Executive Intelligence Review
This article appears in the January 9, 2004 issue of Executive Intelligence Review. See also other related articles.

The 'Maritornes':
A Tavern of Fascist Prostitutes

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

December 26, 2003

Prefatory Note

The implications of the recent Maritornes incident[1] should impel us to refine and upgrade the indispensable practice of our association's counterintelligence functions, functions on which our continued existence as an association, and other important things, may depend in significant degree at this time. Since I have a unique leading role in the present crisis of the United States republic, this proposed improvement in our intelligence functions is required for waging a sufficiently good fight for both the defense of the U.S.A. from presently onrushing Synarchist plots such as that typified by the Maritornes affair, and for the related purpose of rescuing of a presently imperilled world civilization from the present brink of a global catastrophe.

Here, I shall first outline the crucial issue of principle upon which competent strategic intelligence, and also ordinary counterintelligence, depends. Then, I shall focus on the application of that principle to the kind of counterintelligence case which the recent Maritornes developments imply.

The principle on which proof of those causal connections rests, is sometimes named "prescience." The subject of this report might aptly carry the sub-title, "The indispensable role of a Classical notion of prescience in strategic intelligence practice." To that end, I proceed from the always relevant, lurking implications of Gauss' attack on Euler, Lagrange, et al., in Gauss' own 1799 The Fundamental Theorem of Algebra, as follows.

I shall begin with essential material which is, and will be presented here in a form as accessible as possible to deliver to an audience including non-professionals. However, at a latter point, some material which is intellectually more challenging for non-professionals, and others, must be, and is included because of its essential implications for the subject at hand.

1. How To Defend Our National Interest

It is more or less well known among some of our proverbial "old hands," as within certain senior niches of today's U.S. Presidential establishment, that I have wished, for more than about a quarter-century to date, to bring about the creation of a U.S. national intelligence academy, comparable to West Point. It was this commitment of mine which prompted relevant institutions to provide me 1983-1984 access to a generous supply of specially declassified documents of our own and certain French intelligence services, on the subject of Synarchism and related matters, taken from the interval of approximately 1922-1945.

My receipt of this documentation occurred, through the channel of the National Archive, in the relevant context of my 1982-83 conduct of a U.S. back-channel discussion with the Soviet government, on the subject of what President Reagan came to name "A Strategic Defense Initiative."

The flow of this documentation ended at a point just prior to the public surfacing of a frenzied outburst of concerted efforts, from both U.S. neo-conservative, Soviet, and other terrified opponents of that initiative, extremely hostile efforts, including some serious threats of my assassination, even by complicity of certain tainted U.S. government circles. These threats and attacks, including the intent of the Washington Post's, and others' fraudulent 1986 version of the Olaf Palme assassination, were continued over the 1984-1989 interval, and were intended by factions inside and outside the U.S. government of that time, to have contributed to the purpose of obliterating the existence of me and of associated organizations internationally.

Nonetheless, the purpose of the pre-1984 actions by relevant U.S. circles supplying me sensitive, formerly secret documentation on Synarchist and related matters, had been to invite the incorporation of my resulting views into a re-examination of the lessons to be learned from the experience of U.S. intelligence services from that period, including the U.S. Army intelligence and O.S.S.

The common intent we shared in this effort, was to improve the U.S. intelligence institutions operating under the authority stipulated for the Director of Intelligence. Our concern was to unmask the blunders which had been chiefly responsible for the pattern of certain stunning strategic failures of our nation's leadership, during a period since the successful 1944 breakthrough at the Normandy beachhead. This has included relevant failures such as the preventive nuclear warfare campaign of the middle to late 1940s, the Indo-China war, and the transformation from the world's leading producer society, to the mass of "post-industrial" economic and cultural wreckage which prevails today.

It was, for example, through examination of precisely detailed facts in those archives from the 1922-1945 interval, that I was first enabled, in 1984, to define, exactly, crucial features, and still continuing implications of the Nazi party's directing role in the creation of a network of the Synarchist International, such as Spain's fascist, terrorism-linked Blas Piñar, still operating within Mexico and other parts of the Americas today. While that information fit perfectly into my prior assessment of the phenomenon of 1922-1945 fascist insurgencies, the pin-pointing of the Synarchist factor, by name, which had been behind those still-continuing phenomena, was largely new to me at that time. It represents added knowledge which has proven to be a benefit of crucial importance then, and now.

My relevant argument had been, essentially, that it was my conclusion, as an outsider to the National Security Establishment, that while the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), for example, might be scrupulous, when permitted to be so, in its screening prospective agents for qualities of both fidelity and professional competence in relevant fields, the reliance upon U.S. universities as a source, had created a serious problem of ideological disorientation within the relevant institutions. Outsider I was, but the evidence to this effect is by no means secret; certain cardinal conclusions were undeniable. This pattern of frequent disorientation which I observed, was chiefly, then, and now, a result of the combined influence of offshoots of intrinsically empiricist Anglo-Dutch Liberalism.

The targets of my counterintelligence concern on this account have included the effect of a large dosing, during my lifetime—at Princeton Institute, at Bertrand Russell accomplice Robert Hutchins' Chicago University, and elsewhere—of that influx of corruption, during the middle and latter decades of the Twentieth Century, which is associated with the influence of the seamier sides of such imported, morbidly decadent, Middle European currents of Hungarian, Austrian, and German Romanticism and logical positivism, existentialism, phenomenology, Frankfurt School turpitude, and the like. That pollution has flooded into the U.S. universities and comparable institutions since that time.

It is this corruption, of that origin, which is typified by the prevalence of teaching of the pro-Nazi existentialist philosophies of Nietzsche, Heidegger, et al. in the philosophy and other departments of universities and other institutions, including nominally Catholic and other churches of various denominations today. It is to be seen by comparing the shelves of university and other bookstores today, with those of a time as recently as a quarter-century ago.

For example, all of these offending currents in contemporary U.S. academic and related professional life, tend to promote assessments of economic policy-shaping, which have proven deadly to our national interest during recent decades. The very worst among those subversive influences have included the alien currents dominated by those "pro-Enlightenment," philosophical reductionist currents, and also darker relics from Europe's brutish, Norman-Venetian and related medieval past, which continue to be expressed today by the syphilis of international Synarchy.

The role of those past century's disorientations, caused by our republic's invasion by these corrupting intellectual sources, has proven to be worse in effect, than even the destructive influences which had been typified by the administrations of Presidents Coolidge and Hoover earlier.

The notable challenge so situated, is that those persons and currents educated in that combination of corrupting reductionists' philosophies, have tended to force the victims of their indoctrination to look at the history of our republic's place in the scheme of things, from the false standpoint of philosophies which were in fact, increasingly alien to the actual intent and outlook on which our republic had been developed and founded.

To combat this subversion, we required a supply of well-educated candidates for appointments as diplomatic and intelligence officers, who would reflect a truly patriotic view of the historical origins of our republic as in the Classical tradition traced—in the shadows of the Great Pyramids of Egypt—from the Greece of Thales, Solon, Pythagoras, Socrates, and Plato, and the revival of that Classical tradition by the Fifteenth-Century Renaissance. This was the European ecumenical, Platonic cultural tradition typified by the Christian Apostles John and Paul; and, also, most emphatically, the tradition typified by that ineradicably central figure of that Eighteenth-Century Classical humanist renaissance, Moses Mendelssohn, whose memory Hitler's Nazis, and even some erring, radically right-wing Jews, have attempted to eradicate from the pages of Germany's and world history.[2]

The referenced, declassified information which I received, was intended to be used by me to enrich my capacity for contributions to the purpose of establishing a needed U.S. national intelligence academy. It did.

