May 27, 2004

What Does Culture Do?

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

[Print version of this article]

Editor’s Note: This article first appeared in EIR, Vol. 31, No. 25, June 25, 2004, pp.10-20.

As we have documented this fact in locations published earlier, the turn in direction of pathway, away from President Franklin Roosevelt’s leadership, toward the catastrophe which is our nation’s terrible condition today, was begun as part of an operation in which the later head of our Central Intelligence Agency, John Foster Dulles’ brother Allen, played a key role, toward the close of World War II. This is a role he played together, and over the later decades of his life, with accomplices, including his James Jesus Angleton. Dulles and Angleton, typify those who played a key role in bringing a key part of the Nazi SS intelligence apparatus into the inside of what became, later, the NATO system.

This integration of key elements of the Nazi SS apparatus into our postwar intelligence system, was the outcome of a process which had begun when leading Nazis, such as some around Hermann Göring, recognized that the Nazi defeat at Stalingrad, when combined, in effect, with the U.S. naval victory at Midway, foretold the coming defeat of the Adolf Hitler phase of Nazi Germany. These Nazi circles are typified by Dulles’ Geneva-based contact François Genoud, Walter Schellenberg, and former Nazi Economics Minister Hjalmar Schacht and his Otto “Scarface” Skorzeny, as Anglo-American-protected ex-Nazi assets in Europe, such as operations conducted through Spain’s fascist dictator Franco.

These assets, such as the notorious “rat-line,” were used as channels for relocating significant elements of the Nazi apparatus in the Americas, where the circles built up around descendants of those Nazi assets are a key threat to the security of our hemisphere, including the interior of the U.S.A., today. Meanwhile, as the case of Falangist ideologue Blas Piñar’s present leadership among Nazi relics in Europe and the Americas attests, the parts of the Nazi SS apparatus which were rescued by aid of Dulles et al., are presently an active influence and security threat, in the present disguises of the Nazi International, in both Europe and the Americas generally.

Those Nazis themselves were only part of the problem. As we have documented this in earlier reports on the “Beast-Man” phenomenon, the fascist organizations which took over Western and Central Continental Europe during the interval 1922-45, were political assets of a network created and directed by a network of private financier houses, a network which was brought together in the context of the unworkable form of international financial-monetary system created, at the close of World War I, under the authority of the Treaty of Versailles. This apparatus, run top-down by these financial circles, is properly filed under the counterintelligence category named the Synarchist International. The Nazis were but one among the sundry brand-labellings included in the assortment of “left-right” political conspiracies created by this Synarchist International.[fn_1]

Once the probable doom of Hitler was apparent to relevant German leaders, as early as during the first half of 1942, the intent of those inner circles of Nazis around Hermann Göring, was to save the financial kernel and certain personnel of the Nazi system for a role in the postwar world. Their intention was, to create a system of universal fascism, an imperial system, a new version of the Roman Empire, to either eliminate all nation-states, or absorb them into an imperial system of what today’s Michael Ledeen has designated as “universal fascism,” his translation, for practice, of Allgemeine-SS. Those Nazi and other varieties of philosophically existentialist elements, were collected to form a combination of other Continental European fascist networks, and were integral to the Franklin Roosevelt-hating, Anglo-American networks associated with Henry Luce’s already existing project for “A New American Century.”

The integration of these elements into a common, Anglo-American-dominated, “right-wing international” network occurred, all under the direction of the “Bilderberg” or kindred expressions of the fascist international financier syndicate. This same Synarchist International, which had created Hitler, also produced that subversive enemy of ours who later appeared under such significant labels as “The Congress for Cultural Freedom.” To sell Nazism today, package it into a can bearing an Orwellian label such as “Project Democracy.”

The history of the background to the connection between Synarchism and the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF), includes the following notably relevant historical features.

Like that co-founder of what became the fascism of Mussolini, Hitler, and Francisco Franco, the pro-Satanic Count Joseph de Maistre, and like the forerunner of Adolf Hitler, Friedrich Nietzsche, the characteristic of those forces of evil expressed both as fascism and as those followers of Allen Dulles promoting the philosophy of the so-called Congress for Cultural Freedom, is their “Silenus” cry of hatred against the legacy of progress of European civilization. So, Maistre expressed his hatred against the legacy of the 15th-Century Renaissance, by worship of the Beast-Man image of that Satanic anti-Semite Tomás de Torquemada. So, the Christ-hating anti-Semite Nietzsche harked back to the pagan brutishness of a Phrygian Dionysus.

To understand Synarchism today, we must recognize and understand that modern fascism then, as now, takes its origins from the Martinist freemasonry which worked with Lord Shelburne’s London to organize France’s Reign of Terror. This is the same freemasonic order which produced Napoleon Bonaparte, and the interchangeable parts known as Talleyrand and Fouché. It is also, today, expressed in the form of a modern fascism unleashed by the financier plotters of that 20th-Century Synarchist International which also gave us the legacy of Mussolini, Hitler, and Franco.

To understand this persistently recurring threat to modern civilization, we must focus attention on the historically specific characteristics of that European civilization which was first brought forth in Greece by what Socrates would have acknowledged as the midwives supplied by a great Egyptian tradition. The legacy of evil expressed by the image of the Congress for Cultural Freedom today, is the image of a potentially fatal infection which is the leading specific threat to a particular species of culture, the specific culture of a European civilization traced in its original best aspects, as Plato did, from the images of Thales, Solon, and Pythagoras.

