The following document was released by the Committee toReverse the Accelerating Global Economic and StrategicCrisis: A LaRouche Exploratory Committee. It was written byDemocratic Presidential primary candidate Lyndon LaRouche, andwas first published in the July 19, 1996 issue ofExecutive Intelligence Reviewmagazine (Vol. 23, No. 29).
The editorial page of the June 20, 1996 WallStreet Journal (WSJ) presented a symposium ofselected defense-policy professionals, on the subject ofmissile defense. Although some among theisolable points made there, might not be factually wrongin and of themselves, the argument made by each of thepanelists, is, overall, worse than merely false. Theircommon error is, that the individual facts each cites, aremerely part of the fabric of a wildly misleading fallacyof composition. None among them addresses the presentlyrelevant, crucial strategic issues of the 1982-1983 debateon U.S. strategic ballistic missile defense. For example, during the 1982-1983 period of the SDI'sinception, the leading issue within administration andDepartment of Defense circles, was between the scientists,such as Dr. Teller, and those anti-science, HeritageFoundation-linked opponents, who preferred theobsolescence inhering within a proposal included as partof a cultish book, titled High Frontier. Noneof the WSJ's current panelists, even Dr.Teller, recalled the disastrous effects which the SDIprogram suffered, from the political victory of the"kinetic energy weapons" mafia, during the middle 1980s,issues which are even more crucial in today's newstrategic setting.
That panel discussion, taken in its entirety,illustrates the point, that the making of the strategicpolicy of the United States, follows, still, today, thesame pathway, predominantly, as did those who fumbled theissue of SDI a dozen years ago. Worse, the members of thepanel seem to be ignorant of the fact, that, in everythingthey argue in that panel, they show themselves to be, morethan ever, in the grip of those collective, habituated,utopian fantasies, which, whether as deluded belief, orcareer-management pragmatism, have taken over, andcorrupted military policy-shaping, increasingly, since theclose of World War II.
The present SDI debate poses three crucial issues ofcurrent U.S. military policy.
The first of these, is the continuation of anultimately suicidal, post-1945, "balance of power"policy, premised axiomatically upon the abandonment ofthose principles of strategic policy-making which themodern European sovereign nation-state republic hadreferenced, in devising every successful military policy,from France's King Louis XI, through the death ofPresident Franklin Roosevelt. That first issue has beenaddressed in a most recently issued policymemorandum.
The second two crucial issues, are those upon whichwe shall come to focus attention during the followingpages. Of these latter, the first, is implicitlyacknowledged by some among the WSJ panel: Who but alunatic, or, worse, a craven bureaucrat, could haveproposed to accept the policy under which the 1972Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty was negotiated: as PresidentReagan stressed this point, how could we have tolerated apolicy of intending to leave our nation with no"defense" against thermonuclear missiles, except"revenge"? The final issue, which relatively few amongleading U.S. spokesmen, outside Dr. Teller's immediatecircle, were able to comprehend, back during 1982-1983,is: How could so many so-called putative "defenseexperts" have supported the delusion, which dominated thedebate, for and against SDI, during the mid-1980s: thefallacious issue, that, the issue of SDI was, whetherso-called "kinetic weapons systems" could provide aneffective strategic ballistic missiledefense?
Here, in the following pages, we review theseunderlying axiomatics of a revived SDI, in the setting ofthe writer's original design for an "SDI" policy. Webegin the presentation of SDI, here, with attention todevelopments of the period of this writer's initial rolein the development of the original version of SDI policy,from late 1977, up to President Ronald Reagan's March 23,1983 announcement.
Later, we narrow the discussion of SDI to the pivotalissues of the original policy-design. At that point, wedefine SDI, more narrowly, as it was outlined by thiswriter, and his associates, during the interval February1982 through April 1983, to his Soviet interlocutors, and,also, to leading relevant circles in western Europe,India, and South America. That was the version of his1979-1980 policy of strategic ballistic missile defense,which coincided with the strategic policy-conceptionoriginally enunciated by President Ronald Reagan, in therelevant segment of the President's nationwide televisionaddress of March 23, 1983: prior to his administration'slater, somewhat radical departures from the originaldefinitions.
We include, here, focus upon the implications of thecentral issue of the debate about SDI itself, during theFebruary 1982 through March 1983 interval: whether SDIshould be premised upon science, or "off the shelf"profits for defense contractors. We show that the issuesof the proposal to revive some form of SDI today, underpost-1989 circumstances, contains no issue of principlenot already embedded in this writer's own 1979-1983definitions of a strategic defense based upon "newphysical principles." Thereafter, we address those issuesof the nuclear-weapons policy which came to the surfacewithin that 1982-1983 debate.
Over the course of the interval, from the 1958, "Dr.Strangelove" address of Leo Szilard, at the Second(Quebec) Pugwash Conference, through the 1972 phase ofPugwash activist Henry A. Kissinger's détentenegotiations, the governments of the U.S.A. and the SovietUnion entered into a veritable pact with the Devilhimself: an implicitly suicidal version of "balance ofpower" doctrine, violating every principle of strategyearlier accepted among modern nation-state republics, alunatic intent to render all nations of the world helplessbefore the prospect of an intercontinental, thermonuclearmissile assault, against which virtually no defense, butthe prospect of revenge, was allowed.
Later, during the interval 1975-1988, the writer ofthis memorandum campaigned, seeking to eradicate from U.S.policy that mass-homicidal Pugwash madness, of BertrandRussell, Russell's Szilard, and of McGeorge Bundy,Kissinger, et al. Out of work done to further thatcampaign, during the 1975-1979 interval, the writerdeveloped a policy for a new approach to global strategicballistic missile defense. This policy, uttered in August1979, as part of his own campaign for the DemocraticParty's 1980 U.S. Presidential nomination, was later to berenamed the "Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI)."
In a recently issued policymemorandum, we identified thegeopolitical parameters, and underlying purpose, of theBritish Empire's post-April 1945 U.S.A. strategic policy.That is the policy, under whose axiomatic assumptionsBertrand Russell's Pugwash doctrine later became the ABMtreaty negotiated by British foreign-service controlledasset, and National Security Council advisor (Sir) HenryA. Kissinger. In that location, passingreference was made to this author's role, both inconnection with what became known as the SDI, and his"anti-geopolitical" motivation for the proposals.However, it was decided to omit from that memorandum, two,crucial, presently most relevant, features of the SDI,lest their specialized technical character divertattention from the larger issues of the principal topicbeing considered there. The present memorandum is, andshould be received as a relevant technical addendum tothat earlier document.
The history of the nuclear-weapons policy of the1946-1996 interval, begins at about the close of World WarI. The proposal to have the U.S.A. create anuclear-fission weapon, originated with the "openconspirators" H.G. Wells and Bertrand Russell. Wells,studying the implications of reports on nuclear fission,by Rutherford's collaborator, Frederick Soddy, had beenthe first, during and following World War I, to strikeupon the concept of use of nuclear-fission weapons tomisshape world history. However, Russell, with hisinfluence over a circle of scientists, including the DaneNiels Bohr, the German refugee Albert Einstein, and theHungarian emigrés Leo Szilard and Eugene Wigner, andRussell's 1938 co-founding of the U.S.-based "Unificationof the Sciences" project, with Chicago University'sRobert M. Hutchins, was in the more advantageous positionto orchestrate U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt'sadopting what became the ManhattanProject.
During the interval between the two World Wars, itwas already the avowed purpose of both Wells and Russell,to envisage nuclear fission as a weapon so horrible, thatthe World Federalist faction might succeed in makinggeneral war, such as the then recent World War I, soextremely unpalatable, that nations would abandon theirsovereignty for international arbitration, rather thanrisk such a war. This is the argument, as Russell restatedit in his contribution to the September 1946 edition ofThe Bulletin of the AtomicScientists.
In the latter piece, and in repeated, later publicaffirmations of the same intent, Russell posed two routesfor making the United Nations Organization (UNO) "theworld government," which various among the "cognitivelychallenged" members of our diplomatic and intelligenceestablishment, already believe the UNO to have become infact, today.
The first option which Russell proposed openly,beginning 1946--the "fast track"--was that theAnglo-Americans threaten to launch a "preventive nuclearwar" against the Soviet Union, with the intent actuallyto launch that war, should Josef Stalin's governmentrefuse to submit to the rule of the UNO as a de factoworld government under control of the Anglo-Americanleading families' establishment.
However, Russell noted, that if the Americans shouldlack the gumption to go to "preemptive nuclear war"against the Soviet Union, a second means to the sameultimate end would be required. Should the Soviet Uniondevelop a nuclear arsenal prior to the time that theU.S.A. summoned the combined arsenal and will to launch apreventive nuclear war, world government must be sought bya more round-about route. For this case, Russell proposedto deal with Stalin's prospective successors, to the sameultimate end as in the first option, but on termsostensibly less unfavorable to the Soviet state, if onlyduring the medium term. That second option is the historyof the 1956-1996 interval, to date, which is continuingeven after those events of 1989-1990, the which are deemedto have ended the so-called "Cold War."
During Stalin's remaining years, Moscow receivedRussell's proposal with the invective it invited. Moscow'ssoft-headedness toward Russell began, as N.S. Khrushchovconsolidated his regime, with the dispatch of four avowedKhrushchov representatives to a 1955 conference ofRussell's World Association of Parliamentarians for World Government. Thelatter four gentlemen took the occasion to dispel theearlier "misunderstandings," and to praise Russell mosteffusively, on behalf of General Secretary Khrushchov.This turn by Khrushchov, led to the British-sponsoredfounding of the Pugwash Conference, with sponsorship byCleveland, Ohio millionaire Cyrus Eaton.
The second, 1958 Pugwash Conference, at Quebec, gotdown to business: Russell's representative, ChicagoUniversity-based Dr. Leo Szilard, delivered the addresswhich earned Szilard the stage name of "Dr.Strangelove." The policy was, todevelop flotillas of thermonuclear-tipped intercontinentalballistic missiles, while also forbidding any deploymentof a strategic ballistic missile defense capable ofneutralizing a salvo of such missiles. To ensure that nonation were capable of resisting such a surprise attack,but only of nuclear retaliation, was deemed, by Russell etal., the necessary means of terror for establishing theUNO as the world government.
The two Pugwash conferences of 1958, led into theKhrushchov-Eisenhower meeting, referenced during that timeby the code-phrase, "The Spirit of Camp David." WhenKhrushchov staged a tantrum, to blow up the subsequent,Paris "summit," which had been hosted by France'sPresident Charles de Gaulle, the next turn became the 1962"Cuba Missiles Crisis," in which Bertrand Russell, fromLondon, played the role of intermediary between Moscow andWashington. From that 1962 episode, onward, especiallyafter the assassination of President John F. Kennedy,about thirteen months later, the kind of détentewhich Russell had prescribed, was already in place. Withthe assassination of Kennedy, the launching of protracted,New Age-style "cabinet warfare," in Indo-China, byMcGeorge Bundy and Robert S. McNamara, was virtuallyassured. From that point, to the attempted consolidationof the UNO's intended role, as "the world government,"was ostensibly but a matter of time. From that point on,weapons negotiations, especially the elimination of anylikelihood of effective strategic ballistic missiledefense, were the center-line of the highway leadingtoward world government.
With the adoption of the ABM treaty, the conditionswere created, under which, beginning 1975, this writergradually assumed a key role in the development of whatbecame the SDI proposal of March 1983. The first publicindications, that he might play a later role in shapingnational strategic policy, appeared during 1967-1969. In1975, he began the process of developing a militarycounter-policy to the 1972 ABM Treaty. By August 1979, hehad published, as a policy-paper of his 1980 campaign forthe Democratic Party's Presidential nomination, theprecursor of what became the initial version of the SDI, afew years later. A discussion of that policy, ofU.S.A.-Soviet cooperation in developing a system of mutualstrategic ballistic missile defense, was the featuredtopic of a February 1982-February 1983, exploratorydiscussion with the Soviet government, conducted in U.S.interest. Those "back-channel" meetings were key toPresident Reagan's affirming the outline given in thoseexploratory discussions, as the SDI announcement of March23, 1983.
To understand the place of that SDI policy within theGrand Strategy of the U.S.A., one must take into accountthe history of the way in which this transpired. The keyto understanding that aspect of the policy, is the factorswhich operated to bring this writer out of the establishedpublic anonymity of his early forties, to play the globalrole with which he has been occupied during the greaterpart of the recent two decades. This is a topic ofprofound and leading interest to anyone who wishes tounderstand the decisive role which the humble individualcitizen may rise to play, within the policy-shaping of asovereign nation-state republic, such as our own. Thecorrollary of that, is the fact that often, the strategicand related policies of a nation, like its leading worksof art, or scientific and related inventions, may dependupon the selection of an individual lifted out ofobscurity, as the circles of Alexander Dallas Bacheadopted Thomas Alva Edison. Indeed, itis to that kind of potential, that every future citizen ofthe republic ought to be educated. Whoever fails to graspthat point, does not understand the intent of our AmericanRevolution, or its Federal Constitution of 1787-1789.
