|This article appears in the October 30, 2009 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
On Russia Now
by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
October 12, 2009
I have omitted naming the person to whose report I am reacting, lest the piece to which I respond here, might, or might not have been intended for comment by a broader public identification than the limited audience among which it had been circulated. Let it be said, therefore, that I am responding in a timely way to the relevance of something which I have read from that recent work. See the appendix of this report, for the explanation of the "Triple Curve" on which my uniquely successful method of long-range economic forecasting has been premised.
To address the global situation in which Russia finds itself today, the following introductory considerations must be laid out summarily, as follows.
There has been much written, and otherwise said, on the continuing array of justified, or other disappointments left over from both the former Soviet Union, in Russia today, and in other former parts of that Union. The presently essential fact of those matters is to be summed up in three points. These points typify the characteristics of the current state of the process of degeneration of the world economy, when that process is considered as a physical economy as a whole, as since the immediate aftermath of the 1963 assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy.
The practical significance of that trend, lies in the fact that the increase of the productive powers of labor does not lie within the bounds of the assumptions of financial accounting, but, rather, within the incorporation of scientific progress into medium- to long-term, increasingly capital-intensive investments, as this is expressed in both general increases in the ration of basic economic infrastructure, per capita, and in the capital-intensity of the means of urban and rural modes of production.
Those three, latter governments of that time, had acted, then, chiefly, against both Germany and Russia, seeking their intended, ultimate destruction. However, the chain-reaction-like effects of the evil which those three had done, have become the present, London-directed threat to the continued existence of every nation of this planet.
Yet, all that true enough so far, there is something of additional, grave importance, which remains to be emphasized, as follows.
The attacks on the systematic features of the discoveries of universal physical principle, discoveries such as those from Nicholas of Cusa through Bernhard Riemann, and beyond, are attacks which have been introduced as a reflection of a defense-in-fact of a fraudulent argument in favor of a doctrine of universal entropy. Such promotions of entropy are chiefly an expression of the intrinsic incompetence of all mathematical systems customarily used in financial and related methods for application to modern economy, as from the practice of slave-trade booster John Locke, to the time of the presently onrushing current, global disaster today.
It has been made clear, by recent developments, that the post-FDR pattern of entropic decline of the world economy, has not been either a merely "frictional," or otherwise spontaneous development in any sense; it should now be clear, that the physical-economic decline itself reflects nothing less than a deliberate choice by certain malicious factions within mankind, factions which have employed an avowed intention to reduce the world's population from a presently estimated level of about 6.7 billions persons, to the two billions chosen as the goal of the genocidal, global population-reduction schemes of the World Wildlife Fund led by both the late Prince Bernhard and the still living, British Royal consort Prince Philip. This intended genocide, is the actual intention behind the actually British Royal and other authors of the present-day, so-called "Green Movement," and of the Hitler-modeled health-care (NICE: "National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence") policies of both the former Tony Blair government of Britain, and the British-modeled copies of Hitler-style health-care policies which are presently demanded by the U.S.A. Administration of a passionately shallow-minded President Barack Obama.
On this same point, it is true, of course, that the growth of the world's population has outrun the required increase of the means to sustain that population in a decent fashion. However, contrary to the neo-Luddite fanatics of today, that constraint has not been a natural one, but is the unnatural consequence of a combination of some stubbornly backward cultures and imperialistic designs which became influential in the aftermath of the neo-fascist, pro-malthusian frauds crafted in the likeness of Aeschylus's figure of the imperial Olympian Zeus.
The Hitler-like population policies of the present British monarchy's World Wildlife Fund, are typical of the moral and economic depravity inhering in the intrinsically entropic effects of intentionally mass-murderous, so-called "green" policies.
The consequent intention by such contemporary influentials as the circles of the World Wildlife Fund, to reduce the world's population from a present level of about 6.7 billions, to about two billions, or less, as by Prince Philip's World Wildlife Fund hoax, is an awful amount of genocide: it would be, if allowed, the greatest mass-murder, and therefore the most monstrous crime against humanity in all known human existence: "the great green crime" of Prince Philip and his Fund.
This "green movement," which is key to the Hitler-modeled health-care policies of the former Blair government and present Obama Presidency, is undoubtedly among the most shamelessly evil and fraudulent concoctions in policy-making in known human history, even worse in the implications of its depth and magnitude, than what is associated with the late Adolf Hitler; nevertheless, it must be added to that fact, that the idea of population-control through the stupefying effects of the suppression of scientific progress, was already older, in practice, than even the real-life, zero-technological-growth, oligarchical model identified by Aeschylus' Prometheus trilogy.
In large part, it is clear, that the implicitly genocidal, currently British-led policies, toward post-1989 Germany,. the failed Comecon system, and also toward China today, are policies which express a large part of the cult of that pro-genocidal, so-called "environmentalism" which is unloosed upon the planet today. Yet, at the same time, the possibility of carrying the present, Hitler-like, mass-murderous health-care policies of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair's NICE and the Obama administration thus far, also owes much to the bad economic policies of that monetarist world-system of John Maynard Keynes which was brought into renewed power by the complicity of the pro-imperialist sympathizer of Winston Churchill, U.S. President Harry S Truman.
Therefore, we must proceed in this light in dealing with the problems of nations such as Russia today. Nothing of recent significant weight on the economy of the planet as a whole, has been more hideously stupid, and relatively more destructive for the world economy as a whole, than the chain-reaction effects of the combination of the conditionalities imposed on Germany by Thatcher, Mitterrand, and George H.W. Bush, with their delusory campaign for transforming Russia itself, by a decade of outright "carpet-bagging" which was masked by such nonsense-verbiage as "a change from a so-called 'command economy' to a 'market economy'."
What is being done to virtually all nations and peoples of this planet as a consequence of that change, is fairly described now as evil in its effects, if not, in each case, caused exactly according to that particular nation's intention. Whatever the intention of the sponsors of this predatory folly of proposing to improve an economy by a decade of looting it virtually to the ground, as was done since 1989 to Europe east of the France's border with Germany, the result has been, from case to case, that the effect itself has been monstrously evil, not only for those nations targeted by the scheme imposed by Thatcher, Mitterrand, and George H.W. Bush, but, in net effect, for the world as a whole.
In that sense, we can, and must treat the present causes of each nation's plight as a case-study in bad economic policies of practice.
The frankly evil, current economic policies of practice of the British monarchy and its followers in the U.S.A. today, must be studied in terms of their coincidence with the intended, demographic impact of the effects desired by the pro-genocidal practices of the British empire and its implicitly treasonous U.S. "Wall Street" accomplices today.
The Needed Point of View
Writing here as I do, in my function as one who has been repeatedly proven, as by proof of experiment, to have been, over many decades, a leading economic forecaster in the field of the actual science of physical-economy today, I insist that we must view the economic crises of the planet today, as being chiefly a combination of those two considerations of current policy-shaping. Name this bad policy-shaping as actions taken on behalf of "willfully evil physical-economic incompetence." E.g., those varieties of induced beliefs which are desired for the pleasure taken by the believer for sake of the pleasure in believing, often with reckless disregard for the consequences. Monetarism, such as that of the morally very complicated John Maynard Keynes, belongs to such a category.
The history of the present world crisis must be dated to the morning of April 13, 1945, after the day President Franklin Roosevelt had died, when the American System of political-economy of the founders of the United States, had been replaced by the same imperialist dogmas of the same John Maynard Keynes whom President Franklin Roosevelt had defeated in the celebrated Bretton Woods conference of 1944.
To understand the present world breakdown-crisis currently in progress, consider some typical among the known roots of monetarism. For this purpose, let us begin with ancient Sumer.
