Read this story in | Add a translation >>

Complete transcript of Daniel Sheehan's speech at SOU, Oregon, January 9, 2003, including his blend of spiritual, cosmological, sociological, and political insights into where George W. Bush's empire-building administration is coming from and what we need to do to stop it.

Daniel Sheehan at SOU, Oregon, January 9, 2003: “New Paradigm Politics, or the New World Order”

Daniel Sheehan: Well, good evening. Thank you very much for inviting me here and giving me a chance to chat with you this evening. I want to start out by talking briefly about the major front-page New York Times Magazine article that appeared this weekend. On Sunday, January 5 the New York Times devoted some 10 pages of its Sunday magazine to a major article entitled, “The American Empire.”

Now, this was written by the director of the John F. Kennedy School [of Government] at Harvard University, the Carr Center there, the liberal center at Harvard, and this was a fundamentally legal critique, a liberal critique of the present conservative foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration. And in this critique, Professor [Michael[ Ignatieff went on to criticize the foreign policy. And I want to just briefly open with some of the statements that were made about this, to set a general tenor for us.

The John F. Kennedy — liberal John F. Kennedy School — said that, “Ever since George Washington warned his country against foreign entanglements, empire abroad has been seen as America’s permanent temptation, but also its potential nemesis. Yet what word but ‘empire’ could possibly describe the awesome thing that America is now becoming? It is the only nation that polices the world through five global military commands, maintains more than a million men at arms on four continents, deploys carrier battle groups on every one of our planet’s oceans, guarantees the survival of countries from Israel to South Korea, drives the wheels of global trade and commerce and fills the hearts and minds of our entire planet with its desires.

“John Quincy Adams’ warning in 1821 now becomes stark and pertinent. He said, ‘If America were ever tempted to become the dictator of the world, she would surely no longer be the ruler of her own spirit.’ For what empire lavishes abroad cannot possibly spend on maintaining republican government at home: on hospitals or roads or schools. Distended military budgets only aggravate America’s continuing failure to keep its egalitarian promise to itself and to the world, and these are only a few of the costs of empire.

“Other costs are detaining American citizens without charge or access to legal counsel in military brigs; imprisoning foreign combatants in island prisons, in a legal limbo; keeping lawful aliens, and even American citizens, under permanent, illegal surveillance at home, while deporting some aliens after only secret hearings. These are not the actions of a republic that lives by the rule of law or by its Constitution, but of an imperial power which in fact distrusts its own liberties.”

And he goes on in this vein for several pages, actually, predictably critiquing this extremely conservative foreign policy of the Bush administration and pointing out that on September 11, he said, “was a rude awakening, a moment of reckoning with the avenging hatred which this imperial policy raises around the world. American citizens may not have thought of the Twin Trade Towers and the U.S. Pentagon as symbolic headquarters of a world empire, but numberless millions across the world do. And these men and women cheered the men with box cutters and their propagandistic deed of September 11.”

And this goes on in this vein — and this is, I guess, only to be expected from the liberal John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. But surprisingly enough, rather than continue in the article by condemning this totally conservative foreign policy on the part of the new Bush administration and setting forth a clear, liberal alternative, what in fact Professor Ignatieff does — and it comes from recognizing, which I hadn’t recognized to begin with, that the name of the article is not simply, “The American Empire.” It is, “The American Empire: Get Used to It.”

For he goes on — rather than setting forth a clear alternative policy — to point out, saying, “Why should such a republic ever take on the risk of becoming an empire? Doesn’t this run the chance of endangering its identity as a free people? The problem is,” he says, “that this question implies the existence of innocent options, which in the case of Iraq do not exist. Iraq is not just a question about whether the United States can retain its republican virtue in a wicked world, for virtuous disengagement is no longer a possibility. Since September 11, the question has now become whether our republic can possibly survive in safety without imperial policing abroad.”

He said, “Containment, rather than a war, would be the better course. But the Bush administration has concluded that containment has now reached its limits. And this conclusion is not unreasonable.” He says that, “The possession of weapons of mass destruction by Saddam Hussein — for this would render him the master of the region which contains so much of the world’s oil resources that it makes that region what a military strategist might call ‘the center of gravity of any intended empire.’”

And he goes on in this vein to point out that what his real criticism of this conservative imperial policy is that it simply does not adequately share the policing power of the New Imperium with our European allies in our allied field. He also points out that in fact the other criticism of this is it does not adequately link together the massive bombing — “the upcoming bombing,” as he refers to it — of Iraq with, in fact, an adequate policy to bring peace to the entire Middle East. He said that just bombing Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein doesn’t really ensure the establishment of a democratic set of institutions in Iraq, and so therefore he criticizes the policies of the administration by not going far enough in being an imperial power.

In addition to simply bombing Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein, he said, “we must get into building an entire culture in Iraq that is predicated upon democratic principles and free-market principles” — and if we’re going to do this, then of course, he says, we have to open a dialogue with Iran, the next-door neighbor, so it won’t feel threatened by the existence of a democratic republic in its next-door neighbor. And then, of course, we’re going to have to convince the Saudis, the House of Saud, that they will have to begin to import more democratic institutions. And in fact we’re going to have to convince the Kuwaiti royal family that they would have to do something similar. And of course we’re going to have to assure the Turks that in fact we’re not going to support the Kurds in establishing a free homeland, and we’re going to have to persuade the Kurds not to continue to demand a free homeland.

And so what he says is that, “The real question isn’t whether the United States is becoming too powerful. The question is” — from the perspective of the liberal critique — “are we becoming powerful enough to actually successfully assert the full powers of empire,” which he recommends we prepare to do.

Now, the reason that I spend this time on this particular article at the outset of our conversation is because this particular debate that’s going on now, this week, between the comparatively liberal New York Times and the comparatively liberal John F. Kennedy School of Government, over and against the conservative administration of George W. Bush, actually foreshadows the upcoming Presidential election debate between the Republican Party and George W. Bush; and the national Democratic Party and John Kerry of Massachusetts, who almost certainly will be the Democratic Party nominee.

And the problem that we — there’ll be a short skirmish to begin with, in the Democratic Party, between John Kerry and Richard Gephardt, who will be arguing that the Democratic Party should challenge the Bush administration from the center, as opposed to from a liberal perspective. But you won’t see any serious debate between Gephardt and John Kerry over what the foreign policy should be. The foreign policy should be this that is suggested by the John F. Kennedy School and by the liberal New York Times: that in fact we simply have to have a more expansive idea of empire: of sharing with our allies the policing power in imposing an imperial peace on the entire Middle East, as distinct from simply Iraq.

The debate between the Daschle Democratic Party and John Kerry, over and against the Republican Party and George W. Bush, will be in the field of domestic economic policy, where the Democratic Party and Kerry will recommend a liberal set of policies over and against the conservative domestic policies of the Republican administration. But in the field of foreign policy, what we’re likely to see from John Kerry is a classic John F. Kennedy type of foreign policy: very conservative; anti-Communist in that case, here anti-terrorist foreign policy and a liberal domestic policy.

And so, as I say, the reason that I bring this up [is] to show that the current debate going on this very week between the Kennedy School and the New York Times against the administration foreshadows this upcoming, anticipated political debate. And the reason I raise both of them is they actually both are mere shadow plays of a much more profound strategic debate that is going on at the highest levels in Western civilization now, following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

This debate, which has been going on since December 1991 and the collapse of the Soviet Union, actually began in June of 1989, some 30 months prior to the dissolution of the Soviet Union. It began in June of 1989 with the publication of a major article in Public Interest magazine by Francis Fukuyama. Francis Fukuyama was a professor of political science at the University of Chicago. This is that famous article that was called, “The End of History?”

