by Rolf A. F.
(updated February 14, 2002)
We need a good measure of shock therapy
Humanity doesn't need the physical kind of shocks that the IMF is applying for the destruction of nations. Humanity needs the mental kind of shock that wake people up out of their sleep. It needs a pedagogical shock that gets people out of the rut of worn out, decadent, small scale thinking. We all need those shocks to shock ourselves out of our mythological dreaming, to face reality with open eyes. If we get into that kind of thinking, the kind that forces us to come face to face with reality, we may shock ourselves indeed, with what we will find. We will find that certain key elements at the most fundamental level are no longer properly understood.
Without a physical economy we die.
As biological physical entities existing on a physical planet, we have no option but to breath the air we require to sustain our life. If we are deprived of it, we die. Likewise we must eat foot. Also we must have available to us adequate shelter and clothing with which to protect ourselves against the elements in all the areas of the world where the human being is not naturally adapted to live. Without food, and in many parts of the world, clothing, and shelter, we simply could not exist. Therefore, in order to supply ourselves with the essentials that we need, we support one another in the processes that are necessary for securing them. Actually, we do this at various levels.
At the grass roots level we have formed families that are most commonly bound by a marriage bond. At a higher level, individual families once united themselves into tribal structures for greater security and enhanced cooperation. On a still higher level, we find ourselves bound together into the larger union of a nation. On every one of these levels the underlying objective remains the same, which is to provide the supplies and infrastructures that are essential for the physical existence of the human society and the further development of it. This essential universal objective reflects a fundamental principle that we cannot ignore, or else we die.
At the level of the nation this universal fundamental principle becomes reflected in a national constitution. We become a nation under the banner of a community of principle that functions as the guiding star for the entire society so united. The principle, nevertheless, remains the same at every level of society to support the needs of human beings: to enable and enhance the economic processes that are necessary for the common good of all individuals, that is general welfare of society as a whole.
On the national level, one of these principles is called the general welfare principle. By its common commitment to this principle a society becomes bound together as a nation. It thinks, feels, and acts as a nation. And it does this not because of any religious creed, but because of an understanding that the adherence to this principle is essential for everyone's existence. The principle serves no other purpose than this. For this reason all structures of government should be designed to operate in a form that is subservient to the acknowledged, fundamental principles. That's the basis for all morality and legality, both on the level of government and self-government.
If, however, as it happens so often, that a financial or economic system is created that is intrinsically designed for the looting of the economic processes on which the well being of society depends, then the offending system must be deemed immoral and illegal, and must be shut down as it is no longer subservient to the principles of the nation.
This is the challenge we face in today's world. The present world-financial system has been intrinsically designed for the looting of society, for stealing from the life process of society. This includes the IMF, the World Bank, and similar institutions, which the U.S. totally supports. This system, and all that it includes, must be deemed immoral at the very least, and be shut down, or else it will shut down the living of society as we see this already happening in Argentina. But more than this, the failure of any such system to be subservient to the constitutional principles of the nation, renders the offensive system also to be fundamentally illegal, meaning that it has no right to exist in any of its forms.
The form must be subservient to the principle
The challenge that we all face, is to make the form of our governments and institutions, and our own self-government, subservient to the fundamental principles that we all depend on, instead of forcing humanity and its principles to become subservient to an imposed form. The form must always be subservient to the principle and reflect it. It can't be the other way around.
A modern society must govern itself in such ways as to assure that the fundamental principle remains supreme. This is achieved in various ways that assure that the processes for the general welfare of society are protected.
At its highest level a nation governs itself by a defined constitution which is a statement of certain fundamental principles that are understood and acknowledged by society, such as the general welfare principle, and the right to life, liberty, and happiness principle.
On a somewhat lower level society governs itself democratically. Here it elects leaders under the mandate to conduct the business of the nation within the framework of the principles of its constitution, such as the general welfare principle, and the right to life, liberty, and happiness principle, and so forth..
It is certainly possible under the broadly based democratic system for society to elect itself leaders who are corrupt, or become corrupt, who institute laws that, for instance, allow the looting of the economic processes of society, or laws which otherwise violate the fundamental principles. In such a case the elected leaders must be identified as being offensive to the nation and their offending laws must be deemed both immoral and illegal, and not be allowed to exist.
When such a situation arises it becomes the right and the duty of society to rid itself of the offending leaders and the offending agreements and laws. Naturally, this must be done within the framework and procedures of a civilized society.
To make the form subservient to the principle
The point is, the law is never absolute. The law is but a form which must always be subservient to the principle, not the principle to the form. This is a lesson that society has not yet fully learned, but which must be learned for society to be able to survive. This lesson must be learned at every level of our social existence, right down to the grass roots level. It must even govern the marriage bond. Perhaps in time it will. The form that we find there must be subservient to the principle of the general welfare, the common good, the right to life, liberty, and happiness, etc., or similar or higher principles. This is far from being the general norm at the present stage. In all too many cases the principle has been rendered secondary to the form. It is an enormous challenge, therefore, to reverse such a situation, even if meeting the challenge promises a richer life. This is in part what my novel The Lodging for the Rose deals with.
It is immensely more difficult, however, to challenge a defective form in the political sphere, such as we find in immoral laws, destructive processes, or corrupt government institutions. It is critical that we meet this challenge. Regardless of the difficulty, society must rise to the challenge. The financial and economic system of much of the world is mortally rotten. It is immoral under the framework of general humanist principles, as well as under the specific principles of the U.S. constitution. And being immoral it is therefore illegal. It has no right to exist for these reasons, apart from it being absolutely dangerous to society should it be kept alive.
The world-financial system, in its present form, is designed for looting the economic processes of society. That is what it has been created for. This is the function it fulfills. In this form it has brought much of the world to the brink of a total economic collapse and financial disintegration. In the shadow of the already ongoing collapse and disintegration, entire nations are presently dying, as in the case of Argentina and a number of African nations, while in the shadow of this same defective system other institutions and nations are rising up to create war as a means for protecting the global looting system.
We all know that such a form of government or institution should not exists. We recognize that we face enormous danger under this form of government and from the conditions it has created. We understand that it is illegal from the basis of the nation's fundamental principles and has therefore no foundation to exist in a civilized society, but what can we do as a society to rid ourselves of it?
We see an unyielding commitment in the world today to unleash the greatest war machine on the planet against half of the world, while the economies are bankrupt that are required to support such a war machine. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that this hopeless war drive will quickly lead to a nuclear war since nuclear weapons are cheap, powerful, and abundantly available. Still, society chooses not to act.
In other words, the challenge we face today is enormously great. It is an immense challenge to shut all of this down. Nevertheless, the challenge remains the same as it is on every other level of life. It is a fundamental challenge. The form must be made subservient to the principle. Any form of government, institution, agreement, or whatever, that is not subservient to the fundamental principle that supports human existence is immoral, and should therefore be considered as illegal, and be regarded as being ultimately valueless and dangerous, and as having no right to exist. This is what society needs to be brought up to understand for its self-protection.
In today's globally integrated world it becomes essential, not just for us, but for the global society to rid itself of every one of the violating laws, agreements, systems, institutions, and so forth, and establish new laws, agreements, institutions, or whatever, which will be subservient to the fundamental constitutional principles. I believe the key to this challenge is national leadership. The U.S. nation should commit itself to becoming a leader for the world in this regard with an unmistakable, unflinching commitment to its principles. Without this clear cut leadership by the leading nation in the world, what hope do other nations have, like Argentina who are subjective to us, or we have ourselves?
The point is, we must
change. Even the process of
change, the process of rectifying past mistakes, must be governed by the fundamental constitutional principles. Society
must rid itself of the violating agreements and processes in such a manner
that its well being is thereby not being impaired, but is protected
throughout the process, and is even uplifted by the process. This challenge is reflected in the
motto that was chosen a century ago by Mary Baker Eddy for the Christian Science Monitor:
"To injure no one, but to bless all mankind."
statesman and economist, Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr., makes the same type of
demand as outlined above, in
his policy proposals. He states that society must rid itself of the present,
rotten world-financial system, in
order that the nations can live again. He also states that its shutdown must be
accomplished through an orderly bankruptcy reorganization of the entire
system in order that the vital processes of the physical economy are
protected, such as the functioning of industries, the payment of pensions
and wages, the supply of food and medical services, etc.. He points
out that one can be assured that enormous social damage will be incurred if
the rotten system is allowed to disintegrate on its own, which is already
happening to some degree as countless enterprises all over the world are
being destroyed by the rotten system, to the point that they may never rise
again. LaRouche is very
strong on these issues. He falls short only on one single point, by not
society's reluctance in shutting the offending system down, as being a crime
in itself, by society against itself. However, one must ask: Is this
the task of the leader?
The American statesman and economist, Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr., makes the same type of demand as outlined above, in his policy proposals. He states that society must rid itself of the present, rotten world-financial system, in order that the nations can live again. He also states that its shutdown must be accomplished through an orderly bankruptcy reorganization of the entire system in order that the vital processes of the physical economy are protected, such as the functioning of industries, the payment of pensions and wages, the supply of food and medical services, etc.. He points out that one can be assured that enormous social damage will be incurred if the rotten system is allowed to disintegrate on its own, which is already happening to some degree as countless enterprises all over the world are being destroyed by the rotten system, to the point that they may never rise again.
LaRouche is very strong on these issues. He falls short only on one single point, by not directly labeling society's reluctance in shutting the offending system down, as being a crime in itself, by society against itself. However, one must ask: Is this the task of the leader?
Forms which have no right to exist
The natural reaction is that one should criticize Lyndon LaRouche in the above context for failing to fulfill his duties as the most advanced political leader in the world today, by not clearly pointing to the above criminality.
As the world's leading economist Mr.LaRouche is certainly correct in pointing out that the present world-economic and financial system is defective; that it has destroyed most nation's economies who have subjected themselves to this system; that the system has been created for the purpose of the speculative looting of the world's economies, which it has carried out for thirty years. These are all pioneering revelations that Lyndon LaRouche alone has put out for decades like a lone voice crying in the wilderness, to which society has lend a deaf ear.
However, as a declared candidate for the highest office of the government of the United States of America, one who understands the danger that the system imposes on society, does he have the right and duty as any citizen to uphold the primacy of the constitutional principles and declare that the defective system that society accepts today is not only immoral for reasons that it is not subservient to the constitutional principles of the nation, but that it is also fundamentally illegal for the same reason, and that it has therefore no right whatsoever to exist in the U.S. national domain.
But is the assumption correct that this duty falls within the domain of the leader? Doesn't this responsibility belong exclusively into our own court, our own domain, the domain of society? Isn't it our task alone to define what is illegal according to the principles we uphold? Isn't it the task of society to say: Thus far and no further!
Great crimes are being committed today by governments and institutions that are patiently tolerated by society, which are even labeled as being legal. Lyndon LaRouche has amply documented the most destructive of these crimes, but to my knowledge, and I may be mistaken, he has never labeled these crimes as illegal criminal acts under the U.S. Constitution, and rightfully so, because that is not his domain.
Lyndon LaRouche has pioneered the idea that the defective world-monetary and economic system must be put through a bankruptcy reorganization as a necessity for saving the nations and civilization, but he has never, to my knowledge, campaigned on the platform that the defective system has no legal foundation and therefore no right to exist, that it never had a right to exist, that it had been an illegal construct from the very moment that it was perceived. To the best of my knowledge he has been campaigning on the basis that the defective system is a legitimate system created by a democratic process of some sort. In other words, he does not trespass on the authority of society to make that determination for itself.
Since I cannot speak for Mr. LaRouche, I asked the question about his position as a candidate on the legality of the failing system. The following was his reply:
What I hear Mr. LaRouche saying to me, is that any change that is required in our society, in our governments, or anywhere in the world, must be a qualitative change for it to have any meaning. It must be a change that uplifts, not a change that tears down. It must be a change that ennobles and enriches our culture in an enduring fashion that also ennobles and enriches the culture of the future world of our children and their children.
He is saying in essence that any elephant can uproot a tree, but no elephant can plant a new one in its stead, much less a better one. He is saying that this is the unique quality of the human being alone, a quality of mind, a quality of cognition that enables us to create, to uplift, to ennoble. He is saying that this quality and its attributes must become the driving force in every area of our existence to cause the changes that make our world more and more a human world. Unless our demands for change are founded on this quality and its attributes, we are no better than the animals that roam the fields, and we will accomplish nothing.
He is saying in essence that any silly anarchist can throw a bomb into the face of government in a rage of discontent, but it takes a human being to care enough to raise the bar of perception within government and without to such a level of acknowledgement of the principles that we subscribe to and cherish, that the these principles will be adhered to by the strength of their own imperatives as these imperatives come to light in the minds of the people so uplifted. No terrorist or anarchist has ever accomplished that. Hitler has killed six million Jewish people and burned down their synagogues in a mad drive of ethnic cleansing to create a nobler German state, but has accomplished nothing except the opposite. How much richer Germany would have been had society raised up a common ground for a nobler, mutual appreciation of one another's cultural heritage. The result would have been a qualitative change.
Today's problems must be solved in the same context, a context that enriches and ennobles the whole world. In today's world Islam has been declared to be the number one enemy which is to be treated by the U.S. with brute force in a clash of civilizations war. This echoes Hitler's determination. The outcome will be the same, the destruction of the Bush administration (which may be indented) together with the nation as a whole. The key to peace in this realm, too, lies not in uprooting the 'tree,' but in uplifting the entire 'ecology' of the world in such a manner that this 'tree' can thrive and enrich the world with its dimension of humanity. Naturally, this process must not stop there. The same principle must be applied universally to every domain where tensions exist or a qualitative uplifting is needed. For example, the Government of Ontario in Canada has announced its intention on February 14, 2002, (on Valentine Day) to make it a crime for homeless people to live on the streets and in public places. Anyone who is so encountered will be put in jail. That's not a qualitatively uplifting solution, isn't it? That's a terrorist solution. The human solution is to so uplift the economic environment on the platform of the principle of the common good by which homelessness will cease to exist and no longer soil the face of society.
