A Lyndon LaRouche Democratic Presidential-Nomination Campaign
TO: Press Release
IT IS NOW NINE YEARS LATER
As we await this month's momentous meeting between the Presidents of China and the United States, today, Oct. 12, it is of exceptional relevance to note, that today is the anniversary of one of the most memorable events of the past ten years. That event was my Oct. 12, 1988, Berlin press conference, at which I announced the impending, chain-reaction, internal economic collapse of the Soviet bloc, a collapse to begin with events in Poland, and the ensuing prospect of establishing Berlin as, once again, the capital of a unified Germany. I set forth my proposed U.S. policies for economic reconstruction of the collapsed Communist economies, which I proposed the United States adopt for dealing with that crisis.
This press conference statement was televised, and broadcast in full, in a national TV-network broadcast, later that same month.
Slightly more than a year later, that forecast had been fulfilled. Developments in Poland had begun the collapse of the Warsaw Pact system, the Berlin Wall was about to fall, and eruptions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia signalled the process leading into the break-up of the Soviet Union itself.
Unfortunately, under heavy pressures from British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and France's President François Mitterrand, U.S. President George Bush took the wrong turn, contrary to my Oct. 12, 1988 warnings, thus steering the world into the worst, global, financial chain-reaction collapse in history, in progress today.
Today, we face the last opportunity for preventing the presently unstoppable, international financial chain-reaction collapse from plunging the entire planet, including the U.S.A., into conditions as bad as, or worse, than we see already in the former Soviet Union. That opportunity is the establishment of a new kind of partnership between the United States and China. Such a partnership will be indispensable for establishing the new international financial and monetary agreements, without which the inevitable collapse of the present International Monetary Fund system will collapse the entire planet into conditions parallelling those of Europe's mid-Fourteenth Century "New Dark Age."
Under present political conditions globally, without common orientation of the U.S.A. and China on certain most relevant, global issues, it will soon become virtually impossible to bring together a political force of cooperating nations which would be sufficient to establish a New Bretton Woods agreement in time to save the world from such a global New Dark Age.
How seriously should you take this warning? The evidence, including the presently ongoing collapse of the economies of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, supports the importance of recognizing my authority in making this warning. That evidence is represented by several notable examples during recent decades. The Oct. 12, 1988 Berlin forecast, exemplifies that acquired authority. On this matter, and on the public record of the recent decades, I speak now with the highest possible personal authority as a forecaster, and as a formulator of policies for dealing with the crucial turns in present-day world history. Governments and others may, and many will, continue to reject my counsel on such matters, but, will disregard my warnings now only at great peril to themselves and the nations they represent.
Thus, thinking U.S. citizens will consider it obligatory, that they reexamine the background to the Oct. 12, 1988 forecast, once again, in light of the crucial policy-issues which must shape the U.S. administration's and Congress's approach to the imminent "summit" between the President of the U.S.A. and China. Thus, for this occasion, I do what aspirants for high U.S. office are expected to do, speak of the relevant features of my personal record in public life, my record on these and related matters since I first surfaced as a public figure, during the second half of the 1960s. I summarize the most relevant highlights of the background to the Oct. 12, 1988 forecast.
The Origin of the Oct. 12, 1988 Address
I had first made the Oct. 1988 forecast, to both the Soviet government and the Reagan administration, during February 1983, in the course of my back-channel discussions, which I was conducting with the Soviet government, in the interest of the Reagan administration. Specifically, I advised my Soviet interlocutor to report to his government, that should the President choose to offer the Soviet government the policy which I had outlined, and should the Soviet government then choose to continue its present policies, rather than accept the President's offer, the Soviet economy would enter into a collapse within about five years. Naturally, I reported these remarks to the relevant U.S. institution to which I was accountable then.
