Home | Search | About | Fidelio | Economy | Strategy | Justice | Conferences | Join
Highlights
| 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 I

The generation of former university students, which 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 frightend ’68’ers had fled, are no longer the unchallenged wave of the future. 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.


Go to Part II
This article is reprinted from the Spring 1998 issue of FIDELIO Magazine.

For related articles, scroll down or click here.


Fidelio, Vol. #, No, #. Spring 1998

How to Think in a Time of Crisis

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

March 5, 1998

It came with an accompanying sense of shock. By no later than sometime during November 1997, both leading circles and the thinking stratum of other citizens, around much of the world, began to recognize, that the so-called “Asia crisis,” as it had exploded beginning late October, was not a regional, or cyclical crisis, but a global, and systemic one. Since that time, there has been an essentially worldwide shift within expressed political moods of the populations and some leading institutions. The new, much more severe round of financial-monetary shocks, expected to begin erupting as early as middle-to-late March, will accelerate this process of global political, and cultural change.

As a result of that ongoing process of shift, we, in the U.S.A., are already experiencing the onset of a profound change in direction of popular political and related moods. A challenge has erupted, against the doctrine of a new “mainstream,” pseudo-majority: against the effort to bring about a “convergence” of a relatively small, hyperactive minority of our citizens, composed of “New Democrats,” “Yahoo Republicans,” and hyperventilating mass daily electronic and print media.1 In opposition to such a “new mainstream” minority of our citizens, there is now in progress, a sharply accentuated political polarization, a polarization now emerging to form whatever becomes, during the months ahead, a new dominant political feature of the population generally. This pattern now appears more or less worldwide.

This, accompanied by related changes in the global economic and political situations, implicitly confronts the observer with the most fundamental, and least understood processes underlying the shaping of the known history of mankind. Without understanding those processes, it is impossible for the government of the U.S.A.—or, anyone else—to define either a competent strategic assessment of the present global situation, or an actually effective policy for addressing that situation. The characteristics of those kinds of processes, including the current manifestation, are the subject of this report.

Underlying this newly emerging process of polarization of the population, is a profound cultural paradigm-shift, which is now counterposed to the “New Age” cultural paradigm-shift of 1964-1972. In short, thirty years after 1968, there is an emerging general sense, that the trend in culture which began to take charge of policy-shaping during 1964-1972, has been a terrible mistake. The new trend in polarization is well- grounded. In reality, unless that 1964-1972 cultural paradigm-shift is reversed, very soon, global civilization, as it presently exists, will not outlive the present century.

Therefore, for the purposes of our study of the matter here, we situate the subject by contrasting the two, contrary cultural revolutions, that of the 1964-1972 interval, to that opposing, new cultural paradigm, the latter which threatens to assume leadership under presently emerging trends of increased political polarization globally.

Back during 1964-1969, most parents and grandparents of adolescents and young adults were befuddled, and, often, somewhat terrified, by the eerie, sudden insurgency of a youth counter-culture, which, to at least some such World War I and World War II veterans, suggested the takeover of their descendants’ minds, by a veritable invasion of very nasty “body snatchers,” of a sort which might have been thought to have arrived, perhaps, from some place in outer space. It is now the turn of the university-campus “Baby Boomers” from the 1960’s, to be befuddled by a parallel kind of radical cultural change, not only in their own children and grandchildren, but throughout many strata, of various ages, of the population at large.

Once again, throughout the world, a sweeping cultural change is at work. Now, as was the case back during the middle to late 1960’s, once again, the generation which has come to occupy most of the topmost positions of policy-shaping in Washington, D.C., in the news and entertainment media, and in the higher ranks of the business world, is stunned by its own apparent inability to comprehend either the radical “cultural paradigm-shift” currently in progress, or the new global realities which have energized this shift.

This present study of that phenomenon, is situated by a report on the author’s experience of both cultural paradigm-shifts, that of 1964-1972, and today. The subject of that report, then serves as a point of departure for his addressing the principles of history commonly underlying both paradigm-shifts.

This study provides the alternative to the academically popularized, philosophically Romantic2 absurdities of both Hobbesian and Kantian irrationalisms, and to such popularized, neo-Kantian outgrowths of those obscenities as Hegel’s Weltgeist, the irrationalist belief in a Zeitgeist, and the Nazi and other populists’ Volksgeist. The edifice of history itself is fully rational; unfortunately, admittedly, all too often, the inmates who inhabit that institution, are crazy. Too often, as playwright Peter Weiss has asserted, lunatic inmates, such as his characters Marat and de Sade, have taken over the management of the institution. My aim in this report, is to assure the reader, that, contrary to those “new Flagellants” of our darkening age, who scurry about, wild-eyed, shrieking their cries of “Conspiracy theory! Conspiracy theory!,” the ruling processes of history itself are not only rational in character, but also both as comprehensible, and manageable, in principle, as any other discovered and validated physical principle of our universe.

For reasons which are best left to be explained in the place they arise within the following text, the present author’s authority in addressing this matter has several unique features, features which should be clear as they come up in the exposition. However, one of these points should be identified, at least in bare essentials, here. The writer’s authority on the subject of the present, worldwide, systemic economic crisis, is absolutely unique. Two aspects of that authority ought to be named, at least, at the outset, here.

Illustrative is the fact, as shown below, that the present writer is the only known authority to have provided a long-range forecast, accurately warning of the approximate timing and character of the presently ongoing, worldwide, financial, monetary, and economic crisis. Perhaps less obvious, but of more fundamental relevance, is the fact that all known, extant, competing economic theory, as it differs from the author’s own work, suffers from a fatal incompetence, especially in face of the specific kinds of reality the present global crisis represents. This is not to argue, that all other economists, with bad theory, are therefore utterly incompetent as specialists in administration of economy; rather, the relevant point is, that nearly every variety of theory of economy which is taught in universities and referenced by governmental and comparable policy-shapers today, should be relegated to the relevant place where pathological relics are stored, as in some “black museum.” The fine distinctions between a good economist and his bad theory are addressed at the appropriate place below. In the meantime, it is sufficient to have forewarned the reader on these points.

I.
Since Franklin Roosevelt

A now-emerging, contrary, new cultural paradigm, which has already gained yet only marginal, but increasing significance, inside and outside the U.S.A., has been in progress since approximately this past November. There are two common features shared by the paradigm-shift of the 1964-1972 youth-counterculture, and the newly erupting one. Each represents a revolution against the axiomatic underpinnings of the pre-existing cultural paradigm. In that sense, although it is otherwise directly opposed to the cultural revolution of the late 1960’s, the presently emerging, new cultural paradigm-shift, has one quality in common with its predecessor: they both represent cultural revolutions in the process of overthrowing what has recently passed for the matrix of predominant “cultural values.”