When that matter is placed in that historical light, the history of the problems of the globally extended European culture, since ancient Greece, can all be defined in an appropriately elementary way. One feature stands out in significance above all others: How does that European civilization define, or reject, the existence of a fundamental, principled distinction, of man from beast? How does this conception function, in principle, as in practice? What crucially relevant lessons does history, real history, show to the actually thinking U.S. citizen whom I address here? What does it show him, or her, about the crucial issue posed by the influence of CCF and its like?

Are You a Man or a Monkey?

Closer, modern study of the astrophysical principles expressed by the architecture of Egypt’s Great Pyramids of Giza, has provided crucially typical, scientific evidence bearing upon the way in which Egypt contributed to the specific quality of greatness achieved by what we call today the Classical Greek culture of Thales, Pythagoras, Solon, and Plato. Since the birth of the modern Europe of the sovereign nation-state, an institution which emerged from the Italy-centered 15th-Century Renaissance, European civilization, as defined by that Classical heritage, has been expressed, typically, as the modern notion of a sovereign nation-state republic. With this 15th-Century emergence of a new institution, the sovereign nation-state, demanded by such preceding leaders as Dante, and described, as to essential points of principle, by that century’s Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, had become the most effective form of existing institutional power for improvement of the condition of mankind.

The distinction of the emergence of modern Europe, through the struggles against the shackles of an ultramontanist form of medieval imperialism, is that, for the first time, in the shadow of Filippo Brunelleschi’s crafting of the cupola of the Cathedral of Florence, the bestializing legacy of empire gave way to the notion of a community of sovereign nation-states each and all committed to promotion of that general welfare of mankind. This was the same prescribed goal sought since Solon of Athens, as defined by the Classical Socratic Greek, and Christian, principle of agapē.

Unfortunately, as the role of the pro-Satanic Tomás de Torquemada illustrates this, the Venice-orchestrated, ultramontane forces of reaction against that Renaissance, struck back with bestial, homicidal fury, as typified by that interval of A.D. 1511-1648 religious and kindred warfare which was brought to a close only through the leading role of France’s Cardinal Mazarin in bringing about the great 1648 Treaty of Westphalia. That principle of the Treaty of Westphalia is the achievement upon which civilized modern European life has depended, since then, to the present time.

Unfortunately, the conflict did not end, as settled, in that treaty, then and there. A fresh threat to civilization arose in the rise to power of a new imperial pretender, the 1688-1763 rise of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal party, as expressed by the British East India Company of Lord Shelburne et al., to the rank of a global imperial power. It is the issues defined in the rising conflict between that Company’s imperial power and those patriots gathered around the North American colonies’ leading intellect, Benjamin Franklin, which has been implicitly the principal axis of reference for all notable, long-term forms of global conflict since 1763, to the present day.

Although the British East India Company has passed on, its legacy, like the effects of an epidemic of infectious disease, has continued its impact on modern, globally extended European history, up to the present day. The impact of that legacy has continued to define the matrix of world conflicts, from 1763 to the present day.

To understand adequately what the legacy of Allen Dulles et al., continues to represent, as a continuing threat of fascism in the world today, we must place our finger on the subject of the origin of Martinism, and its outgrowths such as Synarchism. What we know as 20th-Century fascism, or Synarchism, as we fought against it under President Franklin Roosevelt’s leadership, lies in a persisting effort to overturn those principles of civilized relations among sovereign nation-states which were adopted by the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia.

As I shall explain summarily, now, and conclude discussion of that point later in this present section of the report, what was called, interchangeably, the “Venetian Party” or empiricists’ “Enlightenment” of 18th-Century England and France, emerged as a newly attempted form of worldwide successor to the Roman Empire. This imperial role was established with the British East India Company’s triumph at the 1763 Treaty of Paris.

The Martinist freemasonic order which led the unleashing of the French Terror of the 1790s and Napoleon Bonaparte’s tyranny, was itself a joint instrument of the imperial British East India Company’s Lord Shelburne (1737-1805) and anti-U.S.A. forces of continental Europe. The Martinist order was an instrument created with the initial intention, as assigned by the Company’s Lord Shelburne and his flunky, Adam Smith, to play a crucial role in wrecking the cause of the English-speaking colonies in North America and bankrupting and destroying Liberal London’s most potent continental rival, the great Louis XI-Mazarin-Colbert tradition which was the best of France at that time.

Leading U.S. patriots in the tradition of the early Cincinnatus Society had come to understand this more and more clearly, especially since the time John Quincy Adams began to clear his own head in such matters, during the period he virtually created the functioning form of the U.S. State Department.[fn_2] Notably, John Quincy Adams went on from there, as later President and senior member of the U.S. Congress, to launch what later became the Abraham Lincoln Presidency and the tradition which I, personally, represent, as an informed spokesman, as a U.S. Presidential candidate, today.

As I have said above, the roots of modern European civilization go much deeper than modern times. In the history of European civilization, it was from the Egypt of those Pyramids and of the founder of the ancient nation of Israel, Moses, that European civilization adopted a specific quality of rigorous notion of a fundamental, principled distinction of man from beast. The initial realization of what became known as European civilization, occurred principally as the impact of that same conception associated with the universalized, Mosaic nature of man, in forming the Classical tradition of what we call ancient Greece today.

