Home | Search | About | Fidelio | Economy | Strategy | Justice | Conferences | Join
| Calendar | Music | Books | Concerts | Links | Education | Health
What's New | LaRouche | Spanish Pages | PoetryMaps
Dialogue of Cultures

LaRouche Fidelio Article

Obtained from the Macedonia FAQ website.
A project of Macedonia.org URL: http://faq.Macedonia.org/

How To Think
In a Time
of Crisis

Part III

This article is reprinted from the Spring 1998 issue of FIDELIO Magazine.

For related articles, scroll down or click here.

Back to Part II

Back to Part I

Fidelio, Vol. #, No, #. Spring 1998

Part III

On the contrary side, the feudal reactionaries called the “Physiocrats,” rejected, not only absolutely, but also hysterically, our rational view of society and its economy. The fervid irrationalism of our opponents, is properly typified by the expressed views of Adam Smith and other representatives of the British East India Company’s Haileybury School (Ricardo, Malthus, et al.), who were close to the Physiocrats on this point.61 Respecting capitalist economy, Karl Marx represents a branch of the British East India Company’s Haileybury School. Under strong advice from that English processor of slave-produced cotton, Frederick Engels, Marx was induced, during the 1840’s, to become a savage opponent of the American System of political-economy of, first, Friedrich List, and, during the 1860’s, the same Henry C. Carey whom Marx otherwise tended to admire as an economist: that on precisely this same crucial point.62 It is from that vantage-point that the post-1966 upsurge of influence of Britain’s Mont Pelerin Society upon the “Baby Boomer” generation must be referenced, as typical of the causes for the systemic character of the present, global, financial and monetary crisis.

To make clear the determining considerations underlying those facts, we must situate the issues of political-economy within their relevant social context. To that end, we must emphasize, once more, that, following the liquidation of the anti-Venice League of Cambrai, until the present day, the rise of modern nation-states in Europe has always been contained by a continued hegemony, in financial and monetary, and related political affairs, by a feudal relic, a London-Amsterdam-centered, international financier-oligarchy, the which was developed partly as an extension of Venice’s ruling financier oligarchy, and otherwise as a clone of that Venetian oligarchy. In the U.S.A. itself, a similar parasitical social formation has been developed around a combination of, chiefly, former New England partners of the British East India Company opium-trade; Manhattan bankers in the footsteps of treasonous Aaron Burr and August Belmont, and London’s New England opium-runner protégé, J.P. Morgan; together with bearers of the southern slave-holders’ and Nashville Agrarian’s tradition.

Put the political side of Karl Marx’s case into that setting.

As insider Simon Bolivar publicly exposed this, toward the end of his life, the control over the wave of revolutions in South America during and immediately following the Napoleonic Wars, was directed by the then head of the British foreign-intelligence service, former Shelburne protégé Jeremy Bentham. This was the Bentham who personally trained (in London), and later directed, from London, in France, London’s French Jacobin terrorists Danton and Marat. Bentham’s own protégé, Lord Palmerston, continued Bentham’s creation of such neo-Jacobin notables of the 1848-1849 period, as British intelligence agents Giuseppe Mazzini and Louis Napoleon. Karl Marx was one of the many pre-1848 acquisitions of Mazzini’s Young Europe organization. It was Mazzini who founded the so-called “First International,” whose founding meeting he chaired. It was Mazzini who, then, personally, publicly placed his protégé Karl Marx in the position of secretary of the new organization.63

No literate person should be surprised that there have been few “professional leftists” who were not backed, in miserly or other fashion, by financier interests.64 The principal adversaries on this planet, since Europe’s mid-Fifteenth-century Golden Renaissance, have been national economy versus feudalist financier oligarchy. Just as Jacobin terrorists, directed from London, were deployed to destroy, from within, Britain’s most deadly rival, France, so, as U.S. Secretary of State John Quincy Adams warned President James Monroe, the Mazzinian associates of Simon Bolivar, were deployed in South and Central America, both to undercut London’s Holy Alliance allies (and rivals), and to combat the republican influence of London’s and the Habsburgs’ avowed chief enemy, the U.S.A. in that region of the world.65

All causes, great and small, find their common setting, and their meaning, in the one great conflict which has dominated this planet since earlier than the wars of the wicked Guelph League against the nation-builder Frederick II. Since the oligarchs, by the nature of their cause, can not exceed a small percentile of the total population, even if all their “Leporellos” are added into the account, it is by playing one or more sections of the masses of “human cattle” against one another, that the oligarchs manage their preferred game of “divide and rule.” Hence, if leftist and fascist mobs are slugging it out in the streets, the oligarchs respectively controlling the leadership of both opposing sides, are watching with shared interest, and amusement, from their box seats in the grandstand of that modern Colosseum. Let us remind ourselves that the victory of either, or, as in Bob McNamara’s and McGeorge Bundy’s 1960’s U.S. sport in the Vietnam arena, of neither, of those two sides, is more likely than not to be ultimately a victory for no one but the oligarchs, who set up such sport to control the credulous masses on both sides of the affray (in the Vietnam case, the credulous masses inside the U.S.A. itself).

In the case of the Civil War, the letters of the British agent, August Belmont, who then controlled the Democratic Party top-down, reveal the truth behind the common purpose served, on London’s behalf, by New England abolitionists and Confederacy slaveocracy. New York banker, Democratic Party “king-maker,” and all-around British agent, Belmont, reports with gloating, London’s common purpose in deploying those abolitionists and slave-owners against one another, was to bring about the destruction of the hated Federal government of the United States, by breaking up the republic into a Balkanized collection of warring baronies.66 This had been the continued policy of Bentham’s, Castlereagh’s, Canning’s, and Palmerston’s London since the 1790’s, as had also been the policy, from a slightly different standpoint, of Clement Prince Metternich’s operations of the Hapsburg-dominated Holy Alliance.

Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, unlike most of today’s more credulous leading political figures, was a man of principle, not the common sort of fool to be taken in by such monkey-traps as so-called “practical politics” of the “left-right” variety.67

Thus, during the entirety of the Twentieth century, the U.S.A., like western Europe, and the nations of the Americas to our south, has been dominated, from the top, by such a financier oligarchy. The chief partial exception to this rule, has been the increased emphasis on national-economy during periods either of general warfare, or strained preparations for the threat of general warfare.68 Under these conditions of military preparations, the government has been disposed to impose such restrictions upon the behavior of the financier-oligarchs, as were seen as indispensable to the “national defense effort.” Thus, since the Hayes-Tilden election-compromise, when the spirit of the Confederacy began to be returned in significant numbers to seats in the U.S. Congress,69 every upturn in the U.S. economy has come about only, either as a by-product of war-economy measures, or the Kennedy round of the U.S. aerospace “crash program.”

These same oligarchical methods of divide-and-rule are key to understanding the 1964-1972 cultural paradigm-shift. It is to be emphasized, that except for the assumptions of agreement among the U.S.A., Britain, and Soviet Union, immediately following the 1962 Missile Crisis and ensuing assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the past thirty-odd years drift into a “post- industrial” utopianism, would not have been tolerated, even by most among those same liberal foundations, which led in funding the 1964-1972 upsurge of the university-campus youth-counterculture. The presumption, within Liberal-Establishment circles, that the kind of process of thermonuclear detente prescribed by Bertrand Russell’s cronies of the Pugwash Conference series, was securely emplaced by the combined effects of 1962 missile crisis and Kennedy assassination, signified, for those circles, the end of “crash program” science and technology in the context of national-defense mobilizations.70 Thus, the first introduction of neo-Malthusian doctrines into U.S. foreign policy, and President Johnson’s savage budgetary cut-backs in the space-program, during 1966-1967, mark the crucial historic turning-point, the crucial downturn, in recent U.S. economic history.

Thus, through the entirety of history of the post-Fifteenth-century rise of Europe’s modern nation-states, and much of the existence of the U.S.A., too, these nations have been mixed economies, with the financier-oligarchical interest usually on top, and the patriotic, national-economy interest on the bottom. The patriots have been the exponents of dirigism, of large-scale infrastructure development, of universalizing social-security systems, and of forced-draft promotion of investment in scientific and technological progress. The financier-oligarchical interest has been, like Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich’s band of Heritage Foundation-brainwashed yahoos, the proponent of a weakened national government, “free trade,” and primacy of unearned financial capital gains over taxation, and, also, over both the nation’s essential basic economic infrastructure, and industrial and agricultural profitability.

Thus, once again, too many allowed their foolish passions to mislead them into the single-issuism which oligarchs commonly use as bait for all varieties of monkeys, rabbits, and populist boobies, alike. Thus, since 1966-72, the welfare and cognitive powers of our citizens, especially of our younger citizens, have been sacrificed to the Mont Pelerin Society’s pagan god, the Moloch of “free trade,” in an era of neo-Malthusian, “post-industrial” “information society” and related utopianisms.71

It is in this context, that the cumulative, global economic impact of the 1964-1972 cultural paradigm-shift, must be situated for rational comprehension.

The Yellow Brick Road To Hell

For purposes of first-approximation, let us construct a mental model of the U.S. contribution to that thirty-odd-year process which has led us all to the current, global, systemic collapse. There are principally two interconnected classes of processes to be considered. First, the formal, economic side of the process. Second, the passions which motivated this process of economic and cultural degeneration. The first, is best represented from the standpoint of “anti-entropy,” as we have identified that concept above. The second, turns our attention to the connected issues of passion which we have associated, above, with the principles of artistic experience.

The combined result: We discover, so, that, at the beginning of the recent thirty-odd years, the leading strata in today’s policy-making had turned from realities which terrified them, into the lollipop-land, called “Or-Whatever,” where pleasurable fantasies hung like fruit from every tree, a dream-land of make- believe. The promise which lured our Peter Pans of the mid-1960’s into a perpetual fairy-tale, where no sweet fruit was forbidden any child, and childhood never passed, now leers back, a mocking nightmare; the dream has become much worse than the fearful reality of that jungle they called “Don’t-Go-There,” from which they had fled. Their world of happy therapy-group hugs and squeezes, has turned out, to have been the most horrifying of wicked, middle-aged fairy-tales, a world of make-believe, become the “Yellow Brick Road to Hell.”

The formal-economic side of the process now to be considered, is represented by aid of reference to three distinct functions, as presented at a Jan. 17, 1998 conference in Crystal City, Virginia. The first of these three is, today, the rather widely recognized “Typical Collapse Function,” first presented in late 1995 [See Figure 2].72 The second, one typical form of business-cycle function [See Figure 3]. The third, the typical form of a normal, cyclical-crisis-free process of agro-industrial economic development [See Figure 4].

In the first two cases, a financier-oligarchical class, is usually the dominant political force in the shaping of a nation’s monetary and financial policies of practice. In the first case, the “typical collapse function,” the political and economic power of the leading opposition to the financial-oligarchical supremacy is collapsing; in the second case, the financier-oligarchy power is dominant most of the time, but is held in check by periodic upsurges of political resistance from the combined entrepreneurial and popular interests representing the standpoint of national-economy. In the third case, the interests of national economy predominate.

Define the most relevant terms of our study by reference to the first of these three figures, Figure 2. The construction of this Figure is premised upon the following, interconnected considerations.

