This article appeared in the August 7, 1998 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
The Eagle Star Syndrome
by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
July 20, 1998
Since no later than 1971, the U.S. economy, like that of the world in general, has been looted with a rapacity whose cumulative effect rivals the reputation of Genghis Khan. On this account, reference the summation of the recent fifty-three years' changes in U.S. policy, which was supplied in my July 17 Feature in Executive Intelligence Review.[1] Given the many changes in ruling political factions and policies of the sundry governments of the world, which span these five decades, the obvious question posed by my July 17 Feature, ought to be: "What powerful agency has done this to us?"
In the July 17 Feature, we addressed the question: "What is the pattern?" Now, here, ask: "What is the substance, the personality of the causative influence responsible?" Which is the active agency of power, which continues to lurk behind stage, during the successive scene-changes in policy, throughout the decades which span that sequence of reigning "principalities and powers?"
Let us restate this important question. "What powerful, witting agency has been able to control the policy-shaping of our U.S.A. during this time, to such a degree, and with such evident malice, that all but a tiny minority among U.S. citizens, are suffering what has been done to us, if each in relatively greater or lesser degree?" We are not suggesting that the agency involved is either omnipotent or omniscient; if it is not stopped, it, like fabled Belshazzar's Babylon, will inevitably destroy itself very soon. Nonetheless, it is a very powerful agency which, unless stopped by us, will destroy itself, and virtually all existing civilization of this planet, besides.
For the suffering vast majority among the citizens of the United States, the horror is, that this destruction of our nation's civilization has been done, not only with the tolerance, but even the insistence of our own government! Do not overlook the fact that the U.S.A.'s own ruin is only a facet of a global debacle; but, for the moment, concentrate here upon the identity of those relevant agencies which have forced such economically suicidal decisions down the throats of the government and people of the U.S.A. itself.
For the purpose of this investigation, we, the author and his associates, have the special competence of knowing some of the leading individuals and other agencies, and their actions, which have played a leading part in shaping the relevant developments during these recent decades. Since the middle to late 1970s, we have possessed, and reported, repeatedly and publicly, conclusive evidence of proof, that the North America-based agency most conspicuously arrayed behind all leading news media and other assaults against both Lyndon LaRouche and the tradition previously associated with President Franklin Roosevelt, always was, and remains today, a circle of the Queen's own British-American-Canadian (BAC) establishment, which had been brought together, earlier, as elements of London's "Beaverbrook" spy network of the 1938-1946 period. We have also documented the evidence, showing that the same establishment has been a key player in shaping, mostly directly, most of the crucial changes in policy introduced during the same period.
For the purpose of this investigation, we must distinguish between two types of leading agencies common to the history of oligarchies. The first, is the social process represented by oligarchy as such; the second, is the types of establishments which succeed one another, from time to time, in acting with the powers of a surrogate for each relevant reigning oligarchy. Later, here, we shall focus upon the identity and motivation of the agency, the present oligarchy itself, on whose behalf the present BAC establishment has been acting. Until that later point in this report, we shall continue to focus upon matters bearing directly upon the identity and influences of our more immediate enemy, that BAC establishment.
For the purpose of this investigation, the present, English-speaking, oligarchical establishment, of today's Britain, Canada, and the United States, is rightly described by comparative reference to a most notorious Royal cabinet, known as the "Cabal," dating from the time of the Restoration Stuarts. These most immediate enemies of ours, echo that Seventeenth-Century tradition. The present-day cabal, is the concert of action, which, according to the factual evidence immediately at hand, acting as a surrogate and executive agency for the oligarchy as such, has been chiefly responsible for deploying all the principal evil done to the government and people of the U.S.A., this during a period of no less than a quarter-century to date.
Over the recent decades, the Canada-based corporate interest denoted by the name of Eagle Star, has been typical among the nominally private entities represented by this establishment, this common enemy of both our nation and LaRouche. The Hollinger and Murdoch press empires, are also among the important, related spin-offs of that same (BAC) war-time spy apparatus. Among the individual U.S. agents of this same British-American-Canadian syndicate, are the cabal's "Eastern Establishment" collection of dubious bankers and related "spooks." The latter are typified by the cases of those (now departed) scoundrels, Allen Dulles, James Jesus Angleton, and Jay Lovestone, who came into later prominence within the U.S. intelligence establishment from their war-time status as London-directed agents of the British-controlled clique within the O.S.S. and related war-time operations.
The U.S. participants in the World War II BAC network, were chiefly members of, or recruits to pre-existing British, Canadian, and U.S. networks, including U.S. agents of British influence. These earlier networks had dated from no later than the Presidencies of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. However, the "BAC" nest representing the present U.S. "Establishment," was not simply a continuing, gradual outgrowth of the institutions established, beginning 1901, under the Theodore Roosevelt Presidency. The BAC of the 1938-1998 interval, has its own, functionally distinct characteristics.
Admittedly, the political forces out of which BAC was organized, have a long continuing history of hateful opposition to the principles expressed by the U.S. 1776 Declaration of Independence, the 1789 Federal Constitution, and the great reforms accomplished under the leadership of President Abraham Lincoln. The underlying, axiomatic opposition of the BAC to the principles of our U.S. Federal republic, are to be traced, without risk of exaggeration, to no later than ancient Babylon. Since the middle of the Eighteenth Century, the same Babylonian, oligarchical tradition existed in the earlier cabals whose ultimate influence has flowed, as constituent elements, into the 1938-1946 origins of today's BAC entity.[2]
However, its forerunners taken into account, the BAC cabal of the 1938-1998 experience could not be rightly understood, unless it is recognized as a new species, with specific differences from even the earlier Twentieth-Century form of that same London-centered, international financier-oligarchical interest which has been the mortal enemy of our United States for more than two centuries. The present and earlier U.S. component of this oligarchical interest has been, and remains, an economic-political oligarchy identified by its treasonous forms of association with Manhattan bankers, New England opium-traders, and Southern slave-holders, since our Eighteenth-Century battle for securing and defending national independence from the hateful British monarchy.
