Schiller Institute/ ICLC 1994 Labor Day Conference
Sept 3-4, 1994
“We Must Build a Bridge from Hell to Purgatory”
by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
September 3, 1994
Today, what I’m going to do, should not be properly classified as an address, but as a long briefing, because this is in the nature of a report, and my effort to give you, with the aid of some other material available, a briefing on the most important issue, the most important fight, the most important opportunity which exists for every nation and for every individual person in the world today. The fight which I’m going to outline to you, is the only fight worth fighting. No other issue is important, because all of the important issues otherwise are subsumed under this one.
What I have to say to you, will be divided in three parts, and we will get into some presentations of maps. But let me describe what the three parts are, and how they come together.
We have come to the end of a 650-year cycle in European and in world history. Within a short period of timeit may be weeks, it may be months, it may be two or three years. I doubt that it will be longer than months or a couple of yearsthe entire financial and monetary system of this planet is not merely going to collapse, it is going to disintegrate.
There are two ways that this system will be terminated. One, if the governments come to their senses, then even now, or at some other point soon, the governments of the world will put the central banks, the international financial institutions, and the leading financial institutions, as well as monetary agencies of this planet, into bankruptcy reorganization. Every financial and monetary institution on this planet is presently bankrupt; and they’re cheating and trying to keep the system going. But the entire system is bankrupt.
Now, if they do not have the guts to do this, as most of them now do not, then we will come to a point of disintegrationnot a collapse, not a 1929, not a 1931, but a disintegration of a monetary system.
By disintegration, I mean a process which is like a chemical explosion, but this one will resemble more a thermonuclear explosion of some hundred megatons. It starts with what the Russians call a Kalmagorov equation, when reverse leverage applied to an international financial bubble, begins to act, and you get a chain reaction, an explosion. One morning the banking system is there, the market systems are there, and within 24 hours or 72 hours at the most, the entire world banking system, the financial system, the monetary system, has not merely collapsed, it has disintegrated, in the sense that the bank does not function any more, the monetary system does not function any more.
Terms of trade no longer exist; payments among national and international institutions, private and public, no longer exist. Chaos exists; and if governments do not, at that moment or earlier, respond to this to create a new international credit system, a new international monetary system, then the world goes into chaos.
In the alternative, should the forces behind the Cairo Conference, which I believe has now been essentially defeated (at least in its initial purpose), succeed in establishing world government, should Bill Clinton be overthrown or sent to prison or something, or forced to resign in the United States, for example, then in that case, the world will go into a new dark age, from which the world population will probably shrink to considerably less than 1 billion people.
Let me just indicate what the problem is.
The Council of Florence and the Nation-State
Prior to the Golden Renaissance, specifically the year A.D. 1440, the most important event in all preceding history immediately preceding this coming collapse, globally, the outstanding event with which nothing since compares, in terms of its benefit to humanity, in terms of its unprecedented impact, is the 1439-1440 Council of Florence, at which new institutions were established.
The idea of a nation-state: The nation-state idea did not exist prior to the Council of Florence. The ideas of law that existed were not those of the nation-state, but of empire, of allegiances of families. The idea of nation existed, but not nation-state.
Also, this idea of nation-state was tied to another conception of the great Nicolaus of Cusa, the idea of modern science.
The roots of modern science were established essentially by Plato’s Academy at Athens, and were elaborated as to geometry and other matters, between about 400 B.C. and 200 B.C., a period concluding with the murder of Archimedes by the Romans, and with the death of Eratosthenes, one of the last great mathematicians of the Academy at Athens.
But science as such never existed, even though there were many contributions toward what later became science, prior to 1440 A.D. The idea of the universal intelligibility of all matters of policy coming to the attention of mankind; the intelligibility of the idea of God; that is, not a blind, arbitrary belief, but as something one can know with certainty, as a scientific fact; this idea of science did not exist.
Furthermore, the conception of man, that man exists by virtue only of his creative ability, [did not yet exist]. In other words, that the thing which makes man in the image of God, is solely one thing. Only one thing is known to man which can show us that man as the individual is in the image of God, and that is the ability of the individual to make fundamental discoveries which are valid, such as those which are fundamental scientific discoveries, such as one made by Cusa in the field of geometry, particularly, at that time.
Only the ability to make those kind of axiomatic revolutionary discoveries which defy all formal logic, as a knowable method of discovery; the universality of this is what makes man in the image of God as Creator. Not God as an image, but God as the Creator. Man alone, through man’s ability to transform the circumstances of man’s practice and to transform nature, man, unlike any other living species in this universe, has shown the capability to make technological changes and cultural changes which increase man’s power per capita and per square kilometer over this planet and over the universe as a whole. Man is the only species that can increase the quality and character of its own existence, and it can increase the potential population density of its species. No animal can do this. Man does this only by one quality, that quality of mind which is shown in Classical poetry, in the Classical music from Haydn and Mozart through Brahms and so forth; in great Classical drama, such as that of Aeschylus or Marlowe or Cervantes’ Don Quixote or Shakespeare, or Schiller.
In these fields of artof Classical art, not dumb art, not rock music, not that garbage, but Classical art forms, all involving the use of a creative principle and evoking a sense of the creative principle within audiences for art and performers within art; these things, together with the ability to make fundamental scientific discoveries which defy all formal logic; which defy syllogisms. A man who believes in a syllogism, is not in the image of God. Only when man believes in his own creativity, is he able to recognize that part in himself as an individual, which is in the image of God.
This idea, of man in the image of God, which is old, you’ll find it reflected in Plato’s time, you’ll find the embodiment of this in Christianity, you’ll find it, as Philo of Alexandria said, in reading the first chapter of the first book of Moses, which we call Genesis, that man is made in the image of God by virtue of that power which gives him dominion over the earth, and over all species within it. This is the idea of Augustinian Christianity; and this was, in 1440, an idea of Western European Christianity, where there was a brief unity between the Greek or the Eastern Rite, and the Latin Rite.
This was the genius of Christianity, which was for the first time, embodied in the notion of the modern nation-state.
Prior to the time of the Council of Florence, the highest level of population ever achieved on this planet was several hundred million people. In all human existence prior to the Golden Renaissance, prior to the Council of Florence in 1440, all human existence could not struggle above a level of several hundred million people. And most of those people were very miserable. Ninety-five to ninety-eight percent of the human population lived in very primitive, crude agriculture. The difference between man and the beast was a very slight one in daily practice. A few privileged families had great power; and their hangers-on participated in the benefits of that power. But the mass of humanity lived in a condition which was slightly better than that of slavery, if not slavery.
Respect for human life was non-existent. The existence of the death penalty is an example of this: killing people over political issues, killing people who were in your power. Not fighting wars, that’s a different matter, but killing people who are within your power by deliberate calculation, the thing we call today the death penalty, that piece of barbarism, that bestiality existed and was prevalent. All kinds of people could exert the death penalty. Country squires could exert the death penalty. You know what an English country squire is: It’s a pretty low form of life.
Imago Viva Dei
Suddenly the dignity of man, not the simple Latin words imago Dei, that existed for a long time, but very few people who used the words understood them. They didn’t understand it to mean creativity. They didn’t know what creativity was.
There’s another Latin phrase that goes with it, capax Dei, the ability to participate in God, which is to participate in the nature of God as the Creator, through man’s ability to createas we see in Classical art forms, as we see in scientific progress. Not science, not formal science, not mathematics as a formal mathematics; but as scientific progress as a succession of fundamental discoveries.
As a result of that, there was set into motion in Europe, through evangelization and other methods throughout the planet, a fundamental change in mankind around the ideas of the modern nation-state. Not everywhere successful, but the idea was there; and the right of people to be individuals, to be sacred in the eyes of God by virtue of that which makes them human individuals, the right to their life not taken away by the caprice of some fool with too much power; and the power and right and obligation to change culture, to change the way we live; to break with traditional culture, to free ourselves from the bestiality of what was known as traditional culture up until the time of the Renaissance.
As a result of that, mankind has risen to over 5.3 billion people on this planet today. And in general, up until a recent time, the average condition of life on this planet of nearly every individual on this planet, was far better than the average condition of mankind throughout this planet in 1400 A.D.
So on the one side, European civilization, modern European civilization, which began in the year 1440 at the Council of Florence, the most revolutionary, the most important event, the pinnacle of all human achievement up to this point since that time, has been to increase man’s power over nature, to create institutions which, if applied, give us unlimited ability to deal and master the material forms of problems of existence and of cultural existence and of dignity of man throughout this planet.
However, that was not the whole story.
Satan on Earth
The other side of the story is this.
Over the course of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries into the fourteenth century, a form of evil which is directly traced by the Venetians themselves to the ancient Canaanite city of Tyre, had arisen to great power in the north of the Adriatic Sea: the city of Venice which has been, in recent time, until he moved to London, the residence of Satan on earth.
These people amassed great power. They built a maritime power in the image of ancient Phoenicia, which is Canaan. Phoenicia is a Greek word. The people of that region were called the Canaanites, and the center of evil was Tyre. Tyre was destroyed by a great man, Alexander the Great; but the principle of Tyre lived on, and through the Roman Empire, it came to reside in Venice; and from about 800 A.D. on, Venice was an increasing power in the Mediterranean, and became a great sea power, which became a dictatorship over the Mediterranean, over the period from the course of the twelfth century into the beginning of the thirteenth century, with the so-called Fourth Crusade. And, I can tell you, all the Crusades were frauds. They were all run by the Venetians. They had nothing to do with Christianity, they had to do with something else.
The Fourth Crusade was organized by Venice to conquer and loot Byzantium, which is its major competitor, and the Latin Empire in Byzantium was set up from 1204 to 1261, when a fellow called Michael Paleologue overthrew it on behalf of the Greeks.
But, Venice became a great looting power. It crushed every element of civilization. It imposed evil cults. It spread the cult of Aristotle throughout the Mediterranean, and other cults. It looted everything; it imposed its debt everywhere. It manipulated nations into making war on one another. They weren’t real nations, but they were whatever passed for a nation at that time. Venice plunged Europe into war and usury and looting and bestiality, and cruelty. And, nothing could seem to stop it.
The political institutions of Europe collapsed in about 1250, or over the period 1250 to 1267, in a series of wars. A leading figure of the late thirteenth century and early fourteenth century, Dante Alighieri, typified those who fought desperately to save civilization from this pestilence of Venice, and the Venetians’ Mongol allies, who were attacking Europe from the East.
Venice’s power grew. Dante was probably murdered by the Venetians after a trip to Venice and its area. The ideas of Dante lived on through various networks. Not only Dante, but there were great Franciscans and others, who continued the Augustinian tradition and developed it then as before.
Then, in the middle of the fourteenth century, the whole system collapsed in a chain reaction of bankruptcy starting with the King of England discovering, by checking with his priest, that not only was usury a mortal sin, but that he, as the King of England, by continuing to pay his debts to usury, was actually contributing to the eternal damnation of the soul of his creditors. So, the King of England repudiated his debts to the Houses of Bardi and Peruzzi, which were Florentine-based, but they were key bankers of the period who had looted every part of Europe through this process.
It’s very much like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) conditionalities today; as a matter of fact, the IMF conditionalities are a repetition, a continuation of the Venetian tradition: They are evil. The people who run the IMF are evil; the bureaucrats of the IMF as a collectivity are purely evil. They are mass murderers. They have already killed far more people on this planet than Adolf Hitler succeeded in doing. They are wiping out the people of developing countries. What they’ve contributed to is genocide, with their English masters, including Linda Chalker, who is the colonial minister (they call it Overseas Development now, but she’s really the colonial minister), from the House of Lords, who was given to us by Lady Thatcher, who is reputed to be a witch because she succeeded in transforming a merely bankrupt England into a rubbish heap, and also, because of the way she handled her pet cat, George Bush, who, by the way, is no friend of mine.
So, these people were crushed, and their political power was crushed by their bankruptcy.
The New Venetian Empire
There’s an analogy today. I’m not Plutarch, and I’m not a priest of the Cult of Apollo, as he was; but comparisons are sometimes permitted.
Today, as then, in the middle of the fourteenth century, the new Venetian Empire, which is the British Empire, or the Anglo-Dutch Empire, or whatever you want to call it, it’s the same thing, is based on financial power. All finance and monetary systems today, are divorced entirely from trade and production. They’re engaged in pure speculation, in usury, debt as a form of usury. The looting of countries, of whole regions of the world; the power of the ruling oligarchy, which are like Venetian families, the Ford Foundation, this foundation, that foundationthis is what runs the United States, not the government. They control The Washington Post, they control The New York Times, they control the three TV networks. They control Jane Fonda. She might not admit it, but she’s a real right-wing fascist, that Jane.
They are looting the world. They have great power. People are afraid of them. They’re afraid of the press. The Congress is afraid of the press. The Justice Department is controlled by these families. Everything that’s rotten, is controlled by these families. People say, “Be smart. Don’t get into trouble. Don’t attack them. Don’t attack the Queen of England.” How can you not attack her? She’s killing all those people. Are you going to keep quiet about it? What, are you going to get involved in misprision of a felony, by not attacking the Queen of England?
So, the time has come. You say, “Well, what if these people suddenly lose their financial power? What if these banks go bankrupt? What if the IMF is liquidated? What if the international monetary institutions don’t function? What if there’s no facility by which these institutions can exert their power over society?” Something like that which happened during the fourteenth century, the so-called Dark Age?
Well, the problem at that time was that there was no agency which was capable of picking up the power when the Venetians temporarily lost it. But what did happen, through formations like the Brotherhood of the Common Life and other formations, is that a great development occurred. Starting on a small scale, but developing, to create geniuses, and that’s what the Brotherhood of the Common Life did: It produced geniuses. That method of education, which is called the Classical humanist method of education, which is echoed by the teachings of Schiller on education, by the Humboldt policy in Germany, which, unfortunately, was limited to a few geniuses like Helga. If more Germans had had that kind of education, we’d be in better shape, as Helga proves.
But, that principle produces geniuses; and, if we had an education system based on those principles today, we’d be producing nothing but mainly geniuses all over the world, which is one of my little ambitions. I think that would be great fun. When you get into a conversation with a stupid journalist, you really appreciate the importance of turning people into geniuses.
So, in 1440, as a result of this process of the accumulation of geniuses, typified by the man who was unquestionably the greatest genius of the fifteenth century, Nicolaus of Cusa, who was approached only by Leonardo da Vinci, who was the second greatest genius of that century; and if you take those two, plus Kepler, plus Leibniz, those are the greatest men of all the past 550 years. The greatest minds, the greatest intellects; nobody can match these intellects. And, Cusa was probably the greatest of them. Sure, people advanced beyond him, but they couldn’t have advanced beyond him, without starting from him, as Leonardo da Vinci did, in particular. And, Kepler would have been impossible without Cusa and Leonardo da Vinci. And, Leibniz would have been impossible without Kepler, Leonardo da Vinci, and so forth.
So, in 1440, these people, this handful of geniuses typified by Cusa and his friend, who later became Pope Pius II (Piccolomini), and others, convened to organize in a way which was similar to what I did with the SDI. Same method. And, people who want to understand, could read that, could study the work of Cusa and his friends and study how we got to the SDI, how that happened. It wasn’t implemented, but it was a very important thing that it did happen; it changed the shape of history.
But the Venetians were not crushed. The Venetians came back. The Venetians organized against the Council of Florence, and have continued to organize against the Council of Florence to the present day.
The Early Nation-States
Remember, the first nation-state that was established, was established by Louis XI in France. He was directed and trained by the people around the Council of Florence. They were unable, for various reasons, to get the first nation-state of a modern form in Italy, so they conspired to bring it about in France. When Louis was successful in forming the nation-state in France, this encouraged a group which were typified by the Oratorians in that period, and later. To take over England, they used Henry VII Tudor to start to build a nation-state echoing that of France in England; there were efforts which were encouraged in Spain to try to create a nation-state in Spain, in the same way, which was very crucial in leading to the unification of Spain in 1492 and the evangelization as well. The idea spread into Germany and elsewhere.
Now, [economic progress was] the characteristic of this revolution of nation-state, as in the case of Louis XI, for example. The national income per capita of France doubled during the decades of the reign of Louis XI. The characteristic of the Renaissance, that is, the idea of the nation-state, the elevation of the individual, the proliferation of science and technology and new methods of education, of public works, of revolutionizing away from traditional cultures, into new forms of higher culture; this increased the power of man and society.
At first, the Venetians, during the sixteenth century, after escaping from being destroyed by corrupting some of the allies of the League of Cambrai to fight against each other, including a pope, the Venetians at first tried to crush science. They tried to simply crush the Platonism of the Renaissance. They tried to crush these new ideas out of existence. That failed.
However, in 1582, a faction in Venice, led by a professed atheist by the name of Paolo Sarpi, got into a fight with the papacy and with others, and formed a faction which became victorious among the Venetian bankers. Their policy was, at the time, to do two things. Don’t fight science, take it over and destroy it from within. Don’t fight the new developments in music, don’t try to suppress them; but take music over and destroy it by corruption from within. Don’t try to defend Venice indefinitely as a power of the Adriatic. You can’t do it under conditions of emerging modern technology. Rather, we must accept the technology while fighting it, because if we don’t accept the technology, they will beat us. Therefore, we have to match their technological prowess, otherwise, our forces will be defeated. We can no longer rule the world, they said, because of the evangelization. And, everybody who hated the evangelization, was a Venetian agent, including Metternich, and his predecessor, von Kaunitz, who deplored, like Henry Kissinger, the discovery of America. (We do wish Henry Kissinger had never discovered America.)
They said, we’ve got to move our headquarters. We’ve got to take over the Protestant countries in the North. We’ve got to take over England and the Netherlands, and the “Nordic peoples,” as they’re called today. This is where Hitler and his racial ideas came from“the Nordic peoples.” We’ve got to take the Nordic peoples, and make the Nordic peoples, the North, our force for creating a new global empire, like the kind of empire that Venice had in the Mediterranean, prior to the middle of the fourteenth century.
That was, in a gist, the policy of Paolo Sarpi. And, Paolo Sarpi moved up. They had already destroyed England, largely, with civil war. They had broken the alliance between England and France, and England and Spain, which had existed at the beginning of the sixteenth century; and, England was a mess.
They launched a bloody civil war in England, under the direction of Venetian agents Walsingham and the Cecil family, which included two homosexual brothers, Francis Bacon and his brother. They corrupted the young boy who had been entrusted to the care of the Bacons by sodomizing him and then betraying him. And then they brought the Stuart king, James VI, as James I to the throne of England. And, this crowd of people who were members of a cult called the Rosicrucian cult, took over the Stuart Court of England, and later formed freemasonry out of this Rosicrucian cult, and formed also the London Royal Society.
As a result of this process, which I described at some length in the article which was just published in Fidelio now, “How Bertrand Russell Became the Most Evil Man of the Twentieth Century,” [Vol. III, No. 3, Fall 1994] which covers most of these points, gradually, England was built up. The first objective was to destroy France, from 1666 to 1815, except for a brief period during the minority of Louis XV in France, France was the target of continual wars directed by Venice, conducted by the English (then British) and Dutch, against France, from 1666 until 1815, first to destroy the threat of France to emerge as a major maritime challenge to British supremacy, and, secondly, to destroy France as a land-based nation. And, France was reduced to the status of a virtual British political catamite in 1815, though some French people didn’t like it very much and resisted it, nonetheless, the controlling forces in France have been, with few exceptional periods since then, France has been a junior partner in empire of the British Empire, since the restoration in 1815.
Venice went out of business as a state at the end of the eighteenth century; but Venice has built up its power as Venetian families, who are now called Anglo-Dutch, and who include our Eastern Establishment wealthy families generally, and so forth; has built up as a global power of a global oligarchy committed to so-called liberal ideas. And, that’s not tolerant ideas, that’s liberalism in the sense of philosophical liberalism, particularly to what are called radical empiricist or radical positivist ideas, the same thing. Radical positivism is just a French disease, a form of radical of empiricism, which are both forms of existentialism.
1966: Turning Point
The point has come that the world is dominated politically by this Venetian faction. Up until 1966, approximately, Western Europe and the United States were dominated by a commitment to scientific and technological progress, and to rationality. You could not have tolerated, prior to 1966, most of the ideas, which are disgusting, which are destroying the United States internally, and the world as a whole, today. Those ideas would not have been tolerated.
The ideas of the civil rights movement of 1965-66, would not be tolerated generally, in the United States today, by these people. A “cultural revolution” was introduced at that time. I’ll come back to that.
But, up until that point, this planet believed in scientific and technological progress, the development of the powers of reason in the child and young person. Developing nations, so-called, were clamoring, under terms such as the Development Decades of the United Nations, number one and number two, through organizations such as the Non-Aligned Movement, for the right of developing nations, to share freely in the same technology which the United States and Western Europe enjoyed. People aspired to that. It was still a great force. But gradually, over this period, the power of this Venetian idea, moved toward a headquarters in London, and took over more and more of the political institutions, the political process, the financial institutions, the monetary institutions, the scientific institutions.
Science today as an organized form, as organized from the top down, is a cult. There may be honest scientists down there, below. But the leaders of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the leaders of leading scientific institutions of the world, are nothing but a disgusting, irrationalist cult, beginning with the takeover of Galileo by the Venetians at the beginning of the seventeenth century. They brainwashed the guy, and they began babbling, and what he was caused to babble by his Venetian controllers, is what you are taught in schools today.
The culture has been taken over.
You who are older, think back. Think of turning on the radio in the 1940s, 1950s, or early 1960s: What kind of music did you hear? What do you hear today? Think of, even, Hollywood, which was already degenerate then; but how much more degenerate has it become now? Who runs it? Well, organized crime. But, how does organized crime run Hollywood? Because what you and I knew as the underworld back in the 1930s, is today become the overworldbecause these families use it.
So, culture, theater, poetrythey don’t teach poetry in school any more. They teach babbling. They don’t teach drama in school any more. Do you study Shakespeare? The great dramas of the world are typified by Aeschylus, Marlowe, Shakespeare, Cervantes (essentially, Don Quixote is a tragic drama, in which an old psychotic fool, Don Quixote, babbles in virtual space, and you have an evil fellow, called Sancho Panza, who can’t get a thought above his waistline, which is the problem in Spain and continues to be the problem in Spain to the present day, and some other countries, like our own, as well).
So, culture has been taken over by these people. So the result is, you’ve got two types of people. On the one side, you have the tradition, the inheritance, the benefit, the institutions of the Golden Renaissance in the form of the nation-state, the understanding of a new conception, which is almost lost again today, between imago Dei and capax Dei, because you don’t mutter the words “imago Dei” without referring to the form of creativity which can be demonstrated as revolutions in scientific discovery, valid revolutions.
That’s man’s creativity. That’s imago Dei, along with the quality of agapē, the quality of love that goes with the sense of the discovery, or the quality of love which we associate with tears of joy, the kind of tears of joy a parent sometimes experiences in the joy of seeing one of their young children make a very primitive but very obvious kind of discovery. That’s agapē, that’s real love, not the kind they advertise in Hollywood.
These institutions: that’s the Good. They have obviously benefitted mankind. All mankind has benefitted from European civilization, especially the modern European civilization which dates from the Council of Florence.
But, mankind has suffered, because modern European civilization is, in terms of power per capita, per square kilometer, is the most powerful force on this planet. But, this force has been taken over, politically, financially, culturally, by evil, Venetian evil.
Parasite and Host
So, what happens then? We have the host. The host is European civilization, the heritage of the Christian Renaissance of the middle of the fifteenth century. We have a parasite, which is evil. The parasite has taken over the host, sucked its juices, shrunken it, looted it, depleted it, reduced people to conditions like slavery, destroyed virtually whole regions of the world, as Africa has been destroyed. Sub-Saharan Africa is being destroyed by the British. Not by racial conflict or national conflict, but by the British, who create these conflicts. Rwanda was created by the British Thatcher government, through the Queen’s royal private household. Through David Ogilvie, Lord Carrington, through Prince Philip, through Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, who established the World Wildlife Fund, which is a branch of the International Eugenics Association, which brought you Adolf Hitler, and brought you the racists in the United States.
They went in there, in order to turn Black Africa, East Africa, South Africa, West Africa, into a human game preserve, in which the population is managed by park rangers, in the same way they cull the herds of wild animals in game preserves.
The organization which the royal family runs, is run through the London Zoological Society. A game preserve to protect the gorillas, was the device by which Uganda, whose dictator is a personal agent of Linda Chalker, the Overseas Development Minister, formerly under Mrs. Thatcher, now under Mr. Major, used the gorilla game preserve to take contingents of the Ugandan Army, march them through the game preserve into Rwanda, where they took off their insignia and called themselves the RPF.
The whole operation was run by the British, British intelligence, through Linda Chalker, and through people like Tiny Rowland, who is an asset personally of the royal household of the Queen, because the London Rhodesia Company, through David Ogilvie, of the Queen’s private household, and through the ministrations of Lord Peter Carrington, the patron of Henry Kissinger, turned over the London Rhodesia Company to Tiny Rowland, or Roland Rowland, who is a Rhodesia activist with a Nazi past. And he runs LonRho; and LonRho is typical of the key institutions which, actually, on the ground, are responsible for what you saw in Rwanda.
So, this great power that we in Western civilization represent, was taken over by an evil parasite; and we were the host. We are being ruined.
If you look at the statistics from 1967 to 1969 on the U.S.A. alone, and you can do the same thing for Western Europe, to get a comparable picture; look at this from the standpoint of demography. Take the table of consumption of a typical American household by category. Say a steelworker of middle 40s age with a family, going into his 50s, helping to send his eldest daughter or eldest son through college, with a little financial help from this and that, and so forth, on the side.
Can the person in the same category of employment today, do the same thing? No.
Take medical care, 1947-1949. Look at the care costs. Can you buy, with the same portion of your income today, what you could buy in terms of care for the same kind of illness in 1947? It is not that medical costs have increased; they have increased, in nominal terms. They have also increased because of interest rates, of financing charges, because of malpractice insurance, and for other reasons. But the essential reason is the average real purchasing power of the average American, has declined. Not because Americans have become less productive, some of them have. Without technology, you tend to be less productive. (With the kind of school that you go to today, it’s a wonder the children know from which end to speak. So, they don’t tend to be very productive.)
But, the essential thing is this. Look at what percentile of the total labor force is actually producing wealth, as opposed to 1947, or 1967. We have developed parasitism. We’ve got yuppies in Wall Street who are not fit for any kind of employment, who are processing billions of speculative values. Gambling is officially about $400 billion or more, in the United States. Drugs are close to $800 billion in the United States, of total GNP.
We are paying for all that. We are paying for the gambling industry, which is pure parasitism. We are paying for the drugs, with the same wealth that is going to pay people to run drugs, and to run gambling, we could build industries. We could build infrastructure.
Don’t talk about the military budget, the military budget is almost non-existent. It’s positive, relative to all this stuff. This is parasitism.
Then you take a look at the national debt and the state and local debt. It’s pure speculative parasitism. We are being sucked dry.
Now, look at the poorest countries in the world. Since 1972, the so-called developing nations of this planet have been net capital contributors to the wealthiest nations of this planet. South America has been subsidizing the United States. Black Africa has been subsidizing the United States and Europe. It’s there, it’s on the record, the capital flows. The net capital flows, through what devices? Well, devices such as manipulation of exchange rates. Exchange rate usury. Complete swindles. What is the condition per capita of the people of these parts of the world today, as opposed to 1960 or 1970?
Look at the rest of the world, and you see that the parasite depends on a financial system [that] is about to collapse; this parasite has undertaken in the past 30 years, to destroy the cultural ability to reproduce this kind of thing, with his counterculture, with the crazy environmentalists, most of whom are branches of British intelligence, branches of the same Eugenics Society which gave us Adolf Hitler. They call themselves leftists. I guess Hitler was a leftist. He was, at one point, I think.
But these people have brought us to the point that this entire system is about to collapse. What do we see?
Look at this in the span of 600 years, in terms of what I’ve just outlined to you. What we’re seeing, is a process. You see, on the one hand, a type of idea. Not a specific idea, but a type of idea, based on the ideas that flow from the idea of the nation-state in the new form, the ideas of creativity as imago Dei, the right of every person to participate in government, in one way or the other through the power of creative reason, the transformation of the conditions of life in society through discovery, not only in physical science but in art forms. The elevation of the moral condition of mankind, the increase of the number of years that a child is allowed to develop, the improvement in the standard of living in the family household, which means you get better children when you have better conditions of life for family households. The great increase in higher education (which began to get really “high,” of course, with LSD, about 1964), which, in a sense, was a great benefit. It gave us a great increase in potential productivity.
All of these things are good. That’s on one side: the idea of progress. On the other side, is the idea of usury, the idea of oligarchy, the idea that some people are born to rule, and some to be ruled. The idea that man is nothing but an animal, and therefore it is proper to cull the human herd, just as you cull the animal herd. The idea of the game park, the idea of humanity as expressed by Prince Philip, the consort of Queen Elizabeth II, of whom it is said that she, like Elizabeth I, had no children.
Vietnam and the Counterculture
That explains it. When they got into a situation of power after the killing of Kennedy, and Bertrand Russell’s negotiation of new terms of agreement on the nuclear condominium between Moscow on one side and London and Washington on the other in 1963, they got rid of Kennedy in the manner in which most of you are acquainted, by means with which I’m acquainted. And, they proceeded to impose the rock-drug-sex counterculture, or the counterculture in general, through orchestrating a non-existent war. There was no military reason for the war in Vietnam, and don’t believe there ever was. It was a lie. The guy who made the war in Vietnam, was a guy called McGeorge Bundy. He was the guy who organized the coverup of the Kennedy assassination, and went on to immediately put out what he’d already prepared, an order overruling the President’s ruling on Vietnam, to restore the intervention into Vietnam, which he got Johnson to sign, at the point of a gun.
Then, they broadcast pictures of the Vietnam war all over the United States. They had all these pampered children of my generation from suburbia, and they organized a draft dodgers’ movement, which was called an antiwar movement. Some of us were actually opposed to that filthy war; but we know from campus experience, and those of us who were there at the time in the midst of it, the antiwar movement was predominantly a draft dodgers’ movement, in terms of the typical supporter. It was organized by Bertrand Russell’s friends, under the auspices of the same McGeorge Bundy who had organized the war in Vietnam. Once McGeorge Bundy had the war in Vietnam going, he moved out of the Johnson administration and moved over to the Ford Foundation, whereas the Foundation grants will show you: He personally organized the counterculture and the antiwar movement.
How did they do it?
They broadcast to you, to everyone, pictures of what happens to you if you’re drafted and go to Vietnam. They got a pretty good draft dodgers’ movement. Then, the guy says, “I’m nervous. I’m nervous.”
You know, here’s a guy who was educated not on the basis of what we were educated on. They left him at home, and he was educated by Howdy Doody, by Bozo the Clown, by Romper Room, by Kukla, Fran and Ollie.
These young fellows, seemed kind of bright, they came from families which were better off than they were in my time. But on the moral side, they were kind of shallow. And, they weren’t tough. They didn’t believe in actually overcoming problems, they believed in yelling at Mommy and crying, or putting on a tantrum till Mommy bought the new toy. That was the kind of people that Dr. Spock told us to produce. So, they were easily frightened.
So, they said to them, “Well, you’re upset? Try sex.” “With whom?” “With anyone. It’ll make you feel better.” “It didn’t work. Look, I still got a terrible feeling. I’ve got these visions of me in Vietnam at night. I can’t get them out of my head.” “Well, take a trip.”
Then the guy says, “Well, sex isn’t so good with anyone.” “Well, try it with anything.” “I still can’t get these pictures out of my head.” “Well, go to a rock concert for about four hours, and that constant drumbeat will have a better effect upon you than LSD. You’ll be a psychotic by the time you come out of there.” The old Dionysiac rhythms, which have been turning people into psychotics for generationscenturies, in point of fact.
Then, they took these young people, who were intelligent, but intellectually shallow, didn’t want to learn anything, they wanted to memorize from the textbook. They wanted multiple choice questionnaires. They wanted a sliding scale of grading in schools and colleges. Remember? So you measure yourselves not by objective reality, you measure yourself by the prevailing level of stupidity around you. So, you really don’t have goals which are truthful goals; you have competitive goals. You have this kind of thing.
So, they destroyed that. Then they used the college-age youth, who had been infected to infect the high-school age youth with the drug culture. By the summer of 1968, as you’ll hear later in these proceedings, the antiwar movement was dead. It died in Chicago, in August of 1968. If you looked at the antiwar movement as I knew it, I knew how it was organized, who organized it, I heard that in 1965: by bankers. And, they used their favorite SDS [Students for a Democratic Society] and that crowd to do it, by this kind of operation, this manipulation. And, they used a principle, that if you take a weakened population, and you subject people to trauma, a completely unexpected form of trauma, terrify them, and they go crazy; under those conditions, you can do what they did to these young people. They introduced into them, irrational ideas, which these young people themselves would never have tolerated, would have laughed at and ridiculed, if they had not been subjected to this trauma of this fear, that they were going to be sent to Vietnam and chewed up.
And, that fear, that anxiety, piled on top of the great anxiety which many of us felt on the basis of the suppression of the evidence of the Kennedy assassination, and the shooting, then, of course, of Malcolm X and then the shooting of Martin Luther Kingand nobody would do anything about it. Nobody would investigate these things, to get to the bottom of these things.
Everything was wrong; then they killed Bobby Kennedy. And you say, “Well nobody is safe. There is no rationality, there is no justice in this country. Everything is crazy. We’re losing everything. Everything we thought we had, is gone.”
And, young people who were coming up, who were kind of shallow, not the fight-back types that scream and holler and throw a tantrum type, threw tantrums. And they became irrational. They accepted these ideas of the counterculture. They became addicted to them. They spread their addiction to their younger siblings. Then, they began using little children, who were poor little children, as drug runners into campuses, into schools. Little five- and six-year-old boys, the kind of thing that came out in the Atlanta child murders, where these children were all of that category, or most of them.
So, they destroyed our civilization. They unleashed upon us a hatred against technology, a hatred against industry, a hatred against technological progress; and they turned us around, where a great speculative bubble in financial speculation, starting with 1971-72, the so-called floating exchange rate system, turned this whole planet away from a planet oriented to agricultural and industrial and infrastructural development, to a planet which was concerned with getting money on speculation, a world which wanted to live by gambling. Everybody engaged in all-day gamblinglook at the money you’ll make.
Who’s going to produce?
By saying that the people in Africa are using up the natural resources, which is what Henry Kissinger laid down in his memorandum in 1974. Therefore, we’ve got to eliminate that population. We’ve got to reduce the population of the United States to 70 million. We’ve got to reduce the population of Mexico to between 30 and 35 million, the thing I exposed back in 1976 in my first nationwide television broadcast, which didn’t make me popular with those people.
The Power of Ideas
So, we’ve come to the end of this civilization, an end of a period of history. Because on the one side, you have one type of idea, the idea of the host, the idea of the Renaissance; on the other side, you have the ideas to typify the oligarchical ideas of the Venetians and their British successors. And all these ideologues running around loose, prating this stuff.
To the degree that the parasite has taken over the host, the parasite which has no conscience, destroys the ability of the host to support parasites; and, that’s exactly what’s happening with the financial bubble. It’s coming to an end, just as the Venetian system came to a collapse in the middle of the fourteenth century.
Thus, we have a 650-year cycle, which has occurred, a period of history which has to be seen in its totality. You cannot analyze part of history, you’ve got to take entire historical cycles, because man is a creature not of physical characteristics. We have the physical characteristics and aptitudes of a baboon or chimpanzee; but no chimpanzee or baboon could produce a population of 5.3 billion people, self-sustaining.
Only human beings could do that, through creative discovery, creative discovery which we transmit to one another, in the form of ideas. Mankind is a creature of ideas. The characteristic of mankind, is ideas. It is not lust, it is not physical attributes; it’s ideas. The characteristic of human existence, of successful human existence, that’s the kind that produces people who are living today; is creative ideas. Not ordinary ideas, not opinions. Not doctrines. But the power of creation, the principles of discovery, which you learn as transmissions of discoveries passed along to you generation after generation, cumulatively, from all preceding history.
We can trace part of this history into languages. We don’t know how old languages are; but language is a great invention, which was developed by people going back we know not how far. We can trace astronomy back in China, say, to about 18,000 B.C., which is about the beginning of the melting of the glaciation, of the last cycle.
We can trace ideas to many points. We can trace the idea of science as such, to Pythagoras. The foundations of what became known as science, as developed by the Academy of Athens under the leadership of Plato, in the period from 400 B.C. to 200 B.C.; and so forth and so on.
Everything we know, everything we have, is the accumulation of contributions to creative discovery, from every part of the planet by generations that lived before us. We are the living embodiment of the accumulation of all those ideas, which we’ve assimilated, and from which we benefit. It is by studying the characteristics of ideas, and only that, that we understand mankind, and understand true human nature, which is not the idea of animal human nature, as the British empiricists, or people like that, like B.F. Skinner, for example, teach. Man does not have “instinctive tropisms.” Mankind is defined by the ideas. When this little baby emerges, as they say in Yiddish, a schmegeggy, it’s nothing; except it has this particularly potentiality for ideas.
And, we see the little baby, in the first weeks of life, learning at a high rate, in a way that’s different than a little newborn puppy learns. Raise a little newborn puppy and a baby side by side. Watch the difference. Absolutely different. You see, at a very early age, unless you’re very dumb parents (we have dumb animals, and dumb parents), that the child begins to comprehend ideas, creative ideas. In very simple things. We take them for granted, because we learned them a long time ago. But, for that baby, that’s new; and, that baby is undergoing a creative experience. And, the baby asks, “Why?” And you say, “Shut up.” And, the baby stops being creative.
So, that’s what we are. So therefore, we have to look at history, in terms of the cycles of ideas. Why do cycles exist?
Well, they exist principally because when certain ideas, which are reactionary, come to increasingly dominate a culture which is otherwise based on humanity, which is good, mankind is innately good. Mankind is born, innately, with creative potential. Creative potential is innately good, it’s in the image of God. How can mankind ever have problems?
The problem is, evil comes in, dominates society, pushes the attention span down below the waistline, and then you’re really in trouble. And, these ideas begin to dominate, by making people stupid! Morally and otherwise stupid.
Because creativity is our nature; joy at creative discovery is our nature. Goodness is our nature. The goodness of creativity, not the passive goodness of the so-called moralist. So, what happened, is evil took over.
But, the universe is so arranged, as Leibniz said, this is the best of all possible worlds. Why? Because the goodness within man, this creative power merely typified by the power for fundamental scientific discovery, is the way in which we respond to evil. People are hungry: Get out and work. Floods: Build dams, build river systems. Disease: Fund biological science, build new medical institutions.
So, for every evil that besets man, the goodness within us, if it’s cultivated, inspires us to say, “Well, there’s a problem. We are equipped with the means to deal with the problem, which is the power of creativity. So, let us do what is rational and within our reach, to address this problem.” Where there’s an inequity, or whether it’s an infliction, or a war, or whatever.
This is the best of all possible worlds because God has so designed us, as human beings, as masters of this universe, in His name, that we are equipped with an automatic capability of responding to every affliction and tribulation with the mental capacity to find a good way to deal with that problem. And, we can go to our graves, if we’ve acted so, knowing that we have been a necessary existence on this planet, because we’ve done our part. In responding to those challenges, we’ve accepted the cup of Gethsemane wherever it was presented to us on this issue. And, therefore, when you’ve done that, then you know your life was necessary one, because you did something that was necessary.
Man is naturally good; but, this evil has come in. This is also another good part of the universe.
It’s tough for you, when you think about your own life, and about your short lifespan, to accept the fact, but history is not determined the way Hollywood writes the script. History is not that you always win, in your lifetime, in the sense of the Hollywood happy ending winning. The happy ending you get in life, is the fact that you know you have done something necessary, that you are doing a necessary thing; that your life is necessary for mankind.
There can be no greater happiness, than knowing your personal life represents something which is necessary, needed, by mankind.
But, the universe is organized such, that evil systems cannot indefinitely prosper. Our enemies are not in the form of flesh and blood. The essential enemy is in the form of, as the New Testament says, “principalities and powers.” The idea of Venice, which is a replication of the idea of the evil Canaanite city of Tyre, of which the British Empire was a replication directly: This is evil. And, the essence of good, is proven by the fact that you combat evil. If you are good, why are you not naming and combatting evil? If you’re not combatting evil, you’re not good, because you are not addressing the problem that is facing mankind.
But, evil essentially is lodged in evil ideas. Tyre is an evil idea. Venice is an evil idea. The British Empire is an evil idea. Galileo is an evil idea. Pomponazzi is an evil idea. Francis Bacon is an evil idea. Radical empiricism is particularly an evil idea. Malthus, who was a plagiarist, plagiarized an evil idea. Darwin plagiarized him. We’re going to get Darwin up in the tree where he belongs, eventually.
So, that’s the point.
Bankrupt the Federal Reserve
Now, we’ve come to a point at which these two ideas, the conflict between the types of ideas represented by the Renaissance, and the types of ideas represented by the British Empire, by radical empiricism, these two ideas, together, can no longer co-habit. The doom of the evil system is about to occur. Our job iswhat?is to ensure that mankind does not go through a dark age, that we don’t have 50 or 100 years of global depopulation, descent into bestiality, before mankind arises out of this into some better form of society later on.
Our job is to ensure that the nations and the living people survive the transition, which must be a short one, from the death of the old system, to the emergence of the new. The present system of credit, the present system of policy on environmentalism, on family, etc., etc; this all must go.
To anyone who says, “Why don’t you make a suggestion as to how to keep this system alive a bit longer,” “No!”
Now, the subject, then, is how do we make the transition?
Imagine the day that the system goes flat, either because President Clinton (who’s got some good tendencies, by the way), declares bankruptcy. Tell him it’s British, and he’ll declare it bankrupt. A case in which the system is ended, because it’s bankrupt.
Now, the function of a legal act of bankruptcy reorganization, as some of you know, particularly more and more of you know it these days, the way things have been going, is to ensure the minimum outrageous damage to the victims of a bankruptcy, or the victims of an insolvency, to try to protect those who must be protected, and to try to maintain some kind of stability, continuity of employment, continuity of function, etc., in some way, to make a transition back to a healthy system, either of the firm in particular, or at least of the community in which the firm is located.
But, all that does is it keeps things going and stabilized. It does not solve the problem. So therefore, if I were President, I would declare a bankruptcy of the whole blasted system, especially of the IMF and so forth, today. But, does that solve the problem? No, it doesn’t.
Where do we get the growth? We must grow. We must increase the scope of world production, world economy; otherwise, we have not addressed the problem. So, therefore, we’re going to put the system into bankruptcy. Where are we going to get the investment from which to make the system grow?
Well, very simply. You freeze all outstanding paper, and you deal with it as you do in a bankruptcy. You allow certain things, like salaries and so forth, to be paid, to maintain stability. You create a new credit system.
The first thing the governments must do, is eliminate the Federal Reserve System, and similar central banking institutions around the world. The first thing you do, is put into bankruptcy the Federal Reserve System, and declare all central banks of the world to be bankrupt.
Now, the United States government can do that, under our Constitution. We can regulate foreign trade. The government of the United States has the constitutional authority to regulate foreign trade. We used to have audit transparency of foreign bankers trying to do business in the United States. That was dissolved in 1979 by Paul Volcker, in one of his first acts as chairman of the Federal Reserve System.
If I were President, I would not allow a bankrupt institution to become engaged in practices in the United States which would defraud citizens of the United States. So, if I declare an institution, as a sovereign United States, to be bankrupt, it’s bankrupt! It may not be bankrupt in its own country, legally, or in other parts of the world; but, here it’s bankrupt, and will be so treated.
Now, you get a couple of governments, the way Clinton talked to Kohl, and Kohl talked to Yeltsin, a few other things like that, who say, “Okay, we’ll go along with this.” If you get five major governments of the world, who say that the IMF is bankrupt (you’d probably get a lot of countries down below the border who’d jump on that one, and in Africa), it’s bankrupt. By the power of the sovereign nation-state.
So, the first thing is to get rid of international/supranational institutions, over which nations have no control, which only the oligarchy controls, and to re-establish the principle of the sovereign nation-state republic, and that the affairs among nations are treated by relations among sovereign nation-state republics, each having the dignity of a sovereign individuality. It’s the only equitable system you can have. No great miracles of supranational institutions. But, if about four or five of the biggies get together and say the IMF is bankrupt, the IMF is bankrupteverywhere.
Okay, that’s what we do, exactly what we do.
Great Projects for Growth
Now, where do we get the growth? Well, we go back to what Alexander Hamilton and others talked about. Go back to Article I of the U.S. Constitution: the power of Congress to regulate and create a currency. There is no lawful currency in the United States that is not, according to that article of the Constitution, read plainly, except a bill proposed by the President, on behalf of the Secretary of the Treasury, to the Congress; and the Congress authorizes the issuance of the currency, whether coins or paper currency.
The President says, “This currency is going to be deposited in a national bank. We’re not going to spend it, directly, we’re going to deposit it.” What are we going to do with it? We’re going to do what they did in Massachusetts, with the first paper currency in North America, in the seventeenth century. We’re going to lend it, at low interest rates, to designated qualities of borrowers on certain conditions. So, the state is using its political power to create a currency which has value, as long as the state is willing to back it up, which is issued as credit.