Economy Since Sumer
As this was illustrated by the decline and fall of the ancient culture of Sumer, and many other comparable cases, economies may appear to be still somewhat prosperous when their present policies, such as those of Sumer during its earlier phases, have set into motion such a long-term decline in capital factors as attrition in basic economic infrastructure, or a downshift in crucial features of production, such as a change from independent farmers, to hired labor, to virtual, or actually slave labor, as was the case in Sumer and other instances of so-called "hydraulic cultures." Such was, in a different case, the decline of the great, economically pro-genocidal wave of ruin of what had been the magnificent Baghdad Caliphate of Haroun al-Raschid and his immediate predecessors, that under an evil, imported government later. Or, in the alternative, the fall of a civilization today may begin simply as a trend toward a "zero technological growth" mode, as depicted by the "zero technological growth" model depicted by the playwright Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound: the suppression, or even simply neglect of the crucial importance which must be assigned to the general scientific and technological progress, respecting matters of universal physical principle, on which the continued existence of any economy ultimately depends absolutely.
A program of genocide which is an effect produced under the influence of some backward-leaning human cultures, already defines that culture as morally unfit to continue to exist over a longer time. When genocide caused by devotion to antipathy to qualitative scientific progress on a global scale, becomes the primary conscious intention expressed as practice, that moral condition is among the worst of all crimes against humanity, a crime which cries out for the ban against the corrupted culture which harbors such criminal propensities, such as much of what passes for "environmentalism" today.
To bring the study of the implications of such wicked policies into modern times, consider the spread of the influence of the monstrously evil devotees of Bertrand Russell, such as the morally degenerate practice of "cybernetics" concocted by Professor Norbert Wiener, or, the perverse "economic game theory"of John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern. Such examples present us a most relevant example of such efficiently ruinous systems of moral degeneration, as typified by the practice of "financial derivatives" today. These pseudo-scientific gentlemen and their policies have been the chief cause, through their influence, of the spread of a cult of "zero economic growth" which has been, in turn, chiefly responsible for the spread of misery throughout most of the planet, over the course of time since the April 12, 1945 death of President Franklin Roosevelt.
I summarize the scientific view of this matter, as follows.
All great, recent improvements in man's knowledge of the principles of a physical science of human economy, are to be traced, chiefly, from the impact of the discoveries of two of the greatest scientific minds of the Twentieth-century followers of the great Nineteenth-century scientific revolutionary Bernhard Riemann: Albert Einstein and Academician V.I. Vernadsky. It is the work of Vernadsky, in supplying an anti-entropic mode of physical-scientific definition of the respective domains of the Lithosphere, Biosphere, and Noösphere, which supplies us today the most direct approach to understanding the physical principles which underlie mankind's long-ranging, physical and moral successes and failures in political economies.
Mankind is the only living species which is not bounded by relatively fixed upper limits of the growth and survival of its variety among species. This distinction is located, experimentally, by archeologists in the distinction of man from apes, as shown by fire-places used by ancient mankind; no beast uses fire as an essential, willfully employed instrument of the continued existence and development of its species. In modern physical science, since the 1970s, competent scientists have come to employ the term "energy-flux density" to identify the rising concentration of what we regard as "heat energy," per square-centimeter cross-section of flow, as an expression of mankind's progress in the qualitative degrees of concentration of power.
We may say, therefore, that civilized mankind is "Promethean," whose enemy is, still today, the tyrannical oligarch typified by the oligarchical image of "pro-zero technological growth," the image of that Olympian Zeus who is echoed by the real-life Prince Philip of the World Wildlife Fund, today.
Man, The Fire-Bringer!
Any visitors from a distant planetary system, or galaxy, who were searching for a form of intelligent, man-like life, would seek out spots where men and women are, or had been assembled around fire-places. Whereas, creativity is the natural, universal state of the universe throughout, only mankind deploys creativity as a matter of a willfully chosen mode of characteristic action of our species. So, when we are searching among what appear to have been hominid-like ancestors, or cousins of humanity, we focus attention on those living creatures, or their fossil remains, which are associated with the cultural characteristic of fire-places then, or nuclear-fission power-plants now.
It is properly presumed, that any creature which does not employ the power of some forms of fire as an essential precondition for its own species' secured existence, is neither human, nor human-like in the character of its adopted behavior. Such is the evil which the great Aeschylus portrayed as being the bestial nature of the Olympian Zeus.
Without such successive up-shifts, as to nuclear-fission power yesterday, or thermonuclear fusion tomorrow, man is impelled to loot those very resources on which human existence on our planet depends. If we suppress shifts to such higher forms of "energy-flux density" in modalities of generation and use of power, mankind were doomed to live in a mass-murderous system of cults of the brutishly half-witted, as we have reason to fear such outcomes of the influence of the so-called "green" ideologies of today.
This role of fire in all viable forms of human, or comparable cultures, identifies the principled distinction of moral forms of society, from essentially depraved ones. It is not fire itself, which is beautiful, but the forms of the use of fire which increase mankind's power to exist in the universe, as in not only our own planet, but, in the future life of some other planets in our galaxy. All competent teaching and practice of economy by societies must now meet that standard of creative intention.
The Fire-Bringer's Role
The competent modern such views of a science of physical economy, recognize that the progress of the "fire-bringer," mankind, depends upon depleting those concentrations of mineral resources represented by the accumulated dead bodies of once-living plant and animal life. Thus, to increase, and even merely to defend, the potential relative population-density of our human species, we must proceed along an historical line of compensation for the relative loss of the richest ore-deposits left behind by living processes, by increasing what is termed "the energy-flux-density" of the quality of power employed by society, per capita and per square kilometer of territory. Thus, we proceed upward, from the burning of trash, into a realm beyond ordinary chemistry, into the domain of nuclear-fission and thermonuclear-fusion technologies, and look forward to better insight into a still higher order of power referred to as "matter/anti-matter" reactions.
Thus, the most evil periods of culture in known human existence, have been those consistent with the doctrine attributed to the Olympian Zeus in Aeschylus' fable, such as the fanatically incompetent dogma of the so-called "environmentalist movement" today.
Truman: Was It Treason?
As a consequence of the changes in direction of global policy-shaping which occurred through, chiefly, President Harry Truman's submission of the United States and also other nations to the neo-colonialist, implicitly "pro-malthusian" policies associated with Winston Churchill, John Maynard Keynes, and Bertrand Russell, the increase of the world's population to the level of about 6.7 billions persons, has proceeded under the unfortunately imposed conditions of aborted scientific development of the pre-conditions of extended human life, which the advocates of British imperialist policy today, such as the World Wildlife Fund of Britain's Prince Philip, then demand be the rapid reduction of the world's population to a level of about two billions persons, and that now, and rapidly. Under a practice influenced by such depraved, but recently increasing, even worse-than-Hitler, neo-Malthusian influences as those of Prince Philip today, the potential relative population-density of the planet has been willfully driven below the level of potential required for a decent standard of human existence. It is that crime, by the co-thinkers of Prince Philip, which must be eradicated, not human progress.
This decline has been almost entirely an effect of the suppression of scientific-technological development, that aided very much by the spread of the pseudo-science of Bertrand Russell and such among his devotees as Norbert Wiener and John von Neumann, but, also, by aid of the British monarchy's luring the U.S.A. into a continuing pattern of self-destructive, needless warfare, as the lies of then-Prime Minister Tony Blair duped the government of the United States into a prolonged war in Iraq, and into its British-proposed sequel, a present, idiotic proposal for a long war in Afghanistan which would tend to destroy the nation of Pakistan, and, then, India.
