|This article appears in the March 9, 2012 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
PRINCIPLE VS. POPULISM:
The U.S.A.'s Last Chance
By Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
February 23, 2012
On Essential Background
The urgent lesson for this report, is, that, remarkably, some actually great U.S. Presidents have lived out the term of office for which they had been elected, often despite the British empire's customarily vigilant assassins within and beyond our shores. I include among such latter wretches such as those associated with the Bank of Manhattan's Aaron Burr (1756-1836).
Not strangely, on the opposing side, our nation's native scoundrels, especially the treasonous sort, have sometimes appeared to be the more fortunate party in the roulette of our nation's elections. The most notable cases of the effects of treasonous policies of practice, are instances of the assassinations of our great Presidents who had been then still in active service at the time they were murdered, such as Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, or John F. Kennedy: those assassinations had often resulted in the replacement of what had been a great President's program, then being ruined by a successor from among those whose simple weaknesses, or base corruption, or even savagely treasonous policies, such as those of President Barack Obama, were thus unleashed, when and where appropriate outlooks and policies had been essential requirements.
There were other cases, in which the British wished, as since the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, to induce a downward plunge of our republic, and, for that motive, had preferred the assassination of a great U.S. President on that occasion. Such devices have been included with the intent of fostering an accelerating rate of downward plunge of the real (i.e.) physical U.S. economy under such among President William J. Clinton's adversaries-successors. Such have been the devices which include the damnable roles of George W. Bush, Jr., and that of the present virtual reincarnation of the echo of the rabidly insane Emperor Nero, Barack Obama, each similar to, but of the same list of such cases also worse than the other.
The Case of Andrew Jackson's Treason
One leading model for the case of the abortive measures used by our republic's enemies' effort to abort the succession from a great President, John Quincy Adams, had been supplied by a particularly infamous trio of scoundrels, the traitor Aaron Burr, and Burr accomplices Andrew Jackson, and his Wall Street paymaster and controller, Burr accomplice Martin Van Buren. The latter pair, apparently, did not require an actual assassination of President John Quincy Adams, one of the truly greatest of our Presidents in actual nation-building achievements; Wall Street money represented by the ever-treasonous Aaron Burr and his Wall Street understudy Martin van Buren, sufficed in that case. Thus, the blocking of Adams' re-election sufficed: the desired sort of damnable result was orchestrated, thus, from "the British outside."
So matters went, from imperial Britain's choice of successors, to those from among such British agents and U.S. traitors-in-plain-fact, as the set of the succession of Aaron Burr and his accomplices Martin van Buren and Andrew Jackson. It was Aaron Burr's successor on Wall Street, Van Buren, who had orchestrated Burr protégé Andrew Jackson's crucial, implicitly treasonous role in creating the great Panic of 1837, which was orchestrated by Van Buren puppet Jackson's shutting down, and despoiling of the Second National Bank of the United States.
Then, might we not ask: What about the hullabaloo of the damned, foolish Jefferson-Jackson dinners?
Then consider the two most flagrant cases of actually treasonous roles of those once-incumbent Presidents who were puppets of London's Wall Street: the President "Teddy" Roosevelt who put the "Bully" in bull-shit, and the Woodrow Wilson who relaunched his family's Ku Klux Klan organization, on a greatly enlarged scale, from within what that treasonously-connected British puppet, Teddy Roosevelt had renamed "the White House," or a worse enemy of our Federal Constitution than even "Teddy,"the lying and treasonous British monarchy's stooge, the Barack Obama of today.
For example, Harry S Truman earned the status of a treasonously bent scoundrel (e.g., "Wall Street maven") who was to be seen as just that by the eyes of thoughtful veterans of "World War II." Contrast the case of the practically treasonous (British-agent style) Truman with the Presidents who knew their duties at that time, such as future President Dwight Eisenhower who had replied succinctly, briefly and affirmatively, from Columbia University, to my very brief letter of that time. "Ike" did much in his time to save the United States and our nation's global mission, as in both war and peace. The collaboration of General Douglas MacArthur with President Kennedy, in resisting the plainly treasonous, British-promoted scheme for a prolonged war in Southeast Asia, still echoes, even today, the actual London motives (both economic and strategic) for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, viewing Kennedy as being an essential source of insight into the history of the accelerating downturns in U.S. economy since the assassinations of both John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert.
