-Caveat Lector-

forwarded....

Dave Hartley
http://www.Asheville-Computer.com
http://www.ioa.com/~davehart


-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bob
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 1999 3:38 AM


A new strategy for the United States

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

{The following keynote presentation was given by Lyndon LaRouche to the
ICLC/Schiller Institute Labor Day Conference on Sept. 4, 1999.}


The subject of this conference is strategy. And I would like to make
a brief aside to mention Col. Molloy Vaughn, who just recently deceased,
an old friend whom many of you may recall from previous conferences; an
old soldier who was always ready to do what was useful for the cause of
nation-building.

I would also like to welcome General Bedoya of Colombia, another builder
of nations and defender of those nations. And that is essentially the
theme of this conference, and the theme of what I have to say to you
today in opening this conference.

The world is presently in the final phase of disintegration of a global
financial system which was set into motion in the middle of August 1971.
 From that point on, from the decision made by President Nixon in 1971,
to the present time, the U.S. economy has undergone a series of
degenerative phase-shifts in policy-making and in practice.

This degeneration of the U.S. economy also reflects a broader
degeneration, led by the British Commonwealth--the British monarchy--and
other nations which have joined with the so-called Anglo-Americans in
imposing upon the world the so-called floating exchange-rate monetary
system over the period to the present time, since 1971.

That system is presently hopelessly bankrupt. It will not last. It will
disintegrate, or it will be shut down. {My alternative, rather than
letting it disintegrate, is to shut it down.} That means that someone
with authority must step in, put the old system into bankruptcy
reorganization, in the same way you would put a bank in the local
community into bankruptcy reorganization--more or less the same--and set
in a new system to continue the essential operations, the economic
operations performed by the old system, but under new rules, and under
new management.

It is my view, which I've expressed on many occasions, that the only
agency which can accomplish this, is the Presidency of the United
States. Not that the President of the United States can {dictate} such a
system to the world at large, but rather, without a leading role by the
President of the United States, it is most unlikely, perhaps impossible
in practice, that other nations would be able to get together with the
United States to shut the old system down, put it into bankruptcy, and
keep the world economy going, preferably without missing a step, under
new management, new rules, and new policies.

I've proposed that for some time as a New Bretton Woods system. And let
me explain again, which I've done in various articles and so forth,
which some of you are familiar with. But let me put it again in this
context.

We had a workable system from the time that Roosevelt was leading the
United States during World War II, until approximately 1964; until after
the assassination of President John Kennedy. There were many mistakes in
the system, but it worked. The system underwent a degenerative
transformation from 1964 to 1971, when the old Bretton Woods system was
cancelled, and the new Bretton Woods system, the present one, the
so-called floating exchange-rate system, was put into effect on the
initiative of President Nixon.

That former system, the Roosevelt-led system, worked in general. It gave
us a world economic recovery, at least in Western Europe, and in most of
the Americas. It also was beneficial for Japan, and beneficial for other
parts of the world. This system continued in the form it had operated
after Roosevelt's death, until about 1958. Then, the rules began to
change. The mud began to slide.

There was an attempt to go back to the Roosevelt policies under
President Kennedy. Kennedy's assassination was the end of the effort to
revive Roosevelt's economic policies.

We're now in a situation where the old system has failed, and we
desperately need an immediate change to build a new system. In the
reality of politics, to make such changes under emergency conditions,
and to make them suddenly, we must rely, at least to a very large
degree, on choosing precedents from past history, preferably periods of
history as close to our own as possible, and use those precedents as
guides to design the policy changes we must put into effect, to replace
the present bankrupt international monetary system with a new one, which
we urgently need to keep the world economy going.

It is my view that throughout the world, only the President of the
United States, in his position as President, under our Constitution, has
the influence, or the potential influence, and the legal position to be
the rallying point for other governments which wish to cooperate in this
enterprise. So that the United States government, under a leadership of
its President, in cooperation with other governments which desire to
cooperate, can set up a new international monetary system, whether the
rest of the world wants it or not.

