The Empire Versus the Nations: Synarchism, Sport & Iran

The Empire Versus The Nations: Synarchism, Sport & Iran

By Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.


As I and others have warned, in reports reflected in preceding days' editions of the U.S. Daily Briefing, the extensive preparations on behalf of the security of the events of the World Cup Soccer matches do not provide adequately for the possibility of the most serious of the security threats. I refer to a global strategic threat which must be actively considered as more than merely speculative for that period of time. This concern is not mine alone, nor only that among some of my associates. I am "blowing the whistle," in the hope that this exposure of the matter might prompt the quality of additional measures which were more likely to prevent that event's occurrence.

Behind this threat is the frequent inclination, in modern history, of certain types of political coups in which the plotters exploit the wide popular sentiment attached to certain types of highly competitive, popular sports events, places such events among the category of choice targets for destabilizing large sections of national and international populations. The tendency for panic from among masses of victims of strong, childish qualities of irrational passions, as among massed adolescent and adult populations, make mass sports events, or the like, opportunities for inducing sudden and rapid changes in popular opinion and institutions. The use of sports events as targets kindred mass-effects such as Herman Goering's orchestration of the February 1933 burning of the Reichstag and the September 11, 2001 strike against New York City's World Trade center.

It is of special note today, that no government not already a virtual accomplice of the George P. Shultz-crafted regime of President George W. Bush, Jr., has an interest in promoting, or permitting the kind of terrorist incident which could be used as a pretext for launching what U.S. Vice-President Cheney has fostered as a threatened, early, combined aerial bombardment on Iran during or following the general time-frame of the World Cup events.

If we can assume that the relevant national security institutions could control the threats from relevant domestic forces of their respective nations, only some international interest which desired the global effect of a terrorist attack on the World Cup events, would be a likely source of the quality of threat to be the most feared in that quarter at this present time. Unless relevant, supranational kinds of improved precautions are taken, the kind of source only typified by Vice-President Cheney, represents the quality of threat of strategic importance which is to be feared at the present time, from early through mid-June, on.

There are obvious, anarcho-fascist elements of hooligans throughout western and central Europe whose already conditioned temperament for violence could be coopted into playing a diversionary or other supporting actors' role in a terrorist operation staged by relevant international interests. Such collateral forms of assets include obvious sorts from the British Isles, or, elements which, still today, continue the legacy of the quasi-military, anti-nuclear-power riots in 1970s France and 1980s Germany. The risk is, that higher level agencies utilized by supranational circles, would insert special effects into a climate of uncertainty represented by indigenous sorts of organized groups of brutish anarcho-syndicalist rabble, especially the climate of mass rallies, using those groups as a stage-setting upon which to deploy something uglier which would have strategic shock effects.

The present threat does not lie on what might be treated as a flat historical plane of space-time. It is a threat which is inherent in the specific situation of an acute, accelerating global monetary-financial crisis more serious than that of the 1928-1933 interval in Europe and the Americas. In times of crisis like these, desperation itself determines that certain otherwise improbable developments could happen soon, or not at all. We are presently at a breaking-point in the geometry of world history, the quality of moment in history when entire political and social systems might be seized by fatal convulsions. In the meantime, when power is slipping rapidly from Vice-President Cheney's circles, when the current British, French, and other current governments, are already wobbling, governments may act with a sense of desperation to do what would otherwise seem forbidden.

As I have emphasized this point in earlier reports, now, as in the case of Hermann Goering's arranging of the February 1933 incident of the Reichstag burning, and the Hitler regime's staging of the crafted 1939 incident at the Polish border, or the lurking and lurching threat of U.S. Vice-President Cheney's declared intent of launching of an airborne attack on Iran with U.S. and other nation's combined naval and other relevant resources, has reached the stage of ripeness that only the lack of something which a credulous public might regard as a causus belli, now stands as a likely obstacle to the launching of war, probably against Iran, by what is presently the most discredited U.S. Presidency in that nation's history.

This represents precisely the type of strategically motivated impulse for action to be feared. A terrorist attack of that type which has such strategic implications as a potential detonator of large-scale events, is what is to be considered the most important type of plausible current threat of a triggering development.