If I read Lyndon LaRouche's note correctly, he is telling me that the principle of democracy is not properly reflected in something as low as government by pluralist rule, or on a lower level still, as government by the rule of the strong, the rule of power, the rule that gave Europe 80 years of war in the 16th and 17th Century. I hear him telling me that the principle of democracy has actually very little to do with formal government, but pertains primarily to the domain of an individual's self-government, both in relationship with oneself, and in relationship with one another.
I see it as a principle that demands self-improvement, self-development, that demands one to constantly raise the bar of one's perception and understanding of the fundamental principles that define us as human, that drive our economy, that ennoble our society, that beautify our culture, that elevate our civilization, that enrich our world by our commitment to enrich the lives of one another, socially, spiritually, and financially. If I read Mr. LaRouche's note correctly, this is the essence of what he is telling me. If this is the case, I fully agree. This has been the principle of my life.
I have spent 15 years researching the principles underlying Mary Baker Eddy's discovery of Christian Science and the unique structure for scientific and spiritual development she had established, on which everything that she has established has been build. The work has been done for my own self-development and to enrich and ennoble the field in order to prevent the Christian Science movement from collapsing as it is in the process of doing. The work is documented in a nine volume research series that is presently the most advanced research document on the subject in existence, to my knowledge.
In an effort to address the great common danger to society as a whole, the unique danger of our time, the danger of nuclear war that rests squarely on the inability of human beings to deal with one another as human beings, I have written a series of three novels that are designed to raise the platform of our honesty with ourselves, concerning our principles and aspirations, and the struggles involved in uplifting them to a higher level than that which leads us to isolation, confrontation, division, and war. The novels reach down to the grass roots level. They deal with marriage, sex, boundaries and relationships, but they do this with a focus on enriching one another and elevating the nature of our love and the platform of our civilization.
I also support the Lyndon LaRouche organization in its effort to do the same on the political and economic level what I have pursued on the scientifically spiritual and humanist levels. To my knowledge there exists no other organization on this planet that is as fundamentally devoted to the same platform that I have worked from in my other pursuits, as mentioned above. The organization's goal, as far as I understand it, is to uplift human civilization on the platform of encouraging and developing the humanity of the human being and the strength of its intellect as the foundation for its economic, cultural, social, and political development. To the best of my knowledge, no other organization throughout the long history of humanity has raised the principle of democracy so high above the common image of it as related to pluralist rule or something less than that, that the image of democracy now becomes synonymous with an impetuous for qualitative human development from the individual domain expanding to the global domain.
This does not mean that one must close one's eyes to obvious problems that do exist in our world. To the contrary, the problems must be recognized and be understood for what they are, which forces one to address them in a qualitative uplifting type fashion. We must be sensitive to our failing, for this reason, which enables us to recognize the areas in which our environment must be uplifted. For instance, by society's failing to announce loud and clear to itself that the defective, presently corrupt and collapsing world-financial and economic system, which the United States has helped to bring about, is fundamentally illegal under its Constitution, and has been so from its outset to the point that it never had had a right to exist, - by failing to announce this recognition to itself, society bestows on the failing system a certain legitimacy which it should not have in its eyes, nor in fact ever had in the fundamental sense. The point is, society must be sensitive to its failing and understand them for what they are, which opens the door to an uplifting cultural change.
I agree with Mr. LaRouche that the determination of the legality of any system, law, or application of law, must rise from the depth of society own determination - not from a sloppy determination, but from a carefully reasoned determination of the highest form of right based on the highest acknowledged principles. This determination becomes the driving force all by itself, that elevates human civilization far above the thrall of evil.
In my estimation, Lyndon LaRouche operates within the parameters that society has established. He doesn't dictate what parameters it should have established. He never labels evil as illegal, but labors to uplift society to a higher platform of thinking and alertness in order to enable it to establish for itself parameters that are more closely subservient to its own constitutional principles, by which the illegality of evil becomes self-revealed.
This type of approach may make it more difficult for the world to rid itself of its failing monetary and economic system, which may be the reason why all attempts to get rid of it have so far failed. However, this is the only platform that exists to establish the constituency that it necessary to accomplish precisely what needs to be accomplished, which is to elevate civilization and society's self-consciousness to such higher levels that society will be moved by its own accord to establish the means within the democratic process to accomplish whatever corresponds to that higher perception of itself as a society of human beings.
Is it not rather our own responsibility, as citizens of our respected democratic societies, to stand guard for our nation's principles at the fundamental level and elevate ourselves to a fuller understanding of these principles? This is not the task of the leader. This is our task, the task of society. It is our task to stand on guard for the nation and to select leaders who are qualified to take the required steps in accomplishing the right we seek to accomplish. It appears to me that Lyndon LaRouche has chosen it to be his task to alert us of our failings, and to alert us as to what systems we should have supported, but it is our task alone, to define that illegal, which is not subservient to the principles that we as society recognize, understand, cherish and uphold, and defend if need be. The constituency that empowers the leader to act on our behalf is derived from this background.
A democracy is a form of self-government by a nation with shared responsibilities.
I am saying this, because it is the common duty of society to be aware of the actions of its governments and institutions and stand on guard for its welfare, but also to shape those actions lawfully. It is also the duty of society to be aware of what it supports by its inaction. We, as society, tend to look to our leaders to take the responsibility that we are not prepared to take ourselves. We say: Why hasn't our President done this, or our Prime minister done that? The point is: We should be asking ourselves why we, society as a whole, have failed to defend, uphold, and elevate the constitutional principles that our nations are founded on. This is our task. The key for our welfare lies with us. It is the task of the leaders we elect, not to take that responsibility from us, but to propose the necessary processes that must be enacted to make the form of government subservient to the constitutional principles that we cherish and uphold. This specific task Lyndon LaRouche has fulfilled unflinchingly for 35 years. Can we say the same about ourselves, about our own record in fulfilling our task? In a democratic system society carries the chief responsibility for its own welfare, for the defense of the constitutional principles, and for assuring that all forms of government are subservient to these principles. The leaders we elect carry a lesser responsibility in this regard.
This means that society has a duty to rid itself of a construct that it had deemed illegal according its constitution, or according to higher perceived principles, and replace that construct with one that is subservient to those principles. This requirement puts a lot of responsibility into society's own ball park. Most people may be willing to concede to this necessity. Nevertheless, they want to put the greater share of this duty on the shoulders of their leaders, asking them to map out the fight for them. That's the first step to opening the door to a dictatorship. To my knowledge, Lyndon LaRouche, throughout his many years of campaigning, has not fallen into the trap of responding to such false demands.
A democratic government is not a free agent
A democratic government is by design a subservient institution. It is subservient to the constitutional principles upheld by society. If any government acts outside of this framework its actions are not legitimate even if every elected official supports such actions. If such a government creates laws that violate the nation's fundamental principles, those laws have no right to exist even if the entire legislature votes unanimously in support of such laws, and they will not exist if society has raised the bar of acceptable constructs to such a high level that false laws cannot pass the test of legality established by society's perception of its principles. If this system works, the resulting forms of institutions and laws are fundamentally predefined. If this fundamental relationship between form and principle, and society's perception of principle, had been universally understood throughout the ages, humanity would have been spared the pain of countless wars, and as of late, terrorist actions.