Thus, on this account, ancient roots so acknowledged, and the pre-1938 ancestries of our British foe taken into account, in today's world we must distinguish currently between the two distinct specific forms, pre-1938 and post-1938, of establishment organization which our oligarchical foe has assumed in North America during this century.
To review, briefly, the outlines of BAC's development during this century:
First, as we have noted above, there was the British interest which, increasingly, took over much of both the private economic interests and also of the government of the U.S.A. during the immediate aftermath of the successful, 1901 assassination of President William McKinley. This corruption continued its growing influence through the aftermath of the U.S. participation as an ally of our enemy Britain, in two World Wars, an influence which has been increased at generally accelerating pace during most of the recent fifty-odd years.
Beginning approximately 1938, the alliance of Franklin Roosevelt's U.S.A. with Britain, for the coming war against Hitler, was used to launch what, by 1946, assumed the character of an ongoing virtual coup d'état within the U.S. Department of Justice and other relevant official and private U.S. institutions. This involved what may be termed, included, crucial, cumulative "structural changes" within the composition and character of the leading, pro-oligarchical institutions. This change has its own distinctive characteristics, chiefly characteristics cohering with what our July 17 EIR Feature has already treated as the past fifty-three years' succession of radical changes in U.S. economic and related policies. The untimely death of Churchill-foe Franklin Roosevelt, became the circumstance under which the consolidation of that post-1945 counter-revolution against the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Federal Constitution was launched, during the course of the recent fifty-odd years.
Under the trends of the recent five decades, the face of our visible enemy, the present establishment, has acquired specific kinds of financial and political power, in our nation's economy and within the permanent bureaucracies of our government. Those specific forms are chiefly to be recognized as an outgrowth of the still-ongoing, degenerative process of qualitative reorganization, of both the corporate and U.S. government bureaucracy's forms of that London-centered British-American-Canadian-Dutch financier-oligarchical power, the which were the goal of preliminary, institutional changes earlier during this century, during the administrations of U.S. Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. However, all the rest said, it is the cabal pulled together since 1938-1946 developments within the U.S.A., which is of qualitatively distinct, special relevance for understanding, and, hopefully, correcting the worst of the evils afflicting the U.S.A. today.
In this memorandum, we identify three crucial aspects of the way in which the consolidation of the BAC apparatus's virtual takeover of the U.S. has been accomplished. The first such consideration introduced here, is the nature of the BAC cabal itself; we shall turn to complete our discussion of that in the concluding portion of this memorandum. The second of these considerations, is that intellectual weakness, known as "populism," within the U.S. population, which has been lavishly exploited to lure the majority of U.S. citizens into their own undoing. The third, is the reciprocal relationship of the "post-industrial" shift in composition of sources of national (monetary) income, to the moral degeneration in the philosophical world-outlook of the majority of the U.S. population.
The relevant cast of usual suspects
Now, restate our leading argument, as follows. The character of the present-day combination of financier-oligarchical and U.S. Justice Department/Federal courts corruption, now operating behind such exemplary, if transitory figures as Kenneth Starr and Speaker "Newzi" Gingrich, is to be recognized, more narrowly, as reflecting the decades of domination of Wall Street and Washington by the same Anglo-American oligarchical interests earlier associated with the Wall Street names of Harriman and Stimson. Thus, what many patriots will recognize as a treasonous pack of racist, anti-labor rascals controlling the permanent bureaucracy of the Justice Department's Criminal Division, is never to be regarded in any way but as an appendage of that collection of Wall Street-centered financial parasites which presently exerts virtual control over the nation's leading mass news media, and which controls such neo-Jacobin rabble as that rampaging through Congress under today's apparently fading leadership of House Speaker Newton "Robespierre" Gingrich.[3]
In this connection, we must distinguish between the process of internal evolution within the post-1938 BAC cabal as a whole, and those sometimes prominent figures and factions, which are, in the last analysis, only the passing predicates of that process. The crucial distinction to be made between such evolving social processes and their predicates, is usually overlooked in today's classroom, textbook, mass media, and popular opinion generally.
To illustrate the point about predicates: since the early 1970s, the Labor Committees have never erred in placing passionately treasonous, London-controlled (Royal Institute for International Affairs--RIIA) agent of influence, Henry A. ("Iago") Kissinger, in no ensconcement other than his London-directed career, as Napoleon Bonaparte would have seen Kissinger, as a "Talleyrand" of the period's reigning "intelligence establishment." Since the mid-1970s, as now, our emphasis on that connection has always been upon such leading Kissinger career-connections as the Rockefeller-funded patronage, and the training and other direction supplied by such Kissinger mentors as Nashville "Fugitive" William Yandell Elliott and Stimson's McGeorge Bundy.
In our reporting on such predicates, we never erred, either in fact, or by exaggeration, in our characterization of Kissinger himself. We concede, that Kissinger has done much to typify the evil which has been lately destroying our civilization from within. However, at the same time, we have also been obliged, repeatedly, to warn against the dangers inhering in what were formerly, during the 1970s and early 1980s, the relatively widespread, populist over-simplifications of the Kissinger problem. The follies of those populists should be taken as a warning, that one must not commit the fallacy of composition, of focussing upon Kissinger so narrowly, so simplistically, that we draw attention from the fact, that the intellectually mediocre Kissinger, nasty as he is, is not the self-subsisting origin of the problem he typifies. Kissinger, at his most influential, is merely one of the more notorious among rather numerous, expendable agents, of those higher, oligarchical interests which own Kissinger, the interests which are actually at the core of the problem.
If we must not exaggerate Kissinger's significance, we must not overlook it, either. To strike the necessary balance, see Kissinger as like a character from a Greek tragedy (perhaps one which Aeschylus deemed a character too contemptible to present even in his customary public performances). See Kissinger as representing some of the essential elements of the relevant evidence bearing on the doom of the society featured in such a Greek tragedy. In that drama, we have, appropriately, a Classical prescience of Kissinger as menaced by the looming wrath of the Furies. Moving from the Classical stage to today's post-modernist tastes in real-life political stage, he is best viewed as a parody of Bertolt Brecht's "Jenny." The audience should recognize him as, essentially, remarkable for being one of the most disgusting among the superlatively abominable, double-dealing, spin-doctoring scalawags of our nation's contemporary political-intelligence establishment.
