Forecasting, Science, And Military-Command Leadership

Lyndon LaRouche's most recent forecast has now come true, as he said on Saturday. Wall Street and some others realized as much by midweek of last week, and the whole world will know it during the course of today. Now there's nothing of the economy left to forecast; rather, the forecast now depends on the changes, or lack of changes in fundamental policy. If there are no changes, if the policy of this President continues, then the United States is doomed!

Those who have tended to compromise themselves by doubting this forecast during the past weeks, should think back to Aug 15, 1971, just 39 years ago today. Remember how Lyndon LaRouche stood alone against the whole world then, with just a tiny handful of friends, and fully and precisely forecast that epoch-making point of inflection. Every known economist stood on the other side; not only did they mock LaRouche and deny his forecast,— they even proved that it was a scientific impossibility, or so they claimed. In those days, LaRouche had relatively almost none of the international influence that he enjoys today. But he not only stuck to his egregious forecast; he loudly and abrasively insisted upon it, fully confident in the true scientific method of human creativity, of which we know so much more today than we did then.

He was not only right then, but he was far more right than we could have known at the time. We know now that the British imperial forces which had conspired to destroy Bretton Woods, and Glass-Steagall along with it, were proceeding to create Lord Jacob Rothschild's Inter-Alpha group at the same time, prepared to dominate the world's money-flows in the new, floating-rate casino world which was opened up by Nixon's virtually treasonous act of Aug 15. George Shultz's instigator's role in the Aug. 15 junking of Bretton Woods is indicative,— the George Shultz who later brought Arnold Schwarzenazi to Jacob Rothschild's English estate for the laying-on of hands.

From that forecast and the scientific command-decision quality which it implied and which it required, and then going on from there through LaRouche's subsequent forecasts of the same general character, have flowed many of the most decisive aspects of recent world history. To begin with, having fallen into our trap of making LaRouche notorious through their derision of his forecast before Aug 15, the economists whom he raucously dubbed "quackademics" were forced to debate him afterwards. But the Abba Lerner who was brought over from London to do this, failed catastrophically. The Liberal establishment thereupon vowed to forever after ignore LaRouche, except to slander him,— but that has not worked out any better for them.

This military-cum-scientific leadership role of ours has required successive scientific breakthroughs throughout, but even qualitatively much more so today, when LaRouche's collaboration with "the Basement" has quite transformed this function. And now, having carried this uniquely necessary cause so far from such unlikely beginnings, and having thus won a role of leadership which is completely irreplaceable, we are not about to let it flounder at the very moment of decision, on the eve of Obama being forced from office, of re-enactment of Glass-Steagall, and of the launching of world recovery with groundbreaking for NAWAPA in October.