Executive Intelligence Review
This article appears in the March 11, 2011 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
A REFLECTION ON CHARLES DE GAULLE:

‘A Europe of the Nations’

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr

February 28, 2011

[PDF version of this article]


Even among many, so to speak, in "high places," commonplace opinion is often expressed as the presumption that those ideas which control the behavior of even historically prominent figures of our time, were actually "owned" by them. History, when properly studied, proffers contrary evidence. It is not existing opinions which shape the destiny of peoples, but the lack of those discoveries of previously unknown universal principles, without which decadence prevails.

Take the case of what was both the famous, and also the infamous in the May 1960, Paris meeting of four heads of government, two being Presidents of their respective republics, Charles de Gaulle and Dwight Eisenhower, the third the Soviet Union's Nikita Khrushchov, and the fourth, witting or not, virtual "Leporello" of the occasion, the British Prime Minister, Harold MacMillan.[1]

Technically, all competent historians, and also actually capable leaders of great nations at that time, have understood, that the fact is, that there were actually five key figures involved in shaping the outcome of that meeting, the fifth a prominent figure lurking behind those Paris events, who was acting, off-stage, in the virtually interchangeable role of either John Foster Dulles, or his brother Allen, in the matter of the "U-2" affair. At that time, both Dulles brothers were already properly infamous in their roles as of the variety of worse than merely typical Wall Street varieties of British-agents-in-fact.

As things turned out, that Paris meeting of May 16, 1960, proved to be what both Presidents de Gaulle and Eisenhower recognized, already during the course of that occasion, to be a sharp, tragic turn in the shaping of subsequent world history, as the assassination of a later U.S. President, John F. Kennedy, would soon demonstrate this fact in a very special way.

At a later time, during the early 1980s, when my unique accomplishments in an approach to economic forecasting had already been carried over into access to strategic intelligence outlooks on a broader and higher, politically strategic level than economic forecasting as such, I came to know that Khrushchov had been an asset of British intelligence services. Similarly, later, during the course of my efforts to bring about what President Ronald Reagan would adopt under the name of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), Soviet leaders Andropov and Gorbachov would prove themselves to be essentially the same as Khrushchov before them.

Even today, I am not prepared, to presume that British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan had a full comprehension of the implications of Khrushchov's role in that and subsequent adventures; but, it is also clear, nonetheless, that both Presidents de Gaulle and Eisenhower did understand the ominous implications of Khrushchov's behavior at that moment, at least in a large degree. In nearby Germany, a bystander of the occasion, Germany's Konrad Adenauer, most probably understood that, too. Overall, the compact which Khrushchov had previously struck with the most evil man of his century, Bertrand Russell, is something I would come to know from knowledge received on the proceedings of a notable meeting of Britain's World Parliamentarians for World Government (WPWG), the forerunner of the present subjugation of much of continental Europe to a "Euro" system. That knowledge does not entirely explain Khrushchov's thermonuclear follies of the early 1960s; but, it does enable us, today, to reach a clearer understanding of those deeper currents of British Romantic imperialism which should have become clear to qualified leading strategists at the conclusion of the 1960 Paris "summit."

Today, in the light of the evil done by such as Margaret Thatcher, François Mitterrand, and U.S. President George H.W. Bush in the events of 1989-90 and beyond, the true dimensions of the evil wrought by Khrushchov in that 1960 Paris meeting, are to be recognized, now, in the profoundly existential crisis of civilization which had been centered in the trans-Atlantic region, during both the 1960 Paris meeting, and in the roles of Thatcher, Mitterrand, and President George H.W. Bush, three decades later.


Today, at the age of approximately half-past my eighty-eighth birthday, I command a view of today's current experience of life which differs, by a margin of certain strategically crucial advantages, from that of my associates in the age-range presently between their late twenties, and early to late thirties. I know that the proverbial guts were already taken out of many of even my own generation during and following the awful Truman years, and, also, most among the immediately younger, so-called "Baby Boomer" generation; I knew that even worse effects are to be traced to the general impact of the assassinations of President Kennedy and his brother Robert, effects which produced the deep, popular demoralization associated with what followed those deaths.

For those of us from my own generation, while we were facing military duties overseas under war-time conditions of the 1939-1945 interval, our commitment to service during those years had presented us, then, with a sense of "immortality" which meant something to us, then and even later in our lives. Little such optimism remains among those who reached adulthood in the wake of the assassination of the Presidential figures of John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert, especially as the "Baby Boomers' " parents' post-war experience of being "let down," was combined with the general quality of the aftermath of post-Spring 1968.[2]

Today, most of those from my own age, are either deceased, or have given up the fight in some other way. Yet, the real issues which we confronted through the August 1971 termination of that Bretton Woods reform on which the hopes of a decent future depended, are, for me and some other survivors, clues to what should have been learned from the experience of earlier generations, learned as a nagging memory within us, which exists somewhere, deep within us, to the present time. Within us, thus, there is the capability for recognizing something very real, which is also deeply immortal. It is a prescience of the meaning of the lives of those who have preceded us, and of the proper meaning of what we will have lived when we had passed on. It is in that quality of knowledge which partakes of a sense of the continuing immortality passed down to younger people, which is the only competent quality for leadership for this time of society's existential crises, which can be found today.[3]

The decade-long U.S. war begun in Indo-China in the immediate aftermath of the assassination of President Kennedy, and, still later, the aftermath of the added effect of the "68er" phenomenon, had taken the proverbial "stuffing" out of the playmates from among a very significant, if still, then, a minor portion of the "Baby Boomer generation."[4]

As Presidents Eisenhower and de Gaulle were reported to have exchanged glances during the course of Khrushchov's May 1960 Paris rant, a powerful, wordless, but agonized spirit of devotion to the future of mankind passed between the two, that in the presence of an awe-struck British Prime Minister; the two knew, then, such thoughts of the future as I have just identified, in opening this report; such consequences are still resonating here with me in writing these words today.[5]

Take that moment shared between those two Presidents, then, and compare that with the case of what was carried into the following, Fifteenth Century, from the earlier time when Dante Alighieri had departed Venice to the mystery of his death. As we know from sundry authorities, including Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, that in that bench-mark of modern history which was to be the great ecumenical Council of Florence, Dante was indeed dead, but what Dante had planted in his future's generations, had not died.

Think of that heritage of Cusa by reference to the great ecumenical principle of the Treaty of Westphalia, despite the evil represented by that most evil enemy of Westphalia, the William of Orange who carried the flag of the Satanic Paolo Sarpi's New Venetian Party into the British Isles. This was the William of Orange who would engender that monstrously evil tradition which is now expressed as by the current form of the British Empire conducted under the flag of Lord Jacob Rothschild's predatory creation, the Inter-Alpha Group. That latter is the group which has been the chief, hyper-inflationary instrument of global evil preying upon our planet presently, since Summer 1971.

The question which the past events of the 1960s pose for us still today, in the most lively way, is: "To what degree did Presidents de Gaulle and Eisenhower grasp the longer-term issues of policy which we would have had to consider, had their intention for the Paris meeting of May 1960 not failed?" I take up here and now, precisely that same question as having been being posed afresh by the fact of my October 12, 1988 address at the Berlin Bristol-Kempinski Hotel. I refer to your attention here, the presently deeper, and presently clearer implications of the concern which I had expressed in what proved to be, unfortunately, the concern I presented implicitly in that Berlin address.

The same issue of an unthinkable risk of thermonuclear confrontation between the western powers and the Warsaw Pact, a fear which had haunted the world during and following the Khrushchov crises of the early 1960s, had come up again as the same issue during the late 1970s and 1980s, but, this time, in a new expression of a madness which was being cooked up by the circles associated with Zbigniew Brzezinski's and David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission, as that threat emerged during the run-up to the rabidly reckless, U.S. November 1976 Presidential election.

The earlier crisis of May 1960, must also be reconsidered in the light of my initiating role in what became known as the U.S. Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) under President Ronald Reagan. The thoughts which had passed, so clearly, between Presidents Eisenhower and de Gaulle, during the May 1960 meeting with Khrushchov, should be traced into the later implications of an SDI which would be, still today, the key for understanding all the Hell the world has accumulated since the trio of Mitterrand, Thatcher, and Bush ruined the great opportunity which Germany's Chancellor Kohl had seized for a moment as an occasion of great, constructive opportunity. It was the same opportunity for which I had worked as what would become known as the SDI, worked from the late 1970s into 1989, to prevent the global catastrophe which the eternally vicious and contemptible Bush, Mitterrand, and Thatcher fabricated in 1989-91.

