasons for the catastrophic failures of the current U.S. Administration, and its intelligence services, under the influence of that British Liberal Imperialist faction which was behind such atrocities as the United Kingdom's Blair government's role in the Kelly case, and the Anglo-American fraud in launching the currently continuing war in Iraq.

If Kaiser's brief review is not simply "an ill wind that blows nobody good," that is because its sheer, shameless silliness offers us a reminder of the pervasive incompetence into which official Washington, D.C., among other parts of the world, has sunk under George W. Bush, Jr. The world of now must be compared with the old pre-1989 "Cold War Days," in the less lunatic time before the alleged 1989-1992 "end of history," a time when, no matter how errant, opinions on strategy of war and peace, survival and Hell, were treated with a significant degree of seriousness.

Hopefully, with the likely ouster of U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney, the U.S. system is faced with the need to expose a vast corruption of our institutions, a corruption far worse than what is associated with the name of "Watergate." This display of much very dirty linen, is no longer avoidable, nor should we regret the fact that public attention to such shameful developments is being brought forward. If you refuse to face the real source of the stink, be assured that the stench will then continue to corrupt our institutions, a corruption we could not afford at this perilous moment in world history.

The currently ongoing exposure of the facts of U.S. official agencies' participation in crimes against humanity not only comparable to those of the Nazis, but largely continued as practices adopted from Nazi agencies, and continued under Vice-President Cheney's influence since the 1970s, is shocking, but necessary. The issue is not that of punishment of the U.S.A. and allied perpetrators of those obscenities, but of exposing, and remedying the system which allowed those crimes not only to be perpetrated, but to be continued through recent history, as at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and others among Vice-President Cheney's infamous "undisclosed locations."[3]

However, far, far more important than those follies and related crimes themselves, has been the sheer stupidity in leading official and related institutions which failed to see the importance of uprooting such corruption, a failure rooted largely in the crucial elements of practiced incompetence in the field of strategic and related intelligence. The problem now, is, that unless that folly is quickly recognized and corrected, our civilization's future will be far, far worse than the now miserable conditions of net physical-economic and related moral and intellectual decay society generally has undergone during, especially, the recent four decades.

Kaiser's Post review in the October 30th edition, is worse than silly. Nonetheless, the clinical importance of his review is that it points our attention to the pervasive sophistry which has been at the root of all of the most crucial errors of our national intelligence estimates since the death of President Franklin Roosevelt. Kaiser's piece is a clinical specimen which points to the deadly diseases whose infectious qualities it reflects.

Kaiser's piece is the symptom of a sickness. Rather than dealing further with the symptoms, with the specifics of Kaiser's rambling chatter in his review, we now turn directly to the pathogen whose influence underlies those symptoms. I shall include a reference to the particular topic in Kaiser's review of Mitrokhin's book, at an appropriate place in the following outline of the more general case.

1. Fenimore Cooper, Allan Poe, and Lafayette

The original intelligence service of our U.S.A. was, in principle, headed by the principal founder of our republic, Benjamin Franklin. However, the continuation of that intelligence function was concentrated in the hands of an organization of the hereditary order of the veteran military officers of the American Revolution, the Cincinnatus Society headed by George Washington and the Marquis de Lafayette. James Fenimore Cooper was an outstanding figure, operating under his cover as a writer, in this field, as was the Edgar Allan Poe who, retired from West Point for reason of his epilepsy, served as both a counterintelligence specialist inside the U.S.A. and in a deployment, with Lafayette and Cooper, in France.

If the writings of Cooper and Poe are read with some relevant familiarity with the times in which they were written, they belong to the same general category of what the great artist and historian Friedrich Schiller identified in himself as the work of persons who were both world-citizen and patriot. I can affirm with some authority from experience, that whether inside, or outside formal intelligence services of the U.S.A., all true intelligence professionals of the U.S.A. whose work I have come to know, were, like Cooper's "Spy," individual, patriotic men and women who, like my late friend Max Corvo, have developed an inclination and knack for the craft.

The characteristic of the work of such early figures of our intelligence services, as notable in the case of Cooper and of German historian Friedrich Schiller, as it is for me, is the emphasis on the importance of treating the continuing influence of that innately imperialistic Venetian financier-oligarchy which spawned today's lurch toward a form of empire called "globalization," and that Venice's political-intelligence methods, as a benchmark for study of modern European history in general. There is no competent study of the medieval or modern history of European civilization which does not pivot on the study of the character and methods of the Venetian financier-oligarchy and its Anglo-Dutch Liberal financier outgrowth, viewing that financier oligarchy and its cultural characteristics as an echo of the legacy of the Delphi cult of Apollo of the famous hoaxster and Apollo-cult high priest Plutarch and his ancient predecessors.

The aspect of intelligence work which I am reflecting in this present report, is best identified as strategic intelligence. As I have emphasized in a series of published writings on relevant current matters, strategic intelligence begins with study of pre-Aristotle ancient Classical Greece. Mastery of Classical Greek would be helpful, but not strictly needed in modern times when relevant specialists in that ancient language of Plato and his contemporaries are still available in significant if not strictly adequate doses. The essence of a culture lies not in the dictionary meanings which might be assigned by mere grammarians, but, as I have shown in relevant reports, in the state of mind which, in this case, the ancient Classical Greek writers of relevance expressed by their use of their language. Mere words can not supply us the meaning of words; meaning lies in a higher and deeper realm, in the realm of cognitive processes of which words are merely the footprints of passage. Our task is to put the conceptions we have inherited from that part of ancient European history into the conceptual forms appropriate for the language of today.

So, the history of European civilization can not be conceived as a unit of comprehension in a lesser time-frame than several thousands of years since the birth of what may be competently identified, specifically, as European civilization, since the promotion of the emergence of the Classical Greece of Thales, Solon of Athens, the Pythagoreans, Socrates, and Plato, who defined the specific Classical conceptions of law, art, and science which have been a continuing impulse from those times to the present.

Strategy means, thus, the continuing struggle against the forces represented then by the Babylonian priestcraft behind the Persian wars against Classical Greece, and the continuation of the role of the evil of the Babylonian imperial tradition from that time to the present day. Strategy is competently understood when it means our struggle to promote the highest level of achievement of a Classical republic, however imperfect that may be, as a republic represented by the founding of the constitutional Federal republic of the U.S.A., in our continuing struggle against that modern expression of an ancient foe represented by ancient Babylon and its expression as the Delphi Apollo cult, still today.

The famous case of the way in which the cult of Apollo lured King Croesus of Lydia into the ruin of his rich kingdom at the hands of the Babylonian priesthood running the Persian Empire, points to the essence of the common failures in strategic intelligence in ancient and modern European history today.

For example:

In a derived, subordinate meaning, strategy also implies outflanking the adversary, or not being outflanked oneself. In recent times, I have often used the example of Frederick the Great's famous outflanking of the Austrians at Leuthen to illustrate a broader meaning of "strategic outflanking," as also typified by Alexander the Great at Gaugamela. Leuthen is more readily summarized for the modern audience.

Essentially, human cultural behavior is usually fairly described as people whose minds are living within the confines of a fishbowl, but whose sensory experiences and hands are operating in the real universe, outside the walls of the fishbowl. Typically, the inhabitant of the fishbowl assumes that reality exists within the confines of a fishbowl whose "walls" are the indweller's belief in the existence of certain definitions, axioms, and postulates, like those of some caricature of a Euclidean geometry. The efficiency of principles operating outside the imagined walls of that fishbowl, escapes his comprehension. He is vulnerable to attack by an adversary who understands the fool's confidence in the existence of such imagined protective walls.

So, Hannibal outflanked the minds of the Roman commanders at Cannae, by surprise. So, the foolish Austrian command hoped to outflank, but did not surprise a Frederick familiar with Cannae, with the Austrian attempt to copy a Cannae, at Leuthen. So, Frederick, by taking the feasible action which the Austrian commander assumed to be impossible, outflanked and routed a vastly superior number of a well-trained Austrian force twice within a single day. Frederick exhibited the principle of strategic leadership in that way, on that day, a principle which lies, not on someone's map, but within the mind.

The same thing happened in Russia's October Revolution of 1917. What the leading governmental forces of Russia, and the leading Bolsheviks, too, thought impossible, Lenin did, in using a newly developed social formation, the Soviets, to make a coup d'état by an asymmetric line of attack. The silly Russian social-democrats and others, then claimed that "voluntarist" Lenin had "cheated" by not playing by their rules! Or, conversely, there is the case of the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan, and Vice-President Dick Cheney's ruinous humiliation of the U.S. in Iraq currently, in foolishly miscalculating the realities of asymmetric warfare.

Thus, if magicians in the image of the priests of the ancient Delphi Apollo can induce an intended victim to adopt a set of axiomatic, false beliefs which blind that marked victim, as the cult of the Delphi Apollo blinded Lydia's Croesus to the realities of that intended victim's situation, that victim can be induced to bring about his own destruction, that by means which he has been induced to adopt as being his vital self-interest, or even his decisive advantage.

So, Andropov and his protégé Gorbachev both foolishly miscalculated in dealing against me, in the matter of President Reagan's honest and strategically feasible proffer of SDI. For what followed, they, like Croesus, had no one to blame so much as themselves. So, the U.S.A. has been lured toward its own threatened self-destruction through the induced cultural-paradigm we associate today with the "68ers," a cultural paradigm-shift induced in the "Baby Boomers," children born not long after 1945, by agencies typified by the Congress for Cultural Freedom, and presented to the Congress's credulous dupes as the means to defeat the Soviet Union in the battlefield of ideas. Like foolish Croesus of ancient times, we have virtually destroyed ourselves by swallowing such beliefs.