  1.  The Figure as a whole reflects the functional interconnectedness of the change in rate of change among three parameters: (a) A money-valuation applied to an aggregation of physical values expressed in terms of anti-entropy, as this was defined earlier in this report; (b) The circulation of currency which has been issued on the basis of physical-economic security implicitly pledged by the flow of physical-economic values (hard commodities plus education, health, and other science-related essential services) through the economy taken as a unit-whole; (c) The growth of nominal value of perceived financial assets based upon, chiefly, price-earnings-ratio considerations.

  2. The term “physical-economic values” signifies the notion of those items of consumption which are functionally required to maintain an implicitly associated rate of growth of per-capita, per-square-kilometer productive powers of labor, at a specific time and place in the history of economy. This function is subsumed by the notion of “anti-entropy,” as the definition for that was given earlier in this report. This includes not only household consumption requirements so defined, but also per-capita, per- square-kilometer values for basic economic infrastructure, capital-intensity, energy-flux density, and level of science and technology (as the latter is defined in what are paradigmatically Riemannian terms). The rate of change of the ratio of actual physical-economic inputs to outputs, per-capita, then defines the curve (the lower of the three curves depicted in the Figure).

  3. The per-capita value for physical-economic values, so determined functionally, is then assigned a money- price, corresponding to a current standard price for the required market basket of infrastructure, productive investment, household consumption, etc. The rate of change of this magnitude, then becomes the basis for comparison of the lower curve with other two curves of the Figure.

  4. The middle curve, the monetary curve, is defined as follows:

    The issuance of a paper national currency, by, or authorized to be issued on behalf of a government, is a debt of that government. That issue incurs, thus, a charge against the physical-economic values of the market-basket, this according to a price reasonably assigned to the physical-economic items in that market- basket. In other words, real national output, is discounted in that manner, to that degree.

    In the case, that the issue of currency is, first, efficiently employed for the production and circulation of essential components of the physical economy, as the Massachusetts Bay devisors of their Seventeenth century paper currency intended, and, second, that the discount-rate on money issued is below the physical- economic rate of growth, there is no fault on this account. However, if the circulation of that currency is diverted from production and distribution of the requirements and products of the physical-economic process, then the discount incurred by use of money for other purposes, tends to assume a parasitical, pathological role. The precipitous collapse, since 1972, of the ratio of foreign-trade turnover to foreign-exchange turnover, from 1956-1970 trends, reflects the self-feeding growth of the parasitical factor in monetary circulation during the recent twenty-seven years [See Figure 5].

  5. The third, uppermost curve, represents the growth of nominal financial assets/obligations, at prices corresponding to current monetary prices. However, the principal factor in recent decades growth of these magnitudes, has been leveraged financial speculation, typified by the successive, post-1982 roles of cancerous “junk bond” issues, and the post-1987 domination of world finance by what are purely and simply gambler’s “side bets,” called “derivatives.” These “derivatives,” simulate actual financial values, for both debtor and creditor, by means of the arbitrary presumption, that expected financial capital gains actually determine a realisable price of the title to that nominal asset.

The fact, that that financial asset, and the gains associated with it are purely fictitious, is the first problem incurred in that way. The price of the nominal asset is fictitious, because it exists merely as a reflection of a price-earnings ratio. The price of a capital gain in such a nominal asset, is, therefore, doubly fictitious: essentially, as the teller of fairy-tales must admit, it is only play-money, traded to the credulous for real, all in a dream-world game of make-believe.

In the indefinite continuation of any economic process, in which the monetary system is dominated by the harvesting of purely fictitious financial capital gains as financial-monetary assets, either a cyclical, or systemic collapse must result.73

In the cases corresponding to Figure 2, the three curves are participants in an interconnected manifold. The maintenance of the financial bubble, demands accelerating the flow of monetary aggregates into maintaining the rate of growth of the financial bubble. The expansion of the flow of monetary aggregate occurs at the price of a growing discount of the real economy’s combined current and accumulated real physical values. In the case, that financial speculation is favored over long-term investment in scientific and technological progress, the net productive flow in the real economy will soon fall below the anti-entropic zero-point, into an entropic phase, as has been the case for the U.S. economy since about the point of the 1970 Chrysler and Penn Central crises. Beyond that point, the continuation of the process occurs solely through net primitive accumulation, looting stored-up values in order to generate the monetary flows required to sustain speculative capital-gains growth of what converges, increasingly, upon a pure financial bubble.

Hence, the post-1971 form of world economy, taken as a whole, has been a downward spiral into a global, systemic, “breakdown” crisis.

Turn to Figure 3. Here, again, the three curves are functionally interconnected, but the conditions of interconnection are characteristically different than in the first case. In the alternative case, typical of the U.S. economy, for example, over the course of the 1789-1966 interval, the same tendency toward financier-driven, entropic destruction of the national (and world) economies exists. The difference is, that as long as political and related social forces regard the defense of growth and technological improvement of productive powers of labor in the real, physical economy, as indispensable, this political-cultural factor acts as a brake against the adoption of the kind of “post-industrial” utopianism which is the distinctive trend-feature of the 1966-1998 interval to date. In that case, the society’s intolerance toward the financier interests’s impulse for radical austerity measures, results in the partial collapse of the financier bubble, wiping out a sufficient amount of speculative financial capital, to permit a resumption of investment in real economic growth. Hence, the political and related cultural determination of the cyclical nature of modern industrial economy since European history’s early Sixteenth century.

