Introduction by Dennis King (June 2009): In the late 1970s, LaRouche set forth an utterly mad scheme (which he has never repudiated) to conquer the world beginning with countries where he believed an oligarchy of mostly Jewish families had a dominant influence. In his earliest version, this was to be accomplished through "ABC warfare"--the combined use of atomic, bacteriological and chemical weapons. In the following decade, while currying favor with a number of former Nazi German soldiers and scientists, he began to advocate the development of electromagnetic weapons that hypothetically could turn the Soviet Union into a microwave oven, thus enabling a German-American axis to "dominate this planet." (LaRouche's former science advisor, Dr. Steve Bardwell, who quit the organization in 1984, would write that LaRouche had also speculated about using "cobalt bombs with fans"; read here.)
The example presented below of LaRouche's military writings (with my running commentary) is the second part of a two-part article; the first part, published in New Solidarity on Sept. 8, 1978, is devoted to denying the Holocaust and fulminating against Jewish-surnamed plotters based in London. The display of extreme militarism in this and other LaRouche tracts from the Cold War era (as well as in LaRouche's militaristic rants in the 1990s, after the end of the Cold War, that were designed to encourage a new round of death squad activities and coups in Latin America to save the continent from Felix Rohatyn, George Soros, the Rothschilds and the Windsors) calls into question LaRouche's recent U.S. campus-oriented opposition to the Iraq war, which some observers (including myself) believe he adopted only to whip up hatred of Zionism and attract recruits to his movement from the increasingly conspiracy-minded and irrational American left.
As well as advocating singularly unpleasant military and political ideas, this article appears to express sadistic personal fantasies that had long knocked around in the lumber room of LaRouche's mind. These fantasies--the bizarreness of which I have attempted to capture by adding certain sci-fi and early Cold War photos and artwork--are best compared to
those in Norman Spinrad's award-winning The Iron Dream (1972), a novel that purports to reproduce writings by an alternate-universe version of Hitler who never rose to power but instead emigrated to the United States in 1919 and expressed his malignancy through the medium of science-fiction. (Humorless West German bureaucrats banned Spinrad's obviously anti-Nazi satire as youth-oriented hate literature between 1982-1990, while allowing Lyn and Helga LaRouche to disseminate anti-Semitic propaganda to young Germans with impunity.)
The article is also rich in examples of just how appallingly ignorant LaRouche is of the subjects on which he pontificates (especially military and political history), how he employs "British" as a euphemism for the Jews (his use of the word in referring to the so-called Doctor's Plot in the Soviet Union should open some eyes about this), how he appears anxious that his followers not investigate the views of academic scholars on the topics he has laid down the law on, and how his grandiosity and extreme narcissism permeate everything he writes.
I hope that the evidence in the below tract of LaRouche's fondness for apocalyptic military scenarios will wake up a few college students who've attended LaRouche Youth Movement meetings, have heard a deceptive, sanitized version of the cult's ideology, and are agonizing over whether to drop out of school and work full-time for LaRouche's version of "peace." Their non-LaRouchian friends should get them to read the below, and I urge all college students concerned about the growth of the LYM to link to this article on FaceBook, blogs, and online forums as a way of helping to inoculate students who haven't yet, but will, encounter LYM literature tables on their campus.
The bolded and italicized material in brackets is my commentary. The illustrations/captions and the highlighting of key passages in LaRouche's text have also been added by me. And I've changed a few paragraph breaks for formatting reasons. Everything else is pure Lyndon--and you can check the accuracy of the text against a PDF of the original New Solidarity version here.
How The USA Would Lose World War III
The policy roots of the war-losing trend in current U.S.-NATO doctrines and capabilities is the current NATO MC 14-4 and related doctrines of "flexible response." By the presumption that war-fighting between the principal forces of the USA and Soviet Union will escalate no further than to converge, asymptotically, on full deployment of maximum strategic ABC capabilities, the "flexible response" and related doctrines obsessively ignore the shifting ratios of in-depth war-fighting capabilities in a war which begins with full-scale deployment of strategic ABC capabilities.
[For once, LaRouche gets to the point right away. He is arguing--as can be seen in his elaboration below--that any war between the Soviet Union and the West will inevitably and instantly escalate to maximum violence,
and therefore any provisions for a flexible response are suicidal and treasonous. Note how he stacks the deck by claiming that U.S.-NATO doctrine is based on the "presumption" that such war "will" (not "may," but "will") "escalate no further than..."
He offers no proof for this dogmatic assertion. In fact, the U.S. and the Soviet Union both made provision for the possibility of total escalation--that's what the nuclear armed submarine fleets (among other things) were all about--but both sides also planned for a wide range of less risky options ranging from low intensity warfare through conventional tank and air warfare through carefully targeted use of low-yield nuclear weapons. Leaders of the two superpowers regarded all-out nuclear war as the absolute last resort.]
In consequence, debates over U.S. and NATO military postures and capabilities is limited to issues of "rough parity," and only considers those matters as they are defined within the framework of assumptions axiomatic to "flexible response." [Again he's stacking the deck by claiming that the U.S. and NATO "only" think in terms of flexible response.] The issues considered are chiefly twofold. On one side, as with the SALT negotiations and related areas, the question is one of establishing parity in strategic ABC and related capabilities. On the other side, the issues focus on maintaining a marginal advantage of nuclear-augmented "conventional warfare" capabilities within the framework of "rough parity" as defined by "flexible response."
Occasionally, as again recently, critics of U.S. policy propose new emphasis on "passive" forms of civil defense measures. Although such proposals bear nominally upon some of the crucial areas of strategic capabilities ordinarily neglected of late, the policies proposed publicly so far on this matter are disgustingly pathetic in their incompetence--as we shall show summarily and conclusively.
[LaRouche appears to suggest here that he is far above mortal men--including those "disgustingly pathetic" wretches who work in the Pentagon--and has a unique ability to grasp the military truth with utter certitude. However, his personal military experience is solely comprised of (a) several months as a noncombatant private in the final months of World War Two and (b) directing his followers (from the safety of his apartment) in Operation Mop-Up--a series of street ambushes of Communist Party members, and violent attacks on their meetings, in several U.S. cities in 1973 (LaRouche called off this campaign "summarily and conclusively" when the other side formed defense squads and began to fight back).]
Warfare in any age has a certain general range of technology. This technology defines a kind of "geometry" of warfare, within whose terms the standard, competent strategic doctrines and battlefield tactics of that interval of history are properly defined. A power must pursue a double sort of strategic policy. It must develop an optimal capability in terms of the existing "geometry" of warfare. It must also pioneer to develop new capabilities of warfare, and to gain a decisive advantage by gaining priority in entering into a more advanced geometry of warfare capabilities.
[Is LaRouche qualified to talk about the geometry of anything? In a 2008 article here, he describes his "rejection of Euclid" at his "first classroom encounter with that dogma," his "virtually allergic rejection" of Analytic Geometry during high school and college, and his "adolescent years' virtual 'guerrilla war' against the cult of Euclidean geometry."
He claims that he had already become aware--even before taking plane geometry in high school--of a higher geometry that rendered ordinary Euclidean geometry useless and indeed evil. He had learned this, he writes, by observing structural ship beams during trips to the Boston Navy Yard and had become firmly convinced of it by reading Gottfried Leibniz in the high school library--an experience that supposedly freed his mind to "explore the real universe outside the pit of conventional indoctrination." He also says he rejected Solid Geometry, Analytic Geometry and "the perverted, Cauchy version of the Differential Calculus" on the same grounds.
The Boston Navy Yard during World War Two.If nothing else, this could be regarded as an especially imaginative teenage excuse for bad grades (even better than my own attempt to persuade my parents circa 1957 that my mutant brain couldn't be bothered with algebra--a ploy that resulted in my s-f collection disappearing into the garbage bin). But such a rejection of basic principles would definitely not be good for waging total war. For without "conventional" Euclidean geometry and "conventional" calculus it would be difficult to guarantee that a missile aimed at Moscow, capital of the former USSR, doesn't land on Moscow, Idaho instead. As to LaRouche's classroom war in the 1930s against his geometry teachers and other authority figures (assuming that such clashes ever took place), one could say that he was still at it in the late 1970s, claiming that the U.S. military brass were too stupid to comprehend his awesome geometric insights.
And by the way, the stuff about my own high school years is a fabrication, except for the fact that I received mediocre grades in algebra. I slipped in this story just to demonstrate how easy it is for oldsters to make things up about their early years in order to gain the attention of, amuse, impress and/or manipulate the young people in their environment.]
According to the existing geometry of warfare between powers, the order of warfare for general war between the USA-NATO and Soviet-Warsaw Pact forces is rigorously predetermined. Neither power dare deviate from that order of warfare, lest, by so doing, he donate a decisive margin of war-winning potential to the other.
[The idea of "rigorous predetermination" in warfare is absurd. It blithely discounts the "fog" and "friction" of war (not to speak of Murphy's law), the political constraints under which military commanders operate, the unpredictable choices to which both political and military leaders are prone, the existence on each side of secret weapons that the other doesn't know about, and a host of other factors.
No military professional would agree with LaRouche's statement, and his unofficial military advisor, former West German naval cadet Uwe Henke von Parpart, must have suffered an acute pang of embarrassment when he read it.]
The geometry of general warfare between the powers at this juncture is thermonuclear war.The essential distinction of contemporary thermonuclear war is the bombardment of the logistical (e.g., population) centers of the adversary's homeland by saturation with ABC (atomic, biological, chemical) weapons bombardment. If the two powers have a rough parity of other forces, the nation which suffers the lesser destruction of its homeland during the "Hour One" ABC strategic bombardment has gained at that moment the decisive margin of in-depth war-winning potential. [Although LaRouche refers here to ABC warfare within the context of an ersatz theoretical discussion, he will, later in the article, reveal clearly his own dream of using such military resources to conquer the world and exterminate the "oligarchy."]
From the Soviet side, their commanders have no option but to deploy all the available ABC capability dedicated to the logistical centers of the United States, Canada, and Great Britain, as the first act of general warfare on their part. ["No option but...?" There's ALWAYS more than one option in warfare--like backing down (which Khrushchev did during the Cuban missile crisis), choosing to fight a conventional war WITHOUT the use of nuclear weapons, using only tactical nukes, or using strategic nukes but NOT chemical and bacteriological weapons.] Since the U.S. commanders must respond to the same effect against Soviet territory at no later a point than first detection of Soviet strategic liftoff, neither side's rational commanders will dedicate any strategic weapons to counterforce action against adversary (empty) missile silos.
According to available best current estimates, the penalty suffered by the Soviet homeland will be upwards of 30 percent, the approximate ratio of penalty cumulatively endured by the Soviet Union during World War II. The penalty suffered by the United States will be upwards of between 50 and 60 percent; Soviet calculations must therefore premise Soviet-Warsaw Pact war-winning capability in depth on the combination of first-line forces' rough parity and the qualitatively higher rate of ABC strategic attrition suffered by the USA, Canada, and Britain in consequence of Hour One bombardment.
[LaRouche estimates in another of his late 1970s military tracts that 120 million to 180 million Americans would be killed in the initial nuclear exchange. Still, he boasts that he would be a war-winning President, and argues that the key to victory, i.e., to the domination of the entire planet (see below), would be the all-out use of nuclear, chemical and bacteriological weapons. It would appear that LaRouche's military fantasies are a symptom of his extreme narcissism--of his inability to regard other human beings as anything more that instruments for achieving the triumph of his own will.]
There are three zones of warfare for the conduct of general thermonuclear war. Zone One, the in-depth capabilities of adversary homelands. Zone Two, adversary naval forces and bases outside Zone Three. Zone Three, theaters of ground warfare. The essential distinction is that adversary terrain in Zone Three is viewed as accessible to ground-forces' occupation and pacification within a relatively brief period of war-fighting following Hour One bombardment.
In Zone Three, typified by the European theater of warfare, a self-interested Soviet policy prescribes ABC neutralization of civilian rear-echelon zones and military bases in those zones by selective bombardment, adequate to neutralize mllitary support capabilities for the period prior to their anticipated occupation, but not with the scale of lasting devastation imposed upon the USA, Canada, and Britain. As pre-assault bombardment targets approach the frontal zone of combat, the intensity is increased, including the creation of an ABC-saturated "dead zone" in a band representing front lines of deployment of adversary (NATO) forces.
