Subscribe to EIR Online
This article appears in the January 11, 2001 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

Zbigniew Brzezinski and
September 11th

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

December 23, 2001

[PDF version of this article]

For those who are able and willing to accept the way in which history actually works, the evidence provided by the U.S. events of Sept. 11th permitted but one concise conclusion: The crucial developments inside the U.S.A., between the bookends of approximately 08:45 and 11:00 h EDT, were a reflection of an attempted military coup d'état against the U.S. government of President George W. Bush.

I first reached that conclusion early during the first hour of that interval, while I was being interviewed in a nearly two-hour, live radio broadcast. My broadcast remarks during that interval have become an important integral part of those developments themselves, not only inside the U.S.A., but in their radiating effects throughout much of the world besides.[1]

For those who would debate the matter, there were only two available, competent choices among possible alternative explanations, for even the mere possibility of the known sequence of the relevant events which had been reported widely during that interval:

The first, most ominous possibility, was that the relevant, pre-established security safeguards, which had been instituted earlier against such types of contingencies, had, previously, simply been allowed to deteriorate to virtual non-relevance, that itself a very dangerous state of national security,


The second, more likely possibility, was that some top-ranking U.S. military personnel "at the switch," turned off a significant part of those standing security pre-arrangements which would have been sufficient, at a minimum, to defeat, at the least, the attack upon the Pentagon itself.[2]

For any person with knowledge comparable to my experience in the field of strategic ballistic missile defense-policy, the attack on the Pentagon, with the thermonuclear implications of that attack in and of itself, pointed to the second alternative. For any among those of us with knowledge of such matters, the combination of the three accomplished attacks was therefore recognized, sooner or later, as the product of a witting "inside job." Finally, my detailed knowledge of the onrushing strategic crisis within which those attacks were situated, allowed no other conclusion, than that this was an attempted military coup d'état with a global strategic purpose of the most ominous implications imaginable.

Once those facts are taken into account, two leading problems in subsequently adopted U.S. policies must be emphasized.

First: Why, apparently, did senior professional military and intelligence professionals not advise President Bush against permitting the diversionary targetting of former U.S. special-warfare asset Osama bin Laden, as the alleged prime culprit in this affair?

The second, related question, is: Why, despite the massive accumulation of relevant actual evidence since Sept. 11, do many official circles around the world still prefer to defend the consoling delusion, the current, officially blessed explanation of the events of Sept. 11, that "Osama bin Laden did it," even after months of their failure to present the public with any solid proof of their allegation?

The evidence which was already explicitly or implicitly available, during the initial two-hour interval of Sept. 11th, is of a type of circumstantial evidence which is fairly described as "admittedly incomplete, but nonetheless conclusive" for the purpose of determining an immediate course of official reaction, for setting into motion, or even creating relevant rules of engagement.[3] The set of facts which were already dumped into our hands during, and immediately following the first two hours of the Sept. 11th attacks, represents, in and of itself, a call to such kind of immediate decisive action. The lack of that specific kind of decision which I uttered during that two-hour interval, would have represented a potential strategic failure of command, either by the President, or, a citizen-statesman and Presidential pre-candidate with my special competencies and responsibilities. Subsequent events have shown, that the President made the right immediate decision during that time; so did I.

When these and related matters are looked at from the standpoint of any significant degree of competent knowledge of the current state of the history of modern European civilization as a whole, the leadership, if not the individual names, of those in the political faction whose interest was served by the attempted coup, is indicated beyond reasonable dispute. In face of those and related facts, among knowledgeable persons, only those with special, false motives for clinging to interpretations more or less consistent with the current official line, could continue to defend the fairy-tale ritually uttered by most of the world's mass media today.

To see the relevant evidence clearly, the reader must recognize that there exist not one, but three distinct elements to be investigated in the aftermath of the Sept. 11th developments.

First, there is the military coup-attempt itself, which might be described as the intended "detonator" of the operation as a whole. The worst possible result of this military plot, a potential, runaway thermonuclear-superpower-escalation, was avoided through a timely telephone conversation between U.S. President George W. Bush and Russia's President Vladimir Putin.

Second, there is the general political-strategic factor of the "Clash of Civilizations" policy of Zbigniew Brzezinski, Samuel Huntington, et al., of which the attempted military coup was merely a subsumed part. That policy is the principal culprit, and the main body of the operation as a whole. That is the principal subject, and target of this report. This is the factor which continues to be reflected so vividly in the ferocious factional battle within the U.S. government and leading news media, the debate on such subjects as proposing escalation of war against Iraq.

Third, there is the implicit suicide-bomber-like role of the current Israeli regime, whose adducibly characteristic intention is to set off the wider war, a war which, among other results, would bring about the self-extermination of Israel as a state. That increasingly evident risk of Israel's self-extermination, if it continues its present policies, had been the stated concern motivating Prime Minister Rabin's support for the Oslo Accords. These are the same Oslo Accords whose adoption was the motive for the Israeli coup d'état, by assassination, of Rabin. Were the present Israeli war-policy continued, Israel would soon be self-destroyed in the course of the unfolding of that process, that as surely as one might have foreseen in 1939, "like Adolf Hitler in the end."

It is the second of those three interconnected elements, on which official attention must be pivoted. Nonetheless, if we neglected any one among all three of those facets from the equation of Sept. 11th, no competent assessment of the events of that date were possible. It is only after we recognize the three identified elements as cohering facets of a single effect, and have situated all three within the global economic-crisis setting in which they exist, that a rational appreciation of the events of that day becomes possible. Any different approach must represent a failure of judgment, a fallacy of composition of the evidence.

As I shall show, in the course of this present report, the evidence pointing to the actual authorship of that three-fold aspect of the attack upon the U.S.A., is not only massive, but conclusive. The evidence has been piling up not merely for years, but decades and even longer. Most of you who were taken by surprise that morning, should be reminded: The monster which attacked has been creeping up on you, during those long decades you, like Washington Irving's fabled Rip van Winkle, were asleep.

To understand the deeply underlying, long-standing connections among those three distinguishable parts of the process, we must take into account what would be described, in a Riemannian differential (physical) geometry, as the factor of "multiply-connectedness."

For example: Among the relatively simpler, but extremely important sets of facts to be considered, we have to include the following question. To what degree did the role of the Israeli military intelligence's deep and implicitly hostile penetration of the U.S. political and military command and operations, play a contributing role in shaping the part played by both the military coup-attempt and its political-strategic complement?

Deep investigation of the long-standing, increasing levels and aggressiveness of activity of Israeli spies inside the U.S.A., including the notorious, years-long "Mega" penetration of the security of the Clinton White House by the agents of the Israeli intelligence services, points to the likelihood of at least a significant, if coincidental Israeli role in creating the environment from which the events of Sept. 11th were launched.

Consider the distinct roles and common historical-strategic-economic setting of that multi-faceted combination of interdependent elements.

Crafting the Investigation

Thus, when the three aspects of the attack are considered, we must examine this combination of events, as one which might be judged as immediately a reflection of an included, intended military coup d'état, a military rogue operation attempted by a high-ranking, implicitly treasonous element within the U.S. military establishment. Consider the following.

To assess such evidence of an intention behind the first of those components of the coup, we must not approach the investigation with the kind of childish fallacy of composition on which most of the world's press has relied. An attempted military "palace coup" against the world's leading nuclear power, even the government of any notable, lesser strategic nuclear power, such as Israel, presents very strict rules to any would-be plotters. Such super-high-risk plots require the tightest secrecy imaginable.

Therefore, in investigating such plots, rational people in high places would have assumed that even most of the more or less witting accomplices might never know enough, or perhaps live long enough, to incriminate successfully those highest levels which deployed them. For such cases, catching and interrogating the "hit men," is not likely to be the route which yields competent proof against the high-ranking plotters who arranged for the hit. The investigation must therefore shift from lines of inquiry which must have been obviously anticipated by the plotters, to more reliable kinds of evidence.

Barring lucky breaks in the investigation of the attempt, the evidence which will be found when such a coup attempt has occurred, will be chiefly limited to what is to be expected in the aftermath of an act conducted under such very special rules of that high-risk conspiratorial game. The investigation must therefore approach the evidence from what should be an obvious flank. It must be based on what should be the elementary realization, that a military coup-attempt of such a type, could not be motivated, unless it had a plausible intention, an intention existing outside, and beyond the scope of the coup-attempt as such. The possibility of the existence of such an attempted coup, depends upon the prior existence of an intended sequel of the coup-attempt, such as that of signalling the unleashing of some prepared continuing action.

Therefore, for competent counterintelligence specialists, the first question posed by the bare facts of the attacks on New York and Washington, was: What was that continuing action waiting to be unleashed by the successful effect of those attacks? The coup-attempt could not have been mobilized without the presence of such pre-existing, more broadly based intentions. Those intentions are well known to all relevant authorities: a.) setting off a richocheting thermonuclear alert; and b.) the launching of a generalized state of religious and related warfare throughout most of the planet, with the ongoing actions of the current Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) as its leading expression. Now, after the events of Sept. 11th, there is no reasonable doubt of such broadly-based intentions. Therefore, any competent counterintelligence investigation, and consequent strategic assessments, must be crafted accordingly.

Therefore, in such cases, as in the earlier investigation of Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard's suspected accomplices, or Edgar Allan Poe's case of "The Purloined Letter," the nature of the now proven circumstantial evidence of those two intentions, enables us to define the "predatory species" which had the impulse for, and capability of conducting such an attempt, although we may not be able, yet, to show exactly which particular personalities of that specific type were the ranking members of the attempted coup itself.

Therefore, we must emphasize, once again, that by the nature of the case, relevant actions against the plot must never be hamstrung by a reductionist's sort of obsessive hunt for "Sherlock Holmes" evidence pointing to specific plotters. In such cases, rather than allowing ourselves to be diverted into what might turn out to be a "snipe hunt" for the individual plotters, we must concentrate the investigator's inherently limited resources on the more modest, urgent task, of neutralizing the relevant objectives implicit in the plot as such. Only habitual losers stop to take and count scalps, or revenge, during the middle of an ongoing battle.

Therefore, the investigation must judge the plot behind Sept. 11th as crafted as a means to an end; it is that end on which our attention must be focussed, and against which the effort must be concentrated. As in war, once the plot itself has failed, the plotters will become vulnerable to exposure, and their complicity can be reviewed safely, calmly, relatively at leisure.

Therefore, the events of that date confronted the President with the two challenges. Foiling the ultimate objective of the plot, was the longer-range challenge confronting President Bush and his circles in the course of that morning of Sept. 11th. However, the most immediate challenge to the President, that day, was to bring the security forces of the U.S. back fully under his personal control. Under the circumstances, we must judge that he responded well to that immediate challenge.

To appreciate the challenge to that President, it is appropriate to emphasize that the same challenge confronted me, during the period of the nearly two-hour radio interview which was ongoing, broadcast live, between the bookend-points of 09:00 and 11:00 h EDT.

For example:

During that time, I was in a situation in which my stated assessments of the attack, as broadcast to the radio listening audience, during those hours, had to be made in just the way the President of the U.S.A. would have had to draw his operational conclusions, had he been in my exact position at that time, or I in his. Such are the prerequisites for any considerable candidate for selection as the incumbent President of the world's leading national power. Be extremely grateful, for example, that former Vice-President Al Gore was not occupying either President Bush's seat, or mine, at that particular moment of crisis.

Essentially, it appears to me, from sitting in that position, that, during the nearly two-hour period I was on the air, President Bush had made the right initial decisions. That is known, or reasonably inferred from evidence explicitly or implicitly at hand. I regard the President's later, repeated report of the conversation he had had with Russia's President Putin, during that crucial interval, as evidence which buttresses my present, positive assessment of President Bush's conduct on this account.

However, respecting the decisions the U.S. government apparently made much later that same day, the White House's performance was of a mixed quality. As a matter of fact, the subsequent decision to target Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan for bombing, was a strategic error, and continues to show itself to radiate international consequences, such as intensified conflict between Pakistan and India, which have been, strategically, a course of action which has increasingly perilous implications for the world at large.

Apart from the correct impulse of the White House to choose some action by which to quickly do something appropriate to seize the strategic and domestic-political initiative from the plotters, the commitment to the choice of bombing Afghanistan was mistaken. You must agree with me, that this error was an understandable one, if you take into account, as I do, the continuing new, and expanding dimensions and patterns of the continuing world strategic crisis, which the President has faced during the hours and weeks following the breaking events of that morning.

While I do not attempt here to justify those specific actions which the President selected, I insist that the nature of the predicament confronting the President, must be taken into account in making any judgment about his performance under those circumstances. I believe, personally, contrary to those among most of the world's sets of policy-advisors still today, that the truth, not what appear to be convenient lies, must be the basis for choice of action in any crisis, lest what appears to be a "useful" and "comfortable" official lie, at first blush, leads to the search for additional lies, to cover for the blunders set into motion by the first.[4]

In any deadly crisis, such as that one, the President of the U.S. must earn and maintain a durable quality of credibility. Trying to defend what are considered useful lies, will undermine that credibility in the end, perhaps with terrible consequences. So, since the close of the day, Sept. 11th, our republic's policies have subsequently drifted, down the roadway of those lies which were manufactured, one after the other, to defend previous lies, or what is called, euphemistically, public-relations "spin." Building such a "bodyguard of lies," even "well-meaning lies," always leads, in one way or another, to results which may often be as bad as, or worse than that issue which the initial lie sought to avoid. In the end, it is the spinner who is often spun.

Therefore, in such a crisis, I must assume the part I am performing with this present report.

To assess the present U.S. situation competently, we must cut through the usual back-and-forth, to understand the predicament confronting both the President and whoever will subsequently prove to have been his trustworthy advisors. We must oblige ourselves to see the situation as the President and those advisors must have seen it, as dusk settled on the preceding hours of that perilous day. We must take implicitly into account all of the crucial circumstances which had legitimate bearing on the decision-making which began to emerge to public notice from some time after 20:00 EDT that first evening. We must include attention to the poisonous influence of those virtual moles within the government itself, who have shown themselves since, like the circles of Richard Perle, to have been accomplices of either the pro-IDF cause, or the Brzezinski "Clash of Civilizations" element, or both.

A Series of Crucial Facts

To that end, one must not overlook any of a series of several crucial facts about the circumstances in which the choice of naming Osama bin Laden was made:

  1. 1. That alleged former playboy and present-day "Old Fagin" of international terrorism, Osama bin Laden, had been, and, almost certainly, still is about as despicable a creature as the charges against him have implied. He was evil enough to have played the role of Emma Goldman's hit-man, or that of Emma Goldman herself, in killing U.S. President McKinley; but, did today's bin Laden have the opportunity and means to have carried out that attack on President McKinley? He is the disgusting, dirty drunk being held on child-molesting charges in Cell #1313, but would convicting him for Sept. 11th, remove the continuing menace which the uncharged, actual perpetrators still pose to the U.S. and civilization in general, still today?

  2. The U.S. already knew the disgusting character of bin Laden; he was among the thugs which the U.S.A. and others had used against both the former Soviet Union and also Russia, Central Asia, Transcaucasia, and other targets, and was, with the Taliban, among the keystones in the principal drug-trafficking operations of Central Asia. However, he was not situated in a place in physical-space-time, from which he might have either pushed Teddy Roosevelt into what that Roosevelt renamed "the White House," or authored the recent horrors of Sept. 11th.

  3. Although the telephone conversation, as repeatedly reported publicly by President Bush, between Bush and Russia's President Putin, resulted in a failure of the initial nuclear-strategic aims of the attempted coup d'état, the perpetrators of that attempted coup are still roaming free, are still lurking within the high-ranking positions they held on the early morning of Sept. 11, and are still poised to strike, menacing the U.S. government and President, even still today.

  4. The thermonuclear escalation which the hitting of the Pentagon showed to have been the immediate objective of the attack on the Pentagon, was chosen as an obvious stepping-stone toward a further, grand strategic objective. That grand-strategic object of the attempted coup d'état was clearly known, then as it is now. It was already clear at the moment the combination of the attacks in New York City and the nation's capital were ongoing. Most leading circles in Europe and other places recognized this fact very early during the hours following the events. The purpose of the attempted coup, was to force the U.S.A. to support the current government of the Israeli Defense Forces, in pushing the U.S.A. into supporting a Zbigniew Brzezinski-style "Clash of Civilizations" type of global religious-war scenario.