Thence, the elections of certain Presidents, such as Richard Nixon, the silly Jimmy Carter, the "goofy" George H.W. Bush, his sorry son George W. Bush, Jr., and of the most evil of them all, President Barack Obama. Obama might be fairly considered on reflection, still today, as being the ultimate, exemplary, and notable rotten fruit of the assassinations of two Kennedy brothers; we have never, yet, reversed that downward trend in our nation's economy, political history, and public morality, which has accelerated since the time of those Kennedy assassinations. The present pack of four notable Republican Presidential pre-candidates (in clear contrast to the respectable stubborn patriots of that same political party), are to be seen in the light of such heritages as those of the two Kennedy brothers who were inspired by the President Franklin Roosevelt legacy, and who worked toward that end, through the aid of efforts by that President's widow, Eleanor Roosevelt.
Now, the worst of the worst among them all to present date, has been the virtually imported specimen, President Barack Obama; none of the notable four current Republican candidates,and they are totally unacceptable,but even they could not be as outrightly evil as Obama, and are likely to be seen, perhaps, even as "lesser evils" were Obama to be continued as the Democratic candidate, even if thermonuclear warfare did not break out before the coming Presidential election could occur.
The fact to be considered on that account, is, that, of the presently four leading Republican candidates in sight, three are outright scoundrels, and, the fourth, a deviant populist infected with an Austrian-school variety of the British imperialist school: a combined variety which might be tolerated in a relatively small central-European nation, but would be a national U.S. catastrophe in its own right, were it tolerated in a major power, such as the U.S.A., in high office at this time of grave world crisis. There are some very good Republicans, and some not so bad; unfortunately, none of them who might be considered a decent candidate, is currently standing for a Presidential nomination, at this present time.
An A.D. 2012 Presidential candidate who would be the appropriate antithesis of both Barack Obama and the "Bush league," and therefore actually a patriot, would be the only decent choice at this moment; but, he, or she must also possess certain crucial, other qualifications in addition to those standard virtues. Obama's British-made warfare policies could be reasonably foreseen as meaning that a very large number of American voters were dead, even a great majority, even before the actual 2012 election could have occurred.
We could probably endure all such evils as those, on three preconditions. First that Obama is summarily dumped, under Section Four of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment; second, that the Glass-Steagall Law is re-enacted; and, third, that the commitment to a Third National Bank's establishment be clearly foreseen. Anyone who would not force through all three of those actions, is no leading and loyal citizen of our United States as a matter of fact, and should be judged accordingly.
Therefore, there would be, presently, no hope for the United States, not only economically, nor, probably, even biologically, unless the President waiting to be elected, is neither one of the four Republicans now on stage, nor, the worst choice of all, the mass-murderous, and treasonous mimic of the ancient Roman Emperor Nero, British imperial puppet and established, treasonous mass-murderer Barack Obama himself. Former President Bill Clinton will now soon reverse the fatal error of support for an Obama Presidency, or neither of us, he, or I, are likely to outlive the months ahead.
Any Democrat who supports an Obama re-nomination must be either mentally deficient, or is perhaps a member of an opportunist species better named "Demoncrat," one who suffers a tendency for a degree of, shall I say, an opportunist's lack of "excessive courage for the true cause," at this time of truly existential world crisis.
"John Q." Visits the Delicatessen
The typical modern voter for high office in government, whether in today's U.S.A., or in most of western and central Europe, does not support what is actually a principle of our founded system of government. He, or she, would prefer to raid the intellectual delights of a delicatessen. "I like ... because of his stand on . . . [a list of slogans], but I might prefer ... because of his stand on..."
In other words, unless you and I do something to change the current trend among Democratic Party leaders, the typical voter (including such leaders) tends to be just plain damned silly, or worse, in the way he, or she votes for President in the "pot luck" voting-booth store. That poor fellow picks his preferred pickles from the political delicatessen's pot, and leaves the rest "discreetly" to "other people's" imaginations. That sort of fellow might gain what he, or she had, chosen for his own self-inflicted wound; but he would turn out, usually, to have done almost nothing, in fact, to actually contribute anything to their nation's fate, except in the worst sense of such intended achievements:
Citizens of such preferences as those, do not leave behind an impressive standard of recorded intellectual achievement among our voter class.