Those neo-Malthusian policies of mass-murderous practices, such as those associated with not only Prince Philip, but also former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair, are specifically expressions of specifically oligarchical moral diseases, which are specifically intended to use popular indoctrination with forms of stupidity such as so-called "environmentalism," to create an empire over a greatly depopulated planet for an intended, pro-Satanic eternity to come.
Such a movement of both economic and moral decline was set into motion in the U.S.A., as I have said above, on April 13, 1945, when an accomplice of Britain's Winston Churchill, President Harry S Truman, suddenly reversed the recovery policy of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and adopted, instead, in April 1945, the monetarist policy of Roosevelt's Bretton Woods adversary, John Maynard Keynes, in specific opposition to the U.S. constitutional credit policy of Roosevelt.
The efforts to reverse the Keynesian error, that as a direction of effort which had been launched by German scientists working to continue the Moon/Mars-landing mission in the U.S.A., as urged forward by President John F. Kennedy against the Wall Street steel bosses, was, itself reversed, in effect, by the turn back toward progressive brutishness which was effected by aid of the assassination of President Kennedy.
The consequent launching of the long, wasting U.S. 1964-1975 war in Indo-China, set into motion the beginning of that long-ranging present, net decline in crucial capital factors of the U.S. economy which became evident already in 1966-68. That wrecking of the U.S. economy became systemic under President Richard Nixon; but the wrecking program launched by David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission, under his protégé President Jimmy Carter, was far worse: it essentially wrecked the structure of the U.S. physical economy.
A decade later, the policy launched by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan carried the ruin of the U.S. and world economy to a present degree of ruin which is presently far beyond all earlier imagination of the U.S. citizenry in general.
Long-ranging patterns such as that, have been typical of what have usually been the multi-generational processes of moral decay in the intellectual processes of the shaping of economic policies of both nations and civilization as a whole, a form of decay which should have become familiar to all those professionals engaged in reasonably competent studies of the relevant known features of the intellectual-cultural history of mankind.
Thus, the conditions of the world economy, during 1968-2009, and, most notably, of Germany, Russia, and others among the British imperialists' most targeted victims during the more recent 1989-2009 past, included a state of decadence associated with conditions of physical-economic declines in rate of growth of physical productivity per capita and per square kilometer, a tendency which had been, already brought upon the post-World War II world, as a trend, by the joint, anti-Franklin Roosevelt initiatives and schemes of Winston Churchill, a newly-minted U.S. President Harry S Truman, and the monetarist-imperialist schemes of John Maynard Keynes, that from April 13, 1945 onward.
That change in principle, was away from President Franklin Roosevelt's 1944 design for a post-war, global credit-system, the only true Bretton Woods system, which President Roosevelt had based upon the U.S. Federal Constitution's inherently systemic principle of a credit-system, in total opposition to the intrinsically imperialist, monetarist system of John Maynard Keynes, President Roosevelt's enemy at the 1944 Bretton Woods conference. So, the adoption of Keynes under the Truman Administration, has been the actual point of origin of the long wave of decline of the planet which has now engulfed all continents of our planet today.
It must not be overlooked, that a virtual state of war had been declared against the Soviet Union, both in the form of the change in policy effected by the Churchill-Truman de facto alliance beginning April 13, 1945, and the September 1946 announcement, by Bertrand Russell, of the avowed intention of Russell's Anglo-American accomplices, to launch "preventive" nuclear attacks against the Soviet Union, that for the purpose of establishing "world government." That is the goal of the former Prime Minister Tony Blair's new "Tower of Babel," the goal of creating a global "Tower of Babel" and of Hitler-echoing policies of genocide in the name of "health-care reform," which has been the motive of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Blair's puppet, President Barack Obama, at last report of late.
Those facts concerning the policies of the British empire, are not only true, but are as relevant for today as they were at the time that Churchill and Russell avowed them.
Only a cancellation of the rule over our planet by monetary systems traceable to the evil doctrines of such as the British imperialist Lord Shelburne's evil puppets, Adam Smith and Jeremy Bentham, offers any hope of now freeing the planet as a whole from a presently onrushing, planet-wide echo of the "new dark age" triggered by the relevant monetarist policies of Venice during the latter part of Europe's Fourteenth Century, the same, Venetian monetarist policies which are at the root of the presently world-wide crisis now.
To cure the patient, in such cases, it is necessary to treat the infection, not merely the recent symptoms. Therefore, in history of peoples and nations, it is usually necessary to look back decades earlier than the time an economic decline is recognized, to discover the origins of the earlier trends which had set what were, later, more visible problems, into motion. Often, the already sickened patient had assumed himself to be healthy, until the pain became alarming.
In history, it is virtually customary, that the simple greed expressed in the looting and self-looting of the former Soviet Union, which was already set into progress during the 1980s, as an expression of pro-British monetarist policies of looting, brought about what became a systemic addiction to self-inflicted national disaster as a parallel pattern of destruction of the U.S.A. which was also in progress during the same decades.
The Present World Crisis
Despite the clear facts of the type to which I have just pointed, the custom has been, especially of late, to treat problems of a relevant type, as the flagrant hoaxster, Rene Descartes did, as matters which are each considered in relative isolation, or even utter disregard of the subsuming dynamics of that environment in which the choice of discussed topic is actually situated.
That perverse sort of attempted appreciation of certain problems inside Russia today, as viewed from outside Russia, or from the inside, must be recognized, clinically speaking, as tantamount to treating the crushing of a particular human organ, such as a foot, which had occurred in the course of a highway collision, as a problem caused by a propensity of the injured foot of a passenger who had been riding in the rear seat of the demolished automobile at the time of that event. Such is fairly described as "the method of statistical factors." Modern academic dialogues tend, thus, to be expressions of obsessions with often obscure, isolated factors.
The incompetence of much of what I have encountered as a discussion, from either inside, or outside of Russia today, has such a character, the same character, at root, which is typical of the dominant trends of policy-shaping among the majority of virtually all nations during more than sixty years since the death of U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
For an example of the deeper cultural motive behind such schemes, I have referred attention here to the relevant clinical case of the wretchedly incompetent Rene Descartes, whose fraudulent representations in physical science matters were successfully identified, still, to the present day, by Gottfried Leibniz, during the decade of the 1690s.
Descartes' systemic, worse-than-incompetence in physical science, was typified by his ignoring the role of the dynamic characteristics of the process in which the actions in physical space-time must be considered as subsumed. The claims associated with the Isaac Newton who had made no competent original discovery in science, were the fruit of an effort by the self-avowed Cartesian advocate, Abbe Antonio S. Conti, to create a synthetic Descartes who would be adopted, with the aid of his flunky, Voltaire, as the official basis for British pretenses adopted by them at the moment Conti had received news of the death of Leibniz.
This specific phenomenon in mass behavior, was addressed in a commendably clear and fundamental way by the great modern English poet Percy Bysshe Shelley's A Defence of Poetry. What Shelley sums up in the concluding paragraph of that writing, is to be recognized as having been also an exposition of that principle of Leibnizian dynamics which governs the way in which masses of people within society are governed by a quality of universalizing principles of which they, as individuals, are only rarely conscious.
The greater mass of the population of a society is not governed by what they have chosen to believe, but by a higher influence, a principled influence called dynamics by Gottfried Leibniz, but echoing such ancient Greek classicists as Archytas and Plato. As Shelley's relevant argument in his A Defence of Poetry clearly sets this forth, it is a sudden change from one dynamical principle to another, which shapes the great changes in world-outlook which define revolutionary movements, in science and in politics, such as that identified by Shelley in his A Defence of Poetry.