That raw moral failure by Thatcher, Mitterrand, and Bush, has now become the present, ugly legacy of the now immediately ongoing, hyper-inflationary breakdown-crisis now menacing the entirety of our planet.

The attempts by Presidents de Gaulle and Eisenhower in May 1960, had been echoed by the attempts expressed by my own and others' efforts in the case of SDI. These were attempts to be considered as being necessary, if only provisional expressions of what should have become some higher purpose of the quality already expressed in a certain appropriate intimation by the frustrated 1960 efforts of Presidents Eisenhower and de Gaulle. This point resonated in what was to be shown by President de Gaulle's emphasis on the prospect of a Europe of sovereign states from "the Atlantic to the Urals," to which I referred in my October 1988 Kempinski Hotel address. It was, also, a notion which had been expressed by Dr. Edward Teller, in support of what was to become "the SDI" as heralded at Erice, as "the common aims of mankind."

All of those advances in the direction typified by the May 1960 effort of Presidents de Gaulle and Eisenhower, have had an implicit goal which lies beyond the importance of what had been the preliminary steps towards a certain ultimate objective. You should ask: "What is that ultimate political objective?" What had all humanity lost, when the Soviet Union's foolish Yuri Andropov summarily rejected even the discussion of what President Ronald Reagan had presented as the "SDI"?

What we have as the actually proffered hope for the needed remedy, even despite Khrushchov's stunt of May 1960, is typified, thus far, by three measures taken in that direction by President Charles de Gaulle. First, the accord between President de Gaulle and Germany's Chancellor Konrad Adenauer; second, de Gaulle's emphasis upon a system of respectively sovereign nation-states, "from the Atlantic to the Urals;" and third, my initiative for the idea which President Reagan announced as the SDI. The follies of Yuri Andropov and Gorbachov spelled the virtual inevitability of the kind of doom which the Soviet system and its outgrowths fell into, once Germany had been condemned to the Hell which was inherent in the notion of a British imperial puppet to be designed as the "post-Westphalian" Euro system, or, in plainer words, "a new dark age" for all humanity.

In President Charles de Gaulle's passage from a role as a brilliant hero of World War II, to becoming the more elevated quality of intellect of his role in the Fifth Republic's Presidency, we are supplied a sense of his rise toward greatness; but, our insight into that matter remains, presently, dangerously incomplete on some accounts. This invokes the rule, that the good we do in the present, is illustrated by viewing that hoped-for experience as the fulfilment of what can be evoked as a future prepared by the generations now standing before us. Such is our true immortality among the living. Yet, at the same time, we must add a note of sadness. If we do not sense the immortality of our predecessors, how could we become confident of our own? Here lies the truly great meaning of actual immortality, like that of the great artist and great, and true scientific discoverer, as in the composition of true Classical tragedy.

True immortality lies not as much in what we experience, as much as what our life's work might inspire. True life is not a thing; it is an efficiently ongoing process of recreating, and growing the good, from past generations, by successive generations. Let us, therefore, be good for mankind's future today, as the good which we very old ones might never live to see, but which they should be certain is coming. That must be the conception of society which is implicit in the heroic role of Presidents de Gaulle and Eisenhower in May 1960. What, therefore, is that conception, implicitly?

I. The Human Principle of Nationhood

It will be observed, by turning attention to the work of my associates among what is known as "the basement team," that our attention there has been strongly focused upon indications of the correspondence between 62-millions years phase-shifts in the cycle of our galaxy and the study of the qualitative shifts in the organization of sets of living species on Earth. The same team is assembling an account of the evolution of life on Earth showing that the characteristic of life in the universe is systemically anti-entropic, contrary to what has become, with unfortunate consequences for all mankind presently, the widely believed, but wrong-headed myth of a so-called "Second Law of Thermodynamics."

Anyone who considers the argument which condemns the anti-scientific fraud by Aristotle, a fraud which was famously exposed as such by Philo of Alexandria, anyone who is familiar with the relevant "history" of the anti-entropic chemistry of the evolution of life-forms on Earth, must be impelled to take into account the evidence to the effect, that the existence of the intrinsically creative principle of life, especially that of the special quality of creativity known to us as unique to human life, is also the expression of a driving principle of the universe.

So, the evidence bearing on the case of the 62 millions-year cycle in our galaxy points our attention to such matters. The Creator is not lacking in creativity; thus, given the evidence of a universal anti-entropy, the so-called "Second Law of Thermodynamics" is simply a fraud rooted in the role of the ancient evil followers of the doctrine of the so-called "oligarchical principle" of social tyranny associated with the legend of an Olympian Zeus, a myth imposed, as by a ruling species of so-called "gods" over their victims, the serfs, and the human beings generally.

The content of the immediately preceding paragraphs of this chapter is intended tell us something of crucial importance for considering the political problems gripping the entire human population of this planet today, especially the question implicitly posed by reflection on the implications of the brutish behavior of the Soviet Union's Nikita Khrushchov in the matter of the May 1960 Paris negotiations which had been sponsored by Presidents de Gaulle and Eisenhower.

That fact is of special historical importance still today, especially when one takes into account the pure evil which Margaret Thatcher, François Mitterrand, and George H.W. Bush dumped upon continental Europe and beyond, in their decision to degrade continental Europe then, and Ireland today, into conditions akin to those of the serfs and slaves of the successive four stages of the Roman Empire which have led into the British Empire of Lord Jacob Rothschild's now virtually bankrupt, crumbling, Inter-Alpha System and its "BRIC" "bad-bank-style" extension today.

The essence of the criminality inherent in the present direction of British imperial policies' overreach over other parts of the world today, is to be recognized as a modern echo of the infamous distinctions of those ancient tyrants who were called "gods," as distinct from the then contemporary system of merely "mortal" serfs and slaves. Such was a tradition which was embodied in the four distinct, historical stages of the successive rises and falls of the Roman monetarist Empire. It is a tradition which lingers in a slightly altered appearance, presently.

That set of four stages lists the original Rome, Byzantium, the old Venetian system of the time of the Norman and related "Crusaders," and the New Venetian System whose flag was that which the monstrously evil William of Orange carried into the building of the foundations of the fourth stage of the Roman Empire, which was to emerge as the British Empire.

Thus, England was transformed by the 1763 Peace of Paris into that establishing of the British Empire of the British East India Company, whose imperialist legacy still dominates the planet through the mechanisms of the reign of the essential quality of any true empire, a monetarist system such as the three Roman empires which preceded it, as in the British monarchy's role as the now ultimately doomed "Fourth Rome," still today.

The inherent evil represented by, and spread by, chiefly, the British empire's monetarist system, still today, is to be recognized as a more recent guise of the same old system of the reign of those men called "gods," over the mere mortals which were the serfs and human cattle of the ancient oligarchical system which has since ruled the Mediterranean and its littoral, throughout most of its known existence on record today. The use of monetarist systems as an essential, controlling instrument of imperialism, has been the naked fact of the Roman empire in all four of its principal known expressions (ancient Rome, Byzantium, Old Venice of the Crusader tradition, and the succession of the Habsburg and British imperial monetarist system today).

The collapse of the Soviet system, should have been the occasion which should have brought on the termination of those modern forms of "creative destruction" associated with such as British arms-trafficking agent Alexander Helphand's expressed doctrine of "permanent warfare, permanent revolution," which was the concept of the role for which Helphand had acted on British behalf. A global peace of the sort which U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt had intended for the post-war period, had he lived, would have been a peace intended to become based on, chiefly, a system of partnership among sovereign nations, initiated by a partnership among the United States, the Soviet Union, China, and embracing and controlling Britain, that with the accompanying, controlling intention that a reorganized western Europe might proceed to bring to an end the systems of virtual slavery which the British and like colonialist systems had imposed upon oppressed subject peoples throughout the planet.

With the death of President Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill's puppet, U.S. President Harry S Truman, submitted to the will of Winston Churchill's British imperialist masters, reversing every crucial intention for the post-war world which had been set forth by President Franklin Roosevelt.

In an actually living history, honest Presidents of our United States must not hope to bring about the establishment of something corresponding to the notion of a utopian performance in relations among nations and peoples. Rather, competent Presidents of our United States, must build a pathway to that which shall become those "common aims of mankind" which are expressed, by type, in a certain sense of direction of development consistent with those innate powers of creativity which are specific to the human species. This must be the essential foundation for such a perspective, such an essential principle of the law expressed by that Preamble which is the fundamental law of a direction of purpose and progress in our own Federal Constitution.