Turn to Figure 4. In this case, too, the three curves are functionally interconnected, but the conditions of interconnection differ crucially from those in either of the preceding types of cases. If a national economy is organized as Alexander Hamilton74 and the Friedrich List Society’s Dr. Wilhelm Lautenbach75 presented the case, there is no inherent reason for either a cyclical or systemic crisis at any time in that economy’s future. Policies of using credit to foster full employment in increasing the society’s per-capita productive powers of labor, through the combination of investment in development of necessary basic economic infrastructure and scientific and technological advances in agriculture, mining, and manufacturing, have the deflationary effect of lowering the percentile of total output required to satisfy the increasing physical-economic needs of households and the rising capital-intensity and energy-density of production and distribution generally. Thus, not only do most products become cheaper, in monetary terms, despite improvements in quality, but the cost of living is reduced, as a percentile of output, under conditions that the physical standard of living of households rises. The tendency is, that the economies which have the highest standard of living for their labor-force, have the highest rates of profitability, and the societies with the “cheapest labor” represent, therefore, the relatively poorest opportunities for investment.

Under those conditions, the relative quantity of physical-economy aggregate, increases more rapidly than the monetary aggregate associated with it, but the defensible financial aggregate grows, reflecting the relatively superior performance, per capita, of the economy which has made more effective use of investment in scientific and technological progress.

Thus, the greatest periods of improvement in the living standard and culture of the U.S.A., have been those in which we least resembled the policies of Britain, and our rates of decline in living conditions and culture, are associated with periods in which British thinking gained relatively more sympathy among the policy-shaping circles of our government and private entrepreneurships.

There were two relevant qualities of those Baby Boomers on university campuses during the 1964-1972 interval.76 One was a product of middle-class suburbia: “avoid forms of employment in which you get your hands dirty; don’t let the smelly blue-collar people succeed in dragging you down to their level.” The other was a by-product of the nuclear terror which permeated their childhood and youth, especially after the 1962 missile-crisis; this might be labelled “the mad scientist syndrome”: “science and technology are usually bad for you.” Not by means of any mere coincidence, these induced prejudices were a parody of H.G. Wells’ science-fictional wars against “the Morlochs.” 1964 saw the publication of a manifesto known as “The Triple Revolution,” which sought to bring these two irrational prejudices together, as axioms of a new utopian fantasy, a form of “post-industrial” utopia most commonly listed today under the rubric of “information society.” Since “information” does not really have physical existence (except in the realm of make-believe called “virtual reality”), use of it will never soil one’s hands.77 Thus, the cornerstone for the Baby Boomer fantasy-world of make-believe was lain.

This animus against reality had a third element: the variety of cultural pessimism often traced, to French degenerates such as Jean-Paul Sartre, Louis Althusser, Michel Foucault, and Jacques Derrida, through Friedrich Nietzsche and Nazi philosopher Martin Heidegger, from Arthur Schopenhauer. Hermann Hesse’s Steppenwolf is also a relevant point of reference for Baby Boomers deranged by their own irrational rages. These fascist philosophical currents from the Adolf Hitler period, and its immediate aftermath, are, indicatively, relatively hegemonic, “politically correct” items, in relevant university departments today. The nub of the matter is best identified by Nazi Heidegger’s notion of “thrownness,” something like the feral dogma of irrationalist Ayn Rand, and actually a throw-back to the variety of “Clockwork Orange”-style anarchism typical of the political and musical impulses shared by the partnership of Richard Wagner and N. Bakunin. For the latter type, society is the enemy per se. The latter is the same nihilist impulse expressed by Congressman Newt Gingrich’s collection of hyperventilating specimens, trooping, glassy-eyed, down the street, in January 1995, from the brainwashing sessions at the Heritage Foundation, toward their seats in the Congress. Reality, anyone? From the existentialists of the 1964-1972 Baby Boomer ranks, the reply came: “Don’t go there.”

Thus, we have four axiomatic presumptions:

  1. Industry and blue-collar workers are Morlochs.

  2. Science and Technology are against nature. Science, by definition, seeks universal truths. Therefore, science is intrinsically authoritarian: science, like all forms of reason, is, therefore, “fascist,” and, perhaps worse, masculine.

  3. We must replace factories and science with “information.”

  4. Society itself is the enemy of the moral and cultural relativism which we adore as the “politically correct” quality of pluralism. There is no truth; feeling good or bad about things, is everything.

The array of assumptions featuring these four reactionary mantras, become, year by year, since 1964, the Procrustean bed on which existing and proposed policies, alike, are chopped or tortured into conformity with so-called “political correctness.” From this vantage-point, society is no longer society, but, rather a collection of a special notion of “interest groups,” a Rainbow coalition of groups and groupuscles, a political-social slime-mold, cultural-warlord parodies of primitive tribes. Each particle has it own peculiar array of emotional prejudices, which it demands be respected as “givens,” on no more authority than that these happen to be the momentary prejudices of a particular pseudo-tribe. Politics becomes, more and more, a combination of, on the one side, steering a pathway of minimal conflict among the mutually irreconcilable beliefs of the sundry components of this social slime-mold. On the other side, the challenge is, to fool the fools, and, thus, to manipulate them.

As we have, once again, identified the case, earlier in this report, the method for showing the connection between such mantras and the physical effects produced by the mantras’ impact on policy-shaping, is to treat each of the mantras as a postulate of the hypothesis which regulates the relevant topical area of policy-shaping. Thus, these mantras, as added postulates, become a condition which must be satisfied by each and every policy of the policy-theorem-set generated. No generated policy is allowed to violate (contradict) the implications of any among such mantra-postulates.

Thus, such mantras transform what had been a viable policy-shaping structure, into a dynamo of economic-cultural catastrophe. To wit, the present, global, systemic crisis now deeply enmired in its own terminal phase. The point is, that the indicated mantras, and others like them, are intrinsically, axiomatically entropic influences. A culture which can not rid itself of such mantras, is a culture which has lost the moral fitness to survive.

