oligarchic principal

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
Thursday, July 11, 2013

There are those among us who are already familiar with my own as also others’ crucial insights into the contributions of that work of Johannes Kepler which I had emphasized in the combination of my June 10, 2013 “Nicholas of Cusa, Kepler & Shakespeare,”1 and, also, my June 28, 2013 “The Great Ontological Paradox.”2 That combination should be recognized, now, as the principled basis for my warning here: that a notion of human sense-perception, is not, ultimately, intrinsically real in and of itself, even if it remains the subject of a stubborn belief among victims of current reigning popular opinion.

Here, I now include, in that same list, an insight into war as a subject of universal physical principle of still presently urgent importance, especially when it had been presented by General of the Armies Douglas MacArthur. The exploration of that principle, makes much clearer, not merely MacArthur’s role as a source of a most expert opinion in this matter of peace and war; but, accordingly, the truly universal physical principles on account of an issue of what is sometimes named “Grand Strategy,” as in the matter of facts concerning the assassinations of both President John F. Kennedy, and of his brother Robert: assassinations which were done to make way for both the launching, and the stubborn and worse than worthless continuation of what was to become known as “The Vietnam War.”

Thus, General of the Armies Douglas MacArthur’s role in his critical opposition to a turn to nuclear warfare, despite Winston Churchill and his virtual U.S.A. lackey, President Harry S Truman, was not a particular issue of that time, but, rather, an urgently needed recognition of the underlying, still presently continuing, universal decline in the physical principle of moral and economic decline involved.

I explain, as follows: The role of Britain’s butcher, Tony Blair, in the matter of the continuing war “in the Middle East,” echoes the same policy which had already underlain the continuing, long war in Vietnam.

Take note! I have made no mistake in dating the stated Anglo-American intention for nuclear warfare at that time (1946), and later, to both the role of President Harry S Truman and of Prime Minister Winston Churchill. The original date was late Summer 1946, and included Bertrand Russell as the most articulate, publicly avowed sponsor of “preventive” nuclear war, on that date.3
(An important, but subordinate consideration in law:)
(What is the true meaning of “evil”?)

In respect to the particular case of general warfare, when it is considered merely as such, the true root of evil to be considered, is typified for typical human Earth-dwellers today, by what is properly identified as the oligarchical principle. That oligarchical principle is conveniently identified, in turn, as being opposed to, for example, that same, contrary quality of true human principle which is actually illustrated by the case of Plato’s opposition to the inherently fraudulent propositions of the wicked pair known as both Aristotle and Euclid, alike. The same must be said, also, of such earlier cases as that of what is now known as the infamous genocide which concluded the Trojan War. Oligarchism, not merely war as such, remains, still today, the major source of the relatively global evils practiced among mankind.

For example: The Roman and British (e.g., Anglo-Dutch) empires have been typical of the relatively worst among the known evidence of those legions of evil which are also to be traced back to origins in ancient Rome, and even earlier. However, monetarism generally, even simply as such, is also a typical expression of that same, original quality of evil.

I shall emphasize here, that the practice of what is to be classed as oligarchism, so illustrated, is the most significant of the roots of the systemic evils of society, still today. I point out some remedies here, as follows:

The most readily accessed example of the contrast of good to evil in modern times, has been typified not only by the goodness of the anti-monetarist principle on which the original Constitution of the United States of America was premised; it was also the same principle which had been adopted earlier by the Massachusetts Bay Colony. That principle, which modern society should trace back to such Renaissance geniuses as Nicholas of Cusa, has been demonstrated through the crucial quality of a leading contributing role specific to the included role of U.S. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton.
Hamilton’s Role

Hamilton’s principle stands in bold opposition to that model for a true principle of evil which had been expressed, typically, then as now, by that oligarchical system which had been already specific to the Anglo-Dutch empire of the Seventeenth Century onward, to the present day. The phenomenon of that evil which has been contemporary imperialism and monetarism alike, is illustrated very well by the particular case of the man who was both a British agent and a virtually Satanic murderer: the same Aaron Burr who had sponsored, personally, from abroad, the virtually treasonous and thoroughly criminal U.S. Presidencies of such as Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, and their relevant Anglo-Dutch successors.

