Home | Search | About | Fidelio | Economy | Strategy | Justice | Conferences | Join
Highlights
| Calendar | Music | Books | Concerts | Links | Education | Save DC Hospital
SCHILLER INSTITUTE

Russia's Relation to Universal History

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

November 14, 1996

Letter to a Russian friend

Part I
Part II and Footnotes
This is an urgent review of a crucial aspect within the continuing failure of U.S. policy toward post-1989 Russia.

A so-called "Reform" policy, was jointly imposed upon post-Soviet Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus, by Britain's Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and the man she has described as her dupe, U.S. ex-President Sir George Bush. [ 1 ] That "Reform" policy, not reversed under U.S. President Clinton, has driven Russia presently to existential extremes, at which some sort of explosion is imminent. "Explosion" does not signify "global thermonuclear war," but the ignition, and spread of chaos, out from Russia, to engulf much of the planet. It appears, that official diplomatic Washington is more concerned with clinging to the appearance of defending a failed British-designed "Reform" policy, than replacing London's and the U.S. Republican Party's bankrupt policy with a sane American one.

This policy-issue can not be approached competently within the limits of the Russia questions themselves. The same economic situation in Russia which is the driving force of the explosive social crisis in the region of the former Soviet Union, is an integral feature of an ongoing, currently accelerating, global, finance-driven economic collapse, the greatest financial and economic crisis in the modern history of this planet. Not only is the dynamic of the Russia crisis, a product, and reflection of that presently accelerating global financial and economic collapse; the exhaustion of the past five years' London-centered looting of the former Warsaw Pact region, is an important, contributing feature of the timing and ferocity of the planetary financial collapse.

To complicate matters, the United States' government presently fails to comprehend the shock-front implication of the presently ongoing, chain-reaction financial collapse's impending cataclysm. Every leadingfinancial center in the world, including IMF Managing Director Michel Camdessus, knows that an immediate disintegration of the existing world financial system is now fully under way, and that this, unprevented, would probably explode in time to be delivered to this year's Christmas celebrations. Most governments do realize that a financial collapse is onrushing, and will hit very soon; nonetheless, except for a handful of senior influentials, these exceptions almost entirely from the "pre-Baby Boomer" generation, virtually no government, especially the government of the U.S.A., presently has the least comprehension of the tornado-like fury and suddenness with which this crisis will strike, once it peaks. Like the Clinton administration, up to now, virtually all putative experts are gripped by a fantasy rooted in wishful denial, desperately deluding themselves that all can be kept under control, perhaps postponed yet another year or so, by means of a few shrewd agreements negotiated among the perennial "boys in the back room."

The present review addresses the hyperbolically soaring present crisis in Russia, with that larger context of global cyclonic financial crisis in view. Here, the crisis is examined, predominantly, with emphasis upon a decisive feature of Russia seen from the inside, a feature which most Western strategic policy-shapers not merely misjudge, but a facet which most of them have not yet gained the specific competence to recognize. It is intended that this report should contribute to their gaining comprehension of the pivotal issue of scientific method involved.

During recent months, a significant ration of the writer's time has been occupied in discussions with Russian friends, on the matter of Russia's present place in world history. The pivot of this dialogue, is a little-known, but central issue of scientific method. As the writer has stressed repeatedly, for him, as for G. Leibniz, reality does not lie within the reductionist's notion of the object as such: but, rather, withn the domain which Leibniz named "Analysis Situs." By "Analysis Situs," this writer signifies, as did Leibniz before him, and also Bernhard Riemann later, an efficient principle of the universe, but one which is axiomatically beyond the comprehension of today's generally accepted mathematics: the determining relations, as typified by the notion of universally efficient "not-entropy," ruling over the domain within which the object is functionally situated. [ 2 ] The discussion so far has demonstrated, that that notion of Analysis Situs, is the "horse-shoe nail" for want of which the proverbial "kingdom is lost."

These discussions with Russians have centered around the problems generated by the fact, that, for well-known historical reasons, few of even today's ostensibly well-educated Russians, know the most crucial facts respecting the last three centuries of the history of their nation's relationship to Venice, the British Empire, western continental Europe, and the United States.

Today, outside Russia, in every situation in the Americas and Europe which the writer has examined, even the putatively best educated portion of the population of each nation, including today's U.S.A., is saturated with ideologically contrived, more or less popular political fictions, instead of honest accounts of history. So, it must also be said of Russia: respecting foreign relations in matters for which the facts are readily known to U.S. and western European scholars and others, even many putatively well-educated Russians met, are, with a few exceptions, to a large degree, victims of concocted fictional histories. The popular such fictions are chiefly of the "blood and soil," Romantic genre, typified in the extreme by authors such as that self-drawn literary caricature, World War II Moscow propagandist I.G. Ehrenburg.

In addition to recent years' discussions with friends in Russia, during the recent three decades, many of these fictional histories, from, and about Russia, have been examined, and discussed, intensiely and extensively, by teams of the writer and his associates: from the standpoint of the relevant, known historical facts. Most of those examples examined, from the past, or by Russians today, have shown themselves to be largely, if not entirely fictions, [ 3 ] varying as each was concocted either by apologists for Twentieth-Century Czarism, or for some pre-Stalin, Stalin, or post-Stalin phase-shift within the Bolshevik regime, or a recently acquired passion for some pathetic socio-economic dogmas of the virtual, post-1991 occupying powers, or, in the interest of some eclectic combination pasted together from among such options. The more the one of these varies from the other, the more the totality of them remains the same: a scattering of some facts, blended with fairy-tales which fill in those empty spaces from which vast acreages of relevant fact have been previously excised. [ 4 ]

Given, the fairy-tale character of those fictional fallacies of composition, which all too many educated Russians have come to defend as patriotic facts, we can not address the relevant problems of misunderstanding in U.S.A.-Russia relations, without also addressing, at the same time, the different, complementary form of ignorance based in widely accepted dogma, which pervades the policy-shaping circles within western Europe and North America. The problem is not only the substitution of sundry varieties of myths for history of Russia, on both sides; only a handful of leading policy-shapers and related advisors, on either the "eastern" or "western" side, possess the sense of universal history, without whose guidance the present world civilization will not survive.

Such experience has demonstrated, that wherever discussion of such matters arises, the discussion tends to become buried in impassioned defense of each among many, varied, disconnected, particular, popularized myths of pseudo-history. Worse, it is the world-outlook implicit in a combination of such disparate myths, which tends to misshape current policy, of, an toward Russia.

In particular: Unless, and until the discussion is focussed upon some crucial-experimental quality of fact, from which standpoint the most important issues fall into place in a more or less coherent way, no rational policy were likely to emerge from Russia, or the United States, in the matter of U.S.A.-Russia relations. In turn: That focus is not likely to succeed by itself. There will be no success, unless, and until those crucial facts are examined from the standpoint of the principles of that universal history, under which all particular histories must be subsumed, and by which they must be judged.

This is the form in which today's crucial strategic problem of relations between Russia and the U.S.A. must be approached. U.S., "Reform"-geared foreign policy toward Russia, is breeding an early strategic catastrophe, a global disaster for all concerned. A fresh, corrective, conceptual approach to the Twentieth-Century history of U.S.A.-Russia relations must be introduced. The author's referenced discussions with friends in Russia, affords the backdrop against which to present here what is crucial.




Letter to a Russian friend

To understand Russia's situation today, we must begin by reference to the most crucial problems of Russia's Twentieth-Century history to date. To wit:

The London-orchestrated succession of the interrelated Sino-Japanese war of 1894-1895 and Russo-Japanese War of 1905, [ 5 ] made possible the 1905 Revolution in Russia. The force which might have prevented Russia's collapse into its own suicidal folly, in joining World War I, the force within Russia typified by the statesmanship of Count Sergei Witte, was pushed from power. Lunacy fastened its grip upon the self-doomed institutions of Nicholas II's Czarist Russia. Hell was soon to follow. During 1917, the old order in Russia died of the sequelae of a self-inflicted disease called "pan-Slavism." The Bolsheviks buried the corpse. Then, under the Bolsheviks, came the 1920s locust-plague of N. Bukharin's NP-men; Stalin's Bolsheviks buried the NEP-men, too. Then, decades later, the Bolshevik regime was toppled, in turn.

In history, change is inevitable, but some changes, and also lack of change, are mistakes. As in the Russia of 1993-1996, the kind of inaction which reflects submission to continuing established "policy-thinking," or what is called in the U.S.A. "mainstream opinion," has often proven itself, like a neglected cancer, the source for what usually prove to be the most disastrous changes.

The institutions of Nicholas II's Czarist Russia, had destroyed their own fitness to survive. So, as they had contracted the "French disease" in the embrace of the Entente Cordiale; so, they were administered the legendary French cure for that disease, the coup de grâce. Foolish Nicholas II's Russia hung out the sign for the ice-man: Who would bury the corrupt institutions which had combined their influence, to cause 1914-1917 Russia to destroy itself, by the folly of Russia's pan-Slav alliance with the Anglo-French war-makers? Lenin served as the undertaker.

The uprooting of the polluted institutions of the old regime was a necessary change; the question is, were the side-effects of the Bolshevik cure not a new disease? Now, decades later, the Bolshevik regime, too, has died. While the putative heirs squabble over the inheritance, the corpse of Bolshevism has yet to receive a decent burial. It appears to be a reasonable speculation, that until Bolshevism is buried in a decent way, and an honest elegy read over its entombment, that Russia will remain, not a nation-state, but a state of historical purgatory.

Russians, especially old Bolshevik patriots, might argue, that Lenin was necessary, to the degree that the corrupt Czarist institutions had virtually destroyed the possibility that anyone existed, apart from Lenin's Bolsheviks, who could govern in the chaotic conditions created by Russia's foolish western alliance for the war against Germany. [ 6 ] They would argue, that Bolshevism, for all its falts, like Shakespeare's Othello, "had done the state some service," a fact, which in all honesty, honorable men, in Russia, or abroad, could not deny.

Such Russian patriots would wish it to be said, that, Russia, in its so-called "Marxist" incarnation, has also died. They would have it said, that Lenin's and Stalin's Russia died of the side-effects of the Bolshevik medicine which had saved it from dismemberment earlier. Those patriots would insist that the tale be told fairly, that it be granted, that there were certain achievements, some of heroic dimensions. These patriots would demand, that we tell them, "There must have been flaws, but certainly no worse than those of the rotten institutions of Nicholas II's time. Let us agree to settle these debts to history honorably; what were those flaws, that we might now proceed forward in history, without repeating the errors which brought about the self-destruction of regimes of the past?"

Such is the bare, descriptive form of the crucial facts. A compassionate regard for truthful facts, is the anteroom of wisdom in any matter. What is the essential truth which underlies those compassionately considered facts?