Hopefully, our calling attention to the actual nature of the strategic threat of terrorist-style actions used as pretext for a heavy aerial bombardment of Iran, will help to induce relevant institutions to move to prevent such a war, and its obvious sequalae, from virtually destroying European civilization. In any case, whether or not such an incident occurs in the context of the World Cup, what remains inevitable, is the implications of the fact that such a quality of current potential threat inheres in the present world situation. It is the implications of that quality of potential threat, which I address, in its historical perspective, in this report.

Consider the following, pre-1941 precedents for the quality of the world's overripe strategic situation today,

The Notable Precedent

I have proposed that experts and other relevant parties compare this threat to the circumstances which promoted the rapid victory of the 1940 Blitzkrieg against the allied, quickly demoralized British and French forces. I have warned against the silly, but popularized myth, the myth that it was France's preoccupation with the development of the Maginot Line which facilitated the German victory on that occasion. The rout of the greater part of France's military forces then, was chiefly the contribution of a pro-Synarchist "Fifth Column" inside the leading French military and other institutions, in the sense of the role of the "Fifth Column" which had just previously produced the victory of the fascist dictator Franco in 1930s Spain. The Synarchist influences from inside France's institutions left the gate wide open for what should have been considered the probable German course of action.

The security measures in which relevant governments are participating, on behalf of the security of the World Cup events, is a kind of "Maginot Line." That is a necessary, but not an adequate quality of deployment against an assault from a global, strategic flank. It is the probable threat from known sources which must be defined, and neutralized.

That "Fifth Column" inside 1940 France was what is known as the same Synarchist International later represented by the regimes of Nazi-occupied France, as represented by the offshoot of Lazard Freres-related banking groups known as Banque Worms. This circle within France, had been the pivotal element of the post-Versailles Treaty drive toward the use of fascism as a tool for creating a globalized system, echoing the ultramontane imperial system of the Venetian financier-oligarchy and Norman chivalry, and also the Napoleonic model. The same post-Napoleonic agency, the Synarchist financier circles, which threatened Europe and the world during the 1920s and 1930s, the Synarchist tradition as expressed today, is foe to be foreseen and defeated now.

Inside the U.S.A. today, the tradition of the Synarchist-directed "Fifth Columns" of the 1930s and 1940, is typified by the circles associated with the military and globalization policies of George P. Shultz, Vice-President Dick Cheney, and that Lazard Freres offshoot, Felix Rohatyn, who is associated with relevant French financial circles today. The same policy then represented by those international financier circles behind the fascist regimes of 1922-1945 Europe, is now expressed typically by the globalization policies of Shultz and Rohatyn, and by the aggressively pushed policy of "privatization of the military" by Shultz, Rohatyn, and Shultz's protégé Cheney, a contemporary echo of the Hitler regime's intention to replace the Wehrmacht with an international SS force, the intention, today, to bring on what Licio Gelli-linked fascist Michael Ledeen has described as "international fascism."

These influential persons, and their accomplices throughout Europe and elsewhere, share a common zeal for a form of "international fascism" which is now called "globalization." What they intend, is a modern replica of the medieval, ultramontane partnership of the Venetian financier-oligarchy and the Norman chivalry. The presently onrushing general collapse of the world's present monetary- financial system, defines a cross-roads in present world history, a turning-point like that which the choice between U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt and world-rule by Nazi Adolf Hitler represented, already, in February March, 1933.

The strategic imperative of the contemporary form of that Synarchist interest typified by the roles of Shultz, Cheney, and Rohatyn, is to move to strike quickly, before popular recognition of the failure of the world's presently reigning financier-oligarchical powers might prevent cause action to prevent the Synarchist financier cabal from realizing the goals of full-scale globalization. Time has now nearly run out for postponing some drastic change in the world's economic system; the danger is therefore extreme, and the unthinkable highly probable.

It is urgent that both leading political circles and the general population, rethink recently prevailing, misguided assumptions respecting the way contemporary history works. Whether the launching of general warfare through a reaction to a programmed, strategic quality of terrorist incident erupting during the coming month, occurs, or not, the situation which breeds the probability of that or comparable developments, is itself now inevitable. Read the following pages of this report with that advice in view.

