Executive Intelligence Review, Volume 46, Number 19, May 17, 2019

- Cover

- Masthead

- EDITORIAL ROGER STONE VS. CROWDSTRIKE Filing Challenges Russiagate Premise, Seeks To Prove Russia Didn’t Hack DNC by Barbara Boyd

- PDF edition Table of Contents — Volume 46, Number 19, May 17, 2019

- I. Action to Save the Republic

- LESSON FROM MACHIAVELLI The Challenge of Being a Republican Citizen by Robert Ingraham

- ZEPP-LAROUCHE WEBCAST Prosecutors Focus on British-Obama Russiagate Perpetrators as War Party Goes Wild

- II. LaRouche: Save the Economy

- September 30, 2009 ‘THE LAROUCHE PLAN’ Rescuing the World’s Economy by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

- LAROUCHE PAC PAMPHLET Exonerate Lyndon LaRouche and Restore the Soul of America!

- EDITORIAL Coup Plotters Respond to Defeat with Frenzied Push for War! by Harley Schlanger

Obliterate the ‘Russia did it’ Hoax

Editor-in-Chief and Founder:

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

Editorial Board: Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. , Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Robert Ingraham, Tony Papert, Gerald Rose, Dennis Small, William Wertz

Co-Editors: Robert Ingraham, Tony Papert

Technology: Marsha Freeman

Transcriptions: Katherine Notley

Ebooks: Richard Burden

Graphics: Alan Yue

Photos: Stuart Lewis

Circulation Manager: Stanley Ezrol

INTELLIGENCE DIRECTORS

Economics: Marcia Merry Baker, Paul Gallagher

History: Anton Chaitkin

Ibero-America: Dennis Small

United States: Debra Freeman

INTERNATIONAL BUREAUS

Berlin: Rainer Apel

Copenhagen: Tom Gillesberg

Lima: Sara Madueño

Melbourne: Robert Barwick

Mexico City: Gerardo Castilleja Chávez

New Delhi: Ramtanu Maitra

Paris: Christine Bierre

Stockholm: Ulf Sandmark

United Nations, N.Y.C.: Leni Rubinstein

Washington, D.C.: William Jones

Wiesbaden: Göran Haglund

ON THE WEB

e-mail: eirns@larouchepub.com

www.larouchepub.com

www.executiveintelligencereview.com

www.larouchepub.com/eiw

Webmaster: John Sigerson

Assistant Webmaster: George Hollis

Editor, Arabic-language edition: Hussein Askary

EIR (ISSN 0273-6314) is published weekly

(50 issues), by EIR News Service, Inc.,

P.O. Box 17390, Washington, D.C. 20041-0390.

(571) 293-0935

European Headquarters: E.I.R. GmbH, Postfach Bahnstrasse 9a, D-65205, Wiesbaden, Germany

Tel: 49-611-73650

Homepage: http://www.eir.de

e-mail: info@eir.de

Director: Georg Neudecker

Montreal, Canada: 514-461-1557

eir@eircanada.ca

Denmark: EIR - Danmark, Sankt Knuds Vej 11, basement left, DK-1903 Frederiksberg, Denmark. Tel.: +45 35 43 60 40, Fax: +45 35 43 87 57. e-mail: eirdk@hotmail.com.

Mexico City: EIR, Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz 242-2

Col. Agricultura C.P. 11360

Delegación M. Hidalgo, México D.F.

Tel. (5525) 5318-2301

eirmexico@gmail.com

Copyright: ©2019 EIR News Service. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission strictly prohibited.

Canada Post Publication Sales Agreement #40683579

Postmaster: Send all address changes to EIR, P.O. Box 17390, Washington, D.C. 20041-0390.

Signed articles in EIR represent the views of the authors, and not necessarily those of the Editorial Board.

EDITORIAL

ROGER STONE VS. CROWDSTRIKE

Filing Challenges Russiagate Premise, Seeks To Prove Russia Didn’t Hack DNC

by Barbara Boyd

C-SPAN

Roger Stone

---------------------------------------------

May 11—In a court filing on Friday, May 10, Roger Stone, the long-time friend of Donald Trump, who was targeted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller and subsequently charged with lying, obstruction, and witness tampering in the Russiagate House Intelligence Committee investigation, has challenged the central premise of Russiagate: that the Russians hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and thus “interfered” in the 2016 Presidential election to Donald Trump’s advantage.

In a motion to suppress documents and evidence gathered as a result of search warrants issued in his and other cases, Stone has attached expert Declarations from former National Security Agency (NSA) Technical Director William E. Binney and widely-recognized private cybersecurity expert, Peter Clay, challenging Russiagate’s foundation: that the Russian state hacked the computers of the DNC, John Podesta, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and transferred the data to WikiLeaks for publication. Stone’s suppression motion states that this, in all probability, never happened. His case is presently pending in the U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C. and a hearing to discuss this motion is scheduled for June 21, 2019, before Judge Amy Berman Jackson.

Russian Hack Allegation

Faces Adversarial Testing

In his motion, Stone requests an evidentiary hearing at that time. If Stone is successful, it will be the first time the false narrative of the Russian hack of the 2016 election will be subject to actual adversarial testing and, as most believe, the theory will be substantively disproved by being subjected to actual sunlight. Stone is also seeking unredacted copies of CrowdStrike’s forensic reports upon which the entire “Russia hacked the DNC and Podesta” narrative depends.

While the fact that the Washington Post reported this in its article, “Roger Stone asks court to toss out evidence, saying Russian hacking of Democrats in 2016 is ‘assumption’ ” is very significant, the Post censored the fact that the former Technical Director of the NSA, Bill Binney, supports Stone’s contention that the Russian hack has not been proven.

Stone is charged with false statements, allegedly made to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, about his efforts to find out what documents WikiLeaks had and when they would be published and with allegedly threatening a potential witness who Stone believed was lying to Mueller about Stone’s contacts with WikiLeaks. Many former prosecutors have argued that the actual charges against Stone could have been set forth in a few pages. But Mueller’s 23 page “speaking indictment” seeks to smear Stone by placing him in an overarching conspiracy, involving the Russian hack and the Trump Campaign and efforts to mislead Congressional and FBI investigators.

As anticipated by Mueller’s partisan prosecutors, Stone’s indictment has been widely publicized. One of the specific statements cited by Mueller, under the heading, “Stone’s False Testimony to HPSCI” (the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence), is that: “These hearings are largely based on a yet unproven allegation that the Russian state is responsible for the hacking of the DNC and John Podesta and the transfer of that information to WikiLeaks.” In addressing the House Committee, Stone stated that his testimony was intended to rebut allegations that he knew in advance about the hacking of the Clinton Campaign and that he had advance knowledge of the source or actual content of the WikiLeaks disclosures.

Mueller’s McCarthyite team used the indictment’s wandering narrative, to argue that Stone’s case is related, factually, to Mueller’s Russian GRU (Russian military intelligence) hacking case, United States v. Netyksho, No. 18-cr-215, currently assigned to Judge Jackson. While the Netyksho case indictment will never be tried since the individual GRU officials indicted for hacking the DNC and Podesta will never show up in a U.S. Court, Mueller’s team argued that the “factual” relationship of the cases necessitated the assignment of Stone’s case to Judge Jackson rather than a judge assigned by random draw, which is the normal procedure. Judge Jackson also presided over Paul Manafort’s case. Stone’s attorneys have challenged Mueller’s related case assignment of Judge Jackson as an abuse of the system.

According to Stone’s Motion to Suppress, the search warrant affidavits in Stone’s case and the Netyksho case, depend upon Mueller’s factually deficient narrative about the Russian hack and accuse Stone of a broad conspiracy with the Russians and WikiLeaks in the hack. The search affidavits state that Stone is being investigated for crimes which could only be derived from his participation as an active conspirator with the Russians and WikiLeaks in the alleged DNC, DCCC, and Podesta hacks. If it turns out, as Stone alleges, that the search warrant affidavits were false and intentionally or recklessly so, then everything seized from Stone as a result of the searches conducted based on the false affidavits, must be suppressed and cannot be used as evidence against Stone.

Stolen Data Not from Russia

The Binney and Clay affidavits are identical in substance. Binney’s affidavit states, under the heading “Opinion,” that “WikiLeaks did not receive the stolen data from the Russian government. Intrinsic metadata in the publicly available files on WikiLeaks demonstrates that the files that were acquired by WikiLeaks were delivered in a medium such as a thumb drive physically local to the DNC.” Binney backs up his expert opinion with facts derived from his forensic studies and experiments concerning WikiLeaks’ DNC files and the materials published by Guccifer 2.0, who Mueller alleges is a Russian GRU persona operating from Russia.

Binney cites three main points:

(1) all last-modified dates and time-stamps of the DNC data on the WikiLeaks site end in even numbers, consistent with data copied from a secure system to a physical medium such as a thumb drive, but inconsistent with files copied over the internet from one server to another system, such as used by hackers;

(2) the time signatures on Guccifer 2.0’s posted files demonstrate that they were copied at speeds massively greater than internet speeds, but the speeds are consistent with files copied directly and manually to a thumb drive inside the building; and

(3) the WikiLeaks files were copied in three tranches on May 23, 25, and 26, 2016, skipping the 24th. “This would be more consistent with files that were covertly copied when opportunities presented themselves, as opposed to collection of files that had already been gathered and then transmitted as a collection to a destination such as WikiLeaks.” WikiLeaks has consistently insisted that it received the DNC and Podesta documents from an inside leaker in the United States and not from any Russian state actor.

Stone’s suppression motion also points out that the FBI and Mueller completely violated every forensic standard in the book by accepting the forensics of the DNC vendor, CrowdStrike, rather than securing and examining the alleged crime scene themselves. Now, it appears Mueller’s team is adding to the malfeasance. It has produced redacted copies of CrowdStrike’s forensics as part of the discovery to which Stone is entitled in the case.

Why the government is redacting reports from the DNC’s vendor, a private company, in its productions to Stone’s defense, is a mystery. CrowdStrike claimed that the Russians had hacked the DNC servers in June of 2016, a claim many believe was orchestrated by the Clinton Campaign to deflect from the truthful documents published by WikiLeaks demonstrating that the DNC was attempting to sabotage Bernie Sanders’ insurgent campaign for President. Stone’s motion does not recite CrowdStrike’s political hatred of the Russian government or that John Podesta, the Clinton Campaign Chairman, was planning, according to a liberated WikiLeaks Podesta document, to smear Donald Trump as a Russian pawn as early as December of 2015.

Mueller Report Acknowledges Flaw

The Mueller Report itself acknowledges a central flaw in the Russian Hack narrative concerning how the documents got to WikiLeaks. Mueller acknowledges that he cannot prove that the so-called hacked documents were transmitted over the internet to WikiLeaks, stating at page 47 of his Report, “The Office cannot rule out that stolen documents were transferred to WikiLeaks through intermediaries who visited during the summer of 2016.”

Binney and the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity have repeatedly pointed to the complete lack of verifiable evidence concerning how the purported Russian hack resulted in the published WikiLeaks documents, and they have conducted independent forensic studies demonstrating that the narrative set forth by the intelligence community and Robert Mueller is deeply flawed and false.

As a result, President Trump asked then CIA Director Mike Pompeo to meet with Binney and hear him out. The meeting was attended by Pompeo and two others who appeared to be CIA analysts. Following that meeting in October 2017, there has been a substantial and systematic effort to block Binney’s analysis and other views disputing Mueller’s Russian hack analysis, from public view.

—barbara@lpac-organizers.com

EIR Contents

www.larouchepub.com — Volume 46, Number 19, May 17, 2019

Cover This Week

EIRNS/Richard Magraw

Left to right: Lyndon LaRouche, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, and Sergei Glazyev, now an adviser to President Putin, holding a press conference in Moscow on June 28, 2001.

---------------------------------------------

OBLITERATE THE ‘RUSSIA DID IT’ HOAX

2 EDITORIAL: ROGER STONE VS. CROWDSTRIKE

Filing Challenges Russiagate Premise, Seeks to Prove Russia Didn’t Hack DNC

by Barbara Boyd

I. ACTION TO SAVE THE REPUBLIC

6 LESSON FROM MACHIAVELLI

The Challenge of Being a Republican Citizen

by Robert Ingraham

13 ZEPP-LAROUCHE WEBCAST

Prosecutors Focus on British-Obama Russiagate Perpetrators As War Party Goes Wild

II. LAROUCHE: SAVE THE ECONOMY

20 THE LAROUCHE PLAN

Rescuing the World’s Economy

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

September 30, 2009

45 EXONERATION PAMPHLET

Exonerate Lyndon LaRouche and Restore the Soul of America!

47 EDITORIAL

Coup Plotters Respond to Defeat with Frenzied Push for War

by Harley Schlanger

The Jan. 27, 1989 Jailing of Lyndon LaRouche

Defined an Era, Which Now Must End

Sign the Petition to Exonerate LaRouche at lpac.co/exonerate

I. Action to Save the Republic

LESSON FROM MACHIAVELLI

The Challenge of Being

A Republican Citizen

by Robert Ingraham

Heinrich Hoffman, 1886

Christ in the garden of Gethsemane.

---------------------------------------------

May 12—Whether we desire it or not, we live, as the expression warns, in “interesting times.”

The oblivious, the fearful, and the macho might all attempt to ignore the tumultuous events which surround us, but for a reflective, thinking person, prospects for the future are now very uncertain.

The potential for a bright future stands right before us. One has only to look at the global development projects of the Belt and Road Initiative, or the recent determination by several nations to accelerate manned space exploration, to perceive what is possible, what might become a better, happier, more creative world. Yet, the oppressive hand of empire and oligarchy still weighs us down and threatens to destroy everything. In London the Queen smiles as her minions attempt a coup d’état in the United States and seek to provoke global war. In America the people sink under the wounds of drug usage, powerlessness, and a degenerate culture. The outcome of this dynamic is unclear, and apprehension swirls about and bedevils us.

How to act in such an environment? How to win such a fight?

The answer is one that may surprise you, for the key to a better future is to be found in your own heart. There is no short-cut to victory, no gimmick, and no savior who will rescue us. Nor will a populist “mass movement” succeed. Rather, what is needed are leaders, not media-created “leaders” but real leaders who will step forth from the population—individuals who have made the decision to take upon themselves the responsibility of history. For each of us, this is a personal decision. A solitary decision. A willful determination to act for the future.

Currently, the LaRouche Political Action Committee is engaged in a drive to create membership chapters throughout the United States. The immediate focus of this work is to accomplish the full exoneration of Lyndon LaRouche, and this in such a way that the establishment’s “containment” of LaRouche—the slanders, the lies, the intimidation—is fully shattered. Success in this effort will create a potential for the full power of LaRouche’s ideas and policies to be brought to bear in this current crisis.

The question for each of us is, do you want to become a leader in this fight? Don’t jump to answer. Consider first the full implications of your decision. Consider what Lyndon LaRouche wrote in 1988:

Up to a critical point in our lives, we plod our craft and pursue our moral commitments honestly to the limit of our knowledge and strength of will to do so. In that respect, we are all ordinary. Then, one day, to some among us ordinary folk, there comes an experience which we must fairly liken to the New Testament’s account of Christ in Gethsemane. It is not enough to propose, to foster, to support those causes we know to be good. A silent voice speaks to us: “If there is no one else to lead, you must do so.”

Later, in the same piece, LaRouche warns that to accept true leadership, to accept responsibility for acting on behalf of the whole human race, requires overcoming “a special quality of terror,” a terror which says we are too weak, too small and too frightened to act. Overcoming those fears is the essence of the quality needed today.

Becoming a leader who speaks and acts for the truth, makes one a “dangerous person.” It might attract the attention of unwelcome adversaries. It will certainly put one at odds with many friends and acquaintances who do not wish to have their boat “rocked.” It means standing out from the crowd. It means willfully allowing one’s actions and priorities to be governed by higher principles. It requires a certain type of moral courage, and an utter rejection of any desire to “go along to get along.”

* * *

Santi di Tito

Niccolò Machiavelli

---------------------------------------------

In this report we shall examine the courage and insights of Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527), as well as his collaboration with Leonardo da Vinci. We shall look at Machiavelli’s concept of “republican citizenry” as the means by which oligarchical power might be defeated. There is much to be learned in this investigation, for it is precisely just such an awakened republican citizenry which today can win the fight for a new Renaissance—a New Paradigm. But what exactly is this “citizenry”? It is not a mob. It is not based in “populism” or “protests,” or other juvenile macho posturing or waving about of guns. A republican citizenry begins with the individual citizen, with the morality and courage of individual people to act. It begins with a thinking creative mind. What Machiavelli sought to deploy was a willful cognitive power, a power which resides as a slumbering potential within each of us. This is precisely the means by which, today, we may win the battle for a better future.

Against Oligarchy

Niccolò Machiavelli despised oligarchy, and he insisted that humanity will never know true freedom, or rise to its full potential, until it rids itself of oligarchical domination. This is the underlying theme in almost all of his works.

In addition to his political, historical, and military writings, Machiavelli also authored plays, short stories, and social commentaries. Taking the advice of Dante Alighieri, he penned all of his “literary” efforts, as well as The Prince and most of his political works, in the Italian vernacular to reach the broadest possible audience. Despite his fluency in Latin, Machiavelli was not interested—as many of his contemporaries were—in composing for an aristocratic elite. In fact, it was precisely that elite which was his target.

Dante Alighieri, in fresco by Andrea del Castagno, kept in the Uffizi in Florence.

---------------------------------------------

It is no coincidence that Machiavelli was a life-long student of Dante. He is driven, in his own way, by the same vision of human potential. Niccolò also wrote poetry, all in the vernacular and most of it in Dante’s terza rima style. And much like Dante’s depiction of oligarchical decadence in the Inferno, or the failings of Florentine culture exposed by Giovanni Boccaccio in the Decameron, Machiavelli recognizes that mankind’s future happiness could only be secured by breaking the chains of oligarchical culture.

Oligarchical corruption is always center stage for Machiavelli. He scorned its power as well as its values. He stated that, in Florence, if one did not have an oligarchical patron, “there isn’t even a dog who will bark in your face,” and he ridiculed the young Florentine aristocrats who cared for nothing but “to appear splendid in their dress and to be clever and smart in their speech.” He even wrote an essay, Rules for an Elegant Social Circle, where he skewers the frivolity and moral emptiness of the upper classes.