To destroy a chosen person, or empire, with the relatively least exertion on one's own part, induce him to adopt the means by which he will be self-destroyed as the outcome of his following the pathway which his deceived mind sees as to his advantage. Such are what is known as Delphic, or Venetian methods.

The Case of the U.S.A. and Germany

For example: Look at some of the crucial highlights of the issues of foreign policy presented to the United States by the history of Europe since June 1789. See these as through the eyes of U.S. counterintelligence specialists such as Cooper and Poe.

After the successive wrecking of France under the Jacobins, Napoleon Bonaparte, the Duke of Wellington's British Restoration puppet-king, and Lord Palmerston's Napoleon III, the principal strategic U.S. diplomatic interest in Europe, was correctly seen as peaceful cooperation between Bismarck's Germany and the Russia of Alexander II and Alexander III. During the post-World War II period, West Germany had played a similar role in U.S. long-term diplomatic approach to mutual economic interests, a fact echoed in the weak, but definite resistance of the President George H.W. Bush Administration to the rapacity, and Delphic inducements of such wild-eyed and very nasty fools as British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and British intelligence's chosen asset, President François Mitterrand, in France. A sense of this traditional role of Germany in U.S. perspectives, was upheld by U.S. President Bill Clinton in his dealings with the Germany of Chancellor Helmut Kohl over matters of greater substance than even the amplitude of their pleasures in gourmandizing.

Had London's preference, Mitterrand, not demolished the legacy of de Gaulle, and had the legacy of the de Gaulle-Adenauer collaboration continued, a better option for the U.S.A., a France-Germany pivot within Eurasia, would have been available. However, unfortunately, de Gaulle's legacy was betrayed "with elegance" by some Gaullists, and, so, the Mitterrand preferred by London intervened. So, in this instance, Delphic methods thus prevailed, in the guise of the Maastricht agreements, over the actual vital interests of continental Europe and the U.S.A.

The superior current in U.S. foreign-policy-shaping thought which saw peaceful cooperation between Germany and Russia as in the crucial interests of the U.S.A., was not accidental. It was, and remains, strategic.

The British empire, the empire of the London-based international, Anglo-Dutch Liberal financier-monetary system, has been the actual, long-term chief enemy of the U.S. Federal constitutional system, since that Paris Treaty of February 1763 which established the British East India Company as an empire. Accordingly, that British imperial interest made various overt efforts to destroy the U.S. republic over the interval 1782 through the close of the Civil War within the U.S.A., a war which had been orchestrated by Jeremy Bentham's Foreign Office protégé and successor, Lord Palmerston.

With the visible economic role as a continental power, of the post-1865 U.S. republic, the 1876 U.S. Philadelphia Centennial celebration marked an accelerated spread of the influence of the world's leading economist of that time, in Henry C. Carey's U.S, economic-policy influence in Bismarck's Germany, Alexander III's Russia, Japan, and elsewhere. This post-1876 development represented the emergence of a bloc of Eurasian and other nation-states which, as admirers of the American System of political-economy, and therefore opponents of the British imperial domination of the world's financial-monetary system, represented implied allies of the best interest of the U.S.A. in tending to free the planet from the usurious grip of Anglo-Dutch Liberal imperialism.

Our own best leaders shared with Secretary of State and President John Quincy Adams, the understanding, shared by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, that without checking and ultimately defeating those predatory impulses of British imperialism, the preservation of the vital self-interests of the American republics could not be continued indefinitely.

It was to destroy the implied, post-1865-1878 alliance between the U.S.A. and these rising national economies of continental Eurasia and Japan, that Britain's crown prince, and later King Edward VII, set his two foolish nephews, Germany's Wilhelm II and Russia's Nicholas II, at one another's throat over the issue of the Austro-Hungarian Habsburg Kaiser's special obsession with the Balkans. Foolish Kaiser Wilhelm II's 1890 dumping of Chancellor Bismarck was, thus, the unleashing of what became the creation of Britain's imperial Edward VII, World War I, a war from which continental Europe has never fully recovered at any time, from then, to the present day.

Since that time, since about 1878, putting and keeping the Germans down by aid of warfare between Germany and Russia, has been the continuing thread of British foreign policy toward the Eurasian continent.

It was a concert of London-centered financier interests, including prominent financial houses of New York City, the financier circles of the city of Venice, and the Synarchist International of France, which placed Mussolini in power in Italy, Hitler in Germany, and, later, Franco in Spain. The mission assigned to Hitler by these financier circles, was to use the resources mustered around the Bank for International Settlements to arm London-directed Hjalmar Schacht's Hitler Germany and send it eastwards to destroy the Soviet Union, and then to be assaulted militarily by the financier forces in Britain and France, once German forces were deeply mired in Soviet territory. This perspective was modified at about the time of Soviet Marshall Tukhachevsky's failed mission to the France of the promising military figure Charles de Gaulle, when it became clear that Hitler's forces were intended to march westward first, before marching eastward.

Many U.S.A. financier circles who had joined the Bank of England's Montagu Norman in deploying Norman's Hjalmar Schacht to bring Hitler to power, changed sides, and looked, increasingly, to the U.S.A. of President Franklin Roosevelt to bail the British out of the pickle which they, chiefly, had created. Many of us who served during World War II, excepting our own "white shoe boys," came to understand this more or less clearly before the time that war had actually ended. Certainly O.S.S. leader Donovan and those whom he personally trusted did. Certainly General of the Armies Douglas MacArthur and Dwight Eisenhower, among others, did.

President Truman led us in a different direction than Roosevelt had intended; but, for a time, certain essential features of the FDR policy, especially the Bretton Woods policy, were unstoppable.

The Thatcher-Mitterrand travesty of Maastricht is a still currently rampant expression of the complexities left over from that past time. The policy of the relevant Anglo-Dutch Liberals and their accomplices has been, to force Germany to subsidize the rest of western and central continental Europe, as by the creation of the Euro, while preventing Germany from undertaking programs of its own economic development by means of which it might be able to continue subsidizing its continental European neighbors.

That is reality; opinions contrary to the outlook of John Quincy Adams, Cooper, and Poe, on that general subject, are the kind of silliness we might expect from the Post's own foolish Kaiser.

The Venetian Model

However, this was never "Anglophobia." The root of that Anglo-Dutch Liberal perversity, is not the subjects of the United Kingdom, but, rather, a global financier-oligarchical slime-mold whose traditional headquarters continues to be the same City of London which has been the principal imperial power on this planet since Lord Shelburne's rise to the occasion of British imperial power in the wake of the February 1763 Treaty of Paris. This slime-mold, sometimes moving among us, as if still on white-shoed feet, has taken a very large grip on the financial affairs, and leading press, of our U.S.A., to the degree that we must often sense our U.S.A. to be under the occupation today, of our Federal Reserve System's simulation of an agency of a foreign imperial power, on that account.

The origin of this alien, post-1971 rule over our planet, is not the British Isles, but the Seventeenth and Eighteenth centuries' takeover of the role of the emerging financier oligarchy of London and the Netherlands by what was known during the Eighteenth Century as the "Venetian Party." The genesis of this particular variety of succubus-like international financier slime-mold, this party of pod-people, this party of predatory, murderous usury, is the same ancient Venice which was the dominant imperial power in Europe, in alliance with the predatory Norman chivalry, from about A.D. 1000 until its temporary collapse during the Fourteenth-Century New Dark Age.

Thus, with the collapse of the Soviet Union as a third leading system, during 1989-1992, the domination of the planet as a whole has fallen to the leading role of two rival economic systems, that of the American System of political-economy typified by the protectionist policies of the Franklin Roosevelt Administration, and the predatory, and ruinous Anglo-Dutch Liberal system which took control of the planet—and also made a virtual colony of the U.S.A.—with the liquidation of the original Bretton Woods system, by the initiatives of Arthur Burns, George Shultz, and Henry A. Kissinger, during 1971-1972, and with the ensuing destruction of the internal economy of the United States under Zbigniew Brzezinski's predatory reign as National Security Advisor.

From the standpoint of the U.S. patriots witting in strategic intelligence matters, those are the typical issues of principal concern for all knowledgeable U.S. patriots today. The case of Germany policy typifies the expression of this in appropriate U.S. foreign policy.

This was an integral feature of the proposal for what became known as "SDI," as I presented the proposal to the immediate circles of President Ronald Reagan. My objective was to establish a system of economic and technological-development cooperation between the U.S. friends in Europe, such as France, Italy, and Germany of that time, with the nominal adversary of the moment, the Russia inside the then current "dynastic" form known as the Soviet system.

The post-war Anglo-American quarrel with the Soviet Union had never been necessary, except in the eyes of the same Anglo-American-French Synarchist and related financier interests which had placed Mussolini and Hitler in power, and had then thought better of that a bit later. However, once a war-like adversarial posture has been set into place on both sides of that quarrel, we are obliged to deal with that within the framework of our republic's appropriate long-term historic perspective. The object is not to fight the war, unless we are obliged to actually conduct such a war; the object is to make the actual warfare unnecessary, and to accomplish that result in a way consistent with that long-term mission of our republic embedded in its creation.

Governments of nations, even entire phases of a nation's existence, are like dynasties, as Alexander the Great understood in his leading the defeat of Europe's ancient imperial, Babylonian enemy. His death had tragic consequences for civilization, including the later emergence of the evil which was the Roman Empire lurching rampant out of the aftermath of the Second Punic War. Those among us who understand our own United States' republic against the background of what Solon of Athens represented in ancient Greece, are not gripped by those neurotic passions of the ever-impatient short-lived minds which see no further than their own personal passion for turning peace into war.