Such are the ordinary facts known to the fairly witting citizens, facts which they use to mislead themselves into becoming an ostensibly "unwitting" accomplice in yet another electoral catastrophe.
I. How To Choose a U.S. President
The great folly which has been done to quickly ruin the beautiful achievement of our original U.S. Federal Constitution, was, to a large degree, an outcome of the elections of the misguided John Adams and Thomas Jefferson as Presidents of the United States. The root of the failures of those latter two Presidents, and of some numbers from among others later, came as an echo of the role of Britain's Lord Shelburne, who was, and continued throughout his life as the representative of the British East India Company's 1763 victory in the "Seven Years War," the so-called "Peace of Paris," and the founder of that office of universal evil known since that time as the British Foreign Office.
The corrupting role of that same Foreign Office has persisted with recently increased, corrupting influence, up through the present date, when an outright British agent, and a clinically insane one at that, currently occupies the U.S. Presidency, that on the brink of the threatened, relatively immediate brink of a global thermo-nuclear war which might actually unleash a process of extinction of the human species.
Most of that time, since the more unfortunate elections of those national figures called to be a "U.S. President," such an implicitly treasonous figure approaching the extremes of Obama, has frequently turned out to have been almost as pitiable a quality of stock as Obama.
We have such cases as David Rockefeller's pitiable, poor President Jimmy Carter, or even something far worse, one such as the British royal puppet known as Barack Obama who has been the very worst indeed, so far. Even if one from among the string of Presidents, had not actually done anything properly considered "bad," the negligences, or sometimes worse, when considered in the face of sundry moments of true national crisis, were usually both chronic in character and legion in number. If the incumbent had been such a poorly chosen one as that, those who had, typically, merely voted for that candidate, were often just as "guilty of negligence" for that failure as the actually successfully foolish incumbent in office: both dipped in the same pot, often a smoking one.
What is worse has been the fact, that when each of the current Republican candidates opens his mouth, the support for Obama continues to soar.
Consider some relevant specific parts of this history:
The weaknesses which appeared during the John Adams and Thomas Jefferson Presidencies, were already a forewarning of the real process of ruin which the United States suffered, from time to time, under many of the list of Presidents and Vice-Presidents who have appeared among us, beginning with the apparently perpetual traitor Aaron Burr's own treasonous protégés, Andrew Jackson and Martin van Buren. Errant expressions from among earlier national heroes such as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, share their own somewhat less guilty part, in their opportunists' role in the undermining of the great principle of the Federal Constitution; but, the legacy of outright treason began with the installation of Burr and Andrew Jackson, the same legacy of treason which had been attacked explicitly by such as those exceptionally great Presidents as the Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, and John F. Kennedy, who have been assassinated in office, or the Franklin D. Roosevelt whose death was heartily enjoyed by Winston Churchill's U.S. Wall Street puppet-President and "mean little bastard" Harry S Truman.
The chief reason for the typical citizen's failure to choose an intelligent choice in the polls, after all else had been considered, has been either pretty damned obvious at the time, or should have been, at least not long after the fact. All as if to prove, again, and yet again, that ignorance of the truth is not really innocence.
To set forth my own intention here, reconsider the case of those who condoned the shameless fraud of the so-called Warren Commission's hideously treasonous, summary treatment of the case of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, or, the shame of the relevant accusers of President Bill Clinton, when they should have been exposed as the authors of a virtually treasonous element of fraud in the nominally "Republican" effort at the impeachment of President William J. Clinton. When, in fact, the really evil motive expressed by the accusers, was a concocted sophistry which I regarded at that time as implicitly treasonous in both its intended and expressed effect.
When Clinton Was the Target
The actual, cheap, opportunists' motive for the attempted impeachment of "Bill Clinton" was, in its most essential features, located not among patriotically motivated American citizens, but among a set of sort-of-Aaron Burr-style, British imperial fellow-travellers (largely those encumbered with poorly deserved U.S. citizenships) working against the vital interests of both our republic, as also against the interests of the majority of most of the particular citizens of the United States. In fact, they had been working, wittingly or not, in devotion to the vile intentions of the British-led adversaries of the very continued existence of our republic.