We will do it that way, with that kind of arrogance, because we are
acting so that we can survive, and so that the majority of the human
race can survive. In other words, we will be acting jointly for the
general welfare of the world, and those who oppose that must give way.

{Given the authority and influence, waning as it may be, of the United
States, the President of the United States is the one political figure
on this planet who could, as they say, pull that off.}


                - Roosevelt's policies -


Now, the principles involved are much older than Roosevelt. But as I
said, we go back to Roosevelt in order to find a precedent for policies
which we must recognize were successful, in direct contrast to the
policies under which we are presently operating, which have been a
disaster for about thirty years, a continuing disaster.

Look at Roosevelt's policies, and let's look at them from the standpoint
of their historical background, and general principles.

During World War II, the period of a terrible alliance between a
Roosevelt-led United States and a Churchill-led Great Britain, Roosevelt
set forth to Winston Churchill, and to others, very clearly, three
precise policies or policy guidelines for the postwar world, that the
United States would introduce to the world, {whether the British
monarchy liked it or not.}

The first thing that Roosevelt specified, was that the world was no
longer going to tolerate what Roosevelt described as ``the British
Eighteenth-Century methods,'' that is, the methods of the British East
India Company and Adam Smith, the so-called ``free trade'' method.

Rather, Roosevelt insisted that because of U.S. power to create this
change, the postwar world would be dominated by American methods, the
methods which were introduced into the United States officially under
the first President, George Washington, as typified by the policy papers
of Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton. We were going to make American
methods available to the world as a whole. And we were going to scrap
the ability of the British to continue to impose their free trade
system, their gold standard system, and similar kinds of systems, on the
world any longer.

The second thing that Roosevelt was committed to doing, as he stated
explicitly to an irate Churchill, was that with the end of the war, the
United States' power and the support it would have from around the
world, would act immediately to eliminate all continuation of
Portuguese, Dutch, British, and French imperialism and colonialist
methods. That this would be the occasion for freeing these nations,
which had been subject to these empires or these types of influences, to
become sovereign nation-states, enjoying access to the kinds of
technology and technological progress which the United States enjoyed
and desired to continue to enjoy. And the British would simply have to
give up their old system.

Thirdly, Roosevelt pointed to the map of Africa and other parts of the
world, and emphasized that with the postwar world, the United States
would take the leadership, using American methods, proven American
methods of basic economic infrastructure development, and so forth, in
order to build up these parts of the world which had been looted,
ruined, and kept depressed under British and similar kinds of methods.

Parts of Roosevelt's policy were adopted after his death. But with his
death, the policy as a whole died. President Roosevelt had envisaged the
United Nations Organization as a way of bringing together nations as a
{community of principle} around the idea of the sovereign nation-state,
the {perfectly sovereign nation-state.} That such a community of states
must be the dominant force and authority on this planet, and the United
Nations would be a vehicle to facilitate the bringing into being that
kind of community of principle of which, for example, Secretary of State
and later President John Quincy Adams had written, in advising President
Monroe to institute: the so-called Monroe Doctrine of 1823.

That was American policy.

But, with the President's death, President Truman, under the influence
of the British, ordered Japanese troops, of a defeated Japan, which were
sitting in camps in Indochina, waiting to be shipped back to Japan, to
come out of the camps, pick up their weapons, and {impose French
colonial rule on Indochina.}

The arrangement was that the British would return first to take over and
replace the Japanese, and then French troops would come in to replace
the British. The same thing was done with the Dutch colonies, as
present-day Indonesia. The same thing was done with the French colonial
empire. The same thing was done with the relics of the Portuguese
empire, a relic which we see in the so-called East Timor issue today.