  5. The authorship of that grand-strategic, geopolitical intent, was already well known to leading European officials, and others. That "Clash of Civilizations" scenario, had been made notorious by the combination of former U.S. National Security Advisor Brzezinski and his ever-handy "Leporello," Samuel P. Huntington. It already had great popularity among the "morally challenged" members of both parties in the Congress, among powerful U.S. financial circles, and among a significant part of key offices in the Bush administration itself. The cases of Richard Perle and Wolfowitz are merely typical of the predators lurking inside the official positions and policy-planning structures of the targetted administration itself, in addition to their role in influential places within both leading political parties.

  6. The U.S strategic response to the attempted coup, was to target selected cases from among the "usual list of suspects," such as the drug-trafficking Taliban government and bin Laden. The obvious benefit of this ruse, was that it provided a way of gaining the strategic initiative for the Bush Presidency itself, momentarily outflanking the forces aligned with Brzezinski's geopolitical "Chessboard" policy politically.

  7. Soon, that policy threatened to backfire.

    The diversionary tactic of focussing international energies on those designated, admittedly disgusting targets, had the effect of averting, for a time, the immediate, graver strategic threat, of an expanded war against Islamic nations, at least for the moment. However, the same, graver strategic threat not only continued, but grew worse under the impact of the Afghan bombing. There were increasingly insistent, extortionist efforts, even from one powerful faction inside the U.S. political command-structure, to pressure President Bush into supporting the Israeli Defense Forces command, in a religious war against the Arab nations of the Middle East, such as Iraq, and the continuing of a ricocheting "Clash of Civilizations," geopolitically motivated war among the Islamic and other populations of Asia.

  8. The fierce factional struggle which has since openly erupted within the U.S. government, including pressures for religious war from Representative Tom Lantos' confederates in the U.S. Congress, make clear that the Sept. 11th attacks were integral to the intent to force the U.S. Bush administration, either to be swept away, or, in the alternative, be forced to plunge ahead into the kind of "Clash of Civilizations" religious warfare which Ariel Sharon attempted to set into motion with his feinted assault on one of Islam's holiest sites, Jerusalem's al-Haram al-Sharif.

  9. If the intent of the present Sharon government of Israel is not reversed, the combination of an accelerating, chain-reaction collapse of the world's monetary-financial system, the escalation of the Israel-led general warfare against Islamic populations, and Israel's intended rape of the third holiest place of Islam, Jerusalem's al-Haram al-Sharif, will plunge the world as a whole into a world-wide, nuclear-armed replay of Europe's 1618-1648 Thirty Years War. It was this global geopolitical war, this unquenchable fire of religious war, which the authorship of Sept. 11th was, beyond all margin for doubt by sane and literate people, intended to ignite.

These facts identified so far, are necessary, but not sufficient. We must also develop the competencies which are required for investigation of, and countermeasures against the very special, deep-going problem which these already cited facts merely imply. We must look into the deep background of those whose special interests are expressed by the continuing, escalating implications of the events of Sept. 11th.

In addressing the challenge presented to the world's leaders by these facts, we must avoid the fool's reductionist practice, of seeking plausible explanations for more or less isolated sets of individual facts. We must, instead, define the geometry of the mind, the insanity, which has permeated the writings of Brzezinski, Huntington, and their like since the 1957 utterance of The Soldier And The State.[5] As I shall emphasize at a later point in this report, it is that lunatic, perverted state of mind, merely typified by all of the principal writings of Brzezinski, Huntington, et al., since, which has set the contending forces and policies into motion.

The position on the political map from which to attack the challenge of defining that specific quality of insanity, is the exemplary case of a modern Mephistopheles, the Nashville Agrarians' late Professor William Yandell Elliott, the follower of the notorious utopian H.G. Wells' influence, who like the legendary wife of the Rabbi of Prague, produced that parade of Golems led by such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, Samuel P. Huntington, Henry A. Kissinger, et al., monsters which "Sorcerer's Apprentice" Elliott apparently concocted virtually out of mud.[6]

The key to understanding the motives of the followers of the late Professor William Yandell Elliott, in pushing for such a geopolitical "Clash of Civilizations" war, is to be found in an address which Professor Elliott's former protégé, Henry A. Kissinger, delivered to a Chatham House audience, on May 10, 1982.[7] That position on the political map so noted, we shall return to the relevant core of Kissinger's address in due course, below.

I. Men Make History, But ...

To escape the popular fog of current mass-media ravings and confusion among governments, a certain principle must guide us each step of our journey toward the truth about Sept. 11th. Jot this down: Men make history, but history makes men, and vice versa. Those words, properly understood, echo the greatest wisdom of all ancient and modern arts of statecraft, from such sources as Solon of Athens, the Classical Greek tragedies, the Dialogues of Plato, and the great modern historical dramas of William Shakespeare and Friedrich Schiller. Those words, properly understood, are the only means for reaching a competent, truthful policy assessment of our republic's necessary long-range, strategic response to the events of Sept. 11th.

The assertion, that Osama bin Laden directed the events of Sept. 11th, is, of course, purely a "conspiracy theory," in support of which no scientifically plausible proof has been presented publicly, to the present day. The doctrine that "Osama did it," is, in that respect, just another case of the substitution of fiction for both fact and science. Nonetheless, conspiracy, in the proper use of that term, is the most characteristic feature of all human history, especially when it comes to the important matters of statecraft. How should we sort out the difference between the fact of the existence of a truly efficient conspiracy, from the popularized fiction which most of the mass media is now circulating on the subject of Sept. 11th?

The kinds of fools who concoct the foolish, popular varieties of so-called "conspiracy theories," are divisible chiefly into two general classes. There are the obvious ones, those perverts, including crooked judges and prosecuting attorneys, who seek to portray history fantastically, as it were a matter of reporting on individual actors walking onto a shared common, blank stage, each uttering frivolous mere text, words spun, and interpreted as antecedents from outside physical space and time. The symbolic and other interpretation of the mere text as such, becomes the attributed meaning of the action.[8]

In the second class, are the wild-eyed fanatics, who declare, "I don't believe in conspiracy-theories," the latter prattling on about this persuasion perhaps even at the moment a providential practical joker is demonstrating a higher principle of justice, by conspiring silently with the amused spectators, by setting fire to the leg of the foolish boaster's trousers.

By the very nature of the distinction which sets the human individual apart and above all lower forms of life, conspiracy is the essence of all human existence, as Plato and all the greatest tragedians and scientists, among others, have demonstrated this fact throughout known history. The distinction which sets human beings apart and above lower forms of life, is the quality of mental activity called "reason," or "cognition," or termed "noësis" (from the Classical Greek) by Russian scientist Vladimir Vernadsky.[9] It is from this root, cognition, that the human individual is enabled to make choices of outcomes in ways which do not conform to the typically dull-witted statistician's notion of "objective forces of historical determinism." The power to make a principled choice, is the essential, human quality, from which the most important of true conspiracies often spring.[10]

Human beings have the unique ability of their species, to rise above that prison-house of delusions called sense-certainty, to discover experimentally demonstrable universal physical principles, principles which exist outside of, and often contrary to the beliefs of persons who prefer the kinds of bestial sense-certainties enjoyed by the lower forms of life. The ability to generate experimentally demonstrable hypotheses from study of paradoxical features of sense-experience, is that quality of cognitive reason, specific to the human individual, and to the social relations among such individuals. This is the same quality of reason which deranged fanatics, such as the empiricists, Immanuel Kant, and the followers of Huntington and Brzezinski, have so notoriously denied to exist.

Thus, where the lower forms of life are unable to rise, by their own minds, above the ecological and related potentialities bestowed upon their biological heritage, mankind is able to transmit variously false or true discoveries of universal physical principle, from generation to generation. This transmission of such distinctly human qualities of ideas, constitutes that to which we rightly award the name of "culture." Thus, the history and nature of mankind, is expressed as the adducible history of the evolutionary development, or decadence, of variously failed and relatively successful cultures, and of the individual persons within those cultures.

In other words, the distinctive characteristic of the human species, is that the individual member of that species has the ingrained, potentially sublime, characteristic power, to alter the direction of development of his or her culture, in addition to participating in the transmission of those cognitive innovations in culture passed down from earlier generations of his or her own, or other cultures.[11]

The ability to compare and analyze the processes expressed as the development of these various cultures and their interactions, reaches its relatively highest, most refined degree of excellence, in study of the evolutionary development of those forms of knowledge properly associated with the principles and practice of Classical artistic culture, and of the Classical modern scientific knowledge set into motion by the discoveries of the Fifteenth Century's Nicholas of Cusa.[12]

To deal effectively with the most critical of the challenges intersecting the outgrowth of Sept. 11th, we must venture into those avenues of scientific work which are, unfortunately, usually overlooked in today's predominantly decadent academic life, an oversight which has brought on very painful consequences for European civilization today. The world as a whole is presently gripped by the greatest general crisis in modern world history. In this circumstance, we must now make some radical changes, away from the foolish policies to which nations and their governments have become lately accustomed. We must make the needed, sometimes radical changes in ways of thinking about policies, changes which will guide us safely into the years immediately ahead.

The leading question is, therefore, how can we be certain of the assumedly beneficial consequences of those choices?

The overriding requirement of our response to the horrors of Sept. 11th, is not merely to assign blame, but to define a reliable course of action for rescuing civilization from the consequences of that attack. Removing the infected organ, will not necessarily enable the victim to survive. Therefore, to speak with reasonable confidence about the nature of the choices of a future which are available to us in the aftermath of Sept. 11th, I must now summarize those methods of long-range forecasting, my own, which have now been proven repeatedly to be so uniquely and spectacularly successful, over more than a quarter-century past.

Crafting a Science Of Strategy

My own most fundamental, and eminently successful contribution to the study of cultures, lies in my introduction of the conception of potential relative population-density, as the uniquely competent basis for defining a physical science of economics, and, therefore, the needed basis for clarifying the principles of a universal method in economic history. Thus, as I have shown in numerous published locations, the only scientifically acceptable basis for measuring the relative quality of a culture, today, would be the bearing of the essential features of scientific and artistic development upon the culture's power to sustain and improve its potential relative population-density.

This approach to a physical science of economics, provides us the optimal basis for rigorous study of not only past history, but of reliable methods for shaping the future outcome of that history. This is a study to be conducted from the standpoint of attention to the physically functional characteristics of the evolution, or decadence, of cultures.

In first approximation, this means that we must study both national, or analogous particular cultures, and relationships among cultures, over periods of not less than one to several generations, and patterns of changes in cultures over centuries. On that basis, we must then examine the way in which relatively small changes introduced within those cultural processes, even by individuals during the short term, may significantly alter the medium- to long-term evolution of a culture, or a set of cultures. The physical principle of potential relative population-density, provides the indispensable key to conducting this investigation in the required way.

We must concentrate upon the willful introduction of relatively small, but cumulatively powerful changes in axiomatic features of a culture, changes made often by sovereign individual personalities. This defines the essential distinction between the behavior of human cultures and the habits of beasts.

It would be difficult to overstate the warning, that, contrary to both Adam Smith and both the orthodox social-democrats and anarcho-syndicalists, history is not shaped by any automatic pulsation of "objective forces." All of the significant developments in the history and pre-history of the human species, are results of the individually voluntary alteration of the principled course of events, through innovations inserted by sovereign individuals.[13] It is by this agency, that mankind changes its cultures, and also revolutionizes what empiricists and other fools insist falsely, are the unchangeable, axiomatic features of human nature, for better or for worse.

Through my discoveries in that specialist's domain, the science of physical-economy, we are now capable of understanding and applying that principle of scientific history, sometimes called voluntarism, as an instrument of long-range forecasting, for shaping generalized, progressive economic and related developments within and among cultures. We are able, through the study of cultures from this standpoint, to adduce the way in which the axiomatic and related innovations by individuals, may be mustered in a way which brings about changes in cultures which are both foreseeable and beneficial.

Through the same application of the science of physical-economy, we are better able to identify and correct those wrong-headed trends in policy-making which lead to medium- to long-range cultural, as well as physical-economic catastrophes. I mean catastrophes such as the presently ongoing global collapse of the world's reigning monetary-financial system. I explain the immediately relevant point summarily, as follows.

As I have already emphasized, above, although my own original discoveries in this field of science, were derived from a different track than that of Vernadsky,[14] there are important common grounds connecting our respective conclusions, apart from differences between his definition of the Noösphere and my own approach to many very similar conclusions through my discovery and development of the principle of potential relative population-density. Review the argument I identified above. It is an extremely important, if little understood principle, a principle of overriding importance for understanding the deeper implications of the events of Sept. 11th. Therefore, it requires some repetition in the present context.

Like Vernadsky, I define the experimentally known physical universe, as composed of a multiply-connected manifold of three respectively independent, but interacting sets of types of universal physical principles. In short-hand, these are, respectively, the respectively distinct experimentally defined domains of the abiotic, living, and cognitive. I define that universe conceptually in terms of an anti-Euclidean, Riemannian differential (physical) geometry.

Just as existence of living processes expresses a characteristically anti-entropic, universal principle, contrary to the fallacious notion of universal entropy which Clausius, Grassmann, Kelvin, Boltzmann, et al. attributed to the universe as a whole, so the uniquely human, spiritual, or cognitive processes expressed by discoveries of universal principles of physical-scientific and Classical-artistic knowledge, are a quality of anti-entropic principle, sometimes recognized as a spiritual principle, existing throughout the universe, existing independently of the confines of both abiotic and lower living processes as such.[15] We may thus say, without implying any resort to the blind mysticism of the gnostics, that the universe of physical science is composed of three, experimentally defined, multiply-connected phase-spaces: abiotic, living, and spiritual. The clearest and simplest proof of the physical efficiency of the Socratic principle of the spiritual, is, contrary to the gnostics, any experimentally demonstrated individual discovery of a universal physical principle.

These universally efficient "spiritual (i.e., cognitive) forces" are those expressed in modern experimental physical science in a unique way, by the appearance of the quality of sovereign cognitive creative insight in but one living species, the human individual, in the individual Socratic act of cognitive insight through which all experimentally validatable discoveries of universal physical principle occur.

The understanding of the way in which use of cognitively discovered universal physical principles, increases the potential relative population-density of the human species, thus provides the necessary conceptual basis for a physical science of economy, and, thus, the basis for the study of social processes in a more inclusive way.

Where Vernadsky emphasizes the role of the individual act of scientific discovery, as the source of mankind's increased power in and over the universe, I locate the principle of action, not primarily in the relatively simple relationship to nature of individual qua individual, but, rather, the primary role of the individual's influence in changing the determining cultural processes which, in turn, govern mankind's changing of its society's functional relationship to nature.[16]

It was by recognizing that those Classical artistic principles of composition relevant to this social process, are to be considered as expressing experimentally demonstrable, characteristically anti-entropic, universal physical principles, that I succeeded, in a uniquely successful way, in revolutionizing the methods of long-range economic and related forecasting.[17] Consequently, while my long-range and related forecasts, have each and all appeared in significant public, written circulation, during more than thirty years, none of these has erred in its stated claims, whereas all explicitly contrary forecasts, constructed by contrary methods, have demonstrably failed.[18]

A. The Historical Settings

I have applied that method of analysis and forecasting successfully to the crisis centered around the influence of that homicidal lunacy known as the Brzezinski, Huntington, Bernard Lewis, "Clash of Civilizations" conspiracy. A competent grasp of the problem posed by the attempted coup d'état in question, demands that we place that conspiracy and its associated developments within the relevant general setting, the same setting within which the subject-matter of the science of physical economy is located. Without situating the subject of the Clash of Civilizations strategy within its place in the long-term evolution of what has become globally extended modern European civilization, no truly rigorous, no competent assessment of the causes for, or the lunatic influence of Brzezinski's conspiracy, could be provided.

The problem posed by the crucial implications of the developments of Sept. 11th, is therefore broadly situated within the recent six centuries of world history, and, more emphatically, the great upheavals set into motion within European and other cultures by the 1776-1789 establishment of the U.S.A. as the first successful model for a modern, sovereign, constitutional nation-state republic.

I must now define here, once again, the relevant aspects of what I mean by the term modern European civilization. I craft that definition within the bounds of the forecasting method indicated, and examine the relevant lessons of the history of modern European culture from that point of departure.

I proceed now, by quickly summarizing those issues of U.S. policy rooted in the periods 1400-1648, 1688-1763, and 1776-1901, which can not be ignored. I, then, focus upon the special, crucially relevant features of the past century's developments, beginning with the interval 1894-1901,[19] and continuing through the present moment of ongoing global collapse of the world's present monetary-financial system. These typify the essential evidence which must be taken into account, to assess what is, from case to case, ongoing in the minds of leading political forces of the world at this moment.

