Is LaRouche's fight enough to save civilization and prevent nuclear war?


The First Commandment's Gateway to Nuclear War
and how to defeat it!

How to Defeat Nuclear War

 by Rolf Witzsche, March 1, 2003



Christ Jesus called this First Commandment the great commandment of the law. He also said that another commandment is the same as that, which is to love one another in the same manner. It points to the universal nature of the platform of principles. One may call it the Principle of divine Love, manifest as universal love. In other words, the development of civilization rests squarely on society's scientific development for the discovery of universal principles and their application in human affairs. One may also call this the higher law of the universe.

This is essentially what the First Commandment represents. By the same token, this law also puts us into an extremely dangerous position under certain circumstances as a kind of default outcome. This exposure, too, has been recognized eons ago.

The existence of this danger has been illustrated in an ancient allegory that is documented in the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. The allegory involves a conversation between the patriarch Abraham and God, concerning the impending downfall of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, that God is warning Abraham about {Gen. 18). Abraham offers a solution. He asks if just fifty righteous people were to be found within the cities, might the destruction not be avoided for their sake. Abraham finds himself almost pleading with God, and God responds affirmatively.

The allegory teaches a valuable lesson. In a sense, we have God saying to Abraham, "Look here my friend, I am the most powerful principle in the universe; in fact I am the only Principle; but if everyone rejects the utility that I am offering, what do you expect to happen? Disaster will eventually occur. It's inevitable. There is nothing that I can do about it. You say that you want me to create a solution? I can't. I am Principle. Still, what you suggest can work. If there are fifty people in those cities who understand the nature of universal principles, and understand these principles sufficiently to establish constructive policies, as for instance, policies built on the principle of universal love, then the entire society can be changed, and the self-destruction of those societies can be avoided."

Well, it seems that Abraham felt that his proposition was a bit too optimistic. After all, expecting to find fifty righteous people in those cities was a bit unrealistic. So he altered his proposition. "What if there are only forty to be found, or perhaps only thirty, or twenty, or even just ten?" God agreed that this could be sufficient.

In a sense, God said to him, "You've got to understand the process that's involved. I am universal Principle. I am the principle of the universe, the greatest and only principle there is. Everything constructive is done by me. I am a Ferrari, but I can't do anything for you unless you put yourself into the driver's seat. And that goes for anyone else.  Even one single person could theoretically be sufficient to uplift a society to the discovery of fundamental principles, to the point that it will change its policies and end its mad rush into self-destruction. Of course, that's stretching the envelope. That person would have to be a genius and much more than that. But, if there were ten of those, I can almost guarantee success." 

As it was, those ten couldn't be found. They didn't exist, and as forecast, the self-destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah occurred. Much of the same can be said about World War I. This war, the countless deaths, and the horrendous destruction that it caused, could all have been avoided. But they weren't. The same goes for World War II.

In the above allegory God was asked by Abraham, "will you destroy the innocent with the guilty?" In a sense, God pointed out to Abraham that this injustice never occurs. One righteous person, that is, one who understands the nature of universal principles, can inspire society to change itself and ennoble the universe. It is, as if God answered Abraham that injustice never occurs, as a matter of principle.

History has shown that this assessment is reflected in all wars. All wars could have been avoided. The universal principle for this to be possible have always existed, but foolishly they were rejected for reasons of disinterest or shortsightedness. This trend has continued to the very day, with one exception. The modern drive for war has been intercepted literally by a single man. It is useful, therefore, to look at the ancient allegory in the light of our modern situation.

Defeating the Drive for War

Actually we face several new phenomena that have never before existed. One of these is a revolutionary global protest unfolding against war. On Feb.15, 2003, upwards to a hundred million people have marched in protest against the planned war on Iraq, the infamous "Clash of Civilizations" war that the U.S. government is determined to trigger by attacking Iraq. To my knowledge there has never been a worldwide protest on this scale against any war, but tragically, this almost magical effort amounted to little more than just wind in the dessert of human hopes. It was a wave of protest by society against itself, against its own failure, and continues to be that, because it doesn't address the real issue that society has failed to address for a long time, such as the imperial economic policies that are behind this war, which are now controlling the world, shattering peace, and are in the process of destroying entire nations. LaRouche puts on the table bluntly and painfully what society has closed its eyes to for too long, in a recent statement on War, Hitler and Cheney. 

Helga Zepp LaRouche, working in Germany, recently delivered a major address on the historic developments leading into World War I, and the modern equivalent. She said in her address:

All players had lost judgment, what their real interest was. And, because the level of military technology was vastly higher than their ability to use it intelligently, they were unable to see the self-destructive implications for themselves. It led to the tragedy of the 20th Century, for several generations to come.

Now was this war inevitable? Or was there an alternative policy? And I want to say, absolutely yes, there was. In the 1890s, there was the historic opportunity for the nations of continental Europe, to unite and work together. In France, the Foreign Minister Gabriel Hanotaux, from 1894 on, and in Russia, the Finance Minister Sergei Witte, had the strategic vision for a community of principle. ... (full transcript to come before the end of March)

Obviously, the historic opportunity to create a new world on universal principles was not realized. Society had failed to ennoble itself to the embrace of these higher principles. As the inevitable consequence, war was realized, and with it the self-destruction of Europe. The same may be said about our modern age in the global context, including the fact that the opportunity exists to prevent that. Indeed, there is a movement ongoing around the world to stop the currently ongoing war against Iraq through legal channels, via the U.N.

Ultimately, war is but a symptom of society's own failure. All other issues, such as Weapons of Mass Destruction, are secondary in nature. Also, society does not even address the secondary issues honestly, otherwise it would demand universal disarmament, and demand that all nations, regardless of their size and power, respect international laws and principles which do not support the arrogance of preemption.

The very existence of a drive for war, that society is protesting against today, is nothing more than tragic evidence that society finds little value in constructive universal principles, because if it had, it would have uplifted itself to such a degree that the drive for war couldn't even be imagined, much less be carried to the extreme to which it has been carried. The worldwide protest against war did almost nothing to elevate society to a higher sense of humanity and greater commitment to it. Protest is always negative, unless it is coupled with an elevating imperative based on universal principles.