Unfortunately, the evil inherent in President Truman's support of Winston Churchill's sweeping overturn of President Roosevelt's intention for the post-World War II peace, was repeated in 1989-1990. The prospect of that peace had proffered the occasion to bring giant steps toward that same kind of goal among nations into being, but, instead, it was crushed again, as if at birth, by the array of authors of destruction, the Thatcher, Mitterrand, and Bush, who continued the mismanagement of history, to the sorrow of Europe and our own republic now.

At the present time, the particular system which the British empire and its puppet Mitterrand had mustered as the threat to prevent the liberation of Europe from the British imperial yoke, should have been the occasion to seize the fresh opportunity to take that first step for which the time had come, the launching of a science-driver program based on the supercession of permanent warfare by cooperation in scientific revolutions shared among the peoples and nations of the planet as a whole.

So, we had the horrible act of consent to the scheme presented by Thatcher and Mitterrand, which was backed by a wretched U.S. President George H.W. Bush who was the son of the man who financed Adolf Hitler into power on behalf of the Bank of England and its Wall Street partner Brown Brothers Harriman. That legacy of the partnership among the financial predators of London and Wall Street, had destroyed the hope for a Westphalian system of continental Europe's respectively sovereign nation-states, destroying the former Soviet Union, its components and associates, all done in a mass-murderous devotion to the Nietzschean fascism of "creative destruction" of economists in the following of Werner Sombart and Joseph Schumpeter.

The result of that process of destruction by such as the followers of Joseph Schumpeter's doctrine of "creative destruction," which has absolutely dominated the planet's economy as a whole increasingly since the fateful error of the August 1971 termination of the Bretton Woods system, has now brought the entire planet into a chain-reaction form of physical-economic collapse. Therefore, we must now destroy that British imperialist system of monetarism which echoes the Schumpeter doctrine, or we would become accomplices in submitting to watching civilization die in the greatest dark age yet known to history. That would soon became a dark age launched under the direction of the world empire, that British Empire which owns the puppet-President Barack Obama, an empire which has been managed jointly by an assembly of the clinically insane Wall Street, the British monarchy, Lord Jacob Rothschild's currently bankrupt, Inter-Alpha Group, and that "bad bank" subsidiary of the Inter-Alpha Group known as "the BRIC."

The "Inferno" described symbolically by Dante Alighieri, has now almost arrived. A sweeping change from the present course of British domination of the world's collapsing economy, is that which is most urgently required. We must understand the reported, angered sadness which passed over the expressions of Presidents de Gaulle and Eisenhower while Khrushchov was ranting in Paris; this must be understood as having been a prescience of an entire planet's presently onrushing catastrophe. We should have been made aware of this, in that occasion in Paris, which was experienced by those two Presidents then, a half-century ago. As it has turned out, British asset Khrushchov was acting not only as the misbehaving ungod-child of the crisis which not only gripped Russia then, but it is Khrushchov's legacy centered on May 1960, which still menaces the entirety of the trans-Atlantic community of nations, and much more, now.[6]

II. Franklin Roosevelt & Charles de Gaulle

It is a very fair estimate, that had U.S.A. President Franklin D. Roosevelt not done what he did from the outset of his Presidency, civilization would have died throughout the planet over the course of the 1930s. For a better understanding of the continuing role which the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt means for not only the present United States, but the world more broadly, under the global breakdown-crisis under way today, consider a crucial change in the world outlook of France's great war-time hero, the President Charles de Gaulle who had joined with another former war-time leader in the fight against the Adolf Hitler tyranny, U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower, in creating the May 1960 "summit" which was the subject of the preceding chapter of this report.

The President Charles de Gaulle of France's Fifth Republic who had played a leading part in France's role for the defeat of the Hitler forces during World War II, was, in many essential respects, still the hero he had been during that war; but, otherwise, the President de Gaulle of the Fifth Republic had risen to a higher level of understanding as a great statesmen than the same de Gaulle when still fresh from his share in the victory against Hitler back at the close of World War II.

The General and President Charles de Gaulle who had led his nation in its part in the victory against the Nazi tyranny, had grown significantly as a greater statesman by the time of his leadership of the Fifth Republic. His own war-time memoirs from what we called "World War II," present us with the man, meeting with President Eisenhower in May 1960, who had risen to a qualitatively higher level of strategic outlook on the world at large, in 1960, than the Charles de Gaulle who had led the celebration in 1944 Paris, approximately sixteen years before.

Yet, as in the time of his celebrated public address of 1958, "Aidez moi!," he had become a leading statesman in respect to the grandeur of his impassioned and elegant humility in face of the world at the close of World War II, but, nonetheless a man with a scarcely concealed European's resentment against the American system of political-economy. That earlier de Gaulle of 1944, as expressed in his war-time memoirs, had now become, mainly, if not entirely, superseded by the common concerns of the type which he shared with President Eisenhower on that 1960 occasion.

The change which had occurred in him is clear to me today; my view of that change in him I report here, is premised, to a significant degree, on my painstaking reading, and rereading of his war-time memoir during the course of the recent months of attention to this subject; but, my present estimate of the quality of that change in him which I have adduced in my reflections on that, is not his conclusions, but my own, as follows.

In such cases of autobiographical accounts of a person's role as a strategic leader within the course of a virtually world-wide war, what the author writes as his explicit statements respecting developments, often has even far less importance than reading what we can recognize as insight into the author's mind adduced from seeing the context which defines the implicitly higher implications of "reading between the lines," as done by recognizing the unstated context of the thought explicitly stated.

My personal admiration of the de Gaulle of the Fifth Republic, as I knew of him, so to speak "second hand," from leading surviving close associates of his with whom I became associated during the late 1970s and 1980s, has left an impression which is illuminated by subsequent reflection on more nearly three decades since, a reflection which persists beyond doubt. However, my account of these matters in this present report, is not essentially about President de Gaulle; the issue is the context of the moral decline of those among leading circles of Europe who, over more than two decades, have recently betrayed the great 1648 Peace of Westphalia by their impulse to degrade their nations, such as those of continental Europe, into becoming the wretched colonies of a British Empire which in itself seems, presently, to be already doomed to an early catastrophe, most probably, as trends go, before the present year were out.

The theme to be considered in this chapter, by turning our attention to focus on these presently so perilous times, is the following.

The relevance of the importance I am placing on the subject of both President Charles de Gaulle's highly prejudiced war-time view of President Franklin Roosevelt, and the already referenced, May 1960 moment of collaboration between Presidents de Gaulle and Eisenhower, is the systemic failure of western and central Europe, still today, to grasp the meaning of the creation of a certain nation, our United States, whose existence is based on a true affinity with the roots of modern European culture in the mid-Fifteenth-century Renaissance, and which is, still today, an affinity placed at a transoceanic distance, and more, from the heritable political and cultural diseases of a stubbornly deep-rooted traditionally oligarchical heritage within "Old Europe."

Russia, for Example

For example: the greatest of the tragedies of Russia, up to the present day, has been the fact that Russia, in its official sentiments, is still all too traditionally European, and all too British for its own good.

For example: consider, on deep background, Russia's former adaptation to the British-created "Young Europe" Communism which had been minted by Lord Palmerston's Foreign Office puppet, the tragically unwitting, poor Karl Marx, a man who did not know that his British owner of that time was the same Lord Palmerston whom a rather silly Marx considered at some literary length to be "a Russian spy." Consider, for example, the contrasting, scientific spirit of a later Russia whose most excellent expression of science has been the contribution of the great follower of Bernhard Riemann, and also of Dmitri Mendeleyev, the now late Academician V.I. Vernadsky.

The essence of the fallacy in Karl Marx's beliefs, is that he was a publicly avowed devotee of the same Adam Smith who would be properly considered as not merely an immoral wretch, but who had been at all documented times known to me today, also a fascist-in-principle, still today.

Consider the notion of that cult of depravity known as British Liberalism, the evil doctrine of Smith and his essential predecessor Paolo Sarpi. Smith, like Sarpi, insists that the human individual is not permitted to know anything but the proposed surrogate for "truth" which is designated by those of those two creatures, and their like: the notion of presumed pleasure and pain, That perversion, called liberalism, is a virtual religion among European governments today!

It was to defeat that force of evil radiated throughout "Old Europe," that the boldest children of Europe created an anti-oligarchical form of government in what became known as the original Massachusetts Bay Colony—prior to the "New Venetian" butcher, the William of Orange whose arrival in the British Isles was key in crushing that original Charter of that colony, that Charter which was the root from which the later republic of the United States would be established.