Machiavelli wrote three plays. The first, Le Maschere,—now lost—lampooned, by name, many of the leading members of the Florentine aristocracy. His two extant plays, Clizia and La Mandragola, are both hilarious, but beneath the levity is a brutal evisceration of the bestial appetites of the elites. Take La Mandragola. There is no one in the play who can legitimately be identified as either a “hero” or “heroine,” unless one stretches a point and awards that status to Lucrezia, simply on the basis of the abuse she endures. All of the characters,—the cuckolded husband Nicia, the Church’s Friar Timoteo, the pimp Ligurio, the fool Siro, Siro’s master Callimaco, and all the rest—are driven by avarice, gluttony, ambition, and lust. As such, Machiavelli’s fictional aristocratic players inhabit the same moral realm as the British East India Company’s Adam Smith, driven by the “pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain.”

Machiavelli knew that rule by oligarchy would lead to destruction. He took a stand. He said no. And he devised a means to combat his enemy.

Niccolò and Leonardo

In Machiavelli’s lifetime, the creative impulse of what is known today as the “Renaissance” was ebbing. Filippo Brunelleschi, the builder of the great Dome of the Santa Maria del Fiori Cathedral in Florence, died in 1446. His associate, the sculptor Donatello, died in 1466, and Nicholas of Cusa, the greatest scientist of the era, died in 1464. In 1453, the Venetian Empire had orchestrated the conquest of Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks, an event which begat fear and pessimism throughout Italy. By the time that Machiavelli entered government service in 1498, Italy was in the grips of extreme political reaction. Venice was on the ascendant, the papacy, following the death of Pope Pius II in 1464, was in the hands of scoundrels, and the establishment of the Spanish Inquisition in 1478 began a process that would lead into the religious wars of the next century.

Leonardo da Vinci, said to be a self-portrait.

---------------------------------------------

Machiavelli and Leonardo da Vinci battled against this trajectory. They fought for human advancement. They fought against a culture that defines human beings as animals. They fought, not only to defend the creative dynamic which had flowered in Florence over the previous century, but on behalf of a continuing productive future for the human species.

Of paramount importance, for our purpose here, is the creation in 1504, by Machiavelli,—with the aid of Leonardo—of the Citizen Militia of Florence. Machiavelli insisted that the only way to save the Florentine Republic was through the creation and deployment of a republican citizenry. This initiative was not simply a “military” tactic. What Machiavelli sought to unleash was the moral and creative power which exists within every “ordinary person” as a force—the only force—capable of defeating the power of oligarchy. This was Machiavelli’s brilliant historical flanking maneuver.

Leonardo da Vinci was seventeen years older than Machiavelli and already a great artist when Machiavelli was still a child. It is possible that Leonardo might have known the youthful Niccolò through their mutual connections to the Vespucci family. What is known is that one of Machiavelli’s first acts as Second Chancellor of the Florentine Republic in 1502 was to arrange for Leonardo to be appointed as chief military engineer to Cesare Borgia.

At the end of 1502, Machiavelli joined Leonardo at Borgia’s camp and remained there for four months. Based on subsequent events, it is clear that a deep political bond developed between the two. For the next ten years they would work as allies. Together, they undertook numerous projects. The best known of these is Machiavelli’s championing of da Vinci’s plan to divert the Arno River, but Machiavelli also deployed Leonardo as a military engineer and a diplomat, and he secured painting commissions for him. They also collaborated closely on the creation of the Florentine militia.

Pixabay/David Mark

Santa Maria del Fiori Cathedral in Florence, featuring Filippo Brunellesci’s great Dome, completed in 1436.

---------------------------------------------

The Decisive Intervention

In the summer of 1503 Venice invaded the Romagna region, east of Florence, and began gobbling up many cities that had been previously controlled by Cesare Borgia, including those bordering Florentine territory. On August 20, Machiavelli wrote a circular, calling for the immediate reinstitution of Borgia to the command of the Romagna army to stop the Venetian advance. Machiavelli’s pleas were ignored, and in October a faction of Florence’s aristocracy succeeded in having Machiavelli dismissed from all of his government posts.

On November 1, the Venetian Ambassador Sebastian Giustinian engineered the election of Cardinal Giuliano della Rovere as Pope Julius II. Machiavelli had spent the month of October in Rome, not as a government envoy but in a private capacity, organizing against Giustinian and attempting to prevent the selection of della Rovere. Later in November, Machiavelli wrote a memo to the Florentine government, stating that Venice is attempting “to turn the Pope to her purposes, in order to rule over all the others.”

Leonardo da Vinci

Leonardo’s “Study of a Tuscan Landscape,” a sketch of the Arno River Valley, in 1473.

---------------------------------------------

It was at this juncture, in early 1504, that Niccolò made his decisive intervention. He authored a long poem, titled Decennale Primo (The First Decade). It is in this poem that he first proposes the creation of a Citizen Army to defend Florence.

Although the historic importance of Machiavelli’s proposal may be unclear to the modern reader, what he put forward was revolutionary. At that time, all of the Italian city states, as well as almost all of the monarchies and principalities throughout Europe, relied on mercenary armies. In many instances entire private “free armies,” each under the command of a condottiere—a mercenary commander—were simply hired when needed. In effect, the numerous “wars” of that era were actually bloody conflicts initiated by different oligarchs, and the mercenary “hired guns,” like those who employed them, were in it for the money and the loot, with no moral commitment to anything.

Machiavelli starts from the standpoint that the Republic is based on principle, not hereditary wealth, and that the citizenry, whose posterity depends on the productive development of the Republic, can be uplifted and recruited to fight for a shared human future. Think of the citizen troops standing in front of George Washington on Cambridge Commons in 1775, and think of what motivated them. This is the potential which Machiavelli foresaw.

Francesco Granacci

French troops under Charles VIII entering Florence in 1494.

---------------------------------------------

War

In April 1505, a combined Papal-Venetian-Spanish military force invades Florentine territory. As the crisis deepens, Machiavelli is recalled to the government and restored to all of his previous posts.

In early August, a Florentine mercenary army at Pisa is defeated, and later that month, a second Venetian-Papal invasion force is stopped only sixty miles from the city. With the very survival of the Republic threatened, Machiavelli officially proposes the creation of a civilian militia, a Citizen Army. The Florentine government, out of military necessity, accepts Machiavelli’s proposal.

Machiavelli takes personal charge of organizing the militia. His goal, never fully realized, is to create a force of 10,000 men. These are Florentine citizens recruited from within both the city of Florence and many surrounding communities. The new soldiers include merchants, farmers, smiths, laborers, and craftsmen of many varieties. Leonardo da Vinci aids in the recruitment and also designs all of the uniforms for the new militia.

Machiavelli spends more than a year personally overseeing the recruiting and training of the troops. As the new army comes into being, it is attacked by many Florentine aristocrats, who denounce the “democratizing” effect it is having on Florentine society. Official attempts are made to stop Machiavelli, but none succeed.

In December 1507, Machiavelli is sent to the Court of Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I to negotiate an alliance against Venice. This is the beginning of what later became the anti-Venetian League of Cambrai, and it initiates Machiavelli’s plan to destroy the Venetian-Papal grip over northern and central Italy. In February 1508, Emperor Maximilian’s army attacks Venice. Florence finances the war with cash payments to both Louis XII of France and Maximilian. In February 1509, Machiavelli personally leads the Florentine Militia to begin a siege of Venice’s ally Pisa. On April 15, the army of French King Louis XII invades Venetian territory.

On June 4, 1509 the Florentine Militia captures Pisa, a feat which Florence’s mercenary armies had repeatedly failed to do over the previous twenty years. The capture of the city is preceded by a successful effort, designed by Leonardo da Vinci, to blow up sections of the walls of Pisa.

Between 1509 and 1512 Machiavelli’s Citizen Army successfully defends the Florentine Republic, and this during a period of incessant warfare throughout northern Italy. However, by 1512 the League of Cambrai had disintegrated, and a new formation—the Holy League—is founded, including Pope Julius II, Venice, King Ferdinand of Spain and Naples, the German Emperor Maximilian, Henry VIII of England, and Swiss mercenaries—all arrayed against France and Florence. After the Battle of Ravenna in April, the French Army retreats from Italy to France, and Florence is left alone to defend against the overwhelming combined forces of the Holy League.

Giorgio Vasari

Florentine soldiers defeat the Pisan army at Tower San Vincenzo in 1505.

---------------------------------------------

Realizing that the military situation is hopeless, Machiavelli urges the Florentine government to negotiate. Instead, it foolishly decides to make a military stand against a vastly superior Spanish army at the city of Prato. The Florentine army is almost wiped out. Days later Spanish troops enter Florence. Five thousand Florentines are slaughtered, the Republic is abolished, and the Militia disbanded. Leonardo flees Florence, eventually suffering the equivalent of “house arrest” in Rome. On September 3, the new Florentine government, under Giuliano de’ Medici, officially joins the Holy League and allies with Venice against France. On November 7, Machiavelli is fired from all government posts. On February 12, 1513, he is arrested, imprisoned, and tortured for three weeks, after which he is banished from the city.

Cincinnatus

Machiavelli’s efforts on behalf of Florence were defeated. But later, in exile, he would author his greatest work, the Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius. It is here that he not only returns to the issue of a Citizen Army, but he explores, in depth, the question of how to create, govern and sustain a Republic. At the center of this discussion is the concept of the power of the Republican Citizen.

In the Discourses, Machiavelli uses the Roman historian Livy’s work as a jumping-off point for an extended discussion of Republic versus Empire, a theme he develops in ways that go far beyond Livy. The central figure of the Discourses is Cincinnatus (519-430 BC), the citizen-general from the very early Roman Republic.

Machiavelli posits that one of the leading causes for the destruction of the Roman Republic was the gradual replacement of citizen-soldiers with hired mercenaries. He is explicit that this led to a growth of oligarchical power, and the debasement of the citizenry into servile subjects. From there he develops his primary argument. Going beyond merely military matters, he states that the creation and development of a republican citizenry is the only method whereby oligarchical power might be defeated. And this is the only way to develop a society in which the creative potentials within the people might be brought forth.

As Machiavelli puts it in Book II of the Discourses: “It is the well-being, not of individuals, but of the community which makes a state great; and, without question, this universal well-being is nowhere secured save in a republic.” What Machiavelli is actually describing is a new type of universal power, a power which does not, and can not, exist in an oligarchical state, no matter its wealth or money. It is the power—the flanking power—of creative citizens.

The two primary themes of the Discourses, which are woven throughout the work, are the danger to freedom emanating from the oligarchy, and the fatal problem arising from a moral corruption of the population. Machiavelli states that a republic is governed easily if the people are not corrupted, but a republic is impossible in a state which tolerates influence by an avaricious aristocracy.

The three books of the Discourses contain much brilliant advice on how to conduct successful war, e.g., Machiavelli’s advice against both limited war and long wars, his discussion of flanking attacks and the foolishness of attempting to hold indefensible positions, his instructions on the use of artillery in battle, and much, much more. Yet, he returns again and again to the subject of Cincinnatus and the concept of the “citizen soldier.” He insists that a republic which is developing the potentials of its people possesses a power which no oligarchy can defeat.

What is implicit in all of this is a concept of the creative power of the human identity—an idea completely at odds with oligarchical culture. Think of Machiavelli’s collaboration with Leonardo; or for that matter consider the life-long devotion of Leonardo to investigate the frontiers of science, music and art, often under very difficult circumstances. What we are discussing is the potential power of each individual citizen, each human being, to act to change the future.

Rick Dikeman

Statue of the Roman farmer-statesman Cincinnatus in Cincinnati, Ohio.

---------------------------------------------

Cincinnatus Today

In The Prince Machiavelli holds Courage to be the highest human quality. Some might argue with that view, but in examining the life of Lyndon LaRouche do we not witness a life governed by extraordinary moral courage? For fifty years LaRouche fought to awaken in the hearts and minds of our fellow beings—and in ourselves—an awareness of our actual creative potential; to spur us to come to grips with what it truly means to be human, and to bring out in each of us a desire to act upon the future. All of this he did at great cost to himself and against great opposition.

In his autobiographical writings, LaRouche gives many examples of painful decisions he was forced to make throughout his life. He speaks of his rejection of Euclidean geometry at a young age, which resulted in public ridicule by his mathematics teacher; he speaks of his military enlistment during World War II, in opposition to the Quaker beliefs of his family; he tells of his estrangement from many friends and acquaintances after the war, as they succumbed to the cultural pressures of the Truman era.

And then, later, there were the fights with scientific collaborators who resisted his emphasis on the importance of Johannes Kepler. There are many other examples which could be given. All of this led up to 1986-1989, when under massive government persecution, LaRouche refused to abandon his principles to avoid a prison sentence. He drank from the cup of Gethsemane, and demonstrated to each of us the mission we need to cultivate within ourselves.

LaRouche went even further,—as Machiavelli did in his own long banishment—and while imprisoned authored some of his most profound scientific work. At each singular juncture throughout his life, LaRouche had a choice. He had to make a decision. That’s what it comes down to for each of us: to decide to act, even if it is unpleasant, unpopular, or dangerous, on behalf of demonstrable truth and what is right.

This question of moral courage is the subject of The Prince. It is also the subject of Christopher Marlowe’s very Machiavellian play, Tamburlaine the Great. Some people shrink from the ruthlessness of The Prince or Tamburlaine—but they miss the point. For Machiavelli—as for LaRouche—one must be willing to risk all in defense of the sacred principle embedded in humanity’s cause. This is precisely the meaning of Machiavelli’s concept of Virtù.

It is for this reason that it is insufficient, in our present circumstances, to propose that we need a “movement” of citizens—at least not in the way that this is generally understood. A “mass movement” composed of followers will not work. Deeper reflection is required.

Political actions driven by anger, rage or victimization can never succeed. What is needed today is an awakening in the minds of more and more among us of a willingness to open one’s heart to a guiding spirit of agapē—of love for the future of mankind. Within each of us we have great dormant powers—the power of discovery, the power to do things we have never done before. This is what we see in Lyndon LaRouche. LaRouche demonstrated that a single individual possesses the power to change history. Let his life be our guide. As Machiavelli asserted, oligarchical culture is powerless against such an unleashing of the human spirit. In this, he and Leonardo are in agreement.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE WEBCAST

Prosecutors Focus on British-Obama Russiagate Perpetrators as War Party Goes Wild

This is the edited transcript of the Schiller Institute’s New Paradigm Webcast of May 9, 2019. A video of this webcast is available.

Harley Schlanger: Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger from the Schiller Institute. Welcome to our weekly webcast with our President and founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche.

We’re moving through a very perilous moment in history. In recent weeks, we’ve seen on the one side tremendous opportunities, especially following the Trump-Putin telephone discussion. But at the same time, threats are being thrown out from people like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Advisor John Bolton, heating up the hotspots. Helga, why don’t we start with some of these hotspots, because these have the potential danger of launching wars, by accident or intention. Maybe we should start with the Iran situation.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Yes, I think what Pompeo is doing, and Bolton, is really creating a situation of potential, devastating confrontation, which not only includes Iran. As we’ve always said in the past, a military confrontation with Iran does have the potential of escalating into a big war.

USN/Darion Chanelle Triplett

Elements of the Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group transit the Suez Canal on May 9, 2019.

UN/Loey Felipe

Hassan Rouhani, President of Iran.

---------------------------------------------

About a year ago, people may remember, the United States unilaterally cancelled the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the nuclear agreement with Iran, which was originally signed by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany. So, the U.S. withdrew, and then it increased the sanctions, which have created quite massive problems for the Iranian economy.

More recently, the U.S. put the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the terror list, which is one cause for an escalation. In a counter-move, Iran’s Supreme Security Council declared the United States a “terrorist government,” while calling US CENTCOM, all the U.S. troops in the region in Southwest Asia, a terrorist group as well.

So that already means a complete powder keg. And now, Bolton, in his capacity as National Security Advisor—in an action which is really not his job—ordered this U.S. aircraft carrier group with a whole bunch of other warships to leave the Mediterranean and head for the Persian Gulf. So this is a high-profile situation.

Now, Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani responded to that. Iran’s Islamic Consultative Assembly (Parliament) met and decided that Iran would reduce its obligations according to the nuclear agreement treaty, and Rouhani issued a 60-day ultimatum to the Europeans to fulfill their commitments according to the JCPOA. He claimed that the Europeans did not hold out against the pressure coming from the United States, and that is absolutely true, because all the German firms which had invested with Iran, practically withdrew, and most of the other Europeans as well. So the Europeans, despite their initial statements that they would not capitulate, they did, de facto. So the big question is, what will they do in the next 60 days? Obviously, if Iran goes back to developing nuclear weapons this would become a pretext for more moves.

So this is really, very, very dangerous. And I think this is definitely a neo-con policy. Unfortunately Trump seems to be on that line right now. The whole thing was escalated about ten days ago, when the national security team of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited Washington, met with Bolton’s team. That is where the line came from that Iran is an immediate threat to the United States and its allies.

Pompeo Runs Amok

Meanwhile Pompeo was in Finland talking to the Arctic Council, where he made an absolutely unbelievable attack on China—really beyond the beyond, comparing it to the 1930s, the implication that China is now like the Nazis! I mean, really an unbelievable tone.

Pompeo was then supposed to come to Germany and meet with Chancellor Angela Merkel and Foreign Minister Heiko Maas. He just told them he wouldn’t come because of an “international security matter,” without telling them what it was. And then he turns up in Iraq, to put pressure on the Iraqi government because of Iran, and then the German government found out he was in Iraq, and from there he went on to Great Britain.

Now, I think this is a kind of confrontational behavior, which, for sure,— I mean, it’s not even clear that it was Trump who told Pompeo to not come to Germany. But this is the kind of behavior which makes it very difficult, and I think Trump is not well-advised to keep these neo-cons around him, because Trump has said repeatedly, he almost says it every day in some tweet, he wants to have good relations with Russia and China, and then the entire intelligence community, which was just caught red-handed in a coup attempt against his administration, comes out with this absolutely violent, anti-China line, and the neo-cons in his administration, namely Bolton, Pompeo, and Vice President Mike Pence to a certain extent, are doing everything possible to heat up these crisis spots so that any kind of serious policy for Trump is impossible.

