EIR NEWS SERVICE ITEM by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. DATE-LINE: LEESBURG, 20 Dec. 1988 +quot;P

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

EIR NEWS SERVICE ITEM by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. DATE-LINE: LEESBURG, 20 Dec. 1988 "PROMETHEUS" LA ROUCHE SENDS REPLY TO WOULD-BE GODS OF OLYMPUS ================================== The would-be "gods of Olympus," who claim to control the Reagan administration, the incoming Bush administration, and the U.S. judicial system up to the level of the Supreme Court, have chosen to dispatch me a series of messages. For reasons to be made clear, my reply is being transmitted via the public news media, via this and other appropriate publications. The first message, delivered a few weeks ago, was in the nature of a "calling card." This message predicted the rigged, corrupt verdict which those agencies claimed they had rearranged in the Alexandria Federal court case concluded last friday. That message was an accurate prediction of results accomplished by means of "sleepers" planted inside the jury. As that predicted result was occurring, a second message was sent from the same source via the same channel. This message predicts that I have approximately thirty days to accept the terms of submission to be proferred by the messenger's principals, or see myself and those associated with me destroyed through the U.S. courts. The messenger stated that his principals control the U.S. courts up to the highest level in this matter, to the effect that everything is already fixed up to the highest level of both the courts and the Reagan and Bush administrations. I am informed that the proposed terms of my submission are to be the subject of a third message. The second message states that I must now indicate whether or not I am now prepared to negotiate such terms, whatever they might be. For reasons explained below, it is necessary that I deliver my reply publicly, in the manner I do here. My Message In Reply ------------------- The answer to that message is "No." I am willing to discuss any policy on the merits of the policy itself; I am always open to be persuaded to alter my views on the basis of reason, provided reason shows such alteration to be more consistent with my principles than my resent tactical and strategic postures, and also provided that it is understood I will never change policies in important matters without making the reasons for those changes clear to all supporters and others to whom I am morally accountable. However, say, that with the image of Christ in gethsemane before my mind's eye, I will never compromise my principled commitments at any price. For clarity through emphasis, I restate what I consider egotiable. I am not perfect, and therefore recognize that there may be better tactical and strategic measures for realizing my principles than those I have conceived thus far. On this pecific account, I am open to reason. There exist, doubtless, concerns of which I am not ad-quately informed, in respect to which my policies should be mplified to take these matters into account, and that in a anner consistent with my principles. In such matters, I am open to reason, provided this nvolves no compromise of principle. However, I recognize no highest authority on this planet xcepting the Creator and His natural law. The very existence f bodies of wealthy powerful families, which consider them-elves as families in the likeness of the mythical gods of lympus, represents in and of itself an insolence against both od and man which is anathema to me. On these matters, no ompromise is possible. Those Principled Commitments ---------------------------- Although I am a leading figure of an ecumenical associat-on of Catholics, Jews, Protestants, Bhuddists, and others, hat association is committed to practical means of realization f policies set forth in such Papal encyclicals as the 1967 Progressio Populorum> and more recent . No one who knows those encylcicals and knows my policies f practice during the recent twenty-odd years could have any easonable doubt of this fact. Specifically, on account of the latter of the two cited ncyclicals, I concur most emphatically to the reference to the structures of sin" currently dominating, respectively, the ast and the West. The tradition of constituting powerful ealthy families prone to sundry forms of usury, as a form of ower over nations cast in the image of the Gods of Olympus, s the essence of those "structures of sin" which have ngendered the greatest evils afflicting the community of ations today. I am content that such families should prosper, and enjoy uch prosperity for themselves. I will never accept their fficient conspiring to constitute themslves a power above epresentative governments of sovereign nations, to such effect hat they cast themselves in the image of the mythical Gods of lympus. The former status of such families is a set of atters which is negotiable with me; the latter is not. My particular commitments ought to be very well known from oth my published statements and the consistency of all my olicy-formulation in consistency with those statements. I ist the most relevant of those commitments here, to ensure bsolute clarity of the import of this message of reply. I am essentially a Christian philosopher, and, with that pecific qualification a "philosopher king" in the sense defined y Plato. This role has emerged as a kind of metamorphosis f the central personal developments in my life during the years 934-1952. Those developments are essentially two; they are istinct, but closely interrelated. First, at the age of twelve, I embarked upon a study of eading modern philosophers of the seventeenth and eighteenth enturies. Out of this, I came to abhor everything repres-nted by Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, David ume, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and to establish myself, ince the period of my thirteenth and fourteenth years, a ollower of Leibniz. My development as a philosopher, and all f my principal intellectual and related achievements since, as forged in my work of disproving the central dogmas of mmanuel Kant's , in defense of Leibniz. Second, the intertwining of my youthful preparations for ossible entry into the Christian ministry with these philo-ophical studies, prompted me to reject the evangelical form of evout Quaker faith in which I had been reared. I came to the ainful realization of reason, that the Quakers, including y devout parents, erred fundamentally in holding God re-ponsible for the condition of mankind; the Creator holds each f us responsible for the condition of mankind, to the limit of ur means to remedy suffering and evils. On the basis of my successful refutation of Kant, and my indred axiomatic refutation of the anti-human dogmas respect-ng the human mind, of professors Norbert Wiener and John von eumann, by 1952 I had produced important discoveries in the ield of physical economy, respecting, immediately, the in-elligible nature of the causal relationship between scientific rogress and increase of the potential population-density of the uman species. As part of the same effort, I defined the ntelligibility of the same creative processes responsible for alid fundamental scientific discoveries, as the basis for ajor creative works in the classical fine arts. As the human individual is set apart from and above all he beasts, fundamentally, by the divine gift of the potent-al for rigorous forms of creative reason, it is in this re-pect that the individual person is in the image of the living reator. This fact is the intelligible premise for defining he practical meaning of the terms and . Encumbered with this knowledge, it became more and more he dedication of my life to serve this principle: to defend hose forms of institutions of sovereign nation-states which, ike emphasis upon scientific and technological progress, oster the development and expression of those aspects of in-ividual human nature which reflect the image of the living reator. Today, from this viewpoint I have so described, our lanet is afflicted with two great evils. The first is the spread of satanic evil in the guises of hat is called variously "The New Age," the "Age of Aquarius," r simply the "radical counterculture." Fascism and Bolshev-sm, like the avowed Anti-Christs Nietzsche and Aleister rowley, are but particular forms of expression of this sub-uming satanic evil which is the New Age insurgency. The avowed purpose of the New Age, is to eradicate the cultural matrix" of Western European Judeo-Christian civiliz-tion from the institutions and even the memory of this planet. The second evil, is the great and spreading social in-ustice, typified by the plight of the majority in the looted Third World," and the growing poor inside the U.S. itself. ocial and economic justice for these nations and their poor, s the great noble task placed before the post-war world. The ould-be Gods of Olympus, both as wealthy families of the West r the Soviet Nomenklatura, have not only rejected that task, ut have brought this injustice to the most savage extremes, ith their usurious looting, their crushing of the sovereign-ties of nations, and their evil, neo-malthusian "post-ndustrial" utopianism. The clear mission of the United States is to assume its roper leading role in defeating the spread of the first evil, nd in righting of the great wrongs of social and economic in-ustice against the poor of this planet, both within these nited States and without. We have reached the point, that ither the United States abandons the evil policies of usury, eo- malthusianism, and foul compromises with Soviet evil, hich have dominated increasingly the policy-shaping of the ecent twenty-odd years, or the United States will surely be estroyed during the relatively near-term period ahead of us oday. The point has been reached, at which the Creator will no onger tolerate the rule over mankind by those responsible for he condition to which mankind is being reduced. Our nation ust change itself on these accounts, or be doomed. In any ase, what is dawning now, is not "the Age of Aquarius," but he holocaust of extinction of those institutions which serve he rule over mankind by would-be Gods of Olympus. Hence, on this account, my frail person touches the most wesome power of this planet, a power greater than all overnments, and greater than any would-be Gods of Olympus. If uch forces continue their efforts to exterminate the cause hich I represent, their success on that account ensures their wn extermination not long afterward. This power is not my ersonal possession; it is a power to pass final judgment upon ll would-be judges, a power emanating from the Creator. It s not my hand, or that of my friends, which would destroy hose who would destroy me and my friends, it is the Hand of rovidence. This Message ------------ The first function of this message of reply is to provoke suitable verification of the second message delivered to me, o ensure that the messenger has represented the views of those is credentials imply he does represent. The second function, is to ensure that those principals ave opportunity to reconsider their announced course, and to hape any further message to me accordingly. The reasons for choosing this channel to make this reply, ught to be obvious to those whom the messenger represents. ---30---


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank