My own most fundamental, and eminently successful contribution to the study of cultures, lies in my introduction of the conception of potential relative population-density, as the uniquely competent basis for defining a physical science of economics, and, therefore, the needed basis for clarifying the principles of a universal method in economic history. Thus, as I have shown in numerous published locations, the only scientifically acceptable basis for measuring the relative quality of a culture, today, would be the bearing of the essential features of scientific and artistic development upon the culture's power to sustain and improve its potential relative population-density.

This approach to a physical science of economics, provides us the optimal basis for rigorous study of not only past history, but of reliable methods for shaping the future outcome of that history. This is a study to be conducted from the standpoint of attention to the physically functional characteristics of the evolution, or decadence, of cultures.

In first approximation, this means that we must study both national, or analogous particular cultures, and relationships among cultures, over periods of not less than one to several generations, and patterns of changes in cultures over centuries. On that basis, we must then examine the way in which relatively small changes introduced within those cultural processes, even by individuals during the short term, may significantly alter the medium- to long-term evolution of a culture, or a set of cultures. The physical principle of potential relative population-density, provides the indispensable key to conducting this investigation in the required way.

We must concentrate upon the willful introduction of relatively small, but cumulatively powerful changes in axiomatic features of a culture, changes made often by sovereign individual personalities. This defines the essential distinction between the behavior of human cultures and the habits of beasts.

It would be difficult to overstate the warning, that, contrary to both Adam Smith and both the orthodox social-democrats and anarcho-syndicalists, history is not shaped by any automatic pulsation of "objective forces." All of the significant developments in the history and pre-history of the human species, are results of the individually voluntary alteration of the principled course of events, through innovations inserted by sovereign individuals.[13] It is by this agency, that mankind changes its cultures, and also revolutionizes what empiricists and other fools insist falsely, are the unchangeable, axiomatic features of human nature, for better or for worse.

Through my discoveries in that specialist's domain, the science of physical-economy, we are now capable of understanding and applying that principle of scientific history, sometimes called voluntarism, as an instrument of long-range forecasting, for shaping generalized, progressive economic and related developments within and among cultures. We are able, through the study of cultures from this standpoint, to adduce the way in which the axiomatic and related innovations by individuals, may be mustered in a way which brings about changes in cultures which are both foreseeable and beneficial.

Through the same application of the science of physical-economy, we are better able to identify and correct those wrong-headed trends in policy-making which lead to medium- to long-range cultural, as well as physical-economic catastrophes. I mean catastrophes such as the presently ongoing global collapse of the world's reigning monetary-financial system. I explain the immediately relevant point summarily, as follows.

As I have already emphasized, above, although my own original discoveries in this field of science, were derived from a different track than that of Vernadsky,[14] there are important common grounds connecting our respective conclusions, apart from differences between his definition of the Noösphere and my own approach to many very similar conclusions through my discovery and development of the principle of potential relative population-density. Review the argument I identified above. It is an extremely important, if little understood principle, a principle of overriding importance for understanding the deeper implications of the events of Sept. 11th. Therefore, it requires some repetition in the present context.

Like Vernadsky, I define the experimentally known physical universe, as composed of a multiply-connected manifold of three respectively independent, but interacting sets of types of universal physical principles. In short-hand, these are, respectively, the respectively distinct experimentally defined domains of the abiotic, living, and cognitive. I define that universe conceptually in terms of an anti-Euclidean, Riemannian differential (physical) geometry.

Just as existence of living processes expresses a characteristically anti-entropic, universal principle, contrary to the fallacious notion of universal entropy which Clausius, Grassmann, Kelvin, Boltzmann, et al. attributed to the universe as a whole, so the uniquely human, spiritual, or cognitive processes expressed by discoveries of universal principles of physical-scientific and Classical-artistic knowledge, are a quality of anti-entropic principle, sometimes recognized as a spiritual principle, existing throughout the universe, existing independently of the confines of both abiotic and lower living processes as such.[15] We may thus say, without implying any resort to the blind mysticism of the gnostics, that the universe of physical science is composed of three, experimentally defined, multiply-connected phase-spaces: abiotic, living, and spiritual. The clearest and simplest proof of the physical efficiency of the Socratic principle of the spiritual, is, contrary to the gnostics, any experimentally demonstrated individual discovery of a universal physical principle.