So that part of the policy--Roosevelt's community of principle--was not
established. Truman then adopted from Britain a policy, a nuclear
weapons policy, designed by a group of people in Britain around Bertrand
Russell, perhaps the most evil man of the Twentieth Century. Russell's
policy was the policy of the British monarchy. This policy was imposed
upon Truman, who, on British directives, through New York people, such
as the Harrimans, who were essentially agents of influence of the
British, decided to drop the only two remaining bombs--nuclear bombs--in
the U.S. arsenal on the civilian population of an already-defeated
Japan. Japan had been defeated. MacArthur, aided by the U.S. naval
blockade of Japan, had brought Japan to the point that it had no choice
but to surrender. {It had no possibility of getting the imports on which
its economy depended to survive.}

At the same time, the Emperor of Japan had already agreed, through the
Vatican to the United States, on terms of surrender, which happened to
be, exactly, more or less, the terms of surrender which Japan accepted
after the signing of the surrender agreement.

The problem was, that a certain section of the Japan military, who had
been opponents of the Emperor of Japan, Emperor Hirohito, were
determined to continue the war. This was the military section of Japan
which had launched the second Sino-Japanese war in China. These were the
hard-ball guys. And the MacArthur policy was, sit back, wait until maybe
October, until the crunch of the naval blockade brings the Japan
military to submit to the will of the Emperor, who has ordered the
surrender of Japan.

The British were determined that that should not happen. Therefore, they
induced the President of the United States, President Truman, a fool, to
drop the only two fission nuclear weapons the United States had, on this
helpless, civilian population of Japan.

The function of that, was to establish a reign of postwar nuclear
terror, the Bertrand Russell nuclear weapons policy, which has dominated
the United States increasingly since that time, to the present time.
Most of our military strategy has been a by-product of that lunatic,
terrorist policy of nuclear weapons as a way of attempting to bludgeon
the world into giving up sovereign nation-states, and instead accepting
some form of world government--something we call today
``globalization.'' Give up your sovereign nation-state, give up the
independence of nations, as Tony Blair demands; let a rampaging
enforcement crowd run around the world on one pretext or another, bomb
this nation, bomb that nation, just the same way that Truman bombed
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Bombing helpless populations, destroying
economies, in order to {terrorize} nations, and the world generally,
into submitting to this kind of tyrannical will, the will of world
government, the will of globalization.

So, those parts of Roosevelt's policy were destroyed. There was no
elimination of the imperial and colonial system. The United States
supported Britain in restoring, in maintaining, and building up the
imperial system, dominated and led from the City of London by the
British financial interests. The United States accepted a military
policy--a nuclear weapons policy--a policy whose sole and stated purpose
was to bring about world government and the extinction of all sovereign
nation-states, {including the extinction of the sovereignty of the
United States itself.}

That was the change.


             - The postwar policy retreat -


Now, at the same time, a compromise was made on the issue of free trade.
The United States was the only really functioning economy of that
period, at the end of the war. Europe was a mess. Britain was a junk
heap economically. And the only way in which the world could be rebuilt
to some degree, was through United States cooperation in setting up a
highly regulated system of monetary and financial and trade relations,
under which Western Europe, parts of the Americas, and other parts of
the world, could enjoy an economic recovery.

This economic recovery was not truly generalized, but it involved
several features, which were successful, which we called the old Bretton
Woods system, the pre-1959 Bretton Woods system. This involved the
replacement of the British gold standard system, which Roosevelt had
overthrown in the 1930s for the United States, by a gold {reserve}
system, based on a fixed price of gold.

This system was backed up by capital controls and exchange controls,
financial controls, regulated trade--protectionist methods of trade,
tariffs and trade--in order to foster growth and trade among nations.
Not the lowest price, not the Adam Smith lowest price.

The best example of success of this policy was the case of Germany.
After the United States had decided it was going to support Britain in a
nuclear conflict, or a potential nuclear conflict with the Soviet Union,
it was decided that Germany had to be rebuilt as a bastion, a logistical
bastion, for any credible opposition to the Soviet Union. Therefore, the
intent to {crush} the German economy entirely, which had been British
and U.S. policy at the end of the war, was abandoned.

