Subscribe to EIR Online

Rid NATO of the Entente Cordiale

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

June 28, 1996

Many citizens would be astonished, by the number and rank of thoughtful military professionals, in the U.S.A. and elsewhere, who will privately agree, that the United States of America must now consider replacing that anachronism called "The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)." However, as in all important matters, so, in this instance, it is truth which must set the pace, not mere opinion, popular, official, or other.[1] It is shown here, that the truth of the matter is: The present, anti-U.S., British-French alliance within NATO must be uprooted, and the land it occupied cleansed, as if from the poisonous taint of such decadence. The offensive implications of NATO must be demolished, root and branch, in both of NATO's multi-national capacities, both as a military and, especially, as a political organization.

The recent Berlin meeting on NATO policy, creates an intolerable situation, in which the avowed adversaries of the United States, the British and French representatives of the revived Entente Cordiale,[2] have created a strategic threat not only within Europe, but respecting wider areas of potential NATO "out-of-area deployments. "That Entente must be neutralized, by whatever means are necessary.

There are reasonable objections to the proposal to disband NATO. Some warn, rightly, against the dangers of creating a vacuum, and warn also that a simple U.S. pull-out from NATO would merely strengthen the power of the U.S.'s current principal, avowed strategic adversary, the London-Paris Entente Cordiale. Some critics pose an additional objection, the well-founded view, that the style of the post-war "baby boomer" generation's performance in the U.S. and other government functions, as in major business undertakings, does not stir confidence in institutional changes which might be undertaken by persons typical of that generation. Yet, however reasonable these, and other objections, all melt away when subjected to the hot light of the onrushing, global monetary-financial and related strategic crises. We are forced to take a kind of action, the which can be no longer postponed.

Admittedly, it would be dangerous, simply to disband NATO, without establishing efficient alternatives. Obviously, U.S.A. commitment to the security of our friends in Europe, and our efficient presence there, must be, not merely continued, but strengthened, even if only to compensate for the disgusting role which the London-Paris Entente continues to play, in the Balkans, and elsewhere. Yet, something more fundamental than such a mere reaffirmation of present commitments to our friends, is required. That "something more," is the burden of this policy memorandum, issued by my Democratic Party campaign-organization.

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.

As noted above: Were earlier warnings not sufficient, the recent Berlin meeting, on the subject of NATO, demonstrated, that that organization had become an aggressively pathological tumor, now working, corrosively, to undermine, and, perhaps, to destroy the sovereignty of those nations which had been its hosts.

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.[3] Since no later than 1992, the leading explicit adversary of the most vital U.S. strategic interest, has been the the resurrection of King Edward VII's Entente Cordiale, by Thatcherite London and Francois 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.

Our world, and our nation, could not have fallen into the terrible mess we are in, unless the majorities of our leading institutions and citizens had been lured into stubbornly persisting, wrong opinions, on numerous important matters. This thought ought to present itself, perhaps most painfully, during each period of general elections, at which time the citizen should remind himself, that it is often the hero he selected in the preceding election, who is the bum against whom he, or she will vote, this time. (Was he right then, or now? Perhap she is incapable of knowing which is true.) Unless some rather strongly held, mistaken opinions of the present majority of citizens and leading institutions, are exposed, and corrected, the mess will only grow worse, much worse. Therefore, much in the present memorandum is necessarily devoted to identifying those mistakes in both current official policy and popular opinion, which must be expelled, if our nation is to come out of the present mess. The offense to certain popular and other sensibilities, is therefore, not only justified, but necessary. However, at the same time, we offer to those with the intellectual courage, and desire to become un-fooled, President Abraham Lincoln's encouragement:"...; but, you can not fool all of the people, all of the time."

The argument to this effect, proceeds, in four parts, as follows.

1. U.S. Strategy Since World War II

NATO was created during the late 1940s, as anoutgrowth of Britain's successful, post-April 1945, wrecking of the earlier U.S.A. commitment to eradicating from this planet, those obscene relics of imperialism ofwhich the British Empire was the leading expression. From the outset, Britain's role in NATO was governed by the British imperialist faction's intent to undermine, and ultimately to destroy, the sovereignties of all among theworld's nation-states, the United States included. AsFrance's patriotic President Charles de Gaulle came to recognize, London's subsuming intent was, from the outset, that of Bertrand Russell's repeatedly stated nuclear-weapons policy: to exploit the East-West nuclear-powers conflict, as a means to subvert the institution of the modern nation-state.

As Bertrand Russell and other British designers of this policy made clear, repeatedly, NATO and related institutions of the so-called "Cold War" period, were intended, by them, to bring about, if only gradually: not only the establishment of the United Nations Organization (UNO) as the arbiter of such strategic conflicts, but, by that means, to develop the UNO to become a world government.

The emerging, utopian strategic doctrine of1946-1989, under which the United States, thus, became party to an unfolding process of its own subversion and degradation, has the following, included features. The features selected for attention, are those most relevant to the present proposal for superseding NATO. At the center of London's change in U.S. strategic doctrine, is the way in which the United States was induced to abandon the traditional principles of military science, respecting strategic perspectives bearing upon the avoidance and conduct of war.

The great teachers of those principles of strategy which have guided the best statesmen of modern times, include: Augustine on the subject of "justified warfare"; Niccolò Macchiavelli on warfare; the record of the revolution in warfare which France's "Author of Victory,"Lazare Carnot, effected, during 1793-1794; Clausewitz's On War; and, Alfred von Schlieffen's great work of military historiography, Cannae: The Theory of the Flank. Those expositions typify the same principles which guided the United States under the leadership of Benjamin Franklin, and under Presidents such as George Washington, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, and Abraham Lincoln. The best U.S. military commanders of World War II, typified by General of the Armies Douglas MacArthur, represented that tradition.

Many individuals, in and out of military service, have continued to share that American patriotic tradition, personally. Nonetheless, the historical reality is, that the lies then told by the U.S. government, in support of fraudulent claims to justification for the dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in August1945,[4] ended the United States government's observance of those traditions. Those betrayed principles have yet to be restored to their rightful place, as axioms of policy-making. The atrocities of the protracted warfare in Indo-China, 1964-1975, and that abomination, "Desert Storm," concocted by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's Britain, demonstrate, that, among the highest circles of government, and elsewhere, the conduct of U.S. strategic policy-making, has lost even bare comprehension of the principles of "justified warfare." That illustrates the disgraceful state of affairs to which U.S. strategic thinking has been degraded, since the death of President Franklin Roosevelt.

During the course of World War II, U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt made clear, to British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and relevant other persons and institutions, the intent of his government for the post-war world. He intended, that, at the close of the war in Europe and the Pacific region, the United States would proceed to bring about the immediate dissolution of the former colonial empires of the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, France, and others, throughout the world. The President also made clear, that the United States would insist on ending London's domination of international economic life, by the "British Eighteenth-Century methods" of Adam Smith, et al., and would insist on the replacement of British methods by traditional "American methods."[5]

"American methods," then and now, signify the anti-Adam Smith, anti-von Mises, anti-von Hayek, anti-Thatcherite, "American System of political-economy," as the principles of that "American System" are associated with such leading figures as Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, the Careys, Speaker of the House Henry Clay, the German-American Friedrich List, and such Presidents, before Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy, as George Washington, John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln, and William McKinley.

The Truman administration's scrapping of Roosevelt's strategic doctrine for the post-war period, has been the world's great strategic misfortune, these past fifty-one years. Following his untimely death, on April 12, 1945, his opponent, Prime Minister Winston Churchill, together with imperialist fellow-travellers within the United States government, caused the U.S. government to scrap, then, every crucial feature of the U.S.A.'s anti-colonialist policy, and, to sabotage the American System of economy. In allowing the post-war U.S.A. to be plunged into a deeply demoralizing, and unnecessary, 1946-1948 economic depression, the Truman administration, under the Svengali-like influence of such Churchill allies as the circles of former Adolf Hitler-backer, and private banker, Averell Harriman, acted to foster a species of post-war world economy which would function under the domination of those "British Eighteenth-Century methods" which Roosevelt justly abhorred.

Those, and other Truman reversals of Roosevelt's policy, set the world on that ultimately disastrous course in economic and strategic policies, the which has dominated world-wide trends since the spring and summer of 1945.

For Britain's Winston Churchill, and other opponents of the U.S. patriotic tradition, the most important of the exploitable vulnerabilities in President Roosevelt's design for the post-war world, was Roosevelt's reliance upon those pledges of post-war cooperation, which his policies received from two leading, war-time allies, the Soviet Union and China. The Churchill faction exploited those key flanks of the Roosevelt policy, in sundry ways. Critical to the Churchillian's success, was Truman's decision, to drop the only two nuclear bombs then in the U.S. arsenal, upon the populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Once the age of nuclear conflict had been inaugurated in that disgusting manner, the Churchillian imperialists, together with the father of Pugwash, Bertrand Russell, and their Harriman and other establishment accomplices inside the U.S., acted, in concert, as global puppet-masters cast from the gnostic mold of Venice's diplomacy. These financier-oligarchical manipulators, manipulated both the United States and Stalin's Soviet Union, into a managed, escalating conflict with one another. During 1946-1953, at the outset of the post-war period, President Truman and General Secretary Stalin were caused, thus, to dance like puppets, on British puppet-masters' psychological-warfare strings; this engendered that monstrously real, strategic, nuclear conflict, which, thereafter, dominated all world policy-shaping, beginning 1946, through the events of late1989. It was during that initial period of that orchestrated conflict, and as an expression of those early circumstances, that NATO was established.

President Truman's Churchillian folly, in ordering the nuclear bombing of Japan civilians, was consolidated by his later, celebrated firing of General Douglas MacArthur, the latter at the urging of British influences centered, still, within the Truman administration cabal of Averell Harriman. Contrary to the popularized mythologies which were spread, then and later, President Truman's firing of MacArthur represented a direct assault upon the implications of the U.S. Constitution, and a virtual wrecking of the policy-making structures upon which we continue to depend, then, as now, for a competent articulation of U.S. foreign-policy and strategic doctrine.

The connection, between the post-MacArthur conduct of U.S. military operations in Korea, as a bloody, UNO-supervised, "nuclear age," relapse into a typically British, Eighteenth-Century "cabinet warfare" charade, and the later continuation of the same cabinet-warfare experiment, as McNamara's and Bundy's "meat-grinder," in the 1960s Indo-China region, exemplifies the continuing importance of these two monstrous strategic follies by President Truman's, Harriman-steered administration.

The key to understanding the British imperial thinking behind President Truman's role in unleashing those two terrible follies, was set forth by BertrandRussell in the September 1946 edition of The Bulletin ofthe Atomic Scientists.[6] This was not only what became known as the "Pugwash Doctrine" of Russell, Leo Szilard, and self-professed British agent, Henry A. Kissinger.[7] The goals of this use of the weapons of "unthinkable war," as strategic cattle-prods for steering the United States and other nations into the pig-pen of UNO-centered "global economy" and "world government," were the policies of Prime Minister Winston Churchill's British Empire.[8]

All of this, including Russell's proposed use of nuclear terror to bring about world government, was to the intended, great, and continuing strategic advantage of the interests of Roosevelt's political adversaries, the united bloc of international financier oligarchies, which is the controlling social force within the ranks of the British, Dutch, French, and other imperialists.[9] Despite that somewhat farcical "de-colonizing," which the United Kingdom's Prime Minister Harold Macmillan had dubbed "the winds of change," and despite President Charles de Gaulle's turn-about, away from his World War II commitment to maintaining the imperial tradition of Napoleon III, et al., the British, Dutch, and French empires, although somewhat tattered, and reduced, have persisted in guises such as the British Privy Council's Commonwealth, down to the present day.

For any power, such as the United Nations Organization, or its International Monetary Fund (IMF), to deny any nation-state the right to exert perfect sovereignty within its own domain, is an act of war. The question posed to the government of the nation so victimized, in such a case, is whether or not to go to war against its wicked oppressor. Were remedies other than war available, by which the oppressor might be dissuaded from accomplishing an irreversible damage to the victim's sovereignty, war would not be justified. Even if the cause were just, if the war itself were folly, going to war is not justified. And, so on. The purpose of war is a just peace; war is a resort to which no nation should turn unless, first, war afforded a remedy, unless, also, the avoidance of war were morally intolerable, and, unless the undertaking of war were not useless folly.

Furthermore, as is demonstrated by the obscene sequelae inhering in the post-World War I, Versailles agreements, a war, even were it otherwise justified, becomes an immoral act, unless its goals contain nothing contrary to the principle of a just peace. Thus, the immorality of the Versailles Treaty underscored the immorality of Britain, France, and the U.S.A., in employing World War I to create the preconditions of future war.[10] The conditions of virtual genocide against civilian populations, imposed upon defeated Iraq, at the conclusion of General Sir Colin Powell's war against brown-skinned people, "Desert Storm,"[11] define an immoral act within the domain of capital offenses, according to the precedents established for the Nuremberg code.[12]

The notions of justified warfare, express principles entirely alien to today's UNO, as to the past, and present British Empire, to the past, and recently revived Entente Cordiale, and to the present NATO organization. Any alliance, or similar institution, which is constituted for the purpose of creating an unjustified casus belli, or for conduct of unjust warfare, or which fosters crimes against humanity, is an enemy of the just peace, and is to be terminated as quickly as possible, in the interest of peace, and of the general good. With such considerations in view, NATO must be superseded, by some relevant institution free of control by the Entente Cordiale.

2. The Geopolitical Roots of This Crisis

During the course of the past five decades, those "British Eighteenth-Century methods," which Franklin Roosevelt justly despised, and would have uprooted, have shown themselves to have become the axiomatic basis of a virtual monetary-financial-economic dictatorship, today's avowedly globalist, flatulently bloated, and self-doomed, IMF-dominated international monetary-financial system. The ongoing process of self-disintegration of the intertwined monetary and leading financial institutions of that IMF-centered system, is the central feature of the most menacing strategic crisis of the Twentieth Century, the worst crisis to threaten the continued existence of the United States since the 1789 opening of the French Revolution.