These universally efficient "spiritual (i.e., cognitive) forces" are those expressed in modern experimental physical science in a unique way, by the appearance of the quality of sovereign cognitive creative insight in but one living species, the human individual, in the individual Socratic act of cognitive insight through which all experimentally validatable discoveries of universal physical principle occur.

The understanding of the way in which use of cognitively discovered universal physical principles, increases the potential relative population-density of the human species, thus provides the necessary conceptual basis for a physical science of economy, and, thus, the basis for the study of social processes in a more inclusive way.

Where Vernadsky emphasizes the role of the individual act of scientific discovery, as the source of mankind's increased power in and over the universe, I locate the principle of action, not primarily in the relatively simple relationship to nature of individual qua individual, but, rather, the primary role of the individual's influence in changing the determining cultural processes which, in turn, govern mankind's changing of its society's functional relationship to nature.[16]

It was by recognizing that those Classical artistic principles of composition relevant to this social process, are to be considered as expressing experimentally demonstrable, characteristically anti-entropic, universal physical principles, that I succeeded, in a uniquely successful way, in revolutionizing the methods of long-range economic and related forecasting.[17] Consequently, while my long-range and related forecasts, have each and all appeared in significant public, written circulation, during more than thirty years, none of these has erred in its stated claims, whereas all explicitly contrary forecasts, constructed by contrary methods, have demonstrably failed.[18]

A. The Historical Settings

I have applied that method of analysis and forecasting successfully to the crisis centered around the influence of that homicidal lunacy known as the Brzezinski, Huntington, Bernard Lewis, "Clash of Civilizations" conspiracy. A competent grasp of the problem posed by the attempted coup d'état in question, demands that we place that conspiracy and its associated developments within the relevant general setting, the same setting within which the subject-matter of the science of physical economy is located. Without situating the subject of the Clash of Civilizations strategy within its place in the long-term evolution of what has become globally extended modern European civilization, no truly rigorous, no competent assessment of the causes for, or the lunatic influence of Brzezinski's conspiracy, could be provided.

The problem posed by the crucial implications of the developments of Sept. 11th, is therefore broadly situated within the recent six centuries of world history, and, more emphatically, the great upheavals set into motion within European and other cultures by the 1776-1789 establishment of the U.S.A. as the first successful model for a modern, sovereign, constitutional nation-state republic.

I must now define here, once again, the relevant aspects of what I mean by the term modern European civilization. I craft that definition within the bounds of the forecasting method indicated, and examine the relevant lessons of the history of modern European culture from that point of departure.

I proceed now, by quickly summarizing those issues of U.S. policy rooted in the periods 1400-1648, 1688-1763, and 1776-1901, which can not be ignored. I, then, focus upon the special, crucially relevant features of the past century's developments, beginning with the interval 1894-1901,[19] and continuing through the present moment of ongoing global collapse of the world's present monetary-financial system. These typify the essential evidence which must be taken into account, to assess what is, from case to case, ongoing in the minds of leading political forces of the world at this moment.

To restate the case, I shall now divide globally-extended expressions of post-1400 A.D., modern European civilization, summarily, into crucial phases, as follows:

1. 1. Modern history begins with the Fifteenth-Century, Italy-centered Golden Renaissance, which was the birthplace of modern experimental physical science and of the sovereign nation-state.[20]
   
   
2. During much of the two following centuries, we have what Trevor-Roper and others have identified as a "little new dark age" of European civilization, the Venice-Habsburg-dominated period of anti-Renaissance religious and related warfare, over the interval, 1511-1648, which concluded with the reemergence of the modern nation-state, with the Peace of Westphalia.
   
   
3. Next, came the rise of the Venetian-modeled Anglo-Dutch imperial maritime power, typified by the 1689-1763 emergence, around the tyrant William of Orange, of what became the power of the British East India Company.
   
   
4. The 1763-1789 period of the U.S. struggle for independence from both that Anglo-Dutch tyranny and also the imperial Habsburg tradition, is to be recognized as the central reference-point for that reaction against the American Revolution, from which the present form of Anglo-American imperial maritime form of rentier-financier domination emerged, with the 1901 assassination of U.S. President McKinley. That reaction, that neo-Venetian, originally Anglo-Dutch, rentier-financier domination of much of the world, is to be recognized, still today, as rooted in that philosophical empiricism which has led the world into the present general breakdown crisis of the existing monetary-financial system.
   