In this article, he predicted in June of 1989 that the Soviet Union was on the very brink of collapsing, and that this didn’t seem to be recognized by the leaders of Western civilization. He pointed out that in the very near future, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the leaders of Western civilization — the political, economic, academic and cultural leaders of Western civilization — were going to be faced with a major dilemma. On the one hand, they were going to be delighted that after some 80 years of major confrontation between Western capitalism and Soviet Communism — from 1917 and the overthrow of the Tsarist regime by the Bolsheviks — for the last 80 years there had been this major contest going on at a global level, and the leaders of Western civilization on the one hand of the dilemma were going to be quite delighted that this had come to an end.

On the other hand, he said, the other horn of this dilemma is that now the leaders of Western civilization were no longer going to have any one to blame for their continued failure to live up to the promises of Western civilization: to deliver equality and equal rights in economic well-being to the people of the world. And so Professor Fukuyama suggested — actually warned — in June of 1989 that it was time for the leaders of Western civilization to gather together to try to identify what these basic promises were that they had been postponing for all these 80 years; so that they could be prepared to identify the concrete principles, policies and programs that could carry into actual fruition these fundamental values.

Now, the problem was that nobody believed Professor Fukuyama in June of 1989. Most of the scholars of Western civilization and virtually all of the political pundits believed the Soviet Union was still going to be very much with us for some substantial amount of time, though somewhat weakened from its high halcyon days of the mid-1960’s. Still, [they thought] it was going to be very much with us for a substantial amount of time. So, therefore, no one took seriously this challenge from Professor Fukuyama, and the leaders of Western civilization did not in fact start to come together to have this important discussion.

But 30 months later, in December of 1991, the Soviet Union voluntarily dissolved itself. And lo and behold, just as had been predicted by Professor Fukuyama, the leaders of Western civilization were caught with their paradigms down and didn’t quite know how to react to all of this. And it took some time, but within six months the first of the major American scholars to enter into a response to Dr. Fukuyama was Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former national security advisor of the liberal Democratic administration of Jimmy Carter.

In 1992, June, now in residence as a scholar at the Georgetown Center for Strategic International Studies in Washington, D.C., Zbigniew Brzezinski issued a white paper entitled, “Out of Control: The Threat of Global Chaos on the Eve of the 21st Century.” And in this major white paper, Zbigniew Brzezinski warned that now that the Soviet Union had collapsed so unexpectedly, the globe was faced with the peril of potential chaos. He pointed out that the withdrawal of Soviet power from all kinds of areas of the world had in fact created a political vacuum.

He pointed out especially that within a given 32-nation area of the world, that ran all the way on the western border of the Adriatic Sea all the way to the westernmost border of China; and on the north in Kazakhstan in the Soviet Union, the former Soviet Union, all the way down into the Middle East, there was a 32-nation area of the world which he called the “Eurasian oblong.” And that within this region, he said, what was getting ready to happen now — and that the world should be prepared for — was a major flurry of civil wars and strife and ethnic cleansings and pogroms and the taking of revenge for old hostilities, over hundreds of years, that had been held in abeyance for the last 100 years basically by the comparative competition for power between the Soviet Union and the West. And that each of them had held in check people who were aligned with their sphere of influence, to keep them from venting their wrath upon each other.

Now, he said, this was going to be loosed upon the world. He said that in the face of these ethnic cleansings and these huge migrations of many thousands of people losing their homes and being driven from their lands, the United States, as the sole remaining superpower on the planet now in 1992, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, should not yield to the temptation of moving into this area of the world to try to assert its power to solve any of these problems. Rather, they should allow this type of turmoil and horror to accelerate; and that in the face of the cries of the people from the rape camps and the torture and the massacres of whole peoples, the United States should stand by and allow that to happen so that the hue and cry would increase and accelerate, so that many of the nations of the world would now be calling upon the United States to ask us to assert our new power into that area of the world.

And then, Professor Brzezinski said, what the United States should do is to exercise its power to bring together a new confederation of states — not the United Nations, but a new confederation of states within which the United States would be the undisputed leader, and in cooperation with this confederation of states should assert itself in a bilateral way with these other nations, a multilateral way, into that area of the world to bring peace; and then continue, through this new alliance, to assert its power in the world.

Now this, in fact, is exactly the policy that you saw happen with the Clinton administration. When people kept saying, “How can the administration not be doing anything about this? Why is it they’re not helping the poor Muslim people? Why aren’t they helping anybody in Sarajevo? Why are we seeing every night on television women trying to sneak out of their homes to get water, and being shot and assassinated by snipers in the city buildings? Why is this going on?” This in fact was carrying out the very policy that had been advocated by Zbigniew Brzezinski.

And that is why the United States continually refused to call upon the United Nations or support the United Nations doing anything in that area of the world. Rather, the United States mobilized its NATO forces and went in on its own power into this area of the world, and began to assemble a new confederation of states, adding new states into NATO that were former Soviet areas, and brought them into a new confederation of states. And this was the actual policy that was recommended by Zbigniew Brzezinski.

And in this, he said that in addition to this, the United States had to understand that it was not going to be able to retain its power and control over this new confederation of states simply by being the most powerful military and economic power. It was essential for the United States to attempt to establish moral leadership in the world, and what he said, therefore, [was] the leaders of Western civilization, led by the United States, should gather themselves together, as suggested by Dr. Fukuyama some 36 months earlier, and what they should do is they should attempt to identify a common set of ethical principles which the leaders of Western civilization — the political, economic, academic and cultural leaders of Western civilization — would agree to voluntarily comport their conduct in accordance with.

Voluntarily comport their conduct with, and reach out and ask for other leaders of the world, in political, economic, academic and cultural circles, to voluntarily comport their conduct in accordance with this same common set of global ethical principles. This was the call that was made by Zbigniew Brzezinski on behalf of the liberal community at the end of the Cold War.

Within a short period of time — within a year — in June of 1993, the response to this from the conservative community was set forth by Professor Samuel P. Huntington, a major spokesperson for the Council on Foreign Relations, the conservative Council on Foreign Relations financed by David Rockefeller of New York. And in his conservative response, published in Foreign Affairs magazine, the virtually undisputed major journal in international foreign policy circles in the Western world, he set forth the conservative response, saying — entitled — it was entitled, “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order.”

He chided Dr. Brzezinski and asked the leaders of Western civilization not to respond positively to the call of, Brzezinski, the liberal call to try to identify this common set of global ethical principles, asking the leaders to voluntarily comport their conduct in accordance with. Rather, he said, what the real threat to the planet was, now that the Cold War was over, was not simply this global chaos in the area of the Eurasian oblong. What he said the primary threat facing the planet was the rise of the Asian empire, under the hegemony of China. He said with their billions of people and their growing economic power, they were going to begin to manifest and exert increasing cultural power, eventually military power, and it was going to ultimately overwhelm Western civilization.

He said, therefore, that rather than engaging in this liberal undertaking proposed by Dr. Brzezinski, he said that what we should do instead of attempting to identify such a common set of global ethical principles, what we should do instead, as the leaders of Western civilization, we should identify those specific principles and doctrines which distinguish Western civilization from Islamic civilization and from Asian civilization. And that what we should do is we should draw boundaries, basically, around our Western civilization, which he actually set forth in pictures.

He had maps in the article in Foreign Affairs magazine actually showing the boundaries in 1648 of the Treaty of Westphalia, which he characterized as the high-water mark of Western civilization. And he said that within these boundaries, what we should do is have the governments and all private institutions collectively enforce the special principles that are uniquely Western values, and that we should get rid of all this multiculturalism, and that we should understand that we are basically a white Christian culture, and that this was the source of our distinction, and that we should identify that and recognize that and we should bring all of the governmental and private institutions into play to enforce these values.

And he said that this was what he was calling upon them to do, and that we would then isolate — isolate the Islamic world, and isolate the Asian world, and empower ourselves to prepare ourselves for the ultimate confrontation with each of these ultimately “other” cultures. This in fact was the conservative call for a major new organizing principle in Western civilization at the end of the Cold War, to replace the previous organizing principle of anti-Communism.

For the last virtual hundred years, everything in Western civilization had been prismed through this anti-Communist ideology. They kept saying repeatedly, “Oh, look, we would really like to give everyone the promise of democracy in the world. We’d like to support genuine democratic leaders in — down in Latin America. But gee, you know, we just don’t have the luxury of doing that. We have to support fascist totalitarians who torture and kill their citizens because they’re solid, stable allies and are supporting us against the onslaught of Communism. We’d really like to support a democratic regime in Iraq, but we have to in fact overthrow Mossadegh [in Iran] and allow the Shah of Iran to be in power there, because it’s necessary for us to protect ourselves against the onslaught of Communism. And we would surely like to be able to provide the best education and health care and other means of prosperity in our country, but we don’t really have the money to do that. We have to spend from $300 billion to $400 billion a year building massive military structures and supporting military disbursements all around the world.”

And so he said that now we were in the situation where Professor Huntington was saying we have to continue doing that with the recognition that our ultimate adversary is going to be the Islamic culture, and then the Asian culture. So that what we saw by June 1993, just basically within a year and a half of the fall of the Soviet empire, we saw the Western leadership divide itself into two camps: the liberal camp and the conservative camp, arguing with each other over which of these two alternative world-views ought to be adopted as the major organizing principle in Western civilization.

What I’m suggesting to you is that the debate you see raging this week on the front pages of the New York Times, in the John F. Kennedy School, against the conservative administration of George W. Bush and the upcoming election campaign you’re likely to see between the conservative Republican party and George Bush, and the liberal Democratic candidacy of Senator John Kerry, is in fact a shadow play of this ultimate dialectical argument that’s going on at the highest levels of Western civilization, to which the people are not being made privy.

Now, what I would like to explain to you very basically is that what is it that we have — we can reasonably expect if one or another of these two world-views is actually adopted, either in response to the debate going on this week in the New York Times and in the administration, or in the upcoming election if these are the two candidates we have to choose between? What we see in the liberal offering — well, let’s start with the conservative offering.

If we assume that the conservative world-view ends up prevailing and George W. Bush is elected again, and his policies continue into play, what we’re going to see happening is the establishment, ultimately, of a massive new national security state which is in fact going to reach out and include all of the Caucasian nations of Western civilization. We’re going to see a major coalition established between the NAFTA countries — of the United States, Canada and Mexico — and the GATT countries of the European economic community: the United Kingdom and the new unified Germany and Italy and France.

But rather than having Japan continue in this alliance, they will be basically pushed aside and replaced by Russia, who will now be a member of the G-8. And it’s not the old Soviet Union — let’s be clear about that — for they’ve now sloughed off their old ethnic provinces. The ethnic provinces, which were Asian and Islamic — what they have remaining is the old Mother Russia, the great white Russians of the classic Russian territory of St. Petersburg and Peter the Great and Catherine the Great, that viewed itself basically as part of European culture, white European culture.

And this is what we see happening: the move towards the establishment of a huge trans-national North Atlantic alliance under the power of the World Trade Organization: a major, unified parliament that can in fact vitiate any of the legislation passed by any of the separate nation-states that interferes with the free trade within these physical boundaries, and specifically any labor laws that in fact interfere with free trade; any environmental laws that interfere with free trade; any type of other statutes that interfere with free trade among these nations.

And this major, new northern industrial alliance is at the very base of the Bush administration — and I’m referring to the George Bush, Sr. administration, the fourth George Bush, Sr. administration. For as we all know, I believe, it was George Bush, Sr. who basically determined the policies of first, both of the Reagan administrations. Reagan basically was kind of a hardy, well-met fellow and could be sent out to cut ribbons and to have social callings, but it was George Bush who in fact, as the vice-president, who chaired the 54-12 Committee of the National Security Council, ran all covert operations worldwide, supported the contras, supported the whole activities in the Middle East, in all of this was attempting to support the Somoza contras and overthrow the Iranian government.

It was George Bush that chaired the South Florida Drug Interdiction Task Force. It was George Bush that in fact chaired the commission that modified all of the savings and loan regulations and caused the collapse of the savings and loan industry. It wasn’t Ronald Reagan. And George Bush had his own administration from 1988 to 1992, and now we see the fourth administration of his son — and, not coincidentally, his [Bush Jr.’s] vice-president is the secretary of defense for his father; and his secretary of state is the chief of military staff for his father; the assistant secretary of state, Richard Armitage, is the former secretary of state for Far Eastern affairs for his father.

And that’s why you see Elliot Abrams back; John Poindexter back now. They’re all back, and these were the people we attempted to warn you about 10 years ago during the Iran-contra crisis. We were pointing out that this group of people has in mind a particular plan here, because we actually were put into possession of the major documents inside the White House during that major investigation that we conducted. And in 1990 there was a major paper prepared called the “Projection of U.S. Military Power Into the Twenty-First Century and Beyond.”

And what they proposed in that case was withdrawing funds from the intercontinental ballistic missile programs and the Stratocruiser bombing programs, and bringing them down into building a theatre-level war-fighting capacity that would enable us to fight two theatre-level wars at the same time; and that the remainder of the funds should be channeled down into a third option of covert warfare, what they called “low-intensity conflict,” which could be conducted by the Central Intelligence Agency. And the remaining funds to be put into a new space-based weapons system that would be able to protect the United States and its allies against nuclear attack from any nation that had from 16 to 24 missiles, is all — which, coincidentally, happened to be how many missiles China has which can reach the United States.

And that this whole document, called the “Projection of U.S. Military Power Into the Twenty-First Century and Beyond,” was drafted by George Bush, Sr. and Colin Powell. And in it, it said that the purpose of this reconfiguration of the U.S. military establishment was “to enable the United States to continue to maintain privileged access to the strategic raw materials of the planet needed by the Northern industrial alliance.”

So when I saw this particular document, I said, “Who the hell is the ‘Northern industrial alliance’? When did I sign up to be a member of the Northern industrial alliance? Who is the Northern industrial alliance?” And it turns out that this is who it is: it is the major nation-states of NAFTA and GATT, now coming together in a huge transnational super-state — all of whom are Caucasians. And this is the basic underlying, driving motive of the conservative world-view that is advocated by Professor Huntington, and is articulated in his Clash of Civilizations, and is being effectuated by the Bush administrations.

The question is, what do we have as the alternative that is being offered to us by the liberal world-view? It’s set forth in great detail by Professor Brzezinski in his White Paper, “Out of Control: The Threat of Global Chaos on the Eve of the 21st Century.” What he suggests is, if in fact we respond to the liberal call and establish this set of — common set of ethical principles that are basically moral in their nature, and we get the leaders of Western civilization to voluntarily comport their conduct in accordance with these principles — this will, in fact, enable us to “strike a better balance,” he says, “between the continued pursuit of the actual ideal of Western civilization” — which he characterizes as “the pursuit of permissive cornucopia” — to “strike a better balance between the continued pursuit of the actual ideal of Western civilization and the more effective addressing of the basic planetary problems” — of the gross maldistribution of the resources of the planet; the despoilation of the planetary environment through corporate greed and exploitation of the environment for the purpose of corporate profit; and for the continued pursuit of technology for the development of weapons of mass destruction and the actual ability to delve into the genetic makeup of the human family to actually alter the fundamental human gene pool.

