This article appears in the January 15, 1999 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
January 1, 1999
Turn off that noisy TV for a few minutes. Tell those jailhouse lawyers to stop their babbling. Then, use that quiet time to do some serious thinking. Ask the crucial question: Will the United States survive this impeachment side-show? The evidence is, that most of you have still no idea of how bad your own present personal situation is becoming.
The first, and the most plain fact you must understand clearly, and not block out, is that there is a British-style parliamentary coup d'état now being attempted in the U.S. Senate. This farcical impeachment process is only one among the many crucial battlefields in a much wider war. Whoever thinks only of one issue at a time--one battlefield, or one mass-media week--has made a commitment to losing this war, at the start.
FACT: The bigger war now ongoing, has been triggered by what is about to become generally recognized as the worst world depression of the century. The next (post-October 1998) phase of this collapse is coming down during the weeks ahead--likely during the same weeks the Republican-controlled Senate is still foolishly fondling Mr. Hyde's lunatic bill of impeachment. Anyone who is still playing with mutual funds, futures, and the stock market, at this late date, obviously has no idea of what the present financial and economic reality is all about.
FACT: Take just one example of where the impeachment coup d'état is leading. One very real, leading danger, which could be a result of replacing President Clinton with Al Gore, is the not unlikely danger of outbreaks of thermonuclear-missiles launches in the near future, if the impeachment goes through. We are sitting, right now, on the risk of the chain-reaction spread of thermonuclear missile exchanges, spreading out of Near East conflicts centered around and ricocheting from the present nuclear war-plans of Israel's Netanyahu government and the continued bombing attacks on Iraq. If Al Gore were President, such nuclear scenarios become almost as inevitable as World War II was after Neville Chamberlain's 1938 deal with Hitler.
FACT: For us, in the United States, the central feature of our war is a fight against treason in our nation's political establishment, like that treason which led to the Civil War of 1861-1865. This treason is organized "One very real, leading danger, which could be a result of replacing President Clinton with Al Gore," writes LaRouche, "is the not unlikely danger of outbreaks of thermonuclear-missiles launches in the near future, if the impeachment goes through." by President Clinton's foreign (London-centered) and domestic (Wall Street-centered) enemies, such as the circles of Richard Mellon Scaife, Conrad Black's Hollinger Corporation, and London's Lord William Rees-Mogg, against everything good this republic ever represented. Ours is a fight against a British parliamentary-style coup d'état, orchestrated from London. It is a fight against a treasonous operation aimed to tear up (that is, "reinvent") the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence, and to bring the U.S.A. into a NAFTA-style, "Third Way" integration under Queen Elizabeth II's British Commonwealth and its NAFTA-style slave-labor system.
If the average citizen still thinks that those wider battles are too big and wide for "little me" to think about, that citizen's thinkable future is about to end right now. So, those of you who would rather think of small, local, practical, "bread and butter" issues, remember this. Remember, that if Clinton is impeached, the late Armand Hammer's hand-picked President Al "Uriah Heep" Gore, will have cut a deal with his "Third Way" cronies of the Republican Party's lunatic, "new Confederate" right--as he did in bullying President Clinton into cooperating with Newt Gingrich on the 1996 "Welfare Reform" bill. He would connive with his cronies of the "new Confederacy" right, to eliminate your social security, health care rights, and unemployment protection, almost as soon as your mutual funds portfolio goes up in smoke--puff!--in the next big round of the financial crisis now coming on fast.
Yes, there is an impeachment battle in the Senate. True, if we lose that battle, it would be as if the U.S. had lost the Civil War. Under such a condition, the United States is either plunged into some form of Civil War against the treason, or is finished as a nation. Unchallenged, such an impeachment, under such conditions, would produce the result, that the U.S. would begin to disintegrate, immediately, politically and economically, beginning the same hour Clinton were thrown out of office. The last act of a rump government of President Gore, before it, too, soon left office, might be to order the launch of U.S. thermonuclear missiles, as part of a nuclear-war chain-reaction, spreading out of the ignition-point of a presently escalating, Israel-centered strategic conflict.
Therefore, we should all readily agree, that the impeachment battle is a very important battle. If President Clinton were ousted, the United States is finished as a nation. This is a war we can not afford to lose. But, do not become so tied up mentally in just one battle, the impeachment battle, that you overlook the war of which that battle represents only one front of the war as a whole. Do not say, "All right, we will first defeat this impeachment, and will then be free to turn our attention to other matters." The lessons of the famous battles at Cannae and Leuthen should remind us, that commanders who win battles with that kind of thinking, often find themselves crushed by those enemy flanking operations which they had overlooked in that kind of way. People who fight one battle at a time, are usually outflanked, and lose the war, and probably that battle, too.
What happens as a result of this impeachment proceeding, will not be decided within the Senate itself; ultimately, it will be decided in the war being fought on many fronts, in many parts of the world. This is not an internal U.S. political affair; it is a global affair, in which every leading government of the world is vitally interested, and in which many nations will be playing a hand for their own, vital strategic interests.
The other nations of the world, at least most of them, would react to a success of this impeachment drive, as signalling the end of all moral authority of the U.S.A. in all parts of the world, including its own internal affairs. If the impeachment succeeds, not only will the U.S. be viewed with contempt world-wide, but those elements of stability in world affairs which have depended upon the legacy of influence left by President Franklin Roosevelt, would evaporate. Under such conditions, apart from whatever stabilizing influences might come from cooperation for survival among leading and other nations of Eurasia, the fragile institutions of stability in relations among states would crumble, replaced by a large degree of anarchy in relations among states.
Thus, taking into account the already rampant process of financial and economic collapse spreading out of Europe and the Americas, and the U.S. break with peace in the most recent bombing of Iraq: In the minute the Senate might throw the President out of office, a rapid, global chain-reaction is detonated, a chain-reaction which will not end until the U.S. disintegrates, together with western Europe as we have known it, too. Much of Central and South America, like Africa, will quickly disintegrate into a vast, intercontinental non-man's land, where micro-states are ruled by petty war-lords. The Middle East, including Israel, would be soon virtually wiped from the map. New Zealand is already self-destroyed, and Australia would tend to follow, if it remained under Commonwealth rule.
Perhaps, if only perhaps, a group of nations grouped in cooperation around China, India, and Russia, might continue some form of civilization, even eventual recovery of the planet a generation or more ahead. That possibility is only a hope, unless we stop the impeachment process now.
