Home | Search | About | Fidelio | Economy | Strategy | Justice | Conferences | Join
| Calendar | Music | Books | Concerts | Links | Education | Health
What's New | LaRouche | Spanish Pages | PoetryMaps
Dialogue of Cultures

How Bertrand Russell
Became An Evil Man
Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
July 28, 1994
Part 1 (of 3)

This article is reprinted from the Fall, 1994 issue of FIDELIO Magazine. Footnotes for this section are at the bottom of this page. Footnotes for Sections 2 and 3 are on one separate page.

[PDF version of this article] NOTE: PDF version does not contain the special note concerning footnote 91..


To Part 2

To Part 3

Footnotes for Part 1

Footnotes for Parts 2 and 3

FIDELIO Magazine Table of Contents

Reflections Upon Tragedy & Hope


The spark of genius in the pre-school child, if it has not been destroyed already, is often typified by the Socratic manner in which the child asks "Why?" Sadly, in the United States in our times, that spark of genius is usually soon quenched by the old dishwater of what Riesman termed "other-directedness,"[1] by that peculiar turn of the sadistic screw sometimes named euphemistically empiricism and pragmatism. A child's spark of genius, the wont to find out how and why past or current opinions and events came into existence, is replaced by brutish faith in the fruits of mere inductive generalization from individual and collective experience, a form of moral self-degradation often termed "practical common sense," or with credit given appropriately to bestiality, "horse sense."

All of the truly great philosophers and teachers of the known history of European civilization, beginning with the best of the Ionian Greeks, and associated famously with Plato's Academy at Athens, or Nicolaus of Cusa and Gottfried Leibniz, have evoked true genius from within young people by recapturing that innate spark of potential, using what is most fairly described as Socratic method. Formalism, by contrast, kills the soul, as this was recognized by the most famous of the modern formalists, Venice's Pietro Pomponazzi,2 who searched for his own soul, and, poor schlemiel that he had become, reported that he had none.

Thus, since it is that innate spark of potential for genius in every human child which sets all mankind absolutely apart from and above the beasts, we are able to recognize, as Philo of Alexandria shows this the necessary reading of Moses' first chapter of Genesis, that that quality of genius is the human soul, is the aspect of the individual person which is, in the Latin of Nicolaus of Cusa, both imago Dei (the image of God) and capax Dei (the potential to participate in God) .3 Thus, the formalism which caused the loss of Pomponazzi's soul is intrinsically the adversary of the Good, is evil.

Fortunately, in most cases it is possible to requicken the spark of genius innate to the new child. All the great teachers did this. Every good teacher attempts to do that in some degree, in his or her approximation of the Socratic method employed by Plato, Eudoxus, Theaetetus, Archimedes, Cusa, and Leibniz. One need but reawaken the genius of the child, by citing the password to genius, "Why?"

Begin by choosing an important single event from history. Choose any such event in which there is evidence that the event was motivated by aid of some widely accepted, but fraudulent pretext. Seek to discover what motivated that fraud, and seek to uncover also the reasons that fraud was tolerated by its dupes. Keep asking "Why"? Peel the onion, layer by layer, until the history embedded in that single act is brought to the surface. The result of that sort of Socratic exercise is a referent for the proper definition of the word "knowledge."

So, let us begin.

See in your mind's eye a B-29 bomber aircraft, called the "Enola Gay," flying to its hellish appointment, that horror-stricken summer's day in 1945. 4 Why did the United States government drop the only two nuclear-fission weapons in its arsenal upon those two virtually defenseless population-centers in Japan? The U.S. government lied when it said this was necessary to save perhaps a million or so U.S. soldiers' lives. Before the dropping of what quickly came to be described in awe-stricken tones as "the bomb," the Emperor of Japan was already negotiating surrender with the Truman government, through Vatican channels, on the same terms Japan's surrender was accepted after the bombs were dropped.5

With that brief reminiscence, we have touched the history of this century at one of its crucial turning-points.

Since the alleged military urgency of the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a lie, whose purpose did that bombing serve? One of those whose purpose was served in Hiroshima that day, was a modern Mephistopheles, Bertrand Russell, whose shadow is cast ominously upon both the living and generations of all mankind yet unborn, at the projected 1994 U.N.O. Cairo Population Conference. To understand why British intelligence networks inside the U.S. government manipulated President Harry Truman into dropping those unnecessary atom bombs upon Japanese civilians, it suffices to read Russell's own explanation of his and Winston Churchill's nuclear-weapons policy, in the September 1946 edition of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: "The Atomic Bomb and the Prevention of War."6

In that 1946 report, Russell presents his motive for the continued use of the geopolitical threat of nuclear weaponry by himself, Winston Churchill, et al.: to blackmail Moscow into submitting to an agreement whose purpose, Russell states explicitly there, is to transform the then recently established United Nations Organization into the kind of one-world dictatorship for which his world-federalist utopians have continued to work throughout this century.7

Russell's strategic dogma, as articulated in that 1946 edition of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, has shaped most of the history of this planet since that date. Since Soviet General Secretary N.S. Khrushchev sent four official representatives to Russell in London in 1955, to negotiate a thermonuclear condominium along the lines Russell had prescribed in that 1946 statement of his strategic doctrine,8 until the fall of the Gorbachev government in August 1991, the smaller and weaker nations of the world have been ruled by a U.N.O. world government in the form of a thermonuclear condominium between the political blocs dominated respectively by the two rival super-powers, Moscow and the Anglo-Americans.

For those who know both the approximately fifty-years history of the discovery of nuclear fission and fusion, since the discoveries of both Professor Dmitri Mendeleyev and the Curies,9 the proof exists to show that Russell's intent as expressed in that 1946 article, was the same intent which Russell and his cronies had in duping the United States government into building the bomb in the first place: to produce and use a weapon so horrifying that nations would surrender their sovereignties to a global arbiter of policy, a United Nations world-government dictatorship, the "final imperialism."

Excepting a few, such as the Dr. Leo Szilard,10who was approximately as evil as his master Russell, most of the scientists working on the Manhattan Project were, like the Fusion Energy Foundation co-founder, the late Professor Robert J. Moon ,11 dedicated and accomplished persons, who sincerely believed Russell's great lie of 1939, that Hitler was committed to building a nuclear-fission weapon, and that we must get there first. Russell and his cronies, the true authors of the famous letter to President Franklin Roosevelt which Russell's cabal induced Albert Einstein to sign,12 knew that Hitler was not going to sponsor such research and that the relevant German scientists around Professor Werner Heisenberg were determined that such a weapon not be built for Hitler's use.13

Unlike the misinformed honest atom scientists, the Russell of 1939 pushed to have the weapon built for exactly the motives he articulated later in the 1946 restatement of his intent. World-federalist, utopian fanatic Russell conceived of the development and use of nuclear weaponry as a trick for terrifying governments into abandoning the right to defend their sovereignties by military means. As he stated this purpose in his 1946 piece, he intended to terrify the peoples of the world into submitting to rule by a global arbiter of conflicts, to a world empire, a global, Malthusian dictatorship of the United Nations Organization.

Britain's Lord Bertrand Russell has been, beyond any reasonable doubt, the most evil public figure of the passing century. England's murdered Christopher Marlowe might have said fairly that the Thule Society's monstrous Adolf Hitler was but a picaresque rogue cast as Dr. Faustus, whereas Russell was a true Mephistopheles. Marlowe would insist upon qualifying his observation: "A truly Venetian Mephistopheles."14

Russell personally did not cause all of the evil which has proliferated throughout our planet during the past hundred-odd years, but he was one of the most influential individuals among those who did. Moreover, if one traces out the influences which caused Russell to become an evil man, one will also come to understand not only what went wrong during the Twentieth Century, but many preceding centuries before that.

The Twentieth Century will go down in future history, as the century which is outstanding for the endless monotony of its popularly believed lies. The myth of Bertrand Russell as an utopian humanitarian, is perhaps among the more widespread such lies which persist as generally accepted among literate people who ought to know better. How is such amazing credulity of presumably literate, educated people possible, even up to the highest ranks in academia and even the intelligence services of the U.S. government, for example? We use the case of Russell here as an example of that problem. Reviewing the highlights of Russell's multifarious evil provides the setting in which to supply the answer to the question, "Why are today's putatively literate people so blindly credulous?"

The answer to that question is the subject of this report.

1. Russell and Hitler

Russell played many strings on his fiddle of evil. His proposals for genocide, especially against populations with darker skin-hues than that of the Vril Society's self-esteemed Anglo-Saxon master race, are fully as satanic, and more viciously personalized than his policies of world dictatorship through nuclear terrorism. He was also a savage hoaxster in his corrosive influence within the domains of philosophy and natural science. He was not even truly British; there is not a gram of concern for the well-being of the inhabitants of the United Kingdom in that scoundrel. No notable representative of liberal philosophy during this century, not even such consummately perverse creatures as Sigmund Freud or Theodor Adorno,15 has been so consistently a virtual incarnation of Satan as the Mephistopheles of this century, the evil Russell.

Yet, within each part of the intellectual spectrum which he infested at one time or another of his life, there are still dupes who regard this unmitigated scoundrel as a respectable figure, even a great intellect. How could civilization have fallen so low, that many among the world's putative intelligentsia exhibit such intellectual or even moral shamelessness as to profess what is termed popularly "respect" for such a creature?

Consider a handful of crucial passages from Russell's racialist writings of the pre-war and post-war period; these writings show the true moral nature of the purpose to which Russell dedicated that dogma of nuclear blackmail which he and Leo "Strangelove" Szilard bestowed upon such worthy apostles as Robert Strange McNamara of the Vietnam "body count" enterprise16 and upon self-proclaimed British Foreign Office agent Henry A. Kissinger.17

This writer had reached his present judgment on Russell by 1978. It was a conclusion which had emerged in steps, beginning the 1950's. Over the following two decades, the insistent evidence piled up, piece by irrefutable piece. In 1978, this judgment was shared with a pair of collaborators, who produced a 1980 book documenting Russell's evil nature.18 During 1978-1980, the purpose then was to show the horrifying things which had happened to humanity during this century, things which would not have happened but for Russell's influential, and thoroughly evil role as a self-proclaimed utopian pacifist, world federalist and genocidally inclined Anglo-Saxon racialist.

All of the immediately following quotations of Russell are from a selection provided in one of the chapters of that 1980 book.

Begin with the Bertrand Russell of the early 1920's, the Russell who had just returned to Britain from a stint indoctrinating numerous of the future leaders of Communist China.19 Read the following gem from Russell's treasury of a liberal pacifist's sentimentalities, this from his 1923 Prospects of Industrial Civilization:20

Socialism, especially international socialism, is only possible as a stable system if the population is stationary or nearly so. A slow increase might be coped with by improvements in agricultural methods, but a rapid increase must in the end reduce the whole population to penury, ... the white population of the world will soon cease to increase. The Asiatic races will be longer, and the negroes still longer, before their birth rate falls sufficiently to make their numbers stable without help of war and pestilence. ... Until that happens, the benefits aimed at by socialism can only be partially realized, and the less prolific races will have to defend themselves against the more prolific by methods which are disgusting even if they are necessary.21

In his 1941 Generalplan Ost for the occupation of Russia and other parts of Eastern Europe, Adolf Hitler put precisely these disgusting policies of Russell's into practice.22 So, in 1945, we came to identify the consequences of Russell's empiricist dogmas by such appropriate terms as "genocide," "holocaust," and "crimes against humanity," as practiced in war-time Auschwitz and other locations in Eastern Europe:

In the areas in question we have to push a deliberately negative population policy. With the propaganda campaigns, especially in the press, radio, movies, leaflets, short brochures, educational presentations and the like, the population must be induced toward the thought of how damaging it is to have many children. We must point to the costs which children entail, and then it should be pointed out what could have been bought instead. The great dangers to the health of women which can emerge in births can be pointed out, and the like.

In addition to this propaganda, generous propaganda in favor of means of birth control must be spread. An industry specialized in such means has to be created. Neither the approval or dissemination of birth control means should be punishable, nor abortion. We ought to absolutely promote the establishment of abortion institutes. Midwives and medics can be trained to give abortions. The more professionally the abortions are carried out, the more the population will gain trust in this respect. Also physicians must of course be permitted to carry out abortions, without a violation of his medical oath coming into question.