Of the hundred million voices that chanted, "No More War!" How many of those put forward constructive proposals, based on universal principles, to uplift society onto a higher platform, to advance the general welfare of humanity, to create a higher sense of universal justice, to inspire constructive cooperation instead of austerity demands? Who spoke up for policies to create a new financial and monetary system around the world to rebuild the world economically with new infrastructures, new industries, advanced science, a richer culture, and new energy systems, as a means to eradicate poverty, disable greed, eliminate theft, and to establish a practical platform for universal love in society? This is the platform that an active peace is built on. If anyone actually did raise a voice for such policies at any of the marches, that voice was downed by the chant's of protests, because not such policy proposals were reported. In other words, the sum total effect of this protest movement was largely emotional. God might have asked Abraham, "where are the fifty who understand the nature of universal principles and are moving heaven and earth to reestablish their world on those principles?" And Abraham might have asked reluctantly: "what about forty, or what about thirty, or twenty, or even ten?"

The hundred million men march would have stopped the war if people had chanted from every corner of the globe, "We want LaRouche! We want LaRouche." It would have stopped the war drive absolutely. It would have stopped it that very day, because the name LaRouche represents in the world the sum total of the most advanced universal principles that the pioneers of mankind have discovered and had used to built a civilization on. LaRouche is known for his embrace of these principles, and most governments around the world are aware of that, but those principles are not always welcome in an imperially oriented world. 

If the demonstrators, for instance, had held up LaRouche's name, or someone like him who may or may not exist, they wouldn't have to shout we want justice, peace, economic development, sovereignty, security, health, a rich life, and a honest respect for all people. They would merely have to shout one word: LaRouche. That word incorporates everything that most human beings hold dear in their heart, including a rejection of what most human beings abhor, such as theft, violence, murder, fascism, and so forth, including war. 

The name Canada has a similar synonymous meaning. The name represents a widely recognized commitment to certain universal principles that are respected around the world, such as liberty, peace, justice, generosity, sovereignty, and humanity. LaRouche merely takes the process further into the sphere of policies that are essential for the protection and advance of civilization, but which are of such a deep and far reaching nature that only a few governments have so far been able to commit themselves to these policies, even in part. Still, the number of them is slowly increasing.

Are there many such people? I don't know. I know of only one man who fits the above criterion, and his name is LaRouche, whose name has largely been silenced in the public domain. He heads a single small organization. In real term, the voice of this one single man is more valuable for the welfare of humanity, if not its survival, than a hundred million protest against war. Protests are complaints about failures in policies. LaRouche's goal to is to uplift society's self-perception to a higher humanist platform where such failures are not a part of the human scene. Those are the kind of demands that are not made during the peace marches. In real terms, what LaRouche represents was not on the agenda, and still isn't. He still stands alone in that arena while the world keeps protesting against the consequences of failures that it doesn't care to correct.

The drive for war is a default phenomenon of an empty society (See below, the story "Empty People"), and so are all the protest chants against war. LaRouche's policy is, to reverse that. His proposal, literally, is to create a new renaissance as a means for eradicating the war drive today and for all times to come.

Every once in a while the universe produces a person who brings together onto a single platform some of the most advanced principles that humanity has pioneered, and their names are remembered for their stand for these principles. There are many such names. In today's age the name is LaRouche. It could have been any other name. What makes LaRouche different, is that his humanity disallows the looting and destruction of society for the benefit of a few, because no society can survive long on a platform of stealing from one another, and threatening and injuring one another. This makes him the number one enemy of the ruling empire that exist on this platform, and makes his name a target for slander. If the 100 million marchers had shouted the name LaRouche, this would have signaled to the ruling empire that its game is over, that the focus of society has shifted onto human values.

In fact, this is the only option that society has. 

Let's take a look at what society is really saying with its 100 million men march against the planned war. It is saying to its dominant empire we oppose war. We accept the basic axioms and foundations that the empire stands on. We don't protest against those, or aim to change them. We just don't like one of the empire's policies. We don't like war. We accept the empire's determination to keep humanity locked within its sphere of dominance. We just don't like war as a means for it to accomplish that. We are saying to the empire, find another way. 

Of course, at the present stage of economic and financial disintegration that has gripped the entire world within which the empire operates, there is no other way possible to do that. War is the only option it has. Any other option for dealing with this crisis leads to the disintegration of the empire itself.

In consideration of this background it becomes evident that the 100 million men march has been counterproductive in terms of stopping the war drive. It has signaled the empire that its time is running out, that humanity is waking up. According what is blatantly evident, this awakening has caused an hysteria within the war party that has never been seen before, that has become a determination to get the war going before this awakening unfolds to higher levels. The urgency is not that Saddam will strike tomorrow, but that the chances for war will be slimmer tomorrow.

This hysteria is evident everywhere. In order to get the support it needs, the war party resorts to multi-billion dollar bribes; and if those don't work, to intimidations; and if those don't work, to open and vicious threats. And many respond to these threats. How would an ant respond when an elephant says, "get out from under my feet or I'll step on you?"

In other words, we are in a worse situation now. In order to stop the hysteria and the war drive, a qualitative escalation on the side of humanity is needed. But how to do it? It is too late for long pedagogical sermons. Nor is it possible to compress the universal principles of civilization into single phrase slogans. That would cheapen them. They are too deep and profound for this to be possible. So what can one carry to the battle field then? One carry a name. One can carry the name of a person who represents all those principles and is known for that. That's the name of LaRouche today. Tomorrow it may be another name.

While war is not inevitable, and never has been, the required qualitative escalation to prevent it must be greater than the escalation in the preparation for war. Some people say, "we have done all we can." Others say that only a miracle will stop this war drive now. If Abraham were to approach God with that, God with probably say, "You want a miracle; why don't you use the tools and the resources you have that are sufficient to do the job?" And Abraham would reply, "we have but one man, how can this be sufficient?" And God would reply, "use his name, spoken by a hundred million voices. Rally around what this name stands for. What else have you got that can refocus society at this stage, sufficiently, so that it will not self-destruct? Actually, you wouldn't be rallying around his name per se. You would be rallying around a synonym. The name is a synonym. You would be rallying around a complex construct of ideas that the name is synonymous with. That is why no one can really slander the name of LaRouche. This would by synonymous with slandering Socrates and Plato, and Cusa, and Kepler, and Gauss, and Leibnitz, and also Abraham Lincoln, Alexander Hamilton, Franklin Delanor Roosevelt, and a host of others. It would be synonymous with slandering the brightest minds of humanity. This means that whoever would slander the name of LaRouche would really slander himself by proclaiming to the world that he hasn't got the faintest idea of what he is talking about. And if you belittle that name, this includes you, too."