In such instances, it is a change in the disposition to believe, rather than a change in ordinary belief itself, which is decisive, as this will be the case we have already witnessed as oncoming among the majority of the U.S. population since Summer 2009. It is typified by such cases as those described by Rosa Luxemburg as a "spontaneous mass strike" phenomenon, a rather sudden, spontaneous development such as the American Revolution, in the eruption of Autumn 1989 in Saxony, and in the just-recent eruption of a vast, "mass strike" phenomenon in the U.S.A. this past August.
It is, thus, as Friedrich Schiller and Percy Bysshe Shelley emphasized, the great poets, and comparable artistic minds of exceptional creative thinkers, who prepare the public mind for its seemingly infectious assimilation of the creation of a new world-outlook shaping its disposition for action.
Yet, most unfortunately, there are still avowed Cartesians in the schoolrooms and similar places in the world today. So, to treat the characteristic developments within the former Soviet system, or Russia of today, only an incompetent would fail to place the emphasis on the conditions under which the referenced pattern of behavior had been globally situated in the state of the process of the world at large.
Each and all cultures existing today, embody an embedded history which is less a matter of particular sets of beliefs, than the fact that each set of beliefs is subsumed by a dynamic principle, as Gottfried Leibniz presented the notion of dynamics, as in his relevant work of the 1690s and beyond; a specific principle of dynamics, which is more efficient, qualitatively, than any particular set of beliefs in shaping the direction of change within that culture during any relevant period of time.
The essential fact of the matter of Russia today, is the world which it inhabits, but also, in turn, a world whose global influence inhabits it, dynamically, infectiously, in the sense of dynamics summarized in the concluding paragraph of Shelley's A Defence of Poetry.
The Unique American Model
Take as a most relevant illustration, the case of the leading influence on all modern world history since, of the division in the world's English-speaking culture which erupted in Seventeenth-century New England prior to the crushing of that colony through the successive actions of crushing the character of that colony done by the repressive actions of England's James II and William of Orange. The history of European culture since that time has been shaped by shifting affinities, back and forth, from leaning toward association with the cause and model of the U.S.A., and more or less anti-U.S.A. leanings.
In his own autobiographical reflections, the justly revered, late Jawaharlal Nehru, implicitly asked himself whether the ability shown by imperial Britain's East India Company, in its subjugating the culture of India, did not reflect something relatively superior in the powers available within the British expression of modern European culture. In a certain manner of speaking, Pandit Nehru had struck upon the clue of some advantage which inhered in modern European civilization's Sixteenth-century rise, in fact, out of the earlier, Fifteenth-century resurrection of Europe, in a great Renaissance from a preceding new dark age, led by figures best typified by the great Nicholas of Cusa and those followers of Cusa's influence who launched a science-based modern European civilization.
The suspected European advantage to which Nehru pointed in his reflections, was not, actually, of a specifically British source, but, rather, the creative passion in Classical art and physical science which Gottfried Leibniz has come to typify, with such among his great successors in science and Classical culture as the great followers of Bernhard Riemann, Albert Einstein and Academician V.I. Vernadsky. This is not to mean an implicit nullification of Indian culture, but rather posed the challenge to India's leading best thinkers of enhancing their own insight into what were the roots of India's view for its own future, as to be recognized through the prism of credible European cultural achievements, as the means to be employed for securing India's own independence.
Contrary to the British trends set into motion under the depraved King Henry VIII, the launching of the intentional trans-Atlantic European settlements in the Americas, expressed a set of reforms which had been promoted by the Fifteenth-century policies of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, policies conveyed by Cusa's associates to the mariner Christopher Columbus, who, so advised directly by Cusa's surviving associates, launched the effort to secure the gems of European culture a place of safety for the true jewels of European culture in the future times in the Americas.
However, the Habsburg dynasty's and related influences over the 1492-1648 interval, prevented a net success of the efforts to colonize South and Central America to the intended effect of Columbus' venture. The first success toward the implicit goals of Nicholas of Cusa, came in the successive Mayflower settlement and the Massachusetts Bay Colony during the successful interval of 1620-1687. The continuation of that success in Massachusetts was temporarily ruined, at least in a significant degree, by the successive interventions of England's James II and William of Orange during the last years of that century. However, Cotton Mather, in particular, sponsored Benjamin Franklin's movement toward Pennsylvania, and into a key role in the development of European science itself, a development which later proved to have been the crucial factor in shaping the unique constitutional character of the young American republic.
The actual formation of the United States as a federal republic with what remains still a globally unique constitution, erupted as a rebuttal of the tyranny just established by a private imperialism, that of the British East India Company in the February 1763 Peace of Paris. Since that time when the establishing of the British East India Company as an empire, occurred, with that conclusion of the "Seven Years War," the reactions against the model-precedent of that same British imperialism's strategic divisions of continental Europe, up to today, defined a tendency in Europe for support for the model of the American republic versus the British empire, as an Eighteenth-century dynamic, which has been echoed, repeatedly, from time to time, as the dominant characteristic of trends in global affairs throughout the world as a whole. All great achievements of globally extended, modern European civilization have coincided with continental European alliances, of the type of the League of Armed Neutrality, in common cause with the U.S. republic's patriots' fight against the predatory British empire of Lord Shelburne and his successors.
However, the British empire was never essentially a colonial empire; it remains essentially, still today, as it was in the time of Lord Shelburne's tyranny, as the empire of a private financial company, a monetarist system which controlled most of what were otherwise called nations through their common subjugation to a supranational form of monetarist system which happens to locate its company headquarters, still presently, since Queen Victoria's coronation as Empress, in Threadneedle Street and Buckingham Palace, but whose essentially satanic soul resides in the same Venice in whom European imperialism has resided for more than a thousand present years to date.
For example: the development of the French Revolution through the induced follies of the misguided Louis XVI, his wife Marie Antoinette, and her brother the Habsburg Emperor Joseph II, resulted in the consolidation of the U.S. republic's great mortal adversary, the British Empire's reign over much of the subsequent history of Europe as a whole, in the notorious Congress of Vienna.
Since those developments, "Old Europe" has been usually under the hegemonic role of what is loosely describable as the British Empire. If we except the leading role of the U.S.A. under President Franklin Roosevelt, and take fully into account the British East India Company's puppets of Boston and Manhattan, to the present day, the effort of the U.S. republic has been to defend itself against take-over by those Venetian monetarist interests usually represented by that British empire which has been the only true empire in the modern world of those centuries up to the present day.
Notably, this was never an empire of the United Kingdom itself. The United Kingdom itself has been a virtual colony of a monetarist system of empire for which the British monarch performs an ironically double function. The so-called British Empire is a somewhat modified expression of that Venetian monetarist tradition whose political direction was set according to the Anglo-Dutch Liberal form of a monetarist imperialism, a global form of the monetarist imperialism which has reigned from within Europe since the Peloponnesian War's set of competitor maritime-monetarist interests engaged in rivalry among the factions of Athens, Corinth, and Syracuse.
Nothing, perhaps, better demonstrates what I have just said as to the actual nature of the British empire and its predecessors, than a study of my "Triple Curve" treatment of the presently onrushing general breakdown-crisis of the world's economic system presently.
The essence of the empire resides in the monetarist system, as a system which makes fools of mighty nations by promoting that delusion known as "free trade," the same delusion underlying the hoax permeating the use of the formulation: "change from a command economy into a market economy:" actually a change from a sovereign nation to a colony of a global imperial power called a reigning monetary system.
There has been no globally significant expression of strategic folly on the planet today, since 1776, which has been more significant in shaping the overall direction of the evolution of modern world history since 1782-1789, than the post-Seven Years War phase of the conflict between the young U.S.A. and what is commonly known as the British Empire today.