For the case of included warfare with China, Soviet self-interested policy dictates a different approach. No significant ground-forces deployment for occupation of China is indicated for the initial period of warfare. ABC neutralization of key industrial capabilities and military forces' concentrations is indicated as for warfare in the European theater. However, the character and specific vulnerabilities of a relatively backward China dictates emphasis upon suitable ABC weapons, mainly biological and chemical weapons. Striking at key urban-logistical capabilities and introducing chaos and confusion into the Chinese population will neutralize China's capabilities for deploying forces beyond its borders. [For insight into LaRouche's views on the relative worthlessness of Chinese lives, read here and here.]
Although China has a significant component of modern warfare capabilities, the emphasis on labor-intensive forms of production in most of the population, the low social productivities of the Chinese population and nation as a whole, reduce the economic and military potential of the Chinese nation approximately in proportion to the ratios of social productivity between the Chinese and Soviet economies. A surgically precise approach to exploiting the crucial weaknesses of the Chinese economy and related military capabilities effects a defeat of China with a relatively economical deployment of forces.
["Surgically precise" was one of LaRouche's favorite phrases in the late 1970s as he began to cozy up to security officials in various countries, presuming to advise them on how to wipe out leftwing terrorists and to also crush noncombatant political dissidents and environmentalists whom he defined as part of the terrorists' "support networks." Read here a sample of this rhetoric from a sales brochure in which LaRouche promotes his services as a self-styled counterterrorism expert.]
The only deviations of Soviet strategic deployment against China would be those based on a Soviet wish to aid an insurrection against the Peking regime. However, Soviet self-interests would be the overriding consideration.
For such a war, the proposal for U.S. "passive" civil defense measures is pathetically incompetent. Passive civil defense means such measures as evacuation programs, shelters, redeployments of populations and logistical resources, and protective measures for existing machinery and plant. The Soviet relative advantage in passive civil defense is coordinate with Soviet geography. However, it is not merely geography. Since the 1920s, Soviet economic and military policy have been substantially coordinate in exploiting the passive civil-defense potentials of Soviet geography. This policy was key to Soviet counteroffensive capabilities during World War II, and has been pursued subsequently with thermonuclear war in view.
A passive civil-defense capability would have to be built into the infrastructure of the U.S., involving capital-formation ratios exceeding anything in our national experience, even were the target date for accomplishment in the order of a decade ahead. Available short-term measures would provide only marginal benefits.
The only policy route for effective civil defense of the United States is active civil defense. ICBMs and related weapons must be neutralized in flight. Such weapons cannot, generally, be caught on the ground prior to deployment; they must be neutralized in flight. Countermissiles may contribute marginally to this end, but counter-countermissile measures are available to the attacker. The development of beam weapons is the only reliable centerpiece for a competent active civil-defense policy in sight. Such weapons are feasible in terms of existing or imminently creatable physics, and provide the kind of effectiveness required.
[In the abstract this sounds sensible, but historically it was based on a false premise--that an anti-missile defense system was feasible in 1978 based on "existing or imminently creatable physics." In spite of massive spending, the U.S. never came even close to developing such a system before the fall of Soviet communism in 1991--and even today, 18 years later, the U.S. only has a very modest and unreliable technology for achieving these aims.]
Why, then, did British intelligence (IISS) deploy such an immediate, massive international slander-campaign against Major-General Keegan and the U.S. Labor Party scientists collaborating with him in presenting the beam-weapon capability? The case of James R. Schlesinger exemplifies the way in which pro-oligarchist agents within the U.S. government and other institutions have created the present trend toward war-losing capabilities of combined NATO-USA forces.
[British intelligence is composed of two agencies: MI5 and MI6. The entity LaRouche falsely identifies as such is the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), which he elsewhere describes as a tool of the Rothschild family. In other words "British" once again equals the Elders of Zion in LaRouche's propaganda.
The accusation that James R. Schlesinger (Defense Secretary under Nixon and Ford, Energy Secretary under Carter) "exemplifie[d]" the alleged treason of "pro-oligarchist" (i.e., pro-"British") "agents within the U.S. government" was an allusion to Schlesinger's Jewish background (he converted to Christianity as a young man).
As to the late Air Force Major-General George J. Keegan, who was retired at the time he encountered the LaRouchians, he ended up staunchly denouncing them (The New Republic, Nov. 19, 1984, p. 20).]
The emerging margins of potential Soviet war-winning advantage flow, on their side, from an emphasis on basic scientific progress qualitatively greater than those which had existed for a decade in NATO and allied nations, and from the developing of military capabilities according to a competent doctrine. These sources of potential Soviet advantage are enriched from the U.S.-NATO side by the "environmentalist" movement, by the effects of supporting IMF and World Bank policies' effects on capital-formation and world-trade ratios in the capitalist sector, and by a degradation in U.S.-NATO policy thinking and capabilities correlated with the emergence of "flexible response" doctrines. While the relative trend in Soviet in-depth capabilities is upward, and shaped by a competent doctrine, U.S.-NATO trends are relatively downward and shaped by an incompetent doctrine.
The trend is luridly underscored by the "all-volunteer army." Against the crucial issue of actual thermonuclear war, in-depth capabilities, the "all-volunteer army" policy is exemplary of a trend toward no in-depth capabilities.
It is of no use to pretend that the condition of the U.S. Army is a precious military secret to be hidden from the Soviet command. USA once again means "Useless Sons Accommodated." The recruitment program depends upon attracting those ghetto and white poor which a decaying internal U.S. industrial economy has, in effect, shoved toward the social-discard heap. The drug problem of U.S. forces is openly advertised on the public streets of West Germany.
The point is not that ghetto and white poor should not be inducted into military service. Apart from the shocking effects of the prolonged U.S. depression, which made so many poor youth unqualified for military service during World War II, the assimilation of the poor into the U.S. forces, together with other young citizens, had a beneficial, upward-leveling effect upon the poor. The problem is not that the army is recruiting from the poor, but that it is recruiting largely from the poor, to the point that it is tending to become a drug-ridden ghetto.
[I doubt that many readers will dispute the fact that LaRouche is using "ghetto" as a code word for black folks. Why then should it be difficult to recognize LaRouche's equally obvious use of euphemisms such as "Shylock," "Venetian," or "Zionist-British organism" to refer to the Jews?]
At best, an "all-volunteer" military force converges on becoming a mercenary force, and reflects this condition in developing oligarchist military doctrines and capabilities.
[Although it is clear from the paragraphs above that LaRouche wants to bring back the draft, he himself avoided it from 1941 to 1944 by claiming to be a conscientious objector. In his 1979 autobiography The Power of Reason, he would claim he did this only to please his Quaker parents. If this is true, it means he committed fraud when he registered as a CO--although this became a moot point when he enlisted as a noncombatant.
Dionysian youth drafted into Lyn's army.As to the highly educated young men that LaRouche recruited to his cult in the late 1960s and early 1970s, most of them were never drafted for the Vietnam war because of their student and other deferments. Nothing wrong with that, but LaRouche's roping them into advocacy of a new draft system--less than a decade later--for the supposed civic education of a younger generation is yet another example of how he implicates his disciples in hypocritical stances until they don't know which end is up.]
The issue of active civil defense illustrates the way in which Schlesinger's antiscience policies, his zero-growth policies agree precisely with his "flexible response" and related military policies. If the reality of thermonuclear war is faced, then active civil defense becomes of the highest priority. The sort of broadly based scientific research and development efforts which produces a by-product beam-weapons capability becomes national economic policy. The continuing capability of the USA to maintain strategic parity with Soviet forces depends, in fact, on just such a national economic policy.
Such a national economic policy repudiates every policy with which Schlesinger has been associated since the publication of his 1960 book. Conversely, the maintenance of the zero-growth policies which Schlesinger obsessively advocates demands the self-consoling delusions of "flexible response."
It ought to be clear that the better the U.S.-NATO forces succeed in developing a marginal potential advantage for warfare fought according to "flexible response" doctrines, the more the Soviet commanders are obliged to nullify that capability by adhering to the order of warfare in which they have the marginal, in-depth war-winning advantage.
[This makes no sense at all. The Soviets had flexible response capabilities of their own: Would LaRouche have had the United States NOT build up its conventional forces simply because the Soviets might then build more missile launching pads? LaRouche apparently was advocating giving in to nuclear blackmail, which totally contradicts both the doctrine of massive retaliation he purported to champion and his posturing and posing as the new Alexander the Great.
Also, LaRouche's one-sided emphasis on massive retaliation shows just how outdated his information on military affairs was--as if he'd hastily read a few pages of some book on nuclear warfare in 1958 and then fallen asleep only to awaken 20 years later.
The doctrine of massive retaliation had developed out of the political and economic realities of American society in the 1950s, with budgetary and turf wars between the Army and the Air Force playing a secondary role. Essentially,
the advocates of massive retaliation believed that one could stop the Soviets dead in their tracks by possessing the world's largest arsenal of nuclear weapons together with the world's best weapons delivery systems (an approach that would be far cheaper than maintaining an army the size of those in the communist bloc).
But this one-sided strategy was soon rendered untenable by the Soviet Union's adoption of arm's-length asymmetric warfare tactics based on the common-sense assumption that the United States would be unwilling to trigger nuclear holocaust just to win a brushfire war in some Third World country possessing a GDP less than North Dakota's. The result was that the U.S. military had to reorient its thinking to encompass flexible response--and this doctrine would be confirmed by the U.S. experience in Vietnam and the Soviet experience in Afghanistan where the existence of the directly engaged superpower's nuclear forces served only as one of several factors (and not necessarily the most important one) motivating the other superpower to limit itself to indirect engagement.
By the late 1970s, the need for flexible response as an indispensable supplement to--and in a sense, an operational shield against the need for--massive retaliation was well known to military professionals and had long been incorporated into doctrine and budgets. Read here what Major General John K. Singlaub (U.S. Army, ret.)--a veteran of World War Two, Korea and Vietnam who cannot by any stretch of the imagination be labeled as soft on communism--says in his memoirs about the history of the flexible response versus massive retaliation debate.]
How is Schlesinger's policy explained? Who, really, is James R. Schlesinger? Who, better ask, was Harvard's William Yandell Elliott? Who is Henry A. Kissinger, who is Zbigniew Brzezinski, who is Admiral Stansfield Turner? What is the London Round Table? What is the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA)? What is the London International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS)? What is a Rhodes scholarship? What is Rothschild? What is Warburg? What is Lehman Brothers? What is Barings? What is Rupert Murdoch?
[WHAT is Rothchild? WHAT is Warburg? The implication is that they are not human, and indeed LaRouche has stated in other essays that he regards the "oligarchical" bankers--especially the "British" ones--as being the leaders of an alien species at war with the human race.]
Schlesinger is, like Henry A. Kissinger, a protege of oligarchist Fritz Kraemer. He is essentially an oligarchist, an agent of the Black Maltese, of the British monarchy--he is an agent of the force which has been consistently the chief adversary of the United States since the American Revolution. He is dedicated not to the vital interests of the United States, but to shaping the configuration of world and natlonal developments to the purpose of securing world dictatorship--over as much of the world as survives war--by the oligarchist, Black Maltese forces. [Schlesinger, Kissinger, British agents, Black Maltese forces, the oligarchists...these are all euphemisms.]
Consider the doctrine which General Maxwell Taylor brought back from his reeducation by the British, the policy which was presumed to show new ways to victory through such adventures on the geopolitical rim as Vietnam. Was Taylor an American or British? In policy, he was British, not American. What of the policy which the Council on Foreign Relations employed Gordon Dean to ghostwrite for Henry A. Kissinger? That, too, was British doctrine, written on behalf of a British-trained agent returned from brainwashing at the Tavistock Institute, after a stint under British, anti-American agent William Yandell Elliott at Harvard.
[Maxwell Tayor "reeducated" by the British? Sounds to me like General Erich Ludendorff's theory about the "conditioning" of gentiles to become "artificial Jews" (read here).]
Once the whole matter is viewed from the vantage point of American Federalist-Whig military and economic policies, with knowledge of oligarchical policies, the true loyalties of such wretched creatures as Kissinger, Schlesinger, Daniel Ellsberg, et al. become clear. [Three named traitors--and all of Jewish descent. Once again LaRouche has given us a peek at his inner Hitler. And read here what he had in mind, circa 1978, for American Jewry in general.]
British Geopolitics
The adversary relationship between the USA and Soviet Union does not exist because we examined our most vital interests and so discovered the Soviet Union to be an adversary of those interests. Exactly the opposite. Since foolish, peppery Harry S. Truman and his anglophile "Svengali," Jimmy Byrnes, we have started from Winston Churchill's axiomatic assertion that the Soviet Union is inherently our adversary--because Churchill told us so--and have defined our interest as that which does injury to the Soviet Union. We are prepared to do battle with the Soviet Union, because that is the way in which our British masters have arranged the football schedule.
The United States was founded as a nation dedicated to the fostering of scientific and technological progress domestically, and, in foreign policy, to seeking a community of principle with other nations dedicated to that same principle. It was our desire that such nations become aggregately a hegemonic force globally, eradicating the last vestiges of the oligarchical power and policies then typified by the evil British monarchy. That is the United States, and anyone who has sworn an oath to the Constitution is obliged either to stick to that policy or to resign his commission or other office.
[Eradicate the "last vestiges..."? Of the "oligarchical power...typified by the evil British monarchy..."? An illustration that appeared in New Solidarity the following month, showing a Star of David with Queen Elizabeth at the top flanked by two Jews, makes LaRouche's intent perfectly clear.]
There is one current in the leadership of the Soviet Union which is committed to defining economic and political agreement with us according to those U.S. principles, of fostering global scientific and technological progress at the expense of the evil typified by the British monarchy. It is our vital national interest, therefore, to act to strengthen the credibility of that Soviet current with its own people, by cooperating with that current according to such principles.
There are also other currents in the Soviet leading strata, currents which define "socialist" and the interests of the Soviet Union in the Jacobin tradition of Danton, Marat, Robespierre, Jeremy Bentham, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. These currents are intrinsically our enemies, representing ultimately the same oligarchical outlook as the Black Maltese or the current crop of lunatics controlling Peking. These include the contemporary "Bukharinists" and irrationalist currents among hard-liners.
It happens that President Leonid Brezhnev has concluded the policy we should desire of him, in his May 1978 accords with Chancellor Helmut Schmidt. This was not an isolated occurrence. Pope Paul VI contributed greatly to this development, as had the Gaullists and President Giscard d'Estaing of France. Although the Japanese are not great enthusiasts of the Soviet Union, they had also contributed crucially in more ways than in negotiations concerning Siberian development. Brezhnev embraced the doctrine of the Great Design, and articulated that policy repeatedly, during and after the "summit," in terms which correspond rationally and fully with vital Soviet interests in internal economic progress and general peace.
The term "Great Design" in European usage is immediately associated with the work of Gottfried Leibniz and France's Henri IV. It is also associated with Frederick II Hohenstaufen of the Holy Roman Empire, and with the ecumenical policies of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa. It was the policy which governed the cooperation of French and Americans in the American Revolution, including the organization of the League of Armed Neutrality. It was the basis for the alliance between Lincoln and Czar Alexander II.
lt signifies, first of all, that under conditions that nations cooperate economically to bring the world under the domination of a policy of forced scientific and technological development, that the mutual benefits accruing to each participating nation are a greater increase of gross and per-capita wealth among each nation than each nation could accomplish by itself. This benefit becomes the actively expressed vital interest of those nations, a commonality of interest in cooperation which binds them to political cooperation in serving a common global purpose.
This policy is pursued with the knowledge that more than merely a commonality of material interests is fostered. By creating a climate among peoples determined by forced scientific and technological progress, the emphasis thus placed upon the development of the creative-mental potentialities of the individual, and upon the realization of the benefits of the individual's powers of innovation, create within individuals and in relations among individuals and nations those moral commitments and qualities which we associate with humanist republics. [To find out what LaRouche really means when he talks about "humanist republics," read here and here.]
It is the United States' most vital interest to pursue such a policy, if necessary, resorting to war to remove stubborn obstacles to its realization.
[LaRouche is saying that if he ever became President he would militarily crush, as "stubborn obstacles," certain unnamed peoples and governments if they objected to his program of "forced scientific and technological progress" or if they refused to accept the so-called "moral commitments and qualities which we [the imperial "we," i.e., LaRouche] associate with humanist republics."
And yet this same LaRouche presumed, in March 2003, to hold a "peace" conference in Germany to denounce George Bush's pending invasion of Iraq--an invasion which, although it may have been based in part on faulty intelligence estimates, came in the aftermath of a savage attack on the United States and was aimed at a dictator whose crimes were far more tangible than simply disagreeing with Lyndon LaRouche. And, oh, at the 2003 conference there was a "stubborn obstacle" named Jeremiah Duggan who refused to get with LaRouche's program. Read here about what happened to Jeremiah.]
The British have an opposite policy. During the 20th century, this policy is associated with a specific doctrine known as geopolitics. That doctrine was developed by a team of Lord Milner, the Webbs, Halford Mackinder, and others, and is the same doctrine articulated by Major-General Professor Karl Haushofer and by Haushofer's protege, Adolf Hitler. The two world wars of this century have been caused by British efforts to implement that geopolitical doctrine. The threat of World War III, in which China replaces Germany in British strategic schemes, arises solely from the influence of that doctrine over U.S. policy-making, and for no other reason.
[LaRouche is saying, in other words, that Britain, not Germany, was the aggressor in World War Two, and that Britain and its U.S. puppet, not the Soviet Union, were the real threat to world peace circa 1978. Why then, does he advocate the gruesome idea of an atomic, bacteriological and chemical drang nach osten? It would appear that the voices in Lyndon's head do not communicate with each other very well.]
Most of the academic argument employed by apologists for geopolitical doctrines is really mumbo-jumbo for the edification of the foolishly credulous. The true basis for the damnable doctrine is really quite simple. Since the formation of the League of Armed Neutrality in 1780, the British monarchy's principal, continuing fear has been that an alliance of economic cooperation, based on fostering scientific and technological progress, would develop among France, Germany, and Russia. There is no other true reason for all the gobbledygook offered in the pretext of arriving "objectively" at the discovery of the significance of the Eurasian "heartland's" allegedly magical properties.
The British designers of "geopolitics" had the potential success of Hanotaux's and Witte's efforts directly in view, as Milner, the Webbs, et al. first formulated the geopolitical doctrine at the onset of this century. Also, they recalled not only 1780-1783, but what might have come of cooperation between Napoleon and Russia's Czar Paul I if the British intelligence services had not successfully assassinated Paul I. (Watch carefully the British doctors gathered amiably around Russian heads of state!)
[This is a sly allusion--once again using "British" as a code word--to the so-called doctors' plot of 1952-53, when a number of Jewish physicians in the Soviet Union were falsely accused of plotting to poison Stalin and other Soviet leaders. The allegations resulted in the arrest and either the execution or imprisonment of hundreds of individuals, with some being tortured to obtain confessions.
"Evidence of a crime" (cartoon from the Soviet magazine Krokodil, Jan. 1953) shows Jewish doctor in strong grip of Stalin's secret police. The issue also contained attacks on Western bankers, the Nazis, the Vatican and the "Zionist conspiracy."Fortunately, Stalin died on March 5, 1953 before he could extend the crackdown to Soviet Jewry in general, and his successors soon admitted that the charges against the doctors had been fabricated. This reversal of policy did not take place because Khrushchev, Malenkov et al. were fond of the Jewish community but because they recognized that Stalin had been planning to use the affair as an excuse to launch a Communist Party purge in which they themselves might also have been killed.]
The British had suffered their most disastrous defeat of the 19th century in 1863, as 35 years of subversion of the United States was blown away through the Lincoln alliance with Czar Alexander II.
That was the reason the British organized the damnable Balkan disturbances preceding World War I, and why World War I occurred--granting that the westward drive of Germany reflected a bad miscalculation by the British. Although the Black Maltese did in fact organize the February 1917 Revolution, Lenin's capabilities represented another point of miscalculation on the British-Maltese part. Instead of a Russia tucked nicely into Barings', Rothschild's and Samuel's portfolios, and the carving-away of Eastern Europe, the Ukraine and Caucasus, as the Britsih [sic] had planned to accomplish through their version of the Russian revolution, Lenin created a unified Russia potentially a more difficult adversary for London than Czar Alexander II had been.
[LaRouche says the "British" and the "Black Maltese" organized the February Revolution, but when he gets specific, it's the Baring, Rothschild and Samuel families (two out of three Jewish). I should note that in a Feb. 3, 1978 New Solidarity article ("Anti-Dirigism Is British Tory Propaganda"), LaRouche had openly defined "Britain" as being the "family interests of the Lazard Brothers, Barings, N.M. Rothschild, Hill Samuel, and other small private banking houses" (this time, three out of four of the named families are Jewish). Then there's LaRouche's 1977 book The Case of Walter Lippmann (Lippman: another Symbolic Evil Jew), in which the Rothschilds are depicted as pretty much ruling the roost alone; read here.]
Lenin lived long enough to deslgn the special mission for Soviet diplomat Chicherin which resulted in the Rapallo agreement. Every leading signator to that agreement in Western Europe soon died, usually assassinated, excepting Britain's own Lloyd George--some in terrorist operations prefiguring the British use of terrorists to assassinate Dresdner Bank's Jurgen Ponto and Mercedes Benz's Hanns-Martin Schleyer in 1977. (Please, dear reader, do not make an ass of yourself by pretending that you doubt that the British--which is to say Black Maltese-Zionist forces--did not murder Ponto and Schleyer!) [Ah, the magic hyphen: LaRouche wants to make sure that even the most dim-witted of his readers understand who the "British" REALLY are...]
The Rapallo intervention by Lenin not only revived British terror of French-German-Russian economic cooperation. Lenin's initiative produced enduring results in Germany, where sections of German industry and German military factions associated with von Seeckt kept the option alive, to be picked up by forces around von Schleicher. It is now freshly revived in the combination of the Bremen agreements and the May 1978 Schmidt-Brezhnev accords. France, Germany and the Soviet Union are in the process of reviving the policies of the authors of the League of Armed Neutrality.
[This is absurd. The League of Armed Neutrality was a brief alliance of minor naval powers in 1780-1783, initiated by Russia as a diplomatic bluff to induce the British navy to halt its policy of stopping neutral ships and searching them for French contraband. (As of 1978, the British were not at war with the French or anyone else, and were conducting no searches of the ships of other nations on the high seas.)
The May 1978 meeting between Brezhnev and West German chancellor Helmut Schmidt involved most notably a discussion of the Soviet deployment of medium range SS20 rockets, with Schmidt telling Brezhnev that this was creating an unacceptable imbalance, and Brezhnev suggesting his government might be willing to negotiate the issue. There is nothing here that is even remotely comparable to the purposes of a league formed 200 years earlier under vastly different circumstances. Indeed, Schmidt was pressing the interests of the Western alliance, INCLUDING Britain, AGAINST the Russians.
But that's not all: LaRouche, by praising the outcome of the Schmidt-Brezhnev meeting, actually ended up belying his own core thesis in this article: that flexible response is a treasonous delusion. I would bet, however, that he was blithely unaware of this contradiction. LaRouche customarily relies on the research of followers who are much better educated than he is, and often gives only cursory attention to their reports. He is thus prone to linking historical or current personages and events in bizarre combinations that have little or nothing to do with reality.
Unfortunately, when he recites a list of names of obscure and long-dead statesmen and philosophers, or slings around terms like "Schmidt-Brezhnev accords," "League of Armed Neutrality" and "Bretton Woods Agreements," it can sound quite profound to conspiracy-minded farmers in the Midwest, elderly widows or widowers whose minds are beginning to play tricks on them, and college freshmen looking for easy answers to the world's problems.]
It was for related reasons that top British secret-intelligence operative for Germany, Houston Chamberlain, endorsed the assignment of geopolitician Major-General Professor Karl Haushofer to groom Hitler and to write Hitler's Mein Kampf. (Let us not have any silly nonsense of objections on this matter; the record is overwhelmingly clear.) It was the Bavarian Wittelsbach apparatus which created Hitler, and which assigned Heinrich Himmler, Rudolf Hess, Ernst Roehm, Hermann Goering, and various other key figures to the project. The Wittelsbach household and semiautonomous state ot Bavaria were and had been British clients.
[LaRouche has a good reason for forbidding his followers to question the claim that Haushofer, a highly educated man, wrote Mein Kampf with the approval of British agent Chamberlain. The reason is that LaRouchians who are less than fully brainwashed might decide to do a little research on their own and discover just what unmitigated nonsense LaRouche is spouting. Hitler dictated his book to his secretary Rudolf Hess while in prison after the Beer Hall putsch, and the contents of that book obviously reflect the National Socialist leader's own oratorical style. But don't take my word for it: here's what biographer Robert Payne writes in The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler:
Mein Kampf he disdains any reasoned argument but repeats his ideas ad nauseam, loudly, firmly, unhesitatingly, until the reader becomes deafened and almost paralyzed by the harsh music of those limited ideas." [And who else does this description remind us of?]"Hitler dictated some of the opening chapters to his chauffeur, Emil Maurice, who had first come to his attention as a successful brawler in the early beer-hall meetings...but he had none of the makings of a good secretary. His position was taken over by Rudolf Hess...Like Maurice, he was one of those who first attracted Hitler's attention because he used his fists so successfully during the beer-house brawls. There the resemblance ended, for Hess had some pretensions to culture, had read widely, knew how to spell, and could put together a German sentence that was not entirely laughable...Hess' battered Remington typewriter could be heard at all hours of the day and night. The chapters were dictated, then read out at the regular meetings of the National Socialist prisoners, with Hitler inviting comments. Hitler was a speaker, not a writer, and most of the book reads like speeches taken down verbatim...Just as Hitler's speeches lack a sense of progression, for he is continually circling around a small, hard core of primitive ideas announced with complete conviction, so in
As to Houston Stewart Chamberlain, he was an English writer of anti-Semitic tracts who became a German citizen during World War One and was awarded the Iron Cross by Kaiser Wilhelm. The only evidence of Chamberlain being a "top British secret intelligence operative" is LaRouche's deductive reasoning based on the "hypothesis of the higher hypothesis" (the same method that also led LaRouche during the late 1970s to proclaim that Edgar Allen Poe had served as a top agent of a secret "Whig" intelligence organization in 19th century America, and that the philosopher Aristotle had poisoned Alexander the Great in 323 BC).
But if by some miracle LaRouche could come up with evidence that Chamberlain WAS a British agent, then LaRouche himself would have some explaining to do, since he cribbed ideas for his own anti-Semitic tract "The Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites" (1978) from Chamberlain's The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century (1899). I'm referring among other things to LaRouche's claim that "Persian agents" played a key role in defending the ancient usurious oligarchy against Plato, Alexander and their proto-LaRouchian "humanist" elite. Read here what Chamberlain wrote about the purported role of the ancient Jews as Persian agents.]
It was Prince Rupprecht and Haushofer who initiated the Hitler project in concert with British intelligence. It was the Warburgs and inside circles of British intelligence, including the Churchill circles, who ordered Hitler placed in the Chancellory, and S.G. Warburg, Schacht's patron, which dictated Hitler's 1933-1936 policies, the policies which led to the rest.
[The accusation that the Warburgs, a Jewish merchant banking family, put Hitler in power has a long history. Among other examples, anti-Semitic propagandist Dr. Mathilde Ludendorff (widow of General Erich Ludendorff) used it in 1950 to try to evade punishment by a de-Nazification court (one might describe this as the "Jews made us do it" defense...). Various far rightists have also claimed that the Warburgs conspired to help the Bolsheviks seize power in Russia in 1917. Just why the Warburgs would have wanted to do any of this has never been made clear.]
It was British circles which blocked the French from moving into the Rhineland in 1936, which saved Hitler from being overthrown in a 1938 Generals' Plot on the eve of the Czechoslovak occupation, and which ran the Western Front as a "phony war" until it became clear that Hitler could not, or would not, restrain his generals from moving westward before considering moving eastward.
It was Hitler's Chancellory which halted Guderian's tanks, permitting the Dunkirk evacuation. It was Hitler who saved England from German conquest by ordering Goering's "terror bombing" of London, and Hitler who went east without eliminating the British base in his western rear. It was Nazi Germany which declined to occupy the island of Malta, an inexplicable act strategically, but not astonishing if one knows the pedigree of Hitler and his inner circle.
[It is pretty clear from the above that LaRouche wishes the Germans had won on the Western front in World War Two. As to the Eastern front, LaRouche's complaint that "Hitler...went east without eliminating the British base in his western rear" suggests a disappointment that the Nazis didn't win on BOTH fronts. LaRouche provides a flimsy cover for his ultimately pro-Nazi stance by alleging that the "British" (the Jewish bankers in London along with S.G. Warburg, also Jewish) had manipulated their alleged puppet Hitler into making disastrous strategic decisions.
Allied troops being evacuated from Dunkirk in 1940. Most historians would say that the Royal Navy's rescue of the British Expeditionary Force was a great achievement that helped prepare the way for ultimate victory over Nazi barbarism. But LaRouche, once he'd convinced his followers that the British were a "hundred times worse than Hitler," could express (without creating strong dissent in the org) his disappointment that the Wehrmacht didn't get a chance to wipe out the Tommies on the beaches and thus force Britain to surrender.This theory, advanced in 1956 by the British anti-Semite Leonard Young (in Chap. 11 of his Deadlier Than the H-Bomb here), enables LaRouche to conveniently distance himself from Hitler without renouncing the German war effort itself. And the claim that the Jews launched Hitler on his deadly career carries the implication that they later got what they deserved.
Also the allegation that the Jews somehow influenced Hitler to make the mistakes that resulted in the Third Reich's downfall is reminiscent of the canard spread after the First World War by Hitler himself and General Erich Ludendorff--that Imperial Germany's defeat in 1918 had been the result of a "stab in the back" by the Jews.]
There was nothing absurd, excepting a matter of timing, in Rudolf Hess's flight to Scotland. This was undoubtedly ordered by Hitler. Nor is it surprising that the British should have brainwashed Hess, nor that Hess was not executed, but rather condemned to become the lone last prisoner in his prison.
Nor is it astonishing that Stalin refused to believe British warnings of an impending Wehrmacht assault. The assault was initially effective because Stalin correctly considered it strategically lunatic of Hitler to move eastward before eliminating Britain. Stalin also assumed wrongly, but for eminently sound reasons, that Churchill was disposed to attempt to provoke a premature war between the Soviet Union and Germany as a desperate gamble to save England. Stalin's error was in failing to understand what Hitler actually was, and consequently failing to understand the imminence of an assault that would have been utter Wehrmacht lunacy had Soviet forces been deployed according to the preestablished order of warfare for such a contingency.
[LaRouche essentially is saying in preceding paragraphs that it was a "British" (London Jewish bankers) and "Warburg" (U.S. and German Jewish bankers) conspiracy that set into motion the events that resulted in the death of 20 million Soviet citizens in World War Two. LaRouche had described in great detail the theory underlying this imputation in "Hitler: Runaway British Agent" (New Solidarity, Jan. 10, 1978); read it here.
At the time LaRouche published these accusations--which could fairly be described as a gigantic expansion of the Blood Libel--thousands of Soviet Jews were waging a desperate campaign to be allowed to emigrate to Israel. Indeed, only a few weeks prior to the publication of "A Return to Federalist-Whig Military Policy," a Soviet court had convicted Natan Sharansky, a leader of the refusenik movement, of "treason" and sentenced him to 13 years in a Gulag labor camp.]
It is a matter of record that President Franklin Roosevelt moved against Churchill from the outset of World War II on this same issue. Sabotage from within the U.S. government and powerful policy institutions blocked Roosevelt to a significant degree. The Byrnes nomination of his protege, Harry S. Truman, to the vice-presidential nomination for the 1944 election laid the seeds for future disaster, as, shortly after his inauguration Roosevelt died, leaving the Byrnes dupe in the White House. Churchill's "Cold War" policy, a central feature of a far broader subversion and manipulation of the United States, ensured that Roosevelt's postwar policy, for bringing Stalin into Great Design agreements with the United States, was wrecked.
[This is vintage LaRouche, trying to have his cake and eat it too. On the one hand, he's setting forth a scheme (of which the most rabid portions are yet to come in the final section below) to complete Hitler's unfinished business on the Eastern front; on the other hand, he's trying to appeal to the more nationalistic of the Soviet leaders to go along with a new world crusade against the "British." But Molotov-Ribbentrop Pacts are only useful if you're a great power. LaRouche received no wheat or oil from the Soviets, and they wouldn't even take his side against Gus Hall and the Communist Party USA.]
The fact that central Europe no longer has the potential for mounting an assault against the Soviet Union is key to many aspects of British policy. First, it is key to NATO policy. The U.S. ground forces in Germany are strategically a bad joke--and everyone close to the situation knows that. This state of affairs is not an oversight. The British know that NATO positions in Germany are untenable for the case of general warfare, and have only a subordinate strategic significance, a short-term secondary role in any general confrontation. No high-level, British or British-influenced policymaker currently cares about the in-depth combat capabilities of U.S. ground forces in Germany. [Here again LaRouche reveals his ignorance. By 1978, the U.S. Army was nearing completion of the development of the M1 Abrams tank. Superior to any of its Soviet counterparts, it began production in 1979 and would enter service in 1980.]
It is to be seriously doubted that even leading British circles actually believe that "flexible response" has the slightest correspondence to reality. It is virtually certain that some British top circles view "flexible response" as a deception operation.
The long-term British strategic objective is either to bluff the Soviets into submission, step by step, or, that failing, to arrange a Pacific-centered thermonuclear war, in which the United States and the Soviet Union, plus China, annihilate large portions of one another, leaving the surviving portions of the world under Black Maltese hegemony. The "China option," openly presented by the British and their agents as a "geopolitical" option, represents a certain kind of new design for the old geopolitical scenarios which set two previous world wars into motion.
[This is the type of thinking that lies behind LaRouche's oft-repeated phrase (usually accompanied by a picture of Henry Kissinger or some other Symbolic Evil Jew) that the "British" are a "hundred times worse than Hitler." And note that in the paragraph above the "British and their agents" are doing all this to place the world "under Black Maltese hegemony."
Now why would the "British" pass on the hegemony they have won to an obscure entity that no one outside the LaRouche movement has ever heard of? Apparently LaRouche is just shifting back and forth between euphemisms (like a fugitive shifting back and forth between different fake IDs) that all refer to one and the same alleged Jewish oligarchy.
Indeed, an examination of the first half of "A Return to Federalist-Whig Military Policy" (New Solidarity, Sept. 8, 1978) shows that LaRouche describes the "Black Maltese forces" in a manner virtually identical to his descriptions elsewhere of the "British": "The principal [Black Maltese] component, at the top level, is made up of a group of financier families associated with the modern continuation of the ancient Babylonian policy and practice of usurious tax-farming of the indebtedness of governments. The names Baring, Rothschild, Warburg, Oppenheimer, and the banking firms of Barclays, National Westminster, Lloyds and so forth typify these latter components."
Note that when LaRouche names the "financier families," three out of the four names are Jewish. Note also that LaRouche's list of "banking firms" with English-sounding names comes AFTER the list of merchant banking families (even though the assets of the firms were much greater than those of the named families).
It is unclear if LaRouche is suggesting that the named families control the named firms, but it doesn't really matter either way because he has clearly stated that the "principal component" of the Black Maltese conspiracy is a "group of financier FAMILIES," not a mixture of such families and impersonal banking and insurance institutions (in other words, LaRouche includes Lloyds, etc. in a manner that leaves intact his inputation that the Black Maltese--the "enemies of humanity," as he calls them--are a network of mostly Jewish banking families).