I know you, my fellow citizens, very well; I have a lot of experience with your good sides, and your fickleness, too. Now, you are frightened, because you smell that something very ugly is building up, inside the U.S., as well as outside. The spectacle of the impeachment lynch-mob, first in the lower House, and now in the Senate, disgusts, but also frightens you. You hope against hope that a terribly beleaguered President Clinton, and his wife, will stand bold and firm, and defeat that lynch-mob now being organized in the Senate, but you have no clear idea of what you might do about all this. Meanwhile, like a turtle retreating into his shell, you are obsessed with finding some place to hide--some personal foxhole--in the case things don't work out as you might wish. You are dominated by your fears, and by your obsession with that same art of so-called "crisis management" practiced by generals who are expert in winning battles, but losing wars.
The best thing I can do for you, and other ordinary citizens like you, is to give you some sense of what this war is all about. What is happening. What might happen. What you might be able to do about it. My job is to turn you, from frightened political sheep, into an army, an army which is not likely to sell out for the sake of some "crisis management" fantasy, an army that is committed to fight this war, to fight against the treason which has inspired this impeachment process, an army which is absolutely committed to early and total victory.
Right now, your mind, like the mass media, is occupied by the impeachment fight. Soon, your opinion will be radically changed. In a few weeks from now, you will realize that the recent stock-market bubble was all an orchestrated delusion, a swindle. Soon, you will begin to realize that the present economic system, as you have known it, is already collapsing into something far worse than the 1930s Depression. During the weeks ahead, other, global crises, even much more frightening than the already terrifying economic crisis, will grab your attention. Let us sum up the impeachment problem first, and then look at the larger, world-wide issues.
So far, as of January 1, 1999, the Senate Democrats, overall, have shown much less backbone and spunk than the Democrats in the House of Representatives did. It would be fair to say that, "Right now, apart from the U.S.A.'s monstrously corrupted criminal-justice system, the impeachment process is the only railroad in our rotting national economy which had continues to run more or less according to schedule."
The first thing to do, in order to turn your mind back on, is to put an end to the currently popular, useless chattering about details of the so-called "legal issues." All the debate in the news media about those kinds of so-called legal issues is a trap. Neither those "new Confederacy" Republicans, nor the sexually perverted Special Prosecutor involved in this illegal coup d'état, have ever shown any respect for actual truth or actual law so far, and are not likely to do so unless you force them to change their ways. This televangelist-backed pack of porno-kings makes up its law from one moment to the next. That lynch mob is not interested in your talk about this or that point of law; their game is the rope. Their law is jungle law, raw power, with the emphasis on "very raw."
Remember! The Honorable Senate majority, and also a few Honorable Senate Democrats, like deviant Democrat Pat Moynihan, have said openly that they intend that the actual issues of the impeachment frame-up will never actually be heard in the Senate. These varieties of Honorable Senators have stated, already, publicly, that they plan to cut a deal, lynch-mob-style--"We know we're going hang him; so, let's string him up now, and get it over with" deal--in which President Clinton gives up power to Al "Uriah Heep" Gore before the real issues of truth and law have had a chance to be considered.
There is no deal the President could accept, even by offering to resign, which would prevent that Confederate lynch-mob from tearing him--and his wife, too--limb from limb, deal or no deal. This is a lynch mob, filled with murderous, wild-eyed hatred. This is a lynch mob, which, once whipped up, will never quit until either they are dispersed, or Bill Clinton is dead and his family broken and ruined. Those of you who know the traditions of the Confederacy, know what these guys are like, when they did not get their way. The killing then just goes on and on.
In the Senate proceeding itself, President Clinton must fight this to the bitter end of victory over this lynch-mob, which is what most of you citizens wish him to do, and which you will support him in doing, if he does not cave in under the pressures. This must be a life-death fight, to force a fight of the kind in which many who once appeared to be strong men will break. It must be a fight to force the Senate to break up its own lynch-mob, and to search out truth and honest law, instead.
Otherwise, without that kind of counterpunching by the President, and without your support for that kind of a fight, there is no chance this republic will long outlive the battered Presidency of Bill Clinton. The Republican-controlled Senate might march the President up to the impeachment guillotine, but they, like Robespierre and Saint-Just before them, would soon be doomed to the same injustice they had administered to an extremely popular, elected President of the U.S. Those who bring lynch-mob law to power, will be hanged by the kind of injustice they themselves have turned loose.
Granted, this lynch-mob, based in both the Congress and Federal courts, seems as powerful as Canada's Edgar Bronfman wrongly believed the government of East Germany's Erich Honecker to be, as late as most of 1989. Today, under the combined conditions of a Senate ouster of President Clinton, and the presently onrushing, post-October 1998 phase of the world's financial crisis, the 1999 U.S.A. could proceed to disintegrate, going into a state of increasing instability of our political and economic institutions, as suddenly, as in a rout, as the East German state disintegrated over the last half of 1989.
Since the U.S. stock-market panic which occurred, exactly as I had forecast it would, in October 1987, the world order in every part of the world has been increasingly subject to sudden, seismic changes in that ordering of both economic and political institutions, and in those relations among states, which, up to that time, had seemed more or less durable, even permanent. We have now reached the point in that process of post-1987 decay, at which the U.S.A. itself is subject to risk of internal convulsions neither unlike, nor unrelated to those which shattered the old Soviet system during 1989-1992.
We must never cave in to the lynch-mob law being cooked up by the "new Confederacy" mob now rampaging in the Senate. The President must fight to defend the Constitution, and you must defend him, in the most vital interests of both our nation and your family. You must help now to force some sense of real law down the throats of those who are using faked impeachment charges against him.
As I have warned you, the impeachment process now going into the Senate is a parliamentary coup d'état modelled in every crucial feature on the January 1933 parliamentary coup d'état, in Germany, which brought Adolf Hitler to power there. Indeed, it is exactly the same institutions, of Britain and Wall Street, which brought Hitler into power in January 1933, through a parliamentary coup d'état, which have organized the coup d'état now pushed into the U.S. Senate.
If the President goes down in that fight, the average citizen of the U.S.A. would be plunged immediately into a situation like that of Germany after the legal coup d'état, of January 28-30, 1933, which put Adolf Hitler into power. Remember, that after three key following events, the Reichstag fire of February 28, 1933, the June 1934 assassination of General Kurt von Schleicher, and the August 1934 death of President Paul Hindenburg, there was nothing inside Germany which could stop Hitler--until the failed effort of July 20, 1944. Similarly, if the Senate's process brought about the ouster of President Clinton, and his replacement by Vice-President Al Gore, then, just as Hitler's consolidation of power, by August 1934, eliminated virtually all rights of Germans, there would soon be nothing which protects the legal rights of any among you today, anywhere.
