A British Flagellant Attacks LaRouche on Global Warming

17 de junio de 2007

by Laurence Hecht, Editor-in-Chief,
21st Century Science & Technology

June 17, 2007 (LPAC) Counterpunch's Alexander Cockburn makes a useful point in his rebuttal to Guardian science scribbler George Monbiot's continued hysterical rants against 21st Century Science & Technology (the magazine associated with U.S. economist and statesman Lyndon LaRouche), by noting that "peer review" is hardly the definition of science.

But a deeper matter, touching on the historical failures of British science and intelligence capabilities, underlies the controversy. The re-creation of a cult of medieval self-flagellants in the form of the modern-day Green movement goes to the heart of the problem.

Monbiot, who had earlier hounded a British botanist and TV science personality into silence for his mere mention of a [a:href="http:\/\/www.21stcenturysciencetech.com\/";target=_blank]21st Century Science[/a] news item, committed the tactical error of bringing long-time anti-LaRouche figure Alexander Cockburn into his circle of those found guilty by association. Cockburn, who has joined with other leading British intelligence-connected figures in exposing the hoax of global warming, struck back in a series of commentaries in his American political newsletter.

Cockburn notes that Monbiot, whose best argument against global warming critics, such as Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, is that they have published in non-peer reviewed magazines, would have condemned Albert Einstein to the same fate.

A 1936 controversy with the editors of the Physical Review caused Einstein to cease publication in that journal forever after. The controversy arose when Einstein discovered that a paper he had co-authored with Nathan Rosen, questioning the existence of gravitational waves, had been sent to an anonymous referee for peer review. In a letter to the American science journal, Einstein wrote:

"We (Mr. Rosen and I) had sent you our manuscript for publication and had not authorized you to show it to specialists before it is printed. I see no reason to address the, in any case erroneous, comments of your anonymous expert. On the basis of this incident I prefer to publish the paper elsewhere."

Einstein had been accustomed to publishing in the journal Zeitschrift fur Physik, whose editor, the genius Max Planck, served as his own review board. Planck's philosophy was to "shun much more the reproach of having suppressed strange opinions than that of having been too gentle in evaluating them," as documented in an article in Physics Today, and cited by Cockburn.

In truth, the peer review process, much less than a century old, has nothing to do with the determination of real scientific truth. What must be added to Cockburn's treatment, to make sense of the apparent insanity, is the following.

The spread of "peer review" coincides with the intentional destruction of science, which has been accomplished by the imposition of a cult of information theory and Cartesian-Newtonian [a:href="http:\/\/www.larouchepub.com\/lar\/1997\/non_linearity.html";target=_blank]statistical hoaxes[/a] in place of the process of creative inquiry.

The essence of that matter, in modern times, derives from the intention, by forces associated with the former British Empire and Anglo-Dutch financial interests, to prevent the hegemony of Abraham Lincoln and Henry Carey's "American System" of political economy over the British East India Company's Haileybury school and its hirelings Adam Smith and Thomas Malthus. Following the death of Franklin Roosevelt, the top item on their strategic agenda was to crush what remained of Roosevelt's openly stated intention to put an end to the colonial system forever.

A crucial feature of that nasty scheme was the control of nuclear science. Bertrand Russell's 1948 proposal for a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union, was supplanted, following the Soviet's demonstration of a nuclear armed capability, with a revival of the world government program of H.G. Wells. For strategic purposes, it remained necessary to tolerate a certain degree of fundamental scientific inquiry, to be confined as much as possible to the defense sector--as the British attempted in the Aldermaston system. Once a mutual commitment to arms limitation had been achieved through the Pugwash process, it became possible, by approximately 1963, to begin a more thorough assault on scientific progress.

The control of science itself by "peer review," a method of mind control borrowed from the Venetian repertoire, and the unleashing of an anti-science cult among youth were the means selected. This appeared first in the form of Bertrand Russell's Ban the Bomb movement. It was soon followed by the mass environmental hysteria, which surfaced at the April 22, 1970 Earth Day celebrations from ground that had been amply seeded by Aldous Huxley and Gregory Bateson's mass drugging project.

That identifies the modern features of the process.

The deeper aspect of the anti-science commitment of the Anglo-Dutch faction goes to questions that can be mentioned here for purposes of identification only. The essence of the matter was the decision by elements of the then newly formed Anglo-Dutch financial oligarchy to promote the fraud of Isaac Newton in an attempt to destroy both Leibniz himself, and the tradition he represented, in the disgusting Commercium Epistolicum affair. To end the threat of the succession of a Leibniz-influenced Princess Sophie, in the event of the early death of Queen Anne, the faction of Winston Churchill's progenitor Lord Marlborough, also known as the "Venetian Party," launched a defamation campaign against Gottfried Leibniz that has few equals even in modern times.

However, in thus successfully destroying real science in England, the Venetian Party laid the basis for its own monumental defeat. The German classical renaissance, which built upon the revival of Leibniz by such figures as Gotthold Lessing and Moses Mendelssohn and led to the revolution in German science marked by such high points as Carl Friedrich Gauss and Bernhard Riemann, was their first come-uppance. The American Revolution was the second, and still persisting, fruit of that strategic miscalculation.

British methods of cultural manipulation and intelligence warfare--more properly, Venetian methods--succeed more often than not. When they fail, the failure tends to be catastrophic, as the present unraveling surrounding Britain’s BAE/Prince Bandar scandal portends, to those trained in the ability to read, and act upon, such situations.