I came into the center of the 1964-1972 cultural maelstrom, during 1966-1973, while teaching a one-semester course in economics on some campuses in the northeastern corner of the U.S.A. This was the setting in which I came to be regarded as a threat, both by those self-styled “left-wing” leaders of the countercultural movement, whose activity was being funded by certain agencies of the financier-oligarchy’s “establishment,” and their behind-the-scenes stage-managers. The latter agencies were typified by the now recently deceased McGeorge Bundy’s Ford Foundation,3 and by the savagery of the libels composed on their behalf by the New York Times4 and the Washington Post.5 Presently, in the setting of today’s newly emerging cultural revolution, I have a much more significant position, sometimes directly, or, often, indirectly, more or less worldwide. For reasons which are not in the slightest degree accidental, my intellectual influence has sky-rocketted, relatively speaking, during the last two months of 1997, the same period the first significant outbreak of the presently emerging, new cultural paradigm-shift erupted. Not only do I enjoy special personal advantages in comparing, and tracing the relevant links between the two revolutions, but the nature of my daily work involves the closest study of precisely those patterns, world wide, which characterize the new revolution now in progress.

The first of my series of subsumed objectives here, is to assist readers to understand the present “revolution,” as such understanding is to be contrasted to the failure of comprehension among that generation of veterans of World War I and World War II, who, almost to the last man and woman, did not understand the most elementary, underlying, functional characteristics of the 1964-1972 university campus-centered “youth-countercultural” revolution. The lesson to be learned, then and now, is, that without efficient comprehension, there can be no rational response. The present civilization, worldwide, could not survive the kind of general lack of rational comprehension of this newly erupting cultural revolution, which the adult generations of 1964-1972 exhibited toward the cultural revolution of the late 1960’s. I have already featured matters bearing upon this concern, in numerous earlier published locations; here, I focus upon the kernel of this problem as such.

To understand either, or both of the 1964-1972 and presently emerging cultural revolutions, we should begin our study at no later point of the process, than the parents of the ’Sixty-Eighters, and the earlier shock which that generation of the World War II veterans experienced, during 1945-1948, after returning from service overseas.

Although President Franklin Roosevelt’s U.S.A. had aligned itself with Britain and France, for the 1939-1945 war, by no later than 1938, Roosevelt’s intent for the post-war world, was to destroy what the British Empire and the British “free trade” system represented.6 The U.S. mobilization for that war, lifted the U.S.A. out of the 1930’s “Great Depression,” and unleashed a kind of cultural optimism in the majority of the U.S. population, an optimism whose dominant, if not universal characteristic, was a resumption of the patriotic tradition associated with President Abraham Lincoln. It was the affirmation of that Lincoln tradition still reverberating among those veterans, such as President John F. Kennedy, which set the stage for the Rev. Martin Luther King’s successful mid-1960’s leadership of the Civil Rights Movement. Although few among those then serving overseas, during the war, knew explicitly of President Roosevelt’s intent for the remaking of the post-war world, a probable majority among them, like this present writer, shared manifest impulses in that direction, during the course of their time in military service.7

With the death of President Roosevelt, that cultural optimism began to fade. Whereas, Roosevelt had intended to destroy every colonial empire, especially Britain’s, France’s, and the Netherlands’, at the close of the war, President Truman restored those empires. Whereas, Roosevelt had intended to eliminate the “British Eighteenth-century methods,” of Adam Smith, in world economy, Truman plunged the U.S. into a deep, 1946-1948 recession, for the sake of preserving those methods. Whereas, Roosevelt had sought peace with a Stalin who had no intention of aggressive post-war action against the U.S.A., Britain’s Winston Churchill easily lured his dupe, Truman, into dropping two absolutely unnecessary nuclear-fission bombs, on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as a way of inaugurating Bertrand Russell’s and Winston Churchill’s scheme for setting up the U.N.O. as an instrument of world government,8 and subscribed to Churchill’s provocation of Stalin’s hostility. The setting up of the Korean War, consolidated Truman’s ruin of Roosevelt’s post-war prospects of an “American Century,” this evil work done according to the images decreed by such as Bertrand Russell and Winston Churchill.

Under these and related circumstances pervading the 1946-1952 Truman years, the generation of the returning World War II veterans not only became culturally pessimistic, relatively demoralized, but, among at least about ninety-five percent of them, lacking in their earlier degrees of efficient commitment to principles of truth and justice. In the main, by 1948-49, many among those adults had seized greedily upon hoped-for threats of war, high tax-rates and all, as pretexts for the economic mobilizations which would ensure full employment, preferably in the relatively more technologically progressive, better paying, military and related industries.

By 1952, the logic of that same manic-depressive cycle, the mass phenomenon into which the Truman years had plunged the overwhelming majority of the World War II veterans’ generation, and other adults, made Korea-truce-making, World War II General Dwight Eisenhower, the hands-down victor in the 1952 campaigns for both the Republican nomination and general Presidential election. Warrior-Peacemaker Eisenhower was the consoling psychological compromise with nuclear threat, which the majority of the nation wanted: a much needed relief from the perpetual migraine headache of Democratic President Truman, and of Truman Democrat Roy M. Cohn’s Republican version of Trumanism, called McCarthyism.

So, 1953-1960 became the years of “Eisenhoweverism”: never quite this, but, also, never quite that: the winding, switchback road, down toward the place called “Whatever.” This might be seen as an echo of the “Flapper” fad of the 1920’s. These were the years of the “Organization Man,” of the mythos of “White Collar,” the decade of existentialist notions of personal success. A public-opinion-cued, “politically correct” existentialist’s virtual-reality notion of what imagined observers might view as “success,” was adopted as a substitute for morality, by most among the 1950’s generation, both young adults and their children, the Baby Boomers. Underneath, the “white collar” success of the 1950’s, was often a virtual intellectual twin of someone from Jack Kerouac’s “Beat Generation.”

Trumanism and Eisenhoweverism were the predominant cultural climate in which the “Baby Boomer” generation, mid-1960’s young adults and adolescents born after 1939-41, passed their pre-1964 childhood and early adolescence. This legacy of moral miasma, was briefly interrupted, for many, by the optimism of the short-lived Kennedy Presidency. That optimism had been spoiled by the psychologically shocking impacts of the 1962 Missiles Crisis and, just over a year later, the assassination of the President. Such were the early years of the ’Sixty-Eighter university-campus generation, of which the overwhelming majority had been raised in families whose adults had broken with any controlling sense of actual, overriding, constitutional commitment to truthfulness or justice: under Truman, and under the ensuing decade of “the organization man.”

That first generation of “boob-tubers,” both the parents and the chiefly amoral, pleasure-obsessed, “Baby Boomers,” had adopted as a substitute for obedience to truth and justice, a succession of more or less ephemeral fads. The ’Fifties had been the decade of the Cadillac with tail-fins. Among the university student population of 1964-1972, such faddishness, echoing the “boob-tube”-induced fascination with “entertainment,” included, with a certain indifference, what proved to be, for many of them, an often merely existentialist sort of faddish engagement with the Civil Rights Movement. This engagement, where it occurred, was compelled to share the premises with the claimed right to have sex with a lamp-post (if one so chose), or the political rights of a drug called LSD-25, or fascination with the latest synthetic religion (usually from far below), each, and all, with a fine indifference to consistency: sometimes all simultaneously.

The parents should have asked: whence this pattern of behavior among the draft-age university-student population of the late 1960’s? There were dramatically significant clues, if the parents of those ’Sixty-Eighters had wished to be candid about the peculiar habits of the households and adult society in which the Baby-Boomers had been reared into adolescence.