In that sense, the pre-history of the SDI beganduring the interval 1934-1940, in a youth's preoccupationwith the writings of English, French, and Germanphilosophers of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries.Crucial were, first, the rejection of the empiricists, infavor of Gottfried Leibniz, and, second, the youth'sundertaking to defend Leibniz against theCritiques of Immanuel Kant. Although thatyouth was not to begin serious study of Plato until the1950s, by the end of adolescence, at the onset of the1940s, he was already, courtesy of Leibniz, committed tothe method of Plato. His future outlook was implicitlysettled by the experience of 1946-1948: sharing with hisfellow-veterans the momentary optimism of the war-timerise out of the depression, under President FranklinRoosevelt, and experiencing, next, the moral capitulationof the overwhelming majority of his fellow-veterans,during the "Truman years."
"McCarthyism," as we called it then, did not comeout of Appleton; it was not the secretion of that populistdemagogue, the Senator from Wisconsin. It was a symptom ofa popular sickness which was already in an advanced stage;it was an expression of the preceding, pervasive decay inthe public, and personal moral standards, of theoverwhelming majority of the present writer's generationof World War II veterans, and others. The onset andpersistence of that moral sickness of the overwhelmingmajority among his generation, during the 1946-1955interval, was the result of the transition from theoptimism of the war-time Roosevelt years, into thecultural pessimism of the depressing Truman years.
A leading relevant point, for understanding thesickness in U.S. strategic thinking today: It was thatmoral sickness of the overwhelming majority of thiswriter's post-war generation, which imbued their children,the so-called "Baby Boomers," with their own kind ofsusceptibility to those induced "New Age" sicknesses,that moral and intellectual decay, the which eruptedwithin the latter generation, during the course of the1960s.
The self-righteous apologists for theyouth-counterculture of the 1960s, spoke of the"materialism" of the parents. That charge, of"materialism," against the parents, was a smoke-screenfor the accusers' own immorality. Their parents suffered aflaw, but it was not, generally speaking, "materialism"of the Ayn Rand-Gary Cooper variety of Nietzschean. Theparents' flaw was the same moral cowardice which Germans,during the Nazi time, and, later, have attributed to the"neck-turners." Or, in American sociology, the same"neck-turner" immorality assumes the form of totallyamoral "other-directedness," by the scared rabbit insidethe "white collar" liberal. Among the apostate patriotsof the writer's World War II generation, it was: "Lookafter your career-opportunities, your pension, and stayingout of trouble; do anything, at any price, to 'stay out oftrouble.' " As this writer was eyewitness, during1966-1973, as a campus lecturer, to the onset of today'sNew Age sickness among the Baby Boomers: the transmissionof that same immoral tradition of the fathers and mothersto their sons and daughters, was reproduced with geneticperfection, as the campus "political correctness" ofboth the New Age "leftist," and the "ditto-headed" fanof George Bush's 1992 reelection-campaign, or of the 1994campaign of Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America"slate.
In 1948, in the time of the Truman-Dewey race for thePresidency, moral, and also intellectual mediocrityreigned. During the mid-1950s, finding small-partypolitics as morally bankrupt as major-party politics, thisthen-still-youthful product of philosophy left allpolitical activity, to concentrate on thosescience-related matters of economics which had alreadybecome his leading interest in life, during the course ofthe 1940s. It was that latter,scientific interest which, during the mid-1960s, turnedhim toward future political activity. Merely typical ofthat which provoked this interest in political activity,was a terrible 1964 tract, The TripleRevolution, of Robert Theobald, et al. The reactionto the 1960s onset of the New Age, was triggered by thewriter's battles against the hoaxes of "informationtheory," and, later, "systems analysis," since the1948-1952 interval. During 1963-1964, he recognized theonrushing New Age pathology, as the effort to develop amass-basis for the poisonous kinds of false ideas embeddedaxiomatically within "information theory" and "systemsanalysis." The form of political activity he chose, outof a sense of obligation to combat the "New Left"infection, was to take opportunities to teach economicsamong university students of the 1960s. It was throughthat teaching activity of the 1966-1973 interval, that thewriter's political role emerged.
In the Platonic method, of which Gottfried Leibniz isan exemplar, we rely upon Plato's method of hypothesis.By itself, the mere formal proof of a proposition has nodirect relationship to truth; truth and consistency areoften adversaries. The truth of an argument in defense ofany proposition, lies essentially in the truthfulness ofthe axiomatic assumptions underlying the entire system ofbelief, and method, of the person presenting, or acceptingthat argument. So, in assessing the beliefs of theempiricists, or in assessing the moral decay whichovertook most of his generation of war-veterans during thelate 1940s, the writer's experience in philosophy guidedhim to seek out the often hidden, underlying assumptionson which the relevant propositions depended.
The hoax called "information theory," like theclosely related cult of "systems analysis," is premisedupon false assumptions which are not only adducible, butreadily so, by anyone who has worked his way, step bystep, through the Kant-Leibniz issue. The history of theUnited States, since the 1901 assassination of PresidentWilliam McKinley, for example, has been the history of aninteracting succession of changes, both in underlyingaxiomatic assumptions, and in prevailing moods ofinstitutions and the population more generally. It hasbeen, thus, a history of what the London TavistockInstitute identifies as "cultural-paradigm shifts":changes within the set of hypotheses, or "culturalparadigm," which underlie those propositions likely to beaccepted by members of the relevant social stratum.
For one of the writer's generation, born during the1920s, the most conspicuous and generalized feature of theU.S. experience during the present century, is thesuccessive changes in "cultural paradigm" whichdistinguish each of the five adult generations he hasknown during his lifetime: those born during the 1860s,the generation of the World War I veterans, the generationof World War II veterans, the "Baby Boomers," and"Generation X." In a related way, the changes in U.S.military doctrine, from traditional to utopian, whichoccurred during the late 1940s and 1950s, and the changefrom science to sociology, even in the military academies,during the 1960s, are exemplary correlatives of the sameprocesses underlying the cultural-paradigm shifts from onepost-war generation to the next.
Objectively, one can readily demonstrate, that theshift to utopianism, in all facets of nationalpolicy-making, during the life of the "Baby Boomers," isclinically insane respecting its effects upon our nation,our posterity. The question is, how does one convince avictim of that insanity, that his belief is insane in itsconsequences? Unless he brings the relevant, underlying,pathological assumptions, of his induced culturalparadigm, into the conscious light of day, the victim willnot be able to free himself, or herself, from continuingto act out that insanity.
In history, such urgent changes in cultural paradigm("popular opinion"), rarely occur, except under thepressures of a severe crisis, the kind of crisis whichleaves undeniable, the fact that the present way ofthinking is not working. ("What's wrong with me, Doc?")For that reason, there is no criminal who can cause asmuch damage to society, during such a crisis, as aninfluential pollster, or the like; he is, in effect, thecriminal, who is trying to get the people back into thecomforts of their Titanic staterooms, at the time theship is already sinking. He is the imp of Mephistopheles'legion, who is insisting, "The people wish to hear thatall is well, and getting better," even when the disasteris virtually unstoppable.
Only one who stands outside a pathological popularopinion, and observes the shifts, from one such popularopinion to another, from a Socratic standpoint, is likelyto recognize what is really wrong with that society. Noone who shares popular opinion, especially one who isstrongly "other-directed," will be of much use to asociety seeking to learn the causes of a persistinggeneral distress. Thus, in time of crisis, thebureaucratic and other bodies of leading opinion, whichrepresent that same, established way of thinking aboutpolicy-shaping, which has supervised the slide into thecrisis, are the worst possible source of advice onchoosing means for dealing with any severe crisis which isrooted efficiently in those generally accepted, axiomaticassumptions which underlie existingpolicy-trends.
The problems of policy-making, which confront us intoday's national policy in general, are of that axiomaticnature for which the representatives of presentlyinstitutionalized conventional opinion are the leastuseful. Only a relative outsider could be useful, notbecause he or she is an outsider, but because the rare,competent authority probably will be found only among theoutsiders. That is the advantage of a society which basesthe design of its institutions on developing and nurturingthat kind of outsider, the which may become more or lessindispensable during the time those occupying positions ofpower must, habitually, tend to fail. All useful suchoutsiders, are of a philosophical disposition,specifically a Socratic one.
At the end of his military service, in 1946, thiswriter had already developed the kernel of what was, andremains, implicitly, a general strategic outlook for thepost-1945 U.S.A. It was his conviction, reenforced byexperience during post V-J Day military service in India, thatthe future security of the United States demanded that theU.S. act, not only to rid the world of the relics of theBritish, Dutch, French, and other empires, but to convertlarge portions of the industrial capacity built up forwar, into an outpouring of machinery, machine-tools, andso forth, for the agro-industrial progress of those formercolonial, or like nations, which desired such a strategiceconomic relationship with the U.S.A. It was also thiswriter's view then, that the post-war relationship of theU.S.A. to the Soviet Union, should be premised on the sameprospect of global economic reconstruction.
That was the outlook which he carried into the firstmonths and several years after his return to the U.S.A.The writer's perspective on that account, has not changedon these bench-mark points since then, to the presenttime. Nor, has there been any evidence presented, thusfar, which justifies proposing any different strategicoutlook for the U.S.A. than this one. That was theunderlying outlook which he brought to the one-semestercourses in economics, which he taught during the 1966-1973interval. That was the premise of his political outlook,then, and still today. That was, and remains theunderlying standpoint upon which the writer's approach todefining the problems of strategic ballistic missiledefense was premised, during 1977-1988.
That, the writer's viewpoint at the close of the war,and later, might be fairly described by the historian, aswhat Sir Henry A. Kissinger, like Sir Winston Churchill,had recognized, and hated, as "typically American." Itis a world-outlook which the writer, like many otherAmericans, shares with such Presidents as John QuincyAdams and Abraham Lincoln; it is typical of that outlookwhich American patriots have carried, repeatedly, intowars against our principal foe of these past centuries,the British monarchy. On record, it was the patrioticoutlook, on the post-war world, adopted by our war-timePresident, Franklin Roosevelt. Althoughthat attitude suffices to define the problem posed by theidea of strategic defense in the nuclear-weapons age, itdoes not, by itself, provide the concept of a realsolution to that problem. To solve that problem, thesolution must be approached by the kind of "maverick"which this writer has represented in his time.
A solution to this problem required a philosopherinflexible in his, or her devotion to the Socratic method,a philosophy hostile to those "cultural-paradigm shifts"which have come to dominate the fad-ridden popular opinionof the overwhelming majority of today's adult generations.The technical problem, which such a philosopher mustaddress, lies primarily within the domain of Leibniz'sscience of physical economy.
Those noted features of this writer's relevantexperience, bearing upon the development of SDI,illustrate the principled characteristics of the role ofthe individual: as a functional feature of the historicalprocess. So, as this example illustrates a principle: Ashistory generates the crises of society, so, hopefully,history also shapes the development of at least someindividuals, to ensure that someone implicitly embodyingthe means to solve the problems of crisis, will beavailable to the society which is wise enough to put asideestablished habits of opinion, to employ suchcontributions. So, for better orworse, history unfolds, and civilizations rise orcollapse. So, the writer came to present the relevantconcept of strategic ballistic missile defense, inU.S.A.-Soviet back-channel chats of 1982-1983.
Before turning to the broader strategic implicationsof a strategic ballistic-missile defense policy, focusupon the issue of the choice of required technology.
To present a competent overview of an SDI policy, orits successor, for the post-1991 world, one should beginwith reference to the unresolved policy-differencesbetween the Reagan era's two leading factions of strategicdefense, respecting which choice of technologicalprinciple SDI should follow. The discussion of today'spolicy should begin with focus upon the key issue of thosemid-1980s SDI policy-fights. What the advocates of"kinetic energy systems," such as the HeritageFoundation's late Lt.-Gen. (ret.) Daniel P. Graham, nevercomprehended about SDI, then, is the nature of thescientific principle governing the shifting technologicalmargin of advantage, between the strategic offense andstrategic defense, during the recent five and a halfcenturies. That principle of technology is crucial.Without addressing it, all attempts to formulate an SDI,or SDI-like policy, are amateurish folly.
Back then, during the Reagan administration days,three technological considerations were at the heart ofthe strategic defense program.
For the first of these three principles, the rule ofthumb was, that we must not only employ "new physicalprinciples," beyond anything employed in deployment ofthermonuclear ballistic missiles. We must select those newphysical principles which will enable us, asymptotically,to destroy a dollar's investment in strategic offense,with ten cents' investment in strategic defense.
The second rule of thumb, was that we must developthat new family of technologies in such a way, that theeconomy which produces such strategic defense, is richer,per capita, as a result of investing in such a defense,than it would have been, had it not invested. The secondtechnological consideration, was termed the "economicspillover" benefit; the model of comparative reference,was provided by a 1976 Chase Econometrics study. Chase hadreported that the U.S. national economy received anestimated $14 of increased income for each dollar spent onthe Kennedy "crash" aerospace program. The developmentof SDI must be based upon such a "crash program" model.
The third rule of thumb, was the principle ofdiscounting for an accelerating process of technologicalattrition: that accelerating the rate of technologicalprogress in a "crash program" mode, would alsoaccelerate the rate at which new technologies of this yearbecame relatively obsolete five years or so ahead. No onechoice of technology would provide a durable strategicdefense; a series of successively more advancedtechnologies, was required. The SDI policy which thiswriter proposed in 1982, anticipated the completion offour successive technological phases of enhancement duringthe two decades to follow (were a "crash program" setinto motion then): Mark I, Mark II, Mark III, Mark IV.After the introduction of an operating Mark I phase, thetax-revenue growth from "spillover" of new technologiesinto the national economy, should more than cover thecosts of generating Marks II, III, and IV.