The essential precondition for defeating such an enemy, is to know his identity, his adopted notions of self-interest, and the current relevance of the historical roots of his present existence.

1. The Modern Fifth Column

As I have noted again, above: on a recent earlier occasion, I had already spoken of the present level of security operations against a terrorist incident in the World Cup setting, as a "Maginot Line" defense.

The Maginot Line did, indeed, contain an element of folly. That folly was the avoidable error of France's role at those Versailles Treaty proceedings, which concluded World War I and launched the French occupation of Germany's Rhineland. The revanchist Versailles Treaty did, in fact, create a great potential for a German resumption of what had become known as "World War I." However, those considerations taken into account, the Marginot Line was not a relevant mistake; it was what was otherwise lacking which was crucial to France's humiliating defeat at that time.

Otherwise, whatever the motivating circumstance, the deeper, scientific fact was, that the Maginot Line was, in its memorably positive respects, an echo of the famous pioneering in modern military engineering to be seen in the early Eighteenth-Century fortifications at, most notably, Neuf Breisach and the site at Belfort. The latter fort had been virtually demolished during a hard-fought battle there during the Franco-Prussian War; but, I was able to inspect the still impressive, remarkable, virtually intact, similar example of the modern military engineering tradition, at Neuf Breisach less than a decade ago. In the Eighteenth Century, the relevant enemy forces of the time, the Habsburgs, had never dared to attack France in that quarter; von Molke's command was to understand why Austria had been deterred by that part of forts during an earlier century. An effective strategic defense is always the best solution, and develops the best option for counterattack if deterrence had failed its immediate purpose. It must be said of the events of 1940, as now: the preparation of the appropriate counter-attack is an integral, essential part of the credibility of strategic defense.

Today's immediate threat should remind us, that it was not the lack of physical means of defense which defeated 1940 France. It was France's defeat of itself, largely through the complicity of those forces within both the United Kingdom and France who had originally backed the launching of the Mussolini, Hitler, and Franco regimes. The latter included the forces in France and in Britain, at the very time the BEF was trapped on the beaches at Dunkirk, who were still waiting to join with Adolf Hitler in a war against the Soviet Union. Hitler, for his part, had held back the Wehrmacht tanks at Dunkirk, hoping for the intended negotiations of agreement between the Hitler regime and the governments of the United Kingdom and France.

Remember, that, but for President Franklin Roosevelt, the relevant British and French circles would have cut their deal with Hitler, and the world as a whole would probably be under a Nazi world-empire, or its after-effects, today. Today, a similar logic underlies the potential for a serious terrorist action in the setting of the World Cup. Hitler is long gone; but the international social set, typified by the Synarchists, then and now, persists, and is reflected in the policies of a President George W. Bush, Jr. regime which is controlled by the policies of such as George P. Shultz, Felix Rohatyn, and Vice-President Dick Cheney.

Thus, the primary issue of World Wars I and II, erupts again on modern European history, today.

No intelligent and patriotic leadership of any nation-state government in the world today, still desires a war against, or the provocation of a war-like attack on the nation of Iran. It is a corollary of that fact, that no sane government of today's world desires either a preventive or preemptive form of warfare, such as that which my wife Helga recently described as that Peloponnesian war which the evil sophists of Pericles' Sophist-polluted Athens launched with their unprovoked, genocidal attack against the people of the island of Melos. In face of war crimes such as that which the George W. Bush, Jr. administration launched, in imitation of Athens' crimes against the people of Melos, as a "regime change" war against the nation and people of Iraq, we must cast aside the popularized, naïve form of discussions of issues of peace and war. We must ask ourselves, as in the case of the plausible threat to the 2006 World Cup proceedings, what kind of supranational, social-political institution is it, which would use its control over the Bush government to launch a pretext for general "preventive" warfare like that presently

The Case of Felix Rohatyn

The relevant evidence against the virtually Gothic, Lazare-Frere-linked Felix Rohatyn, who is fairly seen as the "Middlebury Monster," has two most prominent, relevant aspects.