If, Then, the Revolution Comes

Plato, like the Apostle Paul, placed the quality of agape¯ in the highest rank. For the Socrates of Plato’s dialogues, agape¯ is expressed as the alternative to erotic passion, as the quality of passion associated with love for realization of justice. On this account, is it also, by necessary implication, the passion to discover and defend truth, and the passion for beauty, as Classical art typifies artistic beauty. For the Christian, the notions of truth, justice, and beauty, are premised upon the recognition of the nature of the human individual, each, by virtue of the potential of cognition, made, man and women, in the image of the Creator. Upon the passion of agape¯, so rooted in one’s love for the nature of oneself and one’s neighbors, the measure of all other values is premised.

Unfortunately, the actually living persons who are ruled by this passion called agape¯, are ordinarily a terribly tiny ration of the population of any nation, up to this time. Thus, for most of the time, the development of the truthful ideas, through which justice is once more secured, is the special province of a relatively tiny number of individuals within any portion of the population. As the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley sought to convey the notion, in his essay “In Defence of Poetry,” respecting the poets and philosophers of a great people, he points out, that, only in exceptional times, the rare times of a quickening of the capacity for profound and impassioned conceptions respecting man and nature, does a large ration of the population rally around its poets and philosophers, to do a great good for justice. Most of the time, the torches of truth and justice are borne by a fragile few.

Most of the time, most of the people, live in fearful awe of that which they take to be ensconced authority. If they fear the wrath of that perceived authority, the people will not speak publicly, or, perhaps even dare to think the thought which might offend ensconced authority. Mostly, people cautiously profess to believe what they consider it opportune to be overheard professing, and to do what they think they must, to propitiate established authority. Thus, the overwhelming majority, live, are sheared, and die, as a kind of political sheep.

There are exceptions to this general tendency. Happy exceptions, and terrible ones. We limit ourselves here to the happier sort of exception.

How long will a people tolerate a perceived, prolonged, unbearable injustice? How long will they accept the official lies which serve as the mirror of popular opinion in which injustice admires itself? Approximately this past November, we saw a sudden change, modest in scale and intensity, but not less definite, for all that. Since then, this impulse has continued, even in western Europe and the United States, even after the credulous deluded themselves, that rising New York Stock Exchange prices signalled the crisis to have ended. Those who were deluded, were fewer after mid-January, than than before mid-October. There is a new quality of ferment afoot, in the U.S.A., as in numerous other parts of the world.

Nothing encourages a down-trodden, frightened people more, than signs that the oppressing monster’s feet (or, perhaps, head) of clay, are beginning to crumble. What the crisis of mid-October 1997 through mid-January 1998 signalled, was the fact that the present world financial system has, as a canny Scot might say, a fey look about it. As no man has more numerous perceived faults than a fallen tyrant, so a long-oppressed people find it easier to perceive the warts on the nose of a ruler who has become unsteady on his throne, than a power taken at its prime. To the degree that ordinary people find it easier to associate truthfulness with the perceived position of authority of a speaker, than with any other grounds, so, the signs of weakening of entrenched authority’s grip on power, open the popular mind to truths it prudently refused to consider at an earlier time.

In short, the ruling financial-monetary system of this planet exposed itself as a wavering, failed system, on the edge of toppling. Those governments, and other powerful institutions which had cast their lot with the wavering system, were also eyed with a thought to early retirement of those authorities, too. In short, suddenly, minds began to open to possibilities not so readily considered up to that point.

Old grudges against cruel policies, suddenly came to life. Proposed new policies, which had been received earlier with the rebuke to militant silence, began to be discussed. In the pores of society, at seemingly all discernible levels of social status, an increasing tendency to organize around discussion of ideas, was to be seen.

To summarize the point: The generation of former university students, which had marched through the institutions, to occupy most among today’s high-ranking positions of power in society, is no longer the virtually unchallenged pace-setter in national and global policies. The cults of “political correctness,” the world of make-believe into which the frightened ’Sixty-Eighters had fled, are no longer the unchallenged wave of the future they might have appeared to be as recently as a few months ago. The essential quality of the new cultural paradigm-shift, which emerged with the crisis events of this past year-end, is a sense that the New Age has shown itself to be a deadly fantasy, a yearning to abandon that failed fantasy, for a new cultural paradigm, fairly to be described as a flight back to physical-economic and correlated reality.

At this moment, the full import of the crisis has yet to be impressed upon the currently dominant strata of the world’s financial moguls. For the moment, these creatures are behaving like a Jacobin mob, demanding that governments bail them out of their bankruptcy, “or else.” That phase will pass. The coming new rounds of global crisis will topple a good chunk of those enraged moguls, and humble a sizable number among those who survive long enough to slide into bankruptcy in the ensuing next round. The word which fits all sizes, now, is “change.” Whatever it is today, it will be somewhat different very soon. Meanwhile, the new cultural paradigm-shift, the back-to-reality paradigm-shift, is the changed political opportunity to which wise statesmen will hitch the destiny of their nations.

