|
|
This article appeared in the
August 6, 1999 issue of Executive Intelligence
Review.
Mr.
LaRouche gave the following keynote speech to a Schiller Institute seminar on
July 24, in Oberwesel, Germany, which was attended by more than 250 people,
mainly from eastern and western Europe.
I have to be careful when I speak, because I always say the same thing to
all audiences, which is considered a violation of the tradition among American
political candidates. I speak in the sense of being the presiding officer of
the magazine Executive Intelligence Review. I speak in the
capacity of being number three on the present list of pre-candidates of the
Democratic nomination in year 2000. And I speak in my other capacities, which
are variously known to various among you. And, to all, I have to say
essentially the same thing. But on different occasions, and to different groups
of people, I must put what I have to say in the form which is most likely to be
useful to them.
We are now in a process which is typified by the act of the Governor of the
Bank of England, Eddie George, in looting his own bank of up to $1 billion and
probably more, in concert with an international syndicate which includes the
backers of Vice President and fading Presidential candidate Al Gore.
This act of the Bank of England, stealing from itself, for the benefit of a
group of cronies of the director of the Bank of England and of the Queen of
England, is typical of these types. It must be said that what happened to
Russia during the past six years, was found so good by the Western banking
system, that they have imported the Russian model, of stealing from their own
country's assets, into the West.
For example, there is nothing remarkable or unique in what Eddie George is
doing. In every part of the world, we have a form of criminality called
privatization. "Privatization" is a multi-syllabic word for stealing.
For example, in Germany, the Stadtwerke, the municipal utilities, are the
present object of stealing, under the label of "privatization"--something that
every Russian can understand.
If you're going to privatize a firm, you're going to steal from it. That's
what "privatization" means. It used to be called, in the Eighteenth Century and
the Seventeenth Century, "privateering." That's when people get a legal license
to go out and loot. Sometimes they were called "pirates," and if they had a
piece of paper from a government, they were called "privateers." So, you don't
call the Russian liberals "pirates," you call them "privateers," because
they've been given a special license to steal from their own country, their own
banks, and everything else in sight. Privateers even steal from each
other.
And when times get tough, the frequency and the intensity of
stealing from one another increases. It could be said that, with probably a
rare exception, that at this point, every leading bank and every leading
other financial house in the world, is engaged primarily in
stealing--stealing from its own assets.
Now, in the case of Eddie George's stealing of gold, what happens is that
the gold is stolen by selling it below its value to a private syndicate of
cronies. A small group of people are allowed to buy this gold below price. They
are going to hoard that gold, until after the great financial crash wipes out
all financial institutions around the world. And that's in process now. When
the crash is over, they intend to come back with their gold.
In the meantime, they're driving down the price of gold, in order to
bankrupt the gold mines in South Africa, Russia, and so forth. So, they will
buy up the gold mines which have gone bankrupt, and they will control the
world's gold and gold production after the crash is over--not far into the
future.
Every bank is doing the same thing--virtually every bank. Maybe there's an
exception, here and there. But I've checked with some bankers, and they don't
know of any exceptions. Every bank and financial house is stealing from
itself. That is, the relevant directors are stealing assets, and, by
various kinds of loan mechanisms and others--with which I'm familiar from the
old days, investigating frauds and bankruptcies and so forth, and probate
proceedings, in the United States and Canada.
What they do, is they move the money through a lending procedure, or a trade
procedure, at reduced prices to a second party, who passes it on to a third
party, who passes it on to the fourth party. And the fourth party is the
collaborator of the person in the bank who is doing the stealing. When the
crash comes, each of the intervening parties, including the bank itself, will
go bankrupt. And the bank official hopes to retire on the basis of what has
been stolen by the fourth party. It's an old method of stealing. It was
practiced in the 1950s, the 1960s, in the United States and Canada. I
investigated many such cases.
What is being done now is no different, except that it's done on a grand,
global scale.
Whenever you hear the world "privatization," you scream "Thief! Catch thief!
Stop, thief!" Every time you hear of privatization of a Stadtwerke in Germany,
you say, "Stop, thief!" when you hear somebody proposing it: "Stop, you
accomplice of a thief!" The politicians who are owned by financial interests,
are bought. And they put through the laws of privatization which enable
people to steal. There is the greatest amount of theft in history now
going on around the world. Government politicians, governments as such, are
stealing. They are stealing for the people who pay them, who support the
political parties, who have bought and paid for the politicians, who are now
stealing for pay under the guise of being elected, and other officials.
Why
is this going on? Why doesn't somebody stop it?
Well, this thing can go on only under one condition. The stealing at such
levels, on such a scale, with such profundity: It only happens when the system
is about to go under, when every one of the people behind authorizing it,
covering up the stealing operation, knows that the entire world financial
system is about to blow. Those who tell you that the system will not crash
because they have it under crisis management, are lying. They are
lying--why? To buy a few more weeks and months at most, in order to complete
the process of stealing. In order to steal, they have to keep you quiet,
confused, and believing that the system will not crash. That's how they
steal.
So, when a banker says the system will not crash, he is lying. Every leading
banker in the world knows the system is crashing, because they're stealing. And
they wouldn't dare steal the way they were stealing if they didn't know the
system is about to crash--and if they didn't know that virtually
every other banking and related financial institution in the world is doing
exactly the same thing. So, they don't blow the whistle on each other. That's
what's happening.
In the end, they will rob every savings account. They will loot everything,
and leave the poor public, especially those who were foolish enough to invest
in mutual funds, absolutely destitute. That's the situation we're now in.
For example, the system began to disintegrate in the spring and summer of
1998. We had entered this phase before this, during the summer into October of
1997. The process leading into this had been established in 1994-1995, with the
Mexico crisis and the mishandling of the Mexico crisis by the United States in
the so-called bailout. So, these are the steps. We've entered, step by step,
going back all the way to the middle of the 1960s, in fact, but in terms of
financial systems, 1971, and then the Carter administration in the United
States.
The famous names who are responsible politically for setting this into
motion, include the first and second Harold Wilson governments in Britain; and
you see the result of the Harold Wilson era in a television report yesterday,
on the British Sky TV News, on the Great Western Railway System, which is a
privatized section of the former British Rail system, a victim of Thatcher.
This privatized rail system had a crash. And the crash occurred because of
privatization. People were killed because of privatization. Because the
only way to make profit out of a bankrupt system, is to gut it. So, the safety
signals, which should have been operating--about six of them, according to the
British report--didn't function. So the train crashed. And people were
killed.
This is typical of the effects of privatization. We saw the same
thing with the crash in Hanover of the ICE [German high-speed rail system],
where a cheaper wheel was used. Safety precautions were not taken. The same
thing was done in the German rail system, that was done at Mercedes Benz, with
the A-Class--of scrapping the engineering departments which are necessary to
develop and prove workable systems, and letting a computer idiot, a nerd--a
mere nerd, not a human being, but a nerd, on a computer--decide how the
thing should be designed. A nerd who understands nothing about the principles
of physical science, but who thinks that, if you know how to operate a
computer, and a little mathematics, you can solve all the problems. This is a
form of psychosis. This is not anything else.
So you see all over the world, the private and public systems are being
looted, consciously, willfully, with willful criminal negligence. They
call it negligence, but it was willful. What do you call that? That's called
an intentional crime. If you strip away safety systems--for example, you
might say, by U.S. standards, that the victims of the Western Railway crash
this week, were the victims of HMO-style management--that is, the privatized
takeover of medical insurance programs. The cutting of medical care, as Andrea
Fischer pushes that here in Germany, is calculated mass murder! If you
adjust the conditions of life, such as to wittingly increase the death rate and
suffering rate, you are a mass-murderer. If you do this for financial reasons,
then it's a crime whose motivation for murder, is
stealing. But this is typical--what is happening with the HMO and the
medical system inside the United States, what is typical of Congressmen of the
United States, who are bought and paid for by Wall Street, who put through the
bills which will not allow the victim of an HMO murder to sue for damages in
case of injury or loss of life, for criminal negligence.
This is the characteristic of the present world system.
Now, what about crashes? When people hear about crashes, they think about
the 1929 crash, or perhaps the 1923 blow-out of the Reichsmark and the great
hyperinflation. Well, you want to know about Germany, Weimar, the Reichsmark
blow-out in 1923? It's happening right here, in the United States--on a world
scale, in Germany, everywhere, the same thing is happening.
What has happened, is--and that's what the present phase of the situation
is, which is why all bankers generally are stealing, why privateers are
stealing, why bought-and-paid-for government officials are voting for stealing,
which is called "liberalization." Don't make crime a crime any
more--liberalize it. You don't call people immoral, you call them
"liberal." You don't call them murderers, you call them "liberal." In the old
days, they would have called a Nazi death-camp manager a "liberal," because he
was liberally handling the problem.
This is the way of the world we're in. What's happening?
During
this entire period, you have a series of steps.
First of all, you had the shift to a post-industrial utopia, which started
in institutions around the world which were influenced by the famous Frankfurt
School here in Germany. That was the center of it--the new post-industrial
culture, the so-called Baby-Boomer culture, or the 1968 culture, which you saw
in universities and other institutions, but especially university populations
in the United States and Europe in 1964 to 1968 and beyond.
So that from that point on, there was an attempt to reverse progress, to
reverse scientific and technological progress, and to say we must stop
progress, and go on to a different kind of society.
Some people said plainly what they meant. They referred to Nietzsche's
program of the "dawning of the Age of Aquarius." This was called the "New Age,"
it was called various other things. I called it a few things myself; I didn't
call it "New Age."
All right, this was done.
So, a generation of students at universities were brainwashed. And those
that were not brainwashed, generally did not have such good careers. Those who
became total idiots, immoral, were advanced, when they got out of the
universities, to higher and higher positions. And most are running the top
positions in government and finance, and so forth, in the United States and
Europe today. That's how it happened.
Then, the Vietnam War was a great impetus, and the Vietnam War opposition,
which was largely based, in the United States, on pure cowardice. People in the
United States were opposed to the war because they didn't want to go to Vietnam
and get killed. Therefore, they discovered a conscience. The conscience said,
"I'm not going." We used to call it draft-dodging. It was actually that. It was
that simple. Plain cowardice. I was there. I saw it. I met these people. Don't
tell me it was something else. It was plain cowardice. There were a few
of us who thought the whole thing was a horror show and had to be stopped. But,
we didn't go that way. We went a different way: to try to get the policy
changed.
So these cowards, with no morality, and the Baby-Boomer style of
indifference to reality--flying into "my personal feelings," not into their
responsibilities for the future, completely selfish, and concerned about their
personal feelings about things, and negotiating their personal feelings
with everybody, including feeling everybody up, so to speak.
This became a cultural change. The cultural change was symptomized by the
introduction in the U.S. State Department in 1966-67 of a policy, that the
United States State Department thereafter, in its dealings with other
countries, would shape its policies with regard to the need to reduce
population growth in "overpopulated" countries, which usually turned out, in
time, to be so-called Third World countries. "We must reduce the population of
the Third World countries. And therefore, the economic and other foreign policy
of the United States must be shaped to foster the cessation of population
growth in developing countries. Even reduce the population in developing
counties."
And
out of this process, that started in 1961, with a meeting between a former
member of the Nazi SS, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, and the Duke of
Windsor, Prince Philip of England, they founded the World Wildlife Fund; they
were the kind of world wildlife, I suppose, that they were working for. They
also founded the 1001 Club, which is a group of influential financial circles
to fund the operations of the World Wildlife Fund, and this is the birth, at
this time, of the so-called organized environmentalist movement.
Then in 1972, under British control, at a meeting in Stockholm, the
international environmentalist movement, or the Green movement, was officially
launched. It had been organized beforehand, by British intelligence, Dr.
Alexander King, Lord Solly Zuckerman, and so forth, of the Club of Rome, which
is a continuation of the 1001 Club operations, and the World Wildlife Fund. It
was followed (since the Soviet Union would not join the Club of Rome directly,
for various reasons, although efforts were made to do so), in Laxenberg,
Austria, where they founded the International Institute for Applied Systems
Analysis, which was a subsidiary of Cambridge University, England, a subsidiary
of the so-called systems analysis group under the leadership of Lord Kaldor, at
Cambridge University in Britain.
So, in 1972, these various currents of people-haters had a conference in
Sweden, which launched the international Green movement, which prepared to
destroy science, technology and its applications, and to do everything possible
to increase the death rates and the abortion rates among populations,
especially in Third World countries, and also in Germany. It always is a common
thread: The British hate the Germans. They say they love them, but what they
love, is they love to see them die! As Thatcher expressed this view in
1989 and 1990. Keep the Germans down. Don't let them prosper. Germany is the
great danger. It must be kept down, and Thatcher and Mitterrand, supported by
George Bush, agreed. That's why Germany has problems. For that reason.
So these were the policies.
Then,
in 1971, to further this same Age-of-Aquarius policy, poor dumb Nixon--and if
you read this week's edition of U.S. News and World Report, you
know that American politicians can not be elected President unless they are
stupid. This has been my great difficulty. Actually, Clinton is not
stupid, but he's a Baby-Boomer, and sometimes it works to the same effect. A
certain cowardice and vacillation, and so forth, even though he's under
tremendous pressure and death threats, and so forth.
So, a stupid Nixon, who was actually rather stupid--some people said the
contrary, but from everything I've seen, including private discussions, and
what statements he made over the years, the man was not intelligent. He was
sly--but a snake can be sly, even the dumbest krait snake, this little, brown,
worm-like snake whose bite will kill a man in about 60 seconds--he can be sly.
And he's about the dumbest snake there is in all of creation. So, some of our
politicians, like Jimmy Carter, for example, are like that.
So, this dumb President, Richard Nixon, made a decision, under pressure, on
Aug. 15-17, 1971, which crashed the post-war international financial
system, and created what was called a floating exchange-rate system.
The entire reconstruction of the world economy, following World War II, had
been based on a system of fixed exchange rates--adjustable, but not floating
parities--on a U.S.-centered gold reserve basis system, with extreme
protectionist measures of the forms of capital controls exerted
internationally, exchange controls, enforced internationally, and by sovereign
governments, and by financial controls applied internally. Without these
measures, and interest rates in the 1-2% range globally, you could never have
had the recovery in Europe, and other countries, from World War II. Could not
have happened. These were the Roosevelt-era measures which survived in part the
death of Franklin Roosevelt.
In 1971 and 1972, with Nixon's actions, with the Swedish action launching
the Green movement, which more and more has shaped world policy, and with the
Azores Conference of 1972, which has savaged the present,
floating-exchange-rate international monetary system, and unleashed wild
liberalization which we're suffering from today, the entire world
changed. And it was from that point on, that the world was threatened by a
New Dark Age.
Now, people who are small-minded, foolish, don't pay attention to
reality, say, "If it isn't going to happen next week, I'm not concerned about
it." Some people with slightly larger minds will say, "If it's not going to
happen till next year, I'm not concerned about it." Politicians generally say,
"Well, if it's not going to happen until after the next election, I'm not
concerned about it." This is the kind of world we live in, with a lot of very
stupid people! Not stupid because they were born stupid, but stupid because
they are parts of cultures which stupefy them!
For
example, one of the great destructions of civilization occurred in Germany, in
the course of the Brandt reform of education. Now how did the Brandt
reform--how was it introduced in Germany? This produced a result such that
people who achieved their Abitur before the Brandt reform, are almost a
different, superior species to those who received their Abitur after the
Brandt reform. You have almost different species of Germans these days: those
who had their Abitur before the Brandt reforms, and those who suffered
through the effect of the change in educational policy after the Brandt
reforms.
The elimination of Classical education, Classical culture, the elimination
of science, teaching physical science as a matter of computer mathematics, or
similar mathematics, rather than pedagogical laboratories, and similar methods:
produce people with degrees, but not much content to the degrees.
It's like the guarantee you get with many things built by outsourcing firms.
You get a list, an almost unreadable list of specifications and guarantees, but
almost none of them work. And you try to get the thing repaired, which is
supposedly under warranty: Fat chance! In the old days, you had things you
could fix yourself, and you were capable of fixing them. And people used to be
able to fix their washing machines, fix their automobile, things like that. No
more. It's outsourced. Whenever I see a "smart car" on the street in
Germany, I say, "This car looks bad, but I'd hate to see the driver!"
So, what they did is not only destruction of the form of the economy,
there's also been a destruction of the content of the people in it. The people
today lack the skills, knowledge, education in which to locate their
identity.
For example, Germany has a history. The German is a product of European and
German history, most immediately. That history, the history of modern Germany,
goes back essentially to the middle of the Eighteenth Century. The rebirth of
Germany from the effects of the Thirty Years' War goes back to the middle of
the Seventeenth Century.
The first period of the development of Germany, which corresponds somewhat
to the period of the Great Elector, or of Mazarin and Colbert in France, was a
redevelopment of Europe in the wake of the Thirty Years' War, which is
typified, at the pinnacle, by Gottfried Leibniz, an international figure, not
just a German figure, and Johann Sebastian Bach.
The revival of Germany, after the catastrophes in Europe, throughout Europe
of the early Eighteenth Century, was conducted--we'll have a discussion of more
of that this week--under the influence of some people who had been sponsored by
the Christian Wolff circles, of Lessing and a friend of Lessing's, adopted by
Lessing, Moses Mendelssohn. Moses Mendelssohn was a young genius, recognized as
such by Lessing, and brought into his circle.
And among other things, as Andreas Ranke will explain to you, the German
General Staff was a Jewish conspiracy! And anything that's good in it today is
still a Jewish conspiracy! Why? Because Schaumberg Lippe created the
educational institution which produced Scharnhorst, on the advice, the detailed
advice on designing such an academy, by his consultations and help from Moses
Mendelssohn. All of the principles that you know as Scharnhorst's--his
Auftragstaktik, and so forth, which are the characteristic of German
General Staff methods--are a product of the design supplied to Schaumberg Lippe
by Moses Mendelssohn, the man who virtually created the German view, and also
by influence, created the Yiddish Renaissance in eastern Europe.
So, you want to know the truth about Germany? The General Staff is a
creation of a Jewish conspiracy. A Jewish-led conspiracy. As a matter of fact,
the role of the German Jew, as a professional, in art, in science, in many
functions, in building up Germany, from the late Eighteenth Century, depended
upon Jews who adopted these professions under the influence of the reform
organized by Moses Mendelssohn--with whom?
Well, the Mendelssohn family is important because of its relationship with
Johann Sebastian Bach, and it was the extended Mendelssohn family which saved
Bach's work for the world. It was the Mendelssohn family which directly
influenced Mozart, which directly influenced Haydn, which influenced and
sponsored, even financially, Beethoven. So the entirety of German Classical
culture, including music, came from this circle of Lessing and Mendelssohn, and
people associated with them, in the middle to the latter part of the Eighteenth
Century. That is the heart of German culture, that is the heart of the
development of the German language. And if you don't know that, how can you be
a German? If you don't know this?
This is also the essence of the reforms which occurred under the influence
of the Yiddish Renaissance in eastern Europe: in Poland, in Ukraine, in Russia,
where the fight for the educated, cultivated Jew, against the Hasidic idiots of
the type which are now trying to cause wars in the Middle East, was crucial,
even under the conditions of the pogroms. In the United States, at a certain
point, the German Jew played a crucial part in developing the United States.
The Jew of the Yiddish Renaissance, especially from Poland, played a crucial
part in the Twentieth Century history of the United States. The Civil Rights
Movement of Martin Luther King could not have existed as it did without the
influence, the leading influence of the Yiddish Renaissance in mobilizing
support for the Civil Rights Movement. That was the big difference. The Civil
Rights Movement of Martin Luther King succeeded only because of the
marginal difference supplied by the Yiddish Renaissance, the very people who
were opposed by the Netanyahu types, and so forth, in Israel and elsewhere.
That's history. And if you don't know where you come from, how can you tell
me who you are? If you don't what your relationship is to the past, how can you
possibly think about the future?
In
former times, a Classical education, under the Humboldt system for example, you
had an education in which you were not taught what to believe. You were not
taught to pass tests, though you may have had tests. The essence of a
proper education under the Schiller-Humboldt policy was, the student must
concentrate on the great concepts--the universal principles which had
been discovered in the past, usually beginning with Classical Greek, and that
you, the student, must relive the act of original discovery.
The student who goes through a modern education, knows nothing. They have
learned much; but, they know nothing. Because they did not develop, within
their own minds, the enactment of the discovery on which knowledge is based.
They didn't discover, therefore they don't know. They only learned, in
the same way you train a dog to perform tricks.
So, today you have Germans coming out of the schools, who have learned to
perform tricks which they have been trained to perform; but who, generally,
pitifully, know almost nothing.
And that's the condition around the world, in large degree. People are eager
to learn how to do tricks in order to prosper, to succeed, in sex, or whatever
else their profession is. But they don't know anything. Because they did
not have the kind of education and cultural experience where they
relived the act of original discovery.
To be a human being in European civilization, you have to go back to ancient
Greece. You have to relive ancient Greece. You have to, in a sense,
start by reference to the epics of Homer, whether you read them in the original
Greek or not. You must start with the epics of Homer, because, in the epics of
Homer, you have a picture of the mind of the Greek of the period to which these
epics refer.
That Greek is a very poor fellow, who did not believe he could think.
Whenever he had a problem which he could not solve in a customary way, some
god, evil or good, would appear to him, and give him an instruction on how to
change his behavior. This is the characteristic of the Iliad,
this is the characteristic of the Odyssey. How did Ulysses
survive? Well, Athena came to him and gave him some advice on how to deal with
Poseidon.
So, then you have the image later, of man revolting against these gods, as
in the Prometheus Bound of Aeschylus.
Then, you have the higher level, the higher of the conceptions of the
Prometheus concept which is the works of Plato: that man has within himself the
cognitive powers to know, rather than to learn. And, through the
Socratic method, of attacking and finding out the assumptions which lay within
you, and questioning those assumptions, as to whether they are universal
principles, or not. And, purging yourself of assumptions which don't meet that
test. And, using the same method to discover what might be universal
principles, and then proceeding to learn to validate what you believe to have
been the discovery of universal principles. This is the method of science, and
this is the method of Classical art.
And, when you look at this in this way, what is the result?
You look at the history of the question of civilization, European
civilization, as it's been extended worldwide. What do you do?
You say, where did this civilization begin?
For what do you look?
Let's take the case of this team up at Göttingen, who wrote this paper
on a discovery in a deep mine in Germany. Where they discovered artifacts which
demonstrated that at least 400,000 years ago--in Germany (Oh boy, the
British won't like that!)--someone went and crafted throwing spears whose
crafting showed that they had discovered principles, something that no
ape can do, including Prince Philip!
Philip professes to be an ape, therefore, obviously he's an animal. He says
he's an animal. He says his son is an animal, and after all, he ought to know.
Maybe it's because of him; maybe it's because of the girl he married. But
somebody's responsible for the fact that poor Charles is merely an
animal--according to his father, and he should know. He signed the papers;
makes it official.
But, how do you know the difference, that this was a man who had these
spears, not an ape? How do you know that? By looking at the specimen of the
man? By subjecting him to a gene test? By getting biologists to come in and
look at the evidence? No. You can't learn very much from the biological
evidence to distinguish between a great ape and a human being. What's the
difference between an ape and a human being? The human being is capable of
Socratic forms of cognition, the ape is not. How do we know this is a human
being, 400,000 years ago? Because the product of his hand was the fruit of a
mind with cognition, or minds with cognition. How do we develop our children,
when we develop them? By instilling fruits in them, through the forms of
nurture and education, to stimulate their Socratic powers of cognition.
Therefore, what is history? Monkeys have no history. Apes have no history.
Perhaps the British monarchy has no history. Or, maybe, no future history. Man
has a history because we owe to our predecessors the ability to reenact those
discoveries of universal principle, and the validation of those discoveries of
principle, upon which we depend. It's the foundation for what we can do, is
what we gain by reenacting the discoveries passed down to us as fruits of
cognition by previous generations.
So
the history of the human species, the history of people, is not the history of
their biological descent. It is the history of cognition. The history of an
ongoing, Riemannian type of manifold of aggregation of universal principles,
physical principles, and Classical artistic principles--including the Classical
artistic principles of politics--which have been passed down to us from one
generation to another.
The history of man, the history of a people, is a history of ideas. The
importance of language, is not that language contains knowledge. It does not!
No language, in itself, can contain knowledge. Learning a language can produce
an idiot savant, not a thinking person. A language is a device shared between
parents and children, and others. A device of social relations, through which
the users of the language prompt one another to share the replication of
cognitive experiences. Therefore, the importance of a language is its
use, not its literal content. Its use.
This comes up in music. Every musician knows that a literal interpretation
of any score is an abomination. The attempt to improve a literal interpretation
of a score by some enhancement, emotional enhancement, is a crime against
humanity. Like the Frankfurt School, or similar kinds of things. The function
of a language, is a device which people share as a method of communicating, for
the purpose of prompting one another to replicate cognitive experiences.
This is the meaning of poetry. A poem which is a literal poem, no matter how
artfully composed, is no poem at all. It is only when it contains a metaphor
which can not be understood by literal interpretation, precisely a part of the
poem which breaks down if you try to give it a literal interpretation;
it's a self-contradiction. That metaphor is the idea, or is the
prompting of the idea. So, by communicating the metaphors which the other mind
to whom you are speaking recognizes as a metaphor, as an irony, you force that
other mind to relive discovering the solution to the metaphor. That is what is
the idea. That is the process of cognition.
The same thing in music. In music, which is a derivative of Classical
poetry, a polyphonic derivative of Classical poetry, you introduce, in a lawful
way, contradictions, paradoxes, ironies, metaphors. Now, a great conductor like
Furtwängler--a poor conductor will perform the notes. A great conductor
will perform the metaphors. For a poor conductor, it's the succession of
particular states which is important. Each section subject to a literal,
accepted, academic interpretation.
To a great conductor, like Furtwängler, the performance, the literal
performance, is a mechanical aspect of the problem. You learn to play the
fiddle or you don't. If you learned to play the fiddle properly, under
direction, okay, you're in the orchestra; if you didn't, you're out. So, that
takes care of that.
But, the performance of the composition, the performance of the music rather
than those notes, requires a higher level. And, that is, you must have a
contradiction, which is generated by the rules of composition itself.
This contradiction can only be understood, and located, if the mind, number
one, recognizes the irony, the dissonance, and if it finds the way in which
that dissonance, governed by an idea, causes you to make the transition,
defines the location of dissonance in such a way that the entire composition of
the performance is transformed. So, you're performing a series of dissonances.
The dissonances are like transitive verbs. Such that, that dissonance
transforms the meaning of what has happened before, and defines the
launching-point for what follows.
Therefore, a succession of these transitions, understood as one process of
transition, is the music. Not playing the part, not playing the notes. Idiots
play the notes. Great performers play the music, and recognize that the score
is only a mnemonic device, to prompt the performer, to put the music in their
head, and to get the score out of their mind, but to perform the music without
violating the score.
Ideas. This is the importance of the German Classical composition,
the sonata and fugue form, and the development of thorough-composition,
beginning with Mozart, based on the Bach discoveries. It was something Mozart
was able to do because of the help of the Mendelssohn family, directly. That
music, which is a universal language, the music of thorough-composition, of
polyphonic, well-tempered, bel canto mode, thorough-composition, is the
highest standard of universality in all of the non-plastic arts.
The same thing in the question of the Greek. I first ran into this in 1946,
in lectures back then, in the case of Scopas and Praxiteles. The difference
between the Greek and the Egyptian tombstone art, called archaic art, the kind
of the art which idiots in the modern times are trying to turn to, the
so-called art--to say nothing of post-modernist.
The Greeks discovered how to take a piece of stone, and create an idea, in
stone, by forcing the mind to recognize something in mid-motion. In other
words, an irony, a paradox, a metaphor. Something in mid-motion. So that the
art of the great Greek sculpture, which the Romans could not understand, could
not copy effectively, is located in ideas, in a paradox, which lies in the
mind. Greek sculpture does not lie in vision, it lies in the mind. The
sculpture provokes the mind, to get the idea.
So, all of this, science, discoveries of principle, discoveries of
astronomy, the discovery of ancient calendars which have any approximation of
accuracy, the discovery of the principles of poetry, the development of
language according to the principles of poetry and science--all of these things
are the transmission of ideas from one generation to the next.
The function of education, is to make the most important of these
ideas--ideas of physical principle, ideas of Classical art--to make these the
personal property of a developing young mind. So that the young mind, coming
out of an educational process, and out of the life-experience of growing up,
becomes an adult person who, in that degree and sense, embodies all of history
before them, for generations and generations and generations. And by direct
knowledge, that is, by replication of discoveries, they know much about
history. They know the names of discoverers, the inner mind of Plato is more
familiar to them then the bum who is walking across the street. They know him
better. They have a closer relationship to Plato, than that poor bum, that poor
Penner.
That is history. It is to see yourself, to see the past, to see the future,
as this kind of continuing process. People who don't know history, are called
slaves. They're slaves in the literal sense, or they are kept like
animals, not knowing where they came from, and not knowing where their children
are going. They have no control over their own lives, control over their own
nations. They are meaningless, existentialist wanderers in a post-industrial
nightmare, a post-modernist nightmare.
And, that sense of history, is what's been destroyed.
The character, the essential moral character of populations, has been
systematically destroyed, by what came out of the Frankfurt School, and what
the Frankfurt School came out of. The Baby-Boomer culture of the 1960s, and
what has followed, is typified by the destruction of science, by the
destruction of technological progress, and by the destruction, above all, of
education and morality.
The
greatest progress which mankind has made in establishing the principle of
equality of human beings, was made through the creation of the institution of
the sovereign nation-state, which actually began in the middle of the Fifteenth
Century, in Europe. The nation-state means, essentially, that for the first
time, after a long period of the Babylonian, Roman, Byzantine, and other
empires, and feudalism--for the first time--it was defined that the function of
the state, is a principle called, in the U.S. Constitution, the "General
Welfare."
That the state is responsible, accountable, not to the opinions of the
people--because the opinions of the people are diverse; how can you say, "We
represent public opinion"? There is no such thing as "public opinion." Opinion
in any society is highly diversified. There is no uniform public opinion,
except among lynch mobs, deranged mobs. What there is, is a sense of
accountability, of the state, to care for all the people. To provide justice,
for all the people, as the character Socrates, in Plato's
Republic, defines justice, as a principle of natural law.
So, the state is now bound to be the servant of history, the servant of the
history of all of the people. The welfare, promotion, well-being of all of the
people. Justice for all of the people. Progress for all of the people. And the
state must be an instrument for all of the people, in that way--not for public
opinion, but for all of the people. Somebody is suffering: What do we do about
it? Injustice: What do we do about it? The state is responsible, it has the
final responsibility, and its character is this caring for all of the people,
including the legacy of past generations and the welfare of future
generations.
That is what was destroyed, by the process which I've described, especially
that of the 1960s, as consolidated in 1971-72.
So, in 1971-72, the world was sliding down the road to Hell. But, because
most people are small-minded, and think only about their pensions, or think
about their neighborhood, or think about the next election, or foolish things
like that, they said, "Well, it's far away, it really isn't important, is it?"
Now,
let's take the case of a planet. Now, the solar system is rather old. It had a
beginning when there were no planets. The Sun, which was then spinning
rapidly--dizzy, because there was nothing to look at, looking around and
around, looking for planets, no planets to see. So, the Sun was spinning.
Now what the Sun was doing--this spinning was a headache. So, just like the
man sweating takes off clothing, the Sun began to shed some of its rotation.
And it created a corona, which probably would have looked something like the
corona of Saturn, the rings of Saturn, around itself, as it spun this material
off.
Now, because of the nature of rotation, this particular material became
polarized. And, subject to radiation from the Sun, this material went through a
process of thermonuclear fusion, producing not just some helium, and hydrogen,
and so forth, but began to produce higher orders of elements of the periodic
table. And it spun these off, in a great centrifuging kind of operation, and
the heavier material concentrated on what became known as the inner planets,
and the lighter material was concentrated in the outer planets. And all these
things were displayed according to a lawful principle. And from that time on,
when these planets appeared and formed in this way, in their preassigned
orbits, the orbital system has more or less stayed there, for billions of
years.
How did this happen? Well, it happened because the orbit is not a result of
a Newtonian relationship among planets and the Sun. The orbits are a result of
a trajectory, an orbit itself. So, the orbit determines the position of the
planet, not Newtonian forces, or Galileo forces. As Jonathan Tennenbaum and
Bruce Director have documented in a recent issue of Fidelio, how
Gauss confirmed that the accuracy of Kepler's calculations for the orbit of a
necessary, missing, but formally necessary planet, which had exploded because
of its orbit, this shows, that the way in which the orbit is determined is not
explained by Newtonian and similar kinds of things. But, by things which are
very small, very small, almost infinitesimal differences, but which are
regular, which are persistent. They're not constant, but they're consistent and
regular. And thus, the orbit of a planet has been determined over billions of
years, again and again and again. Even more, the orbits undergo changes, but
these changes are built into the system. And that's gone on for billions and
billions of years.
Now, a scientist who wants to think about astronomy must think in those
terms.
Now, what about society? In society, if you choose an axiom, an assumption,
a policy, and society begins to behave according to the influence of that
axiom, that assumption, then society will take a trajectory of development,
like a planetary orbit, which will carry it with great regularity, toward a
predefined destination. In some cases, if that's a bad orbit, society is
doomed. And society can escape from this doom, only by changing its orbital
characteristics.
The changes which I refer to which occurred in the 1960s and early 1970s,
were a decision to change the parameters, the orbital characteristics, of
European civilization. What we have seen is the lawful unfolding, the unfolding
of the seasons, and the Earth's orbit. This has undergone, lawfully, a
succession of transformations, which has brought us now, to the doom of the
system, in just the way an orbital trajectory will determine the doom of a
comet which, over millions of years, has been following a track which destines
it to die in the Sun.
Therefore, people who are stupid say, "Well, I didn't know that from my
experience in the past weeks, I don't think that works at all. From our
experience of observing the Sun in the past month, I wouldn't say that winter
is ever coming."
That is the problem we have, that people are so small-minded, and so
concerned with false values, that they blind themselves with illusion, to the
reality of what is happening. So, what we've described, or what I've described,
actually, over more than 35 years, in point of fact--when I was, in 1963,
horrified, when I recognized what was about to happen, and said, if this
civilization continues in this direction, it is doomed, this is the greatest
danger civilization has had in all modern times--I was right. The problem was,
I was faced with a lot of dumb people, who said, "No, no, that couldn't happen.
My experience says that that could never happen."
Well, often things happen that have never happened before.
For
example, go back to the situation that I began with. People say, "Where's the
crash? You're talking about a crash. Where's the crash?" Well, the problem is,
buddy, that there's so many crashes occurring every month that you don't even
notice them any more. For example, on June 10-11, 1999, there was a bigger
crash than the crash of last October. Bigger! That is, the crash that occurred
on June 10-11, worldwide, this year, was bigger than the crash that occurred
last October. The whole system went into a phase-shift, where a crash occurred
in February, centered around the Brazil crisis. The Brazil crisis, which was
addressed by George Soros, collaborators of George Soros, to flood the thing
with money, was not an end to the crash, the crash occurred. But a crash is a
phase-shift of the system, which has defined the present, terminal phase of the
system today.
What do they do? By flooding the system with money, in February of 1999,
following the flooding with money, and, on a lesser scale, in October 1998,
what did they do? They did something whose only parallel, on a limited scale,
is what was done in Weimar Germany in 1923. In order to deal with the debt
crisis, associated with the French occupation of the Rhineland, and the threat
of France to reoccupy and loot all of Germany if the debts were not paid on
time, the Versailles debts, the German government went into the printing press
mode to pay these debts, to France, especially. And the blackmail of French
bayonets. That resulted in a phase-change in all German politics, which
produced the rise of Hitler, which was done by these guys.
Now, what they did, in printing money--if you look at the records; Bill
Engdahl has done a report on some of this--you see that the rate of inflation,
the manifest rate of inflation, inside Germany, during the early periods of
this great money-printing operation, the effects were rather moderate, as
inflation goes. Then, suddenly, it reached a point, in late Spring-early Summer
of 1923, at which everyone in the banking system, then, as now, recognized the
Reichsmark was doomed. And they did then, as they're doing now, as Eddie George
illustrates the case. They began stealing left and right to squirrel assets
away--or the nuts were storing squirrels, I guess, in this case--to put assets
away for the post-crash effects. They knew the system was going to blow up, the
Reichsmark was doomed, so they got their money out of the system, and they
either bought foreign cash--at fire-sale prices, they would sacrifice anything
to get some money parked someplace where they thought it would be safe. Or,
they would buy hard-commodity assets, which they thought that they would be
able to control and use after the crash of the Reichsmark had occurred.
The entire population of Germany which depended upon financial savings, was
bankrupted by the resulting effect, just as the mutual funds holders in the
United States, which consists of about 40 million families, will be wiped out
by what's about to happen. So, these guys began dumping assets, in order to
park some part of those assets out of the system in a safe place, either as
hard commodity forms or as foreign currency. The effect of this, was to drive
up the prices inside the German economy. The result was a rapid devaluation of
the mark, to which the Reichsbank responded by increasing the rate of printing
of Reichsmarks. So that over the process of the Summer into Fall of 1923, the
whole system went into a hyperbolic, hyperinflationary zooming of both
depreciation of Reichsmarks, and prices, commodity prices.
What happened during this Spring, as manifest at the beginning of June of
this year, was a phase-shift in the hyperinflationary process, which was set
into motion by the events, first, of October 1997, and then, by the ensuing
developments of the Spring into October of 1998. The Brazil crisis, and the
attempt to wall this thing over with money, the collaboration with Soros,
accelerated this process. In the process, the swindlers, in trying to maneuver
money and assets around, relied upon an agreement which Larry Summers, the
current, dumber version of a U.S. Treasury Secretary, negotiated with Japan.
Whereas Rubin had said in 1997, "not a nickel to save the banks," Larry Summers
and the Japanese government went for the opposite policy, of save the
banks, and sacrificed Japan to save the banks, to bail out the banks. Japan was
printing money, through its central banking function, by dropping the interest
rate to what became as low as a quarter of a percent, or lower.
What then happened was, that these guys who were trying to get out of the
U.S., European, Brazil, other crises--what they did was they began to borrow
yen, overnight, at a quarter of a percent, on short term. They would then take
the borrowed yen to buy dollars, deutschemarks, and so forth, and euros. Now
the danger was, that if the collapse of the dollar, euro, and so forth,
proceeded, then the value of the yen would go up. If the value of the yen went
up, then the people who had borrowed yen at a quarter of a percent, would have
to pay the difference between the old price of the yen and the new price, as
payment, as the equivalent of interest payments, as back payments. They would
then all go bankrupt. This is called the "yen carry trade." And since most of
the world was up to its ears in a vast flood of yen, generated by the "yen
carry trade" at a quarter of a percent, from the yen central banking system,
the Japanese system, that meant that the whole system was ready to go,
entirely.
This was called "crisis management." "We will crisis-manage our way through
the system, so that no crash will occur." That's what they said. It's what
Summers and various banks said here. "No, you're wrong, the system will never
crash. We will manage it. Yes, there are problems, but we will manage it. There
was a meltdown before, but there won't be a meltdown now. It won't happen." Why
wasn't it going to happen? Because they were going to get through it with
crisis-management. The key instrument of crisis-management had become the
international "yen carry trade."
Now, the "yen carry trade" threatened to blow out the entire system. And
therefore, they began pouring from the euro, from the United States, and so
forth, pouring everything they could get, into trying to push down the price of
the yen, or to keep the price down. While in Japan itself, they were trying to
keep the yen down, while they were also trying to keep the borrowing costs on
the yen below one-quarter of a percent; as was said by Japanese officials, down
to virtually zero.
So, you had the "yen carry trade," which involved an operation just as
hyperinflationary as in the worst period of the Weimar hyperinflation of 1923,
run through the "yen carry trade" on a world scale. The whole system now hung
on crisis management, and the crisis management was held on the keystone of the
"yen carry trade." The "yen carry trade" now threatened to blow out the system.
Thus, the crisis management became the disease. This is a terminal stage of
cancer in a financial system.
This is where we presently are. We are now in a system where the more they
try to keep the system alive, the bigger and quicker it falls. It's over. The
party is over.
The comet is about to enter the Sun. The travel along the long trajectory is
now about to be completed, with a certain finality. So, the question is, "So,
the system is finished, the banks will be gone, the world will be bankrupt, no
hope of recovery. What do we do?"
Well, John Kenneth Galbraith, years ago--he's still alive, by the way, and
probably smarter than any banker in Germany--said, of the 1929 crash: What was
falling was just paper.
What is collapsing in Russia, and other places today, is only paper. The
only reason we're suffering, is we're paying too much attention to that paper.
Why don't we burn the paper?
I've written a piece which reports on some aspects of this which will be
published in the July 30 edition of the EIR, but just to indicate
what the perspective is. What do we have to do?
Well,
you have to have me as President, otherwise it will be tough to make it; we may
not make it. Or, the idea that I'm going to become President, that will do the
same thing.
First of all, a group of governments--and I have chosen the United States,
joined by cowardly Germany, with Russia, China, India, and a few other
countries--simply decides, as an executive decision, the following:
The world financial situation is hopeless, a hopeless catastrophe, nothing
can save the world financial system in its present form. Therefore, let's stop
trying to save the world financial system, or monetary system, in their present
forms.
What do we do?
Number one, we declare and avow, that we are each perfectly sovereign
nation-states, and have the absolute power, embodied in us by virtue of being
perfectly sovereign nation-states. Globalization just died. We killed it.
Number two. With this power as sovereign nation-states, we agree--whether
anybody else does or not--as sovereign nation-states, we are making a sovereign
decision, which we are making in common, and we represent a majority of the
human race, so that's probably important. You put together China, Russia,
India, Iran, Malaysia, a few other countries, my friends in South America, in
Central America, the United States, and Germany, what have you got? You have
the majority of the human race. You have the future of the human race,
assembled.
Because the German economy is the only economy in Europe. Any other economy
in western Europe lives just on dole, taken out of the German pocket. Without
stealing from Germany, France couldn't exist. Who else is going to pay for the
big hole called Crédit Lyonnais? It's a bottomless pit. That's where the
devil lives and sups tea with Mitterrand. It's the bottom of the hole, called
Hell. The hole called Crédit Lyonnais. And actually, Mitterrand has
special privileges there, because he created the hole.
So, the first thing we do as sovereign nations, is we declare that all
gambling debts, including derivatives and junk bonds, are now retroactively
declared to be null and void. No one among us will ever honor again, any
gambling debts, such as financial derivatives and junk bonds. Now, that does
the positive thing of taking at least $300 trillion of current financial debt
out of the world system. If you don't do that, there is no possibility of
reorganizing society, and saving civilization. That's the price. You cancel
$300 trillion, approximately, of gambling debts, such as financial derivatives,
and say that they are null and void as if they had never existed--which
sovereign governments can do, if they're perfectly sovereign and if they
represent nations which represent the majority of the human race, that's a
pretty good decision, about as good as you can get on this planet. That's the
beginning.
What about the rest of the junk? Put it into bankruptcy reorganization.
Freeze it. Freeze the accounts. Terminate interest payments on these accounts.
End it. Government takes over. The government puts each part of its society
into generalized bankruptcy reorganization under state supervision. You want to
survive, you're going to do that. If you don't do it, you're not going to
survive. You have no choice. The comet has reached the Sun. You have no choice.
What
do you do, then? Well, you then say, we're going to do a number of things.
First of all, we're going to use, as the legal principle here, the "General
Welfare" clause of the preamble of the U.S. Constitution, which is the only
constitution which has a provision of Socratic or Platonic natural law in it,
the General Welfare clause. This is principle upon which all European
civilization, modern civilization, is based, beginning from the time of France,
under Louis XI.
That was a great revolution, the establishment of the sovereign
nation-state. The power of the sovereign nation-state and its obligation to
enforce the principle of the general welfare, which is sometimes called, in the
Sixteenth Century, the commonwealth. That means, that we give special
protection to the claims of households to their private savings, up to a
certain amount--it's guaranteed. We give protection to the accounts of small
businesses. Because our concern is to keep the households intact, and
functioning as if there had been no crisis, to continue to live without losing
a step. We must keep the local businesses functioning, upon which the
population depends, without losing a step. The butcher, the baker have to be
there in the morning. The bread has to be sold in the store in the morning. The
people have to have the money to buy the bread. They have to keep their jobs,
if they're useful jobs. We'll unemploy immediately all of the stockbrokers,
financial agents, and so forth--the parasites. They will go into an unemployed
pool. We'll find work for them, but not selling stocks and bonds. We will then
take the rest of the accounts, and we will freeze them, including freezing the
accounts of the banks. So, from the banks, the banks will be ordered to honor
certain payments to depositors, in order to keep society stable.
We'll also keep certain businesses in operation, either by letting them draw
on their accounts, savings accounts, or, by issuing credit against the frozen
accounts, to enable them to keep employing, paying the salaries, keeping people
alive.
Now, beyond that, you have to do something else. The first thing, is to have
absolute stability, social stability, and security for the population in
general, that is, the ordinary people. The businesses, the banks which they
depend upon, they have to--the doors have to be open even if the bank is
bankrupt, even if every asset in that bank is frozen under bankruptcy, that
bank must stay open, because you must have a place to deposit, you must have a
place to move credit into the local community. And, therefore, that banker,
unless he's an absolute thief, or we can replace him, must stay with his doors
open, to continue to perform those social functions.
So, you have a general bankruptcy reorganization of the whole society. The
first thing is to keep everything useful functioning, to keep everybody
employed or under some kind of unemployment compensation protection, immediately.
Now,
we then have to put the society back to work. The general objective is to
decrease employment in parasitical areas, such as stock markets and all these
other parasites. We'll shut down "Smart" production, perhaps, in order to make
real cars again.
Now, we have to expand production. We use the same method that was proposed
by Lautenbach and company, this thing that was used in Germany, in part, during
the postwar period, for reconstruction under the procedures used by Hermann Abs
and the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau. You use state credit,
state-guaranteed credit, in order to put funding, credit, into maintaining and
expanding production, especially expanding production.
What do we do? Number one, we have a vast infrastructure deficit throughout
the world, especially in the Balkans right now. The Balkans can absorb a great
amount of rebuilding. Rebuilding the Balkans will involve every part of Europe,
in terms of engineering and related capabilities. This will be a great stimulus
for the entire European economy. Take unemployed people from Ukraine, Russia,
everywhere from all over Europe, engineering and related facilities, you put
them into great projects, infrastructure projects, in these areas, under the
direction of competent people who are competent to direct these kinds of
projects. You finance the infrastructure on the basis of 20-year to 30-year
credit, based on not more than 1% interest, plus grants.
We have other great needs. The development of Eurasia requires the
development of these corridors, which we've referred to as Land-Bridge
corridors. That will keep people busy. That will also create the opportunity
and means, and the foundations, for an expansion of production in general.
Remember, farmers do not grow crops by throwing seeds into barren ground.
That's not a good way to get a good crop. You get a good crop by preparing the
soil, by maintaining it. In the same way that you must prepare and maintain the
soil in agriculture, you must prepare the soil for industry and urban
life--transportation systems, energy, high-technology, high-density-power
energy, abundance of energy.
The best form of energy, which happens to be nuclear energy--because it
takes less waste, there is less transportation cost involved, it can be done
more locally, you can quickly develop an energy wedge. You don't do the
wasteful thing of moving power from Chernobyl into Germany, that is pure idiocy
and waste. Transmission of power is costly, in terms of power losses and
efficiency. If you want to produce energy, do it nearby. Besides, with nuclear
plants, it's easier.
If we have nuclear plants in an area, particularly, then we can produce
natural gas or methane--synthetic methane, with the aid of nuclear power, in
localities. We have now the technologies in Germany and elsewhere for
high-temperature reactors, from 100 to 200 megawatts capacity, which are
multi-use capacities, which can produce fuel, in the form of methane and
natural gas. You don't need to haul oil and gas all over the world. You can
make it where you are. You can retool vehicles, including aircraft, to fly, not
on inefficient petroleum, but to fly, or drive along the highways, either on
natural gas, or methane, combustion engines, or, through types of advanced
fuel-cell operations, which also use the same chemical processes, locally.
Which means you take the great burden from the world economy of moving fuel, at
great distances all over the place, and you shift out of using petroleum as a
fuel, into using it as a petrochemical feedstock for production of useful
materials.
So, we have a lot of work to do. If you want to build industries,
you must build the environment, you must create the transportation systems, in
which whole complexes of industries can function together. You don't want the
vendor, or the machine-tool plant that services an industrial plant, 500 or
1,000 miles away from the plant which the machine-tool plant has to service.
You want a high density of supporting small industries wherever you intend to
put large industries.
The great problem of Asia, is a lack of sufficient machine-tool and
machine-tool-design and related capabilities in the area where people want to
put plants. People come along and say, "Build this plant. Build that plant.
Let's build this big plant. Let's build that." It doesn't work, because you do
not have the local support or supporting industry that you used to have in
Germany. All the good German industries had support from machine-tool
industries, which employed, generally, 50 to 100, 250 people, under the
direction of people with scientific and engineering backgrounds, who would be
used by all of the major corporations, as indispensable for the development
programs of these larger industries. So, you must have corridors, of
population, power generation, and so forth, which you can develop.
For example, in the case of the United States, under Lincoln: United States
policy, from colonial times of the Americas, was to develop development
corridors, both as highways, then, and as waterways, which allowed the
population to move to the inland territories of the United States--the Ohio
River Valley, the Mississippi River Valley. And then beyond, across the
trans-continental route. The trans-continental railways were not just railways.
The trans-continental railways were conceived as development corridors. The way
they worked, is you would build farms, and communities, in areas along the
route of the railway system. These farms and communities were the source of the
wealth which supported the functioning of the railway, and transformed what
otherwise had been useless desert land, into areas of population and economic
development.
We have a great interior area of Eurasia, which is lightly populated and
vastly underdeveloped, including the Arctic, including the desert in the
Central Asian area. We have these vast areas. So, building roadways, railways
to China, to the Subcontinent, to the Arab Gulf--which is what the British
fought World War I to prevent--building these corridors along these
routes, means that this vast area of unused potential, is opened up, by
development corridors, to be colonized, by the progress of modern technology.
At the same time, bringing together a Europe which is a natural place of
machine-tool design capability, if we revive it, and bringing it together with
the areas which need the support of that kind of machine-tool capability, such
as China, India, Southeast Asia. And, moving into Africa the same way, with the
same program.
So,
the amount of work to be done, to ensure the survival of our civilization and
our children and grandchildren, over the coming 40 to 50 years, to live beyond
the crisis which is now tearing down the world, is a great opportunity.
And by that, and by science-driver programs, which introduce new physical
principles and new technologies into that process, we create a future for
humanity. We turn the collapse of a rotten system into a bonanza, a great
benefit. We use the occasion to get rid of the system which is crushing us, to
build up a system under which humanity as a whole can survive.
And we would hope that by doing this, in this way, that we bring humanity
into a sense of what humanity is. We say, "Yes, we must end globalization. We
must destroy it and ban it forever."
We know globalization in Europe: It's called feudalism. When, in the
Thirteenth Century, and even earlier, leaders in Europe, from the time of
Charlemagne, sought to realize Christian principle, by developing the peoples
and nationalities of Europe, through a cooperative effort, typified in the
Thirteenth Century by the work of Friedrich II Hohenstauffen, the Venetians and
other evil people of the feudal tradition sought to destroy the nations in
Europe--in Italy, in Sicily as such, in Spain under Alfonso Sabio, in France,
and Central Europe--by launching what were called the Welf League wars. The
Welf League, in the period from about 1240 to 1340, in these wars, wars which
brought to prominence a Venetian-controlled gang, called the Lombard bankers,
destroyed Europe, halved its population, eliminated at least one-half of all
local communities, parishes, unleashed insanity, Black Death, and other
disease, to create what became known in the middle of the Fourteenth Century as
the "New Dark Age."
That, is globalization.
This was done to prevent the rise of the nation-state. In the Fifteenth
Century, the work of people like Peter Abelard, of Augustinus earlier, of the
Christian Apostles, succeeded, in the Council of Florence, around the
conception of nation-states, as this concept was explored by Nicholas of Cusa
in his Concordantia Catholica.
The first nation-state, born of a conspiracy organized in Italy, by the same
people who were associated with Leonardo da Vinci--it was created in France,
out of the training of the Dauphin who became Louis XI, a program, which
established the first modern nation-state. Because it was self-governing by the
principle of the general welfare. All kinds of disparate elements: feudal
oligarchs, plebeian intellectuals in the city, and so forth, were put together,
under Louis XI, to form a kind of federation of forces, united by a common
principle: You will all subordinate yourself to the common interest of France
as a whole--it was done under conditions of invading armies from England, from
Spain, and so forth. Under the threat of invasion: We must work together in a
common interest to develop and strengthen our country and all of its people.
And that was the beginning of the modern nation-state, which is what the
Welf League had tried to prevent. Which is what feudalism tried to prevent.
Now, we have degenerates who are promoting globalization, in the name of
liberalism, which is nothing but a return to the same old monstrosity which the
Welf League represented in the great wars of a hundred years, which plunged a
growing Europe from relative prosperity and progress into the darkness and
madness of the New Dark Age of the middle of the Fourteenth Century. That's
what we have to deal with.
It's a revival of that, organized around the center of those forces
associated with the British monarchy, which is the enemy of mankind today. That
enemy must be defeated. The collapse of that monarchy's present world system,
along with that of its satraps, is now vulnerable, if we mobilize the people to
recognize the interests of the people, as expressed by the notion of the
general welfare. We have at this moment, if we can find a few more leaders to
lead the process, the opportunity to end this crap, and to establish a
world based on the community of sovereign nation-states which unite in common
efforts in recognition of the common aims and common welfare of mankind as a
whole.
So, this is the greatest, most terrible time in all known modern history. No
part of modern history is more dangerous, more catastrophic than the moments
we're living through now. Oh, you may not see or feel that there's a crisis out
there. But, let me tell you what's going on, so that you can feel it, right
now.
You'll get a crash soon enough. A crash worldwide, which will remind you, if
you study it, of what happened in Germany in 1923, in the fall of 1923. That's
happening. That's going to happen. But, in the meantime, you have another form
of crash, something just as bad as a crash: Were any of you ever in an
earthquake? Were you ever standing where an earthquake was happening? You
thought you were standing on solid ground, and suddenly you weren't certain
which way was up, and where the ground was going. The ground began to feel
something like quicksand. That's what's happening now. You're in that phase of
an earthquake where the first shocks are coming through, and the ground under
you, the social ground, the political ground is turning to something like
quicksand. It's a warning: The big one is on the way.
But, we can be optimistic, because we have to recognize that when things are
this bad, we've destroyed the illusions of people. And when their illusions are
destroyed, you must quickly organize them around a well-founded program of
hope.
If you do not, then you'll get an effect. It was in the autumn of 1923 that
in Bavaria, the Adolf Hitler movement got off the ground.
|
|