First, not many months ago, in the course of an unprovoked, rage-driven outburst against me personally, Rohatyn identified me as a leading, Franklin Roosevelt-like threat to the grandiose imperial schemes of his circle of financial plotters. On that occasion, he stated, that the time had come when sovereign nation-states should no longer exist, a time when gigantic financial consortia, more powerful than any government, should rule the world.

On the crucial second point, Rohatyn is also a notable, leading confederate of the architect of the Bush II regime, George P. Shultz, in their shared scheme for replacing regular military forces of nations, by private armies in the footsteps of a privately financed international Waffen-SS-like scheme, a force deployed by leading financier institutions, such as the multi-billions funding by the U.S. Treasury, of Cheney's Halliburton gang.

This pair of policies is a hallmark of the same Synarchist international which launched the fascist dictatorships of Europe during the 1922-1945 interval. These are the hallmarks of Synarchism (and its errand-boy, anarcho-syndicalism) everywhere, over nearly a century and a half to date. These are the policies modeled upon the medieval ultramontane partnership of the Venetian financier-oligarchy with the crusading Norman chivalry. These are the policies of those who, from the moment of the death of President Franklin Roosevelt, have had the long-ranging, continuing intention of destroying both the Franklin Roosevelt legacy, and also the constitutional form of the U.S.A. itself. Roosevelt-haters Shultz, Rohatyn, and Cheney thus typify an evil which is worse than treason.

Shultz and Rohatyn, or certain London connections of Mrs. Lynne Cheney and her snarling pet husband, merely typify the enemies of civilization—and, therefore, enemies of all humanity, today. Until the time their masters come to view them as expendable, they typify the modern echoes of the medieval ultramontane interest. It is that financier interest, not some nation-state, or some hoodlum rag-tag from some nation, which is the principal enemy which threatens civilization, and also the World Cup. The lack of a defense against a terrorist incident which had been deployed in the interest of that ultramontanist enemy, is the strategic error against which I am warning in such instances as the threat to the World Cup events.

As important as the security of the World Cup process is, the deeper threat is the existence of the kind of supranational power which stands behind an execution of the estimated threat to that sports festivity.

Take the case of Rohatyn to illustrate a crucial point of illustration of the identity of the more general threat which will continue, whether or not the terrorist attack on the World Cup occurs.

Rohatyn, as I have sampled his state of mind, is not a notably intelligent person, as much as he is a predatory creature with impulses which normal, civilized persons might usually consider unthinkable. He is like a representative of organized crime, whose behavior, as part of that system, departs from the pathways which normal human beings would consider "thinkable." His rant in praise of overreaching financier power, and on behalf of replacement of regular military forces of governments by private armies, are typical of the likeness of his temperament to that of the outlaws of organized crime.

Therefore, as with the case of a thug deployed by organized crime, his power does not lie in his intellect, but in his role as a conditioned member of a system. Reading Rohatyn's recorded argument in defense of privatized warfare at Middlebury, Rohatyn is as clever as the Artful Dodger, and as deadly as a poisonous snake, but not a brilliant, or even consistently rational intellect. He acts, and reacts according to the patterns of behavior to which he has become habituated by his recruitment, training, and experience in his career as a financial predator.

The tradition of which he is a product is known as a legacy of Babylon. It is what is known as the oligarchical model, also known as the system of an ancient Rome which, in fact, made no original contribution to human culture, except what it had stolen from the Etruscans and Greeks. Its power lay in the acquired cultural habits in which it had been conditioned, the habits through which it reigned, by which it was self-destroyed. He and his sources of influence within modern society are a reflection of a system, known as that same oligarchical system described in essentials by Aechylus's Prometheus Bound .

If one can do, as the Olympian Zeus of Prometheus Bound prescribes, ban the discovery and use of knowledge of scientific principles from the behavior of mortal man, men and women can be degraded to a likeness to captive human cattle. Stupefy humanity, by destroying access to the knowledge and practice of Classical art and science, and inducing some Dionysiac bestiality of the type promoted by the Congress for Cultural Freedom, instead, and, then, men and women become as either tamed animals, or predatory beasts.