He suggests these as three major planetary problems which he would hope, if we would adhere to the principled call of the liberal ethic, that we will be able to “strike a better balance between the continued pursuit of permissive cornucopia” — which he actively endorses as the basic driving engine of our culture — and the “more effective addressing” of these planetary problems. You’ll note that nowhere is there any suggestion of solving the planetary problems. It’s just a “more effective addressing” of the problems, while we continue to pursue this basic principle/ideal of Western civilization, of permissive cornucopia.

Now, the question that arises is are we in fact restricted to these simple two choices? Is it in fact true that the only choices we have here at the end of the Cold War is the choice of Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski’s liberal call and Professor Huntington’s conservative call, reflected in the debate we see in the New York Times today and being reflected in the upcoming debate between the Democratic candidate, John Kerry, and George Bush?

I would suggest that the answer is no: that there are in fact more than simply two of these views, and I want to talk about that this evening. First, I want to point out to you on this question that I happened to have the privilege of serving, after our major activities with the Iran-contra crisis — as you all may recall, after our pointing out all of the culprits that were involved in that and turning the information over to the special prosecutor, Lawrence Walsh. Lawrence Walsh ended up giving prosecutorial immunity to 14 of our defendants, and then ended up indicting six people.

And then, when George Bush, Sr. lost the election in 1992, one of the last few things he did before leaving office — the first thing he did was pardon all of the people the special prosecutor had indicted. And the next thing he did was order the head of the Internal Revenue Service, who is a political appointee, to revoke the 501(c)(3) charter of the Christic Institute, that happened to cause all this trouble and name all these people and push everybody around and make them look into this big investigation.

And the next thing that happened was that, once the tax-exempt charter had been revoked, the court appointed by Richard Nixon, the chief federal judge in Miami — Judge J. Lawrence King, appointed by Richard Nixon at the request of Bebe Rebozo, who had formerly sat as a member of the board of directors of Meyer Lansky’s National Bank of Miami — summarily dismissed our case and told us that we could not appeal. And if we attempted to appeal, that he was going to impose a bond upon us of $1.6 million for having to pay all the attorneys’ fees for the other side. But if we would just go away, that we wouldn’t have to pay any such fine.

But we insisted upon appealing, and he imposed this $1.6 million bond on us, so that we went out to a lot of you and asked for contributions on an emergency basis to pay the bond, and we mortgaged all of our buildings all across the country, and all of our equipment and everything. We put the bond up, we pursued the appeal, it went to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, and the three-judge panel was appointed to hear this appeal. And Judge Vance, the chief judge of the three-judge panel, one week later was assassinated: was killed with a letter bomb that was sent to his home, giving George Bush — as his final act, before leaving office — the power to appoint a replacement.

He appointed Stanley Birch, Jr., a man who had never been a judge a day in his life. He in fact was a major contributor to the George Bush campaign, and in fact was the patent lawyer for the Cabbage Patch Dolls. And he chaired the three-judge panel and just threw a fit when we walked into the courtroom, saying, “You should have known that you never would have been able to pursue this type of a case!” He says, “These charges you’ve made against these people are basically criminal in their nature, and the Justice Department has the exclusive jurisdiction to prosecute criminally, and you are attempting to usurp the exclusive jurisdiction of the Justice Department, and therefore it was an outrage that you should file these types of claims.”

And he sustained the judgment of the court below, of James Lawrence King, and required that we pay all $1.6 million — which the Christic Institute did, and then immediately had our 501(c)(3) tax-exempt charter revoked. Now, that’s what happened. What we went on to do is Sara, our executive director, and I went and began to work eventually with the Gorbachev Foundation, because Mikhail Gorbachev, the man who had actually brought about the voluntary dissolution of the Soviet Union, thought that this kind of a proffer made to the world at the end of the Cold War — a simple choice between liberal capitalist imperialism and conservative capitalist imperialism — was not in fact the full [range of] choices.

And I was asked to come and head up the Strategic Initiative to help identify a new post-Cold War paradigm at the Gorbachev Foundation in San Francisco. And I participated in this as a participant, and then as the director of this project, up until the year 2000. And what we identified here is that in fact there are not just two alternative world-views that we have to choose between, here at the end of the Cold War. There’s an entire spectrum — indeed, an entire octave — of alternative world-views that are recognized by professional academics in the field of comparative social ethics.

And what I wanted to do briefly tonight was to be able to point out to you what some of these are, in brief, so you can understand what you can really look to as a potential option here. Because what we discovered, in brief, is this: is that this spread of alternative world-views, each integrated world-view is in fact predicated on a set of fundamental beliefs that a person adopts, and that there are four — there are basically four different basic, fundamental beliefs that constitute the pillars on which a world-view is based.

The first of these is one’s cosmology, and by that it means where do we believe that the physical universe actually came from. How did it come into being? How did we all get here, and what are the basic principles that are functioning within the physical universe that are the physical laws — what are the laws that are functioning that control what’s happening in the universe? These — the sum total of these beliefs make up your cosmology. And this is of fundamental importance, and I’ll touch briefly on that.

A second major pillar is the belief that you have as to what the role of the human family is in the unfolding of the physical universe. Do you believe that we are simply a random event, a coming-together of mass and energy, that just will come into being and eventually go out of being; that we play no substantial role in the unfolding of the universe? Or do we in fact have some more central role to play in the universe?

A third basic pillar of the four is the epistemological question, as referred to as what do we believe the means are which are at our disposal by means of which we can get access to any type of ultimate truth to answer either of these two profound questions. Do we believe that we are limited to just our seeing and hearing and tasting, our five senses, somehow brought together through our intellect to answer these questions, pursuant to some kind of scientific, logical, positivist model of thinking? Or are there other means that we have at our disposal?

And finally, taking these three together, what mode of ethical reasoning do we really come to operate from? For example, if faced with a given particular social problem, the collective could determine to select a means of solving this which in fact generated the most immediate short-term personal gratification to each one of us that we could possibly get. Or we could choose an option which generates the greatest possible benefit to the seventh generation removed from now — the classic Hopi mode of ethical reasoning. You know, or we could in fact choose the one that generated the greatest good for our nation-state, or our general tribe. There are sets of alternative modes of ethical reasoning that can actually govern our choices in policy.

These four, taken together, are the fundamental pillars on which a major world-view is based. Now, we’ve come to recognize some of these because each one of these generates its own unique philosophy, and each one of them generates their own particular political theory of how the society ought to organize ourselves, and how we ought to make choices and decisions among our people. And these are fairly recognized categories.

They range all the way from the Right — now this is a bar graph that was designed by Professor Talcott Parsons, the head of the department of sociology at Harvard University for some 50 years — and he’s the one that developed this spectrum. He said they range all the way, in this area of political philosophy, all the way from authoritarianism on the Right, all the way through the spectrum. And you will begin to see how these form themselves based upon, for example, the cosmology that a person adheres to, and they range all the way from authoritarianism on the Right to being reactionary, to being conservative, to being a moderate, to being a liberal, to being a progressive, to being a utopianist.

