Subscribe to EIR Online
This article appears in the December 7, 2012 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

‘What Happened to The Times?’

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

[PDF version of this article]

November 25, 2012

The formerly famous Sunday edition of The New York Times, has contrived to keep up the remaining shards of its earlier reputation with some notable difficulties, perhaps for the sake of that publication's persisting desire to exhibit relative plumpness. The content of its pages, however, is, nonetheless, now astonishingly bereft of true significance for those who might hope for the best results. Might we not say, therefore, that what that newspaper has contrived to fill out in mere pages, has been lost in that seemingly emptied content of most of the publication's space? The essence of the matter says something about contemporary trans-Atlantic public opinion-in-general, a body of opinion which tends to turn up now, at each new turn, as the voice of something intellectually dead.

Despite that, I dare not miss an issue of The Times, lest something which actually demands serious attention might happen to appear in its pages. We must attend to such matters, as President John F. Kennedy might have spoken of "The Cuba Missile Crisis," not only because these matters might sometimes contain some meager bit of usefulness, or sudden ruin, but, chiefly, because we should pay attention to the risk of ignoring the occasional announcement of some important opinion, or action, even disgusting opinion as such.

It is a particular fact of our times, as many economists might not wish to confess, that the U.S.A. economy has been in an overall, accelerating rate of moral and economic decline since President Kennedy was assassinated; and, as "child of scorn" Miniver Cheevy might have said, that decline has been no mere coincidence. Otherwise, the fact is that between ten and twenty percent of our population, varying with ranges of age-levels, are caught up in that rate of spread of drug habits, which has now become the rising habit of the most ignorant and brutalized among our voting population.

That growing epidemic of "druggies" is a fact in its own right; but, it is the actual meaning of that fact as a whole which must grab our attention. Persons like me would be less inclined to hate our practical obligation to read publications such as The New York Times, if its pages would—please!—put the first emphasis on the meaning of the effect of that awful epidemic for mankind's future.

Having now said much about those matters, I come now to a certain chief gripe of mine about all this which I have now just said.

A Particular Case in Point

Up to the point that the currently leading opinion of our recent own, and that of the British governments might depart from their often currently wicked ways, the world at large is presently at the virtual brink of a thermonuclear war, a now lurking war which could destroy most of the population and territory of the present nations—even of the planet as a whole—within as brief a term as about an hour and a half. With the most recent turn in the policies of Turkey's government, the presently likely time for such a holocaust would come at some point between now and the next U.S. Presidential inauguration. The count-down has been "on" since President Barack Obama committed the fraudulent and plainly impeachable act of going to war in Libya without the prior consent of the Congress. The presently threatened, immediate turn toward a "no-fly zone" over Syria, has now brought the whole matter to the proverbial brink of even as much as a general thermonuclear war which threatens the extinction of our human species.

To get at the bottom of the matter, consider the following:

Unfortunately, nearly all among the world's current batches of today's allegedly leading economic forecasters in either our United States or continental Europe, have seemed to be unable to actually understand the significance of the global effect of the British royal family's action to remove the critically important peace-maker Bismarck from power in 1890. The British imperial intention in this case of Bismarck's ouster, was World War I (that set into action by the Prince of Wales), a war which was later reactivated as World War II, and is now near the brink of a World War III which might be finished in about an hour-and-a-half of thermonuclear warfare. The count-down is already on-going; will it continue to rush to the presently steaming "brink"? The pages of the New York Times, would not, and, probably could not tell you; you must turn your attention to different pages.

What should have been the leading question among the presently prospective contenders, is now: "Why have the putatively leading economists of the world been such consistently 'silly jerks,' since, in particular, that dumping of Bismarck which led both to the leading assassinations, such as that which had been ordered earlier from Britain against President Abraham Lincoln, or among some of our other Presidents, or had led simply to the major regional wars which have led, one step after another, through such as an assassination of France's President Carnot, and the 1893 launch of that London-dictated Britain-Japan war against China, which latter, in turn, led into the highly relevant assassination of another great U.S. President, William McKinley, and to the consequent inauguration of the inherently treasonous 'Teddy' Roosevelt of the Confederacy tradition, and, to the launching of what took shape as a 'world war'against Russia in 1905, to the 'Balkan Wars' which Bismarck had frustrated only for as long as he had remained in office during 1890, and, consequently, to 'The Guns of August' in 1914?"