To portray the mathematical-physics image of such athree-fold economic-technological requirement, requiresemphasis on the combined contributions of two leadingNineteenth-Century scientists, Bernhard Riemann and GeorgCantor. The crucial conception is that of Riemann'sfamous, 1854 habilitation dissertation.To satisfy the need to generalize the implications ofRiemann's relativistic notion of those changes in Gaussiancurvature of physical space-time, produced bytechnological attrition, we should adopt the notion ofmathematical (transfinite) cardinality supplied byCantor. Although this writer hasexplicated this use of the related notions of Gaussiancurvature and cardinality in numerous published locations,it is of such crucial importance to our subject-matter,that a restatement of the relevant definitions must besupplied here.
Riemann's habilitation dissertation is crucial forsupplying the science of physical-economy its uniquelyrational definition of the origins of both increases inproductivity and the production of profit. That is toemphasize, that the "ecological" distinction ofprinciple, between mankind and the beasts, is reflected inthe increase of, combined: the potential relativepopulation-density of our species, a correlated trend ofimprovements in demographic characteristics of householdsand persons, and, an improved quality of individual andfamily life. This improved performance, reflects theefficiency of the creative powers of cognition, unique tothe individual member of our species, through which validoriginal discoveries of natural principle are generated byone person, and those discoveries replicated in the mindsof others. The willful promotion of this process, is thesole source of continuable increase in the per-capitaproductive powers of labor, and in the generation of amargin of "profit," as the "free energy" in excess ofthe physical-economic "energy of the system" of thatentire physical-economic process considered as afunctional unity.
This characteristic distinction of the human speciesis also key for the generalized comprehension of thehistorical development of mathematics and mathematicalphysics. Every valid, axiomatic-revolutionary discovery ofa physical principle, generates a characteristic paradox,and a corresponding formal discontinuity, within anyformal mathematics. That paradox is keyfor understanding the related matters, of both the specialimportance of Riemann's initial representation of generalrelativity, and Cantor's related notion of the implicitenumerability of densities of mathematicaldiscontinuities. These considerationsare key for mastering the problems of representing thethree cited rules of thumb relevant to an SDI policy.
The mathematics associated with a formal-deductiveversion of Euclidean geometry, or the algebraicmathematics derived from that geometric model, is theprototype for what we term here a "theorem-lattice." Itis the fallacy represented by any such formal mathematics,or mathematical physics, which is the pivotal subject ofRiemann's 1854 habilitation dissertation. Riemann's focusupon the physical fallacies of Aristotelean and empiricisttheorem-lattices, there, is indispensable forconceptualizing, among other things, those measurablefunctions underlying technological progress andphysical-economic profit.
As the case of formal Euclidean geometry illustratesthe indicated paradox, any set of mutually consistenttheorems, depends implicitly upon the adoption of anunderlying set of interdependent axioms, postulates, anddefinitions. In its first approximation, the ClassicalGreek term hypothesis signifies nothing other than suchan underlying set of assumptions. Thus, the set of axioms,postulates, and definitions of any logical system, such asa formalist Euclidean geometry, or generally acceptedclassroom algebra, constitute the principal hypothesisfrom which all newtonian physics was derived. The kernelof that hypothesis, is the arbitrary, and falseassumption, that space is extended, without bounds, and inperfect continuity, in three mutually independent sensesof direction, and time in one, additional such sense ofdirection.
The problem which Riemann addressed in 1854, had beenposed by the intersection of two developments of theSeventeenth Century: Christiaan Huygens' study ofisochronicity in the gravitational field, and theimplications, as developed by Huygens, Jean Bernoulli,and G. Leibniz, of Ole Rømer's astronomically measuredestimate for the rate associated with the notion of aretarded potential in the propagation of light.Bernoulli's experimental demonstration, that thegeneralized refraction of light and isochronicitycoincided, is the reference-point for the emergence of anotion of generalized physical relativity.
The starting-point for Riemann's 1854 dissertation,is that Descartes' notion of space-time is false toreality: that, physics is not the movement and interactionof bodies within Euclidean space-time. Isochronicity andthe relative speed of light, for example, involvediscoveries of measurably validated physical principles,which are associated with that notion of extension whichwe attribute to independent senses of direction in spaceand time. These discovered principles function, thus, as"dimensions," in respect to the measurement of afunctional principle of extension, and, the fact that suchextension is of the form of an "independent dimension,"in relation to similarly defined notions of space-time orother "dimensions."
If we, then, attempt to apply the so-called"Pythagorean" metric to the physical space-time composedof all of these participating "dimensions," as it wereapplied to a hypothetically Euclidean, or Cartesianspace-time, interesting results appear. The physicalspace-time of "n dimensions" behaves as one might expecta space-time to do; however, the physical space-timemeasurements obtained experimentally, do accord with the"n dimension" model, but not with a Cartesian orNewtonian type. Thus, for reasons sufficiently indicatedby Riemann, it is said, that the measurable characteristicdifference (e.g., neo-Pythagorean metric) between aphysical space-time of "n dimensions," and one of "n+1dimensions," fits the notion of a generalized Gaussiancurvature of physical space-time.
The burden of our definitions here, is that thisconception supplies the basis for speaking, more or lessfluently, of one physics as being more "powerful" thananother, or of one mathematical-physics as representing ahigher "cardinality," in Cantor's sense, thananother. These are the notions requiredfor intelligent consideration of the three SDI rules ofthumb identified above.
In summary, a durable qualitative advantage of thedefense over the offense, requires a higher physicalgeometry for the defense, than the offense: a margin oftechnological advantage of one, or more, discovered, validphysical principles. For example, among the requirementsis, obviously, that the principle employed by thestrategic defense relies upon a principle enablingapproximately an order of magnitude more "energy-fluxdensity" applied, functionally, to the destruction of themissile or war-head, than that "energy-flux density"embodied in deploying a lumbering thermonuclear missile.
The very nature of the physics involved, signifiesthat the cost of producing and deploying sufficienthigh-speed interceptor rockets to destroy an averagethermonuclear missile or war-head, must put the costs ofstrategic defense, by such modes, way above the costs ofthe relevant strategic offense. Only when a costattributed to the effect of one such warhead's reachingits target, is factored, as a potential cost-saving, intothe deployment of the interceptor, does an economicrationale for such an interceptor system come into view.
However, even then, the strategic defense loses. Inan arms race, with defense on one side, and offense on theother, the relatively cheaper offense can supersaturatethe defense much more rapidly, and extensively, than themore costly defense might attempt to match the threatenedassault. If effective defenses are developed on thebasis of laser and particle-beam technologies, forexample, the factors of speed, energy-flux density, and,ultimately, cost, are on the side of the strategicdefense.
Then, shift the picture, to the second rule of thumb:away from the notion of societies with relatively fixedmilitary-allocable incomes. Consider the effect ofmilitary expenditures upon the total and per-capita,physical-economic income of the society. Consider thecase, that the more we spend upon military expenditures,the greater the available per-capita income of the societybecomes. The latter is the model represented by theKennedy "crash" aerospace program of the 1960s. Thelatter case, the "technology spillover" model, succeedsonly if the military research and development is producinglaboratory proof-of-principle models, which can serve asthe basis for introducing more advanced and powerfultechnologies into the design of machine-tools andproducts. Contrary to the Heritage Foundation approach: Nosustainable rate of expandable economic benefit can beobtained from use of military designs based uponclassified-secret, "off the shelf" technologies.
This brings us to the third rule of thumb:technological attrition. In any anticipation ofpossibility for serious conflict, the impulse is to matchevery advance in the defense with enhancement of theoffense, and vice versa. The higher the rate ofdevelopment, the higher the rate of generalizedtechnological attrition. This can not be sustained withouta "science-driver crash program," of the type of theManhattan Project or the most intense phases of aerospacedevelopment, as during the 1960s. Such a military programcould be sustained economically, only if thetechnology-driven rate of increase of productive powers oflabor is being pushed by directed "spillovers" of newtechnologies, at high rates, out of the machine-tool andrelated channels of the military programs.
Unless one is prepared to employ a highly dirigisticmodel of interlinked monetary, credit, andphysical-economic policies, for both the public andprivate sectors of the national economy, such a programwere virtually impossible to sustain. A sophistry ofexaggeration was used, then, by some devotees of AdamSmith, to the effect, that the only conditions under whichsuch a model could be sustained, would be a"war-economy." Freeing the subject matter of anyconcession to such sophist's criticism: In fact, such amodel were likely to be adopted, either when a nation isfaced with a perceived threat of warfare, or, underconditions of mobilization for recovery from an economicdepression, or, a combination of both conditions (as theU.S.A. during 1939-1943). We are confronted, globally,with the second condition today, hopefully not the third.
During 1985 and early 1986, this writer introducedthe proposal, that the SDI ought to be subsumed, at leastin significant degree, under a long-range space program. Acommitment to the establishment of a science-city colonyon Mars, after forty years of preparatory stages, was thespecific proposal made. The net effect of such aspace-oriented program, would be the immediate benefits tothe Earth's economy, of every technology developed as aprerequisite for each step of preparation for the Marscolonization program.
Today, the need for such a space program has beenincreased by the disastrous trends in economy over therecent ten years. The mustering of the shrinkingcapabilities for such a program, around the world as awhole today, is desperately wanted, to create thatfountain of technological progress, without whosespill-over, we shall not be capable of meeting themounting accumulation of economic crises around the world.
With the foregoing considerations in view, PresidentClinton's observations on the relative technologicaladvantage of future SDI commitments, over the Republicans'proposals, were plainly defensible ones, much more to thepoint than Clinton's critics have been able to recognize,thus far. Under present global circumstances, the optimalapproach to strategic ballistic missile defense, is nota compartmentalized program of military SDI research,development, and deployment. We must not, certainly, wastemoney on the kinds of SDI projects formerly favored by theHeritage Foundation and its factional allies. What werequire, is the kind of "crash program" which willsatisfy all among those three classes of requirements wehave identified above.
Not only would every required feature of a future SDIprogram best be produced as a by-product of a forty-yearcrash-program commitment to preparing the establishment ofa science-city colony on Mars, no effective SDI packagecould be developed as well, or as quickly, except as aby-product of such a space program.
At this real-time historical juncture, we mustdistinguish between a policy of affording advantage tothe strategic defense, over the strategic offense, and apurchase of a specific array of hardware for meetingsuch a strategic defense requirement. We must be committedto strategic defense, as we were not under Henry A.Kissinger's Pugwash-designed SALT and ABM treaties; wemust be committed to developing the kind of research anddevelopment program which solves the problems of militarydesigns implicit in high rates of technological attrition.Presently, the latter is best satisfied as an envisagedby-product of international cooperation in aMars-colonization-steered program of exploration andcolonization beyond Earth orbit. That space program buildsthe civilian-economy "shopping center" from which themilitary requisitions the future specific technologies ofrequired strategic defense technologies, whenever that maybe required.
In the meantime, the "science driver" space programmeets the requirements of rules of thumb two and three.
A deadly nightmare has gripped U.S. strategicthinking, since about the same time, during the 1960s,when the invasion of sociology displaced the rationalityof science at West Point MilitaryAcademy. The lunatic feature of thatobsession, is the misshaping of the mind of most putativedefense specialists by misanthrope Thomas Hobbes'definition of "human nature." The outcome of thatperversion, is a recurring nightmare. The characteristicof this recurring nightmare in policy-shaping, is aderangement in what passes for official and other U.S.strategic thinking, a dysfunctional state ofmind which is fairly described as asports fan's fantasy-dream-world, functioning assubstitute for reality.
The outcome of the blend of sociology and "systemsanalysis," is a view of strategy which is recognizable asa New Age version of "cowboys and Indians," playedchiefly with video-games technology, and, the odd bit ofspoon-bending added in for spice. In that New Agenightmare arcade, misnamed "strategy," theprofessional's hands, acting on the real world, arecontrolled by a mind which is trapped in thevirtual reality of Hobbesian, utopian fantasies. Theresults of that schizophrenic practice, were likely tobring about, within the domain of reality, a livingnightmare as deadly to the player as to the "sand box"upon which he perpetrates his tricks. Indeed, preciselythat nightmarish result, so accomplished, is the "NewDark Age" into which the presently governingmass-news-media and other circles of this entire planetappear about to plunge this planet, by no later than theend of the present decade--that is to say, all among uswho survive that long: given the present economic,epidemic disease, and budgetary trends.
Above, we reviewed the technological implications ofa strategic ballistic missile defense. Now, let uscompress all functional notions of military means, assuch, into a single, relatively small object; let us callthat object "weapon," signifying "preparation for, andconduct of warfare." Let us shift our focus to the livingorganism whose hand holds that weapon, the organism called"society," signifying "the making of history." Let us,thus, locate "strategy" as a characteristic of thatliving organism, and the weapon as but a tool which servesthat organism's interest. "Strategy" for today is thendefined as a conception not-inconsistent with what ElliottRoosevelt, in fresh recollection, described, in 1946, ashis father's, President Franklin Roosevelt's, strategy forthe post-war world. Adopt that Roosevelt strategy as the"grand strategy" of reference to be implemented. Forthat case, "the weapon" is a means which must be used,and developed, only to further the purpose of thatstrategy, and must never be used in a manner whichnullifies, or corrodes the realization of that purpose.