top of page


61.France’s Eighteenth-century Physiocrats, such as Dr. François Quesnay and A.-R. Turgot, were a political continuation of the preceding century’s notorious, feudal-reactionary, Anglo-French Fronde. Ideological similarities noted, one might refer to the followers of today’s Heritage Foundation as the “lunatic Fronde.” Typical of the times, Quesnay was a French asset of the notorious Abbé Antonio Conti. The similarities between Quesnay’s pro-feudal, anti-nation-state dogma of laissez-faire and Adam Smith’s “free trade,” are in no sense merely coincidental. Although Smith had borrowed from satanist Bernard Mandeville’s influence, to make the same argument, on behalf of immorality, not political-economy, in his 1759 On The Theory of The Moral Sentiments, most of Smith’s 1776 Wealth of Nations was a virtual plagiarism of A.-R. Turgot’s earlier Reflections on the Formation and Distribution of Wealth. There was no mystery in the connection; according to the Smith family’s published account, Adam Smith had been retained, beginning 1763, by Lord Shelburne, to make extended visits to France and Switzerland, for the purpose of devising a scheme, to be used by the British East India Company, for ruining the economies of both France and England’s North American colonies. Smith’s 1763-1776 work on this project concentrated chiefly on studies of the doctrines of the Physiocrats. Indeed, it was the agreement by King Louis XVI to a treaty with England, a treaty which subjected France to free-trade conditionalities, which lost Louis XVI both his throne and his head, in the course of a 1789-1793 French Revolution led by such fervidly anti-U.S. agents of Shelburne’s protégé, British Foreign Service head Jeremy Bentham, as: Benjamin Franklin’s old freemasonic adversary, Philippe Egalite (Duke of Orleans); London’s Swiss (Lausanne) banker asset and Orleans crony Jacques Necker; Necker’s daughter (the notorious Madame de Staël); and, Jacobin terrorists Robespierre, Danton, Marat, St. Just, et al. Notably, Necker, installed as Finance Minister of France, under Louis XVI’s “free trade” treaty with Britain, was the man who personally engineered the bankrupting of the government of France, thus precipitating the 1789 revolution. The storming of the Bastille, by a mob paid for, armed by, and personally directed by Philippe Egalite on the scene, was conducted as an election-rally for Jacques Necker, the discharged former Finance Minister of France whom the Duke of Orleans was, at that moment, successfully boosting to become the Prime Minister of France!

62.In Capital, I, Marx acknowledges that his notion of capitalist extended reproduction ignores the “technological composition of capitals.” His error on this account pervades his treatments of “simple” and “extended” reproduction, throughout the four volumes of his Capital, and in related writings, and is the crucial fallacy of composition permeating his notion of the origins of a business cycle. It was at the behest of F. Engels, that Marx launched a literary attack upon Friedrich List, and, at the behest of Engels, once again, that Marx attacked Carey. Marx’s adoption of the false pretense, that England had been technologically the mother of the industrial revolution (which had been introduced to England, from North America, by Benjamin Franklin, with technological aid from the more advanced France), and the leader in developing “scientific political-economy,” was integral to his referenced theoretical absurdities on the subject of political-economy generally. For purposes of illustrating a crucial point, it should be emphasized, that the present writer’s essential point of difference with Karl Marx and the more thoughtful variety of professed “Marxist,” was always, from 1948-1949 onward, the so-called “materialist” philosophical standpoint, Marx’s and their own impassioned rejection of what they often termed the “idealist” standpoint of Plato. V.I. Lenin’s famous polemic against the Viennese radical positivism of Moscow anarchoid N. Bukharin, et al., Empirio-Criticism, attacked the right target with the wrong (materialist, almost radically empiricist) medicine. The circles of Ernst Mach were, in fact, outrightly a satanist brew, concocted in Vienna, Budapest, and Bayreuth of Houston Stewart Chamberlain, et al., under the direction of Britain’s theosophical Lucifer cult, and the same Quatuor Coronati Scottish Rite lodge, which played a crucial role in creating both British Zionism and the Nazi Party of Adolf Hitler, and with the patronage of veteran bomb-thrower Richard Wagner’s production of his last theatrical bomb, Parsifal. Materialism is the fatal axiomatic flaw of Marx and anything which a clear-headed scholar would name “Marxism.” It is the genetic implications of this materialist standpoint, a cousin to such spawn of Paolo Sarpi’s litter as English empiricism and Dutch-French Cartesianism, which have so often placed the modern socialist movements of the world into the position of being “useful fools” in service of British imperial interests.

63.It was typical of the Venetian-style British “diplomacy” of Bentham, Castlereagh, Canning, and Palmerston, that Mazzini divided his Young Europe, into two factions, the party of “thought,” the socialists, such as Karl Marx, and the party of “action,” typified by those two revolting partners in throwing both gunpowder and theatrical bombs, Richard Wagner, later of Bayreuth notoriety, and Wagner’s musical co-thinker, Bakunin, the anarchist who established the basis for the later rise of European fascism. It is simply a continuation of that British tradition, that the British government today is the world’s principal harborer and coordinator of international terrorist gangs. In any bloody affray, British diplomacy is neatly balanced, with approximately equal portions of support for, and opposition to, each party. Thus, the loser in any such affray, was always a actual or virtual treaty-partner of London. Governments with the brains needed for survival in modern society, scrupluously avoid any treaties with the British monarchy: a true Christian does not shake hands with the devil.

64.If any reader doubts this, he or she should check the past thirty-odd years’ records of foundation grants, one of the more common ways the wealthy and powerful conduit funds and arrange publicity puffs for the array of “leftists,” “black nationalists,” and others in their private collections. In modern history, for example, there is the case of the Alexander Helphand, also known as “Alexander Parvus,” who was a British agent virtually all his adult life. The trail begins in Helphand’s visit to British intelligence circles in London, shortly before the death of F. Engels, and continues beyond the time British agent Parvus was doubling as a German agent, running his own sub-agent, Karl Radek, aboard a “sealed train,” along a British-controlled “northern route” through Sweden, into 1917 St. Petersburg. Between functioning as the editorial voice of the social-democratic left (on London’s behalf), in pre-1905 Germany, and becoming a millionaire by means of Saloniki grain-trading and British arms-trafficking in the orbit of London’s “Young Turk” puppet-regime in Turkey, Parvus crossed pathways with an old acquaintance of circles controlled by the celebrated Colonel Zubatov of Russia’s Okhrana, the same Vladimir Jabotinsky who went from editor of the propaganda organ of the Young Turks, to become a fascist partner of Benito Mussolini, in the bed of their common patron, Venice’s Volpi di Misurata.