If we can change the dynamic which defines nations as dedicated adversaries, a desirable evolution of the situation can be set into motion. It is essentially a matter of activating the real interests of nations, as a way of liquidating the misguiding factors of deadly conflict. All good foreign policies are durable forms of multi-generational, preferably centuries-long forms of long-term policies, like those which John Quincy Adams, as Secretary of State, laid down in his carefully crafted design of the future emergence and consolidation of our continental nation, and the security of the hemisphere, as soon as we were able, against the threats immediately typified by the British and Habsburg imperial threats. Adams, Cooper, Poe, and the U.S. Representative Abraham Lincoln from Illinois were of one piece in this matter.

The skein is not cut. The vital interest of the U.S. republic today, is to break the back of supranational financier-oligarchical power, by emphasis on development of cooperation among a Eurasian continental bloc of respectively sovereign nation-states, an arrangement in which, hopefully, a Eurasian cooperation for mutual development, initiated on behalf of Europe with the nations of Asia, will serve as the long-standing pillar of U.S. foreign policy.

Looking at matters from the standpoint so sampled: How sundry influential institutions, such as financial powers, universities, and other notable agencies, stand with respect to the definition of U.S. foreign-policy interest which I have just described, tells the intelligent citizens not only who, but what those institutions really are.

The Difference the U.S.A. Makes

For any informed patriot of the U.S.A., the issue of that struggle for independence upon which our Declaration of Independence and Federal Constitution depended, is best traced within our continent to the pre-1689 Massachusetts Bay Colony under the leadership of the Winthrops and Mathers. As long as the colonists remained under the sovereignty of the English monarchy, but free of the rapscallion liberals of the parliamentary system, we were restively content with the English monarchy's rule and protection. It was when the parliament assumed imperial powers for the British East India Company of Lord Shelburne et al., and applied those powers to impose the policy of looting and rape called liberalism upon us, in the aftermath of the February 1763 Treaty of Paris, that our revolt against the United Kingdom became virtually inevitable.

Lately, the truth of the founding of our constitutional form of Federal republic has been obscured by the mindless recitation of a brainless litany, "capitalism," or "free enterprise." It is proposed, on the premises of those silly, hyperventilated words, that we virtually worship at the altar of a nasty pervert, Adam Smith, whose brutish hostility to our nation's struggle for freedom, was the essential content of that scientifically worthless piece of infamous trash, a litany of brutish, American-hating babble known popularly today as The Wealth of Nations.

Our system is not "the capitalist system," or the so-called "free enterprise" system. Certainly not the kind of "free enterprise" system which crushes our independent farmers and other productive entrepreneurs, that done in favor of the pestilence of parasites such as corporate money-changers in our national temple of liberty. Our constitutional system of economy is nothing other than the American System of political-economy, the system of policy-shaping thought which informed that practice of President Franklin Roosevelt, which saved us from the doom of our economy which had been crafted under Delphic, Anglo-Dutch Liberal varieties of "free enterprise" policies of the "free enterprise freaks" of the Coolidge and Hoover administrations.

The great irony of the so-called "Cold War" of 1945-1991, is that, ideologically, Soviet economic dogma was a product and branch of the dogma of Lord Shelburne's British East India Company whose intelligence services educated a Karl Marx, sitting in the British Library under the eyes and tutelage of British foreign intelligence's Urquhart. There, Marx, the recruit to the Young Europe organization of Lord Palmerston's G. Mazzini, the Mazzini of which Karl Marx became a prominent protégé during the 1860s, was drilled in the liturgy of Shelburne's and Jeremy Bentham's British India Company Haileybury School of Adam Smith, Thomas Malthus, David Ricardo, and the like. As the witting British scholar would agree with this, "How delightfully Delphic!" What a delicious parody of the Delphi counsel to the targetted dupe, King Croesus of Lydia.

The essence of the Delphic trick by which the Soviet and other professedly Marxist ideologues were swindled in this way, was the victims' indoctrination in the silly presumption, that the price of money under "capitalism" is a lawfully determined true approximation of physical values. This was the delusory belief in the "theory of value," into which British agent Frederick Engels' shepherd's crookedness assiduously herded Karl Marx away from such leading competent economists of the time as American System economists Frederick List and Henry C. Carey. That British gut-hatred of the American System of political-economy, was to show itself later as the core of the method used to induce the civilian sector of the Soviet economy to destroy itself, despite the economic efficiency and general excellence of Soviet military science. It was not the Soviet military which failed to defend the Soviet system; the preconditions for the collapse of the Soviet Union were built by the Soviet Union's party-hack variety of economists, whose views were informed by their credulous reading of the Marxist economic doctrine which Marx had crafted under the guidance of Britain's Frederick Engels, and the silly prattle of Lord Shelburne's Adam Smith and the like.

The popular appeal of Marxian socialism, as those of us with relevant experience can attest, was always rooted essentially in reaction against the injustice, and the often brutal methods of enforcement of predatory forms of economic exploitation of the general population, as in resistance against the form of fascism which came to be known as the "McCarthyism" of Roy M. Cohn et al. in the U.S.A., and against the pro-Hitler leanings which constituted a mortal threat to President Franklin Roosevelt during the early years of his term in office. Often, the socialist movement has been the relevant rallying point of necessary resistance against the enemies of the principle of the general welfare. As Bismarck showed with Henry C. Carey's American System reforms, which he introduced as copies of the American System of political-economy, the valid issue of socialist and kindred movements has always been the defense of the principle of the general welfare as the properly controlling law of national economy.

That was the good side of the socialist movement in practice, despite its strongly anti-intellectual leaning toward populism and kindred forms of intellectual vulgarity and romanticism. In the absence of the needed mobilization of republican forces, a socialist ferment has sometimes served as a necessary force in fighting the war against evil, but as a basis for government it was inherently a failure for the long term. After all, any American who despised President Harry Truman's state of mind could not be all bad.

It was when the Marxists went beyond simple defense of the general welfare of ordinary people, that they failed, as in the case of the Soviet economy. Those movements lacked any specific sort of viable conception of the building of society. At their best they could do nothing competent on this account other than imitate crucial features of the American System of political-economy. Their doctrinaire adherence to the mind-deadening reductionism which Marx himself adopted from, principally, his British patrons and teachers, served as a kind of "brainwashing" which, combined with the notion that truth is more or less a biological secretion of "the horny hand of labor," was the poisonously "anti-intellectual" element in Marxist economy's practice, which ultimately doomed the Soviet economy: as Soviet reports themselves, on problems of the practice of management of state enterprises, demonstrated quite vividly over the course of the years under Khrushchev, and Brezhnev.

Those of us in the U.S.A. who are familiar with related problems of economy during the 1940s, 1950s, and later, are familiar with a similar social problem. Once-successful firms have often grown stagnant and infertile through the wasteful lack of fresh creative innovation which greedy heirs and stockholders demanded in favor of an early and large distribution of profits. In a relatively later phase, the mass-brainwashing of those born in the immediate post-World War II generation, produced the "68ers," whose mass-lunacy on the subject of physical economy became the constituency force through which the U.S. economy was ruined in the transition from a richly productive economy, to today's relative wasteland of a so-called "services economy." A similar kind of mass-insanity was spread into the Soviet Union from Anglo-American intelligence circles operating through channels such as the Laxenberg, Austria International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) and its Moscow channel.

Yet, even the typical Soviet managers of the Brezhnev years were virtuous geniuses when compared with that moral depravity and utter incompetence typified by the virtual state of criminality of mind typical among the representatives of the contemporary, predatory Enron tradition in business-school-trained management in our United States today.

The denial of the existence of actual creativity in economics, as contrasted with Soviet Russian desperate excellence in the application of science to strategic objectives of military and related policy, is still the badly kept secret of the almost inevitable Soviet economic collapse which I, as an economist, foresaw in my 1982-1983 crafting of my proposal for what became the SDI. Only an international science-driver "crash program" of the type which the SDI implied, if launched during the early 1980s, could have avoided the tidal waves of entropy-driven, economic calamities which wrecked Soviet Russia of the 1980s, and have now moved on to threaten the immediate collapse of the present world system as a whole.

In contrast, the American System of political-economy is derived from work of Gottfried Leibniz in establishing that science of physical economy which exerted its powerful influence over the thinking of American leaders such as Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton, and List and Carey later. It was this actual science of economy which Marx rejected at the strenuous, repeated, explicit insistence of Engels. So, Russia today has much to learn of real economics, not from Marxism, nor London, but from Russian scientists, such as the enhanced sense of the principles of physical economy implicit in Vladimir I. Vernadsky's presently most needed conceptions of the Noösphere.

To define a scientifically sound notion of economy, turn to what has been recognized in the past as the American System "fair trade" policy of domestic and international regulation of trade and prices, to ensure net physical capital formation, and increase of the physical productive powers of labor, and physical standard of living, per capita and per square kilometer. This was achieved through the kinds of regulation embedded in the Bretton Woods, fixed-exchange-rate monetary system and the system of regulation, which was undermined through the influence of people such as Arthur Burns, and Delphically destroyed under National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Despite all the ills of U.S. economic and related policy under President Harry Truman and during the 1950s, the U.S. economy grew, as did the economies of western continental Europe, under the pre-1965 Bretton Woods system. It was the undermining of those principles during the U.S. War in Indo-China, and since the election of President Richard Nixon, which almost destroyed the U.S. economy through a rampage of "free trade" ideologies, both inside the U.S.A. and world-wide. As measured in physical terms, per capita and per square kilometer, the economies of the U.S.A. and Europe have been in a long, presently accelerating rate of conspicuous physical decline during the period since approximately 1977 to date.