   
5. Within the latter setting, we have, then, the globally revolutionary impact of the American Revolution of 1776-1789, which established the intentions expressed by that Constitution, as the model of reference for defining the principal alternative to both the waning power of the decadent Habsburg tyranny and the currently hegemonic, originally Anglo-Dutch models of imperial maritime institutions of global rentier-financier domination over the planet as a whole.
   
   
6. It should be especially evident since the 1989-1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union, that the American revolutions of 1776-1789 and 1861-1876, rallied the best currents from throughout European civilization for the cause of a true republic. Those two American revolutions have been clearly shown, by the net results of intervening and subsequent history, to be the only durable known source of continuing challenge and threat to the neo-Venetian, Anglo-Dutch model of imperial maritime rentier-financier oligarchy, to the morbid grip of empiricism and its derivatives, from that time to the present date.[21] The best features of all national economies since 1789, have been modeled on the principles set forth as the American System of political-economy.
   
   
7. With the triumph of the U.S.A., led by President Abraham Lincoln, over the British monarchy and its puppet the Confederacy, the global conflict among nations and cultures has centered, in fact, upon the choice between the American System of Alexander Hamilton, Mathew Carey, Henry Carey, and Friedrich List, and the opposing British system of political-economy. So, even taking into account the importance of the Soviet Union's role during most of Twentieth-Century history, the world economy as a whole today, after 1989-1991, is plainly divided, chiefly, between opposing forces which are most economically and fairly described as the mutually opposing, respective American and Anglo-Dutch systems of political-economy. All other conflicts must, of necessity, orbit historically around the continuing conflict between these two.

This latter, presently underlying global conflict, has three interdependent but otherwise distinct features.

First, the American System of political-economy, as so described by the first U.S. Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, is based on the same principle, that termed alternately the general welfare, or, the common good, upon which the idea of the sovereign nation-state's creation and existence was premised earlier. It was the establishment of this principle, during the Fifteenth-Century Renaissance, and the reigns of France's Louis XI and England's Henry VII, which defines the historical existence of modern European civilization. The conception of the general welfare as a supreme doctrine of natural law, is the pivotal feature of what is rightly recognized as the American intellectual tradition, of which I personally am a product, the tradition which Professor Elliott's Henry A. Kissinger hates,[22] and to which I adhere.

Second, the democratic-republican form of the constitutional American System of political economy, as axiomatically opposed to the Anglo-Dutch "liberal" system, the latter which is based upon the exceptional power and privileges of that rentier-financier class formerly typified by the Dutch and British East India companies. The conflict between President Franklin Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston Churchill, during the period of World War II, typifies the issues, as does the continuing 1972-2001 conflict between me and the circles of Elliott's Golems Kissinger, Huntington, and Brzezinski today.

Third, the Anglo-Dutch system is based on the Hobbesian or like notion of axiomatic, perpetual conflict among and within nations, whereas the American System of U.S. paragons John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt, is premised on the goal of establishing an expanded, durable ("multi-polar") community of shared principle among perfectly sovereign nation-state republics. The ideology typified by the personal moral and intellectual devolution of the followers of Professor William Yandell Elliott over the course of the recent half-century, typifies the trend toward the most extreme forms of what can only be described as a new ultramontane, integralist dogma of universal fascism among those followers of Elliott and their like.[23]

On this account, the greatest tragedy suffered by the people of the U.S.A., has been the recurring hegemony of enemies of the American System within the U.S. itself. Thus, except for the period of President Franklin Roosevelt's incumbency, the Twentieth-Century U.S.A., since the assassination of President McKinley, has been corrupted, and largely dominated by an international rentier-financier oligarchy sometimes identified as the financier-legal-academic circles of the "ABC"—American, British, Canadian—cabal. This features powerful financier interests and their associated law-firms, which have deeply penetrated the institutions of government, and are represented, as a combination, by the most powerful tax-exempt and related think-tanks behind the influence of Elliott's Golems.

The presently onrushing terminal collapse of the world's presently reigning monetary-financial system, is chiefly an internal, self-induced collapse of the system which has dominated the world since the immediate aftermath of Franklin Roosevelt's death, and has temporarily assumed the posture of pretended global imperial power during the period since the break-up of the Soviet system.

It is only in that context of modern history so defined, that the causes and remedies for the crisis of Sept. 11th can be efficiently understood. In the following chronology, I limit myself to as many selected highlights of that history as are indispensable for a competent assessment of the immediate world strategic crisis.

B. The Rise And Decline Of U.S. Power

The following post-1789 developments, are the most crucial elements of historical-cultural background for the role of the U.S. in the principal global developments of the Twentieth Century.

The principal watershed of post-1714 progress in modern political history, had been the rallying of the leading representatives of the Classical cultural and scientific tradition of modern European civilization, around promoting the emergence of a modern form of sovereign nation-state republic in the English-speaking colonies of North America. This resistance against the tyranny of both the Habsburg and Anglo-Dutch imperial traditions, has remained the pivotal legacy of modern European history, since then, to the present day. Thus, until the July 14, 1789 beginning of the Jacobin Terror in France, the triumph of the cause of the independence of the U.S. republic and its 1787-1789 draft of its Federal Constitution, expressed the greatest political achievement in statecraft of European civilization up to that date.

However, the succession of the 1789-1794 Jacobin Terror in France, followed by the specifically fascist tyranny of Napoleon Bonaparte, temporarily broke the U.S.'s ties to the European ally, France, on which assistance in securing U.S. independence had chiefly depended.[24]

The subsequent 1814-1815, post-Napoleon, Vienna Congress, created for a time a new imperial power-sharing throughout Europe, a power co-dominated by both of the U.S.'s enemies, the British monarchy and the Habsburg Holy Alliance. Under these strategic conditions, from 1789 until President Lincoln's 1861-1865 leadership of the war against the Confederacy, the U.S. was chiefly isolated and harassed by the leading foreign powers, and subjected to the treasonous influence of London-connected U.S. bankers, Southern slave-owners, Habsburg plots, and the odds and ends of a Bonapartist family's rabble meddling in their fashion in our affairs.

The U.S. expulsion from Mexico, of the French occupying military forces of the puppet of the Habsburgs/Hapsburgs and Napoleon III, marked the emergence of the U.S. as an established world power, not only within the Hemisphere, but in the world at large.[25] The U.S. victories of 1861-1865 were continued as a process of agro-industrial development through the 1876 Philadelphia Centennial celebration. As the outcome of the success of Henry C. Carey's American System policies during the 1861-1876 interval, Germany, Russia, Japan, and many other nations inside and outside the Americas, not only adopted key features of the American System for the improvement of their own economies, but sought to emulate the success of the U.S. in bridging the North American continent, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, through the transcontinental railway program.

Thus, between Gettysburg, in 1863, and Philadelphia, in 1876, the U.S. emerged as the world's greatest threat to both the British Empire and the relics of the Habsburg tyrannies. For this reason, a London-directed espionage network, supported by the Habsburg interest, conducted the assassination of President Lincoln, and launched concerted efforts at both economic warfare and fostering of treason against the U.S., through the time of that successful 1901 assassination of U.S. President McKinley which was facilitated through Emma Goldman of New York City's Henry Street Settlement House.

Admittedly, the post-McKinley U.S. gained in relative military and economic power over the course of the Twentieth Century, but it was no longer quite a U.S. of the same character which had been established by President Lincoln's victory.

Any competent study of U.S. domestic and foreign policy during the past one hundred years, is focussed upon the implications of that reversal of the Lincoln victory over the Confederacy, which has been represented by the successive Twentieth-Century Presidencies of two sons of the Confederacy, Theodore Roosevelt and Ku Klux Klan fanatic Woodrow Wilson, and also oligarch Calvin Coolidge. As President Franklin Roosevelt emphasized this fact repeatedly, both to the U.S. electorate, and to Prime Minister Churchill, the principal division within the U.S. political-economic process has been the axiomatic hostility of the American intellectual tradition of our founders, to the American Tory tradition expressed by those devoted to what Roosevelt derided as "British Eighteenth-Century methods." Whoever seeks to interpret U.S. history without premising it on that fundamental cultural and moral conflict within our nation, marks himself or herself as a foolish babbler, or worse.