To the present date, the true principle underlying our U.S.A.’s successfully continued existence, has been the principle of the anti-monetarist credit system, a principle which underlies the accomplishment of the founding, as by the contributions of Hamilton, of not only the original Federal Constitution of our United States of America, but the much earlier model, that Massachusetts Bay Colony led by the Winthrops and Mathers.

Consequently, in that light, mere money (e.g., “monetarism” as such), is to be fairly considered as being a certain expression of “the root of all evil,” that, in fact of practice, again, and again, and yet again. The cases contrary to monetarism, such as the U.S. Federal Constitution, like its proper predecessor, the Massachusetts Seventeenth-century shilling, were both premised on the function of the notion of public credit, as directly opposed to the inherent corruption represented by monetarist standards as such.

In other words, true economic value is properly delimited to the identity of a system of public expressions of physically efficient credit, as opposed to the notion of mere money per se. Money has been, often, a veritably customary expression of the “root of all evil,” as notably, for example, since the recent decades’ intrinsical looting of the U.S. economy, a looting which was launched by the U.S.A.’s 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley legislation.

“To be clear,” as President Richard M. Nixon had repeatedly spoken that phrase, evil is commonly expressed as the alienation of value, as away from the authority of that vital U.S. interest which is represented by a proper consideration of the social-economic effects on the whole population of the nation. Money itself has, actually, no rightfully intrinsic value, no value which were independent of the direct ownership which must be fairly available, in effect, to all of the people: all based on a condition of access to a higher quality of ownership which is expressed most efficiently as “the public interest of the nation as a whole:” a system based in the right to its origin and its participation in the national physical credit which is composed, respectively, of each and all of the people of a truly sovereign nation when considered as a whole. Whereas, the distinctions among both individual persons and households, arise to comprise the expression of the individual’s contributions to the whole, as illustrated by Alexander Hamilton’s treatment of the subjects inherent in the sequential relations among the practices of agriculture and manufactures, sequences which are merely typical in forming the evolutionary progress of the wealth of the nation as a whole.

A form of money circulated both within, and outside the original national ownership by the people of our nation, should only be that of the ownership shared, in effect, as properly a system of both individual and common benefits for each and all among the people of a nation itself, or as benefits circulated according to similar standards for the benefit among relevant nations and their individual members. Any acceptable expression of monetary credit is, thereby, that which should have been a matter of achieving a relationship in principle which is shared fairly and honorably among the whole people of each nation, but also many, or all nations: even though the particular system of sovereign credit should be considered as being unique to its nation. Other forms of what is to be considered wealth, exist rightfully only according to that principle of a people in their personal rights to create, acquire, and possess wealth under circumstances provided by law among nations; but that, we must understand, is only the relative fact of the matter.

Money circulated otherwise, has often—even usually—been readily susceptible to becoming transformed into an instrument of what is actually evil, as in many such cases knowable to us as in both our United States and in Western Europe presently, and which is, also, properly known, presently, as oligarchism, as such. That, the oligarchical principle, in, and of itself, becomes, intrinsically, the expression of evil done both against, and among the nation and its people, as in the familiar case today.

However, although those terms toward which I have pointed here, are reflections of that which may occur as events, hopefully under true and proper law, there are also certain other, more profound considerations to be taken into account as being essential. These are not merely matters of possession, but, above all else, must be according to the need for vigorously produced net progress as such: as located in the effect of the increase of the productive powers of labor, as in and of society. Without the inclusion of the requirement of progressively higher states of development of those superior principles uniquely innate to human beings, no rightful system of lawfulness were securely extended within and among societies.