To restate the case, I shall now divide globally-extended expressions of post-1400 A.D., modern European civilization, summarily, into crucial phases, as follows:

  1. 1. Modern history begins with the Fifteenth-Century, Italy-centered Golden Renaissance, which was the birthplace of modern experimental physical science and of the sovereign nation-state.[20]

  2. During much of the two following centuries, we have what Trevor-Roper and others have identified as a "little new dark age" of European civilization, the Venice-Habsburg-dominated period of anti-Renaissance religious and related warfare, over the interval, 1511-1648, which concluded with the reemergence of the modern nation-state, with the Peace of Westphalia.

  3. Next, came the rise of the Venetian-modeled Anglo-Dutch imperial maritime power, typified by the 1689-1763 emergence, around the tyrant William of Orange, of what became the power of the British East India Company.

  4. The 1763-1789 period of the U.S. struggle for independence from both that Anglo-Dutch tyranny and also the imperial Habsburg tradition, is to be recognized as the central reference-point for that reaction against the American Revolution, from which the present form of Anglo-American imperial maritime form of rentier-financier domination emerged, with the 1901 assassination of U.S. President McKinley. That reaction, that neo-Venetian, originally Anglo-Dutch, rentier-financier domination of much of the world, is to be recognized, still today, as rooted in that philosophical empiricism which has led the world into the present general breakdown crisis of the existing monetary-financial system.

  5. Within the latter setting, we have, then, the globally revolutionary impact of the American Revolution of 1776-1789, which established the intentions expressed by that Constitution, as the model of reference for defining the principal alternative to both the waning power of the decadent Habsburg tyranny and the currently hegemonic, originally Anglo-Dutch models of imperial maritime institutions of global rentier-financier domination over the planet as a whole.

  6. It should be especially evident since the 1989-1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union, that the American revolutions of 1776-1789 and 1861-1876, rallied the best currents from throughout European civilization for the cause of a true republic. Those two American revolutions have been clearly shown, by the net results of intervening and subsequent history, to be the only durable known source of continuing challenge and threat to the neo-Venetian, Anglo-Dutch model of imperial maritime rentier-financier oligarchy, to the morbid grip of empiricism and its derivatives, from that time to the present date.[21] The best features of all national economies since 1789, have been modeled on the principles set forth as the American System of political-economy.

  7. With the triumph of the U.S.A., led by President Abraham Lincoln, over the British monarchy and its puppet the Confederacy, the global conflict among nations and cultures has centered, in fact, upon the choice between the American System of Alexander Hamilton, Mathew Carey, Henry Carey, and Friedrich List, and the opposing British system of political-economy. So, even taking into account the importance of the Soviet Union's role during most of Twentieth-Century history, the world economy as a whole today, after 1989-1991, is plainly divided, chiefly, between opposing forces which are most economically and fairly described as the mutually opposing, respective American and Anglo-Dutch systems of political-economy. All other conflicts must, of necessity, orbit historically around the continuing conflict between these two.

This latter, presently underlying global conflict, has three interdependent but otherwise distinct features.

First, the American System of political-economy, as so described by the first U.S. Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, is based on the same principle, that termed alternately the general welfare, or, the common good, upon which the idea of the sovereign nation-state's creation and existence was premised earlier. It was the establishment of this principle, during the Fifteenth-Century Renaissance, and the reigns of France's Louis XI and England's Henry VII, which defines the historical existence of modern European civilization. The conception of the general welfare as a supreme doctrine of natural law, is the pivotal feature of what is rightly recognized as the American intellectual tradition, of which I personally am a product, the tradition which Professor Elliott's Henry A. Kissinger hates,[22] and to which I adhere.

Second, the democratic-republican form of the constitutional American System of political economy, as axiomatically opposed to the Anglo-Dutch "liberal" system, the latter which is based upon the exceptional power and privileges of that rentier-financier class formerly typified by the Dutch and British East India companies. The conflict between President Franklin Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston Churchill, during the period of World War II, typifies the issues, as does the continuing 1972-2001 conflict between me and the circles of Elliott's Golems Kissinger, Huntington, and Brzezinski today.

Third, the Anglo-Dutch system is based on the Hobbesian or like notion of axiomatic, perpetual conflict among and within nations, whereas the American System of U.S. paragons John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt, is premised on the goal of establishing an expanded, durable ("multi-polar") community of shared principle among perfectly sovereign nation-state republics. The ideology typified by the personal moral and intellectual devolution of the followers of Professor William Yandell Elliott over the course of the recent half-century, typifies the trend toward the most extreme forms of what can only be described as a new ultramontane, integralist dogma of universal fascism among those followers of Elliott and their like.[23]

On this account, the greatest tragedy suffered by the people of the U.S.A., has been the recurring hegemony of enemies of the American System within the U.S. itself. Thus, except for the period of President Franklin Roosevelt's incumbency, the Twentieth-Century U.S.A., since the assassination of President McKinley, has been corrupted, and largely dominated by an international rentier-financier oligarchy sometimes identified as the financier-legal-academic circles of the "ABC"—American, British, Canadian—cabal. This features powerful financier interests and their associated law-firms, which have deeply penetrated the institutions of government, and are represented, as a combination, by the most powerful tax-exempt and related think-tanks behind the influence of Elliott's Golems.

The presently onrushing terminal collapse of the world's presently reigning monetary-financial system, is chiefly an internal, self-induced collapse of the system which has dominated the world since the immediate aftermath of Franklin Roosevelt's death, and has temporarily assumed the posture of pretended global imperial power during the period since the break-up of the Soviet system.

It is only in that context of modern history so defined, that the causes and remedies for the crisis of Sept. 11th can be efficiently understood. In the following chronology, I limit myself to as many selected highlights of that history as are indispensable for a competent assessment of the immediate world strategic crisis.

B. The Rise And Decline Of U.S. Power

The following post-1789 developments, are the most crucial elements of historical-cultural background for the role of the U.S. in the principal global developments of the Twentieth Century.

The principal watershed of post-1714 progress in modern political history, had been the rallying of the leading representatives of the Classical cultural and scientific tradition of modern European civilization, around promoting the emergence of a modern form of sovereign nation-state republic in the English-speaking colonies of North America. This resistance against the tyranny of both the Habsburg and Anglo-Dutch imperial traditions, has remained the pivotal legacy of modern European history, since then, to the present day. Thus, until the July 14, 1789 beginning of the Jacobin Terror in France, the triumph of the cause of the independence of the U.S. republic and its 1787-1789 draft of its Federal Constitution, expressed the greatest political achievement in statecraft of European civilization up to that date.

However, the succession of the 1789-1794 Jacobin Terror in France, followed by the specifically fascist tyranny of Napoleon Bonaparte, temporarily broke the U.S.'s ties to the European ally, France, on which assistance in securing U.S. independence had chiefly depended.[24]

The subsequent 1814-1815, post-Napoleon, Vienna Congress, created for a time a new imperial power-sharing throughout Europe, a power co-dominated by both of the U.S.'s enemies, the British monarchy and the Habsburg Holy Alliance. Under these strategic conditions, from 1789 until President Lincoln's 1861-1865 leadership of the war against the Confederacy, the U.S. was chiefly isolated and harassed by the leading foreign powers, and subjected to the treasonous influence of London-connected U.S. bankers, Southern slave-owners, Habsburg plots, and the odds and ends of a Bonapartist family's rabble meddling in their fashion in our affairs.

The U.S. expulsion from Mexico, of the French occupying military forces of the puppet of the Habsburgs/Hapsburgs and Napoleon III, marked the emergence of the U.S. as an established world power, not only within the Hemisphere, but in the world at large.[25] The U.S. victories of 1861-1865 were continued as a process of agro-industrial development through the 1876 Philadelphia Centennial celebration. As the outcome of the success of Henry C. Carey's American System policies during the 1861-1876 interval, Germany, Russia, Japan, and many other nations inside and outside the Americas, not only adopted key features of the American System for the improvement of their own economies, but sought to emulate the success of the U.S. in bridging the North American continent, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, through the transcontinental railway program.

Thus, between Gettysburg, in 1863, and Philadelphia, in 1876, the U.S. emerged as the world's greatest threat to both the British Empire and the relics of the Habsburg tyrannies. For this reason, a London-directed espionage network, supported by the Habsburg interest, conducted the assassination of President Lincoln, and launched concerted efforts at both economic warfare and fostering of treason against the U.S., through the time of that successful 1901 assassination of U.S. President McKinley which was facilitated through Emma Goldman of New York City's Henry Street Settlement House.

Admittedly, the post-McKinley U.S. gained in relative military and economic power over the course of the Twentieth Century, but it was no longer quite a U.S. of the same character which had been established by President Lincoln's victory.

Any competent study of U.S. domestic and foreign policy during the past one hundred years, is focussed upon the implications of that reversal of the Lincoln victory over the Confederacy, which has been represented by the successive Twentieth-Century Presidencies of two sons of the Confederacy, Theodore Roosevelt and Ku Klux Klan fanatic Woodrow Wilson, and also oligarch Calvin Coolidge. As President Franklin Roosevelt emphasized this fact repeatedly, both to the U.S. electorate, and to Prime Minister Churchill, the principal division within the U.S. political-economic process has been the axiomatic hostility of the American intellectual tradition of our founders, to the American Tory tradition expressed by those devoted to what Roosevelt derided as "British Eighteenth-Century methods." Whoever seeks to interpret U.S. history without premising it on that fundamental cultural and moral conflict within our nation, marks himself or herself as a foolish babbler, or worse.

When we consider the full sweep of the rise in global power of modern European civilization, since the Fifteenth-Century Renaissance, we must regard the greatest part of the interval 1901-2001 as relatively an historic "new dark age" in the existence of mankind.[26] Two world wars, the great depression and rise of fascist dictatorships following the First World War, the Great Depression of the 1930s, the Second World War, the so-called "Cold War," the wave of intellectual and personal moral decadence merely typified by the numerous lackeys of Harvard's William Yandell Elliott, the assassinations and political coups in the Americas and Europe during the 1962-1965 interval, and the post-1965 slide of the economies of the Americas and Europe into the horrible trajectory of the long-term monetary-financial decadence of 1971-2001, qualify fully for the title of a cultural "new dark age."

Only the leadership of President Franklin Roosevelt, and the benefits of the 1945-1963 interval of economic reconstruction in the Americas, Japan, Europe, and elsewhere, provide a few outstanding bright spots in an otherwise terrible and now rapidly worsening decadence gripping the world of 1901-2001.

The 1962-1965 interval of intensified crisis, is identified by the emergence of a fascist-style military coup-plotting against the U.S. government itself, by the 1962 Cuba missiles-crisis, the attempted assassination of France's great President Charles de Gaulle, the political coup against Britain's Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, the hustling of Chancellor Konrad Adenauer into premature retirement, the assassination of President Kennedy, the launching of the U.S. war in Indo-China, the pestilence of the first Harold Wilson government of the United Kingdom, and the ouster of Chancellor Erhard in Germany. These and related prominent events of 1962-1965, mark a separation between what was, in net effect, the upward course of economic developments which predominated during the 1945-1963 interval of post-war reconstruction, and the accelerated general moral and economic decadence aptly signalled by Richard Nixon's 1966-1968 pro-Ku Klux Klan campaign for the U.S. Presidency.

But for a few bright moments, here and there, since, the prevalent course of globally extended European civilization has been. economically, morally, culturally, an accelerating, increasingly decadent downhill slide of the economy and other crucial elements of culture combined, since the critical turn in events during the 1962-1965 interval.

Just as the Jacobin Terror of 1789-1794 produced the conditions under which the first fascist tyranny, that of Napoleon Bonaparte, emerged, so the capture of the control of the U.S. by the British monarchy, under U.S. Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Calvin Coolidge, produced the conditions favorable to the emergence of Twentieth-Century fascist tyrannies, such as those of Mussolini and Hitler, which were explicitly modelled on the traditions of the fascist reign of self-proclaimed Caesar and Pontifex Maximus Napoleon Bonaparte.

If we look at the history of the post-World War II Harvard squirrel-cage operated by the Nashville Agrarians' Elliott, against the background provided by the French developments of 1789-1815, and fascist dictator Napoleon III, and the background of that neo-Romantic epidemic of cultural pessimism traced from such as the existentialists Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, through Adolf Hitler, Martin Heidegger, and Theodor Adorno, we should not be astonished to recognize the ideologues of today's cult of universal fascism, globalized fascism, such as that of Huntington and Brzezinski, as typifying a new epidemic of fascist ideologues worse, by implication, than even the most notorious figures of the 1920s and 1930s.

Prior to his untimely death, President Franklin Roosevelt's intentions for the post-war period, had centered on creating a post-war Bretton Woods system designed not only for repairing the ravages of Depression and war in Europe and the Americas, but eradicating the pestilence of Adam Smith's "free trade" system, and all vestiges of Portuguese, Dutch, British, and French colonialism, from the post-war world. The President's body was scarcely cooled, before his successors launched savage military campaigns of re-colonialization, and setting into motion a London-orchestrated new strategic military conflict between the U.S. and its former war-time, Soviet ally.

Thus, in some important aspects and degree, the 1945-1963 Bretton Woods system was thoroughly successful, if not truly a just system, in contrast to the net failure of that post-1971 floating-exchange-rate system now disintegrating around the ears of the world.

The significance of the 1962-1965 crises, was the orchestration of a new degree of co-dependency between the rival Anglo-American and Soviet thermonuclear superpowers. As an accompaniment to those changes effected during the 1962-1965 interval, the essential axioms of economic and other statecraft characteristic of the pre-1963 period, were brutally, often bloodily uprooted, clearing the way for what became known as the "cultural paradigm-shift" impacting most heavily the university-oriented generation of youth born after 1945.

Amid this post-1962-1965 confusion, the accumulated trash of the "left-wing" H.G. Wells-Bertrand Russell and of the "right-wing" cultural offal of the Nashville Agrarian descendants of the founders of the original Ku Klux Klan, zoomed into positions of accelerating influence on U.S. internal cultural and political life.

If we take into account the post-1971 net erosion of U.S. investment in basic economic infrastructure, and the accelerating loss, over the course of the 1970s, of scientific and industrial elements which had been essential to the manned Moon-landing, the U.S. internal economy has been in a long-term decline in rate of growth since 1966-1967, and a shift into accelerating absolute decline of its internal economy since 1971.

The worst rate of economic disintegration, occurred under Brzezinski's selection of U.S. President Jimmy Carter. Since 1977, the once proudly optimistic lower eighty percentile of U.S. family income-brackets, has suffered an accelerating collapse of its share of total national income, while the U.S. economy relied increasingly, during 1971-1989, on the influence of global Anglo-American political power to loot other nations through monetary-financial swindles and "globalization," especially those of South and Central America, Africa, and Asia.

With the 1989-1991 collapse of the Soviet system, the Anglo-American rentier-financier interests emerged as the ostensibly unchallenged imperial ruler of the world, degrading all other nations, including those of western continental Europe, into the status of virtual satrapies, or worse. The vast looting of the former Soviet Union, especially over the interval 1991-1998, served temporarily as the largest single subsidy to the otherwise internally collapsing economic power of the Anglo-American combination.

With the inherently inevitable international financial and monetary crises of 1997-1998, the Anglo-American financier interests, were running out of places to loot. The inevitable doom of the present policies of the ruling Anglo-American financier interest was clearly in sight. For the world's hegemonic financier interests, the bell had struck, announcing the news they must have read as the coming Twilight of the Olympian Gods. Hence, the world is now gripped, since the post-1996, 1997-98 turn, by such events as those associated with the aftermath of Sept. 11th.

The U.S.A. could come out of this crisis quite nicely, if with more than a bit of temporary strain, but, as Franklin Roosevelt's role during 1933-1945 showed, there would be no need for seeking remedies outside the province of the principles set forth by our 1787-1789 Federal Constitution. Indeed, beginning my rebroadcast, to a nationwide U.S. audience, of my Berlin television address of Oct. 12, 1988, I have always specified concrete, practicable perspectives for lifting the U.S. to a new and better role in the world at large, under the conditions which I foretold then, of the imminent collapse of the Soviet system in its then present form.

Throughout my thirty-five-year rise to today's international prominence, I have insisted, that a return to what Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton had described as "the American System of political-economy," provided our government the implied set of policy-setting approaches to endless progress in the condition of our own people, and also those of other nations, including the offer of a new partnership with the economically distressed Soviet economy. That is still true, today.