So, the slaveholders of the relevant pre-1865 U.S, states ruled that teaching a slave to read and write were a mortal offence. So, the post-World War II Congress for Cultural Freedom and its auxiliaries promoted a destruction of Classical art and education throughout the regions of globally extended European civilization within the reach of its polluting effects. It is the habits of Sophistry induced by the methods and precepts associated with the Congress for Cultural Freedom, the Sophistry which exploded in the events of 1968, that what had been the greatest nation the world had known is now almost self-destroyed, as our U.S. teeters at the fork in the road where we must choose a Franklin Roosevelt-style recovery or self-destruction, now.

The point to be emphasized here, is that the principled characteristics of the kind of problems expressed by the threat under consideration here, are not within the range of comprehension by most among even putatively educated people today. The causal features of much which shapes current history, is embedded as habituated reflexes of whose origin and nature the usual citizen, even a putatively very well educated citizen, is rarely conscious.

So, turn attention, for the moment, from the threat to the World Cup events, to the deeper roots from which this threat has sprung.

2. Why They Hate Our U.S.A.

In these times, the world's present, post-1972 monetary system, the so-called International Monetary Fund, is usually treated, as if instinctively, as virtually an act of nature. So, the existence of the arrangement under which nominally sovereign nation-states are under the government of the private financial interests expressed by so-called "independent central banking systems," is treated, with an idiot-like credulity, as an acceptable feature of a sovereign nation.

To understand the motives which actually drive a poor wretch like Felix Rohatyn or his kind into his current pattern of behavior, we must not make the mistake of asking a virtual circus animal how he independently discovered the tricks to which he has been habituated by training. Rohatyn did not design the defective specimen he was conditioned to become. He is only another "economic hit-man" out running on his latest assignment. To discover "who trained him, sent him, and why?" we must inquire of the higher authorities who own his unhappy soul.

The reason most people are fooled about economy, in that way, so readily, and often so passionately, still today, is located in their superstitious notions of the role of money.

What is generally accepted as "economics," even among many of those trained in the former Soviet Union, assumes that economics is confined to the fictitious domain defined by the British East India Company's Haileybury School. The idea of the existence of a physical economy , outside and superior to any mere monetary system, is regarded by the credulous as an insult to the Olympian honor of Anglo-Dutch imperial philosophical Liberalism.

The Classical European example of this general type of widespread folly, is the acceptance of the implications of a Euclidean geometry, the acceptance of systems of argument modeled upon the bowdlerized version of ancient Greek Classical geometry which was crafted by the Sophist Euclid. The crux of Euclid's purely superstitious premises, is the presumption that "self-evident" definitions, axioms, and postulates, are the premises of a systemic body of scientific, or "logical" thought. So, even today, despite the work of Kepler, Leibniz, Gauss, Riemann and others, many, even most of the popularized, academic and related, reductionist assumptions, are assumptions treated as actually or virtually self-evident. This delusion creates an effect on masses of human minds, an effect akin, systemically, to the assumption that the Earth is flat. That is typical of most forms of what is often represented as "generally accepted belief." That is typical of the Sophistry through whose influence Pericles' Athens destroyed itself.

For example:

In that same Sophist tradition typified by Euclid's notion of definitions, phrases such as "our tradition," betray the tendency for virtual religious worship of what is presented as "generally accepted belief." That is typical of Sophistry, then and now. Contemporary populism is typical of that form of mental disease. Ex-Senator Phil Gramm's kitchen-table-top dogma of economics, typifies the populist lunacy which corralled the victims (who all should have known better, from the start) into the lure the "Pyramid Club" scheme known as Mrs. Wendy Gramm's Enron.

The actual origin of these popular European misconceptions of the meaning of "economy," is the system of usury which is traced in European civilization from the Delphic cult of the Pythian Apollo., and traced through Delphi's ancient Rome, Byzantium, and the medieval system of Venetian finance and Norman chivalry, through to the usurious system of Anglo-Dutch Liberalism which has dominated European civilization since the 1763 Treaty of Paris.

That 1763 Treaty, which became the casus belli for the American War of Independence, is the key for understanding the continuing sweep of a process of modern history, which extends from the close of the so-called "Seven Years War," to the present verge of Vice-President Cheney's threatened aerial assault on Iran, an assault whose chain-reaction effects would probably mean the extinction of civilization for some time to come.