About a month later, on March 23, 1983, President Reagan delivered precisely that offer to the Soviet government, publicly, as the concluding segment of nationwide television broadcast. The Soviet government then rudely rejected the President's offer, presented under the title of "Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI)." In response to the President's offer, Soviet officials launched personal attacks upon me, using violent language. Continued Soviet attacks on me came to exceed, in scope, duration, and intensity, Soviet official attacks upon any public figure not in government, in more than twenty-five years of prior Soviet history.(1)
From January 1984 on, through 1988, the Soviet attacks upon me, on the issue of the SDI, were matched by the outpourings of hateful, and usually lying propaganda against me by the U.S. mass-media. During March 1984, at the prompting of NBC-TV, even the U.S. Congressional Record was heavily burdened with not only the most violent sorts such attacks, but threats were delivered against President Reagan for his administration's association with me. Thinking Americans who were adults at that time, will recall that the intensity of these coordinated personal attacks upon me, by the combined Soviet and U.S.A. mass-media, such as NBC-TV, reached their greatest intensity during the months between February and November 1986.(2)
In that setting, beginning the 1984 election-campaign, I made public my continuing expectation, that the Soviet-bloc economy would enter a chain-reaction collapse beginning approximately 1988, that, under a continuation of then-current Soviet policies, the year 1988 represented an estimable point of no return for the continued existence of the Soviet system in its present form. During 1986-1988, as circles associated with certain foreign powers, and with Henry A. Kissinger, Vice-President George Bush's associates, and Katharine Graham's Washington Post, made clear their commitment to eliminate me physically from the political scene, it became urgent that I communicate publicly certain truths of vital importance, while I could still do so. This included some matters on which I was the principal authority among those public figures who were both qualified and disposed to reveal the truth at that time.
Hence, my 1988 presidential campaign, and the Oct. 12, 1988 Berlin press conference.
It is important that the citizen not interpret that October 1988 statement as a mere "prediction." The Doll Tearsheet of Shakespeare's King Henry IV captured the essence of the matter of the use of the word "prediction," with her observation on the words "captain" and "occupy:" "A captain! God's light, these villains will make the word as odious as the word occupy; which was an wondrous good word until it fell into bad company."(3) History is not made by pagan gods; history is a ship which sails the course chosen by human beings. Therefore, only a poor, superstitious heathen, of the ilk of a race-track tout, would predict that a particular ship is fated to be destroyed on a certain reef.
The pagan's perverse, polymorphic deities put to one side, Almighty God Himself does not predetermine the future; rather, he has designed us, and our universe, such that we, as mankind, are assigned the responsibility, and the consequences of choosing that course which leads us, and our posterity, to the future of peoples, nations, and all mankind. A godly Christian would not predict; he, or she would warn the captain, that the course he is on leads to a dangerous reef. Such is the difference between science's forecasts and a credulous dupe's superstitious faith in such tea-leaf readings as Wall Street statistics.(4)
Accordingly, all my adult life I have thought it important not to waste my time predicting anything. I sometimes forecast. "Forecast" is not a synonym for "prediction." The distinction between the two terms is illustrated by the fact, that I have never forecast anything, without using either "if," or some equivalent qualifying term. The purpose of forecasting is to bring about a needed choice among two or more available policies. The actual result will be a consequence of the choice of policy made. I do not predict that you will be killed by that ripe banana-peel lying there on the sidewalk; I propose that you not step upon it. The latter represents a "forecast."
Was it Samuel Clemens, a famous wit I usually disdain, who, among others, has said: "Everyone talks about the weather, but no one ever does anything about it"? Ideas which do not merit the passion for action, are rightly called "idle gossip." During my career as a economist, I have the best record for strategic forecasts among all of those in that profession. I credit this achievement, in part, to the fact, that, during the recent forty years of forecasting, I have made very few forecasts, all of which were successful as forecasts --not predictions. Otherwise, this success is chiefly a reflection of my advantageous education and development as a practicing economist. Otherwise, it is the result of the fact, that I am interested only in certain restricted types of forecasts, those which pertain to the need for dramatic changes in policy at some crucial turning-point in history, some critical choice among available, alternative decisions, respecting choices available at branching-points in long-term trends.
From that standpoint, I warn, that the U.S.A. must now succeed in developing a certain pathway in U.S.-China partnership, or all of civilization will be in the process of crumbling at some time before the year "2000" U.S. presidential nomination. The time that the U.S. Government might be able to postpone long-term decisions by means of short-term adjustments, has already virtually ended.
