In reference to Lyndon LaRouche's "New Bretton Woods" policy proposal.
This article appeared in the August 28, 1998 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
August 14, 1998
On the surface, the evidence points to the recent bombing attack at the U.S. Embassy in Kenya's capital, as being an expression of London's, and also Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's rage, against what they regard as the U.S. government's interference with London's ongoing, continent-wide stage-managing of mercenary armies' deployments in Africa raw-materials grabs. The message was clear, whatever accomplices, or mere cat's-paws may also have been drawn, actually, or only allegedly, into the picture of that Nairobi atrocity. The suspected, London-controlled perpetrators, and their right-wing Israeli accomplices operating in the Horn of Africa and immediately adjoining region, are, combined, the only existing capability operating on the scene which was positioned with the technological and other relevant capability to arrange the delivery of that specific, brutal message in that specific way.
On the matter of the bombing of the Kenya U.S. Embassy itself, the reader will please have the decency to give the President of the United States credit for not being an idiot. The indications are, that neither the U.S. government, nor Egypt's was fooled by the ongoing British and Netanyahu efforts to plant misleading evidence for authorship of the Embassy bombing against sundry Arab, Iranian, and other actually or nominally Islamic interests. Otherwise, as to what the White House says publicly on this matter, unfortunately, in the U.S.A. and elsewhere: what diplomacy says rarely agrees with what the relevant governments actually think.
Given, apart from the U.S. government's relevant knowledge of the bloody-handed Africa collaboration between London and Netanyahu, it is clear that, up to now, the U.S. government's understanding of the motives behind London's dirty work in Africa is somewhat accurate, but only limited. This is a limitation not only in scope, but, most emphatically, in depth. Like the many leading governments, and other relevant authorities around the world, who were caught by surprise in a related matter, the systemic character of the recent fifteen months' spiral of escalating financial and monetary crisis, the U.S. government has shown, so far, only a superficial grasp of the underlying realities of the Africa situation as a whole, and is only somewhat better informed on the crucial issues in other parts of today's world, than they are in matters of Africa itself.
In weighing the evidence to be considered in connection with the bombing of the Embassy, do not forget the "Leeson Principle." Junior mail clerks in Singapore offices, do not, on their own authority, organize multi-billion-dollar losses on the account of major London financial houses. Therefore, on this account, let the fading notes of Britain's retreating "Pied Piper," Prime Minister Tony Blair, guide his "Third Way" dupes toward that oblivion which they are bringing upon themselves. Let Tony Blair bury Tony Blair; respecting the matter at hand, we have far more weighty threats to humanity than the personal vanities of mental light-weights to consider. There is very little time remaining, for governments and other relevant influentials, to begin to understand the deeper processes afoot throughout this planet, the processes which will determine the outcome of the now-concluding century.
Our task in the present report, is to make clear some of the principal, if, unfortunately, rarely understood, determining features of that process which threatens not only an early general disintegration of the world's economies, but the extinction of most of the nations, and most of the population of all continents of this planet. It was not some petty, shallow, synthetic political figure like Tony Blair, but, rather, actually important, and often most cunning people, who created the crucial strategic problems menacing the world today.
To understand such among today's covert operations as the referenced Nairobi incident, take the precaution of recalling a relevant, ominous page from the opening decades of this present century. Recall, that the terrorist assassination of Austro-Hungary's Archduke Ferdinand, on June 28, 1914, led, as if by chain-reaction, to Russia's pan-Slavist threats against Austro-Hungary, on July 24. So, as a result of the foolish action of the self-doomed Czar Nicholas II, Russia's open declaration of the general mobilization for a joint British, French, and Russian invasion onslaught against Germany, the actual outbreak of World War I occurred, on July 29. The terrorist assassination of France's leading opponent of the war, Jean Jaurès, on July 31, eliminated the last chance of avoiding that outbreak of the actual war-fighting called World War I. The terrorist action against the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, must be assessed similarly, not as an FBI parody of some "Sherlock Holmes" whodunit, but in historic terms of reference.
As in the case of the terrorist attack against the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, the historical significance of important individual incidents, specially incidents of a distinctively terrorist type, is never located within the parameters of a local police-agency's investigation of the alleged perpetrators of a local criminal incident as such. Few more disgusting follies have occurred in connection with the major conflicts in history, than to brush aside the deeper, broader implications of an incident on the pretext of "abhorring conspiracy theories." According to the lessons of history, people who abhor "conspiracy theories" on alleged principle, are politely referred to, as may be appropriate, as either "witting accomplices," or, more gently, as "idiots."
No mere "incident," not even the Pearl Harbor attack of Dec. 7, 1941, was ever responsible for causing a modern general war; only some deeper, broader, underlying connection could imbue an individual incident, as a mere detonator, with the influence and importance of a major explosion. As in the case of events leading into World War I, or the pattern of recent incidents in sub-Sahara Africa, the relevant incidents are to be investigated as analogous to the individual observations of the motion of some astronomical body. Such bodies, like any of the observed bodies moving through our solar system, do not determine their own trajectory independently; their significance lies in the underlying processes which determine the observed succession of cases.
To restate this historical reference to World War I in relevant terms: What developed into World War I, began in France, as what proved to be an historic connection between the Russia-France treaty of 1893 and the French revanchiste war-party's (the "Entente Cordiale" party's) orchestration of the fraudulent charges against Dreyfus. As long as Hanotaux and his faction remained in the leadership of France's Third Republic, the danger of France's involvement in a British alliance for war against Germany was apparently relatively minimal. Thus, an apparently minor event in Africa, in the Sudan, the Fashoda incident of 1898, led to the bringing to power in France of that revanchist party then controlled by the then British Prince of Wales, later King Edward VII. After Fashoda and the accompanying toppling of Hanotaux's faction in France, a British-French-Russian alliance for launching war on Germany was already almost inevitable: the general orbital trajectory of Europe's history was virtually set for the coming half-century and longer.
The process leading into those two World Wars was not a self-subsisting, European affair. Behind this pre-World War I pattern of incidents, was a long-standing quarrel between the cause of the United States' war for its independence, on the one side, and the hateful opposition to both the U.S. and the "model" it represented, by both the British monarchy and those other European circles which, in 1814, formed the anti-American abomination, later admired by agent of British influence Henry A. Kissinger, known as Clement Prince Metternich's "Holy Alliance."
The history of major conflict on the Eurasia continent, in one way or another, from that time to the present day, was a reaction to the unexpected success of the United States, under the leadership of President Abraham Lincoln, in crushing two British operations which had been intended to destroy the U.S.A., these being both the Confederate States of America and the Nazi-like regime under Mexico's Britain-France-Spain-imposed Emperor Maximilian. Since those events of 1863-66, the history of world conflicts has been shaped by the reaction of the British monarchy and its continental European dupes, a reaction to their fear and hatred of the kind of influence represented by Lincoln's model of the United States. The determination of both the British and feudalist relics of the European continent's landed aristocracy's tradition, to destroy the U.S. Federal constitutional system of government, eliminate the influence of the U.S. on the Eurasia continent, and, they hoped, to recapture the United States as a faithful member de facto of the British Commonwealth, has shaped the history of this planet since no later than 1763.
It was the spread of the influence of that American model of modern agro-industrial nation-state economy, as epitomized by the 1861-1876 transformation of the U.S. economy, which impelled the U.S. admirers and anti-British collaborators in Japan, Russia, Germany, France, and others, into the great enterprise of creating transcontinental, railway-spined, development corridors, modelled upon the U.S. transcontinental railway system, from Brest in France to Tokyo, Baghdad and elsewhere. It was to prevent this transcontinental Eurasia railway-corridor development, that the British monarchy orchestrated what became World War I: putting all the original partners of the Eurasia project--France, Germany, Russia, Japan, et al.--at one another's throats.
Unfortunately, the methods of analysis needed to cut through the myths of Versailles, and to understand how World War I actually occurred, or to understand the relevant implications of today's raw-materials wars in Africa, are unfamiliar to most of today's leading statesmen, political parties, and intelligence services. Although unfamiliar, once the truth is told, these methods should be more or less readily comprehensible by any literate and reasonable persons with some knowledge of world affairs. However, comprehensible as these methods may thus be, they are, still today, unfamiliar to most, including leading statesmen generally. Hopefully, by the time we reach the conclusion of this report, our argument itself should be understandable to such readers.
The background for the method employed here, is to be found in the applicability of certain scientific discoveries by Carl Gauss, to those historical processes which are to be defined in political-economic, rather than simply mathematical-physical terms of reference. Although Gauss's work is at the frontier of physical scientific work, still to the present day, the application of his method to historical processes defined in political-economic terms, should be readily accessible even to historically literate persons who may be otherwise merely laymen in mathematical matters. The argument, briefly, runs as follows.
In the instance of Gauss's unique solutions for determining the Keplerian orbits of the asteroids Ceres and Pallas, Gauss's rigorous, analysis situs method for examination of a series of relatively tiny intervals of motion, led to proof that these bodies were fragments of a destroyed former Solar planet, whose earlier existence and orbit had been defined by the founder of comprehensive forms of modern mathematical physics, Johannes Kepler. Gauss's unique success in this matter was a matter of his choice of method, a method in contrast to that of all other competing astronomers and mathematicians of Europe at that time. The key to Gauss's success, was the fact that he situated the existence of the relevant, relatively tiny, observed events, according to Leibniz's principle of the calculus. That is to stress, that Gauss, like Leibniz, situated the determination of the characteristically "non-linear" trajectories of physical processes, as measured within the relatively infinitesimally small, that within the determining context of the relevant larger process seen in terms of an inclusive system of modular functions. This had become, earlier, the characteristic feature of what Kepler's progress in his own work had produced, as his system of astronomy as a whole.
The same method for defining the problem to be solved, must be applied to the pattern of ongoing, seemingly isolated events in sub-Sahara Africa today. These events must be examined as one should have appreciated the implications of that series of seemingly isolated events which became the mile-posts of Europe's 1892-1914 march into World War I. As I shall show, in the concluding portion of this report, the person competently trained and experienced as both a physical economist and an historian, could, and should, readily recognize the intersecting influences of today's political-economic universe, as representing a modular function, in the same general sense as the successive, and eminently successful phases of development of the concept of modular functions for physical science, by Kepler, Leibniz, Lazare Carnot, Gaspard Monge, Gauss, and Bernhard Riemann.
As my collaborators and I have stressed this matter of scientific principle in earlier locations, Gauss shows, corroborating the earlier work on this point by Johannes Kepler and Gottfried Leibniz, that the characteristic features of processes taken in the large, are, as I have stressed again, just above, revealed by discovering the non-linear characteristic of the same process in the relatively infinitesimally small. This principle of Gauss's applies not only to astrophysical and other physical processes as such. We stress here, that this principle also applies to any more rigorous investigation into the current unfolding of history, even on a grand political scale. We shall emphasize, in this report, that it is the characteristic of London's raw-materials-grab operations in Africa, as Leibniz, and Gauss after him, define such a significance for the term characteristic, which is the most important evidence pointing to the nature of the horrendous developments now in the process of unfolding throughout the world as a whole.
Thus, from following the modular method successfully used by Gauss, we may adduce a similar method to be used by historians. This we present, and employ here, as an approach to the recent pattern of seemingly isolated occurrences in Africa. In all of the indicated types of cases, including the pattern in sub-Sahara Africa and the Middle East today, one can thus foresee the general trajectory--the "orbital pathway"--of which each of these events is chiefly but an expression. We define thus, the pathway leading presently, not only into the World War I of the past, but into the relatively immediate degeneration of this planet into a global "new dark age," a "new dark age" analogous to that which decimated mid-Fourteenth-Century Europe, but, this time, on a global scale. The pure Hell now emerging from the London-orchestrated raw-materials grabs in sub-Sahara Africa, is a typical foretaste of the catastrophe now immediately threatening the virtual entirety of our planet.