Under these circumstances, a leading German banker, Hermann Abs, went to
the Americans, the remnants of the Roosevelt administration, and secured
agreement to a method for financing reconstruction of Germany. This
became known as the Kreditanstalt fu@aur Wiederaufbau, as proposed by
Abs, under which the most efficient use of Marshall Plan credit was made
for the growth of the economy.

That is, the use of Marshall Plan funds in Britain and France was much
larger than in Germany, a country whose population was smaller. And yet,
in Britain and France, the performance with Marshall Plan funds, was
relatively ridiculous, compared with the high degree of success achieved
in Germany, centered on Deutsche Bank and the Kreditanstalt fu@aur
Wiederaufbau.

This was a successful system. Obviously, there were many features of it
which could have been better, but it was a successful system.

While this was happening, and as the economies of the world began to
recover during the late 1950s; there was an effort to go back to the
free-trade system, step by step: to reduce controls, to lessen capital
controls, to lessen exchange controls, and to lessen protectionist
methods, and to shift toward free trade--your good old British
Eighteenth-Century methods of free trade.

The failure of the Eisenhower administration in its second term, the
economic failure, created the circumstances under which a President
Kennedy, who had modelled himself largely on the image of Franklin
Roosevelt, could become successfully elected as President. While Kennedy
may be judged to have floundered to some degree in getting his feet on
the ground in his administration, by the time he was assassinated, he
was becoming a fairly serious and capable proposition, as typified by
his manned Moon-landing policy, which is typical of traditional American
thinking, which Kennedy showed.

The assassination of Kennedy brought that to an end. Effectively, there
were remnants of--many of us still believed, as I did, in the legacy of
the experience of the 1930s, the war, and the postwar reconstruction.
But the policy was going down.

>From about 1966 on, the policy was to march toward the kind of world
which Winston Churchill, not American patriots, desired. Henry
Kissinger, of course, himself cited this a number of times. In an
address he gave in London on May 10 of 1982, he made reference to this.
He said, essentially--he pointed to the fact that the American
intellectual tradition and the British intellectual tradition, as
typified by Churchill, were at odds. And, he emphasized the conflict
between Churchill and Roosevelt on the postwar world, during the World
War II alliance.

Kissinger {bragged} about his contribution to this effort, saying that,
fortunately, after the death of Roosevelt, British policies had
prevailed, and Roosevelt's policies had been gradually eliminated.
That's what happened.

Nineteen seventy-one was the ending of the old Bretton Woods system, was
the point at which Hell began to break loose.

So, if we compare the two systems today, we have, especially as
Americans, especially as those who are proud of the American Revolution,
proud of the Constitution; Americans who are typified by Col. Molloy
Vaughn, a distinguished officer who in retirement continued to serve his
country with the same vigilance and vigor as a nation-builder, {a
builder of other nations, as well as the United States.} A man who
recognized that building up other nations as sovereign nation-states, as
healthy nation-states, is, in the last analysis, the greatest source of
security for the United States as a nation in the world.


          - Creating a new financial system -


Those of us who recognize the qualified--well, we make criticisms, you
know, of Roosevelt--you could make a lot of criticisms. He was a
compromiser, like most Presidents, like most American politicians. He
made compromises during the war, which could be criticized. {But he did
the job, compromises or not.} His system, to the extent that it was
continued after the war, for as long as it was continued, worked. You
could criticize it. I {did} criticize it, then. I would criticize it
today. {But it worked!}

My problem is twofold: Number one, since the crisis that's going to
disintegrate this world financial system is going to occur on the watch
of the present, incumbent President of the United States, that is, Bill
Clinton, then Bill Clinton must adopt certain policies, and sometime
{very soon,} which bring a new Bretton Woods system into agreement.

Now, Bill can't do it all. Because even if he wanted to do it all, he's
got a pretty bad Congress. Therefore, we have to have a new Congress.
But we can't get that until January 2001. I think we can do it,
especially if President Clinton leads in taking the necessary first
steps.