The threat of military coups d'état and kindred horrors from within the U.S., is not threatened because of any honest economic self-interest of the U.S.A. Only our own, current gross excess of financial parasites, are threatened by the reforms I have proposed. The threat comes entirely from those who would rather send the whole world to Hell, than give back the U.S.A. to its Federal Constitution, and to the consequent fostering of the general welfare of its people

Brzezinski and Hitler

To better understand the events of Sept. 11th, reconsider the case of the Hitler coup d'état of January-March 1933. There never existed any excuse for those explicitly Anglo-American actions which put Hitler into power in Germany. Had a President Hindenburg corrupted by the accomplices of London's Montagu Norman, not ousted Chancellor von Schleicher, World War II would have been prevented by the March 1933 inauguration of the already elected U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt. Had von Schleicher continued as Chancellor until the point of Roosevelt's inauguration, Germany and the U.S.A. would have had virtually identical economic-recovery programs, and World War II would not have happened.

In brief, the Anglo-American financier interests associated with London's Hitler backer, Montagu Norman, acted, in January 1933, to ensure that World War II would not be prevented. Those interests acted to prevent leading forces of continental Europe from entering into what would have become the global hegemony of policies consistent with the American intellectual tradition. Like Henry A. Kissinger later, Montagu Norman and his confederates would rather have had Hell on Earth, than tolerate a world under the influence of the American intellectual tradition.

I had a comparable little personal experience during the mid-1970s.

An appointment was set for me, with a key official of a leading British parliamentary party. At that meeting, I summarized the alternatives facing the post-1971-1975 form of the IMF's floating-exchange-rate system. I summarized the argument, that it were better that certain British interests, which might ordinarily consider themselves axiomatically opposed to my proposals, might be disposed to accept my proposed course of international monetary reform, if they but recalled the results of their predecessors putting Schacht's protégé, Hitler, into power in Germany. I summarized the situation as a choice between the "shock" of a needed monetary reform, and the consequences of continuing the efforts, at that moment, to revive the fiscal austerity precedents of Schacht et al.

The response to my argument was abrupt, and very cold: "I am certain we would prefer Schacht to your shock." Obviously, a quarter-century-odd later, I was right, and that British reaction to my argument is to be seen in hindsight on the state of the British economy, itself, today, as, regrettably, a pitiably mistaken one.

So, in March 1933, the Schacht who had brought Hitler into power at the behest of the Anglo-American financial interests associated with Montagu Norman, became the President of Germany's Reichsbank. So, ensconced, Schacht relied upon the permission arranged by Germany's Anglo-American financial masters, to launch the Hitler mobilization which was already intended, as Hitler's geopolitical Mein Kampf had promised, to prepare for the invasion of the Soviet Union. Because of the Molotov-Ribbentrop negotiations, events did not unfold in exactly the way in which some in Britain had imagined prior to the abdication of King Edward VIII, but, that aside, what became known as World War II, was, by 1934-1936, inevitable.

In the course of known history, there are clearly defined critical moments of decision, at which the general trend of an ensuing, new period of history is virtually predetermined, one way or the other. The Germany events of January-March 1933 are typical of such moments of decision. It is cruel, but both true and necessary, to report, that when the German military command of 1934, decided not to oppose Hitler's assassination of former Chancellor von Schleicher, the July 1944 doom of the German generals was virtually "in the cards." After that assassination, the death of Hindenburg was essentially a mere formality which cleared the way for the consolidation of the Hitler dictatorship. Among Germans, only those leaders who permitted those fateful, wrong, pro-London choices of 1933-1934, bore any essential guilt for the horrors which followed from the decisions of 1933-1934.

There is, thus, often a dark side to the effects of the role of the voluntary principle on history.

The British role in putting Hitler into power, and the German generals' role in failing to prevent him from becoming Chancellor, first, and dictator, later, merely typifies the dark side. Had the plot to conduct a U.S. military coup against Franklin Roosevelt's inauguration succeeded, too, the Twentieth Century would have been among the darkest ages for all mankind.

Therefore, for me, the example of the way in which certain German military leaders allowed Hindenburg to put Hitler into power, is, still today, among the most frightening lessons from modern history. The events of Sept. 11th, seen in the light of the Huntington-Brzezinski-Lewis "Clash of Civilizations" plot, are the principal immediate reason, of the same kind, to be fearful for the fate of mankind today.

The forces behind dangerous lunatics such as Brzezinski and Huntington, are not being pushed into unleashing terrible religious wars and universal fascist dictatorships, because of any factor of objective U.S. national self-interest. They, like the lackeys of the doomed gods of Olympus, which they implicitly fancy themselves to be, and like the criminally insane backers of Sharon's campaign, would rather destroy the universe, than suffer any setback to the cause of their own lunatic ideology. Satanic creatures of the sort typified by a Sharon, or Brzezinski and Huntington, would rather reign in a Hell of their own making, than seek a sublime peace in Heaven.

There is no sane reason for what either Sharon is doing, or what is intended by the backers of Brzezinski's geopolitical lunacies; nonetheless, for those who understand real history, it could happen, unless it is stopped.

2. Cabal And Strategy

As I restated my long-standing view, at the outset of the preceding chapter, competent strategy for civilized nations, has always been another name for what I defined above as culture. So it was for St. Augustine's doctrine of justified warfare, and for that Moses Mendelssohn who drafted the program of military education which produced Germany's exemplary Gerhard Scharnhorst.

Or, to make the same point from the vantage-point of the science of Leibniz's monadology and Riemannian differential physical geometry, the essential features of strategy are not to be found amid the ivory-tower fantasies displayed upon a blackboard, a table-top, or in the sand-box of a children's playground; but, as in making the great physical discoveries of physical science, and, in the characteristic features of the specific physical geometry of that domain, the essence of history is the cognitive nature of the human individual, through which the action of beneficial change is to be introduced.

Therefore, the fact that the Classical humanist program which built the foundation for what became the German military General Staff, was that which Moses Mendelssohn drafted, at the request of Wilhelm Graf Schaumburg-Lippe, is not only among the most delicious ironies in modern military history; it is the most important single lesson in the way to think strategically. I emphasize that here, to make clear, by contrast, the inhering blend of combined evil, insanity, and proneness to self-defeat, inhering in the strategic doctrines associated with both the circles of Harvard's depraved Elliott, Brzezinski, Huntington, Kissinger, and their military-professional accomplices inside both the U.S. and Israeli military forces today.

As I have summarized the argument at the outset of the preceding chapter of this report, competent notions of strategy must be premised, in principle, on the essential distinction between, on the one side, the physical geometry of actions by men and, on the other side, the domain of action characteristic of the beast. That means, that like the Phaedon of Mendelssohn, any truly scientific strategic doctrine, like each and every great renewal of Classical culture in art and science, is premised on a modern appreciation of Plato's Socratic definition of the immortality of the perfectly sovereign individual human soul. The issue thus posed is: for what truly immortal cause shall a man lay down his life for others? Contrary to the immoral Immanuel Kant's utopian "negation of the negation" of war as "perpetual peace," or perverted Huntington's notion of peace as perpetual war, there is no other worthy cause for which a person's life should be justly ventured, but the most essential interest of his, or her immortal soul. With that motive, a good man could work wonders, and often did!

Or, to make the same point in other words, the mortal individual has no durable interest in living, except that of using the instrumentality, the talent, of that mortal life, to fulfill the essential interest of his immortal soul. Since we shall all die, sooner or later, what is our efficiently continuing self-interest when that will have happened? What must our life become, as our contribution to the continuing improvement of the future, once we are dead? What will be important to us, then? So, brave young soldiers may die, as old soldiers, such as President Charles de Gaulle, may survive to serve by living longer lives. What does our life contribute, as something within us which lives after us, to the improvement of the common good of all of the people of our nation, and to the general welfare of all mankind?

Such is the principle of strategy, which must govern the state, as also each moral individual member of that society.

The characteristic of the progress in the development and understanding of modern European cultures' military strategy, from Leonardo da Vinci and Niccolò Machiavelli, through the revolutionary innovations of such paragons as Lazare Carnot and Scharnhorst, is a typical reflection of the emergence of the modern form of Classical humanist notion of scientific progress per se, also strategy. The origin of this application of science, and of modern Classical-humanist forms of artistic composition, to statecraft in general, and military practice in particular, is the coming into being of the modern form of sovereign nation-state. This is a state premised on the supreme principle of the promotion of the general welfare of all of the members of present and future generations. That is the essential principle of modern European culture in general, and therefore of competent modern strategy, and military doctrine and practice, in particular.

The issues of strategy so situated, have been addressed already, in significant degrees, among the best Classical specialists, in many useful ways, some excellent. However, as I shall now illustrate the point, my original discoveries in economic science, enable me to get to the core of the matter in ways which go much more deeply, ways which have eluded earlier expositions. The point to be made here, is, that matters of strategy must be addressed from the same standpoint as that promotion of the per-capita physical productive powers of labor, through long-term investments in science and technology which increase the power of a people in terms of potential relative population-density.

Thus, the improvements in social practice which occur as a result of elevating the quality of life of the members of society, equip that society with a kind of strategic potential relatively superior, both morally and practically, to that of any oligarchical form of society.

Our U.S. republic's internal and external adversaries, base their ideas of power on their morally depraved inclination to admire the war-like image of some powerful beast. Consequently, they tend, in their attempted perfection of their own beastliness, to overlook the lesson to be adduced from the case of the powerful tiger trapped in the man-made pit, or brought down by volleys of man-made arrows or man-made rifle-shots. It is neither muscular power, nor the "revenge of the academic nerds" of the Smith-Richardson, Olin, or Mellon-Scaife foundations, but, rather, the force of cognition, which shall prevail in the end.

So, France's King Louis XI outflanked a powerful combination of his adversaries. So, Henry VII's England unleashed a revolutionary upgrading of the culture and power of that nation. Strategy is focussed upon luring the adversary of civilization, to fighting on a choice of physical-economic terrain developed to be an inherently advantageous choice for the nobler form of society. Durable victory is secured by winning the potential opponent to preferring the just benefit, to him, of your victory, over ruining both of you by unjustified war. Here lies the key to the doom which now awaits the memory and lackeys alike of the essentially fascist Romantic, Nashville Agrarian Elliott.

General MacArthur won the war of the Pacific, quicker, better, and at far less cost than his critics could have done, not by needless nuclear-bombing, but by avoiding unnecessary battles in concentrating his force, as much as possible, against the essential strategic vulnerability of the island-nation of Japan. Had the bombs not been dropped, Japan would have probably required some weeks longer before effective blockades forced Japan's recalcitrant military commanders to accept the Emperor's plan for surrender, but no American lives would have been lost in a totally unnecessary onslaught, and the end of the war would have been sweeter, for the people of Japan, and for us.

So, Carnot, in several ways, used the inherent superiority of a France freed from the legacy of the Fronde, France as the leading scientific nation of the world at that time, a France whose farmers had been freshly freed from feudalism, to turn the threatened dismemberment of France into a general rout for all of the numerous, putatively conquering, invading armies of those years. So, the friends of Friedrich Schiller, used Schiller's studies of the Habsburg-led 1511-1648 religious wars, to show Russia and its Prussian allies how to set a fatal trap for the ostensibly unconquerable Grand Army of Emperor Napoleon.

The characteristic enemy to be defeated for the cause of creating and defending the institution of the modern sovereign nation-state, was, and remains those oligarchical traditions inherited from the culture of such wicked forms of society as the ancient Roman Empire. This includes that Empire's associated, Romantic traditions, as encountered, still today, in contemporary, fascist-leaning, cultural, legal, and military doctrines and policies, such as those of Elliott's Harvard Golems.

The essential weapons to be used for this noble cause, are the weapons of cognition, the ultimate weapon of change, as Plato defined a principle of change as universal and fundamental. The characteristic issue of most justified modern warfare, in seven centuries of modern European civilization, has been the employment of the discoveries of universal physical principle, both so-called physical principles and Classical-artistic ones, to enable sovereign nation-states to make those changes, through which to outflank the capabilities of empires and other forms of oligarchical power. The combat potential of the individual and unit, is, ultimately, not his muscular potential, but, like the best Auftragstaktik-oriented German military training in the tradition of Scharnhorst, his fostered cognitive aptitudes for improvising new choices for flanking and kindred action in face of more or less inevitable, but inevitably unexpected challenges.

The revolution in warfare which occurred in France, during 1792-1794, under the military leadership of scientist-soldier Lazare Carnot, aided by his collaborators of the Ecole Polytechnique, also typifies that revolution in warfare continued, against the fascist Napoleon Bonaparte, by the circles of the German Classical humanists Scharnhorst, Friedrich Schiller, and Wilhelm von Humboldt.[27] Typical of this great revolution in arms, were the superseding of the leadership of traditional oligarchs, on horseback, or herding massed infantry, by such citizen-soldiers as engineer-scientist Carnot and Classical-humanism-trained artillerist Scharnhorst. If we put to one side the doubtful, and seemingly interminable conceits of Jomini, we may consider the reforms of West Point under Sylvanus Thayer, as representing a continuation of the lessons derived from the reforms by Carnot, Scharnhorst, et al., within the development of the post-1815 U.S. tradition.

Lincoln more than won the 1861-1865 war against the Confederacy, by aid of the influence of the world's greatest economist of that time, Henry C. Carey. Carey's wisdom brought the intrinsic agro-industrial moral superiority of the Union into play against the intrinsic moral, and per-capita economic inferiority of the slave-holding system. Similarly, the inherently doomed folly of Brzezinski's geopolitical "Clash of Civilizations," lies in the fact, that the social forces which his strategy would deploy, depend upon the collapse of society globally into a far lower state of morals and economy than today. The victory of his evil cause, would be the common doom of all mankind; in such outcomes, there are no victories.

Yes, war-fighting is too often hard, despite the sophisticated best performances of commanders and the forces they deploy. Such battles as those cruellest ones, must be fought because they are crucial for the outcome of the conflict as a whole; they are properly chosen as complementary to avoiding, or minimizing other engagements, as much as possible. Today, our planners must be reminded of a principle which used to be taken for granted: Control of the adversary and the field of conflict, not his obliteration, not the best kill-ratio, is the proper objective.

How Kissingers, Like Hitler, Will Fail

Ironically, the perverted mentality of Brzezinski et al., is an echo of the same Confederacy incarnate in the Ku Klux Klan legacy of Professor Elliott's Nashville Agrarians. Focus upon the attempt, by Elliott and his minions, to devise a global imperial strategy based upon a preference for a Confederate's image of the "lost cause" of backwoods agrarianism and slavery. This exposes what should be the obviously exploitable, axiomatic strategic vulnerability of any dogma supplied by such among Elliott's jackals as Kissinger, Brzezinski, Huntington, and their confederates.

The same which is to be said of Elliott's Harvard intellectual spawn, with one important qualification, for today's case, should be said of the similar way in which Adolf Hitler's doom was ultimately brought about by his own ideology.

Underlying those and kindred examples, there is a deeper, common expression of this principle, which pervades the entire sweep of modern history in a specific way. I focus on that now, and thereafter focus on the essential folly, the Hitler-like self-doom of the confederates and followers of wretches such as the Nashville Agrarians' Elliott.

Since the collapse of the self-doomed Roman Empire in its western part, circa A.D. 300, there were repeated efforts to put civilization back along the upward track which Hellenistic culture had represented a half-millennium earlier, prior to about the time of the 212 B.C. Roman murder of Archimedes.

Thus, the darkest periods of Europe's so-called "Dark Age," saw the eruption of Islam, which brought powerful forces of a renaissance into the Mesopotamia of the Abbasid Caliphate, Egypt, and Spain. The cooperation between Caliph Haroun al-Rashid and Charlemagne, typifies this. When the accomplishments of Charlemagne were being ruined by the Norman baboons and others, renaissance influences from India, through Ibn Sina's Iran, played a role.

From the beginning of today's previous millennium, there were recurring, persisting efforts to lift Europe out of the depravity of the feudal system. The leadership of Abelard of Paris, the great cathedrals, such as Chartres, and of the Hohenstaufen emperors and their collaborators, are typical of these recurring initiatives. The great work of Dante Alighieri and the continuation of that effort by Petrarch, are typical.

The characteristic feature of those clashes between the attempt to build a renaissance and, the opposing depravity organized by Venice and its brutish Plantagenet instruments, was the repeated destruction of the political and other physical resources upon which intellectual foundations of the emerging efforts at a renaissance depended. The collapse of society over the period of the Second through Fourth Crusade, the lunatic nightmare of the Inquisition, and the century-long continuation, beyond the Fourth Crusade, of the ultramontanist effort at "globalization" in general, lowered the physical-economic state of society in a way, which, combined with usuriously pyramided international loans, like those of the post-1971 period today, collapsed Europe into the self-inflicted, mass-murderous "New Dark Age" of the Fourteenth Century.

