1991

A World Under the Rule of Law

by Lyndon H. LaRouche

[Print version of this article]

 

Editor’s Note: This article originally appeared in the book, The Science of Christian Economy and other prison writings, by Mr. LaRouche, published by the Schiller Institute in 1991.

I. The Principles of Modern Statecraft: A Summary

Let us now use illustrative references to some among the currently leading global issues of today’s practice of statecraft, to summarize the practical import of the chapters preceding this one. Let us begin by identifying some ostensibly axiomatic features of our implicitly proposed general policy:

 

1) The essence of good modern statecraft is the fostering of societies, such as sovereign nation-state republics, the which, in turn, ensure the increase of the potential population-densities per capita of present and future generations of mankind as a whole, and which societies promote this result by the included indispensable, inseparable means of emphasis upon promoting the development and fruitful self-expression of that divine spark which is the sovereign individual’s power of creative reason.

 

2) Here, as elsewhere, the definition of sovereign power of creative reason is exemplified by, but not limited to, indispensable, successively successful, valid, revolutionary scientific progress in advancing per capita and per hectare potential population-density, by means of increasing capital-intensive, power-intensive investment of productive resources in scientific and technological progress.

The anti-oligarchical form of sovereign nation-state republic, itself based upon the nation’s self-rule through the deliberative medium of a literate form of common language, is the most appropriate medium for the development of society.

By “literate form of common language,” is signified not only the written and spoken verbal language, but also a rigorous constructive geometry, and a classical form of musical-poetic language. This combined notion of “literate language,” should be understood to signify, in the words of Percy B. Shelley, a language corresponding to the power of “imparting and receiving the most profound and impassioned conceptions respecting man and nature.”[fn_1]

 

3) We emphasize that such anti-oligarchical, sovereign nation-state republics are almost perfectly sovereign. This sovereignty is to be subordinated to nothing but the universal role of what Christian humanists, such as St. Augustine, Nicholas of Cusa, and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, have defined as that natural law fully intelligible to all who share a developed commitment to the faculty of creative reason.[fn_2]

 

4) As the statesman Charles de Gaulle, for one, has argued for this point, a truly sovereign nation-state republic finds a sense of national identity for each of its citizens, in a general spirit of commitment to the special mission which that republic fulfills on behalf of civilization as a whole.[fn_3]

 

5) What we must establish soon upon this planet, is not a utopia, but a Concordantia Catholica,[fn_4] a family of sovereign nation-state republics, each and all tolerating only one supranational authority, natural law, as the classical Christian humanists recognized it. Yet, it is not sufficient that each, as a sovereign republic, be subject passively to natural law. A right reading of that natural law reveals our obligation to cosponsor certain regional and global cooperative ventures, in addition to our national affairs.

 

 

The division of humanity’s self-government among respectively sovereign nation-state-republics, is not a partition of the world’s real estate, but a most preferable arrangement, by means of which all of humanity governs itself as a whole.

A. Literate Language and the
Sovereign Republic

This last point of argument is illustrated by aid of a preliminary examination of the functions of a literate form of language in Dante Alighieri’s (1265–1321) sense of such a popular literate language. By “language” we should understand the spoken form of communication of ideas, but we must also include a coherent constructive geometry, as “the language of vision,” and also the development of the well-tempered polyphonic form of bel canto musical communication, the language of hearing.[fn_5]

We have witnessed, in the preceding chapter emphatically, that elementary forms of existence are necessarily not simple, and their relations are not intrinsically reducible to aggregations of linear, pair-wise ones. Therefore, just as a competent mathematical physics requires a suitably developed rigorous language, so do all important matters bearing upon the policy of nations. Without mastery of a language of such quality of literacy, no person is qualified to participate in shaping directly the policies of a nation. Without a common proficiency in a literate form of common language, a people lacks the competence in power of communication to govern itself. So, without a common literacy in geometry and music, in addition to the spoken language, a people is intellectually and morally crippled in its potential qualifications for effective self-government.

The political issue of literacy, as a qualification for full citizenship, faces strong, usually hypocritical, often more or less racialist, sometimes even violent objections. Those objections come partly from among populist fanatics. They come also from influential bodies of so-called “professional opinion.” The most fanatical, and most relevant among the latter professionals, are academic and like-minded representatives of those radical positivist, inductive pseudo-sciences, which first mushroomed in Auguste Comte’s and Emile Durkheim’s France, during the sordid heydays of the Holy Alliance and Napoleon III.

Respecting the positivists’ objections, one need not rely upon conjecture; the Anglo–French nineteenth- and twentieth-century positivists and their spiritual brethren of Theodor Adorno’s and Hannah Arendt’s “Frankfurt School,” have made their objections against the introduction of the issue of truthfulness in matters of statecraft a central feature of the entire history, and leading pre-history of positivism’s existence as a sociological phenomenon.

The most obvious of the subsuming issues posed by the positivist’s objections, is whether the well-being, or even perhaps the very survival of a form of society might be determined by that society’s success in discovering and adopting policies consistent with laws of nature. (Let us begin with the simplest facets of the issue.) If that theorem is true, we demolish the positivist’s objection with the observation, that it is urgent that the policy-shaping processes of society be weighted (vertically) in favor of those agencies and persons which have developed a capacity adequate to distinguish between scientific truth and any contrary assertion of a more strongly held majority opinion.

The classical illustration of the evil inherent in a populist’s political dogma of “majority,” is the 2,400-year-past trial of Socrates.

The immediate victim of that politically motivated judicial murder, was, of course, the innocent Socrates. The putative victors, if only for the short term, were the chief prosecutor Meletus and Meletus’s Democratic Party, the latter then, for the moment, the ruling political party of Athens.

This ancient Athens Democratic Party was a concoction whose self-adulating conception would drown the hall at a Thomas Jefferson–Andrew Jackson dinner, with reverent tears from the assembled multitudes. That Athens party’s political show-trial charge against Socrates, embodies implicitly the kernel of the radical populist’s and positivist’s enmity against our observations on natural law and literate popular language.

Yet, the corrupt Democratic Party’s prosecutor, Meletus, was himself later justly condemned by an Athens court for his party’s capital crime against Socrates. The corpse of that Democratic Party itself soon found a permanent resting-place in history: obloquy. Athens itself, for allowing earlier the death sentence on Socrates, soon found itself conquered by those very forces against which Socrates had sought to defend it.

Turn the eye back to the time of Aeschylus (525–456 B.C.) and Aeschylos’s surviving fragment of his Prometheus drama. The Delphic pantheon of Gaia, Python–Dionysios, and the rest of the would-be immortals of the Olympian oligarchy, reigned in smug, hubristic delusion, that no true God, no natural law existed to punish or to check the oligarchy’s capricious pranks against poor human beings. For that, the Olympian pantheon was inevitably brought down, by the action of natural law; and those Greeks foolishly corrupted into adoring such false gods, suffered the conquest and enslavement which their cowardly insolence, in serving such gods, had brought upon themselves and their posterity.

We, as human, may lack the direct access to perfection in our mortal selves, by means of which we might know the unblemished truth in a manner and form as if at an instant. Yet, we are equipped by the potential lodged within the divine spark of reason in each individual person, to walk the upward path of truthfulness. This transfinite pathway of truthfulness is efficient in respect to natural law, to such effect, that a society which prefers truthfulness efficiently benefits, and a society of contrary impulses must suffer.

A literate form of popular language has the formal merit, that it is a constructive geometry of an open-ended type, which permits the rigorous use of the hypothesis-forming capacity associated with the proper use of the subjunctive.

As for well-tempered polyphony cohering with what is termed today bel canto vocalization, how could Plato and Leonardo da Vinci et al., have led Johannes Kepler to establish the first valid form of a general mathematical physics without a bel canto-based polyphony? Read The Republic and Timaeus, for example. Read the relevant work of Leonardo da Vinci. Read Kepler. See the failure (“the Newtonian three-body paradox”) which punishes us (according to natural law) when we abandon the rigorous notion of a bel canto-based polyphony!

What is bel canto, but the result obtained when qualified teachers and their attentive pupils see the joy of singing naturally, as the normal genetic endowment of every human being endows virtually all with but one choice of developable least-action mode of singing? On what is this all based? Leonardo and Kepler are emphatic; on the scale of ordinary observation, all healthy living processes’ morphology of growth and movement is harmonically congruent with the Golden Section; nonliving processes are not—except, at both the maximum and minimum extremes of scale.

How does that bear directly upon a literate form of musically spoken constructive geometry?

The fact that living processes are harmonically ordered morphologically, negentropically, in congruence with the Golden Section, proves implicitly, and conclusively, that the universe as a whole is characterized thermodynamically by a negentropic ordering of itself as a whole. That is plainly anti-pantheism, although the actually or potentially gnostic deductive formalist will insist sophistically that it is pantheistic. This has also been shown experimentally for the microphysical domain. Thus on to bel canto-defined (i.e., well-tempered) polyphony.

The bel canto-ordered, well-tempered polyphony is also a reflection of (e.g., negentropic) harmonic congruence with the Golden Section. So, the combining of such polyphony with constructive geometry, as Plato’s referenced locations illustrate this,[fn_6] forces the issue of a non-algebraically (transcendental) ordered mathematical physics upon a bare physical geometry.

The common use of the term “music” is too narrow for our purposes here. All natural language must tend, as a Renaissance-revived healthy Italian language does, toward a natural, bel canto vocalization. This vocalization, as we might compare a literate form of bel canto Italian with Vedic hymns, for similarities, determines the musical structure of a literate form of language.

We state our theorem on literate popular language in this light.

The kernel of the issue of literacy in language, is central in the development and employment of the individual person’s divine spark of creative reason for the functions of generating, communicating, and assimilating efficiently, conceptions equivalent to valid, fundamental, revolutionary advances in a (practiced) science and technology. There is no available medium for extending this process from one sovereign person to another, except the medium of literate language as we have defined it implicitly here.

In order that we may receive and impart “the most profound and impassioned conceptions respecting man and nature,” the creative thought, sovereignly generated within the indivisible unity of our creative mental processes, must be communicable. If we are careless, and disposed to rush too quickly to a plausible conclusion, we might say, mistakenly, that to communicate a conception, we must express it as an image in the material of communicable language: Not so. Something far more interesting and useful must be said instead.

How do we teach, for example, secondary-level mathematical physics, effectively? Look closely and the textbook is ejected from your classrooms, to be replaced by both original sources and modern-language restatements of the content of those classical sources. What is it that the effective teacher does, which the textbook teacher usually does not do?

Look at such classical sources. Imagine presenting this to a class of secondary students. What ought to be your objective in this matter? Do you wish the pupil to swallow the text, word for word? You do not; you see our point, perhaps. We wish to have each pupil work through, not the text, but the process whose identifiable steps are indicated by the text.

What we should seek to communicate by use of such a source, is chiefly two results. First, one mind (essentially), the author of the source-text, issues a set of instructions to the mind of his audience (to you, and to the pupils), to relive the mental experiment outlined. Second, a similar mode is employed, to direct the mind of the individual audience-member to conceptualize an identified conclusion obtained from the experience. (That is enough said of that for our immediate purposes here.)

The point so illustrated, is that the idea is not contained within the explicit communication. Rather, the communication is a more or less reliable guide, as a key to a locked compartment, to the secret of the message. The receiving mind does not “decode” the message. Rather, the receiving mind relives—“unlocks,” in a sense—the sequence of mental actions prescribed as the explicit message (geometric construction is an example of this). It is the interior of the creative processes of mind, in response to the stimulus represented by the message, which regenerates more or less faithfully the concept which prompted the sender to compose the selected set of instructions, which are aggregately the relevant working-content of the message itself.