These modular connections underlying the determination of the characteristic features of crucial events taken in the small, may seem strange, at first, but, this reaction is merely a reflection of the fact that the idea of such connections, as we portray those here, is greeted as something unfamiliar to most statesmen and other relevant persons, for the simple reason that they have remained uninformed on these matters. Let us say once more, that once the literate reader has walked through the processes we address here, the connections we show become frighteningly obvious, and irrefutable.
Thus, as we shall show here, the bombing attack on the U.S. Embassy in Kenya, when taken in the context in which the present events in Africa are situated, reflects, in the small, the characteristics of those larger, global processes which shaped the occurrence of that bombing itself. Thus, the present global crisis, the combination of economic collapse, of escalating global financial and monetary crises, and increase in number and intensity of ominous types of bloody conflict around this planet, is reflected, in a relatively concentrated, and exemplary way, in the current process unfolding within the entirety of the raw-materials rich, London-dominated, sub-Sahara region of Africa.
Contrast the historical method indicated in the preceding paragraphs, to the usual blunders of the U.S.'s and other nations' policy-making.
The potentially suicidal folly of the U.S.A. and other notable governments, is those governments' understandable, but, in this case, disastrous habit in dealing with crises. Repeatedly, as in the case of the currently escalating Africa crisis, these governments have brought their habituated delusion to each new round of the now perennial Russia crisis. They delude themselves, that the purpose of problem-solving must be to discover ways of defending those same previously established trends in institutions, policies, and goals which have been, in this instance, the actual cause of the recurring Russia crises. In the matter of the present so-called "IMF system," these governments seem to be hoping vainly for that figurative, sinking Titanic's fatal completion of its voyage, when, in fact, these governments should be occupied with getting the passengers quickly, and safely off that doomed vessel. Governments must cease their customary, vain efforts to manage every crisis, each one at a time; they must, instead, begin to root out the causative, systemic errors central to their own longstanding policies.
To assist the reader in beginning to understand the processes which are actually determining current history, we begin by examining the follies of current U.S. and other governments' continuing, professed commitments to such pathetic catch-phrases as "globalism" and "democratic and economic reforms." The recent history of the Russia crisis is an example. From that, we turn to the deeper processes which are actually shaping the outcome of current history.
To begin that deeper investigation, we shall linger a bit longer over the exemplary case of recent U.S. policy for Russia. In this case, until now, the U.S. government has been gravely misled into believing that the proper object of present policy-making, is to behave like some foolish physician perversely dedicated to defending his favorite disease. Summed up in a single phrase, "the customary follies of crisis management." To repeat the crucial point we just made: official Washington's tragically misguided impulse, is to conduct crisis-management operations putatively intended to defend and strengthen what conventional opinion mistakenly regards as currently established, acceptable trends for defining strategic objectives, or, all too often, what a habitually corrupt and usually lying mass news media so often terrorizes weak-minded, suggestible political figures into thinking. Until now, Washington has been inclined to defend the present financial and monetary policies which have been imposed upon Russia, like the fabled Titanic, all the way to the bottom.
In the matter of Russia, and in related crises, the Clinton Administration's pre-established policy objectives, which it must now, so belatedly, abruptly discard, are those inherited from President George Bush's watch. These are the policies, respecting economic and other so-called "reforms," which were jointly, successively established by NATO, and the Mikhail Gorbachev government of the former Soviet Union, and shoved down the throat of the recently formed Yeltsin government, beginning the events of 1989-1992. These so-called "reforms" are, in fact, the policies which have been the chief, recent, continuing cause for all of the presently worsening disasters in Russia, as the same influences are responsible for most of catastrophes in progress elsewhere throughout the planet as a whole. Since 1992, every attempt by the U.S., and the International Republican Institute (IRI), to fix the problem of Russia's financial and monetary stability, has only made the situation much worse than if Washington had done nothing at all.
Although, so far, President Clinton's personal attitude toward Russia has been a benevolent one, until this moment of writing, his administration has continued to reject, or even block every correction which might actually have been useful in ameliorating Russia's crisis. The problem is not limited to left-over policies from Bush's watch. As if to prove that leading governments appear to have learned nothing valuable from the disastrous follies of the 1989-1992 interval, take the example of what has now been exposed as a monstrously mistaken, recent policy, of the U.S.A. and others, which set into motion the rapid, presently ongoing disintegration of a major nation of the world, Indonesia.
For the next several minutes, continue to focus attention here on a summary of some preliminary, exemplary points respecting the strategically disastrous folly of the U.S.A.'s continuing Russia policy. That done, following that, we shall shift focus, to the core of the matter before us. We then focus our attention to the failure of virtually all of the world's relevant governments and leading private institutions (with the notable exception of China's government) to even begin to grasp the nature of the new phase of crisis which now grips the planet as a whole. In the conclusion of this report, we return to the subject of London's racist role in directing the ongoing holocaust against black Africa; there, in Africa, is the mirror image of the process now imperilling this planet as a whole. Within that relative microcosm of Africa, we meet the characteristic action which is now determining the trajectory of events world-wide, as a whole.
We begin this phase of our report with the following paragraph, which fairly summarizes the present stage of the continuing crisis of Russia.
As long as Russia continues to be under the dictatorial thumb of those axiomatic "free trade" and related "reform" policies which were dictated by Britain, France, and the U.S.A. during President George Bush's 1989-1993 term, there is no possibility that Russia's finances would ever come into balance, nor any chance that Russia could now survive as a nation into the years immediately ahead. Under a continuation of any form of the conditions imposed by Bush et al., Russia's bankruptcy was inevitable, and would remain incurable; Russia's economy, and, probably, its political existence as a nation, would now soon disintegrate, unless every piece of current U.S. policy respecting the financial, monetary, and economic policy affairs of Russia, were scrapped. All U.S. efforts to defend and perfect the previously introduced "democratic and economic reforms" in Russia are, at their best, a fool's blunders. If that set of U.S. policy guidelines were to continue in effect, then, the inevitable, short-term result, is the alternative of either a ruthless dictatorship in Russia, or disintegration of the nation of Russia as it presently exists, the latter possibly with nuclear complications.
The key to understanding the global setting in which this present crisis of Russia was created, is an Executive Intelligence Review report of August 14, 1998, on the history of German reunification, a report prepared by the founder of the International Schiller Institute, my wife, Helga Zepp LaRouche. Her report summarizes the facts of the reunification and related diplomacy, as officially documented recently by Germany's Chancellor Helmut Kohl, and also provides a documentation of those additional, crucial, sometimes startling facts from the 1988-1991 period, which Kohl's own report omits.
The fate of post-war continental Europe, including the former Soviet Union and other Comecon states, was decided, during the 1989-1992 interval, by the same four-power agency--the U.S.A., Britain, France, and the Soviet Union--which had come to power, and had retained world power, since the post-Franklin Roosevelt arrangements following the final collapse of the Hitler regime in Germany. The official documentation recently published by Chancellor Kohl, and the additional vital documentation supplied by Helga LaRouche, show two most important features dominating the 1989-1992 policy-shaping by the relevant four bandits of that time: Britain's Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, France's President François Mitterrand, the U.S.A.'s President George Bush, and Soviet General Secretary-turned-President Gorbachev.
The first point of agreement, dictated by Thatcher and Mitterrand, and supported by Bush and his cronies, was that Germany's economic potential must be crushed. That policy was carried out, with President George Bush's full complicity. Despite President Clinton's offers to Germany, in 1994, and, again, more recently, the Thatcher-Mitterrand-Bush policy of destroying Germany's economy has been continued under the Clinton administration, to the present day.
The second point, was, that the economies of the Soviet Union and other states emerging from Communist rule must be so looted and virtually destroyed, that they would never re-emerge as healthy economies at any time in the foreseeable future. Any different interpretation of those negotiations, agreements, and perspectives, is either lame-brained nonsense, or, more simply, outright lies. Until the Thatcher-Mitterrand-Bush-Gorbachev policies of 1989-1991 are overturned axiomatically, there is no possibility of anything but the worst strategic result erupting in Russia during the period bridging the fourth quarter of 1998 and the first quarter of 1999.
After the recent publications of both Chancellor Helmut Kohl's documentation, and the supplementary report provided by Helga LaRouche, let no U.S. statesman continue to be the kind of fool or hypocrite, who would pretend that the 1989-1992 governments of Britain and France had any intention toward Germany, but to destroy its economy, its currency, even the last vestige of its national sovereignty. Let no one be such a silly fool or outright liar, as to pretend that Prime Minister Thatcher, President Mitterrand, and President Bush's cabal of Scowcroft, Eagleburger, James Baker III, et al., had any intention toward the former Comecon states of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, but to destroy those economies, turn them into ravaged "Third World" raw-materials exporting nations, and destroy the ability of Russia's population to rise, ever again, to the economic status of a world power. What Thatcher, Mitterrand, and Bush did, to bring about the ruin of the economies and populations of western Europe (including Britain itself), eastern Europe, and the former Soviet Union, is exactly what they intended to do to those regions. Thatcher, Mitterrand and Bush made no honest mistakes in their choice of policies on these accounts; in all honesty, they, personally, were the mistakes.
The problem which the present situation in Russia presents to the government of the U.S., can be summed up by three sets of questions.
First, could Russia be saved from financial and monetary disintegration by any methods which have been acceptable to the U.S. and relevant western European governments up to this present moment of writing? The answer is, flatly, "No;" any effort to employ, once again, a variant upon the combined "free trade," "globalist," and financial bailout-of-creditors policies used during recent years, will not merely fail, but will actually aggravate, and accelerate the onrushing disaster. Second, could Russia be saved, and that done in ways which would be consistent with the vital interests of both its principal creditor, Germany, and also the U.S.A.? The answer is, "Yes." With these first two questions, we are thus back to the principle of metaphor invoked by the famous soliloquy from the third act of Shakespeare's Hamlet, "To be, or not to be."
The third question is, "How do we prove the answers to the first two questions?" Any leading American economist could supply the form of the answer required by that question. The best industrial production managements' practice, world-wide, up through the 1960s, also represents the influence of the same American System tradition. All of the most successful agro-industrial economies of the late Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, modelled their successful performance upon the form of American System economics developed in the U.S. during 1861-1876. Indeed, this was also the model adopted as "American methods," with certain well-known qualifications, for the industrial development of the Soviet Union, by V.I. Lenin and other Soviet leaders. The U.S. economic-mobilization standards of 1861-1876, standards re-invoked for the U.S. economic mobilizations of the period of World Wars I and II, remain the bench-mark standards for determining the degree to which economic policy of practice is, or is not fostering the net growth of the physical economy of the nation as a whole. Reference to these standards provides us the basis for a reasonable response to the third question posed here.
In the American System, we compare Hamilton's use of the notion of "productive powers of labor" to Leibniz's earlier definitions of the same functional notion. We include under "productive powers of labor," the level of improvement of all of the general territory, all of its basic economic infrastructure, all of the material and cultural standard of life of all family households, and the factors of power and technology. We compare those expenditures which are required to maintain the potential and actual productive powers of labor of the economy as a whole, per capita and per household, with the total useful output of the same qualities. We define "growth" as the increase of the physical-economic output of the whole economy, per capita, over the expenditures which must be made to sustain the relevant productive powers of labor.
Put to one side the usually misleading, and merely secondary issues of money, prices, and finance. Get back to basics; measure the performance of economies in those American System terms which I have just summarized. Apply these standards to the problems of today's Russia.
Put the relevant "voodoo economics" of former President Bush, Wall Street's bookmakers, and the Mont Pelerin Society's freak-shows to one side. Before measuring anything in terms of prices, compare the total output of the productive forces of Russia, with the physical-economic costs of maintaining the continued existence of the present level of productive forces of Russia as a whole. By this standard, the so-called reforms imposed beginning 1989-1992, collapsed Russia's economy, not only to levels far below break-even, but the failure to overturn those policies ensured the continually accelerated collapse of those ratios to beyond any breaking-point. The absolute breaking-point, a new quality of phase-shift in the process, has now either been reached, or nearly so. No matter how international bookkeepers juggle the financial accounts, the physical costs and physical output of Russia's economy as a whole, and the balance of domestic and foreign accounts (as their effects are measured in physical-economic, rather than merely financial terms), remain hopeless as long as present "free trade," "globalization," and "reform" policies remain in force.