The repeated lesson from history, is that the progress of society requires commitment to endless scientific-technological and kindred improvements in the basic economic infrastructure, physical productivity, and technology-promoted improvements in the conditions of family life of the general population. These happy results are accompanied and fostered by the increase and spread of cognitive forms of knowledge, and related increases in the physical productive powers of labor. Those results require the support of powerful political movements and institutions. Crush those movements and institutions, and the civilization itself may soon collapse, of attrition, into yet another new dark age. That is the warning urgently to be delivered to the ruling circles of governments and others today.

In the entire sweep of European history, since the rise of ancient Greece, the most horrible single development was the rise of the ancient Roman Empire, and the legal, moral, and military legacies which that Empire and its cultural tradition have continued to inflict on globally extended European civilization since. In the modern phase of history, fascism, born in reaction against the American Revolution of 1776-1789; fascism, born out of the 1789-1794 Jacobin Terror and Napoleon's tyranny, has been the most extreme expression of the kinds of cancer the Romantic legacy continues to foster, still today.

Huntington's 1957 The Soldier And The State, and all of the principal output of Huntington and Brzezinski since, represent that fascist tradition in the extreme form expressed by the combination of the "Clash of Civilizations" policy with the events of Sept. 11th. Huntington's definition of the professional soldier, is nothing but hero-worship of that specific fascist type intended to overthrow the nation-state and establish a caricature of the old pagan Roman Empire as world-government today.

The root of the evil expressed by Huntington and Brzezinski, is cultural, a hatred of the nature of man as Moses Mendelssohn, for one, defined man. For this reason, the cabal of followers of the Nashville Agrarians' Elliott, such as Brzezinski, Huntington, and Kissinger, not only hate, and seek to destroy the American intellectual tradition; at bottom, like their predecessors Friedrich Nietzsche, Thomas Huxley's H.G. Wells, Aleister Crowley, and Bertrand Russell, what they really hate, is mankind, or, like Nietzsche and his followers, God himself.

Therefore, the virtually instinctive reaction against progress, presently, by the oligarchical current of society, is to take steps calculated, in effect, or even intent, to bring on a new dark age. This means resorting to pro-Malthusian and cohering types of measures and actions, all implicitly aimed to lower the standard of education and living of the general population. This has been the dominant trend in U.S. and international monetary, economic, strategic, and cultural policy, as experienced in the U.S.A. over, most emphatically, the recent thirty-five years.

We have seen such increasingly lunatic trends, into the depths of fanaticism, in the mid-1960s spread of the "rock-drug-sex counterculture," the depravities of the so-called "de-schooling movement," and the spread of the irrationalist, "Flagellant"-like cult of "ecology." The Nixon destruction of the fixed-exchange-rate monetary system, destroyed the underpinnings of continued long-term investment in scientific and technological progress in the productive powers of labor. The Brzezinski-steered Carter administration's was even far worse in both intent and effects than Nixon's; it launched the program of deregulation and wild-eyed monetarism which has produced a continuing collapse of the living standards among the lower eighty-percentile of U.S. family-income brackets since 1977, while uprooting scientific and skilled employment, in favor of drudgery.

The brutalization of the population, including increasing emphasis on bestial forms of mass entertainment in all forms, degrades the population into a condition of cultural pessimism which, in turn, promotes the most disgusting decay in the state of mind and behavior of the population generally. The most obvious forms of degeneracy are in popular audio-visual entertainments; but, a comparison of the stocks of today's bookstores, including, especially, the children's books sections, with those of the 1950s and early 1960s, shows how popular tastes of all ages have degenerated, the fare consumed by children, the worst, and ultimately most dangerous for the future of our nation, and also of all mankind. As the cult of Dionysus professed, it is by the corruption of their children, as by the rock-drug-sex counterculture, that the civilization of the parents may be destroyed. Under such depraved circumstances, there is an increasing spread of ignorance, and increasing suggestibility of the population, especially the very young, which can be more readily exploited by the oligarchy. One should be reminded of the beliefs characteristic of past dark ages, including the inquisitions, the Flagellants, the fascinations with witchcraft and related "magic," and so on.

The result of post-1962 changes in U.S. policy and culture to that effect, have been accomplished in about the same way in which the oligarchy of the Roman Empire orchestrated the popular opinion of a Roman population bestialized by the entertainments of the great arena-sports on which most of today's U.S. mass-entertainment is modelled.

Thus, the directly opposite policy, the fostering of a generally higher standard of living for the population, combined with emphasis on scientific and technical, and related progress in the functions of cognition, produces the quality of population which resists oligarchical tyranny, whereas the destruction of the instruments of scientific and other cultural progress, brutalizes the population, makes it increasingly beast-like, as has been done to most of the U.S. population, especially the current crops of children, among others, since the great shocks of 1962-1965.

There are many cases from history, and inferrable from evidence left by pre-history, which illustrate the way in which at least most of the great disasters which have caused empires to fall, and cultures to disintegrate, in the past, reflect the inevitable destruction of any society which follows the same general direction which influential pro-oligarchical conspiracies such as the Wells-Russell and Nashville Agrarian cabal has set increasingly into motion since the 1950s.

The heart of the argument may be summed up as follows.

As the case of the American Revolution of 1776-1789 typifies the point, a population nourished, progressive, and educated in a superior degree, as the Americans of that period were superior in their conditions and opportunities to the populations of Europe, is prepared to assume responsibility for its own destiny, taking intellectual responsibility, as a people, for the consequences of its own decision-making. This is typified by both the 1776 Declaration of Independence and 1789 Constitution, documents vastly superior in quality of content, and in coherence, relative to all constitutions of all nations, seen since. A few people, thus crafted a great work.

Through the aversive and perilous conditions thrust upon our young republic by the Jacobin Terror of 1789-1794, Napoleon's tyranny, and the depravity of the great power-blocs of post-Napoleonic Europe, our nation was isolated, oppressed, and more easily corrupted. From the depravity which the resurgence of slavery typified among us, we were able to recover for a while, that solely through Lincoln's victory over that evil which the Nashville Agrarians typify during most of the recent hundred years.

Always, our nation's leading enemies have sought to destroy us, chiefly by inducing us to destroy ourselves first, as they have done more or less successfully since the crises of 1962-1965.

During all of our post-1776 history as a republic, the most consistent thrust of the effort to destroy us, whether from enemies abroad, or traitors and fools within, has been the promotion of the false and radical empiricist dogma of "free trade." By inducing us to subject ourselves to "free trade" and cohering dogma, they have destroyed much of our economy, stunted its continued growth, and impoverished growing rations of our people, just as the institution of slavery ruined the conditions of mental life of the non-slave population while it looted their bodies as well.

Do not let such awful evidence cause us to lose heart. Our insight into the use of such depraved methods by such contemporary enemies of civilization as Elliott's Harvard spawn, points, hopefully, to two potentially exploitable, compulsive and fatal errors of strategy by those enemies of humanity. By destroying the means on which the strength of society depends, they make the very society they would rule, the more vulnerable to its own self-imposed, or externally imposed ruin, or both combined. This is the result we see inside the U.S.A., in the former Soviet Union, in western and central Europe, in Africa, and throughout the Americas today.

In short, these fellows who follow Wells, Russell, Elliott, and so on, are so heart-set on chopping a hole in the boat they hate, that they either overlook that they are likely to sink, too, or would prefer, as Russell suggested on one occasion, to send the entire world to Hell, than live in a world dominated by the American intellectual tradition. Take the case of the present, fascist military dictatorship of Israel, so fanatically determined to get its way, that it appears to prefer its own self-inflicted doom, rather than even contemplate the alternative policies under which a sane Israel could survive. Elliott's crew, and the really fanatical followers of Wells and Russell, appear to desire nothing so much, as the ecstasy of burning alive on the Wagnerian pyres of their own Götterdämmerung.

Compare this with certain relevant ironies of the way in which Hitler's pro-Malthusian ideology led Germany to its self-destruction under his tyranny.

It Happened to Hitler

Liars, and like-minded fools, have sought to trace the characteristic premises of Nazism falsely, to such alleged origins as "German ideology" in general, Prussian militarism, or to the impact of "German industrialism." Exactly the contrary is true; like the related case of the fascist-like Confederacy, in U.S. history, or such followers of the "lost cause" as the Nashville Agrarians, Nazism was a disease which worked to destroy everything over which it gained control. The way in which Hitler exploited Germany's scientific-industrial and related pre-Hitler potential, in the effort to destroy Germany's own cultural roots, provides us an excellent illustration of the kind of relationship which exists today between the disease, Elliott's spawn, and the cultural heritage of the nation it infests.[28]

Like Mussolini, Hitler was both a fascist in explicit imitation of the ideology and practice of France's Napoleon Bonaparte, and also a more depraved variety of post-Napoleonic Romanticism, along the line of descent from the fascist ideologue G.W.F. Hegel,[29] and the waves of cultural pessimism and related depravity, which continue, today, to flow from the neo-Kantian existentialist ideologues Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger, Karl Jaspers, Theodor Adorno, Hannah Arendt, et al.[30]

The Nazis were also rabid, axiomatically anti-science pro-Malthusians, as the "useless eaters" and "death-camp" policies merely typify this axiomatic feature. However, the realization of the Nazis' originally London-assigned mission, was the use of the instrument of Germany's scientific-industrial and military-science heritages, which were products of German nation-state culture, to create a war-machine capable of destroying itself in the Russian mire which had wrecked Napoleon's Grand Army. Thus, the inherently excellent residues of the German Classical humanist movement's legacies, in the German scientific, Classical-artistic, and Scharnhorst-Moltke tradition, were among the principal (so-to-speak "captured") tools wasted by the Hitler regime for its adopted military mission.

Notably, as one of Huntington's earlier acquaintances, Col. Trevor N. Dupuy, wrote in 1984, the evidence is that, precisely because of the tradition of Scharnhorst and Helmuth "Old" v. Moltke, the German military institutions were superior, per capita, to those of all other nations, even during World War II.[31] The essence of this superior potentiality, is the tradition of Auftragstaktik, the principle of training and leadership emphasized to junior officers and non-commissioned leaders, which was introduced by Scharnhorst and emphasized by "Old" Moltke. This was the tradition instilled by the Classical humanist circles associated with Schiller and the Humboldt brothers. It is clearly beyond Huntington's powers of comprehension, to recognize that Auftragstaktik is the method of Classical-humanist education, translated into the practice of arms.

A complementary point can be made concerning the role of German science.

The modern history of German science has two crucial phases. The first was the spillover from the Italy-centered Fifteenth-Century science, the center of world science during that time, through the track of developments running through Brunelleschi, through the founder of modern experimental science Nicholas of Cusa, through Cusa's explicitly avowed direct followers Luca Pacioli and Leonardo da Vinci, through the founder of modern forms of comprehensive mathematical science Johannes Kepler, and into the France-centered developments in science around Gottfried Leibniz. The second phase was initiated under the leadership of avowed Leibniz follower Abraham Kästner, the teacher of Gotthold Lessing and Carl Gauss, and runs through the Franco-German circles of Lazare Carnot, Gaspard Monge, Alexander v. Humboldt, Lejeune Dirichlet, Wilhelm Weber, and Bernhard Riemann.

During the course of these alliances of the anti-empiricist followers of Leibniz, as expressed among French and German scientists, and the scientist, and one-time guest of Kästner, Benjamin Franklin, the role of the world's leader in scientific discovery, was shifted from France, which had held that position since the time of Jean-Baptiste Colbert, to Alexander von Humboldt's circles in Germany.

This downfall of France's leadership in science, was the result of three related, but distinct kinds of science-destructive influence introduced into France by empiricist interests.[32] The first, was the initial wrecking of the Monge-Legendre-led Ecole Polytechnique, then the world's leading scientific body, by the action of Napoleon's dictatorship. Second, was the increasing political influence of such followers of the anti-Leibniz empiricist Leonhard Euler, as represented by Lagrange, which put France's science increasingly under the corrupt influence of Laplace, Cauchy, Poisson, et al. Third, was the political directive, emanating from France's British-appointed, post-Vienna Congress, Restoration monarchy, wrecking the Ecole top-down, expelling Monge to internal exile, and impelling Lazare Carnot into exile in, successively, Poland and Prussia, while putting the hoaxsters Laplace and Cauchy at the helm.

The best of France's science was saved for the world at large, chiefly, through the intervention of the Alexander v. Humboldt, who was an associate of the original Ecole Polytechnique, and a close associate of Lazare Carnot during that period. During the period of the Bourbon Restoration monarchy, Humboldt, the leading patron of Germany's Carl Gauss, rescued the viable contributions of much of France's science through channels such as Crelle's Journal. By the 1850s, Humboldt's influence had played a key role in consolidating the achievements of the German science centered around such principal intellectual figures as Gauss, Wilhelm Weber, Dirichlet, and Riemann.

To sum up that point: The span of development of German science, from Kepler through Riemann, includes the rise of France as the international center of scientific progress, until the 1789-1794 Jacobin Terror, and transition, organized by Humboldt, through the circles of Lazare Carnot and the Ecole Polytechnique into Germany's emergence as the world's leader in science, during the late 1820s. The progress in these lines of Franco-German post-Renaissance development of modern science continued, despite contrary English and French Enlightenment factions to a dominant official position in institutions of German science, until the pronounced down-turn marked by Hermann Helmholtz's accession, and of the followers of the radical positivist, Ernst Mach. Since that time, despite important steps forward in some important ways, the generally accepted academic notion of science and scientific method has degenerated greatly, increasingly, in many ways, including, especially, the role of Bertrand Russell and his confederates in many nations, since the 1890s, to the present day.

These Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Centuries' developments in the progress of science in Germany, not only paralleled but overlapped the history of anti-Romantic, Classical culture in Germany during the same centuries. The connection is underscored by reference to the importance which the leaders of the Eighteenth-Century Classical renaissance in Germany, Kästner, Lessing, and Mendelssohn, placed on defending the legacy of both Leibniz and J.S. Bach, against the decadence of both Rameau and Fux, in music, and Antonio Conti's network of Voltaire, Leonhard Euler, Lambert, Lagrange, Laplace, Cauchy, et al., in physical science. The revival of Classical method in art, as typified by the influence of Goethe, Schiller, and Heinrich Heine, in opposition to the Romantics, was otherwise typified in the history of Classical, as opposed to Romantic methods of composition and performance of music, by Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Felix Mendelssohn, Schumann, and Brahms.

All of these specifically Classical, anti-Romantic currents, in military affairs, physical science, and art, were usually unified in the internal life of relevant family circles. Thus, just as, in my own case, family dinner-table and related American intellectual traditions reaching back directly to an ancestor born a contemporary of Abraham Lincoln, so cultural legacies tend to persist over three to four, or more successive generations, unless they are crushed by some traumatic intervention. The Germany misled by the nephew of Britain's King Edward VII, the foolishly Romantic Kaiser Wilhelm, and the Germany squatted upon by Hitler later, contained within them a still-living, crucial, broad current of the Classical German cultural heritage dated from the influence of Kästner, Lessing, Mendelssohn, Haydn, Mozart, Goethe, Schiller, Beethoven, Scharnhorst, the Humboldts, et al., during the second half of the Eighteenth and the early Nineteenth Century.

Thus, from the immediate post-Hitler period, until the middle of the 1960s, the Classical cultural legacy of Germany, which had been undermined and significantly suppressed by the Hitler dictatorship, revived, until it began to be crushed in the aftermath of the 1962-1965 crises. During the preceding Hitler time, the achievements of earlier German culture were at the disposal of the ruling power at that time.

However, during that same Hitler period, Germany's Classical heritage was what the Nazi ideologues hated, and also feared the most. The Goebbels propaganda ministry's broadcast of Classical art to the troops, through the official military radio broadcasts, exemplified the concern of the regime to make itself as acceptable as possible to the German population. The activities of the great conductor, Wilhelm Furtwängler, to protect his Jewish musician friends, typify the Hitler regime's caution about postponing its intended "settling of accounts" with the German population's traditions, until after Hitler's world war had been won.

The paradoxical fate of science and technology under the Nazis, is typified by the virtual suppression of Germany's space-program until the Nazi regime's "wonder weapons" hysteria. The most effective institutions of Germany under Hitler's rule, including the military, science, and technological progress in industry and infrastructure, were those whose characteristic features were in direct opposition to Nazi ideology. This is much as today's post-1945 American fascists, typified during the post-war U.S.A.'s 1950s and 1960s by the likes of Elliott and the followers of Bertrand Russell, used those scientific and other potentials of the U.S.A. which the ideological accomplices of Bertrand Russell and the Nashville Agrarians hated most bitterly, to move the U.S. itself in directions contrary to the American intellectual tradition which had produced, and which expressed those capabilities.