The Economic Root of the Crisis

With singular exceptions, the U.S. Federal Constitution, most notably, the ancient, medieval, and modern world at large has been dominated by a virtually global financier oligarchy, which dominated the world's principal trade from 1763 through to the collapse of British sterling in 1931. With the 1971-72 wrecking of the fixed-exchange-rate Bretton Woods system, the Anglo-Dutch Liberal monetary system has functioned as a concert of private financier interests operating in the form of an imperial financier-oligarchical system, a system which holds even the U.S.A. as prey.

An improved insight into those just cited facts, can be secured through a study of The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire which was crafted by a lackey of Britain's Lord Shelburne, Gibbon. Since that time, especially since the victory of President Abraham Lincoln's United States over Britain's puppet, known as the Confederacy, the principal conflict of powers on this planet has orbited around the conflict between the American System of political-economy and the imperial Anglo-Dutch Liberal system. Gibbon's Christ-hating conclusion, presented to Shelburne, et al., was that Julian the Apostate was right: the British Empire might reign forever, if it did not make the mistake of legalizing Christianity. In its practice, at least, Anglo-Dutch Liberalism's performance has followed Gibbon's counsel on this point, the matter of agapç most notably.

Although the British monarchy of the post-1712 time has sometimes acted as an empire matching the image of the Rome of the legions, the Anglo-Dutch liberal system of empire follows more consistently the model of the medieval Venetian financier oligarchy. It is not the United Kingdom as such which is the interest represented by the actual British Empire; it is a far-flung monetary-financial system which controls the world's present, post-1971 monetary system from a command post in the legendary City of London. It reigns through crushing the efforts of particular nations to defend themselves against the present world "free trade" system.

Historically, with the destruction of France by the events from July 14, 1789 through the 1815 Vienna affair, the nations of Europe have only rarely enjoyed an economic system of self-government which was not subject to the dictate of those higher, private financier powers embodied in a so-called "independent banking system" or the like. Those so-called "independent central banking systems," or their like, have been chiefly dominated by the Anglo-Dutch Liberal system which is itself a direct outgrowth, and de facto continuation of the ultramontane system of financier power represented by medieval Venice. The clearest evidence of that fact is shown by examining virtually any present program of education in the subject of economics, whether that program is labeled "Adam Smith," "Karl Marx," or modern lunatic degrees of linear systems analysis.

Not accidentally, the chief representative of the opposition to such financier imperialism has been the U.S.A. in those better times when its practiced economic policy was premised on the U.S. Federal Constitution. It was the victory of the U.S. over the London-directed Confederacy, which elevated the status of the U.S. as a threat to the Anglo-Dutch system from potential, to global, It was the developments of the interval between President Lincoln's victory and the actions by which 1890s London moved to organize what became known as World War I, that the influence of the American System of political-economy , that of Franklin, Hamilton, the Careys, and List, was seen to represent a deadly threat to the perpetuation of the global financier tyranny of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal system of financier-oligarchical control of the planet.

In the main, the 1863 victory of the U.S. at the battle of Gettysburg warned the British Prince Consort and other sentiment members of the circles of the British monarchy, that the United States could not be conquered as Lord Palmerston had hoped, by force applied from outside, but only through subversion. Nonetheless, the twofold impulse of Anglo-Dutch Liberal imperialists has been, on the one side, to attempt to take over the U.S. by corruption, as Pericles' Athens was self-destroyed through Sophistry, or to destroy it otherwise, as had been attempted through London's Confederacy tool.

The Road to Hitler

The determination to eradicate the influence of the U.S. constitutional system from the planet reached high points in the immediate aftermath of each so-called World War. Anglo-Dutch Liberal interests saw the sheer physical power of the U.S. as a threat to the credibility of the Liberal economic system as such. Thus, the Britain and France of the Entente Cordiale had duped foolish Czar Nicholas II into a two-front war against a Germany which they regarded as the American System transplanted into Bismarck's Germany.

Thus, later, the Anglo-French Synarchist cabal planned for a World War II, against the Soviet Union, from which the European allies planned, originally, to exclude the hated and feared power of the U.S.A. Had President Roosevelt not yanked the British by the nape of the neck, the British oligarchy would have joined defeated France as Hitler's allies for a war to the East.