If it were universally understood that the form must be subservient to the principle, and that the principle rests ultimately in the ballpark of society, most of humanity would likely regard it as its duty to rid itself of many of the presently offending laws, and the offending legislators. This kind of understanding, if it could be established in society, would certainly help humanity in its now necessary struggle to defend itself against a global clash of civilizations war that is being promoted by powerful forces throughout the world. One should certainly expect every candidate for the Presidency, and for that matter, for any public office, to inspire such an awareness in society and demand society to fulfill its obligations to itself. This is the best constituency that any candidate can build, to accomplish in office what society requires to elevate its civilization. Indeed, this should be the minimal requirement.
It should also be noted that such a commitment did once exist in North America in large measures, that commitment became the fundamental keystone in the United States' history that gave birth to the nation as a nation. This commitment gave rise to a demand of conscience that led to the formulation of the Declaration of Independence. The following is what the early pioneers had said to the world about themselves in 1776, and about their self-recognized responsibility on this issue.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." This is a statement of the principle, which is followed by a statement about the form that is subservient to the principle.
"...to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." That describes the relationship between the form and the principle.
Now, for the nature of this relationship. "When any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience has shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." Upon this platform the U.S. nation was created as a constitutional democracy. It is a heritage that must be protected, defended, elevated in thought, and be translated into action.
To a greater degree than anyone I know, Lyndon LaRouche is a defender of these principles, even a leading defender of them by a large margin. As a matter of fact, as a Presidential candidate he stands totally alone as the sole defender of the nation's fundamental rights and principles since all the rest of the candidates who have campaigned against him during the past quarter century have campaigned more or less on an immoral platform by supporting a financial and economic system and related policies which are fundamentally contrary to the constitutional principles of the nation and should therefore have no right to exist. Still, the system has been set up as having that right to exist, and the candidates have been set up as having the right to promote that systems and such forms of government, and will continue to do so for as long as society tolerates them. On this same type of platform that rendered immoral candidacies and elections as legal, Adolf Hitler's rise to power has been rendered legal when society failed itself by allowing a fundamental illegality to stand.
That's a strong accusation. As for our present situation, the record shows that Lyndon LaRouche has probably been the only advocate in the entire global political arena who has campaigned against the existence of the presently dominant system that is now destroying many nations, with the United States among them. But where is society's response in using that evidence he presented, as a basis for a charge of illegality in respect to the constitutional principles?
So it must be said that a legal ground can perceived to annul the election of a congress, a Parliament, or a President, even the candidacy of an individual running for election, if those leaders, or would be leaders, conspire to constitute a form of government by intend or misguided zeal that is not subservient to the principles upon which the nation is founded according to its constitution. Indeed, this will happen some day. It is not happening now, but it will when society reaches a certain awareness of the value of its principles. When this happens the clash of civilizations war will likely be declared as being illegal, that is presently promoted around the world. And it will end, and so will the authority of the legislators and institutions who are pushing this war.
I believe that many nations and institutions around the world, like the United States, operate under highly moral constitutions, all of which exist on paper. Most of today's warfare and terrorism would not be possible, even unthinkable, if the functioning of those governments and institutions was rigorously made subservient to the already, globally acknowledged principles, that is if society would acknowledge its own principles and act in subservience to them. In other words, society's welfare rests on its own shoulders. That is our lot today, and will always be that.
I may be ridiculed here, for saying these things
No doubt, the general consensus is that none of what I have pointed out above, will ever happen, even if it is required to safeguard human life and civilization. Perhaps the general consensus may be right that those essential steps will not be taken in our lifetime since the present generations have corrupted themselves too deeply and have thereby given up their right to exist. This is the outcome that the present policies will ensure, that society should consider for itself to be illegal.
Nevertheless, in future ages, as humanity begins to understand its nature and to acknowledge its rights, it will happen that society will assure with great diligence that the forms of its government will always be subservient to the principles of the nation, whereby the resulting actions are moral and legal and promote the development of the nation and the world. The only question that stands before us today, that is worth considering as the most essential question, is this: Do we want to wait for this to happen, and for how long? Or do we want to experience in our own lifetime the proper functioning of the form of government that the brightest pioneers of the past have established as our fundamental principles, such as with the founding of the USA on a platform of the General Welfare principle for creating the greatest nation on the planet in perpetuity? If the answer is yes, the appropriate actions must be taken with all diligence.
In other words, the future can be established tomorrow as easily as it can be established a hundred years ago. What is deemed acceptable and legal today, can be deemed unacceptable and illegal tomorrow if society raises its thinking and self-perception to a higher platform that rests on all the experiences, discoveries, and advances of its wide scene of universal history. Even if it does so to some degree. In response to my asking Mr. LaRouche for references in his writings to the interrelationship between attained perceptions and legality he replied in part:
See: Economics: At The End Of A Delusion by Lyndon Larouche, Jan. 12, 2002
Actually, we, society, have already established the groundwork for a brighter future. All we need to do is build on it (rapidly).
Some of what is required to rescue ourselves is already happening. Let's consider the so-called Asian financial crisis, for instance. The Asian nations were 'encouraged' to open up their financial markets. When they finally complied, they were promptly beaten into the ground by scrupulous operators. During a discussion over that issue, shortly after that crisis, a person from the financial circles defended these scrupulous operators' actions by insisting that the stronger traders have every right to exploit the weaknesses that exist, wherever they exist. He said that the Asian nations had failed to protect themselves properly.
One could have replied at this point that the argument was precisely the same argument that once justified eighty years of war in Europe that became evermore ferocious, culminating in the infamous 30 Years War that had destroyed three quarters of the population in some regions by the time it ended in 1648. This rampage became recognized by historians as the most horrible escapade of military madness prior to the 20th Century. It happened. And this is what society defends today according to the arguments one hears, spoken by supposedly intelligent people.
But this wasn't the counter argument that was brought forward by the moderator of the discussion. The moderator simply asked if the person from the financial circles felt that it is right for a strong man with a sledge hammer to break down the front door of his neighbor's house and steal all his belongings, because he has the means to do so. The question ended the argument. The principle that makes such actions illegal was understood. One might even say that the moderator's counter argument might have been enough to inspire that person from the financial circles to declare such actions illegal that he had strongly defended before that moment of a higher realization.
The point in this is simple. It is a fact that most of our civil laws are already subservient to the fundamental constitutional principles of the nation. Not a single law, for instance, could be enacted in modern times that would make it legal, for example, for a strong man with a sledge hammer to break down the front door of his neighbor's house and steal his belongings. Such a law would be challenged in the courts as being illegal and would not be allowed to exist. In other words, we have already put into practice the recognition that the form of responsibility and the government of a nation and its laws must be subservient to the fundamental constitutional principles of the nation. All that remains from this point on for society to do, is to apply that already existing recognition universally. Nothing new needs to be invented. All that society needs to do, is to stick with its best practices and apply those universally, and apply them to the highest principles acknowledged by civilized society. No revolution is required.
Society has a responsibility to itself.