Like every history, Russia's history could never be understood efficiently, except from the standpoint of a truthful account of universal history. In the light of universal history, the apparent complexities of the 1905-1996 history of Russia, and all of the important features of the earlier history of Russia, fall into place with a beautiful truthfulness, including the central fallacy of Bolshevism.

As the circles of Russia's Nineteenth-Century cultural renaissance understood, the circles associated with the great A.S. Pushkin, with Czar Alexander II, with the great chemist and railroad-builder D.I. Mendeleyev, and with the greatest of the Twentieth Century's statesmen of old Russia, Count Sergei (Y.) Witte, the problem of Russia lay in the fact that the old culture, of oligarchical, serfdom-ridden Russia, was in violent opposition to the essential rquirements of the universal human nature of every individual human being on this planet. The oligarchical institutions which apologized for the continued, or past toleration of existence of serfdom within Russia, thus implicitly rejected the principle, that every man and woman, including Russian ones, is made in the image of God the Creator, individuals whose essential nature and self-interest, is that they are persons endowed with the power and need for development of those creative powers we associate with scientific, technological, and artistic progress. All of Russia's great statesmen, were men who devoted themselves to uplifting Russians from the rule of those institutions which were rooted in the evil, Babylonian, Diocletian, Justinian, oligarchical tradition of imperialism, as that evil heritage was expressed in those institutions of Russia which had rested for so long upon the aching shoulders of serfdom.

As typified by the case of the great Vernadsky, the Bolsheviks adopted some of the tradition of the Russian intelligentsia's best statesmen and poets before them: they sought to erect a society, in imitation of that modern nation-state form first established by France's Louis XI, a society echoing that design wrought by the founders of the U.S. Federal Republic of 1789: premised upon universal citizenship, with leading emphasis upon establishing a quality of universal education essential to a society increasing its productive powers of labor through investment in scientific and technological progress. [ 7 ] The case of geobiochemist and nuclear scientist V.I. Vernadsky, typifies the relevant point: No truly sentient observer could deny, that in the areas of physical science, including biology, Soviet Russia made durable contributions to mankind's history.

It is tragic, that today's foreign and other powers involved, have done almost as much as they might, in net effect, to destroy that nurture of the scientific progress, which was Soviet Russia's leading intellectual gift to itself, and also to makind as a whole. It is tragic, that the government of the United States, and other guilty parties of the post-1989 "reform" policy, may have reaped the proverbial "whirlwind" from this seed of their venal folly, the which they have heaped upon a hapless former Soviet Russia. Low, immoral creatures, such as Baroness Margaret Thatcher and the Moon-cult-funded ex-President George Bush appear to be, do not grasp the point, that when civilized nations gain a victory, they do not celebrate by raping the wives, parents, and children, of the defeated forces, as the "Reform" of Thatcher and Bush has done.

Having situated our subject of inquiry so, we have circumscribed a domain of inquiry, in which this writer's personal authority as a physical economist is relatively unique today. For a most relevant, more recent antecedent, we shall refer, below, to the treatment of the subject of Analysis Situs within the writer's report on the subject of human evolution: "The descent to Bush from man." That reference supplied, focus upon a central common incompetence of both Karl Marx's economics, and the British Haileybury School dogmas [ 8 ] from which Marx, much aided by his British intelligence patron, David Urquhart, [ 9 ] and, thus, also influenced by the writings of the satanic, Physiocrat madman Dr. François Quesnay, [ 10 ] constructed his own reductionist doctrine of economics. This is the same principle of radical-positivist irrationalism central to the economic-theoretical, brain-theory, and related systems-analysis dogmas of Bertrand Russell devotees Norbert Wiener ("information theory") and John von Neumann ("mathematical economics"). [ 11 ] Discounting for external factors, such as pressures for war-economy, the issues posed thus, are key to understanding the axiomatic root, and post-Soviet relevance of the failures of Soviet economic doctrine and related philosophy of practice.

Many Russians, either who had been influential under the Soviet system, or became influential through post-1989 atronage by the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy's International Republican Institute, or, like foreign institutions, have rushed with more zeal than thought, to "new ideas" from the West. This creates an ugly spectacle, like hungry unemployed of a defeated nation gathering around the food wagons of an occupying army. In the desire to be "post-Soviet," a certain blindness to the fact, that it was the moral rottenness of all the leading institutions of 1916-1917 Czarist Russia, which enabled Lenin's Bolsheviks to seize power. They should have mustered more energetic concern for discovering the actual, axiomatic roots of the Soviet collapse. Thus, many have rushed blindly into apologetics for the varieties of lunacy displayed by the wretched Baroness Margaret Thatcher's destruction of the economy of the United Kingdom, and the related fascist ideologies of the late Friedrich von Hayek's neo-feudalist Mont Pelerin Society.

Harvard University's celebrated George Santayana couched in academic aphorism: those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. Thus, the rottenness of the 1905-1917 institutions of Nicholas II's Russia, and the mixed successes and failures, achievements and follies, of both old Russia and the Soviet system, must be addressed. Those follies common to the economic doctrine and practice, of the old Soviet system, to the Czarist regime before it, and also to Lady Thatcher's presently doomed dupes around the world, are the place at which to begin.

Commodities do not produce commodities

The most efficient proof of the principle defining the proper submission of all historiography to a principle of universal history, [ 12 ] is located in a unique quality of experimental fact adduced from the science of physical economy. This same principle is essential for understanding the inherent failure, and inevitable doom, of what British dogma misrepresents as "western civilization," and also key for defining the related, central, fatal flaw of economic and social polcy embedded within the Soviet system.

The root of the formal incompetence of all reductionist forms of economic doctrine, common-place accounting theory and Marx's economics included, is typified by the fallacy of the presently prevailing, implicit axiomatic presumption among economists, and others, that "commodities are produced by commodities." [ 13 ] So, as in Karl Marx's thick Capital, or the thin, 1960 Production of Commodities by Commodities of Cambridge University's Piero Sraffa, such a mathematical economics, elaborated as a system of simultaneous linear inequalities after the style of Leon Walras, is implicitly premised upon the absurd, underlying, axiomatic presumption, that either linear "labor-time," or linearized "labor-power," is but another member of the array of bills of materials presented to the processes of production.

Construct the crucial experimental-physical proof in the following two, successive terms of reference. First, identify the general distinction of voluntary principle, which sets the human species absolutely apart from, and above all other living species, the latter absolutely inferior to man. Second, by aid of the evidence of physical economy, locate that distinction of individual human nature, the which is the primary location of that efficient, distinguishing physical principle.
The first array of evidence, is the combined archeological and historical evidence: of the increase in mankind's potential relative population-density, and of correlated advances in spectrum of life-expectancies, [ 14 ] physical productivities, and standard of living. This evidence not only sets the human species outside the competence of ecology, but identifies the presence of a voluntary principle as responsible for this demographic self-evolution of human society.

The second array of evidence, enables us to focus upon the nature of that relevant, principled, voluntary distinction of the human individual, which accounts for man's qualitative superiority to al other species. Follow the argument as the writer has stated the core of the matter in his "The descent to Bush from man." [ 15 ]

"Consider the case for economics, first, and turn, then, directly, to identify the corresponding case for any deductive deterministic mathematics.

"Relative to any doctrine of ecology, the distinction which sets mankind outside the competence of so-called ecology, is the functional nature of the variability in the human species' potential relative population-density. [ 16 ] This variability is of a type which might be treated as of that `genetically' predetermined character which is experimentally tolerable (for purposes of pragmatic first approximations) in the comparative study of population-sets among species inferior to man. However, the ecological potential of mankind changes to the effect, that humanity appears to be an upward-evolving succession of species unto itself: that the impulse for constantly upward evolution, respecting its behavior and characteristic potential relative population-density, is the distinguishing characteristic of human nature: a distinction which places the human species beyond the reach of ecology.

"The cause for these advances in mankind's potential relative population-density, is found in mankind's realization, as practice, of certain validated, fundamental discoveries of natural principle. One thinks immediately of experimentally validated discoveries of physical principle, as those effects are encountered explicitly as advances in applied science and technology. These also include the principles underlying the Classical art-forms of poetry, drama, music, and plastic arts, from which mankind has derived advances in statecraft and related matters.

"Each of these validated discoveries, has the significance of an added 'dimension,' in the process of progress from an n-fold Riemannian physical-space-time manifold, to an (n+1)-fold manifold. These advances, in degree of {cardinality} of the higher degrees of physical-space-time manifod, correlate with an increase of mankind's (society's) potential power over nature, and with associated tendencies for increase of not only potential relative population-density, but also improved life-expectancies, and a quantitatively and qualitatively enhanced quality of family and individual life.

"The realization of these advances in technology and statecraft, requires absolute increases in the necessary physical and related consumption, per capita of labor force, per household, and per square kilometer of relevant land-area. However, in successful physical economies, those increases in the rations of 'energy of the system,' are more than offset by gains in physical productivity. The result is, that in a well-managed society, the ratio of relative 'free energy' to relative 'energy of the system,' does not fall. It tends, rather, to increase, despite the rising physical requirements of per-capita and per-square-kilometer market-baskets, for labor force, households, basic economic infrastructure, education, health care, science and technology services, production, and distribution. In sum, the transformation from input to output, is 'not-entropic.' [ 17 ] This gain in relative not-entropy, is the sole sustainable source of true profit in an economy.

"The agency underlying this not-entropic function, can not be located in a correlation between the array of inputs and subsequent array of outputs. The human mind is the relevant agency, the only source of this not-entropy.

"This 'not-entropic,' distinctive characteristic of the individual human mind's function, has the same implications for the notion of evolution, as it is crucial for distinguishing between scientific and non-scientific forms of political-economy. Contrary to the radically reductionist 'brain' dogmas of Bertrand Russell devotees Norbert Wiener and John von Neumann, it is impossible to define this not-entropic function of the human individual mind in terms of any generally accepted form of classroom mathematics. This axiomatic incompetence of today's taught mathematics, is the most devastating experimental-physics demonstration of Leibniz's warning of the need to develop a generalized Analysis Situs. In present-day mathematics, only along those frontiers pioneered by Riemann's celebrated habilitation dissertation, can this principle be expressed for purposes of mathematical comprehension.

"The array of physical inputs to an economic process, is a condition in the physical world; the array of physical outputs of that process, is also a condition in the physical world. Yet, from the standpoint of the philosophical materialist, or reductionists since Parmenides of Elea, what we identify as the 'cause' of the transformation linking those two successive conditions, is, for them, an alleged, philosophically impermissible, {metaphysical} intervention by the not-entropic cognitive processes of the individual human mind.