Note further that LaRouche traces the pedigree of the Black Maltese back thousands of years to usurers in Babylon. Although Lloyds of London and National Westminster didn't exist at that time, the Jewish people did (their chief center of life during the Captivity was Babylon, and many Jews would remain there for centuries).
This historical relationship of the Jews to Babylon has long served as a propaganda theme on the U.S. far right, and thus the neo-Nazis and Klansmen whom LaRouche was attempting to cultivate in the late 1970s would have instantly understood his reference to "Babylonian policy and practice."]
What has occurred in U.S. policy since the inauguration of shallow, peppery Harry S. Truman is that U.S. policy toward the Soviet Union is predominantly determined not in Washington, but in London. Instead of a U.S. Soviet policy based on first defining U.S. interests, and gauging Soviet policies and interests in respect to realization of such U.S. interests, London has predominantly determined U.S. Soviet policy. We are in that respect merely a "dumb giant" serving the British monarchy--as Lord Milner prescribed at the opening of this century. [Dumb gentiles being manipulated by those clever Jews? LaRouche has elsewhere described Lord Milner as a Rothschild agent.]
There have been important exceptions to this. The Eisenhower Atoms-for-Peace and the Nixon Administration's Rogers Plan are examples of an important thrust in correspondence with U.S. vital interests. The 1972 Nixon treaty with Brezhnev is potentially a very important addition to that list. Until we fully explore such matters as the Bronfman-backed Permindex entity, and its links to the Kennedy assassination, we must leave our minds open on the question whether Kennedy might have moved into a direction paralleling Eisenhower's and Nixon's.
[LaRouche is referring to the Bronfman family of World Jewish Congress fame. The Permindex scenario, as outlined in various LaRouchian tracts, also features Symbolic Evil Jew Roy Cohn and Symbolic Jewish Arch-Conspirator Louis Bloomfield (the latter was a Montreal lawyer and staunch Zionist who had helped train the Haganah in the 1930s while serving as a British Army officer). LaRouche's attempt to blame Kennedy's death on Jewish machinations was supplemented in other New Solidarity articles by allegations that President Lincoln, President Garfield, Jimmy Hoffa and assorted other notables, including medieval popes, had also been whacked by the Jews.]
The realities of history, including wars between nations which should not have fought one another at that time, warns us against the cheerful presumption that a proper U.S. policy, a Great Design policy, would guarantee against U.S. war with the Soviet Union. The "Bukharinites" in the Soviet Union are our nation's deadly enemies, degraded oligarchists in a Jacobin guise. If that force should come to power in the Soviet Union, relations between the powers would become most difficult.
However, if we adopt a policy consistent with the Great Design, and develop our military capabilities in accordance with the potentialities flowing from dirigist policies of scientific and technological progress, we have a policy which provides us with the most effective means for action in any eventuality.
The Tasks of The President
George Washington was a great President. John Quincy Adams did this nation service beyond the knowledge of most, in our foreign service, as Secretary of State, as President, and as the de facto President of the Whig forces, from behind the scenes, after 1828. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a powerful President, with some great moments, including the moment he described Lord Mountbatten to Churchill, as "that bastard."
[Apparently a bit of LaRouche's personal history is intruding here. Mountbatten was the Supreme Allied Commander of the South East Asia Command from 1943 to 1946, which would cover the brief period at the end of the war when LaRouche served as a medic and then as an ordnance clerk (or so he claims) within the South East Asia Theatre. What exactly happened to LaRouche in Burma and India? And why in the 1960s and 1970s (according to a person who was very close to him at the time) would he not avail himself of the free medical care available at VA hospitals?]
However, we have had no President to match Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln, flanked by such great figures as Henry C. Carey and William D. Kelley, was the nearest approximation of Plato's model of the "philosopher king" ever to occupy the presidency.
Harassed by a rump Democratic Party under the control of outright traitors, and hampered by traitors, especially the New York and Boston crews, within his Republican Party, he had to fight wisely for each degree of freedom of action he required. The loss of the aging Winfield Scott was a blow. Secretary of War Stanton sabotaged the prosecution of the war in many ways. Seward was largely a saboteur. Basing himself largely on the Midwestern Whigs, and the emergence of Whig generals such as Grant and Sherman, Lincoln saved the nation throught a dirigist mobilization of its industrial potentials, a republican military policy, and Federalist-Whig fiscal and monetary measures.
Lincoln's accomplishments, in the face of war from without and massive treason from within, are but the predicates of his character. As his writings exhibit, Lincoln was a Neoplatonic humanist, of an intellectual stature which no U.S. President since has even threatened to approximate. Without that special development of his intellectual powers, he could not have succeeded, and our nation could not have survived.
[Note how LaRouche defines Lincoln as a "Neoplatonic humanist," i.e., a proto-LaRouche. The reference to Lincoln having "an intellectual stature which no U.S. President since has even threatened to approximate" is really a false-modesty cover for suggesting that LaRouche could be such a President and could guarantee the survival of our nation in the crisis he repeatedly warned could strike at any time.]
Now, we have entered a period of U.S. history in which those same special qualities, the qualifications of a "philosopher king," are indispensable in the office if the nation is to be reasonably assured of getting successfully through the difficult period now before us. [Above, LaRouche called Lincoln a close approximation to a philosopher king, so it would appear that both the word "Lincoln" and the term "philosopher king" are euphemisms for LaRouche. Those who don't believe LaRouche uses code language, please take note.] We dare not risk another mediocrity such as a Ford or Carter in that office at this juncture, nor a semi-mediocrity like a Nixon, nor a man for the times, such as Eisenhower was.
[Actually Eisenhower studied deeply the writings of the Hegelian military theorist Karl von Clausewitz, and also read Plato, Nietzsche and other important thinkers, under the exacting tutelage of General Fox Conner while serving in Panama in the 1920s (read here). This places Ike on a significantly higher level of philosophical culture than LaRouche, who, according to former aides (and as evidenced by his own ignorant and confused pronouncements on philosophy), has never seriously studied any of the thinkers whose names he is so fond of citing.]
We cannot, above all, tolerate immoral candidates of the sort who flitter hither and yon in efforts to find points of agreement with each important constituent of a mutually contradictory consensus, "a candidate for all of the factions all of the time." [Yet another hypocritical remark from a man who at the time was forging alliances with Klansmen and African-American community leaders on parallel tracks, and who was also cozying up to Mafia dons while claiming to be the leader of a national "anti-drug" crusade.]
This is a period of grave crisis. Our elected officials are no longer selected by the electorate, but in an increasing number of cases by vote frauds which range in the order of up to 15 percent or more of the vote recorded. The courts will, in general, not act to halt these fraudulent practices, dispensing with the evidence of such crimes as "mere irregularities." Legislatures, including the U.S. Congress, have so far refused to consider legislation which efficiently mandates the courts to overturn corrupt elections--too many officials either know or fear that their election, or an ally's election depended upon vote fraud.
This is no longer in fact a democratic republic. The controllers of vote fraud represent an oligarchy which selects the winning candidates, despite the voters. [This theory would serve the Philosopher King well in rationalizing away the miniscule vote totals he received in the 1980 Democratic Presidential primaries.]
Our youth are being destroyed by a drug-ridden, Dionysiac counterculture. Police in cities such as New York City are instructed to avoid arrest of drug users or drug pushers, even on the public streets, or before our public schools.
["Dionysiac" and "Dionysian" are among LaRouche's favorite terms of abuse, as they were also for Hitler's chief ideologue Alfred Rosenberg, who authored The Myth of the Twentieth Century (1930), served as Reich Minister for the Eastern Occupied Territories during the war, and was executed in 1946 after being found guilty at Nuremberg of crimes against humanity. A comparison of passages from the writings of Rosenberg and LaRouche can be found here.]
At this moment, despite the misconstrued and outrightly fraudulent official figures, we are sliding into a depression--with Treasury Secretary W.M. Blumenthal and Fed Chairman G.W. Miller overtly working to effect a collapse of the U.S. dollar and a deep depression. Blumenthal's office has even taken under serious study a proposal to liquidate the sovereignty of the United States, by placing the USA under "IMF conditions."
[This nonsense about a plot by the Federal Reserve Board and a Jewish-refugee-from-Hitler Treasury Secretary to destroy U.S. "sovereignty" was apparently crafted to appeal to elderly John Birch Society and Liberty Lobby members. These folks would be among the seniors whom LaRouche would relieve of their own financial sovereignty via his loan scams during the 1980s. But one wonders why LaRouche would be focussed on RETAINING America's sovereignty rather than REGAINING it, when he has already strongly implied that such sovereignty is long gone; e.g., his statement above that "We [the American people] are prepared to do battle with the Soviet Union, because that is the way in which out British masters have arranged the football schedule."]
At this moment of writing, the USA has no economic policy, no foreign economic policy, and is even--so far--unable to accept a rescue of the U.S. dollar and economy when our allies in France, Germany, Italy, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere beg us to accept this rescue.
What is U.S. policy? Read daily the elements of the British press directly controlled by British intelligence: Reuters news service, the London Times, the Financial Times, the London Economist, the London Observer, Daily Telegraph, the Beaverbrook press, the Murdoch press, the Thompson press. From this press compile the day's official line of British intelligence for U.S. domestic and foreign policies. Within 48 hours that same line will pour, printout fashion, from the mouths of Henry A. Kissinger, James R. Schlesinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and sundry representatives of what Capitol Hill terms the "Zionist Lobby." U.S. policy is, generally, what the British monarchy prescribes it to be.
[Basically LaRouche is saying above what the neo-Nazis and white supremacists proclaim in more direct language: that the U.S. government is actually the "Zionist Occupation Government" (ZOG). And we also see above what LaRouche really means when he fulminates about the "British agents" who allegedly infest our government from top to bottom. As described by LaRouche, this agent network is composed of two named Jews (although one of them is a convert to Christianity) plus the "Zionist lobby" plus a token gentile. And they supposedly are under the control of the same London oligarchy that, according to LaRouche, gives its marching orders to "British intelligence," the "British press," and even (presumably) Ms. Windsor herself.]
Our military policy is sheer lunacy. Our deteriorating relative capabilities are a direct reflection of our British-designed military policy. There is a direct and necessary connection between Schlesinger's zero-growth energy and antiscience policy and his "China option" and "flexible response" babblings.
In one term, beginning January 1981, a new U.S. President must reverse all this, and establish for our nation new policies and institutions consistent with the intent of our Constitution, policies and institutions which will secure the world for our posterity for at least 50 years to come.
This writer is the only visible candidate or prospective candidate with the special qualifications for that duty. Many others are useful and talented, and have a leading role to perform in accordance with that capability. They lack the breadth and depth of intellectual development, the ability to make important conceptual leaps, and to leap to the right conception in that process. They are one-sided or two-sided talents; they are not "philosopher kings" in the genre of Abraham Lincoln and this writer. [Go back a few paragraphs and read what I said about LaRouche using "Lincoln" as a code word for himself.--DK]
It is not proposed that we wait for 1981 until proceeding along the necessary lines. We must move as rapidly in the proper directions as possible under the Carter Administration. That progress will be a necessary preparation for the decisive work to be performed by the incoming administration. That general perspective also governs the new military policy outlined here.
THE CHARTER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
1. The Military Intent of the U.S. Constitution
The principal English-speaking colonies of the United States were established during the 17th century, most of them by that republican faction in England known as the Commonwealth Party. By the early decades of the 18th century, the initial tasks of colonization had been completed, to the effect that those colonies had already reached a maturity of development suitable to the establishment of a new nation rooted in the best republican aspirations of the English Commonwealth.
[Does LaRouche really believe the colonies were ready for independence in the early 1700s? When virtually the entire still-tiny population was loyal to the Crown? When Britain and the colonies were locked in a desperate struggle to prevent the French from conquering North America? Has LaRouche ever heard of, much less read anything about, the French and Indian Wars?]