To oversimplify, without doubt, the relevant features of the process of communication are aggregately devised, by the sender, to set up the receiver’s state of mind in such-and-such a combination of ways. Thus, respecting the essential idea to be regenerated in the mind of the receiver, the message is not the medium.

The study of topology, originally from the standpoint of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz’s mind respecting analysis situs, past Riemann surfaces, through Georg Cantor, indicates to us, in significant part, the existence of general, transfinite principles of cardinal ordering of non-algebraic constructions, which are to a valid physics, in general, as the form of mathematical-physics-like aspect of language-communication is to the substance of the creative thinking on physics matters.

When we examine more intimately the role of a non-algebraic constructive geometry and also of well-tempered bel canto polyphony, in defining the morphological and physics qualities of a literate form of language, we see the matter in less inadequate terms of reference.

We ought to become thus more sensitive to the fact that, although language does not and could not “contain” important classes of ideas, the function of language in the social radiation of creative conceptions generated within an indivisibly sovereign individual mind, demands a kind of rigorous maintenance of the language-media (spoken, geometry, music), in its truer form and in its true form as a unified whole. This maintenance and development, which is the proper referent for the term “literacy,” puts relatively upper limits on the yet-developed capacities of virtually all persons sharing the use of the commonly used form of this language and its various, subsumed phases.

Thus, the possibility that a society is able to achieve that truthfulness requisite for policy-shaping leading toward durable survival,[fn_7] depends upon the level of literacy developed and maintained, especially, by those in the society in power to exert substantial influence upon policy-shaping. Indeed, in the extreme case, it were in the vital interests of those not so qualified, that they be disenfranchised, rather than put the entire nation in jeopardy because of their illiterate incompetence.

Howls of righteous indignation! “Elitism!”

We must respond. No, no, you asses! The issue here, is the modern republic’s vital self-interest in fulfilling its implicit moral obligation, to have provided an adequate quality of education to all graduates of a virtually universal, compulsory secondary schooling. The term “adequate quality of education” must not be construed to mean other than or less than a twenty-first-century equivalent of a nineteenth-century Schiller–Humboldt program for development of both the individual moral character and, in the fullest possible, broadest intellectual potential of each and all pupils.

That requirement must not be construed to signify what, for example, numerous, themselves miseducated, “conservative” U.S.A. parents have been misled to support as a proposed educational form: a Brotgelehrte[fn_8] quality of public education, “tracking” the student narrowly to receive shallow indoctrination in the “three R’s,” with no more breadth or depth of subject-matters than might not exceed the intellectual requirement of the student’s projected future levels of employment and income.[fn_9]

Every pupil must have experienced, by means of exemplary instances, a reliving, as by reliving the experience reflected in a crucial source-document, the successive development of those conceptions upon which the successful outcome of the past thousands of years of known history of development of civilization had been based.

The core of education in European and closely associated history, should be presented under such a descriptive heading as: “The Republican Idea: the continuing struggle for individual human freedom, against the common enemy-forces of pantheism, usury, oligarchism, and imperialism.”

The idea of history to be presented is the history of ideas. Therefore, the idea of history itself is presented empirically upon the basis of a classical philology, which recognizes the language of generation, communication, and efficient assimilation of valid innovations and ideas as including the spoken constructive-geometric, and musical facets. This is not a history of the mere contemplation of ideas, but of the advancement of the social-reproductive power, coordinately, of the sovereign individual person and of mankind as a whole. In this overview, that advancement of the individual in mankind is both the general mission of human labor, and also the crucial-experimental domain in which the nature of the success and failures of customary and proposed ideas is rendered intelligible, by means of a literate language, to the human mind.

Thus, it is the paradox of individual mortality addressed implicitly. Here, in this connection, we confront education’s task respecting the development of the moral character of the republic’s prospective new citizen.

The positivist apologist may often seek to allege, that we propose to disenfranchise the relatively illiterate. On the contrary, the person who is denied that quality of compulsory education needed to attain literacy, is already disenfranchised, and those who disenfranchise him of that quality of education are the morally guilty parties. Contrary to our critics among “conservatives” and liberals, he who has denied the right to compulsory literacy, is the party who has injured the rights of the persons allowed to remain illiterate.

In pedagogy generally, we observe three general types. The populist liberal attempts to drag the subject-matter down to the level of illiteracy which he assumes the pupil to bring into the classroom; or, alternately, to his own level of illiteracy. The successful teacher works, in the image of a Swiss mountain-climbing guide, to bring the pupil up, step by step, to the level of literacy (proficiency) which competence in the subject-matter demands. The third recites litany, which artful, if uncomprehending pupils regurgitate successfully in examination papers. The practical issue confronted by the thoughtful teacher of the second persuasion, is what, concretely, defines the “level of literacy” at which competence in even the most rudimentary features of the subject-matter is possible.

To illustrate the point, consider as a subject-matter one of the most essential Christian subject-matters, consubstantiality. In known literature, the first effort to supply a rigorously intelligible representation of this conception is found as we approach the conclusion of Plato’s Timaeus dialogue. To master the Timaeus to such effect, one must master the deductionist’s ontological paradox, as delineated in Plato’s earlier Parmenides dialogue.

Compare this with another illustration. The most distinguished, late Prof. Winston Bostick, has shown, out of a life’s work in high-energy plasma physics, that all of the so-called “elementary particles,” from photons on up, are not only far from “simple” in their composition, but are highly complex processes. Professor Bostick referred to these as “L’chaim” entities, signifying what we term their manifest negentropic characteristics. This is the same negentropy which Leonardo da Vinci showed in the Golden Section congruence of the characteristic harmonic ordering of living processes. Professor Bostick’s work to this effect has the quality of “crucial-experimental”; it requires a revolution in the mathematical form of mathematical physics, before the generality of professionals will all begin to grasp efficiently the sweeping implications of these crucial-experimental discoveries in plasma physics.

In both of these illustrative cases, it is impossible to construct anything better than babbling gibberish on either of these topics, at the level of literacy from which the college-educated populist expresses his opinionation. Similarly, on matters of national economic policy bearing upon physical economy, most of today’s prestigious business-school graduates babble gibberish. On other important matters of statecraft it is relatively the same.

Consider a third illustration, the ridding of the mathematics curriculum of a grounding in classical geometry. This was begun, at the close of the 1960s, with the fostering of the so-called “New Math,” and was accelerated by the influence of the avowedly white-racialist neo-Malthusian, Dr. Alexander King,[fn_10] in the 1963 education policy utterance from the Paris OECD office.[fn_11]

The simple empirical evidence is, that today’s university graduates are markedly inferior in quality to those of 25–15 years ago. The lack of a grounding in classical geometry[fn_12] is an outstanding correlative of this decadence.

It is implicitly a straightforward matter, to show how all mathematical orders are derived from a synthetic constructive geometry. This includes, of course, the role of the “non-algebraic” (transcendental) geometric constructions to represent a nonlinear “curvature” of elementary physical space-time. These qualities of a generalized synthetic geometry, are indispensable for full transparency (intelligible representation) of a coherent mathematical physics. Lacking that discipline, as a consequence of “overdose of the New Math,” or kindred afflictions, the very notion of anything more advanced than the very simplest ontological notions of continuity becomes virtually incomprehensible.

It was emphasized, only a bit earlier, that we must now not view spoken language, geometry, and music as three respectively distinct phenomena, but as elementarily inseparable facets of a common substance. Only in academic or kindred fantasy, can we imagine vocalization of spoken language, without the musical harmonics shown to be the natural one by both bel canto and the successful line of development of modern mathematical physics by Kepler.

To know this language, one must know it in an appropriate sort of historical way, in terms of reliving in one’s own mind some of the most crucial, at least, among the valid creative discoveries elaborated in terms of language in general to date.

Thus, do we say, a viable nation-state republic could not be maintained by a population which does not share primary dependency upon a literate command of a literate form of common spoken and written language. Except by means of shared communication and dependency upon such a common literate form of language, a people can not truly reason together, and therefore could not become sovereign, as long as this defect were not remedied.

For the same reason, in principle, that an individual person’s creative processes are sovereign, the nation’s reaching of agreement to a development policy-conception, through means of deliberation in the medium of a literate form of common language, is also a sovereign (e.g., indivisible) act. A process of self-government so defined, is, therefore, a sovereign quality of self-government. Hence, for that latter reason, such a process of deliberation must define the scope of a sovereign political process, a sovereign nation-state republic.

The qualification for a sovereign form of nation-state republic, must include, absolutely, the efficient use of a common literate form of language in all matters of policy-deliberation; that is indispensably necessary, but not sufficient. The state must be founded upon a common principle expressed efficiently in all use of a literate form of common language. Otherwise, if there were divergence in respect of principle, the policy-deliberations could not have a sovereign character. That common principle of a true republic, is the (Christian humanist’s) natural law.

B. A Community of Republics

It may be said fairly, in summary, that, under the highest fully intelligible authority which the Christian humanists know as natural law, modern mankind as a whole ought to be nothing differing from a community of such natural law, a community of respectively sovereign, anti-oligarchical, anti-usury national republics. The desired clarity of principled conception in this matter is aided by referring to the notion of cardinality of a transfinite ordering.

We review briefly, the notion of such a cardinality.

We have situated a notion of a transfinite ordering dialectically in respect to the axiomatically nonlinear sequence of states representing higher levels of potential population-density, achieved successively under the continuing impetus of a society’s investment in the generation, communication and efficient (productive) assimilation of scientific and technological progress. In this case, the same causal principle is generating the next term of a series, ostensibly from the immediately preceding term in each and every part of a series of terms.

Thus we have:

1) The generating (ordering) principle is always equivalent to itself.

2) The generating (ordering) principle in each locality is equivalent to the same principle as the characteristic of the series as a whole or in any part.

3) The ordering-principle, in each and every equivalent form, is always absolutely indivisible in every interval and in respect to the process as a whole.

So, modern mankind as a whole or any community of principle based upon natural law, in any anti-oligarchical sovereign nation-state republic, or the sovereign person, are each and all sovereign processes, which are definite (discrete) in respect to the self-bounding character of self-similar equivalence and indivisibility of determining transfinite cardinality.

This overview treats the collection of modern, mortal mankind as a whole as both a Becoming, in the Platonic sense, and also approximately, a One. The nuclear families of which the most viable portion of the mortal collection is composed, are each distinct as a definite kind of nuclear family, by means of a reproductive function of such a family which is indivisible, thus definite, implicitly a transfinite process in development of the new individuals. The sovereign individual is, by virtue of the functions of the divine spark of creative reason, also transfinitely definite. And thus, the relative ones and manys of that process which is society are arranged.

Take the relationship of Many sovereign national republics to One community of principle containing them in that light. What defines that community as relatively a Platonic One among Many, is, for example, the transfinite principle of natural law, by which the community is defined. Natural law thus displays, in respect to the functioning characteristic of community as a coherent community, transfinite qualities of self-similarity, equivalence, and indivisibility. This overlaps the similar role of a continuous creative process, in respect to such indispensable forms of manifestation as valid fundamental scientific progress. As the principle of creative reason is the means by which natural law is known efficiently, as scientific progress so ordered is the means by which scientific knowledge exists, so the two facets, commitment to creative progress and natural law, cohere as two facets inseparable, as they come to form a principle of community which is in form itself indivisible.

C. The Controversy

1. Empiricism

During modern centuries, the principal advocates of these cohering views have been the modern Augustinians, typified by Nicholas of Cusa and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, otherwise fairly described as the “Christian humanists.” During a more or less equal period, the chief opponents of these principles have been the positivist gnostics (e.g., empiricists), including, most relevantly, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, David Hume, Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, as well as John Stuart Mill and Mill’s godson, Bertrand Russell.