Keep a clear view of the distinction between the tragedy and its characters on stage. Remain forewarned; in and of himself, Kissinger is, in actual content, an intellectual mediocrity, a swindler, no better than a hollow bag of flatulent vanity; his skills are those of an "Artful Dodger" of the international community of political criminals. Do not be so shocked by his venality, that you fail to recognize his actual importance as located entirely within the bounds of his assigned role as an establishment lackey. One's appreciation of the carnival operated by the current establishment, should place the emphasis upon the ownership of the carnival, rather than letting ourselves be misled into over-emphasizing those individual "Wild Man from Borneo," side-show acts, such as Henry A. Kissinger, sometimes deployed by that establishment.
In the larger social process, the BAC establishment remains that enemy of mankind which is the tradition it has inherited from no later than ancient Babylon, or, since Augustus Caesar's founding of that "new Babylon" called the Roman Empire, or, since the Great Whore of the Mediterranean, Venice, or, since Venice's founding of its clone, the financier oligarchy headed, still today, by the British and Dutch monarchies.
To situate the modern drama between good and evil within the larger social process, we must recognize the origins of today's problem within the political and cultural history of global European civilization's struggles against oligarchism since Solon of Athens. For that purpose, we must choose as our bench-mark, the related emergence of what became Plato's Classical Greece.
We must take as a bench-mark for the entirety of European civilization's history to date, Classical Greece's leading role in destroying the great empire of evil, Babylon, then existing under the Achaemenid dynasty. We must see the enemies of Solon, and of the tragedian Aeschylus, as an expression of our ancient enemy, the oligarchy typified by the Olympian gods of Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound. Similarly, we must continue from Plato's time, to trace the outcome of Classical Greek culture, under the guidance of the Christian conception of all persons, as made in the image of the Creator. Christian Apostles such as John and Paul led in making the hegemonic culture of the eastern Mediterranean, Platonic Greek culture, the vehicle for that continuing struggle leading into Europe's Fifteenth-Century Golden Renaissance. We must trace the ensuing history of world-wide European civilization, as emerging out of the radiating influence of that Renaissance. From that Fifteenth-Century Renaissance, came the ensuing establishment of that great American historical exception: the U.S. 1776 Declaration of Independence, the 1789 Federal Constitution, and President Lincoln's actions establishing the principle of true individual human freedom from all forms of domination by the oligarchical tradition of evil Babylon.[4] Situate today's global conflict against that background.
That said, put Henry "Jenny" Kissinger to one side. Contrast this historical setting of the relevant social process, to the lunatic simple-mindedness of the all-too-typical U.S. Department of Justice's and other populist varieties of "conspiracy theorists." As we have already promised, we shall return to the subject of the cabal itself, after examining summarily the most relevant of the issues of populism and economic sociology.
Never let your daughter marry a libertarian
Think, for example, of that poor dupe who believes what he reads in the propaganda sheets of lying British establishment sources, such as The Wall Street Underground. What makes the typical, "know it all," American populist, such a habitual sucker, is his typical, ignorant, fanatically simple-minded conceits. Those conceits are typified by the case of the populist variety of "conspiracy theorist," who premises his argument, axiomatically, upon that same, disgusting misconception of individual "human nature," which is featured in the writings of such followers of Paolo Sarpi as Sir Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Bernard Mandeville, Adam Smith, and the supremely foul first chief of the British Foreign Service, Jeremy Bentham.[5] In other words, every populist is a liberal, an empiricist--or, as Immanuel Kant put the point as tactfully as possible, in the Introduction to the First Edition of his Critique of Pure Reason, a "philosophical indifferentist." In plainer words than Kant's, every populist is a philosophical illiterate. That induced, virtually decorticated state of the typical populist's mind, is key to his role as a compulsive dupe of the BAC establishment. That Pavlovian factor, is a leading element in the establishment's customary control over the shaping of the usual majority of so-called "public opinion" of most of the fooled populists, most of the time.
In the standard liberal tradition of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, this populist misconceives every individual person as an existentialist "blivet" in percussive interactions with a chaotic mass of other "blivets," all sharing the common, same essential motivations of such typical liberals as Charles Dickens' literary characters "Old Fagin" and "The Artful Dodger." Each of these Hobbesian "blivets," such as John Locke, not only admits, but brags, that his essential behavior is governed by percussive interaction with other such "blivets," as if he were merely one of many pool balls scattering and ricochetting upon one another at the "break." From the moment of that "break," the follower of Hobbes, Locke, or Adam Smith insists, all his motives are generated statistically, under the sway of those common, percussive passions known as "The Seven Deadly Sins." It is fair to say, that for populists in the genre of Hobbes, Locke, or Adam Smith, "conspiracy" is defined as any pair or more of persons acting slyly to the alleged purpose of cheating the complaining party of what the putative victim claims, rightly or wrongly, for his own part, to be his own rightful freedom to cheat as much as he pleases.
For example, those commonly crooked Federal prosecutors, and other liberals, who specialize in claiming to expose those "conspiracy theories" they themselves have, in fact, concocted, are "spin doctors," who share, thus, the same axiomatic premises of belief which they attribute to those poor American populists whom they commonly libel as "conspiracy theorists." Since such crooked prosecutors think like typical American populists, during what President Abraham Lincoln identified as "most of the time," most of our American populists tend to sympathize with the assertions of the crooked prosecutors, up to the moment of their unexpected great awakening, when the noose is put around their own necks.
True to Hobbes' and Locke's tradition of British liberalism, today's most common-place varieties of crooked Federal prosecutors, common populist "conspiracy theorists," and other philosophical illiterates, are the so-called "libertarian" followers of Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century British rascals such as Bernard Mandeville, Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, and--"Beetlebaum" bringing up the rear of the parade--Professor Milton Friedman.