During the period 1763-1766, it was clear to leaders of the future nation, leaders grouped around Benjamin Franklin, that the deterioration of England under the Stuarts, House of Orange, and Guelphs, since 1660, had brought the majority of the English people and their institutions to such a poor moral condition that there was no prospect that those people would undertake a restoration of the Commonwealth without some great weakening and humiliation of the ruling British oligarchy from without. It was clear to Benjamin Franklin and others that the American people and British people could no longer live under a common government.
[We see here a grotesque misrepresentation of the evolution of Franklin's views. He, like the other Founding Fathers, was not prepared to break with the Mother Country in the 1760s. Indeed, in 1764 he championed as Speaker of the Pennsylvania House a plan to change the colony from a proprietary one to a royal one (he was voted out of office for that misstep).
There is more truth in this Disney cartoon about Franklin and a talking mouse than in LaRouche's absurd and ignorant version of Franklin's life.He was then sent by the anti-proprietary forces to London with the goal of publicly urging the Crown to assume direct authority in Pennsylvania. He remained in England for ten years, which he would hardly have done if he were part of a burgeoning revolutionary conspiracy at home.
During this period he made close friends among the very aristocrats and "empiricists" that LaRouche depicts as having been sources of unspeakable evil. Franklin also labored mightily to prevent the British government from imposing unwanted taxes on the colonies, but did so while presenting himself as a loyal subject of the King, believing this was the best way to achieve greater rights for the colonists.
However, his efforts collapsed in 1773-74, after he tried to blame the British government's mistakes re North America on bad advice from colonial Tories (in effect, he was shielding the King from criticism, albeit for tactical reasons). The government misinterpreted this move and denounced him as a troublemaker.
The distinguished biographer Bernard Fäy writes on Franklin's decision at this point to return home to America: "He had failed in what had been one of his chief purposes in life: to keep the British empire united and help America to grow inside the empire."
My aim here is not to debunk Franklin's well-deserved reputation as a great leader and statesman of the Revolution, but to refute LaRouche's claim that Franklin was part of some kind of proto-LaRouche cadre organization in the mid-1760s that possessed a deep philosophical method which enabled it to see into the future and to bypass the normal process of learning through experience.
The point is worth making because when LaRouche and over a score of his followers were indicted for loan fraud in the late 1980s, they proclaimed that their swindles had been a patriotic initiative to meet a giant upcoming world crisis, and that they had been inspired by the example of Franklin, whom they claimed had done pretty much the same thing to finance the American Revolution.
This LaRouchian hogwash became a source of amusement for prosecutors, but it served LaRouche's purpose by helping to persuade several of his followers to go to prison in the spirit of 1776 rather than turn state's evidence against the man who garnered all the profits of their scams: LaRouche himself.]
The American colonies had achieved a level of popular culture typified by an approximate 90 percent adult literacy rate, more than double that existing in England at that time, and the incomes and productivities of Americans were approximately double those of Englishmen in comparable titles of employment. The British monarchy and its supporting oligarchy were determined to prevent the Americans from enjoying the scientific and technological progress to which they aspired. The British declared their determination to exlude [sic] industrial development from the American colonies, to drive the colonies into a perpetual state of bucolic backwardness, and to impose upon the colonies kept in that backward condition a system of usurious tax-farming to the advantage of the financial interests of the City of London.
The conflict between England and the American colonies was an historical echo of the conflict between the Commonwealth Party and the Stuart oligarchy during the 17th century. It was at the same time a reflection of the age-long conflict between humanism and oligarchism, a continuation of the same conflict which has persisted to date during 3,000 years of history. [Hmm...to the best of my knowledge the history of the English does not go back quite that far.]
The essential policy of those forces around Benjamin Franklin was a commitment to scientific and technological progress, mediated through urban centers and improvements in means of communication and commerce, to promote rising social productivities and improvements in conditions of life in both urban occupations and in the progress of agriculture. This commitment was seen in part as an indispensable course for meeting the needs and improving the welfare of the citizens and their posterity. It was also seen as essential to fostering the development and employment of those creative-mental powers which distinguish man from the lower beasts.
The British monarchy and its associated oligarchist forces sought to keep the colonists in a relatively fixed form of rural-centered technology, thus suppressing the development of those creative-mental potentialities, and so tending to degrade those persons into a beast-like condition.
[Here LaRouche appears to be contradicting himself: He just said above that the colonies had a literacy rate twice that of England and that the colonists' incomes and productivity were also double those of England. These assertions may or may not be factually based, but if LaRouche believes them to be true, how can he say that the British Crown--no matter how arrogant its behavior towards the colonies--was plotting to degrade the colonists into beasts? (This is apart from the plight of the slaves, whom the colonists themselves were treating as beasts.)
Apparently, LaRouche is just taking his rhetoric about upcoming hideous catastrophes and projecting it backward in time so that his followers can't even contemplate the past, much less the present and future, without feeling guilty for not raising more money or passing out more leaflets to help Lyn seize power and save the world.]
These oppressions Franklin and his collaborators would not tolerate. They turned to influential persons in various nations, persons who shared their Neoplatonic dedication to the fostering of scientific and technological progress. [More ignorant drivel: Franklin and the other Founding Fathers were not "Neoplatonists." In fact, they were heavily inclined towards Deism and drew many of their ideas from John Locke, whom LaRouche reviles as an evil empiricist.] Such persons were already known to them, since the Commonwealth Party in England and in America had maintained its connections to the followers of Descartes, Leibniz, and Jean-Baptiste Colbert, chiefly under the cover of scientific collaborations. They centered their efforts in France, entering into close collaboration with such French successors of Colbert as Turgot and Vergennes. [LaRouche is just engaged in more historical name-dropping here. I doubt he's ever studied the writings of any of the above thinkers or statesmen--or has more than a smattering of knowledge of the historical conditions under which they worked.] With those co-conspirators, Franklin and his American associates plotted an alliance against the English monarchy which would enable an American Revolution to establish the United States as a sovereign nation, a republic whose constitution would be based on natural law, essentially as "natural law" was associated with Leibniz.
[Although Franklin was familiar with the writings of Leibniz, LaRouche presents no evidence that Leibniz, as opposed to various British and French thinkers, was the source of the concept of natural law promoted by the Founding Fathers. LaRouche's fabrication on this point reflected his emerging fantasy about kindling some kind of U.S.-German (or German-U.S.) far-right axis against Britain and the Soviet Union, presumably with LaRouche as President/Philosopher King of the United States, and his wife Helga as Führine of West Germany. Such delusional thinking resulted in the founding of the Schiller Institute, which Helga said would bring a "Schillerzeit" to America. Helga also launched "Patriots for Germany," an electoral party that would attempt to win seats in the Bundestag for herself, other LaRouchians and former German military officers.]
The intent of the Constitution was implemented under the Administration of President George Washington. The credit, national banking, and economic doctrines of Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton represented a solution to the critical problem of United States indebtedness through the mobilizatIon of the credit of the United States in a national bank, and through the increase of the social productivities of our nation and its people through the forceful fostering of scientific and technological progress. These measures in the monetary, fiscal, and economic policy domains complemented a continued emphasis on universal public education and the promotion of cultural progress.
Under the leadership of President Washington, President John Adams and Inspector-General Alexander Hamilton, the U.S. military capability existing at the close of the first decade of the U.S. Constitution was of extraordinary quality. This capability was ruined under President Adams's immediate successors in office, to our nation's great peril during 1812-1815.
[LaRouche is wildly exaggerating again. During the years in office of the hated (by LaRouche) Thomas Jefferson, spending for the Army and Navy departments increased by 50 percent, while the number of authorized army regiments increased from six in 1800 (last year of the Adams administration) to 11 in 1808. Furthermore, it was Thomas Jefferson who in 1802 founded the West Point Military Academy (praised so highly by LaRouche elsewhere in this article).
Jefferson did promote a foolish scheme for replacing frigates with purely defensive gunboats, but his administration's extraordinary projection of military power to the "shores of Tripoli" (1801-1805; repeat performance under Madison in 1815) provided a prestige to the Navy and Marines that would outlast the gunboat scheme, which Madison soon scuttled. Proof that the Navy was alive and well was further demonstrated by its strong performance, although greatly outnumbered, against the British in the War of 1812-15.
As to the U.S. Army, it certainly was not prepared for an all-out conflict with the British, but the latter could never have transported across the Atlantic the huge numbers of troops needed to conquer the giant territory of the United States before the American people had gained the time to mobilize. In the event, U.S. commanders and their green troops proved to be quick learners--as shown by the battles of Lake Erie, Plattsburgh, Baltimore, the Thames, York, Sackett's Harbor, Chippewa, and New Orleans, all of which were American victories.
If LaRouche wanted to sustain his theory that an oligarchical (pro-British) plot during the Jefferson and Madison administrations had "ruined" the U.S. military, he would need to address not only the successes in battle of that supposedly ruined force but also the fact that (a) the Whigs (the out-of-office party which he says was pro-military and proto-LaRouchian) actually OPPOSED the 1812-15 war, and even toyed with the idea of New England seceding from the Union and making a separate peace with Britain; and (b) the party in power (pro-British and pro-oligarchy in LaRouche's eyes) was the one that declared war on Britain and waged the war with determination. Clearly LaRouche's knowledge of American history is extremely limited.]
The experience of the second war with England was reflected in the great advances in West Point programs from 1818 through the close of the Administration of President John Quincy Adams and under the leadership of Commandant Thayer.
Although the work of 1818-1828 was savagely undermined under Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren, John Quincy Adams and collaborators, such as General Winfield Scott, maintained the continuity of the nation's Federalist-Whig military tradition within an important section of the officers corps and associated circles into the Civil War period.
[Military spending during LaRouche's vaunted "good" decade was less than half of what it had been in the previous decade, but then almost doubled again during the Jackson and Van Buren years. And Jackson (a U.S. Army major general, by the way), far from savagely undermining the military during his two terms of office, defended West Point against those who would close it, expanded the Army's cavalry units and its engineering capabilities, and was a champion of a strong Navy.
Furthermore, it was at the beginning of the Van Buren administration that the U.S. Army began developing the "flying artillery," the great innovation in U.S. military technology of that period which former President Jackson would support with enthusiasm.
Flying artillery in the U.S. Civil War.So little did Jackson and Van Buren undermine the Army and Navy that both services performed with great efficiency during the Mexican-American War of 1846-48. LaRouche has heartily praised the U.S. victory in that war and the resulting annexation of vast chunks of Mexican territory, alleging that Mexico was just a miserable, subhuman country anyway (read here). He has championed that view EVEN THOUGH the war was conducted under President James Polk, an anti-Whig and a protege of Jackson--and thus an evil oligarchical agent in LaRouche's theory of history--and EVEN THOUGH the Whigs, whom LaRouche has said were the proto-LaRouchian humanists, opposed the war.
And returning to events of the Madison years, Van Buren supported the War of 1812 against the British--and Jackson of course was America's greatest hero in that war--while LaRouche's vaunted Whigs refused to support this struggle against an empire which, according to LaRouche, was and would continue to be the world center of oligarchical evil.
All this should make clear that LaRouche's oligarchs-versus-humanists theory of history, and his choice of villains and heroes in accordance therewith, is based on ignorance and is inconsistently applied even within its ignorant framework (except against the Jews). However, I must concede that LaRouche is correct on one minor point: Jackson and Van Buren most decidedly were NOT "Neoplatonic humanists."]
The destruction of U.S. military policy under Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren was not coincidental. Jackson and Van Buren halted the U.S. policy of fostering scientific and technological progress, dissolved the Second National Bank, and ruined U.S. credit in a manner exhibited in the Panic of 1837. With Jackson and Van Buren, as later under Pierce and Buchanan, the fundamental intent of the American Revolution and Constitution was betrayed in a most treacherous way. The military policy of the Federalists and Whigs, like the policies of their key French collaborator and ally, the Marquis de Lafayette, was based on the principles of Machiavelli and his successors: that the republic must realize its characteristic advantage, the benefits of scientific and technological progress, by the establishment of a universal militia, well-trained, well-equipped and ably led--through which a republic develops a decisive advantage in in-depth war-fighting capabilities over an adversary nation of comparable size.