Abraham might reply to God, confounded, "do you really expect people to rally around a name, rather than an issue?" And God would reply, "yes, because the name represents the issue. It represents a very deep issue. The name represents the entire issue that is involved in protecting society, and rebuilding it, all the way to the deepest core element of it, and that rallying, father Abraham, is already happening. Haven't you heard, there was a demonstration with signs and placards taking place in front of the U.S. embassy in Moscow, where this very process has already been happening? They were saying 'America needs LaRouche. America needs LaRouche!' Why wouldn't the Americans be able to voice that truth likewise?"

Signs of our Time - LaRouche's reflection in the world
a five day snapshot

God might add, pointing out to Abraham, that some of the long fought-for LaRouche policies are already being implemented to some degree all over the world, since they are reflections of long recognized universal principles that had been pushed into the background and out of sight.

For instance, on March 1, 2003 Canada's Prime Minister has put his weight behind the principle of a world of sovereign nation-states. This in one of the principles that LaRouche has long been fighting for, in contravention of the imperial model. I was pleased to hear this and grateful for the efforts of the government of Canada. The peace movement would do well to raise itself to this kind of quality in thinking that is focused on underlying universal principles, as is now beginning to unfold in some places. The Prime Minister of Canada is evidently aware that the world needs to be built on a platform of global mutual cooperation and development, not war, and that Canada, as the gateway between Europe and the Americas, has its future anchored in this global development (another one of LaRouche's long standing platforms.)

But Canada is not alone in this qualitative move forward in support of universal humanist principles. This movement is also reflected in the Feb. 25, 2003 inaugural address of South Korea's new President, on the theme: "An Age of Northeast Asia Begins: A New Takeoff Toward an Age of Peace and Prosperity." The stated policy commitment is completely centered on LaRouche's Eurasian Land-Bridge policy. In the same time frame, major developments occurred in the Middle East and on Russia, which are moving in the same direction, in support of the universal principles of human civilization that LaRouche has been advocating for a long time.

Actually, LaRouche is much 'bigger' than that on the international scene, which is evident in the way the LaRouche card was played at the Kuwait National Day Celebration in Washington, D.C. on February 26. At the event, LaRouche was 'paraded' as the VIP guest, received with the same honor as U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, as his 'counterpoint.' LaRouche commented on the event, and his relationship to other world shaping events during his interview with Jeff Rense, on the widely received Jeff Rense Internet Radio Program, February 27, or his interview on the Stockwell Radio show in Salt Lake City on March 3rd.

The Name of Lyndon LaRouche

The name Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. is a familiar name to many people around the world. His fame is not based on his long endurance record as a declared candidate of the U.S. Presidency, an office that has been staffed for decades by now, by 'empty' men, cheered on by a largely 'empty' nation. Instead, his fame is based on proposals for a new economic and financial architecture in the world, based on the historic American System of economy that twice in that nation's history resurrected the U.S. out of its deepest depression to become the most powerful economic force on the planet and the envy of the world.   That is what he represents, and that too, is only the beginning. He represents the principles that made the USA several times the most beloved nation on the planet, and taller principles that should have been implemented and were overlooked.

The historic feat of uplifting an entire nation twice in its history from a deep depression to becoming the envy of the world, that great leaders had made possible, was achieved historically on the platform of recognized universal humanist principles and their application. No magic was involved. No special tricks were applied. All that was applied, was the utility of discovered and understood universal principles. LaRouche's proposal is that we do this again, and that we do it globally, and that we help the whole of humanity to enrich itself on the basis of these productive, constructive principles. 

We find some of these principles documented as the general welfare principle in the U.S. Federal Constitution, or in the principles of the American System of economy, pioneered by Alexander Hamilton, and in the most recent form it, extended globally in some respect by Roosevelt's Bretton Woods world monetary system that was scrapped by traitors in 1971. We also find a range of universal principles embodied on the Renaissance, and in the Treaty of Westphalia, and in the works of Plato, Socrates, and all the other great geniuses of humanity.

 LaRouche draws the entire vast background of the leading edge discoveries of mankind together into platforms of policies for the survival and advance of civilization. He has done this for 35 years, and fought for these policies, in contrast to the world's failing policies created on delusions.

There are not many people in the world who have dedicated their life to exploring and promoting the very best achievements of mankind in terms of discovered universal principles. And there are fewer still who have the scientific background and personal genius to translate these discoveries into achievable policies for the welfare of humanity.

If one added to these necessary qualifications the personal stamina and courage that is required to promote such policies in the face of the most vicious attacks, slanders, and persecutions by the imperial enemies of mankind, the field of qualified contenders becomes very narrow. It is not a simple to task to develop the kind of leader that humanity needs in today's era of on onrushing financial, economic, and strategic crisis. Finally, if one also considers the necessary political qualifications and experience that is required for bringing that leadership, representing the very best of humanity, to the U.S. White House against all the odds and all the money bags in the world, the field narrows down, literally to but one man.  This man is Lyndon LaRouche. Obviously, this is not a comfortable position to be in, not for him, nor for us. As a matter of fact, I understand that it is his biggest complaint that there is such a glaring lack of able contenders, which creates a precarious situation for humanity as Abraham would have agreed.

Naturally, his determined fight for the welfare of all nations, contrary to the interests of empires, has made him the most hated man in the universe. His proposals for the application of universal humanist principles runs totally against the grain of the looting practices of empires and their quest for raw power with which to perpetuate their looting. For this reason LaRouche has been slandered and persecuted as no man before him, in an attempt to silence his voice. But more than this, the universal principles that he represents have been equally slandered, and virtually eradicated from the minds of humanity. The name of LaRouche has become a hated name throughout his country, and so has the principle of the general welfare, and of universal sovereignty, economic development, equitable protected trade, and so on. Moreover, in the background to this growing hatred, the country in which the slander unfolds has itself become the most hated country on earth, under the weight of its imperial policies.