There is only one solution: scrap the existing, "globalized" international financial and monetary systems, and virtually outlaw any application of the doctrine of "free trade" to international relations. Many will stubbornly, hysterically object to such an abandonment of the cult of "free trade." Ask them, "Are you willing to pay the price of your stubborn folly?" Do you wish civilization to survive, as it will not, unless we now rid this planet promptly of the pestilences of "globalization" and "free trade"? If not, the death of your children and grandchildren, caused by nothing but your own folly, often a horrible death, is on your hands.
There is reality in this universe, a reality which is unmoved by the hubristic arrogance of popular or other bodies of opinion; stubborn defiance of that reality often brings a terrible punishment, as Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound foresees the self-induced doom of Zeus and Olympus. The price paid for such stubborn adherence to mere opinion, goes even to the point of the terrible extinction of those empires, and even entire popular cultures, whose defiance of reality, like evil, self-doomed, ancient Mesopotamia, has stripped them of the moral fitness to survive.
Go to a new global system, modelled upon both the best features of the world's experience with the so-called "American System" of Hamilton, List, and the Careys, modelled upon the best features of the U.S. economic mobilizations of 1861-1876 and also World Wars I and II, and modelled upon the best features of the pre-1958 phase of the Bretton Woods, gold-reserve system. To Russia's seemingly hopeless situation, apply the lessons of the repeated successes of the applications of U.S. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton's three celebrated reports to the U.S. Congress on the subjects of credit, a national bank, and manufactures. Under those conditions, and only under those conditions, can the present on-going, chain-reaction collapse of the world's financial and monetary systems be brought under control.
In short, as we shall emphasize at an appropriate point, later in this report, the question whether this planet shall enjoy some form of civilized life, or the presently imminent, prolonged descent into global barbarism, will depend upon choosing the proven correctness of the American System of political-economy, over the assured doom consequent upon continued toleration of "free trade" and "globalization" policies. The fate of this planet now depends upon the outcome of the mortal political conflict between Aeschylus' Promethean Hercules of modern time, the American System, and the champion of Zeus' doomed Olympus, the wicked British "free trade" system. This conflict overrides all others, because, in practice, it presently predetermines the possible range of outcomes of everything else of much importance about the coming generations' prospects for human life on this planet.
The salvaging of Russia from its presently threatened doom, is exemplary of the same methods required to rescue the economies of the planet more generally. Moreover, the drastic reforms urgently needed for the salvaging of Russia, require complementary, drastic reforms of not only the world's financial and monetary systems and institutions, but also the principled, lawful features of economic relations among states. Since, Russia's survival depends upon sweeping changes within the system of international economic relations, in addition to matters of financial and monetary relations, without a general reconstruction of the economic order of this planet, no policy for Russia could succeed. Conversely, the global context required for a successful form of economic reconstruction of Russia, is implicitly the same reform required of the international system. With that qualification, the following summary of a reconstruction of Russia can be fairly stated.
Express the feasible alternative in terms of a series of steps as follows.
The first step is to define a program under which Russia's physical economy could become truly self-sustaining. The crucial factor here, is the hope that we might mobilize at least a large ration of the former scientific-military-industrial complex of the Soviet Union, as an advanced machine-tool-design capability, a capability which would include the decisive margin of Russia's export earnings. The idea of sustaining Russia chiefly through export of raw materials, is a piece of lunacy which must be rejected. It is the margin of physical-economic growth in productive powers of labor, represented chiefly by the impact of a machine-tool-design sector, on which the future of Russia depends absolutely.
The market for this kind of Russian high-technology export is defined by two factors, the sheer mass of the populations of China, India, and associated Asia nations, and the crippling dearth of the scale and quality of machine-tool-design capacity needed to give these Asia nations (and other relevant nations) the rate of technological progress needed to sustain rates of social-capital-formation at levels consistent with urgent needs of these nations. If we add to the residual machine-tool-design capabilities of traditional technology exporters such as the U.S.A., Germany, and Japan, the mobilizable new quality of such potential which might be mustered in Russia, a feasible physical-economic solution for the most pressing of the world's economic problems is in sight.
For Russia, to play its part, it, and its potential customers in Asia and Africa, must enjoy the advantage of long-term production and trade credit, at rates not in excess of one to two percent per annum, over periods equal to the physical-economic half-life of the technology transferred under such credit-trade arrangements.
The greater part of such credits extended to developing nations, and to exporters of physical capital to such nations, has four leading components: large-scale basic economic infrastructure development, typified by the ongoing development of China's Three Gorges water-management system; the development of food-producing potential, in which sub-Sahara Africa is potentially the leading major new source; high rates of technological progress in increase of the per-capita and per-square-kilometer productive powers of labor, largely through large-scale infusions of machine-tool-design effects into developing economies, accompanied by the development of an increasingly dense, supporting machine-tool capability, on the ground, in these developing economies; great emphasis upon the development of the education of the population as a whole, especially in matters bearing upon the connection which crucial experimental proofs supply, between validatable discoveries of physical principle, and technological progress in depth throughout the pores of the economy.
The development of modern, mass-transport-defined development corridors, integrated with large-scale water management, modern standards of both energy-flux density, and volumes of power supplied through these corridors, will be the dominant feature of development in Asia, Africa, and in Ibero-America, during the coming two decades or longer. In Africa, such measures, delivered largely as grants of direct assistance, mean the transformation of one of the world's largest agricultural areas, into a prospering food-basket for the burgeoning populations of South and Southeast Asia, and a significant source of added food-supplies into China. The combination of a massive engineering project, for control of the water systems of Siberia and Central Asia on the largest scale, will transform one of the most underpopulated and relatively barren, and potentially unstable, regions of the planet into a leading area of economic growth, and peaceful cooperation.
These measures of development, accompanied by crash programs of scientific breakthroughs in exploration of the outer reaches of astrophysics and microphysics, including living processes, will ensure reaching what the U.S.A.'s Dr. Edward Teller once described, in late 1982, as "the common aims of mankind."
Thus, under the conditions, that at least a large portion of the potential for import, by so-called "developing nations," of machine-tool-design grade and related technologies, is realized by aid of such credit-trade arrangements, the physical-economic output of nations such as the U.S.A., Japan, and western Europe would be greatly expanded, readily reaching levels above national economic break-even. On the side of the importing nations, the result is a comparable rate of physical-economic growth.
Thus, since the sovereign nation-state is the only kind of vehicle which can generate low-price, long-term import-export credit in the forms and on the scales required, the present trends toward "free trade" and "globalization" must be scrapped, world-wide. We must strengthen the authority of the sovereign nation-state, and must rely upon agreements among such nation-states as the indispensable mechanism for regulation of currencies and trade in international relations.
Then, given such a return to such forms of regulated economic affairs, what is required to address that blend of crisis and opportunity to which we have referred, is a new system of international cooperation among sovereign nation-states, which operates on the basis of calculating feasible levels of credit and trade, and sustainable relative prices of currencies, levels at which both technologically more developed and developing nations will operate at levels above physical-economic break-even.
For the rest, it is sufficient to find the will to act in a manner echoing the achievements of the U.S.A. in rising up from the 1930s Depression, and into the efforts of economic reconstruction required by war and the post-war conditions of the late 1940s and the 1950s. This approach will provide the foundations for solving the Russia crisis.
Otherwise, the financial affairs of Russia must be put through the equivalent of a U.S. "Chapter 11" bankruptcy-reorganization. Some financial paper must be simply written off wholesale, without mercy to the speculator. Other financial claims must be considered more compassionately, with a view to social justice for, and stability of households, and, especially, of vulnerable classes of persons, such as pensioners and the ill. The stability of productive enterprises must be considered a priority, similarly. Claims which can not be paid currently, but which should be honored in some way, nonetheless, may be postponed by issuing rationed credit against holders of titles to frozen financial assets. It is not necessary to write out the entire list of measures to be taken. With the illustrations stated here thus far, the principle should be obvious to relevant historians and other professionals.
The general feasibility of reaching agreements on such a "New Bretton Woods" system, depends upon completing President Franklin Roosevelt's intention to eradicate the residues of the colonial system at the end of World War II. Instead, U.S. President Truman, acting under the British policy later praised loudly by Henry A. Kissinger, took the opportunity created by Roosevelt's death to restore the colonial territories of Britain, France, the Netherlands, and Portugal to their overlords, in direct violation of Roosevelt's earlier policies and promises. Thus, to the present date, the majority of the population of this planet--of Asia, Africa, and Ibero-America, most notably--has been denied true political and economic justice.
Under the present circumstances, the political feasibility for the immediate establishment of a new world economic order, requires the largest possible constituency, with specific emphasis upon those nations which have been associated with the Non-Aligned Nations movement. It will be necessary to persuade those political forces associated with the traditional colonial powers, the Anglo-Dutch and kindred complexes of financier-oligarchical power, that they are politically outnumbered to the point that they must accept today what they earlier successfully resisted then, during the term of U.S. President Truman. Such reluctant parties will find an overwhelming preponderance of political-nation-state power a persuasive argument.
As I have stressed in various publications, since my 1977 The Case of Walter Lippman, U.S. policy must be based upon the concept of "community of principle" as formulated by President James Monroe's Secretary of State, and later President himself, John Quincy Adams. Adams' and my own principles are in direct opposition to the doctrines of such U.S. personalities of British persuasions as Henry A. Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski. The latter, unfortunate creatures seem to drool forever, most obscenely, over the words "balance of power." The persisting aim of the foreign policy of a true republic, is to create and maintain a world order on the basis of a community of principle among perfectly sovereign nation-state republics. Kissinger rightly identified his own "balance of power" notion, as in direct opposition to the American patriotic intellectual tradition; he also described British thinking and his own, accurately, as characteristically Hobbesian. From the standpoint of the traditions of Chinese philosophy, Kissinger and Brzezinski, like Hobbes, have taken the wrong side in the choice between being a person and a beast.
The essence of modern civilization, the essence of the difference between a true constitutional republic, such as Abraham Lincoln's U.S.A., and an oligarchical tyranny, such as the British system, is precisely that which sets me, and President John Quincy Adams, against Kissinger and Brzezinski. For me, as for Adams, and for Christians generally, man and woman are each and all made, equally, in the image of the Creator, endowed with that power for creative reason which presents man as in that image. Thus, for us, the object of society is to devise means and ways in which each person is enabled to realize that potential of creative reason.
It is crucial for understanding the terrorist bombing at Nairobi, and for understanding the British Africa policy which is the setting for that bombing, that for representatives of the contrary, "balance of power" persuasion, such as Hobbes and his followers, the great mass of humanity deserves no better fate than that of human cattle. Thus, the Africa slave-traders and other past and present Leporellos of the diplomatic trade, such as today's Kissinger and Brzezinski, fancy themselves the privileged, mean-spirited lackeys of whatever oligarchical class-interest they esteem themselves to serve; mean-spirited lackeys that they are, these modern "Simon Legrees" herd the hounds, and beat, or kill such peasant slaves as they might deem requiring such exemplary instruction on obedience to their alleged "betters."
The object of the notion of a community of principle as a policy of statecraft, is the intent to bring agreement and cooperation through inspiring others to discover the essential goodness in themselves, to discover both the beauty of reason, and the joy of what reason recognizes as beauty. Put aside the Hobbesian, satanic passions underlying Kissinger's and Brzezinski's notions of managed conflict as the art of "balance of power." The hatred needed to energize the cunning craft of "geopolitics" has given us the premises for two World Wars during this century, and augurs nothing other than a worse sort of planetary Hell, if it rules relations among principal powers at the present time. Rather than the doctrine of hatred known under such rubrics as "balance of power" and "geopolitics," it is that quality of love of the people of one republic for the people of another, which defines a community of principle, a principle which, as the great American Cotton Mather wrote, is a commitment to do good, a good of which one need not be ashamed in the eyes of either ancestors or future generations of mankind.