It is relevant to stress, that during the most recent times some of these gnostics have followed the term which Thomas Henry Huxley fabricated, “agnostics,” or have termed themselves “secular humanists,” indicating their devotion to hatred of Christian humanism. Respecting the issue of British neo-imperialist world-federalism, it is sufficient to put Hobbes and Locke together as at the center of our adversarial interest at this moment.

For both Hobbes and Locke, as for Adam Smith, Bentham (1748–1832), Malthus, Darwin, John Stuart Mill, et al., man is but, at best, an elegant variety of cultivated farm animal. Such a man, as he is closer to the wild predator species or dull-witted, domesticated vegetarians, is always governed by mere “instincts.” So, for Hobbes and Locke, society is but a state of each individual implicitly at war against all others, and respecting impulses more sociable than the primeval heteronomic instincts, man begins as a tabula rasa. Hence, for them, the state, at best, is no better than a tyranny by the relatively few, or a tyranny, by social contract, by the majority. In consequence, for example, of such positivists, the nation-state, assumed by them as being composed of bestial beings, has also the instinctively inherent, alternate qualities of a carnivorous or vegetarian beast; the state is, in other words, a bestial “ego-state.” “Hence,” they agree, “away with the cause of war, the nation-state. On, with the absolute world-federalist tyranny of a one-world, imperial Pax Romana.”

World federalism, in all those among its names which are legion, is a sophist’s intellectual and moral fraud. War long antedates the first emergence of the republic. So, the world-federalist argument is a historical fraud. There are conditions far more murderous than war, such as International Monetary Fund “conditionalities”-induced spread of famine and epidemic disease; or a peaceful submission to a “new world order,” implementing the racialist genocide of the Draper Fund, “Global 2000,” and the Club of Rome. Most wars, such as the Thirty Years War in ancient Greece (the Peloponnesian War), the Persian Wars, the wars of the Roman Empire, the usury wars of the fourteenth century, the 1618–1648 Thirty Years War, Marlborough’s Wars, and the British-orchestrated 1912–1945 “Thirty Years War,” were caused by oligarchism and, like the wars of Teddy Roosevelt’s cronies on behalf of murderous, imperialist usury, in a form as crude as London’s and Napoleon III’s conquest and looting of Mexico.

“Is not anything better than war?” the sophists of the neo-Roman imperialism, the “new world order,” argue. “Yes,” the thoughtful Auschwitz slave replies, “there are worse conditions than war.” The peace which the “new world order” provides, were an evil far worse than any war to free mankind from slavery to such a satanic world-rule.

Indeed, whence comes today’s danger of war? As the unjustifiable U.S. butchery in Panama and Iraq illustrates the answer, war today is brought to crush, in the most mass-murderously, exemplary fashion, those who resist the spiritual heirs of Diocletian’s use of famine and epidemic, as the means to reduce the world’s population-level, especially the darker-skinned portion, over the next pair of generations or so, by approximately 80 percent.

It is not the nation-state which is the cause of modern war; the cause of war today is chiefly the satanic lust of oligarchs for one-world rule.

The picture of man painted by the evil Francis Bacon’s evil protégé, Thomas Hobbes, appears to have been the self-image which the English-speaking oligarchy has adopted for itself. Such oligarchical bestiality is not the natural moral characteristic of mankind in general.

2. Goodness/Keplerian Negentropy

We have all experienced frequently the essential goodness to be found among the majority of men and women. Each time we reflect upon that fact, the thought may occur to the Christian: “God had His reason to love humanity, as the Gospel of St. John affirms this to be the case.” Humanity is worth saving; we find evidence of this even among the proverbial cesspools of humanity.

For our uses here, it is sufficient to add now two distinct, although interdependent evidences of the quality which makes humanity lovable by God.

The one facet of this is natural law; the second is that quality manifest to us even among very young children, the which, upon deeper examination, locates for us the proximate cause of man’s impulse toward living according to natural law.

Now, examine this indicated connection from the vantage-point implicit in Kepler’s axiomatic approach to the first successful approximation of a comprehensive mathematical physics. Bring into consideration, in studying the apparent intuitive genius, especially, of Kepler’s relatively most elementary discoveries, the warning supplied earlier here against the absurd “cyberneticist’s” assumption, that the message “information,” is contained statistically within the medium.[fn_13] Remember, that the central feature of Kepler’s discovery of the possibility of a comprehensive mathematical physics, is that same principle, earlier emphasized by Leonardo da Vinci et al., which Kepler addresses with relatively greater conciseness in his “Snowflake” paper, on, in fact, analysis situs, or “physical topology”: that, on the ordinary scale of perception, all living processes are characterized, morphologically, as a class, by harmonic ordering congruent with the Golden Section; non-living processes are not.

Kepler’s work as a whole, his astrophysics most luminously, is based on the courageous and fully accurate recognition of the fact, that if the universe contains living processes as proximate causes of physical effects upon the inorganic domain, the universe as a whole is axiomatically ordered in a manner not inconsistent with a Golden Section congruence of the harmonic congruence of the universe, a universe taken everywhere, always as a One, as a sovereignly indivisible, transfinite unity as a whole.

Compare this with Professor Bostick’s “L’chaim” characteristic of the photon, and so forth.[fn_14] Compare this with the work of Prof. Dan Wells, a long-time collaborator of Bostick et al., on the “Keplerian” characteristics of the atom. The negentropic characteristics of living organisms (or, the relevant remains of such living forms), are not some super-Turing-like configuration of dead inorganic building-blocks; the tiniest singularities of material processes already show such embedded hylozoic characteristics. These are the characteristics of the curvature of the physical space-time in which the existence of the photon, etc., is a determined singularity of a continuing process.

So, can we be properly surprised if the principle of living processes asserts itself, even in defiance of the philosophical dogma of that most efficiently tyrannical, anti-life state? Can we rightly protest ourselves to be incredulous, at the fact that this principle of life is not only in accord with natural law, but that biological substrate of our mental processes is in apparent accord with our mind’s peculiar capabilities for conducting ever-less imperfect, intelligible representation of that natural law?

As an individual personality locates his or her social identity in that personal contribution which makes one’s completed mortal life to have been historically necessary to mankind to have existed, the difference between a poor quality of nation and the personality of a truly honorable republic is, as France’s President Charles de Gaulle warned his nation’s citizens, that a true republic defines its distinctive national self-interest as in the continued success of some essential function it provides to the effect of defending, maintaining, and improving civilization as a whole.

“Of what good is the existence of your cruel nation to me?” the citizen of a looted African or South American nation, who dares to speak frankly, speaks bitterly, as he rebukes the, unfortunately, typically arrogantly chauvinistic, morally shallow, and callous representative from the citizenry or officialdom of the United States of America. Shame upon the United States and shame upon those citizens who defend the evils of monetarist usury, and genocidal Malthusianism, which the U.S. government over the past 25 years has imposed upon the developing-sector nations increasingly and generally.

What U.S. citizen can rightly claim any honest self-respect and not do better than merely wish, that the foreign policies of his nation’s government and financial establishment might become, at the very minimum, civilized behavior?

There are today those general tasks of mankind as a whole, around which all the persons of good will of all nations, ought to be united, tasks in respect to which each nation might find its necessary place in the general division of labor for the common good.

 

1) To establish on this planet no oligarchical sort of world-federalist, utopian tyranny, but rather an expanding community of anti-oligarchical, sovereign nation-state republics, a community committed to increasing the potential population-density of all mankind, by the included indispensable means of the fostering of investment in scientific and technological progress, progress made effectively available to all republics of this community. To this purpose, to ban the practice of usury from relations among nations, and to establish a just international monetary order, fostering the expansion of trade and related credit.

 

2) To end and to eradicate the effects of that monstrous injustice typified by the recent, Malthusian, pro-usury “conditionalities” policies of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and other relevant institutions.

 

3) To begin to move mankind beyond the limits of this planet Earth, into expanding programs of colonization and exploration of intra-solar and interstellar space.

The importance of the first two listed of these three missions is virtually self-evident, at least in light of relevant matters taken up at earlier points. The third requires some clarification; we treat the subject as such “Gaullist” kinds of “dirigistic” mission-orientation in respect to the crucial exemplary feature of a space-colonization orientation.

 

3. Smaller and Further

The indefinitely extended general increase of the per capita value of mankind’s potential population-density, correlates with both an increase in the per capita and per hectare power (actionworkpower). This correlates with an extension of both the astrophysical and microphysical limits of man’s currently effective range of reach of effective comprehension of physical processes. In smallness, we progress from the cubic millimeter, toward the micron, to the Angstrom unit, to the scale of characteristic molecular, then atomic, then nuclear, etc. action-scales corresponding to ranges of increasing frequency of simple electromagnetic radiation. So, at the same time, the realm of the stars is reached by the simple nighttime’s eyesight, by simple and improved optical and radio telescopes, followed at last by man’s ventures into space.

As we travel on Earth and into space, we meet the obstacles of ratio of range of effective power per units of weight and volume of fuels. This translates into the succession of chemical, fission, fusion, and subnuclear sources of power: absolute distances reached, during what lapsed time, in respect to the ratio of fuel weight to total weight, and rate of power generated per unit of fuel weight consumed, and so on and so forth.

This pushing back, more or less simultaneously, at more or less coordinated rates of scale of advancement, of the microphysical and astrophysical limits of our useful action, correlates with the emergence of those successively successful (e.g., decreasingly imperfect) advances in scientific conception, and with potential increases in per capita and per hectare generation and application of power to accomplish useful work. Thus, to sustain progress in this way, it is not sufficient to extend merely contemplation of the universe; we must also extend man’s range of practice, down into the microphysical and outward, toward beyond the stars.

This view of the matter just portrayed suggests, that if we choose practical missions of scientific exploration which are in accord with the correlated directednesses just identified, we shall force scientific progress along those lines of fruitful inquiry which generate valid scientific revolutions more rapidly, with a greater rate of fruitful result to relevant effort applied. Thus, on condition society is committed to give priority to capital-intensive, power-intensive modes of investment in scientific and technological progress, the kind of coordinated microphysical and astrophysical state-promoted “crash programs” implied here, represent “science-driver” programs, as a sort of effort which supplies society in all its facets the highest rate of fostered increase of potential population-density per ration of society’s available effort applied.

We should mean to include emphatically in an appropriate form of coordinated microphysical/astrophysical “crash aerospace program,” a program in extended optical biophysics, extended to the limits of the notions of electromagnetic forms of “optical.”

Such commitments by a republic and community of republics to a microphysical, “optical biophysical,” and “crash aerospace” program, become, first, a manner for locating the identity of each republic as a necessary personality for mankind as a whole. This assists in elevating the individual sovereign person within each such republic, to access directly, practically, to an intelligible representation of oneself as both a patriot and a world-citizen, and locating one’s practical reflection of higher self-interest along such pathways.

Those scientific and economic considerations have their correlate reflections in the realm of classical-humanist art-forms. All taken together, define implicitly a “level” of literacy required of the current form of literate popular language.

 

4. Democracy?

The case of Meletus’s wicked, then-ruling Democratic Party of Athens, warns us of the evil and onrushing tyranny which mankind incurs whenever a people embraces longer than briefly a radical version of “faith” in the populist principle of “a Jeffersonian–Jacksonian democracy.” By “radical,” one signifies the model of British liberalism otherwise known as British philosophical radicalism, the model of David Hume, Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, and John Stuart Mill.