In the allegory, God might have asked Abraham," show me ten people who have successfully elevated society. Show me even one!" Abraham might have answered, "Yes there is one, but he is gagged by slander. Still, he is moving the world. However, will this one slandered voice be enough?"

In recent years, LaRouche has added to his voice a powerful youth movement that is beginning to have an impact, even an international impact. Also, some of his policies have already shaped the world, and continue to do so. For instance, his personal intervention to end the Cold War may be the reason why we still have a human civilization on this planet. Also, his economically strategic Eurasian Land Bridge policy is already being implemented by China. Some elements of his monetary policies, too, are courageously implemented by the government of Malaysia, which had protected this nation during the Asian financial crisis. 

Even much earlier, LaRouche's 1982 policies for Ibero America, documented as Operation Juárez, nearly rescued Mexico and all of Ibero America from the claws of financial looting operations that would break their economies. The rescue nearly succeeded when a daring Mexican President José López Portillo stood up with LaRouche for what is right. The operation was a sound attempt to rescue the South American nations, but it collapsed when the promised support collapsed under pressure. The Mexican President was promptly punished by the financial oligarchy while the looting increased over the years into what is now outright genocide. 

The presently ongoing financial and economic destruction of all of Ibero America, which could easily break the back of the entire world-financial system, could have been avoided, and nearly was if the support for LaRouche's policies had been forthcoming. If it had succeeded, the world would have been a better place, and the present drive for a "Clash of Civilizations War," starting with Iraq as the detonator, would likely not have materialized. That is the tragedy that unfolds when society forces it finest pioneers to stand alone in their fight for universal principles. Nor is there an end in sight for this trend, as a recent article in the London Gardian indicates, with the comment: "AFTER BAGHDAD, BEIJING."

In recent years another one of LaRouche's major policy objectives was adopted by the Italian Parliament, when it voted up a resolution, calling for a New Bretton Woods type international monetary system. Even President Clinton called for a new international monetary system, as he could see the unfolding catastrophe that now has gripped everyone on this planet in some form. He had echoed LaRouche's policy and was promptly punished with a wave of engineered slander without ever having even mentioned LaRouche's name, who would have stood with him.

In a similar manner has LaRouche's wife, Helga Zepp LaRouche, through her organization in Germany (The Schiller Institute) been able to shape the background for the German government's antiwar stand. This is a significant world-shaping event, but it is still only a tiny case of success that falls far short of what must be accomplished in support of fundamental principles to eradicate the causes for war, such as a commitment to the economic redevelopment of all nations in a setting of a New Renaissance.

Sure, LaRouche has also a level of direct support in many countries around the world, even at polls in the USA. He had received strong support in some of the primaries, but those votes were stolen from him, and in one case counted as votes for Al Gore on the excuse of a similarity in names. This was possible, because the Democratic Party has been determined to be a private club, and is therefore allowed to count votes in any manner it pleases.

LaRouche, however, receives a warm welcome in many places around the world: in Asia, Europe, the Middle East, Ibero America, the Vatican, where he addresses seminars and Parliaments, and scientific and governmental institutions. He also receives warm welcomes at home as two recent events illustrate, where he addressed a town meeting in Arkansas and the National Black Caucus on Feb. 23 and 24, 2003, respectively.

While these opportunities are gratifying, and no doubt are valuable as a forum to present to society the nature and the importance of fundamental principles and their essential role for the protection and advance of civilization, the wave of support that should have resulted from LaRouche's tireless worldwide efforts simply isn't there. For instance, there should be a worldwide movement in support for the absolutely essential New Bretton Woods monetary system that LaRouche has put on the table, which countless people agree is necessary. Likewise, there should be a wave of support for LaRouche's Eurasian Land Bridge development proposal, which is also widely acknowledged to be necessary to be implemented. But when it comes to the fight for actually implementing these policies, without which the present war-drive can ultimately not be stopped, a great silence erupts and LaRouche remains largely standing alone.

How would Abraham have to answer God in a modern allegory, when asked how many people out of six billion on this planet stand up to be counted for their determination to elevate humanity in terms of concrete policies on a platform of universal principles, to create a New Renaissance? I can't imagine what Abraham would have to say. He couldn't even cite am overwhelming support for LaRouche at the polls, for the one man that he could name. This kind support simply hasn't been there, ever, even though that support could have spared the U.S. nation and the world the great tragedy that has now begun to erupt and may well engulf the world in a war that could become a nuclear war.

While support for LaRouche at the polls is important for society, as a gateway to have its foremost supporter put into a position to implement the policies that must be implemented for civilization to be protected and to be advanced, we must also realize that the real support of LaRouche needs to unfold outside of the voting structures. The voting shouldn't even be an issue. It should be a secondary thing that unfolds in the background. It should just happen spontaneously on the strength of society's own integrity, and the integrity of the system should be assured by society on that same basis.

His current fight against the exclusion policy by the Democratic Party, of his participation in the party, shouldn't even be his fight. The universal principle of democracy should be upheld and defended by all people. Sadly, this principle no longer means anything.

"Is there no one else who is willing to stand up for what is right?" God would ask Abraham in the allegory.

The lack of support for LaRouche in the Democratic Party, and elsewhere, seems to indicate that. As much as this rejection must hurt, it is not actually a personal tragedy. It is a human tragedy, manifest almost universally. The right of all human beings to exist and to develop their potential should be dear to the heart of human beings everywhere, socially, civilly, and morally. There should be universal support for policies that assure this. Instead, there is no such support forthcoming. That is why LaRouche still stands alone. The only near universal support that exists around the world, is for a monetary system that is looting the nations, that is destroying the economies around the world, and is causing genocide in Africa, and as of late in Ibero America, and to some degree in many other places as well. Wars are fought to assure that this continues.

We Must Promote Human Development

LaRouche says that this must not be allowed anymore. We must not promote genocide. We must promote human development with all our heart, and strength, and determination. In that too, he stands alone. 

As I said, this does not mean that some snippets of his policies are not supported here and there, or similar policies in some rare cases, but the overall support by society is for the continuation of fascist policies. Sure, people cry out against war, myself included, but who cries out against the policies that cause war? And that is where the difference lies. That is where LaRouche stands alone. That is where the fight must begin, to save civilization. Unfortunately, there is not even a rallying for such a fight on the broad base of society. There remains but his voice, and a deep silence from virtually every other institution.

Still, it needs to be noted that there are efforts being made in the right direction, by individuals and institutions. One of these notable efforts, for instance can be found in the Raging Granny institution by which social change is urged in song. Music is one of the universal principles that defines humanity. There can be no renaissance without it, and no great music without a renaissance. Art offers the same potential and always has. It is suggested, for instance, that Rembrandt's painting of Susanna in the Garden was a contributing factor in promoting the Biblical story of Susanna as a foundation for discrediting oligarchic policies. This ended eighty years of war in 1648 with the Treaty of Westphalia. I am sure that all of these types of cultural efforts are very much alive and are contributing factors for keeping the focus on universal principles, at least to some degree

In today's world though, Abraham would ask God, "is this enough?" I am sure God would have to reply to him: "You have asked an invalid question." He would have to tell him, "LaRouche says the right question is: What are you doing in this race against time, for the survival of humanity? What are you doing for creating the needed new renaissance?" I also think God would have to add, forcefully, "don't ever ask me again if that is enough. You must ask yourself if what you are doing is sufficient to uplift humanity and change the world. If what you are doing isn't enough, form an allegiance with the brightest pioneer you can find, or ten of them, or fifty, until you know in your heart of hearts that the world has been uplifted onto a high enough platform of universal principles that it can survive, and prosper, and become a bright and human world, and not self-destruct."

God would also have to caution Abraham that he must answer carefully, saying, "You must remember what I told you. I am Principle, the only Principle, the most powerful force in the universe. I am a Ferrari! But to make use of the utility that I provide, you must put yourself into the driver's seat, and the whole society with you. I know, the whole world will say, this is a stupid idea, but you must do it to get anywhere. I know there are many people out there who will laugh at you when you talk about constructive universal principles. They will tell you that the power is in the fuel not in the principles. They will say, light a fire under the gas tank and you will be transported instantly to places you never dreamed of. If they say this, don't listen to them, get into the driver's seat. Turn the ignition on. Put the machine into gear, and step onto the accelerator."

Does this allegory sound silly to you? It shouldn't. Half of America wants to light a fire under the gas tank, and a hundred million people around the world chant: Don't do it! Don't! But nobody talks about getting into the driver's seat, except LaRouche. There seems to be an infinite distance between standing around the gas tank and getting to the font door on the driver's side.

Of course, not everybody is shouting: Don't do it! Many people just stand around and couldn't care less, or crowd around to watch the impending pyrotechnics. God will tell Abraham that most people who crowd around, or merely stand by, will find that they are far too close not to get burned in our modern age of super-pyrotechnics. Most people simply have no idea how horrendous the dimension of the nuclear threat is (here is one example).


Actually, the above allegory is not that far fetched. There are some voices heard of people with vision. They are people with the unique ability to draw the whole picture, and the prevailing trends, together into some sort of forecast of what the future will be if the underlying pictures do not change. I remember hearing something about such a forecast by a psychic, who revealed that we will see mushroom clouds again in the world. The psychic named three places, Israel, Washington, and Rome. I didn't pay any attention to this at the time. I don't believe in psychic forecasts. But the prediction is not unreasonable. With the New Rome being London, we have the world's imperial triad named by the psychic, and thereby the most vulnerable spots on the planet, in the age of preemption.

The reason is simple. Fascism and imperialism are about as low a state of humanity as one can get to; a virtual zero state. The policy of preemption, that has recently been created, fits this vulnerability pattern totally, that corresponds with a near total lack of humanity. The same can be said about the hastily enacted police state measures that have become law in some countries. In addition, the world faces an even greater insanity. The latest U.S. war policy has taken the long feared nuclear bombs out of their strong box in the strategic domain, where they had been kept as weapons of last resort, and put these 'super weapons' onto the shelf with all the other deadly things that fascism induces men to pour violently into the theatres of human conflict. 

It becomes a dangerous game in the era of preemption to force indefensible weapons out of the strong box and onto the shelves around the world. A single MIRVed missile hitting the U.S.  Pacific Northwest would likely end the existence of the USA as a functioning nation. Ashes from a resulting dozen or more nuclear blasts would likely be transported east, like the ashes from Mt. St. Helens were, and blanket the Eastern U.S. with deadly radioactive fallout that could potentially make the entire North East uninhabitable.

All of these potential happenings must be prevented, no matter who would want to throw the first stone. This means that we must raise our love for one another and our humanity to such a level that the unthinkable truly becomes unthinkable.

Indeed, the nuclear dimension is as incomprehensible as it is indefensible and physical and moral terms. The incomprehensible nature of the dimension had been my greatest problem when I begun to explore the dimension in terms of a possible tragedy during the Cold War years. I wrote a novel for this purpose, called, Brighter than the Sun

The exposure that is dealt with in the novel is limited to the minute aspect that is mentioned above, of the over-all danger, and even that is of a dimension that most people in North America would not survive. The novel has been written to explore the horrendous dangers that we face, and this not only from the weapons themselves, but also from unstable, manipulated, and ideologically misguided opportunists. This huge exposure that was never resolved remains with us today. It has grown in intensity, and will remain with us until our nuclear armed civilization self-destructs, or a New Renaissance, based on universal humanist principles will obsolete all nuclear weapons universally.

Some people say that in our blindness we tend to fight against God, and that, therefore, God is now dead. This is a delusion. God, as universal Principle, is unassailable. We cannot fight against that. We can only fight against ourselves by rejecting the utility of universal principles. But why should we do this? Why should we lay down our love, our peace, and our humanity on the imperial altar of force, terror, hate, and the infinite crime of the murdering of human beings? Humanity as a whole, needs to step away from this altar and embrace all the help it can get towards this goal, especially that of its advanced pioneers in this fight to protect and elevate human civilization.

If LaRouche can't inspire in society a full victory on the site of our humanity, working alone as a single man, then he may need to have 200 million people standing actively behind him, in support of the work that he has already begun. This would be a much more effective peace movement than the one that exists now.

It stands to reason therefore, that in the modern allegory God would have identified the same imperial triad as candidates ripe for self-destruction, that the psychic had named, He would have named Rome (London), Israel, and Washington, and called them our modern Sodom and Gomorrah that can yet be saved from its folly. 

Will the potential self-destruction happen? Who knows? The probability is high that it will happen in some form. While we have the LaRouche factor in today's world that Abraham didn't have when the allegory was written, we must recognize that this factor is woefully underutilized. LaRouche's voice and leadership is of a great quality, of a kind that has not been found on this planet for a very long time. But with him standing largely alone in this fight for elevating humanity, this valuable factor that he represents, may by itself prove not to be enough to pull humanity through the present crisis.

I believe LaRouche is well aware of that. In his 2003 State of the Union Address he warns America and the world of the folly to beat up on the American President over the current crisis. LaRouche points out that the task that society and the political parties and institutions must devote themselves to, is to uplift this man who has been made President, and the entire Presidency with him, to the apprehension of the necessary universal principles that can assure the survival of the American nation, and civilization with it. 

America as a whole needs to be uplifted, out of the quagmire that it has been drawn into (See the story below: The Hydrology of Poyang Hu). LaRouche cautions that the commitment to uplift a nation can never coincide with infighting. He cautions that it can only be achieved by an elevating, cooperative commitment, to create a New Renaissance. Without this commitment to uplift the American society and its government alike, the entire British/American/Israeli imperial triad stands in danger of its self-destruction, with the USA being included.

History has shown that every fascist power in history that reached for war has ended in self-destruction, regardless of its military might. In fact, its military might typically becomes the fulcrum for it. This means for America, that its policy of preemption will be globally adopted and become the policy of the world, since the world must suddenly defend itself against the new madness. The same can be said about America's pioneering move to pull the nuclear bomb out of its strong box and put it on the shelf for theatre use (see Theatre Nuclear Planning document for Iraq). This madness will undoubtedly be copied by the nations of the world, which will weigh heavily against America.

America's recently stated nuclear targeting of a large portion of all mankind, including Russia and China, coupled with the new policy of preemption, and with America's increasing arrogance in diplomacy and the total inhumanity by one of the triad partners, Israel, a volatile situation unfolds around the world for America, and for the world itself, which is greater than any that existed in the Cold War period. Mushroom clouds may well be on the horizon, which must never happen again.

Perhaps, the mushroom clouds that the psychic saw, were the financial mushroom clouds that are much more likely to erupt at the three imperial epicenters of the world, simultaneously, which have the potential to be actually more devastating than their physical counterpart, and which, too, must never happen. Unfortunately, one does not need to be a god to foresee such events, since the writing is plainly on the wall. LaRouche had recognized the development towards such events decades ago, and proposed countervailing policies which have been, and still are, consistently rejected. Now, the whole imperial world-financial structure is rapidly disintegrating, and whatever is left of it is hanging on a thin thread that may at last snap under the global tremors resulting from war. LaRouche calls the proposed war against Iraq, suicidal, for this very reason, as an inevitable consequence of policies by which the would-be empire is doomed to self-destruct. 

In this respect, we have become living participants in the greatest classical tragedy of all times, that is unfolding at the most crucial juncture in human history, with an audience that is largely asleep. As in Hamlet's play, we ourselves, society as a whole, are the tragic element. Like Hamlet didn't embrace the universal principles of love that could have prevented his self-destruction, humanity is embracing hatred in countless ways in our modern world, by which this world is doomed to self-destruct as well. We are about to unleash a war that is designed to become the trigger for a world-engulfing clash of civilizations war inflamed with religious and ethnic hatred, while our heart is crippled with disdain for the policies that can prevent this self-destruction of society. We are taught to despise the man whose name has become synonymous with these policies, and thus like Hamlet, the kind of little man who is afraid of his own ghost as it were, of his own conscience, we embrace every other option, but the right one by which we are doomed to fail.

It is a simple fact of history, that the further a society isolates itself from the universal principles of its humanity, the more volatile it becomes to self-destruction by its self-made exposures to all kinds of follies. Some day society will learn that resorting to threats, military force, killing, and destruction does not elevate society and create a more secure world, or that stealing from one another creates a richer world. Some day society will learn that universal love alone achieves this goal. The opening fanfares for meeting this challenge have been sounded in 1648 with the signing of the Treaty of Westphalia, when this principle was put on the map. The question remains to be answered if we will see the day when this principle is fully established, or whether we will destroy ourselves before we get to this point.

The important question of today is, whether LaRouche's influence of reason will be sufficient to shut down the follies of our modern time, before their unfolding takes us beyond the point of no return? Perhaps we need to ask this question the other way around. This means, that in the modern allegory God would ask Abraham, what he thought would likely have happened, had the voice of LaRouche never been heard in this world. 

Gateway to Hell

I think the writer of the ancient allegory is correct. There should be fifty voices heard, like LaRouche's, backed by fifty institutions, all fighting cooperatively to establish the principles on which the security of humanity depends. In comparison to what is at stake, there should actually be thousands of cooperating institutions around the world rallying for those universal principles, and in support of the most able leader, to provide that leader the position of authority that can influence the course of humanity towards a new renaissance. What is at stake at today's crossroads is literally the survival of civilization itself, with unimaginable possible consequences, or a new renaissance with an equally unimaginable potential, but for prosperity and human freedom. 

In World War I ten million people were killed. In the aftermath of that war, because of the biological quagmire that was created by the destruction, another fifty million people were killed by the resulting flu epidemic. Then came Word War II, and the death toll was doubled. We are also told that in the course of all the wars in the postwar period, another sixty-eight million people were killed. Furthermore, one needs to add to this figure the hundreds of millions of people who were murdered as a matter of policy under the directive of NSSM200, which mandated the depopulation of Africa and other third world nations. The policy calls for imposing depopulation in order to assure that those countries' natural resources, which America might need in its future, won't get used up by the populations living there.  AIDS, all by itself, contributed tens of millions of human deaths to this mandated death toll. 

And now we face an even bigger war. All of the above tragedies added together, will likely pale in the face of the death and destruction that the Clash of Civilizations War is designed to unleash on society, together with the total destruction of what is left of the world's economy.

It is reasonable to assume therefore, that our situation has become critical enough for us to consider once more the allegory in which God may have answered Abraham, "Well, what do you expect me to do? I am Principle, the principle of the Universe, the principle of universal love. I am the Ferrari. Why isn't anybody getting into the driver's seat? Why are the policies of humanity so far removed from the principle of universal love, universal sovereignty, universal welfare, etc.? In fact, who talks about these anymore?"

Abraham would blush and answer, "You are right, as always. I don't think we have ever considered the principle of universal love, much less applied it in our individual relationships to one another." 

God would answer that this is the reason why nobody has any first hand experience in what a universal principle is. God would then add, "Since you are so concerned about innocent people getting killed in all the wars and destruction, tell me: how many innocent people really were killed in all of the wars in this century? Were there any?" 

Since Abraham didn't answer, God asked again: Does self-destruction fall upon an innocent people?

We have an interesting phenomenon here, in that the First Commandment. The directive to love God (universal divine Principle) with all of ones heart and Mind and Soul (Matt.22) opens up a gateway to the brightest civilization imaginable, while it contains at the same time the default of a second gateway to anarchy where the self-destruction of society is virtually assured by its lack of compliance. The allegory of the dialog between God and Abraham appears to be designed to draw attention this second gateway. We must ask ourselves, therefore, behind which of the two portals do we find the recent hundred million man worldwide march for peace?

Perhaps we find a bit of it behind both gates. In one regard it was a futile effort, since the abhorrence of war does not automatically move us to embrace the universal principle of universal love, in thought and in deed, on which alone an active peace can be founded that is a renaissance. Still, the worldwide protest against the impending war did take the wind out of the sails of fascism, to some degree, and redirected it into the dessert of human hopes. However, this paltry wind hasn't stopped the Israeli's murdering rampage against the people of Palestine. That continues unabated, to a tune of forty deaths per week. And so continues the destruction of as many homes and families, and the destruction of the infrastructures of the Palestinian cities, together with the destruction of the security in Israel, and possibly Israel itself. Nor has this 'wind' stopped the war drive. Much more is needed for that; infinitely more.

We need to see a different kind of a hundred million men drive erupting around the world, the kind that will put the one man into the White House who most represents the needed commitment to universal principles that are native to our humanity, that should already move every human being. This man is  Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr.. And we need to see this movement in support him erupting around the world as a reflection of society's own, belated commitment to the principles of its civilization. We need to have him there to represent us. Humanity needs him there. In order to assure that, we need to see this kind of rallying unfolding in Russia and China; in Africa; in Europe; and in all of the Americas. We cannot be satisfied anymore with the way things were. We need to see a rallying for the truth around the world, by mankind, and for mankind. (See the story below, For the Sake of Truth) And this focus needs to be in support of this one man. Nothing less will suffice in the global fight to shut down the war drive, that must be shut down for civilization to survive.

It should be noted at this point that a major war drive has never been successfully shut down in all of human history, before a war began. But we must do this now. The consequence for mankind, should we fail to muster the required commitment to ourselves, to stop that war, are truly unthinkable.

Still, the peace march, to the degree that it was a peace march born out of an unfolding love for humanity, was a demonstration that there is a movement afoot that has the potential to inspire the most advanced pioneers of society to come out of their closet and offer their leadership in support of the policies that can create a new renaissance, and stand in support of that lone pioneer who most embodies that leadership. So far, not much of that has happened. The greatest advance that we have seen so far through the peace/protest movement, is that it inspired a slightly greater daring by governments and individuals around the world for jamming up the war drive. Unfortunately, this small step falls short by a mile to what is needed for uplifting society to the point that the whole war idea becomes obsolete.

In the modern setting of the ancient allegory, Abraham wouldn't likely bother to mention the peace march. What could he say? He could say we had a hundred million people protesting against their own folly. That would make a big impression, wouldn't it? Then God would have to repeat his earlier question: How many of these do you see standing behind the one man who has the intellectual background, the moral courage, the scientific understanding, the economic policies, and the political drive to elevate humanity regardless of the slanders he has to endure? How many, Abraham, do you see standing behind this man who represents humanity's tallest heritage, its most profound discoveries of universal principles? Do you count fifty million people, or forty, or twenty, or even one million people, out of a world population of six billion?

I don't think that Abraham could possibly respond to justify this insult by humanity, of the divine Principle that underlies its civilization and its very existence. Of course, God would respond and uplift Abraham in his time of crisis and point out to him that every war that was ever launched, was launched for economic objectives. He would say to Abraham: look at your world. The global economy is disintegrating because of bad economic policy that embraces looting and greed as a foundation for civilization. America's economic foundation is crumbling under its feet. Its war is a desperate attempt to create a global empire in order to expand its looting practice. Its war against humanity cannot be stopped unless a rallying erupts around the world than can inspire America to totally scrap its current economic system, which is destroying America and the world with it. But no such rallying is visible anywhere, certainly not in any peace marches.

An Airplane Allegory

In order to make Abraham to understand the challenge, God would compare humanity to passengers in an airplane. The plane is at forty-thousand feet. Since the passengers are all shareholders in the airline, they agree among themselves to shut the engines off to reduce cost. As the plane looses altitude, at a thousand feet above a mountainous wilderness, the passengers suddenly become alarmed and storm the cockpit and yell at the captain, "Don't you dare crash this airplane! " They chant, "No crash, no crash!" Then someone stands up and suggests calmly, "All that you need to do is turn the engines on." The passengers push the man out of the way and spit at him. They shout at him, "You idiot, that's not what we want to do. That's not our policy. That's not our way of life." Still, the man keeps coming back, seeking to gain access to the cockpit to tell the captain what to do, but his voice is drowned out by the chanting: "No crash! No crash!"

God would look at Abraham and ask, "What is your assessment of this situation? Will the passengers self-destruct?" 