The notion of a society of “the wealth of things as such,” were an essentially inhuman concoction, a concoction which lacks accountability for the necessary, efficiently noëtic powers shared in the interactions among the sovereign personalities of each of the cases of the individual’s human mind.

The notions which I had presented in this chapter up to this point, must now be extended in essential qualities, not only in terms of nuclear powers and ever higher powers at human command within the presently known universe, but through now taking into account what is presently in progress as superseding the notions of sense-perception reigning heretofore.4

There are two leading principles of animated life—human and animal—to be considered from among those willful principles of society, as such, which I am setting before you, for your attention here.

What is most crucial, as one among the two types of animated life, is that which is most clearly characteristic of the combination of an implicitly willful expression of actually animated life; the other is distinctly, and specifically, human. Both of those two sets of cases, are associated, in an important way, with the notion of noësis in motion (e.g., evolution toward what is systemically, successively higher orders in states of existence), such as respectively distinct qualitative states which, speaking broadly, may be assorted as respectively animal and human.

Most notable, for our purposes in this report, is the specifically animal type, as that whose motion is developed through biological evolution; whereas, the contrasted species, that of human beings, is appropriately ordered by that self-development of categorical powers of noëtic potential which inhere in that often seemingly mysterious power of the human mind which is of the sovereign quality properly demanded as being the actively noëtic relationship categorically unique to both the individual members of the human species, and in the formation of its society.

For the sake of rough-cut convenience, we may state the following:

The lower forms of life with which we are immediately concerned here, are what is merely animal; the second category, is the willful action by means of the uniquely noëtic quality of the potency specific to the potential of the human mind. That second specificity is, variously, relatively more or less rarely understood as occurring among the category of persons. That second case appears, now, to be universally unique to the inherent voluntary, intentional quality of motion by and in human society as such, as distinct from merely isolatable human individuals. We humans should, each and all, “evolve upward,” upwardly not merely biologically, but in voluntary shaping of social culture and its practice; but, to the best of our knowledge on that matter this far, this is chiefly a voluntary action by choice, or, as we should say, otherwise, noëtically: according to the noëtic principle characteristically specific to the human individual and his, or her quality of personality expressed as the motion among a society, or societies.

So, the purpose of the life of the human individual, is located, uniquely, within the inclusive domain of those specific noëtic powers of the individual which distinguish mankind as a species, from beasts.
The Problem of Human Behavioral Corruption

Unfortunately, thus far in history, the noëtic powers are not only the relatively least-understood influence encountered during these present times; but, most notably, as since the downward plunge in the U.S. economy, as that had followed, first, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, and, then, that of his brother, Robert: both sets of principle of which latter cases have coincided, in effect, with the advent of the progress or decay of the U.S. and European economies, economies which have been, recently, being transformed into the increasingly ontologically downward, pathological trend, a trend which is now often to be properly identified, and that increasingly, as a mode of cultural degeneration known commonly, today, as “environmentalism.”

What is properly defined as the deadly disease which is spread through the peoples of nations, and which is called “environmentalism,” is being expressed currently in the form of a presently accelerating plunge into a vicious decline in the process of direction, downward, in moral and physical-economic decadence in the standard of living, in the quantity and quality of food-supplies, and in the general health and intellectual decadence of the populations of affected regions: all such trends into the direction of decadence, including such examples as those to be noted in the United States and Europe since the midstream of the 1960s, have been in a culturally downward direction, toward the threat of a willful commitment to a net effect of the threatened, self-inflicted doom of our species.

Under the most recent, downward-plunging trends, most notably by the U.S. Presidencies since the beginning of 2001, there have been massive accelerations of what are presently taking the form of a vicious succession of relatively potential human death-rates, which has taken over the trans-Atlantic regions, in an increasingly conspicuous expression, during the lapse of time in the course of the four either most recently started, or already completed, U.S. Presidential terms in office. The principal source of the presently onrushing, and also increasing rates of immediately threatened, now accelerating genocide, had been visibly expressed as implicit trends which have been presently continued, since the early 1960s, as the expressed effects of the so-called “Greenie” cult.