The use of the policy of "world government through nuclear terror-weapons," which had been introduced over the 1913-1946 interval, by Wells, Russell, and their numerous accomplices, became, inevitably, not only a policy for destroying the modern sovereign nation-state, including the U.S.A. itself, but a pretext for blocking fundamental scientific and technological progress, and even, as with the "rock-drug-sex counterculture," and the spread of the related "neo-Malthusian" cult, of not only turning back the clock on scientific progress, but reversing the technological progress previously established.

It is by these means, that the followers and accomplices of the Wells-Russell cabal and Nashville Agrarians, and their like, destroy the means to actually secure sustainable military victories, and therefore aim instead simply to obliterate the territory and peoples over which they are losing the means by which they might rule.

To round out that aspect of the argument here, every central feature of the Nazi strategy for the period of Hitler's reign, represented an impulse which must lead to the self-destruction of the parts of the world which Hitler's strategies and related policies aimed to destroy, even obliterate. This self-destructive attitude of the Nazis toward the peoples and territories which they occupied, or aimed to subjugate, was a Nazi imitation of the Roman Empire which was already collapsing upon itself, even internally, from the onset of that great wave of conquest which began at the close of the Third Century B.C. That particular, crucial element of ultimately suicidal folly in the Hitler ideology and practice, has been replicated on a vaster scale, in the effects of the growing influence of the followers and cronies of H.G. Wells, Bertrand Russell, and the Nashville Agrarians in the case of the U.S.A. and Britain today.

The Economic Consequences

My point here, is to emphasize the evidence which shows that the chances of success of today's assets of the Smith-Richardson, Olin, and Mellon-Scaife foundations are vastly poorer than those of the Hitler gang of nearly seventy years ago. The relative degree of destruction of both the British monarchy's realm and that of the U.S.A., of the resources existing under the domination of that combined Anglo-American domain and its dependencies, has gone relatively much further, during the recent thirty-five-odd years, since the 1962-1965 turning-point, than the self-destruction of Germany and occupied territories under Hitler.

For purposes of comparison of the situation at the beginning of the 1929-1933 Depression, with that which has developed during the recent thirty-five years, consider the following.

The period from the 1861 beginning of the U.S. war against the Confederacy, through the close of 1917, had witnessed a relatively awesome build-up of economic and military potential, a build-up accelerated by the radiating impact of the British monarchy's mobilization for its launching of the geopolitical adventure which became known as World War I. Despite significant post-1917 disarmament and economic depressions, the core of the military and related potential existing at the close of 1917 was still mobilizable at the time London's asset Schacht, in 1933, launched Germany's mobilization for what was to become known as World War II: an interval of about fifteen years. The deep-going present destruction of the economies of the Americas and Europe, was launched during the 1962-1965 interval of change, and has been an accelerating destruction of the productive and related potential of the populations and economies of the Americas and Europe over about thirty-five years since.

The cases of the recent, still continuing Balkan wars, and the cases of the Israeli operations against the Palestinians and U.S. operations in Afghanistan, only typify the widespread effect of the combined economic, cultural, and military factors which have been the cumulative result of thirty-six years of the paradigm-shift in culture, economy, and strategy of the U.S., in particular, during a span now approaching two generations.

The increasing dependency on aerial bombardment, including more and more emphasis on a range of extremes, from massive dumping of dumb bombs, to over-the-horizon platforms, represents, not so much the advantage of air-superiority, as a loss of ability to effect traditional forms of politically vital control on the ground. While these changes are deemed progress by some, the effect of substituting policies of obliteration for control on the ground, mean that super-powers will tend to be attacked wherever they can be conveniently targetted on the ground. Thus, in the ironical age of superweapons, armed conflict shifts more and more in the direction of parodies of stone-age conflict, a trend whose ultimate result is not imperial supremacy, but the disintegration of would-be empires under the corrosive onslaught of the general slide into a more or less planetary new dark age.

History has seen follies similar to those of Elliott's accomplices. Think of Shelley's famous short poem, "Ozymandias." Think of the fall of every culture of Mesopotamia, since the fall of the Dravidian maritime colony known as Sumer, to the present. Think of the way in which Babylon and its Achaemenid successor doomed themselves. Think of the doom which Rome brought upon itself by its own culture, by a military policy presently caricatured by the late Professor Elliott's accomplices, and by, above all else, its "Project Democracy"-like, tragic reliance on rule by popular opinion. Think of the doom which the triumphant enemies of Emperor Frederick II discovered on their victorious march into the middle of the Fourteenth Century's "new dark age."

What the fanatical followers of H.G. Wells, Bertrand Russell, Professor Elliott, and the Smith-Richardson, Olin, and Mellon-Scaife foundations, et al., are bringing upon us all, themselves included, is the oblivion of an accelerating descent of humanity into a new dark age, probably on a planetary scale. Where, then, is their prospect of victory? Victory not by human beings, but, rather, by epidemics and pandemics and sylvatics; rule by those sub-human forms of parasites and saprophytes, which mindlessly triumph over the human species which had felled itself.

Durably peaceful relations within mankind depend upon relations which are of more or less indispensable mutual benefit to mankind. The possibility of durable such relations, depends upon those cultural and technological developments which made possible successive improvements in the potential relative population-density of all mankind.

The practical implications of such a notion of relations among peoples and their nations, depends upon both the efficient practice of promoting such mutual benefits; but, it also depends, unconditionally, upon the partners' cognitive insight into the essential features of that quality of relationship. What binds one person to another, is not the mere fact that one person's existence is beneficial to the other, but the awareness of both that this benefit exists.

Such is the meaning to be attributed to U.S. Secretary of State John Quincy Adams' notion of a community of principle among the sovereign republics of the Americas. We must intend to establish a shared commitment to a community of principle, but we must also ensure that the intended implementation of such a beneficial relationship will be effectively beneficial to all concerned.

3. Heine's Second Grenadier

Huntington's 1957 The Soldier And The State, which I reference in its eighteenth printing, reflects the persistence of the projection of the decadence into which U.S. military policy and global strategy have been degraded, over the course of the past fifty-odd years. The book's recurring republication, at least eighteen times since 1957, implies what is demonstrated by his own and Brzezinski's later writings. That repeated republication expresses a continuing standpoint of the author, his confederates, and, most important, that parasite's powerful, Anglo-American financier-oligarchical patrons, throughout the recent forty-five years, or longer.

From the outset, the literary quality of Huntington's text would have best served the goal of giving both mediocrity and Harvard a bad reputation.[33] His style of argument is that of logical positivism seeking to caricature itself; it has the characteristic footprint, not of an original thinker, but the authentic spoor of an academic sycophant from the ranks of Elliott's Golems. The method of argument which he employs, is a parade of arbitrary, slippery-footed, "ivory tower" definitions, delivered as if from before the blackboard, to some sorry set of terminally credulous students. Unfortunately, his manifest want of the ability to actually think, is the least of his book's problems. As I learned fifty-six years ago, during military service in Asia, the most stupid among the species of snakes may be the most poisonous.

The military figure which emerges from the prevalent fog of Huntington's definitions, is a parody of that pathetic fascist of Napoleon's defeated army, who is typified by the emperor-worshipping grenadier of Heinrich Heine's poem, "Die Grenadiere" ("The Grenadiers").[34] (Robert Schumann called his famous song setting of the poem, "Die Beiden Grenadiere" ["The Two Grenadiers"].)

The Grenadiers

by Heinrich Heine

To France the two grenadiers were bound,
From prison in Russia on furlough,
And when they passed into Germany's ground
They hung their heads in sorrow

To hear what they heard there, the terrible tale
Of their France, forsaken and fallen,
Her great host broken and beaten all,
And the Emperor, the Emperor taken!

They wept there together, these grenadiers,
They wept for this news so dire;
One cried, "O, my sorrow to death, my tears,
My old wounds are burning like fire!"

The other said, "The song is done,
And I, too, wish only for dying;
But I have a wife and a child at home,
My death would be all their undoing."

"What do they matter, your wife and your child?
Far better the wish that I've chosen;
Let them go beg if they're hungry and cold—
My Emperor, my Emperor's in prison!

Promise me, brother, one thing you'll do:
If now to my death I am hurried,
You'll take my body to France with you,
And in French soil let me be buried.

The Honor Cross with its scarlet band
Across the heart you'll lay me;
Then put my musket into my hand,
And girt my sword around me.

So will I lie and listen there
In my grave still like a sentry,
Til once more I hear the cannon roar
And the neighing steeds above me.

Then my Emperor will ride right over my grave,
Many swords will flash and they'll clatter;
And I'll rise in arms out of the grave
To defend the Emperor, the Emperor!"

So, self-anointed apostle of democracy Huntington, is, in practice, a fascist. He is a declared prophet of a specific kind of fascism, universal fascism. He proposes a universal fascists' world empire, which lures its deluded henchmen with the magical vision of a coming period of a world-wide American empire, one parodying that of the self-doomed ancient Rome.

In the course of this report, I have repeatedly referenced the relevant text of Henry A. Kissinger's May 10, 1982 Chatham House address. A list of relevant writings by Huntington, Brzezinski, and others among their most pertinent accomplices, is supplied as appended exhibits in this report. A catalog of some of the most relevant tax-exempt foundations and related institutions and persons, is also supplied. The gist of these references, is that they suffice to show that those policy-formulations, and their formulators, represent something fully consistent in character with the seminal implications I attribute to Huntington's The Soldier And The State.

With that latter text as the point of reference, I now focus the concluding parts of this report on two pervasive, exemplary, and most relevant characteristics of Huntington's, and also Brzezinski's state of mind. The first, is their fanatical hostility to the very idea of a principle of truth in policy-shaping. The second, is their combined disregard for, and their expressed hatred of those notions of natural law which pertain to that special, sacred quality of human life, to which I have referred, under the rubric of "spiritual," in Chapter 1 of this report. These two, axiomatically pernicious qualities of their argument, are to be diagnosed, as I do here, as distinct, but cohering expressions of something which is intrinsically, purely evil.

Kant, Hannah Arendt, and Fascism

The existentialist Hannah Arendt, a one-time dear friend and co-thinker of Nazi philosopher Martin Heidegger, insisted on the doctrine, that truth does not exist, but only opinion. She emphasized that her idea owes its Twentieth-Century philosophical currency to the continued influence of that Immanuel Kant whose series of Critiques began with his Critique Of Pure Reason. This pernicious quality of Kant's influence, was already a principal target of the warnings against Kant by Friedrich Schiller. This fascist quality of Kant's New Romanticist influence, had also been recognized by the same Heinrich Heine who had composed Die Grenadiere, in Heine's famous first edition of his Religion And Philosophy In Germany.

Arendt herself traces the authority for her argument, claiming Kant's importance among modern existentialist philosophers, to the authority of her mentor Karl Jaspers. This same pro-fascist, existentialist dogma of hatred against the very idea of truth, is the central feature of the post-World War II propaganda piece, The Authoritarian Personality, of Theodor Adorno, Arendt, et al.

In many of today's U.S. educational institutions, students are terrorized and depraved through the influence of those authorities who insist, echoing Adorno, Arendt, et al., that there is no truth, but only opinion, or what is otherwise called "spin." Kant, however, was not as crude and illiterate as today's commonplace schoolroom social-theory doctrinaires. Kant's argument had at least the appearance of being a rational one, and therefore, much more likely to deceive educated layers. Kant's influence on this account, has been demonstrated during more than two centuries to date.

However, although one does not need to be sane and literate to be a fascist, you do require a superior quality of knowledge to be able, as I do here, to diagnose clinically the way in which such pathological arguments as Kant's foster fascist and related murderous lunacies, just as Adorno's and Arendt's, influence a susceptible stratum among typical American liberals, and others, today. The task of diagnosing, is, of course, to define the approach to a cure, as I do, implicitly, here.

In globally extended European civilization, the most important forms of emphasis on the importance of a principled commitment to truthful responses to questions and other challenges, is traced chiefly from the Socratic dialogues. This means that one has no moral right to believe something, simply because one has been taught to believe it; nor is it permitted to evade the issue, by quoting putative religious authorities, instead of fact, as today's most dangerous bodies of religious fanatics do. The only truly moral persons, are those who hold themselves personally accountable for claiming anything to be truthful; for them, that accountability must express a sovereign quality of both personal, individual authority, and also personal accountability for the consequences of acting upon, or inducing others to act upon what one has come to believe is truthful.

In the real universe, truthfulness does not signify the authority of some fixed belief treated as a repository of absolute truth, but rather a commitment to draw upon powers within the individual members of society, individually or in concert, to discover a judgment which is truthfully coherent with the best evidence and means available to that society. Truthfulness also signifies a commitment to being willing to overturn any belief which one has discovered, truthfully, to have been in error.

The problem of defining truth, is situated within precisely that pivotal issue to which Immanuel Kant's Critiques pointed, to the issue of the principle of hypothesis. Truth-hater Kant knew his chosen enemy, and worked hard to remove that quality of humanity, reason, from as many prospective victims as his doctrine might reach. Kant, by flatly denying the efficient existence of hypothesis, the denial which is the central theme of his Critique Of Pure Reason, thereby denied the existence of the possible knowledge of truth. That is the point on which the existentialist followers of Nazi forerunner Nietzsche, Nazi Heidegger, and Jaspers, Adorno, Arendt, and Heidegger's Jean-Paul Sartre, premised their variously Nazi and kindred doctrines.

Kant's influence on this account, has specific bearing on the political and sociological characteristics of Elliott's Harvard Golems, and, more important, the ugly consequences of any practice based upon their beliefs.

Kant was originally a British empiricist, who had become, prior to the 1780s, a leading German-language exponent of David Hume's empiricism. He continued to be closely associated with that Europe-wide network of anti-Leibniz salons, originally launched by Conti, which featured such included figures as Voltaire and Physiocrat Quesnay. This included the salon which had been built up around such key figures of the Berlin Academy as Leibniz-hating reductionist Leonhard Euler. To follow Kant's argument throughout his series of Critiques, one must take into account the influence of Euler's attacks on Leibniz in Letters To A German Princess, where we find, in Euler's fraudulent core-argument, the matrix for the argument against truth replicated in all of Kant's Critiques.

Kant, even the Kant of the Critiques, represents the same empiricism as Paolo Sarpi, Galileo, Bacon, Hobbes, Locke, Antonio Conti, Newton, Mandeville, Quesnay, and Hume earlier. But Kant's is the essence of empiricism resituated within the categories of an Aristotelean form of argument. Kant relies on the mathematician's illusion-trick used earlier by Newton-worshipper Euler, in attacking Leibniz's calculus in general, and the monadology most emphatically.

Whether in the original form, that of Sarpi, or the refurbished empiricism of Euler, Lagrange, Kant, Laplace, et al., empiricism is, since the emergence of the Seventeenth-Century Anglo-Dutch model, the characteristic ideology of the presently imperilled Anglo-American version of a Venice-style form of imperial maritime rule exerted by a rentier-financier oligarchy. Empiricism, so defined, is the only religion of the rentier-financier oligarchy in which that oligarchy, when shoved against the wall, actually believes. In those circles, as for Hobbes and Locke, the other name for empiricism is, "Isn't it 'human nature,' after all?" Hence, that empiricist tradition is, among other effects, the point of origin of modern fascism. It is the axiomatic basis for the universal fascism characteristic of Elliott, his Golems, and the financier-oligarchical interests represented typically by the Smith-Richardson, Olin, and Mellon-Scaife foundations.

I shall make the relevance of that emphasis on Kant's intellectual biography clear, after the following remarks situating the point to be argued.

The Debate Over Truth

Since the earliest known records of addresses to this issue of hypothesis, two distinct, but interdependent issues of policy have been at stake in the discussions. First, there is the question, whether individual sense-certainty is a faithful representation of the universe existing outside the skin of the isolable human individual. Second, there is the question, whether, or not there exists some believable tradition, which is often called an ideology, which can or should be superimposed upon sense-perception, to enable us to guide our actions in response to the universe as reflected otherwise within the bounds of sense-certainty?

Arbitrary forms of religious or kindred belief, are examples of such latter, superimposed traditions, or their more recently concocted functional equivalents. In globally extended European civilization since ancient Greece, for example, the most important attempt to define truth in respect to or experience of the physical universe in general, has been the controversy between the Classical Socratic method of Plato and those so-called reductionist systems from which today's generally accepted classroom mathematics has derived from its version of a so-called Euclidean geometry.