Thus, the idea of a purely military strategy, isexposed as a utopian fantasy, a fool's mission.
Since the excuse presented for President Truman'sfiring of General MacArthur, the popular myth is, that"the civilian command must overrule the military." Thatis a sophistry; those words were a crude, press-agent'sfallacy of composition, designed for the ears of thegaping-mouthed credulous. The truth is, that it is the"non-military" context, such as that which ElliottRoosevelt describes as his father's strategy for thepost-war world, which must define the development andemployment of military institution and its mission. That"weapon" is an institution and a mission implicit withinthe Preamble of our original FederalConstitution. The untruthfulness of theMacArthur-firing myth, is that President Truman'sself-serving sophistry evades the reality, that should thecivilian command issue orders to the military, whichviolate the relevant "grand strategic" imperative, thecivilian command is constitutionally impeachable for"high crimes and misdemeanors," on that account.
President Truman, under the mind-bending influence ofLondon's asset, the Harriman cabal controlling Truman'sadministration from the inside, changed the rules ofengagement of the U.S. military arm, and did this in theinterest of a consideration directly contrary to ourConstitution, by action in the interest of development ofthe ability of the United Nations Organization, step-wise,to assume the powers of world government. What Trumanintroduced, however unwitting of this implication he mighthave been, was another crucial step toward destroying thesovereignty of our republic. For that Truman wasaccountable, to the relevant constitutional agency; thetrouble was, that constitutional agency was asleep at theswitch. In the toll of the 1960s Indo-China bloodbath, andotherwise, we have paid dearly for failing to impeachTruman's firing of MacArthur.
Now, examine this, the overriding authority of"grand strategy," such as that implicitly outlined inElliott Roosevelt's book, in the terms of referenceemployed to define a proper SDI policy. Examine this inreference to the historically determined missionpermeating the origins of the U.S.A.
Mankind, as Genesis 1:26-30, and Plato'sand the New Testament's notion of agapedefine mankind, is the purpose and measure of ourstrategy. Summarily: Man is made in the image of God, aclaim, by Genesis, for which we possess scientificallyverifiable, conclusive proof, even had those verses fromGenesis never been uttered. We know, scientifically,that we are in the image of God, by virtue of uniqueendowment of the members of our species with thatcognitive potential for valid, axiomatic-revolutionarydiscoveries in natural science and Classical art-forms, bymeans of which the potential relative population-densityof the species is increased, again, and again. Thus, manis given implicit "dominion" over the universe.
The relevant faculty, by means of which that dominionis achieved, is the capacity of the developed individualmind, within its own sovereign precincts, for generating,replicated or original, successive suchaxiomatic-revolutionary discoveries of scientific andClassical-artistic principle, the which are the solesource of the increase of man's dominion in the universe.The empirical proof of this potency, is the increase ofthe potential relative population-density of civilizedhumanity, through the fostering and employment of combinedscientific and Classical-artistic modes of progress inefficient ideas. It is that sovereign cognitive potentialof every individual human being, which is referenced, whenwe speak of man as in the image of God, with dominion overall else in the universe.
That understanding of man, is not optional. It is notthe just liberty of one culture to believe this, andanother not. Cultures which do not accept this scientifictruth, on which all decent human existence depends, aremorally and otherwise inferior to those cultures whichaccept this individual's authority and responsibility forcontributing to enhancing the condition of our species asa whole. As the relevant facts, respecting this individualpotential, demonstrate, there is but one human race, so,the best of all cultures expresses an approximation of asingle, global culture, on which all human progressconverges.
The very notion of a distinction between truth andfalsehood, or, justice and injustice, depends uponacceptance of those notions of but a single human race,and a corresponding variability of relative truthfulnessor untruthfulness, relative to fostering of rates ofincrease of potential relative population-density, amongthe characteristic beliefs and practices of differentnational and regional sub-cultures. The notions of truthand justice depend upon a single, universal standard, bywhich the differentiable qualities of truthfulness andappropriateness of the contributions of one sub-culture toworld-culture may be assessed. Under such a standard, onemay assess the truthfulness of each and all cultures'adopted opinion on any universal matter, and can alsorecognize the legitimacy of certain differentiaspecifica of some cultures, as appropriate to thehistorically determined reality in which the members ofthat culture must approach the realization of truth andjustice. The two qualities, truth respecting universals,and appropriateness (or, inappropriateness) of culturaldifferentia, are not at odds with one anotherintrinsically, any more than reaching a commondestination, the one by land, the other by sea, are atodds in respect to the means available to each. Truth isconceived, thus, as an ecumenical principle of knowledge.
However, it is not sufficient to realize so-called"objective," e.g., formal, notions of truth and justice.From Plato, civilized mankind has had a cognizable insightinto a special quality of emotional correlative for theprocess of achieving truth and justice. This emotionalcorrelate of the act of generating, or replicating valid,axiomatic-revolutionary discoveries of principle inscience and Classical art-forms, is termed agape byPlato. Plato identifies this, in an exemplary way, as apassion intrinsic to realizing justice, and truth.
In all civilized statecraft, Plato's adopted notionof agape, is crucial in defining the appropriatecondition of the individual and the individual's relationsto all mankind. The adoption of Plato's notionof agape, by the Christian New Testament,as in Paul's celebrated I Corinthians 13, is atthe center of the efficient contributions of laterEuropean civilization to the development of the social andpolitical institutions of mankind. It is from these twinsources, of Greece and the Israel of the ChristianApostles, that every good, the which has been a uniquecontribution to mankind by western European civilization,has been accomplished. From Classical Greece, especiallythe faction of Solon and Plato, Europe acquired scienceand civilization; from such exemplary writings asGenesis 1 and I Corinthians 13, wederived a realization of Plato's desire for a worldgoverned by agape.
In this sense, with these principled qualifications,mankind is the purpose and the measure of man'sknowledgeable practice in the universe. It is from thisconsideration, that all competent notions of the "grandstrategy" of these United States are derived.
That strategy is history, properly defined. Theobject of history, is to produce, sustain, and developforms of society which cohere functionally with thatstrategy. The principal functional conditions which mustbe satisfied, are three: universal education, universalopportunity to participate in the production and benefitsof scientific, technological, and cultural progress, andthe right to participate cognitively in the re-creation anddevelopment of those ideas upon which the nation'sefficient self-government of the progress of the humancondition, continues to rely.
History to date, has been the struggle to bring theuniversalized state of knowledge, of practice, andindividual participation, within each society, out of thebarbaric and other political conditions in which the greatmajority of mankind was subjected to a condition of lifedescribable as the fate of "human cattle." Universalityof participation in cognitive education, in a technologyof practice consistent with universal progress inknowledge, and of efficient participation, by everyindividual, in society, as a true citizen, has been theminimally required condition toward which history, untilnow, has moved.
The establishment of the U.S.A. as a constitutionalFederal Republic of 1789, has been the most concentratedexpression of that historical mission, to date. Thisnation was created, with the sponsorship of the best ideasand best minds of Europe, to establish a place of refugeand development for the institution of the modernnation-state republic, under conditions, during theSeventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, that the forcesaligned with the evil institutions of landed and financieraristocracy, had placed in jeopardy the possibility ofsecuring such sovereign nation-state republics withinEurope.
Admittedly, the English-speaking colonies in NorthAmerica were polluted with imported elements of landedaristocratic and financier-oligarchical practices. It wasthose corrupt elements within the colonial population,which provided the treasonous Tories of the lateEighteenth Century, and the treasonous opium-traffickersand slave-owners of the NineteenthCentury. Despite that pollution, fromthe beginning of the colonization, the pre-1689 history ofthe Massachusetts Bay Colony, and the similar earlyhistory of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, exemplify thestruggle for universal education, for a non-oligarchicalform of monetary-credit and economic system, and forscientific and technological progress in infrastructure,agriculture, and manufactures.
These principles of universal public education,universalized scientific and technological progress,public development of basic economic infrastructure, arethe correlates of a society in which all adult persons arefull citizens, in which no class distinctions arepermitted, in which only a single race, the human race, isrecognized, and in which the nation and its state are theproperty of all citizens: the departed, the living, andposterity alike. These arecharacteristic distinctions of the modern nation-staterepublic, which set us into absolute opposition to thoseoligarchical forms of society, the which are derived fromthe Babylonian root, which had dominated, and pollutedEuropean civilization, until the beginning of the modernnation-state under France's King Louis XI.
If we discount the role of our nation's treasonoussocial strata, the additional, special importance of theUnited States has been: During times when all of Europecontinued to be polluted by relics of the Babylonianoligarchical tradition, as the Anglo-Dutch oligarchytypifies such continuing pollution today, the UnitedStates has been able to maintain contemptuousness towardall pretenses of titled nobility, toward landed orfinancier oligarchy, and to similar notions of race andclass. This admittedly tainted, butdistinctive degree of achievement, made us, by process ofelimination, the torch-bearer of freedom for all mankind,during most of the decades since the beginning of ourstruggle for freedom, against the "Brutish" monarchy andHoly Alliance alike.
So considered, history warns us, that the greatdanger to our republic, and its citizens, comes from thoserelics of oligarchism which still today, pollute thecontinent of Europe, and elsewhere. This pollution existsas a threat to us, chiefly to the degree the Anglo-Dutchfinancier-oligarchy exerts a strong political, financial,and cultural influence upon nations, including ourown. This planet will never be safe forour republic, for our citizens, until that evil relic ofBabylon is removed, in every continent, from the positionin which it might continue to exert overreaching power, orresume such power.
We do not adopt the prerogative of making war againstthese adversaries at whim. We prefer that the necessaryend be accomplished by other means; but, we do not desirethat end less, merely because we lack the inclination torealize that result by the imposed force of aggressivewarfare.
Thus, the elementary basis for the strategy of theUnited States is to ensure the safety, within thisplanet's life as a whole, for the continued existence ofthe U.S.A. as a perfectly sovereign nation-state republiccommitted to those (indicated) historical missions forwhich it was founded. This strategy will be efficient,only if it is premised on a commitment, not only to defendthat U.S.A. and its institutions, but premised upon acomprehension of the principles which underlie ourEighteenth-Century forefathers' wise choice of theinstitutions of national sovereignty, and universalcitizenship of our adult population.
The means by which we seek to accomplish ourstrategic ends, are those implicit in Elliott Roosevelt'sreferenced book. Our preferred means are, first, to employthe adversaries' induced fear of our resolve and potentialpower, to dissuade them from making war against us, and,also, to build a concert of political power among nationswhich share our strategic objective. Our course of actionis, negatively, to rid this planet of those institutionsupon which the continued power of the enemy depends.Positively, we act to promote the insurgency ofagape, through fostering those activities whichawaken this insurgency from those places where it might beslumbering. Those notions, with Franklin Roosevelt'spost-war outlook in the corner of his eye, were thegoverning considerations in this writer's 1977-1982devising of the referenced strategic ballistic missiledefense policy. These same notions, under the alteredcircumstances of a later decade, are the proper axiomsunderlying a strategic defense policy for today.
Thus, the higher strategy, for which military meansand institutions must exist only as servants, is that typeof "grand strategy" illustrated by President Roosevelt'spost-war vision. The weapon of this grand strategy, is notthe power to kill today's chosen potential nationaladversary, but the evocation of the power to ennoble him,and, also, ourselves, that he might be a prospectiveadversary no longer. In terms of the monotheistictradition of European civilization, grand strategy relieschiefly not upon such oligarchical conceits as crusadesand inquisitions, but upon the weapons of evangelization,atonement, and redemption; in the word of Plato and theApostle Paul, it relies chiefly upon the power ofagape, the power of the impulse associated withcreative reason.
In short: Today, even the imps of Hell may shriek,chiefly in the British Commonwealth's special interest, of"human rights," from the pulpits of world government'snon-governmental organizations (NGOs).There will be no justice without a passion for truth, andno passion for either, without agape as Plato definesit. Without the existence, and persistence of an efficientpassion for justice and truth, all talk of "humanrights" is the ineffable babbling of a foolish puppet ina British oligarchical intelligence service's scripting ofsome Grand Guignol.
The central subject-matter of "grand strategy,"must be, therefore: How might the power of the state beemployed, to foster the force of agape? Someexamples, taken somewhat out of chronological order,illustrate this point.
During April 1975, the present writer travelled toBaghdad and elsewhere, to pose consideration of the factthat Israel and its Arab neighbors shared a vital commoninterest in the prospect for the physical-economicdevelopment of the Middle East region as a whole. Withoutsuch a vital quality of common interest, the writerproposed, all talk of purely "political solutions" wasimpotent prattle. A broad river of rage, much wider thanJordan, had been unleashed throughout the region, by thesmirking British Raj. This had stirred up violent,deep-rooted, base passions for revenge, a river of ragewhich could not be bridged by anything so trivial, soimpotent, as a typical diplomat's mewling proposal of"political solutions." Only a powerful interest, strongenough to touch commonly the deepest passions respectingposterity, among both Arab and Israeli, could provide themotive for durable peace throughout the region. Then,during April 1975, and since, the best Arab and Israeliconsciences concurred in that estimate; the struggle forsuch a just peace continues, with continued deadlyopposition, notably from London, London's Sir Henry A.Kissinger, London's asset Ariel Sharon, London's Arabassets, and the World Bank.