Although the nature of the human species is the same everywhere, and although there is, therefore, a necessary, long-ranging tendency for convergence of nations upon common principles of mutual conduct, the history of the development of a European culture, by that name, as rooted in the history of ancient Greece, has a distinct quality of historical specificity, from beginning to the present date. This requires competent thinkers to treat the internal development of the offshoots of ancient European cultures since Solon’s Athens, as an historically specific process which must first be studied as a distinct subject of converging cultural developments in its own right.

The most essential feature of that history is the long struggle, as since Solon’s Athens, between the effort to establish a true nation-state republic of citizens, and the opposing effort, typified by Sparta under the Constitution of Lycurgus, or the Babylonian, Persian, Roman, Byzantine, and ultramontane forms such as medieval, Venice-centered Europe. The backers of the CCF project represent the latter, imperial impulse, an impulse toward eradicating the existence of sovereign nation-states, as the presently wildly utopian thrust toward plunging the planet into the doom of imperial “globalization,” attests.

The issue so posed by the CCF legacy, in particular, is the nature of the functional, constitutional distinction between men and apes. That principled distinction is defined as follows.

Egyptian science as echoed by that of the Pythagoreans, Thales, and Plato, was associated with a pre-Aristotelean conception of mathematics, which was derived from astronomy, a conception of physical geometry, rather than an aprioristic mathematics such as that of Euclid. This pre-Euclidean, and, implicitly anti-Euclidean method of physical science was then known as “spherics.” This notion of a physical geometry, rooted in the concept of “spherics,” rather than an aprioristic, merely formal geometry, provided the basis for defining an experimental proof of the existence of a fundamental physical principle, principles designated as what we call today “powers” (Greek: dynamis), as Carl Gauss’s 1799 attack on the frauds of Euler and Lagrange, in Gauss’s first statement of The Fundamental Theorem of Algebra supplies an implicitly geometrical statement of the mathematical-physical representation of “powers.”

Typical proofs of powers so defined, included the notion of the doubling of the line, of the square, and of the cube. Added to this was, most notably, the notion of the construction of a series of Platonic solids, as this was reported by Plato, and was addressed by Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa[fn_3] and his followers, Luca Pacioli and Leonardo da Vinci, and the avowed follower of all of these, that founder of modern astronomy, Johannes Kepler, who set the pace for the singular achievements of such as Fermat, Pascal, Huyghens, Leibniz, and Jean Bernouilli.

The experimentally based discovery of, and willful use of such physical principles, expressed the provable, absolute distinction of persons from animals, the distinction between man and ape. These principles were of two general categories, principles of man’s intervention in nature, and principles of the social processes through which mankind increases our species’ power in and over nature.

Otherwise, the most significant implication of these considerations, is the Promethean way in which mankind transmits the act of discovery of such powers (experimentally demonstrable universal principles) from one person to another, and thus from one generation to another. Through the transmission of the replicatable act of generating such discoveries of universal principle, we have the only way in which the human species has been able to increase its potential relative population-density, above the level of the millions possible for a species of higher ape, to more than 6 billions living persons today.

These principles have three most notable qualities, as follows.

Although a valid universal physical principle is never, itself, an object of sense-perception, its experimentally proven universality of efficiency is an efficiently existing object of the mind. In other words, although the effect of application of a principle must be a subject of a mathematical description, the principle itself is not the mathematical formula, but is, rather, an integral, indivisible object of the mind, in the same way that the notion of an irreducible object of sense-perception is the idea of an object.[fn_4]

The standpoint of “spherics” adopted by the Pythagoreans, et al., thus divided human experience of the physical world between invisible, but efficient principles, and their implicitly visible sense-perceptible effects. In modern mathematical physics, this set of ontological distinctions is expressed as the notion of the complex domain as introduced by Carl Gauss and refined by his follower Bernhard Riemann.

The true notion of a universal physical principle is never a way of merely explaining nature (contemplation), but is a method of acting efficiently to change nature in ways which only efficient comprehension of a discovered universal physical principle permits. It expresses an intention, whether an intention by the Creator of the universe, as Kepler defined the principle of universal gravitation which he had discovered, or by man acting in a way like that of that Creator. We must presume, at least to the present date, that all principles of the universe existed prior to man’s consciousness; however, when man discovers the power to deploy such a pre-existing principle, man’s action, as an intention, changes the ordering of the universe within which we act.[fn_5]

The Prometheus Principle in History

However, in societies in which a relatively few hold others in the status of human cattle, the ruling strata of that society, like the Roman Emperor Diocletian before them, are careful to prescribe that society must not educate those we intend to condemn to the status of human cattle, above their intended station in life. The implication of that is, that the society committed to the notion of maintaining people in the status of human cattle, or, perhaps monkeys, does not wish to advertise the existence of those mental powers which set human beings apart from, and above the beasts.

In European civilization since ancient Greece, this intention, to hold a large number of people in the status of human cattle, is expressed systemically by what is termed “philosophical reductionism,” as this is expressed as the tradition of those opponents of the Pythagoreans known as the Eleatics, Sophists, and radical Euclideans, or the modern philosophical empiricists, positivists, and existentialists such as Nietzsche, the Nazi Martin Heidegger, and his co-thinkers Hannah Arendt, Theodor Adorno, and Karl Jaspers.

That issue is famously typified by the ancient Greek dramatist Aeschylus’s Prometheus Bound. The evil gods of Zeus’s Olympus captured the immortal Prometheus, chained him to a rock, and tortured him perpetually, to induce him to abandon the intention to give knowledge of universal physical principles to those human beings whom Zeus intends to hold in the status of nothing better than dehumanized, human cattle. This issue, as posed by the image of Aeschylus’s Prometheus Bound, has proven itself to be the most important issue in the history of European civilization as a whole, since no later than the founding of that civilization in ancient Greece.