All the major wars fought since the ouster of Bismarck, have been essentially an imperial-British-steered imperial war at root, with a stress on the quality of "imperial." So, the British monarchy of World War II had intended, at first, that the pre-Churchill British leadership should hope for the best advantage of Britain from Adolf Hitler. Churchill blocked that British silliness of Chamberlain and company, for the cause of what he considered, fairly, as Britain's imperial "good reason." However, all that said, a President Truman then used the death of Franklin Roosevelt under Churchill's direction, once President Franklin Roosevelt were "safely" deceased. As a leader of the U.S. intelligence services muttered to his companion as he walked out of the President's office: "It's over!" as he said shortly before the foreseeable early death of that truly greatest of Twentieth-century Presidents.

Then, later, when Churchill was long gone from his post, the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, and of his brother Robert, had ensured, up to the present date, that the United States would be, and has been ruined, step, by step, by step, just as this has occurred this far. That history is a fact written in the present fate suffered by virtually the entirety of the looted and menaced U.S. citizenry presently. The U.S. economy, considered as a whole, has, this far, never recovered from that accelerating decline set into motion by the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and his brother, Robert. Our economists, with very rare exceptions, therefore, never recognize the future, but only what is, for them, the mere shadow of the past; they know only those dead-on-arrival messages which are called "statistics."

Such is the reality which The New York Times has, so far, declined to print.

Let me therefore, now, skip now to the most crucial among the presently immediate alternatives. First, present the "short version" of that history. Now, soon, I shall bring the deeper truth of the matter into view.

I. The Trans-Atlantic World Since Nicholas of Cusa

What has happened, in the veritable "back stage" of the real world history of these and comparable developments since the close of the Fourteenth Century, has been chiefly a state of persistently imposed stupidity which has been recently foremost among the citizens of many nations. This has brought upon the world at large, a dull-wittedness which has been since, customarily imposed upon the leading nations of the trans-Atlantic world and beyond, beyond the now dimly remembered victory of the young United States under the leadership of President George Washington.

Therefore, to identify the most outstanding, actually causal features in the history of the modern trans-Atlantic world, we must begin with the role of that Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa who proved himself to have been the most likely author of the trans-Atlantic system, and who had also been the true inspiration for both Christopher Columbus, and for that scientist Johannes Kepler, who had pioneered in the only actual discovery of the principle of gravitation.

It is through the work of Kepler, that Cusa's role in the actual creation of a true modern science and the related practical implications of a body of natural law, and related moral principles, had been made available to the relatively rare best of the modern physical scientists, such as the exemplary Kepler, as scientists in Cusa's and Kepler's image must be distinguished as residing far above the wretchedness of the modern reductionists.

It is within the specific and narrow province of physical science, since Filippo Brunelleschi and Cusa, up to the present time, that the essential implications of the history of the systemic roots of the radical error of principle, or, better said, lack of principle, as practiced by The New York Times, were best clarified for today.

It has been through the tracing of precisely that set of historical connections, that an understanding of the present crisis of culture had been developed within the ranks of science prior to the awful downslide in education typified by the influence of the truly evil hoaxster Bertrand Russell during the aggravated downslide in science-education already during the post-World War I 1920s. On the other hand, the greatest surge in modern scientific development has been in progress since the continuation of what is classed as the Fourteenth Century's "Golden Renaissance" under the leading influence of Nicholas of Cusa. The most essential features of modern scientific development were founded by Nicholas of Cusa, and had been developed further, most prominently, by the work of Johannes Kepler and his followers, as through the achievement expressed in his unique success in the discovery of the universal ontological principle of gravitation. It has been throught these that modern science has been enabled to free itself from the grip of the currently still prevalent modern European, reductionist cults. The echo of the legacy of Cusa was realized in that Peace of Westphalia which the British empire and its lackeys continue not only to destroy, but to attempt to terminate forever, as the evil Tony Blair has added his notion of leadership to the Presidency of the worse the useless Barack Obama.

This can be considered as implicitly a key to the nature of the systemic error which now underlies the characteristics of the included doctrines represented by such media as The New York Times. The proper name for that error, is the virtually universal, academic and related reliance on "popular faith in sense perception" as such. The issue is the paradoxes inherent in the popular belief in a self-evidence of sense-perception. Even many self-avowed graduates in the practice of modern science, have been corrupted so much by modern education on this account.