The present strategic crisis, like the preceding two general wars of this century, is a product of that same, British imperial, geopolitical dogma, launched under Queen Victoria and her son, King Edward VII, which was the direct cause of World War I. To understand the issues governing the required supersession of NATO today, the highlights of that geopolitical dogma must be summarily examined here.

This crisis has four principal features:

  1. It is a product of continuing the same British geopolitical dogma which created both of the two world wars of this century, and also the 1946-1989 bi-polar conflict among "super-powers";
  2. It embodies the cumulatively erosive, social, economic, and political effects of the "cultural paradigm-shift" introduced to the United States and Western Europe during the 1964-1972 interval. This cultural shift has undermined the moral authority and intellectual competence of leading governmental and leading private institutions, throughout most of the planet;
  3. It features the presently disintegrating global monetary and financial system, the result of nearly thirty years of "cultural paradigm-shift," from a culturally optimistic commitment to benefits of scientific and technological progress, to today's culturally pessimistic cults of "rock-drug-sex youth-counterculture," and "post-industrial" utopianism; and,
  4. It expresses the intersection, of the three other features, with both the actual and potential, world-wide impact of the willfully destructive economic and related, 1990-1996 policies, which the IMF and other institutions have imposed upon the former Comecon sector of the world economy.

For reasons to be supplied in the appropriate location, here below, the latter three of these four,interacting features of the present strategic crisis, must be understood, functionally, as offshoots of the first, the "geopolitical." With that fourfold aspect kept in view, we focus for the moment on the institutionalized role of the "geopolitical" factor.

This present, fourfold strategic crisis is the most recent among a series of four, global, geopolitical crises, the which have dominated the Twentieth Century, to the present date. The first of this series, which erupted during 1898-1901, grew out of Britain's fearful reaction to the U.S. defeat of Britain's Confederacy puppet.

From 1862-1863 onward, until the 1901 assassination of President William McKinley, the de facto allies and friends of the United States had included Germany and Russia, and also, a special friendship with a Meiji Restoration Japan which was oriented to the Hamilton-Carey-List model of the American System of political-economy. The acknowledged principal enemies of the United States, from the onset of the Civil War, through the 1901 assassination of McKinley, had continued to be the British monarchy and those elements in France associated with the "Second Empire," of Napoleon III. This configuration in U.S. policy-making, began to be reversed, with the assassination of President William McKinley.

The sweeping reversal in the axioms of U.S. foreign policy, at the beginning of the Twentieth Century, was associated with the accession to the U.S. Presidency, of two fanatical Anglophiles, both of whom were unreconstructed admirers of the defeated Confederacy: Theodore Roosevelt[13] and Woodrow Wilson.[14] Their administrations effected a virtual break with the U.S. patriotic tradition. This is typified, by a U.S. break with Germany (and, in fact, Japan, too), under Theodore Roosevelt, and by an alliance of the U.S.A. with Edward VII's Anglo-French Entente Cordiale, an alliance established, in effect, by Teddy Roosevelt's commitment to support that Entente in Britain's planned war for the destruction of Germany.

Although the administration of President Warren Harding, showed symptoms of a pro-patriotic shift, away from the track of the pro-Confederacy Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, Calvin Coolidge was a Yankee variant of the Theodore Roosevelt heritage. The leading "politically correct" current in both Republican and Democratic party politics, from Wilson until Franklin Roosevelt's Presidency, was a form of political conservatism echoing the same post-Versailles Conservative Revolution which produced the Mussolini, Hitler, and kindred fascist movements of 1920s and 1930s Europe, a form of fascist-tending conservatism which prefigured the"neo-conservatism" of today's "Contract with America."[15] That is key to understanding the shift back to a patriotic outlook, in the Washington, Monroe, Quincy Adams, Garfield, and McKinley tradition, a shift back to patriotism, which occurred under the leadership of President Franklin Roosevelt.

Men and women are prone to warts of sundry physical and metaphysical qualities; even among the relative best, heroes are seldom perfect representatives of the cause for which they are otherwise justly acclaimed. Thus, for example, FDR resembled his cousin, Teddy, in a notable wart: He showed himself as a World War I-vintage German-hater; but, he was thoroughly rational in recognizing, that once World War II were ended, the role of Britain as the traditional chief enemy of the United States would emerge, as, presently, once again, it has come so violently to the surface during the Presidency of, warts and all, President William Clinton. Warts and all, it was under FDR, that the Democratic Party was virtually reborn, assuming the patriotic tradition which the pre-Teddy Roosevelt, Republican Party had once enjoyed, under the leadership of Abraham Lincoln.

The continuing strategic interest of the United States, since 1776, and earlier, has been the need to defeat the form of imperialism represented by the British monarchy, and by that monarchy's Dutch, and Nineteenth-Century French and kindred accomplices in colonialism and monetarism. The work of Benjamin Franklin,and his protégé Secretary of State, President, and Senator John Quincy Adams, are exemplary of the way in which the strategic outlook of the U.S. patriots developed during the course of the late Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries. The highlights of that side of our history should be considered, to expose as fraudulent, the popular mythologies pervading the corrupt textbooks and mass media of the post-McKinley U.S.A.

To understand the historically determined, strategic interests of the United States, then and now, it must be recognized, that the establishment of the United States' republic was made possible, by a network of Benjamin Franklin's collaborators, and other co-thinkers and allies, in Europe. This network had been established under the influence and leadership of Gottfried Leibniz. The U.S.A. allies in France, Leibniz's tradition in Germany, in Poland, and in the Leibnizian St. Petersburg Academy of Russia, were exemplary of that network.[16] However, it must also be understood, that the destruction of the U.S.A.'s French ally, by the succession of the Jacobins and Bonapartists, beginning 1789, temporarily deprived our republic of any strategically significant, reliable allies, in Europe, outside the then but marginally influential networks of Schiller.[17]

A crucial change, from the U.S.A.'s imperilled isolation of 1814-1849, was begun in the aftermath of the Crimean War. Alexander II overturned the quasi-Nietzschean, "Metternichean" conservatism of Czars Alexander I and Nicholas I; he established an economically progressive Russia, as the U.S.A.'s most powerful and important ally, until, and beyond Alexander II's death, in 1881. Notable is Alexander II's 1862-1863 threat to make war against Britain and France (should they proceed with their planned, direct, naval intervention against the United States), combined with the effect of the Gettysburg defeat of the Confederacy, to save the U.S.A. from "Balkanization" and British re-conquest. The 1870 defeat of Napoleon III, and the establishment of the Thiers government in France, opened a new, brighter period in U.S. foreign policy options, which continued until a circle of admirers of Vice-President Teddy Roosevelt, centered around terrorist controller Emma Goldman, of New York City's Henry Street Settlement House, accomplished the 1901 assassination of President McKinley.

Thus, it came to be, that, under the circumstances of the 1862-1901 interval, the axis of U.S. foreign-policy strategic options, was our good relations with Germany, Russia, and Japan, and the special, positive role contributed by the anti-Napoleonic forces in the leadership of 1871-1898 France. We, like these forces, were also committed to freeing China from the sodomic grip of the British monarchy. We were implicitly the ally of the effort to develop corridors of continental-Eurasian economic development, from Brest, on the Atlantic Coast of France, eastward, by rail, to Japan and China, and to the Indian Ocean.

With the 1870 defeat of Lord Palmerston's puppet, France's Napoleon III, had come the new-born Third Republic of France, as typified by President Adolphe Thiers, President Sadi Carnot, and the diplomat Gabriel Hanotaux. From 1871 through 1898, France functioned, with echoes of Lafayette and Lazare Carnot, both as a predominantly positive force in its own time, and as a premonition of 1958-1969 France, under President Charles de Gaulle. During the 1871-1898 interval, France emerged as a de facto partner of such crucial circles as those of Emil Rathenau and Wilhelm Siemens in Germany, and, overtly, with the circles of Dmitri Mendeleyev and Count Sergei Witte in Russia.[18]

All of these U.S. friendships of the 1871-1898 interval, were products of the Leibniz tradition in Europe. For example: The U.S.A.'s closest friends in France, typified the Leibniz heritage of both "Author of Victory" Lazare Carnot and the pre-1815, Gaspard Monge Ecole Polytechnique. Similarly, in Germany and in Russia, the relevant influences were both, the heritage of Leibniz's influence in those nations, and, also, the influence of the anti-British, "American System of political-economy," as represented by Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, the Careys, and Friedrich List. Respecting pre-1901 Japan, the principal basis was the Meiji Restoration's adoption of the Lincoln administration's economic model, that of Franklin, Hamilton, the Careys, and List. Until the relevant changes within France and the U.S.A., the which developed between the 1898 Fashoda incident and the 1901 assassination of McKinley, the U.S.A., France, Germany, Russia, and Japan, together with the patriotic forces of China, converged in common interest, as foes of the British Empire, as foes of the imperialist economic dogma of Adam Smith, and as proponents of economic cooperation for the development of the Eurasian continent.

The Hobbesian dogma of "geopolitics" was established by the virtual "acting King of England," reclusive Queen Victoria's son, the Prince of Wales, also known as "Lord of the Isles" Albert Edward, and, later, as King Edward VII. This was done out of his determination to destroy convergences among the U.S.A., France, Germany, Russia, Japan, and the patriots of China. World War I was the direct result of Britain's war-criminal actions, of 1898-1910, all taken under the pretext of the "geopolitics" dogma of geographer Halford Mackinder and Lord Alfred Milner's "Kindergarten" (the monthly eating-club, the "Coefficients").

Over the interval, from 1898-1907, approximately, Britain convoked the heirs of the Napoleonic imperial tradition back to power in Paris, establishing, thus, the Entente Cordiale. This Entente was used to create those ensuing Balkan wars, which lured the pan-Slavist mystics of Russia into turning the Triple Entente of Britain-France-Russia into a commitment to force war upon Germany.[19] It was the Czarist regime's launching the mobilization for Russia's intended assault upon Germany, which forced Germany to begin its own general mobilization: Thus, Britain organized World War I. Thus, the Czar unleashed his "dogs of war," a folly which the foolish Romanov dynasty would not survive.

The "Bull Moose" spoiler campaign of ex-President Theodore Roosevelt, split the national Presidential vote, bringing Kuhn-Loeb protégé, and Ku Klux Klan booster, Woodrow Wilson into the office of President. This ensured the passage of the Federal Reserve Act, the Income Tax amendment's passage through the Congress, and a U.S.pre-commitment to mobilize support for the Entente Cordiale in Britain's intended war against Germany.

After the Versailles Treaty, during the 1920s, the same geopolitical poison was already at work once again, this time as the issue for Britain's orchestrating a second World War. Notably, the initial success of Soviet diplomat, G.V. Chicherin, in negotiating the Rapallo Treaty of 1922, showed the British monarchy that, once again, the nations of continental Europe were exhibiting a natural disposition to develop large-scale economic-development cooperation across the expanse of continental Eurasia. Britain's imperial, geopolitical displeasure, was seen expressed in a wave of political assassinations, including that of the head of Germany's General Electric Company (AEG), Walter Rathenau.[20] Rathenau's murder may be seen today, as precedent for the 1989 assassination of Deutsche Bank's head, Alfred Herrhausen, which latter, in 1989, foretold the geopolitical crisis dominating strategic relations today.

The assassination of Rathenau, to British geopolitical advantage, was done by cat's-paws from the same movement which supplied Adolf Hitler's Nazis.[21] That 1922 act presaged London's putting Hitler into power in Germany. London, in 1933, with collaboration of its Kuhn-Loeb, Harriman assets in New York City, overthrew the German government of General Kurt von Schleicher, in order to bring Hitler into power.[22]

Behind the 1922 assassinations, and also London's 1932-1933 boosting of Nazi Hitler into power, lay British fear of Weimar Germany's military and other, not-so-secret, economic cooperation with the Soviet Union. The "spirit of Rapallo" lived on, to be revived, if only briefly, by Helga Zepp LaRouche and Alfred Herrhausen, in 1989-1990. To ensure a war between Germany and Russia, which London intended to obliterate all future possibility for economic cooperation across continental Eurasia, Hitler was brought to power in Germany. London accomplished this with aid of a transfer of funds to the Nazis, organized by the chief executive officer of the Harriman firm, later Senator, Prescott Bush, the father of the future President George Bush.[23]

Although the Harriman family of 1932-1933 was not only an accomplice of Hitler's British backers, but was itself a publicly declared enthusiast for "Hitler's racial purification" policies,[24] these Anglo-American oligarchs were making no long-time commitment to the Nazis, even back at the time they forced Hitler's rule upon the German people. These Anglo-American circles who backed Mussolini and the Nazis, including members of the British royal family, continued to discourage Hitler's critics until about the time of the Berlin Kristallnacht rampage of 1938. The 1938 events, including the Anschluss with Austria, the Sudeten crisis, and the flaunting of Nazi anti-Semitic, "bullyboy" terrorism in the face of the international press and diplomatic corps, in Berlin itself, put Hitler beyond the point of no return toward general war in Europe. Once Hitler was, thus, fully secured in place, and devastating war in Europe now inevitable, Hitler's Anglo-American backers pulled back from continued public sympathy for their former Mussolini and Hitler protégé. When an oligarch hires an arsonist, he does not necessarily intend to marry that arsonist to his daughter; he intends only to make use of the effect which arson has been selected to produce.

Then, with Germany's defeat virtually completed, came the next turn of the British geopolitical wheel of war.The April 1945 death of President Franklin Roosevelt enabled Britain's geopoliticians to avert a U.S.-sponsored Eurasian economic cooperation. Had Roosevelt lived to inaugurate his intended post-war policy, western continental Europe would have become a partner in the economic development of Russia and China: not only from the "Atlantic to the Urals," as President de Gaulle proposed later, but from the Atlantic to the Pacific and Indian oceans. The Churchillian nuclear bombing of Japan, and Churchill's "Iron Curtain," set off the geopolitical dynamic of a bipolar, nuclear division of the world.

