Executive Intelligence Review
This article appears in the October 28, 2005 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
A STRATEGIC VIEW OF EUROPEAN HISTORY TODAY

Globalization,
The New Imperialism

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

October 9, 2005

By traditional standards, the accelerating degeneration of the U.S. military-political occupation of Iraq, has already entered the terminal phase of the currently failed war policies of the U.S. George W. Bush, Jr. Administration.[1] The global strategic situation of the moment can be brought into focus by saying simply that the presently advanced state of degeneration of the U.S. military operations in both Iraq itself and the adjoining region, interacts with a threatened early disintegration of the world's present IMF monetary-financial system.

We have entered a time during which only the combined dumping of the policies of the current Bush Administration, and the launching of first steps toward a new world monetary-financial system akin to that of the original Bretton Woods system, could prevent the otherwise inevitable early plunge of the planet as a whole into a new dark age.

We have entered a time in world history, when any different remedy than that which I have just recommended, were the wishful dream of self-damned fools.

To rational elements among the more well-informed circles of the planet, as one month follows another, the evidence to that effect is now more and more painfully clear. Were the present majority among the leading management cadres of today's world fully rational, the wild-eyed monetarist experiment launched under the U.S. current Bush Administration would be declared a bad job, and a return to the relatively successful economic and related policies of the immediate two post-war decades, would be rapidly resumed.

For example: In the case of the U.S.A. itself, although I warned, repeatedly, during the Spring and early Summer of this year, that we must prepare for the chain-reaction-like effects of an early "crash" in the automotive sector, no significant action was taken, either in the Executive or Congress, on that specific account.

The most notable point to be made on this present occasion is, that the argument for avoiding the urgently needed precautionary measures, was that relevant circles were advised that I had been mistaken respecting the factors of timing and more deep-going issues of policy in this matter. It is typical of the conditioned state of mind among our nation's and Europe's makers and shakers, that we are met, in each recent stage of a growing national and global economic crisis, by the potentially fatal effects of a reluctance of the presently reigning political generation to "put the toothpaste back into the tube," a reluctance to tamper with those habituated, recent decades' changes in policy which have now led us to the brink of the greatest global financial-monetary and economic collapse in modern history.

Now, the consequences of that Hamlet-like kind of inaction, motivated in that Hamlet-like fashion, have brought our republic, and much of the world besides, into a situation far more deadly than existed those few months ago, when precautionary action against the principal, presently looming effects of the General Motors crisis might have been set into motion.

What Must Now Be Done

The problem which needs urgently to be corrected, is not only that the currently ruling, powerful combination of international monetary-financial interests has been ignorant and increasingly irrational. The problem is the conditioned fear of the power of the financier class, which has been spread among the political and other leading currents of our society, both in the Americas and Europe. It is the policies of those financier circles which have intentionally ruined what had been once the flourishing economies of the U.S.A. and western Europe of the period prior to the great Anglo-American financial paradigm-shift of the 1964-1972 interval.

Today, the policies of those financier interests have ruined the Americas and Europe almost irreparably, especially during the nearly sixteen years since the close of 1989, when the Soviet challenge no longer existed to prompt our maintaining our economies. Today, those financier interests which triumph over the ruin they have wreaked upon us, insist that they will never permit national economies, ever again, to reach for supremacy of the sovereign nation over the predatory lurchings of that global slime-mold-like financier oligarchy, which has looted nations down to levels of productive output which are currently actually below breakeven for the national economies of Europe and the Americas as a whole.

The generally expressed intent of practice among those financier circles, whose current majority, whatever their level of intellectual development, is typified by its mad obsession, its intent to bring about a modern caricature of the old medieval, ultramontane system in which Europe was under the tyranny of an anti-nation-state alliance of Venice's predatory financier oligarchy, with that self-styled holy league of butchers known as the Norman chivalry. Today, the mad dash for such an ultramontane form of global imperialism is called by such names as "globalization."

This intent by such financier "slime-molds," has been the underlying issue of two so-called "world wars" and the great thermonuclear conflict of the century just concluded. This intent is the key for understanding the military and related policies of the Vice President Cheney-directed U.S. Bush Administration today.

Said otherwise, the presently avowed goal of these slime-mold-like aggregations of private financier interest, is to establish a world system in which either nation-states cease to exist, or they are degraded to lackeys, begging at the footstools of financier-oligarchical power. It is that kind of a system which these oligarchical circles demand now; it is a system known popularly today as "globalization."

In effect, it could be said of some very influential circles, that the financier slime-mold of the same Synarchist International which created the regimes of Mussolini, Hitler, and Franco, wishes presently to have something like a nuclear "Battle of Armageddon," and to win it, soon. The purpose of launching such a horror is to clear away the residues of former nation-state institutions, including those of our Federal Constitution. Although these forces could never succeed in their attempt to establish a permanent new world empire, the intended results imply that the power they serve is perhaps the true whore of the earlier Babylons, imperial Rome and medieval Venice.

Once any intelligent person understood the present resurgence of the same policies which motivated England's Edward VII to organize what became known as "World War I," what I have just stated should also be readily and correctly understood. The financier attempt would fail, catastrophically, for both assailant and victims, alike, but the evidence of such a looming reality never convinced the victim of a true obsession.

In the meantime, the present situation is as follows.

There is the growing popular sense of things, among those of us who represent the relatively economics-literate circles of Europe and the Americas, that the strategic and economic situations of these regions of the world are now verging upon a highly explosive state of over-ripeness for a general collapse. The most menacing feature of this present crisis, is the widespread lack of competent strategic insight, even among most relevant specialists and political authorities, alike, into the causes and underlying character of the complex, general global situation which the immediately recognized crisis-developments only reflect. The true, deeper origins, causes, and probable historical outcomes of these looming catastrophes, are not yet generally understood, even among the relatively best-informed leading circles of governments in North America and Europe.

The worst aspect of this, is not that leading political and related authorities do not recognize the nature and causes of this onrushing crisis. The worst aspect is that most among them, so far, now, as on the eve of crises such as that of 1929, have not wished to know, even to hear the truth about this onrushing situation.

This is, in itself, a correct view of the immediate expression of the danger, but it, too, fails to look deep enough.

It must be fairly said, that, while more and more leading U.S. circles are reacting to the perceived reality of the symptoms this situation presents, they have yet to find in themselves the willingness to accept the more essential fact of the matter. Until this point, they have remained blinded to the existence of the actual, underlying disease which these symptoms reflect. A growing minority of the leading relevant circles in North America and Europe recognize many of the symptoms; but even all of them, so far, refuse to accept the fact of the disease itself.

It is my intention, in this present report, to correct the widespread ignorance of the deeper causes for today's actual, currently rapidly worsening world situation.

To restate the case: As a result of that discrepancy in general understanding of the problem, even among leading circles, current directions in policy thinking are fairly characterized as growing zeal for ameliorating the most obvious and immediate symptoms, without willingness to challenge the long-ranging, globally disastrous threats posed by the relevant, potentially fatal disease. They overlook the deeper, real causes of our growing tribulations, in their zeal to blind themselves to the deeper causes for the mere symptoms. The manifest intent of their practice is to reform the enemy without actually annoying him.

In the closing portion of this present report, I shall touch the core of this problem in mass political behavior; but, to be understood thus, in the end, we must proceed in the fashion of peeling away layers of the proverbial onion, turning first to the matter of recent generations' experience of major wars, and finally reaching the core of the problem, through progress in examining a series of successive, intervening, deeper layers of the problem overall.

On the first of these layers, the outer layer, so to speak, is the root of this failure of leading circles of governments of, most notably, North America and Europe, to recognize and attack the disease of recently experienced recurrence of world war itself, to attack the propensity for misunderstanding war. This is a propensity which can be traced, in its essentials, to the prevailing academic and popularized misconception of the actually primary cause of the principal wars and related crises which have afflicted globally extended European civilization since that famous Paris Treaty of February 1763, which launched the people of English-speaking North America into what became the 1776-1783 war for national liberty.

Therefore, this present report is given as a summary of that specific historic problem which underlies the mounting global, existential complex of crisis of today. I shall now preface that summary at the door of today's White House. In earlier reports, I have addressed some of the crucial, leading facts treated here. The difference is, that, in this report, I focus on the same specific, centuries-old feature of the military strategic situation which modern European governments have stubbornly, repeatedly refused to take efficiently into account, up to the present moment.

Therefore, to complete this preface, I begin now with an introduction to the matter of current threats of warfare, taking as an example, the tragic case of the present U.S. Bush Administration.

At the White House Press Conferences

Like the President George W. Bush, Jr. Administration's stubbornly lying about his seemingly endless war in Iraq, most of what has been taught about the causes of modern warfare, in our history lessons, and by notable political leaders, is conventional fraud, when it is not outright stupidity, like that of President Bush himself.

To be fair to that President, we must concede that he rarely knows the actual meaning of the words coming out of his mouth. It often appears, that he is to be seen on our television screens as gaping in wonder at the spectacle of that flow of words from that orifice. Nonetheless, he lied repeatedly, as a way of getting us into that war. That much conceded, whether he lied in the fashion of Vice-President Cheney's "Mortimer Snerd"-like wooden puppet, or otherwise, it has been just those lying words from his mouth which got us into an Iraq from which, it seems, more and more, that there is neither hope of victory, nor honorable escape, for as long as the "Bergen-Snerd" team of that Vice-President and his President remains in office.

So, it is the case, that impeachments, or a decent sort of timely resignation from office, as was used to settle the breakdown of government threatened by Nixon's continued incumbency, are on the tips of the tongues of more and more sensible political leaders of our nation today.

Under other circumstances, where decency permitted us to be more generous in our description of that poor President, we would then treat him gently, and view him charitably, as a poor fellow who could read neither a page, nor a map, nor, probably, distinguish between the two. He has, like all persons, his rightful place in the enjoyment of life, but the terrible price our nation has already paid for his mistakes in that office, shows all sentient beings that his personal right does not include the U.S. Presidency.

In any case, we must put the blame where it belongs. Those failings of that President are no excuse for the relevant behavior of the U.S.A. itself; the people of the U.S.A. can make no acceptable evasion of the fact of their own guilt, if it were only the great guilt in allowing such a wretched incompetent as poor George W. Bush, Jr., to be seriously considered by them as a contender for election as President. When the people stop blaming Washington as much as they do, and blame their own cowardly political evasion of a citizen's responsibility more, the challenge might be quickly addressed.

The fact remains, that what the U.S. public, up to very high ranks in office, have been swindled into believing about modern warfare in general, is not merely deliberately misleading hokum. What they have been told, is the proverbial big lie. These poor people of ours, in general, soaked in cheap and tawdry forms of entertainment, have recently shown little or no comprehension of the actual nature of the world in which they live. Even notable Presidents of our republic, or heads of government abroad, have often mistaken their privileged familiarity with some among the sensitive predicates of current history for the actual subject of the long-ranging dynamics of history as such.

So, today's political idiot, like a character in a script by the utterly depraved Bertolt Brecht, marks his entry on the stage of current history, by babbling his lunatic sophist's chant, "I don't believe in conspiracy-theories."

To begin to understand the dynamical, determining character of the deeper, determining, real issues of these times, especially today's pressing military issues, look at some recent history, not as a mechanical interplay of memorized events collected from a fact-stuffed illiterate's googling of the Internet, but as a lawfully ordered, dynamic process. Look at history not as gossip, but as a lawfully ordered, dynamic process, based on ideas, extended around much or all of the world, and over a span of time reaching back thousands of years. Look, first, at the origins of the two so-called "World Wars" of the just recently concluded century.

1. Two World Wars and More

To begin, take the case of what is called "World War I." On numerous earlier, public occasions, I have pointed to the facts about that war. However, the inclusion of the following crucial facts about that history, here, is a required element of the list of crucial facts to be considered in beginning to address the escalating, deadly global issues facing us now.

Without considering those often ignored facts, we can not understand modern warfare and its relevant ancient and medieval roots in the way the intelligent and worried U.S. citizen would wish to know the truth today. Until and unless the popular and kindred falsification of the history of those developments, is replaced by the true facts of the situation, it would be almost impossible to prevent existing nations from repeating follies which are, in principle, the same kinds of errors as the Senate's vote for the Iraq war: errors which carry a heavier price today than on earlier occasions.

What is called "World War I" actually began in 1890 with a series of crucial events, among which the notably sufficient instances for our present consideration are the following.

The sequence of the great blunders by relevant leading states, began with the 1888 accession of a new German Kaiser and that Kaiser's discharge of his Chancellor, the great reformer Otto von Bismarck, on March 18, 1890. The new Kaiser, Wilhelm II, was the biological nephew, and dupe, of the British Prince of Wales, that then future King Edward VII who bears. still today, the principal personal guilt for organizing and motivating what was to become World War I. Wilhelm II's discharge of Bismarck was the first major, preparatory step, by Germany, toward implementing that Prince of Wales' scheme for what became World War I.

The next crucial steps toward a terrible war came in France, where the underlying motive of the Prince of Wales' intent for his dupes in France, was to break Germany's close relations with Russia, and to create the foundations of an Anglo-French, anti-Germany alliance with the Russia of the Prince of Wales' other foolish nephew, Czar Nicholas II.

"All," so to speak, " 'in the family.' "

To that same end, the President of France, the scientist-grandson of Lazare Carnot, was assassinated on June 24, 1894, and, in a related development, to the same purpose, the fraudulent charges and conviction, reeking of anti-Semitism, of France's Captain Alfred Dreyfus, were perpetrated on December 22, 1894. With the 1898 defeat of France by Lord Kitchener at Sudan's Fashoda, the residual forces remaining after the assassination of President Carnot, forces represented by French Minister Hanotaux, were pushed out, and the mechanisms began to be rapidly set into place for the later formal French alliance with Britain's King Edward VII. This was the alliance which was the crucial step toward setting the intended launching of what became World War I fully into motion.

In that process of change over the course of the 1890s, the patriotic impulses of France were swamped, increasingly, by a financier-controlled coalition of Synarchists of sundry Legitimist, Bonapartist, and leftist pedigrees and dispositions, constituting that war-party of World War I France which Georges Clemenceau led to the table at the Versailles Treaty of Paris, the same banker-controlled Synarchist International which, later, gave the world Adolf Hitler and so-called "World War II."

Betwixt and between those events of 1890-1894 and war, there were several additional developments of most notable relevance, beginning with the British monarchy's personal orchestration of Japan's long-term role in the Far East, over the interval 1894-1945. The first Sino-Japanese war, the conquest of Korea, and the Russo-Japanese war, were a crucial, London-directed set of developments setting the pace for Pacific events over the entire span of 1894-1945.