Forecasting in 1983
With some qualifications, the fundamental character of the U.S. economy, from the 1861-1876 of U.S. rise to world-leadership in economy and technology, through 1966, was a commitment to fostering increase of both the productive powers of labor, through fostering investment in scientific and technological progress, and of employing that unique means for maintaining and increasing the standard of physical-economic income and longevity in the U.S. population as a whole. In the main, despite such spawn of the defeated Confederacy as Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, the constitutional U.S. tradition is that strategic outlook for the post-war world fostered by President Franklin Roosevelt, in opposition to an enraged Prime Minister Winston Churchill: the prompt end of imperialism and "British Eighteenth-Century Methods" in economics (e.g., Adam Smith), in order to make "American methods" available to all among the those peoples of the world oppressed by British, Dutch, French, and Portuguese imperialisms.
Not so incidentally, it has been chiefly my devotion to those patriotic traditions of the American Revolution, also shared by President Franklin Roosevelt, which has brought me into the target-area of personal political, and legal troubles during the recent thirty years to date.
Under the "shell-shock"-like conditions of fear, and of greatly increasing lability, and suggestibility, of the generation entering universities during the middle of the 1960s, a fundamental turn in axiomatics of policy-making occurred, away from the principles upon which our republic was built. This change was dramatized by the epidemic, 1964-1973 spread of the "rock-drug-sex" youth counterculture; but, the spread of the irrationalist cult of "post-industrial" utopianism was more far-reaching. As a result of the changes in direction of policy-shaping associated with the increasing influence of the "68 generation," there has been a rapid decline in the physical-economic net productivity of the U.S. labor-force, and shift of investment away from productive enterprise, into purely parasitical forms of speculation, and shift from productive to "services" employment.
The presently accelerating disintegration of the world's existing financial and monetary systems, is the cumulative result of that 1964-1973 shift in direction of policy-shaping, among the U.S. and other nations.
This shift, of approximately the 1966-1997 interval, was superimposed upon another, problematical, longer-range trend in U.S. economic policies of practice. This earlier, long-range trend, was the subject of my first long-range forecast, that of 1959-1960. It was my analysis of that earlier trend, which enabled me to recognize and forecast, beginning 1963-1964, the consequences of adding the impact of the then-emerging youth-counterculture, to the longer-term trend already prevalent under the Eisenhower Administration. The background to that 1959-1960 forecast is as follows.
The successful 1901 assassination of patriotic President William McKinley, by the assassin who was deployed inside the U.S.A. through British intelligence's, Manhattan, Emma Goldman-directed Henry Street Settlement House, brought Britain's preferred choice, Confederacy spawn Theodore Roosevelt, into the U.S. Presidency. Teddy Roosevelt's incumbency effected a rapid, fundamental shift in the economic, domestic legal, and foreign policies of the U.S.A.; Teddy's "Bull Moose" campaign elected another degenerate spawn of the Confederacy, Woodrow Wilson, and ensured the enactment of the Federal Reserve bill and the dubiously certified "Federal income-tax" amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Since that beginning of this century, to the present date, there has never been a period of net physical-economic profitability of the U.S. economy as a whole, except as a by-product of either war-economy or aerospace "crash programs." The Woodrow Wilson depression, following World War I, and the 1946-1948 Truman depression, following World War II, are illustrations of this fact. During the pre-Sputnik middle 1950s, the Eisenhower administration, guided by monetarist Arthur Burns, resumed the kinds of peace-time policies associated with industry-buster Teddy Roosevelt, post-war Woodrow Wilson, and the 1946-1948 Truman administration. Although the Sputnik shock forced a reluctant Eisenhower administration into initiating the aerospace "crash program" adopted and expanded by President Kennedy, the generally accepted doctrine among academic economists and government bureaucrats, was established by the middle to late 1950s, as the axiomatic policy of the U.S. for peace-time or quasi-peace-time conditions.
Thus, the anti-war sentiment established by the post-1962 detente agreements, and rising popular reaction against the disgusting U.S. conduct of the "War in Vietnam," set into motion massive cut-backs in U.S. investment in both public infrastructure programs, and in scientific and technological progress otherwise. These cut-backs, initiated during 1966-1967, ensured a long-term decline in the U.S. economy and the popular standard of living. By the close of the 1970s, the U.S. had already lost chunks of industry without which the manned Moon-landing could not have been accomplished.