"Thus, it is the relationship of the governing 'not-entropic' intervention of the individual human mind, to the productive process, which defines the relationship between inputs and outputs of that process. This is the classical demonstration of the case for an Analysis Situs, [which exists only] outside and above a deductive deterministic form of mathematics. [ 18 ]

"Consider the predicament which this poses to the blockheaded variety of mathematical physicist. The methodological standpoint of experimental physics, as distinct from that of ivory-tower, mathematical formalism, presents us with the existence of efficient, cognitive not-entropy, as a phenomenon of {relationship}, a relationship for which there is no provision within existing mathematical physics. As we shall note, in the appropriate place below, the demonstration of the existence of this relationship as a physically efficient one, satisfies the most powerful standard of scientific truthfulness available in any part of science. It is a relationship nowhere permitted within the axiomatics of generally accepted classroom mathematics, a relationship banned by the ogmas of commonly taught mathematical physics. Yet, it exists!

"The formalist's reaction to this paradoxical situation, ought to remind us of the spectacle created, if a biological instructor were to assure his students, that we do not yet have any statistical certainty that the evolutionary development of cognitive human life might be probable. So, in response to a proof of the existence of a type of relationship which his mathematics viciously excludes, the formalist proposes that we go to the blackboard, to demonstrate that this relationship might be derived from within the terms of that mathematics! The fraudulent mathematical definition of `negative entropy,' as famously supplied by the late Professor Norbert Wiener, is a celebrated example of such pathetic posturing by a reductionist. [ 19 ]

"The crucial point is, that not-entropy is not a special condition which might be constructed within the bounds of generally accepted classroom mathematics. In that latter domain, not-entropy presents itself only as a devastating paradox. [ 20 ] It is an efficiently existing principle, which, however, exists only outside the domain comprehended by such a mathematics. When such paradoxes confront mathematics, a scientific catastrophe is avoided by abandoning the confines of that mathematics; competence exhibits itself so, because it has recognized that the evidence obliges us to rise to that higher domain to which Leibniz assigned the name of Analysis Situs.

"This relationship, within the higher domain of an Analysis Situs, is the characteristic feature of that science of physical economy founded by Leibniz, as this is already exemplified by the subject-matter of his 1671 Society & Economy. [ 21 ] The same kind of paradox confronts the mathematician, in addressing that efficient, not-entropic relationship known as life.

"Once we situate man at the center of the functional relationship, in the study of evolution, we are confronted, once again, by the same problem of Analysis Situs which ife represents, but on an ontologically higher level. The characteristic of a human nature which demonstrates itself through successive increases in mankind's potential relative population-density, is precisely that same not-entropic principle, the distinctive principle of the individual human mind: a conception hidden behind the formalist's [snide] paradox of 'mind over matter.'

This "artificial," voluntary elevation of the human species' potential relative population-density, accomplished in this way, renders the continued existence of mankind at that level subject to the exigencies of "technological attrition." It might be a useful mnemonic ruse, to restate this to the reader as a slogan: The further man moves upwards from the bestiality of the apes, monkeys, and Bushbabies, the more man's continued existence depends upon becoming ever more human. This requirement, satisfied in this way, is human nature, in opposition to the arbitrary dogmas of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Pierre-Louis Maupertuis, Giammaria Ortes, et al. This is the nature of the relationship between the human species, as a whole, and the universe as a whole. This characteristic of the human species is situated, within those developable creative powers which are located within the sovereign precincts of the human individual's cognitive processes.

This is, in G. Leibniz's lexicon, the {necessary and sufficient reason} for the continued existence of the human species. This is the voluntary principle, the which defines the meaning, and scope of authority of the concept of universal history. It is the adoption of this principle which distinguishes the historian from such tenured, tendentious gossips as Moscow's late Ilya Ehrenburg.

There is no "human nature," of any group within the human species, Russian, or other, which is subject to any different standard of historiography, any kind of standard contrary to what would be the case for mankind considered as a whole: the science of history is universal history, to which all peoples areequally subject, without exception. This is derived from the fact, that all persons have the same distinctive, human-species nature, which varies from one person, one culture, to another, only in respect of the degree, or imperfection of development of the voluntary principle.

There is a reciprocal relationship between each and all components of mankind and mankind as a whole. Development, in the sense of realization of scientific and technological progress as an increase of the potential relative population-density of both that society, and, by efficient implication, mankind as a whole, is what humanity as a whole requires of each culture, of each person within mankind as a whole. Thus, the primary need of the people of each culture, the need of every individual person, is the realization of a personal and cultural self-development which is consistent with the indicated reciprocal relationship between, on the one side, mankind as an historical whole, and, on the other side, the individual culture and personality within that entirety.

The pivot of all this, is the development of the sovereign cognitive processes, and the opportunities, of each individual person, to the effect, that, firstly, each person assimilates from the manifold of those discoveries of principle which represent human progress in efficient knowledge up to that time, and, that, secondly, each person is afforded the opportunity to participate in furthering such progress, of his or her society, of mankind, and of himself or herself, as an acting, voluntary participant in universal history.

This moral principle of our species does not vary, as our scrutiny passes from one culture, one nationality, to another. All persons have the same essential kinds of needs, which vary only as Leibniz suggests in his 1671 Society & Economy, as the relative degree of development, and locality of a society define the exact, functional meaning of those needs. There is no rational basis for tolerating policies of "zero technological growth," such asthose embedded in the notorious Code of Diocletian. The allowable variability in human needs, is bounded by the restriction, that there is no rational, or moral basis for tolerating the "cultural relativists" defense of such degenerate cultures as those which feature the inclusion of cannibalism, head-hunting, ritual human sacrifice, or related abominations, as "traditions." Nor, can we tolerate any "traditional" or other general practice, such as slavery, serfdom, or "anti-cognitive" qualities of education, practices which impair the functioning of those creative mental processes, by which the universal, voluntary nature of the human species is efficiently expressed. [ 22 ]

The yardstick of performance of a culture, potential relative population-density, implicitly, defines, in that way, which cultures must be deemed relatively superior, and which either relatively inferior, and even evil. There is no rational basis for tolerating any contrary view.

The distinction of the human species is Reason, as we are implicitly defining Reason here. There is no whim, such as those of charismatic impulse, or presumed tradition, which can be permitted to place itself above the authority of Reason. There are no impulses attributable to the sensual appetites, such as traditions of devotion to notions of "blood and soil," which a civilized society will permit to violate the domain of Reason as that natural law to which every society is properly, and equally subject.

Such are the most crucial considerations presented to the rational conscience, by the tragic follies which are presently leading the human species toward an immediate collapse into the worst "Dark Age" in the known existence of mankind. We return to this crucial matter, after, next, locating the notions of "Analysis Situs" and "not-entropy" with respect to what laymen, and some others, usually mistake for mathematical physics.

Riemann's notion of hypothesis

The relationship between so-called mathematical physics and Analyis Situs, arises from the principle of hypothesis, as the latter principle was supplied by Plato, and his Academy at Athens, to give coherent order to, for example, the work of the original Euclid. The standpoint this writer is representing at this place in writing, is that of Bernhard Riemann's celebrated habilitation dissertation, a work we have already referenced here several times.

Riemann's notion of a successive ordering of physical-space-time manifolds, ordered in rank according to relative mathematical cardinality, defines what is termed a lattice of hypotheses. The notion of Analysis Situs is located, relative to a formal mathematical physics, in the ordering principle underlying the manifold represented by such a Riemannian lattice of successively ordered hypotheses, of manifolds of higher-order "curvature," of higher "cardinality." This underlying principle is that associated with the notion of "higher hypothesis" in the dialogues of Plato. This latter underlying principle, is the location of those functional notions of Analysis Situs referenced by G. Leibniz.

Consider these connections in terms of a series of definitions.

Each relatively viable strain in post-Fourteenth-Century science, begins with what the Golden Renaissance adopted as the central principle of experimental physical science: the validation, by crucial measurements, of natural principles whose discovery was contrary to pre-established, so-called "mainstream" belief. [ 23 ] In all viable strains of modern science, the development of a mathematics relevant to experimental physics, was not derived from blind faith in the so-called "counting numbers"; its origin was, as Riemann's standpoint emphasizes, in Classical-Greek geometry: the notion of a discoverable, perfectable, unified, coherent principle, governing measurement of extension in physical space-time. [ 24 ] Only in terms of extension in physical space-time, is it possible to test whether the illiterate's blind faith in mere counting has not, yet once again deceived us.

The defining topic of experimental physical science, is the subject of demonstrable anomalies: the measurable demonstration of cases in which a phenomenon stubbornly persists, as the universe's contemptuous, impenetrable defiance of the contemporary putative authorities. It is the explicit focus upon the underlying implications of such anomalies, which separates the science of Classical Greece--that which began with the work of Plato's Academy--from all earlier contributions to empirical science, most notably the empirical proto-science of ancient Egypt, prior to the degeneracy of Egypt under the influence of what came to be known later as the cult of Isis. The foundation of all modern science deserving of that name, is the method of hypothesis elaborated within Plato's dialogues, most notably what we recognize today as the later ones. [ 25 ]

Plato's Socratic method of hypothesis, serves as the origin of all modern science, as the first known, comprehensive effort to shift the question of knowledge securely into the domain of Platonic ideas. That frees man's mind from the bestial grip of emphasis upon sense-certainty, to examine the internal workings of those cognitive processes which regulate the generation of those conceptions which the utterer presents as propositions, and even as putative knowledge. The typical Socratic question may be stated: What are the assumptions which underlie the adoption of certain propositions by the (sovereign) cognitive processes of the individual mind? Now, consider the application of this Socratic method to geometry.

In short, the result of the application of the Socratic method to the propositions, and presumed proofs of geometry, is a set of definitions, axioms, and postulates, of the type we might exemplify by those of Euclid's Elements. That set of interacting, underlying assumptions constitutes an {hypothesis}. Hence, in all manifestations, Plato's Socratic method, in contrast to that of his adversary Aristotle, is the same method of hyothesis employed by G. Leibniz, the which is at the center of Riemann's habilitation dissertation.

Cusa's derivation of a distinct principle of experimental physical science, from the work of Plato, Archimedes, et al., focuses upon the use of experimental methods of measurement, as the generalizable means for testing the relative truthfulness of two mutually exclusive hypotheses respecting the physical composition of our universe. Which hypothesis implicitly corresponds to a solution for a defiant experimental anomaly? Gauss's notion of a generalizable, experimental principle of curved surfaces, the masterful experimental method applied by Gauss's associate, Wilhelm Weber, and the fundamental discoveries of principle by Bernhard Riemann, represent the crowning fulfillment of Cusa's principle of experimental physical science, up to the onset of the present century.