So, if you permit President Clinton to be sent down the river with either an impeachment, or a censure resolution, the United States is finished as a nation. If you wish to defend the Constitution, you must defend the Constitution against an impeachment operation which is an exact parallel to the coup d'état which Wall Street's Brown Brothers, Harriman, and Harriman's Prescott Bush--the father of former President George Bush--funded, on orders from London, to put Hitler into power in Germany, in 1933. If you wish to defend the Constitution, you must drop all the jail-house lawyer's babbling, and volunteer to join those patriots who are willing to fight to win this war, a war which is all about raw political power, and nothing else.
Any war for which citizens are unwilling to fight, is a war already lost. Any war which armies do not fight to win, is a war as good as lost before it starts. Those who will not fight, and fight to win, will learn what it is like to see one's nation defeated, conquered, and destroyed. By their cowardice they will have earned the right to suffer just such a calamity.
A world-wide war has begun, whether you choose to fight it, or not. If you are the kind of shirker, who hides, covering your head in a mental foxhole, in this war, do not be surprised if someone uses that opportunity to drop a virtual hand-grenade right into your personal hidey-place where you are cringing. If Clinton goes down, you, the ordinary citizen, no matter how obscure and unimportant you are, will have no place on this planet to hide. Under the short-lived Presidency of Al Gore, you will be like those misguided, also small and politically obscure Jews of 1933-1937 Nazi Germany, who thought that the Hitler problem would soon simply go away if they kept a low profile in the meantime.
That said, look at what is about to hit this nation, and your family, if you try to sit out this war hiding in a political foxhole, saying, as too many of you have, the "New Age" litany which you have learned to recite during the past thirty-odd years, "I don't go there." For once: Do go there! People who "don't go there," who try to hide in fox-holes, are the ones who usually have a hand-grenade dropped right on top of them.
No actually intelligent observer ever accused either a krait snake or Armand Hammer's protégé, Al "Ozymandias" Gore, of being smart; but, smart or not, if you find either in your bed, remember, that those who deploy them consider each highly expendable, but also useful carriers of a deadly poison.
Al Gore's limited mental capacities carry four political poisons:
A commitment to "re-invent government," which, in plain text, is translated as "eliminate the sovereignty of every nation on this planet"--including the U.S.
The same fanatical hostility, in words and political practice, to all scientific and technological progress, which Gore shares with the convicted Unabomber terrorist Ted Kaczynski;
A fanatical commitment to globalized slave-labor policies in the U.S. and every other nation of this planet;
A fanatic's commitment to radical reductions in what he has stated that he considers "excess populations," a commitment which is as brutal as, and more far-reaching than the similar sentiments of Adolf Hitler.
Do not be disarmed by the fact that Gore is fairly described as a wooden-headed illiterate in dealing with concepts; he may appear a simple-minded, alternately bad-tempered and fawning fool, but he is a fanatic in both his Uriah-Heep-like ambitions, and his commitment to the four poisons which are the core of his political commitments.
In short, those, in London and Wall Street, who have chosen to employ Armand Hammer's Al Gore, consider him a useful, and also timely expendable fool. The advantage which his controllers perceive in their use of a wooden-headed personality like Gore, is that would-be "crown prince" Gore's combination of such bi-polar personality defects as his Uriah-Heep-like ambition, his fanaticism, and his lack of any manifest ability to think through the inevitable and devilishly evil consequences of his own policies. This combination of mental and moral defects, represents a politician with the qualities otherwise desired by the designer of a self-propelled bomb. The bi-polar Mr. Al Gore is the type of contraption likely to carry out its simple-minded mission with a certain hateful zeal, and blow itself up in the process of destroying its assigned target.
Make no mistake about it; no clearheaded leading political opinion believes that Al Gore will win election as President on the Democratic ticket in the year 2000. Some leading political opinion, such as those associated with the highly advertised George Walker Bush, Jr. campaign for that year, wish Gore to be the Democratic nominee, to ensure Bush's victory in the general election. Self-propelled political missiles such as Gore are like that; by the nature of their design and selection, the fulfillment of their assigned mission requires their timely self-destruction.
That said, focus now on those issues of U.S. national security which feature Al Gore's role as one of the presently leading dangers to the security of our republic. Gore's commitment to the four poisons he carries, typifies all of our republic's urgent national-security risks, domestic and global. In the war we must now fight, globally, to defend our republic from a foreign-directed, treasonous coup d'état, we must proceed as in any competent form of war-planning. We must define the characteristic issues of that war, and, from that standpoint, map the forces with which, and against which we must fight, and must map the combined political-economic, cultural, and geographic terrain on which the battles will be fought.
To sum up the task thus set before us: The war is a world war, between the principles on which the independence and constitutional, protectionist form of our republic was founded, on the one side, against the continuing, directly contrary, free trade and related policies of that republic's most ancient, and continuing chief enemy, the British monarchy. That monarchy represents the resources it commands through the current form of its empire, called the British Commonwealth. This conflict features the treasonous "new Confederacy" and Wall Street elements behind the ongoing parliamentary-style coup d'état.
The present form of that continuing, ancient, mortal conflict between two axiomatically opposing forms of English-speaking political culture, is marked in its intensity by several conditions of accelerating instability in political-economic and cultural relations among and within states.
This instability has four most prominent features world-wide.
More than a quarter-century of accelerating, spiralling collapse in the financial stability of the world under the rule of the post-1971 form of monetary and financial system known as the International Monetary Fund's (IMF's) "floating exchange-rate monetary system."
This now explosive instability in the IMF-dominated financial and monetary systems, is matched by an accelerating, spiralling collapse in net physical-economic output and productive potential, as measured per capita of the labor-force and per square kilometer of surface-area. The collapse of previously established levels of national basic economic infrastructure, is a key feature of that physical-economic collapse.
A willfully orchestrated destruction of the institution of the sovereign nation-state, including the increasing use of lunatic "free trade" and "globalization" ideologies, to destroy the economic and other essential functions of the sovereign nation-state.
An escalating virtual war to the purpose of eradicating continued investment in scientific and technological progress from the economic and political agendas, and a matching, willfully directed destruction, both of literacy in scientific and general education, and of sane forms of artistic and related culture.