DoS/Ron Przysucha, U.S. Embassy Jerusalem

U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton (left) and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

---------------------------------------------

This is an untenable situation. Either Trump succeeds in improving the U.S. relationship with Russia and China, and then every other crisis can be settled, or these neo-cons have the upper hand, and the Trump Presidency will not succeed in what it set out to do.

Schlanger: It was just announced today that Pompeo will be heading to Moscow next week, for a follow-up meeting with Sergey Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister. They had met in Finland and at least there was one hilarious scene where Lavrov was asked by CNN whether he and Pompeo discussed the problems of “Russian meddling.” And Lavrov said, “Some call your company CNN ‘fake news,’ and now you are asking a fake question.” But these are very dangerous signs. We’ll see what happens when Pompeo goes to Moscow.

But as you said, this is going against the general tenor of what Trump is doing.

More Details of British Role in Coup

I think, Helga, the other thing that has to be seen in this context, is that the war push is coming precisely at a moment that the people who are doing it, are being exposed for their role in setting up Russiagate. There have been several tweets and news stories coming out. Why don’t you take up this Freedom of Information (FOIA) report, which shows again that Christopher Steele was at the center of operations, long before the timeline that people have talked about?

DoS/Ron Przysucha

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo meets with UK Prime Minister Theresa May and UK Foreign Minister Jeremy Hunt in London on May 8, 2019.

---------------------------------------------

Zepp-LaRouche: The British involvement in the coup attempt against Trump is now coming out in greater detail. Before I go into this story about the new revelations, in light of that, I find it really incredible that after Trump tweeted several times that it was the British who were involved, Pompeo then, following his visit to Iraq, went to Great Britain. He met with Prime Minister Theresa May and her Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt, and gave the 2019 “Margaret Thatcher Lecture” at the Centre for Policy Studies in which he praised the “special relationship” with Great Britain, said it’s vital, it’s vibrant.

He put pressure on the British—well—he put pressure on the British that they should not go with the Huawei G5 network; Hunt answered to that pressure by saying that the U.K. would never do anything which would not be in the interests of the Five Eyes colleagues. But to praise the special relationship with Great Britain at a moment when the British were caught red-handed in a coup attempt against the U.S. President, is really an incredible thing.

Left: CC/Marc Nozell; right: White House

Left: Joe Biden; right: Margaret Thatcher

---------------------------------------------

And the same goes for Obama’s former Vice President and now Democratic Party pre-candidate for President, Joe Biden, who, by the way, made an unbelievable “Freudian slip”: At a fundraiser in Columbia, South Carolina, he said that he got a call from “Margaret Thatcher” urging him to run against Trump. Saying he realized later that he had misspoken, he said, “No, no, it was Theresa May who called me.” So this is incredible, here you have Theresa May calling on a Democrat to run against Trump.

This is obviously, completely in the line with the House of Lords report of December 2018, “U.K. Foreign Policy in a Shifting World Order,” Dec. 5, 2018, where they said that the special relationship between Great Britain and the United States would not survive a second term of Trump. The Brits are openly trying to meddle again, and continuously, in the internal affairs of the United States. I think this is really something absolutely unbelievable.

Left: DoS; right: CC/Mariusz Kubik

Left: Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kathleen Kavalec; right: Former Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland.

---------------------------------------------

Now, coming to these new revelations, they are really a bombshell. In an FOIA lawsuit, a conservative group got documents which prove, absolutely, that the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under Victoria Nuland, Kathleen Kavalec, met in October 2016 with Christopher Steele, that is, one month before the election and ten days before FBI Director James Comey made his brief to the FISA Court for the okay to surveil Trump and the Trump campaign. So Kavalec met with Steele, and in this meeting, Christopher Steele made it very, very clear that he had political motives for manipulating the situation against Trump. He demanded that the infamous dossier—his dossier—be published before the election, obviously to smear Trump in the public view.

So this is now coming out, and that is proof that the entire Obama Administration knew the character of this operation. Even the Washington newspaper The Hill states that this is the first time that it’s out with public proof.

This will hopefully have a big backfire effect, because again and again, this is an unprecedented scandal in the history of the United States. Trump has said that many times himself, and one can only hope that the consequences will be felt by those people who initiated all of this.

Binney: It Wasn’t the Russians

Schlanger: And we’re taking an initiative now to make sure that the picture is clear. We’re circulating a letter calling for William Binney, the former Technical Director of the National Security Agency (NSA), to appear before Congress, to expose the fraud of “Russian meddling.” Helga, you mentioned all the insanity that’s going on. The Democrats and the Republicans continue to say that Russia meddled, that Russia’s going to meddle again, that nothing is being done to stop Russian meddling. And this keeps getting in the way of Trump getting together with Putin.

One sign of a little bit of sanity from the Republican side was the comments from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), which are something you thought were fairly important.

Zepp-LaRouche: The situation is clearly heating up for the 2020 election campaign. The face of the radical wing of the Democrats, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, is being pushed by the media as if she were the most important thing. However, more reasonable Democrats realize that if they only focus on the attack on Trump and impeachment, it may not go well with the voters. So, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and McConnell are saying it’s time to move on and work together on important issues, like infrastructure.

But I think the hysteria in the United States is really unbelievable in terms of how brainwashed people can become when this party conflict dominates everything. I think the warning of George Washington at the end of his second term, that political parties are a bad thing, is really true, and a bipartisan approach to the massive global challenges, is really absolutely required, because otherwise, there will never be any infrastructure built, and the new financial dangers are also hanging over us. So I think this is really too much at this point.

Schlanger: Our viewers can go to the LaRouche PAC website and get this letter, “Former NSA Technical Director William Binney Must Testify Before Congress—Expose the Big Lie that Russia Hacked the DNC E-Mails,” by William F. Wertz, Jr., about bringing Binney to testify. There are already groups that are going to congressional meetings with this letter to demand that this lie that’s still there in the Mueller Report, be expunged.

White House/Evan Walker

U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer.

---------------------------------------------

All-Important U.S.-China Relationship

Now, Helga, the other really hot issue in Washington right now, is the trade talks with China. A Chinese delegation is coming in, but the whole thing became muddled when the President said the Chinese backtracked on their agreements, and that he, Trump, will assess new tariffs as of Friday, if there’s not a full agreement. And this occurs as there’s an escalation of the anti-China rhetoric. How do you see this thing unfolding?

Zepp-LaRouche: I don’t know what will happen, because the positive tone coming from both Trump and the Chinese of a couple of weeks ago has been unfortunately replaced. U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer claimed that the Chinese took back some agreements, not referring to exactly what they were. The Chinese are trying to save the situation. Vice Premier Liu He, the chief economics person in China, is in Washington right now. However, the Chinese Commerce Ministry said that if Trump goes for these tariffs, increasing for $200 billion from 10% to 25%,—and he also said that there are another $325 billion he would consider to put new tariffs on—the Commerce Ministry said it would answer that with countermeasures.

That obviously would really be a very bad escalation. And it remains true that in my view, the most important strategic issue is, will the United States respond to the rise of China, which cannot be stopped by peaceful means, will it try to contain China and cause a really strategic, big confrontation—that would be a catastrophe for all of humanity. This has been stated also, repeatedly, in the Chinese media, that they regard the U.S.-China relationship as the most important, because these are the two largest economies, and if they work together it will be good for the whole world. If they clash, it will be a potential catastrophe for the whole world. So we have to see.

I still hope that the original idea of Trump—he called Xi Jinping many times, his “friend” and praised the great culture of China, at least in the past—that that original impulse will come through. But it seems the entire intelligence community in the United States is on a “yellow peril” rampage.

We talked about this last week, but I want to state again: The unbelievable report by this Kiron Skinner, who is the Director of Policy Planning at the State Department, her unbelievable diatribe calling China the first “non-Caucasian” nation confronting the United States is a little bit funny coming from an Afro-American woman. But it’s the same idea of “the Chinese are an inferior grouping,” and as I said, this goes back to the old “yellow peril” scare of the turn of the 19th to the 20th century.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry answered very strongly to that, and so also did Global Times, basically saying the State Department seems to be governed by an ideology that China used to have 2,000 years ago, when people thought everyone who was not Chinese was a barbarian, but that China overcame such a backward view a very long time ago; but the U.S. State Department seems to be still on that line.

The Anti-China Hysteria and the Reality

Now, I think this is a really a very dangerous situation, because, if you look at the overall dynamic in the world, you have the new paradigm being centered around China’s Belt and Road Initiative, which China keeps emphasizing is a force of great good in the world, it’s a gift from China to the whole world, because it offers a win-win cooperation to all other countries. That there were 150 nations represented at the second Belt and Road Forum in Beijing on April 25-27, attests to the fact that all these countries see it in their own interest to participate in this new paradigm of cooperation.

kremlin.ru

Participants gather before the gala reception hosted by President of China Xi Jinping and his wife Peng Liyuan (center front) at the Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation in Beijing, April 26 2019.

---------------------------------------------

And the geopolitical factions of the Western world are trying to contain that. I don’t think it will be possible, at least not in any peaceful way. All of Europe is moving in the direction of the New Silk Road, even Chancellor Merkel, who was very slow on the learning curve, concerning the New Silk Road, was recently in Hamburg, and met with a school class visiting a modern terminal in Hamburg harbor, and she praised the New Silk Road as a very positive initiative.

So I think there is clearly motion in the direction of reason and cooperation, and overcoming geopolitics. But this anti-China hysteria, which is being fueled by the same forces who were involved in the coup against Trump,— they are obviously trying to poison the well, and poison the atmosphere.

I can only again reiterate: Do not fall for such propaganda. Form your own opinion of what China is actually doing in Africa, in Latin America, in Asia. Why are these countries all saying that China is fulfilling something which the West for decades did not: Overcoming poverty, overcoming underdevelopment?

So I think it’s really important to take off the geopolitical spectacles, because they can only lead to a disaster.

Schlanger: And hand-in-hand with the geopolitical spectacles is neo-liberal economic policy. We were talking before about this report—it’s been reported that there were 643 income-millionaires at Deutsche Bank—a bank which had its stock fall to about $7 a share in the last couple of days. So the question of the economy leads directly to this geopolitical question: The people who are pushing these wars are the same ones who are saying we have to stick with the old paradigm, the neo-liberal economics, the austerity, the World Bank, the IMF, those old rules—and China is breaking that.

Helga it really does bring up the issue: What is the real solution? Yes, geopolitics has to end, but there’s also an economic side and that’s very much connected with the life’s work of your husband.

Pecora-Style Hearings for Wall Street

Zepp-LaRouche: What you mentioned about Deutsche Bank is a real outrage, because if you have 643 millionaires as employees of Deutsche Bank, the richest one, or the one who made the most money, is a guy called Garth Ritchie, the head of the investment banking department—he made 8.6 million euro in 2018 alone! That is why all the shareholders lost a lot of money; these are all derivatives traders who make that amount of money.

I think this requires a Pecora Commission: Because this kind of excessive profit-making at the expense of the common good, is exactly what was investigated by Franklin D. Roosevelt with the Pecora Commission, following the big crash of the 1930s. A new crash is hanging over our heads as an imminent danger, and could be triggered by any number of developments.

So I think we should really restate where we are: The U.S. economy is not in the best shape. You cannot go by the stock market. My late husband warned many, many times that if you go by the stock market, this is a complete illusion; you have to look at the real economy. The real economy in the United States is in terrible shape! You have the homeless: There are videos out in Seattle which are horrifying; the homelessness in San Francisco, in Los Angeles. The condition of the infrastructure: tunnels breaking down, bridges being unsafe.

The United States needs urgently, as do most European countries, a completely different approach. The austerity policy in Europe has led to a situation in which the Greek population has become completely impoverished, with the structural reforms imposed by the EU, in Greece, pensions were cut for most people by 60%. This is robbery. This is absolute theft, and the EU Commission is defending that.

We are just involved in a specific case, where a Greek ambassador protested to the EU Commission, demanding that these cuts be compensated, and the EU Commission answered in a long letter that this was all for the good of the Greek economy. Now, that’s completely nonsense! If you look at the real living standard of the population, the poor people, the people who are thrown out of the middle class, has been increasing as a result of the neo-liberal paradigm of the last decades.

Implement LaRouche’s Four Laws

So what we need in Western Europe, but especially also in the United States, is the exact implementation of the Four Laws proposed by Lyndon LaRouche on June 8, 2014: Glass-Steagall—and there was an interesting comment, by the way, on CGTN, the Chinese international TV network, of a Western economist who said the economic problems of the West and of the United States, are not due to China, but they are due to the repeal of Glass-Steagall, and what that caused to happen in the 2008 crisis. I think this is a very important point. So, we need to go back to Glass-Steagall. We need to have a separation of the banks: The state has to protect the commercial side of the banking system; the derivatives traders and speculators have to take their losses without having access to taxpayers’ money.

Then, you need new credit institutions, because there will not be enough liquidity. You need a National Bank in the tradition of Alexander Hamilton, and then you need an international credit system, a New Bretton Woods system to provide long-term, low-interest credit for international projects and investments in the United States, and European countries and in developing countries as well. And then, you need a crash program for fusion energy development, for space cooperation, to increase the productivity of the economy.

You need this entire package. We need more public debate about that. I think people are so confused by secondary issues, but people want to have security about their future: This was the reason for the Brexit vote, this is what is behind the Italian situation with the new government there, which has been in place for a year or so, but they were voted in because the EU policies were rejected. This is an ongoing fight in France with the Yellow Vests. And this is why a bipartisan concentration on such a recovery program in the United States is the only chance.

So I think it’s really up to you, our viewers and readers, to mobilize around these questions and put political pressure on all elected officials, including, but not limited to those in Congress. Help us create a great environment in which Trump can go back to his original intention, because he has said many times, he wants to build the infrastructure. But with the kind of hysteria which is being hyped up by some parts of the Democrats, the neo-cons in the Republican Party, and the mainstream media, it makes it very hard for him to do this: So, we need a public debate and intervention, so this is why you should join with us, become a member of the Schiller Institute, get into contact with us, and become active, because it’s our future which is at stake.

Schlanger: I think that’s a very clear summary of the situation. And as we see the neo-cons and the neoliberals going crazy, the thing they fear the most is that Trump will go with something along the lines of Lyndon LaRouche’s Four Power agreement for a New Bretton Woods, which would end their paradigm.

So, Helga, thanks for joining us this week, and we’ll be back next week.

A New ‘Exonerate LaRouche’ Pamphlet

Zepp-LaRouche: We will soon be putting out a new pamphlet on the exoneration of my husband, which I want you to focus your attention on. This is a very important document, because it goes into the absolutely unbelievable violation of all laws in the United States: This is the worst case in the history of the United States, as Ramsey Clark has said repeatedly.

The pamphlet has all the endorsements from around the world, and condolences from when Lyn died. So, if you want to really get a sense of what has gone wrong in the history of the United States and what is required to remedy it—namely to join the fight for the exoneration of my husband—please get to our website, get this pamphlet, and help us to distribute it as widely as possible. Join the campaign for the exoneration of my husband, because this is the best you can do for yourself, the United States, and the world.

Schlanger: With that, now, we’ll see you next week.

Zepp-LaRouche: OK, next week.

II. LaRouche: Save the Economy

September 30, 2009

‘THE LAROUCHE PLAN’

Rescuing the World’s Economy

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

During June 1987, I had repeatedly forecast, publicly, that unless certain remedial actions were taken during the Summer of that year, the first weeks of that October would see a stock-exchange crisis comparable to 1929. It happened exactly as, and when I had forecast such an event to occur.

Now, with the advent of this month of October, the entirety of the planet Earth will have entered the “count-down” phase of what has been pending as a far greater threat of an international economic breakdown-crisis, than even that of Europe’s Fourteenth-century “New Dark Age.” This would come to be, unless prevented now, a general breakdown-crisis of the entire planet, a period of deadly crisis, which would be fairly estimated to be continued over a span of two or more generations to come.

The current process leading from the development of October 1987 back then, to this now immediate, far greater danger, was set into motion, back then, during the October 1987 crisis more than twenty years ago, by the combined effects of, first, the appointment of Alan Greenspan to the post of Chairman of the Federal Reserve System, and, second, the installation of Greenspan’s implicitly atrocious legalization of that swindle known as “financial derivatives.”

Now, the most crucial point of this present moment of Autumn 2009, is to be traced from the present moment, back to July-September 2007, since when, the world as a whole had already entered, not a mere “1929 style” stock-market crash, but, the crucial “break-down phase” of a world monetary system polluted by the product of Alan Greenspan’s great swindle, a swindle which has led into the present most critical phase of a threatened plunge of the entirety of this planet, as if simultaneously, into a new dark age. This would be a dark age which, unless stopped soon, could quickly become far worse in its ultimate effects, than the “New Dark Age” of Europe’s Fourteenth Century.

Today, this present state of affairs, also requires that we must recognize that moment, of the October 1987, 1929-style, Wall Street financial depression, as the presently retrospective point in past time, from which what must be chosen to represent the conception of an immediate reform of the world system, must now proceed, as if retroactively.[fn_1]

In that way, by that strict emphasis on the pivotal turning-point of the October 1987 crash, we may avoid, as much as possible, the Herculean chore of attempting to clear away, retrospectively, the physical-economic effects of those errors dating, specifically, from points earlier than October 1987.

Except as we must proceed by resuming the constitutional standpoint, and outlook for U.S. strategic policy extant immediately prior to developments beginning April 13, 1945, we must be content to do as much cleansing as can not be avoided, within the bounds marked out by October 1987. Other intended improvements in practiced doctrine will be required, but those must now, usually, be postponed until the course of improvements made at some time after the most essential, initial rescue-actions have been securely put into place.

Here, then, below, is the outline of the essential points of the immediately needed plan for the actions to be taken on behalf of our planet’s immediate economic recovery. For the present moment, the mission now must be the crafting of the foundations of that subsuming dynamic of policy-shaping which is the now most immediately essential foundation for the near to medium term, in the presently tempestuous, immediate future of mankind.

Wieck Media Services

Highly skilled blue-collar workers, like this autoworker in Pontiac, Mich., have been rendered nearly extinct, under the past 40-year reign of globalization, the “service” economy, “green” jobs, etc. His skills are desperately needed today to rescue the world economy.