Viewed from this advantageous standpoint of historical reference, scientific progress occurs, in each instance, as the mastery of one of two types of fallacies within generally accepted scientific opinion: either outright fallacies of judgment, or fallacies attributable to the limited scope of the existing hypothesis. In both types of cases, Cusa's method of measurement in experimental physical science applies. The essential principle of physical science, is the use of the principle of measurement to test which, if any, of the mutually irreconcilable hypotheses presented, corresponds, in a characteristic way, to the results of a relevant, crucial-experimental measurement. In Gauss's terms of reference, we measure the curvature of the physical-space-time manifold implicitly defined by a relevant hypothesis. [ 26 ]

Thus, Leibniz ridiculed the incompetence of the mathematical methods of René Descartes and Isaac Newton, demanding the introduction of the mathematics of the transcendental domain, instead. [ 27 ] Leibniz's introduction of the primacy of transcendental physics, and, together with Jean Bernoulli, of the first appreciation of a rinciple of physical relativity, [ 28 ] represented an accumulation of changes in hypothesis, away from that simplistic derivation of a merely algebraic mathematics which is derived from a naive reading of the hypothesis underlying Euclidean geometry. The principal next breakthrough, was that accomplished by Riemann, that chiefly on the basis of the preceding work of Gauss. The key implication of Riemann's revolution in science, is that we are forced to think in a fresh, much more profound way, about what are termed "theorem-lattices."

Riemann's referenced discovery of principle presents us with the image of scientific progress, as a sequence of discontinuous transitions, from one hypothesis to a next, relatively superior one. For this purpose, the corrected view of the Euclidean hypothesis' notion of a fixed set of interactive definitions, axioms, and postulates, is employed. This sequence is commonly characterized, for purposes of experimental measurement, by a modified "Pythagorean," given the general form associated with Riemann's revolution in the notion of the hypothetical basis for geometry. This modified Pythagorean, is viewed from the vantage-point of Gauss's generalization of the notion of curved surfaces, and relevant references to Gauss's development, for purposes of experimental measurements, of the notion of biquadratic residues, beyond the initial presentation in his Disquisitiones arithmeticae. [ 29 ]

Thus, for Riemann, as for Plato, the presentation of an ordered series of successively more powerful hypotheses, presents us with the following imagery.

We begin with that enriched notion of the Euclidean hypothesis which Riemann's discovery provides. We then define a deductive form of Euclidean geometry as an ostensibly open-ended theorem-lattice, the relations among the theorems defined as their common lack of deductive inconsistency with each and all of the members of the set of definitions, axioms, and postulates, of the relevant hypothesis. Thereafter, in comparing apair of differing hypotheses, we think in terms of comparing the cross-mappings of the sets of definitions, axioms, and postulates of which each of the two hypotheses is, respectively, composed.

Once we have understood ourselves in respect to the first comparison between pairs of hypotheses, we must then depart the confines of mathematical deductive formalism. We seek to discover what measurable physical difference in performance exists between the efficient performances of the physical systems corresponding respectively to the formal hypotheses compared. The relativistic view arising from the notions of isochronism/tautochronism, and the cohering brachystochrone experiment, as associated with the Huyghens-Leibniz-Bernoulli work of the late Seventeenth Century, point out the direction we must follow, as Riemann goes so. The epistemological significance, and importance of "relative physical-space-time curvature," become clear to us; this directs us toward the appropriate notions and design of relevant experiments bearing directly upon the comparison of hypotheses respecting physical space-time.

At that nodal point of the investigation, we must return to the point of departure: the notion of ranking, and corresponding ordering, of deductively inconsistent theorem-lattices. We have thus defined a domain from which the 1741-1804 Euler-Lagrange axioms respecting continuity are banned. The discontinuities among the contrasted theorem-lattices (i.e., contrasted hypotheses), now become for us, as for the G. Leibniz of the so-called Monadology, the formal conception whose experimental-physical correlatives are sought out. We are rewarded, in significant part, by discovering that, in the Monadology, Leibniz's earlier sketched ideas respecting an Analysis Situs are assuming a definite form.

Apply to the Riemann sequence of hypotheses, the same requirement prompting the adducing of the hypothesis corresponding to a deductive theorem-lattice for geometry. In the relevant terms of Plato's Parmnides: What is the "One" which corresponds to, subsumes, underlies the ordering of the "Many" terms of this hypothesis-lattice? The generic term for the answer to that question, is: Higher Hypothesis. What is the nature of the implied content of such an higher hypothesis? What corresponds, within higher hypothesis, to the role of interactive definitions, axioms, and postulates of the hypothesis for a deductive geometry? Broadly, the answer is, "Analysis Situs." In the instance before us, the individual human mind's cognitive potential: "not-entropy," as opposed to "entropy."

For clarity, add the following summary bit of exposition.

In other locations, the writer has defined the Analysis Situs of scientific knowledge in general, in the following terms of reference. The product of cognition which we term "knowledge," is composed of three distinct categories of observed processes, examined against three mutually exclusive domains. The three processes are "ostensibly not-living," "ostensibly living, but not cognitive," and "cognitive processes (of living beings)." The division of empirical evidence of relations, is: "astrophysics," "microphysics," and "macrophysics." This defines a table of nine cells, each distinct from all others. The map of the combinations and permutations of the relations among these nine cells, forms a lattice of relations; the relationship which subsumes the lattice of these combinations and permutations, subsumes Higher Hypothesis. The lattice so defined, is the Analysis Situs of higher hypothesis; the subsuming relationship, is what Plato recognizes as "hypothesizing the higher hypothesis." [ 30 ]

In those locations, and otherwise, since 1948-1952, the writer has used the comparison between the cognitive processes of scientific and technological progress, in production, and the same creative processes in Classical forms of musical thorough-composition, both as related to the determining role of metaphor in Classical poetry and tragedy, as the key to "triangulating" the nature of the individual mind's sovereign creative processes. The substantial reference to be stressed, as by the celebrated medieval composer Ramon Llull's Ars Magna, is that the power of individual Reason is located within the active functions we associate with memory.

That is to say, we are conscious of perceptions by means of the agency of memory. Or, we should say, that human memory is not an analog for the "memory" of a digital computer. Human memory functions according to the principle of hypothesis; memory is the seat of inividual cognitive judgment. Memory is governed by the functions ontologically associated with the usage of Analysis Situs as we have defined it here. Roman Llull's Ars Magna displays a highly refined sense of something existing (ontologically) in that direction. The development of Classical methods of motivic thorough-composition, beginning with W. Mozart's insight into J.S. Bach's A Musical Offering, through the last song of Johannes Brahms's Vier Ernste Gesänge hymns, [ 31 ] is the most convenient existing "model" for demonstrating how memory functions, to such an effect that all greatly accomplished musicians perform according to the principle which the great conductor Wilhelm Furtwängler identified famously as "performing between the notes."

That said, focus now upon the ordering principle implicit in a "not-entropic," Riemannian hypothesis-lattice, putting aside other notions of Analysis Situs than the principled relationship we have identified as "not-entropy."

What is the experimental-physical basis, which supplies a unique demonstration of this not-entropic principle of Analysis Situs in man's relationship to the universe? In summary, inasmuch as the Riemannian succession of hypotheses correlates with the increase of mankind's potential relative population-density, this correlation shows us that an increase of mathematical cardinality in the form of validated knowledge of physical principles, increases man's power over the universe. It is shown, thus, that the universe is so pre-designed, so to speak, that when mankind's will is expressed as a validated discovery of physical principle, the universe is obliged to bend, in that increased degree, to mankind's will. In brief: the law which the universe obeys, is this law. All human experience, when expressed in terms of this Riemannian series, thus forms a unique experiment, in which it is demonstrated that the universe as a whole is characteristically not-entropic.

Who could deny this efficiently? All knowledge is a product of the human mind, a mind which exists only in the form of sovereign cognitive processes of the individual person. The question of knowledge becomes, therefore: What are the characteristics of individual mental behavior by means of which society increases mankind's power in the universe, and by what means can we describe the directed mental processes by means of which that increase of power is generated?

In this setting, the most relevant and notable expression of the fallacy of formal deductive mathematics, is the folly of the attempt to define mathematically those distinguishing characteristics of living and cognitive processes, respectively, an experimentally well-defined relation (Analysis Situs), which, by the nature of mathematics, could not be described in terms of any previously adopted, reductionist form of deductive mathematics. The dishonest mathematician, or his lackey, would perhaps insist that we have created afresh the controversy between deductive rationality and blind "leaps of faith." On the contrary, the fact of the matter is, that deduction can not leap the successive chasms (mathematical discontinuities) of not-entropy, and that not-entropy nonetheless exists.

The objector's problem is, that he would rather depart the universe than supersede an outdated mathematics which can no longer account for the experimental realities. The epistemological issue separating science from the formalist's reductionism, is simply a matter of acknowledging the evidence, and constructing a new mathematics which is in agreement with that experimental evidence.

In this issue, the "leap of blind faith," is entirely a product of the hysterical, charismatic delusion of the logician. So, it might be said: wherever there is a deductively obsessed Dr. Faustus, there is the lawful prey of a lurking Mephistopheles'charismatic charms.


How London controls Moscow

Those indispensable preliminaries stated, we now turn to the crucial sub-topic of this strategic study. The exampes we cite, appear to demonstrate, that neither the typical U.S. or Russian academic knows what the international Communist movement was, or is, or how that affects, crucially, any prospect for U.S.-Russia relations today. However, we should also recognize, in certain achievements of Soviet society, how the inherent nobility of human nature as we define it here, often defies, and sometimes triumphs over the ideologies which otherwise seem to have gained hegemony over the leading institutions of nations such as the U.S.S.R., or today's U.S.A.

We begin this summary account of relevant features of Communist history, with reference to a document now in the possession of the writer's representatives, a relevant official document of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), dated Oct. 29, 1973. This document represents exchanges between the FBI's New York City office and the Washington Headquarters. Its subject is the FBI's utilization of its assets in the leadership of the Communist Party U.S.A. (CPUSA) for a plan to bring about this writer's "elimination." [ 32 ] Although this FBI document itself was grudgingly released, piece-meal, much later, under the U.S.A. "Freedom of Information Act" procedures, the writer knew, already, beginning no later than early July 1973, that he was the target of a U.S.-British-East Germany "elimination" operation set into motion no later than February 1973. The role of the FBI, British MI-5, and the East Germany Interior Ministry (e.g., "Stasi"), was adequately confirmed by evidence already in hand by no later than January 1974, the time the New York Times deployed to run a massive, and fraudulent cover-up for the FBI. [ 33 ]

The relevant head of the 1973 FBI's CPUSA, Minnesota native Gus Hall, was described by the UNO Soviet Mission's representative at the time, as "a personal friend of Leonid Brezhnev"!