Like any among today's crooked Federal prosecutors, these philosophical anarchists define wickedness, as, essentially, anyone else's interference with their "inalienable divine right to do pretty much as I damned please." Those characters should remind us of John Locke's defense of chattel slavery: "The right of the slave-master to enjoy the ownership of his property." As the so-called Constitution of Britain's Confederate States of America illustrates the plain intent of Locke's argument, Locke's "Life, liberty, and property" has always been intended to serve as the definition of "freedom" for slave-owners. For the followers of John Locke, the catch-word for "conspirator," is anyone "who is thinking about interfering with my perfect right to do any damned thing I please." In other words, "libertarians" are essentially immoral persons; they deny the existence of any efficient expression of morality, substituting mere personal opinion instead. For them, as for those preachers of drug-trafficking and other British moral philosophy, Adam Smith and Professor Milton Friedman, morality can be nothing other than the incentives supplied by such lecherous passions as "individual greed."
The subject of customary immorality, and self-degrading, stubborn ignorance, usually expressed by the contemporary American populist, is a leading focus for investigation in the principal writings of Plato, notably Socrates' focus upon the issue of justice, as in the Republic. In various of my own lectures and writings, the crucial point is frequently referenced under my discussion of the cognitive standpoint of the world-historical personality. The example of the self-doom of Shakespeare's Hamlet, as featured in the celebrated Third Act soliloquy, points to those moral failings which often foredoom today's typical American populist to being that dupe of the oligarchy he, unfortunately, usually proves himself to be. His emphasis on "common sense," and being "practical," or, as he perverts the use of the term, "realistic," is key to his recurring ruin at the hands of those who know, like our establishment, how to lure such self-esteemedly "practical men" into cheating themselves.
Crucial is the populist's disgusting misuse of the term "freedom." In brief: the typical populist is the type of philosophically illiterate person who refuses to learn the fundamental distinction between animal freedom and human freedom. Like the barnyard animal, who supplies the typical American populist his favorite role-model for mate-selection and other uses, the beasts we own, as cattle or as pets, are delimited in choices by that which he or she is capable of learning, in the animal sense of learning.
The difference among species is relative, not absolute. Lower species participate in the generation of superior species. Thus, similarly, animals under human care sometimes rise above the brutish condition of the wild beast. The animal who depends upon guidance from human judgment, to that degree participates in the characteristics of the higher species, mankind.[6] Thus, by coupling the ability of the tamed beast to participate, with a higher species, mankind, in a common framework of decision, the beast becomes relatively humanized, as we tend to observe this most clearly in the role of the household's pet dogs. Too often, the reverse is true; populists, and others, imitate the beasts. We shall state in painfully plain terms, shortly below, the quality of relations among persons, which the typical American populists (and similar types) borrow, not from human relations, but, rather, as between some employers (such as General Motors today) and their employees, from relations between a farmer and his barnyard animals. As in the current practice of HMOs, or maquiladoras of NAFTA's Mexico, the aroma of the slaughter-house often wafts into the domain of relations between the relatively helpless and the excessively powerful.
The essential difference between the human and animal individual, as a species-type, is what Plato defines as the Idea, as I have elaborated the nature and proof of this conception of metaphor in numerous published locations. My difference with Thomas Hobbes on the issue of metaphor, is exemplary of the difference between the person who has risen to the status of true humanity, and he, like Hobbes, Locke, or Adam Smith, who prefers to rut in the "popular," "practical" muck of American populism and kindred moral depravity.
The distinctive essence of humanity, is the ability and wont to rise above narrowly defined, immediate, "practical" self-interest, above the state of depraved selfishness which the typical populist usually defines as his perceived self-interest. Take the case of the dupe clinging passionately to "my mutual fund account." In the great wash-out expected soon, most of the populist's short-term obsession with nominal gains in his account will be crushed by a general financial collapse. With his sly, "practical man's" passion for gains in the very short term, most of these greedy dupes will, as during 1929-1933, be wiped out financially in the coming, inevitable wash-out.
That fellow with his sly faith in "my mutual funds account," reminds us of the celebrated, tried and true Malaysian monkey-trap. The trap is a sturdy jar, whose throat presents an opening barely large enough to receive the bait--a tasty nut--intended for the populist-like local monkey. The monkey inserts his paw in the jar, intending to remove, and eat the nut. However, as long as he clings to the nut, he can not remove his paw from the jar. Thus, the Malay citizen captures the foolish, tasty Malaysia monkey. Such are our populists with their "mutual funds" and similar accounts.
Instead of being such a greedy dupe, one must locate the meaning of the totality of one's individual mortal existence in the outcome which that existence contributes to humanity as a whole: the world-historical meaning of the totality of that individual mortal life. This sense of world-historical meaning, is the only true basis for a sense of individual human dignity, for that true sense of individual freedom which has been heretofore lacking in the typical American populist.
This quality of individual freedom, is not located in the crude sense of "freedom to make arbitrary individual choices." It is located in the cognitive potential of the individual human mind, to make validatable discoveries of principle, principles often contrary to all so-called "popular opinion." To define true freedom, the emphasis must be placed upon "principle" and "validatable," as exemplified by a replicatable, crucially, experimentally validated discovery of a new physical principle. That capacity for discovery of validatable principle, is the formal distinction which sets the human species absolutely apart from, and above, all other species. It is that sovereign, creative mental capacity inborn in the individual human mind, which defines each human individual as "made in the image of God." It is that, as we shall show below, which marks the point of separation between the moral individual, and the individual so often morally self-degraded into the mental state of a populist.
Populism: an opponent of God's law
I come not to bury populists, but, on the contrary, to save them from what they are so often wont to do to themselves.
So far, so good. However, we must not mistake the notion of a replicatable form of experimental discovery of principle for mere abstract truth. (As if truth were a merely academic precept held by some dusty old aristotelean curmudgeon.) Truth is always efficient, in the sense I employ the term "anti-entropy" as the fundamental principle of any valid science of economics. In other words, the quality of truth is universally efficient.
As I have shown, in numerous published locations: in economics and physical science, true principles are those experimentally, crucially validatable discoveries of principle, by means of which society is enabled to increase the potential relative population-density of the present and future human species. This is measurable as the increase of man's power over nature, both per capita and per square kilometer of the Earth's surface. Those principles which generate this increase of power, have thus demonstrated themselves to be in accord with the lawful ordering of the universe at large. But, there is more to this, much more.