It is the issue of the individual person’s right to discover, and to know experimentally, provable universal physical principles, and to apply these principles of knowledge to change man’s relations to nature in ways which increase the potential relative population-density of the human species. It is, in other words, the right to know, and to practice that truth which the Satanic Olympian Zeus and his oligarchy hate with the fiercest hatred. It is the right of mankind to enjoy the blessings of progress, the right to improve the condition of the human individual in the broadest and deepest sense of that notion. It is the notion of agapē posed by Plato’s Socrates, in opposition to the historically defined characters Glaucon and Thrasymachus, in Plato’s Republic.

The transmission of knowledge of experimentally definable universal physical principles, from one person to another, and one generation to the next, is the expression of an immortal character of the role of the mortal individual in society. As Plato insists, and as the Christian Apostle Paul emphasizes in his “1 Corinthians 13,” this principle of agapē, so conceived, is the highest rank of moral and other law respecting human behavior. Jesus Christ’s expression of the Creator’s love of mankind, as agapē, is the essence of the principle of natural law in the practice of civilization. So, Leibniz, in repudiating the evil intrinsic to John Locke, placed agapē, as the principle of the pursuit of happiness, above all other law. So, the central Constitutional principle, and statement of intention of the U.S. 1776 Declaration of Independence, defined Leibniz’s notion of the pursuit of happiness as the highest principle of our Constitutional law.

The term “Satanic” should be understood as controlled in its practical meaning as expressing a vicious form of practice of denial of the individual person’s likeness to the Creator. Every person’s life is therefore sacred. The Beast-Man behavior of captors in U.S.-run prisons in Iraq, is an example of people, those captors, as like Nazi concentration-camp guards, captors self-degraded into the likeness of inhuman predatory beasts.

Similarly, the widespread attempt to interpret the U.S. Federal Constitution as a body of “contract law,” especially among those mentally crippled by the burdensome tradition of the U.S. Confederacy, such as the radical “dictionary positivist” and U.S. Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, is an expression of that quality of the “Satanic,” the degradation of human beings to the rank of property (e.g., “shareholder interest”). The treatment of any human being as a subject of “shareholder value” (i.e., Lockean property), as the current practice of the 1973 overturn of the Hill-Burton legislation by the HMO “reform,” is therefore an implicitly Satanic mode of behavior.

This Satanic quality is the characteristic feature of such evil British Fabian Society celebrities as H.G. Wells, Bertrand Russell, their crony Aleister Crowley, and their sorcerer’s apprentices Aldous and Julian Huxley. The pollution of the U.S. by the relevant influences of Wells, Russell, et al., has become an expression of a Satanic influence in U.S. intellectual and other behavior.

In these matters of natural law, it is not the act as such which is crucial for law. It is the expressed intention underlying the act which is crucial. For this purpose, we must define “intention” as Kepler defined the Creator’s intention which is expressed as that universal principle of gravitation (His, not the empiricist Galileo’s) which governs the composition of the Solar System. Ignorance of the intention by which an act might be judged, is, in a certain degree, exculpatory, as in the case of a person lacking the powers or will for knowledge, to distinguish between right and wrong. In human behavior, it is the person’s assignment of an intention as the purpose of his, or her life, which is of crucial bearing on the way in which society must judge the degree of actual culpability in, and remedies for, violation of a principle of natural law.

This point is illustrated by recognizing the experimentally validated discovery of any universal physical principle, such as Kepler’s uniquely original discovery of the principle of gravitation, as expressing the Creator’s intention. Thus, we must intend to promote such forms of scientific progress, as discovering the Creator’s intention, and must regard ourselves as morally, constitutionally bound by the intent to pursue that course, and enforce the implications of such discoveries, as effectively as might be possible.

This distinction is made clearer in nature and importance, when we consider those misguided persons who refuse to recognize the 1776 U.S. Declaration of Independence and the Preamble of the Federal Constitution as enforceable intentions to which all interpretation of any other features of that Constitution, its amendments, or Federal law, must be made subject. Any positive law, any contract which violates those intentions, such as Scalia’s evil reading of “shareholder value,” must be nullified, as if axiomatically, even as if retroactively. Or, a contract negotiated by the relevant parties in apparent good faith, must be nullified in those aspects which might be discovered to be in conflict with natural law.

For example, in the history of the U.S., and other nations, the fact that a person had been property (e.g., a slave), by prior determination, or birth, was treated under a reading of that pro-slavery doctrine of John Locke which had been repudiated by the language and intention of the U.S. Declaration of Independence. Similarly, as in the case of those current debts of the nations of Central and South America which were imposed arbitrarily, upon those states under the newly imposed rules of a post-1971 floating-exchange-rate monetary system, rather than being incurred by the will of the debtor, are properly nullified under any judicial ruling consistent with natural law. No self-evident sanctity exists in any contract as such, except as there is no implied violation of natural law in the relevant terms at issue.

A true national constitution, such as our Declaration of Independence, and under the terms of the Preamble of our Federal Constitution, derives its authority from those of its statements of intention which are comparable to the notion of necessity that man-made law must be consistent with the same principles of knowable intention attributed to the Creator’s law. In this matter, mankind must hold itself and its nations accountable for herding the national law of sovereign states into channels of intended effects consistent with the same notion of intention properly attributable to the notions of universal physical laws.