The result of these continuing trends of the recent thirty-odd years, has been ruined and enfeebled national economies throughout most of the world, and the degeneration of the levels of skill and rationality of recent generations of populations to levels at which they are far, far less capable of actually productive and other rational functions, than the labor-force and political leaderships of thirty-odd years ago. In skills and rationality, the labor-force and economic and political leadership of today's western Europe and the U.S.A., are spectacularly inferior to representatives of the same occupations from thirty-odd years earlier.
Continuing to put emphasis upon western Europe and the U.S.A. as examples, we have the following leading, additional considerations.
During the same thirty-odd years, there has been an accelerating drawing down of capital-intensive forms of physical productive capital, and development of replacement sources of power, throughout most of the world. In this manner, there has been a cumulatively savage attrition of basic economic infrastructure, of productive forces, of levels of household consumption, and essential means of health-care and other social security factors. In short, the economic and social resilience of national political-economic systems have been strained to the limits of their ability to endure more of this kind of attrition.
A most notable feature of this process of attrition, is a continuing increase of the number of employments, and hours of labor, each adolescent and adult member of a family household must have, to attempt to equal, unsuccessfully, the same physical and social standard of living, per capita, available to a comparable family household of thirty, even ten, even six years ago. As more and more of these forms of grinding austerity have superseded the former political parties' standard of more and better for the population in general, an axiomatic social and political conflict now exists between the populations and the leaderships of all leading political parties, in the U.S.A. and western Europe alike. A rising current of existentialist rage, general spread of pure meanness, and disgust for political leaders no longer linked to popular constituencies, now dominates politics in those countries.
Not only do such typical conditions prevail throughout most of the world. The situation is now greatly complicated by a continuing, accelerating surge in rates of general unemployment. This erupted in its present form with international economic chain-reaction effects, with the October 1997 outbreak of the present, terminal phase of a process of global financial collapse. This post-October 1997 trend in accelerating rates of unemployment, has continued through October 1998 and beyond. The present use of hyperinflationary tricks to boost the most wildly speculative financial investments, has created the effect that the rates of unemployment skyrocket with every up-tick on the highly dubious Dow-Jones index. The waves of mass unemployment hitting during the first quarter of 1999, will constitute and generate a general political panic.
All of these and related conditions combine to create an explosive political-economic mixture in each and all of these and other nations. We have come into the kind of a time in history, once again, in which wars, revolutions, and terrible dictatorship tend to erupt as if on the order of the day.
These conditions affect not only the general population which suffers the brutal effects of Al Gore's four-poisons recipes. As on the eve of Britain's putting Hitler into power in Germany, the restiveness in the general population is comparatively mild, when measured against the wild-eyed, murderous lunacy which the present stage of the world financial crisis has evoked into two strata of the financial community. The Wall Street establishment, for example, is already reacting to today's global financial meltdown as that establishment reacted when it joined with London to bring Hitler to power in 1933. But, there is also something worse.
The worst lunacy is found among the most useless of the world's financial parasites, typified by those young zealots masturbating with their hand-held electronic calculators, while managing the mutual funds and derivatives trades. Under today's financial panic states, these latter varieties of financial mice, now crawling all over the Internet, are transformed into something like the fictional rats from Arch Obler's memorable, radio-age broadcast drama called "Three Skeleton Key." The mentality of such fear-maddened financial rats, is echoed on the U.S. political scene, in their financial contributions to the hard core of the Republican Party's congressional "new Confederacy." If you wish to know what a genuinely native-American, home-grown version of the Nazi Party would look like, look at the hard core of the Republican Party's "new Confederacy" right wing.
Parallel developments are typical of western Europe and Japan, more or less as much as the U.S. The difference is that continental European nations, and Japan, have suffered the lashes of military and foreign occupation, and U.S.A. and British domination of Japan and continental western Europe, more than once in their recent generations' memories. The U.S. type is cruder in his or her thinking than the comparable strata in western continental Europe; the European is less confident that his country's military could whip everyone else's on the block. Thus, there is a corresponding difference in temperament between guises in which rages are expressed in the two regions. Otherwise, the conditions are generally parallel, as the recent parliamentary elections in Germany have shown.
These conditions of economic and related decline, which I have just sampled, typify the terrain on which the war will be fought. They do not, in and of themselves, show why the war will be fought--the casus belli--nor do these conditions define, in and of themselves, what the underlying issues are, which make the conflict on this terrain more or less inevitable.
This forces our attention back to Al Gore, and the way in which Gore is being exploited by his Republican "new Confederacy" cronies. Behind every war, there is an issue of choice. Contrary to the self-styled "geopolitical" variety of loonies, such as Halford Mackinder, Karl Haushofer, or Zbigniew Brzezinski, terrain does not cause wars; it is conflicts over choice of response to the conditions in the political-economic and cultural terrain, which prompt serious warfare. Geopolitics happens to be one of those delusions which tends to cause loonies to choose wars. What are today's conflicting choices, which the recent changes in the terrain have evoked?
What is the issue today? Look back to 1929-1934. What were the choices posed by what we refer to as the outbreak of the 1930s Great Depression? The 1929-1932 developments had eliminated Mellon's policy as an option for anyone.
Then, there were two choices. In January-February 1933, on the one side, there were the parallel economic-recovery policies of Wilhelm Lautenbach and the Friedrich List Society, being implemented by the government of Kurt von Schleicher, and the economic-recovery policies of President-elect Franklin Roosevelt. On the opposing side, there were the policies of those combined British and Wall Street BAC (British-American-Canadian) interests which used the fascist Labour Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald and Adolf Hitler, to set up, in 1931-1934, the preconditions for the next war in Europe. In the attempt to block the economic-recovery programs of Lautenbach and Roosevelt, the BAC interests staged the Hitler coup d'état in Germany, and an attempted coup d'état in the U.S.A.
In the broad terms of principle, as distinct from differences in secondary details, the same two choices are those which the present global financial meltdown presents to the world today. What is new is the form in which the Hitler-like alternative is presented today, as those differences are typified by the four-poison recipe of "new Confederacy" accomplice Al Gore. History repeats itself, but only by assuming new forms for old conflicts. That is the core of the global strategic issue to be examined in summary, here and now.