This increase of per-capita power of our species is achieved through corresponding changes of hypothesis, as I have defined hypothesis in numerous relevant locations. Thus, the notion of the laws of the universe, God's law, can not be a fixed belief, can not be represented by any fixed body of scientific knowledge. The essence of the matter, as Plato's Parmenides rebukes all reductionists, is change: a literally revolutionary change from a previously established set of presumably valid principles, to a new, improved set. Truth lies only in the validatable, universal principle of change.[7] It is that principle of change which is tested, and validated, as man's proper notion of God's laws bearing upon the physical universe as such. However, that is not yet the end of the matter.
The successful changes in discovery of physical laws are solely the product of the role of the individual mind's power of cognition. This power is given its crucial demonstration by any generation of validatable discoveries of principle, discoveries which overcome the challenge of that special quality of seemingly insoluble paradox known as the quality of Classical metaphor, the quality of metaphor which Thomas Hobbes denied to exist. Thus, the issue of truth, as this bears upon God's lawful composition of the universe,[8] focusses us upon the task of cognizing a principle of (anti-entropic) self-change of cognition itself. It is that power of self-change, which is the seat of man's power to increase man's power over the universe. It is, therefore, only within the domain of that concept of higher, cognitive self-change, this a continuing (anti-entropic) change of human nature within the bounds of human nature so defined, that man's natural agreement with God's universal law is actually located.
Here, we locate directly man as made in the image of God. Here, we locate the totality of one's mortal individual life, in respect to its bearing upon the simultaneity of eternity. Here lies the essence of personal morality, and personal knowledge. Here lies the perfectable source of motivation of the world-historical individual; here lies the sense of fundamental self-interest which governs the world-outlook, and behavior of the world-historical mortal individual. Here, on this principle, stands the only truly moral individual.
Usually, matters are seen quite differently by the typical American populist. Typical of such populists are cases of a widespread form of mental disease often termed "the bi-polar personality" type.
The bi-polar populist personality
What the relevant professional literature identifies as "the bi-polar personality," represents one of the more widespread, and, also, mortally dangerous forms of mental disease.[9] There are etiological comparisons with a distinctly different, but functionally related form of mental disorder, termed "multiple-personality disorder (MPD)." However, for reasons best known to the members of the relevant professions (who should be ashamed of themselves), the importance of preventive efforts for diagnosis and therapeutic control of the sickness is not officially recognized to date.[10] Only when the victim of the disease has been caught expressing that disorder by either criminal or similarly undeniable forms of acts of violence, is the offender likely to receive relevant care, often only after they have been committed to incarceration, or related compulsory care, for conviction of a relevant form of criminal, or related kind of act--often, only after the perpetrator's victim is dead.
This specific form of mental disorder correlates in significant degree with the characteristic moral problems of the typical American populist; if, perhaps, only a minority of populists might be prudently classed as suffering a crippling "bi-polar" syndrome, closely related, perhaps only less extreme forms of related types of unhealthy behavior are prevalent among populists at large. Indeed, the bi-polar personality is but the relatively more extreme expression of a pathological tendency which is widespread among broad strata of our population. Viewing the prevalence of this emotional problem, should lead us to an appropriate understanding of the way in which the spread of populism provides the principal political basis for the kind of moral corruption represented by the pattern of increasing influence of the BAC establishment's moral degeneration, during the recent decades. The reader may be astonished to recognize, perhaps from the remarks we are about to supply here, how relevant that connection to the bi-polar syndrome is in fact.
We may recognize the bi-polar syndrome most readily as the case of that ostensibly sado-masochistic individual, who, in one moment, is whining in pitiable, saccharine expressions of submissiveness, and, then, in another moment, even abruptly, erupts with most aggressive threatening of violence, demanding submission. Relevant is the remarkably frequent case of the passionate, evangelical Protestant "teetotaller," one who never takes alcoholic refreshment, yet regularly conducts family violence in the very same patterns which are usually attributed to effects of an alcoholic syndrome. Clearly, too often, alcoholism is blamed for exactly that kind of violence which would occur without aid of any actual hooch.[11]
Such bi-polar forms of violence, hooch or no hooch, are a deeply embedded, widespread pattern within the U.S. population (in particular) at large. These syndromes are usually, traceably associated with family patterns, over successive generations. For related, historic reasons, the pattern of bi-polarism associated with past family histories of the American agrarian experience, especially among the most desperately poor and technologically backward, is the most commonly and readily noticed form of expression within the contemporary society as a whole, today.
The image of some German rural communities' ritual public pig-slaughter comes to mind, and similar experiences in the U.S. rural regions. It is not the act of slaughter itself which ought to excite our attention; it is the unhealthy syndromes which tend to be attracted to the circumstance of the animal slaughter, which should be the relevant focus of our attention here.
Notably, for our specific purposes in this report, the passions which are interlocked with the political syndromes of the populist strata within the population, parallel, and usually overlap the emotions, especially the sado-masochistic political patterns witnessed in outrightly political forms of populist behavior within the population at large.
To assist the reader in situating the point, consider the following observations on the subject of family patterns.
Among the more provocative instances of bi-polar family violence, is the case of the woman who is frequently beaten, often brutally, by her husband, and yet faithfully returns for the same, sometimes life-threatening abuse, again and again. She, too, is part of the general bi-polar syndrome. Contrary to certain feminist myths, not infrequently, it is the mother, who is the primary transmitter of patterns of bi-polar violence within the family. In some of the most pitiable cases of such victimized women, it is as if she were addicted to soliciting such violence! Otherwise, she is often either the principal agent of the violence, or incites it, as an act of dependency, with persisting determination to bring such an incident about. We see the same pattern in violence of parents toward children, sometimes the father, sometimes the mother the focal point of the various--either overtly violent, or otherwise cruel--modes in which the victims are abused; the scenes of reconciliation between aggressor and victims, following such episodes, are telling. The use of family violence, or threat of such violence, to control the behavior and relations of the targetted persons, expresses the more general expression of this family-related pattern of behavior. Our attention is drawn thus to the relevant instances of all-too-familiar, related patterns of dependency and co-dependency in family and other social relations.