The next turn of the same geopolitical wheel presented itself as the policy of Britain's Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, in late 1989. That autumn, Churchill's nuclear bipolar age had collapsed. What did Margaret Thatcher, her François Mitterrand, her Conor Cruise O'Brien, and her Nicholas Ridley--among others--now fear from a collapsing Soviet super-power?

This writer had proposed, earlier, in conducting exploratory back-channel talks with Moscow, during 1982-1983, a shift to U.S.-sponsored, continental-Eurasian economic-development cooperation. This writer's explicit proposal to that effect, was the kernel of President Ronald Reagan's initial, March 1983 proposal of his Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI): technological cooperation in developing global ballistic-missile defense based upon new physical principles.[25] The opening of similar approaches to east-west economic-development cooperation, to accompany the expected, 1989 collapse of the Comecon sector of eastern Europe, was the subject of this writer's October 12, 1988 Berlin press conference: U.S. Vice-President George Bush's circles were, once again, not pleased. This same approach was the kernel of the 1989-1990 "Productive Triangle" proposal, issued by Helga Zepp LaRouche and her associates. This "Productive Triangle" policy paralleled the prepared address which Deutsche Bank's Alfred Herrhausen would have delivered in New York City, had he not been prevented by his assassination. Mrs. Thatcher's and George Bush's governments, clearly, were not pleased.

During 1989-1990, Prime Minister Thatcher and President François Mitterrand, supported by Mrs. Thatcher's American assets, such as those subsequently misbeknighted creations of Britain's leading horse-breeder, Sir Henry A. Kissinger and President Sir George Bush, struck out hysterically, successful in forcing the Federal Republic of Germany to destroy most of what remained of the 1990 East German economy. The same policy of destruction was imposed, similarly, under the false-labelling of "free market reforms," through eastern Europe and the area of the Soviet Union. The economy of the whole region of the Comecon sector is today, at the level of about 30% the level of economy of 1989! All this was done out of the same geopolitical motives which impelled King Edward VII to organize World War I.

Presently, Russia is gripped by an existential crisis. Either Russia casts off the mass-murderous IMFconditionalities, or Russia will explode, in one fashion or another. China is committed to a process of internal economic development cohering with the development of several "Silk Road" railway corridors, to the Indian Ocean, into the Black Sea region, and directly into western Europe. The economies of western continental Europe, such as Germany, are collapsing into the ruin of threatened, imminent national bankruptcies, under the impact of "global economy" policies similar to those decimating the ruined economies of the former Comecon sector. The links of the United States, and western continental Europe, together with Russia and Ukraine, to the areas of the world's greatest growth-potential, along the Asian littoral of the Indian and Pacific oceans, are crucial for the survival of the presently imperilled world-economy.

Presently, the leading forces of Britain are committed to the partition of China into a form akin to the old "war lord" times. Sinkiang and Tibet are besieged by British operations. In Southeast Asia, British intelligence agencies, including Chatham House and the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) work, out of London, Australia, and other bases, to build up a Singapore-Bangkok-Hongkong alliance of "hot money" forces, for strategic assault on China, to dismember it. Here, as in Russia, the London-Paris Entente Cordiale, operating at the highest levels of the British and French governments, spreads wild lies against the U.S.A. and its policies: into Moscow, Beijing, and elsewhere. Leading dupes and other U.S.A. accomplices of that Entente are deployed, including those associated with former Republican administrations, to deploy in a manner to assist the success of the Entente's perfervid campaigns of lies.[26]

Presently, once more, the geopoliticians are beating the drums of Apocalypse. The world will not be freed of recurring such horrors, until, at last, we destroy "geopolitics."

3. Economy and Strategy

The simple, measurable, empirical proof, of the absolute distinction of the human species, from his beast beneath, is the fact, that mankind has risen far above the potential population-density of any conceivable species of higher ape, several millions individuals, at most, to hundreds of millions, and then billions of persons. This growth in the scale of the population, has been accompanied by an implicitly limitless trend of improvement in life-expectancy, and in the available quality of family and individual life. The worthy distinction of the human race, that which places it, absolutely, apart from, and above the beasts, is that cognitive power inhering uniquely in the human individual, the power both to effect, and to comprehend, valid axiomatic-revolutionary discoveries of natural principles of our universe. It is by that means, that the power of man over the universe, per capita, is successively increased. Such, according to the implications of Genesis 1:26-30, is the individual human soul.

Human nature, so defined, is the subject of a branch of physical science, physical economy, which was first established, and further developed by Gottfried Leibniz, during the course of 1671-1716. In this branch of science, we measure the demographic performance of society in respect to rates of improvement per capita, per family household, and per square kilometer of relevant area of the Earth's surface. The measurement of these rates, involves notions of efficient function based upon that potential increase of the productive powers of labor, the which is derived solely from the cumulative level of valid axiomatic-revolutionary discoveries of principle, in physical science and Classical art-forms.

In this branch of physical science, the conversion of this improvement of productive potential, into actual increases in the productive powers of labor, and correlated improvements in the society's demographic characteristics, is treated in respect to satisfying the upward-shifting constraints, upon the allocation function, the which are typified by such considerations as improvements of basic economic infrastructure, and increased ratios of relative capital-intensity and power-density of the society, per capita of labor force, per family household, and per square kilometer of the Earth's surface.

The referenced quality of cognition, unique to the human individual, is the only admissible, axiomatic basis from which to derive the strategy of a United States committed to the constitutional principles upon which our republic was founded. The means for measuring the performance of the United States, and the planet as a whole, according to this axiomatic basis, is provided uniquely by the science of physical economy.

If we examine exemplary strategic studies from past history, notably by France's King Louis XI (1461-1483); Jean-Baptiste Colbert; Benjamin Franklin; Alexander Hamilton; Lazare Carnot and the Ecole Polytechnique under Gaspard Monge; Matthew and Henry Carey; the leading strategists of modern Germany, including Friedrich List, since 1789; and the United States prior to the 1964-1972 "cultural paradigm-shift": We recognize that an approximation of our approach has always been present in these cases. The conceptions of national economic security adopted by the U.S.A. at the close of World War I, and the application of this same notion to the post-"Sputnik" period, including the National Science Foundation grants to education, through and slightly beyond the administration of President John F. Kennedy, are relevant examples of this persisting approximation.

Although the dogma of "geopolitics" also claims to make reference to man's relationship to geography, there is an unbridgeable gulf between the relatively bestial simplicity of the conceptions upon which "geopolitical thinking" is based, and those opposing principles of strategy upon which the United States was founded.Geopolitics assumes, that the relationship between man and geography is derived from those misanthropic notions of "human nature," the which are axiomatic for the empiricist ideology of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Bernard de Mandeville, Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, and, also, for the scientific and other forms of ideologies of the Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century positivists, existentialists, utilitarians, and the pragmatists.[27] In opposition to such, latter, pro-bestial ideologies, the proper principles of strategy, are centrally premised upon those developable cognitive powers of the human individual, which set mankind apart from, and above the beasts.

In brief: The empiricist ideologues reject the demonstrated nature of the human individual. In the place in the social process where the individual's distinctly human, cognitive potential is located functionally, the empiricists put a disgusting substitute, a "genetically" fixed, bestial, linear (therefore, Malthusian) quality of alleged "human nature." Contrary to empiricism's doctrine of "human nature," history shows the distinction of the member of the human species, to be the power to improve willfully his own nature, in ways which increase the productive powers of labor, increase life-expectancy, and also advance the quality of family and individual life. The "geopolitician" views mankind's relationship to geography, in terms of the Hobbesian lusts of a barroom brawler; in opposition to that patriotic American strategist, who views the matter in terms of the influence of those valid discoveries of natural principle, by means of sharing which, mankind as a whole benefits in the manner peculiar to mankind's special nature and needs.[28]

Thus, we, the adherents of the modern form of perfectly sovereign, nation-state republic, defend that form of republic, as indispensable to the fostering of universal education for the development of the cognitive potentials of each and all individual persons. The institution of the modern form of nation-state republic, has been shown to be indispensable for the fostering of universalized improvements in the productive powers of labor, and for those improvements in the life-expectancy and quality of family and individual life, the which depend absolutely upon such improvements in the productive powers of labor.

For us, the strategic objective sought, is to ensure the domestic and external, economic, and other security, of not only our own, but all other sovereign nation-state republics committed to those same principles; our general strategic objective, is the establishment of a condition in which all humanity is organized among a global community of such sovereign nation-state republics, committed to such essential principles. Our strategy, is the fostering of that process of upward development in the general condition of mankind in this universe.[29]

From that standpoint, there are no "non-economic" issues proper to any aspect of national life, nor anydepartment of university studies. The essence of every aspect of human life, including the nuptial bed, is that which sets the individual person, by nature, apart from, and absolutely above the beasts.[30] In that sense, and in no other sense, all competent strategy is subsumed under the science of physical economy. All admirable strategic thinking known from earlier history has tended to satisfy that requirement in its results; but, now, for reasons specific to the critical situation of our place in history, there can be no competent strategic doctrine which is not generated as an explicit product of physical-economic professionalism.

To define, in these terms, the central feature of the foremost among the global political problems we must overcome, we must focus upon: the reciprocal relationship between trends in moods and forms of institutionalized economic practice, and the induced values which majorities among populations bring to bear upon the continued shaping of such institutionalized economic practice. In that setting, we should readily recognize, that the worst affliction of mankind, world-wide, is the ideological similarity of today's political situation in Europe and the U.S.A., to the waves of post-Versailles cultural pessimism, expressed in the form of a "conservative revolution," which dominated western and central Europe throughout the 1920s and 1930s, and the United States, from throughout the 1920s into the early 1930s. Typical is the affinity between the characteristics of the rise of Nazism in 1920s and 1930s Germany,[31] and the rise of the influence of the Mont Pelerin Society, in Britain, France, the United States, and elsewhere, during the recent quarter-century.

This parallel, between the 1918-1941 period, and that of 1946-1996, can not be understood as the strategic problem it was, and is, except by adducing the underlying, axiomatic forms of belief which allow people, such as the majority of the U.S. population of the "Roaring Twenties," or post-Versailles Weimar Germany, to degenerate into the genetically-kindred forms of conservatism which afflicted both nations, commonly, during the 1918-1932 interval.

Consider the change in underlying axiomatics, from the cultural optimism characteristic of pre-World War I Germany and the pre-Teddy Roosevelt U.S.A., to the type of existentialist cultural pessimism which characterized the European Conservative Revolution of 1918-1932.[32]Like the parallel case, also in both the U.S.A. and Germany, of the 1964-1972 "cultural-paradigm shift" to "post-industrial" utopianism, such changes can not be understood competently, except from the standpoint of physical economy. The axiomatic issue, as we shall indicate here, is the prevailing attitude toward the notion of the cognitive creative potential as the distinctively human nature of all new-born individual persons. That latter, axiomatic consideration, is the centerpiece of all strategy addressed to the setting of the world-wide impact of modern European civilization. That is the central problem of strategy to be addressed today.

To uncover the genetic connection between two typical expressions of the post-Versailles-Treaty rise of the fascistic "conservative revolution," in Weimar Germany and inside the United States, we have the advantage of a single bellwether in common to the two cases: the very relevant public figure, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson.

As we have referenced this point earlier, Wilson was morally unfit to be President. He was an unreconstructed fan of the Ku Klux Klan, and, therefore, also a paradigmatic candidate for apotheosis by Southern Partisan. It was Wilson, personally, from the Washington Executive Mansion,[33] who had launched the nationwide revival of the Ku Klux Klan, with his personal endorsement of the KKK recruiting film, The Birth of a Nation. The Klan revival of the Wilson and Coolidge years, which was first deployed to harass those Americans who were not sympathetic to the British monarchy, recruited several millions citizens, including heavy recruiting in states such as Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and so on. This Klan revival, which was launched with the support for a Hollywood film by President Wilson, is typical of all significant tendencies toward emergence of a "native," American variety of fascism.[34] The spread of recruiting into Democratic President Woodrow Wilson's KKK in the U.S. Midwestern states, has the character of a litmus test for any historian who had not actually lived, first hand, in the United States of the 1920s and 1930s.

During the Flapper era, into the 1930s, the Klan at the bottom of the social heap, was echoed by the Harrimans and other self-styled Anglophile "patricians" spewing finance-oligarchical ideology, at the top. During the 1920s, into the 1930s, there was no significant difference in axioms of belief, respecting race, between Nazi race ideologists such as Dr. Ernst Rudin, and racist fanatics such as the Harriman family and its accomplices in the pseudo-science of "eugenics," such as Margaret Sanger. Indeed, until Hitler consolidated power in Germany, the racist doctrine and practices common to British aristocrats and U.S. "patricians," were more radical than anything yet seen in Germany's practice. The Commonwealth of Virginia, for example, was a notable hotbed of those practices which the post-war Nuremberg Trials were to identify, later, as typically Nazi; but, the headquarters of this filth, was New York City's American Museum of Natural History,[35] with a rampant Teddy Roosevelt shamelessly exhibited, in stoned apotheosis, before.