This approach to the Middle East crisis, had beenrefined in the U.S. experience of 1964-1972, inIndo-China. While President Franklin Roosevelt had lived,Vietnam patriot Ho Chi Minh had been a collaborator of theU.S.A., and of the U.S.'s OSS organization, in theSoutheast Asia region. With Roosevelt's death, PresidentTruman's administration betrayed our Vietnam allies toLondon's French imperialist stooges. That betrayal of ourally, compounded by many new U.S. diplomatic atrocities,had turned the ally into an adversary: Betrayed Ho ChiMinh had led his forces into the camp of the so-called"Soviet bloc."
That history of the Anglophile U.S. government'sbetrayal of a war-time ally, had been key to U.S. policytoward Indo-China, during the Eisenhower 1950s. After theestablishment of the Russell-Szilard doctrine, as"détente," in the wake of the 1962 "Cuba MissilesCrisis," the avowed higher apes (and horse-appendages) ofthe British monarchy, and their lackeys in Wall Streetcircles, had a new reason for launching a prolonged,no-win cabinet warfare in Southeast Asia. With"détente" fully emplaced, the doctrine of "strategicconflict managed below the threshold of nuclearconflict," was applied to Asia with full force. It was apurely British policy, with all the disgusting qualitiesinhering in that; it was "cabinet warfare," like thelater, drug-funded, surrogate war in Afghanistan, or theAnglo-American orchestration of the prolonged, 1980sIraq-Iran war, conducted for no leading purpose but toorchestrate the environment of Anglo-American diplomacywith Moscow and Beijing.
The writer knew, or otherwise correctly understoodmuch of this at the relevant times. It was the legacy ofimperial colonalism, in Asia and elsewhere, which must beaddressed, and also the legacy of the Trumanadministration's betrayal of our war-time Vietnam ally.This writer had proposed, in various papers publishedduring the interval 1967-1969, a Franklin Roosevelt-like,reconstruction-based, alternative approach to the issuesof conflict in Southeast Asia. This, in turn, was anextension of his general proposal for ending the legacy ofcolonialism, through economic development cooperation.This policy of the 1960s and 1970s, was, in turn, anoutgrowth of the strategic perspective which this writerhad carried out of India, shortly after the close of WorldWar II.
The function of the principles underlying theestablishment of the European, perfectly sovereignnation-state republic, beginning the France of Louis XI,is to establish the existence of true, universal, adultcitizenship, of all persons, without regard to supposeddistinctions of race or class. This requires, theundermining, and progress toward dissolution of, theinstitutions of, and notions of special property rightassociated with the institutions of landed aristocracy andfinancial oligarchy. However, necessary as those measuresare, they will not succeed by themselves. The successfuldevelopment and continued existence of the sovereignnation-state republic, as an institution, depend,unconditionally, upon the fostering of agape as thecharacteristic feature of the relationship between theindividual person and the society as a whole. It alsorequires, the extension of this same principle to definingthe relations within a globally extended community ofsovereign nation-state republics. Thus, agape is theprincipal element of hypothesis underlying all enterprisesof that republican cause.
The writer's design of his 1982-1983 proposal forU.S.A.-Soviet collaboration, in shifting from the lunacyof the "MAD" (Mutual and Assured Destruction) dogma ofRussell, Szilard, McNamara, Bundy, Kissinger, et al., tostrategic ballistic missile defense, based upon whatKissinger's ABM diplomacy had labelled "new physicalprinciples," was premised on the same considerations.
The relevant considerations posed in thoseexploratory chats with the Soviet representative werethese: the United States (and also western continental Europe,and the developing sector generally, too) was being ruinedby the mid-1960s shift into "post-industrial"utopianism; the Soviet economy, and the Comecon economies,too, were being ruined similarly. The writer imparted hisbelief that the Comecon sector then (early 1983) wasapproximately five years away from a potential economicdisaster. Both superpowers, and others, neededdesperately, a stimulant to technology-driven growthanalogous to the economic impact of the Kennedy "crashprogram" for the manned Moon landing. Cooperation indevelopment of the technologies needed for strategicballistic missile defense, would provide that neededtechnological stimulant to all participating economies, ifthe policy of fostering "spillovers" into the civilianeconomy were adopted, too.
To shift from an adversarial, to a cooperativerelationship, in those instances a prolonged, deeplyembedded hostility has been previously inculcated, apowerful incentive of deep-going self-interest must beprovided. Outwardly, effective incentives for suchpurposes place the emphasis on physical-economic benefits(as distinct from relatively superficial, financial ones).The physical-economic benefits are important, but thematerialists and empiricists greatly overrate such"incentives" as such. The essential thing is not thematerial reward, as such; the essential thing is theactivation of agape; the public identification of aneeded material gain with the activation of the cognitiveproceses on which scientific and technological progressdepends absolutely, is the key to achieving the desiredstrategic effect.
What today's typical think-tank circuit"strategist" seems incapable of grasping, with all ofhis prattling excursions through positivist varieties ofstatistics, sociology, and psychology, is the fact thatthe human individual's distinguishing characteristic isman as the sole being in creation whose existence dependsupon ideas--ideas in the sense Plato defines ideas. Itis through the efficient impact of more advanced ideas(e.g., valid, axiomatic-revolutionary discoveries ofphysical principle), that man increases his power overnature, per capita, that the productive powers of laborare increased, and so on. It is in the state of affairs inwhich society is motivated by the development of suchefficient ideas, that the sense of agape isrelatively the strongest, and that the character of theindividual, and the nation are at their relative best.
It is the mobilization of such approaches to nationaland global affairs, and the strategic defense of suchapproaches, which is the foundation of a well-definedstrategy for U.S. national security. It is the employmentof those forms of human activity which emphasize thestimulation of agapic passions, which foster thedevelopment and strengthening of the institutions of thesovereign nation-state republic. These strategic policiesare therefore the proper yardstick by which thesuitability of a proposed U.S. strategic doctrine ismeasured. Those were the principles underlying thiswriter's design for what was presented as "SDI."
Today, the circumstances differ. The Soviet Union isno more. The military power of Russia is a fraction ofwhat Soviet potential had been. Nonetheless, the worldtoday is gripped by a crisis which, in its own way, ismore deadly than any manifest military threat-potential ofthe 1970s or 1980s. The threat is of an abrupt collapseinto a prolonged "New Dark Age," echoing somewhat the"New Dark Age" of Europe's mid-Fourteenth Century, butmore profound, probably more prolonged, and moredevastating in its material effects for humanity as awhole.
Unless the present onrush of a globalmonetary-financial disintegration-process is defeated,that "New Dark Age" is the likely result, beginningbefore the close of this decade, and continuing overperhaps two generations or more. In that case, given theimpact which the so-called "ecology" movement hasachieved, since 1961, to date, thelikely outcome would be a collapse of worldpopulation-levels, from more than five billions, to evensignificantly less than one billion, over the course oftwo generations. In that case, infant mortalities would becatastrophic, and adult life-expectancies in the order ofthe worst regions of Sub-Sahara Africa today.Civilization, as we have employed the term during recentcenturies, would be virtually extinct. Ultimately, thedestruction, wrought by a brew which combines interacting,hyperbolic proliferation of famine, human and animalpopulations' epidemics and pandemics, pestilences, andsylvatics, would be as great as, or greater than, ageneral thermonuclear war.
During the onset of conditions of desperation sounleashed, all varieties of military threats, and others,are likely. Thus, the need for a present-day version ofwhat was originally proposed as SDI, is greater than ever.However, given the reality of the situation, such astrategic defense policy must be seen and applied in anall-sided way, as a strategic defense of civilizedculture, first, and, also, as a subsidiary function, amilitary strategic defense.
In the practice of physical economy, it is necessaryto express policy in the implicitly measurable terms of an"allocation function." In the economics of strategicballistic missile defense, that allocation functionassumes a form fairly described as a series of "Leontiefinput-output" matrices, which, as a series, correspondsto that ordering of transformations, from each table toits successor, which reflects the impact of the series oftechnological and related changes, on the structure of onetable, relative to its predecessor. In the case of changesoccurring in a series whose characteristic feature is thetechnological impact of valid discoveries of physicalprinciple, we are obliged to step outside mathematics asit is usually employed, to take into account the processby which validated axiomatic-revolutionary changes areintroduced to the schema.
Since, as we have indicated above, strategic defenseis both a matter of military technologies, and also afunction of the impact of technological progress upon theeconomic process of the society as a whole, it isimportant to identify the relevant functions from thestandpoint of comparison with the kinds of mathematicalfunctions which could be applied to an hypothetical,non-human economy. In other words, to show, implicitly,what is fatally wrong with both "systems analysis" and"information theory."
In the technology-driven increase of the per-capitapower of society over nature, we are presented implicitlywith the following proposition: Since the apparent,proximate cause for this material gain (the effect) isnothing other than an idea, what is the mass and velocityof an idea--a valid, axiomatic-revolutionary discovery ofphysical principle, for example, that it might producethat measurable, physical-economic effect? Translated intoshop-talk, the question becomes, "How do we handle thistype of challenge, both to today's prevailing classroom,and popular, notion of 'causality,' and, also, togenerally accepted classroom mathematics?"
Among the incidental advantages which the U.S.soldier contributed to the military performance of theforces, during World War II, was the relatively highration of the recruits--city boys and farm boys--who couldnot only operate a motor vehicle, but could, operatinglargely from insight, improvise significant repairs onthose vehicles. For a comparison, try operating a modernproduction facility in a region of the world, where thenearest relevant quality of machine-tool repairman, worksin a place hundreds of miles, or more, away. In suchmatters, as in scientific work, "insight" is a termusefully reserved to those aspects of a solution to aconceptual problem, the which can not be accounted for asdeductive, or "textbook" reasoning. That same term isalso used to signify creating an otherwise unachievablesolution, by going outside the considerations posedexplicitly by the problem as defined.For our purposes, here, we must show such "insight" intothe nature of "insight" itself.
The generalized function implicit in Riemann'sreferenced habilitation dissertation, implicitly defines"insight" as that species of mental action, whichenables the thinker to leap from the theorem-lattice basedupon the hypothesis adopted prior to some valid,axiomatic-revolutionary discovery of physical principle,to the new theorem-lattice associated with the newhypothesis, incorporating that discovery. That presentsthe posterior view of the leap, as a leap to anappropriate theorem-lattice, away from an earliertheorem-lattice which is of an inconsistent, relativelydegenerate form and hypothesis. In the effort to reach thesecond lattice, deductively, from the first, oneencounters an absolute, formal discontinuity, the whichcan not be bridged in that way (nor actually "slidthrough").
In fact, the quality of mental act associated withthat successful leap (of discovery) is also present, if ina less intense form, in many cases of problem-solving ofthe type which do not involve a change in physicalprinciple. Thus, it were appropriate, that we define"insight" in terms of the most rigorous case, as we dohere, and, then, to note the reflection of the same typeof mental power in applications which solve problems oflesser epistemological profundity.
Through familiarity with the successful use ofinsight, the individual may become conscious of that kindof "insight" as a definite kind of object. That is tosay, we know two general categories of objects. The first,signifies objects which we either identify by means ofsense-perception, or to which we attribute qualitiesanalogous to those of sense-perceived objects. The second,signifies thoughts as objects; this second case includesideas such as love of justice, love of truth, and the actof valid discovery of an axiomatic-revolutionaryprinciple. Agape is associated with mental objects ofthe second class; agape itself is also such anobject.
In the case that the student undergoes aClassical-humanist form of education, the student acquiresthe ability to "locate" the power to make valid leaps ofdiscovery, themselves a definite kind of mental object ofconsciousness. By"Classical-humanist" education, we signify an educationin which so-called textbook education is outlawed, andreplaced by a curriculum in which the studentreexperiences, in his or her own mind, a reenactment ofthe relevant original act of discovery of a valid,axiomatic-revolutionary principle. In other words, acognitive education, rather than one based on merelearning, is an education which produces graduates whoactually know these ideas, rather than merely learning toidentify them in a textbook manner.
Plato provides us the means to render comprehensiblethe most essential of the functional relationshipsinvolved. A succession of reenacted original discoveries,is, as Riemann's dissertation shows, a series ofhypotheses. Plato identifies the mental act which carriesus from one, to the next of a series of successivelysuperior hypotheses, as an higher hypothesis. Thedistinctive advantage of a cognitive education, over meretextbook education, is that the student enjoying thequalitatively superior, cognitive education, isconcentrating on developing the power of makingcontrolled, successful, valid leaps of discovery (higherhypothesis), rather than skating through a sequence ofcookbook-like, "how to" recipes.
Over time, the quality of leaping may be improved. Inother words, we may be presented, thus, with such anordered series of higher hypotheses, rather than a seriesof ordinary hypotheses. The former series, of higherhypotheses, compels the mind to render the seriescomprehensible by, as Plato indicates, "hypothesizing thehigher hypothesis."