Modern Brutish Imperialism
If a careful reconsideration is made of the entire sweep of globally extended European civilization since the Peloponnesian War, there have been no important wars which were not the products of the intention of imperial forces, such as those of Ancient Rome, Byzantium, and the Venetian-controlled Normans, wars which were usually arranged to bring about an intended mutual weakening of a pair or more of gladiatorial forces, that to the intended effect of strengthening the relative, imperial power of the imperial overlord. These were wars which had been fomented among duped adversaries with the intent to bring about the mutual weakening the power of any and all nations which were regarded as a potential challenge to the intended, or reigning, monetarist form of supra-nationality's imperial authority.
The perfect modern example of empire, is that so-called Seven Years War, which established the Anglo-Dutch maritime interest as a global power imposed upon continental Europe, or the two so-called "World Wars" which were, in fact, as Bismarck emphasized for the first case, as a "New Seven Years War." The Israeli-Arab conflict, for example, is nothing other than a ritual pattern of mutual bloodletting, among, chiefly, Arabs and Israelis, fought by Israeli and Arab fools in a modern Nero's arena, as ritual gladiatorial contests arranged for British imperial pleasure and profit.
No recent U.S. President since John F. Kennedy, had understood this fact about British imperialism's world-dominating role as clearly as had past U.S. Presidents Washington, John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, and Franklin Roosevelt, and, no European leader has ever since understood British imperialism more clearly than the Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, who, after his ouster by Wilhelm II, characterized the coming world war being organized by the British Crown Prince Edward Albert as "a new Seven Years War," and, perhaps, the genius of France's Fifth Republic President Charles de Gaulle's initiative with Germany's Chancellor Adenauer.
The point to be emphasized, is as follows.
There exists a world system, which, as since Alexander the Great, has been integrated as a dynamic integrity, as a European system of culture, which has greatly extended itself to include, virtually, dynamically, the entire world of today.
Within this world today, there are different cultures, chiefly those defined by leading language-cultures. They have been naturally national cultures insofar as the economic and related features of the life of the nation are more or less thoroughly independent economically. At the same time, especially in these modern times, national cultures must be constituted as, respectively, perfectly sovereign nation-states, that out of respect for the reliance of essentially sovereign economic independence of all elements of such a form of organized society based on sovereign language-cultures. It is therefore urgent, that the relations among nation-states, must be respectively free, but also harmonious in respect, especially, to physical-economic inter-relations.
The case of Russia today must be examined from this vantage-point in viewing modern history.
I. Britain's Targets For Destruction
In general, there is no more insane and dangerous notion in modern world history than the notion of a nation-state as such as a permanent enemy.
For example: since the close of what has been called World War II, the most notorious case of such a folly, is the now traditional Arab-Israeli conflict, a conflict entirely created and continued by the British Empire over the period from the launching of the Anglo-French project for breaking up the Ottoman Empire, the London-Paris orchestrated "Young Turk" organization, and the British Empire's controlled Israel-Arab, and related "middle east" wars since the close of World War II.
The entire "Middle East," so-called, is a Roman arena like that of the Emperor Nero, in which Israelis and Arabs are ritually called into the arena, where they kill one another, ritually, for the advantage and amusement of the British Empire. Foolish people, instead of kicking the British Empire which controls this theater, out of the region, prate like foolish jesters about negotiating Arab-Israeli peace. The fact of the matter, is that Arabs and Israelis, are merely captive gladiators of a British arena, who kill one another when London either orders it, or may be amused to allow the spectacle to proceed. Why not simply remove the British influence from the region, before deluding oneself with the fantasy that it is possible to organize peace among fools who think of themselves as depraved into a status akin to that of Roman gladiators?
My own recognition that the Soviet Union had entered what I would fairly term "the worst, concluding phase" of the systemic self-ruin of the former Soviet economy, became apparent to me as I witnessed certain disastrous forms of systemic phase-changes introduced to the Soviet economy under Yuri Andropov. The shift which I observed thus, was not immediately as much quantitative, as qualitative. The worst phase, quantitatively, was that made apparent under the leadership of a Mikhail Gorbachov.
The fact of the matter, as both Stalin and Franklin Roosevelt had understood, is that there was never any permanent need for a militarized adversary relationship between the United States and Russia. The conflict existed, essentially, because the British Empire considered the weakening of the United States, and the destruction of both Germany and Russia, as essential imperialist goals; the conflict with Russia persisted for as long as a post-Franklin Roosevelt U.S.A. was duped into viewing Soviet Russia as being necessarily a permanent adversary of the U.S.
Rather, President Franklin Roosevelt had the good sense to know that our World War II alliance with the British Empire was an embarrassing, if avoidable fact caused by Britain's puppet Hitler running out of control of the British monarchy which had created him. It would be by cooperation with Russia, and, hopefully, also with China, that Franklin Roosevelt envisaged a new kind of post-war world organization, a world in which a U.S.A. under a President such as Franklin Roosevelt represented the organization of power in the world under which Roosevelt's intention for a post-war, imperialism-free set of United Nations, a world freed from all likeness of empires and colonialism, could be established through careful attention to the balancing of economic power which, at that moment, lay within U.S.A. hands.
In the meantime, the processes of subversion and destruction of the U.S.A. and its economy, since the death of President Franklin Roosevelt, have been the result of nothing other than the influence of Britain and its Wall Street baboonery over silly, London-controlled fools in key positions of advantage inside the U.S. establishment. The idea that all the world's ills might be solved by destroying some targeted nation, is the passion of a typically British imperial, politically and financially criminal mind.
Sometimes a war is forced upon us, but it is never an undertaking which a sane nation seeks, nor are there any nations which are intrinsically permanent enemies.
I insist that you hear from me, that even the British are not a permanent enemy of civilization, although they often come as close to that role as they are often suspected of intending to do so. The United Kingdom, in and of itself, divided or united, is not a threat. It is the Venetian style of desire for a globalizing new Tower of Babel, which all monetarism represents, which is the enemy. It is not a nation which causes war, but, as the experience of the 1648 Peace of Westphalia attests, globalization. A United Kingdom as a nation-state freed from monetarist ideology and practice, would tend to be an asset, rather than an enemy of mankind.
National sovereignty is a goal which must be sought and defended. Without the development of a nation's people through the means of cultural and related economic development of the scientific-progress-driven development of the artistic and economic culture of a people, there can not be sustainable progress in the condition of life of the speakers of any language. The function of military capability in the world today, is to prevent both warfare, and, an even worse affliction, dionysiac anarchy.
It is no mere coincidence, that special projects within mankind's visible reach today, such as the development of the Moon as the launching-point for the habitation of Mars, are a conception which unites the nations of the world in a common cause for their cooperation in seeking mutual benefit.
The disaster suffered by Russia during the 1980s had been avoidable; but, the worst was yet to come, that as a result of 1989-1990 decisions imposed upon continental Europe under the intentionally vicious orders of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, France's President François Mitterrand, and the assent of U.S. President George H.W. Bush. This decision by that three, was not only intended to destroy Germany, step by step, but placed all of western and central Europe in the position of being the victim of London's policies, a development which was instrumental in the massive looting of Russia, and only less savagely, that of most of the rest of eastern Europe as well. London's intention, already, then, was to bring all of western and central, continental Europe under a British dictatorship of what is presently named the "Euro," and the accompanying destruction of Russia.
Imperialist London and its accomplices then "taught the captive bear to dance" for British amusement. The dance was called a shift from "a command economy, to a market economy." Russia was taught, step by step, to dance to the tune of that nonsense-phrase.
London knew exactly what it was doing. It taught "the bear" to dance to its tune, and ruined virtually every other economy of Europe, including what had been the France of its duped asset, Mitterrand, all that under a virtual Anglo-Dutch monetarist dictatorship over all of western and central continental Europe, too.