The strategic issues of choice, reflected once again in today's crisis, as during London's 1933-34 operations putting Hitler into power, and consolidating Nazi power in Germany, must first be viewed as one more eruption of a recurring series of mortal strategic conflicts between the emergence of the political-economic American System and its leading adversary, the British Liberal monarchy established by the 1714 accession to the throne of the United Kingdom by William of Orange's protégé, George I.
The issues are those of the increasing tempo and intensity of the conflict between England and its North American colonies since 1688-89, issues which assumed the form of uncompromisable differences of political principle, with the death of England's Queen Anne. By 1763, this irrepressible conflict between the American patriots and the British monarchy, moved ever closer to the state of open armed conflict expressed by the U.S. War of Independence. The issues of continuing irrepressible conflict between the American patriots and their enemy, the British monarchy, were the point of the same such issues of irrepressible conflict between President Franklin Roosevelt and Britain's Prime Minister Winston Churchill, during the entire course of World War II. Those are the issues which set the vital interests of most of humanity, including these United States, against the Venetian financier-oligarchical legacy of the British monarchy, its empire, and the overlordship of its Commonwealth, still today.
This persisting conflict, with its recurring mortal expressions, is, at bottom, an irrepressible conflict between two axiomatically irreconcilable differences between the Christian and pagan-oligarchical conceptions of man and mature; the British monarchy's Duke of Edinburgh is today's most shameless exponent of the anti-Christian, paganist view.
The American System views each man and woman as made in the image of the Creator, as each endowed at birth with a divine spark of a creative power of reason lacking in all lower forms of life. For us, that is the principle of natural law which must underlie all rightful government, axiomatically, as our Leibnizian Declaration of Independence and the Preamble of our Federal Constitution express this commitment to such principles of natural law. The British monarchy's system, on the contrary, views the majority of the nation's and world's population not as citizens, but as mere subjects of an hereditary, willful, essentially parasitical authority, the which is embodied in institutions controlled by a ruling, imperial financier oligarchy, typified by the pagan tradition of the Venice-modelled Anglo-Dutch financier oligarchy.
This difference in conception has many expressions, some common to all localities in modern history, others specific to some more local historical setting. The most common modern expression of this difference is the difference between the Leibnizian, American System of political-economy and the axiomatically opposite conception of man, law, and nature typified by the British financier-oligarchical philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, et al. The British system in political-economy is expressed in differing varieties, all rooted in the same axiomatic misconception of underlying principles of political-economy. The London-directed BAC (British-American-Canadian) interests' action in putting Adolf Hitler into power in Germany, and orchestrating the currently ongoing impeachment hoax against President Clinton, are among the varieties of typical expressions of British ideology. The four-poisons fanaticism of heathen Vice-President Al Gore, is a virulent expression of the same anti-Christian, intrinsically British ideology.
Focus next, upon the immediate, political-economic issues of the current strategic crisis, and after that summarize, as briefly as possible, the deeper axiomatic determinants of the same conflict.
In principle, today's global financial crisis could be solved politically by returning to precisely those traditional American System policies which the British monarchy has always hated, and which Armand Hammer-created Al "Ozymandias" Gore, like Armand Hammer's ideological cronies, the Duke of Edinburgh and the Prince of Wales, is determined to eliminate from this planet's agenda, once and for all. Both the Friedrich List Society's Lautenbach plan, and Roosevelt's wily but well informed revival of traditional American System foreign and economic policies, serve as pedagogical models of reference for understanding what remain as repeatedly proven past methods for dealing with the present type of global financial and political-economic crises. The directly contrary policies, for which the British Empire and its BAC assets, such as George Bush's father, Prescott, put Hitler into power in January 1933, are the opposing choice of the Anglo-Dutch BAC interests, again, today.
Put most simply, the present world financial system is now hopelessly bankrupt.
The financial obligations in the system are already many times the annual combined gross domestic product of this planet. That debt is now no less than a nominal $140 trillions estimated, and soaring now at hyper-inflationary rates of financial leverage, ranging from about 40-to-1 to 350-to-1. Meanwhile, as a result of this present global financial system, the physical-economic net output of the planet as a whole is collapsing at accelerating rates. In effect, the entire world economy, in its form at this moment, is operating at spiralling net losses. The bottom line is: The financial system is hopelessly bankrupt.
Thus, the situation of the world's financial system as a whole, is worse than that of 1923 Weimar Germany; nothing could save this system in its present form, but, the maddened desperadoes of the financier's world are nonetheless determined, at whatever price to humanity, to save what they euphemistically define as their financial holdings.
What do sane nations do about bankrupt financial systems? Their governments put the entire financial system through bankruptcy reorganization. In a case like the present one, that means an orderly but ruthless and prompt write-off of most of the financial debt in the system, especially that debt which can be classed as purely financial in character. A new banking and financial system, perhaps a new currency, is created by no other authority but the sovereign form of modern nation-state government. This financial reorganization is done in ways which protect the savings and related assets of ordinary citizens, which provide a viable, reorganized banking and credit system adequate to the fostering of rapid expansion in physical-economic growth of employment and net output. Protectionist measures, and public investment programs supported by the credit of sovereign government, foster rapid expansion of needed forms of basic economic infrastructure, and support and stimulus for high rates of growth of private investment in physical-economic expressions of the productive powers of labor.
This sort of emergency financial reorganization, has been done in relatively numerous times and places in modern history. The proven best method for conducting such a reorganization, is the American System, as copied by many nations from the example of the success of the 1861-1876 economic miracle of agricultural and industrial growth, set into motion by the government of President Abraham Lincoln. Why, therefore, should any sane person object to the kind of bankruptcy reorganization I have presented as a solution for the present world crisis?
The answer is elementary: such American System methods cut down to size the power of the financier-oligarchical class of financial centers such as today's Wall Street, London, and Tokyo. Rather than give up any significant amount of that power, that parasitical class has shown, repeatedly, that it would prefer to destroy the entire world. That is why London brought Hitler to power in Germany; that is why the London-directed BAC gang orchestrated the 1992-1999 impeachment campaign against President Clinton; that is why the same forces targetting President Clinton ran, internationally, the secret-government operation, of Henry Kissinger, Iran-Contra's George Bush, Oliver North, William Weld, Armand Hammer's Island Creek Coal interests, et al., which targetted me and my associates for mass media, legal, and other covertly-directed operations, in the British monarchy's interest.
To sum up the immediate point at hand. Not only is the American System of political-economy a threat to the overreaching global, e.g., imperial, power of the Anglo-Dutch financier-oligarchical monarchy. In times of grave general financial crisis, the fact that the American System provides the model alternative to ruinously deep economic depressions, prompts the financier-oligarchy to regard the American System, or its like, as an immediately mortal, strategic threat. In such times, that oligarchy has repeatedly reached into Hell to call up the relevant equivalent of an Adolf Hitler, or the impeachment process now ongoing against not only the President of the United States, but the continued existence of that United States itself. The evil Duke of Edinburgh, is the obvious exemplar of the forces behind the prospective Hitlers or their like today.
That is why those muddled citizens of the U.S.A., or of continental western Europe today, who consider increasingly radical versions of Adam Smith's "free trade," and or Al Gore's neo-feudalist forms of "globalization," such as NAFTA, as acceptable policies for this time of crisis, are unable to focus their minds clearly on the source of grave immediate danger to their nation. And, to their economic and medical well-being, and even the very life of themselves and their families. To any literate, rational person, it should be clear: given Al Gore's four-poisons policies, that Gore's higher political ambitions, and the fundamental interests of humanity, anywhere or everywhere, are a contradiction in terms.
It is impossible to develop a competent strategic picture of the world, at any time and place, without knowing the processes of numerous preceding generations which have given us the world as it exists in that time and place. It is impossible to understand anything of world history today, or of the Twentieth Century as an entirety, without focussing first on the continuing world-wide impact of President Abraham Lincoln's defeat of the British monarchy and its allies in both the Civil War, and the expulsion of the London-created, Hitler-like puppet-dictator Maximilian from Mexico. Hence, it should not be remarkable to the historian, that the "new Confederacy," revived by London, in the post-Lyndon Johnson U.S.A., represents a British asset with an immoral character and implications echoing the role of such London assets as the Presidents Polk, Pierce, Buchanan, and Jefferson Davis, August Belmont, the KKK, et al., of the relevant periods of our national history.
Among the most notable features of the Lincoln victory, is the impact of the 1861-1876 agro-industrial revolution in the U.S., an achievement which revolutionized the economic policies of many powers, including Germany, Russia, and Japan. In the imperial eyes of that "Lord of the Isles," the Prince of Wales, later Edward VII, the principal expression of the perceived danger to his empire, came from the revival of Friedrich List's proposed network of Trans-Eurasian railway links; this was what Edward VII's Fabians denounced as the principal geopolitical threat to the continued world-hegemony of the British Empire. To break up cooperation among France, Russia, Turkey, Japan, and Sun Yat Sen's design for China, the Prince of Wales and his crew set France and Russia against Germany, broke Japan from the U.S.A. in the 1894-1895 launching of the first Sino-Japanese war, orchestrated Japan's occupation of Korea and its 1905 war with Russia, exploited the assassination of U.S. President McKinley, and orchestrated the Balkan wars, all to unleash what became known as World War I.
It did not end with World War I. The object of Edward VII's monarchy, was to eradicate the hated U.S.A. and its emulations from this planet, forever. To that end, the period of World War I and its immediate aftermath witnessed three converging thrusts of the British monarchy's longer-range strategic policy for the planet as a whole.
The objective of eliminating the existence of powerful forms of sovereign nation-states by establishing an imperial form of world government, as the glove to veil a system of Anglo-Dutch parody of the Roman Empire in a new form of world-empire continuing the oligarchical tradition since ancient Mesopotamia and Tyre.
As first proposed by British intelligence's H.G. Wells, and continued under coordination of Bertrand Russell, the use of nuclear weapons to create a form of warfare so terrifying that, as Russell set forth his policy, nations would rather submit to world government than maintain their sovereignty at peril of war.
The elimination of investment in scientific and technological progress for increase of the productive powers of labor, and the destruction of those forms of education which are necessary to maintain a rational and productive labor-force.
These British world-government policies were set fully into motion through the effects of the 1962 Cuba missiles crisis and the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. As we have documented in earlier locations, the agreements reached among Bertrand Russell, Russell's collaborator N. Khrushchev, and Wall Street's U.S. ACDA (Arms Control and Disarmament Agency) official, and Henry A. Kissinger patron John J. McCloy, the march toward world government through mutually assured nuclear terror, was established by the effects of the 1962 missile-crisis negotiations. It is that policy of a march toward world government, which gave birth to what has been shaped into the form of Vice-President Al Gore, and the frankly genocidal population-control policies which Gore represents in and around the White House today. This is the source of today's "free trade," NAFTA, WTO, and other "globalization" policies of Gore today. This is what Gore means by "reinventing government," and by his mobilization for the Duke of Edinburgh's Transparency International, the latter as Gore's current campaign to eradicate national sovereignty, in the name of eradicating "corruption."
We have only to translate Gore's four-poison policy-commitments into their national and global demographic and related human implications, to see that we are confronted by a threat from these policies which is akin to, but even worse than that earlier represented by Adolf Hitler's regime. The flip side of those demographic implications, is that there is no possibility for peaceful and stable relations within, or among existing nations and regions of the world, under the conditions which any continued application of Gore's policies would make immediately inevitable, even during the months immediately ahead. There lies the essential form of immediate threat to the national security of the United States. Think of Al Gore's nasty mouth as Pandora's Box, and you have the nature of the threat correctly in view.
Prepare Gore for timely political retirement to the quiet counting of his money, of course. More important, recognize that Gore himself is but a self-doomed, self-propelled missile, who is much more a foolish symptom of the national-security threat, than its origin. The danger comes from our nation's and humanity's more ancient enemy, the form of European oligarchical tradition traced from ancient Mesopotamia, through the Roman and Venetian empires, to the Anglo-Dutch financier-oligarchical monarchy of today. Your life, your family's life, your nation's life, and all humanity, depend upon the strategic perspective and commitment which I recommend to you today.
 The kind of impeachment process which has been conducted, thus far, is a direct violation of the Founding Fathers' explicit rejection of anything resembling either the British parliamentary system, or the Anglo-Dutch style in monarchies. Compare the ongoing coup d'état against President Clinton with the way in which the Profumo scandal was orchestrated, under the standard practices of the British parliamentary system, to oust Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, and to clear the way for the later introduction of the Labour government of the impossible Harold Wilson. Like the ripe spoor of the skunk, the comparison tells you exactly what foreign power--no American patriots--cooked up this impeachment conspiracy against President Clinton.
 Like an Egyptian scarab fondling his freshly captured turd.
 The biggest Wall Street market for early 1999 is "hog futures," the "hogs" being the suckers who stayed in the market until "the last moment."
 President Clinton lost control of the strategic situation, when circles around Vice-President Gore pushed him to leave the U.S., under the pretext of a fruitless negotiation with the Israel's ever non-negotiable Bibi Netanyahu. This enabled circles around Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair and Gore, to set the President up for a new bombing of Iraq, based on a fraudulent UNSCOM report concocted by the British Commonwealth's Butler. The net effect of that bombing was to wreck the fragile global strategic stability which President Clinton had continued to manage, until Gore and the Planning Group worked with Britain's Blair to set the President up for the Iraq bombing, behind the President's back. Take note, as I reference this point repeatedly, that one must think of the money-grubbing Al Gore in terms of his certain likeness to the swindling character Uriah Heep, from Charles Dickens' famous novel, David Copperfield. He is a defective, bi-polar personality, sometimes nicknamed "Ozymandias," who is a whining sycophant most of the time he is in the President's presence, but, like Uriah Heep, a savage back-stabber otherwise; actual loyalty to the President, or the United States, is not in Gore's nature. The U.S. Democratic Party urgently requires a different choice of leading candidate, chosen and designed to win, in 2000.
 Admittedly, President Abraham Lincoln regarded most of the population involved in support of the Confederacy as not intentionally treasonous, but only errant. This was the continuing, thematic premise of his policy, from the time of the Lincoln-Douglas debates; it was his policy of attempted war-avoidance during the period between his election of 1860 and the firing on Fort Sumter. It was his policy set forth in his last public address, stating that the states should resume their place in the Union as if they had never left it. Nonetheless, he knew clearly that the leaders of the Confederacy, and also the chief Copperhead, New York banker and Democratic Party king-maker August Belmont, were outright traitors in the strictest traditional and Constitution-specific meaning of the term "treason." The war which occasions the word "treason" for the action of those traitors, is a war of Britain, France, and Spain, against the United States and Mexico, in which the leaders of the Confederacy acted as fully witting and willing agents of Palmerston's Britain in actions intended to destroy the U.S., by means of warfare directed against it: as Britain's Duke of Edinburgh has, like Palmerston's London, pushed publicly for the break-up of our Federal union. The evidence of the treasonous character of the London-directed impeachment effort against President Clinton, is of the same genetic character, of the same, continuing, morally degraded spirit, as Britain's use of its puppets and its foreign intelligence services, to launch the Confederacy and to direct and conduct the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln.
 Notably, the core of the treasonous accomplices of Mellon Scaife et al. within the U.S. establishment, is that Wall Street crowd associated with the Teddy Roosevelt-Stimson recruits to the Plattsburgh, New York training-camp, prior to the U.S. entry into World War I. From among that collection of Wall Street bankers and lawyers, such as the notorious Dulles brothers and John J. McCloy, emerged the hard core of British intelligence operations inside the U.S. military and intelligence establishment, the so-called British-American-Canadian (BAC) faction of O.S.S. and later days. It is through the covert operations capabilities represented by those BAC types, that what is known as "Iran-Contra" was run globally during Vice-President George Bush's reign at his and Oliver North's corner of the National Security Council. This is the same covert operations capability through which the BAC group, using the authority of Executive Order 12333, ran all legal and news media operations against me and my associates, from January 1983, to the present day. This is the same capability which has run the "Whitewatergate" operation against President Clinton since the period of the 1992 general election-campaign, to the present day in the Senate. It is through this BAC connection among the British Commonwealth mass-media and intelligence networks, that the impeachment operation was set up. It was the 12333 operation against me, which set up the precedent for the operations, initially conduited through the 1992 Bush re-election campaign, against President Clinton. The documentation proving this, for both my case and that of President Clinton, is already in the public domain, massive, and conclusive.
 On this principle of military strategy, read Helga Zepp-LaRouche's Nov. 22, 1998 keynote address to an international conference held in Bad Schwalbach, Germany. She shows there how a meticulously crafted war-planning report by the Prussian military's Ludwig von Wolzogen, defined the allied, Russian and Prussian strategy which defeated the Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte in the war of 1812-1813: Helga Zepp-LaRouche, "Schiller and the Liberation Wars Against Napoleon," Executive Intelligence Review, Dec. 4, 1998.
 Why shouldn't they meddle in our internal affairs? Our government--and Al Gore--meddles in every other government's affairs, all around the world.
 Like the combination of war-lords and terra incognita which took over much of the former Roman Empire during and after the collapse of Rome. The war-lords include the drug-traffic-financed war-lords now taking control of the disintegrating remains of the nation of Colombia.
 The idea of asking the Senate to consider the issues of actual law involved in the impeachment press, should remind readers of the story of the man who was selling a donkey. "Yes, this donkey is very obedient," the seller assured the prospective buyer. Later in the story, the enraged seller whomped the stubborn jackass in question on the head with a two-by-four, after which the creature dutifully obeyed the command. "See," said the seller triumphantly, "he's very obedient. You just have to get his attention, first."
 In 1989, East German party chief Honecker had proclaimed, on the 40th anniversary of the German Democratic Republic, "Den Sozialismus in seinem Lauf/hält weder Ochs noch Esel auf" ("Socialism in its course, can be stopped by neither ox nor ass"). Notwithstanding, he was ousted on Oct. 18, 1989, and after a brief interregnum, was replaced by Hans Modrow, who was voted out in March 1990.
For Honecker's backing by Edgar Bronfman, see Mark Budman and Rainer Apel, EIR, March 11, 1990. An exposé in the March-April 1990 issue of the German Jewish magazine Semit, entitled "A Whiskey for the Holocaust," includes a photograph taken in Autumn 1988, of Honecker awarding Bronfman East Germany's "Great Star of the People's Friendship." Semit notes that during that Autumn, with the approach of the 50th anniversary of Hitler's Kristallnacht pogroms, East Germany avidly sought "the absolution of the East German state and party leadership by Jewish functionaries." Bronfman, for his part, proclaimed that he saw no reason why Honecker should not visit the United States and pursue Most Favored Nation trading status. EIR's 1988 coverage of Bronfman's services on behalf of East Germany includes "A Word on Kristallnacht Remembrance," Nov. 18; "Moscow's Game with the German Jews," Dec. 2; "Soviets Attack Germany Through Jenninger Scandal," Nov. 25; "A Worldwide Anti-Bolshevik Resistance Struggle," Nov. 25. Another resource on Bronfman's operations is German-Israeli history Michael Wolffsohn's Eternal Guilt? Forty Years of German-Jewish-Israeli Relations, reviewed in EIR, March 11, 1996.