Typical of fascist ideology in the 1920s U.S.A., was the case of so-called "philosopher" John Dewey and his circles of Mussolini admirers.[36] During the 1920s, these widespread affinities for conservatism yielded the widespread, almost pervasive phenomenon, which was typified by utterances of the form, "I am not a Mussolini follower, but, he made the trains run on time," or, "I am not a Hitler fan, but...." Throughout the Twentieth Century, to the present day, all significant, racist and other fascist-tending, conservative movements in ideology, orbit around the same Confederacy-Wall Street alliance which was the enemy force confronting President Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War. Dewey, whose career in U.S. education began at that Chicago Fabian School, which the Rockefellers picked up as a kernel for their University of Chicago, is typical of those lackeys of the U.S.Anglophile oligarchy, whose political tastes are often pathetically worn hand-me-downs from their wealthy masters' set of current fads.[37]

From the beginning of our Federal republic, there have been three leading centers of treasonous impulses. Looking, north to south, the first is the Boston "blue-blood" tradition of Judge Lowell and the drug-running Perkins Syndicate, together with such offshoots as the Russell and Company of Averell Harriman's Skull and Bones. The second, is the Wall Street tradition of treasonous Aaron Burr's Bank of Manhattan; of Andrew Jackson's Rasputin, the Martin van Buren who created the 1837 Panic; of the treasonous banker and Democratic Party kingmaker, August Belmont; and, of the Morgans, Kuhn-Loebs, and Harrimans. These northerly interests, together with the old oligarchical, feudal-landowner and financier families of the Confederacy, such as August Belmont, have represented, like Presidents Grover Cleveland, Teddy Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson, that continuity of rabidly Anglophile alliance, among slave-owner conspiracy, opium-trader State Street, and Wall Street, which has been the racist, fascist-leaning (e.g., "neo-conservative"), internal enemy of our Federal constitutional republic, from the beginning.[38] There are deep-going sociological, psychological reasons for the persistence of this nagging political phenomenon.

In our U.S. tradition, in English-speaking North America, this conflict between citizen and oligarch has centered, since 1689, in the struggle between those rabidly Anglophile factions, such as the Confederate traitors, which supported what came to be known as "free trade," against those, our patriotic faction, who supported a protectionist policy for the technological advancement of entrepreneurial agriculture and industry, and public works in the development of basic economic infrastructure.

The differences between the two factions went much deeper. During the Eighteenth Century, under Gottfried Leibniz's influence in shaping the thinking of our patriots, a distinction was made between the oligarch's use of the term "labor," and what Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, among others, identified as "artificial labor." The latter term was to distinguish between what might be termed "raw labor," and labor whose productive powers were augmented by scientific and technological knowledge, and by capital-intensity, use of motive power, and improvements in basic economic infrastructure.[39] Leibniz's principle of physical economy, the "improvement of the productive powers of labor," was the centerpiece of the strategic doctrine for national and foreign security of the administration of President George Washington, as it was for Presidents John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln, et al.

To appreciate the practical implications of this for U.S. strategy today, a summary of the most relevant features of the place of the United States in world history must be interpolated now.

The U.S.A.'s Place in World History

In matters of human history, as in modern mathematical physics, there are two principal, opposing views respecting the manner in which the implications of any relatively localized set of events must be judged. This is emphatically the problem to be addressed, in the effort to assess the reciprocal relationship between the U.S.A. and the world-at-large today. What is the functional relationship of the United States to the world at large, such that the fate of the world at large might depend crucially on the current policies and related actions of the Federal government of the U.S.A.? In turn, what is the effect of changes in the conditions of the world at large, outside the U.S.A., on the possibility of maintaining tolerable conditions of life inside the United States itself? What are the considerations which must be brought into comprehension, to reach a sound judgment respecting the policy we must adopt, respecting this reciprocal relationship of the present historic moment? What is the historical setting which defines the relevant, characteristically determining features of this period of world history?

The United States has a crucial place in all of modern history. At this moment, our role as the world's leading power, is crucial for humanity as a whole, just as the condition of humanity as a whole will determine whether or not our nation, and our posterity, continueeven to exist into the century immediately ahead.[40] There is no way in which we could escape the implications of that. However, to attack this problem competently, we must first settle the issue of method to be employed for this purpose. To this end, we set forth the form, which this type of problem presents within the domain of mathematical physics, and then view the problem of historiographical method from that vantage-point.

At the close of the Sixteenth Century, the powerful boss of Venice, Paolo Sarpi, sought to undermine that scientific movement which the Renaissance had unleashed, by introducing a contrary notion of scientific method, delivered chiefly through the assigned work of his personal lackey, Galileo Galilei, and by such controlled assets of his international organization as Francis Bacon and Galileo's mathematics student, Thomas Hobbes. This anti-Renaissance counter-method, introduced at the direction of Sarpi, became known as the "Enlightenment." For the Seventeenth Century, Rosicrucian Robert Fludd, Galileo, Francis Bacon, Descartes, and John Locke, are paradigmatic figures of the Enlightenment; Isaac Newton was a typical fruit of that bush. To this day, one very influential faction in teaching of physical science still defends the methods introduced by the Enlightenment; within the field of university teaching of the so-called" social sciences," the dictatorship of Enlightenment methods is, presently, virtually unchallenged.

From Sarpi's launching of the Enlightenment, down to the present time, modern European civilization has been divided between the two conflicting cultures: the Classical heritage of the "Golden" Renaissance, and the Enlightenment introduced by agents of Sarpi's Venice. The most crucial point of distinction between Renaissance and Enlightenment methodologies, is located primarily within the domain of ideas about geometry.[41]

Like schoolbook Euclidean geometry, the Enlightenment assumes, falsely, as Newton devotee Leonhard Euler did, that space and time are simply extended in four non-converging (respectively independent) senses of direction, with perfect continuity, and without limit.[42] Among the schools within the bounds of this Enlightenment, one faction, the professedly radical "materialists," insist that these axiomatic ideas about the extension of space and time are given to us by our senses, and are, on that account, mirror-images of the reality outside our skins. Another faction, typified by the empiricists, does not claim that these images are necessarily such mirror-images, but insists, nonetheless, that we must adopt no contrary view to that supplied by convergence of unfolding popular opinion on such matters of the senses.[43]

Both latter factions are wrong; the proof that this view of space-time was false to physical reality, began to be delivered during the latter half of the Seventeenth Century; the proof was implicitly completed, with respect to mathematics itself, by the work of Bernhard Riemann, over the period 1854-1866. The view of physical space-time which we are obliged to adopt, by authority of the physical-experimental evidence supporting the views of Riemann, provides us an obvious, and authoritative guide to the choice of method we must employ for dealing with such matters as the local place which a nation, or an individual may occupy efficiently, within history in the large. We proceed, now, accordingly.

The Enlightenment view presupposes that any perceived events occurring to our senses, occur within the bounds of an infinite, "sausage casing"-like, Euclidean model of space-time. These events thus appear like billiard-bills floating in empty space-time, whose motion is governed by percussive interaction among them.[44] To this kinematic array, the neo-Aristotelean, such as a Galileo or Hobbes, applies notions of specific, reactive properties of each type of "billiard ball"; these properties are adjudged to supply differential quality to the responsiveness of the struck ball. Hence, we are supplied Hobbes' image of a society based upon a presumed, fixed type of individual human nature, premised, in turn, upon "the Seven Deadly Sins"; his kinematic array of "each in war against all." Thus, we have the Enlightenment's derived notion of "causality"; the notion of a present and future as the linear, statistical outcome of acumulatively percussive past.

In reality, with mankind, it is different. With mankind, it is ideas respecting the future, which shape man's actions upon the present. It is also different in real physics. The latter began to be made clear,empirically, with efforts to measure what is called, loosely speaking, "the speed of light."[45] The demonstration of a quality of isochronicity in the gravitational field, and the ensuing demonstration, following astronomer Ole Roemer's measurement of the estimated speed of light within the Solar System, of the same principle in the refraction of light, implicitly established, by the mid-1690s, the notion later termed" Special Relativity."[46] The work of Riemann, beginning with his 1854 habilitation dissertation, gave generality to the mathematical notion of such relativity.[47] Riemann's representation of the problem, affords us the most direct means for representing the mathematical form in which creativity appears within the practice of physical science.[48]

The optimal key to the required pedagogy, here, is the notion of what is termed a formal theorem-lattice. Excluding some exotic exceptions to this rule, any mutually consistent array of propositions, has the form of an open-ended set of all of the theorems which might be consistent with that given array. The set of theorems of a classroom Euclidean geometry, is an example of such a theorem-lattice. The Socratic method, applied to any such a theorem-lattice, shows the underlying, efficient role of a set of assumptions, such as the axioms, postulates, and definitions of a classroom Euclidean geometry. Every proposition which is consistent with the existing theorems of such a lattice, must be not-inconsistent with each and all of the axioms, postulates, and definitions of the corresponding theorem-lattice. Such an underlying set of axioms, postulates, and definitions, is termed an hypothesis. The notion of space-time as an unbounded, perfectly continuous extension of four mutually independent (mathematically) senses of direction in space and time, is Newton's hypothesis.

Once discovery in experimental physics, for example, shows us that events in physical space-time have a different measurable value, than is consistent with a space-time premised upon simple, Euclidean space-time, we are implicitly obliged to construct a new hypothesis, to replace the Euclidean one. Thus, the discovery of the isochronic principle, and the brachystochrone problem, showed that a different hypothesis was required, replacing the so-called "algebraic" method of Galileo, Decartes, and Newton, by a new mathematical hypothesis, the latter termed by Leibniz et al. as "non-algebraic," or "transcendental" mathematics. Riemann's habilitation dissertation supplied an approach to the generalization of the axiomatic-revolutionary changes in hypothesis, imposed upon us by valid advances in experimental-physical knowledge of principles of the universe.

Specifically, the notion of extension applicable to any discovered principle, advises us to treat each validated such principle as it were a "dimension" of physical space-time, as we might otherwise reference the fourfold "dimensionality" of an empty, simple Euclidean space-time. For that purpose, two relevant qualities are implicitly attributed to each such discovered principle: the notion that it is extensible, and that it enjoys, as an imputed "dimensionality," the uniqueness of a sense of directedness independent of the other "dimensions." The changes in measurement associated with the incorporation of the discovered principle as a new hypothesis, prompt us to think of the passage from a physical space-time of "n dimensions," to "n+ 1 dimensions," as a change in the Gaussian form of curvature of physical space-time.[49]

Thus, the progress in human knowledge, which is effected through successive valid, axiomatic-revolutionary discoveries of principle, has the form of a series of hypotheses, as Plato's dialogues define the "hierarchy" of such a system of human knowledge. There are two higher aspects to the scheme, above any hypothesis of the sort just identified. First, a series of valid, axiomatic-revolutionary discoveries, generated by the same method of cognitive synthesis, corresponds to what Plato identifies as an "higher hypothesis." As the cognitive principle itself may be improved in its development, and resulting power, the higher hypothesis is itself subject to hypothesizing: "hypothesizing the higher hypothesis."

The additional property, of direct relevance to the subject of economy and strategy, is this. Any modification of the set of axioms, postulates, and definitions associated with any one hypothesis, produces a new hypothesis, to such effect that no theorem of the second theorem-lattice is consistent with any theorem of the first theorem-lattice. Thus, between the two lattices (e.g., the two forms of mathematical physics), there is a mathematically absolute discontinuity: One may never reach the second lattice mathematically, from the first; one can only connect the two by treating the first lattice as a relatively degenerate case of the second.

On this account, the progress of human knowledge assumes the forms of a succession of "leaps," each corresponding to the appearance of a new, valid, superseding hypothesis. Not only is this progress measurable, in the sense that a measurable demonstration of principle (e.g., an experimental-physics measurement) is integral to the discovery of the principle; but, the test of the method of higher hypothesis subsuming a series of such discoveries of principle, itself has a measurable test of its validity: the increase of the potential relative population-density of the society employing this knowledge.[50]

Study of the relationship between increase of potential relative population-density and scientific and technological progress, during the recent five hundred years' experience of the extended form of the modern European sovereign nation-state republic, underscores the practical, and strategic significance of the point we have just outlined. This experience has two leading aspects. The first of these two, is listed under those forms of education, and of general transmission of culture in other modes, which address directly the cognitive processes of scientific, technological, and Classical-artistic progress.[51] The second, is the "spillover" of scientific and related discovery, from physical-experimental demonstrations, to new, more powerful technologies in productive and related use.

On the side of educational and other cultural transmission of cognitive contributions of valid principle, the accumulation of the student's (for example) experience of reenacting valid acts of discovery of principle, from discoverers in the past, produces in the pupil's mind an accumulation of the discontinuities corresponding to each such discovery reenacted. The result of this process, is that the pupil's mind is characterized by an increase in the density of such discontinuities brought to bear in formulating each proposition.[52] It is the increase of that density of discontinuities, which corresponds to the increase of potential productive powers of labor of the society whose educational and related cultural policies are attuned to this.

In the microcosmic moment of the process of "spillover," from a crucial experimental demonstration of a new principle, into increase of the productive powers of labor, the typical case is the image of the perfected experimental apparatus being used as a model of reference for giving currency to employment of a corresponding new technological principle. As we have indicated above, this realization of progress in the society's stock of (Platonic) ideas, must be achieved by appropriate measures of development of capital-intensity, power-density, and basic economic infrastructure.

The first modern nation-state was the re-created France of 1461-1483, as the newly designed form of institution, the Commonwealth of citizens, under King Louis XI.[53] Attempted imitations of Louis XI's "model," by the Erasmians of England, forces associated with Queen Isabella in Spain, and so on, mark the general emergence of the extended development of the modern European sovereign nation-state. Since that time, the world has been a battleground between two opposing forces, the interests of the modern sovereign nation-state republic, versus the opposing forces which have represented the oligarchical traditions of earlier centuries.

Until approximately 1789, France, although both externally threatened, and internally embattled, by the forces representing the oligarchical interest, was the world's leading nation-state, the most powerful singlesuch state, and the most advanced in economy, and in scientific and technological progress. With the events of 1789-1814, that role of France came to an end. From 1789 until the 1850s, only the United States, as a nation also externally besieged and internally embattled, carried the banner of freedom from the beginning through the close of that interval. During that dark interval in the history of Europe, 1789-1853, many other nations contained more or less powerful forces struggling for the same hope on which the establishment of our Federal constitutional republic had been premised; but, we were the only nation-state whose institutions of government were committed to that goal by "genetically determined" tradition.

With all the corruption which has overtaken us since that time, with all the rot of what we had prized as our best economic and other institutions, even as recently as a few decades ago, we are still the world's most powerful sovereign nation-state republic, and still embody that, now tattered, past commitment we undertook with the successive accomplishments of that process of our battle for freedom, the process leading through the 1789 adoption of the Preamble and subsumed features of our Federal Constitution.

The responsibilities, role, and corresponding strategic self-interest of our United States, become undeniable once we have addressed directly, those currently widespread calumnies against the institution of the modern, sovereign form of nation-state republic, a republic whose historically determined design the U.S. Federal Constitution best typifies on this planet today. The relevant point can be made fairly by means of the following summary.

There were no better forms of society existing at any time, in any part of the world, prior to the emergence of the modern European form of sovereign nation-state republic, under France's Louis XI. Prior to that time, throughout all human existence, in every part of the world, the condition of life of ninety-five percent or more of the peoples of every part of the planet was that typified by slavery, serfdom, or as the Aztec regime attests, far worse.

All the good that comes to us from within any society earlier than Louis XI's France, is the fruit of a long, ongoing upward struggle of the human spirit, to bring about changes which might, hopefully, lead to a form of society suited to the nature of the human individual, as the noblest being in creation. The gift of Classical Greece, upon which the founding of our modern science, of Classical art, and political institutions has depended absolutely, is an example of our greatest debts to the embattled past; so, for the Christian, the image of the gift of Jesus Christ crucified, is the concentrated image of all human existence. We do not prize the good we have inherited less, because it came from wicked forms of society, but rather more, because it is a gift made precious by the perilous circumstances under which it was fashioned. Yet, we do not hide the evil of the institutions under which mankind has lived and suffered before modern times, most persons as "human cattle," or even worse. It is the fallen leaves of ancient autumns, which have supplied the fertile ground upon which the harvest of the modern nation-state was nurtured.

Until the Fifteenth-Century Renaissance, of which Louis XI's France was a fruit, the form of civilization which existed on this planet, was premised upon racialist forms of hatefulness; upon the foundation of brutish impulses of one people toward another, and, often, of a more privileged class toward one deemed lower. Those people were ruled by oligarchies, under whose rule the great majority of men and women lived as slaves or in something akin to the forms of feudal serfdom. The political form of the ruling powers of those civilizations, was the rule of imperial law; under Roman and feudal rule, the land and the people, alike, were the property of the emperor's whim. This continued to be the dominant form of civilization into modern times, even after the modern nation-state form had been introduced.

The dominant form of the imperial order, from ancient Babylon on, was the constitution of the imperial power,and its institutions of rule, by a concert of leading families, the which constituted an oligarchy.

Such a concert, of such families, is of the form apotheosized by that Olympian pantheon which was also imposed, syncretically, upon Rome, and the so-called "Scandinavian" barbarians, as the "Vikings" typify the latter. Each family, whose legal form is reflected in the juridical notion of the Roman patriarchal family, acts as if it were a semi-immortal being, of which the mortal member of that family were its mere property, its transient expression. The families as a group constitute an oligarchy. Relics of these oligarchical family institutions, are found in the feudal empires of Europe, through the close of World War I, with vestigial reflections among titled ranks still today.

The oligarchical families proper were of three relatively distinct types (with some cross-overs among them). First, there is the feudal-like land-owning aristocracy; second, there is the financier aristocracy, typified by the usurers of Tyre, the Phanariots of Byzantium, or the noble families of Venice; third, a special category of imperial functionary, is awarded a special sort of aristocratic title, in reward for services to the empire, or one of its satrapies.[54] Accordingly, the forms of oligarchical society are chiefly two; the first, like old feudal Europe, in which the landed aristocracy predominates, the second, like Venice, or the Netherlands, or the British Empire, in which the financier oligarchy predominates. Excepting a few, murky niches of our planet, the landed aristocracy, as the basis for a form of society, became virtually extinct with the close of World War I.

Already, by the onset of the Sixteenth Century, the vast superiority of the modern nation-state, per capita, over empires based upon rule by a landed aristocracy, had been demonstrated on the field of battle, and otherwise. Furthermore, but for treason within the League of Cambrai, the power of the Venice-centered European financier oligarchy, would have been destroyed, by the close of the second decade of that century. The ability of our mortal enemy to survive, as long as he has, with the great power he possesses, still today, is the fruit of persisting foolishness by most citizens of republics, combined with the oligarch's reliance upon those subtle arts of diplomacy and kindred criminality, which were displayed so famously by Sixteenth-Century Venice's grand master of gnostic duplicity, Gasparo Contarini.

The arts of Venice's gnostic grand masters, of the type of Contarini, Sarpi, and, later, Paris-based master-spy Abbé Antonio Conti, demonstrate the manner in which the well-meaning dupes among the leaders and other citizens of nation-states have been misled, corrupted, and generally undone, repeatedly, these past, nearly five centuries of modern European and world history. It began, in the immediate aftermath of the break-up of the League of Cambrai; Gasparo Contarini, and associated Venice agents, set German against German, Spaniard against French, and so on, in an orgy of religious wars unleashed among schisms which were, chiefly, the creations of Venice and Padua. Thus, Venice set each of the members of the former League of Cambrai at one another's bloodied throat. The unleashing of religious and peasant wars within the Holy Roman Empire, and elsewhere, was begun by the Venetians of Gasparo Contarini's generation; the culmination of that Venetian method of "cultural and religious warfare," to divide the united forces of one's intended victims, was the work of Paolo Sarpi, that atheistic Servite monk who made empiricism a religion. Sarpi's concoction, the 1618-1648 "Thirty Years War" in central Europe, was the war whose horrid toll of gore remained the "jewel of the Enlightenment," until it, in turn, was superseded by the Britain's "geopolitical wars" of the Twentieth Century.

Since the 1714-1789 emergence of the modern British empire,[55] the mantle of Venice has passed to the world-wide financial oligarchy centered in London. Now, only a modern version of the "League of Cambrai," an alliance of great and smaller powers determined to break the power of this London-centered financier oligarchy, could prevent London-centered, finance-oligarchical political power and influence, from plunging the entire planet into a prolonged cultural disaster: a veritable "New Dark Age," mimicking, but far exceeding even the horrors of Europe's mid-Fourteenth Century. It is this London, and that which stands behind it, against which our strategy must be focussed.

Thus, the underlying basis for our strategic outlook, must be, that our war is not "against flesh and blood, "but, rather, "principalities and powers." Our war is within the domain of culture, within the domain of education, within the domain of scientific method, within the domain of economic policy, within the domain of philosophy. Those who are not fools, or not simply ignorant bunglers, will proceed from the recognition, that the mortal fray which may attend that conflict, were to be seen as philosophy in arms, as cultural warfare "continued by other means."

More than a century's experience of fascism's nostalgic tenderness toward the mythos of the Confederacy's "Lost Cause," reflects the essence of that strategic conflict, reaching far beyond the state of Tennessee,[56] or our U.S.A. as a whole, to a global scale. The issue is axiomatic: the apocalyptic opposition between two irreconcilable views of man and nature.

There are no human races, but only one human race: Every person is endowed, by birth, with that gift of potential for creative reason, which sets each and all members of the human race absolutely apart from, and above all lower beasts, including the beast within the lower self of each. By means of this power to re-create, each within our self, that treasure which is the valid axiomatic-revolutionary discoveries of principle, of science and art, of all mankind before us, and to transmit what we have thus received to others, including those who come long after us: Each of us may embody all humanity, for all time, within our self, in that way.

Whoever may slightly enrich that gift of knowledge which has been entrusted briefly to him, or her, in that way, may smile at death: "I have cheated death; my life has been necessary." Implicitly, that is the state of affairs toward which all humanity yearns, the state of affairs which the modern nation-state was created to foster, the state of affairs to which the founding of our Federal constitutional republic was directed. That goal is a right of every person; our underlying strategic goal, implicit in the creation of this nation, is to establish and to defend that right for ourselves, and for the future of all humanity. To defend that strategic interest, it is indispensable to promote, and to defend the means indispensable for fulfilling it.

On this account, the creative power expressed by valid axiomatic-revolutionary discoveries in science and art, is conceived to be a good in its own right. So, the science, and the art which cohere with that good, are the practice of good in their own right. So, the increase in mankind's power over the universe, by this means, is a good in its own right. Any practice which departs from that pathway, leads downward, toward moral degeneracy, even to as low a Hell as the Orphic nights of Venice. The means to foster the universal development and employment of the creative power unique to the human species, is the strategic interest we must defend, for ourselves, and for humanity in its entirety.

It is the presently continuing, historically determined mission of our United States, to rally cooperating nations into a republican community of principle, to oppose and defeat the Devil's own Venetian surrogates, currently resident in such places as London and Singapore.

Overcoming Cultural Pessimism

The case of Nazism provides today's world the most celebrated modern example of the fact, that a nation which falls into the grip of existentialist forms of cultural pessimism, such as that of Arthur Schopenhauer, Friedrich Nietzsche, Richard Wagner, and Martin Heidegger, knows no bottom to its immorality. There is no crime so monstrous, that such a cultural pessimist would not ultimately perpetrate it. It is not necessary to be a Nazi, to achieve such a state of evil; such putative adversaries of the Nazis as cultural pessimists Bertolt Brecht, Theodor Adorno, and Hannah Arendt, exhibited a Wagnerian variety of existentialism, kindred to that of Nazi Martin Heidegger, with as great a potential for evil, in its own way, as the gnostic Nazi ideology of a Friedrich Nietzsche, gnostic geopolitical mystic Rudolf Hess, or Josef Goebbels. We have focussed upon the role of the wicked U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, in fostering, while in office, the cultural pessimist movements of the 1920s and 1930s, in the U.S.A. and Germany, and elsewhere, too. The results of the 1994 elections showed the same existentialist quality of cultural pessimism on the march again, as Nazi-like "political correctness"[57] of the loony left and Newt Gingrich's rabid right, in the United States, as in Mrs. Thatcher's Europe.

The practical question which thus confronts us, is: How is such cultural pessimism induced, and by what means may it best be uprooted? That question requires attention upon a securely documented, and widely reported principle of economics, but a principle on which insight is rarely focussed. The key to this conundrum is located in the use of the Greek agape as a metaphor,[58] first by Plato, and, in the same sense as Plato, in the New Testament. Here, we situate the efficient implications of that term in the domain of physical economy. Cultural pessimism is most efficiently, most succinctly defined, functionally, as a loss of agape.

In Plato, agape arises as an explicit reference to "love of justice." More broadly, it indicates the emotional quality associated with discovery of Platonic ideas, and in that connection has the general connotation of "love of truth." The referent for this emotional quality in Classical art and in science, is the sense of "the light turning on" during the first blush of a valid discovery of principle, an axiomatic-revolutionary quality of such discovery, most emphatically. The latter is by no means limited to experience of one's own original discoveries; it is commonly experienced in the student's reexperiencing a valid axiomatic-revolutionary discovery in one's own mental processes.

Experience supplies an abundance of crucial examples, of the coincidence of agape with that kind of cultural optimism which has been expelled from social life among the devotees of the rock-drug-sex youth-counterculture and other forms of "post-industrial" utopianism. The scientist experiences the inspirational quality of a "light turning on" in his mental processes, in the act of making a cognitive breakthrough. The same experience supplies the accomplished artist, or student, alike, the motive for the best quality of performance of Classical musical compositions. The audiences for such performances, or for any expression of great Classical art, are inspired with the same special, agapic quality of uplifting emotion.

The happy young child is typified by agape. Like the student in a school with a Classical form of cognitive curriculum and matching pedagogy, the experience of infancy and early childhood, is a time of great creative excitement for the recently born, a time in which many of humanity's valid original discoveries of principle are being relived by the mind of the new future citizen. It is a happy moment to be a parent, when the child is passing through another such agapic moment of discovery. The quality of love shared among parents and child, during such precious moments, is the model of reference for the idea which Plato and the New Testament identify by agape.

On this account, a good society will tolerate nothing less than universal education, and will tolerate nothing less than a Classical-humanist mode of education in the mode traced to such teaching institutions of yore as the Brotherhood of the Common Life, or the Schiller-Humboldt program of education established during the last century. The imparting of knowledge, rather than mere learning of approved teachings, is necessary for the development of a future citizen.[59]

The natural fostering of creativity in one's vocation, is found most directly expressed in creative scientific and artistic work. However, the same quality of inner mental and moral life, carries over from a happy parental home and Classical form of education, or their best available approximation, into many aspects of social life of the society as a whole.

How did the mind of the workman survive the persistence of dulling repetition, on the farm, or in the factory? Relief from the boredom of such toil lies in the exercise of the laborer's creative powers of mind, as typified by his or her mastering of the use of a better tool, a better machine, a better technique, or, above all, his or her own useful innovation in the quality of product, or the productive process itself. The suggestion-box filled with useful improvements in product and process, was the paradigm of good industrial labor-management relations. The pride of fruitful ingenuity, is the microcosm of endemic progress, and the well-spring from which the workman returns home that day, with the happiness of sensing that it was a "pretty good day at work," this day. The command: "Do your work as you are told, and keep your mouth shut! I am paying you to produce, not think!" is the bark of the brutish master to the abused serf.

In happier former times, before the "Baby Boomers" took control, when the U.S. still took pride in entrepreneurial management of its farms and industries, the so-called "melting pot" industrial towns and cities of the United States--especially the principal cities--had many family households established by immigrants who still had fresh recollections of "life in the old country." The immigrants usually worked hard, and sacrificed, taking joyful motivation for that policy in the older generation's hopes for a better life for children and grandchildren. It was that joyful commitment to the betterment of the future nation, the pride in making such a contribution to the community, and, perhaps, a conscious thought for the nation as a whole, too, which bound the family together, and defined "respect" of the role of each generation by the others. Thus, was Judeo-Christian "love of neighbor" fostered.