The first step has to be to bring a group of nations together to agree
to put the old system into bankruptcy reorganization, that is, the world
system. That doesn't mean we go into other countries which may not
subscribe to this meeting, this conference, and tell them they're going
to do that internally. No, we don't tell them that. We say, ``{We're}
going to do it. The United States and its partners are going to do it,
in terms of their relationship.''

Now, the nations I've listed as the candidates for this kind of
cooperation are led by China, Russia, India, some part of Europe--and
hopefully, we'll get a government in Germany which can pull itself
together and play a key role as the keystone nation of western
continental Europe, as a partner with the U.S., in cooperation for the
development of Asian countries, and the rebuilding of Russia--Asian
countries such as China, India, Pakistan, Iran, Malaysia, and so forth.
Countries that have indicated they would like such a system of
cooperation, particularly if it's backed by a group of nations which
represents the {majority of the human race!}; which represents the
predominant power on this planet.

If you take the United States, with our friends in South America, our
friends in Africa, our friends in continental Europe, our friends in
Russia, our friends in China, our friends in other parts of Asia, our
friends presumably in Japan, who will come along with us on this one,
{that is power. There is no greater power on this planet than such a
combination.} If we decide that our relationship with one another, and
the relationships we offer jointly and individually to other countries
are going to be based on the new system, {I guarantee you, the old
system is finished at that moment, and a new system will start
immediately.}

That is the job that President Clinton must do, as the man who convenes
the conference, and the man who sets forth the initiating proposal which
results in these emergency decisions.

The key to it, is to bring forth what I just summarily described to you
earlier.

Look at the record. Look at the record of the American System in its
best periods, but look more immediately at the record of what Roosevelt
did, and what he proposed, and what should have been done, that was not
done.  And look at how the rejection of Roosevelt's direction of
policy-making led to this global disaster, which has gripped this world
for thirty years, and now brings us to the virtual edge of an
apocalypse. Both a financial apocalypse, and every other kind of an
apocalypse!


               - Malaysia, for example -


That evidence on the table--take the case, for example, of Malaysia--the
case of Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad, the Prime Minister of Malaysia.
Remember what {that bum,} Al Gore, did, when on a trip as a guest of
APEC, speaking as a guest of APEC, under hospitality of the Prime
Minister of Malaysia, made the most aggressive, insulting speech
imaginable. He makes Ribbentrop look like a sophisticated diplomat, by
comparison--the Nazi representative earlier.

What Mahathir did--which was denounced by Al Gore, who is pretty much
anti-Franklin Roosevelt up and down the line, on every issue--has been
successful, in contrast with every other country which followed a policy
contrary to what Mahathir did.

All these countries of Southeast Asia, countries in Asia, countries in
Africa, all the patriots and serious people in these countries want
that. They want that! They want national sovereignty, they want the
chance for real economic growth, they want to be able to protect their
economies--they do not want to be a garbage pail in which more powerful
nations rummage.

If the United States, with China, with Russia, with India, with perhaps
Germany, and with other countries joining them, agree that we must do
this immediately, and agree, {``Let's use the Roosevelt model, of what
Roosevelt intended to do at the end of the war--let's do it that way.
Because that contains successful elements, in contrast to what we've
seen is the incompetence of the anti-Roosevelt methods.''}

If Clinton can do that, he will have saved civilization from
consequences perhaps beyond our imagination.


        - Let us create a qualified citizenry -


Now, then the next questions: What happens in January 2001? Where does
the world go from there? Well, we have to have a new President,
according to the present Constitution--I'm not against a third term for
Bill Clinton entirely, but that's the way things are.

And at present, I'm the only person who is qualified to be that
President--the successor to Bill Clinton. No one else on the horizon is
qualified. I wish they were. {The most dangerous thing for humanity is
to find only one person, particularly an old grandfather like me--one
person, the only qualified President of the United States, in this
situation.} That's not good. I'm too vulnerable. And maybe the Queen has
some people in England who would threaten to get rid of me, shut my
mouth, kill me. That's not good.