Imagine yourself a management consultant, participating in New York garment-center styles-planning sessions of the 1950’s or 1960’s. The subject of the meeting is the following selling season’s, or following year’s changes. Look at the marketing surveys which show how the styles are planned. The wealthier, especially the conspicuously filthy-rich or new-rich, are the giddiest; the younger members (and aging “Peter Pans”) of such broods, are, statistically, the giddiest of all. Those who can not afford to throw garments away so quickly, especially those over twenty-five to thirty years of age, are more style-conservative, which is to say, more rational, in their behavior: relatively more oriented to the physical-economic realities of life.

The working point here, is, the overwhelming evidence against the claim, by many, “I make up my own mind as to what I prefer.” During this century to date, only the exceptional, relatively few actually “make up their own mind”; unfortunately, any qualified expert in marketing could prove that, factually, beyond doubt. Still today, even among those who typify the newly emerging cultural revolution, for example, to have a truly rational conversation about any leading issue of our times, with almost anyone, means to violate conventional popular opinion, to paddle, with heavy strokes, upstream, against the popular stream of consciousness. Otherwise, in the remainder of the population, the more labile the changes in style preferences, or other fads, the less rational, and more easily suggestible—e.g., manipulable, “brainwashable”—that cohort of the marketing study’s subjects prove to be. For example, today, the strata most prone to the latest fads in “rock,” are, relatively, the least rational, most emotionally unstable, most drug-abuse-prone cohorts of the population (or, perhaps those among you who were recently mugged, or burglarized, may wish to suggest more pungent epithets).9

The “rock-drug-sex youth-counterculture” and correlated aberrations, rampant among the 1964-1972 university-student population, should be viewed against the background of popular style-preference behavior.

During the 1964-1968 years of some continued involvement with Civil Rights, and pervasive preoccupation with Vietnam, the “socially conscious” strata of campus ’Sixty-Eighters were oriented, day by day, to the next large, unified demonstrations. With the violence at the 1968 Chicago Democratic Party Convention, this mass-orientation changed. Back on campus for Fall 1968, a new process set in, not of unity, but division. Lunatic existentialism took over: the worship of “my personal alienation.” The victim of this nihilistic trend, sought a special universe, each with its own special laws, a universe each located within his, or her psycho-sexual anxiety- and fantasy-states. The cult of the “therapy group” had arrived.

Thus, after 1968, as if to parody the cultural characteristics of the humble slime-mold, the movement of the 1964-1968 interval divided itself into as many mutually hostile micro-universes as possible. Once that had been done, there was an effort at reunifying the micro-universes as a kind of “movement,” this time on the basis of mutual support for that which disunified them. The basis for that unity was found in a principle borrowed from Nazi Propaganda Minister Josef Goebbels’ repertoire: “political correctness”10; with “political correctness,” they hailed the dawn of true freedom. This became the basis for the emergence of what was called “The Rainbow Coalition.”

The common thread linking the emergent hegemony of the T-group and “Rainbow Coalition” to the eruptions of 1964-1968, is called “cultural relativism.” Typical, is the fact, that the “leftists” of this brood had progressed, through cultural relativism, away from their earlier, temporary attachment to that principle of racial equality recognized by Frederick Douglass and the Reverend Martin Luther King; they turned into an opposite direction, into a new, leftist form of racism: the division of everyone from everyone, according every discoverable distinction of ethnic origin, gender, or what-have-you. The slime-mold syndrome had taken charge.

By the time what remained of their brains was extruded from that psychological spaghetti-machine, cultural relativism of the Rainbow Coalition displayed itself as the same absolutism of moral relativism, from which Nazism had spread out of the petri dishes of existentialist youth-counterculture, in 1920’s Weimar Germany: everything is allowed! The lawful implications of Arthur Schopenhauer’s Romantic cultural pessimism, as the 1946-1948 infection with the flight from truthfulness and justice, had become the full-blown moral degradation of cultural and moral relativism.

Aversive Behavioral Modification

The key word for each of the two revolutions, that of the 1964-1972 interval, and that emerging now, is “shock.” Consider the 1964-1972 case first.

The preferred theoretical account of the way the 1964-1972 transformation occurred, is supplied by the London Tavistock Clinic and its offshoot, the London Tavistock Institute. The theory had its origins in the British intelligence services’ studies of behavior of “shell-shock” victims, those produced by conditions of trench warfare on the western front, during World War I. Brigadier Dr. John Rawlings Rees headed up the Tavistock Clinic, which studied the matter.11 The question Rees et al. posed to themselves, was: How might it be possible to replicate the kind of heightened lability and suggestibility experienced in clinical studies of populations of “shell-shock” victims? The study focussed upon both the induced behavioral modification of the individual subject and small group, and also the way in which similar effects could be induced through informed use of policy-making institutions, in virtually entire populations. This work of both that Clinic and Institute played a key role in evoking the ’Sixty-Eighter phenomenon among an influential large ration of the 1964-1973 university-student population here in the U.S., as also in Germany, and elsewhere.

Typical centers of work to this effect were those established by German emigre Dr. Kurt Lewin at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.),12 and at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, and elsewhere. The small, but significant Josiah Macy, Jr. Foundation, one of the interfaces with British intelligence channels, contributed a coordinating role. The reports of “mass brainwashing” of U.S. prisoners of war, in North Korea camps, provided the pretext for a massive expansion of work on “aversive behavioral modification,” with included sponsorship from the U.S. government, under such official rubrics as MK-Ultra. The “mind wars” faddism which gripped the U.S. intelligence community during the 1952-1975 interval, until the mid-1970’s, when C.I.A. Director Bill Colby blew the proverbial whistle, was key to the possibility of the kind of transformation which produced the 1964-1973 youth-counterculture phenomenon.

“Mind wars” licensed the application of techniques of aversive behavioral modification to one’s own population, in addition to those of suspected adversary nations. The impact of these techniques, including MK-Ultra’s LSD-25 researches, researches into psychological changes induced by rock rhythms, and studies of deleterious effects of frequent use of marijuana, as also the British Tavistock Clinic’s promotion of LSD-25, contributed greatly to the emergence of the “youth counterculture” among the ’Sixty-Eighters.13

It must be taken into account, that by the late 1950’s, the kind of nuclear detente which Bertrand Russell had announced to the public in the pages of the September 1946 edition of Leo Szilard’s The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,14 had become the policy of a leading part of the Anglo-American liberal establishment. This included the proceedings of the second, Quebec Pugwash Conference, of 1958, where Szilard’s “Dr. Strangelove” address laid out the policy which became, later, National Security Advisor Henry A. Kissinger’s Salt I and ABM treaty. This had been “The Spirit of Camp David,” and the process of detente set into motion by the 1962 Cuba Missile Crisis. Among the sections of the establishment committed to this Russell nuclear-detente strategy for world government, the success of that Anglo-American strategy was treated as if it were a U.S. national security issue of utmost, overriding importance. Most of the U.S. national security apparatus, including the large-scale “mind wars” capability, mobilized to that effect. Without this engagement, the mid-1960’s cultural paradigm-shift could not have occurred as it did.