When we consider the full sweep of the rise in global power of modern European civilization, since the Fifteenth-Century Renaissance, we must regard the greatest part of the interval 1901-2001 as relatively an historic "new dark age" in the existence of mankind.[26] Two world wars, the great depression and rise of fascist dictatorships following the First World War, the Great Depression of the 1930s, the Second World War, the so-called "Cold War," the wave of intellectual and personal moral decadence merely typified by the numerous lackeys of Harvard's William Yandell Elliott, the assassinations and political coups in the Americas and Europe during the 1962-1965 interval, and the post-1965 slide of the economies of the Americas and Europe into the horrible trajectory of the long-term monetary-financial decadence of 1971-2001, qualify fully for the title of a cultural "new dark age."

Only the leadership of President Franklin Roosevelt, and the benefits of the 1945-1963 interval of economic reconstruction in the Americas, Japan, Europe, and elsewhere, provide a few outstanding bright spots in an otherwise terrible and now rapidly worsening decadence gripping the world of 1901-2001.

The 1962-1965 interval of intensified crisis, is identified by the emergence of a fascist-style military coup-plotting against the U.S. government itself, by the 1962 Cuba missiles-crisis, the attempted assassination of France's great President Charles de Gaulle, the political coup against Britain's Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, the hustling of Chancellor Konrad Adenauer into premature retirement, the assassination of President Kennedy, the launching of the U.S. war in Indo-China, the pestilence of the first Harold Wilson government of the United Kingdom, and the ouster of Chancellor Erhard in Germany. These and related prominent events of 1962-1965, mark a separation between what was, in net effect, the upward course of economic developments which predominated during the 1945-1963 interval of post-war reconstruction, and the accelerated general moral and economic decadence aptly signalled by Richard Nixon's 1966-1968 pro-Ku Klux Klan campaign for the U.S. Presidency.

But for a few bright moments, here and there, since, the prevalent course of globally extended European civilization has been. economically, morally, culturally, an accelerating, increasingly decadent downhill slide of the economy and other crucial elements of culture combined, since the critical turn in events during the 1962-1965 interval.

Just as the Jacobin Terror of 1789-1794 produced the conditions under which the first fascist tyranny, that of Napoleon Bonaparte, emerged, so the capture of the control of the U.S. by the British monarchy, under U.S. Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Calvin Coolidge, produced the conditions favorable to the emergence of Twentieth-Century fascist tyrannies, such as those of Mussolini and Hitler, which were explicitly modelled on the traditions of the fascist reign of self-proclaimed Caesar and Pontifex Maximus Napoleon Bonaparte.

If we look at the history of the post-World War II Harvard squirrel-cage operated by the Nashville Agrarians' Elliott, against the background provided by the French developments of 1789-1815, and fascist dictator Napoleon III, and the background of that neo-Romantic epidemic of cultural pessimism traced from such as the existentialists Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, through Adolf Hitler, Martin Heidegger, and Theodor Adorno, we should not be astonished to recognize the ideologues of today's cult of universal fascism, globalized fascism, such as that of Huntington and Brzezinski, as typifying a new epidemic of fascist ideologues worse, by implication, than even the most notorious figures of the 1920s and 1930s.

Prior to his untimely death, President Franklin Roosevelt's intentions for the post-war period, had centered on creating a post-war Bretton Woods system designed not only for repairing the ravages of Depression and war in Europe and the Americas, but eradicating the pestilence of Adam Smith's "free trade" system, and all vestiges of Portuguese, Dutch, British, and French colonialism, from the post-war world. The President's body was scarcely cooled, before his successors launched savage military campaigns of re-colonialization, and setting into motion a London-orchestrated new strategic military conflict between the U.S. and its former war-time, Soviet ally.

Thus, in some important aspects and degree, the 1945-1963 Bretton Woods system was thoroughly successful, if not truly a just system, in contrast to the net failure of that post-1971 floating-exchange-rate system now disintegrating around the ears of the world.