For that U.S. economic decline, we have to blame not only the financial-oligarchical sponsors of the careers of the incurably central-European ideologues Henry A. Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski, but those 68ers who created the mass-based impetus for the cause of a so-called "post-industrial society." Without the rising influence of the most influential strata, the decadent fruit of the polluted Congress for Cultural Freedom's harvest, from the 68er tempest, the destruction of the U.S. economy over the 1977-2005 interval to date, could not have occurred.

It is time for Europe to learn those principles of the science of physical economy, presented by Gottfried Leibniz, which informed that American System of political-economy which is the most successful form of national economic practice known in the history of the world to the present date.

2. The World System Seen As Flatland

The subject of this following chapter of the report, is the strategic implications of the U.S.A.'s American System of political-economy for the strategy of the U.S.A. for the emerging world of today. While that American System has major, intellectually hereditary debts to the work of France's great minister Jean-Baptiste Colbert, the scientific appreciation, and proof of the superiority of Colbert's science-based practice of economics, was uniquely the work of the greatest European scientist of the late Seventeenth and early Eighteenth centuries, Gottfried Leibniz, in Leibniz's uniquely original discovery of the principles of a science of physical economy. Since I am the original known discoverer of a crucially important, qualitative development within the domain of Gottfried Leibniz's science of physical economy, the present chapter of this report on the implications of that development, must be substantially autobiographical at sundry crucial points.

The most crucial of the sources of lack of competence in what usually passes for strategic intelligence today, is derived chiefly from a single starting-point of reference, to which I have referred, by example, in the preceding chapter. The needed insights into relevant other systemic errors in current practice by professionals, are implicitly derived from that initial one. This relative loss of competence is traced, in the internal history of European civilization, from ancient Greece, from the conflict between the Pythagoreans, Socrates, and Plato, earlier, on the one side, and the so-called Euclideans, later, on the other. I was fortunate to recognize the essential fact of this matter during my first adolescent confrontation with taught geometry, an advantage in my youthful development which guided me, by various routes, into the later emergence of my strategic outlook on the implications of a science of physical economy.

I was thus led to my successful original discoveries in the field of science of physical economy during the 1948-1953 interval, by my focus on what I quickly recognized as the epistemologically crucial, positivist frauds contained within Professor Norbert Wiener's "information theory" hoax, and as the rabid lunacy of John von Neumann's (with Oskar Morgenstern) Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, and von Neumann's related perversion in his notions of "artificial intelligence." My adolescent views on geometry, and grounding in Leibniz during that period, provided me the premises for that 1948-1953 study.

*   *   *

Although the immediate subject of this report is the lack of a competent strategic perspective by our own and other governments of recent decades, the solution for this problem will not be found by focussing the blame merely on the government. Too often, as in self-doomed ancient Athens, as now, a people gets the quality of government it has brought upon itself as an impassioned act of democracy.

In the present case, it was the influence of a change in leadership, from President Franklin Roosevelt to President Harry Truman, which had been of crucial importance in understanding the way in which the U.S.A. passed over from being the world's post-war leader in economy, to the wreckage we have transformed our nation into becoming through the changes toward a "post-industrial" economy over the recent approximately forty years; but, it was the demoralization of the population, through the influence of cabals such as the morally degenerate Congress for Cultural Freedom, which produced the "68er" phenomenon, which, in turn, made possible the trend of downward cultural-paradigm shift in our culture and economy during the recent four decades.

All great upward turns in the policies of governments have been interwoven with upward cultural paradigm-shifts, such as that of the Italy-centered Golden Renaissance associated with the great ecumenical Council of Florence, the explosion of optimism fostered by the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, or the intersection of the international impact of the post-1763 movement toward independence of Britain's North American colonies with the impact of the Classical Renaissance centered, in Germany, around individual geniuses such as Abraham Kästner's protégé Gotthold Lessing, and Lessing's great friend Moses Mendelssohn.

As Percy Shelley expresses this in his famous essay, "In Defence of Poetry," without leadership which awakens a people generally, there is seldom a revival from a long period of cultural depravity. Without a seemingly small kernel of cultural inspiration which sparks a renaissance in the spirit of the people, a people is generally not disposed to support even an existing kind of electable leadership which could guide a morally depressed nation to undertake a great reform.

A chicken-and-egg problem? Take the case of President John F. Kennedy's declaration of the manned Moon landing objective. The true significance of this action by that President is usually overlooked today; but, it is not too late to examine, and to reconsider, the lesson to be learned from the way in which that program succeeded in producing those great options of the late 1960s and 1970s. We must reflect upon the way in which these opportunities were wasted so terribly under the kind of misleadership typified by the roles of those 1970s National Security Advisors Henry A. Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski, who typified the hateful opposition to everything good which President Kennedy had come to represent in the eyes of our people during his brief Presidency.

Kennedy did not invent the space program his bold action unleashed. Rather, he acted as a leadership, to unleash a good which already existed, partly as existing accomplishment, and partly as a potential to be unleashed in an organized way. Thus, the late 1960s represented the unleashing of a great, Franklin Roosevelt type of optimism in our people through the space program's achievements, but the Indo-China War and the 68er explosion of the rabidly Dionysian "rock-drug-sex youth-counterculture," and the 1966-1967 economic gutting of the space-program's greater potential, destroyed the very optimism which the manned Moon landing justly engendered.

So, with President Kennedy's adoption of a policy of resistance to what President Eisenhower had identified as the "military-industrial complex," his ears opened to the warnings of General Douglas MacArthur. That President's successful rousing of the people to the perspective of the manned Moon landing represented a kind of successful evocation of national optimism which the proponents of the "military industrial complex" regarded as virtual treason of the President to the relevant international financier-oligarchy, just as the optimistic 1989 perspective of Deutsche Bank's Alfred Herrhausen prompted the same Synarchist interests to organize Herrhausen's timely assassination.

Both Kennedy and Herrhausen were "in the way" of the opportunities which the original Anglo-Dutch Liberal sponsors of Mussolini and Hitler had been fanatically determined to seize at the relevant moment in history.

Thus, from the standpoint of the competent historian, the combined effect of the assassination of President Kennedy and Gulf of Tonkin resolution, was a march into Hell. There are cultivated mysteries, as by John J. McCloy and others, about the Kennedy assassination; but, the motive for the assassinations of both Kennedy and Herrhausen are clear to any qualified strategic historian. For such motives, the Synarchist current among Anglo-Dutch Liberal international financier oligarchy will kill, as they murdered a Walther Rathenau who was one of many victims of assassination for the same reason at that time, as part of a threat to the implementation of the Anglo-Dutch Liberals' Versailles Treaty policy, on almost any relevant occasion.

The issue, now as then, was and is clear. The great mass of the population of that time lacked the intelligence and moral fibre needed to defend those leaders who represented the vital strategic interest of the people themselves. What ensued, is the kind of terrible punishment, such as World War II, the U.S. Indo-China War, and the present Iraq War, which the negligent mass of popular opinion brought upon itself.

Still today, most people suffer a weak grasp of the idea of civilization, a condition which leaves them with a tenuous intellectual grip on both the idea of the difference between man and beast, and the related notion of man's actually special place in the universe. That accounts for the usually confused state of the popular, and, also, usually, the academic mind, in matters bearing upon the long-term strategic interest of nations and of civilization in general. These types of intellectual difficulties which are still commonplace within even modern European civilization, account, as causes, for the greater part of a certain failure common to most citizens and leading figures of society alike, the failure to grasp the essential notions on which a competent understanding of the higher functions of strategy depends. I refer, thus, to a higher implication of the same point on which I already touched in the preceding chapter, in introducing the higher conception of the strategic flank.

Yet, through everything which had been done to transform the U.S. economy, culturally and morally downward, from its former greatness as a scientifically and technologically progressive power, our economy, and our cultural optimism were, seemingly, nearly destroyed over the course of the unfolding of the 68er phenomenon in Europe as in the U.S.A. Our national standard of living, as measured most indicatively in the accelerating collapse of the physical standard of living of family life and the economy as experienced, since about 1977, by the lower eighty percentile of our family households, has been ruined, while our financial system is presently bankrupt to a degree beyond the imagination of most living today.

Everything about this so-called "cultural paradigm-shift" from the world's greatest economic power, to the bankrupt national junk-heap experienced by a rising eighty percentile of the lower eighty percentile of our households today, is the result of the great cultural paradigm shift induced in the overwhelming majority of the population, as my generation has reached the point of waning, and dying out during the period since the 1989 collapse of the Soviet system. The date 1989 is significant, because the collapse of the Soviet system was used by the triumphant Anglo-American powers, by the reigning Anglo-Dutch Liberal financier-class's system, to discard the burden of the technological progress forced upon them by the credibility of the Soviet military-industrial complex.

We have now reached a crucial point in the presently unfolding global financial-monetary breakdown-crisis, at which we either change, or plunge, very soon, into a planet-wide dark age of all humanity, a dark age which would be comparable to, but far worse than that which struck a Europe then under the rule of the Venetian-Norman ultramontane tyranny, during the middle of the Fourteenth Century. Now, either popular opinion and national leadership changes, especially in the keystone U.S.A. itself, or the world is now at the brink of a tumble into a general dark age of humanity globally.

In the recent upward-tending shift within leading strata of both the Democratic and Republican parties, we see a reflection of a seismic-like shift in political currents, a shift which reflects an impulse away from the planetary "dark age" expressed by the U.S. Bush-Cheney Administration's morally degenerating impulses. We have thus entered a phase in current history, during which, the coordinated rise in cultural optimism among both leaders and general population, is the only immediate prospect for survival of global civilization at this juncture.

