PROLEGOMENA FOR A PARTY PLATFORM

Franklin Roosevelt's Legacy

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

February 18, 2006

[Editor's Note: The Lyndon LaRouche Political Action Committee has issued this document as a mass-distribution pamphlet.]

To play a useful role in history, influential leaders of institutions are those, like President Franklin Roosevelt, who act to prevent, or to prepare for a crisis before it has happened, while it could still be prevented.

Now, the U.S. Democratic Party approaches a new general election, when that party has a pressing need for the immediate circulation of a platform which represents an actually programmatic approach to the crucial policy-decisions with which the presently oncoming world crisis already threatens us.

This crisis is expressed, on the one side, by the failure of the Party, so far, to speak openly, with sufficient clarity, resolution, and force, on the deeper implications of even the obvious issues which are presently under discussion among some of the Party's leading circles. This involves, on the deeper level, the apparent lack of any expressed programmatic comprehension of certain deeper issues which must be brought to the table now, because decision, or lack of policy thinking on these issues will determine the future of all mankind for a very long time to come.

The mistaken recent assumption among some notable Democrats, an assumption which we must now, immediately correct, has been the expressed attitude, in practice, that crucial issues could be postponed until after the coming, November mid-term elections, when a riper form of an already grave crisis will appear. So, in effect, it has been assumed, mistakenly, by some Democrats, as others, that any firm position on crucial issues of long-term policy, would be a matter which were better postponed until that point later in this year, perhaps after the actuality of the presently oncoming economic disaster has become irreparable.

As we should have recognized after the near-fiasco of the Senate hearings on the Alito confirmation, such delays in coming to grips with strategic issues now, would leave the Party, for the moment, as it were a flopping assortment of fish on the beach, fish left behind by the outgoing political tide.

For that reason, for the lack of a program for this occasion, the party's halting efforts fell victim, hopefully only temporarily, to the blight of that same quality of Sophistry which had doomed ancient Athens' plunge into the doom of the Peloponnesian War. That blight is to be recognized as, largely, a symptom of that break of the young-adult, campus-based youth movement of the 68ers, from the then-existing mainstream of the generality defined by the role of agricultural, manufacturing, and science-specialist producers. These 68ers represented, in their most vocal expression, a break within the ranks of the pre-Vietnam War constituency, a break away from the outlook on which the Party's strength had depended since the 1932 election of President Franklin Roosevelt.

That break from the legacy of the FDR-keyed alliance, made possible the shift of U.S. policy as a whole from our great tradition of fostering dynamic forms of interdependent development among basic economic infrastructure, coordinated with progressive family-farm development, with industrial progress, and with bold scientific initiatives. Those had been the four pillars of practical economic wisdom which had made us the greatest economic power the world had seen, both under Franklin Roosevelt, and during approximately two decades following his death. The demoralizing effect of that break away from a producer society, to a "post-industrial" orientation, has gripped, and ruined both our nation's economy, and also U.S. political life, increasingly, over most of the recent four decades.

During recent decades, instead of defining the great threats and opportunities actually before us, Democrats have tended to adopt kinds of opportunistic perceptions polluted by those same, pre-existing popular prejudices which had helped to ruin our nation up to that point of ongoing discussions. Those prejudices have often steered, or simply greatly impaired our recent general election campaigns. On that account, we must now recall, as a living lesson for today, that the Athens of Pericles was plunged by its own, same, acquired tactics of Sophistry, sophistry akin to the popular spin-doctor voodoo of today, thus mimicking what became the doom of the Greece of that earlier time.

Nonetheless, much of the leadership of the Party had enjoyed increasingly fruitful collaboration during the late Summer and Autumn of 2004, and in deliberations on the policy for the past first year of the second term of President George W. Bush, Jr. The vitality of those efforts of 2005 was weakened during the early weeks of 2006. So, the perspective which had been associated with the Democratic leadership of the Senate and House of Representatives during 2005, waned during the early weeks of 2006. It is clear that without an appropriate, soundly premised statement of a clear programmatic perspective now, the Party would not be able to recover the vitality it had manifest over the course of 2005.

Since the most crucial of the strategic economic domestic and global issues of 2006-2008 are of types which fit the nature of my special expertise, it is clearly my personal obligation to provide the Party with the clear strategic perspective whose crafting depends to a crucial degree on the technical competence of my special competencies in matters which are now of currently crucial importance. Thus, it is my duty to craft the needed programmatic perspective for 2006-2008, as I do in the body of this report.

The Role of Political Leadership

We should recall a certain charming anecdote from a past century. This referred to one of many pompous, leading French demagogues of the moment, who was sitting in a café, chatting with his rivals, when a large revolutionary mob rushed past the window of the place where the demagogue was sitting. At that moment, the startled demagogue in question rose from his chair, explaining: "That is my revolution which just rushed by; I must run out to lead it!" Unfortunately, the not-so-revolutionary would-be leaders of politics here today, are too often just as much clownish opportunists as that.

True leadership does not follow apparent public opinion blindly; true leadership shapes public opinion, by educating the electorate in what it urgently needs to know. This often means, as now, confronting the population with the urgency of changing currently prevailing press and popular opinion on crucially relevant subjects.

The lesson the Party's leaders must recall, is that we are presently gripped by the most threatening general economic crisis of the planet in modern history, far more ominous than that of the 1928-1931 unleashing of what became known as the "Great Depression" of the 1930s. President Roosevelt responded to this global condition, by launching an immediate recovery program through which the United States was enabled to face our entry into general war, in 1941, equipped with the most powerful economic-development machine the world had ever known. The continued rise of the U.S.A. to increasing physical prosperity, per capita and per square kilometer, during the twenty years following victory in Germany and Japan, appears as one of the true miracles of modern economic history—before we ruined that, with a ruinous change in economic and social policy which began about thirty-seven-odd years ago.

The mightiest economic power the world had ever seen, the United States revived by the policies of President Franklin Roosevelt, was sent into ruins, not by foreign powers, but by the folly of the policies which we adopted, thus, to ruin ourselves.

Thus, trans-Atlantic European civilization, and, actually, also the world as a whole, are presently gripped by the kind of economic crisis which is without any world-historic precedent during the centuries since the so-called "New Dark Age" of Europe's Fourteenth Century. Nonetheless, the kind of thinking which Franklin Roosevelt brought to the challenge of the 1930s Depression, would lead, if followed appropriately, toward successful recovery today, despite the many differences, in other respects, in the situation now.

I explain what I have just said concerning the hope for organizing an economic recovery now.

Look back today to the time President Dwight Eisenhower left office, when he bequeathed a precious warning to our nation: beware the "military-industrial complex." Suddenly, at a time not long after that address, events unfolded as he had implicitly warned us of this. We were faced with the "Bay of Pigs." Then, we were faced with the great missiles-crisis of 1962. The pillars of stability in trans-Atlantic civilization began to fall like bowling pins. President de Gaulle, whose initiative on behalf of the de Gaulle-Adenauer perspective for a Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals was strategically crucial for us, as for Europe, was the subject of repeated assassination attempts against him from the political faction which had been among the backers of Adolf Hitler during the run-up to, and following February 1933. These Synarchist-banker and related forces from the past were the same forces behind what Eisenhower termed the "military-industrial complex." A faction within the United Kingdom moved to cause the premature retirement of Germany's Chancellor Konrad Adenauer. Our President Kennedy was assassinated. The launching of the Indo-China War under the pretext of an alleged Gulf of Tonkin provocation, became the precedent for a wild-eyed-lying Dick Cheney's push for an even more foolish, and more disastrous, generalized, needless, and spreading war in Southwest Asia.

So, today, we are menaced by the same "military-industrial complex," in such guises as the neo-cons of financially connected George Shultz's patsy, Dick Cheney.

About the same time Robert Strange McNamara's new official war had been launched, the Harold Wilson government of the United Kingdom systematically wrecked his country's productive economy, sending the British pound sterling into a 1967 tailspin. That crisis of the United Kingdom's wrecked economy, set off an echoing chain-reaction in the U.S.-led Bretton Woods fixed-exchange-rate system. This led, from 1968 on, into the opportunity for the monstrous folly known today as the impeachable Nixon Administration's school for scoundrels, which produced today's drinking, driving, and shooting class of Dick Cheney.

These and related disasters launched during that 1960s decade, had set a general cultural paradigm-shift into motion. The resulting election of a President Richard Nixon, reflected the ruinous state of confusion which the crises of the earlier 1960s had unleashed within what had been the earlier electoral base of the Democratic Party's traditional constituencies. From the time of the trans-Atlantic social and related crises of 1968 onward, there was a radical cultural paradigm-shift, which took the U.S.A. and western Europe away from the tradition of science-driven economic growth in infrastructure, agriculture, and manufacturing, into the 1970s rapid spread of an orientation toward an increasingly decadent, presently increasingly bankrupt, "post-industrial services economy." This morbid trend in policy-shaping has swamped other developments in the Americas and Europe, especially, since that time.

Despite everything else, during the twenty years following what has been for our nation the untimely death of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the physical conditions of economic life had improved more or less substantially, in virtually all areas of our nation. These improvements were chiefly reflections of the great system of reforms which Franklin Roosevelt's Administration had set into motion.

Making a mistake, even a mistake as terrible as the post-1967-1968 shift to an increasingly bankrupt U.S. "services economy," or "technetronic economy," is understandable. No such forgiving spirit is allowed, for continuing to tolerate a disaster as catastrophic as that cultural paradigm-shift which has become, for so many, "our hallowed tradition." Such toleration is the spirit of the kind of folly which has often doomed lost civilizations before our own.

So, today, even notable political figures among us, figures whose native personal intelligence should have taught them better, often proceed in fear of what some babbling Pythia of our modern Sophists' pollster-racket tell them is the prevalent trend in the sophistry of current popular opinion. It is that sick trend in popular opinion, which has conditioned a battered mass of the majority of our citizens, into treating those current trends which are destroying us, as "inevitable." It is not bad policies which have reduced our nation to an unbelievable state of national bankruptcy and related ruin; it is our treating those ruinous policies as expressions of what are wrongly considered to be inevitable trends, trends under which the majority of our political leadership has now led the nation into a rapidly accelerating current state of national bankruptcy.