In the post-World War II U.S.A., the change for the worse came in two general phases. (There are parallel cases to be made for life in western Europe, and in Central and South America, too.)

The first wave of cultural pessimism arrived with the force of a shock, as the citizens came to recognize the sudden change in mood and practice which had overtaken the U.S.A., in the transition from Franklin Roosevelt to Harry Truman. The Depression, and Winston Churchill's ringing the "Iron Curtain," threw the generation which had risen to post-Depression optimism in the course of the war, into fresh despair. It was much worse, for most of the veterans of my generation, to experience "coming down" suddenly, from the optimism of "V-E day," to the relative pessimism of post-August 1945, than never to have left the Depression.[60]

There was a revival of optimism, during the Kennedy years of the early 1960s; the commitment to the "crash program" for placing a man on the Moon within the decade, together with the Civil Rights developments of that decade, were the two things which did the most to quicken optimism and rationality within the same population which had been in a relatively morally depressed outlook on history during the Truman and Eisenhower years.

The wave of political assassinations in the United States, 1963-1968, combined with the Indo-China meatgrinder, formed a single effect, a terrible cultural shock, especially to the "Baby Boomer" generation then passing through adolescence into maturity; that unleashed the second phase of passage of our population into the cultural pessimism which produced the early 1990s fascistic ferment, leading into the 1994 campaign around "Contract with America."

Try the following lapse-time thought-experiment. Imagine yourself at the corner, near Manhattan's Carnegie Hall, in 1940-1941, again, during the late 1950s and early 1960s, during the 1970s, and, finally, now. In your mind, during each of these intervals of time, pick up a newspaper, a magazine, wander into a bookstore, take a seat in a typical restaurant, during the day, tune into the radio, to hear some music, venture into a record store to select a purchase, think of the classes and campus discussion at a university, and strike up a polite conversation with a chance acquaintance: (if you dared to even consider such an adventurous act today!) It is a journey from an active mental life, through the relative moral banality of the 1950s, and, then, a precipitous descent into a nightmare of a drunken Bertolt Brecht's fantasy-life, in the course of the late 1960s into the early 1990s. Deep cultural pessimism, the supersession of desire for beauty in life, by the stimulus of unquenchable search for the titillation of the perverse, the cultivation of an insatiable appetite for exotic ugliness, even the outright Satanism of an Aleister Crowley or Kenneth Anger, in entertainment, and otherwise.

Make similar comparisons for post-war western Europe. Discuss these matters, for purpose of eliciting comparisons, from persons who lived in eastern Europe, or the Soviet Union, during the same lapse of time. Travel so, to Central and South America, to Africa, and so on.

From lack of agape, the soul-starved people of the world descend into the grotto where agape is recognized only as an object to be hated. There, the capacity for cultural pessimism is unlimited, and faddish perversity becomes its own motive. To such persons, the appeal of the mythos of the Confederacy's "Lost Cause" has the quality of necrophilia, like the notorious, roaming hordes of the Flagellants, during Europe's Fourteenth-Century "New Dark Age."

This transition, this descent toward Hell, is, in summary, the price of condoning what the London Tavistock Institute's representatives dubbed the "cultural-paradigm shift" of the mid-1960s. The toleration of the systematic elimination of all that is agapic, in science, in Classical art forms, and in a general commitment of society to fostering the benefits of investment in that scientific and technological progress which is essential to increase both the productive powers of labor and the potential relative population-density of mankind as a whole, has had a literally hellish effect, throughout this planet. The 1961 founding of the World Wildlife Fund and its complementary, culturally pessimistic organizations, with a central role by the Duke of Edinburgh and Nazi SS-veteran Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, typifies the fact that the second phase of spread of cultural pessimism inside the post-war U.S.A. was deliberate, and was oligarchical in its motives.

Our war is against "principalities and powers." The moral and economic decay of this planet's culture, during the recent three decades, reminds us of the role of Clement Prince Metternich, as quite literally, the chief pimp of the Habsburg monarchy, at the celebrated Congress of Vienna. There was, quite literally, a mass, sexual Congress of Vienna, a kind of "Black Mass," whose Satanic perversity was emblazoned in the name given to the outcome, "the Holy Alliance." It is the hatred of the modern nation-state republic, and of scientific and technological progress, by the oligarchical relics of the Babylonian tradition, which is the principal enemy of mankind on this planet, still today.

The remedy is as it is written in I Corinthians 13: agape It is the fostering, and the defense, of those concerted efforts which foster the benefits of scientific and related progress in the conditions of life of mankind, which must be deployed to muster the cultural optimism of the nations

4. 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.

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, reenforced 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 problem now confronting each nation of this planet, is three-fold. First, the present international financial and monetary system is hopelessly bankrupt. It could not be salvaged in anything resembling its present form; it must be bankrupted in the most appropriate ways, and entirely replaced. Second, we can not have an interregnum of chaos between the passing of the bankrupt, present monetary-financial system, and the adoption of its successor. Third, the choices of replacement for the presently doomed financial and monetary system are limited to those consistent with the principles of the Hamilton-Carey-List American System.

In light of that three-fold problem, the most urgent task of rational governments, at this moment, is to reach immediately, those pre-agreements on policies of emergency action, by means of which it is preassured that the transition from disintegrating old to viable new is effected without the intervention of an interregnum of chaos. That feature of the task before the nations presents the point at which the financier-oligarchical interest is most likely to make its strategic assault; his performance during the recent five centuries, first as old Venice, and, later as the new "Venice" of the London-centered international financier oligarchy, warns us that it is at this point that he, feral creature that he is, were most likely to choose his point of attack.

The proposed declaration of commitment to a new community of principle, by the U.S. President, or an action less publicized to kindred effect, is the only means by which we might be assured that the enemies of mankind will be prevented from succeeding, once again, as in the past, in attacking humanity's interest at its most vulnerable point in developments now under way.

It were desirable that such a policy orientation be made public as soon as possible. There is nothing more urgently wanted at this moment, world-wide, than the prompting of an upsurge of healing cultural optimism. We must cease to tolerate the popularized delusion, that the present world strategic economic crisis either does not exist, or is being managed by competent hands. We must, as President Franklin Roosevelt did on Sunday, December 7, 1941, admit the crisis, and seize it boldly with both firm hands. It is the sickly pusillanimity and sophistical evasiveness among our governing institutions, which, as much as anything, brings the governments of the world, presently, into hateful contempt in the eyes of the populations at large.

Leadership now consists of courage to face the truth of the crisis before us, and to captain that crisis boldly, with daring solutions, resolutely and quickly executed, to bring the ship of state safely, and quickly, to harbor. For that, statesmen will find populations lifted up to optimism, as President Roosevelt did, in face of a fearful crisis for which he had prepared himself and the relevant institutions of his government, on December 7, 1941.

That notion of a superseding community of principle, provides the relevant context in which necessary and useful considerations of national security are rightly addressed.


1. For example, Antonin Scalia, an influential Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, has denied, with shameless candor, the principles of truth, morality, and constitutionality in law! Scalia has argued, that law must be determined by what he identifies as a democratic principle, that the causes of morality, or truthfulness might seek to influence popular opinion, but not supersede it. Scalia echoes those, including himself, who have, by means of analogous presumptions, argued that this same principle (of his view) of law, might demand the execution of a condemned prisoner, even if there is strong evidence supporting the prisoner's claim of innocence: Truth departs the scene, and judicial murder becomes the canon. Hence, Scalia rejects the principle of government, as of justice, under law, out of his preference for government by caprices among men. Incidentally, Scalia's referenced argument constitutes, in fact, a violation of his oath to uphold the truth-loving U.S. Federal Constitution (e.g., the famous Preamble of that Constitution, wherein is stated the principle of law, under which the Constitution as a whole is subsumed). On this, see more, at the appropriate, later point in this memorandum.[return to text]

2. Officially, the original Entente Cordiale was established by Britain's King Edward VII, at the beginning of this century. It constituted the integration of France as a virtual satrapy of the British Empire. Allowing for the period of France's Nazi occupation, 1940-1944, this arrangement was a cornerstone of France's policy for more than fifty years, during the remaining decades of the Third Republic, and the duration of the post-war Fourth Republic: until the establishment of the Fifth Republic, under President Charles de Gaulle. The same Entente was revived, in fact, under President François Mitterrand, and has been recently revived, by name, under President Jacques Chirac. Actually, the policy of the Entente Cordiale was a by-product of the assimilation of the brothers of Napoleon Buonaparte into the British foreign-intelligence service, from 1814, until the present day; what Edward VII established as an Entente Cordiale, by name, was a revival of the arrangement which had previously existed under Napoleon III's Second Empire of 1852-1870. For a short time, following his election as France's President, Jacques Chirac had been a collaborator of U.S. President Bill Clinton; however, under pressure of death-threats from terrorists directed out of London, Chirac virtually crawled on his knees to London, and has functioned as a virtual body-slave of the British monarchy's whims since. Recently, Chirac adopted the use of "Entente Cordiale" to describe his submission to British direction. The continued key influence of the extended Buonaparte family networks pervading France's freemasonry and submission to London, is a featured element of EIR's forthcoming Special Report: "Entente Bestiale!"[return to text]

3. Typical of the British preparation of the Serbian assault on Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia-Hercegovina, is the role of Kissinger Associates, Inc., in preparing for the rise to power of Slobodan Milosevic, in Serbia, by such means as the "Yugo" automobile promotion. Kissinger, a professed agent of influence of the British foreign service (e.g., "Chatham House"), acquired his Kissinger Associates, Inc. operation in 1982, with the assistance of the Peter Lord Carrington who had then just recently resigned from the post of Foreign Minister, after successfully luring a deceived Argentina into the target-range of the Spring 1982 Malvinas War. That firm is, effectively, an agent of the British foreign intelligence service. More on the Anglo-French role in the Balkan wars, in the text below.[return to text]

4. First, the successful blockade of Japan, had made its early surrender inevitable, without need of invasion to bring that about. Second, Roosevelt had already received the terms of surrender, relayed from the Emperor, through the Vatican Secretariat's office for Extraordinary Affairs. The Truman Administration's lie, that the nuclear bombing "saved one millions American lives," was fostered through a hoax: the deployment of this writer's later adversary, James Jesus Angleton, from London, to Rome, to discredit the Vatican back-channel.[return to text]

5. E.g., Elliot Roosevelt, As He Saw It (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1946), passim.[return to text]

6. Nos. 5, 6, Sept. 1, 1946. p. 19.[return to text]

7. Kissinger address at Chatham House, London, May 10, 1982.[return to text]

8. On the British Empire's extent today, see "The Sun Never Sets on the New British Empire, "EIR, May 24, 1996.[return to text]

9. "Other imperialists," includes the "Wall Street" Anglophile financier oligarchy rooted in the traditions of the British opium-trade and London's Confederacy puppet. Historically, Morgan, Kuhn-Loeb, and Harriman typify this U.S. branch of the London-centered, global financier oligarchy, as do the factions of such Confederacy "buffs" as Teddy Roosevelt and Ku Klux Klan fan Woodrow Wilson, and, from northerly precincts, Yankee Calvin Coolidge.[return to text]

10. Of course, that war itself must be considered, also, by Nuremberg standards, as a "war crime" perpetrated by "Jack the Ripper"-like King Edward VII's Anglo-French Entente Cordiale. See the relevant summary on this point, below.[return to text]

11. For his role in Britain's war against Iraq, General Colin Powell was rewarded personally by Queen Elizabeth II, with the "honorary" title of Sir Colin Powell, Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath, ranking Powell even above the ugliest Giftzwerg in the Queen's American service, Sir Henry A. Kissinger. The sehonorary titles are given to Americans only for outstanding service to peculiar interests of the British Empire.[return to text]

12. The Nuremberg standard is implied: persons, and institutions, who either knew, or should have known, that the policies they were supporting were causing increases in death-rate, or kindred suffering within populations targetted by that policy. In investigation of prospective such cases, it is the reasonable duty of the investigating agency, to show that there was a relevant element of choice in what appears to be the culpable policy-formulation. The terms of post-war occupation of Iraq, and the imposition of IMF "conditionalities," are relevant examples of cases deserving investigation pursuant to charges of "crimes against humanity" against the relevant persons and institutions. In both cases, the indicated perpetrators are clearly culpable.[return to text]

13. The principal mentor of Theodore Roosevelt's political development had been his maternal uncle, the traitor James D(unwody) Bulloch, the London-based, war-time director of the European division of the Confederate secret intelligence service. See Anton Chaitkin, Treason in America, 2nd ed. (New York: New Benjamin Franklin House, 1985), passim. Notably, the leading families of the Confederacy were integrated with the extended family of former French dictator Napoleon Buonaparte. While Napoleon reposed at his host's St. Helena, the other notables of Napoleon's family (which is drawn from the "Sardinian" branch of the Italian aristocracy), were agents of the British intelligence service, from no later than 1814, onward. Bulloch was specifically an intimate of the extended Buonaparte family's U.S. residents. Thus, there was more than coincidence in the strategic alliance between the Confederacy and the Second Empire of Napoleon Buonaparte's nephew (and head of France's Grand Orient freemasonic lodges).[return to text]

14. President Woodrow Wilson's inner character, as a devotee of the Ku Klux Klan, came to the fore in his public sponsorship, from the White House, of the Goldwyn and Mayer film, The Klansman, later renamed The Birth of a Nation. This Hollywood propaganda film was used to mobilize millions of Americans into a revived KKK, not only in the vicinity of Stone Mountain, Georgia, but with massive recruiting in such states as Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and so on. Wilson's controller was Col. Edward House, the son of the Thomas House closely associated with the Confederate spy service of James D. Bulloch. Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were not the only representatives of the Confederacy networks to occupy the Washington Executive Mansion; Grover Cleveland was a member of the same treasonous network.[return to text]

