OBTUSE ANGLES IN POST-SOVIET IDEOLOGY

Russia's Dark Side
of the Spoon

August 10, 2005

"... we all remember Dzhuna, right? ... And Esalen's Michael Murphy, mentioned in Jeff [Steinberg's] article in connex with Channon, wrote a book in the early 1980s called An End to Ordinary History (interesting resonance with Kojève, Fukuyama, et al., come to think of it) in which a U.S. intelligence spoon-bender teamed up with a KGB officer from Central Asia, trained in the ancient Sufi practices, to block the metal-eaters on both sides from blowing up the world, and to make contact with a higher intelligence spooking around up in outer space.... At the same time, note that some of the people we had pegged as spoon-benders in the Russian scientific community, like Vlail Kaznacheyev, turned out to be very interesting continuers of the work of Vernadsky and Gurvich! Not that some continuers of Vernadsky are not kooks; they are. And self-identified 'Russian cosmism' reaches from Vernadsky to the nutcases and back." [Editorial staff note]

Shades of Count Witte's shameful relative, Helen Petrovna Blavatskaia! (a.k.a. British agent "Madame Blavatsky," the infamous charlatan and Theosophist). What are the spoon-benders of Russia, doing under today's threat of a looming new dark age, a threat brought forth, once again, in Russia today, in the wake of a rapacious assault led, this time, under the guidons of Margaret Thatcher, the British Foreign Office Tory's favorite, François Mitterrand, and not-so-intelligent George H.W. Bush?[1]

When we take into account the very serious, and often globally outstanding accomplishments of Russian and Soviet science, as these are only typified by the work of Mendeleyev and Vernadsky, the influence of certain mystically wild-eyed strains within parts of the Russian intelligentsia today, can only be attributed to some special, exceptional kind of disturbing factor in Russian science, including its Soviet manifestation, a corruption akin to the rampant "spoon-bender" phenomenon familiar to us as among the leading neo-conservatives and assorted religious fanatics in both the United Kingdom and the U.S.A. itself.[2]

The more recent cases of nose-dives of some Russians into such pseudo-scientific, mystical flights from reality, can be attributed chiefly to the way in which political-economic demoralization of Soviet society increased during the 1970s and 1980s, as also in post-Soviet Russia. This intersected deeper factors, some left over from the geopolitical mysticism prevalent in pre-Soviet, Czarist Russia. This geopolitical mysticism was combined with, and re-enforced by the effects, as in Moscow, of the role of the Cambridge-steered, Laxenberg, Austria-based, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA). This susceptibility to Anglo-American penetration via IIASA, was located, chiefly, more deeply, in the lingering effects of the official Marxist and post-Marxist varieties of mechanistic ideology, in effecting a radically reductionist corruption of otherwise generally excellent Soviet and current Russian science.

The thumb-nail sketch which Count Sergei Witte gave of his cousin, Madame Blavatsky, in the opening chapter of his memoir, defines a point of entry for study of the way in which the spoon-bending of Uri Geller, et al. plays back from U.S. neo-conservative intelligence circles, back into Russia's culture and policy-shaping today, as, similarly, it also penetrates and influences British and U.S. military-intelligence and related circles generally in a related and parallel, but somewhat different way.

The concluding, summary observation by Witte on that subject, in that stated location, is of direct relevance to the subject of this present report: "When all is said and done Blavatskaia serves as proof, if proof is required, that man is not an animal created out of matter. There can be no question that she possessed a soul that was independent of matter. The only question is what kind of a soul? If one accepts the view that life hereafter is divided among heaven, hell, and purgatory, then the question arises: from which of these did this soul, which inhabited Blavatskaia during her earthly sojourn, come?" Perhaps only the bygone exorcists of Radio Erivan might have told us whence that spirit came.[3]

It was not by accident, that London stood in for both Hell and Purgatory in providing a home base for Madame Blavatsky's deploying the influence expressed by her lunatic, international Theosophical Society cult, and also upon her spiritual heirs among circles such as those of Aleister Crowley, H.G. Wells, Bertrand Russell, and Aldous and Julian Huxley.[4] Although Russia's spoon-benders of today owe some of their characteristics to specifically Russian conditions, their lunacy also expresses its great debt to the hospitality curiously afforded her by British sponsors, of which the following cases are of particular relevance here.

1. The Liberal Loonies of London

To assess the strategic problem which sundry varieties of spoon-benders represent for both U.S.A. and central European relations with Russia today, we must recognize the significance of a certain nested set of differences between western European civilization and the deep cultural implications of Russia's development as an expression of a specifically Eurasian culture since a period coinciding with western and central Europe's Fourteenth-Century New Dark Age, the latter a time nearly coinciding with the long, dark age occupation of Russia under the yoke of the Mongols and their successors.

The films of the celebrated Sergei M. Eisenstein, such as the famous patriotic themes of Potemkin, Alexander Nevsky, and Ivan Grozny familiar to many of us in the U.S.A. and elsewhere from the Stalin era, present us samples of the recent century's adumbrations of the impulse of post-Mongol Russia to strike back against the cruelly oppressive forces from Asia, in particular, which had crushed Kiev Rus, and, in that process of neutralizing the sources of those threats which had created a strategic cultural, as well as geographic Eurasian orientation, as an integral feature of the modern Russia which emerged from these centuries of experience.

In the case of this present report's references to corruption affecting Russia today from western Europe and the U.S.A., elements of corruption which are relevant to the "spoon-bender" and related tendencies in Russia, the chief modern source of such species of corruption, has been the so-called "Enlightenment" which the new "Venetian Party" of the followers of Paolo Sarpi spawned as the Anglo-Dutch Liberal reductionism of Descartes and Locke.

That spawn included, notably, Mandeville, Hume, and Quesnay. It spawned such assets of the British East India Company's Lord Shelburne as Adam Smith, and the historian and imperial doctrinaire Gibbon of The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire. It spawned the Jeremy Bentham known to Russia of that time as the brother of Admiral Bentham, a British officer who served in Russia's navy. The consummate immoralist Jeremy Bentham[5] served as Lord Shelburne's choice to head such secret committee operations of the British Foreign Office as the Martinist freemasonic network which London deployed to unleash both the French Revolution of July 14, 1789, and related later developments inside France itself. From his post in the Secret Committee of that British Foreign Office which had been created by one-time Prime Minister Lord Shelburne, London created and directed the Jacobin Terror, and the ruin of continental Europe through Napoleon's re-enactment of what Liberal "Enlightenment" London had orchestrated earlier as the Seven Years War.[6]

This was the same Bentham, who, as the trainer of the British Foreign Office's Lord Palmerston, had launched the British Foreign Office's so-called "left-wing" networks in South America and elsewhere, an experience which was the model for Palmerston's use of his puppet Giuseppe Mazzini and the Young Europe which, among other things, swept up Karl Marx as one of its British assets during Palmerston's reign. It was that same Bentham, who ran that East India Company's Haileybury School which spread British political-economy of Adam Smith, like disease-ridden chicken-manure, over the minds of the continent of Europe, where its noxious influence stinks and infects still to the present day.

The "spoon-bender" quality which permeated that "Enlightenment," is typified by the cases of both Mandeville and those Physiocrats, Quesnay and Turgot, from whom Shelburne's personal propagandist Adam Smith plagiarized the most essential features of that 1776 anti-American tract known today's as Smith's Wealth of Nations. Mandeville's argument is that on which today's radically right-wing (some more literate thinkers would say "fascist") Mont Pelerin Society of pathetic Professor Milton Friedman et al., premise their economics for the simple-minded. That argument of both Mandeville and Smith, among numerous others among their imitators, is based on the presumption that the universe is run by agencies from actually outside itself, as if by little green men working to control the universe from under the floorboards of reality. "Superstition, anyone?"

It was the credulous adoption, by Karl Marx, of such axiomatic presumptions of the Anglo-Dutch Liberalism of his sometime British sponsors and educators (such as British Library-based Young Europe secretary Urquhart), which contributed the degree of influence which British intelligence exerted on Russia-hater Marx's philosophy in general, and his obsessive attachment to the mother-lode of the British Haileybury political-economic dogma of Adam Smith and David Ricardo in particular. The influence of that indoctrination of Marx on the shaping of the official Soviet doctrine of Marxism-Leninism, was a key contributing influence in opening the gates for the rampage of Russia's own recent generations' crop of spoon-benders in that setting.

The Liberal Influence in Europe

Through the doctrine of Mandeville, the Republican Institute, and other Anglo-American agencies of kindred parentage, facilitated Russia's post-Soviet financial oligarchs' acquisition of wealth, by insisting, and also demonstrating, that individual lust for private vice, such as local organized crime "writ large," is the driving principle on which the dirty economic success of the lucky, such as Berezovsky, depended. Similarly, Quesnay had argued that the wealth of society required no interference with the free will (laissez-faire) of an aristocratic landlord, whose claim to the exclusive power to create the wealth which, according to Quesnay, existed magically in Locke's notion of slaveholder's property, a claim made to spite what were, juridically, the human cattle employed on his aristocrat's estate. Quesnay's mystical abracadabra of laissez-faire claimed the existence of a power of proprietorship, expressed as what were attributed to be the sympathetic-magical qualities of the document on which his title was written. (Unfortunately for the victims, the peasants, they believed in, and acted out the superstition, a belief by which they were controlled like captive fish within an aquarium.) Smith, in his turn, premised his "free trade" dogma on the same lunatic presumptions as Locke and Mandeville, but, more emphatically, his rampant plagiarism of the writings of the Physiocrats Quesnay and Turgot. Such Anglo-Dutch Liberals steal liberally, also from one another.

There lay, as it is said, certain curious and potentially fatal sets of contradictions deeply embedded within the beliefs of Marx's British teachers and patrons.

To clarify the argument for such connections, I enter here, again, a relevant passage from Smith's 1759 The Theory of the Moral Sentiments, the same passage I have quoted on a number of similarly relevant earlier occasions. There, plagiarist Smith shows us already what he intends to say by his 1776 allusion, nearly two decades later, to Quesnay's "laissez-faire" as the work of "an invisible hand."

"The administration of the great system of the universe ... the care of the universal happiness of all rational and sensible beings, is the business of God and not of man. To man is allotted a much humbler department, but one much more suitable to the weakness of his powers, and to the narrowness of his comprehension: the care of his own happiness, of that of his family, his friends, his country.... But though we are ... endowed with a very strong desire of those ends, it has been intrusted to the slow and uncertain determinations of our reason to find out the proper means of bringing them about. Nature has directed us to the greater part of these by original and immediate instincts. Hunger, thirst, the passion which unites the two sexes, the love of pleasure, and the dread of pain, prompt us to apply these means for their own sakes, and without any consideration of their tendency to those beneficent ends which the Great Director of nature intended to produce by them.[7]

Smith affords us, thus, a certain insight into, among other things, the mind of the author H.G. Wells' The Island of Dr. Moreau.

In the case of Mandeville's The Fable of the Bees, it had been petty individual lust for the practice of vice in the small, which, Mandeville insisted, had magically bestowed a general benefit on society in the large; by means of this belief, he and his like, then as now, duped the believers into playing according to the rules of that game of a culture, such as that of the infamous John Law bubbles, based, bottom up, on a system of petty vice. For the Physiocrats whom Smith so liberally plagiarized, it was the presumably divine, or, as Count Witte summed up the uncertainties of Blavatskaia's spiritual origins, not so divine instrumentality of providence: a scheme which passes out bonuses to society, as a croupier running a crooked table might dispense poker-chips to a person the croupier chooses to arrange to become the winning gambler. It is the same with the mechanism of "individual greed," which Smith chooses.

Like primitive witch-doctors, Liberals concoct their imaginary gods as living under the floorboards, as Locke, Mandeville, Quesnay, and Adam Smith do. However, unlike the poor savages who play with such means of persuasion as rattling bones, and masks, they induce themselves and their dupes alike, to act according to what the classrooms for what the credulous term inductive methods of "logic," as the underlined passage from Smith's 1759 writing illustrates this point.

In the end, the believers in such magical powers often go thoroughly mad, even to claim the ability to bend spoons, as Uri Geller did, or to walk, through mere will power, through actual walls, as U.S. "spoon-benders" such as the U.S.'s notorious General Boykin, and others have claimed to know of the existence of such bits of witchcraft.

We are reminded of the collection of table-knockers associated with the likes of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, and famous British charlatans before them.

These exotic flights of fancy were, nonetheless, derived from strong overdoses of what are otherwise classed by seemingly sober scientific minds as nothing more nor less than the same, typical reductionist "logic" on which Professor Norbert Wiener claimed to have premised his discovery of the weird cult of "information theory," and John von Neumann the ability to create machines to exceed mankind in the power to secrete the same power of creative intelligence as mankind's greatest thinkers. What Wiener and von Neumann taught was only superstition; but, like believing poor savages, their dupes not only believed in it, but acted out the prescriptions, such as the fools'"hedge-fund" formulas, like the robots they were thus attempting to mimic.

The sundry varieties of merely foolish or dangerous insanity produced by such exercises in Descartes' variety of reductionist "logic" carried to extremes, turn any experienced phenomena which they can not explain by such "logic," as Claudius Ptolemy did, into the presumed class of evidence which proves the existence of certain magical powers from not merely outside sense-perception, but outside the real universe itself: unknowable powers which they allege to control the fate of mankind, just as Mandeville, Quesnay, Adam Smith, and their credulous followers have done.

Virtually all of the academically approved economic dogmas of Europe and the Americas today, especially all of those derived from the Anglo-Dutch Liberal roots of Descartes and his followers, are essentially, axiomatically, Liberally lunacies of the type which I have just depicted.

Take those same methods of abracadabra typical of Anglo-Dutch Liberal propaganda a step or two further, and you have the kind of "spoon-benders" we meet among leading U.S. military figures of the so-called "neo-conservative" varieties. The distinction is, that Venetian style Anglo-Dutch Liberal bankers believe that only their dupes must believe in the doctrine; the difference is, that the virtually brain-damaged neo-conservative of the "spoon-bender" variety actually believes in such silly stuff.

2. Count Witte As a Benchmark

This foregoing, summary review of those relevant points of philosophical background for the relevant conditions and features of Russia's history since 1917, brings us to the crucial turn in European history since the intrinsically meshed June 1894 assassination of France's President Sadi Carnot, and the subsequent December 1894 conviction of Captain Alfred Dreyfus. From that point on, there was an ensuing combination of crucial, related developments within the politics of France. These later developments which led to the later fall of Hanotaux there, include events such as the crucial British triumph over France at Fashoda (Sudan) in Autumn of 1898. After Fashoda, France was controlled, into and beyond World War II, by the relations thus struck between the beaten, France, and the beater, Kitchener's London.

These developments of the 1890s were complemented by the launching of the 1890s first war against China, and later Korea, by Britain's dupe Japan. The repercussions of those wars in the Far East, were combined with the effect of the formation of the Entente Cordiale alliance of the British Empire's Edward VII with France. This was re-enforced by the assassination of U.S. President William McKinley in favor of British imperial asset Theodore Roosevelt, an assassination which marked and largely shaped the unfolding, and outcome of what became known as World War I. This assassination, as reflected in the reverberation of such subsequent events as Britain's organization of the Russo-Japan war, set the stage for the virtual inevitability of what became known as World War I.

The motive for, and significance of these developments can not be located competently without insight into the deep issues which divided the founders of the U.S. Federal republic from the the de facto, post-February 1763 empire of the British East India Company. This set the pattern continued through to the European continental monetarist system of the present day—although the U.S.A. itself has vacillated, to the present day, between its own constitutional principle and accommodation to the British imperial system of so-called independent central banking systems. This principled conflict between the U.S. American System of political economy and the British system of independent central-banking supremacy above governments, has been the recurring expression of a deeply underlying war between two opposing species of government, that of the American System of political-economy and the Anglo-Dutch Liberal system of oligarchical rule over governments of Europe, through the mediation of so-called independent central banking systems. This conflict has been global, and persistent from July 4, 1776 until, in fact, the present day.

It was to prevent the post-1783-1789 spread of the influence of the American Revolution into France and other parts of Europe, that London, led by Lord Shelburne, organized the French Revolution, and unleashed its avowed enemy Bonaparte to destroy and weaken a continental Europe which had been sympathetic to the American cause. Thus, from July 1789 through the Vienna Congress, the results of the Terror and Bonaparte's reign ruined continental Europe over a period of approximately a quarter century, just as Britain had done its orchestration of the so-called Seven Years War earlier.

Then, a change occurred during the latter part of the Nineteenth Century. It was the victory of the U.S. led by President Abraham Lincoln over Palmerston's puppet, the slaveholders' Confederate States of America, which led to the spread of the reputation and influence of what was perceived as the superior American System of agro-industrial political-economy. This U.S. victory prompted great reforms in similar directions within Russia, Germany, Japan, throughout much of the Americas, and elsewhere, from approximately 1876-1877 on. Over the course of the latter part of the Nineteenth Century, the imperial maritime power of the Anglo-Dutch Liberals, centered in the British monarchy, saw its world power imperilled by the spread and growing physical economic strength of these emerging nations of the Americas and of Asia.

It was to destroy this American model's influence in Germany and elsewhere, that London organized World Wars I and II as the Anglo-Dutch Liberal financier-oligarchy had orchestrated the Seven Years War, the Napoleonic Wars, and kindred operations preceding World War I. So, the foolish German Kaiser who was the nephew and dupe of his uncle the British Prince of Wales, fired Kanzler Bismarck, and the other silly nephew, Russia's Nicholas II, of the same prince (Britain's Edward VII) fell into the same British imperial trap which became known as World War I.

It has been the combined British and U.S. financier accomplices of the European Liberal financier-oligarchical system, who seized the occasion of Franklin Roosevelt's death, to organize the global hostilities of the 1946-1989 interval, who worked to destroy the Roosevelt model and its influence, and who, over the interval 1964-2005, especially 1971-2005, have transformed the U.S. from the world's leading agro-industrial power, to the "post-industrial" wreckage it represents today.

Today, the same forces of Anglo-Dutch Liberal financier-oligarchical interest, are determined to eradicate the nation-state institution by a neo-feudalist form of ultramontanism called "globalization." The Hellish economic suffering being wreaked on Europe and the Americas right now, is to be recognized as an attempted return to a mimickry of that medieval ultramontane system of Europe, which had ruled and ruined medieval Europe under the tyranny of an alliance of the Venetian financier-oligarchy with the predatory Norman chivalry.

The advocates of that Satanic perspective, as typified by the case of that public author of the 1946 doctrine of pre-emptive nuclear war, created by Lord Bertrand Russell and his international circle of haters of the modern agro-industrial sovereign nation-state, are a central feature of the forces of fanatically irrational schemes for what they have frankly described, in detail, as, in fact, a return to the medieval ultramontane system of financier-oligarchical rule over a world dominated by a perpetual state of feudalistic forms of religious and racial warfare. For them, the ultimate enemy of their ultramontane cause, is the power of human reason itself. Madness is, therefore, their preferred program of belief for their subjects, and for the silly, bestially cruel, neo-con "spoon-bender" warriors, associated with the notorious U.S. General Boykin, who, again today, perpetrate crimes, as at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, in the tradition of the wildest fantasies of Adolf Hitler's crew.

Hitler, like the Mussolini who preceded him in this evil doctrine called fascism, was created by these Anglo-Dutch Liberal financier-oligarchical interests. Whoever fails to recognize that, is a childish mind, which, so far, understands less than nothing about the underlying, driving forces of Twentieth-Century and the presently continuing history of the world. It is from this standpoint that the persistence of phenomena such as the "spoon-benders," or "neo-conservatives," and their tendency to usurp control of the military policies and capabilities of nations, must be rightly understood.

Thus, the indicated developments of 1894-1917 set the stage for the ensuing history of Russia, as V.I. Lenin had foreseen, including the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the ensuing experience of the Soviet Union, to the present day. It is in this context, against the complex background of the centuries-long, endemic conflict between the U.S. republic and the British empire, that we can reach a competent understanding of the historical processes which have largely pre-shaped the development of the "spoon-bender" phenomena, in both the former NATO countries and the Soviet Union, as also in post-Soviet Russia today.

Witte and the Transition

Count Witte, whose career in service to the state, spans a crucial part of the period of the reigns of Czars Alexander II, Alexander III, and Nicholas II, is a pivotal figure in the successive transitions of Russia into a modern form since the immediate aftermath of the U.S. victory over the British Confederacy puppet. He is, in that sense, more alive, more historically relevant for today than most leaders of Russia would think of admitting. He is not a model for the present from the past, but the expression of an historical moment of transition from which the present has flowed out of the preceding past.

Against the background of events and developments exemplified by the rising role of Witte through 1905, this factor of what might be named as the complementary "spoon-benders of contemporary Russia" and the NATO countries, can be defined in a meaningfully systemic way. This history of the background to the emergence of the "spoon-bender" syndrome there, is as much a complement to parallel kinds of mystical cultural pathology, in today's world, as the combined effect of the common factors of mysticism in Pan-slavism, in the rotting Habsburg monarchy, in the follies of the German Kaiser's circles, and in France's revanchist, post-Carnot, French brew bred of Jacobinism, Bonapartism, and Legitimists, in bringing to realization the schemes of Britain's imperial Edward VII, for pitting his foolish nephews, the Russian and German emperors, against one another's throats. The chauvinist follies, often misnamed patriotism, among the respective national traditions of Europe, are as much a continuing mutual threat to the survival of each of the national cultures of Europe today, as they were in 1914. This pathogen has mutated over time, but it is presently all the more deadly because of the relative efficiency of this recent adaptation.

In the past, despite the resurgence of the power of Venice's financier oligarchy with the Fall of Constantinople, the vital interest of each and all of the national cultures of modern Europe, has been a kind of system of fraternity among respectively sovereign nation-states which is expressed by the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, since Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa's Concordantia Catholica, De Docta Ignorantia, De Pace Fidei, to the present time, the further strengthening of a system of fraternity among respectively perfectly sovereign forms of modern nation-states free of the financier succubus of medieval Venice's ultramontane tradition, has been the only sane choice of destiny for the nations of Europe.

Yet, the crowned and other foolish heads of continental Europe, have permitted themselves to be played like children's puppets, successively, by the old and new parties of Venice, and by Paolo Sarpi's new Venetian Party successors, who have played and ruined the states of continental Europe again, and again, and again, through the ministrations of Anglo-Dutch Liberal financier power.

The Seven Years War, the Napoleonic Wars, and so on, through two so-called World Wars, and through Bertrand Russell's and Winston Churchill's orchestration of what became known as the "Cold War" launched through a 1945-1946 scheme for pre-emptive nuclear assault on the Soviet Union, the dutiful nations of continental Europe have repeatedly, obediently joined in ideological devotion to cutting one another's throats, by military means, or by economic means of cults of mass suicide, such as the European Union.

The chief form of that same centuries-old depravity polluting the governments and cultures still today, is a lemming-like impulse for collective suicide called "globalization." The form of warfare included in the means for accomplishing that destruction, includes a new, post-Soviet perspective on the pre-emptive use of nuclear-armed assaults within a globally systemic contest of asymmetric warfare; but, the psychological instrumentality remains, still, the more essential, axiomatic role of lunatic factors on all sides. The neo-cons in all forms, from within the former NATO apparatus and the specifically Russian ideological form of the "spoon-bender" proclivity, are today's most typical expression of this specific set of types of cultural mass-insanity.

Since perpetual warfare premised on the ultramontane model, is the global political system which these maddened creatures desire, their goal is incomprehensible to those who make the mistake of assuming that the intended goal of warfare among the neo-conservative crowd associated with Vice-President Cheney, is a victorious peace. They are astonished that President Bush speaks of creating a new, "democratic" Iraq as the objective of a protracted military occupation which is about as successful as the late phases of Napoleon Bonaparte's attempted occupation of Spain. For the neo-conservatives of whom the "spoon-benders" are a crucial component, the goal of war is not a victorious peace, but, rather, the exact opposite: the perpetuation of global warfare; as under the role of a Norman medieval chivalry steered by a Venetian financier oligarchy. The system of perpetual warfare, of permanent revolution, is their desired, imperial system of Hobbesian government of a systemically "globalized" planet, as in the perpetual warfare of the Norman chivalry directed by medieval Venice, or the Roman imperial legions earlier.[8]

The usual failure of current governments, thus far, to grasp that elementary fact, is the key for understanding why most existing governments, political parties, and others behave so foolishly today. For the would-be imperial rulers who threaten the world today, madness, even in the extreme, is a philosophy, and crimes against humanity are seen by the deluded aggressors as a principled, perpetual way of life.

Against that background, the currently fashionable retrospective view, today, of the figure of Count Sergei Iulevich Witte, the true fact of the matter, contrary to the popular myths, is that this man, who, with his collaborator D.I. Mendeleyev, was actually a leading, pioneering architect of Russia's transformation into a modern quality of agro-industrial power, was both a monarchist (which is true) and a capitalist ideologue (which is decidedly not true). Like the German Chancellor Bismarck who, in 1877, introduced the U.S. American System of political-economy as the basis for the industrial and social welfare programs launching Germany's rapid transformation into a leading modern agro-industrial power, Witte was an anti-British advocate of the American System of political-economy of Alexander Hamilton, Friedrich List, and Henry C. Carey. Like the Bismarck who was dumped by his own foolish Kaiser, Count Witte, although an extraordinarily accomplished and loyal servant of the Russian monarchy since the time of Czar Alexander II, suffered the consequences of a weak-minded Czar Nicholas II, who, like the foolish German Kaiser of that time, was also a credulous, manipulated, and richly betrayed nephew of Britain's imperial Edward VII.

To a significant degree, the relatively popular, but false, academic reputation of Count Witte today, is not only a reflection of the sheer silliness which was manifestly rampant among official Soviet ideologues, but also of the wild-eyed Romanticism which pollutes the modern, essentially ahistorical view both of history and of the Classical drama of Shakespeare and Schiller, even among most putatively educated opinion still today. A typical result of that Romanticist state of mind, is the way in which the Marxists and others amuse themselves, by brushing Witte aside as a monarchist, which he was, and also a capitalist in the British sense, which he, an informed follower of the anti-British American system, was decidedly not. For their own complicity in such silly Romantics' ideological follies, the Soviet system, and post-Soviet Russia today, have paid a terrible price in the end. By reading actual history according to a falsified, Romantic's ideological map, they ended up, presently, as might have been expected, at a most unpleasant destination, a condition which is, once again, a present caricature of an ugly past.

In Soviet "historical materialism" itself, there was no actual comprehension of real history as a comprehensibly lawful process of development, but only a kind of pantheon of variously approved and rejected personalities, echoing Pythian priest Plutarch's Romantic cult of Parallel Lives. Worse, since the resulting, post-1989-1992 tendency, the impulse has usually been, to simply reject the Soviet Marxist model, rather than adducing the actual historical lesson to be learned from that experience. Russia was led, thus, from Soviet calamity (failure) to worst (virtual cultural suicide) by its adoption of the worst possible choice of model of economy, that proffered by the Republican Institute, the model proffered as the notoriously weak-brained President George H.W. Bush's own carpet-bagger's system, in the image of an already doomed Anglo-American system surviving by sucking the remaining blood of the remains of the Soviet system. Once the new victim were sucked more or less dry, we would see, as we do now, an already doomed version of the wildly decadent Anglo-American "model" at the threatened verge of its own collapse, as of now, as I write.[9] Russia must now change its model to the American System of political-economy, rather than the system which has now freshly ruined it, the Anglo-Dutch Liberal system.

Here lies the key to overcoming the "spoon-bender" impulse within Russian society today.

The View From Classical Culture

This tragic aspect of Russia's recent history may be better, more deeply understood by contrasting the model of the Solar System by the Roman hoaxster Claudius Ptolemy, with the way in which Johannes Kepler, following the counsel of Nicholas of Cusa on the subject of the organization of the Solar System, returned, with a vengeance, to produce new proofs of the physical discoveries of principle made, by Aristarchus of Samos, long prior to the willful frauds of Claudius Ptolemy.

Recall, as Johannes Kepler details this problem, that the neo-Aristotelean hoaxster Claudius Ptolemy used the argument that man's knowledge of the universe is limited to relatively arbitrary interpretations of what he sees as the inevitability of the perpetual repetition of the apparently obvious. So, the Romantic sees each tragedy as a model of the present in the past; he dreams of going back, away from the fears of the present which overwhelm him, to seek to carve out a personal colony, a personal fantasy, from within the domain of a wishful reconstruction of a departed past. For such poor creatures as those Romantics, history is the map of routes of lapsed time of travel along the highways of a timeless flatland, rather than what is, in reality, a dynamic process of irreversible development.

So, Kepler recognized from the crucial evidence of those paradoxes which the admirers of Aristotle had ignored, the existence of a universal physical principle, universal gravitation, which actually drove the planet at a constantly changing rate along its elliptical path. Constant change, as Plato, in his Parmenides dialogue, affirmed Heracleitus, is the characteristic of our universe's physical organization, and of mankind's existence.

As Philo of Alexandria had warned, Aristotle, implicitly, required his followers to believe in the implicitly Satanic doctrine, that God Himself must have been rendered impotent to act both efficiently and rationally within our universe, an impotence intrinsic to the perfection of his own creation. This feature of Aristotle's argument defined Claudius Ptolemy's view, as expressed by his fraudulent doctrine for astronomy.

This argument by Aristotle's followers for the allegedly self-inflicted impotence of God, was in accord with the Satanic doctrine of the Olympian Zeus in Aeschylus's Prometheus Bound, that mortal man must be prohibited from acquiring knowledge of universal physical principles by which man might willfully increase his power in and over the universe he inhabits. This is essentially the "God is Dead" dogma of such modern worshipers of Delphic Apollo cult's Dionysos as Friedrich Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger, and the Nazi and the kindred, Satanic so-called religious-fundamentalist cults generally.

This was the same Satanic view, already, before the overtly Satanic Nietzsche and his followers in the circles of Martin Heidegger. This was the Satanic principle on which Palo Sarpi's devotees Hobbes and John Locke premised their own, and Henry A. Kissinger's view of human nature. This was the doctrine on which the followers of Mandeville, Quesnay, Turgot, Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, and John Stuart Mill premised the contemporary Anglo-Dutch Liberal dogmas of political-economy.

In reality, as Plato's reading of Heracleitus, as in the Parmenides dialogue, goes, nothing is constant in the universe, but change. Man changes the universe by what he does, or fails to do. These changes are expressed by either the discovery and use of a universal physical, or kindred principle, or the failure to employ a needed new principle in a timely fashion. There are no true parallels in history; there is always the principled quality of change which Parmenides' reductionist Eleatics and their successors could never fathom. Just so, Count Witte was a moment of change in the history of Russia, who must be understood, and identified for knowledge by the change in the history of Russia, the change in Russia's situation with which Witte's existence and action is associated.

The ideal type of such cases is provided by the cases of the greatest discoverers of scientific principle, such as the model of Kepler and Leibniz, or in the field of art, by the J.S. Bach, who, in contrast to the silly Rameau and the foolish Fux, changed musical composition and its performance in a way for which no competent superseder has appeared to this day—although each of Bach's greatest students, such as Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Schumann, and Brahms, each added something irreversibly revolutionary to the work of the constant process of change. This was a process of change relative to their relevant predecessors in the strictly Classical tradition of Florentine bel canto song traced from such known sources as the choir of the Florence Cathedral and the work, as in the surviving fragments of De Musica, of Leonardo da Vinci.

Again, there are no parallel lives in history. This is the principle to apply to the case of Witte, as also expressed in great Classical drama such as that of Shakespeare, Lessing, and Schiller. Not only do significant figures change the currently efficient rules of history, in actuality or in Classical drama, but the significant fact about each, is the lawful universal principle of change, as Plato defines change, which their lives express.

Contrary to the Satanic frauds of existentialists such as Bertolt Brecht and the followers and intimates of Martin Heidegger, history is, more than anything else, the pathway of profound changes, for better or for worse, by individuals, such as the real-life Jeanne d'Arc, or the Christian Apostles John and Paul, by outstanding individuals who appear in retrospect, as the milestones of change in the characteristic features of cultures. History as known so far, is marked by the crucial role of those exceptional, influential leaders who are associated, in and after their time, with radical changes in the characteristic patterns of collective behavior of nations, of cultures. Great statesmen, such as the U.S.'s Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, typify the best of that kind. The greatest playwrights and poets, such as Aeschylus, Shakespeare, and Schiller, typify this principle.

The failure to change, as needed, in the past, is a part of the living history of the present, as is the failure to eradicate the follies of Truman and what other anti-Franklin Roosevelt mischief-makers have done to similar effect, in our past. It is a Classically tragic failure, as Friedrich Schiller, in his commentaries on Don Carlos, excoriates the character of Posa. Such failures of commission or omission from the past, could never be undone; they are a living part of the present, as Spain suffers still today, in the real-life outcome of the reign of the Habsburgs' imperial Charles V.[10] They can only be superseded, in the present or future, never the past. Hence the moral failure of the Romantic commentators on Shakespeare, such as Coleridge, and of kindred views of the work of Schiller today.

Those who deny what I have just said, are fools, as all the existentialists have been, fools whose cardinal offense is that they, often, in their praise of their own moral, as much as intellectual mediocrity, echo the evil, pagan Olympian Zeus in denying those essential characteristics of the human individual which set the human species apart from, and above the beasts. Thus, the true leader of peoples does not put himself apart from the people generally; he is essentially their necessary servant, whose essential quality is that of the Promethean, of lifting up his fellow-men from the condition into which the Olympian Zeus would have dumped them, a condition in which men and women, even entire nations, are less than truly human.

This is the view of the universe I have just described, which is expressed by Kepler and the physical hypergeometries of Riemann, as the famous Einstein recognized this late in his life's work.[11] Their lives express a change in geometry, a change whose consequences alter the history of the future. They live forever in their place in that actual history, not in that silly system of "parallel lives" which the foolish Romantic interpreters of Classical drama seek to adduce as a moral principle which might be freely transported from its actual location, to almost any other place or time in the universe.

People who actually make history, as I do, see things in a dynamic view of history, as an ongoing process of irreversible change, which can be changed only by force of change of embedded principle of action, as in progressive scientific revolutions. We think in terms of self-bounded, and thus finite whole processes. We think as the ancient Pythagoreans and Plato did, and the greatest scientific and Classical-artistic minds of modern European cultural history.

As a matter of contrasts, other persons, as more commentators than scientific thinkers, either accept the past mechanistically—in a Cartesian or kindred mind-set, as a timeless "flatland," as Plutarch demands; or, they bungle in their failure to grasp the point of difference between the two practical points of view, those of the dynamic point of view of the scientist and Classical artist, on the one side, and the mechanistic method of the Romantically inclined commentator, the modern imitators of the hoaxster Claudius Ptolemy, on the other.

To prepare the way for the point I have to develop here, on the subject of Russia's own contemporary "spoon-benders," I interpolate a relevant illustration of the principle which I have just stated here, the case of the work of Riemann. After that, I shall return our attention to the point in development now immediately above.

3. Uproot the Insanity Itself

It is crucial that we awaken to identify, and correct the forces of insanity which underlie the spread of the complementary qualities of both the "chickenhawk" and professional military styles of the "neo-conservative" in general, and the actively lunatic "spoon-benders" in particular. To understand that functionally integral set of forms of mental illness, we must proceed from the standpoint of recognizing a contrasting standard of mental health. Although the lunacy we must address is also expressed by individuals, each in his or her own way, there are common characteristics among these follies.

In other words, we must apply what Riemann defined as "Dirichlet's Principle," what Gauss was approaching in his investigation of the related issues in determining characteristics of geomagnetic phenomena. The individual case is unique, but nonetheless falls, functionally, within the confines of a boundary layer which defines the distribution of the particular phenomena within the field, as what Einstein attempted to convey in his notion of the "finite but unbounded" universe, which he defined at that stage in his development as coinciding with the principled features of the work of both Johannes Kepler and Bernhard Riemann.

The first point to be taken into account, is that in applying this approach, we are not superimposing notions from physical science, as if symbolically, on the voluntary character of human behavior. What we know as competent physical science is, itself, a reflection, and product of nothing other than human behavior. Physical science is, as Riemann states at the outset of his 1854 habilitation dissertation: man's systematic, practical mastery of the challenge of the universe, through the application of the synthetic powers which are unique to human individuals, the power of hypothesis, the power of cognition. Thus, when we examine the progress of experimentally validated physical science subjectively, the universe around us is a subject of human behavior, as we ought to recognize Vernadsky as demonstrating, by his combined arguments for the Biosphere and Noösphere.

For precisely this reason, whenever we express the effects of massed human behavior in such a view of the subjective standpoint, as we are considering the "spoon bender" phenomenon's effect, as a form of insanity—as, often, even systemically criminal insanity—we are considering the effect of that practiced belief on the physical course of development of society. In such a case here, the use of relevant terminology from the domain of physical science, is not to be classified as reasoning by analogy. We are considering the practical effects, on the human, historically determined condition of our planet, of the way in which we, or some other group of people, are acting on the present and future physical conditions of human life on our planet—and, today, beyond. We are considering changes in the physical sequence of events in the physical history of our planet caused by society's willful or kindred intervention in the physical universe.

This is the same kind of effective interference in the abiotic domain, when we are considering changes in the abiotic domain which occur under the topical heading of the Biosphere. This is the same kind of effective interference represented by the effect of the emergence and development of the Noösphere. This is same kind of effective interference, in the Noösphere, by the creative power of an individual mind. It is reciprocity of these kinds of dynamical relationships, which is the subject of science, and of which physical science itself is the subject, in turn.

Therefore, that said and taken into account, this brings us to view the "spoon-bender" phenomenon in terms of what I have - referred to repeatedly, over longer than the recent fifty years, as the example from the opening two paragraphs of Bernhard Riemann's 1854 habilitation dissertation. For reasons I have just stated, immediately above, this example is crucial for competent modern physical science; it is also crucial in Classical artistic composition; it is also crucial in history in general. Riemann did what should be seen, in retrospect, as the obvious. He eliminated from physical science, "from Euclid through Legendre," all self-evident notions of definitions, axioms, and postulates. Only experimentally defined principles of change, or what were to be defined experimentally as the proven hypotheses of a dynamically self-bounded finiteness, known as universal physical principles, were to be permitted within mathematical physics.[12]

The combination of previous states of systemic forms of mass psychological disorders endemic within modern society, as merged with the terrifying implications of global nuclear strategic warfare, has brought forth new, infectious, and existentially deadly forms of previously endemic mental mass-disorders, these often appearing in the form of mysticism associated with the effects of what is otherwise recognized as expressions of modern reductionist philosophies.

Although what might be termed the psychological mechanisms of these new mass pathologies, express the kinds of mental disorder I have described for the Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Centuries' influence of the impulses of neo-Venetian, Anglo-Dutch Liberal influences, those types of mental disorders have been affected in certain among their characteristics by the changes in the culture, and changes in the physical condition of nations and of the planet since the Eighteenth Century, and, most notably, since the development of new systems of weaponry and conditions of modern warfare. These new weaponries are the more obvious nuclear and thermonuclear weapons, but also prominently include the use of non-linear and related electromagnetic techniques for mass alteration and control of normal and induced states of individual and group human behavior. The existence of, including the knowledge of the existence of such new methods and techniques may, and often has modified the character of the way in which elements of old pathologies now appear in qualitatively new forms.

The obvious change in the definition of general warfare since the development of nuclear and related weapons systems since 1945, has itself produced an irreversible change in the reality to which the impulses of both individuals and national institutions are forced to respond.

Nonetheless, the fact remains, that the root of such sicknesses within today's globally extended expressions of European civilization itself, can be traced by Classical scholars to the specific characteristics of the pestilence-like, Pythian (i.e., Satanic) cult of the Delphi Apollo, as continued through the corruption which was typically expressed by the influence of the perversion of the famous writings of the last of the notable priests of that cult, Plutarch, during Roman times.[13]

In attempting to define the distinction between what might be recognized as the "normally" healthy, from disordered states of whole cultures, or fractions of those cultures, we are confronted by certain apparent paradoxes. What is the available systemic distinction of what might be considered normal shortcomings in the development of cultures, from arbitrarily superimposed, or seemingly accidental ones? For example, take the case of the scientifically demonstrable retreat from what modern science knows as the superior scientific culture of the Pythagoreans and Plato, to a pathologically determined, intellectually and morally inferior culture of the ancient Greek reductionists. Was this decline in mind and morals a product of underdevelopment of the culture of the Greeks, or was this an artificially induced destruction of a saner culture by a morally inferior one, as the undermining of Pythagorean science by the sophistical influences of Delphic decadence?

We are not without positive means for developing an adequate, healthy response to the threats implicit in those matters just considered up to this point.

The Case of Tilak

As Bal Gangadhar Tilak emphasized, modern astronomy has given us an aperture for access to proof of certain important features of the existence of the relatively most advanced cultures known to have been in existence prior to the beginning of our planet's current interglacial age. The decoding of ancient calendars of a religious and similar provenance from the standard of modern European astronomy's knowledge, since the work of Carl F. Gauss, et al., of the conditions of the available practice of both astronomy and transoceanic astrogation during the seemingly vast sea of intraglacial millennia, has enabled us to reach with qualified, but nonetheless some relative certainty, into some cultures of prehistoric times, such as Vedic culture.

When we have taken this kind of evidence into account, we are enabled to attest with certainty to the argument which Plato reports, as in his Timaeus, from the warnings to the Greeks from the Egyptians of Solon's and Plato's lifetimes.

Generally, the evidence so premised leads us to a qualified degree of certainty about the conditions, the opportunities for life of a human species during the circumstances of the recent two millions or so years. We do not know yet whether human beings existed two millions years ago, or not.[14] However, in reading the geological and related records from the interstices of long glacial and interglacial cycles, we adduce two leading conclusions which must guide our approach to the pre-history of those developments in culture which have been handed down from earlier times to those of us living within the recent six to eight thousands years of what might be regarded as historical experience.

What we do, or should know with certainty, is the absolute separation of the essential quality of the human individual from that of the individual member of any different species, including the higher apes. That difference is the same power of cognition which sets the existing Noösphere apart as above the Biosphere. For much of the two millions years, whenever the human species did exist, it existed as absolutely distinct from any sort of higher ape.[15]

First, the fact that sources such as the Vedic hymns are internally dated to what could have been observed only six to eight thousand years ago, or more, by astronomically verified content today, takes us inside the minds of the members of such cultures, and also affords us, with evidence of scientifically crucial implications, insight into the way in which they lived and thought. We do not know all of the ways they thought, but we know some crucial benchmarks. For example, the fact that these calendars include such features as verifiably reasonable estimates of the cycle of the magnetic pole, points to the long accumulation of activity in ancient transoceanic astrogation.[16]

This indicates, as Tilak emphasizes in his Arctic Home in the Vedas, other evidence, as from ancient Egypt and ancient Greek-language material, that the emergence of Mediterranean civilization over the post-glacial period, during which the level of the world's oceans and principal seas rose by about four hundred feet to presently general levels, was dominated by transoceanic maritime cultures. The circumstances of life, and change in circumstances of life from relevant, archeologically known traces of archeological evidence of the pre-glacial-melt cultures, and general considerations of the changing circumstances of the planet during the latter portion of the recent 20,000-odd years of post-glacial climate and so forth, all point to transoceanic cultures as the most probable mode of development and persistence of cultures during relevant ancient times.

The Cases of Riemann and Vernadsky

The second class of most relevant facts, is the fundamental, functional difference, such as the matter of characteristic tendency for increase of potential relative population-density, which separates the species of ape from that of man, and man from, in fact, all inferior kinds of warm-blooded species. This coincides with the class of evidence to which Vernadsky variously points, or strongly implies in his distinction of Noösphere from Biosphere. This includes a topical area of working investigations in which my own experience and investigations have somewhat crucial significance. My special qualifications on this point, reflect those features of my own development which bear upon my attacks on the frauds of standard classroom geometry, and on such wild-eyed positivist cults as the dogmas of such pagan Bertrand Russell devotees as Norbert Wiener, John von Neumann, and their proliferation of dupes of pagan "information theory" and "artificial intelligence" cults gathered initially around the Josiah Macy, Jr. Foundation and Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Research Laboratory of Electronics (RLE).

Neither of the referenced sets of progressive developments of mankind's power in and over the universe, could have occurred were the human mind itself organized to function on the basis of reductionist modes of formal logic. In contrast, the lunatic absurdities of Wiener's notion of information theory and von Neumann's mathematical economics and "artificial intelligence," are premised axiomatically on reductionist modes in logic, such as those encountered in the essentials of the so-called social and economic "theory" of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels carried to an other-worldly extreme. It is precisely this fatal error of reductionism carried to consistent extremes which is the essential basis for those essential notions of "spoon-bender" and related cults in both the NATO nations and former Soviet system, which have been passed down to the present as the most characteristic of the current deadly threats to the continued existence of all general sections of transoceanic European civilization.[17]

Focus on the common aspects of the culture of both both the NATO countries and the relatively brief history of approximately eight decades of the Soviet system. It was born in 1917; whereas, I was born in 1922; that pair of facts is typical of the standpoint from which to view the Soviet phenomenon, and also the history of Europe and the Americas, in particular, during the same lapsed time, from 1917 to the present day. As the Egyptians warned the Greeks of Solon's and Plato's lifetimes, so I warn most of you today; you have no truly old men. That deficiency warps your choice of the frame of historical reference within which to situate reflections on the meaning of even the most crucial qualities of recent developments.

Most of the forces shaping what we should recognize as history, represent a span of experience by society which is much, much longer than the lifetimes of living individuals. Consequently, when a typical person from today begins his argument, "In my experience ... ," floods of laughter should erupt immediately. Even the simplest of the currently relevant economic facts about the United States today could not be recognized as facts unless not less than four or more generations of the economic and related political history of the U.S.A. were adopted as the primary evidence to be taken into account. Indeed, to understand the most important differences in ways of thinking, between Europeans and the American tradition today, one must take into account the way in which those differences took their present shape in 1763, and the still reverberating effects of the way in which the Anglo-Dutch Liberal financier interests organized the French Revolution, the Napoleonic wars, and two so-called World Wars of the Twentieth Century. These developments must be examined from the standpoint of the mortal conflict respecting constitutional interest between the British monarchy and the U.S. constitutional system during the entire sweep of the interval 1763-2005.

To understand how that 1763-2005 conflict of principled characteristics came into being, one must look back to crucial developments within European civilization as a whole, over a span of nearly 3,000 years. These differences, at least the principled ones, are deeply embedded, as, seemingly, virtual instincts, as self-evidently axiomatic, in the relevant sets of nations and partisans within them, over that entire span. The conflict between the principles of science known to the Pythagoreans and Plato, and the reductionist opponents of that scientific method, is the most characteristic of the principled features of the sweep of globally extended European history over the entirety of that span of approximately 3,000 years.

Therefore, the revolution in physical science accomplished by Riemann before his death, was the work of one of the world's greatest scientific thinkers of his time. This cumulative work of genius was accomplished by him at an age of just two months less than forty years, after having played a leading role in founding the greatest school of physical science, of Betti, Beltrami, et al., in modern Italy. In principle, modern civilization has progressed relatively very little, respecting the most essential, still unresolved, most fundamental issues of physical science, since his death in 1866. The causes for the unsatisfactory degree of progress made since then, are not accidental.

I do not exaggerate that historical significance of Riemann's work. Those who might wish to argue against me on that point, should begin their assessment of what I have just written by checking their own inventory of scientific knowledge against Riemann's. Take as a point of reference the evidence of Vernadsky's own ignorance of some of the most crucial implications of Riemann's work, as I emphasized the significance of that defect in Vernadsky's knowledge here at an earlier point.

For example, the Fusion Energy Foundation, of which I was a co-founder, and which was shut down, with irreparable, maliciously motivated damage, through what was subsequently ruled to have been a fraud upon the court by the U.S. Justice Department, had been among the more significant, and broad-based international scientific foundations based in the U.S.A. The biggest quarrels we had within the leading ranks of the Foundation, were typified by elements of systemic incompetence in the strongly held opinions of persons who were typical of scientists in more or less first rank among the international science community. All of the relevant cases were reflections of a systemic ignorance of the essential elements of Riemann's work, a systemic ignorance based on the Gestapo-like enforcement practices, through referee circles, in defense of the demand that issues of science be settled by reductionist modes in "generally accepted classroom methods," at the blackboard, or by comparable digital computer methods, rather than by the standard of unique experimentation which is central to the mathematical physics of Gauss, Wilhelm Weber, Dirichlet, Riemann, et al.

This problem had—and still has—a history. It can be traced to the vicious and wildly incompetent attacks on Leibniz's principle of the calculus (his catenary-cued universal principle of physical least action) by the Anglo-Dutch Liberal followers of Descartes, such as the hoaxsters D'Alembert, Euler, and Lagrange, and the attempted suppression of Carl Gauss, who had exposed that fraud, by the circles of Napoleon Bonaparte and Bonaparte's adopted science spokesman, the hoaxster Lagrange. It is traced, through the patronage of the Duke of Wellington of the hoaxsters Laplace and Cauchy, and through the London-steered faction of the fanatical haters of Gauss, Weber, Dirichlet, Riemann, et al., such as Clausius, Grassmann, Kelvin, Maxwell, hoaxster Helmholtz, et al. The savage attack on Max Planck in war-time Berlin of the first World War, by the fanatical followers of the crank Ernst Mach, as this rat-pack-like behavior of the morally decadent positivists was deplored by Albert Einstein, is a reflection of the manner and degree to which science has been corrupted by means of virtual terrorist academic methods over a period which began during the period of the last years of the life of Gauss, Weber, and Dirichlet, and of Riemann's rise to international prominence.

We had a taste of the spill-over of the effect of those intellectually terrorist methods within some of the proceedings of the Fusion Energy Foundation.

The intellectually criminal behavior of those members of the science community who permitted themselves to act as a virtual intellectual-academic Gestapo in service of London-centered hatred of "continental science," can not be competently understood as simply a reflection of British imperialism's service of its perceived strategic self-interests. It is a moral malignancy which London inherited, via Paolo Sarpi's Venice, from the Olympian cult of Zeus which was managed at the cult-center, and financier-oligarchical center of that time, the same Delphi Apollo cult once served by Plutarch. Keep science out of the knowledge and hands of the people, and do this largely by methods deployed to vulgarize the conception of nature through the propagation of the same crude methods of reductionism reflected in Euclidean systems of definitions, axioms, and postulates: the damage to the minds of generations to come can be promoted by nothing much more than such means.

So, in the case of Vernadsky, we have a first-rate genius, who, among his other achievements, had produced one of the most fundamental, most universal scientific conceptions to appear in modern history, conceptions which reflect the most essential principles internal to modern physical systems, dynamics rather than mechanics, whose legacy today is still crippled by failure to reach the level of understanding of physical science represented by even the Riemann whom Vernadsky had come to admire.

4. The Perspective for Russia Today

The task before us here, is to cure a sickness, not to admire its apparent cleverness of design. The treatment of Russia's victimization by what is symptomized as "the dark side of the spoon," must presume the existence of an available choice of self-image of Russia, by its people, a choice which is not only hopeful, but inspiring enough to mobilize that people to muster the energy of will and endurance to gain the relevant goal. Health is the essential cure for all sicknesses. Russia's specific role as a Eurasian nation implicitly defines the needed healthy self-image, once the implications of Vernadsky's definition of the Noösphere as a dynamic, rather than mechanical system, is applied to the needs of the world as a whole at this time.

Take the matter, as it is said, "from the top down," as we must proceed, similarly, from inside the U.S.A. Look at the currently urgent requirements of the world taken as a whole, and locate Russia's available choice of an advantageous role, as a nation, within that global set of requirements.

The great challenge to the world at large has just been demonstrated with great forcefulness by the way in which the prevalent U.S., and also, global, economic and related social policies, transformed a serious, intrinsically unstoppable, but delimited natural disaster, into the trigger of a vast, exploding human catastrophe. The pivotal issue is being underlined at this moment, by the emergency recovery policies which have been mustered largely through a bipartisan initiative from within the U.S. Senate. These rescue efforts, now estimated as running in the order of $100 billions short- to medium-term cost, or more, represent, as a matter of practice, a sudden turn away from the recent trend of anti-social-welfare policies of the U.S.A. and other nations of European culture, into measures of powerful affirmation of the social-welfare responsibilities of government.

From the standpoint of the history of law of modern European civilization, the recently accelerated trend toward dumping the principle of the common good (i.e., general welfare) is properly defined as a reversal of the policy which has been chiefly responsible for all of the progress of European civilization, relative to, for example, Asian models.

This shift, away from modern European to Asian models of society, represents a relatively long-term development within the culture of continental Europe and the Americas, as in some other important locations. It is a reflection of a generations-long, post-President Franklin Roosevelt trend, an anti-Franklin Roosevelt trend, launched from within Winston Churchill's England, at the close of the war of that time. This has been a decades-long trend toward the establishment of an imperial system under which sovereignty of nations was eroded, on the way toward establishment of an imperial system modelled on the medieval precedent of the Venetian-Norman ultramontane form of imperialism. The adoption of that precedent has been in motion, in fact, since the Paris Treaty of February 1763, as the Anglo-Dutch Liberal form of imperial power then represented by Lord Shelburne's circles within the British East India Company. With the death of President Franklin Roosevelt, the determination to implement that British imperial precedent, world-wide, was pursued with more desperate energy.

Since the death of Roosevelt, this attempt to eradicate the institution of the sovereign nation-state has lived through three successive phases thus far.

The first phase of the anti-Franklin Roosevelt drive compensated for the existential need to allow Roosevelt's Bretton Woods system to continue for a decade or more, so that the United States might begin to be absorbed into a Europe-centered revival of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal imperial rule, from the shattered condition of the economies of western and central Europe at that time. The launching of the U.S. Truman Administration's complicity in the British-directed threat of preemptive nuclear attack on the Soviet Union set the first of these three phases into operation.

The second phase began with developments including the hastened ouster, prompted from Britain, of Chancellor Adenauer in Germany, and the wave of assassination threats against Adenauer's partner, France's London-hated Charles de Gaulle. This drive was continued, with the assassination of U.S. President John Kennedy, and the launching of the folly of the U.S. war in Indo-China. The eruption of the 1968er phenomenon from the handiwork of the anti-civilization, existentialist Congress for Cultural Freedom, prepared the way for the events of 1971-1972 in which the remains of the Franklin Roosevelt recovery-system were systematically destroyed, in the Americas, as, slightly more slowly, in Europe.

The third phase began with the 1989-1992 dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, the Comecon, and the Soviet Union itself. The collapse of the Soviet Union was treated, as some neo-conservative fanatics gloated, as "the end of history," meaning the establishment of an eternal new form of world empire, an Anglo-Dutch Liberal form of empire, broadly along the lines projected by Lord Shelburne's Gibbon.

We are now on the verge of a fourth phase, the intended destruction of civilization by the methods of permanent revolution through permanent warfare, an intention now clearly demonstrated by the policies of the U.S. George W. Bush, Jr. Administration and the Liberal Imperialist government of the United Kingdom's Prime Minister Tony Blair.

The characteristic of this Bush Administration, is not that of the President himself, but his puppet-like, utter lack of personal intellectual and moral qualifications for that office and for the challenges with which reality confronts it, increasingly, now. The tell-tale quality of that administration as a whole, is the control of that government and its foreign policy by an assortment of what are called, variously, "chickenhawks" (former draft-evaders, such as Vice-President Cheney, now campaigning for pre-emptive warfare and fascist forms of rule), "ordinary neo-conservatives" of kindred malicious inclinations toward both foreign nations and people in general, and a hard-core of Roman Legionnaire/Nazi Waffen-SS-style fanatics, the "spoon-benders."

The sheer, fanatical incompetence of that President's behavior during the period since the Aug. 2nd warning of the character of the oncoming hurricane, expresses that character of that Administration. It was not so much the intention of the President which transformed a natural catastrophe into a vast, still-escalating human catastrophe; the fault lay in the character of the Administration and its policies, especially its manifestly escalating hatred against the constitutional obligation to promote the general welfare.

The "spoon-benders," who are all too frequently of high military rank, are the most significant strategic element in the trash-barrel-full of frankly larcenous hooligans composing the rotten core of the current U.S. Administration. There are comparable elements within the British and other circles, including the spoon-bender relics of past asymmetric-warfare capabilities of the former Soviet Union, some now working for often drug-trafficking funded interests scarcely loyal to Russia.

If Russia were induced to play its assigned part in the kind of asymmetric warfare which U.S. officials Cheney and Rumsfeld, together with Britain's Blair, have dumped upon the world, that complicity of Russia would ensure the establishment of the nightmare of permanent, "spoon-bender" warfare, a true "Apocalypse Now" kind of permanent warfare, which Cheney et al. clearly intend.

There are two leading kinds of remedies required for dealing with the perils of this fourth phase of steps toward a parody of the Crusades and kindred bestialities of the Venetian-Norman partnership constituting the ultramontane form of imperial rule of those centuries. First, it is required that there be an immediate and rapid shift of political power, that is to say policy-shaping power, out of the hands of not only the spoon-benders and their like, but also the right-wing opponents of the resumption of policy-orientations toward the principle of the general welfare. Second, it is essential to give overwhelming impetus to the practicable forms of promotion of the goals of the general welfare throughout the planet, including Asia. Here, Russia's potential as a Eurasian culture with special, historically defined economic potentials, is a crucial, keystone feature of the effort to organize the planet as a whole around the central pivot of a great economic renaissance of the Eurasian continent.

I now summarize this approach to the policies of the planet, with the case of Russia and its indicated global role as the keystone of this presentation.

A. The Needed General Opinion

It must be recognized, that the directed drift, away from the system of sovereign nation-state republics, toward what has been lately termed "globalization," must be reversed, or the planet as a whole will plunge rapidly into a prolonged new dark age, worse than anything known in documented history of the planet so far.

The commitment to "globalization" can be understood adequately only as a form of, quite literally, a functional expression of mass-psychosis, whose genesis in its present form dates from the agreement between Britain's H.G. Wells and Bertrand Russell around the fascistic theses of Wells' 1928 publication of The Open Conspiracy. It must also be recognized, that despite Adolf Hitler's vow that his National Socialism was not for export, the actual intention inherent in the Nazi system and its drive toward perpetual, imperial warfare, and exemplary mass-exterminations, was the establishment of a world-empire in the projected form of the SS-state, as the evolution of the SS during the course of the war attests. The intention, in London, as in Berlin and Rome, was the establishment of a new world empire, the projected Anglo-Dutch Liberal successor to Rome which had been projected by Lord Shelburne's lackey Gibbon, as the purpose of research work titled The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

Denials of this set of facts by relevant educated circles suffices to prove that they are either lying, or sincerely insane. In the real universe, fairy-tale perversions of the type of "Harry Potter" do not exist for long.

The fatal flaw of this set of schemes, now referred to as "globalization," is that it is premised upon the intention of the Olympian Zeus, as that intention is exposed by Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound. The intention is twofold. First, to eliminate political-economic systems which rely on increase of the productive powers of labor, per capita and per square kilometer, through technological progress rooted in commitment to expanded discovery and utilization of fundamental discoveries of scientific principle. The oligarchical objection to such progress is that a people which is as intelligent as belief in such scientific progress requires, will not submit to a system of slavery or feudalistic tyranny over virtual human cattle for long.

The implementation of globalization, as we have seen its awful technological and economic effects on the living conditions in North America and Europe, means the lowering of the physical standard of productivity and family life to a degree that global population-levels must fall rapidly to approximately the levels prevalent at the time of Europe's Fourteenth-Century New Dark Age, a reduction from more than six billions souls today, to significantly less than one billion within a generation or so. That is the intention expressed by the coupling of the irrationalist, anti-science cult of so-called "environmentalism," as by the willful collapse of standards of health-care in Europe and North America.

To bring these utopian states of global degradation about, it were necessary to uproot the institution of the modern European sovereign state, as that institution was first established in a modern form of commonwealth, as in Louis XI's France and Henry VII's England, and in a more perfect form by the combined effect of the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, the U.S. 1776 Declaration of Independence, and U.S. Federal Constitution. The objective is to suppress the modern sovereign nation-state in favor of an ultramontane form of global, Anglo-Dutch Liberal rule by financier-oligarchical syndicates operating as dictatorial powers over whatever is tolerated as a shattered and hollowed-out semblance of government.

Therefore, these factors taken into account, the proposal for globalization is not merely insane, it is literally Satanic.

In contrast to the Satanic implications of the policy of "globalization" mixed with anti-scientific "ecologism," the sovereign nation-state republic, is based upon the principle of universal natural law known variously by the name of "the general welfare" or "the common good." When this is combined with the functions of a literate form of national language practiced in a Classical mode of emphasis upon irony, rather than stultifying dictionary-like literalism, we have the indispensable cultural medium for the functions and purposes of effective national sovereignty. The cultivation of such a literate form of common communication, is required for the promotion and circulation of the ideas upon which increase of the effective productive powers of labor, as measured per capita of total population, depends.

The necessary division into sovereign nation-state republics therefore requires a principled set of cooperative relations among sovereign republics, based on the founding principle of the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia. As history shows amply, that principle of that Treaty requires more than mutual aid; it requires common aims for the progress of the general welfare of a growing human population as a whole.

Under a body of international law ordered in conformity with what I have just outlined, it were not only permissible, but necessary that nations have the right of efficient national defense against attacks from within, or orchestrated from without. The case of the U.S. role under President Franklin Roosevelt's leadership, is exemplary. We were not the best professional soldiers in the world, but we had sheer tonnage of logistical advantage which enabled us, with our allies, to defeat the Nazi empire. Niccolò Machiavelli said similar things in his time. Pre-emptive nuclear war, or kindred non-nuclear concoctions, are intrinsically crimes against humanity, crimes which increase in their degree of personal culpability of the perpetrator as the physical power per capita increases through technological progress.

However, it can not be permitted, that this obligation to maintain competent provisions for national defense, be employed as a pretext for Hobbesian policies of statecraft. History since his lifetime has shown that the policies of Hobbes are to be recognized, and that in efficient ways, as the intention of perpetrating crimes against humanity. Thus, Fukuyama's neo-conservative doctrine of "The End of History," is itself typical of a Hobbesian kind of criminal intent against humanity, because its implicit claims of victory over the Soviet Union and other potential targets, makes the mere existence of any power opposite to an empire implicitly a casus belli, as relevant U.S. circles view China as a target on the horizon today.

Nation-states must be sovereign, but, a prosperous and safe world order requires conscious commitment to forms and goals of cooperation among sovereign states. These needed agreements among sovereigns have the quality of reflections of what can be demonstrated to be natural law, rather than some guise for merely positive law.

On this latter account, what I have set forth, afresh, within the preceding pages of this report, as in earlier reports, such as my "Vernadsky and Dirichlet's Principle," has the highly relevant implications of recognizing a higher, more inclusive quality of required, explicit common purpose among the nations of the world today. These are the practical implications of Vernadsky's definitions of the Biosphere and Noösphere. This consideration is absolutely crucial for the cases of Russia and of its Asia neighbors. It is crucial for the effective implementation of a process of superseding a division between European and Asian cultures, by the emergence of cooperation toward building the kind of Eurasian society which is implicit in bringing the conditions of the people of Asia generally up to the realized level of physical economic and related parity with the general-welfare goals of European civilization at its best so far.

Such goals could never be realized in practice, for Asians in particular, today, except through the approach implicit in the referenced work of Vernadsky, a Vernadsky viewed from the vantage-point of the work of Riemann, as I have indicated this case. In making this functional connection, the role of Russia, and its historical experience, is crucial.

That is the key cultural weapon against the pestilence of "spoon-benders" infesting and poisoning Russia's culture.

B. Russia as Such

Mendeleyev and Vernadsky, when viewed in retrospect today, are the prototypical expression for science, of Russia's unique, historically determined potential as a sovereign nation. The crucial distinction to be made, on their account, in the context of this part of the report, is between the exploitation of natural resources focussed to a large degree in Central and Northern Asia, and the effective development of that potential in a way corresponding to the presently urgent long-term requirements of humanity as a whole.

Nonetheless, in a decent ordering of history to come, it should prove to be the case, that it was the Soviet Union which broke the bonds of a system based on the implications of serfdom. Whereas, the developments within Russia, notably from Peter I, on, showed the capabilities of a certain stratum of Russia's intelligentsia, and the commendable impulses for development of Russia and the conditions of life under some Czars, and so on; at the same time, the feudalist oppression of the great mass of the population had remained a terrible physical, and mental burden on the people and culture as a whole. The failure of the Czarist system to remedy this pattern, the failure to apply the natural-law principle of the general welfare, created the conditions, in 1917, when the failure of all of the likely political parties of government created the vacuum in which V.I. Lenin intervened with his prophetic insights into the tragic flaw of both the Czarist system and its legitimated reformers and the then current system of post-Edward VII Europe as a whole.[18]

Later, when the Soviet Union itself was in the process of disintegration, I was in a relatively privileged political and intellectual situation, both for foreseeing the virtually inevitable internal collapse of the Soviet Union in its existing form before the end of the 1980s, but also knowing the tremendous potential for the member-states of the Soviet and Comecon systems, under a proper approach to dealing with the virtually inevitable, then onrushing political-economic crisis.

Unfortunately, instead of the eminently feasible approaches which I proposed, the worst possible alternatives available at that time were dictated from the Thatcher and Mitterrand governments, with a large degree of U.S. complicity. Alternatives to my outlined measures were deployed, alternatives which were fully intended to loot and destroy those national economies of which the Comecon had been composed. The ruin caused by those alternatives were intended to destroy all of Europe over the coming period, through policies which were intended to loot and destroy not only even the economies of the NATO-member nations, but all of Europe, especially Thatcher's and Mitterrand's special target, Germany. Today there is no part of the continent of Europe, east or west, which is not presently in far worse condition, per capita and per square kilometer, than in 1989.

In no significant degree was the relative, deep and vast ruin, which we see throughout Europe today, caused chiefly by the influence of the Soviet system on its own aftermath. The worst came from opposite side of the Cold-War political divide. The principal culprits are typified by the influence of a leading putative, anti-Communist organization from the West, the so-called Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF). The misconception of man associated with that organized cultural pestilence (CCF), has been among the worst of the cultural diseases which have promoted the kinds of lunacies in influential currents of public opinion, through which the nations of what had been non-Communist western Europe, as in the U.S.A., have destroyed their own economies, economies which are, at this moment, on the verge of a global, general breakdown-crisis.

In the teaching and practice of economics, the issue of the general welfare arises as a point of division between those who recognize that economic processes are intrinsically dynamic, and the opponents of that view, who cling to the common delusion about economics taught in universities today, that economies may be treated statistically, as if they were merely mechanical processes. Unfortunately, standard practices in accounting and economics, in most of European culture today, remain foolishly premised on mechanistic assumptions, rather than the required dynamic ones. That accounting viewpoint, which is consistent with the tradition of Venice and of Anglo-Dutch Liberalism, has now proven itself to have been the greatest immediate potential danger to civilization as a whole.

This factor of incompetence in economic and accounting doctrine, takes an acute form in cases such as India, where the competitive cheapness of India's exports is expressed as the permanent mass of desperately poor, a mass of poor which is associated with, and largely a product of the omission of necessary investment in development of basic economic infrastructure. One neighbor survives by, so to speak, eating the means of existence of another two. All that cheapness of products from India, for example, is made to provide the markets of Europe and the U.S.A. goods and services at prices not possible where at least a residual efficient of dwindling concern for the general welfare of the nation has been the rule, until nearly the close of the U.S. Clinton Presidency.

Today, Asian nations, and, especially since 1971-1982, South and Central America, have been treated as targets of forms of primitive accumulation which perpetuate the suffering of a growing mass of desperately poor there, while bankrupting the increasingly less productive economies of North America and Europe. The onrushing world crisis, as so expressed in so-called developing sectors of the Americas, Asia, and elsewhere, is now warning us all, that we must shift from a bottom-up, primitive-accumulation-based promotion of out-sources, to shift from the folly of dependency upon "out-sourcing," to take a top-down approach to long-term development of infrastructure and science-driver programs in Asian and other so-called "developing regions."

This long-term approach requires vast, long-term physical-capital advances, on credit, from Europe and North America, and other relevant sources, to underdeveloped regions and nations, rather than the methods of primitive accumulation typified by U.S. trade with India, China, et al. today. The principal intention of this reform must be, to create the physical mechanisms of international infrastructure and top-down scientific-technological progress within developing nations, as needed to replace the present, actually failed system of globalization. This can not be accomplished by wealth-sharing, under the present conditions of general, and deep contraction and collapse of the economies of North America and throughout Europe; but only through the mechanisms of long-term, cheap credit, under a global fixed-exchange-rate system.

In this picture, Russia has a crucial role as a nation with advanced scientific-technological capabilities, of which the most conspicuous potential is located in the development of the region of central and northern Asia in ways needed for a top-down development of the regional Biosphere and Noösphere. This development of Russia is crucial for the world as a whole,, but this would depend, inclusively on the potentials, which could be accomplis hed only within the framework of a global fixed-exchange-rate system. That is the presently necessary physical-capital precondition for assured long-term raw materials supplies, using approaches not generally available to the Asia nations without the role of Russia in this essential way.

This role for Russia is combined with its function as a key element of an active economic infrastructural bridge of development, and of very high-speed ground mass-transportation between Europe and East and South Asia, through Central Asia.

C. A View of Asia and Its Cultures

In this picture, the future of Asia, depends upon exposing and dumping what has become, of late, an unscientific, sentimental view of certain alleged beauties of Asian culture which, it is hoped and believed, are now, if only allegedly, about to be unleashed, to supersede the centuries-long domination of the planet by European culture. That sentimental view as expressed by some in Asia, as also outside, is a wishful, implicitly cultural-suicidal delusion.

We have several actual, historical cases of notable economic achievements in Asia. Japan was the first Asian nation to embrace the American System of political-economy, beginning 1877, then under the influence of Henry C. Carey's representative E. Peshine Smith. South Korea's recent decades of development is notable on similar accounts. The Philippines, prior to its crushing, increasingly, under changes, including coups d'état, dictated from the U.S.A. during the 1970s and 1980s, and beyond, was premised upon the American model associated with the role of the MacArthurs. In most of the remainder of Asia, unfortunately, the Asian model still prevails for the populations as a whole.

For example, the developments in China, since the days of Nixon, Kissinger, and George H.W. Bush, have been impressive, as far as they have reached vertically, and to some significant degree sideways. However, the greatly overrated economic power usually attributed currently to both of these leading nations of Asia, China and India, is revealed as a deadly misapprehension of reality, if—and when—we examine the causes for the perpetuation of savage poverty among, for example, approximately seventy percent of the population of modern India, still today. In China, for example, the U.S. sponsorship of supply to the U.S. by Chinese producers, has been strategically crafted to set certain limits on the degree to which China acquires an integrated set of actually independent economic capabilities. In both cases, we are confronted, in effect, by a Classic form of the economic folly of what is called "primitive accumulation."

The ability of China and India to dump increasing volumes of sales of their tangible and intangible product on the world's market for globalization, has been a medium-term advantage, but, for the long term, is an engine of generation of political and socially deadly crises of expectation within those nations, with possible, resulting, social explosions, among the great majority of virtually all of the nations of continental Asia. The nations of Asia, to the degree they are afforded the opportunity to do so, are permitted, currently, to perform rites of virtual human economic sacrifice upon the majority of the population of the respective nations, an arrangement called development, in order to meet the price and related requirements of the grossly mismanaged, and currently collapsing North American and European internal markets. At this moment, that pattern of development, and predatory looting by relevant financier interests, represents a cumulative, looming, immediate, potential disaster for the planet as a whole, with special, shocking effects now looming for Asia.

Therefore, the immediate threat is, that the presently almost inevitable general breakdown-crisis of economies of North America and Europe, will mean an immediate collapse of the markets for the export products of Asia. Virtually no existing government of Asia could withstand, politically, the protracted conditions of that scope and depth, unless it were to make the paradoxical implications of recent patterns of economic development clear to its population, that it both recognizes this near-term trend, and is prepared to deal with it constructively.

In other words, this internal social-economic bomb within virtually all Asian cultures today, is a reflection of the existence of forms of society from which the efficient application of the natural-law principle of promotion of the general welfare has not been, and is not currently operative. This deadly state of current affairs, is a product of what has been the general trend, of differences in trend of relations between modern European and Asian cultures, since the point of great take-off of European civilization with the Fifteenth-Century European Renaissance centered on the great ecumenical Council of Florence.

The source of this paradoxical situation is fairly identified as reflecting a traditional failure in Asian civilizations, relative to modern European civilizations. It reflects an Asian tradition which has been richly exploited by Anglo-Dutch Liberal and related colonial and imperialist interests, a mode of exploitation which is sometimes promoted through the Liberals' playing upon a point of false pride among some Asians about the legacy of Asian culture. Since Europe's Seventeenth Century, the Dutch and British India Companies, together with their Portuguese and Spanish instruments, led in setting the trend for colonialist looting of what we view in retrospect, today, as the "developing sector." This looting, and associated mass murder and other repression, has been cruel, but it is not the principal active factor in sustaining, and worsening of the presently prevalent poverty of that victimized sector.

The principal factor, recently, has become, increasingly, the inherent complicity, presently, of Asian and other cultures of victimized regions, in shaping their own fate, a complicity derived from the lack of an efficient Asian commitment to that principle of the general welfare, which is a principle rooted in efforts of ancient Greek culture's Pythagoreans, Solon, Socrates, and Plato, a principle which established the modern sovereign form of nation-state, during Europe's Fifteenth Century.

Since the Death of FDR

The guilt of Asian and other nations since the death of President Franklin Roosevelt, has been their induced submission to the prevalent pressure on them, that, if they wished kind treatment from the Anglo-Dutch Liberals and the Liberals' U.S. accomplices, nations from the second, third, and lower tiers of power were advised not to adopt the practice of the model represented by Roosevelt's more efficient commitment to the promotion of the principle of the general welfare.

The role of the U.S.A. in betraying Jawaharlal Nehru, even during the period of the U.S. Kennedy Administration, in tolerating the British promotion of the warfare between India and China, in the break-up of the Bandung Conference efforts, and in the London-centered shock-devaluation of the rupee, all during the 1960s, is typical. The crushing of the nationalist economic-development impulses in Asia (as in Africa) by the Anglo-American powers, in the name of combatting forces denounced as actual or potential Soviet accomplices, is exemplary.

Take the case of what happened with the death of Franklin Roosevelt, when the personal alliance of Roosevelt's successor, Harry Truman, with post-war nuclear-war-maker Winston Churchill, prompted the U.S.A. and Anglo-Dutch interests to launch a bloody reversal of Franklin Roosevelt's intention for a decolonized world. This case is exemplary, with ugly consequences up to the present day.

The same U.S. and Anglo-Dutch Liberal policy of repression is fully in operation, still today. The sum of the lesson of that experience is, that the allies of the Anglo-American financier cartel-interests, used the occasion of Franklin Roosevelt's death, to impose upon the U.S.A. the role of the leading responsible, as enforcer, for crushing those impulses in the former colonized world for establishing systems of government efficiently committed to bringing the modern European principle of promotion of the general welfare into the conduct of their own independent governments, their own social systems.

All contributing factors taken into account, the crucial issue is the failure to establish the efficient application of the principle of the general welfare, the principle of agape, in what had been the colonial and semi-colonial regions of the world.

What was done to the Mexico of President José López Portillo during the Summer and Autumn of 1982, is typical of the crimes which the U.S.A., like the Anglo-Dutch Liberals proper, has perpetrated against the humanity of the so-called "developing sector," as they are attempting with ferocity, today, with complicity of the IMF and World Bank, inside the U.S.A. and western Europe itself.

The idea of grinding up a large ration of today's cheap labor, of one's own, or other nations, as a way of building toward a broadly prosperous future, is a pure delusion. Equally, the populist notion among the oppressed poor, that their afflictions could be remedied by donations dropped from above by those financier interests and their institutions, is a wishful, pathetic delusion, a delusion which aggravates the torment of the poor, rather than ameliorate it for more than a passing instant.

The only true progress of society, is reflected in its physical, rather than monetary economy. It is reflected, obviously, in the increase of the productive powers of labor, as measured in physical (rather than monetary) terms, per capita, and per square kilometer of total national territory. The delusion is, that although, regrettably, the mass of gross poverty, illiteracy, and disease is still rampant, the bettering of the incomes and social condition of some large minority of the population will, as President Herbert Hoover's campaign propaganda vowed, "trickle down" from the relatively rich, to the eventual advantage of the relatively poor.

Perhaps less obvious to contemporary opinion, the fact is that about half of the total real cost of production in any healthy modern economy, is represented, contrary to typical British economists' lies, by investments in the public sector, in basic economic infrastructure. That is to say, that the physical productivity of a national economy, per capita and per square kilometer, is not determined solely by the direct employment of technology in production of commodities; rather, the effective productive powers of labor are multiplied by the interaction between the technology of production and the technological effect of the degree of development of basic economic infrastructure.

Since the 1970s, in particular, the Anglo-Dutch Liberal imperial financier-oligarchical interests, have utilized the floating-exchange-rate system to promote some large-scale infrastructure programs, but without balancing this debt against development of the nation's means to carry the debt. Since 1971-1972, and especially since 1981, through a combination of such approaches to great projects, combined with the pure swindle of the way in which the Liberal interests manage international currency and debt markets, to wreck and loot trusting nations, and to lure a pro-oligarchical financial minority within the victim nations to promote such modes of ruin of not only the great majority of the population, but the transformation of formerly sovereign nations into what are classed as "failed states."

The case of Mexico, since August-October 1982, is one of the clearest cases of wrecking a once stable and growing republic, by means of such swindles as that against which then President José López Portillo complained in his celebrated October address to the United Nations Organization. The looting of Argentina, of Peru, of Ecuador, of Bolivia, and the targetting now of Brazil by interests associated with the Bank of Scotland's accomplice, the Bank Santander, by the World Wildlife Fund, and with the participation of the Moon organization, are typical of this continuing pattern.

The Delusion of 'Primitive Accumulation'

Essentially, relative to the mistaken, even incompetent, socialist criticism of capitalism's imperial tendencies, the correct view of the matter of modern imperialism as such is limited to a handful of relevant economists, including Rosa Luxemberg's 1913 publication of her The Accumulation of Capital, E. Preobrazhensky's Soviet study of primitive accumulation, and U.S. State Department veteran Herbert Feis's work, are most notable cases of reference for judging Luxemburg's differences with the British, German, and Russian socialists of her time. While there are understandable errors in Luxemburg's work, including her credulous acceptance of Marx's definition of value, these were errors partly of political accommodation to the social-democratic movement of which she has chosen to be a part. However, the kernel of her argument, on this point of imperialism, against both Marx and the contemporary socialists of her time, is relevant here and now, especially so when considering the largely still unresolved systemic errors of Soviet policies on this account.[19]

Frankly, as she emphasizes, Karl Marx was systemically wrong in his arguments relevant to this subject, V.I. Lenin was flatly wrong, as were the Social-Democrats generally. Lenin was famously diligent in his respect for statistics, but often, as in this case, did not understand the significance of the data he was referencing. It was, as Luxemburg and Feis coincide on this point, international financial loans, not the export of real industrial capital, which has been the origin of all notable European forms of imperialism since the millennia of the operations of the ancient financier oligarchy associated with the Delphi cult, the ancient Roman Empire, the ultramontane system of international usury practiced by the Venetian-Norman alliance, and the spin-off of the modern Venetian system, as by the economy of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal system, since the latter's birth as the "Venetian Party" of northern Europe, the latter around the figure of the tyrannical brutes known as William of Orange and most among his Hannoverian successors.

The pervasive incompetencies, which still linger, a decade and a half after 1989, on the subject of economics, among leading Marxists and kindred commentators, has been rooted principally in the delusion that modern political-economy is based, "scientifically," on the British model of Locke, Mandeville, Adam Smith, et al. Karl Marx's delusion, that the British Haileybury model of such as Quesnay, Smith, and Ricardo, was, despite all faults, the only "scientific" basis for a theory of modern economy, including socialist economy, should remind us of the subject of the "spoon-benders." Marx was right, in assuming that the prevalent European system was based in practice on the supremacy of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal financier-oligarchical interest; but he was deluded when he went further than that, to deny—out of nothing but the induced hysteria fostered in him by sources such as his sometime controller, Britain's Frederick Engels—against the work of Hamilton, the Careys, and Friedrich List. Consequently, the socialists and others dated the birth of modern imperialism, foolishly, to the late Nineteenth Century, and sought to explain its existence as a natural outgrowth of the formation of industrial finance capital.[20]

This delusion of the Marxists and the like gained a powerful ideological foothold, in what have become known during most recent generations as "Third World," or "developing" nations. That popularized ideological delusion, has provided a putative exculpation of much done by those in developing nations who have served as virtual "compradores" in the interest of their nations' international creditors. Lately, those streams of popularized intellectual delusion, have contributed much to the wishful assumption that the world is now at the verge of the rise of the "Asian model" as the successor to the model of Europe and the U.S.A.

The facts are directly contrary to such putative pro-"Third World" delusions.

As I have written and argued otherwise over decades, the advantage of European civilization, relative to Asia, for example, is essentially twofold. Contrary to much rationalization encountered from various parts of the world today, and prior to the plunge into cultural decadence typified by the '68ers, the advantage which modern European civilization had gained, relative to the persisting relative backwardness of the practices of the cultures of other parts of the world, was the adoption of the principle of natural law known variously as that principle of agape, the common good, and the promotion of that principle of the general welfare which is the absolute foundation of the constitutional form of government of the U.S.A. This is the same principle more poorly served, but nonetheless an acknowledged principle of natural law, in virtually all European nations, still today, in those nations in which government is under the thumb of the private, Venetian-style, financier-oligarchical interests represented by so-called "independent" central-banking systems, such as the current institution of the European Central Bank.

Leibniz's investigations into the ancient science of China, and Tilak's more recent emphasis on viewing the culture of India from the vantage-points of the known high points of the Vedic and preceding cultures of central and north Asia, put into perspective the wrong-headedness of the frankly hysterical efforts to trace the progressive evolution of culture from Mesopotamia. The degeneration of European culture under the force of corruption represented by Delphi, Tyre, Rome, and the medieval ultramontane system, had often left a contemporary European culture behind, as the high points of the scientific and related development of the Baghdad Caliphate and Ibn Sina attest, and as the high points of culture in India and China prior to the sinking of both China's fleet and cultural advances, also attest.

The leading current of specifically European scientific and cultural thought came into the ancient Greece of Thales, Solon, the Pythagoreans, Socrates, and Plato, by way of the long-accumulated scientific and other progress of Egypt. It was that progress within that Classical Greece, which was turned back, under such Delphic and related corrupting reductionists and related influences, as the hallmarks of that relative moral decadence of Attica which led into the Peloponnesian War. From the rise of Rome, through medieval European times, European systems of government were, culturally, no better than also-rans among known cultures of the world at that time, until the revolutionary turn upwards with the Fifteenth-Century, Florence-centered Renaissance. It was the Fifteenth-Century adoption of the principle of the general welfare (the agape of the Socrates of Plato's Republic) as the highest law of statecraft, as expressed by the leading role of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa in statecraft and physical science, which made the difference for modern Europe thereafter, up to the present time.

This principle of the general welfare existed in the Classical Greek tradition of European civilization, but was opposed by the "Asian-like" culture of the oligarchical cult of Delphi and its principal offshoot, Lycurgan Sparta. The principle of the general welfare had been expressed by the reform conducted at Athens, under the leadership of Solon, and had been codified, for the law of statecraft, as a system of government in the Republic and other dialogues of Plato, as by the epistles of the Christian Apostle Paul and leadership of the Christian community through most of that century by the Apostle John.

At the time of Plato, the principal enemies of the constitutional principle of