Zbigniew Brzezinski's 1967 advocacy of the Hegelian sort of religious delusion, that the "World Spirit" had moved economy from the industrial to a "technetronic" age, typifies the rapid degeneration of economic thinking within the Anglophile "Liberal Establishment," during that period. The additional burden of the growing influence of a delusory cult of "post-industrial," or "information" society, upon the axiomatic presumptions of the Eisenhower period, ensured the self-destruction of the U.S. and world economies, if continued over the long-term.
My long-term forecast of 1959-60, did not yet envisage the impact of the mid-1960s "cultural paradigm-shift;" it was based entirely on the later confirmed presumption, that unless there were virtually "revolutionary" reversals of the cultural trends in thinking among economists during the late 1950s, the U.S. would enter into a series of monetary crises during the second half of the 1960s, which would lead into breakdown of the Bretton Woods agreements, and a directing of the U.S. economy toward those forms of austerity pre-figured by the 1930s Brüning and Hitler regimes in Germany. It happened so, as I had forecast, during 1967-1971; it has continued so, as I forecast in mid-1971, since.
Those two trends continue. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's recent reaffirmation of adherence to "Old Era" monetary thinking, and the "New Ager" faction's deluded insistence upon "information society's" cyclical-crisis-free "New Era" in economy, should remind us of two quarrelling drunks, who would collapse into the gutter, if they lost the form of mutual support supplied by pushing against one another. The truth of the matter is, that the one policy is worse than the other. Which one, is debatable.
The fact is, that unless we return to the policies we had inherited from the "American System of political-economy" of Alexander Hamilton et al., and from the splendid revival of those policies under the leadership of President Abraham Lincoln and Henry C. Carey, during 1861-1876, this nation is in the process of collapsing, very soon, into a form of bankruptcy as bad as that which gripped Europe during the worst decades of the Fourteenth Century "New Dark Age." Reality leaves no margin of truthfulness available to a contrary opinion.
What Worries Me, Right Now
Contrary to both the Republican clique around George "Thyroid Storm" Bush and Paula Jones' British Hollinger Corporation sponsors, President William Clinton is not a bad person, especially as Presidents have customarily come and gone during this century. What worries me, is a pattern of decisions, such as his turn-about refusal to veto an evil "welfare reform" bill, and his apparent submission to the shared policies of Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair and Vice-President Al Gore, in support of the irrationalist cult-theme of "global warming." This is particularly worrisome, because such advocacy was situated in the context of the President's discussions with China's President.
In the sweep of our history, very few Presidents have been qualified as policy-makers, even among some who have been good decision-makers. Good policy-shapers have included, most notably, George Washington, John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt. Others, such as President John Kennedy, have served as good decision-makers --at least, in the main. Good decision-makers are those who know how to select which policy-advisors to regard as reliable. In fact, the nation would not survived, or even come into existence, without the role of good policy-shapers, chiefly those, such as Benjamin Franklin, who were either totally, or mostly outside any official position in government.
This is especially important to emphasize, since it is too often the case that the qualities of personality, especially those of impassioned dedication to truthfulness, which are indispensable in good policy-shapers, constitute a grave competitive disability in a candidate for election to high office.
Indeed, those of us who knew U.S. politics from earlier, pre-1966 decades of constituency-based electoral politics, recognize that there are relatively few elected officials today who have even the moral qualifications which were deemed required for tenure during the earlier period. Today, politicians are not elected by active engagement with constituencies, but, rather with mass news media, and with wooing those wealthy interests who provide the funding needed to be elected.
Today, there is a matching corruption, in the lack of passion for principle, among both elected officials desiring reelection, and the voting sections of the electorate themselves. Very few alert voters, would be able to say honestly, that what their candidate says has any correlation with what that candidate believes, apart from that candidate's expressed desire to be elected. It might be said, judging from results of recent rounds of elections, that the behavior of the cynical, "single issue" majority among voters, has departed the kind of moral standards otherwise suitable for selecting a marriage-partner, for those of selecting a paid partner for the night.
Such voters are made cynical about politics, less because of a suspected lack of morality in elected officials, but because of those voters' certainty of lack of morality in their own personal political behavior in voting, or not voting, in the way they have thus abandoned their moral responsibility as citizens. That voter suspects, that the system is rotten, because he himself is part of it.