15. See Armin Mohler, Die konservative Revolution in Deutschland 1919-1932, 2nd edition (Darmstadt: 1972). See also, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, ed., The Hitler Book, Chambless, et al. trans. (New York: New Benjamin Franklin House, 1984): English translation of Das Hitlerbuch, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, ed. (Wiesbaden, F.R.G.: 1984).[return to text]

16. The influence of Leibniz's networks had been planted in the North American English-speaking (and German-speaking) colonies, notably the Commonwealths of Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, during the reign of England's Queen Anne. The 1712-1714 victory of what was known then as the British "Venetian Party" of the Duke of Marlborough's future Liberals, forced the defeated patriots of England, Scotland, and Ireland, to shift their efforts to building up the semi-autonomous colonies in North America, as a counterforce to the evil which took over the United Kingdom with the accession of Mr. Georg Ludwig Welf, a.k.a. "George Louis," a.k.a. "King George I." Two among young Franklin's patrons, Massachusetts' Cotton Mather, and Pennsylvania's Jonathan Logan, typify the anti-Locke influence of the Leibniz networks, in forming the patriotic faction of the future United States during the earliest decades of the Eighteenth Century. For an introduction to this area in American history, see historian H. Graham Lowry's How the Nation Was Won: America's Untold Story, Vol. I (Washington, D.C.: Executive Intelligence Review, 1987).[return to text]

17. Outgoing President George Washington's remarks, on the subject of avoiding "entangling" alliances in Europe, must be understood in that historically specific context. Our friend, Lafayette, had been incarcerated in the Habsburg prison at Ölmütz. According to Ludwig van Beethoven's opera, Fidelio, Lafayette's incarceration was demanded by Britain's Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger ("Pizzaro"), probably through the channels of Wolfgang Mozart's deadly enemy, Chancellor von Kaunitz. In such a case, Fidelio's allusion to "Pitt" might be symbolic of Jeremy Bentham, a Shelburne protégé and head of the British foreign-intelligence service since 1782. Bentham personally trained and controlled leading figures of the Jacobin "Reign of Terror," such as outrightly Bentham-directed agents Danton and Marat, and Bentham was a devoted enemy of Lafayette. By the time President Washington was leaving office, Napoleon Buonaparte's patron, Paul Barras, was in control of France; the U.S.A. no longer had any reliable allies in power in Europe. From 1789 through 1849, the enemies of the United States prevailed in Europe, and world-wide: the British Monarchy, and the Holy Alliance spawned at Chancellor Metternich's (sexual) Congress of Vienna. Earlier, during 1776-1783, it was "foreign entanglements" which U.S. leaders such as Franklin and Washington had found indispensable to U.S. victory and national security: So much for nit-pickers who quote everything, from the Bible on, out of context, that done with the smug, narcissistic passion, and matching leer, of the self-deluded.[return to text]

18. The same Professor Dmitri Mendeleyev famous for the Periodic Table of physical chemistry, was also a leading figure in the industrialization of late-Nineteenth-Century Russia. He was key to the building of Russia's railway networks, and to utilizing those railway corridors as zones of general economic development in mining and manufacturing. His closest collaborator in such nation-building work was Russian Minister Count Sergei Witte. Witte was a leading exponent and practitioner of the U.S.-Germany "American System of political-economy," of Franklin, Hamilton, the Careys, and Friedrich List. Witte was one of the world's leading exponents of List's work on national economy. Both of these great figures of Russia's history were linked to such circles as Benjamin Franklin's grandson, Alexander Dallas Bache, et al., in the U.S., and the Bache-linked circles of C.F. Gauss, Rathenau, and von Siemens, in Germany.[return to text]

19. The Balkan and related joint operations of the two key, overlapping networks of Napoleon III's Grand Orient freemasonry and Giuseppe Mazzini's Young Europe, are included features of asoon-to-be published Special Report of Executive Intelligence Review newsweekly: "Entente Bestiale." This joint British-French intelligence services' control over the internal life of the Balkans, dates from early during the Nineteenth Century. The Serbian and Russian networks of Mazzini's "Young Europe" networks, represent the continuing British-French control over their traditional Serbia assets, down to the present day. This has been the means by which British intelligence services, and their Paris-ite accomplices, have used Balkan conflicts, to manipulate credulous pan-Slavists in Russia, from deep into the Nineteenth Century, down to the present days. In the interconnections among the extended Buonaparte family and both British intelligence, and intermarriages with the royal and aristocratic families of Europe, one finds one has stumbled upon most of the important connections of European history since the Eighteenth Century. If one wishes to know what modern monsters lurk in Pandora's box, the connection to British intelligence by the lowly extended families of the Corsican aristocracy, provides the key.

For those not familiar with the principal facts concerning the pre-organization of Britain's World War I, the following summary is relevant to the case presented in the present policy-memorandum. The famous Schlieffen Plan of 1905 was constructed in anticipation of Britain's already plain intent to launch a two-front war against Germany during the near term: Russia attacking from the east, while Britain, France, and Belgium attacked from the west. Chief of Germany's General Staff von Schlieffen addressed this threat with the same quality of mind he employed for the composition of his Cannae. Had the German commander of 1914, (young) Helmuth v. Moltke, carried out Schlieffen's design, rather than losing his nerve in the situation, France and Britain would have been defeated during the initial German assault toward Paris. The keys to the Plan were as follows. First, the terrible logistics of the Russian Empire would summon a great host against Germany's northeast flank, but no effective Russian force could be brought to bear in that region during the time required for Germany to complete its mobilization, defeat the combined forces of France, Belgium, and Britain, and, turn the German military forces to crush the Russian invaders on the eastern front. The crushing of the allied forces of the Entente Cordiale relied upon the peculiarities of the railway system of western and central Europe, where Germany had great superiority, and the superior depth and quality of Germany's military reserves. With relatively minimal allocation of forces to the easily defended Alsace-Lorraine front, minimal forces deployed to fend early, limited Russian probes in the northeast, the weight of Germany's assault would sweep through Belgium prior to the point Belgian forces were adequately mobilized. This sweeping attack on the Paris region from the northern flank, would cut the vulnerable French railway system of that region, and create a situation in which Britain was isolated from continental Europe. Only Moltke's refusal to allot to the northern flank the amount of force specified by v. Schlieffen, enabled Foch and the B.E.F. to survive the initial assault. The responsibility for Germany's loss of World War I lies entirely on the nation's failure to purge itself of the intellectually corrupted, oligarchical anachronism at the top. The German military, the German industry, the German people performed brilliantly. As for young Moltke's blunders, he was the Kaiser's man: In essence, the Kaiser lost the war, and the German people suffered the loss. Otherwise: the foolishly stubborn Habsburg monarchy of Austro-Hungary, brought destruction upon itself, by rejecting the advice of Germany on Balkan policy: that it cease to provoke the weak-minded Czar Nicholas II into the camp of Russia's plan-Slav fanatics. The German Kaiser was not as foolish as his Habsburg ally, but, since the Hohenzollerns' betrayal of the German nation, at the Congress of Vienna, the relics of the feudal aristocracy had become a disastrous political anachronism, for both Germany and Austria.[return to text]

20. Although the 1922 Rapallo Treaty is loosely described as a "Germany-Russia" agreement (which it was, formally speaking), the treaty was fostered by some who were neither Soviet nor German, including Britain's Lloyd George. The latter was among the rare instances of a prominent sponsor of Rapallo who survived the subsequent wave of assassinations. AEG=Allgemeine Elektrizitäts-Gesellschaft. Walter Rathenau was the son of that Emil Rathenau who was closely associated with the American Thomas Edison, and who was a close collaborator of Wilhelm von Siemens referenced above. The Rathenau family, and its collaborators, were tied not only to the U.S. patriotic circles of Alexander Dallas Bache; they represented a vital patriotic leadership within Germany, akin to the adversaries of the anti-science, Morgan-controlled New York Times in Bache's and Edison's United States.[return to text]

21. Armin Mohler, op. cit., passim.[return to text]

22. On Harriman, Bush, and Hitler, see Anton Chaitkin and Webster G. Tarpley, George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography (Washington, D.C.: Executive Intelligence Review, 1992), passim.[return to text]

23. ibid.[return to text]

24. ibid.[return to text]

25. For those not familiar with the published record on this matter: During December 1981, a channel of the U.S. government proposed that this writer open up a new exploratory back-channel, in U.S. interest, with the Soviet government. This writer proposed, in August 1979, as a policy proposal of his own 1980 Democratic Presidential-nomination campaign: that strategic ballistic-missile defense, based upon use of what diplomacy terms "new physical principles," be employed as the exploratory topic for those back-channel chats. As a by-product of this writer's presentation of this policy, at a mid-February 1982 Washington, D.C. conference addressing prominent figures of more than a score of nations, on this topic, and the ensuing back-channel discussions of the February 1982-February 1983 interval, President Reagan came to be persuaded to adopt the same potential proposal which the present writer had outlined to the Soviet channel. Henry A. Kissinger was not happy about this development; nor, apparently, was George Bush's James Baker III.[return to text]

26. Notable, according to Russia sources, is the Republican Party's special intelligence unit operating in Moscow.[return to text]

27. The list, thus, includes such modern offshoots of Bernard de Mandeville as the sundry devotees of Ludwig von Mises, of the Mont Pelerin Society's Friedrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman, and of the outright Nuremberg criminals of today's "Contract with America." On the subject of the latter: Any official who chooses to support a policy, which he, or she knew, or should have known, would result in increased death-rates, or comparable suffering, among a significant percentile of members of some designated class of persons, is guilty of Nuremberg-code crimes against humanity. Today, as during the 1920s and 1930s, there are classes of influential persons, and public officials, who are promoting, as the Nazi regime did during the 1930s, and later, the reduction, or even elimination of costs for support of what the Nazis classed as "useless eaters," whether in the form of policies of governments, or of relevant private institutions (such as private medical institutions), or both. The willful attempts, whether by officials treading the pathway of former Governor Richard Lamm, or by relevant proponents of "Contract with America," to bring about significant increases in rates of death or other grievous suffering among classes of persons, renders every relevant elected official, or professional, properly indictable for Nuremberg-code "crimes against humanity." The hallmark of the kinds of pro-malthusian conservatism which proposed or excused such criminality during the 1930s, whether by the Nazis, or by the Harriman family in the United States, or by supporters of the Mont Pelerin Society ideology today, is a symptom of the degree to which the "conservative" ideology of the times corrupted public opinion, then and now. Today's "Contract with America" is, thus, shown, exactly, to typify the problem of mass criminality by large segments of a population, which the Nuremberg trials were intended to treat as a criminal mentality, then, and for all future times.[return to text]

28. Man's need is the need to exist in that mode, and for that purpose which distinguishes man from the beasts. This mode is the development of those kinds of creative powers of the intellect, by means of which valid, axiomatic disoveries of principles of nature are either reenacted, or original such discoveries added. This is not limited to the domain of physical science, but pertains to all valid forms of metaphor, in Classical forms of plastic and non-plastic art, which fall strictly in the category of Platonic ideas, together with all valid principles of physical science, the category of mentation which Aristotle implicitly denies to exist. Thus, in Rembrandt's famous painting, the bust of Homer may be seen, as sitting in pitying contemplation of Pietro Pomponazzi's soulless Aristotle.[return to text]

29. The principle thus referenced may be read correctly as affirmation of the rule over society by the principles which Nicolaus of Cusa identified as the crux of the interdependency between the society and the individual: (in Cusa's Latin, as) imago viva dei and capax dei. Otherwise, the general line of argument we have made, in summary, above, was invoked by U.S. Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, in setting forth the reasons the United States must reject British Foreign Minister George Canning's efforts to seduce the United States into a treaty, the which would have, purportedly, excluded the members of Metternich's "Holy Alliance" from acquiring colonies in the Americas. In his letter of advice to President James Monroe, Adams seemed to thunder a rebuke to Canning: The United States will not degrade itself to become a "cock-boat in the wake of a Britishman o' war"! Key to the 1823 "Monroe Doctrine," was Adams's emphasis on the constitutional argument, that the United States shared no "community of principle" with the then-existing European powers, Britain included. At such time as the United States enjoyed the means of war to enforce its policy in this matter of the Americas, the U.S. would take appropriate action to exclude all European powers from colonial or kindred forms of possession of, or warfare against, any territory in the Americas. In 1823, the combination of the U.S. 1776 Declaration of Independence, our two wars in defense of our sovereignty, against the British monarchy, and the fundamental law of our nation, the Preamble to our Federal Constitution, already defined implicitly the interest which our foreign policy, our treaties, and our strategy must serve, now, as then.[return to text]

30. There is no similarity of moral principle, between "making babies" and "making kittens." A child is neither what some doting mothers mis-fancy, a prospective pet, nor, as some persons view other people's children, cattle. A child is a human mind, the most beautiful, most wonderful being in all creation.This beauty lies essentially in the power of that mind tobe developed into an instrument for creating truth: Truth being a valid, axiomatic-revolutionary discovery of principle, by means of which all that that society generally accepted as "knowledge," or mere learning, is shown to have been relatively false. The human identity is developed by the child, in reliving such acts of discovery made by others, earlier; that repeated re-experiencing of the valid such discoveries of others before, fosters in the developing child the power to mobilize that same creative capacity in fresh ways, in science, and in Classical forms of art. Each child needs a society, in which the opportunity to enjoy that self-realization is afforded. No child can be allowed to live as a kid does, as house-pet or cattle: The latter, bestial destinies are the trait of a society which has degenerated into congruence with the degeneracy of a Hobbes, Locke, Mandeville, von Hayek, Gramm, or Gingrich. It is that same creative essence of the human individual, which defines the meaning of Leibniz's science of physical economy; it is through the realization of the creative potential of the individual person, and in no other way, that true "macro-economic" profit is generated, that the human existence is preserved. There is no profession in science or art, which is worth knowing, or practicing, which is not derived, axiomatically from study of nothing but the expression of this same creative principle which is the only true "human nature."[return to text]