["In-depth war-fighting capabilities" were certainly important in the early 19th century for quarrelsome European countries living cheek by jowl with one another. But the expenditures of maintaining such a force would have made no sense at that time for the United States--a nation separated from Europe by 3,000 miles of ocean, guaranteed against anything more than a modest invasion by the limitations of sail transport, and boasting a population of 7.2 million as of 1810 (this would grow to almost 10 million by 1820, when the sole possible invader, Great Britain, had a population only a third larger).
LaRouche is just trying to legitimize his theory of total war (see below) by inventing an imaginary U.S. military doctrinal tradition that supposedly dates back to the Founding Fathers, and then claiming to be its heir.]
The correctness of Federalist-Whig military policy was demonstrated afresh in U.S. national experience by the Civil War. It was shown that the attempts to employ those battle tactics which emulated the British doctrine of "cabinet warfare" were folly. Generals such as Grant and Sherman introduced republican principles of warfare. Combining the potentialities of Lincoln's dirigist credit and fiscal policies for promotion of industrial growth, and Lincoln's universal militia policies, Grant deployed the advantage of in-depth war-fighting capabilities to deplete the adversary's in-depth capabilities for continued war-fighting.
Despite the sometimes savage dissipation of U.S. military capabilities during the late 19th century and during the present century, the Federalist-Whig military policies, as reflected chiefly in the Civil War experience, survived to serve the United States well in the qualities of its officer corps in two world wars during this century. But for obstacles to U.S. military policy created by Winston Churchill and others, the last world war would probably have been won a year earlier than it was.
[Please, Pvt. LaRouche, tell us how this could have been done--especially after the August 1942 Dieppe raid revealed just how unprepared for a cross-channel invasion the Allies really were. And in your explanation, please tell us how many landing craft the Allies possessed in 1943, the year when you believe D-Day should have been launched. Also give us the 1943 figures on how many U.S. divisions had been sent to England and trained for a cross-channel invasion, how many seasoned German divisions they would have faced, and how many Mulberry harbors had been constructed. And when you answer those questions, I have several dozen more for you.]
2. Republican Military Policy
A republic is a nation which is dedicated to fostering of general scientific and technological progress in the work and general experience of all its citizens, and which pursues that policy both to the end of cultivating the development of the individual citizen's creative potentialities, and to providing improved opportunities for the individual citizen to realize his improved mental powers to the advantage of society generally.
The adversaries of a republic are of two principal types. The primary adversaries of a republic are those forces, known in history as oligarchists, who oppose generalized scientific and technological progress, as progress is properly practiced by a republic. The secondary adversaries of a republic are those forces which ally themselves directly or in fact with oligarchist forces to injure a republic's pursuit of the indicated policies of progress.
The function of the military policy of a republic is to enable the republic to defeat those adversaries.
[Once again LaRouche says nothing about defending his Neoplatonic "republic" from a clear and present military threat. He would define a country as the enemy simply because its leaders hold views on "generalized scientific and technological progress" that differ from his own.]
The strategic principles governing the military policy of a republic are based on realizing the unique sort of potential war-fighting advantages of republics and the matching unique disadvantages of states pursuing oligarchist policies.
The central strategic principle is the inherently greater in-depth war-fighting potentials of the republic.
The potentials of a republic are chiefly these:
(a) The fostering of scientific and technological progress permits advantages in the technology of warfare paralleling the advantages in increased social productivities gained through higher rates of technologically progressive capital formation per capita.
(b) The citizen of the republic, because of the intellectual and moral benefits flowing from the fostering of progress, has both superior technological potentialities and superior mental powers of innovation and problem-solving.
The potentials are realized as in-depth war-fighting capabilities through the creation of a universal militia which is well-trained, well-equipped, and ably led.
Republics order the conduct of warfare such that this in-depth advantage becomes the determining feature of the outcome of the war.
[The paragraphs directly above actually suggest a coherent doctrine of total war. The ability of LaRouche's bright young aides to articulate such insights (albeit buried in a welter of misinformation and ideological drivel) is probably one reason why the LaRouche movement was able to gain the attention of people in high government positions in the early 1980s.]
The object of warfare by a republic is to bring the adversary nation into the republican order. The political policy of war-fighting aims at crushing the oligarchist component of the adversary nation, through aid of offering the adversary nation the conditions and benefits of a republican order, as the conditions of either terms of peace or the pacification process of military occupation. [Yet again, no mention of the United States defending itself from attack. The adversary is apparently to be conquered simply because it refuses the blessings of the "republican order" (i.e., a state organized along LaRouchian lines).]
The general purpose of the military policy of a republic is the establishment of the effective world hegemony of a community of principle-based alliance among sovereign republics. This general purpose is known as the Great Design. The aggregate result of the development and deployment of republican military capabilities must be the progressive liquidation of oligarchist and allied governments globally, and the increase of the numbers and aggregate strength of republics.
3. The Development of The Republican Militia
The strategic objective of the existence and deployment of republican military force is city-building, the creation and defense of cities as the chief mediators of scientific and technological progress into urban and rural life. These same objectives and capabilities are integral to the logistics of war-fighting and the pacification of occupied territory in war-fighting.
[Is LaRouche, in this reference to "city-building" as a strategy for the "pacification of occupied territory," alluding to the SS's plans during World War Two for Aryan settlements in the conquered territories of Eastern Europe?
And is he also alluding to SS chief Heinrich Himmler (who boasted of being the reincarnation of Heinrich I, a medieval king known as the "city builder" because of all the walled settlements he founded on Germany's eastern borders)?
Kaiser Heinrich IWas LaRouche's intent here to signal to old and new Nazis in Germany and elsewhere that he was one with them even though his mode of public communication would necessarily have to be cautious because of West Germany's ban on Nazi propaganda (and public feelings of revulsion towards such propaganda in the United States)?
Such a signal was apparently inserted in the following photograph and caption on the same page of LaRouche's article as his remarks on city-building and his most extreme statements about conquering the world.
By installing a nuclear reactor under the ice, the troops are demonstrating their "potential to serve an an army of city-builders"? The more alert element among old and new Nazis in Germany would have instantly drawn the connection to the USAF's Thule Air Base in Greenland (and the caption writer made the connection easy for them by failing to explain that the picture was actually of Camp Century, a research outpost supplied from Thule).
Here's another picture of Camp Century, apparently showing scientists at work. If LaRouche could have foreseen the future, he might have picked a different location for his fantasies than this "city under the ice." Although it was apparently intended at first as a missile site, it ended up being the scene of one of the greatest feats of U.S. science in the 1960s--the drilling to the bottom of the ice pack to obtain cores that would enable scientists to trace the climate back tens of thousands of years. In other words, Camp Century's work resulted in the founding of the contemporary science of climate change--and eventually in LaRouche nemesis Al Gore winning the Nobel Prize.
Curiously, "Thule"--a name used in classical Greek to denote the northern reaches of the known world (and thus adopted with complete innocence by the U.S. Air Force)--had been employed by Third Reich racial theorists to designate the supposed prehistoric far-north homeland of the Aryans. LaRouche himself in the early 1980s would embrace a version of this polar thesis set forth by Indian nationalist B.G. Tilak (1856-1920).
The air-base name would also have reminded German far rightists of the Thule Society, a proto-Nazi outfit in Munich after World War One. In the 1960s and 1970s, several trashy pseudohistories spread the idea that the Thule Society and its alleged occult practices had played an important role in Hitler's rise to power.
The Thule Society.This fantasy, which the LaRouchians partially embraced, was taken up by neo-Nazis who used it to delude themselves that secret magical forces were available that could help rekindle the Nazi cause. (And the more imaginative of them speculated about Hitlerism surviving in hideouts under the polar ice or in Jules Verne type regions at the center of the earth that could be accessed from near the North or South Pole.)
But how serious were LaRouche's signals along these lines to Germany's far right? Ex-LaRouchians who were not necessarily close enough to LaRouche to know the full story on this have suggested to me that it may have been just an opportunistic ploy to attract the attention of Germany's old crowd who could then be used politically (and financially) for LaRouche's self-aggrandizement.
"Neoplatonic humanism" shall rise again...but in the meantime, we accept all major credit cards.
I suspect, however, that LaRouche was at least partly serious in his signals to the old crowd, since his career as a cult leader had been (and still is) driven by a combination of megalomania and Jew-hatred. His most trusted followers probably rationalized away the signalling process by saying it was only a Stalin-Molotov type maneuver. (Lower level members may never even have read the articles in question, being too busy raising money or passing out leaflets for LaRouche.)
If LaRouche had tried to take his fantasies to their logical conclusion by forming comic-opera street alliances with neo-Nazis--and ordering his followers to start wearing armbands bearing the image of Professor Bostick's four-armed plasmoid (see below)--how many would have gone along with it? I can just imagine some of them justifying it to themselves, and each other, years later (after leaving the LaRouche movement) by saying "oh, but we ROLLED OUR EYES..."]
The development of an effective republican military force demands a complementarity between developed capabilities for heavy engineering and military duties as such. A good, modern republican military force is a force which can completely construct a modern city, or fulfill the heavy·engineering requirements of a large-scale agricultural development project, or construct the communications, transport, and other key elements of infrastructure for a small- or medium-sized nation.
The military forces of the United States represent both a fighting force and a corps of engineers.
The training of the universal militia must provide the member of the militia competence in a range of relevant productive skills as well as proficiency in arms.
The majority of the members of the permanent officer corps and reserve officers corps must be proficient in both arms and professionally qualified in some branch of science and engineering.
The costs of providing a military force of these qualities are offset by the value of the works of peace performed by the services, and by the fact that the educational expenditures are a recoverable cost in terms of benefits to the civilian economy. The management of the educational costs is improved by integrating military educational requirements with higher education programs for the population generally.
Such a military policy is most singularly appropriate for the quarter century immediately before us. Throughout the developing sector, thousands of nuclear fission and, later, nuclear fusion plants must be installed. Hundreds of new cities must be constructed. Irrigation, drainage, advanced agronomical methods, and mechanization must be combined with heavy engineering generally, to create fecundity where marginal agriculture presently prevails.
[Building nuclear plants, irrigation ditches, etc. is not in itself a bad thing, although the scale on which LaRouche wanted to do it clearly is impractical. The question is: WHO would do it? LaRouche envisions it, in this article, as a job primarily for the U.S. military--not private industry--and suggests in various other writings and speeches that it be carried out via a "brute-force" method based on centralized state planning. In other words, he uses the lure of grand and desirable public-works projects as the hook for winning support for the creation of an authoritarian and heavily militarized society. LaRouche calls this "dirigism." Within the context of LaRouche's total ideological "system," I call it fascism--and I would remind the reader that it was Hitler who built the autobahns.]
Ratios of accomplishment in heavy-engineering and related work beyond precedent must become commonplace.
Whether as U.S. military forces deployed at the request of a nation, or trained reservists employing their skills in civilian employment, the net cost of maintaining such combined capabilities of our active and reserve military potential is relatively small, when the creation of value fostered by such programs is taken into account. [LaRouche footnote here: "[1] A universal militia program of these qualities and dimensions may prove a most effective aid in freeing our youth from the destructive grip of the drug counterculture."]
This policy is not only appropriate and sound, but establishes the circumstances for fostering precisely those qualities of morale which a force of city-builders in arms must acquire. The work of peace is the cause served in war.
4. The Technology of Warfare
There is no more pathetic folly concerning warfare than the misguided persuasion that since improved technology enables warfare to become more destructive, that technological progress in warfare is to be either inhibited or abhorred.
Wars are fought because the penalty of not going to war is unendurable.
[If this is so, why does LaRouche advocate going to war against countries simply because their leaders hold views on scientific and technological progress that differ from his own? Answer: To malignant narcissists such as LaRouche, ANY challenge to their posture of personal infallibility may seem "unendurable" (i.e., a mortal insult).
Malignant geezers of the galaxy unite! The LaRouche movement's latest ally is Robert Mugabe, ruler of Planet Zimbabwe.However, LaRouche is only the leader of a small political cult: he lacks access to the levers of state-sanctioned violence through which malignant narcissists on the grand scale--such as Saddam Hussein--have punished those who fail to show them proper respect.