Nonetheless, the majority of our citizens are not to be blamed very much for creating this mess. It is not only that the mass media and kindred agencies have misled them into believing the bad fairy tales on which our nation's increasingly foolish policies have been premised. For example, the Bush Administration will be seen in times to come as only the worst, by far, of any administration in recent history. That Administration is far worse than any since President Richard Nixon. It is also the worst since the wrecking of the internal economy of the United States under the "post-industrial" Trilateral Commission madness of the 1977-1981 interval of deregulation. Under these and kindred downward shifts in economic and social policy as enforced by the fear which ordinary people have of the power of government, the lower eighty percentile of our total population's family income-brackets, has been crushed by the combined direct and indirect effects of a shift from the world's leading producer economy, to a ruined "services economy."

Thus, among most of this lower eighty percentile of our nation's family-income brackets, the sense of the matter is that their layers of the population have no efficient representation of their urgent economic and related interests in the highest places in government.

The lower eighty percentile, which used to be mobilized as mass-based organizations, around such institutions as local party committees, have come to believe that those "at the top," the upper twenty percentile of family-income brackets, are a virtual ruling oligarchy, such that the discouraged ordinary citizen either does not vote, or limits his and her political objectives to the mob-like resort of begging or bullying for token handouts at the gates of the perceived political-economic citadel.

Thus, when a foolish court authorized the payment of lush executive retirement bonuses to the mismanagement provided for the virtually bankrupt Delphi Corporation, the implied decision was to send the pensions of the working employees of the company to hedge-fund Hell. The way in which our leading political class tends to tolerate such brutish and flagrant, Enron-like injustices, is the message a negligent Congress and the party leaderships have tended to send to the lower eighty percentile of our population as a whole. In the case of continued virtually daily such insults to the lower eighty percentile of the population, should today's political leaders actually expect support from anything more comfortable than the tip of a sans-culotte's pike?

The Mission Before Us

The mission before those who deserve to be the current leadership of the Democratic Party, including those who might deserve consideration as candidates for the 2008 Presidential nomination, is to change what has happened to our nation, and to its people, during the recent four decades of a continuing slide into the present global economic and monetary-financial disaster. This mission might be fairly described as a campaign to eradicate the use of customary, time-worn forms of Sophistry taken by the modern heirs of what was once self-doomed Athens. It is time to return, instead, urgently, to the spirit of what the Franklin Roosevelt of 1932-1933 represented at that time. Then, during 1928-1932, as now, the wrong-headed presently incumbent leadership of the opposing party has led this nation into a great disaster like, but already worse than that which the Coolidge and Hoover Administrations, and the fist of Andrew Mellon, caused to strike our nation during the 1929-1933 interval.

To lead this nation in any direction but to more of its recent downward course, we must, of course, not merely confess, but emphasize the significance of the terrible mistakes of the drift of U.S. policy over the entire sweep of the recent 1968-2005 interval. However, the most important thing is to present the seemingly radical change in direction of policy, as President Franklin Roosevelt did from 1932-1933 on, which will return this nation to the prosperous, and mighty but generous tradition which we had thought we represented at the moment President Roosevelt died. Admitting what the mistakes have been, the greater emphasis must be placed, nonetheless, on the positive measures which will undo the accumulated political mischief of about forty years.

The real core leadership of the Democratic Party must now arrange itself as a virtual "Gideon's Army," to provide clear, competent, consistent, and bold national leadership upward and out of the effects of the presently onrushing global economic, monetary-financial, and human disasters.

This does not mean idolizing President Franklin Roosevelt. This means regarding that President as the most memorable expression in recent memory of the tradition which Franklin Roosevelt himself traced to the policies of an ancestor, the Isaac Roosevelt who was a crucial ally of Alexander Hamilton in defending the United States against the murderously treasonous legacy of Jeremy Bentham's agent, Aaron Burr of the Bank of Manhattan.

The policies of Franklin Roosevelt were an expression of a continuity of principle rooted in such locations as the Seventeenth-Century Commonwealth of Massachusetts, in the leadership, centered in world figure and true genius, Benjamin Franklin, who supervised his understudy Thomas Jefferson in crafting our first and continuing Constitution, the 1776 Declaration of Independence. This was the same Franklin who, largely, guided the body which crafted the needed suffix to that Declaration, the U.S. Federal Constitution which was rooted in that overruling principle of natural law set forth in the Preamble of the Constitution.

To understand President Franklin Roosevelt, we must look to a higher authority than he would have claimed as his peculiar personal wont. He represents, for recent memory, the long sweep of the great tradition, from the Fifteenth-Century Renaissance, through the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, and the rich legacy of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth centuries' development of the English colonies in North America. We must recall that the uniqueness of our Constitution, its superiority over any rival on this planet to the present date, lies in those ideas of European civilization which are traced from our founders' forerunners among the greatest minds of Classical ancient Greece. These are the traditions which have been reflected, more immediately, by the greatest aspirations of those greatest thinkers of modern Europe, who placed their trust in the role our republic would come to play as a temple of liberty and beacon of hope for all mankind. Our tradition is that we have been created as a republic, as a leading instrument for the cause of that greatest principle in the world's known statecraft, the principle known in Plato's and the Apostle Paul's Greek, as agape, the principle that the promotion of the general welfare of all for ourselves and our posterity, is the highest law to be imposed upon government for the sake of the cause of freedom.

We are the beneficiaries of President Franklin Roosevelt; but, he was, essentially, the necessary instrument in his time for the great cause of freedom, for the natural-law principle of the general welfare, which is the heart and soul of all that is good and great in the origins and history of our Federal republic.

Let us, therefore, act on behalf of that long tradition in presenting the proposed draft of the Democratic Party campaign platform for 2006, and beyond that, 2008.

1. The Essential Strategic Crisis

General Donovan, the leader of what had been the new war-time intelligence service, stepped into the outer office from his visit with President Roosevelt. There, in that outer office, his waiting companion, who, years later, gave an eyewitness report of these facts to this author's inner circle, looked into Donovan's face. Donovan shook his head, slowly and sadly, and said softly, but emphatically, "It's over!"

Donovan was a tough patriot who had done a tough job; but he was, nonetheless, evidently shaken by what he had observed in the office he had just left. The great strategic intention for the post-war world, which Donovan and many others had shared with the President during that time, was suddenly almost a lost cause. Without a Franklin Roosevelt in the Presidency, the post-war, colonialism-free world of global cooperation in development, which Roosevelt had intended, was, at that moment, virtually a mostly lost cause.

It is notable in the context of that visit of Donovan to the President, that during the period preceding President Roosevelt's death, the diplomatic representatives of the Emperor of Japan, were conducting an exploratory peace negotiation with the U.S.A. and others through the Vatican office of the Monsignor Montini who would be known later as Pope Paul VI. The terms of the peace which the U.S.A. would deliver to Japan after the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were the same which had already been crafted through the assistance of the Vatican channel prior to the death of Roosevelt. Nothing was done to act on the negotiated measures to bring the war to an end, until after the utterly unnecessary nuclear bombings had been accomplished.

The purpose of those terror-bombings was not to win the war with Japan, which the U.S.A. under General MacArthur's leadership had already won in fact. The purpose of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was the intent shared between the former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and President Harry S Truman's government, to proceed to implement what would be soon presented as Bertrand Russell's plan for a "preventive nuclear-war" attack on the Soviet Union. The implementation of the peace terms already awaiting the relevant official public acknowledgment by the U.S. government, was held up until the exemplary nuclear bombing of an already defeated Japan could be carried out.

Since the untimely, but not unexpected death of President Franklin Roosevelt, the world has been dominated by a single central, uninterrupted issue of global conflict. The conflict was never essentially that which we developed with the Soviet Union itself, but the far greater, present doomsday threat which has increased, not lessened, since the 1960s negotiation of the nuclear non-proliferation agreements, and since the still later passing away of the Soviet Union, too.

The great struggle within the Anglo-American alliance of World War II, a struggle which is continued to the present day, is between two great forces which were committed, from the beginning of that time, to an underlying conflict which has continued as the central global strategic issue of the present moment. This was never essentially between the U.S.A. and the Soviet Union; rather, the conflict with the Soviet Union was a by-product of the primary danger to civilization, then, a danger which is more than ever that still today.

This underlying conflict was, and is, as today's mounting world crisis shows, essentially, a conflict between those two great forces best identified, on the one side, as the tradition of the modern sovereign nation-state, as best typified by the founding and development of the U.S. Federal Republic, and, on the opposing side, a powerful, global syndicate of private financier forces which presently control much of the world through their control over those so-called central banking systems, which have constituted themselves as a self-declared imperial power, which reigns from above the level of virtually all national governments.

No other global issue can be competently defined and understood, unless this issue is first recognized as the most essential strategic challenge to human existence in our nation, and throughout this planet, at the present time.

A. Our Synarchist Enemy Today

That great enemy of civilization at the time of the celebrated, post-World War I Versailles Conference, had been a powerful interest composed of a club of private financier interests which had grouped itself into what was then known as the Synarchist International. This was the group of private financier interests associated, during the following decade and beyond, with both a trans-Atlantic network centered on the Bank of England's and Brown Brothers' Montagu Norman, and with a Paris-centered Synarchist cabal, a group which would soon create the fascist movements of the 1922-1945 interval, but which would come, later, almost unscathed, having escaped from the formality of post-war "de-Nazification" efforts, to menace civilization more than ever before, as today.

That conflict today is between the continued existence of the institution of the sovereign nation-state republic and the threatened early establishment of a bankers' world tyranny, under which latter force the power of a perverted, Lockean notion of "property right," a notion represented by syndicates of private financier cabals, would rule and ruin those nominal national governments which the bankers would permit, by exception, to continue to exist.

The accursed Genghis-Khan-like raids, around the world, by the predatory hedge-fund hordes, and the submission of cowardly governments to permit this outright banditry to continue this atrocity, expresses the true intent of so-called "globalization": to establish a new world empire modelled upon the medieval precedent of the Crusader alliance of Venetian financier oligarchy with the Norman chivalry, an alliance in a permanent state of warfare against Islam. This is a mode of warfare governed by the strategic intentions and goals expressed today by the United Kingdom's Bernard Lewis, that leading agent of the British imperial Arab Bureau who is well known in U.S. circles for his role as advisor, or perhaps, in fact, controller, of both Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski's Samuel P. Huntington.

The current intention of the hedge-funds, now operating as the Enron-like, predatory instruments of leading banking institutions of today's world, is not only to rob the world, but to weaken the existing nation-states of the world, especially those of Europe and the U.S.A. itself. Their aim is to pursue that course to such a point, that financiers such as the Felix Rohatyn who played a crucial role in bringing the Nazi-like regime of Chile's Pinochet to power, will be, in fact, the neo-Venetian style of true world government of this planet.