The currently precipitous rate of collapse of the U.S.A. food supply, is only typical of what is now in the process of becoming an accelerating present and future death-rate in the current U.S. population. Monstrous rates of increasing collapse of environmental conditions and food-supplies, are already warnings of massive accelerations of death-rates within the U.S. population as such, itself, even threatened extinction, unless the trend is soon reversed.

For example that continued, accelerating, mass-murderous trend under both the recent, named Bush and Obama Presidencies, is now approaching rates consistent with the British empress’s loudly stated intention to reduce the human population of the planet as a whole, from seven billions persons, to an accelerating effect avowedly intended to soon reach less than one. Without a present reversal of the so-called “green practices” of such gimmicks as the inherently silly windmills and related insanities, the Anglo-Dutch Queen’s presently mass-murderous objectives could be realized as fulfilled at steeply accelerated rates, even with, or without, major warfare throughout the planet—although nuclear/thermonuclear warfare still remains as the likely effect of the indicated oligarchical intentions and their consequent trends.

Those are, and will remain simply facts, unless the recent trend of such as Britain’s mass-killer Tony Blair’s reign, and unless the earlier, late 1960s decades’ already, if lesser rates of kindred, pro-genocidal tendencies, were both reversed.

Simply put: the rates of increase of energy-flux density in the concentrations of increasing rates of intensity of power per capita, must be now be restarted, and also accelerated; otherwise, the death-rates throughout the world are now already accelerating at rates which must be identified as a global trend in planetary human genocide.

The nominal trend in rising rates of genocide is not the only aspect of this threatening trend. The inability to maintain a correlated set of rates of increase of the energy-flux density of the human persons per capita, must be correlated with the falling rate of intellectual development of the typical U.S.A. or European citizen. The so-called “green doctrine” is a doctrine of practice which results in not only human genocide, but a decadence in the mental powers, and also the relative sanity, of the individual human being.
To Be Seen, From the Opposing Options

The two leading options for mankind now, may be fairly identified as the choice between the “Oligarchical,” on the one side, and what is fairly nameable as “the Classical,” on the other. The problem to be emphasized, is that the prevalence of the “Oligarchical,” on the one side, would ensure a rate of destruction of humanity which would be of the type which is typified presently by the tradition of the oligarchical system. In that case, the nightmare which General of the Armies Douglas MacArthur had faced in his time, leads toward a general destruction (and, possibly, the extermination) of the human species. In the case that the “oligarchical model” were defeated, the horror of thermonuclear warfare, or comparable consequences, would probably also be defeatable.

To restate the point just made, which of the two options prevails will tend, essentially, to predetermine the outcome for humanity.

When a currency, or its surrogates, assumes a form of what is called “monetarism,” or, in other words, what is classed as a system of money per se, or its likeness, the putative currency of the subject nation becomes, as it were, a practice-target, of a kind of potential evil, a downward-directed trend, readily wrought upon the credulous, and also an empty hoax, like Wall Street, presently practiced upon the credulous.

In competent practice of economy, the alternative to the folly of credulity, has been, chiefly, what has been presented by the initiatives of that true scientific genius, the original Federal Treasury Secretary of the United States, Alexander Hamilton. It is the same issue of conflict which I have long-since defined as a leading subject of my own profession, the scientific practice which is appropriately named “physical economy.” That has been a practice to which I have been committed professionally, with relatively exceptional rates of successes, since the 1950s, up through this present moment.5 More to the point, are my most successful forecasts, as in the Summer and Autumn of 1971, and continued onwards as through that year and beyond. On that issue I have never since been mistaken in a given economic forecast placed on the record by me. The reason for that success is that I had rightly known that the contrary methods of forecasting had always been systemically wrong.