How could that have happened to us?
My dear fellow-citizens, you sometimes seem like children in the manner you are so often, so readily taken in by cheap stage-magicians' tricks in such cases of political sophistry! That relevant point needs some additional attention here.
As you should have known by now, President Clinton did, ultimately, beat off the crew which framed up the irrelevant charges for impeachment against him, that at a great cost to him, but far greater damage than that to the future of our republic itself. In that case, nothing was done to right the wrong against our national republic which had been done by the wretched evil-doers behind that impeachment effort.
It happened to be the case that, at the time that charge of impeachment was being crafted by the relevant culprits, President Clinton was engaged in crafting measures which, while not finally definitive in their aimed effect, would have temporarily halted that plunge into a threatened doom of the United States which the repeal of Glass-Steagall was to unleash; the half-ruined Presidency of Bill Clinton came to be expressed as that folly of his toleration of the repeal of the Glass-Steagall law which has caused all of the major suffering which our United States and the great majority of its population has suffered economically since that time.
President Clinton's own error, in condoning the repeal of Glass-Steagall, was a very grave error for which many have suffered, and many will die as a result of the effects of the cancelling of Glass-Steagall since that time, up through the present date. I doubt, strongly, that he would have conceded to that swindle of repeal of Glass-Steagall, but for the depressing effects of the attempted impeachment proceedings. Also, the fact that Al Gore was Vice-President at that time, and that a Gore candidacy implicitly demanded Clinton's bending to the interests of that inherently failed Gore candidacy, begs the question, whether it was not the foolish Gore candidacy itself which had already worsened President Clinton's high-priced discomfiture, and had brought about the shameful Republican selection of the "goofy bozo," George W. Bush, Jr.
The answer to all that, is: When it comes to a so-called "bottom line" of contemporary public opinion, most of our citizens have acted as if they were either awfully dumb in their public performance as citizens; or, perhaps, they did not care; or, perhaps, were in an intellectually sloppy state of their thinking at that time. This sort of recurrently careless behavior on such accounts, among even a majority among the body of citizens generally today, has been a recent trend in practice, as expressed, notably, on most of the critical issues which have shaped the shaping of the fate of our nation, most of the time. Such has been the type of traditionally ordinary citizen who had usually relied upon the political equivalent of a virtual dead political horse, as his chosen means for attempting to reach what he presumes will be his nation's hopeful destination.
What I have just stated on this matter, is not a matter of the usual sort of mere "hand-waving gestures" in which too many, even among scientists who wish to be considered "popular," indulge themselves all too often. There is, all too often, a viciously false substitution of the priestly opinions of some relic of an ancient Babylonian priestcraft, as a replacement for true political principles: a trend which continues to have been used to corrupt the opinions of most of our citizens.
This is not a recent case. Such shamefulness has been exhibited most of time since the wretched foolishness shown by those citizens who supported the election of the implicitly treasonous inclinations which had been sometimes traced as spoor found along the Cherokee Nation's "trail of tears," as strewn in the political wake of traitor Aaron Burr's puppet-President, Andrew Jackson.
The case of the misguided personal voter is among the most crucial of those dangers to our republic which must be faced in the current approach to the coming U.S. general election of 2012.
The error to that effect, is not merely that most of the voters are often even violently incompetent in their opinion on even the most crucial issues: the case of the election and re-election of the wretched President Andrew Jackson, is typical of that error from back then, whether it were the product of a malicious intention, or the foolish, simple lack of understanding the subject-matter.
In this case, President Thomas Jefferson's cover-up of the implication of Aaron Burr's murder of Alexander Hamilton, was a crucial step leading toward the role of the same Burr in the evil intent shown by both Andrew Jackson and Martin van Buren in their complicity with fellow-accomplice Aaron Burr. So much for the deep roots of sophistry (e.g., "Liberalism") which must occur within the leadership of the Democratic Party still today.