The crux of that matter of a liberal’s “blind faith in democracy,” is the agreement with the fascist-tending, amoral positivism in law of John Locke’s tradition. This kind of radical democracy spawns fascism in the manner typified by the Democratic Party’s jurors of the trial of Socrates; the irrational tyranny of a perceived “democratic majority in opinion,” in crushing its opposition. The issue of fascist philosophy is the positivist’s irrationalist advocacy of a political equality of virtually “value-free” (e.g., amoral, immoral) opinion, as mere opinion.

The remedy for such a fascist-tending faith in democracy, is the notion of a republic under natural law, as the Christian humanists have supplied, succeeding Plato, the correct, exemplary definition of natural law. Without the higher authority of natural law, which often finds a few in the right, against the impassioned sincerity of wrong-headed majorities, a democratic majority is morally no better than a fascist lynch mob. The laws enacted by such a majority are no proper laws at all.

Hypothetically, it were better for all men, and more advantageous to the individual true freedom of all persons, to be ruled by an autocrat, whose conscience is awed by that natural law’s higher authority, than by a perfect democracy of the “New Age.” The fascist epidemic of “political correctness” invoked among many leading university campuses of 1990–1991, illustrates the evil of radically populist democracy on this account.

Yet, as the history of monarchism attests, after the good king, we were likely to suffer several or more corrupted successors. The remedy is, as Schiller’s Posa in Don Carlos says to the drama’s Philip II, a state in which the king is one among a million kings. In short, a democratic republic, under natural law, based upon a classical-humanist, compulsory, universal secondary education, in turn based upon a truly literate, obligatory form of popular speech.

A sovereign democratic republic under natural law, were the most secure and highest known form of government. The question, as the young U.S.A. federal constitutional republic was considered by its Founding Fathers, Benjamin Franklin et al., was how “to keep it.” Without a general, compulsory classical-humanist form of secondary education, in terms of reference to one’s own adequately literate form of common language, what occurs is the probable erosion of general qualifications for citizen, as witness most emphatically, the past 25 years’ widespread degeneration of U.S. language, morals, and intellect, of the under-50 strata of adults in the U.S.A. today.

II. Economics and Natural Law

A. The Example

For the purpose immediately before us, now let us select two examples as the cornerstones of reference for our discussion. Let us focus at relatively greater length, upon some leading, crucial policy-shaping problems respecting a successfully guided development of a new, durable, peaceful, and productive relationship among the peoples of Eastern and Western Europe. First, let us focus briefly upon the second exemplary case, the impossibility of a “purely political” solution for the half-century conflict between invading Israelis and the indigenous Palestinian Arabs.

During a period of approximately 15 years to date, for example, there have been several periods of relatively more promising—or, if one prefers, “less unpromising”—attempts to begin a process of serious peace discussions between Israelis and Palestinian Arabs. One of the principal contributing reasons for the pre-assured failure of these tantalizing moments of hope, has been the delusion expressed in such form as, “We must concentrate on seeking a political solution; discussion of economic development must wait, until a political solution establishes the basis for negotiating economic cooperation.”

Take the maps of the physical and physical-economic geography of that portion of the Near East. Put a canal and tunnel, cutting below Beersheba, leading down to the fabled Dead Sea, approximately 1,300 feet below sea level. The salt waters of the Mediterranean, rushing toward the evaporation-basin, which, among other things, that Dead Sea represents, augment the mining and related potentials along the Jordan, West Bank, and Israeli shores.

Along the portion of this new waterway devoted to a canal, a series of the latest model of high-temperature gas-cooled fission-power plants is constructed, producing, among other useful output, electrical power, a liquid-chemical transported power, and, aggregately, a river’s worth of freshwater processed from the Mediterranean influx.

This promotes new, dense agro-industrial development in the area through which the canal cuts. Piped fresh water from here supplies Jordan, Gaza, and the West Bank, as well as Israel’s territory.

This canal-tunnel typifies a general commitment to provide added fresh water supplies equal to a new river in that Israel–Palestine–Jordan region. Water and power are the indispensable, interdependent, added ingredients upon which such a sustainable, rational exercise of the per capita and per hectare physical wealth of the region depends.

This approach toward mission-oriented economic-development cooperation for that region, creates, in that development itself, a vital interest in common among the participating nations. That vital interest becomes, in turn, the basis for a common “political” interest, and that, in turn, supplies the motive for a “political settlement.”

The opposite approach, to postpone economic cooperation pending a “political” settlement, must almost certainly fail in the short term, and fail more assuredly over the medium to longer term. Simply, there is no true common interest.

Our comprehension of this difficulty is enriched if we inquire: Which portion of each national grouping—say of Israelis and Palestinians—is pro-usury? That pro-usury current in either camp is inherently—“objectively”—the adversary of the vital interests of virtually every other family household, whether Jewish, Muslim, or Christian, in the region as a whole. Consequently, for as long as Israeli unity against the Arab, or Arab unity against the Jew, prevails on either of the respective sides of the quarrel, a toleration of the pro-usury interest’s veto-power is virtually the certain death of any proposal for a durable Middle East peace negotiated among the principal nationalities themselves.

Once an indivisible economic development mission, as illustrated by the cited Dead Sea canal, is adopted in the manner indicated, that mission becomes the shared interest which acquires the form of a common or mutual interest. It “acquires the form of,” is a crucial nicety. The interest lies not within the acquired objective wealth, but the use of the production, maintenance, and operation of that useful object, to foster a significant rise in the development of the sovereign, creative potential of the members of nearly all among the region’s affected family households.

Much of the inability shown among educated persons, the inability to grasp the concept just illustrated, is derived from the unfortunate success of the British liberals in spreading the empiricist/inductive philosophical poison of John Locke and so on. Usually, the proposed, “non-economic political solution,” echoes the empiricist’s definition of a “social contract.” The brainwashing of Middle East political-science students, at London and elsewhere, in Adam Smith, Karl Marx, J.M. Keynes et al., has polluted the intellectual bloodstream of the Jewish and Arab intelligentsia alike. They are thus conditioned to the notion of a “peace” achieved through the Kantian mechanisms of negativity. As in Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason, the “positive” (e.g., “peace”) appears to your imagination only pathetically, negatively, as a “negation of the negation” (e.g., of the “horrors of war”).

Apply the foregoing illustrative case’s lessons to the vaster and vastly more complex issues of, first, Charles de Gaulle’s continental Europe “from the Atlantic to the Urals”; and, extend that further, to the vastness of the issues uniting Eastern and Western Europe in the urgent economic development of Eurasia as a whole.

The Soviet Union, like czarist Moscow’s imperium before it, is a quilt of nations and of smaller quasi-autonomies. It is at this moment a crumbling domain of numerous languages and many dialects. In size of area and population alone, it is most nearly comparable to the U.S.A. It lacks the kind of “melting-pot” tendency for integration around a common language, which was formerly a leading characteristic of the U.S.A.; the comparison, on this and other leading counts, shows us the inherent instabilities of Moscow’s present domain, and so shows us implicitly, the more clearly, in this way, the kind of forces which have held this assemblage together under a central authority for seven preceding decades, and, also, the similar case for the old czarist Moscow earlier.

If one attempts to resolve the crises of the former Comecon domain, or, more narrowly, within the Soviet Union’s borders, by means of “political solutions” alone, the entire latter region of this nuclear-armed superpower were likely to converge upon civil war, a development of incalculable global implications.

This poses implicitly a point central to any effective programmatic understanding of the situation. To put the point in a suitably startling form: The inherent, chief source of potential civil warfare within the territory of today’s Soviet Union, is identified by the simple statement of fact: The very notion of “racial equality” is an affirmation of the blood-strewn evil of racism.

 

1. Racialism

Whoever chooses to describe himself or herself as of a different race than some other persons, is inherently, axiomatically a racist and a—possibly dangerous—fool. Thus, to speak of “racial equality,” is to draw certain biological distinctions among classes of persons, analogous to the distinctions rightly made among breeds (“races”) of dogs, cats, horses, pigs, cows, and cockroaches. Once such liberal nonsense is established as official opinion, along come the liberal racists, such as the notorious liberal perverts Jensen and Shockley,[fn_15] to remind us why the assertion of “racial equality” is to concede defeat of the struggle for individual personal equality to the “genetical racialist.”

Christians rightly emphasize the mission of the Apostle Paul. As was stressed earlier in this present location, the only quality which defines a person as human, is that which sets all persons axiomatically apart from and absolutely superior to all species of beasts: the divine spark of each and every person’s innately sovereign capacity for creative reason; there is but one human race; there is but one feature, one demonstrable singularity, that divine spark of humanity, which defines, elementarily, absolutely, each person as a person; one such defining distinction; one race.

This, as will be elaborated, is programmatically crucial for solving today’s Eurasia crisis. Before coming to that practical application, we explore the issues associated with the distinction itself.

Consider the relevant implications of the Jensen–Shockley case.

Shockley, associated with a singularly important accomplishment in the field of engineering,[fn_16] brought into and out of that accomplishment an increasingly bloated, fanatical quality of overconfidence in the commonly taught, but axiomatically defective positivist version of excessively algebraic classroom mathematics. He shifted away from his field of relative usefulness and competence, to deploy his defective mathematical learning in service of a purely arbitrary, irrationalist, “social Darwinist” sort of racialist prejudice. Out of this came the atrocious, Nazi-like dogma, which won 1969 public endorsement by then-U.S. Rep. George Herbert Walker Bush (R-Tex.).[fn_17]

Recognize the efficient, central role of something hereditary in those 1969 racialist utterances of Congressman Bush. Here, “hereditary” is employed in the same general sense one speaks, narrowly, of a “hereditary principle” in deductive theorem-lattice systems, or, more profoundly, more generally, of a true, Cantorian transfinite ordering.

In the Shockley–Bush case, we are referencing Shockley’s affinity for a positivist current of excessively deductive mathematics. As some might read the current U.S. government’s economic reports, former Congressman Bush does not impress us as exactly a mathematician. Shockley’s defective mathematical heritage, yes, but only as that is congruent with a flaw also central to Congressman Bush’s mind-set.

This is to focus attention momentarily upon the common, hereditary roots of Shockley’s and Congressman Bush’s converging racialist policies. That common root is chiefly the modern British tradition of gnostic cults, as typified in modern history by sixteenth- and seventeenth-century “Oxbridge” cabalism,[fn_18] and also by the permeating influence of the Rosicrucian cults upon the empiricism of Sir Francis Bacon and such followers of his as Isaac Newton.[fn_19]

In the case of Shockley, we trace the hereditary influence of gnostic cultism from the introduction of the anti-scientific principle of induction,[fn_20] into one influential, reductionist faction in mathematical physics. In the case of Congressman Bush, we are tracing the same gnostic tradition as Shockley’s, in such forms it is transmitted, from Bacon, down to the 1960s, by aid of such notable Anglo-American names as John Locke, David Hume, Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, Thomas Malthus, John Stuart Mill, Thomas Huxley, William James John Dewey, Walter Lippmann, and such myth-makers as Thorsten Veblen and R.H. Tawney.

 

2. Descartes and Kant

Not only does Bush’s Yale baseball-diamond empiricism have predominantly, the same British origins as radical positivist Shockley’s engineering-school classroom reductionism. Any positivist statement, if sufficiently rigorously so, if issued first in the medium of spoken English, can be restated in mathematical or formal-logical quasi-algebraic form. On both counts, first, common religious (gnostic) roots, and, second, linear equivalence of positivist statements in different choices of forms, there is a simple—i.e., linear—kind of functional congruence between the 1969, country club locker-room’s “social Darwinism” of a Bush and the stiff formalism of race-theory crank Shockley.

