Executive Intelligence Review, Volume 46, Number 49, December 13, 2019

- Cover

- Masthead

- EDITORIAL Our Mission by Barbara Boyd

- PDF edition Table of Contents — Volume 46, Number 49, December 13, 2019

- I. A Failed Elite

- The Death-Agony of Olympus by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. (1998)

- II. The Failure of Imperial Geopolitics

- Global Green New Deal Aimed at China, Russia, India, and the United States by Paul Gallagher

- Trump at NATO Meeting: Friendship with Russia, Peace in Ukraine by Mike Billington

- Now, Rid NATO of the Entente Cordiale! by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. (1996)

- London Signals Military Dictatorships May Be Required to Defend its Economic System by Dennis Small

- Coup in Bolivia a Replay of Ukraine’s ‘Maidan’ by Cynthia R. Rush

- EDITORIAL The Death-Agony of Olympus

- IN MEMORIAM Hal B.H. Cooper, Jr., 1940-2019: The Practical Visionary

The Impeachers Are Insane

Founder: Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. (1922–2019)

Editor-in-Chief: Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Co-Editors: Marcia Merry Baker, Paul Gallagher, Robert Ingraham, Tony Papert

Managing Editor: Stephanie Ezrol

Editorial Staff: David Cherry, Charles Notley

Technology: Marsha Freeman

Transcriptions: Katherine Notley

Ebooks: Richard Burden

Graphics: Alan Yue

Photos: Stuart Lewis

Circulation Manager: Stanley Ezrol

INTELLIGENCE DIRECTORS

Asia: Michael Billington

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.: Richard Black, 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,

Bahnstrasse 4, 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: ©2019 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.

EDITORIAL

Our Mission

by Barbara Boyd

The following is based on the Mrs. Boyd’s notes for her presentation on the LaRouche PAC Fireside Chat on December 5, 2019. She was joined by Larry C. Johnson, a former CIA analyst and member of the VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity). The full discussion, lasting more than 90 minutes, with a wide-ranging question and answer segment, is available here.

Dec.5—The report from Inspector General Michael Horowitz is going to be made public on Monday and will be featured in a House Judiciary hearing on Wednesday. The question is, how to respond. How will the American people respond?

C-SPAN

Michael Horowitz, Justice Department Inspector General.

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

The feeling you may get is that if Horowitz does not deliver a knockout blow to the entire apparatus the President is up against—a corrupt system that has been built up ever since Roosevelt’s death and now is in open revolt against the President—then people will just pick up their marbles and go back to some less stressful existence they imagined themselves to be leading. In that light, in light of the real fight we are in, it is not accidental that in her teleprompter-delivered announcement about proceeding with impeachment today, Speaker Pelosi began, not with the Constitution, but with the Declaration of Independence. You see, she really does see herself as engaged in outright sedition.

Tonight, I am going to talk a little about a paper that Lyndon LaRouche wrote on September 1, 1998. It’s called, “The Death Agony of Olympus,” and is reprinted in this issue of EIR. The subject is how to move people beyond being a loyal audience for LaRouche PAC events or observers of them, to engaging in the kind of effective political action required now to save the Republic and return it to its founding principles.

As we have emphasized throughout this process, each step in the coup, each step in this process has exposed more and more of the decadent institutions and people who have tormented both us here in the United States and in the rest of the world, as well. Presumably, we will have an impeachment trial in the Senate, which will be the most perfect opportunity for the active political education of our citizens anyone could possibly imagine, provided we take maximum advantage of what is coming.

I will not pretend to present the entirety of LaRouche’s paper, because it is profound and has to sink in. Rather, I will just whet your appetite, and I think it can serve as the appropriate opening way to think about what is coming.

What LaRouche documents in this paper is the fact that objective programs and momentous events do not themselves determine history. He wrote it to help leaders, then, and now, inside and outside the government and in constituency organizations.

He said:

My task here, is to provide the basis in understanding, for that quality of peace of mind, which today’s political leaders must summon to guide their judgment, in facing the otherwise nerve-wracking succession of crises still before them.

As we have repeatedly emphasized, those crises are now before us: The financial system is bankrupt, and the House majority, the courts, and the intelligence community are in outright rebellion against the President and his supporters. For them, it is a zero-sum game—if they win, you lose.

LaRouche outlined the objective problems of “free trade” and “globalization”—the two doctrinal plagues destroying humanity. These doctrines are currently under ferocious attack by Donald Trump and are the real rub, so to speak, in the move to eliminate him. But the solution LaRouche defines for the causes Trump has taken up, is to return to something like the pre-1958 Bretton Woods system international agreements and American System economic policies in the United States.

This will not happen if you do nothing more than support the President in his campaign, while passively existing according to your definition of being a good citizen, or perhaps throwing shoes at your television set whenever the mad Democrats appear. It will only come about by citizens, subjectively, examining all of the axioms and postulates governing the present system and their own present habits of thought and deciding to now become leaders, envisioning, as both President Trump and LaRouche say, a future which those trapped in the present cannot conceive. What do we want the earth to look like in 50 years? Are we prepared to bring that into being?

Challenging What You Believe to Be True

Like a scientist at each stage of a crash program, each step in this process presents new problems to solve, new inventions to be made. Nothing is fixed. In other words, the President can succeed in defeating the free traders and the globalists and the present crazed Democrats only if citizens themselves embrace a new identity. As opposed to what you might initially think, this is not unusual under conditions of war like the one we are in now.

Clipart.com

Grave diggers’ scene from Shakespeare’s Hamlet.

Albrecht Fürchtegott Schultheiss

Marquis de Posa

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

LaRouche cites three figures from classical tragedy to illustrate his point. Shakespeare’s Hamlet refused the invitation to journey into the unfamiliar, to abandon his familiar ideology, and doomed himself and the Kingdom of Denmark in his own bloody end. In Schiller’s Don Carlos, the character Rodrigo, the Marquis of Posa, is doomed by his egocentric lust for power and position. He dooms both the cause in which he formerly believed and whole countries. LaRouche then contrasts both Hamlet and Rodrigo with Aeschylus’ Prometheus, who chooses unending torment rather than allowing the evil Zeus to survive, saving mankind from the status of being forever doomed, dumb human cattle in the process.

LaRouche then analyzes the elites as a formation in 1998, in a way that is not much different from what confronts us today:

In a world where actual industry has been reduced to an impoverished and looted relic of a more prosperous, abandoned age of agro-industrial progress, political power has become concentrated in a most unwholesome entanglement of links among government bureaucracies, major factions of political parties, and leading mass media interests. This unwholesome collation, has coalesced into a single entwined commonality, a depraved union aptly described as a slithering mass of polymorphous perversity.

He calls this mess, succinctly and surprisingly, the National Endowment for Democracy, that regime-change operation through which the United States has represented itself, shamefully, to the rest of the world throughout the past 40-odd years. Anyone watching the recent impeachment show in the U.S. House of Representatives, or who understands the coup the Obama administration ran with neo-Nazis in Ukraine in 2013-2014—the coup that is really at the center of the present impeachment hearings—will resonate with this analysis.

LaRouche wrote,

Thus old generals, too much attached to the apparently successful, narrowly defined set of habits which they have been conditioned to adopt as “natural” or “practical” during a past period, often fail to respond effectively to a radically new set of circumstances. The exemplary expression of this challenge is the way in which members of society respond to successive shocks of crisis, either by making successful, sudden, radical changes in axioms or behavior in response to crises, or failing to do so. The ability to choose and to make such changes successfully and to make such changes with appropriate confidence, or to fail to do so, is the pivot upon which the survival or doom of entire cultures often turns.

“The 68’ers never fully and willfully resisted and defeated the anti-social and evil passions of their day.”

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

Failure of the Baby Boomers

The piece goes on to make clear that the level of creative cognitive development is the most important factor in the human ability to choose and make changes, appropriately, under new circumstances.

LaRouche discusses the baby boomer generation’s still current role in shaping policy, while laying out the cultural factors that had created, and still feed, their degradation as singularly significant to our current chaos. The 68’ers never fully and willfully resisted and defeated the anti-social and evil passions of their day, and the generations that followed have been even worse. All of this is subsumed, he says, in the issue of whether citizens actually grasp that they are made in the image of the Creator, whether they know they have the spark of divinity within them,—and can prove that fact by engaging the unique human capacity to increase mankind’s power over the universe, per capita and per square mile of the planet’s surface.

LaRouche ends the paper by citing the unique mission of the United States in the world, a mission encompassing America’s heritage in the best ideas of European civilization, a mission rooted in the ideas that all are created equal, endowed with the potential of creative reason, expressed in scientific and classical artistic forms of universal improvement in the condition of the human individual.

AP

President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in 1937.

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

He says, as Roosevelt said, that the historic mission of the United States, is to ensure the creation of a system of cooperation among perfectly sovereign nation states, to establish a system of justice, based upon commitment to truth and economic progress throughout the world as a whole. That can’t happen without a drastic shift in educational policies in the nation, a shift both necessary and urgent for continued survival; a shift dominated by emphasis on new scientific discovery and classical art forms, fostering creativity rather than habit.

This, I contend, can form an urgent mission statement for our Committees of Correspondence, to bring about the necessary changes which must now occur. It is both a longer term and short-term perspective, the implementation of which we should undertake now.

EIR Contents

www.larouchepub.com — Volume 46, Number 49, December 13, 2019

Cover This Week

C-SPAN

House Democrats announcing articles of impeachment against President Trump at a press conference on December 10, 2019. Left to right: Nancy Pelosi (hidden), Jerrold Nadler, Maxine Waters, Adam Schiff, and Elliot Engel.

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

THE IMPEACHERS ARE INSANE

2 EDITORIAL

Our Mission

by Barbara Boyd

I. A FAILED ELITE

6 The Death-Agony of Olympus

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

September 1, 1998

II. THE FAILURE OF IMPERIAL GEOPOLITICS

35 Global Green New Deal Aimed at China, Russia, India, and the United States

by Paul Gallagher

38 Trump at NATO Meeting: Friendship with Russia, Peace in Ukraine

by Mike Billington

41 Now, Rid NATO of the Entente Cordiale!

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

(excerpts)

June 1996

44 London Signals Military Dictatorships May Be Required to Defend its Economic System

by Dennis Small

47 Coup in Bolivia a Replay of Ukraine’s ‘Maidan’

by Cynthia Rush

51 EDITORIAL

Death-Agony of Olympus

53 IN MEMORIAM:

Hal B.H. Cooper, Jr. (1940-2019)

The Practical Visionary

by Marcia Merry Baker and David Christie

October 20, 2002

NOTE: EIR will skip the issue which would be dated Friday, Dec. 27, 2019. Subscriptions will not be affected.

The Jan. 27, 1989 Jailing of Lyndon LaRouche

Defined an Era, Which Now Must End

Watch The LaRouche Case video

Watch the LaRouche Memorial video

Sign the Petition to Exonerate LaRouche

at lpac.co/exonerate

I. A Failed Elite

September 1, 1998

The Death-Agony of Olympus

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

Editor’s Note: This is a reprint of Lyndon LaRouche’s article, first published in EIR, Vol. 25, No. 37, September 18, 1998, pages 14-37.

Not only the leading political strata world-wide, but also growing numbers of U.S. citizens generally, are responding to the most recent turns in the global financial crisis, by saying, in effect, “Doctor, tell me: what is happening inside my head?”

One symptom of those changes, is the way in which the so-called “New Democrats” (also known as “Third Way” ideologues[fn_1]) have moved, suddenly, in the wake of August 17th Russia developments, toward openly defecting from the traditional U.S. Democratic Party. [fn_2] The “New Democrats’ ” recent change in tactics, may be partly a calculated factional tactic, aiming toward fusion with Gingrich Republicans, [fn_3] but, also, partly a kind of sociological, “knee-jerk” reaction to the recent, dramatic change in the global financial-monetary environment. Whatever the causes for this change in the behavior of those aberrant “New Democrats,” various other, usually less aberrant, leading strata of the U.S. population are, also, suddenly, behaving, for better or worse, in various new ways, ways which each would have rejected as either “too risky,” or otherwise unthinkable, as recently as a few weeks earlier.

Left: Severin Nowack; middle: Council of the EU; right: CHOGM

(From left) Vice President Al Gore, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Queen Elizabeth. “What threatens the political doom of both Blair’s and the New Democrats’‘Third Way,’is the fact, that, already, not only within the U.S.A., but throughout most of the world, a radical, rapid shift in ‘cultural paradigms’ is in progress, directly reversing the earlier ‘cultural paradigm-shift,’ which had been first popularized during 1964-1972.”

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

Related developments are manifest around most of the world, during these same few weeks and months. This includes the fact, that many in Britain’s Labour and other circles are relishing the anticipated, early downfall of the U.S. “New Democrats’ ” singularly unlovable co-thinker, “Third Way” Prime Minister Tony Blair. [fn_4]

What threatens the political doom of both Blair’s and the New Democrats’ “Third Way,” is the fact, that, already, not only within the U.S.A., but throughout most of the world, a radical, rapid shift in “cultural paradigms” is in progress, directly reversing the earlier “cultural paradigm-shift,” which had been first popularized during 1964-1972. World-wide, for virtually all literate strata of populations, the widely accepted, putative meaning of the term “political reality,” is being changed in content, suddenly and rapidly. This is not an homogeneous shift, but a complex one, expressed in many, diverse, sometimes mutually exclusive ways. [fn_5] It is not only reality itself which is changing; there is a rather sudden, and rapid change in the meaning which the crisis itself is compelling people, more and more, to lend to their implied definition of the term “reality.”

The relevant simile is: the relevant ideological kind of debtor’s balloon-note has come way overdue. In other words, reality, which has been operating, for decades, as if from behind the scenes, is now breaking free from the concealing mists of what had become, heretofore, the dominant varieties of popular delusions. The legendary, gruesome “monkey’s paw,” is knocking at the door. With the advent of the newest round of the century’s greatest financial crisis, Yuppiedom’s post-1963 parody of the “Flapper Era” has ended. As for the populations of the U.S.A. and Europe during the 1929-1932 onset of the so-called “Great Depression,” this new change comes in the form of successive shock-waves, ruining most of those fanciful assumptions which most of the population, from all political classes and ranks, have preferred to believe, since before the most recent two decades, until now.

Such changes have arrived as very bad news for the likes of “Third Way” shaman “Dick” Morris. Yesterday’s popular opinion, as pollsters had proclaimed it to be unimpeachable, until the proverbial day before yesterday, is discredited, more and more. The world as most people in the U.S.A., Japan, or Europe had assumed it to exist, just a few months, or even a few weeks earlier, no longer exists, and never will again.

There are more, and still more shocking changes, yet to arrive. During each of the coming succession of short periods, each of no longer than several weeks, the world as a whole will experience now-oncoming, new, sudden shocks, mostly economic or economics-related, each coming one after the other. In most cases, each of these shocks of the coming weeks and months, will be of a quality which, until a few weeks earlier, most leading political strata, and others, would have been certain could absolutely never occur, changes which no previous shock had prepared them to foresee, or understand. For these dismayed folk, today’s political weather-forecast for the coming weeks, reads something like: “Tigerland tornadoes yesterday, Yen hurricanes today, awesome volcanic eruptions in Europe’s Russian backyard tomorrow, and cataclysmic earthquakes everywhere the day after that.”

Who will bring relief from this recurring nightmare? One can safely say, categorically, that, with the exception of China and those of its neighbors, such as Malaysia and Taiwan, who are now already joining China in an emerging policy-bloc, there is, up to this present moment of writing, virtually no other government anywhere else on this planet, including the government of the U.S.A., which is intellectually or emotionally prepared, yet, to deal rationally with the situation it faces during the coming few weeks and months.

In other published locations, I have presented, in considerable detail, the programmatic features of the economic and related policy-changes which must be adopted to solve the objective financial, monetary, and physical-economic features of this crisis. My chief purpose in writing here, has a different emphasis. My task here, is to help leaders, both inside and outside our government, and among what might be named the “organic leaders” within the pores of local and regional constituency associations, to make sense of the maelstrom of change now whirling inside their own heads. My task here, is to provide the basis in understanding, for that quality of peace of mind, which today’s political leaders must summon to guide their judgment, in facing the otherwise nerve-wracking succession of crises still before them.

I outline the case to be presented, as follows. I situate the present state of the crisis, by reference to the point when the most recent qualitative shock hit the U.S. government and others, suddenly, beginning August 17, 1998. We shall begin, thus, with attention to the more obvious, surface features of the changes associated with this phase of the crisis. After that, we shall turn to the principal subject of this report, to the more profound implications. There, we shall focus upon the psychological and related effects which most citizens, including leaders of our government, would not be capable of either understanding or mastering, without the kind of assistance I provide them here.

The Day Reality Struck

Many of EIR’s readers will recall, that, in a report drafted on August 14th, published in our August 28 edition, I defined three, relatively short-term options, or, what might be called “branching points,” respecting the outcome of the presently accelerating disintegration of the existing international financial and monetary system.[fn_6] On August 17th, three days after that report had been outlined, what my associates and I had warned would be the immediately impending new Russia crisis, exploded. The world has not been the same since that August 17th, and never will be again.[fn_7] Those and related events of August are the setting in which the recent revolution in popular opinion erupted.

Respecting the continued aggravation of the post-August 17th Russia crisis, the following note should be interpolated here. The reader should be reminded, that the effects of Russia’s financial crisis are predominantly those of a European political-strategic crisis, in contrast to the threat to the global financial-system inhering in the deep bankruptcy of Japan’s banking system and the policy-making of its present government. In contrast to Russia, it is Japan, under its present government, which represents the greatest present threat to the planetary financial system as such. Thus, by contrast with the far more ominous Japan crisis, the impact of the Russia crisis which erupted on August 17th, reflects a relatively much less acute threat to the world’s financial system as a financial system. The importance of the Russia crisis lies in its severe and profound strategic political significance, especially for Europe, and, therefore, as a consequence, also the U.S.A.[fn_8]

For example, post-August 17th developments in Russia, when situated within the global context of Japan’s bankruptcy, scrambles the pre-existing agreements to establish stable financial and monetary relations among western European states. No longer can Europe’s internal affairs be managed on deceased French President François Mitterrand’s evil terms.[fn_9] Thus, the present combination of the Japan and Russia crises, spells the unavoidable doom of the European Monetary Union’s presently upcoming plans for agreements on implementing the so-called “Euro.” Any workable means for actually solving Russia’s immediate economic crisis, depend upon junking the “free trade” reforms instituted, successively, under Gorbachev’s perestroika and President Yeltsin; without strict capital and exchange controls, and an accompanying, protectionist approach to reviving Russia’s agricultural and manufacturing potential, any approach to Russia’s present crisis will fail catastrophically, and very quickly. Thus, while the available immediate measures of economic solution for the most pressing features of the Russia crisis, are obvious, the problem for Europe is, that any such workable solution for Russia’s crisis, overturns the entire structure of “free trade” and “globalization” measures imposed upon all of Europe during the 1989-1993 term of U.S. President George Bush; that is the crucial political difficulty for Russia’s western European neighbors, and also for the presently much-beleaguered U.S. President, Clinton.

Once again: relative to Russia, it is the position of Japan, not only in relation to East and Southeast Asia, but, more significantly, the “derivatives” bubble at the core of the ongoing collapse of the planetary financial and monetary system, which continues to be the major element of financial, monetary, and economic destabilization planet-wide. Thus, in the current round of post-1989 Russia’s chronic crisis, it was not the problem of Russia’s known debt, which absolutely terrified Europe’s bankers. It was the sudden discovery that an accumulation of more than $100 billions of derivatives, “side-bets,” had been issued, as international obligations, against the Russian debt; it was this threat to detonate the Japan-centered, global derivatives bubble, which scared the proverbial pants (and perhaps a few actual pants, too) off the world’s leading bankers.

Since absolute clarity on these particular issues is crucial for understanding the present world situation as a whole, I restate the crucial points I have just made, as follows.

The reason the latest Russia crisis is so threatening, is the refusal of the U.S. and European supporters of Russia’s Viktor Chernomyrdin, a leading original architect of Russia’s present bankruptcy, to accept the fact that the so-called “Russia reforms” have now reached an absolute dead end. The backers of Chernomyrdin’s re-nomination as Russia’s Prime Minister,[fn_10] have stubbornly, foolishly refused to recognize the relevance of the global conditions under which the most recent Russia crisis has erupted: the inevitable doom of a world-wide system of “free trade” and “globalization.”

This threatened “crash” of the present Russian system, is most likely to be brought about through chain-reaction effects of today’s persisting, hopeless bankruptcy of the majority of Japan’s leading banks. Had Washington, for example, succeeded in bringing Japan to its senses, as Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin had proposed at the end of 1997, the kind of tactic of international “re-regulation” adopted by Russia Prime Minister Sergei Kiriyenko, on August 17th, would have enabled the partnership of the U.S., Germany, and Russia, to buy some amount of time for building genuine solutions for the Russia crisis. Moreover, had Japan reacted sanely to Rubin’s warning, the political situation for President Clinton’s dealing with today’s Russia crisis, would have afforded Clinton greater freedom to make sane offers to Russia, rather than the potentially fatal error of “staying on course” with the doomed reform.

While Prime Minister Kiriyenko’s measures, by themselves, would not have provided a solution for the crisis, they could have been used as an essential first step in the direction of seeking a remedy, had Clinton found the political courage to act boldly. It was the ouster of Kiriyenko, by those who preferred the Russian “finance oligarchy’s” Chernomyrdin, which made everything about Russia’s financial crisis terribly worse, more desperately critical politically.

We stress the crucial political point once again. It was the refusal of Japan to heed the continued advice of Secretary Rubin, and the refusal, by the pro-monetarist, utopia faction, inside the U.S.A. and Russia, to accept the measures announced by Prime Minister Kiriyenko, which made the present Russia crisis much more ominous than it need have become otherwise. Thus, the essential, strategic crisis of Russia today, is political, rather than simply financial; the essential element of the corresponding, global political tragedy of the moment, is essentially psychological.

All factors considered, in addressing the crisis in Russia, or anywhere else, the first and foremost fact to be faced, is this. The most fundamental of the continuing causes for the present world crisis is, that as long as the utopian factions in the U.S.A., as elsewhere, are able to obstruct and delay the indispensable immediate termination of presently established “free trade” and “globalization” policies, every action by the U.S.A. and other governments intended to continue those “free trade” and “globalization” policies, will tend to ensure that there will be no result from any proposed reforms of the present situation, but to make every terrible situation catastrophically worse.