There is a related pattern of clinical interest exhibited among many of the errors of assessment of national interest among relevant U.S. officials, as also those of other nations. Usually, when the proverbial "honest effort" had been made, it was found that the author of the blunder had relied on a few selected items taken into account, while either ignoring, or misassessing the fact that it is underlying, persisting axiomatic assumptions, which drive patterns of behavior leading toward what should be anticipated as a source of threat to our national interest. While either ignoring such assumptions, or substituting erroneous ones, the erring analyst attempts to adduce a reductionist's pattern from a selected set of facts and events, rather than seeking out the axioms which have and will generate the relevant kinds of events.

In other words, they make the cardinal error which is typified by post hoc ergo propter hoc argument: of assuming that trends are determined by a selected series of events, rather than seeking the continuing, axiomatic-like impulse which has generated the choice of policies underlying the choice expressed by a relevant series of events.[3]

In the course of addressing that leading problem of composing national estimates, I also offer here the following indication of the experience which had led me on a course, over several decades, which brought me to the point I first formulated my proposal for a national intelligence institute, beginning the late 1970s.

2. The Use of Classical Drama As History

On that same account, I had recently, and repeatedly, expressed my delight at the news of the then-coming production of that Clifford Odets' play The Big Knife. This delight was prompted by my recognition of the great value of that play for providing younger generations of today an insight into the causes of the widespread moral failure, by omission or otherwise, since about 1946, of most representatives of their parents' and grandparents' generations.

This was a valuable experience, because the appearance of that play helps us now to make something of importance clear to today's "Generation X" and 18-25 young adults. That play, and similar work, point attention to the source of that corruption, generated during the Truman years, which was passed down, over subsequent successive generations, by the young adults of that former time, to produce the horror which threatens the world of the young adult of today. It also helps us to impart a sense of the way in which historical processes have determined the history of European civilization since the birth of that civilization, by what Socrates would probably have called the "mid-wifery" of Egypt, in what we now call ancient Greece, nearly three thousand years ago.

The beauty of Odets' theme in that play, is that it expresses a typically Classical artistic approach, one of exemplary historical specificity, toward understanding an awful, downward turning-point in the 1944-1952 history of our U.S.A. This drama thus expresses the same principle of prescience which is to be found as the controlling principle of composition in Plato's critical view of the Classical Greek tragedy of his time, and in the plays of Shakespeare and Schiller.

I have often employed the example of geometry as a way of clarifying the nature and role of a principle of prescience in shaping the behavior of both individuals and entire periods of national and broader cultures. It was on this account, that my absolutely original discoveries in the science of physical geometry turned to Riemann's treatment of the issue of geometry, as in his 1854 habilitation dissertation and his complementary, posthumously published, philosophical reflections on Herbart's work. Only Riemann, thus, afforded me a way of stating explicitly, in a fully communicable and applicable way, the principle I had discovered, amid fits and starts, during approximately the same time (specifically 1948-1953) I was seeking a solution for my saddening experience: of returning, in 1946, from Southeast Asia, to a U.S.A. under the thumb of Truman's right-wing turn. That was the setting of my participation in the same collective experience reflected so ably by Odets' conception of the referenced play.

This will take us back, once again, to Gauss' 1799 argument, in the following way.

In history, as in a valid methodological approach to physical science—such as that of Kepler, Leibniz, Gauss, and Riemann (an approach rooted in the principles of pre-Euclidean, Pythagorean constructive geometry)—there are no properly allowable, arbitrary definitions, axioms, and postulates. Nothing is allowed which is comparable to that reductionist's corruption which proliferates in the method of sophists such as Aristotle, or what we call Euclidean, or Cartesian geometry. However, in societies to date, there is a mixture of errors which may be classed as of two general types. On the one side, there is a lack of reasonably up-to-date knowledge of the universal principles which are relevant for current human practice; on the other side, there are false, arbitrary assumptions of such things as so-called "self-evident truths." The latter are always false, if for no more reason needed, than that they are treated by dupes as self-evident.

Thus, we must study the history of actual nations, or cultures more broadly, from the standpoint of the role of a set of assumptions of such a mixed quality, of simple ignorance, or falsehoods treated implicitly as universal principles.

The notion of a Classical artistic principle of prescience, arises as a reflection of a usual general lack of sensitivity to the practical impact of a lack of attention to the way in which implied assumptions of universal truth, such as definitions, axioms, and postulates, affect the social behavior of societies. The effect is often expressed in those ways which have sometimes led to the collapse of an entire culture, a collapse into a period of a new dark age, or even of extinction of a branch of human culture. I have found most people today, for example, are pitiably unwitting of the assumptions which are actually controlling most of both mass and individual behavior in nations, including at the highest levels of power. The need for awareness of problems of this type, is key to the importance of developing a competent form of practice of strategic intelligence.

For example, people who accept Aristotelianism, empiricism, or existentialism, or simply populism, have virtually no competent sort of intellectual capacity for looking behind those supposedly self-evident, or otherwise axiomatic-like assumptions which not only control their opinions, but act like puppet-strings to control their behavior in ways of which they are essentially unwitting. Populists of that type have made the term "practical" itself, a dirty, sometimes even virtually treasonous word.

In related aspects of national-intelligence functions, there is a certain division between collecting intelligence, and digesting it into a form which answers the question: Where does our national interest lie? The answer to the latter question usually does not lie where some currently voguish, or roguish dogma proposes; the national intelligence function must be responsible for exposing, above all else, the threatening practical historical implications of even our nation's own, generally accepted, reigning dogma. The worst follies are often those a nation's leading institutions, such as today's Cheney-dominated Presidency, may perpetrate upon us all. The higher levels of national intelligence functions focus on determining what notions of national interest must be applied for assessment of the pernicious medium- to long-term effects of continuing to practice a currently adopted dogma.

Dogma must not judge national-intelligence estimates; rather, national-intelligence estimates must supersede mere dogma, even currently official dogma. This may be a difficult task for agencies which must deal with a President as simplistic and purely prejudiced as George W. Bush, Jr., but perhaps that only shows that we need a new quality of President, one more receptive to the serious ideas demanded by a period of grave crises.

The 1945-1952 Right Turn

I begin the following portion of my argument by focusing on the subject of prescience.

Let us linger here for a few moments to review the burden of my discussion, with the producer of Odets' play The Big Knife, of my own personal experience of the subject of that play. That discussion, of which certain relevant essential elements are recapitulated here today, will introduce you to two interdependent subjects. First, it demonstrates the meaning of that term, "historical specificity," which underlies all Classical performance of Classical tragedy, and also real-life history. Second, it demonstrates the same principle, as key for the principal ongoing task of strategic intelligence, such as understanding why present world civilization is at the verge of plunging into a prolonged, global, new dark age today.