The ruined state of affairs into which the recent four decades of shift from producer society to "services economy" have brought us, has now matured to such a point, that if we do not now defeat and crush this predatory force which that Enron-style financier-oligarchical enemy from within our ranks represents, we will soon have no more nation, nor its liberties, left to defend.

There is no possibility that the program of globalization intended by those Synarchist types of private financier interest, could establish the successfully stabilized world empire of "globalization" which they intend. However, if their continued attempt to establish such a neo-medieval style of permanent warfare/permanent revolution were not prevented, the extent of the destruction of the physical-productive capacities of the planet which their triumph would ensure, would plunge the world as a whole, more or less immediately, into a global "new dark age." It would be a new dark age like, but much worse than that which brought down the Venetian-Norman medieval system during the middle of Europe's Fourteenth Century. The result of their temporary triumph would be a state of barbarism or worse, in a world's total population reduced rapidly, through Africa-like conditions of disease, starvation, and related effects, to approximately the levels during the Fourteenth Century's New Dark Age, or even much lower. If anyone desires an Apocalypse, they need but tolerate the "hedge-fund"-driven process of so-called "globalization."

The presently weakened condition of the nation-state economies of Europe and the Americas, is a state of affairs which permits Synarchist-like financier interests to attempt such a form of their European Central Bank-like world government, as could not have been brought about except through political corruption of our own national institutions, and the intellectual corruption, or merely acute confusion among our leading political and economic-policy circles. The adoption of the radically positivist version of the already anti-constitutionalist Lockean "right of property," the predatory doctrine of "shareholder value," has been a crucial element in the relevant process of implicitly treasonous corruption.

Any leading political party in the U.S.A., or in Europe, which does not recognize and understand the roots and nature of this conflict, would be intellectually incompetent to address the great issues on whose outcome the continued existence of the U.S.A. now depends for the period ahead.

B. The Synarchist Enemy of Our Nation

To understand, and therefore to defeat the enemy against whom we must defend our nation today, we must first understand how he came to launch what we recall as World War II, and how we allowed him to survive and grow into the deadly menace to civilized life on this planet, which he represents for these immediate times ahead.

It was a faction of those globalist financier interests, typified by Montagu Norman's Bank of England and the France-centered fascists associated with the Synarchist International, which organized the fascist international of 1922-1945: from London's putting Mussolini into power in Italy in 1922, through Venice's banker Volpi di Misurata et al., and putting Hitler into a position of dictatorial power in February-March 1933, the latter done through Montagu Norman, and the Bank for International Settlements-pivotted concert of Anglo-American and France-centered financiers.

The original intention of these Synarchists included the wish to exclude the U.S.A. from participation in the World War II which they had planned. As the 1920s threat of naval warfare between London and Japan on the one side, and the U.S.A. on the other, attests, and as the issues of the trial of General Billy Mitchell also attest, the European backers of fascism and war feared, initially, that a U.S. participation in a new world war would see a triumphant U.S.A. in the unchallengeable position as the world's leading power. That was the prospect of growing U.S. power which the British Empire and the French Synarchists hated, and feared, then, and do still today.

In that first part of the 1930s, the British and French backers of Hitler and Mussolini, had intended to send a Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union, as Napoleon's Grand Armée had been launched against Czar Alexander I's Russia. London's original intent for that projected assault by Hitler's forces, was to mire the German military forces in the strategically bog-like depths of the territory of eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, and then to attack and destroy Germany by assault upon its rear. The initial assault against Russia, had been, indeed, the original intention of "Total War" doctrinaire Ludendorff, Adolf Hitler, et al., as emphasized in Hitler's Mein Kampf.

However, the German officer corps' memories of the famous Schlieffen Plan, intervened, demanding, successfully, of the Hitler regime, that the attack be directed, first, against the West. The German view of the policy leading to the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement, thus implicitly prescribed an attack westward first, and then the enlisting of the defeated French military and British expeditionary forces, when defeated on the western front, as captive auxiliaries for a turn to attack the Soviet Union.

There were complications in the implementation of that original intention, as is virtually always the case with such intentions; however, but for the effect of the crucial role in this conflict, of a U.S.A. led by Franklin Roosevelt, the war went broadly as the combination of treasonous Anglo-French Synarchism and the Molotov-Ribbentrop arrangement had predetermined.

Early during this process of the 1930s, Winston Churchill balked against the British intent for that backing of Hitler by British and Wall Street clubs of Anglo-American financiers, which was organized by, chiefly, the Bank of England's Montagu Norman. Norman's policies were complemented and supported by the French Synarchist bankers who were themselves passionately French fascists, and even Nazi sympathizers of the type which would become the Laval and Pétain regimes on their own account as soon as the opportunity arose. Churchill balked not at Nazi nastiness as such, but only as a hardened British imperialist enraged by the most undignified prospect of letting an Austrian-born upstart take over the precious bodily fluids of the territories of the British Empire.

To understand this past history's implications for today's situation, it is important to recall that when President Franklin Roosevelt took office in March 1933, Adolf Hitler had already been made dictator of Germany by Hermann Göring's version of "9/11," setting fire to the Reichstag to gain dictatorial powers for Chancellor Hitler through aid of the Hobbesian philosophy of "unitary executive" doctrinaire Carl Schmitt. For Roosevelt, the virtual inevitability of general war in Europe, and as 1920s U.S. war-plans "Red" and "Orange" had foreseen, including a likely Japan naval attack on Pearl Harbor, as General Billy Mitchell had said: such were among the already known long-ranging probabilities, the dark clouds on the President's horizon, from the day he first took office.

The background of the Japan attack on Pearl Harbor is of continuing clinical importance for understanding both the implications for U.S. China policy, still today, and also the nature of the more general strategic threats to be considered now.

The Role of British China Policy

To understand U.S. strategic outlook at the time Franklin Roosevelt took office, the citizen must take into account the already long-standing, bitter conflict between the U.S.A. and Britain in the Pacific, and the implications for London of both the U.S. opening of relations with Japan, of the U.S. victory over Lord Palmerston's schemes against the United States in the Civil War, and in the Maximilian tyranny in Mexico.

The key for understanding the continuing fierce intensity of that conflict between London and Washington in still latter times, is the late 1870s adoption of the U.S. economic principles by Japan, Germany, Alexander III's Russia, and others, which occurred during the decades following the U.S. victory over the Palmerston-sponsored Confederacy. From approximately 1877-1888, a revolutionary change occurred in the economic policies of key nations of Eurasia, as typified by American economist Henry C. Carey's crucial direct influence on Bismarck's reforms in Germany, physicist Mendeleyev's influence on Czar Alexander III, the role of American System exponent Count Sergei Witte in Alexander III's Russia, and Carey's hand in sending his protégé, E. Peshine Smith, to educate Japan in the practical rudiments of the Hamiltonian American System. The spread of the adoption of the American System, as the preferred alternative to the British system of Adam Smith et al., was regarded in London as a grave economic-strategic threat to the British monarchy's perceived imperial interest in orchestrating British geopolitical control over the continent of Eurasia.

The turning of Meiji Restoration Japan against its U.S. benefactor and the ensuing long anti-U.S.A. war-policy of Japan, were the result. The Prince of Wales was the personal director of the relevant shift in the policies of the Japan Imperial household. The British Crown Prince's orchestration of Japan's military operations of the mid-1890s, in the first Japan war against China, the occupation of Korea, and the London-steered Japan naval attack on Russia in the Far East, was the precedent for the plans of London and Japan, during the naval power negotiations of the early 1920s, and the plans, then, for a coordinated British-Japan attack aimed against the naval forces of the U.S.A., including the planned Japan assault on Pearl Harbor.

Thus, when Japan, as London's former ally, found itself in alliance with Hitler, Japan's obvious resort was to carry out the same attack on Pearl Harbor, which had been Japan's earlier assigned part of the 1920s, in the optional Anglo-Japan combined attack on U.S. naval power. Only the 1930s development of carrier-based air power as the principal augmentation of the Japan naval forces, represented a change of the plan for attack on Pearl Harbor which had already been clearly defined for Japan, as a contingency, during the 1920s.

Thus, on the day President Franklin Roosevelt took office, the elements leading toward a virtual inevitability of a new "world war," were already well known to leading U.S. military and other strategists. The roles of the circles associated with Harry Hopkins, including the rising role of Lucius Clay, and the related focus, during the 1930s, of Douglas MacArthur and Dwight Eisenhower, on military-industrial preparations for the coming world war, illustrate the connection between the brilliantly successful measures of economic recovery conducted under FDR during the 1930s, and what was done with an eye to the ugly reality of the coming new world war.

During the period prior to the orchestration of the U.S. Civil War by London's Lord Palmerston, the British Empire had never given up its intent to destroy its former American colony, by various alternate modes of regular and irregular warfare. After the victory led by President Lincoln, the United States freed from the crippling burdens of an economically ruinous system of chattel slavery which had been backed by Britain through Britain's puppet, the Spanish monarchy, a U.S.A. triumphant over those foes, a U.S.A. freeing itself from the yoke of London-dictated "free trade" policies, had become too powerful as a continental power from Atlantic to Pacific, to be attacked directly on its mainland by outside force. Only subversion, combined with efforts to isolate the U.S.A. from its global exterior could succeed. Just so, we have been significantly destroyed under the success of London's confederates of a more recent time, in bringing down the Bretton Woods system established by FDR, and in wrecking the U.S. economy by the combination of "free trade" and "deregulation" policies, and the promotion of a drive away from the sovereign nation-state economy, into the economic quicksands of "globalization."

Once the British had joined their own Winston Churchill in turning to an alliance with imperial Britain's most feared rival, the U.S.A., those in the New York financial center who had, earlier, joined Britain's Montagu Norman in backing Hitler's accession to power, changed sides; now they were anti-Hitler allies of Winston Churchill's Britain first, while remaining financier circles with inclinations for backing fascism second. With the death of FDR, and with Hitler defeated, the impulses which had been expressed by Wall Street's support for Montagu Norman's Hitler project, came to the fore under President Harry Truman. Under Truman, sundry crucial strategic commitments of the U.S.A. made under Franklin Roosevelt, were abruptly reversed.

However, during the period of the 1930s, when Britain had still supported the Hitler option for a coming new world war, these British factions' anti-Roosevelt influence among co-thinkers inside the United States, were expressed in such forms as the America First movement and the lack of enthusiasm for preparing against the clear and growing threat of a Japan naval attack on Pearl Harbor. The targetting of General Billy Mitchell for his court-martial trial had been a reflection of the period in which the British, and their influence within certain factions of U.S. banking and military institutions, were still leaning toward a friendly view of what emerged plainly, later, as London's Hitler option.

The conflict which Churchill et al. orchestrated between the U.S.A. and Stalin, even during the time the war against Hitler was still on, was never more than a secondary feature, essentially a predicated feature of the nuclear strategic conflict of the post-war 1945-1989 interval. The abortive, early 1930s plan for a military coup d'état against the Franklin Roosevelt government illustrates that fact.

Naturally, once Stalin perceived a new, nuclear threat from both London and the President Truman government, the emotional reaction to this from Stalin's Soviet side was predictable. London and its New York confederates wanted the conflict, and they got a lalapalooza of a nuclear conflict, bigger than anything they, or Britain's leading warmonger of 1945-1949, Bertrand Russell, had imagined. However, it would be childish, post hoc, ergo propter hoc incompetence, for any would-be strategic thinker, or poor, duped, and foolish President George W. Bush, Jr., to imagine that what happens in the consequences of starting a war, such as the currently continuing asymmetric warfare now spreading in Southwest Asia, is proof of the inevitability of the subsequent course of events at the moment the warlike conflict had been started. After the dust had settled on the developments of 1989-1991, when the conflict with the Soviet Union evaporated, the deeper conflict, which had been there all the intervening 1945-1989 interval, came more clearly to the surface.

President Truman did as Winston Churchill had already demanded before President Roosevelt's death. Truman supported the launching of warfare by the British, Dutch, and others, for recolonization of the territories which had been actually or at least virtually liberated during World War II. As MI-5's creation and use of its created and controlled "Mau-Mau" experiment, and a parallel operation by Templar's British in Malaysia show, new methods of a thinly disguised old colonization were introduced, allowing colonial entities to pretend to be independent, and to enjoy the luxury of paying for those costs of local government, which had formerly been charged to London, Paris, Netherlands, and so on. Otherwise, a Fabian's Liberal Imperialist London ("Limps") lost essentially nothing of what its empire had represented earlier.

During the first decades of the post-World War II period, elementary economic realities meant that the next major step in the post-FDR, anti-New Deal package, was that the intended breakup of the Bretton Woods system of "fair trade" and fixed-exchange-rate policies, had to be postponed. They had to be postponed for what proved to be approximately two decades, until the aftermath of the assassination of President Kennedy, and the orchestrated scandal which led to the installation of a clearly more brutish than British, first Harold Wilson government in Britain.

In this process, what President Eisenhower termed "a military-industrial complex" took over more and more power in the U.S.A. Behind this, like George Shultz behind what is essentially Dick Cheney's administering of George W. Bush, Jr., on George Shultz's behalf, there has been the frankly pro-fascist element of the private financier power, typified by the so-called "hedge funds" today. This is, in fact, the power of the same Synarchist International which gave us the 1922-1945 reign of fascism in Europe. The ruin we face in the United States, and many other places today, is the harvest of what was cloned from the fascist financiers of 1922-1945, on the occasion of the death of President Franklin Roosevelt.

Those among the living today who had left for overseas military service under President Roosevelt, and returned to our native land under President Truman, could still remember with an embittered sense of betrayal of our nation, what has, essentially, gone wrong in our republic, since the death of FDR. The point for such veterans, and their co-thinkers today, is not to be bitter; the point is to understand the threat to our republic, and to civilization in general, while it is still possible to avert the global catastrophe now looming before us all, the current threat to this planet as a whole.

C. Today's Challenge of Asymmetric Warfare

General warfare of the axiomatic characteristics of the wars of the first half of the Twentieth Century, is now no longer possible in that same form. The factor of the development of nuclear and thermonuclear weapons, only typifies the new conditions which make Rumsfeld's and Cheney's schemes for permanent warfare as much insane as not feasible. The clinical insanity of any currently proposed preventive warfare against Iran, especially in light of the experience with the effects left by the fiasco of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's and Vice-President Cheney's strategic catastrophe in Iraq, represents just such a point of paradox in the history of modern warfare.

Such policies could destroy civilization, globally, for generations yet to come; but, as I shall show later in this present report, these methods would never establish the kind of empire which the authors of globalization have intended to gain by such means. So, as Percy Shelley's hasty brilliancy, "Ozymandias," sums up the relevant lessons of past history, mighty empires of the past have destroyed themselves by the instrumentality of their rulers' mad dreams.

In September 1946, when the celebrated pacifist Bertrand Russell first publicly proposed "preventive nuclear warfare" against the Soviet Union, it had been the wishful assumption of the British oligarchy that the Soviet Union could not develop a nuclear-weapons arsenal as early as during the late 1940s. Thus, if it could also be assumed that the fleet of B-29s, or a successor generation of principal delivery system would be available, the production of a significant arsenal of series-production-line nuclear bombs to replace the experimental prototypes used up on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, would be assumed to be available before the Soviet Union could possess a retaliatory weapon and suitable delivery system for bombing U.S. targets. Based upon that wildly mistakenly assumption, as pseudo-scientist Russell and his dupes argued at that time, it was presumed that the actuality, or even the credible threat of a U.S.A. and British joint "preventive nuclear attack" on Soviet targets, would compel the Soviet Union to submit to Anglo-American conditions for world government.

In reality, contrary to the assumptions of Russell and others: by the late 1940s, the Soviet Union had already, not only developed an arsenal way ahead of the possibilities estimated for it by the principal relevant Anglo-American planners, but, shortly thereafter, had beaten the Anglo-Americans to the development of a tested and deployable type of thermonuclear weapon. Bertrand Russell and his like were forced to abandon their wildly simplistic dreams of 1945-1946, but only to adapt to that setback by creating more monstrous alternatives.

In fact, looking back to the beginning of the 1950s, the 1989-1991 collapse of Soviet power was not due to any external cleverness of the relevant Anglo-American oligarchy. As I had said privately to Reagan Administration and Soviet representatives during my February 1983 back-channel dialogue, it would be, and was, the fatal intellectual flaw which Marxist dogma had embedded in the management of the civilian sector of the Soviet economy, not NATO military and intelligence operations, which would, and did bring the Soviet system down, in 1989-1991. As I had warned repeatedly, in February 1983, as later, if the Soviet government under General Secretary Yuri Andropov would not have accepted what President Reagan might proffer, as I outlined in that February back-channel discussion, if the Soviet government would then reject negotiation of that offer by the U.S. President, the Soviet system would collapse, for internal economic reasons, in "about five years." The Comecon system collapsed, step-wise, in about six years, during the course of 1989, and the Soviet Union soon after that.

The same general type of predicament has faced empires before, and now faces the Synarchist forces behind the current drive toward consolidating a one-world form of imperial world system called "globalization." The present controllers of the George W. Bush, Jr. government, are savagely determined, but also as stupidly corrupt as any fallen great empire before them, such as the self-doomed Athens under the direction of Athens' Thrasymachus. It should be said, that as the so-called neo-conservatives of the Bush, Jr., Administration follow Leo Strauss, as Strauss and the Straussians follow Strauss's original sponsor, Nazi Kronjurist Carl Schmitt, and as all these follow Thrasymachus and Thomas Hobbes—all who follow that pathway have thus signalled the doom of the society which tolerates their pretensions to leadership: they are doomed by their own convictions.

The Roots of This Crisis of Empire

From the early 1950s onward, it was virtually inevitable, at least implicitly so, that the point would be reached in the relatively near term, that an actually winnable form of general nuclear warfare did not exist. To win a war, at least one of the combatant nations must survive.

During the middle to late 1950s, when the representatives of Soviet General Secretary Khrushchev had approached Bertrand Russell through the channel of Russell's London conference of World Parliamentarians for World Government, and continuing through the Second Pugwash Conference, a projected, thermonuclear-armed system of what became known as strategic missiles, became the pivotal feature of a new, wildly utopian doctrine crafted by the circles associated with Russell and his Soviet partners under Khrushchev's leadership.

So, from the aftermath of the 1962 missiles-crisis onward, the idea of non-proliferation of thermonuclear weaponry beyond the arsenals of the existing "superpowers," became, for about four decades, the established leading, and hellishly lunatic opinion of the members of an increasingly utopian, Anglo-American/Soviet thermonuclear club: the illusion of peace based on the supposed paralyzing fear (e.g., Hitler Germany's dogma of Schrecklichkeit) of what the U.S.A.'s Ronald Reagan was to denounce as a nightmare system of "revenge weapons."

Even types of nuclear weapons to be used, when and how, became subjects restricted to the bounds of the utopians' "club rules." The result was an attempted shift, under the containment of a "thermonuclear doomsday umbrella," toward fighting major warfare below what was believed, rightly or wrongly, to be the threshold of general thermonuclear warfare.

The mid-1960s launching of the U.S. war in Indo-China and of the later confrontation, with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, marked a drastic change in the concept of strategic warfare, to emphasis on what is known as "irregular," or asymmetric warfare. The catastrophic failure of the U.S.A. in the Indo-China War, was the bitter lesson to the United States during that time. The nuclear options did not yet eliminate general warfare in some form; but it limited the possibilities of traditional modes of general warfare among leading powers, to operations within the bounds of doomsday scenarios of the class termed Mutual and Assured Destruction (MAD). Since then, and since the Soviet experience in Afghanistan, asymmetric warfare blended with exotic, non-nuclear technologies of warfare, such as non-linear electromagnetic effects on the state of mind of the targets, has become the characteristic feature of witting strategic-conflict policies and practice.

Ultimately, the possibility of a credible attempt to maintain extensive political power through nuclear-weapons-augmented military force, the attempt to adapt the evolving nuclear arsenal to methods of general warfare, led to the present doctrine of the Anglo-American circles typified by the Bush-Cheney and Blair-Straw governments' doctrine for maintaining a permanent state of warfare, warfare of the types recalled either from the role of the Roman imperial legions and their auxiliaries, or, from the medieval system represented by the role of the Crusades.