That said, resume the principal line of argument in progress in this report: the psychological effect, especially upon the U.S. population, of the most recent developments in the global financial and monetary crisis.

The Political Shock Itself

Now, turn our attention to the crucial political factor: the psychological shocks which the most recent developments have delivered to both leading political and financial circles, and to the populations more broadly.

Most of those EIR readers who have thus far reported their reactions to my report in the August 28 EIR, said that they had been shocked to read there, that the only options available to this planet, during the months ahead, are, either a return to a new world financial and monetary system echoing the pre-1958 Bretton Woods agreements, or a global form of “new dark age” echoing the nightmare now rampaging through sub-Sahara Africa. They stated, that they were shocked to read the evidence proving this fact, proof that a continued attempt to install a post-industrialized form of global utopia, would ensure a rapid descent of the world as a whole into a planet-wide “new dark age.” However, a significant number among those readers emphasized, that even more shocking to them, was my warning, that the kind of policy symbolized by such utopian catch-phrases as “globalization” and “free-market,” is itself the policy of a planet hopelessly doomed to a virtually immediate, world-wide economic and political disintegration.

What shocked them the most, was not the simple fact that I showed why such utopian policies are doomed. Rather, it was the recognition that the doomed, now discredited utopian scheme represented every policy, which, up to that moment of reading, they themselves had been conditioned to consider as inevitable, unstoppable. The source of the greatest shock was, therefore, that the latter utopian belief had become an “unshakable opinion,” which most of them, themselves, like President Bill Clinton and his predecessors, had cultivated as so-called “realistic political thinking,” over a generation or even longer. The deepest shock comes as a reaction, not to the proposal that existing policies must be radically, and even quickly changed. The most profound shock is the result of their confrontation with the evidence, that the mind of both the President and most other citizens must now undergo, quickly, a radical change, away from what most of them had believed up to now.

Such was the implication of their confrontation with the reality, that the only real choices presently available, are between a return to the kind of nation-state system envisaged by U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt, and a global “new dark age.” In today’s real universe, there is no third way. That is the reality which underlies the causes for the growing turmoil in the minds of people, inside and outside the U.S.A., since the new outbreak of world-wide financial and monetary crises during the August 17-31 interval.[fn_11]

President Bill Clinton and the First Lady. The readers’ deepest shock “comes as a reaction, not to the proposal that existing policies must be radically, and even quickly changed. The most profound shock is the result of their confrontation with the evidence, that the mind of both the President and most other citizens must now undergo, quickly, a radical change, away from what most of them had believed up to now.”

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

The point which must be emphasized, is that this shock was not caused by any event outside their own skins, not something they could view, “objectively,” at a distance from what goes on inside their own skins. The shock was not that the financial system had to be changed politically. The shock was, that they themselves could not survive, unless they, themselves, were changed, inside themselves. The shock was, that they must now face this reality subjectively. That defines the urgent function of the present report.

European civilization has already provided the political instrument needed to overcome this subjective crisis: great Classical tragedy.

On this point, every conscientious U.S. citizen must recognize that same principle of Classical tragedy emphasized by Aeschylus, Christopher Marlowe,[fn_12] Shakespeare, and Friedrich Schiller.[fn_13] The purpose which the greatest such tragedians have served, in succession, in developing the notion of Classical tragedy, is their attempt to communicate to their audiences of typical citizens, an impassioned recognition of a fundamental principle which governs the shaping of actual history. The central underlying principle upon which the artful composition of all great Classical tragedies is based, is the principle cited by ancient Mencius, that no hegemonic culture is ever destroyed by anything but, like Biblical Belshazzar’s Babylon, its own lack of the moral fitness to survive.[fn_14]

Thus, Shakespeare’s Hamlet, by refusing to abandon his accustomed ideology, doomed himself willfully to what he came to foresee as the bloody end of both himself and the kingdom of Denmark.

When one experiences a terribly perplexing sense of shock, of the type we are referencing here, the indispensable first step toward a fruitful peace of mind, is the victim’s successful identification of the source of the personal inner tension which has prompted that sense of shock.[fn_15] Those who are most likely to find the kind of peace of mind the present crisis requires, are to be met among those persons who have at least some degree of literate familiarity with Classical tragedy on stage.[fn_16] Indeed, the political importance of Classical tragedy on stage, is that, since Sophocles and Aeschylus, it was a form of art crafted to the purpose of providing living audiences the impassioned intellectual sources of insight, and renewed moral strength needed, to deal successfully with precisely the relevant type of shock, the shock which populations are now experiencing as a result of the present turns in the international financial and monetary crisis. [fn_17]

Take three cases from Classical tragedy as illustration of the point. We take these cases in the following order. First, the most familiar case, that of Hamlet’s Third Act soliloquy, “To be, or not to be.” Second, what playwright Friedrich Schiller identified as the crucial folly of Rodrigo, Marquis of Posa, in Schiller’s Don Carlos. Finally, the role of Prometheus in Aeschylus’ Prometheus Bound.

In Hamlet’s soliloquy, he restates that moral crisis within himself, which had been the theme of his soliloquy[fn_18] in the close of the Second Act. In the Third Act, he reflects upon two choices. The first, is his customary behavior and belief (like the behavior and belief of present-day utopians), which he has recognized as leading toward his self-destruction; the second, he rejects, as “impractical,” as a journey into the unfamiliar, “a bourn from which no traveler has returned.” Having made his choice, Hamlet proceeds willfully, to bring about his own doom. There, in that paradox, that metaphor, lies the source of the shock, the passion evoked by that soliloquy![fn_19] The intelligent member of that audience, who has sensed the possibility of the same choice of folly within himself, proceeds from knowledgeable recognition of that fatal passion, to fight against that fatal emotion, and, thus, in relevant later moments of real life, to avoid the doom inhering in succumbing to errors like that of Hamlet.

In Schiller’s Don Carlos, Schiller proceeds from his insight as the leading historian of his time, from the precise, actual-historical circumstances which had prompted Spain’s real-life, self-doomed King Philip, to unleash the hecatombs of religious war upon the Netherlands. Schiller elaborates that real-life tragedy of Spain and the Netherlands, by crafting three potential heroes as the central figures of the stage to appear in that drama. The only true hero, the heroine, is the Queen, Elizabeth, whose conception and counsel are clear, but those whom she would have influenced failed, fatally, to heed her counsel. The second, fatally failed hero, is Rodrigo, who has a clear conception of the alternative which Spain must choose to avoid religious warfare; however, Rodrigo is trapped by his own vanity, in betraying both his cause and his ally of the moment, the third hero, Don Carlos. As Schiller comments on his writing of the drama, Rodrigo is diverted from the cause he himself had earlier, correctly defined, diverted by his egocentric lust for holding to what he believed he had recently secured as a position of trusted advisor to a debased King Philip. [fn_20]

In the play, this misconduct by Rodrigo dooms all the protagonists, including, off stage, in real life, the historic, real-life people of both Spain and the Netherlands; all, dramatic characters and real people off stage, alike, are doomed to share a common ruin and depravity, in the unquenched, maddening slaughter which ensued in real history, as on Schiller’s stage. It is artistic compositions which achieve such conceptual congruence between art and actual history, as Schiller achieved this in his Don Carlos, which represent the highest, and most indispensable level of human culture.

Don Carlos is an example of the policy which governed Schiller’s approach to, and motive for composition of stage-tragedy: to use the awfulness of the tragic failure on stage, to fill the audiences emerging from the theater with the joy of knowing that they had become better people leaving the theater, than had entered it before. When we are gripped, perhaps by help of such a work of Classical art, by that deep anxiety and shock, which comes only in that moment we recognize the terrible situation to which our own habituated follies have led us, we have increased power to deal with the problems of life, and increased joy in being alive.

If we can see clearly, within ourselves, that passion which, still unchecked, will surely doom us and our society, the fact that we can see that passion itself so, and can resolve to defeat it, gives our mind a great serenity, the confidence of knowing we are committed to the right cause. In that more fortunate state of mind, we are committed to discovering the right thing to do, to avert that doom which the unchecked fatal passion might bring upon our society. We can risk our lives for such a cause, because we know we have thus secured for our souls a just place in the simultaneity of eternity.

Aeschylus’ Prometheus is the consummate antithesis of Classical tragedy’s failed heroes. In the drama’s simultaneity of eternity, Prometheus, a god who can not be killed, and the defender of mankind against the evil Zeus, is taken captive, and condemned by Zeus to immortal torment. Arch-oligarch Zeus’s price for freeing his victim, is that Prometheus must reveal to Zeus the way in which Zeus will bring about the destruction of both himself and the wicked oligarchy of Olympus generally. Rather than give Zeus the information by means of which Zeus’s power might survive indefinitely, Prometheus, to save mankind from the status of being forever doomed, dumb human cattle, willingly chooses paying the price of immortal torment, as penalty for his own silence. That is not a tragedy of Prometheus, but, rather, the story of the tragic folly of the self-doomed Satan, oligarch Zeus. That is the most powerful image which could be chosen as real-life subject for the dramatic stage.

In fact, what is being acted out before us, in our real world today, is the final act of Aeschylus’ Prometheus trilogy, the death-agony of Zeus’s Olympus. That, in fact, is the key to understanding and mastering these troubled times.

So, it is with the mind’s eye of the greatest Classical tragedians, that the Russia tragedy and its implications must be viewed. Only in that approach, is the leading political figure, or the ordinary citizen, likely to find that serenity of mind which civilization’s survival in the present situation demands of us all.

A Doomed Political Class

Between the new outbreak of the Russia crisis, as announced by since-ousted Russian Prime Minister Kiriyenko, on August 17th, and the major new New York Stock Exchange panic, of August 31, the early doom of the presently collapsing, utopian system of “free market” and “globalization” shibboleths, has been pronounced “as good as dead” by a rapidly increasing number of leading bankers and financial press. [fn_21] The shock of this reality has hit sundry influential strata in varying ways.

There have been two leading polarities of reaction to this outbreak.

On the one side, there is a well-informed view typified by an increasing number of representatives of traditional banking and related economic functions. These are persons who have reacted to the combination of the Japan and Russia crises by words to the effect: “Whether we like it or not, the world will not survive unless we now eliminate the present policies of ’free trade’ and ’globalization,’ and return to reliance upon the institutions of the sovereign nation-state, and to the forms of regulation which may be recalled from pre-1958 experience.”

On the opposing side, there is what is fairly contrasted to such banking circles, as “the presently ruling, doomed majority of today’s reigning political class.” The phenomenon of the “Third Way” is a typical symptom of the onrushing doom of the presently ruling political class.

In former times, the very suggestion of a “Third Way” tactic as a policy, would have been widely rejected. The policies of a Tony Blair, neo-Jacobin Newt Gingrich, or “Dick” Morris, would have been regarded, rightly, as a symptom of their advocate’s unspeakable moral and intellectual decadence. Now, or then, it is properly seen as an idea, like the philosophy of the Marquis de Sade, too immoral, or, on other grounds, perhaps simply too absurd to be tolerated.

I, for one, remember a world from what might seem to many a long time ago, before 1971. It was a time when the world was still being managed mostly by relatively saner governments. At that time, the most influential notion of what U.S. political life must be, was of a process of interaction among the relatively independent, semi-autonomous “interest groups” of which the majority of the citizenry was composed. Farmers, industrialists, labor, and the more influential learned professions, were typical constituents, as were the so-called “ethnic” or “minority” interests. These ancient foundations of civilized political life, have been chiefly supplanted by the kinds of obscenities we encounter among Speaker Newt Gingrich’s “Third Wave” klaverns or a “New Democrat” faction whose differences with Gingrich’s collation have lately become increasingly difficult to locate.

Instead of the real, mass-based political parties of the pre-1971-1976 interval, U.S. political parties have degenerated into parodies of kept women. They have been transformed, step by step, from instruments of political representation, into echoes of the worst sort of political party formations known from the history of Europe since ancient Rome’s politics of bread and circuses. Typified by the corrupting influence of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), they have degenerated into mere political fronts for the oligarchy-controlled institutions of governmental bureaucracies.

This political change is typified by the symbiosis of Wall Street “chaos theory” junkies with Wall Street hegemony over the financing and mass media propaganda-support needed to conduct successful election-campaigns, both combined with the permanent bureaucracy of the U.S. Department of Justice, all combined with the Federal Reserve System, and all combined with the leading globalized, and chiefly morally debased “mass news and entertainment media” of the U.S. and other nations. This is a combination which has largely displaced the former function of mass-constituency-based politics from the national political life of the U.S.A., and of relevant other nations. This kind of miscreant has emerged as most typical of the presently ruling political class.

Perhaps the most disgusting example of this among nations more or less familiar to most of us, is what France degenerated into becoming under the satanic figure of its President François Mitterrand. Post-Bonaparte France was already notorious for its role as Europe’s leading police-state, and its related tendency toward sheer bureaucratic brutality. In France’s worst features on this account, we encounter, too often, the existentialist’s quality of tendencies toward indifference to principles of truth or justice, its amoral propensities for bureaucratic tyranny. This Bonapartist, bureaucratic legacy, combined with the devilish immorality of Mitterrand and what he has represented, has engendered, today, an abomination which prompts neighboring states to shudder in disgust at the mere name of Mitterrand’s and Chirac’s Paris.

What Britain’s Prince Philip and his “Transparency International” bandits have done to the political institutions of Italy, through his post-1991, captive “Clean Hands” thuggery, is another example of the way in which the modern state has degenerated under the influence of the recent decades’ utopian rampage. Symptoms differ, as diseases adapt their corrupting influences to the constitutions of their prey.

Thus, in today’s world, where actual industry has been reduced to an impoverished and looted relic of a more prosperous, abandoned age of agro-industrial progress, political power has become concentrated in a most unwholesome entanglement of links among governmental bureaucracies, major factions of political parties, and leading mass-media interests. This unwholesome collation, has coalesced into a single, tightly entwined commonality, a depraved union aptly described, with sexual innuendoes, as a slithering mass of polymorphous perversity. The U.S. establishment of a British-designed U.S. concoction, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), only best typifies this recent subversion and degradation of our political processes.

The symbiosis of the Chaos faction within the British Commonwealth oligarchy (e.g., Prince Philip and the Murdoch-Hollinger press mess) with the right-wing, “New Democrats’ ” and U.S. Justice Department’s targetting of U.S. President Clinton, is an example of those polymorphous perversities which have virtually enslaved our citizenry to tyrannical rule by such post-modernist extremes in political corruption as the NED. [fn_22]

Until the present moment, throughout what is termed euphemistically today’s “European civilization,” hysterical defense of the current modes and policies adopted by such polymorphous perversities, prevails among the top-ranking agencies of the political class, especially the mass “news and entertainment media.” Now, some recent developments of this Spring and Summer have shaken the power of that political class as it has not been challenged so in more than a decade. Under the impact of the new global financial and related shocks on the way, major changes, qualitative changes, are to be expected during the weeks to come.

Thus, until the present moment, throughout western Europe, as in the U.S.A., the prevailing political commitment of leading politicians and major press has remained an hysterical determination to defend “free trade” and “globalization,” however painful or cruel the penalties and risks of doing so. This has continued as the prevailing posture of leading political circles in those countries, even after the Russia debacle of August 17th. This has continued, so, despite the fact, that relevant banking circles, and official spokesmen of some leading banking institutions in Europe, are beating the drums for scrapping “free trade” and “globalization,” for a return to “re-regulation,” as the only sane alternative: for restoring the authority and role of the sovereign nation-state, instituting capital and exchange controls, and so on.

Yet, although the leading political circles still deploy a ferocious, if rear-guard resistance against all efforts to introduce sanity to the public discussion of the present international crises, the voice of the saner bankers, and others, is leaking into relevant sections of not only the financial press, but spills over, if usually in an awkward way, into some of the leading mass media. Utopia is doomed; new, pro-nation-state policies are now in the making.

There are two levels to this most recent pattern of change, as displayed during the August 17-31 interval. There is, on the one side, the impact of straightforward considerations of perceived reality. There is, also, what must have been viewed at first as a more subtle, but ultimately more powerful feature, the pattern of the recently ongoing, new cultural paradigm-shift. Before focussing upon the latter, our principal topic in this report, we summarize the general situation among the three factions representing, respecting, the three strategic options addressed in the August 28 EIR report. For EIR readers, what we say in the following few explanatory paragraphs is not new; but, it is necessary to summarize the point once more, here, for the benefit of those who are not already familiar with the argument.

First of all, as any old-fashioned top industrial banker might recognize, the doom of the present international financial and monetary system in its present form, is immediate and inevitable. Unlike the virtual idiot-savants who have been running, and ruining, the financial trading sections from their handheld electronic calculators, the world’s leading old-fashioned bankers may often be very wicked, but, unlike the trading pit’s current generation of young zero-sum hyenas, they were competent at what they did. For such bankers and related professionals, the evidence now in hand is overwhelming. This convinces such a banker, in opposition to the typical spokesmen of today’s decadent political class, that it is past time to clean out, and fumigate the trading-pit, and, perhaps, get back into the play himself. He is readily persuaded, from his recent experience, that the only way to save the world from a plunge into Hell, is to act immediately to eliminate the existing fad of “free trade” and “globalization.”

On that first account, the leading practical question is, whether relevant governments are willing to scrap that system in time to avoid an otherwise inevitable plunge of the entire planet into a “dark age” chaos.

On the second account, since the 1987 U.S. stock-exchange panic, the sundry ruling lunatics of the world, including Margaret Thatcher, the late François Mitterrand, and George Bush’s crew, have been monkeying with the international financial system, in the effort to keep aloft a doomed world system which was already rotten and ripe for collapse during the mid-1980s.

From such 1982 measures as the U.S. Garn-St Germain and Kemp-Roth follies, through the patch-work changes improvised following the 1987 U.S. stock-exchange panic, all of the supposed “miracle cures” which these authorities alleged they had discovered, were based upon the very same delusion used to create the failed John Law-style bubbles of the early Eighteenth Century.

However the new version of the scheme was tailored, the method used never varied. Use political power to loot both government and private interests. Shut down and sell off entire large chunks of production, gouge wages, replace wage-labor by actual (prison labor) or virtual slave-labor (as by NAFTA), loot pensions, loot insurance stocks, all to turn the liquidation of assets into nominal one-time income. Use the mechanism of price-earnings ratios to turn that financial pirate’s booty into a financial capital asset several times greater in price than the amount stolen. To make this earning-price conversion “work,” pump various kinds of money or near-money into the market for these fictitious financial assets, thus creating a vast hyper-inflationary bubble, many times greater than the gross domestic product of all of the world’s nations combined.

Figure 1

LaRouche’sTypical Collapse Function

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

My “Triple Curve” [Figure 1] describes the inevitable result of all such improvisations since 1971. What has been inevitable since 1987, is now the present moment of history; the dead end has been reached. The “free trade” and “globalization” games of the utopians have reached the end of the proverbial trolley-line; the Titanic is about to plunge beneath the surface. For the sane citizen, it is time to get off; for the fanatically self-deluded utopians, there is no place to go. For these utopians, there exist no further options for continuing their “free trade” system of looting the world’s widows and orphans.

All this could have been easily calculated in advance. In fact, I did forecast it, and my forecasts were spread into every relevant leading political and financial center around the world. I gained the position of the world’s most accurate forecaster as a result, first in August 1971, again during 1979-1983, but especially over the course of the 1987-1998 interval.

Among economists and government policy-shapers, my opponents preferred not to make actually serious kinds of calculations, at least not publicly. Such opponents of mine lied, a lot; they usually lied in everything they said about the state of the economy, and the results of the policies they were peddling at the moment. To others, they lied freely, wildly; but, the worst lies were those these ideologues told to themselves.

The validity of my past forecasts is easily demonstrated, and has been actually demonstrated repeatedly. No contrary, honest calculations were ever possible. Calculation would only have shown my opponents the same result which I had warned was inevitable. They did not wish to know the truth; they preferred to enjoy the luxury of looting until the inevitable date of doom for their system had arrived. It would have spoiled their game, demolished their ill-founded self-confidence, to acknowledge the reality ahead. For them, the scorned inevitable has now arrived; the legendary monkey’s paw is now knocking at their door.

Now, calculations are no longer needed to calculate the signs of doom written on every wall. The traders’ handheld calculators have set themselves on “self-destruct.” The old sadistic bitch, Fortuna, leers her pleasure in contemplating the doom and suffering of the unfortunate men she has turned into swine. The system based upon the utopian ideologies of “free trade” and “globalization” is simply, unavoidably, and inevitably finished; no rational, reasonably intelligent person will continue to support such obviously failed, utopian policies. Unfortunately, there are still a lot of Circe’s irrational victims running loose, and not all of them are “New Democrats.”

In such a fix, as America’s Ogden Nash once wrote, those who had committed themselves politically or financially to seeking fertile satisfaction between the utopian “plated decks” of “free trade” and “globalization,” have only two remaining choices for their pleasure. Either join Prince Philip’s Chaos faction (if he and his cronies, such as George Soros, will take you into their club), or change allegiances fundamentally, back to the tradition of Franklin Roosevelt, Konrad Adenauer, and Charles de Gaulle.

So, each day now, more confessed former supporters of the “free trade” faction, are apologizing to the former friends whose cause they are now betraying: “We had to do it; I am just doing my job.” These relatively more intelligent people may express their politely gentle regrets at being obliged to jump over into the camp of pre-1958-style “re-regulation” of finance, monetary affairs, and international trade; but, nonetheless, the simple fact of the matter is, that they are acting strictly according to customary ethical standards: deserting their former friends of the doomed utopian faction, as those same friends have, in similar earlier situations, and according to the same standards of ethics, customarily betrayed them; “We admit that you made your contributions in the past, but the time has come to make some improvements. It is time for us all to move on.”

These changes now come in increasingly large proportions. “The smart ones are now getting out while the getting is good.” Thus, in what are often admittedly sordid, and also other ways, the historical process unfolds. Such are the complexities of the unfolding of a process through which radically new global policies are now put into the making.