What do we do? We create large projects. The large projects, which may be public projects, public corporations, which then use private vendors as contractors, which make bids and get contracts from the public corporationsthat’s the way you get the economy moving, with large projects. And, we have a need for it, we have a need for a U.S. rail system, we have a need for U.S. water management systems. We have a water problem in the United States. We have a power shortage in the United States. We have inadequate medical care facilities, as you will hear later on today.
So, let us do that. So, we will create, with the cooperation of the states and localities, various public authorities. These public authorities will be undertakings to build specific things, for which we have the blueprints, so to speak, and we can go to work right away. We will hire people for these. We will also engage contracts as we did in 1939 and 1940, when we used to have the so-called war contracts in the United States, which some of you who are as old as I, will remember. And everybody, including some rather disreputable-looking firms, got contracts. And, those disreputable firms became fairly respectable-looking firms, in about two years or so. And, we’re going to do that again. And, that’s the way the private sector goes.
To do this, you have to have a bank which says, “All right. We’ve agreed to fund you with credit. Your payroll comes up this week, we’ll issue the payroll for you. You have this list of bills that have to be paid. We’ll pay the bills for you, as part of your line of credit.”
So you put the nation back to work. As the nation goes back to work, the money increases in circulation, as the work goes. The purchasing power increases with the production. The economy is stimulated. You concentrate on things which are of major value to the economy, and which promote scientific and technological progress. So you don’t lose.
What you’re doing, is using the political power of the state as it must be used, to create the economy, or build it up, or re-create it.
So, we have one system, which is the old banking and financial system, which is on this side; that’s the dead past. We bury that. On this side, we have a new system. How do we make the transition? And how do we make it globally? Because this is a global problem, and you cannot have prosperity in part of the world, and the rest of it going to hell. You must reorganize the planet as a whole. And, there is a mood for that, as you can see, of many nations around this world right now.
So, that’s what we’re going to respond to, and that’s what we’re going to address.
Now, there are three parts to address. First of all, with the help of John Sigerson and his co-conspirators, we’ll have some maps, which I’ll get into very shortly, which I’ll take pretty much in the order they have them, to simplify the way in which this runs, make it a lot easier to get the job done. You’ll get the general idea. These maps are going to be used again, and diagrams are going to be used again, with more amplification, for a number of publications, so we’re not going to try to give you the whole shebang now, but just give you a sense of what we’re going to do, and how it’s going to work.
The basic thing is this. We’re going to have to use public credit, since you cannot get private investment when private investment has gone bankrupt, in order to create large-scale projects of employment. You have to rely entirely on public credit; and I would suggest that we use the general rule, which is probably an acceptable general rule in the world today, that the public sector of economy, is essentially infrastructure, government regulation of banking, which is really part of the infrastructure, the way we used to have bank regulation; and currency regulation, the government’s responsible to protect the currency; foreign trade, interstate commerce. Those are the government’s functions, essentially, in our country, and similarly in other countries.
But the most essential characteristic of the government responsibility for economy, lies in general basic economic infrastructure: transportation, large-scale water management systems, the development of adequate power systems, education, general education, public health, the provision of public health facilities, for which the private physicians work, in order to provide a health-care which is adequate for the needs of the nation; and general public education, of course, and science. The government must specifically promote science, in ways which are typified, for example, by the NASA project of the middle 1960s, before they began to take it down.
We should employ, perhaps, globally, about 5 to 10 percent of the population of the labor force in scientific endeavors today, if we’re going to continue to generate sufficient technological capability to meet the overall needs of this planet and its population. This will be clear as we go along.
But the essential thing is this, which leads right into the maps. And then we’ll get into this question of creativity.
One area internationally, in which you can organize a global explosion of real economic growth, is in public infrastructure building of nationwide projects which are an extension of international projects, typified by the idea of a high-speed, preferably magnetic levitation rail system, for freight as well as passengers, reaching from Brest in France, on the Atlantic Coast, by way of Paris, through places such as Berlin and Warsaw, into Moscow, and on to places such as Vladivostok, down into China, across the islands, down into Japan, and across the Bering Straits, down into the United States and South America, of course.
Now, that is a characteristic project, which is a project which was proposed by two statesmen at the end of the last century. One was a protégé of Pope Leo XIII, who was really the first modern pope to recognize modern society, in France, Gabriel Hanotaux, the French foreign minister, diplomat, and so forth, together with a great Russian genius, who was the friend of a genius by the name of Mendeleyev, and they organized a system of railroads to get the British out of China, and to involve Japan. In about 1896, they had set up a nest of treaty agreements and other respective agreements, which would have done exactly what I just outlined, in terms of rail development, except from that standpoint.
The British caused World War I, in order to prevent that cooperation, using Venetian methods; and they get a Teddy Roosevelt in the United States, who was not loyal to the United States, and they got an outright traitor and disgusting person, Woodrow Wilson; and that was the end of the United States for this century.
So, these kinds of projects, which require international credit cooperation to create, which are rail projects, large-scale water projects. We’ll get into some of this and show you what this involves. These kinds of things are the key to world recovery, to getting to the other side of the river, across the river of chaos, from this side, which is doomed, to the other side, which is survival. The transition, through projects begun now, at least in germ form, continued with the idea that we’ll expand them under the new system; that’s the way, through this kind of public financing, through international cooperation, to get a revival of the world economy, including the private sector as a whole.
Targets for Development
Let’s turn to the maps. Now let’s look at the kind of world we have to organize. Let’s start with the Eurasia continent.
Now, you’ve got to look, first of all, at physical geography. Just imagine you’re coming from a foreign planet, and plan to colonize the Earth. This is what you’d look at, wouldn’t you? Eurasia. And you would say, “Well, we’ve got to fix that for human habitation.”
In fixing an area for human habitation, the first step is what we call infrastructure. So now you can look at Europe, which is an area we’ll focus on. Europe includes the center of this whole project. We’ve got another area, which is called East Asia, centered around China, Japan, and so forth. And then you’ve got South Asia.
Now, let’s look at the Middle East, in which you’ve got a third project.
We’ve got three projects. One is what was called some years ago the Triangle Project, the Productive Triangle project, which I proposed to my wife in our discussions by phone at the time (regrettably), in 1989. And she got other people organized to do it, and we produced a proposal for this general kind of development. That’s number one. There are three parts to this.
Number two, is what we called back in 1983 the Pacific-Indian Ocean Basin development project, which I wrote up, reported on, and published a lot of material on then, which involved China, the island rim of East Asia, involved the subcontinent of Asia, involved the East Coast of Africa, involved the Middle East, of course, which is there, and the West Coast of the Americas. This entire area, which includes Australia and New Zealand, is within a body of water, the Pacific and Indian Oceans. And, if you look at the surface of this area, the water surface, you will find that India is very much ocean-bound. The Indian subcontinent, which has about a billion people or so, has one-third the area of the United States, and a lot more sea, in terms of total acreage or total square miles, the amount of coastal miles are very high, so that, essentially, Indian is a maritime civilization by modern technological standards.
The coastal area of China similarly; and, if you had an inland water development system in China, then you would have, at the same time, the ability to move your infrastructural development into the deep interior of China. Add a modern rail system to China, with a tight grid, and suddenly, now, China essentially can function very effectively, in respect to its ocean surface; and China then becomes a maritime nation in this degree, in its relationship between India, its relationship with the Americas, its relationship with Australia, Southeast Asia, becomes, essentially, a maritime relation.
East Africa, the same thing. East Africa is a part of this area, logistically, and therefore the essential characteristic of the development of this area in its infrastructure, particularly, is a maritime orientation and inland waterways and rail systems, from the coast inland.
Now, the East Asia and South Asia portions are linked to Europe in two ways. The primary way is from China and Japan and the Bering Straits, through Moscow into Western Europe. That aspect of the thing, is what we call a Eurasian land bridge, typified by the upgrading of the Trans-Siberian railway system, in which the China development of rails, and there are two Silk Road rails, one which is the one which goes up, and intersects, through Kazakhstan, the Trans-Siberian Railway, and one going with the more southernly route; and China, then, has an inland role with respect to Europe, through a rail and inland waterway system. And, India comes in under the same thing.
Middle East Development
We have a third area, which is crucial. And, let’s look at the Oasis Plan zone.
Now, the key thing here, as you can see, is this area, first of all, can be characterized as the crossroads of civilization. In the earlier history of mankind, the Middle East was the link between the Mediterranean civilization, which was European civilization, and the Indian Ocean, and, thus, that’s the crossroads of civilization.
It has two significances. First of all, it is vital that we have peace in this area for two reasons. First of all, the Peres-Rabin-Arafat peace plan is necessary. It’s something I’ve worked for, for over 20 years, actively, with them, with both the PLO and others on the Arab side, and with Israelis on the Israeli side. And, finally, it looks as though it’s being done. It’s not yet successful. We intend to make it successful.
But this crossroad of civilization is also a paradigm for the principle of cooperation based on common interests, which we hope to make more general throughout the planet.
Now, let’s look at the political maps, and look at this from a political standpoint. Let me just make the next point. The reason it’s necessary to look at these things from the standpoint of maps, is that what ordinarily, people do, in economic statistics, is a fraud. For example, let’s take the case of the four Gulf States of the U.S. South.
If you take the average figures, because of some air bases and other things in that region, they will show you that there are about four hospital beds per 1,000 in that area, which looks fairly high, compared to most of the country. But ask Amelia Boynton Robinson, or other people who come from that region, and they will tell you that actually, it’s a disaster there, in terms of hospital access, that the nearest hospital may be 100 miles or more away from the person who needs the treatment, say, for example, in childbirth care. A woman is coming into childbirth, she has a problem; can she get to a hospital?
Well, it’s 100 miles or so away. And, presently, she has probably no connection to that institution, or the people who practice there. So therefore, there is no hospital bed available for this woman. And, that’s the characteristic throughout a lot of the country. So, when someone tells you, “Well, the average hospital beds per capita, or the average number of physicians per capita,” and so forth, or anything else per capita for the United States, that really doesn’t mean much. For the person who is sick, or the person who has to buy food, the person who has to get to school, the question is of the actual availability of that facility to the person where they live and where they work.
Another thing, for example, which you’ll recall from the history of the United States: the deregulation of trucking and rails, which wiped out whole communities in the United States, because if you cannot have competitive and reliable freight delivery, at reasonable prices, to a local area, you cannot sustain a competitive industry in that area. Therefore, the industry goes bankrupt, it has to close up, it can’t compete. Because the trucks which used to come there, go to Cleveland or Chicago. They don’t go out into the boondocks, except at premium rates and on irregular schedules.
So therefore, when you say “the average amount of employment,” the average number of workplaces in the country,” that doesn’t mean much. How many industrial workplaces do I have in East Oshkosh, or some town 50 miles outside there? That tells me what the development of the country as a whole is.
Take, for example, the case of Nigeria. Nigeria inherited the British colonial system; therefore, the port city of Lagos had most of the infrastructure of Nigeria. The result was that all of the industries which wish to get into Nigeria, or develop there, would have to rely largely upon the port city of Lagos. Lagos became an overflowing city, like Cairo or Alexandria, in which the number of people in that congested area, was impossible to maintain, because we didn’t have the infrastructural services to sustain that kind of a population and that kind of concentration.
So therefore, the development of the entire country was held up, because there was not sufficient internal development of the internal infrastructure.
So therefore, looking at figures, at data, and taking averages, or other ordinary statistical measurements, is essentially a fraud.