The above example illustrates how society can shape the form of its responses and its actions to make that form subservient to the principles that society acknowledged, which it holds dear, which it defends, which should include the General Welfare principle and the right to life, liberty, and happiness principle that are centerpiece of the Constitution of the once most advanced nation on earth. That is to say that the most civilized society should encourage other people and nations to recognize that those principles are valuable, even essential for the secure self-government and self-development of any society or nation.
We must also recognize that society's political actions must be carried out in a manner by which society itself becomes uplifted to a higher form of civilization that corresponds to a fuller adherence to its highest principles. Violence, terrorism, thuggery, judicial political persecutions, and so on as we so much of it around the world, are not elevating society. They must be recognized as illegal forms of political action under our acknowledged principles, and must be so reacted to. The responsibility of society must always be to elevate itself by adhering to the highest principles that are recognized, understood, and acknowledged.
If some forms of government are recognized to be illegal under the principles upheld by society, than it becomes the duty of the citizens of society, or our duty, to assure within the civil processes that we have established for ourselves, that those laws or forms of government be changed - that they be changed in such a manner that they become subservient to our acknowledged principles. This is the fundamental basis of legality.
It is the responsibility of society to elevate itself. It is not the responsibility of of society's leadership to dictate this process. The leaders of society have a role to play in inspiring us to improve our self-government in acknowledging our own principles more fully, and to acknowledge higher principles as they become recognized. This is what Lyndon Larouche has always done and is still doing today.
An example for his acknowledgement of society's responsibility can be found in Lyndon Larouche's recent report (Economics: At The End Of A Delusion) where he summarized in the foreword of it all the problems society is facing, and the essential solutions for them, and then closes his remarks by saying in essence, now the ball is in your court. What are you going to do about the problem that you are facing. he didn't use exactly those words. He simply points out, be alert, "the ball is in your corner"!
A President is not a dictator.
History has shown that not even an elected President is able to act revolutionary in isolation, that is without a general constituency backing his actions. When U.S. President Clinton realized that the present world-financial system is beyond repair and needs to be replaced, he announced his intentions in a speech, to act in this regard, to create a new system. Before the ink even dried on the press reports of his statement, processes were put in motion to shoot him down. The Lewinsky affair was set up that nearly destroyed his Presidency, and society allowed to happen, except for LaRouche and a few others who fought to save the Presidency. (see: Clinton Impeachment) He failed, because he didn't have the constituency behind him for the actions that needed to be carried out. In other words, society failed itself, by failing to support its leader who would otherwise have acted to safeguard society from the devastation that was looming on the horizon.
Had President Clinton been supported to the point that the collapsing world-financial and economic system was replaced, society would have been spared the economic devastation that followed, including the September 11 tragedy and the mess we are in today, because of it, facing a global "clash of civilizations" war.
The point is, ultimately not even the President of the USA can spare society the responsibility that falls on its shoulders on the platform of democratic self-government. Self-government implies a society's responsibility for determining and safeguarding its future. The President can make a difference by taking the proper footsteps to carry out this determination if the constituency for it exists. But he is impotent standing alone, especially if he stands against a powerfully organized opposition in pursuit of its own self-interests.
In a democratic system of government everyone has a role to play in safeguarding society and uplifting civilization as is illustrated in the above discussion example. The degree to which this is being realized in society will determine whether society is able to rescue itself from the presently unfolding economic and financial crisis and the total disintegration of the system in the near future.
Who owns the political system?
From the line of reasoning developed here, emerges an interesting question: Who owns the political system - the candidates, the parties, the elected officials, the institutions? It has become customary in recent decades for big business and huge enterprises to "buy" themselves the candidates who promise to carry out their bidding, who change the laws of the land to conform with their interests. Indeed, they have been extremely successful in doing that. This is the reason why the present world-financial system is in such a mess, because it was constructed to serve the interests of looting empires and speculators, rather than the interests and needs of society.
The sad part is that society allows itself to be befuddled by the 'glitzy' campaigns of the "bought" candidates that are orchestrated by foremost psychological 'warfare' experts who are masters in twisting public opinions. This kind of disease is a symptom of society's own failing, because in the order of a democratic system it is the task of society to choose its leaders, not to have them imposed upon it. Instead of "bought" candidates competing for election in professionally managed campaigns carried out in a circus like atmosphere, society should consider its right to self-government by choosing candidates who are subservient to its principles, who understand them and are committed to them, whom it must then support by campaigning for them. Society must do the campaigning for its own candidates, not the other way around. And it must campaign like hell to see those candidates elected. That's how a democratic system is set up to work, and will work effectively, if we but give ourselves a chance.
Lyndon LaRouche shouldn't have to be the driving force behind his candicacy. Society should recognize his value as an able leader with a proven track record and recruit him as its candidate, and then campaign like never before to get "its" candidate elected. It is society's responsibility to be in the drivers seat of its self-government, and this in every respect, throughout the whole process.
As a model for this process I have set up a website that highlights the value and the quality of "my" candidate for the U.S. Presidency, regardless of the fact that I won't be in a position to vote in that election. It has been set up as a model for the process that society should embrace, that is its duty to embrace. The website is: LaRouche-Ok.com
Electing the most able representatives of our acknowledged principles is our task as citizens in a democratic society. This includes the task of campaigning for them, instead of allowing the money bags to befuddle us with the sensual hype of professionally stage managed glitz.
The same process applies to creating and maintaining political parties. At the present time both of the traditional parties in the U.S. are "owned" by powerful self-interest groups. Their present goal is not to represent the interests of society, but the interests if their masters who "own" them. This means that society has a responsibility to take back its political parties, and clean out of it the infestation of treasonous elements.
At the present time, the two major political parties that the American people had regarded as "their" political parties, do no longer exist. They have been officially privatized by the Supreme Court ruling which declares the Democratic Party to be a private club that is not bound to any official code of conduct. By default, this ruling applies to all parties.
On the strength of this ruling it was possible for the Democratic Party (club) to take away a large block of votes cast for Lyndon LaRouche's nomination for President in the primaries, and count them as votes cast for Al Gore. In other words, the parties as they were once understood, in the traditional sense of a democratic institution, do no longer exist. It is no longer deemed to be their official function to represent society, but to represent the interests of their money bag masters in shaping the political landscape according to their bidding.
The bottom line is, there exists no longer a political party in the United States that represents society, just like we have it in the world of finance, health care, and the general business community. We have reached a stage of regression at which the dominant forms of society's government are by their very design no longer subservient to the constitutional principles of the nation. By this fact they have become essentially illegal, even while they dominate society, but the remain empowered as society doesn't care anymore to eliminate illegal systems, but protects them in the name of shareholder values. The invariable end result of this type of process is typified by such spectacular crises as the ENRON collapse, the September 11 coup de'etat, as Lyndon LaRouche identified this tragedy, that is apparently being covered up, or the year 2000 election crisis in the USA.
Society has really put itself in a rather lamentable position by allowing itself to be totally disowned of its most vital economic and democratic institutions, by the privatization of them. This means that the entire democratic infrastructure needs to be rebuild again. This means also that the supreme court ruling needs to be overturned as being illegal, which turns the nation's democratic infrastructures, that are an essential element of the democratic system of a nation's self-government, into private clubs that are accountable only to themselves.