The success of that hopeful impulse now being awakened among our political leadership and population, depends upon our ability to adopt policies which correspond to a multi-generational perspective for global reconstruction of a type which the combination of onrushing present catastrophes and opportunities requires.

This situation requires the presentation and adoption of a quality of long-ranging strategic outlook which goes beyond what was more or less sufficient for our needs in past times.

A New Kind of Strategic Perspective

The type of crucial problem thus posed to us now, is the same matter posed to the ancient Classical Greeks by their Egyptian hosts: "You Greeks are a promising young lot, but, the fault with you is that you have no truly old men among you." I, for example, am several thousand years old as a personality, as measured in terms of what I perceive as my actually immediate self-interests. That means, that to define the multi-generational perspective our situation now immediately requires, I must say the following to you. I must say, that my experience of life has shown me, that to define my personal self-interest, I must rise up out of my skin, so to speak, to see myself as essentially an immortal being whose incarnation is of the very limited duration of an individual biological life-time, but whose conscious experience and actual self-interest, that which makes me human, is no less than thousands of years old, and responsible for the chain-reaction-like, dynamic effect of the ideas which I represent, on the outcome of thousands of years to come.

This sense of individual experience and self-interest, reaching far into past and future alike, is the essential precondition of consciousness which must be cultivated, especially among the leaders of our society, but also a consciousness spilling over into the general population at large.

The idea which I have just, thus, expressed was presented by the great modern historian and playwright, Friedrich Schiller, both in his increasingly refined crafting of his dramas, and, explicitly, in his lectures as an historian at the University of Jena. Look at the concept of the necessity of becoming a very old man, thousands of years old intellectually, in the sense that I am thousands of years old in that which is essentially me. To this purpose, let us now replicate the gist of Schiller's argument, by bringing together two distinguishable qualities of experience of the literate adult member of our society: science and Classical art.

The ideas of science to which I have referred repeatedly here, represent a skein of development of the human mind over more than several thousands of years of, chiefly, ancient through modern European civilization. The quality of practice which distinguishes us from the mere beasts, is not that repetition of so-called practical forms of learned behavioral practices from father and mother to son and daughter; in that, the excessively traditionalist human individual appears to mimic the beasts. What expresses us as human, rather than monkeys, is that we willfully change our culture to the effect of increasing man's power, per capita and per square kilometer, in the universe. To be human, is to change in specific quality of the way of life, from generation through generation, that to such effect that the numbers, typical longevity, and intellectual power of the individual in and over the universe we inhabit, is increased, hopefully, from generation to generation.

Typically, many among the immigrants to the U.S.A. from Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century Europe and elsewhere, looked at their lives, and those who would become their children and grandchildren in that way. "Our existence now is building a better world for those to come after us." After all, that is the New Testament parable of the talents; therefore, the idea should not be strange to us, but a richer apprehension of its meaning for practice should be required of our government, and the relevant leading intellectual circles of our society.

What is true for science, so defined, is also the functional characteristic of Classical culture, as opposed to today's relatively bestialized modes in so-called popular cultures. Classical culture does not despise what it distinguishes as viable elements of popular culture, but as great Classical musical composers have done, transforms, and, in that sense, apotheosizes the popular culture's best fruits to the advantage of future generations, and for the ennoblement of the ordinary individual in society today. So, Antonin Dvor@akák and Harry Burleigh led in the apotheosis of the Negro Spiritual, as Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, and Brahms had worked to similar effect with the folk music bequeathed to their time.

The relatively simplest illustration of the point I have just made, is provided by Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound, the middle portion of Aeschylus' Prometheus trilogy. There, Aeschylus provides us a conception of the evil which the cult of the Delphic Apollo and the Olympian gods represented, as the deadly enemies from within, of the culture of ancient Greece.

The issue posed by the Prometheus trilogy, is the Olympian Zeus' satanic-like determination to prevent man from exercising that quality of the human mind which distinguishes the life of the human species from that of the beasts. Zeus, like the Physiocrat Dr. Quesnay and the plagiarist of Quesnay, Lord Shelburne's lackey Adam Smith, awarded the presumed magical powers of title to property to the master (e.g., Locke's "property right" or Justice Antonin Scalia's more radically positivist corruption, termed "shareholder value"), and assigned the fate of cattle to those persons who actually produced the wealth, whom the owner of a people treated as Quesnay's serfs of the estate, wealth harvested as the presumed magically arbitrary right of the nominal "owner," who had often, in fact, gained title by Enron-like or other modes of legalized theft, or simply by murder. Under the reign of the beast-men such as Zeus, Quesnay, and the owner of that nasty, misanthropic plagiarist Adam Smith, the cattle—the serfs—must not change their ways from that which was bestowed upon them as ways passed down from one generation of beasts to another.

Notably, this notion of property-right by John Locke, Mandeville, Quesnay, and as seen by the Karl Marx who was duped into admiring the babblings of Lord Shelburne's lackey Adam Smith, is explicitly contrary to both natural law, and to the same principle of natural law, the superior authority of the principle of "the general welfare," which is the pivotal distinction of the U.S. Federal Constitution over the inferior notions of law, or simply lack of principled law, among the constitutions of Europe still today.

The brutal tyrant Zeus shared, thus, with fascist Nietzsche's Dionysius, the position of the satanic god of the malthusian "environmentalists," from ancient Greece to the present day.

Look at this problem, the way in which societies tend to define, or, more often, misdefine their perceived strategic interest, from two complementary standpoints.

The crucial difficulty which cripples entire national cultures, and individuals, today, is that that quality of human existence which distinguishes the human individual from the beast, is a quality which is seldom to be found in today's conventional education in mathematics, economics, and rarely even in the contemporary practice of Classical art. It is found nowhere in today's customary professional and other teaching and related discussions of economics and economic policy. Yet, it is the quality which young Carl F. Gauss addressed in the 1799 publication of his doctoral dissertation, wherein he exposed the intrinsic incompetence in scientific method of such devotees of the black-magic specialist Isaac Newton as D'Alembert, Euler, and Lagrange. It is the subject to which I have devoted my principal life's work during more than the past five decades: the nature of that power of creative discovery of universal principles, which is the only principled intellectual and moral distinction of an all-too-typical ordinary mass-media editor of today from a Darwinian ape.

It is here, and only here, in this principle of essentially individual creativity viciously, systemically excluded by all of the essential implications of both modern Liberalism and fascism alike, that the functional immortality of the mortal human individual is to be found. It is the connection of today's individual mind to the reenactment of the great discoveries of physical and artistic principles of our predecessors, which is the only efficient basis for any individual's rational prescience of immortality, the only premise for those intimations of immortality expressed in the form of systemic argument by the dialogues of Plato and such Jewish Christian leaders as the Apostles John and Paul. That sense of history, which should be clear from reliving the struggles for development and against regression within the continuity of a European civilization traced from the ancient Greece of Thales, Solon, the Pythagoreans, Socrates, and Plato, and against the sundry reductionists who opposed them, is the knowledgeable basis in known European history for a scientifically provable sense of immortality today. That is the experience which affords us access to entry into the company of what the Egyptian counsellors of Solon et al. said must become the old men of our culture.

It is at that level of oversight, that the true nature of strategy can be accessed as knowledge. Now, focus briefly on the topical area of physical science.

The Notion of Power in Physical Science

To make the following argument clear to relevant specialists, I should emphasize that my work in the field of the science of physical economy includes not only the conceptions of physical economy which the founders of our Federal republic, such as Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, adopted from the work of Gottfried Leibniz, but also my own, added, original discoveries made initially during the 1948-1953 interval, and developed further since that time. Thus, in broad terms, what I define as physical economy, contains no disagreement with what Treasury Secretary Hamilton recognized as the science of the matter; but I have added discoveries, some specific to new Twentieth-Century developments in world economy, which have had a unique and presently indispensable relevance for the condition of the world today.

On account of that set of presently urgent scientific requirements, experience has shown me, that to develop competent strategic analysts from among today's population, it is indispensable to ground the education of persons qualified in that field, in an awareness that Euclidean geometry is, chiefly, sprigs cut from valid European science, and then grafted onto the controlling, axiomatic root of a Babylonian misconception of the nature of the universe.

That is to say, that the principal understructure of the valid discoveries of ancient Greek science was fully, and correctly established prior to both Aristotle and Euclid. What has been passed off upon us as Euclidean geometry and its modernist derivatives, for example, was a backward-turning reaction in science, a backward-turning revision which took the form of chips hacked off from the earlier, original development of a Classical Greek science, as of the Pythagoreans, and pasted, like pieces of mosaic, onto a virtual "Flat Earth" type of Babylonian cult.

As Thales, the Pythagoreans, Socrates, Plato, and other such understood, to understand the universe in which we live, we should ground our approach to understanding the phenomena of that universe, by beginning with the only proper definition of universals available. This meant adopting the view of the stellar sky of a sea-going maritime culture, and mapping the observed processes in those heavens as within a great spheroid of indefinitely large diameter: implicitly a finite, self-bounded universe, bounded by what were discoverable by mankind as universal physical principles. Hence, we may say, with special deference to Johannes Kepler, Gottfried Leibniz, Carl F. Gauss, and Bernhard Riemann, and a qualified nod to Albert Einstein, today: a universe which is "axiomatically" finite and self-bounded.

This method of science, which the Classical Greeks attributed to the Egyptians whose astronomy showed that they themselves were an earlier cultural offshoot of ancient maritime cultures, was known among the relevant Greeks as Sphaerics. All of the essential features of a modern science of physical economy are derived from this ancient root: over the processes of an intervening thousands of years.

This legacy of the ancient Pythagoreans, Plato, et al., was revived in modern Europe by Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa's works founding modern experimental physical science, such as his De Docta Ignorantia. From such explicit followers of Cusa as Kepler, modern European physical science emerged, leading through the work of Fermat and Leibniz, into such notable leading followers as the Carl Gauss and Riemann whose successive development of the functional conception of hypergeometries implicitly returned mathematical physics absolutely to a form of Sphaerics embodying modern physical science generally, and a view of our universe as Riemann read Dirichlet's Principle, as finite and self-bounded.

The contrary, Babylonian, view, as mediated into ancient Greek and Roman cultures by the Delphi Apollo cult, presents us with a "Flat Earth," rectilinear image of the universe. That is to emphasize, that the Delphic form of corruption represented by Euclid's Elements, starts with a set of definitions, axioms, and postulates which defines the mathematical germ of the Euclidean universe as an ideal, zero-curvature (i.e., "flat"), rectilinear surface—a "Flat Earth" universe.

This notion of Euclid's point of view as "Flat Earth"-oriented, is a fact which ought to be recognized by any student who encounters a standard elementary first course in the integral calculus after having been misdirected by the conventional presentation of a Cartesian analytical geometry and a differential calculus premised on a Cartesian sort of mechanistic misconception of the universe proffered by the Delphic hoaxster Cauchy. The alleged, but actually, ontologically non-existent interchangeability between spherical and rectilinear functions is crucial. The eeriness the student should experience about such exposure to such ontological dualism in the standard instruction in the integral calculus, is left unclear until the student returns to examine some elementary matters successfully attacked by the Pythagoreans and their followers among the circles of Socrates and Plato.

When the neo-Cartesian calculus of Augustin Cauchy is viewed against the background of Carl Gauss's 1799 publication of his doctoral dissertation exposing the hoaxes of D'Alembert, Euler, Lagrange, et al., the origin of the epistemological crises wracking the disputes within modern physical science and mathematics is readily tracked to their essential epistemological/ontological sources.

The key to such needed prophylactic measures in education, is to approach the idea of a geometry of the physical universe, rather than a purely mathematical one. The subject must be approached from the standpoint of Sphaerics as taught and practiced by the Pythagoreans. This means to recognize the correlation between three classes of constructions and the adumbration of those constructions as effects seen in the mere shadow-land of the number field. I.e., rational, irrational, and transcendental numbers. The crucial experiment which takes us to the heart of the issue, is the case of the construction of the doubling of the cube by no means other than construction; this introduces us to the identity of the form of action which defines the actuality, the efficient existence of what is represented as the complex domain.

Take the Pythagorean Archytas' unique solution for constructing a cube of precisely double the volume of a given cube [Figure 1]. This construction is based entirely on the method of Sphaerics. The crucial feature of Archytas' proof by construction is the Classical notion of what modern Classical tradition terms powers (English) or Kraft (Leibniz's German), or in ancient Classical Greek of the Pythagoreans, Socrates, and Plato, dynamis. All competent scientific practice, from ancient Greek science to the present time, is based upon a rejection, as false and absurd, of the notion that required proof of principle is supplied through the methods of so-called deduction/induction, and a reliance, instead, upon generation of changes in effects by experimental methods of construction. As the great Eratosthenes later emphasized, the doubling of the cube by Archytas has a special place of pedagogical importance in that picture as a whole.

For example, as stated elsewhere, the rudiments of ancient and modern mathematics are defined by review of the intersection of the two ways in which the notion of rational, irrational, and transcendental numberings may be viewed. One, from the standpoint of qualitative differences in geometrical construction, and the other the interpretation of orderings along a number-line. From the Classical Greek standpoint of the Pythagoreans, et al., these distinctions are simply defined by the ontological differences, as defined by construction, among point, line, surface, and solid.

Thus, the notion of transcendentals, as simply illustrated by the algebraic problem of defining cubic roots, was already defined conclusively by the work of Archytas, Theaetetus, et al. in treating solids, whereas the modern empiricists, such as the Delphic Euler and Lambert, considered the same challenge unsolved until the doubtful claims to originality on this matter by Hermite and Lindemann in the Nineteenth Century.

It is typical of modern academic empiricists and the like, to create a great fuss of mystification about problems which are properly addressed as elementary, such as the doubling of the cube or ordering of regular solids, when approached from the elegant standpoint of physical-geometrical powers of spherical functions, rather than blundering into the numerological quicksand, the virtual Babylonian captivity which is the realm of the wild-eyed statistical and related cults in Babylonian (or, should we say, "babble-on-ian)," "Flat Earth" tradition. From the vantage-point of constructive methods applied within the framework of Sphaerics, all of the implications of the ontological differences among points, lines, surfaces, and solids, are clear, and higher propositions are properly approached from those Classical references as starting-points.

The most significant of those relevant systemic errors in popular, and even educated belief which bring nations to the edge of doom today, is the dwelling of the imagination of the typical mind of ordinary citizens and rulers alike in a kind of "Flat Earth" conception of the relationship of the society to the universe in which the society dwells. To make that same general point with greater precision, the typical way in which even most leading statesmen and relevant scholars approach the subject of social processes generally, and political-economy specifically, is in terms of axiomatic assumptions consistent with the so-called Cartesian, or mechanistic world-outlook, an intellectually pathological outlook which is consistent with a Euclidean model of what is assumed to be an axiomatically rectilinear universe.

The distinction to be made is consistent with the notion of a mechanistic, or Cartesian world-outlook, as contrasted by Russia's scientist V.I. Vernadsky's definition of the Biosphere and Noösphere as dynamic, rather than Cartesian systems. The notion of dynamics, as located in Classical Greek science, is identified in modern science by Leibniz, and expressed for biological systems by Russia's V.I. Vernadsky.[4]

Strategy and Social Science

As I have situated the place of the mind of the individual scientist, as a working scientist, treating the subject-matters of ostensibly abiotic and living processes respectively as V.I. Vernadsky defined the distinctions of and interactions among the abiotic domain, Biosphere, and Noösphere, physical science points to the activity of the sovereign individual human being, such as a scientist, considering the objects represented by non-living and living qualities of processes. When that inquiry is shifted but slightly, to consider the role of the human individual mind in considering man's social action, and the effects of man's social action on the domains of abiotic and living processes, we have shifted the quality of the individual mind's activity, from the domain of abiotic and living processes generally, to man's conscious management of the Noösphere. In this latter phase of human activity, all other science becomes a subject of social science, as "social science" should be defined in those kinds of terms of reference.

This brings the focus of this report back toward the starting-point, the deeper implications of my intention in composing what became my proposal for what President Reagan named the "SDI." This brings us to an interesting, and, as I shall now show, a very fruitful problem.

I have referenced Albert Einstein's adoption of the matured view, that Kepler's and Riemann's conception of the universe had been correct, relative to all proposed modern alternatives. Yet, while I am sympathetic to his definition of the universe of Kepler and Riemann as "finite but unbounded," I insisted on correcting that statement to "finite and self-bounded." Perhaps Einstein would have accepted my correction; but, perhaps not. Similarly, where Vernadsky proclaimed that the universe of the Biosphere and Noösphere is Riemannian, I have definite evidence that his understanding of the term "Riemannian" was only partial, and crucially inadequate.

In a universe in which the typical systems of belief of individuals and society conform to what I have once again described, in the preceding chapter here, as a "fishbowl" syndrome of the typical mind, or the typical culture, there always remain confining, ideological boundaries, beyond which adopted mental world-outlooks, even to the degree they do not contain explicitly false axiomatic assumptions, are in error by default. For reasons of no other kind of fault than such omissions, the minds so delimited in perspective are defined by a barrier whose existence is more or less invisible to the believer.

Barriers of the type which I have indicated that I have detected for the cases of Einstein and Vernadsky, point to the absence of the act of making a necessary discovery of some universal physical principle. Thus, in understanding individuals and entire cultures, we must take two kinds of barriers into account. On the one side, a false belief in an assumed principle, such as the Babylonian hoax intrinsic to Euclidean geometry; on the other side, the lack of knowledge of a universal principle of relevance to society at a given point in the development of its culture.

In the case of Einstein, he had come into a time in which the more vigorous scientific culture in which he had been educated at the time of his famous treatment of the subjects of relativity, the age of Max Planck's discovery of his famous principle, had lapsed, in which the radical positivism of the brutishly savage followers of Ernst Mach had come to dominate the science establishment of the German-speaking and other parts of the world, such that, by the period of the 1920s Solvay conferences, the more advanced culture of Einstein's young manhood had been replaced by a lunatic positivist fanaticism converging upon the extremes of the followers of the thoroughly satanic Bertrand Russell.

Those circumstances of Einstein's later life, were compounded for an Einstein who had enjoyed performing with his violin at the famous synagogue of Berlin, which enjoyed the collaboration of the great conductor Wilhelm Furtwängler, an Einstein cast on the seas by a nightmare world, to land in Princeton as a refugee almost from the currently fashionable mainstream of science itself. The case of Einstein's association with a Kurt Gödel devoutly hated by the circles of Bertrand Russell represented by John von Neumann, typifies the environment of the immediate post-World War II period. For a scientist, the lack of a relevant cultural environment for the practice of science, especially as he or she becomes older, is a relatively crippling burden. Doubtless, in a more amiable environment, Einstein's proposition respecting Kepler and Riemann, would have been fruitfully resonant among a younger, rising generation of intellectual ferment.

The assumption that he might have agreed with my correction, remains a matter of interesting speculation, but no more than that, to the best of information I have received.

In the relevant aspects of the work of Vernadsky, on which I have reflected, again and again, over decades, a similar problem arises. In this case, the limitations on what I could properly attribute to Vernadsky bear directly on the principal subject-matter of this review. I explain, as follows.

Vernadsky affirms the existence of three distinct ontological states, as physical phase-spaces of the physical universe: the abiotic, the Biosphere, and the Noösphere. Implicitly, his argument requires a fourth. The element of confusion in his otherwise correct perception of the Biosphere and Noösphere as Riemannian, prevents me from assuming that Vernadsky understood the implications of the fourth domain which I recognize as implicit in his clear apprehension of the other three phase-spaces. This subject of the "fourth domain" has prompted some excited debate among my young collaborators.

The sum of Vernadsky's work, beginning with his experimentally based definition of the Biosphere, had already eliminated outstanding claims of those who would attempt to show that all physical processes in the universe could, and must be "explained" in terms of a reductionist map of an abiotic universe. After Vernadsky's evidence, in particular, anyone, such as today's typical radical empiricist, who professed to explain living processes as an evolutionary outgrowth of non-living ones, is to be classed as a quack of the same general type as the Professor Norbert Wiener and John von Neumann who enjoyed the distinction of being justly kicked out of Göttingen University for stubborn incompetence on this point, and, in the case of von Neumann, darker disqualifications, that conferred by no less than Professor David Hilbert.

Vernadsky showed, through a mass of evidence, that the same degree of distinction of living processes (e.g., the Biosphere) from merely abiotic processes, prevailed for the superiority of human intellectual activity (the Noösphere) over merely living processes. However, coherence in method should have impelled Vernadsky to insist upon a fourth domain, higher than the Noösphere, to account for the existence of the Noösphere, the domain of human immortality: not exactly the kind of idea which would have been popular in the Soviet land of "diamat" and "histomat."

In the matter of religion, there is little doubt that Vernadsky did believe implicitly in a "fourth domain," but there is no evidence which points me to see him as arguing that from other than a religious standpoint.

Thus, in the case of important implications which I see in the work of Vernadsky, as in the work of Einstein, there are certain barriers to be recognized. Did each, or not, go to what I foresee as the next higher conclusion implied in what they did assert and prove? As a general matter of policy, such problems are typical of all cultures and their internal development. Even after we might have eliminated all erroneous assertions of alleged principle, the picture of the universe known to the mind of any society is always incomplete, or, shall we prefer "uncompleted"?

That limitation being the case, how is it possible for society, or a group of societies, to achieve efficiently rational, long-term agreement on the general form of common policies of practice? The idea of a long-term strategy of deepening cooperation among nations of different cultures, depends upon the actual existence of a potential solution to that question.

The Existence of the 'Fourth Domain'

If, as the evidence presented by Vernadsky has proven, conclusively, that instead of the prevalent classroom opinion that the universe is composed of one, all-inclusive physical science, which mankind inhabits, there are three respectively distinct domains of experimental subject-matters in physical science, of which the abiotic domain of non-living matter is the lowest, what, then, should we recognize as "the laws of the universe"?

Within the historical bounds of known European civilization, the worst present-day view of man's universe is found in sundry varieties of what are known as Gnosticism, of which the most relevant for our attention here is the following.

In that form, the question itself assumes the form of a theological proposition. Therefore, in the true spirit of science, let us assume that the subject does coincide with an ontological principle of theology. Take, for example, the attack on Aristotle's famous insult against God, for which Aristotle was taken to task, posthumously, by Philo of Alexandria.

As a matter of an important, relevant technological point on economics from the department of theology, the typical Gnostic view, locates God outside the universe, thus more or less explicitly consigning authority over the world of mortal persons to Satan. ("God may run the universe, but the Mafia boss runs my neighborhood.") This presumption, which is common to the reductionist approach to theology, is typified by the notorious hoaxster Claudius Ptolemy as his perverted view of a permanent astronomical order. The argument which Philo demolished, is that if God is perfect, and therefore made only Perfect creations, God can not meddle with the universe once his Perfectly Predetermined Will has set it Perfectly into motion.

Hence, that Roman Empire ideologue, Ptolemy, was arguing, that either God's intention is imperfect, or, the evil in the world must be the work of some allowed lesser being, Satan, against which God's own Perfection prevents him from intervening. So, the gamblers of the world, knowing this, appeal to Satan. So, the Mont Pelerin Society's and American Enterprise Institute's choice of Bernard Mandeville, as a little bit of Satan himself, defined the benefits of economy to entire societies as depending upon the providence of, Enron-style, private practice of vice.

The competent epistemologist would retort gruffly to all such nonsense of Aristotle, by merely arguing summarily that Aristotle either simply did not know what Perfection is, or was lying about it all, as the priests of Apollo were wont to do. Heraclitus and Plato, for example, would insist that nothing is perfect but change. Indeed, that is what the successful practice of physical science has demonstrated, and also the success of mankind's effort to maintain and increase the potential relative population-density of the human species through the benefits of scientific and related processes of change.

In the relevant, related case, it would be evident to those familiar with Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound, that Zeus was a raving and ranting, full-blooded "malthusian," who was dead set against any form of human progress. Thus, it should be apparent that Claudius Ptolemy's chatter about a fixed order in the knowable universe is, at its best, tantamount to typically Gnostic, Satanic propaganda against God. The cases of the claims of Zeus' Olympian crew, to be gods, was clearly a case of a consumer fraud. No sane person could say that such pretended gods were "good," since they were never gods at all, but according to the Roman chronicler Diodorus Siculus, only creatures in a wicked fairy-tale version of the personalities later described as the very nasty, real-life Olympians: a collection of parricides, children of the concubine Olympia from the region of northern Morocco. Such were those pagan gods of Greece who edify the credulous silly children of today!

Apart from being pro-Satanic in that sense, the Aristotelean argument employed by Ptolemy for a fixed and perfect Creation, is premised on a principled hostility to accepting the practical difference between a human being and a monkey. When a universal, efficient physical principle of Creation is posed, as the Pythagoreans defined powers, the idea of Creation is not allowed by the reductionist standpoint associated with Euclidean geometry employed by Ptolemy and his duped followers. Creation as a scientific conception, exists only from the vantage-point typified by Sphaerics; the problem of defining a universal process of Creation, leads us to the form of apparent paradox which I have just described for the cases of Einstein and Vernadsky.

The requirement of the notion of a Fourth Domain, as implicit in Vernadsky's argument, as I have identified this above, arises as a necessary conception of science in the following way.

In the matter of life, the dynamic characteristics of a plenum of living processes, the Biosphere, involve the qualities of matter associated with the abiotic domain, but are configured as processes in ways which do not occur within the bounds of the abiotic domain as such. As Vernadsky emphasizes, the experimental evidence demonstrates that this does not involve pairwise-ordered mechanical interactions, but rather a different quality of relationship within, and characteristic of the living process as a whole, a quality of process-relationship to which Leibniz had assigned the name dynamic, signifying the Pythagorean dynamis, in exposing the essential incompetence of the attempted practice, based on mechanics, of a physics by Descartes.[5] A similar argument against Newtonian optics, was made by Fresnel, Arago, et al., in exploding the myth of Newton's doctrine experimentally.

Thus, the Biosphere represents a principle of organization of processes, the principle of life per se, which does not exist in the domain of what are accounted as non-living processes. The processes of the Biosphere can not be derived from within the quality of the non-living processes usually classed under the heading of "inorganic physics." This distinguishing principle does not lie within the process of living matter; rather, there is a principle which creates the process of living matter, by acting upon it, and upon its inorganic environment, to such effect that only life as a principle produces life in particular.

Thus, to account for living processes, we must find the principle operating, as if from above, on what we regard as the living process itself.

A comparable case arises in the category of the Noösphere. The Noösphere is dynamically ordered in the general sense of the application of the term dynamic to the Biosphere, but the nature of the principle is different. Here, the difference is human individual cognition, a phenomenon which is manifest to us in the form of experimental knowledge, but known only as a quality of the human individual mind. It is the dynamic generated within social processes on the basis of cognition's occurrence as a uniquely sovereign quality of the living human individual, which defines the ordering. In other words, characteristic human behavior is limited to action expressed thus to the degree that relations among persons are ordered as interactions according to the principle of specifically individual cognition occurring in each participant in that process. The action of cognition within the individual mind is expressed socially, once again, as what the Pythagoreans defined as powers (dynamis).

The most relevant characteristic of mankind, contrary to the desperate screams of protest from the racists, is the demonstrated fact that differences in intellectual potential among persons can not be defined "racially," but only in terms of well-being and development of the cognitive powers. There are no superior races, but only morally or intellectually inferior individuals, distinguished as such without regard to "race." It is not living processes as such which generate the human capability of reason, which sets mankind apart from and above all other forms of life. There is a higher principle which subsumes mankind, ontologically, which selects man as a species not to be a monkey or higher ape.

The consequence of this is, as the famous aphorism of Heraclitus runs, "nothing is permanent but change." It is qualitative changes in the process which are ordered according to the principle of generation of new existences by means of powers, as illustrated by the case of the discovery of the doubling of the cube by construction, which define the characteristics of the experienced universe by virtue of the occurrence, or relevant non-occurrence of the quality of action that notion of powers conveys. Such is the image of the human individual as made in the likeness of the Creator. Man knows that Creator as man knows that he and she are made in the functional likeness of that Creator, that by recognizing the limitation of the prevalence and persistence of the indicated powers to the individual mind of the member of the human species, a power absent from the species of beasts.

In between man and the Creator, there is a universal principle, not contained within man as an expression of any ordinary physical principle of living creatures in general, which defines the generality of mankind as a mortal creature with certain immortal potentialities for action. This in-betweenness defines a "Fourth Domain," one step up from the mortal man of Vernadsky's Noösphere. Just as Life defines the Biosphere, so the "Fourth Domain" defines the Noösphere.

Such is the essence of the Classical method of dynamis associated with the Pythagoreans, Socrates, Plato, et al. Such is the Classical significance of man and woman made equally in the likeness of the Creator. It is the sharing of the expression of these powers in social processes, which defines the nature of the individual person within that social process, that society. It is the generation of valid creativity within such a social process, which exerts its power over both contemporary society, and, more profoundly, successive generations spanning millennia, which defines the quality of action in society by which the immortal role of the mortal human individual is expressed.

The principles of life and cognition, respectively, are principles inhering in the universe. They express themselves under relevant preconditions, in this or that locality. To restate the implications of that point: They are neither epiphenomena of living processes, nor the existence of the human biological form; they are universal principles whose action appropriate conditions arouse.

Thus, this principle of cognition, as it subsumes the development of the individual within society, within history, is the expression of "The Fourth Domain." The Fourth Domain represents a universal principle of action, as life, as, analogously, the principle which subsumes living processes. This view is opposed to the expression of the curious, logical-positivist or related forms of reductionist dogmas copied by the dupes of "intelligent design," in terms of individual processes determining chemically the origin of life. Intelligence is not some Arrhenius nightmare of spores sprinkled around space; intelligence is a universal creative principle, which divides man categorically, absolutely, from the beasts.

It was wrestling with the considerations implied by the foregoing concept of a "Fourth Domain," as required by my work on a Leibnizian science of physical economy up to about 1950-1951, which prompted my several months' intense occupation with the implication of George Cantor's Grundlagen and related work on transfinite mathematical orderings. Encounter with what was for me a painful feature of Cantor's later work, impelled me to return my attention to Riemann, this time, showing more care than I had mustered in treating some of Riemann's work earlier. The motive of these treatments of work of Cantor and Riemann, was precisely what I have just identified here as the matter of the "Fourth Domain."

Cantor was a remarkable personality, a distinguished amateur violinist from the extended very musical family of Beethoven's preferred Josef Böhm, and a fertile, and sometimes most brilliant genius in his best moments. However, there were also some problems which have haunted the discussion of Cantor's work among scientists, since a certain incident involving Cardinal J.B. Franzelin at the close of the 1880s, and continued in an aggravated way through the end of Cantor's life. In discussing the important work which Cantor actually accomplished, we can properly defend his achievements only by refusing, as I do again, here, to evade the problematic aspects to be taken into account.

There were two leading problems to be noted here, as a word of caution to my readers, respecting my encounter with Cantor's work. First, for me, there are problematic features of the work of Karl Weierstrass and Cantor in respect to the standpoint of Riemann. Second, more significantly, the crippling episodes of insanity following the publication of his Grundlagen and the correspondence on that work's content, insanity fostered by the hideous persecution of Cantor by the savage Leopold Kronecker and massive corrupting influence steered from the circles associated with the theosophists and Bertrand Russell's circles in London. The acutely embarrassing incident of Cantor's 1886 correspondence with Cardinal J.B. Franzelin in Rome, and the related matter of the influence of Rudolf Steiner, are particularly notable.[6]

Those and kindred other problems aside, I found his conception of the transfinite inspiring, but not his troubled 1895-1897 work on the subject. Despite the painful failures of Cantor's explorations of theology, if we look at his concept of the transfinite from the vantage-point of the work of Dirichlet and Riemann, it becomes the prompting of one of the most powerful epistemological conceptions in science. With those qualifications imposed, it provides a useful imagery for the concept of "The Fourth Domain."

Freed of the aberrations into which Cantor was lured by the sundry, aversive agencies targetting him, the concept of the ontologically transfinite points to the existence of efficient, universal processes which are not characterized by a single adducible principle, such as of the form of a deductive-mathematical principle, but a higher ordering of a succession of principles, in the same general upward direction as Sphaerics defines the constructive series of qualitatively distinct states of what are termed respectively as rational, irrational. and transcendental numberings. In the case of Cantor, he did understand this conception as a continuation of the line of thought of such geniuses of the Platonic Academy as Eratosthenes, but when he lost his earlier contact with the creative powers which had given him this insight, he still remembered the form of his earlier discovery. But, through the effects of reductionists' various forms of harassment against him, as merely typified in variety by Kronecker and the theosophist Rudolf Steiner, Cantor often "lost contact" with the very creative mental powers within himself which he had expressed in his Grundlagen and his correspondence on the subject of that Grundlagen.

As the 1895-1897 work attests, he remembered the form of the discovery, but as his dedication to the 1895 Beiträge ... attests, he had lost memory of the powers of creative insight which had enabled him to generate the original discovery.[7] Such ossification of the mental powers of a once brilliant discoverer, belongs under the heading of Dr. Lawrence Kubie's treatments of the "Neurotic Distortion of the Creative Process,"[8] a syndrome under which classification we have the legendary all-too-typical professor reading his same old, original lecture-notes from a pack of file cards for two generations of students to come.

Nonetheless, once we take into account the prevalent pathologies of our time, the notion of transfiniteness to which Cantor contributed, does afford us access to a solution for the problem of defining strategy which I am addressing here. Some further consideration of the practical political implications of the concept of the transfinite will lead us to presenting that solution.

Two essential steps are required. First, we must focus on the need to purge the list of what passes for generally accepted axiomatic beliefs, to reduce the list of categorical assumptions to a number which admittedly is not sufficient to account for the universe we inhabit. Thus, we are still living intellectually inside a virtual "fishbowl," but we have then cleaned out much of the customary rubbish accumulated in that habitation. Second, since we recognize that we must expand the bounds of the fishbowl, in our efforts to bring our conception of the universe, outwards from within our fishbowl, more and more into conformity with the real universe beyond the bounds of that fishbowl, we are confronted with the thought that there are many successive discoveries of universals yet to be made. The resulting question posed to us, is: How can we orient society, so that society is moving in an appropriate direction, through successive phases of endlessly expanding the relative scope of that fishbowl within the real universe at large?

That proposition confronts us with the general reality of the transfinite. How much can we know, therefore, about the way in which a series of yet-unknown discoveries of principle are likely to be ordered? This thought returns us to the general topic under which this present report as a whole is subsumed: How can we define a strategy governing relations among nations of differing specific cultures with that challenge in view? How does that apply to my proposal for that which President Reagan identified as his SDI?

Implications of the Transfinite

The crucial challenge posed by the need for a sweeping reform of U.S. educational policy today, is to ground young adults, and, hopefully, also younger pupils, in the kind of education on constructive geometry which I have emphasized in my references here thus far.

The current problem is, that the generation born after 1945 has been so heavily indoctrinated in the kind of sophistry associated with the programs of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, that, a certain modest incidence of exceptions taken into account, there is no general standard of relative rationality in today's Baby Boomer generation as a generation. The degree of sophistry prevalent today in the U.S.A. and Europe is even worse, from a clinical standpoint, than that of the Athens of the time of the Peloponnesian War and Aristotle. As I have already stressed, the effect of the mass-brainwashing of a generation of the children of the 1950s "White Collar generation," was expressed in the extreme by such features of the "rock-drug-sex youth-counterculture" as the Weatherman "creative violence," terrorist cult and the "Rainbow Coalition" of the 1970s. These phenomena were the vanguard formation of the growing popular mass-base for the destruction of the U.S. and European economies which has reduced the United States itself to a pleasure-domed, spreading, bankrupt mass of rubble today.

Typical of the decadence of that "lost generation," is the prevalence of the purely cult-like, almost brainless way of saying, "We are giving you information," a cult-behavior phenomenon spread from centers such as the Josiah Macy, Jr. Foundation's "cybernetics" program, to become a currently popular standard recipe for classroom and other public functions today. This is a form of radical sophistry beyond the degree of degradation recorded from the relevant period of ancient Athens, with an Iraq War which might have been cooked up by a Thrasymachus of that ancient time. As a result, there simply is no prevalent standard which compels truthful speech within the generality of the presently adult population born after 1945.

Most of what is believed by those generations among us, is usually a lie; it passes for information whose meaning lies in the choice of "spin" the next liar interprets from the lying utterance of the previous speaker, or popular newspaper or television broadcast. Sheer sophistry in an extreme which might astonish even the typically corrupt citizen of Pericles' "Golden Imperial Age" of Athens, has been a current characteristic of the culture of the U.S.A. and Europe in the transition of the shift of the center of power of opinion from my generation and its predecessor, to the so-called "Baby Boomer" generation of 68er notoriety.

A viciously lying Vice-President, and warrior of multiply deferred personal honor, Cheney, and his crew, are not the only compulsive liars in the lot. All sorts of public officials, including notable instances of actions by Federal judges, and entire sections of Executive branch agencies, are typical of this rampant moral decadence. The criminals, like Cheney, tell the lies they tell, while a President appears simply not to see the difference between truth and lies amid what is coming out of his own mouth; and the credulous, even in high places, pretend that what the liars have said must be respected as if it were truth, even when they have the evidence to show them it was all a lie.

Therefore, how does one educate the offspring of that "lost generation" of rabid sophists which the Congress of Cultural Freedom produced? How do we accomplish this under today's prevalent social conditions? For me, the only remedy was "Back to Plato and the Pythagoreans!" Attack the mental disease on which the late Dr. Lawrence Kubie focussed his professional attention: the crushing of the potential for actual creativity even among once-promising young entrants into our universities who had shown genuine creative potential, until the educational system and related factors crushed the passion for creativity out of them.

Ask, then: How must we educate young adults and others under today's morally depraved state of prevalent popular opinion, of prevalent cultural pessimism, or such moral depravity seeking a worse depravity, not for the better, but because, like Vice-President Cheney's promotion of the