And these are classic positions that are discussed in the world of political science, in the world of social ethics, in that the ways those come into being are predicated on the particular belief systems with regard to these four pillar areas. Example: the cosmology. The cosmology of the first paradigm, the Right systematist paradigm that generates an authoritarian world-view, is in fact a cosmology that believes that the entire universe is made up of a finite number of ultimately irreducible integers of matter, whether they’re atoms or neutrinos or quarks or whatever the lowest, smallest one is.

But the fact of the matter is the entire material universe is disintegrating. Every single element in the universe is disintegrating into its smaller constituent parts, pursuant to its rate of atomic breakdown — which each element has, its own unique rate of atomic breakdown. They’re all disintegrating into their smallest possible constituent parts, and the entire physical universe is expanding out and away from the locus of the original Big Bang, and they’re all expanding and disintegrating, so there will come a point in time where every single ultimately irreducible integer of matter in the entire physical universe will stand separate and apart from every other one.

And at that point, they will continue simply to expand out and away from each other, so that there will be no “thing” left. Talk about a pessimistic world-view! But what this generates is a belief on the part of these people that there is in fact no ultimate meaning to the universe, and therefore there’s no ultimate meaning in life, and therefore there’s no ultimate referent for right and wrong, and the world is a place of chaos. And therefore it’s only by the assertion of power on the part of the strongest among us that they can make “right” occur. Might makes “right.”

And this lends an order to the community. The person who rises, who is the strongest and the most powerful in the face of chaos and despair and meaninglessness can lend meaning and thrust and power and direction to your society and to your culture. So it generates an authoritarian model of social organizing.

The next world-view, the reactionary world-view, believes the same thing, but basically they believe that at that point where every ultimately irreducible integer of matter in the entire physical universe stands separate and apart from every other one, the degree of bonding attraction that every one has for every other one will in fact remain intact, and that the impetus that’s been imposed on every one of these integers by the original Big Bang will have been expired, and there will be a moment of stasis in which the universe stands in physical stability, at which point — after the exhaustion of the expansion power — the bonding power will remain and they’ll begin to draw back in contact with each other, forming up electrons and forming atoms and molecules and elements and mixtures and planets and star systems and galaxies, and that this will begin to occur again and they’ll continue until they collapse down in upon each other, so that eventually every single ultimately irreducible integer of matter in the entire physical cosmos will be in direct physical contact with every other one.

You remember that? The original size of the pea, the entire universe was actually the size of your little fingernail at one particular time. This is the belief, and at that particular point the polarity, the attraction of all these, will immediately reverse itself and every one of them will repel every other one, and there will be a repeat of the Big Bang. And as soon as they get out and away from each other, their bonding power will cause them to lump together in forms of galaxies, etc., and they’ll continue to expand and disintegrate again.

So you have this oscillation of the universe, this eternal and perpetual oscillation of the universe, which is in fact what lends meaning and direction to the universe. So that what you see is that you have to by — if you’re searching for some kind of meaning out of the face of chaos, you attach yourself to one side or the other of a dialectic that interplays with each other in this ultimate back-and-forth of the dialectic. If you can attach yourself to one of those, you have meaning. You are championing “your side” of this bipolar dialectic.

And this generates a reactionary world-view in which you derive your meaning by reacting to the ultimate “other,” that you’re in constant struggle. And this is what engines your entire sense of meaning. And this is the reactionary world-view that we’re looking at, that seeks out this kind of dialectical contest, just like a person who has played professional football for their entire adult life, and all of a sudden they’re forced to retire. They don’t have anybody to fight with. They don’t have anybody to challenge. They don’t have — and they can’t stand this. So they go looking for someone else.

This is what we see happening now at the end of the Cold War. You see the reactionaries in the administration, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and Samuel Huntington. They go looking for some ultimate new adversary. So they’re looking for the Islamic world, or the Asian world. Now they’re looking for “terrorists” that are everywhere, all around, threatening us under every rock and every stone, and we’ll hunt them out and protect ourselves and our people against “them.” This is a classic reactionary world-view.

And it proceeds down the line from Right to Left, all the way through each of these different world-views. You get all the way to the other one that they — for example, the conservative world-view believes that they look back at what’s happened out of the confluence of mass and energy, mass and energy that becomes us. Somehow there arises out of this a mind, state of mind. Actual mind can look back upon threatened chaos in the simple mechanical, constant, repeated oscillation of the cosmos, and from the point of view of mind they can look upon this and say, “We have the power, through the power of exercise of mind, to make a choice. We don’t have to simply accept authoritarian power or attach ourselves blindly to one side of a dialectic. We can make an existential choice. In the face of chaos, in the face of meaningless oscillation, we can make a choice in the power of mind, and then seize upon this and function from this.”

And this is the classic existentialist position that underlies the conservative world-view, and it mainly manifests itself in the collective power of assertion of a state or a nation-state. And this is how it manifests itself.

You go clear to the other end of the spectrum, to the seventh world-view. The cosmology of this world-view, the utopian world-view, is that there exists an infinite and eternal sea of undifferentiated consciousness; that this consciousness abides, and it in fact is the origins of all being. It unfolded into being the original unit of the precursor of matter, some type of disequilibrium in the field of consciousness, and it moved into being an initial precursor of matter which set into being other disequilbriums that generated more matter; that this in fact generates the entire field of mass and energy that makes up the universe.

And that exterior to the sum total of mass and energy that make up the entire physical universe, which more or less hangs in space, that outside of that is an infinite and eternal sea of consciousness. And that we, in fact, like all things in the physical cosmos, are made up ultimately of consciousness. And that we can find that place of consciousness at the core of our being and recognize our unity with the infinite and eternal field of consciousness. We can actually commune with that and find meaning and context for our life within the world. This is the classic spread of world-views that we’re talking about.

What I’m saying is that this is a very clear, specific academic field, and that what we see right now is that we are basically being denied the right to participate in a real choice about which of all these world-views we’re actually going to get to choose. That those who are in control, who are reactionaries and conservatives, are going to insist upon defining this. And the liberal ethic — what is this “liberal ethic”?

What the chair of philosophy, the chair of the department of philosophy at Harvard University, John Rawls, asserts, is that the liberal ethic is basically a compromise between the conservative world-view and this other world-view that he refers to as “intuitionists.” Intuitionists are saying, look, all people are created equal, they’re endowed by their Creator with these inalienable rights. They have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

They say all these kind of strange things based more or less upon some kind of an intuitional insight, and that this operates as a very real force in Western civilization, and it caveats and conditions an otherwise simply conservative world view so that, if a conservative makes a choice, they would just choose the option that generates the greatest good for the greatest number, and it doesn’t really protect any minority groups at all. It just makes a completely utilitarian, self-serving, majoritarian decision.

But in fact, he says — and he recognizes in his major work, published in 1973, which is called A Theory of Justice — he says it’s clear this intuitionist school of thought in Western civilization functions to condition an otherwise simply conservative world-view; to generate a compromise which is the source of the liberal ethic in Western civilization. And that’s why you get this kind of compromised view from Brzezinski, that basically, “Yeah, yeah, we’re going to continue to pursue the permissive cornucopia, but we’re going to more effectively address these other issues even though we don’t really solve them.” It’s kind of a compromised position.

What I’m suggesting is that if you look to the intuitionist world-view and consider it something more than a simple supplement that in fact is there only to condition a conservative world-view into a liberal world-view — if we can focus on what this world-view really is and implement it; understand its principles and policies and programs; and mobilize and move to bring this into its own power of governing as an organizing principle at the end of the Cold War, we can have a genuine alternative to a simple conservative or liberal world view.