The detente policy desired by these Anglo-American establishment dupes of H.G. Wells and Bertrand Russell, included not only imposition of world-government-linked nuclear detente as such. It also prescribed the elimination of the potential for creating new potential for weapons of “mass destruction.” This meant: eradicate scientific and technological progress in development of “dual-use technologies,” those civilian technologies which provided the potential means for producing “weapons of mass destruction.” This required turning the style-pacing stratum of the generations entering universities during the post-Kennedy years, into a militant political spearhead against the continuation of the traditional U.S. policy of fostering the benefits of investment in scientific and technological progress.

The “mind wars” establishment’s arts of induced mass, “shell shock”-like effects, were deployed, to transform much of the 1964-1972 university-student population into a cadre-force for the relevant, so-called “neo-Malthusian,” sorts of “post-industrial” utopianism. The shallowness of personal character-structure, the moral relativism, which the conditions of post-World War II rearing had imposed upon the majority of the Baby Boomers on campus during 1964-1972, rendered them highly susceptible to the sort of shock-induced lability and suggestibility which, in fact, characterized the majority of that generation observed on campus during that interval.

Then, the flock of university graduates from the 1964-1972 vintages “marched through the institutions.” That was the slogan of the left-wing ’Sixty-Eighters in the Germany of the “Frankfurt School’s” Horkheimer et al. This tactic spread around Europe, and into the U.S.A. On both continents, in its upward march toward key positions of policy-shaping in governmental and other leading institutions, the flock was conditioned and culled, to produce convergence upon a certain spectrum of “New Age” ideologies, ideologies premised axiomatically upon the “rock-drug-sex youth-counterculture,” the “post-industrial” utopianism, and the “therapy-group” modes of behavioral modification which been injected into this labile, highly suggestible stratum during the 1964-1972 interval. As this upward march continued, through the 1970’s and 1980’s, into the 1990’s, the goals of “post-industrial” utopianism became ever more entrenched in the axioms of policy-shaping of the U.S.A., western Europe, the U.N.O., and elsewhere.

In short, in one sense, the conditioning of these Baby Boomers worked; but, it was also an awful failure. Its success turned out to be, inevitably, both a national, and a global catastrophe. The economy was ruined, the political institution of the nation-state put, satisfactorily, at the edge of threatened extinction of “dual use” capabilities; but, from the standpoint of most of the world’s population, the experiment proved to have been an awful failure. As my associates and I have documented the evidence in other locations, the world’s economy, on which the existence of the population of this planet depends, was turned into that collapsing wreckage of its former self which it has become today.

So, during recent years, a strong reaction against neo-Malthusian “radical environmentalist” and other “post-industrial” agendas, has been brewing within growing sections of the U.S. and other populations. The resistance of a majority of U.S. citizens to the neo-Malthusian cult-doctrines of “Ozone Hole” and “Global Warming,” represents these forces of sanity. A terrified people will often turn to strike at the monster which oppresses it, only when that population perceives the monster to be gravely wounded. So, the simmering political eruption showed itself, beginning November-December 1997. Once it became clear that the financier establishment and governments were desperately attempting to cover over the kind of global, financial and monetary catastrophe, which the rulers of the world, the old lion, had said could never happen, then the waiting foes of that old lion, edged closer, smelling the doom of him who had been their awesome overlord too long. So, since some time during November 1997, the new cultural paradigm-shift has presented itself on the U.S.’s and the world’s political stage.

Thus, the immediate political situation will be dominated, increasingly, by a conflict between the “Persian horde” massed around the tattered banner of the ancient but doomed empire, and a new force now appearing to assemble itself, the first signs of the rallying of a kind of Gideon’s Army, to be a smaller, new force, but one like that commanded by victorious Alexander the Great on the plain outside Arbela.

II.
The Underlying Cultural Issue

Our intention here, is not academic, but practical. The purpose is not merely to qualify the reader to make informed comments on the phenomena reported. The purpose is, to enable the “thinking one percent” among our citizens to inspire their fellow-citizens to think, too. If that latter, somewhat radical change in the behavior of our citizens does not occur, and soon, we must expect the imminent, unstoppable collapse of civilization over the coming several years, and a monstrous collapse in life-expectancies and population-levels, throughout the world.15

To be precise on that point, we are reporting on a process of developments, which, one way or the other, will determine the condition of humanity for no less than two generations yet to come. If those indicated relics of the “Baby Boomer” legacy, continue to shape the way in which the U.S. government, for example, reacts, then, global civilization is doomed to a general collapse into what is described, most fairly, as a “New Dark Age.” Such a “New Dark Age,” would be a period, probably, of not less than two generations, most probably echoing, on a global scale, the kinds of effects experienced within the Mediterranean region during the mid-Fourteenth century “New Dark Age.”16

To refresh, or inform your memory on this account: The mid-Fourteenth century “New Dark Age” was the culminating phase of an approximately century-long political, cultural, and moral decline of European civilization.17 That decline was set into motion by the change in correlation of political power, which occurred with the death, onA.C.E. December 19, 1250, in Fiorentino, Italy, of the Hohenstaufen Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II. The success of the reactionary Guelph League, Frederick II’s opponents, in turning back the clock of history, following Frederick’s death, is the origin of the subsequent, mid-Fourteenth century “New Dark Age,” just as the success of the British monarchy-centered forces, in unleashing the 1962 missile crisis, and launching of the mid-1960’s, neo-Malthusian youth-counterculture, has brought the world, today, to the brink of a similar “New Dark Age,” this time a global one.

InA.C.E. 1239, a powerful Venice-centered faction, centered around the powerful Este family of Ferrara, launched a series of wars, throughout Europe, against the then-existing trends toward establishment of European nation-states. These wars aiming to turn back the clock of history, were launched and conducted under the banner of the Guelph League, a faction of “right-wing,” ultra-feudalist, oligarchical serf-masters and usurers, sometimes known as the “Black Guelph.”18 At first, Staufer Emperor Frederick II managed, nonetheless, to maintain a sembance of stability in Europe, a stability which collapsed with his death.19

Especially after the killing of both Manfred and Conradin Hohenstaufen inA.C.E. 1266, by the Este-led, Venetian faction, the rising power of the “Black Guelph” unleashed chaos, economic ruin, and the rising power of a group of Venice-sponsored “Lombard bankers,” typified by the House of Bardi, throughout Europe. In an orgy of combined Mongol invasion (e.g. battle of Wahlstatt,A.C.E. 1241), feudal wars, and “free trade”-linked, rabid financial speculation, Europe’s culture and economy collapsed, and morbidity-rates skyrocketted, to levels far worse than those of Frederick II’s Europe. All this, despite the contrary efforts of the greatest genius of that period, that Dante Alighieri who, like Abelard of Paris before him, was among the leading forerunners of the later, mid-Fifteenth century European “Golden Renaissance.”

The inevitable collapse of the resulting debt-bubble, and ensuing bankruptcy of the House of Bardi, unleashed the final stage of that decay. By the end of the hundred-odd years of decay which followed the death of Emperor Frederick II, the number of parishes of Europe had collapsed by half. During the last decades of that decline, war, famine, and epidemic disease accelerated the death-rates: the population collapsed by one-third.