Unlike such dictators, LaRouche--to get revenge against a world that constantly torments his ego by failing to enthusiastically affirm his greatness--is reduced to verbal modes of assault: heaping psychological abuse on his followers when they fail to act in a sufficiently sycophantic manner, launching obscene tirades against outsiders whom he believes are plotting to demean him, and fantasizing scenarios by which he can rise to power and wage total war against peoples and nations who have committed the ultimate sin of just ignoring him.]
When wars are fought, they are fought with the objective of victory. To obtain victory, the sole object of war, in-depth war-fighting capabilities must be realized to the fullest potential which victory requires. Victory must he enhanced by development and employment of the most effective means of warfare, which effectiveness is not essentially separable from destructiveness.
It is a special form of lunacy which desires that wars be made less horrible so that wars might be fought more freely, with less horrifying deterrents to inhibit their initiation. It is not those who propose most effective weapons who are the bloodthirsty ones, but those who oppose use of more effective weapons so that war might be fought with less fear of its penalties, and hence fought more frequently, more recklessly.
[LaRouche would have us believe that political leaders who express doubts about the further development of weapons of mass destruction are doing so not because they are worried about the effect on the world and on their own population and troops, but because they want to launch wars "more frequently, more recklessly." Nothing in the record from the end of World War Two until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, however, reveals such a dynamic. (That's why they called it the COLD War, Lyndon.) And the dynamic hasn't emerged in the years since, even though the United States and the former Soviet Union have cut way back on their nuclear stockpiles.]
The republican commander does not view war as a professional athlete views football. Arms is not a profession which seeks to perpetuate itself; war is not a sport for the gratification of romantics. [But war for the gratification of LaRouche himself is okay?] The object of warfare for republicans is to win war by crushing the oligarchist adversaries to the point where there are no governments able to make war in behalf of the oligarchist cause in any part of the world. The object of republican military policy and warfare is today what it was with the great city-builder, Alexander the Great, and what it has been for all those republicans who continued the Platonic dedication of Alexander. [In other articles in the late 1970s, LaRouche compared himself to Alexander the Great (read an example here), just as in this one he compares himself to Lincoln.] The object of republican military policy is total victory of the republican cause over the last bastion of oligarchical policy in any nation of the world.
We shall continue to prepare to fight war, and shall increase the effectiveness of our forces and their weapons, until that final battle against oligarchism is either fought or until the last oligarchist government submits peacefully to our will.
Wherever we fight war against the oligarchist enemy, we deploy weapons as destructive as are needed to secure victory with minimal injury to our forces. We shall improve the effectiveness of our forces and weapons constantly, with emphasis on the most advanced technologies for ever fresh advantages, until the last battle of total victory over the oligarchists has been won.
The associated concern of the Department of Defense and the officers corps generally is to foster general scientific and technological progress in each of its facets in national life. Although It will be appropriate at some points to direct scientific research to specifically military ends, the notion of a special, compartmentalized body of scientific research dedicated to military objectives is pathetic folly. Military technological capabilities occur as by-products of a general scientific progress.
[No compartmentalized military R&D? This would certainly have made it easy for LaRouche to gather scientific and technological intelligence
via the Fusion Energy Foundation's extensive contacts in the defense science community.
LaRouche's intelligence staff and the FEF were in contact in the middle and late 1970s with Soviet officials eager to obtain U.S. secrets. In addition, the LaRouchians had cozied up to (or would soon do so) such bastions of human rights as Argentina (during the "Dirty War"/Falklands invasion period), apartheid South Africa, and Saddam Hussein's Iraq, all of which were interested in obtaining the technology for creating and delivering weapons of mass destruction.
LaRouche himself had traveled to Iraq in 1975 to meet with Baath Party leaders who were already seeking to expand their nuclear research program by acquiring a reactor that could produce plutonium (the Osirak reactor, which the Iraqis attempted to build with French help, would be destroyed by an Israeli air strike in 1981).
To highlight LaRouche's no-compartmentalization idea, the FEF published in 1981 The Physical Principles of Thermonuclear Explosive Devices by Dr. Friedwardt Winterberg, a physicist at the University of Nevada. This book, which included theoretical information about the neutron bomb as a bonus, probably resulted in a temporary spike in the attendance of military attachés from various embassies at LaRouche's Washington press conferences.]
The Department of Defense must participate as a part of the scientific community in research work as research work, without regard to whether the research has or has not a visible military application. By integrating its scientific work within the general work of science, the Department of Defense and officer corps enriches its qualifications for detecting and assimilating the military potentials which flow from a generality of progress.
The broad strategic principle which must inform the decisions of the Department of Defense with respect to military technology is this. Each range of military technologies defines a corresponding range of rational, effective approaches to military strategy for that period, as the German Haufe and emergence of artillery defined the three arms of warfare from the beginning of the 16th century, and as changes in technologies introduced qualitative modifications in appropriate strategies and tactics thereafter. Any range of qualitative advances in military technology frees military capabilities from the limitations of the preceding technology.
In correspondence with this, insoluble problems arising in the elaboration of a given range of technologies of warfare always have a solution within the realm of qualitative advances in that technology.
The work of military science in this connection follows the principle of scientific advances in general. In any existing body of scientific knowledge and related practice, one discovers the key to the next range of advances in knowledge and practice by isolating and defining a crucial flaw in the existing body of assumptions and developing effective hypotheses and experiments which satisfy the requirements of a comprehensive solution to the flawed character of existing knowledge. In warfare, the difficult problems of existing strategic "geometries" have an analogous character. [This paragraph and the two preceding ones are a pretty good summary of how modern military technology and doctrine have evolved. The question is, which of LaRouche's smart young researchers slipped it into the article while the boss was asleep?]
It is notable that republican scientist Leibniz specified the importance of development of a cartridge-loaded, breech-loaded infantry weapon during the 1670s.
No single set of discoveries represents a permanent margin of advantage. The advantage lies in maintaining a higher rate of new advances than the adversaries. The argument that "Now we must develop one because a potential adversary is suspected of developing one" is not the viewpoint of military science. We must continue to develop faster than potential adversaries might dream of new developments. We advance, not because the potential adversary has, but because he has not.
The potential of a republic is its effective dedication to achieving the highest rates of technological and scientific progress. On condition that the republican military potentials of this are being developed, the more rapidly technology of warfare advances, the greater the margin of inherent advantage of the republic.
----------------------------
----------------------------
5. The U.S. Military Philosophical Association
The most conspicuous of the formal obstacles to knowledge of Federalist-Whig West Point accomplishments among the officer corps during recent years has been the slanderous misrepresentation of Whig intelligence operative Edgar Allan Poe. All of the generally accredited evaluations of Poe, and accounts of his life, are frauds.
[This type of absurd assertion is one reason why, today, LaRouche's aides who run the LaRouche Youth Movement strive to induce kids to drop out of college as soon as possible. If LYM recruits were to remain in school, some professor might set them wise that Poe was a literary figure, not an intelligence operative, and that neither the United States government nor any faction in American politics sponsored anything remotely resembling a modern intelligence organization during Poe's lifetime.]
The leading Federalist-Whig strata of the United States were collectively Neoplatonic philosophers and scientists better educated in crucial aspects of historical and philosophical knowledge than leading academic specialists of today.
[As noted above, "Federalist-Whig strata" means a supposed "Neoplatonic humanist" (proto-LaRouchian) elite that fought politically in 19th century America against the agents of a supposed "oligarchical" or "British" elite.
When LaRouche claims that the leaders of this purported intellectual network (real historical figures whose ideas and achievements are grotesquely distorted in LaRouchian ideological tracts to fit with LaRouche's conspiracy theory) were "better educated" in "crucial aspects" of knowledge than today's "leading academic specialists," he is offering a rationale for his young recruits to drop out of college and concentrate on reading (under LaRouche movement supervision) tracts by himself and trusted aides.
Such tracts supposedly provide the real scoop (covered up by the alleged lies of the academics) about the secret battle waged against the oligarchy by proto-LaRouchian thinkers, statesmen and soldiers dating back not just to the 19th century but all the way to ancient times. Plato, Alexander the Great, Charlemagne, Hassan ibn Saba, Leibniz, Ben Franklin, Edgar Allen Poe--these and hundreds of other historical personages have become part of LaRouche's pantheon.
They are the Good Guys, locked in mortal combat with a usurious oligarchy that over the centuries has shifted its headquarters from Babylon to Rome to Venice to Amsterdam and most recently (in the 17th-18th centuries) to London, while maintaining agent networks worldwide. And the oligarchs in turn have fought back through their own stable of agents, including such figures as Aristotle, Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, Thomas Jefferson, Winston Churchill and Henry Kissinger.
Is there any way to make full sense out of this elaborate concoction embodied in over ten thousand pages of LaRouche's articles, books and transcribed speeches? One major difficulty in doing so is that LaRouche is basically a very ignorant man and thus says things that historically make no sense at all (like his attack above on Andrew Jackson as some kind of British agent).
But making allowances for LaRouche's ignorance, the key to understanding the inner political logic of his view of history is his anti-Semitic conspiracism, which I have tried to partly explain in comments above and have dealt with in much greater detail in Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism (read it here).
LaRouche Youth Movement (LYM) members march against New York investment banker Felix Rohatyn, who has long been targeted in LaRouchian propaganda as a Symbolic Evil Jew in spite of his sterling reputation in the business world and as a public servant. The linking of Rohatyn, a longtime Democratic Party advisor, to Satanism fits with LYM pamphlets in which neoconservative Jewish Republicans are branded as "Children of Satan." The absurd banner in the rear calling Rohatyn (who fled from Europe in 1942 to escape the Holocaust) a "Nazi" is designed to confuse these young people, many of whom were recruited from a liberal campus milieu, and prevent them from recognizing the full import of what they are doing.
If, however, one wants to understand LaRouche's historical matrix on a psychological and symbolic level, the key lies in his narcissism and grandiosity.
I say this because his tracts, once you've read a few of them, all seem to assume that world history (INCLUDING the struggle against the oligarchs/Jews) is a process culminating in--or indeed designed to inevitably produce--a genius-savior for humanity named Lyndon LaRouche, who has arrived on this planet to set us all straight (those of us who survive his atomic, bacteriological and chemical bombardments).]
The degradation of U.S. liberal arts culture, especially since the massive British corruption of our educational institutions during the present century, has been a general loss of the mental capabilities even to read intelligently what were the lucid and profound writings of Whig thinkers contemporary to and allied with Poe in the U.S. Whig intelligence service.
[In other words, our "British" masters are concealing the truth about Poe through their control of our educational system.]
The ability of leading Americans and their European associates to create the United States, and to develop the new military doctrines which shattered the old military system over the 1776-1807 period, was based on a method and knowledge generally beyond the comprehension of most modern scholars.
[Again, total nonsense. Historians have explained over and over how and why the United States won its war of independence, and how the French revolution triggered great changes in military tactics. The "beyond comprehension" remark suggests that college dropout LaRouche has never read any of these historians--and that he desperately wants to prevent his followers from doing so.]
It was because of a recognition of the connection between this body of Neoplatonic method and effective military doctrine and practice that West Point was associated with its Whig-dominated military philosophical association. That quality of association must be revived today, integrated with the life of the military academics, and must revive the quality of knowledge, albeit with modern ingredients, adopted as necessary by the associates of John Quincy Adams.
[LaRouche had already started referring to his formerly Marxist National Caucus of Labor Committees (NCLC) as a neo-Whig "philosophical association" based on a "Neoplatonic" tradition. Therefore when he chose to describe the U.S. Military Academy in similar terms, I presume that he was trying to enhance his followers' (and his own) sense of self-importance by suggesting that the NCLC and West Point were like sister academies (but without the football games--Lyn hates football).
His followers were thrilled in 1980 when one of their own, Dr. Morris Levitt of the Fusion Energy Foundation, was invited to give a talk at West Point on the military implications of fusion research. Did LaRouche have some kind of scheme in his head for attracting cadets and young military technocrats to his cause? If so, nothing ever came of it--just as nothing ever came of his plan to interest officers of the 82nd Airborne in, um, taking a hand in the nation's politics.]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUGGESTED READING:
