December 23, 2001

Zbigniew Brzezinski and September 11th

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

[Print version of this article]

This is the second half of the reprint of LaRouche’s article; the first appeared in EIR Vol. 48, No. 38, September 24, 2021.

Editor’s Note: This article first appeared in EIR Vol. 29, No. 1, January 11, 2002. We are reprinting it in two parts. This is the second part. The reprint of the first part appears in EIR Vol. 48, No. 38, September 24, 2021.

2. Cabal and Strategy

As I restated my long-standing view, at the outset of the preceding chapter, competent strategy for civilized nations, has always been another name for what I defined above as culture. So it was for St. Augustine’s doctrine of justified warfare, and for that Moses Mendelssohn who drafted the program of military education which produced Germany’s exemplary Gerhard Scharnhorst.

Or, to make the same point from the vantage-point of the science of Leibniz’s monadology and Riemannian differential physical geometry, the essential features of strategy are not to be found amid the ivory-tower fantasies displayed upon a blackboard, a table-top, or in the sand-box of a children’s playground; but, as in making the great physical discoveries of physical science, and, in the characteristic features of the specific physical geometry of that domain, the essence of history is the cognitive nature of the human individual, through which the action of beneficial change is to be introduced.

Therefore, the fact that the Classical humanist program which built the foundation for what became the German military General Staff, was that which Moses Mendelssohn drafted, at the request of Wilhelm Graf Schaumburg-Lippe, is not only among the most delicious ironies in modern military history; it is the most important single lesson in the way to think strategically. I emphasize that here, to make clear, by contrast, the inhering blend of combined evil, insanity, and proneness to self-defeat, inhering in the strategic doctrines associated with both the circles of Harvard’s depraved Elliott, Brzezinski, Huntington, Kissinger, and their military-professional accomplices inside both the U.S. and Israeli military forces today.

As I have summarized the argument at the outset of the preceding chapter of this report, competent notions of strategy must be premised, in principle, on the essential distinction between, on the one side, the physical geometry of actions by men and, on the other side, the domain of action characteristic of the beast. That means, that like the Phaedon of Mendelssohn, any truly scientific strategic doctrine, like each and every great renewal of Classical culture in art and science, is premised on a modern appreciation of Plato’s Socratic definition of the immortality of the perfectly sovereign individual human soul.

The issue thus posed is: for what truly immortal cause shall a man lay down his life for others? Contrary to the immoral Immanuel Kant’s utopian “negation of the negation” of war as “perpetual peace,” or perverted Huntington’s notion of peace as perpetual war, there is no other worthy cause for which a person’s life should be justly ventured, but the most essential interest of his, or her immortal soul. With that motive, a good man could work wonders, and often did!

Or, to make the same point in other words, the mortal individual has no durable interest in living, except that of using the instrumentality, the talent, of that mortal life, to fulfill the essential interest of his immortal soul. Since we shall all die, sooner or later, what is our efficiently continuing self-interest when that will have happened? What must our life become, as our contribution to the continuing improvement of the future, once we are dead? What will be important to us, then? So, brave young soldiers may die, as old soldiers, such as President Charles de Gaulle, may survive to serve by living longer lives. What does our life contribute, as something within us which lives after us, to the improvement of the common good of all of the people of our nation, and to the general welfare of all mankind?

Such is the principle of strategy, which must govern the state, as also each moral individual member of that society.

The characteristic of the progress in the development and understanding of modern European cultures’ military strategy, from Leonardo da Vinci and Niccolò Machiavelli, through the revolutionary innovations of such paragons as Lazare Carnot and Scharnhorst, is a typical reflection of the emergence of the modern form of Classical humanist notion of scientific progress per se, also strategy. The origin of this application of science, and of modern Classical-humanist forms of artistic composition, to statecraft in general, and military practice in particular, is the coming into being of the modern form of sovereign nation-state. This is a state premised on the supreme principle of the promotion of the general welfare of all of the members of present and future generations. That is the essential principle of modern European culture in general, and therefore of competent modern strategy, and military doctrine and practice, in particular.

The issues of strategy so situated, have been addressed already, in significant degrees, among the best Classical specialists, in many useful ways, some excellent. However, as I shall now illustrate the point, my original discoveries in economic science, enable me to get to the core of the matter in ways which go much more deeply, ways which have eluded earlier expositions. The point to be made here, is, that matters of strategy must be addressed from the same standpoint as that promotion of the per-capita physical productive powers of labor, through long-term investments in science and technology which increase the power of a people in terms of potential relative population-density.

Thus, the improvements in social practice which occur as a result of elevating the quality of life of the members of society, equip that society with a kind of strategic potential relatively superior, both morally and practically, to that of any oligarchical form of society.

Our U.S. republic’s internal and external adversaries, base their ideas of power on their morally depraved inclination to admire the war-like image of some powerful beast. Consequently, they tend, in their attempted perfection of their own beastliness, to overlook the lesson to be adduced from the case of the powerful tiger trapped in the man-made pit, or brought down by volleys of man-made arrows or man-made rifle-shots. It is neither muscular power, nor the “revenge of the academic nerds” of the Smith-Richardson, Olin, or Mellon-Scaife foundations, but, rather, the force of cognition, which shall prevail in the end.

So, France’s King Louis XI outflanked a powerful combination of his adversaries. So, Henry VII’s England unleashed a revolutionary upgrading of the culture and power of that nation. Strategy is focussed upon luring the adversary of civilization, to fighting on a choice of physical-economic terrain developed to be an inherently advantageous choice for the nobler form of society. Durable victory is secured by winning the potential opponent to preferring the just benefit, to him, of your victory, over ruining both of you by unjustified war. Here lies the key to the doom which now awaits the memory and lackeys alike of the essentially fascist Romantic, Nashville Agrarian Elliott.

General MacArthur won the war of the Pacific, quicker, better, and at far less cost than his critics could have done, not by needless nuclear-bombing, but by avoiding unnecessary battles in concentrating his force, as much as possible, against the essential strategic vulnerability of the island-nation of Japan. Had the bombs not been dropped, Japan would have probably required some weeks longer before effective blockades forced Japan’s recalcitrant military commanders to accept the Emperor’s plan for surrender, but no American lives would have been lost in a totally unnecessary onslaught, and the end of the war would have been sweeter, for the people of Japan, and for us.

So, Carnot, in several ways, used the inherent superiority of a France freed from the legacy of the Fronde, France as the leading scientific nation of the world at that time, a France whose farmers had been freshly freed from feudalism, to turn the threatened dismemberment of France into a general rout for all of the numerous, putatively conquering, invading armies of those years. So, the friends of Friedrich Schiller, used Schiller’s studies of the Habsburg-led 1511-1648 religious wars, to show Russia and its Prussian allies how to set a fatal trap for the ostensibly unconquerable Grand Army of Emperor Napoleon.

The characteristic enemy to be defeated for the cause of creating and defending the institution of the modern sovereign nation-state, was, and remains those oligarchical traditions inherited from the culture of such wicked forms of society as the ancient Roman Empire. This includes that Empire’s associated, Romantic traditions, as encountered, still today, in contemporary, fascist-leaning, cultural, legal, and military doctrines and policies, such as those of Elliott’s Harvard Golems.

The essential weapons to be used for this noble cause, are the weapons of cognition, the ultimate weapon of change, as Plato defined a principle of change as universal and fundamental. The characteristic issue of most justified modern warfare, in seven centuries of modern European civilization, has been the employment of the discoveries of universal physical principle, both so-called physical principles and Classical-artistic ones, to enable sovereign nation-states to make those changes, through which to outflank the capabilities of empires and other forms of oligarchical power. The combat potential of the individual and unit, is, ultimately, not his muscular potential, but, like the best Auftragstaktik-oriented German military training in the tradition of Scharnhorst, his fostered cognitive aptitudes for improvising new choices for flanking and kindred action in face of more or less inevitable, but inevitably unexpected challenges.

The revolution in warfare which occurred in France, during 1792-1794, under the military leadership of scientist-soldier Lazare Carnot, aided by his collaborators of the École Polytechnique, also typifies that revolution in warfare continued, against the fascist Napoleon Bonaparte, by the circles of the German Classical humanists Scharnhorst, Friedrich Schiller, and Wilhelm von Humboldt.[fn_1]²⁷ Typical of this great revolution in arms, were the superseding of the leadership of traditional oligarchs, on horseback, or herding massed infantry, by such citizen-soldiers as engineer-scientist Carnot and Classical-humanism-trained artillerist Scharnhorst. If we put to one side the doubtful, and seemingly interminable conceits of Jomini, we may consider the reforms of West Point under Sylvanus Thayer, as representing a continuation of the lessons derived from the reforms by Carnot, Scharnhorst, et al., within the development of the post-1815 U.S. tradition.

Lincoln more than won the 1861-1865 war against the Confederacy, by aid of the influence of the world’s greatest economist of that time, Henry C. Carey. Carey’s wisdom brought the intrinsic agro-industrial moral superiority of the Union into play against the intrinsic moral, and per-capita economic inferiority of the slave-holding system. Similarly, the inherently doomed folly of Brzezinski’s geopolitical “Clash of Civilizations,” lies in the fact, that the social forces which his strategy would deploy, depend upon the collapse of society globally into a far lower state of morals and economy than today. The victory of his evil cause, would be the common doom of all mankind; in such outcomes, there are no victories.

Yes, war-fighting is too often hard, despite the sophisticated best performances of commanders and the forces they deploy. Such battles as those cruelest ones, must be fought because they are crucial for the outcome of the conflict as a whole; they are properly chosen as complementary to avoiding, or minimizing other engagements, as much as possible. Today, our planners must be reminded of a principle which used to be taken for granted: Control of the adversary and the field of conflict, not his obliteration, not the best kill-ratio, is the proper objective.

How Kissingers, Like Hitler, Will Fail

Ironically, the perverted mentality of Brzezinski et al., is an echo of the same Confederacy incarnate in the Ku Klux Klan legacy of Professor Elliott’s Nashville Agrarians. Focus upon the attempt, by Elliott and his minions, to devise a global imperial strategy based upon a preference for a Confederate’s image of the “lost cause” of backwoods agrarianism and slavery. This exposes what should be the obviously exploitable, axiomatic strategic vulnerability of any dogma supplied by such among Elliott’s jackals as Kissinger, Brzezinski, Huntington, and their confederates.

The same which is to be said of Elliott’s Harvard intellectual spawn, with one important qualification, for today’s case, should be said of the similar way in which Adolf Hitler’s doom was ultimately brought about by his own ideology.

Underlying those and kindred examples, there is a deeper, common expression of this principle, which pervades the entire sweep of modern history in a specific way. I focus on that now, and thereafter focus on the essential folly, the Hitler-like self-doom of the confederates and followers of wretches such as the Nashville Agrarians’ Elliott.

Since the collapse of the self-doomed Roman Empire in its western part, circa A.D. 300, there were repeated efforts to put civilization back along the upward track which Hellenistic culture had represented a half-millennium earlier, prior to about the time of the 212 B.C. Roman murder of Archimedes.

Thus, the darkest periods of Europe’s so-called “Dark Age,” saw the eruption of Islam, which brought powerful forces of a renaissance into the Mesopotamia of the Abbasid Caliphate, Egypt, and Spain. The cooperation between Caliph Haroun al-Rashid and Charlemagne, typifies this. When the accomplishments of Charlemagne were being ruined by the Norman baboons and others, renaissance influences from India, through Ibn Sina’s Iran, played a role.

From the beginning of today’s previous millennium, there were recurring, persisting efforts to lift Europe out of the depravity of the feudal system. The leadership of Abelard of Paris, the great cathedrals, such as Chartres, and of the Hohenstaufen emperors and their collaborators, are typical of these recurring initiatives. The great work of Dante Alighieri and the continuation of that effort by Petrarch, are typical.

The characteristic feature of those clashes between the attempt to build a renaissance and, the opposing depravity organized by Venice and its brutish Plantagenet instruments, was the repeated destruction of the political and other physical resources upon which intellectual foundations of the emerging efforts at a renaissance depended. The collapse of society over the period of the Second through Fourth Crusade, the lunatic nightmare of the Inquisition, and the century-long continuation, beyond the Fourth Crusade, of the ultramontanist effort at “globalization” in general, lowered the physical-economic state of society in a way, which, combined with usuriously pyramided international loans, like those of the post-1971 period today, collapsed Europe into the self-inflicted, mass-murderous “New Dark Age” of the Fourteenth Century.

The repeated lesson from history, is that the progress of society requires commitment to endless scientific-technological and kindred improvements in the basic economic infrastructure, physical productivity, and technology-promoted improvements in the conditions of family life of the general population. These happy results are accompanied and fostered by the increase and spread of cognitive forms of knowledge, and related increases in the physical productive powers of labor. Those results require the support of powerful political movements and institutions. Crush those movements and institutions, and the civilization itself may soon collapse, of attrition, into yet another new dark age. That is the warning urgently to be delivered to the ruling circles of governments and others today.

In the entire sweep of European history, since the rise of ancient Greece, the most horrible single development was the rise of the ancient Roman Empire, and the legal, moral, and military legacies which that Empire and its cultural tradition have continued to inflict on globally extended European civilization since. In the modern phase of history, fascism, born in reaction against the American Revolution of 1776-1789; fascism, born out of the 1789-1794 Jacobin Terror and Napoleon’s tyranny, has been the most extreme expression of the kinds of cancer the Romantic legacy continues to foster, still today.

Huntington’s 1957 The Soldier and the State, and all of the principal output of Huntington and Brzezinski since, represent that fascist tradition in the extreme form expressed by the combination of the “Clash of Civilizations” policy with the events of Sept. 11th. Huntington’s definition of the professional soldier, is nothing but hero-worship of that specific fascist type intended to overthrow the nation-state and establish a caricature of the old pagan Roman Empire as world-government today.

The root of the evil expressed by Huntington and Brzezinski, is cultural, a hatred of the nature of man as Moses Mendelssohn, for one, defined man. For this reason, the cabal of followers of the Nashville Agrarians’ Elliott, such as Brzezinski, Huntington, and Kissinger, not only hate, and seek to destroy the American intellectual tradition; at bottom, like their predecessors Friedrich Nietzsche, Thomas Huxley’s H.G. Wells, Aleister Crowley, and Bertrand Russell, what they really hate, is mankind, or, like Nietzsche and his followers, God himself.

Therefore, the virtually instinctive reaction against progress, presently, by the oligarchical current of society, is to take steps calculated, in effect, or even intent, to bring on a new dark age. This means resorting to pro-Malthusian and cohering types of measures and actions, all implicitly aimed to lower the standard of education and living of the general population. This has been the dominant trend in U.S. and international monetary, economic, strategic, and cultural policy, as experienced in the U.S.A. over, most emphatically, the recent thirty-five years.

We have seen such increasingly lunatic trends, into the depths of fanaticism, in the mid-1960s spread of the “rock-drug-sex counterculture,” the depravities of the so-called “de-schooling movement,” and the spread of the irrationalist, “Flagellant”-like cult of “ecology.” The Nixon destruction of the fixed-exchange-rate monetary system, destroyed the underpinnings of continued long-term investment in scientific and technological progress in the productive powers of labor. The Brzezinski-steered Carter administration’s was even far worse in both intent and effects than Nixon’s; it launched the program of deregulation and wild-eyed monetarism which has produced a continuing collapse of the living standards among the lower eighty-percentile of U.S. family-income brackets since 1977, while uprooting scientific and skilled employment, in favor of drudgery.

The brutalization of the population, including increasing emphasis on bestial forms of mass entertainment in all forms, degrades the population into a condition of cultural pessimism which, in turn, promotes the most disgusting decay in the state of mind and behavior of the population generally. The most obvious forms of degeneracy are in popular audio-visual entertainments; but, a comparison of the stocks of today’s bookstores, including, especially, the children’s books sections, with those of the 1950s and early 1960s, shows how popular tastes of all ages have degenerated, the fare consumed by children, the worst, and ultimately most dangerous for the future of our nation, and also of all mankind. As the cult of Dionysus professed, it is by the corruption of their children, as by the rock-drug-sex counterculture, that the civilization of the parents may be destroyed.

Under such depraved circumstances, there is an increasing spread of ignorance, and increasing suggestibility of the population, especially the very young, which can be more readily exploited by the oligarchy. One should be reminded of the beliefs characteristic of past dark ages, including the inquisitions, the Flagellants, the fascinations with witchcraft and related “magic,” and so on.

The result of post-1962 changes in U.S. policy and culture to that effect, have been accomplished in about the same way in which the oligarchy of the Roman Empire orchestrated the popular opinion of a Roman population bestialized by the entertainments of the great arena-sports on which most of today’s U.S. mass-entertainment is modelled.

Thus, the directly opposite policy, the fostering of a generally higher standard of living for the population, combined with emphasis on scientific and technical, and related progress in the functions of cognition, produces the quality of population which resists oligarchical tyranny, whereas the destruction of the instruments of scientific and other cultural progress, brutalizes the population, makes it increasingly beast-like, as has been done to most of the U.S. population, especially the current crops of children, among others, since the great shocks of 1962-1965.

There are many cases from history, and inferable from evidence left by pre-history, which illustrate the way in which at least most of the great disasters which have caused empires to fall, and cultures to disintegrate, in the past, reflect the inevitable destruction of any society which follows the same general direction which influential pro-oligarchical conspiracies such as the Wells-Russell and Nashville Agrarian cabal has set increasingly into motion since the 1950s.

The heart of the argument may be summed up as follows.

As the case of the American Revolution of 1776-1789 typifies the point, a population nourished, progressive, and educated in a superior degree, as the Americans of that period were superior in their conditions and opportunities to the populations of Europe, is prepared to assume responsibility for its own destiny, taking intellectual responsibility, as a people, for the consequences of its own decision-making. This is typified by both the 1776 Declaration of Independence and 1789 Constitution, documents vastly superior in quality of content, and in coherence, relative to all constitutions of all nations, seen since. A few people, thus crafted a great work.

Through the aversive and perilous conditions thrust upon our young republic by the Jacobin Terror of 1789-1794, Napoleon’s tyranny, and the depravity of the great power-blocs of post-Napoleonic Europe, our nation was isolated, oppressed, and more easily corrupted. From the depravity which the resurgence of slavery typified among us, we were able to recover for a while, that solely through Lincoln’s victory over that evil which the Nashville Agrarians typify during most of the recent hundred years.

Always, our nation’s leading enemies have sought to destroy us, chiefly by inducing us to destroy ourselves first, as they have done more or less successfully since the crises of 1962-1965.

During all of our post-1776 history as a republic, the most consistent thrust of the effort to destroy us, whether from enemies abroad, or traitors and fools within, has been the promotion of the false and radical empiricist dogma of “free trade.” By inducing us to subject ourselves to “free trade” and cohering dogma, they have destroyed much of our economy, stunted its continued growth, and impoverished growing rations of our people, just as the institution of slavery ruined the conditions of mental life of the non-slave population while it looted their bodies as well.

Do not let such awful evidence cause us to lose heart. Our insight into the use of such depraved methods by such contemporary enemies of civilization as Elliott’s Harvard spawn, points, hopefully, to two potentially exploitable, compulsive and fatal errors of strategy by those enemies of humanity. By destroying the means on which the strength of society depends, they make the very society they would rule, the more vulnerable to its own self-imposed, or externally imposed ruin, or both combined. This is the result we see inside the U.S.A., in the former Soviet Union, in western and central Europe, in Africa, and throughout the Americas today.

In short, these fellows who follow Wells, Russell, Elliott, and so on, are so heart-set on chopping a hole in the boat they hate, that they either overlook that they are likely to sink, too, or would prefer, as Russell suggested on one occasion, to send the entire world to Hell, than live in a world dominated by the American intellectual tradition. Take the case of the present, fascist military dictatorship of Israel, so fanatically determined to get its way, that it appears to prefer its own self-inflicted doom, rather than even contemplate the alternative policies under which a sane Israel could survive. Elliott’s crew, and the really fanatical followers of Wells and Russell, appear to desire nothing so much, as the ecstasy of burning alive on the Wagnerian pyres of their own Götterdämmerung.

Compare this with certain relevant ironies of the way in which Hitler’s pro-Malthusian ideology led Germany to its self-destruction under his tyranny.

It Happened to Hitler

Liars, and like-minded fools, have sought to trace the characteristic premises of Nazism falsely, to such alleged origins as “German ideology” in general, Prussian militarism, or to the impact of “German industrialism.” Exactly the contrary is true; like the related case of the fascist-like Confederacy, in U.S. history, or such followers of the “lost cause” as the Nashville Agrarians, Nazism was a disease which worked to destroy everything over which it gained control. The way in which Hitler exploited Germany’s scientific-industrial and related pre-Hitler potential, in the effort to destroy Germany’s own cultural roots, provides us an excellent illustration of the kind of relationship which exists today between the disease, Elliott’s spawn, and the cultural heritage of the nation it infests.²⁸[fn_2]

Like Mussolini, Hitler was both a fascist in explicit imitation of the ideology and practice of France’s Napoleon Bonaparte, and also a more depraved variety of post-Napoleonic Romanticism, along the line of descent from the fascist ideologue G.W.F. Hegel,²⁹[fn_3] and the waves of cultural pessimism and related depravity, which continue, today, to flow from the neo-Kantian existentialist ideologues Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger, Karl Jaspers, Theodor Adorno, Hannah Arendt, et al.[fn_4]³⁰

The Nazis were also rabid, axiomatically anti-science pro-Malthusians, as the “useless eaters” and “death-camp” policies merely typify this axiomatic feature. However, the realization of the Nazis’ originally London-assigned mission, was the use of the instrument of Germany’s scientific-industrial and military-science heritages, which were products of German nation-state culture, to create a war-machine capable of destroying itself in the Russian mire which had wrecked Napoleon’s Grand Army. Thus, the inherently excellent residues of the German Classical humanist movement’s legacies, in the German scientific, Classical-artistic, and Scharnhorst-Moltke tradition, were among the principal (so-to-speak “captured”) tools wasted by the Hitler regime for its adopted military mission.

Notably, as one of Huntington’s earlier acquaintances, Col. Trevor N. Dupuy, wrote in 1984, the evidence is that, precisely because of the tradition of Scharnhorst and Helmuth “Old” von Moltke, the German military institutions were superior, per capita, to those of all other nations, even during World War II.[fn_5]³¹ The essence of this superior potentiality, is the tradition of Auftragstaktik, the principle of training and leadership emphasized to junior officers and non-commissioned leaders, which was introduced by Scharnhorst and emphasized by “Old” Moltke. This was the tradition instilled by the Classical humanist circles associated with Schiller and the Humboldt brothers. It is clearly beyond Huntington’s powers of comprehension, to recognize that Auftragstaktik is the method of Classical-humanist education, translated into the practice of arms.

A complementary point can be made concerning the role of German science.

The modern history of German science has two crucial phases. The first was the spillover from the Italy-centered Fifteenth-Century science, the center of world science during that time, through the track of developments running through Brunelleschi, through the founder of modern experimental science Nicholas of Cusa, through Cusa’s explicitly avowed direct followers Luca Pacioli and Leonardo da Vinci, through the founder of modern forms of comprehensive mathematical science Johannes Kepler, and into the France-centered developments in science around Gottfried Leibniz. The second phase was initiated under the leadership of avowed Leibniz follower Abraham Kästner, the teacher of Gotthold Lessing and Carl Gauss, and runs through the Franco-German circles of Lazare Carnot, Gaspard Monge, Alexander v. Humboldt, Lejeune Dirichlet, Wilhelm Weber, and Bernhard Riemann.

During the course of these alliances of the anti-empiricist followers of Leibniz, as expressed among French and German scientists, and the scientist, and one-time guest of Kästner, Benjamin Franklin, the role of the world’s leader in scientific discovery, was shifted from France, which had held that position since the time of Jean-Baptiste Colbert, to Alexander von Humboldt’s circles in Germany.

This downfall of France’s leadership in science, was the result of three related, but distinct kinds of science-destructive influence introduced into France by empiricist interests.[fn_6]³² The first, was the initial wrecking of the Monge-Legendre-led École Polytechnique, then the world’s leading scientific body, by the action of Napoleon’s dictatorship. Second, was the increasing political influence of such followers of the anti-Leibniz empiricist Leonhard Euler, as represented by Lagrange, which put France’s science increasingly under the corrupt influence of Laplace, Cauchy, Poisson, et al. Third, was the political directive, emanating from France’s British-appointed, post-Vienna Congress, Restoration monarchy, wrecking the École top-down, expelling Monge to internal exile, and impelling Lazare Carnot into exile in, successively, Poland and Prussia, while putting the hoaxsters Laplace and Cauchy at the helm.

The best of France’s science was saved for the world at large, chiefly, through the intervention of the Alexander v. Humboldt, who was an associate of the original École Polytechnique, and a close associate of Lazare Carnot during that period. During the period of the Bourbon Restoration monarchy, Humboldt, the leading patron of Germany’s Carl Gauss, rescued the viable contributions of much of France’s science through channels such as Crelle’s Journal. By the 1850s, Humboldt’s influence had played a key role in consolidating the achievements of the German science centered around such principal intellectual figures as Gauss, Wilhelm Weber, Dirichlet, and Riemann.

To sum up that point: The span of development of German science, from Kepler through Riemann, includes the rise of France as the international center of scientific progress, until the 1789-1794 Jacobin Terror, and transition, organized by Humboldt, through the circles of Lazare Carnot and the École Polytechnique into Germany’s emergence as the world’s leader in science, during the late 1820s.

The progress in these lines of Franco-German post-Renaissance development of modern science continued, despite contrary English and French Enlightenment factions to a dominant official position in institutions of German science, until the pronounced down-turn marked by Hermann Helmholtz’s accession, and of the followers of the radical positivist, Ernst Mach. Since that time, despite important steps forward in some important ways, the generally accepted academic notion of science and scientific method has degenerated greatly, increasingly, in many ways, including, especially, the role of Bertrand Russell and his confederates in many nations, since the 1890s, to the present day.

These Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Centuries’ developments in the progress of science in Germany, not only paralleled but overlapped the history of anti-Romantic, Classical culture in Germany during the same centuries. The connection is underscored by reference to the importance which the leaders of the Eighteenth-Century Classical renaissance in Germany, Kästner, Lessing, and Mendelssohn, placed on defending the legacy of both Leibniz and J.S. Bach, against the decadence of both Rameau and Fux, in music, and Antonio Conti’s network of Voltaire, Leonhard Euler, Lambert, Lagrange, Laplace, Cauchy, et al., in physical science. The revival of Classical method in art, as typified by the influence of Goethe, Schiller, and Heinrich Heine, in opposition to the Romantics, was otherwise typified in the history of Classical, as opposed to Romantic methods of composition and performance of music, by Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Felix Mendelssohn, Schumann, and Brahms.

All of these specifically Classical, anti-Romantic currents, in military affairs, physical science, and art, were usually unified in the internal life of relevant family circles. Thus, just as, in my own case, family dinner-table and related American intellectual traditions reaching back directly to an ancestor born a contemporary of Abraham Lincoln, so cultural legacies tend to persist over three to four, or more successive generations, unless they are crushed by some traumatic intervention. The Germany misled by the nephew of Britain’s King Edward VII, the foolishly Romantic Kaiser Wilhelm, and the Germany squatted upon by Hitler later, contained within them a still-living, crucial, broad current of the Classical German cultural heritage dated from the influence of Kästner, Lessing, Mendelssohn, Haydn, Mozart, Goethe, Schiller, Beethoven, Scharnhorst, the Humboldts, et al., during the second half of the Eighteenth and the early Nineteenth Century.

Thus, from the immediate post-Hitler period, until the middle of the 1960s, the Classical cultural legacy of Germany, which had been undermined and significantly suppressed by the Hitler dictatorship, revived, until it began to be crushed in the aftermath of the 1962-1965 crises. During the preceding Hitler time, the achievements of earlier German culture were at the disposal of the ruling power at that time.

However, during that same Hitler period, Germany’s Classical heritage was what the Nazi ideologues hated, and also feared the most. The Goebbels propaganda ministry’s broadcast of Classical art to the troops, through the official military radio broadcasts, exemplified the concern of the regime to make itself as acceptable as possible to the German population. The activities of the great conductor, Wilhelm Furtwängler, to protect his Jewish musician friends, typify the Hitler regime’s caution about postponing its intended “settling of accounts” with the German population’s traditions, until after Hitler’s world war had been won.

The paradoxical fate of science and technology under the Nazis, is typified by the virtual suppression of Germany’s space-program until the Nazi regime’s “wonder weapons” hysteria. The most effective institutions of Germany under Hitler’s rule, including the military, science, and technological progress in industry and infrastructure, were those whose characteristic features were in direct opposition to Nazi ideology. This is much as today’s post-1945 American fascists, typified during the post-war U.S.A.’s 1950s and 1960s by the likes of Elliott and the followers of Bertrand Russell, used those scientific and other potentials of the U.S.A. which the ideological accomplices of Bertrand Russell and the Nashville Agrarians hated most bitterly, to move the U.S. itself in directions contrary to the American intellectual tradition which had produced, and which expressed those capabilities.

The use of the policy of “world government through nuclear terror-weapons,” which had been introduced over the 1913-1946 interval, by Wells, Russell, and their numerous accomplices, became, inevitably, not only a policy for destroying the modern sovereign nation-state, including the U.S.A. itself, but a pretext for blocking fundamental scientific and technological progress, and even, as with the “rock-drug-sex counterculture,” and the spread of the related “neo-Malthusian” cult, of not only turning back the clock on scientific progress, but reversing the technological progress previously established.

It is by these means, that the followers and accomplices of the Wells-Russell cabal and Nashville Agrarians, and their like, destroy the means to actually secure sustainable military victories, and therefore aim instead simply to obliterate the territory and peoples over which they are losing the means by which they might rule.

To round out that aspect of the argument here, every central feature of the Nazi strategy for the period of Hitler’s reign, represented an impulse which must lead to the self-destruction of the parts of the world which Hitler’s strategies and related policies aimed to destroy, even obliterate. This self-destructive attitude of the Nazis toward the peoples and territories which they occupied, or aimed to subjugate, was a Nazi imitation of the Roman Empire which was already collapsing upon itself, even internally, from the onset of that great wave of conquest which began at the close of the Third Century B.C. That particular, crucial element of ultimately suicidal folly in the Hitler ideology and practice, has been replicated on a vaster scale, in the effects of the growing influence of the followers and cronies of H.G. Wells, Bertrand Russell, and the Nashville Agrarians in the case of the U.S.A. and Britain today.

The Economic Consequences

My point here, is to emphasize the evidence which shows that the chances of success of today’s assets of the Smith-Richardson, Olin, and Mellon-Scaife foundations are vastly poorer than those of the Hitler gang of nearly seventy years ago. The relative degree of destruction of both the British monarchy’s realm and that of the U.S.A., of the resources existing under the domination of that combined Anglo-American domain and its dependencies, has gone relatively much further, during the recent thirty-five-odd years, since the 1962-1965 turning-point, than the self-destruction of Germany and occupied territories under Hitler.

For purposes of comparison of the situation at the beginning of the 1929-1933 Depression, with that which has developed during the recent thirty-five years, consider the following.

The period from the 1861 beginning of the U.S. war against the Confederacy, through the close of 1917, had witnessed a relatively awesome build-up of economic and military potential, a build-up accelerated by the radiating impact of the British monarchy’s mobilization for its launching of the geopolitical adventure which became known as World War I. Despite significant post-1917 disarmament and economic depressions, the core of the military and related potential existing at the close of 1917 was still mobilizable at the time London’s asset Schacht, in 1933, launched Germany’s mobilization for what was to become known as World War II: an interval of about fifteen years. The deep-going present destruction of the economies of the Americas and Europe, was launched during the 1962-1965 interval of change, and has been an accelerating destruction of the productive and related potential of the populations and economies of the Americas and Europe over about thirty-five years since.

The cases of the recent, still continuing Balkan wars, and the cases of the Israeli operations against the Palestinians and U.S. operations in Afghanistan, only typify the widespread effect of the combined economic, cultural, and military factors which have been the cumulative result of thirty-six years of the paradigm-shift in culture, economy, and strategy of the U.S., in particular, during a span now approaching two generations.

The increasing dependency on aerial bombardment, including more and more emphasis on a range of extremes, from massive dumping of dumb bombs, to over-the-horizon platforms, represents, not so much the advantage of air-superiority, as a loss of ability to effect traditional forms of politically vital control on the ground. While these changes are deemed progress by some, the effect of substituting policies of obliteration for control on the ground, mean that super-powers will tend to be attacked wherever they can be conveniently targetted on the ground. Thus, in the ironical age of superweapons, armed conflict shifts more and more in the direction of parodies of stone-age conflict, a trend whose ultimate result is not imperial supremacy, but the disintegration of would-be empires under the corrosive onslaught of the general slide into a more or less planetary new dark age.

History has seen follies similar to those of Elliott’s accomplices. Think of Shelley’s famous short poem, “Ozymandias.” Think of the fall of every culture of Mesopotamia, since the fall of the Dravidian maritime colony known as Sumer, to the present. Think of the way in which Babylon and its Achaemenid successor doomed themselves. Think of the doom which Rome brought upon itself by its own culture, by a military policy presently caricatured by the late Professor Elliott’s accomplices, and by, above all else, its “Project Democracy”-like, tragic reliance on rule by popular opinion. Think of the doom which the triumphant enemies of Emperor Frederick II discovered on their victorious march into the middle of the Fourteenth Century’s “new dark age.”

What the fanatical followers of H.G. Wells, Bertrand Russell, Professor Elliott, and the Smith-Richardson, Olin, and Mellon-Scaife foundations, et al., are bringing upon us all, themselves included, is the oblivion of an accelerating descent of humanity into a new dark age, probably on a planetary scale. Where, then, is their prospect of victory? Victory not by human beings, but, rather, by epidemics and pandemics and sylvatics; rule by those sub-human forms of parasites and saprophytes, which mindlessly triumph over the human species which had felled itself.

Durably peaceful relations within mankind depend upon relations which are of more or less indispensable mutual benefit to mankind. The possibility of durable such relations, depends upon those cultural and technological developments which made possible successive improvements in the potential relative population-density of all mankind.

The practical implications of such a notion of relations among peoples and their nations, depends upon both the efficient practice of promoting such mutual benefits; but, it also depends, unconditionally, upon the partners’ cognitive insight into the essential features of that quality of relationship. What binds one person to another, is not the mere fact that one person’s existence is beneficial to the other, but the awareness of both that this benefit exists.

Such is the meaning to be attributed to U.S. Secretary of State John Quincy Adams’ notion of a community of principle among the sovereign republics of the Americas. We must intend to establish a shared commitment to a community of principle, but we must also ensure that the intended implementation of such a beneficial relationship will be effectively beneficial to all concerned.

3. Heine’s Second Grenadier

Huntington’s 1957 The Soldier and the State, which I reference in its eighteenth printing, reflects the persistence of the projection of the decadence into which U.S. military policy and global strategy have been degraded, over the course of the past fifty-odd years. The book’s recurring republication, at least eighteen times since 1957, implies what is demonstrated by his own and Brzezinski’s later writings. That repeated republication expresses a continuing standpoint of the author, his confederates, and, most important, that parasite’s powerful, Anglo-American financier-oligarchical patrons, throughout the recent forty-five years, or longer.

From the outset, the literary quality of Huntington’s text would have best served the goal of giving both mediocrity and Harvard a bad reputation.[fn_7]³³ His style of argument is that of logical positivism seeking to caricature itself; it has the characteristic footprint, not of an original thinker, but the authentic spoor of an academic sycophant from the ranks of Elliott’s Golems. The method of argument which he employs, is a parade of arbitrary, slippery-footed, “ivory tower” definitions, delivered as if from before the blackboard, to some sorry set of terminally credulous students. Unfortunately, his manifest want of the ability to actually think, is the least of his book’s problems. As I learned fifty-six years ago, during military service in Asia, the most stupid among the species of snakes may be the most poisonous.

The military figure which emerges from the prevalent fog of Huntington’s definitions, is a parody of that pathetic fascist of Napoleon’s defeated army, who is typified by the emperor-worshipping grenadier of Heinrich Heine’s poem, “Die Grenadiere” (“The Grenadiers”).³⁴[fn_8] (Robert Schumann called his famous song setting of the poem, “Die beiden Grenadiere” [“The Two Grenadiers”].)

The Grenadiers

by Heinrich Heine

To France the two grenadiers were bound,

From prison in Russia on furlough,

And when they passed into Germany’s ground

They hung their heads in sorrow

To hear what they heard there, the terrible tale

Of their France, forsaken and fallen,

Her great host broken and beaten all,

And the Emperor, the Emperor taken!

They wept there together, these grenadiers,

They wept for this news so dire;

One cried, “O, my sorrow to death, my tears,

My old wounds are burning like fire!”

The other said, “The song is done,

And I, too, wish only for dying;

But I have a wife and a child at home,

My death would be all their undoing.”

“What do they matter, your wife and your child?

Far better the wish that I’ve chosen;

Let them go beg if they’re hungry and cold—

My Emperor, my Emperor’s in prison!

Promise me, brother, one thing you’ll do:

If now to my death I am hurried,

You’ll take my body to France with you,

And in French soil let me be buried.

The Honor Cross with its scarlet band

Across the heart you’ll lay me;

Then put my musket into my hand,

And girt my sword around me.

So will I lie and listen there

In my grave still like a sentry,

Til once more I hear the cannon roar

And the neighing steeds above me.

Then my Emperor will ride right over my grave,

Many swords will flash and they’ll clatter;

And I’ll rise in arms out of the grave

To defend the Emperor, the Emperor!”

So, self-anointed apostle of democracy Huntington, is, in practice, a fascist. He is a declared prophet of a specific kind of fascism, universal fascism. He proposes a universal fascists’ world empire, which lures its deluded henchmen with the magical vision of a coming period of a world-wide American empire, one parodying that of the self-doomed ancient Rome.

In the course of this report, I have repeatedly referenced the relevant text of Henry A. Kissinger’s May 10, 1982 Chatham House address. A list of relevant writings by Huntington, Brzezinski, and others among their most pertinent accomplices, is supplied as appended exhibits in this report. A catalog of some of the most relevant tax-exempt foundations and related institutions and persons, is also supplied. [The full text of the 1982 Kissinger statement, list of written material, and a report on the nexus of tax-exempt foundations that helped set the agenda for the September 11 coup against the constitutional government of the United States is available in the original Appendix to this article, available on pages 49-59 in EIR January 11, 2002, Vol. 29, No. 1.] The gist of these references, is that they suffice to show that those policy-formulations, and their formulators, represent something fully consistent in character with the seminal implications I attribute to Huntington’s The Soldier and the State.

With that latter text as the point of reference, I now focus the concluding parts of this report on two pervasive, exemplary, and most relevant characteristics of Huntington’s, and also Brzezinski’s state of mind. The first, is their fanatical hostility to the very idea of a principle of truth in policy-shaping. The second, is their combined disregard for, and their expressed hatred of those notions of natural law which pertain to that special, sacred quality of human life, to which I have referred, under the rubric of “spiritual,” in Chapter 1 [Men Make History, But ...] of this report. These two, axiomatically pernicious qualities of their argument, are to be diagnosed, as I do here, as distinct, but cohering expressions of something which is intrinsically, purely evil.

Kant, Hannah Arendt, and Fascism

The existentialist Hannah Arendt, a one-time dear friend and co-thinker of Nazi philosopher Martin Heidegger, insisted on the doctrine, that truth does not exist, but only opinion. She emphasized that her idea owes its Twentieth-Century philosophical currency to the continued influence of that Immanuel Kant whose series of Critiques began with his Critique of Pure Reason. This pernicious quality of Kant’s influence, was already a principal target of the warnings against Kant by Friedrich Schiller. This fascist quality of Kant’s New Romanticist influence, had also been recognized by the same Heinrich Heine who had composed “Die Grenadiere,” in Heine’s famous first edition of his Religion and Philosophy in Germany.

Arendt herself traces the authority for her argument, claiming Kant’s importance among modern existentialist philosophers, to the authority of her mentor Karl Jaspers. This same pro-fascist, existentialist dogma of hatred against the very idea of truth, is the central feature of the post-World War II propaganda piece, The Authoritarian Personality, of Theodor Adorno, Arendt, et al.

In many of today’s U.S. educational institutions, students are terrorized and depraved through the influence of those authorities who insist, echoing Adorno, Arendt, et al., that there is no truth, but only opinion, or what is otherwise called “spin.” Kant, however, was not as crude and illiterate as today’s commonplace schoolroom social-theory doctrinaires. Kant’s argument had at least the appearance of being a rational one, and therefore, much more likely to deceive educated layers. Kant’s influence on this account, has been demonstrated during more than two centuries to date.

However, although one does not need to be sane and literate to be a fascist, you do require a superior quality of knowledge to be able, as I do here, to diagnose clinically the way in which such pathological arguments as Kant’s foster fascist and related murderous lunacies, just as Adorno’s and Arendt’s, influence a susceptible stratum among typical American liberals, and others, today. The task of diagnosing, is, of course, to define the approach to a cure, as I do, implicitly, here.

In globally extended European civilization, the most important forms of emphasis on the importance of a principled commitment to truthful responses to questions and other challenges, is traced chiefly from the Socratic dialogues. This means that one has no moral right to believe something, simply because one has been taught to believe it; nor is it permitted to evade the issue, by quoting putative religious authorities, instead of fact, as today’s most dangerous bodies of religious fanatics do. The only truly moral persons, are those who hold themselves personally accountable for claiming anything to be truthful; for them, that accountability must express a sovereign quality of both personal, individual authority, and also personal accountability for the consequences of acting upon, or inducing others to act upon what one has come to believe is truthful.

In the real universe, truthfulness does not signify the authority of some fixed belief treated as a repository of absolute truth, but rather a commitment to draw upon powers within the individual members of society, individually or in concert, to discover a judgment which is truthfully coherent with the best evidence and means available to that society. Truthfulness also signifies a commitment to being willing to overturn any belief which one has discovered, truthfully, to have been in error.

The problem of defining truth, is situated within precisely that pivotal issue to which Immanuel Kant’s Critiques pointed, to the issue of the principle of hypothesis. Truth-hater Kant knew his chosen enemy, and worked hard to remove that quality of humanity, reason, from as many prospective victims as his doctrine might reach. Kant, by flatly denying the efficient existence of hypothesis, the denial which is the central theme of his Critique of Pure Reason, thereby denied the existence of the possible knowledge of truth. That is the point on which the existentialist followers of Nazi forerunner Nietzsche, Nazi Heidegger, and Jaspers, Adorno, Arendt, and Heidegger’s Jean-Paul Sartre, premised their variously Nazi and kindred doctrines.

Kant’s influence on this account, has specific bearing on the political and sociological characteristics of Elliott’s Harvard Golems, and, more important, the ugly consequences of any practice based upon their beliefs.

Kant was originally a British empiricist, who had become, prior to the 1780s, a leading German-language exponent of David Hume’s empiricism. He continued to be closely associated with that Europe-wide network of anti-Leibniz salons, originally launched by Conti, which featured such included figures as Voltaire and Physiocrat Quesnay. This included the salon which had been built up around such key figures of the Berlin Academy as Leibniz-hating reductionist Leonhard Euler. To follow Kant’s argument throughout his series of Critiques, one must take into account the influence of Euler’s attacks on Leibniz in Letters to a German Princess, where we find, in Euler’s fraudulent core-argument, the matrix for the argument against truth replicated in all of Kant’s Critiques.

Kant, even the Kant of the Critiques, represents the same empiricism as Paolo Sarpi, Galileo, Bacon, Hobbes, Locke, Conti, Newton, Mandeville, Quesnay, and Hume earlier. But Kant’s is the essence of empiricism resituated within the categories of an Aristotelean form of argument. Kant relies on the mathematician’s illusion-trick used earlier by Newton-worshipper Euler, in attacking Leibniz’s calculus in general, and the monadology most emphatically.

Whether in the original form, that of Sarpi, or the refurbished empiricism of Euler, Lagrange, Kant, Laplace, et al., empiricism is, since the emergence of the Seventeenth-Century Anglo-Dutch model, the characteristic ideology of the presently imperilled Anglo-American version of a Venice-style form of imperial maritime rule exerted by a rentier-financier oligarchy. Empiricism, so defined, is the only religion of the rentier-financier oligarchy in which that oligarchy, when shoved against the wall, actually believes. In those circles, as for Hobbes and Locke, the other name for empiricism is, “Isn’t it ‘human nature,’ after all?” Hence, that empiricist tradition is, among other effects, the point of origin of modern fascism. It is the axiomatic basis for the universal fascism characteristic of Elliott, his Golems, and the financier-oligarchical interests represented typically by the Smith-Richardson, Olin, and Mellon-Scaife foundations.

I shall make the relevance of that emphasis on Kant’s intellectual biography clear, after the following remarks situating the point to be argued.

The Debate Over Truth

Since the earliest known records of addresses to this issue of hypothesis, two distinct, but interdependent issues of policy have been at stake in the discussions. First, there is the question, whether individual sense-certainty is a faithful representation of the universe existing outside the skin of the isolable human individual. Second, there is the question, whether, or not there exists some believable tradition, which is often called an ideology, which can or should be superimposed upon sense-perception, to enable us to guide our actions in response to the universe as reflected otherwise within the bounds of sense-certainty?

Arbitrary forms of religious or kindred belief, are examples of such latter, superimposed traditions, or their more recently concocted functional equivalents. In globally extended European civilization since ancient Greece, for example, the most important attempt to define truth in respect to or experience of the physical universe in general, has been the controversy between the Classical Socratic method of Plato and those so-called reductionist systems from which today’s generally accepted classroom mathematics has derived from its version of a so-called Euclidean geometry.

To get at the core of both issues, look at the Fifteenth-Century emergence of modern European civilization, and science, from the prolonged depravity of the influence of Romanticism. My associates and I have often represented the importance of pointing to the way in which the previously, scientifically known position of the Sun at the center of the Solar System, as already determined by Classical Greek science, was buried under the frauds of the Romantic hoaxster Claudius Ptolemy. We have documented repeatedly, how the anti-scientific methods of not only Ptolemy, but also Copernicus and Brahe, were successfully overturned by Johannes Kepler’s original discovery of a principle of universal gravitation.

This aspect of the ancient through modern history of European astronomy, is among the simplest illustrations of the fact, that the rise of the Roman Empire and its continuing legacy, was a sweeping decline in culture, from which European culture began to escape only with the revival of the methods of Classical scientific culture, during the period from Brunelleschi, Nicholas of Cusa, Leonardo da Vinci, to Kepler.

Kepler’s founding of the first approximation of a comprehensive mathematical physics, is the most appropriate setting for pin-pointing the way in which the crucial issues of truthfulness have been fought out during the recent seven centuries of modern European history.

Under the influence of pagan Roman ideology and the derived Romanticism which persisted in feudal Europe, the most widely accepted formal systems of thought, were premised axiomatically on kinds of ivory-tower assumptions commonly associated with the name of Aristotle. The continued defense by many theologians, of the Romantic fraud by Claudius Ptolemy, even deep into the Seventeenth Century, is typical of this. The assumption was, that there are certain categorical principles of organization of the universe, which exist a priori, and beyond the rightful power of the mind of man to challenge, or to defy. In other words, an ideology. Thus, we have such pathological assertions, as that: “You can’t change human nature!” Thus, similarly, as late as the work of modern figures such as Copernicus and Brahe, the assumption was that physical space and time were axiomatically “Euclidean.”

For the believer in such an ivory-tower system, the observer must, therefore, fit observed facts, such as planetary and stellar positions, into the assumption that the universe worked only in a way consistent with Aristotelean forms of Euclidean ivory-tower assumptions. There lies the common ideological folly of the otherwise conflicting systems of Ptolemy, Copernicus, Brahe, and also Galileo.

Against this, Kepler was the first to introduce the notion of experimentally demonstrable universal physical principles to the construction of a comprehensive form of mathematical physics. Kepler adopted the evidence which showed the orbit of Mars, for example, to be anomalously contrary to the aprioristic, Euclidean assumptions of Ptolemy, Copernicus, and Brahe. Kepler challenged himself, to identify that intention, embedded in the Solar System, which corresponded to the efficient difference between the way in which the Solar orbits actually proceeded, and what Aristotelean ivory-tower dogma prescribed.

When such a notion of an intention, as introduced by Kepler, is proven by comprehensive methods of experiment, it becomes known as a universal physical principle. This notion of intention, as employed by Kepler in his New Astronomy, is otherwise named hypothesis. Such a Platonic quality of hypothesis, once proven, provides modern civilized society a model example of the rigorously scientific meaning of the term truth.

This applies immediately to matters of physical science; but, as I have stressed in all my work on the principles of physical economy and forecasting, it is also a model of the nature of truth in respect to principles of artistic composition and performance, and also of politics conducted according to those Classical principles of statecraft which are the chief quality reflected in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, and 1789 Constitution.

Although Kepler’s work followed the precedents provided by Plato, Nicholas of Cusa, Luca Pacioli, and Leonardo da Vinci, Kepler’s work in astrophysics was the first systemic challenge to the task of defining the efficiency of universal physical principles by means of crucial kinds of experimental measurement. This was not a new concept for modern thinkers, such as the Cusa who defined this place of measurement in science, nor for Cusa’s avowed followers, Pacioli, and Leonardo, nor for relevant pre-Roman scientific thinkers, either; but, it was the leading feature of the birth of a revolution in the thinking of post-A.D. 1400, modern Europe, and became the basis for a great advance in European science and economy, over all earlier known forms of society. Thus, the success of Kepler’s discovery, produced a revolutionary advance in the defense of the principle of knowable truth.

Kepler was thus the first to define what is properly termed astrophysics, rather than merely astronomy. All competence in modern physical science springs from that revolution made by Kepler. The crux of the issues posed by Kepler’s and related modern scientific discoveries, is: What replaces those ivory-tower superstitions about the universe, which had been associated with a pro-Aristotelean view of Euclidean geometry? The significance of Kepler’s discoveries, located in the framework of that question, is that Kepler’s choice of an implicitly universal subject-matter, experimental astrophysics, was a uniquely appropriate location from which to conduct the exploration of the search for knowledge of truly universal physical principles in general.

The combined effect of Kepler’s founding astrophysics, and Fermat’s posing, experimentally, the paradox of quickest time, rather than shortest distance, was to overthrow the authority of the effort to base physical science upon a reductionist’s blind faith in a notion of the physical universe subsumed by Euclidean geometry. The work of Huyghens, Leibniz, and Bernoulli, on the implications of Kepler’s and Fermat’s discoveries, led to the definition of the need for an anti-Euclidean geometry, by Gauss’s teacher Abraham Kästner, and through the work of Gauss on the principles of curvature, to Riemann’s sweeping overthrow of all forms of aprioristic geometry, including both the so-called Euclidean and non-Euclidean modes.

Riemann carried the implication of Kepler’s demonstration of the primary authority of both intention (hypothesis) and experimentally proven universal physical principles to its implied conclusion. After Riemann’s earth-shaking 1854 habilitation dissertation, science, time, space, and matter, as implicitly portrayed by a reductionist reading of Euclidean geometry, ceased to exist in competent views on the subject of physical science. All ivory-tower definitions, axioms, and postulates of mere ideologies, were swept aside; only experimentally validated universal physical principles existed, where reductionists’ notions of abstract space, time, and matter had stood earlier.

Therefore, probably the most enduring feature of my own original work, was to recognize the place within physical science, of certain classes of principles which are usually pigeon-holed as principles of artistic composition. These are principles, definable by the same conceptions of ontological paradox, hypothesis, and universal principle, associated with the abiotic or biological domains of experiment. They are properly subsumed under the title of anti-Romanticist, Classical principles. To reconcile my initial discoveries to that effect, I was obliged to recognize that the kind of physical universe my discoveries thus defined, could not be efficiently comprehended, except by applying the revolutionary conceptions of a differential physical geometry introduced by Riemann.

Classical principles arise in artistic composition around the most refined notions of the practical meaning of the terms irony and metaphor. These notions, so apprehended, have a distinct kind of physically efficient meaning.

Contrary to virtually decorticated grammarians, of the sort who abhor the idea of syllogistic incompleteness, or ambivalence, in an uttered statement, all important statements about anything, in any language, involve the attempt to represent a real experience whose attempted formalist representation in speech is self-contradictory.

The most convenient illustration of such a subject-matter of language, is the paradox of reflection-refraction in Fermat’s posing the ambiguous concept of “quickest time.” The discovery of the general principle of relativistic time, which solves that paradox, defines that paradox as a true metaphor, in the Platonic sense.

For such reasons, no formalist use of any language, no formalist mathematical system, could describe the real universe. It is the process of generating those experimentally validatable hypotheses, which led us to knowledge of new universal physical principles, which should be the primary concern of the effort to perfect the use of language. The object of reason, is not to impose consistency with preset rules, but to force society to recognize the truth which never first appears to us except as such an affirmed statement of what appears to cognitively blocked formalists, and other non-poets, to represent an error, an inconsistency.