To the stated point: Even during 1933-34, I experienced a gradual emergence of relative optimism among those portions of the U.S. population to which I was exposed at that time, representatives of my own generation most emphatically. Even during the still depressing conditions of 1938, the Roosevelt era represented a excruciatingly slow, but nonetheless certain upward turn. This prevailed into July 1944, when the visibly early, ultimate defeat of Germany and Japan stirred an optimistic spirit among Americans in general (a normal ration of exceptions to this taken into account). Unfortunately, the betrayal of Germany's July plotters by those who, from the Allied side, wished to prevent the surrender from coming "prematurely," signalled the onset of a right-wing, anti-FDR turn, being unleashed from among the Allies, including certain U.S.A. circles, at that time.[4]

Suddenly, as I experienced this among fellow-soldiers at that time, this optimism waned at first reports of the death of President Roosevelt. V-E Day was joyous; but, V-J Day was not. The nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had spoiled the victory. By the beginning of Summer, back in the U.S.A., things were beginning to become grim.

Returning veterans, and their often zealously ambitious wives, were restive, anxious to "make up for" what for many of them was "five lost years." The war-time hero was, at home, often treated as "the bum loafing on the couch;" the word to that veteran of military service, was, "Get up, you ungrateful lazy lout, and take care of our family's interests!" This generation were, largely, in haste to build a family, to take advantage of fast tracks through higher education which might lead to the quick big bucks and new life-style they desired. They were in a hurry, and not always squeamish about the moral and related damage they did to themselves and others, in their incautious zeal for haste.

So, in 1947, I wrote briefly to General Dwight Eisenhower, imploring him to seek the Democratic Presidential nomination in opposition to President Truman, succinctly stating my argument for the need that he do so, to free us from the betrayal of that better world order which many of us had thought the implied promise of FDR's war-time leadership. He replied, describing my concerns as "non-arguable," but stating that his time for seeking the Presidency was not that time. I was right in my argument to him, and so, in his way. was Eisenhower. But, by 1948, all was politically ugly. A "right-wing" panic, in which the later "McCarthyism" was merely a continuation of "Trumanism," had gripped the majority of the population with an astonishing sheer piggishness.

When Eisenhower replaced Truman, the world had become suddenly a relatively much safer place in which to live; but a great, essential damage had been done to the veterans of the recent war, and also to their children, the so-called Baby Boomers, who were assimilating the corruption planted in the U.S. population and institutions during the Truman years.

This change, as it was experienced in the U.S. during the years 1945-48, locates the punctum saliens of Odets' The Big Knife. It is a change which was historically specific to those exact circumstances, after which the people of the United States would never be the same as they had been under Franklin Roosevelt before, or under any period of our nation's or the world's history.

The core of the change for the worse was a new set of axiomatic "values." Few among that generation, and the next, who lived through that time of change, as adults, especially young adults, knew what had happened to their minds; they had been in such a hurry that they had no time to discover to where they were actually going.

The most astute among the first of those generations—the generation which went to World War II—such as playwright Odets, were able to pin-point a sense of a force of change which was controlling the impulsion of the post-war years in a new, worse direction. Odets was a plainly insightful playwright enough to recognize, that it is trends which determine events, not patterns of selected events, trends. Great playwrights, and some Classical actors, do develop a keener sense of prescience, as Shakespeare and Friedrich Schiller did, from the nature of the challenges posed by a serious approach to the practice of their profession. From the facts of my own independent experience of those times, I can testify beyond doubt, that Odets saw the trend I had seen, and that he had sensed the onrushing betrayal of our nation's cause, in much the way I did at that time; but the same reality of it which overwhelmed his horrified conscience, prompted me, on the contrary, to seek a way, even at all odds, to fight. This is what I mean by his "prescience," and my own.

"Prescience" of that sort, is the anteroom of Platonic hypothesis. In such times, it is shown that something paradoxical has its finger in the works, shaping "the way things happen," in a way unlike "the way things were going" earlier.

In science, as in Kepler's uniquely original discovery of universal gravitation, presciences of this kind impel the discoverer, as it did me, toward the search for a well-defined hypothesis, which, if proven, serves as access to command of a newly discovered universal physical principle. In minds which are less well-developed, the "prescience" of a period such as the relative decadence of the Truman years, is felt, but never addressed efficiently.

In the work of better artists, the prescience of such a period of history is presented as a Classical tragedy which is always referenced to a specific time and place in actual history. Thus, Shakespeare's Richard III is a masterpiece of insight into the principled character of that fall of the Norman-Plantagenet-Anjou power which had reigned in England since the Conquest. So, in the thesis of Odets' play, there is no time or place in the universe in which that drama could be honestly situated, as "for interpretation," except the historical specific circumstances in which the actual development occurred. That is the principle of all Classical drama which governs the competent performance, or "interpretation" of the play, what is called the principle of historical specificity.

The typical corruption of the Classical work by the Romantic, for example, lies in the shallow mind's attempt to extract a relatively timeless sort of moralizing truism from the drama, using that trick of replacing the principle expressed as the "prescience" of the drama, by some down-to-Earth sort of moralizing pettiness, in a carelessly generalized, often dogmatic way.

This banal, academic sort of moralizing, is expressed by pedantic dogmatics, as a kind of "flattening out" of the higher intellectual powers, simplifying everything with easier cheap-shot generalizations, and avoiding any consideration of a relevant, well-defined, scientific quality of principle. That is the sort of mind which has learned everything, but knows slightly more or less than nothing. The way the Romantic is driven to such cheap-short "explanations," is the pedant's sort of panic-stricken flight from the cognitive domain where minds look at actions as the fruit of principles, into a kind of ahistorical, "bring-it-down-to-good-old-bestial-Earth," connect-the-dots view of history as a skein of scandals.

History, Music, and Drama As Science

Consider Classical composition, as in Classical sculpture, and, comparably, in the specifically anti-Romantic principles of composition and performance developed by the successive life's-work of such rigorously anti-Romantic, Classical composers as J.S. Bach, Josef Haydn, Wolfgang Mozart, Ludwig Beethoven, Franz Schubert, Felix Mendelssohn, Robert Schumann, and Johannes Brahms. Look at real history through the history- and legend-based tragedies of such as Aeschylus, Shakespeare, and Schiller. Such is great Classical art in all its manifestations. Classical tragedies share the common qualitative distinction from all other attempts at the composition of art (also as attempted performance of Classical compositions), of being premised on a pivotal role of prescience of a turning-point in the historically specific process which is the defining subject of that composition.

Take the case of Classical musical composition as an example of art defined in a Classical way, by an actual historical process.

Classical musical composition, including the notion of well-tempering (as opposed to equal-tempering), has deep roots within globally extended European civilization. The principle was known to Plato's Academy at Athens, and is explicitly referenced in his Timaeus, as Plato is echoed on this point by the development of modern physical science by Johannes Kepler. In modern European civilization from J.S. Bach onward, clear conceptions of crucial relevance for the development of composition, are rooted essentially in the emphasis on a specifically Florentine bel canto apprehension of the characteristics of the integrated array of the human chest of singing voices. (The notion of a body of "instrumental music," distinct from vocal music, does not actually exist within the domain of Classical composition. Musical instruments are taught to sing by the composer's and performer's imaging of the human singing voice; and the chests of Classical musical instruments were evolved to fit this requirement for performance. The concept of "instrumental music," which pretends to mimic Classical composition and its performance in some "independent," instrumental way, belongs to the irrational domain of Romanticism, or worse.)