Amid all this, one crucial fact bearing on the modern history of Russia since the 1812-15 Congress of Vienna, stands out: Karl Marx had not only been owned, trained and steered by the British Foreign Office of Lord Palmerston, but had passed on what Marx himself had certified as the dogma of the British Empire's Adam Smith, as the gospel of political-economy to be preached to the socialist parties of all Europe, including the Soviet Union. So, since the early 1890s under Prince Edward Albert, the British Labour Party became the popular imperialist party of the British Empire, certified in this role by an aging Frederick Engels, as in a Fabian-sponsored London meeting with Helphand-Parvus of "permanent war, permanent revolution" persuasion, and led thereafter by such as the Fabian H.G. Wells.
Ask, then: What remains, now, as Russia's, and all Europe's way out of that mess which the scientifically silly phrase, "from a command economy, to a market economy" actually represented? The answer comes as follows.
In my own method, I follow Gottfried Leibniz's 1690s introduction of the modern use of the concept of dynamics to physical science and society, the same notion of dynamics which was emphasized for social processes by Percy Bysshe Shelley, as in his A Defence of Poetry. I apply that same conception, here, to the history of transition from the Soviet Union to contemporary Russia, that over the period since the still relatively viable phase of Leonid Brezhnev's leadership during the relatively earlier years of the 1970s.
This poses a crucial intermediate question. How are great changes in governing opinion of nations actually brought about: from either bad to worse, or to better? Percy Bysshe Shelley explained the point in the conclusion of his justly celebrated A Defence of Poetry.
There was, for example, a qualitative shift in dynamics which separates Russia earlier from the new dynamic introduced by Andropov, and a shift which soon made everything apparently much worse, under Gorbachov and those hordes of British-trained carpet-baggers who looted their own Russia almost to the bone during the 1990s, and still beyond. From the firing of the tank artillery, from across the river, on "the White House," under a Boris Yeltsin driven by Russia's new foreign masters, one disaster followed another, up to the changes which began to be brought about under the Putin Presidency. To me, it was apparent, the will of Russia had been, for the moment, broken by these developments, as I had the opportunity to observe such effects, on the ground, during my visits of the 1990s. U.S. Vice-President and British agent Albert Gore was not helpful for U.S.-Russia relations, in the least.
It was under the conditions of the virtual brainwashing of the Russian nation during the worst of the 1990s, that silly verbiage and sillier conceptions such as the characterization of an alleged shift "from a command economy into a market economy" took over the proverbial streets, and soaring rental charges of Moscow. That language, "from a command to a market economy," had no rational meaning, but it was the ritual sort of Orwellian chant demanded by the occupying powers. The induced use of that essentially scientifically meaningless verbiage, became a litany akin in spirit to that of the faithful spoken in the legendary visit of Jonathan Swift's Lemuel Gulliver to Laputa. The words and phrases used in the adopted litanies of an almost post-Russian Russia, were essentially worse than meaningless, the liturgy of a London-prescribed religion which had no god of its own.
There came a moment, in Moscow, in 1996, when I participated in a celebrated, leading moment in Moscow, together with outstanding Russian economists of that time, when the momentary possibility of shifting of U.S.A. relations to Russia from those introduced under the virtual British agent, the U.S. President George H.W. Bush, to President Clinton was an open option; but, Clinton was not prepared to take up that option at that moment, and the silly, but also very bad-tempered, virtual British agent and former Armand Hammer asset, U.S. Vice-President Albert Gore, was already on an insane and destructive rampage of Russia-hating, and, it appeared, Clinton-hating, too. That 1996 decision, by the Clinton Administration, was, as I knew relatively first-hand at that time, a fateful oversight, influenced by the surly ambitions of Vice-President Al Gore in respect to President Clinton's reelection-campaign, which made the international financial crisis of Summer 1998 almost inevitable. Simply, a crucial great moment of opportunity in history, became yet another lost opportunity.
Notably, there had been a long-standing special relationship between the United States and Russia, since the time of the Empress Catherine, and again, as during the period of the U.S. Civil War when the Russian naval fleet mustered to protect the U.S.A. in New York City and on the West Coast. Relations among peoples do not always correspond, especially during the relative short-term, to the long-term common interest.
Russia, repeatedly an ally of the U.S. cause since Catherine, and since the Presidency of Abraham Lincoln, had never been a permanent enemy of the U.S.A., unless a very foolish U.S. government intended to make it so.
Consider the Roots of Modern History
The impetus for the glorious original scientific and related birth of the presently imperilled modern European civilization, is symbolized in stone by the role of Filippo Brunelleschi in using the anti-Euclidean, physical principle of the catenary for the successful crafting of the cupola of the Florence, Italy cathedral of Santa Maria del Fiore. Brunelleschi's genius overlapped the founding of a competent, more general form of modern physical science by the ecumenical Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa's efforts in composing his own De Docta Ignorantia. So, through the influence of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, the modern sovereign nation-state and the birth of modern science were brought forth as a single incident.
The development of a general basis in political practice for the employment and development of Cusa's uniquely original founding of modern science, was soon centered politically in the emergence of modern France under that Louis XI who also inspired the overthrow of the evil Richard III of England, as done by that Henry VII who carried forward the science-driven economic reforms of France's Louis XI for England. By the close of the Sixteenth Century, it was clear, amid the frenzies of this or that meanwhile, that the leading scientific and economic power in Europe was the science-driver economy which was to emerge, during the Seventeenth Century, from the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, under the leadership of Cardinal Mazarin, and in the role in scientific and economic progress under the leadership of France's Jean-Baptiste Colbert, a Colbert who supplied the context for the continuation of the discoveries of Cusa followers Leonardo da Vinci, Johannes Kepler, and Pierre de Fermat, in providing, in turn, the context for the greatest genius, Gottfried Leibniz, of the opening decades of Europe's Eighteenth Century.
This successor of such scientific leaders of the early centuries of modern Europe, was the Leibniz who created the basis for the circles from which came, not only Carl F. Gauss, but Gauss's great successor, the Bernhard Riemann who emerged as that leading modern revolutionary in science who prepared the ground for the accomplishments of the greatest Riemannians, such as Albert Einstein and Russia's (and Ukraine's) Academician V.I. Vernadsky, during the first half of the Twentieth Century.
Meanwhile, through repeated references, in the glimmer of the future emergence of modern European civilization, by Dante Alighieri, to the importance of development of the natural language of Italy, the Italian language, into what was to become the model for the crafting of that modern nation-state later codified as to law by Nicholas of Cusa's Concordancia Catholica, the emerging modern European physical science sought out the links to the proper foundations for modern science, which were to be secured in roots found in such places as the work of the ancient Pythagoreans and Plato. The echo of these steps forward in ancient science from the time of Thales, Heraclitus, Archytas, Plato, and Eratosthenes, which we meet now in the modern developments in Classical modes of Classical artistic and scientific progress, have thus provided the foundations for all of the genuine cultural and political accomplishments which have occurred under the auspices of what we call modern European civilization today.
In the process of this emergence of modern European civilization, Russia and Ukraine have a special role in modern history, a role typified by the fact that Russian culture is a Eurasian culture, rather than merely European. Thus, the role of Czar Peter the Great, in linking the development of Eighteenth-century science in Russia, to such Leibniz-related locations as the mining district of Saxon miners' Freiberg, can be said to have given Russia and Ukraine their modern role, as representing a Eurasian scientific basis for the developments of modern science which are best traced, retrospectively, today, to Academician V.I. Vernadsky.
The special, stunningly ironical cooperation which developed between Academician Vernadsky and Josef Stalin, is, in itself, a crucial lesson-page in understanding the principle of history.
However, let us consider the economic implications first, before turning on to the matter of Vernadsky and Stalin on a later occasion.
Palmerston's & Mazzini's Karl Marx
Since the leading position in the British Foreign Office occupied by, first, Jeremy Bentham and, later, his protégé Lord Palmerston, the four principal nations targeted, since 1815, for subversive infiltration, looting, and ultimate destruction by the British Empire, have been the United States, Germany, Russia, and China.
The preferred methods employed by that Foreign Office for such ventures, are reflections of the same Venetian methods used to precipitate both the Venice-manipulated bankers of Northern Italy and their European clients into a Fourteenth-century New Dark Age. The typical ruse employed for this purpose, was to set the intended victims into long wasting wars, preferably against one another, as, in modern times, the case of every war fought by the United States, through British manipulation, since the death of U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt, through the present time's insane folly of the U.S. President Obama's attachment to the notion of an extended war in Afghanistan now.
Apart from responses to actual aggression, or a desire to loot another nation of part of its territory, or other cheating, there is no decent justification for warfare except defense where no other remedy is available. The essential sovereign, and natural interest of any nation-state, is development of the role of its own specific culture in increasing the longevity and creative intellectual powers of its population over the course of its successive generations. The success of such an intended, peaceful relationship among sovereigns, depends upon contribution of a culture dedicated to service of that common cause of humanity, a cause which is the use of scientific and related culture to increase the potential relative population-density of the population of the planet as a whole. Successful performance in that commitment expresses a commonality of interest of each part of mankind in the commonly shared aims of increasing the potential productivity of every part of the human race, that realized through a constructive partnership among all mankind.
Presently, unfortunately, there is a British Empire, despite every credulous fool's effort to deny that. The unfortunate misunderstanding of the term "British Empire," is that it is employed to connote the notion, that the root of that imperialism lies within characteristics of the population of that United Kingdom, rather than, as is the truth of the matter, that the population of those Isles is as much a victim of the empire, if in its own way of subjugation to the silly Windsors, as any foreigner to Britain, as is shown by the example of the Hitler-like health-care policies practiced against Britons, under former Prime Minister Tony Blair's NICE policy: a Blair concoction which subjects Britons to the kind of pro-genocidal treatments which Adolf Hitler prescribed for Germans and others from September-October 1939 onwards.
All true empires, like the British empire of today, do not find their identity in the population of a particular nation, such as the United Kingdom, but, like any mercenary, which the monetarist interest of the United Kingdom is, not in the population, nor a properly defined actual social class internal to a particular nation, but, in a form of international monetarist interest traced, in medieval through present times, from the Venetian monetarist oligarchy.
Observe! The very term "free trade," connotes an impassioned devotion to the belief that money and price should reign over many nations, in independence from control by national governments. Hence: free trade, as another name for slavery to imperial monetary power. Hence the demand that Russia degrade itself by the adoption of the silly notion of a shift "from a command to a market economy." Consider that effect of that evil belief. Examine the data corresponding, since about 1989, to what I have presented as the pedagogical image of a "Triple Curve:" as a universal physical principle of economy, which is to be contrasted, today, among monetary, financial, and physical assets.
"The Science of The Triple Curve"
The pedagogy of the "Triple Curve" was a heuristic device created and used by me, since January 1996, to illustrate a crucial principle of practiced modern economy in the simplest and most accurate way possible: a "Triple Curve" which I crafted for presentation in January 1996, intended to serve, then, as the keynote image for my candidacy for the Democratic Party's U.S. Presidential nomination for that year. The "Triple Curve" contrasts the combination of a rising monetary emission, as relative to the coincident financial throughput, to the relative physical output per capita and per square kilometer. All of my forecasts since that time, have utilized that comparison as a way of showing the accelerating approach of the world system toward the kind of general, global breakdown-crisis which might be compared with Europe's Fourteenth-century "New Dark Age."
Now the verge of that virtual "New Dark Age," as seen in a local case, in 1923 Germany under French occupation, has been reached, that throughout the planet today. Without cancelling the monetary "curve," thus reducing the economy's organization to a dedication to scientific progress in terms of a financial credit-system and net physical progress per capita and per square kilometer, no recovery of the U.S. economy is now possible.
This requirement is in no sense an arbitrary, or capricious one. It is the fundamental principle embedded in the U.S. Federal Constitution.
By coincidence, the same pattern of today's great folly among nations, is to be recognized in the famous collapse of the Weimar Germany, hyper-inflationary breakdown-crisis of 1923. The difference is that Germany's 1923 crisis occurred under specially imposed Versailles conditionalities which the victors in World War I limited to a region within the borders of Germany. The representation of the presently onrushing global breakdown-crisis, is now depicted as a "Triple Curve" phenomenon, by showing its characteristics as showing the essential characteristics of a global process of a now very early threat of a general breakdown of the economy of every nation of the world.
For example: during the approach to the Summer of 2007, I pointed out in that July, that the rate of increase of monetary aggregate in the U.S.A. exceeded the rate of increase of financial throughput, both at the same time, as there was a complementary, rapidly accelerated decline in the real net output of production, and of physically productive modes of employment. I forecast the immediate onset of a breakdown crisis, on the basis of that evidence, in an international webcast delivered on July 25, 2007.
Since the time of the webcast, the rate of emission of monetary aggregate, relative to the ongoing, relative financial contraction, has zoomed to a degree comparable to the pattern of the case of 1923 Weimar Germany, while the financial throughput has collapsed, and the levels of employment in essential production are at breakdown levels, all at the same time that the rate of monetary effusion surpasses that of all financial bubbles known from earlier European history. A similar pattern exists in most parts of the world, but, most notably, in the Americas and western Europe today.
As in the case of a 1923 Germany whose principal industrial region was occupied by French troops then, the occupation triggered a qualitative change in the ratio of reparations debt to productive output in Germany, which resulted in the hyper-inflationary spiral of a general breakdown-crisis. That case now serves as a model of reference for understanding the onrushing, world-wide monetary-financial-economic situation today.
A Marxian version of Adam Smith's dogma had no relevance for the situation in Weimar Germany, then, or the worldwide crisis of today. However, that was never really a surprise for me in the series of successful forecasts I have presented since my Summer 1956 forecast of a deep recession to be expected by February-March 1957. Notably, I have made less than a dozen forecasts of such critical developments through the present time, and all have been successful as forecasts go.
U.S.A. Or The European Model
The economy and related political characteristics of the U.S.A. are unique among nations, still today. This distinction may be summed up in purely economic terms, as the fact that what the U.S. Constitution prescribes is a credit system, rather than a monetary system.
This fact has much to do with the reality that the English-language-led colonization of North America was not organized by refugees, but by those who endeavored to rescue the viable aspects of European cultures from the grip of pro-oligarchical rule over monetarist systems which were modelled on the Venetian system of supra-national monetary imperialism. The notion of "free trade," is a notion of a monetary system, such as that of the imperialist John Maynard Keynes, as being above the control of sovereign nation-state governments; that is the essentially imperialist character and the essence in practice of every national European political system still today. The U.S.A.'s origins and Federal Constitution are premised on outlawing a monetary system, by adoption of a constitutional credit-system, instead.
The paradigm on which this character of the future United States depended, was set into motion by the development of the 1620-1687 interval of the development of both the initial Plymouth colony and the Massachusetts Bay Colony, prior to the crushing of Massachusetts from England by the succession of Kings James II and William of Orange. However, by aid of the leading role of Gottfried Leibniz in England, during a crucial part of the reign of Queen Anne, the anti-monetarist model of 1620-1687 Massachusetts was revived by circles inside the North American colonies around what became consolidated as the leadership of the scientist and international political figure Benjamin Franklin.
The character of this specific distinction, and systemic advantage, of the U.S.A. Constitution from that of all other nations of the world, lies in the constitutional, anti-monetarist exclusion of any semblance of a European monetarist system by the constitutional specification of a protectionist form of national credit-system, a feature which was already characteristic of the pre-1688-1689 practices in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. The core of the U.S. Constitution's realization of its own Preamble was the concept of national banking under a credit-system which was militantly opposed to European forms of monetary systems.
II. The American System as a Remedy
My associate Anton Chaitkin developed a chronicle, entitled Treason in America, in successively amplified editions, tracing the history of the British conflict with the United States from, essentially, the run-up to the effects of the February 1763 establishment of the British empire as a private-owned imperial power under the leadership of the British East India Company's Lord Shelburne. The crucial role of Gottfried Leibniz, then operating from inside England, was elaborated by the historian H. Graham Lowry in his How the Nation Was Won: America's Untold Story, Vol. I.
Virtually no relevant sort of notable figure in Eurasia, living today, has shown me any competent knowledge, beyond a dimly perceived view of the names and some crucial facts concerning Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, of the origins, internal history, or essential distinctions of character of the United States and its systemically superior quality of unique constitution.
Europeans today, even most scholarly professionals, view the history of the United States through the prism of British Liberalism, rather than appreciating the principled fact of the American Revolution, the fact that we of the U.S.A., and Britain are deeply divided by the sharing of a common language. This presently general ignorance of the U.S.A.'s essential characteristics in Europe today, is a product of the dominant influence of British Liberalism throughout Europe since the rise of the existentialism of the "68ers" throughout the leading circles of Europe, generally, still today.
Peel away the influence of London's allies and virtual puppets among the Wall Street predators, and you are confronted with a character of the U.S. citizenry which is currently expressed by the August-October outbreak of a "mass strike," in Rosa Luxemburg's sense of that term, a sense of the term comparable to that of late 1989 Saxony which brought down the DDR regime with the cries of "Wir sind das Volk!" The irony of that development in Saxony, then, reflected the fact that Saxony, during its incarnation under the East Germany regime, did not suffer the demoralizing effects of the depraved, post-World War II Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF), a CCF which had undermined the morals and culture of post-World War II western Europe, especially in the matter of art, a moral degeneration respecting trends in artistic principles which spilled over into a degeneration within mathematical-physical practice, especially among the presently reigning adult generation.
In western Europe, as, to a large degree, inside the United States, what became the so-called "white collar," typically university-educated generation born after the close of the 1939-1945 "Second World War," was massively indoctrinated with a Liberal, essentially anti-Franklin Roosevelt ideology, one echoing what patriotic generations of Americans had, earlier, despised as British Liberalism, often despised as Liberalism's Wall Street and kindred expressions inside the U.S. itself. Although the same species of Liberal corruption was spread against Classical European culture in the continental Europe of France's Charles de Gaulle and Germany's Konrad Adenauer, the traditionally patriotic U.S. citizen's deeply embedded, patriotic contempt for European liberalism, has remained, despite the "Baby Boomer" generation, a stubborn factor of lurking opposition to what became, since 1968, the deep moral-cultural corruption represented by the leading strata of the trans-Atlantic "68er" generation itself gained relative ascendancy under "the 68ers."
The characteristics of the mass-strike eruption which presently threatens to bring about the near-extinction of the Democratic Party in the U.S. Congress during the next general election of 2010, is, in significant degree, a sign that the so-called Liberal, middle-class-born, "68er" generation is nearing the terminal moment of its political-cultural ebb-tide in control over the American psyche. Unfortunately, the moral-cultural damage left behind by that generation's own style in Liberalism is also leaving a great deal of moral wreckage behind, globally, in its passing.
The case of the intellectual carnage spread among the various nationalities of the former Soviet Union, while not an exact copy of the "Baby Boomer generation" of western Europe and the Americas, is comparable in other respects.
The principal evil afflicting the world presently, is what is customarily defined as Anglo-Dutch "Liberalism," a system of belief which was introduced at the close of the Sixteenth Century as a system of neo-Aristotelean belief introduced by the Venetian Paolo Sarpi, and premised, by Sarpi on his own and his lackey's (Galileo Galilei's) version of a resurrection of the dogma of the medieval William of Ockham.
It has been the spread of such strains of Liberalism within what had been component parts of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, which are the principal expressions of the strategically relevant forms of moral corruption in high places within the region of what had been the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact associates, prior to the developments of 1989.
How The SDI Was Born
In 1976, a copy of a letter written by an associate of the team of David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission protégé Zbigniew Brzezinski, fell into my hands.
That letter specified an intended launching of a nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union once a Democratic candidate were to be elected to supersede President Gerald Ford. What that letter outlined, was a virtual copy of Bertrand Russell's own published September 1946 announcement of a plan for a "preventive nuclear attack" on a Soviet Union which Russell believed would not be able to match U.S. nuclear capability in the available time.
Since I was a candidate for U.S. President at that point in 1976, I decided that it was my obligation to react to this knowledge which I gained in investigation of the matter of that letter, to blow the lid off that Trilateral Commission-brewed scheme. My first action was to blow the story in two nation-wide television broadcasts. Blowing the cover on the plot succeeded, and also resulted in death-threats against me from relevant high-level circles after Brzezinski's Carter Administration entered office.
My parallel action was to follow through on indications of means in development by which a pre-emptive nuclear assault of the intended type could be deprived of its intended result. This latter aspect of my work, which President Ronald Reagan named the SDI, became a featured element within my own 1979-1980 campaign for the U.S. Democratic Presidential nomination.
Since I had access to relevant scientific capabilities, I had crafted an intended approach by the U.S. government to the Soviet government for joint action to preclude any renewal of the Trilateral Commission's intended revival of an echo of Bertrand Russell's 1946 "preventive nuclear strike" scheme. There were also warnings that some circles in the Soviet Union might be less resistant to a revival of something akin to Russell's 1946 scheme.
The initial reaction to my proposal from within relevant 1981 post-election circles of the new Reagan Administration, from relevant sections of both the Soviet Union and the new U.S. Administration, was encouraging, until Yuri Andropov became Soviet General Secretary, even when President Reagan himself had made the first of his public offers to the Soviet government. The foolish rejection of the proffer by Andropov was disastrous for all parties concernedexcept London-controlled circles on both sides of the U.S.A.-Soviet equation; the later reaction from London's preferred choice, London-leaning Mikhail Gorbachov, was a strategically insane posture which led directly into the disintegration of the Soviet Union, and into the general mess which the entire world has experienced, chain-reaction-style, over the subsequent decade.
The object of the SDI had not been to deploy such a system in any sense of "full" at that time, or for some time to come. The agreement to cooperate in developing a scientific capability was intended to be the commitment which would establish an effective barrier against any relevant party's inclination to launch something like Bertrand Russell's 1946 proposal of establishing world government through nuclear terrorism.
As reformed "war hawk" Edward Teller came over to the cause of SDI, his characterization of the prospect uttered by him in the conclusion of the relevant Erice conference, was cooperation with the Soviet government on behalf of "the common aims of mankind." No one of importance but some British imperialist hard-heads and their anglophile sympathizers disagreed.
Today, the same goal as expressed in considerably changed circumstances, is keynoted by the prospect of re-launching the goals of the space-program which had withered away under and after President Richard Nixon. Now, as for the principal authors who shared my initiative for what become the SDI, the same spirit of building constructive relations out of a setting of conflicts through transformation of conflicts into causes for the mutually advantageous expressions of cooperation among respectively sovereign nation-state republics, remains. Such a general remedy for relations upon this planet now, depends, chiefly, for the coming century or two, on the principle expressed by today's insurgent intention to mobilize around the mission of a future Mars landing.