Is there such a thing as “American exceptionalism,” and if so, should there be?
Here’s what Lloyd “Raytheon” Austin calls “American exceptionalism,” taken from his Dec. 2 address given to the Reagan Defense Forum, reporting on his recent visit to Silicon Valley’s Department of Defense “Defense Innovation Unit”: “Only one country on Earth can provide the kind of leadership that this moment demands. And only one country can consistently provide the powerful combination of innovation, ingenuity, and idealism—and of free minds, free enterprise, and free people. And that’s the United States of America…. The world built by American leadership can only be maintained by American leadership. As President Biden has said, ‘American leadership is what holds the world together.’”
And here’s what the just-exited British intelligence agent, the late former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, had to say, on Oct. 18, proclaiming how to wield the American factor in the post-Oct. 7 Southwest Asia war: “I believe the West Bank should be put under Jordanian control rather than aim for a two-state solution which leaves one of the two territories determined to overthrow Israel. Egypt has moved closer to the Arab side, so Israel will have a very difficult time going forward. I hope that at the end of it there will be a negotiation, as I had the privilege to conduct at the end of the [October 1973] Yom Kippur War. At that time, Israel was stronger relative to the surrounding powers. Nowadays, it requires a greater involvement of America to prevent a continuation of the conflict.”
Kissinger’s remarks often require more context to be understood, because of the particular way in which he chose to lie. In June of 1975, he held a meeting with Jewish leaders in New York City at the Hotel Pierre, where he explained exactly how his idea of “American exceptionalism” was applied to Southwest Asia. “But then the 1973 war started. The United States saved Israel from collapse at the end of the first week by our arms supply. And even while this was going on, Sadat was sending me notes every day saying that he knew there would have to be talks after the war and that he wanted me to come to Egypt to get the process of peace started as soon as possible….
“What was our strategy in 1973? First, we sought to break up the Arab united front. Also we wanted to ensure that the Europeans and Japanese did not get involved in the diplomacy; and, of course, we wanted to keep the Soviets out of the diplomatic arena. Finally, we sought a situation which would enable Israel to deal separately with each of its neighbors. We told the Israelis they could go to the Europeans if they wanted proclamations, but if they wanted progress toward peace they would have to come to us. Thus, the step-by-step process began.” “American exceptionalism” meant “keep everybody else out.”
And Palestine? “But I have left the Palestinian question alone in order to work on frontier questions hoping eventually to isolate the Palestinians. And this could work. We could have split the Palestinians from the Syrians for only a few more kilometers on the Golan, but the Israelis insisted on moving the settlements right up to the line. My feeling now is that the Syrians will be driven toward even greater radicalism. Israel must realize that it must deal with the Arab governments if it does not want to deal with the Palestinians.”
Kissinger’s ruthless approach is only more brutally and cruelly seen in our present State Department’s public “benign neglect” approach to Gaza and the West Bank. Real Americans with real consciences have to find a way to lead the fight to stop this, now. Put the holidays on hold—is anyone in Bethlehem going to be alive on Christmas? Going against expectations, we must find a way to stop what is happening each minute there, and in our name, whether we want to acknowledge it or not. That form of American exceptionalism is the one that should interest us.
So far, the Austin and Kissinger practices of “exceptionalism,” while typical of the behavior of the State Department and Pentagon over the past five decades, could be just called imperialism—except for, perhaps, the bluster surrounding “Raytheon” Austin’s sales pitch, which definitely has an American ring to it. These practices are pretty characteristic of all imperial enterprises that have dominated and overpowered their neighbors, either through force, or for various other reasons, throughout history. An address just given by the Italian former Goldman Sachs banker/European Central Bank president/Bank of Italy governor/prime minister Mario “Britannia” Draghi, illustrates this.
Draghi, who was presenting a book on the Roman Empire When We Were Masters of the World, by Italian journalist Aldo Cazzullo, called for the creation of a new European state. “Today, the growth model has dissolved and we must reinvent a way of growing, but in order to do it, we must become a state,” argued Draghi. The “growth model” Draghi was referring to, is essentially the “Colonialism Is Over!” approach of the BRICS-Plus nations, which pursued in partnership with Europe and America, would create the basis for a new security and development architecture. It would be a win-win partnership like that at least partially proposed in the China-Italy Memorandum of Understanding of 2019, which was supported by the Schiller Institute.
Instead, the new Draghi European state, and its captive populations, must begin massive, wasteful, inflationary expenditures on armaments, with corresponding austerity, in order to prepare for the inevitable, that is desired, war with Russia, and probably China. Desired for whom? Who benefits from mass death?
Does Draghi propose Rome to be the capital of his new Europe-wide state? Perhaps not; but the spirit of Mussolini’s view of Rome—"Rome is our point of departure and of reference; it is our symbol, or if you like, it is our Myth. We dream of a Roman Italy, that is to say wise and strong, disciplined and imperial. Much of that which was the immortal spirit of Rome resurges in Fascism”—is the same as that of Draghi’s “European garden"-variety “democratic dictatorship.”
What would be exceptional in America—and would be exceptionally welcomed throughout the world—would be for a candidate, or even candidates, for national office in particular, to campaign from the same international perspective that the American Revolution, in the form of its Declaration of Independence and Constitution, actually began. That is the world-historic purpose of the Sare For Senate campaign. Like the first American Revolution, we are following no pragmatic script. That revolution was an international, though predominantly trans-Atlantic conspiracy, in which people from everywhere—France, Spain, Germany, Poland, the African continent, Russia and many other countries—collaborated to secure a new, revolutionary form of society, to reject being governed by exactly what America and the nations of Europe are governed by now.
Therefore, we have chosen an “unorthodox” approach to the American Presidency, called the Friends of Diane Sare, which invokes the Presidential method of Lyndon LaRouche: physical economy solutions, through technologically advanced great projects that generate new discoveries, and a corresponding cultural optimism. In that method, the first thing that is to be done, is to identify the true enemy of progress—the true authors of the ideas and deployment of the likes of the Kissingers and Draghis of the world—the financial and related oligarchies of the Anglo-Dutch establishment, whose spiritual home was Venice. Those were the arch enemies of LaRouche, the McGeorge Bundys, the John Trains, the Buckley and the Bushes, the Tory faction never driven from New York and Boston after the successful American Revolution.
Counterposed to these forces, are the tradition that originates with the city of Florence, of Nicholas of Cusa, Brunelleschi, of Da Vinci and Machiavelli, and of Classical culture as a whole. That is the tradition that embraces Gottfried Leibniz, not Royal Africa Company slave trader John Locke, as the intellectual ancestor of the American Revolution. The pro-human forces declare that “The basic assumption for the new paradigm is, that man is fundamentally good and capable to infinitely perfect the creativity of his mind and the beauty of his soul, and being the most advanced geological force in the universe, which proves that the lawfulness of the mind and that of the physical universe are in correspondence and cohesion, and that all evil is the result of a lack of development, and therefore can be overcome.” That is the tenth principle of Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s “Ten Principles of a New International Security and Development Architecture,” but is the principle upon which to base a return to the only American exceptionalism that ever mattered—self-government that demands that man is not an animal, but in the image of the Creator, and must be so governed. Our Declaration of Independence against the destruction of civilization by the City of London and Wall Street, must be unconditional—no exception.