The allies, Britain and France, set the Balkan wars into motion, thus ensuring the anti-Slavic alliance of the silly Austro-Hungarian Kaiser with Germany, and the role of a Turkey which had been destabilized by London's Synarchist "Young Turk" organization and the genocidal slaughters which London's "Young Turk" organization perpetrated within Turkey for the intended strategic benefit of the British Empire.

Inside the U.S.A., the British monarchy's preparations to advance the cause of Edward VII's war-party, included the opportune incident of the U.S. battleship Maine and the assassination of President William McKinley, the key among a combination of events which brought London's accomplice, the nephew and political protégé of the former head of the Confederacy's intelligence service, Theodore Roosevelt, into the Presidency. That pair of jingoists, that Roosevelt and Ku Klux Klan fanatic Woodrow Wilson, were chiefly responsible, politically, for establishing the Federal Reserve System and for launching the U.S.A. into playing a deciding role in shaping the outcome of World War I, thus preventing what would have been otherwise a virtually inevitable German victory, and defeat of the imperial legacy of England's Edward VII, on both fronts.[2]

The same Anglo-Dutch Liberal financier interests which created World War I, by aid of such mechanisms, created the fascist movements and regimes which led Europe into a second World War. The crucial difference between this so-called world war and its predecessor, was U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt. The election of Franklin Roosevelt proved to be an immediate defeat for those U.S. financier circles which not only had supported the fascist Mussolini in Italy, but had joined the Bank of England's Montagu Norman in funding the insertion of Adolf Hitler into the German Chancellory, and Hitler's receipt of dictatorial powers, just weeks before the inauguration of Franklin Roosevelt. The relevant affinities were made clearer in the plot for a military coup d'état against the Franklin Roosevelt Presidency. President Roosevelt's leadership of the economic recovery of the United States produced, by 1940, a nation prepared for the mobilization which was to be the decisive factor in the defeat of Hitler.

But, no sooner had Roosevelt died, than the same Anglo-American financier circles which had backed Hitler's rise to power earlier, rallied around the long-term perspective of bringing the Roosevelt legacy to a grinding halt, and for launching a new world war, a special kind of 1945-1989 "Third World War," as they had the preceding two. It is that continued dedication to a "Third World War of a special kind," which supplied the impulses expressed by Vice-President Cheney and Britain's Liberal Imperialist Prime Minister Tony Blair today.[3]

This time, the plan launched by the foe of Franklin Roosevelt, Britain's Winston Churchill,[4] induced the U.S. Truman Administration to adopt the perspective later renewed by sometime U.S. Secretary of Defense and Vice-President Dick Cheney, the perspective of launching a pre-emptive nuclear war with the aim of eliminating the modern nation-state and establishing an imperial, Anglo-Dutch Liberal form of world government, such as that being pushed into the world's foreground today.

The present name of that new imperialist world order, is "globalization": global "free trade." It is a system in which governments either cease to exist, the category of so-called "failed states," or, as is intended for the U.S. itself, become merely the puppets of syndicates of financier cartels, puppets which are merely pawns of international financier institutions of the type illustrated by the current European Central Bank.

Why 'World War I'?

The Prince of Wales' motive for organizing what became known as "World War I," is rooted in London's fearful reaction to the triumph of President Abraham Lincoln over both the British puppet known as the Confederate States of America (CSA), and over London's direction of the invasion and subjugation of Mexico as part of British Lord Palmerston's orchestration of an 1861-1865 U.S. Civil War, which had been intended to break up the U.S.A. into a quarrelling pack of competing tyrannies.

With the death of Palmerston, and the growing personal incapacity of a widowed Queen Victoria, the campaign to destroy the U.S. constitutional form of national government fell, increasingly, under the hand of that Palmerston-trained Prince of Wales, sometimes referred to, more or less interchangeably, as "The Prince of the Isles" and "The Lord of the Isles."

Already, from the beginning of the U.S. Civil War, the shift of the U.S. Federal government, away from the "free trade" and related dogmas which had crippled the U.S. economy's prosperity, from the Andrew Jackson through Buchanan Presidency, there was a rising trend of net development in the territories of the Union. By the time of the 1876 U.S. Centennial celebrations in Philadelphia, the superiority of what was known as the American System of political-economy of Alexander Hamilton, the Careys, and the German-American Frederick List, was so evident that emulation of that American System spread throughout much of South and Central America, and in such Eurasian nations as France, Bismarck's Germany, Alexander II's Russia, Japan, and elsewhere. The combination of rapid technological progress in agriculture and industrial development, interlocked with promotion of general welfare systems such as those adopted in Bismarck's Germany, and the emergence of a significant U.S. naval power, was viewed with alarm in the Prince of Wales' London, as a threat to the continued global imperial authority of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal financial-monetary, gold-standard system.

By the 1890s the name given by the British monarchy to the perception of that threat from the spreading influence of the American System was "geopolitics," so named by Britain's Mackinder and Germany's Haushofer. As I emphasized in my Sept. 16, 2005 Washington, D.C. international webcast,[5] and again with relevant remarks included in my "The Shape of Empty Space,"[6] it was the combination of the rising economic power of the nations of continental and adjoining Eurasia, with the spread of the influence of the U.S. pioneering in transcontinental railway development, which threatened to shift the predominance of global power from maritime power, to land-based economic development.

As the speed and efficiency of rail-transport was increased, not only were areas earlier economically inaccessible to efficient transport of bulk freight made competitive with water-borne transport, but transport along interior land-routes by rail had the double advantage of not merely competing effectively with ocean-borne freight, but also of developing regions of nations otherwise hampered by lack of direct access to large-scale water-borne transport. Thus, the combination of the U.S. national rail-system, the extension of the navigable river-system between the Alleghenies and Rockies, and the Great Lakes as a transport medium, defined the development of U.S. machine-tool-keyed heavy industry in Western Pennsylvania, the Buffalo, New York area, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and so on. The growth in density of agriculture and industry, per capita and per square kilometer, over the course of much of the Twentieth Century, illustrates the point, as does the devastating pattern of decline and ruin of these same regions over the course of the recent three decades.

As a result of the form of progress led by the post-Gettysburg U.S.A., the productivity of a national territory per square kilometer was increased in ways not possible otherwise. Thus, through these combined benefits, land-based transport was made more than competitive with sea-borne transport. This economic gain had a congruent impact upon strategic military potentials.

Only long-range strategic aerial bombardment threatened the growing advantage of rail for interior economic development, where highway transport was emphasized as a complement, and then rival to rail.

To sense the history of those times, look at the changes in the U.S.A. since the time John Quincy Adams systematized U.S. diplomacy in his role as Secretary of State under President James Monroe. Not only had the "insolent Americans" burst free of the Allegheny boundaries, which the French and British colonial powers alike had sought to enforce, but through the Louisiana Purchase and complementary developments, Secretary Adams was able to efficiently define the United States as a continental power spread from Atlantic to Pacific, with northern and southern continental borders approximately those of today.

To consolidate and develop this vast territory, the American patriot, often a West Point graduate working as an engineer, had addressed the challenge of integrated development and security of what was, by European standards, a vast territory. Although the genesis of the later transcontinental railway system was already in motion under the guidance of Frederick List, the development of the actual transcontinental system, and the matching rapid expansion of the production of grains from within the territory thus opened for development and commerce, became the model dream of the enlightened statesmen and others of continental Europe and nearby Eurasia.

As I have demonstrated by aid of my published treatments of the work of V.I. Vernadsky on the subjects of the Biosphere and Noösphere, the strategic implications of this U.S.A. transcontinental development reach far beyond the comprehension of the leading policy-shapers of that time, but the implications of what I have been able to present in my writings were already implicit.

Under the impact, and further implications of such trends, the neo-Venetian form of maritime power of Anglo-Dutch Liberalism could not be maintained into the foreseeable future. The Prince of Wales' drive for what became known as World War I ensued. The shift of the definition of strategy to British Admiral John A. Fisher's "dreadnoughts" and the complementing definitions of strategy as essentially geopolitics, were reflections of this reaction to the perceived threat posed to the British imperialists by the rise of the U.S. economy, and its influence throughout much of Eurasia and the other parts of the Americas, during and after the U.S. Presidency of Abraham Lincoln.

Grand strategy was now explicitly geopolitical, and had already become so implicitly before the Mackinder-Haushofer rivalry became known by that name.

The British strategic reaction to these and related implications of the threat from the influence of the rise of U.S. economic power, was twofold. First, simply crush the nations which threatened to continue economic development along the lines of the model of the American System of political-economy. Second, seek to virtually eradicate generalized scientific and technological progress in economy from the planet. Two World Wars were the expression of the first alternative. The spread of the wild-eyed cult of the so-called "environmentalist movement," has reflected the choice of the second alternative.

Both of these Anglo-Dutch Liberal reactions against the influence of the American System of political-economy, can be properly seen, in first-approximation terms, as simply strategic knee-jerk reactions of the Liberal-Imperialist interest; but, there is also a much deeper, and more deeply impassioned reflection of the ancient cult of Dionysius' legacy spilled over from ancient times into modern life, as the case of the existentialist Friedrich Nietzsche illustrates that point, and as the case of the Olympian Zeus from Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound illustrates the same connections.

2. 'Kill Even the Memory of FDR'

To understand the world's perilous situation today, we must consider the preparations and consequences of World War II in retrospect. One of the most crucial clues to understanding that process to date as a whole, is the case of Banque Worms, one of the relatively most exposed of the creatures of that fascist movement among international private bankers, which is known as the Synarchist International. Banque Worms was discreetly put away in the aftermath of that war; the network of organizations which served as a front for Banque Worms in those relevant past times, remains today. That latter cabal is among the principal threats to civilization world-wide today.

The most relevant highlights of that part of the strategic study in progress here, are as follows.

Initially, the Anglo-French imperial plan for World War II did not intend the inclusion of a U.S. war-time partner for a second time. Without taking into account the British motive for that initial intent to exclude the U.S.A. from Anglo-French intentions for a "second world war," there could be no competent understanding of modern European and world history, dating from that time to the present day. Therefore, to understand the present world situation competently, we must first consider this often-neglected, crucial feature of Twentieth-Century history as a whole.

The original intention of the British Empire's plan for a second world war, had been one more replay of the war-policy which had been used to give birth to the empire of the British East India Company at the February 1763 Treaty of Paris. It had been the Anglo-Dutch Liberals' orchestration of the so-called "Seven Years' War," the war which had unleashed that mutual weakening of the nations of continental Europe, through which the initial phase of imperial, maritime-based supremacy of Britain was brought into being with that Paris Treaty.

This "Seven Years' War" is a distinct phenomenon, in the respect that it generated the initial establishment of the British Empire as an empire of the British East India Company. However, to understand how and why the Anglo-Dutch Liberal interest orchestrated the particular kind of policy which produced the Seven Years' War, we must study the way the Anglo-Dutch Liberals lured France's defective, Fronde-allied "Sun King," Louis XIV, into the Dutch wars, against the warnings of Jean Baptiste Colbert. These were the wars which consolidated the Anglo-Dutch Liberal monarchy's rule over Britain.

It is, therefore, of crucial importance to recall, that it had been Cardinal Mazarin who had played the key role in bringing about the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, which ended the 1492-1648 reign of Venetian-orchestrated religious warfare in Europe, and that France under Mazarin and Jean Baptiste Colbert launched the modern economy which had a spirited development, centered in France. This benefit continued, until Louis XIV's follies ruined France by plunging into the trap of those Netherlands wars which established the Anglo-Dutch Liberal forces as a leading, maritime-based power in Europe. It was this experience which shaped Anglo-Dutch policy in the orchestration of the Seven Years' War.

Since the Anglo-Dutch Liberals' imperial triumph in the Seven Years' War, new wars based on that model had been the continuing chief source of the repeated ruin of the continent of Europe, and of Eurasia. It was this British policy and its practice. rooted in the model of the Seven Years' War, which had been the original source of the recurring mortal conflict between the future U.S.A. and the British Empire.

It had been the orchestration of the French Revolution by the British Foreign Office and the Martinist freemasonic agents, which had used both the Reign of Terror and the Napoleonic wars to do again to continental Europe what had been tried in the Seven Years' War. British naval supremacy kept Napoleon bottled up on the continent of Europe, while the depletion of Europe by Napoleon's continental wars worked to the further enhancement of British imperial supremacy throughout the globe.

Meanwhile, these developments, beginning Summer 1789 in France, isolated the young U.S.A., an isolation which was exploited by British Foreign Office assets of Jeremy Bentham, such as agent Aaron Burr, and such Burr followers as a series of British-controlled U.S. Presidents, from Andrew Jackson through Martin van Buren, Polk, Pierce, Buchanan, and 1864 Democratic Party, pro-separation Presidential candidate McClellan. Up through and beyond the Union victory at Gettysburg, London had been committed to the reconquest, or destruction of its lost colonies. From 1863-1865 on, the British imperial policy adopted a relatively more realistic approach, of working for the ruin of the American System of political-economy, with the intention to subvert the young U.S.A. from within, by promoting London's New York- and Boston-centered London financier assets, with the long-term objective of bringing the U.S.A. within the embrace of the British Commonwealth.[7]

London-linked New York bankers included such heirs-in-fact of Aaron Burr as the architect of the 1837 Land Bank Swindle of Martin van Buren, Jackson's political controller. Bankers such as van Buren and August Belmont, controlled the Democratic Party from Jackson through Woodrow Wilson, and assumed increasing degrees of control over both the Republican and Democratic Party machines of New York City, producing, thus, the Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Coolidge, and Hoover Presidencies. The later Presidencies of Truman, Nixon, and father and son Bush, have been crafted and controlled by the same Anglo-American financier-oligarchical gang, the London-centered crowd which hated the patriot Franklin Roosevelt while he was alive, and has hated him ever more since he died.