The mind which is developed to think in suchdirections, is one which is able to respond to a problemby mustering a mental habit of insight. Thus, the samemental principle which we encounter in its most rigorousand essential form as higher hypothesis, is alsoencountered, as a principle of mental activity, on levelswhich are far below the sophistication of a discovery ofphysical principle. The essential principle of theLeibniz-founded science of physical economy, is thefunctional role of insight in general, in governing theincrease of the productive powers of labor, and in makingpossible a net, "macro-economic," physical "profit"for the society taken as a whole.
One additional bit of background definition isrequired, before turning to those notions of allocationfunction essential to defining the economic feasibility ofstrategic defense based upon accelerated technologicalattrition. We must precede remarks on that allocationfunction by supplying a working definition of a"not-entropic" economic function.
As Leibniz stresses in his 1671 Society andEconomy, the maintenance of a supply of labor of acertain skill and physical productivity, requires acorresponding level of existence of the householdproducing this labor, a level of existence which could notbe cheapened, without lowering the level of skill andphysical productivity of the labor-force. Thisconsideration applies not only to the effective householdincome; the level of development of basic economicinfrastructure of the society (per capita of labor-force,per household, and per square kilometer), is also aper-capita cost of productive labor, as arecapital-intensity (measured in physical, rather thanfinancial terms), and power-intensity. Thus, a certainlevel of productivity of society is supplied at a physicalcost, which cost has the connotations which Lord Kelvin,Rudolf Clausius, et al., attributed to "energy of thesystem."
The complication is, that as we increase the level ofproductivity, these physical costs increase, in absoluteterms. Thus, the per-capita "energy of the system"increases. This is a correlative of the notion of aneconomy whose general allocation function is attuned to"technological attrition."
In these cases, the physical margin of a society'soutput which might be usefully defined as profit, issimply the margin of total output in excess of therequired "energy of the system," a margin designatableas the relative "free energy." The obvious goal is, thatthe ratio of free energy to energy of the system, must notdecline, although the costs expressable as "energy of thesystem" are constantly increasing in absolute physicalterms, per capita of labor force, per household, and persquare kilometer of relevant land-area. This requirementis identified as a "not-entropic" function, in the samesense that living processes are also to be classed as"not-entropic systems." All measurements inphysical-economy are made, in those primary terms ofreference, and evaluated functionally in terms of that"not-entropic" yardstick of required performance.
Derived from those background considerations, thereare principally three physical-economic conceptions, whoseinterrelationship underlies the notions of, both thegeneral allocation function in physical economy, and, ofeffective strategic defense. These three conceptions, are:the writer's version of what Leibniz identified as"universal characteristics," the notion of a Riemannianper-capita physical potential (i.e., cardinality), andthe notion of a per-capita physical-economic potential.The latter is related to, but distinct from the notion ofa simple physical potential.
For pedagogical purposes, we introduce the notion of"universal characteristics" in the following way.
In the non-existent case, that the history of mankindcould be accounted for, as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, andIsaac Newton profess, by a single set of mutuallyconsistent propositions (e.g., theorems), from remotepast, into the indefinite future, one could represent allpast, present, and future history in terms of a single,unchanging theorem-lattice. The fact that human existenceis altered by the impact of new discoveries of principle,which alter society's response to phenomena, introducesthe notion, that a concept of "universalcharacteristics" is indispensable for analysis of thenature and effects of human behavior, especially on thehistorical scale, or in study of the effects of changes intechnology in an economy. This, then, is recognizable asone of the implications of Riemann's habilitationdissertation; it was an idea whose importance wasemphasized, earlier, by Leibniz.
The peculiar distinction which appears, when weintroduce the notion of hypothesis to physical, andanalogous functions, is that, with respect to anycorresponding theorem-lattice, an hypothesis existsoutside of time. As we proceed from one theorem toanother, of the same formalist theorem-lattice, thehypothesis never changes: it is the alpha and omega ofthat theorem-lattice. It has, thus, the form of a goodwithin Plato's work, not the highest Good, but a muchlesser rank of "lesser good." This,in the microcosm of the proverbial simplest case,identifies the outward distinction of the idea of a"universal characteristic."
Since the continued existence of mankind dependsabsolutely upon the kind of progress represented by thesupersession of inferior, by superior hypotheses, we cannot be satisfied merely with that most simple form ofuniversal characteristic. We require emphasis upon thekind of universal characteristic associated with Plato'snotion of higher hypothesis, or, better, hypothesizing thehigher hypothesis. In each case, these notions ofhypothesis have the form of the good, of universalcharacteristics.
In this case, we are presented an additionaldistinction. Once we supersede the notion of a society asbeing ruled by a single, unchanging hypothesis, by thenotion of higher hypothesis, we have presented ourselveswith the idea of history. If we move from a conjecturalmodel of such ordering of history by higher hypothesis, toa model premised upon a chronology of actual, validated,and failed, axiomatic-revolutionary discoveries ofpresumed principle, we have seized the actual history ofmankind at its core. The history of both bad and goodideas, and their effects, so considered, is the real-lifebasis for investigating the notion of hypothesizing thehigher hypothesis.
In the latter case, we study history factually, toadduce, not only good versus bad currents ofidea-development, but the germinal feature of thosecurrents from the standpoint of the notion of "higherhypothesis." Thus, for example, we find, that during therecent 6,000 years or more, the pre-history and history ofEuropean civilization, is encapsulated by the issues ofwhat European history recalls as "the Persian wars."Precisely the kind of stuff a fellow must master beforesetting himself up in shop as a strategist. Indeed, thisclose scrutiny of this bit of history, has been bedrock ofall effective strategic thinking in modern Europeanhistory. Therefore, we are by no means off the beatentrack in addressing this area; we are simply providing afresh, and more useful overview of the implications ofthat history for addressing the problems of strategicdefense, today.
Notably, the characteristic conflict--the conflictbetween universal characteristics--which has shaped thehistory of European civilization during the recent 2,600years, has been the conflict between theHomer-Thales-Solon-Plato tradition continued from thehistory of Classical Greece, against two foes, the Cult ofApollo and the so-called "Persian Model" of empire, thelatter better identified as the "Babylonian Model." Therelevant features of that are summarized as follows.
The nature of this conflict is adduced mostefficiently, by recognizing the subject-matter of theHomeric epics, and of the Golden Age tragedies ofAeschylos (for example), as a conflict, on one side, amongirreconcilable hypotheses of different cultures among men,and the concurrent struggle of mankind against thecaprices of the tyrannical pagan gods. Given, thus, twofactions among mortal men, the resulting interactioncreates a three-way dialogue, in which, in response tocommonly experienced actual events, each of the threeparties responds with its propositions which areirreconcilable with the propositions which those eventsprompt in the other two. They are each governed bymutually exclusive hypotheses, mutually exclusiveuniversal characteristics.
Out of this development in the heroic literaryheritage of Classical Greece, we derived the Socraticdialogue, as typified by the work of Plato. This literaryheritage, from Homer, Thales, Solon, the Golden Agetragedies, Socrates, Xenophon, Plato, et al., addressestwo characteristic strategic issues of that age. First,the fight which man must wage to free mankind from slaveryto the evil, pagan gods of Olympos, and similar types,which is, second, an expression of the earthly battle tofree mankind from rule by those collations of rulingoligarchical families, which the imaginary, pagan godsserve as a fantastic apotheosis. It is the oligarchicalmodel, as typified by the Persian Empire of the ClassicalGreece experience, and also by the Delphi cult ofGaia-Python/Dionysos-Apollo, which is the adversary ofboth mankind and the Creator Himself. That is theClassical kernel of the strategical model, down to thepresent day.
Our war is a war among conflicting universalcharacteristics, as the Greek Classics typify thatconflict. Our war, today, as then, is against thereal-life force deployed by the Babylon heritage'soligarchical model, a model which is, not so incidentally,that of the British Empire's financier-oligarchicalmonarchy, in the time of Benjamin Franklin, of John QuincyAdams, of Abraham Lincoln, of President FranklinRoosevelt, and, still, today.
From the standpoint of the kind of physicsrepresented, with special excellence, by Kepler, Leibniz,Gauss, and Riemann, the notion of universalcharacteristics appears as the concept of physicalrelativity, the notion of the significance of a localevent, as being determined by the imputable physicalspace-time geometry in which it is situated. This obligesus to consider the dimensionality of the relevant,Riemannian physical space-time manifold, and also theGaussian form of measurably verifiable, physicalspace-time curvature associated with that manifold. Thiswas already the vantage-point of Johannes Kepler, whoidentifies this same idea, for his time, by his use of theterm Reason, in implicit opposition to the introductionof the percussive notion of mechanistic causality by thefounder of empiricism, Paolo Sarpi, and by Sarpi'spersonal lackey Galileo Galilei. Reason, in this usage,signifies the principle, that events must conform to theuniversal characteristic of the physical space-time inwhich they appear (as opposed to the "causality" ofpercussive interaction within an idealized, "Euclidean"space-time).
Any economic process, taken in entirety, at any pointin evolution, or devolution, can be viewed functionally asa Riemannian manifold. At least, a useful approximationmay be devised. That manifold has an associated,imputable, universal characteristic. This characteristicdetermines the practical implication of any type of eventwithin the process taken as a whole.
There are six gross distinctions of functionallytopical areas within the domain of the empirical mattersaddressed by physical science in its entirety. Three ofthe six are of type; the three remaining, are of scale. Oftype, there are putatively non-living, putativelynon-cognitive living processes, and cognitive processes.Of scale, there are astrophysical, microphysical, andmacrophysical. Science is composed of the process ofcomprehending the nature of the interaction of each ofthese with all of the others. This defines the manifold.The dominant issue is that of adducing the universalcharacteristics of the universe represented by such amanifold, and of devising measurements which enable us tovalidate or correct that estimation.
The most characteristic endeavors of relevance toeconomy, in physical science, are 1) the effort to extendthe scale of man's efficient intervention, into theremoteness of astrophysics and microphysics; 2) toincrease the power of man's intervention, per capita, intoall domains; and 3) to master the demonstrated reality,that the universe is so composed, that living cognitiveprocesses--the cognitively developed human individual--arethe highest order of efficient known existence within thatuniverse.
The highest authority, on which all claims of sciencedepend absolutely, is the demonstration, that throughcognitive processes of validatable,axiomatic-revolutionary qualities of discovery ofprinciple, mankind has been enabled to rise above a"natural," late-cenozoic, ecological potentialpopulation of not more than several millions higher apesof wretched demographic characteristics, to modern levelsof hundreds of millions and billions of persons. On thebasis of this evidence, the universal characteristic ofthe human species, is expressed by the activity we haveidentified here as hypothesizing the higher hypothesis.
It is the correlation between physical science (inparticular) and the role of products of scientificprogress in shifting the imputable Gaussianphysical-economic space-time curvature of society tohigher levels of man's power over the universe, which isthe ultimate scientific experiment, upon which thevalidity of all other experiments in physical sciencedepends.
The crucial fact of science, is the manifestproneness of the universe to submit to the cognitive willof mankind in this manner. It is from that vantage-point,within that physical space-time manifold, that theunderlying axioms of scientific thinking must be forged.
The crucial problem, posed in a fresh, and ratheracute form, by the problem of devising and implementing asustainable advantage for the strategic defense underconditions of forced rates of acceleration oftechnological attrition, confronts us with theseconceptions of physical science and physical economy inthis ostensibly "sophisticated" form. The challenge cannot be efficiently addressed on a lesser level ofconceptualization.
This brings us to the concluding point to be made,respecting the relationship of these technological mattersto what many will regard, as if instinctively, as thehuman side of the strategic equation. How does thisdefense address directly, the continuing, global strugglebetween mankind and the pestilence of oligarchism?
The premise for the existence of the modern form ofperfectly sovereign, constitutional, nation-staterepublic, is the conception of man as a creature ofcognition, not fixed sets of biological social traits. Itis to the degree that we require all among the members ofsociety to function with emphasis upon the development anduse of those cognitive potentials which distinguish thehuman individual above the beasts, that we summon intoaction that potential superiority of power of therepublic, over any other form of society, over anyoligarchical society. That was understood by NiccolòMachiavelli; all history since has demonstrated thatprinciple, in one way or another.
We summon into action that form of individual andsocial action which defines the relatively highestachievable level of power of any society, and thus, inthat way, evoke from the individual, and for relationsamong persons, the highest cognitive standard which man'sintrinsic nature can supply, the agapic quality of workwrought with the weapon of cognition itself. We arousewithin the republic and its allies, the highest powerpossible in our time, by arousing that which imparts tothe greatest number of our people, the greatest per-capitapower of society possible.
This has been long understood by the oligarchicalenemies of the republic. The evil Emperor Diocletianunderstood it very efficiently, as his wickedCodex attests, and as his wicked imitators,such as Princes Philip and Bernhard, attest by theirrelevant actions. Take away from mankind the right tofoster and enjoy the benefits of endless scientific,technological, and cultural progress, and by haltingprogress, so, you turn good men and women into beasts, aswe watched this transformation--the so-called"cultural-paradigm shift"--among those "Baby Boomers"who became mentally and morally hors de combat in thosewaves of dionysiac cultural pessimism, which surgedthrough the campuses of Western Europe and the Americas,about thirty years ago.