And what is this rooted in? I suggest to you that this is rooted in an insight that has been come to now in Western civilization and in the world. It’s been discovered in the 1920’s through the basic discoveries in the field of quantum physics. The fact of the matter is that in the 1920’s the quantum physicists, de Broglie and others and Max Planck and the others, have discovered that the most fundamental presumptions of the materialist, scientific, logical, positivist world-view, the so-called Newtonian/Cartesian world-view — the most fundamental underlying factual presumptions of this world-view that governs the world are simply factually untrue.

What the premises assert is, “Look, we live in a physical universe, a physical universe made up of a sum total of mass and energy, and this physical universe is a given. You’re born into it, and the liberty that you really have is to adopt one attitude or another, a subjective attitude about how you’re going to respond to it, how you’re going to deal with physical reality. You have to accept the laws of physics as they actually obtain, just get used to it, you know, accommodate yourself to it. And that’s the way it is.”

What they discovered — instead of that being true, what they discovered is that the ultimate underlying predicate of the real world, of reality, is not in fact material at all; that there exists a completely inchoate quantum field that is not made up of material at all. That what happens is there manifests up out of this inchoate quantum field particular integers of matter; and that they flash into existence, either in the form of a unit of mass — as a particle — or as a unit of energy, as a wave — and then they blink out of existence. And then they blink back into existence as either a particle of mass or a wave of energy, and the fact is you can’t predict which one they’re going to be. But that just keeps happening. So that ultimately the source of all reality is in fact a non-material quantum field of inchoate potential, not material at all.

And secondly, what they discovered — very importantly — in 1923, they discovered that if we in fact direct human intentionality to this inchoate field, we can actually affect whether this unit of matter manifests itself in the form of mass or as energy; that by directing our human intentionality towards wishing and willing it into being in a particular form, we can actually affect, in a non-random way, the form in which it will appear as matter. This, in fact, fundamentally belies the most fundamental underlying presumptions of the entire scientific, logical, positivist, materialist world-view. [Applause.]

And now, thirdly, what they discovered is if you take a piece of matter and you accelerate it in a particle accelerator, and you split it with a laser into two separate sub-particles and send them off in completely opposite directions in these vacuum tubes at the speed of light, in totally opposite directions, and you go out and apply a force to one of these so that it moves out of its otherwise straight-line trajectory, the other one will move absolutely instantly, no matter how far away it is, faster than the speed of light. Faster than the speed of light. Which means that there is some kind of completely unifying field that bonds all of reality into an instant communion with all other reality.

And I would, in this context, the question that arises is one I want to point out to you. It’s a very dramatic story that happened. I graduated from Harvard College in 1967, went up to the law school in the fall of 1967. In the spring of 1968, the famous spring of 1968, the chair of the department of intellectual history at Harvard University, Crane Brinton, was getting ready to deliver his last lecture after being 50 years at Harvard University. And he was asked to identify the most important single idea in intellectual history of human civilization that he’d ever encountered in 50 years of study.

And we gathered together at the big hall, and people came in from all around the world to hear his final lecture, and he came up and he said, “Look, I’ve been asked to identify the most important single idea that I’ve ever encountered in all human intellectual history in this final lecture,” and he said, “What I believe is that the most intelligent minds in human civilization realize, and know to be true, the fact that we are standing on the very brink of a major new step in physical, biological evolution of our human family. And we are on the brink of this step in evolution, and the new species that is going to evolve is in fact going to be as unlike Homo sapiens as Homo sapiens is unlike Homo erectus.”

And that the particular biological faculty that is going to be differentiating this new species is a faculty by means of which we will be able to directly, experientially encounter the bonding phenomenon that bonds every single, ultimately irreducible integer of matter in the entire universe into a harmonious whole. And just like sight, and just like hearing, evolved teleogically up out of time, so that the living eyeball of living life evolved up out of the primordial mass into being able to directly, experientially encounter the phenomenon of light — that light actually existed, its own particular pitch and amplitude of a physical phenomenon existed, and through some sort of tropism pulling up out of the primordial mass of energy we formed eyeballs that could actually experience that phenomenon.

Hearing, the same way: that it evolved a complex system of biological mass and energy, formed together to generate the hearing faculty to be able to experience the phenomenon of sound, its own particular pitch and amplitude that existed prior to that. What he is saying is that this phenomenon that exists between every one of the ultimately irreducible integers of matter in the universe, no matter how physically far removed they are from one another, this bonding phenomenon — like gravity, like attraction, like magnetism — actually exists. It’s just the degree of attraction is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. They know what this is. And it has its own particular pitch and amplitude, and we are evolving the faculty, like seeing and hearing, that is going to be able to directly, experientially encounter this phenomenon.

And he said, “I believe that this is occurring now, in these recent generations.” And he said, “And this faculty, that is able to discern the unitive phenomenon that bonds every ultimately irreducible integer of manner into a harmonic whole, will enable us to discern experientially what type of conduct, on the part of human beings, individual or collective, is harmonious with or disharmonious to the natural order of being.” And he said that, “Because of that,” he says, “I think this is why you men and women won’t fight in this Viet Nam war.”

Stunned — stunned — the entire Harvard faculty. And he turned and closed his book, and walked away. And passed away three weeks later. Never wrote a book about it, never talked about it. What I am saying to you is I believe that this is a fact. I believe that this is true. And I believe that this generates a new world view. I believe that we can in fact assemble these data of quantum physics, the new insights of quantum physics, and we can establish a new world view which turns out to be the classic world view of natural law that was discerned by the early Greeks back in 350 B.C., in which they postulated these basic premises.

And these are in fact the foundations of the entire theory upon which our Constitutional regime has been established: that there are — these are — this is the reason, the existence of this faculty is what makes all people equal: that they have access to this capability of discerning the unitive phenomenon, to discern what type of conduct is either harmonious or disharmonious to the right natural order of being. And this is what entitles everyone to participate — men and women; Blacks and whites and people of the whole world — to participate as equal members in discerning the laws which are to govern our collective communities.

This is, in fact, the natural-law premise that terrified the ruling class of Western civilization in the French Revolution. Briefly put, the ecclesial class of Western civilization for 1,000 years were the only ones who discerned law in Western civilization. With the fall of the Roman Empire, the Roman Catholic Church in Western civilization, the ecclesial class, asserted that they in fact were gifted with this holy faculty, this faculty of the spirit which enabled them to discern the unitive harmony of natural law. They were the only ones with the authority, therefore, to speak to law and to set forth the laws of Western civilization.

They then later determined that, when they had the responsibility for establishing these laws all through the Roman Empire, they began to delegate to legates in the various regions the authority to do this. They would pick a guy in an area, that was familiar with all their local customs and mores, who was endowed with this faculty of discernment, and say that, “You, using this, modify these rules and laws and customs so that they comport with natural law. And you be the legate of the Roman Catholic Church.”

These were the kings of Western civilization. Most people don’t realize that the kings in Western civilization were appointed by the Pope. And that they were ecclesial positions, but that they generated a royalist personage. And when that person died, the church had to go back in and find another person who could in fact exercise these faculties. And that in fact the problem was that over time they decided, tragically, that rather than go in each time one of these people passed away and pick a new king, that they in fact assumed that this power was inheritable, and that somehow the eldest son would in fact inherit this capacity.