The extra annoying feature of dealing with British empiricism, is that the British empiricists lard their utterances with irrelevant sophistries, usually relying more often upon an appeal to the irrelevant bit of rhetoric, than force of argument on the issue debated, to persuade the dupes in their audiences. For that reason, it is often desirable and also admissible, to attack a British empiricist proposition, by two successive steps. The first such step, is to address the content of the British empiricist’s argument, or as the same conclusion is argued in a relatively less turgid, more rigorous form, by French or German notables. The second, following step is to prove that underneath the Oxbridgean lard,[fn_21] the British empiricist has actually offered nothing more of substance than the relatively more translucent French or German case considered for comparison.

Although neither Descartes nor Kant should be termed an empiricist, most of the crucial propositions of British empiricism are included with more compelling logic among the work of these two continental neo-Aristotelian gnostics; for related reasons, where the indicated sort of comparison is appropriate, these two are usually the modern continental sources to be preferred.

Refer to a point underscored in the preceding chapter. Newton’s “clock-winder” paradox is a constructed paradox which rests upon nothing different than Descartes’s case for his deus ex machina. Without further ado, it should be sufficient at this point, to call to the reader’s attention, that the notion of deus ex machina relegates to the domain of, if not the nonexistent, the unintelligible, both all in the universe which reflects negentropy, and all in the powers of the human mind by means of which negentropy might be comprehended.[fn_22]

Kant is more important to us than Descartes on this specific point, for two principal, historical reasons. Not overlooking the development of those differences with the more radical turn Hume took later in life, as Kant’s Prolegomena indicates: Prior to the appearance of his Critiques, Kant had chosen to become the chief disciple of Hume’s empiricism and opponent of Leibniz, in the German language. Despite the issue with the aging Hume, referenced in the Prolegomena, Kant remained a gnostic defender of empiricism’s quarrel with Christian humanism to the end of his life. During the nineteenth century, Kant’s work and so-called “neo-Kantianism,” contributed an indispensable part to the survival of fledgling radical positivism in France and the German language.

Examining briefly once again Kant’s restatement of Descartes’s deus ex machina argument, leads us now to the needed fresh view of that paradox of Eurasian development being treated here. To show the roots of the Anglo-American-dominated policy-conflict, we must begin our summary of the Kant case with a glance toward the English roots of former Congressman George Bush’s policy today.

The summary begins with the accession of the wicked first Duke of Marlborough’s political ally, George I, to the newly established throne of the United Kingdom. This was a triumph for Marlborough’s British liberals, otherwise known as the “Venetian Party,” the pro-usury party, over that pro-development party which included Leibniz’s British admirers.[fn_23] Under the long prime ministership of Walpole, a prolonged orgy of moral, intellectual, and economic decadence produced the curious phenomenon of Scottish apologetics for the moral degeneracy among their wealthy English neighbors to the south. This curiosity was advanced under the perverse title of “moral philosophy,” as concocted by an alleged lunatic, David Hume, and his emulator, Adam Smith.[fn_24]

The crux of this “moral philosophy” is summed up in two principal books of Adam Smith, his 1759 The Theory of Moral Sentiments, and its sequel, the 1776 work known best by the abbreviated title of The Wealth of Nations.[fn_25]

Smith argues, that since man is, in his view, incapable of anticipating the longer-term consequences of policy of practice, the individual must forget such concerns and limit himself to pursuit of the simplest, instinctual sense of narrow individual self-interest. That, at least, is a fair summation.[fn_26] In The Wealth of Nations, this Nazi-like argument (“all is permitted”) of Smith, serves as the defense of Smith’s employers, the British East India Company, Barings Bank, conducting the opium-trade against China at that time. It serves also as the sole apology for the infallibly ruinous, irrationalist Smith cult-doctrine, “the invisible hand”—“free trade.” It is the same argument used later by Jeremy Bentham in his own Defence of Usury, and “Pederasty,” in addition to his book, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation.[fn_27]

Kant later applies a more challenging sophistry in defense of Hume’s and Smith’s immorality. This sophistry is a central feature of Kant’s Critiques, as summed up in relatively more popular language in his Critique of Judgment. This sophistry is essentially a fresh defense of Descartes’s deus ex machina and implicitly, therefore, also of the Newton “clock-winder” copy. Although Kant, in the Preface to the first edition of his Critique of Pure Reason, features a devastating attack upon (British) philosophical (moral) “indifferentism”—a kind word to employ as euphemism for the satanic abomination of Adam Smith’s apologetics—Kant himself supplies the theorem upon which the nineteenth-century positivism depends for a mere show of philosophical credibility.

Kant denies categorically the possibility that human beings might develop an intelligible representation of those processes of mind by means of which a valid creative discovery is generated as hypothesis.[fn_28] He derives from this theorem the corollary assertion, that there exist no possible, rational criteria for defining artistic beauty. These featured, failed aspects of his Critique of Judgment, represent the relatively most rigorous among known extant efforts to justify theorems equivalent to Descartes’s deus ex machina. For related reasons, Kant’s failed theorems are congruent with any rigorous form of formalists’ attempted proof of Smith’s “invisible hand” dogma.

To the point immediately at hand, the entire systems of empiricist or positivist theorems depend upon an assumption equivalent to Kant’s failed attempt. This is underlined by a fact, cited earlier, that the fledgling, nineteenth-century positivist movements of France and Germany, invoked the neo-Kantian authority of Kant, in the attempt to fill up gaping epistemological holes in their systems.

Thus, we have such a qualified congruence among the Cartesian deus ex machina, the central Kantian theorem (of the Critiques), and the elementary assumptions of empiricism. The mind-set underlying these relatively more rigorous, mathematical and other formal representations, is the same empiricist mind-set transmitted across the centuries since the appearance of Oxbridge cabalism and Rosicrucian gnostics’ empiricism, as reflected in the referenced, 1969 racialist utterances of Congressman Bush.

Before a final bit of tidying up significantly relevant loose ends on the history of empiricist gnosticism, consider a significant aspect of both the Israeli–Palestinian and Eurasian paradoxes to which this line of inquiry is addressed. In short how do issues of philosophy, as philosophy, exert an efficiently direct, overriding influence on strategic processes? Earlier, the fact was stressed,[fn_29] that despite the significant number of what have been, in some among these instances rather radical successive changes in U.S.A. economic and monetary policies, domestic and foreign, the succession of change is, with rare deviation, in a constant direction. That direction is summed up as three doctrinally regulated policy-trends: the objective of an Anglo-American-ruled world-federalist order; the objective of an “Aquarian” “cultural-paradigm shift”; and a global, Malthusian “post-industrial” order, the latter modeled as a matter of historical fact, upon those notorious “socialist” decrees of the Roman Emperor Diocletian (the, de facto, “Malthusian” doctrine upon which the subsequent Byzantine order was based).[fn_30]

The case of Congressman Bush is exemplary of the philosophical determinism of the 1963–1991 “cultural paradigm-shift” in the United States of America.

Bush is derived from a Yale “Skull and Bones” chapter cult-circle, of such moderns as Averell Harriman (Bush’s father’s employer), Henry Stimson, McGeorge Bundy et al.[fn_31] This circle produced the Eugenics Society of America, an overt supporter of the “racial purification” dogmas of Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Party during the early 1930s. Congressman and President Bush’s affinities for Malthusian racialism have been openly associated with the Draper Fund,[fn_32] since the period of his 1960s terms in the U.S. Congress.

This is not to single out Mr. Bush. Quite the contrary. One may quip that there are three functional categories of Anglo-Saxon racism appearing significantly in the U.S. population. Category “A” is the country club or barroom loudmouth stratum. Category “B” includes the punctured pillowcase set. Category “C” includes those patrician establishment figures, like Britain’s Bertrand Russell, who may be classed fairly as representing the “gas oven,” or “famine-and-epidemic” set. The Draper Fund, like the Club of Rome, the Carter administration’s Global 2000, or International Monetary Fund and World Bank “conditionalities,” belongs to those who, like Bertrand Russell, prefer “the more efficient” means of famine and epidemic to “gas ovens.” The important thing is not to single out Congressman Bush, but rather to show that Bush’s referenced, shameful political utterance echoes the prevailing philosophical mind-set in the relevant Harvard–Yale patrician elements of the U.S. part of the Anglo-American Liberal Establishment as a whole.

Thus, did persisting such establishment-centered philosophical influence exert an erosive influence upon what was taught by positivists in universities, what seeped from such university and think-tank circles into government, news media, Establishment media, and political parties, into the shaping of most policy-reshaping actions.

B. History

So, in general, history is made. It is but rarely that decisions on crucial events shape history. Usually, the accumulation of decisions which appear to shape history, are reflections of the influential philosophical, religious, and other “mind-sets” which determine what the prevailing trends in decisions will become. This connection is roughly analogous to the effect of the “hereditary power” of an integral set of axioms and postulates in determining the theorems of a corresponding deductive theorem-lattice.

To effect a real change of direction in current history, we must focus efforts upon the “integral sets of axioms and postulates” which define a “mind-set,” or “cultural paradigm.” In the two illustrated cases referenced here, there are two or more, respectively distinct, cultural “mind-sets” to be addressed.

In these cases, as the case of the Dead Sea canal-tunnel project illustrates the point, the proposed approach to solutions gives us a practically much-needed physical-economic program to catalyze the needed shifts in “mind-sets.”

Any much-needed economic-development program which fosters emphasis upon conscious employment of the sovereign individual’s creative powers of reason, tends to shift the “cultural paradigm” toward inclination for agreement with natural law. On the contrary side, any policy of practice which suppresses emphasis upon scientific, technological, and related progress, is an affront to the individual’s potential for creative reason; the result is a tendency to “bestialize” the members of that society.

Thus, the empiricist—e.g., British-style liberal-mind-set is inherently a racist one, a perverted view of mankind, which, like Britain’s Thomas Huxley, can not distinguish effectively between the breeding of cattle and dogs and the reproduction of the human species.[fn_33] The necessary reasons underlying the causal relationship of positivism and racism (of the Shockley–Bush type) are already identified implicitly. Identify those connections and then apply the lesson of the connection to the Eurasia case.

The Cartesian deus ex machina has two common, noted, relevant, interdependent effects. It relegates creative reason, as Kant does, to an unknowable spiritual domain, outside the physical domain and human flesh. To consistent effect, all that is suggestive, empirically or otherwise, of a “Keplerian” negentropic physical space-time curvature of the universe as a whole, is banned from neo-Aristotelian mathematical physics.

On the first account, Descartes is to be compared with the Manichean gnostics, and also with the Cathar–Bogomil roots of Rosicrucian gnosticism, the gnostic Percival/Parsifal myth, and so on. Take, for example, the celebrated “clock-winder” admissions of Newton,[fn_34] already noted earlier, and Maxwell’s (1831–1879) similar emphasis, in a letter supplementing the introduction to his famous published work, that his falsifications of certain known crucial evidence[fn_35] was done out of a governing determination of Maxwell’s own work, “to exclude any geometries but our own.” The early Bertrand Russell publication of his assignment to attack and defame the work of Gauss, Riemann, and Georg Cantor, among others, attests to the same feature of English empiricism.[fn_36]

The neo-Aristotelian form of gnostic mind-set being addressed here, is thus typified for our presently immediate uses, by the three cited landmark examples: Descartes’s deus ex machina, the echoing, “clock-winder” theses of Newton, and the two corollary theses of the Kantian system as featured in Kant’s Critique of Judgment. These are, each and all, equivalent to all those varieties of explicitly gnostic mind-sets, which, like Manicheanism, postulate a more or less hermetic separation of and mutual hostility between, a spiritual and physical universe, which are supposed to oppose, more or less fanatically, the concept of consubstantiality.[fn_37] These include the Bogomil–Cathar cult-tradition. Cartesianism’s hostility to Kepler et al., is thus fairly described as the Cathar cult[fn_38] disguised as mathematical physics.