My point is that society cannot afford to allow the democratic process to be flushed down the toilette, because the long-term consequences are unthinkable as we are already finding out to some degree. In a recent webcast a frustrated union leader asked his people, "Do you think that the party of FDR and JFK still exists? Do you think the party of Lincoln and McKinley still exists? I think the answer is no." The bottom line is, the present process of total privatization, which was once called corruption, needs to be scrapped. The democratic infrastructures need to be rebuild. This won't likely happen until society begins to understand the nature of a democratic system and the tremendous value of it if it is allowed to exist to its fullest extend.
Ascending types of the democratic systems.
The world's democratic systems can be categorized into two distinct types. One might be called the Parliamentary system, which is a type of constitutional democracy where the supreme authority is an imperial Sovereign. The British Parliamentary system is an example of this type, where the Sovereign is the crown, embodied presently by the Queen, the Sovereign of the monarchy. The Sovereign is neither elected nor appointed and has the power to dissolve Parliament or remove members from it. In this sense, Parliament becomes more directly subservient to the policies of the imperial crown, than to the constitutional principles which are historically aligned to represent the interests of the crown. Nor exists their any recourse to protect and uphold the commonly acknowledged principles of the nation, in order to make the resulting forms of government subservient to them.
The situation is radically different in a presidential democracy. There the elected legislative assemblies (Congress and Senate) are required to enact laws and create governmental instructions that by their design must be subservient to the constitutional principles of the nation. This is what the President is required to assure. In essence, the President is the guarantor and the representative of the constitution. he represents the principles and the needs of the nation above partisan politics. But that's not where this particular democratic system ends.
It becomes the task of society within this system of its self-government to elect the most able and the most exemplary individuals to the public offices in order to assure that the process functions as it has been designed to function, or to remove the elected members from office if they fail to fulfill their duties. If this responsibility is properly carried out, society is in total control of its self-government. The resulting forms of government will necessarily be subservient to the constitutional principles without fail. By this process the principles that unite the nation as a nation, will be upheld, and all forms of its institutions and laws will be subservient to them, or else such forms will be abolished as demanded by society.
If one weighs the Parliamentary System and the Presidential System against each other, a unique difference comes to light in respect to making the resulting forms of government subservient to the acknowledged principles of the nation. In a properly functioning presidential system, the President assures that this process will happen by providing personal leadership towards the fullest possible fulfillment of that requirement. Society, in turn, assures that this will happen by electing the most able leader to the office of the President. None of that applies to the Parliamentary System where the sovereign is the crown of a monarchy that represents imperial interests in perpetuity. Such a system is essentially a privatized form of government by its very design, and functions that way. Under such a system no safeguards exist for society to assure that the resulting forms of government are subservient to the principle of the nation and its welfare. Unfortunately, the distinction between the two systems has been eroded in recent decades as the various elements of the democratic process have become privatized in the USA, which now fulfill imperial objectives as in any other privatized government. This is what has been unfolding in the USA during the past 35 years as the result of a rapidly escalating democratic neglect by society.
We are now in the end phase of the result of this process. We face a world-wide financial and economic crisis of historic dimensions. Nevertheless the fact remains that the design of a presidential democracy remains intact and can be reinstated at any moment that society cares to do so, because it is the central element of the presidential democratic system. None of that recourse is possible in an imperial democracy where the sovereign stands outside the framework of the democratic structure, which is itself subservient, not to society, but to the Sovereign.
Naturally, there exist other types of democratic system that fall in between these two extremes. Ultimately is doesn't really matter what type of system a society has established for its self-government, if society doesn't care to govern itself, but stands back and allows the privatization of the entire process. The same holds true the other way around. The prevailing forms of government are meaningless if society should decide that there is a great value for it in actually committing itself to its self-government. In such a case new systems will be established as needed that will allow this to happen.
The bottom line is, the political system that becomes operational always reflects society's focus on maintaining and assuring the primacy of its constitutional principles. If this focus is lost, society's self-government becomes lost, and its civilization becomes lost with it. Thus society drifts into a new dark age of poverty, crime, war, hatred, civilization clashes, and unspeakable inhumanities. That's what we have seen in the past, and what we are facing right now to the greatest degree, ever. We are in the end-phase of moving towards that kind of catastrophe.
What is the ultimate future of the democratic system of self-government?
That's an interesting question to explore. I know of only one person who has explored this question fully and put the result into practice, who has rolled the clocks forward, so to speak, into the distant future. That person is Mary Baker Eddy, the spiritual and scientific pioneer that I referred to earlier.
Mary Baker Eddy has established a system of government for the government of her church that is designed to assure in perpetuity that the resulting actions are invariably subservient to the principles that the church is founded on. She created a system of government in which the governing body is mandated by the constitutional bylaws to be 100% subservient to the constitutional bylaws under which authority the governing body exists and acts. This governing body has been created essentially as a self-perpetuating board of directors who are assigned the caretaker functions of conducting the business of the church, such as stoking the furnace, paying the bills, repairing the roof. No elections are needed if the resulting actions are essentially predefined by the constitutional by-laws that reflect the principles of the church. Even then, provisions are made for a vacancy in the board to be created if a board member is found by the members in the field (society) to have acted contrary to the defined by-laws and principles.
It appears logical that the future of our democracies will be found in this direction, as the constitutional principles will become evermore paramount in recognized value, and therefore become the determining factor for law and institutions. When this happens the established government apparatus will function more and more in the role of a caretaker, by which the focus in the democratic society will shift away conducting the business of the nation according to its principles, towards the task of elevating its perception of the fundamental principles and the discovery of newer and higher principles. This process had already been started once, which is reflected in the constitutional amendments, some of which society, mostly the criminal elements, today, routinely resorts to for their protection.
In this manner, by shifting the focus from the lower levels of democratic processes, to the higher levels where the issues become more principle orriented, society becomes evermore constitutionally involved in shaping its destiny by the means of democratic self-government. Democracy must not be seen as being primarily a system of pluralistic rule, but should be seen as a vehicle for establishing and assuring constitutional rule.
Will we see this implemented in practice? The answer depends on how badly we want to see it, which determines what efforts we will make to establish it. At the present time the system of constitutional self-government that Mary Baker Eddy has established works rather badly since its platform is not understood. We find this condition reflected in the general collapse of the Christian Science church movement. It appears that Mary Baker Eddy was not really all that interested in creating a system that compromises to the limitations of the time, for the sake of power, but to create a system that represents the highest principles and therefore will serve as a model in time immemorial. Evidently she rolled forward the clock of time to establish a model that would reflect what the democratic system must logically become coincident with the scientific and spiritual self-development of society.
Mary Baker Eddy's devotion to principle, regardless of the cost involved in term of establishing power, is reflected in the way Lyndon LaRouche speaks about his own devotion to principle. He said in a recent webcast, "I'm the kind of guy who would probably give up the power, risk the power for the sake of the principle."