This same pattern spills over from the family, to the barroom, the schoolyard, employer-employee relations, and other social settings. In effect, the society is largely conditioned, perhaps not to welcome, but to "learn to live with" the complex of social interactions in family, and other relations, centered upon this heritage of successive generations of aggression and submission in perpetuating this pattern of bi-polar violence transmitted chiefly through the vehicle of family relations. The stink of the so-called "philosophies" of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke comes to mind.
We have referred to the more or less common patterns of seemingly alcoholic-like patterns of bi-polar, in-the-family violence associated with "teetotalling," revival-meeting-going Christian fundamentalists. Correlate that image with the case of such a person coming to the altar call at a revival meeting; as he pours out the litany of his sundry infamies, one is tempted to comment, "Is he confessing, or bragging?" This particular incident, although relatively commonplace in such quarters, may not be the general case, yet the incident is pointing us toward something of more general importance about the American populist in general.
The popularity of "revivalist" forms of "fundamentalist" observance among historically poorer strata, especially from agrarian-rooted family histories, is associated with an obsession with not only the right, but the doctrinal obligation to be a "sinner." ("Is he confessing, or bragging?") We should be familiar with this as a syndrome of mass behavior from studies of such archetypical cases of gnosticism as the Bogomils ("Cathars"). The disgustingly perverse definition of abstention in practices among the gnostic "elect," points to the meaning of such games. Putting to one side, the more exotic varieties of cases, focus on the prevalence of the doctrine, that one must accept being a "sinner," almost to the point of sinning as frequently as might be deemed necessary to maintain one's standing as a devoutly sinful person.
The most relevant point here, is the connection to the gnostic cult of "free trade:" the doctrine, that society must be constituted in such a way that the "Seven Deadly Sins" shall be given the freedom to rule over society without interference. The relevant charismatic evangelical, by adopting the "free trade" dogmas of such Mont Pelerin Society offshoots as the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute, is making a religion of sin.
The complementary expression of such aberrant religious beliefs, is some British-influenced fundamentalist's impassioned objection to Genesis 1's insistence that man and woman are made in the image of God, that each man or woman is naturally imbued thus with the divine spark of Reason. Many of the relevant sects insist upon a contrary doctrine, demanding a doctrine of the essential, incurable depravity of mortal man. Many particular such British-influenced, fundamentalist sects hang upon the determination to allow no view contrary to their own on this point. In opposition to Christian doctrine, such sectarians deny the principle of redemption of man and woman made in the image of God; thus, they demand continuing evidence of unimpaired depravity as a precondition for admission to Paradise. (In what strange sort of god do such perverse creatures believe?)
The congruence of such gnostic dogmas with the maintenance of traditions of bi-polar violence in the family, and extension of those traditions to social relations in general, is the miserable, self-imposed condition of the typical American populist. Such a populist is attracted to such fellow-populists, and, as the history of American political and social movements informs us, such fellows make a political religion of co-dependency upon the banalized sentiments of populists such as themselves.
The positive political and moral principle at issue, is the fact that it is the creative side of human nature, the divine spark of Reason, which is in accord with God's law for this universe as a whole. It is that creative side of individual nature, which is to be developed, and to be redeemed. It is the commitment to devote the span of one's mortal life to doing good according to that principle, as that great American patriot Cotton Mather argued, which is morality. This includes a tender regard for the protection and nurture of this same quality, this divine spark of goodness, in others.
That difference, between these two, mutually opposing conceptions of individual nature, shows us why the inner life of even the nominally devout American populist so often turns out to be a particularly hellish one.
Economy and morality
The most notable degeneration in the moral values of the population generally, is directly traceable to the effects of the shift from a society based upon benefits of scientific and technological progress, to a "post-industrial" utopia hostile to the American economic tradition of Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln, et al. The functional connection ought to be obvious.
For a relevant comparison, go back to the interval 1940-1963, when the majority of employed Americans were engaged, directly or proximately, in the production of physical goods or essential, production-related kinds of professional and other technical services. The difference between being a factory drudge and promotion to some technologically more responsible position, was the disposition to learn, including a quality of learning which was, at worst, closely related to the mental act of validated discovery of some physical principle.
As I have stressed in various relevant locations, including the already-referenced July 17 EIR Feature, the cognitive development of most technically qualified members of the post-war, post-Depression generation, was impaired, but still far from extinct. Beginning the 1964-1972 cultural-paradigm shift, away from the perspective for scientific and technological progress, to "post-industrial" utopianism, the degree of cognitive impairment converged, as a trend, upon what must ultimately become Pavlovian-dog levels of virtual inertness. Compared to the agricultural, industrial, and professional labor-force of the pre-1964 period, the "Baby Boomer" and "Generation X" strata of the labor-force have suffered an increasing loss of the simple ability to think rationally. They converge on being the Yahoos of Jonathan Swift's fable.
Symptomatic, is the case of an operation steered, from Pennsylvania's Wharton School, by London Tavistock Clinic official Eric Trist. Trist, a pioneer brainwasher in the field of industrial employment, provided key connections to the systematic destruction of the United Mine Workers Union, and was linked to a general brainwashing operation, run under backing from "New Detroit," which targetted the automobile industry labor, during the 1970s. Related, have been the impact of Lewin centers at MIT and Ann Arbor, and related "New Age" monkey-factories at Stanford and elsewhere. The quality of both general industrial employment and management practice, has undergone a radical degeneration during the recent thirty-odd years, a trend which conforms in all crucial respects with a general process of dismantling the possibility of maintaining, or re-creating a technologically progressive, viable form of modern agro-industrial society.
Prior to 1964-1972, industrial and related performance was key to the cognitive and related aptitudes and attitudes developed in management and industry. There were terrible abuses, against some of which I have complained loudly, during the 1950s and more recently. Nonetheless, back then there existed, among industrial operatives and managements, as among progressive farmers, a standard of competence which still existed to the degree that its standard could be violated. With the recent rampage of "out-sourcing," maquiladoras, and other Malaysian monkey-trap-like follies in "out-sourcing" practices, the kinds of management and operative work-places which demanded a quality of employee suited to modern society, have virtually gone off the labor-market. There is but a rapidly collapsing percentile of the new recruits to the total labor-force which still brings any significant technical competence or cognitive potential to the place of employment. We have transformed what had been the world's leading labor-force of the early post-war period, into virtually a pack of Yahoos.