The Nineteenth-Century, and still later wars in Europe, and related conflicts within the Americas, up through 1932, were also essentially Anglo-Dutch Liberalism's imperial exports, designed to defend and enforce the reign of the British fleet and gold standard upon the world at large. Do not be shocked! How could it have been otherwise? The British East India Company had established an empire in the February 1763 Treaty of Paris, an empire which Shelburne's ideologue Gibbon intended should make itself eternal by avoiding such alleged fatal mistakes of ancient Rome as tolerating the intrusion of Christianity into statecraft. Britain had secured a neo-Venetian financier-oligarchical empire, and intended to build and maintain it forever in one guise or another. Only a silly, Romantically sentimental goose would be shocked to hear that the British Empire acted in ways intended to be as thoroughly and effectively imperialistic as possible![8]

All the major wars of Eurasia's Twentieth Century, from 1894 on, belong under the same overarching category as the Seven Years' War and Napoleonic wars, as instruments crafted in nominally British imperial interest. As Lord Shelburne's Gibbon specified these long-term, Anglo-Dutch Liberal goals, these wars have been crafted and conducted in fully witting emulation of the imperialism of ancient Rome and the medieval ultramontane imperialism shared by the Venetian financier-oligarchy and its partners of the Norman chivalry. With one crucially important qualification, the three great wars, including what came to be known as "the Cold War," of 1945-1989, were no exception.[9]

That said as preparatory remarks on background, now proceed to the early 1930s, before the British Empire decided, coincidentally, to dump King Edward VIII, and to bring Franklin Roosevelt's U.S.A. into the game.

The Anglo-French, Sykes-Picot-like strategic outlook of the 1920s and early 1930s, had been premised largely on the memory of the surprising economic and military power which the U.S.A. had shown in securing the Allied victory in World War I. The fear was, that including the U.S.A. as a participant in the first World War, experience had shown that under conditions of a second world war, a United States led by Franklin Roosevelt would end up as the dominant world power, dwarfing the British Empire. It was only to the degree that France and Britain discovered that the German attack would open to the West, first, and only later against the Soviet Union, that forces of terrified London and its Paris ally came reluctantly to share Winston Churchill's view of the U.S. alliance as the lesser evil.[10] It was not any goodness in Churchill which was responsible for his role on this account; it was his loathing of the prospect that Herr Hitler might gobble up the British Empire. Otherwise, the British establishment, including its imperial Fabian element, was largely pro-Hitler, as Averell Harriman's banking partner, the Bank of England's Montagu Norman, had been in putting Hitler into power in the first place.

The relevant Twentieth-Century, British view of the U.S.A. as an adversary, had been exhibited already in the naval parity disputes of the immediate post-World War I period, when the British plan for the Japan naval attack on Pearl Harbor was hatched as part of the plan for a naval alliance of Britain and Japan against the threat of U.S. naval power's development.

This Japan war plan of the 1920s, later carried out in December 1941 without the British ally of the 1920s, had been originally intended as part of a joint British-Japanese, two-front naval assault on the United States, with the intent of doing to the U.S.A. what Admiral Nelson had done to France at Trafalgar.[11] Times and sides had changed, but the actual issue of the court-martial trial of General Billy Mitchell was, as Mitchell stated at his hearing, the issue of U.S. use of aircraft-carrier-based air power in the Pacific in defense against what U.S. intelligence had already defined, from the period of the early 1920s, in U.S. naval war plans, as the pending operational threat of Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, as a Japanese component of a British plan to demolish U.S. naval power.

From the aftermath of the Versailles Treaty, the policy of the British imperialist and France-based Synarchist International, had been to install a fascist government in Germany, using elements such as those associated with Coudenhove-Kalergi and what was later restated as a doctrine of "total war," to strike against the Soviet Union, and then to fall upon the rear of a Germany whose forces were deeply mired in Soviet territory. This was the period during which British imperialist assets inside the U.S.A. formed the America First Committee, which intended to prevent the realization of the U.S. capability for military intervention against the war for which Anglo-French allied circles were preparing at that time.[12]

Stalin and Soviet intelligence also knew the game, and had an experienced revolutionary's fearful appreciation of the internal danger from left-wing and other assets of the Synarchist International inside the Soviet system itself. Perhaps Stalin knew, by then, that the notorious "Parvus" had been a Zubatov-linked British agent, or not, but he was convinced of something to that general effect. Essentially, therefore, Stalin approached the relevant military and related circles in Germany, putting strong emphasis on the fact of the Anglo-French intent to fall upon the rear of a Nazi thrust into the Soviet Union.

The rebuff which the British and French governments gave to the mission of visiting Soviet Marshal Tukhachevsky, was the crucial development which left Stalin no visible option but to proceed with continuing negotiation of Molotov's pact with Ribbentrop.

The fact that the turn to a German assault on the western front first, was under serious negotiation between Soviet and German back-channel and other representatives, prompted a growing portion of those, such as New York's Brown Brothers, Harriman, who had funded Hitler's coup d'état effort, to break with their former protégé Hitler. By the point of the Dunkirk evacuation, a Winston Churchill who was a backer of fascism, second, but the British Empire first, made the formal step of a pact with President Franklin Roosevelt on transfer of the British fleet to Canada should Hitler's forces land in Britain.[13] The subsequent victory over the Axis powers at Midway and Stalingrad, already defined a continuing U.S. engagement in a two-front, global war, a prospect of global victory which Roosevelt's policies and role had, in principle, already thus snatched from the paws of Hitler's regime.

Then, even before President Roosevelt's death, during the early months of 1945, Churchill et al. had gone back to their earlier overt backing of the financier forces which had put Mussolini, Hitler, and Franco into power. The issues of the early 1920s naval-power conflict between the U.S.A. and Britain, came to the fore in a new way.

The Banque Worms Scandal

What became known as Twentieth-Century fascism had been born in France, as part of an operation directed by London's Lord Shelburne, which was aimed to destroy the alliance between France and the newborn United States of America. The latter operation, which was set in motion during Shelburne's 1782-1783 term as Britain's Prime Minister, was coordinated by the circles under the operational boss of the political operations of the British East Company, Lord Shelburne, using agents associated with the circles of the notorious Voltaire in France. Relying upon cooperation within the section of international freemasonry violently opposed to the international networks of the influential scientist and statesman Benjamin Franklin, they created the London-directed freemasonic association, the Martinists, which prepared and both orchestrated the French Revolution of July 1789, and controlled the career of Robespierre asset Napoleon Bonaparte, and its outcome, through a point long after Napoleon's death, all the way into Napoleon's successor Adolf Hitler, and beyond.

The Martinist freemasonic order, which has been the most freakish of important orders of this nomenclature, was a late Eighteenth-Century spin-off of the freemasonry brought into London, from Venice, during the Sixteenth Century. On record, the Martinist freemasonry itself was founded in France about 1785 by the notorious charlatan Allessandro Cagliostro, the architect of the "Queen's Necklace" against the Bourbon monarchy, together with the also notorious Giovanni Casanova. This was the instrument used, by the British East India Company's sometime British Prime Minister Lord Shelburne and the British Foreign Office, to orchestrate the French Revolution of 1789 and the ensuing Terror from which the career of the tyrant Napoleon Bonaparte sprang, to dominate, and ruin continental Europe over the 1789-1815 interval. This organization continues to the present day in its incarnation as the Synarchist International which launched the pre-1914 Balkan war and the fascist movements of the 1922-1945 interval, through Martinist-Synarchist figures such as the Giuseppe di Misurata who was associated with the notorious Parvus and Jabotinsky in London's pre-World War I Young Turk operation and the creation and supervision of the fascist regime of Benito Mussolini. The Martinists and their Synarchist organization spring from outgrowths of the Venetian financier oligarchy of the early Sixteenth Century, and remain principally an instrument of the international slime-mold of the relevant network of private bankers in the Venetian tradition, to the present day.

The British assets associated with the anti-Leibniz circles of Shelburne's operations in France, included not only the passionate hater of the young U.S.A., Shelburne's puppet Adam Smith, but Philippe Egalité, the Swiss banker Jacques Necker, Robespierre, Robespierre asset Napoleon Bonaparte, British Foreign Office agents Danton and Marat, and so on. This was the circle which ran Cagliostro's "affair of the Queen's Necklace," an important act in launching the hatred and later guillotining of the Bourbon monarchy, and other operations all channelled through a branch of freemasonry sponsored by London, the Martinist order of circles of Voltaire and of the notorious master Martinist Count Joseph de Maistre, et al.

It was de Maistre's Martinist freemasonic doctrines which embodied the slaughter of the Terror under Robespierre, a slaughter designed by the de Maistre, who also designed the personality and imperial role of Napoleon Bonaparte according to the model of "executioner" (e.g., the Guillotine), which de Maistre used to identify the model implied by the historical Spanish Grand Inquisitor Torquemada, the Torquemada who was the spiritual forerunner of the Nazi Adolf Hitler regime's crimes against Jews in particular, and, like Hitler's forerunner Torquemada, also humanity generally.

Once Admiral Nelson had won the crucial battle at Trafalgar, Napoleon was bottled up within continental Europe, where his role, thus assigned to him by Britain in this fashion, was to bleed France itself almost to death, while destroying the nations of the continent, as the earlier Seven Years' War had paved the way for the establishment of the British East India Company as an empire at the fateful February 1763 Treaty of Paris. Some people, still today, curiously, regard Napoleon as a hero of modern France.[14] I would prefer Jeanne d'Arc, Louis XI, Cardinal Mazarin, Jean Baptiste Colbert, Lazare Carnot, and Charles de Gaulle, and also, in a certain important sense, the lovely historical irony of the Richmond who followed Louis XI in more than one respect, as England's Henry VII.

G.W.F. Hegel, whose pedigree as a Metternich agent, and in other capacities, still has to be fully sorted out, became an impassioned admirer of Napoleon about the time of Napoleon's destruction of Germany's independence at Jena-Auerstädt, but later, after Napoleon's defeat, transferred this affection from the loser to the victors, and became the devotee of some future German ruler of a system, not based on Classical German culture, but the hateful opposite. He crafted a lunatic vision of a future totalitarian state, a Romantic folly with the prescribed hallmarks of a fascist (i.e., neo-Roman) form of the future German state according to Savigny's law, a future state with the hallmarks of Professor Leo Strauss's benefactor, Crown Jurist Carl Schmitt. Hegel has become, with the help of Professor Leo Strauss's Kojève, an integral part of the Martinist (e.g., Synarchist-fascist) legacy in France today.

The roots of modern fascism are found in the Martinist order and the Martinists' image of Napoleon Bonaparte. They were re-enforced by the regime of Napoleon III. The Martinist freemasonic cult was used to found a French rival to Lord Palmerston's ironic, personal creation of both the Marxist and Anarchist movements, a rival which adopted the name of Synarchism. The Synarchist organization, built around a Martinist core, was used by a kind of slime-mold-like organization of, chiefly, a core circle of French private banking interests. This banker-run concert was the illegitimate mother of numerous explicitly fascist organizations in Europe, but was never able to establish a modern fascist form of government independently in France itself, until that Nazi victory in France, which had been assisted by the Synarchist International, brought about the relevant pro-Satanic political miracle in the guise of the France of Laval and Vichy.

The first notable fascist regime was founded in Italy as an ideological import from France, and under the direction of a well-known British agent, the banker Giuseppe Volpi di Misurata, noted for his former service to the British empire, together with Helphand (Parvus) and Jabotinsky in the Young Turk operations. So, using imported French Synarchist ideology, Volpi designed and directed the launching of the Mussolini regime. The same logic applied to the rise of the fascist movement in 1920s Germany, in which the same Parvus played a notable role.

During the period from about 1931-1933, circles associated with the Bank of England's asset Hjalmar Schacht formed the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), as a new arrangement to supersede the rotted-out British gold-standard system, at least for a time. One of the crucial items of business this presented was the reorganization of the existing Germany war-debt balances. This was resolved by having Germany's municipalities and corporations assume the debt, an arrangement under which bonds were issued to creditors such as Harriman et al., in New York, and similar locations, in part through French financial channels. Later, when British and BIS asset Hjalmar Schacht was made the economic dictator of the Nazi Germany economic system, this refinancing of Germany's World War I war debt became the most important of the mechanisms by which the relevant foreign creditors, not Nazi potentates like Hermann Göring of Göring Werke notability, actually owned the Nazi economic system during the war, and after the surrender. (Shades of Cheney, George Shultz, and Halliburton!)

A pivotal continental feature of the resulting arrangements was the matter of disposing of France's Banque Worms, which had been put up as a front for collaboration of relevant French Synarchist private-banking circles within the Nazi system. Soon after the death of President Franklin Roosevelt, the process of de-Nazification of relevant financial interests seemed to evaporate, as the U.S. Truman Administration built up its mobilization in support of the celebrated pacificist Bertrand Russell's 1946 doctrine of world government achieved through the pre-emptive launching of general nuclear warfare.

The shadow of the nominally deceased Banque Worms, hovered over the U.S.A., and the world at large, under President Harry S Truman and the lying reputation of avowed nuclear mass murderer Bertrand Russell as "a man of peace."

Once President Franklin Roosevelt had died, Truman was brought in, more or less fully, into the intentions of Winston Churchill. The surrender negotiated with Japan through the channels of the Vatican office of Monsignor Montini was suspended until the opportunity to drop the nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been realized. Immediately, as soon as the surrender of Germany was in place, the transition to the plans for the new war with the Soviet Union was under way. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Bertrand Russell doctrine of mobilization for pre-emptive nuclear warfare against the Soviet Union was set in motion. Now was the time to proceed toward the empire's settling accounts with the hated Franklin Roosevelt legacy. After the next world war, there would be no United States threat to the establishment of the permanent world empire of Anglo-Dutch Liberal imperialism.

The end of history would be the establishment of that permanent world-empire, called "globalization" today. The "end of history," because it was determined that there would be nothing to come after the establishment of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal system's version of a new, truly world-wide, and eternal Roman Empire, as Shelburne's Gibbon had intended.

The Synarchist International was rehabilitated under what is fairly described as the patronage of the Dulles brothers; and even selected, essential elements of the Nazi apparatus itself, such as what are termed as "the spoon-benders," were assimilated into what became known as the NATO system, while Franco's fascist Spain was used for a large-scale revival of the Nazi network inside Mexico and throughout Ibero-America generally.

This is not to say, or to imply, that all the relevant post-war opponents of President Franklin Roosevelt's policies were sympathizers of the fascist regimes in Europe. Some, in fact, had been; some, as the conduct of Allen Dulles and some other prominent families attests, still were.

The guilt inhering in those crimes against the cause for which we fought what is called "The Second World War," came from a higher rank in the world's reigning powers than the fascist organizations of those times. The evil done was of a more ancient tradition, and much higher rank than any fascist officials of the 1922-1945 interval. There was a distinctly treasonous aspect to the turn against Franklin Roosevelt's legacy from high-ranking U.S. circles, but that evil was conceived and conducted on behalf of a more ancient cause, the ancient cause of Babylon, and of the influence of the Babylonian tradition in European civilization since the founding of the Apollo cult at Delphi, the tradition we may recognize today as the millennial role of the reign of institutions of usurious financier-oligarchy in the world-wide history of globally extended European civilization to the present day.