His devotion to principle is reflected in his determination not to abandon the Democratic Party, but to run as a candidate for its nomination for President regardless of the fact that this is a futile exercise under present conditions. In other words, he literally demands society to get its act together and elevate its party structure to a level that is required for the party to function properly as its representative, the representative of society in the democratic system of society's self-government. His stand here, is a stand for the principle, not power. There is ultimately be no power exercised for good, without the power of principle being reflected in the operational processes. President Clinton had to learn this lesson tragically, as the entire world is about to learn this lesson again.
Lyndon LaRouche is committed to elevating society to the level of understanding where the realization dawns that power is of little significance for doing any good, as the case of Adolf Hitler demonstrates, and the countless other cases of those people demonstrate whose life is devoted to nothing more than to experience in a type of sensual manner what can be accomplished with power.
I have therefore great respect for Lyndon LaRouche's determination to demand society to initiate a cleansing process of the already established Democratic Party, rather than to start a party of his own. Instead of writing off the Democratic Party, whose present leadership hates him with a passion, which was well demonstrated during the last election campaign, he declares himself once again a candidate for the Democratic Party's nomination, with the implied charge to society to take back its own party, or parties, to clean its house, etc., in order that this party can become useful again. (see: Political Parties are Worthless) In other words, he is not allowing society to sidestep its responsibility for the purpose of stepping ahead, because that is ultimately impossible.
Evidently, all those election issues are currently of minor importance, anyway, compared to the immediacy of the financial and economic breakdown crisis that has gripped much of the world. During the first year of the current President's term in office corporate layoffs have almost tripled, business failures and unemployment have sky rocked, a coup d'etat was staged that was never acknowledged as such while it is being covered up and a war of revenge is being unleashed - first against an enemy that was rotten to the core, but was not responsible for the crime that it was charged with, while the war is now to be expanded against much of the world.
If one thinks it can't get any worse, the present trend is that more and more traitors step forwards and do their best to make an already bad situation untenable, such as by announcing a massive military buildup for an all but openly declared war against a half a dozen nations around the world.
All this regression into chaos was accomplished in a single year, with three years left to go under the same administration. The much promoted "clash of civilizations" war, the impending financial and economic disintegration, and so forth, are ominously on the horizon right now, not in three years time. Especially the present world-financial breakdown situation is becoming evermore uncontainable as the Enron collapse illustrates in terms of a symptomatic example. No one can reasonably assume that this massive accelerating collapse into hell can continue for another three years, without the nation itself becoming wiped out long before the next election period draws near, together with much of the world.
The depth of the transformation that is going on towards increasing insanity is best illustrated in Margaret Thatcher's Feb.11/2002 article in the New York Times where she points out that the enemy is no longer Bolshevism as in the past, but Islam, which poses to the Western world and its values a deadly threat - a threat must be eliminated. But doesn't she realize that Islam is an idea of a religiously oriented principle that is central to the identity of a large portion of the people of the world. How can anyone grow so insane as to propose to eradicate a widely cherished idea with military might? One can't bomb an idea out of existence. That's as absurd as bombing the mountains of Afghanistan out of existence. An idea can be elevated, however, with cross cultural dialog that builds on a foundation of shared principles.
As it stands today the threatened war against Islam has set much of the Islamic world on edge which has no means to defend itself against the mightiest superpower in the world except by reverting back to its holy war principles and whatever those imply in terms of counter-war strategies.
All that is happening now, not three years form now when the next opportunity arises for an electoral change of government. In other words, we have entered a period of crisis in which there is virtually no hope for society. At least, so it appears on the surface.
In reality, society is not helpless. Its salvation lies within the democratic system itself. Since the collapsing world-financial and economic system is the driving force behind the present crisis, society's hope lies in replacing the destructive system immediately, which can be realized virtually over night. The democratic process exists for that to happen. Society doesn't need a new government or a new President to instigate emergency changes that are essential for saving its civilization. Society doesn't need a supreme court ruling to declare the destructive system to be illegal, or some lengthy discussions in its Congress or Senate. Society is always in the drivers seat. Can anyone imagine that any President, Congress, or Senate would not react if 200 million letters were to arrive at their door demanding a certain action? Changes that might have seemed impossible the day before would be completed before the last letter was even opened. That's the power of a democracy.
Lyndon LaRouche is not demanding or suggesting that such a course be taken. That's for society to decide. His pioneering work lies in pointing out the immediacy of the danger, the cause of it, and what changes are required for society to have a chance to create an economic recovery. His authority rests on the historic fact that all his economic forecasts, projected years ago, have come true without exception, and all too often tragically so.
Lyndon LaRouche is pioneering the way
Lyndon LaRouche has not only accurately predicted the crisis we now face, but he has also stepped forward and taken pioneering steps in offering proposals for specific corrective actions. He is not a dooms day prophet, nor is he hosting gripe sessions like the many chronic complainers do that soil the political landscape. His work is always focused on uplifting humanity, based on a firm believe that society has within itself the spark of truth and honesty that will redeem it take the necessary actions to save itself. If it wasn't for this firm belief, there would be no reason to fight.
Against this background of hope he proposed to society what type of new system that must replace the offending system. He calls for a new Bretton Woods type system that is modeled after all the best features of the postwar monetary agreements signed at the Bretton Woods hotel in New Hampshire at the end of World War II. The form of the Bretton Woods system was uniquely subservient to the principles that are essential for human survival, national development, and the welfare of the world. The construct that was agreed to should be regarded as an international constitution, representing the acknowledged principles of humanity. This construct or constitution became the backbone for the remarkable economic development that swept the world during the 1945 to 1965 time frame.
Lyndon LaRouche also calls for a return to the platform of Alexander Hamilton's "American System" of national banking for the creation of low interest credits for infrastructure and industrial development purposes. While Alexander Hamilton's "American System" of economy was not a part of the constitutional platform of the nation's principles, it reflected those principles to the fullest and was totally subservient to them. For this reason, Alexander Hamilton's example, which was not arbitrary, but was rigorously based on the constitutional principles, should be understood and be acknowledged as an auxiliary to the platform of the constitution. The manifestation of a principle is not arbitrary. There are not many conflicting manifestations possible. This means that any economic system that fundamentally diverges from Hamilton's example must be deemed fundamentally illegal, and must not be allowed to exist. Or inversely, any economic system that will be created in the future must by necessity include the same features that Hamilton had instituted, as it must be subservient to the same constitutional principles.
Lyndon LaRouche utilizes the basis formed by Alexander Hamilton's "American System" of economy to propose a workable plan for the economic recovery of the world, which he recognizes to be the essential foundation for any recovery to take place, anywhere. This specific proposal is his by now famous Eurasian Land-Bridge Development Proposal. It is a far reaching proposal, which is designed to injure no one, but to enrich human civilization as a whole. He sees it as a beginning step, a model for any moral and legal approach to implement economic goals, constituting a form of economic presses that is totally subservient to all U.S. constitutional principles, and the generally recognized humanist principles that are acknowledged throughout the world.
All of LaRouche's proposed forms for the replacement for the present (illegal) world-financial system are intrinsically reflecting the fundamental constitutional principles that are essential for the survival and the development of society and civilization. Democratically elected legislators may tailor the specific implementation of the Hamiltonian features, but not the essence of them, which is required to keep the resulting system subservient to the principles of the nation.