Thus, these days, few candidates for high office are qualified, because few consider such competency relevant to being elected and holding elected office. They will rely upon their "political make-up department," the pollsters and kindred other advisors, for their policies, not only in campaigns, but in elected office. After the election, the voter besieged by an epidemic of mice, notes with dismay, that his hired exterminator is relying upon a toy mechanical cat!
That morally unfortunate behavior by voters, is not necessarily an insuperable problem, provided the elected official is a well-meaning person who knows how to deal with policy-shapers, and who has also the temperament of a good decision-maker. A national leader in a time of great national crisis must have the intellect and temperament otherwise found in a great military commander such as Scharnhorst, Grant, or Sherman, or, a President such as Washington, Lincoln, or Franklin Roosevelt. If one does not have a virtual Douglas MacArthur in the leading position of command, one should hope one can find a professionally qualified decision-maker, who will select and heed the counsel of the relevant kind of good staff.
There are three crucial qualities required of such an elected decision-maker. The first, is Abraham Lincoln's commitment to finding the truth, even if the truth will be very unpopular. The second, is the span of concentration needed to follow the successive steps of policy-shaping as presented, and thus to be able to make truthful and rational decisions, rather than Romantically impulsive decisions. Third, in crucial matters, the decision-maker must be as decisive, as unvacillating, as Carl Clausewitz indicated by his special use of the German term Entschlossenheit. And, above all, he, or she must select reliable advisors of the competence and personal qualities which meet the requirements of fateful decision-making.(5)
To an exemplary point at issue within the formulation of U.S. policy toward China: There is, in fact, no credible scientific basis for the "global warming" dogma pushed by Britain's Blair, or supported by the circles around Vice-President Gore. In the hearings on this subject, the relevant scientists were simply excluded, and the President was then, apparently, advised, that all the scientists agreed on the piece of fakery called "the global warming model." If the President were to continue to be misled into supporting that piece of charlatanry, to the effect of pressuring China to adopt it, the results for U.S. China policy, and for the U.S.A. itself, would be fatal, perhaps even in the relatively short term.
Thus, the situation presents itself as follows. Since, the Republican Party is presently in a crisis, in which it is occupied with nothing but nihilist rampages against both the incumbent President and the most vital strategic interests of our nation, where can the nation, or even the President himself, find the sources of policy-shaping which he must find, if this nation is to outlive this century? Where is the policy-shaping polarity, to which this nation, its people could turn, if the Republicans continue their present disorientation, and if the President is misled into adopting the suicidal "New Era" thinking which is typified by the cults of "information society" and "global warming," as a supposed alternative to the equally deadly "Old Era" thinking expressed currently by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan?
This all adds up to one point: You, my fellow-citizen, are in very deep trouble.
That defines my responsibility: to give our country an alternative to the present, potentially fatal mess into which our nation's policy-shaping of recent decades has led us. What are my chances of fulfilling this role? I would say, poor; in which case, our President's impact upon history, would turn out to be, not a mark, but a stain, and your family's chances of survival are to be found in the same direction, or perhaps worse. Therefore, the fate of this nation may depend upon turning those poor chances into a significant actuality of public practice.
That consideration taken into account, turn now, finally, to the record and substance of my policy-orientation on China.
The Eurasia Land-Bridge Policy
Formally, my present policy, of what is sometimes known as a "New Silk Road" perspective, toward China, was first published, under the direction of my wife, the stateswoman Helga Zepp-LaRouche, as a 1991 document on the subject of a proposed Eurasia Land-Bridge, nearly two years prior to the inauguration of the first Clinton Administration. This was an elaboration of my Oct. 12, 1988 policy, the which had been developed through discussions among my wife, myself, and several others, during November-December 1989. Subsequently, several among my associates made relevant contacts in China, as also other relevant places. Years later, in May 1986, my wife was a featured speaker at an official Beijing conference on the subject of the "New Silk Road" policy.
The highlights of the historical background for that policy are essential for competence on discussion of that subject today.