To get at the core of both issues, look at the Fifteenth-Century emergence of modern European civilization, and science, from the prolonged depravity of the influence of Romanticism. My associates and I have often represented the importance of pointing to the way in which the previously, scientifically known position of the Sun at the center of the Solar System, as already determined by Classical Greek science, was buried under the frauds of the Romantic hoaxster Claudius Ptolemy. We have documented repeatedly, how the anti-scientific methods of not only Ptolemy, but also Copernicus and Brahe, were successfully overturned by Johannes Kepler's original discovery of a principle of universal gravitation.

This aspect of the ancient through modern history of European astronomy, is among the simplest illustrations of the fact, that the rise of the Roman Empire and its continuing legacy, was a sweeping decline in culture, from which European culture began to escape only with the revival of the methods of Classical scientific culture, during the period from Brunelleschi, Nicholas of Cusa, Leonardo da Vinci, to Kepler.

Kepler's founding of the first approximation of a comprehensive mathematical physics, is the most appropriate setting for pin-pointing the way in which the crucial issues of truthfulness have been fought out during the recent seven centuries of modern European history.

Under the influence of pagan Roman ideology and the derived Romanticism which persisted in feudal Europe, the most widely accepted formal systems of thought, were premised axiomatically on kinds of ivory-tower assumptions commonly associated with the name of Aristotle. The continued defense by many theologians, of the Romantic fraud by Claudius Ptolemy, even deep into the Seventeenth Century, is typical of this. The assumption was, that there are certain categorical principles of organization of the universe, which exist a priori, and beyond the rightful power of the mind of man to challenge, or to defy. In other words, an ideology. Thus, we have such pathological assertions, as that: "You can't change human nature!" Thus, similarly, as late as the work of modern figures such as Copernicus and Tycho Brahe, the assumption was that physical space and time were axiomatically "Euclidean."

For the believer in such an ivory-tower system, the observer must, therefore, fit observed facts, such as planetary and stellar positions, into the assumption that the universe worked only in a way consistent with Aristotelean forms of Euclidean ivory-tower assumptions. There lies the common ideological folly of the otherwise conflicting systems of Ptolemy, Copernicus, Brahe, and also Galileo.

Against this, Kepler was the first to introduce the notion of experimentally demonstrable universal physical principles to the construction of a comprehensive form of mathematical physics. Kepler adopted the evidence which showed the orbit of Mars, for example, to be anomalously contrary to the aprioristic, Euclidean assumptions of Ptolemy, Copernicus, and Brahe. Kepler challenged himself, to identify that intention, embedded in the Solar System, which corresponded to the efficient difference between the way in which the Solar orbits actually proceeded, and what Aristotelean ivory-tower dogma prescribed. When such a notion of an intention, as introduced by Kepler, is proven by comprehensive methods of experiment, it becomes known as a universal physical principle. This notion of intention, as employed by Kepler in his New Astronomy, is otherwise named hypothesis. Such a Platonic quality of hypothesis, once proven, provides modern civilized society a model example of the rigorously scientific meaning of the term truth.

This applies immediately to matters of physical science; but, as I have stressed in all my work on the principles of physical economy and forecasting, it is also a model of the nature of truth in respect to principles of artistic composition and performance, and also of politics conducted according to those Classical principles of statecraft which are the chief quality reflected in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, and 1789 Constitution.

Although Kepler's work followed the precedents provided by Plato, Nicholas of Cusa, Luca Pacioli, and Leonardo da Vinci, Kepler's work in astrophysics was the first systemic challenge to the task of defining the efficiency of universal physical principles by means of crucial kinds of experimental measurement. This was not a new concept for modern thinkers, such as the Cusa who defined this place of measurement in science, nor for Cusa's avowed followers, Pacioli, and Leonardo, nor for relevant pre-Roman scientific thinkers, either; but, it was the leading feature of the birth of a revolution in the thinking of post-A.D. 1400, modern Europe, and became the basis for a great advance in European science and economy, over all earlier known forms of society. Thus, the success of Kepler's discovery, produced a revolutionary advance in the defense of the principle of knowable truth.

Kepler was thus the first to define what is properly termed astrophysics, rather than merely astronomy. All competence in modern physical science springs from that revolution made by Kepler. The crux of the issues posed by Kepler's and related modern scientific discoveries, is: What replaces those ivory-tower superstitions about the universe, which had been associated with a pro-Aristotelean view of Euclidean geometry? The significance of Kepler's discoveries, located in the framework of that question, is that Kepler's choice of an implicitly universal subject-matter, experimental astrophysics, was a uniquely appropriate location from which to conduct the exploration of the search for knowledge of truly universal physical principles in general.

The combined effect of Kepler's founding astrophysics, and Fermat's posing, experimentally, the paradox of quickest time, rather than shortest distance, was to overthrow the authority of the effort to base physical science upon a reductionist's blind faith in a notion of the physical universe subsumed by Euclidean geometry. The work of Huyghens, Leibniz, and Bernouilli, on the implications of Kepler's and Fermat's discoveries, led to the definition of the need for an anti-Euclidean geometry, by Gauss's teacher Abraham Kästner, and through the work of Gauss on the principles of curvature, to Riemann's sweeping overthrow of all forms of aprioristic geometry, including both the so-called Euclidean and non-Euclidean modes.

Riemann carried the implication of Kepler's demonstration of the primary authority of both intention (hypothesis) and experimentally proven universal physical principles to its implied conclusion. After Riemann's earth-shaking 1854 habilitation dissertation, science, time, space, and matter, as implicitly portrayed by a reductionist reading of Euclidean geometry, ceased to exist in competent views on the subject of physical science. All ivory-tower definitions, axioms, and postulates of mere ideologies, were swept aside; only experimentally validated universal physical principles existed, where reductionists' notions of abstract space, time, and matter had stood earlier.

Therefore, probably the most enduring feature of my own original work, was to recognize the place within physical science, of certain classes of principles which are usually pigeon-holed as principles of artistic composition. These are principles, definable by the same conceptions of ontological paradox, hypothesis, and universal principle, associated with the abiotic or biological domains of experiment. They are properly subsumed under the title of anti-Romanticist, Classical principles. To reconcile my initial discoveries to that effect, I was obliged to recognize that the kind of physical universe my discoveries thus defined, could not be efficiently comprehended, except by applying the revolutionary conceptions of a differential physical geometry introduced by Riemann.

Classical principles arise in artistic composition around the most refined notions of the practical meaning of the terms irony and metaphor. These notions, so apprehended, have a distinct kind of physically efficient meaning.

Contrary to virtually decorticated grammarians, of the sort who abhor the idea of syllogistic incompleteness, or ambivalence, in an uttered statement, all important statements about anything, in any language, involve the attempt to represent a real experience whose attempted formalist representation in speech is self-contradictory.

The most convenient illustration of such a subject-matter of language, is the paradox of reflection-refraction in Fermat's posing the ambiguous concept of "quickest time." The discovery of the general principle of relativistic time, which solves that paradox, defines that paradox as a true metaphor, in the Platonic sense.

For such reasons, no formalist use of any language, no formalist mathematical system, could describe the real universe. It is the process of generating those experimentally validatable hypotheses, which led us to knowledge of new universal physical principles, which should be the primary concern of the effort to perfect the use of language. The object of reason, is not to impose consistency with preset rules, but to force society to recognize the truth which never first appears to us except as such an affirmed statement of what appears to cognitively blocked formalists, and other non-poets, to represent an error, an inconsistency.

The ambiguities of statement which must be created in an attempt to describe an actually paradoxical reality, are thus that aspect of language which pertains to the process by which the generation of validatable hypotheses is prompted, by recognition of the actuality of ontological paradoxes.

The deeper and broader implications of the point I have just summarized, are to be viewed in light of the most fundamental problem of scientific study of the abiotic and biological domains. The two crucial cases referenced above, that of Kepler's discoveries in astrophysics, and Fermat's focus upon "quickest time," illustrate the fact, that actual human knowledge of the world outside our sense-certainties, is obtained solely through cognitive solutions to the ontological paradoxes posed in man's attempt to explore the universe acting from outside one's sense-perceptions.

We progress by discovering that sense-perception's view of the universe is a false one. We correct for those errors of sense-perception, by generating experimentally validated notions of universal physical principles operating beyond the reach of their direct observation by sense-perception. Scientifically literate cultures therefore recognize, that the universe of sense-perception is not a true universe, but only a curiously distorted shadow which reality casts upon our sensorium.

We should recognize, in the same way, that the principles of social cooperation, by means of which society increases its potential relative population-density, are also the subjects of generating those validatable forms of hypotheses which pertain to the principles of relations among human beings within the phase-space of cognitive processes, as scientific investigation of the abiotic phase-space evokes within cognition those validatable hypotheses which prove to be universal physical principles.

Arbitrary art, such as symbolic composition, is inherently false, because it rejects accountability to any principle of hypothesis. This distinction is made clearer, when we recognize the relationship among plastic and non-plastic art, on the one side, and statecraft on the other. As art references an history-related process in mankind, so the lessons of art which is truthful respecting its own historical setting, are the basis for the best quality of statecraft. As a corollary, art which is not historically truthful, will inform a bad practice in statecraft, and suffering for the nation and its people. Thus, the issue of truthfulness in art is posed; art which self-consciously accepts that moral requirement, is rightly termed Classical artistic composition.

The role of ambiguity, especially metaphor, in all anti-symbolic, truthful artistic composition, thus poses the issue of truth, or, as John Keats sang of "truth and beauty" in artistic composition, as truthfulness is posed according to the same set of principles, in physical science.

The relevant argument which follows from that, is summarized in the comparison between my views and those of Vernadsky, in the course of the first chapter, above. Essentially, the realization of discoveries of combined principles of abiotic, living, and cognitive systems, as this is expressed in a unique manner and degree, in comparative changes in potential relative population-density, in physical economies, is the physical-experimental standard of measurement of truthfulness, required to free society from the grip of pathetic ideologies.

`Isn't It Just "Human Nature"?'

The empirical proof, that the human individual is essentially set apart from, and above all other living creatures, is to be found in the relationship between the principle of hypothesis and the quality of experimental evidence which establishes an hypothesis as a universal physical principle. Thus, the principle of truth and of hypothesis are two facets of the same actuality. This truth is also the evidence which sets human nature apart from the empiricists' conception of society.

Conversely, by denying the distinction, that of hypothesis, which sets the human individual absolutely apart from and above the beasts, empiricists such as Galileo's student Hobbes, prescribed what Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Physiocrat Quesnay, Mandeville, Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, and Huntington's and Brzezinski's fellow-Golem Kissinger, defined as British "human nature."[35] Notably, Kissinger pin-pointed this accurately as the issue of the war-time conflict between President Franklin Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Churchill, and implicitly also Kissinger's long-standing personal targetting of me, as one he regards as a bearer of that American intellectual tradition which Kissinger has declared that he hates.

The fact that the human species is unique among all living creatures, in the respect that a normal individual person is capable of an individually sovereign power of cognition unique to that species of individual, defines the nature of man as distinct from all other species. This distinction of the human individual from the beast, is the empirical basis for the notion of the physically efficient existence of the spiritual domain, as a phase-space within what must be apprehended as the Riemannian form of differential physical geometry of the universe as a whole.

This distinction of the sovereignly cognitive individual person, is the basis for the functional notion of natural law, the notion of overriding responsibility to promote the general welfare of all human individuals and their posterity.

This notion of the physically efficient, universal function of the general welfare, is also the basis for the lawful definition of human relations. I summarize the following considerations as of a primary importance.

First, the creativity which generates those hypotheses upon which the successful perpetuation of human existence as such depends, is a form of action which exists for man, but only in two expressions. Immediately, mankind's only source of such hypotheses is action by the cognitive processes internal to sovereign individual persons. As a corollary, social relations, such as cooperation in use of valid universal principles, occurs only as a suitable form of interaction among the respectively perfectly sovereign processes of individual persons. Secondly, on the other side, the efficiency of discovered such principles, demonstrates that the universe as a whole is so composed, that it is pre-obliged to obey those commands by mankind, which are expressed as validated hypotheses.

Thus, it is written in the first chapter of Genesis, that man and woman are made equally in the image of the Creator of the universe, and that the human species has a unique authority and responsibility for exerting its rule over that universe. The image of man and woman, as sovereign individualities, is that of the power of cognition uniquely specific to man among all living things.

That is the essential, experimentally validated, universal truth of the matter.

Back, thus, to the crucial issues of statecraft posed by the obscenities of Elliott's Golems.

The superiority, and even the present absolute necessity of that modern form of sovereign nation-state, which fosters long-term scientific and related progress in the manifest potential relative population-density of mankind, lies in the function of that state's unique power to meet the constitutional requirement of promoting the general welfare, and also the national defense, through creation of long-term, low-priced credit, for the promotion of increase of the per-capita and per-square-kilometer productive powers of labor of mankind. This issuance of credit depends upon protectionist measures of regulation of conditions of trade and production, to the principal purpose of preventing those destructive effects of attrition, or simply anarchy in the essential processes of production, trade, and consumption, which are the characteristic evils of so-called "free trade" practices.

The world has reached the point, over the interval of accelerating breakdown in the world's dominant, mutually distinct but interacting, monetary-financial and economic crises, at which civilization itself could not continue on this planet without a return to that model of the sovereign nation-state republic which the U.S. 1861-1865 Civil War was fought to ensure as the right of mankind throughout this planet.

The opposition to that latter policy, has been the feral forces of imperially minded financier-oligarchy. As the self-inflicted doom of the latter's Anglo-oligarchical system became increasingly imminent, over the course of the just-closed Twentieth Century, the once-proud ruling circles of financier-oligarchical power, have become increasingly stupid and restive. Over the course of this past century, they have dominated the life of this entire planet with their bloody geopolitical games, with two World Wars, and many similar horrors besides, all of which have been directed chiefly to uprooting and destroying that species of society which threatened to replace their hegemony.

As in the case of the Roman Empire, or the wars waged by the ultramontanists of Europe's medieval times, and the religious warfare of 1511-1648, the self-doomed parasite, the interests which have deployed Elliott's Golems and their sponsors, are saying in effect: Submit to our will, no matter how lunatic that will is, or we might kill you all; we might kill you all, anyway. That is how dark ages come upon mankind, as the case of the second grenadier of Heine's poem should forewarn us in the wake of Sept. 11th.

The issue is, a conflict between two mutually exclusive conceptions of human nature, ours versus theirs. They are the evil ones, in the strictest definition of that term.

Can you say, therefore, that any thinking person, who considers the implications of what Elliott, his Golems, and their oligarchical sponsors have done, over the course of time since Brzezinski's, Huntington's, and Kissinger's arrival at Harvard, that you are honestly surprised at either what happened on Sept. 11th, or what is practiced as Anglo-American-directed genocide, conducted on behalf of financier-oligarchical interests, in most of Africa and elsewhere around the world today? If you had read, and understand, what such lackeys as Elliott's Golems had written, announced in their speeches, and done with their hands, over these decades, could you honestly claim not to have been forewarned?

[1] See "LaRouche: Let Calm Heads Prevail To Stop Destabilization," transcript of Sept. 11 interview with Utah radio talk show host Jack Stockwell, in EIR, Sept. 21, 2001; and "A Conversation With LaRouche In A Time Of Crisis," an interview with EIR's John Sigerson, prepared for "The LaRouche Connection" cable television program, in EIR, Sept. 28, 2001. Both interviews were also issued as Crisis Bulletins by the LaRouche in 2004 Presidential campaign committee.

[2] If we take into account the characteristic nuclear-warfare-security institutions, including continuity-of-government arrangements.

[3] This notion of "admittedly incomplete, but nonetheless conclusive," is a rephrasing of the fundamental principle of Leibniz's original discovery and development of the calculus. It is also the fundamental principle of any Riemannian notion of differential geometry. This method is explicitly opposed by the reductionists, such as Euler, Lagrange, Cauchy, Grassmann, et al.

[4] Hollywood should create a special sort of annual award to the producers selected for producing the least believable trick-film of the year. The name of that award should be "The Osama," presented in memory of the authors of the hoax known as the so-called "Hitler Diaries."

[5] Samuel P. Huntington, The Soldier And The State: The Theory And Politics Of Civil-Military Relations (Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1957).

[6] To understand Elliott and the Nashville Agrarians' ideological affinities to the H.G. Wells doctrine of The Open Conspiracy (London: Victor Gollancz, 1928), read Stanley Ezrol's study of the origins and influence of the Nashville Agrarians, "Seduced From Victory: How The Lost Corpse Subverts The American Intellectual Tradition," EIR, Aug. 3, 2001.

[7] Henry A. Kissinger, "Reflections on a Partnership: British and American Attitudes to Postwar Foreign Policy, Address in Commemoration of the Bicentenary of the Office of Foreign Secretary," May 10, 1982, Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House), London.