In all this and related matter, the Promethean right of the human individual and society to participate in the benefits of scientific and technological progress, must be enforced as a matter of natural law. This principle of law of statecraft must be viewed from the standpoint of the absolute distinction of man from ape. (If you reject scientific and technological progress, as the Luddites did, then you might apply for status, under law, as a monkey: A witty judge might merrily grant your plea.) Man’s nature is his likeness to the Creator of the universe, in the respect that man’s power to discover and employ universal physical principles, is a quality of human nature shared only with the Creator, and that any suppression of that right, by Zeus or any other force, is Satanic by implication.

The implication is, that the only just society is one which fosters scientific and technological progress, in changing both nature and man’s mode of practice to this effect. In the language of a science of physical economy, this signifies the development and application of knowledgeable practice to the effect of increasing the physical expression of potential relative population-density of the human species, per capita and per square kilometer.

Therefore the related notions of economic growth, and of physical profitability, are restricted to measurements made in physical terms, rather than, and often in defiance of, monetary terms of financial accounting. The attempt to shackle the physical practice of a society to the accounting office, e.g., usury, is implicitly a form of Satanism, and has often proven to be just that in many instances of practice. The only true profit is that which is an increase of good for mankind as a creature made in the likeness of the Creator.

The most essential consideration, therefore, is the need to promote the development of those mental powers of the individual which generate revolutionary changes in practice to the effect of increasing the net physical productivity of society per capita and per square kilometer.

For example, the greatest increase in the productive powers of labor, per capita and per square kilometer, was set into motion by the 15th-Century Renaissance’s launching of the modern form of sovereign nation-state whose principles are prescribed in such locations as Cusa’s Concordantia Catholica and De Docta Ignorantia.

It was the achievement of modern forms of sovereignty by more nations, such as India and China, through their gaining the right to conduct their affairs in a way informed by the achievements of the European form of modern sovereign nation-state, which has made possible what has been already gained, as echoes of the anti-colonialist policies of the U.S. Presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and greater foreseeable advances in the human condition among such peoples under a renewal of that President’s intention today. This is the policy which affords us today, not only a way of escape from the threat of a global new dark age descending upon the world today, but a brighter vision of the future of humanity as a whole.

Shelburne’s Evil Legacy Today

Through the mechanics of the British East India Company’s orchestration of the so-called “Seven Years’ War” on the continent of Europe, that Company diverted France’s attention sufficiently from the larger world, to continental strife, that the British Company neatly snapped up control of what we know as Canada, India, and relevant other locations. Thus, the Treaty of Paris which acknowledged this outcome as a matter of law, established the British East India Company (rather than the British monarchy as such) as, in fact, a global, nominally British empire.

What became known to this day as the Bank of England’s role as a keystone of a so-called “independent central banking system” has been the dominant feature in the long-range unfolding of the history of both the United Kingdom and continental Europe, up to the present day. This system was known, during that century, as the system of “The Venetian Party.” The slime-mold-like concert of financier-oligarchical interests, which had exerted de facto imperial power with the medieval alliance of Venice and Norman chivalry, had, so to speak, reincarnated itself, from the late 17th Century on, as a new Anglo-Dutch-pivotted “Venetian” financier oligarchy, based in the maritime regions of Northern Protestant Europe. Intellectually, the imperial potencies of the Company’s empire, spoke Dutch, English, and so on, but they thought as Venetian, as Francesco Zorzi (a.k.a. Giorgi), Giovanni Botero, Paolo Sarpi, Galileo Galilei, Antonio Conti, Voltaire, and Giammaria Ortes had taught them to think.

In this setting, Lord Shelburne emerged as the frankly diabolical, rising figure of influence within that Company. Shelburne and his circle of personal lackeys, such as Adam Smith, Edward Gibbon, and the consummately pro-Satanic Jeremy Bentham, played key roles as Shelburne agents, in setting out the intended ground-rules for the consolidation of the Company’s empire as a permanent successor to the defunct Roman Empire.

Shelburne’s role and rules, so defined, set the dominant features of the patterns of Europe-dominated global conflict which has, predominantly, determined the course of the general flow of world history, from that time to the present.

The concerns of Shelburne and his circle were the potential dangers to the eternal perpetuity of that empire from the inside and outside, respectively. The chief external threat they feared, was the impact of the American Revolution as a model which might infect Europe. Otherwise, they continued the proven policy of the Seven Years’ War, a policy of keeping the nations of Europe more or less at one another’s throats, as a way of preventing the emergence of a continental-Europe-based power which might overturn the imperial power represented by the Bank of England. Within the latter context, the immediate concern of Shelburne’s circles was to destroy the power of the U.S. allies of 1776-83, Charles’s Spain and Louis XVI’s France, chiefly the economic power represented by the Colbertiste tradition still alive within France.

President Abraham Lincoln’s victory over Lord Palmerston’s asset, the insurrectionary, slave-holders’ Confederate States of America, became a principal threat to the continuation of that British Empire’s hegemony over the planet. Not only had the victorious U.S. emerged as a continental nation-state power which could no longer be crushed by the methods of external attacks and internal subversion which Britain had employed up to that time. The startling success of the U.S. economic model, over the interval 1861-76, was drawing leading powers such as Alexander II’s Russia, Bismarck’s Germany, and others, including Japan, during and beyond the late 1870s, into adopting leading features of the Hamilton-Carey-List American System of political-economy, as the preferred alternative to the British system.