How Society Works, or Doesn’t

A wise senior flag officer, commenting upon my report in the August 28 EIR, made the point. When a new war erupts, most of the senior officers show themselves incapable of responding effectively to the new situation. That remark has been made, often, by military professionals commenting upon the somewhat analogous circumstances of earlier generations and centuries.[fn_23] The passage of time, and recent decades’ deterioration in quality of education and experience of upcoming senior ranks, has made that oft-repeated aphorism not less appropriate today.

Major crises, like the nest of present, intricately interrelated, global financial and political crises, signify that the habits of thought engrained during the decades preceding the new crisis, defined most among today’s leading figures, for example, as so much contaminated by the bad habits of the society which had caused, or allowed the crisis, that most of those senior figures have been unable to adapt themselves successfully, subjectively, to the new realities which the crisis had defined. [fn_24]

The relevant fundamentals of strategy are restated here, as follows.

Unlike the human species, species and varieties of animals interact with nature, including other species, according to an ostensibly “genetically” fixed set of axiomatic rules of behavior. Unlike animals, human beings have the means to choose, to overrule any supposed “genetic” predetermination of their culture, and to change the axiomatic rules which govern their behavior. It is such choices of axioms which determine both man’s relative success or failure in mastering the universe about us, and which determine the way in which the members of society interact with one another. For human beings, the crucial question is, whether or not they can react to failures in their old patterns of behavior, with the alternative of creating new conditions, that by means of appropriate, successful choices in new sets of adopted axioms governing human conduct.

Thus, old generals, too much attached to the apparently successful, narrowly defined set of habits which they have been conditioned to adopt as “natural,” or, “practical,” during a past period, often fail to respond effectively to a radically new set of circumstances.

The exemplary expression of this challenge, is the way in which members of society respond to successive shocks of crisis, either by making successful, sudden, radical changes in axioms of behavior in response to crises, or failing to do so. The ability to choose and to make such changes successfully, and to make such changes with appropriate confidence, or to fail to do so, is the pivot upon which the survival or doom of entire cultures often turns. These are the issues often brought most clearly, and painfully, to the surface of great events, under conditions of general war-fighting, or kindred forms of strategic crises.

The relevant, crucial point of competent qualities of strategic thinking, is, that, while the physical survival of cultures depends upon society’s physical interaction with the universe around it, the question, whether a society will choose a successful form of radically new interaction, or not, is not an objective, but a subjective question. That is the issue which must become the center of attention for any crisis-ridden culture, faced with a breakdown in its previously established mode of survival. That is the issue which we address here. Look at the causes for the present series of cultural shocks from that vantage-point.

After we have considered what modern European civilization had accomplished earlier, until the recent decades’ accelerating decay of our culture, we must face the fact, that what has come to pass, recently, respecting the standard for defining “educated persons,” today, is worse than a great disappointment; it is, substantially, a terrible fraud. During all of this present century, to date, the most conspicuous expression of this decadence among so-called “educated persons,” has been an accelerating rate of moral and intellectual degeneration in such departments of university and secondary education as literature, music, plastic art-forms, and the so-called “social sciences.”

Until about thirty years ago, despite that century-long trend, the modern physical-economic progress associated with science and technology, combined with vast improvements in public sanitation and other basic economic infrastructure, and in the demographic characteristics of households, was awesome, when compared with the vastly inferior performance of all known cultures from ancient and medieval times.

Admittedly, even during the ruinous, most recent decades, some commendable, if relatively feeble steps of technological and related progress, have occurred in the proverbial domains of “here and there.” Such scattered recent exceptions to the prevailing, downward trend, have, admittedly, occurred, despite three decades of overall net reversal of former tendencies for economic growth; but overall, civilization has been in decline, and, up to now, if we put the case of China to one side, the planet has been going backwards at a generally accelerating rate.

The former technological and related progress of our civilization, especially modern European civilization, was real; but, apart from those qualities, an essential added requirement was usually either lacking, or poorly expressed. Most notably, as we noted here a moment ago, in the fields of the arts, literature, and the so-called “social sciences,” our culture has been degenerating, overall, and more or less consistently, throughout the present century to date. During the latter time, each new generation’s elites, in particular, have been, on the average, less intelligent, less literate, less rational, less sane, than those of the predecessor generations. This judgment is not a mere matter of cultural “preferences,” of mere personal “opinion;” the possibility of the survival of civilization depends upon recognizing the clear evidence of that decadence, and reversing this decay in very specific respects. That crucial task is our subject here.

So, we today have been living in the decadence of a dying culture, a culture which has been dying by objective, physical-economic standards of performance, a culture which has also been dying in terms of its subjective qualities, the shrinking of the ability of its elites, and populations generally, to think and behave rationally. That has been the case, pretty much world-wide, for more than two decades.[fn_25] This has been most emphatically the case, since the time of the U.S. Carter Administration’s policy of massive, deliberate reversal of human progress in all spheres of physical, political-economic, moral, and cultural deliberation. It is that trend of the recent decades, the which has brought the world’s civilization to the present brink of collapse.

It is the convergence upon that limit of civilization’s folly of recent decades, like the convergence of an accelerating airborne projectile upon trans-sonic velocities, which has produced the recent succession of shocks threatening the immediate extermination of the present civilization. We shall not survive these shocks, unless we are able, now, to suddenly eradicate those habituated habits of belief, those attitudes, which have misshaped the world’s most popular and other leading economic and cultural developments of the recent three decades.

It is that process, that approximately three decades of cultural retrogression, cultural decay, which has created the political and social preconditions for the series of shocks now threatening the continued existence of our failed civilization. It is from that vantage-point, that we must define the new, radical changes in outlook and culture, needed to rescue our civilization from the doom immediately threatening the planet as a whole.

Our adopted task for this report, has been to use the principles of Classical tragedy as the crucial, subjective standpoint, from which to define both the subjective problem before us, and the nature of the required solution. As we approach the concluding phase of this report, we must now define more exactly the relevant distinction the reader must make, between “objective” and “subjective” determinants of the physical-economic success, or doom of cultures.

To define “objective,” put the emphasis upon economics. Throw aside all of those notions of “economics,” or “political economy,” which, until now, have become generally accepted and taught in universities, and among most of today’s professionals, members of Congress, and the mass media. Define “economy” from the only sane standpoint available, as the definition established through the successive work of the European cameralists of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, by the founder of economic science, Gottfried Leibniz, and associated with the Franklin-Hamilton-Carey-List “American System of political-economy.”

Objectively, economic science assumes the outward form of mathematical physics, by measuring changes in output in relevant physical, rather than monetary terms. Competence in this field limits itself to measuring the physical, not monetary output, in terms of per-capita of labor-force, per-capita of household populations, and per square kilometer of the relevant portions of the Earth’s surface-area.

Two additional features of this physical measurement are required, for defining relative economic performance.

First, we must compare the per-capita and per-square-kilometer output of society, with the physical costs of those allocations needed to maintain the social potential for maintaining such, or better rates of output. These allocations include the relevant maintenance and improvements in basic economic infrastructure, of the territory of the society in its entirety. These include the portion of physical output which must be allotted to maintaining and increasing the productive powers of labor through capital-intensive, power-intensive modes of productive, and other essential activity. These include, similarly, the physical costs of maintaining the productive potential of the members of households, including the physical costs of maintaining and developing the required quality of educational system, and supporting those Classical modes of cultural activities needed to maintain the relevant intellectual and moral qualities of the population in general.

Second, we must define “productivity” itself in these physical terms: the ratio of total physical output, to physical, not monetary, costs of all required inputs. This productivity must increase, per capita and per square kilometer, despite the relative rise in absolute physical costs of combined “market baskets” needed to foster such increases in productivity. In other words, we must measure the physical performance of economies in physical terms cohering with the biological notion of anti-entropy, cohering with the notion of that ordering of both all living and cognitive processes, the which sets living and thinking beings absolutely outside the entropic ordering deemed characteristic of non-living processes as particular processes.

In consequence, the effective practice of the science of economy, has situated considerations such as quality and content of education, and the fostering of generalized scientific and technological progress, as typical of the indispensable components of that society’s total bill of consumption, needed for effective economic performance by societies taken as wholes. The efficient function of these types of components can not be measured in explicitly physical terms. Rather, we measure the functional determination of these physical effects only indirectly, in the sense these effects are associated with rations of the composition of the functionally necessary activities of households or the population as a whole, and as they are associated with the incurred physical costs needed to sustain such types of activity. Nonetheless, despite that point of formal difficulty, to the extent that such programs of education and science can be defined in terms of allocations of effort and physical resources, these considerations can be treated as if they were objective, i.e., physical, features of economic policy and policy-shaping.

To quote our friend Will Shakespeare, “There’s the rub.” None of these ostensibly objective policies and related considerations, actually work as they are usually described as working. They do not work without the addition of something entirely outside what ordinary opinion regards as objective. At this point, the subjective shows itself to be the ultimate determinant of the success or failure of all systems, all economic and related kinds of so-called “objective” policies and programs. Here, the absolute difference, the subjective factor, which places the human species apart from, and above the beasts, shows itself most forcefully.

The substance of this subjective factor, is a quality whose existence was denied by modern Aristotelean Immanuel Kant, the quality named cognition. Without the efficient role of cognition, in determining whether ostensibly “objective” forms of activity lead to entropy or anti-entropy, civilized forms of human existence were impossible. [fn_26] Without the continued subordination of so-called “objective” forms of economic and related activity to the “subjective factor” of cognition, as we define cognition here (for example), any society would degenerate and disintegrate, falling into some form of “new dark age.”

This brings the reader—Bang!—into the middle of a most distressing, most shocking kind of intellectual and moral difficulty, a veritable intellectual quicksand from which no Aristotelean, such as Immanuel Kant, or other formalist, has ever successfully escaped. How do we reconcile the objective efficiency of an ostensibly “non-objective” activity, cognition, with the fact that cognition, as we have situated it here, is functionally, an integral, controlling, even dominant feature of what ordinary opinion regards as “physical processes.” As Will said, “There’s the rub.” On this account, an example from the domain of modern physics should prove helpful, perhaps indispensable.

Wilhelm Weber and ’Strong Forces’

Some, perhaps many readers, will experience difficulties in following closely some portions of what I have to report in the course of the following paragraphs. Those readers should not be put off by the apparent difficulty. In serious statement of any important case, we are often morally obliged to put on the record all essential evidence bearing on the argument to be made, whether or not each such point were likely to be readily understood. Among arguments submitted to reasonable and honest men and women, the acknowledgement of the existence of mysteries yet to be solved, is not only allowed, but required; willfully hidden mysteries are frauds,[fn_27] which are never to be allowed. We will not foster any hidden mysteries in what we have to report. It will be sufficient for our purposes, if the reader gets no more than the gist of the matter presented in the several more difficult among these few paragraphs. The importance of including these indicated few paragraphs at this point, will certainly be clear enough.

As I summarized the same point in a preceding report,[fn_28] a popular delusion shared by most science undergraduate students, textbooks, and others, teaches that the laws of the physical universe are formally consistent with nothing different than the mechanistic teachings of such empiricists and positivists as Isaac Newton, Leonhard Euler, Augustin Cauchy, Lord Kelvin, Ernst Mach, Bertrand Russell, et al. Contrary to that popular delusion, the universe demonstrates that there is not one, but, rather, four principal known kinds of mutually exclusive ordering, which must be viewed, in their interacting combinations, as governing what we must actually perceive as “cause and effect.” Only one of these four types of ordering, which may be recognized as the entropy model, comes close to resembling the currently popular delusions of the science undergraduate.

The first such fundamental difference in mathematical forms of apparent “cause-effect” ordering, is the elementary difference in ordering between all living and non-living processes, respectively. All particular instances of non-living processes, as understood by the typical science undergraduate, have an ordering which Nineteenth-Century empiricists such as Clausius, Grassmann, Kelvin, and Boltzmann defined as “entropic.”[fn_29] In contrast, living processes, as a category, are distinguished from all ostensibly non-living processes, by the fact that the characteristic ordering of all living processes, is anti-entropic. Thus, so far, we have two distinct orderings of what is ostensibly “cause and effect”: non-living and living processes. There are two additional, respectively distinct types of higher, anti-entropic ordering.

First, as Plato insisted, and as Kepler and such successors as Carl Gauss have supplied definitive, crucial experimental proof of this fact, the universe as a whole (the astrophysical universe, for example), is governed by its own form of higher anti-entropic ordering. [fn_30] Second, finally, we have the characteristically anti-entropic ordering lying within the domain of individual human cognition. As Plato’s argument would imply, the universal ordering, subsumes and situates the other three. Cognition, while similar to the ordering of living processes in general, is not limited to such similarity; for reason of its admittedly imperfected approximation of the universal ordering of the universe as a whole, it is of a higher order (i.e., higher cardinality) than merely living processes generally.

These differences in ordering represent the only valid epistemological basis for speaking of a type, called differences of “curvature,” within the domain of physical space-time. This leads us to such questions as, “What happens to a non-living form of molecule when it is incorporated as an integral feature of a living process?” (as distinct from a molecule which is only grossly “mixed” with that process, as virtual “dirt”). Clearly, we can speak of “incorporation,” only in the case it is demonstrable that the assimilation is efficient: that it can be reasonably inferred, that the curvature of the space-time associated with the non-living molecule, for example, is changed to conform to the non-linear, microphysical characteristics of the living process (in the infinitesimally, “non-linear” small). The crucial experimental evidence of the “non-linear” role of so-called “bio-photons,” in optical biophysics, is an example of such a notion of co-functional incorporation.

This is also precisely analogous to the evidence supplied as conclusive, crucial proof, that such interaction is what occurs when a non-living sub-process, physical economy as ordinarily viewed, is located conceptually under the regime of cognition. The evidence, that cognition superimposes an anti-entropic ordering on what are otherwise, ostensibly entropic forms of physical-economic processes, is, in itself, a conclusive, crucial experimental proof of this type of connection.

There is another way of looking at such interactions among integrated systems of respectively different ordering. Typical is the example of physicist Wilhelm Weber’s proof of the efficient existence of an Ampère “longitudinal force.”[fn_31] Weber’s crucial experimental proof for the existence and magnitude of this “force,” leads to the introduction of a notion of special curvature of processes within the sub-atomic, microphysical domain: the notion of “strong forces.”

Put the question this way. What happens, when a process which is ordered characteristically according to one type of curvature, is compelled to submit to an ordering of a different type of curvature? One might describe this as something beyond all ordinary undergraduates’ textbook notions of mechanical “cause and effect;” one thinks of a wrenching of physical space-time itself. By “wrenching,” one signifies a local change in the curvature of physical space-time, as present-day references to “strong” and “weaker” nuclear and related “forces,” illustrate the case. For example, if the geometry of the Solar system of orbits was changed from its actual Keplerian form, to a simple Euclidean form, that would be a case of the quality of “wrenching”—a wrenching degradation, in this case—to which we are referring here. This wrenching must be viewed, then, as a special case of what mathematical physics knows, more generally, as the key problem of analysis situs. [fn_32]

Take, once more, our earlier reference to Carl Gauss’s conclusive proof, that the Solar system is ordered as Johannes Kepler defined the nature of that ordering, but not as Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, and other empiricists have insisted. The notion of a Keplerian, or Gaussian determination of orbits, is adduced from crucial physical evidence, which shows that the Solar physical-space-time in which the planets are situated, is neither empty space, nor a curious substance of the sort foolishly imagined, as a “luminiferous ether,” by Gauss’s, Riemann’s, and Weber’s avowed adversary, J. Clerk Maxwell. It is not an “ether;” it is a physical-space-time curvature, which imposes some entropic or anti-entropic principle of orbital ordering, upon the events situated within that domain, that multiply-connected manifold.

This is precisely the quality of phenomenon we are observing, and measuring, when we show that scientific and technological progress determines a “non-linear,” anti-entropic ordering for what is otherwise regarded, objectively, as a physically “objective” process located in an hypothetical physical-space-time which is implicitly assumed to be characteristically linear in its infinitesimally small interval of action. In this case, we are pointing to the successful forms of physical economy.

Given, an objective model of a physical economy. The economy so defined would appear to belong to a linear physical space-time, like that of John von Neumann’s “systems analysis” or Norbert Wiener’s “information theory,” which is linear in the infinitesimally small. Anti-entropy could not exist within that economy; therefore, it must appear, that actual profit could not exist in such a characteristically linear, or “zero-sum/entropy” model of economy. However, in real economies, speaking mathematically, the subjective intervention of cognitive processes “wrenches” the physical-economic space-time in the “non-linear” domain of the infinitesimally small. The result of this “wrenching,” is to give the economic process the functional characteristics of an “orbit” which is characteristically anti-entropic.

There never was a successful form of physical economy, in which precisely this mode of anti-entropic action was not characteristic of the relevant subjective practice of that society. It is the cognitive processes of individual persons, the which generate the anti-entropy expressed, measurably, objectively, as increased productive powers of labor, within the objective domain of measurable physical-economic effects. This relationship between cognition and the anti-entropy which cognition adumbrates within the objective domain, is the characteristic form of action which determines whether a physical economy works, or does not work.

It works, when it does work, as follows. In the imagery of Bernhard Riemann’s 1854 habilitation dissertation, [fn_33] a new physical principle whose discovery has been crucially validated, as in an experimental way, adds a new “dimension” to the known geometry of physical space-time. This new “dimension” changes the characteristics of the newly defined known domain, relative to the formerly known domain, which the discovery has superseded. In such cases, the experimental evidence shows, that the higher domain corresponds to a characteristically “more efficient,” more powerful form of action. In other words, the subjective action associated with generating efficient knowledge of the higher domain, is relatively anti-entropic in its effects.

In brief review of this implication of Riemann’s work, consider the following restatement of the case just outlined above.

Given, the crucial experimental evidence which has proven that physical space-time conforms to a Riemannian physical-space-time manifold of n “dimensions,” each such “dimension” a crucially validated physical principle. Suddenly, we are confronted with undeniable evidence, that there is a stubborn flaw embedded in the earlier presumption, the presumption that that n-fold manifold adequately represents actual physical space-time. In serious examples of this kind of problem, the suspicion that the presumption has been mistaken, is forced upon us by the most insistent form of paradoxical evidence. Evidence demonstrates, that there is no deductive form of solution for this paradox; it is a true paradox, analogous to a true metaphor within the domain of Classical art-forms.

This paradox defines a shock, in the same general sense the stubborn persistence of a global breakdown of the world’s financial system evokes a profound sense of shock. There is no remedy for this shock (suicide aside), but to discover a validatable new principle, a corrected view of the universe. Such discoveries are generated as Immanuel Kant, for example, insisted they could not be; they are generated only through the “non-linear,” anti-entropic agency, of an individual’s cognitive processes.

These paradoxes and their corresponding, validated discoveries of new physical principles, acquire a social form in two interrelated, but distinct ways. First, the prompting paradox (or, metaphor) can be demonstrated, and validated for other minds, by each individual’s corresponding act of cognitive replication. Once a crucial experimental validation of a new discovery has occurred, then, and only then, can the results of that validated discovery also be shared with others, by means of the kind of cognitive replication we associate with a Classical-humanist form of secondary and higher education.

Such discovery, validation, and social replication define the transformation of a paradox-ridden n-fold Riemannian manifold, into an n+1-fold Riemannian manifold freed from the relevant paradox. As we have reported here just a moment ago, such an n+1-fold manifold always represents a physical-space-time whose characteristic form of action is more powerful (e.g., of higher cardinality) than that of the n-fold manifold it supersedes. It is that gain in power, through such transformations, which represents, formally, the source of that anti-entropy which scientific and technological progress, for example, transfers to a relevant physical economy’s objective expression.

To complete the relevant reference to the implications of Weber’s referenced discovery, the following notation should be made. The experimental evidence of work in the field of multiply-connected manifolds, shows us, that changes in ordering, which result from imposing one type of ordering upon another, are expressed mathematically, as relatively infinitesimal, so-called “non-linear” changes within the characteristic action of the incorporated ordering. It is, similarly, the way in which anti-entropic action, as in the expressed form of scientific and technological progress, increases the objectively manifest productive powers of labor in an economy. We shall discover, very soon, the highly practical bearing of this principle upon the political crises being addressed by this report.

We should add here, what has been said on many relevant, earlier occasions: Such discoveries of validated new physical principles, or other discoveries of universal principle, as in Classical art, are uniquely products of the same cognitive processes of the individual human mind by means of which valid solutions to true artistic paradoxes (i.e., metaphors) are discovered. Physical principles, as we describe such principles in objective terms, pertain to mankind’s relationship to nature, per capita, and per square kilometer of our planet’s surface. Classical-artistic principles pertain to the subjective aspect of the social relations through which improved, effective, cooperative development of mankind’s physical practice is made possible.

The combined characteristic gains in power, as represented by validatable discoveries of both physical and Classical-artistic principle, are the source of the anti-entropy upon which the continued survival of civilization depends absolutely. The successful, individual’s original, or replicated creative act of cognition, so expressed, is the act—the work—by means of which the human mind transmits objectively manifest anti-entropy, subjectively to the physical-economic process. It is this form of work, cognition, which distinguishes the human activity of civilized forms of society, categorically, from the exertions of our farmer’s cattle, or of other lower forms of life.

The Power of the Individual

With respect to the ordinary course of daily experience, what we have said here of the role of the subjective, implicitly defines the scale according to which we may measure the difference between rational, optimistic and creatively active individual minds, as the former are opposed to dull, mediocre, cynical, and brutish expressions of mental life and social relations, such as today’s so-called “techno.”

The existentialist types, for example, such as the infamous Voltaire, or the followers of proto-Nazis and outright Nazis, and Nazi-like leftist types, such as Friedrich Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger, Theodor Adorno, Hannah Arendt, and Jean-Paul Sartre, or the Nazi-like “Jenny” of Bertolt Brecht’s Three-Penny Opera, typify the brutish mind at its relative worst, relatively most entropic, therefore, and most destructive.

Let us view these and other shadings of difference in cultural characteristics of individual and group behavior, on a scale which corresponds to what we have said here respecting the transmission of anti-entropy, subjectively, to the observable, objective characteristics of the physical economies influenced by the subjectivity of the sundry, various personality types.

For initial purposes of illustration, let us define our notion of those relative qualities of mind which are functionally significant economically, by resort to a preliminary “rough cut.” To illustrate the relevant point in a preliminary way, choose, if but temporarily, five, simply defined types of mind-sets as the reference-points for mapping a scale of comparison.