Take the case of Angela Davis, a protégé of "Frankfurt School" Communist-turned-OSS/CIA operative Herbert Marcuse, who, in turn, playeda key role for McGeorge Bundy's Ford Foundation, in creating what became the Weatherman LSD-and-terrorism group. [ 34 ] Ms. Davis had turned up to play a role in the CPUSA's youth group, the YWLL, prior to the time, beginning early March 1973, the YWLL was deployed to organize and conduct violence against this writer and his associates, months prior to the indicated official date of the FBI document. [ 35 ]

Disgusting? Yes. Astonishing? Shocking? Not if one knows what the world is really like. As the great poet, and intimate of James Rothschild's Paris Salon, Heinrich Heine, attempted to warn his acquaintance Karl Marx and other dupes, [ 36 ] that the entire left-wing movement around Giuseppe Mazzini's "Young Europe," was an operation run by leading powerful bankers known to Heine through associations such as the Paris Rothschild salon. As Heine's famous earlier writings, that exposing the Romantic school, and his denunciation of Immanuel Kant and others, [ 37 ] shows, this was not an accidental insight for Heine. Anyone who understands mankind's true nature, as every great poet does, more or less accurately, recognizes that we are essentially creatures of ideas, rather than the brutish, genetically-predetermined British instincts of a Baroness Margaret Thatcher or U.S. ex-President and "knuckle-dragger" Sir George Bush.

Nonetheless, once the layman is presented such evidence, he, or, she will tend to misinterpret it. Such naivety reaches to very high levels of government and other political and academic institutions. If, and when, and only when, one has at least the degree of grasp of this matter which Heine demonstrated, does one understand those underlying processes which control the fate of nations.

How, and when did the kinds of wealthy oligarchical families, such as those behind the funding of the 1968-1973 operations just identified, gain top-down control, as they did, over the leaderships of Communist parties and related organizations, in the Americas and in Europe? The answer is: Since a time long before the first Communist Party was born in any part of the world. Consider now, a relatively concise summary of the relevant facts; then, consider the degrees to which this control by wealthy international-financier families has, and has not, determined the character of Lenin's Bolsheviks and the post-1917 history of the the Soviet society.

As Karl Marx, and the founders of Soviet Russia emphasized repeatedly, the pre-history of the present-day Communist parties, begins in France, during the 1780s, as Robespierre's Jacobin faction, prepared, in concert with Benjamin Franklin's personal enemy, the Duke of Orléans Philippe "Egalité," to take over France. What Karl Marx refused to face, was the fact which had already been publicly documented before Marx was born, and facts presented personally to Marx by Heinrich Heine, that Robespierre's Jacobins were, like the Duke of Orléans, agents of the British Foreign Service then commanded by the Jeremy Bentham, who had been appointed by Lord Lansdowne (the notorious "Shelburne") of the British East India Company's Barings bank, to head the British Foreign Service established during the brief period, 1782-1783, Shelburne was Prime Minister of Britain.

The British Foreign Service's asset, the Duke of Orléans, Philippe Egalité, and his Robespierre-led Jacobins, took over the 1789 French Revolution, through the elimination of the pro-U.S.A. figure Gilbert Marquis de Lafayette. [ 38 ] Orléans himself organized, and armed the famous seizure and burning of the Bastille (as an election stunt for the Orléans-backed candidacy, for the Prime Ministership of France, of Swiss banker Jacques Necker). He assembled, funded, and armed the mob which stormed a Bastille which contained no political prisoners! The same Orléans, the cousin of King Louis XVI, later organized, and armed the storming of Versailles, outflanking Lafayette politically, and thus virtually ending the power of Lafayette and his friends. Out of this came theLondon-directed Jacobin Terror in Fance.

As this was explained, officially and loudly, by Colombia's Simon Bolivar: Bentham employed the same methods he used in training Danton and Marat, in his control over those British Scottish Rite freemasonry's revolutionaries in South America and the Caribbean, which he deployed in the attempt to effect a British takeover of the Spanish colonies there. [ 39 ]

This brings us to Heine's "case of Ludwig Boerne." Bentham's protégé, Lord Palmerston, employed the same methods to create the British Foreign Service's insurrectionary "Young Europe" and "Young America" conspiracies, coordinated, in conjunction with Napoleon III and the London-based Giuseppe Mazzini, for the immediate purpose of toppling Britain's outlived Holy Alliance ally, Prince Metternich. Trier's young Karl Marx was picked up by Mazzini et al. during the late 1830s, as part of that British "zoological" collection of insurrectionary specimens. In miniature, the 1966-1969 developments around Columbia University, and parallel developments, against de Gaulle et al. in Europe, were replays of the "Young Europe" and (Massachusetts-South Carolina) "Young America" ferment of the 1830s through 1850s. The anarchist and socialist organizations which sprang up in Europe and the Americas after the outbreak of the U.S. Civil War of 1861-1865, were all products of the British Foreign Service's world-wide network of Mazzinian revolutionaries.

The pattern continues through the history of the Communist International, and the tentative, post-Stalin quasi-rehabilitation of the British Foreign Service's Bukharin-Thalheimer-Lovestone, "right wing" Communist International Opposition, under N.S. Khrushchev, Eugen Varga, Otto Kuusinen, and their successors. There is indelible evidence that General Secretary Josef Stalin was on to the British game, at least to a degree beyond the comprehension, and desire of successors such as Khrushchev.

Who actually exerts such forms of control over the international Commuist movement, and, also, many of its offshoots, and also others, still today? How is the control structured, and how does it function? To what purpose and effect? What part of Soviet history is real (i.e., actually Russian), and which, like the British Foreign Service's coordination of both the 1905 Russo-Japanese War and the so-called "1905 Revolution," merely a reflection of this Bentham-Palmerston-style of puppet-play?

The first step toward comprehension, is to get past the kind of popular idiocy which looks for a "CIA agent" under every bed. For example: Who actually exerted control over assets such as that former (Bukharin-Thalheimer-Lovestone) "International Right Opposition" of the Communist International, the one whose U.S. base was the industrial engineering section, formerly under William Gomberg, of David Dubinsky's International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union (ILGWU), [ 40 ] and which operated under such covers as the International Rescue Committee and its Freedom House offshoot?

How many of these "Right Opposition" agents were laundered into the U.S.A.'s war-time Office of Strategic Services and Office of War Information, and from such way-stations, into the post-war U.S., British, and Canadian intelligence services? The most widespread form of political paranoia around the world today, is expressed by such delusions as the misguided assumption, that agents must be agents of governments, or government agencies, and that the character of national governments is an epiphenomenon of the national character of the government's relevant subject population. No historian, or counterintelligence officer "worth his salt" would support such delusions.

Take the British Empire, which still exists, under the rubric of "British Commonwealth." The blunder of John Q. Public on this matter, is not merely that he has been brainwashed into repeating the lying mantra: "Britain is our nearest, dearest, and oldest ally." His confusion is rooted in his deluded belief in popularized fairy-tales, that te British monarchy is merely a ceremonial appendage of "British parliamentary democracy," and his corollary delusion, that the British state is an epiphenomenon of the population of the United Kingdom.

The British state is headed by a hereditary monarchy, which was selected by the Act of Settlement of 1701, the Act which is about as much of a semblance of an actual Constitution as the United Kingdom has to the present day. [ 41 ] The modern British state, and empire, came into existence with the 1714 accession of a former protégé of the Netherlands' William of Orange, Hanover's Georg Ludwig, as the United Kingdom's King George I. The resulting design of the British state, was developed to make London, as a capital of international usury and maritime power in northern Europe, a clone of the old pre-Napoleonic Republic of Venice. This London, like old imperial Venice, its British Empire, and its so-called "British Commonwealth" of today, is an agency of an international financier oligarchy, an oligarchy, like that of its adoptive parent, {pater familias} old imperial Venice. That oligarchy is composed, both of some families which are immensely rich, or families and personalities, such as a Cardinal Gasparo Contarini or Paolo Sarpi, of other forms of extraordinary, traditional influence.

The crux of the matter is, that the British state, including its Commonwealth appendage, is a political "household lackey" of the several thousand powerful figures who represent the ruling families of the extended British financier oligarchy.

To the competent historian, this form of the British state is not a notably novel concoction.

As we have noted, above, until the establishment of the first nation-state, that of France's King Louis XI (1461-1483), the world was ruled by empires, not nations; the empires were ruled by an executive in whose person all property, all law (saving the countervailing weight of traditions) was concentrated: the emperor. All other power existed under franchises derived from the cntral imperial power. These empires were ruled by oligarchies of powerful families, an oligarchy whose presumed relationship to ordinary mortals mimicked the legendary oligarchy known as the gods of pantheonic Olympus. The dominant set of the oligarchical families composing these oligarchies were of three types: a landed aristocracy, a financier nobility, or a bureaucratic (e.g., state) nobility, or priesthood of the hegemonic pantheonic religious organization. All three types were represented in all cases since Babylon, or earlier; the distinction of one type of empire from the other lies in the selection of the dominant type, from among these three types. The constitutional state, a representative of the citizens and their posterity, did not exist (excepting some city-state approximations) until the modern nation-state first came into being, in France, through the work of Italy's sponsors of the Fifteenth-Century Golden Renaissance. [ 42 ]

As we have noted, the British Empire (e.g., United Kingdom) is essentially an empire of the financier-oligarchical, as distinct from landed-aristocratic form. The British hereditary monarchy, is best appreciated by thinking of "the Windsors" as an hereditary version of the old Venice doge-ship. This British Venetian-style financier oligarchy, has supplemented the actual wars it has organized indirectly, as also directly, against the vital interest of the United States, with other forms of subversion. All have been conducted in the interest of the British expression of Venice-style imperial interest, in the interest, thus, of the "Venetian model." Thus, as short-hand, we may reference these sundry attributes with the more economical utterance of "Venetian Party." In other locations, the author and his associates have documented crucial highlights of the relevant methods of subversion. [ 43 ]

In the United States, the Anglophile financier oligarchy of wealthy and powerful families, which tradition associates with J.P. Morgan's Wall Street finance, is a British-style imperial formation which has superimposed itself upon the U.S.A. institutions of state. For example, as the case of the flow of grants to Communist Party offshoots from foundations established by financier-oligarchical families, illustrates the point, the typical agent, is not primarily an agent of some U.S. government agency, but, rather of a faction of the wealthy families behind the proliferation of tax-exempted charitable foundations, such as the Ford Foundation under the guidance of families' representatives, such as Bertrand Russell's Robert M. Hutchins and McGeorge Bundy. Usually, the U.S. government agencies come into play as institutions which are under the de facto control, as through controlled "old boy" networks, of the wealthy oligarchical families.

For example, around Atlanta, Georgia, there is a cabal of agents of Communist Party backgrounds dating from the 1920s. The CPUSA's long-standing "Agrarian"-parody asset, "Mother Hen" Anne Braden, is a typical point of reference. To what degree are these Communist Party agents? The funding records show the control to be a network of oligarchical-family foundations closely intertwined with the World Wide Fund for Nature of Britain's Prince Philip. So, what else is new?