The result was a massive emphasis by pro-British influences, on subversion of the Republican Party, in addition to assets already in tow from within the traditionally pro-slavery Democratic Party. Meanwhile, that Prince of Wales and later emperor, King Edward VII, plotted to unleash what we call World War I, which led to the subsequent plotting of what became World War II, by the British fellow-travellers of the Continent-based Synarchist International.

During the course of World War II, the leading intention for perpetuating the empire in the postwar world, was supplied by the circles of H.G. Wells and Bertrand Russell, as in Russell’s public acclaim for Wells’ 1928 The Open Conspiracy and Russell’s key role in organizing the introduction of warfare with nuclear-fission weapons as the instrument for establishing a form of imperialism called “world government,” then, and “globalization,” today. These are the current forms of the proposed continuation of the imperial perspective developed under the leadership of Shelburne. The doctrine of a “perpetual war” in the guise of “preventive, nuclear-weapons-armed warfare,” of Prime Minister Tony Blair’s confederate, Vice President Dick Cheney, is the present expression of the imperial policy set forth by Wells and Russell.

Throughout the postwar period to date, the “Sexual Congress for Cultural Fascism” has complemented the development of nuclear-fission and nuclear-fusion weapons, as an integral feature of this same imperial intention to uproot and exterminate the institution of the sovereign nation-state. The intended function of that “Sexual Congress for Cultural Fascism” associated with the CIA project linked to Commentary magazine and others, has been to destroy the institution of the U.S. sovereign nation-state at its root, its commitment to the American System of political-economy associated with the Constitutional founding of the U.S. republic and with the U.S.’s rising to a long-term world-power status under Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt.

The corruption of the post-Lincoln U.S.A. in such directions, was premised on a political alliance between the London-allied, Manhattan-centered financier oligarchy and the relics of the slave-holding Confederacy. The legendary conflict between Republicans of the New York and Ohio varieties, is typical of this. The takeover of the U.S.A. to this effect, was accomplished through aid of the assassination of President William McKinley, and the domination of the next three decades of U.S. life by the impact of two Presidents in whom the tradition of the Confederacy was deeply embedded, Theodore Roosevelt and Ku Klux Klan enthusiast Woodrow Wilson. It was under the influence of this combination assembled around the Teddy and Woody show, that the origins of the U.S. role in the post-World War I Versailles Treaty, and the launching of what became the “Sexual Congress for Cultural Fascism,” took shape.

Looking back at the history of the U.S.A. since the death of Franklin Roosevelt, we can appreciate why certain trans-Atlantic, English-speaking partners came to support Wells and Russell in placing such emphasis on the efforts to uproot and destroy the traditional U.S. commitment to the benefits of scientific and technological progress in development of basic economic infrastructure and modes of agricultural and industrial production and employment. To defeat the U.S.A., the imperialist must take the American commitment to the beauties of scientific and technological progress out of the American, as this process of extraction has been fully ongoing during the recent four decades.

This pattern of change in British strategic outlook since the 1861-76 developments in the U.S.A., is signalled by the emergence of the circles of Thomas Huxley, and of the related circles of George Bernard Shaw and other notables of the history of the Fabian Society. Huxley’s personal Zauberlehrling, H.G. Wells, a key figure in preparing for World War I, typifies this. The post-World War I reconciliation of Wells and Bertrand Russell around a common evil intent, expresses this in the continued life of the postwar world whence Wells and Russell have now long departed.

Roosevelt’s leadership of the U.S. economic recovery, and the role of the U.S. under him at war, showed that the earlier attempts to subvert the U.S. had failed, failed because the earlier attempts to crush the American patriotic character had failed to uproot it. This time, they decided, they would uproot it. The Congress for Cultural Freedom project, and the closely related “Frankfurt School,” like the Fabian Society, typify the subversive modes employed to the latter purpose.

The ‘New Dark Age’ Syndrome

Relatively speaking, those who, like bellwethers Cheney and Tony Blair, have come into key positions of Anglo-American power, are not notable for qualities of intelligence, nor even sanity. Their principal dupe, poor President George W. Bush, would be sympathetic as a poor, pathetic person of less than meager intellect, were he not so damnably mean about it all. Even if they conquered the world, as they have conspired to conquer and loot Iraq, they would fail more or less precisely as the lessons of the continuing asymmetric warfare in Iraq forewarn intelligent professional observers in the U.S. and elsewhere today.

Their success, were it to occur, would mean nothing but the collapse of the planet as a whole into a prolonged new dark age of humanity, during which world population-levels would drop toward something substantially less than a billion miserable souls, perhaps even much, much less. These would-be tyrants would make Genghis Khan retch in disgust at the poor quality of monster, such as those, the world is apparently capable of producing today. These are not true leaders, even evil ones; these are a kind of demented slime-mold.

There is no victory for the U.S.A., Britain, or anyone else, under a continuation of their combined present reign over much of the world’s policy-shaping. Those incumbent governments are failures, catastrophes from the outset. The issue is, whether or not we choose to send our posterity to Hell with them. There is nothing particularly exotic about foreseeing a new dark age as the consequence of failing to dump what Cheney and Blair represent today.

The distinction of the human individual from the beasts, lies in the development of those creative cognitive powers of the individual from which Classically scientific and artistic powers of composition spring. In former times, when most men and women have been subjected to a more or less brutish existence as virtual human cattle, a relatively few individuals have escaped from that prevalent dementation, to become the creative personalities on which the potential basis for progress is provided, even under mean conditions for society at large. What “The Sexual Congress for Cultural Fascism” has attempted to do, and, to a large degree, already done, is to eradicate even those relatively limited institutional arrangements under which some creative individuals were produced in sufficient supply to keep society in a manageable state of more or less continued progress.

The attempt by the freaks of Commentary and their like to devise a perfect program for preventing the reappearance of generalized scientific and cultural progress, has been all too successful. The continuation of the proposed form of imperialism, called euphemistically “globalization,” would mean the virtual eradication of any remaining, institutionalized capability for organizing a recovery of mankind’s potential relative population-density, until such time as the present system of rulership had died out by the effect of the works of its own hand.

Throughout the history of European civilization, the relatively effective approaches to bestializing at least a large part of the human population, have always taken forms which converge upon a formal method of thought and argument which is called reductionism. One example of this is the introduction of derivatives of what is called Euclidean geometry today, a flawed notion of geometry which was introduced to eliminate the method of scientific discovery associated with Thales, the Pythagoreans, and Plato, the method associated with “spherics.” All efficient forms of intended systemic corruption of the European human mind’s potential for scientific thought, have taken the tactic of Euclidean geometry as a model of reference. This tactic occurs, in various times and places, in a more or less radical form; but, the underlying principle is the same fraud introduced, as what we know as Euclidean geometry, to replace “spherics.”

Whereas, in Classical pre-Euclidean notions of science, the form of geometry associated with the Pythagoreans, as with Plato, and, for example, Kepler and Bernhard Riemann later, was not abstract geometry, but, rather, physical geometry, a concept of physical geometry implicitly defended by the 1799 Carl Gauss against the reductionist sleight-of-hand of d’Alembert, Euler, and Lagrange, a defense later developed into the view of the complex domain provided by Riemann.

However, the essence of the dirty trick copied by Euler, Lagrange, et al., was to adopt the outgrowth of Euclidean geometry known as the Cartesian Model, an abstract, a priori model of space, time, and matter, based on the set of unproven, but arbitrarily asserted definitions, axioms, and postulates of a Euclidean, or like form of schoolbook geometry. In this way, by excluding the way in which discoverable universal physical principles are expressed in the forms of the complex domain, the reality of the existence of fundamental physical principles, is replaced by a linearized mathematical approximation. Thus, the essential act of discovery, and related quality of actual proof of principle, is banned from the typical classroom and textbook. In this way, the real notion of the act of discovery of a universal physical principle is more or less banned from the knowledge of even the putatively highly educated ranges of the population.

The same crime is committed by sly plagiarist Galileo’s wicked pupil Thomas Hobbes, who bans Classical irony and the related role of the subjunctive from speech! I explain this critical point.

In oral communication, especially as in Classical poetry and drama, the audience is presented with principled conceptions for which no name pre-existed in the known vocabulary of that audience. These previously unknown conceptions are the pivotal subject-matter of any Classical form of drama or poetry.

The bridge provided for inventing, and imparting the name for the previously unknown conception, is Classical irony. Classical irony uses the creation of a paradox (e.g., “ambiguity”), by means of which the mind of the hearer is challenged to make a discovery of a kind tantamount to an experimental discovery in physical science, such as Kepler’s discovery of a principle of universal gravitation. The mind of the member of the audience is motivated, and induced to discover the needed new idea by being challenged with that artificed paradox of the author and speaker. The recognition of that paradox now becomes the utterable name of the newly discovered idea, just as the name of an original discoverer is often attached to the notion of the relevant discovery as a cognizable object in communication.

Reenacting the process of discovery of the thought-object called principle, as experienced by the putative original discover, becomes the experience which the student must relive, to make the same unified thought-object (Geistesmasse) his or her own. So, the idea enters the vocabulary through the mechanisms of Classical irony, just as the discovery of a universal physical principle, and that principle’s recognition as a definite object of thought, proceeds in the work and teaching of physical science.

A discovered principle is not a mathematical statement by means of which an idea of principle is constructed. A discovered principle is a physical principle which exists outside previously known mathematics. It is an integral, indivisible object of the mind; the mathematics which may be properly associated with the expression of that principle, is not the principle itself, but, rather, the trail it leaves behind in its motion. One does not derive a principle by mathematics; one derives a new mathematics, as Riemann prescribes this, by the discovery of a form of object of the mind known as a universal physical principle, a principle whose trajectory can be mapped in a newly recreated, enriched mathematics.

The degradation of education and communication to systems of deductive/inductive derivation from putatively self-evident definitions, axioms, and postulates, is the most effective way of turning putatively well-educated populations into persons ignorant of, and hostile to, actually creative human thought. The people so brutalized, are like the people to whom Zeus forbade Prometheus’s efforts to educate them in their native powers of creative thought. Thus, even the educated strata of society are induced to degrade themselves in a likeness of their mental behavior to that of human cattle.

In ancient Greece, such methods of reductionist brainwashing were known as the work of the likeness of the Eleatic school and, later, the Sophists whose way of thinking and behaving led Athens toward doom in the course of the Peloponnesian War.

What is being done to the U.S. population today, under the more radical programs of the “Sexual Congress for Cultural Fascism,” is an extremely radical version of the same type of “dumbing down” of an entire generation, which we associate with the ancient Sophists of Athens.

The frequent effect of such practices of “dumbing down” masses of people into the likeness of human cattle, is a propensity for the spread of wild-eyed religious and other cults, such as those of the right-wing U.S. religious fanatics of today.

For example, the use of reductionist methods by the 18th-Century Enlightenment, produced the related lunacies of Physiocrats such as François Quesnay and of Adam Smith. Quesnay’s notion of “laissez-faire” was premised on the insistence that the profit of the estate was not produced by the action of the human cattle, called serfs, but by the magical powers of the landlord’s title to his “shareholder value.” This particular piece of lunacy, as advocated by Quesnay and Turgot, was plagiarized by Shelburne’s Adam Smith as “the invisible hand”—the hand that Cheney and his cronies put into your personal pocket, for example. In such cases, arbitrary choices of clusters of words “Which I have chosen to believe,” however arbitrarily, however fancifully, became a substitute for truth. The result is a form of mass-insanity, reminding us of the spew of Flagellants in the 14th-Century New Dark Age.

The actual conceptions of Christianity are well known, beyond doubt, from not only reading, but reliving the historically specific experience of the New Testament against the background of the Platonic influence pervading the educated strata, such as the Apostle Paul, as also of Philo of Alexandria, of the Hellenistic culture of that time.

So, J.S. Bach composed his St. Matthew and St. John Passions, that the congregations might relive that historically specific experience on a suitable occasion. That Christ was sacrificed by the Roman occupying authority of Judea of that time, as Christ’s followers, such as many of his Apostles acting in the imitation of Christ, like Jeanne d’Arc and the Rev. Martin Luther King, is the kernel of belief in Christianity as a doctrine of the Creator’s love for a mankind which that Creator esteems as redeemable, because it is the noblest creature in his Creation, a creature made in His Own likeness. Christianity is a faith, based, not in the Satanic qualities of hatred expressed by a Grand Inquisitor or a John Crowe Ransom “Fundamentalist,” but in the form of love for mankind which Plato’s Socrates identifies as agapē.

By contrast, the thundering cacophony of hate spewed currently by the indecent union of war-like pseudo-Catholics and Protestant neo-flagellants, like the anti-Semitic rants of Grand Inquisitor Tomás de Torquemada, has nothing to do with Christianity, but has a great deal to do with the more or less Satanic depravity which has been greatly increased in depth and scope by the spread of the virulent irrationality fostered by the transit of the culture of the Americas, and elsewhere, during the recent 40 years.

Thus, considering the effects already displaced by the regime directed by “true believer” Vice President Cheney, no sane person who could honestly propose sincerely that the program we have denounced here, is anything less evil than literally Satanic.

The only remedy is to impel the leading institutions responsible for recent trends in policy to simply “Give it up!” Sooner or later, of course, a Renaissance will come, as it did after the New Dark Age which Venice and its Norman allies bestowed upon Europe’s 14th Century. Human nature is divine in that sense; unsuppressed, since man is naturally good, mankind will seek out its reconciliation with its Creator. On that account, Satan can not triumph in the long term; precisely the contrary outcome is ultimately inevitable, because it is man’s nature to work to bring that about.

My point is, therefore, that the onrushing New Dark Age is not as inevitable as the poor weak-brained commentators suspect. It is not inevitable, if we choose to prevent it from happening.

We have come to a time in the development of humanity, at which the principle of the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia must be consistently applied to the effect of establishing a world order premised upon a community of perfectly sovereign nation-state republics, each and all committed to the guiding principle of “the advantage of the other.” We of the U.S.A. must heartily recommend this change to our neighbors in the United Kingdom, for example: “Give it up! You have been at it much too long; look where it has brought us now! Empire in any guise, by anyone, is an expression of the most deadly of the childhood moral diseases of humanity.”

The essential self-interest of any person, and of any nation, is not what he, or she, takes away from life, but what his or her developed talent gives to humanity at large. We are each and all born, and shall surely die, sooner or later. Let us be accordingly wise; let us not hope to keep what dies with us, in any case, but treasure that which lives after, especially that which has come into existence because we have lived.

A wonderful person, Gertrude Pitzinger, one of the great singers of the past century, who had become our friend during a preceding decade, received my wife and me, her brother, and a friend, for some hours spent together, during a time shortly before she was to die. She organized those hours to such effect, that she instructed my wife Helga, who is known in Germany as a person of exceptionally appropriate insight into the German Classic, to go to our host’s library, to draw a book containing a poem which Frau Pitzinger wished Helga to recite. Then, Frau Pitzinger would select one of her own recorded performances of a song-setting of that poem. As those hours of that meeting drew to a close, Frau Pitzinger exclaimed with a special kind of satisfaction, “I have lived to sing these songs.” She died a short time later.

A great artist, born of simple background from Olmütz, the place where Lafayette had once been imprisoned as a favor to the British, with an extraordinary talent, a familiar of the greatest artistic performers of her time, could sum up her life happily: I have lived to give these things. Her performance of the Brahms Four Serious Songs and the Schumann Frauenliebe, are among our outstanding memories of her. She was, as Schiller and my wife concur, and I too, a beautiful soul, who gave much, much more than she took, as every patriot who is also a world-citizen, should do.

That, simply summarized, is the kind of world state of affairs which we should be content to build. It is time that a new President of the U.S.A., who has a deep devotion to such things, step forward as the rallying-point for a world which, by now, should be more than tired of the experience of the foolishness to which I have pointed here. Let us bring the sovereign peoples of the world together, for the kinds of collaborative developments of which a President Franklin D. Roosevelt would not have been ashamed. Let us give something good, and timely, to future humanity, before we, in our turn, pass on.

---