First: At the highest (best) level, we have “creative.” This is typified by the kinds of minds which Friedrich Schiller and Wilhelm von Humboldt sought to foster through the Schiller-Humboldt mode of Classical-humanist reforms in general education, with emphasis upon secondary levels of education provided for the population as a whole. [fn_34] These are typified by the “sparkling” minds of both science and art, those who are habituated to use of their cognitive powers, habituated so through a system of education which, rather than indoctrinating the victim through textbook-style drill and grill, “walks the student through” the re-enactment of the historically original discoveries of principle. [fn_35] This form of education begins from the starting-point of reference provided by Classical Greece’s relevant conflicts and contributions, respecting validated discoveries of either physical or Classical-artistic principle.

Second: Lower down, less useful, we have the well-informed, but not creatively-inclined person, drilled and grilled according to currently prescribed fashion: “informed.” He, or she, who has been boned to pass his examinations, and to perform related tasks, thus achieves what passes, superficially, at least, for assembly-line modes of mass-produced social success, a success invoked through human sacrifice of the power to know, a killing of the soul performed on the altar of learning—or, as it is often said today, the altar of “information.” Such Schlemiels! For their pathetic little sins of opportunism, they doom themselves to an endless midlife crisis. The pathetic little lives they lead, behind the mask of pretending to be important, become an existentialist’s eternal Purgatory, a flight from the terrors and other oppressions of being “thrown” into a regime of self-imposed eternal boredom. Such pathetic little, would-be Fausts! Poor Kafka’s cockroach! Thus, we see them today, condemned to dwell in the perpetual, meaningless torment of an “information society.”[fn_36]

Third: Still lower down, we have “mediocre:” who sometimes perform useful duties, but remain, otherwise, spewably lukewarm in intellect, taste, and morals.

Fourth: At the bottom of the pit, where “rock” performers and derivatives-traders dwell, we have Jonathan Swift’s and the Nashville “Agrarian” models of Stars-and-Bars-style Yahoos: “brutish.”

Finally, all among the lower three of these classifications overlap, Venn-diagram fashion, with that quality of cynicism whose impact ranges from only noxiously corrupt, such as pollster “Dick” Morris, to the satanically evil, existentialist quality of a Nietzsche, Houston Stewart Chamberlain’s Richard Wagner, Martin Heidegger, Bertolt Brecht, Sigmund Freud, Jean-Paul Sartre, or François Mitterrand.

Reflection upon these four-plus, or five reference-points, prompt useful, if but preliminary thoughts, on the subject of the relevant intellectual and moral characteristics of a society as a whole. As in the case of Carl Gauss’s use of relatively tiny observations to adduce the orbit of Ceres,[fn_37] these are characteristics which are rooted in the expressed differences in personal character of the typical individual members of that society, rather than some statistical sampling of apparent population behavior on large scales. Since the generation and transmission of the wrenching power of anti-entropy proceeds, from the sovereign cognitive processes of the individual’s mind, to the economic and related processes of the society at large, a comparison of the intellectual quality of the typical individual members of one society, with the quality of the members of another, is crucial for determining the anti-entropy expressed by that society’s physical economy as a whole. In short, we must portray the ”analysis situs” among these five points of reference, as Johannes Kepler studied the composition of our Solar system, from the vantage-point of the first, highest quality, rather than attempting to find goodness in people, as Thomas Hobbes, Sigmund Freud, and other empiricists do, by examining their parts from the bottom, up.

However, that cautionary observation said, as we look downward, from above, to discover what evil subversion is being done from below, think of the implications, for the U.S. economy, and its physical-economic standard of living, of the cultural down-shift which has dominated the U.S. society and its institutional practices since the post-Kennedy cultural paradigm-shift of 1964-1972.

Include among the nature and effects of a cultural down-shift, the radical, and accelerating degeneration of public and university education, which took over the content and goals of education during the early to middle 1960s. This degeneration was begun, beginning the period coinciding with the 1963 issuance, by the Paris office of the OECD, of an anti-rational reform of education policy, a new policy first insinuated into the public policy of Nanterre and other educational centers of France as early as that same year. The so-called “Brandt reforms” of education in Germany are part of this same cultural paradigm-shift in the education policies of not only Europe and the U.S.A., but also so-called “developing nations.” In the U.S.A., the related process, of destruction of public and university education, which began during the mid-1960s, was aimed, explicitly, against the aerospace-development policy of President John Kennedy’s administration. [fn_38]

These and related developments, all assisted by the satanic legacy of Theodor Adorno’s and Hannah Arendt’s anti-rationalist “Frankfurt School,” gave the world the so-called “New Left” of Germany’s Oskar Negt, et al. [fn_39] These developments included truly evil features, including covers provided for the deployment of the “factory rejects” of the New Left, as cat’s-paw covers for international terrorism, cat’s-paws recruited and deployed under the cover of the so-called “Sixty-Eighter” phenomena of Europe and the Americas.

The authors of the “cultural paradigm-shift” of the 1964-1972 interval, targetted a highly suggestible fraction of the student populations of leading universities—as in the U.S.A. and Europe—for what can not be fairly described as anything other than “mass brainwashing” conducted in the style of the London Tavistock Institute and associated Clinic. The chief targets in the U.S.A. for example, were the giant “multiversities,” such as the University of California at Berkeley, the associated think-tank organizations, such as the frankly satanic, “New Dark Age” projects of Stanford Research Institute (SRI) of the nearby Palo Alto area, and “Ivy League” and kindred universities such as Columbia, the University of Pennsylvania, and so on.

To locate the sources of today’s leading problems of public policy-shaping, one must focus upon the included fact, that the tactic behind the 1960s “New Left” project was elementary, and, unfortunately, all too successful. The principal target of the 1964-1972 cultural paradigm-shift, was a stratum of secondary school graduates, college and university undergraduates, then chiefly still adolescents (emotionally, if not physically), of the type which had been selected to be educated and otherwise socially conditioned as the leading representatives of the coming adult generation’s new batch of recruits for the finance oligarchy’s captive intelligentsia. As it was said then by my wife’s most fervent adversaries in the mass media and related locations of Germany today, her opponents from among the former “Frankfurt School” storm-troopers recruited from among Germany’s 1968 veterans, the assigned goal of the New Left was to “march through the institutions,” and take power over almost everything by this means. It was the same in the U.S.A., and elsewhere. The New Lefters were the obvious disease-carriers, and the satanic doctrines of Prince Philip and the “Frankfurt School” were the “RNA lentivirus,” the ideological “AIDS virus,” which had infected the disease itself.

Today, we are approaching two generations’ lapse of time, since the mass-brainwashing of 1964-1972 began. Twenty-five years, or more, later, the ranks of the Sixty-Eighters have been selectively groomed, repeatedly re-indoctrinated, and selectively promoted, or culled of those deemed young cows with bad feet, to be deployed in regimental formations, as tailored sets of replacements for the former leaders. Notably, “former leaders” signifies, today, chiefly, representatives from the older, President John F. Kennedy generation. This process of takeover of command, by the “body-snatcher” recruits from 1968, has occurred in most of the key positions of influence in government, education, mass media, and elsewhere. The takeover of the editorial direction of the Wall Street Journal, by the ultra-irrationalist Robert Bartley, beginning the early 1970s, is one example of this New Left-style “march through the institutions.”

The old cronies of Weimar Germany’s “Frankfurt School” circle, Theodor Adorno, Hannah Arendt, and Arendt’s Nazi companion of the pre-Hitler regime period, Martin Heidegger, typify the most willfully evil among those who crafted the ideology in which the Sixty-Eighters of both Germany and the U.S.A. were indoctrinated. Notable on this account, is Adorno’s and Arendt’s own variety of ultra-irrationalist breed of fascist doctrine, the so-called “theory of the authoritarian personality.” Essentially, what Arendt copied from her mentor, Adorno, was the combination of two leading elements. First, an explicitly satanic passion, like that of “Frankfurt School” godfather Georg Lukacs, or Brecht’s autobiographical character “Jenny,” for “destroying the existing civilization,” in every way possible. Second, the effort, through the spread of the Adorno-Arendt “authoritarian personality” dogma, to outlaw considerations of both truth and justice from every aspect of official and private intercourse. For those who know the histories of both the fascist and anarchist extremist movements in Europe, Arendt and Adorno, like their Nazi crony Heidegger, sat together and cozened “where the woodbine twines,” in those depths where the worst of Nazism and the ultra-left have always found their common, Blair-style utopia, since even long before Blair named it a “Third Way.”

So, in this concluding section thus far, we have listed two leading, microcosmical factors determining those characteristic distinctions among societies, the which are rooted in differing qualities among relevant types of individual personalities. We have identified, first, the role of the relative level of growth, or debasement, represented by the individual person’s cognitive development. In addition, we have referenced the relevant case of the Sixty-Eighters, to illustrate the implied importance of willfully resisting and defeating anti-social passions, including outrightly satanic ones, which are threatening the self-destruction of cultures. There is a third principal, higher consideration to be featured as the keystone element in this repertoire: the role of choice of axiomatic conception of the nature, and situation, of the human individual within the universe at large.

The latter factor in determining the success or doom of cultures, is best identified as the issue posed by the proposition that the individual man and woman are each made in the image of the Creator. In fact, this third factor implicitly subsumes all of the issues presented by the other two.

It is permissible, and useful, to cluster all of these and related considerations, and their bearing upon the generation and transmission of physical-economic anti-entropy, under the rubric of a general conception of the role of cultural paradigm-shifts. The last of the three considerations just listed, takes us directly to that goal.

The Modern Nation-State Republic

The last, most crucial issue to be considered, in conclusion, here, is the practical, real-life implications of Aeschylus’ Prometheus trilogy. This trilogy, and the implications we have referenced under the discussion of Classical tragedy, above, are to be examined from the standpoint of the way in which the Christian conception of man and woman as made in the image of the Creator,[fn_40] led, in fact, into the idea underlying the establishment of the United States as a sovereign Federal constitutional republic: the case of the so-called “American exception.”[fn_41]

The core of the issue, is not the simple-minded, bald assertion, that man and woman are each and all made in the image of the Creator. The core of the issue, is the available, crucial proof, that this claim is true.

The proof is the fact, that humanity alone, acting through the sovereign cognitive potential of the individual person, is able to increase mankind’s power over the universe, per capita, and per square kilometer of our planet’s surface. This cognitive power for discovering such efficient truth, innate to the individual, is crucial proof of the existence of a “divine spark of reason” universally innate to the human individual. The emergence of the modern sovereign nation-state republic, is the result of the impact and persistence of that Christian principle.

The essential features of the republic, are two. First, that we must end, everywhere on this planet, the notion that humanity can be divided between a ruling class, the oligarchies and their lackeys, on the one side, and a ruled class, subjugated, virtual “human cattle,” as victims, on the other side. The earlier societies, including evil Venice, anti-American Britain under its present monarchy, and the anti-American reactionaries represented by Metternich’s Holy Alliance, insisted, like the British Foreign Service’s self-proclaimed asset, treasonous Henry A. Kissinger, upon maintaining the traditional division between oligarch and “human cattle.” On the opposing side, there has been the influence of those whose work led into the mid-Fifteenth-Century Council of Florence and King Louis XI’s Renaissance-guided reconstruction of France as the first modern nation-state, representing the interest of all of its people. This pioneering achievement of Louis XI’s France, led into the later establishment and defense of the United States’ Federal Republic as the noblest enterprise of European civilization as a whole.

The American Exception emerged as a reflection of the fact, that the Sixteenth- through Nineteenth-Century Europeans could not realize their objectives, to establish a true republic overthrowing the ruling vestiges of oligarchism, simply and directly, within their respective own countries, or even within Europe as a whole. In this difficult circumstance, the effort to build up a true republic, in Plato’s sense of that term, in North America, was conceived as a way of circumventing the apparent impossibility of establishing republics by means internal to Europe alone.

The future patriotic leadership and republican conceptions of the U.S.A., emerging as factions built up in the Mathers’ Massachusetts and Penn’s and Logan’s Pennsylvania, during the course of the Seventeenth Century, reflected this conception and long-range intent. From the beginning of the Eighteenth Century, the best Europeans, including the English, Scottish, and Irish opponents of William of Orange, Marlborough, and George I, allied with such leaders of the U.S. cause as Benjamin Franklin. Nineteenth-Century U.S. leaders best represented by John Quincy Adams, Alexander Dallas Bache, Henry C. Carey, and Abraham Lincoln, typify the continuity of the same kind of internationalist perspective of the U.S.A.’s best patriots.

Thus, over these centuries, to date, American and European heirs of the Renaissance worked together, to establish the U.S. republic as the rallying-point for freeing the entirety of our planet from the relics of oligarchical forms of racism and other tyranny. I stand, personally, in that American patriotic tradition, respecting the development of cooperative relations between the U.S.A. and Europe.

It is crucial to understand, still today, that the achievements produced by the struggle for liberty inside North America, were not a product of ideas which sprang up autochthonously, within the geographic and related circumstances internal to North America. Always, the development of the struggle for liberty inside North America, and the establishment and defense of the U.S. republic itself, was chiefly a product of the work of those Europeans who were best typified by the figure of Gottfried Leibniz, Europeans acting under the influence of the best leading currents within the culture of Europe.

Some exemplary facts should be reviewed, if only briefly, here. From the Sixteenth Century on, Europeans went to North America to find and build a republic; these Europeans built the foundations of the U.S. republic’s achievements. The immigrants to North America came from Europe. The ideas underlying the American Revolution, came from the Augustinian Golden Renaissance heritage within Europe. The successes of the United States in winning its freedom from its mortal enemy, the British monarchy, and defending that freedom against the combined forces of the European financier-oligarchical and other oligarchical enemies, were always accomplished in concert between U.S. patriots, such as Benjamin Franklin and John Quincy Adams, and the European factions to which Americans turned for essential assistance in wars against such enemies of freedom as the British monarchy, France’s Napoleons, and Metternich’s Holy Alliance. Without those European allies of the U.S., the combination of British agents and pro-British factions inside the U.S.A., would have succeeded in destroying the U.S. from within, at several crucial points during the Nineteenth Century, such as 1812, and 1861-1863.

That is the view of the U.S. republic as the work of a trans-Atlantic collaboration with European anti-British co-thinkers, enemies of such shameless overt agents of British influence as Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. That is the view of collaborators committed to the cause of the Christian principle of the “divine spark of reason.” That, in opposition to the babblings of Teddy Roosevelt’s favorite, Frederick Jackson Turner, is the only true “American Exception.” The United States was created by Europeans as an instrument for freeing Europe itself from the grip of such evil forces as the British monarchy, the family and tradition of Napoléon Bonaparte, and the Holy Alliance. Without continuing to adhere to that purpose, for which the U.S. was created, the U.S.A. itself would not long survive.

It is that same view of Europe among leading patriots of the U.S.A. in the tradition of Franklin, John Quincy Adams, and Henry Carey, which informs a patriotic view of what U.S. Russia policy must become today. Russia is, as France’s President Charles de Gaulle emphasized, an integral, important, leading part of Europe as a whole, a Russia whose collaboration with both the United States and the Leibniz-Schiller-Humboldt tradition within Germany has always been key to the, unfortunately, all too exceptional, best periods in the history of Russia’s policies and foreign relations. Russia today must be brought into playing its proper role within Europe as a whole, a role which depends upon the proper shaping of the relations among the U.S., Russia, and Germany.

The case of Russia leads us, by way of Eurasia as a whole, into a much more important matter, the ordering of the affairs of this world as a whole.

The greatest leaders of the U.S. republic, such as Franklin and John Quincy Adams, always understood that the security of the U.S. itself ultimately depended not only upon freeing Europe itself from the oligarchical legacies of the British monarchy, the Napoleons, and the Holy Alliance, but also upon establishing a world order of cooperation for universal improvement of the human condition. The best U.S. patriots among us have always understood, as President Franklin Roosevelt proclaimed this, in opposition to Winston Churchill, and in opposition to Roosevelt’s confused and corrupted successor, President Harry Truman, that this matter of bringing justice to all of the nations of the world, is our republic’s true destiny, the destiny inhering in the creation of our republic. The historic mission of the United States, is to ensure the creation of a system of cooperation among perfectly sovereign nation-states, to establish a system of justice, based upon commitment to truth, throughout the world as a whole.

For the Americans, as heirs of the mid-Fifteenth-Century Golden Renaissance, this meant a world order based on the conception of man and nature inhering in the conception that all persons are made equally in the image of the Creator, and endowed with that potential of creative reason, expressed in scientific and Classical-artistic forms of progress of universal improvement in the condition of the human individual, which expresses their likeness to, and the Christian’s agapic love for their Creator. That is the principle of agapē featured, in defense of truth and justice, in Plato’s Republic; that is the principle of the Christian Apostle Paul’s I Corinthians 13. That principle is key to any successful effort to address the implications of the presently ongoing disintegration of the world’s present financial and monetary system.

That historical outline, respecting the case of the American Exception, situates the following, concluding features of our discussion of the subjective determination of history.

The highest point of individual morality, culture, and intellect, is found in reflection upon the fact, that the greatest of all things created is the individual human being, whose innate gift of reason, situates that individual, in practice, as made in the image of the Creator. (For the information of those unfortunate persons who may object to this theological outlook, we warn them, that it might be considered imprudent to insult the Creator, as many professed “Christian Fundamentalists” do, by accusing Him of bad taste in respect to the love for all mankind expressed by Jesus Christ and His Apostles.)

In practice, the conscious, as distinct from innately potential morality, of that individual, begins with his, or her reflection on the fact, that each of us is mortal. The fact that each is born, and will die, impels anyone not an utter fool, to find, in life, that which transcends death. The same thing, said in the language of Classical philosophy and Christian theology: to find, and secure one’s immortal place within the simultaneity of eternity.

There is nothing merely fanciful in such apparent speculations. The characteristic feature of human existence, which sets the human personality absolutely apart from, and above the lower species, is creative reason, as reason is typified by the crucial-experimental validation of newly discovered physical principles of the universe. The generation, and replication of such valid discoveries, has the efficient consequence, that we, the living, may act to give fresh kinds of life to those fruits of creative reason which have been bequeathed to the living by the dead, and may act similarly, such that, we, once dead, still act to shape the future states of this universe. There, we dwell, today, in the simultaneity of eternity.

In these connections of present to past and future, the which we have just summarized in the two preceding paragraphs, we should recognize that the kinds of educational policy in force in the United States, and other nations, today, are intrinsically evil. What is evil in the policies of such wretches as John Dewey and his successors, is the fact, that the contemporary educational policies of our public and private schools, and universities, including so-called “home schooling,” were introduced with the explicitly stated intent, to destroy the best forms of public and university education previously established, the forms of education associated with the Classical humanist methods of such as the Brothers of the Common Life and the Schiller-Humboldt reforms in Germany.

In Classical humanist modes of education, education is centered upon the student’s re-enacting, as exactly as possible, the reliving of an original discoverer’s impassioned[fn_42] act of discovering a validated principle, either a physical principle, or a comparable principle of Classical art. This is a moral act, as contrasted with the immorality of mere textbook learning of that which was, actually or only putatively, proven by some work from past centuries. Since, these principles are made known to the student by reliving actual moments of discovery of principle, from the minds of persons long deceased, this form of education corresponds to the moral principle identified just above. That moral principle, informed by a richness of reliving the most important known discoveries of principle from the past, defines the student’s moral commitment, to live today in such a way as to foster a better future for generations yet to come.

The relatively simpler illustrations of this principle, come from the history of physical science, as science is best traced from the centuries of the Academy of Athens under the leadership of Plato and successors such as Eratosthenes. All of the greatest valid achievements of modern science are derived from work premised upon the foundations of the method of Plato. However, as we have stressed near the beginning of this present report, there is a danger in relying upon so-called physical science to such a degree that we overlook the decisive role of Classical art. Look at the transition from the barbarism expressed within the Homeric epics, into the critical view of those barbarities and their civilized alternatives from the standpoint of Solon of Athens, Aeschylus (for example), and Plato. The referenced case of Orestes, and Athena’s intervention against the blood-vengeful barbarities of the Furies, is an appropriate illustration of the point.

There is virtually no instance, in which the poem of Solon of Athens, and the greatest Greek tragedies of the Classical period, are not demonstrations of principle as much needed for today’s populations, as they were in the time the Classical tragedians were struggling with their audiences, to expose the barbarous follies included in the events and policies reported in the Homeric epics. There is no problem of law, in the practice of today’s U.S.A., or most legislatures and judiciaries of other nations today, in which reference to the treatment of justice, in Book Two of Plato’s Republic, is not a much-needed correction for the barbarities commonly practiced by the U.S. Department of Justice and other relevant contemporary institutions.

Thus, on such account, students and teachers, who show contempt for study of Classical Greek literature, today, are rightly identified as “contemptible” fools.

It is by reliving the issues of Classical art, first as these issues were posed in Classical Greek literature, that the secondary pupil in a Classical humanist program, comes to know the moral principles of Classical works of art, in the same way in which the valid discoveries of physical science should become known to the student, by reliving the experience of original discovery of that same knowledge, as if he, or she were there. The study of modern works of art from the standpoint of comparison with the Classical Greek productions, such as the tragedies and Classical forms of commedia, of Rabelais, Marlowe, Cervantes, Shakespeare, and Schiller, or the Classical-Greek modes of poetic composition used by Goethe, Shelley, and Keats, has this same quality of importance. Students who graduate from secondary schools without this kind of experience, are rightly called “barbarians,” “illiterates,” “unfortunates.” They lack that developed moral sense, peculiar to Classical art, on which the continuation of viable modern forms of civilization depends absolutely.

We must emphasize here, once again, a crucial point we have made in other published locations. In Classical art, it is indispensable that we never lose connection to the principle of historical specificity. For example, any Classical drama, especially tragedy, which is composed as situating a subject-matter in a specific place and time in history, must never be presented as a “timeless lesson,” never presented as a matter situated in a different historical setting of time and place, than that for which it was originally written.[fn_43] This applies to education in secondary schools, as it ought to be enforced in public dramatic performances. There is a profound moral issue involved in this.

