This article appears in the September 24, 2021 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
December 23, 2001
Zbigniew Brzezinski and September 11th
This is the first part of Mr. LaRouche’s article. EIR is planning to reprint the second part in our next issue, Vol. 48, No. 39.
Editor’s Note: This article first appeared in EIR Vol. 29, No. 1, January 11, 2002. We are reprinting it in two parts. This is the first part.
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.
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.
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. 11th, do many official circles around the world still prefer to defend the consoling delusion, the current, officially blessed explanation of the events of Sept. 11th, 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. 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 Yitzhak 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 ricocheting 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 am EDT. [That full September 11, 2001 interview was published in EIR Vol. 48 No. 36. September 10, 2021.]
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 the 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.
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:
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 William 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?
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.
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.
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.
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 Paul 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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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. 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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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. 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, 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. 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.
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. 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.
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, 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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. The best features of all national economies since 1789, have been modeled on the principles set forth as the American System of political-economy.
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, 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.
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.
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. 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. 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, that civilization has been in an economically, morally, culturally, accelerating increasingly decadent downhill slide of the economy and other crucial elements of culture combined, that 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 October 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.
[END PART 1]
[fn_1] See “LaRouche: Let Calm Heads Prevail to Stop Destabilization,” transcript of September 11, 2001 interview with Utah radio talk show host Jack Stockwell, in EIR, September 21, 2001; and “A Conversation with LaRouche in a Time of Crisis,” an interview conducted by EIR’s John Sigerson, prepared for “The LaRouche Connection” cable television program, in EIR, September 28, 2001. Both interviews were also issued as Crisis Bulletins by the LaRouche in 2004 Presidential campaign committee. [back to text for fn_1]
[fn_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. [back to text for fn_3]
[fn_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 The Hitler Diaries. [back to text for fn_4]
[fn_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, August 3, 2001. [back to text for fn_6]
[fn_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. [back to text for fn_7]
[fn_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. [back to text for fn_8]
[fn_9] Cf. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., The Economics of the Noösphere. Washington, D.C.: EIR News Service, 2001; Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., “The Spirit of Russia’s Science,” EIR, December 7, 2001. [back to text for fn_9]
[fn_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. [back to text for fn_10]
[fn_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.” [back to text for fn_11]
[fn_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: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives of 1997. [back to text for fn_12]
[fn_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. [back to text for fn_13]
[fn_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.” [back to text for fn_15]
[fn_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. [back to text for fn_16]
[fn_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 Riemannian differential geometry. [back to text for fn_17]
[fn_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. [back to text for fn_18]
[fn_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. [back to text for fn_19]
[fn_20] This must be compared with the admirable, 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. [back to text for fn_20]
[fn_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-Century 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. [back to text for fn_21]
[fn_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....” The full text of the Kissinger statement is available in the original Appendix to this article, available on pages 49-59 in EIR January 11, 2002, Vol. 29, No. 1. That appendix also includes additional material on Huntington, Brzezinski, and the nexus of tax-exempt foundations that helped set the agenda for the September 11 coup against the constitutional government of the United States [back to text for fn_22]
[fn_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. [back to text for fn_23]
[fn_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. [back to text for fn_24]
[fn_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. [back to text for fn_25]
[fn_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. [back to text for fn_26]