On the basis of seeking to establish a new world economic order, under conditions of the humility suited to the conditions of a presently terrifying global emergency, and recognizing that a community of principle is the only trustworthy basis for finding a solution, perhaps we shall avoid the "new dark age" now threatening this planet. The available solution is, technologically, a feasible one, as I have indicated here; the question is, are governments prepared enough to give up their old, rotten habits, and seize this new opportunity instead?
At present, there are apparently three options open to the population of this planet.
First, there is the technical feasibility, and urgency, of establishing a new world economic order, which would echo the objectives and methods of what we have identified as the American System of political-economy. This is an alternative which reaffirms the perfect sovereignty of the institution of the nation-state republic, and the benefits of using scientific and technological progress, this effected through cooperation among nation-states, all in the common interest of these states in improving the productive powers of labor, and thus the cultural and material conditions of life of the individual household.
Second, there is that utopian prospect which has been considered inevitable by most leading opinion, especially the opinion of the so-called "environmentalists" and contemporary monetarists. This is the widespread, delusory belief, that we are in the process of establishing what would be, in effect, Bertrand Russell's design for his hellish notion of paradise, called by such various names as a "world federalist," or "one-world order." In such a conjectured, post-industrial utopia, a supergovernment, controlled by the world's financier oligarchy, rules this planet like some giant financial corporation, a corporate form akin to the utopias depicted in the novels of H.G. Wells, or the novels of such Wells protégés as George Orwell and Aldous Huxley. Such a utopia is not a likely prospect. The reasons for my view on this matter will be made clear soon enough.
Third, there is the awful prospect of the kind of society which all sub-Sahara Africa is presently in the process of becoming, if the current British monarchy continues to reign. This is already the looming, Africa-like situation in drug-lord terrorized Colombia, among the George Soros-backed and other so-called "drug legalizers" generally, in a mass-movement with such a purpose now suppurating in Brazil, and in other regions of Ibero-America, among the Taliban drug-lords of Afghanistan, and in such other parts of Asia as the Indonesia which is being destroyed by the after-shocks of IMF policy.
I am assured, that if we fail to realize the first option which I have identified here, the world as a whole will live in a "new dark age" like that which Britain's Gaia-worshipping heathen, Prince Philip, he of the World Wide Fund for Nature, is bringing into sub-Sahara Africa. That would be a world, virtually without actual nation-states, a world whose map is speckled by regions of brutish warlords, regions whose surrounding territories are overwhelmed by terra incognita. If those who share my purpose fail, the latter result, the British monarchy's new Africa model, will almost certainly rule world-wide.
First, let us consider, in summary, the reasons why the second, ostensibly more likely outcome is, in fact, improbable. After that is stated, focus upon what Leibniz would recognize as the characteristic of what has been the British monarchy's policy toward Africa since no later than 1961. This has been the drift of the British monarchy's Africa policy, especially of Royal Consort Prince Philip, since the combined actions of European financier-oligarchical royalty in both the butchery of Congo President Patrice Lumumba, and the 1961 launching of the World Wildlife Fund and its adjunct, "1001 Club" funding organization, the latter by joint sponsorship of Britain's Prince Philip and Nazi-SS veteran Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands.
Until the middle of the 1960s, all contrary factors taken into account, the general trend throughout most of this planet taken as a whole, was a significant rate of growth, as growth may be measured in physical-economic terms. The assassination of U.S. President Kennedy, the replacement of Germany's Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, and the succession to the position of United Kingdom Prime Minister by Harold Wilson, marked the beginning of an accelerating rate of downshift in the economic policy-shaping of this planet. During the second half of the 1960s, there was a rapid decline in the quality of relevant governments, in the U.S.A., in the process leading into the Grand Coalition and Willy Brandt governments in Germany, in the undermining and destruction of the Presidency of Charles de Gaulle in France, and in parallel trends which had been already set afoot, before the summary ouster of N.S. Khrushchev. These, and related, intersecting developments of the post-Kennedy 1960s, marked the preliminary steps toward that onset of the precipitous, global decline in economy unleashed by the monetary follies of 1971-1975. Since the global impact of the U.S. Carter Administration, the rate of collapse of the world's economies has been, overall, precipitous. The recent two decades' progress in China, has been the only clear exception to the prevailing downward trend in the world at large.
Now, the combination of increasingly lunatic, monetarist trends in financial, monetary, and economic policies of the world at large, has brought matters to a breaking-point. The characteristic of the post-1971 trends in policies and related practices of governments, especially since the disastrous global impact of the U.S. Carter Administration's radical changes in policy, has been a galloping increase in nominal financial holdings, an increase sustained by a corresponding looting, and contraction of the physical-economic basis upon which payments to financial accounts ultimately depend. The process, leading toward doom, so defined, is best fairly depicted by my "Triple Curve" diagram (Figure 1). The point in that "Triple Curve" has now been reached, at which the hyperinflationary steepness of the growth of nominal financial obligations, relative to the physical-economic means for payments of such obligations, has virtually reached its limiting asymptotic angle. This, in mathematical terms, defines a fatal discontinuity in the world's present array of financial, monetary, and economic policy-making. This is the cause for the fact that the world's financial and monetary systems are in an accelerating process of disintegration at this present juncture.
As we are now witnessing, in Japan, in other parts of East Asia, in Southeast Asia, among most of the nations spun out of the former Soviet Union, in Africa, and spreading throughout Central and South America, the national economies of the world are in the process of disintegrating. Unless the estimated $140 trillions of claims on account of speculative items such as "derivatives," and "hedge funds" generally, were simply wiped off the books by executive action, the attempt to maintain the existing financial and monetary system would produce global effects akin to the situation in western Europe during the disintegration of the Roman Empire in those regions. In those circumstances, the juridical foundations for a "globalist" form of monetarists' utopia, were simply swept away. The delusory dreams of the sundry "globalists," are then simply buried in the rotting debris of their fallen delusions.
In fact, the view I have just summarized is not uniquely my own. During the recent years, it has been, increasingly, the view of certain influential circles, that a return to a "new dark age," resembling the post-Rome collapse of political order in western Europe, is a likely perspective for a significant period ahead. Evidently, Britain's Prince Philip shares that estimate. His policies, since no later than 1961, have represented a consistent commitment to such an outcome. The practices of relevant British monarchical interests in Africa, have been consistent with his expressed commitment to such a downfall of civilized conditions.
In summary of these considerations on the three noted options before us, we may say, quite fairly, that the elimination of the likelihood of the second of the three options, reduces the prospects of the early Twenty-First Century to two actual possibilities, those of God versus Satan. That is to say, that if Satan considered his darling, Adolf Hitler, to be relatively a wimp, Satan must be gloating over his selection of Prince Philip as Hitler's successor.
As I shall demonstrate, this view of Prince Philip as quite literally a satanic figure, is no hyperbole. There are some figures, like the Roman Emperors Tiberius, Caligula, and Nero, or, modern figures such as Friedrich Nietzsche, Lord Palmerston's Giuseppe Mazzini, Georg Lukacs, the "Frankfurt School's" Theodor Adorno and Hannah Arendt, and Adolf Hitler, who must be viewed as literally satanic. These are persons who can not be defined except as we locate the characteristic feature of their personality in a hate-filled devotion to evil for the sake of doing evil. Martin Palmer's Prince Philip is, without exaggeration, such a figure. Evidence supporting that implication will be made clear in the concluding portion of this report.
In the history of China, as in that of Mediterranean civilization, the greatest thinkers have insisted, that the essential distinction between good and evil, is, as the applicable principle appears in Genesis 1, the distinction which separates the nature of man from that of the beasts. The essential form of simple wrongness is expressed as anything, including cultivated ignorance, which degrades persons from man and woman made in the image of the Creator, to the condition of life and behavior of a mere beast. Evil is that which takes sadistic pleasure from inducing men and women to degrade themselves in such a fashion. Prince Philip is, therefore, not merely wrong, but evil; his own public advocacies and practice consistently affirm that fact.
In any branch of knowledge dealing with human behavior and its effects, the functional distinction between man and beast, is the principle upon which every competent study depends absolutely, and fundamentally. That principle is the crucial feature of the matter immediately at hand now. The characteristic of the British monarchy's role in bringing humanity to the brink of a "new dark age," can be understood only from the standpoint of this distinction. Nowhere, are the practical, global implications of Prince Philip's perversity more clearly demonstrated, than in the matter of the "new dark age" already in progress in sub-Sahara Africa. We now proceed accordingly.
Applying this distinction between man and beast, to expose the characteristic feature of specific social systems: evil is expressed typically as oligarchical forms of society, forms of society in which an oligarchical caste, aided by its lackeys, relegates the subjected majority of the society to the status of virtual human cattle. In the history of the Mediterranean littoral, including the case of the Akkadian caste-system, the principal forms of oligarchy which today's global European civilization oligarchy has inherited, are three: landed aristocracy, financier oligarchy, and bureaucratic oligarchy. Since the dumping of Clement Count Metternich, and the "Holy Alliance," by Queen Victoria's Lord Palmerston, the London-centered financier oligarchy has either virtually eliminated the residual political power of the landed aristocracy, or assimilated it into the status of a kept appendage of the financier oligarchy.
Until the impact of western Christianity was expressed in the mid-Fifteenth Century, or "Golden Renaissance," the oligarchical system, including the legal systems existing in feudal western Europe, maintained a not-uncontested, but ruling system, under whose rule the juridically decreed fate of mankind was the subjugation of approximately ninety-five percent, or more, of the population to the status of virtual human cattle. The conflicts within the global scope of European civilization today, are rooted in the struggle for supremacy between the anti-oligarchy form of society, typified by the design of the 1789 U.S. Federal constitutional republic, and that republic's chief, most powerful, and most hateful adversary, the extended form of the British financier oligarchy for which the current British monarchy is primus inter pares.
Briefly, the historical background for today's global conflict, features the following.
Late Fifteenth-Century France, under the reforms instituted by Renaissance-influenced King Louis XI, was the first true European nation-state, the first nation in which mankind in general was lifted above the political status of virtual human cattle. This intertwined impact of the Golden Renaissance and Louis XI's reforms in France, unleashed a process leading into the later establishment of the U.S. Federal constitutional republic of 1789, and, its true successor, Abraham Lincoln's U.S.A.
Otherwise, European civilization, including much of the internal affairs of the U.S.A. up to the present moment, has been entwined, like the fabled family of Laocoön, in a continuing mortal struggle with the U.S. republic's great adversary, the oligarchical system represented, most emphatically, to this present day, by the ruling royal family of financier-oligarchical Britain. Since the relative defeat of the noble efforts of the France-led League of Cambrai by the oligarchical forces of Venice and its allies, the European oligarchies have been continuously engaged in a hateful campaign to eradicate from this planet, any system of government based upon the principle that all persons are made equally in the image of the Creator. From that specific oligarchical quality of hatred, a hatred typified by the rantings of the syphilitic Friedrich Nietzsche, typified by Nietzsche's clone, Adolf Hitler, also typified by the rantings of hate-filled Bertrand Russell, comes that quality of pro-oligarchical passion which can not be adequately identified by any less pungent term than "satanic."
In the history of the Mediterranean's cultures, the most typical expression of this specific type of oligarchical hatred, has been the recurring defense of chattel slavery. The most characteristic expression of that specific form of oligarchical passion, is typified by the persistent defense of the enslavement of "black" Africans, over centuries, as by the Spanish and Portuguese oligarchies, as also by the U.S. followers of John Locke. Although the British government, beginning the 1790s, abandoned the African slave-trade to its Portuguese subjects, in favor of the more lucrative China opium trade, Britain was otherwise a supporter of the cause of slavery, and its cotton production in the United States, until the defeat of Britain's puppet-state, the Confederacy.