Therefore, it should not be surprising to us now, that the relatively younger Charles de Gaulle of 1940-1946, who had been reared within those institutions of a Europe which had remained blinded by conditioning to the Roman imperial tradition of monetarism, would consider what was actually the superior system of government, that of the United States, as something to be regarded as quaintly strange to the monetarist essence of European systems, the systems of both their governments at home, and their colonialist systems abroad. The Europeans tended to show a certain deference to a tradition of error permeating the stubbornly persisting old habits of that traditionally oligarchical old Europe from which the founders of the United States had fled, going abroad according to the systemic quality of advice which they had received from Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa.

Consider the work of three American historians associated with me, the professional American historian H. Graham Lowry of How The Nation Was Won,[7] Anton Chaitkin's Treason in America,[8] and Alan Salisbury's The Civil War and the American System.[9] Most Europeans today, even professional historians, remain ignorant of the great battle for freedom which the patriots of the United States continue to fight against the all too European, British imperial financier interests which continue to dominate the U.S. financier faction of our U.S.A.—my republic's "enemies from within," in such all-too-British financier's locations such as Boston, New York City's Wall Street, and Chicago, still today.

The Charles de Gaulle of his World War II memoirs knew little of this, as is the case with most leading, or popular circles in Europe, still today. Few European leaders seem to know the difference between a European imperialist's monetary systems and an American credit system; European leaders, still today, rarely recognize the imperialist system of the British system which rules continental Europe to the present day.

So, Europeans, even those misguided Europeans with close ties to the United States during the early Twentieth Century, would, mistakenly, tend to consider American political traditions as quaintly boorish, as lacking the precious elements of "taste" associated with a Europe which had never liberated its culture from the scent of "European" pro-oligarchical "finesse," and, to only a slightly lesser degree, from a strange affection for the image of the British monarchy: "At least, we Europeans understand 'European culture'," which, ironically, they, like even all too many Americans of induced, misguided, liberals' prejudices, actually do not, in most cases, today.

Europeans generally fail to recognize the stubbornly persistent fact, that the European system of a still-persisting monetarist ideology, is a tradition which marks the nations of continental Europe as being implicitly members of a monetarist system which is that of the imperial Rome represented by a fourth phase of the Roman Empire which many Europeans today pretend to admire as "A Post-Westphalian System." This includes, to a significant extent, a Russia which has submitted to an allegiance to a doomed "bad bank" called the "BRIC," the monetarist trash-bin, or so-called "bad bank," which is a complement to Lord Jacob Rothschild's 1971 British imperial creation, the Inter-Alpha Group.

In the meantime, the presently accelerating process of a Weimar Germany-style of hyper-inflationary trend in purely monetarist speculation, means that, unless a sweeping reform along the lines of a U.S. Glass-Steagall model is adopted very soon, the trans-Atlantic system would be probably doomed to go under as early as some months ahead, 1923 Weimar Germany-style.

In the meantime, what will actually happen remains uncertain. The world as a whole, especially in the trans-Atlantic region now, is experiencing an intrinsically supra-national, rising tide of what Rosa Luxemburg defined as "a mass strike," now spreading, at an accelerating rate, from such locations as Bahrain, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia into what is already a large region of the United States. In none of these, or comparable cases presently in the making, is the prompting of these rising waves of protest a specifically local condition of the subject nation; it is a supra-national process driven by the rage which the presently inhuman trends in economic and related policy-making of the entirety of the set of nations of the trans-Atlantic region have prompted throughout that region as a whole.

Therefore, unless the present set of economic and related social policies of the nations of the trans-Atlantic region are changed, soon, and drastically, away from the current trans-Atlantic trend, something worse in effect than the French Terror (that orchestrated by the British Foreign Office's special committee of Jeremy Bentham) were virtually inevitable, even a spread of the process into the form of a planetary "new dark age," comparable to that which struck Europe during the Fourteenth Century. The world at large must give up its present system, especially its present monetarist and demographic-trend policies, such as those of the British monarchy, or a planetary "dark age" is already in the making for some not distant time, probably even within the months ahead.

The visible immediate source of the danger this represents for both continental Europe and all of the Americas, is the possibility that, unless the relevant governments submit to the message of this mass strike, the mass strike will turn into something of an echo to France's late Eighteenth-century "Reign of Terror," or some short-lived parody of what has been named "World War I."

Thus, one must say to reluctant European ears today, as to very foolish Americans who lend support to either President Barack Obama or the current rash of madmen unleashed, on November 2, 2010, in the name of the U.S. Republican Party, that the present international monetarist system of the trans-Atlantic world either must be destroyed, or civilization itself will soon be destroyed—perhaps, very soon—throughout the trans-Atlantic now, and worse very soon.

If and when that occurs, Asia as a whole will not be far behind.

By that standard, the moral disease which has taken over the United States' government, more and more, especially since the election of President Barack Obama, has virtually no morally tolerable special political rights to rule remaining to it. We, and our Constitution, have been betrayed. The rights inherent in the U.S. Federal Constitution must prevail, or the United States would now, soon, cease to exist, and all of Europe, too.

If the rule which I have stated just now, does not soon rule in actuality, the outcome of current history is left to the ministrations of the mass-strike process now underway throughout the present entirety of the trans-Atlantic set of nations. The decision to bring that on, or not, lies with those who fail to repeal no less than all leading novelties in trends of practice of law-making and its applications by government in U.S.A. and western and central European policy, since U.S. President Bill Clinton left office in January 2001, leaving behind him what was to replace him as more than a decade of what has been actually the worst sort of mis-leadership in our nation's history since the attempted British secession by the Confederacy. Implicitly, on this account, President Franklin Roosevelt was right, and his opponents are very, very seriously wrong, now as then, still today.

Already the general wrath of the citizens of the United States is aroused against the current trends of policy-setting by the Democratic and Republican parties alike. A number of influential circles in both the U.S.A. and Europe, had refused, this far, to acknowledge the import of the recent Angelides report; the doom such people tend to bring upon themselves now, is being caused by the commitment of political circles in the Congress and elsewhere to devote themselves to policies which enrage the citizens of the United States, by refusing to acknowledge that Angelides report. This pattern is to be found among, especially, those of relatively high political rank, whose behavior condemns, thus, nothing as much as themselves.

It must be recognized, even inside the United States today, that for an increasing many of our citizens, admittedly at long last, it must be conceded, that God is not a British Liberal. That is clearly the implication of the direction in which Charles de Gaulle's views shifted in the course of becoming the President of France's Fifth Republic, even despite what I know, personally, to have been the British strategic asset in France, François Mitterrand. That is why the fascist assets among President de Gaulle's enemies sought, repeatedly, and desperately, to assassinate him, by aid of forces which did contribute to the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy.

With these words just written, I have taken the intention of this discussion of de Gaulle's role, to the crucial matters to my choice of territory, of certain matters to be read between the lines.

The Case of an Ethical Delusion

In the domain of a truly competent physical science, as also in Classical poetry and musical composition, or the work of a Leonardo da Vinci or a Rembrandt, we encounter the work of a denomination of human creativity which exists only outside, and above the mathematical arts of counting sense-perceptions. Creativity, by the very intent of that name, is typified by the production of either the actual creation of a condition within the universe which did not previously exist, or the recognition of such a discovered principle.

To present the relevant argument to that effect, the universe, as it is known to us as being a universe, that universe is intrinsically anti-entropic. That works to such experimentally perfected effect that, contrary to the doctrine of a sick cult known by the name of "The Second Law of Thermodynamics," nothing in the universe could exist today in the exact same form it existed yesterday. So, the great Bernhard Riemann wrote in the concluding sentence of his 1854 habilitation dissertation, "These lead us into the domain of another science, into the domain of physics, which the nature of today's proceedings does not permit us to enter"—the department of mathematics.

The domain of physical science is, therefore, defined by states of existence in the universe which had either not existed, or had not been known to exist by the person approaching the relevant domain of subject-matter. This defined, as for Lejeune Dirichlet and Bernhard Riemann, the principal applicable function of Abelian functions for physical science.[10] This applicability was to be typified, later, by Academician V.I. Vernadsky's partition of the domain known to Vernadsky as the principled distinction of the expressions of true creativity attributable to the respective domains of the Lithosphere, Biosphere, and Noösphere. In retrospect, Johannes Kepler's method employed in defining the orbital principle common to the Solar orbits of Mars and Earth, and the uniquely original discovery of the principle of universal gravitation by Kepler, are relevant forerunners of the physical concept of Abelian functions as known to the practice of the science of Dirichlet, Riemann, Vernadsky, et al.