The moral issue here flows from the factual one. In the course of actual history, the relationship among present, preceding, and later generations, is the location in which the characteristic features of the historical process are located. For the case of tragedy, Schiller illustrates this point very well, by the relationship between his study of the composition of tragedy by Shakespeare, for example, with his own compositions. History is located, essentially, not in physical acts as such, but in the succession of those ideas in which the subjective order of objective action is situated. To violate, or simply overlook that principle of real-life history, is to sow the kind of confusion leading to the worst, potentially fatal blunders of judgment by both leading statesmen and public opinion generally. Morally, to do such a disgusting thing as that, is to reject absolutely the principle of truthfulness respecting the consequences of both ignorance of the past and respecting rational regard for the future consequences of present actions.

The image of some creature fit for a part in Hogarth’s A Rake’s Progress, masturbating with his handheld calculator, in a financial trading pit, provides an epitome of the kind of soon-doomed Yahoo a person is, who disregards the fact, that the ordering of the causal sequence of events occurs in reality, according to the principle of historical specificity.

Thus, the moral citizen is he, or she, who situates the notion of self-interest, not in personal profit or loss, nor immediate pleasure or pain, but rather with respect to one’s personal world-historical place in the course of history as a whole. Thus, that person is moral, because his, or her notion of world-historical interest approximates the principle of an order within the meaning of a simultaneity of eternity. It is this location of one’s self-interest, which defines the only truly happy persons on this planet, the kind which laughs in the Devil’s face.

Plate VI from William Hogarth’s “A Rake’s Progress,” in which the rake, having lost a fortune at gambling, is now half mad. “The moral citizen is he, or she, who situates the notion of self-interest, not in personal profit or loss, nor immediate pleasure or pain, but rather with respect to one’s personal world- historical place in the course of history as a whole. . . . It is this location of one’s self-interest, which defines the only truly happy persons on this planet, the kind which laughs in the Devil’s face.”

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

This, in summary, is the first, and highest moral standpoint. It is from this standpoint, and only this standpoint, that history can be understood, and the relationship between characteristics of individual human behavior, and the lawful ordering of anti-entropy and entropy in societies as wholes.

The crucial fact about history so viewed, is the relationship between the increase of mankind’s power over the universe, and the notion of a correlation between such progress, and a Riemannian ordering of the progress of ideas of both physical and Classical-artistic principle. Hence, the importance which all of us, among those who have understood history, have placed upon a certain notion of universal education for all our young. It is to the degree, that we have fostered bright and happy young people, through their locating their own identity in history as the history of ideas, that we have fostered the development of our future citizens as typically sparkling wits, filled with actual knowledge, rather than mere learning, and, brimming, therefore, with laughter, wit, and joy in mastering strange places and more advanced discoveries of principle than have been known before.

Be thus happy, and we shall conquer all that we must.

[fn_1]. “Third Way”: It is not idle wit, to identify such ideologues as advocating the political-economic equivalent of a policy of “Neither life nor death, but a Third Way.” In their “Lotus Land,” the devotees of such views do not work, but devote themselves to search for convergence in their idle choices of opinions and other expressions of bad taste. In the post-Civil War culture of the U.S.A., this sort of “Lotus Eaters” ideology was most aptly expressed by such ungently decadent creatures as the Nashville Agrarians (“The Fugitives”), as the latter are typified by Robert Penn Warren, John Crowe Ransom, and Kissinger’s William Yandell Elliot. This surely, is the real-life, mint-julep-sipping, or other equivalent to the fictional “Count Dracula,” who neither toils nor spins, but merely sucks. [back to text for fn_1]

[fn_2]. Admittedly, already, during May-August 1996, the “New Democrats” bullied President Clinton into throwing the Democratic Party’s chances to win back control of the U.S. House of Representatives, by forcing both Clinton and traditional Democrats into submitting to a piece of the U.S. Yahoo right’s legislation on “welfare reform.”

In the setting of the August phase of the current international financial crisis, the same “New Democrats,” including celebrated Puritan “Dick” Morris, used the pretext of Kenneth Starr’s Lewinsky Affair to launch a public attack amounting to an open break with the President and the traditional constituency-forces of the Party. Among those vying for the Democratic “Hall of Shame,” are: former Sen. Sam Nunn (Ga.), who suggested in a Washington Post commentary on August 23 that the interests of the country may require President Clinton to resign; House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (Mo.), who said on August 25, that President Clinton could be impeached, and that his conduct was “reprehensible”; Rep. James Moran (Va.), the co-chair of the “New Democratic Coalition,” who told Barron’s Hotline that Clinton’s admissions constitute a particular peril to “New Democrat” candidates in swing districts.

Similarly, on Sept. 6, Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (N.Y.) said that President Clinton had committed impeachable offenses by lying in the Paula Jones deposition and by lying to the American people. Moynihan told ABC’s “This Week,” that there is a “crisis of the regime,” and that Congress “ought to get on . . . with an impeachment procedure.”

In fairness, it should be acknowledged, that the present tendency for convergence upon unity between the followers of “Third Wave” Gingrich and “New Democrats,” is the outcome of a twenty-year process of defection from the Democratic Party, especially from among those states in which slavery of African-Americans had been formerly legalized, prior to post-Civil War Reconstruction. There is a corresponding connection between British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s affinities for the legacy of anti-labor fanatic Margaret Thatcher, and “Dick” Morris’ affinities for conciliation with the “Benito Mussolini of Georgia,” Newt Gingrich. [back to text for fn_2]

[fn_3]. In a January 11, 1995 address to the Washington, D.C. National Press Club, Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) pointed to the reason the Democratic Party had lost the 1994 congressional campaign (see “Battle for the Soul of the Democratic Party Has Begun,” EIR, Vol. 23, No. 14, Mar. 29, 1996, pages 18-22). “The last thing this country needs is two Republican parties,” he stated. What he was pointing to, was the way in which certain currents within the Democratic Party were drifting toward political convergence with the Gingrich wing of the Republican Party.

Since then, these same, deviant currents within the Democratic ranks, have found kinship with the “Third Way” tactics of Britain’s Tony Blair: Blair’s avowed commitment to replace former British Labour Party constituency-oriented politics, by a kind of political sex-change, a convergence of the Labour government with the ideology of the Mont Pelerin Society’s rabid Thatcherism. This, Blair identifies as the “Third Way”, the “second Republican Party” inside the Democratic National Committee’s reigning “political advisors,” has adopted Blair’s version of the “Third Way” as their own. The ideological roots of the “Third Way” among today’s nominally Democratic Party circles, are to be found in two anti-labor currents from earlier times. One, especially among political figures from former slave-owning states, is typified by the perennially decadent “Nashville Agrarians.”

The more recent, converging source of the “New Democrat” perversion is the “new leftist” form of explicitly anti-labor, countercultural ferment associated with 1964-1972 phenomena such as SDS, the Weatherman break-out from SDS, and the Rainbow Coalition of the earliest 1970s. In the lexicons of Europe’s 1920s and 1930s, both today’s Gingrich types and the “Third Way” New Democrats would have been classified as strictly “fascist.” [back to text for fn_3]

[fn_4]. For our purposes here, Blair’s significance is that he not only typifies, but is integral to a trans-Atlantic spectrum of so-called “Third Way” clowns, from the leadership of Speaker Newt Gingrich’s “New Democrat” partners, to Germany’s dubious “shadow” Chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder. Blair is currently under heavy, increasing attack from responsible British Labour Party currents inside England. Denunciations of Blair from these Labour Party quarters each and all pin-point defects in Blair’s policies and personal character which are also the despicable characteristics of the worst among Germany’s SPD leadership and the worst among the leading spokespersons of the “New Democrats’ ” own “Third Way” faction in the U.S.A.

The Aug. 14 London Guardian announced a “Third Way” conference on “Democracy in the Global Economy,” for Sept. 21 in New York (to coincide with the UN General Assembly), hosted by the World Policy Institute. Speakers were to include President Clinton, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Italy’s Romano Prodi, and Sweden’s Göran Persson. Brazil’s President Sir Henrique Fernando Cardoso and Germany’s Social Democratic Chancellor candidate Gerhard Schroeder were invited, but are unable to attend, because of their respective election campaigns.

The London Financial Times of Aug. 27 reveals that there have been “several meetings between top U.S. and U.K. officials over the past year . . . as a way of focusing attention on their new policy model. . . . Mr. Clinton’s advisers believe if he is able to emphasize his strong policy credentials and international stature, it could help sway public opinion and head off possible impeachment hearings.” Prime Minister Prodi told Italian TV that, now that we are accustomed to speaking of “global economy,” we have to achieve “global politics.”

Like Britain’s waning Prime Minister Tony “Cheshire Cat” Blair (successor to Margaret “Mad Hatter” Thatcher and John “Dormouse” Major), the U.S.’s “New Democrats” represent a form of irrationalism so shamelessly lacking in principle, as to prompt the modern clones of the Republic’s Thrasymachus, but not the U.S.A.’s “Dick” Morris, to blush. The Aug. 14 issues of the London Guardian and Times both report a letter from former Industry Secretary Tony Benn to Blair’s Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown, charging that he has “no industrial policy,” and which suggests that the protection of the rich is one of the Government’s main objectives.” The Aug. 7 issue of the New Statesman, runs a cover story by Helen Wilkinson, who writes that a “culture of cronyism appears to be permeating government. . . .

“The cancer that threatens to eat away at the heart of New Labour is the love of power, and control for its own sake. This love of power could become, as it did for Margaret Thatcher, New Labour’s Achilles’ heel.” [back to text for fn_4]

[fn_5]. For the oldest presently living generation of Americans, the relevant comparison is to the “reality shock” which struck many at various points during the 1929-1933 interval.

In the more celebrated, extreme cases, we had the spectacle of yesterday’s Wall Street multimillionaire, suddenly bankrupt, homeless, and shunned by his former associates, peddling apples on the street. The comparable, less extreme case today, is the rather typical case of the person depending upon a mutual fund account. The relevant quality of “reality shock” is implied by the fellow who, up to a certain moment, thinks, “That could not happen to me,” and, in the next moment, sits in rueful terror, “It happened to me.”

The resulting process of ongoing “radicalization,” will produce effects reminding us of the polarization of the world at the beginning of the depression-ridden 1930s, with the emergence of President Franklin Roosevelt’s factional position on one side, Adolf Hitler’s on the other, and Churchill’s somewhere in between: an entirely new constellation of political forces is emerging to replace what had been the leading partisan alignments of the preceding thirty-odd years. [back to text for fn_5]

[fn_6]. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., ”What Will Happen, If. . . .,” EIR, Vol. 25, No. 34, Aug. 28, 1998, pages 48-71. [back to text for fn_6]

[fn_7]. On August 17, 1998, Russia’s Prime Minister Sergei Kiriyenko announced the enactment of emergency measures imposing capital and exchange controls upon the Russian economy. From that day onward, the hitherto hegemonic international political dogmas of “free trade” and “globalization” were effectively overthrown, and will never be re-established during a period of perhaps not less than a decade, perhaps a generation, perhaps never. There is no way in which “free trade” and “globalization” could be re-imposed upon Russia (and other countries) without setting off an immediate political chain-reaction which would blow out the U.S. economy, and bring down the U.S. and other governments within a period as short as weeks. Thus, on August 17, an era of more than a quarter-century ended. [back to text for fn_7]

[fn_8]. As emphasized immediately below, the present Russia crisis will blow out the set of 1989-1992 agreements which the governments of Britain, France, the U.S.A., and the Soviet Union shoved down the throats of Germany, Italy, former Communist Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, agreements which have remained in force for Germany, Italy, Russia, and Ukraine, up to the present day. [back to text for fn_8]

[fn_9]. For “Mitterrand’s terms,” see Helga Zepp-LaRouche, “Germany’s Missed Historic Opportunity of 1989,” EIR, Vol. 25, No. 32, Aug. 14, 1998, pages 4-10. [back to text for fn_9]

[fn_10]. President Yeltsin had just previously dumped Viktor Chernomyrdin, in a purge of March 23, 1998. See ”The Ides of March: Russia Crisis Breaks,” EIR Vol. 25, No. 14, Apr. 3, 1998, pages 23-25. On the role of U.S. Vice-President Al Gore, see Jonathan Broder,” Who Lost Russia?” in Salon magazine, Sept. 1, 1998.

Through his father, former Senator Al Gore, and his father’s sponsor, triply “designated personality” Armand (e.g., named as “Arm-and-Hammer,” as in baking soda, or Socialist Labor Party) Hammer, Gore has close connections to the creation of Russia’s present financier oligarchy. Hammer, long a triple agent of the U.S.A., the British monarchy, and the Soviet apparatus, was a key connection to the faction of the late Yuri Andropov and Andropov’s Hammer-linked protégé, Mikhail Gorbachev.

The source featured by Salon, is Stephen F. Cohen, a specialist on the subject of one-time Soviet dictator N. Bukharin. Cohen et al., recognize that Gore’s current Russia policies are a continuation of former President George Bush’s; Cohen makes implicitly clear that he sees the onrushing doom of Chernomyrdin’s policies as an echo of the downfall of the Soviet NEP, dictator Bukharin, and Bukharin’s leading U.S. agent, Jay Lovestone, at the close of the 1930s. [back to text for fn_10]

[fn_11] . There was a related reaction even among a significant ration of the author’s close political collaborators. In these cases, even persons who had been intimately informed, for two decades or more, of the author’s forecasts of these developments, there was a psychologically lawful kind of flight from reality, away from the actual political situation, into the safety of a blinkered focus on one or more smaller, practical tasks available. The rule is: When the world becomes too big for comfort, find a sense of safety in shrinking your own mind! [back to text for fn_11]

[fn_12]. I.e., Dr. Faustus. [back to text for fn_12]

[fn_13]. The importance of Aeschylus’, Shakespeare’s, and Schiller’s Classical compositions is better grasped when we recognize that the complementary, Classical principle of comedy, as understood by Erasmus of Rotterdam, and practiced famously by both Francois Rabelais and Miguel Cervantes, has the same function as Classical tragedy. In Classical comedy, the fatal, pompous conceit of the fool is brought to most humiliating ridicule by the fool’s own folly. So, Cervantes warned the aristocracy and people of Spain, that Spain was doomed for no reason but that the King and people of Spain had become a pack of fools. Few recognize the importance of Rabelais as an exponent of that Classical culture which France must recapture, still today. The essence of what fools misread as the mere ribaldry of Rabelais, is an appeal to the successors of great King Louis XI not to continue to behave as fools. One imagines Panurge in Hell, tormenting the evil Francois Mitterrand with ridicule. [back to text for fn_13]

[fn_14]. Better to grasp the principle involved, imagine the silly effort of some modern, foolish playwright, to compose a drama in which Belshazzar’s Babylon is saved from doom by aid of counsel from some ancient “balance of power” freak, like Henry A. Kissinger or Zbigniew Brzezinski. As students of ancient Mencius might remind us, no diplomatic or other cheap tricks can save a nation which has lost the moral fitness to survive. Nothing could save from doom a U.S.A. which adopted the “balance of power” policies of a Kissinger or Brzezinski. [back to text for fn_14]

[fn_15]. As I emphasize later in this report, as in various earlier published locations, this matter of identifying the source of the inner tension which has prompted a sense of shock, is identical with the experience leading to the validatable discovery of a new physical principle. Faced with a perplexing, vicious paradox in the relevant scientific evidence, the first task of the prospective discovery of a new physical principle, is to identify, to locate the features of the problem which point to the origin of the paradox itself. In other words, to define the issue posed by that paradox. In other words, one must ask oneself, “What is the problem here?” It is at that point, that the paradox is transformed from an anxiety-ridden state of confusion, into a more or less well-focussed investigation. Gauss’s work, in defining the focus of his attack on solving the orbit of Ceres (see Tennenbaum and Director, op cit.), is an excellent model of the way a sea of confusion is replaced by a well-organized choice of direction of search for the needed solution. [back to text for fn_15]

[fn_16]. The most obvious musical examples of the same political principle of Classical poetry and drama, are Giuseppe Verdi’s settings of the tragedies from Shakespeare and Schiller, and also Mozart’s Don Giovanni. An additional Mozart contribution should be included: Mozart’s treatment of the part played by the “Queen of the Night” in his Die Zauberflöte (The Magic Flute), a theme which, it must be emphasized, is direct from the Classical Greek case of “Orestes.” This Orestes theme, featuring the role of Athena in civilizing the “Furies,” was recently elaborated in a Dichterpflänzchen presentation by Rosa Tennenbaum. [back to text for fn_16]

[fn_17]. This function of the compositions of Sophocles and Aeschylus, especially Aeschylus, is shown by examining the way in which Aeschylus, for example, addresses the paradoxical barbarities posed within the Homeric epics. This is made clearer when that relationship between the great Greek tragedians and Homeric epics is cross-gridded with two other crucial points of reference: the great poem of Solon of Athens and the dialogues of Plato. It is this quality in the best work of Classical Greece, not accidents of geography, which, to this day, defines any rational approach to the history of European civilization as Schiller did, as rooted in the overcoming of the early Greek’s own barbarism by the authors of the greatest Classical works, from Solon through Plato. [back to text for fn_17]

[fn_18]18. “O, what a rogue . . . am I. . . .” [back to text for fn_18]

[fn_19]. Those with at least a rudimentary grounding in mathematical physics, will profit from comparing the notion of “shock,” as we reference the paradox of Hamlet’s soliloquy, to the notion of the principled way in which acoustical, trans-sonic shock-waves are generated, according to Bernhard Riemann’s paper, “Über die Fortpflanzung ebener Luftwellen von endlicher Schwingungsweite,” “The Propagation of Plane Air Waves of Finite Amplitude,” in Bernhard Riemann, Bernhard Riemann’s Gesammelte Mathematische Werke, H. Weber, ed. Dover Publications reprint, New York, N.Y., 1953. Note that Riemann’s prediction of shock waves generated by successful trans-sonic flight of accelerated projectiles has a correlative in such fields as thermonuclear fusion, where the same principle appears under the rubric of isentropic compression. This is also, more fundamentally, an elementary characteristic of the human mind; the processes of cognition are characterized by shock-wave-like solutions to those paradoxes otherwise known as metaphor. This principle of cognition, is also the fundamental principle underlying the generation of multiply-connected manifolds of the Gauss-Riemann type. [back to text for fn_19]

[fn_20]. See, Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., ”The Substance of Morality,”EIR, Vol. 25, No. 26, June 26, 1998, note 37, page 30. [back to text for fn_20]

[fn_21]. E.g., Patricio Ricketts, “Russia Says Goodbye to Adam Smith,” in the Peruvian magazine, Sí, Aug. 31; Neue Zürcher Zeitung, lead economic editorial, “Monetary Policy Out of the Poison Cabinet,” Aug. 26; MIT economist Paul Krugman wrote in the Sept. 7 issue of Fortune, that “Plan A,” i.e., backing the International Monetary Fund, has not worked, and it’s time for Asia to adopt exchange controls; Dan Atkinson, “Roosevelt’s New Deal Would Be the Right Medicine for Today,” London Guardian, Aug. 31; Brazil’s O Estado de São Paulo, editorial “Hong Kong’s Warning,” Aug. 25; Walter Meade, senior fellow at the New York Council on Foreign Relations, Los Angeles Times, Aug. 23, “Forget suicide car bombers and Afghan fanatics. It’s the financial markets . . . that pose the biggest immediate threat to world peace”; Wall Street Journal, Aug. 24, “The financial firestorm that has been scorching economies around the globe is intensifying into one the world’s worst. . . .” (See “International Clamor for a Change in Policy,” EIR, Vol. 25, No. 36, Sept. 4, pages 6-7; and “The Era of Free Trade Is Over,” EIR, Vol. 25, No. 36, Sept. 11, pages 23-26.) [back to text for fn_21]

[fn_22]. The polymorphously intertwined Lord William Rees-Mogg, Rees-Mogg’s association of his political commitments with the “Third Wave” cult of Alvin Toffler and Newt Gingrich, the Hollinger Corporation’s London Daily Telegraph, and the network of “Get Clintonites” spewed from Mellon Scaife to the clique behind Kenneth Starr, exemplify the reach of Prince Philip’s “Chaos faction” into the U.S.A., as distinct from the doomed relics of present-day liberal utopianism. [back to text for fn_22]

[fn_23]. For example, the same observation was made, typically, by a dear, since deceased friend, France’s General G. Revault d’Allonnes, during a seminar of senior military professionals from several European nations, which I convened in Germany during the mid-1980s. General Revault d’Allonnes referred to an incident, which occurred in Germany during the immediate post-war years, as he described the incident, when he had been a “mere colonel,” seated at the lowest ranking position of the table among a group of French flag officers. In response to the question, “What is the first action we must take in the case of the outbreak of war?,” then-Colonel Revault d’Allonnes had created a sudden silence with his hubristic “fire all the generals.”

In the history of France, the outstanding example of the merit of such sudden changes in composition of command, is that of the brilliant success of the leadership provided by France’s Lazare Carnot, during his own, most eminently successful, 1792-1794 occupancy of the position of commander of France’s military forces. The case of Carnot is the best illustration of the positive principle lending authority to the referenced remarks of Revault d’Allonnes.

For the military history of Germany, the great Scharnhorst is the outstanding positive example, with “old” Moltke a close second. In Twentieth-Century U.S. military history, the case of General Douglas MacArthur’s Pacific command during World War II, is the model for new generals to match today. In Nineteenth-Century U.S. history, the prime example is President Lincoln’s passing the command to a General Ulysses Grant greatly aided by the military genius of General William Tecumseh Sherman. [back to text for fn_23]

[fn_24]. The relevant use of the term “worse,” in connection with today’s U.S.A. and other nations’ senior military ranks more recently, or currently in service, emphasizes the impact of return of military policy to a kind of decadence modelled upon Eighteenth-Century “cabinet warfare,” during the decades following the combined effects of U.S. President Truman’s unjustified nuclear bombing of Japan and Winston Churchill dupe Truman’s later ouster of General of the Armies Douglas MacArthur.