The enemy is those powers today which demand that the institution of the sovereign nation-state either be eradicated, or reduced to a house-lackey of the permanently reigning tyranny of a slime-like horde of financier oligarchy. The crime of that enemy is not only its zeal for eradicating the sovereignty of national self-government by nations, but the eradication, from reigning law, of that principle of the general welfare which is the essential practical distinction of man from beast.

That is the truth behind what King Edward VII did, and the truth behind what the naive might suppose to have been the secret reasons for those awful and mysterious events called general wars and threat of such global warfare during the recently concluded century.

3. What Is, or Is Not Economic Science

To a very large degree, the virtually treasonous objective of the 1945-1946 turn against the legacy of President Franklin Roosevelt, has succeeded. Hopefully, this is not irreversible, and is something which is already in the process of being changed under the presently escalating conditions of world crisis. In the meantime, until some recent marginal, but hopeful changes during the course of the present year to date, the enemies of Franklin Roosevelt's economic recovery had transformed the U.S.A. from what it had once been, into the bankrupt mass of wreckage it has become during the course of the recent three-and-half decades.

At the present moment, the economies of the U.S.A. and Europe are still a mass of rapid, indeed presently accelerating disintegration; since the Autumn of 2004, there has been hopeful change, to date, a shift into a strong, growing tendency for change back toward the Franklin Roosevelt legacy, a change now struggling in the effort to come out of its womb.

However, unless we are able to continue to reverse the past four decades' trends in politics, and economy, the trend in culture would continue to be that we have experienced since the 1962 missile-crisis, the assassination of President Kennedy, and the launching of that official U.S. war in Indo-China which had set into motion a cultural paradigm-shift whose effect would be that civilization on this planet will soon be ended, for a period as long as, or more than, a generation to come. If this desired reversal is not consolidated, very soon, we have now already entered into the opening phase of a planetary new dark age, a period of a generation or more of a dark age comparable to, but worse than that of Europe's Fourteenth Century.

The possibility of defeating that threat of a New Dark Age, clearly exists as our option of this moment. But that opinion will be realized only if we choose to abandon what have become the established cultural trends with the current withering of the earlier role of leadership which had been played by my own generation. This means, for the Americas, Europe, and Japan, most emphatically, a sharp and early reversal of every part of the trend associated with that change, away from that agro-industrial society, which was still prevalent forty years ago, a sharp turn toward a so-called "post-industrial" culture. In the U.S.A., that happier choice, away from a self-doomed "services economy," back to a mode associated with memory of FDR, will not be made, unless the following point is more or less clearly understood by the relevant trend-setters of this moment of world history.

Recent months' developments have demonstrated, that such a needed change, away from "post-industrial" ideology, can be induced, if only because of the growing pressure from a mobilized movement of young-adult youth on an often reluctant "Baby Boomer" generation in power. This fact, shown by recent experience, should not have surprised us; it is one of the lessons of history which a wise kind of currently dominant layer of society should never forget. What was done as the ruin of a nation by the youth of a past generation, must often be repaired by forceful assistance from the youth of a new generation. The difficulty in such a case, is that the older generation tends to react with rage against the younger generation's challenge to the decadence which had become characteristically habituated among the older generation. The conflict posed by that challenge can not be avoided; it must be accepted as the birth-pangs of a new and better age.

The nearest precedent for what must be done in the Americas and Europe now, is to be recognized from study of the role of the U.S.A. under President Franklin Roosevelt, a role which shaped U.S. history, and, as it turned out, also world history, from the first day of President Roosevelt's Presidency until its end. On this account, the success of Franklin Roosevelt's rescue of the economy from the wreckage wrought by Coolidge, Hoover, and others before him, was a change fairly described at first glance, as a crucial reform of economic policy. However, there is a certain danger in the misleading suggestion that the difference was "only economic," or "chiefly economic." That is the point to be clarified in the two concluding chapters of this report.

The problem here is not competently understood within the bounds of what is customarily conceived to be "economics" as such, but, rather, as I shall now show, this problem must be seen as the task to be accomplished by freeing the mind from imprisonment within the wild-eyed incompetence with which the meaning of the term "economics" is usually misunderstood by the presently reigning generation.

Roosevelt's reforms, like the appeal of his first Presidential campaign to the voters, was based on a return, away from the legacy of Coolidge, Andrew Mellon, and Hoover, to the principled conception of mankind on which our Declaration of Independence and Constitution are premised. The difference between the American System of political-economy and the Anglo-Dutch Liberal system, has always been, from the beginning, two irreconcilable conceptions of the nature of mankind.

This latter difference in principle, was typified by our Declaration of Independence's opposition to what can only be fairly described as the evil philosophical tradition of John Locke. Today, the same evil expressed by Locke and by our enemy of 1776, Lord Shelburne's lackey Adam Smith, is embodied in the notion called by some today "shareholder value," or man as "property." This was the same evil represented by the British imperial puppets known as the treasonous authors of the Confederate States of America (CSA), which Lord Palmerston's London deployed in the attempt to destroy our republic from within.

Within the bounds of globally extended European economy and general culture during the paradigm-setting Eighteenth Century, the issue at hand today, appears then as the opposition of the followers of Gottfried Leibniz, such as our Benjamin Franklin, to the followers of such typical figures of the so-called "Enlightenment" as John Locke and that frankly satanic author of Candide, the Voltaire whose continued influence today is most clearly typified in the experience of today's recent four decades, by the eruption of "the rock-drug-sex cultural paradigm-shift" of the late 1960s.

The Cultural Paradigm Down-Shift

The outcome of the influence of such as Locke and Voltaire, is typified since the age of the Prince of Wales, British Queen Victoria's "Bertie," by the so-called Theosophical, or Lucifer cult of Madame Blavatsky, Bertrand Russell, H.G. Wells, and Aleister Crowley, and by the circles of the Huxley brothers whom Crowley introduced, in collusion with Russell and Wells, to the lunatic world of what is called "psychedelics." From those circles we received the mid-1960s plague of substance-induced psychosis of "drop in, drop out," and also of ecstatic modes in contemporary, so-called "fundamentalist"religious belief, which are, in effect, in accord with the mass practice of such induced psychosis today.

The moral damage done our culture during the recent forty years, is chiefly the immediate product of what has been named by some perverted creatures, such as Will and Ariel Durant as The Age of Voltaire. More precisely, it is a modern effort to replicate the way in which ancient Classical Greek culture was self-destroyed by the influence of the Babylonian tradition willfully introduced as the Apollo Delphic cult of the so-called Greek gods, the Babylonian corruption identified by Aeschylus in his Prometheus Bound. The characteristic ancient and contemporary, formal sophistry of the so-called "Enlightenment," on which the influence of such as slavery-apologist Locke has been premised, to the present day, has been a reflection of the morally depraved model of the Olympian Zeus as portrayed by Aeschylus in that play.

The efficient central principle of sophistry is what is sometimes termed, rather euphemistically, as moral relativism. It is stated more frankly by the pair of wild-eyed, frankly satanic existentialists Theodor Adorno and Hannah Arendt, in the theses which they supplied as the doctrine of The Authoritarian Personality. It was that existentialist doctrine, adopted and promulgated by that rag-tag of despicable Marxists, ex-Marxists, existentialists, and the like, known as the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF), which embedded its corruption in the conditioning of the generation born during 1945-1950. It was this influence of CCF and related ventures, on that generation of adolescents and young adults, which imposed the axiomatic foundations of the systemic sophistry within the conditioned reflexes of most of the generation of young adults of the so-called 68er generation.

The induced, so-called cultural paradigm-shift of the recent forty years, is a reflection of that which the heirs of the Synarchists of the Mussolini-Hitler years were able to do to plant their seeds of moral and intellectual decadence among the adolescents and young adults of about forty years ago. So, the legacy of the evil Apollo cult of Delphi, spawned its legacy of sophistry among that generation, as the ancient Delphi cult, had, similarly, corrupted and induced the self-inflicted ruin of ancient Greece during the term leading into the culturally suicidal Peloponnesian War.

Today, there are those misguided souls, of course, who have no conception of actual principles, and therefore seek a substitute for the principles which they lack, in a mechanical quality of rules and regulations which they call "laws." Typical of such foolish people, are those who would argue that the Preamble of the Federal Constitution is merely a foreword to that Constitution; whereas, in fact, the Preamble is the highest order of law in that Constitution, most notably the so-called "general welfare" clause. It is that clause in that Preamble, which differentiates a modern sovereign nation-state republic, in principle, from an essentially ancient or medieval form of society.

The idea of a universal principle came into ancient European civilization, at its beginnings in Greece, from Egypt. It came from the science of astrophysics as known to Egypt. It came not from the mere contemplation of the stars, but study of the lawful ordering which transoceanic astrogators require. It was precisely this form of knowledge which was transmitted to ancient science under the rubric of Sphaerics, in which all measurements are made in terms of primarily spherical, rather than rectilinear functions. The most elementary typification of this distinction was the proof of a purely geometric construction of the doubling of the cube, as demonstrated by the Pythagorean Archytas, and the discovering of the ordering of the regular solids by Theaetetus.[15] This notion of universal principles was associated with and derived from the astronomical universe, as Johannes Kepler would later define such a modern approach to understanding such universal principles.

The same notion of universality, as associated with spherical, as opposed to rectilinear methods of comprehension of astrophysics, applies to social processes, too, and has the same meaning in the latter domain as in the former. All of man's law is rightly subordinated to such qualities of universal notions of principle. All other notions of law, including constitutional law, and other law of and among nations, are qualitatively inferior to those laws which have the quality of universal physical principles defined by the rigorous experimental methods, principles which define a true universal law of our universe. This notion of universality in method is that which distinguishes the human species, and its individual member absolutely from the lower forms of life, such as the higher apes.

In study of historical ancient, medieval, and modern European cultures, the most effective modes for suppression of the creative powers of mind through which discoveries of universal principle are generated, and also assimilated, is what is called reductionism. This reductionism is usually expressed in one, or, more often, a combination of two ways. On the one side, it is expressed as arbitrary belief, as in religious cults, such as the right-wing "fundamentalist" cults in the U.S.A. today. It is also expressed as formal reductionism, such as arbitrary belief in sense-perception as a direct representation of a universe composed of such self-evidently existing images, as we meet this in the fanaticism of the philosophical materialists and empiricists such as d'Alembert, de Moivre, Euler, Lagrange, Cauchy, et al. This same reductionism, in the form typified by the bestial view of man by Thomas Huxley, and the radically empiricist hoaxes perpetrated by Bertrand Russell, and such among Russell's clones as Norbert Wiener and John von Neumann, has been the principal instrument of indoctrination which was used to destroy the creative mental powers of the generation which came to the surface as the 68ers.

In the type of formal reductionism associated with the empiricism of Paolo Sarpi and his followers, for example, both facets of reductionism are combined. There is the insanity of mystical belief in purely arbitrary principles, such as the social principles of Locke, Mandeville, Quesnay, or Immanuel Kant, cohabiting with blind faith in the self-evident existence of ideas coinciding with sense-perceptual experience, such as the arguments for mathematics of Descartes, d'Alembert, de Moivre, Euler, Lagrange, Laplace, Cauchy, et al.

The net result of such conditioning in reductionist world-outlooks, is the same social policy of oligarchical rule prescribed by the Olympian Zeus of Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound.

In that play, the Zeus of that tragedy condemned the immortal Prometheus to eternal punishment for the "crime" of having revealed the use of fire to mortal human beings. The principle was the same as that of today's radical "environmentalist," that the secrets of universal physical principles must not be revealed in a way which allows mortal mankind to enjoy the benefit of the use of "fire," or nuclear power. Two, combined approaches were used to the effect illustrated by Aeschylus' drama. On the one side, the prohibition of the knowledgeable use of discovered universal physical principles. On the other hand, the limited toleration of the use of some selected such principles, by disguising them with Delphic mysticism, as the circles of the Paris-based Venetian Abbot, Antonio Conti, used his assets in England to stage the figure of black magic specialist "Isaac Newton" as an alleged scientific discoverer. The perverted plagiarism of the published work of Kepler, as this was abused to help in developing the myth of Newton's train of allegedly "original" discoveries, is typical of such Cartesian legerdemain.

The point is, that a people which knows it has the innate qualifications which Genesis 1 attributes to man and woman, knows that it is equal to, or probably higher in authority than the authority claimed for the self-styled "Gods of Delphic Olympus." So, just as the Persian Empire which repeatedly failed to subjugate Greece by direct military action, resorted to the Delphic methods associated with the Apollo cult (methods today called "spin"), to corrupt the population of Greece in the fashion which produced the cult of sophistry through whose influence Greece, proceeding in the manner made transparent by Plato's Republic, virtually destroyed itself during the Peloponnesian War.

When the plan for a British Empire intended to become the permanent successor to the Roman Empire, was launched under the direction of Britain's Lord Shelburne, the point emphasized by his lackey Gibbon's famous study, was that Rome's toleration of Christianity is what had doomed it. It was the sturdy independence of the U.S. citizen which had made the post-Civil War U.S. republic the greatest challenge to the continued existence of the British world empire. The remedy? Do to the Prometheuses of European civilization, as the Olympian Zeus of Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound had prescribed.

The Mental Chains of Slavery

Thus, although it must be conceded that slavery was not immediately abolished by the Constitution, the lack of immediate abolition was the result of a compromise which was made to prevent some of the states from bolting over to the British cause. The conception underlying the constitution was, nonetheless, the principle of the nature of man, according to the principle of agape echoed by the opening declaration of the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia. This conception was the foundation of the entirety of the conception of law, the principle of agape permeating that Constitution, even among those such as Thomas Jefferson who did not act to eliminate slavery immediately in his state of Virginia.

The issues posed by this particular irony within the bounds of the respective composition of principles and immediate practice in the launching of that Constitution, is a lesson which few simpler minds of our time have yet to comprehend. All human society thus far has been imperfect or worse in its conception of what the practiced law should be. All traditional practice and law of societies before us have ranged from evil to wretchedly defective. Yet, only silly romantics yearn to go back in time to demand that earlier nations and generations conform immediately, even retroactively, to strict conformity with currently popularized lawful principles, as supposed principles have been determined according to our best present knowledge of that history. The essence of human existence is a process of development; it is that process of development which must be pushed forward; it is failure to develop in that way, or even to retrogress as the doctrine of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia has done, which is the essential nature of the current decadence of the U.S. today, or comparable cases.

Therefore, a valid constitution is one which prescribes an open-ended process of self-development of a nation, and of its people. Evil is that which halts, or turns back the clock of development, whether as a policy, or an individual action. So, the most common expression of evil, is that policy which either simply halts development, or, worse, seeks to turn back the clock, or prevent resumption of a mistakenly abandoned earlier mode of development, as in the case of the post-Franklin Roosevelt U.S.A. of today.[16]

Today, laws are usually considered, wrongly, as limited in their authority to the specified current circumstances, such as merely passing current popular, or "traditional" opinion, on whose behalf they are ostensibly prescribed. Whereas, law which expresses the true principles of science or government, is universal and permanent, in the same sense as discovered universal physical principles, and, excepting cases of new laws which have the demonstrable quality of representing universal physical or equivalent principles of the universe, other, ordinary laws are part of that merely positive law which is always to be interpreted, enforced, or repealed, as the application of principle to what a contemporary practical form of relevant setting requires for the relevant occasions.

For example, the faction of Spain associated with the Inquisition, adopted the opinion that sub-Saharan Africans were animals, not people. Therefore, those Spanish and Portuguese introduced a commercial form of international slave-trade, based on capturing and culling "herds" of "wild Africans," shipping the un-culled young males, and, later, "breeding stock" to sundry parts of the Americas, in a practice which was continued into the late Nineteenth Century, and was protected by the British and Dutch creditors of the Spanish and Portuguese, and continued by the Nineteenth-Century Spanish monarchy until late in the Nineteenth Century.

Unlike the Spanish ideologue of the Inquisition's tradition, the usually Protestant American apologist for slavery did not trouble himself to argue that the slaves were not human, although the the most depraved individuals among us did actually adopt that Spanish principle, and the Habsburg rule over Mexico expressed that evil practice and is a continuing tradition among some there, to the present day.

The usual argument under law, for the defense, or the toleration of slavery as an institution, was that once man became property, he remained property. It became the typical practice of the U.S. slave-state governments within the U.S.A., to forbid the education in, or practice of reading among slaves, thus denying that slaves were human in that perverse, back-handed way, by denying slaves access to their natural affinity for specifically human behavior. For such slave-holding states of the Union, as in the case of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney's obscene Dred Scott decision, the argument in defense of slavery and its practices, was placing the right of property above the rights of a human being, just as Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia and others uphold the identical, Lockean dogma of "shareholder value" today.

All such decisions in favor of "shareholder value" must be struck down as obscene violations of universal national law, and any law which opposes that must be struck down promptly and with "finality" on the same premises. This must be done in order to prevent the continuation of the reversal of progress which the hateful doctrine of "shareholder value" has promoted.

For just such reasons, according to the pro-slavery doctrine of those in the Federal Courts of the relevant time, the mere act of manumission of a slave was an implicit violation in principle of the Locke notion of "life, liberty, and property." That argument for slavery as property, is exactly the same obscenity cataloged under the rubric of "shareholder value" today.[17]

Just so, a single true principle has the rightful power to sweep away vast accumulations of enacted law and judicial decisions. A law may be considered as relatively powerful insofar as it approaches nearer coincidence with the superior universal principle, but that law remains not natural law, but belongs to the inferior quality of that which is the merely positive law.

Any different view of the matter of principle of law which I have just identified, is either an expression of the principled immorality of outright sophistry, or tends in that direction. Hence, the gravest systemic defect in the practice of law and other statecraft today, is the prevalence of a virtually rabid degree of sophistry (e.g., the implicit hypocrisy of practice of the dogma of "go along, to get along") in current practice in law-making, judicial proceedings, and popular opinion.

The principle of agape, which is sometimes translated as the principle of the general welfare, or as the commonwealth principle, is a principle of universal natural law. When it is uttered as the statement of intended purpose of government, as in the Preamble of the U.S. Federal Constitution, it represents the relatively highest principle of law of that government and all institutions of government, and of all issues concerning equity in the affairs of that people.[18]

This principle is deeply embedded in our republic's history and custom. It is embedded, thus, in the habituated cultural nature of all good citizens, even those erring apostates among us who are struck by pangs of guilty conscience on this account.

The Role of the Rascals

From the death of President Franklin Roosevelt, on, the pro-imperialist adversaries of our republic deemed it necessary to bring off the change from the Franklin Roosevelt revival of our economy, toward our becoming the kind of mess of economic and social wreckage our nation represents today. Although the details of the way in which this was accomplished over the course of recent decades, were never clear in advance, the outlines of the policy which has been used, was clear from the moment President Roosevelt had died, and has been maintained as policy until now. As part of this hostile intention, it was essential to prefer to employ men and women whose degraded conception of the nature of man accorded with the mission which the Anglo-American oligarchical foes of the FDR legacy intended to bring about.

Hopefully, from the side of our patriots, the approach of FDR would tend to bring about the improvement in the morals of the reluctant, and it did have this effect, as I saw this as an eyewitness, during the 1930s; but we were to see a reversal of that trend, under the Truman Administration, during the late 1940s. When possible, it were better to persuade than compel. As Christians understood and the Inquisition did not, it is the voluntary development of the natural moral character of the citizen which is the best source of security of society in the longer term.

Nonetheless, our preference for compassion and inspiration should never blind us to the reality, that frank evil often does occupy very high places, such as the post-FDR law-making process and judiciary in our governing institutions. Since, therefore, under those influences, the law and its enforcement tend, so often, out of either foolishness or malice, to be morally corrupted, it is urgent that we place much greater reliance on those principles of natural law expressed by the Preamble of our Federal Constitution, than any other institution or law, such as legislative and judicial proceedings.

Those who have no principles, propose nothing other than enacting some new law, usually a law whose initial popularity represents a worse result than had no new such law been enacted. They are people who rely on law, because they have no true principles, a type of person typified by those who are essentially products of the 1950s and later indoctrination, as children and adolescents in the frankly satanic dogmas of the Congress for Cultural Freedom.

I explain. Principles comparable in their origin and quality to the discovery of universal physical principles are eternal; legislation and judicial proceedings are fallible, and are frequently too easily corruptible. Hence, the proper position of superior authority of the Preamble of our Federal Constitution over all other law, and, after that, the provisions of Constitutional law bearing upon the composition of each and all among the institutions of the Federal government and the subordinate authority of the Constitutional states of the union. This authority must always be treated as more important than any subsidiary feature of the legislated and judicial law.

The relevant set of distinctions this implies, respecting the characteristic relative morality of nations and their sundry cultural sub-sets, is a subject of special interest. What defines the natural social outlook, the natural outlook of the individual and group toward society as a whole? How do such considerations bear on the way groups of persons may function in this or that capacity within the society at large? What relevance do such matters have for the way in which the functioning, and direction of development of the society as a whole may proceed? What, therefore, is the state of mind we must require in the selection of individual persons for important positions, especially the highest-ranking elected and appointed officials of our Federal Government?

It is notable, on this account, that certain relatively recent immigrants from the culture of the pre-World War II period of Adolf Hitler's rise to power, such as Henry A. Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Madeleine Albright, have come to represent a style within U.S. government service which stands out as the deeply embedded expression of a "central European mind-set," a mind-set which is morally alien to the history of the origins and the development of our U.S. constitutional republic. Such persons stand out, not because they had been sent in to subvert us, but because they, like that poisonous pestilence of Viennese positivist professors who destroyed the competence of entire departments of our universities, had been selected as immigrants whose breeding was in accord with the wicked orientation of the relevant witting currents of Anglo-Dutch Liberal subversive influences already well established within our financial community and kindred strata and institutions.

Persons such as those, who persist in cultivating those manifest, alien defects in their character, therefore do not yet accept the constitutional principle upon which our institutions' security depend, and therefore, they should not be brought into positions of crucial importance in our government, or comparable institutions. It is notable, in these exemplary, referenced cases, that they each and all exhibit a lack of the republican morality specific to the Preamble of our Federal Constitution and the 1776 Declaration of Independence. They reflect a poor choice of morality, of a central European type from which the founders of our republic sought our escape to the safe refuge of our republic.

What, for example, did the monocled Fritz Kraemer see in his assigned jeep driver, Henry A. Kissinger? What did the British agent and Harvard Professor of Government, Nashville Agrarian William Yandell Elliott, see in Kissinger, or in Canada's adopted product of the right-wing Polish bureaucracy, Brzezinski, for example? What did the subversive H.G. Wells society find attractive in Madeleine Albright and her father Josef Korbel, also of the central European state bureaucracy's tradition, like that of the same circles into which Zbigniew Brzezinski married? An examination of Henry Kissinger's writings which were published as expression of his patronage by the dubious Elliott, attests to the same special type of alien, specifically anti-American, central European state of mind expressed so shamelessly in Kissinger's May 1982 London Chatham House address. Similarly, Brzezinski's piece on the subject of "technetronic" culture, is thoroughly anti-American in its pervasive implications.

There is nothing of the European Classical tradition in such types, certainly not the type of central European we rightly associate with Leibniz, nor Schiller, nor Gauss, the von Humboldts, and Riemann, but, rather, the hatefully bureaucratic oligarchical lackey's mind-set. All of these lean more to the side of Paolo Sarpi's "New Venice Party" of Sir Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Adam Smith, and the Confederacy tradition, than that of the American patriot.[19]

Most of these imported types of that specific quality represent a native inclination to become lackeys of an oligarchy, more than the oligarchical family types themselves, and more the modern bourgeois variety of oligarch than the old feudalistic family traditions. There is a lot of the quality of Dickens' character Uriah Heep in lackeys of such central European cultural types. They are not "Prussian types," but more the type of a Prussian's lackey, selected—not for breeding!—for a usable, and expendable talent. The Trotskyist neo-conservative followers of the hoaxster and pro-fascist Professor Leo Strauss, for example, emphasize that they are lackeys, house-servants of the oligarchy, rather than responsible leaders of society. This does not lessen their propensity to steal very large amounts of other people's wealth by legalized, or other trickery, but merely points out more clearly their affinity for the type of Dickens' portrayal of the miserable character of Uriah Heep.

These types are rather quickly distinguished from the far more numerous, desirable immigrants, who came to the U.S. in search of opportunity, and who expressed his and her enjoyment of life achieved here with wit and laughter, while enriching the quality of the mainstream of our society by his or her presence. The other types, such as Kissinger and Brzezinski, are not happy here, as the murderously thuggish Kissinger's hate-filled May 1982 London address makes this point indelibly.[20] They do not wish to be part of us, but rather, like prospective gang-land types, either make us their subjects, or they work, as do those ex-Trotskyist fascists called "neo-cons," as an enforcer for someone who does. In their careers in public life, the net outcome of their employment, has been efforts which in fact tend to destroy the intent on which our republic was founded, to destroy what President Franklin Roosevelt's Administration gave back to us in his time.

Of many of these, it can be said, that they are unhappy with our U.S.A. as our Constitution defines it, but the countries to which they might desire to return, either no longer exist, or, if in their right mind, would not wish them back.

These types are not the primary source of our problem, but merely, by virtue of the positions they enjoyed, notable instruments which their actual masters have employed for the deviltry done against us. They and their masters alike, can be understood, and assessed, in that light. They are a problem for us, but, more significantly, the fact of their inappropriate selection for positions of great influence reflects the grave moral defects in those influential circles among us who promoted such fellows to their indicated positions.

Economy and the Genesis of Morality

This brings us to the topic of public morality as a characteristic quality, for better or worse, of nations.

Historians Anton Chaitkin's and H. Graham Lowry's published works on the history of the U.S.A.,[21] show much of the actual history of the efforts of the British monarchy to crush our republic, both in the womb, at its birth, and later. How should those of us working as responsible political leaders, or historians, judge our republic's traditional imperial adversary, the British monarchy, its associated oligarchy, and their agents among us? What should be our actual moral judgment on such predators?

I caution the reader, that, in my view, the British people, and their leaders generally, are to be judged, first of all, as human beings, rather than as categorical adversaries as a people. It is perhaps easier for me than most others, to take that view as my starting point, not because of my predominantly English-French-Scottish ancestry,[22] but, because I have the advantage of understanding how dynamic systems work in general, and understand the relevant social dynamics of the way in which the British monarchy came into being, and how that kingdom is controlled, at least to a very large degree, by processes beyond its own developed, willful capacity to resist. In general, all societies are, at any given time in their existence, primarily more systems—dynamic systems—than collections of individual wills. I mean, of course, a system in the sense I have emphasized the relevance of Bernard Riemann's view of Dirichlet's Principle.[23]

In defining the British system as a system in that sense, I am not excusing its frequently bad behavior; I am simply employing a clinical view, a view of the historically determined intent of this British system. I must maintain that clinical frame of mind required to prescribe treatment of the problem which would either, at a minimum, contain, or, hopefully, correct the problem inherent in that British system (for example) today.

Consider some examples of dynamic change in a national model. Consider, for example, the effect of the 1863-1876 developments inside the U.S.A. which prompted many nations to modify their principles of self-government, as Bismarck revolutionized the German economic and social system in the American System-modelled reforms of the 1877-1878 interval, during which time the world's leading economist of the world, the U.S.'s Henry Carey, visited Berlin in this matter, and during which Carey also steered the economic revolution in Japan, and D.I. Mendeleyev collaborated with Czar Alexander III and Count Sergei Witte in a stunningly successful, if incomplete, change of Russia's economic policy of practice. Social systems do change, even rapidly and profoundly at times. The fact that such changes have occurred, can be recognized; the way in which those changes are brought about, is, up to the present time, rarely understood, even among some otherwise well-qualified historians.[24]

Or, take the case of domesticated animals. Consider the way in which animals which are domesticated "from the pup" to adult, behave toward man, as opposed to the conduct of the wild creature of the same species and variety.

Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa made a provocative argument: that such animals participate in mankind, as mankind participates in God. Think about it! Do you have a pet dog which has grown up as part of your household, and counts you as virtually, for the case of a dog, as part of your "pack," or, in German, Rudel. The pet adapts to your behavior, and thus modifies its behavior accordingly. The way your mind works, as such workings are viewed in the mind of the dog, is now, in that specific, functional sense, a part of the dog's psyche.

That dog is no longer the mere animal, nor is he or she human. The characteristic behavior of the dog has been nonetheless changed, dynamically, in species-characteristics, by its relationship to you. It is fascinating to observe how the mind of the dog works under these conditions. You begin to understand this, on the day that you realize that when you are trying to understand how the dog behaves toward you, or in your company, you are imagining that you are thinking, and reacting to the dog as if you were a member of the dog's Rudel, especially on the day you realize that the dog has acquired a sense of humor about such matters, through its functional relationship to you.

People should not become beastly in their relationships to their pet animals.

This relationship of pet to master, which arises as a qualitative change in the behavior of the animal, belongs to the category of dynamic relations, as I have emphasized V.I. Vernadsky's emphasis on this, in 1935-36, in his definition of the chemistry of the Biosphere. It is the same principle of dynamics, as opposed to mechanics, which Leibniz counterposed to the essential incompetence of the empiricist method employed by Descartes and Descartes' followers, such as the Newtonians. It is the same principle of dynamics which was clarified and developed further by Bernard Riemann, in his habilitation dissertation, his work on the Theory of Abelian Functions, and his general treatment of the determining principles of physical hypergeometries, according to his elaborated employment of what he identified as Dirichlet's Principle.[25]

Now, having considered such experience in that light, what is the essential difference between the behavior defined by the relationship of the human individual to his or her "pack," and the characteristic features of the relationships among families, and among people within society generally?

The essential problem of economy to be addressed in this present time of relatively terminal global crisis of humanity, is that all economic doctrine of practice, as currently taught, as currently treated as a working body of practical doctrine in all societies today, fails to make any systemic distinction between the moral issue posed by an economy as a dynamic mode of human social process, and the matter of the relations within and among the packs of lower forms of life. That is the crucial problem which I address here, the problem whose study should prompt us to understand the world-outlooks and methods we must employ now to avoid a continuation of the specific set of global horrors of the rise and continued persistence of the British imitation of the ancient Roman Empire, now called "globalization."

What the beast does not, and can not do, is willfully change the behavior of its species according to the implications of the discovery of a truly universal principle of the universe. That is the essential scientific, and also moral distinction between the degenerates who are members of the cultures of the cannibals, and true cultures of human beings. That is the difference between a morally defective culture based on reductionist assumptions, as by the empiricists, and a culture like the Classical current of the culture of ancient Greece, as represented by Plato's surviving dialogues and letters, on which the founding of the U.S.A. branch of modern European culture was premised.

This characteristic distinction of man from both beast and bestiality is located in those creative powers, those principles of the individual mind whose existence is prohibited by the Olympian Zeus of Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound. These are the principles of the work of the ancient Pythagoreans, Socrates, and Plato, the principles underlying the modern work of Nicholas of Cusa and his followers, such as Leonardo da Vinci, Johannes Kepler, Fermat, Leibniz, Gauss, and Riemann.

Although this definition of the process of discovery, and practice of universal principles, is most immediately associated with such progress in physical science as the discovery and development of the use of nuclear and thermonuclear power (which the moral degenerates following in the train of the depraved Olympian Zeus would prohibit), it is also expressed in that which qualifies as Classical principles of artistic composition, such as those of the followers of J.S. Bach, as opposed to the degenerate practices of the more popular, increasingly decadent varieties of chimpanzee-like musical entertainments today.

It is that quality of behavior which expresses these discovered principles and their implied intentional use by mankind, which distinguishes moral forms of society. It is moral activity, so defined, which supplies us effective insight into the actual practical meaning to be applied to the term "economy." This pertains not merely to the role of individual discoveries of universal physical principles, but to the development of all of the members of society in a direction coherent with the proliferation of such discoveries and their application for the benefit of progress in the condition of human individual life.

4. Economy As the Moral Progress of Mankind

The world has now entered a period of a new challenge to mankind. Since we must now add the challenge of bringing the standard of living and productivity of Asia up to the levels and rate of improvement we should be prescribing for Europe and the Americas as a whole, we must prepare to encounter, not fixed limits on resources, but, rather the need to expand what we have formerly regarded implicitly as the planet's fixed upper limit on available resources. Preparing now to face this challenge to the population of our planet two generations ahead, requires a new way of thinking about economics. Instead of thinking of a fixed store of what we have called "primary raw materials," we must define the theory and practice of economics in what will be, for virtually all economists, a new way of defining the bedrock foundations of the subject of economy, a way in which the development and management of new planetary stocks of so-called "raw materials," will replace the formerly accepted notions.

Henceforth, all competent economics will be recognized as incorporating what I have prescribed as embodying a great debt to the celebrated work of Russia's V.I. Vernadsky. This inescapable new orientation of the practice of economics will compel our recognition of the fact, as I shall now explain, that the essence of a competent science of economy, is not statistical, but moral. We shall now think of economics as the practice of ordering the practice of nations to conform to the notion of mankind as a power within, rather than an inhabitant of the universe.

I explain.

Admittedly, progress is often reflected, at least implicitly, in a measured increase of the net fertility, life-expectancy, and per-capita physical productivity of the society's population as a whole, per capita and per square kilometer, as a current characteristic of the total land-area of a sovereign nation. However, those statistical effects, while important in their own way, are merely effects, not the active principle which distinguishes a successful economy as a species of phenomenon, from the relatively random occurrence of a very nasty automobile accident.

To this end, let us now begin the detailed features of this concluding chapter of the present report, with a review of the relevant essentials of such a discussion, with a review of the evolving notion of the role of physical science in society since the ancient Pythagoreans.

Already, in prior times, for competent economists, the essential, experimental proof of difference between man and beast, is the evidence of man in society, a society which is willfully increasing its relative potential population-density per capita and per square kilometer. The crucial proof of the principle which characterizes mankind, as distinct from lower forms of life such as the higher apes, is the evidence which suffices to demonstrate an increase in that potential as a development associated with the introduction of the equivalent of added universal physical principles into a relevant society's repertoire of practice. The translation of such experimental evidence into the functional equivalent of a mathematical-physical proof, was mastered by the Classical currents of ancient Greece, as the Pythagoreans and Plato typify this method.

The method which those Classical currents of ancient Greece employed for such investigations, was identified by them as the method of Sphaerics, a branch of physical science derived from the class of discoveries made by ancient astrogators, and relayed to the ancient Greeks, whose leading feature was their participation in a culture derived from what is known as "the people of the seas." These ancient Classical Greeks, such as the Pythagoreans, attributed their acquisition of knowledge of Sphaerics from ancient Egypt.

This use of Sphaerics sets the method of the Pythagoreans, Socrates, and Plato into opposition to the idea of a rectilinear geometry which is associated with Babylon. Instead of assuming the existence of a flat plane, a physical form which Carl F. Gauss's exploration of the general principles of curvature later proved not to exist, the Pythagoreans took the sphere as the standard of reference for measurements, and derived a conception of a physical geometry, rather than something like a Euclidean geometry, from physical observations coordinated with the notion of spherical, rather than rectilinear mappings. Implicitly, the Pythagoreans rejected all rectilinear notions of definitions, axioms, and postulates of an abstract geometry, as the modern scientist Bernard Riemann was to revive this method with full force in his 1854 habilitation dissertation.

To review. The crucial feature of principal relevance for our treatment of a science of physical economy here, is the principle named dynamis, a concept which Gottfried Leibniz introduced to modern physical science as dynamics, in refuting the systemic fallacy of Cartesian physics. The modern translation of the Classical Greek dynamis is the modern use of power (German Kraft) in the modern translations of relevant ancient Greek writings of the Pythagoreans and Plato.

In modern physical science, the notion of power (dynamis) is always properly represented by a spherical construction of the mathematical-physical complex domain of Gauss, Riemann, et al., especially the Gauss-Riemann development of the principles of physical hypergeometries. The relatively rudimentary forms of expression of powers, is, first, the fact that a line is not generated by a point, a surface by a line, nor a solid by a surface; and, second, the method of purely geometrical construction of the doubling of the square and cube, and the generation of the regular solids, as by Theaetetus.[26]

In each of the former cases, the challenge can be solved by geometrical construction, but the act of construction can not be represented as a static act of construction in physical space. It is necessary to introduce the concept of construction within physical space-time, as the modern discovery of the principle of quickest time, by Fermat, and as the later development, by Leibniz, of the catenary-cued principle of universal physical least action, demonstrates the point, the notion of the geometrical-physical, rather than naively arithmetic notion of dynamis = power. This is also the meaning of Heraclitus' "nothing exists but change," and the same conception located in Plato's Parmenides dialogue.

In other words, universal physical principles are known to the degree that their efficient existence may be demonstrated by physical-experimental methods, but, like Fermat's crucial proof of quickest time, the principle itself can not be seen in the terms of reference of ordinary sense-perception, but, rather, is known in the effects, as the expression of an ontological quality of change, produced by the action of that principle. This notion of universal physical principles, and the method of their demonstration, is typified by the work of the relevant Classical Greeks, such as the Pythagoreans and Plato. The Pythagorean Archytas' discovery of a solution for the challenge of the construction of the doubling of the cube, is the most convenient illustration of this notion of universal physical principles corresponding to the notion of powers.[27]

The biological mental-perceptive apparatus of the human being, conforms, in essential, principled respects, to the living biology which the human individual shares with the beasts, even as the human differs absolutely from that of the specific beast. The notions of universal physical principle are not directly recognized as sense-phenomena by the human sense-perceptual apparatus, but only in a different, relatively indirect, but fully efficient and reliable way which occurs only in human individuals, but not in beasts.

This experimental distinction of man from beast is shown implicitly by V.I. Vernadsky's distinction of the Noösphere from the Biosphere. The crucial, changing differences in the mass and composition of the respective fossil formations of these domains, relative to the total mass and composition of the planet as a whole, underscores the relevant point. Just as life is a dynamic process controlled by a principle of life which is superimposed as an efficiently controlling agency on that process, so the principle of human cognition, superimposed on the living organisms of the society of human beings, defines efficient powers which do not occur in lower forms of life. The cognitive generation of the conception of a universal physical principle, is the expressed distinction of man from beast.

The Role of Dirichlet's Principle

Those who have not become familiar with this way of approaching, and defining the physical significance of the complex domain, as Carl F. Gauss's 1799 doctoral dissertation exposed the relevant incompetence of D'Alembert, Euler, Lagrange, et al., will not be able to understand the ABCs of a physical science of economy. Economies, as I have proven and demonstrated repeatedly, are essentially Riemannian processes.

All truly dynamic processes, as Gottfried Leibniz exposed the elementary incompetence of the followers of Descartes (and, implicitly also Galileo) on this point, are actually Riemannian processes defined in the terms Riemann employed for the application of what he defined in his work as Dirichlet's Principle. The famous echo of that in the work of Albert Einstein, late in his life, is the formulation that the universe is finite, but unbounded, or, as I have emphasized a needed modification of his statement: self- bounded. All significant systems within the universe are, by their nature, relatively self-bounded in the sense associated with Riemann's development of the Gauss-Riemann treatment of the complex domain of hypergeometries as defined by Riemann's treatment of hypergeometries within the bounds of the crucial implications of his 1854 habilitation dissertation and his treatment of the theory of Abelian functions.

My own application of this is derived from, and largely bounded by my work in elaborating the Leibnizian concept of a science of physical economy, rather than the usual choice, among today's economists and others, of an essentially incompetent definition of political-economy, a definition of the type stipulated by that neo-Venetian school which is the British system, as also adopted axiomatically by Karl Marx, et al.

Such dynamically self-bounded systems include the case of the individual personality and entire societies. This includes the functional definition of the sovereign nation-state economy, as distinct from hare-brained, and culturally suicidal notions of what are called variously "global" or, more precisely, imperialist systems of economy. The elementary demonstration of the relevant principle of self-boundedness, is provided by examination of the axiomatic characteristics of the human behavior of both the sovereign individual personality, and the functional group within society.

To understand this, it were most useful to take into account two, systemically related points of reference: the principle of Sphaerics as familiar from study of the work of the ancient Pythagoreans and Plato, and the comparable thesis set forth at the outset of Riemann's 1854 habilitation dissertation.

To wit:

The origin of the great mistake known as Euclidean geometry, was the degradation of the preceding work of the Pythagoreans, by interpretation, to appear to show the content of so-called Euclidean geometry as derived from a set of reductionist definitions, axioms, and postulates, when, in fact, all of this material was developed prior to the Euclidean reductionists from the standpoint of Sphaerics, as I have identified the latter, once again, here. However, the utility of closer study of the Euclidean hoax, is that it shows us the underlying implications of the Euclidean system's reliance upon a set of definitions, axioms, and postulates. In dealing with the development of modern anti-Euclidean geometries by (actually) Nicholas of Cusa, Johannes Kepler, Fermat, Leibniz, Gauss, Riemann, et al., we learn a lesson from the hoaxes of the Euclideans which they, clearly, never intended we should learn by help of closer study of the Euclidean hoax.

Therefore, Riemann's application of his treatment of what he named Dirichlet's Principle, to physical hypergeometries, is the relevant modern standpoint for treating both ancient and modern work of relevance to our subject here.

In my work, I have repeatedly referred to a characteristic fallacy which I have found it convenient, during recent years, to identify as a "fishbowl syndrome." That is to say, that most people live in two domains. On the one hand, they live in the real universe, which reacts to their actions. At the same time, they live, intellectually, in a much smaller, and largely fallaciously conceived domain, that of a set of combined witting and unwitting assumptions of an axiomatic character. The effect of this duality, as I have frequently described it, is the mind of the individual living in such a "fishbowl," while his hands and sense-organs are interacting with a universe outside that fishbowl.

The typical interaction of the formally rational individual, and his relevant society, to the universe is of a dynamic quality, a quality defined implicitly, as akin to that interaction between the processes internal to the fishbowl itself, and the real universe with which the people within the fishbowl are efficiently interacting. The conceptual problem is of a type familiar to specialists, as of a type which Carl Gauss confronted in treating the geomagnetic distribution of effects within an significantly large area of the Earth's surface. This is a typical illustration of the concept addressed more generally by Dirichlet and Riemann's conception of Dirichlet's Principle. Also, dynamic systems, as Vernadsky defines the Biosphere, belong to the type of characteristics I have just indicated.[28]

Economies, when treated as physical processes, express these same characteristics.

The characteristic feature, the absolute distinction of the human individual, and the human species from all lower forms of life, is the "breaking of the walls of the fish-bowl:" the discovery of additional universal physical principles, as this was emphasized, for example, by Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa in his work, De Docta Ignorantia, which founded the modern experimental physical science of Leonardo da Vinci, Johannes Kepler, Fermat, Leibniz, et al., through the work of Gauss and Riemann, et al.

In first approximation, this argument is limited, for pedagogical reasons, to the topical area of so-called physical science. However, since societies are based on the transmission of both such elementary physical conceptions and also the principles of functional interaction among human individuals in society, we must include principles of the type unique to strictly Classical modes of communication and cooperative practice, as typified by the case of Classical well-tempered vocal polyphony of J.S. Bach, as expressing efficient universal physical principles in the same sense and degree as the principles of what were otherwise assumed to be solitary man's action on the non-human domain.[29]

The patterns of knowledge, or ignorance, of such principles of physical science and Classical art, or the rejection of such knowledge, forms the characteristic feature of a national culture. The way in which action, and interaction is defined within that culture, in those terms of reference, is the essential expression of the character of that culture as a dynamic system, in the same sense as Leibniz's definition, and also the definition of Biosphere and Noösphere by Vernadsky. Such systems have the implication of expressing Dirichlet's Principle as Riemann defines it.

Vernadsky's referenced work implicitly redefines the practical meaning of the terms society and economy. Once we rise above the view of the individual, or society simply acting upon nature and the artifacts of such action, to take into account the interrelationship between society and the Biosphere and Noösphere, all presently generally accepted opinions on the subject of economy, national economy, and so forth, become either absurd, or obsolete, that both physically, and, also, morally.

National Economic Systems

Consider the distinction between the development of European civilization, until now, and the typical cultures of Asia. Sort out the apparent distinctions from the vantage-point of the notion of dynamic systems. To choose a most relevant starting-point for this, examine the topics thus implied from the standpoint of the way the society defines its responsibility, as a society, as a culture, for the well-being of the existence of the individual member of both present and future generations.

The best distinction of the European civilization traced from the Classical Greek culture, that of Solon's Athens, as opposed to that of the Delphi cult's Lycurgan Sparta, is the role of the Socratic principle of agape, on which the greatest physical and moral achievements within European civilization have been premised. This is the meaning of what is called "the general welfare principle." We in the Classical tradition of Solon, Plato, and the Christian Apostle Paul, are each, individually, and in our role as society as a whole, responsible for the well-being of each and every person in society, a responsibility exercised by society as a whole, rather than within the limits of simpler interpersonal relations. It is the imposition of this responsibility, this accountability, self-imposed upon the society as a whole, which marks the advantage of European culture at its best.

The corollary of that is the accountability of each individual for society and its territory as a whole, and the society's reciprocal responsibility for the care and development of both maintenance and development of the individuals and the territory as a whole. This dynamic quality of reciprocal, functional responsibility, is the distinction of the intent of the U.S. constitutional system. This is the system, despite the violation of that system by some U.S. governments, and by factional forces within the nation.

That principle, and the way in which that or some other principle is defined as a standard of performance by, and within the society, is more significant than the location, or specific language of a people.

The most crucial feature of any national culture, or its sub-culture, is the definition, or absence of belief in a principle of truth. The doctrines of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, respectively, are instances of cultural currents which reject the notion of a universal principle of truthfulness with respect to matters of principle. Anglo-Dutch Liberalism generally, rejects a general principle of truthfulness, in favor of the specific kind of notions of "property" and "power over another person, or persons," which are assumed, in practice, to supersede truth. The worst, most extreme expressions of this are the use of the notion of social power as property, as superseding contrary notions of truth.

In known history of the planet's cultures as such, there are only two important conceptions of social organization, as typified by the opposing notions of sovereign nation and empire. The nation is typically defined by a unifying cultural principle as such a notion is in accord with the notion of a specific dynamic social system. The notion of the right of the individual person, or individual household, by virtue of being a part of that social system, is relatively crucial. The concept of the empire is typified by the description given by Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound of the reign of the Olympian Zeus.

Take the case the Physiocrat François Quesnay, who defined the farmers on the aristocratic landlord's estate as comparable to domesticated cattle, by his locating the origin of the gain denotable as profit of the estate to the magical powers reposing in the landlord's title. The landlord was responsible for the care of the "human cattle" as for other categories of useful cattle, not as men and women. Mandeville, similarly, located the source of "public good" in the magical powers of the untrammeled expression of private vice. Adam Smith borrowed both Quesnay's and Mandeville's magical recipes in his superstitious worship of the miracles wrought by an "invisible hand."

The implications of this argument are best illustrated by studying the Eighteenth-Century 1763-1783 break of the set of the principal English-speaking colonies in North America from the British monarchy, and the clarification of that break by the 1789 U.S. Federal Constitution.

The predecessor of the 1763-1789 break from the British monarchy, was a change from the intention expressed by, for example, the initial founding of the Seventeenth-Century Massachusetts and Pennsylvania colonies, which was intended as a reform within the framework of the English nation-state monarchy, to the 1688-89 rupture of this relationship of colony and "mother country" caused by the process of takeover of England by the imperial power then represented by the Dutch and English India companies. The formal establishment of the imperial power of the British East India Company of Lord Shelburne et al., in the February 1763 Treaty of Paris, was a sharp break of the British nation from the principle of the European nation-state institution, the commonwealth conception, established under France's Louis XI and England's Henry VII, a qualitative change which led to immediate, aggravated conflict between the new imperium and the commonwealth ideals of the leading English colonies.

The distinctions between the newly established British East India Company's empire of 1763 and the commonwealth form of nation-state expressed by both the 1776 U.S. Declaration of Independence and 1789 Federal Constitution, typify the application of the notion of Riemann's conception of Dirichlet's Principle to define the systemic break of the English-speaking North American republic from the British empire.

The frequent error in discussion of the nature of the original and continuing differences between the two societies, the U.S. commonwealth and the British empire, is the frequent failure to recognize that the nature of the essential differences between the two, separations of populations which share, by and large, a common language-heritage which is still defined, despite some significant differences, as centuries-old in many crucial respects. The prevalent, ignorant view, is to compare the two cultures from the standpoint of an assumed Cartesian type of interpersonal relations, as opposed to understanding the relations within a society as inherently dynamic, rather than Cartesian. Thus, in comparing the two political systems, not only is one imperial, and the other republican, but the internal relations are also ordered differently from the standpoint of the principles of dynamics. These differences in fact, and in interpretation respecting the comparison of the two systems, can be understood efficiently only from the standpoint of what Riemann defined as Dirichlet's Principle, the standpoint to which Vernadsky points in showing that the biochemical processes distinguishing the organization of the chemistry of living from non-living systems, are, as Vernadsky states, "Riemannian."

The complication to be considered, in studying those categorical differences, is the fact that because the young U.S. republic was a relatively isolated phenomenon in the world, relative to the opposing, world-hegemonic systems of Europe, U.S. internal affairs and foreign relations were massively corrupted by the increasing hegemony of the British imperial system and its domination of world financial systems into the Twentieth Century, and the large degree of assimilation of the U.S. financial system into the world's Anglo-Dutch Liberal financial-oligarchical order since the death of President Franklin Roosevelt. This complication, past and present, is aggravated by the role of a U.S. domestic financier-oligarchical component of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal world system, to the effect that the U.S. is, today, largely a quasi-autonomous part of the world's presently dominant, Anglo-Dutch Liberal world financial-oligarchical system, the world's present imperial system.

The principal corrupting influence on the U.S.A. has been the combined effect of the dominant role of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal system as a reigning, imperial form of financial system, and the role of the medium of the English language as a medium of transmission of cultural influence into the interior of U.S. life.

The long-ranging drive of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal financier-oligarchical establishment, over the post-Franklin Roosevelt period of world history, has been to destroy the institution of the sovereign nation-state republic throughout the planet, an intention which has been turned loose, full force, with the collapse of the Soviet system. The name given to this global destruction of sovereignty of nations, including that of the U.S.A. itself, is "globalization."

The systemic characteristic of this transformation, most clearly since the middle to late 1960s, has been the destruction of the so-called "protectionist model" of the U.S. economy. The intent has been, including from the government of the U.S.A. itself, to destroy the role of the U.S.A. as a sovereign nation-state, by destroying the so-called "protectionist" system on which the superiority of the U.S. economy to that of other parts of the world had depended, prior to the 1971-1982 transformation of the U.S. into the presently bankrupt "service economy" rubbish-bin it has become. The intent of globalization is to make the poverty of the so-called "developing sector" permanent, by degrading the physical economies of the Americas and Europe to the notoriety of "Third World" conditions, and by making "Third World" conditions the standard for economy world-wide.

The stated intent of the British imperial system, the Anglo-Dutch Liberal system, as by Lord Shelburne, et al., since the beginning of that faction's rule in the Netherlands and Britain, has been to establish a permanent world empire as successor to the Roman Empire, an empire modelled upon the ultramontane system under which medieval Europe was dominated by the partnership of the Venetian financier oligarchy with the Norman chivalry of Crusades' notoriety.

This presently bankrupt world financier-oligarchical system is a true imperial system in the tradition of the domination of the medieval world by the alliance of the Venetian financier oligarchy with the Norman chivalry.

The Moral Purpose of Economy

The characteristic distinction of the human species, is a process of ongoing change, from generation to generation, which is typified in a healthy state of society, by scientific-technological and related progress in the well-being of a growing human population as a whole. This distinction is inseparable from the notion of a certain kind of individual human immortality. This notion expresses the sense that the animal-like aspect of human mortality is only a necessary part of the metagenesis of the human personality and the essential self-interest of that personality. We all die. Therefore, the question is: To what future purpose shall we have lived?

This immortality is expressed, beyond the bounds of the mortal flesh, by those qualities of ideas which transform the quality of human activity in an upward direction, thus elevating the condition and fruitfulness of the existence of the individual, and of the continuing existence of the immortal humanity of which the mortal life of the individual, as expressed by the ideas which are unique to the human species, is an essential moment of the eternal whole.

Any contrary view of the goal of individual life, is a parody of bestiality. Unfortunately, the parody is prevalent, and the remedy relatively rare.

Admittedly, increased wealth, in the sense of the individual's increase of average power for good over nature, is necessary. However, when this is regarded as a goal in and of itself, the purpose of mortal human life is overlooked, and often betrayed.

The human species, in its well-informed state of conscious existence, yearns for agreement with the intent of the living, personal Creator of the universe, and hastens to realize that agreement, in some feasible, significant way, during the course of a lifetime of mortal existence. As the Creator changes the universe, we must proceed in a like manner. We must produce, immediately, above all else, more suitably developed human individuals than we ourselves have represented. We must produce the conditions of life, of human activity, which permits the realization of that intention. Hence, progress, as only typified by scientifically driven physical economic progress in the human condition, seems to be an end in itself. It is not an end itself; it is the footsteps left by the march of that true, higher intention. The greatest satisfaction in living is to know the higher purpose which requires those footsteps through the passage of time.

Thus, human existence in that mode of progress, is a self-subsisting intention, and the only true source of satisfaction in being a mortal human individual.

In that precise sense, science-driven economic and cultural progress is an end in itself, a policy in itself. The function of the sovereign nation-state republic is to provide the vehicle of physical change, and of protection and promotion of the individual which is needed for the development of the quality of the mental life of that individual according to that policy.

The empire, as a notion, is, and always has been a form of evil, the British Empire has been no exception to this, and the form of globalization the nearest approximation of the perfectly satanic principle embodied in the tradition of the Venetian financier-oligarchy yet conceived.

The Role of Economic Cycles

The usual notion of "economics" we encounter today, is expressed in the form of a notion of economy based on the principle of satisfying one's appetite by stealing apples from the neighbor's tree.

Most of the improvements in the short-term condition of individual life in society today are, in fact, products of long-term investments in improvements in basic economic infrastructure and technology of physical production. The typical units required as standards for study of the dependency of short-term productivity on long-term investments are one and two generations, each, in today's society of European standards of culture, of about a quarter century. For example, a typical modern power-installation is an investment with a physical life of approximately a single such generation. Approximately half of the annual expenditure of a civilized society today is expended on investment in long-term basic economic infrastructure.

This fact led to such doctrines as the notion of Kondratieff Waves, presented by the Russian economist N.D. Kondratieff. The promotion of the doctrine of Kondratieff waves in the U.S.A. and elsewhere, depended significantly on a post hoc, ergo propter hoc representation of observed economic history; but there is a sound scientific, and also moral reason underlying the usually misinterpreted name of that phenomenon.

The usual discussion of Kondratieff waves suffers from the same mental disorder permeating today's international practice from the influence of the same British school of political-economy on which the doctrines of Karl Marx et al. were premised. The famous three studies by the Kondratieff school illustrate the point. Those three waves were determined not by the capital cycles of investment in the technologies of physical capital, but by, chiefly patterns of business-cycle developments. These were affected by technological considerations, but were determined chiefly by political, rather than physical economic-theoretical considerations.

Contrary to that particular bit of ill-fated outcome of the attempted applications of Kondratieff's conception, the matter of technological "long waves" in investment of physical capital, has a large degree of validity, on condition that the subject is addressed from the standpoint of a science of physical economy, rather than the varieties of Anglo-Dutch Liberal dogmas which influenced the production of the weak reputation gained by Kondratieff's argument. Once we have adopted a science of physical economy as the needed alternative, we must then be certain that we conceive of a physical economy as a Riemannian mode in dynamic systems, freed of the usual nonsense of generally accepted accounting practice and related schools of political-economy today. In that case, by restating the intention of Kondratieff in this way, a valid approach to the subject of real-economic "long waves" will emerge.

The point of reference which must be adopted, as a point of departure for such studies of the dominant role of long physical-economic cycles is the dominant role of long-term capital cycles of physical capital investment as the principal, underlying driver required for the realization of physical gains from short-term innovations.

Concretely, as I have emphasized this in other locations, the combination of the financial bankruptcy of the presently "globalized" world system and the unresolved domination of most of Asian cultures by unspeakable qualities of perpetual impoverishment, determines the need for a specific long-wave policy of not less than two generations' duration for the planet as a whole. We must create a new social-economic model in Asia, and Africa, and reconstruct the nation-state-republic model of economy once best typified by the U.S.A. in Europe. The net effect of this new policy must be a long physical-economic wave of dynamic reorganization of society, away from the present predominant Asian and African models, in which the general welfare of all of the population of each nation, and of the regions as a whole, are the "motor" of development for the planet as a whole.

Given, the fact that the nations of Europe and the Americas, among others, are presently hopelessly bankrupt under the present world and most national systems, we can not avoid the full unleashing of a planetary new dark age of all humanity, more or less immediately, unless we place the present world monetary-financial systems into general reorganization in bankruptcy by sovereign national governments.

Under such reorganization in bankruptcy, the sovereign nation state's natural monopoly on the creation of national credit is used to utter long-term loans of up to two generations' maturation, for the combined purpose of reconstruction and physical-capital transformation of the planetary system into a system of sovereign states, which are each and all composed in defense of the general welfare of all of their population. This aim is to be accomplished chiefly by deploying high rates of gain in scientific and technological progress, with heavy emphasis on the development, chiefly by governments and concerts of governments, of the kind of basic economic infrastructure needed to support the needed high rates of physical productivity, per capita and per square kilometer, throughout the totality of the territory of each nation, and the planet as a whole.

This great reform of the planet requires great emphasis upon the universal upgrading of the scientific and technological potential of the individual, both in society as general social systems, and at the legendary "point of production."

This will require the massive uttering of very-long-term capital, as loans, over a period of two successive generations. The emphasis on capital formation rooted in basic economic infrastructure, while promoting the development of the individual, requires high rates of scientific and technological progress. Such a program defines a systemic, physical-economic long wave of development, a programmatic emphasis on a science-driven high rate of raising of the level of generally practiced forms of technology, and increase of physical capital-intensity per capita and per square kilometer.

Such objectives require the scrapping of the lunacy of a "free trade" policy, and a policy under which the protection of the physical productivity of the individual and the region is provided by the kind of fair trade, protectionist policies practiced formerly in the most successful cases of modern nation-state economies. The intention of the reforms instituted under U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt, and the extent to which such reforms were continued and spread during the first two post-war decades, is a standard of reference to be considered in designing the long-term policy-reforms required.

The included principle involved, is that the sovereign nation-state as a whole is responsible for the assured welfare of each and all of its population and that population's posterity within the reach of the visible economic future horizon, rather than attempting to localize responsibility within smaller portions of the total population. Either we are a humanist society, a humanist culture, or we are not. On this account the principle of the general welfare of the population of nations and among nations must become inviolable throughout the planet.

The supreme principle of statecraft, as science, must be "nothing exists but change." We must secure a safe foundation for the changes which will build the intended future, on the condition that we create a secure immediate platform, in the present, for the journey into the transformed future world.

The immediate objectives for such a change in the practiced policies of, and among the planet's nations require that the next two generations, approximately fifty years, must be devoted to building the global system of sovereign nation-states which removes the current "Asian factor" of relative insecurity from the planet, through a planet-wide commitment to science-driven development. Beyond those two coming generations, the latter half of the present century must see the foundations of a change in economic policy, to the kind of Earth-reforming policy needed to escape the limits to growth in population and welfare which would tend to be imposed if we do not make the large-scale scientific-revolutionary changes needed to expand the capacity of the Biosphere and Noösphere to support future improvement in the condition of human life within each and all of our nations.

With such a perspective, let it now be said, that it is a very good thing to have the opportunity to be a mortal human being. That is no "utopian goal"; it is a step up from the present predominance of bestiality among the nations today, to the practical realization of that sense of constructive purpose which defines what a true human being must be, in any part of the history of our species. Those from the past who have understood and adopted this practical view of human life have made possible the present hope for the future of mankind today. It is time for mankind to grow up; the changes we could make in the world in our time, are limited; but, the very practical changes for the better we could make in ourselves, are not.


[1] As I have said in earlier locations, the intent of Cheney et al. was not to win a war in Iraq, but to promote the global strategic goal of spreading chaos as a weapon of policy against a world order based on the institution of the modern sovereign nation-state. The failure was intentional from the beginning, as was made more than clear with the insertion of George Shultz's asset Bremer into the situation. Bremer prevented a normal occupation through the instruments of the existing Iraq military and civilian administration, thus ensuring the present descent into something far worse than the 1950s French occupation of Algeria. The defeat being suffered there is not primarily the work of the Arab resistance, but the self-inflicted political defeat achieved by Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al., and their Synarchist-style financier masters.

[2] Germany's own contributing, if secondary fault in the war springs, to a significant degree, from the reactionary policies of the Prussian monarchy which rejected those cultural accomplishments of the anti-Enlightenment Classical legacy of Lessing, Mendelssohn, Friedrich Schiller, the v. Humboldt brothers, et al., in favor of the Metternichean pro-fascism of G.W.F. Hegel and Savigny. This reactionary, Romantic current, with its existentialist offshoots, in Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century German culture, was generously cultivated from London, and was fully expressed in the folly of the silly, duped nephew of Britain's Edward VII, Kaiser Wilhelm II.

[3] Known technically as the "Limps," the Fabian war-party of H.G. Wells, et al. which were the principal guilty accessories in the crimes of Britain's Edward VII.

[4] Cf. Henry A. Kissinger, "Reflections on a Partnership: British and American Attitudes to Postwar Foreign Policy, Address in Commemoration of the Bicentenary of the Office of Foreign Secretary," May 10, 1982, Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House), London, passim.

[5] "Revolutionary Transformation After Hurricane Katrina," EIR Sept. 23, 2005.

[6] "From Kant to Riemann: The Shape of Empty Space," EIR Oct. 7. 2005.

[7] The cases of the immigrants Henry A. Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski are prominent illustrations of this policy. Both obtained their prominent careers in U.S. life through processing through the de facto "courtesy" British intelligence operation run at Harvard University's department of government, by Professor William Yandell Elliott. Elliott was a representative of an organization, the Nashville, Tennessee-based "Nashville Agrarians," founded by grandchildren of leaders of the racist Ku Klux Klan. Elliott was a proponent of the assimilation of the U.S.A. into the British Commonwealth, through subversion. Kissinger's May 1982 address at London's Chatham House, in an event commemorating the founding of the British Foreign office under Lord Shelburne, is typical. On that occasion, Kissinger praised the U.S. rejection of Franklin Roosevelt's post-war policies, in favor of those of Winston Churchill, and defended the British system against the American System.

[8] The popularized, silly-goose variety of socialist myth, that contemporary European imperialism is an outgrowth of "industrial capitalism," ignored two of the grossest of the elementary facts of all European ancient through modern history. Imperialism came into European experience from the Babylonian core of the Achaemenid Empire in its role as a successor to, and continuation of the Babylonian cultural legacy. It was introduced largely through the influence of the Apollo Delphi cult, which was itself an ancient center of the practice of usury throughout the Mediterranean, and was the origin of Latin Rome. (Hence Rome as the Apostle John's "Whore of Babylon.") The characteristic of imperialism throughout all European history since that time, has been the financier-oligarchical role associated with such models as ancient Tyre and all imperial systems, such as Rome, Byzantium, and the medieval ultramontane system of the Venetian financier-oligarchy and its ally, the Norman chivalry of Crusades notoriety. As a competent economist such as Rosa Luxemburg understood, modern European imperialism was entirely a product of financier-oligarchical international loans, chiefly by the London-centered, Anglo-Dutch Liberal financier oligarchy. The mythical version of "imperialism" proffered by Lenin, et al., was concocted in service of the myth that the "stage" of socialism was born within the automatic internal evolution of the British system of the Haileybury School in which Karl Marx had been indoctrinated by Lord Palmerston's intelligence services.

[9] It would be a typical error of the modern empiricist, to argue that such imperialist policies have been a natural secretion of the British population, or of the territory which that population inherits. The most important feature of any nation's population, is that it is composed of human beings, who are naturally creative, and therefore good, as members of their species, but who are subjected to systems of government and culture in ways which define the nation's immediate national character at a given time. Nor is that the end of the story; systems change, and are changed, in part through developments which have been ongoing within that population over long preceding periods. The states of the national system in all of these changes in its "phase space," even in its bare existence as a specific national system, can only be efficiently understood through the application of Bernhard Riemann's development of the notion of the kinds of specifically anti-mechanistic, dynamic processes which Riemann has defined as Dirichlet's Principle. Here, our emphasis is upon the Anglo-Dutch Liberal system's controlling influence over the domestic and foreign roles of the British Empire, not some racial characteristic of the British population in general.

[10] From the German military standpoint, the Schlieffen Plan's approach to the hazards of a two-front war reworked.

[11] This turned up in other wars, in World War II, in the form of one more pro-British element of a certain faction of the U.S. Navy's hostility to General Douglas MacArthur in the Pacific.

[12] There was never any essential difference between the doctrine of "total war" formulated out of the experience of World War I, and the Roman imperial tradition of perpetual war. This is the same modern British Fabian doctrine of war represented by British asset Alexander Helphand's ("Parvus's") equation of "permanent revolution" with "permanent warfare." These were the traditional practices of empire throughout history since ancient Babylon and the Persian Empire. It was this which planted the seeds of the fascist neo-conservative in the ranks of sundry Trotskyist circles, for example. It is urgent that we emphasize the absolute distinction between a war to establish or defend a nation-state premised on the principle of the general welfare, and conflict orchestrated to prevent, or overthrow a republic based upon the principle of the general welfare. Any purely military, or similar doctrine of conflict is, therefore, implicitly fascist, whoever teaches, or practices it.

[13] Churchill had been a long-standing backer of Benito Mussolini's fascist dictatorship up to the verge of World War II, and was, later, desperate to seize and cull the papers which were being carried in the van accompanying the last ride of Mussolini and his paramour toward a Swiss border meeting with Churchill. The papers later turned up, minus papers referring to Mussolini's liaison with Churchill.

[14] Cf. Heinrich Heine (and the setting by Robert Schumann) of Heine's "Two Grenadiers." Heine aptly expresses not only the tragic character of the French under Bonaparte, but the lunatic passion which blinds so many in France, in Heine's lifetime and now, on both the subjects of July 14, 1789 and "Sun King"-like, paganist image of Napoleon, to the present day. Notably Bonaparte, like Louis XIV and the George W. Bush, Jr. Administration of Gingrichites Karl Rove and Tom DeLay today, sought to use the name of Christianity as the basis for creating a pagan religion fraudulently named "Christian," an arrangement which produces the spectacle of Bush claiming to have talked with God, when the phone-number he was calling was that of Dick Cheney.

[15] Cf. Bruce Director, "From Plato's Theatetus to Gauss's Pentagramma Mirificum: A Fight for Truth," EIR, Oct. 7, 2005.

[16] This point of distinction between the statesman and Romantic fool, is illustrated by the case of those who claim, foolishly, to have proof that President Abraham Lincoln was not seriously committed to ending slavery. Had the Union not been defended, or had British agent August Belmont's 1864 Democratic Presidential candidate been elected, the territory of the U.S.A. would have been broken up into a Balkan-like set of warring tyrannies, one, the slave-holders' Confederacy allied with the Nazi-like puppet of Britain's Lord Palmerston, Mexican butcher Maximilian, and so on. To realize freedom in this territory, the authority of the union must prevail at whatever cost. Any contrary opinion is essentially disgusting claptrap. To win for a cause, you must win for the institution which ensures the defense of that cause.

[17] Taney was essentially a creature of the New York Tory interests which owned Martin van Buren's asset President Andrew Jackson, the same interest, later represented by New York banker August Belmont which owned the Democratic Party of President Lincoln's time, and which launched the McClellan candidacy for the Presidency against Lincoln. The same tradition has been represented, this time in a way more radical than Taney would have tolerated, by Taney's nominal fellow-Catholic Associate Justice Antonin Scalia.

[18] Note the difference between the U.S. Constitution and the Grundgesetz of the Federal Republic of Germany. Chancellor Konrad Adenauer et al., inserted this principle within the Grundgesetz; however, whereas in the U.S. Federal Constitution, this principle of agape is superior, as a matter of principle, to the remainder of the Constitution, a similar statement within the Grundgesetz is an attribute within the constitution of the republic. This, however, was sufficient to bring a Liberal howl from the British, who organized the hastened retirement of Adenauer over the issue of the insertion of a "Christian principle" into the constitution. Since Shelburne's Gibbon, British imperial doctrine has been that the influence of Christianity must not be permitted, lest the British Empire go the way of that of Rome.

[19] Lord Shelburne's spy and plagiarist deployed into France, the Adam Smith of the notorious 1776 The Wealth of Nations, wrote the latter, fraudulent text as a propaganda attack on the American patriots and their cause. Similarly, the John Locke whose essential argument was explicitly repudiated by the Declaration of Independence's right to the "pursuit of happiness" clause, was the basis for the pro-slavery doctrine of Lord Palmerston's Confederate States of America project.

[20] Kissinger's 1975 policy, in NSSM-200, toward Africa, like his close association with dictator Pinochet and the Nazi international spin-offs' role in "Operation Condor," must be matched ironically with his references to himself as a Jewish victim of Hitler's "holocaust." He is a true follower of the model of Thrasymachus adopted by Professor Leo Strauss and his "neo-conservative" followers.

[21] Anton Chaitkin, Treason In America: From Aaron Burr to Averell Harriman New Benjamin Franklin House, 2nd ed., New York, 1984. H. Graham Lowry, How the Nation Was Won: America's Untold Story 1630-1754 Vol. I (Washington, D.C.: Executive Intelligence Review, 1987). See also, the predecessor to Anton Chaitkin's work, Allen Salisbury, The Civil War and the American System: America's Battle with Britain, 1860-1876 (New York: Campaigner Publications, 1978) and Nancy B. Spannaus and Christopher White The Political Economy of the American Revolution 2nd ed. (Washington, D.C.: Executive Intelligence Review, 1995)

[22] As I have reported rather frequently, my English and French ancestors arrived during the late Seventeenth Century, and the Scottish during the early 1860s, the latter led by a saber-wielding professional dragoon who elected to join the First Rhode Island Cavalry, and his reputable brother (less inclined to the culture of the saber and bottle), a British steamship Captain Weir who once changed flags to command an American steamship on its voyage to Argentina.

[23] On this implication of "Dirichlet's Principle," see Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. "The Shape of Empty Space," EIR, Oct. 7, 2005.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Cf. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. "The Shape of Empty Space," and Bruce Director, op. cit. [Note 15]. This includes the early (ancient Classical Greek) notion of qualitative distinct, actually geometrical species of numbers, such as the rational, irrational, transcendental, and so forth.

[27] The implications of Archytas' construction of the doubling of the cube, is proved to be "the Achilles' heel" of the reductionists D'Alembert, de Moivre, Euler, Lagrange, et al., as their folly was exposed by Gauss's 1799 doctoral dissertation.

[28] Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. "Vernadsky and Dirichlet's Principle," EIR, June 3, 2005. Also, "From Kant to Riemann: The Shape of Empty Space," EIR, Oct. 7, 2005.

[29] Unfortunately, the development of Romanticism and other forms of moral and cultural degeneration, and their spread have destroyed the ability of even those nominally trained in Classical artistic composition from grasping the essential features of Classical art which correspond, in the form of Classical irony, to the function of discovery of a universal physical principle.

Subscribe to EIW