|
...... ...................
|
Published: Tuesday, Aug. 16, 2005
|
|
Volume 4, Issue Number 33
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
August 10, 2005
I wrote earlier today:
"In a memorandum transmitted this past weekend, John Hoefle [of the EIR Economics staff] posed the question, to what degree is the timing of an already overripe general financial collapse controlled by decision made in relevant political-financier circles? My response, is to pose a different question: To what degree does the pulsation of an onrushing general monetary-financial crash determine those decisions which will tend to be considered in later history as the voluntary trigger of a an already ripe general financial collapse?
"To pose the same question in a different, practical way: To what degree is the impulse of a Synarchist-like financier interest around the combination of Britain's Liberal Imperialist Prime Minister Tony Blair and Pug-Ugly Brute Dick Cheney controlled by their panic over the now terminal phase of over-ripeness of the present world monetary-financial crisis?
|
|
As long as even some experts in the relevant financial community see the "trigger" decision as a matter of relatively arbitrary choice to be made by the relevant agents of the oligarchy they will wrongly overestimate the degree of choice in the making of those political decisions which, as John indicates, will be the likely trigger of an actual financier-monetary detonation?
"Implicitly, John is asking: Is this a scientific question, or a guess at a predominantly subjective decision to be made "voluntarily" by a relevant cabal?
"The correct answer to such propositions, is that the ability of relevant influential circles to make a choice, is bounded in range of timing by the characteristics of the interaction between the political-economy and the state of the financial-monetary system. Without the introduction of a change in the axiomatic characteristics of that system, one way or t'other, the situation, as now is described as an accelerating rate of narrowing of the band of available decision-making,"
...more
|
|
CURRENT SUBSCRIBERS:
LOG IN HERE, OR USE THE LINKS BELOW, TO ACCESS THIS ISSUE.
|
|
|
This Week in History
In the summer of 1858, lawyer and former Congressman Abraham Lincoln was nominated by the new Republican Party as its candidate for U.S. Senator from Illinois. At first, Lincoln followed in the wake of the much more well-known Democratic Party candidate and current U.S. Senator, Stephen A. Douglas, as he campaigned around the state. Douglas would give a speech in a particular town, and then Lincoln would speak on that evening, or the next day. After following this procedure for a number of weeks, Lincoln sent emissaries to Douglas, proposing a series of debates in a number of Illinois towns. Counting on his fame and speaking prowess, Douglas agreed.
|
|
Latest From LaRouche
Lyndon LaRouche was the guest Aug. 12 on the radio program hosted by Andre Eggelletion. Andre has had EIR guests on a number of times, when he hosted a talk show in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, and now his program has just begun to be syndicated, streaming live weekdays from 11 am-1 pm (ET) on the Information Radio Network (www.inforadionet.com), and broadcast in six cities, led by WLRM 1380 AM in Memphis, Tennessee. LaRouche was interviewed last year just before the election, on Oct. 29, on Eggelletion's Fort Lauderdale program.
Lyndon LaRouche was interviewed for 30 minutes on Aug 8, 2005, by University Radio, of the San Carlos National University, in Guatemala City, Guatemala. The interview was conducted by host Julio Mora, and two members of the country's Society of Economists, Carlos Estrada and Carlos Wer, the latter also a long-standing Schiller Institute member.
|
This article originally appeared in EIR, Oct. 31, 2003. We are reposting it this week because of the growing threat of preemptive war—possibily even nuclear war against Iran—posed by Beast-man Dick Cheney and his mentally deficient sidekick George W. Bush.
1. Shock and Awe Today
In the run-up to last March's [2003] attack on Iraq, there was much talk in the news media of "shock and awe," combined with pre-war propaganda leaks predicting that Iraq would be hit with many hundreds of cruise-missile strikes in the first hours of the war. The intention of this propaganda was to obtain a specified psychological effect—to terrify the Iraqis, and everyone else, into the conviction that resistance to the U.S. imperial war machine was futile, and that they should capitulate at the first missile, if not before.
The term "shock and awe" began to be used so loosely, that it even became a staple of jokes on late-night TV. Obviously, few of those bandying the term about, understood how evil, and how un-American, the actual "shock and awe" strategic doctrine actually is.
Listen to Harlan K. Ullman and James P. Wade, Jr., the authors of the 1996 book Shock and Awe: Achieving Rapid Dominance: "One recalls from old photographs and movie or television screens, the comatose and glazed expressions of survivors of the great bombardments of World War I and the attendant horrors and death of trench warfare." The authors are blunt, and repeatedly so: what they aim to achieve, is "a level of national shock akin to the effect that dropping nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had on the Japanese."
"The military posture and capability of the United States of America are, today, dominant," they write. "Simply put, there is no external adversary in the world that can successfully challenge the extraordinary power of the American military in either regional conflict or in 'conventional' war as we know it, once the United States makes the commitment to take whatever action may be needed."
In traditional military doctrine, the objective is not pure destruction, but to eliminate the adversary's ability to fight by disabling or destroying his military capability, while laying the groundwork to "win the peace."
The "shock and awe" authors are explicit that their objective is psychological—to destroy an adversary's will to resist the power of the United States; not simply to destroy his military capability. They pose as one of the questions undergirding their study, "can Rapid Dominance lead to a form of political deterrence in which the capacity to make impotent, or 'shut down' an adversary, can actually control behavior?"...
...view pdf of 2003 article
For more information on Bush and Cheney's drive for war, see EIR Online #31 (Aug. 2), Need To Know This Week: "Warning from Lyndon LaRouche: Cheney's 'Guns of August' Threaten the World."
|
|
|
|
|
All rights reserved © 2005 EIRNS
|
Subscribe to EIR Online
For all questions regarding your subscription to EIW, or questions or comments regarding the EIW website's contents or design, please contact eironline@larouchepub.com.
Phone: 1-888-EIR-3258
|
|
|