Kepler himself never actually depended on that widely popular, but still systemically mistaken, ontological error of judgment.[1] With rare exceptions, most teaching, even in the usual products of universities, has erred increasingly since the ominous death of U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt. The drug-laden influences associated with President Barack Obama, represent a kind of nadir in evil this far, but the drug-habit in the United States must be traced to the earlier aftermath of the cover-up of the clear and implicitly treasonous motives assembled on behalf of, and also the effects of, the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, and also that of his brother Robert: like the same motive for the repeated attempts at the assassination of France's President Charles de Gaulle, for essentially the same, scarcely hidden, political-strategic motives, and with the same circles of accomplices.

The most notable fact of these matters which I have introduced in this present chapter of the report, is the blindness, among even leading circles of society, to the motives for such assassinations with long-range effects within and among larger circles of nations. That is to say, that all assassinations which express such particular importance, have been customarily motivated by a frantic effort of the repres entatives of one leading social current in society, to abort the clear, relatively long-term (multi-generational) intention of the other. The motive for all notable cases of such intentions is describable as the defense of the systemically oligarchical tradition. Numerous among our elected U.S. Presidents, as also the American hero Alexander Hamilton, killed by the British agent Aaron Burr, have been assassinated for precisely such reasons. Those assassinations have changed the course of history over the relatively long term. Only those who foresee the future, could really understand; and such minds are very, very rare, even among the greatest nations—but, Shakespeare's dramas would be most helpful for the use of true scholars in the matter of historical principle.

To proceed beyond what I have just written, I must introduce a more profound set of added considerations, as follows.

II. The Principle of the Human Mind

If anyone searches out the function of human sense-perception, the entire edifice on which the alleged solemnity of those misbeliefs reposes is, speaking relatively, a childish trick. This fact was made clear, at least implicitly, through such precedents as the work of Nicholas of Cusa, and, also that of his notable follower in the establishing of the underlying principles of physical science, Johannes Kepler. The mistaken view of sense-perception, is that which was promoted in the name of the Newton cult immediately upon the news of the death of Gottfried Leibniz: the launching of the myth attributed to the dubious and silly Sir Isaac Newton (all of whose claims respecting principles of physical science have been recognizable as worse than laughing-stocks—but laughing stocks which function as a form of malignant disease).

My point here, is to emphasize that the principles of our Universe lie essentially within nothing less than that universe itself. Whereas, the modern reductionist follies, such as those of the Newtonians, insist that universal principles could be derived only from a method of successive approximations which is, itself, dependent upon mere sense-perception.

It has been true, essentially, in all modern history of science, that only Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa had defined the true notion of universal physical principles, and that Johannes Kepler had been the first to discover the actual principle on which all competent modern science now depends absolutely. That is to say that later discoveries have built upon Kepler's discovery of the universal principle of "vicarious hypothesis." The principle itself was already implicitly discovered in the work of Cusa, notably in his De Docta Ignorantia; but, it was Kepler who executed the discovery of the actual organization of the universe around the experimental proof of the principle of the Solar system. All contrary claimants to that discovery, or its substitute, have been frauds.

That argument of mine is not only true; unfortunately, most attempted, well-meaning interpretations commit a critical sort of error of assumption in their misreading of "vicarious hypothesis." Vicarious hypothesis references the name of an effect, rather than that agency which generates the effect. The argument which I emphasize here, is completed significantly for reason of its echo under the name of metaphor as that is used as a principle by the work of William Shakespeare. Consider some aspects of the role of those terms from the standpoint of contrasting the imagined identity of the character himself (e.g., as metaphor) as the reality of the himself or herself: that principle which "gives life" to the character, the character's invisible soul, rather than the merely attributed appearance of the actor on stage. It is the presence of the experience of that personal soul which must be made the effective identity of that which appears to inhabit the visible figure placed on stage. The passage[2] from I Corinthians, is also a reflection of the ontological principle on which the successful creation and performance of great Classical drama depends absolutely. Such is the key to comprehending the meaning of those mere shadows, known as "actual life," which are cast as echoes of mere sense-impressions, whether on the Classical stage, or in the ordinary experience of life per se. Everything real reposes in the motion and notion of life, even that which moves the stars.

Is this mysticism? No. It is a reality of a life which, in turn, moves the universe. To communicate, you must bring that seemingly mysterious reality on stage, where it actually moves that which could not be seen otherwise, but through the actions which move the essence which inhabits the appropriate actors on stage.

[1] See: Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. Metaphor! (Sept. 19, 2012) EIR, or LaRouche PAC; and The Friday Project (Sept. 30, 2012) EIR, or LaRouche PAC.

[2] E.g.: I Corinthians, 13:12: " For now we see [as] through a glass [e.g. 'mirror'], darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."

Back to top