Music defined by the medium of a chest of anti-Romantic, Florentine bel canto-developed human singing voices, comes into its own with Bach's development of the well-tempered system of counterpoint. There is virtually nothing in Classical composition after that which does not rest directly on the foundation of Bach's development. At this point in the present report, I wish to emphasize the specifically historical characteristic of the development of all Classical musical composition and its competent performance, as rooted in nothing different than the preceding work of Bach.

For example, it was through the direct influence of Carl Philipp Immanuel Bach, one of Bach's sons, that youthful Josef Haydn developed the initial phase of his accomplishments. It was the direct influence of Bach's work on Haydn and also Wolfgang Mozart, from the events around van Swieten's Vienna salon, about 1782 on, that the Haydn-Mozart legacy was transmitted to a Beethoven already a composer trained in such sources as Bach's Well-Tempered Klavier. The pinnacle of the concept of a strictly Classical compositional method freshly retraced to Bach, is the so-called late compositions of Beethoven, notably including The Diabelli Variations, The Missa Solemnis, and the late string quartets. When compared to the remainder of Beethoven's late string quartets, the Grosse Fugue expresses an order of development of counterpoint beyond the rest, being thus the pinnacle of Beethoven's realization of the potential inhering in the later work of Bach. Felix Mendelssohn and his young associate Robert Schumann, must be recognized as echoing the levels of achievement in the Bach tradition achieved by Beethoven. In the course of his development, Brahms echoes them all; we have made but little progress in composition since, with much more or less futile floundering-about in a frenetic effort to turn up, as if by accident, that which is chiefly lost to the past century's powers of invention.[5]

In this process, as in the history of progress of physical science, the ideas of the successor are, in more or less that degree, a reflection in the mind of one person of the work of his usually nameable predecessors. The Classical artist's conscience has the form of doing nothing properly shameful, or otherwise false, while he or she is being watched by a living memory of those predecessors in his or her own mind.

Man is essentially an historical species in this sense of that usage. Animals transmit, chiefly, the genetic heritage of preceding generations. So, admittedly, does mankind; but, that which distinguishes what should be considered as the normal development of a representative of the human species, from the beasts, is that the characteristic part of what is transmitted from generation to generation, is that quality of ideas which Plato's method of hypothesis associates with the notion of "powers" (e.g., dynamis), rather than merely genetic material. By ideas, we mean those discoveries of principles which Plato (among other pre-Euclideans) defines as a causal quality called "powers" (again, dynamis), as opposed to Aristotle's and the empiricist's pathetic, reductionist's conception of "energy," a mere effect. The hereditary role of the work of Bach in all competently Classical musical composition and performance, typifies the specifically human quality of Classical composition, as distinct from the Romanticism and impressionism of the chimpanzee.

This case for Classical music illustrates the more general, universal principle of all art and science, that the history of ideas always locates the coming into existence of any idea in a specifically anti-Cartesian way, as occurring within a uniquely historically specific place in the totality of the "spherics" of the sensory experience of human existence, an event which occurs precisely there, and nowhere else.

Classical drama, Classical tragedy most clearly, situates either actual or legendary occurrences in a specific historical place and time. The events depicted belong to that time.

The significance of strict submission to historical specificity for drama, as Schiller insisted, defines that and other expressions as Classical art as truthful, where Romanticism, for example, is not.

For example, Orson Welles' Mercury Theater staging of Julius Caesar as a Communist Party-style ("Proletkult") staging in a parody of contemporary fascist costuming, was something akin to the hatred of reason expressed by poor, sick, sick, and evil Bertolt Brecht, a pioneer of what is called "Regietheater" (Director Theater) in Germany,—a practice which, with the attrition, by death, of the ranks of a legion of skilled artists from earlier times, has virtually eliminated the ability of Germany today to produce a competent performance of a Classical dramatic work. I shall now interpolate a fresh statement of a relevant point, respecting the principle of Classical tragedy, which I have made frequently in other locations.

In principle, Orson Welles lied; his Mercury Theater staging was a lie which rejected the principle of truth which is historical specificity. Misrepresenting the placing of ideas in history, is the most pernicious of all lies, lies which kill the memory of souls, often en masse.

3. Schiller's Citizen in the Theater

From early in his career as a dramatist, Friedrich Schiller emphasized, that he had chosen drama as the manner appropriate to bringing actual history into the knowledge of society. The same point was elaborated in his Jena lectures on the subject of study and teaching of history. Of this he emphasized, that the function of the Classical theater is to present history, or legend, to the audience in such a way that the little man or woman, the citizen, entering the theater for that performance, leaves the theater, not merely informed, but a better person than he had entered it.

Do not offer a mere comment, a mere quip on Schiller's argument; that experience of his Classical theater is, in itself, an expression of historical truth. Experience his theater, as you should the kind of truth expressed by Clifford Odets' drama; experience that mirror of history for yourself.

On this account, the relatively exceptional feature of Odets' play, lies in the fact that it only appears to violate the custom in crafting true Classical tragedy, which is to organize the development of the drama as a whole around a pivotal, actual leading historical figure, or figures, of the social process within which the relevant historic development occurred. In most cases, the playwright is obliged to focus on leading figures of that society, since that is actually the way the history of periods of existential crisis is, in fact, determined. In the usual case, a drama which did not follow that custom would fail to achieve Schiller's standard for effect on the audience.[6]

Again—contrary to populist and kindred sort of prejudices on the subject of "democracy"—that is the way in which real history is made, including the ongoing history of the United States at this moment; where, apart from the stampedes typified by the case of candidate Franklin Roosevelt, the voters are rarely the movers of the electoral processes, but little higher in rank than the "extras" hired to fill in the otherwise empty space left where the top-down, dramatic rigging of the election is staged.[7] Usually, the apparently leading candidates are not leading candidates—the virtual "Hollywood stars"—because they are the best actors, or because they should have been leading candidates, but because the scene has been pre-rigged, as if "on the casting-couch of history," as disgustingly as might please you, to make it turn out to appear as a voluntary act of the people; ultimately, once the excitement of the winner's triumph has past, it will gradually become apparent, that the citizens' votes were being counted as little more than the audience's applause for a carefully staged performance in which the voters also mostly acted out their assigned parts, as if according to script.

The effectiveness of the drama for the audience, depends upon exposure of the way in which the role of the principal figures of that society should have decided the outcome of the relevant crisis.

'The Cicero Syndrome'

This includes the relevant trick by Shakespeare in keeping the unseen Cicero as little more than an awesome prescience, of the tragic, ultimate doom of Rome, on stage, while, in fact, not letting go of the historical fact that Cicero was implicitly a keystone figure of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, and of the real period of Italy's experience in his time. Mention here of the actual historical specificity of that real-life role of Cicero, will promote clearer understanding of the principle of "prescience" involved here.

The symbiosis of the imperial maritime power of Venice's financier oligarchy with the Norman chivalry, is not merely an echo of the Roman imperial rule by the Caesars. This Caesar-like role of the Norman chivalry, as typified by the case treated by Shakespeare in his English history dramas, was characteristic of the ultramontane system under the myth of "the Donation of Constantine"—a myth which, despite Charlemagne's protest, dominated Europe from the period preceding the Norman Conquest of England into the emergence of the first modern nation-states during the course of the Fifteenth-Century Renaissance. That brings the Classical-Greek-learned political figure of the Senate's Cicero, proximate to Henry VII's defeat of Richard III, and the preceding establishment of the first modern nation-state, by France's Louis XI.[8]

Worse, the role of the Spanish Inquisition, the Hitler-like expulsion of the Jews from Spain by Isabella I, and the role of the Spanish monarchy in the religious warfare of the 1511-1648 interval, is the immediate setting in which Shakespeare, a follower of Sir Thomas More, fought against such of his Venetian political enemies of his time as the circles of Paolo Sarpi's asset Sir Francis Bacon. These forces of Shakespeare's own time were a resurgence of that Caesar-like, ultramontane tradition, from which Henry VII had earlier liberated England. In England under Sir Francis Bacon's King James I, the living Shakespeare himself played the part of a Cicero-like figure, a role played by him, was being faded, by the flood of Bacon's bile, from celebrity into death—into years of personal obscurity ordered by Bacon et al., to make way for the new, decadent order in which Shakespeare, like the Cicero of the world of Julius Caesar's corpse, had no place.

Thus, Shakespeare's Julius Caesar is specific to the actual time and place to which it refers; but, without losing an iota of that original historical specificity, it also references the revived legacy of Caesarism which still lurked, as a prescience, within Europe in general, and spilled over, from Venice, into England in particular, at the time the play was presented. It thus provides a prescience, by aid of a single reference to Cicero, to that multi-generational ordering, since Julius Caesar's time and Cicero's, within the broader history within which the emergence of Caesarism was situated. Let it not be also be for you, as for a poor, murderous fool from Shakespeare's play, "Greek to me."

Now, look at Schiller's thesis respecting the citizen, on that account.

The citizen walks into the theater. Quickly, as the drama lunges upon the illuminated stage within the darkened theater, the mind of the citizen seated in the audience shifts its attention from the actors and stage in the Socratic-like dialogue on stage, to the figure which that actor's part represents on the stage of the spectator's imagination, as Shakespeare warns in the opening part of "Chorus" in Henry V. If the play is performed well, as it was in the public performance of ancient Greek tragedy, the spectator does not see the actors as actors during the remainder of the proceedings, until after the final curtain, when the members of the performing company appear as themselves before the curtain.

Let him so view Hamlet. Then, coming to the Third Act soliloquy, the spectator is gripped to hear, that Hamlet does not fear death by the sword, but, would prefer to plunge it, preferably into another, or perhaps even into himself; all gladly, to silence Hamlet's terror of his unknowingness of the consequence of his having lived, which comes after death. Then, later, when Hamlet's corpse is carried off stage, Fortinbras lunges forward to continue the bloody folly, while Horatio says, aside, ominously, to the English audience of Shakespeare's play: Let us pause and reflect upon these just-passed bloody events, before such folly might overtake us once more.

As the spectator, who has absorbed all this from the work of a qualified company of Classical actors, leaves his seat to depart from the theater, his mind is filled with a need to pass judgment on the folly he has just witnessed as depicted on the stage of his imagination. He is now thinking as a true citizen, one who must assume moral and intellectual responsibility for the competent government of his own nation, that his government might not commit such follies as he has just witnessed re-enacted on stage. He leaves the theater, thus, a better citizen than he came in.

Of all that that citizen has seen, some things he knows. Some other things he senses, but only as presciences, as paradoxical glimpses which suffice to warn him that there are more things of importance about which he must think. These presciences sometimes come to him as I have sometimes illustrated the principle of irony: "Feed the cat! To whom?"

This challenge of making prescience comprehensible, brings us to what should be, among us, the familiar theme of Carl Gauss' 1799 attack on the frauds perpetrated by Euler and Lagrange. Here lies the key to competent strategic definition of true national interest.

5. Plato, Kepler, and Gauss, Once More

The principle upon which all competent human knowledge depends, including competent national-strategic assessments, is the provable distinction which sets the human individual absolutely apart from, and above all other living species. This distinction can not be rooted in a mere taught doctrine; it must be known in the same way Johannes Kepler came to know the principle of universal gravitation, as an experimentally proven Platonic hypothesis. Merely to believe what is taught by trusted authorities, may be folly, and usually is; to prefer merely to believe, rather than to actually know, is incompetence in strategic assessment and planning. "Yes, but authorities which I must respect, have told me!" is typical of people who prefer to obey perceived authority, like a dog begging for treats, rather than actually think. Instead of such dog-like behavior, it were better to know, and, first of all, to "know thyself." On this account, as promised, I summarize afresh the grounds for my emphasis on Gauss' 1799 The Fundamental Theorem of Algebra.

My argument to that effect has been the following.

My point, is, first, that in that paper, Gauss does something he does not dare to do in any later published treatment of the same subject: he exposes Leonhard Euler and Euler's protégé Lagrange as willful fraudsters in their ideologically motivated, actually religiously fanatical denial of the physical existence of the complex domain. This uniqueness of that Gauss paper is a reflection both of the persecution which Gauss' colleagues, the Göttingen professors, but Gauss most emphatically, suffered at the hands of the chief French patron of Lagrange, the Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte; but also, the witch-hunt against Gauss' French and German scientific co-thinkers by France under the rule of the London-appointed Restoration monarchy, and the influence of the implicitly pro-fascist doctrinaires Hegel and Savigny in official circles of Berlin.[9]

In the second of the most relevant features of that 1799 paper for our purposes here, Gauss makes reference to the typical argument of the Pythagoreans and Plato, on the subjects of the paradoxical character of the doubling of the line, the square, and the cube. The significance of this aspect of Gauss' paper for classroom mathematical physics, is twofold. First, that it defines the distinction between a physical geometry and an axiomatically reductionist, ivory-tower mathematics, such as that of the empiricists and their Cartesian siblings. Second, by defining the meaning of the complex domain in the terms Gauss employs in that paper, he bridges the historical gap between the ancient Classical physical geometry of spherics and the modern physical science set into motion by the successive work of seminal figures including Nicholas of Cusa, Leonardo da Vinci, Johannes Kepler, and the uniquely original discoverer of the calculus, Gottfried Leibniz.

Although, in all of the leading work of Gauss thereafter, he never departs from the principled approach to mathematical physics expressed in that 1799 paper, yet, he never addresses the crucial issue of that paper with even approximately the same frankness as before. He had reasons to be fearful of what might happen to him, if he once again broke his later code of public silence on the matter of Euler and Lagrange.

Nonetheless, despite his later silence on that point, this 1799 paper thus serves as a bench-mark in the development of modern science, leading to freedom from a sterile, utopian notion of arithmetic, into a Classically Platonic mode of purely physical geometry, that of Bernhard Riemann. For related reasons, it also enables us to define the unique quality of the human individual, within the bounds of physical science, as an essentially spiritual being of potentially immortal significance.

Today, since the work of V.I. Vernadsky in defining the conception of the Noösphere,[10] the science practiced by Gauss and Riemann has returned to the Classical Greek, principled division of universality among the abiotic, the living, and the noëtic, as three distinct, but interacting physical phase-spaces which combine to define the known universe as a whole. In this, the elementary, absolute distinction of man from the beasts, is that man is capable of discovering, and deploying universal physical principles. Although these principles always existed as efficient principles of the universe—that, before man discovered any among them—when these principles are deployed as tools of man's willful action upon the universe (i.e., as powers), Promethean man changes the universe in this respect. So, on this account, the palpable Satan, the Zeus of Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound, hates Prometheus as he also fears the Creator on the same account.

In addition, by this kind of discovery, and its uses, man casts himself in the image of the Creator of the universe. In this context, the use of the term spiritual has a precise, physical-scientific meaning: as I have already indicated this above. Whereas animals transmit their so-called genetic heritage, mankind transmits, through successive generations, those discoveries of principle whose employment casts man in the practicing image of the Creator. It is through these progressive, successive changes in that transmission, that man's power to exist, as a species, is increased; as Vernadsky emphasizes, man becomes increasingly the ruler of the planet Earth, and beyond. Through this progress, the quality of life of the individual person is improved, and the power of his work is also increased to the effect of lifting the quality of man as a whole, and of individual existence, upward. Man's power to do good is increased. This is man's true nature; these are the effects which set him categorically apart from and above all other species of living things.

This transmission of the work of the individual human identity, beyond the limits of individual mortal life; this eternal permanence of the individual soul, is the expression of what the term spiritual ought to be understood to signify.

This is the issue of the controversy between the spiritual Carl Gauss and the heathen Eighteenth-Century "Enlightenment" co-thinkers of Euler, Lagrange, and the Immanuel Kant otherwise known for the disgusting pseudo-morality of his doctrine of "I can't."

In terms of physical geometry, this is the issue of the distinction of Prometheans from poor apes such as Massachusetts Institute of Technology's progeny, "Chimsky," the synthetic personality brought about by the brainwashing of a poor ape, by that model Cabinet of Dr. Moreau formed by Professors Noam Chomsky and Marvin Minsky.[11] This is essentially the method of Euler, Lagrange, and also Laplace, Cauchy, Clausius, Grassmann, Kelvin, Helmholtz, and Felix Klein's wildly erroneous opinions on Hermite's and Lindemann's treatment of the transcendental, introduced as their reductionist's intentional frauds against the work of Leibniz, Gauss, Weber, Riemann, et al.

I have variously summarized the following point of the so-called pre-Euclidean argument in various locations, over earlier decades. I summarize it for its relevance here. The deeper implications of Gauss' 1799 argument is the following.

Human sense-perception is a product of those sense-organs which are an eminently mortal part of the eminently mortal living organism we call our body. As experimental knowledge of discoverable universal physical principles shows, these sense-organs do not show us the actual universe in which those principles operate, but, as Plato warns, in locations such as The Republic's parable of the Cave, our senses show us the way in which our sense-perception responds to the impact of the unseen universe on our sense-organs. Yet, despite this defect of our senses, we can know the real universe which lies beyond mere sense-perception. Classical forms of both artistic composition and the practice of physical science, demonstrate these distinctions and the principle which underlies those distinctions. Gauss' 1799 argument against the ideological fanaticism of the empiricists Euler and Lagrange, and his solution—the concept of the complex domain—reflect the general solution for the paradoxes of experience so situated. Riemann's discoveries, as expressed by his 1854 habilitation dissertation and beyond, present the essential form of the solution to the paradox as defined, previously, by Gauss.

As in the case of Kepler's uniquely original method for the discovery of universal gravitation, the human mind is capable of reading anomalous expressions of sense-perception as a paradoxical form of expression of some unseen principle, beyond the reach of direct sense-perception, which has caused that anomaly, such as the apparent looping of the orbit of Mars, as seen in a normalized set of observations from Earth. The same point was demonstrated experimentally by Fermat's recognition that light does not travel the pathway of shortest Euclidean distance, but, rather, a pathway of quickest action. This work of Kepler and Fermat, echoing the earlier work of Nicholas of Cusa and Leonardo da Vinci, impelled competent currents of modern European science away from Aristotle, empiricism, and Cartesian forms of empiricism, back toward the standpoint of pre-Euclidean spherics, the standpoint of the Pythagoreans and Plato, for example.

Experimental method, as had been emphasized by Cusa in locations such as his De Docta Ignorantia, enables us to translate the more or less regular anomalies of sense-perceptual experience, such as the observed orbit of Mars, into a notion of the footprint of unseen universal principles, such as gravitation. These principles, by their nature, exist only outside sense-perception, although they adumbrate that which we can often observe with our senses. Therefore we can not represent their action directly within the bounds of spherics, although we can measure their impact as if that could be represented by such a Pythagorean constructive geometry of the visible.

Thus we are obliged to represent the role of universal physical principles in the form of action by unseen principles on the perceived geometry of observed events. This is the Gaussian domain, a geometry within which Leibniz's discovery of a truly infinitesimal calculus of universal physical least action must be situated by mathematical physics. Through the application of discoveries of universal physical principle, so situated, mankind is able to increase willfully the potential relative population-density of the human species, as no lower form of life can even approximate this.

What Is Human Reason?

Thus, as already known in ancient Classical Greece, the universe as a whole is composed of three respectively distinct, but interacting physical phase-spaces. These are defined as distinct by those methods we associate with physical-experimental proof-of-principle: the respectively abiotic, living, and noëtic phase-spaces, as measurably defined in this way.

The method for defining the distinctions among these phase-spaces is a reflection of the same method by which we define the distinction between shadow and cause of perceived anomalous action, as in noting the distinction between man and beasts. That is to say, that, experimentally, despite positivists such as Boltzmann, von Neumann, Wiener, et al., living processes as such are experimentally unknowable from the standpoint of abiotic principles. Similarly, human willful discovery and mastery of universal physical principles, is unknown by the principles generally adduced for living species. However, as Vernadsky emphasized, the living processes of Earth dominate the abiotic increasingly, and the creative processes unique to the sovereign powers of knowledge of the individual human mind are increasing man's domination of the composition of the biosphere, as living processes dominate the abiotic increasingly.

These distinctions were already emphasized within ancient Classical Greece. The name given to the creative processes of the human mind, processes lacking in inferior species, was the soul, as argued in Plato's Socratic dialogues. "Soul" and "creative (noëtic) powers of the human mind" are co-extensive notions. This defines the Classical notion of a principle of spirituality: not as something acting from outside the universe, but something integral to that universe, as its ruling characteristic, as the definition of man and woman in Moses' Genesis 1 requires. The essential physical characteristic of this quality of universal spirituality, this efficient principle, is creativity as defined by the Platonic conception of discovery of powers (dynamis). This is the same Platonic notion of powers which is the exemplary, central feature of Gauss' 1799 exposure of the error of Euler and Lagrange.

This notion of man as set apart from, and above the beasts, in this way, defines the notion of a species of equality among persons: that each, however unequal in condition of life, or relative importance of their contribution, is equally human by nature, and thus enjoys the right, under natural law of the universe, to access to the protection of being an equally human participant, as a being of a relatively sacred nature, unlike the beasts. To treat men and women as virtually human cattle, as slavery and feudalism did, is in itself a crime against humanity. Thus, we are obliged by our nature, to seek to develop and maintain forms of society, and social practice—as prescribed as natural law by the Preamble of our Federal Constitution—which are enslaved to serve the general welfare (common good) of human nature defined in this way.

Thus, he or she, such as certain so-called religious "Fundamentalists," who hates any ethnic current in mankind, such as Jew or Arab, as such, expresses hatred against the likeness of God himself. Whoever loots any stratum in societies for his or her convenience, or merely gratification, also, thereby, expresses hatred against the law of God himself. The opinions of such aberrant people are, like the pleas of the usurer, conceits, contrary to a true principal of equity, which therefore have no compelling standing in courts under natural law.

This notion of man as a creative being made in the image of the ruling principle of the universe, the Creator, is the essential, all-subsuming principle of Classical humanism. However, that definition does not end there. There is an additional consideration, the notion of the monad, as by Leibniz, also known as the principle of Geistesmasse to Riemann. Briefly, the distinction involved is the following.

Is the existence of a universal principle, including the notion of spirituality, an amorphous influence permeating a domain as might a gas within a container? Or does it have the quality of a seemingly discrete existence, as, for example, Riemann's Herbartian notion of Geistesmasse suggests. Implicitly: Is the Creator an impersonal influence; or, contrary to amorphous Deism, does the Creator, as man's God, have a definite existence as a personality, as Jesus Christ and the Apostles John and Paul insisted? Does the individual, in his or her aspect as a spiritual being, therefore have a personal relationship to that God as a Personality, as Christ and the Apostles John and Paul assert the Socratic principle of agape as the fundamental law of man's spiritual relationship to that God, in the universe? The standpoint of Riemann implicitly affirms these personalized relationships.

All experimentally provable forms of discovered universal physical principles, are distinct objects of thought, objects to which science customarily attaches a specific human name, or the like. We have a personalized relationship to each discovery of such a principle, and of its application. It is as much a definite object of thought as a planet, or any other. Indeed, we can comprehend nothing efficiently, except as we are enabled to define the relevant universal physical principle as a definite thought-object—and therefore it must tend to assume the qualities of a teachable—more or less personalized object for classroom instruction.

This notion of things, is the basis for a body of what is rightly recognized as universal natural law. This body of natural law subsumes that Preamble of our Federal Constitution which is properly recognized as the ruling principle which has ultimately supreme authority over the interpretation of any other part of that Constitution, any Federal law; a principle higher than any judge or court. The essential principle is the notion of agape central to the Apostle Paul's I Corinthians 13, expressed there as the natural law principles of perfect sovereignty, the general welfare, and posterity.

That much said, turn attention again to the already referenced distinction between animals and people: that animals transmit what we reference, summarily, as a genetic heritage; whereas, man also transmits ideas of the category belonging to the work of noësis.

This was the basis for my reform within what Gottfried Leibniz had defined as the science of physical economy.

The function of society under natural law, is to accomplish those applications of discovered universal principles, through which mankind's power in the universe, man's increasing power to exist, is brought about. This function has what may be fairly, if loosely described as two categories of intellectual features: Classical scientific thinking, as typified by Plato and his modern followers, by the work of Cusa, Leonardo, Kepler, Leibniz, Gauss, and Riemann; and the development of principles of Classical artistic composition, as typified in modern life by the work on art of the Fifteenth-Century Renaissance and the late Eighteenth-Century Classic as typified by Schiller.

The role of Classical tragedy in uplifting the citizen's knowledge of history as a process, is typical of the role of art.

It is the indispensable role of the practical application and continued development of these intrinsically cognitive aspects of human intellectual life, which define what should be our policy respecting the definition of "human nature."

The greatest obstacle to that development of, and within society, has been the continuation of forms of social practice which divide the composition of society between a Don Quixote and a Sancho Panza; between a bloody-handed fool like the Grand Inquisitor of Spain's Philip II, Don Quixote, and the poor slobs who serve and die for such a Don Quixote, as virtual human cattle, such as Sancho Panza. The first, the Don Quixote, rejects true reason, substituting Romantic fantasy and heathenish superstition for knowledge; the second, Sancho Panza, is so occupied with merely surviving his master's blows and filling his belly ("putting meat and potatoes on the table"), that he has much opinion—like the Casca who finds reason itself "Greek to me"—but is not able to carry through action based on reason. The most essential evil in all that, is the want of the fruit of such true intellectual culture, as the Classical Platonic tradition in European civilization defines true culture.

The object of a proper mode of government consistent with natural law, is to order the internal and foreign affairs of a republic in such a mode as to promote the spread and advancement of a true intellectual culture, not only in our own republic, but to promote its advancement in others. There is, then, a reciprocal dependency between the development of such a Classical form of culture and the development of the condition of society to effects consistent with the promotion of such a progressive culture.

Postlude: All Synarchists Are Evil

The Fifteenth-Century Renaissance, born, like a Phoenix, out of the rubble which the Venetian-Norman system of ultramontane tyranny left of Europe's Fourteenth-Century cultures, set a moral form of society, a sovereign nation-state submitting to service of the general welfare of all, into motion. The predatory remnant of the Venetian-Norman feudal system struck back, with the Satanic force typified by the Spanish Inquisition, the religious wars of 1511-1648, and the process of emergence of that so-called "Venetian Party" otherwise typified by the model of the financier oligarchy's intrinsically usurious Anglo-Dutch Liberal Parliamentary system.

The outcome of that Eighteenth-Century Venetian Party's reaction against the threat constituted by the American Revolution of 1776-1789, was the launching, chiefly by Lord Shelburne's British East India Company, of the blend of terrorism and tyranny typified by the succession of the Jacobin Terror and Napoleon's Empire.

This model from 1789-1815, became an alternately endemic/epidemic form of pestilence over the entire sweep of globally extended European civilization, from the period of the French Revolution up to the present moment of the most recent revival of the same terrorist force which had given Europe the fascist regimes and related wars of 1922-1945. Since the period of the Versailles Treaty concluding so-called World War I, that recurring disease has been known as the Synarchist International, whose insurgencies the Argentina periodical Maritornes merely typifies among the terrorist forces which a revived fascist international has unleashed in the Americas, as in Europe and beyond today.

We should have uprooted that Synarchist International at the close of World War II. By aid of the role of that Satanically evil Bertrand Russell who pioneered in the use of nuclear terror as a device for bringing the world to submission to a new empire called "world government," the utopian faction associated with that Russell have created a situation, in the aftermath of Hitler, in which the forces of the Synarchist International, which should have been uprooted at that time, were protected and nurtured for future deployment, as for today. That future has arrived now. Pure evil, whose present alias is Synarchism, is being unleashed again. It is also being unleashed against the U.S.A., through channels established, via Spain and elsewhere, in South and Central America.

In part, the fact is, that my exposure of these Nietzschean-like beast-men, has smoked the thus-enraged Synarchists from behind their curtain of lies, to come out into the open in response to my challenge. Now, see their faces, as shown in the pages of the wildly gnostic cult of Maritornes; that is the face of evil, the face of Satan himself, if you please.


[1] [See published record, below.] A wildly acerbic attack on me personally, from a spokesman for a publication, Maritornes, of today's Dracula-like revival of the 1922-1945 fascist international, signalled, in undeniable fashion, the activation of an already assembled new, open phase of potential terrorist attacks on the U.S.A. from within the Americas. This attack, from a publication frankly representing that revival, came through a channel which is explicitly a continuation of the never fully uprooted Nazi international which Hitler's organization ran under the now traditional fascist flag of Hispanidad, through Franco Spain, throughout Central and South America during the 1930s and early 1940s.

[2] The German-speaking Jew, like the echoing representative of the Yiddish Renaissance in Eastern Europe, emerged from the time of Moses Mendelssohn's radiated influence from Berlin as typically the most precious asset, per capita of total population, in physical science, Classical artistic composition and performance, in the practice of medicine, and so forth. These were as much Germans as any other German, and a most precious part of that total population to any sane German patriot. There was no human interest which has motivated either Hitler's crimes against those Jews, or the Zionist right-wing fanatics' crimes against the Palestinians. Therefore, the near extinction of that portion of Germany's citizens, and similar crimes against the Yiddish Renaissance, in particular, in Eastern Europe, were the crimes of, not human beings, but individuals, such as Spain's notorious Torquemada, on which creatures such as Hitler were modeled, transformed into predatory beasts, virtual hyenas. In other words, men and women transformed from humans, into Synarchists.

[3] Plato and other pre-Euclideans would have described such a pattern generated under axiomatic-like impulse as a "power" (dynamis), as in Plato's Theaetetus dialogue.

[4] It is implicitly clear, from the essential coincidence of the intention to use the new nuclear bombs to shape the post-war world—with the launching of Lindemann's policy of mass bombing of civilian targets against cities of essentially defeated Germany—that such developments, including Field Marshall Montgomery's diversionary catastrophe of "Market Garden," was part of an intention, on the part of the emerging utopian faction, to prolong the war, perhaps until the opportunity developed for dropping the experimental nuclear bombs on Berlin. The militarily counterproductive fire-storming of Tokyo, has the same connotations. At my first meeting with the Professor von der Heydte who had commanded the rear guard of Field Marshall Rommel's retreat from El Alamein, I began, immediately after handshakes: "General" (he was a then retired Brigade-General of post-war Germany's reserves), "do you agree with my opinion that Montgomery was the worst Allied leading commander during World War II?" He replied, "You can say nothing bad about Montgomery to me. He saved my life. I was commanding Rommel's rear guard, and if Montgomery had ever flanked me, I would have been dead." The intentional follies of Montgomery—a raving, ranting, anti-African racist until late in his life—probably thus postponed the Allied victory in Europe by substantially more than half a year. Perhaps that was why Churchill used Montgomery to replace British commanders of proven professional excellence.

[5] Unfortunately, the Diabelli Variations are often performed in a Romantic keyboard style which blurs the polyphony for the sake of the sensed emotional needs of the performer. This is particularly notable when one considers Beethoven's own initially hostile reaction to Diabelli's theme, and then takes into account the subtler implications of that theme which Beethoven later recognized, and then underscored in his composition of the ordering of the variations. The Missa Solemnis has suffered in performance for reasons of technical features of presently conventional modern staging which are themselves a sign of our times, not Beethoven's.

[6] Actually, the device used by Odets to carry The Big Knife tragedy is comparable to Schiller's use of relatively minor characters to carry the part of the hero in the Wallenstein tragedy. Thus, the prescience of a hero is supplied to the audience, where an actual hero were lacking. This device, in such a case, circumvents the problem addressed in Plato's denunciation of the Classical Greek tragedians.

[7] Had President John F. Kennedy lived to stand for a second term in office, he would have succeeded, almost certainly, in honestly winning a popularly generated landslide margin of popular vote in the general election, a prospect which may have prompted certain powerful circles to wish his early death. (The best a President, or Presidential candidate could do, as precaution, would include naming the powerful interest which had the most compelling motive, and capability, to arrange such an event. Sometimes, that precautionary pinning of the tail on the donkey, has worked.) Clinton won his first term with the combined help of President George H.W. Bush, Sr.'s bumbling economic policy and Ross Perot; his second run reflected a pathetic performance by the challenger's campaign, combined with fearful anger of much of the population at Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich's overtly fascist rampages, as we saw in the landslide defeat, which we helped to create, for Oliver North's 1994 run for U.S. Senator in Virginia.

[8] Under the legacy of Roman imperial law, and, therefore, under the fraudulent "Donation of Constantine" dogma, the power to make law as such was the unique privilege of the emperor, not kings or similar local officials. Under the "Donation of Constantine" hoax, the imperial authority within the entirety of western Christianity had been donated, by the Emperor Constantine, to the hereditary authority of a Roman Imperial Pontifex Maximus, the Pope. Hence the importance of keeping control of the Papacy, for Venice, and the consequent struggles between kings and emperors, on the one side, and Venice-controlled incumbents of the Holy See. The collapse of the Papacy, in the course of the Fourteenth-Century New Dark Age, was the consequence of this neo-Caesarism of the ultramontane folly, under which the Church became controlled by the Venetian financier oligarchy as an instrument of ultramontane rule over all of western Europe. The great ecumenical, Fifteenth-Century Council of Florence, part of the process which restored the Papacy, and the Renaissance as a whole were bitterly hated by the ultramontane function in which the Habsburgs had assumed a leading role during the 1511-1648 interval.

[9] Gauss did not discuss this even semi-publicly, until he was provoked, by discussions with Janos and Farkas Bolyai, over Janos' announcing the discovery of a non-Euclidean geometry, to reference his original, youthful discovery of the principles of an anti-Euclidean geometry. That youthful work of Gauss had reflected the influence on Gauss, as a student, by one of the greatest Eighteenth-Century teachers of mathematics, Abraham Kästner. It had been Kästner who had insisted explicitly on an ante-Euclidean, or anti-Euclidean geometry. "Ante-Euclidean" signifies a return to the principle of "spherics," of the followers of Pythagoras, including Plato, away from the ivory-tower reductionism of Aristotle and Euclid, a return to physical geometry from the ivory-tower arithmetic and geometry of an Aristotle or Euclid. In Classical Greek culture the organized opposition to a physical geometry led from the Eleatic opponents of the Pythagoreans, such as Parmenides, directly into the sophists, and thence into Aristotle.

[10] Cf. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., The Economics of the Noösphere (Washington, D.C.: EIR News Service, 2001).

[11] An amusing true story provides a real-life illustration of the relevant kinds of stupidities typical of our contemporary logical positivists. Toward the close of the 1950s, I was an invited participant in an evening's Manhattan party attended chiefly by professional playwrights and actors. The host was a neighbor, a playwright who was, at the moment, engaged to produce a television documentary on the subject of the social implications of computer technology. During the evening the question was posed to me, in my personal capacity as a professional management consultant, how would I define the limits of computer technology for the general public. I replied, that the guests assembled implicitly knew much of the answer to that question. I said, take the task of composing a piece within the bounds of what some of the guests identified for me as "Plotto." I agreed with that identification of what I was about to outline. I broke the task down to two phases. First, create a model of the visible action to be seen by a television or movie audience. Then, match that with pat oral phrases from a set of repertoires of each of the selected candidates for character-types. Both the images and sounds could be, in principle, synthesized by what emerging computer technologies could accomplish. Some months later, my host of that occasion telephoned me to report that, while he had been taken off the case, the model I had described at the party, was being broadcast on network TV, featuring the approximation of what I had "scripted," produced under the direction of MIT Professors Chomsky and Minsky. This, by the way, conforms to the prescription of John von Neumann, Minsky, et al. for "artificial intelligence," in which, as my report of the discussion at that house party illustrates, there is no intelligence at all.

Subscribe to EIW