The way to look at data, which we can do now, because computers have become cheaper and they’ve improved, as we’re seeing here, is the following. Take any map of the world, divide it into its political elements, consider its landscape, its physical-geographic characteristics, whether you’ve got an ice floe on top of it or not (it’s hard to plant crops with a glacier on top of the soil, unless you’re planting ice cubes), and put your data down in the cell area, some local, little part, maybe one-ten-thousandth part, of a degree of latitude and longitude, or something like that. Stick your data where it belongs on the map. Put your population figures, where the population occurs. Locate the hospital. Don’t take the “average” hospital; put your hospitals where they are, on the map. Put your physician population on the map, similarly. Put your industry on the map. Put your transportation system on the map. It looks much different than when you take the averages; therefore, that’s why we’re using maps. And now, we have the technology at a price which is competitive, shall we say, and we can now do this properly.
But in planning the development of infrastructure in particular, locations of industry, development of nationslook at the map! And, people have to be geometry- and map-literate.
We divide Eurasia into three areas, because Eurasia represents, in this case, the greatest part of the human population. Most of it’s there. You’ve got over a billion people in China, you’ve got over a billion people in the subcontinent area, you’ve got close to 400 million in Southeast Asia, you’ve got Japan with about 150 million. Then the European population. That’s most of the human population.
Furthermore, as you’ll see a little bit later, this is the area of the world in which the greatest number of people are underutilized. Therefore, if I can make available to the people of China, who are still largely a peasant population living on a marginal level of existence, if I can provide those people and the people in India, who are still living mostly at a coolie level, and to the people of Southeast Asia, the modern technology which will immediately begin to improve their productivity and standard of living, I have the greatest growth in rate of total world production possible, simply by concentrating on Eurasia.
You now get a picture of what this China-Japan-Islands section is, including Taiwan, what the potential is here. You get a similar picture on India, and Southeast Asia, which is your basin part. You add the East Africa part, you add the contact of the United States, Canada, and Central and South American countries, their interface with the Pacific Ocean; that’s part of it.
So therefore, most of the world’s population is involved in these three areas: the European extension, the East Asian extension of the Pacific Basin to the land bridge, and the crossroads of civilization, in the Middle East.
For example, the Middle East: What’s that? Well, the Middle East is a port area. You have a port area of sorts in Aqaba, you have a port area at Gaza. If you have a canal running from Gaza to Beersheba, to dump salt water down through a tunnel into the Dead Sea, to raise the water level, that canal to Beersheba is now an inland waterway, which moves salt water and barges, in as far as Beersheba from Gaza.
If you link that canal up, with a canal cut down to the Gulf of Aqaba, you now have a Red Sea/Dead Sea/Mediterranean link. If you use desalination, the canals bring the salt water to places where you want to locally desalinate, for fresh water; and my proposal is to produce enough fresh water by desalination in that region, to equal the current annual flow of the River Jordan. It’s like adding another River Jordan to the region.
And you overcome that water shortage by putting the power installations in, and the transportation systems, what have you got, with a couple of ports? You now have, in that area, places where ocean vessels are coming to the Mediterranean and through the Indian Ocean, to port areas, where they can be serviced, as vessels often require service; and where a great number of different kinds of intermediate and semi-finished commodities are coming together at a port area.
Now, if you’re an enterprising man in business, and you found a part of the world in which this port area is receiving a great assortment of kinds of raw materials and intermediate products and semi-finished products, all in the same place, you say, “Well, I’m going to set up a factory there. Because there I’ll have, at the cheapest cost, ocean freight delivered to my doorstep, all the raw materials and semi-finished parts that I need to make things.” So, rather than have these raw materials go on, say, to Europe or someplace else, to be processed there, why don’t we process them here? Because when I process them here, then, when I ship them further, the transportation costs are now a smaller percentile of the costs of the whole production than they are if I move them directly to Europe.
You say, “This is great! Economic advantage!” And now we have it on the Gaza side, so that, you’re not merely putting people together and giving them a chance to do some economic development and cooperation in the region; but now, you have created, by this kind of development; you’re taking desert land, you’re making desert land useful land for humanity. Now, the gopher-loving environmentalists may be upset about that, but I think that’s a good thing.
You also have created, not only economy within the region, but you’ve created a function which is useful for the planet as a whole economically, which these people can perform for humanity generally, and, thus, you’ve created the basis in which the Middle East does, in fact, economically function as the crossroads of civilization, as we would hope, under these kinds of developments.
So therefore, we have the three areas we defined as primary in Eurasia: the eastern section, which has two aspects: the Asian section, which comes in with the Indian Ocean Basin, which is also connected to the European Triangle by land bridge. We have, in the Middle East, which is somewhat cut off from these two areas, Middle East development, based on the Israeli-Arab-Jordan peace agreements, which then becomes the basis for a crossroads of civilization development, which participates in world development in that way, in this area. And, that will get this going.
Now we divide this thing into a number of zones, and I’ll just describe this, because it has some bearing on the theory. The rest of these maps will show up in various publications shortly, and will also be available, in a short period of time, for those of you who are doing replays of this descriptive outline in various parts of the world, and in the United States.
The Productive Triangle
One area we call primary, and I’ll just go through these quickly, to see what we mean by that, the primary land bridge development zone.
So, you have Central Europe. Now, by Central Europe, we mean France, we mean the Netherlands, we mean Germany, we mean part of what used to be Czechoslovakia; that is primary. Now, that involves a triangular area from Paris to Vienna and up to Berlin, approximately, whose historic significance is that especially since the time of Charlemagne, about 800 A.D., that this part of Europe has been subjected to, as you’ll see in a short time, the greatest development of, first of all, canal systems.
I’ll give you an example: Look at the inland waterway system. Just recently, while I was in the jug, something I wanted, happened. They finally completed the link of a canal system which links the Rhine to the Danube, through the Main connection, and an old enemy of mine, Thurn und Taxis, who died, probably of his sins, was holding it up. But, that was completed. Now, you can move a barge from the North Sea and, if you can get by the Serbian gunships, you get it all the way into the Black Sea; and, it affects all of the area in between.
You look at the map of the inland waterway system of Central Europe, from France down to the Mediterranean in France, through Germany, now down to the Danube system, down toward eastern Europe. Then, you look at the water system in eastern Europe, in Poland, in the other eastern European countries under Russia; and you find it’s not there. Now, next to ocean-borne freight, bulk transport by barge is the lowest cost per ton and other costs, for transporting materials. The only problem with the barge system, is that the canal system cannot go where rails and roads can go, you can’t go with that depth; and you need things transported a little faster than barges will do it.
So, for bulk freight, or stuff that you would warehouse anyway, and you don’t care if it takes a little longer to get there, you would prefer to have it moved by barge, because you have greater economy for the entire society. Also, the canal system gives you a development potential in the areas where the canal goes. That means these areas are development areas, where otherwise they may not be developable. They also are very good, because when you maintain the aquifer system, which canals help to do, you are also benefitting everything generally.
So, if you look in eastern Europe, the part that was formerly under Soviet domination, or southeastern Europe, when you get beyond Slovenia and Croatia, particularly the rest of the Balkans; then you look at Russia, and you look at China, you get a sense of the terrible underdevelopment of rail and water systems. You cannot have modern economic development, without inland waterways, together with water management programs, and inland railway systems.
The absolute social cost of moving goods by truck vastly exceeds by a large multiple, the cost of moving the same goods by rail. So, in a rational society, you have rail systems which are operating efficiently in as great depth as this is economical. Then, you have an efficient transport of goods from rail to truck, and from truck to rail, over short hauls by roads, into the local points that are not serviced by rail.
So, you have this combination of ocean freight, inland waterways, rail systems, and supplementary highway systems. That is the cheapest and best way to build the transport infrastructure for an economy. Air travel comes in, but is marginal for freight, relative to the other means.
If we build the new kinds of ocean-going vessels which we can build, which are high speed, which use this electrohydrodynamic method of propulsion, as opposed to the screw propeller propulsion, we can get up to speeds of 40-50 knots, even higher, much more conveniently. In that case, we will bring the transport by ocean freight into competition with air freight. Not at quite the same speed, but in terms of economic effects for freight as such.
The other thing, of course, is you look at the general water development, and I think we can probably jump ahead to these statistics at this point. Obviously, we’ve got the makings of a book-length report here, which you’re seeing samples of.
Let’s look at some of these rail, canal, and water development programs. One of the parameters of economic growth, is the increase in cubic meters, or cubic feet, of water required for human consumption and industry per person, per household, and per square kilometer of land area. When I say per person, I’m generally referring to labor force per capita. You can measure production in terms of per capita of the labor force. You can measure consumption of households, if you have a good demographic model, of the standard consumption of households. You measure the overall effects in terms of land area. And, you get the consideration of the amount of water required by households per person and per square kilometer of land, as you increase technology; and thus, in order to have more productive people, you must increase the power available per capita labor force per household, and per square kilometer.
Technology in the Home
For example, in the household, you may not require the television set, at least most of the time. Some people have banned it from their house, in defense of their children’s minds. But, you do require labor-saving devices.
You know, the great point about liberation of the woman in the household, who has children of a young age (who require a mother present, there’s no way of getting around thatthere’s no way of fooling with that). What you have to do, if you want to have good child rearing, and you have children who are trying to cope with modern technology; you don’t want the kitchen and the other routines, to consume the energies and time of this woman, who’s a mother to these children. You want to make her work more efficient, and you do that by labor-saving devices.
I’m a somewhat older person, and I remember the way we used to do the laundry, with one of these old machines; and we also had scrub boards, too, you know. We used to boil dress shirts, in a big pan on the stove. It was a coal stove. We had an old laundry machine, which was a big tumbler, it looked like a big industrial device, which cranked away a great deal of the time. Hanging out the clothes, which are very heavy when they’re wet, as some of you may know, particularly the sheets and so forth, is quite a strain, particularly when the wintertime comes, up in New Hampshire. It’s kind of an unpleasant experience: You have to go out and beat the ice off the laundry, before you take it in.
So, labor-saving devices are absolutely indispensable in the home; and this all involves an increase in the power consumption by the home, which is a good thing. Those people who are trying to “conserve power,” “save on power,” are crazy! You should always use power intelligently, you shouldn’t run up the electric bill just to have a kick. But, the point is, we should be using more power, because we’re saving what is precious: human life. A woman who is tied up unnecessarily in doing dishes the old way, or laundry the old way, has a life which is being shortened by this process, and she’s better given, if she’s a mother, to involvement with those children, or, if she doesn’t have children, she has other activities, and she’s better involved in doing that, than being tied up with the routine of menial housework. Therefore, in order to improve the standards of living, you provide labor-saving devices.
Also, if you look at architecture over the thousands of years we are able to see samples of it, you’ll find that architecture has not changed too much, that generally it still takes two parents of the opposite sexes to produce a child. (Some people have other ideas, but they’re not going to work, I can tell you that.) And, that means you have quarters where the parents are in one quarterthey require privacy from the children. Children require privacy, of sorts, to retreat, to concentrate on their projects. Therefore, you would say, generally, you need a bedroom for every child, so a child has a place to have privacy. You need functional areas in houses.
When you do these things, it costs more money, or costs more effort. It requires more power. And, as Leibniz said in 1671, in his essay, “Society and Economy,” you cannot separate the required standard of living from the level of technology and productivity of labor. You cannot pay the laborer on the basis of his being an individual person who must be supported. You must support the laborer’s family. Because the laborer is going to die, of old age, or something else (maybe overwork or underpay). And, you are going to depend, to keep society going, on his children. So, the cost you have to pay, is the cost of producing him by his family, his cost of his wages in maintaining a household in producing and rearing the children. And, if you want to have children who are qualified for more advanced technology tomorrow, you’ve got to have a level of culture, which means, also, material culture in the household, which permits that to happen.
If you underpay people, you’re undereducating them, you’re destroying them. Therefore, these kinds of considerations have to be taken into account: power, more power for production; greater energy-flux density, as you go to the equivalent of higher temperature, or higher frequencies, and so forth, in the kind of power you require, to deal with new technologies.
New Sources of Power
For example, when we go into space, as I’ve said before, we would, obviously, mine the Moon for Helium-3. Therefore, for space travel, which is not going to take two years for a round trip to Mars, (like chemical rockets, which are rather silly, and involve all kinds of problems), we must have a nuclear fusion ion propulsion system. That requires a fusion process. Helium-3 exists in abundance on the Moon. The Sun has been depositing it there for billions of years, so the Moon is loaded with the stuff. You have to put that stuff in your craft, which has some weight. So you have a ratio between the amount of propulsion you can get at certain accelerations, and the amount of fuel you’re burning, which means that, if you’re depending upon what you can carry in a ship to make a round trip, you’ll find there’s a limit at which you could build today a spaceship using a fusion-helium-3 technology, to go out and return on round trip on your own fuel tank; and that’s about the asteroid belt.
We know that there’s another source of power, which is available, if we develop it. We know it, because we’ve been testing it for years; it’s called matter-anti-matter reactions, that the impulse to mass ratio of a matter-anti-matter reaction, whatever it is, will be about 1,000 times greater, or three decimal orders of magnitude greater, than a helium-3 system. Therefore, I put some priority on trying to develop that thing, because I think it would be nice for people to take a round trip (I won’t do it, but maybe some of your grandchildren will), to Pluto, and see what it looks like out there, at essentially 1g acceleration/deceleration. It would be a fairly short weekend trip, I think. You can do that. Just calculate what a 1g acceleration, what speeds that leads to, and what the distances are you have to do. It’s great fun. In any case, that’s the general problem.
Now, we consider developing power stations, developing water projects, developing rail systems, particularly the magnetic rail systems; developing the transport systems and subsidiary roads that go with the transport systems, and utilizing to the maximum the degree for agricultural development and industrial development and construction development along the way.
We also decide that there is a universal right (this is where Clinton is absolutely correct) to needed health care. We have to provide that, not only for the United States, we have to provide that for the world. That requires an infrastructure; we’re going to build it. We need universal education. That requires some infrastructure. We’ve got to supply it.
We’ve got to build more cities, out in rural areas, or towns, which can expand into cities. We’ve got to bring industry closer to the rural area, especially in Africa, for example. It has to be done in China. You cannot develop China, without bringing industry, not to Shanghai, but to the Chinese people in whatever part of the country the family lives. You cannot have a system whereby you break up families when someone in a rural occupation goes 500 to 1,000 miles away to find a job in industry. We know the effects of that kind of thing in this country.
So, this gives an impetus in the order of magnitude of trillions of dollars equivalent investment in infrastructure in Asia alone, which means you’ve got a fairly good perspective on keeping this investment going for some time.
This amount of effort gives you the feedstock in credit to generate and re-generate industries along the way. You combine this with a new space program of the type we should be developing, and some other research programs, and you have the basis for building and re-building this planet.
And, that’s the new system, in which we, in the United States, by participating; by participating in the Indian Ocean-Pacific Basin project, by participating politically, by participating technologically, we can play a key part in that, in changing the world during the next century.
What Is Creativity?
Our main concern, however, is the following one. This comes to the second principal subject here, and the third is just a comment.
I referred in some length, and repeatedly, as necessary, to this concept of imago Dei and capax Dei, as they’re called in Latin. The fact that the only thing that makes manthe only thing that makes man knowably, demonstrably, and provably, in the image of God, and the only means by which we can know, with scientific certainty, that we know and can prove the existence of God, is the demonstration in us, of those powers of creativity which we associate with revolutionary discoveries of principle in mathematics and in physics.
Now, what I want to do, first of all, is to just indicate, by something to which my wife somewhat objects, which I’ve used before, but I think is very indicative, of what we mean by creativity, how you can locate it. Because I talk to people about creativity, and they don’t know what I’m talking about. They say they think they know what I’m talking about, but they don’t. It’s like the teacher, whose student tells him he knows what he’s talking about, but the poor little guy doesn’t, and the problem is, he doesn’t want to admit that he doesn’t know, so he’s telling the teacher some song-and-dance that he learned in the back of book, someplace.
Let me take a popular subject.
One farmer, meeting a friend of his from the city. And the city fellow says, “Henry Kissinger is a dog.” The farmer says “No, he’s a pig.”
Now, involved in this discussion between the two people (and they’re both sane, and they’re both right, in a way), is a demonstration of the principle of human creativity. Whenever you hear a farmer referring to Henry Kissinger as a pig (or, perhaps to George Bush in a similar way), you know that you’re dealing with a fellow who’s intelligent, who’s in the image of God.
You can imagine a pig saying to a dog, “No, Henry Kissinger’s a dog. I’m a pig,” and the dog responding in kind. But you know, pigs and dogs can’t do that, because they’re not imago Dei.
What’s the point?
We know the person is saying Henry Kissinger’s a pig, and we understand exactly what he’s saying. We know the man who’s describing Henry Kissinger as a dog, and we know exactly what he’s saying. We can say, you’re both right. The issue is, that Henry Kissinger is an object, on the one hand, which has the form of man. A pig is the form of a pig; a dog is the form of a dog. It’s just very convenient to keep these things necessarily separated, so you don’t get confused. These are sensory objects. These are mental objects which we derive from sense perceptions.
When we come to the idea that Henry Kissinger is a pig, we have gone to a higher level of thought. What are we saying? We’re saying, “Henry Kissinger is beastly,” that he is a man who has the form of a man, but a behavior which would be considered tolerable only in a beast. And, the question is, is he a rat, a pig, a snake, or whatever? Maybe an insect. Maybe bird food, shall we say.
So, what we’re doing, in this case, is we are communicating a different kind of an idea than a sense perception. We are communicating an idea as an idea, as a mental object. We are looking at an idea in the same way we would look otherwise at a sense perception.
Obviously, what makes man different from the animal, is man’s ability to perform scientific and related operations to change human behavior, to make decisions, which are based upon reference, not to merely sense objects, but to mental objects.
The crucial issue between the Aristotelians and the Christians, over the past 500 years, has been this issue. It’s even older than that. It came up in the form of John Wenck’s attack on Nicolaus of Cusa.
Beginning with people like Francesco Zorzi, a student of Pomponazzi, people like that, and Galileo, and Francis Bacon, explicitly, and all of the empiricists and all of the radical empiricists, they denied and opposed, as did Kant, the right of human beings to make decisions in terms of judgments based on reference to ideas which are mental ideas, like the idea that Henry Kissinger is beastly. They said, “You must come back only to sense perceptions.” That’s the meaning of the word empiricism. Then, radical empiricism said, “You must throw out all morality.” That was in the middle of the century. That started with Adam Smith and people like that. “You must throw out all moral considerations, you can’t have moral considerations, you can only have, as Aristotle says, only ethical considerations.”
If you want to read real evil, read Aristotle’s Ethics, which is dedicated, putatively, to his father Nichomachus, and his Politics. You want to see evil to remind you of Henry Kissinger? There it is: Aristotle. You are not allowed to introduce morals into matters of public policy. Not morals as a list of do’s and don’ts, that’s not morality, that’s childishness. But, morality in the sense of principle. You can only have Ethics. But you must premise everything upon nothing but sense perceptions in a form of calculation and relation which is modelled upon the arguments on motion by Galileo Galilei, who was a brainwashed zombie for the Venetians.
Thus, the issue of creativity is the central issue of all policy. The Golden Renaissance was based on the notion of creativity, which is argued at some length in Cusa’s De Docta Ignorantia, and all the other writings. Plato’s work entirely is on the subject of creativity. Most commentators on that, of the British school, the Oxbridge type, or of the Warburg type, called the Warburg school, named after Warburg, the Cassirer type: this is all garbage! Complete fraud!
Plato deals entirely with the principle of hypothesis, and hypothesis means nothing other than a creative discovery of principle, which is a provable principle of discovery. Change in the form of operations.
This is human nature. This is the seat of morality. This, which teaches us, from our own experience. I’ll give you some other examples.
I used, in Germany, because the poem is well known, Goethe’s poem Maileid. I used this years ago, back in the 1940s, early 1950s, a bunch of Goethe poems, which had been set to music by composers such as Mozart, Beethoven, and Schubert, and used that as a principle, as a standard for dealing with the problem of creativity from the standpoint of the arts.
Goethe is a very simple fellow, he’s not a very profound person. But, he does know what creativity is; and his short poems and strophic poems, especially, are models of creativity. Let me just describe what the Mailied signifies.
The poem goes on, couplet after couplet; it’s a fairly simple poem. Then the last couplet changes the meaning of the entire poem. This is called metaphor. When I am speaking of Henry Kissinger as a “pig” or a “dog,” I’m employing metaphor. Metaphor is not a form of literary elegance. Metaphor is a mechanism by which human beings communicate with one another, about mental ideas, as opposed to sense ideas. If it’s a sense object, I can point to a glass, I can point to this object, I can point to that object. So, sense objects are essentially “pointing” objects.
You cannot point to mental objects, except by setting up a situation, and saying things like “Henry Kissinger is a dog. Do you know what I mean?” So, I’m using this device of metaphor, “Henry Kissinger is a dog,” in order to point your attention to a mental object which exists in my mind, which my statement will help you to provoke in your mind. So now, we both know what we’re talking about, as the farmer knew, when he said, “No, Henry Kissinger is a dog,” to the guy from the city who told him, “Henry Kissinger is a pig.” They both knew what they were talking about. So, they could have a very interesting conversation about the subject, because they both knew what they were talking about.
So, instead of pointing, by saying, “This noun means that object,” the way we communicate mental objects, is by structures in language which have the form of metaphor.
For example, idiots would argue that the person who outlawed metaphor from the English language, Francis Bacon, was the author of Shakespeare’s drama. Shakespeare’s drama is nothing but the flow of metaphor, the thing that Francis Bacon explicitly outlaws.
In music, the same thing. In music, when there’s a principle of development (and you will hear some sample of this here), when you hear an African-American spiritual which has been re-done as a folk song in the same Classical treatment which Brahms gave to folk songs in Germany, by the same method, what you’re hearing, is that the musician recognizes in a folk song a certain intrinsic beauty, which that musician is trying to bring forth in a richer way, in a way which is consistent with the implicit intent of the folk song.
Therefore, he fixes it musically, so that the metaphorical aspect of the poem is brought forth in the song. He actually improves the poem by a principle of development.
The so-called principle of thorough composition in music, which is begun by the work of Haydn and Mozart at the beginning of the 1780s, which continues through Brahms and is picked up by Dvorak, in this case, with the African-American spiritual, is real Classical music. Not because it’s “old.” Classical is not “old.” I’m not Classical, I’m old. My mind is Classical, and that’s younger.
Classical means based on a rational, creative principle of reason throughout, so that, from the beginning to the end of a composition, there is a coherence, so that when the thing ends, if you know the composition, you realize it must end just at that point. The statement of a metaphor has been made.