In the case of Andrew Jackson, in particular, his recurringly loutish inclination to do evil, was as fully intentional as it had become the habitual criminality of typical Aaron Burr cronies generally. The problem is not only that of the lack of any innocent coincidence between intention of the candidate, and presumption of the credulous voters; the more fundamental issue is, as in the case of Jackson, that not only does the voter serve as a too-readily-fooled dupe, but that the backers of the candidate used every sophistry "in the proverbial book," to "hoodwink the suckers" (suckers such as those who voted for the likenesses of Jackson and van Buren, yet once more, and once more yet again, still today.)
II. The Issue of Political Principles
This time, the Democratic Party leadership must be induced to become what is now absolutely necessary, and also, for a change, truthful, rather than merely populist sophistries. Should the Democratic Party's leadership fail to deliver the necessary result against the wretched Obama, the hope of succor is left to the hope of some Republican candidates unlike any among the present four Republican candidates whose antics are currently boosting the potential vote for Obama.
The modern roots of the principles of a true republic, lie in such founders of our own republic as the original great predecessors, among the Winthrops and Mathers, such as the Cotton Mather of our first American republic, the Massachusetts Bay Colony. These are the precedents which must be traced into our present modern times. Those are needed root-principles from the central role performed by the Fourteenth-century Renaissance's principal founder of modern science, Nicholas of Cusa; they include the Cotton Mather who, as the mentor of our great scientist-statesman Benjamin Franklin, emphasized the notion of a principle: "To do good."
Nonetheless, the credentials of the United States go deeper, to the developments originally centered in not only the 1439 Great Ecumenical Council of Florence, but the coincidence of the A.D. 1431 torture and cremation of Jeanne d'Arc (while alive!) by her English captors, with a coincident, startled and shocked attention to this atrocity called to the Church councils in progress at that time. Thus, her martyrdom and its effects reverberated quickly throughout France and beyond, as this was most clearly echoed later in the role of France's Louis XI as a leader within the process set into motion by the Great Ecumenical Council of Florence and the work of Nicholas of Cusa in the founding of all of the presently competent strains of modern European science. This was the setting of the true birth of all competent strains in modern physical science.
It remains, also, as the great principle underlying the launching of our own Federal Constitution.
That aspect of the principles of modern physical science, is of the most crucial importance in coming to an effective comprehension of the crisis in the principles of modern statecraft which I report to you here.
The Issue Lies in the Subject of Truth
During the interval from mid-2010, through early February 2012, I have devoted a major portion of my expended time in setting forth an identification and description of certain deep principles which underlie my unique achievements, since 1956-57 and beyond, as a relatively uniquely successful forecaster in the matter of economic developments. Since 1953, these methods of forecasting adopted by me have been a uniquely successful practice in general, insofar as I have been able to deploy them, as this fact is exemplified in cases such as my celebrated victory in a December 2, 1971 debate against a then internationally leading, British Keynesian Professor, Abba Lerner, at New York City's Queens College.
My relevant, earlier entry into the field of economic forecasting as such, which had occurred during the mid-1950s, was an expression of my professional employment as a consultant in economic management, as expressed most notably in my exceptional achievements in recognizing the inherent folly of the current practices, and their implications, of marketing of both new and used automobiles under the rubrics of leading relevant automobile corporations.
The outcome of those developments in my work as a professional management consulting executive during that time, was expressed as based in advances in my methods of physical-economic forecasting effected during the Summer of 1956, for what I had then pin-pointed as a virtually certain crash of the U.S. economy to be experienced during the interval of the coming late February to early March in 1957.
The approach which I had adopted, an approach which led to the relatively unique success of my forecast "within the trade" during that interval, did not please the other executives of my corporate employer at that time, especially once the evidence showed that I had been successful in my forecasting the 1957 crash within the range of those specified dates, as in contrast to the failed views of the other leading executives of the firm and the relevant "trade" generally. The grave error of my rivals in that firm was their frankly foolish reliance on the intrinsically failed practice of a virtually Bertrand Russellite sort of "statistical forecasting," rather than competently applied physical science.