---------------------------------------------

A Preface:

The Outline of the Rescue Plan

So, the world as a whole has now entered what would be, unless corrected very soon, a process of general breakdown of the entire world’s economy, a breakdown which would bring on a protracted period of genocidal effects of breakdown of the economies of every part of this world for a generation or more yet to come.

This already onrushing catastrophe, if it continues along its present course, would soon be expressed as a plunge into a very deep and prolonged new dark age for, not some, but all of the nations and territories of this planet. For as long as the present monetarist form of financial system is continued, there would never be a recovery of the economies of the leading, or other nations of the planet. All chatter alleging some more or less spontaneous recovery of the present monetarist system, at any time in the future, is either fraud, even outright lies, or, merely wishful self-delusion.

The key to understanding the intent and nature of the adoption of a feasible plan for a preventive rescue of the nations from such a presently onrushing catastrophe, depends upon understanding the absolute urgency of shutting down the world’s present monetary system, for its replacement, as if instantly, and globally, by a world-wide credit-system consistent with the original intent of the U.S. Federal Constitution. This would be a system which is to be modeled on the proven principle expressed by the precedent of that “Hamiltonian” principle embedded in the heart of the creation of the U.S. Federal Constitution.

Any contrary policy would ensure the full-throated, and, almost certainly, an early onset of a prolonged, planetary new dark age of all peoples and nations.

That indispensable, pro-Hamilton reform already rooted and still waiting within the body of that U.S. Federal Constitution, would cancel all of those specifically fraudulent forms of monetarist debt which have been crafted since the very significantly relevant assassination of President John F. Kennedy. However, for the moment of the present global emergency, the emphasis must be placed on immediately uprooting the presently fraudulent general practices in the world’s international markets, a reform to be accomplished by means of the morally lawful action of cancelling those merely nominal, largely speculative financial obligations, which do not meet the U.S.A.’s now historic Franklin Roosevelt-era reform, the Glass-Steagall standard for commercial banking, a reform which, other problems aside, had been so marvelously successful in defending our banking system in its assigned function, for as long as Glass-Steagall remained in full force, prior to the relevant evil perpetrated by the scheming of Larry Summers.

White House/Eric Draper

The alien British influence expressed, most emphatically, under the George W. Bush and Barack Obama Presidencies, will be eliminated only when we rid ourselves of the monetarist system, in favor of a U.S. Constitutional credit system.

---------------------------------------------

What the British empire has done, in concert with the wretched behaviorists associated with the current U.S. Obama administration, and by the evil influence on that administration of the shamelessly lying former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, has been to push the U.S.A. which was already at the brink of a national emergency in July 2007, into becoming a hopelessly bankrupt shambles, as this had now been done over the period from actions, such as those launched in association with U.S. Representative Barney Frank, and others, in September 2007 and continued as a wrecking-game under the present Obama administration, to the present day.

The need for that cleansing process to rid us of that alien British influence expressed, most emphatically, under the George W. Bush, Jr. and Barack Obama Presidencies, will continue to the point, that we had eliminated the putatively legalized existence of the world’s intrinsically imperialist, principal monetarist systems, and, had thus established the purified medium of a concert of cooperating national credit-systems among a growing majority of sovereign nation-states.

The latter reform will provide the capability for reviving the physical economy of the world, that accomplished through a system of long-term credit used as the basis for a fixed-exchange-rate system of utterance of long-term credit, a system used for restoring a real net physical economic growth. This mission will be accomplished by using a credit-system modeled on the specifications of the original U.S. Federal Constitution, and by operating internationally, in a range of an annual 1.5-2.0 percent, simple interest charge, under the strict enforcement of a fixed-exchange-rate credit-system of the type implicit in the relevant provisions of the U.S. Federal Constitution. This must be done in all relevant categories of long-term capital-improvement loans, that done under a rigorously fixed-exchange-rate system which had been freed from further interference by the characteristically usurious practices of all monetary systems, that of the British empire most notably.

The result of that most crucial reform, must become the establishing of a system of credit as so defined by the U.S. Federal Constitution, as opposite to all monetary systems. The new world credit system, must be one which is already mandated by the U.S. Federal Constitution, but has been recently violated in the most atrocious degree since Alan Greenspan succeeded Paul Volcker in the Federal Reserve System. The ordering of practice according to the Constitutional specification of our national system being a credit-system, rather than a monetarist system, which is to be brought back into being in that way, and to that end, is a reform to be shared, through sovereign treaty-agreements, by means of agreements premised on the principled goal of a fixed exchange-rate parity among the member-nation-states of a system composed of what must be recognized under international law as perfectly sovereign nation-state republics sharing a common lawful commitment to a credit-system, rather than a monetary system.

To reach that area of security, a number of crucially important hurdles must be mastered, each and all initiated by a cooperating group from among the world’s most powerful nations: the United States of America, Russia, China, and India, but also bringing in willing other nations as also key partners and participants in the launching of the new world credit-system composed of nations which each, themselves base their economic life on the functions of a credit-system, and repelling of all monetary systems.

The object of this reform, from the start, must be to restore increasingly capital-intensive, increasingly energy-flux-dense modes in agriculture, manufactures, and basic economic infrastructure, and national health-care systems akin to the historical U.S. Hill-Burton standard, as the standard for the practice of the increase of the net physical productive powers of labor, per capita, and per square kilometer, in and among the nations of the world.

There are three crucial, strategic reasons why only a leading, four-power agreement among, specifically, the U.S.A., Russia, China, and India, must be the core of the initiating group.

First, obviously, without nations representing a bloc of sufficient power to overrule the threat to such a reform represented by the present British empire, the situation for humanity were presently hopeless.

Second, the degeneration of all of western and central Europe under the conditionalities imposed, on behalf of the proposed Euro, through the joint action of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, President François Mitterrand, and President George H.W. Bush, has destroyed the national sovereignties, and the economies of continental western and central Europe, to such a degree that that section of Europe is, for the moment, utterly impotent for effecting the initiation of any competent reform of the type required. After the “back of the British imperial system” has been broken, a freer atmosphere will finally come to exist in the world, and abominations such as the “Euro” can be undone successfully.

Third, when the asymmetrical characteristics of the four presently leading and legitimate world powers have been taken into account, and when other nations likely to join immediately are taken into account, this concert of remedial action represents a great part of the population and territory of the world, but, at the same time, expresses those dissimilarities among the four principal nations which, in and of themselves, assure a relative universality of a quality of true common interest expressed as that of four and more initiating powers.

Furthermore, any scheme which did not feature the United States as a leading part of the effort, would be an attempted cure worse than the disease. Without the inherently credit-system-based design of the U.S. Federal Constitution, any effort at reform undertaken by other nations, would turn out to have been, indeed, a cure worse than the disease.

The aim of this choice of process of initiating the urgently needed, global reform, is to eliminate those inappropriate policies and practices associated, most typically, with the role of the United Kingdom as the pivotal instrument of that imperial system of monetarism, a system, formally established, implicitly, by the February 1763 Peace of Paris, a system which established a form of imperialist tyranny which has been the traditional imperialism reigning among the principal ancient through modern maritime empires, since the period of the relevant folly of the Peloponnesian War.

Monetarism has been, in turn, the principal source of the practices which have brought the planet’s relations among peoples and nations, into that state of planet-wide moral degeneration, which is, in and of itself, a crime against all humanity, a crime for which the imperialistic United Kingdom and its predatory, monetarist confederates have been the principal proponents of imperialist forms of oppression during recent centuries.

The very notion of an international monetary system, in which that system is controlled by private financial interests which are placed outside and actually above putatively sovereign nation-states, is the form of explicitly imperialist, and predatory evil, which has been the origin of the organized evil which has worked, since the death of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, to undermine our United States, and to perpetuate a combination of old and more recent forms of imperialist/colonialist evils upon the greater number of nations of the planet, including present special effects of this process on our United States itself.

There could be no honest and competent debate of the nature of the systemic abuses built into the history of modern monetarist systems of our planet until the monetarist system itself has been uprooted from the dominant economic systems of the world.

Clockwise, from upper left: GNU Free Documentation License/Rhaessner; creative commons/William Warby; creative commons/snowyowls; creative commons/David Crawshaw.

An agreement among the world’s leading four powers, Russia, India, China, and the U.S.A., must form the core of a new, just international economic/cultural order. Clockwise from top left: the Gateway of India (1911), a blend of Muslim and Hindu architectural styles, in South Mumbai; the Statue of Liberty on Ellis Island, New York City, 1886, gift to the U.S.A. from France on the centennial of the Declaration of Independence; Northeast tower of the Forbidden City, Beijing, China (1406-20); Saint Basil’s Cathedral, Red Square, Moscow, Russia (1555-61).

---------------------------------------------

It is important for leaders of nations, as also others, to recognize, despite the widespread use of mere chroniclers of the isolated fact, to replace actual historians, that the only form of actual imperialism existing in the world as a whole today, is the expression of the actual British empire of the present day as an incarnation of a global monetarist system which employs the hoax of “free trade” to render nations subject to predatory monetary pirates, pirates which are relatively free of the restraints which might otherwise be available to nominally sovereign governments.

The British empire, for example, is not an empire of the British population, but of a nest of virtually free-booting, component powers, who rule and rape the nations and peoples of the world, and who reign, according to the medieval and modern Venetian tradition, but with aid of post-office addresses at London’s Threadneedle Street and Buckingham Palace.

It were fairly said, that there can be no true sovereignty of any nation, over which the imperial presence of a free-trade form of monetary system is permitted to roam, especially such a system employed as a mechanism of globalization.

All empires whose origins have been rooted in the Mediterranean maritime tradition since the Peloponnesian War, have been the tradition of rule of empire over kingdoms and other political entities, which has reigned, with some sundry changes of costume and dialects, over and beyond Europe itself, up to the present day. It is only nations which have sovereign credit-systems, and are not subject to rules crafted by monetarist institutions, which are the only truly free nations; the others are, essentially, the monetarists’ prey. The worst, most dastardly of all imperial tyrannies, is the victim’s own submission to the drugged-like worship of what is called “free trade.” That is exactly how the United States and its citizens have been raped, again, and yet again, and ever more and more, by the British empire, and right now, ever since the day that President Franklin Roosevelt died, on April 12, 1945.

The putative alternative, the prospect of continued life under any other form of monetarism, whatever, or whoever the participants might be, at this time, will become the outcome of a remedy far worse than the disease. That is to emphasize, that monetarism in any form, is the disease which would be fatal to civilization, globally, under any attempt at continuation of the conditions of the present, conjunctural, global, breakdown-crisis.

Admittedly, many influentials will argue that the possibility of the reforms which I demand, is far distant, if, indeed, they would ever be accepted. That mistaken view overlooks the reality by mistaking today’s habituated, popular fashions for the voice of eternity. That mistake is rooted in ignorance of a certain higher principle, that of social dynamics, governing the rules of behavior which override any explicit agreements on practice within a society, as the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley emphasized the relevant principle of dynamics, in the conclusion of his A Defence of Poetry. Without a rather prompt adoption of precisely those reforms toward which I have pointed here, the continued existence of what has recently passed for civilization, is to be doubted. In any serious crisis, the populations of the world would tend to wish to seek out a choice under which civilization survives. Nonetheless, under present global conditions, the present world monetarist system, is not the patient to be cured, but the deadly disease to be contained, and exterminated.

Therefore, all extant treaty-agreements which would tend to prevent, or impede this most urgently needed reform, must be placed on the block for pre-emptive elimination, as the relevant conflict of interest prescribes the need for such remedies as solutions.

In such proceedings, all matters of economic policy and practice, which should be now considered as immoral or foolish, because they are expressions of monetarist systems, should be subject to eradication, whether they are of relatively recent vintage, or as hoary as the practice of prostitution itself.

The reform, of the form which had become known as the Glass-Steagall reform of commercial banking, which was accomplished under the Administration of U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt, is from its fresh outset, again, today, the reform which must be immediately re-introduced to the U.S. system as a starting-point for launching any competent attempt at general recovery of the world’s economy today.

Without that action, it would be impossible to clear away the worthless, and also intrinsically fraudulent trash, such as financial derivatives. It would be impossible to restore those private banking institutions of regulated commercial banking, on which the launching of a general recovery through the mechanisms of an orderly system of the type of U.S. Constitutional Federal public credit depends. The restoration of the Glass-Steagall statute for the area of commercial banking and related institutions, a restoration conducted within the United States, under that same principle of Federal constitutional law, must be immediate, and also retroactive in its effect, wherever the terrible moral flaw of the suspension of that provision, is to be recognized, as was recognized, indeed, in the original adoption of the Glass-Steagall legislation.

In the case of the U.S.A. itself, we require the immediate restoration of a clean commercial banking system: for, without it, it would be impossible to establish the presently indispensable platform of a system of private, commercial credit. Without it, there would be a lack of means for the effective employment of Federal Government credit in recovery of the afflicted states and other communities, and the system could not be brought into that state of economic vitality which the catastrophes caused by the 1987-2009 interval of incompetence in the general practice of economic law, had taken away.

This specific expression of systemic incompetence, has been expressed with special force over that interval, since the so-called international “reforms” of the period from the February-March 1968 reforms of the Bretton Woods agreements, to that 1971-72 destruction of the last, tattered vestiges of the Bretton Woods system, a destruction which has transformed Americans, increasingly, into virtual British slaves, since the combination of the 1971 disavowal of the Bretton Woods System, by the Nixon Administration, and the great Saudi-British petroleum spot-market hoax which soon followed.

‘The Right to Life’ as Economic Science

This brings us to the subject of the true nature of human behavior.

In all these and kindred matters, the notion of equity is located essentially in the service of the socially necessary human rights of the individual person, that in respect to all matters, that according to the specifically Leibnizian U.S. constitutional requirements of the notions of the rights of the individual to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as echoed in that fundamental principle of all that morally decent law which was presented as implicit in both the U.S. 1776 Declaration of Independence, and as affirmed in principle in the Preamble of the U.S. Federal Constitution.

On this account, because of the corrupting influences of British imperial “behaviorist” and related immorality, as experienced since the “age of (typically Liberal) depravity” associated with the name of whiggish (and some would say, “piggish”) Prime Minister Walpole and the fraudulent South Sea Island and related, financial-derivatives-like frauds of that time, we must now emphasize the following.

The famous South Sea Bubble (1720) of the whiggish (and some would say, “piggish”) Prime Minister Walpole, caricatured in this illustration, is a model for the wildly speculative financial-derivatives-like frauds of today.

---------------------------------------------

We must emphasize that the rights of the living human individual, pertain to those aspects of his or her existence which are defined, in functional terms of benefits to society, in the continuing role of the existing individual personality, even when the person is deceased. This course of action must be executed to such effect, that the contributions of useful inventions and the shaping of advances in culture contributed as discoveries, or enhancements contributed by individual persons, live on, as a special class of ideas, in an efficient way, that within the accumulated foundations of society, even after the personality who made such a contribution, is deceased. This is to emphasize those rights and powers of the human personality, which are absent in the beasts, are human rights, which inhere, as in the sometimes theological concept of a simultaneity of eternity, as the essential immortality of the human individual member of the Noösphere, as a quality of existence functionally distinct from merely that which the once living mortal body of that now deceased person had inhabited while alive.[fn_2]

This point is illustrated by pointing out, that while great thinkers and others have made unique contributions to the valid discovery of one or more principles, the possibility of such achievements is not rooted in some isolable feature of the individual as such, but in an implicitly, immortally continuing process of development of what is conveniently named human culture, a process in which the unique acts of participation within a process of development, can be more or less readily traced, as in the case of modern European science, from the legacy of the Sphaerics of the Pythagoreans and Plato, and their now-ancient followers of that continuing intellectual current, through the resurgence of that legacy by such as Dante Alighieri and by the followers of the contributions of the Fifteenth-century, Florentine-based Renaissance of that Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa who has served as the marker of all competent physical science in European culture’s history since that time.

This notion, of rejecting any merely kinematic notion of cause and effect, in favor of an immortal continuity of a process of forward-moving creative development of both mankind and of our universe, development as a dynamic process, defines a process thus subsuming the still living, continuously re-created benefits of the works of true genius over the span of centuries and millennia.

The discovery of valid scientific principles is made possible by a continuing process of development of human culture, exemplified by Dante’s legacy in the Fifteenth-Century Golden Renaissance.

---------------------------------------------

This view locates the individual creative mind as implicitly an integral part of a continuing, virtually immortal, creative process. In the course of such a dynamic mode of the creative process, the uniquely sovereign impetus of discoveries unique to the creative individual personality, exemplifies the distinction of the immortality of the human creative personality from the life of the beasts. This distinction is demonstrated for any developed mind which has grasped the true meaning of that principle of dynamics which subsumes, categorically, all true human progress as located within the indispensably defining relationship of true science and Classical artistic composition and performance.

That emphasis is essential as an alternative to what have become the widespread, depraved contemporary intellectual trends of today. This is to be emphasized out of respect for the fact of the spread of that influence of behaviorism and the related cults of existentialism, which have denied the right to life, as this has been done in a savage fashion, under current, Nazi-like, British (e.g., Tony Blair) so-called behaviorist health-care and related law: a depravity which inheres in indifference to the sacred nature of the living human personality. The implicitly criminal, even frankly Satanic application of “culling the human herd,” a practice intrinsic to both Nazi and British behaviorist ideology, requires us to crack down with whatever force is required from us, to defend that intellectual right to human life, rather than tolerating the depraved, virtually bestial kind of individual life of the existentialist, a depravity which offends an inherently sacred right of the human personality under all decent man-made law.

The deeper quality of such essential implications is assigned as the subject of the opening chapter of the main body of this present report.

So, it follows, that we must resume the urgent task, on behalf of all past, present, and future humanity: to liberate mankind from the confines and vicissitudes inherent in a perpetual captivity within the prison-like bounds of our present home planet. We must free humanity to dwell in that simultaneity of a physically relativistic eternity, a future condition which is to be recognized by us as a created, relativistic physical space-time, among the constellations of our universe: as beings whose profession is that of man and woman in the likeness and service of the Creator, must do.