The ambiguities of statements which must be created in an attempt to describe an actually paradoxical reality, are thus that aspect of language which pertains to the process by which the generation of validatable hypotheses is prompted, by recognition of the actuality of ontological paradoxes.

The deeper and broader implications of the point I have just summarized, are to be viewed in light of the most fundamental problem of scientific study of the abiotic and biological domains. The two crucial cases referenced above, that of Kepler’s discoveries in astrophysics, and Fermat’s focus upon “quickest time,” illustrate the fact, that actual human knowledge of the world outside our sense-certainties, is obtained solely through cognitive solutions to the ontological paradoxes posed in man’s attempt to explore the universe acting from outside one’s sense-perceptions.

We progress by discovering that sense-perception’s view of the universe is a false one. We correct for those errors of sense-perception, by generating experimentally validated notions of universal physical principles operating beyond the reach of their direct observation by sense-perception. Scientifically literate cultures therefore recognize, that the universe of sense-perception is not a true universe, but only a curiously distorted shadow which reality casts upon our sensorium.

We should recognize, in the same way, that the principles of social cooperation, by means of which society increases its potential relative population-density, are also the subjects of generating those validatable forms of hypotheses which pertain to the principles of relations among human beings within the phase-space of cognitive processes, as scientific investigation of the abiotic phase-space evokes within cognition those validatable hypotheses which prove to be universal physical principles.

Arbitrary art, such as symbolic composition, is inherently false, because it rejects accountability to any principle of hypothesis. This distinction is made clearer, when we recognize the relationship among plastic and non-plastic art, on the one side, and statecraft on the other. As art references an history-related process in mankind, so the lessons of art which is truthful respecting its own historical setting, are the basis for the best quality of statecraft. As a corollary, art which is not historically truthful, will inform a bad practice in statecraft, and suffering for the nation and its people. Thus, the issue of truthfulness in art is posed; art which self-consciously accepts that moral requirement, is rightly termed Classical artistic composition.

The role of ambiguity, especially metaphor, in all anti-symbolic, truthful artistic composition, thus poses the issue of truth, or, as John Keats sang of “truth and beauty” in artistic composition, as truthfulness is posed according to the same set of principles, in physical science.

The relevant argument which follows from that, is summarized in the comparison between my views and those of Vernadsky, in the course of the first chapter, above. Essentially, the realization of discoveries of combined principles of abiotic, living, and cognitive systems, as this is expressed in a unique manner and degree, in comparative changes in potential relative population-density, in physical economies, is the physical-experimental standard of measurement of truthfulness, required to free society from the grip of pathetic ideologies.

Isn’t It Just ‘Human Nature’?

The empirical proof, that the human individual is essentially set apart from, and above all other living creatures, is to be found in the relationship between the principle of hypothesis and the quality of experimental evidence which establishes an hypothesis as a universal physical principle. Thus, the principle of truth and of hypothesis are two facets of the same actuality. This truth is also the evidence which sets human nature apart from the empiricists’ conception of society.

Conversely, by denying the distinction, that of hypothesis, which sets the human individual absolutely apart from and above the beasts, empiricists such as Galileo’s student Hobbes, prescribed what Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Physiocrat Quesnay, Mandeville, Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, and Huntington’s and Brzezinski’s fellow-Golem Kissinger, defined as British “human nature.”³⁵[fn_9]Notably, Kissinger pin-pointed this accurately as the issue of the war-time conflict between President Franklin Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Churchill, and implicitly also Kissinger’s long-standing personal targetting of me, as one he regards as a bearer of that American intellectual tradition which Kissinger has declared that he hates.

The fact that the human species is unique among all living creatures, in the respect that a normal individual person is capable of an individually sovereign power of cognition unique to that species of individual, defines the nature of man as distinct from all other species. This distinction of the human individual from the beast, is the empirical basis for the notion of the physically efficient existence of the spiritual domain, as a phase-space within what must be apprehended as the Riemannian form of differential physical geometry of the universe as a whole.

This distinction of the sovereignly cognitive individual person, is the basis for the functional notion of natural law, the notion of overriding responsibility to promote the general welfare of all human individuals and their posterity.

This notion of the physically efficient, universal function of the general welfare, is also the basis for the lawful definition of human relations. I summarize the following considerations as of a primary importance.

First, the creativity which generates those hypotheses upon which the successful perpetuation of human existence as such depends, is a form of action which exists for man, but only in two expressions. Immediately, mankind’s only source of such hypotheses is action by the cognitive processes internal to sovereign individual persons. As a corollary, social relations, such as cooperation in use of valid universal principles, occurs only as a suitable form of interaction among the respectively perfectly sovereign processes of individual persons. Secondly, on the other side, the efficiency of discovered such principles, demonstrates that the universe as a whole is so composed, that it is pre-obliged to obey those commands by mankind, which are expressed as validated hypotheses.

Thus, it is written in the first chapter of Genesis, that man and woman are made equally in the image of the Creator of the universe, and that the human species has a unique authority and responsibility for exerting its rule over that universe. The image of man and woman, as sovereign individualities, is that of the power of cognition uniquely specific to man among all living things.

That is the essential, experimentally validated, universal truth of the matter.

Back, thus, to the crucial issues of statecraft posed by the obscenities of Elliott’s Golems.

The superiority, and even the present absolute necessity of that modern form of sovereign nation-state, which fosters long-term scientific and related progress in the manifest potential relative population-density of mankind, lies in the function of that state’s unique power to meet the constitutional requirement of promoting the general welfare, and also the national defense, through creation of long-term, low-priced credit, for the promotion of increase of the per-capita and per-square-kilometer productive powers of labor of mankind. This issuance of credit depends upon protectionist measures of regulation of conditions of trade and production, to the principal purpose of preventing those destructive effects of attrition, or simply anarchy in the essential processes of production, trade, and consumption, which are the characteristic evils of so-called “free trade” practices.

The world has reached the point, over the interval of accelerating breakdown in the world’s dominant, mutually distinct but interacting, monetary-financial and economic crises, at which civilization itself could not continue on this planet without a return to that model of the sovereign nation-state republic which the U.S. 1861-1865 Civil War was fought to ensure as the right of mankind throughout this planet.

The opposition to that latter policy, has been the feral forces of imperially minded financier-oligarchy. As the self-inflicted doom of the latter’s Anglo-oligarchical system became increasingly imminent, over the course of the just-closed Twentieth Century, the once-proud ruling circles of financier-oligarchical power, have become increasingly stupid and restive. Over the course of this past century, they have dominated the life of this entire planet with their bloody geopolitical games, with two World Wars, and many similar horrors besides, all of which have been directed chiefly to uprooting and destroying that species of society which threatened to replace their hegemony.

As in the case of the Roman Empire, or the wars waged by the ultramontanists of Europe’s medieval times, and the religious warfare of 1511-1648, the self-doomed parasite, the interests which have deployed Elliott’s Golems and their sponsors, are saying in effect: Submit to our will, no matter how lunatic that will is, or we might kill you all; we might kill you all, anyway. That is how dark ages come upon mankind, as the case of the second grenadier of Heine’s poem should forewarn us in the wake of Sept. 11th.

The issue is, a conflict between two mutually exclusive conceptions of human nature, ours versus theirs. They are the evil ones, in the strictest definition of that term.

Can you say, therefore, that any thinking person, who considers the implications of what Elliott, his Golems, and their oligarchical sponsors have done, over the course of time since Brzezinski’s, Huntington’s, and Kissinger’s arrival at Harvard, that you are honestly surprised at either what happened on Sept. 11th, or what is practiced as Anglo-American-directed genocide, conducted on behalf of financier-oligarchical interests, in most of Africa and elsewhere around the world today? If you had read, and understand, what such lackeys as Elliott’s Golems had written, announced in their speeches, and done with their hands, over these decades, could you honestly claim not to have been forewarned?

---