Nonetheless, the continued development of my forecasting methods, during the 1960s and beyond, have been proven to have been the root of a capability which has continued to be uniquely exceptional in their successes thus far, and which continue to be what might be described as "broadly authoritative" in their effects at the present instant, especially when considered against the incompetent standard set by the sophistical liberalism of John Maynard Keynes, and my defeated Keynesian "victim," the imported Keynesian Professor Abba Lerner, in the Queens College debate of Dec. 2, 1971.
That British Professor Abba Lerner had been hauled into the December 2nd debate against me, as a leading part of an effort to find, in the Keynesian Lerner, a global champion to defend those deeply embarrassed, leading U.S. economists who had failed utterly to recognize their utterly incompetent view of an already onrushing deep 1971 recession, a recession which I had defined, and against which I had warned repeatedly, specifically throughout the late 1960s into the Summer of 1971. That conspicuous, and most embarrassing failure of the ostensibly leading academic and related economists of not only the U.S.A., but Europe, had been the result of a systemic incompetence inherent in what they had been teaching to the hatchlings of Academia for years, their academically most embarrassing failure to recognize what was more the failure of their silly, Keynesian-like statistical doctrines, rather than that of the real (i.e., physical) economy itself.
From the beginning of my entry into the relevant studies which had led me into my profession as a physical economist about a decade-and-a-half earlier, my initial standard was set, as I have just noted above, by my adolescent recognition of the principled, physical-scientific incompetence of so-called Euclidean geometry. Thence, I had been led in my searches for further confirmation of my view of Euclidean and related methods into certain works of Bernhard Riemann, his 1854 habilitation dissertation most notably, from which I had already drawn certain systemic conclusions, during the mid-1950s, which I had brought into play, step by step, since the early years of the post-Truman decade.
Consequently, the development of my professional commitment to the assessment of the economic catastrophe building up in the automotive and related credit practices during my first-hand engagements during the 1954-1957 interval, and, then, beyond represented an increasing commitment to the implications of the unique success implicit in the further exploration and application of Riemannian methods.
It was at a later time, since approximately early 1971, that my earlier emphasis on Riemann was first "adjusted" to incorporate the specific, and wonderful implications of the superior quality of scientific revolution generated through the work of V.I. Vernadsky. It would not be unfair, or an exaggeration, to emphasize that Riemann, Max Planck, Albert Einstein, and Vernadsky, express, typically, the innermost core of those conceptions upon which a fully humanistic comprehension of mankind's role within our Solar system and its subsuming galaxy depends, as a leading challenge for the understanding of almost everything we really know concerning such matters presently.
That paradoxical subject is a matter which I have already elaborated in important features in my two-volume work represented, successively, by my recent The Mystery of Your Time and Science-vs-Oligarchism. I mean the problem posed by a misguided, all-too-literal reliance on the grossly fallible role of bare human sense-perception as such.
There is an essential relevance of that referenced material, thus far, for the political-strategic-economic crisis immediately before us. In parts that report is left incomplete with respect to certain important, leading scientific work in which my own and my scientific associates' work, among that of other professionals, is very much in energized progress at this time. Nonetheless, despite the conditional limitations I have self-imposed on presenting certain aspects of my present views now, and which I have therefore placed on my report, here at this time, what I do report is both valid and most urgently relevant, for as far as I am disposed to publish on what may be confidently treated as work-urgently-in-progress at this time.
I am not reluctant to identify that added material, except that it be considered only in concert with a relevant scientific or related audience where matters include still-debatable conclusions which are to be held as important, even urgently important subjects for early progress. Essentially, Albert Einstein's "E = mc2" persists as the physical parameter which dominates the discussion more today than ever before. I limit the essential features of the argument presented in this present report to their bearing on the notion of what constitutes both a physical-scientific standard and a valid principle of constitutional law, as distinct from the fallacies inherent in the more ordinary notions of practiced law.
What Is Truly "American Law"?
The founding of the new quality of universal law which was presented to modern European culture in the context of the Great Ecumenical Council of Florence, had been most clearly conveyed to modern European science partly by the circles of Filippo Brunelleschi, and, more notably by the Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa who posed to Europe, then, the principled challenge of moving the channels of progress from the deeply corrupted habits of Europe to habitats across the great oceans. Christopher Columbus' trans-Atlantic voyages of discovery, were among the specific outcomes of that injunction promulgated by the same Nicholas of Cusa whose work, such as his De Docta Ignorantia distinguishes the principle upon which the founding of a competent modern science rests, from its then continued Mediterranean-based Roman and medieval predecessors.
The resulting, exemplary distinction of the notions of lawfulness conveyed by the work of Cusa and Cusa's current of scientific progress, can be efficiently summarized for purposes of definitions as a rejection of the reigning oligarchical system of doctrine and public practice throughout Europe at that time.
The effect of Cusa's influence to this effect, found its most original form of most significant influence in the appearance and development of the Massachusetts Bay colonization under the Seventeenth-century leadership of the Winthrops and Mathers, as expressed in the work of the original Harvard's Classical European program of education derived from influence of the work of Nicholas of Cusa in Europe of that time. This influence persisted as leading in the New England colony until the consummately evil New Venetian Party of the followers of Paolo Sarpi took over the crushing of the Massachusetts settlement during the closing quarter of that century.
It had been at the urging of Cotton Mather, that young Benjamin Franklin was to move the development of his career from a Massachusetts colony crushed by the New Venetian Party's William of Orange, toward what became Franklin's world-wide influence extended across the Atlantic, and, hence, the creation of what became our uniquely constituted young American republic, a republic whose presently endangered genius had been a world-wide, historical force among mankind until the time of the repeal of that Glass-Steagall law adopted under President Franklin Roosevelt, which law had given a fresh basis for the continuation of the intention of the U.S. Federal Constitution, until the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert.
Since those murders of the two brothers, the net effect has been a consistent intellectual and moral decline of the U.S.A. and Western and Central Europe, a decline which was set abruptly into motion by the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, from which there is been no general physical, moral, or intellectual recovery in the trans-Atlantic region of the planet to the present date.
Therefore, our mission, which I have adopted as my own particular responsibility, and for which I have been much feared, increasingly, by the trans-Atlantic establishment, that, most notably, since my surge to a leading position of fearfully hated intellectual intention in the trans-Atlantic region in a British-monarchy-led response to my presentation of the case of the August-December 1971 proof of the intrinsic fallacy of the "economics doctrine" of the relevant elements of, in particular, the English-speaking trans-Atlantic community.
Understanding Our Failed Economists
The root of the evil to be considered by mankind at this crucial juncture in history, is, proverbially, the superstitious, and also extremely pathological nature of the belief in "money" as such. It is indispensable, if our civilization is to outlive the presently onrushing threat of an immediate outbreak of general thermonuclear warfare, that we free mankind of the pathological characteristic of the general belief in money. The notion of money must be now replaced, in its entirety, by the same principle of credit which was introduced to the U.S. Federal Constitution by the prompting of Benjamin Franklin and Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton. Unless that change is made now, the very existence of our United States were almost about to cease to exist. The function of national and world economy must now be replaced, as if immediately, by a physical principle of credit, the same notion of credit emphasized by the combined genius of Benjamin Franklin and Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton.
After all, the original Massachusetts economy under the brilliantly successful design of the Winthrops and Mathers, was based on the principle of a credit system, that of the Pine Tree Shilling. That economic system never failed in its own design; it could only be crushed by a frankly Satanic force such as the New Venetian party of the followers of Paolo Sarpi, the so-called Netherlands party of William of Orange.
All the relevant incompetencies and related failures of the U.S.A. economy since that time, have been the consequence of substituting the British imperial model of a monetarist system for the U.S. constitutional credit-system. In fact, all monetarist systems of government are intrinsically branches of an imperialist system, one such still to be traced in its development through the pathway represented by the first "universal" system of Mediterranean culture known as the Roman Empire, as that precedent has been extended, almost without exception there, up through the present date.
There exists no intrinsic value in a system of money per se. Only the establishment of a credit system, to replace monetarist systems, could bring the world out of the presently lunging plunge into a general physical-economic breakdown-crisis of the planet generally in progress during the present moment.
The fact which I have just stated, thus, requires that we introduce a new chapter of this report, that required to create a separation of the state of monetarist practices habituated to the minds of our citizens presently, to a fresh bath taken in the cleansing waters of a credit system.
III. The United States As a Credit