65.Admittedly, as British foreign minister George Canning argued for a U.S. anti-Habsburg alliance with London, the Turn und Taxis-dominated council of princes (Fürstentum) of the Holy Roman Empire, which still controlled the extended families of the greater Habsburg dynasty, through Chancellors such as the von Kaunitz suspect in the murder of Mozart, or Metternich, were feudal reactionaries, and the avowed enemies of the U.S.A. The Holy Alliance’s Metternich used its Italy-based, Iberian, and other oligarchical assets, running subversive operations inside the U.S., from Brazil and the Caribbean region (e.g., under such covers as the St. Leopold Foundation), as well as operations aimed to attempt to eradicate existing concentrations of U.S. political-intellectual influence in Mexico and elsewhere. Quincy Adams warned that no “community of principle” existed between the U.S.A. and the British monarchy, and that, therefore, the mere fact that the Holy Alliance powers were U.S. strategic adversaries, did not justify that kind of treaty-alliance with a power with whom we shared no principle. That fact that a nest of rattlesnakes is poisonous, does not warrant going to bed with cobras. In a related development, Britain’s short-lived puppet-state, the Confederacy, was a creation of the U.S. branch, “Young America,” of Mazzini’s left-wing operations, just as the overthrow of Mexico’s President Benito Juarez was accomplished by combined British, French, and Spanish military forces, which had been assembled for the later aborted, principal mission of serving as a naval force to break the U.S. blockade of London’s Confederacy puppet. In the latter case, it is notable that one of Palmerston’s Mazzini revolutionaries, France’s Napoleon III, was employed in installing on Mexico’s short-lived imperial throne a bloody, Hitler-like, Habsburg tyrant, Maximilian and his variant on “Lola Montez,” the Empress Carlotta.

66.Anton Chaitkin, Treason in America, 2nd ed., (New York: New Benjamin Franklin House, 1985), passim. On this account, Belmont’s choice of General “no win, no lose” McClellan, to run against President Lincoln in the 1864 U.S. elections, is notable. The Democratic Party’s policy then, was to recognize the Confederacy as a separate nation: precisely London’s, and traitor Belmont’s common aim. Also notable, are the New York City racist, anti-black, “draft riots” of 1863, run to attempt to prevent units from New York being deployed to Gettysburg. This was a joint operation of Belmont’s political machine, and of priests who, like today’s Henry A. Kissinger, served the cause of the Confederacy on behalf of such anti-republican traditions as those Castlereagh and Metternich, and the Guelph League, earlier.

67.Again, the case of the Civil War serves as a suitable example. The Civil War was not a fight between abolitionists and slave-holders, but Lincoln’s war against both the Manhattan and New England Anglophiles and the slave-holding Anglophiles of the Confederacy. Had Lincoln made slavery the issue, rather than the triumph of the Union, there would be open chattel slavery in North America to the present day, and no United States. People who do not understand the principle involved in that lesson, should be hesitant in presenting their opinions on any important political issue of past history, or present.

68.A better term than “general warfare,” would be Alfred Graf von Schlieffen’s notion of “annihilation warfare.” Not to give the adversary a “bloody nose,” as in the feudalistic practice of “Eighteenth-century cabinet warfare,” or the cabinet-warfare-like ulcer of U.S. operations in Indo-China: nor, to annihiliate people. Quite the opposite: to annihilate the adversary’s ability to muster continuation of warfare, with the greatest possible economy in lives and time, to both sets of adversaries: a policy upon which, opposite to Prime Minister Winston Churchill, General Douglas MacArthur placed the emphasis during World War II. This notion of modern warfare is traced from the revolution in warfare effected under the direction of France’s Lazare Carnot, who was the first to introduce into warfare those methods of generalized machine-tool design, emulated with excellence by President Lincoln’s war-time administration.

69 1877 is the year of a crucial turning-point in U.S. post-Civil War history. A deadlock in the previous November’s U.S. Presidential election results, became the pretext for a “compromise,” itself comprised of measures which reversed “Reconstruction” in the states formerly associated with Britain’s puppet-state, the Confederacy. This political compromise, aggravated by Hayes’ use of troops, that same year, to suppress strikes, changed the composition and temper of the U.S. political scene. It was not merely the margin of Democratic votes from states formerly under the Confederacy, which tilted the balance, but, rather, a coalition of southern Democrats, treasonous Manhattan bankers, and the Anglophile “free trade” gang among the Boston Brahmins, which implemented measures, including the notorious U.S. Specie Resumption Act, sending the U.S. into a perpetual economic and social crisis, a crisis which abated, and, then, only temporarily, in Ku Klux Klan enthusiast Woodrow Wilson’s preparations for, and conduct of, the U.S. participation in World War I. Notably, the Democratic Party of that period reflected its period of domination by treasonous New York banker August Belmont, the party’s “king-maker,” and, with increasing prominence, by London’s darling, J.P. Morgan. This racist character of the Democratic Party’s leadership continued, until a change began under President Franklin Roosevelt; thus, African-American voters remained Republicans until the “Franklin Roosevelt” era, when the Democratic Party first assumed the patriotic character of the Roosevelt-Kennedy tradition.