The first such proposal for railway-centered Eurasia land-bridge, was presented by the world-famous economist Henry C. Carey, the principal economic thinker behind those policies of President Abraham Lincoln which transformed the U.S.A. into the world's most advanced and powerful economy, during the period 1861-1876. Carey, the man chiefly responsible for the successful industrialization of Meiji Restoration Japan, successfully proposed to 1870s Germany and to Russia, that they engage in the rapid development of a railway-based Eurasia land-bridge, using as a model of reference, the U.S. transcontinental railway system.
The first result of Carey's land-bridge proposal, was massive cooperation among the U.S.A., Germany, and Russia, in launching and establishing the Trans-Siberian railway to the Pacific. The other, bloody result of British imperial hostility to that policy, was the division of modern civilization between two opposing schools of so-called "geopolitics:" the Eurasian faction, which emphasized the land-bridge, and the opposition, the turn-of-the-Century, King Edward VII's British imperial, maritime-power school of First Sea Lord John Fisher, and Fabian celebrities such as Lord Milner, Sir Halford Mackinder, H. G. Wells, et al. The latter faction, beginning the 1890s, sought, pre-arranged, and launched World War I: all in the effort to put the continental powers, France, Germany, and Russia, at one another's throats, and thus prevent the continued development of Carey's proposed Eurasian land-bridge.(6)
There were two leading elements of background in my resurrection of this land-bridge policy. The first, was my long-standing, impassioned commitment, since overseas service during World War II, to a post-war U.S.A. policy of eradicating British and other imperialisms, and providing U.S. political and technical support for the independent economic development of former imperial colonies.(7) This has been the central feature of my own policies, and of the philosophical associations with which I have been associated during the recent thirty-odd years. The second, was the conception of what is sometimes identified by the term "full-set economy."
The latter, which springs from the Leibnizian, so-called "dirigist" American System of political-economy, of Benjamin Franklin, U.S. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, Friedrich List, Henry C. Carey, et al., emphasizes two features, in stark opposition to the British East India Company's chief export to its intended victims, the so-called "free trade" system of East India Company propagandist Adam Smith. It emphasizes the essential role which public development of a nation's basic economic infrastructure supplies, in making possible a durable form of economic growth in the private productive sector of agriculture and industry. It also emphasizes the use of public credit to foster the concentration of high rates of private investment in increasing the productive powers of labor through growth of capital-intensive, power-intensive modes of scientific and technological progress.
In the latter connection, as I have elaborated this in sundry published locations, the key to sustained economic progress in modern economy is an efficient interconnection between fundamental scientific progress, respecting newly discovered physical and related principles, and the machine-tool-design sector of industry.
As was made clear to me in studies of Asia development, which I conducted during the 1983-1986 interval, excepting Japan, the economic development of East and South Asia, is prevented chiefly by lack of two elements.
The first such elements is, a lack of adequate state development of infrastructure, and an extremely limited, undeveloped form of machine-tool sector.
The second key to the stubbornly persisting economic backwardness of these economies, as measured in per-capita and per-square-kilometer terms, is the lack of efficient transmission of technological progress through a machine-tool sector, and of related technical support for introduction of new technologies. If the most populous region of the world is to develop, East and South Asia must abandon the counterproductive mythology of "tourism," and turn to the U.S.A., continental central Europe, and Japan, for the inflows needed to develop an adequate machine-tool sector within the underdeveloped economies of Asia. The only significant, supplementary source of such indispensable technological support, is the revivable export potential from within the machine-tool-design capability represented by the former Soviet scientific military-industrial complex.
Combining these two considerations with the fact that the overwhelming majority of the world's population is concentrated in South and East Asia, the development of a partnership, for promoting infrastructure and technology transfer, among Japan, the U.S.A., China, Russia, and the nations of South Asia, is the key to the future of Asia, and also the key to the economic revival of the world economy from its present, catastrophic downward course.
Public development of modern basic economic infrastructure, is the foundation of all sectors of economic development. The density of rate of transmission of new technologies, via the machine-tool-design sector of "full set" economies, such as the formerly successful economies of the U.S.A., Germany, and Japan, is the indispensable means for realizing the potential rates of per-capita productivity provided by infrastructural development. The density of technological transmission, via the machine-tool sector, is to be measured in terms of per capita labor-force, and per square kilometer of relevant land-area.