Madness reigned, and the political and religious institutions of Europe either collapsed, as did the Papacy, or virtually disintegrated, never fully recovering until the period of the mid-Fifteenth century Great Ecumenical Council of Florence: the central event of the Fifteenth-century Golden Renaissance.20 The self-weakening of the Guelph forces, expressed as this “New Dark Age,” produced the opportunity, typified by the work of Petrarch and the rise of the teaching order known the Brothers of the Common Life, which defined an aperture of opportunity, in which the enemies of the Guelph could resurrect European civilization from the ruin which had been unleashed by the Guelph League.

If we were to misapply to the human species, the same ecological criteria employed in study of animal populations, our species would appear to fall among the great apes, as the father of the children of Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II insists.21 If that lunatic assumption of the Duke of Edinburgh were adopted, then, by the relevant standards of animal ecology, there is no time, under the conditions existing on this planet during the recent two millions years, up to the present day, when it would appear that the human population could ever have exceeded several millions living individuals.

All the facts show any rational person, that the Duke of Edinburgh is a royal fraud. Actually, by the Hellenistic period, the human population exceeded a hundred millions living individuals. By onset of the Fourteenth-century “New Dark Age,” the human population of our planet, had reached the level of several hundred millions living individuals, although never higher, until the rise of the modern form of nation-state, and matching modern form of state-protected (“protectionist”), national economy. Thus, it is only fakers and other incompetents, who apply ecology to the study of human populations.

The great demographic and political improvements of humanity over slavery, serfdom, and other traditional degradations, since the Fifteenth century, are the result of two developments flowing out of theA.C.E. 1439-1440 sessions of the Great Ecumenical Council of Florence. Those developments led directly to the first establishment of the modern nation-state, under Louis XI’s reconstruction of France,A.C.E. 1461-1483, and the emergence of modern experimental physical science. The proximate initiatives for both of these two, crucial pillars of modern human progress, were supplied largely through the work of Cardinal Nicolaus of Cusa,22 initiatives which resulted in a geometric growth of the population of both Europe, and those other regions of the world affected positively by the new, modern European forms of nation-state economy and public investment in scientific progress. All of this was set into motion through the impact of the Christian Platonists’ Golden Renaissance.23

The world population’s rise to more than five billions today, above the several hundred millions level of the world population prior to the Florence Council, combined with the pre-1966 improvement in demographic characteristics within nation-states, fostered by the Franklin-Hamilton-Carey-List model of modern nation-state economy, are entirely the result of changes set into motion by that Golden Renaissance.

To permit the continuation of the effort, by the many professed great apes among the present inhabitants of the British Isles, Prince Philip, et al., to turn back the clock of history, would be the greatest disaster in modern times. This is to speak of the effort which was launched by Prince Philip’s co-founding of the neo-Malthusian World Wildlife Fund, in collaboration with former Nazi SS’er Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands.24 This, Prince Philip’s neo-Malthusian effort to return the world to the political and social conditions of Europe’s medieval age,25 was furthered by what we have referenced as the 1964-1972 cultural paradigm-shift, and the launching of such offshoots of the World Wildlife Fund’s initiatives as the Club of Rome26 and Greenpeace.

The combination of such pro-feudalist, neo-Malthusian cults, and matching “rock-drug-sex youth-counterculture” of the middle to late 1960’s, induced an abrupt reversal of all those trends in policy-shaping, the which had been responsible for increasing the potential level of population and demographic quality of life, from their levels in the world of the Fourteenth century. Now, with the adoption of the “Ozone Hole” hoax,27 and, more recently, the “Global Warming” hoax,28 we are at the juncture, that, if we do not reverse that 1964-1972 cultural paradigm-shift still widespread among the Baby Boomers, and others, today, and fail to do this before the present worldwide systemic collapse hits with full force, the result is precalculable global catastrophe.

Such a neo-Malthusian backed collapse, means conditions of global anarchy and physical economic collapse, the which would return the entire planet, precipitously, to demographic traits comparable to those prevailing, worldwide, prior to the mid-Fifteenth-century Council of Florence. It means a sudden increase in the full spectrum of rates of morbidity, to a rapid collapse of the world’s population to levels existing in the Fourteenth century, or even much lower. To sense the impact of this, look into the faces of your children and grandchildren; unless you act effectively, to reverse the 1964-1972 paradigm-shift, now, this will be their future life, if they have any such, beyond the close of the present century.

Therefore, the hopeful prospect, for replacing the old, 1964-1972, cultural paradigm-shift, by a recently emerging new cultural paradigm-shift, is deadly serious business, which no moral, or even merely sane person, will fail to treat as a matter of the highest personal priority.

In medieval and modern European history, the issue separating Christians from the Guelph League, has been the issue of the nature of the human individual. In the language of Christianity, if every man and woman, is each made in the image of God, with no allowance for ethnic distinctions, then, every practice of slavery, serfdom, or other tradition which degrades the individual to something less than a person made in the image of the Creator, is, among other notable things, a personal insult to the Creator, an utter rejection of the essence of the ministry of Jesus Christ. Therefore, the feudalism which the Guelph League represented, like the very existence of the Confederate States of America (C.S.A.), or, essentially the same thing, the fascist Nashville Agrarians, such as Robert Penn Warren and Henry Kissinger’s William Yandell Elliott, like all the related programs of the Guelph and Black Guelph factions, from the Eleventh century on, represent, each and all, a blasphemous obscenity against the Creator Himself.

The same thing must be said of the mean-spirited “Elmer Gantrys” of today’s television screen, who insist on the Creator’s commitment to gratify the hedonistic lust—for health, wealth, and sexual satiation—of each pitiable parishioner’s pleas, as the primary focus of that snide hypocrisy which is their pornographic homilectics.29 We point to those, like these “Elmer Gantrys,” who defame God himself, by speaking of the individual who was made in the image of the Creator, as like a worthless creature, a “wretch,” a “worm.”

If the individual person is made in the image of the Creator, then, how do you view the Creator, and how do you reconcile the majesty of the Creator with the manner in which you regard your fellow human-being? How would you measure the sanity, or lack of it, of the person acting out, still today, his or her infection with the 1964-1972 cultural paradigm-shift?

Unfortunately, for many, the words from Genesis 1:26-30 remain more or less a mystery, still today. The difficulty to be overcome on that account, is the same as for the case of every physical principle of the universe; until that principle has been derived, to become validated knowledge, through the impenetrably sovereign, cognitive processes of the individual human mind, that individual may recite the words, or, pass an academic examination on the use of those words, or, have learned much about those words, but, still, know nothing of the matters to which those words refer.30 Think of those words as pointing to a universal, actually knowable, reigning physical principle of this universe, as they, in fact, do. In that expression, they are the key to every problem we have identified or implied up to this point of our report. Now, approach the task of knowing that principle, with that use in view.

That much said, we now begin to redefine some of the terms we have used up to this point in our report, and to refine our use of some other terms.