70.President Lyndon B. Johnson is all the more to be praised for his efforts in pushing through two Civil- Rights bills, under the conditions which prevailed following the assassination of President Kennedy. The massive funding, beginning 1964, of a “Black separatist,” violence-prone (e.g., Frantz Fanonist) opposition to the Civil Rights Movement of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., by liberal foundations such as Dr. Kenneth Clark’s Ford Foundation, is indicative. The arranged assassination of Malcolm X, following his atonement with Rev. King, and the assassination of the Rev. King himself, reflect the new policy toward the African-American minority which erupted in the same circumstances, and for the same reasons, as the fostering of the neo-Malthusian youth-counterculture on university campuses.

71.The reader should be reminded, that the Mont Pelerin Society was founded in the aftermath of World War II, at the prompting of Winston Churchill. This is the same British propaganda agency which took over the now-London-directed U.S. Heritage Foundation during the late 1980’s. From no later than the late 1970’s, the British Mont Pelerin Society and its attached Heritage Foundation front-organization, identified the present writer as a principal target of their personalized hatred. The Mont Pelerin Society is otherwise best known in the U.S. for two among its founding figures, central-European oligarchist and charlatan Friedrich von Hayek, and the Wall Street Journal’s notable Chicago University quackpot Milton Friedman. Von Hayek himself was a confessed satanist, in his capacity as a professed devotee of the early Eighteenth-century dogmas of Bernard Mandeville. Von Hayek bragged that his sulfurous notions of “free trade” were derived from the Mephistophelean recipe of Mandeville’s The Fable of the Bees. The original intent of the Churchillian Pelerin Society was to combat what Churchill, like London’s Henry A. Kissinger, has professedly hated as the American intellectual heritage of U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt.

72.The first use of this figure was in a paper submitted to the proceedings of a Nov. 23-25, 1995 Vatican conference, then presented at two public appearances shortly after that: the Schiller Institute conference, Dec. 2-3, in Eltville, Germany [“We have reached the end of an epoch,” see Executive Intelligence Review Jan. 1, 1996 (Vol. 23, No. 1)], and at the writer’s Jan. 15, 1996 appearance in a Democratic Presidential pre-candidate’s Martin Luther King day address (Jan. 16, 1996) in Arlington, Virginia [“Unbalanced minds cannot balance the budget,” see Executive Intelligence Review, Feb. 2, 1996 (Vol. 23, No. 6)]. The kernel of the latter address was broadcast in a nationwide, thirty-minute ABC-TV campaign broadcast on Jan. 27, 1996, in which the “Typical Collapse Function” was a prominent feature. After the latter events, the figure was used and discussed in many locations, inside the U.S. and abroad.

73.This can be prevented through the natural regulatory powers of government, applied to the uses, and misuses of all forms of indebtedness of the government, including its direct and implicit monetary debt. To bring about the collapse of a nation’s currency, for example, is treasonous if done through a willful form of wrongful practice by a national, and may be a casus belli if performed by a foreign power, or, with culpable consent by that power. Under natural law, British financial pirate George Soros, for example, should be accountable to all states which have suffered a collapse in the values of their national currency through his role among hedge-fund speculators targetting those currencies. In addition to those measures which are the natural right of government, sane private interests will act to prevent themselves from being ensnared in relevant sorts of morally objectionable practices, such as loans to “junk bond” pirates, or supplying credit in aid of derivatives speculation. Power of taxation is among the resources which government should apply. Nominal income from financial capital gains from speculation, should be taxed at the highest of all tax-rates; thus, drying out the relevant financial swamps. For example, a sane legislature, taxes income from long-term investment in scientific and technological progress, at the relatively lowest rates, relative to other forms of taxation on business operations and investments.

74.Nancy Spannaus et al., op. cit.

75.Michael Liebig, op. cit.

76.The three campuses with which the writer is most familiar from the 1964-1972 interval, are Columbia University, the University of Pennsylvania, and Swarthmore College.

77.Readers should not quibble. “Information,” as defined by Norbert Wiener et al., exists only as measure of the statistical distribution of events within the medium used as a signal-channel. There is no doubt of the existence of the individual bits on which the statistical assessment is premised; but, in “information theory,” it is that latter mere abstraction, not the physical bits considered, which is identified as the efficient agent. Thus, mere abstractions, such as a statistical distribution, must not be mistaken for ideas. Ideas, which represent principles of either physical space-time, or of the cognitive processes by means of which validatable physical principles are adduced, have in themselves the quality of altering the curvature of the domain of action to which they are applied. Thus, ideas are efficient, whereas algebraic abstractions are merely shadows. An idea can change history. Shaking hands with a shadow, all day long, will never win one a friend—at least, not a sane one.

top of page

Back to Part II

Back to Part I

Related Articles

What is the Schiller Institute?

Revolution in Music

Education, Science and Poetry

Fidelio Table of Contents from 1992-1996

Fidelio Table of Contents from 1997-2001

Fidelio Table of Contents from 2002-present

Beautiful Front Covers of Fidelio Magazine

top of page

Join the Schiller Institute,
and help make a new, golden Renaissance!

MOST BACK ISSUES ARE STILL AVAILABLE! One hundred pages in each issue, of groundbreaking original research on philosophy, history, music, classical culture, news, translations, and reviews. Individual copies, while they last, are $5.00 each plus shipping

Subscribe to Fidelio:
Only $20 for 4 issues, $40 for 8 issues.
Overseas subscriptions: $40 for 4 issues.

The Schiller Institute
PO BOX 20244
Washington, DC 20041-0244


Home | Search | About | Fidelio | Economy | Strategy | Justice | Conferences | Join
| Calendar | Music | Books | Concerts | Links | Education | Health
What's New | LaRouche | Spanish Pages | PoetryMaps |
Dialogue of Cultures

© Copyright Schiller Institute, Inc. 2006 All Rights Reserved.