The most conspicuous symptom of this degeneration of the quality of both the labor-force and general citizenry, is the tell-tale catch-phrase, "I don't go there." One could imagine such an astronaut, deserting his space-craft, midway on the journey to Mars. "I simply refuse to go a step further in this direction," he explains, just before closing the hatchway and stepping, hopelessly, as existentialists are wont to do, into the void of solar space around him. A flight from reality governed by utterly impulsive, utterly irrational motives ("preferences"), is increasingly typical of the kind of labor-force (and population) whose development has been shaped by shifts in patterns of employment, from scientific and technological progress, to flipping hamburgers on a run-down way-station on the road to "post-industrial" utopia.
What one defines as a duty, a challenge, and what one accepts as the standard of performance so required, is the microcosm of daily life. A circumstance which calls upon the development of the cognitive potential of the individual, and the betterment of the general conditions of life for future mankind, breeds a different sort of morality, than that flight from reality which is to be recognized as the content of "post-industrial" utopianism. The intersection of the intellectual and moral degeneration fostered by the existentialist's cult of "post-industrial" utopianism, combined with the existentialist tendencies inhering in typical American populism, produces a population with an increasingly fragile grip on such essential prerequisites of survival as even the simplest forms of rationality.
The result of such degeneration, is, once more, the Yahoo. To understand how and why our children are being transformed, from actual people, into Yahoos, one must examine the relevant master of the plantation, the typical example of such modern oligarch as London Times veteran editor Lord William Rees-Mogg.
The mind of the oligarch
Throughout the present memorandum, as in all my relevant earlier writings, my standpoint is that of a certain definition of "human," as an implicitly world-historical individual, an individual defined by those developable cognitive potentials which set the human species absolutely apart from, and above animal life. This is otherwise the traditional standpoint of western Christian civilization's view of each man and woman as made, essentially, in the redeemable image of the Creator. That is, actually, or implicitly, the view of man inhering in the U.S. 1776 Declaration of Independence, and in President Abraham Lincoln's correct reading of the intent underlying the U.S. Federal Constitution of 1789.
The oligarch is defined, and controlled by adherence to an entirely different, entirely opposing definition of the human species.
As typified by that evil Dr. François Quesnay, the oligarch asserts what we, his opponents, would consider the human population, between principally two species: the one, the landlords, the other, the cattle. His view of the distinction between landlord and cattle is fairly described as "Darwinian." Those who rise to become the landlord species, are the landlords, and those who fall into the social-political-economic condition of cattle are the cattle. The principle of oligarchism is essentially that simple, but the ramifications are as complex as they are ugly.
The essential, functional definition of all varieties of oligarchs, is that they are parasites, living by means of various forms of usury at the expense of that class of statutory victims whose misfortune has been to fall into the status of cattle. Like all cattle, these are cultivated by the parasite-class (the landlords) by approximately the same methods employed to transform captured, rebellious wild beasts into sleek, stupid cattle, prized, usually, for their meat and milk. (See how the British, French, and Portuguese colonialists tame and cull the wild herds, and so-called "natural resources" of the people of sub-Sahara Africa, an arrangement managed chiefly by Tiny Rowland's London, through agents in place in Dar es Salaam and the Republic of South Africa.)
Among the most useful promptings of insight into the nature of oligarchy is provided by Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound, a drama in keeping with the available collection of historical and quasi-historical sources on the subject of the origins and character of the cult of Olympus. The world's usurpatiously ruling oligarchs, Zeus and his crew of Olympians, have relegated mankind to the status of a subject-class of stupefied cattle. Prometheus liberates the humans with the kind of knowledge exemplary of a principle of scientific and technological progress. For this, Prometheus is not forgiven. However, Zeus does not prevail; he and his oligarchy bring their destruction upon themselves. Prometheus thus triumphs on behalf of mankind.
We Prometheans, who established the modern form of western European civilization, used the principles of knowledge, and of scientific and technological progress in particular, to create a new form of society, which the oligarchs were impelled to imitate, however reluctantly, out of their strategic concern to achieve political parity with the challenge of the new form of anti-oligarchical society, the sovereign form of modern nation-state. However, the ultimate strategic objective of the oligarchy, is to regain total power over the planet, through destroying the nation-state institution, and degrading the citizens of republics to the condition of brutish--or, if you prefer, British--Yahoos. The oligarchical objective, virtually more an instinctive impulse than a calculated plan, is to reestablish, at whatever cost, a form of world society in which the reign of the oligarchical landlord-class over the human cattle is an arrangement established and preserved forever. It is, in the last analysis, just that simple.
One of the more revealing expressions of the oligarchical strategy is the unwholesome symbiosis between Britain's Prince Philip (Duke of Edinburgh) and his satanic religious adviser, Martin Palmer. Out of his oligarch's pure hatred of Christianity and the modern nation-state, Prince Philip has resurrected the ancient satanic cult of Gaea, and has proposed to eradicate Christianity by means of superseding it with a mish-mash "world religion," the latter incorporating all those degraded features of sundry religions which are consistent with Olympian hostility to science and do not promote the dignity of the individual person as "made in the image of God."
The difference between humans and beasts, is the role of what Plato defined as ideas in determining the history of the human species. This notion of ideas is inseparable from that notion of the sovereign cognitive powers of individual reason which defines the human species as made in the living image of the Creator. This is key to the conflict between oligarch and republican. The republican, whose principle rejects the division of mankind between landlord and human cattle, can not tolerate the rule of oligarchs over society. The very existence of the oligarch depends upon crushing out of existence the mortal challenge which the notion of man in the image of God presents to the continued existence of oligarchy. It is this elementary issue, which defines the nature and shaping of the global strategic conflict between the two.
The poor, typical American populist obviously has not the slightest inkling of the threat posed to him by the oligarchy. The populist does not recognize, that the oligarch's essential weapon against the poor populist is the populist's acceptance, like the Sancho Panza of Miguel Cervantes' Don Quixote, of that kind of stupefaction which is all too popular among populists. How does one enslave a mass of American populists? Simple! Merely encourage them to continue being populists. The trick in keeping a slave a happy slave, is to make slavery popular.