The fact of my clearly actual forecasting successes, from 1956 through the present time, has been the result of the wrongness of all leading U.S. forecasting since 1956-1957, as shown in what broke open in February-March 1957 in the U.S. auto and related Wall Street sectors of the U.S. “Wall Street” economy. The assassination of the Kennedy brothers, combined with the clinically insane, long war in Indo-China, had sent the U.S. economy on a long-range decline in net economic effects from that time to the present situation.

Then, that much already said: why, more precisely, is my relatively unique, successful practice, the proper use of the names for the concept of “physical economy,” as here, in this specific context?

In fact, the unfortunately relevant fact placed at issue by the popularly foolish misuse of the term “physical economy,” has been typified by the case of such hoaxsters as the virtual idiots who have been operating widely in the name of “science,” such as such poor wretches as those typified as the admirers of that pathetic wretch, Isaac Newton. For all such poor wretches, the future exists only as a product of a deduction from the existence of the past. Just so, virtually all merely mathematical systems of what are called “economy,” are customarily premised on that often actually witless presumption often called “statistics,” or a worse mistake in the history of living species: the folly of the presumption that truth lies chiefly in an experience rooted from the past. The truth of the future is the occurrence of what never actually happened before.

There have been other aspects to U.S. economic follies, such as the folly of the political noise-maker and President Andrew Jackson, which all have a general background for effects based on the British banking system’s invasion and take-over of the market centered in Wall Street and Boston, leading into and far beyond the great financial crash under President Martin Van Buren, whose pet fool Andrew Jackson had been.

Now, henceforth, I emphasize the virtual idiocy, in effect, of the popular economists’ practice of an attempted forecasting of (implicitly) the wished-for birth of the presently, virtually economic dead suitably called “Wall Street and London.” That popular forecasting, by so many so-called economists, is what is still the customary practice of what is called “statistical forecasting.” Hence, the inherent stupidity in fact of practice, by Wall Street and its likeness, then as now.

In contrast to such worship of the dead, the late Douglas MacArthur is distinguished, in matter of fact, by his exceptional ability to forecast the outcome of the future while he lived! In all of this, up to the point of recent developments now, almost no important quality of forecast by me, was ever actually accomplished by means of statistical-forecasting methods. What did happen, was the absence of the potentially critical event on a relatively global scale, which already is more important in customary statistical forecasting, but which did not actually happen.
More Broadly at Present

Thus, when it comes to statistical methods as such, the most important forecasting is based more on “what did not happen,” far more than attempts at statistical forecasting of what were mistakenly presumed to be the statistical forecasts of the immediate non-eventful, but taken as typical of the abilities of our species during the time we have been presently living; the former are the most significant of events to be met in all attempts at forecasting crucially significant developments, especially the strategic forecasting of what did not, and probably could not have occurred according to the customary practice of merely statistical methods.

What I have said just now, typifies the most important of all forecasting capabilities, precisely because it is not, by its very nature, derived from any merely statistical experience. Such ostensibly unusual classes of phenomena, illuminate the most crucial aspects of human experience, precisely because it is in “their nature,” to do, actually, what could not have been discovered by statistical or closely related qualities of means. The most crucial discoveries delivered by Max Planck and Albert Einstein, for example, typify the distinction of that matter of scientific method, if not perfectly, but very well; they have done as both Nicholas of Cusa and Johannes Kepler had understood in their own times, and in their own pathway, a way which always lay along the pathway of a negation of that world of perpetual change, which had been, always, about to pass into a pathway of universal, higher energy-flux density, always kicking, as if, habitually, against the pricks.

Sedate? Or, sedated?

Let us, therefore, explore the escape-route from the fantasy of a blinded faith in a silly universe which must be wound-up even to seem to actually exist. I mean the principle of life per se, or call it some sort of human emotion, or a principle of change, for an example. The universe must certainly be moved, and, the evidence is presented, that it can be moved.