[8] It is clinically significant, that today's more popular varieties of wild-eyed "conspiracy theories," reflect the peculiarly pathological style in infantile fantasy associated with the "Lord of the Rings," "Harry Potter," and "Pokémon" cults, or the "witchcraft" and related demonic cults spun out of the orbit of the trio of the utopians H.G. Wells, Bertrand Russell, and Aleister Crowley. The characteristic form of mental action these cults express, is a magical power of the will, acting outside real physical space-time. The gratification associated with the deluded patron of such forms of fantasy-life, or so-called "science fiction" composed on the basis of the same types of fiction, becomes then a feeling-state to which the victim of such cults responds in hysterically adopting a kindred variety of "conspiracy theory" as an emotionally gratifying form of belief. Gnostic religious cults are premised on the same kind of pathology. For the benefit of the academically fastidious, I add the following. From the standpoint of modern physical science, the fallacy of such popular forms of conspiracy theory, is of the same genre as the blundering astrophysics of Claudius Ptolemy, Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Galileo, and Isaac Newton. Such "conspiracy theories" presume to impose at-the-blackboard types of ivory-tower preconceptions about the universe, on the interpretation of some sets of facts, such as the common Aristotelean, ivory-tower presumption that perfect regular action must be circular. In real science, contrary to the method of hoaxster Galileo et al., we are obliged to discover the physical geometry of the facts we are investigating, as Kepler did, and adduce what is possible in that universe from discovering, experimentally, the geometry of the phase-space in which the facts are actually situated.

[9] Cf. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., The Economics Of The Noösphere (Washington, D.C.: EIR News Service, 2001); ______, "The Spirit of Russia's Science," EIR, Dec. 7, 2001.

[10] This pathological sort of "objective historical determinism," is the most common expression of this same sort of irrationalist cult-belief among anarcho-syndicalist and other little socialist sects based on so-called "working class" ideology. Engels' mystical imputations to "the horny hand of labor," typify that pathology. One of the most common causes for the failure of socialism as a political-economic system, is its "class hostility" to the "intelligentsia," its hostility to that creative power of the intellect upon which all notable progress in the human condition, including economy, depends. The usual origin of those nominally socialist delusions, is the cult of English empiricism which was codified by Venice's Paolo Sarpi and his followers. The doctrine of Mandeville, Quesnay's "laissez-faire," and Adam Smith's "free trade," are intrinsically irrationalist, magic cults introduced upon the flat-earth stage of empiricist dogmas. These cults, by virtue of having denied the existence of reason, propose to have discovered the secret for explaining everything and anything.

[11] The fact that the universe contains a creature, man, capable of rising to the sublime, is the argument on which Leibniz premised the utterance, that "this is the best of all possible worlds."

[12] These are precisely those Classical traditions which are hatefully derided in the seminal writing from which the Clash of Civilizations strategy has been derived, the explicitly fascist ideology of Samuel Huntington's The Soldier And The State. The contrast between the Classical tradition in strategy, as typified by such seminal modern military thinkers as Lazare Carnot, Gerhard Scharnhorst, or World War II's General Douglas MacArthur, exposes precisely the contrast of modern civilized forms of strategy from the fascist ideology which Napoleon Bonaparte and such of his followers as Napoleon III, Mussolini, and Hitler premised their modern "Hail Caesar!" parodies of soulless legionnaires of ancient imperial Rome. This book, first published in 1957 (The Soldier And The State, op cit.), has gone through more than 20 successive editions since that time. As the relevant subsequent writings of Brzezinski and Huntington attest, that book embodies the ideological core of the policies of Brzezinski's own The Grand Chessboard of 1997.

[13] The point is made clearest by reflecting on the model of the entrepreneur whose success is rooted in the continued generation of either universal physical principles, or new technologies, or combinations of technologies derived from efficient comprehension of such discoveries of principle. It is organizations modelled upon that image of the entrepreneur, not the stockholders' corporation, which is the key to the successful role of the individual, in the application of the American System of political-economy.

[14] LaRouche, op. cit.

[15] My use of "spiritual" has a strictly defined, physical meaning. It refers to the experimentally demonstrable, beneficial physical effects (e.g., "products") which are produced only by the application of the act of discovery of an experimentally verifiable universal physical principle. It should also be noted, that this use does not differ from the connotation of "spiritual" in connection with the cognitive solutions properly recognized among theologians as "spiritual exercises."

[16] It is not technologies which cause changes in cultures, but, rather, it is the replication of the cognitive experience of making such discoveries of principle, which changes the way in which society intends to cooperate in applying those discoveries to change society's physical-economic relationship to nature. On culture, see my discussion, in "The Spirit Of Russia's Science," of cognitive "super-genes" in the development of scientific and other cultural progress.

[17] My original discoveries lay in recognizing that both those principles of artistic composition rightly termed "Classical," in the sense of Plato's work, and discoveries of universal physical principle, were distinctly, but equally efficient in determining the increased potential of society. It was in the attempt to find a comprehensive method for representation of a function of increasing potential relative population-density, based on that combination of principles, that I recognized that the required representation of my discoveries must be in the form of a Riemanian differential geometry.

[18] The difference between my method of forecasting and the usual "Brand X" varieties of the university curriculum today, is analogous to the difference in forecasting methods between the work of Johannes Kepler and his relatively failed predecessors, Claudius Ptolemy, Copernicus, and Brahe. In my method, as in Kepler's, the starting-point is the long-range "cycle"; the axiomatic characteristics attributable to the long-term cycle, then provide the basis for assessing the implications of changes in direction in the short- and medium-term. The emphasis must be on the long-term axiomatic assumptions which govern the unfolding of the completed large cycle, rather than trying to project long-term results from statistical interpretation of short- to medium-term patterns.

[19] Although the capture of the U.S. by the British monarchy, occurred through the 1901 assassination of U.S. President McKinley, the preparation the 1914-1917 First World War, by Britain's guilty King Edward VII, began in such events as the Dreyfus case and 1898 Fashoda events, for France, and the British direction of Japan's launching of its aggressions of 1894-1905 under British direction.

[20] This must be compared with the admiralble, somewhat different thesis of the late Friedrich Freiherr von der Heydte's Die Geburtsstunde des souveränen Staates (Regensburg, Germany: Druck und Verlag Josef Habbel, 1952). See the comparison made by Helga Zepp-LaRouche in a May 6, 2001 speech at Bad Schwalbach on this subject ("Honoring Nicolaus Of Cusa: A Dialogue Of Cultures," EIR, July 6, 2001). Von der Heydte defines the development of the struggle for the idea of the sovereign nation-state; it was the Concordantia Catholica of Nicholas of Cusa which recast the preceding work of Dante Alighieri et al. into the needed form.

[21] By empiricism, I mean the revival of the neo-Aristotelean method of medieval William of Ockham by that notorious lord of Venice Paolo Sarpi. It was through Sarpi and such of his creatures as Galileo Galilei, Sir Francis Bacon, and Thomas Hobbes, that Eighteenth-Cenntury English empiricism and French Cartesianism developed to become fused as the so-called Eighteenth-Century Enlightenment. The issues of method are typified by the contrast of the current of modern science, from Nicholas of Cusa, through Pacioli, Leonardo da Vinci, and their followers such as Johannes Kepler, Leibniz, Gauss, and Riemann, to the empiricist folly of the succession of those reductionists best typified by Leonhard Euler, Lambert, Lagrange, Laplace, Cauchy, Clausius, Helmholtz, and today's radical positivists.

[22] E.g., Kissinger, May 10, 1982. Kissinger told his Chatham House audience:

"All accounts of the Anglo-American alliance during the Second World War and in the early postwar period draw attention to the significant differences in philosophy between Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill reflecting our different national histories. America, which had never experienced a foreign threat to its survival, considered wars an historical aberration caused by evil men or institutions; we were preoccupied with victory defined as the unconditional surrender of the Axis. Britain had seen aggression take too many forms to risk so personal a view of history; she had her eyes on the postwar world and sought to gear wartime strategy toward forestalling Soviet domination of Central Europe. Many American leaders condemned Churchill as needlessly obsessed with power politics, too rigidly anti-Soviet, too colonialist in his attitude to what is now called the Third World, and too little interested in building the fundamentally new international order towards which American idealism has always tended. The British undoubtedly saw the Americans as naive, moralistic, and evading responsibility for helping secure the global equilibrium. The dispute was resolved according to American preferences—in my view, to the detriment of postwar security....

"The disputes between Britain and America during the Second World War and after were, of course, not an accident. British policy drew upon two centuries of experience with the European balance of power, America on two centuries of rejecting it.

"Where America had always imagined itself isolated from world affairs, Britain for centuries was keenly alert to the potential danger that any country's domination of the European continent—whatever its domestic structure or method of dominance—placed British survival at risk.... Britain rarely proclaimed moral absolutes or rested her faith in the ultimate efficacy of technology, despite her achievements in this field. Philosophically she remains Hobbesian: She expects the worst and is rarely disappointed. In moral matters Britain has traditionally practiced a convenient form of ethical egoism, believing that what was good for Britain was best for the rest.... In the Nineteenth Century, British policy was a—perhaps the—principal factor in a European system that kept the peace for 99 years without a major war....

"[During the postwar period] the British were so matter-of-factly helpful that they became a participant in internal American deliberations, to a degree probably never before practiced between sovereign nations. In my period in office, the British played a seminal part in certain American bilateral negotiations with the Soviet Union—indeed, they helped draft the key document. In my White House incarnation then, I kept the British Foreign Office better informed and more closely engaged than I did the American State Department...." (For full text, see Appendix.)

[23] On the subject of universal fascism, see the treatise of a sometime Henry A. Kissinger crony, Michael Ledeen. The links to the fascism of the Mussolini and Hitler years include the family of the CIA's late James Jesus Angleton and the circles of the sympathizers of Ezra Pound.

[24] The term "fascist" is neither accidental, nor exaggerated. Napoleon Bonaparte was the first modern fascist dictator, on which the tyrannies of fascists such as Napoleon III, Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, and the relevant others were explicitly modelled. Fascism is the attempt, explicitly modelled on the law and other tradition of the Roman Empire, to establish a Caesarian form of government as the alternative to both failed relics of the feudal heritage and the most feared adversary of the fascists, political forms of government consistent with the American System of political-economy. It was against the influence of the American Constitution that the Jacobins, Barras, and Bonaparte fought, in alliance with Metternich's Habsburgs, during the interval 1789-1815.

[25] It was President Lincoln's victories over the Anglo-French-Spanish puppets, the Confederacy and Maximilian, which foredoomed the reign of the fascist tyrant Napoleon III.

[26] The 1901 assassination of McKinley, lies within the setting of two other principal pro-British Empire turns in the global strategic situation. The first was the process of degeneration of France over the 1890s eruption of the Dreyfus trial, Fashoda, and the formal adoption of the French Entente Cordiale alliance with Britain's Edward VII. These developments overlapped Britain's sending Japan into the wars against China, Korea, and then Russia, during the 1895-1905 interval.

[27] The continuing connections between Ecole Polytechnique members Lazare Carnot and Alexander von Humboldt, point to the way in which the factional divisions in science reflected the deeper political divisions. Through the death of Bernhard Riemann, the leading currents in European physical science are traced from Nicholas of Cusa, through the succession of such as Leonardo da Vinci, Kepler, Leibniz, Kästner, the Carnot faction inside the Ecole Polytechnique, Alexander von Humboldt, Gauss, Wilhelm Weber, Alexander von Humboldt's protégé Dirichlet, and Riemann. The opposition to this current of science were the empiricists and Kantians, including the hoaxster Leonhard Euler, Lambert, Lagrange, Laplace, Cauchy, Clausius, Grassmann, Helmholtz, Felix Klein, et al. The convergence of the military policies of Carnot with those of Scharnhorst et al., emphasizing the principle of defense, and Carnot's exile after the British installation of the corrupt Bourbon Restoration monarchy in France, in Magdeburg, Germany, parallels the role of the anti-empiricist discoveries of Fresnel and Ampère, the latter typical of the Lazare Carnot faction in the Ecole. The strategy of the sovereign nation-state republic, seeks to surpass the toils of conflict, as Secretary of State John Quincy Adams made the point, with a community of principle among sovereign nation-states.

[28] When we take into account the crucial role which the reform Judaism of Orthodox Jew Moses Mendelssohn played in developing the science and Classical culture of Germany since the mid-Eighteenth Century, no honest discussion of German culture can be anything but emphasis on the role of the Jew in building that culture. Destroying the German Jew, and also the Jew of the Eastern European Yiddish Renaissance, was the first crucial stroke in the Nazi determination to exterminate German culture.

[29] Hegel's identification with fascism appears early as his admiration for the role of tyrant Bonaparte as a hero. Under post-Vienna Congress conditions, Hegel became a virulent apologist for Prince Metternich, elaborating a theory of the Prussian state which led into doctrines of his accomplice Savigny, and to the fascist legal doctrines of Carl Schmitt et al.

[30] The post-war The Authoritarian Personality, by Adorno, Arendt, et al. (New York: Harper, 1950), is typical of the way in which Germany's fascist ideological argument against the existence of truth, was developed by the neo-Kantian existentialists such as Jaspers and Jaspers' follower Arendt.

[31] Trevor Nevitt Dupuy, A Genius For War: The German General Staff, 1807-1945 (Fairfax, Va.: Hero Books, 1984 [Prentice-Hall, 1977]). See also, Helmuth v. Moltke, The Franco-German War Of 1870-71, Michael Howard, Intro. (London: Greenhill, 1992).

[32] Empiricism, and its successor positivism, achieved their present influence in European cultures in three general stages. It was originated by the sometime lord of Venice, Paolo Sarpi, as a simplified product of Aristotelean "ivory tower" methods, premised on Sarpi's admiration of the medieval irrationalist William of Ockham. The original English empiricism of Sir Francis Bacon and Thomas Hobbes, was introduced to England directly by Sarpi and Sarpi's personal lackey Galileo Galilei. It underwent a later phase of development as a Europe-wide network of salons each and all devoted to crushing out the influence of the world's then leading scientific figure, Gottfried Leibniz. This network was centered around the Paris-based Venice agent Abbé Antonio Conti, who was the "father" of the French and British Eighteenth-Century Enlightenment. During the Nineteenth Century, a still more radical version of empiricism appeared in the form of positivism. The extreme form of this is logical positivism, sometimes also known as "radical empiricism."

[33] As Huntington's and Brzezinski's virtual explusion from Harvard, after the first publication of that book, attests, there were plainly Harvard authorities who then shared my present estimate of the book's intellectual qualities. Elliott quickly replaced Kissinger in all the privileged positions and functions from which Brzezinski was ejected at that time.

[34] The poem set as song by a leading admirer of Heine's work, the composer, and follower of Felix Mendelssohn, Robert Schumann. In Heine's German:

Die Grenadiere

Nach Frankreich zogen zwei Grenadier,
Die waren in Rußland gefangen.
Und als sie kamen ins deutsche Quartier,
Sie ließen die Köpfe hangen.

Da hörten sie beide die traurige Mär:
Daß Frankreich verloren gegangen,
Besiegt und zerschlagen das große Heer—
Und der Kaiser, der Kaiser gefangen.

Da weinten zusammen die Grenadier
Wohl ob der kläglichen Kunde.
Der eine sprach: "Wie weh wird mir,
Wie brennt meine alte Wunde!"

Der andre sprach: "Das Lied ist aus,
Auch ich möcht mit dir sterben,
Doch hab ich Weib und Kind zu Haus,
Die ohne mich verderben."

"Was schert mich Weib, was schert mich Kind,
Ich trage weit beßres Verlangen;
Laß sie betteln gehn, wenn sie hungrig sind—
Mein Kaiser, mein Kaiser gefangen!

Gewähr mir, Bruder, eine Bitt;
Wenn ich jetzt sterben werde,
So nimm meine Leiche nach Frankreich mit,
Begrab mich in Frankreichs Erde.

Das Ehrenkreuz am roten Band
Sollst du aufs Herz mir legen;
Die Flinte gib mir in die Hand,
Und gürt mir um den Degen.

So will ich liegen und horchen still,
Wie eine Schildwach, im Grabe,
Bis einst ich höre Kanonengebrüll
Und wiehernder Rosse Getrabe.

Dann reitet mein Kaiser wohl über mein Grab,
Viel Schwerter klirren und blitzen;
Dann steig ich gewaffnet hervor aus dem Grab—
Den Kaiser, den Kaiser zu schützen!"

[35] Kissinger, op. cit.

Back to top