Typical of the problem, are those military and related professionals who presumed, mistakenly, that “SDI,” as initially described by President Ronald Reagan, was a weapons system, rather than a Classical strategy in the sense “strategy” was understood and practiced by such as Lazare Carnot, Scharnhorst, the U.S.A.’s John Quincy Adams, or the German General Staff under, for example, the celebrated Graf von Schlieffen. The legacy of the influence of the Swiss Jomini, and Jomini’s pernicious influence on the education of the U.S. military professionals, is a prime example of the sort of disorientation which must be rooted out at the approach of a new war. [back to text for fn_24]

[fn_25]. For example: The so-called “Brandt reforms” in education, in Germany, have resulted in a state of affairs in which Germans from the period of the pre-Brandt-reform Classical-humanist education of the 1960s, are, functionally speaking, almost a superior species to those younger Germans who have been victims of the Brandt-reform and related trends in educational and related cultural policies. A less dramatic, but otherwise comparable case, is the profound collapse of the quality of education in the north of the Commonwealth of Virginia, U.S.A., relative to the standard of practice during as recent a time as the early to middle 1980s.

Under the influence of current trends of “politically correct” policies in universities and public schools, today’s typical university graduate is usually not only a functional illiterate in matters of common skills, but seldom capable of sustaining rational forms of intellectual behavior under even relatively slight stress. [back to text for fn_25]

[fn_26]. Without the developments associated with Classical Greek culture, as such developments are typified by the work of Solon of Athens, Aeschylus, and Plato, society could not have risen above the barbaric level stubbornly maintained by, for example, both ancient Rome and European feudalism, in which over ninety-five percent of the population was kept in the degraded state of dumbed-down human cattle, virtual Yahoos out of the pages of Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels. [back to text for fn_26]

[fn_27]. For example, the fraud of petitio principia, used to defend the proposition that the mathematical physical universe is linear in the infinitesimally small, a falsehood which was perpetrated by the Berlin Academy’s Leonhard Euler, in evading the fact that the theorem he claimed to have proven, against Leibniz, was already an axiom within the choice of geometry he employed for constructing his fraudulent claim of proof. [back to text for fn_27]

[fn_28]. See, in Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., “What Will Happen, If. . . .,” EIR, Vol. 25, No. 34, Aug. 28, 1998, pages 52-53. [back to text for fn_28]

[fn_29]. The formulation for “negative entropy,” as provided by Clausius, by Ludwig Boltzmann’s construction of his H-theorem, and as Boltzmann is parodied by the “information theory” hoaxster Professor Norbert Wiener, is not the alternative to entropy, but only a subsumed feature of what Boltzmann and Wiener, like Clausius and Grassmann earlier, define as “universal entropy.” Hence, to avoid the confusion spread, over a half a century, by Wiener’s misuse of the terms “negative entropy” and “negentropy,” I have insisted upon using the term anti-entropy, instead. [back to text for fn_29]

[fn_30]. Ibid. See, also, Jonathan Tennenbaum and Bruce Director, “How Gauss Determined the Orbit of Ceres,” Fidelio, Summer 1998, pages 4-88. On Plato, reference the treatment of this matter in his Timaeus (Plato: Vol. IX, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1975. [back to text for fn_30]

[fn_31]. Laurence Hecht, et al., “The Significance of the 1845 Gauss-Weber Correspondence,” 21st Century Science & Technology, Fall 1996; pages 21-43. [back to text for fn_31]

[fn_32]. The latter, as understood by Lazare Carnot, et al., is the feature of Gauss-Riemann forms of hypergeometries which define the modular relations within a multiply-connected manifold as intrinsically “non-linear” in the extremely small, characteristic] interval of action. [back to text for fn_32]

[fn_33]. Bernhard Riemann, “Über die Hypothesen, welche der Geometrie zu Grunde liegen,” Bernhard Riemanns Gesammelte Mathematische Werke, H. Weber, ed., Dover Publications reprint edition, New York, N.Y., 1953. [back to text for fn_33]

[fn_34]. In the history of public education in Europe and the United States, the proverbial mantle of leadership has passed from certain Christian teaching orders of medieval Europe, through the model established in the Seventeenth-Century Massachusetts Bay Colony of the Mathers, through the educational reforms which Friedrich Schiller and the Humboldt brothers built up in Germany around the preceding initiatives of the collaborators Lessing and the great Moses Mendelssohn, and, thence, to the model of secondary education developed in the U.S.A. by an associate of Alexander von Humboldt, Benjamin Franklin’s great-grandson, Alexander Dallas Bache.

In the Seventeenth through Nineteenth Centuries’ history of North America and Europe, the figures of international leaders in science and related matters, Gottfried Leibniz and Benjamin “God’s Sparks” Franklin, are a crucial part of the history of education. [back to text for fn_34]

[fn_35]. On the battlefields of science and education, the war between morality and bestiality, is typified in the most concentrated way, by the connection among Benjamin Franklin, Georg Forster, Friedrich Schiller, and Ludwig van Beethoven, on the one side, against the satanically evil tool of Jeremy Bentham, that vicious maenad, Mary Shelley, who authored the literally (theologically speaking) gnostic piece of anti-science fiction, Frankenstein, on the Devil’s own side.

The hatred of Franklin and the U.S. Federal Republic, which prompted Mary Shelley’s expression of hatred against “God’s sparks,” in her novel, was Franklin’s role as both a leading scientist, and science organizer, on the one side, and also a leading international figure of the late Eighteenth Century, which prompted Georg Forster to eulogize Franklin’s combined, international, scientific and political leadership with the metaphor, “God’s Sparks Götterfunken.”

The same metaphor was employed by another European recruit to the American Revolution, Friedrich Schiller, in the celebrated “Ode to Joy,” later incorporated, with a prefatory warning emphasis on the principle of metaphor involved, by Beethoven himself, in Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony.

The connections between the American Revolution and Beethoven’s compositions, were documented in a report on the subject of Beethoven’s opera Fidelio, by Don Phau, who, ironically, was sent to prison, in the unjust manner of both the real-life Marquis de Lafayette and the fictional Florestan, on orders of the same enemy, the British monarchy of Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger (Pizzaro).

Prior to the ascent to tyranny by British assets Philippe Egalité, Maximilien Robespierre, and British Foreign Service agents of Bentham, Danton, and Marat, all of the best leading people of Europe were sympathizers of Lafayette and the opening events of the French Revolution of 1789. They, like U.S. War for Independence propagandist, Tom Paine, were supporters of what they knew as Benjamin Franklin’s international leadership of the struggle to free mankind from the bestiality of oligarchical rule. Of this, Wolfgang Mozart and Ludwig van Beethoven, like Friedrich Schiller, were a part, with sympathy and patronage from the Habsburg Emperor Joseph II.

With the death of Joseph, the anti-American, oligarchical princedom of Austro-Hungary seized power. A terrible slaughter of all of the leading pro-Americans was conducted under the direction of the evil Chancellor von Kaunitz; Mozart, and all of his political associates who were not themselves agents of von Kaunitz’s Geheimpolizei (secret police) died, all within the same few months, and all under circumstances controlled by von Kaunitz’s secret police.

As Beethoven stressed, Mozart was not poisoned by Salieri, but, as Beethoven knew, but did not say, by the same means which Metternich’s Geheimpolizei used, in planting Metternich’s police-spy, Schindler, into Beethoven’s circles. (Much of the false interpretation of Beethoven’s musical work, was the result of operations run, using police-spy Schindler, by Metternich’s Geheimpolizei.)

Notably, as emphasized by the cases of Emperor Joseph II and several of Beethoven’s dedications of compositions to his prize student, Habsburg Archduke Rudolf, it was not the biological family of Habsburg which was the enemy of the American War of Independence and Federal Constitution, but rather the Venice-dominated circle of ruling princes of the Venice-controlled southern branch of what had been the Holy Roman Empire (a case typified since the late Eighteenth Century, by the hereditary head of the Fürstentum , Thurn und Taxis).

Chancellors von Kaunitz and Metternich typify that body of medieval princes, as a political power greater than that of the Emperor, a power which sometimes culled the flock of Habsburg heirs and the plebeian associates of those heirs. The fact that Beethoven dared to present his Ninth Symphony within the context of Metternich’s Nazi-like, anti-Schiller Carlsbad decrees, attests both to Beethoven’s politics and courage, and also his powerful connections with some opponents of the medieval Fürstentum within the ruling Habsburg house.

Also of extreme importance bearing on the same point, is the role of a key asset of Empress Maria Theresa’s family, Ambassador van Swieten, who, with aid of connections to Felix Mendelssohn’s aunts, provided Wolfgang Mozart the circumstances under which Mozart’s intensive studies of the compositions of Johann Sebastian Bach, shaped all the important Classical musical composition and performance of Europe, from 1782 until the present day.

Before you try to make a public fool of yourselves, spinning populist-style “conspiracy theories,” steep yourself in the history of ideas, as the Classical culture of Solon’s, Aeschylus’, and Plato’s Greece defined Classical culture for both the Golden Renaissance and the struggle for truth and justice in modern European civilization after that. [back to text for fn_35]

[fn_36]. For purposes of cross-reference, this mediocre personality is consistent with Professor Lawrence S. Kubie’s study of victims of “neurotic distortion of the creative process,” typified by promising young doctoral candidates who went intellectually “dead” about the time they either passed their orals, or secured their first significant professional appointment. The sort of induced neurotic disorder identified by Kubie, is comparable to the academic pathology which Jena Professor of history Friedrich Schiller denounces as the production of so-called Brotgelehrte. [back to text for fn_36]

[fn_37]. Op. cit. [back to text for fn_37]

[fn_38]. Cf. Marsha Freeman, ”The Railroad and the Space Program,” EIR, Vol. 25, No. 34, Aug. 28, 1998. It should be emphasized, that this effort to destroy both science and rational forms of education, was driven by the same circles around Britain’s “Dark Age” Prince, the Duke of Edinburgh, which launched the so-called “environmentalist” movement with the 1961 founding of the World Wildlife Fund and the associated “1001 Club” of Princes Philip and Bernhard.

The connections between the attacks launched, beginning 1961, against both science and education, are typified by the close collaboration among such key figures as Britain’s Lord Solly Zuckerman and Dr. Alexander King, and the U.S.’s sometime National Security Advisor, Henry Kissinger sponsor, and Ford Foundation chief, McGeorge Bundy. Britain’s King was the OECD official who launched the 1963 campaign to destroy university and public education in Europe (and elsewhere). King and Zuckerman were the leading architects, in collaboration with the U.S.’s John D. Rockefeller III, in launching the Club of Rome and related efforts.

King, Zuckerman, and Bundy worked closely with Soviet President Kosygin’s son-in-law, Gvishiani, to found the East bloc division of Prince Philip’s project, the Laxenberg, Austria-based International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. Bundy, in concert with figures such as Herbert Marcuse, was a key Ford Foundation figure behind the funding and direction of ultra-left “anti-reason” cults, such as the Columbia University-based SDS Weatherman sect, during operations of the 1967-1969 interval. As usual, in such matters, ours is a small world, after all. [back to text for fn_38]

[fn_39]. Arendt, a former intimate of anti-Semitic Nazi ideologue Martin Heidegger, played a significant role as an exponent of Adorno’s anti-rational doctrines inside the U.S.A. Typical of her evil-doings is her participation in the anti-science campaigns of the 1960s, including her 1963 “Man’s Conquest of Space.” Cf. Marsha Freeman, op. cit. [back to text for fn_39]

[fn_40]. Unlike the contemporary radical-Zionist and analogous mis-readings of Jewish history, Christianity does not recognize any kind of racial, ethnic, or analogous forms of “particular” distinctions among peoples or persons. As the Apostle Paul warns: Beware the concision! Any “particularist” form of distinction is immoral, implicitly evil, because it is “racist,” because it implicitly fosters the division of mankind between oligarchies and subjugated “human cattle,” as radical Zionists, such as Prime Minister Netanyahu’s cronies, regard Palestinian Arabs. [back to text for fn_40]

[fn_41]. A summary of the notion of the U.S.A. as “the American exception,” may be found in Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., ”Where Franklin Roosevelt Was Interrupted,” EIR, Vol. 25, No. 16, Jul. 17, 1998, pages 32-33. [back to text for fn_41]

[fn_42]. No truthful principle was ever discovered by methods of deduction. The essential feature of the process of discovery, is the specific quality of passion, actually a form of expression of what Plato and the Apostle Paul identify as agapē.

For example, in the classroom, there exist two, alternative, mutually exclusive qualities of emotion associated with the student’s efforts to secure what he or she regards as “the answer” to a question posed. One, is the whorish desire to express, as a putative answer, some opinion which will win approbation from some choice of so-called “authority.” This morally debased classroom method and procedure is called “learning,” such as “textbook” or “dictionary” learning, or, in the alternative, the acquiring of “information.” The opposite quality of emotion, is the fear that one might choose an answer which is not truthful, in Plato’s Socratic sense of truthfulness. In the latter case, the moral person will reject, as a matter of principle, the search for an answer whose attribute of “correctness” lies in the expressed opinion of some putative external authority, such as a teacher, textbook, or political or judicial authority.

The student in the Classical humanist mode, must be certain, on his or her own authority, that the answer he chooses is right, in a way which is independent of merely adopting the opinion of some putative external authority, an answer which, in many instances, will be right precisely because it defies the contrary opinion of most available, or prevailing authorities so-called.

In this case, the student relies upon the authority of a developed method of investigation, a method which corresponds to the student’s experience in re-enacting many among the greatest of the validated discoveries of principle from the previous centuries’ work of mankind. It is that internal authority, located in that kind of internalized reliving of the creative acts of the greatest discoverers from the past, which the truthful student prefers to such putative authorities as mere textbook opinion, or deduction. What drives the truthful student to such effect, is a quality of passion, a passion which sustains the needed concentration-span, which will not let the mind of the student go, until the student has discovered the answer, and proven it, by the best of his own resources.

In this sense, the question of truth, even truth which relies upon objective forms of crucial validation, is subjectively motivated, not objective in the sense empiricists, for example, employ the term “objective.” [back to text for fn_42]

[fn_43]. There are, admittedly, cases of dramatic productions, in which such abuses are a matter of indifference. This is true only in the case that the dramatic production in question is such a piece of trash, that it could not be made worse by such anti-historical manglings. [back to text for fn_43]

II. The Failure of Imperial Geopolitics

Global Green New Deal Aimed at China, Russia, India, and the United States

by Paul Gallagher

Dec. 7—During the second day of the “climate emergency” extravaganza in Madrid, Spain, the UN Climate Change Conference known as COP25, the Secretary General of the United Nations singled out the four nations that he claimed were endangering the planet by their energy technologies. Antonio Guterres named the United States, China, Russia and India as, in effect, the targets of the global green new deal he was pushing at the COP25 meeting and called on “Europe” to take these powers on and “correct” them. The previous day, the European Union’s European Commission had “declared a climate emergency.”

UN Secretary General António Guterres.

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

On December 2, the opening day of the Madrid meeting, Guterres delivered the now-familiar litany of climate disasters identified by multiple computer models and called the response “utterly inadequate” from the nations he excoriated as the major “emitters” of carbon dioxide. On December 3, he made clear that he meant the four major powers whose development of nuclear, coal, and gas-powered technologies and industries—as well as space exploration—have the greatest economic potential. Guterres said:

I’m convinced that Europe will be in a position to negotiate with China, with India, with the United States, with Russia in a way that will allow all to understand that this must be a collective effort and that they all will have to correct their policies in order to be able to drastically reduce the emissions.

For either the UN or “Europe” to “correct” the opposition to a global green new deal on the part of these four powers (even if they could do so) would be a disaster for the human race. Beginning 1995, these four powers were identified repeatedly by Lyndon LaRouche as uniquely qualified to launch a long-overdue New Bretton Woods credit and monetary system. They could replace the hyper-speculative floating-exchange-rate monetary system of London and Wall Street which has ruled since the early 1970s. That floating casino system has forced deindustrialization in developed countries and the looting of developing countries and caused repeated financial crashes and deep recessions.

The fact that the United States, Russia, China and India are spacefaring, nuclear-power countries leading in advanced technologies, is amplified by the active opposition of their presidents’ policies to those of the so-called global green new deal. President Donald Trump’s opposition is most forcefully public, but that of Presidents Xi, Modi and Putin is no less real in action.

China, for example, has already carried out the emissions-reduction pledges it made at the 2015 Paris Climate Conference, but it has done so the high-technology way, with more nuclear power and more hydropower—much more than the solar and wind farms for which it is known. And now it has resumed coal-power plant construction on a fairly large scale, with new clean-coal technologies. The UN and European Union regard this as a disastrous development—but in fact, the provision of electricity for hundreds of millions of human beings in Africa and elsewhere who lack it, absolutely depends on both advanced nuclear power and coal powered technologies.

Disputes among these four powers, and particularly the British Intelligence-led targeting of all their leaders for hate propaganda and attempted “regime change,” has held them back from taking common steps to create a new credit system so far. LaRouche’s New Bretton Woods proposal is circulating among them at this moment, and the clear onset of yet another financial crash of the Wall Street/London system could propel them to act.

Their potential New Bretton Woods system, based on LaRouche’s proposal, would launch a new paradigm of greater prosperity and scientific progress for the world as a whole. Meanwhile the anti-population, global green new deal should continue to be thoroughly rejected.

UN/Eskinder Debebe

UN Secretary General António Guterres appointed Mark Carney as Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance.

UN/Rick Bajornas

Michael Bloomberg

UN/Mark Garten

Mark Carney with Amina Mohammed, UN Deputy Secretary General

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

Green Bankers of London and Wall St.

At the COP25 depopulation affair, Guterres also made the Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, the UN’s Climate Change Ambassador, announcing this December 2. Thus top Wall Street and City of London financial figures continue to be made UN officials charged with shutting down coal and other fossil fuel power sources and industries. Their mission is to use financing cut-offs to force deindustrialization. The UN Climate Change Ambassador in 2019 has been Wall Street billionaire Michael Bloomberg. He lives in London but is now spending hundreds of millions on his own “U.S. presidential campaign,” whose purpose is anti-Trump advertising and propaganda. Carney and Bloomberg together run the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures, the gang of European central bankers and private banks and funds working to “risk off” fossil fuel industries and stop investment in them.

Carney adds an extra objective that is both anti-U.S, and anti-economic development. He announced at the August 2019 bankers’ conference in Jackson Hole, Wyoming that the dollar should be eliminated as an international trade reserve currency and replaced by a digital world currency controlled by the central banks. Carney, head of the Bank of England for the past six years, is also a full-blown “climate emergency” fanatic, reportedly made so by Diana, his “climate risk expert” wife.

CC/vzbv/Florian Schuh

Gabor Steingart, former chief editor of Handelsblatt (2010-2018).

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

The first exposé in established media—following EIR—of the central banks’ scheme for a “green finance” bailout of the endangered Wall Street-London system, was presented on December 3 by former Handelsblatt editor Gabor Steingart, in his widely watched podcast and newsletter:

The ECB [European Central Bank—ed.] in Frankfurt, the European Investment Bank in Luxembourg and the EU Commission in Brussels are pursuing together a big plan, with risks and collateral effects that no national Parliament has been informed about. Europe will rescue the world climate—and it will do it with the printing press. Whatever it takes. . . .

The main instrument for the operation is, on one side, the European Investment Bank in Luxembourg. . . . The state-owned bank should draft, implement and finance eco-projects for EU1 trillion by 2030. The ECB accompanies this—with money from the printing press. In the framework of its already active purchase program, the ECB should now invest in green stocks and bonds. ECB President Christine Lagarde seems not to recognize a trespass here: ‘Climate change and environment protection should be in focus of all institutions,’ she said in the European Parliament.

Steingart accurately sums up that the central bankers “are going from bank bailouts to climate bailout.” Thus the climate fanatics are, in fact, pushing their own replacement for the global financial system. It is not a credit system, but an anti-credit system. It denies credit to industry, technology and households while pouring taxpayers funds and central bank printing-press money into green technology schemes—creating new profits for large banks while also doing nothing to sustain the current human population.

Because the leaders of the United States, China, Russia and India reject this Brave New World, they are the targets of the climate fanatics and their central bank backers; and in putting together a New Bretton Woods credit system they will become heroes to the rest of humanity.

Buy 'Global Warming' Scare Is Population Reduction, Not Science

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

Trump at NATO Meeting: Friendship with Russia, Peace in Ukraine

by Mike Billington

White House/Shealah Craighead

President Donald Trump at the NATO plenary session in Waterford, England, on Dec. 4, 2019.

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

Dec. 8—While the press in the U.S. and Europe ran blaring headlines about the most trivial of incidents at the NATO meeting in the UK last week, nearly all of the media completely left out several extremely important interventions by President Trump that directly influence the growing danger of world war. The President continues to challenge, publicly, the rabid anti-Russia hysteria in the Congress, the media, and even within his administration. At the same time, he is also countering the perverted narrative in the fake impeachment hearings, which refuses to acknowledge that the new Ukraine government of President Volodymyr Zelensky is committed to peace with Russia, rejecting the war policy of the former neo-Nazi regime placed in power by the Obama/Biden administration in the 2014 coup.

Here is one of the crucial exchanges, almost entirely blacked out in the Western media, during Trump’s press conference with French President Emmanuel Macron.

First, Trump was asked: “Mr. Macron says that Russia shouldn’t be designated as an adversary of NATO. Do you agree with that? Do you think Russia is the enemy?”

Trump responded:

I think we could get along with Russia. I think you [addressing Macron] feel we can get along with Russia. We’ve discussed that before. But certainly, we have to be prepared. Whether it’s Russia or somebody else, we have to be prepared. But he and I have a pretty similar view on that. I think we feel that we can get along with Russia. And I think it’s a good thing to get along with Russia. And I campaigned on it. I mean, I’d go into big stadiums; people like it. And I think the Russian people would like to see it too. A lot of good can come of it.

The President, and the American people, want to be friends with Russia—one of the reasons the American people elected Donald Trump to be President of the United States in the first place, rather than the war-mongering Hillary Clinton, nor any other ally of the Obama/Biden or George Bush “permanent warfare” advocates. So much for those cowering under Nancy Pelosi’s pathetic “All roads lead to Putin.”

White House/Shealah Craighead

Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Donald Trump at the G20 Summit in Osaka, Japan, on June 28, 2019.