That is the reason why LaRouche's proposals must be implemented. Society, really has little choice in the matter if it aims to survive. Fortunately, it has the moral and legal right, and the freedom, to implement all that is required.
Honesty towards the economic question is the key element for human survival
Lyndon LaRouche's Land-Bridge policy must be seen for what it really is, and be so understood. It is the key policy proposal for the survival of human civilization. It is probably the most important policy proposal of the 20th Century (and maybe for all of the 21st Century too.)
That's a strong statement, so let me explain.
If the policy proceeds, humanity has a hope for a bright future, if not there is no hope at all, even for many people's survival. It is the key component that determines the difference, because it cannot be launched unless the Hamiltonian credit creation is launched, and that cannot be launched until the present, illegal world-financial system is put through a bankruptcy process by which it ceases to exist in an orderly fashion, by which it becomes replaced with a new structure that is subservient to the constitutional principles of the nation and the world.
The form of that this will have to take, will echo the American System of economy and the Bretton Woods type international structure which Lyndon LaRouche has likewise proposed for that reason. The land-bridge policy, however, is driving the entire process, right down to the point of forcing the world-financial reorganization, which won't happen with an honest acknowledgement that the present system is immoral, illegal, and has no right to exist. Once that is done the road is clear, the Land-Bridge will be build, and the world-recovery begins.
The refusal to make that key acknowledgement about the world-financial system, is the core of all dangers in the world today. Lyndon LaRouch has warned loud and clear for a long time that the ongoing collapse of the world-financial system, if it is not replaced, will lead to wars in the near future that will be launched both in an effort to restage the world to keep the system alive a bit longer, and to provide a smokescreen behind which to hide the collapse of the system. All this has come to pass, and the dangers are escalating at an incredible pace.
One can liken the situation in which humanity finds itself to that of a child that tells a lie and then another lie to cover up the first lie, and so forth, by which the lies become evermore blatant. The original lie that humanity told itself is none other than that which covered up the creation of a global financial system that was created to facilitate the looting of the world's economies. That lie provided the mantel of legitimacy contrary to the constitutional principles of the nation, and the general humanist principles acknowledged throughout the world. Every ugly thing that has been happening since and is happening today is build squarely on the constructs of this lie. The September 11 coup d'etat attempt against the U.S. government resulted, according to Lyndon LaRouche's perception, from the perpetuation of that lie . LaRouche had warned months earlier that something of that nature was inevitable . Also the now terribly escalating Israeli terror campaign , is evidently build on the same foundation. Even the world wide "clash of civilizations" war that we face  is build thereon, and so appears to be the "axis of evil" military targeting of Iran, Iraq, North Korea and other nations .
Successive lies reflect themselves in ever widening circles, encircling more and more of humanity literally by the day. LaRouche's Eurasian Land-Bridge policy leads us on a backwards trail to the very heart of the nest of lies with the potential for exposing the creating of the present world-financial system as the breaking point where the form of government became no longer subservient to the principles of the nation and humanity as a whole. It takes us back to where it all begun, because nothing can happen without a correction, there.
Naturally, every policy build on that illegal system bears the same mark if illegality while the crimes involved become evermore severe that are being tolerated, such as Israeli's state terrorism that is modeled after the method's used by Hitler's murdering gangs during the eradication of the Warsaw ghetto.
The bottom line is, humanity has no hope on any front until the key lie about the world-financial system is addressed, the lie which gives it an air of legitimacy it doesn't have nor ever had. This is the most importat item in the world that needs to be corrected or the presently unfolding specter of war and terror will not cease, but become world engulfing towards a new dark age of unprecedented severity.
The bottom line is also, that this entire development of escalating evil can be reversed in a single step by which the underling failure is corrected. It takes nothing more than a bit of honesty by humanity, with itself, to accomplish that.
The fault lies not with governments
It is easy to blame governments for the mess we are in. No, ultimately, the fault lies with society itself. The Clinton administration had inherited the mess. When President Clinton spoke up by pointing out that the defective world-financial system must be replaced, he got stomped on . There simply existed no constituency for him to accomplish what had to be done. It nearly cost him his Presidency. Nearly all of the world's leader are in a similar position. President Bush inherited the same mess that President Clinton couldn't deal with, which is getting worse by the day. He struggles to survive under it. Evidence shows that he is pushed by the masters of the present system who control the "clash of civilizations" groups to go ahead with a flight forward dash to hell. He may not survive the consequences for the full term of his office, if indeed the nation and the world will survive that long.
The key fault lies with society that is dishonest with itself, that lies to itself by attributing a fundamental legitimacy to the immoral system which it does not have or ever had. Society alone can and must declare that system immoral, illegal, and without a right to exist. It is even immoral and illegal for society to force such a system onto its newly elected President who has little hope to survive for his full term under this system. We have no right to do that, and never had. The change to embrace reality must come from within ourselves, from the heart and soul of all of us who call ourselves human beings.
A precedent in America's spiritual, and scientific religious tradition.
It is not an easy thing, however, for a person to become honest with itself, against the weight of long standing axioms. Nor is this a modern demand. America's great religious and scientific pioneer of the 19th Century had made a similar demand a hundred years ago when she created a Christian church without a provision for marriages. She didn't elaborate about her refusal to include that provision. The refusal must have been a revolutionary step in the late 1800s. One can assume however, on the basis of other evidence, that in her perception the marriage institution as it was commonly understood in her days, had no right to exist. Its form certainly did not reflect the principles of Christian Science that her church had been founded on, such as the recognition of man as the image and likeness of God. The notion of the personal ownership of another human being like a piece of property is owned, that is also deemed to include exploitation rights, domination rights, etc., that had been build into the marriage dogma and conventions, was evidently far from being subservient to the scientific perception of the rights of man that her church represented. That institution, as it was, had no more a right to exist in this context than slavery had a right to exist. Consequently, no provisions were made for it. Instead, Mary Baker Eddy lifted the concept of marriage up to a much higher level where the problematic aspects are no longer a factor, where taller principles define the stage and make their demands for honesty.
The question needs to be asked if anyone complied with her imperative. Probably not, because the basis for it has not been understood. Evidence suggest that her imperative is bypassed, ignored, laughed at. Nevertheless, a model has been established that supports the great imperative of our time that has become critical for the survival of civilization, if not humanity as a whole in our nuclear armed age.
It is critical in the present age for society to achieve an alignment of itself with the higher principles of civilization, especially those principles that the nations are founded on, which are already clearly defined, and the more deeply anchored principles that define us as human beings. The needed turnaround for this alignment must be achieved quickly and universally. It must be such that it makes all forms of government, agreements, and institutions subservient to the fundamental principle that humanity depends on for its existence and its future development. For this reason it is critical that people become familiar with the challenge that is involved and make an effort towards meeting that goal.
Indeed, this process of stepping beyond the threshold of worn out axioms may very well have to begin at the grass roots level of our social existence where the same principle must likewise determine the form of the structures or institutions under which we live. Towards this end, my novel, The Lodging for the Rose, may prove to be useful.
This, then, is where we stand. Our reaction to the faulty systems of our times, in their all their forms, will determine our future, in one way, or in another.
The platform for the 1648 Peace of Westphalia was the principle of universal love.