Thus, in the domain of physical science, it is not the universe which is running down, but, rather, the inherent inability of pre-existing states of that universe to accomplish the same work as yesterday. That, as I have just described it, is the functional physical principle upon which any competent science of economy depends absolutely. In other words, the ability of processes within the universe not to "unwind," depends upon a universal principle of creativity which transforms a physical process into a relatively higher succession of qualities of states, a principled notion which, among other subjects, represents the foundation of any competent physical theory of economic systems. Such is Albert Einstein's emphasis on the evidence that Kepler's uniquely original discovery of the principle of universal gravitation, expresses a universe which is always finite, but always developing to higher states: a finite, but unbounded universe.

The same evidence, as outlined by my associate Cody Jones, is expressed by the chemistry of the evolution of life to higher forms and states, in the biological history of Earth.[11] The same point is to be made by emphasizing the requirement in all physical-economic processes, of progress in the upgrading of the application of power by not only the quantity of calories-equivalent consumed, but by the indispensable increase of the energy-flux density of that applied power, the power of "Promethean Fire," the fundamental physical law of the universe which Philo of Alexandria defended against both Friedrich Nietzsche's notion of universal "creative destruction," and the fraud by Aristotle on which Nietzsche premised his notorious "God is dead" epithet.

Contrary to the wretched Aristotle, the Creator of the universe is essentially creative, as if "infinitely" so.

In the domain of the economics of human life, this "Promethean" principle, indicates the ruthless requirement of invention of previously unknown universal physical principles, or the equivalent. Thus, competent physical science can exist as practice only in the endless progress in discovery of ever yet higher universal physical principles which had been previously unknown, or, at least, unknown as science, to a certain culture or group of persons.

This function of creativity is expressed equally, but also in differing modes, by fundamental progress in the physical science of previously unknown universal physical principles, or states of matter, or forms of life, and by the kindred quality of creativity expressed by new discoveries within the categorical domain of metaphor in Classical artistic composition.

Consequently, in all important categories of human discovery of solutions, including the actualities of what is known as physical science, and the creations of the Classical artistic imagination, as, in Classical English composition, under the heading of "metaphor," this role of true creativity reigns within the higher domain of the fertile imagination. That is the essential difference between a report published by such poor creatures as the New York Times and its notoriously deadening style-book, and the actually creative poets and the like of true Classical artistic composition.

Thus in the appropriate strategies for society, the expression of true creativity, as I have identified it summarily here, lies, as in the military domain, in "the principle of the flank," as understood by Frederick the Great. It is in the existing, or possibly existing "flank" of the practice unacknowledged by the adversary, that the likely success of strategy by a nominally inferior force "outflanks" the ostensibly greater force. The means by which that sort of victory is accomplished, is either the stupidity or the mere negligence of the larger force, or the fact that the larger force had not discovered the potential of the principle within which the intended flanking action, as by Frederick at Leuthen, had been accomplished. The employment of scientific progress in military action, is an elementary illustration of the point.[12]

The Genius of Charles de Gaulle

It may have occurred to some observers, that President de Gaulle was not only a general military officer of virtually indisputably excellent formal qualifications for that position, much better than merely a very smart and able one. He had a stroke of genius, as his role in creating a specific kind of pre-war organized force for 1940, and his later accomplishments in the war demonstrated. In other words, he possessed a creative mind in the strictest sense of the term, not only in nominal potential, but in his disposition for a chosen course of action, and, thus, in part, of the same general species of military commander as a Douglas MacArthur, one who chooses, when this is an available option, to approach the prospective battle-field from above the intellectual planes on which the action of warfare is chosen to be fought.

The point to be emphasized at this juncture, is that true human creativity, in all its qualitative types of expressions, is the mind's yearning for a kind of metaphor. Thus, such warriors dwell above the fields of battle, to outflank the problem, as from above, in whatever domain the choice of battlefield, or its alternative, is to be found and fought.

Such is the sense of the mind of the General Charles de Gaulle which I adduced from pausing to reflect on the unstated points of connection within what President de Gaulle expressed in his memoir of World War II. Always search for that which is not explicitly stated, but which is implicitly the indispensable connective tissue which is imparted to the observing mind by attention to that which has been left unsaid: the missing jig-saw pieces of that which was integral, but left unsaid. Throughout that memoir of warfare, what had been left unsaid, but of that sort, took my attention to the process of groping to find that which supplied an adducible integument of reasoning, without which what was explicitly reported left much that was necessary, unsaid: but, in one way or another, it had to have been thought by him in some way.

In part, I was inclined to presume that much of what might have been said in that compound memoir, was omitted for some sort, or another of discretion, or desire for economy of expression of anecdotal material, or obvious other discretion. In more significant instances, the mind of de Gaulle was reflecting a process of still-in-progress becoming, some of which could be recognized in reading the three parts of the war-time memoir as a work of his self-development in progress as he had been writing.

Such manifest behavior is typical of persons committed to a creative, as contrasted with a merely learned development. Such is the trait of the human mind's potential powers of metaphor. Such is the adducible quality of the creative mind at work over successive decades, or under the intense stress under which the mind attempts to cope with the ominously changing experience of living within a period of warfare, whether in combat, or not. It is the mind's efforts to comprehend the process of the war-time experience and its intimations which is the crucial consideration. It is not our experience which is decisive; it is our recognition of the implications of the entirety of the process within which we are situated, perilously, or not.

The essential feature of human life, is not the sense of mortality as such, but, rather, the question of the meaning of human life, including a sense of the limits which mortality puts upon our own. What will have been the meaning of our having lived? What must we do for the society from which we shall depart, to that end? When our role in society rises to a level of significant importance of the effects for which we live, it is what happens to society after we have left it, which is crucial for the actually moral personality. In this way, our existence begins long before we have been born, and continues with the effect of our having lived on times yet to come. Charles de Gaulle was clearly one of those prophets so moved, and also moving.

I have studied those specific wartime writings of his over months, that in light of my sense of France and his impact within it, after I had considered what I know of his later roles, and some pieces of his life otherwise from later times. This benefitted from the associations with some general officers and other relevant persons who had been strongly engaged with his personality as a leader in, among other things, major events. I refer to the times when I was performing a keystone role within a setting of senior ranking political, scientific and military figures, all of that process considered in connection with the crafting of the strategic organization for what President Ronald Reagan would come to identify as an SDI.

The essential feature of such a personality as President de Gaulle, is an approach in life premised on a notion of an historic mission. Go back to May 16, 1960; think of two "old soldiers," Presidents de Gaulle and Eisenhower, looking at one another, while Khrushchov ranted, as if they were speaking to one another with the instrument of silence, expressing, thus, an appropriate thought respecting the likely future of mankind which Khrushchov's rant portended. As I had continued those reflections of the past months, the evidence from, chiefly, President Charles de Gaulle's own war-time accounts, and the CIA's description of what had passed among those assembled for the May 1960 Paris meeting, "grabbed me" with an understanding of exactly what such a situation as that must have portended for any able world leader, in such an occasion. The clear evidence of the factor of creativity in President Charles de Gaulle himself, a factor which I had come to consider, more and more, as being the most important consideration.

III. Science Versus Sense-Certainty

As I had already emphasized this point in the course of the preceding chapters, in any thorough investigation, as of a crime, or of some great historical event, it is sometimes the part of the events which had been left out of the given report which is of the greatest importance.

Often, that is the most crucial fact whose omission may constitute the fraudulent element of a systemic fallacy of composition.

It were appropriate, at this point in this chapter, to clear away certain potentially diversionary types of topics, this time from the domain of physical science, as is required in the case of the diversionary character of the effect of the omission of crucially relevant historical facts about the U.S. financial collapse in progress, before going directly to the core of the matter without contamination by short-cuts of the type of omissions which constitute fallacies of composition.

Consider, for purposes of illustrating a significant point, the hypothetical case of an omission at trial, of the fact that the alleged rapist accused of fathering the child, had been an aged, barely breathing eunuch at the relevant time of the alleged event. That is not of the type of evidence properly omitted for the sake of the advantage of a factually crucial, systemic omission in proceedings at trial.

Consider exactly such a form of fallacy of composition as has been employed for promotion of the type of case represented by some notably still reverberating British proceedings burdening the continuing 2003-2011 interval, such as that of the case of the report of a curious manner of alleged cause of the demise of Dr. David Kelly, or the astonishingly factless argument in the attempted, official British prosecution of the fraudulent composition of the related Jeremiah Duggan case which appears to have been a concoction of the Tony Blair government's circles. Those are two ultimately related cases which happen to have become typical as cases which persist as incredible left-overs as an apparent reaction to my two 2003 interviews on BBC radio, in which I identified the nature of the evidence bearing on the fraudulent argument used to orchestrate a new war in Iraq, all of which have been hoaxes concocted under the tenure of Britain's former Prime Minister Tony Blair and his pack in office since that time.

That is to say, that it is of crucial importance in reporting on crucial events in history, that we not permit the perpetration of such a type of frequently fraudulent fallacy of composition to pollute the discussion of an account of history, instead of expelling flim-flam allegations, or some willfully misrepresented actual events, by leaving out attention to the actuality of the entirety of the relevant context on which that false account of history had depended.

So, for example, such omissions of such a type would be a crucial error, even a fraud, in any report on the role of President Charles de Gaulle in Twentieth Century history, such as any report which did not take into account both the circumstances leading into both World War II and France's Fifth Republic, and into the actual quality of genius expressed by President de Gaulle's response to those challenges. Take the case of the effects of omission of crucial facts bearing on the innate function of the human mind.

What Is the Creative Mind?

It has been my great pleasure, but also conscientious, mission-oriented commitment, to reconsider the role of President Charles de Gaulle of his war-time memoirs from respectable distance in time from both the 1939-1945 war, and in light of my own views of his role in the context of France's Fifth Republic. I have proceeded so, with the advantage of the charm of the distance of today from those two most prominent features of his prominence while he lived, but, also, of the deeper insight into all of the broad historical evolution of the trans-Atlantic region provided by developments since the great change in the world system which bridged the approximate decade of the U.S. war in Indo-China, and into the decades of world history since that time. I have given special attention to worthy opportunities wasted by what has been a dying trans-Atlantic civilization since 1968-1971.

There has been an additional factor shaping my present outlook, chiefly centered in the outgrowth of a development of a science-driver program which was organized in what is referred to as my "basement," as, initially, a thorough reliving by my young associates of the crucial phases of the great discoveries of principle by Johannes Kepler, through the crucial role of Carl F. Gauss, and into the domain of Bernhard Riemann and of the great follower of Riemann, the Academician V.I. Vernadsky whose achievements are still the benchmark for reference to what has been reached by science thus far today.

In recent years, most emphatically during recent months, that progress in scientific and related matters has been considerably advanced to the levels of work along some of the leading frontiers of scientific knowledge today.

The most crucial among those steps of progress during the past decade, have been centered in my resituating the notion of history as located as to be considered from the vantage-point of an intrinsically anti-entropic universe. Thus, I have adopted the course of, thus, implicitly freeing the view of mankind from the mental shackles of a reductionist view of mankind from short-term considerations, that we might locate mankind's very existence, the history of our society, and the meaning of the existence, in the universe of the several generations of life-time of a mortal human individual.

So, within that setting on background, and in that context, in the preceding chapters of this present report, I have, consequently, already emphasized what I have considered as the important kinds of distinctions which account for President Charles de Gaulle's extraordinary achievements in modern world history since the presently clear, relevant evidence generally known of his development as an important statesman of military distinctions during the 1930s run-up to the Wehrmacht onslaught of 1940. It has been those characteristics of his achievements which I have recognized as expressing a certain fruitful succession of developments of his creative powers during and following the general warfare of 1939-1945 and his role in the initial, pre-1964 phase of the Fifth Republic.

These distinctions in his case, typify the indispensably creative roots of the distinction of a truly great statesmen of modern civilization, from those prominent figures of statecraft who tend to be successful only in spite of their embedded inclination toward the expression of "practical" success situated within the morally degrading habits of intellectual mediocrity.

What Is Science, Really?

In modern European culture, the unfortunate distinction to which I have just made reference, is typified by the evils which are the consequences of a substitution of a literal reading of formal mathematical "principles" for those noëtic powers of practice which exist only outside the bounds of what is merely a formally deductive practice of mathematics. This is to restate the same crucial point which Bernhard Riemann emphasized in the concluding sentence of his 1854 habilitation dissertation.

This is not to deny that mathematics is useful, even necessary in its rightful domain of practice. The issue, especially for me, is of a difference between that Riemannian and inferior traditions which had been made clear in a more general way by the specific reaction of both Lejeune Dirichlet and Bernhard Riemann to the implications of an exceptional discovery respecting mathematics by Niels H. Abel. For the purposes of physical science, as distinct from what might be merely mathematics, the importance of what are termed Abelian functions, is signaled in an alarmingly concentrated way in the referenced, closing section of Riemann's 1854 habilitation dissertation, its concluding sentence most emphatically.

The use of that conception finds its crucial importance, first, in providing a conception of those higher orders of principled physical functions which exist only outside the bounds of a traditional mathematics as such; however, at the same time, Abel's work implies, as Riemann himself emphasized, a method for correlating physical states beyond the ontological reach of mathematics, into those shadows which those states cast upon the domain of what is, ontologically, merely mathematics: an extremely useful sanitary measure, as also being a most convenient arrangement for the use of qualified physicists. That distinction lies between that which has cast the shadow associated with the reductionist's mathematical methods, and the shadow which it casts, as I shall now emphasize here.

However, there is another, most relevant, more powerful implication to be considered. Summarily, that case goes as follows.

What may be named, not unfairly, as merely conventional mathematical physics, is rooted axiomatically in notions not far distant from the depravity of the Aristotelean by-product known as axiomatic Euclidean geometry. The a-priori premises on which that and related forms of notions of such a geometry depend, are derived from an essentially ignorant view on the subject of the ordinary notions of human sense-perception. These sense-perceptions, however reliable insofar as they are regarded as being within the modest category of merely sense-perceptions, fail to produce a conceptual image of the really efficient processes of the actual physical universe, processes which are conventionally argued, mistakenly, to be expressed by a merely sense-perceptual view of actual experience.

For example, in the aftermath of the sheer horrors of the French Revolution and the advent of the Napoleonic decades, Carl F. Gauss had submitted, as if diplomatically, to the fraudulent view which had become, by the 1790s, the generally accepted posture against what had been the leading mathematician of the earlier decades of the Eighteenth Century, Abraham Kästner. As this tactic was expressed definitely, but without public clarification, by Gauss during his lifetime, a matter of note especially since the Ceres discovery, in his role as a leading scientist of the new century what was being covered over, or merely avoided by Gauss, was the issue of what is termed loosely as "non-Euclidean geometry."

This is shown most clearly in the matter of the pained expression which Gauss's old friend Farkas Bolyai expressed in reaction to Gauss's indifference to Bolyai's son Janos's claims to have discovered a non-Euclidean geometry. Gauss's view was made categorical when Gauss added the name of Lobatchevski to the subjects of Gauss's own indifference. The ghost which haunted that picture was Gauss's old teacher, Kästner, the notable founder of an anti-Euclidean view of geometry in his own time.[13] It was not until the work of Lejeune Dirichlet and Bernhard Riemann, that a modern insight into Gauss's reluctance to take up this issue of the fallacies of the "non-Euclidean geometry" of such as those of Nikolai Lobatchevski and Janos Bolyai, was publicly clarified for appreciation by modern science, in at least a significant degree among the actually witting.

The significance of that distinction between the viewpoint of the actual human mind and the shadow-land of sense-perception, is the notion of a higher conception of the practical meaning of the human mind as such, a mind which has become developed, through relevant reflections on its own experience, as an efficient conception of itself, rather than as an imagined sensory experience.

Notably, many of the commonplace psycho-pathological traits generally common to individual persons, are to be recognized as the pathological implications of the substitution of one's sense of identity as a subject of sense-perception, for the location of one's personal identity in the notion of the individual mind as such, a mind as being the ontological actuality of the individual personality, or, we might say, "the actual human individual soul," as opposed to the domain of an imagined creature dwelling among the mere shadows cast by reality, as sense-perceptions.

It is notable, and importantly so, to add, in this present location, what my associates have emphasized repeatedly, that the sense-perceptual powers of human individuals, as also do migratory birds, for example, find a complementary substitute for what we commonly consider faculties of "sense-perception," in states in the Earth's magnetic field used by migratory birds for "mapping" their seasonal migrations when the Earth's magnetic field is, so to speak, "behaving itself." These electro-magnetic sensibilities coincide with the closing paragraph of Percy Bysshe Shelley's A Defence of Poetry.