The significance of the 1962-1965 crises, was the orchestration of a new degree of co-dependency between the rival Anglo-American and Soviet thermonuclear superpowers. As an accompaniment to those changes effected during the 1962-1965 interval, the essential axioms of economic and other statecraft characteristic of the pre-1963 period, were brutally, often bloodily uprooted, clearing the way for what became known as the "cultural paradigm-shift" impacting most heavily the university-oriented generation of youth born after 1945.

Amid this post-1962-1965 confusion, the accumulated trash of the "left-wing" H.G. Wells-Bertrand Russell and of the "right-wing" cultural offal of the Nashville Agrarian descendants of the founders of the original Ku Klux Klan, zoomed into positions of accelerating influence on U.S. internal cultural and political life.

If we take into account the post-1971 net erosion of U.S. investment in basic economic infrastructure, and the accelerating loss, over the course of the 1970s, of scientific and industrial elements which had been essential to the manned Moon-landing, the U.S. internal economy has been in a long-term decline in rate of growth since 1966-1967, and a shift into accelerating absolute decline of its internal economy since 1971.

The worst rate of economic disintegration, occurred under Brzezinski's selection of U.S. President Jimmy Carter. Since 1977, the once proudly optimistic lower eighty percentile of U.S. family income-brackets, has suffered an accelerating collapse of its share of total national income, while the U.S. economy relied increasingly, during 1971-1989, on the influence of global Anglo-American political power to loot other nations through monetary-financial swindles and "globalization," especially those of South and Central America, Africa, and Asia.

With the 1989-1991 collapse of the Soviet system, the Anglo-American rentier-financier interests emerged as the ostensibly unchallenged imperial ruler of the world, degrading all other nations, including those of western continental Europe, into the status of virtual satrapies, or worse. The vast looting of the former Soviet Union, especially over the interval 1991-1998, served temporarily as the largest single subsidy to the otherwise internally collapsing economic power of the Anglo-American combination.

With the inherently inevitable international financial and monetary crises of 1997-1998, the Anglo-American financier interests, were running out of places to loot. The inevitable doom of the present policies of the ruling Anglo-American financier interest was clearly in sight. For the world's hegemonic financier interests, the bell had struck, announcing the news they must have read as the coming Twilight of the Olympian Gods. Hence, the world is now gripped, since the post-1996, 1997-98 turn, by such events as those associated with the aftermath of Sept. 11th.

The U.S.A. could come out of this crisis quite nicely, if with more than a bit of temporary strain, but, as Franklin Roosevelt's role during 1933-1945 showed, there would be no need for seeking remedies outside the province of the principles set forth by our 1787-1789 Federal Constitution. Indeed, beginning my rebroadcast, to a nationwide U.S. audience, of my Berlin television address of Oct. 12, 1988, I have always specified concrete, practicable perspectives for lifting the U.S. to a new and better role in the world at large, under the conditions which I foretold then, of the imminent collapse of the Soviet system in its then present form.

Throughout my thirty-five-year rise to today's international prominence, I have insisted, that a return to what Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton had described as "the American System of political-economy," provided our government the implied set of policy-setting approaches to endless progress in the condition of our own people, and also those of other nations, including the offer of a new partnership with the economically distressed Soviet economy. That is still true, today.

The threat of military coups d'état and kindred horrors from within the U.S., is not threatened because of any honest economic self-interest of the U.S.A. Only our own, current gross excess of financial parasites, are threatened by the reforms I have proposed. The threat comes entirely from those who would rather send the whole world to Hell, than give back the U.S.A. to its Federal Constitution, and to the consequent fostering of the general welfare of its people

Brzezinski and Hitler

To better understand the events of Sept. 11th, reconsider the case of the Hitler coup d'état of January-March 1933. There never existed any excuse for those explicitly Anglo-American actions which put Hitler into power in Germany. Had a President Hindenburg corrupted by the accomplices of London's Montagu Norman, not ousted Chancellor von Schleicher, World War II would have been prevented by the March 1933 inauguration of the already elected U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt. Had von Schleicher continued as Chancellor until the point of Roosevelt's inauguration, Germany and the U.S.A. would have had virtually identical economic-recovery programs, and World War II would not have happened.

In brief, the Anglo-American financier interests associated with London's Hitler backer, Montagu Norman, acted, in January 1933, to ensure that World War II would not be prevented. Those interests acted to prevent leading forces of continental Europe from entering into what would have become the global hegemony of policies consistent with the American intellectual tradition. Like Henry A. Kissinger later, Montagu Norman and his confederates would rather have had Hell on Earth, than tolerate a world under the influence of the American intellectual tradition.

I had a comparable little personal experience during the mid-1970s.

An appointment was set for me, with a key official of a leading British parliamentary party. At that meeting, I summarized the alternatives facing the post-1971-1975 form of the IMF's floating-exchange-rate system. I summarized the argument, that it were better that certain British interests, which might ordinarily consider themselves axiomatically opposed to my proposals, might be disposed to accept my proposed course of international monetary reform, if they but recalled the results of their predecessors putting Schacht's protégé, Hitler, into power in Germany. I summarized the situation as a choice between the "shock" of a needed monetary reform, and the consequences of continuing the efforts, at that moment, to revive the fiscal austerity precedents of Schacht et al.

The response to my argument was abrupt, and very cold: "I am certain we would prefer Schacht to your shock." Obviously, a quarter-century-odd later, I was right, and that British reaction to my argument is to be seen in hindsight on the state of the British economy, itself, today, as, regrettably, a pitiably mistaken one.

So, in March 1933, the Schacht who had brought Hitler into power at the behest of the Anglo-American financial interests associated with Montagu Norman, became the President of Germany's Reichsbank. So, ensconced, Schacht relied upon the permission arranged by Germany's Anglo-American financial masters, to launch the Hitler mobilization which was already intended, as Hitler's geopolitical Mein Kampf had promised, to prepare for the invasion of the Soviet Union. Because of the Molotov-Ribbentrop negotiations, events did not unfold in exactly the way in which some in Britain had imagined prior to the abdication of King Edward VIII, but, that aside, what became known as World War II, was, by 1934-1936, inevitable.

In the course of known history, there are clearly defined critical moments of decision, at which the general trend of an ensuing, new period of history is virtually predetermined, one way or the other. The Germany events of January-March 1933 are typical of such moments of decision. It is cruel, but both true and necessary, to report, that when the German military command of 1934, decided not to oppose Hitler's assassination of former Chancellor von Schleicher, the July 1944 doom of the German generals was virtually "in the cards." After that assassination, the death of Hindenburg was essentially a mere formality which cleared the way for the consolidation of the Hitler dictatorship. Among Germans, only those leaders who permitted those fateful, wrong, pro-London choices of 1933-1934, bore any essential guilt for the horrors which followed from the decisions of 1933-1934.

There is, thus, often a dark side to the effects of the role of the voluntary principle on history.

The British role in putting Hitler into power, and the German generals' role in failing to prevent him from becoming Chancellor, first, and dictator, later, merely typifies the dark side. Had the plot to conduct a U.S. military coup against Franklin Roosevelt's inauguration succeeded, too, the Twentieth Century would have been among the darkest ages for all mankind.

Therefore, for me, the example of the way in which certain German military leaders allowed Hindenburg to put Hitler into power, is, still today, among the most frightening lessons from modern history. The events of Sept. 11th, seen in the light of the Huntington-Brzezinski-Lewis "Clash of Civilizations" plot, are the principal immediate reason, of the same kind, to be fearful for the fate of mankind today.

The forces behind dangerous lunatics such as Brzezinski and Huntington, are not being pushed into unleashing terrible religious wars and universal fascist dictatorships, because of any factor of objective U.S. national self-interest. They, like the lackeys of the doomed gods of Olympus, which they implicitly fancy themselves to be, and like the criminally insane backers of Sharon's campaign, would rather destroy the universe, than suffer any setback to the cause of their own lunatic ideology. Satanic creatures of the sort typified by a Sharon, or Brzezinski and Huntington, would rather reign in a Hell of their own making, than seek a sublime peace in Heaven.

There is no sane reason for what either Sharon is doing, or what is intended by the backers of Brzezinski's geopolitical lunacies; nonetheless, for those who understand real history, it could happen, unless it is stopped.

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 Ecole 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.[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 cruellest 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 inferrable 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]

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] 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.[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" v. Moltke, the German military institutions were superior, per capita, to those of all other nations, even during World War II.[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.[32] The first, was the initial wrecking of the Monge-Legendre-led Ecole 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 Ecole 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 Ecole 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 Ecole 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.