I. Human Creativity and History

When that great intellect of the Fifteenth-century Renaissance, the founder of the competent currents of modern European science, Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, had perceived, that the excellent work of the great ecumenical Council of Florence was grievously and systemically menaced by the persistence of the imperial, oligarchical cultural heritages of Europe, he had therefore proposed, that those with devotion to the actual accomplishments of European civilization, seek contact with people of continents across the great oceans, to build, there, the foundations for a future order of the affairs of humanity which would be built up, freed from the clutches of European oligarchical traditions, built up, so, in places, across oceans, where civilization might be freed from the oligarchical pollution then menacing humanity in Europe, throughout our planet as a whole.

The mission of these pioneers was not to escape European culture, but to preserve and enrich it, for the benefit of all mankind, in spite of Europe’s corruption by its oligarchy. So, the time has now come, that we must now supersede the mission adopted by Christopher Columbus, as did some pioneers of space-travel who compared their mission to that of Columbus. For them, as for us today, the proximate goal of our endless mission, is the development of colonization on the most suitable nearby planet, Mars.

That mission to Mars, is more important for what it requires of us, than its immediate gains. This is because, as some leading pioneers of the space program emphasized, whatever benefits such a success portends in the immediate future of those pioneers themselves, its greatest achievement for mankind will be that this consideration compels us to develop ourselves as we would never attempt such an achievement without devotion to the challenge of such a mission.

Thus, in order to provide a mode for actually human return flights between Earth and Mars, we must achieve the mastery of thermonuclear fusion as the only presently conceived means for achieving those accelerated rates of flight between the two planets which deliver the passengers and crew within the relatively brief lapse of time of travel, which is required to assure the arrival of the crew and passengers still in the condition of normal and healthy human beings. There are many more scientific challenges of comparable importance in the venture as a whole; but, those are to be regarded as the challenges which are needed to bring the best out of us as a human species.

The combined efforts of the Mayflower compact and the founding of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, led by the Winthrops and Mathers, established a settlement containing the explicitly definable seeds of the later U.S. Declaration of Independence. Shown: John Winthrop (1588-1649); the arrival of the Mayflower at Massachusetts (1629).

---------------------------------------------

That is the essential, subsuming distinction of the cultural tradition of the founders of the American System of political-economy, since the arrival of the Mayflower and the Winthrops and Mathers, a great enterprise rooted in the devotion to the same cause as that of the principal founder of all competent strains of modern European science, Nicholas of Cusa.

This explicit intention of a then deceased Nicholas of Cusa was adopted, approximately A.D. 1480, as a mission, by the great navigator Christopher Columbus, a Columbus who acted so on the authorities of both his accomplishments as a navigator within the Atlantic region, and by the counsel of the surviving companions of a leading founder of all competent modern European science, Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa.

The continuing influence of such oligarchical pollution as that, first by the Habsburg imperial dynasty, and, then, its British successor among the followers of Paolo Sarpi, had been combined, in effect, with the ongoing religious warfare of the 1492-1648 interval. This oligarchical corruption of modern European civilization, had spoiled much of the colonization of the central and southern region of the continent of the Americas.

Thus, as if by that default in the Iberian effort of the Habsburg-polluted influences upon the Sixteenth and Seventeenth centuries and beyond, the combined efforts of the Mayflower compact and the founding of the Massachusetts Bay Colony led by the Winthrops and Mathers, established a settlement containing the explicitly definable seeds of the later U.S. Declaration of Independence. With that came the historical factor of the unique system of American economy, and the Federal Constitution, as a new nation, carrying all that was good which they could find in past and present of that time’s culture of Europe, but also freed of those oligarchical legacies of monetarist empires which continue to pollute the history of the world to the presently ruinous days.

In the course of time, the great pilot accomplishments of the New England society, into 1687, had been greatly spoiled for a time, again, from 1688-89 on, by the advent of the depraved and rapacious forms of oppression imposed by the reigns of James II and the Anglo-Dutch reign of William and Mary. Nonetheless, the legacy of the pre-1688 New England of the Winthrops and Mathers, was resumed by the sponsors and followers of the leadership shown by a Benjamin Franklin who became the principal agent of the effort to combine the best of European culture of Gottfried Leibniz, with the building up of a new form of republic in what became our United States. From the beginnings of the New England colony, to the present-day continuation of the intention expressed by the Federal Constitution of the United States, the constitutional principle on which the U.S. republic is founded, is the principle of a credit-system, in opposition to the intrinsically oligarchical monetarist imperialism typical of Europe, still to the present day.

Thus, the world since that time, to the present day, has orbited around the essentially systemic conflict between two English-language cultures, one dominated presently by the oligarchical system of the British empire under the legacy of the February 1763 Peace of Paris, and by the consequent leadership of the private empire known as the British East India Company of Lord Shelburne, and of Shelburne’s lackeys such as the depraved Adam Smith and Jeremy Bentham, and by the global, imperialist tradition, which they continue to represent as their legacy, to the present day.

So, the United States, under the leading influence of the current which came to be expressed by Benjamin Franklin, became what became known as “the great melting-pot,” wherein the cultures carried from Europe into North America shared their best from European culture, but a culture essentially freed from the foul taint of the modern form of Venetian-directed financier-oligarchical imperialism which came to be centered in the role of London as the central point of reference of a Venetian style of monetarist imperialism, an imperial interest operating in deadly hatred of the anti-monetarist characteristics of the North American republic.

Nevertheless, the relatively great power embodied in the Anglo-Venetian monetarist tyranny over continental Europe, was enabled thereby to insert the evil kernel of the British East India Company into forming a treasonous nest assembled around the American Tories of the Hartford Convention, a nest full of the followers and cronies of British agent and de facto traitor Aaron Burr of the Bank of Manhattan, which were assembled to be what has become the power associated with the notorious “Wall Street” as a powerfully treasonous influence inside our United States. All of the known assassinations of Presidents of the United States, have been done in strategic service of that interest of the Anglo-Venetian, monetarist imperialism also expressed in the existence of what is commonly identified as that monetarist cesspool of evil known as “Wall Street.”

If the planet is to be rescued from the global, planet-wide, new dark age now coming down upon the planet as a whole, that imperial monetarist form now called “globalism,” must be expelled from its over-reaching power among the affairs of the nations of this planet.

The time has come, now, at which either the model of the U.S. notion of the sovereignty of national, patriotic credit-systems shall be the keystone of a system of respectively sovereign national cultures which shall jointly rule this planet in a state of equity, or else the world as a whole will now continue its currently accelerating plunge into the direction of Hell itself, a Hellish, planet-wide “New Dark Age,” which a continuation of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal form of reign by traditionally predatory Venetian monetarism, would ensure.

“A certain man had a dream, last night, that the U.S. Senate had voted up a bill which decreed that the Earth is flat. Denial of that conclusion was judged to be sufficient cause for execution of the defendant. In that dream, the members then arose from their seats to cheer the President of the republic who had proposed this reform. Next week, the House is expected to rule that people are edible; population control will have been achieved.”

The situation of a presently onrushing, general economic breakdown-crisis of our entire planet, requires that we re-examine what had been known to us, or should have been known, respecting the principles of civilization operating even prior to certain crucial discoveries which were made during the entire sweep of the Nineteenth and Twentieth centuries, as from a time beginning with the work in the footsteps of Carl Gauss and Bernhard Riemann, by such as the scientists Max Planck and Albert Einstein, and in the great discoveries which took over much of the entire Twentieth Century’s science through the influence of the work of that most celebrated Academician V.I. Vernadsky, especially his crucial work in defining the categorically systemic distinctions among the principled domains of the Lithosphere, Biosphere, and Noösphere.[fn_3]

On this account, it is of crucially specific importance for any competent attempts at policy-shaping of our United States today, to consider the example of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, in its role until the point in time of the repression it suffered under both James II and William III (of “Orange”). The legacy of the leading families of that Colony, the Winthrops and Mathers, the legacy as transmitted to Benjamin Franklin, typifies that fruit of that intention of both Cusa and Christopher Columbus, which became the systemic division, from 1763 onward, between the patriotic English-speakers of what became the United States, and the opposing system of imperial tyranny associated with the identity of the specifically British empire which had been first established, on behalf of the Anglo-Dutch British East India Company, by the February 1763 Peace of Paris. What this involved was not a merely frictional conflict, but a deep division in a matter of great principle, between the British empire and our patriots, which developed between 1763 and what emerged later as the Declaration of Independence and still later the Federal Constitution.

To know the ground on which destiny will now be played out, there must be a clear understanding of our republic as being an outcome of that deeper part of European history which had emerged as the maritime culture of those currents of Classical Greece which are to be associated with our memory of the Pythagoreans and Plato.

For that purpose, we must focus on that characteristic division within ancient Greek history celebrated by the playwright Aeschylus’ Prometheus Trilogy, between those whose cultural tradition is rooted in the creativity associated with the names of Archytas, Socrates, and Plato, who breathed the fire of human creativity, against those opponents typified by Aeschylus’ image of the suppression of scientific progress by the evil Zeus and his oligarchical tyranny. Such, precisely, is the historical root of the essential difference between the parallel case of the American English-speaker and the British (or, brutish) oligarchical imperialist tradition of “globalization” still today.

The difference between the typical American who has developed as a knowledgeable patriot, and “the typical Brit,” is variously expressed and concealed by the contrasting implications of their respective uses of the term “tradition,” the difference between the developed U.S. citizen’s soul, which is driven by a commitment to scientific and related progress in the future conditions of life, and the British yearning, like that of the legendary Olympian Zeus and his courtly crew, for the dead heirlooms of a past which had actually never existed. As a wit might put the point: “the Americans crossed the Atlantic; whereas, the British imperial monarchy double-crossed it.”

It is of crucial importance, that today’s new leaders of our republican society, must have arisen up and out of the muck-and-mire of what have become the increasingly depraved cultural trends, in trans-Atlantic society since the post-World War II resurgence of that influence of both the British oligarchy and its Wall Street lackeys, that as a moral and intellectual decadence which is expressed as the anti-Roosevelt reaction following the death of that great President Franklin Roosevelt.

It was, most notably, a certain, distilled stratum of the first generation born following the death of President Franklin Roosevelt, which was swept up, during its adolescence and beyond, into that post-John F. Kennedy, anarchoid, existentialist fascism of the so-called “New Left” which erupted with full, fascist force across the United States and Europe in Spring 1968; but, it was the influence of the existentialists typified by the rise of the degenerates of the existentialist movement, such as former Nazi Party convert Martin Heidegger and his friends Hannah Arendt and Theodor Adorno, as they were fostered in the post-war period by the European Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF), which supplied that cultural depravity which the proto-fascist young movement of the “68ers” was to have imbibed.[fn_4]

PRNewsFoto/Elliott Landy

From the ranks of the first generation born after the death of President Franklin Roosevelt, emerged an anarchoid existentialist movement, the so-called “New Left,” or “68ers,” as seen in this photo of the dionysian Woodstock orgy of August 1969.

---------------------------------------------

With the triumphal insolence of those political beneficiaries of the murder of President John Kennedy, who were thus freed to unleash the ruin of the United States in Vietnam, as in the promotion of a war in Afghanistan now, there was a sweeping mood of post-1945 pessimism throughout the Americas and Europe. This paradigm-shift was seized upon among the residue left by the Churchill-Truman-led campaign to attempt to eradicate every semblance of the policies of President Franklin Roosevelt from the affairs of both the internal United States, and, most emphatically, post-Roosevelt global perspectives.

After the assassination of President Kennedy, a new generation of youngsters which are to be associated with a memory of the 1950s’ pretensions of middle-class supremacy, and a family’s security clearances to match, came boiling to the surface in the ferment which followed President Kennedy’s assassination. They asserted a new form of existentialist mood, at first timidly, and, then with greater and greater insolence, on both sides of the Atlantic, en route to their violent eruptions of existentialist frenzy during the Spring of 1968, and, soon after that, the emergence from those youthful ranks of the anti-science, “anti-blue collar,” neo-malthusian rabble, from the “Sun Day” ferment of 1970, on.

The residue of the normal work-going, post-war adult generation, was stunned with astonishment, by what had been an already ongoing moral and intellectual depravity welling up among the relatively privileged portion of their own children’s generation, especially those among that youth generation typified by the relatively more privileged, university strata, during the 1960s. The “dragon’s teeth” had sprouted! What was, in fact, a rebirth of fascist mass-ferment, as typified in the U.S.A. by the “68ers” Weatherman cult of that time, was on the march again.

The British oligarchy was mightily pleased. Britain’s current revival of Adolf Hitler’s “Tiergarten Vier” first step to mass-murder, both in Britain now and its lackeys inside the U.S. Obama government’s IMAC scheme today, is exemplified, in fact and clear intention, by the case of the eminently evil and lying former Prime Minister Tony Blair, a child of Satan who has the inevitable, mass murderous, lying insolence to call himself, in the envied likeness of the evil Grand Inquisitor, “a Christian.”

This neo-Malthusian neo-fascism, sprung from the trans-Atlantic ranks of the so-called “Sixty-Eighters,” typifies the intention of the British imperial ruling oligarchy of today. That neo-Malthusian, Hitler-echoing trend in “health-care” and matching “green” policy, as in today’s U.S. Government today, is the great immediate threat to all humanity, the threat to the very essence of what might be honestly defined as civilization, especially its threat against the civilization of the United States’ Constitution, throughout the world today.

Therefore, the leading task before all sane and moral people of this planet, is the eradication of that greatest of all existing threats to humanity, world-wide, typified by the British monetarist empire of today.

It is indispensable, of course, that that form of moral corruption in high places be defeated, that in a thorough-going manner, now. But that, if considered alone, however necessary, is not sufficient in and of itself.

The misery which these neo-malthusian and related policies of practice, have wreaked upon the majority of the citizens of our own and other nations, world-wide, since 1968, until today, demands a fundamental, and also rapid change in direction of expressed trends in physical economy, world-wide, now. This fact is complemented by the urgency of unleashing a highly energized practice of growth of the physical economy of each nation, that done by means of commitment to accelerated rates of scientific progress in the condition of basic economic infrastructure and the progress of production in agriculture, manufacturing, and machine-tool design, world-wide, now.

The fact is, that the world as a whole has been the victim of a general trend downward in the potential for maintaining even the existing level of population of the world as a whole, and of each among all nations. This condition has developed most conspicuously, and at a generally accelerating rate of net attrition, since the crash in maintenance of existing levels of even basic economic infrastructure, as in the U.S.A. itself, since about 1967-1968.

That moral and economic decline now rampant, must be considered now in the light of two savagely self-destructive trends in prevalent opinion, even among the matured upper political-influentials of the U.S.A. and Europe today.

Knowing Real History

What has been presented here thus far, brings our attention to the most crucial roots of the defining conflicts within European civilization and its legacies, as traced to the present U.S. and global crisis of the presently perilous moment in the broad sweep of humanity up to the present instant. This matter is, as I shall now illustrate as follows, no deviation from the urgent practical task of rescuing an endangered world civilization now.

To understand both the best and worst of European civilization, in particular, it is important, culturally and strategically, to emphasize a certain change in the dominant culture of the region surrounding the Mediterranean Sea, which emerged historically with the decline and fall of the Asian Achaemenid empire’s attempts to overrun the littoral and seas of the Mediterranean region. Whereas, the tendency of the Mediterranean littoral’s dominant maritime culture, which was based in the cooperation of Egypt, Ionia, and the Etruscans, against the Mediterranean’s predatory Tyre, was complemented by the role of the inserted Cult of Delphi, a Delphi oracle which implanted those relatively fatal seeds of corruption which had led into the tragedy of the Peloponnesian War.

In particular, the combination of the Apollo-Dionysus cult based in Delphi, and Delphi’s associated monetarist interests, represents the background for that Peloponnesian War, through which so-called Greek culture suffered a great strategic and moral decline. Despite that, a still potent, but not homogeneous force, remained, within Greek and Egyptian cultures, as a continuing legacy which contributed greatly to the dominant influence of the remnants of Classical Greek culture expressed within what virtually all of the leading accomplishments of European maritime culture have expressed within globally extended European civilization, until now.

The immediate outcome of the aftermath of that folly known as the Peloponnesian War, was the development in the Mediterranean littoral, of what was explicitly defined, formally, as based on what was stipulated as an oligarchical principle expressed in the form of what has been a predominantly Mediterranean maritime culture since that time. I mean a legacy of European culture permeated with maritime-cultural roots, even deep inland, still today.

The conflict between what had been, on the one side, the culture centered on the legacy of Thales, the Pythagoreans, Socrates, and Plato, and, on the opposing side, the Delphi cult’s anti-scientific-progress cult of Aristotle and Euclid, has been the most stubbornly persistent source of the conflicts within globally extended European civilization, since the period of the Plato versus Aristotle conflict, up through the present day.

The Corruption!

This means, in political and related practice, that a person fit to be called an historian, is one whose approach to comprehension of the meaning of present-day conflicts is rooted in not much less than six thousand years of the relatively better known cultural characteristics of human political-cultural development, as contrasted with those mere anecdotalists who are essentially chroniclers, or accountants, rather than actually historians.

It is the practice of law, by those who are illiterates in the matter of a competent practice of history, rather than a patchwork of chronicled anecdotes, which is among the principal sources of evil in respect of law, even so-called “constitutional law,” among putatively civilized nations today.

The competent historian is essentially an epistemologist whose approach to any portion of history being considered, provides the indispensable moral standard for the study and telling of history, as that history of ideas which can not be efficiently understood except by aid of the labor of an epistemologist who treats ideas, not as isolatable phenomena, as if virtually born, de novo, only yesterday, or in anecdotes told by some grandfathers to their descendants; but, history as having a certain kind of evolving immortal life of its own, in an eternal history of the development of ideas. Within that setting, we should encounter the forces which control the conditions of a mental life within whose self-evolving bounds, the continuing actual histories of societies and their conflicts are shaped by the willful actions of mankind.

“All competent history, and all competent strategy, exist essentially within the domain of the long historical process in the development of ideas, a process which continues endlessly, even to future colonies among parts of this galaxy, as the chief influence on the behavior of both individual persons, in nations, and among nations, today.” Shown: A cave painting in Lascaux, France, ca. 14,000 B.C.