In short, the naive person has often looked for "government agents," where most agents are, rather, agents of private interests representing a faction of the wealthy oligarchical families. There are some instances of straight-forward government agents, pure and simple police-agents, for example; for counter-intelligence purposes, these are to be viewed as like fleas on any dog which runs in the streets. Predominantly, the important expressions of agentry are controlling links to oligarchical families.

Focussing, for a moment, on "left-wing" movements in general. The pedigrees of these movements are all traced back to the Eighteenth-Century operations of the "Venetian Party" faction of oligarchs throughout Europe and North America. The formation of the Communist Internatonal, and also the original Communist Party of the Soviet Union, was no exception to this rule. This leads us to the question: To what degree were sundry Communists actually agents, or not agents of this international oligarchical interest; this includes Communist organizations outside the Soviet Union; it emphasizes the "international bankers'" control over such figures of the Communist International as Radek, Bukharin, Lovestone, et al; it emphasizes the growing domestic and foreign influence of the residues of Bukharinite Communist Right Opposition, and to a lesser degree, of the Trotskyist Left Opposition, within Khrushchev's and post-Khrushchev Warsaw Pact countries; it includes, above all, the massive influence of British intelligence within the pre-1991, and post-1991 Russia.

The kind of agentry relevant to counterintelligence interest, in political movements, falls broadly into four types. First, to get his, or her case out of the way: The pure and simple "sent in" agent, or person recruited from a political organization to play such a part, such as a government agent. Second, the operative who functions among political organizations and movements as a "Leporello," a lackey of some oligarchical-family interest, as Heine described the circumstances surrounding the case of Ludwig Boerne. Third, the opportunist, who is the agent of the covert agenda supplied to him through the duct of his venality. Fourth, there is the unwitting dupe, whose behavior is controlled, as that of a puppet, by "jerking his political-sociological-psychological strings." Most political organizations, notably the relevant left-wing ones, are controlled by agents of the fourth, "string-jerk" type.

We focus here on the functional significance of foreign-controlled, "jerkable-string" agents--e.g., unwitting puppets--of the fourth type. The matter of "psychological strings" is crucial for understanding the political characteristics of Russia's situation today. This returns our attention to the issues of Analysis Situs referenced above; now, we view the same issues from the standpoint of what many would wish to identify as the realm of "social theory."


Continue to PART II

Notes

Use your back button to return to text

1. Margaret Thatcher, The Downing Street Years (New York: HarperCollins, 1993), pp. 782-83. [ return to text ]

2. For the purposes of this present paper, the writer's relatively most recent published presentation of "not-entropy" as an expression of Analysis Situs, is his treatment of the subject of human evolution: "The descent to Bush from man," Executive Intelligence Review (EIR), Nov. 15, 1996. For reasons to be made clear in the course of this present paper, the emphasis placed upon that Nov. publication, is the reference to the late A.D. Sakharov's paper, "Cosmological Models of the Universe with Reversal of Time's Arrow," as found in A.D. Sakharov, Collected Scientific Works, D. Ter Haar, D.V. Chudnovsky, C.V. Chudnovsky, eds., (New York: Marcel Dekker, 1982). See, also, relevant material bearing on Analysis Situs, in the writer's "While Monetarism Dies," EIR, Oct. 25, 1996; "The Essential Role of 'Time-Reversal' in Mathematical Economics," EIR, Oct. 11, 1996; and in "Leibniz from Riemann's Standpoint," Fidelio, Fall 1996. [ return to text ]

3. As one may say of certain judges' Federal Rule 403 and other rulings in limine, such as Federal District Chief Judge Albert V. Bryan, Jr., and a certain crooked state judge of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the most dastardly lies are those which willfully superimpose a falsehood upon the evidence, by suppressing the most crucial of the relevant evidence. Similarly, in some of the worst historical myths circulating as "history" in Russia still today, the myth clings obsessively to the alleged importance of a few facts selected to fit the prejudice, hysterically denying all others.

4. Two examples suffice to illustrate the working point. In the first case: The war plan for the defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte's invasion of Russia, was devised by the Prussian reformers Wilhelm von Humboldt, Gerhard Scharnhorst, and Karl (Freiherr) vom Sten, working directly with Czar Alexander I, according to a plan for destroying Napoleon devised on the basis of historian and playwright Friedrich Schiller's extensive study of the battle for the freedom of the Netherlands. The gist of the Prussians' war-plan for Russia, was not to permit the Russian army to be destroyed by its attempting, prematurely, and futilely, to defeat Napoleon in the initial battles [e.g., Smolensk, Borodino], but to conduct an orderly retreat, as a delaying action, conserving the integrity of Russia's military forces, while luring Napoleon, hopefully, to Moscow, which was thoroughly mined in advance, to the purpose of burning Moscow down around Napoleon's forces at the onset of winter (Sept. 15-20), after which the conserved Russian forces might then fall upon the vulnerable flanks of Napoleon's retreating Grand Army. With initial, sentimental reluctance, Czar Alexander accepted the Prussians' plan, over objections from among his Russian advisors. Clausewitz' successful wooing of the Prussian command under Yorck (Tauroggen, Dec. 30, 1812), to join in falling upon retreating Napoleon's forces, enabled the Russians, Prussians, and Austria's Karl (Fürst) von Schwarzenberg, to combine forces, to bring about the famous, decisive rout of Napoleon, at Leipzig (Oct. 16-19, 1813). In the second case, World War I, while planned and organized by the British-French Entente Cordiale of the Czar's uncle, King Edward VII, was actually launched when Czar Nicholas II approved the July 1914 general mobilization for the assault on Germany, to which Germany replied with its own general order for mobilization a few days later. The Russian Romantic versions of these events, omit all the leading facts, in order to parody thus propagandist Ilya Ehrenburg's fairy-tale propaganda-picture of consistent, virtually uninterrupted German racialist aggression against Russia, over centuries! [ return to text ]

5. On the subject of the first Sino-Japanese war of 1894-1895, and the forces acting upon Japan which are relevant to British intelligence's deployment of Japan for the Russo-Japanese war of 1905, see the writer's report on Britain's ringing of China for intended destruction today: "Ring Around China: Britain Seeks War," EIR, Nov. 22, 1996.

6. In examining Lenin's writings, beginning those relating to his break with Plekhanov, the distinctive quality of his writings and executive actions, for which he was an awesome, if sometimes invidiously considered figure, even among the Bolsheviks, is the quality which Clausewitz associates with his special use of the German term Entschlossenheit: the reflection of the quality of the superior military commander, such as a Lazare Carnot, or the U.S. team of "anvil" Grant and "hammer" Sherman, in a political leader of a revolutionary insurrection. It is from this personal {voluntarist} quality of Lenin, more than anything else, that the Bolsheviks derived that capacity axiomatically lacking in the psychosexually impotent "objectivity" of Plekhanov's Mensheviks.

7. V.I. Lenin's repeated emphasis upon "American methods," rather than British, in economy, typifies this.

8. Note 2, above.

9. When Karl Marx first encountered David Urquhart in the London British Library, Urquhart had been a key British Foreign Service operative deployed into Transcaucasus and the Balkans (see EIR, April 12, 1996, "The British Monarchy Rapes Transcaucasus, Again"). Urquhart's connection to Marx came about through the former's function as an administrative figure in those British Foreign Service operations coordinating the Young Europe and Young America terrorists operating under the direction of Lord Palmerston's London-based agent, and control agent for Marx, Giuseppe Mazzini. Thus, Marx was drawn into playing the part of Urquhart's pawn in an intramural squabble between the latter and Lord Palmerston: Urquhart's duping Russia-hater Marx into composing a notorious, long-winded folly representing Palmerston as a `Russian agent."

10. Quesnay, the political apologist for France's radically pro-feudal, treasonous Fronde tradition, upon whom Lord Lansdowne's ("Shelburne") agent Adam Smith relied much for his own 1776 Wealth of Nations was a key figure in a network of salons coordinated by Venice's spy-master Abbot Antonio Conti. The principle of relations upon which the Quesnay relied for his central, feudalist-anarchist doctrine of {laissez-faire}, is that of satanist Bernard de Mandeville's Fable of the Bees: the literally satanic doctrine placed at the center of the late Friedrich von Hayek's neo-feudalist organization, the Mont Pelerin Society.

11. Crediting von Neumann with the founding of generally accepted forms of "mathematical economics," references today's widespread devotion, among Cambridge "systems analysts," and others, to von Neumann's 1938 proclamation of his claim, that all economic propositions could be reduced to solutions for a simultaneous set of linear inequalities. The outcome of that proclamation is enshrined in one of the most pompous pieces of pseudo-scientific quackery defecated upon the altar of mathematical formalism: John von Neuman and Oskar Morgenstern, The Theory of Games & Economic Behavior, 3rd edition (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1953).

12. Our use of the term "universal history," is intended to be read as following the outline of the case for use of this term by Friedrich Schiller, in his Jena lectures on the subject. Our view coincides with Schiller's, that the history, both of European civilization, and of that civilization's impact upon our planet as a whole, is to be traced from fundamental conflict between those two tendencies, typified in the history of ancient Greece, by the conflict between the principles of Solon of Athens, and the oligarchical tradition as typified by the Sparta slave-society of the Lycurgus tradition: the philosophy of freedom, Solon and Plato, againstthe heritage of slavery, the philosophy of oligarchical apologist Aristotle. That is precisely the conflict between the France of Louis XI and its adversaries, the conflict between the young United States in the footsteps of Solon, against the evil oligarchical oppressor, the British "Venetian Party's" Empire, the conflict within the United States, between President Abraham Lincoln's United States and the British puppet, the Confederate slave-owner conspiracy derived from the "Young America" organization set up by the organization of Palmerston's Giuseppe Mazzini. The difference is, that the present writer has supplied Schiller's conception its appropriate foundation in physical science.

13. Note 2.

14. See, "While Monetarism Dies," op. cit. (Note 1), Figure 3, p. 18.

15. op. cit. (Note 2).

16. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., So, You Wish to Learn All About Economics?, 2nd edition (Washington, D.C.: EIR News Service, Inc., 1995).

17. We are obliged to resort to the relatively awkward term, "not entropic," because, over recent decades, a duped public has come to accept the mechanistic (and essentially absurd) significance of Professor Norbert Wiener's misuse of "negative entropy," or "negentropy."