The recent drift of utopian strategic policies of practice by the so-called Anglo-American utopians of Britain's Liberal Imperialist Fabians today, is toward a copy of the method of imperial control exerted by the medieval partnership, known as the "Crusades," of the Venetian financier-oligarchy and the Norman chivalry. The principal form of warfare which present world circumstances prescribe for the practice of even a major power, would become the revival of the model of religious warfare which has been infamously promoted by such notorieties as the British Arab Bureau's Bernard Lewis and Samuel P. Huntington, a policy of global religious warfare modelled on the medieval Crusades against Islam and others, as currently adopted under the Blair and Bush governments of the United Kingdom and the U.S.A.

This form of warfare was famously promoted by a British asset of Russian origin, Alexander Helphand (aka "Parvus"), who gave a military-strategic patina to the French anarcho-syndicalists also known as the Synarchists. The "Parvus" doctrine, which is notorious as what he delivered personally to his one-time asset L.D. Trotsky, was termed, precisely, the anarcho-syndicalist utopian dogma of permanent warfare, permanent revolution. This is the core of the military policy of what are called in the present U.S.A., "the chicken-hawks," or "neo-conservatives," the core of the reality of the quasi-Trotskyist Rumsfeld-Cheney practice of neo-conservative warfare in Southwest Asia, and beyond, today.

The Post-Soviet Order

When the Comecon and Soviet systems had collapsed successively, the ostensible victors in that outcome shifted from mobilizing for a state of prospective new conflict with Soviet power, to a strategic orientation based on the longer-range perspective of eliminating the sovereign economies of the continent of Eurasia and the Americas, by forces grouped around the Thatcher and Mitterrand governments of, respectively, Britain and France. The wrecking of the surviving remnant of the traditional U.S. technology-driven agro-industrial economy, in favor of a "purer" form of "post-industrial" culture, and the looting of Germany and neighboring nations of Eastern and Southern Europe into a virtually vegetative state, were the indicative role of the British and French governments of that time.

Although I had warned, even publicly, in 1983, that should President Reagan proffer the Soviet government the negotiation of what Reagan actually named a "Strategic Defense Initiative," and if the Soviet government were to reject that negotiation out of hand, the Soviet economic system would then collapse "within about five years." It collapsed, as emphasized here above, in approximately six years, beginning with the Poland crisis of the Comecon in 1989, and followed by the collapse of the East German D.D.R. at the close of the same year.

This took the U.S., British, and other governments of that time by surprise. The probability that the majority of the citizens of Germany would demand German reunification, prompted both Britain's Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and France's President Mitterrand to go so far as to virtually threaten warfare against Germany, should this happen. The chief function of the Maastricht agreements, the establishment of the Euro as a common currency, and other brutish treaty-conditions imposed upon Germany during the time, have been the most convenient demonstration of what the current pro-globalization policies threaten against the world as a whole.

Under the present conditions set into motion by the Thatcher-Mitterrand threats to Germany's then Chancellor Helmut Kohl, the economic conditions of virtually every part of central and eastern Europe, including France, Germany, and Italy, are far, far worse than in 1989. In fact, each of these nations is currently operating at physical levels far below a sustainable national breakeven level.

The weapons of "globalization," which were set into motion through the pivot of the treaty-conditions which Thatcher and Mitterrand imposed upon Germany, as those practices are defined under today's operating rules, would have the following medium- to long-term systemic effects, unless those policies are soon repealed in favor of a return to the previously normal standards of economic practice for and among sovereign nation-states.

The normal right of any sovereign nation-state is the power to organize its own currency, and to create long-term capital credit, as debt, outside the limits of a balanced current operating budget, for long-lived, essential categories of public and private capital improvements in public infrastructure and assistance for the promotion of private entrepreneurial and related investments which are deemed beneficial to the economic and related security of the nation, and the general interest otherwise.

These were the U.S. constitutional methods and principles employed under President Franklin Roosevelt, to rescue a shattered U.S. economy, which had collapsed by about one-half under the policies of President Herbert Hoover, with the result that the U.S. economy under Roosevelt became the most powerful economy the world had ever imagined up to that time. In a healthy form of actually sovereign nation-state, the conditions for hostile takeovers of investments are carefully regulated in the interest of equity and in defense of the general public interest.

We can understand this matter more clearly when we compare what has been done against the interest of European nations by the manner in which Enron swindled in every direction during its heyday in the U.S.A. In an honest nation with respectable forms of behavior, hedge-fund raids like those modelled upon the Enron operations against targetted firms and states, such as California, are actions to be brought in as indictments into the criminal courts. This is a form of theft, using not a gun, but a complicit judge. Such acts are actionable under the "general welfare clause" of the U.S. Federal Constitution, provided the judge is neither foolish nor corrupt.

The most relevant of the principal operating features of the swindle built into the present trends of practice in "globalization," are fairly summed up as follows.

The pivotal feature of "globalization" is the requirement that the lowest price of a product at a certain standard shall determine where and how that product shall be made available to a world market. This means, in practice, the stripping away of all incurred costs for basic economic infrastructure, and reducing the standard of living in the selected exporting nation, while pushing the competitors of the nation to give up their standard of living in order to compete with virtually slave labor in the nation to which the production of the product is being shifted.

This scheme was "intellectualized" by madly incompetent professors of economics, and their like, who attempted to define the functions of economy from a radically monetarist standpoint, ignoring, even denying the existence of a real, which is to say not-monetary, but physical economy, for which financial accounting was never more than a usually misleading shadow.

The physical productive power of labor, as measured both per capita of population and per square kilometer of total territory of a nation, or group of nations, is a product of the cumulative, trans-generational development of the intellectual powers of the typical individual in society.

Were man, for example, a species of higher ape, the total planetary potential population-potential of mankind, in the whole of the planet, over as much as two millions recent years with their successive ice-ages, would have been in the same general order of magnitude as that of the higher apes.

The increase of the potential relative population-density of human populations, is chiefly, and in the long run, absolutely, the benefit of the transmission of the act of discovery, or rediscovery of what the Classical Greek Pythagoreans and Plato, for example, defined as powers (i.e., dynamis) of the type described today as discovered universal physical principles. These are the same principles whose existence and function was codified by the circles of the Fifteenth-Century Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (e.g., De Docta Ignorantia) and Cusa's avowed students, such as Luca Pacioli, Leonardo da Vinci, and Johannes Kepler, as by Gottfried Leibniz's locating the ancient Classical Greek notion of dynamis in the use of the modern term dynamics.

In successful modern economy, the productive powers of labor, as expressed in per-capita and per-square-kilometer terms, are increased through the combined effect of physical-capital improvements in basic economic infrastructure, in applied technology of production of goods, and in the development of the historically cumulative benefit of old and new discoveries of universal physical, and Classical-artistic principles, such as the J.S. Bach tradition in composition and performance of vocal-polyphonic counterpoint, and its instrumental echoes. We may refer to the level of development of these preconditions as the true measures of wealth and progress of nations and their cultures.

The common characteristic of failed empires can be efficiently pinpointed by the use of those physical-economic criteria to assess the future prospects of an existing form of government.

For example, the shift away from modern Classical standards for physical-scientific and cultural progress, which was set into motion by the Congress for Cultural Freedom, and related enterprises, and the consequent introduction of the cultural-suicidal dogma of "post-industrial" services economy, has systematically lowered the existence potential of the relevant populations per capita and per square kilometer, especially during the recent 1971-2006 interval under the change from emphasis on physical-economic progress, to the post-Bretton Woods, floating-exchange-rate monetarist system. The negligent collapse of basic economic infrastructure, including social infrastructure as such, and of parity-based agriculture, increasing power-intensity, and capital-intensive modes of industrial-technological progress, has established a trend in policy-shaping under whose continuation the existence of civilized forms of life on this planet will now be discontinued at some not-distant point in the future.

Hence, the conceit which sees a future world empire of globalization in world-rule by a Synarchist's notion of a paradisical revival of the medieval ultramontane system as a global system, means that any policy, including military policies, which are premised upon the promotion of those utopian economic-military presumptions, is inherently a self-doomed system.

Hence, the present notion of a post-Soviet, globalized world-system is inherently a notion of a self-doomed planet. Any strategic doctrine consistent with that utopian goal, is the doctrine of a self-doomed world. In other words, there is no possible strategic doctrine, which, if premised upon that utopian outlook, is not a commitment to the common early doom of all existing nations.

The Ghost of Thrasymachus

The character Thrasymachus, who is the most significant embodiment of the evil addressed in Plato's Republic, is the figure whose real-life role, as described by Plato there, is the model for the governmental doctrines of such followers of Nazi Crown Jurist Carl Schmitt as the Federalist Society of the U.S.A. today. There is no essential difference between Schmitt's doctrine of law for Nazi Germany and the doctrine of "the unitary executive" associated with Schmitt's followers in the Federalist Society today. In the actual history of the Peloponnesian War, Thrasymachus expresses the extreme phase of both the moral and military-technical phase of that war, the warfare against Syracuse, a phase whose outcome virtually sealed the doom of the former leading power of Athens. Today, these are the monstrously foolish policies associated with the enthusiasms of U.S. Vice-President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and Liberal Imperialist Tony Blair and his Jack Straw in London.

Carl Schmitt, the original sponsor of the career of the late Professor Leo Strauss of Chicago University, certified the initial award of dictatorial powers to Adolf Hitler, and the political murders of the 1934 "Night of the Long Knives." This policy as supported by Schmitt, has had a long history in the pages of modern European civilization, since the anti-Semitic tyranny of Grand Inquisitor Tomás de Torquemada, but especially since the period of that French Revolution which adopted essential features of Torquemada's bestiality, and passed this on, along with the Napoleonic tradition, as the basis for the Torquemada-like anti-Semitism of the Hitler regime.

The most notable predecessor of Schmitt in doctrine of government, had been the Count Joseph de Maistre, the leader of the Martinist freemasonic cult of Cagliostro, Casanova, et al., which created and designed the role of Napoleon Bonaparte. It was upon the model of Bonaparte, as the hero of G.W.F. Hegel, that the doctrines of law (e.g., philosophy of history, and government, the doctrine of the Prussian state) associated with post-1815 Hegel and his Berlin university crony F.C. von Savigny, emerged as the precedents from which the doctrines of Nazi law associated with Nazi Kronjurist Schmitt were established, and then conveyed to such circles as the intellectual followers of Schmitt and Professor Leo Strauss in the U.S. Federalist Society today.