This brings us to the matter of the oligarchical form of establishment, as typified by the current, BAC form of that establishment. Don Juan is obviously a typical oligarch of simple-minded motives. Leporello typifies such a Don Juan's indispensable "establishment." Oligarchs, by and large, tend to be stupid, as we see from studying the behavior of the typical oligarchical playboys and playgirls of Europe, or, that degenerate class of parasites known as the U.S.A.'s own surrogate aristocracy, its popular entertainers. With all that stupidity running rampant within the larger body of the oligarchical class, some virtual Leporello must exist to supply the vacant-headed oligarchical class in general with a tricky lackey's advice and counsel.
Thus, the bulk of the oligarchical class of parasites, is essentially stupid, brutishly so. It knows its own class interest in approximately the same sense a stud recognizes a bitch in heat. Most of them do not actually think, would not wish to be compelled to think, and perhaps could not, even if their lives depended upon it. They are predominantly parasitical creatures, drones, of debased instinct. Their sense of class self-interest does not rise above the intellectual level of a speculator's passion for a hoped-for rise in next week's mutual-funds account.
To fill the intellectual void of the oligarchy as a class, a surrogate, a pack of sly, Venetian-style, stiletto-wielding lackeys is required, a lackeydom which serves as an intelligentsia, a Roman-imperial-style of permanent bureaucracy. Clever as these rascally lackeys may sometimes be, they suffer a deadly flaw; they are enslaved to defend the brutish sense of self-interest which they are called to serve, the brutish instinct of that brutish pack of parasites, which is the oligarchy as a class.
We have reached that critical point in the history of this century, at which either we replace the oligarchy's rule very soon, or the entire planet will be plunged into a prolonged "new dark age" as early as, or even earlier than the beginning of the coming century. The danger is posed by an implicit cohabitation between the brutish, instinctive stupidity of the parasitical oligarchical class, and the matching, barnyard brutishness of the American populist and kindred prospective victims. In the larger scheme of things, mankind has reached a point at which the oligarchical system could not survive in its present forms, whatever the net outcome might be. Thus, we have before us the opportunity to step in and provide available solutions, when no one but we ourselves has workable alternatives to offer. The question is, have we the capacity to succeed in this venture, under these circumstances? We have no moral choice but to try.
[1] Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., "Where Franklin Roosevelt Was Interrupted," Executive Intelligence Review, July 17, 1998.
[2] As Herodotus indicates, the ancient cultures of Sumer, Yemen, Ethiopia, and Canaan were clones established by the ancient, pre-Vedic, Dravidian culture of the Indian Ocean region. The satanic cults of Shakti, Ishtar, Cybele, Isis, and Gaea, are reflections of the spread of the ancient forms of oligarchical religious cults into the Mediterranean littoral.
[3] It is to be emphasized, that, barely a few days before they were guillotined, the bloody Jacobin tyrants Robespierre and Saint-Just appeared, outwardly, to have attained the greatest degree of their dictatorial powers. There are Labor Committee members who had discussions with Newt Gingrich back during the late 1970s, when his career in the U.S. Congress was beginning. If Cult of Apollo priest Plutarch were living today, he would almost certainly place emphasis on the evolution of Robespierre, from the time Robespierre knew Benjamin Franklin in Paris, to the process by which Robespierre's career as a Jacobin asset of the British Foreign Office's Philippe Egalité marched to power, and to the gibbet. It is important, never to confuse the unfolding of a political process with the rise and fall of those personalities which the process itself uses, and uses up. Gingrich's ambition made him an instrument of a political process; personalities who achieve such success often find themselves suddenly "used up." In history, there are two classes of famous individuals: those who make careers, as Gingrich has for the moment, and those, exemplified by Plato, who make history.
[4] Notably, after Plato had died, and Greece was brought under the heel of Persian ally, King Philip of Macedon, it was Plato's collaborators, of the Academy of Athens, who contributed the key role in steering Philip's son, and enemy, Alexander the Great, into seizing the throne of Macedon, and marching, always closely advised by Plato's Academy, to accomplish the obliteration of the Achaemenid Empire. Despite the death of Alexander--plainly a case of murder by poisoning--the impact of the radiation of Plato's influence through Alexander's revolution made a Hellenistic culture dominated by the influence of Plato, the dominant culture of the Eastern Mediterranean region. It was the Christianity conveyed in the Classical, Platonic Greek of Apostles such as John and Paul, which supplied the guidance and impetus for every act on behalf of freedom and progress contributed by western European civilization since the time of Christ.
[5] It was Lord Shelburne protégé Bentham's 1782 accession to that post which was celebrated by Henry A. Kissinger's keynote, treasonously anti-American address, on the occasion of the 200th anniversary of Shelburne's founding of the British Foreign Office. Among Bentham's notable actions in that post were his personal direction of the Jacobin Terror in France, his personal direction of British anti-U.S. insurgency in Central and South America, and his creation of such notable British Foreign Service protégés as Lord Palmerston. In between such undertakings, Bentham found time to be thoroughly disgusting, including his final action, of having himself stuffed by taxidermists, by which means he was to be taken out of the relevant closet, regularly to preside at annual meetings of London University's directors.
[6] The argument respecting this distinction between man and beast, is taken from Nicolaus of Cusa.
[7] As Plato echoes Heraclitus on this point.
[8] In his Timaeus Plato uses the term "Composer" to define God, and employs the notion of "composition" to cohering effect, throughout.
[9] Far worse than the case of bi-polar violence in the United States, is the manner in which the British system maintains a virtual cult of bi-polar violence, as expressed by the instance of the English football fans and the sado-masochistic horror-show which the English proudly present to us as the traditional norm of their public school programs.
[10] There is also a highly energized pattern of "cover-up" of the circumstances, such as paedophilia, surrounding the incidence of multiple-personality disorders.
[11] Obviously, any "emotional disorder" is not improved by the introduction of degenerative co-factors. The case of the recurringly violence-prone alcoholic is often observed to present itself as the use of hooch to "license" the outbursts of violence already welling up in the presumed alcoholic.