LaRouche asks the same question, and he is fighting to prevent the impending catastrophe that is not inevitable, but becomes increasingly likely since society doesn't want to hear about the necessary solution. Everybody keeps saying we don't want to hear you telling us that we have to scrap our 'wonderful' greed based, financial system, even if it is killing us. Still, he keeps fighting on, as he did for the last 35 years. A few people are beginning to listen, in Russia, China, Malaysia, as the writing is on the wall. But there is no hundred million-man march on the horizon to back him up, only the impending crash and the chanting: No crash! No crash!

An example of the kind of policies that can rescue humanity can be found in LaRouche's long standing policy proposals for his Eurasian Land Bridge development that is already under way, that the Clash of Civilizations War is designed to wreck. A similar proposal is LaRouche's New Bretton Woods policy proposal. There are numerous smaller policy proposals on the table along these general lines, such as the Oasis Plan for the economic development of the Middle East, and urgently needed development plans for Africa, South America, and of course the much needed redevelopment of America itself, in terms of water resources, new transportation and energy systems, heath care systems, urban development, farming support, new industries, together with the scientific and technological infrastructures to support them. But that is not on the agenda. Humanity simply doesn't want to talk about what is needed to support its very existence. And in the shadow of this vacuum, fascism unfolds as a default phenomenon, as it always has. One of LaRouche's greatest struggle, therefore, is to get humanity to open its eyes, to recognize the singular nature of the world's economic collapse, illustrated by his triple curve, and the drive for war.

In his fight, Lyndon LaRouche represents the very heart of humanity. He represents humanity's greatest intellectual achievements, put forward on behalf of humanity, for humanity, and unfortunately without the support of humanity. What we have unfolding before us, is the greatest classical tragedy of all times, being played out at the most critical juncture in human history, with an audience that is largely asleep.

As far as I can tell, Lyndon LaRouche stands still largely alone with his organization and associates in this essential fight for the survival of civilization, if not humanity as a whole in this age of nuclear weaponry and an insane determination to use them (see the story below: Shadow in the Night).  The U.N. is presently not engaged in this fight, nor any government, as far as I can tell, except in some isolated areas and in some isolated cases. The historic government of Franklin Delanor Roosevelt still stands as an example of a type of government that can be established, if there is a willingness to do so, a government that is squarely built on constructive, universal principles. The principles that FDR represented, that were embodied through his leadership, still stand as a faint beacon of hope for humanity that people still cherish, though they don't care to fight, to reestablish them. Lyndon LaRouche alone, stands tall in this arena, representing in part what FDR stood for, in addition to a lot more.

Ironically, LaRouche had greater success in reestablishing America's heritage in Asia, especially in China, and to some degree also in Russia and Europe, than he had in America. 

In real terms, though, the fight for civilization hasn't even fully begun. That may well be the reason why there is so little support in society for the principles on which its existence depends.

The Commandment for Agape

As Christ Jesus pointed out, there exists a second commandment that is essentially the same as the first, but involves a special focus. It is the commandment to love one another as oneself. This commandment likewise, calls for the discovery and enactment of universal principles, but in a slightly different domain. It calls for the establishment of the principle of universal love on the level of human beings relating to one another as human being. This principle of universal love is also called at times the divine Principle Love, or divine Love, or simply Agape.

The subject of universal love, of course, opens up a whole new scene, which is radically different from the larger scene discussed above. It also appears that Christ Jesus was aware that both of these scenes must be focused on together, or we will fail in both areas. He said in essence that the two commandments are one, and that on these two together "hang all the law and the prophets."

So what about the peace movement, as a movement towards the principle of universal love? Again, there is little evidence visible that any universal principles are being enacted in this arena that are designed to create a new renaissance and uplift and ennoble the lives of individuals towards a new renaissance.

We have seen a historic peace movement that was by name focused on love, while it was built from the ground up as a counter culture movement, mired in sexual and sensual gratification. This tragedy is a far cry from creating a new renaissance in our time and in our lives, a renaissance that is designed to enrich and ennoble one another's existence and the world as a whole. 

If we are honestly in pursuit of universal love, we  will have to learn the principles of love, and of necessary also the related principle of honesty with ourselves. Our success in this arena is bound to be extremely useful in the global context, because we face the same type of challenges in the social arena as we do in the political arena. In the political arena the universal principles of civilization run deeply against the grain of all the imperial doctrines, beliefs, traditions, and emotions. In the social arena the principle of universal love runs likewise deeply against the grain of all the long established doctrines, beliefs, traditions, and emotions at the personal level, many of which were actually rooted in the imperial sphere in ancient times.

Christ Jesus singled out the social domain as a necessary parallel case, which for this reason requires special attention. Evidently this special attention is much needed. It appears that the social domain needs to become our training ground for discovering and utilizing universal principles with the full force of our honesty with ourselves, and with the highest scientific integrity that we can achieve. 

Christ Jesus may have recognized that on this platform the unfolding of a new renaissance becomes a foregone conclusion. When the inner renaissance is being achieved, we will certainly be able to deal with confidence, strength, and personal experience, in support of all the other universal principles of civilization that must be applied in the larger domain. How else can we hope to succeed in running against the grain of the deeply rooted, and long established, imperial doctrines, beliefs, traditions, and emotions that are presently violently protected by an imperial oligarchy and have become accepted by society as its own most cherished tradition?

In summary, it becomes clearly evident that Christ Jesus understood that the Second Commandment is absolutely essential as a means for shutting down the default gateway that is left open in the First Commandment.

Of course, the challenge to establish the principle of universal love in the social domain is a formidable challenge. I began exploring the subject in the form of a novel, twenty years ago, that became a series of five novels before the subject could be laid to rest. The large size of the resulting work (The Lodging for the Rose) illustrates the extent of the challenge that we face.

I have also recently created a summary overview of the discovery process itself, under the title Agape: In Search of Universal Love. You are invited to explore both works.

Rolf A. F. Witzsche

Download a text document version of this page.


Agape: In Search for Universal Love
An exploration overview with 28 stories
from the series of five novel, The Lodging for the Rose
by Rolf Witzsche
|| Empty People || For the Sake of Truth || The Hydrology of Poyang Hu ||
|| Shadow in the Night || All Stories ||

The Lodging for the Rose
(Preview) A series of five novels by Rolf Witzsche

The Lyndon LaRouche State of the Union address
of 2003, and website links.

 Main Index