Leo Strauss's wildly perverted, fraudulent promotion of the image of Thrasymachus, against the figure of Socrates, is the core of the fashionable forms of fascist dogma in the United States today. Thrasymachus is, ironically, the suitable archetype of the monstrous folly of the adventures of Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and their accomplices in launching the maelstrom of lies and permanent warfare in the Southwest Asia region today. Thrasymachus' role in his phase of leadership in the Peloponnesian War is the most appropriate of the ironical precedents for the doom which the Rumsfeld-Cheney and Blair-Straw policies have unleashed in Southwest Asia and elsewhere since the close of 2001. These legacies are what is typified by the doctrine of international fascism of Michael Ledeen and his allies among the offshoots of the Italian Salò Republic, the war-time Nazi machine's branch of international fascism in Italy, still today. International fascism, as Ledeen, for one, documented the argument for this movement, is the characteristic expression of the heritage of Mussolini, Hitler, and Franco in Europe, as extended from Europe into the Americas today.

However, it would be foolish to consider fascism as a water-tight category. Rather, in the past of Twentieth-Century history, as still today, fascism is merely one of the assortment of social movements used as assets by the Synarchist International's neo-Venetian private financier power concerts. Hitler did not create the financiers of fascism; it was financiers, typified by the private banking cartel's Hjalmar Schacht, who created fascism as an instrument of social control.

Unless we free our government from the grip of that legacy of Thrasymachus which is reflected inclusively in the Hobbesian-Carl Schmitt Federalist Society dogma of the "unitary executive," the United States, and most of the world besides, is implicitly doomed to early catastrophe by the mere influence of such beliefs under present trends and circumstances.

The Present Future for Warfare

It was never inevitable that warfare would be forever a necessary instrument of civilization. Nor was it ever a principle that man is inevitably a creature of the characteristics attributed by the co-thinkers of the bestial Thomas Hobbes. Warfare has been, admittedly, a frequently recurring experience, expressing the moral and intellectual childhood of mankind; but the misplaced desire for peace based on the assumption of a system of managed balance of opposing impulses, has been a leading cause for the worst imaginable forms of warfare, such as religious warfare, in the known history of mankind. The sheer evil expressed by the particular set of worse-than-merely-fascist ideologues, such as those who fought war in the name of religious belief, or of pro-satanic beliefs such as those of H.G. Wells, Aleister Crowley, Bertrand Russell, Aldous Huxley, et al., thus typifies the relevant, modern paradox.

The problem presented by forms of warfare which spring from the desire to impose some order on the planet, or upon some neighbor, or some group within our society, is a most frequent motivation for the worst, most depraved forms of warfare.

We have entered a time in human existence, in which only defensive warfare against an onrushing war-maker, remains an indispensable capability of responsible government. Civilization still has the right to defend itself against the brutish onslaught of the forces of barbarism, but not warfare launched, by choice, for the purpose of civilizing the barbarian: e.g., there is no moral justification in a military operation launched for the purposes of so-called "regime change."

That much said, there is a deeper principle involved.

The general danger so implicitly portrayed by the immediately preceding points of illustration, is that, whereas, the "right to fight back against aggression" is more readily accessible to policy-shapers, that is not the basis for a positive principle of warfare. The general law for civilized life is what Leibniz defines for modern society as the principle of "the pursuit of happiness," as Leibniz himself details the implications of that phrase, the principle of the general welfare which modern society has recognized, as Cotton Mather and Benjamin Franklin did, as "the common good" or "the general welfare" for present generations and their posterity. The positive principle of adducible natural law, as distinct from merely positive law, is the common welfare of all mankind.

The common welfare of all mankind flows from the distinction between all beasts and human beings, the common welfare of the human species. This welfare depends upon that notion of the nature of the member of the human species, and of the human species generally, which sets mankind apart, and absolutely above all beasts.

Under this provision of natural law, the authority for the existence of the perfectly sovereign nation-state is not the mere consent of the governed, but is, rather, expressed by, if not derived from, the right of the governed to consent to government. The natural law principle at issue here, is the requirement of a form of social organization which leads the condition of mankind as a whole in an upward direction.

Therefore, the natural moral authority for existence of the sovereign nation-state lies in the need to promote that social process of individual cognitive behavior through which discoveries of universal physical and comparable principle are not only encouraged in the life of the individual person, but are shared within a society of mortal individual persons, to the effect that every good discovery shall be made implicitly available to all future mankind, and that chiefly through the mediation of the society in which the individual discoverer lives.

It is the existence and development of those forms of nation-state which promote this kind of development among all of the members of the society, which is the vital premise upon which the right to establish such sovereign states, and to defend their existence by war, is derived.

Hence, it should follow from those and related considerations, that in the existence of humanity, there should come a time, in which the perfect sovereignty of nation-states is defined by those modes of cooperation, which become the primary interests of those states, without, at the same time, lessening their sovereignty.

Therefore, whereas I have indicated here the approaching futility of what have been preceding times' notions of a law of warfare, the end of warfare will be found not in those negative considerations, but, rather in a positive consideration: the need, based in the physical requirements for continued progress in the life of humanity on this planet as a whole, that indispensable modes of physical-economic cooperation, rather than negative considerations, should determine the role of, and relations among a set of perfectly sovereign nation-states.

The maintenance of progress in the conditions of life and culture of an increasing world population, requires that mankind cooperate in increasing as well as maintaining the supply of natural resources. Every part of the world, now, in fact, depends for its future on efficient such uses of scientific progress to fulfill that emerging requirement. It is upon the foundation of the recognition of that positive requirement, that future relations among sovereign nation-states must be premised,

That is the positive basis for the regulation of the practice of even defensive warfare. Already, on this very account, diplomacy which promotes, and is consciously premised upon steps in the direction of such cooperation, is the now emergent, desired alternative to war.

2. The Prospect Before Us

We situate the subject of this chapter of the report with a summary reformulation of the concluding point just argued.

The hateful modern European form of commitment to a belief in the inevitability of a permanent institutional state war of man against man, and of nation against nation, has been the baboonish doctrine of the impassioned followers of Thomas Hobbes. These followers include Nazi Kronjurist Carl Schmitt and Richard Nixon's Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger. Such a hateful doctrine was never the intention of the Creator. As stated in the preceding chapter of this report, the times during which the making of war as the permanent intention of society would be tolerated by the Creator, have come to a close. Matters in the world as a whole today, have reached the point of maturity at which either we shall practically outlaw the war-like lurches of creatures such as the Nazi Carl Schmitt, the British Arab Bureau's Bernard Lewis, Kissinger, and Dick Cheney's current master, George Shultz, or the planet as a whole shall be soon plunged into a prolonged new dark age for all humanity.

In the modern European civilization built upon the repudiation of those pro-medievalist, satanic enterprises known as the Crusades, there have been chiefly two kinds of warfare. There are wars which, like the permanent-warfare policies continued as an echo of the tradition of the evil Roman Empire, define perpetual war as an essential instrument of successful imperial rule. In opposition to that, there have been more or less necessary, or mistaken choices of wars which have been deemed, rightly or wrongly, as required by the need to defend the establishment of, or continued existence of, civilized forms of modern life under perfectly sovereign nation-state republics such as our own. In between those two opposing poles of the practice of warfare, there is a vast wasteland filled with the outcomes of lunatic motives for organized and spontaneous homicidal strife.

The development of nuclear and kindred arsenals has now rendered modern warfare not unthinkable, but simply impossible to win. As already implied in the preceding chapter: for this situation, foolish Kant's notion of "perpetual peace," which was always nonsense in principle, has also now proven itself so in attempted practice, as in Vice-President Cheney's and Donald Rumsfeld's folly of their political fraud in launching the presently continuing process of regional asymmetric warfare in not only Iraq, but spreading, or threatening to spread, in the adjoining parts of Southwest Asia. To restate that issue in Kantian terms, there can be no commonality for peace, as Kissinger has attempted, either among states defined respectively in terms of axiomatically heteronomic relations, or within a society, such as the medieval Crusader Europe under the shared tyranny of Venetian financier-oligarchy and Norman chivalry, in which no truly sovereign nation-states were permitted to resist that ultramontane system of tyranny. A Kantian or other system of "globalization" would be precisely a revival of the principle of such a medieval-like, global tyranny, a tyranny which would lead rapidly to a long span of return to barbarism throughout our planet.

A different, new lawful order among the respectively sovereign members of a world composed entirely of nation-states, is now required. In this improved arrangement, for which no competent alternative choice of perspective presently exists, the prompt and efficient defense of that system of truly sovereign nation-states, and of its members, as by available military means, is still required, but the premises of the order among nations will have been changed.

Elements that may be regarded as forerunners of the presently required new system, were implied in certain locations, as in certain crucial aspects of the war-time policies of President Franklin Roosevelt. Had Roosevelt not been at the verge of dying at the time General Donovan left the President's office, the post-war world would have entered an entirely different order, akin in principle to what is presented in this draft platform. The decision of Winston Churchill, President Harry S Truman, and others, as installed, after President Franklin Roosevelt's death, to suppress Roosevelt's intended efforts for sovereignty of colonized nations, rather than promote their freedom and development, is the chief fault which led the post-war world as a whole into its present Hobbesian, rather than a morally decent world order.

Now, the point of global developments has been reached at which we either resume Roosevelt's intentions by means appropriate for present conditions, or there will soon be no world civilization at all. This requires a certain notion of a scientific principle of cooperation among the members of a world composed entirely of sovereign nation-states.

A. The Proper Concept of Cooperation

The point just made as introduction to this chapter, is actually a reflection of a deep, universal principle which has always been specific to the human species. With the development of society along a trajectory leading toward and into and beyond the peculiar constitutional principle upon which the U.S. republic was founded, the world has entered a time when the successful physical continuation of civilized life in and among nations, depends rather immediately on a quality of cooperation which has been only rarely grasped by even our own government, and when grasped at all, is envisaged only in simplistic terms of reference, rather than the physical-scientific terms of reference which that notion of cooperation entails.

Most of us are familiar with animal pets. What makes them pets in a meaningful sense, as distinct from "pet rocks," for example, is that the beast, especially the preferred types of pet dog, as contrasted to pet cats, has taken on what are apparently human-like, as distinct from wild-animal characteristics. The connection was emphasized, in theological terms of reference, by the Fifteenth-Century founder of modern experimental physical science. Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa. Cusa summed the point up, at least implicitly, by emphasizing that as man is distinguished by the nature of his participation in God the Creator, the beast rises to the highest level of its attainable achievement as a creature which participates in mankind.

So, the pet dog's apparent mind incorporates the members of a family-like assortment of people, that in the sense of the special overtones of the German term Rudel. The dog-loving Germans' preferred use of that term connotes something of the English term pack, of course, but, for the relevant pet owner, has a special additional connotation of family, when the dog or other relevant creature looks up at its owner to convey "Please!" or "Yes, yes, yes!—Let us do that!" The pet animal has not taken on the qualities of the human mind, but has developed a special faculty of its will, which exists as functionally responsive to the human cognitive behavior of the human beings with which it is associated, in a relationship to what it perceives either as its pack, or as similar creatures of a different pack.

In return, the family-like relationship which develops between a pet dog and its human putative owner, has reciprocal benefits for the human beings associated with the pet, especially the human beings whom the dog, for example, would consider as members of the inner circle of its Rudel. Dogs as such pets have a short life, but they actually help some people, spiritually, thus, to live longer, and happier, too.

By understanding our relationship to, for example, our pet dogs, especially those living as house pets, we are afforded an experience which helps us understand human society better, by coming to recognize the principled nature of the functional, ontological difference in order of existence, between man and even the affectionate pets of the household-associated Rudel or pack whose companionship we enjoy. People who do not abuse their pet dogs, are, usually, relatively better people; probably, those dogs, so treated, have helped their associated humans to be better people. Keep your eye on the promise often to be discovered in the case of the girl or boy who shares such a happy relationship with a pet dog, who has assumed a proper sense of responsibility for the care of the dog. (A girl of that disposition may be better qualified for the training of a suitable future husband! A lucky husband he, whom she will treat as such a dog.)

It is not always a bad thing, to go to the dogs.

That observation on the happier side of the matter of going to the dogs, has been included here, at this point, for a special, purely human reason.

The difference between man and beast, as Cusa's point indicates, is that the beast participates in the power of creativity expressed by the human individual in the form of what the ancient Pythagoreans and Plato, among others, identified as powers (Gr.: dynamis; Leibniz: dynamics). This is the same distinction which the brutish Thomas Hobbes, the Physiocrats, and the British liberal economists, have denied to exist in those "lower classes" of human being which they treated as intellectually brutes. This difference, which not only Hobbes and the Physiocrats denied, is the absolute difference in functional characteristics between the human species, as seen by Hobbes, and real mankind. It is this qualitative difference, the difference which separates men from beasts, which is the key to a competent understanding of the principles of a successful form of modern sovereign nation-state economy.

The principled paradox which defines all rational insight into a lawful form of society, is that the existence of an effective form of society, depends upon a functional interrelationship between two processes which are ontologically absolutely distinct from one another. This distinction is the function of the absolutely sovereign individual creative powers (Gr.: dynamis) of the human individual as an independent individual creative thinker, and the role of the cumulative effect of those discoveries of universal physical principle, by sovereign individual minds, in shaping the evolutionary development of those accumulated discoveries of principle and of their use, on which the expressed, absolute distinction of mankind from the level of a mere beast such as a mere higher ape, depends absolutely.

Here, on this pivotal point, hangs the notion of cooperation required for the prospect of achieving a successfully unfolding world history now before us.

These distinctions were understood by ancient civilizations, such as the Egyptians who passed such knowledge as the principles of physical science (Sphaerics) along to those ancient Greeks, such as Thales, Solon of Athens, the Pythagoreans, Socrates, and Plato, who are the exemplary founders of the healthy germ-forms of globally extended European civilization's heritage in science, art, and statecraft today. The same principles can be comprehended more richly, more profoundly, by introducing the implications of the discovery of the physical-scientific conceptions of the Biosphere and Noösphere to the reform of the practice of national economy today.

Just as the outer crust of the Earth, including the atmosphere and oceans, is a product of the action of living processes, rather than non-living physical chemistry, so the changes in the crust of the Earth represented by the effects of a force higher than life, human cognition, have created a Noösphere which represents, to an experimental standpoint, a qualitatively higher order of existence than the Biosphere. It is the changes in, typically, the outer crust of our planet, which provide the accumulation of circumstances which represent the existing development of the preconditions for the further progress of the human species, as a whole, on our planet. It is the impact of a still higher order of existence, the Noösphere, which defines the principle of cooperation on which the successful continued existence of a planetary society now depends absolutely.

The relevant irony is, that every actually valid, creative discovery of universal physical principle, on which man's steering of the development of the Biosphere, and man's creation of the Noösphere have depended, is a force for change which exists only within the cognitive processes of the living, perfectly sovereign individual creative powers of the human mind.

This set of relations, through which the contributions by Vernadsky have helped us, substantially, better to understand man and economy, define a great apparent paradox. It is upon the comprehension of this paradox and its practical implications, that the prospect of happy future life of mankind on this planet now depends.

The individual's existence depends upon implicitly cooperative participation in the existence of products of the development of the Biosphere and Noösphere, but the continued existence of that process of universal development depends absolutely on those unique creative powers of the human individual mind, which Cusa had pointed to as the individual person's participation in the Creator of this universe, as a happy dog in a family Rudel participates in man.

This defines the alternative to the bestiality of both Thomas Hobbes and all of those whose evil point of view has been fostered by the influence of Hobbes' arguments. This defines, thus, the proper constitutional view of the relationship between the sovereign individual person and the society. This defines, similarly, the relationship of sovereign individual nations to the welfare of humanity as a whole. These conceptions of interdependency define the natural law on which Leibniz's notion of "pursuit of happiness" defines the constitutional law of the 1776 U.S. Declaration of Independence; and the notion of the general welfare (agape) subsumes all proper interpretation of the body of competent U.S. constitutional law as a whole.

What Should We Mean by `Cooperation'?

Specifically, with the recent growth of the population of such great nations as China and India, to levels which are already more or less greatly in excess of one billion living individuals, the point has been approached at which the rate of consumption of the essential raw materials extracted from the Biosphere will come to exceed the rate at which those stocks are replenished by ordinary means.

Take as an example, the implications of the presently widespread, and wildly reckless disregard for the increasing degree of dependence of the world's population on the drawing down of resources of fossil water. Only by the forced-draft development of applications of high-temperature fission-reactor processes, such as processes derived from the pioneering Jülich model of pebble-based, high-temperature gas-cooled reactor, as for mass-desalination programs, does mankind presently know of the principal means for ending the dependency on already collapsing levels of fossil-water resources in many parts of the planet.

Fire has always been dangerous, but the civilized life among human beings has always depended upon rejecting the attempt of the Satanic Olympian Zeus to ban mankind's knowledge of the use of fire. Nuclear and thermonuclear-fusion are forms of fire, which must be controlled under the same principle as fire generally; but, as with other forms of fire, the point has now been more than reached, at which efficient control of the characteristic process on which the Solar System is naturally based, fission and fusion power, must be mastered by man, as packs of chlorophyll molecules have done so well in their close cooperation among themselves in producing oxygen and water, by aid of the radiation from thermonuclear fusion processes of the Sun. Without such mastering of fission and fusion, the species of man will not be able to maintain and develop a civilized form of life, and would not, in fact, even exist.

While reactors of the Jülich type in the 120-200 megawatt range are adequate for ordinary support of local economy; reactors in a range four times or more that capacity are necessary for regional production of the hydrogen-based fuels required to defeat the inevitable, ruinous rise in price which is now the pattern in current levels of dependency on low-value petroleum transported at costly net rates around the world today. Contrary to all childish, "Harry Potter"-like, wishful dreams of an actually unattainable "soft life" for all, there are no economical "soft technologies" in existence, or likely to come into existence.

At this stage of the present elaboration of the draft platform, select one additional illustration of the general problem of replacing dependency on shrinking fossil-water resources.

This is the same kind of problem which touches many other kinds of existing types of resources. Restate this type of problem from the vantage-point of the science of physical economy, rather than monetary-financial accounting, in order to make clear the physical principles at issue in the matter of this category of challenges to policy-shaping.

In the simplest type of illustration of challenge to policy-shaping, the problem presents itself as a lowering of the marginal quality of indicated natural resources, such as, for example, mineral resources. At that point, the attempted reliance on such marginal resources is expressed as an increase in the physical cost of production of the relevant materials, and thus as a relative lowering of the relative physical standard of living of society. Only by comparable, or better, increases in the physical productivity of labor, per capita and per square kilometer of territory, can the rising cost of a turn to relatively marginal resources be absorbed without reducing the per-capita productivity, and standard of living of the economy as a whole.

Thus, a tendency toward a zero-technological-progress mode in the physical production of physical goods would lead toward a collapse of society, as the shift to a "post-industrial, services economy" mode has done in, for example, the ruining of the typical standard of living and physical productivity of the U.S. population as a whole.

As we see in the deadly tendencies for increase of the rates and degrees of obesity, from not only the shift to fast-food fads, but "post-industrial" life-styles generally, the increase of employment in marginal or even counterproductive forms of "services economy" investment and employment, tends to increase the nominal monetary income through adding low-grade, useless or negative values of categories of nominal business and other activity to the nominal GNP, and tends to actually lower the real level of output and income of the economy.

To resist the tendency toward a physical collapse of society, and of typical physical incomes of average households, which we have experienced as a consistently accelerating trend in the U.S.A. over the course of the recent thirty-five years, a scientific-technological "driver" policy for national economy is now urgently required.

Looking outward from the territory of the United States and what are the relatively more technologically advanced economies among those of Europe, we are confronted with a two-fold trend of collapse in the net physical productivity of labor in major regions of the world, and the world considered as a whole.

Consider the two general categories of problems which must be mastered to deal with such and related challenges to human life on this planet now.

First, consider the commonplace problem which has been created by the 1971-1981, deliberate wrecking of the economic policies associated with the Franklin Roosevelt recovery and the original Bretton Woods, fixed-exchange-rate, protectionist form of world monetary system. Consider the following points of illustration.

The differentials among exchange rates among various regions of the world, is a problem typified by the added effect of the collapse of basic economic infrastructure in North America and Europe, as combined with the relative lack of development of infrastructure in those national economies to which the production of physical goods, formerly occurring in the U.S.A. and Europe, has fled. In the case of the U.S.A. as such, a study of the physical states of the counties of the nation, state by state, and county by county, over the course of the 1971-1989 interval, and, even more emphatically, since 1989-1991, shows an accelerating physical collapse of not only the North American sector, and that of Europe, but the world's economy as a whole, when the physical-economic interdependency of the whole is considered in this light.

For example, take the case of the recent shift of production from Europe and the Americas into Asia. The apparent cheapness of labor in the sectors to which production has ostensibly fled in search for the lowest price, shows a pattern of collapse of the productive potential of infrastructure and labor-force skills in the sectors from which production has ostensibly fled, into regions where a low price of labor depends upon a lack of development of infrastructure, and a tendency toward an accelerating worsening of the future prospects of the majority of the population which remains marginalized. In other words, in the developing nations, the price of production is relatively lower, because the true costs of production are simply not being paid. This pertains to both direct costs of production, and the costs of production which should have been incurred as part of the infrastructure of the economy as a whole. In effect, what is perceived as the triumphant future of Asia, relative to a decadent European civilization, is, in net effect, simply what was considered as the successive modes of chattel slavery and "carpetbagging" in the case of the southern states of the post-1820s, pre-Franklin Roosevelt U.S.A., or the post-1989 looting of the region of the former Comecon. The present trends in U.S. and related western European policies since 1971-1972, have been an exercise in accelerating global entropy.

Consider the post-Truman period of world history, especially the post-1971 times, during which Ireland had submitted to the externally induced misery of a relatively agrarian simplicity in service of decadent British appetites, whereas South Korea lunged forward in vigorous economic development. Of these trends toward low-infrastructure-investment and low-capital-intensity production, we might fear that the old Communist slogan might have been reformulated as: "Speculators of the world, unite; you have nothing as much to lose, as your brains!" Virtual, in addition to explicit carpetbagging, practiced both, on the one hand, against one's fellow-citizens as well as the national territory itself, and, on the other hand, the rest of the world, has been the prevalent direction in policy trends since the aftermath of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

During that period there have been persistent, but unfortunately waning net efforts to continue, or return to the policies of vigorous development associated with Franklin Roosevelt Presidency. However, from the point of the immediate aftermath of President Roosevelt's death, there was a decline in the long-term rate of net physical growth. While there were still impulses toward progress even after 1971-1972, even after the terrible years of Brzezinski's Trilateral 1977-1981 efforts to return to medieval conditions, there were impulses for progress, whose scattered benefits can be noted here and there. However, as progress must be measured in net progress for the nation and the world as a whole, somewhere between 1964 and 1972, the world as a whole slipped from a waning trend toward continuing Franklin Roosevelt's impetus for national and global progress, to the accelerating decadence which the Americas and Europe have undergone since about 1972, and especially since 1977-1981.

Now, secondly, consider the more challenging problem which confronts us, as never before in history, today: the needed forms of cooperation among the world's regions, long-term regional cooperation, expressed as nested sets of long-term-credit agreements among sovereign nation-states over periods of a quarter- to half-century.

The American System's Global Intention

In any genuine economic recovery of the world's economy from the onrushing collapse into a now threatened global new dark age, it will be urgent that areas of the highest level of current cultural potential for extremely capital-intensive, high-gain-scientific-development modes of development of the labor-force and its products, must supply much of the physical-capital improvements needed for the development of the less developed regions. Without that change in orientation back to what was expressed as the intention of President Franklin Roosevelt before his death, no assured avoidance of a planetary new dark age were possible at this time.

By cultural potential, we should understand a combination of physical-capital-intensive basic economic infrastructure, physical capital-intensity of means of production, and scientific-technological and comparable skills of the population's existing and future labor-force. These are to be defined as measured per capita and per square kilometer of both total territory, and of the regions within which current extractive, agricultural, industrial, and scientific potential is concentrated.

There are two aspects to this needed global cooperation. There is, first, the need of the so-called developing regions for such capital formation. Second, within the process of raising the level of physical productivity of the designated developing regions in this way, the rate of improvement of each and every part of the planet would be held back if we condoned the continued relative backwardness of some large portions of the planet as a whole. To put that point in scientific terms: We must see economic development in dynamic terms of economy as an integrated process, not in the merely mechanical way commonplace in the accounting practice of today's taught economics courses and news-media monologues and dialogues. We must consider all the related issues from the standpoint of the latter challenge, including bringing the already stated concept of cooperation among the combined nation-state economies of the planet into the necessary programmatic focus.

However, before setting forth the details of that needed arrangement here, in this location, we must clarify the unique role of the credit-system-based, superior, American System of political-economy, relative to that of its principal, relatively defective Anglo-Dutch Liberal monetary systems, the latter as prevalent among the nations of Europe as elsewhere.

Such latter, relatively defective, and presently failed monetary systems include, most notably, the current policies and practices of institutions such as the present, constitutionally questionable form of the U.S. Federal Reserve System, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank.

Simply stated, the superior monetary policy of the American System of political-economy has been based, since the launching of our Constitution, on the promotion of the general welfare of present and future generations. This commitment is conditioned, in practice, on the principle of the unique authority of the Federal government to utter national credit with the consent of Congress; whereas, systems operating in accord with the dogmas of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal system, place privately controlled central banking systems above the authority of government, thus representing an intrinsically immoral system of monetarists' usury.

This means, that under the American System of political-economy, the principle of devotion to service of the general welfare of present and future generations, is an authority which is superior to those kinds of claims based on money per se, which have become traditional in the monetary systems of most of Europe today. The American System of political-economy, on which our constitutional republic was founded, is a product of developments in constitutional government since the mid-Fifteenth-Century Renaissance, including the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia. However, the British East India Company's imperial triumph at the February 1763 Treaty of Paris, was the cause of our quarrel with the British monarchy which led into the U.S. 1776 Declaration of Independence.

Despite what we contributed to the cause of all humanity, as much as to ourselves, through the triumph of our Declaration of Independence and the wisdom of our Federal Constitution, the enemies of our nation were able to strike back, to injure us greatly, but not permanently.

The failure of the hope of echoing developments in France, was a failure which came initially by the succession of the burning of the Bastille on behalf of London's assets Philippe Egalité and Jacques Necker, the Jacobin Terror, and ruinous Napoleonic Wars. Those awful developments of 1789-1815 produced a succession of developments in Europe, such that actual Presidential republics comparable to that of the U.S.A., such as the attempt of President Charles de Gaulle's launching of the Fifth Republic, have never been more than relatively short-termed successes, so far. The independence of governments and their people through victimization by an overreaching, Venetian-style monetary interest, has never been achieved in Europe to the degree the principles of a true modern sovereign nation-state were established in practice by the adoption of the Federal Constitution of the U.S.A.

Although we have drifted far from our constitutional standard, most notably since the successive follies of the insanity of the long Indo-China War, and viciously radical revisions of practice of 1971-1981, the legacy of our republic has persisted as an accessible echo of conscience within our population, including the descendants of generations of Europeans who came among us seeking refuge, or simply opportunity not accessible in old Europe of that time. Now, as in past experience, as was the experience of those today who came into adulthood during the Presidency of Franklin Roosevelt, this cultural heritage of the crafting our republic has often seemed to wane away, and, yet, at certain moments, has erupted with freshness and sometimes great creative force, when, seemingly, a few moments before, it seemed to have disappeared, as over the course of the recent three decades or slightly more.

Today, that hereditary distinction between the constitutional systems of the U.S.A. and those parliamentary systems still prevalent in Europe, signifies that the U.S.A. has the practical, as well as moral obligation expressed in President Franklin Roosevelt's establishing a Bretton Woods monetary system based on the credit of the U.S. dollar. Although the needed great planetary reforms for the world of today's grave crisis could not be successfully initiated by the United States without the cooperation of republics of Europe and some other strategically crucial parts of the world, the needed, successful initiative for this great reform of the world system will either come from the U.S.A., or not at all.

It is our moral responsibility to all humanity, to take the steps we must take to enable the creation of the needed new global credit-system aimed to realize the kinds of objectives of de-colonization and related benefits which President Franklin Roosevelt had intended until the time of his death in office.

We must assume our part of the responsibility for bringing into being a world freed from the evils intrinsic to globalization, a world composed of perfectly sovereign nation-state republics, which are associated through mechanisms of cooperation in service of the common aims of mankind. We need a rebirth from among us of that passion for revival which stirred our nation's ranks under the leadership of Franklin Roosevelt.

In the crafting of any great enterprise, especially one engaging peoples of sundry nations, it is essential to proceed from a certain quality of statement of purpose, a statement of purpose as for a great mission. It can not be a mere piece of elegant, sophistical rhetoric; it must be an intention which is not merely heartfelt, but which is grounded in efficient competence.

In the present state of affairs, certain evil persons in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, have sought to build a new world order on the foundations of a permanent state of warfare, like that which reigned as the Crusades of the Middle Ages under the terms of alliance of Venetian financier-oligarchy and Norman chivalry. This present-day burst of hatred, associated with the incitement of a spawn of the British Arab Bureau, Bernard Lewis, has beckoned the world to relive something akin to the religious warfare unleashed by the Habsburgs during the interval from Grand Inquisitor Tomás de Torquemada's expulsion of the Jews from Spain, until the healing stroke of Cardinal Mazarin's leadership in bringing into being that 1648 Peace of Westphalia, on which all of the happier consequences in European development had depended since that time—until recently.

Thus, if the U.S.A. is to play its historically assigned part in mobilizing leading forces of this planet to rescue humanity from the prolonged new dark age which is threatened by the wicked impulses of Bernard Lewis and others today, we must not only cleanse ourselves of hatred of peoples of other parts of the planet, but love them and their welfare as it were that of members of our own family. Even when horrid degrees of even justified warfare must be fought, hatred of the opponent nation is unforgivable; for in those very seeds of hatred which are carried into an ostensible peace, the seeds of future horrors have been sown.

On the positive side, rather than the negative, the task of rebuilding our own presently ruined economy, and that of bettering the condition of the world at large, are functionally inseparable causes. This should be apparent to us even from bare physical-economic considerations. We have recently spent no less than forty years in destroying the economies of much of the world, with dark consequences of our folly on that account yet to come. Although there are accessible decisions we could make, to launch a new economic system akin in character and spirit to what President Franklin Roosevelt's leadership produced, the remedying of the ruin our recent trend in policies has produced, requires approximately a half-century's work yet to come. The remedy for this presently ruined state of affairs, is a new global system of credit, In other words, we require a system of credit, based on justified good faith in agreements, over a half-century's span.

Such a system of credit were not possible, if it were premised on hatred or kindred passions. Only hatefulness toward mankind should be hated. It could endure and succeed as contracted, only if we come to recognize that the welfare of each, under such a system, depends upon the quality of intention of them all. To that end, we, our nation, as the indicated sponsor of the required global initiative, must be trus