To recover our national sovereignty, and to createthe security we require, our nation must reclaim its soul.Otherwise, we are doomed, and most of the presently livingfamilies of this planet with us. Effective strategicdefense must be understood as, foremost, an economic, acultural, and a moral challenge. What follies are wewilling to abandon, to secure our nation, perhaps, to saveour souls?
1. "Do We Need a Missile Defense?"Wall Street Journal, June 20, 1996. Panelistsinclude Secretary of Defense William J. Perry, General(ret.) Charles A. Horner, Frank J. Gaffney, Robert G.Bell, (Sir) Caspar W. Weinberger, Fred C. Ikle, DonaldRumsfeld, James Schlesinger, Edward Teller, Henry F.Cooper, and James Woolsey.[return to text]
2. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.,Now,Rid NATO of the 'Entente Cordiale'!, released by theLaRouche Exploratory Committee; also published, under thesame title, by Executive Intelligence Review,May 28, 1996.[return to text]
3. The European professional circleswere generally much more intelligent on the SDI than theirleading U.S. fellows. For example, in a December 1982meeting with leading military professionals of France, aspokesmen for the French side correctly posed: "So, yourdesign is based upon 'technological attrition.' " Typicalof what was said among some leading German professionals ofthe same period, was: "This gives us the basis formeaningful strategy." Despite the violence with whichboth Yuri Andropov and Mikhail Gorbachov focussed hateful,personal venom against this writer, there were significantnumbers of Soviet officials who agreed with the technicalfeasibility, and desirability, of what this writer hadoutlined in the 1982-1983 back-channel discussions withthe Soviet government. It was the British and theirHarriman-faction assets within both the Republican andDemocratic parties, who orchestrated the opposition toanything more advanced than the "High Frontier" versionof SDI.[return to text]
4. Much of the material reported hereon Russell, Wells, and their nuclear weapons project, wasoriginally developed as a broad-based, intense researchproject which this writer launched in 1977-1978. Theproject, conducted by a transatlantic team of dozens ofresearchers, was summarized in a book-length reportauthored by Carol White: The New Dark AgesConspiracy: Britain's Plot to Destroy Civilization(New York City: New Benjamin Franklin House, 1980).Additional research, following that, was done into thespecific pre-history and history of the 1972 ABM treaty.These overlapping research projects into the roles ofRussell, Szilard, Kissinger, et al., were prompted by theissues posed by Der Spiegel newsweekly'sextensive publication of detailed features of pending NATOexercize "Hilex '75." I.e., Der Spiegel'sleaked account of "Hilex '75" features, symptomized thegrowing danger of general thermonuclear war bymiscalculation, growing out of the combination of trendsin the combination of forward basing, "pin down"effects, and precision targetting, together with the typesof lunacies expressed, during 1975, by circles associatedwith the wildly utopian "Kissinger clone," James RodneySchlesinger.[return to text]
5. Now, Rid NATO of the 'EntenteCordiale'!, loc. cit.[return to text]
6. Kissinger's role as a British agent,working against the most vital U.S.A. strategic interests,long antedates Kissinger's 1995 misbeknighting by QueenElizabeth II. In his May 10, 1982 public address atLondon's Chatham House ("Reflections on a Partnership:British and American Attitudes to Postwar ForeignPolicy"), Henry Kissinger bragged, that during his1969-1977 "incarnation" in U.S. government posts, he hadfrequently followed British foreign service directives andrelated papers behind the back of "the President." Histreasonous inclinations developed much earlier than 1982,earlier than his appointment as chief warlock of the 1968Hotel Pierre cabal. Sometimes, if rarely, as in thefollowing excerpt from that address, even Kissinger istruthful: "British policy drew upon two centuries ofexperience with the European balance of power, America ontwo centuries of rejecting it. Britain ... philosophically... remains Hobbesian ... American foreign policy is theproduct of a very different tradition." In that address,Kissinger defended the post-war policies of Prime MinisterWinston Churchill, against those of President Roosevelt.Kissinger was inducted into service as a Britishforeign-service agent of influence, beginning his term asa part of the Harvard University-based branch of ChathamHouse's Wilton Park organization. His original Britishintelligence mentor was the rabid Anglophile, andConfederacy buff, Professor William Yandell Elliot, amember and product of the racialist "Fugitive/Agrarian"tradition based at Nashville, Tennessee's VanderbiltUniversity.[return to text]
7. In that way, we have incurred thecost of repeating here, in some small portion, several ofthe points presented in that earlier location.[return to text]
8. Cf. H.G. Wells, The OpenConspiracy: Blueprints for a World Revolution(London: Victor Gollancz, 1928). Marilyn Ferguson'sThe Aquarian Conspiracy (Los Angeles: Tarcher,1980), reports on the project headed by Stanford ResearchInstitute's Willis Harman, claiming that the jointconspiracy declared, in 1928, by Wells and Russell,was in irreversible control of the United States'policy-shaping today. Admittedly, Marilyn Ferguson, likeher co-thinker Mary Bateson, is a product of a weirdintellectual pedigree, but her report and claims forsuccess of the "Age of Aquarius" project are never worsethan slightly exaggerated. In fact, the 1938Russell-Hutchins-(Aldous) Huxley project, at Hollywood,Chicago University, the University of Pennsylvania, etc.,has become the dominant ideological vector for change inU.S. academic life since that time: the Tavistockinfluences in sociology and psychology, Norbert Wiener'sradical-positivist cult of "information theory" (a keyRussell project), the cult of "systems analysis" (acreation of such devotees of Russell and Norbert Wiener asJohn v. Neumann), and the Korsch-Carnap-Harris-Chomskypseudo-science of linguistics, are by-products of theRussell-Hutchins "Unification of the Sciences" projectof 1938.[return to text]
9. Read current UNO policies ofpractice in light of Russell's prescription, included inthat piece, back in 1946: "It is entirely clear thatthere is only one way in which great wars can bepermanently prevented ... the establishment of aninternational government with a monopoly of serious armedforce.... An international government ... must have theonly atomic bombs, the only plant for producing them, theonly air force, the only battleships, and generallywhatever is necessary to make it irresistable.... It musthave a large army of inspectors who must have the right toenter any factory without notice; any attempt to interferewith them ... must be treated as casusbelli...."[return to text]
10. In 1946, the alliance of theLowells (e.g., McGeorge Bundy) and the Kuhn Loeb/Harrimaninterests, in controlling the Truman Administration fromwithin, typified the self-styled "patricians," or"blue-bloods," the U.S. side of the Anglo-Americanfamilies' establishment.[return to text]
11. When that film first appeared,reviewers proposed two additional contenders as rolemodels for the title role of "Dr. Strangelove": HermanKahn and Henry A. Kissinger. Actor Peter Sellers' affectedGerman accent was connected with the reputation whichKissinger had already gained for a book,Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy (1957). Thatbook parodied Wells', Russell's and Szilard's New Ageideas, a book sponsored by Kissinger's patron, McGeorgeBundy, whose writing was largely the work of the Councilon Foreign Relations (CFR's) John Dean.[return to text]
12. During the interval 1793-1794,when "Author of Victory" Lazare Carnot led France fromassured defeat, and dismemberment, into the creation of avirtually undefeatable French military force, within thatshort period, it was not unusual for him to firemajor-generals for keeping troops in the barracks, or forpostponing to the following day, the river-crossing whichmight have been done the preceding night. On occasionsfrequent enough to be more than merely anecdotal, Carnotpromoted sergeants from the ranks, to replace therelevant, erring general, with successful results.Napoleon Buonaparte is reported to have commented, later,on the character which Carnot had built into theredesigned armies of France: Each soldier in that Frencharmy might be considered as carrying a Field Marshal'sbaton in his knapsack.[return to text]
13. Respecting the author'sdiscoveries and related work of the 1948-1969 interval,see Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.: "On LaRouche's Discovery,"Fidelio,Spring 1994; "Why Most Nobel PrizeEconomists Are Quacks," Executive IntelligenceReview, July 28, 1995; and, "Non-Newtonian Mathematics for Economists," Executive IntelligenceReview, Aug. 11, 1995.[return to text]
14. In the course of a meeting of flagofficers and others, on the subject of SDI and relatedquestions of strategy, the writer's late, and dear friend,General G. Revault d'Allonnes, described a certain othermeeting, of French generals, in which he participatedduring the immediate post-war period, as one of the veryfew colonels present. In response to discussion, aroundthe table, of the proposition, what is the first step tobe taken, in response to outbreak of war, his answer was,"Fire the generals." Despite that utterance, he hadrisen later to the highest rank of trust assigned to him,as a flag officer, by President Charles de Gaulle, duringthe crisis of the early 1960s. His youthful answer hadshown temerity, but not flippancy. Frequently, the mostuseful definition of a crisis, is that the crisisrepresents an habituated refusal of those long in power toadmit the inherent failures built into the policies (suchas "free trade," today) which they have adopted asunquestionable verities of practice. Thus, as GeneralRevault d'Allonnes made the point on the indicatedoccasion, so Lazare Carnot proceeded to transforminevitable defeat and dismemberment of his nation, intovictory. In the crucial moments of history, it is often,thus, only the "outsiders" who are qualified to lead insaving the nation. A nation which fosters such humblecitizens, capable of that role, is the nation more likelyto succeed.[return to text]
15. Elliott Roosevelt, As He SawIt (New York: Duell, Sloan amd Pearce, 1946).[return to text]
16. It is noteworthy, in light of theextensive, corrupting influence of fascistic irrationalismdominating taught academic philosophy and theology today,to emphasize the contrast of the concept of theindividual, "as a functional feature of the historicalprocess," to the notion of "thrownness" introduced bythe Hitler's official philosopher of Nietzscheanexistentialism, existentialist Hannah Arendt's formerlover, the Nazi Martin Heidegger. (Heidegger is therelevant influence behind theologians such as Karl Rahnerand "liberation theology's" Hans Küng.) ThisNazi-like filth, is spreading like an aggressive epidemicof genital herpes, throughout U.S. academic life today. Inthe sociology of native U.S. fascist movements,Heidegger's Nietzschean dogma of "thrownness," finds itsmost widespread reception among those deranged varietiesof populist minds, whose every passion seems to bepermeated by nostalgic tenderness toward the memory of theConfederacy's "Lost Cause." Typically, those "rebelswithout cause," whose fondest feelings may be evoked byNashville versions of fascism's Richard Wagner: not whoopsof Valkyries, but ballads which Bedford Forrest'snightriding company of unbathed "critters" might sing.Society is not the adversary of the individual; althoughindividuals such as Nietzsche, Hitler, Heidegger, andJacques Derrida, make themselves the Devil's ownadversaries of all mankind. Society is the possibility ofrealization of one's individual soul. The relationshipbetween the individual and society and its organicinstitutions, is a functional one, a notion of functionpremised upon that which sets mankind above the beasts,the cognitive power of reason, mankind's mastery of itselfand the universe, through ideas such as those of scienceand Classical artist composition. It is through thosecognitive relations, and in no other way, that theindividual is linked to the past and future, even morethan present, of all human existence.[return to text]
17.Bernhard Riemann,Über dieHypothesen, welche der Geometrie zu Grunde liegen (the1854 "habilitation dissertation"), Riemannsgesammelte mathematische Werke, H. Weber, ed.(reprint of Stuttgart: Teubner, 1902) (New York: DoverPublications, 1953), pp. 272-87.[return to text]
18. In speaking of "technologicalattrition" within the domain of such changes in Gaussiancurvature of physical space-time, we are referencing bothphysical-economic space-time, and physical space-timeas otherwise defined. Most relevant references in Cantor'swritings are found in Georg Cantor: GesammelteAbhandlungen mathematischen und philosophischenInhalts, Ernst Zermelo, ed., (Berlin: JuliusSpringer, 1932, 1980); the most relevant titles are hisGrundlagen einer allgemeinenMannigfaltigkeitslehre (1882-1883);Mitteilungen zur Lehre vom Transfiniten (1887-1888); andBeiträge zur Begründung der transfiniten Mengenlehre(1895-1897). A 1975 Campaigner translation, byUwe Henke, of the Grundlagen, was produced in anow out-of-print edition. The standard English translationof the Beiträge, by Cambridge's PhilipJourdain (Contributions to the Founding of theTheory of Transfinite Numbers) exists, althoughcaution is suggested in referencing Jourdain'sIntroduction.[return to text]
19. This paradox is geneticallyequivalent to the "ontological paradox" of Plato'sParmenides, the dialogue which serves,implicitly, as a kind of foreword for all of the latePlato dialogues. For an early modern treatment of thischaracteristic paradox of any formal mathematics, orformalistic mathematical physics, see G. Leibniz'sMonadology.[return to text]
20.op. cit.[return to text]
21. For example, when Newton devoteeLeonhard Euler deluded himself, in writing, from Berlin,his 1761 Letters to a German Princess, that hehad discovered a proof with which to refute Leibniz'sMonadology, he overlooked the simple fact, thathis proof depended absolutely upon employing a geometrywhich pre-assumed axiomatically, precisely what Eulerpurported to prove by means of that geometry!--thatassumption of perfectly continuous extension, the which isaxiomatically intrinsic to the hypothesis of a formalEuclidean geometry. Euler's additional blunder, was toassume that what might be said for a formal mathematics,is therefore true for physics. Riemann's habilitationdissertation, is implicitly a devastating refutation ofEuler's twofold blunder.[return to text]