In this location, hereafter, whenever we employ the word “knowledge,” we signify the cognitive processes (not merely associative, or deductive functions31) through which the individual human mind has generated the discovery, or rediscovery of, and has validated, either a physical principle, or a principle of the cognitive functions themselves. All that does not meet that standard for use of the term “knowledge,” we relegate to the inferior mental processes of either sense-perception, or merely “learning.”

Secondly, we restrict the use of Tavistock’s terms, “cultural paradigm” or “cultural paradigm-shift,” to signify something roughly analogous to a Euclidean geometry:

A set of theorems, each derived from a proposition, which is judged to have been apparently consistent with indicated types of evidence, and not inconsistent with any elements of an interacting set of definitions, axioms, and postulates, which latter set is pervasive for the entire scope of that geometry. In Classical geometry, such a set of interacting definitions, axioms, and postulates, is termed an hypothesis, in Plato’s sense of that term. Thus, our use of the term “cultural paradigm” signifies, in first approximation, either the theorem-set associated with a specific hypothesis, or, preferably, that hypothesis itself.

We locate a “cultural paradigm-shift,” in a significant change of hypothesis so defined. Such changes also have underlying principles, which Plato locates in respect to his use of the idea of higher hypothesis.

We define culture variously, according to the context supplied, as either a simple cultural paradigm, a specific cultural paradigm-shift, or a cognizable series of cultural paradigm-shifts.

That is the core of the relevant glossary, as we turn now, to situating the 1964-1974 cultural paradigm-shift, and its possible successor, for systematic examination.

The core of the matter itself, is that definition of culture which must be employed to reflect the validatable principle, that each man or woman is made in the image of the Creator of this universe. This is the underlying cultural issue, the standpoint from which the referenced, crucial historical issues of this moment must be approached for comprehension.

Since “knowledge” signifies either generating a validated, or validatable discovery of principle, or replicating such an experience (as in the case of a good student in a good educational institution, one adhering to Classical-humanist principles of pedagogy), we turn now to inform the reader of the present writer’s own, relevant, replicatable such discovery.

top of page

Go to Part II


Footnotes

1. This is the doctrine associated with a former White House campaign advisor, the cousin of the late Roy M. Cohn, “Dick” Morris, and others, which prompted President Clinton to commit the blunder of choosing not to veto a welfare reform bill. As a result of this doctrine, the former close cooperation between the President and traditionalist Democrats in the Congress was shattered, and the Democratic Party lost its chance to regain control of the U.S. House of Representatives in the 1996 general election.

2. “Romantic,” in strict Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-centuries’ usages, signifies an atavistic wont of the pro-feudalist currents of those times, for a return to the “good old days” of the Roman Empire. Robber-emperor Napoleon Buonaparte, his regime, and his axiomatically heathen Code of law, typify the Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-centuries’ Romantic view in its most extreme expression. Hence, “Romantic.” Lord Shelburne’s pet British East India Company household historian, the notorious Gibbon, typifies this for London, as do the Romantic poets of France, Germany, etc. That Romantic movement is most notorious for its revolt against what its proponents viewed as “the tyranny of Reason.” The philosophical argument for this view, is traced to the English protégés of the evil Paolo Sarpi, such as Sir Francis Bacon and his intimate, the notorious Thomas Hobbes. Take, for example, Hobbes’ demands for what became the decadent Dryden’s attempted virtual extirpation of both metaphor and rational forms of the subjunctive from English poetry and prose style. The more thorough philosophical argument for this view of art, politics, law, and so forth, is that summarized by the archetypical Romantic Immanuel Kant, in the last of his three celebrated Critiques, The Critique of Judgment. The epitome of the Romantic followers of Kant, such as Fichte, Schopenhauer, Franz Liszt, Friedrich Nietzsche, Bayreuth satanist and composer Richard Wagner, and the “art for art’s sake” loonies generally, is the view of post-1814 Berlin university’s G.W.F. Hegel and his crony, Karl Friedrich Savigny. The case of Wagner, with his satanic, proto-Nazi Parsifal, exemplifies the transition of the circles of composers such as Bruckner and Mahler, as well as Ernst Mach, Sigmund Freud, and Georg Lukacs, beyond the Romanticism of Franz Liszt, into the cult of outright (“modernist”) satanism introduced to continental Europe, especially Austria and Germany, by British theosophists, as do the “impressionists,” and so forth, of British puppet Napoleon III’s Nineteenth-century France.

3. JS_ [[Funding of the “SDS Crazies” by the Ford Foundation, through Herbert Marcuse-related channels of the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Policy Studies.]]

4. JS- [[New York Times cover-up, involving Times sports reporter Paul Montgomery, of what official government documents admit was an FBI-directed, attempted “elimination” of Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., January-February 1974, and launching a second such attempt, involving Paul Montgomery and Howard Blum, in 1979.]]

5. The editorial pages of the [JS_] ...1976 edition of Katharine Graham’s Washington Post, featured a Post policy-statement, issued, over the by-line of Stephen Rosenfeld, to all leading electronic and print news media, on the subject of then independent U.S. Presidential candidate LaRouche: black out all coverage of LaRouche, except to defame him. The Post has adhered to the policy to the present day.

6. Elliot Roosevelt, As He Saw It (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1946).

7. In their childhood, the veterans of World War II had seen “Grand Army of the Republic (G.A.R.)” veterans of the Civil War marching, often in uniform, in patriotic holiday parades. In the public intermediate and secondary schools of the 1930’s, numerous among the World War II veterans had memorized Lincoln’s 1863 Gettysburg Address, during their adolescence.

8. Following a British policy for bringing about world government, devised by H. G. Wells in 1913-1914, Russell played a key role, beginning 1938, in organizing the development of an Anglo-American nuclear arsenal, with the stated intent of making war so horrifying, by these awesome weapons of “mass destruction,” that nations would submit to world government, as a way for avoiding wars in which such weaponry might be deployed. See Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., “How Bertrand Russell Became an Evil Man,” Fidelio, Fall 1994 (Vol. III, No. 3). By Summer 1945, Japan’s military situation had been made hopeless, by U.S. success in maintaining a nearly total blockade, preventing indispensable imports from reaching the main islands of Japan. As military planning by General MacArthur’s staff indicated, it was not necessary to invade Japan under such conditions; surrender was inevitable during the weeks ahead. In any case, Emperor Hirohito had already negotiated the essentials of what were later adopted as the post-Nagasaki terms of surrender, with President Roosevelt, through Monsignor Giovanni Montini (later Pope Paul VI) of the Vatican’s Secretariat of State. Britain’s motive for pushing its dupe, Truman, into the unnecessary dropping of those bombs, was that elaborated by Russell in the September 1946 edition of his stooge’s, Leo Szilard’s The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

9. It is fair to say that adolescence should be classed as a privileged form of mental disease: a clinically privileged state of turbulence, deemed normal for our adolescents. However, when it persists among those of the 21-25 years range, or older, we class that persistence of adolescence as a mental disease. In recent generations, beginning with the Baby Boomers, it is fair to say that there has been an increasing tendency among our adolescents, to abuse, and prolong the privilege.