What should be considered the actually underlying meaning of that which I have just written here? Who moves what, and, in turn, what moves whom? Are those not the most relevant questions to be considered when we are faced with a reality for the universe? Is human life not, then, the expression of the effect of a moving experience by mankind? What, then, should passion mean? Perhaps: I Corinthians 13? Where, when, and how, is that implied motion expressed?

Under the Roman Empire, it was to be persecuted, or, most probably, killed. That could not be the proper intention, except for the satisfaction in the courage to defy evil, as a growing number among our citizens face comparable threats at the present prospect. Yet, the fact of our continued existence forewarns us to pursue missions of achievements in our Solar System which lie beyond the mere bounds of Earth. There is something important to be said, on that account: to wit, as follows.
Consider the Hoax in Sense-Perception

On the one side, those among us who are actually witting, recognize that mere sense-perception is not the underlying characteristic of the human existence. Our human reality is a cast shadow, which we have often been resolved to regard as a useful surrogate for a cast shadow called “sense perception.” Our true self, is as we are presently situated to think in such terms of reference, if we are focussed on our experience of the Solar System to such an extent as the surroundings represented within the ranges of both Earth and Mars. For many among us, particularly those of a more limited range of outlook, we are thinking in terms of thermonuclear instruments of change within the context of two nearby planets and a host of millions of pieces of debris known as both asteroids and the more menacing comets and matters akin to that.

Thus, as mankind advances into thermonuclear and related means within the implied future reach of the nearby planets and related debris, man’s reach will extend beyond the means of thermonuclear abilities, and, with that, the traditional outlooks of mankind on Earth will, as Douglas MacArthur might have said to us, seem to fade away, as the powerful forces which we shall acquire will make our past view of life within the range of man on Earth seem to fade away, as the mightier instruments of exploration emerge as means which mankind can progress in controlling.

This trend which I have outlined as prospective, prescribes a quality of human mission which we must adopt out of respect for the rapid increase of energy-flux density empowering continued great leaps in the energy-flux density of developments approaching human capabilities within our Solar system and ultimately far beyond. This century itself proffers giant leaps in the energy-flux density which might be achieved within the four currently prospective generations of human life on Earth.

Under such conditions, that prospect implies what mankind will then become, already, as relatively giant leaps in the prospects of mankind on Earth, and in terms of efficient connections within what appear to be forbidden reaches within the range of our presently still young century.

Already, within the bounds of the subject-matters which I had already scanned since the life-time of the great Nicholas of Cusa and his student Johannes Kepler, we should be enabled to shrug ourselves free of the oligarchical nightmares which have delimited our powers for progress during more than four centuries to present date. Then, the childish memory of blind faith in sense-perception will have dwindled, seemingly almost away.
1Cf. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.: “Nicholas of Cusa, Kepler & Shakespeare,“ [[EIR]], June 21, 2013, [[http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2013/4025genius_cusa_kepler_shakes.html]]or [[LaRouche Pac]] [[http://larouchepac.com/node/26982]].
2Cf. “The Great Ontological Paradox,” [[EIR]], July 12, 2013, [[http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2013/4027ontologic_paradox.html]]or [[LaRouche PAC]] [[http://larouchepac.com/node/27136]].
3At that time, the stated intention of the Anglo-American advocates of nuclear war against the Soviet Union, premised their original confidence in launching nuclear war on the presumption, that the Soviet Union had not yet mastered an ability to effectively launch nuclear war at that time. As soon as it was made clear that the Soviet Union had a credible nuclear weapons arsenal, too, the Anglo-American war policy changed: “Wait until a thermonuclear alternative had been developed”—but, by that time, Nikita Khrushchov’s Soviet Union had a major capability for thermonuclear weaponry, too. The only thing really clear, was the intention to have nuclear warfare.
4I shall come to those aspects of the subject-matter in a later chapter.
5As opposed to the trend toward intellectual and social degeneration of a society guided by the practice of monetarism. My successes have been widely successful in fact.