Voluntary sterilization is also to be promoted. Infant mortality must not be combatted. Mothers must not be instructed about care for infants and children's diseases. ...

Once we have converted the mass of the people to the idea of a one- or two-child system, we will have reached the goal we are aiming at ... .23

On the basis of such evidence, the sole grounds on which we might be prohibited from describing as "neo-Nazis" Russell and such among his liberal U.S. co-thinkers as the Harriman and Bush families' eugenics circles of 1932, is that the ideas Adolf Hitler copied were those of his British and U.S. admirers of the 1930's, such as Sir Peregrine Worsthorne's stepfather, Montagu Norman, George Bush's father, Prescott Bush, and those other professed non-German admirers of Adolf Hitler who authorized and funded the coup d'état which put Hitler into power in Germany in 1933.24 It would be appropriate to describe Adolf Hitler as an exemplary follower of Bertrand Russell.

Even the post-war exposure of the horrors of the Nazi concentration camps did not hinder Russell's continued brazen exhibitions of shamelessness. Read some gems from his post-war writings, his 1951 The Impact of Science on Society:

But bad times, you may say, are exceptional, and can be dealt with by exceptional methods. This has been more or less true during the honeymoon period of industrialism, but it will not remain true unless the increase of population can be enormously diminished. At present the population of the world is increasing at about 58,000 per diem. War, so far, has had no very great effect on this increase, which continued through each of the world wars. ... War ... has hitherto been disappointing in this respect ... but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. ... The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of it? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people's.25

Then hear Russell the pacifist speaking in a BBC interview in 1959, approximately four years after Soviet General Secretary N.S. Khrushchev had sent four emissaries to Russell's 1955 meeting of the World Parliamentarians for World Government. The Soviet emissaries had praised Russell publicly in Khrushchev's name, and had opened up subsequent negotiations with Russell for the Soviet nuclear condominium associated with such Pugwash Conference creatures as Dr. Leo Szilard and British foreign intelligence's agent of influence Henry A. Kissinger. Russell speaks in answer to a British Broadcasting Company's question concerning his advocacy of a post-World War II "preventive nuclear war":

Q. Is it true or untrue that in recent years you advocated that a preventive war might be made against communism, against Soviet Russia?"

RUSSELL: It's entirely true, and I don't repent of it now. It was not inconsistent with what I think now.... There was a time, just after the last war, when the Americans had a monopoly of nuclear weapons and offered to internationalize nuclear weapons by the Baruch proposal, and I thought this an extremely generous proposal on their part, one which it would be very desirable that the world should accept; not that I advocated a nuclear war, but I did think that great pressure should be put upon Russia to accept the Baruch proposal, and I did think that if they continued to refuse it it might be necessary actually to go to war. At that time nuclear weapons existed only on one side, and therefore the odds were the Russians would have given way. I thought they would ... .

Q. Suppose they hadn't given way.

RUSSELL: I thought and hoped that the Russians would give way, but of course you can't threaten unless you're prepared to have your bluff called.26

Pervading these and other public utterances by Russell, there are three pervasive themes overall: (1) a racism as virulent as Adolf Hitler's; (2) a feudal-aristocratic socialist's Ruskin-like hatred for modern European civilization; and (3) a utopian's obsessive commitment to bringing about civilization's descent into a parody of pre-Renaissance feudalism, or sometimes even pre-civilized barbarism. No one could miss this in Russell's published utterances such as those famous titles referenced here.

If there were any doubt of Russell's racism after reading relevant passages from his books, one might compare what he published in 1923 with remarks on the subject of African-Americans, supplied in a 1914 letter to Ottoline Morrell, written on the subject of his visit to the United States:

I find the coloured people friendly and nice. They seem to have a dog's liking for the white man—the same kind of trust and ungrudging sense of inferiority. I don't feel any recoil from them.27

His hatred of the past six centuries of European civilization permeates his writings, like the writings of John Ruskin's Oxford-based Pre-Raphaelite Society. Russell's 1923 books, The Problem of China 28 and Prospects of Industrial Civilization, teem with eruptions of his neurotic's petulant obsession on this account. A passage from his cited 1951 book is fairly identified as typical of such maudlin outbursts; he prophesies, that under the influence of his utopian dogmas,

the present urban and industrial centers will have become derelict, and their inhabitants, if still alive, will have reverted to the peasant hardships of their medieval ancestors.29

From the Sixteenth into the Eighteenth Centuries, Venetian bankers shaping the policies of the English government created a new stratum of the modern British feudal aristocrats and financial nobility, of which Russell and his ancestors are typical. It is as the heir to the title of Earl of Russell, and as grandson to that same Palmerston crony, Lord John Russell, who directed the Confederate insurrection against Lincoln's United States,30 pre-Nazi Bertrand Russell reflects upon his hatred for modern civilization, hating the United States of America with that same Metternichean passion to which British intelligence's own Henry A. Kissinger has subscribed over the past four decades.31 The following passage from Russell's cited 1951 book is typical:

... when I first became politically conscious, Gladstone and Disraeli still confronted each other amid Victorian solidities, the British Empire seemed eternal, a threat to British naval supremacy was unthinkable, the country was aristocratic, rich and growing richer. ... For an old man, with such a background, it is difficult to feel at home in a world of ... American supremacy.32

These were not only the ideas of Russell. They were shared fully by the stoutly plebeian one-time head of British foreign intelligence, Russell's crony and sometimes factional rival, the "Morloch"-hating Fabian H.G. Wells.33 These were not simply aristocratic atavisms; Wells was a man whose claims to the social status of picaresque are as impeccable as those of such like-minded wretches as 1932 New York Eugenics Congress hero Adolf Hitler,34 or the Henry A. Kissinger who authored the Nazi-like policies of 1974 National Security Study Memorandum 200.35

These ideas were the evil against which this present writer fought during the 1960's, ideas which took over a large section of those youth drawn into the Anti-War movement and "rock-drug-sex counterculture" cult. These were the ideas of pacifist Bertrand Russell and his cronies; these were also the ideas which many 1960's New Left advocates attributed accurately to the New Left followers of the "Frankfurt School" of Georg Lukacs, Herbert Marcuse, Sigmund Freud, Walter Benjamin, Theodor Adorno, Hannah Arendt, and Arendt's former lover, official Nazi philosopher Martin Heidegger.36

These were also known as the educational and related ideas of Kurt Lewin and his National Training Laboratories, and of the National Education Association ideologues steered by National Training Laboratory influences.37 During 1969-1971, this stratum from the New Left of the 1960's was re-programmed by its Reichian and other T-group controllers to become the polymorphous perversity of the early 1970's "Rainbow Coalition."

Many among the now aging relics of the 1960's "rock-drug-sex counterculture" youth movement entered the 1970's as the "Rainbow Coalition" constituency for the Nazi-like population policies of the Club of Rome's defeated first, Bucharest U.N.O. Conference of Summer 1974.38 Today, the ranks of that pre-New-Left generation which successfully resisted the Club of Rome's neo-Nazi population policies in 1974 have been depleted by twenty years' attrition. As the proposed Cairo U.N.O. Conference on Population menaces the last shreds of moral decency upon this planet, the dwindling number of bearers of the moral heritage of European civilization is nearly outweighed by the multiculturalist horde of satanic ideas of Bertrand Russell, Theodor Adorno, and Adolf Hitler's Martin Heidegger.

From Whom Russell Copied His Ideas

During the 1920's, 1930's, and 1940's, unless one studied the Russell texts referenced above, or unless one were a specialist in the relevant branch of mathematics, Bertrand Russell was perceived as little more than a notorious British eccentric with a wont for lewd utterances. This present writer had traversed his own adolescence, steeped in the controversies of the principal English, French, and German philosophers of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, before his first, late-1930's encounter with some of Russell's shorter pieces. From then, until the mid-1950's, Russell was put aside as trivial stuff, Voltaire on a very dull day.

Then, there came a more time, nearly two decades later, that Russell's mathematical and related philosophical writings were examined more systematically. By the late 1970's, this writer recognized the monstrous effects of Russell's continuing influence. The combined effect of seeing both the banality of Russell's thought and the evil consequences of his influence, was the thought that perhaps the roads leading to Hell are paved with platitudes. To put the point more exactly, the present writer recognized that the successful practice of evil builds upon diffidence respecting those creative qualities of intellect which set the individual person absolutely apart from and above all species of beasts.

Understanding Russell begins with the realization that Russell's published writings contain no true originality, but only novelty of the same special quality provided by the writings of the Marquis de Sade. If we limit discussion to the matter of essentials, there is nothing essential in Russell which is not repetition of what had been written by the founder of the British foreign intelligence service, Jeremy Bentham, now more than two hundred years ago.

Once that point is grasped, one should not be startled that the consummate evil of Bertrand Russell, like that of Bentham's inspiration, Giammaria Ortes, is served up as gobs of trashy empiricist sentiment. Russell's Mephistopheles is a shallow-minded British snob quoting snippets from the banalities of Bacon, Locke and Hume; he is Goethe's Mephistopheles in Auerbach's cellar, prating unctuously on the matter of a flea.

Is a sense of the quality of evil not typified by a deception which might cause one of us to imagine for but a moment that a cleverly contrived, full-scale, programmed puppet is the dear friend one had thought deceased, come back to life? After that moment, comes a horrifying aftertaste of such a virtual reality, a sense of the principle of evil: that this sophisticated puppet, this wind-up toy demonstrates the principle of the fabled schlemiel, a Padua Professor Pietro Pomponazzi, a poor Golem with no soul of its own.39

The author's deeper insight into Russell came during the mid-1950's, in recognizing that a special kind of wickedness is packaged within the deceptive superficiality of Russell's utterances. True, all of Russell's sentimental babbling in the name of philosophy and mathematics was no more than a stream of shallow sophistries, chiefly petty, malicious mere gossip against the reputations of Leibniz and Georg Cantor. Compared to the Immanuel Kant against whom this writer had wrestled in defense of Leibniz's Monadology during his adolescence, Russell's philosophical method was that of parodying crudely the Eleatic sophistries which Plato treated to such devastating effect in his Parmenides.40 Reading some selections from the writings of Russell's intellectual cronies, this author saw that the motive for much of that literary output had been Russell, Carnap, Korsch, and the pathetic Wittgenstein, maleficent sophists all, telling one another how devilishly clever they all were. This snobbish banality is also to be recognized as evil.

Seen with rigorous objectivity, Russell is a satanic bore. Precisely therein lies that Venetian-monkish quality which made Russell, like the Eighteenth-Century Giammaria Ortes, so dangerously influential among those whose impaired psychosexual sense of personal scholarly identity dwells within fantasies residing at or below their waistlines. It is in the controlling influence of Ortes over the thinking of his British contemporaries Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, and Thomas Malthus, that one finds the key for understanding both Russell and his exemplary place of influence among the greatest follies of our vanishing present century.

He is exemplary of a strictly definable, sterile type41 of British imperialist, which, collectively, has not made an original scientific discovery of principle in 250 years. This distinct type came into existence as the dictatorial cabal around the notorious William Petty, the Second Earl of Shelburne, during the last half of the Eighteenth Century.42 That cabal, known then as "the Venetian Party" radicals,43 has ruled Britain, its empire, and later the present-day United Nations Organization, since Lord Shelburne emerged, over the course of the 1763-1783 struggle for independence by the American colonies, to occupy the highest level of actual political power in the British imperial monarchy. Bertrand Russell, while he lived, was a purebred Venetian dog of this Shelburne type.

Consider four among the leading figures of late Eighteenth-Century British philosophical radicalism, all political lackeys wearing the colors of Lord Shelburne's British East India Company: Adam Smith the so-called economist, Jeremy Bentham the first head of the British foreign intelligence service, Edward Gibbon the historian, and Thomas Malthus the plagiarist. All but Gibbon owed virtually every idea for which he is famed today to an influential contemporary, a Venetian monk named Giammaria Ortes (1713-1790). There was nothing in the work of the leading Nineteenth-Century British liberals—such as James Mill, John Stuart Mill, Charles Darwin, William Jevons, Charles Darwin, Thomas Huxley, John Ruskin, and so on—which was not derived directly from either these Shelburne lackeys, or from the work of such members of Venice's Eighteenth-Century intelligence service as Ortes. There is nothing essential in the writing of Russell which does not come, in turn, from these sources.

Understand this, and you understand Russell. Understand Russell in that way, and you begin to understand the past six hundred years of European and world history. Then, you begin to understand the important features of the now-fading present century.

Take Malthus for example. His famous 1798 On Population,44 was nothing more than a bowdlerized version of Giammaria Ortes' 1790 publication, Riflessioni sulla popolazione delle nazioni.45 In turn, Charles Darwin admits that his now-famous notions were the arbitrary superimposition of Malthus' book upon hapless biology.46 Ortes, in turn, had borrowed the same idea from not only a contemporary Berliner, Maupertuis,47 but both had borrowed the same notion from a Sixteenth-Century Venetian by the name of Giovanni Botero.48 Properly, none of those efforts can be considered seriously original; the doctrine was already spelled out in detail as the population policies embedded in the decrees of the Roman Emperor Diocletian.49

The same debt to Ortes dominates Adam Smith's 1759 The Theory of Moral Sentiments, and the entirety of his Wealth of Nations.50 Ortes' influential work on economics, that for which British agent Karl Marx praises Ortes,51 is his second work on this subject, his 1777 Della economia nazionale libri sei. Of far greater significance is Bentham's Principles of Morals and Legislation,52 Bentham's major elaboration of what is termed, alternately, his "felicific calculus," or, more plainly, "hedonistic calculus." Bentham's work is derived entirely from the published ideas of Ortes. All British philosophical radicalism, from approximately 1760 to the present day, is premised upon the specific influence of this notion of a "hedonistic calculus," the radical-positivist notion that all ideas, all social relations may be reduced fairly to representation in terms of linear-algebraic functions modelled (as Ortes emphasizes this connection) on the mathematical methods of Galileo and Newton.

In Nineteenth-Century Britain, Bentham's Ortesian "hedonistic calculus" is known as the "utilitarianism," and doctrine of "marginal utility" of John Stuart Mill, William Jevons, et al. The most famous mathematical work of Bertrand Russell, his and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica,53 is the application of the same radical-positivistic dogma to arithmetic. It is relevant to stress here, that Norbert Wiener's "information theory," and the economic doctrines of John Von Neumann are the same radical form of hedonistic principle carried to the outer limits of ambulatory lunacy, the mathematical idiot savant's so-called "chaos theory."54

London As 'The New Venice'

The influence of Ortes, in shaping the thinking of the new British imperialist institutions established under Shelburne's behind-the-throne reign of the late Eighteenth Century, reflected Ortes' position as one of the key figures within which a later British historian might be tempted to name as "Conti's Kindergarten," as prefiguring that famous Fabian institution, that so-called "Kindergarten" of Lord Milner, Halford Mackinder and H.G. Wells, which cooked up World War I.55

The Venetian nobleman Abbot Antonio Conti (1677-1749) was a top intelligence-operations control agent for Venice, working on France, Germany, and England during most of the adult portion of his life; he is one of the more important figures, whose role can not be omitted from any competent tracing of the crucial turns of the Eighteenth Century.

He assembled a celebrated salon of Venetian agents, through which these operations were coordinated.56 During Conti's life-time, Giammaria Ortes was one of the key agents active in this group. Later, but still during Ortes' lifetime, two of the most famous of this salon were the notorious Giacomo Casanova (1725-1798) and Count Alessandro Cagliostro (1743-1795).57 After the deaths of Ortes, Cagliostro, and Casanova during the 1790's, the continuity of Conti's projects was maintained by Venice's most celebrated agent of that later period, Count John Capodistria, the controlling figure behind Russia's ambassador Nesselrode and Prince Metternich at the 1814-1815 Congress of Vienna.58

Situate that Venetian bachelor, Giammaria Ortes, who fathered Bertrand Russell (and many like him) within this interval, 1688-1818. Look at the Conti salon and its aftermath in this context.

This 1688-1818 interval is the critical period of modern history in which Seventeenth-Century England's London was transformed into the capital of an emerging world-empire. This is the interval during which France, until 1815 the leading nation of Europe in science and economy,59 was half destroyed by Venetian design, to remove France as a threat to the emergence of future British imperial power. This is also the interval in which the United States emerged to provide a new model of sovereign nation-state republic which, first as inspiration, and then as strategic threat in its own right, might have destroyed the emerging world empire of London.60 This is the period of modern history from which are derived all of the underlying ideas of Bertrand Russell, Margaret Thatcher, and so on, to date. This is the period during which there was established that set of ideas which, among other results, sent the "Enola Gay" winging its way to deliver Hell on earth that tragic summer's day in 1945.

As we have suggested at a slightly earlier point in this report, to understand that flight of the "Enola Gay," one must understand those policy-shaping trends of this century, within which that type of event was generated. To understand the relevant currents of this century's British policy-shaping, one must know the origin and development of those ideas and their influence since the second half of the Eighteenth Century. To understand the germination of that radical-empiricist current in leading British policy-thinking under Shelburne, we must understand the interaction between those British currents and the influences acting upon them over the interval between approximately 1688 and 1818. Similarly, to understand the Venetian influences on the British liberals, from Locke through Bentham, Pitt, Castlereagh, Canning, and so forth, one must be able to situate those interacting developments of the 1688-1818 interval as a type of development within modern history.

Briefly, then, to situate the 1688-1818 period so, and then return to Conti et al.

For reasons to be supplied below, the use of the term "modern history" should be understood to signify the time beginning with the emergence of what is called the "Golden Renaissance."61 Within that approximately six-hundred years of Modern History to date, the interval from approximately 1688-89 until the so-called Carlsbad decrees of the post-Vienna Congress' aftermath, is marked off as a distinct phase of modern history, during which Venice played its last phase as a state, a state which exerted still a peculiar kind of world power through its diplomacy, its foreign intelligence service, and its still-central position in controlling international finance. This is Venice from the time its invasion of the Peloponnesus,62 through the Venetian agent Count John Capodistria's controlling role in the 1814-1815 Vienna Congress and its aftermath.63

Conti bore a long Venetian tradition of destabilizing western Europe from the inside going back to no later than the time of Charlemagne. The immediate issues of Conti's concern are adequately represented in the developments within modern history during his time. Yet, to understand the new, one must identify the collapse of the old.

About six and a half centuries ago, the economy of Europe had collapsed into what historians recognize by the name of Europe's "New Dark Age," the greatest economic and demographic collapse of Europe since the collapse of the Roman Empire—from about the time of the Emperor Diocletian (for example).64

This "New Dark Age" had its roots in the so-called "Fourth Crusade," beginning circa a.d.: 1204. By means of this war, Venice used the pretext of a Crusade to conquer, loot its former patron and its principal rival, Constantinople, establishing the long occupation of the region by the Latin kingdom.65 Venice emerged from this as the leading power in the Mediterranean world. It used this power as a lever for taking over all of western and central Europe through usury and related forms of corruption.

In the last part of the reign of the Holy Roman Empire's ruling house, Frederick II and his son Conradin, Venice used this accumulated maritime supremacy, its control of trade and banking, and its increasing control over Italy to orchestrate warfare and usurious looting throughout western and central Europe, at the same time that Venice's Mongol friends were menacing all of Europe from the east.66 So, from the middle of the Thirteenth Century until the period of the Black Death pandemic's spread into western Europe a century later, Europe waned in accelerating economic and demographic decline. The general estimate from the vital statistics and correlated evidence laid down during that period, is that the population of Europe was approximately halved by the famine and disease caused by economic decline, even prior to the eruption of the Black Death pandemic there.67 The central feature of this was the Venice-coordinated Lombard banker's use of usury as the means for profitting immensely from the internecine warfare which Venice orchestrated throughout Europe.68

Thus, during the middle of the Fourteenth Century, much of this power of Venice abruptly disintegrated. This disintegration erupted as the sudden, chain-reaction collapse of the worst financial bubble of debt-speculation in history until the 1972-1994 period. The disintegration of the Venice-controlled financial system of Europe was aggravated in after-effects by the arrival of the Black Death pandemic, whose spread was fostered by the unsanitary and other immune-suppressing conditions caused by Venice's orchestration of intermingled warfare and usury over the preceding hundred-odd years of Europe's economic decline from the high point reached earlier under the Staufer emperors, Frederick I ("Barbarossa") through Frederick II.69

As in every similar case in past and modern history, this medieval collapse of the Lombard debt-bubble caused a corresponding collapse in the power among the great oligarchical families who had risen to virtually unrivalled power, as allies of Venice, during the preceding hundred-odd years. At the same time, the Papacy was thrown into virtual disintegration through the cumulative effects of Venice's corrupting games of feudal rivalries.70

In this Classically tragic71 circumstance, the forces of a renaissance emerged into positions of growing influence. These forces were centered around the networks which had been established by Dante Alighieri, and continued by Petrarca. During the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries, the history of Europe, and then of the entire planet, came to be dominated, to the present day, by a ferocious conflict between the forces of good, the Renaissance, and the forces of evil, the oligarchical network of usury-based powerful families allied with Venice.

If we grant that there are obvious distinctions of quality between medieval and modern history, is there a well-defined dividing line between the two? Do they shade into one another, gradually, over a long period of time when the history may be fairly described as a bit of both qualities; or, is there a well-defined dividing-line, some provable singularity, some difference in generating principle, which places one period of history before that dividing point, and the later period of history in the new? If there is a provable dividing-point, how and when, at what singular point of discontinuity did Modern History begin?

For reason of the circumstances under which that ecumenical council had been assembled, and the reunification of the differing rites achieved,72 the rational agreement by the combined rites on acceptance of the truth underlying the Latin principle of Filioque brought implicit acceptance of the principles underlying the new institutions of lawful nation-state republic and scientific progress as the mandate given to the republics.

Modern history superseded medieval at that moment that the institutions which singularly distinguish modern from medieval history were put into place. That development occurred at the point Patriarch Isidor and other representatives of the Eastern Church convened at the Council of Florence accepted Nicolaus of Cusa's argument and supporting evidence, showing that the Latin Filioque of the Creed was implicit in the understanding of early councils of the united Church.73

From the year the basis for the emergence of those new institutions was established, a.d.: 1440, Venice, the leading representative of the old, declared war on the new. That war between the heritage of the Renaissance and the tradition of Venice has been the characteristic conflict within European civilization from that day to the present day.

What were those new institutions? There are two new institutions which are most characteristic of the singular point of difference between all human existence prior to a.d.: 1400, and modern history: (1) the conception of the modern nation-state republic under the governance of natural law as the organizers of the Council of Florence understood the Christian principle of natural law74; (2) the central role of the fostering of scientific and technological progress in the morally obligatory functions of such a new form of state.75

The very existence of the commitment to these new institutions, even by a significant minority within European civilization, made the existence of those institutions an efficient principle of interaction within European culture as a whole.76 To restate this crucial argument: their existence as institutions, in any part of Europe, changed everything in all of Europe, in the degree that all of Europe must now adjust its behavior to this efficient fact. To restate it once more: since these institutional changes increased the rate of development of the per-capita and per-square-kilometer power of mankind over nature, their very presence changed the character of every part of the historical process with which they interacted. This interaction to that effect began virtually the moment the relevant ecumenical agreements were reached in the Council.

For example: Venice correctly perceived accurately the developments at that Council as a relatively immediate threat to the most vital interests of the Venice financial oligarchy and the state. She reacted by such means as enlisting Scholarius of Mount Athos ("Holy Mountain"), among others, as Venice's ally against both the Paleologues and the Papacy, also recruiting Muscovy to the Venice side.77

Similarly, the Europe transformed by the chain-reaction influence of the Council's new institutions nearly crushed Venice out of existence, through the League of Cambrai; all of European history, from 1440 to the present time—the essential conflict within European, and later world civilization—has been the effort of Venice and its factional followers to destroy the form of modern nation-state and culture which came out of the work of the 1439-1440 Council.

Although Venice frustrated the efforts to establish such a new form of nation-state in Italy itself, the first success occurred under France's Louis XI, who approximately doubled the per-capita income of France during his reign, and defeated all of France's principal adversaries at that time, from England, Burgundy, and in Spain. Louis XI's success sparked a chain-reaction of efforts to establish a nation-state on this model, in Henry VII's England and elsewhere, assisted by such followers of Cusa as Erasmus and the Oratorian movement of which Erasmus and Raphael Sanzio were early leading figures.

The increase of per-capita power over nature fostered by these new institutions of the Renaissance produced dangerously powerful adversaries impeding the pathway of Venice's efforts to resume the kind of power it had had in the Mediterranean region prior to the mid-Fourteenth Century bursting of the great debt-bubble. Indeed, the adversaries of Venice's evil, led by an alliance between France and the Vatican, came to the verge of crushing Venice at the beginning of the Sixteenth Century.

Venice survived by corrupting its adversaries into making war against each other, breaking up the anti-Venice League of Cambrai.78 However, by 1582, a faction in Venice, led by one Paolo Sarpi, had selected London to be the capital of a new Venetian empire.79 These Venetians understood, and argued that Venice could not defend its position in the north of the Adriatic indefinitely; the oligarchical families of Venice must cultivate a new base of operations to set up a global financial and maritime power capable of crushing the new kinds of institutions out of existence.80

Sarpi's 1582 factional victory over his opposition inside Venice meant that the power of Venice was committed to a full takeover of England, preparatory to transforming the British Isles into a bastion of Venetian-style oligarchical thinking capable of becoming a global maritime power analogous to Venice's lost domination over the Mediterranean region. The assassination of Christopher Marlowe, and the Cecil role eliminating Elizabeth I's adopted heir, Essex, typify the bloody intelligence warfare which was once again echoed in England's late Sixteenth Century following the Sarpi faction's policy victory in the Venice of 1582.

Admittedly, it had been Venetian agents, from 1517 onward, which threw the Howards' ill-fated temptress Anne Boleyn at Henry VIII, to drive him insane enough to break his precious ties to both France and Spain—and theirs to England. That was part of Venice's playing the former allies of the League of Cambrai against one another, seeking to destroy each, one by one, as Venice had played the aristocratic and royal varieties of feudal fools against one another during the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries. Whatever may have passed through the heads of various Venetian factions during the earlier decades of that century, as of 1582, the commitment to building up London as a "Venice of the North" was a formal commitment of the Venetian state, the adopted long-range strategic perspective of the majority of the Venetian oligarchy.

The role of Francis Bacon, his Thomas Hobbes, Elias Ashmole, et al., following the accession of King James I is tell-tale.81

The crucial event leading into the Venetian operations of 1688-181882 is the 1662 accession of Cardinal Mazarin's powerful protégé Colbert into the position of France's Controller General (of finances). France, already the leading nation of Europe in science, technology, and economy, was mobilized under Colbert's leadership into bold achievements which the Venetian patrons of London found most alarming. Given the superiority of France in science and technology, the development of France's maritime power under Colbert was a direct threat to Venice's strategic interest. In the effort to destroy France, Venice resorted to its old tricks of playing one nation against the other in debilitating, protracted warfare.

That brought Europe, and implicitly also the European colonies and other non-European regions, too, up to the events of 1688-1818. At that point, still powerful, but decaying Venice moved toward establishing London's position as the future capital of a neo-Venetian global empire. During this approximately 130-year interval, the Venetian gamemasters and their protégés adopted three principal objectives. These are listed for identification here; the relevant features of each of the three are treated at a later point.

(1) From the beginning, as early as the 1666 war, the object was to eliminate France as an obstacle to the emergence of London's global imperial supremacy, beginning with the destruction of France's credible threat, under Colbert, to establish maritime supremacy.

(2) From near the beginning of the Eighteenth Century, to defame and destroy the influence of Gottfried Leibniz; this was a central concern of Abbot Conti and his salon.

(3) From no later than 1763, to crush permanently the aspirations to political autonomy and economic development among the English colonies in North America; this was a task to which Lord Shelburne assigned his lackey Adam Smith during a conversation held on a carriage-ride in 1763.83

The 1763 Treaty of Paris marked the defeat of France's possibilities for challenging London's global maritime supremacy. The new task assigned by the Venetians then formerly associated with Conti's salon was to destroy France as a land-power, and to induce London to adopt those institutionalized commitments which would guide it to establishing a world-empire according to Venice's approved principles of a global, oligarchical model.

For this latter "sociological" purpose, the Locke model of empiricism was not adequate; deference, even corrosive deference to custom was not a tolerable trait among those who must be trained and selected as Britain's ruling elite. For this work, the Venetian controllers of London required the change to the radical empiricism of a "hedonistic calculus."84

Here lies the specific historical significance of the promotion of Ortes' writings by the Venetian salons shaping the collection of veritable juvenile delinquents composing Shelburne's "Kindergartn en"—figures such as Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, Thomas Malthus—of post-1763 Britain. Thus was imperial London established under Shelburne as "The New Venice." Bertrand Russell and his followers are the end-product of that metabolic process.

The 'Brutish Empire'

Bertrand Russell became an evil person because he was developed to become a representative of his family heritage. That heritage represents a philosophical type. In contrast to the Renaissance, of which Russell's family was an avowed enemy, all modern empiricism, including its existentialist and positivist derivatives, is based upon the same type of rejection of any principled distinction between mankind and the beasts. Thus, Russell's utopia were fairly named a "Brutish Empire."

There was already the Seventeenth-Century bestiality of Bacon, Hobbes, Elias Ashmole, John Locke, et al. However, out of the salon of Venice's Abbot Antonio Conti, the single most important direct influence upon the culture of Eighteenth-Century England, was that radiated from salon member Ortes' writings. Ortes and his depraved British dupes, such as Adam Smith, Bentham, and Malthus, represent what is called radical empiricism, which is the same thing axiomatically as the Nineteenth-Century French radical positivism introduced by the circles of Abbot Moigno: LaPlace, Cauchy, Comte, et al.

British radical empiricism, and its bastard child, French Restoration positivism, is, like philosophical liberalism generally, a rejection of the idea of any scientifically knowable distinction between man and the beasts. All liberalism rejects the existence of intelligible truth, on the same philosophical premises. The radical empiricism of the late Eighteenth Century carries this immorality of the liberals to the extreme, by reducing all apprehensions of human behavior to the mechanistic terms of a linear algebra modelled explicitly upon that of Galileo and Isaac Newton.85 That latter, radical transformation of the previously established empiricism of John Locke, et al., was the specific product of the influence of Conti's salon upon England, a radicalism infused directly through the work of Giammaria Ortes.

Thus, all British radical empiricists, and their bastard French offspring the positivists, were bred to become what is recognizable today as behavioral psychologists, in one or another academic disguise. This includes not only the new pseudo-sciences of ethnology, anthropology, Wundt's psychology, and sociology introduced during the post-1814 French Restoration's Nineteenth Century. Through such forms as the pragmatism of William James and John Dewey in the United States, for example, this poisonous influence corrupted nearly every aspect of modern culture and education there. Through the ethnologists (anthropologists), the sociologists, the psychologists in the traditions of Wundt, the behaviorists generally, psychoanalysis, and institutions such as the "Frankfurt School" and London Tavistock Clinic and Tavistock Institute, humanity under the emerging world-empire of the U.N.O. is rapidly becoming a multicultural zoo of persons degraded to the status of "just another animal, like the rest."

That transformation, whose echoes are typified by all of the leading influences sponsoring the proposals for the September 1994 Cairo Conference on population, is today's distilled embodiment of an evil far more extreme than that earlier phase represented by the Venetian Thule Society's Adolf Hitler.86 From the presumption that mankind is "just another animal species," any monstrous immorality may become enthroned law, such as a Nazi holocaust, or the same method may be employed as apology for such sub-human behavior as ritual cannibalism, or the savage rituals of brutish Aztecs or other depraved forms of cultures. Out of "indigenists' " defense of the hideous Aztec culture, comes an utter abandonment of any semblance of morality; for example, there may come sympathy for the kindred evil of Adolf Hitler, or, worse, Bertrand Russell's one-world and kindred utopian projects.

Consider in this light the invitation to former U.S. Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger to deliver a commemorative, May 10, 1982 public address in London, celebrating the two-hundredth anniversary of Jeremy Bentham's founding of Britain's imperial foreign intelligence service. On that occasion, Kissinger bragged publicly that he had acted as an agent of British foreign-policy influence, behind the backs of two U.S. Presidents, while he was serving as National Security Adviser and Secretary of State.87

Note with special interest Kissinger's references to policy conflicts between the U.S.A. and the British Empire, as typified by the quarrels between President Franklin Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston Churchill over what Roosevelt identified, with a certain pungency of expression, as "British Eighteenth-Century Methods."88 Note that these are the motives for the attacks upon President Clinton by the faction of British intelligence and its allies represented by Conrad Black's Hollinger Corporation,89 the Hollinger Corporation's Henry A. Kissinger, John Train, the traditional British intelligence service's assets among the so-called U.S. "neo-conservatives," and the Bush League faction of the U.S. secret-intelligence community generally.

Since the Renaissance, all European civilization has been divided into but two principal, contending factions. The one faction is that Platonic current which is Christianity in the tradition of the Moses of Genesis 1,90 of such exemplary documents as the Gospel of John, the Epistles of Paul, and the work of Augustine, which organized the Golden Renaissance.91 The opposing faction is typified by those who, like monks Conti and Ortes, sometimes wore the Venetian mask of feigned Christianity, but are condemned by their own writings as agents of some pagan Mephistopheles, Moloch, Baal, or that Jekyll-Hyde Deity of the pagan vale of Gaia, Python-Apollo-Dionysos.92

Three institutional features interdependently characteristic of the Renaissance have been the principal issues for Venice and its oligarchical allies: (1) the Renaissance's replacement of a system of nested covenants and fealties (the imperial form of society) by a form of sovereign nation-state republic based upon a Platonic Christian notion of intelligibility of natural law93; (2) The principle of the new state's function of fostering generalized scientific and related progress in knowledge and improved practice94; (3) the notion of intelligibility of the laws of the universe to persons, through the development of that divine spark of reason which is the aspect of man in the image of God: both imago Dei and capax Dei.

Venice, sensing the power flowing from the application of these three interdependent sets of ideas, knew that its power, its very existence was mortally threatened. All European history since that time has been shaped predominantly by the efforts of the Venice-led oligarchy to crush out of existence this three-fold institution of the Renaissance. It may be said fairly, that those who do not understand this to be true, know virtually nothing essential of the internal dynamics of the history of the Twentieth Century, of the past six centuries of European and world history, or concerning the vital issues immediately confronting us today.

Prior to this Renaissance, there is no known instance of the existence of such a form of republic in all of human existence. On the basis of evidence yet to be identified here, below, it can be reasonably inferred that none such could ever have existed. The first proposal for such an open break with the old imperial system was Dante Alighieri's electrifying De Monarchia.95 Then, at the beginning of the Fourteenth Century, the political and financial power of Venice in the Mediterranean region was near to its zenith96; Dante's proposal was tactically hopeless under those immediate political conditions, but the proposal lived to be implemented during the Renaissance.

Dante's design was centrally premised explicitly upon the importance of a literate form of popular language. This premise is demonstrated by his work reviving the ancient Italian language from its conquest by Rome.97 His masterpiece, the Commedia, is a prime exhibit on this point98; the work of Dante and his followers on poetry and on the relationship between poetry and musical composition, is also relevant background for reading his De Monarchia.

If a people is to participate in self-government, to the effect the interdependent notions of imago Dei and capax Dei require, they must participate in the ideas by which society is self-governed. Ignorant, illiterate persons can not participate competently in self-government; they do not know what the issues of government are! Indeed, as for the African-American slaves of the Nineteenth-Century United States, literacy is the first condition of freedom. Thus, the issues of literate language and of corresponding levels of knowledge are crucial for instituting among men and women those forms of self-government which do indeed fulfill the requirements of Christian teachings. The degeneration of a people into a babble of competing, relatively brutish local dialects prevents stable self-government. The substitution of a system of covenants, conquests, and fealties for self-government, is thus to be judged an hubristic offense against Christ.

Dante's conceptions were kept alive over the course of the Fourteenth Century by intellectual heirs such as Petrarca. In Florence, literate Italian was brought to the people by such means as daily readings from the text of the Commedia. It is the ideas of Cusa's Concordantia Catholica and De Docta Ignorantia, situated in the setting of the Council of Florence, which established the new threefold institution of a modern nation-state republic, committed to scientific and related progress, and self-submitted to the principles of natural law known by means of that spark of creative reason which sets mankind absolutely apart from and above the beast.p>It was not such an easy matter for Venice to crush this Renaissance and its new social institutions. The point is illustrated most dramatically by combining the two statistical curves covering ancient to present-day population-densities and demographic characteristics of populations. [see: Figure 1] Prior to the Renaissance, the population of this planet never reached more than several hundred millions persons; the curves show that under the influence of the new form of nation-state and related institutions introduced by the Renaissance, the power of the household and person zoomed upward, both per capita and per square kilometer of the planet's surface. Also the attainable levels of normal life-expectancies and conditions of health improved together with the increase of population-density, wherever Renaissance policies prevailed.

This aspect of the matter is pointed up clearly by the effect of Louis XI's reforms in France, where the per-capita income approximately doubled during his reign. The work of Leonardo da Vinci99 and the military and related writings of Niccolò Machiavelli100 make the same point. By increasing the power of a society, per capita and per square kilometer, we increase not only its military potentials, but its general strength in depth in other relevant respects. The enemies of the Renaissance might attempt to eradicate the institution of nation-state and scientific progress, but until that suppression had actually occurred, the enemies of the Renaissance must adapt themselves to its impact or be crushed by failing to do so.

Since the dissolution of the League of Cambrai, until now, the enemies of the Renaissance have succeeded, on balance, in increasing their control over the financial and political institutions of the planet. Witness the rise of London as the "Venice of the North" since a.d.: 1666-1688, to victories in repeated wars against France, then against the allies of the Vienna Congress, to the emergence of the global form of the British Empire during the Nineteenth Century, and, now, since the collapse of the Soviet system, the attempt to transform the United Nations into the instrument of London's global dictatorship: a "world federalist" form of world empire: a "Third Rome," or in the German of Fyodor Dostoyevsky's Moeller van den Bruck, a Third Reich.

To accomplish this, imperial London has been required to adapt to those very institutions it intended to destroy. Until the turn into a "post-industrial New Age," following the assassination of U.S. President John Kennedy and the consequent awesome intimidation of President Lyndon Johnson, the overall trend in world productive technology, in productive powers of labor, and in trends of demographic standards of life was overall upward—despite all the evils and oppression which oligarchism and illiterate ignorance imposed upon most of the world's population.

Not until Soviet General Secretaries Khrushchev and Brezhnev had submitted to the nuclear-terror condominium proposed by Bertrand Russell, and the U.S.A. had acceded to this scheme of "mutual and assured destruction," did the oligarchy have the strategic possibility of successfully transforming the United States and western continental Europe into "post-industrial" refuse-heaps over the period 1966-1994.

A bit later down the road, during late 1989 through Summer 1991, once the Soviet system had lost its potential capabilities for reversing the agreements which had been reached through Bertrand Russell's Pugwash channels, the oligarchical faction centered in imperial London unleashed Venice's five-centuries-long commitment. Those whom the 1982 Chatham House Henry Kissinger had proudly exposed as his masters in the British foreign-intelligence service, ordered their "go-fers" of 1989-1991, the pathetic pair of Margaret Thatcher and George Bush, to set into motion their "new world disorder" leading into the dissolution of the sovereign-nation-state institution, leading toward the establishment of U.N.O. Malthusian dictatorship over this planet forever. Hell had come to rule on Earth, riding beside George Bush on the train of Lady Thatcher's broom: Apocalypse threatened!

Since the time of Solon of Athens, the greatest composers of Classical tragedy in the tradition of Aeschylus, Cervantes, Marlowe,101 Shakespeare, and Friedrich Schiller have worked to develop the dramatic stage as a powerful vehicle for imparting a true sense of history to audiences.102 Hence, a reasonably competent study of history, or political science in general, includes obligatory study of the Classical tragedy of these five great masters and of others.

That method of thinking about real history is enriched by employment of the same principle of mastery of geometry and physical science used in the Classical Christian Humanist mode associated with Groote's and Thomas à Kempis' the Brotherhood of the Common Life, and by the Schiller-Humboldt Nineteenth-Century reforms of Gymnasium education in Germany.103 This method is described by the present author in various published locations, most emphatically in his treatment, referenced above, of the imagery of Raphael's famous "School of Athens."104 Let us now apply those two methods, the method of Classical tragedy as best apprehended by Schiller, and the historical principle of a Classical method of scientific education, to the paradoxical subject-matters of Bertrand Russell and his "Brutish Empire" utopianism.

Immediately, here, we address the comprehension of modern history's sweep in terms of interacting types of sequences of developments. That puts the issues on stage, so to speak, as the Classical tragedians would do. In the subsequent section, we address the role of ideas in history.

Continue To Part II

Footnotes to Part I

1. See David Riesman, The Lonely Crowd: A Study of the Changing American Character, in collaboration with Reuel Denney and Nathan Glazer (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950); see also Robert Staughton Lynd and Helen Merrell Lynd, Middletown: A Study in American Culture (1929) (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1956). back

2. Pietro Pomponazzi (1462-1525), the gnostic teacher of Averroës' Aristotelianism famous for having demonstrated that a consistent philosopher of his teaching has no soul. Major work, De Immortalitate Animae (On the Immortality of Souls) (Bologna: 1516). See Martin L. Pine, Pietro Pomponazzi: Radical Philosopher of the Renaissance (Padova: Editrice Antenore, 1986); see also Studi su Pietro Pomponazzi, ed. by B. Nardi (Florence, 1965). back

3. See Philo ("Judaeus") of Alexandria, "On The Account of the World's Creation Given by Moses," in Philo: Vol. I, trans. by F.H. Colson and G.H. Whitaker, Loeb Classical Library No. 226 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1981), sec. XXIII, pp. 55-57. For Cusanus on the intellect as "a living similitude of God," see "On the Filiation of God," in Toward a New Council of Florence: 'On the Peace of Faith' and Other Works of Nicolaus of Cusa, trans. by William F. Wertz, Jr. (Washington, D.C.: Schiller Institute, 1993), p. 188. Cusanus refers to capax Dei and imago Dei in "On the Vision of God," in Nicholas of Cusa's Dialectical Mysticism, trans. by Jasper Hopkins (Minneapolis: The Arthur J. Banning Press, 1985), p. 127. In this location, Cusanus writes that man is "capable of receiving" God and that "the capability which conduces to union is only likeness." back

4. Aug. 6, 1945. Claude Eatherly, the pilot of the reconaissance plane on the "Enola Gay" mission, was never able to adjust to civilian life; in 1962 he wrote (with Gunther Anders) Burning Conscience (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1962). Robert Lewis, the co-pilot of the "Enola Gay," later said: "If I live a hundred years, I'll never quite get these few minutes out of my mind." [Quoted in Robert Rhodes, The Making of the Atomic Bomb (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1986).] When the U.S. Army Air Force General Carl Spaatz took over as commander of Strategic Forces, Pacific and was briefed on the atomic bomb mission—which would officially take place under his new command—he insisted, "If I'm going to kill 100,000 people, I'm not going to do it on verbal orders. I want a piece of paper." [Gordon Thomas and Max Morgan Witts, Enola Gay (New York: Pocket Books, 1977), p. 244.] back

5. The recently deceased Max Corvo, then OSS field chief for Italy, represented the U.S. in the mediation supplied through the Vatican by the late Pope Paul VI (then, Cardinal Montini). A massive operation by British agents, including London assets, such as the OSS's Allen Dulles and James Jesus Angleton, worked to discredit the Vatican as a way of neutralizing the evidence of the hoax behind the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. back

6. Bertrand Russell, in The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Nos. 5 and 6, Sept. 1, 1946, p. 19. back

7. Russell writes: "It is entirely clear that there is only one way in which great wars can be permanently prevented, and that is the establishment of an international government with a monopoly of serious armed force. ... An international government, if it is to be able to preserve peace, must have the only atomic bombs, the only plant for producing them, the only air force, the only battleships, and generally whatever is necessary to make it irresistible. ... The international authority must have a monopoly of uranium, and of whatever other raw material may hereafter be found suitable for the manufacture of atomic bombs. It must have a large army of inspectors who must have the right to enter any factory without notice; any attempt to interfere with them or to obstruct their work must be treated as a casus belli. ... [T]he international government ... will have to decide all disputes between different nations, and will have to possess the right to revise treaties. It will have to be bound by its constitution to intervene by force of arms against any nation that refuses to submit to the arbitration. Given its monopoly of armed force, such intervention will be seldom necessary and quickly successful. ... back

8. For a history of Pugwash, see J. Rotblat, Scientists in the Quest for Peace, A History of the Pugwash Conferences (Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1972), p. 2.back

9. Professor Dmitri Ivanovich Mendeleyev (1834-1907), discoverer of the famous Periodic Law of chemistry, and teacher of the founder of the Soviet nuclear weapon, Academician Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky (1863-1945). By the beginning of the Twentieth Century, the addition of the Curies' discovery of nuclear radiation to the implications of Mendeleyev's Periodic Law had established the notion of nuclear energy as a source of power. Cf. Frederick Soddy, The Interpretation of Radium and the Structure of the Atom (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1922), based upon lectures first given in 1908. See also H.G. Wells' Acknowledgement to the Soddy work, and the incorporation of the idea of nuclear weapons into Wells' pre-1939 fiction, in his The World Set Free (London: Macmillan, 1914). For a review of Wells' activities, see Carol White, The New Dark Ages Conspiracy (New York: New Benjamin Franklin House, 1980), pps. 11, 172-174, 183 back

10. Leo Szilard (1898-1964) Hungarian-born physicist, crony of Russell, and the man whose real-life address at the 1958 Quebec Pugwash Conference, advocating what came to be known as "mutually assured destruction," earned him fictional fame as "Dr. Strangelove" in the 1960's film of the same name. back

11. Robert J. Moon (1911-1989), Professor of Physics, University of Chicago, a co-founder of the Fusion Energy Foundation, assembled the first test pile under the direction of Professor Enrico Fermi. back

12. According to James Hershberg, James B. Conant, Harvard to Hiroshima and the Making of the Nuclear Age (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1993), p. 137, "Leo Szilard, Eugen Wigner and Edward Teller saw Albert Einstein and persuaded him to sign a letter to Roosevelt warning of the terrible danger should Hitler get the bomb first. On October 11, the financier Alexander Sachs [Szilard's patron—ed.] carried this warning to FDR ... ." back

13. Thomas Powers, Heisenberg's War: The Secret History of the German Bomb (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1994). back

14. Christopher Marlowe, playwright and collaborator of William Shakespeare, murdered in 1593, presumably by a representative of the so-called "Venetian Party" of Paolo Sarpi et al. His celebrated drama Doctor Faustus, is a dramatic treatment of the ongoing takeover of England by Sarpi's Venetians. back

15. On Adorno and the Frankfurt School's influence, see Michael J. Minnicino, "The New Dark Age: The Frankfurt School and 'Political Correctness,' " Fidelio, Vol. I, No. 1, Winter 1992; see also, Michael J. Minnicino "The Nazi-Communist Roots of Post-Modernism," Fidelio, Vol. II, No. 2, Summer 1993. back

16. Robert S. McNamara (b. 1916). Dr. Edward Teller emphasized in a famous public address in Washington, in the Autumn of 1982, that the middle initial "S" in the former Defense Secretary's name, like his opinions and actions during and after that service, does actually signify "Strange." Teller was referencing the insanity of McNamara's perfervid advocacy of "Mutual and Assured Destruction." back

17. In acknowledgement of services rendered to the British crown, former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger delivered the featured May 10, 1982 address commemorating the founding of the British foreign intelligence service, by Jeremy Bentham and Lord Shelburne in 1782. On that occasion, Kissinger boasted to British foreign service's Chatham House audience, that he had always taken the side of Britain against the United States in disputes such as those between President Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, and illustrated this by reference to his own going behind the backs of Presidents Nixon and Ford while 1973-77 Secretary of State. Kissinger's career with the British foreign intelligence service began under Professor William Yandell Elliot of the Harvard University-based section of Chatham House's Wilton Park unit, continued under the direction of the London Tavistock Institute, and continued with a seconding under the sponsorship of McGeorge Bundy at the New York Council on Foreign Relations. From that seconding to the present time, Kissinger has served British interests in and out of the Fabian Society's Pugwash Conference, pushing Bertrand Russell's long-range scheme to establish the U.N.O. as a global world-government tyranny. See footnotes 60 and 87 for excerpts of the Chatham House speech. back

18. Carol White, The New Dark Ages Conspiracy (New York: New Benjamin Franklin House, 1980), pps. 11, 172-174, 183. back

19. See Roland Clarke, The Life of Bertrand Russell (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1976), p. 389. back

20. Bertrand Russell, Prospects of Industrial Civilization (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1923). back

21. Russell, Prospects, ibid., p. 273 back

22. See "Stellungnahme und Gedanken zum Generalplan Ost des Reichsführers SS," drafted by Erhard Wetzel, head of the department for racial questions in the Reichsostministerium under Alfred Rosenberg, Geheime Reichssache, Dokument Nr. 2 (Alliiertes Dokument NG-2325), as quoted in Helmut Heiber, "Der Generalplan Ost," Vierteljahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte, Heft 3, 1958. back

23. Ibid., p. 317ff. back

24. See Webster G. Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin, George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography (Washington, D.C.: Executive Intelligence Review, 1992), pp. 26-62. back

25. Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1953), pp. 102-104. back

26. Quoted in Bertrand Russell, The Future of Science, and Self-Portrait of the Author (New York: Philosophical Library, 1959), pp. 81-83. back

27. See Ronald Clarke, op. cit., p. 229. back

28. Bertrand Russell, The Problem of China (New York: The Century Co., 1922). back

29. Russell, The Impact of Science, op. cit., pp. 102-103. back

30. See "Lord Palmerston's multicultural human zoo," Executive Intelligence Review, Vol. 21, No. 16, April 15, 1994, pp. 3-35. This feature contains nine articles on the above-cited topic, taken from presentations to the Schiller Institute and International Caucus of Labor Committees Conference, Feb. 19-20, 1994, Washington, D.C. , including "Palmerston's London during the 1850's: a tour of the human, multicultural zoo," by Webster Tarpley; "The Venetian takeover of England: a 200-year project," by Gerald Rose; "How the Venetian virus infected and took over England," by H. Graham Lowry; "The bestial British intelligence of Shelburne and Bentham," by Jeffrey Steinberg; "America's 'Young America' movement: slaveholders and the B'nai B'rith," by Anton Chaitkin; "Palmerston launches Young Turks to permanently control Middle East," by Joseph Brewda; "Freud and the Frankfurt School," by Michael Minnicino; and "Jim Crow, a cultural weapon in the hands of the Confederacy," by Dennis Speed. back

31. Henry A. Kissinger, A World Restored: Metternich, Castlereagh and the Problems of Peace 1812-1822 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1957), passim. back

32. The Impact of Science on Society, op. cit. back

33. "Morlochs" appear in Wells' 1895 The Time Machine, when the future human race has split into two different species: the physically beautiful Eloi, and the monstrous Morlochs. According to Wells' present-day protagonist, "the gradual widening of the present merely temporary and social difference between the Capitalist and the Labourer, was the key to the whole situation." The narrator explains that the British workers de-evolved into subterranean beasts in strict Darwinian fashion. Wells' view of mankind's essential bestiality is also the central motif of The Island of Dr. Moreau (1896) and The Invisible Man (1897). back

34. Tarpley and Chaitkin, loc. cit. back

35. Recently declassified NSSM-200 defines population control of Third World and other nations a matter of U.S. national-security interest—in the natural resources of those nations, lest the people eat up those resources before we in the U.S.A. might require them. See "Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests," National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM-200), Dec. 10, 1974 (unpublished, available in the National Archives, Washington, D.C.). back

36. On these Frankfurt School characters, see Michael J. Minnicino, op. cit. back

37. For a history of the Kurt Lewin-created National Training Laboratories (NTL), see Kurt Back, Beyond Words: The Story of Sensitivity Training and the Encounter Movement (New York: Russell Sage, 1972); for a more-critical review of Lewin, see Richard Freeman, "Rockefeller's Fascist Labor Policies," The Campaigner, Vol. 7, No. 7, May 1974. Lewin's relations to the National Education Association (NEA) are described in the pamphlet, "Will You Allow Your Child to Be Spiritually Molested: Get the ADL-NEA Brainwashers Out of the Schools," published by The New Federalist, Leesburg, Virginia, August 1993. back

38. Helga Zepp led a delegation of the LaRouche-founded International Caucus of Labor Committees to expose these Nazi-like policies during the conference. See "Rockefeller Blasted at U.N. Meeting," New Solidarity, Vol. V, No. 42, August 31, 1974; see also Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., The Power of Reason: 1988 (Washington, D.C.: Executive Intelligence Review, 1987), p. 289. back

39. See footnote 2. back

40. Plato, Parmenides, in Plato: Cratylus, Parmenides, Greater Hippias, Lesser Hippias, trans. by H.N. Fowler, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926). back

41. "Type" is used here in the sense of Georg Cantor's usage of that term. "Type" so employed signifies identifying a number, for example, according to the "generating principle" which governs the occurrence of that number within a series. To illustrate the point in the simplest way, consider the length of the hypotenuse of a 3,4,5 right triangle. Is that "5" an integer; in other words, is it a member of the set of rational numbers? Clearly, it is not, since this "5" was known to the Classical Greeks by the Pythagorean theorem, in which the hypotenuse is an incommensurable, i.e., a quadratic number "5.000 ... 0 ...," not the "5" of the series of integers. In mathematics generally, for example, we know of more than four species of cardinalities: rational; algebraic; "non-algebraic," or transcendental; and the Alephs, from Aleph-1, Aleph-2, ... . Each of those distinct species of cardinalities represents a distinct generating-principle, a distinct "Type." The same principle of "Type" also applies to comparisons among series of events, or of series of ideas. back

42. William Petty, Second Earl of Shelburne (1737-1805), Prime Minister of Britain, July 1, 1782 to Feb. 24, 1783. As Minister under Rockingham, and then Prime Minister, Shelburne organized the first, secret peace-treaty with the United States and France, making the adoption of Adam Smith's new dogmatic fad, "free trade," a conditionality. While Prime Minister, created the British foreign service, with his appointee, Jeremy Bentham, as first head of the British foreign intelligence service. Emerging as the most powerful man in Britain over the last decades of the Eighteenth Century, beginning approximately the time of the accession of George III (1760). Chief representative of the British East India Company and Barings bank, the power behind William Pitt the Younger (Prime Minister, 1783-1801, 1804-1806). For special historical reasons, this Shelburne's name is sedulously omitted from textbook varieties of accounts of precisely those leading developments in British history in which he played a principal role. For this latter reason, he is sometimes confused with the also powerful Sir William Petty, his grandfather, a leading figure of the Restoration Stuart decades, who lived 1623-1687. In addition to William Pitt the Younger, and, reputedly also the King himself, the East India Company's Shelburne owned such notables of the reign of George III as Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, Edward Gibbon, and Thomas Malthus. It was Shelburne who remodelled Britain to become a global empire, and who stamped Britain's establishment with the radical mind-set sometimes described, misleadingly, as British Nineteenth-Century philosophical radicalism. back

43. The most famous of the events within the field of philosophy which mark the change from the empiricism of Locke and Walpole's Liberals, to British philosophical radicalism, is Immanuel Kant's open break with his former mentor, David Hume, as Kant indicates in his Preface to the first edition of his Critique of Pure Reason, and as he clarifies the matter within his Prolegomena to a Future Metaphysic. Although John Locke was formally a radical positivist in the construction of his empiricism, as were Francis Bacon and Thomas Hobbes before him, Locke tempered his policy with cautious deference to custom. This respect for custom had later been adopted by David Hume. In this matter of custom, Immanuel Kant followed Locke and the relatively younger Hume; Kant's Critique of Practical Reason, especially the concluding section, "The Dialectic of Practical Reason," displays Kant's commitment to this policy. At the point that Hume later altered his views on custom, to take a more radical view, akin to that of Ortes, Adam Smith, and Bentham, Kant made his reluctant open break with Hume. More on this development below. The issues of Kant's break with Hume defines the singularity separating the old empiricism of Locke from the British philosophical radicalism of Shelburne's lackeys, and of the Huxley family and Russell later. See footnote 154. back

44. Thomas R. Malthus, An Essay On Population (1798) (New York: E.P. Dutton and Co., 1960). back

45. Giammaria Ortes, Riflessioni sulla popolazione delle nazioni per rapporto all'economia nazionale (Reflections on the Population of Nations in respect to National Economy) (Venice: 1790). Ortes' economic and related writings are reprinted in Scrittori classici italiani di economia politica, ed. by P. Custodi (Milan: G.G. Stefanis, 1803-16). For more on Ortes, see footnotes 56, 85, and 241. back

46. Darwin writes in his autobiography, "In October 1838—that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic enquiry—I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of new species. Here, then, I had at last got a theory by which to work... ." Quoted in Christopher Ralling, The Voyage of Charles Darwin (New York: Mayflower Books, 1979), p. 169. back

47. Pierre-Louis Moreau de Maupertuis (1698-1759). French mathematician and astronomer; member, Académie des Sciences (1723), introduced Newton's doctrine of gravitation to France (1731). Reorganized the Berlin Academy of Sciences beginning 1744, serving as president 1746-1759. Public controversy erupted when he presented Leibniz's "principle of least action" as his own in the Recherche de lois du movement (1746) and Essai sur cosmologie (1750). His Essai de philosophie morale (1749) contains the "hedonstic calculus" adopted by Ortes and later Bentham. back

48. Giovanni Botero, Della ragion di stato (1588; Engl. trans., 1606). See the Appendix, "Delle cause della grandezza e magnificenza delle città," for Botero's theory of population. Botero was a figure in the ambiance of the notorious Paolo Sarpi, who had studied with the notorious Aristotelian fanatic Bellarmino. In addition to his population theory, Botero is famous for his attacks, in De regia sapienta (1581), on Niccolò Machiavelli's work. back

49. For the decrees of Diocletian and other emperors, see Codex Theodosianus: Theodosiani Libri XVI cum Constitutionibus Sirmondianis, ed. by T. Mommsen (Berlin: Weidmann, 1962). For an account of the disastrous results of Diocletian's measures, see Tenney Frank, An Economic History of Rome (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1927), chap. XXII, "The Beginnings of Serfdom." See also Stephen Williams, Diocletian and the Roman Recovery (New York: Methuen, 1985). back

50. Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776), reprinted as The Wealth of Nations, ed. by R.H. Campbell and A.S. Skinner (London: Oxford University Press, 1979). back

51. Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. I (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1965), chap. XXV, § 4, p. 646. back

52. Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789) (New York: Hafner Publishing Co., 1970). back

53. Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead, Principia Mathematica (1910) (2nd ed., 1927) (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1968-1973). back

54. No mathematician who understood the significance of the principle of "cardinality" in defining transfinite mathematical types would be lured into the sophomoric blunder of so-called "chaos theory." In any well-ordered institution, the student's proposal that cardinality must vanish with the appearance of Aleph-0 earns the offender an automatic flunking grade for the term. Hence, the appropriateness of the term "idiot savant" here. back

55. See H.G. Wells, Experiment in Autobiography (1934) (Boston: Little, Brown, 1962) for his relationship to Mackinder and Milner. For a discussion of Wells, Milner, and Mackinder's joint work with the Fabian Society's "Co-Efficients' Club," see Carol White, op. cit., passim. back

56. For a description of the Conti-Emo-Memmo-Ortes salon, the "conversazione filosofica e felice" which also directed Casanova, see Piero del Negro, "Giammaria Ortes, il Patriziato e la Politica di Venezia," in Giammaria Ortes: un "filosofo" veneziano del Settecento (Convegno internazionale di studio promosso dalla Fondazione Giorgio Cini con la collaborazione della Societá italiana di studi del secolo XVII di Roma e dell'Universitá degli studi di Venezia, convegno svolto all'idola di San Giorgio Maggiore nei giorni 14 e 16 dicembre 1990) (Firenze: L.S. Olschki, 1993), pp. 125-182. For Conti's writings, see Antonio Conti, Scritti filosofici (Napoli: F. Rossi, 1972) and Conti, Prose e poesie, 2 vols. (Venezia, 1756). For Conti's influence on Ortes, see Mauro di Lisa, " 'Chi mi sa dir s'io fingo,' Newtonianesimo e scetticismo in Giammaria Ortes," Giornale critico della filosofia italiana, LXVII (1988), pp. 221-233. back

57. Giacomo Casanova was officially a paid agent of Venetian intelligence assigned primarily to work against France by his controllers and sponsors, who included Andrea Memmo of the Conti "conversazione" salon, Francesco II Lorenzo Morosini (Procuratore di San Marco), and Senator Matteo Giovanni Bragadin. Casanova's main patroness in France was Mme. Jeanne Camus de Pontcarré, Marquise d'Urfé, the former mistress of the Duke of Orleans when he was Regent of France. One of Casanova's agents appears to have been the Cardinal de Bernis, the diplomat who negotiated Louis XV's Austrian alliance in the diplomatic revolution of 1756. For Casanova, see John Masters, Casanova (New York: Bernard Geis, 1969); James Rives Childs, Casanova: A Biography Based on New Documents (London: Allen and Unwin, 1961); and Edouard Maynial, Casanova and his Time (London: Chapman and Hall, 1911). Count Cagliostro, born Giuseppe Balsamo in Sicily, was the prime mover in the so-called Queen's necklace affair of 1785-86 which involved the Cardinal Prince of Rohan and others in a scandalous public trial which ruined the reputation of Queen Marie Antoinette and, in the judgment of Napoleon Buonaparte, constituted the starting point for the French Revolution of 1789. See François Ribadeau Dumas, Cagliostro (New York, Orion Press, 1966) and John Hardman, Louis XVI (London: Yale University Press, 1993). back

58. For Count Giovanni Antonio Capo d'Istria (Capodistria) (1776-1831) at the Congress of Vienna, see C.K. Webster, The Congress of Vienna (London: Oxford University Press, 1919). For his later career, see Wilhelm Schwarz, Die Heilige Allianz (Stuttgart: 1935) and Alfred Stern, Geschichte Europas seit den Vertraegen von 1815 bis zum Frankfurter Frieden von 1871 (Berlin: W. Hertz, 1894-1924). back

59. G.W. Leibniz, Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe, published by the Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Darmstadt: O. Reichl, 1923-), Reihe 4, Politische Schriften, Vol. 1. After his Paris trip and contact with the Académie des Sciences, Leibniz made frequent reference to the science and economy of Colbert's France as far the most advanced among nations. back

60. Henry A. Kissinger, "Reflections on a Partnership: British and American Attitudes to Postwar Foreign Policy," speech delivered at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Chatham House, London, May 10, 1982 (unpublished, available from the Cener for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, D.C.). Kissinger reviewed the unbridgeable philosophical differences between the United States and Great Britain, saying that on these points he sided with the British policy outlook. "British [World War II and post-war] policy drew upon two centuries of experience with the European balance of power, America on two centuries of rejecting it... . Britain has rarely proclaimed moral absolutes or rested her faith in the ultimate efficacy of technology... . Philosophically, she remains Hobbesian... . American foreign policy is the product of a very different tradition. ... We had created a nation consciously dedicated to 'self-evident' truths, and it was taken for granted in most American public discourse that our participation ... in the world could be guided exclusively by moral precepts." Later, Kissinger complained bitterly that "Americans from Franklin Roosevelt onward believed that the United States, with its 'revolutionary' heritage, was the natural ally of peoples struggling against colonialism; we could win the allegiance of these new nations by opposing and occasionally undermining our European allies in the areas of their colonial dominance. Churchill, of course, resisted these American pressures." See footnotes 17 and 87. back

61. Although the institutions of that Renaissance were established formally in the ecumenical victory for the circles of Nicolaus of Cusa and the future Pius II at that Council of Florence, in a.d.: 1440, that event was the outcome of a process of rebirth which had been begun, chiefly by the followers of Dante Alighieri, such as Petrarca at Avignon, during the preceding century. Consider the period from the collapse of the Venetian debt-bubble, in the middle of the Fourteenth Century, to the Renaissance Council of Florence, as a period of transition from the old to the verge of the new; in that sense, Modern History begins with the transition from the pre-1439 conciliar meetings, including Constance, to the Renaissance Council of Florence. back

62. According to historians, the Venetians earned deep hatred from their Greek victims in the course of Venice's 1645-1699 wars of conquest against the vulnerable fringes of that decaying Osmanian dynasty which the Venetians themselves had helped to conquer Constantinople in a.d.: 1453. From the Fourth Crusade onwards, looting of the tortured remains of the Byzantine Empire, whether under Paleologue, Osman, or for the purposes of the Fourth Crusade, was a recurring Venetian swindle. In the course of its invasion and occupation of the Peloponnesus, the Venetian occupying force's explosives transformed the Athens Parthenon into a ruin. back

63. Capodistria, after serving Venice's diplomatic/intelligence services in Russia and Switzerland, ended his life serving as British-approved governor of the nominally liberated regions of Greece. back

64. See footnote 49. back

65. For Enrico Dandolo and the Fourth Crusade, see John Julius Norwich, A History of Venice (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1982), p. 122ff. Cf. Frederick C. Lane, Venice: A Maritime Republic (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973). back

66. Miriam Beard in her History of the Business Man (New York: Macmillan, 1938) writes: "... when Genghis Khan ruled from Korea to Persia, the Mongols were extending their colossal empire westward. ... At every stage, the Mongol generals informed themselves ahead of time about the state of European courts, and learned what feuds and disorders would be advantageous to their conquests. This valuable knowledge they obtained from Venetian merchants, men like Marco Polo's father. It was thus not without reason that Polo himself was made welcome at the court of Kublai, and became for a time administrator of the Grand Khan." (p. 105). See also B.H. Liddell Hart, Great Captains Unveiled (London: 1927) for the role of the Venetians as the "intelligence service of the Mongols." back

67. Barbara Tuchman, A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous Fourteenth Century (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978). back

68. For the Crusades, see Sir Stephen Runciman, A History of the Crusades, 3 vols. (London: Cambridge University Press, 1951-54). See also Jonathan Riley-Smith, The Crusades: A Short History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987) and Hans Eberhard Mayer, The Crusades (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988). back

69. For Frederick I Barbarossa, see Helmut Hiller, Friedrich Barbarossa und seine Zeit (Munich: List, 1977) and Peter Munz, Frederick Barbarossa: a study in medieval politics (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1969). For Frederick II see Stupor Mundi: zur Geschichte Friedrichs II von Hohenstaufen (Darmstadt: 1992) and Georgina Masson, Frederick II of Hohenstaufen: A Life (New York, Octagon Books, 1973). back

70. The Venetians manipulated the wars of the Lombard League against Frederick I (battle of Legnano, 1176) and the wars of Charles of Anjou against Frederick II and his heirs (battle of Benevento, 1266). Venice was also instrumental in unleashing the Hundred Years' War (1339-1453) between England and France which was started by Venice's ally King Edward III of England. For the "Babylonian captivity" of the Papacy in Avignon, see Guillaume Mollat, The Popes at Avignon (1305-1378) (New York: Harper and Row, 1965) and Yves Renouard, Avignon Papacy, 1305-1403 (London: Faber, 1970). back

71. "Classical tragedy" should be read here in the sense of Aeschylus' Prometheus, and in terms of the principles of tragedy as set forth by Friedrich Schiller. For Schiller on tragedy, see "On the Use of Chorus in Tragedy," Fidelio, Vol. II, No. 1, Spring 1993, pp. 60-64. See also "Über den Grund des Vergnügens an tragischen Gegenstäden" ("On the Reasons We Take Pleasure in Tragic Subjects") and "Über die tragische Kunst" ("On Tragic Art") in Friedrich von Schiller, Sämtliche Werke in Sechs Bänden (Stuttgart: Phaidon Verlag, 1984), vol. 5, pp. 127-162. See also "On the Pathetic" and "On the Sublime," in Friedrich Schiller, Poet of Freedom, Vol. III, ed. by William F. Wertz, Jr. (Washington, D.C.: Schiller Institute, 1990). For Friedrich Schiller on the role of the punctum saliens in tragedy, see, e.g., the "Introduction" to his History of the Revolt of the United Netherlands Against Spanish Rule, in Friedrich Schiller, Poet of Freedom, Vol. III, ibid., pp. 177-191. back

72. Even if but for approximately thirteen years, until the Ottoman sack of a betrayed Constantinople in a.d.: 1453. back

73. See Helga Zepp-LaRouche, "Nicolaus of Cusa and the Council of Florence," Fidelio, Vol. I, No. 2, Spring 1992, pp. 17-22 (Address to the Schiller Institute conference commemorating the 550th anniversary of the Council of Florence, Rome, May 5, 1989), for her presentation of the proofs supplied to the Council by Nicolaus of Cusa from Greek documents Cusa gathered during his visit to Byzantium. back

74. The two principal writings to be consulted for understanding the conception of the modern nation-state republic under natural law are Dante Alighieri, De Monarchia [trans. by Herbert W. Schneider as On World-Government (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1957)] and Nicolaus of Cusa, Concordantia Catholica [trans. by Paul E. Sigmund as The Catholic Concordance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992)]. back

75. On the founding of modern science, the key works are by Nicolaus of Cusa: De Docta Ignorantia (On Learned Ignorance) (1440) [trans. by Jasper Hopkins as Nicolaus of Cusa on Learned Ignorance (Minneapolis: Arthur M. Banning Press, 1985)]. back

76. In formalist's terms, this is analogous to the effect of an axiomatic-revolutionary change within the set of axioms and postulates defining the generating principle which subsumes a specific type of formal theorem-lattice. One such change in axiom (or, postulate) revolutionizes the generating principle, to such effect that no apparently similar theorem of the implicit new lattice has any actual congruence with any possible theorem of the old. back

77. When Isidore of Kiev, who had been the Russian delegate to the Council of Florence, attempted to proclaim the unity of Christendom in Moscow, he was lucky to escape alive from the fury of Grand Prince Vasily the Blind. For Isidore's story as told in the Second Sophia Chronicle, The Tale of Isidore's Council, and Selections from the Holy Writings against the Latins and the tale about the composition of the Eighth Latin Council, see EIR Special Report: Global Showdown (Washington, D.C.: Executive Intelligence Review, 1985), pp. 87-89. For an Orthodox account, see Ivan Ostroumoff, The History of the Council of Florence (Boston: Holy Transfiguration Monastery, 1971), pp. 182-184. Approximately thirteen years after the Council, Constantinople fell to the Ottoman conquest. Scholarius assisted the Ottomans by mobilizing the Greeks not to rally to the defense of Constantinople. In reward for this treasonous service to his Greek countrymen, the Ottomans took time from sharing up the remains of the conquered Greece with Venice, to appoint Scholarius the religious representative for all of the non-Muslim population of the Ottoman Empire. back

78. For the League of Cambrai, see Felix Gilbert, The Pope, His Banker, and Venice (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980). See also John Julius Norwich, A History of Venice (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1982), pp. 390-433. back

79. For analysis and bibliography on Sarpi, the Giovani, and England, see Webster G. Tarpley, "The Role of the Venetian Oligarchy in the Reformation, the Counter-Reformation, Enlightenment, and Thirty Years' War," The New Federalist,, Vol. VII, No. 14, April 12, 1993, pp. 6-7; and "The Venetian Conspiracy," Campaigner, Vol. 14, No. 6, Sept. 1981, pp. 23-46. back

80. See Gaetano Cozzi, Paolo Sarpi fra Venezia e l'Europa (Torino: Einaudi, 1978) and Enrico De Mas, Sovranitá politica e unitá cristiana nel seicento anglo-veneto (Ravenna: Longo, 1975). See also William J. Bouwsma, Venice and the Defense of Republican Liberty (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968).back

81. As a matter of population-control applied to their own ranks, in the last two centuries of Venice's political independence, the time came that her oligarchy imposed increasingly strict celibacy upon a growing majority of its progeny. By the late Seventeenth Century, a typical Venetian oligarch travelling abroad, was, if not an abbot, a monk with vows in more or less perpetual abeyance—like Ortes. This style was associated with a proliferation of homosexuality among male and female members of the Venetian oligarchy, a city which rivalled Biblical Sodom and Gomorrah on such accounts. The spread of this Venetian oligarchical bachelor style, is often a marker for Venetian moral affiliations, which was clearly the case for Bacon and such kookish cronies of his as Hobbes, Elias Ashmole, et al. back

82. The dates are approximate. Crucial respecting 1688 is the disintegration of the reign of England's James II, which left Venice no option but to proceed with the deploying of its asset William of Orange into London. Crucial respecting 1818 is the full unmasking of the tyrannical character of the Metternich Holy Alliance. back

83. Lord Edmund Fitzmaurice, Life of William, Earl of Shelburne (London: Oxford University Press, 1907) p. 73. back

84. As noted above, this singular change within the doctrine of empiricism is the issue which prompted Kant's open break with his former mentor, David Hume. back

85. For Ortes, see the Cini Foundation symposium cited above under footnote 56. See also Gianfranco Torcellan, Settecento Veneto ed altri scritti storici (Torino: Giapichelli, 1969). For Ortes' shorter writings, see Giammaria Ortes: Calcolo sopra la veritá dell'istoria e altri scritti, ed. by Bartolo Anglani (Genoa: Costa and Nolan, 1984). For Ortes' economic writings, see Della economia nazionale (Milano: Marzorati, 1971). Ortes' economic and related writings are reprinted in Scrittori classici italiani di economia politica, ed. by P. Custodi (Milan: G.G. Stefanis, 1803-16). See also Webster G. Tarpley, "Giammaria Ortes and the Venetian Hoax of Carrying Capacity," The New Federalist, Vol. VIII, No. 22, June 20, 1994, pp. 6-9. For Conti, see footnote 56. back

86. The Thule Society, and its later offshoot, the aristocratic Allgemeine SS, were creations of princely forces from within the Fürstentum of the Twentieth-Century carry-forward of the Holy Roman Empire. This covered, in area, a large portion of the princely and related aristocratic families of the regions from Istria and northern Italy, northward into the circles of the Bavaria monarchy. These, otherwise typified by the renegade Benedictine Abbot who early met young Hitler, had been the backers of Giuseppe Mazzini's British bomber, composer Richard Wagner, created Adolf Hitler, and passed Hitler on to the nominally Protestant, also Venetian-controlled circles of the Vril Society. As a sovereign state, Venice disappeared into the outhouses of the Nineteenth Century; as a network of interdependent financial and political potencies, Venice continues very much alive, as a parasite within numerous institutions, to the present day. There is thus a continuity between the evil Ortes and the modern expression of this Venetian evil, the Club of Rome, and the proponents of the Cairo Population Conference. back

87. Op. cit. Kissinger told the 1982 Chatham House audience: "The British were so matter-of-factly helpful that they became a participant in internal American deliberations, to a degree probably never before practiced between sovereign nations. In my period in office, the British played a seminal part in certain American bilateral negotiations with the Soviet Union—indeed, they helped draft the key document. In my White House incarnation then, I kept the British Foreign Office better informed and more closely engaged than I did the American State Department ... ." back

88. Elliott Roosevelt, As He Saw It (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1946). back

89. For documentation on the World War II origins of the Hollinger Corporation as a British foreign-intelligence operation run under private cover by the Churchill-Beaverbrook apparatus, see Assault on the Presidency!, published by the Committee to Reverse the Accelerating Global Economic and Strategic Crisis: A LaRouche Exploratory Committee, Leesburg, Virginia, April 1994. back

90. The leading allusion here is to the argument of Philo of Alexandria in his On the Creation, op. cit. God's universe is not premised upon a set of mechanical laws, fixed for all eternity. The universe is governed, rather, by a lawful principle of continuing creation. Cf. William F. Wertz, Jr. on the subject of Nicolaus of Cusa's De visione Dei: "Nicolaus of Cusa and The Concept of Negentropy," Fidelio, Vol. II, No. 4, Winter 1993. Creation, that power which casts man in the image of God the Creator, is typified—in Cantor's sense of "type"—for man's knowledge of this principle, by a valid axiomatic-revolutionary form of discovery of a scientific principle of nature.back

91. Since the demolition of the Babylonian Empire (under the Achaemenid dynasty) by Alexander, the ally of the Academy of Athens, the eastern Mediterranean became Hellenized, and remained predominantly so until the takeover of the remains of the decayed Byzantine Empire by the forces of the Osmanian dynasty and the Mamelukes. It was thus so in the time of Jesus Christ's ministry. The highest form of the Hellenic language of thought at that time was not the effectively extinct spoken Hebrew language, but rather the Greek of Plato's Academy at Athens. Christianity was understood generally in the language of the Platonic Greek of the Disciple John and Apostle Paul, for example, until Plato was banned by later Byzantine emperors. Aristotle was introduced into the Venice-dominated western Mediterranean through such Iberian gnostics as Moses Maimonides (1135-1204)

(Note: Author LaRouche does not support this characterization of Moses Maimonides. This footnote was inserted by then EIR editor, Nora Hamerman, who soon broke with LaRouche over related issues. Enemies of LaRouche took control of EIR and related publications shortly after his fraudulent imprisonment in January 1989. A rabid convert to Buckley family-style Carlist gnosticism, anti-semite Fernando Quijano was the leader of the clique, controlled by LaRouche's intelligence community adversaries. Quijano tendered his resignation from EIR to LaRouche on learning that LaRouche was being released from imprisonment. Editor Hamerman and her husband announced their break shortly after a September 1994 conference, at which their policy was defeated. Other "stay-behind" agents of the same pro-Carlist dispositions left at later times) back to top

and Ibn Rushd (Averroës) (1126-1198) during the Twelfth Century, in the effort to weaken both Judaism and Christianity. The Aristotle of Averroës was revived at Padua under the Venetian Pietro Pomponazzi as part of Venice's efforts to undermine and destroy the anti-usury forces of the Renaissance. The alleged authority of Aristotle's putative authorship of the pro-slavery, pro-usury (Nicomachean) Ethics and Politics, was employed as apology for those and related practices of the Venice-centered oligarchical forces. back

92. The site of Delphi was originally consecrated to a pair of pagan deities, Gaia and Python, of the Shakti-Siva, Isis-Osiris, and Cybele-Dionysus model, typical of cults based on a moon-goddess who is also both Earth-mother goddess and patron deity of witchcraft and prostitution. Python is a serpent, belonging to the same pagan paradigm as the semitic Satan. From the East a new factor was introduced, the hybrid deity Apollo-Python, or, alternatively, Apollo-Dionysus. More on this Apollo-Dionysus cult in the European oligarchical tradition at relevant locations below. back

93. On the contrast with imperial law, see Friedrich August Freiherr von der Heydte, Die Geburtsstunde des souveränen Staates (Regensburg: Druck und Verlag Josef Habbel, 1952). On the principle of the modern nation-state republic, compare Dante Alighieri's De Monarchia, op. cit. with Nicolaus of Cusa's Concordantia Catholica, op. cit. back

94. See Nicolaus of Cusa, De Docta Ignorantia, op. cit. Consider also the unprecedented explosion of fundamental scientific and technological progress during the Fifteenth Century, from Filippo Brunelleschi through Luca Pacioli and Leonardo da Vinci. back

95. Op. cit. back

96. The qualification "near to its zenith" reflects inclusively the fact that in 1261 Michael Paleologue had overthrown the Venetians' Latin empire. back

97. The Humboldt brothers' project in Rome, at the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, demonstrated that Italian, while heavily doused with Latin loan-words over the more than two thousand years since the subjugation of the Italians by the Romans, was an independent language which had co-existed with Latin, rather than being a derivative of Latin. This announcement by the Humboldts and their circles of philologists was met by an explosion of rage from those whose concerns sprang from motives other than passion for truth. See footnote 223. back

98. This author constructed a project, defining the conditions of speech required to represent known states of mind by language. A team of Italian scholars compared this table of requirements for a literate form of language with the Commedia; all of the conditions were satisfied. back

99. Leonardo's contributions to military technology are summarized in The Unknown Leonardo, ed. by Ladislao Reti (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974), esp. Ludwig H. Heydenreich, "The Military Architect," pp. 136-189, and Bern Dibner, "Machines and Weaponry," pp. 190-215. See also footnote 198. back

100. Machiavelli's analysis of the superiority of a "well-ordered militia" based on an educated republican citizenry can be found in his Art of War, Book I (New York: Macmillan, 1975), and in his Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius, Book I (New York: Viking Penguin, 1984), chap. 4. For an appreciation of these ideas, see Michael J. Minnicino, "The Need for Virtù in Today's Politics," New Solidarity, Vol. VIII, No. 40, July 19, 1977; and Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., "A Machiavellian Solution for Israel," Campaigner, Vol. 11, No. 2, March 1978. back

101. The already referenced Doctor Faustus is one of the truly great tragedies, a composition whose prose parody by Goethe does not reach up morally or intellectually to the original. back

102. Although Cervantes also composed for the stage, his great Classical tragedy, on the Classical Greek model of Aeschylus and others, is in prose form, as Don Quixote. back

103. See William F. Wertz, Jr., "On the Brotherhood of the Common Life," Fidelio, Vol. III, No. 2, Summer 1994. On the Schiller and Humboldt reforms in education, see Helga Zepp-LaRouche, "Die Modernität des Humboldtschen Bildungsideals," Ibykus, Vol. II, No. SUPPLY, 1981. See also Wilhelm von Humboldt, "Preliminary Thoughts on the Plan for the Establishment of the Municipal School System in Lithuania" and "School Plan for Königsberg," which are summarized by Marianna Wertz, in "Wilhelm von Humboldt's Classical Education Curriculum," The New Federalist, Vol. VII, No. 10, March 15, 1993, p. 8; see also Wilhelm von Humboldt, Humanist Without Portfolio: An Anthology of the Writings of Wilhelm von Humboldt, trans. by Marianne Cowan (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1963). Humboldt's reform program was directly influenced by his long association with Friedrich Schiller. See "On Schiller and the Course of His Spiritual Development," by Wilhelm von Humboldt, and Schiller's "What Is, and To What End Do We Study, Universal History?" in Friedrich Schiller, Poet of Freedom, Vol. II, ed. by William F. Wertz, Jr. (Washington, D.C.: Schiller Institute, 1988). See footnote 223. back

104. On this point, see the author's references to the implications of the most famous among Raphael's (Raffaello Sanzio's) murals of the Stanze della Segnatura, the School of Athens. "The Truth About Temporal Eternity," Fidelio, Vol. III, No. 2, Summer 1994. See "III. The Education of Creativity"; also, the treatment of history as history of ideas, pp. 13-15, 25-30. back

Top of Page



The Schiller Institute
PO BOX 20244
Washington, DC 20041-0244

Thank you for supporting the Schiller Institute. Your membership and contributions enable us to publish FIDELIO Magazine, and to sponsor concerts, conferences, and other activities which represent critical interventions into the policy making and cultural life of the nation and the world.

Contributions and memberships are not tax-deductible.


Home | Search | About | Fidelio | Economy | Strategy | Justice | Conferences | Join
| Calendar | Music | Books | Concerts | Links | Education | Health
What's New | LaRouche | Spanish Pages | PoetryMaps
Dialogue of Cultures

© Copyright Schiller Institute, Inc. 2002. All Rights Reserved.