Executive Intelligence Review, Volume 46, Number 7, February 15, 2019

- Cover

- Masthead

- Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. 1922-2019, A Talent Well Spent

- EDITORIAL Man’s Fate by Tony Papert

- PDF edition Table of Contents — Volume 46, Number 7, February 15, 2019

- I. Science vs. Superstition

- The Green New Deal Is Fascist by Rachel Brown

- The ‘Finite but Unbounded’ Universe of Einstein, Planck, and LaRouche by Judy Hodgkiss

- II. Republic vs. Empire

- President Trump’s Poetic Call to Action In his State of the Union Address by Diane Sare

- AMERICAN COUNTER-INTELLIGENCE Time to End the Special Relationship with Britain by Robert Ingraham

- III. LaRouche’s Economics

- Systems Analysis Is White-Collar Genocide by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

- IN MEMORIAM Walter Jones: A Most Unusual Congressman— For the Common Good by Debra Hanania-Freeman and Paul Gallagher

LaRouche’s Economics:

‘Systems Analysis:

White-Collar Genocide’ (1981)

Editor-in-Chief and Founder:

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

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

Co-Editors: Robert Ingraham, Tony Papert

Technology: Marsha Freeman

Transcriptions: Katherine Notley

Ebooks: Richard Burden

Graphics: Alan Yue

Photos: Stuart Lewis

Circulation Manager: Stanley Ezrol

INTELLIGENCE DIRECTORS

Economics: Marcia Merry Baker, Paul Gallagher

History: Anton Chaitkin

Ibero-America: Dennis Small

United States: Debra Freeman

INTERNATIONAL BUREAUS

Berlin: Rainer Apel

Copenhagen: Tom Gillesberg

Lima: Sara Madueño

Melbourne: Robert Barwick

Mexico City: Gerardo Castilleja Chávez

New Delhi: Ramtanu Maitra

Paris: Christine Bierre

Stockholm: Ulf Sandmark

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

Washington, D.C.: William Jones

Wiesbaden: Göran Haglund

ON THE WEB

e-mail: eirns@larouchepub.com

www.larouchepub.com

www.executiveintelligencereview.com

www.larouchepub.com/eiw

Webmaster: John Sigerson

Assistant Webmaster: George Hollis

Editor, Arabic-language edition: Hussein Askary

EIR (ISSN 0273-6314) is published weekly

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

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

(571) 293-0935

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

Tel: 49-611-73650

Homepage: http://www.eir.de

e-mail: info@eir.de

Director: Georg Neudecker

Montreal, Canada: 514-461-1557

eir@eircanada.ca

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

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

Col. Agricultura C.P. 11360

Delegación M. Hidalgo, México D.F.

Tel. (5525) 5318-2301

eirmexico@gmail.com

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

Canada Post Publication Sales Agreement #40683579

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

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

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

1922-2019,

A Talent Well Spent

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., philosopher, scientist, poet, statesman, died on Tuesday, February 12, at the age of 96. It was Lincoln’s Birthday, an American President Lyndon LaRouche loved and celebrated in his writings.

Those who knew and loved Lyndon LaRouche know that humanity has suffered a great loss and, today, we dedicate ourselves anew to bring to reality the big ideas for which history will honor him. For those who did not know him or have only recently come to his ideas, there is no better guide to this unique personality than LaRouche himself.

Here is how he spoke about life here on Earth in a speech at a conference in 1988, in the midst of a political prosecution similar, in striking respects, to that which we encounter against an American president in the United States today:

There is no part of society, no constituency which does not have the same interests. There is no people of any nation that has any different interest than that of any other nation in this matter. We’re speaking of the future of hundreds of billions of unborn souls, without whose success our lives mean nothing. That is the common interest which unites each and every one of us, such that there is no distinction among any of us on this issue, on this cause, on this interest.

If we fight so, if we fight with love of humanity, by thinking especially of those hundreds of billions of souls waiting to be born, and thinking also of those whose martyrdom and other sacrifice gave us what was our potential and our debt to them, respecting what we pass on to the future. And we think of our lives not as something lived from moment to moment, but as a very small piece of experience, with a beginning, and not too much later, an end. And think of our lives not as things which are lived for pleasure in and of themselves, but as an opportunity to fulfill a purpose, a purpose which is reflected in what we bequeath to those hundreds of billions of souls waiting to be born, in their condition. Such that, if we at any point were to cut short our mortal life by spending it in a way, which ensured the cause of those hundreds of billions of souls yet to be born, we could walk to death with joy, because we had completed our life, fulfilled it. We might have been denied the chance of fulfilling it a little bit more, but nonetheless, we had fulfilled it. The joy of life, the true joy of life which relates to what the New Testament calls agapē in the original Greek, caritas in the Latin, and charity in the King James version, as referred to in I Corinthians 13, the quality of agapē the quality of charity, the quality of sacred love, which unites us as individuals with the hundreds of billions of unborn souls, for whose love we can give our lives, and who we can walk smiling with joy, knowing that in a sense, they love us, too, even though they’re yet to be born.

It gives a sense of the true importance of our lives, the true joy of being a living human being. And we must work with one another in the sense of that attitude toward humanity, historical humanity, humanity which, as a great family, which owes to its past generations, and the present owes to its future generations. The love uniting that family is, in the matter of works, the practical expression of faith, from which faith the strength to fight and win this war derives.

If we can do so, I am certain we shall win. I’m better than most at understanding the laws of nature and natural law generally, and understanding such recondite concepts as absolute time and things of that sort. And I can understand perhaps more readily than most, how faith expressed in this way, in a practical way, is assured of success. We are each little, we are each individual. But if we know we’re united, we’re united to this effect, then we know that what each of us as an individual does, in this united way, will be cause to prosper.

Thus, in this terrible moment of humanity, when civilization as we’ve known it for hundreds of years threatens to be removed from us, in the coming two to ten years or so, we have the risk of losing civilization. But we also have the possibility of a heroic solution to this crisis, of becoming generations, which, in our time, faced with the cup of Gethsemane, accepted it, and thus, perpetuated, in the imitation of Christ, the cause of the salvation of future souls.

One year later, after being sent to prison, on the occasion of Martin Luther King’s birthday, January 17, 1990, Lyndon LaRouche wrote:

Those of us who find ourselves in Gethsemane—a Gethsemane where we are told that we must take a role of leadership with our eye on Christ on the Cross—often experience something which, unfortunately, most people do not. We tend to look at things from a different standpoint. Before trying to situate how I see the recent period, and the period immediately before us, I should try to communicate what my viewpoint is, a viewpoint which I know is shared in some degree of very close approximation by everyone who has gone to Gethsemane with the view of the Cross in his eyes, saying, He did it, I am now being told that I must, too, walk in His way.

What I suggest often, in trying to explain this to a person who has not experienced it, is to say: Imagine a time 50 years after youre dead. Imagine in that moment, 50 years ahead, that you can become conscious and look back at the entirety of your mortal life, from its beginning to its ending. And, rather than seeing that mortal life as a succession of experiences, you see it as a unity. Imagine facing the question respecting that mortal life, asking: Was that life necessary in the total scheme of the universe and the existence of mankind, was it necessary that I be born in order to lead that life, the sum total of that number of years between birth and death? Did I do something, or did my living represent something, which was positively beneficial to present generations, and implicitly to future generations after me? If so, then I should have walked through that life with joy, knowing that every moment was precious to all mankind, because what I was doing by living was something that was needed by all mankind, something beneficial to all mankind.

Later, speaking about Martin Luther King’s unique genius in January of 2004, LaRouche said:

We’re all mortal. And to arouse in us the passions, while we’re alive, which will impel us to do good, we have to have a sense that our life, and the consuming of our life—the spending of our talent, is going to mean something for coming generations. The best people look for things—like Moses—that are going to happen, when he will no longer be around to enjoy them. It’s this sense of immortality. It’s why parents, in the best degree, sacrifice for their children. It’s why communities sacrifice for education, for their children, for opportunities for their children. You go through the pangs of suffering and shortage, but you have the sense that you’re going someplace, that your life is going to mean something. That you can die with a smile on your face: You’ve conquered death. You’ve spent your talent wisely, why life will mean something better for generations to come.

EDITORIAL

Man’s Fate

by Tony Papert

Feb. 10—Tomorrow, five days of intensive negotiations between U.S. and Chinese representatives will begin in Beijing. Despite rumors in the U.S. media of problems, China is optimistic that agreement will be reached on the world’s largest-ever economic deal—a “trade agreement” with the United States—sometime soon after.

At the same time, not just North Korea and the United States, but also South Korea, China and Russia, are all intensely involved in trying to ensure the success of President Trump’s peace summit with North Korea’s Chairman Kim on Feb. 27-28 in Hanoi.

China, India, Iran, Pakistan and Russia are negotiating with each other and the United States to try to ensure peace in Afghanistan after the U.S. eventually withdraws its troops. And, an overlapping group of countries is negotiating to ensure peace after the U.S. withdraws troops from Syria, a withdrawal which is now ongoing, and reportedly will be completed by the end of April.

London refuses to accept any of this, and many in Western Europe refuse to admit the significance of these developments, but after major changes in Russia and China around the turn of the new century, and now with the Trump Presidency in the United States, the world constellation of forces and ideas has undergone dizzying changes to the point that the national- and world-recovery plans of Lyndon LaRouche, which were apparently checkmated in the last century, are now suddenly practicable.

We are moving towards the new Westphalian world system of which Lyndon LaRouche has so often written—a world of perfectly sovereign nation-states, nations which willingly unite to achieve what LaRouche’s ally Edward Teller memorably called “the common aims of mankind.”

Although the superficial observer might think that Lyndon LaRouche was defeated and crushed in the 20th century—as the nation’s establishment media would have you believe—the experts and the first-hand observers understand that the ideas of the actually undefeated Lyndon LaRouche have been, and continue to be, crucially catalytic in bringing about this great, still-onrushing change through which we are living today.

The potential is great; yet the danger is that this process is not irreversible. Or at any rate, it is certainly not yet irreversible. The forces of the British Empire, now arrayed against this New Paradigm for humanity, will not simply walk away. We have seen, in the past, how Britain’s Edward VII contrived to launch the world’s worst-ever war to that date, World War I, in order to prevent his nightmare of the new, peaceful Westphalian system of co-development in Europe and Southwest Asia, as symbolized by the Berlin-to-Baghdad railway. We saw what happened to John Kennedy when he was beginning to work to complete Franklin Roosevelt’s mission, while reaching out to the Soviets, and sending Americans into outer space.

As Helga Zepp-LaRouche has often noted recently, the key link in the whole chain is the United States. If the United States brings Russia, China, and India together for a New Bretton Woods System, the adversary British Empire will be defeated. If our pro-British establishment were to succeed in its dream of reversing the 2016 U.S. election, then the peace dynamic we have seen over the past two and one-half years will end, and a bigger war, perhaps the last war, will soon start.

This is where you, the citizen, enter the picture. This is where you prove whether you, now, in 2019, measure up to the responsibility our founding fathers placed upon you almost a quarter of a millennium ago. It cannot be up to one man alone, to defeat every snare the adversary will set for him. It cannot be up to one man, alone, to master the economic and related policies which Lyndon LaRouche spent a lifetime developing.

As Aesop challenged, “Rhodes is here. Jump here!”

EIR Contents

www.larouchepub.com — Volume 46, Number 7, February 15, 2019

Cover This Week

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. in 1984.

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

2 Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. 1922-2019,

A Talent Well Spent

4 EDITORIAL

Man’s Fate

by Tony Papert

I. SCIENCE VS. SUPERSTITION

6 The Green New Deal Is Fascist

by Rachel Brown

10 The ‘Finite but Unbounded’ Universe of Einstein, Planck, and LaRouche

by Judy Hodgkiss

II. REPUBLIC VS. EMPIRE

19 President Trump’s Poetic Call to Action in his State of the Union Address

by Diane Sare

22 AMERICAN COUNTER-INTELLIGENCE

Time to End the Special Relationship with Britain

by Robert Ingraham

III. LAROUCHE’S ECONOMICS

36 Systems Analysis is White-Collar Genocide

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

December 22, 1981

60 IN MEMORIAM

Walter Jones: A Most Unusual Congressman—For the Common Good

by Debra Hanania-Freeman and Paul Gallagher

EIR will not produce an issue dated February 22, 2019. All subscriptions are by number of issues, not by calendar date.

I. Science vs. Superstition

The Green New Deal Is Fascist

by Rachel Brown

CC/GreenNewDeal_Presser

Freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (center) presents the Green New Deal, with Sen. Ed Markey (right), in front of the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. in February 2019.

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

Feb. 11—The only problem with the Green New Deal now being not-so-subtly inserted into the “fresh and new” narrative of “Resistance” followers like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (or destroyed Democrats like Elizabeth Warren), is that it’s not new, it has nothing to do with Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, and it’s inherently fascist. The actual policy construct had its origin in the “environmentalist movement” of Nazi supporters Prince Philip and Prince Bernhard, founders of the World Wildlife Fund and defenders of anti-human eugenics. This “movement” was forced onto the United States during the anti-technology “cultural revolution” of the 1960s and was reinvigorated by British puppet Barack Obama. This “movement” began the destruction of the physical economy we see today, and one which current advocates of the “Green New Deal” apparently intend to continue. In their narrative, fundamental scientific principles of how to achieve greater living standards for a majority of the population are not only ignored, but outlawed, and efforts are being made to brainwash a new generation of young climate zombies, who know nothing about science, but do not let their ignorance stand in the way of their obsession that there is a climate catastrophe.

Although many versions of the Green New Deal have been proposed, they all contain identical components of decarbonizing the U.S. economy, reverting to lower levels of energy technology, and condemning U.S. industry and agriculture to fatally destructive conditions. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has just proposed a budget dubbed “The Green New Deal,” which would mandate the New York State electric power generating sector to achieve 100 percent carbon-free energy production by 2040. Ocasio-Cortez’s Soros-backed proposal also calls for 100% of energy to be “zero-emission,” as well as for “upgrading” every building for “energy efficiency,” and eliminating carbon output “as much as technologically feasible” from transportation and infrastructure. It also claims to be capable of attaining the effect of “eliminating poverty.” How this would be done is apparently based on job creation by making buildings “energy efficient,” rebuilding our power grid, and building more solar/wind farms—and also proposals for taxation of higher incomes and increasing wages (generally considered different “topics”), which would have the same effect.

New Age Hocus-Pocus

What’s wrong with these proposals? The quality of life and access to resources for an individual in society are not based on simply having a job, or even a certain wage level, but are determined by the investments made by society to increase overall physical productivity throughout the nation, as achieved by implementation of scientific discoveries applied throughout the production process. Access to infrastructure of the highest technological level, to the highest possible modes of power production and distribution, to large-scale water management and forestation, and to scientific education, all increase the quality of labor, making each individual “laborer” more valuable and powerful, as properly understood through the Leibnizian—and Hamiltonian—notion of “labor power.” All current “Green New Deal” proposals condemn the population to perpetual low-quality levels of employment and deny the “laborer” access to his humanity through participation in a progressive, creative process.

USAF/Nadine Y. Barclay

Solar panels on 140 acres at Nellis Air Force Base near Las Vegas, Nevada.

CSAC

Wind turbines in Solano County, California.

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

The jobs created in a “Green New Deal” would exist in a process characterized by negative physical economic return, downshifting the level of energy-throughput in the economy and ensuring that future generations will inherit a world of poverty and decreasing resources. The technologies that the non- thinking “greenies” espouse as “renewable,” such as solar panels and windmills, require large amounts of production and high cost for a very small amount of electricity output. Then, because these technologies are cost inefficient, these energy sources are highly subsidized by taxpayers. People are paying to have negative-return energy technologies produced; a net loss for society!

This would ultimately mean genocide for the human population. From a truly humanist, scientific standpoint, the only rational basis for an economic driver program is to increase the quantity and quality of resources available per capita, at a higher rate of total “free energy” return, for the society taken as a whole. That is, the effort put in, to the output coming out—for basic processes of production of necessary components of the economy, required for sustaining human life at current conditions—must reach greater levels of efficiency, while the magnitude and quality of these components increases.

However, since 1979, the U.S. economy has failed to reach “break even” in the ratio of net physical output to input functions for basic processes. Look at the proportion of exports of manufactured goods to exports of services, for example. If higher levels of energy-flux density derived from known physical principles, such as nuclear fission and fusion power, are not made available to society, this process of decay of productive power and living standards will result in insufficient resources to maintain the human population.

The Scientific Basis for Economics

In discussing principles of economic advancement, Lyndon LaRouche has made frequent use of a term he coined, “energy-flux density.” As he states in his book, So, You Wish to Learn All About Economics?, “We measure . . . concentration of power as increase of energy-flux density. This measures the concentration of power per centimeter of movement, or per square meter of cross-section of action, or per cubic meter of volume of action.” This could be described in other words as “the increase of the power to accomplish work.” As a simple example, a knife blade concentrates power upon a small, focused area, enabling a higher proportion of power exerted, in this case human muscle power, to accomplish useful work.

LoC

Industrial use of electricity per person is about 17 times that of residential. Shown here is a large electric phosphate smelting furnace at a TVA chemical plant the Muscle Shoals area of Alabama in June 1942.

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

Physical energy-density, and the level of scientific principle achieved in the process of capturing or producing a given category of energy, for example, as from heat (solar), mechanical (wind), chemical (combustion), or atomic processes (nuclear fission and fusion), determine the effective quality of an energy source. Low energy-dense energy sources such as windmills and solar panels may appear to be sufficient—although not really—for basic household electricity purposes, but they cannot possibly achieve the high temperature requirements for production processes in a modern economy. For example, electricity use in the United States, per person employed in mining or manufacturing, is 8.3 kW, while only 0.5 kW is needed per person for basic residential purposes. It is indicative of the anti-industrial outlook of greenies, that they completely ignore this fact.

In fact, a vast increase in power production is what is needed to increase current living conditions and qualities of employment. To truly bring our national infrastructure up to the level required for 350 million people, commuting reasonably and safely, providing for goods to be moved efficiently for commerce, for environmental management of water resources and forests, and most importantly, for creating the conditions for the next necessary scientific breakthrough to be made, will require at least double our current electricity use per person. As determined by the nature of population growth and depletion of resources, if an economy is not moving forward, it’s going backwards.

The Current State of Affairs

Another glaring omission of the Green New Deal is the status of the currently decrepit London-centered global financial system. Had the authors of the current “green” proposals truly espoused genuine concern for the health of the U.S. economy and the well-being of the average citizen, this glaring element would not have been ignored. What is required for unwinding the currently unpayable mountains of fictitious debt, is the restoration of Franklin Roosevelt’s Glass-Steagall Act. Wall Street might hate the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall, but that’s just fine. The current Green New Deal proposal fails to address the fact that a complete reorganization of the financial system is required. It also includes proposals for the imposition of “carbon taxes” and “cap and trade” financial markets, all of which would both serve as simply more ways to siphon off wealth from actual producers, and ultimately enrich the people responsible for destroying the U.S. economy.

Ocasio-Cortez now finds it appropriate to publicly attack Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, yet ironically her policy bears its name. Her attacks on the original New Deal, as well as the proposals of her own Green New Deal, demonstrate her own stunning ignorance of the basic principles of economics.

National Archives

The Bonneville Power and Navigation Dam under construction on the Columbia River east of Portland, Oregon in 1936.

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

Roosevelt thought big! The Four Corners Projects, the Tennessee Valley project, the massive increase in electricity generation and infrastructure building—all of this made possible a gigantic leap in the power and productivity of the nation. It laid the basis for explosive economic development, and it was linked directly to the use of Hamiltonian credit policies to finance the creation of these new potentialities.

Ocasio-Cortez—and the other greenies in the U.S. Congress—want us to go backwards. But there is no going backwards: We progress, or we die.

Instead of the optimism that can be engendered by a new era of scientific discovery and improved living conditions and technologies, the George Soros-funded “Sunrise” movement and related “climate change” organizations seek to create a new generation of young climate zombies who are convinced that somehow the planet is going to heat up, and nothing can be done besides cancelling human progress and living a small, inherently detrimental existence. The actual evidence—including the now proven inaccuracy of formerly world-acclaimed climate models, and the willfully dishonest history of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) itself—has no effect on the minds of the pseudo-religious green activists. Their beliefs are not scientific in nature, but rather are to be lawfully categorized as superstition, the product of cult-like “shared revelations.”

Soros, and ultimately the British oligarchical controllers of this operation, are now attempting to pit their chosen brainwashed youth against all who choose not to accept anti-scientific conditions as their destiny. The Sunrise, or better called “Sunset” movement, proposes, in their youth recruitment video, that young people take a semester off from school to intervene in the upcoming election, on behalf of “epic, worldwide changes in human history.” Imagine if instead of being lied to and imbued with self-hatred, these young people were offered a summer internship in space program activities, or some other new field of research necessitating incredible human creativity.

Consider this very different approach toward the future of our species:

So mankind has to change its policy: Dump the Green policy, which is presently the greatest single threat to humanity, that’s a killer! And we have to understand that it is the increase of man’s intelligence, which means also scientific intelligence, the ability to create, the ability to generate higher energy-flux densities per capita and per square kilometer of territory—these are the standards on which credit is generated. It’s to increase the population of the planet: increase it! Stop this killing people: increase it! Because we need more work done. We need, also, increases of the energy-flux density of the work being done. These are absolute necessities for us.

And the crap that’s been shoved into us, all this green crap, has just got to end. We have a population of the planet, and we need every damned individual on this planet: We need them! They have a purpose in existing, because they can become more productive, and as they become more productive, then their children become more productive, and so forth; mankind’s ability to cope with these problems increases.

There is no such thing as overpopulation. There’s under-mentation, and that’s what the problem is.

These are the words of Lyndon LaRouche as he fights to create a new global system that will end the reign of poverty and backwardness of centuries of policies dictated by British imperial policy. Today, thanks to his work, this new system is coming into fruition, and a new generation is being born that has the chance to see a world without hunger, without destitution, and where every child has a role to play in a useful occupation for the human species. Think of these children, think of that potential future—when you claim to want a nation run on windmills.

The ‘Finite but Unbounded’ Universe of Einstein, Planck, and LaRouche

by Judy Hodgkiss

Left: NASA

Left: Spiral Galaxy NGC 4414, as imaged by the Hubble Space Telescope; right: Lyndon LaRouche.

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

Feb. 3—Regular readers of EIR have seen Lyndon LaRouche’s references to the complex notion developed by Albert Einstein, that we live in a universe which is “finite but unbounded.” Such a universe, LaRouche has asserted, is ruled by universal physical principles which allow for efficient, least action pathways for the evolution of anti-entropic phenomena, as we see in biological systems, and in human creative mentation. Such an anti-entropic universal principle is inherent even within the abiotic, supposedly dead, physical universe at large.

But how would a universe defined as finite but unbounded, be significant for such potentials?

As the first step in investigating the origin of Einstein’s concept, and understanding the concept’s relationship to the theories of Max Planck and Lyndon LaRouche, we must, as background, look to the influence on modern science of the great historical figures, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, of the 17th century, and Bernhard Riemann, of the 19th century.

Leibnizians, First and Always

Einstein, Planck, and LaRouche were steeped in Leibniz, and the Leibnizian method of hypothesis making, from an early age: Einstein and Planck, because they were schooled in the German philosophical-scientific tradition of their homeland; LaRouche, because, at age 12, his paternal grandmother had given him a collection of philosophical tracts that included Leibniz. LaRouche recalls, “This encounter with Leibniz was the most important intellectual experience of my childhood and youth.”[fn_1]

LaRouche first studied Leibniz’s philosophical and scientific works; then, years later, upon discovering Leibniz’s 1671 essay, “Society and Economy,” LaRouche became devoted to elaborating and further developing a Leibnizian notion of physical economy. LaRouche says:

The first economic scientist, in the strict modern sense of science, was Gottfried Leibniz, who also was the first to produce a differential calculus, and also more branches of modern science than most university graduates could list from memory of their names. . . .[fn_2]

Left: cc/InformiguelCarreño; right: German Press & Info. Office

Left: Albert Einstein; right: Max Planck.

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

Albert Einstein saw in Leibniz’s works a prescient notion of relativity, particularly in Leibniz’s arguments against Isaac Newton’s notions of absolute space. Einstein wrote on the subject for an article in Scientific American in 1950:

[My theory of relativity] overcomes a deficiency in the foundations of mechanics which had already been noticed by Newton and was criticized by Leibniz and, two centuries later, by Ernst Mach: Inertia resists acceleration, but acceleration relative to what? Within the frame of classical mechanics the only answer is: Inertia resists acceleration relative to space. This is a physical property of space—space acts on objects, but objects do not act on space. Such is probably the deeper meaning of Newton’s assertion spatium est absolutum (space is absolute). But the idea disturbed some, in particular Leibniz, who did not ascribe an independent existence to space but considered it merely a property of “things” (contiguity of physical objects).[fn_3]

In his theory of the quantum, Max Planck relied heavily upon Leibniz’s notion of a principle of “least action.” Most today refer to Planck’s theory as involving the “quantum of energy,” or the “quantum of light,” but Planck himself said his theory was based on the idea of the “quantum of action.” In a 1908 lecture titled, “The Principle of Least Action,” Planck says:

Among the more or less general laws, the discovery of which characterize the development of physical science during the last century, the principle of Least Action is at present certainly one which by its form and comprehensiveness, may be said to have approached most closely to the ideal aim of theoretical inquiry.[fn_4]

Planck and Einstein were among the dying breed of scientists in the 20th century who dared to conjure Leibniz’s name, and to defend him against his many detractors. In his lecture, Planck, contrary to the contemporary vogue of crediting the development of least action theory to the perverse Frenchman Pierre Moreau Maupertuis, instead reveals the way that Maupertuis bowdlerized Leibniz’s ideas, and how his attempts to claim priority over Leibniz backfired on him (at least, at that time,—Maupertuis was later rehabilitated). Planck says:

[Of those who helped to develop the idea of least action], the first was Leibniz; indeed, he was the chief, according to a letter dated 1707, the original of which has been lost. . . . Then came Maupertuis and [Leonhard] Euler. . . . Maupertuis repeatedly announced in different forms, his principle of Mitwelt, and zealously defended it against what were often authoritative criticisms. The zeal with which he did this rose at times to fanaticism, and was quite disproportionate to the scientific value of his enunciations. . . . This is especially shown in the passionate attempts he made to dispute Leibniz’s letter when it was produced by Professor Samuel König in 1751—attempts which almost led him to abuse the high position he occupied [as president of the Berlin Academy of Sciences]. Human weakness and vanity have hardly ever been more severely punished than in this case. . . .

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

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

One of the most intriguing observations in Planck’s lecture is his statement that Leibniz’s least action theory reminds him of Leibniz’s other theory, the one about the “best of all possible worlds.” Planck says:

In this connection mention may certainly be made of Leibniz’s theorem, which sets forth fundamentally that of all worlds that may be created, the actual world is that which contains, besides the unavoidable evil, the maximum good. This theorem is none other than a variational principle, and is, indeed, of the same form as the later principle of least action.

Planck, himself, does not elaborate the deeper principles inherent in that “best of all worlds” theorem—in fact, he simplifies the idea quite a bit in order to fit his immediate example—but the very fact that Planck opened the door to such a multifaceted metaphor in the middle of his scientific treatise, set the empiricists howling.[fn_5]

Leibniz’s metaphysical theorems open the way for questions about free will, the goodness of God, the arbitrariness of natural disasters, etc.: All of which, in turn—as we will see—is connected to the question of an anti-entropic universe that is finite, but unbounded.

When Leibniz poses the idea of the best of all possible worlds, one is compelled to ask: Where is there room for human free will in a world that is destined to be the “best,” anyway? What can be better than “best”? Is it possible that something “bad” in the world, can actually, through the intervention of human will, be turned into something that makes the world “better” than that which was “best” before?

These are questions similar to those that arise in Leibniz’s theory of the possibility of “higher perfection.” Leibniz argues that each species of being strives toward the perfection defined by its ideal form; but, in addition, it is possible that the principles that define the perfect form, are themselves not fixed, but develop towards a more perfect form.

Such is the realm of ideas that exercise the mind in a way that allows us to grasp analogous concepts within the realm of the physical sciences—concepts such as series of higher orders of infinity, or the appearance of infinites which are only infinities because we are measuring a higher order manifold with a ruler which belongs to a lower order manifold (to use Riemann’s language). These are the kinds of concepts which we must comprehend in order to understand Einstein’s description of his “finite but unbounded” universe.

Least action pathways are not always straight lines. A brachistochrone and a pencil in water, illustrate the least action curve of a ball rolling down a track, and the least action refractive angle for light going from air to water.

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

Riemann and Higher Order Manifolds

This leads us to a discussion of Riemannian geometry, which provided a form for the generalization of relativity theory.

The best introduction to Riemannian geometry, though, is through LaRouche’s description of his first contact with Riemann’s works and how he applied Riemann’s geometry to what LaRouche calls the “King and Queen” of the sciences:[fn_6] physical economy. In his autobiography, The Power of Reason: 1988, LaRouche gives a history of the development of the LaRouche-Riemann economic model:

During the postwar period, U.S. national income accounting was reorganized under the so-called Gross National Product system. This system, which is intrinsically incompetent as a way of measuring economic performance, took over reporting functions of government, and shaped the practice of the economics profession. During the 1940s and 1950s, an absurd doctrine concocted by John Neumann, “linear systems analysis,” became the basis for what was known as “econometrics.” This concoction then became the basis for most applications of accounting and economics practice to computer systems. . . .

[During that same period,] I had the good fortune to have made two discoveries which are, combined, a major contribution to economic science.

Since Leibniz, we have known the general nature of the cause-effect relationship between the introduction of an advancement in technology and a resulting increase in the productive powers of labor. Improvements in technology enable us to reduce the amount of labor consumed in producing a good. It was not known, until my work of the early 1950s, how to show that this cause-effect connection itself could be measured. . . .

We distinguish today, between those advances in technology which represent the introduction of a ‘new scientific principle’, and those which are merely a more advanced expression of a scientific principle already well established. It is the introduction of a new scientific principle which represents, at once, both a discontinuity in scientific thinking, and which generates a generalized discontinuity in the course of technological-economic growth.

In this way I formulated the first part of my two-step discovery in economic science. On the one side, the characteristic features of creative mental activity are negentropic and therefore implicitly so measurable. Advances in technology, as mental conceptions, could be measured implicitly in this way. The introduction of these advances in mental conceptions, to production, causes economic growth, the which is also negentropic in form, and measurable. So, measurable negentropy in the first instance, causes measurable negentropy in the second instance. By reducing this causal connection to a single functional expression, the causal relationship between technological progress and economic growth is measurable, and this in a way which admits of predicting the benefits of adopting a specific form of technological progress.

This was the first part of my discovery.

The problem posed by the discovery, was the question: where to find the mathematics appropriate to such a function?

Bernhard Riemann

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

At first glance, I recognized that Georg Cantor’s notion of transfinite ordering touched directly upon the kind of mathematics needed. I spent the greater part of every possible moment, over approximately a year, fighting my way through Cantor’s work. I had stabbed at Riemann’s work years earlier, by way of [Luther] Eisenhart’s text. Working through Cantor, I saw Riemann in the right way for the first time. I read Riemann’s famous 1854-published inaugural dissertation, “On the Hypotheses Which Underlie Geometry,” with what can be described only as an empyreal quality of excitement. From that moment, everything I had sought began to fall into place.

Let us look at the beginning of the above-mentioned inaugural dissertation, given before the mathematics faculty at the University of Göttingen, where we find Riemann asserting—to the shock of the assembled professors (excepting Riemann’s mentor, Carl Gauss, who was also present, but not at all shocked)—that the fundamental axioms underlying Euclid’s geometry, accepted as given for the past millennium, are in fact open to question.

Riemann then proceeds to develop possible geometries which are not based on the Euclidean assumptions of a flat universe extending linearly into infinity. He investigates the possibilities of curved space, and the varieties of discrete and continuous manifolds which describe physical phenomena of either type within such a space; and, also, how an individual manifold might transform from one order of connectedness to a higher order.

At the end of the dissertation, Riemann again shocks his audience of mathematics professors by announcing that it was not presently possible to come to conclusions regarding his proposed geometry, because “this [discussion] leads us into the domain of another science, that of physics, into which the object of today’s proceedings does not allow us to enter.”

The domain of mathematics is, indeed, a domain of lower order, and should be regarded as in service to a higher domain, that of physics.

Sixty years after Riemann’s presentation, it was the physics of Albert Einstein that answered Riemann’s challenge. Einstein’s biographer, and personal assistant in Berlin in 1928-1929, Cornelius Lánczos, wrote of the Einstein/Riemann relationship:

Riemann saw further than his contemporaries. . . . [Riemann] points out that some day the physicist of the future may see himself compelled to go beyond the framework of Newtonian concepts. His work has purely the purpose of clearing the way to a broader approach so that, when that time comes, science should not be hamstrung by traditional prejudices. No words could have expressed more adequately the historical destiny which was in store for Einstein.

Riemann’s prophetic utterance was spoken at the end of his “inaugural address,” given on the occasion of his election to the mathematical faculty of the University of Göttingen (1854). . . . [His advisor], Gauss, found the topic, entitled, “On the Hypotheses Which are at the Foundation of Geometry,” particularly to his taste. . . .[fn_7]

Courtesy of Charlotte von Conta

Max Planck (right) and violinist Karl Klingler. Planck performed with professional musicians throughout his life.

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

Why ‘Finite but Unbounded’?

Einstein discusses the concept of a finite but unbounded universe in two locations: in his 1916 book, Relativity: The Special & General Theory, in the chapter called “The Possibility of a ‘Finite’ and Yet ‘Unbounded’ Universe,” in an appendix written in 1935, and in a lecture titled “Geometry and Experience,” given in 1921 at the Prussian Academy of Sciences in Berlin.

The first treatment is more limited, and will not be discussed here, as it is subsumed by the second. The second is highly ironical in nature, and therefore must be approached carefully. Also, it is in translation, and, as is the case in all translation of highly ironical works, such as poetry, it must be approached doubly carefully.

Einstein begins by praising mathematics. But watch out—it turns out that this lecture is the place where Einstein states his famous maxim:

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

Einstein’s next highly ironical assertion is that he agrees with “that acute and profound thinker, H. Poincaré.” Henri Poincaré was known for his philosophy, called “conventionalism,” which says that there is no real “truth” in science, only an agreement among scientists as to what will be acceptable and agreed to by convention. It was widely known that Einstein viewed such philosophy with disdain.

Einstein says,

If we deny the relation between the body of axiomatic Euclidean geometry and the practically-rigid body of reality, we readily arrive at the following view, which was entertained by that acute and profound thinker, Henri Poincaré:—Euclidean geometry is distinguished above all other axiomatic geometries by its simplicity. Now since axiomatic geometry by itself contains no assertions as to the reality which can be experienced, but can do so only in combination with physical laws, it should be possible and reasonable—whatever may be the nature of reality—to retain Euclidean geometry. For when contradictions between the theory and experience manifest themselves, we should rather decide to change physical laws than to change axiomatic Euclidean geometry. . . .

Einstein then defines how both a “practical” geometry and an “ideal” axiomatic geometry (Euclidean) would allow for the following:

We will call that which is enclosed between two boundaries, marked upon a practically-rigid body, a tract. We imagine two pro-rigid bodies, each with a tract marked out on it. These two tracts are said to be “equal to one another” if the boundaries of the one tract can be brought to coincide permanently with the boundaries of the other.

We now assume that: If the two tracts are found to be equal once, and anywhere, they are equal always and everywhere. . . .

This is the ultimate foundation in fact which enables us to speak with meaning of the mensuration, in Riemann’s sense of the word, of the four-dimensional continuum of space-time. . . .

The question whether the structure of this continuum is Euclidean, or in accordance with Riemann’s general scheme, or otherwise, is, according to the view [now] being advocated, properly speaking a physical question which must be answered by experience, and not a question of mere convention.

Einstein then proceeds to make several theoretical arguments about the nature of the cosmos and whether it were possible to make measurements of the average spatial density of the matter in universal space (as concentrated in the stars), and therefore decide if the density falls off as one goes out in some direction to infinity. He can come to no conclusion on the question. He asserts that were it possible to show that the mean density remains the same in all directions, he could show that the universe must be finite. But, he says, he can offer no solution to the problem, at this time.

Then he comes to a most interesting point: Using the system of “equal tracts” which he has developed earlier, he claims to be able to demonstrate that—in spite of the fact that it cannot now be proven whether the universe is finite, or not—that a mental image of a finite but unbounded universe were possible. Einstein says:

This is where the reader’s imagination boggles, “Nobody can imagine this thing,” he cries indignantly. “It can be said, but cannot be thought. [Sound familiar?] I can represent to myself a spherical surface [which is two-dimensional] well enough, but nothing analogous to it in three dimensions.”

FIGURE 1A

FIGURE 1B

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

But We Need Three Dimensions

Einstein, first, shows us why a sphere is finite but unbounded in two dimensions. He says to imagine the surface of a large globe [Figure 1A], and a quantity of small paper discs, all of the same size [Figure 1B]. One disc can be picked up and placed on the globe’s surface, anywhere, and moved around without encountering a boundary or limit. The globe’s surface is an unbounded continuum.

If we stick the paper discs to the globe, with no disc overlapping another, the surface of the globe finally becomes so full that there is no room for another disc. It is, therefore, also a finite continuum.

We now use the globe and the attachable discs, to demonstrate the direction we must go for 3-D visualization. Set the globe on a plane surface, with one disc, which we will call L, attached to the globe. Shine a light down from point N at the top of the globe—point N being opposite to point S, which is the point of the globe resting on the plane. The light will shine through paper disc L, throwing a shadow Lʹ onto the plane surface.

Move the L disc around. Its Lʹ shadow moves on the plane accordingly. As you move the disc upward on the globe towards point N, the disc shadow on the plane moves outwards from point S, growing bigger and bigger. As the disc approaches N, the shadow moves off to infinity, and becomes infinitely great.

But! What appears to be infinite in the Euclidean space of the plane surface is actually merely the shadow of a real rigid body on a finite surface in Riemannian space.

Now, stick multiple discs to the globe, and look at the shadows: If two discs on the globe are touching, their shadows on the plane also touch. The shadow-geometry on the plane agrees with the disc-geometry on the globe. You can now see that the plane is finite with respect to the disc-shadows, since only a finite number of the shadows can find room on the plane, just as only a finite number of discs can find room on the globe.

Someone objects: “I can take a ruler and measure the shadows and show that they are not rigid figures, since they change in size.” Einstein answers: We can imagine the ruler may behave on the plane the same way as the disc shadows. Then the fact that the disc shadows grow in size has no meaning. They live in the same Riemannian universe as the discs on the globe.

Next, discard the globe and discs, and, instead, imagine a point S, somewhere in space, and a great number of small spheres, which we will also call Lʹ, to point out their analogy with our disc-shadows. These spheres are not rigid bodies like the globe was. Their radius can increase when they move away from point S towards infinity. Imagine bringing these spheres into contact with each other, so that point S is at the center of the inner spheres. Then allow all of the spheres to move outwards, maintaining contact with their surrounding spheres as they are all increasing in size in accordance with the same law as applies to the increase of the radii of the disc-shadows on the plane.

As before, no “ruler” is allowed, that does not have the same behavior as our Lʹ spheres. The spheres are, therefore, in regard to this Riemannian space, rigid bodies within a finite universe that has no physical boundary.

Such a universe is bounded only by the universal physical laws which govern its behavior.

NASA/ESA/S. Beckwith (STScI)/HUDF Team

An image from the Hubble telescope’s Ultra Deep Field Camera: A view of 10,000 galaxies, cutting across billions of light-years.

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

What About Einstein in 1935?

The reader with a science background has probably been asking all along (maybe even screaming all along): “Isn’t all of this irrelevant? Didn’t Edwin Hubble demonstrate that, since spectral lines from distant galaxies show a redshift, that can only mean an expansive motion of star systems out towards infinity, that we have therefore proven that there was a big bang explosion 13.7 billion years ago, and all matter is now entropically dissipating towards heat death? Why talk about Einstein’s old ideas of a physically stationary universe that might be dominated by anti-entropic principles? In fact, isn’t it Einstein’s own Riemannian, nonlinear field equations that prove the big bang theory to be true?”

In 1935, Einstein did write that he believed that his equations might lead to such a conclusion. He wrote a short appendix to his 1920 book, cited above, in which he acknowledged that “Hubble’s discovery can, therefore, be considered to some extent as a confirmation of the theory [that his own field equations might predict an expanding universe].”

But Einstein did not care to continue the discussion. This was Einstein’s last comment on cosmological questions. He went silent on the subject for the final twenty years of his life. Also, 1935 was the same year that Einstein published the famous EPR paper, “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?”—on quantum entanglement, which, similarly, was Einstein’s last article critiquing the Heisenberg-Born version of quantum physics. He withdrew from that debate, just as he did from any further debate on cosmology.

In either case, whether the question of the day concerned the very large, or concerned the very small, Einstein had no further interest in debating the implications of mere mathematical formalisms. As he had insisted from the very beginning, both his field equations and the mathematics that govern quantum mechanics, are incomplete, and therefore, nothing conclusive can be drawn from them, in themselves. It didn’t matter to him if the debaters wanted to “agree” with his “side” of the debate, or not—he was fed up with them all.

His private comments on the publication of the EPR quantum paper (EPR indicating the names of the joint authors, Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen) are indicative. That same year, in a June 19 letter to Erwin Schrödinger, Einstein wrote:

For reasons of language this [paper] was written by Podolsky after several discussions. Still, it did not come out as well as I had originally wanted; rather, the essential thing was, so to speak, smothered by formalism.

Most cosmologists today are so obsessed with the incongruities in the formalisms of what they call the Standard Model (which they blame on Einstein!), that they account for those incongruities by making up ideas of “dark matter” and “dark energy.” And, on the other side, those who count themselves as the critics of the Standard Model, are generally only too eager to build their careers around anti-Einstein/anti-Riemann theories, such as the modern-day promoters of the pro-Euclid/pro-Newton hoax known as the Le Sagian theory of gravity.

Quantum physics is in the same mess. The quantum mechanists of today are obsessing about the qualities of so-called “quarks”—those “things” that are supposed to be the constituents of elementary particles. They have even concocted various “flavors” and “colors” to describe their quarks, calling them “up-quarks” and “down-quarks.” Why not throw in some “sideways-quarks,” since they are all nothing but mathematical constructs anyway? As for those who argue for a deterministic approach, rather than the Standard Model statistical approach to quantum physics, unfortunately most often hark back to theories that depend on a revival of an ether medium, or the invention of a so-called “subquantal” realm, where just about any flight-of-fancy interactions are possible.

This is not to say that research in all these fields should not continue—many interesting things tend to pop out here and there. It’s just that, until we change the overall environment within which such research takes place, any debates on theory are likely to resemble the babblings among the inmates of an insane asylum.

Cornelius Lánczos proceeded with the appropriate caution, in 1924, when he published the first solutions to Einstein’s field equations (in the form later found, independently, by Kurt Gödel). He ended his article humbly expressing his joy at being able to work on such beautiful ideas, and acknowledging that his mathematical formalisms were only preliminary, and perhaps merely ephemeral. It was particularly on the basis of this article that Einstein chose Lánczos to be his assistant at Berlin. Lánczos wrote:

Perhaps the here considered cosmology is only a considerable simplification, a first rough approximation to reality. Even then, it seems to me that to let ourselves into these possibilities is not without interest. After all, we deal here with the archetype of a stationary, rotationally symmetric world structure as a solution of Einstein’s fundamental equations, and, at the same time, with an example of the world-wide beauty of the geometrical way of looking at things and of the broad outlook that will open up on these paths.[fn_8]

We close with the following question and answer by Lánczos, excerpted from his 1974 biography of Einstein, which demonstrates the wide gulf between the Einstein-Lánczos perspective on the one side, and that of modern cosmologists on the other:

Q: How about the so-called “cosmologists,” who derive their wisdom directly from Einstein?

Lánczos: Yes, “cosmology!” In the last few years “cosmology” has obtained the stamp of approval. It is now a respectable chapter of physics. Einstein himself recognized in 1917 that General Relativity necessarily changes our ideas concerning the universe at large. The curved geometry of space made a finite universe possible, which avoids the conceptual difficulties associated with an infinitely extended universe of infinite energy content. However, the detailed cosmological speculations, which are so popular today, are hardly justifiable, as long as we know so little about the role of the “matter tensor”—either in the small or in large regions. The real strength of the theory has to demonstrate itself first in the atomistic region, before we can hope to make predictions about what the universe is doing in immense distances of either space or time. And yet, here are the great geniuses of our day, who seem to know precisely, what the universe was doing billions of years ago, or what it will do billions of years from now.

[fn_1]. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., The Power of Reason: 1988, an Autobiography. Executive Intelligence Review, Washington, D.C., 1987. On pages 16-17 LaRouche states:

“My attitude toward ideas was one fairly described as ‘Socratic.’ . . . This emerged clearly beginning my 12th year.

“I had begun poking into the writings of philosophers. After a few readings, I decided to begin all over again, this time in chronological order. I began with selections published in the Harvard Classics, a set given to me by my grandmother Ella LaRouche that year, and supplemented that with other texts. The list ran, Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, René Descartes, John Locke, Gottfried Leibniz, David Hume, Berkeley, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Immanuel Kant.

“Bacon, Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Berkeley, and Rousseau I hated. Leibniz moved me with a sense like that of coming home after a long homesickness. I read the Monadology, Theodicy, and the Clarke-Leibniz correspondence again and again, going on to writers later in my series, and back to Leibniz again. By fourteen, I was an avowed student of Leibniz.” [back to text for fn_1]

[fn_2]. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., So, You Wish to Learn All About Economics?: A Text on Elementary Mathematical Economics, EIR News Service, Inc., Washington, D.C., 1995. The book is available online. [back to text for fn_2]

[fn_3]. Albert Einstein, “On the Generalized Theory of Gravitation,” Scientific American, Vol. 182, No. 4, April 1950. Pp. 13-17. The article is available online. [back to text for fn_3]

[fn_4]. Max Planck, “The Principle of Least Action,” in his A Survey of Physical Theory (formerly titled A Survey of Physics), R. Jones and D. H. Williams, transl. Dover Publications, New York, 1960. A reprint is available online. [back to text for fn_4]

[fn_5]. See Wolfgang Yourgrau and Stanley Mandelstam’s Variational Principles in Dynamics and Quantum Theory, Saunders, Philadelphia, 1968, a book which begins with a dedication to Planck and ends with an avalanche of attacks on him, including the following:

“Among the staunchest protagonists of a metaphysical content to the action principle was Planck, who, with great philosophic poise, sought first to clarify and then to extol its rank in science. . . . In striking contrast to his otherwise calm and balanced judgment, he dubbed the principle of least action the ‘most comprehensive of all physical laws which governs equally mechanics and electrodynamics.’ . . .

“Whilst, in his appreciation of the unique place which the principle of least action holds in physics, Planck’s views are steadfast and consistent, his advocacy of a teleological interpretation of this law is characterized by a certain measure of contradiction . . . Such a principle, he asserts, suggests to a person free from prejudice the presence of a rational, purposive will governing nature, for a physical system must choose that route which directs it most easily towards its objective. . . .

“An outstanding example is the extraordinary manner in which Planck comprehends as a variational principle Leibniz’s maxim that our world is the best of all possible worlds! . . .

“Planck pursued this train of thought with more fervour than did any other physicist. . . . Planck, when dealing with the division of phase space, had intimated that the action was associated with whole multiples of h, which he designated the ‘elementary quantum of action’ . . . Planck posed the question, ‘Can it be that the astonishing simplicity of this relation rests once again upon chance? It is becoming more and more difficult to believe this. On the contrary, the impression forces itself upon us with elemental power that Leibniz’s principle of least action can afford the key to a deeper understanding of the quantum of action.’

“Planck’s arguments concerning this problem are steeped in considerable metaphysical hypothesis to which it is difficult for the critical scientific reader to give assent.” [back to text for fn_5]

[fn_6]. LaRouche, op. cit., calls physical economy the King and Queen of the sciences, because all of the other sciences are subsumed by the history and future development of economic systems—in the sense that, on the one hand, the present state of such systems depends on creative achievements in the various branches of science in the past, while, on the other hand, the future state of such systems depends on the conscious creation of conditions which foster creative achievement in those branches (and the creation of new branches), into the future. Physical economics seeks not to achieve any particular, individual revolutionary discovery, but to promote a succession of such discoveries. [back to text for fn_6]

[fn_7]. Lánczos wrote two biographies of Einstein, Albert Einstein and the Cosmic World Order, consisting of six lectures delivered at the University of Michigan in the spring of 1962, Interscience, New York, 1965; and The Einstein Decade: 1905-1915, Academic Press, New York, 1974. [back to text for fn_7]

[fn_8]. Cornelius Lánczos, Zeitschrift für Physik, 1924, Vol. 21. Translated and published in Cornelius Lánczos: Collected Published Papers with Commentaries, in 6 volumes, William Davis, ed., North Carolina State University, 1998. [back to text for fn_8]

II. Republic vs. Empire

President Trump’s Poetic Call to Action In his State of the Union Address

by Diane Sare

The trumpet has sounded,

—will you heed the call to battle?

White House/Shealah Craighead

President Donald Trump delivering his State of the Union address at the U.S. Capitol, February 5, 2019.

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

Feb. 8—On Tuesday, February 5, 2019, President Trump, in the midst of the continuing British-directed effort to terminate his presidency, delivered a powerfully serene and inspired State of the Union Address before both Houses of Congress and the American people. Coming in the midst of a truce after a long government shutdown, the speech was a poetical call to the population and Congress to rise above partisan bickering, and to consider how we will be judged by future generations.

The President’s first sentence was a jarring departure from the cynical spin of the British-run propaganda machine known as the U.S. media. He said, “We meet tonight at a moment of unlimited potential,” which statement is clearly true, even if most Americans are not fully aware of where that potential exists. They wish and hope that the potential is there, and they believe that President Trump is moving to fulfill it. He continued, “Millions of our fellow citizens are watching us now, gathered in this great chamber, hoping that we will govern, not as two parties but as one nation.”

The relaxed tone of President Trump’s speech, and his generosity toward those who have slandered and threatened him, and who have called for his impeachment, moved every honest citizen listening.

He had earlier announced that the speech would be about unity, and made very clear from his various policy initiatives that he knows that unity does not occur in a vacuum, but in a shared mission and purpose, saying:

“There is a new opportunity in American politics, if only we have the courage, together, to seize it. Victory is not winning for our party. Victory is winning for our country.”

President Trump recognized two important anniversaries occurring this year: the 75th anniversary of D-Day and the Normandy landing, and the 50th anniversary of the first manned landing on the Moon. Both mark heroic breakthroughs led by the United States which advanced the cause of mankind as a whole. He elaborated:

Now we must step boldly and bravely into the next chapter of this great American adventure, and we must create a new standard of living for the 21st century. . . .

But we must reject the politics of revenge, resistance, and retribution, and embrace the boundless potential of cooperation, compromise, and the common good. . . .

We must choose between greatness or gridlock, results or resistance, vision or vengeance, incredible progress or pointless destruction.

Tonight I ask you to choose greatness.

If you think that he was only addressing his remarks to members of the House and Senate, think again. President Trump is addressing each of us. Because of the remarkable genius of our founders in designing our Constitution, the United States only functions if the citizens are informed and active. In fact, the citizens must be more than informed. They must also be good.

White House/Joyce N. Boghosian

Alice Johnson (right) was released from federal prison after President Trump commuted her sentence. She is shown here at the State of the Union Address.

White House/Andrea Hanks

Matthew Charles (center) became the first prisoner released as a result of the First Step Act. He is shown here at the State of the Union Address.

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

President Trump demonstrated that quality of goodness throughout the speech, and also in his choice of guests. His commitment to the “forgotten men and women of America” was demonstrated not only by his commitment to manufacturing jobs, but also by his commitment to a truly forgotten group, the 2.3 million Americans who are currently in prison. He praised the recent bipartisan legislation for sentencing reform, and introduced two former prisoners, each of whom had served over 20 years. In the case of Alice Johnson, he had intervened to commute her sentence, and in the other case, he recognized Matthew Charles, the first person to be released under the newly passed First Step Act.

Most important, the President reiterated his steadfast commitment to peace, despite the treasonous foot-dragging by the Senate that had just voted 68 to 23 to “slow down” his so-called “precipitous” withdrawal of our troops from Syria, and potentially soon from Afghanistan. President Trump stated unequivocally, “Great nations do not fight endless wars.” He announced his next summit with North Korea Chairman Kim Jong-un.

The paradox for you, the American Citizen, to consider, is this: Not everything President Trump said coincided with the policy course that the American statesman and genius, Lyndon LaRouche and his organization would advise. Iran is not the leading terrorist state in the world. Russia has not caused the abrogation of the INF Treaty; Juan Guaidó should not be recognized as the new President of Venezuela, just because he claims that he is; and the U.S. economy is actually in perilous condition, with debt bubbles about to blow in every direction, and infrastructure collapsing as you read this. But, with all of those—not minor—admitted flaws, President Trump’s speech was nonetheless poetic, inspiring, noble, heroic, and even sublime. How is that possible?

Because the power of the speech is not in its mere words. The power of President Trump’s State of the Union Address is in the President himself, and his intent. He has taken personally what Lyndon LaRouche has always said was the most important measure of the value of one’s life—“what will remain for the future of mankind after I am gone?”

The American people have watched this President withstand withering lying attacks, day in and day out, from the media. They have also attacked his wife, and even their young son. Special Counsel Robert Mueller has targetted, indicted and jailed President Trump’s friends and former collaborators in illegal actions, including raiding his attorney Michael Cohen’s office, and the recent, egregious “twenty-one-gun arrest” of Trump’s long-time political consultant and friend Roger Stone. Hollywood stars have publicly called for the President’s assassination, and not one of them has even been investigated, let alone fined or jailed.

White House/Shealah Craighead

President Trump pauses for a moment while receiving applause during his State of the Union Address.

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

President Trump has been the target of U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement officials who claim that he was elected through Russian election meddling, for which they have yet to provide one shred of evidence. Yet through all of this, Trump remains standing, and, not only that, but continues to follow through on his election pledges, like ending perpetual war, and peacefully resolving the crisis on the Korean Peninsula. He clearly intends to raise the standard of living for all Americans, especially the “forgotten” ones. Many have commented that Donald Trump could instead be living a very comfortable lifestyle, as opposed to taking all of this abuse and literally risking his life, but he has “chosen greatness” instead.

This is what Lyndon LaRouche has always demanded of the American people, and Lyndon LaRouche’s program, as put forward in “The Way Forward,” is crucial to creating the conditions under which President Trump’s intent can be realized. It is incumbent on every American who wants to “support the President,” to understand that program, and to organize others to support it. The voice of the American People is required to demand the legislation to accomplish this.

The other, very important point, for which Lyndon LaRouche has drawn the most fire over his long career, is that the greatest enemy of the United States, and the greatest enemy of President Trump, is the British Empire. These are the two domains in which you must act. The coup against President Trump must be defeated, and the British Empire must be put out of existence.

Both can be accomplished by the United States forging a new economic and security architecture with Russia, China, and India, called by LaRouche the “Four Powers Agreement.” Rather than direct our scientific endeavors toward nuclear annihilation, we could collaborate on exploring space, and preventing asteroids from striking the planet and wiping us out. There is also great room for improvement in weather forecasting, and forecasting earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Water management would help greatly in moderating the climate, preventing droughts and floods, and increasing food production. Diseases such as cancer and Alzheimer’s should be things of the past.

If you are reading this, then you are privileged to have known something about the ideas of Lyndon LaRouche. The crucial element needed to ensure the survival of mankind for millennia to come is your action.That is precisely what the President asked of you in the closing of his State of the Union Address:

What will we do with this moment? How will we be remembered? . . .

We do the incredible. We defy the impossible. We conquer the unknown.

This is the time to reignite the American imagination. This is the time to search for the tallest summit and set our sights on the brightest star. This is the time to rekindle the bonds of love and loyalty and memory that link us together as citizens, as neighbors, as patriots.

This is our future, our fate, and our choice to make. I am asking you to choose greatness.

No matter the trials we face, no matter the challenges to come, we must go forward together.

We must keep America first in our hearts. We must keep freedom alive in our souls. And we must always keep faith in America’s destiny that one nation, under God, must be the hope and the promise, and the light and the glory, among all nations of the world.

AMERICAN COUNTER-INTELLIGENCE

Time to End the Special Relationship with Britain

by Robert Ingraham

Ben Franklin’s Almanack for 1739.

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

Feb. 8—On January 28 of this year, LaRouche PAC posted a petition on its website, titled: “The January 27, 1989 Jailing of Lyndon LaRouche Defined an Era, Which Now Must End. We Call Upon President Trump to Exonerate LaRouche!” That petition, issued on the 30th anniversary of the jailing of Lyndon LaRouche, states, in part:

The frame-up and jailing of LaRouche, facilitated by years of lying media vilification of LaRouche and his movement, which continues to this day, was carried out by the same British-run political apparatus—in many cases, by the same individual hit-men, including Special Counsel Robert Mueller—that today is out to topple the President of the United States.

And it is because they were able to carry out that injustice against LaRouche 30 years ago, despite massive opposition nationally and internationally from prominent civil rights and human rights leaders, elected officials and legal scholars, that they are at it again today, on a grander scale.

In fact, the five-year jailing of Lyndon LaRouche defined an entire era of modern U.S. history, much as the 1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy did.

On the one hand, the full legal exoneration of Lyndon LaRouche is simply a matter of historical justice. More critical, as the petition states, is that a full public airing of the vendetta carried out against LaRouche, and a public admission as to LaRouche’s complete innocence, could blow up all of the evil operations now being thrown against President Donald Trump and defeat current efforts to provoke a war confrontation with Russia and China. Yet, an even greater task might be achieved. Were the truth about the “LaRouche Case,” and the “Get LaRouche Task Force,” to be publicly acknowledged, intelligent citizens will finally be able to “make sense” of what has transpired during the last thirty years.

The great weakness among almost all patriotic individuals in the United States—a weakness which sometimes crosses the line into cowardice—has been the failure, the refusal, to confront the truth of what Lyndon LaRouche has been saying for forty years about the British Empire and the oligarchical outlook and intentions of the British establishment. This is a failure, as LaRouche would say, to “know your enemy.” Revelations of the role of British Intelligence in the “Get Trump” witch-hunt, and the violent British opposition to Trump’s peace initiatives with Russia, China and North Korea, have now begun to open some eyes among the reluctant. But a deeper understanding is required.

Many people remain perplexed as to the motives behind the British attacks on Trump. Aren’t the British our “cousins,” our special friends? The confusion and the inability to see the truth are products of a failure to grasp the moral chasm which separates British oligarchical imperial culture from the historical republican mission of the United States. The narrative of shared “democratic values” between Britain and America is false, and as Nicholas of Cusa proved the impossibility of squaring the circle, no amount of fudging or lying can bridge the moral gulf separating the American Republic and the British Empire.

What is missing—what is required—are the skills of a counter-intelligence expert. This requires not simply spying, code-breaking, electronic eaves-dropping, or similar clandestine tools. Rather, the key to counter-intelligence is to be found in understanding how one’s adversary thinks, the cultural axioms which are always determinate. The first necessity is to be clear on one’s own mission—those principles to which one has dedicated one’s existence. Then, one examines the motives and policy axioms of one’s enemy. From there, a proper course of action may be determined.

In this report we shall approach this subject of the abomination of the U.S.-British “Special Relationship” through examining the case study of the American patriot John Jay, the founder of American counter-intelligence. We will look at his foiling of a plot to assassinate George Washington, as well as his “counter-intelligence” work in securing the successful Treaty of Paris, which ended the American Revolution. Most important, however, we will consider the philosophical, moral and cultural foundation that made the success of Jay’s actions possible; for in studying the axiomatic cultural and moral issue, we then arrive at that which is paramount.

Battle of the Mind

It is no coincidence that Benjamin Franklin identified 1688 as the year of birth for his creation Poor Richard, for it was in that year that the British Crown revoked the republican Charter of the Massachusetts Bay Colony and imposed a Royal governor. Franklin identified 1688 as the year when freedom was lost, when the right to develop was extinguished. He went on to publish the sayings and observations of Poor Richard for 26 years, in the process creating precisely the republican citizenry necessary to resist British oligarchical designs.

British operations are not discovered using deductive methods, but in mastering complete knowledge of the cultural axioms which are at the heart of the oligarchical outlook. The problem today is that most of us have lost our sense of smell. When the aromas of Malthusianism, geopolitics, or rabid monetarism begin to waft through the air, our citizens fail to detect the spoor of British Intelligence operations, of oligarchical designs. It is not a matter of spies versus counterspies à la Mad Magazine; it is a difference in values. No successful counter-intelligence work is possible without grasping this essential point.

On December 11, 1977, Lyndon LaRouche authored a Memorandum titled, “How to Evaluate a British Intelligence Network.” It is quite lengthy and ambitious in scope—yet the key theme is straightforward. What LaRouche examines is the issue of a truly human identity versus an oligarchic identity. A sub-theme is the related subject of republican values versus imperial geopolitical values.

Essentially, the subject of the Memorandum is the necessity to understand the mind of the enemy. In earlier times, Americans possessed a great advantage in this regard, because the notion of an “American identity” as opposed to old-world oligarchical axioms was understood by many, if sometimes imperfectly. This began to change in the 20th century, and since the assassination of John Kennedy—as America has increasingly clothed itself in the trappings of empire—the moral flame which previously guided America has begun to go out.

Any nation which accepts a scenario of endless warfare and economic policies that impoverish tens or hundreds of millions, is already firmly within the grasp of British oligarchic intentions. Add to this the decades-long intimate military and intelligence cooperation (or integration) between the United States and the United Kingdom, and the flight forward into aggressive military actions since September 11, 2001—all of this has left the United States wide open to British manipulation. This is precisely what President Donald Trump is fighting to reverse.

Portrait by John Trumbull, c. 1793

John Jay

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

I. The Founder of American Counter-Intelligence

John Jay was not of English descent. His paternal grandfather, Augustus Jay, was a French Huguenot, and his paternal grandmother, as well as both of his maternal grandparents, were Dutch. A graduate of King’s College in Manhattan, he early on became very close with Gouverneur Morris. It was Jay who also secured a commission for his young friend Alexander Hamilton as an artillery captain, the role which brought Hamilton to George Washington’s attention. Jay was held in such high esteem by Washington that in 1789 Washington offered to Jay the post of his choosing in the new government, including any among the cabinet positions. Jay chose to become the first Chief Justice, because he correctly perceived that the Supreme Court would be critical in forging national union, in securing national sovereignty for the new republic.

Before proceeding, given that John Jay is a largely forgotten, or at least little studied, individual, we provide here a brief chronology of the service he rendered to his nation.

May 1774—Jay was elected to the “Committee of Fifty,” the first body organized in New York in opposition to the British measures that resulted in the American Revolution.

1774—Elected as delegate from New York to first Continental Congress (29 years old).

1775—Elected as a New York delegate to the second Continental Congress.

November 1775—Congress creates the “Committee of Secret Correspondence,” to oversee foreign intelligence matters. Key members include Jay, Benjamin Franklin and Robert Morris. Jay is put in charge of overseeing the work of Silas Deane in France.

April 1776—Jay elected a delegate to the New York Provincial Congress.

May 1776—Named by the New York Provincial Congress to the “Committee on Conspiracies.”

June 1776—Named to head a three-person secret committee, with Gouverneur Morris and Philip Livingston, to investigate threats against the life of George Washington.

July 1776—Plays the paramount role in getting the New York Provincial Congress to endorse the Declaration of Independence.

September 1776—Named to head the reorganized “Committee on Defeating and Detecting Conspiracies.” Works on this well into 1777.

1777—Jay and Morris lead effort for a New York State Constitution, with a strong executive branch. A clause, authored by Morris and backed by Jay, to abolish slavery in New York is removed by the other delegates.

1777—Named Chief Justice of

New York State.

1778—Elected President of Con-

tinental Congress in Philadelphia.

1779 to 1782—Ambassador to

Spain.

1782-1784—Together with Ben-

jamin Franklin, in Paris, negotiates Peace Treaty with Britain, ending the Revolutionary War.

1784-1789—Secretary for For-

eign Affairs under the Articles of Confederation, the most powerful post in the new national government.

1785—Founder, with Hamilton,

of the New York Manumission Society.

Late 1787—Authors Federalist Numbers 2, 3, 4 & 5.

1788—Plays leading role in securing New York ratification of Constitution.

1789 to 1795—First Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

1793-1794—Negotiates treaty (the “Jay Treaty”) with Great Britain.

1795 to 1801—Governor of New York State.

1799—Governor Jay forces through a gradual emancipation law, which will end slavery in the state.

1801—Retires to his farm in Westchester County, New York.

1812—Comes out of retirement to join with Gouverneur Morris in opposing the War of 1812. Backs DeWitt Clinton’s campaign for the Presidency against James Madison.

1819-1820—In his last political intervention, Jay joins with Rufus King and James Tallmadge to oppose the admission of Missouri as a slave state, as well as the subsequent Missouri Compromise.

II. Knowing Your Enemy

On June 29, 1776, a British fleet of more than one hundred war ships arrived in New York Harbor. By July 2, there were two hundred ships, and by early August, over four hundred British ships patrolled the harbor and all surrounding waterways. The sight was described by one onlooker as a vast “sea of masts.” Both onboard the ships, as well as encamped on Staten Island, were at least 34,000 enemy troops, including 9,000 Hessians.

An attack was expected at any moment. On July 2, Washington issued a message to his troops:

The time is now near at hand, which must probably determine whether Americans are to be consigned to a state of wretchedness, from which no human efforts will probably deliver them. The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of this army. Our cruel and unrelenting enemy leaves us no choice, but a brave resistance or the most abject submission. This is all that we can expect. We have, therefore, to resolve to conquer or die.

A scene of the Battle of Brooklyn, August 27, 1776.

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

On August 22, more than 22,000 British troops landed in Brooklyn, leading to the defeat of Washington’s army at the Battle of Brooklyn and the death or capture of 1,000 American soldiers. Two weeks later, 12,000 British troops landed in Manhattan. The British intention was to crush the Rebellion in one stroke. Only Washington’s stunning evacuation of his army from Brooklyn to Manhattan, followed by the tactical brilliance of his retreat across Westchester and New Jersey, saved the army to fight another day.

Putting to one side the overwhelming superiority of the British military forces, an existential difficulty facing Washington in the weeks leading up to the British invasion, as well as in the critical months following it, was that it was not at all clear who the enemy was—who was friend, and who was foe? At that time, New York was perhaps the American colony with the greatest percentage of its population who remained loyal to the British Crown. Although this problem persisted throughout the war, in the early phases, when the day-to-day survival of Washington’s army was in doubt, the question of “who can be trusted” was an issue of extraordinary importance.

The problem was not simply one of invading soldiers. Among native New Yorkers who lived together for years, even decades, many individuals who had earlier participated in the protests and petitions to Parliament, including friends of Morris and Jay, such as Peter Van Schaack, refused to support the Declaration of Independence. In Brooklyn, Queens, Long Island, and Westchester, as well as in northern New Jersey, it is likely that a majority—or close to it—of the population were loyalists. Next door neighbors, brethren of the same Church, and members of the same family were divided by the Revolution, including the families of Benjamin Franklin, John Jay and Gouverneur Morris.

The loyalties of everyone were suspect. Spies, and potential spies, were everywhere. The challenge was to sort all of this out.

A Committee on Conspiracies

In May of 1776, less than one month after it had come into existence, the New York Provincial Congress established a “Committee on Conspiracies,” with John Jay as its chairman. The founding charge states that it shall be “a Committee for inquiring into, detecting and defeating all conspiracies which may be formed in this State, against the liberties of America.” On June 18, 1776, the Provincial Congress appointed a second three-person Committee, this one strictly secret and also chaired by Jay, with Gouverneur Morris and Philip Livingston as the other two members. The second Committee was created after testimony was taken at the Provincial Congress from a man named Isaac Ketcham of a plot against George Washington’s life. The directive which established this secret committee states:

Ordered, That Mr. Ph. Livingston, Mr. Jay and Mr. Morris, be a secret committee to confer with Genl. Washington, relative to certain secret intelligence communicated to this Congress, and take such examinations relative thereto as they shall think proper.

The larger Conspiracies Committee, which met daily, exercised sweeping powers. It had the authority to summon any resident of New York State to testify before it. It could subpoena personal and business papers, call out detachments of the militia “to apprehend, secure, or remove persons whom they might judge dangerous to the safety of the State,” make drafts on the treasury, and raise and officer 220 men, employing them as they saw fit. It interrogated individuals on a daily basis, eventually numbering in the thousands. Property was seized, imprisonments and banishments became common-place. The jails, and even the churches, were crowded with prisoners. Moles and spies were employed to discover and counteract the plans of the loyalists.[fn_1]

Left to right: John Jay, Gouverneur Morris, Robert R. Livingston

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

In the midst of these laborious efforts, John Jay authored and published a resolution on the nature and role of the Conspiracies Committee. It states, in part:

Resolved, that the committee appointed by the Convention of this State for the purpose of inquiring into, detecting, and defeating all conspiracies, &c. have full power and authority to disfranchise and punish all such unworthy subjects of this State, as shall profess to owe allegiance to the king of Great Britain, and refuse to join with their countrymen in opposing his tyranny and invasion (other than such of the people called Quakers, who behave as good subjects, except in not bearing arms), by transporting them with their families, at their own expense, to the city of New-York, or other places in possession of the enemy . . . that they who ignominiously prefer servitude to freedom, may, by becoming vassals and slaves to the king and parliament, deter others from the like shameful and dishonourable conduct.

III. Jay’s Call to Arms

While Jay and his colleagues were questioning suspected spies in late 1776, the American army was suffering defeat at almost every turn. In November, the British captured Fort Washington, and with it complete control of Manhattan. Following another American defeat at White Plains and Washington’s flight across the Hudson River, the British chased the Continental Army across New Jersey. In early December, the Americans crossed the Delaware River into Pennsylvania, destroying all the boats on the New Jersey side and leaving both New York and New Jersey in British hands.

This was the background for Jay’s most passionate paper of the war, the Address of the Convention of the Representatives of the State of New York to Their Constituents, printed in New York in December 1776. Reprinted here are short excerpts from that lengthy piece:

From Jay’s Address, December 1776

At this most important period, when the freedom and happiness, or the slavery and misery, of the present and future generations of Americans, is to be determined on a solemn appeal to the Supreme Ruler of all events, to whom every individual must one day answer for the part he now acts, it becomes the duty of the Representatives of a free people to call their attention to this most serious subject, and the more so at a time when their enemies are industriously endeavoring to delude, intimidate, and seduce them by false suggestions, artful misrepresentations, and insidious promises of protection.

You and all men were created free, and authorized to establish civil government, for the preservation of your rights against oppression, and the security of that freedom which God hath given you, against the rapacious hand of tyranny and lawless power. It is, therefore, not only necessary to the well-being of Society, but the duty of every man, to oppose and repel all those, by whatever name or title distinguished, who prostitute the powers of Government to destroy the happiness and freedom of the people over whom they may be appointed to rule.

Under the auspices and direction of Divine Providence, your forefathers removed to the wilds and wilderness of America. By their industry they made it a fruitful, and by their virtue a happy country. And we should still have enjoyed the blessings of peace and plenty, if we had not forgotten the source from which these blessings flowed; and permitted our country to be contaminated by the many shameful vices which have prevailed among us.

In a word, if peace was the desire of your enemies, and humanity their object, why do they thus trample under foot every right and every duty, human and divine? Why, like the demons of old, is their wrath to be expiated only by human sacrifices? Why do they excite the savages of the wilderness to murder our inhabitants and exercise cruelties unheard of among civilized nations? No regard for religion or virtue remains among them. Your very churches bear witness of their impiety; your churches are used without hesitation as jails, as stables, and as houses of sport and theatrical exhibitions. What faith, what trust, what confidence, can you repose in these men, who are deaf to the call of humanity, dead to every sentiment of religion, and void of all regard for the temples of the Lord of Hosts?

And why all this desolation, bloodshed, and unparalleled cruelty? In obedience to what? To their will and pleasure! And then what? Why, then you shall be pardoned, because you consent to be slaves. And why should you be slaves now, having been freemen ever since this country was settled? Because, forsooth, the king and parliament of an island three thousand miles off, choose that you should be hewers of wood and drawers of water for them. And is this the people whose proud domination you are taught to solicit? Is this the peace which some of you so ardently desire? For shame! for shame!

Blush, then, ye degenerate spirits, who give all over for lost, because your enemies have marched over three or four counties in this and a neighbouring State—ye who basely fly to have the yoke of slavery fixed upon your necks and to swear that you and your children after you shall be slaves forever! Such men deserve to be slaves, and are fit only for beasts of burden to the rest of mankind. Happy would it be for America if they were removed away, instead of continuing in this Country to people it with a race of animals who, from their form, must be classed among human species, but possess none of those qualities which render man more respectable than the brutes.

If then, God hath given us freedom, are we responsible to him for that, as well as other talents? If it be our birthright, let us not sell it for a mess of pottage, nor suffer it to be torn from us by the hand of violence! If the means of defence are in our power and we do not make use of them, what excuse shall we make to our children and our Creator? These are questions of the deepest concern to us all. These are questions which materially affect our happiness, not only in this world but in the world to come. And surely, “if ever a test for the trial of spirits can be necessary, it is now. If ever those of liberty and faction ought to be distinguished from each other, it is now. If ever it is incumbent on the people to know truth and to follow it, it is now.”

Rouse, therefore, brave Citizens! Do your duty like men! and be persuaded that Divine Providence will not permit this Western World to be involved in the horrours of slavery.

But if there be any among us, dead to all sense of honour, and love of their country; if deaf to all the calls of liberty, virtue, and religion; if forgetful of the magnanimity of their ancestors, and the happiness of their children; if neither the examples nor the success of other nations, the dictates of reason and of nature, or the great duties they owe to their God, themselves, and their posterity, have any effect upon them; if neither the injuries they have received, the prize they are contending for, the future blessings or curses of their children, the applause or the reproach of all mankind, the approbation or displeasure of the Great Judge, or the happiness or misery consequent upon their conduct, in this and a future state, can move them;—then let them be assured, that they deserve to be slaves, and are entitled to nothing but anguish and tribulation. Let them banish from their remembrance the reputation, the freedom, and the happiness they have inherited from their forefathers. Let them forget every duty, human and divine; remember not that they have children: and beware how they call to mind the justice of the Supreme Being: let them go into captivity, like the idolatrous and disobedient Jews, and be a reproach and a by-word among the nations.

But we think better things of you. We believe, and are persuaded, that you will do your duty like men, and cheerfully refer your cause to the great and righteous Judge. If success crown your efforts, all the blessings of Freedom will be your reward.

Painting by Rembrand Peale, 1824-1825

“George Washington Before Yorktown.”

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

IV. ‘Kill Washington’

On March 11, 1776, George Washington ordered the creation of a personal bodyguard from among the Colonial Regiments, about fifty men. This elite unit became commonly known as the “Life Guards.”

In June of that year, one of the guards, William Green, was approached by the loyalist spy, Gilbert Forbes. In reality, Forbes was operating under the direction of David Matthews, the Mayor of New York City. The subject of the discussion was a proposal to assassinate General Washington and to carry out simultaneous acts of sabotage. With the British fleet arriving in New York Harbor, and a British invasion imminent, such actions would decapitate the Continental Army, leave New York defenseless, and likely result in a crushing of the rebellion.

Green is recruited to the plot, and he subsequently recruits four more individuals, all members of the “Life Guards”—James Johnson, Michael Lynch, John Barnes, and Thomas Hickey. These soldiers all have intimate access to Washington’s person and are well situated to act.

The timeline is as follows:

May 18, 1776—The New York Provincial Congress, at George Washington’s request, establishes a “Committee on Conspiracies,” for the purpose of uncovering loyalist plots. John Jay is the Chairman. Numerous individuals are brought before the Committee for questioning.

June 17—Isaac Ketcham, who is being held in the city jail for counterfeiting American currency, testifies to the Committee that he has learned, in his jail cell, of a plot to assassinate Washington. Ketcham agrees to become an informant for the Committee, returns to jail, and there learns of the involvement of Thomas Hickey and Michael Lynch, two of the members of Washington’s bodyguard.

June 18—In response to Ketchum’s testimony, the Provincial Congress appoints a three-person secret committee—John Jay, Gouverneur Morris and Philip Livingston—to investigate the plot and communicate directly with Washington.

Portrait by Mason Chamberlin, 1762

Benjamin Franklin

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

June 20—John Jay and Gouverneur Morris secretly interview William Leary and James Mason. Leary, a patriot, had discovered the involvement of Mason in the plot and physically dragged him before the Committee. Mason admits his guilt and names Gilbert Forbes, a gunsmith in the City, Thomas Hickey, and two additional members of the Life Guards—William Green and James Johnson—as members of the conspiracy. Green, Johnson, Barnes and several others are arrested and interrogated. Jay and Morris learn that the plan is to assassinate Washington and other General Officers, blow up the magazine, spike the cannon, and destroy Kingsbridge, the only land-route out of Manhattan—as soon as the British fleet appears in New York Harbor. They also learn that funds for the assassins and saboteurs are coming from New York Mayor David Matthews.[fn_2]

June 21—Jay, Livingston and Morris write and send a message to George Washington, which reads:

Sir: Whereas David Mathews, Esq. stands charged with dangerous designs and treasonable conspiracies against the rights & liberties of the United States of America—we do . . . authorize and request you to cause the said David Mathews to be with all his papers forthwith apprehended & secured & that return be made to us of the manner in which this warrant shall be executed.

Given under our hand this

21st day of June, 1776.

Philip Livingston

John Jay

Gouverneur Morris

June 23, 1:00 a.m.—Bearing both a warrant signed by Jay, Morris & Livingston, and a separate order signed by Washington, Continental troops arrest Matthews, at home in bed.

June 22—Jay, Morris and Livingston draw up dozens of additional arrest warrants. They create a “List of Tories in New York and Orange County.”

June 22—City guards bring Gilbert Forbes into custody in the same prison underneath City Hall where Thomas Hickey, Michael Lynch, Isaac Ketcham (now the Committee’s informant), Mayor David Matthews and many others are also detained.

June 23—The Committee interrogates Matthews.

June 23—Washington and the Committee agree on a procedure that will facilitate a swift resolution to the case. The suspects who are soldiers, “most critically, the five Life Guards,” will be handed over to the military for court-martial, rather than be handled by the civilian judicial system.

June 26—The general court-martial of Thomas Hickey is convened at the headquarters of the Continental army, at One Broadway in New York City. Hickey is convicted.

June 28—Hickey is hanged in lower Manhattan before 20,000 people, including every member of Washington’s Army, the largest public execution ever to take place in North America. One eyewitness to Hickey’s hanging is the young artillery captain from New York, Alexander Hamilton.

Following the British invasion of New York, the Provincial Congress left the city, eventually establishing its new base in the upstate city of Fishkill. There, on September 26, the Conspiracies Committee was reorganized, under the name “A Committee for Inquiring into, Detecting, and Defeating Conspiracies against the Liberties of America,” with Jay again as the Chairman. The Committee continues to operate for well over a year.

Day after day, local county Committees of Safety send to Fishkill batches of prisoners under guard, upon charges of receiving protection from the enemy, corresponding with the enemy, or simply with disaffection to the cause. Those who take an oath of allegiance to the Congress are dismissed, but all who refuse are subjected to punishment, confinement in jail, or banishment to another town or colony.

V. Republicans versus Oligarchs

In 1779, Jay is appointed Minister to Spain, a nation tied to France through their related Bourbon monarchies and one which the Continental Congress hoped to recruit into active support for the Revolution. Jay would remain in Europe for five years, the first three in Madrid, and then from 1782 to 1784, with Benjamin Franklin in Paris.

It is precisely with Franklin and Jay’s activities and insights in Europe that the issue of American “counter-intelligence” comes most clearly into focus. Yes, there were British and other spies to contend with—including in Franklin’s household!—but the far greater difficulty for Jay and Franklin was in dealing with the oligarchical rulers and policy-makers among America’s alleged “friends” and allies.

Baron Johann de Kalb (center) introducing Lafayette to Silas Deane.

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

In November 1775 the Continental Congress had appointed a “Committee of Secret Correspondence” for the purpose of initiating and conducting communications with foreign powers. Franklin was chair of the Committee, with Jay overseeing the deployment of Silas Deane to France. Deane had been sent to France by Jay as an undercover agent, to try to convince the French that the Americans were prepared to fight for independence and persuade them to provide military aid. Deane was remarkably successful in securing significant military support, in the form of arms and ammunition, although almost entirely these were obtained through “unofficial” channels. Then, Benjamin Franklin, who arrived in France in December 1776, was able to make the alliance official with the signing of the Treaty of Amity and Commerce in 1778.[fn_3]

Franklin, of course, had dealt with European aristocrats for years, but for Jay and other members of the Continental Congress, their first direct exposure to the machinations of the European nobility came with the clandestine deployment of the French agent Achard de Bonvouloir to Philadelphia in 1775. In December of 1775, Jay and the other Committee members had several secret meetings with de Bonvouloir, but the Frenchman proved to be very evasive as to the purpose of his visit, or the instructions he had been given. In reality, he had been sent there to gather intelligence on the Continental Congress.

Beginning with 1782, in Madrid, Jay experienced the Venetian methods of the European oligarchy in full force. It became very clear, very early on, that the Spanish monarchy had no sympathy for the American cause, but its sole intention was to recover Gibraltar, Florida and other possessions it had lost to Britain earlier in the 18th century. Despite his best efforts, as well as repeated instructions from Philadelphia to remain in Madrid and continue the negotiations, Jay achieved almost nothing in Spain—other than a growing insight into the predatory amorality of the Spanish ruling class. Spanish financial assistance was paltry, and the Spanish adamantly refused to either recognize the independence of the American colonies or to provide any military assistance. Jay was not even able to gain an audience with the king.

In Philadelphia there was a powerful faction in the Continental Congress that was of the view that the French, Spanish, Dutch and other members of the League of Armed Neutrality were “pro-American.” As Jay learned in Madrid, and as both he and Franklin were to discover in Paris, this was a chimera. There were individual members of the elites, such as Lafayette and others recruited by Deane and Franklin, who became passionate partisans to the American cause. This was not true of the ruling elites at large.

Oligarchical Conspiracies

France, much like Spain, entered the war solely for oligarchic geopolitical gain. Most of the military and other aid obtained by Deane from 1775 to 1777 was achieved secretly through Pierre Beaumarchais and other private channels and clandestine operations. After 1778, when the French government began openly financing and supplying the Congress in Philadelphia, this was all done within the context of a “war of revenge” against Britain. France and Spain supported none of the American war aims.

From 1776 through 1784, Franklin had to contend with French officials who universally lied to him and tried to control all aspects of American policy. After the signing of the 1778 French-American alliance, France deployed Conrad Alexandre Gérard, as Minister Plenipotentiary, to Philadelphia. Gérard was extraordinarily duplicitous in his relations with members of the Continental Congress, as he was operating under strict instructions to shackle American policy to suit French interests. In Paris, the Comte de Vergennes, French minister for foreign affairs, was intensely hostile to the American Revolution.

Earlier, in 1776, the physiocrat Turgot, at the time the head of the French Navy, had written a lengthy paper arguing that the best scenario for France would be to provide just enough aid to America to result in a long protracted “no-win” war which would drain British resources and enfeebled them as a military power.

The problem facing Jay and Franklin was that the 1778 Treaty of Amity and Commerce placed America in a subservient position. The Treaty explicitly stated that America would defer to the French on all terms of peace with the British. The French and Spanish were agreed that any independent American nation must be so limited in size, so hemmed in and so economically weak, that it would remain a permanent dependency of France. The French insisted that the new nation be limited to the boundaries of the original thirteen colonies, with the Appalachian Mountains as the western border, that England would retain Canada, the Spanish would obtain Florida, access to the Mississippi River would be denied, and that America would lose all fishing rights in the north Atlantic.

On the latter point, Vergennes wrote, “The fishery along the coast belongs . . . exclusively to England, France participating by special treaties. The Americans have forfeited their share in British fisheries by declaring their independence of England.” In 1782, Vergennes secretly communicated with the British cabinet, proposing a peace agreement precisely along these lines. Vergennes proposed that Britain keep all the territory north of the Ohio River, and that the area south of the Ohio—between the Appalachian Mountains and the Mississippi River—be turned into an independent Indian state under Spanish control, a buffer state to prevent American westward expansion.

Turning Oligarchic Passions Against Themselves

The genius of Franklin and Jay in 1782-1783 was their recognition that with Britain, as well as with Spain and France, they were dealing with an oligarchic culture, a Hobbesian geopolitical intention, absent all morality. Britain desired to weaken France and Spain, and those nations wanted nothing more than to take the British down a peg. All of these nations—as well as the Dutch—were simultaneously involved in hideous colonial practices throughout the globe, carving up the world for riches and power. For all involved, the fate of America was secondary, except with the proviso that a potentially independent America must be kept weak, geographically small, and economically dependent on the European powers.

Right: Portrait by Sir. Joshua Reynolds, 1836

Left: Charles Gravier, Comte de Vergennes; right: William Petty, 1st Marquess of Lansdowne (Lord Shelburne).

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

In February 1782, Jay received a communication from Franklin, which stated that Franklin had learned that the British Cabinet was “mad” for a separate peace with America, so that “they may more effectually take revenge on France and Spain.” With Jay’s arrival in Paris, the stage was set for the American representatives to begin to exploit the competing bestial appetites of the European powers, to turn the oligarchs’ own competing frenzies to American advantage.

The 1778 French-American alliance had prohibited the Americans from negotiating directly with the British, and the Continental Congress was explicit in its instructions that neither Jay and Franklin, nor John Adams in the Netherlands, would be allowed to pursue a separate peace.

The first thing that Jay and Franklin agreed to, was to ignore these instructions and to violate the 1778 Treaty. Jay communicated secretly with the British Cabinet, proposing direct negotiations, cutting out the French and Spanish. Subsequently, in both 1782 and 1783, the British sent a series of representatives to Paris to meet with Jay and Franklin. When Vergennes learned of this, his vehement protests were silenced by Franklin, who presented Vergennes with written proof that the French were preparing to sell out American interests at the negotiating table.

Jay and Franklin manipulated both sides. The French, fearful that they might lose their influence in America, had no choice but to continue their military and financial aid. The British, fearful that the American states would form an even deeper military and economic alliance with France, were convinced to make deep concessions. The end result was an extraordinarily generous peace offer by the British, albeit one which Lord Shelburne hoped would pull the independent American nation into the British economic sphere.

Under the provisions of the earlier Quebec Act of 1774, Britain had annexed all territory north of the Ohio River to Canada. In the final peace agreement of 1783, the British agreed to reset the Canadian boundary to its 1763 limit, and all of the land north of the Ohio—what became the Northwest Territory—was ceded to the newly independent America, as was the land west of the Appalachian Mountains and south of the Ohio. America was also granted fishing rights off the coast of Newfoundland, and Jay and Franklin prevailed on the British negotiators to force the Spanish to grant navigation rights on the Mississippi River. Essentially, except for Franklin’s initial demand that the British surrender all of Canada! America succeeded in winning all of her war aims.

VI. Why the British So Often Succeed

The oligarchic view, as is still hegemonic in London and among their Anglophile sycophants in the United States today, is that human beings are animals, governed by bestial passions, with no higher moral identity. This is the Hobbesian outlook, as expressed, for example, by Adam Smith, and it is the foundation for geopolitics. The world is an arena governed by the maxim of “each against all.” The clever, the powerful and the sadistic shall triumph.

It is precisely in arriving at a deep appreciation of this oligarchic intention, internalizing the anti-human character of oligarchic culture that true counter-intelligence begins. One must start by learning the Principles involved.

Martin Luther King (left) and Malcolm X in Washington, D.C. on March 26, 1964.

President John F. Kennedy (left) with his brother Robert in the White House Rose Garden.

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

A Timely Intervention

On Martin Luther King’s birthday, of this year, sixty prominent citizens, in the name of the Truth and Reconciliation Committee, issued a call for reopening investigations into the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X.

Members of the Kennedy family, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, as well as Martin Luther King’s nephew Isaac Newton Farris Jr., are among the participants in this effort. Among the other sixty protagonists are G. Robert Blakey, the chief counsel of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, which determined in 1979 that President Kennedy was the victim of a probable conspiracy; Dr. Robert McClelland, one of the surgeons at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas who tried to save President Kennedy’s life and saw clear evidence he had been struck by bullets from the front and the rear; and Daniel Ellsberg, Mort Sahl and Oliver Stone.

In the statement released by the Committee, they state:

Four major political murders traumatized American life in the 1960s and cast a shadow over the country for decades thereafter. John F. Kennedy, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy were each in his own unique way attempting to turn the United States away from war toward disarmament and peace, away from domestic violence and division toward civil amity and justice. Their killings were together a savage, concerted assault on American democracy and the tragic consequences of these assassinations still haunt our nation.

“The tragic consequences of these assassinations still haunt our nation”—Think about these words. Many among us sense the loss, the downward spiral that has infected America during these past five decades, but how many of us have thought through the strategic and historic implications of those murders?

From 1956 through 1963, Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy battled to free America from the hegemony of British policy which had been imposed on the trans-Atlantic world following the death of Franklin Roosevelt. This involved economic, foreign policy and science initiatives, all intended to free the world from the paradigm of the nuclear terror of the “cold war” and the Malthusian economic policies of London. The American University speech by President Kennedy, on June 10, 1963, personifies the potential of that effort.

Rather than merely sifting through the evidence—Sherlock Holmes-style—any serious investigation of the John F. Kennedy assassination must begin by returning to the thread which New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison was unraveling between 1963 and 1967. In his investigation into Clay Shaw, Garrison had shown that Shaw was not only a stringer for the CIA, but that through his firm, the International Trade Mart, he was a deployable asset of the very shady and dirty Canadian/Swiss company, Permindex, and its majority shareholder Major Louis Mortimer Bloomfield, of the British Special Operations Executive (SOE). As documented in numerous investigations, Permindex has also been directly implicated in the 1962 assassination of Italian leader Enrico Mattei, as well as in the 1962 assassination attempt against President Charles DeGaulle.

Cui bono? Who benefits? The last fifty years have seen the United States embrace geopolitics, Malthusianism and monetarism—Britain’s agenda. Since 2001, our nation has done Britain’s dirty work in regime change wars, threats to China and Russia, and the aggressive expansion of NATO, while all the while destroying our own productive economy, along with the hopes and aspirations of our citizenry.

As in the case of Justice for Lyndon LaRouche, justice for John and Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King and Malcolm X will liberate minds, transform morale, and provide the means whereby the true United States might be reawakened.

Right: Deutsches Bundesarchiv

Left: Enrico Mattei; right: French President Charles de Gaulle.

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

The Remedy

Today, the aggressive pursuit of British imperial interest is apparent everywhere in the U.S., from the Atlantic Council, to the Integrity Initiative, to many and varied strategic and cultural interventions. As has been conclusively proven, all of the “get Trump” operations originated in London.

Shall we continue to be the British lapdog? Shall we confine American foreign relations within the Hobbesian straitjacket of geopolitics? If China, Russia, or other nations—such as Mexico—offer their hand in friendship, should we not grasp it? Is this not the intention of President Trump today, as he moves to end the “regime change” warfare so beloved of the Anglophiles in Washington, D.C.?

Ours should and must be a republican policy, one which seeks to engender both the betterment of our own people, as well as the “benefit of the other,” in regard to our relations with other sovereign nation states.

To return to the hero of our story, on July 28, 1777, John Jay authored an “Address to the People of Ireland.” It reads, in part:

Congress agreed to suspend all trade with Great Britain, Ireland, and the West Indies. And here permit us to assure you, that it was with the utmost reluctance we could prevail upon ourselves to cease our commercial connection with your island. Your parliament had done us no wrong. You had ever been friendly to the rights of mankind; and we acknowledge with pleasure and gratitude that your nation has produced patriots who have nobly distinguished themselves in the cause of humanity and America. On the other hand, we were not ignorant that the labour and manufactures of Ireland, like those of the silk-worm, were of little moment to herself, but served only to give luxury to those who neither toil nor spin. We perceived that if we continued our commerce with you, our agreement not to import from Britain must be fruitless. Compelled to behold thousands of our countrymen imprisoned, and men, women, and children in promiscuous and unmerited misery, when we find all faith at an end, and sacred treaties turned into tricks of state, when we perceive our friends and kinsmen massacred, our habitations plundered, our houses in flames, and their once happy inhabitants fed only by the hand of charity, who can blame us for endeavouring to restrain the progress of the desolation? Who can censure us for repelling the attacks of such a barb’rous band?

Could the issue not be clearer? Jay is offering dear friendship to the people of Ireland, within the context of the principles for which America is fighting for its freedom. The actual enemy is the oligarchic outlook of Britain’s rulers, who sneeringly, treat their subjects like dogs, to be kicked or rewarded based on the level of submissive obedience.

A moral American outlook pervades the proposal by John Quincy Adams for the creation of a “Community of Principle” among sovereign nations. This was the paradigm of the Adams-authored Monroe Doctrine, a document which aimed not at creating an imperial “sphere of influence” for the United States, but rather intended to protect the emerging republics of Central and South America from geopolitical rape by the European empires.

As the adage goes, the British Empire has no allies, only interests. America has a moral mission, one which has been much abused since 1963, but one to which we still may return. Isn’t it past time to rediscover that mission? True, effective counter-intelligence works begins with rooting out the corruption within one’s own house, with eradicating those vestiges of oligarchic geopolitical thinking which have misled the nation. Then, the real productive work may begin.

[fn_1] . Years later, the elderly John Jay would relate the exploits of one of his most useful spies, a man named Enoch Crosby, to the young James Fenimore Cooper, and Crosby’s exploits would become the basis for Cooper’s novel, The Spy. [back to text for fn_1]

[fn_2]. Actually, Matthews was secretly meeting with and taking orders from William Tryon, the last Royal Governor of New York, who was ensconced on a British warship in New York Harbor. In his position as Royal Governor, and in consultation with British military commanders, Tryon, legally, was acting for the Crown. [back to text for fn_2]

[fn_3]. Silas Deane’s actions in 1775-1777 were crucial to the survival of the revolutionary cause, and specifically they made possible the victory at Saratoga. Initially, Deane operated practically on his own in Paris, with no legal protection, and communicating only with Jay in letters which utilized invisible ink. In 1778, Deane came under massive attack in the Continental Congress from the Lee family and Thomas Paine. Bitter about the treatment to which he had been subjected, he moved first to Ghent and then to London and called for a negotiated peace with Britain. Nevertheless, he refused British attempts to recruit him into a public role opposing the revolution, slamming the door on Benedict Arnold when Arnold was sent to entice him into British service. In 1789, after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, Jay invited Deane to return to America. He was preparing to do so when he died. [back to text for fn_3]

Buy books from store.larouchepub.com

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

III. LaRouche’s Economics

Systems Analysis Is

White-Collar Genocide

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

This is an edited reprint of an article by Lyndon LaRouche, originally published as a three-part series in EIR, December 22, 1981, December 29, 1981, and January 12, 1982.

If you ask me which of the Nazi leaders was the most depraved, I tell you it was Hjalmar Schacht. You object? Then, let me ask you a question. Which has the more evil motives: an epidemic of pneumonic plague, or the chemist who deliberately unleashed that infection upon a major city?

It is an ugly, painful, but completely true fact: Each and every recipient of the Nobel Prize for economics has achieved academic fame for advocating policies which mean global genocide in today’s practice. The case of the abysmally immoral drug-lobbyist, Professor Milton Friedman, is almost too obvious. In only one of his academic claims is Friedman correct; he is absolutely correct when he asserts that his monetarist doctrines are modeled upon those of the Nazi regime.[fn_1] Are the other Nobel economics award recipients less evil than Friedman? To the helpless victims of the Auschwitz gas-chambers, all SS uniforms looked the same.

This brown stain on the Nobel Prize is no mere academic controversy.

Consider such cases as the economics departments of Yale and Cambridge (England) universities, or of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. Whence come the policies of intentional genocide of such supranational agencies as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank? The economics departments cited are not the only sources of such genocidal policies of practice, such as “IMF conditionalities,” but they are among the leading such sources, and very, very witting sources as well.

To locate the extent of this evil, there is no better reference-case than that of the Vienna-based International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA). It is IIASA which bridges the pro-global-genocide forces of the NATO countries to the pro-genocidal faction in Moscow.

Like Aurelio Peccei’s genocidalist Club of Rome, IIASA is a 1960s creation of the NATO political-intelligence bureaucracy (e.g., the OECD). Since the late 1960s, IIASA has served as the broadest avenue of direct, two-way collaboration between the NATO command and officials of the Soviet KGB. Only the British Secret-Intelligence-Service (SIS) link into the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church has approximately comparable importance to this same general effect.

IIASA is headed by a Soviet national, Dzhermen Gvishiani, son-in-law of the late Prime Minister Alexi Kosygin. According to Scandinavian and Austrian intelligence sources, Gvishiani is one of the highest-ranking recruiters of Soviet spies currently in place in Western Europe.

Through his massive penetration of leading nuclear-industry and other scientific circles, Soviet access to the most sensitive areas of military secrecy is assured. Nor is it irrelevant that Gvishiani cooperates closely with those outwardly pro-nuclear-energy circles within Western nuclear industry which are in fact working actively to neutralize pro-nuclear-energy efforts in the West.

Important as that espionage aspect of IIASA may be, Gvishiani’s role as a Soviet KGB asset is the least interesting feature of his activities. In any case, NATO intelligence is well-informed of Gvishiani’s Soviet rank and his activities on behalf of the KGB. Such matters have even been advertised in published news releases! NATO has not lessened, but has increased its collaboration with Gvishiani. For the NATO political-intelligence command, there are higher than cosmic considerations motivating NATO’s intimate collaboration with Gvishiani.

Hal Becker (left), Treasurer of the Connecticut-based Futures Group, which specializes in using systems analysis to convince Third World governments that they need population-reduction programs.

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

Look behind Gvishiani: in Moscow. Look into leading circles of the Soviet command. Within and proximate to the Soviet Communist Party’s foreign-intelligence organization, IMEMO, there exists a task-force, a constellation of influential figures associated with a project known as “global systems analysis.” This project is currently reported as intending to release during 1982 a pro-global-genocide proposal. These Soviet circles brag that that Moscow report will be more radical than the Club of Rome’s Limits to Growth and President Jimmy Carter’s proposals for global genocide (Global 2000, Global Futures).

Recently, the pro-genocide (“systems analysis”) faction in Moscow has surfaced as a considerable factional force in the ongoing Soviet leadership-succession contest.

Look from IIASA westward. As we examine the pedigrees of the forces linked to IIASA through NATO channels, we encounter immediately all of the leading pro-genocide institutions and networks of the “West.”

IIASA’s special importance, by comparison with which the matter of spying becomes almost trivial, is that it is the principal official link between the pro-genocidal factions in both the East and the West.

The emphasis on “systems analysis” in IIASA’s official title is highly significant. This brand of “systems analysis” originates, by that name, in the Cambridge University (England) Apostles. The Apostles, based in Cambridge’s Trinity and King’s Colleges, is the Cambridge arm of the command of British SIS. It is principally at King’s College, among a circle including the neo-Keynesian Mrs. Joan Robinson, that this genocidal concoction called “systems analysis” was brewed.

In the United States, Cambridge “systems analysis” is dominant not only in the economics departments of Yale, Princeton, and so forth. Some of the most important centers which combine systems analysis with planning of global genocide include the RAND Corporation and the Operations Research network based historically on the Johns Hopkins University campus. Both these latter institutions were creations of British SIS’s psychological warfare division (PWD), the London Tavistock Institute (Sussex). The dominant think-tanks at Palo Alto, California are a significant part of this complex.

The academically influenced reader will pose a question to us at this point. “Is it not true,” such a reader might ask, “that systems analysis is morally neutral, and that it is merely a coincidence that some people are misusing systems analysis to further their own genocidal purposes?”

The answer to that question is that the methods and procedures associated with “global systems analysis” are intrinsically genocidal. To promote and to employ such forms of systems-analysis techniques for policy-making is in and of itself an act of global genocide. In other words, the promotion of such systems analysis is a prima facie capital offense under terms of the Nuremburg Code.

Unless the influence of systems analysis is eradicated from policy-making of governments and supranational institutions, the resulting number of genocidal deaths will exceed by up to a hundred-fold the genocide perpetrated by the Adolf Hitler regime.

Now, we clear up possible confusion concerning interpretation of the term, “systems analysis.” Once that is settled, we proceed to prove conclusively that the practice of systems analysis in the sense of IIASA’s practice is in itself an act of genocide.

Three Meanings of ‘Systems Analysis’

In the most generous view of the term itself, “systems analysis” might be employed by this or that person to signify one of three things. First, it might signify a kind of systems analysis practiced outside the realm of economic policy-making. Second, it might signify a form of economic systems analysis such as the application of linear-programming techniques to scheduling problems of a retail chain, an industrial corporation, or some other smaller-scale application to relatively short-term projections (“micro-economics”). Finally, it may signify what we have singled out for attention here: the application of economic systems analysis to whole economies or super-national complexes of economies (“macro-economics”) over a period as long as a decade, a generation, or more.

Critics will no doubt argue that the principles of “micro-economic” systems analysis are almost identical to those of “macro-economic” applications, to whole national or supranational economies. There is a significant degree of truth to that argument. Nonetheless, “micro-economic” systems analysis is often either morally neutral or sometimes useful; whereas, “global systems analysis” is invariably evil.

See that delicious peach. It contains cyanide! No, you may eat it quite safely. However, if I extract the cyanide from a very large number of peach-pits, the result is not marzipan, but an instrument of homicide. Something relatively harmless, or even beneficial on a small scale, may be deadly on a large scale. We explain, briefly, how and why this analogy applies in the working-point at hand.

First, systems analysis in general.

It is sometimes useful to misrepresent a process by interpreting (misinterpreting) that process as if it were a network of interconnected chains of causes and effects.

If such a fictitious network can be simplified, reduced to a matrix of the sort agreeable to present-day computer technology, a process which appears to defy mathematical analysis in its true form may be analyzed with a reasonable minimum of error of calculation by the methods of approximation we have indicated.

That will serve as a fair summary of the general meaning of systems analysis. Now, we shift attention to the application of such methods to economic analysis.

The application of systems analysis to economic and related cases developed during and out of World War II “operations research” practice. Economic-network problems (scheduling problems) were simplified in the descriptive form of sets of linear algebraic expressions, and calculations performed on the matrices so constructed. “Linear programming” is the most commonplace of the buzz-words put into circulation through such approaches. There were other aspects to the practice, but our illustration is quite adequate for the point at hand.

An industrial corporation (for example) wishes to optimize its paid-in profits from sales. It wishes to compare such profits with the production and distribution costs they incur, and also the capital expenses incurred by increasing sales by some amount, and consequently, the total cost of the realized profit-contribution from sales. Such a firm would begin the analysis required by projecting its share-of-market potential by delivery-weeks ahead (for example). To effect such deliveries, clearly the finished goods must be available for shipment at some predictable point in time in advance of the customer’s receipt of such goods. To have goods available for shipment, the goods must be produced, and in finished-goods inventory on the shipping-date required.

If there were only one product in question, the calculation might be relatively simple. If numerous kinds of products are included in the mixture of goods included in an economical shipping-quantity to a customer, the calculation becomes more cumbersome.

Goods are produced in batches or streams. Batches must be in economic lot-quantities. Different products use different ratios of varying combinations of production and other capacities. Materials and semi-finished goods must be on hand to start the production-cycle for each unit of production scheduled. Purchase-orders must be placed in advance for such materials and semi-finished components. Inventory risks shrinkage and incurs the costs of financing capital committed to inventory . . . and so forth and so on.

The calculation of proper day-to-day increments to each aspect of the overall schedule can be performed by use of standard ratios of costs and so forth. Despite the several kinds of fallacious fictions included in the method and statistics employed, the benefits of making such an approximate calculation are very large, over the short-term, relative to the actual amount of aggregate error prompted by the fallacious assumptions.

We have outlined such an illustrative case to this relevant purpose. As long as these indicated and related forms of systems analysis are restricted in application to relatively smaller-scale (“micro-economic”) cases over short-term spans, and with a carefully selected, limited number of considerations taken directly into account, such “micro-economic” applications are often beneficial—assuming that both the analysts and the management possess and exercise reasonable competence. The benefits vastly outweigh the errors caused by fallacious assumptions of the method employed.

The moment we shift the use of similar methods to whole national economies, especially over periods in the range of five years to a generation or longer, the benefits become relatively infinitesimal in respect to the gross errors arising from fallacious assumptions.

However, global systems analysis is not evil simply because it is intrinsically incompetent: There is something nastier than mere incompetence afoot.

As a final preparatory step, we provide the reader with a bird’s-eye view of the rigorous proof we are about to summarize.

First, we shall give the proof that all healthy forms of human culture have economic processes which are characteristically negentropic. We shall explain what this term, negentropic, signifies, in respect to technological progress and growth in scale.

Second, if a society’s economy can be fairly described, over successive periods, by means of linear economic models, that society is very sick, and will die unless radical changes are introduced to its policies of economic practice.

Adolf Hitler with his Economics Minister Hjalmar Schacht.

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

Third, if policies adduced from linear models are superimposed upon the budgets, investment-policies, and related decision-making processes of a society, such an imitation of the policies of Nazi Finance Minister Hjalmar Schacht leads consistently toward the use of both labor-intensive forms of forced labor, toward the expedient elimination of “useless eaters” which Albert Speer implemented on Hitler’s behalf at such locations as Auschwitz, and toward colonialist looting-practices such as those the Nazis imposed upon occupied territories and populations of Eastern Europe.

We thus provide the rigorous proof for a fact which is obvious enough on other grounds to any sane and moral adult. Any influential person or persons who propose to insert Malthusian population-policies into the policies of practice of either governments or supranational institutions is a mass-murderer in the same sense as Hjalmar Schacht, Adolf Hitler, and Auschwitz’s Albert Speer. Anyone who supports Malthusian policies, even as a simple, probably hashish-stinking “environmentalist,” is an accomplice in mass-murder in the same sense as the SS guards at Auschwitz.

What we are accomplishing, in exposing IIASA as in violation of the Nuremberg Code respecting “crimes against humanity,” is to show that Malthusianism criminality is not merely something superimposed upon economic policy-making. The axiomatic features of the doctrines of political-economy taught at most universities, and accepted by most of the economics profession today, is intrinsically a Malthusian doctrine, and thus intrinsically a cult-dogma of genocidal mass-murder of peoples.

The proof we summarize here is rigorous, but elementary. We require as included evidence for this proof nothing which is not properly within the intellectual reach of adults whose education has included a proper secondary-school education. With a reasonable amount of concentration, every intelligent adult with such an educational background can assimilate the proof we now develop.

A Proof Based on Economic Science

The prevailing reason our proof is not already common knowledge of literate persons is, as we noted, that all known university economics departments and most of the members of the economics profession today are incompetents, teaching and using a Malthusian cult doctrine based chiefly on British political-economic teachings, or on the neo-positivist, radically-fascist versions of British political-economy associated historically with the Vienna school.

The first point to resolve in outlining the proof is therefore the question: What is a competent variety of economic science? The most effective way in which to make the matter clear to the intelligent layman is to stress the fact that British political-economy first appeared a hundred years after the science, of modern industrial economy had been developed in all essentials on the continent of Europe. A century after the publication of the founding work of modern economic science, Gottfried Leibniz’s Society and Economy, a lying operative of the Edinburgh division of the British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS), Adam Smith, published, on the eve of the American Revolution, a lying propaganda-tract whose popularized short title is The Wealth of Nations. Prior to this pro-colonialist tract, aimed chiefly against the Americans, the British produced not a single attempt at coherent apologetics in political-economy.

Right: portrait by John Linnell, 1834

Left: Adam Smith; right: Rev. Thomas Robert Malthus

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

Adam Smith was immediately subordinate to the chief of Edinburgh SIS, David Hume. The point to be stressed in this connection is that the 18th and 19th centuries’ SIS was interchangeable with the direction and bureaucracy of the British (and Dutch) East India Company.

This British East India Company, the principal financier and political-intelligence arm of the ruling families of Britain, was in fact under the financial (and political) control of interlocking financier interests dominated by the immensely wealthy and powerful family funds of Venice and Genoa, the financier interests of the Italy-centered “Black Guelph” families of Europe and the Middle East, the so-called “black nobility” of Czarist Russia, Austro-Hungary, Byzantium, and so forth.

These Venice-Genoa-centered financier interests, which financed and directed the establishment of the 1603 and 1660 British monarchy, have always controlled, since those dates, the financial center known as the City of London. The British East India Company, like the Dutch East India Company which owned the House of Orange, was a spin-off from the Venetian Levant Company. Most of the major insurance cartels of the world today are spin-offs and subsidiaries of Venetian-family rentier-interests based today in Venice, in Venice’s colony known as Switzerland, and in the “unregulated, offshore” financial complex based on the British Commonwealth.

The British East India Company, including Venetian inside-control over that Company, is key to understanding all British monarchical policies from 1603 to the present date—although the swastika-bearing East India Company itself has almost vanished into the ranks of its numerous financial and political progeny. The British SIS today is the hard-core residue of the British East India Company.

The first academic chair in political-economy in Britain was created and financed by the British East India Company on behalf of that Company’s agent, the Reverend Thomas Malthus. David Ricardo, a close collaborator of Malthus’s (contrary to Karl Marx’s frantic effort to deny this fact), was an official of the Company. So was Jeremy Bentham, the author of modern Jacobinism, and the inventor of the “hedonistic calculus” used as the basis for modern British political economy by company official John Stuart Mill—and by William Jevons and Alfred Marshall. J. M. Keynes, Hjalmar Schacht, Milton Friedman, the fascist Fabian Society relic known as Friedrich von Hayek, and the Vienna neo-positivist lunacy of John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern,[fn_2] are all direct offshoots of Bentham’s and Mill’s version of the Hobbesian “hedonistic calculus.”[fn_3]

Among all leading industrial economies today, all of the successful industrial economies developed during the course of the 19th century were developed under direction of a body of economic science directly opposite to every principle of British political-economy. These cases include the United States (1789-1866), France (into 1814), Germany (1809-1914), northern Italy under Cavour, and Japan (1868 to the present).

In each of these cases, including pre-Napoleon III France, the industrial development was predominantly a self-sustained progress in technology, education, and industrial and agricultural development. Only Britain, among those nations, based its industrial development at home on colonialist looting of regions and populations abroad. After the enactment of the treasonous Specie Resumption Act of 1876-79 in the United States, Britain’s City of London had world-domination over financing of world trade and of debt of nations, a continued domination, much-revived since August 1971, which is the principal source of support of price of the pound sterling (through looting of other nations) today.

Modern economic science began more than three centuries before Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, in the policies of economic development and military strategy formulated for early 15th-century Italy by the great Byzantine scholar and statesman, George Gemisthos Plethon. The 15th-century Golden Renaissance’s development of statecraft was mediated through such principal channels as the School of Raphael. This School of Raphael produced the great Neapolitan culture which was the internationally admired jewel of southern Italy until the destruction of Naples by Horatio Nelson and such creatures as the Acton family of Britain. At the beginning of the 17th century, when formal modern economic science began, the world leadership in the science of statecraft was Naples, especially the circle identified with Tommaso Campanella.

From these outgrowths of the Golden Renaissance two essentially identical schools of economic science emerged in 17th-century Europe. In France, where this science was fostered by a group known as les politiques, the name of economic science was mercantilism. (Through, chiefly, the connections provided by Benjamin Franklin, French mercantilism provided the foundations for the American System of political-economy.) From Italy itself came cameralism which was the name chiefly used to define economic science in Germany into the 1840s.

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

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

During the 1670s, during the same period Leibniz completed the discovery of the calculus reported in his 1676 paper,[fn_4] Leibniz also published his Society and Economy. the founding work for all economic science since. Later, in 1952, this writer effected a major discovery in economic science, representing a further advance in the power of mercantilist-cameralist knowledge, but that discovery is merely an elaboration of conceptions already developed (chiefly) by Leibniz during the 1670s.

To define economic science as a category of specialized knowledge for the literate layman today, it is sufficient to compare the contributions of Campanella’s circle and of Leibniz, and to trace the effects of Leibniz’s revolution in economic science into the emergence of the American System of political-economy. Once we have accomplished that definition, that outline, we can then concentrate on the ABCs of economic science, free of the cult-nonsense spilling over into disinformed popular opinion from the university economics departments.

Cameralism and mercantilism were most essentially republican adversaries to the feudalistic doctrines of the 14th century and the Venice-directed Counter-reformation of the 1527-1653 period.

The feudalists, like the British today, were axiomatically physiocrats, who argued that all wealth of nations was derived ultimately from geographical accidents such as natural resources. The feudalists argued that the only source of profit to society is some form of rent, ultimately as “ground-rent” charges imposed upon the extraction of wealth from natural resources. Beginning with Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, British (and, Viennese) political-economy expanded the physiocratic definition of natural resources to include human labor, defining human labor in the same analytical terms of axiomatic assumption appropriate to cattle.

“No,” shouted the circle around Tommaso Campanella. They echoed their republican (city-builder) predecessors, including Plethon, Leonardo da Vinci, et al., on this crucial issue. “The wealth of nations can not be sustained on the basis of geographical accidents such as natural resources. The sole, continuing source of wealth is the development of the productive powers of the population of the nation.” Campanella’s circle emphasized what we today would term public education, technology, and state action to foster public works and private enterprise based on advancement of technology. Campanella’s circle also stressed the role of the machine and kindred development of tools of agricultural and industrial production. Such families of technologically advancing series of tools, they termed—as did Alexander Hamilton later[fn_5]—“artificial labor.”

The crucial thing lacking in Neapolitan and related forms of pre-1670 mercantilism and camerialism was Leibniz’s contributions. The center of Leibniz’s fundamental contributions to economic science was his elaboration of the principle of the heat-powered machine, “by which one man might accomplish the work of a hundred others.”

Concretely, Leibniz went beyond the notions of machines powered by explosions (Christian Huyghens) and beyond the development of the first successful steam-engine in collaboration with Papin.[fn_6] Leibniz generalized the notion of development of an indefinite series of improved sources of heat to power machines, and then examined the comparative features of machines in terms of the efficiency of their use of heat to multiply the productive power of labor. From these considerations, Leibniz invented three fundamental notions of all modern science, economic science included: work, power, and technology. (Technology was otherwise known among Leibniz’s French followers as polytechnique.)

All of Leibniz’s and associated contributions to economic science were embodied in the statecraft of Benjamin Franklin’s factional allies among the leaders of the American Revolution. From 1783 through 1876, American policy was divided between two factions: the Federalist-Whig faction (Washington, Adams, Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, Henry C. Carey, Abraham Lincoln, et al.), who deployed the American System of political-economy, and the Jacobin opponents of the Whigs, including Presidents who substantially ruined the U.S. economy during their terms of office (Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, van Buren, Pierce, Buchanan). It was chiefly the influence of the American System which effected the previously-cited 19th-century economic development of the United States, Germany, northern Italy, and Japan.

The case of France’s economic development (prior to 1814) was chiefly parallel to the American System, but based on the same mercantilist principles (e.g., Claude Chaptal, Charles A. Dupin). In the United States, Germany, northern Italy, and Japan—as in the Russian policies of Czar Alexander II and Count Sergei Witte—it was the influence of the American System, directly and by that name, which created all of the institutions responsible for those nation’s economic progress during the recent two centuries.

Left to right: Alexander Hamilton, Friedrich List, Henry C. Carey

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

The name, “American System,” was coined by U.S. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton in his 1791 Report to the Congress, On The Subject of Manufactures. This was the policy which brought the United States out of 1789 bankruptcy and crises into the prosperity which Jefferson and Madison nearly ruined. The influence of the British East India Company and its agent Albert Gallatin over U.S. policies under Jefferson and Madison, was stressed by a close collaborator of both Franklin’s and Hamilton’s, Mathew Carey, in the course of the depression caused by Jefferson’s and Madison’s pro-free-trade policies. Carey’s influential writings and organizing contributed greatly to the revival of the (dirigist, protectionist) American System under Monroe and John Quincy Adams, as well as the revival of the U.S. military, which Jefferson and Madison had virtually ruined. It was the Whig Party which continued the American System policies, with aid of the German agent (and American citizen) of the American System, Friedrich List.

After the death of his father, Mathew Carey, and Friedrich List, Henry C. Carey, Lincoln’s economic adviser, took the lead in international spokesmanship for the American System against the enemy, the British monarchy and the British system of “free trade.”

In 1868, Japan’s Meiji Restoration launched the industrial miracle of that nation (to date) on the basis of adoption of the American System of Hamilton, List, and Carey.

Although the sovereignty of the United States, respecting its principal components of national debt, national credit, and national currency, was treasonously subverted to Britain’s advantage by the 1876-79 Specie Resumption Act, the institutions of public education and industrial and agricultural development were so deeply embedded in the popular consciousness and practice, that the impulses of such institutions could be eroded, but not destroyed, over the period from 1871-76 into the launching of the treasonous, Malthusian “post-industrial society” cult’s policies during the 1960s.

In brief, then, mercantilism, cameralism, and the American System of political-economy represent different brand-labels for the only economic science, the only science of statecraft which has succeeded in producing self-sustained economic development of a capitalist economy. It should be added that the relatively successful features of the Soviet economy have always been adaptations of the principles of the American System to a non-capitalist form of economic development—ever since V.I. Lenin revived Count Sergei Witte’s and Czar Alexander II’s demand that Russians learn to think in economics like Americans.

The ABCs of Mathematical Economics

The fundamental expression for all mathematical analysis of economic processes is some expression equivalent to:

P = F[(n + m)/n]

in which P signifies potential relative population-density; F signifies some function, to be discussed here; and n and m are degrees of freedom in economic phase-space.

By degrees of freedom, we signify the complexity of the economy, as typified by its division of labor and by the complexity embodied in machine-tools and analogous forms of capital equipment of both production of goods and physical distribution of newly-produced goods.

The function is determined in the following manner.

In any level of technological development of society, only a certain range of man-altered conditions, typified by “natural resources,” can be exploited at acceptable costs. As such man-altered conditions are necessarily depleted by any unchanging mode of production, the costs of exploitation of those conditions rises. Therefore, all forms of society based on the equivalent of “zero technological growth” are intrinsically dying societies, societies wanting elementary qualities of moral fitness to survive.

Therefore, societies approximating “zero technological growth” policies of practice are societies self-condemned to die of “entropy,” as we shall develop that point rigorously here.

It is only through technological progress that society increases its per-capita productivity, thus combatting rising costs of selected resources, and also increases the available range of varieties of usable resources. This technological progress necessarily increases the complexity of the division of labor; and also increases the complexity of the machines and analogous investments employed for production and for physical distribution of newly-produced goods.

Therefore, the successful continued existence of societies depends upon advances in technology in terms of increases (n + m) in complexity of production relative to a previous level of complexity at a lower level of technological development (n). The mathematical function which corresponds to such an analytical requirement—F[(n + m)/n]—is best termed a “negentropic” function, or, alternately, a Riemannian function, the latter emphasizing the greatest 19th-century physicist, Bernhard Riemann (1826-66) of Germany’s University of Göttingen.

The proof that “systems analysis” is intrinsically genocidal is supplied within the limits of the most elementary features of such a negentropic, or Riemannian function. That proof, although elementary, is rigorous and conclusive, and would not be improved in any essential respect by introduction of more complicated mathematical-physical considerations.

The elaboration of the notion of potential relative population-density provides the uniquely appropriate basis for situating the proper interpretation of notions of work, power, energy, and technology. That two-phase elaboration suffices to prove conclusively why “systems analysis” is inherently the practice of genocide.

Potential relative population-density signifies the number of persons which can be sustained on an average square-mile of habitable territory by means solely of the productive efforts of that population’s own labor-force. This must be measured relative to both the variable quality of man-altered habitable territory and the level of technological development by which “ecological” characteristics are properly defined. It is clearly, the potential relative population-density we must measure, rather than the present census of population.

If one accepted the Club of Rome’s adopted method, as in the fraudulent Limits to Growth of MIT specialists Meadows and Forrester, then this planet of ours was already grossly overpopulated when the level of several millions individuals was exceeded. If Meadows’s and Forrester’s arguments had been valid, neither Meadows nor Forrester could ever have been born to offer such fraudulent arguments.

Examining the historical (plus archeological) evidence retrospectively from the vantage-point of Leibniz’s Society and Economy, the perpetuation of human existence over thousands of years to date has depended entirely on the emergence of new forms of society more advanced technologically than their predecessors. This advance correlates, in terms of an exponential function of some ostensible complexity, with increase of mankind’s potential relative population-density. It also correlates, in a similar fashion and degree, with a geometric growth of the required average level of per-capita energy-throughput to society, relative to increases in potential relative population-density.

If we examine such historical evidence from the vantage-point of systems analysis, a most interesting feature of this progress of humanity comes to light, although systems analysis can discern this only negatively.

As society advances, the variety expressed in elaboration of tools and of the division of labor in production of goods increases. This alteration in the input-output characteristics of the economy limits the application of any adopted set of linear algebraic descriptions of the economy to a narrow range in span and in time. The number and designation of input-output “lines” increases, with some lines dropping out. The coefficients, as well as the array of terms within each “line,” undergo alteration.

As Bardwell and Parpart emphasized, in explaining the total breakdown of all published “econometric studies” of effects of the October 1979 Volcker-Carter monetarist measures, when economic processes are radically altered in some determining feature, the transformations in the behavior of the economy are roughly analogous to what occurs when ice melts to form water, or water boils to form vapor.[fn_7] (Or, the reverse process.) The changes, in short, are comparable to changes in physical state in a physical process. Another term is “phase-change.”

In the simplest illustrative case, an economy undergoing concurrent growth in scale and productivity (technology), the systems analyst would be able to approximate the behavior of the economic process over relatively short terms, but would be obliged to develop a different model for a succeeding period than for the preceding period. If we can assume, as this illustration rightly admits the assuming of such a case, that technological progress is being ordered by a policy of practice prevailing in that society, then the different models developed by the systems analysts could be listed as a series:

a_1, a_2, a_3, . . ., an,

to which we apply the conventional practice of identifying any arbitrarily selected one term, in the interval from a_1, through an, as ai.

In this series of “systems-analysis models,” to attempt to use model ai to project the state of the economy under terms of model a(i+1), leads to highly inaccurate results. This is the key to the abysmal failure of the Chase, Wharton School, and all other standard “econometric” institutions over the period October 1979 to the present. It is conversely the key to the reason that the LaRouche-Riemann analysis has been highly accurate, and the only analysis which even approximates the reality of developments.[fn_8] The LaRouche-Riemann model de-emphasizes the short-term, linear connections, and focuses upon the non-linear characteristics of phase-change in the economic process; that is why the LaRouche-Riemann analysis emerged under conditions following November 1979 as the only competent approach to analysis of the current process of global economic devolution (e.g., depression).

The series, a_1, signifies that within the span of approximate applicability of each “model,” ai, there are occurring “non-linear,” hidden developments which are transforming the economy into the state represented by “model” a(i+1). In other words, it is those considerations which linear systems-analysis axiomatically ignores, those cumulative “non-linear” effects, which produce the ordered succession of transformations, ai.

This is a more rigorous manner of stating a point we outlined earlier in this report. As long as linear economic analysis is limited to a short time-span, and is two-foldly limited in scale of application to limited, gross features of a “micro-economic” process, the intrinsic fallacies of linear analysis can be relatively ignored for purposes of calculation of estimated values. As we enter into the broader range of policy-decisions affecting the transformation of ai into some successor state describable by a(i+1), it is the intrinsic fallacies of the linear method which predominate in the comparison of calculated and actual effects.

What we have outlined for the illustrative case, of successive phase-changes under conditions of growth, is true for the case of economic decline, the case for the step-wise collapse of the economy under continuation of the Carter-Volcker policy of October 1979.

There is no middle ground between growth and devolution. There is no possible condition under which a linear policy-model of an economic process can sustain equilibrium over a period of even several years in the modern world.

All linear models are intrinsically zero-technological-growth models. All societies governed by zero-technological-growth in policy-making are economies undergoing entropic collapse, being directed into a devolutionary series of phase-changes.

Thus, in any circumstance in which linear thinking respecting economic processes shapes the policies of governments, banking, and so forth, that society is being directed into a devolutionary spiral, which, if continued, means convergence upon genocide. Lowering of the effective productivity of the economy (e.g., through unemployment of goods-producing labor, cannibalization of existing productive capacities, etc.) has the ecological effect of lowering the potential relative population-density. When the potential relative population-density is pushed down, as by Friedman and Volcker types of monetarism, below the level of the existing population, genocide emerges.

The (macro) systems analyst could be rescued from the intrinsic incompetence afflicting his work only on condition that we define an ordered succession of phase changes in the economy—for example, a_1, a_2, a_3, . . ., an —as ordered by what is best named a “transformation-function.” We now explain what this sort of function implies, and then proceed to follow it to more profound considerations.

Courtesy of the University of Texas at Austin

Drilling for oil: The broad introduction of more and more efficient energy resources can mark phase changes in an economy.

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

The Rigorous Definition of ‘Work’

Imagine some form of mathematically-describable physical action upon an economy, such that the following conditions are satisfied. This action, performed on a_1, transforms the economy from the state approximated by “linear model” a_1, into a state approximated by “linear model” a_2. This exact-same action, applied to a_2, effects state a_3. The exact-same action, applied to indefinitely defined member of the series a_1, to an, ai, transforms the economy from state a_1 into a(i+1).

If this transformation-function holds for all of the phase changes, ai through an, we have the non-linear function which determines each phase change of the ordered series, a_1 through an.

This brings us against a new problem. If there is any break in the series, such than some different transformation-function is required to account for the change from state a(n+i) into state a(n+i+1), the series of changes defined by the transformation-function for a_1 through an, comes to a halt at that point, and a new series, defined by a different transformation-function, begins.

In the reality of societies’ practices, such changes in transformation-function occur whenever there is a radical shift in that society’s policies of practice. Therefore, what we require is some general theory of all possible transformation-functions. Without such a general theory of transformation-functions, any notion of a “general mathematical economics” is an absurdity.

By transformation-function, we clearly mean, from the reference-point of linear modeling, a change in the lines and coefficients of line of a matrix. As we have already indicated, a positive such transformation must increase the implied number of lines, and must alter the coefficients in the direction correlated with increased per-capita productivity for the society’s production of goods.

What is the common feature of transformations which provides the proper basis for a general theory for evaluating transformations? We are forced back to potential relative population-density. Whether any transformation is positive or not is measured as the increase in the potential relative population-density of the entire society (all of that society’s population) effected by that transformation. A transformation-function, therefore, is positive if the series of phase-changes subsumed by it is also a series of successive increases in the potential relative population-density for that society as a whole.

In turn, transformation-functions are to be compared with one another, to the extent that they are really alternative options for society’s existing state of development, by the comparison of their values as generators of successive increases in the potential relative population-density of the society as a whole.

From this vantage-point of reference, the only portion of the total activity of a society which represents net work accomplished is determined by the work of increasing the potential relative population-density of the society as a whole. The transformation-functions which yield the highest ratios of increase of net work, successively, are the functions of relatively greater power.

What of all that other activity in society? Excluding the exertions of pimps, belly-dancers, drug-pushers, and Hugh Hefner of Playboy magazine, there is much activity in society which does qualify as useful activity. Why does this useful activity not deserve the honor of being treated as net work accomplished? There is a vast amount of molecular activity within that three-legged stool, standing quietly in the corner. We call such work, relative to elementary physics’ mechanics, virtual work: it has the form of the kind of activity which accomplishes work, but this activity is not expressed in a manner which actually accomplishes work.

A large amount of useful activity is required by society simply to “stand still,” relative to changes in the potential relative population-density. The crucial thing is the ratio of the net margin of total activity, which increases the potential relative population-density, to the remainder of that activity, required merely to “stand still.” So, the ratio of net work to total work, or the ratio of net work to virtual work, is the ratio series of leading concern for us.

This ratio-series, of net work to virtual work, is plainly congruent in some fashion with a series of ratios of the form (n+m)/n.[fn_9]

Since such functions affect the ecological function only as they effect beneficial physical alterations of nature, and of man’s per-capita power to effect such alterations, only the production of goods and the physical distribution of such goods have any primary correlation with the notions of work and power; only production of goods and the physical distribution of such goods are competently treated as productive.

Useful administration, and useful forms of services (which pretty much excludes all forms of “social work”) affect the organization of the production and physical distribution processes; and services, beginning with education, medicine, science, affect the productivity of goods-producing labor, the making of policies bearing on advancement of technology, and so forth. These functions affect productivity, but are not in themselves productive. Moreover, the contributions of administration and services to society are fully taken into account if we limit measurement to increases in the goods producing productivity of the entire society’s per-capita average.

To illustrate the point in “practical” terms of reference, we interpolate the following discussion.

In capitalist society (or, in the Soviet Union as well), net work is accomplished through allocation of a produced social surplus of goods to expansion of the scale of production of goods and the physical distribution of such produced goods: the net operating profit of the society’s combined industrial and agricultural production.

This “reinvestment” of net operating profits into improved production (and physical distribution) of goods occurs in two interconnected flows.

The first aspect of this flow is the extension of the relatively most-advanced modes of productive technology to replace relatively less-advanced modes of productive technology—including employment of unemployed portions of the total labor force and shifts of employment from wasteful or marginally useful forms of employment in services into high-technology production of goods. The average goods-producing productivity of the entire population of the society is increased in this manner.

The first aspect of the process of improvements would dry out unless new, more-advanced additions were being made to the total spectrum of technologies in use by the society.

To this purpose, it makes no difference whether the economy is capitalist (for example, the American System of political-economy of Hamilton, et al.) or the Soviet industrial model. The “dirigist” application of governmental regulation of flows of credit and taxation, combined with governmental encouragement through undertakings beyond the capacity of any agency but government, channels the creative potentials and other initiatives of the population into preferring technological progress in the mode of production of goods to all other economic objectives, and into effecting the maximum conversion of society’s net operating profit into “reinvestment” in capital-intensive advancement of the modes of industrial and agricultural production.

It is idiocy, or even worse, to propose as policy of practice, that the net operating profits of society can be enhanced by lowering real wages of the population, either by directly suppressing wage-rates and social benefits in the form of essential state services such as education, or by reducing the average wage of the entire population through fostering increased unemployment. Brown and Root’s essential problem is not merely ideological fanaticism, but downright incompetence in the ABCs of industrial management.

LaRouche emphasizes,“Cheap labor is less-proficient labor; the costliest kind of production is bungled production. Those who undermine the quality of the nation’s labor-force undermine the strength of the nation, and usually produce inferior merchandise besides.”

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

The relative productivity of a nation’s labor-force is determined principally by the level of education and popular culture of the population as a whole. The material culture of the household and community determines the productivity and cultural potential of the population, as deterioration of medical services delivered decreases the productivity of the average member of the labor-force through increased illness, disability, and mortality-rates.

Only incompetent managements propose to drive down real wage-rates of the average member of the population as a means for subsidizing the incompetence of industrial or other employers’ management. It is only through concentrating “reinvestment” of net operating profits, credit-resources and tax-benefits of the entire society to promote preferential rates of investment in technologically advanced goods-producing industry that the preconditions for sustaining society’s wealth, and hence for permitting future profits, is made possible. Brown and Root’s managerial incompetence thus borders on downright subversion of the strength of the entire United States.

“Cheap labor” is less-proficient labor; the costliest kind of production is bungled production. Those who undermine the quality of the nation’s labor-force undermine the strength of the nation, and usually produce inferior merchandise besides.

Society as a whole “produces labor.” It produces a labor-force of a certain quality (technological aptitude, productivity) by better education, and better material culture of households and communities, all of which is made possible by cheapening the direct social cost of consumer goods and services through society’s technological advances in productivity. These costs cannot be reduced without lowering the quality of labor-force produced. If the quality of the labor force is reduced, productivity declines. If productivity declines, the entire economy declines.

The object of sane managements in respect to labor force policy is to reduce the social cost of improved real wages-income: get more and better for one’s employees at a reduced percentage of the employee’s total income.

Returning from these illustrative remarks to our working-point here: The continued existence of any economy depends upon a net directedness of the sum of activities within the societies composing the economy. This net directedness is the technological progress which maintains or increases the potential relative population-density of the population of that economy as a whole. (Although the case of constant value for potential relative population-density is merely a hypothetical case, a useful pedagogical notion, a value not achievable except for brief intervals in actual society.)

Even the case of parasitical forms of society, such as British society, is no exception to this. If one society, such as the degenerate society of ancient Rome or the society of the British monarchy, derives the crucial margin of its growth and prosperity by sucking the juices from people of other societies, by destroying so the parasite’s hosts, the parasite also destroys the future basis for its own successful existence as a parasite.

Therefore, each and every activity within a society must be judged, valued, in terms of its “marginal contribution” to those forms of technological progress which increase the potential relative population-density. That is the only unit of measurement (metric) which can be employed in economic science.

With aid of this metric, all activities within an economy are classified as productive or non-productive. This distinction between productive and non-productive overlaps a second kind of distinction, between useful and useless (or worse) activities.

Science, medicine, public-school teaching of science or classics, good administration of governmental agencies and private firms are all useful to the point of being indispensable. However, they do not directly alter the ecological potential of society: only the direct production of useful goods, and useful physical distribution of such goods, change the physical setting of society in the manner required to improve the ecological potential. Useful administration and services improve the organization of productive work, as administration exemplifies this, or as education and science exemplify this. The contribution of administration and services is not measured in terms of the output of an economy, but rather in terms of the rate of improvement in the ratio of net work to total work performed over successive phase-changes by the population as a whole.

To perform a useful service (or a useful function of administration) is to cause others, directly or indirectly, to advance the technology of production of goods. To perform useful work directly is to cause oneself to advance the technology of production of goods or of the physical distribution of such goods. To cause others to advance the technology of production of goods is useful, but not productive. To cause oneself to improve the technology of production of goods is both useful and productive.

What aspect of the activity in these cases constitutes work? Is it the sweating, the pushing and shoving? By no means; there is no contribution to advancement of the technology of the production of goods in repeating the same technology of practice year after year. Exertion, sweat, time expended, are not measurements of work. Work is measured by what it produces. Work must be measured as the advancement of the technology of the society as a whole, for which purpose potential relative population-density is the criterion of an advancement in technology. Work is not of the quality of sameness, but of the quality of difference, of change.

This does not mean that repetitive labor in production of useful goods may not contribute to positive change.

The repetitive factory operation may produce a supply of semi-finished or finished goods which is indispensable for a time to those others in the economy who are more visibly, more immediately introducing useful advances in technology. In the aerospace industry, for example, such a relationship exists between the special category of industrial operatives assigned to developmental work and the operatives doing relatively repetitive work on the components-production or main-frame assembly line.

If one man climbs on the shoulders of two others, to effect escape from a pit into which all have fallen, the two onto whose shoulders the third person climbs are effecting useful change even while they stand still, precisely because they are integral to the process by which change is being effected. However, we evaluate the activity (or, still-standing) of the two in terms of the amount of change being effected by the combination of all three.

These points are clear, and are properly interpreted only if we take the society as a whole (economy as a whole) as our only primary datum.

Most of the technical blunders committed by honest accountants today, in attempting to assess the U.S. economy (for example) as a whole, is their credulous acceptance of the Gross National Product methods and procedures of national income accounting. They accept the monstrous, axiomatic fallacy of the GNP system (or GDP system, in other nations), of assuming that the output of the whole economy is the simple sum of the “value-added” margin contributed independently by each of the component farms and firms of the economy as a whole. They accept the delusion that the whole economy is the sum of its parts, whereas the value of each part of the economy is properly determined by taking the economy in total as the indivisible whole used as the starting point for analysis.

It is the positive change in the potential relative population-density of the whole economy which is primary. The parts are to be assessed and measured in respect to their marginal contribution to the changes maintaining and increasing the potential relative population-density of the whole.

It is the quality of difference, of positive change in the technologically determined value of the potential relative population-density of the whole economy, the latter taken as a self-subsisting unity, which provides us the only standard of measurement for defining work. Work is the work accomplished to the effect of perpetuating and extending the existence of self-subsisting systems.

The work is measured by a general function, of the form of P = F[(n+m)/n], which subsumes all cases of transformation-functions, as we have outlined the notion of transformation-function here.

Therefore, if we define work and power in terms of such scalar measures as calories and watts, we have imposed upon economic analysis, by imposing the notions of self-evident quantities of activity as scalars, an axiomatic assumption which from that point onward excludes any competent assessment of the economic process being considered. Work, as measured from the standpoint of the potential relative population-density of the whole economy, taken as a self-subsisting whole, is a magnitude which must appear to be axiomatically nonlinear from the vantage-point of the ordinary industrial accountant or systems analyst.

The imposition of such linear assumptions upon economic policy-making is worse than merely total incompetence. By limiting decisions made by government and private firms to decisions which are consistent with advice of economists, a policy of stagnation and decay is superimposed upon the economy itself.

Decisions respecting reinvestment of net operating profit, respecting introductions of improved technologies, respecting the built-in carrot-and-stick of taxation policy, respecting the standards and borrowing-costs for creation of credit and issuance of that credit among various alternative borrowers, together with the purveying of a consensus respecting what modes of action will probably be “economically successful, determine the production, investment, and purchasing decisions of the individuals in society. This is determined directly, through policies imposed by government, by banks, by insurance firms, by corporate industrial managements, and by trade union organizations. This is determined indirectly as the shaping of the popular consensus guides the development of the policies of practice of most institutions and households in society.

If the policy-making so directly and indirectly governing the society’s aggregate policy of practice is governed by linear thinking, the effect of decisions within affected institutions and households of the society will be to impose a linear model in the internal actions of the economic process itself.

Since a linear model is a model causing stagnation and the onset of devolutionary spirals in actual economies, so the prevailing delusions and practices of the university economics departments and professional economists are the principal cause for depressions and other most-unpleasant developments in modern history—especially over the course of the period since 1871-1879, at the point the British system achieved decisive world-domination at the expense of influence of the American System.

This is already half the proof that global systems analysis is intrinsically genocidal, but only half. To the errors we have so far identified, the British system adds a vicious element, to which we turn attention next. After that, we shall resume the examination of work and the reasons only a negentropic, or Riemannian, form of the fundamental function meets modern requirements.

The Outright Fraud of ‘Free Trade’

The British monarchy’s economy (which includes the economy of the British Commonwealth taken as a whole) is primarily a neo-feudal economy, as Friedrich List and Henry C. Carey, among others, rightly demonstrated during the first half of the 19th century. At bottom, the British doctrine of political-economy is based on the principle of ground-rent income to a feudalist oligarchy, including such disguised forms of ground-rent income as ground-rent embedded in the capitalization of debt service charges.

Throughout modern history, there has been a raging conflict between the interest of ground-rent and the interest committed to reinvestment of profits of society’s industry and agriculture in the form of expanded, more technologically-advanced new industrial and agricultural production. Essentially, this has been, and continues to be, a conflict between feudalist and industrial capitalist interests.

As the feudalist faction has adapted to the changed world brought into being by the 15th-century Golden Renaissance and the consequent emergence of industrial capitalism, the feudalist faction (for example, the British) has attempted to assimilate industrial modes within the framework of feudalist principles and feudalist forms of oligarchical financier interest. The feudalist, when disguised as a capitalist entrepreneur (but still a feudalist under the disguise), insists that the principle of capitalism is a fixed rate of return on financial investment, a return based on nominal valuations of financial investment. The New York City housing swindle and associated deadly real estate bubble, are efficiently representative of this feudalist policy.

The price of housing ought to be the competitive cost of producing an equivalent, without respect to the nominal valuation of the land on which it stands, and without respect to inflated financial changes for construction. Yet, over the postwar period (in particular) the rate of return on paid-in owner’s investment, in New York real estate, has been substantially higher than for investment in new construction; because, chiefly, the New York government connived with landlord interests to swindle renters.

The value of New York City real estate is not based on the principle of profits on production and maintenance. Although the rental income to nominal capitalization ratio is used as the customary multiplier for valuing real estate properties on the market, even the rental income itself is not the key to the New York City financial bubble in real estate speculations: a true imitation of the John Law “Mississippi” bubble of the 18th century. The key to the New York City real estate bubble is capital gains income, a capital gains earning much increased by massive flows of funds derived from the international drug traffic into competition for real estate refuges from inflation, and by the major role the growth of the New York City pornography-and-sodomy industry has had in augmenting flows into real estate revenues and investments.

What is capitalized, in point of fact, in such real estate capital gains spirals? What is capitalized is not the improvements emplaced upon land, but rather the ground-rental income value assigned to the unimproved land itself. The economy of New York City has been sucked dry, through the pockets of households and treasuries of industries (fleeing increasingly from such a robbers’ roost), to feed this ground-rent bubble.

Under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s Friedmanite (fascist) monetary policies, the economy of the British Isles has become a vast, decaying, industrial slum, yet, like slum properties in New York City, the market value of the British economy, as expressed by competitive valuations of the pound sterling, has increased relative to the values of more viable national economies.

A similar, if more ugly situation, prevails in the external indebtedness of the so-called developing sector as a whole. As the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank lead in shutting down productive investment in those nations, those financier agencies act to increase the per capita debt service of each nation through refinancing arrangements. In this case, especially in the so-called Least Developed Countries of Africa and Latin America, International Monetary Fund and World Bank policies are already, explicitly and intentionally acts of massive genocide against whole peoples.

Generally, worldwide, the portion of total world income to rentier-financier types of financial institutions, especially those based in Switzerland and the British Commonwealth, has increased vastly, and at an accelerating rate. This increase in rentier-financier income has already exceeded the net operating profit margins of the combined capitalist economies of Western Europe and North America. Since President Jimmy Carter and Paul A. Volcker introduced fascist varieties of monetary policies to the Federal Reserve System in October 1979, it has been the muscle and bone of the economies which have been looted as the principal source of growing revenues to rentier-financier interests allied with the British monarchy. Hence, Western Europe and the United States are now sliding ever more deeply into a new world depression which was started by Margaret Thatcher in Britain and then spread into the policies of the government of the United States.

These illustrations are adequate for our purposes here. The deadly conflict between “ground rent” and profits of productive enterprise is clear enough to any intelligent person. So far, ground-rent rentier-financier interests are controlling the British, U.S., and many other governments, and are implementing global genocide through such instruments as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank.

If the policies which contribute to this relative increase of power of rentier-financier interests, against industrial and agricultural entrepreneurial interests, are built into a linear form of global systems analysis model, as is the case in fact, the acceptance of that model as a guide to policy-making is in and of itself an act of global genocide. The proposal to increase and to enforce the payments to rentier-financier account, while savagely contracting the productive basis for producing means to pay such financial charges, is an act of genocide.

Feudalists Among Moscow Communists?

The fact that the kind of global systems analysis incorporating both linearity and the British model is intrinsically a policy of genocide poses some interesting speculations concerning the Moscow Malthusians. Is it possible to believe that a powerful minority faction in Moscow is not only committed to global genocide, but also that this faction is acting directly in support of the policies of British rentier-finance?

The Bukharin group wanted to keep Russia primitive: Peasants during the 1920-21 famine.

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

The fact that we must consider such a question necessary to answer reflects a widespread, monstrous, popular ignorance of the roots of socialism and communism extended among even policy-making layers generally.

Modern socialism and anarchism, together with solidarism, are direct outgrowths of the “Young Europe” radical-insurrectionary movement led by Giuseppe Mazzini and coordinated with British SIS through such key figures as Lord Palmerston and Karl Marx’s British Museum “controller,” David Urquhart. Although Karl Marx and Lenin, chiefly, are “flukes,” who proposed socialist models based on the capitalist model of technologically-progressive economic growth, the socialist and anarchist movements during and since international-terrorist Mazzini’s period have been anti-capitalist, pro-Malthusian “social battering-rams” created chiefly by the neo-feudalist, rentier-financier interests centered in Venetian family funds and the British oligarchy.

In Russia itself, the evil Russian Orthodox Church (not to be confused with any actually Christian denominations) performed a decisive role in coordinating the anti-Semitic “black hundred” gangs under Czarism, in controlling the Czarist Okhrana, in directing the 1905 and February 1917 revolutions, and in creating the Russian socialist and agrarian-populist movements. The Russian Orthodox hierarchy then, and presently, is integrated with the Jesuit order and with the hierarchy of the Established Church of England.

For example, the late Herbert Waddams, chief of British foreign-intelligence for the Queen’s private household, was a principal coordinator of Anglican plotting with the Russian Orthodox hierarchy, as well as the “fifth man” in the Philby-Maclean-Burgess-Blunt affair, a nasty ring of homosexuals penetrating many parts of the European, U.S., and Middle Eastern intelligence communities. (Mount Athos monastery in Greece, the historical center for Aristotelean propaganda since the Comneni dynasty of Byzantium, is also a principal world-center of pederasty. British public schools and Eastern Orthodox priesthoods are particularly nasty centers of pederastic practices.)

The Trotsky and Bukharin circles were, historically, under the coordination of the same complex of British-Venetian forces which produced Mazzini’s and Palmerston’s Young Europe organization earlier. Most of this sort of Bolshevik radical was deployed by such exemplary assets of the Venetian family funds’ intelligence service as Alexander Helphand-Parvus, and most were run by Venetian interests during key parts of their life through Venice’s principal route into Russia then (as now), Hapsburg Vienna. It is most interesting, for understanding factional alignments in Moscow today, to piece together the list of Bolsheviks who were on the payroll of Parvus at one time or another into the early 1920s.

This British-Venetian network among Bolsheviks was the controlling force within the international political-intelligence apparatus under Grigory Zinoviev of the Communist International. Jay Lovestone, who was part of this Communist International apparatus of Venice’s into the middle 1930s, is among the few surviving personalities who could tell much from his experience as a secondary leader on the inside of this operation.

There is, among those in Moscow who continue the Trotsky-Bukharin-Zinoviev tradition of Cominternism today, an inner circle which has, as a matter of tradition, wittingly allied itself strategically to Venetian-pivoted solidarism and the financier interests deploying SIS’s Bertrand Russell from London. These are the same British interests historically behind the China opium-traffic through Hong Kong and Shanghai. These inner circles of fanatics dream of “The World Revolution,” a world free of sovereign nation-states, in which the pederastic socialist doctrine of Oxford’s John Ruskin predominates.

From the standpoint of the inner hierarchical circles of the Russian Orthodox Church, the precedent for such global socialist influence under world-rule by the rentier-financier oligarchy is the arrangement concluded between Patriarch Gennadios of the late 15-century Eastern Orthodox Church and the Ottoman Sultan, Muhammed the Conqueror. Gennadios, as a reward for assisting the Ottoman Turks to subjugate the Greeks, was made Patriarch of the Eastern church and given dictatorial powers over the cultural and religious affairs of non-Islamic populations of the Ottoman Empire.

With the help of the anti-industrial-capitalist forces of the neo-feudalist Venetian and British rentier-financier interests, the Soviet plotters of “The World Revolution” aim to achieve global socialist power.

The Stalin government went to great excesses of desperate fear in the 1930s purges, but in respect to most among the leading Bolshevik figures charged at the Moscow Trials, excepting the case of the Red Army leadership, the accused were quite guilty, not of being Hitler agents, but of being British-Venetian agents of the variety we have indicated here.

Under the adventurous Nikita Khrushchev, the survivors of Stalin’s purges of the Comintern inner circle, together with numerous revengeful survivors and surviving family-members of 1930s-purges persecution, were encouraged to come out into the open as a political force. Khrushchev, at one point, publicly mooted even the “rehabilitation” of Nikolai Bukharin, the arch-agent of the Anglo-Venetian interests. The establishment of IMEMO in 1956 is of crucial significance. It has been the haven for political rallying of the Cominternist (“world revolution”) faction within the Soviet Union, closely allied with British SIS—and the Jesuits, and gradually increasing considerably its penetration of many powerful institutions of the Soviet state.

Apart from the shameless advocacy of Malthusian policies of genocide, there are two leading elements of propaganda radiated from the inner Cominternist circles which expose the extent of the Cominternists’ combined direct and indirect influence over the shaping of Soviet policy as a whole. This force is chiefly responsible for the policy of Soviet alliance with Britain against the United States, sometimes under the cover of the doctrine that “Britain, the played-out capitalism, is therefore, the lesser evil to be played against the military-industrial complex.” This latter is alleged, according to Soviet propaganda, to be based in the U.S. industrial interests of the South and Southwest (not in New York City’s Eastern Establishment, where President Eisenhower located its existence). This force is also responsible for Soviet insistence that “arms reduction” is the primary measure to be taken on behalf of avoiding war. It rejects the reality, that shifting the world from a Malthusian, rentier-financier neo-colonialist policy, to one of rapid technological development of the developing nations, is the only possible avenue for war-avoidance. The policy, forcefully laid down by Boris Ponomarev at the East Berlin world Communist Parties Conference in 1980, that developing nations must limit development to their own native resources, is not only a policy promoting global genocide against peoples of many developing nations, but is directly connected, in Soviet policy-making logic, to the perverted confidence in the mechanisms of “disarmament.”

In understanding Soviet policy, we must look more closely at ourselves for comparable cases. As with our governments, virtually no policy is ever developed for practice on the basis of rational, principled perceptions of national self-interest. Policies are formulated pragmatically, on the basis of making concessions to and avoiding rupture with those political adversaries with whom one believes it is politically expedient to effect a compromise.

There is no single principled, rational perception of Soviet national interest behind the formulation and implementation of Soviet foreign policies; those policies and their implementation are defined by pragmatic expediency, in terms of shifting balances of power among combinations participating in the Soviet leadership. The most common expression of the influence of the genocidalist Cominternist forces in Moscow is not the overt promotion of a genocidal policy, such as Ivan Frolov’s evil observations in a recent issue of Literaturnaya Gazeta,[fn_10] more frequently, the genocidalist faction’s influence is reflected as an accommodation worked into the pragmatic stew of this or that Soviet policy, especially—from our point of emphasis—Soviet foreign policy postures and maneuvers.

Once all these and related considerations are taken into account, the fact remains that the Malthusians of the West and the Malthusians of the East, are instruments of policy of the same, rentier-financier interest of London and Venice.

We have reserved the most challenging conception for this concluding portion of our report. Although what we report now does not violate our policy of limiting this report’s contents to the intellectual capacities of intelligent graduates of proper secondary-school education, what we must report now is admittedly more difficult for many among those readers than what we have outlined so far. It is by no means beyond the comprehension of such a reader, and much of what we report now will appear quite elementary to that reader, at least in afterthought. Yet, the crucial points included here do, we admit, represent some cause for culture-shock.

Therefore, as we have just noted, we have scheduled the culture-shock for the concluding portion of this report, after the general principles of our argument have been made clear.

The core of what we must outline here is elaborated more fully in a recent report outlining a policy for teaching of geometry in public schools.[fn_11] The reader who desires to explore these matters more deeply will find that publication useful.

Negatively, our argument so far is elementary, rigorous and conclusive.

The argument setting forth the application of potential relative population-density is also elementary and conclusive, at least as far as we have taken that so far in this report. Yet, if the average reader were to attempt to elaborate this proven approach to develop an actual economic analysis, the reader would soon find, in most cases, that the attempted application guides one to further conceptions whose initial impact is perhaps best described as “dizzying”—like the first time the reader, as a youth, jumped from the high diving-board into a swimming-pool. (It is delightful, once one has done it a few times.)

The analogy is appropriate. Most people, including some presumably well-educated professionals, who have confronted these conceptions retreat from them in the manner like the anguished youth who walks to the edge of the high diving-board, hesitates for a while, and then retreats, blushing with shame, and perhaps shaking slightly: “I can’t do it.” In confrontation with such conceptions, many have said: “I just can’t accept that. I would have to give up most of what I have been trained to believe, if I were to accept the implications of that proof.” Yet, despite what most were once “trained to believe,” the Earth is not flat, and the planets orbit around the sun in visual space. (Often, psychological cowardice is a more powerful force than physical cowardice. So, by means of playing upon a recruit’s psychological cowardice, military commands force soldiers to charge against rifle and artillery-fire.)

The mental cowardice which prevents students and professionals from beginning to master a competent variety of mathematical economics is best identified as the fraudulent representation of the universe by René Descartes’s and Isaac Newton’s parodies of Descartes’s error. Once the reader recognizes that these views are not only erroneous but pathologically fallacious, mastery of mathematical economics becomes feasible.

All modern mathematical physics, and the mathematical methods applicable to economic science, originates with the three principal published writings of Johannes Kepler at the beginning of the 17th century. Unfortunately, the interpretation of Kepler’s work found in most undergraduate textbooks, classrooms, and related sources today is incompetent. It is either intentionally fraudulent, or merely a credulous regurgitation of what the dupe has been taught to recite on this topic. Kepler’s accomplishment, especially when employed to expose the sheer fraud of Descartes’s and Newton’s physics, is the most efficient reference-point for introducing competent mathematical economics to graduates of secondary schools (or higher institutions).

What Kepler proved was not merely that the solar orbits are defined as a harmonic series of possible orbits—independent of the masses of the bodies. What Kepler proved empirically, and conclusively, was that Euclidean space is not physical space. Euclidean space—the space of the geometry of vision—exists in reality, but it does not contain within it the larger reality of which it is only a part. Kepler proved this, by proving that the ordering of physical events in solar space is wholly governed by principles of a nature which can not be contained within the geometry of visual space (Euclidean space): the principle of the Golden Mean (x^2 – x – 1 = 0, in algebraic terms).

It was earlier established, by the work of Nicholas of Cusa, of the circle of Leonardo da Vinci and Luca Pacioli, and others, including Albrecht Dürer, that all living processes tended to exhibit principles of geometric ordering consistent with the principle of the Golden Mean. Kepler applied this to the most-conclusive body of empirical evidence available for a decisive (crucial, unique) experimental test of the principle at that time: the solar orbits. He proved that the entire solar system was ordered according to principles of proportioning for which the Golden Mean is paradigmatic.

Later, Isaac Newton and Newton’s admirers have lied outright, attempting to deny, for example, that Kepler actually succeeded in discovering elliptical orbits, and that Kepler had not seen a connection between his laws and earthly gravitation. Both statements were outright lies, which could not have been kept in circulation in English-speaking countries if publication of English translations of Kepler’s principal writings had not been suppressed up to the present time.

The truth of the matter is simply this. Kepler proved a number of fundamentals, sufficient to establish all modern mathematical physics as a coherent discipline.

There were some things he did not complete, but it was his genius to define the need for discovery of such things as the calculus, establishing the guidelines Leibniz employed to effect the development of the calculus before 1676. From the successive work of Kepler and Leibniz, most emphatically, all competent strains of modern mathematical physics flow. True, Kepler did not perfect the theory of elliptical functions; it was the enemies of Newton and Cauchy who did develop the theory of elliptical functions, up through the essential completion of that work by Bernhard Riemann in the late 1850s and early 1860s. However, Kepler defined the importance of developing a theory of elliptical functions, and set science along the pathway of successive developments which led to its fruitful realization in later times.

The Golden Mean relationship exhibited in living processes: Every seashell’s logarithmic spiral is determined by the Golden Mean ratio.

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

Enough of that aspect of the matter. We turn directly, that background identified, to the problem of defining a physical space and the indispensable contribution of such a definition for mathematical economics.

The starting-point of the work leading into Kepler’s discoveries, as Kepler himself details rigorously in step-by-step fashion, is the great problem of geometry posed beginning the Tenth Book of Euclid. It was proven, at the Cyrenaic temple of Amon, during the fourth century B.C., that only five regular polyhedra can be constructed in Euclidean space. In other words, all of the postulates of proof by construction which lead into the topics of the Tenth through Thirteenth Books of Euclid lead mankind rigorously to the result that the internal ordering of all such geometry—the geometry of visual space—is governed by some principle which does not lie contained within the geometry of visual space. The characteristic quantifiable (determinate) expression of this “external principle” for visual (Euclidian) space is the Golden-Mean proportion.

This principle, that visual space is merely a subspace of physical space, but in projective congruence with the whole of physical space, was elaborated mathematically for geometric physics generally by the work of Riemann, leading, chiefly by way of Riemann’s influence among Italy’s scientists, to Albert Einstein’s flawed but useful discoveries concerning a Riemannian universe.

Elementary particles do not exist as ontologically self-subsisting substances, and physical processes are absolutely not governed by action-at-a-distance among particles in aprioristic empty space. Nor, as has been repeatedly demonstrated empirically, is empty space conveniently filled with an ether of the sort which James C. Maxwell contemplated as the key to making Newton’s incompetent mechanical scheme credible to the 19th century.

Above is Kepler’s 1596 demonstration of the harmonious relations among the five Platonic solids. Below, a diagram demonstrating his 1609 Second Law, which paved the way for elliptical functions. It states that the radius vector of an elliptical planetary orbit covers equal areas of the orbital plane in equal time periods, explaining why the planets move fastest when they are closest to the Sun.

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

What we see in visual space is the reality of a larger, physical space, projected as images into visual space. The principle governing such projective relationships must be, as Kepler proved conclusively, and as spiral nebulae affirm Kepler’s proof today, based on harmonic proportionings of a sort which subsume the Golden-Mean proportioning.

What we must observe and measure in visual space, if we are to infer rigorously processes in physical space, is not things, but the ordering of transformations.

We are greatly aided in beginning to understand this point by adopting the viewpoint of elementary (Leonhard Euler, et al.) topology. In elementary topology, as in physical reality, two points do not determine a line; rather, the intersection of two lines determines a point; the intersection of surfaces determines lines; the intersection of solids determines surfaces; the intersection of higher-order processes determines solids. A point, a line, a surface, a solid, is a zone of ambiguity, of overlap of the intersecting, geometrically high-order forms which define that point, line, surface, solid. These ambiguities, or boundaries of overlap, are termed singularities.

By definition, a singularity has no ontologically independent existence in visual space, and does not correspond to any elementary existence in physical space.

Thus, if it is sometimes convenient for calculations, to suppose that a “point-mass” exists, it is ignorant superstition to presume because of the usefulness of such crude calculations that such a mythological being as a point-mass actually exists in the universe apart from fictions of intellectually lazy mathematicians.

As for numbers, the integers arise in geometry and physics as an associated feature of the counting of singularities, which demonstrates the geometric origin of the integers as well as all other numbers. Similarly, the idea of a “straight line” as a self-evidence, or necessarily self-evident assumption, is another superstitious absurdity. In topology, a straight line is defined by folding a circle against itself, just as a circle is defined topologically by folding closed areas against themselves.

As we generalize from Euler’s founding theorems in topology to higher-order physical geometries, we are shown that the formulas governing coefficients of topological formulas respecting singularities work to aid us in discovering what order of physical space is required to yield a combination of singularities corresponding to a formula.

At that point, we are obliged to reject as numerological superstition all attempts to construct algebra on any basis but the geometric basis for elaboration of physical topology (e.g., Riemann’s topology) from the reference-point of Kepler’s work.

We must interpret processes seen in terms of visual space solely in terms of adducible characteristic features of transformations—geometrical transformations—respecting whole, coherent assemblies constituting such processes. It is only when events defined in terms of the “language of visual space” (geometry) are treated as processes in this fashion, that our interpretation of phenomena of processes in visual space is in projective congruence with the ordering of processes in physical space.

Economics and Physics

This is key to what we outlined in defining work in “economic space.” We generalize the notion of alternative transformation-functions, by the yardstick of increases in the potential relative population-density of society. It is in this transformation of entire societies as self-subsisting processes, which defines the efficient reality of all activities occurring within an economy.

In science, this writer is responsible for discovery of two important conceptions. First, this writer, beginning with a 1952 discovery, discovered that the characteristic function required to define a competent mathematical economics is a negentropic function, alternately to be defined most appropriately as a Riemann function. Second, this writer developed, as a by-product of the elaboration of that first discovery, an important, improved proof of the validity of scientific knowledge, by locating the basis on which that proof is properly premised. The latter is now summarized here, so that we may appreciate the conclusions to which the foregoing references to Kepler and topology lead us in economic science.

The ordering of societies in such a way as to represent societies of higher potential relative population-density emerging from the development of societies of relatively lower such potential, provides us a series of a form outlined earlier:

a_1, a_2, a_3, . . . an

The developments in technology which are responsible for this progress correlate with an actual or at least implicit body of scientific knowledge. Therefore, we may treat the indicated series as defining an ordered series of phase-changes in progress of scientific knowledge. The same tactic, of adducing the transformation functions ordering successive members of such a series, applies.

It is the ambiguity of any particular body of currently established scientific opinions in particular that the prevailing scientific knowledge today is superior to the knowledge of the previous epoch, and yet the best formulations of today may become the favorite professor’s classroom jokes of the future. For reason of this ambiguity, we can not premise any absolute authority for scientific opinion, such as that prevailing in universities today, on the putative experimental proofs cited in support of such opinions. An isolated experiment proves nothing fundamental; no mere accumulation of inductive judgments from a mass of such isolated experiments proves anything fundamental respecting the lawful ordering of the universe.

Wherein, then, does the possible authority of science lie? Look again at our approach to this series we have outlined. In the first approximation, the transformation function which is shown to define an ordered series of successive scientific revolutions is of a higher order of knowledge than any of the particular bodies of scientific Opinions it subsumes as a generator. Yet, as for the general function of economic science, we require a yet higher notion of transformation, which subsumes all first-order transformations. This latter, higher notion, we can rightly term the principle of “scientific progress.”

It is the principle of discovery underlying all successful scientific revolutions which is the sole absolute authority for scientific knowledge.

How do we measure scientific revolutions, so that we may determine which are actually advances, which are retrogressions, nonproductive detours, and to compare the implied degree of power of progress and retrogression relative to other cases? The implicit potential relative population-density, as variously expressed by application of the technological benefits of such a revolution, or, if realization of scientific progress is constrained by social policy, what the contribution would be if the benefits of science were promoted adequately: there is the only basis for measuring scientific revolutions.

From this method of inquiry we adduce principles (policies) of scientific discovery, of scientific progress which correlate directly with increasing the average per capita power of mankind over the universe. It is only through means of the metric of potential relative population-density that this could be determined empirically.

What, then, does it mean to generate a series of technological developments, such that the power of the average person over the universe is successively increased?

Negentropy

To increase man’s average power over the universe means to increase man’s command of the lawful composition of the universe. This means that the generator which orders such a succession of phase-changes in technology is in implicit congruence with the lawful composition of the universe as a whole. It means that that generator is implicitly a statement of principles congruent with the underlying, lawful ordering of the universe.

This conception is not fundamentally new to this writer. It is Plato’s notion of the hypothesis of the higher hypothesis. It is the Logos conception in the Nicene-Filioque doctrine of Apostolic Christianity. It is the approach of St. Augustine and his followers to the ordering of secular society. What is new to this writer’s conception is to situate that Logos-conception with respect to the implications of a Riemannian approach to the fundamental function of economic science.

Yet, this very notion defines the ordering-principle of scientific (technological) progress as negentropy; we shall clarify this in a moment. Therefore, the lawful composition of the universe as a whole is negentropic.

By negentropic, we mean, in terms of physical topology, that the principle (n+m/n defines a generative principle, as this notion is reflected in Bernhard Riemann’s 1854 habilitation dissertation, On the Hypotheses Which Underlie Geometry. It means that the economy defines a series, of the form:

(n+a)/n; (n+a+b)/(n+a);

(n+a+b+c)/(n +a+b); . . .

It also has a simple economic interpretation:

If the total output of a society is W, and if the following subdivisions, as distribution, of W, prevail,

C = Cost of maintaining goods-producing and physical-distribution capacity status quo ante;

V = Cost of maintaining at a current level of culture, etc., all of the households from which the goods-producing sector of the labor-force is recruited;

d = The cost of all household and other costs for non-goods-producing labor-force activities;

and if

S =W – (C + V);

S′ = (S – d) = Net Operating Profit of the society as a whole;

then the ratio S′/(C+V) correlates with (n+m)/n, on condition that S′ is chiefly converted into “reinvestment” in technological-progress-oriented expansion of the economy in scale and productivity.

In this case, the ratio of S/(C+V) increases. Unless the policies of practice of the society are mismanagement of the society, the increase of S/(C+V) correlates with increases in S′/(C+V).

However, the “objective content” of average real wages and per-capita goods-producing investment increases, at the same time that the social cost (per average total of members of the labor-force) decreases. In other words, both C and V increase in objective content, relative to preceding epochs of the production distribution cycle, but the average cost of C and V combined decreases as a percentile of total activity of the labor-force.

This growth of the function, P = F[S′/(C+V)], is negentropic. The source of the negentropy is the principle of scientific progress, mediated through actual scientific progress, and that latter mediated through technological progress. Thus, the ordering principle which causes a successful economic process to be negentropic is scientific progress, which scientific progress is nothing but those principles of discovery which, as a generative principle, is congruent with the underlying lawful ordering of the principle as a whole.

Imago viva Dei? Is it man’s power to reach atonement with the Logos, which, as an activity, is the self-mediated activity, through work, which defines man as in the image of God, above the beasts? Is it, then, through exerting increasing dominion over the universe in ways expressed by increase of the potential relative population-density of society, that mankind expresses through technological progress in work, the activity of atonement with the Logos? Is it, then, therefore the case, that the function of material progress, mediated through technological progress in work, is not material progress in itself, but that material progress is indispensable to perfect the development of man’s potential, individual man’s potential, as imago viva Dei?

All human history, all evidence adducible from science, informs us that the answer to each and all of these questions is “Yes, it is so.”

Whether or not the reader prefers to embrace, ecumenically or otherwise, the Judaism of Philo of Alexandria, the Apostolic Christianity of St. Augustine, or not, there is no competent dispute against the scientific authority of the Filioque principle as reflected in the principle of imago viva Dei.

The Enemies of Science

Equally to the point, all forces which have rejected those principles—whether the Delphi cult of Apollo, the Mesopotamian Mobads (Magi), the cult of Isis, the gnostic pseudo-Christians of Justinian Eastern Orthodoxy, Jesuitry, and Anglicanism, or simply atheistic Malthusians—have proven themselves to be evil in social practice. Central to the difference between the evil Justinian gnostics of the Eastern Church and Apostolic Christianity, as between the Sadducees and Philo of Alexandria, is the issue whether the universe is linear and entropic, or a continuing creation which is negentropic. The evil agent of the Delphi cult of Apollo is exemplary of the arguments for linearity and entropy.

The universe is not composed of aggregates of very small, ontologically self-evident particles, each variously combining with other particles, and generally otherwise acting upon one another, “at a distance,” across empty, aprioristic space. What ignorant opinion sees as “concrete existence” in empty space—points, lines, surfaces, solids, and so forth—are in fact merely singularities, eminently countable singularities, of a current epoch of a process of transformations. Contrary to René Descartes and Spinoza, as also Schelling, the discrete existences are real, if nonetheless, like mere mortal human persons, only ephemerals in the course of the unfolding of the determining process of successive transformations.

The discrete existences are real. The discrete existences called human beings are real, above all others. Only human beings possess the divine potential expressed as the activity of scientific progress, the power to master those laws of the universe with which men and women, among all other existences, are brought into existence and pass away. Only man, among all existences of that sort, can supersede his thing-like ephemerality, to become a real, active part of the process of continuing creation.

The notion of linearity, of entropy, is introduced to credulous folk by such wretches as the sophist Aristotle through the sophist huckster’s pointing to things: “See, this thing is tangible. Only it is real.” So, a kind of analogy for an optical illusion occurs, in which a sophist’s hypnotism so intently focuses the credulous, deluded individual upon the abstract existence of the ephemeral thing (the mere singularity of the process), that the victim’s mental power to wrap his mind around the quite observable and efficient process of transformation is destroyed. From that sort of sophist’s brainwashing of the credulous arises the dogma of “reductionism,” the delusion that the universe is entropic.

From a higher standpoint than we propose to introduce to the readers selected for this report, we could show that God is not the chief accountant of the universe’s largest public utility. The activity of the universe cannot be measured competently in units analogous to calories or watts—a procedure admittedly to be recommended to actual public utilities’ billing departments. What we call “energy” is not an independent existence, but a reflection of negentropy, the work reflected in raising processes from lower to higher degrees of organization, in the sense of organization implicit in the notions of physical topology.

General Conclusion

We have shown why any superimposition of linear, entropic “economic models” upon policy-making must necessarily lower the potential relative population-density of societies. If this sort of policy is continued, the potential relative population-density must fall below the existing level of population.

Thus, all application of linear, entropic modelling to economies is intrinsically genocidal.

Worse, we have emphasized, today’s Malthusians are fully conscious of the genocidal implications of their adopted economic policies (“systems analysis”), so that their capital offenses against the Nuremberg Code are not unwitting, but fully-conscious—on both the Western and Soviet side among Malthusians today.

We have situated that proof within the context of introducing the rudiments of a competent mathematical economics, exposing, for those who may require this to be stated here, the implications to which our mathematical economics leads in practice.

The simple fact which is outstanding is that any elected or appointed official of any government, or of any supranational institution, such as the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, or International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), who supports the policies of the Club of Rome, of IIASA, of the Draper Fund, the Aspen Institute, or President Carter’s genocidal Global 2000 and Global Futures proposals deserves to be indicted and removed from office into public outlawry on grounds of complicity in capital offenses, “crimes against humanity” (genocide) of the Nuremberg Code.

That fact is conclusively established without what we have written here. What we have done in this report is to strip away the apology offered by mass-murderers such as Aurelio Peccei, Robert S. McNamara, et al., that it is economics, not malice, which makes them instruments of a greater mass-murder than Adolf Hitler perpetrated.

[fn_1]. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. and David P. Goldman, The Ugly Truth About Milton Friedman, The New Benjamin Franklin House, New York, NY, 1981. [back to text for fn_1]

[fn_2]. John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern, The Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, Princeton University Press, 1944. [back to text for fn_2]

[fn_3]. LaRouche and Goldman, op. cit. [back to text for fn_3]

[fn_4]. Leibniz’s published report on the discovery of the differential calculus was sent to the Paris printer in 1676, as Leibniz was leaving France, to return to Germany. For unexplained reasons, publication of this paper, which exists and whose authenticity is determined by datable elements of the Leibniz archives, was suppressed. This date, 1676, is eleven years prior to Newton’s publication of an unusable concoction on which his reputation as inventor of the calculus was alleged to depend. [back to text for fn_4]

[fn_5]. Alexander Hamilton, Report to the U.S. Congress, On The Subject of Manufactures, 1791. [back to text for fn_5]

[fn_6]. Philip Valenti, “A Case Study of British Sabotage: Leibniz, Papin, and the Steam Engine,” Fusion, December 1979, pp. 27-46. [back to text for fn_6]

[fn_7]. On “phase-change” analogy for economies, see Steven Bardwell and Uwe Parpart, “Economics: the Thermohydrodynamic View,” Executive Intelligence Review, Vol. 7, No. 17, May 6, 1980, pp. 26-35. [back to text for fn_7]

[fn_8]. David P. Goldman, “The U.S. Recession: Why the EIR Model Beat Wall Street’s 1980 Projections,” Executive Intelligence Review, Vol. 7, No. 34, Sept. 1, 1980, pp. 16-22. [back to text for fn_8]

[fn_9]. For a beginner’s introduction to the economic science behind this, cf. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., Basic Economics for Conservative Democrats, New Benjamin Franklin House, New York, NY, 1980. [back to text for fn_9]

[fn_10]. Interview with Ivan Frolov, Deputy Director of the U.S.S.R.’s All- Union Systems Research Institute, in Literaturnaya Gazeta, Oct. 14, 1981. [back to text for fn_10]

[fn_11]. See “How the United States Could Still Surpass the Soviets in Science,” by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., Campaigner magazine, Special Supplement, January 1983. [back to text for fn_11]

IN MEMORIAM

Walter Jones:

A Most Unusual Congressman—

For the Common Good

by Debra Hanania-Freeman and Paul Gallagher

Feb. 11—Representative Walter Jones of North Carolina died yesterday at 76, after an illness complicated by a recent fall. He was a Member of Congress always driven to think of attempts he could pursue to get that body—or even a few of its Members—to assert its constitutional duty against U.S. regime-change wars and the devastation they cause to American service personnel, to their families, and to foreign populations.

The most truthful of his many truthful acts was his reversal of his initial support for the Iraq War, when he found that President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney had lied to Congress and the people to start the war, and that it was a deadly fraud, killing thousands of American soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis. Congressman Jones said, “I will go to my grave regretting” that vote, and he constantly sought to awaken conscience in colleagues.

Days before his death, on Feb. 6, Rep. John Garamendi of California, a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, honored Representative Jones by introducing H.R. 966, the Walter B. Jones Restoring Power to Congress Act. It would repeal the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF).

Congressman Jones, himself, had been stripped of committee positions by leadership, despite 25 years’ seniority, because of his independence of thinking and voting. He was a truly non-partisan legislator who did not vote for fakery by either party. He was a prime sponsor, and for a time the only Republican sponsor in the House, of the vital “Return to Prudent Banking Act” to restore Glass-Steagall bank regulation, and argued strongly for it in press conferences with Democratic Reps. Marcy Kaptur, Tim Ryan, Tulsi Gabbard, and others. It appears that no press obituary has mentioned his Glass-Steagall advocacy—yet when Wall Street candidates were being recruited to try to unseat him, the reporting of it was quite prominent.

Walter Jones twice sent videotaped messages to conferences of the Schiller Institute, and went beyond discussing a conference subject, endorsing the work of the Schiller Institute generally. He said at one meeting, “I feel more at home talking with you people than with my own party.”

Representative Garamendi’s statement said, “Congress has a Constitutional responsibility to debate and declare war, and we have abdicated that responsibility for far too long. That is why I am introducing this legislation to repeal the 2001 AUMF within one year of enactment. . . . I am also grateful to recognize the leadership of my dear friend, Walter Jones, who is currently in hospice care. Walter has championed this cause for years; I have worked with him closely on this issue in Congress. I am grateful for his wisdom, passion, and advocacy.”

Hopefully, in death Walter Jones’ name can win the constitutional check on war, for which he strove so hard in life.