At the close of the World War II, the intent of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal financier interest, was to destroy everything which the U.S. of President Franklin Roosevelt had represented. The Truman Administration's adoption of Winston Churchill's and Bertrand Russell's plan for a preventive, "regime change" nuclear attack on the Soviet Union, resulted in the exemplary bombing of an already virtually defeated Japan's Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Soviet Union's own successful development of nuclear weapons, as distinct from designs copied from Anglo-American sources and the morass of the Korea War ended Truman's political career, but only led to the thermonuclear terror of Bertrand Russell's successor scheme, "Mutual and Assured Destruction."

However, destroying the economic machine which Franklin Roosevelt had built, was a different matter. Given the sad condition of the economies of the world, Roosevelt's Bretton Woods system could not be dumped so quickly. Therefore, the initial attack against Roosevelt's legacy was concentrated in the ideological domain. The same method, called Sophistry, which had been deployed by the Delphi cult to induce Athens to destroy itself, was launched under titles such as the Congress for Cultural Freedom. The main thrust of the attack was focussed on the stratum of post-war babies who would probably be entering Ivy League and kindred universities during the middle of the 1960s. The 68er explosion, with its hatred against "blue collar" images and science-driven technology, was the weapon which was used to induce the U.S. to proceed to destroy itself, the Americas generally, and also Europe.

There are two principal ways to destroy a nation, or an entire civilization. One, by conquest; the other, by corruption. The military force attacks the body, but may leave the mind of the next generation intact; corruption destroys the soul. Snuff the soul in the cradle, as, in a manner of speaking, the Congress for Cultural Freedom and its like have done.

Why Destroy Civilization?

As Bertrand Russell argued, repeatedly, and so clearly, in the proverbial "so many words," the failure of warfare as a method of social control, is that warfare itself fails to uproot that specific quality of the human individual which leads toward modern sovereign commonwealths such as those of the Renaissance's Louis XI of France, Louis follower Henry VII of England, and the founding of the U.S. Republic.

Since Europe's mid-Fifteenth-century great ecumenical Council of Florence, globally extended European civilization has spread the greatest, cumulative development of the relative freedom and intellectual power of the average member of society to a degree beyond all known preceding existence of the human species. On this account, literate Europeans look back to the period of Classical Greece's development up through the fall of Greece in the course of the Peloponnesian War. The Fifteenth-Century Renaissance looked back to the Greece of Solon of Athens, Thales, the Pythagoreans, Socrates, and Plato, for the cultural and scientific foundations on which the singular historical accomplishments of modern Europe has depended so far.

Scientifically, Classical culture, as typified by the effects of those referenced examples, is the expression, and nourishment of a quality of the individual human mind which is lacking in all beasts. This quality is relatively most familiar to us as the Classical forms of scientific progress, as typified by the Pythagoreans, Plato, and their followers, and by what is known as strictly Classical artistic culture. The social impact of the expression of this uniquely human quality, is scientific and cultural progress in the condition of the human individual, and the power and longevity of our species.

The right, and the opportunity to acquire and express such personal development, such personal usefulness, is the true meaning of political freedom. It is what the individual is enabled, on this account, to preserve from the past, and add as a gift to the future, which is the meaning of that brief occasion of individual mortal life.

It is necessary, therefore, on his account, that social practices must be curtailed which deny, or even significantly suppress this uniquely human quality, which theology identifies as the image of the Creator in the human individual. Such a policy of true freedom is the natural enemy of systems of usury.

The progress, and the power expressed by the modern European development of the sovereign nation-state, as best typified by the U.S. case, has proven to be the greatest systemic threat to the continued reign of financier- oligarchical tyrannies of the sort to which Felix Rohatyn adheres.

Should the U.S. do as it should, return to the methods of economic recovery associated with the memory of President Franklin Roosevelt, a leap forward of global humanity would now follow. That development would virtually guarantee the permanent extinction of the evil of financier-oligarchical tyrannies from this planet. That would not bring paradise to mankind, but it would keep the gate of Hell away.

The question is: do people and their nations now wish to survive? If they are serious committed to survival, they must improve their governments' current performance in the relevant ways.