10. E.g., Gleichschaltung.

11. John Rawlings Rees, The Shaping of Psychiatry by War (New York: W.W. Norton, 1945).

12. Otherwise known as the RLE associated with the Josiah Macy, Jr., Foundation, and of Bertrand-Russell/Karl-Korsch epigone Professor Noam Chomsky.

13. This area was covered in a series of reports, entitled “The Tavistock Grin,” published in The Campaigner, April 1974 (Vol. 7, No. 6) and May 1974 (Vol. 7, No. 7). On British creation and promotion of LSD-25, see Dope, Inc., by the Editors of Executive Intelligence Review (Washington, D.C.: Executive Intelligence Review, 1992), pp. 541-544.

14. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., “How Bertrand Russell Became an Evil Man,” op. cit.

15. The combined effect, of virtual elimination of U.S. Classical education on the secondary-school level, over the course of this century, the spread of populist “know-nothing” syndromes, and the mind-deadening effect of the recent decades trends in so-called “popular entertainment,” have resulted in successive declines in development of the use of cognitive powers, over the course of the present century, among the overwhelming majority of the nominally literate strata of our population. The majority among such categories of U.S. citizens today, are vastly inferior in their intellectual functioning, to the generation of Americans who won our independence and adopted our Federal Constitution. If one doubts the accuracy of the latter comparison, he, or she should read those Federalist Papers which won the majority of voters to support the adoption of the Federal Constitution; the overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens today lacks the degree of literacy even to identify the real issues posed in those popular writings of the 1787-1789 interval. This lack of cognitive qualities of literacy among today’s overwhelming majority, is most readily recognized by reference to the marketing statistics on the subject of popular entertainments. Unless the small minority of citizens who enjoy cognitive thinking (as distinct from mere emotional-associative behavior), are able to join in inspiring a large ration of their fellow-citizens, the chances of saving this civilization democratically “are about zilch.” If he came back today, Benjamin Franklin would say: “We gave you a republic, in 1776-1789, but you have done a very poor job, of late, in keeping it.”

16. From the daily Frankfurter Rundschau of Feb. 14, 1998 comes a report from Munich, Bavaria geophysicist Helmut Becker, respecting elliptic constructions in several parts of Bavaria, calculated as about 7,000 years old. Rundschau reports that Becker has used a special magnetic technique on one of these sites, at Landau-Meisterthal, dating from between 4,800-4,600 B.C.E. He reports that an elliptical solar observatory, of about fifty meters length, is constructed with a precision of about one percent. Generally, it is being emphasized, that, “[t]hese neolithic engineers must have had a knowledge of mathematics, astronomy, and geometry exceeding, by far, that of the usual person of modern times.” This is not as unusual as most might assume. Solar-astronomical calendars of a corresponding quality are known to be dated to between 6,000-4,000 B.C.E. in Central Asia, representing an Indo-European culture far more advanced scientifically than what was developed as an outgrowth of Dravidian Sumer, in Mesopotamia, thousands of years later. Germany was an area known to have been settled by Indo-Europeans during approximately the time-frame indicated by Becker. Generally, as emphasized by one prominent scientist, the megalithic astronomical observatories, such as the famous, comparable Stonehenge site on England’s Salisbury Plain, and distributed throughout parts of Ireland and the area of northern France, have the characteristic magnetic and other properties of design which Becker has indicated for the Landau-Meisterthal site. If one remembers, that circa 6-7,000 years ago, lies well within the present interglacial period, evidence such as that reported to Rundschau by Becker, confronts us with a sign of the extent and duration of mankind’s retreat, as Plato noted, into long periods of relative new dark ages, which followed such brilliant moments of cultural progress as are indicated by the Central Asia pre-Vedic and Landau-Meisterthal evidence.

17. Although the present writer featured this Fourteenth-century collapse in his 1966-1973 course, it is convenient to reference a later source found in most respectable libraries today: Barabara Tuchman, A Distant Mirror: The Calamitious Fourteenth century (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978).

18. “Guelph” is the Italian phonetic rendering of the German Welf, just as “Ghibelline” is the related rendering of German Waibling (Hohenstaufen). The Guelph faction, and its persisting efforts to corrupt the Papacy, dates from the alliance among Rome’s Pierleone family, and the Welf Mathilde (or, Matilda) of Tuscany, et al., during the middle- to the late-Eleventh century, the period of the Abelard-Bernard of Clairvaux fight between the forces of reason and irrationalism. This is a matter touched, gingerly, by Arnold Toynbee’s mammoth 1947 A Study of History. Mathilde was married to Welf V, a member of that Este family whose existence has been continued to the present time as the princely family of Pallavicini.

19. This was all part of a sweeping change in the correlation of forces in Europe, following financier-oligarchical Venice’s successful exploitation of its control over the Fourth Crusade (A.C.E. 1202-04), for creating the Latin Kingdom of conquered Byzantium as a Venice puppet-state. Venice’s victory in that affair changed the balance of power in the Mediterranean, a role of Venice which was the underlying cause for the Fifth and Sixth Crusades, and the destruction of existing European civilization, beginning the period of the Guelph League’s pact with Pope Gregory IX. The reference to “Guelph” (Welf) is to the same Este family which became the subject of a celebrated (1709-1713) historical study by Gottfried Leibniz, a study launched as a result of Leibniz’s continuing efforts to establish an anti-feudalist reconciliation between the Protestants and Papacy. The Este, the central feudal family of the “Guelph” faction, are also represented by their cousins, the royal family of Britain (the Hannover branch of the Welf family), and otherwise represented today chiefly by a branch known as the Pallavicini, who, together with the Colonna family, are nominally at the center of that “black nobility” which supplies the most powerful, most dangerous and dedicated faction, in the “right wing” pro-feudalist clique arrayed against His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, within the Catholic Cburch. “Black nobility” is a usage which is derived from “Black Guelph.” For example, when the “Venetian Party” faction, then led by such followers of Paolo Sarpi as Venice’s Abbé Antonio Conti, launched its efforts to ruin Leibniz’s influence in Europe [see mss. in the Hannover Royal Library: Bodemann’s Leibniz Briefwechsel, p. 38], Conti, in concert with the notorious Venetian family of Mocenigo, deployed a character by the name of Giuseppe Riva as part of the effort to accuse Leibniz of some irregularities in his research into Lodovico Muratori’s study of Este family history. Out of the same connections came a faction formed between a pro-feudalist Papal States and “black nobility,” which was opposed to the existence of both a unified Italy and also all forms of the modern nation-state, an opposition which continued beyond the Papacy of Pius IX—a pro-feudalist corruption of Church practice, which was more or less successfully turned back, only beginning the work of Pope Leo XIII, as continued, most notably, by such successors as Benedict XV, Pius XI, Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II.