22. i.e., greater density ofdiscontinuities per interval of characteristic action.Each change in any among the axioms, postulates, anddefinitions of a physical space-time, defines a formallyabsolute discontinuity, separating the physical space-timeof the old hypothesis, from that of the new. In comparingthe theorem-lattices associated with the respectivehypotheses, one can never reach the second theorem-latticefrom the first, and can view the first, from thevantage-point of the second, only as a degenerate case ofthe second. The fact that there is a difference ofphysical principle involved, is measurable in terms of thedifference in metrical characteristics ("curvature")between the two physical geometries. Thus, theaccumulation of valid discoveries of principle, embeddedin human knowledge to date, represents a potentialexpressed in terms of density of discontinuities.[return to text]
23. To the writer's personalknowledge, the first appearance of this lunacy occurred atthe Research Laboratory of Electronics (RLE), atMassachusetts Institute of Technnology (MIT), during thepost-war 1940s, under the joint sponsorship of the RANDCorporation and the, related, spin-off of the U.S. AirForce, out of the old U.S. Army Air Corps. The relevantactivity of that period was centered in the MIT centerearlier established by the fascistic psychologist Dr. KurtLewin, otherwise known for his kindred institution at AnnArbor, Michigan, and his role in establishing the NationalTraining Laboratories and its sundry project-offshoots ineducation and in the synthesis of "new religions." Thepresent writer came on the track of this Air Force andrelated MIT activity during the late 1940s, as part of hisinvestigation of the spread of the cult-doctrines known as"information theory" and "systems analysis." The firstventures into the domain of "information-theoreticalgroup-think," were conducted in conjunction with the"Cybernetics" program of one of the leading weirdofoundations of that epoch, Frank Fremont-Smith's JosiahMacy, Jr. Foundation of New York City. One of the relevantprograms done at MIT was human experimentation intobehavior of "task-oriented problem-solving groups," ledby MIT's Professor Alex Bavelas. This program was designedthrough the circles of the Josiah Macy, Jr. Foundation,and funded in the interest of the Air Force and RAND. Keyfigures participating in the broader design of this effortincluded RLE's own Warren S. McCulloch and Walter Pitts,and notable New Age kooks including Gregory Bateson andhis sometime wife Margaret Mead of the eugenics center atNew York's singularly unnatural American Museum of NaturalHistory. Significant influence was supplied from the workof a close follower of Norbert Wiener, Bertrand Russelldevotee John v. Neumann. Neumann's work along the lines ofhis 1948 submission to the Hixon Symposium, CerebralMechanisms in Behavior, is relevant to developmentsat MIT during the late 1940s and early 1950s. Neumann'sthinking along these lines is also documented in hisposthumously published Yale lectures on The Computerand the Brain. Later MIT-RLE work in the samedirection came out of collaboration between Karl Korschfollower Noam Chomsky and MIT's resident "Dr.Frankenstein," Marvin Minsky (of "artificialintelligence" notoriety). The Allen Dulles-co-sponsoredMK-Ultra Project (and its gift of the drug epidemic to theU.S.A., spun off from the LSD projects of the LondonTavistock center) of Aldous Huxley, Gregory Bateson,Timothy Leary, et al., was a by-product of the same "Dr.Jekylls" involved in designing Air Force and othercommand-decision-by-committee "sensitivity groups," ofU.S. military history's 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s todate.[return to text]
24. Dysfunctional state ofmind: a denial of functional reality. The type offallacy of composition ordained by William ofOckham and his admirers, such as Paolo Sarpi, FrancisBacon, Robert Fludd, Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke, is anexample of such a dysfunctional state of mind. Inmathematics, such a fallacy of composition is typified byomitting consideration of essential, relevant principlesof physics (e.g., what Riemann defines as "dimensions"of an n-dimensional physical-space-time manifold). In thelatter case, the lack of correspondence to an otherwise,functionally well-defined reality, is identified as theresult of a degenerate state of mind (i.e., the employmentof a degenerate form of physical space-time manifold asmodel for reality). In this case, "dysfunctional state ofmind" is employed to that well-defined effect.[return to text]
25. On the role of the oligarchicalpolitical currents within Eighteenth- andNineteenth-Century North America, see H. Graham Lowry,How the Nation Was Won, Vol. I (Washington, D.C.:EIR, 1987); and Anton Chaitkin,Treason in America, 2nd ed. (New York: New BenjaminFranklin House, 1985); and, The Editors of EIR,Dope, Inc. (Washington, D.C.: EIR, 1992).[return to text]
26. All three, the departed, living,and posterity, have equal weight of rights in claims tocontrol the present policy of the republic. This authoritycan not be based on mere opinion, since policy mustaddress particular matters unknown to departed andposterity alike. Only matters of principle can be knownwith equal force to all three; thus, Justice AntoninScalia's notion of radical democracy, is a fraud. In realhistory, as Tom Paine warned, in defense of the principleof our Constitution, such radical democracy is as great anevil as any tyrannical monarch. Such "democracy," istypified by those Paris mobs purchased and deployed at thewhim of the King's treasonous cousin, the Duke of Orleans.Thus, contrary to Scalia's wild-eyed defense of (amongother things) judicial murder, our forefathers consultedthe known history of man, since Classical Greece, toadduce those constitutional principles which wouldassuredly serve posterity as history had bequeathedknowledge of their efficacy to ourselves.[return to text]
27. Since Queen Elizabeth'smisbeknighting of such churls as Sir George Bush, SirColin Powell, Sir Henry Kissinger, Sir Brent Scowcroft,and so on, a man's nose were in mortal danger should he,within a public place, address a patriotic citizen by thetitle "Sir." Over the prostrate form of the ill-advised,one might hear the voice of the assailant: "I ain't nodamned traitor!"[return to text]
28. See Jeffrey Steinberg, et al.,"The Sun Never Sets on the New British Empire,"EIR, May 24, 1996.[return to text]
29. Or, duped clergy from misguidedreligious institutions.[return to text]
30. The "mother" organization of thepresent, international "ecology movement," is the WorldWildlife Fund/World Wide Fund for Nature, co-founded, in1961, by Britain's Prince Philip and the NetherlandsNazi-SS veteran, Prince Bernhard. The so-called"Bilderberger" society, and the "1001 Club," typifyrelated organizations. That organization is still thecenter of the movement to the present date. The Club ofRome, founded by Dr. Alexander King, Lord SollyZuckermann, et al., typifies the secondary level ofinfluential, usually pro-oligarchical social strata,deployed under the umbrella of the princes' 1961initiative. Although the argument upon which the movementpremises itself, is usually identified as "Malthusian,"or "neo-Malthusian," the leading influence is the workof the Venetian monk Giammaria Ortes, the Englishtranslation of whose work (Riflessioni sullapopolazione delle nazioni, 1790) was parodied byMalthus, and, implicitly, also the work of an Ortesforerunner, Giovanni Botero (Della ragion distato, 1588). Contrary to scientifically competentarguments for maintaining and improving environments,already in currency prior to 1961, most of the famouscases of the "ecology movement" have been demonstratedto have been outright frauds and hoaxes: e.g., the banningof DDT, the "ozone hole" scare, "global warming," andso on. Excepting the specific frauds employed by thesepost-1960 "ecology" cults, there is nothing modern ororiginal in the doctrine itself. Princes Philip andBernhard have done little more than implement, in modernlanguage, the relevant "zero growth" axioms of theEmperor Diocletian's Codex. Unfortunately, inthe absence of a burst of investment in scientific andtechnological progress, the damage done to the world'seconomy by the recent quarter-century of "ecological"hoaxes and fanaticism, would be sufficient to accelerategreatly the rate of plunge into a "New Dark Age," underthe indicated, threatened preconditions. One who was asclose as I was to the 1964-1972 "culturalparadigm-shift," which occurred, first, among theuniversity population of "Baby Boomers," may recall howthe state of mind associated with today's "ecology"fanatics, was established as a mass-phenomenon, during theFall 1969-Spring 1970, post-Chicago Convention changewithin the "anti-war movement." This was the developmentwhich spawned both the "ecology movement" and matching"Rainbow Coalition." Already, during the Spring andSummer of 1968, the radical wing of the anti-war movementwas a dionysiac, fascistic phenomenon, echoing theexistentialist, Sorelian mythos of Mussolini'ssquadristi, and the youth-counterculture of themost extreme elements within the NaziJugendbewegung. The militant core of the so-called"ecology movement" was recruited from among an anti-warmovement stratum typified by those devotees of the "GreatProletarian Cultural Revolution," like ColumbiaUniversity's PLP activist Dennis King (who tumbled topublic notoriety out of Roy M. Cohn's closet) andWeatherman ideologue John Jacobs, who were, during1966-1968, either members or close associates of theviolence-prone currents within the Progressive LaborParty. The role of McGeorge Bundy's Ford Foundation, inthe funding of the self-styled "Crazies," around MarkRudd, at Columbia, and the association with theseoperations of those funding conduits, by that notoriousepigone of Georg Lukacs, former CIA agent Herbert Marcuse,shows the Liberal Establishment families' hand behindthese developments. In the U.S.A., Europe, and elsewhere,it is the embedding of such fanatics, as a powerfullybacked force of wild fanaticism, within the today'sinfluential political processes and leading institutions,which is even far more threatening to the future existenceof civilization, than the wrecking of the world'sinfrastructure, agriculture, and industry, by theinfluence of ecological hoaxes.[return to text]
31. Cf. Wolfgang Koehler,Gestalt Psychology.[return to text]
32. Since no later than Plato, thefunctional distinction between eros andagape, has been that the former pertains to theclass of sensual objects, the latter to the domain ofPlatonic ideas. This is key to identifying thatstreak of immorality permeating all of Immanuel Kant'sCritiques, as the implicitly fascist quality ofKant's philosophy was emphatically, and correctlyprophesied by Heinrich Heine's Religion andPhilosophy in Germany. This is also the root ofKant's crucial role as the leading philosopher ofreference for the Nineteenth-Century Romantic movement.The war between the Classical and Romantic factions inmusic, from the Congress of Vienna to beyond the death ofBrahms, down to the present day, illustrates thefunctional role of the distinction between erosand agape. Retrospective studies respecting theroots of the form of motivic thorough-compositiondeveloped by Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, et al., show thatthe composition and competent performance of all Classicalcompositions, of J.S. Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven,Schubert, Schumann, Brahms, et al., are premised upon theuse of resolution to evoke agape. CarlCzerny's pupil, Franz Liszt, turned against God, and alsoBeethoven, to substitute sensual effects, such asirrationalist chromaticism, for motivic thoroughness;Liszt's pupil, the Mazzinian bomb-thrower and composerRichard Wagner, was a perfervid Beethoven-hater of theNazi-like radical conservative (oligarchical lackey) type;the Liebestod duet from hisTristan und Isolde, typifies the Romantic principle, ofsubstituting sensual effects (eros), forcreativity (agape). Thus, Classicalcomposition is inherently religious, in the Christiansense: It expresses the agape demanded byI Corinthians 13; whereas, Modernism,post-Modernism, "Nashville," and rock, arepathologically, either erotic, or sterilely "academic"formalism. The idea of a Christian "rock hymn," is asabsurd as that of a Christian "black mass."[return to text]
33. In posthumously publishedwritings, we find Bernhard Riemann wrestling with thissame conception, at the time he was in the process ofproducing that fundamental discovery for which he is mostfamous, and most important, in the history of science.Where this writer employs the term "metaphor," fromClassical poetry and drama, to identify the Platonicidea of a valid, axiomatic-revolutionary discovery ofprinciple, Riemann approaches the same problem ofrepresentation from a slightly different tack, employingthe term Geistesmassen. See Lyndon H. LaRouche,Jr., "Riemann Refutes Euler,"21st Century Science & Technology,Winter 1995-1996, pp. 36-47. Seealso, in the same issue, the translation of Riemann'sZur Psychologie und Metaphysik ("On Psychologyand Metaphysics"), pp. 50-55.[return to text]
34. The result of that latter sort of"textbook" education, Friedrich Schiller ridicules bymeans of the term Brotgelehrten, thus comparingsuch graduates to the poor quality of musician, perhaps a"popular" night-club crooner, who has barely learned"to sing for his supper."[return to text]
35. It is significant to note thatLeibniz identified these topics in his first writing onthe subject of a science of physical economy, his 1671Society and Economy, written before his assignment torepresent relevant German interests in Jean-BaptisteColbert's Paris center of scientific discovery.[return to text]
36. It is important, for the sake ofclarity on this point, to stress, as illustration, that"evil" is the counterposing of the "lesser good" tothe higher, as in the case of the soldier who flees thefield of battle, thus jeopardizing his nation, for the"lesser good" of meeting his responsibility to provide"quality time" with his family. Contrary to the doctrineof gnostical hypocrisy popular among certain of today's"Baby Boomer" generation, for example, the higher Goodis not the synthesis of "moral personal behavior" byindividuals. Rather, personal Good is that which the goodof mankind, nation, and so forth, as a whole, requires ofthe individual's personal self-development and behavior.[return to text]