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

Trump also intervened directly into the strategic situation surrounding Ukraine. The U.S. media and the Congressional impeachment hearings have presented, as fact, a picture of Ukraine under attack from Russia and in dire need of U.S. military support, or even military intervention. That was, indeed, the intention of the Obama administration’s $5 billion investment (according to the State Department’s own boast) in creating anti-Russian shock troops, recruited from overt followers of Ukraine’s Hitler-collaborators, to overthrow the elected Ukrainian government in 2014, and thus to provoke war with Russia. But Zelensky ran as a peace candidate, committed to making peace with Russia—just as Trump did—and was elected with an overwhelming 71% majority by the suffering Ukrainian population. Did you hear it reported that in the Democrats’ impeachment hearings, testimony was only allowed from those diplomats—the so-called Ukraine experts—who themselves participated in the 2014 coup? [box: Tale of the Tape: Does Russia Threaten Europe?]

Here is what President Trump said about President Zelensky in the press conference with Macron:

I think that the meetings coming up with Russia and Ukraine [on the sidelines of the Normandy Four meeting on Dec. 9 in Paris—ed.] are very important. And there’s a possibility that some very big progress can be made. It’s very important for Ukraine. I think it’s very important from the standpoint of Russia, also, that they work out a treaty, they work out peace, because they’ve been fighting a long time. Too long. And I think there’s a really good chance that that will happen.

Trump also addressed the dangers of an arms race:

Also, with respect to nuclear weapons, I’ve spoken to President Putin and I’ve communicated with him. And . . . he very much wants to, and so do we, work out a treaty of some kind on nuclear weapons that will probably then include China at some point. . . . But we intend to see if we can work something out to stop the proliferation, to stop what’s happening, because we are making a lot and we are renovating a lot. And, frankly, the whole situation with nuclear is not a good situation. We ended the treaty because it wasn’t being adhered to by the other side. But they want to make a treaty, and so do we, and I think it would be a great thing. I think it’s one of the most important things we can do, frankly. . . . I spoke to China about it, during one of our trade negotiations—they were extremely excited about getting involved in that. So, some very good things can happen with respect to that. I think it’s very important. The whole nuclear situation is very, very important.

White House/Shealah Craighead

Ukraine President Volodymyr Zalensky and U.S. President Donald J. Trump meeting in New York, during the United Nations General Assembly, on Sept. 25, 2019.

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

A Policy for World Peace

It is this intention by President Trump to end both the imperial division of the world into blocs, “East vs. West,” and to end the “endless wars,” which intention has the British Empire and its minions in a state of panic, attempting to stop Trump’s re-election at all costs. The House of Lords in December 2018 issued a report, UK Foreign Policy in a Shifting World Order, warning that Trump’s re-election to a second term would cause long-lasting “damage to UK/U.S. relations.”

On Dec. 3, the British newspaper, The Guardian, reflecting on Trump’s refusal to follow the accepted Anglo-American line about the need for NATO to defend against an “aggressive” and “adversarial” Russia, refers to remarks by fired National Security Advisor John Bolton, who warning in a private meeting, according to an online article posted by NBC News on November 12, that in a second term, “Trump could go full isolationist . . . and could withdraw the U.S. from NATO and other international alliances.”

Indeed, had NATO been disbanded in July of 1991, when the Warsaw Pact was disbanded, and had the world adopted Lyndon LaRouche’s proposal to launch joint development projects along a “New Silk Road” connecting the nations of Eurasia and beyond, the world would not now be sitting on the brink of global war and economic disintegration.

Trump also addressed the danger of war in Asia at another press conference at the NATO meeting, implying that the Obama/Biden policy had brought us close to war—not only with North Korea, but also with China. Asked about the North Korea negotiations, Trump responded:

I have confidence in him [Kim Jong-un]. I like him, he likes me. We’ll see what happens. He certainly does like sending rockets up, doesn’t he? That’s why I call him Rocket Man. We have a very good relationship. It may work out, it may not. . . . If I weren’t president we’d be in a war right now in Asia, and that brings in a lot of other countries.

The coverage of this appeal for peace in Asia, in all the western press other than the EIR Daily Alert and the White House transcripts, was transformed into the claim that Trump was ridiculing Kim and threatening war!

EIR’s recently released report, End the McCarthyite Witch Hunt Against China and President Trump, is a must-read to free the President to bring about the global cooperation among sovereign nations for which he campaigned.

Tale of the Tape: Does Russia Threaten Europe?

According to NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, NATO countries agreed in London to add yet another “large, new rapid-response force to be able to speed quickly across Europe, if ever there were a conflict” with Russia. The absurd claim that Russia threatens to attack NATO, is thus perpetuated, to justify NATO’s dubious existence. The alliance also planned a further increase in its combined military spending by $120-140 billion in the next few years.

But the NATO nations combined, as of 2018, were already spending over $1 trillion per year on military preparedness, more than 16 times that of the Russian defense budget of $61 billion! That was before the past two fiscal years’ U.S. defense budget increases totaling another $70 billion. (The “2% of GDP” rule to jack up NATO spending came from the Obama Administration.) NATO has approximately 3.1 million men and women in uniform, plus another 1.7 million reservists. This compares to Russia’s 900,000 and 2 million respectively. The United States alone has six aircraft carriers (all nuclear-powered); Russia one non-nuclear-powered carrier. NATO has far, far more aircraft, ships, tanks, and the rest.

Russia “threatens” NATO nations in only one way: If NATO forces keep crowding up on Russia’s border and a serious provocation or even incursion into Russia were to take place, the latter could only respond strategically. The NATO alliance, with its provocative growth, threatens its own members with a Russian strategic response to provocations.

Yet numerous studies from think tanks like RAND and the Royal United Services Institute have repeated, over the last five years, the completely nonsensical claim that Russia has military superiority over NATO, especially in the Baltics—which claim, in turn, has been used to motivate demands for ever more military spending. [back to text]

June 1996

Now, Rid NATO of the Entente Cordiale!

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

NATO

Jens Stoltenberg, Secretary General of NATO.

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

These are excerpts from Lyndon LaRouche’s article, published in EIR on June 28, 1996, on the need of the United States to replace NATO with a different security concept.

As replacement for NATO and for related, obsolete dogmas, the United States must adopt a comprehensive, radically new strategic outlook, pivoted upon comprehension of the crucial realities of the Eurasian land-mass. This comprehension is the key to the present and future of the world economy, and of the mutual political interest of all among that outlook’s present and prospective partners. In brief: The decisive strategic significance of the Eurasian land-bridge, now being developed, across the vast, underpopulated regions of central Asia, defines the urgency of developing, and of defending economic cooperation among U.S.A., Russia, and China, all in collaboration with India, as the key to the world of the Twenty-First Century. . . .

In net effect: NATO has ceased to serve any vital strategic interest of the United States, and, its degenerated nature has made it, in fact, an instrument employed by forces working against our vital interests. Exemplary is the already referenced case of those Balkan wars, which were organized as a geopolitical action, by the joint initiative of the governments of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and France’s President François Mitterrand. Since no later than 1992, the leading explicit adversary of the most vital U.S. strategic interest, has been the resurrection of King Edward VII’s Entente Cordiale, by Thatcherite London and François Mitterrand’s Paris. Under the influence of that revived London-Paris alliance, NATO has degenerated into an instrument of sabotage of U.S. efforts; it has proven itself, increasingly, the adversary of the U.S. search for a just peace in the Balkans, and, of our vital interest in defining, and defending durable premises for improved understanding and cooperation with our important new partners throughout eastern Europe as a whole, Russia and Ukraine typically.

The tradition of European military science, since St. Augustine’s articulation of the principles of “justified warfare,” does not tolerate postponing the dissolution of NATO in its present form. The United States, in its self-interest, and in its responsibilities as the leading world power, must scrap the tainted strategic relics of the 1946-1989 interval, and devise a new strategic doctrine, one attuned to the global realities of post-1989 developments.

. . . .

A New, Global ‘Alliance for Progress’

The objective is to reach, with Russia, China, and other nations, an operating agreement of principle, under which to employ the concerted power of this group of nations, to debride the relations among nations of those relics of the old financier-oligarchical form of power, such as the dogma of “geopolitics,” which have variously ruled or dominated the affairs of this planet for much too long.

The President of the United States should place a motion to this effect before those nations which regard themselves as prospective members of such a community of principle. This action, whether public, or conveyed by less publicized channels, should be regarded as modelled in principle upon the more modest, but otherwise kindred precedent, of President James Monroe’s 1823 promulgation of what became later known as his “Monroe Doctrine.”

By means of that assertion of the interests of the peoples and sovereign nation-states of this planet, against the arrogance of oligarchical traditions, the parties to the operating agreement should employ their power to establish certain new institutions and cooperation among them, to the benefit of all such sovereign nation-states, their present populations, and the posterity of us all.

The guiding principles of practice shall be the fostering of the realization of the cognitive potentials of the individual personality, throughout the planet, the general increase of the potential relative population-density of the human species, and the assurance of a continuation of that increase over generations yet to come. Otherwise, it should be desired, that all works which are good, and which are consistent with mankind’s status as the noblest being of creation, including the exploration and colonization of regions of the universe outside our planet, shall be fostered. It should be the common opinion of the parties, that the principles of love of truth and love of justice shall be the efficiently governing conscience of us all.

This established agreement among those parties should be regarded as constituting an efficient community of principle, whose common interest shall be implemented by appropriate undertakings, excluding any measure which would subvert the perfect sovereignty of any among them.

The success of this venture depends upon the co-sponsorship provided by those sympathetic parties whose national economies are either the largest, or most powerful in the world. The actually or potentially sympathetic nations who meet that qualification, are the U.S.A., Russia, China, and India. The most important economies, after these four, are western and central continental Europe combined, the nations of the Asia archipelago, and, potentially, South and Central America combined. Other nations are prospective, sovereign parties to the common effort.

The urgent task before us, is to halt and reverse the presently ongoing, catastrophic decline in per-capita amount of useful physical output of the world economy considered as a whole, the elimination of what is presently the worst speculative financial bubble in the entirety of human existence, and the termination of so-called “free trade” policies, to the purpose of restoring those policies of internal national economic security for each and all sovereign nation-states, especially in the domain of national food and power security. This requires agreement on a selection of major infrastructural development projects, and some other projects of similar regional and global impact.

It also requires the elimination of the presently hegemonic system of monetary, tariff, trade, and credit relations, a system premised upon the unwholesome special interests of financier-oligarchical and kindred monetarist interest, and the replacement of that undesirable and fatally diseased present system, by the constitution of a new international monetary, trade, and credit system, based upon appropriate, new axiomatic principles, and new general agreements on rules of tariffs, trade, and international credit.

Throughout the Twentieth Century, the greatest single obstacle to justice for all of the peoples of this planet, has been the rabid, so-called “geopolitical” determination of the British Empire and its accomplices, to prevent the establishment of efficient forms of continuing economic cooperation between industrialized western continental Europe and the most populous regions of the Pacific and Indian oceans’ littorals. A foisted war between Russia and Japan, early in this century, and, after that, two so-called “World Wars,” and one prolonged excursion to the brink of general intercontinental thermonuclear warfare, have been foisted upon the peoples of this planet, by that self-perceived “geopolitical interest” centered in the capital of the British Empire and its hangers-on. That delayed undertaking, bridging the relatively vast, and sparsely developed spaces of Central Asia, is the natural pivot for the recovery and continued growth of the physical economy of the world as a whole.

Credits, clockwise from top left:Transrapid; USDA/Lynn Betts; NASA; GNU/Michel Maccagnan

Infrastructure-based economic development requires an emphasis upon ending food insecurity and a selection of long -term scientific “crash programs,” including long-term space-exploration programs, and biological-research “crash programs” addressing problems of health and related concerns, to provide the technology-driver for both the public and entrepreneurial sectors of the world’s economy as a whole. Shown, clockwise from top left: A magnetically levitated train at the Emsland Test Facility in Germany; prime farmland planted to soybeans in central Iowa; the International Space Station; the Korea Superconducting Tokamak Advanced Research magnetic fusion reactor in Daejon, South Korea.

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

The development of modern forms of rail and magnetic-levitation transport, from Brest in France, through the great rail-hubs such as that of Berlin, to the shores of the Pacific and Indian oceans, is the natural centerpiece of a global recovery of growth rates in the planet’s physical economy as a whole. These transport links, re-enforced by improved and extended inland-waterway systems, and by development of the infrastructural elements of power-production and pipelines along the pathway of the development corridors defined by the transport links, open the back door across Eurasia for the greatest expansion of economic growth in history.

The economic interaction fostered, indispensably, by the combination of development of such Eurasian land-bridge corridors, and complementary maritime development in the Pacific and Indian oceans regions, links every part of the world, efficiently, to the impulse of economic growth and development unleashed within Eurasia.

That connection between infrastructure-based economic development within Eurasia, and links to other parts of the world economy define, implicitly, a larger, inclusive project of global development, with three leading features: 1) A complex of inter-linked infrastructure-development projects and related programs including every part of the planet; 2) An emphasis upon ending food insecurity, and also ending lack of internal food security, for every nation of the planet; 3) A selection of long-term scientific “crash programs,” including or analogous to long-term space-exploration and -colonization programs, and including biological-research “crash programs” addressing problems of health and related concerns, to provide the technology-driver for both the public and entrepreneurial sectors of the world’s economy as a whole.

This commitment requires the establishment of a new monetary system, based on a network of relatively fixed long-term parities among national currencies, and fair terms of tariff and trade protection for each national economy within the system. It requires the replacement of the presently hegemonic system of central and analogous banking, by the kind of national banking consistent with the American System of Hamilton, the Careys, and Friedrich List. It requires a system of medium-term and long-term international credit, at fixed, minimal prices, to foster that international trade and international and national investment in the infrastructure and selected entrepreneurial programs which the community of principle regards as in the relatively highest general interest.

The full article by LaRouche can be found here.

London Signals Military Dictatorships May Be Required

to Defend its Economic System

by Dennis Small

Dec. 7—The Financial Times editorial board yesterday warned Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro that he is not allowed to have “second thoughts about handing free rein to a minister who studied economics at the University of Chicago in the 1970s.” The minister in question is Finance Minister Paulo Guedes, who that very day told reporters in Washington, D.C. that if mass protests spread into Brazil from the rest of South America, military dictatorship may be imposed to crush it.

Given the widespread political ferment and unrest sweeping many countries in Ibero-America—and the rest of the world—such a message is clearly not aimed solely at Brazil.

Bolsonaro has done most of what has been demanded by London’s man, the University of Chicago-trained (1974-1978) economist Guedes. The government succeeded in getting Congress to pass a law gutting the social security system (something sought by international financiers for decades), and it is proceeding on other “reforms”: privatizing the state electricity company, ending the government monopoly on minting currency, mandating automatic austerity triggers for states and municipalities if they go over spending limits, and tax overhaul, among them.

Mass Protests Greet Bolsonaro’s ‘Reforms’

But Bolsonaro balked at the immediate implementation of one “reform,” which would cut public workers’ wages and rights. The FT board recognized that this hesitation reflected fear that a process akin to Chile’s “popular uprising [against] Friedmanite economic policies”—which has triggered over 40 days of non-stop protests that have brought up to 2 million people out on the streets at a time, out of a total population of 18 million—could break out in Brazil as well. This could be double trouble, because the wildly popular former Brazilian President Lula da Silva was released from jail on November 9 (where he had been incarcerated for nearly two years on phony corruption charges), and is already touring the country organizing against Bolsonaro and Guedes’s austerity policies. Lula “has lost no time in labelling Mr. Guedes a destroyer of jobs and rallying opposition,” the FT editorial board complained.

But the FT instructed Bolsonaro to march into the breach, regardless. “Far too much is at stake for Brazil to risk its economic reforms foundering on the rocks of populism. Latin America’s giant has already waited inordinately long to put government finances on a sustainable footing and to make the country a more attractive place to do business. If it misses the opportunity now, the window for change will close, perhaps for years, and international investors will turn elsewhere,” the City of London’s FT threatened. “Mr. Bolsonaro should keep his nerve.”

Agéncia Brasil/José Cruz

Former President of Brazil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva speaking at a political rally.

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

Will the Infamous ‘Institutional Act-5’

Be Invoked?

Guedes, in Washington for meetings in late November, when asked about Lula’s calls for mobilization against his economic “reforms,” suggested the Brazilian military government’s infamous 1968 “Institutional Act-5” (AI-5) may have to be reinstated. Under AI-5, Congress was shut down, mass arrests began, and torture was institutionalized as policy. Guedes cynically argued: “Is democracy only when your side wins? When the other side wins, after 10 months you convoke everyone to take to the streets? What kind of responsibility is that? Don’t be startled if someone asks for an AI-5,” Guedes threatened.

Guedes’s threat had been preceded by a trial balloon floated by President Bolsonaro’s son and political ally, Eduardo, who weeks earlier had suggested reinstating AI-5. Eduardo Bolsonaro—a mafioso personality-type, connected to militias, who handles the family’s ties to Steve Bannon and Brazil’s radical neoconservative/anticommunist ideologue Olavo de Carvalho—has made himself the spokesperson for a strategy of repression. When Eduardo first raised the threat of AI-5, Brazil’s Supreme Court had remained silent. But when the internationally-connected Guedes repeated the threat, the President of the Supreme Court, Dias Toffoli, now responded: “AI-5 is incompatible with a democracy. . . . You do not build a future with the failed experiences of the past.”

The Ghost of Néstor Kirchner

London is also nervously eyeing what may happen in neighboring Argentina, where the anti-austerity government of Alberto Fernández will take office on December 10, and has already announced that it has no intention of following IMF conditionalities. In an interview with the “Con Vos” (With You) radio program, reported by Ambito Financiero, President-elect Fernández said he won’t accept the $11 billion in remaining tranches of the $57 billion standby loan that outgoing President Mauricio Macri signed with IMF in 2018:

[In any new agreement with the IMF,] the first rule is to stop asking for money. . . . I won’t sign any deal we can’t comply with. Macri already did that. . . . If you have a problem because you are highly indebted, the solution isn’t to take on more debt. I have a problem and I’m going to ask for $11 bn. In more debt? It’s like the guy who drank too much, and he’s a little bit drunk. The solution isn’t to keep on drinking; the solution is to stop.

Fernández, who will be sworn in as President on December 10, along with Cristina Fernández de Kirchner as Vice President—herself an ex-President (2007-2015) and the widow of former President Néstor Kirchner (2003-2007)—emphasized that rather than leaving the country with a solid basis for development, Macri “is leaving us with many problems. Indebted families are part of the legacy he’s leaving.”

Fernández, who was Chief of Staff during the Néstor Kirchner Presidency, pointed out that Macri has imposed such harsh austerity, that the country now has a vaccine shortage, so that diseases like chickenpox, measles and TB are reappearing. “That is evidence of a certain disdain for [your fellow man], where people are seen as just numbers.” The economy has been paralyzed for two years, with declining consumption, he warned. “We have to produce once again, offer credit to reactivate production, give money to retirees so they can consume.”

Within four years, Macri increased the foreign debt by $100 billion—with nothing to show for it except a crisis-wracked economy and beaten-down population. Ninety-eight percent of that $100 billion left the country in the form of capital flight. Today, over 40% of Argentines live in poverty.

www.presidencia.gov.ar

Former President of Argentina, Néstor Kirchner.

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

Remember December 2005

What is really haunting London is what happened in Argentina and Brazil precisely 14 years ago, under the presidencies of Néstor Kirchner and Lula, respectively.

During the week of December 11-17, 2005, the governments of Brazil and Argentina unexpectedly announced that they would pay off the balances owed the International Monetary Fund (IMF) before the end of the year—clearly having coordinated their actions beforehand. On December 13, Brazilian Finance Minister Antonio Palocci told reporters that the Lula da Silva government would dip into its sizable $63 billion in reserves to pay the $15.56 billion it owed, noting this would save $900 million in interest payments. Two days later, Argentine President Néstor Kirchner announced that he would also use Central Bank reserves to pay an outstanding balance of $9.8 billion, saving $1 billion in interest payments.

While IMF Managing Director Rodrigo Rato nominally “welcomed” both actions, he was decidedly unenthusiastic about them. Debt bondage is leverage, and Argentina and Brazil had just removed their shackles.

President Kirchner’s December 15, 2005 speech at the Presidential palace was a strong nationalist attack on IMF policies for plunging Argentina into poverty and indigence. His denunciation of the Fund, and his assertion that by paying off the $9.8 billion, “we are burying a good portion of the ignominious past of infinite indebtedness and eternal adjustment,” brought the audience of business leaders, provincial governors, legislators, trade unionists, and human rights activists to their feet in an ovation:

[The debt owed the IMF] has been a constant vehicle for interference, because it is subject to periodic review and is a source of demands and more demands. The International Monetary Fund has acted toward our country as a promotor of, and vehicle for, policies which provoked poverty and pain among the Argentine people, at the hand of governments that were lauded as exemplary students of permanent adjustment. Our people can corroborate that. [For a long time], we have been instructed in impotence and told that we can’t do anything. . . . They wanted to instill in our soul the certainty that reality is untouchable. . . . They wanted to make us believe that not to do anything new is the only realistic option.

But now, he warned, the Argentine President will use his “popular mandate” to act as a protagonist, in the best interests of Argentina’s people.

At the time, U.S. statesman Lyndon LaRouche strongly supported the measures taken by Argentina and Brazil in paying off the debt. The very interesting aspect to this, LaRouche explained, is that the IMF would no longer be the creditor. There was a fiduciary relationship between the IMF and these countries, but no such relationship can exist between debtor nations and private interests, many of whose alleged debts are of very dubious character. So, the ability to impose regulation on these countries’ internal balances, once the IMF is paid off, is ended, LaRouche underscored. “None of these creditors has the power to demand—that is, with the force of regulatory authority—that the debtors obey.” They have no judicial authority.

Coup in Bolivia a Replay of Ukraine’s ‘Maidan’

by Cynthia R. Rush

UN/Eskinder Debebe

Evo Morales, President of Bolivia.

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

Dec. 9—Despite the railings of corporate media and complicit governments about alleged “vote fraud” in Bolivia’s October 20 presidential elections—consistently claimed to be the reason for President Evo Morales’s subsequent November 10 resignation—there is no disguising that what actually occurred in that country was a fascist coup d’état, straight out of the “color revolution” playbook of Gene Sharp and George Soros.