Contrary to a stubbornly persisting popular opinion, there is no presently, actually known existence of empty space; rather, what naive opinion considers "space," is a domain densely filled with cosmic radiation, a domain which, in the relatively lower frequency ranges, often serves as an efficient experience of the human body, as, as Shelley's concluding paragraph emphasizes, the human mind, as distinct from those mere shadows which we know as sense-perceptions.

It happens that if we are often so habituated to dependency upon what we regard as the sense-perceptual experience, that most among us presently tend to lack the development of an actually conscious apprehension of other than the ordinary popular notions of sensory channels. Nevertheless, as Shelley emphasized, we are, like what I have referenced as the fabled migratory birds; we are, nonetheless, moved by those sensory powers of the human mind's potential which are capable of moving large populations' intentions under appropriate conditions. The phenomenon of the "mass strike," as that notion was introduced by Rosa Luxemburg, is an example of this.

The location of the creative powers of the human mind is "located" in those higher domains beyond the sense-perceptions which are the customarily attributed "location" of the efficient sense of physical identity of the person. To say that this bears on the subject of "cosmic radiation," is a useful manner of speaking for reference to related phenomena considered here thus far.

The exchange in glances, to which the CIA's reporter referred in his account of the May 16 "Summit" meeting in Paris, is a fact which, for me, is crucial, as is the report of the initial encounter between Eisenhower and de Gaulle on the occasion of that affair.

Some Very Serious Questions

I would argue, that the most serious of the prevalent threats to scientific competence in these matters which I have posed here, is the quality of vicious error which is typified by not only what is sometimes referred to as "vulgar sense-certainty," but also perverse concoctions of the type associated with the ancient Aristotle and the modern empiricism of "sense certainty" attributable to Paolo Sarpi. No actual universal principles actually exist within the bounds of the presumptions of either "vulgar sense-certainty," or either Aristotelean or empiricist methods.

The most characteristic of the general recognition of this sort of problematic feature within modern notions of ontology is typified by the work of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa's De Docta Ignorantia (1440), a work which has been the typical inspiration of such modern discoverers of the fundamentals of a valid modern science as Leonardo da Vinci, Johannes Kepler, and Gottfried Leibniz. The relationship of that legacy to Bernhard Riemann and V.I. Vernadsky, now stands as the fresh viewpoint required for the rescue of modern society from the viciously systemic errors of the prevalent, modernist view of the followers of empiricism. Vernadsky's attributions to the distinction of a Lithosphere, Biosphere, and Noösphere, are the presently most convenient allusions to what modern science implies as being a suggested higher category of general principle for the existence of the universe as a whole. We do not "see God," but we do see the footprints of the fingerprint of the Creator in those three categories of Vernadsky's, as I strongly believe that Vernadsky himself would concur.

It is the urgently needed attempt to focus upon the ontology of the noëtic powers specific to the individual human mind, which must serve, as an attempt, to aid us in bridging what we know from the Riemannian basis of Vernadsky's outlook on the universe, as the presently available mooring of general scientific practice to the notion of a true notion of universal physical principle.

The considerations which I have outlined in the remarks supplied in this present chapter thus far, must be emphasized out of regard for the subject of this present report as a whole. To wit: when we turn our attention to the creative processes on which the healthy functions of the human mind depend, we have entered a domain of reality entirely outside the common notion of mankind as being essentially a sense-perceptual creature, into the domain of the power exerted in the universe by the uniqueness of the characteristic of the human mind which is absent in all other presently known living creatures. In that setting, psycho-pathology is another name for belief in "popular sense-certainty."

This usage just stipulated, does not imply that man is actually justified as being a proper victim of such low esteem as an ordinary living victim of the reign of sense-perception as are mere animals. The stipulation is, that when man is less than himself, as when he is a devotee of such forms of depravity as crude sense-certainty, or a mere victim of the realism of a sense of probably Adam Smith's proposed, British varieties of sexual appetites for either pleasure or pain.

To restate what I have said on such accounts, earlier here or on other occasions, the proper object of the cultivation of the human individual and his or her society, is the realization of that state of sense of personal identity in the universe which is located in the notion of mind, instead of the still more popular, degraded status of a creature of mere sense-perception. The creative personality is, characteristically, the individual who locates a sense of personal identity, in the mind as such, rather than the reign of sense-perception. Any figure of society who partakes of that development of the creative powers of the individual human mind, must be examined accordingly, as the argument for several great reforms by President Charles de Gaulle requires the pursuit of the discovery of such up-graded considerations, rather than a world-view according to what is considered as popular opinions.

The notable difference, the distinction of what has become developed as a creative personality, as I have implicitly defined that here, from the more customary, so-called "practical" sense of self in society, can not be competently assessed as of the relatively "practical" type in respect to the distinctions which characterize that person's motivating sense of innermost identity. In the usual practice, most creative personalities vacillate, according to differing times and circumstances, as according to the occasion, between emphasis on one or the other of the two available states of conscience, as the brutish, or seeking the divine.

That much said on the bare fact of the distinction, let us turn our attention to the practical implications which that distinction implies in the case of such as a great poet, scientist, or exceptional quality of statesman. Consider those qualities of the latter type of person which spell a different world-outlook than that encountered in the more customary public or other relevant case for comparisons.

Mystical? Not for a well-developed mind of a scientist, but mystical to those clinging desperately to the fantasy of blind faith in sense-certainties. Consider the following on this account.

Beyond the Evil of Paolo Sarpi

Apart from the virtually bestial believers in simple sense-certainty, the common affliction of the sophisticated reductionists typified by the cases of Aristotle, his follower Euclid, and the modernist Paolo Sarpi, is European culture's Delphic notion of mankind's existence attributed to sense-certainty, as typified by the myths of Apollo and Dionysus. Aristotle defines society as an approximately fixed, almost invariable scheme crafted in the image of the so-called "oligarchical principle" corresponding to the mythical reign of those sometimes called "the gods" over those victims called "the mortals." That as Aeschylus reports the conflict in his Prometheus Trilogy.

Since that ancient time in Mediterranean-centered society, the notion of the permanent reign of an aristocracy over a mankind whose herds are culled occasionally in the interest of maintaining the secure reign over the relative serfs who are considered "the mere mortals," just as the World Wildlife Fund of Britain's Prince Philip, et al., prescribes, as did Bertrand Russell, a far more strenuous program of genocide than that conducted under Adolf Hitler.

The point is made much clearer, when we situate the origins of Paolo Sarpi's deviation from the original form of Aristoteleanism in the fatal strategic blunder of the old Aristotelean cult's attempt to sustain its traditional methods of population-control in defiance of the great revolution which had been unleashed as modern society by the rise of the great ecumenical Council of Florence which featured Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa's De Docta Ignorantia's influence in founding the practice of modern European science. As the practical failure of the Council of Trent shows, the forces of the Aristotelean cult were repeatedly outflanked by the waves of human creativity flowing from the Renaissance circles of Cusa and the associates of his great, revolutionary initiative. So, the old Venice's system failed strategically.

In came a Paolo Sarpi who recognized that the effort to maintain the Aristotelean cult in modern Europe must fail. So, without altering much else, Sarpi permitted innovation on the condition that such progress did not promote belief in the existence of the creative power expressed by actual universal physical principles, such as those implicit in the science of Nicholas of Cusa and his followers. Sarpi's system was a system of moral chaos of the type of Sarpi follower Adam Smith's doctrine of universal irrationalism, the doctrine that nothing can be known but the practice of pleasure and pain, also known as "free trade" in men, women, and nearly everything else.

The form of society which Sarpi's "reform" produced became the fourth Roman empire, which, since approximately the occupation of England by William of Orange, has become, and persisted as the dominant, monetarist form of world-empire of the largest aspect of the economy of the world today.

The case of the role of President Charles de Gaulle is a study of the effect of an insurgency of creative reason, within the setting of the world under the contesting forces led between the two polarities of the United States under President Franklin Roosevelt and the British Empire still today. Otherwise, the conflict is defined as between a system which expresses the principle of human creative reason, and the opposing, modernist form of expression of that panoply of evil which the British monarchy represents as an expression of the depravity which is the British incarnation of the ancient Roman Empire today.

This conflict is currently expressed in the form of a rapidly spreading, and accelerating mass-strike process threatening, now, to take over the planet, struggling, implicitly, but with fully articulated consciousness, to destroy the power of the British empire and its servile appendages throughout the world today. That mass-strike process now in a vastly spreading popular manifestation among the nations and peoples of the trans-Atlantic region, the lawful process as defined by Rosa Luxemburg, earlier, must be recognized as a process akin to what the leadership of President de Gaulle came to represent in the course of what is commonly referenced today as "World War II."

Heretofore, the process of the lawfully determined outburst of the specific quality of the mass strike, has been what the social process has impressed on a more or less astonished political system, a system ostensibly taken unawares. Competent reflection on the way in which the mass-strike process is over-running the trans-Atlantic region presently, forewarns us that we must now come to grips with the need for a deep understanding of this quality of mass social process, as from the inside of that process, rather than as from the exterior.

It is not a social process which can be ignored, and is not one which is unfamiliar to our history: "We the people ..."!

The examples to be studied on this account, feature prominently both President de Gaulle's experience of creative force expressed in his rising leadership to become the de facto President of France, and his role, from 1958 until the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy, under the Fifth Republic.

IV. A Postlude: What Is Lacking?

In the work of what is termed "our basement team," we have been making notable progress since the time, during Summer of 2010, when we launched our program for revival and up-dating of the National Water and Power Alliance (NAWAPA) development program. The features with which we embellished the prescribed intentions of the original design, included the integration of a nuclear-fission power program, and the role of the Riemannian principles of the relevant discoveries of Academician V.I. Vernadsky as integral features. However, we went much further than that, working to define a series of related programs whose combined effect would be to extend the inherent benefits of NAWAPA for North America into the creation of a land-link among the continents of North and South America, Eurasia, and Africa as the new extension of the superseding of maritime power by land-based high-speed and related structures of transport, water, and power, a perspective which had been already implicit in the great inland water system and related developments launched under Charlemagne.

Among the crucial included features of this program was my replacement of the notion of "infrastructure" by a notion to be associated with the concept of "platforms." That is to emphasize the superseding of features of so-called "infrastructure" installed to enhance production and transport within land-areas, by a concept already implicit in Charlemagne's development of inland waterways.

The crucial implication of this replacement of the notion hitherto associated with "infrastructure" was emphasis on the paradigm represented by the organizing of a national, continental, or global development of an integrated "foundation" defined, primarily, by the concept of building an economy of integrated particular productive elements, such as private firms of production, on a general level of advancement of energy-flux density per square kilometer and per capita. This would mean satisfying the requirement of the replacement of the present world monetarist systems by a fixed-exchange-rate credit-system operating throughout a global system of respectively sovereign nation-states, under conditions that private enterprises are essentially "plugged into" the foundations of a coordinated system of "platforms" within which the private enterprises are situated.

The most notable features of such platform systems, include managing the foundations of economy and habitation of the planet to an effect akin in perspective to the "terra-forming" of a previously unsuitable planet as a place of human, or human-controlled habitation, or of other functions of importance for the development within the Solar system and beyond. Considerations include the response to the fact of the coherence of the "history" of the development of living processes on Earth with those characteristics of our galaxy which are, among other considerations, functionally related to the presently known aspects of the role of life on Earth.

That is one direction of extended outlook for our nations and our planet as a whole. I find another aspect more inspiring than that to which I have just referred thus far. That is the development of the already existing potential for a qualitative revolution, upwards, in the practiced nature of mankind. I had already made reference to this in the preceding chapter.

Mankind's True Nature

Earlier, I had indicated a certain discrepancy between the quality of mental development of the individual represented by reliance on sense-perception, and the qualitatively superior potential expressed in the concept of the human mind as such. There is nothing essentially unprecedented in making this specific distinction between mere sense-perception and the inhering creative potential of a human mind whose function must be contrasted to mere sense-perceptual experience as such. All true discoveries of universal physical principles, and all great achievements in Classical artistic composition share in common this specific function of mentation which sets the human species absolutely apart from the animal, which is specific to sense-perception as such.

To make the distinction a bit clearer, consider the pathetic quality of human thinking operating on the level of sense-perception, relative to the superior quality of the human mind expressed, in common, by both truly great Classical modes of artistic composition and the discovery of an experimentally demonstrable universal physical principle. For this purpose, recognize the special function of the role of true metaphor in Classical modes of artistic composition and its effective performance.

Think then, of the sense of relative degradation which must tend to occur when a person who has been engaged in scientific work, is downgraded to a fate of menial chores. It is not work of a menial quality which is the problem; all must expect to do such work, for one mission or another, during some part of human life. The problem is created when menial work is treated as mankind's fated destiny, as the Olympian Zeus of Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound denied access to "fire" to the mere mortals. It is denial of access, that presently increasingly, over successive generations, to a suitable quality of participation in the role of the mind, as distinct from the modes of mere sense-perception, which is offensive. A person spends life, as the assigned role in society spends the person.

The proper aim of successive generations of mankind, is to engage actions useful to mankind which realize the rising quality of excitement in the development of the creative powers of the individual human mind. Such work is required, when we are up to it. "Automate" the work of simple sense-perception to conserve the creative powers of the individual human mind for those necessary tasks suitable to the nature of the development of those powers of the mind to which I have referred.

"Geniuses wanted? Become one!"

There is no doubt of the power of the mind of President Charles de Gaulle. Of his successors, we may have certain doubts rooted in reflections on their performances. We should express those doubts, so that they may be corrected; the future of mankind depends upon it.


[1] There is reason to doubt that Prime Minister Macmillan fully understood the intention of the British monarchy, but, what of it? For what else do monarchs of empire use, and expend their own ministers?

[2] At a meeting of my associates, which occurred on the premises of Columbia University during June 1968, I first presented my thesis to the effect that the violence-prone elements of the so-called "New Left" were a fascist (i.e., "dionysian purgative violence") phenomenon akin to the swapping, back-and-forth, of party loyalties, between Nazis and Communists, during the famous Berlin trolley-car general strike which preceded the installation of the Hitler regime. The recent crop of a very strange variety of recently elected among certain Republican Party incumbents, such as Wisconsin's already notorious Governor Scott Walker, fits the same use of the term "fascism" met in the case of the Berlin trolley-car "mass strike," now more than eight decades ago.

[3] Consider "The Two Grenadiers" of Heinrich Heine, as set by Robert Schumann. Heine's expression is ironical, but it represents the use of tragic irony to promote a yearning for the possibility of a beautiful life. Thus, there are no heroes in a Classical tragedy, but, rather, there tends to be an acute desire that heroes should have existed, perhaps as one's adopted purpose in living. Soldiers who lack that sense, may turn out to be cowards, or, worse, monsters.

[4] Compare the argument of my June 1968 The New Left, Local Control, and Fascism, which treats the quality of the pro-violence "New Left" fascism typified by the circles of Columbia campus's Mark Rudd, as seen as an echo of the famous Berlin trolley-car rioting during which members of the radical "left" were exchanging memberships, back and forth, with the Nazi storm-troopers. Compare the phase of the "terror" in the late Eighteenth-century French Revolution. Mussolini did not invent fascism; the French revolution's reign of terror and Napoleon Bonaparte did.

[5] Those who have come to know how to think, recognize the mere sense-perception of experience as the shadows cast by the reality which pass through the mind at that, or some relevant later time. It is the quality of "historical resonance" on which any qualified historian or kindred professional depends the most for the purpose of judging a situation.

[6] The reference is to include the facts included in the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) 1974 report: "General de Gaulle in Action," as also from my receipt of accounts given to me personally by relevant survivors who had held leading positions in the O.S.S., and related later roles, as enriched by privileged sources to which I have had access through relevant authorities in Europe.

[7] Executive Intelligence Review, 1988.

[8] Washington, D.C.: Executive Intelligence Review, Second Edition, 1999.

[9] New York, Campaigner Publications, 1978.

[10] Much learned nonsense on the subject of Abelian functions put aside.

[11] See Lyndon LaRouche PAC. See also Science section in this issue.

[12] Among the most useful illustrations of this point, is President John F. Kennedy's resolution, which Kennedy premised largely on the counsel of General Douglas MacArthur, not to permit the U.S.A. to be drawn into a war in Indo-China. Only the death of that President could have secured the U.S. folly of entering that war. The death was therefore provided, and the war then ensued. The assassination of the President's brother, Robert, ensured that competent selection of President would not occur in 1968. U.S. history since 1960, is a rather simple capsule of the range of applications which the principle of the flank implies. Strategy is not a physical design as such, but a use of the mind which fosters the greatest part of the desired effect, with the least expression of action.

[13] Cf. Gauss to Gerling (Feb. 14, 1832); to Farkas Bolyai, March 6, 1832; and to Christian Ludwig Gerling, July 14,1844.

Subscribe to EIW