This is in no way a specific issue of the British monarchy as such. That monarchy's significance today lies in the fact, that it is primus inter pares among the leading parasites of both Europe and the British Commonwealth. Virtually the entirety of the European oligarchy, both landed aristocracy and Venetian-style financier-oligarchy, continues to hold to its culpable view on this matter. The argument of the pro-slavery Spanish monarchy (into the late Nineteenth Century!) underscores the most relevant point. The last-ditch argument of the Aristotelean defenders of slavery was, that even if other people must not be enslaved, slavery is the naturally intended condition of the "black" African. Thus, the assertion of the right to enslave a "black" African, became the most precious jewel in the philosophical-legal arsenal of the European oligarchy generally; by denying the humanity of one class of human beings, the principle of sanctity of human life was breached. The denial of a natural human right, as of one made in the image of the Creator, to an African with a "black skin," became the line of defense for the view that the distinction between men and virtual "human cattle," was a matter relegated to varieties of possible litigation requiring protracted, cunningly crafted litigation of uncertain outcome.
It is a fundamental error, an error of principle, to presume that the institutions of slavery are rooted in simple material greed. As Henry C. Carey showed, the early Nineteenth-Century U.S. economy lost money on slavery! The U.S. economy was not built on the profits of slavery; quite the contrary. As Henry C. Carey documented the evidence, although the southern planter profitted, as did the New England and British processors of slave-produced cotton (such as, ironically, Carey adversary Frederick Engels), the U.S. economy as a whole suffered a crippling economic loss as a result of the costs imposed on the national economy by the slave-system. Once the U.S. was freed from the economically ruinous "free trade" and related effects of the slavery system, the U.S., from 1861 to 1976, zoomed into the most powerful, and most technologically advanced economy in the world. Earlier, the effect of the growth of slavery under the Roman Empire, and the Republic of Rome before that, was similar. It was the economic, and related demographic and other losses from the slave system, which were the principal economic factor causing the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West.
The essential motive of the slavery system, was not economic, but cultural. The motive for the slavery system was to maintain the peculiar kind of combination of landed aristocracy and its lackeys, which the slave system represented. In short, it was not the profits of slavery which motivated the ruling class of the Confederacy; it was the system of slavery, the slave-owner's "way of life," which motivated the slave-system.
One sees a similar pattern in the history of United Kingdom since the accession of George I.
The fact that the industrial revolution was brought into England by the American Benjamin Franklin, and that the Watt steam-engine was developed through Franklin's introduction of Watt to Franklin's friends among scientists in France, is typical. Britain lived as a parasite, not from fostering the industry of its own population. The same was typical of early Nineteenth-Century England. Into the 1820s and beyond, relative to the United States, France, Germany, and Russia, England was a backwater in science. It was through the initiative of young Herschel and Charles Babbage, that science was dragged into a mid-Nineteenth-Century England whose ruling oligarchy was most reluctant to receive modern technology. Much of the science imported into Britain under the impetus of the newly formed British Association for the Advancement of Science, was imported from the continent of Europe. It was only as Britain prepared for a conflict with Germany, as with the development of the dreadnought, that the development of the British industrial economy of the early Twentieth Century emerged.
True, Twentieth-Century Englishmen were not slaves, but they were subjects of a financier-oligarchical monarchy, and therefore not truly free people. The misery which has taken over the British Isles, at a generally accelerating rate since the days of the first Harold Wilson government, was not imposed by some necessity; it has proceeded so, because the ruling circles within the British oligarchy wished it to go so. The point is, that the reluctance of Britain to foster internal technological progress in a general way, reflected not an economic motive, or lack of such motive, but, rather, an effort to maintain a "way of life," in the same sense that the Confederate slave-holder saw himself as prepared to go to the bitter end in warfare to preserve the "peculiar institution" of southern slavery.
The British oligarchy was, generally speaking, never motivated by the desire to produce wealth. It was, however, motivated to gain and maintain power, especially the power to defend its social system. It was concerned with production of wealth to the degree that that might be considered indispensable to achieving a certain amount of power. In short, individual greed's value as a controlling motive is greatly overrated.
So it was with the European oligarchies' promotion and defense of enslavement of Africans. Complementary to this use of the image of the "black skin" to break the code of Mosaic law set forth in Genesis 1, was the fostering of gnostic, only nominally "Christian" sects, which rejected the notion that each man and woman was given a "divine spark of reason," certifying each as made in the image of the Creator. Indeed, such poor Yahoos will sometimes shriek late into the night, in protest against what they insist is the hubristic evil of claiming the divine spark given to each man and woman made in the image of the Creator. The logic of that gnostic argument is the same insistence, that mortal men and women are essentially mere beasts, which is also the underlying logic of the racist's denial of innate humanity to "black-skinned" Africans. Not accidentally, such gnostic beliefs proliferated most readily among those misbeknighted "poor whites" who, in not distant times past, were the most likely recruits to the local Klavern.
The deeper significance of the role of racism in enslavement of Africans, is shown by comparing this with broader expressions of the same anti-Christian assumptions. One must take into account, not only other examples of racism as such. To grasp the axiomatic roots of obvious expressions of racism, we must include all types of those so-called "ethnic" prejudices which attribute some personality-trait as biologically (e.g., "genetically") determined. These symptoms of racism in general are expressed not only in the form of explicit or implied defamation of the targetted "ethnic" category of persons, but, more slyly, and just as perversely, as, for example, assertions that persons of some ethnic differentiation have biologically-determined attributes which afford them some genetically determined cultural attribute.
It is to be emphasized, that all such variants on the underlying axioms of pure and simple racism, differentiate one person from another in terms of a reductionist view of biological determinism. This point is underscored by going beyond the relevant examples of outright racism, or related ethnic prejudices, to examine the way in which oligarchical ideology generally defines what might be termed the "fractional distillation" of prospective oligarchs and privileged lackeys, on the one side, from those members of the same ethnically defined populations, even the same families, who are relegated, as individuals, to the relative status of "human cattle." Exemplary, is the argument that because some persons, as children, are destined to relatively more menial lives, as adults, their education ought to be limited to matters "which they will need to have learned for the purposes of performing the duties their biologically destined employment will prompt their employers to require of them." All these pathological behaviors may be summed up fairly in a single clinical example: the so-called "fundamentalist," i.e., heathen variety of Christian, whose face blossoms like a blowfish, in his insatiable, choleric rage against the suggestion that each man and woman is made, equally, in the image of the Creator, that each is supplied that "divine spark of reason" which represents that likeness to the Creator.
It is this legacy of the same bestial, Victorian outlook as Charles Darwin and Thomas Huxley, which is drawn upon for the Nazi-like bestiality of Prince Philip against sub-Sahara Africa.
For the purposes implicit in the subject-matter of this report, we must stress the intrinsic immorality of the European feudal system, as a type, relative to that natural political condition of mankind which U.S. President Abraham Lincoln defended in his war against an evil, treasonous, feudalistically minded, racist British puppet-state, the Confederacy.
From the satanic quality of evil which spewed out of ancient Mesopotamia, despite the successive struggles by such as Solon of Athens, by the tragedian Aeschylus, and by Plato on this account, and as Abelard of Paris, Dante Alighieri, and Nicholas of Cusa, fought to define a form of society consistent with the notion of man and woman made in the image of the Creator, the ruling notions of law in the Mediterranean region, including under western European feudalism, had been essentially evil ones. The types of exceptions noted taken into account, in the typical cases, the notion of law was limited to the power of a supreme law-giver, the emperor. Although that imperial law-giver might reign at the pleasure of the oligarchical body with the power to choose and depose his hereditary power, he was the supreme law-giver as long as he ruled. At the bottom of all these societies, European feudalism included, a proverbial ninety-five percent were relegated to the status of virtually human cattle.
Under these prolonged, evil circumstances, the ruling oligarchies and their attached, privileged, Kissinger-like lackeys, were advised by a satanically cruel hatred, directed against any imagined insolence, any act or mere suspected attitude which might suggest a present, or future threat to the oligarchical system. The persecution of Abelard of Paris, in his lifetime, and later, typifies this quality of hatred directed by the apostles of empowered irrationalism. Most notable, on this account, is the explosion of mass-murderous rage which the European oligarchy in general summoned against the outcome of the A.D. 1439-1440 sessions of the great ecumenical Council of Florence, and also the religious wars which Venice orchestrated, during the following three centuries, drowning Europe repeatedly in blood in the attempt of ruling financier and other oligarchs to preserve the old feudal order in Europe.
What was the threat which prompted the mass-murderous rage of these oligarchs--then, as now? The threat was--and remains--the fear that those masses of humanity earlier so long subjected to the status of virtually dumb human cattle, might establish a form of society based upon tolerating no supreme authority in matters of statecraft, but that power of reason imparted to each person made in the image of the Creator. It is against that threat to oligarchy, that the hateful religious wars of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries were unleashed upon Europe, where men fought men not as men, but as beasts.
This brings us to the case of British Africa.
To understand all of sub-Sahara Africa today--British Africa--we must understand the specific, racist quality of hatred which the British oligarchy musters, both in its own persons, but also the lackeys they have enlisted from among so-called "black" Africans themselves. Thus, the horrors unleashed in the Great Lakes and other regions, express a satanic quality of hatred, a quality so hateful that it beggars the ordinary imagination. That choler expresses, with relatively greatest directness, the literally satanic quality of hatred, and also self-hatred, which otherwise underlies the tradition of enslavement of "black" Africans. This is the same axiomatic quality of hatred, and also self-hatred, which Dar es Salaam matriculant Yoweri Museveni of Uganda expresses, as a trained, and expendable lackey of the British monarchy against the "black" African population of his own and adjoining nations.
The denial of the fact, that each and every person is made in the image of the Creator, that by virtue of an innate "divine spark of reason," is the root of all the sundry branches of satanism. But, we have not yet considered the depths which this quality of evil reaches, until we have turned our attention to the Victorians' Africa of John Ruskin's Cecil Rhodes, Lord Milner, and today's Prince Philip. If we trace British operations in Africa since the time of Rhodes, Milner, et al., the evidence considered confronts us with an overwhelming sense of the special passion with which the British oligarchy regards its possession and prerogatives in dealing with both the combined, human, animal, plant, and mineral populations of this continent. Pervading all of that, is the stink of a quality of racism which we would probably not otherwise imagine to exist anywhere on this planet.
The Victorian monarchy of Queen Victoria and her son Edward VII, regarded Africa as its special playground. The Portuguese? As Philadelphia's Mathew Carey emphasized, the Portuguese oligarchy had been mere lackeys for the British monarchy for centuries. The French? The French Empire of Lord Palmerston's Napoleon III was created as a junior branch of the British Empire, which it remains to the present day. That British client, the Belgian monarchy? That was the worst! All of sub-Sahara Africa today is controlled from the top by the British monarchy personally, by agencies operating out of the private household of the Queen. Agencies such as the London-Rhodesia Trust (e.g., Lonrho), operating in tandem with the great Anglo financial trusts of South Africa, control virtually everything, from the sometimes most cunningly hidden real-estate titles, on up the tree.
The British royal family, personally, treats both the animals and people of sub-Sahara Africa alike, all of them, as creatures to be captured, herded, culled, and killed, as the dictates and whims of royal plantation management inform the inclinations of Prince Philip et al. Just as Prince Philip et al. control vast areas of Africa through their game preserves, so they also administer the areas occupied by the Africans as game preserves. For these heirs of Rhodes, Milner, et al., nothing has changed since the time of the notorious "Rhodes Plan" for keeping the African population down to the size deemed convenient for British big game hunters of future generations.