From these considerations, during November-December 1989, I outlined the design of the economic recovery program presented by my wife and her collaborators. This product was circulated during 1990 and 1991, throughout Europe, including eastern Europe, and into Asia under the titles of "The Productive Triangle" and "Eurasia Land-Bridge" strategy.
Had this policy, as presented by my wife and other collaborators, been implemented, beginning some time during 1991, the present spiral of collapse of the disintegrating international financial system, would not have developed. Presently, it is the only possible alternative to the collapse of the entire planet into a New Dark Age reminiscent of the middle of Europe's Fourteenth-Century collapse of the existing banking-system then.
This could not happen, if the world were to submit to the "Global Warming" measures demanded by the international clique centered around Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair. The adoption of such measures, especially if this were to include agreements to such effect between the U.S.A. and China, would ensure the inevitable, early collapse of civilization into a New Dark Age.
Who will rally around my present forecast, to prevent the preventable catastrophe against which I warn? For victory, it would be sufficient, that one patriot out of each hundred citizens, like a Gideon's Army, would rally to assume a leading role in defending this cause.
Christopher Columbus, using a map constructed by Italy's Paolo Toscanelli, and advised by personal correspondence with Toscanelli himself, followed that advice, and discovered America. Out of this, came that historically exceptional, wonderful achievement of all mankind, the founding, in 1789, of the United States of America as a Federal constitutional Republic. It is time, to put aside the so-called "mainstream" mythology about the history of this republic, and to learn from those who created and defended it in the course of warfare and related conflict with our nation's mortal adversary of the late Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries, the British Empire. As I look back at the history of our hemisphere since Christopher Columbus' discovery, I think, that October 12th, is always a good day for our rediscovery of that America. Today, our nation's survival may depend upon it.
1. The nearest precedent was the fully
justified, 1946-1953, Soviet attacks upon Bertrand Russell, in
response to Russell's Henry Kissinger-like logic in his published
calls for a "preventive nuclear assault" upon the Soviet
Union. This, beginning September 1946, continued into the early 1950s.
This Soviet policy toward Russell was reversed when N. S. Khrushchev
sent four emissaries to a 1955 London meeting of Russell's World
Parliamentarians for World Government, setting into motion the first
Pugwash Conference and its sequels.
2. The Soviet intelligence services, which, it
was later proven, orchestrated the Swedish press's and government's
cover-up, on behalf of the assassins in this affair, went so far as to
allege that I had acted for the CIA in directing the October 28, 1986
assassination of Sweden's Prime Minister Olof Palme. Official U.S. and
other documentation expose this fraudulent campaign against me, as one
in which U.S. organizations including NBC-TV, the Anti-Defamation
League (ADL), the FBI, and the Boston office of U.S. Attorney, and
George Bush ally, William Weld, collaborated with these Soviet
3. King Henry IV, Part II:
Act II, Scene IV. Shakespeare's Doll refers to the fact that "occupy"
had come to be used as a synonym for the "sexual act." Among
the various editions of this play, I think "wondrous,"
rather than the sometimes used "excellent," conforms to
Shakespeare's intent for this character, and "bad company"
is understood, where the intent of the Sixteenth/Seventeenth Century
English's "ill-sorted" would be incomprehensible to most
English speakers today.
4. The distinction I have made was already
known in ancient times. Classical exemplar of this principle of
forecasting, is the Prometheus of Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound.
The tragic figure --the "Hamlet"-- of that drama, is not
Prometheus, but the pagan god Zeus. In order to bring about the
destruction of the enemy of mankind, Zeus, the prototypical forecaster
Prometheus must keep from Zeus the secret of Zeus's potentially fatal
flaw, a secret kept even at the price of Prometheus' own, immortal
7. At the time, I did not know that this was
President Roosevelt's intended post-war U.S. policy; but, I would not
have been surprised to have learned that it was. Nor was I surprised
to read my self-avowed personal adversary's, Henry A. Kissinger's May
10, 1982 Chatham House address, in which he denounced Roosevelt's
post-war policy, while gloating publicly of having been an agent of
the British Foreign Service's direction during the time of his
official "incarnation" under Presidents Nixon and Ford.