Rainer Apel's Report from Bonn regularly documented the collapse of East Germany. Noteworthy are "Mass Flight from Perestroika," Aug. 26, 1988; "Crackdown Feared in East Germany," Aug. 18, 1989; and "Iron Fist of Egon Krenz," Nov. 13, 1989. See also in 1989, "Moscow Loses Ground in East Germany, as Exodus Disturbs `New Yalta' Plans," Sept. 21; "East Germans Vote with Feet against U.S.-Soviet Deal," Oct. 13; "East Germany `Celebrates' Its 40th Anniversary with Bloody Crackdown," Oct. 20. EIR's Nov. 17, 1989 Feature, "My Worldwide Anti-Bolshevik Resistance Initiative," included a chronology of events. Last year, Helga Zepp-LaRouche commissioned a Special Report on "Germany's Missed Historic Chance of 1989," published in EIR, Aug. 14, 1998.
 See Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., Presidential candidate's broadcast, "The Winter of Our Discontent," Oct. 31, 1988, which included my press conference at the Berlin Kempinski-Bristol Hotel. The full transcript appeared in EIR, Oct. 21, 1988. See also my Spring and Summer 1987 forewarnings of an October stock-market panic: On May 26, 1988, the LaRouche Democratic Campaign issued my statement, "Global Financial Crisis Predicted for October," which appeared in EIR, June 5, 1987.
 The last chance for Germans to overthrow the Nazi regime was eliminated in July 1944, when, for reasons explained by British intelligence's top-ranking John Wheeler-Bennett, the British government of Prime Minister Winston Churchill betrayed the July plotters against Hitler to the Gestapo, as they also betrayed the Hungarian Jews shipped to Auschwitz in a similar manner, for similar British motives. Churchill, by the admissions of his own statements and others, intentionally prolonged the war in Europe nearly a year, by that action, with all the deaths and ruin which resulted. The family of every U.S. serviceman--like those of Russia, and other countries--who died after July 1944, can thank our "nearest and dearest British ally" Winston Churchill for every iota of that avoidable death and suffering. The British of July 1944 preferred to keep the Hitler they had put into power in January 1933, in power for yet another year, more or less, rather than negotiate a peace with the July plotters. The surviving relatives of every Jew who died in Auschwitz can personally thank Winston Churchill's British Empire for that.
 To appreciate the role of a London-directed Wall Street in putting Hitler into power in the coup d'état of January 1933, one must compare the role of London-directed Wall Street Morgan and Mellon interests in the attempted fascist coup that was exposed in Congressional testimony by Marine hero Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler. The coup project was launched sometime between April-June 1933, and was to take place in either late 1934 or early 1935, using fascist paramilitary networks, armed through monies provided by individuals and organizations associated with the Morgan-Mellon run American Liberty League. It was exposed by Butler in testimony before the House Un-American Activities Committee in November and December 1934. It should be noted that the coup project was not launched until after the failed February 1933 Miami assassination attempt on FDR, which killed Chicago Mayor Anton Cermak. See L. Wolfe, "Morgan's Fascist Plot Against the United States and How It Was Defeated," New Federalist, June 27, July 4, July 18, and July 25, 1994.
The plot against the U.S. government was conducted for the same motives, in this case against President Franklin Roosevelt, which prompted Britain's Montagu Norman to deploy his agent, Hjalmar Schacht, to Wall Street, to gain the Harriman firm's financial support in bringing Hitler into power. The connection is shown by comparing the Lautenbach recovery plan, which was the policy being implemented by the von Schleicher government prior to Hitler's coup, with the similar economic recovery policies which Franklin Roosevelt was using to overturn Treasury Secretary Mellon's 1929-1932 depression. Or, for earlier cases of collusion between London and Wall Street against the President of the U.S., compare the assassination of William McKinley, which enabled London's asset, Teddy Roosevelt, to reverse more than a century of U.S. strategic commitments and alliances. Or, compare London's direction of the assassination of President Lincoln. London's and Wall Street's roles in organizing the parliamentary coup d'état against Clinton, are identical to those both London and Wall Street played in bringing Hitler to power in January 1933.
 As I have reported earlier, the setting of events leading directly into the crises of 1932-1933 and the Hitler coup d'état, began around Young Plan negotiations coinciding with the formation of a new Ramsay MacDonald government in England, June 7-9, 1929. These and related developments set off the October 24, 1929 New York stock-market crash. In a foretaste of the ill-fated G-7 meeting of October 1998, during the Summer of 1931, a new series of meetings on the German war-reparations debt occurred, centered around the role of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). On July 20, 1931, a seven-power group (U.S.A., England, France, Belgium, Germany, Italy, and Japan) met in a London conference on this subject. On September 6, 1931, savage austerity measures were introduced by the British government, leading to the September 20 action when both the British government and Bank of England jointly abandoned the gold standard, and allowed the pound to float. Within the following ten days, a massive fall of the pound shook world financial markets. It was the pulling down of Germany's Grand Coalition government of Social-Democrat Hermann Müller, by Montagu Norman's agent Hjalmar Schacht, on March 30, 1930, which led to the March 30, 1930-January 28, 1993 series of four ministerial governments of Heinrich Brüning, Franz von Papen, and Kurt von Schleicher, which preceded the Hitler coup d'état of January 1933.
 The exception in FDR's foreign policy was his policy for post-war Germany. Otherwise, Franklin Roosevelt's bout with poliomyelitis ("infantile paralysis" as it was popularly known in those days) was the occasion for his rediscovery of his country's founding fathers. This personal re-education defines the most fundamental differences between patriot Franklin Roosevelt and his lamentable cousin Teddy. Roosevelt's anti-British economic and foreign policies, especially on issues of "free trade" and colonialism, are exemplary. The direction in economic-recovery measures taken by the Presidency of President John F. Kennedy, prior to his assassination, must be included under the heading of an "American System" choice, as also extremely relevant in providing a bench-mark for the kinds of Roosevelt-echoing, corrective policies to which we must return today.
 e.g., then Virginia Attorney-General Mary Sue Terry, a key asset of the same Armand Hammer interests behind then Presidential candidate Al Gore.
 To enhance one's insight, think of "Lord of the Isles" and "Lord of the Flies" in the same breath.