The nastiest features of this bloody history are coming into focus now, expressed as the "raw materials wars," local wars in which London is orchestrating all sides. These are "wars," run chiefly under the management of British mercenaries, which London is running from the Horn of Africa, in southern Sudan, and across all sub-Sahara Africa, North, East, West, Middle, and South.
To situate these raw materials wars in the full dimension, consider four classes of assets now being targetted, globally, for this operation by London. These four classes of assets are: 1) virtual monopoly-control over the world's principal petro-chemical resources; 2) the other raw materials reserves of Africa and Central Asia; 3) world trade in food supplies; and, 4) the major drug-trafficking operations run out of South and Central America, Afghanistan and vicinity, and southeast Asia. The aim is, to use strategic control of crucial raw materials sources, as a weapon for controlling the world at the time financial and monetary systems evaporate, and most of the world outside warlord-controlled raw-materials areas is relegated to the status of terra incognita.
The pattern has been set already, by the British use of "ex-SAS" and other mercenary forces in conducting the now rapidly-spreading, genocidal "raw materials wars" in Africa. These wars are largely modelled upon, and also intersect, the system of Africa game preserves set up (largely) through the impetus supplied, since 1961, by "environmentalist" Prince Philip's World Wildlife Fund. These wars presage the processes afoot, next to come.
Think back to western Europe during the period from the Fourth Century A.D. until the Emperor Charlemagne introduced a semblance of order into that territory: pockets of warlord control of food production and so on, amid large regions which had become virtually terra incognita. In the light of the imminent breakdown of the present international financial and monetary system, consider the relevance of the circumstances for which the recent operations of Prince Philip and others have prepared sub-Sahara Africa today.
Under the conditions produced today by the cumulative impact, since 1964-1972, of "post-industrial" utopianism, "free trade" and "deregulation," and anti-nation-state rampages in the service of "globalization," no existing financial and monetary system can continue to exist. Whatever else happens, the present, deregulated form of system based axiomatically upon "free trade" and "globalization," will not live out the period immediately ahead. Unless the presently disintegrating international system, is replaced by a return, globally, to pre-1964 policies of financial and monetary practices, and a return to fostering of large-scale investment in basic economic infrastructure and in scientific and technological progress, the world as a whole is being toppled, already, into a prolonged "new dark age."
In that circumstance, trade can not be based upon a global financial and monetary system which no longer exists. The world is, essentially, back to barter. There are principally two global conditions on this planet under such circumstances. First, a collapse of the total population of this planet, to perhaps as low as less than one billions persons, a population fairly guesstimated as reaching within about one generation, average life-expectancies not much above thirty years, if that. Thus, as we have indicated, the condition of the planet would be degraded, generally, into a division between warlord-controlled pockets of local power, and large areas of terra incognita. Under such circumstances, the policy of the present British monarchy, is to establish its position as a virtually controlling agency, coordinating crucial features of trading and other relations among warlord-controlled areas of the planet. As I have indicated, warlord-controlled regions based upon what we view conventionally as "essential raw materials," and also drug-lord-controlled regions are indicated as predominating under such British-coordinated arrangements.
There are two principal aspects to such a "new dark age." In large degree, the terrible conditions we have described would arise simply by default. Assume, for a moment, that London, for example, were to succeed in preventing the early establishment of the "New Bretton Woods" system which I have proposed as the replacement of the presently bankrupt, "globalized" form of international financial and monetary order. In that case, the kinds of conditions of "warlordism" would arise "naturally," as they appeared in western Europe during the Fourth Century A.D. The second aspect of the picture, is the fact that the British monarchy has prepared itself, at least to a significant degree, for precisely such a "new dark age" situation. The second, willful feature of the process, is typified by the way in which the British monarchy has used its Africa "nature reserve" policies and practices, especially since the 1961 foundation of the World Wildlife Fund, and murder of Patrice Lumumba, and has built on those "game preserve" operations to create the presently increasing reign of regions of raw materials by mercenary bands turned warlords.
The coming, threatened, early disintegration into regions of "warring tribes and mercenaries," of both British Commonwealth-controlled Nigeria and the British-Commonwealth-controlled Republic of South Africa, is all that is required to transform the entirety of sub-Sahara Africa into the first phases of evolution of the kind of "new dark age" status we have described.
A second region of the world marked for analogous treatment is the region of Central Asia from the northern Transcaucasus into Afghanistan and Kashmir. The leading point to be emphasized here, is the relative scale of crucial raw-materials reserves known to be concentrated in two regions of the planet: sub-Sahara Africa and the former Soviet Union. The efforts of some to promote the break-up of Russia into warlord states, each with its own nuclear-weapons arsenal, is part of the picture. So, the present British monarchy's efforts to destroy Australia, by the ruse of pretending to turn vast areas back to temporary ownership by those "indigenous people" who would be soon extinct (and replaced by warlord type syndicates, in any case), is part of the same picture. The addition of virtual monopoly control over international trade in food supplies, by some London-centered syndicate, and the complementary role of a global network of drug-warlords such as the drug-warlords of Colombia and the Taliban's Afghanistan, completes the general outline. The British monarchy's operations in sub-Sahara Africa are, thus, both the paradigm, and the large-scale pilot-project for that monarchy's preparations for a "new dark age."
Does Prince Philip intend to create such a "new dark age?" Given the available evidence, no reasonable person could doubt that he does. His intention to that effect, is key to the Africa policy which the monarchy has pursued, as consistently as the British are capable of doing almost anything, since about the same time Prime Minister Harold Macmillan announced "the winds of change." Macmillan probably did not grasp the irony of the situation; a careful study of the continuing operations associated with the World Wildlife Fund, beginning 1961, shows the Prince Philip was witting--satanically witting.
There is a satanic current in British life, including that spawned out of the circles of the relevant figure of Venice cultist John Ruskin of Oxford, the mentor of Cecil Rhodes. This is part of the Europe-wide, pro-satanic, oligarchical circle, which included the networks around Houston Stewart Chamberlain and Richard Wagner in Bayreuth, Germany, and the kookish, theosophist circles of Aleister Crowley, the radical positivist Ernst Mach, et al., in Vienna and Budapest. Budapest's satanic figure of Georg Lukacs was a product of these influences, and a key figure in the founding of what became known as "the Frankfurt School" of Theodor Adorno, Hannah Arendt, et al. (In short, the emergent new philosophical fads of late Nineteenth-Century Europe, were pretty much right, left, and liberal trash heaped upon a cultural, moral, and intellectual garbage-dump.) These were all, in their time, a leading current into either Adolf Hitler's Nazism or comparable forms of leftism, including former pro-Nazi, and like-minded currents in Germany dating from among Prince Philip's family circles of the 1930s. This satanic side of Prince Philip is exposed most clearly, and consistently, in his views on the subject of religion. We take the implications of his stated views on religious matters, as crucial evidence showing that Philip is satanically witting in his Africa policy.
What ancient and modern European history know as satanism, takes its principal origins from Mesopotamia. However, apart from the Mesopotamian roots of the cult of Apollo and the spread of the sophists into Athens, there are other relevant currents, including the Gaia-Python-Dionysus cult at Delphi, the same Delphi cult in which the figure of Apollo subsequently emerged as leading. The association of Prince Philip with attempted revivals of the Delphi-based, satanic cult of Gaia, is crucial and sufficient for our purposes here.
Not only are Prince Philip and his circles (typified by Martin Palmer) representatives of what is symbolized by Gaia; their practice in Africa, in particular, has occurred under the influence of an association, the World Wildlife Fund/World Wide Fund for Nature, whose practice is consistent with the worst features of teachings associated with the Gaia cult. Prince Philip's involvement with sponsorship of efforts to eliminate Christianity, by dumping fragments of it as mere ingredients, within the minestrone of a "world religion," is an integral, functional part of the same intention.
There are two ways in which humanity may willfully order its affairs. One is reason, in the sense of a "divine spark of reason" imparted to each man and woman as made in the image of the Creator, a divine spark of reason which may be adduced by means such as a Classical humanist form of education made available to all young persons. This notion of a universal reason is correlated with the notion that we are obliged to make no policy-decisions, without an impassioned search for those qualities of truth and justice which have implicitly universal authority. That commitment to truth and justice, provides the only rational basis for law; it is the only basis on which the entirety of a people may participate rationally in defining what is law. It is the only basis for appeal to a body of law which represents higher authority than that merely positive law created by legislatures, dictators, or judges. The alternative to reason, is arbitrary belief, arbitrary law, and arbitrary rule. As long as there is no rule by reason, oligarchical rule, or simply chaos, are inevitable consequences; for if each may have his own arbitrary opinion for himself, then he with the greater cunning and sheer force at his disposal, will rule as tyrannically as it may please him to so.
Take as an example of the principle involved, the case of the horror which the British monarchy orchestrated in the Africa Great Lakes and adjoining regions.
The exemplary clinical figure is the protégé of Tanzania's Julius Nyerere, Uganda's dictator Yoweri Museveni. Museveni's pedigree includes his association with Communist insurgency networks operating in Africa from Cape Town to Eritrea, networks whose eastern European connections were chiefly East Germany, the Soviet Union, and Fidel Castro's Havana. One of the key centers for the coordination of such networks throughout Africa, was the university at the British Commonwealth center, Dar es Salaam, where Museveni and others received their indoctrination in a nightmarish mishmash of Marx and the French existentialists' synthetic concoction known as Frantz Fanon. Most of the relevant butchers in nearby parts of Africa today, including British agent John Garang, Laurent Kabila, and so on, are products of these networks based upon Julius Nyerere's Dar es Salaam.
Look at what has been done by this British-backed Marxist-Fanonist collection, these forces of unreason, in, for example, Rwanda and Burundi.
Until a couple decades ago, the leading cultural influence among the people of Rwanda and Burundi, was a program of Classical humanist education supplied by priests. The benefit of this educational program, included one of the most literate and capable populations in sub-Sahara Africa as a whole; one might say fairly, "beautiful people." These benefits were undermined and destroyed in two principal, successive steps. The first step, undertaken with much outside influence, was a campaign to eradicate Classical humanist education, and replace it with something closer to the brutishness of Maxim Gorki's Makarenko. Thus, most of the entirety of a new generation of Rwandans and Burundians were deprived of the quality of education which had been available to their parents. The next step, taken by British agents such as Museveni, was to slaughter the educated Rwandans and Burundians in a mass-genocide, which has driven the great part of that population to the perilous refuges of jungles and other available places of the region where one might die in anonymity.
Such has become the fate which most people of sub-Sahara Africa have already experienced, or are about to receive, unless Prince Philip, and what he represents, are stopped, very soon.
It is useful, perhaps even indispensable, to compare the ideology of Prince Philip with that of his most kindred, Nazi predecessor, Adolf Hitler. To understand Hitler, read Nietzsche, and compare Nietzsche's pronouncements on Socrates, Plato, Christ, Christianity, and the Jews, with the relevant blather from such revealing locations as Hitler's table talks; compare Hitler's blather with Hitler's deeds. Or, compare both with the most notoriously evil of the Caesars, including the person whom the modern satanists themselves have certified as anti-Christ, the Isle of Capri's Emperor Tiberius. There is no essential difference among these figures, and no principled differences among the deeds they will unleash upon humanity, unless they are checked.
As a featured element in the conclusion of this report, ask now: What is the Gaussian characteristic of Prince Philip's mind? What is the awful microcosm of that perverted mind, the which portends the trajectory history will soon take, unless what Philip represents is rendered powerless?
That question and what it implies, may be answered by the following series of observations.
First, Philip represents a current within the London-centered European and Commonwealth oligarchies. This current, as it may be contrasted, at least in approximation, to the utopian-monetarist current identified earlier, may be fairly termed "The Chaos Faction." How extensive this current is, is uncertain; the evidence piled up over recent years, indicates that it is a large, and powerful interest.