---------------------------------------------

All competent history, and all competent strategy, exist essentially within the domain of the long historical process in the development of ideas, a process which continues endlessly, even to future colonies among parts of this galaxy, as the chief influence on the behavior of both individual persons, in nations, and among nations, today.

The teacher who says to students: “Today, we shall learn the following, for which you will be responsible in the test tomorrow,” is a sophist, not one prepared to confront the class with a serious treatment of actual ideas. Take away such a teacher’s pack of besmudged index-cards and textbooks, and he may be suddenly rendered a babbling and utterly confused fool, like the caught-out, fictional Wizard of Oz.

So, as we are confronted by a great, menacing, global crisis for all humanity now, the essential requirement of leadership is that the would-be leader, at any level of leadership in society, must live in a sense of currently ongoing vital history, as I have summarily described that just now. If we do not know how what are foolishly considered to be our presently firm opinions, were formed, since ancient Rome, we know really little to nothing about ourselves, and are, therefore, likely prey for any charlatan who dumps some heap of hastily made-up, silly popularized sophistry upon us.

To illustrate that point, consider the following argument by me, which should be repeated in advising those who are confronted with the misguided policies of General David Petraeus and his associate General Stanley McChrystal.

Afghanistan, for Example

Consider the principal habit of military folly into which the U.S.A. has fallen, repeatedly, since the death of President Franklin Roosevelt, when it has been lured, since the death of President Franklin Roosevelt, as by British influence, into ruinous, unnecessary, and prolonged land wars in Asia. The Iago-like ruse employed by British circles devoted to a long-range perspective of bringing our nation down, is to convince the U.S. government that it must engage in what should be foreseeable as yet another, long, wasting, ultimately worse than useless war in Asia. The essential bit of folly in all of these instances, has been the perfectly stupid belief among many of those U.S. military officials, for example, who lacked the sense which Generals of the Armies MacArthur and Eisenhower expressed in warning President Kennedy against yet another counterproductive land-war in Asia. Then, the President Kennedy who blocked the launching of that war, was killed, and that President’s terrorized successor submitted to the “Gulf of Tonkin” fraud. So, the mightiest nation of this planet, was induced to become self-destroyed.

National Archives

Gen. Douglas MacArthur (above) warned President Kennedy against a land war in Asia. But his “terrorized successor,” Lyndon Johnson, capitulated to the “Gulf of Tonkin” fraud. An unhappy LBJ is shown below, signing the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, August 1964.

Lyndon B. Johnson Library

---------------------------------------------

The present folly of President Barack Obama in the Southwest Asia cockpit, is typical of Presidents duped by Generals whose ill-thought out propensity for warfare leads many misguided nations into those traps of protracted land wars in Asia. A British initiative, as in the region of west Asia, is typical of the way in which a trap for credulous Americans is baited, again, and again, and yet again.

The point of my presenting such special topics at this time, here, is that, frequently, in such cases, the root of the folly of the relevant government officials of the United States, was their lack of an informed good sense of real history. That specific type of intellectual and moral weakness among us, when exploited by our republic’s principal, permanent enemy, the British Empire, has been expressed by the often amazing display of sheer stupidity, or worse, among those of our leaders who have no actually competent sense of the proper meaning of the word “history.”

That is the type of potentially fatal stupidity among our nation’s incumbent leaders, which must be exposed as the chief source of the danger which is caused, essentially, by our own leading circles’ habitual ignorance of a real knowledge of even the nature of the subject of a study of actual history. Such leaders, who are often very skilled in many other important respects, are about as clever, in matters of historical strategy, as the gaping citizen who has his pocket picked by the nearby pimp or prostitute (not necessarily a British one), while the half-naked entertainer wriggles on stage.

That is what I have been at some pains to clarify here at this point in my presentation. The true art of conquest, lies not in winning wars, but in pre-shaping their causes and outcome. The typical dupe is like the man who leaves work on payday, but stops at a familiar drinking and gambling place on his way home to the blessings of another week of poverty in his family household. That is where the British empire has usually been smarter than those powers which turn out to be its victims, at the close of the game played, each week, on the way back home. So, on this account, a discharged Chancellor Bismarck warned a foolish German command, that the next war, which would be organized by Britain, would be “new Seven Years War.” So, Franklin Roosevelt led the winning of his unavoidable war, but silly Harry Truman and his cronies lost it, as if on the way home, as if to some colony of the British empire, later.

As is shown by the history of Southwest Asia since the close of World War I, even at the time that the British empire was deploying its puppet organization, the “Young Turk” organization, for the subsequent British attempt at takeover of the Ottoman empire—but for Ataturk, the entire history of the so-called Middle East and much of larger Southwest Asia besides, has been the playing of the game of Sykes-Picot, where Arab and Israeli puppets kill one another, on British instructions, chiefly for the purpose of the convenience and amusement of the British Empire, each contestant, like gladiators, dying for public amusement, in an arena: that on almost any, and virtually all days, since the time of the close of World War II.

The warfare in Afghanistan is no exception to this British rule.

The British, as usual, since the 1790s, run the great portion of that world-wide traffic in narcotics, a traffic which is used, still today, not only for great profit of the empire itself, but also to degrade the minds and bodies of virtually entire, targeted nations, as this was done to China in the Nineteenth Century. That continues to be the case to the present day, throughout the world.

The case of the current U.S. operations in Afghanistan is very much a case in point. While the British control the production of opium in their assigned military territory in Afghanistan, the duped American officials and others are sucked into the trap of the warfare into which they have been lured, that, in part, for the profit of the British empire, but, more significantly, the bleeding of London’s most hated rival, our United States, a United States which has been bleeding itself over a half a century, all for the ultimate victory of Britain over the United States, in land wars in Asia. Meanwhile, important, but nonetheless silly leading and other Americans, consider the British empire “our nearest and dearest ally.”

And, yet, you still insist that you understand history—or, economics!

Who, therefore, should we fight?

NASA

The introduction of technologies of a higher net energy-flux density, per capita and per square kilometer, even if delivered beyond planet Earth, will have the effect of raising the level of productivity, and available standard of living (negentropically), of present and future inhabitants of Earth itself. Here, an artist’s conception of living quarters on Mars, plus a greenhouse and pressurized work facility.

---------------------------------------------

II. Victory Is Awaiting You on Mars

Unlike the beasts, who inhabit the Biosphere, healthy specimens of human beings are distinguished from the lower orders of life inhabiting the Biosphere, by the possession of that quality of creativity (as distinct from mere “cleverness”) unique to members of the human species.

In the related matter of intelligence, the meaning of human life is to be found, not in one’s past achievements, but, rather, in one’s presently proper place in the future of mankind.

Take as a real-life example of what I intend to convey by that:

Some decades ago, when I was practicing a bit of counter-intelligence on the subject of frequent instances of relatively poor performance by a considerable percentile of consultants with the relatively highest scores in higher education, I crafted a written test, which I complemented with other relevant facts of the cases. I believe that the term best employed to summarize the result, is “Bingo!”

A relatively high percentile of those with the most impressive backgrounds, “on paper,” showed the relatively poorest performance when presented with a mission whose task-orientation was uncovering what had appeared to be a stubborn problem of the type depicted in Edgar Allan Poe’s “The Purloined Letter.”

I gained some important personal advantages in the effort of dealing with the presence of that sort of mystery.

My focus, at that time I conducted the just-described investigations, was brought more clearly to my attention a bit later, as Dr. Lawrence Kubie’s study of the performance failures among successful graduates in higher ranking academic performers, during their later post-graduate years.[fn_5] This played a significant role in prompting my later, deeper insight into this class of failed professionals with outstanding records for apparent qualifications. The image was of highly-educated fish who therefore drowned when thrown into the water.

In later years, and decades, too, I returned again and again to being confronted by this same form of intellectual failures of the ostensibly superbly qualified (on paper, or on general reputation), when it was made increasingly clear to me, that the performance failures “in the field” of consulting and comparable practice, were a result of precisely those putative academic, or comparable advantages which had produced the paper-evidence of excellence. The fact of the matter was, that they had trained so hard to appear to succeed, that this very orientation toward the substitution of appearance for actuality, had become the source of their failures under “field combat” conditions. Kubie’s early 1960s Daedalus paper[fn_6] on the subject of what he had earlier identified as the neurotic distortion of the creative process, showed that his treatment of the problem of neurosis broadly, also fit the specific matter of performance failures within the particular domain of scientific creativity.

This phenomenon of the frequent failure of the successful graduate, is legendary, but is usually poorly understood scientifically. The popular, widespread mis-use of the term “practical” among the envious, blames the evils of pedantry on pompous ass and great scientist, alike.

On this account, we can not overlook the role of the post-World War II substitution of the “massiversity” for what had been earlier pre-World War standards of university education in fields of Classics and science. Giant-lecture-hall teaching, and drill-field designs imported to seating in lecture-hall-sized classrooms, fostered such results. “Getting a-head,” rather than actually developing one, tended to replace the pleasure of experiencing creativity in oneself as the motivating factor in educational and comparable experiences. The ration of outright frauds among putatively leading professionals, in and outside academic life today, is very, very large, and has increased at great speed since the adulthood of the academically processed “68ers” and their current harvests of new generations of Laputan-like dupes.

The types of failures which I have broadly outlined in the several preceding paragraphs here, were not as much intellectual failures in the formal academic or related sense, as they were moral failures.

That much said on this particular subject thus far, apply the same form of disorder to the case of the person whose motive in life is “to get ahead” socially and financially, rather than as might be measured in terms of the net mortal outcome measured in benefits to humanity of a mortal human life approaching its termination.

Upward, Through Space

Keep in view the hypothetical case of our preparations for man’s launching our future round-trips between Earth-orbit and Mars-orbit. This may appear to some people, to be akin to a spectator’s preparing himself to cheer loudly at next year’s big sporting event. The fact is, that whenever we introduce the use of those technologies by mankind, the which are of a higher net energy-flux density per capita and per square kilometer, even if the product of that effort is delivered to some place outside our planet Earth, the included effect is to raise the level of productivity, and available standard of living (negentropically), of the population for the present and future inhabitants of Earth itself.

We had a comparable experience in the U.S.A. during World War II. The war required us to upgrade the level of physical productivity inside the U.S.A., per capita and per square kilometer. At the close of the war, we had thus achieved a level of physical productivity beyond all precedents then immediately in view. The problem was, when the war had ended, that, under President Truman, we cut back, even destroyed, much of that potential, and that quickly. That war-time gain had been much less in costly products produced for the war-effort, but in what we would have been enabled to do during the post-war decades, if we had not shut down, or hidden, so much of that knowledge of high-technology productive potential as increased productive output and higher rates of growth, as could have been measured in per capita and per square-kilometer terms through reinvestment, after the war’s end.

The fact was, that a continuation of President Franklin Roosevelt’s policy, after the war, would have eliminated the imperialist power of the British empire through liberation of what the British ruling oligarchy regarded as “its empire,” as Winston Churchill had made exactly that point during the war-time. As soon as President Franklin Roosevelt was dead, Truman and Churchill acted in concert with President Roosevelt’s war-time adversary, John Maynard Keynes, to shut down President Roosevelt’s intended post-war, anti-imperialist reforms.

The anticipated interjection at this point would be, “But, we had to keep our military secrets from the Soviet Union!” Bunk: until Truman and the infinitely evil Bertrand Russell superseded the deceased President Franklin Roosevelt, there was no security threat from the Soviet Union! We of the United States held the great power of the world in our hands, at that point, and, chiefly, apart from those Anglo-Dutch interests, which had, in fact, put Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler into power, before the British realized, in 1940, that they had some serious reasons to regret the outcome of their role in launching Hitler in the first place.

Office of War Information/Alfred T. Palmer

At the close of World War II, under FDR’s leadership, the United States had achieved a level of physical productivity beyond all historical precedents. The shutting down of that potential, beginning with President Truman, has resulted in today’s profound economic crisis. Shown: A B-25 bomber assembly plant in Kansas City, Kansas, early 1940s.

---------------------------------------------

With the post-World War II British habit of ruining the U.S.A. as much as possible through the division of Germany into warring entities, and the perpetual launching of new, prolonged “land wars in Asia,” the British empire regained its world power, at American expense, through inducing us to ruin ourselves by starting wars which we had already, honestly and fairly won. We, ourselves, thus created, under British orders, the new wars which we had already won, by making the new enemies who had just previously wished to consider themselves our partners in building a post-imperialist world order.

It was not only the more obvious British influences which induced us to create new enemies. As in the case of the Soviet Union after the death of Franklin Roosevelt admirer Stalin, Nikita Khrushchev cut an agreement with the Bertrand Russell who had been the public proponent of a “preventive nuclear attack” on the Soviet Union for the avowed purpose of creating “world government.” My experience with both Yuri Andropov and Gorbachev during the 1980s, was similar. Contrary to such persons, much of the gut of the Soviet Union’s post-war development depended upon the role of the Academy of Sciences of figures best typified by the legacy of Academician V.I. Vernadsky.

There is science, not mere speculation in my remarks at this juncture. I speak as follows:

Both in the time of the great Archytas and Plato, when the principle of dynamis had reigned in science and the statecraft of the Platonic Academy, and, later, with the identification of the principle of dynamics by Gottfried Leibniz, as during his work of the 1690s, the principled organization of societies is located, as Percy Bysshe Shelley emphasized in the conclusion of his A Defence of Poetry, in the principled composition of societies, and of what passes for the mysterious power of so-called “public opinion”—as distinct from “pubic opinion”—among a people, during the reign of a specific quality of culture, which is shaped by such forces as either Classical artistic culture and science in the Platonic tradition, or the depravities of the Apollo-Dionysus tradition.

Thus, as Shelley emphasized the notion of the dynamic of a “great people” of a certain culture and its time, it is the direction we supply to society’s development, which tends to sweep up the passions of a people in such a way as to cause them to serve the cause of greatness, or evil. It is the management of those trends in passions, on which the true great statesmen and poets rely, to shape the higher body of dynamic willfulness of a society. Thus, great statesmen are sometimes capable of making allies out of enemies, or, as Churchill and his dupe Truman did, enemies out of allies.

So, the British empire seeks to destroy us, not by making direct warfare upon our territory, but by corrupting us, by inducing us to make ourselves silly and weak, through the influence of what fools consider our “nearest and dearest, oldest” ally, that British empire which has now, finally, nearly succeeded in causing us to destroy ourselves.

The fresh arousal of the commitment to a high priority on a Moon-Mars project directive, is the potentially greatest force for goodness in peoples today.

So, a comparable example of resistance to the British use of its American assets, is found in the history of pioneering in the United States, both in agriculture and in great works of basic economic infrastructure. The U.S. under Presidents Lincoln and Grant, as Franklin Roosevelt later, are paragons on this account.

The improvements in productivity and wealth which the individual may create, are an expression of the essential difference between the person and beasts, and thus shape the moral character of the relevant nation. Then, there is a contrary policy, and with that, its specific moral effect.

I am not “preaching incentives” here. It is not the reward sought by the prompting use of incentives, but the benefit to society, which is the relevant human, “psychological gain” of the individual participant in progress as measured in wealth per capita and per square kilometer of territory. It is not what many would describe as an “incentive thing;” it is a gain in the realization of the meaning of the human being’s sense of the intrinsic worth of a life being lived. It is the difference between looking at yourself as cattle which hope to be better fed, and not being cattle.

As each of you becomes older, each day of passing years, the important question is, especially near the end of life, as the point was made in an Abner Dean cartoon from an edition of The New Yorker, decades ago: “What was that all about?”

“The Simultaneity of Eternity”

As I have already emphasized in The Science of Physical Economy, when we consider that point of difference, which I identified there as the “Type ‘B’ ” personality, a distinction which separates the realized state of human individuals from beasts, we are led to a clearer insight into the proper choice of meaning for the term “immortality,” or, in other words, “a simultaneity of eternity” expressed, uniquely, by those creative potentials of the individual mind which distinguish members of the Noösphere from the animals, plants, and man-made creatures from the bowels of “Silicon Valley.”

The distinction, which is essential, rather than figurative, implicitly locates the identity of the human individual’s mental life in the function of those implicitly conscious powers of creativity which are unique to the human individual. Such is the proper definition of the human, individual “immortal soul.” This has precise, physical meaning, a meaning typified, for example, by Johannes Kepler’s uniquely original discovery of the principle of universal gravitation, as this was made originally by Kepler in his The Harmonies of the Worlds, and given a richer exposition as to the meaning of that discovery, by Albert Einstein.

Once again, that notion of the ontological characteristic of discoverable qualities of efficient universal physical principles, is that characteristic activity of the human individual’s reach beyond the bounds of his, or her mortal existence as a denizen of the Biosphere. This double-characteristic of the immortal human soul, is what is demonstrated by the physical evidence bearing upon the paradoxical relationship between sense-perception and knowledge of physically efficient universal principles, as a perfectly efficient relationship unknown to devoutly worshipful British Liberals.

For example. When we work to “take apart,” so to speak, the “history” of the development of ideas of efficient physical principle on which the emergence of any experimentally demonstrated discovery of a new universal physical principle has depended, we are obliged to trace the parentage of any valid modern such discovery of principle to extremely remote regions of mankind’s much earlier existence. Similarly, what we may add to the stock of such principles, lives on as an expression of our efficient existence into generations of the distant future.

Thus, on such account, the essential interest which occupies the incarnate form of human existence, is not lodged primarily within the bounds of a person’s mortal flesh, but in what the most sensitive theologians are able to recognize as a habitation of the efficient human personality within the domain of a so-called “simultaneity of eternity.”

“Man’s truly principled actions on behalf of mankind, must necessarily reach far beyond the span of mortality of the individual person.” This is the vision of mankind shared by truly creative minds, such as the Apostle Paul (left, painting by Rembrandt, 1629-30), or Philo of Alexandria (right).

---------------------------------------------

It is this notion of the efficient character of a domain nameable as such a “simultaneity of eternity,” with which, without reasonable doubt, Philo of Alexandria would have agreed, that of the endless power of creativity of both the Creator identified in Genesis 1, and those made in His likeness. Such is the vision of mankind which all truly great creative human minds, such as the Christian Apostles Paul and John, or Philo of Alexandria have expressed in this matter.