We've seen what happened to the United States when Lincoln was
assassinated, again by a British assassin. We saw what happened in the
United States when Garfield was assassinated, again by the same kind of
operation. We see what happened to the United States when McKinley was
assassinated, this time, again, openly by a British-directed
assassination.

{We are too vulnerable.} We depend so much upon so few in times of great
crisis, when great leadership is needed, that those leaders who can do
the job, who are so few, so almost irreplaceable. The enemy always
recognizes: ``knock those off, kill them, eliminate them, jail them,
discredit them, defame them.'' The enemy recognizes that's a very
effective method, and then it might be able to come in and do as it
wants to do.

Which is exactly what happened with the death of Roosevelt. You had poor
Truman, who was certainly not up to the job. He had many shortcomings,
shall we say. He was a patsy for the Churchill crowd. He was a {fool,}
compared to Roosevelt. The loss of Roosevelt by his untimely death in
the spring of 1945, has been a disaster for global civilization.

So therefore, I'm not {pleased} to be the only qualified candidate to be
President of the United States in the year 2001. There should be others
who are qualified. Well, if there should be others, and I would not like
to be alone and vulnerable in that position, under such circumstances,
{why don't we produce them?}

Why don't we say to our fellow Americans: You don't have a right to be
stupid! You don't have a right to say, ``I follow the news,'' when you
know that most of our news media lie to you most of the time about
everything, and doesn't mention most of the things that are important!
And you rely upon ``interpreting the issues,'' as defined by these
crooked, monstrously corrupt news media people?

What's wrong with you? Why don't you start {thinking for yourself}? Why
don't you take up the so-called ``heavy issues,'' think them through?
Why don't you learn a little bit of history? Why don't you learn some
science? Why don't you demand that the people who can teach it to you,
{teach} it to you? Not to make you a professional of this or that, but
simply to qualify you as a citizen, to know what's going on and what has
to be done, and how to judge the great questions that face the nation.
How to rally your forces as citizens, behind the kind of leadership we
should be getting out of, especially, the President, and from within the
Congress.

That's what we must worry about. And that's what we must worry about
{now.}

I've laid out what must be done, what Clinton must do. I will lay it out
in more detail. But, looking forward to the year 2001, even presuming
that Clinton does what he must do in the coming months; looking ahead,
we must not have merely a change of President. {We must have a change in
the temper of government, in the temper and outlook of the American
people.}  We have to organize our people. We have to get them to think,
not to say, ``Well, I have my opinion.''


              - The question of strategy -


Now, let's go back to this question of strategy. I've dealt with this in
a recent article on the subject of Congress's revisiting the ABM treaty.
I've dealt with this at some length there. I've also dealt with relevant
questions in the matter of how to tell the future, a subsequent article.

But what is this business of strategy in politics? Why do I say, don't
go running around quoting Clausewitz saying, ``war is politics continued
by other means''? It's not true.

Take the case of our dear friend Molloy Vaughn. Take the case of General
Bedoya of Colombia. What's the issue here? What's the issue that faces
military people who are patriots, who have some understanding of the
world about them, as well as of the needs of their own nation? What is
the military man of {that quality}--what does he think?

He says, what's his objective? The objective, as General Bedoya has
expressed it in his own way, in travelling throughout South America
recently; the way that Molloy Vaughn was concerned about nation-building
in all kinds of small countries and regions around the world, not just
as a U.S. officer concerned about the U.S., and building up the U.S. as
a nation-state. {Molloy always understood the security of the United
States depended upon building other nations up, as our friends, as
nations whose instincts would jibe with ours, in terms of the kind of
world, the kind of world neighborhood--the community of principle--in
which we wish to live.}

General Bedoya's raised the same question for the Americas--the Americas
in general, South America most emphatically. The security of Colombia
depends upon the security of the Americas, and the security of the
Americas depends upon the security of Colombia, its freedom from this
terrible monstrosity which this terrible woman, Madeleine Albright, is
fostering in Colombia, against the vital interests of the United States
as well as against the Colombian people.