Secondly, the pattern of deployment of mercenary and other operations, aimed at setting up drug-lord or other varieties of "raw materials" warlord entities, reflects in at least some part, the degree to which this Chaos faction has been fully operational on a global scale, during a period bridging decades, since sometime during the 1960s.
Third, the actions of this faction, like the policies represented by Philip himself, have certain mental characteristics, including axiomatic and homicidal qualities of racism, characteristics which correspond to observed policies of practice of the Chaos Faction in operation.
Fourthly, this Chaos Faction coincides with the forces behind the deployment of terrorist and related actions over decades. During the recent period, since 1989-1991, this faction has enjoyed a virtual monopoly over strategically significant such operations. Virtually all of the military, paramilitary, and terrorist capabilities deployed within sub-Sahara Africa today, are deployed out of an environment which operates totally under the control of those British Commonwealth interests which are, at least predominantly, associated with the Chaos Faction.
Fifthly, the operations of this Chaos Faction in Africa, are inseparable from the command and control conducting related operations either in the Middle East and Central Asia, or in political support, as by the circles of George Soros, for the cocaine terrorists and warlords of Colombia.
Ultimately, the most crucial evidence bearing upon the characteristics of this faction, is the evidence taken either from public utterances by Philip and his coterie themselves, or by instruments of his operations, such as Uganda-based warlord Yoweri Museveni. If those correspond, in implication, to the pattern of deeds done by that faction, we have the case. In any such case, we must proceed by adducing, first, those axiomatic features of a human mind which correspond, functionally, to a modular calculus of relevant kinds of universal action. If we have once shown, by the same methods used for crucial experiment, that the modular scheme associated with that set of axiomatics is the characteristic ordering of practice, that is the characteristic of the process being considered.
In such a case, to investigate one of those kinds of crimes which correspond to an historically significant action, the investigation and evaluation should proceed by fitting the action and implications to the characteristics of the kind of mentality which the action, so assessed, implies.
The nature and consequences of human, as opposed to animal behavior, is lodged, essentially, within the nature of man as a creature of reason, or, in other words, a creature of ideas, as Plato defines ideas.
In our relations with animals, we play. Animal intelligence reaches no higher than play. Thus, we train animals, such as our pets, by sharing play with them. They are happy, as pets, to play with us. This corresponds to the notion of Friedrich Schiller's Spieltrieb in the fifth letter on aesthetical education of man. Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, earlier, spoke of animals as a lower species which may be able to participate in a higher species, man. Thus, we have joy, and rightly, and fruitfully so, in working with the horses and dogs which we train (or, the pet cats which, we often suspect, presume that they train us), to the benefit of their happiness, and ours, by means of the play-principle. When we play happily, so, our physical stresses are lessened, and, on that account, we might even live longer lives. The two conceptions united by Cusa's notion of "participation," are clearly connected ones. The universe rejoices! Through the participation of our animal pets in us, living species as a whole, are united, in principle, with that perfection of living species which is man.
With man, play, in its best sense, is transcended by reason, the power to discover crucially-experimentally validatable solutions for those apparently insoluble paradoxes posed by reality, paradoxes which appear in the form which Classical art recognizes as metaphor. It is reason, so situated, which defines the human species, and the human individual.
Ah, but there is much more!
We are the masters of this universe. To the degree that our solutions to paradoxes are valid discoveries of physical principles of this universe, the universe, to that degree, is obliged to obey us. In that fashion, and in that constrained degree, human knowledge, so defined, coincides with that lawfulness which governs the universe. To that degree, through our reason's submission to the Will of the Creator, we are rulers of this universe. Thus, our species exerts a power over the universe absolutely superior to the power exerted by any animal species. This power we have, is both a power of the Creator's universe, and a power over the universe. This power has implications. It has an awesome consequence.
On this account, the characteristics of the willful individual human mind become the characteristics of the processes over which that mind exerts its power of ideas. Thus, in the mind of even a single, powerfully influential individual, the power of ideas, for good, or for evil, may often determine the fate of whole sections of mankind, or, even mankind as a whole. On this account, the failure to recognize the evil inhering in the present British monarchy, and in its Prince Philip, might incur a penalty for all mankind, a price which it might be poorly situated to pay. Let us hope, that relevant influentials, and others, learn that lesson before it is too late to prevent the looming holocaust now threatening this planet as a whole.
 It must not be forgotten, that the British and Israeli operations into the Horn of Africa and other sub-Sahara regions, are a continuing, integral part of the operations conducted against the Soviet Union's Afghanistan flank. The Taliban, for example, are a creation and instrument of the same combination of London-centered interests which ran jointly what were known, during the 1980s, as both "Iran-Contra" and the "Afghan" operations engaged in international drug- and weapons-trafficking, from Peru and Colombia to Central Asia, and involving such accomplices of "Iran-Contra's" Vice-President George Bush as East Germany's Schalck-Golodkowski. As to the matter of "cat's-paws" available for use by British and right-wing Israeli interests: That fact that someone of a certain apparent pedigree shows up, actually or only allegedly, in one of today's operations in Africa, or elsewhere, should prompt us to ask which section of the London-centered "Iran-Contra" or "Afghan freedom fighter" capabilities was enlisted to supply this probably diversionary element of the covert operation actually deployed. It should also be noted, that the largest percentile of known international terrorist organizations, is harbored with shameless openness, by the British monarchy, and that Britain continues to be the principal hand coordinating the terrorist bands of former and present "Afghan freedom fighters" and drug-traffickers deployed into various parts of this planet.
 Notably, those who adhere to either the dictum of the "Red Queen" from Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland, or the virtually identical axiom of British Prime Minister Tony Blair's "Third Way," or the virtually identical doctrine of unprincipled political opportunism, of the U.S.A.'s "New Democrats," do not believe in the political existence of either truth or justice.
 If we take into account those nominal U.S. citizens, such as Roger Winter, who are in fact agents of British influence on Africa affairs, the U.S. government has had virtually no independent policy-making capability operating within sub-Sahara Africa. "Black Africa" has remained the territory of the European colonial powers, chiefly the British, the French, and the Portuguese, in that order, down to the present date. The result is, that while some U.S. agencies do have important specialist overviews of some aspects of the internal Africa situation, U.S. foreign policy toward Africa has been almost entirely controlled from the "big brother" among the colonial powers, London. Israeli intelligence services, and their diamond and weapons traders, have more political-intelligence control over what occurs in Black Africa, for example, than the United States. Eritrea is presently a major base for Israeli military operations against Sudan and the Horn of Africa region. Israeli intelligence services have long harbored a special position inside Kenya (including the site of the present U.S. Embassy), with British blessing; Uganda is also an important part of the Israeli operations; the big Israeli asset, was, and continues to be the Republic of South Africa. Serious U.S. inquiries into the actual situation on the ground in Black Africa date from Clinton initiatives approximately 1996-97; this Clinton interest in the region has been received in London as intolerable interference into British colonial preserves.
 Over the weekend of Feb. 25-26, 1995, the Bank of England placed Barings Bank into effective bankruptcy. The Barings failure was a function of London's 30-year-long creation of a gigantic speculative bubble. A scapegoat was chosen, in the form of 28-year-old Nicholas Leeson, the bank's Singapore-based director of Asian and American derivatives trading operations. Leeson's highly risky derivatives betting, contrary to the City of London and Fleet Street, was not carried out secretly, but was known throughout Asia to be the position of the bank itself.
 From the harsher of the pre-Hitler days of post-Versailles Germany, comes a relevant fictional tale of a man wearing a bed-sheet, a night-cap, bearing a lantern, and carrying a spade, on his way to the cemetery. In the story, the man explains, "I am a seventh-class funeral." It may be said, that Blair has truly earned his claim to a political version of such a "seventh-class funeral." As growing numbers of even social-democratic and other voices in the British and Germany press are currently reporting, Blair has discredited himself to the degree one wonders how much longer he might occupy his present office. There should be no mystery as to the reasons for Blair's rapidly growing unpopularity. The variety of totally unprincipled opportunism which Blair's "Third Way" and many of "Dick" Morris's clients represent, in seeking to appear to be everything to anyone, as Blair and Morris-linked Gerhard Schroeder have done, soon becomes nothing to everyone. In times of great travail and accompanying controversy, desperately anxious populations seek firm commitments to those principles and actions which, at the very least, directly address the real-life issues of nations and their component constituencies. There is a well-known historical precedent for the kinds of populist tactics employed by a Blair or "Dick" Morris: the "bread and circuses" tactics of the Roman Emperors; reference to this historical precedent for "Third Way" politicking tells us much of the mind of those who author and practice such forms of mass-media opportunism.
 The crucial facts featured in the famous war-plan of Generalfeldmarschall Graf von Schlieffen should be recalled. The allied plan of attack on Germany required the simultaneous deployment of British and French forces from Germany's west, with a Russia onslaught from the east, and the overt complicity of Belgium in denial of German right of passage against the flank of the British and French assailants. Such a simultaneous, east-west assault on Germany could not occur without the relevant, preceding general mobilization of the Russian reserves. This defined a precalculable lapse of time between the moment the Czar signed the order for Russia's general mobilization, and the moment a capable Russian attacking force could be delivered to the territory of eastern Germany. During that interval of time, between Germany's general mobilization and the completed muster of the cumbersome Russia forces, the German forces must launch and win a decisive, war-winning, preemptive assault against the British Expeditionary and French forces on the French northern flank, an assault which could be made only by a preemptive assault through the territory of Belgium. (Had the Kaiser and "young" Moltke carried out the Schlieffen plan as defined, Germany would have won World War I within a matter of weeks of the time of Russia's general mobilization.) Thus, as the Czar and all other relevant parties clearly understood beforehand, the Czar's signing of the order for the general mobilization, established Russia, and its British and French allies, as the principal guilty party among the causes for launching of World War I. Germany's ultimatum of July 31, 1914 was simply the inevitable consequence of the Czar's launching of general war two days earlier, on July 29.
 The combination of London-controlled political forces, which took control of France's Third Republic, in the context of the 1898 Fashoda incident, was a rag-tag composed chiefly of notoriously anti-semitic legitimists, bonapartists, and assorted leftists, the constituent elements of which came to be assembled behind Georges Clemenceau. The leading opposition to that criminal rag-tag from within France, was the powerfully influential Socialist Jean Jaurès. Fourteen days before his assassination, Jaurès appealed to Russia not to launch World War I. He proposed that a Socialist Congress sponsored by France's socialists, "must attempt, by all means, to prevent that war," and also proposed a general strike be called in all relevant nations to effect that goal of war-avoidance. His assassination buried the efforts to prevent war; there existed no other person in France of his combined moral stature and influence who could replace him at that juncture.
 The general outline of the joint British and Japan plan for a Japan naval attack on the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, was the subject of continuing reviews of U.S. War Plans "Red" and "Orange" during the 1920s, and was one of the crucial issues of fact in the court-martial trial of General Billy Mitchell. Like the first and second Sino-Japanese wars launched by Japan, the first in 1894 and the second between April 4-16, 1930, the characteristic of these Japan developments of 1894-1941, is Japan's break from its long-standing alliance-in-fact with the United States, since the period of its collaboration with Henry C. Carey, to ally with Britain against the United States' growing influence and China policy in the western Pacific region. Once again, during 1989, London took the occasion of Japan Emperor Hirohito's last illness, to seek to revive the "geopolitical" London-Tokyo bloc, the shift within Japan's leading circles leading into the present Japan disaster. Both the origins and outcome of strategically significant "incidents" are expressions of long "orbits" in the solar system of world politics. In the case of Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, this was a potential Japan action which had been provoked, with a certain cunning, by those, including Churchill, who wished the kind of shocking incident which would bring the U.S. population to support a general war. Japan's response to that prompting was, with one exception, right off the long-established war-plan for such an attack. The exception was a last-minute Japan modification of the forces for the attack, with a major increase of the number of carrier aircraft deployed, with devastating effects on Pearl Harbor itself.