Man’s truly principled actions on behalf of mankind, must necessarily reach far beyond the span of mortality of the individual person. Our destiny, is what we are obliged to contribute to cause what the universe we inhabit, must become. This is the nature of that true “pursuit of happiness” which the U.S. Declaration of Independence took from the pen of Gottfried Leibniz. This is what is expressed in the most impassioned moments of conception in the work of Albert Einstein, and the great spiritual lesson expressed by the opening two paragraphs and closing sentence of Bernhard Riemann’s 1854 habilitation dissertation.

This is the specific quality of passion which we should muster from within ourselves, not only for the sake of the future of mankind, but for the realization of the intention of those lives which have gone before our own. True science is not ambition, but the joy of devotion to the mission within our universe which is assigned to mankind. It is that mission-orientation which gives the strength for the great mission immediately before us within this Solar system, a mission which will be the source of our joy in the labor thus presented to the future generations of this century.

So, on to Mars.

In Conclusion: Constitutional Law

There will be foreseeable leading objections to those measures which I have presented for rescuing the present economies from a general economic breakdown-crisis of the planet as a whole. To deal appropriately with the roadblocks which those types of objections represent, I employ this epilogue as my general rebuttal to all among what might be considered to be the two least incredible among those cases.

Let us now consider the two principal among the anticipated objections of a systemic character, which we must anticipate as the likely objections to what I have presented, above, as the underlying principle of my presentation of the constitutional remedies for the grave predicament of our republic and planet alike, at this conjuncture. Objections of that quality of relevance, can be reduced to two types.

To mark out the boundaries of the field on which the arguments are to be played, we must define three principal categories of relevant general philosophy best known for their prevalence among the customs of today’s globally extended, ancient, medieval, and modern European civilization.

The first among those three types, is what may be associated with the name of “the modern Platonic tradition.” The two contrary traditions in respect to general principle, which have any systemic relevance for the argument immediately at hand, are fairly identified, respectively, as, first, the ancient Aristotelean dogma, which is also expressed as the method of Euclidean a-prioristic geometry, and, second, that modern empiricist ideology, also known as philosophical “Liberalism,” which is to be traced from the rise of the widespread influence of Paolo Sarpi within modern, globally extended, European civilization.

The understanding of the grave practical implications of the systemic differences among those three systems, is crucial for understanding the implicitly fraudulent arguments which we must expect to hear presented by advocates of the latter two of these three: systemically mutually exclusive notions of what are to be presumed as being implicitly rational forms of universal scientific and legal systems.

The case to be presented on that account, is probably best stated by presenting the relevant arguments and their conclusions in the following order.

Of these three categories which may be considered as relevant for modern civilizations, my own, adopted standpoint is that expressed in its most modern expression as the standpoint established by Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa,[fn_7] who has served as the origin of the discoveries in modern science by such as Luca Pacioli, Leonardo da Vinci, Johannes Kepler, Pierre de Fermat, Christian Huyghens, Gottfried Leibniz and his Eighteenth-century followers such as Abraham Kästner, Gotthold Lessing, Moses Mendelssohn, Friedrich Schiller, Percy Bysshe Shelley, the Ecole Polytechnique circles of France’s Gaspard Monge and Lazare Carnot, and Carl F. Gauss, and Bernhard Riemann and his followers such as Albert Einstein and Academician V.I. Vernadsky.

That legacy is to be distinguished from such cases as the Karl Weierstrass, who was the rival and the systematic opponent of Riemann, an opponent who contributed to the weakness which developed in the fiercely persecuted, and ultimately broken, Georg Cantor since the appearance of his Grundlagen, and to the founding of the positivist current of Ernst Mach and David Hilbert (as distinct from the utterly depraved variety of positivism associated with, speaking mathematically, the infinitely disgusting Bertrand Russell and his depraved followers).

Systemically, the notable adversaries of the Classical school of Plato and his ancient and modern followers, have been chiefly two: first, the Aristoteleans, otherwise identified with the fraudulent premises of reductionist a-priorism expressed in Euclid’s review of the earlier, original discoveries of ancient Greek geometers represented in his Elements; and, second, the modern Paolo Sarpi’s curious resuscitation of the irrationalism of that medieval William of Ockham, whose system is otherwise associated with the irrationalism of both modern Cartesianism, and also the modern Anglo-Dutch Liberalism which is the foundation of the systemic features of the modern Anglo-Dutch Liberal imperialism which is otherwise known for the imperialist dogmatics of modern monetarism.

The relevant points of distinction to be noted on this account are, chiefly, the following.

Inside Modern Physical Science

Consider Albert Einstein’s reading of, and amplifications of the general implications of Johannes Kepler’s uniquely original discovery of a general law of gravitation, as to be found only in a complete reading of, and deep reflections upon the complete argument of Kepler’s own account of this discovery in his The Harmonies of the Worlds. Einstein pointed our attention directly toward two classical cases. We are presented, thus, with two contrasting systems of belief. So, in the one case, we have that typified from ancient times, by the Pythagoreans and Plato; in the other case, we have the contrasting, common system of Aristotle and his follower Euclid.

Then, there is the third case, that of the irrationalist system which is typified by Sarpi, Galileo Galilei, and their empiricist followers. For the moment, focus attention on the first two types of systemic argument, Plato versus Aristotle.

The most essential distinction between those two, is between what Kepler himself defined, repeatedly, as two mutually exclusive systems in physical science, as follows:

The Classical argument respecting the contrast between the Platonic and Aristotelean-Euclidean outlook, has been aptly summarized by Philo of Alexandria, a particular argument which can be summarily described as follows.

Philo warns the Jews of the same lifetimes as the leading Christian Apostles, against the fraudulent argument which had been explicitly posed by a representative of the influence of the Cult of Delphi, Aristotle. He attacks Aristotle as having insisted that once the universe had been created, the Creator himself no longer had the power to modify it.

That argument which had been denounced by Philo, was later copied by the Friedrich Nietzsche, who put the point as “God is dead.”[fn_8] The follower of Aristotle, Euclid, chiefly copied into his own Elements the model solutions of earlier Classical Greek geometers, but added those infamous a-priori presumptions of his own making which echo Aristotle. The relevant issue of mathematical physics posed by this case, is expressed by the failure of the positivist David Hilbert’s attempt to complete the process of solving the unproven assumptions of Nineteenth-century mathematics, most notably that of his sixth proposition,[fn_9] a proposition which goes directly to the point of Philo’s attack on the theological argument of the Aristoteleans.

To state the implications of my argument here, Albert Einstein recognized the higher of the two conclusions expressed by Kepler’s development of the crucial proof for his principle of universal gravitation for the Solar system, in particular, as the full case was developed in Kepler’s The Harmonies of the Worlds. Einstein presented the higher implication of Kepler’s uniquely original discovery of a principle of gravitation: that the universe is finite, but not defined by fixed, external boundaries. To restate that point made by modern Platonists: the universe is a self-bounded process of anti-entropic continuing creation.

The Attack on Cusa

The modern Liberal system of Paolo Sarpi and his followers, is a slightly more complicated, strategic proposition.

The root of Sarpi’s launching of what was to become known as modern British Liberalism, appeared as a by-product of the conflict between Aristotelianism and the effort to return Europe to the folly of medieval Aristoteleanism, but, this time, in the guise of modern European neo-Aristoteleanism.

The reaction against the emergence of the modern European nation-state around, essentially, the initiatives of Nicholas of Cusa, a reaction as led, politically, typically by the imperial ambitions of the Habsburg interests, was an action in the form of the defiance by the Habsburg-centered interest by acts against the emergence of the actuality of modern European sovereign nation-states, as this reaction was typified by attacks on the achievements of the first modern nation-state under France’s Louis XI and his follower, England’s Henry VII. The breaking point in the efforts to block the spread of the modern European, science-driven nation-state, was expressed in the Venetian monetarist oligarchy’s deployment of its leading spy, Francesco Zorzi, aka “Giorgi,” to break England out of the common peace which had been established among France, England, and Spain.

Into that setting, stepped Zorzi in the role of marriage counsellor to Henry VIII, a Zorzi operation which supplied a supporting flanking role of the Venetian agent Cardinal Pole, a Plantagenet pretender to the English crown, and another Venetian agent, Thomas Cromwell, the First Earl of Essex.[fn_10] The immediate outcome of this process guided by the Venetian Zorzi, et al., was to promote a state of warfare among the respective three monarchies of England, Spain, and France, which had been bonded to policies of mutual peace up to the point of this development. The continuation of this process was the expansion of the dynastically motivated Spanish Inquisition of Torquemada et al., to become what historians today view as the destruction of European civilization through the virtually permanent state of religious warfare of 1492-1648 throughout Europe.

It was out of this interplay of that interval marked at the opening by the Habsburg imperial digestion of what had been the Trastamara dynasty of Sicily and Spain, that Paolo Sarpi and his irrationalist cult of Liberalism was started on its course of becoming the putative imperial ruler of the monetarist world today.

However, in the meanwhile, the efforts to bring about an end to the tyranny of religious warfare in Europe, were brought to temporary fruition under Cardinal Mazarin and his leading protégé inside France, the great Jean-Baptiste Colbert. Such was the setting of the 1648 Peace of Westphalia and its immediate consequence for France and for the great surge of progress in modern science and economy organized under the leadership of Colbert.

Into this situation came the Venetian agent Abbe Antonio S. Conti, the hand behind Voltaire, who was to play a crucial role in organizing the effort to eradicate real science from Europe through the use of the counterfeit scientific figure and black-magic specialist Isaac Newton. These operations by the followers of Sarpi, culminated in the Seven Years War, which produced what became the private empire of Lord Shelburne’s British East India Company, and the relative hegemony globally, of the pseudo-scientific empiricism of Paolo Sarpi, still today.

The systemic shaping of these 1492-2009 developments in the history of both European science and the general history of imperialist developments throughout the world since 1492, produced the phenomenon of Anglo-Dutch Liberal empiricism today, and the role of the British world monetarist empire of today.

creative commons/Nino Barbieri

The wildly libelled Niccolò Machiavelli (left), defended the republican cause in Renaissance Florence, following in the footsteps of Leonardo da Vinci and Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, against the evil Venetian predations of those such as Paolo Sarpi (right).

---------------------------------------------

Sarpi versus Machiavelli

To understand the process which provoked the shift, under Paolo Sarpi’s leadership, from Aristotle to the doctrine of Ockhamism, we must recognize the crucial effects of the great work of Niccolo Machiavelli’s defense of that republican cause which he had inherited from the avowed follower of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa known as Leonardo da Vinci.

The coming-into-being of the British-led monetarist world system plunging into a global new dark age now, was a product of the conflict between the legacy of the great ecumenical Council of Florence and the associated roles of Filippo Brunelleschi and Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, against the medievalist, Venice-monetarist-centered faction, from the time of the Council of Florence onward. The role of physical and related science associated, most typically, with Cusa and his tradition became the central strategic figure defining the great strategic issues of all modern history from that time to the present day. The crucial breaking-point in that conflict came with the crushing of the Republic of Florence; the role of a former secondary leader of that Republic, Niccolo Machiavelli, remains a wildly libelled keystone in the history of modern European civilization since that time.

The key to that entire interval of history, between A.D. 1492 and the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, is most efficiently and succinctly expressed by reference to Machiavelli’s role in defining the foundations of crucial features of modern republican statecraft’s military strategy and mission-oriented tactics. The essential features of the account of this role, are located in the effect of the progress of physical science on the outcome of certain changes in strategy and tactics which had been pioneered, to relatively most significant effect, by France’s Louis XI and under England’s Henry VII. It was the inherent incompetence of the cultural-philosophical outlook inherent in the morally inferior Habsburg faction, when faced with the expressed forms of relevant impact of the work of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa and his successors, which led the way into that great strategic crisis embedded in the A.D. 1545-1563 Council of Trent, and the opportunity exploited by the circles represented by the Paolo Sarpi who exploited his own account of that Council’s work to create a curious variant of the Aristotelean dogma, a variant adopted by Sarpi from the precedent of the medieval William of Ockham.

This can probably be better appreciated, respecting the relevant comparison, for today, by seeing a connection to the crisis posed by the development of nuclear and thermonuclear weaponry since 1945.

The rise of European civilization from the aftermath of the great Fourteenth-century New Dark Age, had not merely weakened, temporarily, the monetarist power of the Venetian imperial monetarist oligarchy. The cultural and economic surge provided by the Church councils of the Fifteenth Century had led to the opportunity for the great new ecumenical Council of Florence, with associated effects such as the particular scientific-revolutionary discoveries by Filippo Brunelleschi and the founding of a comprehensive expression of modern European science and statecraft prompted by, most notably, Cusa’s Concordantia Catholica (the modern sovereign nation-state) and De Docta Ignorantia (the principled foundations of the revolutionary founding of modern universal science).

“It was the moral advantage of the commitment to scientific and related progress of the great ecumenical Council of Florence [1438-39], which sustained the innovative struggle for human freedom from the side of the republican forces.” This painting, by Benozzo Gozzoli, of the “Journey of the Magi” (1459) celebrates the multinational character of the participants, many of whom came from great distances to attend the Council.

---------------------------------------------

The progress of physical science itself, together with the initiatives in statecraft by France’s Louis XI and by the frustrated initiative of the Republic of Florence, unleashed an impetus within Fifteenth-century European civilization and beyond, which is most clearly epitomized by that relatively short-term assembly of nations called “The League of Armed Neutrality” whose defeat of the British empire during the Eighteenth Century, was to create the essential circumstances for the establishment of the U.S.A. as a secured constitutional republic of a unique kind.

The principal strategic mission of the British empire since that time, has been the long-ranging intention to destroy that United States (but, only our truly witting American patriots really understand that).

So, the great religious warfare of 1492-1648, had proceeded, since the time of Christopher Columbus’s first trans-Atlantic voyage, from a conflict between the legacies of two great cultures, the republican Platonic and the monetarist-oligarchical Aristotelean. The insurgent, Platonic faction, had the essentially innate strategic advantage of its Classical cultural tradition of artistic and scientific creative genius, a factor of the modern tradition of that time which tended to give a durable strategic advantage to what was the otherwise often weaker raw physical power than the current oligarchical forms of the globally dominant pro-Aristotelean institutions. The nature of those chiefly moral-intellectual margins of advantage held by the otherwise quantitively weaker republican cause, created the condition of strategic crisis reflected in the famous A.D. 1545-1563 Council of Trent.

The essential issue so posed was that of Plato-vs.-Aristotle: the conflict between fundamental scientific progress, versus the philosophical images of a neo-Olympian Zeus and Aristotle. It was the moral advantage of the commitment to scientific and related progress of the great ecumenical Council of Florence, which sustained the innovative struggle for human freedom from the side of the republican forces. This ironical feature of the time was expressed in manifold aspects of culture, and strategy, against the innately moral and scientific superiority of the republican opponents of the pro-Aristotelean cause, republican forces engaged against the oligarchical forces associated with the imperial power commanded by the Habsburg empire.

So, the Machiavelli held in the semi-captivity of parole since his official role in the Republic of Florence, used his creativity and his pen to menace the cause of oligarchism through the Sixteenth Century and even far beyond his own death, when he enjoyed a highly honored status in the military science of modern Europe.

Hence, faced with the impact of Machiavelli’s challenge to the oligarchical cause, Paolo Sarpi’s orientation became crucial in contending for leadership of the modern oligarchical cause against the Habsburg imperialists. Sarpi positioned himself and his followers against both the Classical science of the followers of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, and also the Habsburg-led, pro-Aristotelean oligarchical faction.

Sarpi allowed technological innovation under a reformed version of oligarchism, but worked as feverishly as the overtly depraved Habsburg faction to stamp out the Platonic principle of scientific progress itself. Hence, the result of Sarpi’s influence was what became known as the moral indifferentism of the modern, heathen, behaviorist form known as the Anglo-Dutch philosophical Liberalism of Rene Descartes, Abbe Antonio S. Conti, Voltaire, et al.

The way out of the resulting stalemated situation among the contending factions in Europe itself, including Ockhamite Liberalism’s Seventeenth-century capture of England, the Netherlands, and also the Iberian Atlantic-oriented maritime settlements in the Americas, left the cause of republican progress no option but to follow the Mayflower Company, the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and what became later the “New Machiavellian” faction of Benjamin Franklin, to develop a truly republican nation-state in North America, a republican state which brought with it the cultural achievements of Europe without principled submission to the corruption represented by the European oligarchical traditions.

Once that history of the Sixteenth and Eighteenth centuries of European civilization is taken into account, the true significance of Machiavelli’s role in the origins of modern republican military strategy, as by the friends of Friedrich Schiller, in the mission-oriented realization of science and engineering, is clarified strategically.

Science Versus Gimmickry

The essence of the evil expressed by the avowed Ockhamites Paolo Sarpi, his lackey Galileo, and their successor Abbe Antonio S. Conti, lies in the role which they acquired through their use of the Anglo-Dutch “Liberals’ ” hoax of empiricism. With respect to their rivals, the pathetic Aristoteleans, the Liberals could pretend to use the products of actual science, which they counterfeited, to gain precedence over the Aristoteleans, and to outflank the Aristoteleans, by plagiarizing the discoveries of the heirs of the science of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, as the Liberals laid fraudulent claims to the discovery of gravitation, the calculus, and kindred discoveries of the followers of such as Brunelleschi and Cusa, while actually suppressing them, but, nonetheless, claiming to be the patent-holders on the falsely claimed principles which they counterfeited with fraudulent intent. In this way, they concocted a fraud, which they called “science,” in the forged name of science.

However, the essential evil which these followers of Sarpi, Galileo, and Conti represented, was no different, in the final analysis than that of the character, the Satanic Olympian Zeus, of Aeschylus’ Prometheus Bound. The common feature of the followers of Aristotle and Sarpi, is the same evil to which Philo of Alexandria pointed in his attack on the pro-Satanic fraud which the philosophy of Aristotle embedded in the guise of the a-priori assertions of Euclid’s Elements.

Indeed, as the policies of such as the World Wildlife Fund of Britain’s Prince Philip, et al., attest, the efforts of the Anglo-Dutch Liberals to appear to promote a curious perverse version of scientific progress, halt when the republican currents of continental Europe and North America are deemed sufficiently weakened by “environmentalist” forms of moral rot, that the Liberals move, as now, in their “green” effort to eradicate all semblance of modern science.

In the revised edition of his opera, Otello, the great Giuseppe Verdi adopted his collaborator Arrigo Boito’s addition of the monologue of Iago as a Satanic character put upon the Opera’s stage. The intention was to get behind the scenes where the soul of Shakespeare’s Iago could reveal itself. Essentially, the attempt succeeded theatrically. The essence of the true Venetian soul stood as if alive on stage before the audience. I know this with certainty, since my truest adversaries are exactly like that, alike in character, and alike in mission respecting the fate of the peoples and nations of all mankind. Boito’s Iago is the virtual incarnation both of the roles of John Maynard Keynes, and the Prince Philip of the World Wildlife Fund, and, also, of that imp, the lying former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. They are all echoes of the Lord Shelburne who invoked the evil Adam Smith and the Satanic Jeremy Bentham, too.

[fn_1]. Contrary to the intrinsically incompetent, but nonetheless customary methods of statistical economic forecasting, the trends of developments at any point in the clocked time of a process, depend upon a combination of developments whose measure must be combined, to a single effect, to be measured as potential, a combination which includes a causal basis in developments of an earlier time, and also the reasonable expectation of developments still to occur in some future time. In short: this is a matter of a study in dynamics, as Gottfried Leibniz defined modern dynamics in the course of his demolishing the pretensions respecting science by the foolish Rene Descartes and, later, after Leibniz’s own death, by behaviorist heirs of Descartes such as Adam Smith and Jeremy Bentham. [back to text for fn_1]

[fn_2]. Notably, this argument in the matter of principle is appropriately recognized as an implication of the concept of a “Type ‘B’ ” personality which I treat in the course of my “The Science of Physical Economy” (Executive Intelligence Review, September 18, 2009, Vol. 36, No. 36, www.larouchepub.com). [back to text for fn_2]

[fn_3]. It is important, today, to revisit the work of Planck and his friend Wolfgang Koehler from the later vantage-point of Vernadsky’s categorical distinction of Noösphere from Biosphere. The categorical distinction of the noëtic cognitive powers specific to the human individual, from the “mentality of apes,” acknowledges anti-entropic, biological creativity in the specific as well as varietal advances in animal and plant species, but willful forms of specifically, systemically anti-entropic, human creativity, are uniquely specific to the human individual. In other words, the universe as a whole is pervasively anti-entropic, but only the human individual is specifically capable of exerting anti-entropic changes in the system of nature by means of a conscious, noëtic act of will. The implications for science today, of the relationships among Planck and Koehler, and of Planck with Einstein, and the implications of the convergence of Einstein and Vernadsky are being pursued, in international collaborative efforts, by Sky Shields and others among “the basement crew.” [back to text for fn_3]

[fn_4]. Typical of the evil of the German and French existentialist movements of the 1920s through 1930s, is the influence of not only the sometime Nazi Martin Heidegger, but also the role of his 1930s Frankfurt School associates, Hannah Arendt and Theodor Adorno, in the setting of the publication of the swindle known as the dogma of The Authoritarian Personality. [back to text for fn_4]

[fn_5]. Lawrence S. Kubie, The Neurotic Distortion of the Creative Process (New York: The Noonday Press, 1961; reprint of 1958 University of Kansas Press edition). [back to text for fn_5]

[fn_6]. Cf. Lawrence S. Kubie, “The Fostering of Scientific Creativity,” Daedalus, Spring 1962. [back to text for fn_6]

[fn_7]. Nicholas of Cusa (A.D. 1401-1461). N.b. Concordantia Catholica (which introduced the principle of the modern sovereign nation-state, A.D. 1433-34) and De Docta Ignorantia (the founding of the general principle of all competent expressions of modern physical and related science, A.D. 1440). [back to text for fn_7]

[fn_8]. So, what. The relevant, sometimes stated fact is, that, both Aristotle and Nietzsche are dead. [back to text for fn_8]

[fn_9]. Professor David Hilbert, Mathematical Problems, (Paris 1900). [back to text for fn_9]

[fn_10]. The female praying mantis is noted for eating of the head of her inamorato during copulation. After Zorzi had effected one divorce on behalf of Henry VIII, Henry turned to cutting off the heads of the wives with whom he had been copulating. [back to text for fn_10]

LAROUCHE PAC PAMPHLET

Exonerate Lyndon LaRouche and Restore the Soul of America!

May 13—LaRouche PAC has just released 10,000 copies of a 64-page pamphlet, “Restoring the Soul of America: The Exoneration of Lyndon LaRouche,” for circulation throughout the United States. The distribution of this pamphlet in hard-copy, and electronic format, is the leading edge of the fight to effect a profound shift in U.S. and world policy, not merely to right a historical wrong, but to move into the future on a profound footing of cultural and scientific progress informed by a passion for truth, beauty and justice.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche leads off the pamphlet with a call to exonerate her late husband, “the most beautiful soul in American history.” A fuller obituary follows, detailing LaRouche’s unrelenting fight to create a new world order and a renaissance in science and in art, guided by his understanding of the productive creativity unique to the human species.

Following LaRouche’s Feb. 12 passing, numerous letters of condolence and appreciation poured in from around the world, and a selection of these letters is included in the pamphlet: prominently featuring notable leaders from the nations LaRouche identified as the essential Four Powers: the United States, Russia, China, and India. A former U.S. Attorney General writes that, “His courage is especially notable in the face of pervasive and vicious propaganda. Time will correct this, in his memory. The truth will out.” A member of the Russian Academy of Sciences recalls LaRouche: “ ‘A Great Thinker of Our Time,’ Lyndon LaRouche, has left us. He was a titan of thought, a man of incredibly encyclopedic knowledge, great soul, and love for humanity.” The remembrance from a high-level Chinese professor concludes, “Mr. Lyndon LaRouche, you were a most reliable friend of the Chinese people, and they will never forget you.”

Fraudulent Prosecution

The fraudulent prosecution of LaRouche is then summarized in a hard-hitting article, accompanied by a 1995 letter written by former Attorney General (and co-counsel to Lyndon LaRouche) Ramsey Clark to the then Attorney General, Janet Reno, in which he brings the matter of LaRouche’s exoneration to her directly, “because I believe it involves a broader range of deliberate and systematic misconduct and abuse of power over a longer period of time in an effort to destroy a political movement and leader, than any other federal prosecution in my time or to my knowledge.”

The signatures of current and former elected officials, policy experts, and civic and other leaders, back up the 2019 statement calling for President Trump to exonerate Lyndon LaRouche, which closes in this way:

It is time that the damage done by LaRouche’s incarceration three decades ago be repaired—not only because such a terrible injustice was done to LaRouche, but because that injustice has emboldened the British Empire to use the same methods against a sitting President of the United States, which endangers all of humanity. What better way to defend the United States of America and all of humanity than to exonerate LaRouche, ensure that his policies are at last adopted, and recognize his ideas for what they are, the acts of one of history’s greatest geniuses, affording him his rightful place in history?

Concluding the pamphlet is a historical record of the campaign to exonerate LaRouche during the 1990s presidency of Bill Clinton. The thousands of prominent signers—

demand that you, Mr. President, along with Attorney General Janet Reno, and the appropriate committees of the U.S. Congress, take any and all measures necessary to ensure the full and immediate exoneration of Lyndon LaRouche. The failure to do so does not stain the honor of Lyndon LaRouche, who has paid a terrible price for his innocence, but the honor of the U.S. justice system and Constitution which, for more than two hundred years prior to this dark episode, stood as the symbols of liberty and justice for all.

It is urgent that the release, distribution, and use of this pamphlet over the coming weeks be used to effect a profound shift in U.S. and world policy. This is not merely the righting of a historical wrong, but a necessary step in moving into the future. Helga Zepp-LaRouche concludes her introduction:

There is no greater contrast than what we see between the statesman, economist, scientist, and person Lyndon LaRouche, and the image that the malicious minions of the British Empire paint and spread about him. . . .

Whether this image will be set aright, whether this unprecedented violation of human rights and of freedom will be punished, and whether the citizens of the United States and the rest of the world will have unbiased access to Lyndon LaRouche’s ideas: these, I am deeply convinced, are what will determine whether peace in the 21st century can be secured and sustained, and whether the United States can once again become a beacon of hope for the entire world. . . .

I appeal to you: Sign and distribute the petition for the complete exoneration of Lyndon LaRouche!

The pamphlet and petition for LaRouche’s exoneration are available at lpac.co/exonerate—along with information on how to get printed copies of the pamphlet, for those who are willing to distribute it to co-workers, neighbors, friends, and the general public.

EDITORIAL

Coup Plotters Respond to Defeat with Frenzied Push for War!

by Harley Schlanger

DoS/Ron Przysucha

Ambassador John Bolton (left) and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo confer during the 2018 G20 Leaders’ Summit in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Gage Skidmore

U.S. Senator Marco Rubio.

---------------------------------------------

May 10—The combined effect of the release of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on March 22, which exonerated President Donald Trump of impeachable crimes, and the ninety-minute phone conversation Trump had with Russian President Putin on May 3, has unleashed a frenzied drive for impeachment and war, as his enemies from the British Empire camp wildly lash out to defend their failed global paradigm.

Freed from the attempted blackmail of the “Russiagate” investigation, Trump’s wide-ranging discussion with Putin showed that he now believes that he can proceed with plans for broad strategic cooperation with Russia, which could include joint collaboration with China on dealing with crisis spots and matters of trade and arms control. It is fear that this has been Trump’s intent all along, to break with the post-Cold War unilateralist paradigm of the geopoliticians, which provoked the British-directed Russiagate operation to attempt to defeat him in the 2016 election, and subsequent efforts to remove him from office in a coup after he won.

The anti-Trump efforts are spearheaded by Congressional Democrats who refuse to accept the conclusions of the Mueller report, that there was “no collusion” and “no obstruction of justice,” and are pushing harassing investigations of the President on multiple fronts; and by members of Trump’s own administration, led by National Security Adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who are issuing threats of military action on a daily basis. These war threats have backing from both the Congressional Democrats and from neocons in Trump’s Republican Party, such as the deranged Senator from Florida, Marco Rubio, and are driven by fear that the days of the Empire are numbered, unless they can tie his hands with continuing investigations and war provocations that will threaten his presidency.

The ‘Troika of Tyranny’

While Bolton and Pompeo have focused especially on Iran, Venezuela and North Korea as potential targets of U.S. military action—nations which Bolton refers to as the “troika of tyranny”—both have warned Russia and China not to stand in the way of U.S. actions. Bolton, who was a fanatic supporter of George W. Bush’s disastrous Iraq war, ratcheted the pressure up against Iran with his announcement on May 5 that the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier strike group would head to the Persian Gulf, and that B-52 strategic bombers would be deployed to the U.S. air base in Qatar. The planes began arriving on May 9.

In making the announcement, Bolton said the purpose is “to send an unmistakable message” to Iran, that any attack on U.S. or allied interests “will be met with unrelenting force.” He added that while the U.S. is not seeking war, “we are fully prepared to respond to any attack.” Pompeo chipped in that this “is something we have been working on for a little while,” citing “escalatory action from the Iranians,” while accusing Iran of bearing responsibility for the “ongoing violence” in the Middle East. A month earlier, the two succeeded in getting Iran’s Revolutionary Guard designated as a “terrorist organization” by the State Department, declaring there is evidence of imminent attacks on U.S. interests. Even the usually pro-war New York Times reported that defense and intelligence officials opposed the designation, and that those officials are unaware of any threats from Iran.

UN/Amanda Voisard

Federica Mogherini, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, and Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iranian Foreign Minister, at the EU+3 ministerial meeting, September 22, 2016.

---------------------------------------------

Iran has announced countermeasures, and raised the possibly of restoring its nuclear program, which was ended under the terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in June 2015. The U.S. withdrew from the agreement in May 2018, citing Iranian violations, despite affirmation from the other five parties and international agencies that there had been no violations. Bolton and Pompeo also announced that new sanctions against Iran will be forthcoming. While Trump has maintained a hard line against Iran, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif told CBS News on May 5, “We don’t believe that President Trump wants confrontation. But, we know that there are people who are pushing for one.”

Alex Abello Leiva

Juan Guaidó addresses an anti-Maduro demonstration in Caracas, Venezuela on February 2, 2019. Standing beside him is his wife, Fabiana Rosales.

---------------------------------------------

The U.S. military deployments to the Persian Gulf occurred just days after the failure of a coup in Venezuela by neocon stooge Juan Guaidó, which had been given a public blessing by both Pompeo and Bolton. There were grumblings from both that the failure was due to Russian interference. Pompeo refused to rule out a U.S.-backed military intervention, stating “Military action is possible,” despite warnings from anonymous U.S. military officials that a U.S. sponsored regime change uprising there could be a bigger disaster than the failed CIA-directed Bay of Pigs fiasco against Cuba in 1961.

Pompeo pushed for support of regime change in Venezuela while touring the region in early April. While visiting Chile, Paraguay, Peru and Colombia, he attacked Russia and China for refusing to accept the anti-Maduro coup. He accused China of “financial interventions [which] helped destroy the country,” and warned against participation in China’s Belt and Road Initiative, which he accused of using “predatory lending practices” to ensnare nations in a “debt trap,” and of unidentified “malign and nefarious practices” used by China, allegedly to build a new empire.

DoS/Ron Przysucha

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo denounced imagined Chinese and Russian arctic “aggression,” at the 11th Arctic Council Ministerial in Rovaniemi, Finland on May 6, 2019.

---------------------------------------------

Pompeo Embraces the British Empire

That Russia and China are the ultimate targets was clear in Pompeo’s diatribe against the two nations at the Arctic Council Forum in Rovanemi, Finland this week, where he lectured the member states that their historic approach to joint, peaceful development of the region must end. He demanded instead that they must join the United States in denouncing imagined Chinese and Russian “aggression,” going so far as to compare China to Nazi Germany!

Pompeo followed his belligerent performance in Helsinki with an unannounced stop in Iraq, where he warned the Iraqi government against any collaboration with Iran, which he accused of plans to attack U.S. military positions in Iraq. Iran has collaborated with Iraq to defeat the terrorist ISIS-Al Qaeda terrorists there, and after Pompeo left, the Iraqi President, Barham Salih, stated that Iraq would not accept attacks on any forces there, including those aligned with Iran.

Pompeo next went to London, where he proclaimed that “the special relationship [between the United States and Britain] does not simply endure, it is thriving.” Nevertheless, he issued pointed warnings that the U.K. must back his posturing regarding Iran, Venezuela and China. After meeting with Prime Minister Theresa May and Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt, he delivered the “Margaret Thatcher Lecture,” at the Centre for Policy Studies, in which he conjured up the ghost of Thatcher, asking “would the Iron Lady [Thatcher] be silent when China violates the sovereignty of nations through corruption or coercion?”

The Trump-Putin Phone Call

These provocative ravings from Pompeo and Bolton are explicit rejections of the commitments made by President Trump after his discussion with Putin. Trump said they discussed joint efforts for peaceful resolution of hotspots, including Iran, Venezuela, North Korea and Ukraine, and elevating the discussion of new arms agreements, to include China, to avoid a new global arms race. Trump reiterated in impromptu press discussions afterwards that he wants peaceful relations with Russia and China, and expressed renewed optimism that this is feasible.

The groundwork for this talk may have been arranged through meetings in mid-April in Moscow, as both Fiona Hill, the National Security Council Director for Russian Affairs, and Stephen Beigun, the envoy for North Korea met with their counterparts. And before Pompeo launched his rant against Russia and China in Rovanemi, he met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, a meeting which both described as productive. When asked about Pompeo’s attacks on Russia, Lavrov brushed the question aside, saying it is not useful to comment on public pronouncements, which are made for political reasons. It was announced on May 9 that Pompeo will be headed to Moscow on May 13, to meet again with Lavrov, and possibly with Putin.

Left: DoS; MSC/Kuhlmann

President Trump deployed National Security Council Director for Russian Affairs, Fiona Hill, and Stephen Beigun (right, at podium), Special Representative for North Korea, to Moscow to meet with their counterparts.

---------------------------------------------

Thus, while it is clear why Trump’s enemies in the Congress continue to threaten national security with their rage-filled drive for impeachment, the seemingly schizophrenic behavior of his foreign policy team represents a different, more dangerous threat. This was summarized by the Schiller Institute’s Helga Zepp-LaRouche, in her weekly webcast on May 9. She said:

this is the kind of behavior which makes it very difficult, and I think Trump is not well-advised to keep these neo-cons around him, because . . . [as] he almost says it every day in some tweet, he wants to have good relations with Russia and China, and then the entire intelligence community, which was just caught red-handed in a coup attempt against his administration, comes out with this absolutely violent, anti-China line, and the neo-cons in his administration, namely Bolton, Pompeo, Vice President Mike Pence to a certain extent, are doing everything possible to heat up these crisis spots so that any kind of serious policy for Trump is impossible.

This is an untenable situation, because either Trump succeeds in improving the relationship with Russia and China, and then every other crisis can be settled, or these neo-cons have the upper hand, and then the Trump Presidency will not succeed in what it set out to do.

End the ‘Special Relationship’

In this context, it is necessary to ask why declarations of eternal adherence to the “special relationship,” such as the fawning remarks by Pompeo in London, are tolerated.

As Pompeo was kissing the behinds of the Queen’s “Five Eyes” intelligence operatives, President Trump has been blasting the Brits, in a series of tweets targeting their role in launching Russiagate. Trump referred to the bombshell May 8 release of documents, obtained from a Freedom Of Information Act lawsuit by Judicial Watch, which showed that top State Department officials were aware that “ex” MI6 operative Christopher Steele was acting with the Clinton campaign to smear then candidate Trump a month before the 2016 election, and days before the fraudulent filing with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court requesting surveillance of the Trump campaign. President Trump tweeted, “This British spy, Christopher Steele, tried so hard to get this (the Fake Dossier) out before the election. Why?”

The answer is obvious: The British Empire opposed then, and still opposes, Trump’s efforts to break with the geopolitical doctrine that is driving the U.S. toward a catastrophic confrontation with Russia and China. In his 2016 campaign, and since his election to the Presidency, Trump has repeatedly denounced the policies of endless wars and regime change. With the hot spots around the world getting hotter, it is crucial that constructive dialogue between the United States, Russia and China proceed on an urgent basis.

---------------------------------------------