Whatever else what might want to say about this faculty, as it’s been evolving over many thousands of years in the human family, it ain’t inheritable. And so that tragic mistake that was made by the church in delegating this to a person who had no capacity to exercise these discernments caused the lack of authority and respect for that whole institution. And eventually, the ruling — the landed aristocracy rose up, the barons rose up, and asserted that they weren’t going to listen to these kings.

They were going to assert the right to challenge them, and the landed aristocracy asserted in Magna Carta, in 1215 — a theological document — that they were endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights and faculties that enabled them to participate in this process. And they set this forth in a theological document, in Magna Carta, and asserted their power, which they institutionalized in the House of Lords. And the House of Lords, thereinafter, had the legal power to check the power of the king, who had been appointed initially by the ecclesial class.

So you had a ruling class in Western civilization — I’m talking simple politics here — not simple politics, but I’m talking politics. This in fact is the base of political power in Western civilization. The ruling class was made up in part by the ecclesial class, the royalist class, and the landed aristocracy. And this was what obtained until the feudal system began to dissolve in Western civilization, and those who lived in the feudal estates — the goldsmiths and the cartwrights and the wheelwrights and the blacksmiths, the skilled artisans, left the feudal estates and went into the villages and towns and became quite wealthy because of their skills and abilities.

As they began to gather more economic power, they wanted commensurate political authority and power. But they didn’t have it, because it isn’t simply a function of economic power. But what they did, they finally got the insight through understanding the theories of natural law, the existence of this faculty that was intuitive, that exists — they in fact set forth a basic confrontation against the church in the Protestant Reformation, challenging the ecclesial powers, in saying that they as members of the mercantile class were endowed also; that in fact those who were hard-working and industrious and parsimonious, these were the external signs of grace, of an inward grace that enabled them to participate.

This is the classic Calvinist Protestant ethic that was at the root of the Protestant Reformation, and they in fact institutionalized this in sitting as the House of Commons, to actually sit in judgment with the House of Lords on the rulings of the king. And this is the bicameral legislature that was actually transferred from Europe to the colonies in 1789. This is the model that we adopted, including the President being the king. In fact, they wanted to have the President be a President for life; it was only George Washington’s insistence that they had to be elected every four years that changed that.

But you have the President, who is like the king. You had the Senate, that was like the House of Lords, the landed aristocracy, those who owned Monticello and Mount Vernon. These were the millionaires, the landed aristocracy — which is still true in the United States Senate. A significant plurality of the United States Senate are millionaires, big landed aristocracy. And in fact the House of Representatives was similar to the House of Commons, and they represented the mercantile class. That’s why the House of Representatives has never represented the regular people. They represent the mercantile class. Eighty-six percent of them are lawyers, who in fact represent their clients, who have to pay for their elections, who are the major corporations and businesspeople.

So this, in fact, was the set of institutions that existed in Western civilization in 1789, when the French Revolution occurred and the unlanded and the unpropertied, they insisted — they rose up against the royalist class and the ruling class of Western civilization, threw down on them, insisted on having a place at the table. The problem is they didn’t understand that they had to be able to elucidate and articulate a theological rationale for being able to participate in the ruling class.

And so the ruling class was terrified at this, and they said, “Look it. This natural law idea is getting to be like a wildfire here, a prairie fire. We can’t allow this to go on. If the peasantry ever gets it, that pursuant to natural law if they lay claim to this kind of a faculty, they’ll become equal members and we’ll be totally overwhelmed. So we as the ruling class of Western civilization have to find some alternative mode of ethical reasoning to replace natural law.”

And so what they did is they set out on a major challenge, all through the academic circles of Western civilization, from 1791 — at the end of the French Revolution — all the way to 1826. We’re basically talking about a 35-year period here. And these people began to look for an alternative theory to justify making right decisions. This is what Hegel did. In 1826 Hegel, sitting as the chair of a major department of philosophy at a German university, wrote A Fundamental Critique of Natural Law: An Alternative Theory of Right.

And he asserted — he asserted in this that, “Look, human beings have no ability to assert ultimate reality at all. They say they do, but anybody who makes that kind of claim, they just want to rule you. So that all we have is our own relative perspective on reality, each of us. We have our own faculties, we can see and hear, and we can make a relative judgment on reality, and it becomes our thesis. Other people have their relative view of reality, and it becomes their antithesis to ours. And these two clash and struggle together, and because both of them are ultimately imperfect, they in fact meld together to form a synthesis that becomes the new operating thesis, and that generates its own antithesis, and we work our way toward insight together, but we have no access to ultimate reality at all.”

This he set forth as a complete alternative theory of determining right, to natural law, and therefore justifying struggle and dialectic, not unlike the resolution for house champions. If you are one royalist family and you say that your daughter was raped by his son, then in fact what you would do was you would put your eldest son into the field of combat. They’d put their eldest son into the field of combat. They would struggle, and whichever one won, that’s what happened. That got a little expensive in eldest sons, so what they did is they hired house champions. And you’d field your house champion, and they’d field their house champion, and whichever won, that’s the way it was.

And so this kind of dialectic became enshrined in the ruling-class circles as the way to determine right, and it was now enshrined through Hegel. Now, everyone thought that that was a great idea. They said — all of the ruling class — that this was a terrific idea, but how does this manifest itself on the material plane? How does it play itself out in material reality? And this was actually developed by Nietzsche later on, in 1845-1848 [sic]. What he said was, “Look, there is this evolution of the Übermensch. The Caucasian race is at the apex of all biological evolution, and this Caucasian Übermensch is in dialectical struggle with all of the aboriginal people of the world.”

And this is the basic organizing dynamic of the dialectic in Western civilization, and it generated the entire thesis of the superiority of the Caucasian race. The “White Man’s Burden,” the “Manifest Destiny” for the entire century of the 19th Century was the major organizing principle for all of Western civilization. And it drove the entire theory of imperialism and colonialism. And this is the actual mode of ethical reasoning and the motive organizing principle of Western civilization, all the way up until 1917, when the antithesis arose — when Marx asserted, “No, no, no.”

He said, “Lookit, I agree with you and Hegel that the dialectic is at the base of everything, but the dialectical struggle isn’t between the Caucasian Übermensch and the aboriginals, it’s between the capitalist class and the proletariat. And this is the basic dialectic.” And they challenged it, and they confronted the thesis of Caucasian state capitalism, and it went on for 80 years.

The problem is that they were wrong: that, in fact, the attachment people have to their racial superiority in Western civilization, the Caucasian sense of racial superiority, is profoundly superior to one’s sense of allegiance to the working class, or even to a capitalist class. And so that that fell by the wayside, and now we have the thesis of Caucasian state capitalism. Basically, their whole theory was organizing the culture in such a way that we had taxes and everything; we passed all of this up to the Übermensch, the ruling class, the Caucasian class; they would use the finances of the culture and they would make the investment decisions and the property decisions and all the decisions in the culture.

This in fact was in fact the organizing principle that obtained in the 19th Century. And if, in fact, through their activities riches filtered down into the rest of the people — the “trickle-down” theory of economic benefit from those in the ruling class who controlled it — that was fine. And if it didn’t trickle down all the way to the bottom, so much the better, because these people who couldn’t compete and couldn’t survive should fall out of the gene pool. This was classic Social Darwinism at the height of the 19th Century in Western civilization.

This in fact was the organizing principle up until the rise of — what was the antithesis to Caucasian state capitalism? Non-Caucasian, international Communism. And this was the antithesis, and this competition went on for over 80 years in Western civilization. And because of this fundamental dialectic, what we have done in Western civilization is postponed reorganizing the entire field of human knowledge to accommodate these new discoveries that were made in the 1920’s.

We have not modified the basic thinking of all of our human civilization since the Age of Enlightenment. In the Age of Enlightenment we modified all the fields of human thinking to replace previous superstition from the Middle Ages. We replaced it with scientific, logical, materialist positivism. And we reconstructed all the fields of human knowledge to accommodate that. Now, because of the interference of this Cold War, the rationalization of this dialectic, we in fact have not modified the thinking of the human species in the other areas of human knowledge.

This is, in fact, the task that stands before us now at the end of the Cold War. Rather than falling prey to having the thesis rise once again, of Caucasian state capitalism to actually modify itself to a huge transnational Caucasian conglomerate state that is going to in fact struggle with all the aboriginal people of the world — the Islamic world and the Asian people — that they in fact cannot be allowed to do that. Nor can we fall prey to simply trying to think up a new antithesis. If we fall prey to thinking up a new antithesis and get into this, we’re acknowledging that Hegel was right.

Now, what I’m saying is that Hegel wasn’t right; that there is in fact a faculty by means of which we can access ultimate reality. We can access the whole unitive knowledge of the universe through this intuitive insight, this faculty of discernment. What we need to do is revitalize the natural-law ethic, to go back to that period before the French Revolution pursuant to which natural law had enshrined and empowered every new group in the ruling class to come into power.

And if we can do that by bringing in the knowledge of quantum physics and all the access to this intuitive faculty, and construct a new world-view rooted in natural law that enshrines the equality and power of individuals to discern the right and the wrong and to participate in lawmaking, we can in fact now succeed in developing the rationale for empowering a new class of all the people in the world to take part in the ruling class of our planet.

Now, this is in fact the call that goes out. This is the sixth paradigm. This is the natural law paradigm of quantum reality. This is the task that we’re getting set to undertake at Harvard University now as a continued process of the Gorbachev Foundation Strategic Initiative to Identify the New Post-Cold War Paradigm. This is what we are going to be doing in Boston, at Harvard, over the next year and a half. And we’re going to be identifying the principles and the policies in a concrete program that flows from this to put it into the field.

And this is why we’re hoping that, in addition to the candidacy of George W. Bush and the candidacy of John Kerry, that we can convince Dennis Kucinich to actually run for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency. Because Dennis Kucinich is a man who understands the natural law principles. He understands these gifts that we are talking about. And if we can do that, if we can articulate a full platform out of the institute at Boston, the principles and policies and programs, make these available to everybody in the country — to all candidates — on every issue from agriculture all the way to welfare, and the defense program, and alternative energy sources.

For example, the alternative energy source of understanding the quantum field, and possibly drawing zero-point energy out of the quantum to replace petroleum, would not require us to be in the Middle East and try to bomb and kill people, to lay claim to the petroleum resources. These are ideas that are up out of the traditional box. This is a new world-view. This is a new paradigm to bring to this octave of paradigm world views. This is what we are going to be doing, and we’re going to be providing these to people, asking people to run for political office.

Do not stand by and allow simply the conservative or liberal or moderate options to be put to the people. Stand up and offer yourself for candidacies. When you get these new principles and policies and programs, be tough and look at these. What does the alternative budget look like? How much is this going to cost? What is the defense policy going to look like? It is time for our generation to stand up, to get over the most protracted adolescence in the entire history of the human family, and stop thinking that all we have to do is protest what our parents’ generation wants to do.

You know, we have to get over this. We have to think in the affirmative. We have to think positively about what it is that we’re going to do: what type of military policy are we going to have, what type of defense strategy are we going to have, what type of energy policy, what type of agricultural policy, what type of health policies are we going to have. These are going to flow from the new paradigm, and they’re going to be answered. And other candidates have to step out.

And I want to tell you: the fact of the matter is that on every single ballot in every single voting booth in our country, there’s a ballot slot for the Natural Law Party. And it turns out that the Natural Law Party that got these on the ballot, the TM group that’s all out of Iowa, are no longer going to be offering candidates. It turns out that the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi has told them that was all just a sidda, and they’ve learned all their lessons and they’re no longer going to be running. John Hagelin isn’t going to run; nobody’s going to be running. They’re not going to be offering the candidates.

So I’ve been meeting with the executive committee of the Natural Law Party and negotiating with them so that, if people come forward and say, “Look at this platform. Look at this new mandate for leadership of the new paradigm politics, all of its policies. I want to stand for this, and I want to be the Natural Law Party candidate.” And we can make that happen. We can make that happen all across the country, in every Congressional seat that we run for, every Senate seat that we run for, in every single town council and school board that we can run for, on the basis of the new paradigm politics.

And if Dennis Kucinich will choose to run, he can run for the Presidency on the Democratic Party ticket and still adopt all of these policies. He doesn’t have to become a member of anything but the Democratic Party, but he can in fact become the progressive voice, the chair of the Progressive Caucus in the House of Representative, the man who in fact organized 133 votes against the war resolution of George W. Bush, when they expected 15 votes in the House of Representatives against that resolution. And he led the floor fight and got 133 votes. In fact, a majority of Democrats in the House of Representatives voted against the war resolution. Unlike Gephardt, unlike John Kerry, they voted against it.

In fact, it was Dennis Kucinich that controlled the majority of the Democratic Party in the House of Representatives, which led directly to Gephardt resigning, because he had plighted his troth with being able to pull those votes in support of his position on the war resolution so he could be President. And they would not follow him. They followed Dennis Kucinich, because this was the right thing to do. And Dennis — and even the supporters of the war resolution said that it was the most intelligent, the most responsible debate they had ever participated in in their entire experience in the Congress.

That is Dennis Kucinich, and what I am saying is we need to draft Dennis Kucinich to run for the Presidency for the Democratic primary. And we need to raise up the independent candidates to support this new platform. That I’m going to be going from here to Boston, to the new office, the Institute for the Study for Alternative World-Views, which is going to have a project called the New Paradigm Project. And in that we’re going to elucidate the principles and policies and programs of this new paradigm. We’re going to make it available for you all to run for independent office on the Natural Law platform, if you want to, and we need to — you need to understand that all we need to secure is seven seats in the House of Representatives. And it is the balance of power in the Congress: seven seats out of the 435 seats across the country. That is the balance of power in the House of Representatives.

And two Senate seats, two senate seats, gotten by the new — new paradigm politics, will control the balance of power in the United States Senate. Now what I am saying is I am issuing a call, I am asking us to stop sitting and wringing our hands and saying, “Isn’t this dreadful? Isn’t this awful? Oh, gee, the whole PATRIOT Act. Isn’t that terrible?” Reading in the front page of the New York Times today, oh, they’ve just decided that another American can be held, you know, as long as they choose with no charges against him because he was a non- — he was a combatant, and … [Tape breaks off here.]


Homepage:: http://


Please Don't Feed the Trolls

Wikipedia defines an Internet Troll as: "either a person who sends messages on the Internet hoping to entice other users into angry or fruitless responses, or a message sent by such a person." San Diego IMC strives to provide both a grassroots media resource as well as a forum for people to contribute to a meaningful discussion about local issues. Please, when posting comments, be respectful of others and ignore those trying to interrupt or discourage meaningful discourse. Thank you.

-- San Diego Indymedia volunteers
  Download this article in pdf format >>

  Make a quick comment on this article>>


san diego media/sheehan

12.01.2005 22:18


i could not read your material given the black background ....please reconsider such usage so it is available for all of us. thx

bosley,sk.





Stories contributed to this site are licensed under the
Creative Commons Non Commercial - Share Alike - By Attribution license
unless otherwise specified by the author.