The forms of gnosticism, most conspicuously when expressed as an ideological imprint upon a mathematical physics, deny the existence of an intelligible mental-creative power capable of being necessarily an efficient cause within physical processes. In the same way, gnostic pseudo-Christian cults deny the existence of a necessarily efficient “divine spark” of creative reason in the individual person.

This has two included hereditary effects to be underscored here. The notion of the sovereign individual person does not exist as a theorem for such a cultist ideologue; nor does there exist a theorem which specifies a necessary, fundamental distinction between man and beast. This either leads to racism, or, for an obsessed racist, this gnostic denial of a “divine spark” is sought out and embraced as an axiom necessary to provide the racist a suitable mind-set.

The same cult-ideology allows the practice of usury. Either the society’s increase in per capita wealth is the result of the sovereign, mental-creative powers of persons, or it is not. If not, then we have the theses of the physiocrat, the theses of a gnostic worship of the “Mother Earth” whore-goddess, Ishtar–Gaia–Cybele–Isis. Similarly, there is no sacredness of individual human life.

Conversely, whoever denies systematically the theorem of the sacredness of an individual human life, is neither a Christian nor a respecter of natural law.

We can now leap directly from the foregoing to the point in view.

C. Dealing with Moscow

In dealing with Moscow, currently (1991), from “the West,” one approach will assuredly produce nothing but disaster for all concerned: Continue to insist that Moscow et al. submit to the disastrous “Polish model” of International Monetary Fund, Group of Seven, Schacht-like “conditionalities,” as a “precondition” for this or that. The second approach to be considered, is the more complex correlative of the cited Arab–Israeli case: the political solution, the demand for sovereign independence by nationalities which have been under decades of Moscow’s rule.

The case of pre-1989 Moscow trade-relations with such crucial Comecon trading partners as Czechoslovakia and East Germany (G.D.R.), illustrates a principal included feature of the matter to be considered. Focus upon the transition from 1988–1989 to 1990–1991 in trade relations between Moscow and the part of a now-united Germany which was formerly the G.D.R.’s “Land of Mielke and Honi.”[fn_39]

First, prior to the political change, East Germany and Czechoslovakia were suppliers of crucial products to the Soviet economy; without a continuing flow of such trade, on the Soviet side, the resulting bottlenecks are crippling for Soviet industry as a whole. Without such trade, a very significant segment of the former G.D.R. economy has no suitable source of orders to keep its production going.

A similar situation confronts not only all of the newly reformed, former Comecon states of Eastern Europe; the avowedly or prospectively independent states from within 1989 Soviet borders, such as the Baltic states, Georgia, Ukraine et al., each and all have acute interdependencies with what has been the Soviet economy as a whole. The nearly disastrous effects of a 1990 cutoff of former lines of such trade between eastern Germany and Moscow illustrates the general problem.

This aspect of the matter overlies the military-strategic problems.

Moscow’s Red Army (in a larger sense) continues to be a thermonuclear superpower. Worse, the recent behavior of the Anglo-American forces, in the enunciation of “the Thornburgh Doctrine,” actions against Panama, actions in the Persian Gulf, as otherwise, put lower limits on Moscow’s willingness, or, indeed, political capacity to retreat as far, strategically, as the legal, morally legitimate, national aspirations of the Balts and others obviously desire and demand. “Two steps backward,” thinks the Voroshilov Academy’s General Staff group, “but not three and never four.”

 

1. The SDI

In 1979, as part of his own U.S. 1980 Democratic presidential nomination campaign, the author published a personal “Campaign Platform Plank,”[fn_40] which later became known as President Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) announcement of March 23, 1983. The point on which emphasis is to be placed, for the purposes of the matter immediately under discussion, is the special offer to Moscow which President Reagan included in that March 23 address and repeated at least several times after that.[fn_41]

Consider the following relatively very compact summary of the “SDI” proposal as this writer came to see it, over the period 1977–1979 and later. The autobiographical accounting given in published locations elsewhere, is largely omitted here for sake of brevity.[fn_42]

The summary given in text above is a repetition of the author’s conception of the problem-area during 1977–1978. However, some of the facts used here to represent aspects of that conception, were not documented in the writer’s proposal until some point during the 1979–1982 period.

As Bertrand Russell reflects this in his famous, Churchillian contribution appearing in the October 1946 edition of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the original British strategic goal for the post-World War II period, was to use the United Nations Organization as a vehicle for establishing a global, new Roman Empire of the principal victors of World War II. Essentially, this signified a global Anglo-American/Soviet condominium, the Soviets a junior partner and the virtual Anglo-American arrangement, according to the transatlantic watchword of that time, “British brains, American brawn.”

As Russell emphasized in that October 1946 piece, and in later published writings and published interviews on the same theme,[fn_43] the temporary postwar Anglo-American monopoly on nuclear arsenals was a key feature of the proposed world-federalist forms of “new world order” at that time. That 1946 piece was the first of a series of occasions, during the post-1945 Stalin period, that Russell delivered to Moscow his Churchillian “Iron Curtain” threat of “preemptive nuclear war,” should Moscow continue Stalin’s postwar rejection of the proposed Soviet junior partnership in the world-federalist scheme.[fn_44]

To his Western readers, beginning with that 1946 piece, Russell warned, that he believed that the Anglo-American powers lacked the courage to go to the brink of preemptive nuclear war with Moscow, in time to force Moscow to submit to the world-federalist arrangement on terms relatively most favorable to London and Washington, i.e., at some point prior to the inevitable Soviet acquisition of nuclear arsenals.[fn_45] Russell predicted, essentially, that because of the West’s lack of nerve, the new world-federalist arrangement would emerge only after Moscow had such weaponry.

So, as if Russell had predicted it, the first step toward such an Anglo-American/Soviet global condominium occurred under Nikita Khrushchev, after Stalin’s death, beginning with the appearance of four Soviet representatives at the 1955, London meeting of Russell’s own World Association of Parliamentarians for World Government.[fn_46] Out of this came the Fabian-sponsored (Cyrus Eaton’s) Pugwash Conferences, which, at the second, Quebec Pugwash Conference of 1958, set forth the first arms-control arrangements, detailed by Dr. Leo Szilard, preparatory to world-federalist government.[fn_47]

Put aside the ups and downs of 1958–1982 relationships between U.S. Presidents, on the one side, and Khrushchev and Brezhnev on the other. Essentially, supported by the Council on Foreign Relations’s New York City branch of London’s foreign intelligence organization, Henry A. Kissinger’s Chatham House,[fn_48] the U.S.A. and Soviets reached agreement on Pugwash Conference terms under Henry A. Kissinger’s terms as national security advisor (1969–1975) and secretary of state (1973–1977) for Presidents Nixon and Ford. The most prominent features of Kissinger’s role as a Pugwash Conference agent, for which many suspected him of being a Soviet agent,[fn_49] was in dealings with Moscow and Beijing. The arms-control negotiations, including the crucial 1972 ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) Treaty, are the most directly relevant for examining SDI policy.

Already in 1958, 14 years before Kissinger rammed through the 1972 ABM Treaty, Bertrand Russell’s accomplice, Dr. Leo Szilard,[fn_50] had proposed to outlaw anti-ballistic missile weapons, as a way of ensuring that both thermonuclear superpowers remained in a state of pristine vulnerability to intercontinental thermonuclear warheads of the other. Why? To force a world-federalist sort of Anglo-American/Soviet imperial condominium upon the world as a whole.

Kissinger, trained by British foreign intelligence’s Chatham House, under Prof. William Yandell Elliott at Harvard and at Tavistock in London, was a hardened follower of the Castlereagh of “Masque of Anarchy”[fn_51] notoriety, before being assigned to work on Russellite Pugwash dogmas, under George Franklin, John D. Rockefeller III, McGeorge Bundy et al., during the mid-1950s, at the New York Council on Foreign Relations.[fn_52] During the interim years, from the time he was booted out of his consultant’s position with the Kennedy administration, until he became virtually “acting President” during the years 1969–1977, Henry A. Kissinger’s principal association was with the ostensibly left-wing co-thinkers of Bertrand Russell, at Pugwash.

By the middle of the 1970s, the Russellite Pugwash dogma had put the world on a short nuclear fuse. So this author found the situation, in launching his 1976 campaign for the U.S. presidency.

By the mid-1970s, the introduction of increasingly accurate, medium-range, MIRVed thermonuclear land-based and submarine-based missiles, such as the conspicuous Soviet SS-20, had put the world potentially on a hair-trigger. The reduction of preemptive missile-attack warning-time, from more than 20 minutes, to the order of five or even less, meant that the detection of close-in submarine launch of a relatively few Soviet missiles against U.S. territory, or analogous targeting of Soviet territory, could even probably mean a full-scale launch, in reply, by the threatened party. So much for Szilard’s “balance of terror,” and the McNamara–Kissinger “Mutually Assured Destruction” (MAD).

If, however, both the U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. possessed an anti-ballistic missile defense (BMD) capable, in the 1963 words of Soviet Marshal V.D. Sokolovsky,[fn_53] of eliminating “a strategically significant” ratio of missiles launched against it, the hair-trigger effect could be brought under control. During the early 1960s, Sokolovsky’s Soviet Strategy[fn_54] had rightly deprecated what 1980s convention came to term “kinetic-energy weapons” of strategic ballistic missile defense; Sokolovsky had emphasized the emerging alternative, which, later, the addenda to the U.S.A.-U.S.S.R. 1972 ABM Treaty defined as anti-ballistic missile defense based upon “new physical principles.”

During the mid-1970s, the chief of U.S. Air Force intelligence, Maj. Gen. George Keegan, noted the Soviets were working on a “new physical principles” BMD, and proposed that the U.S.A. match this. Defense Intelligence Agency head Lt. Gen. Daniel Graham was only one prominent figure among those influentials who shot down Gen. Keegan’s findings and proposals at the time. On the basis of an independent scientific audit of Gen. Keegan’s report, in the fall of 1977, this writer publicly supported that report at the time and also went further to develop what became the “SDI” plank in his own 1980 Democratic presidential nomination campaign, and, in a larger form, the author’s 1981–1982 “SDI” proposals to the Reagan administration. This was also the subject of the author’s 1982–1983 White House back-channel discussions with official Soviet representatives.

What this author proposed during 1981–1983 to the Reagan National Security Council and other relevant U.S. institutions, represented in U.S. back-channel discussions with the Soviet government, to institutions of U.S. allies et al., was a precursor to what he projects now as a basis for working discussion on the Eurasian crisis of 1991. Now, review the mere highlights of the LaRouche 1982 “SDI” proposal in that light.

The 1982 LaRouche “SDI” proposal was first brought prominently to international attention before several hundred participants, at a two-day seminar held in Washington, D.C. for this purpose, on Feb. 17–18, 1982.[fn_55] This public announcement was followed by the issuance of a published version of the same announcement.[fn_56] This proposal had three leading components: military, technological, and political representing, taken altogether, a war-avoidance policy.

1) Military:

The military element of this war-avoidance package, was the reliance upon introduction of a high rate of technological attrition in strategic and tactical methods of warfare, centered around a “crash program” employing so-called new physical principles, to construct a global ballistic missile defense capable of destroying assuredly a strategically significant ratio of an adversary “first strike” missile-launch.

This design was premised upon the feasibility of early deployment of a new generation of electromagnetic weapons systems, with an estimable, inherent design-principle advantage of approximately ten-to-one cost of destruction advantage over (relatively) lumbering intercontinental missiles and their warheads and busses. The same family of “new physical principles” technologies was extended to the tactical battlefield (e.g., Europe) and the seas.