This was not the typical Ibero-American coup of the past, carried out by the nation’s armed forces, but rather an exact replay of the violent 2014 “Maidan” coup in Ukraine, in which the same cast of characters in the global Project Democracy apparatus—USAID, the State Department, the National Endowment for Democracy, and the National Democratic Institute, among many others—partnered with an overtly fascist movement on the ground, in this case run out of the separatist department of Santa Cruz in southeastern Bolivia. The Pro-Santa Cruz, a civic committee run by millionaire Catholic fascist Luis Fernando Camacho, with known ties to Eastern European fascists, operated as the local version of Ukraine’s neo-Nazi Azov Battalion.

The timing of these events is key. As EIR documented in its article, “Bolivia Sets its Sights on Fusion Energy and Eliminating Poverty,” in its August 16, 2019 issue, Morales’s model of sovereign economic development, for which he cooperated with Russia and China, was a thorn in the side of the global neo-liberal financial order. But London and Wall Street financial interests had managed to keep Morales relatively isolated in South America, and therefore less dangerous, with neo-liberal presidents Mauricio Macri and Jair Bolsonaro running the governments in neighboring Argentina and Brazil respectively, and their co-thinker Sebastián Piñera governing in Chile. All of that changed, however, when recent events in the region threatened to shift the correlation of forces continentally.

Two days before Morales’s resignation, on November 8, former Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva was released from jail, where he had been unjustly imprisoned for over a year, and immediately began mobilizing his sizable base against Bolsonaro’s vicious Wall Street-endorsed austerity policies. In Argentina, president-elect Alberto Fernández and his vice president-elect, former President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, will take office December 10 and have made clear they intend to play a role continentally against neo-liberalism and regime change, working with Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador. With “stable” Chile blowing apart with anti-austerity riots, British geopolitical interests determined that Morales had to go.

The ‘Maidan’ Begins

The coup was on. Project Democracy assets that for years have worked to subvert Morales’s government, promoting separatism and racial conflict through its networks in Santa Cruz, sprang into action. Bolivia’s divided Armed Forces made no attempt to defend Morales, probably on Washington’s instructions. In fact, it was the head of the Armed Forces, Gen. Williams Kaliman, who “suggested” to Morales that he resign on November 10 “for the good of the country,” given the racist violence unleashed by Camacho’s hordes and allegations of vote fraud in the flimsy preliminary report issued November 9 by the Organization of American States’ (OAS) vote-auditing delegation in the capital, La Paz.

One day after he resigned, facing a dangerous security situation—he had been informed there was a $50,000 bounty on his head—Morales departed Bolivia with his Vice President Álvaro García Linera, having accepted Mexico’s offer of asylum. On November 12, Jeanine Añez, second vice president of the Senate from the right-wing Democratic Union (UD) party, illegally assumed the presidency, despite the absence of a quorum legally required to approve it. Legislators from Morales’s Movement Toward Socialism (MAS) party, who hold a majority in both houses of the Plurinational Legislative Assembly (ALP), feared for their lives and didn’t show up for the vote. The U.S. and the European Union immediately recognized Añez as Bolivia’s new “democratic” president, welcoming the downfall of the “authoritarian” Morales.

Morales explained that he resigned in an attempt to quell the near-civil war conditions that had erupted in the wake of the elections, in which Luis Camacho’s roving paramilitary “resistance” hit squads, linked to the openly pro-Nazi Santa Cruz Youth Union (UJC), violently assaulted Morales’s indigenous supporters. Thundering that Morales had committed vote fraud, Camacho’s fanatical mobs roamed cities on motorcycles armed with bats, rocks and homemade explosives to attack those they call “shit Indians”—beating and publicly humiliating them, threatening family members and burning their homes. Vowing he would “paralyze the state” until Morales resigned, Camacho raved that this was not overthrowing a government, but rather “liberating an entire nation.”

CC BY 3.0

Luis Fernando Camacho

Azov News

A group of Azov Battalion members pose under the NATO and Nazi flags.

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

Liberated, that is, by a UJC that has been compared to Ukraine’s neo-Nazi Azov Battalion and that is known to repeat the Nazi “Sieg Heil” salute while proudly waving around their automatic weapons. Camacho, along with allies including the likes of Santa Cruz governor Rubén Costas, a former head of the Pro-Santa Cruz civic committee, has for years demanded that Santa Cruz be established as a separate country, claiming that its “European” heritage made it “different” from the rest of indigenous Bolivia. It was Costas who led a 2005 uprising to separate off four departments in eastern Bolivia, including Santa Cruz, for that purpose.

Costas and the paramilitary UJC were also implicated in a 2009 assassination plot against Morales, whose key participants were of Hungarian and Croatian descent, linked to Eastern European fascist groups. Branko Marinkovic, a Bolivian-Croatian oil and soy oligarch suspected of having ties to the pro-Nazi Croatian UstaŠe movement, contributed $200,000 to the plot. Five years earlier, when Marinkovic headed the Pro-Santa Cruz civic committee, he took a young Luis Camacho under his wing

State Department Perfidy

The U.S. State Department role here was as nefarious as it had been in Ukraine, working systematically for Morales’s ouster well before the October 20 elections. State claimed that Morales’s run for a fourth term proved his “undemocratic” character and predicted that fraud was inevitable. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo issued a statement immediately after the elections, claiming deep concern “over irregularities in the vote counting” and demanding an “accurate accounting of the votes . . . or a second round that is credible and transparent.”

OAS Secretary-General Luis Almagro, who has functioned as an appendage of U.S. State Department policy, seconded the call for a new round of elections and trumpeted the State Department’s claim of “irregularities” with absolutely no evidence.

Pompeo immediately lavished praise on Añez for restoring “democracy” to Bolivia, for planning to hold “free and fair elections” and restoring peace to the country. Having previously congratulated her for expelling Cubans and Venezuelans from the country and restoring relations with Israel, he followed up with a friendly December 6 phone call to her to discuss the bright prospects for positive diplomatic relations and a close working relationship in the future.

Although purportedly only a transitional president, Añez has already begun to dismantle Morales’s economic policies, replacing them with more “market-friendly” ones, while lining up with Ibero-America’s pro regime-change governments. One of her first acts in office was to establish diplomatic relations with Venezuela’s self-proclaimed “President” Juan Guaidó.

UJC

Members of the Unión Juvenil Cruceñista (Santa Cruz Youth Union).

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

Whose Democracy?

A new Bolivian “democracy”? Añez’s Democratic Union (UD) party was founded by the UJC-linked separatist Rubén Costas. On the evening of her swearing-in as President November 12, she stood on the balcony of the government palace with Luis Camacho at her side, and greeted supporters holding a Bible over her head, loudly declaring that “the Bible has returned to the palace. . . . Bolivia belongs to Christ!” Although insisting hers was only a transitional government that would reach out to the opposition, pacify the country and soon schedule elections, she immediately authorized a campaign to kill, jail and otherwise repress all opponents.

A few days later, on November 16, Añez decreed that the armed forces would be exempt from any criminal prosecution for actions taken to “preserve public order.” Her bloodthirsty Interior Minister Arturo Murillo swore he would “hunt down” former members of Morales’s cabinet, whom he called “animals,” and security forces began rounding up former government officials, and anyone else deemed a threat, parading them before media cameras. In late November, Murillo filed suit against Morales charging him with sedition, terrorism and provoking an armed uprising, and warned he’d soon file the same charges at the International Court at The Hague. He warned he would seek the maximum jail sentence of 20-30 years for both Morales and García Linera.

Several incidents of violent clashes that ensued over the following days—in which the armed forces opened fire on angry Morales supporters who refused to recognize Añez’s government—alarmed the UN’s High Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Human Rights Commission, among others, which sent delegations to investigate reports of gross human rights violations, with over 30 people killed to date and hundreds more wounded. Despite threats and intimidation, a visiting Argentine delegation was able to document continuing repression, beatings, disappearances and sexual assaults of Morales’s supporters.

Añez’s government has reserved special animus for Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador for saving Morales’s life. Through patient and skillful diplomacy, including with Trump administration officials, Mexican Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard overcame obstacles put up by the Peruvian and Ecuadorean governments, which refused landing rights for refueling to the Mexican Air Force plane carrying Morales, and got him safely out of Bolivia to Mexico. There are indications that Mexico’s coordination with Trump officials may have spared Morales from suffering the fate meted out to Iraq’s Saddam Hussein or Libya’s Muammar Qadaffi by British imperial forces collaborating with President Barack Obama.

Añez’s Foreign Minister Karen Longaric announced November 26 she’d file a formal protest with the Mexican ambassador in La Paz for harboring five “fugitives” for whom arrest warrants have been issued. Among the five are former Minister to the Presidency Juan Ramón Quintana, one of Evo Morales’s most trusted advisers. Mexico has granted him asylum, but Longaric announced that Quintana will not be granted safe-conduct out of the country, as he is charged with “sedition, treason and ordering mass violence.” Similar charges have been filed against many other former government officials, journalists and legislators, some of whom have been arrested and jailed. Longaric also accused López Obrador of “destabilizing” Bolivia by publicly stating that Morales was the victim of a military-backed coup d’état.

While Añez has since withdrawn the decree giving the military carte blanche to repress the population, and has asserted that the country is now completely pacified and looking forward to mid-March presidential and legislative elections, this is hardly the case. In consultation with Morales, MAS party leaders have met to discuss selecting a presidential and vice-presidential candidate to run in upcoming elections. But in a meeting this past weekend, leaders of “civic committees” from several departments, who share Luis Camacho’s fascist ideology, voted up 16 resolutions, including one calling for putting Morales and his former ministers on trial for unleashing civil unrest in the wake of the October 20 elections.

In a clear threat to MAS members and legislators, they also vowed to hunt down the “intellectual authors” of vote fraud and human rights violations and didn’t rule out shutting down the Legislative Assembly (ALP) altogether, should it dare to pass “unconstitutional laws.” Añez has announced that she will veto the Guarantees Law just voted up by the ALP, which protects constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms of anyone engaging in political activity. The law, Añez claims, is just a way of letting MAS members off the hook, allowing them to provoke with impunity.

Luis Camacho, meanwhile, announced November 30 that he will run for President. On December 9, the Inter-American Dialogue, the Washington, D.C.-based thinktank that speaks for Wall Street and London banking interests, announced “A Conversation with Luis Camacho,” to be conducted via its Twitter account on December 12. Apparently unbothered by Camacho’s Azov Battalion resemblance, the Inter-American Dialogue described “lawyer” Camacho as a “new and significant leader in the anti-Morales protests” after the October 20 elections.

EDITORIAL

The Death-Agony of Olympus

Dec. 5—When was there ever such corruption of the U.S. elite—from academia to the “news-and-entertainment” media, government bureaucracies and the Congress—all of it together one pulsating mass of filth like a fistful of live worms from a bait-basket—as what is now exposed daily in the impeachment charade?

Yet Lyndon LaRouche forecast it all quite accurately just 21 years ago in his work, “The Death-Agony of Olympus.” He was diagnosing problems in the administration of Bill Clinton under totally different circumstances, but what he found is provably what we face today, to be overcome by the same means as those he set forth.

He began his diagnosis with the “Third Way,” which he treated as a convergence of then British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s “New Labour” with the 1968 “New Left” of the Weathermen, the “lost cause” of the neo-Confederate “Nashville Agrarians,” and Newt Gingrich’s Republicans.

He said the root of the problem lay in this doomed elite’s unshakable support for “globalization” and “free trade,” totally oblivious to any contrary reality. “Globalization” and “Free Trade,” wrote LaRouche, are the hallmarks of a society which has lost the moral fitness to survive. It is no coincidence that the two pillars of Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign were opposition to globalization and free trade.

No trick “can save a nation [or a caste, we add] which has lost the moral fitness to survive,” LaRouche said, appropriately citing Mencius, the great Classical Chinese thinker who was a contemporary of Plato.

LaRouche sent his readers to the school of Classical tragedy, to learn to recognize the fatal passion leading them on, fight its false emotion, and thus avoid inevitable doom. He wrote that what we are witnessing is the last act of the lost third play in Aeschylus’ Prometheus tragedy, poetically recaptured two millennia later by Shelley. It is the death-agony of tyrant Zeus’ Olympus—of the Zeus otherwise known as Satan.

Instead of the real, mass-based political parties of the pre-1971-1976 interval, U.S. political parties have degenerated into parodies of kept women. They have been transformed, step by step, from instruments of political representation, into echoes of the worst sort of political party formations known from the history of Europe since ancient Rome’s politics of bread and circuses. Typified by the corrupting influence of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), they have degenerated into mere political fronts for the oligarchy-controlled institutions of governmental bureaucracies.

This political change is typified by the symbiosis of Wall Street “chaos theory” junkies with Wall Street hegemony over the financing and mass media propaganda-support needed to conduct successful election-campaigns, both combined with the permanent bureaucracy of the U.S. Department of Justice, all combined with the Federal Reserve System, and all combined with the leading globalized, and chiefly morally debased “mass news and entertainment media” of the U.S. and other nations. This is a combination which has largely displaced the former function of mass-constituency-based politics from the national political life of the U.S.A., and of relevant other nations. This kind of miscreant has emerged as most typical of the presently ruling political class.

After Wednesday’s impeachment testimony by three corrupt professors, it might seem that LaRouche omitted the universities from this combination of degeneracy, but he brings them in later:

After we have considered what modern European civilization had accomplished earlier, until the recent decades’ accelerating decay of our culture, we must face the fact, that what has come to pass, recently, respecting the standard for defining “educated persons,” today, is worse than a great disappointment; it is, substantially, a terrible fraud. During all of this present century, to date, the most conspicuous expression of this decadence among so-called “educated persons,” has been an accelerating rate of moral and intellectual degeneration in such departments of university and secondary education as literature, music, plastic art-forms, and the so-called “social sciences.”. . .

Spirit of LaRouche in Action

During the latter time, each new generation’s elites, in particular, have been, on the average, less intelligent, less literate, less rational, less sane, than those of the predecessor generations. This judgment is not a mere matter of cultural “preferences,” of mere personal “opinion”; the possibility of the survival of civilization depends upon recognizing the clear evidence of that decadence, and reversing this decay in very specific respects. That crucial task is our subject here.

Our elites have failed; they are self-doomed. As Doug Wead’s new book, Inside Trump’s White House: The Real Story of His Presidency, documents, Trump’s Presidential campaign was essentially the campaign of the Trump family. His government is forced to be largely a government of the Trump family, because most others will betray him and the country.

What must we do? We must recruit, train and educate a new elite from among America’s organic leaders. Refugees from the sinking ship will join us as well. Lyndon LaRouche’s spirit, acting through you, must now become in this respect the Benjamin Franklin of the Twenty-First Century.

IN MEMORIAM

Hal B.H. Cooper, Jr., 1940-2019:

The Practical Visionary

EIRNS/James Rea

Hal B.H. Cooper, Jr.

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

Hal Bluford Harrison Cooper, Jr., PhD, P.E., passed away on October 25, 2019, a few months shy of his 80th birthday. Cooper was a visionary, who would always insist on describing himself as practical. Among his many contributions to humanity, the most memorable may be the maps and blueprints he created, furthering the vision of worldwide economic development promoted by Lyndon and Helga LaRouche. From the proposal for a tunnel under the Bering Strait, to his advocacy of such grand projects as NAWAPA (North American Water and Power Alliance) and the Transaqua Project in Africa, Hal created a vast library of reports and feasibility studies outlining great programs for humanity’s future.

With varied training as an engineer, Hal worked on virtually all aspects of the productive landscape of the United States and many other nations, ranging from oil, coal and gas, to timber, paper, water, and many aspects of transportation, especially rail.

Hal was born Feb. 19, 1940, in Ames, Iowa. Moving with his family, his youth was spent in New Jersey and California, where he went to high school in Pasadena. Hal studied at the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of Washington. He held a doctorate degree in chemical engineering. He was a professor at Texas A&M University at College Station, Texas and later at the University of Texas in Austin. He next moved to New Mexico, where he worked at Los Alamos National Laboratory for one year, followed by consulting work in Kirkland, Washington, including at the Hanford Project.

He and his wife Carol had only recently relocated their household from Kirkland to Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, to be near their son and his family, when Hal was stricken with acute respiratory illness. Besides Carol, Hal is survived by sons Eric and Courtney and their families, and two brothers.

EIRNS/Julien Lemaître

Hal Cooper presents Helga Zepp-LaRouche with his vision of a Bering Strait tunnel at a Schiller Institute World Land-Bridge conference in Kiedrich, Germany in 2007.

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

In 1988, Hal was moved to contact the LaRouche movement to express his excitement on seeing the Woman on Mars video, which LaRouche had commissioned to put forward the necessity of mankind’s role in space. Then in the early 1990s in London, Hal met an associate of Lyndon and Helga LaRouche, while he was attending a world transportation conference. A lifelong collaboration among them ensued, starting with the 1996 German publication of a world map of priority routes for intercontinental railroads, based on Hal’s recommendations. The map appeared in the 1997 EIR Special Report commissioned by the LaRouches, The Eurasian Land-Bridge: The ‘New Silk Road’—Locomotive for Worldwide Economic Development. Figure 1 shown here is titled, “Main Lines of a Worldwide Rail Network as Sketched by H.A. Cooper.”

Figure 1

Main lines of a worldwide rail network.

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

Most of these lines form the core network across Eurasia, and into Africa, now being developed under the China-initiated Belt and Road Initiative, first announced in late 2013 by President Xi Jinping. They also overlay the signature map of the EIR special report produced in 2014, The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge, for which Hal consulted.

Over the next quarter century, Hal further developed details of these rail lines, in terms of them serving as development corridors, and priority links—such as the Bering Strait Tunnel, and he personally campaigned in support of making them happen.

For example, in late 2002 he spoke on rail corridors of development, at a conference in Novosibirsk, Russia, sponsored by the Siberian State Transportation University, on the theme of continental and intercontinental rail-grid integration, including connecting the Korean Peninsula with the rest of Eurasia. He spent time in Alaska and Canada on behalf of building out a true continental rail grid. He worked on projects for Central and South America, especially the proposal for a cross-isthmus canal and north-south railroad through the Darien Gap in Colombia. Hal spent time in North and South Dakota, promoting a Central North American Rail Corridor for the High Plains. He strongly advocated for power, water and agro-industrial programs in Africa.

He participated in multiple conferences with the LaRouche movement, from Seattle to San Francisco, to Houston, New York City, Washington, D.C., Vancouver, Ottawa and, in Europe, in Berlin and Kiedrich, Germany, and elsewhere. The list is long. He was ever ready to get up and go.

When he could, Hal would travel the actual route of priority transportation projects, putting studies together that he would print and send to leaders of nations, industry and farm leaders, tribal governments, and other concerned citizens who wanted to make the world a better place. He was an indefatigable cross-country driver. On one such trip, he called in to friends to describe how he had just narrowly escaped serious harm in Montana, when his car skidded off the icy road and down a culvert, and fortunately narrowly missed the barbed wire fencing. Hal was able to visit Capitol Hill to give briefings to members of Congress on western rail and water priorities, in Spring 2016—the last such foray he could make, given the constraints imposed by his declining health.

Hal could tell you every river, road, type of tree and rail gauge along the routes of these great projects, such as that along the North American west coast rail corridor that will inevitably meet up with China’s New Silk Road by tunnel under the Bering Strait. It has been proposed that the terminus on either end of the tunnel be named, respectively, after Lyndon LaRouche and the late scholar Stanislav Menshikov, the American and Russian scientist-statesmen who championed the project as perhaps the greatest symbol of the end of British Geopolitics and the beginning of an era of cooperation among the Americas, Eurasia and Africa.

Courtesy of J. Craig Thorpe

Artist’s concept of the North American entrance to the Bering Strait Rail Tunnel.

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

But perhaps the tunnel itself should be named after Hal, since that is almost the only part of the route from Southern California to Seattle, through Alaska, on through Siberia, and into Eastern Europe that Hal didn’t travel while assembling perhaps the only feasibility study in existence that outlines the Bering Strait Tunnel and the routes on either end. He campaigned for the tunnel tirelessly in British Columbia, through the Yukon, to Fairbanks and Anchorage. His hand-drawn overlays of the key rail routes (and gas lines and other infrastructure) are now all over the internet. Hal presented an artistic rendition of the Bering Strait Tunnel to Helga Zepp-LaRouche, at a Schiller Institute conference on the World Land-Bridge in Kiedrich, in September 2007.

Three rail transportation concepts by Hal Cooper. Drawings courtesy of J. Craig Thorpe.

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

He always insisted on the importance of people being able to see what the future would look like, and he commissioned artworks for key links and corridors by J. Craig Thorpe of Bellevue, Washington, to that end. These beautiful images now constitute a gallery of world development. Thorpe spoke passionately at the memorial for Cooper in Seattle, November 30. Thorpe was able to describe the “eye to the heart” that was involved, in the way Hal collaborated with him, to make the future sensuous through the art.

Hal was keen for updates every day on infrastructure progress and policy fights. For example, near what were to be his last days, Hal heard with glee about the new Eurasian freight train going through the Marmaray Tunnel to cross the Bosphorus Strait. “I didn’t know that was finished yet! I bet that will make the British mad!”

EIRNS/Robert Baker

Marcia Merry Baker takes Hal Cooper for a ride in Washington, D.C. in 2017.

LPAC-TV

Hal Cooper addressing a North American Water and Power Alliance (NAWAPA) conference in Kennewick, Washington in 2011.

EIRNS/Robert Baker

Hal Cooper (seated) at a UN panel on Sustainable Agricultural Development in New York City in 2017.

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

In his own unique way, Hal represented Lyndon and Helga LaRouche at major infrastructure and development conferences around the planet, on virtually every continent. For example, in 2008 he was in Istanbul, Turkey, for an international railway conference. While Hal’s presentations were packed with the precise details that gave substance to these visionary projects, he usually managed to wing a few zingers at the financial oligarchy of London and Wall Street, chiding them for their insistence on not allowing these great projects that would benefit all of humanity.

While he was an engineer at heart, he was also intensely political to his core. However, he was a statesman who refused to engage in simple partisan politics, and worked with political networks of all party affiliations, seeking out those who wanted a better future for their nations, and their world. This commitment to humanity was the basis for his friendship and collaboration with Lyndon and Helga LaRouche, which was also the basis of his being blacklisted for projects and contracts that had political decisions involved. Despite that, Hal never lost sight of his larger mission and optimism for the future development of humanity.

By Marcia Merry Baker and David Christie, December 7, 2019.