20. The crowning, in A.C.E. 1261, of Michael VIII Paleologue, reestablished Byzantium, at the expense of Venice’s puppet, the imminently doomed Latin Kingdom. This was predominantly a much-shrunken Byzantium, reduced essentially to being a kingdom of the Greeks. The establishment of Paleologue Byzantium intersected the Fifteenth-century Golden Renaissance in several leading ways. First, the Byzantine Greece made available to Italy (especially Cosimo di Medici’s Florence), access to those precious documents of Classical Greek culture which had been lost to western Europe as a result of that Dark Age which had been imposed by Venice’s tools, the Guelph League and Lombard bankers. Also, Nicolaus of Cusa, one of the key organizers of the Great Ecumenical Council of Florence, using relevant such Greek documents, demonstrated to the Byzantine patriarchate, and the Paleologue Emperor, during proceedings of that Council, that the Augustinian insertion of the amplification “filioque” to the Latin version of the Nicene Creed, was fully consistent with the intent of the Apostles and Patriarchs in relevant councils. This won the temporary reunification of eastern and western Christian rites, except for that perennial enemy of Christianity, Venice, which recruited the Prince of Muscovy and the monks of Mount Athos (“Holy Mountain”) to Venice’s campaign to destroy the ecumenical reconciliation. Venice’s hostility to the “Filioque” had the same political basis as itsA.C.E. 1239 founding and later orchestration of the Guelph League: the Code of the pagan Roman Emperor Diocletian, the same pagan Code which defined the (anti-Christian) social organization of Byzantium and of western-European feudalism. If each man and woman is made in the image of the Creator, by virtue of an innate, developable quality of Reason (cognition), then serfdom, like slavery, is an act of blasphemy against the Creator. Slave-trading Venice and its allies, always stood on the side of such blasphemy.

21. See Mark Burdman, “‘Jury’ votes equal rights to apes,” Executive Intelligence Review, Jan. 26, 1996 (Vol. 23, No.5).

22. Nicolaus of Cusa: Concordantia catholica (1433) and De docta ignorantia (1440). The former work, implicitly a sequel to, and advancement over Dante Alighieri’s De monarchia, played an important part in Christian Platonist Cusa’s actions contributing to the successful reestablishment of the Papacy, and Cusa’s role in organizing what became the Great Council of Florence. The latter of the two referenced writings, defined the experimental scientific method employed and developed by such prominent students and followers of Cusa’s scientific writings as Luca Pacioli, Leonardo da Vinci, and Johannes Kepler.

23. As demonstrated beyond objection by the cases of the Gospel of John and the Epistles of Paul, from the time of the Apostles, the method of Christianity was that of Plato. This was emphasized by St. Augustine and the principal figures of the Council of Florence. The importing of Aristotle, and related gnostic dogmas, into the Christian churches, originated with the Byzantine Emperors. From Byzantium, Aristotle was exported as a weapon of cultural warfare against western Christianity. This export into western Christianity occurred, through Averroes’ influence prior to the Fifteenth century, and through Venice and Padua, in efforts to destroy the influence of the Council of Florence, as in the revival of Aristotle by the teacher of reactionary Cardinal Gasparo Contarini, Pietro Pomponazzi, at the close of the Fifteenth century, and through Venice’s post-League of Cambrai domination of Italy during the Sixteenth century. Cf. Gottfried Leibniz, “Letter to Hansch (July 25, 1707),” in Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz: Philosophical Papers and Letter, ed. by Leroy E. Loemker (Dodrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1989), pp. 592-595.

24. The World Wildlife Fund (W.W.F.) was founded in 1961 by Prince Philip and Prince Bernhard, the royal consorts of Britain and The Netherlands. W.W.F. has subsequently provided funds key personnel and maching orders to all the well-known ecoterrorist groups, beginning sith Greenpeace. Several years ago, W.W. F. changesd its name to the Worldwide Fund for Nature. Prince Bernhard was a card-carrying member of the Nazi Party from May 1, 1933 throlugh September 1936, when his engagement to Princess Juliana of The Netherlands required him to renouce his German citizenship. His Sept. 9, 1936 resignation from the Nazi Party was signed, “Heil Hitler!”

25. It is relevant to note, that the U.S.A.’s Thomas Paine was strictly accurate in referring to Britain’s King George III as “Mr. Welf.” As for the cases of Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and Mrs. Mountbatten’s husband, the mates of the reigning queens from the Welf breed are rarely sought far from the crib.

26. The Club of Rome, founded in the late 1960’s, like the Laxenberg, Austria-based International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), which was created later, were both co-founded by the initiative of Britain’s Lord Solly Zuckermann (the baboon man) and the racist, pro-genocidalist Dr. Alexander King [see interview with King, “..[see interview, Club of Rome Founder Alexander King discusses His Goals and Operations,” in Executive Intelligence Review, June 23, 1981 (Vo. 8, No. 25)], who had been the 1963 Director of the Paris-based OECD education organization, from which the post-1963, downshift in European education was launched. Cooperation for these British initiatives was supplied from both the Soviet Union (President Kosygin’s son-in-law Dzherman Gvishiani) and the U.S. (John D. Rockeller III, McGeorge Bundy of the Ford Foundation). Otherwise, the link between England’s Cambridge University and Soviet intelligence, in these matters, was supplied by the Cambridge systems-analysis group, under Lord Kaldor (and his daughter, Mary Kaldor), with the Moscow-based Global Systems Analysis group of Ivan Frolov, one-time advisor to London-vetted, 1985-1991 Soviet General Secretary and President, M.S. Gorbachev.

27. See Rogelio A. Maduro and Ralf Schauerhammer, The Holes in the Ozone Scare (Wash., D.C.: 21st Century Science Associates, 1992).

28. Special Report, The Coming Ice Age: Why Global Warming Is a Scientific Fraud (Washington, D.C.: 21st Century Science Associates, November 1997).

29. As I have warned a television audience recently, when a “minister” of this “Elmer Gantry” stripe, or a Kenneth Starr or Linda “Bad” Tripp, starts preaching, in lustful detail, on the evils of sex, get your wives and daughters, quickly, safely, indoors.

30. By “sovereign,” we emphasize that the cognitive mental processes of the individual person can not be observed, as an object, by means of the senses of another. Those processes as such, are not a subject accessible to mere sense-perception. The mental object to which such ideas correspond, is nonetheless a distinct, knowable object of thought, in each case. What we know of the processes of another person’s mind, on this account, can not be something observed by the senses; we know the acts of an original, or replicated act of discovery of a scientific or comparable kind of principle, only by replicating those acts within the sovereign precincts of our own cognitive processes. This is the definition of what Plato [and also Gottfried Leibniz: “On What Is Independent of Sense and of Matter,” op. cit., pp. 547-553] signifies by the term idea. An idea is an efficient principle of the universe, either as a physical principle, or a principle of the human cognitive processes’ functioning themselves. The existence of the object corresponding to an idea, is proven by its unique, demonstrable quality of efficiency, rather than as something which itself could observed directly by means of the senses. The opposing views, which deny the existence of ideas in this sense, are traced, notably to the Eleatics whom Plato derides in his Parmenides, the sophists, the anti-Plato Aristotle and his followers, and, most emphatically, the medieval William of Ockham, and such modern followers of Ockam as the empiricists, Cartesians, and positivists.

31. E.g., merely symbolic reasoning.

top of page

Go to Part II


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
703-771-8390

schiller@schillerinstitute.org

Home | Search | About | Fidelio | Economy | Strategy | Justice | Conferences | Join
Highlights
| 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.