2) Technological:

The apparatus which is developed to effect a relatively perfected form of a crucial experiment is, as a matter of geometrical-physics principle, the model of reference for designing a corresponding family of weapons and machine-tools. The machine-tool developed in conjunction with a weapons program, is the means by which the physical advantage of the weapon-design becomes the device introducing a greater or lesser degree of technological revolution and quality of products and productivity into production in general.

Thus, insofar as military production is an applied reflection of high rates of scientific progress, etc., and on condition that military technologies are encouraged adequately to spill, via the machine-tool interface, into high rates of capital-intensive, energy-intensive investment in technological progress in the economy in general, a “breakeven point” is implicitly projected, above which level of rate of such latter investment, a large military program may be maintained at a net negative cost to the economy as a whole. This became known as the “spill-over” principle.

This reflection of the principles of Leibnizian physical economy, was the point of the proof of both military and economic feasibility of what later came to be known as the “Edward Teller” version of the SDI.[fn_57] That is: a) the U.S. could afford whatever a proposed BMD program required, and b) the “spill-over” principle allowed the U.S. to go as far as necessary in the direction of advanced technology, to achieve the performance required.

 

2. The Economy

This military-technological package was also conceived as a “science-driver” form of “jump-start” for the world economy. In this respect, during 1982, the author conceived and presented his BMD package as complementary to a package of global economic-recovery packages including his famous Operation Juárez of August 1982.

The general perspective was to combine a science-driver “jump-start” industrialization boom in the industrialized nations, with a general international monetary reform. The intended result, as Operation Juárez, and the 1983 LaRouche “Indian/Pacific Basin” reports typify the point, was to unleash a self-sustaining, growing capital-goods export boom from the industrialized to developing sector.

The other distinctive feature of the 1981–1982 LaRouche proposals for the Reagan administration, was that the U.S.A. must propose the new BMD program-package to Moscow as a basis for cooperation between the two strategic blocs.

Why not? The two adversary-blocs were already cooperating militarily, along Pugwash lines. Medium-range rocketry had proven what should have been apparent all along: e.g., Bertrand Russell is perhaps the most evil man of the century and Dr. Leo Szilard had been arguably insane; his “Rube Goldberg” scheme was leading rapidly toward the very thermonuclear war it was alleged to prevent.

Some concrete features of the LaRouche BMD “crash program” addressed aspects of the 1982–1983 U.S.A.-U.S.S.R. SDI negotiations, which bear upon the solution for the Eurasian crisis today.

Approximately eight weeks prior to President Reagan’s first public announcement of the SDI, the following three-point response was relayed from Moscow to the U.S. National Security Council by way of this writer: 1) We agree that your BMD (based upon “new physical principles”) is feasible; 2) We agree with the feasibility of technological economic “spill-over”; 3) However, we will reject any such proposals from your government, because, under “crash program” conditions, you will race ahead of our economy.

When President Reagan did announce the SDI, the Yuri Andropov government in Moscow reacted as the three-point message had indicated about two months earlier. Instead, Andropov ordered the package-proposal publicized through his interview with Der Spiegel’s publisher, Rudolf Augstein.[fn_58] The U.S.–Soviet negotiations, since some time during 1984, until the beginning of 1990, generally followed the outline of that Der Spiegel interview with Andropov.

Today, in retrospect, Moscow’s reaction to the offer of cooperation in deploying BMD based upon “new physical principles,” appears to have been more or less a tragic error.

At that time, 1982–1983, both the Soviet and Anglo-American economic systems were sliding near to the brink of that collapse which erupted to the surface, on the Anglo-American side, in the October 1987 financial crisis. By 1982, both the Anglo-Americans’ radically Malthusian monetarism and accumulated effects of Soviet “socialist primitive accumulation,” were converging asymptotically upon the collapses we are witnessing today.

At that time, 1982–1983, the joint U.S.A.–U.S.S.R. adoption of a “crash program” to escape a worsening of the MAD-caused “hair-trigger” threat of the late 1970s, relying chiefly upon “new physical principles,” would have initiated a desperately needed, global economic renaissance, with proportionate benefits on both sides of the “thermonuclear divide.”

This writer’s design for a “BMD based upon ‘new physical principles,’ ” developed and deployed, in separate, successive phases,[fn_59] in open coordination among the powers, represented the combination of, first, a uniquely effective, real-life solution to the indicated military crises,[fn_60] and second, an urgently needed “cultural-paradigm shift” in political and economic thinking on both sides. It was understood by this writer, at the time, as an initiative in imitation of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz’s eminently successful reforms proposed to Czar Peter “the Great.” It was also, in fact, an echo of the Eurasian development projects of France’s great statesman Gabriel Hanotaux.[fn_61]

It was not a “peace proposal.” It was, rather, something far less ambitious, far more realistic, something effective. It was proposed as nothing more ambitious than a necessary means, by means of which the temporary avoidance of war might be significantly prolonged and that avoidance otherwise enhanced.

3. The Question of Peace

“Peace,” as the term is used customarily, has merely a negative meaning, as the term “negative” is employed in the setting of Kant’s “dialectic of practical reason,” which is the same general quality of meaning “peace” has when the idea of “peace agreement” is referenced to the romantic/empiricist notion of “social contract.”

The virtual worthlessness of such popularized, negative usage of the term “peace,” is as a description of a symptom, the mere absence of “non-peaceful” conditions.[fn_62] Whenever this negative meaning is misused, to treat negative peacefulness as a positive condition to be constructed, politics acquires the hues of a possibly dangerous delusion.

The delusional character implicit in popular attribution of rapture to the mere sound of the word “peace,” ought to remind us how deservedly contemptuous is this century’s experience with other such mere words as “a war to end all wars,” “League of Nations,” “Kellogg–Briand,” or “non-aggression pact.” Kant’s “perpetual peace”—a social contract for peace—by negation, is a bloodstained folly which we must not repeat.

Peace in the positive sense exists only in that sense of truth, beauty, and charity which is characteristic of a natural law’s community of principle among nations. It is a positive state of affairs, which must be built, as an Indian parent plants mango trees whose fruit will nourish his children and grandchildren.

If one were instructed to describe this positive, true, agapic peace in strictly formal terms of deductive approximation, one would say that such peace is a constantly regenerated, necessary theorem of practice, affecting all dimensions of social life within and among the nations comprising a community of principle. This “hereditary” determination is rooted, one would say, “axiomatically,” in the shared confidence of each such nation, that all the others are committed truthfully to be self-governed according to the natural law.

In the language of the “Tavistockians,”[fn_63] it is by building up among all of a certain prospective community of nations, an appropriate “cultural paradigm,” that we bring about the state of affairs represented approximately by such a formalist attempt at description.

Apply now, in somewhat greater detail and depth, what was said of the Dead Sea project, to the image of a project of physical-economic cooperation, to develop a community of principle “from the Atlantic to the Urals,” within Europe—and beyond.

D. Eurasia’s Great Projects

If one accepted the low standard of personal political “success” popular among most of the North American and European mass news and entertainment media, it would be said that Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev’s bad luck was to have his patron, Yuri Andropov, die prematurely and thus leave poor Gorbachev to receive the blame for the inevitable failure of Andropov’s perestroika economic and monetary reforms. So, today, Soviet power is disposed to attach itself to whatever leading political faction is credited with having put “meat and potatoes” more or less regularly on the table for the Soviet people.

Unfortunately for a public afflicted with today’s popular opinion, there are no simple, distributionist, or so-called “free market” solutions for this problem of hunger and other current, or immi-nently threatened, grievous material want. The presently functioning levels of employment and productivity in basic economic infrastructure, agriculture, and manufacturing, are variously underdeveloped and also collapsing rapidly, so much so, that a general catastrophe of spreading material want is the preponderant reality globally, until an essentially global, “dirigist” form of economic-recovery program reaches the level of net effect, at which the presently downward trend in physical economy is reversed.

History

Let us now consider, once again, summarily, the degree to which twentieth-century world history was determined chiefly by certain global events unleashed during the 1860s. The latter was centered around the relationship which emerged between U.S. President Abraham Lincoln and Russia’s Czar Alexander II.

The so-called U.S. Civil War and the Union victory, became key to the British motive for causing World War I, and also, thus, implicitly, World War II. This is contrary to what is popularly believed, of course, but the documented truth is overwhelmingly contrary to the vastly popularized mythology.

The British plot to create the Civil War began, in approximation, with the successive U.S. victories in the 1776–1783 U.S. War of Independence and the War of 1812–1815. London to this day, has never given up its determination to re-take and keep, all of North America. Following the 1812–1815 “War of 1812,” the British and their Scottish Rite freemasonic agents (such as the 1814 Hartford Convention crowd) inside the United States, adopted a new strategy. To establish a branch of the New England Scottish Rite, which became the pro-slavery “Southern Jurisdiction,” while the New England freemasons, although profiting, like Friedrich Engels’s family British firm, from cheap, slave-produced cotton, became the “abolitionist” backers of John Brown et al. As the letters of British agent and treasonous head of the U.S. Democratic Party, August Belmont, revealed, the British intent, behind such figures as August Belmont and British spy Judah Benjamin, was to tear the United States apart, into a “balkanized” set of quarrelsome, tyrannical baronies, easily controlled from London.[fn_64]

Thus, the leadership of the Confederacy, around London agent Judah Benjamin, was not a collection of bravely independent Southerners; they were slaveholding oligarchs in the worst sense of human rights violations en masse. These proud families were purely and simply British-controlled traitors of the lowest sort. In fairness, their freemasonic, “abolitionist” brethren of New England, were not much better.

The plot was coordinated from London, by the opium-trading circles around the Mazzinian libertarian, Lord Palmerston and Palmerston’s confederate, the same Lord Russell who is the grandfather of super-racist Bertrand Russell. So, Palmerston and Russell planned to rescue their Confederate agents, as they directed Britain’s agent of influence, Napoleon III, into a Suez-like operation against Mexico.[fn_65]

At Lincoln’s front, were his enemies and London and the Confederacy’s freemasonic Southern Jurisdiction. At his back, were the Democratic Party “Copperheads,” whose darling of the day was General McClellan, and also the “abolitionist” New England freemasonry.

Into this situation, during 1862–1863, intruded the shadow and then the military substance of Russia’s Czar Alexander II. The Russian Navy deployed en masse on friendship visits to New York City and San Francisco; the czar warned London and Paris that Russia would unleash war in Europe, should Britain and Napoleon III attempt to do against the U.S.A.[fn_66] what they did do in full at that time against Mexico.[fn_67]

Then, the British intelligence services assassinated anti-carpetbagger President Lincoln, bringing into power President Andrew Johnson, who set back the United States a whole half-century, by establishing usurious “carpetbagging” against the region of the former Confederate states.[fn_68] Meanwhile, Czar Alexander II re-freed Russia’s serfs, at least to the degree of lifting Russia out of the barbarism into which it had been returned over the course of the preceding 100 years.

It was in the context of these Russian developments, that France’s Hanotaux launched his efforts of aid of Eurasian economic development. It was to defeat the natural tendency for the cooperation of economic-leader Germany in this Eurasian perspective, with Hanotaux’s France and Sergei Count Witte’s Russia, that the British corrupted France (by circa 1900) with the Entente Cordiale, and organized World War I.[fn_69]

The symptomatic evidence is plain enough and crucial; the relevant British lies on these matters prevail in global policy-shaping today. Does France’s leading opinion have the courage, even 90 years later, to accept the truth, that the Entente Cordiale, was not only France’s shameful, virtually catamite, strategic submission to Milner’s Fabian London, but was the crucial folly by France’s corrupted government, which made World War I almost inevitable? More than 70 years after World War I, how many credulous people still tolerate the popular lie, that Germany, not Britain, sought and caused that war?