31. e.g., Armin Mohler,op. cit.[return to text]

32. ibid. For "existentialist," read "Nietzschean, Wagnerian, Spenglerian, Brechtian," and also the variety of fascist ideology, conventionally styled as "leftist," for which the Frankfurt School orbit, of Theodor Adorno, and of Martin Heidegger's beloved Hannah Arendt, are exemplary. It is more than fair to say, that Adorno may have been shocked to discover that Nazi Germany was not a suitable career opportunity for even a fascist of Jewish ancestry; during the 1930s and 1940s, the fascism of a Hollywood which had produced the famous Ku Klux Klan recruiting film, The Birth of A Nation, and its sequel, Gone With the Wind, became a more suitable climate for an Adorno. Similarly, Hollywood served that Beggars' Opera variety of ideologue, flying Communist colors, Bertolt "Jenny" Brecht.[return to text]

33. Which Teddy Roosevelt, with his characteristic flair for the uncouth, had designated as "The White House."[return to text]

34. That film, produced and distributed with participation by the well-known names of Goldwyn and Mayer, served as the model for Hollywood's skein of cinematographic frauds in the name of popularizing history. The popular mass-entertainment media, with complicit support from mass "news" media, has rather effectively brainwashed most U.S. university graduates into a mental state wherein most of them have lost the capacity to disinguish between historical reality and sheer fantasy. It is relevant to stress, that in the Twentieth-Century experience of the U.S., down to the present day, any relatively popular tendency toward fascism either flies the Confederate Flag, or perhap swears that "Stars and Bars" more discreetly, as underpants.[return to text]

35. Cf. Tarpley and Chaitkin, op.cit., passim.[return to text]

36. The practice of presenting pragmatists as "philosophers," might properly recall the utterance of Shakespeare's "Doll Tearsheet," the prostitute featured in Henry IV, Part II. In response to hearing the picaresque character "Ancient Pistol" addressed by the title of "Captain," Doll burst into a tirade, which included the following, memorable observation: "...A captain! God's light, these villains will make the word as odious as the word occupy; which was an excellent good word before it was ill-sorted" ("ill-sorted": fell into bad company). The paradigm for the use of the term "philosopher," is Plato. The subject-matter of philosophy, so defined, is the examination of the axiomatic qualities of assumptions which must necessarily underlie, efficiently, the generation of one kind of proposition, as distinct from a different kind, in reference to a certain experience in common. Philosophy is not concerned, immediately, with what one person, for example, believes, but rather, why consistently different propositions, when presented in response to common experience, might be the result of a difference in the efficient effect of implicitly underlying sets of axiomatic assumptions. In Plato, such sets of axiomatic assumptions are identified by the term "hypothesis." Although, as Plato emphasizes, the object of philosophy is the discernment of truth, it is the means of reaching that truth, which is the immediate concern of the practice of philosophy; the central topic of philosophy is, therefore, the method of hypothesis, otherwise loosely identified as "the Socratic method. "The so-called "philosophers" of Paolo Sarpi's "Enlightenment," and its offshoots, such as Hobbes, Descartes, Locke, Kant, et al., have in common the rejection of the notion of hypothesis, as the example of Kant's Critiques illustrates the point; they are, therefore, not usefully identified as philosophers, but, rather, ideologues.[return to text]

37. For example, some among Dewey's close associates, went directly to becoming professed Communists, such as Professor Sidney Hook. Dewey himself, like Averell Harriman, was seeking to make political connections with the Soviet Union, while otherwise pursuing connections of a distinctively contrary nature. The strongest convictions among "intellectuals" of Dewey's breed, are those centered around their desire to cultivate powerful patrons from among "the patrician class." It is relevant to our larger working point here, that John Dewey's role in education was to eradicate the fostering of the creative powers of the pupils. The corrosive effect built into the design of his rabidly anti-Socratic pragmatism, was already destroying the inner quality of education in the U.S.A., during the 1920s and 1930s. All the types of political and related conservativism addressed here, have the common feature of substituting a textbook or pragmatic mode of mere "learning" (usually of the "mindless," dogmatic variety) for the fostering of the creative powers of the individual person.[return to text]

38. See, in the relevant historical sequence of subject-matter: H. Graham Lowry, How the Nation Was Won, Vol. I; Anton Chaitkin, Treason in America, 2nd ed.; and, Tarpley and Chaitkin, George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography. All op. cit.[return to text]

39. Cf. U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, Report to the U.S. Congress on the Subject of Manufactures, December 1791.[return to text]

40. The medium-term risk referenced here is not some sudden, physical destruction of the United States, as by nuclear war, but, rather, the corrosive process of effective dissolution of U.S. sovereignty and federal unity. The efforts of House Speaker Newt Gingrich, et al., to liquidate crucial functions of the Federal government, to the advantage of a supranational, "one world" government of the UNO, typify the array of risks implied.[return to text]

41. Bernhard Riemann,Über die Hypothesen, welche der Geometrie zu Grunde liegen (the 1854 "habilitation dissertation"), Riemanns gesammelte mathematische Werke, H. Weber, ed. (reprint of Stuttgart: Teubner, 1902) (New York: Dover Publications, 1953), pp. 272-87. For relevant writings by the present author, see the following:

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., "Non-Newtonian Mathematics for Economists," EIR, Aug. 11, 1995, pp. 16-31;

______ , "Riemann Refutes Euler," 21st Century Science & Technology, Vol. 8, No. 4 (Winter 1995-1996), pp. 36-47;

______ , "How Hobbes' Mathematics Misshaped Modern History," Fidelio, Vol. V, No. 1 (Spring 1996), pp. 6-37.[return to text]

42. ibid.[return to text]

43. ibid.[return to text]

44. "Action at a distance" is a subsumed variety of percussion.[return to text]

45. Better: the rate of retarded potential for propagation of light, etc.[return to text]

46. See Jean Bernoulli on "the brachystochrone problem," Acta Eruditorum (Leipzig: May, 1697). Standard bookshelf references on this include the following: David EugeneSmith, A Source Book in Mathematics (New York: Dover Publications, 1959), and Dirk J. Struik, A Source Book in Mathematics 1200-1800 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1986).[return to text]

47. B. Riemann, habilitation dissertation, op. cit.[return to text]

48. Creativity (i.e., the cognitive process of either discovery of a valid, axiomatic-revolutionary principle, or the reenactment of the original discovery in the mind of, for example, a student) has the same form of appearance in Classical forms of art (e.g., poetry, drama, music), but the case for the mathematical form of physical science is that more readily grasped by the student.[return to text]

49. Riemann,op. cit. The reader should be cautioned, that to save their fundamental opposition to the notions of geometry associated with Leibniz, Gauss, W. Weber, Riemann, et al., the Anglophile schools in Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century mathematics and physics (e.g., Clausius, Grassmann, Helmholtz, Maxwell, Felix Klein, et al.) have made a hodge-podge of their efforts to represent the essential features of Riemann's 1854 dissertation and later work along the same lines. The central issue for the Anglophiles, is twofold. They reject the method of hypothesis; pervading that rejection, is the empiricist presumption underlying Leonhard Euler's absurd argument against Leibniz, in Euler's attempted defense of "perfectly continuous extension" in Cartesian space-time. The core issue posed to them by the persistence of the authority of Riemann's discovery, is that Riemann's argument obliges them to divorce their "old spouse," and adopt a new one, in her stead; as Anglophiles, it is the view presented by their practice, that if they must adopt the new, they will not relinquish the services of the old; thus, the sometimes perplexing intimation of a three-body problem in their relevant commentaries. Hence, their purported "explanations" of Riemann's discoveries need to be explained, by returning directly to the plain words of Riemann on this matter.[return to text]

50. On the use of potential relative population-density, this references the measurements of demographic progress identified above. See Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., So, You Wish to Learn All About Economics? 2nd ed. (Washington, D.C.: Executive Intelligence Review, 1995). Since the first edition oft his introductory textbook in applied physical economy was published, in 1984, translations have appeared in numerous European languages, and, currently, a new edition in Chinese.[return to text]

51. The emphasis upon the qualifying term, "Classical," is intended to signify such propositions, is that the Romantic mode in musical composition, such as that of Liszt, Berlioz, and Wagner, is a degenerate form relative to the Classical principles of thorough composition, rooted in the work of J.S. Bach, which are typified by all of the principal compositions, and songs, of Wolfgang Mozart, Beethoven, and Brahms. Romanticism, in plastic and non-plastic art-forms, was introduced as a reaction against the strict discipline of Classical modes; in this way, that quality of artistic composition which is analogous to creative cognition in valid scientific discovery, was excluded. The difference between Classical and Romantic composition, for example, is between the beauty of the living person, and the neo-Kantian cosmetician's presentation of the corpse. The commonality of the cognitive processes' development in science and Classical art forms, is the point being stressed in the emphasis upon "Classical," here.[return to text]

52. Following mathematician Georg Cantor, we should emphasize the equation of density of discontinuities to the higher cardinalities. In Riemann's terms of reference, the increase of mathematical physics's power, of the from of advance from a physical geometry of "n dimensions," to "n + 1 dimensions," as prompted by a valid axiomatic-revolutionary discovery of principle, also represents elevation to a higher cardinality. This increase of cardinality in cognitive forms of science, typifies the impulse which generates the increase in mankind's potential relative population-density.[return to text]

53. The precursors of this development included, notably, Dante Alighieri (e.g., De Monarchia), the teaching order known as the Brotherhood of the Common Life, and such products of that teaching order's work as Nicolaus of Cusa (e.g., Concordantia Catholica and De Docta Ignorantia). Indeed, the creation of France as the first sovereign nation-state republic--in all history--was accomplished directly through the intervention of the authors of Italy's Golden Renaissance into the French monarchical succession, training and backing Louis as Dauphin and King, for this purpose. Under Louis, there occurred the first steps toward a Classical form of universal education for the children of all citizens, and, also, the state's function of "dirigistic" fostering of increases of the per-capita productive powers of labor, and of commerce.[return to text]

54. In her pranks, Britain's Queen Elizabeth has awarded bureaucrat's titles of the British Empire to ex-President Sir George Bush, General Sir Colin Powell, Sir Henry A. Kissinger, General Sir Norman Schwarzkopf, General Sir Brent Scowcroft, et al.: a fine brace of (British) patriots![return to text]

55. On the evidence that the British Commonwealth is a guise for the continued British Empire of today, compare the following sources. In Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., The Blunder in U.S. National Security Policy (Leesburg, Va.: LaRouche Exploratory Committee, November 1995), pp. 29-33, especially note 56, on p. 31. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., et al., "The Coming Fall of the House of Windsor," EIR, Oct. 28, 1994, pp. 12-71; and Jeffrey Steinberg, et al., "The Sun Never Sets On the New British Empire," EIR, May 24, 1996.[return to text]

56. It is appropriate and necessary to make reference to the Southern Partisan, and things that go bump in the night at Vanderbilt. This typifies the ugly metamorphosis of many political critters from the region, who, like quackademic economist Phil Gramm, have made the rabid run, directly from Democrat to the fascism of "Contract with America," without enjoying a decent interval of reflection at "moderate Republican," along the way.[return to text]

57. In today's U.S.A., the "political correctness" of "rainbow coalition" lefties and radical-right "ditto-heads," is aptly understood only when it is viewed as a parody of the form of wild-eyed conformity termed Gleichschaltung under the Nazis, or, otherwise, a utopian pathological behavior parodying Aldous Huxley's Brave New World and George Orwell's 1984.[return to text]

58. The King James Version of the New Testament translates agape as "charity," from the Latin caritas. Unfortunately, today's customary gloss on the Testament's use of "charity" bears almost no resemblance to the original significance of agape, either in Plato, or, for example, I Corinthians 13. The alternative, using "love" in place of "charity," incurs its own misleading connotations. The German Nächtstenliebe (e.g., "love of neighbor") is better, but does not reach to the actual meaning. A collaborator's reference to the use of the term in Xenophon suggests that Plato's significance for the term may not be original to Plato, but perhaps Socrates is the actual source of Plato's employment of the term. The meaning supplied by our textual gloss, is perhaps the best choice for reaching the meaning of both Plato and the New Testament.[return to text]

59. The absurdity of the "conservative" proposal, that each child's education should be a preparation for the child's later specialty in employment, is almost as absurd from the standpoint of economics, as it is damnably immoral. The goal of a Classical education is to produce a future citizen qualified to vote, and participate otherwise in the processes of self-government; as a by-product of aiming for that primary goal, Classical education develops the moral and intellectual character of the future citizen, as no other mode of education approaches this result. As a by-product of that, the potentials of the student are brought to a relatively high degree of development, indicating the choice of direction in higher studies which the student may desire, and for which that student may be best suited in choice of future vocation. We see in Germany today, in the dismal effects of the so-called "Brandt reforms" in education, the terrible result of eliminating what had been the early, Humboldt model in education. The result was a monotony of virtual cognitive illiterates.[return to text]

60. I was affected much differently than most among the overwhelming majority of the returning veterans I knew. My reaction was more anger at what I saw was being done to them, and my anger at our nation's betrayal of the implied commitment we had made to the peoples of Asia, Africa, and Central and South America. I was exceptional, chiefly because my sense of a creative identity was already established during adolescence. On the issue of morals, the period of Trumanism and McCarthyism, during the later 1940s and 1950s, were gloomy times, but worse was soon to come. The experience of my lifetime, including studies of history, persuade me that, no matter how bad the circumstance, one must always seek out and follow the optimistic mode of action, even under the worst circumstances. Otherwise, how could any person of predominantly evil, ancient times have enjoyed happiness? The point in the text here, is that this shift in the U.S. population's outlook and mood was observed, and it was prevalent; it is an historical fact, which, unless acknowledged, renders an account of our nation's present condition a fraudulent one.[return to text]

Back to top