In drama: Take the case of any Shakespeare drama, or as Schiller analyzes drama in particular, including his own, the notion of punctum saliens, which Helga’s been trying to teach people for years.
At the point of a punctum saliens, the irony of a tragedy has been presented, just as I presented the 650- or 550-year tragedy, which is the death of this civilization. The fact that evil was able to parasitize upon the good, and that the people were unable to resist the evil sufficiently to get rid of it, dooms this civilization.
The proposition that I laid out to you, of putting the old system into bankruptcy, and launching a new system, on the basis of an infrastructure development program under new credit principles, which are actually old ones, those of the Founding Fathers of the United States, or the founders of the Federal republic. This is a punctum saliens. It is the idea which enables us to leap from the tragedy-ridden, bloody side of the river, to the other side of the river, which is not Paradise, but the hope and opportunity for development.
So, when a drama comes to that point, a creative principle is posedan implicit solution to the tragedy. The tragedy consists in the ability of the actors in the drama to bring the drama to a successful conclusion, by applying that discovery. The power of tragedy lies in the fact that the audience which has been attentive, has realized that at the punctum saliens, a solution existed. The audience, then, from that point on, traces the failure of the principal actors to act upon that solution, and goes down to the end of the drama: the doom of all involved, because of the failure to act creatively on the solution to the problem.
Thus, what does all great drama do?
If you go to the theater of a good performance, not in the Brechtian style, of a Schiller tragedy, you will come out of that drama, as members of that audience, better persons than when you went in; because you have learned something about yourself, and about society, from that experience.
The same thing is true in music, the same thing is true in great poetry, the same thing is true in great painting.
Explain to me why, in Leonardo da Vinci’s “Virgin of the Grotto,” there are two sources of light depicted in that painting. It’s an irony. It’s a higher expression than “Henry Kissinger is a dog.” It’s a metaphor in painting. Great sculpture, great art, great photography; anything that is done well by human beings, which is based on a principle of rational, creative composition, to present a metaphor which communicates an idea to another human being in a creative way. That is the principle.
Educating Our Children
Now, let’s take a simple example of what this principle means in practice. Let’s take our schools. Throw the textbooks out, because the textbooks mostly lie, anyway, especially mathematics and physics, and have the children do what the students of the Brotherhood of the Common Life did, to go through a succession of experiences of discovery, to consciously re-experience the act of discovery of the people thousands of years before us, hundreds of years before us, 100 years before us, on which the ideas of modern civilization are based, so that the child can walk out of the classroom with a sense of having re-experienced the mental act of discovery of some of the greatest minds in all history before him or before her.
Now, these minds, these musicians, these poets, these painters, these scientists, these theologians, live in that child’s mind, like characters, as I said, in Raphael’s famous mural in the Segnatura, in the Vatican, “The School of Athens.” They live in the mind. I have such people living in my mind. They’re all over the place, a big crowd there, all of whose thought and discovery I’ve re-experienced at one point in my life. These are my conscience. These are my committee of advisers. I must do nothing which is shameful in their eyes. They’re watching me all the time. They’re there! I created them, I brought them back to life, by re-creating parts of their mental experience, and they’re watching me. Everything I do. They criticize me, constantly. They scowl at me, they make faces at me. They do.
Therefore, that’s what you want in education. We want the child to know all the aspects of life which are creative: Classical poetry. You don’t say, “We’ve got to give equal time to bad poetry.” We don’t have to give equal time to bad poetry. If a child wants bad poetry, they’ll read it under the porch. Music: a child should have musical development early on. It’s very important for a child. A child should learn history, should learn drama, should learn all of these things. They should re-experience ancient people discovering what a solar year is, for example.
So that the child has a sense of education, not of learning a bunch of facts. A child has a sense of experiencing the creative activity of mankind. A child is living in the sense of man in the image of God, which man reveals himself to be, only when he’s being creative, or loving in that special way that brings tears of joy to the eyes.
What has happened to us, to our civilization, since the Council of Florence, is that the Venetians and their followers, the empiricists, the positivists, and so forth, have run a campaign typified by Pomponazzi, by Francesco Zorzi, by Francis Bacon, by Galileo, by Newton, by Locke, by Hume, by Adam Smith, by Jeremy Bentham, by Mill, by Norbert Wiener, by John Von Neumann, Bertrand Russell, etc., etc, to outlaw from the formalities of science and art any recognition of the actuality of mental creative thought.
That is the work of Kant, his Critiques are all dedicated to that. That is the work of every empiricist philosopher. That’s the work of John Dewey in education. That’s the function of “Howdy Doody.” That’s the philosophy of Bozo. Eliminate creativity: “facts, facts, facts.” Calculate, statistics. Facts, facts, facts. Like B.F. Skinner.
Why did anybody ever allow B.F. Skinner to be put in any institution, other than a mental institution? That mean-minded pigeon torturer? Why did they allow Watson to be treated? Why did they allow that man, who doesn’t even know what his own sexuality was, Sigmund Freud, to be treated as an authority? Why these frauds?
Freud ran a hysterical campaign against creativity. He was a follower of the positivist Mach. He was a general evil-minded degenerate, albeit a clever one.
Why do we allow this “psychoanalysis” to be treated seriously? It’s garbage! Yes, some of it is very clever, and you should know about it, if you’re going to be serious about how things work in this society. But, it’s garbage, it’s evil. It destroys people.
(We have a cat at home, who is referred to as Dr. Schwartz, “the psychiatrist.” The cat’s the best psychoanalyst I’ve ever seen. He solves his patient’s neuroses by eating themthe mice and the birds are his patients.)
Think of mathematics. You get absolute consternation and hysteria among scientists. You have people who teach “chaos theory.” Chaos theory is nothing but this same stuff. The systematic denial of the existence of the act of creativity, the creative act which enables someone to recognize a conspiracy where one exists, or to recognize that Henry Kissinger is a pig.
What we’re going to do, I propose, is we’re going to do something, in the coming years, as a continuation of what we’re doing now, which will be one of the greatest acts in all history.
Never before in history has a doomed civilization such as ours, and this is a planetary civilization at present, at no other time has a civilization ever come to an end without being taken over either by a Dark Age for some decades or centuries, or by conquest.
If we were going according to averages, batting scores, we would say that this entire planetary civilization will end before the conclusion of this century, probably in a year or two, and that for a period of 50 to 100, to 200 years following, this whole planet will go through a Dark Age, in which the level of population will fall to several hundred million people. Nearly everybody’s family will be wiped out. There will be no grandchildren, no great-grandchildren, for most, for virtually anybody, if that were to occur.
I say: This is an unacceptable prospect.
Therefore, what we’re going to do, is what has hitherto been impossible, and the way to do it is clearly before us, as I’ve described it somewhat today.
We are going to build a bridge from Hell into Purgatory, a bridge from this side of the river, which is doomed, which is the plagueland, the pestilenceland, the AIDS society, to the other side of the River of Chaos, which is a new society, not a perfect society, but a new one. And, we’re going to do it immediately, without missing a step.
The way we’re going to do it, is by campaigning on the basis of the organization which has been mobilized to stop the Cairo conference. The conference is not about condoms or obstetrical needles, even though that’s a minor subject, relatively speaking, in the conference.
The major subject is whether the Venetian oligarchy, typified by Prince Philip and his family, has the right, through the Eugenics Society of the U.N. bureaucracy through the World Wildlife Fund (the cannibals’ organization), to impose upon this planet a control of population in which the peoples of Africa have their populations controlled, the way game wardens control a deer population in the United States, or elsewhere, or the way Krueger Park, and the rest of Africa, was used to kill 1-3 million elephants, in the name of saving the species. (A rhino population was reduced from 100,000 to 2,000, in the name of saving the species; and the game wardens sold the elephant meat to the miners. And Russell Train, I understand, was one of the big game hunters who killed the elephants, “to save the environment.”)
The U.N. objective is to reduce the human population to less than 700 million people, and they hope to secure, through a series of conferences, including the Cairo conference, the Copenhagen Conference, the Beijing Conference on the family, the ability to bring that authority through a supranational institution, down upon mankind, with the help of a pack of rats called NGOs and the UNO bureaucracy.
There has been a global resistance to that. The Vatican organized a resistance. The pope acted pretty much like Lazare Carnot. He got the cardinals out of the barracks, and got the bishops over to the other side of the river before morning. And so, the Catholic Church as a whole, many parts with great reluctancethey’d much rather talk about condoms and needles than they would about fighting the Cairo Conference, or fighting the U.N.was mobilized. We, with our friends, work with other sections of society, including the work we’ve been doing with the Arab world and the Islamic world generally, helped get the message across. The Vatican had its own diplomacy, in a sense, with the Islamic countries, as we know in the case of Sudan in the case of the Middle East; it worked to try to get peace there.
So, the Islamic countries began to line up against the Cairo conference with the Vatican, with us. I’ve been attacked, we’ve been attacked, savagely, by all the worst freaks and madmen of society, such as Conor Cruise O’Brien, because we’re opposing this abomination.
But today, we find country after country, is withdrawing from this Cairo Conference. The conference is not dead. Evil still exists, but we’ve impaired it. We have launched a countermovement. That countermovement must take a new form; and, this is what I say is the only issue of any importance, to any of us, at least any of us who are sane. All other issues, are completely subordinate to this issue.
We must mobilize the people of this planet, for the kind of transition which I’ve indicated in rough outline here today. We must leave Hell for Purgatory, and we must begin to build a bridge, sort of a new alternative to Noah’s Ark, to get out of Sodom and Gomorrah, and places like that.
We must realize that what we have seen in the movement against the Cairo conference, is the expression of a global planetary potential for human beings to arise and say, “We don’t want this. We don’t want any more Rwandas, we don’t want the British Colonial Secretary, called Overseas Development Secretary, conducting mass genocide against Rwandans, using the dictator of Uganda, who’s their puppet, to do so. We don’t want this. We don’t want LonRho in Africa. We don’t want DeBeers-Oppenheimer any more in Africa. We want these people out of there! We don’t want them doing this to Mexico, or Central America, or South America. We want them out of there. We want these swine out of there now. Anybody who supports this stuff, is not our person. They’re not with our cause, they’re with the enemy cause.”
You want to talk about Nazi Germany? Well, let’s talk about Hitler. Let’s talk about who really put Hitler into power. Let’s talk about who defended them until the war started, or virtually started. And the war was their purpose, in putting Hitler in there.
Let’s talk about what was done after the war, about how a few scapegoats and a few innocent Germans were crushed, but the real perpetrators were never touched.
Think about the words “Never again!’, which became a bad joke, because nobody ever stopped the people who were prepared to do it again, on a larger scale. The same Harrimans, the same Darwins and Huxleys in Britain; the same Morgans, the same Bushes, Prescott’s son, George, who put Hitler into power before, who perpetrated that to which we said ‘never again’ at the end of the war; they’re doing it again. And they have a lot of people lined up behind them, to support them in these ventures, as you can read in any newspaper, or see whenever you see Jane Fonda on the television screen.”
They’re the other side. That is the enemy. Those are people who have gone over to the enemy. We don’t wish to hurt them in any way, unnecessarily. And, more important, what they represent, their ideas, are the enemy. And, we see in the Cairo conference, in the projected Copenhagen conference, in the projected Beijing conference, we see the threat to perpetrate something upon the human race, which makes the Hitler event, seem mild by comparison.
There is a mood in this world, as we’ve seen against the Cairo Conference, not only to stop that evil, but to say there has to be an alternative. And, our job is to make that alternative clear, and get people mobilized to start to build that bridge.