The persistence of the falsehoods inherent in the popularized, and also official Anglophile myths, betrays, in a crucial way, the existence of corresponding elements of “axiomatic” assumptions of belief in most relevant public and private national, and international institutions. These myths reflect also an aggravation, as well as persistence of those “axiomatic” assumptions of institutionalized belief, which permitted the British to corrupt 1890s France against Hanotaux, successfully, and to bring about the monstrous combined direct and radiating effects of World War I. In short, most of us appear thus to be greater fools today, than our grandparents or great-grandparents at the beginning of this century. They made their horrible mistake; we appear to insist upon repeating it.

The 1989 developments which brought the subsequent reunification of Germany, evoked the vilest anti-Germany propaganda outbursts from such circles of Britain’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher as Nicholas Ridley and Conor Cruise O’Brien. There were supporting echoes of this irrationalist hate-propaganda from leading circles in France, and France’s and Moscow’s support for a Thatcher-ordered, 1956 Suez-modeled U.S.A. Middle East adventure, the latter of which was plainly unleashed to target the economies of Germany and Japan, and to erode as much as possible the possibility of a Germany-led, vigorous economic recovery in Eastern Europe—and also the Soviet Union.

Echoes of 1900–1914! The British Empire was up to the old “geopolitical” war-mongering tricks of those scoundrels Mackinder, Milner, and H.G. Wells.[fn_70] Mitterrand’s France of 1990 had rejoined the Entente Cordiale, was joined once more with London in a new “Suez” adventure, and a rewarming of the old Anglo–French Sykes–Picot atrocity. Meanwhile, the neo-Bukharinist “cosmopolites” of Russia were also up to their old tricks. The events which the British-led cabal unleashed in the Middle East, blended with the simmering Balkan crisis to echo the 1900–1919 breakup of the old Ottoman Empire; the pattern of Entente Cordiale-like policy action in Europe echoed the British efforts to organize World War I.

Yet, history is not “repeating itself.” On the contrary, it is but displaying, that the cultural paradigm set into place over the 1900–1990 period still prevails. Men are not making history; history is dangling entire nations and continents by its puppet-strings.

As long as nations refuse to recognize how a lunatic “cultural paradigm,” such as that whose outlines we have just reviewed, controls their consistently foolish behavior, and does so again, and again, and again, over spans of a century or longer, the tragedy will continue its bloody course up to the disastrous end, which brings down the closing curtain on such an effort of mass folly.

“I refuse to accept such conspiracy theories,” an objector retorts from on-stage.

From off-stage, the mocking, Delphic voice of the puppet-master is heard: “Then die, you poor fool of a nation, which refuses to show sufficient intelligence to be qualified to survive.”

Look at this history, this British-led cultural paradigm, from the standpoint of economies. Start with British hatred against Lincoln’s U.S.A.

Under President Lincoln’s leadership, principles adduced from the American System of political-economy were applied to generate the investment credit, the investment, and the production needed to win the war, and to prepare to defend the U.S.A., if needed, against a British and French military aggression like that conducted against Mexico during that same period. Thus, the U.S. emerged from the most ruinous war in the history of the federal republic, vastly more powerful in economy and military capabilities than at the outset of the British-directed Confederate insurrection.

The kernel of Lincoln’s postwar reconstruction policy is summed up in his last public address, shortly before his assassination at British hands.[fn_71] Had this Lincoln policy, instead of Andrew Johnson’s, prevailed, the ruined Southern states would have become immediately a center of a nationwide “infrastructure-building boom,” led by railroad development, establishing the mandatory basis for a great agricultural and industrial growth throughout the United States as a whole. President Johnson prevented that. With British success in corrupting the U.S. Congress of the 1870s, the London-designed U.S. Specie Resumption Act was passed, an act which made the U.S.A. economically a semi-colony of London, and kept the growing U.S. economy in a state of depression or near it, from 1877 through 1907.

With the assassination of U.S. President William McKinley by a transient from New York City’s and Emma Goldman’s Henry Street Settlement House, the leftist and Anglophile Teddy Roosevelt became President, thus putting the U.S.A. fully in the British Fabian camp of Mackinder, Milner, and H.G. Wells, for a war against Germany. Roosevelt established the U.S. military as the British collection-agent in the Americas,[fn_72] and made war against the American System of political-economy in general.

Despite a threat of a London-directed British–Japanese war against the United States during the 1920s, with Teddy Roosevelt’s accession to the U.S. presidency was born the later watchword of the century’s Anglo-American partnership, “American brawn, British brains.”

Teddy Roosevelt was the creator, through his attorney general, the nephew of France’s Napoleon III, Charles Bonaparte, of a national political-police agency to control political opposition, the National (later Federal) Bureau of Investigation. He was crucial in the process of putting the United States under a plainly anti-constitutional, British form of oligarchical (usury-based) central banking, the Federal Reserve System. He ensured that Taft would be defeated,[fn_73] bringing Harriman-House dupe, Woodrow Wilson, into the presidency for 1) ramming through the Federal Reserve Act, 2) ramming through the Federal Income Tax law, and 3) for the case of an expected war against Germany.

Why should 1890s Britain regard Germany as a strategic threat? Were not the royal families cousins? Had the Hohenzollerns not been Anglophiles since the Napoleonic Wars even earlier?

The British of the 1890s were even more clear than Mrs. Thatcher’s cabal on this matter: The prosperous growth of Germany’s economy was the casus belli. We have an analogous situation today, as Washington, D.C. voices threaten Japan and Germany for “unfairness.” How are the latter nations unfair? Simply, they have refused, thus far, to be self-destructively stupid in their economic policies of the past 25 years, as the U.S.A. and Britain have been. The 1897–1900 Britain might have resolved to gain the benefits of initiating policies already proven then successful in Germany; instead they elected to create an Anglo–French–Russian alliance to destroy Germany, rather than correct the insanity of their own economic policies at home. That is the issue in a nutshell.

The Policy for the Great Projects

The British of 1897–1900 were still the liberal oligarchs they had been during their 1763–1814 efforts to crush economic development in the English-speaking American colonies. The issue is defined by Schiller’s view of the conflict between the oligarchical model of Sparta’s Lycurgus and Athens’s Solon. The leading expression of these fundamental philosophical differences was and is physical-economic policy. This is so, just because Physical Economy is essentially the mode of social reproduction and development of the society and of the individual personality within it.

The area of Europe east of the former, pre-1990 eastern border of the Federal Republic of Germany, is a desert of a previously, already insufficient development of basic economic infrastructure, which has been ruinously depleted subsequently, by 50-odd years of “socialist primitive accumulation,” by 40 years of war and of deep economic depression and of more war before that. Talk of the “miracles of free trade” is worse than infantile babbling in such circumstances.

There must be a mobilization of all otherwise idled or wasted productive resources of labor, to create rapidly the trunk lines of a network of modern forms of basic economic infrastructure from the Atlantic to the Urals, and beyond. The market defined by this massive infrastructure-building provides the base-line for the development of agriculture, high-technology small entrepreneurships, and modern manufacturing operations.

The mobilization of this region’s population for such a great undertaking, in common interest of Europe as a whole, is the practical foundation for conditions of durable, just peace among all of the rightfully sovereign nationalities of that continent. Conversely, to allow the described geopolitical syndrome of World War I to rule, by default, would ensure the worst possible outcome as the probable one.

The crux of the matter is the specific way in which the Becoming of a physical economy, based upon investment in scientific and technological progress, reflects natural law. That Becoming does not contain the Good, but, like the instructions in the message which is a crucial historic source-document in the history of revolutionary scientific progress, it bestirs the divine spark of creative reason in the individual mind, to find the echo of the Good within itself.

Since we have emphasized science and physical economy so much, this is a most appropriate point to give credit to the creative role in classical humanist art, in this case classical tragedy. We reference the manner in which certain kinds of messages—such as a historically crucial scientific source-document or masterful tragedy—unlocks the mind of the recipient to knowledge generated from within the recipient’s own sovereign, creative-mental processes. In such ways do creative minds employ mediation by inferior means, to address one another’s innermost voices directly.

Contrary to Wiener, Shannon, Von Neumann et al., in such exemplary cases of scientific and classical-artistic communication, what is transmitted to the recipient is far greater than might be estimated as the statistically significant content of the transmission itself.

To illustrate the principle most simply: “Remember that day in__, 19__?” All significant scientific communication of ideas is broadly analogous to such a query. However, instead of invoking the recollections of a finite experience, as the illustrative message suggests, in statements describing a process of scientific discovery, we invoke the transfinite generative capacities of the recipient’s mental-creative powers. Within the relatively brief statement of an important problem, are months of justified labor by the recipient of that statement, to explain adequately the proper solution to that problem. Such also is all great artistic composition.

Consider a Shakespeare tragedy, Hamlet, for example. Or, Schiller’s Don Carlos, for example. Is the power of the drama in any of the utterances—even in Posa’s “king of a million kings”? The passion is located in the juxtaposition of essentially simple, more or less stylized words and movements, to force upon the audience a conception of something which might be said to “lie between the cracks” of anything said or done on-stage. Hence, the form of a dramatic composition is as essential as the form of a non-Euclidean constructive geometry is to creative thinking in mathematical physics.

So it is with a configuration of individually simple tasks of labor, when those tasks are an essential part of a useful process of increase in the productive powers of labor (increase of potential population-density). It is not the acts per se which define what is special in this case. What is crucial is that the basing of the meeting of elementary household needs of consumption upon a process of production governed by generating, communicating, and efficiently receiving valid scientific and technological progress, defines the relationship of person to person, in terms of those activated qualities of sovereign, creative reason which are the resonators of natural law.

A family, a nation can not live safely in a Christian household, while we permit the devil to reign in those economic processes to which the material existence of the household is kept hostage.

Let it be clear, the attempt led by the Anglo-American liberal, imperialist Establishment, to establish now, irrevocably, their neo-Roman, world-federalist “one world order” impels an increasingly brutalized, increasingly immiserated world into a kind of global “Thirty Years War.”

In this set of circumstances, as long as it appears to be the hegemonic trend, the tendency of Moscow, and elsewhere is, in Kant’s language, predominantly heteronomic, and that with increasing propensity for violence. Moscow, for obvious reasons, will prepare for the likelihood of global war, if, indeed, its military is not already doing so, as slyly as is manageable under presently difficult circumstances.

In this circumstance, respecting nearly all of the territories recently within Soviet or Comecon borders, Soviet doctrine will be, in effect, two steps backward, one step forward. This would be, under that circumstance, the underlying, Muscovite strategic view of the Baltic states, Georgia, Ukraine, and so forth.

This strategic horror is the result of longstanding Anglo-American oligarchical (liberal) imperialist policy, as the foolish U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, London’s Lord Lothian, Chatham House, Bertrand Russell, and so forth expressed this. This liberal, neo-Roman, neo-Malthusian imperialism, is the correlative of a pro-usury, oligarchical economic policy, synonymous with the “free trade” dogma. Thus, “free trade” means global tyranny and global warfare; the conditions in Eastern Europe would be determined accordingly.

If, instead, we unleash a general economic-development approach of the characteristics indicated here, a different state of affairs dominates Eastern Europe, and Europe’s central position in today’s depression-wracked world as a whole becomes a positive one for all humanity. Relations among nations, political as well as economic, would be susceptible to a corresponding sort of creative initiative.

---