The starting point of politics, in relationship to military strategy, is
political strategy. On this planet, there are two important currents,
political currents. One, typified by the Venetian tradition, which is
the British monarchy's tradition, is called the oligarchical tradition:
that a few, controlling money and influence, must rule the world, and
the rest of them must be treated as cattle. {You} must be treated as
cattle. And you must be herded, made to seem happy, perhaps, but you
exist for the pleasure of the cattle-owners--the British monarchy, the
financial interests who talk about the sanctity of money, the sanctity
of finance, the sanctity of financial systems, which are independent of
interference from governments.

What are governments? {Governments are instruments of representation of
a nation.} So, a nation says it must not have any instrument to impose
its will upon this thing from Mars, this financial oligarchy, which
comes in like a bloodsucker, like Dracula by night, to suck the blood of
our people.

Then, on the other hand, you have the other policy, which has been
called modern European culture since the Fifteenth Century: the
development of the modern nation-state, whose function is to serve the
general welfare, not only of ourselves, that is, our present generation,
but also {our posterity,} for hundreds and thousands of years to come.
{The government must be governed by nothing but its commitment to serve
that general welfare.} That's our Constitution. That's our law; only
understand it. That's what the President of the United States must
represent, is that point of view. He must take care of the people and
{their posterity.}

We also have to take care of a system of nations in which the nations
are self-ruled, are sovereign, under this principle of general welfare.

We desire two things: that every government be a sovereign government of
a sovereign nation; that it be committed to the general welfare. We also
desire that this nation be intelligent enough to recognize that its
enemy is any system which threatens systems of government which are
committed to sovereignty in service of the general welfare.

Therefore, since we must have nation-states as the only way in which
people can be represented in their government, we must have a {system}
of nation-states. And the system will work {only to the degree that each
nation-state is governed by a commitment to the principle of the general
welfare, and that all nation-states each recognize that their well-being
as independent nation-states, and their security, depends upon applying
the same notion of general welfare to the world as a whole, to all
nation-states.}

That is the direction, the American direction, as Kissinger identified
and denounced it. That is what Roosevelt represented at his best. Forget
all the criticisms, forget all the qualifications. {Roosevelt, as
distinct from Churchill, represents what we want! Churchill, as distinct
from Roosevelt, represents what we do not want. What we want in the
world, what we don't want in the world.} It's not a matter of ``do's''
and ``don'ts,'' and ``what's this,'' and so forth, all this kind of
thing that people talk about. It's very simple. The principle of the
general welfare, the principle of the nature of man, as a thing above
the beasts; man as a creature of cognition; the individual as a person
of creative cognitive powers, cogntive powers which must be educated and
developed in the young, to bring the benefits and security to the
present generations and to the future.

That is the source of strategy.  That {political commitment} is the
source of our strategy against the strategy of people in the Churchill
tradition, for example. Therefore, we must develop the military means
and methods which are consistent with our nation-building policy and
strategy.

That's what strategy is.  Use science, use knowledge, use cognition.
For example, take the case of another friend of mine who died some time
ago, Col. Tom McCrary, a West Point specialist who served as the point
colonel for General Patton in the Third Army's march.

And, he described the way he functioned going into Germany and into
Austria.  These soldiers, who were typical of the West Point tradition
from former times; {these commanders and these non-commissioned cadres,
acted to rebuild the economy, to rebuild the nations which their forces
had invaded.} Because people in that tradition understood that you don't
fight wars to defeat enemies. You fight wars when necessary and when
justified, for only one purpose:  to shape the outcome of history, in
favor of what? I say, in favor of a system of sovereign nation-states,
each governed by a fundamental constitutional principle of the general
welfare, and all sharing and understanding that the survival and
security of one, depends upon the general welfare provided by all to
each.

And that's the theme I propose to you today.
--

DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substanceónot soapboxing!  These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically  by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Reply via email to