NEXT, AFTER THIS DAY, COMES THE END OF YOUR YEAR:
The Day After Christmas
by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
December 26, 2010
Now, See, with all your senses, the ominous pattern met among the victims of the British empire's Inter Alpha System.
See the presently continuing attempts to push through settling certain accounts by January 1, 2011. See the present spectacles which should be taken as a warning of what might be expected some early day after tomorrow.
Hear the menacing overtones in the presently existing arrangements within trans-Atlantic monetarist systems, Hear the cries of a suffering people, in our republic, and around the world.
Feel the worsening pain of people in the world at large, a pain which becomes worse and worse, each week the mentally crippled, British puppet-President, Barack Obama remains in office.
Smell the rotting conditions under which more and more of our citizens are suffered to live under that President.
Taste the sense of helplessness which is spreading among our people for as long as that poor wretch remains in office.
Tell me, therefore: What do our minds tell us about that which their experience senses?
December 31, by and large, is now telling us, that, throughout the world at large, and, certainly, for so long as President Obama, remains in office, there is rapidly dwindling hope to be found for mankind within even the immediately oncoming condition of this nation, and, therefore, almost certainly, the world. While that President remains in office, it would be virtually certain that the coming weeks and their freaks will be soon bringing us into a far worse form of New Dark Age throughout the trans-Atlantic region than Europe experienced as the Fourteenth-century New Dark Age.
Said simply, and precisely: unless the United States acts, pre-emptively, to re-install that Glass-Steagall law which President Franklin Roosevelt had revived from the original design for national banking under the U.S. Federal Constitution, the chain-reaction disintegration of the economies of the trans-Atlantic system were virtually inevitable.
There should be no doubt among the sane, mature, and fully witting among the best-informed institutions of the world, that the policies in operation from Britain and its partners of the U.S. Wall Street gang, since the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy, have been the undoing of the economies of the trans-Atlantic region. Those nations have been warned, that, under present trends, a sudden "general breakdown-crisis," or something much worse than even that, could be expected for some early tomorrow.
Such should have been the expected result of the frankly fascist policies of "creative destruction" which have been launched by such followers of Friedrich Nietzsche as the economists Werner Sombart, and Joseph Schumpeter, among other notables including my own personal opponents from among the former faculty of Harvard University and other academic or related notables. These include notables such as Larry Summers and the Professor Abba Lerner who had been my opponent in the December 1971 Queens College debate. In other words: the modern Nietzschean followers of the ancient Delphic cult of Dionysus, which was otherwise known in recent times as my prominent adversaries associated with the European Congress for Cultural Freedom. In other words, we are menaced, now, immediately, by what is modern fascism, such as that "called by any other name."
I had just recently completed an important paper entitled "The Global Crisis Now at Hand," which I had composed during what passed for my "free moments" of the interval December 15-22, 2010. Although that paper was a continuation of a thematic subject which I have been producing as a series during the presently concluding year, the mission of this present, relatively brief supplement, is written in response to crucial new developments in the world economy which have taken shape during the just concluded week. I emphasize the ominous, panic-stricken fears concerning the consequences of the oncoming January 1, 2011 deadline adopted among highly relevant leading circles.
The great source of danger to humanity now, and I mean humanity at large, on a planetary scale, is that the present policy-shapers rely on belief in those footprints called events, rather than the creature which is leaving those tracks, called statistics, behind it. Thus, they seek a refuge from the present, in the past. Shakespeare, as in writing his Hamlet, knew that was the wrong place to relive.
This New, January Crisis
The new crisis signalled by these developments around the theme of an indicated January 1, strategic deadline, could not be competently understood except by examining this oncoming new level of world strategic crisis on two contrasting levels. The one level, the intellectually much lower one to which I have just referred, identifies a process of crisis such as the presently already ongoing form of world crisis in terms of the sense-perceptions among leading and other players; whereas, the actually determining features of crisis are located within, and directed by influences and intentions which are seldom recognized for their true role among even leading players visible on the stage of public utterances and other events.
It were necessary to repeat, here and now, the words which Shakespeare put, in the end, in Horatio's month, that we might remember what was said, on matters like that crisis with which we are confronted here and now, as they were written by a very wise William Shakespeare in matters bearing on what he had lived to know in defiance of that pack of scalawags, led by Sarpian serpents of the like of Francis Bacon, who polluted the court of James I:
"... let me speak to the yet unknowing world
The same must be said of the hidden motives and causes of the action which led into what followed, but which could have been prevented, had not President Kennedy been murdered in the clever, global scheme by which the destruction of our United States came about in Indo-China. The destruction had been done through the elaborate, international scheme by which a President Kennedy, no Hamlet, was eliminated from the stage. It was done so, lest that the war which he had prevented while he lived, not be unleashed by the United States against no other target more than the ruin of that great British scheme behind it all. The targetted was not so much President Kennedy, as the witting know in their bones, as the United States itself.
Accordingly, that much said of both authors and the authors of authors, to understand these presently ongoing developments leading into the crisis presently aimed to hit in January 2011, we must trace a decades-long process datable from a period associated with the crucial developments such as British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan's Feb. 1960 launching of his "Winds of Change" diplomacy. This process included key public developments such as the aborted, May 1960, Paris meeting among President Charles de Gaulle, U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Soviet Chairman Nikita Khrushchov. That was the event in which Khrushchov took his first public step leading toward the later, so-called U.S.-Soviet "Cuba Missile Crisis" of October 1962. The outcome of that process leading through the "Missile Crisis" preceded, and led into both the subsequent ouster of Prime Minister Macmillan which was done under the pretexts associated with the so-called "Profumo Scandal," an ouster of Macmillan which led, as if along a chain of events, into that assassination of President John F. Kennedy which cleared the way for the ruin of the U.S. economy through the exploitation of what were to become the effects of a ruinous, decade-long U.S. war in Indo-China.
Amid those historical bench-marks of the 1959-1963 interval, the entire period is to be regarded now, in retrospect, as a qualitative shift in leading world diplomatic and strategic affairs between the following ordering of key events: The post-"Sputnik" era, such interstices as the preliminary crafting of what was to become the "Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty" engaging President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Senator John F. Kennedy, Prime Minister Harold Macmillan's launching of his "The Winds of Change" posture, and the abortive outcome of Soviet Chairman Nikita Khrushchov's response to France's President Charles de Gaulle's and U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower's proposals for discussion during the three's Paris meeting of May 1960.
It is not those actual events, nor the players to whom I have just referred as featured in those dramas on the real-life stage of those times, which define the history of that interval. In the main, that set of leading figures in that drama, in that time, were better said to be re-actors, than those whose actions actually seemed to rule the stage of real history for a moment in mankind's great crises. Just so, it is not the genius expressed by even the excellent and faithful performer of the fugue; it is that of none other than the composer Johann Sebastian Bach. In the great counterpoint of real politics, it is the composers, not the performers, who create the composition.
It is of compelling significance bearing on the subject of what I might title this onrushing, "January 1, 2011 Crisis," that I have been recently occupied, with much reflection on my reflections on the subject of the war-time memoirs of France's great President Charles de Gaulle, to compare the way in which he seeks, there, to adduce a set of defining principles which correspond to what were, relatively speaking, the mere decisions he made from occasion to occasion during the time each of his referenced actions were taken. He searched for the meaning located for him only in the integral reliving of his role as a subject of the history which subsumed the principled implications of the patterns attributable to a principle which should have been the perspective better chosen for shaping his decisions which had been made, so to speak, "under fire."
Take my own best case, that in my own general practice, in which I have excelled above all my known rivals from the same period of time, the profession of a physical economist. Often, I have reached the highly amusing discovery of discovering something which I had recognized as being a principle, only later. Take the case of certain discoveries of Louis Pasteur as a suitable example of the relevant "mechanisms" of the process of discovering what came later to be recognized as a discovery of a principled nature.
Life itself were lived better as a process of living through the discovery of the making of discoveries, as Plato is justly famous for that higher method of hypothesizing, especially when we turn to the subject of the powers of creativity unique to the relevant state of development of the human mind, as Plato himself points to this. This is, of course, what Shakespeare does in the concluding reflections presented by the character Horatio in Hamlet. This is the method of vicarious hypothesis, and the only actual method, by which competent qualities of economic and related forecasting can be conducted. That is the methodological principle which we must apply to the case of the developments from the launch of Sputnik, through to the fateful launching of the U.S. war in Indo-China and the break-up of the fixed-exchange-rate system and the relaunching of the British empire by Lord Jacob Rothschild's Inter Alpha Group as the new, New Venetian empire which has dominated the world's monetarist system up to the present date.
It is that British empire which has reached the breakdown-point, at which it were likely to become a brutishly bankrupt, "Brutish former empire," now. Now, the accounts are being cleared through January 1, 2011. It is likely, now, that "all Hell" is about to break loose, beginning with a general breakdown-crisis of the trans-Atlantic region of the world, and, then, the consequent general breakdown-crisis of the Asia-Pacific sector, too.
The question posed to us today, is, therefore, what is the new world, or the grim death of an old one, which we must now choose. Therefore, let this scene "be presently performed," in the minds of true statesmen, "even while men's minds are wild," as now, "lest more mischief from plots, and errors, happen," now.
There is no remedy in view which does not depend, presently on the following sequence of actions by the Federal Government of the United States of America:
These reforms would be the working model presented for engaging the sovereign nation-states of the planet in beneficial measures which would correspond, in effect, to bringing the nations and peoples of the planet to a higher quality of existence and opportunity for improved existence of mankind generally, thus far.
These actions embody exemplary contributions to the rescue of that present and future mankind which is menaced by the so-called "creative destruction" policies of the like of such followers of the Dionysian evil of Friedrich Nietzsche as Werner Sombart, Joseph Schumpeter, and their followers in the policies of practice of sheer evil of such as the current U.S. Administration of a mentally impaired sponsor of Adolf Hitler-like "health care" policies for "useless eaters" such as those of President Barack Obama today. Every nut requires its container; the White House is not a suitable such container.
 Shakespeare, considered at that time of his own authorship of the play, must be edited, in any printed tradition, for today, in accord with the meaning which coincides with the state of mind of Shakespeare in that time in his life when Christopher Marlowe was dead and James I filled the throne of his mother's assassin. Shakespeare, in that degree like Friedrich Schiller later, did not invent a fantasy, nor a morality play, but an actual principle of history, a view of history operating according to a principle unknown to the real-life characters who performed according to a script written by a mind beyond the comprehension of those historical or like figures who were put upon the stage. I have come to know with a certain degree of scientific excellence, that there is a vast difference between those skilled to play the part, or even write it, and those whose hand actually designs the play which, even the playwright often failed to understand, but, rather, only the authors of the authors.