18. Cf. B. Riemann, "Über die Hypothesen, welche der Geometrie zu Grunde liegen" [Bernhard Riemann's Gesammelte Mathematische Werke, H. Weber, ed. (1902): (New York: Dover Publications [reprint], 1953), or (Vaduz, Liechtenstein: Saendig Reprint Verlag Hans R. Wohlend)]. Es führt dies hinüber in das Gebiet eine andern Wissenschaft, in das Gebiet der Physik, welches wohl die Natur der heutigen Veranlassung [mathematics] nicht zu betreten erlaubt, p. 286. Also, in the opening "Plan of the investigation," Riemann makes the same point: Hiervon aber ist einer nothwendige Folge, dass die Sätze der Geometrie sich nicht aus allgemeinen Grössenbegriffen ableiten lassen, sondern dass dijenigen Eigenschaften, durch welche sich der Raum von anderen denkbaren dreifach ausgedehnten Grössen underscheidet, nur aus der Erfahrung entnommen werden können, pp. 272-273. [ return to text ]

19. Norbert Wiener, Cybernetics (New York: John Wiley, 1948). Wiener degraded biological and other characteristically not-entopic processes to virtual statistical accidents within the type of mechanical domain associated with statistical gas theory: i.e., with Ludwig Boltzmann's case for a highly improbable, local and temporary reversal of statistical entropy, according to the terms of Boltzmann's construction of his famous H-theorem. See, Morris Levitt, "Linearity and Entropy: Ludwig Boltzmann and the Second Law of Thermodynamics," Fusion Energy Foundation Newsletter, Sept. 1976, pp.3-18. [ return to text ]

20. Cf. A.D. Sakharov, op. cit. (Note 2).

21. Society & Economy, John Chambless, trans.,Fidelio Fall 1992. Also, for an introduction to the science of physical-economy: Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., So, You Wish to Learn All About Economics?, op. cit.

22. In former times, the U.S.'s treasonous slave-owner oligarchy, made it a capital offense, for a slave-owner to permit an African-American slave to acquire the ability to read and write. Today's racists of Harvard University's Education Department, where the Ku Klux Klan-like theology of Jensen and Shockley was taught, have devoted no less than three decades, to arguing that, for genetic reasons, the African-American is made uncomfortable by being required to develop his or her cognitive powers. They argue, that, genetically, the African-American is disposed toward emotional-associative, rather than cognitive behavior. The ensuing dogmas propose that the African-American should not be asked to form conceptions, but only to receive "information." The obvious tradition of the eugenics cultist aside, the current popularity of this racist correlative of the eugenics cult, in Harvard's"Black studies" programs, and elsewhere, can be traced to the utopian import of the Ford Foundation-funded, 1965 Triple Revolution dogma: that the African-American, and others, would be cut off from modern technology of production, to fill up the ranks of a burgeoning underclass, in ghettoes on the outskirts of modern industrial society. Today, tens of millions of non-African-American U.S. citizens have been dumped into that same under-class. British Israelite ideologue, the London Times former chief editor, Lord William Rees-Mogg, goes "whole hog" with this: proposing that there should be virtually no industry in any part of a world which subsists upon "the production of information," and that ninety-five percent of the population of each and all nations should not be educated at all.

23. This notion of the role of measurement was set down by Cardinal Nicolaus of Cusa, in his A.D. 1440 De docta ignorantia, and related writings on the subject of scientific knowledge. This principle of experimental physical science was adduced from study of Cusa's writings by such famed and influential successors as Luca Pacioli and Leonardo da Vinci. Cusa's method, explicitly referenced in those terms, was adopted for the founding of the first comprehensive modern mathematical physics, by Johannes Kepler, as stated at the outset of his "The Harmonies of the World" [Harmonice Mundi (1619). Published in German, the writer's textual reference here, is the extant standard translation from the Latin, Weltharmonik ]. The scientific method of William Gilbert's De Magnete (1600), crucial for Kepler's original discovery of a principle of universal gravitation, is also the Renaissance standard of Cusa, Pacioli, and Leonardo. The same method is presented in Gaspard Desargues, Pierre Fermat, Blaise Pascal, Christiaan Huyghens (with marginal qualifications), Gottfried Leibniz, Jean Bernouilli, Gaspard Monge, Carl Gauss, Wilhelm Weber, Bernhard Riemann, ad Max Planck, but none of the empiricists and other reductionists. Here, we limit our focus on the principle of measurement, to crucial allusions to work of Leibniz and Riemann.

24. The relevant, misguided belief implicitly addressed here, is the fostering of the fraudulent theme, "history begins at Sumer," promoted by the "British Israelite" fanatics who dominated Nineteenth-Century "Biblical archeology": those who virtually demolished a mountain of precious archeological evidence, in their wild-eyed, "Fundamentalist" zeal for being the first to discover the exact street-number of Abraham's residence in Ur. A related piece of nonsense, persisting to the present day, is the British Israelite doctrinaire's racist obsession with the delusion, that the original founders of the culture of Sumer were Semites [i.e., could not have been descendants of the Old Testament's Ham]: an arbitrary assertion, without basis in evidence, and contrary to the evidence that the Sumerians whom the Semites labelled the "black-headed people," represented those relative far-flung colonizing efforts (e.g., Horn of Africa) of a maritime culture based upon the then-contemporary, far more extensive culture of the nearby, western Asian subcontinent. [The fact, that the Semitic colonials adopted the cuneiform symbology of the Sumerian colonizers, has as much relevance for the supposition that the Sumerians were Semites, as the discovery of a German-Japan dictionary in Japanese proves that Germans are ancestors of the Japanese. From the same British-Israelite delusion, that history begins at a Semitic Sumer, comes the arbitrary assertion, that maritime cultures were off-shoots of riparian development, where the physical-economic evidence supports the notion of a directly contrary ordering.] In any case, the lunar astronomy of ancient Mesopotamia was absolutely inferior to the solar-astronomical astronomy of Central Asia, thousands of years earlier, and to that of the ancient Egypt contemporary to the Chaldeans. As theevidence of historical times attests, the degeneration of the self-doomed ancient cultures of the region of the belt from South Asia, through Asia Minor, into Europe, and down into the Horn of Africa, is associated with the introduction of Moon-centered worship of "supreme `Great Mother' goddesses" of the Shakti-Ishtar-Athtar-Astarte-Cybele-Gaea-Isis pantheonic paradigm, which is also the paradigm for the Gaea-rooted, Delphi Apollo-cult, and Delphi's Lycurgus tradition at Sparta, etc. The extension of the numerology and cabalism of Isaac Newton, and of Nineteenth-Century Berlin's Professor Leopold Kronecker, into modern times, like the geocentric hoax concocted fraudulently by Claudius Ptolemy, is a product of the lunacy of the specific pagan tradition of the "mother-goddess" principle, which persists, still today, as a pollution of modern history.

25. The discovery of very long solar-astronomical cycles by the ancient cultures of pre-aridization Central Asia (circa 6,000-4,000 B.C., or earlier) is a relevant illustration of the point. Consider, for example, those Central Asia cultures' discovery of the long equinoctial cycle, a discovery which were not possible unless the mind responsible for it thought in terms of what we know later as "Platonic ideas." The instance of the measurement of the Earth's meridian, by a member of Plato's Academy at Athens, Eratosthenes, who had been recruited to shape the education of Egypt's future Pharaoh, is paradigmatic for the earlier discovery of long cycles such as the equinoctial ones, and all such serve as precursors of the later advancement of astrophysics, geodesy, and study of the Earth's magnetic field, by Carl Gauss. Contrary to those modern "Babylonians" known as the empiricists, "Platonic ideas" are endemic to human nature; without them, human culture would never have advanced above subsisting chiefly upon a combination of berries and prehistoric forms of "road-kill." Classical Greece, as best represented by Plato, transformed the principl of "Platonic ideas" into the basis for a comprehensive scientific method.

26. In this paragraph, as earlier, the writer has employed the conventional term "crucial experiment," simply as a matter of literary convenience. For classroom use in training of science professionals, he prefers the term "unique experiment": i.e., a test which demonstrates the validity of a newly discovered principle of nature, rather than simply an experiment which tends to show the evidence to be in favor of one proposition, over another. The difference in use of "crucial" and "unique," here, pertains to the nature of the conceptual standards which might be brought into play for the design of experiments.

27. For Leibniz, in his attacks on the incompetence of the "algebraic" mathematics of Descartes and Newton, "transcendental" and "non-algebraic" are interchangeable. The rumor, spread fraudulently, and maliciously by Professor Felix Klein, that the transcendental qualities of Eulerian logarithms and {pi} were first demonstrated by Hermite (1873) and Lindemann (1882), is premised upon a myth popularized by Frederick II's Berlin branch of the network of salons of Newton-devotees set up by Venice's spy-master Abbot Antonio Conti (1677-1749). The Berlin node of this network, was coordinated with Venetian spy Giammaria Ortes (1713-1790): that of Newton devotees Voltaire (Berlin: 1750-53), Pierre-Louis Maupertuis (Berlin: 1741-53), Leonhard Euler (Berlin: 1741-66), Johann Lambert (Berlin: 1764-77), and Joseph Lagrange (Berlin: 1766-87). Frederick II's and Francesco Algarotti's Berlin introduced the Euler-Lagrange, anti-Leibnizian, fallacious theory of functions, which became standard authority for post-Vienna-Congress Europe. Although Newton and the London Royal Society had been object of fully justified ridicule by leading scientists throughout Europe, prior to the Clement, pimp-Prince Metternich's (sexual) Congress of Vienna, even in England itself [e.g., the Charles Babbage and John Herschl who introduced the calculus to Britain: The Principle of Pure Deism, in Opposition to the Dotage of the University (Cambridge: 1811)], after Britain's participation in the victory over France, the Euler-Lagrange version of Newtonian empiricism, aided by the Venetian controllers of Czar Alexander I's foreign policy, Giovanni Capodistria and Carlo Pozzo del Porgo, "won on the fields of diplomacy what it had lost on the earlier battlefields of science." Hence, although the international networks of Alexander von Humboldt, such as Gauss and Riemann, continued the anti-empiricist, scientific tradition of France and Germany, the agents and "fellow travellers" of British imperial ideological interests, such as Laplace, Cauchy, Kelvin, Clausius, Grassmann, Helmholtz, Maxwell, Hermite, Lindemann, Klein, Mach, and the positivists generally, dominated the universities of the world, especially after that diplomatic triumph of empiricism represented by the post-World War I Treaty of Versailles.

28. The coherence of the tautochronic (gravity) and brachystochronic (isochronic refraction of light) principles of physical-space-time curvature.

29. These references to Gauss's work are made by Riemann in his habilitation dissertation. See Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., "The Essential Role of 'Time-Reversal' in Mathematical Economics," EIR Oct. 11, 1996, p. 19, Note 3. An 1889 German translation of Disquisitiones arithmeticae from the original Latin is available in a reprint edition:Untersuchungen über höhere Arithmetik, H. Maser, trans. (New York: Chelsea Publishing Co., 1981). [ return to text ]

30. It should be noted, that this configuration is well known to all Platonists, such as G. Liebniz and B. Riemann.

31. Opus 121.

32. See the video actuality of proceedings from an Aug. 31-Sept. 1, 1995 hearing, "The LaRouche Case," in which this and other documentation is featured within the testimony.

33. Paul Montgomery, "How a Radical-Left Group Formed as an Alternative to Violence and Narcotics Degenerated into Savagery," New York Times, Jan. 20, 1974. It should not be really astonishing, that the same New York Times's Paul Montgomery was caught on a Summer 1979 audio tape, to which he outlined a Times editors' plot to set this writer up for malicious, false prosecution by state and Federal agencies, together with U.S. Representative Elizabeth Holtzman (D-N.Y.). The public exposure of this tape, at New York City and Washington, D.C. press conferences, impelled the Times to conduit its libel through a weekly rag controlled by the notorious Roy M. Cohn, who used a "Maoist" Progressive Labor Party cast-off, sleaze-scene hustler Dennis King, to carry the by-line on the libel published in Ed Kayatt's Cohn-controlled Our Town.

34. Eyewitness testimony and official Foundation-grant records, show that Herbert Marcuse was key in the establishment and operation, on McGeorge Bundy's and Dr. Kenneth Clark's watches, of a Ford Foundation conduit to those self-styled "Crazies" at 1968 Columbia University who later formed the core of the Weathermen. Officially the conduit was named the "East Side Service Organization (ESSO)," and the Ford Foundation support was conduited by the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Policy Studies, then represented by the Washington law firm of Arnold and Porter. This was part of the same Ford Foundation operation which organized, along the lines set forth in the Ford Foundation-funded The Triple Revolution of Robert Theobald, et al., an anti-Semitic near-race-riot between recipients of Foundation grants and the United Federation of Teachers during the Summer and Autumn of 1968. The organization deployed, in Summer-Autumn 1968, to promote the cause of an anti-Semite race-riot against the teacher's union, was Gus Hall's Communist Party U.S.A., together with its retinue of "former CPers" and other "fellow tavellers."

35. During February 1973, foundation-funded groups deployed against the National Caucus of Labor Committees (NCLC). The issue was the NCLC's effort to halt the effort to use "workfare reforms" as a guise for deploying dragooned welfare recipients into breaking trade-union contracts. The relevant wealthy foundations were committed to using violence to halt the NCLC's organizing resistance to this "workfare" program. During early through middle March 1973, a group controlled by these foundations used the Philadelphia area news media, to announce a campaign to wreck a conference being held in Philadelphia, with NCLC co-sponsorship; the YWLL, which was an active part of that Institute for Policy Studies-steered pro-"workfare" coalition, attempted to deploy violence to break up the conference, and drew back only when YWLL goons saw an organized defense of the conference in place. After that, the national YWLL resolved to use goon-tactics, to sweep the NCLC off the streets of the U.S.A. The FBI's November 1973 deployment of its CPUSA assets for the proposed "elimination" of Lyndon LaRouche, was a continuation of the violence-prone, Winter-Spring operations in support of the "slave-labor" program defended by the YWLL. It was during the same period, February-December 1973, that the East Germany Interior Ministry, MI-5, and others, were deployed, in concert, in Britain and also continental western Europe, for the same violent cause.

36. Heinrich Heine, Ludwig Boerne (1840).

37. During World War II, the British gave wide attention to an English translation of Heine's 1830s The History of Religion and Philosophy in Germany, in which Heine prophetically, and with accurate epistemological insight, emphasized the connection between the influence of Kantianism and future tyrannies arising in Germany.

38. The libretto of Ludwig van Beethoven's opera Fidelio was based upon the 1797 rescue of the real-life Floresan, Lafayette, from the dreaded Austria-Hungary prison at Olmütz, to which the real-life Lafayette had been relegated, after his flight to Austria in 1792, by the apparatus left behind by Wolfgang Mozart's deadly adversary, the then recently retired Austria Chancellor Wenzel Prince von Kaunitz. In real life, the imprisonment was done in the interest of the British Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger, the Opera's Pizzaro. The opera's Florestan was rescued by his wife, Fidelio; in real life, it was the persistent activity of Lafayette's wife, which secured his release from Olmütz.

39. As Bentham's protègè Lord Palmerston, used British agent Giuseppe Mazzini (and members of the family of the deceased Emperor Napoleon Buonaparte) to seize Rome in a Freemasonic insurrection.

40. A thumb-nail sketch of Dr. William Gomberg, this based largely on his own autobiographical sketch and eyewitness supplements, is relevant. Gomberg's first known association with later, Kremlin-appointed CPUSA chief Jay Lovestone, relates to Lovestone's role in setting up and leading an "underground" student cell of the Louis Fraina-founded U.S. Communist Party, at New York City College (CCNY). (Fraina himself had been trained under the scoundrel known as Daniel DeLeon, of a Curacao branch of the Dutch slave-owner oligarchy, an asset of the New York City bankers with a track-record as a rabid opponent of the Washington-Lincoln tradition, who took over the Socialist Labor Party out of which Fraina pulled one of the nucleii from which the U.S. Communist Party was formed.) Lovestone's later appointment as head of the CPUSA was made by Lovestone's {rebbe}, Soviet dictator N. Bukharin, over the objections of the CPUSA majority's support for William Z. Foster. In June 1949, Gomberg broadened his influence from ILGWU, into the arbitration panel, set up between the Ford Motor Company and the United Auto Workers. Together with Lovestone, who moved into a key relationship with both the FBI's J. Edar Hoover and the AFL-CIO's Meany, Gomberg's boys moved into powerful positions within the AFL-CIO, especially the Industrial Union section. When last tracked directly in the author's counter-intelligence operations against the FBI-CPUSA assassination-plot of 1973, Dr. Gomberg was operating out of the Wharton School and the University of Pennsylvania, assisting British intelligence's Dr. Eric Trist, in working to destroy the West Virginia and Virginia segments of John L. and Denny Lewis's old United Mine Workers organization. In matters of counterintelligence, and related matters, never judge a book, or an agent, by its cover: rarely judge a person by their expressed opinions, and never by the opinions attributed to them by an almost inveterately lying mass media. Check their intellectual "genes," the underlying, axiomatic assumptions which most people have adopted prior to the age of twenty-five years, and which, only in certain exceptions, ever lose control of the relevant habitation thereafter. Opinions, like theorems, change, but, as in generally accepted forms of geometry or other mathematical belief, except as a tectonic crisis shakes them free from attachment to deeply ingrown underlying assumptions, people's axioms, like pallbearers of the mind, usually carry them into their graves. [ return to text ]

41. According to the principle of international law at the center of, for example, Friedrich (Freiherr) von der Heydte's Die Geburtsstunde des souveränen Staates (Regensburg, Germany: Druck und Verlag Josef Habbel, 1952), the United Kingdom has never been a nation-state; rather, it fits all of the legal standards, under both western and Chinese political history, of an empire. An "empire," such as all of those of ancient Mesopotamia, is distinguished by the limiting of the original sovereign power of lawmaking to the assigned personality of an elected, or hereditary monarch, or other form of dictator (e.g., Oliver Cromwell). The power of such a dictatorship is that of a veritable Olympian Zeu: his whim may not be questioned, except as he may be impeached by a council of princely potentates, constituted in the form of a council with the power of an ancient Roman pater familias, to select and replace designated hereditary or other claimant to the sovereign power. Barring the pure whims within such a princely privy council, the grounds for impeachment of a sovereign, include offenses against the customs (e.g., official religion) of the realm in general, or excessive offenses against one or more among the special customs of ethnic or other groups whose status as subsidiary component of the realm commands toleration of relevant religious or other customary beliefs. Thus, the pagan Emperor Constantine's "legalization" of official Christianity by appointing it to membership in the Empire's Mithraic pantheon of the local Zeus, running under such aliases as {Sol Invictus}, afforded Christianity qualified protection from continued persecution, on condition that the Emperor be allowed to regulate Christian belief, as the gnostic Justinian did later, by appointment of the bishops to enforce the cult of the mortalist and reductionist Aristotle. Since no later than that Chaldean mother of evil known as the empire of ancient Babylon, three types of imperial power have been known: landed aristocracy, financier nobility, and dictatorships based upon the state bureaucracy itself. The old British imperial form of rule was based upon the power of the great landed aristocrats, such as those families which slaughtered one another in France as in England, during the Venice-coordinated "Hundred Years War," and the "War of the Roses." The belief that the Magna Carta was a blow for freedom is a fairy-tale for credulous children: in reality, the Magna Carta was simply a matter of curbing the nationalist impulses of a King John who sought to free his kingdom from the overreaching tyranny of the great landed potentates. Beginning Venice's control over the mind of Henry VIII, through the manipulation of the Anne Boleyn afair by Venice agents including Francesco Zorzi, Cardinal Pole, and Thomas Cromwell, the 1517-1714 internal conflicts in Britain were orchestrated directly by Venice and its agents, to the purpose of defeating the English patriots among both the landed families and English intelligentsia, to bring to power a financier-oligarchical cabal, which has ruled the United Kingdom, virtually unchallenged from within, since the 1714 accession. That political faction of financier-oligarchical interest, which came to power through the bloody succession of 1517-1714 conflicts, was known then, and into the Eighteenth Century, by the generic name of "Venetian Party." Consider the argument of the Scottish nationalists in this light: that they must be granted an actual constitution, rather than continuing to suffer the caprices of London-based, "Venetian Party" oligarchical "Princes." [ return to text ]

42. I.e., the A.D. 1439-1440 sessions of the great ecumenical Council of Florence.

43. E.g., Nancy Spannaus and Christopher White, The Political Economy of the American Revolution [1977] second edition (Washington, D.C.: EIR News Service, 1996); W. Allen Salisbury, The Civil War and the American System: America's Battle with Britain, 1860-1876, 2nd edition (Washington, D.C.: Executive Intelligence Review, 1992); Anton Chaitkin, Treason in America, (New York: New Benjamin Franklin House, 1985); H. Graham Lowry, How The Nation Was Won: America's Untold Story (Washington, D.C.: Executive Intelligence Review, 1988); Anton Chaitkin and Webster G. Tarpley,George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography (Washington, D.C.: Executive Intelligence Review, 1992).


Thank you for supporting the Schiller Institute.
Your membership and contributions enable us to publish FIDELIO Magazine, and to sponsor concerts, conferences, and other activities which represent critical interventions into the policy making and cultural life of the nation and the world.

Contributions and memberships are not tax-deductible.

schiller@schillerinstitute.org

The Schiller Institute
PO BOX 20244 Washington, DC 20041-0244
703-771-8390 or 888-347-3258


Home | Search | About | Fidelio | Economy | Strategy | Justice | Conferences | Join
Highlights
| Calendar | Music | Books | Concerts | Links | Education | Save DC Hospital

Copyright Schiller Institute, Inc. 2001. All Rights Reserved.