 Notably, not only was Dreyfus targetted for being Jewish, but for being German-Jewish and a German spy, two qualities of great importance to the raving anti-semites of the pro-British revanchiste faction. Although these developments of the 1890s were the immediate setting for what became France's role as a British cat's-paw against Germany, the very fact that the pro-British faction in France were styled as the "revanchists," should prompt our attention to the 1848-1870 rise to power of Napoleon Bonaparte's nephew, Louis Napoleon, as a both protégé and puppet of Britain's Lord Palmerston, and also an ally of the Spanish monarchy and Britain, as both an enemy of the United States and a co-author of the Nazi-like Maximilian regime in Mexico.
 Henry A. Kissinger, A World Restored: Metternich, Castlereagh and the Problems of Peace (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1957), and "Reflections on a Partnership: British and American Attitudes to Postwar Foreign Policy, Address in Commemoration of the Bicentenary of the Office of Foreign Secretary" (London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, May 10, 1982).
 The alliance of British, French, and Spanish forces engaged in putting the Habsburg Maximilian on the throne in Mexico, was the same concert of naval forces which had been intended, just previously, to break the United States' naval blockade against London's Confederacy puppets. It was the threat of Russia's Czar Alexander II, to unleash war throughout Europe, should Britain and France intervene against the U.S., which terrified Lords Palmerston and Russell into abandoning a planned direct naval attack against U.S. military forces by combined British and French pro-Confederacy forces.
 Cf. Anton Chaitkin, Treason in America, 2nd ed. (New York: New Benjamin Franklin House, 1985), and, also, Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., "The Eagle Star Syndrome," Executive Intelligence Review, Aug. 7, 1998. 1763, as Chaitkin documents, was the time when Britain celebrated its defeat of is principal European adversary, France, by launching what has been, in fact, its never ended effort to crush and destroy the American faction associated with Benjamin Franklin. 1763 was also the year when the most evil British figure of that period, Lord Shelburne, engaged Adam Smith to work on a project for destroying both the increasing economic independence of the Americans and the economy of France. That project assigned to Smith, resulted in the 1776 Wealth of Nations, and those post-1782 "free trade" treaties between Britain and France, negotiated through Lord Shelburne's efforts, which resulted in the 1789 fall of France's monarchy.
 Cf. Anton Chaitkin, "The `Land-Bridge': Henry Carey's Global Development Program," Executive Intelligence Review, May 2, 1997, p. 32.
 This anti-American opposition to any forms of economic cooperation among the nations of the Eurasia continent, is the content and motivation of what became known after Lord Milner and Halford Mackinder, as British geopolitics.
 For those who may need additional, background briefing on the relevant point of scientific method on which this report is based, we refer the reader to Jonathan Tennenbaum and Bruce Director, "How Gauss Determined the Orbit of Ceres," Fidelio, Summer 1998.
 The conception of analysis situs, which was originally presented as a crucial feature of Leibniz's founding of the calculus, was given important further development by such Gauss contemporaries as Leibniz followers Lazare Carnot and Gaspard Monge. This conception is a central feature of the notion of a principle of multiple-connectedness in the modular (e.g., hypergeometric) mathematical physics of Gauss-Riemann. In other words, Gauss's approach to the problem of Ceres was developed according to Leibniz's principle of the calculus, that physical processes are characterized by non-constant ("non-linear") curvature in their relatively infinitesimal small intervals of action.
 The work of that true genius of statecraft, former U.S. President John Quincy Adams, typifies such competence.
 The modern notion of characteristics ("non-constant curvature" in the infinitesimally small interval of action) was introduced by Gottfried Leibniz as the central notion of his development of the calculus, and his related notion of what is termed analysis situs. This notion is a product of the development of what are termed "modular," or "hypergeometric" functions, a notion which was begun as a central feature of Johannes Kepler's astrophysics, and is best known from the contributions of Gauss and Bernhard Riemann. The French scientist Lazare Carnot made important contributions to the development of these notions, as did other associates of Ecole Polytechnique founders Gaspard Monge and A. Legendre.
 Cf. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., "Russia Is Eurasia's Keystone Economy," Executive Intelligence Review, March 27, 1998; "The Substance of Morality," Executive Intelligence Review, June 26, 1998; "An `American Century' Seen as a Modular Mathematical Orbit," Executive Intelligence Review, July 24, 1998.
 Presently, the most likely scenario for Russia's involvement in a nuclear-weapons event in Asia, begins with the current escalation of Taliban deployments toward invasions of neighboring areas, such as Tajikistan and, probably, Kashmir. The roles of certain London, Saudi, and Pakistan interests in such Taliban deployments are of great relevance to such a nuclear-threat scenario. The antics of London's asset Netanyahu are also important factors in promoting the combination of a nuclear threat in both the Middle East and around the Taliban activities. It is not suggested that Russia were likely to unleash a nuclear scenario, but, more likely, could be drawn into such a crisis were the Taliban spill-over to threaten not only Tajikistan, China, and Kashmir, but, via the danger of a Taliban-sparked Kashmir crisis, a serious threat to India, and the almost certain sudden extinction of Pakistan's continued existence as a state. Such situations should alert us to the lunacy of allowing cracked pots like Zbigniew Brzezinski to spread the influence of their current polymorphous strategic perversity respecting what Brzezinski identifies as his "chessboard."
 Helga Zepp LaRouche, "Germany's Missed Historic Chance of 1989," Executive Intelligence Review, Aug. 14, 1998, pp. 4-19.
 Dokumente zur Deutschlandpolitik, Sonderedition aus den Akten des Bundeskanzleramtes 1989/90. The documents consist of transcripts of meetings at the Chancellor's Office, and letters and notes about discussions and telephone calls. They show the pressure that was put on Chancellor Kohl, to agree to reduced German sovereignty as a member of the European Monetary Union, as the price for national reunification.
 "American economist" signifies those followers of Gottfried Leibniz typified by Benjamin Franklin, U.S. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, Franklin's protégé Mathew Carey, Mathew Carey's son and leading economist of the Nineteenth Century, Henry C. Carey, the German-American Friedrich List, et al. The events of 1789-1798 left the U.S. Federal Republic as the only nation in the world which officially practiced economics in the tradition of the founder of the Science of Physical Economy, Leibniz. Thus, up to the present time, Hamilton's celebrated reports to the U.S. Congress, as supplemented by the writings of Mathew Carey, Henry C. Carey, and Friedrich List, continue to define the American System of political-economy, in direct opposition to the British East India Company model. Until the 1850s, every leading nation of Europe, either as part of the Anglo-Dutch financier oligarchy or the ultra-reactionary Holy Alliance powers such as France, Austro-Hungary, Russia, and Spain, was an enemy of the U.S.A. and U.S. economic policy. It was the victory of the U.S. over Britain's puppet-states, the Confederate States of America and Maximilian's Nazi-like tyranny over Mexico, which established the U.S. as the world's leading economic nation-state power. The policies of the economist who guided Abraham Lincoln, Henry C. Carey, together with the influence of Friedrich List, typify the explosive influence of the U.S.A.'s American System of political-economy around the world. The term "American economist" is properly applied only to those who follow in that Leibniz-Franklin tradition.
 The model of modern agro-industrial society was never the British model, but rather the form of the American System model which emerged during the U.S. mobilization of 1861-1876. Although the characteristic feature of the American agro-industrial system, the machine-tool-design principle, was originally developed and applied by France's Lazare Carnot during the mobilization of 1792-1794, it was around the efforts of the U.S. West Point Military Academy, under Commandant Sylvanus Thayer, that the U.S. produced and developed those military and engineering cadres on which the mobilization of 1861-1876 was based. Every successful agro-industrial economic development in the world was modelled upon the success of the 1861-1876 American mobilization, as copied in Germany, Russia, Japan, in the Americas, and elsewhere.
 op. cit.
 Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., "Where Franklin Roosevelt Was Interrupted," Executive Intelligence Review, July 17, 1998.
 Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (New York: Basic Books, 1997).
 op. cit.
 Despite the condemnation of slavery by Christopher Columbus' sponsor, Queen Isabella I, the Spanish and Portuguese monarchies fostered "black" African slavery deep into the Nineteenth Century.
 The defense of property-right in slave-owning is a cornerstone of Locke's notion of "life, liberty, and property." Locke's influence inside the U.S.A. was always associated with the legal defense of the continued practice of slavery.
 The slave revolt aboard the Spanish-Cuban slave-ship Amistad has become well known through the Stephen Spielberg film, based on a novelized account, Amistad, by David Pesci (New York: Marlowe & Co., 1997).
 Exemplary is the Amistad case, as pled before the U.S. Supreme Court by then former U.S. President John Quincy Adams. See Argument of John Quincy Adams before the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of the U.S., appellants, vs. Cinque and others, Africans, captured in the Schooner Amistad, by Lieut. Gedney, delivered on the 24th of February and 1st of March, 1841, with a review of the case of the Antelope, reported in the 10th, 11th, and 12th volumes of Wheaton's Reports, (New York: Negro Universities Press, 1969). Also, Howard Jones, Mutiny on the Amistad (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987).
 See Henry C. Carey, "The Slave Trade Foreign and Domestic," in W. Allen Salisbury, The Civil War and the American System: America's Battle with Britain, 1860-1876 (Washington, D.C.: Executive Intelligence Review, 1992).
 Early in their association, British cotton manufacturer Engels persuaded his recently recruited associate Karl Marx to launch savage, incompetent attacks upon Marx's predecessor as editor of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, the leading American-German economist Friedrich List; later, it was the same trader in profits of slave-produced cotton, Engels, who demanded that Marx launch savage denunciations of President Abraham Lincoln's principal economic advisor, and the world's leading economist of that time, Henry C. Carey.
 This is not to argue that the passion associated with greed does not exist. Our point is, that the underlying characteristics which govern the choices which greed selects, are determined in the way in which the self-image of characters out of Gone With the Wind might, for example, determine the selection of their overriding lusts. This is consistent with the general argument being developed in this section of the report.
 "The Coming Fall of the House of Windsor," Executive Intelligence Review, Oct. 28, 1994.
 See "The African Parks Were Created as a Cover for Destabilization," in "The Coming Fall of the House of Windsor," Executive Intelligence Review, Oct. 28, 1994. The model was South Africa's Kruger Park, set up by Lord Milner in 1902. The park warden, Maj. James Stevenson-Hamilton, was so effective at clearing the park of Africans, that he earned the epithet skukuza ("he who sweeps clean"). See also, Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (New York: Macmillan, 1966).
 The role of European Club asset George Soros' international campaign for drug legalization, typifies the intended role of high-level European sympathy for the drug lords of Colombia, for example.
 For example, the famous figure of Roman literature, Plutarch, was a priest of Apollo. Gaia was the "mother-earth" goddess, the principal figure of the site of the Delphi cult. Gaia's consort (her Prince Philip, so to speak) was known as the phallic symbol and snake-god Python, who also came to be known as the Dionysus of the Cybele "mother earth" cult. At the main shrine at Delphi, the priestess, named generically "Pythia," sat before the grave of Python-Dionysus, pulling out marbles from an urn, to the accompanying recitation of her meaningless babble, which was then interpreted by the ancient equivalent of "White House political advisors," known as the priests of Apollo, who were seated in benches at the side of the Python-Dionysus grave-site opposite to where Pythia was seated on her stool. The cult of Apollo, which created the Lycurgan form of oligarchy associated with Sparta, was a leading pestilence in the history of ancient Greece. Its roles featured its function as a leading loan-shark of the Mediterranean, and a founder of the cults introduced to the Latins at Rome.
 F. Schiller, Über die Ästhetische Erziehung des Menschen in einer Reihe von Briefen, in Friedrich Schiller Sämtliche Werke: Fünfter Band, Gerhard Fricke und Herbert G. Goepfert, eds. (München: Carl Hanser Verlag, 1993), p. 614.
Return to Index
The platform for the 1648 Peace of Westphalia was the principle of universal love.